Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03/23/2023 - Planning and Zoning Commission - AGENDA - Regular Meeting
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 1 March 23, 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 March 23, 2023 6:00 PM David Katz, Chair City Council Chambers - City Hall West Julie Stackhouse, Vice Chair 300 Laporte Avenue Michelle Haefele Fort Collins, Colorado Adam Sass Ted Shepard 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/95758674874. 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 March 23, 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 March 23, 2023 • ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW • PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Individuals may comment on items not specifically scheduled on the hearing agenda, as follows: • Those who wish to speak are asked to sign in at the podium if they are in person • 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: 957 5867 4874. 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 March 23, 2023 1. Draft Minutes for the P&Z January Regular Hearing The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes of the January 25, 2023, Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. 2. CNG Shop Expansion MA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to expand the existing fleet maintenance facility adding a shop area for CNG fleet vehicles. APPLICANT: Blake Visser City of Fort Collins 300 Laporte Ave Fort Collins, CO 80521 STAFF ASSIGNED: Arlo Schumann, Associate Planner 3. Thompson Thrift Annexation & Zoning PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to annex and zone 3.743 acres of land located at 423 Spaulding Lane. The annexation is subject to a series of hearings including a (Type 2) Review and public hearing by the Planning & Zoning Commission and recommendation to City Council. A specific project development plan proposal is not included with the annexation application. APPLICANT: Peyton Carroll/Jacob Ross Thompson Thrift Development Inc. 111 Monument Circle, Suite 1600 Indianapolis, IN 46204 STAFF ASSIGNED: Jenny Axmacher, Principal City Planner Megan Keith, Senior Planner • DISCUSSION AGENDA 4. North College Mobile Home Park Rezoning PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a City initiated request to rezone 32.8 acres from the Low Density Mixed- Use Neighborhood (LMN) and Service Commercial (CS) zone districts to the Manufactured Housing (MH) zone district. The rezoning is a continuation of City efforts began in 2020 to preserve and protect existing manufactured housing communities. APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins 413 S Bryan St Fort Collins, CO 80521 STAFF ASSIGNED: Ryan Mounce, City Planner 5. Ziegler/Corbett ODP Major Amendment PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Major Amendment to the Ziegler-Corbett Overall Development Plan (ODP) located southwest of the intersection of Ziegler Road and Paddington Road (parcel #s 8732000002, 8732400008, 8732000009). The original ODP, approved in February 2022, is a mixed-use project consisting of 400-700 residential dwelling units, a childcare center, and 50,000 square feet of commercial or community facility space. A major amendment is required to incorporate an additional enclaved parcel into the boundary of the ODP. No Packet pg. 3 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 4 March 23, 2023 additional development is proposed; however, the boundary change creates an opportunity to shift the site’s primary access along Ziegler Road to align with Hidden Pond Drive and install a private traffic signal, which has implications for broader circulation patterns in the vicinity. APPLICANT: Chris Beabout Landmark Homes 6341 Fairgrounds Ave, Suite 100 Windsor, CO 80550 STAFF ASSIGNED: Ryan Mounce, City Planner • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Packet pg. 4 Agenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY March 23, 2023 Planning and Zoning Commission STAFF Shar Manno, Customer and Administrative Manager SUBJECT MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 25, 2023 P&Z HEARING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is the consideration and approval of the draft minutes of the January 25, 2023 Planning & Zoning Commission hearing. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft January 25, 2023 P&Z Minutes Packet pg. 5 David Katz, Chair City Council Chambers Ted Shepard, Vice Chair City Hall West Michelle Haefele 300 Laporte Avenue Samantha Stegner Fort Collins, Colorado Adam Sass York 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 January 25, 2023 Chair Katz called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Stegner, Katz, Sass, York, Shepard, Stackhouse, Haefele Absent: None Staff Present: Everette, Yatabe, Sizemore, Myler, Claypool, Mounce, Kleer, Lindsey, Dinger, Stamey, Longstein, and Manno Chair Katz welcomed the two newly appointed Commission members, Samantha Stegner and York. Chair Katz provided background on the 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. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes DRAFTPacket pg. 6 Planning & Zoning Commission January 25, 2023 Page 2 of 11 Agenda Review Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director Paul Sizemore reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas, stating that all items will be heard as originally advertised. Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: Chris Pletcher, Fort Collins Loveland Water District (FCLWD) General Manager, provided an update on some planned water service area improvements in the overlap area between FCLWD and the City. He discussed long- term growth projections and stated FCLWD anticipates the need for increased water system capacity. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from November 17, 2022, P&Z 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. Vice Chair Shepard 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. Member Stackhouse seconded the motion. Vote: 7:0. Discussion Agenda: 2. Land Use Code Amendment – 1041 Regulations Project Description: The purpose of this item is 1.) to provide an update on community engagement as directed by City Council during the November 7 work session; and 2.)( provide an overview of the proposed version three draft of the regulations ahead of the Commission’s hearing. Version three of the draft regulations will be presented for City Council’s consideration during the February 7 regular meeting. Recommendation: Approval Staff and Applicant Presentations Chair Katz stated he has had conversations with some of the stakeholders; however, he did not receive any information that was not already provided to the Commission. Secretary Manno stated an email was received from the Mayor of Eaton requesting a delay of 60 days to approve the 1041 regulations. Chair Katz provided an overview of the proceedings for this item. Applicant/Staff Presentation Development Review Manager Rebecca Everette stated 1041 regulations are a type of regulatory framework that is allowed by the state and are typically used by local jurisdictions to regulate matters of statewide interest. She stated Council directed staff in 2021 to evaluate 1041 powers and their alignment with other City-wide policies as a way to better allow the City to achieve its environmental policy and regulatory goals. She outlined the regulatory goals that provided a guiding framework: addressing some of the drawbacks of the site plan advisory review process (SPAR), which is purely advisory and not regulatory; trying to ensure whatever regulations are DRAFTPacket pg. 7 Planning & Zoning Commission January 25, 2023 Page 3 of 11 implemented provide some predictability for applicants and establish a meaningful public process; and incentivizing projects that avoid impacts to any critical, natural, historic, or cultural resources. Everette outlined the various Council touchpoints and public involvement that has occurred and stated version three of the regulations, which reflects direction from Council and feedback from stakeholders, is what is being considered this evening. Everette stated staff sought to create a review process that maximizes public engagement, provides applicant predictability, and incentivizes designs that avoid impacting any sensitive features in designing a 1041 permit program. She noted one of the changes made to provide additional predictability was to add more prescriptive language within the article six definitions. She stated the activities designated by Council for regulation were: major new domestic water systems, or expansion of those systems, major new wastewater or sewage systems or expansion of those systems, and new highways or interchange projects that have significant impacts. She stated the second threshold relates to project size in terms of pipe diameter, easement width, or right-of-way expansion. She stated a project is finally reviewed to determine whether it intersects with any areas of significance from a natural resource or historic and cultural resource perspective, or disproportionately impacted communities. She noted all of the aforementioned information will be taken into account to determine whether a project needs a full permit or could receive a finding of negligible adverse impact. Everette stated staff has proposed narrowing the definition of designated activities by defining the project size thresholds in order to establish more predictability in the process. She outlined the specifics of those sizes and provided examples. She outlined the pre-submittal process, which starts with a conceptual review and moves into a pre-application activity review which includes a neighborhood meeting component. She noted an applicant can appeal a finding of negligible adverse impact (FONAI), which is a decision made by the Director. If a FONAI is not determined to be applicable, a project would proceed to full project review. She further detailed the completeness review stage and noted there is a provision that would allow the City to hire a third-party contractor to assist with this aspect of the process. She outlined the timelines that apply for review and further detailed the components of a full review. Everette stated staff recommends adoption of the 1041 regulations. Commission Questions Member Haefele asked if citizens could appeal a staff determination of a FONAI. Kirk Longstein, Senior Environmental Planner, replied in the affirmative. Chair Katz requested clarification that everyday maintenance is properly defined as being excluded. Everette replied things such as maintenance, repair, adjustment, and upgrades of technology are all excluded. Member Stackhouse asked if there is a sense for the number of days the pre-submittal process will take in total. Everette replied the conceptual review is distinctly separate from the pre-application activity review and any amount of time could lapse between the two, depending on the applicants’ timeline. Once the pre-application activity review packet is received, a neighborhood meeting will be scheduled as soon as is reasonably feasible, and after that, a 28-day decision timeline is triggered. Member Stackhouse asked if the City’s review process could potentially lengthen the review period for a project that is partially in the City and partially in the County. Everette replied the applicant could determine how those processes are sequenced and whether they would prefer to get the County or City permit first or concurrently. Longstein noted the County does not have the FONAI review, which is an additional 28 days, and also does not have the neighborhood meeting at the early stage in the process. Member Haefele asked if the County has any process similar to a FONAI. Everette replied in the negative and stated a pre-application conference occurs and size thresholds are considered. Longstein noted the County has more designated activities and therefore more permit applications. Public Input Chris Pletcher, Fort Collins Loveland Water District General Manager, requested the City allow additional time for review and dialogue regarding the third version of the 1041 regulations to allow a full consideration of the cost DRAFTPacket pg. 8 Planning & Zoning Commission January 25, 2023 Page 4 of 11 impacts to District customers within the city limits. He stated the definition of development differs between the Land Use Code and the 1041 regulations and expressed concern the Commission’s packet appears to have version two of the staff recommendations. David Roy stated projects such as NISP are a legitimate concern for the City and will cause negative outcomes in the form of resource degradation and threats to the environment. He stated the threat of legal action against the City is not a reason for the Commission to provide a recommendation that intentionally limits what 1041 powers the City could use when protecting the health and safety of its residents. Mike Scheid, East Larimer County Water District, expressed gratitude for being able to work with City staff on the development of the 1041 regulations; however, he questioned how many day-to-day projects will need to be submitted to the pre-application process and noted any associated costs will need to be passed on to customers through rate increases. Keith Meyer also expressed gratitude for the engagement provided by City staff and stated this process has been effective if the goal of the regulations are to focus on water projects and define the projects to an operational level of a utility. He stated the demonstration of no adverse impact is complex and unique to Fort Collins. Joe Rowan commended the staff work on this item and emphasized the fact that the powers that would be vested to the City relate to developments and activities of statewide interest. He stated any recommendation made to Council, and any action it may take, has significant impact to communities and residents outside of the city. He suggested the pipeline size thresholds should be widened. Gary Wockner, Save the Poudre Director, commended the development of 1041 regulations; however, he stated he does not support the current draft as it protects the community from certain types of projects but does not fully protect the community from construction projects that are allowed by the enabling House Bill 1041 legislation, and specifically, projects that may be constructed outside city limits that would have significant adverse impacts inside city limits. Staff Response Everette noted the moratorium expires on March 31st; therefore, the current timeline allows for this item to be presented to City Council within that timeline. She noted that moratorium can be extended by Council. She stated the size-based thresholds were added to help provide clarity and predictability and concurred costs would be added to the process as the proposal is for a more specialized type of regulation than what is currently in the Code and consultants would be necessary. She stated the suggested definitions are more aligned to City policy and Council direction for what is considered development, and there are certain exemptions within that definition. Additionally, she noted there is an exemption to the 1041 regulations for any project that is directly tied to a development application for a residential, commercial, industrial, or other land use development within city limits. Longstein noted the goal of the thresholds and the pre-submittal documents is to provide additional predictability. He noted the project size thresholds were determined based on existing and example projects as well as the Utilities Master Plan and it was found that two Fort Collins Utilities projects over the next ten years would qualify for 1041 permitting. Regarding projects that are occurring outside city limits that may have adverse impacts within city limits, CDNS Director Paul Sizemore stated there would likely be some legal ramifications that would need to be evaluated and the draft regulations do not currently include those situations. Commission Questions and Deliberation Member Haefele asked if the pipeline sizes are somewhat standard so as to prevent an applicant from slightly undersizing a pipe to avoid the 1041 permit process. Longstein replied input from stakeholders has shown that to be an unlikely scenario. DRAFTPacket pg. 9 Planning & Zoning Commission January 25, 2023 Page 5 of 11 Chair Katz asked if Council will be considering this item for its first reading regardless of the Commission’s recommendation. Everette replied there has been no indication from Council otherwise or any indication it intends to extend the moratorium; therefore, it will go before Council on February 7th. Vice Chair Shepard asked why land use types and densities are being included when land use and density are not part of the definition of areas and activities of state interest as defined by Council. He questioned whether a density equation is related to pipelines, water and sewer plants, and highways and interchanges. Everette replied the language is intended to be catch-all to capture any aspect or element of a project that might be applicable. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe noted the language is designed in a way that it could be expanded to other designated activities in the future. Vice Chair Shepard asked if an environmental characterization study can be scoped. Everette replied in the affirmative and stated that typically occurs at the conceptual review stage. Vice Chair Shepard asked if staff has the discretion to waive the neighborhood meeting requirement. Everette replied that the neighborhood meeting is intended to follow the general procedures of the Code and currently the Director has the ability to waive both that meeting and a conceptual review; however, the meeting can only be waived if the determination has been made there would be no community or neighborhood impacts. Vice Chair Shepard asked if the third-party consultant is optional for scoping. Everette replied in the affirmative and stated it would be determined whether-or-not that would be needed at the conceptual review meeting. She stated the intent is to set up one or more on-call contracts with consultants so they are available when needed. Vice Chair Shepard asked if a project becomes a SPAR if it is eligible for a FONAI. Yatabe replied that a project that is granted a FONAI would go back into the regular development review process; therefore, if it were subject to a SPAR, it would still be so in that process. Vice Chair Shepard asked what would occur if a project came in that was going to be a new easement but would become public right-of-way. Everette replied that was not specifically discussed; however, the intent is to protect sensitive natural or historic features. Member Haefele asked if the regulations look at cumulative impacts. Longstein replied in the affirmative and stated cumulative impacts are specifically defined and are considered as part of the pre-application submittal documents. Member York asked about the notification radius for projects, noting a ½ mile radius may only encompass a few property owners in certain locations. Everette replied that notification radius is actually 1,000 feet, which matches the Code for projects of community-wide interest. She also noted there are other ways community members are notified about projects. Vice Chair Shepard suggested the definition of development in the 1041 regulations should perhaps be aligned with the Code language. Yatabe noted there is not a definition of development in Article 6 of the proposed 1041 regulations. Longstein also noted the definitions in Article 6 are specific to that article. Vice Chair Shepard suggested the Commission begin its deliberation with the testimony provided by Mr. Wockner regarding extra-territorial jurisdiction wherein projects may have an impact on attributes and assets inside the city limits. Chair Katz noted there is a legal question as to whether those types of projects can or cannot be regulated. Vice Chair Shepard commented on the legal opinion provided to the Commission which cited some court cases where extra-territorial jurisdiction has been invoked under 1041 regulations. Yatabe stated that issue would need to be discussed in executive session. Member Haefele stated she would be willing to go into executive session if necessary, in order to incorporate the legal analysis that was presented in the public comments. Chair Katz stated he would be willing to go into executive session to discuss the matter; however, he was unsure how that matter is going to change the recommendation. DRAFTPacket pg. 10 Planning & Zoning Commission January 25, 2023 Page 6 of 11 Vice Chair Shepard stated it is important for the Commission to discuss, from a policy perspective, whether to recommend 1041 regulations apply to projects outside the growth management area that may have impacts within city limits. Chair Katz suggested looking at the bigger picture first and noted a recommendation subject to legal review could be made. Member Haefele stated she remains uncomfortable with the geographic limitations and noted the ordinance states the regulations shall apply to designated activities located partially or entirely within the boundaries of the city, which are limited and therefore the applicability of the regulations is also limited. She expressed support for the recommended motion provided by Save the Poudre. Chair Katz stated having the ability to enact these regulations is a privilege; however, with privilege comes responsibility and rushing through this process does not seem responsible. He stated, given that Council is planning to move forward with first reading on February 7th, he has no choice but to recommend Council not adopt the regulations. Member Haefele stated she is inclined to agree; however, she would like to have a discussion about some of the issues. She stated her biggest concern is the geographic scope. She commended the inclusion of cumulative impacts and stated she is still hung upon the City coming up with a new term to avoid applying the regulations in the form of a FONAI. She stated ‘negligible’ is subjective and poorly defined. She commented on the widely-used FONSI process that is part of the National Environmental Policy Act regulations and suggested using that type of well-established process or basing the FONAI on the same sort of well-established criteria. She stated the City needs to recognize that stakeholders include everyone in the city, not just the regulated industries. Chair Katz commented on increasing utility costs that would be associated with the new regulations. Additionally, he questioned what is being solved by creating these regulations and noted the benefits of the projects are not being considered. Member Haefele stated measuring benefits must also require measuring all non-market, non-fiscal costs associated with a project, including environmental degradation. Chair Katz concurred regarding projects that are truly environmentally damaging; however, he stated there are small distribution projects that would fall under these regulations and cost more money. Member Stackhouse commented on the downside of regulation and stated regulation needs to be calibrated and considered from a cost/benefit analysis. She stated her sense is that this third version is pretty close to being functional; however, she is troubled by the fact that there has not been enough time to consider it. She stated she would suggest to Council that the Commission believes the draft of the regulations is directionally correct and is in keeping with the direction provided to staff, but to extend the moratorium slightly to ensure there is time to fully absorb the language and ensure a shared understanding of the consequences. Chair Katz asked Member Stackhouse if she would also suggest the Commission postpone making an official recommendation until a date certain or recommend not adopting the language at this time. Member Stackhouse replied she would provide a statement that the regulations are directionally correct; however, she would defer making a recommendation without the chance for public input on what is viewed by the public as being a final version. Member York concurred both sides of the issue are seeking more time to evaluate the regulation language and suggested it would be possible to recommend to Council the document is directionally correct, but that staff needs more time and direction as to whether the language should include projects that are outside the municipal boundaries. Chair Katz stated it seems the Commission would like to continue the item to a date certain with commentary indicating more time is needed to evaluate the language and staff needs to be provided direction as to whether it should include projects outside the municipal boundaries. Additionally, subjectivity should be eliminated, and metrics should be adjusted to focus on the larger projects. DRAFTPacket pg. 11 Planning & Zoning Commission January 25, 2023 Page 7 of 11 Member Haefele disagreed with a possible change in metrics but concurred with allowing more time for public input. She suggested marketing the public outreach in terms of environmental regulations and providing more information to people other than the large environmental groups and utilities. Vice Chair Shepard questioned where the time should be added to the process, either before Council’s first reading or between readings. He also questioned whether the Commission would like to have the item come back before it, or forward it to Council with a recommendation for additional engagement. Chair Katz stated it is his understanding that Council will hear this item for first reading on February 7th regardless. Vice Chair Shepard encouraged the Commissioners to provide Council with as much direction as possible, including increasing the length of time between readings for more public engagement. He stated his preference is that the item not come back before the Commission. Member Haefele asked if extending the moratorium could be a recommendation. Vice Chair Shepard replied he is leaning toward recommending Council take more time for public engagement between readings, and if that requires extending the moratorium, then that would be part of the Commission’s recommendation. Chair Katz asked if it would be acceptable to make a motion to recommend Council not adopt the proposed 1041 regulations until more public and stakeholder input is received, not earlier than a certain date. Yatabe replied amendments to the Land Use Code such as this require that a recommendation be made by the Commission; however, there is some latitude in that language and the suggestion by Chair Katz does qualify as a recommendation. Commissioners concurred with the general idea of Chair Katz’ suggestion and he reiterated the recommendation that Council not adopt the 1041 regulations until more public and stakeholder input is received, not before April 1st. Commissioners disagreed with the inclusion of a date. Member Stackhouse noted the moratorium cannot continue to be extended indefinitely. She stated understanding what version three means is important, though she is not comfortable saying the process needs to start over with public engagement. Member Haefele stated she would like the input to occur with the intention of making changes to address concerns from the public. Member Stackhouse stated quite a few of the concerns expressed by the public have resulted in changes, which is why there is a third version; however, she noted there will be different views and no regulations are going to meet everyone’s wishes, though decision makers should understand those different views and make a decision based on that understanding. Vice Chair Shepard stated his curiosity is piqued regarding Member Haefele’s comment about changing the process from a FONAI to FONSI and questioned whether a recommendation on that topic should be made to Council. Member Haefele suggested a possible motion that the Commission recommend Council not adopt the regulations as currently written until there has been time for sufficient review by all parties, including members of the public who may not have been made aware of the regulations because the stakeholder definition is so narrow, and outlining other specific concerns to be forwarded to Council. She questioned whether that needs to be in a motion or could be in the form of a memo or letter. Member Stegner noted there has already been a significant amount of public outreach and questioned what was missed and why more is needed. She stated it seems there needs to be additional stakeholder input on this third version. Member Haefele stated the only public engagement was with defined stakeholder groups. Member Stackhouse reiterated the fact that the moratorium cannot be extended indefinitely. DRAFTPacket pg. 12 Planning & Zoning Commission January 25, 2023 Page 8 of 11 Yatabe stated the purpose of the recommendation is to provide Council some vetting and clarity around the issues. He stated extending the moratorium would need some additional legal consideration, though they are generally safe within a year and can generally be extended if the process is diligently being pursued. He stated the wording of the moratorium language would have it remain in place until the adoption of 1041 regulations and guidelines has occurred. Longstein noted his predecessor, Kelly Smith, did much of the initial public outreach in 2021 and 2022, and that included a number of stakeholder working groups, press releases, and Coloradoan articles. He stated Council provided direction following a June of 2022 work session that was taken to the stakeholder working groups in July and August of 2022. Additionally, there were two general open house meetings which were attended primarily by stakeholders, through there were members of the public and a few CSU students, though no direct feedback from the general public was received. He stated the second version of the regulations was presented to Council at a work session in November of 2022 and geographic thresholds were introduced. He stated general support was received from Council on version two; however, it sought additional public input at that time as well and requested the moratorium be extended to March 31st to allow for that. He stated several community working group meetings occurred in December of 2022 and January of 2023 with specific outreach to disproportionately impacted communities along the Mulberry corridor occurring. Additionally, there was an open house on January 19th that was attended by three participants, comments from which will be provided in the Council packet. He stated general support for the direction of the regulations was received. Longstein commented on the stakeholder engagement tactics and stated the general public, non-technical stakeholders have not been as engaged as staff would like. He noted the City’s marketing team has tried different types of messaging approaches, surveys and other types of polling mechanisms have occurred, and Spanish materials have also been produced. He requested input from the Commission on how additional public input should be sought. Chair Katz commended the staff work on public engagement and stated the main stakeholders still need time to process this third version. He also noted the utilities districts create great benefits for the public with the infrastructure they provide within the city. Member Haefele stated she was unaware of the January 19th open house. Longstein replied it was announced via a direct communication campaign to Spanish speakers along the Mulberry corridor and to the cultural ambassadors from various non-profit organizations directly representing disproportionately impacted communities. Member Haefele stated the term stakeholder generally comes from shareholder, which implies a financial interest, and these regulations are going to affect people in ways that have nothing to do with finances. She commented on the difficulty of accessing the survey mentioned by Longstein and on its questions relating to items that are no longer in the draft language. She suggested using flyers to get people interested and stated she is appalled at the way items are notified and stated proactively subscribing to City newsletters is the only way to be notified of certain things. She also suggested providing notifications in utility bills and stated people will become involved after these regulations are in place if they are not involved before. Member Stegner suggested the notification issue is a larger concern; however, it seems a great deal of public engagement has occurred with this item and people generally will not get engaged unless a topic will affect them directly. She asked if this draft is final or if there is a chance Council can make changes based on additional input received at that point. Yatabe replied Council has the latitude to take a number of actions and could opt to not adopt a version on first reading, could direct certain changes to be made between readings, or extend the timing of the second reading. Member Stackhouse asked if staff considered using a FONSI as an alternative to the FONAI process. Longstein replied a FONSI was introduced in the first version of the regulations and Council provided direction at that time that ‘significant’ seemed subjective; therefore, the FONAI was the alternative approach taken by staff. Everette noted the terms ‘negligible impact’ and ‘negligible adverse impact’ are standard industry terminology in environmental protection. She stated an argument could be made that ‘significant’ and ‘negligible’ are both subjective; however, the intent was to lower the bar for a project’s impacts to be regulated. Vice Chair Shepard stated he is inclined to follow the staff recommendation on the FONAI issue. DRAFTPacket pg. 13 Planning & Zoning Commission January 25, 2023 Page 9 of 11 Member Stackhouse outlined the items of consensus among the Commissioners: that more time is needed, that members of the public need to be able to look at potential costs and consequences of the proposed regulations as they are currently written, that the open question of the extent to which the regulations could legally extend to impacts created by projects in other jurisdictions needs to be addressed, and that the scope of the projects to be regulated needs to be assessed for appropriateness. Member Stackhouse proposed that the Commission recommend that Council not adopt the proposed 1041 regulations until the public has sufficient time to review staff’s version three and to comment fully on its impact. She also proposed the Commission believes the proposed regulation is directionally correct; however, more input is needed on at least the following items: the costs and consequences of version three, the extent to which the regulations could legally extend to impacts created by projects in other jurisdictions, and the scope of projects to be regulated. She also recommended this would require the current moratorium be extended by no more than three months. Member Haefele proposed that the Commission recommend that Council not adopt the proposed 1041 regulations because parties with varied interests have expressed concern that the current version has only been available for a very short time and have requested additional time for review. She also suggested the Commission recommend the period between first and second reading be extended to allow for revisions that are requested by interested parties and extended the moratorium. She suggested the additional specificity of Member Stackhouse’s suggestion could be included in the notes and minutes from this meeting. Chair Katz stated he would generally agree with Member Haefele’s more broad approach; however, he noted providing more direction to Council was suggested by Yatabe. Member Stackhouse stated one of the risks of not focusing on specific areas could involve challenging legal issues related to how long the moratorium can be extended. Member York stated he is not comfortable putting a timeframe on the moratorium as Council will need to make that decision. Member Stackhouse stated she would be comfortable replacing the three month comment with ‘as necessary.’ Vice Chair Shepard noted the only real deadline for Council at this time is the March 31st moratorium deadline, and he encouraged the use of ‘extend the moratorium if necessary.’ He stated moratoriums that extend beyond one year tend to get a bit suspicious. Chair Katz stated he is currently more inclined to support Member Stackhouse’s motion. Member Haefele stated she would not support that motion because there is not consensus around the specific items mentioned. Vice Chair Shepard commented on the possibility of including language related to extraordinary public engagement in light of the challenges over the last few years related to the pandemic. Member Haefele discussed her rewritten motion language to recommend that Council retain the option to extend the current moratorium as necessary to allow for all interested parties to review and provide input. Member Stackhouse discussed her rewritten motion language to recommend that more time could be allocated between first and second readings, or that the current moratorium be extended if necessary. She stated she is struggling figure out what the motion should say that has not been said. Vice Chair Shepard commended Member Haefele’s comments regarding going beyond the stakeholders and indicating that benefits of regulations impact the entire community. Member Haefele clarified her intent to note that economics is not just a balance sheet. She stated costs do not need to be specifically called out in the motion, but commented on the importance of the need for further review in order for all parties to have the opportunity to thoroughly review this version. She stated the meeting minutes will capture the perspectives and it does not DRAFTPacket pg. 14 Planning & Zoning Commission January 25, 2023 Page 10 of 11 appear clear everyone considers it necessary to include projects outside municipal boundaries that may have effects inside city boundaries, for example. She stated the specificity of Member Stackhouse’s motion may provide difficulty in that people may be supportive of some aspects but not others. Vice Chair Shepard stated the purpose of the Commission recommendation is to give Council some direction and level of specificity and he would like the motion to be more specific than recommended by Member Haefele. Member York concurred and stated it behooves the Commission to provide Council more than just general input. Member Stackhouse stated she would be more comfortable with constructive ambiguity if the process were just now being started; however, there is a finite amount of time at this point and she would like the motion to call out the most contentious or difficult areas that need to be considered. Member Haefele stated she would support a motion that was worded to include areas on which there is clear need for further consideration. Member Stackhouse made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Shepard, that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that City Council not adopt the proposed 1041 regulations until the public has sufficient time to review staff’s version three and to comment fully on its impact. The Planning and Zoning Commission believes the proposed regulation is directionally correct; however, additional input is needed by affected parties on at least the following areas: potential consequences of the proposed regulation as currently written, the extent to which the regulation could legally extend to impacts created by other jurisdictions but that affect the natural resources or natural areas of Fort Collins, and whether the scope of projects to be regulated is appropriate relative to what would be considered material in the scope of such projects. This recommendation could require that more time be allowed between first and second readings, or that the current moratorium be extended if necessary. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing, and the Commission discussion on this item. Member Sass commended staff for their work and concurred more time needs to be spent on garnering public input. Vice Chair Shepard stated he would support the motion and thanked Members Stackhouse and Haefele for helping to craft it. He stated this is a dramatic and important step for the Fort Collins’ regulatory framework and he expressed appreciation for the value that the special districts provide to the city’s residents in a professional and high-quality manner. He commented on the slide in the staff presentation that discussed City Plan and Council regulatory goals, specifically noting City Plan includes the following: ‘conserve, protect, and enhance natural resources and high-value biological resources throughout the GMA by directing development away from natural features to the maximum extent feasible. He commended staff for work on this item. Member Haefele stated she is glad the City is moving forward with these regulations and she hopes the final product is most protective of the city’s natural resources. She stated she would support the motion. Chair Katz stated being able to impose 1041 regulations is a privilege and needs to be done to protect natural resources; however, he stated it needs to be done in a calibrated way so as to not place undue strain on the districts that provide utilities and great benefits to the city. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Haefele, Stackhouse, Stegner, York, Sass, Shepard, and Katz. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. DRAFTPacket pg. 15 Planning & Zoning Commission January 25, 2023 Page 11 of 11 Other Business None. Adjournment Chair Katz moved to adjourn the P&Z Commission hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 8:47 PM. Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Manno. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on: March 23, 2023. Paul Sizemore, CDNS Director David Katz, Chair DRAFTPacket pg. 16 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 Board Hearing: March 23, 2023 MA220136, CNG Shop Expansion Summary of Request This is a request to expand the existing fleet maintenance facility adding a shop area for CNG fleet vehicles. Zoning Map (ctrl + click map to follow link) Next Steps If approved by the Planning and Zoning Board, the applicant will be eligible to apply for construction and building permits after the new plat of the property has been recorded (BDR220007). 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 St. 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. 17 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 2 MA220136 | CNG Shop Expansion Thursday, March 23, 2023 | Page 2 of 7 Back to Top 1. Project Introduction A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION • This is a request for a minor amendment including an addition/expansion to the City of Fort Collins Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Shop. The expansion would be to the west of the existing building. The project would also include ADA upgrades to the existing locker rooms, bathrooms, break area, and parts storage area. Rework to the asphalt to correct drainage and grades is planned and additional paving to accommodate the turning radius of a tractor-trailer. 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. 18 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 2 MA220136 | CNG Shop Expansion Thursday, March 23, 2023 | Page 3 of 7 Back to Top C. OVERVIEW OF MAIN CONSIDERATIONS The proposed Minor Amendment is intended to expand the current fleet maintenance facilities and provide a shop compliant with current standard for maintenance of City CNG vehicles. 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. No neighborhood meeting was conducted. 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 – MA220136 A Minor Amendment was routed on November 11, 2022. 2. Second Submittal – MA220136 The Minor Amendment was routed on January 05, 2023. 3. Third Submittal – MA220136 The Minor Amendment was routed on February 03, 2023. Packet pg. 19 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 2 MA220136 | CNG Shop Expansion Thursday, March 23, 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 of P&Z Commission hearing fulfills this requirement. Notice of Hearing: Written notice: March 8, 2023, 50 letters sent. Published Notice: Scheduled for March 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. Parking area is being repaved and restriped. Complies 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. A new trash enclosure has been added as part of the project. Complies Packet pg. 20 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 2 MA220136 | CNG Shop Expansion Thursday, March 23, 2023 | Page 5 of 7 Back to Top B. DVISION 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. 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. Packet pg. 21 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 2 MA220136 | CNG Shop Expansion Thursday, March 23, 2023 | Page 6 of 7 Back to Top 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. The new addition is compatible with the existing building and use on site and with the neighborhood context. 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. Packet pg. 22 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 2 MA220136 | CNG Shop Expansion Thursday, March 23, 2023 | Page 7 of 7 Back to Top 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 change the use with this project and is in compliance with the zone district standards. Complies 5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the request for the MA220136, CNG Shop Expansion, 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 recording 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 Board make a motion to approve the CNG Shop Expansion, MA220136, with one condition of approval 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 Set 3. Drainage Report 4. Traffic Memo 5. Staff Presentation Packet pg. 23 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 24 PROJECT LOCATION WOOD STREETW. VINE DRIVE PROJECT DESCRIPTION An addition to the existing city Fleet Services Shop for CNG Vehicle Maintenance. Renovation of existing first floor restrooms to bring up to accessibility codes and provide accessible locker room area. Key Plan clarkenersen.com Ft. Collins, CO 80524-2377 Kansas City, Missouri 970.818.8999 123 College Ave., Suite 200Fort Collins, Colorado Lincoln, Nebraska Fairway, KansasPortland, Oregon Architecture Engineering Interior Design Landscape Architecture Planning DRAFTPREPARED FOR PRELIMINARY SUBMISSION AND REVIEW ONLY --NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.Plot Time Stamp:File Location/Name:2/22/2023 1:55:17 PMBIM 360://326-001-20 FoCo CNG Shop Expan/303-001_FTC CNG-A-20.rvtTitle Sheet & Drawing Index G0.100 CE No.: 326-001-20 835 Wood Street Fort Collins, CO CNG Shop Expansion BASIC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - MINOR AMENDMENT GENERAL City of Fort Collins CNG Shop Expansion 835 Wood Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 Fort Collins Fleet Maintenance Subdivision February 22, 2023 Basic Development Review -Minor Amendment ELECTRICAL ARCHITECTURAL VICINITY PLAN A1.100 Site Plan A2.110 Exterior Elevation A2.111 Exterior Perspectives A3.110 Roof Top Mech Equip Sight Line Study & Trash Enclosure Plan G0.100 Title Sheet & Drawing Index C0.101 Legend, Notes & Abbreviations C0.102 City of Fort Collins General Notes C0.103 City of Fort Collins General Notes C0.104 Demolition Sheet CE1.100 Erosion Control Plan CE1.101 Erosion Control Details CE1.102 Erosion Control Details C1.100 Grading & Drainage Plan CD1.100 Grading & Drainage Details CD1.101 Grading & Drainage Details C3.100 Horizontal Control Plan CD3.100 Site Details CIVIL E0.101 Electrical Sitee Photometric Plan E0.102 Electrical Cut Sheets ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 25 UTILITY PLANS FOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS CNG SHOP EXPANSION 835 WOOD STREET, FORT COLLINS CO LOCATED IN THE SW 1/4 S2, T7N, R69W, OF THE 6TH PM, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO COVER SHEET C0.100 JVA, Inc.213 Linden Street, Suite 200 www.jvajva.com Fort Collins, CO 80524 970.225.9099 Boulder ● Fort Collins ● Winter Park Glenwood Springs ● Denver CE No.:2 / 22 / 2023 9:27:01 AMPlot Time Stamp:DRAFTPREPARED FOR PRELIMINARYSUBMISSION AND REVIEW ONLY --NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.V:\3256c City of Fort Collins CNG Facility\Drawings\3256c - CoF LNA -00.dwgFile Location/Name:Architecture Engineering Interior Design Landscape Architecture Planning clarkenersen.com Ft. Collins, CO 80524-2377 Kansas City, Missouri 970.818.8999 123 College Ave., Suite 200Fort Collins, Colorado Lincoln, Nebraska Fairway, KansasPortland, OregonOmaha, Nebraska SHEET HISTORY: CNG Shop Expansion 835 Wood StreetCity, StateFort Collins, CO 326-001-20 FEBRUARY 22, 2023 PERMIT SET FORT COLLINS FLEET MAINTENANCE SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE SW 1/4 S2, T7N, R69W, OF THE 6TH PM, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 26 Know what's below.before you dig.Call R LEGEND, NOTES & ABBREVIATIONS C0.101 CE No.:2 / 22 / 2023 9:27:02 AMPlot Time Stamp:DRAFTPREPARED FOR PRELIMINARYSUBMISSION AND REVIEW ONLY --NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.V:\3256c City of Fort Collins CNG Facility\Drawings\3256c - CoF LNA -00.dwgFile Location/Name:Architecture Engineering Interior Design Landscape Architecture Planning clarkenersen.com Ft. Collins, CO 80524-2377 Kansas City, Missouri 970.818.8999 123 College Ave., Suite 200Fort Collins, Colorado Lincoln, Nebraska Fairway, KansasPortland, OregonOmaha, Nebraska SHEET HISTORY: CNG Shop Expansion 835 Wood StreetCity, StateFort Collins, CO 326-001-20 FEBRUARY 22, 2023 PERMIT SET ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 27 ’ CITY OF FORT COLLINS GENERAL NOTES C0.102 CE No.:2 / 22 / 2023 9:27:07 AMPlot Time Stamp:DRAFTPREPARED FOR PRELIMINARYSUBMISSION AND REVIEW ONLY --NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.V:\3256c City of Fort Collins CNG Facility\Drawings\3256c - CoF LNA -00.dwgFile Location/Name:Architecture Engineering Interior Design Landscape Architecture Planning clarkenersen.com Ft. Collins, CO 80524-2377 Kansas City, Missouri 970.818.8999 123 College Ave., Suite 200Fort Collins, Colorado Lincoln, Nebraska Fairway, KansasPortland, OregonOmaha, Nebraska SHEET HISTORY: CNG Shop Expansion 835 Wood StreetCity, StateFort Collins, CO 326-001-20 FEBRUARY 22, 2023 PERMIT SET ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 28 CITY OF FORT COLLINS GENERAL NOTES C0.103 CE No.:2 / 22 / 2023 9:27:21 AMPlot Time Stamp:DRAFTPREPARED FOR PRELIMINARYSUBMISSION AND REVIEW ONLY --NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.V:\3256c City of Fort Collins CNG Facility\Drawings\3256c - CoF LNA -00.dwgFile Location/Name:Architecture Engineering Interior Design Landscape Architecture Planning clarkenersen.com Ft. Collins, CO 80524-2377 Kansas City, Missouri 970.818.8999 123 College Ave., Suite 200Fort Collins, Colorado Lincoln, Nebraska Fairway, KansasPortland, OregonOmaha, Nebraska SHEET HISTORY: CNG Shop Expansion 835 Wood StreetCity, StateFort Collins, CO 326-001-20 FEBRUARY 22, 2023 PERMIT SET ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 29 EXISTING BUILDING835 Wood St, Fort Collins, CO80521S0°04'30"E 276.00'S89°55'30"W 130.00'N89°55'30"E 663.88'N0°04'07"W 474.00' S0°04'30"E 276.00'N89°55'30"E 663.88'N0°04'07"W 474.00'DEMOLITION SHEETC0.104CE No.:2 / 22 / 2023 9:27:31 AMPlot Time Stamp:DRAFTPREPARED FOR PRELIMINARYSUBMISSION AND REVIEW ONLY --NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.V:\3256c City of Fort Collins CNG Facility\Drawings\3256c - DMO -00.dwgFile Location/Name:Architecture Engineering Interior Design Landscape Architecture Planningclarkenersen.com Ft. Collins, CO 80524-2377Kansas City, Missouri970.818.8999123 College Ave., Suite 200Fort Collins, ColoradoLincoln, NebraskaFairway, KansasPortland, OregonOmaha, NebraskaSHEET HISTORY:CNG Shop Expansion835 Wood StreetCity, StateFort Collins, CO326-001-20FEBRUARY 22, 2023PERMIT SETITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 30 EXISTING BUILDING 835 Wood St, Fort Collins, CO 80521 S0°04'30"E 276.00' S89°55'30"W 130.00' N89°55'30"E 663.88'N89°55'30"E 663.88' EROSION CONTROL PLAN CE1.100 CE No.:2 / 22 / 2023 9:27:56 AMPlot Time Stamp:DRAFTPREPARED FOR PRELIMINARYSUBMISSION AND REVIEW ONLY --NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.V:\3256c City of Fort Collins CNG Facility\Drawings\3256c - ECP -00.dwgFile Location/Name:Architecture Engineering Interior Design Landscape Architecture Planning clarkenersen.com Ft. Collins, CO 80524-2377 Kansas City, Missouri 970.818.8999 123 College Ave., Suite 200Fort Collins, Colorado Lincoln, Nebraska Fairway, KansasPortland, OregonOmaha, Nebraska SHEET HISTORY: CNG Shop Expansion 835 Wood StreetCity, StateFort Collins, CO 326-001-20 FEBRUARY 22, 2023 PERMIT SET TABLE OF CALCULATIONS TOTAL DISTURBED AREA 0.98 ACRES TOTAL "ONSITE" DISTURBED AREA 0.98 ACRES TOTAL "OFFSITE" DISTURBED AREA N/A TOTAL HAUL ROADS AREA N/A CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE TRAFFIC AREA N/A EST. PERCENT OF PROJECT AREA EXPOSED 2% EST. PERCENT VEGETATIVE COVER 20% EXISTING SOIL TYPE TYPE B NUMBER OF PHASES W/ PROJECT N/A TOTAL AREA OF STOCKPILING FILL OR BORROW AREAS OFF SITE N/A STEEPEST SLOPE 4:1 H:V DISTANCE FROM A RIPARIAN AREA OR SENSITIVE AREA N/A 1.INSTALLATION OF TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES.THIS INCLUDES ALL SEDIMENT CONTROL LOGS, ROCK SOCKS, EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS, AND SILT FENCEWHERE ALL LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES WILL OCCUR. 2.SEQUENCE OF ALL LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY. OVERLOT GRADING IN PREPARATION FOR THE POURING OF NEW SIDEWALKS WILL OCCUR EARLY IN THECONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE. ADDITIONAL LAND DISTURBANCE WILL OCCUR AROUND THE SITE FOR UTILITYINSTALLATION AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW STRUCTURES. 3.DRAINAGE FACILITY CONSTRUCTION. NO NEW DRAINAGE FACILITIES ARE PROPOSED FOR THIS PROJECT. 4.SEDIMENT BASINS, TEMPORARY CHANNEL STABILIZATION. SEDIMENT CONTROL LOGS OR EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS WILL BE INSTALLED ON THE PERIMETERS OF THEVEGETATED GRASS BUFFERS ON THE NORTH AND WEST SIDES OF THE SITE. 5.SEEDING ALL DISTURBED AREAS WILL BE SEEDED UPON COMPLETING OF FINISH GRADING. REFER TO THE LANDSCAPE PLANSFOR DETAILED PLANTING AND SEEDING SCHEDULE. 6.MULCHING. SPREAD STRAW MULCH UNIFORMLY OVER SEEDED AREAS AT A RATE OF 90 LBS PER 1000 SQUARE FEET OF GROUND.NO MORE THAN 25% OF THE GROUND SHOULD BE VISIBLE. CRIMP OR PINCH MULCH INTO SOIL 2-4 INCHES BY USINGEITHER A MULCH ANCHORING TOOL, A FARM DISK OPERATING ON THE CONTOUR OF THE SLOPE, OR BY CLEATINGWITH BULLDOZER TRACKS OPERATING UP AND DOWN THE SLOPES (TO PREVENT TRACKS FROM FORMING GULLIES). 7.REQUIRED MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES (E.G. AFTER-STORM CHECKS OF ALL BMPS, ETC.). ALL TEMPORARY SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS SHALL BE INSPECTED AFTER EACH RAIN EVENT TO ENSURE PROPERPROTECTION AND TO DETERMINE IF CLEANING IS NECESSARY. FINAL CLEANING OF ALL STORM FACILITIES SHALLBE PROVIDED UPON FINAL STABILIZATION OF SITE. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 31 EROSION CONTROL DETAILS CE1.101 CE No.:2 / 22 / 2023 9:28:13 AMPlot Time Stamp:DRAFTPREPARED FOR PRELIMINARYSUBMISSION AND REVIEW ONLY --NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.V:\3256c City of Fort Collins CNG Facility\Drawings\3256c - ECP DET -00.dwgFile Location/Name:Architecture Engineering Interior Design Landscape Architecture Planning clarkenersen.com Ft. Collins, CO 80524-2377 Kansas City, Missouri 970.818.8999 123 College Ave., Suite 200Fort Collins, Colorado Lincoln, Nebraska Fairway, KansasPortland, OregonOmaha, Nebraska SHEET HISTORY: CNG Shop Expansion 835 Wood StreetCity, StateFort Collins, CO 326-001-20 FEBRUARY 22, 2023 PERMIT SET ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 32 EROSION CONTROL DETAILS CE1.102 CE No.:2 / 22 / 2023 9:28:17 AMPlot Time Stamp:DRAFTPREPARED FOR PRELIMINARYSUBMISSION AND REVIEW ONLY --NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.V:\3256c City of Fort Collins CNG Facility\Drawings\3256c - ECP DET -00.dwgFile Location/Name:Architecture Engineering Interior Design Landscape Architecture Planning clarkenersen.com Ft. Collins, CO 80524-2377 Kansas City, Missouri 970.818.8999 123 College Ave., Suite 200Fort Collins, Colorado Lincoln, Nebraska Fairway, KansasPortland, OregonOmaha, Nebraska SHEET HISTORY: CNG Shop Expansion 835 Wood StreetCity, StateFort Collins, CO 326-001-20 FEBRUARY 22, 2023 PERMIT SET ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 33 EXISTING BUILDING 835 Wood St, Fort Collins, CO 80521 S89°55'30"W 533.93' S0°04'30"E 276.00' N89°55'30"E 663.88'N0°04'07"W 474.00'S89°55'30"W 533.93' N89°55'30"E 663.88'N0°04'07"W 474.00'GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN C1.100 CE No.:2 / 22 / 2023 9:28:38 AMPlot Time Stamp:DRAFTPREPARED FOR PRELIMINARYSUBMISSION AND REVIEW ONLY --NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.V:\3256c City of Fort Collins CNG Facility\Drawings\3256c - GDP -00.dwgFile Location/Name:Architecture Engineering Interior Design Landscape Architecture Planning clarkenersen.com Ft. Collins, CO 80524-2377 Kansas City, Missouri 970.818.8999 123 College Ave., Suite 200Fort Collins, Colorado Lincoln, Nebraska Fairway, KansasPortland, OregonOmaha, Nebraska SHEET HISTORY: CNG Shop Expansion 835 Wood StreetCity, StateFort Collins, CO 326-001-20 FEBRUARY 22, 2023 PERMIT SET ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 34 GRADING & DRAINAGE DETAILS CD1.100 CE No.:2 / 22 / 2023 9:28:52 AMPlot Time Stamp:DRAFTPREPARED FOR PRELIMINARYSUBMISSION AND REVIEW ONLY --NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.V:\3256c City of Fort Collins CNG Facility\Drawings\3256c - GDP DET -00.dwgFile Location/Name:Architecture Engineering Interior Design Landscape Architecture Planning clarkenersen.com Ft. Collins, CO 80524-2377 Kansas City, Missouri 970.818.8999 123 College Ave., Suite 200Fort Collins, Colorado Lincoln, Nebraska Fairway, KansasPortland, OregonOmaha, Nebraska SHEET HISTORY: CNG Shop Expansion 835 Wood StreetCity, StateFort Collins, CO 326-001-20 FEBRUARY 22, 2023 PERMIT SET ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 35 GRADING & DRAINAGE DETAILS CD1.101 CE No.:2 / 22 / 2023 9:28:59 AMPlot Time Stamp:DRAFTPREPARED FOR PRELIMINARYSUBMISSION AND REVIEW ONLY --NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.V:\3256c City of Fort Collins CNG Facility\Drawings\3256c - GDP DET -00.dwgFile Location/Name:Architecture Engineering Interior Design Landscape Architecture Planning clarkenersen.com Ft. Collins, CO 80524-2377 Kansas City, Missouri 970.818.8999 123 College Ave., Suite 200Fort Collins, Colorado Lincoln, Nebraska Fairway, KansasPortland, OregonOmaha, Nebraska SHEET HISTORY: CNG Shop Expansion 835 Wood StreetCity, StateFort Collins, CO 326-001-20 FEBRUARY 22, 2023 PERMIT SET ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 36 EXISTING BUILDING835 Wood St, Fort Collins, CO80521S0°04'30"E 276.00'S89°55'30"W 130.00'S0°04'30"E 198.00'N89°55'30"E 663.88'N0°04'07"W 474.00' S0°04'30"E 276.00'N89°55'30"E 663.88'N0°04'07"W 474.00'HORIZONTAL CONTROLPLANC3.100CE No.:2 / 22 / 2023 9:29:16 AMPlot Time Stamp:DRAFTPREPARED FOR PRELIMINARYSUBMISSION AND REVIEW ONLY --NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.V:\3256c City of Fort Collins CNG Facility\Drawings\3256c - HCP -00.dwgFile Location/Name:Architecture Engineering Interior Design Landscape Architecture Planningclarkenersen.com Ft. Collins, CO 80524-2377Kansas City, Missouri970.818.8999123 College Ave., Suite 200Fort Collins, ColoradoLincoln, NebraskaFairway, KansasPortland, OregonOmaha, NebraskaSHEET HISTORY:CNG Shop Expansion835 Wood StreetCity, StateFort Collins, CO326-001-20FEBRUARY 22, 2023PERMIT SETITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 37 SITE DETAILS CD3.100 CE No.:2 / 22 / 2023 9:29:27 AMPlot Time Stamp:DRAFTPREPARED FOR PRELIMINARYSUBMISSION AND REVIEW ONLY --NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.V:\3256c City of Fort Collins CNG Facility\Drawings\3256c - HCP DET -00.dwgFile Location/Name:Architecture Engineering Interior Design Landscape Architecture Planning clarkenersen.com Ft. Collins, CO 80524-2377 Kansas City, Missouri 970.818.8999 123 College Ave., Suite 200Fort Collins, Colorado Lincoln, Nebraska Fairway, KansasPortland, OregonOmaha, Nebraska SHEET HISTORY: CNG Shop Expansion 835 Wood StreetCity, StateFort Collins, CO 326-001-20 FEBRUARY 22, 2023 PERMIT SET ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 38 BH EV EV EV EV TRN CO S S S S DD DD DD DDTRNEV EV EV EV EV EV EV S89°55'30"W 533.93'S0°04'30"E 276.00'S89°55'30"W 130.00'S0°04'30"E 198.00'N89°55'30"W 663.88'N0°04'07"W 474.00'EXISTING FENCE LINE EXISTING GATE WOOD STREETPARCEL #9702345901 CITY OF FORT COLLINS PARCEL #9702344901 CITY OF FORT COLLINS PARCEL #9702300013 DOSTER, GREGG RICHARD PARCEL #9702300010 LIVINGSTON, KARIN A EXISTING FENCE LINE EXISTING FENCE LINE RAIN GARDEN EXISTING CNG BUILDING NEW ADDITION EXISTING PARKING STRIPING NEW PARKING STRIPING NEW ASPHALT PAVING NEW HEAVY-DUTY ASPHALT PAVING NEW CONCRETE PAVING ALL EXISTING PLANTINGS TO REMAIN NEW CONCRETE PAVING & TRASH ENCLOSURE NEW TRENCH DRAIN NEW PARKING STRIPING EXISTING PAVING EXISTING PAVING EXISTING PAVING NOTE: FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REFER TO CIVIL DRAWING. ALL EXISTING PLANTINGS TO REMAIN ALL EXISTING PLANTINGS TO REMAIN ALL EXISTING PLANTINGS TO REMAIN NEW ADA PARKING BICYCLE PARKING, 6 SPACES PROVIDED EXISTING CONEX EXISTING EV CHARGING STATION A3.110 5 EXISTING FENCE LINE EXISTING GATE 2.0' WITNESS CORNER FOUND NO.4 REBAR WITH 1" ALUM. CAP STAMPED "W.C. 2.0' PLS 37963" FOUND NO.4 REBAR S79°35'16"W 0.38' FROM CALCULATED POSITION FOUND NO.4 REBAR N79°01'23"W 0.28' FROM CALCULATED POSITION PARCEL #9702300952 CITY OF FORT COLLINS FOUND NO.4 REBAR N41°53'19"W 0.37' FROM CALCULATED POSITION FOUND NAIL AND DISC IN ASPHALT STAMPED "PLS 37963" PARKING COUNT (3.2.2) SPACES EXISTING USE: SERVICE SHOP PROPOSED PARKING SPACES REQUIRED 159 1822/(26,688/1000)≈14 ADA VAN ACCESSIBLE 4 6 1 1 TOTAL BUILDING SQFT: 26,688SQFT 1-25 SPACES = 1 1-500 SPACES = 1 Key Plan clarkenersen.com Ft. Collins, CO 80524-2377 Kansas City, Missouri 970.818.8999 123 College Ave., Suite 200Fort Collins, Colorado Lincoln, Nebraska Fairway, KansasPortland, Oregon Architecture Engineering Interior Design Landscape Architecture Planning DRAFTPREPARED FOR PRELIMINARY SUBMISSION AND REVIEW ONLY --NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.Plot Time Stamp:File Location/Name:2/22/2023 1:54:53 PMBIM 360://326-001-20 FoCo CNG Shop Expan/303-001_FTC CNG-A-20.rvtSite Plan A1.100 CE No.: 326-001-20 835 Wood Street Fort Collins, CO CNG Shop Expansion BASIC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - MINOR AMENDMENT SCALE:1" = 30'-0" Site Pln1 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 39 FIRST FLOOR100' -0" SECOND FLOOR110' -3 3/4" 4321 VERTICAL METAL PANEL 118 130.5 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF, MP-4 6"X6" METAL GUTTER,PRE- FINISHED TO MATCH MP-3 MECHANICAL LOUVER, COLOR TO MATCH ADJACENT METAL PANEL: RE: MECH, TYP. EXISTING BUILDING BEYOND BOLLARD 5"X4" METAL DOWNSPOUT, PRE-FINISHED TO MATCH ADJACENT COLOR B.O. ROOF122' -6" T.O ROOF127' -7 191/256" MP-1 MP-1 MP-1 MP-1 MP-1 MP-1MP-3 MP-2 MP-3 MP-2 MP-3 MP-1 MP-1 MECHANICAL SCREENS FIRST FLOOR100' -0" SECOND FLOOR110' -3 3/4" EXISTING T.O. EAVE121' -9 1/2" A B C D E F G H J K NEW ADDITIONEXISTING BUILDING SF-1 SF-1 G2 9 ALUMINUM FRAMED CLERESTORY WINDOWS STANDING SEAM ROOF, MP-4 INSULATED OVERHEAD DOOR W/ VISION PANELS T.O ROOF127' -7 191/256" MP-1 MP-1 MP-1 MP-2MP-2 METAL PANEL SOFFIT, MP-5 J.1 MECHANICAL SCREENS MP-1 J.2 FIRST FLOOR100' -0" SECOND FLOOR110' -3 3/4" EXISTING T.O. EAVE121' -9 1/2" ABCDEFGHJK EXISTING BUILDINGNEW ADDITION G3 G2 130.2 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF, MP-4 PRE-FINISHED 6"X6" METAL GUTTER INSULATED OVERHEAD DOOR W/ VISION PANELS EXISTING BUILDING BEYOND T.O ROOF127' -7 191/256" MP-1 MP-1 MP-1 SNOW FENCE SYSTEM MP-2 MP-2 J.1 MECHANICAL SCREENS MP-1 J.2 EXTERIOR MATERIALS KEY METAL PANEL, MP-1 NOTE: MATERIALS LISTED ARE BASIS OF DESIGN, REFER SPEC. FOR APPROVED ALTERNATES CHEIF AP PANEL 36" COVERAGE -ALMOND WHITE METAL PANEL, MP-2 CHEIF AP PANEL 36" COVERAGE -CHEROKEE METAL PANEL, MP-4 CHEIF MSC PANEL 24" COVERAGE -SIERRA MADRE METAL PANEL SOFFIT, MP-5 CHEIF FSP PANEL 12" COVERAGE -SIERRA MADRE METAL PANEL, MP-3 CHEIF AP PANEL 36" COVERAGE -SIERRA MADRE FIRST FLOOR100' -0" SECOND FLOOR110' -3 3/4" B.O. SOFFIT116' -0" EXISTING T.O. EAVE121' -9 1/2" 4 3 2 1 B.O. ROOF122' -6" T.O ROOF127' -7 191/256" STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF PRE-FINISHED 6"X6" METAL GUTTER AND PRE-FINISHED 5"X4" METAL DOWNSPOUT MP-3 MECHANICAL SCREEN MP-1MP-1 FIRST FLOOR100' -0" SECOND FLOOR110' -3 3/4" VERTICAL METAL PANELMP-2 8"7' - 4"FIRST FLOOR100' -0" SECOND FLOOR110' -3 3/4" MP-2 8' - 0"VERTICAL METAL PANEL MP-1 FIRST FLOOR100' -0" SECOND FLOOR110' -3 3/4" MP-27' - 4"8"VERTICAL METAL PANEL FIRST FLOOR100' -0" SECOND FLOOR110' -3 3/4" MP-2 VERTICAL METAL PANEL 8"7' - 4"Key Plan clarkenersen.com Ft. Collins, CO 80524-2377 Kansas City, Missouri 970.818.8999 123 College Ave., Suite 200Fort Collins, Colorado Lincoln, Nebraska Fairway, KansasPortland, Oregon Architecture Engineering Interior Design Landscape Architecture Planning DRAFTPREPARED FOR PRELIMINARY SUBMISSION AND REVIEW ONLY --NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.Plot Time Stamp:File Location/Name:2/27/2023 11:02:26 AMBIM 360://326-001-20 FoCo CNG Shop Expan/303-001_FTC CNG-A-20.rvtExterior Elevation A2.110 CE No.: 326-001-20 835 Wood Street Fort Collins, CO CNG Shop Expansion BASIC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - MINOR AMENDMENT SCALE:3/32" = 1'-0" EAST ELEVATION1 SCALE:3/32" = 1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION3 SCALE:3/32" = 1'-0" SOUTH ELEVATION4 SCALE:3/32" = 1'-0" WEST ELEVATION2 SCALE:3/32" = 1'-0" EAST ELEVATION5SCALE:3/32" = 1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION6 SCALE:3/32" = 1'-0" SOUTH ELEVATION7 SCALE:3/32" = 1'-0" WEST ELEVATION8 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 40 EXTERIOR MATERIALS KEY METAL PANEL, MP-1 NOTE: MATERIALS LISTED ARE BASIS OF DESIGN, REFER SPEC. FOR APPROVED ALTERNATES CHEIF AP PANEL 36" COVERAGE -ALMOND WHITE METAL PANEL, MP-2 CHEIF AP PANEL 36" COVERAGE -CHEROKEE METAL PANEL, MP-4 CHEIF MSC PANEL 24" COVERAGE -SIERRA MADRE METAL PANEL SOFFIT, MP-5 CHEIF FSP PANEL 12" COVERAGE -SIERRA MADRE METAL PANEL, MP-3 CHEIF AP PANEL 36" COVERAGE -SIERRA MADRE Key Plan clarkenersen.com Ft. Collins, CO 80524-2377 Kansas City, Missouri 970.818.8999 123 College Ave., Suite 200Fort Collins, Colorado Lincoln, Nebraska Fairway, KansasPortland, Oregon Architecture Engineering Interior Design Landscape Architecture Planning DRAFTPREPARED FOR PRELIMINARY SUBMISSION AND REVIEW ONLY --NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.Plot Time Stamp:File Location/Name:2/22/2023 1:55:10 PMBIM 360://326-001-20 FoCo CNG Shop Expan/303-001_FTC CNG-A-20.rvtExterior Perspectives A2.111 CE No.: 326-001-20 835 Wood Street Fort Collins, CO CNG Shop Expansion BASIC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - MINOR AMENDMENT SCALE: Exterior Perspective1 SCALE: Exterior Perspective 22 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 41 BH EV EV EV EV TRN CO S S S S DD DD DD DD TRN EV EV EV EV EV EV EV WOOD STREETPERSPECTIVE -NORTH PERSPECTIVE -EASTPERSPECTIVE -WEST PERSPECTIVE -SOUTH 1 A7.10 2 A7.10 3' - 6"6' - 2"17' - 0" 8' - 6"8' - 6" 6"6"1' - 6"4' - 0"1' - 2"1' - 8"1' - 2"4' - 0"1' - 6"6"6" 6 Yard Dumpster 3 Yard Dumpster BALLORD3' - 0"1' - 0"Existing Existing 6"Key Plan clarkenersen.com Ft. Collins, CO 80524-2377 Kansas City, Missouri 970.818.8999 123 College Ave., Suite 200Fort Collins, Colorado Lincoln, Nebraska Fairway, KansasPortland, Oregon Architecture Engineering Interior Design Landscape Architecture Planning DRAFTPREPARED FOR PRELIMINARY SUBMISSION AND REVIEW ONLY --NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.Plot Time Stamp:File Location/Name:2/27/2023 11:02:47 AMBIM 360://326-001-20 FoCo CNG Shop Expan/303-001_FTC CNG-A-20.rvtRoof Top Mech Equip Sight Line Study & Trash Enclosure Plan A3.110 CE No.: 326-001-20 835 Wood Street Fort Collins, CO CNG Shop Expansion BASIC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - MINOR AMENDMENT SCALE: Perspective - North1 SCALE: Perspective - East2 SCALE: Perspective - South3 SCALE: Perspective - West4 SCALE:1" = 60'-0" Site Plan - Roof Top Mech Equip Sight Line Study7 SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" ENLARGED PLAN TRASH ENCLOSURE5 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 42 Electrical Cut Sheets E0.102 CE No.: DRAFTPREPARED FOR PRELIMINARYSUBMISSION AND REVIEW ONLY --NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. Architecture Engineering Interior Design Landscape Architecture Planning clarkenersen.com Ft. Collins, CO 80524-2377 Kansas City, Missouri 970.818.8999 123 College Ave., Suite 200Fort Collins, Colorado Lincoln, Nebraska Fairway, KansasPortland, OregonOmaha, Nebraska Basic Development CNG Shop Expansion 835 Wood StreetFort Collins, CO 326-001-20 08/15/2022 Review - Minor Amendment Fixture AA Series Color Temperature Voltage Options Finish WPX1 LED P1 WPX1 LED P2 WPX2 LED WPX3 LED 1,550 Lumens, 11W 1 2,900 Lumens, 24W 6,000 Lumens, 47W 9,200 Lumens, 69W 30K 3000K 40K 4000K 50K 5000K MVOLT 120V - 277V 347 347V 3 (blank)None E4WH Emergency battery backup, CEC compliant (4W, 0 ºC min) 2 E14WC Emergency battery backup, CEC compliant (14W, -20 ºC min) 2 PE Photocell 3 DDBXD Dark bronze DWHXD White DBLXD Black Note : For other options, consult factory. Note: The lumen output and input power shown in the ordering tree are average representations of all configuration options. Specific values are available on request. One Lithonia Way • Conyers, Georgia 30012 • Phone: 1-800-705-SERV (7378) • www.lithonia.com © 2020-2022 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All rights reserved. WPX LED Rev. 03/08/22 COMMERCIAL OUTDOOR WPX LED Wall Packs Ordering Information EXAMPLE: WPX2 LED 40K MVOLT DDBXD NOTES 1. All WPX wall packs come with 6kV surge protection standard, except WPX1 LED P1 package which comes with 2.5kV surge protection standard. Add SPD6KV option to get WPX1 LED P1 with 6kV surge protection. Sample nomenclature: WPX1 LED P1 40K MVOLT SPD6KV DDBXD 2. Battery pack options only available on WPX1 and WPX2. 3. Battery pack options not available with 347V and PE options. Catalog Number Notes Type Hit the Tab key or mouse over the page to see all interactive elements. Introduction The WPX LED wall packs are energy-efficient, cost- effective, and aesthetically appealing solutions for both HID wall pack replacement and new construction opportunities. Available in three sizes, the WPX family delivers 1,550 to 9,200 lumens with a wide, uniform distribution. The WPX full cut-off solutions fully cover the footprint of the HID glass wall packs that they replace, providing a neat installation and an upgraded appearance. Reliable IP66 construction and excellent LED lumen maintenance ensure a long service life. Photocell and emergency egress battery options make WPX ideal for every wall mounted lighting application. Specifications FEATURES & SPECIFICATIONS INTENDED USE The WPX LED wall packs are designed to provide a cost-effective, energy-efficient solution for the one-for-one replacement of existing HID wall packs. The WPX1, WPX2 and WPX3 are ideal for replacing up to 150W, 250W, and 400W HID luminaires respectively. WPX luminaires deliver a uniform, wide distribution. WPX is rated for -40ºC to 40ºC. CONSTRUCTION WPX feature a die-cast aluminum main body with optimal thermal management that both enhances LED efficacy and extends component life. The luminaires are IP66 rated, and sealed against moisture or environmental contaminants. ELECTRICAL Light engine(s) configurations consist of high-efficacy LEDs and LED lumen maintenance of L90/100,000 hours. Color temperature (CCT) options of 3000K, 4000K and 5000K with minimum CRI of 70. Electronic drivers ensure system power factor >90% and THD <20%. All luminaires have 6kV surge protection (Note: WPX1 LED P1 package comes with a standard surge protection rating of 2.5kV. It can be ordered with an optional 6kV surge protection). All photocell (PE) operate on MVOLT (120V - 277V) input. Note: The standard WPX LED wall pack luminaires come with field-adjustable drive current feature. This feature allows tuning the output current of the LED drivers to adjust the lumen output (to dim the luminaire). INSTALLATION WPX can be mounted directly over a standard electrical junction box. Three 1/2 inch conduit ports on three sides allow for surface conduit wiring. A port on the back surface allows poke-through conduit wiring on surfaces that don't have an electrical junction box. Wiring can be made in the integral wiring compartment in all cases. WPX is only recommended for installations with LEDs facing downwards. LISTINGS CSA Certified to meet U.S. and Canadian standards. Suitable for wet locations. IP66 Rated. 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. International Dark Sky Association (IDA) Fixture Seal of Approval (FSA) is available for all products on this page utilizing 3000K color temperature only. WARRANTY 5-year limited warranty. This is the only warranty provided and no other statements in this specification sheet create any warranty of any kind. All other express and implied warranties are disclaimed. Complete warranty terms located at: www.acuitybrands.com/CustomerResources/Terms_and_conditions.aspx. Note: Actual performance may differ as a result of end-user environment and application. All values are design or typical values, measured under laboratory conditions at 25°C. Specifications subject to change without notice. Front View Side View w D u L ---- :::c: <( B Luminaire Height (H) Width (W) Depth (D) Side Conduit Location WeightA B WPX1 8.1” (20.6 cm) 11.1” (28.3 cm) 3.2” (8.1 cm) 4.0” (10.3 cm) 0.6” (1.6 cm) 6.1 lbs (2.8kg) WPX2 9.1” (23.1 cm) 12.3” (31.1 cm) 4.1” (10.5 cm) 4.5” (11.5 cm) 0.7” (1.7 cm) 8.2 lbs (3.7kg) WPX3 9.5” (24.1 cm) 13.0” (33.0 cm) 5.5” (13.7 cm) 4.7” (12.0 cm) 0.7” (1.7 cm) 11.0 lbs (5.0kg) Fixture BB & BB1 09/21/2022 CE No.: 326-001-20 835 Wood Street Fort Collins, CO CNG Shop Expansion Basic Development Review - Minor Amendment 11/09/2022 CE No.: 326-001-20 835 Wood Street Fort Collins, CO CNG Shop Expansion BASIC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - MINOR AMENDMENT ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 44 DRAINAGE REPORT FOR CNG SHOP EXPANSION AT 835 WOOD STREET FORT COLLINS, CO 80521 PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS Fort Collins, CO 80523 FEBRUARY 22, 2023 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 45 835 Wood Street Drainage Report Page 1 of 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL LOCATION AND EXISTING SITE INFORMATION ......................................................... 3 DRAINAGE BASINS AND HISTORIC RUNOFF .......................................................................... 3 HISTORIC DRAINAGE ..................................................................................................... 4 PROPOSED DRAINAGE .................................................................................................. 4 DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA ............................................................................................ 5 HYDROLOGIC METHOD AND DESIGN STORM FREQUENCIES ................................................. 5 HYDRAULIC CRITERIA .................................................................................................... 5 VARIANCES FROM THE CRITERIA......................................................................................... 5 FOUR STEP PROCESS ........................................................................................................ 5 DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN ............................................................................................. 6 GENERAL CONCEPT ..................................................................................................... 6 STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION/EROSION CONTROL .................................................. 6 TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL .................................................................................... 6 PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL .................................................................................... 6 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................ 7 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 7 Appendix A – Referenced Information 1. Vicinity Map 2. Geotechnical Report Summary Logs of Exploratory borings 3. FEMA FIRM Map 4. NRCS Websoil Survey 5. Figure 1: Historic percentage of Imperviousness 6. Figure 2: Proposed Percentage of Imperviousness Appendix B – Hydrologic/Hydraulic Computations 1. Rational Method Calculations 2. BMP Calculations ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 46 835 Wood Street Drainage Report Page 2 of 7 ENGINEER’S STATEMENT: “I hereby certify that this report (plan) for the Drainage Design for the City of Fort Collins CNG Shop Expansion was prepared by me (or under my direct supervision) in accordance with the provisions of the City of Fort Collins Standards for the Responsible Parties thereof. I understand that the City of Fort Collins does not and shall not assume liability for drainage facilities designed by others.” ______________________________ Erik T. Nakos Registered Professional Engineer State of Colorado No. 40776 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 47 835 Wood Street Drainage Report Page 3 of 7 GENERAL LOCATION AND EXISTING SITE INFORMATION The Fort Collins CNG (site) is located in Section 2, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, in Larimer County, Fort Collins, Colorado. Refer to Appendix A for the site vicinity map. The site is bordered to the south by W Vine Dr., to the east by Wood Street, and to the east by North Shields Street. The existing site is predominantly an asphalt parking lot, a service building, an existing detention pond, concrete walks, and landscaping. The site is approximately 6.4 acres of previously developed property and has a historical percent impervious of 49.6%. The historical drainage facilities are expected to hold the required volume necessary for the site. The existing ground surface is relatively flat, generally sloping to the north at grades ranging from 1.0% to 3.0%. From the geotechnical report dated April 24, 2020 the soil is mainly sandy gravel. Groundwater was encountered at 11 ft to 12 ft below the ground surface. The Summary Logs of Exploratory Borings from the geotechnical report is attached in Appendix A. The site is located outside FEMA and City of Fort Collins mapped 100-year and 500-year floodplains, per FEMA Flood Risk Map Number 08069C0976F, effective date 12/19/2006 and 08069C0977G, effective date 6/17/2008. The site is comprised of hydrologic soil group A and B per NRCS soil survey. The FEMA Firm Map and NRCS Websoil Survey are included in Appendix A. In general, the proposed redevelopment of the site consists of constructing an addition to the existing building, restriping and replacing potions of the existing asphalt parking area, the addition of some gravel parking area, and the construction of a rain garden. Increased imperviousness for the redevelopment will be routed to the proposed rain garden for treatment and storage to supplement the existing pond. The site development will increase the overall percent impervious slightly by 1.5% to a total of 51.1% from the historical 49.6%. A rain garden will treat the WQCV for the entire basin being affected by redevelopment. The volume treated for water quality is greater than the volume increase from change in imperviousness allowing the existing facilities to function historically. As of this time no historical drainage reports have been available for the existing facility. It is assumed that the existing facilities were designed to detain the existing conditions. DRAINAGE BASINS AND HISTORIC RUNOFF ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 48 835 Wood Street Drainage Report Page 4 of 7 HISTORIC DRAINAGE The existing site consists of two basins. The runoff from the existing site sheet flows to the north through concrete pans into the existing detention pond. Flows enter the storm system located in Wood Street via an existing outlet structure and storm infrastructure located at the south end of the existing pond. PROPOSED DRAINAGE Proposed drainage patterns are to remain generally the same as the current with the exception of the flows along the northern redeveloped portion of the site being routed to the proposed rain garden before discharging into the existing detention pond. The bioretention system will be utilized for low impact development (LID) treatment requirements of the site. The rain garden has been designed to treat the entire contributing basin plus the additional volume required to detain any excess runoff from the increase in imperviousness before flows enter the existing detention pond, this ensures that the 75% treatment requirement is exceeded. The bioretention systems will reduce runoff, treat and slowly release the water quality capture volume as part of the four step process for the City of Fort Collins criteria on BMP selection. The rain garden is designed to treat 1352 cubic feet of flows. This volume is the WQCV + excess 100-yr flows for the entire basin as shown in the FAA sheets in the appendix. For the purposes of calculations, the site was divided into 2 basins. Basin P1 includes a portion of the proposed building addition, portions of repaving, and part of a new concrete drainage pan. Historically Basin P1 includes the existing drainage facilities for the site. Historical drainage patterns will be maintained for this basin and flows are considered to be equal to existing conditions. Basin P2 will include the proposed additional asphalt parking area, a portion of the proposed building addition, a majority of the repaved area, and a rain garden with its appurtenant flow conveyance facilities. Flows gathered for treatment in the rain garden will be discharged into the existing detention pond and follow historical drainage patterns. Flows above the capacity of the rain garden will flow over the spillway and enter a D-type inlet and be routed to the existing detention pond. The improvements are not expected to have any affect on downstream facilities and will act to improve water quality and storage capacities. There are four downspouts draining into various drainage pans or trench drains. The downspouts along the southern portion of the proposed addition will drain into the rebuilt concrete pan and follow historical drainage patterns to the existing pond. An existing downspout along the northern portion of the existing building and a proposed downspout along the northern section of the proposed addition will be routed through trench drains into the rain garden to be pretreated before release into the existing pond. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 49 835 Wood Street Drainage Report Page 5 of 7 DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA HYDROLOGIC METHOD AND DESIGN STORM FREQUENCIES The drainage for the site was designed to meet or exceed the City of Fort Collins’s Standards and Specifications, including the Stormwater Criterial Manual which incorporates most of the Mile High Flood District’s (MFHD) Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual (USDCM). The design one hour point rainfall used for the 2 year and 100 year storm events are 0.82 inches and 2.86 inches respectively. The Rational Method (Q=CIA) was used to determine the storm runoff (Q) from the areas contributing to the new storm system, with composite runoff coefficients (C) and contributing areas (A) given for design points in sub-basins. The runoff coefficients for various land usages were obtained from FCDCM, Chapter 5. Intensities (I) were determined using the Time-Intensity- Frequency equations, and a calculated Time of Concentration (tc). Hydraulic Criteria. See Appendix B for the runoff coefficient calculations. HYDRAULIC CRITERIA The proposed drainage system has been designed to comply with the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. The MHFD UD-BMP spreadsheet version 3.07 was used to analyze the designed bioretention. Area drains were sized using MHFD’s USDCM Section 3.3.6 and calculations are included with the rational calculations in Appendix B. The FAA method was used to calculate existing and proposed volumes, calculations are located in the appendix. Complete drainage plans, details, dimensions, etc. are included in the grading and drainage plans in the site’s construction documents. VARIANCES FROM THE CRITERIA No variances are requested for this design. FOUR STEP PROCESS The Four Step Process implemented by the City of Fort Collins for stormwater quality management is: 1. Reduce runoff through use of Low Impact Development (LID) and Minimizing Directly Connected Impervious Area (MDCIA) 2. Implement BMPs that provide a WQCV with slow release. 3. Stabilize Streams 4. Implement site specific and other source control BMPs. This project is addressing this Four Step Process in the following ways; ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 50 835 Wood Street Drainage Report Page 6 of 7 1. The reduction of impervious area compared to historical, as well as the use of LID bioretention planters to reduce runoff 2. The use of the LID biorentention system to capture and slow release in concert with the existing detention facility. 3. There is no negative impact to stream erosion with the development of this site as compared to historical. 4. Runoff from cleaning and maintenance procedures will be routed along a path allowing for sedimentation and separation before entering the drainage facilities. Location of these activities is located at the furthest point source possible. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN GENERAL CONCEPT The site’s existing stormwater facilities and conveyance BMPs were designed to detain and treat the site as it exists today. The current design will provide pretreatment for the flows in 70% of the redevelopment area. Due to a relatively low increase in imperviousness (1.5%) the additional volume of storage within the rain garden (1378 cubic feet) will provide extra storage to ensure detention of flows higher than the WQCV. The proposed bioretention facility will treat storm runoff for a minimum of 50% of the modified or added impervious area on the site for water quality treatment prior to discharging into the existing detention area, satisfying the City of Fort Collins LID requirements. These features will facilitate sedimentation and filtration while limiting erosion, providing both treatment and slowed release of the water quality capture volume. The proposed redevelopment of this site will serve to limit water quality and quantity impacts to natural drainageways by decreasing the frequency, rate, duration, and volume of runoff. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION/EROSION CONTROL As site is less than 1 acre of disturbed area, an erosion control report is not required per City of Fort Collins Storm Criteria. However, an erosion control plan and escrow is submitted to meet with City requirements. During construction, temporary erosion and sediment control practices will be used to limit soil erosion and sediment discharge off the site and into public existing stormwater infrastructure. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL A temporary erosion control plan is to be implemented for the site during construction. Temporary erosion control measures include, but are not limited to, vehicle tracking control, concrete washout areas, and inlet and slope protection provided using erosion control wattles/sediment control logs, rock socks, etc. All temporary erosion control measures are to be removed after they are deemed unnecessary. A general erosion control plan has been provided in the civil construction documents. PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL Chapter 2 of the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District’s Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3 (USDCM) provides guidelines for the selection of appropriate permanent structural BMPs for a site that is to be developed or redeveloped. The 835 Wood Street is best characterized as a “conventional redevelopment” with under 1 acre of impervious area on the ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 51 835 Wood Street Drainage Report Page 7 of 7 project site. The BMP decision tree for such sites is provided in Figure 2-2 of the USDCM. As previously stated, the site and surrounding vicinity is comprised of hydrologic soil group Type B soils, per the NRCS soil survey. The existing storm system should have sufficient capacity for the sites runoff flows as the imperviousness and runoff from the site is less than the historical flows. CONCLUSIONS This Drainage Report for the 835 Wood Street has been prepared to comply with the stormwater criteria set by the City of Fort Collins and the Mile High Flood Control District. The proposed drainage system presented in this report is designed to convey the 100-year peak stormwater runoff through the site via the proposed and existing storm systems. Through calculations, modeling, and review of the proposed storm drain system, there appears to be adequate capacity to convey the proposed flows to the existing storm system. It can therefore be concluded that development of the 835 Wood Street complies with all of the stormwater jurisdictional criteria and will not adversely affect the existing streets, storm drain system and/or detention/water quality facilities. REFERENCES 1. City of Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, City of Fort Collins, December 2018. 2. “Geotechnical Investigation Proposed CNG Shop Expansion 835 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado”, CTL Thompson Incorporated, Dated April 24, 2020. 3. “Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual”, Mile High Flood District, August 2018 version. 4. USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 52 EXISTING BUILDING 835 Wood St, Fort Collins, CO 80521 S89°55'30"W 533.93' S0°04'30"E 276.00' S89°55'30"W 130.00' S0°04'30"E 198.00' N89°55'30"E 663.88'N0°04'07"W 474.00'S0°04'07"E 1327.64'S89°55'30"W 533.93'S0°04'30"E 276.00'S89°55'30"W 130.00'S0°04'30"E 198.00'N89°55'30"E 663.88'N0°04'07"W 474.00'59.66'REVISION DESCRIPTIOND'WNDES'DDATENO.DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: JOB #: DATE: © JVA, INC.CNG SHOP EXPANSION835 WOOD STREETFORT COLLINS. COSHEET NO. 3256c APRIL 08, 2022 ETN CDH CDH JVA, Inc.213 Linden Street, Suite 200 www.jvajva.com Fort Collins, CO 80524 970.225.9099 Boulder ● Fort Collins ● Winter Park Glenwood Springs ● Denver EXISTING DRAINAGEPLANEDP ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 53 EXISTING BUILDING 835 Wood St, Fort Collins, CO 80521 S89°55'30"W 533.93' S0°04'30"E 276.00' S89°55'30"W 130.00' S0°04'30"E 198.00' N89°55'30"E 663.88'N0°04'07"W 474.00'S0°04'07"E 1327.64'S89°55'30"W 533.93'S0°04'30"E 276.00'S89°55'30"W 130.00'S0°04'30"E 198.00'N89°55'30"E 663.88'N0°04'07"W 474.00'59.66'REVISION DESCRIPTIOND'WNDES'DDATENO.DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: JOB #: DATE: © JVA, INC.CNG SHOP EXPANSION835 WOOD STREETFORT COLLINS. COSHEET NO. 3256c APRIL 08, 2022 ETN CDH CDH JVA, Inc.213 Linden Street, Suite 200 www.jvajva.com Fort Collins, CO 80524 970.225.9099 Boulder ● Fort Collins ● Winter Park Glenwood Springs ● Denver PROPOSED DRAINAGEPLANDPP ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 54 APPENDIX A – REFERENCED INFORMATION ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 55 VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE PROJECT LOCATION ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 56 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 57 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 59 Larimer County Area, Colorado 105—Table Mountain loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpty Elevation: 4,800 to 5,600 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 150 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Table mountain and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Table Mountain Setting Landform:Stream terraces, flood plains Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 36 inches: loam H2 - 36 to 60 inches: clay loam Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.60 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum:5.0 Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 1 Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3c Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R049XY036CO - Overflow Map Unit Description: Table Mountain loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes---Larimer County Area, Colorado Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/2/2022 Page 1 of 2 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 60 Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Caruso Percent of map unit:7 percent Hydric soil rating: No Fluvaquentic haplustolls Percent of map unit:4 percent Landform:Terraces Hydric soil rating: Yes Paoli Percent of map unit:4 percent Hydric soil rating: No Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Larimer County Area, Colorado Survey Area Data: Version 16, Sep 2, 2021 Map Unit Description: Table Mountain loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes---Larimer County Area, Colorado Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/2/2022 Page 2 of 2 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 61 Larimer County Area, Colorado 81—Paoli fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpxx Elevation: 4,800 to 5,600 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 150 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Paoli and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Paoli Setting Landform:Stream terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 30 inches: fine sandy loam H2 - 30 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):High (2.00 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 8.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 1 Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3c Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R067BY036CO - Overflow Map Unit Description: Paoli fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes---Larimer County Area, Colorado Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/2/2022 Page 1 of 2 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 62 Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Caruso Percent of map unit:6 percent Ecological site:R067BY036CO - Overflow Hydric soil rating: No Table mountain Percent of map unit:6 percent Ecological site:R067BY036CO - Overflow Hydric soil rating: No Fluvaquentic haplustolls Percent of map unit:3 percent Landform:Terraces Hydric soil rating: Yes Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Larimer County Area, Colorado Survey Area Data: Version 16, Sep 2, 2021 Map Unit Description: Paoli fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes---Larimer County Area, Colorado Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/2/2022 Page 2 of 2 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 63 National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250 Feet Ü SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A, V, A99 With BFE or DepthZone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR Regulatory Floodway 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mileZone X Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood HazardZone X Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee. See Notes.Zone X Area with Flood Risk due to LeveeZone D NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X Area of Undetermined Flood HazardZone D Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer Levee, Dike, or Floodwall Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance 17.5 Water Surface Elevation Coastal Transect Coastal Transect Baseline Profile Baseline Hydrographic Feature Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) Effective LOMRs Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary Digital Data Available No Digital Data Available Unmapped This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 8/9/2022 at 4:24 PM and does not reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or become superseded by new data over time. This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for regulatory purposes. Legend OTHER AREAS OF FLOOD HAZARD OTHER AREAS GENERAL STRUCTURES OTHER FEATURES MAP PANELS 8 B 20.2 The pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent an authoritative property location. 1:6,000 105°5'49"W 40°36'10"N 105°5'11"W 40°35'42"N Basemap: USGS National Map: Orthoimagery: Data refreshed October, 2020 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 64 400 North Link Lane | Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Telephone: 970-206-9455 Fax: 970-206-9441 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED CNG SHOP EXPANSION 835 WOOD STREET FORT COLLINS, COLORADO CITY OF FORT COLLINS 835 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Attention: Blake Visser Project No. FC09298-125 April 24, 2020 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 65 CITY OF FORT COLLINS 835 WOOD STREET CNG SHOP EXPANSION CTLT PROJECT NO. FC09298-125 TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE 1 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 1 SITE CONDITIONS AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 2 INVESTIGATION 2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3 Groundwater 3 SEISMICITY 3 SITE DEVELOPMENT 4 Fill Placement 4 Excavations 5 FOUNDATIONS 5 Footings 5 BELOW GRADE AREAS 6 FLOOR SYSTEMS 7 Exterior Flatwork 9 PAVEMENTS 9 Pavement Selection 10 Subgrade and Pavement Materials and Construction 11 Pavement Maintenance 11 WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATES 11 SURFACE DRAINAGE 12 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS 12 GEOTECHNICAL RISK 13 LIMITATIONS 13 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 66 CITY OF FORT COLLINS 835 WOOD STREET CNG SHOP EXPANSION CTLT PROJECT NO. FC09298-125 FIGURE 1 – LOCATIONS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 2 – SUMMARY LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS APPENDIX A – RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTING APPENDIX B – SAMPLE SITE GRADING SPECIFICATIONS APPENDIX C – PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS APPENDIX D – PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE PROGRAM ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 67 CITY OF FORT COLLINS 835 WOOD STREET CNG SHOP EXPANSION CTLT PROJECT NO. FC09298-125 1 SCOPE This report presents the results of our Geotechnical Investigation for the proposed CNG shop expansion at 835 Wood Street in Fort Collins, Colorado. The purpose of the investigation was to evaluate the subsurface conditions and provide foundation recommendations and geotechnical design criteria for the project. The scope was described in our Service Agreement (Proposal No. FC-20-0094) dated February 26, 2020. The report was prepared from data developed during field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analysis and experience with similar conditions. The report includes a description of subsurface conditions found in our exploratory borings and discussions of site development as influenced by geotechnical considerations. Our opinions and recommendations regarding design criteria and construction details for site development, foundations, floor systems, slabs-on- grade, pavements and drainage are provided. The report was prepared for the exclusive use of the City of Fort Collins in design and construction of the proposed improvements. If the proposed construction differs from descriptions herein, we should be requested to review our recommendations. Our conclusions are summarized in the following paragraphs. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 1. Soils encountered in our borings consisted of 6 to 7 feet of clayey sand overlying sandy gravel to the depths explored. Groundwater was encountered at 10 to 12 feet in two of the borings. Existing groundwater levels are not expected to significantly affect site development. 2. Soft/loose soils were encountered in our borings. If soft soils are encountered, stabilization can likely be achieved by crowding 1½ to 3-inch nominal size crushed rock into the subsoils until the base of the excavation does not deform by more than about 1-inch when compactive effort is applied. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 68 CITY OF FORT COLLINS 835 WOOD STREET CNG SHOP EXPANSION CTLT PROJECT NO. FC09298-125 2 3. Footing foundations placed on natural, undisturbed soil and/or properly compacted fill are recommended for the proposed construction. Design and construction criteria for foundations are presented in the report. 4. We believe a slab-on-grade floor is appropriate for this site. Some movement of slab-on-grade floors should be anticipated. We expect movements will be minor, on the order of 1 inch or less. If movement cannot be tolerated, structural floors should be considered. 5. Surface drainage should be designed, constructed and maintained to provide rapid removal of surface runoff away from the proposed improvements. Conservative irrigation practices should be followed to avoid excessive wetting. 6. Samples of the subgrade soils generally classified as AASHTO A-2- 7. For the parking lot, we recommend 4 inches of hot mix asphalt over 6 inches of aggregate base course. Thicker sections are recommended for areas with heavier traffic. SITE CONDITIONS AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The site is located at 835 Wood Street in Fort Collins, Colorado (Figure 1). The site has a shop building with paved parking areas adjacent to the building. The construction area is relatively flat. Ground cover outside of the existing paved area consists of natural grasses, weeds and trees. There is a pond a few hundred feet to the east. We understand the proposed expansion will include a 6,000 square foot addition on the northwest side of the existing shop building. Pavements surrounding the addition will be reconstructed where destroyed during construction and additional areas may be paved. INVESTIGATION The field investigation included drilling four exploratory borings at the locations presented on Figure 1. The borings were drilled to depths of approximately 10 to 20 feet using 4-inch diameter, continuous-flight augers and a ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 69 CITY OF FORT COLLINS 835 WOOD STREET CNG SHOP EXPANSION CTLT PROJECT NO. FC09298-125 3 truck-mounted drill. Drilling was observed by our field representative who logged the soils. Summary logs of the borings, including results of field penetration resistance tests, are presented on Figure 2. Soil samples obtained during drilling were returned to our laboratory and visually examined by our geotechnical engineer. Laboratory testing was assigned and included moisture content, dry density, swell-consolidation, particle-size analysis and water-soluble sulfate tests. Swell-consolidation test samples were wetted at a confining pressure which approximated the pressure exerted by the overburden soils (overburden pressures). Results of the laboratory tests are presented in Appendix A and summarized in Table A-I. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Soils encountered in our borings consisted of 6 to 7 feet of clayey sand overlying sandy gravel to the depths explored. Swell-consolidation testing of the clayey sand indicated nil to 0.1 percent swell potential. The gravel is non- expansive. Bedrock was not encountered during the investigation. Further descriptions of the subsurface conditions are presented on our boring logs and in our laboratory test results. Groundwater Groundwater was encountered at 10 to 12 feet in two of the borings. Groundwater levels will fluctuate seasonally. Groundwater is not expected to affect construction at the site. We recommend a minimum separation of 3 feet from groundwater to foundations and floor systems. SEISMICITY This area, like most of central Colorado, is subject to a low degree of seismic risk. As in most areas of recognized low seismicity, the record of the past ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 70 CITY OF FORT COLLINS 835 WOOD STREET CNG SHOP EXPANSION CTLT PROJECT NO. FC09298-125 4 earthquake activity in Colorado is incomplete. According to the 2015 International Building Code and the subsurface conditions encountered in our borings, this site probably classifies as a Site Class D. Only minor damage to relatively new, properly designed and built buildings would be expected. Wind loads, not seismic considerations, typically govern dynamic structural design for the structures planned in this area. SITE DEVELOPMENT Fill Placement The existing onsite soils are suitable for re-use as fill material provided debris or deleterious organic materials are removed. If import material is used, it should be tested and approved as acceptable fill by CTL|Thompson. In general, import fill should meet or exceed the engineering qualities of the onsite soils. Areas to receive fill should be scarified, moisture-conditioned and compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D698, AASHTO T99). Stabilization can likely be achieved by crowding 1½ to 3-inch nominal size crushed rock into the subsoils until the base of the excavation does not deform by more than about 1-inch when compactive effort is applied. Sand soils used as fill should be moistened to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content. Clay soils should be moistened between optimum and 3 percent above optimum moisture content. The fill should be moisture-conditioned, placed in thin, loose lifts (8 inches or less) and compacted as described above. We should observe placement and compaction of fill during construction. Fill placement and compaction should not be conducted when the fill material is frozen. Site grading in areas of landscaping where no future improvements are planned can be placed at a dry density of at least 90 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698, AASHTO T 99). Example site grading specifications are presented in Appendix B. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 71 CITY OF FORT COLLINS 835 WOOD STREET CNG SHOP EXPANSION CTLT PROJECT NO. FC09298-125 5 Excavations We believe the materials found in our borings can be excavated using conventional excavation equipment. Excavations should be sloped or shored to meet local, State and Federal safety regulations. Based on our investigation and OSHA standards, we believe the granular soils classify as Type C soils. Type C soils require a maximum slope inclination of 1.5:1 in dry conditions. Excavation slopes specified by OSHA are dependent upon types of soil and groundwater conditions encountered. The contractor’s “competent person” should identify the soils and/or rock encountered in the excavation and refer to OSHA standards to determine appropriate slopes. Stockpiles of soils, rock, equipment, or other items should not be placed within a horizontal distance equal to one-half the excavation depth, from the edge of excavation. Excavations deeper than 20 feet should be braced or a professional engineer should design the slopes. FOUNDATIONS Our investigation indicates non-expansive to slightly expansive soils are present at the anticipated foundation levels. Footing foundations are recommended for the proposed construction. Design criteria for footing foundations developed from analysis of field and laboratory data and our experience are presented below. Footings 1. Footings should be constructed on undisturbed natural soils or properly compacted fill (see the Fill Placement section of this report). All existing, uncontrolled fill should be removed from under footings and within one footing width around footings and replaced with properly compacted fill. Where soil is loosened during excavation, it should be removed and replaced with compacted fill. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 72 CITY OF FORT COLLINS 835 WOOD STREET CNG SHOP EXPANSION CTLT PROJECT NO. FC09298-125 6 2. Soft soils were encountered in our borings. If soft soils are encountered, stabilization can likely be achieved by crowding 1½ to 3-inch nominal size crushed rock into the subsoils until the base of the excavation does not deform by more than about 1-inch when compactive effort is applied. 3. Footings should be designed for a net allowable soil pressure of 1,500 psf. The soil pressure can be increased 33 percent for transient loads such as wind or seismic loads. 4. Footings should have a minimum width of at least 18 inches. Foundations for isolated columns should have minimum dimensions of 24 inches by 24 inches. Larger sizes may be required depending on loads and the structural system used. 5. The soils beneath footing pads can be assigned an ultimate coefficient of friction of 0.4 to resist lateral loads. The ability of grade beam or footing backfill to resist lateral loads can be calculated using a passive equivalent fluid pressure of 250 pcf. This assumes the backfill is densely compacted and will not be removed. Deflection of grade beams is necessary to mobilize passive earth pressure; we recommend a factor of safety of 2 for this condition. Backfill should be placed and compacted to the criteria in the Fill Placement section of this report. 6. Exterior footings should be protected from frost action. We believe 30 inches of frost cover is appropriate for this site. 7. Foundation walls and grade beams should be well reinforced both top and bottom. We recommend reinforcement sufficient to simply span 10 feet. The reinforcement should be designed by a structural engineer. 8. We should observe completed footing excavations to confirm whether the subsurface conditions are similar to those found in our borings. BELOW GRADE AREAS No below grade areas are planned for the buildings. For this condition, perimeter drains are not usually necessary. We should be contacted to provide foundation drain recommendations if plans change to include below grade areas. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 73 CITY OF FORT COLLINS 835 WOOD STREET CNG SHOP EXPANSION CTLT PROJECT NO. FC09298-125 7 FLOOR SYSTEMS In our opinion, it is reasonable to use slab-on-grade floors for the proposed construction. Any fill placed for the floor subgrade should be built with densely compacted, engineered fill as discussed in the Fill Placement section of this report. It is impossible to construct slab-on-grade floors with no risk of movement. We believe movements due to swell will be less than 1 inch at this site. If movement cannot be tolerated, structural floors should be used. Structural floors can be considered for specific areas that are particularly sensitive to movement or where equipment on the floor is sensitive to movement. Where structurally supported floors are selected, we recommend a minimum void between the ground surface and the underside of the floor system of 4 inches. The minimum void should be constructed below beams and utilities that penetrate the floor. The floor may be cast over void form. Void form should be chosen to break down quickly after the slab is placed. We recommend against the use of wax or plastic-coated void boxes. Slabs may be subject to heavy point loads. The structural engineer should design floor slab reinforcement. For design of slabs-on-grade, we recommend a modulus of subgrade reaction of 100 pci for on-site soils. If the owner elects to use slab-on-grade construction and accepts the risk of movement and associated damage, we recommend the following precautions for slab-on-grade construction at this site. These precautions can help reduce, but not eliminate, damage or distress due to slab movement. 1. Slabs should be separated from exterior walls and interior bearing members with a slip joint that allows free vertical movement of the slabs. This can reduce cracking if some movement of the slab occurs. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 74 CITY OF FORT COLLINS 835 WOOD STREET CNG SHOP EXPANSION CTLT PROJECT NO. FC09298-125 8 2. Slabs should be placed directly on exposed soils or properly moisture conditioned, compacted fill. The 2019 International Building Code (IBC) requires a vapor retarder be placed between the base course or subgrade soils and the concrete slab-on-grade floor. The merits of installation of a vapor retarder below floor slabs depend on the sensitivity of floor coverings and building use to moisture. A properly installed vapor retarder (minimum 6-mil; 10-mil recommended) is more beneficial below concrete slab-on-grade floors where floor coverings, painted floor surfaces or products stored on the floor will be sensitive to moisture. The vapor retarder is most effective when concrete is placed directly on top of it, rather than placing a sand or gravel leveling course between the vapor retarder and the floor slab. The placement of concrete on the vapor retarder may increase the risk of shrinkage cracking and curling. Use of concrete with reduced shrinkage characteristics including minimized water content, maximized coarse aggregate content, and reasonably low slump will reduce the risk of shrinkage cracking and curling. Considerations and recommendations for the installation of vapor retarders below concrete slabs are outlined in Section 3.2.3 of the 2006 report of American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 302, “Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction (ACI 302.R1-04)”. 3. If slab-bearing partitions are used, they should be designed and constructed to allow for slab movement. At least a 2-inch void should be maintained below or above the partitions. If the “float” is provided at the top of partitions, the connection between interior, slab- supported partitions and exterior, foundation supported walls should be detailed to allow differential movement. 4. Underslab plumbing should be eliminated where feasible. Where such plumbing is unavoidable it should be thoroughly pressure tested for leaks prior to slab construction and be provided with flexible couplings. Pressurized water supply lines should be brought above the floors as quickly as possible. 5. Plumbing and utilities that pass through the slabs should be isolated from the slabs and constructed with flexible couplings. Where water and gas lines are connected to furnaces or heaters, the lines should be constructed with sufficient flexibility to allow for movement. 6. HVAC equipment supported on the slab should be provided with a collapsible connection between the furnace and the ductwork, with allowance for at least 2 inches of vertical movement. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 75 CITY OF FORT COLLINS 835 WOOD STREET CNG SHOP EXPANSION CTLT PROJECT NO. FC09298-125 9 7. The American Concrete Institute (ACI) recommends frequent control joints be provided in slabs to reduce problems associated with shrinkage cracking and curling. To reduce curling, the concrete mix should have a high aggregate content and a low slump. If desired, a shrinkage compensating admixture could be added to the concrete to reduce the risk of shrinkage cracking. We can perform a mix design or assist the design team in selecting a pre-existing mix. Exterior Flatwork We recommend exterior flatwork and sidewalks be isolated from foundations to reduce the risk of transferring heave, settlement or freeze-thaw movement to the structure. One alternative would be to construct the inner edges of the flatwork on haunches or steel angles bolted to the foundation walls and detailing the connections such that movement will cause less distress to the building, rather than tying the slabs directly into the building foundation. Construction on haunches or steel angles and reinforcing the sidewalks and other exterior flatwork will reduce the potential for differential settlement and better allow them to span across wall backfill. Frequent control joints should be provided to reduce problems associated with shrinkage. Panels that are approximately square perform better than rectangular areas. PAVEMENTS The project will include paved parking. The performance of pavements is dependent upon the characteristics of the subgrade soil, traffic loading and frequency, climatic conditions, drainage and pavement materials. We drilled two exploratory borings and conducted laboratory tests to characterize the subgrade soils, which consisted of clayey sand. The subgrade soils classified as A-2-7 soils in accordance with AASHTO procedures. The subgrade soil will likely provide fair to poor support for new pavement. If fill is needed, we have assumed it will be soils with similar or better characteristics. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 76 CITY OF FORT COLLINS 835 WOOD STREET CNG SHOP EXPANSION CTLT PROJECT NO. FC09298-125 10 Flexible hot mix asphalt (HMA) over aggregate base course (ABC) is likely planned for pavement areas. Rigid Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement should be used for trash enclosure areas and where the pavement will be subjected to frequent turning of heavy vehicles. Our designs are based on the AASHTO design method and our experience. Using the criteria discussed above we recommend the minimum pavement sections provided in Table A. TABLE A RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT SECTIONS Classification Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) + Aggregate Base Course (ABC) Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) Parking Area 4" HMA + 6" ABC 5" PCC Access Drives / Heavy Traffic Areas 5" HMA + 6" ABC 6" PCC Trash Enclosures - 6" PCC Pavement Selection Composite HMA/ABC pavement over a stable subgrade is expected to perform well at this site based on the recommendations provided. HMA provides a stiff, stable pavement to withstand heavy loading and will provide a good fatigue resistant pavement. However, HMA does not perform well when subjected to point loads in areas where heavy trucks turn and maneuver at slow speeds. PCC pavement is expected to perform well in this area; PCC pavement has better performance in freeze-thaw conditions and should require less long-term maintenance than HMA pavement. The PCC pavement for trash enclosures should extend out to areas where trash trucks park to lift and empty dumpsters. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 77 CITY OF FORT COLLINS 835 WOOD STREET CNG SHOP EXPANSION CTLT PROJECT NO. FC09298-125 11 Subgrade and Pavement Materials and Construction The design of a pavement system is as much a function of the quality of the paving materials and construction as the support characteristics of the subgrade. The construction materials are assumed to possess sufficient quality as reflected by the strength factors used in our design calculations. Moisture treatment criteria and additional criteria for materials and construction requirements are presented in Appendix C of this report. Pavement Maintenance Routine maintenance, such as sealing and repair of cracks, is necessary to achieve the long-term life of a pavement system. We recommend a preventive maintenance program be developed and followed for all pavement systems to assure the design life can be realized. Choosing to defer maintenance usually results in accelerated deterioration leading to higher future maintenance costs, and/or repair. A recommended maintenance program is outlined in Appendix D. Excavation of completed pavement for utility construction or repair can destroy the integrity of the pavement and result in a severe decrease in serviceability. To restore the pavement top original serviceability, careful backfill compaction before repaving is necessary. WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATES Concrete that comes into contact with soils can be subject to sulfate attack. We measured water-soluble sulfate concentrations in two samples from this site. Concentrations were below measurable limits. Sulfate concentrations less than 0.1 percent indicate Class 0 exposure to sulfate attack for concrete that comes into contact with the subsoils, according to the American Concrete Institute (ACI). For this level of sulfate concentration, ACI indicates there are no special requirements for sulfate resistance. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 78 CITY OF FORT COLLINS 835 WOOD STREET CNG SHOP EXPANSION CTLT PROJECT NO. FC09298-125 12 Superficial damage may occur to the exposed surfaces of highly permeable concrete, even though sulfate levels are relatively low. To control this risk and to resist freeze-thaw deterioration, the water-to-cementitious materials ratio should not exceed 0.50 for concrete in contact with soils that are likely to stay moist due to surface drainage or high water tables. Concrete should have a total air content of 6 percent ± 1.5 percent. We advocate all foundation walls and grade beams in contact with the soil (including the inside and outside faces of garage and crawl space grade beams) be damp-proofed. SURFACE DRAINAGE Performance of foundations, flatwork and pavements are influenced by changes in subgrade moisture conditions. Carefully planned and maintained surface grading can reduce the risk of wetting of the foundation soils and pavement subgrade. We recommend a minimum slope of 5 percent in the first ten feet outside foundations in landscaped areas. Backfill around foundations should be moisture treated and compacted as described in Fill Placement. Roof drains should be directed away from buildings. Downspout extensions and splash blocks should be provided at discharge points, or roof drains should be connected to solid pipe discharge systems. We do not recommend directing roof drains under buildings. CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS We recommend that CTL | Thompson, Inc. provide construction observation services to allow us the opportunity to verify whether soil conditions are consistent with those found during this investigation. Other observations are recommended to review general conformance with design plans. If others perform these observations, they must accept responsibility to judge whether the recommendations in this report remain appropriate. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 79 CITY OF FORT COLLINS 835 WOOD STREET CNG SHOP EXPANSION CTLT PROJECT NO. FC09298-125 13 GEOTECHNICAL RISK The concept of risk is an important aspect with any geotechnical evaluation primarily because the methods used to develop geotechnical recommendations do not comprise an exact science. We never have complete knowledge of subsurface conditions. Our analysis must be tempered with engineering judgment and experience. Therefore, the recommendations presented in any geotechnical evaluation should not be considered risk-free. Our recommendations represent our judgment of those measures that are necessary to increase the chances that the structures will perform satisfactorily. It is critical that all recommendations in this report are followed during construction. Owners must assume responsibility for maintaining the structures and use appropriate practices regarding drainage and landscaping. Improvements performed by owners after construction, such as construction of additions, retaining walls, landscaping and exterior flatwork, should be completed in accordance with recommendations in this report. LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of City of Fort Collins for the purpose of providing geotechnical design and construction criteria for the proposed project. The information, conclusions, and recommendations presented herein are based upon consideration of many factors including, but not limited to, the type of construction proposed, the geologic setting, and the subsurface conditions encountered. The conclusions and recommendations contained in the report are not valid for use by others. Standards of practice evolve in the area of geotechnical engineering. The recommendations provided are appropriate for about three years. If the proposed construction is not constructed within about three years, we should be contacted to determine if we should update this report. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 80 CITY OF FORT COLLINS 835 WOOD STREET CNG SHOP EXPANSION CTLT PROJECT NO. FC09298-125 14 Four borings were drilled during this investigation to obtain a reasonably accurate picture of the subsurface conditions. Variations in the subsurface conditions not indicated by our borings are possible. A representative of our firm should observe foundation excavations to confirm the exposed materials are as anticipated from our borings. We believe this investigation was conducted with that level of skill and care ordinarily used by geotechnical engineers practicing under similar conditions. No warranty, express or implied, is made. If we can be of further service in discussing the contents of this report or in the analysis of the influence of subsurface conditions on design of the structures, please call. CTLTHOMPSON, INC. Trace Krausse, EI Spencer Schram, PE Project Geotechnical Engineer Project Engineer TSK:SAS ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 81 TH-3 TH-2 TH-1 TH-4 Wood StreetSITE SYCAMORE ST.WOOD ST.VINE DR.TAFT HILL RD.ELM ST. LEGEND: INDICATES APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING TH-1 CITY OF FORT COLLINS 835 WOOD STREET CNG SHOP EXPANSION CTL I T PROJECT NO. FC09298-125 FIGURE 1 Locations of Exploratory Borings VICINITY MAP FORT COLLINS, COLORADO NOT TO SCALE 100' APPROXIMATE SCALE: 1" = 100' 50'0' ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 82 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40DEPTH - FEETSummary Logs of Exploratory Borings FIGURE 2 CITY OF FORT COLLINS 835 WOOD STREET CNG SHOP EXPANSION CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC09298-125 3/12 15/12 50/6 WC=13.0DD=105SW=0.0 WC=4.8-200=4 TH-1 4/12 40/12 WC=16.8DD=111SW=0.0SS=<0.01 WC=3.6-200=5 TH-2 6/12 41/12 WC=6.9DD=102SW=0.1 TH-3 6/12 50/6 WC=7.5DD=106-200=33 TH-4 1. NOTES: DRIVE SAMPLE. THE SYMBOL 3/12 INDICATES 3 BLOWS OF A 140-POUND HAMMER FALLING 30 INCHES WERE REQUIRED TO DRIVE A 2.5-INCH O.D. SAMPLER 12 INCHES. INDICATES MOISTURE CONTENT (%). INDICATES DRY DENSITY (PCF). INDICATES SWELL WHEN WETTED UNDER OVERBURDEN PRESSURE (%). INDICATES PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE (%). INDICATES SOLUBLE SULFATE CONTENT (%). THESE LOGS ARE SUBJECT TO THE EXPLANATIONS, LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS IN THIS REPORT. SAND, CLAYEY, MOIST, VERY LOOSE TO LOOSE, BROWN (SC) 3. LEGEND: GRAVEL, SANDY, MOIST TO WET, MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, BROWN (GP) - - - - - THE BORINGS WERE DRILLED ON MARCH 30, 2020 USING 4-INCH DIAMETER CONTINUOUS-FLIGHT AUGERS AND A TRUCK-MOUNTED DRILL RIG. 2. WC DD SW -200 SS ASPHALTIC CONCRETE (AC) WATER LEVEL MEASURED AT TIME OF DRILLING. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 DEPTH - FEET5/12 4/12 WC=7.5-200=20 6/12 WC=14.5DD=106LL=25 PI=7-200=50 5" AC 4.5" AC ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 83 APPENDIX A RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTING ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 84 Sample of SAND, CLAYEY (SC) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=102 PCF From TH - 3 AT 2 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=6.9 % Sample of SAND, CLAYEY (SC) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=105 PCF From TH - 1 AT 4 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=13.0 % CITY OF FORT COLLINS 835 WOOD STREET CNG SHOP EXPANSION CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC09298-125 APPLIED PRESSURE -KSF APPLIED PRESSURE -KSFCOMPRESSION % EXPANSIONSwell Consolidation Test Results FIGURE A-1COMPRESSION % EXPANSION-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE DUE TO WETTING -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 NO MOVEMENT DUE TO WETTING 0.1 1.0 10 100 0.1 1.0 10 100 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 85 Sample of SAND, CLAYEY (SC) DRY UNIT WEIGHT=111 PCF From TH - 2 AT 2 FEET MOISTURE CONTENT=16.8 % CITY OF FORT COLLINS 835 WOOD STREET CNG SHOP EXPANSION CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC09298-125 APPLIED PRESSURE -KSFCOMPRESSION % EXPANSIONSwell Consolidation Test Results FIGURE A-2 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NO MOVEMENT DUE TO WETTING 0.1 1.0 10 100 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 86 Sample of GRAVEL, SANDY (GP)GRAVEL 51 %SAND 45 % From TH - 1 AT 14 FEET SILT & CLAY 4 %LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX % Sample of GRAVEL, SANDY (GP)GRAVEL 51 %SAND 44 % From TH - 2 AT 9 FEET SILT & CLAY 5 %LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX % CITY OF FORT COLLINS 835 WOOD STREET CNG SHOP EXPANSION CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC09298-125 FIGURE A-3 Gradation Test Results 0.002 15 MIN. .005 60 MIN. .009 19 MIN. .019 4 MIN. .037 1 MIN. .074 *200 .149 *100 .297 *50 0.42 *40 .590 *30 1.19 *16 2.0 *10 2.38 *8 4.76 *4 9.52 3/8" 19.1 3/4" 36.1 1½" 76.2 3" 127 5" 152 6" 200 8" .001 45 MIN. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC)SANDS FINE MEDIUM COARSE GRAVEL FINE COARSE COBBLES DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS 25 HR.7 HR. HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS PERCENT PASSING0 10 20 30 50 60 70 80 90 100 PERCENT RETAINED40 0.002 15 MIN. .005 60 MIN. .009 19 MIN. .019 4 MIN. .037 1 MIN. .074 *200 .149 *100 .297 *50 0.42 *40 .590 *30 1.19 *16 2.0 *10 2.38 *8 4.76 *4 9.52 3/8" 19.1 3/4" 36.1 1½" 76.2 3" 127 5" 152 6" 200 8" .001 45 MIN. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC)SANDS FINE MEDIUM COARSE GRAVEL FINE COARSE COBBLES DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS 25 HR.7 HR. HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS PERCENT PASSINGPERCENT RETAINED0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 87 Sample of SAND, CLAYEY (SC)GRAVEL 4 %SAND 76 % From TH - 3 AT 4 FEET SILT & CLAY 20 %LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX % Sample of SAND, CLAYEY (SC)GRAVEL 3 %SAND 64 % From TH - 4 AT 2 FEET SILT & CLAY 33 %LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX % CITY OF FORT COLLINS 835 WOOD STREET CNG SHOP EXPANSION CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC09298-125 FIGURE A-4 Gradation Test Results 0.002 15 MIN. .005 60 MIN. .009 19 MIN. .019 4 MIN. .037 1 MIN. .074 *200 .149 *100 .297 *50 0.42 *40 .590 *30 1.19 *16 2.0 *10 2.38 *8 4.76 *4 9.52 3/8" 19.1 3/4" 36.1 1½" 76.2 3" 127 5" 152 6" 200 8" .001 45 MIN. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC)SANDS FINE MEDIUM COARSE GRAVEL FINE COARSE COBBLES DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS 25 HR.7 HR. HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS PERCENT PASSING0 10 20 30 50 60 70 80 90 100 PERCENT RETAINED40 0.002 15 MIN. .005 60 MIN. .009 19 MIN. .019 4 MIN. .037 1 MIN. .074 *200 .149 *100 .297 *50 0.42 *40 .590 *30 1.19 *16 2.0 *10 2.38 *8 4.76 *4 9.52 3/8" 19.1 3/4" 36.1 1½" 76.2 3" 127 5" 152 6" 200 8" .001 45 MIN. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON-PLASTIC)SANDS FINE MEDIUM COARSE GRAVEL FINE COARSE COBBLES DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS 25 HR.7 HR. HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS PERCENT PASSINGPERCENT RETAINED0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 88 PASSING WATER- MOISTURE DRY LIQUID PLASTICITY APPLIED NO. 200 SOLUBLE DEPTH CONTENT DENSITY LIMIT INDEX SWELL*PRESSURE SIEVE SULFATES BORING (FEET)(%)(PCF)(%)(PSF)(%)(%)DESCRIPTION TH-3 2 6.9 102 0.1 150 SAND, CLAYEY (SC) TH-1 4 13.0 105 0.0 500 SAND, CLAYEY (SC) TH-1 14 4.8 4 GRAVEL, SANDY (GP) TH-2 2 16.8 111 0.0 500 <0.01 SAND, CLAYEY (SC) TH-2 9 3.6 5 GRAVEL, SANDY (GP) TH-3 2 <0.01 SAND, CLAYEY (SC) TH-3 4 7.5 20 SAND, CLAYEY (SC) TH-4 2 7.5 106 33 SAND, CLAYEY (SC) TH-4 4 14.5 106 25 7 50 SAND, CLAYEY (SC) SWELL TEST RESULTS* TABLE A-I SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING ATTERBERG LIMITS Page 1 of 1 * NEGATIVE VALUE INDICATES COMPRESSION. CITY OF FORT COLLINS 835 WOOD STREET CNG SHOP EXPANSION CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC09298-125 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 89 APPENDIX B SAMPLE SITE GRADING SPECIFICATIONS ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 90 CITY OF FORT COLLINS 835 WOOD STREET CNG SHOP EXPANSION CTLT PROJECT NO. FC09298-125 B-1 SAMPLE SITE GRADING SPECIFICATIONS 1. DESCRIPTION This item shall consist of the excavation, transportation, placement and compaction of materials from locations indicated on the plans, or staked by the Engineer, as necessary to achieve building site elevations. 2. GENERAL The Geotechnical Engineer shall be the Owner's representative. The Geotechnical Engineer shall approve fill materials, method of placement, moisture contents and percent compaction, and shall give written approval of the completed fill. 3. CLEARING JOB SITE The Contractor shall remove all trees, brush and rubbish before excavation or fill placement is begun. The Contractor shall dispose of the cleared material to provide the Owner with a clean, neat appearing job site. Cleared material shall not be placed in areas to receive fill or where the material will support structures of any kind. 4. SCARIFYING AREA TO BE FILLED All topsoil and vegetable matter shall be removed from the ground surface upon which fill is to be placed. The surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a depth of 8 inches until the surface is free from ruts, hummocks or other uneven features, which would prevent uniform compaction by the equipment to be used. 5. COMPACTING AREA TO BE FILLED After the foundation for the fill has been cleared and scarified, it shall be disked or bladed until it is free from large clods, brought to the proper moisture content and compacted to not less than 95 percent of maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D 698 or AASHTO T 99. 6. FILL MATERIALS On-site materials classifying as CL, SC, SM, SW, SP, GP, GC and GM are acceptable. Fill soils shall be free from organic matter, debris, or other deleterious substances, and shall not contain rocks or lumps having a diameter greater than three (3) inches. Fill materials shall be obtained from the existing fill and other approved sources. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 91 CITY OF FORT COLLINS 835 WOOD STREET CNG SHOP EXPANSION CTLT PROJECT NO. FC09298-125 B-2 7. MOISTURE CONTENT Fill materials shall be moisture treated. Clay soils placed below the building envelope should be moisture-treated to between optimum and 3 percent above optimum moisture content as determined from Standard Proctor compaction tests. Clay soil placed exterior to the building should be moisture treated between optimum and 3 percent above optimum moisture content. Sand soils can be moistened to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content. Sufficient laboratory compaction tests shall be performed to determine the optimum moisture content for the various soils encountered in borrow areas. The Contractor may be required to add moisture to the excavation materials in the borrow area if, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer, it is not possible to obtain uniform moisture content by adding water on the fill surface. The Contractor may be required to rake or disk the fill soils to provide uniform moisture content through the soils. The application of water to embankment materials shall be made with any type of watering equipment approved by the Geotechnical Engineer, which will give the desired results. Water jets from the spreader shall not be directed at the embankment with such force that fill materials are washed out. Should too much water be added to any part of the fill, such that the material is too wet to permit the desired compaction from being obtained, rolling and all work on that section of the fill shall be delayed until the material has been allowed to dry to the required moisture content. The Contractor will be permitted to rework wet material in an approved manner to hasten its drying. 8. COMPACTION OF FILL AREAS Selected fill material shall be placed and mixed in evenly spread layers. After each fill layer has been placed, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than the specified percentage of maximum dry density. Fill materials shall be placed such that the thickness of loose material does not exceed 8 inches and the compacted lift thickness does not exceed 6 inches. Fill placed under foundations, exterior flatwork and pavements should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of maximum standard Proctor dry density (ASTM D698). Compaction, as specified above, shall be obtained by the use of sheepsfoot rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other equipment approved by the Engineer. Compaction shall be accomplished while the fill material is at the specified moisture content. Compaction of each layer shall be continuous over the entire area. Compaction equipment shall make sufficient trips to insure that the required dry density is obtained. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 92 CITY OF FORT COLLINS 835 WOOD STREET CNG SHOP EXPANSION CTLT PROJECT NO. FC09298-125 B-3 9. COMPACTION OF SLOPES Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other suitable equipment. Compaction operations shall be continued until slopes are stable, but not too dense for planting, and there is no appreciable amount of loose soil on the slopes. Compaction of slopes may be done progressively in increments of three to five feet (3' to 5') in height or after the fill is brought to its total height. Permanent fill slopes shall not exceed 3:1 (horizontal to vertical). 10. DENSITY TESTS Field density tests shall be made by the Geotechnical Engineer at locations and depths of his choosing. Where sheepsfoot rollers are used, the soil may be disturbed to a depth of several inches. Density tests shall be taken in compacted material below the disturbed surface. When density tests indicate that the dry density or moisture content of any layer of fill or portion thereof is below that required, the particular layer or portion shall be reworked until the required dry density or moisture content has been achieved. 11. SEASONAL LIMITS No fill material shall be placed, spread or rolled while it is frozen, thawing, or during unfavorable weather conditions. When work is interrupted by heavy precipitation, fill operations shall not be resumed until the Geotechnical Engineer indicates that the moisture content and dry density of previously placed materials are as specified. 12. NOTICE REGARDING START OF GRADING The contractor shall submit notification to the Geotechnical Engineer and Owner advising them of the start of grading operations at least three (3) days in advance of the starting date. Notification shall also be submitted at least 3 days in advance of any resumption dates when grading operations have been stopped for any reason other than adverse weather conditions. 13. REPORTING OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS Density tests performed by the Geotechnical Engineer, as specified under "Density Tests" above, shall be submitted progressively to the Owner. Dry density, moisture content and percent compaction shall be reported for each test taken. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 93 APPENDIX C PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 94 CITY OF FORT COLLINS 835 WOOD STREET EXPANSION CTLT PROJECT NO. FC09298-125 C-1 SUBGRADE PREPARATION Moisture Treated Subgrade (MTS) 1. The subgrade should be stripped of organic matter, scarified, moisture treated and compacted to the specifications stated below in Item 2. The compacted subgrade should extend at least 3 feet beyond the edge of the pavement where no edge support, such as curb and gutter, are to be constructed. 2. Sandy and gravelly soils (A-1-a, A-1-b, A-3, A-2-4, A-2-5, A-2-6, A- 2-7) should be moisture conditioned near optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698, AASHTO T 99). Clayey soils (A-6, A-7-5, A-7-6) should be moisture conditioned between optimum and 3 percent above optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698, AASHTO T 99). 3. Utility trenches and all subsequently placed fill should be properly compacted and tested prior to paving. As a minimum, fill should be compacted to 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density. 4. Final grading of the subgrade should be carefully controlled so the design cross-slope is maintained and low spots in the subgrade that could trap water are eliminated. 5. Once final subgrade elevation has been compacted and tested to compliance and shaped to the required cross-section, the area should be proof-rolled using a minimum axle load of 18 kips per axle. The proof-roll should be performed while moisture contents of the subgrade are still within the recommended limits. Drying of the subgrade prior to proof-roll or paving should be avoided. 6. Areas that are observed by the Engineer that have soft spots in the subgrade, or where deflection is not uniform of soft or wet subgrade shall be ripped, scarified, dried or wetted as necessary and recompacted to the requirements for the density and moisture. As an alternative, those areas may be sub-excavated and replaced with properly compacted structural backfill. Where extensively soft, yielding subgrade is encountered; we recommend a representative of our office observe the excavation. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 95 CITY OF FORT COLLINS 835 WOOD STREET CNG SHOP EXPANSION CTLT PROJECT NO. FC09298-125 C-2 PAVEMENT MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION Aggregate Base Course (ABC) 1. A Class 5 or 6 Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) specified ABC should be used. A reclaimed concrete pavement (RCP) alternative which meets the Class 5 or 6 designation and design R-value/strength coefficient is also acceptable. Blending of recycled products with ABC may be considered. 2. Bases should have a minimum Hveem stabilometer value of 72, or greater. ABC, RAP, RCP, or blended materials must be moisture stable. The change in R-value from 300-psi to 100-psi exudation pressure should be 12 points or less. 3. ABC or RCP bases should be placed in thin lifts not to exceed 6 inches and moisture treated to near optimum moisture content. Bases should be moisture treated to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698, AASHTO T 99). 4. Placement and compaction of ABC or RCP should be observed and tested by a representative of our firm. Placement should not commence until the underlying subgrade is properly prepared and tested. Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) 1. HMA should be composed of a mixture of aggregate, filler, hydrated lime, and asphalt cement. Some mixes may require polymer modified asphalt cement, or make use of up to 20 percent reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP). A job mix design is recommended and periodic checks on the job site should be made to verify compliance with specifications. 2. HMA should be relatively impermeable to moisture and should be designed with crushed aggregates that have a minimum of 80 percent of the aggregate retained on the No. 4 sieve with two mechanically fractured faces. 3. Gradations that approach the maximum density line (within 5 percent between the No. 4 and 50 sieves) should be avoided. A gradation with a nominal maximum size of 1 or 2 inches developed on the fine side of the maximum density line should be used. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 96 CITY OF FORT COLLINS 835 WOOD STREET CNG SHOP EXPANSION CTLT PROJECT NO. FC09298-125 C-3 4. Total void content, voids in the mineral aggregate (VMA) and voids filled should be considered in the selection of the optimum asphalt cement content. The optimum asphalt content should be selected at a total air void content of approximately 4 percent. The mixture should have a minimum VMA of 14 percent and between 65 percent and 80 percent of voids filled. 5. Asphalt cement should meet the requirements of the Superpave Performance Graded (PG) Binders. The minimum performing asphalt cement should conform to the requirements of the governing agency. 6. Hydrated lime should be added at the rate of 1 percent by dry weight of the aggregate and should be included in the amount passing the No. 200 sieve. Hydrated lime for aggregate pretreatment should conform to the requirements of ASTM C 207, Type N. 7. Paving should be performed on properly prepared, unfrozen surfaces that are free of water, snow and ice. Paving should only be performed when both air and surface temperatures equal, or exceed, the temperatures specified in Table 401-3 of the 2006 Colorado Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. 8. HMA should not be placed at a temperature lower than 245oF for mixes containing PG 64-22 asphalt, and 290oF for mixes containing polymer-modified asphalt. The breakdown compaction should be completed before the HMA temperature drops 20oF. 9. Wearing surface course shall be Grading S or SX for residential roadway classifications and Grading S for collector, arterial, industrial, and commercial roadway classifications. 10. The minimum/maximum lift thicknesses for Grade SX shall be 1½ inches/2½ inches. The minimum/maximum lift thicknesses for Grade S shall be 2 inches/3½ inches. The minimum/maximum lift thicknesses for Grade SG shall be 3 inches/5 inches. 11. Joints should be staggered. No joints should be placed within wheel paths. 12. HMA should be compacted to between 92 and 96 percent of Maximum Theoretical Density. The surface shall be sealed with a finish roller prior to the mix cooling to 185oF. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 97 CITY OF FORT COLLINS 835 WOOD STREET CNG SHOP EXPANSION CTLT PROJECT NO. FC09298-125 C-4 13. Placement and compaction of HMA should be observed and tested by a representative of our firm. Placement should not commence until approval of the proof rolling as discussed in the Subgrade Preparation section of this report. Subbase, base course or initial pavement course shall be placed within 48 hours of approval of the proof rolling. If the Contractor fails to place the subbase, base course or initial pavement course within 48 hours or the condition of the subgrade changes due to weather or other conditions, proof rolling and correction shall be performed again. Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) 1. Portland cement concrete should consist of Class P of the 2019 CDOT - Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction specifications for normal placement or Class E for fast-track projects. PCC should have a minimum compressive strength of 4,200 psi at 28 days and a minimum modulus of rupture (flexural strength) of 650 psi. Job mix designs are recommended and periodic checks on the job site should be made to verify compliance with specifications. 2. Portland cement should be Type II “low alkali” and should conform to ASTM C 150. 3. Portland cement concrete should not be placed when the subgrade or air temperature is below 40°F. 4. Concrete should not be placed during warm weather if the mixed concrete has a temperature of 90°F, or higher. 5. Mixed concrete temperature placed during cold weather should have a temperature between 50°F and 90°F. 6. Free water should not be finished into the concrete surface. Atomizing nozzle pressure sprayers for applying finishing compounds are recommended whenever the concrete surface becomes difficult to finish. 7. Curing of the Portland cement concrete should be accomplished by the use of a curing compound. The curing compound should be applied in accordance with manufacturer recommendations. 8. Curing procedures should be implemented, as necessary, to protect the pavement against moisture loss, rapid temperature change, freezing, and mechanical injury. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 98 CITY OF FORT COLLINS 835 WOOD STREET CNG SHOP EXPANSION CTLT PROJECT NO. FC09298-125 C-5 9. Construction joints, including longitudinal joints and transverse joints, should be formed during construction or sawed after the concrete has begun to set, but prior to uncontrolled cracking. 10. All joints should be properly sealed using a rod back-up and approved epoxy sealant. 11. Traffic should not be allowed on the pavement until it has properly cured and achieved at least 80 percent of the design strength, with saw joints already cut. 12. Placement of Portland cement concrete should be observed and tested by a representative of our firm. Placement should not commence until the subgrade is properly prepared and tested. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 99 APPENDIX D PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE PROGRAM ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 100 CITY OF FORT COLLINS 835 WOOD STREET CNG SHOP EXPANSION CTLT PROJECT NO. FC09298-125 D-1 MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS A primary cause for deterioration of pavements is oxidative aging resulting in brittle pavements. Tire loads from traffic are necessary to "work" or knead the asphalt concrete to keep it flexible and rejuvenated. Preventive maintenance treatments will typically preserve the original or existing pavement by providing a protective seal or rejuvenating the asphalt binder to extend pavement life. 1. Annual Preventive Maintenance a. Visual pavement evaluations should be performed each spring or fall. b. Reports documenting the progress of distress should be kept current to provide information on effective times to apply preventive maintenance treatments. c. Crack sealing should be performed annually as new cracks appear. 2. 3 to 5 Year Preventive Maintenance a. The owner should budget for a preventive treatment at approximate intervals of 3 to 5 years to reduce oxidative embrittlement problems. b. Typical preventive maintenance treatments include chip seals, fog seals, slurry seals and crack sealing. 3. 5 to 10 Year Corrective Maintenance a. Corrective maintenance may be necessary, as dictated by the pavement condition, to correct rutting, cracking and structurally failed areas. b. Corrective maintenance may include full depth patching, milling and overlays. c. In order for the pavement to provide a 20-year service life, at least one major corrective overlay should be expected. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 101 CITY OF FORT COLLINS 835 WOOD STREET CNG SHOP EXPANSION CTLT PROJECT NO. FC09298-125 D-2 MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RIGID PAVEMENTS High traffic volumes create pavement rutting and smooth polished surfaces. Preventive maintenance treatments will typically preserve the original or existing pavement by providing a protective seal and improving skid resistance through a new wearing course. 1. Annual Preventive Maintenance a. Visual pavement evaluations should be performed each spring or fall. b. Reports documenting the progress of distress should be kept current to provide information of effective times to apply preventive maintenance. c. Crack sealing should be performed annually as new cracks appear. 2. 4 to 8 Year Preventive Maintenance a. The owner should budget for a preventive treatment at approximate intervals of 4 to 8 years to reduce joint deterioration. b. Typical preventive maintenance for rigid pavements includes patching, crack sealing and joint cleaning and sealing. c. Where joint sealants are missing or distressed, resealing is mandatory. 3. 15 to 20 Year Corrective Maintenance a. Corrective maintenance for rigid pavements includes patching and slab replacement to correct subgrade failures, edge damage, and material failure. b. Asphalt concrete overlays may be required at 15 to 20 year intervals to improve the structural capacity of the pavement. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 102 APPENDIX B – HYDROLOGIC/HYDRAULIC COMPUTATIONS ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 103 JVA Incorporated Job Name: Fort Collins CNG I% C2 C5 C10 C100 1319 Spruce Street Job Number: 3256c Streets Paved 100% 0.95 0.00 0.95 1.00 Boulder, CO 80302 Date: 2/15/23 Concrete Drives/Walks 90% 0.95 0.00 0.95 1.00 Ph: (303) 444 1951 By: CDH Roof 90% 0.95 0.00 0.95 1.00 Gravel 40% 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.63 Landscaping (B soil) 0% 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.19 Fort Collins CNG Landscaping (C/D soil) 0% 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.31 Historic Runoff Coefficient & Time of Concentration Calculations Playground 10% 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.14 Location:Fort_Collins Artificial Turf 25% 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.25 Minor Design Storm: 2 Major Design Storm: 100 Soil Type:B Basin Design Data I (%) = 100% 90% 90% 40% 10% 25% 0% 0%I (%)tc Comp tc Final Basin Name Design Point Apaved streets (sf) Adrives/co nc (sf) Aroof (sf) Agravel (sf) Aplygnd (sf) Aart. turf (sf) Alscape (B soil) (sf) Alscape (C/D soil) (sf) ATotal (sf) ATotal (ac) Imp (%)C2 C5 C10 C100 Upper most Length (ft) Slope (%) ti (min) Length (ft) Slope (%)Type of Land Surface K Velocity (fps) tt (min) Time of Conc ti + tt = tc Total Length (ft) tc=(L/180)+ 10 (min.) Min tc E1 1 77,813 10,708 19,624 11,275 74,906 194,325 4.46 56.4% 0.62 0.00 0.62 0.77 300 2.0%27.7 250 1.0% Paved areas & shallow paved swales 20 2.0 2.1 29.8 550 13.1 13.1 E2 2 32,937 765 33,579 67,281 1.54 50.0% 0.55 0.00 0.55 0.69 200 1.5%24.9 100 0.5% Paved areas & shallow paved swales 20 1.4 1.2 26.1 300 11.7 11.7 OS1 3 17,197 17,197 0.39 0.0% 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.19 50 25.0%4.9 Paved areas & shallow paved swales 20 0.0 0.0 4.9 50 10.3 5.0 TOTAL SITE 110,750 11,473 19,624 11,275 0 0 125,682 0 278,803 6.40 51.4% 0.57 0.00 0.57 0.62 Basin Name Design Point Time of Conc (tc) C2 C5 C10 C100 2 5 10 100 ATotal (sf)ATotal (ac)Q2 Q5 Q10 Q100 E1 1 13.1 0.62 0.00 0.62 0.77 1.97 0.00 3.38 6.90 194,325 4.46 5.42 0.00 9.28 23.68 E2 2 11.7 0.55 0.00 0.55 0.69 2.07 0.00 3.54 7.24 67,281 1.54 1.76 0.00 3.01 7.70 OS1 3 5.0 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.19 2.85 0.00 4.87 9.95 17,197 0.39 0.17 0.00 0.29 0.740000.00TOTAL SITE 278,803 6.40 7.35 0.00 12.58 32.11 Initial Overland Time (ti)Travel Time (tt) tt=Length/(Velocity x 60) tc Urbanized Check ON Runoff Coeff's Rainfall Intensities (in/hr)Area Flow Rates (cfs) Runoff Coeff's JVA Civil Rational Calculations1 (version 2)1 Historic Page 1 of 1 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 104 JVA Incorporated Job Name: Fort Collins CNG I% C2 C5 C10 C100 1319 Spruce Street Job Number: 3256c Streets Paved 100% 0.95 0.00 0.95 1.00 Boulder, CO 80302 Date: 12/20/22 Concrete Drives/Walks 90% 0.95 0.00 0.95 1.00 Ph: (303) 444 1951 By: CDH Roof 90% 0.95 0.00 0.95 1.00 Gravel 40% 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.63 Landscaping (B soil) 0% 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.19 Fort Collins CNG Landscaping (C/D soil) 0% 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.31 Composite Runoff Coefficient Calculations Playground 10% 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.14 Location:Fort_Collins Artificial Turf 25% 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.25 Minor Design Storm: 2 Major Design Storm: 100 Soil Type:B Basin Design Data I (%) = 100% 90% 90% 40% 10% 25% 0% 0%I (%) Basin Name Design Point Apaved streets (sf) Adrives/c onc (sf) Aroof (sf) Agravel (sf) Aplygnd (sf) Aart. turf (sf) Alscape (B soil) (sf) Alscape (C/D soil) (sf) ATotal (sf) ATotal (ac) Imp (%)C2 C5 C10 C100 P1 1 75,440 10,708 21,998 11,274 74,905 194,325 4.46 56.3% 0.62 0.00 0.62 0.77 P2 2 32,084 5,629 2,316 757 26,495 67,281 1.54 58.8% 0.63 0.00 0.63 0.79 OS1 3 17,197 17,197 0.39 0.0% 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.19 0 0.00 Runoff Coeff's JVA Civil Rational Calculations1 (version 2)1 Developed C Page 1 of 1 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 105 JVA Incorporated Job Name: Fort Collins CNG 1319 Spruce Street Job Number: 3256c Boulder, CO 80302 Date: 12/20/22 Ph: (303) 444 1951 By: CDH Fort Collins CNG Time of Concentration Calculations Location:Fort_Collins Minor Design Storm: 2 Major Design Storm: 100 Soil Type:B Sub-Basin Data tc Comp tc Final Basin Name Design Point ATotal (ac)C5 Upper most Length (ft) Slope (%) ti (min) Length (ft)Slope (%) Type of Land Surface Cv Velocity (fps) tt (min) Time of Conc ti + tt = tc Total Length (ft) tc=(L/180)+ 10 (min) Min tc P1 1 4.46 0.00 200 2.0%22.6 450 1.0% Paved areas & shallow paved swales 20 2.0 3.8 26.4 650 13.6 13.6 P2 2 1.54 0.00 150 1.5%21.6 300 0.5% Paved areas & shallow paved swales 20 1.4 3.5 25.1 450 12.5 12.5 OS1 3 0.39 0.00 50 20.0%5.3 Paved areas & shallow paved swales 20 0.0 0.0 5.3 50 10.3 5.3 Initial Overland Time (ti)Travel Time (tt) tt=Length/(Velocity x 60) tc Urbanized Check ON JVA Civil Rational Calculations1 (version 2)1 Developed Tc Page 1 of 1 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 106 JVA Incorporated Job Name: Fort Collins CNG 1319 Spruce Street Job Number: 3256c Boulder, CO 80302 Date: 12/20/22 Ph: (303) 444 1951 By: CDH Fort Collins CNG Developed Storm Runoff Calculations Design Storm : 100 Year Point Hour Rainfall (P1) : 2.86 Basin Name Design Point Area (ac) Runoff Coeff tc (min) C*A (ac) I (in/hr) Q (cfs) Total tc (min) SC*A (ac) I (in/hr) Q (cfs) Inlet Type Q intercepted Q carryover Q bypass Pipe Size (in) or equivalent Pipe Material Slope (%) Pipe Flow (cfs) Max Pipe Capacity (cfs) Length (ft) Velocity (fps) tt (min)Total Time (min) NotesP1 1 4.46 0.77 13.60 3.43 6.79 23.32 13.60 3.43 6.79 23.32 P2 2 1.54 0.79 12.50 1.22 7.04 8.56 12.50 1.22 7.04 8.59 OS1 3 0.39 0.19 5.30 0.07 9.76 0.72 5.30 0.07 9.76 0.68 Direct Runoff Total Runoff Inlets Pipe Pipe/Swale Travel Time JVA Civil Rational Calculations1 (version 2)1 Q100 Page 1 of 1 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 107 JVA Incorporated Job Name: Fort Collins CNG 1319 Spruce Street Job Number: 3256c Boulder, CO 80302 Date: 12/20/22 Ph: (303) 444 1951 By: CDH Fort Collins CNG Developed Storm Runoff Calculations Design Storm : 2 Year Point Hour Rainfall (P1) : 0.82 Basin Name Design Point Area (ac) Runoff Coeff tc (min) C*A (ac) I (in/hr) Q (cfs) Total tc (min) SC*A (ac) I (in/hr) Q (cfs) Inlet Type Q intercepted Q carryover Q bypass Pipe Size (in) or equivalent Pipe Material Slope (%) Pipe Flow (cfs) Max Pipe Capacity (cfs) Length (ft) Velocity (fps) tt (min)Total Time (min) NotesP1 1 4.46 0.62 13.60 2.75 1.94 5.34 13.60 2.75 1.94 5.34 P2 2 1.54 0.63 12.50 0.97 2.02 1.96 12.50 0.97 2.02 1.95 OS1 3 0.39 0.15 5.30 0.06 2.80 0.17 5.30 0.06 2.80 0.17 Direct Runoff Total Runoff Inlets Pipe Pipe/Swale Travel Time JVA Civil Rational Calculations1 (version 2)1 Q Minor Page 1 of 1 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 108 JVA Incorporated Job Name: Fort Collins CNG 1319 Spruce Street Job Number: 3256c Boulder, CO 80302 Date: 2/15/23 Ph: (303) 444 1951 By: CDH Fort Collins CNG Detention Pond Volume Calculations: FAA Procedure Based on FAA Procedure, per Federal Aviation Agency "Airport Drainage" Manual Drainage Basin P1 Design Storm 100 year Composite "C" Factor 0.79 Basin Size 1.54 Release Rate Calculations Allowable Release Rate for Site 1.58 cfs (Historic Flows for Basin H1) Less Undetained Offsite Flows -0.00 cfs (From Basin X) Allowable Release Rate for Pond 1.58 cfs Rainfall Intensity Calculations Point Hour Rainfall (P1) : 2.86 Rainfall Intensity:FortCollinsIDF Volume Calculations Inflow Volume = C * I * A * time (sec) Outflow Volume = Alowable Release Rate * time (sec) Storage Volume = Invflow Volume - Outflow Volume Time t (min) Time t (sec) Intensity I (in/hr) Inflow Vin (ft3) Outflow Vout (ft3) Storage Vstor (ft3) 5.0 300 9.95 3,642 474 3,168 10.0 600 7.72 5,652 948 4,704 15.0 900 6.52 7,160 1,422 5,738 20.0 1,200 5.60 8,200 1,896 6,304 25.0 1,500 4.98 9,115 2,370 6,745 30.0 1,800 4.52 9,928 2,844 7,084 35.0 2,100 4.09 10,475 3,318 7,157 40.0 2,400 3.75 10,970 3,792 7,178 45.0 2,700 3.47 11,416 4,266 7,150 50.0 3,000 3.23 11,838 4,740 7,098 55.0 3,300 3.03 12,217 5,214 7,003 60.0 3,600 2.86 12,563 5,688 6,875 Maximum Volume (ft 3)7,178 100% WQCV 0 ft3 Required 100-yr Volume + 100% WQCV 7,178 ft3 Detention Storage Calculations JVA Civil Rational Calculations1 (version 2)1 FAA-100-yr Page 1 of 1 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 109 JVA Incorporated Job Name: Fort Collins CNG 1319 Spruce Street Job Number: 3256c Boulder, CO 80302 Date: 2/15/23 Ph: (303) 444 1951 By: CDH Fort Collins CNG Detention Pond Volume Calculations: FAA Procedure Based on FAA Procedure, per Federal Aviation Agency "Airport Drainage" Manual Drainage Basin E1 Design Storm 100 year Composite "C" Factor 0.69 Basin Size 1.54 Release Rate Calculations Allowable Release Rate for Site 1.58 cfs (Historic Flows for Basin H1) Less Undetained Offsite Flows -0.00 cfs (From Basin X) Allowable Release Rate for Pond 1.58 cfs Rainfall Intensity Calculations Point Hour Rainfall (P1) : 2.86 Rainfall Intensity:FortCollinsIDF Volume Calculations Inflow Volume = C * I * A * time (sec) Outflow Volume = Alowable Release Rate * time (sec) Storage Volume = Invflow Volume - Outflow Volume Time t (min) Time t (sec) Intensity I (in/hr) Inflow Vin (ft3) Outflow Vout (ft3) Storage Vstor (ft3) 5.0 300 9.95 3,181 474 2,707 10.0 600 7.72 4,937 948 3,989 15.0 900 6.52 6,254 1,422 4,832 20.0 1,200 5.60 7,162 1,896 5,266 25.0 1,500 4.98 7,961 2,370 5,591 30.0 1,800 4.52 8,671 2,844 5,827 35.0 2,100 4.09 9,149 3,318 5,831 40.0 2,400 3.75 9,581 3,792 5,789 45.0 2,700 3.47 9,971 4,266 5,705 50.0 3,000 3.23 10,340 4,740 5,600 55.0 3,300 3.03 10,670 5,214 5,456 60.0 3,600 2.86 10,973 5,688 5,285 Maximum Volume (ft 3)5,831 100% WQCV 0 ft3 Required 100-yr Volume + 100% WQCV 5,831 ft3 Detention Storage Calculations JVA Civil Rational Calculations1 (version 2)1 FAA-100-yr (2)Page 1 of 1 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 110 Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, Ia Ia =58.8 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100)i = 0.588 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.19 watershed inches (WQCV= 0.8 * (0.91* i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area)Area = 26,495 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV =410 cu ft Vol = (WQCV / 12) * Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of d6 = in Average Runoff Producing Storm G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, VWQCV OTHER =cu ft Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV USER =cu ft (Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2. Basin Geometry A) WQCV Depth (12-inch maximum)DWQCV =12 in B) Rain Garden Side Slopes (Z = 4 min., horiz. dist per unit vertical)Z = 4.00 ft / ft (Use "0" if rain garden has vertical walls) C) Mimimum Flat Surface Area AMin =312 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area AActual =877 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area)ATop =1826 sq ft F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT=1,352 cu ft (VT= ((ATop + AActual) / 2) * Depth) 3. Growing Media 4. Underdrain System A) Are underdrains provided?1 B) Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y =5.0 ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 =410 cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO =3/8 in Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Chris Holmes JVA December 20, 2022 Fort Collins CNG 835 Wood Street UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018) Sheet 2 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 5. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric A) Is an impermeable liner provided due to proximity of structures or groundwater contamination? 6. Inlet / Outlet Control A) Inlet Control 7. Vegetation 8. Irrigation A) Will the rain garden be irrigated? Notes: Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Chris Holmes JVA December 20, 2022 Fort Collins CNG 835 Wood Street Arlo SchumannAssociate PlannerPlanning and Zoning CommissionCNG Shop Expansion, MA220136March 23, 2023ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 114 Project Location2Situated ~0.12 Miles East of N Shields St. and ~0.15 Miles North of W Vine Dr.SITEITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 115 Project Context3Address 835 Wood St.23.86-acre siteEmployment District (E)Existing Facility.Home of CoFC Fleet Maintenance. SITELarimer CountyCLEEPOLUEPOLITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 116 CNG Shop ExpansionProject Overview4Proposed Scope:• Addition of a new CNG maintenance shop at the west end of the existing facility.• Project scope includes interior accessibility upgrades to locker rooms, bathrooms, break area, and parts storage area.• Rework to the asphalt to correct drainage and grades is planned and additional paving to accommodate the turning radius of a tractor-trailer. Restriping of parking areas.• New trash/recycling enclosure.• Associated with a plat of the property as part of Minor Subdivision BDR220007, Fleet Maintenance SubdivisionITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 117 CNG Shop ExpansionProject Overview5Proposed Plan:ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 118 CNG Shop ExpansionProject Overview6Birds Eye Views:ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 119 CNG Shop ExpansionProject Overview7Elevations:ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 120 CNG Shop Expansion8Staff recommends approval of MA220136,CNG Shop ExpansionIn evaluating the request for the CNG Shop Expansion minor amendment, 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 the recording of BDR220007. The Minor Amendment will not be closed until the associated plat has been recorded.ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 121 9Thank You.Hoffman Mill Weigh StationITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 122 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: March 23, 2023 Thompson Thrift Spaulding Addition Annexation (ANX220003), and Zoning Summary of Request This is a request to annex and zone 3.743 acres of land located at 423 Spaulding Lane. The annexation is subject to a series of hearings including a (Type 2) Review and public hearing by the Planning & Zoning Commission and recommendation to City Council. A specific project development plan proposal is not included with the annexation application. Zoning Map Next Steps The Planning and Zoning Commission’s zoning recommendation and any comments related to the annexation and zoning will be forwarded to City Council for their consideration. Site Location The site is located off Terry Lake Road/Highway 1 on Spaulding Lane, closest to the Spaulding Lane and Valley View Lane intersection. Zoning Unincorporated Larimer County Commercial Corridor to Low Density Mixed Use (L-M-N) Property Owner Matthew R. Brown 423 Spaulding Lane Fort Collins, CO 80524 Applicant/Representative Peyton Carroll/Jacob Ross Thompson Thrift Development Inc. 111 Monument Circle, Suite 1600 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Staff Jenny Axmacher, Principal City Planner p. (970) 416-8089, e. jaxmacher@fcgov.com Megan Keith, Senior Planner p. (970) 416-2270, e. mkeith@fcgov.com Contents 1. Project Introduction .................................... 2 2. Public Outreach ......................................... 3 3. Article 2 – Applicable Standards ................ 3 4. Article 4 – Division 4.5 – Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (L-M-N) Applicable Standards .......................................................... 4 5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion ...................... 4 6. Recommendation ....................................... 5 7. Attachments ............................................... 5 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the annexation and zoning, and that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District and the Lighting Context Areas LC1. Packet pg. 123 P&Z Agenda Item 3 ANX220003 | Thompson Thrift Spaulding Addition Annexation Friday, March 10, 2023 | Page 2 of 5 Back to Top 1. Project Introduction A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This is a request to annex and zone the Thompson Thrift property (3.743-acres), located on Spaulding Lane, off of Terry Lake Road/Highway 1. 1. The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins as contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. 2. The area meets all criteria included in Colorado Revised Statues for voluntary annexation to the City of Fort Collins. 3. The requested Low Density Mixed Use (L-M-N) zone district is in conformance with the policies of City Plan, Structure Plan and the North College Corridor Plan Land Use Framework Maps. On February 21, 2023, City Council adopted a resolution to accept the annexation petition and determine that the petition was in compliance with State law. The resolution initiated the annexation process for the property by establishing the date, time, and place when a City Council public hearing would be held regarding the readings of the Ordinances that would annex and apply zoning to the area. B. ANALYSIS 1. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use North South East West Zoning Low Density Residential (RL) Larimer County CC – Commercial Corridor Medium Density Mixed Use (M-M-N) Larimer County CC – Commercial Corridor Land Use Falcon Ridge neighborhood, single-family Residential property Vacant (proposed to become Watermark at Willox) Single-family neighborhood The Thompson Thrift annexation property achieves required contiguity (Minimum 16%), as described below: The Thompson Thrift annexation has a contiguous perimeter of 2,506.31 feet, which amounts to 50.6% of the total perimeter. This satisfies the one-sixth (1/6) area required (16%) of its perimeter boundary contiguity with existing City limits to the east and north. This contiguity is established by the Willox Heights and Sherman-Lawler First Annexations. The requested zoning for this annexation is Low Density Mixed Use (L-M-N), which is in alignment with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan designation for this area. This property is just outside of the North College Corridor Plan study area. However, the adjacent parcel is proposed to be jointly developed as part of the Watermark on Willox project which is within the study area and designated as Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. Therefore, the requested zoning is found to be consistent with the guidance within the North College Corridor Plan. City of Fort Collins Structure Plan Suburban Neighborhood: Principal Land Use: Single-family detached homes. Density: Between two and five principal dwelling units per acre. The Structure Plan map shows the Thompson Thrift annexation property as Suburban Neighborhood with a Structure Plan Place Type of Single-Family Neighborhood (see attached Structure Plan map). The Structure Plan future land use Packet pg. 124 P&Z Agenda Item 3 ANX220003 | Thompson Thrift Spaulding Addition Annexation Friday, March 10, 2023 | Page 3 of 5 Back to Top designations represent general citywide policy guidance. Alignment with City Plan Principles and Policies: Principle LIV 1: Maintain a compact pattern of growth that is well served by public facilities and encourages the efficient use of land. This property is within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA). City Plan encourages managing growth by encouraging infill development within the GMA to promote a compact pattern of development. The property is located roughly one mile from the commercial uses along North College, including a grocery store. As North College Avenue continues to evolve into a high-frequency transit corridor, this proposed addition of housing offers the opportunity to pair housing near neighborhood services and transit access, aligning with City Plan principles to reduce auto-dependency and increase mode shares. North College Corridor Plan As stated previously, this property is not within the study area of the North College Corridor Plan. However, the adjacent parcel to the east will ultimately be jointly developed with this property. The property to the east is indicated within the North College Corridor Plan as Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood in the Framework Plan. The requested L-M-N zone is seen as consistent with this direction and compatible with other surrounding designations as depicted in the Framework Plan. Sign District Staff recommends that the property be placed within the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. The Sign Districts are established for the purpose of regulating signs for non-residential uses in areas of the community where the predominant character of the neighborhood is residential. Lighting Context Area On March 26, 2021, the City of Fort Collins adopted new exterior lighting standards and established Lighting Context Areas that correspond to the City’s zone districts. The Lighting Context Area identified by Table 3.2.4-1 of the City’s lighting code for the L-M-N zone district is LC1. As part of this item, staff recommends placement of the property into the LC1 Lighting Context Areas. LC1 - Low ambient lighting. The vision of human residents and users is adapted to low light levels. Lighting may be used for safety and convenience, but it is not necessarily uniform or continuous. Typical locations include low and medium density residential areas, commercial or industrial areas with limited nighttime activity, and the developed areas in parks and other natural setting. 2. Public Outreach A. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING The neighborhood meeting requirement for this annexation and zoning was waived. A neighborhood meeting will be required for the associated future Watermark at Willox development to the east of and including the Thompson Thrift Annexation property. All other notification requirements as required by state and local law have been met. 3. Article 2 – Applicable Standards A. BACKGROUND This project was submitted on October 13, 2022, for annexation and zoning. A specific Project Development Plan has not been submitted but will be required for future development. Packet pg. 125 P&Z Agenda Item 3 ANX220003 | Thompson Thrift Spaulding Addition Annexation Friday, March 10, 2023 | Page 4 of 5 Back to Top The project is in compliance with Section 2.12 Annexation requirements. B. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW 1. Conceptual Design Review A conceptual design review meeting was waived by the Planning Manager. First Submittal (ANX220003) This project was submitted on October 13, 2022. 2. Neighborhood Meeting A neighborhood meeting was waived by the Planning Manager. A neighborhood meeting would be required with any subsequent development. 3. Notice (Posted, Written and Published) Posted Notice (ANX220003): November 2, 2022 (Sign #680) Written notice: March 8, 2023, 256 letters to be sent. Published Notice: March 5, 2023. 4. Article 4 – Division 4.5 – Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (L-M-N) Applicable Standards A. PURPOSE The requested zoning for this annexation is Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N), which is consistent with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan. The Land Use Code describes the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone district as follows: Purpose. The Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District is intended to be a setting for a predominance of low density housing combined with complementary and supporting land uses that serve a neighborhood and are developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of a neighborhood. The main purpose of the District is to meet a wide range of needs of everyday living in neighborhoods that include a variety of housing choices, that invite walking to gathering places, services and conveniences, and that are fully integrated into the larger community by the pattern of streets, blocks, and other linkages. A neighborhood center provides a focal point, and attractive walking and biking paths invite residents to enjoy the center as well as the small neighborhood parks. Any new development in this District shall be arranged to form part of an individual neighborhood. A project development plan has not been submitted. The future land uses are subject to the list of permitted land uses in Division 4.5 – Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. 5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the request for the Thompson Thrift Spaulding Addition Annexation, ANX220003, staff makes the following findings of fact: 1. The property meets the State law eligibility requirements to qualify for a voluntary annexation to the City of Fort Collins. 2. The requested placement into the Low Density Mixed-Use (L-M-N) zone district is consistent with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan Map and with the North College Corridor Plan. Packet pg. 126 P&Z Agenda Item 3 ANX220003 | Thompson Thrift Spaulding Addition Annexation Friday, March 10, 2023 | Page 5 of 5 Back to Top 3. The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. 4. On February 21, 2023, City Council adopted a resolution to accept the annexation petition and determine that the petition is in compliance with State law. The resolution also initiated the annexation process for the property by establishing the date, time, and place when a public hearing is to be held regarding the readings of the Ordinances annexing and zoning the area. 5. The requested placement into the Residential Neighborhood Sign District as well as the LC1 Lighting Context Areas, is consistent with the City of Fort Collins sign and lighting standards as it relates to Low Density Mixed- Use Neighborhood zoning. 6. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the annexation and the requested zoning of Low Density Mixed-Use (L-M-N), consistent with the Structure Plan and North College Corridor Plan. Staff recommends that the property be placed within the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. Staff recommends that the property be placed into the LC1 Lighting Context Areas as dictated in Land Use Code Section 3.2.4. 7. Attachments 1. Vicinity Map 2. Annexation Petition 3. Applicant Narrative 4. Annexation Map 5. Structure Plan Map 6. Existing Zoning Map 7. North College Corridor Map 8. Staff Presentation Packet pg. 127 BAYBERRYCIRFALCON HILL RDFRANKLINRDBRAM BLEBUSHSTSPAULDING LN BLUE SPRUCE DRFORD LNCOUNTRY CLUB RD E WILLOX LNGOLDENEAGLE DRTERRY LAKERDAGAPE WAYBLUE TEAL DRGRAPE ST SAGE DRSANDSTONE DRSUNDANCE C I R NVALLEYVIEW LNREDWOOD STTHOMPSON THRIFT ANNEXATION VICINITY MAP ± SITE ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 128 2416487.3 PETITION FOR ANNEXATION THE UNDERSIGNED (hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner”), hereby petitions (this “Petition”) the Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado for the annexation of an area in unincorporated Larimer County, as more particularly described by its legal description in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Property”). In support of this Petition, Petitioner alleges as follows: 1. That it is desirable and necessary that the Property be annexed to the City of Fort Collins. 2.That the condition set forth in Section 30(1)(b) of Article II of the Colorado Constitution has been met. 3. That the requirements of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S., exist or have been met. 4. That not less than one-sixth (1/6) of the perimeter of the Property is contiguous with the boundaries of the City of Fort Collins. 5. That a community of interest exists between the Property and the City of Fort Collins. 6. That the Property is urban or will be urbanized in the near future. 7. That the Property is integrated with or is capable of being integrated with the City of Fort Collins. 8. That Petitioner comprises more than fifty percent (50%) of the landowners in the Property and own more than fifty percent (50%) of the Property, excluding public streets, alleys and lands owned by the City of Fort Collins. 9. That the City of Fort Collins shall not be required to assume any obligations respecting the construction of water mains, sewer lines, gas mains, electric service lines, streets or any other services or utilities in connection with the Property except as may be provided by the ordinance of the City of Fort Collins. 10. Accompanying this Petition are four copies of the annexation boundary map in the form required by C.R.S. Section 31-12-107(1)(d) containing the following information: (a) A written legal description of the boundaries of the Property; (b) A map showing the boundary of the Property, such map prepared and containing the seal of a registered engineer or land surveyor; ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 129 2 2416487.3 (c) Within the annexation boundary map there is shown the location of each ownership tract in unplatted land, and if part or all of the area be platted, then the boundaries and the plat number of plots or of lots and blocks are shown; and (d) Next to the boundary of the Property is drawn the contiguous boundary of the City of Fort Collins and the contiguous boundary of any other municipality abutting the area proposed to be annexed. 11. Petitioner requests that the Council of the City of Fort Collins approve the annexation of the Property. Furthermore, Petitioner requests that said area be placed in the LMN Zone District pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins. 12. Petitioner reserves the sole, exclusive and unilateral right, for the benefit of, and to be exercised solely by Thompson Thrift Development, Inc. (together with its successors and assigns, “Purchaser”) to withdraw this Petition by Purchaser so notifying the Clerk of the City of Fort Collins in writing at any point prior to the latest to occur of: (a) The final, non-appealable approval of the final ordinance(s), resolutions and/or other final action(s) granting the annexation of the Property to the City of Fort Collins, zoning of the Property to the LMN Zone District, and execution of the annexation agreement; or (b) Final, non-appealable resolution of any legal challenge or other action that directly or indirectly challenges the approvals set forth in Section 12(a) or any petition for a referendum seeking to reverse or nullify any of the approvals set forth in Section 12(a). 13. Prior to expiration of the period described in the foregoing Sections 12(a) and 12(b) without Purchaser having withdrawn this Petition, neither Purchaser, Petitioner nor the City shall cause or permit the occurrence of the conditions to effectiveness of the annexation as set forth in C.R.S. Section 31-12-113(2)(b). THEREFORE, Petitioner requests that the Council of the City of Fort Collins approve the annexation of the Property. [Signatures follow on next page] ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 130 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 131 A-1 2416487.3 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Property and Land Owned by Petitioner ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 132 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 133 2413174.3 THOMPSON THRIFT SPAULDING ADDITION ANNEXATION STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES Thompson Thrift Development Inc. (the “Applicant”) is requesting annexation of property located at 423 Spaulding Lane (the “Property”) within unincorporated Larimer County (the “County”) into the City of Fort Collins (the “City”) in order to develop it for residential uses (the “Project”). The Property is located south and adjacent to Spaulding Lane, and approximately 0.35 miles east of North College Avenue. The Property is approximately 3.743 acres and is currently zoned CC Commercial Corridor under the County’s Land Use Code. The existing and historical use of the Property is estate/agricultural. The surrounding land uses include the Valley View single-family residential subdivision to the west within unincorporated Larimer County, the Falcon Ridge PUD single-family residential subdivision to the north within the City limits, and an estate/agricultural use to the east that is also within the City and zoned M-M-N Medium Density Mixed- Use Neighborhood District. The Property is located less than a mile from the North College Marketplace, which includes a King Soopers, as well as retail pad sites. ANNEXATION PETITION QUESTIONS 4(g) A statement as to why it is necessary and desirable for the City of Fort Collins to annex the area. The Property is located directly adjacent to City limits to the north and east. It is also within the City’s Growth Management Area (the “GMA”), and therefore subject to the Intergovernmental Agreement (the “IGA”) between the City and the County. The IGA requires that prior to development of a property that is contiguous to City limits, an owner of such property pursue annexation to the City. The applicant is requesting annexation into the City in order to develop the Property for residential uses. The historical use of the Property has been estate/agricultural; however development of the Property for residential uses is suitable at this time due to residential and commercial development within the vicinity of the Property. Because the Property is contiguous to City limits, and within the GMA, annexation of the Property is appropriate prior to development and is required by the IGA. 4(h) A description of the zoning classification being requested and any condition requested for that zone district classification. The Applicant is requesting annexation of the Property, and zoning to the L-M-N Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (the “L-M-N District”). There are no conditions requested at this time. 4(i) A statement of consistency of the requested zoning to the Structure Plan. The Property Is located within the Suburban Neighborhood Place Type (the “Place Type”) of the Fort Collins Structure Plan (the “Structure Plan”). The proposed Project seeks to develop single-family attached duplex residences (or villas). Although the Place Type recommends single-family detached homes as the principal land use, the proposed villas meet the intent of this Place Type through the development of low density residential units on the Property. Policy LIV 1.1 of the Structure Plan recommends that the City continue to utilize the GMA as a tool to guide and manage growth outside of the City and delineate the extent of urban development in Fort Collins. As stated earlier, the Property is located within the GMA. Annexation of the Property aligns with this Policy by incorporating a property delineated for inclusion into the City, and for development, based upon the GMA. The planned residential development for the Property will include the parcel to the east, which is already annexed into the City and will include a mix of apartments. By providing a mix of villas and multi-family residential, this development will help to implement Policy LIV 4.1 of the Structure Plan, which recommends creativity within new neighborhoods by expanding housing options, including higher-density and mixed-use ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 134 2413174.3 2 buildings. The proposed development also aligns with Policy LIV 5.1 of the Structure Plan, which is to create more opportunities for housing choices. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR QUASI-JUDICIAL ZONINGS OR REZONINGS SECTION 2.9.4.H.3 OF THE FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE The Project complies with the following additional factors from the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the “Code”) that the City’s Planning and Zoning Board and City Council may consider when making a determination on a quasi-judicial zoning or rezoning (Code § 2.9.4.H.3): 1. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is the appropriate zone district for the land. The proposed zoning to the L-M-N District is appropriate for the proposed use, and compatible with the surrounding uses, which are residential and estate/agricultural. The proposed villas (duplexes) are a use permitted in the L-M-N District, subject to administrative review (Code § 4.5(2)(a)). Division 4.5(A) of the Code states that the main purpose of the L-M-N District is to meet a wide range of needs of everyday living in neighborhoods, including providing a variety of housing choices. The development of the Property for villas, which will be incorporated into a planned development of multifamily to the east, will meet the intent of the L-M-N District by providing a variety of housing choices, and will complement the surrounding residential uses. 2. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water, air, noise, storm water management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment. The Project will have similar impacts as adjacent residential development. Additionally, the majority of the Property has been cleared for agricultural uses, with the northern portion of the Property occupied with a single-family residential structure. Additional impacts will be addressed at time of development in coordination with the City. 3. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. The Project is a natural extension of adjacent residential uses. The development of villas will be complementary to the adjacent single-family residential uses to the north and west. Due to its location within close proximity of the North College Marketplace at the intersection of Willox Lane and North College Avenue, the development of additional residential in the area will fulfill the intent of the L-M-N District by creating a neighborhood that meets a wide range of everyday living through a variety of housing choices, with services and conveniences located nearby. The proposed project for residential villas is an appropriate development pattern for the surrounding area. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 135 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 136 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 137 THOMPSON THRIFT ANNEXATION Structure Plan Map Printed: January 03, 2023 Esri Community Maps Contributors, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA Legend Structure Plan Adjacent Planning Area Campus District Community Separator Downtown District Industrial District Mixed Employment District Mixed Neighborhood Neighborhood Mixed Use District Parks and Natural/Protected Lands R&D/Flex District Rural Neighborhood Single Family Neighborhood Suburban Mixed Use District Urban Mixed Use District parcels SITE ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 138 THOMPSON THRIFT ANNEXATION Zoning Map Printed: January 03, 2023 RL LMN MMN CS RL CCN LMN RL LMN Esri Community Maps Contributors, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA Legend Community Commercial North College (CCN) Service Commercial (CS) Industrial (I) Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN) Low Density Residential (RL) parcels City Limits SITE ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 139 Site ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 140 Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing - 3/23/2023Thompson Thrift Annexation and Zoning Keith/Axmacher, Senior PlannerITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 141 2Request for voluntary annexation/zoning for the Thompson Thrift property, totaling 3.743 acresProposed annexation is contiguous to municipal boundaries and exceeds contiguity requirementsProposed zoning – Low Density Mixed Use (LMN), consistent with Structure PlanCity Council Initiating Resolution Hearing (2/21/23), 1stReading (4/4/23)THOMPSON THRIFT ANNEXATION ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 142 Site Area3• 3.743 acres• Currently zoned CC (Commercial Corridor) in Larimer County• Developed with a Single-Family HomeITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 143 4I-25Thompson Thrift Annexation and ZoningCity Structure Plan –Low Density Mixed Use Land Use DesignationITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 144 5I-25Thompson Thrift Annexation and ZoningCurrent ZoningNorth SouthEastWestZoningUnincorporated Larimer County Commercial Corridor (CC)Low Density Residential (RL) Larimer County CC – Commercial CorridorMedium Density Mixed Use (M-M-N)Larimer County CC – Commercial CorridorLand UseResidential propertyFalcon Ridge neighborhood, single-familyResidential propertyVacant (proposed to become Watermark at Willox)Single-family neighborhoodCurrent and Surrounding ZoningITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 145 Thompson ThriftSpaulding Addition Annexation and Initial Zoning(ANX220003)FORT COLLINS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HEARINGMARCH 23, 2023ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 146 RequestRecommend approval of the annexation and initial zoning of the property to the L‐M‐N zone district.ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 147 423 Spaulding Lane3.743 acres of land located in unincorporated Larimer CountyFebruary 21, 2023: Resolution of Substantial ComplianceUpcoming:April 4, 2023: Eligibility Hearing and First ReadingApril 18, 2023: Second ReadingITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 148 Annexation Eligibility CriteriaColorado Constitution, Article II, Section 30(b). The City of Fort Collins has received a petition for the annexation signed by persons comprising more than fifty percent of the landowners in the area. C.R.S. §31‐12‐104(1)(a). Not less than one‐sixth of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is contiguous with the existing boundary of the City of Fort Collins.C.R.S. §31‐12‐104(1)(b). A community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the City of Fort Collins.C.R.S. §31‐12‐104(1)(b). The territory proposed to be annexed is urban or will be urbanized in the near future. C.R.S. §31‐12‐104(1)(b). The territory proposed to be annexed is integrated with or is capable of being integrated with the City of Fort Collins.ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 149 Annexation Eligibility Criteria (cont.)C.R.S. §31‐12‐105(1)(a), (1)(b).In establishing the boundaries of the territory proposed to be annexed, no land held in identical ownership: (a) is divided into separate parts or parcels, without the written consent of the landowner, unless such tracts or parcels are separated by a designated street, road or other public way; (b) and comprising 20 acres or more has a valuation for assessment in excess of $200,000 for ad valorem tax purposes for the year preceding the annexation, is included within the territory proposed to be annexed without the written consent of the landowners. C.R.S. §31‐12‐105(1)(c). The territory proposed to be annexed by the City of Fort Collins is not subject to annexation proceedings to another municipality.C.R.S. §31‐12‐105(1)(d).The proposed annexation does not result in the detachment of area from any school district.ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 150 Annexation Eligibility Criteria (cont.)C.R.S. §31‐12‐105(1)(e). The territory proposed to be annexed by the City of Fort Collins is not more than three miles from a point of the boundary of the City of Fort Collins as such was established more than one year before this annexation is effective. C.R.S. §31‐12‐105(1)(f). In establishing the boundaries of the area proposed to be annexed, the entire width of any street or alley is included within the area annexed. LUC § 2.12.1. The proposed annexation is in compliance with and in accordance with state law.ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 151 Initial Zoning Criteria Mandatory Requirements for Quasi‐Judicial Zonings or Rezonings:LUC § 2.9.4.H.2.a. The proposed zoning to the L‐M‐N zone district is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; and/orLUC § 2.9.4.H.2.b. The proposed zoning to the L‐M‐N zone district is warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property.The Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council may consider the following additional factors:LUC § 2.9.4.H.3.a.The proposed zoning to the L‐M‐N zone district is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the property and is the appropriate zone district for the property;LUC § 2.9.4.H.3.b. The proposed zoning to the L‐M‐N zone district would not result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment; andLUC § 2.9.4.H.3.c. The proposed zoning to the L‐M‐N zone district would result in a logical and orderly development pattern.ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 152 Questions for Applicant TeamITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 153 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 Hearing: March 23, 2023 North College Mobile Home Park Rezoning, #REZ230002 Summary of Request This is a City initiated request to rezone 32.8 acres from the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) and Service Commercial (CS) zone districts to the Manufactured Housing (MH) zone district. The rezoning is a continuation of City efforts began in 2020 to preserve and protect existing manufactured housing communities. Zoning Map Next Steps After receiving a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the proposed rezoning will be presented to City Council for consideration of approval via ordinance. Site Location Located at 1601 N College Avenue, southwest of the intersection of College Avenue and Willox Lane. Parcel #s: 9702100021, 9702100025, 9702100028 Petitioner City of Fort Collins PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Owners North College LLC 1601 N College Avenue Office Fort Collins, CO 80524 Staff Ryan Mounce, City Planner Contents 1. Project Introduction .................................... 2 2. Public Outreach ......................................... 4 3. Land Use Code Article 2 Procedural Standards .......................................................... 5 4. Land Use Code Article 2 Standards .......... 5 5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion ...................... 8 6. Recommendation ....................................... 8 7. Attachments ............................................... 9 Recommendation Approval Packet pg. 154 Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 4 REZ230002 | North College Mobile Home Park Rezoning Thursday, December 23, 2023| Page 2 of 9 Back to Top 1. Project Introduction A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This is City initiated request to rezone the North College Mobile Home Park to the Manufactured Housing (MH) zone district. The park is comprised of three parcels totaling approximately 32.8 acres with split zoning. The western half of the site is presently zoned Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) while the eastern half is zoned Service Commercial (CS). In 2020 the City created the MH zone district to help preserve and protect existing mobile home parks, which represent some of the most affordable housing options in the community. The MH district promotes the ongoing operation of existing parks by discouraging redevelopment to other land uses. The rezoning of parks to the MH district also seeks to ensure mobile home parks are located in zone districts where manufactured housing is a permitted land use and to reduce instances of nonconforming uses, as is currently the case for the portion of the North College Mobile Home Park located in CS zoning. The majority of the largest mobile home parks in Fort Collins were rezoned to the MH district in 2020, however, the North College Mobile Home Park rezoning was delayed several times over the course of the pandemic due to health and public participation concerns for the senior population of the North College Mobile Home Park. Staff was also awaiting renewed policy guidance from the North College Bus Rapid Transit Study, recently passed by City Council, that recommends rezoning of the park and adjustments to the future transportation network around the property that better align with the zone districts and expectations for limited redevelopment. Site & Zoning Vicinity Map Packet pg. 155 Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 4 REZ230002 | North College Mobile Home Park Rezoning Thursday, December 23, 2023| Page 3 of 9 Back to Top B. SITE BACKGROUND & CONTEXT The eastern half of the site was annexed into the City in 1959 as part of the North College Annexation, while the western half was annexed in 1971 as part of the North College Mobile Plaza Annexation. The park was also developed in multiple phases, with the eastern (front) half being developed prior to the western (back) half. The property has featured many different zoning designations over the decades and the current split zoning has been a feature since the original development of the North College Corridor Plan and adoption of the Land Use Code beginning in the mid-1990s. While the western half of the property features a residential designation, the eastern half carries a commercial designation that is consistent with the broader North College Corridor Plan land-use guidance for Service Commercial along the College Avenue frontage. More recent policy plans including City Plan and the North College Bus Rapid Transit Study now indicate the entirety of the property should fall under a residential designation and/or be rezoned to the MH zone district. The CS designation for the eastern half of the property renders the front half of the mobile home park a nonconforming use as manufactured housing communities is not permitted in the CS zone district, and while the CS zone district does permit other types of residential dwellings, they are prohibited within 200ft of North College Avenue. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use North South East West Zoning Service Commercial (CS); O-Open (Larimer County) Service Commercial (CS); Manufactured Housing (MH) Service Commercial (CS) Manufactured Housing (MH) Land Uses Single Family Detached & Attached Dwelling Various retail, office, and light industrial uses; Hickory Village Mobile Home Park Various retail, office/medical office uses Hickory Village Mobile Home Park C. MANUFACTURED HOUSING PRESERVATION & POLICY GOALS Manufactured housing preservation is a Council priority and preventing the displacement of residents is emphasized as a policy goal in the City’s comprehensive plan. Over the past several years, the City has initiated a number of new programs, tools, and policy goals to further these efforts, including the recent creation of the Manufactured Housing zone district to help preserve and protect existing manufactured housing communities. These local efforts are taking place at the same time the State of Colorado is reviewing manufactured housing issues, including recent state legislation to create additional resident protections and updates to the Colorado Mobile Home Park Act which encourages local jurisdictions to enact and enforce their own regulations related to manufactured housing. Manufactured housing is an important source of naturally occurring affordable housing for those earning below the area median income. Many of the City’s manufactured housing communities feature housing costs which are comparable to or even below other forms of subsidized and deed-restricted affordable housing. In addition to its affordability, manufactured housing also offers similar benefits to ‘stick-built’ single-family dwellings, including greater privacy and personal space, semi-private garden areas, and a strong sense of community. While a unique form of housing, it is also limited in Fort Collins, representing less than 2% of all housing units. Over the past 20 years, five manufactured housing communities have closed in Fort Collins, Packet pg. 156 Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 4 REZ230002 | North College Mobile Home Park Rezoning Thursday, December 23, 2023| Page 4 of 9 Back to Top mostly due to redevelopment, which resulted in the loss of hundreds of units and the displacement of residents. After the closing of several manufactured housing communities between 2008-2012, the City adopted the Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy Report in 2013, which included a recommendation to create a new manufactured housing zone district to support manufactured housing preservation. In 2020, the City created a new Manufactured Housing zone district to support preservation efforts and has thus far rezoned six of the largest mobile home parks in the community. D. OVERVIEW OF MAIN CONSIDERATIONS Property rezonings and amendments to the zoning map are governed by Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code and include specific criteria for rezonings of land less than 640 acres in size (quasi-judicial rezonings). Quasi- judicial rezoning requests shall be recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved by City Council only if the proposal is consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan and/or warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. In addition, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council can also consider additional criteria which can be paraphrased as ‘compatible with surrounding uses’; ‘having limited impact to the natural environment’; and ‘facilitating a logical and orderly development pattern’. While many rezoning requests are initiated by property owners, this proposal has been initiated by the City to advance community and Council priorities, as well as policy and implementation goals found in City Plan, the 2022 Strategic Plan, and the North College Bus Rapid Transit Study. As such, this rezoning justification relies primarily on compliance with the comprehensive plan rather than specific changed conditions within and surrounding the property. While the goal of many rezoning requests is typically to facilitate additional development, the effect of this rezoning is primarily to discourage redevelopment and promote the ongoing operation of an existing use. While the policy goals supporting the change in zoning are well articulated in the comprehensive plan, the change in zoning represents a large impact on development potential for this site and a restriction for the property owners. The balance between community priorities to protect an important source of housing and property owner rights was a consistent theme heard during the original public process to develop the MH zone district in 2020 and its initial application to the first six mobile home parks rezoned to that zone district. 2. Public Outreach A. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING A neighborhood meeting for the rezoning was held February 6, 2023, and a meeting summary is attached. The meeting was primarily attended by residents of the North College Mobile Home Park who were broadly supportive of the effort to rezone the property for preservation purposes. An earlier neighborhood meeting seeking input on rezoning only the western half of the property was held in the Fall of 2022. At this meeting, residents indicated a strong preference that the entirety of the park should be rezoned together at once and the split zoning designation for the property should be removed. B. PROPERTY OWNER COMMUNICATION Staff has also been in communication with the property owners to share information about the proposed rezoning, process, and hearing dates. No declarative comment has been received regarding opposition or support to the rezoning. Packet pg. 157 Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 4 REZ230002 | North College Mobile Home Park Rezoning Thursday, December 23, 2023| Page 5 of 9 Back to Top 3. Land Use Code Article 2 Procedural Standards A. PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW 1. Petition – REZ230002 The application and rezoning petition were submitted on February 23, 2023. 2. Neighborhood Meeting An in-person neighborhood meeting was held on February 6, 2023. 3. Notice (Posted, Written and Published) Posted Notice: January 20, 2023, Sign # 643 Written Hearing Notice: March 9, 2023 706 addresses mailed. Published Hearing Notice: March 5, 2023 4. Land Use Code Article 2 Standards A. DIVISION 2.9 – AMENDMENT TO ZONING MAP Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 2.9.4 – Map Amendment Review Procedures This Code Section enables City Council to approve a change to the zoning map after receiving a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission; and contains the applicable standards governing rezoning of property, as follows: Any amendment to the Zoning Map involving the rezoning of land shall be recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission or approved by the City Council only if the proposed amendment is: • Consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan; and/or • Warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. Additional considerations for rezoning parcels less than 640 acres (quasi-judicial): • Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is the appropriate zone district for the land. • Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. • Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. Staff Analysis: Staff analysis follows for each criterion. Complies Staff Analysis: Is the proposed rezoning “Consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan”? Consistency with City Plan, Fort Collins’ comprehensive plan, can come through both the land use guidance provided by the Structure Plan Map and City Plan principles and policies. City Plan also encourages the review of subarea and policy plans for contextual purposes. In this circumstance, both the North College Corridor Plan and the North College Bus Rapid Transit Study provide relevant information as adopted elements of City Plan. Complies Packet pg. 158 Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 4 REZ230002 | North College Mobile Home Park Rezoning Thursday, December 23, 2023| Page 6 of 9 Back to Top Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings Land Use Guidance: The City Plan Structure Plan Map identifies the site under the ‘Mixed Neighborhood’ place type designation, which aligns with the proposed Manufactured Housing zone district in terms of land-use character (residential), density, and proximity to transit and services. The most recent City Plan update in 2019 changed the designation for the eastern half of the property from commercial to residential to better align with policy guidance to preserve and protect manufactured housing communities and in recognition of the longstanding residential use of the site. The Mixed Neighborhood place type also specifically references manufactured housing within existing neighborhoods, indicating, “while reinvestment in existing mobile home parks is encouraged, redevelopment of existing parks is not.” The MH district is designed to discourage redevelopment and further addresses the Mixed Neighborhood place type description found in City Plan. Within the North College Corridor Plan, the land use framework map identifies the eastern half of the site under a commercial designation, reflecting the broader North College Avenue frontage which is primarily intended for commercial purposes but doesn’t necessarily acknowledge the nonconformity between the current commercial zoning and the preexisting residential use of the site nor the potential impacts of redevelopment and displacement of residents, which is a growing area of policy in more recent City plans since the last update to the North College Corridor Plan. The North College Bus Rapid Transit Study contains the most recent land use guidance for the site. Study recommendations include preserving the North College Mobile Home Park by rezoning it to the Manufactured Housing zone district and to exclude the site from a proposed Transit Oriented Development Overlay seeking to spur intensification in the corridor to support additional transit service. While the guidance in the North College Corridor Plan is somewhat contradictory on the eastern half of the site, on the whole between City Plan and the North College Bus Rapid Transit Study, there are appropriate levels of land-use guidance in place to support a rezoning of the property to the Manufactured Housing zone district, especially when considering the most two most recent plans identify residential zoning for the site. Policy Guidance: Housing affordability and attainability is a top community issue which is reflected in City Plan through a number of policy goals. The preservation of manufactured housing communities, including the recent development of the Manufactured Housing zone district and the proposed rezoning of properties containing manufactured housing directly support the following City Plan policies: LIV 5.2 – Supply of Attainable Housing Encourage public and private sectors to maintain and develop a diverse range of housing options, including housing that is attainable (30% or less of monthly income) to residents earning the median income. Options could include ADUs, duplexes, townhomes, mobile homes, manufactured housing and other “missing middle” housing types. Manufactured housing represents one of the most affordable types of housing in Fort Collins, comparable to subsidized and deed-restricted housing for those earning between 30-60% area median income. As a naturally occurring source of affordable housing, manufactured housing communities represent a comparable number of dwelling units to Fort Collins’ entire deed-restricted affordable housing supply. Packet pg. 159 Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 4 REZ230002 | North College Mobile Home Park Rezoning Thursday, December 23, 2023| Page 7 of 9 Back to Top Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings Preserving manufactured housing helps protect and maintain an important supply of affordable housing in Fort Collins. In addition to its affordability, manufactured housing is a unique and limited type of housing that has been in decline over the past several decades due to community closures and redevelopment. The goal of preservation through rezoning to the MH district is designed to protect and promote the ongoing operation of this limited housing resource which has proven to be difficult to expand via new manufactured housing development. LIV 6.4 – Permanent Supply of Affordable Housing Create and maintain an up-to-date inventory of affordable housing in the community. Pursue policy and regulatory changes that will encourage the rehabilitation and retention of affordable housing in perpetuity. The preservation of manufactured housing through rezoning represents a similar effect to the regulatory changes envisioned by City Plan for the City’s subsidized and deed- restricted affordable housing. While most units in manufactured housing communities are private and not publicly subsidized, they have consistently provided an important source of housing at similar pricing levels. While rezoning does not guarantee affordability alone, it promotes the long-term operation of these communities and reduces the likelihood of redevelopment and the loss of some of the community’s most affordable housing options. LIV 6.9 – Prevent Displacement Build the capacity of homeowner groups, affordable housing providers and support organizations to enable the purchase, rehabilitation and long-term management of affordable housing. Particular emphasis should be given to mobile home parks located in infill and redevelopment areas. Many of the community’s manufactured housing communities are located within or adjacent to commercial areas, or along corridors with existing or planned transit service which encourage redevelopment to higher intensities. Rezoning properties containing manufactured housing to the MH district provides an important regulatory and policy signal that manufactured housing is encouraged and its continued operation is desired even amongst areas otherwise anticipated to experience infill and redevelopment. This policy signal may also bolster the efforts of residents, local organizations, and the City to support and reinvest in these communities, including the potential for future acquisition of the underlying property by residents through a resident-owned community (ROC) if a property owner elects to sell a property in the future. Summary: The proposed rezoning is consistent with the land use designation on the City Plan Structure Plan Map and policy goals of City Plan and the recently adopted North College Bus Rapid Transit Study. Encouraging the ongoing operation of the North College Mobile Home Park helps protect an existing source of affordable housing and prevents displacement. Staff Analysis: Is the proposed rezoning “Warranted by Changed Conditions Within the Staff is recommending the proposed change in zoning based primarily on consistency with the comprehensive plan, rather than specific changed conditions in the neighborhood. From a policy standpoint, there are changed conditions since the property’s current zoning was established prior to policy goals found in both City Plan and the North College Bus Rapid Transit Plan supporting both redevelopment and infill at higher Complies Packet pg. 160 Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 4 REZ230002 | North College Mobile Home Park Rezoning Thursday, December 23, 2023| Page 8 of 9 Back to Top Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings Neighborhood Surrounding and Including the Subject Property”? intensities along the corridor and protections for existing affordable housing options to prevent displacement. The City can also draw upon local experience of past mobile home park closures, which tend to occur for those areas in commercial corridors under commercial zoning, which is a condition the eastern half of the North College Mobile Home Park falls under. Staff Analysis: “… Compatible with Existing and Proposed Uses… and is the Appropriate Zone District for the Land” The proposed rezoning does not alter the existing composition of land uses and their compatibility in the immediate vicinity since most properties have already been developed and no physical or land use changes are anticipated as a result of the rezoning. The mobile home park has existed side-by-side to other commercial uses for decades and it is anticipated this condition will continue for years to come. There are many instances of higher intensity residential zone districts adjacent to commercial zones throughout the community. Further, the existing portion of the site that is zoned CS would also permit residential land-uses if not for current standards limiting it to within 200-ft of the College Avenue frontage, a restriction that is proposed to be removed as a recommendation of the North College Bus Rapid Transit Plan. Complies Staff Analysis: “…Adverse Impacts on the Natural Environment…” The proposed rezoning is not anticipated to result in negative or positive impacts on the natural environment, as it seeks to preserve existing development. To the extent redevelopment of a property could positively benefit the natural environment through the application of more recent Land Use Code standards (habitat buffers, mitigation measures, etc.) the rezoning may have some long-term impacts, however, nearby sensitive natural features around the site are generally already protected through the City’s acquisition of land via parks, natural areas, and open space. Complies Staff Analysis: “…a Logical and Orderly Development Pattern” The proposed rezoning is not anticipated to result in changes to development patterns given the site is already developed and the rezoning seeks the continuance of this land use. The site predates many of the individual standards of the Land Use Code for orderly development (e.g. street connectivity and spacing requirements); however, the properties fulfill other growth framework and logical development goals, including providing for a variety of housing options and prices in the community that would otherwise result in additional demand for regional commuting and a decrease in the City’s housing opportunities and social connectivity. An update to the Master Street Plan is forthcoming as a result of the North College Max Bus Rapid Transit Plan, which recommends re-aligning a future extension of Mason Street north of Hickory Street to turn 90-degrees and intersect with the intersection of North College Avenue and Bristlecone Drive. This would eliminate a future collector street running through both the North College and Poudre Valley Mobile Home Parks, which is inconsistent with guidance to preserve and protect these properties, and thus less likely to see redevelopment that would trigger the street’s construction. Complies 5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the petition for the North College Mobile Home Park Rezoning from the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) and Service Commercial (CS) Zone Districts to the Manufactured Housing (MH) Zone District, staff finds that the petition complies with the standards in Section 2.9 of the Land Use Code. 6. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve a motion to recommend that City Council approve the North College Mobile Home Park Rezoning, #REZ230002, based on the Findings of Fact in the Staff Report. Packet pg. 161 Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 4 REZ230002 | North College Mobile Home Park Rezoning Thursday, December 23, 2023| Page 9 of 9 Back to Top 7. Attachments 1. Rezoning Justification & Map 2. February 2023 Neighborhood Meeting Summary 3. August 2021 Neighborhood Meeting Summary 4. Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategy Report 5. Staff presentation Packet pg. 162 REASON FOR REQUEST This City-initiated rezoning request for the North College Mobile Home Park continues community efforts to rezone the community’s major mobile home parks to the new Manufactured Housing (MH) zone district. In 2020 the City began rezoning large manufactured housing communities to the MH district to implement policy goals in City Plan to preserve and protect this unique and affordable type of housing and to prevent future displacement of residents. The MH zone district is designed to discourage redevelopment of existing manufactured housing communities and ensure existing parks are located in zone districts where the land use is explicitly permitted Preserving manufactured housing communities advances multiple policy goals, including: City Plan: LIV 5.2 – Supply of Attainable Housing Encourage public and private sectors to maintain and develop a diverse range of housing options, including housing that is attainable (30% or less of monthly income) to residents earning the median income. Options could include ADUs, duplexes, townhomes, mobile homes, manufactured housing and other “missing middle” housing types. City Plan: LIV 6.4 – Permanent Supply of Affordable Housing Create and maintain an up-to-date inventory of affordable housing in the community. Pursue policy and regulatory changes that will encourage the rehabilitation and retention of affordable housing in perpetuity. 2022 Strategic Plan – Neighborhood Livability & Social Health 1.8 Preserve and enhance mobile home parks as a source of affordable housing and create a safe and equitable environment for residents. PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION Parcel 1 (9702100025) BEG 492.76 FT S AND 240 FT W OF NE COR OF NE 1/4 2-7-69, S 164.25 FT, W 1127.1 FT TO W LN E 1/2 OF NE 1/4, N 164.25 FT, E 1127.1 FT TPOB (AD), FTC; ALSO POR NE 1/4 OF NE 1/4 2-7-69 LYING S OF FOL DESC LN: COM E 1/16 COR Parcel 2 (9702100021): BEG AT PT 657.02 FT S OF NE COR OF NE 1/4 2-7-69, W 1320 FT M/L TO W LN OF E 1/2 OF NE 1/4, S 328.5 FT, E 1127.1 FT M/L TO W LN K BAR D SUB, N 219 FT, E 198.9 FT, N 109.5 FT TPOB; LESS ROW TO CITY PER 20140040137 Parcel 3 (9702100028) BEG AT N 1/4 COR 2-7-69, TH ALG N LN S 89 59' E 1317 FT TO NE COR OF W 1/2 OF NE 1/4, TH ALG E LN OF W 1/2 OF NE 1/4 S 0 3' 20" W 405 FT TPOB, TH CONT ALG SD E LN S 0 3' 20" W 1956.97 FT, N 89 59' W 2.67 FT M/L TO ERLY L ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 163 Rezoning Vicinity Map ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 164 North College Mobile Home Park Rezoning Neighborhood Meeting Summary Neighborhood Meeting Date: February 6, 2023 City Staff – Attendees: Em Myler – Development Review Liaison Ryan Mounce – City Planner JC Ward – City Planner, Neighborhood Services Emily Olivo – Neighborhood Liaison, Neighborhood Services Seth Lorson – Transit Planner, FCMoves Applicant Team: The City of Fort Collins is the project applicant Project Information Presented: •Em Myler provided an overview of the neighborhood meeting process and next steps after the meeting. •City Planner Ryan Mounce provided an overview of the proposed rezoning of the North College Mobile Home Park to the Manufactured Housing (MH) Zone District. Details were also shared recent work over the past two years by the City to create a preservation-focused zone district for manufactured housing and the rezoning of other mobile home park properties in late 2020 which implements many policies and goals found in the comprehensive plan and the recently adopted North College Bus Rapid Transit Study. Questions/Comments and Answers (answers primarily provided by City staff unless otherwise noted). •Is the rezoning a formality given Council voted to rezone the other mobile home parks several years ago? The rezoning has a lot of alignment with mobile home park preservation goals in City Plan, the recently adopted North College Bus Rapid Transit Study and identified priorities in the 2020 and 2022 Strategic Plan, however the ultimate decision will be up to City Council with a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Since the original mobile home park rezonings occurred there are new members to both bodies and unique circumstances for any project that may influence a final Council decision. Community Development and Neighborhood Services Planning Services 281 North College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 165 Neighborhood Meeting Notes – North College Mobile Home Park Rezoning Page 2 • Is the reason the eastern half of the property wasn’t rezoned considered for rezoning because it is commercial, like the remainder of the North College frontage? That existing commercial designation for the eastern half of the site does differ compared to the other parks that were rezoned in 2020 as they all carried residential zoning designations. Alongside delays due to pandemic conditions, staff wanted to work through the policy alignment implications in the North College Bus Rapid Transit Study which was forthcoming. The most recent guidance from both City Plan and the North College Bus Rapid Transit Study indicate the full site should receive residential zoning designation. • What happens after rezoning? Could the park be sold? A rezoning doesn’t put any restrictions or limitations on a sale of the property, rather the intent behind the change in zoning is it would limit redevelopment potential to encourage the ongoing operation of the park, even if sold to another owner. • Are the owners aware of the rezoning? The owners have been contacted and informed about the proposed rezoning but there has not yet been a conversation or written comments in support or opposition to the rezoning. When the other parks were rezoned several years ago, most owners were neutral or opposed. At that time, all owners indicated they did not have plans to redevelop their properties but also recognized a rezoning put limitations on their future options. • What would be arguments against rezoning? With some of the earlier mobile home park rezonings there were comments and concerns about infringing too much on private property rights, or that the zone district itself was too static in nature and doesn’t necessarily allow for options such as partial redevelopment to other forms of affordable housing. • Would owner comments be made public? If the owners provided written comments in advance of hearings or provided testimony at the hearings those comments would be public. We encourage anyone who wishes to comment to do so in writing because we’re able to include those verbatim to decision-makers as part of their packet of information for a project, and all of those materials are available to view online for anyone interested in the proposal. • Does the rezoning impact the future of Mason Street? The rezoning itself doesn’t impact the future of Mason Street, however, we did work through options during the North College Bus Rapid Transit Study to identify alternatives given the goal of rezoning is to limit redevelopment of the site and thus it would be less likely Mason Street would ever extend through this site. Within the new Bus Rapid Transit Study it’s recommended Mason Street would turn and reconnect with College Avenue at Bristlecone south of the North College Mobile Home Park. That change is proposed to be formalized in the near future with updates to the Master Street Plan. • Comment: This is one of the best mobile home parks in Fort Collins and I’m concerned about impacts of the proposed homeless shelter nearby. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 166 Neighborhood Meeting Notes – North College Mobile Home Park Rezoning Page 3 • When will the meeting for the homeless shelter proposal take place? The neighborhood meeting is scheduled for March 2nd. Residents of the North College Mobile Home Park are likely in close enough proximity to the site that you will receive a mailed letter about the meeting. • Comment: I think many of us would appreciate an email follow-up after this meeting with details on the homeless shelter proposal. • Several additional comments were shared about potential crime/vandalism concerns associated with a homeless shelter nearby. • What are some of the reasons or issues that could hold up the rezoning? Goal is to move the rezoning proposal forward to decision-makers quickly this spring. While dates have not been formalized it’s likely the rezoning will reach the Planning and Zoning Commission in March and City Council in April. Can’t speak on behalf of those decision-makers, however from a staff perspective there appears to be a lot of policy alignment between the rezoning and City Plan / Strategic Plan, and the rezoning of the other parks several years ago was a unanimous decision at the time. • Comment: I appreciate that the City is moving forward with the rezoning of the park. • How many 55+ mobile home parks are there in Fort Collins? Within City limits there are only two – North College as well as Skyline Mobile Home Park. • If Council decides against the full rezoning, is there potential just part of the park could be rezoned? Plan is to move a forward with a rezoning of the entire property. During a previous neighborhood meeting when it was discussed to start with a rezoning of just the back half of the park, residents indicated they were against that idea and desired the entire property to be unified under the MH district at the same time. Those comments will be communicated in materials to decision-makers. • Who is our Council member? The Councilmember for the park is Emily Francis. The City recently reworked some of the Council boundaries and this area is just on the line between several districts. Councilmember Gutowsky has also frequently been involved with residents of North College Mobile Home Park as well. • What language exists in Fort Collins Municipal Code about mobile home parks? Is there overlap with state laws? Section 18 is all about mobile home parks. There are some additional changes moving forward this year related to billing transparency/auditing and clothes lines. If you’re interested in learning more about local and state laws, the City has a webpage with flyers explaining all mobile home park requirements and who enforces those codes. • Who is responsible for enforcing locally? It depends on what the potential issue is, but some of the key departments would be building inspection, zoning, and code enforcement. • Are there other parks that have not been rezoned? There are a small number of parks without any proposed rezoning, and it’s uncertain if those parks will be rezoned. They differ from the other parks in that they are much smaller, tend to be fully under ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 167 Neighborhood Meeting Notes – North College Mobile Home Park Rezoning Page 4 commercial zoning designations and they have other uses on their properties, such as hotels/motels that conflict with the MH district. • Is it correct that the current eastern half of the park is considered nonconforming? Yes, the eastern half is zoned Service Commercial (CS), which is a primarily commercial/light industrial zone district. While it does permit some forms of residential development, manufactured housing is not a permitted use and is considered a nonconforming use. Nonconforming uses have some restrictions on their ability to expand, and there may be issues for property owners of nonconforming uses if they are seeking financing or insurance for the property. • When will Connexion come to the park? Connexion has representatives that work to bring the service to mobile home parks and multifamily projects, however they need an agreement and consent of the owners of those properties and we’re continuing to talk with those properties to explore how service can be provided. • Participant discussion began to take place about what types of easements already exist within the property for water utilities and if those could be used to install future Connexion services. • Comment: It’s frustrating we’re paying taxes for Connexion but not able to receive service. • Have many members of the current City Council have been involved in this rezoning? As a development review proposal, Council members are typically restricted from being directly involved as they are either a final decision maker or decision maker for appeals. From a policy perspective many of them have been involved in efforts supporting mobile home park issues and preservation. Council decides their priorities at the beginning of each term and lead development of the Strategic Plan, which currently includes priorities for mobile home park preservation. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 168 Neighborhood Meeting – North College Manufactured Housing Rezoning August 4, 2021 Proposal Overview: Rezone the western half of the North College Manufactured Housing Community from the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) zone district to the Manufactured Housing (MH) zone district. The rezoning would be initiated by the City, not the property owner The goal of the rezoning is to encourage the preservation of the existing manufactured home community and to reduce the possibility of park closure due to redevelopment. The rezoning is a continuation of the City efforts began in 2020 to preserve the community’s existing manufactured housing parks. Related Information & Resources: Additional information on related Manufactured Housing or North College topics can be found online at the following locations: Manufactured Housing (MH) Zone District: o ourcity.fcgov.com/mhzone Mobile Home Neighborhood Resources & Livability Issues: o https://www.fcgov.com/neighborhoodservices/mobile-home-park-communities Homeless Shelter Advisory Committee: o https://www.fcgov.com/homelessnesscommittee/ o See attached flyer Questions & Answers What other types of land uses are permitted in the MH zone district besides manufactured housing? Manufactured housing communities are intended to the primary land use in the zone district. IN addition, other land uses such as places of worship or childcare are permitted as well as a number of smaller, accessory uses such as group homes, parks, urban agriculture and community facilities. There are limitations on the size of non-residential land uses which mean they are unlikely to result in large areas of a property being used for these uses. The MH district is one of the more limiting of the City’s residential zone districts to discourage redevelopment into uses other than manufactured home parks. Will the rezoning require residents to move out of their homes? No, the rezoning will not require residents to leave. The rezoning doesn’t require any physical changes to the property. The main effect of the rezoning is limiting the redevelopment potential of the property to encourage manufactured housing to remain on site. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 169 Does the Manufactured Housing Zone District allow homeless and congregate shelters? Is this part of the efforts to bring a shelter to North College? The MH zone district does not permit large shelters. A large homeless shelter, such as what the City and community partners have been discussing recently, are generally limited to higher intensity commercial and mixed-use zone districts. What is the latest information on the homeless shelter proposed along North College? A work session with City Council was held in late July to discuss the latest report from the second Homeless Advisory Committee. The report is recommending a 24/7 shelter to limit daytime neighborhood impacts and evaluated five areas of the community for a possible shelter although no decision have been made on a location and more engagement is planned for this fall and winter. Note: a flyer with the latest information from the Homeless Advisory Committee’s report can be found attached to the end of these meeting notes. Why is the east part of the park zoned commercial when it is a residential property and has been for many years? The eastern half of the property has always had commercial zoning given it’s location abutting North College Avenue and other commercial development. This commercial designation has carried forward on the property even after updates to the North College Corridor Plan in the 1990s and early 2000s given some of the broader goals for the corridor for mixed-use and commercial (re)development. Given the City’s priorities for manufactured housing preservation, that commercial designation for the eastern half of the property does send a mixed message. We would like to review the designation for the eastern half as well and possible consider a rezoning after studying the issue and making amendments to the North College Corridor Plan. Over the coming months the City is initiating a study to determine what it would take to extend the MAX to North College. The study will look at topics such as route alignment, station planning, and adjacent land uses. There may be an opportunity to look at the eastern half designation as part of this larger study and make amendments to the North College Corridor Plan to facilitate a future rezoning of the eastern half of the property as well. Note: a flyer with information on the North College MAX Study can be found attached to the end of these meeting notes. How does rezoning only part of the park fit with the intention of the Mobile Home Park Act? The Mobile Home Park Act is legislation at the state level that is designed to improve livability issues and common complaints from residents in manufactured housing communities. It covers issues related to resident rights and livability. The rezoning is a local effort by the City to help preserve existing manufactured housing. There is currently a path forward to consider a rezoning on the western half of the park but the eastern half would have to go through additional steps first before a rezoning could occur. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 170 Why can’t the City make an exemption and rezone the eastern half at the same time as the western half? The City’s Land Use Code requires rezonings to comply with the City’s comprehensive and neighborhood plans. Any rezoning on this eastern half needs to come after or coincide at the same time as a change in designation for the North College Corridor Plan. We’re hearing a lot of input tonight in support of rezoning all of the property and we’re going to be looking at what options are available to quickly consider something for the eastern half as well, however, there isn’t a lot of information on what that timing and process will be just yet. What is the timeline for rezoning the west half? The east half? A City-initiated rezoning for the western half could likely occur in 2-4 months. The key steps in the process are a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission and then two readings at City Council. City Council is the final decision maker on any rezoning. This same timeline would be repeated for the eastern half as well if a rezoning is proposed, however, before a rezoning could begin the North College Corridor Plan would need to be updated – it’s unknown exactly how long that amendment would take but likely a minimum of several months in order to engage stakeholders and work through reviews with the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Will College Ave be reconstructed as part of the updates to the North College Corridor Plan? Updates to the North College Corridor Plan or a rezoning will not trigger any reconstruction of College Avenue. Within the past several years there was a large effort to upgrade the frontage along North College Avenue with new sidewalks, lighting, tree plantings, etc. Those upgrades represent the long term configuration for this part of North College Avenue. If Mason is continued all the way to Willox, it would go through the east side of the park. Is this still the plan? There are several plans for North College that discuss extending Mason Street as a parallel route to North College Ave to improve access, however, these plans are long term and rely on redevelopment of properties to implement. Typically segments of Mason Street would only be constructed if/when a site develops or redevelops. In this case, the City is also trying to preserve manufactured housing and it would be counterproductive to want to force Mason Street through the property without close coordination with the property owner and residents to ensure no one would be displaced. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 171 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 172 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 173 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 174 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 175 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 176 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 177 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 178 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 179 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 180 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 181 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 182 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 183 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 184 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 185 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 186 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 187 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 188 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 189 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 190 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 191 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 192 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 193 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 194 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 195 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 196 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 197 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 198 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 199 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 200 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 201 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 202 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 203 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 204 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 205 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 206 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 207 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 208 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 209 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 210 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 211 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 212 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 213 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 214 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 215 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 216 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 217 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 218 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 219 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 220 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 221 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 222 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 223 North College Mobile Home Park Rezoning - #REZ230002Planning and Zoning Commission– 03.23.23ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 224 Project OverviewProposalRezone 32.8 acres from (LMN) & (CS) to (MH) zone districtCity initiated requestContinues City policy goals for mobile home park rezoning & preservation began in 2020P&Z Request: Recommendation to City Council2SITEWILLOX LNHICKORY STHickory VillageMHPCOLLEGE AVESoft GoldParkReviveNorth CollegeMarketplacePoudre ValleyMHPITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 225 3Zoning ContextOpen (O)Larimer CountyITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 226 4Fort Collins Manufactured Housing Communities & RezoningsCity GMA TotalCommunities91423Home Sites1,400 2,137 3,537City LimitsManufactured Home CommunityGMA BoundaryPrevious MHC RezoningITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 227 Rezoning CriteriaAny amendment to the Zoning Map involving the rezoning of land shall be recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission or approved by the City Council only if the proposed amendment is:Consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan; and/orWarranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property.Additional considerations for rezoning parcels less than 640 acres (quasi-judicial):Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is the appropriate zone district for the land.Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern.5ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 228 6Criterion 1: City Plan Structure Plan MapIndustrialPlace TypeMixedNeighborhoodSuburban Mixed-UseUrbanMixed-UseSuburbanNeighborhoodITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 229 7Criterion 1: City Plan Mixed Neighborhood Place TypeConsistent with Mixed Neighborhood Place Type land uses, density, proximity to services/transitMixed neighborhood encourages preservation of existing mobile home parksITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 230 8Criterion 1: North College Corridor PlanConsistent with residential designation on western half of propertyConflicts with commercial designation on eastern half of propertyITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 231 9Criterion 1 – North College BRT StudyNorth College BRT StudyRecommends rezoning the North College Mobile Home Park to MH DistrictRecommends amendments to the Master Street Plan to shift the extension of Mason Street so it no longer travels through the North College & Poudre Valley Mobile Home ParksRecommends excluding the site from inclusion in a proposed expanded Transit Oriented Development OverlayMost recent land use policy guidance relevant to property- North College MAX BRT StudyITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 232 10Criterion 1: Policy SupportCity’s Manufactured Housing Preservation Goals:Identified as policy priority in City Plan and 2022 Strategic PlanHelp preserve an affordable, unique, and limited type of housingAddress community concerns about displacement / redevelopment of parksComplements other recent local & state efforts to address manufactured housing issuesITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 233 11Criterion 1: Policy SupportCity PlanLIV 5.2 – Supply of Attainable HousingEncourage public and private sectors to maintain and develop a diverse range of housing options, including housing that is attainable (30% or less of monthly income) to residents earning the median income. Options could include ADUs, duplexes, townhomes, mobile homes, manufactured housing and other “missing middle” housing types.LIV 6.4 – Permanent Supply of Affordable HousingCreate and maintain an up-to-date inventory of affordable housing in the community. Pursue policy and regulatory changes that will encourage the rehabilitation and retention of affordable housing in perpetuity.2022 Strategic PlanNeighborhood Livability & Social Health – 1.8Preserve and enhance mobile home parks as a source of affordable housing and create a safe and equitable environment for residents.ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 234 12Criterion 2: Warranted by Changed ConditionsFive mobile home parks have closed since 2008, primarily due to redevelopmentLed to study on manufactured housing displacementRecommendation to create a mobile home zone districtLand use guidance for the North College corridor encouraging infill and redevelopment New policy goals also seeking preservation of existing affordable housing and mobile home parksITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 235 13Criterion 3: Compatible with Existing UsesNo proposed changes to long-established development and land-uses with the rezoningSurrounding zoning and current zoning permit a mix of residential and commercial land-usesITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 236 14Criterion 4: Impacts to Natural EnvironmentNo proposed changes or new development as a result of rezoningNo sensitive natural features located within siteITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 237 15Criterion 5: Logical & Orderly Development PatternMaintains existing pattern of development and useMaintains options for a limited type and price-point of housingNorth College Bus Rapid Transit study recommends changes to Master Street Plan to shift alignment of future Mason Street extension.Aligns with goals to discourage redevelopment of the siteITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 238 Staff Evaluation Summary16Rezoning CriteriaStaff EvaluationConsistent with the City’s Comprehensive PlanCompliesWarranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject propertyCompliesProposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is the appropriate zone district for the landCompliesWhether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environmentCompliesWhether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development patternCompliesITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 239 Staff Findings17In evaluating the North College Mobile Home Park Rezoning, staff finds that the petition complies with the standards in Section 2.9 of the Land Use Code.ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 240 18RESOURCESITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 241 19Zoning ComparisonsCS (east half) LMN (west half) MH (proposed)95 permitted land uses; mostly commercial & light industrialNo density maximum3-story height limit43 permitted land uses; mostly residentialUp to 9 units/acre3-story height limit17 permitted land uses; manufactured housing & accessory usesUp to 12 units/acre3-story height limitStandards closely mirror the City’s former mobile home park zone districtsITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 242 Current ZoningMHCs in city limits located predominantly in two zone districts: Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) & Service Commercial (CS) These zone districts permit a broad range of uses and intensities:20RESIDENTIAL USES NONRESIDENTIAL USES INSTITUTIONAL USESSingle-familyDuplexTownhomesMobile Home ParksMultifamilyGroup HomesChildcareRetailOffice/clinicsGas stationsRestaurants / BrewpubsIndoor RecreationLight Industrial (CS only)Workshops (CS only)Parks SchoolsCommunity FacilitiesPlaces of worshipITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 243 Manufactured Housing ZoningManufactured housing zoning permits a narrow range of land uses and intensities:21RESIDENTIAL USES NONRESIDENTIAL USES MISC. USESManufactured Housing CommunitiesGroup Homes / Domestic Violence ShelterChildcareRespite Care CentersParks SchoolsCommunity FacilitiesPlaces of worshipITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 244 22M-H Zone DistrictZone StandardsSet base levels for intensity, compatibility, safetyDesigned to reduce nonconformities (match existing development)General Development Standards (Article 3) also applyDensity: 6 – 12 dwelling units per acreSetbacks: 15’ front, 10’ side/rear, 10’ between unitsHeight: 3-stories max.Footprint: 5,000 sf max. (nonresidential)Parking: 1-space per unit in manufactured housing communityITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 245 Development Review Staff Report Agenda Item 5 Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing: March 23, 2023 MJA220004, Ziegler-Corbett ODP Major Amendment Summary of Request This is a request for a Major Amendment to the Ziegler-Corbett Overall Development Plan (ODP) located southwest of the intersection of Ziegler Road and Paddington Road (parcel #s 8732000002, 8732400008, 8732000009). The original ODP, approved in February 2022, is a mixed-use project consisting of 400- 700 residential dwelling units, a childcare center, and 50,000 square feet of commercial or community facility space. A major amendment is required to incorporate an additional enclaved parcel into the boundary of the ODP. No additional development is proposed; however, the boundary change creates an opportunity to shift the site’s primary access along Ziegler Road to align with Hidden Pond Drive and install a private traffic signal, which has implications for broader circulation patterns in the vicinity. Zoning Map Next Steps If approved by the decision maker, future Project Development Plans (PDPs) will be reviewed for compliance with the amended Overall Development Plan and brought forward for P&Z consideration. Site Location The project is located southwest of the intersection of Ziegler Road and Paddington Road, between Front Range Village and The English Ranch neighborhood (Parcel #s 8732000002, 8732400008, 8732000009). Zoning Harmony Corridor (HC) Property Owner Ziegler 1924B LLC 1808 Seashell Ct Windsor, CO 80550 Applicant/Representative Chris Beabout Landmark Homes 6341 Fairgrounds Ave, Suite 100 Windsor, CO 80550 Staff Ryan Mounce, City Planner Contents 1. Project Introduction .................................... 2 2. Public Outreach ......................................... 5 3. Land Use Code Article 2 – Applicable Standards .......................................................... 6 4. Findings of Fact/Conclusion ...................... 8 5. Recommendation ....................................... 8 6. Attachments ............................................... 8 Staff Recommendation Approval Packet pg. 246 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 5 MJA220004, Ziegler-Corbett ODP Major Amendment Thursday, March 23, 2023 | Page 2 of 9 Back to Top 1. Project Introduction A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Major Amendment (MJA) proposes expanding the boundary of the Ziegler-Corbett ODP by incorporating one additional parcel along the western frontage of Ziegler Road. Alongside this expanded boundary, the major amendment also proposes sifting the primary access point north to align with the Hidden Pond Drive intersection and the installation of a privately funded traffic signal. As a result of the shift in the location of primary access, the ODP’s primary east-west circulation route also shifts to the north. No changes are proposed to the land uses or the number of dwelling units and commercial square footage approved with the original ODP. B. DEVELOPMENT BACKGROUND & CONTEXT The 33-acre site is currently undeveloped and was annexed into the City as part of the Spring Creek Farms 4th Annexation in 1994. Adjacent development includes the Front Range Village shopping center to the south, The English Ranch subdivision to the north, Affinity Fort Collins, a senior apartment building to the west, and the Broadcom/HP Campus and Woodland Park subdivision to the east across Ziegler Road. The original Ziegler-Corbett ODP was approved in February 2022 for a mixed-use project consisting of 400 – 700 single family attached, multifamily, and mixed-use dwelling units, a childcare center, and 50,000 square feet of office or community facility space. As part of the original ODP approval, the following modification of standards and alternative compliance requests were approved: Modification to Section 4.26(D)(2), to permit up to 100% secondary land uses across the site. Modification to Section 4.26(D)(3)(a), to permit up to 4 residential stories, with conditions, in certain areas of the site. Alternative Compliance to Section 3.6.3, to replace a local street connection north to The English Ranch neighborhood with a bike/pedestrian only connection. In consideration of the ODP and the Modification of Standards, the project was approved with a condition that the future project development plan submittals demonstrate compliance with the following City Plan policies: Policy LIV 3.5 – Distinctive Design Require the adaptation of standardized corporate architecture to reflect local values and ensure that the community’s appearance remains unique. Development should not consist solely of repetitive design that may be found in other communities. Policy LIV 3.6 – Context-Sensitive Development Ensure that all development contributes to the positive character of the surrounding area. Building materials, architectural details, color range, building massing, and relationships to streets and sidewalks should be tailored to the surrounding area. Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses North South East West Zoning The English Ranch Neighborhood (LMN) Front Range Village Regional Shopping Center (HC) Woodland Park Estates (RL) and Broadcom/HP Campus (HC) Front Range Village (HC) and Affinity Fort Collins Apartments (HC) Land Use Single family detached units Retail Single family attached & detached units; office campus Retail; multifamily Packet pg. 247 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 5 MJA220004, Ziegler-Corbett ODP Major Amendment Thursday, March 23, 2023 | Page 3 of 9 Back to Top An important element to this site’s background is the history of changes to street connectivity to/from the property and potential downstream impacts on traffic operations for this section of the community. Prior to the construction of the southern portion of The English Ranch neighborhood and the Front Range Village shopping center, a previous ODP (Symbios Logic) and the City’s Master Street Plan both envisioned Corbett Drive, a collector street, traversing across the ODP site to create a connection between Harmony Road and Paddington Road within The English Ranch Neighborhood. In the early 2000’s the Harmony Corridor Plan was amended to allow for a regional shopping center (Front Range Village) northwest of Harmony and Ziegler Roads and south of the Ziegler-Corbett ODP site. During the review of Front Range Village, neighbors in English Ranch raised concerns about having a direct connection between the shopping center and the neighborhood via Corbett Drive and additional cut-through retail traffic. In 2010 during a Master Street Plan update, staff and neighbors shared these concerns with City Council, who sought input and tradeoffs for removing the Corbett collector street connection on the Master Street Plan between Front Range Village and The English Ranch neighborhood. While Council ultimately decided to remove the connection, it was indicated a local street connection may still be required and that the issue would need to be addressed at the time of future development. In 2021-2022 during the review of the Ziegler-Corbett ODP, staff held two neighborhood meetings and heard feedback from English Ranch neighbors indicating strong concern about including a local street connection from the ODP site north to Paddington Road. Similar to the 2010-era discussions, neighbors are concerned about potential cut-through traffic to Front Range Village, impacts to neighborhood traffic speeds/safety, and some frustration that a street connection was again being considered given the prior Council decision and process from 2010. During the Ziegler-Corbett ODP review, an alternative compliance request was approved that converted what would typically have been a required local street connection to a bike/ped only connection. Similar to the 2010 Master Street Plan discussion, staff found that while the surrounding arterial streets could continue to function without this connection, a tradeoff of removing this street connectivity could impact the timing and location of a future traffic signals along Ziegler, which is desired by many nearby residents. In addition to the neighborhood input opposing the street connection, staff also felt absent updated Council guidance, a local street connection would duplicate a condition which stakeholders and City Council had previously taken action to remove. A compilation of previous meeting notes and Council work session materials pertaining to consideration of the removal of the Corbett Drive Master Street Plan connection from 2010 is attached. C. OVERVIEW OF MAIN CONSIDERATIONS Given no proposed changes to development intensity/capacity of the ODP site, the main consideration of the major amendment relates to the potential longer-term impacts of moving the primary Ziegler Road access to align with Hidden Pond and installing a privately funded traffic signal. A traffic signal at the Ziegler/Hidden Pond intersection precludes a future signal at the Ziegler/Paddington/Grand Teton intersection due to signal spacing requirements. A revised ODP traffic study indicates warrants for a traffic signal at the Ziegler/Hidden Pond intersection considering the anticipated number of trips from both the ODP site, the small number of existing Hidden Pond Drive users east of Ziegler, as well as some trips from Front Range Village and Affinity apartments. The installation of the proposed signal would be privately funded without eligibility for Street Oversizing reimbursement. Long term transportation planning for this area originally anticipated the potential for a signalized intersection at the Ziegler/Paddington intersection, given Paddington is a designated collector street at half-mile spacing between the Ziegler/Harmony and Ziegler/Horsetooth intersections. While current traffic levels at the Ziegler/Paddington/Grand Teton intersection do not warrant a signal, a connection between the Ziegler-Corbett ODP site and Paddington Road in The English Ranch neighborhood likely would have reached warrants for a signal that could serve English Ranch, Woodland Park and the Ziegler-Corbett ODP site. Packet pg. 248 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 5 MJA220004, Ziegler-Corbett ODP Major Amendment Thursday, March 23, 2023 | Page 4 of 9 Back to Top During a neighborhood meeting for the major amendment, staff shared several traffic and connectivity scenarios, including information about tradeoffs of a signal at Ziegler/Hidden Pond preventing a future signal at Ziegler/Paddington/Grand Teton. Ultimately, input from neighbors in the vicinity remains mixed. While many neighbors express a desire for a light at the Ziegler/Paddington/Grand Teton intersection, many neighbors in English Ranch and the English Ranch HOA oppose a street connection between the ODP site and Paddington Road that would help generate the warrant for the signal. Many Woodland Park neighbors are equally frustrated and input from these neighbors tend to be more in favor of a connection to help support a signal at the Ziegler/Paddington/Grand Teton intersection. Woodland Park neighbors point out the only access to their subdivision comes from Ziegler Road while English Ranch has multiple access points to other arterial streets and a signal would be quite beneficial for their neighborhood. Input has also been shared by Hidden Pond Estates neighbors that a signalized intersection at Ziegler/Hidden Pond could generate accidental traffic trying to use their private street even though it has no outlet. Staff feels a signalized intersection at the Ziegler/Hidden Pond intersection or a connection between the ODP site and Paddington Road and a signal at Ziegler/Paddington/Grand Teton are both feasible options, and preferable to the original ODP access point using a ‘Channelized-T’ intersection located between the Ziegler/Hidden Pond intersection and the Front Range Village service access entrance. A warrant for a signal along this stretch of Ziegler Road will provide a bicycle and pedestrian crossing solution which has been identified as a need in the Active Modes Plan. A signal may also provide some limited relief breaking up the constant flow of traffic created by the Ziegler/Horsetooth roundabout further north. Ultimately, staff is recommending the proposed ODP access point aligning at the Ziegler/Hidden Pond intersection with a traffic signal. While neighborhood input has been mixed, a connection between the ODP site and English Ranch that would generate the warrant for a signal a Ziegler/Paddington/Grand Teton remains strongly opposed for similar reasons it was originally removed as a collector street connection by City Council in 2010. During the 2010 era deliberations, staff had shared that removing the Corbett connection could result in shifts in the location of future Ziegler Road traffic signals. A signal at Ziegler/Hidden Pond mimics this earlier prediction and would result in a more immediate benefit in providing a bike/pedestrian crossing across this stretch of Ziegler. D. CITY PLAN PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES: 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 City Plan’s Structure Plan Map includes place types—or land use categories—which provide a framework for the ultimate buildout of Fort Collins. These place types provide a policy structure that can apply to several specific zone districts within each place type by outlining a range of desired characteristics. The subject property is consistent with the “Mixed Employment place type” land use designation, which is the overlying land use designation for both the E and HC zone districts. City Plan provides guidance that the Structure Plan is not intended to be used as a stand-alone tool; rather, it should be considered in conjunction with the accompanying principles, goals and policies contained in City Plan as a tool to guide future growth and development. Key principles and policies relevant to the project include the following: OUTCOME AREA “LIV” -- NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY AND SOCIAL HEALTH – Managing Growth: These principles help the City to manage growth by encouraging infill and redevelopment, ensuring this development is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood or area. PRINCIPLE LIV 2: Promote Infill and Redevelopment: POLICY LIV 2.1 - REVITALIZATION OF UNDERUTILIZED PROPERTIES. Support the use of creative strategies to revitalize vacant, blighted or otherwise underutilized structures and buildings, including, but not Packet pg. 249 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 5 MJA220004, Ziegler-Corbett ODP Major Amendment Thursday, March 23, 2023 | Page 5 of 9 Back to Top limited to: Infill of existing surface parking lots—particularly in areas that are currently, or will be, served by bus rapid transit (BRT) and/or high-frequency transit in the future. PRINCIPLE LIV 3: Maintain and enhance our unique character and sense of place as the community grows: POLICY LIV 3.1 - PUBLIC AMENITIES. Design streets and other public spaces with the comfort and enjoyment of pedestrians in mind …such as plazas, pocket parks, patios, children’s play areas, sidewalks, pathways… POLICY LIV 3.6 - CONTEXT-SENSITIVE DEVELOPMENT. Ensure that all development contributes to the positive character of the surrounding area. Building materials, architectural details, color range, building massing, and relationships to streets and sidewalks should be tailored to the surrounding area. PRINCIPLE LIV 4 – Enhance neighborhood livability: POLICY LIV 4.2 - COMPATIBILITY OF ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT. Ensure that development that occurs in adjacent districts complements and enhances the positive qualities of existing neighborhoods. Developments that share a property line and/or street frontage with an existing neighborhood should promote compatibility by: Continuing established block patterns and streets to improve access to services and amenities from the adjacent neighborhood; Incorporating context-sensitive buildings and site features (e.g., similar size, scale and materials); and Locating parking and service areas where impacts on existing neighborhoods—such as noise and traffic—will be minimized. Principle LIV 5 – Create more opportunities for housing choices. POLICY LIV 5.3 - LAND FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. Use density requirements to maximize the use of land for residential development to positively influence housing supply and expand housing choice. 2. Public Outreach A neighborhood meeting was held on January 5, 2023 for the Major Amendment. A video recording of the meeting may be viewed online at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwhdjqz_xrA. Two previous neighborhood meetings were also held during the original ODP review and featured similar discussion topics. Those meeting summaries can be found as attachments. Staff also had the opportunity to discuss the proposal with the English Ranch HOA virtually on March 6, 2023. Main Topics discussed at the meeting included: 1. Concerns about the potential for a street connection between the ODP site to Paddington Road in the English Ranch neighborhood. 2. Desire to find solutions, including a possible signal, at the Ziegler/Paddington/Grand Teton intersection. 3. Concern about the density and amount of traffic generated by future ODP development. 4. Concern a signalized intersection at Ziegler/Hidden Pond is favoring new development over traffic issues faced by existing neighborhoods. 5. Discussion of alternative traffic and connection scenarios shared by neighbors. Both prior to and at the neighborhood meeting, neighbors shared an idea about a connectivity scenario where an angled street connection from the ODP site through the English Ranch detention pond could be made to Paddington Road closer to the intersection with Ziegler Road. The goal behind this proposal was to make a connection that would not impact English Ranch neighbors with additional cut-through traffic through main segments of the neighborhood and generate additional traffic/connectivity to warrant a traffic signal at the Ziegler/Paddington/Grand Teton intersection. Many neighbors felt this idea was compelling and sought additional evaluation of feasibility. Packet pg. 250 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 5 MJA220004, Ziegler-Corbett ODP Major Amendment Thursday, March 23, 2023 | Page 6 of 9 Back to Top After additional analysis, staff has major concerns about the feasibility of the idea as a potential solution. Key concerns include: The angle and intersection spacing where the proposed connection would connect to Paddington Road near the intersection with Ziegler Road would likely not meet standards for spacing and driver visibility issues, creating potential safety hazards. The street connection would traverse an existing detention pond serving English Ranch. Based on current standards the pond is undersized and any modification could create additional nonconformity or require alternate off-site drainage locations. The detention pond is also not owned by the City or applicant and would require sale/consent of the English Ranch HOA as existing property owners and no formal communication has been received about the potential use or modification of the pond. 3. Land Use Code Article 2 – Applicable Standards A. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW 1. Conceptual Design Review – CDR220035 A conceptual design review meeting was held on May 5, 2022. 2. First Submittal – MJA220004 The Major Amendment was submitted on November 15, 2022. 3. Neighborhood Meeting Pursuant to LUC Section 2.2.2 – Step 2: Neighborhood Meetings, a neighborhood meeting is required for Planning and Zoning Commission (Type 2) projects. An in-person neighborhood meeting was held on January 5, 2023. 4. Notice (Posted, Written and Published) Posted Notice: November 18, 2022, Sign #719. Written Hearing Notice: March 8, 2023, 938 addresses mailed. Published Coloradoan Hearing Notice: Scheduled for March 5, 2023 B. MAJOR AMENDMENT OVERVIEW Section 2.2.10 outlines the process and review procedures for minor and major amendments to approved plans, including Overall Development Plans. Per minor amendment criteria 2.2.10(A)(2)(e), minor amendments exclude changes that would result in site improvements outside the boundaries of the originally approved plan. Given the expansion of the ODP boundaries this change automatically results in a major amendment review. Additionally, while the proposed ODP changes do not alter previously approved development program and capacity, the resulting impact of the shift in the ODP’s main access point and long term implications of installing a traffic signal at the Ziegler/Hidden Pond intersection should be evaluated as a change in character appropriate to a major amendment review. Attached is the staff report for the original Ziegler-Corbett ODP approved in February 2022 which documents in detail compliance with standards in Articles 2 Land Use Code where ODP standards are located. As relatively few internal changes are proposed, the remaining sections of this staff report summarize Packet pg. 251 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 5 MJA220004, Ziegler-Corbett ODP Major Amendment Thursday, March 23, 2023 | Page 7 of 9 Back to Top compliance with applicable ODP standards contained in Section 2.3.2 as a result of the proposed Major Amendment. C. ODP STANDARDS – SECTION 2.3.2 Section 2.3.2 (H) of the Land Use Code identifies seven criteria for reviewing an ODP, which are summarized as follows: 1) Section 2.3.2(H)(1) – Permitted Uses and District Standards This standard requires the ODP to be consistent with the permitted uses and applicable zone district standards and any applicable general development standards that can be applied at the level of detail required for an ODP submittal. The major amendment proposes no changes to land uses within the ODP, which are proposed to include single- family attached, multifamily, and mixed-use dwellings, a childcare center, and office and/or community facility space. All land uses are permitted in the Harmony Corridor (HC) zone district. Additionally, the HC zone district prescribes a minimum of 75% primary employment uses and a maximum of 25% secondary uses. The ODP is proposing a ratio of secondary uses exceeding the 25% secondary use maximum. A modification of standard was previously approved permitting up to 100% secondary uses for the ODP. 2) Section 2.3.2(H)(2) – Density This standard requires that the Overall Development Plan be consistent with the required density range of residential land uses. For residential developments, the HC district requires an overall minimum average density of seven dwelling units per net acre. No changes to density are associated with the Major Amendment. Between 400 – 700 residential units are proposed, complying with the standard, and representing a gross density of approximately 12 to 21 units per acre. 3) Section 2.3.2(H)(3) and 2.3.2(H)(4) – Master Street Plan, Street Pattern, Connectivity, Transportation Connections to Adjoining Properties These standards require the ODP to conform to the Master Street Plan, Street Pattern and Connectivity standards, and also to conform with Transportation Level of Service requirements. There are no issues with ODP compliance related to these standards with the exception of 3.6.3(E) Distribution of Local Traffic to Multiple Arterial Streets and 3.6.3(F) Utilization and Provision of Sub-Arterial Street Connections to and from Adjacent Developments and Developable Parcels. An alternative compliance request was approved with the original ODP approval regarding these standards related to converting a local street connection to a bike/ped connection between the ODP site north to Paddington Road in The English Ranch neighborhood. As discussed previously in this report, this connection point is subject to opposition by many neighbors in The English Ranch neighborhood and was subject to a community dialogue and Council decision in 2010 that removed a collector-street level connection over cut-through traffic concerns. A local street connection duplicates many of these concerns and conditions that originally lead to the decision to remove a connection initially. Updated traffic studies and analysis indicate the nearby arterial street network can continue to function and meet Transportation Level of Service requirements absent this connection, however, impacts to the timing and location of signalized intersections along Ziegler Road result from removing a local street connection. Packet pg. 252 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 5 MJA220004, Ziegler-Corbett ODP Major Amendment Thursday, March 23, 2023 | Page 8 of 9 Back to Top 4) Section 2.3.2(H)(5) – Natural Features This standard requires an ODP to show the general location and size of all natural areas, habitats and features within its boundaries and shall indicate the rough estimate of the buffer zone as per Section 3.4.1(E) The ODP does not contain any natural areas, habitats of features as identified on the City’s Natural Habitats and Features inventory map and no natural habitat buffer zones are required within the ODP boundary. 5) Section 2.3.2(H)(6) – Drainage Basin Master Plan This standard requires an ODP to be consistent with the appropriate Drainage Basin Master Plan. The ODP is located within the Fox Meadows Drainage Basin. A drainage report has been reviewed by stormwater staff and there are no drainage issues associated with the ODP. The ODP map indicates the approximate location and sizing of future detention areas. Future project reviews within the ODP boundary will comply with the City’s stormwater management, water quality requirements, and low impact development standards. 6) Section 2.3.2(H)(7) – Housing Density and Mix of Uses This section requires that any standards relating to housing density and mix of uses will be applied over the entire ODP and not on each individual PDP. Within the HC zone district, a mix of housing types is required for projects proposing residential dwellings. For projects greater than 30 acres in size, a minimum of three housing types are required. No changes are associated with the Major Amendment to the ODP’s mix of housing types. Housing types shall include single-family attached, multifamily, and mixed-use dwellings. Additional housing types may be provided when individual PDPs are reviewed as multifamily buildings with varying unit numbers per building may count as additional housing types in the HC district. In addition to these recognized housing types in the HC district, 12 live-work units are proposed that will feature street-oriented commercial storefronts. 4. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the request for the Ziegler-Corbett ODP Major Amendment, MJA220004, Staff makes the following findings of fact: 1. The Major Amendment complies with the applicable procedural and administrative requirements of Article 2 of the Land Use Code. 2. The Major Amendment complies with the applicable review standards for Overall Development Plans of Section 2.3.2(H)(1) through (7). 5. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission make a motion to approve the Ziegler-Corbett ODP Major Amendment, MJA220004, based on the Findings of Fact and supporting explanations found in the staff report and hearing materials. 6. Attachments 1. Statement of Planning Objectives 2. Overall Development Plan Map 3. January 2023 Neighborhood Meeting Summary Packet pg. 253 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 5 MJA220004, Ziegler-Corbett ODP Major Amendment Thursday, March 23, 2023 | Page 9 of 9 Back to Top 4. September 2021 Neighborhood Meeting Summary 5. February 2022 Neighborhood Meeting Summary 6. Public Comments 7. Original ODP Staff Report (February 2022) 8. 2010 Corbett Connection Materials (Council Work Session, Neighborhood Meeting Summary) 9. Staff presentation Relevant Links • Traffic Impact Study https://records.fcgov.com/PlanningDevelopment/DocView.aspx?id=15941041&dbid=0&repo=FortCollins • ODP Major Amendment Utility & Drainage Plan: https://records.fcgov.com/PlanningDevelopment/DocView.aspx?id=15892862&dbid=0&repo=FortCollins • ODP Major Amendment Drainage Report: https://records.fcgov.com/PlanningDevelopment/DocView.aspx?id=15892863&dbid=0&repo=FortCollins • ODP Major Amendment Intersection Spacing Variance Request https://records.fcgov.com/PlanningDevelopment/DocView.aspx?id=15892867&dbid=0&repo=FortCollins Packet pg. 254 Page 1 November 11, 2022 Ziegler – Corbett ODP Statement of Planning Objectives This proposal is for a Major Amendment to the approved Overall Development Plan (ODP) submittal for the Ziegler-Corbett property located west of Ziegler Road and South of Paddington Rd. The properties are owned by ZIEGLER 1924B LLC, JAR PLUS 3 LLC and DAVID L YOUNG TRUST and contains approximately 32.6 acres total. The property is located in the Harmony-Corridor (HC) Zone District and will be subject to a Type 2 review with required neighborhood meeting. The property currently is undeveloped and will include primary and/or secondary uses as allowed by the previously approved modifications and the Ft Collins Land Use Codes. Property Owners within the ODP area: Parcel Number: 8732000002 JAR PLUS 3 LLC Parcel Number : 8732400008 DAVID L YOUNG TRUST Parcel Number: 8732000009 ZIEGLER 1924B LLC Parcel Number: 8732400010 ZIEGLER 1924B LLC Uses surrounding the property consist of the following: South: Front Range Village – Commercial / Retail / Office West: Affinity – Multi-Family North: English Ranch Subdivision – Single Family East: Avago Technologies – Corporate Campus Vehicular access for the project will be from Ziegler Road via a new full movement lighted intersection that provides access into the neighborhood from the east and access from Corbett Dr. on the west. The site design will incorporate pedestrian access and connectivity utilizing sidewalks and open space, including pedestrian controlled access across Ziegler Rd. The project will be designed to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods as required by the City Code. Architectural compatibility will be achieved by incorporating design elements from the surrounding neighborhood such as building materials, horizontal lap siding, shingle siding and board and batten siding in contrasting colors. In addition, there will be brick and stone veneer accents. The roofs will consist of asphalt shingles and / or standing seam metal ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 255 Page 2 (i) Statement of appropriate City Plan Principles and Policies achieved by the proposed plan: The Ziegler-Corbett ODP meets the following applicable City Plan Principles and Policies: Livability and Social Health Principle LIV 2: Promote infill and Redevelopment Policy LIV 2.1 - REVITALIZATION OF UNDERUTILIZED PROPERTIES Support the use of creative strategies to revitalize vacant, blighted or otherwise underutilized structures and buildings. Policy LIV 2.2 - PRIORITY LOCATIONS FOR INFILL AND REDEVELOPMENT Ensure appropriate use of the City’s public investments in infrastructure/improvements in the following areas to achieve the City’s strategic goals: Being underutilized, this project is an ideal infill project, and is within walking distance to many destinations including other targeted ‘areas of activity’ as described throughout the City Plan. Principle LIV 5: Create more opportunities for housing choices. Policy LIV 5.1 - HOUSING OPTIONS To enhance community health and livability, encourage a variety of housing types and densities, including mixed-used developments that are well served by public transportation and close to employment centers, shopping, services and amenities. Policy LIV 5.3 - LAND FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Use density requirements to maximize the use of land for residential development to positively influence housing supply and expand housing choice. The project provides an opportunity for development of an existing vacant site and the design of the buildings will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and setting. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 256 Page 3 Policy LIV 5.6 - EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS Expand housing options in existing neighborhoods (Where permitted by underlying zoning) by encouraging: • Infill development on vacant and underutilized lots; • Internal ADUs such as basement or upstairs apartments; • Detached ADUs on lots of sufficient size; and • Duplexes, townhomes or other alternatives to detached single- family homes that are compatible with the scale and mass of adjacent properties. This development has the opportunity and ability to incorporate different housing types to provide variety along the streetscape. This can be accomplished with the use of different facades and/or materials even if similar models are adjacent to each other. Principle LIV 6: Improve access to housing that meets the needs of residents regardless of their race, ethnicity, income, age, ability or background. Policy LIV 6.1 - BASIC ACCESS Support construction of housing units with practical features that provide access and functionality for people of all ages and widely varying mobilities. Policy LIV 6.8 - MONITOR HOUSING AFFORDABILITY Collect, maintain and disseminate information on housing affordability such as cost, demand and supply of affordable housing stock. The development will provide housing targeted towards all age groups and demographics. Principle LIV 7: A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be available throughout the Growth Management Area. Policy LIV 7.1 – Encourage Variety in Housing Types and Locations Policy LIV 7.4 – Maximize Land for Residential Development This development has the opportunity and ability to incorporate different housing types to provide variety along the streetscape. This can be accomplished with the use of different facades and/or materials even if similar models are adjacent to each other. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 257 Page 4 Principle LIV 9: Encourage development that reduces impacts on natural ecosystems and promotes sustainability and resilience. Policy LIV 9.1 - EFFICIENCY AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION Reduce net energy and water use of new and existing buildings through energy-efficiency programs, incentives, building and energy code regulations, and electrification and integration of renewable energy technologies. Policy LIV 9.2 - OUTDOOR WATER USE Promote reductions in outdoor water use by selecting low-water-use plant materials, using efficient irrigation, improving the soil before planting and exploring opportunities to use non-potable water for irrigation. The project will provide an attractive streetscape with street trees and detached sidewalks along the main drive. Water conservation and the use of low water consuming plants and grasses will be encouraged. Culture and Recreation Principle CR 2: Provide a variety of high-quality outdoor and indoor recreational opportunities that are accessible to all residents. Policy CR 2.1 - RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES Maintain and facilitate the development of a well-balanced system of parks, trails, natural areas and recreation facilities that provide residents and visitors of all races/ethnicities, incomes, ages, abilities and backgrounds with a variety of recreational opportunities. Policy CR 2.2 - INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM Support an interconnected regional and local system of parks, trails and open lands that balances recreation needs with the need to protect wildlife habitat and other environmentally sensitive areas. Where appropriate, place trails along irrigation ditches and storm drainageways to connect to destinations such as schools, open lands and neighborhood centers. A variety of open spaces and parks are envisioned for this development. These could include pocket parks, open spaces areas and trails. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 258 Page 5 Principle CR 3: Adapt and expand parks and recreation facilities and programs to meet the needs of a changing community. Policy CPR 3.4 – Adhere to Best Management Practices Follow Environmental Best Management Practices for the maintenance of parks and recreation facilities, such as water conservation and the use of untreated water for irrigation purposes in appropriate areas, managing turf and adhering to policies for weed and pest control, utilizing low emission equipment and providing renewal energy opportunities, reducing solid waste through composting and recycling, and certifying sanctuary areas through Audubon International. Water conservation and the use of low water consuming plants and grasses will be encouraged. This development will utilize quality landscape materials throughout the site, including enhanced entryway and screening in any appropriate areas. Economic Health Policy EH 4.1: The City will encourage the redevelopment of strategic areas within the community as defined in the Community and Neighborhood Livability and Neighborhood Principles and Policies. AND Policy EH 4.2 – Reduce Barriers to Infill Development and Redevelopment The project, is an ideal infill project and is within walking distance to many destinations including other targeted ‘areas of activity’ as described throughout the City Plan. Residential / Mixed use is an ideal transition to the single-family neighborhood and the commercial district of Front range Village Environmental Health ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 259 Page 6 Principle ENV 19: The City will pursue opportunities to protect and restore the natural function of the community’s urban watersheds and streams as a key component of minimizing flood risk, reducing urban runoff pollution, and improving the ecological health of urban streams. Policy ENV 19.2 – Pursue Low Impact Development Low Impact Development (LID) encompasses many aspects of the proposed design. Permeable pavers will be utilized within private drives and/or parking lots as required. The site will be planned with the intent to provide green space buffers and swales to minimize directly connected impervious areas and promote infiltration. Rain Gardens and/or drywells will be utilized where applicable to treat stormwater prior to entering detention areas. Safe Community Principle SC 1: Create public spaces and rights-of-way that are safe and welcoming to all users. Policy SC 1.1 - NEIGHBORHOOD RELATIONS Provide and expand opportunities for neighborhood safety and involvement by fostering good neighborhood relations, building a sense of community pride and involvement, promoting safe and attractive neighborhoods, and encouraging compliance with City codes and regulations. A mix of land uses and programming will provide multiple efficient options for movement throughout this development. Bike trails and bike lanes will be used where appropriate to provide alternative methods of travel throughout the development. Development streets will be safe for cars, pedestrian and bicycles as well as attractive. The use of street trees and street lighting will contribute to the safety and aesthetics. Policy SC 1.2 - PUBLIC SAFETY THROUGH DESIGN ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 260 Page 7 Provide a sense of security and safety within buildings, parking areas, walkways, alleys, bike lanes, public spaces and streets through creative placemaking and environmental design considerations, such as appropriate lighting, public art, visibility, maintained landscaping and location of facilities. The street system will provide an interconnected network with transportation options to cars, bicycles and pedestrians while providing direct access to community amenities, employment areas and commercial development. Transportation Principle T 8: Transportation that provides opportunities for residents to lead healthy and active lifestyles will be promoted. Policy T 8.1 – Support Active Transportation Policy T 8.2 – Design for Active Living Principle T10: Using transit will be a safe, affordable, easy, and convenient mobility option for all ages and abilities. Policy T 10.1 – Transit Stops Policy T 10.6 – High Frequency Transit Service Principle T11: Bicycling will be a safe, easy, and convenient mobility option for all ages and abilities The location of this project with quick access to the Harmony Street Corridor will promote and support the idea of a predominance of the daily trips of the residents of this project utilizing alternative modes of transportation (walking/biking) or public transportation which includes a Transfort bus stop walking distance along Harmony. High Performing Community N/A (ii) Description of proposed open space, wetlands, natural habitats and features, landscaping, circulation, transition areas, and associated buffering on site and in the general vicinity of the project. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 261 Page 8 Pedestrian and bicycle trails as well natural buffer areas, parks and/or pocket parks will be integrated into the development. Various modes of circulation will be provided between specified uses, parks and natural areas. These connections will provide access to the harmony Corridor as well as providing the same connection for the neighborhood to the north. (iii) Statement of proposed ownership and maintenance of public and private open space areas; applicant's intentions with regard to future ownership of all or portions of the project development plan. Common open space will be owned and maintained by the HOA. (iv) Estimate of number of employees for business, commercial, and industrial uses. The type and quantity of commercial has not yet been determined therefore an estimated number of employees cannot be determined. This information will be provided at PDP. (v) Description of rationale behind the assumptions and choices made by the applicant. The rationale behind the project is to provide multi-family, single-family attached housing units and mixed-use in a location that is currently in need for more of these housing types. (vi) The applicant shall submit as evidence of successful completion of the applicable criteria, the completed documents pursuant to these regulations for each proposed use. The planning Director may require, or the applicant may choose to submit, evidence that is beyond what is required in that section. Any variance from the criteria shall be described. The submitted documents reflect the applicable criteria for the proposed use. Included are two modifications requesting the reduction on the limits of secondary uses and to increase residential buildings to 4 stories. (vii) Narrative description of how conflicts between land uses or disturbances to wetlands, natural habitats and features and or wildlife are being avoided to the maximum extent feasible or are mitigated. No existing ecological significance or native habitat is known or documented. (viii) Written narrative addressing each concern/issue raised at the neighborhood meeting(s), if a meeting has been held. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 262 Page 9 (ix) Name of the project as well as any previous name the project may have had during Conceptual Review. The project is currently named Ziegler-Corbett ODP. (x) Parking narrative describing the parking demand generated with consideration of: the number of employees, tenants, and/or patrons; the amount and location of parking provided; where anticipated spill-over parking will occur; and, any other considerations regarding vehicle parking. Parking will meet or exceed the parking requirements for the uses anticipated in the ODP. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 263 CORBETT DRIVEPADDINGTON ROADCARRIC K R O A D ZIEGLER ROAD(ROW VARIES)KINGSLEYCOURTNEWBURYCOURTHARRINGTONCOURTAFFINITY OFFORT COLLINSZONED HCFRONT RANGEVILLAGEZONED HCFRONT RANGEVILLAGEZONED HCBIKE ANDPEDESTRIANACCESS ONLYENGLISH RANCHSOUTHZONED LMNENGLISH RANCHSOUTHZONED LMNFULL MOVEMENTCONTROLLED(STREET LIGHT)INTERSECTIONS. ZIEGLER ROAD (ARTERIAL)FRONT RANGE VILLAGEZONED HCFRONT RANGE VILLAGEZONED HCCORBETT DRIVEPROPERTY BOUNDARY / ROWPEDESTRIAN / BIKE ROUTE ANDASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTSPOTENTIAL VEHICULAR& BIKE / PED ACCESS POINTDEVELOPMENT PARCEL BUBBLES(FOR GRAPHICAL PURPOSES ONLY)STREET LIGHT PERTRAFFIC STUDY4105 ZIEGLER RDFORT COLLINS, CO 80525GROUPlandscape architecture|planning|illustration444 Mountain Ave.Berthoud,CO 80513T(/:(B970.532.5891TBGroup.usPROJECT TITLEREVISIONSISSUE DATESHEET TITLESHEET INFORMATIONDATESEALNovember 11, 2022DATEPREPARED FORZiegler-CorbettOverall DevelopmentPlan - Amendment No1CALL 3 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOUDIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OFUNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES.CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OFCOLORADOKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRODP Amendment No1-01 11-11-22LANDMARK REALESTATE HOLDINGSLLC6341 Fairgrounds Ave,Suite 100Windsor, Colorado 80550(970) 460-0567CONTACT: Jason SherrillOverall DevelopmentPlan1 of 1Owner's Certification of Approval:THE UNDERSIGNED DOES/DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I/WE ARE THE LAWFUL OWNERS OF REALPROPERTY DESCRIBED ON THIS SITE PLAN AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I/WE ACCEPT THECONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS SET FORTH ON SAID SITE PLAN.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, WE HAVE HEREUNTO SET OUR HANDS AND SEALS THIS THE _________ DAY OF____________________________________, 20_____JAR PLUS 3, LLC. A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANYLRR INVESTMENTS, LLC. A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANYZIEGLER 1924B, LLC. A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY_____________________________________________________________MIKE RICE, MANAGERNOTARIAL CERTIFICATESTATE OF COLORADO)COUNTY OF LARIMER)THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME BY___________________________________THIS ______ DAY OF ________________________, 2017.MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:_____________ __________________NOTARY PUBLIC(SEAL)Planning Approval:BY THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES OF THE CITY OFFORT COLLINS, COLORADO THIS__________DAY OF _________________________ A.D., 20_______._____________________________________________________________________________________DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICESVicinity Map :General Notes:1. ZIEGLER - CORBETT OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN WILL BE A RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AS PART OF THEHARMONY CORRIDOR (H-C) ZONE DISTRICT. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL HAVE A MIX OF HOUSING TYPES ASREQUIRED/ALLOWED PER THE UNDERLYING ZONE DISTRICT AND ANY APPROVED MODIFICATIONS.2. THE PROPOSED LAND USES AND DENSITIES SHOWN ON THIS ODP ARE APPROXIMATE. ANY ADDITIONAL LAND USES NOT ALLOWED INTHE APPLICABLE ZONE DISTRICTS MUST BE APPROVED ACCORDING TO THE CRITERIA AS SET FORTH BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS3. MASTER UTILITY AND DRAINAGE PLANS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED WITH THIS ODP.4. TWO POINTS OF FIRE ACCESS HAVE BEEN PLANNED TO SERVE ALL AREAS OF THE PROJECT. FIRE HYDRANTS WILL BE PROVIDED ASREQUIRED BY POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY.5. ALL PUBLIC STREETS WILL BE DESIGNED TO THE FORT COLLINS LARIMER COUNTY URBAN AREA STREET STANDARDS. THEINTERNAL ACCESS POINTS SHOWN ON THIS ODP ARE APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS ONLY. PRECISE LOCATIONS OF ACCESS POINTSWILL BE IDENTIFIED AT THE TIME OF PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLANS (PDP).6. THE NETWORK OF PUBLIC STREETS OR PRIVATE DRIVES AND ASSOCIATED PEDESTRIAN WALKS TO BE DETERMINED DURING THEPDP PROCESS. THIS DEVELOPMENT'S CONTRIBUTIONS TO PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS ALONG ZIEGLER ROAD AND PADDINGTONROAD WILL BE DETERMINED BASED ON THE TRAFFIC STUDY ASSOCIATED WITH FUTURE PDP.7. ACCESS POINTS SHOWN ON THIS ODP ARE APPROXIMATE. EXACT LOCATIONS TO BE DETERMINED DURING THE PDP PROCESS.8. THE ACTUAL ANGLE OF THE ROAD CONNECTION FROM CORBETT DR. TO THE PROPERTY WILL BE DETERMINED AT THE TIME OFPROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLANS (PDP).9. THE SITE IS GREATER THAN 30 ACRES IN SIZE, WHICH WILL REQUIRE A MINIMUM OF THREE HOUSING TYPES. A MIXTURE OF SINGLEFAMILY ATTACHED, MULTI-FAMILY, WORK/LIVE AND MIXED USE UNITS WILL BE APPLIED OVER THE ENTIRE ODP, AND FINALIZED ATTHE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN PHASE.10. A TOTAL OF +/- 1.5 ACRE PRIVATE PARK(S) (NOT TO BE OWNED OR MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS) WILL BE PROVIDEDAND DESIGNED AS PART OF A FUTURE PDP PROCESS11. EXISTING TREES IF PRESENT ON THE SITE WILL BE PRESERVED TO THE EXTENT PRACTICAL.12. A CHILD CARE CENTER WILL BE PROVIDED AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT IN EITHER OF THE PARCELS INDICATED.13. COMMUNITY FACILITY WILL BE ALLOWED IN PARCELS 'D' AND 'E' AND WILL TAKE PRIORITY OVER OTHER USES IF OFFERED.14. PARCEL B WILL BE ALLOWED A 4TH FLOOR FOR ROOF TOP DECK AND AMENITIES AND RESIDENTIAL LOFT UNITS. PARCEL C WILL BEALLOWED A 4TH FLOOR FOR FULL RESIDENTIAL UNITS.15. PARCEL B - 4TH STORIES SHALL BE SET BACK A MINIMUM OF 10-FT ON ALL SIDES AND THE 4TH STORY FLOOR AREA SHALL NOTEXCEED TWO-THIRDS (2/3) OF THE FLOOR AREA OF THE FLOOR BELOW, BUT NOT INCLUDING OPEN BALCONIES OR ROOFTOP PATIOS.16. PARCEL C - 4TH STORIES OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS SHALL BE SET BACK AN AVERAGE OF 10-FT ON AT LEAST TWO SIDES FROMTHE FLOOR BELOW.17. ALL RESIDENTIAL UNITS WILL BE ENHANCED WITH SOLAR PANELS.18. TOWNHOME AND CONDOMINIUM UNITS WILL BE EITHER LEED GOLD OR ZERO ENERGY READY CERTIFIED.19. 4 - 12 LIVE / WORK UNITS WILL BE PROPOSED AS A PART OF THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT. THESE UNITS WILL INCLUDE STREETFACING COMMERCIAL STOREFRONT ACCESS.Land-Use StatisticsZONE DISTRICT TYPE GROSS ACREAGERESIDENTIAL DENSITYESTIMATED UNITSMAX. BLDG HTHOUSING TYPECOMMERCIAL / RETAIL / OFFICEPARCEL A+/- 6.5 AC12 - 20 DU / AC80 - 115 2-3 STORIES SFA / MF / TWO-FAMILY DWELLING UNITSPARCEL B+/- 5.4 AC15 - 25 DU / AC 100 - 135 2-4 STORIES SFA / MF / MIXED-USE / LIVE / WORKPARCEL C+/- 15.4 AC20 - 40 DU / AC 200 - 460 3-4 STORIES SFA / MF / MIXED-USE / LIVE / WORKPARCEL D+/- 5.3 AC 0 - 32 DU/AC 150 MAX3 STORIES MAX MIXED - USE +/- 65,000 SF / 4-12 LIVE / WORK UNITSTOTAL+/- 32.6 AC.12.3 D/U - 21.5 D/U 400 MIN - 700 MAX +/- 65,000 SF(Avg for Entire Site)(OVERALL)Legal Description:Parcel IndexPARCELZONING ACREAGEANTICIPATED USES PARCEL AHC+/- 6.5 ACSECONDARY / RESIDENTIAL USESPARCEL BHC+/- 5.4 ACSECONDARY / RESIDENTIAL USES / MIXED USE OR CHILD CARE CENTERPARCEL CHC+/- 15.4 ACSECONDARY / RESIDENTIAL USES / MIXED USE OR CHILD CARE CENTERPARCEL DHC+/- 5.3 ACPRIMARY / COMMUNITY FACILITY / CHILD CARE CENTERLegendSCALE 1" = 100'-0"100'0200'150'NORTHODP MapBuffer / Det. PondA+/- 6.5 ACRESZONED H-CRESIDENTIAL2-3 Story12-20 units per acreB+/- 5.4 ACRESZONED H-CRESIDENTIAL, MIXEDUSE AND CHILDCARE CENTER USES2-4 Story15-25 units per acreD+/- 5.3 ACRESZONED H-CMixed-Use, CommunityFacility, or Child CareCenter3 Stories Max. 0 - 150 ResidentialUnitsand up to 65,000 SFPrimary UsesDet.PondAFFINITY OFFORT COLLINSZONED HCFRONTRANGEVILLAGEZONED HCENGLISH RANCH SOUTHZONED RL / LMNHCNORTHNOT TO SCALEPRESTONKELLEY 2NDZONED HCWOODLANDPARK ESTATESPUDZONED RLWOODLANDPARK ESTATESPUDZONED RLPRESTONKELLEY 2NDZONED HCTHE PURPOSE OF THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS TO ESTABLISH GENERALPLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PARAMETERS, FOR PROJECTS THAT WILL BEDEVELOPED IN PHASES WITH MULTIPLE SUBMITTALS, WHILE ALLOWING SUFFICIENTFLEXIBILITY TO PERMIT DETAILED PLANNING IN SUBSEQUENT SUBMITTALS. APPROVALOF AN OVER-ALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOES NOT ESTABLISH ANY VESTED RIGHT TODEVELOP PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAN.ODP NoteTHE ODP SHALL DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CITYPLAN POLICIES:POLICY LIV 3.5 - DISTINCTIVE DESIGN REQUIRE THE ADAPTATION OFSTANDARDIZED CORPORATE ARCHITECTURE TO REFLECT LOCAL VALUESAND ENSURE THAT THE COMMUNITY'S APPEARANCE REMAINS UNIQUE.DEVELOPMENT SHOULD NOT CONSIST SOLELY OF REPETITIVE DESIGNTHAT MAY BE FOUND IN OTHER COMMUNITIES.POLICY LIV 3.6 - CONTEXT-SENSITIVE DEVELOPMENT ENSURE THAT ALLDEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTES TO THE POSITIVE CHARACTER OF THESURROUNDING AREA. BUILDING MATERIALS, ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS,COLOR RANGE, BUILDING MASSING, AND RELATIONSHIPS TO STREETSAND SIDEWALKS SHOULD BE TAILORED TO THE SURROUNDING AREA.CONDITIONS OF APPROVALTHE FOLLOWING CODE SECTIONS WERE MODIFIED AND APPROVED ASFOLLOWS AND NOTED ON THIS ODP MAP.1. 4.26(D)(2) FOR 100% SECONDARY USES2. 4.26(D)(3)(A) TO PERMIT A 4TH STORY FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGSON PARCELS B & C.APPROVED MODIFICATIONSC+/- 15.4 ACRESZONED H-CRESIDENTIAL, MIXEDUSE AND CHILDCARE CENTER USES3-4 Story20-40 units per acrePROVIDESPEDESTRIANCONNECTIONACROSSZIEGLER1. Parcel Number: 8732000002A TRACT OF LAND SITUATE IN THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 7NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OFCOLORADO, WHICH CONSIDERING THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SAID SOUTHEAST ¼ ASBEARING S 89°22'30” E AND WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVETHERETO IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE BOUNDARY LINES WHICH BEGIN AT A POINT ONTHE EAST LINE OF THE SAID SOUTHEAST ¼ WHICH BEARS N 00°15'10” E 1255.75 FEETFROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 32 AND RUN THENCE N 00°15'10”E 1043.87 FEET ALONG THE SAID EAST LINE, THENCE N 89°17'18” W 395.00 FEET,THENCE N 00°15'10” E 175.00 FEET, THENCE N 89°17'18” W 600.69 FEET, THENCE N00°15'10” E 175.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST 1/4 ,THENCE N 89°17'18” W 797.34 FEET ALONG THE SAID NORTH LINE, THENCE S00°37'30” W 1408.26 FEET, THENCE S 89°44'50” E 1802.12 FEET TO THE POINT OFBEGINNING. EXCEPT THAT PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED IN SPECIAL WARRANTYDEED RECORDED MARCH 2, 2007 AT RECEPTION NO. 20070016162.2. Parcel Number : 8732400008PARCEL 2: A TRACT OF LAND BEG AT PT ON W LN CO RD 9 WH BEARS N 89 17' 18" W30 FT, S 0 15' 10" W 175 FT FROM E 1/4 COR 32-7-68, TH S 0 15' 10" W 175 FT ALG W LNCO RD 9, N 89 17' 18" W 365 FT PARA TO N LN SE 1/4, N 0 15' 10" E3. Parcel Number: 8732000009A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH,RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTYOF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBEDAS FOLLOWS: CONSIDERING THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SE 1/4 OF SECTION 32 ASBEARING N 89°21' 46" W, A DISTANCE OF 2647.24 FEET, AS SHOWN MONUMENTEDHEREON AND WITH ALL BEARINGS HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO. COMMENCING ATTHE E 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 32; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAIDSE 1/4 OF SECTION 32, N 89° 21' 46" W, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO A POINT ONTHE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE FOR ZIEGLER ROAD (AKA COUNTY ROAD 9) AND THEPOINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF THE SE 1/4,ALSO BEING THE SOUTH LINE OF ENGLISH RANCH SOUTH P.U.D. AT RECEPTION NO.19960089830, OF THE CLERK AND RECORDERS OFFICE OF LARIMER COUNTY, N 89°21' 46" W, A DISTANCE OF 965.69 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF THATPARCEL DESCRIBED AT RECEPTION NO. 95009649 OF THE CLERK AND RECORDERSOFFICE OF LARIMER COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCELS 00° 11' 07" W, A DISTANCE OF 175.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINEOF SAID PARCEL AT RECEPTION NO. 95009649, AND THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THATPARCEL AT RECEPTION NO. 95028976 OF THE CLERK AND RECORDERS OFFICE OFLARIMER COUNTY, S 89° 21' 46" E, A DISTANCE OF 965.69 FEET (SIC 995.69 FEET) TO APOINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF ZIEGLER ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAIDWEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE, N 00° 11' 07" E, A DISTANCE OF 175.00 FEET TO THE POINTOF BEGINNING. COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO.4. Parcel Number: 8732400010 A TRACT OF LAND TR SE 1/4 32-6-68 COM AT E 1/4 COR OF SEC 32; TH N 89 38' 48" W430.00 FT TPOB; TH S 0 06' 01" E 612.86 FT; TH N 62 35' 31" W 194.91 FT; TH S 89 54' 29"W 456.73 FT; TH N 0 06' 0" W 162.00 FT; TH S 89ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 264 Ziegler-Corbett ODP Major Amendment Neighborhood Meeting Summary Neighborhood Meeting Date: January 5, 2023 City Staff – Attendees: Em Myler – Development Review Liaison Ryan Mounce – City Planner Sophie Buckingham – Engineering Dave Betley – Engineering Steve Gilchrist – Traffic Tyler Stamey – Traffic Noah Beals – Development Review Manager Applicant Team: Jason Sherrill, Landmark Homes Jason Claeys, Highland Development Services Project Information Presented: •Em Myler provided an overview of the neighborhood meeting process and next steps after the meeting. •City Planner Ryan Mounce provided an overview of the history of the original Overall Development Plan (ODP) approval for this project and background information on previous decisions made by the City concerning the potential for a street connection between Front Range Village, this development site, and The English Ranch neighborhood. City staff shared this meeting was prompted to share new information about an amendment to the ODP that could change the potential connectivity to the site and the location of future traffic signals along Ziegler Road. Staff also handed out supplementary information on three potential traffic and connectivity scenarios for discussion and feedback at the meeting (attached to the end of this summary). •The applicant shared a brief summary of the original ODP layout and that it is a mixed-use project consisting of different types of residential units (400-700 units), a childcare center, and commercial space. Questions/Comments and Answers (answers primarily provided by City staff unless otherwise noted). •Clarification on what criteria and metrics the City reviews to evaluate installing new lights and special pedestrian crossings (reference to a new tunnel under Timberline Rd near Bacon Elementary). Why do some areas receive these improvements but not others? Community Development and Neighborhood Services Planning Services 281 North College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 265 Neighborhood Meeting Notes – Ziegler-Corbett ODP Major Amendment Page 2 Multiple metrics are reviewed for potential traffic signals at intersections, including the level of traffic, turning movements, pedestrian and bike crossings, safety, and more. For the current Ziegler & Paddington intersection the metrics do not currently warrant a signal. The City has been working to install new bike and pedestrian infrastructure across the entire community over many years. The recently adopted Active Modes Plan identifies a need for a crossing along this stretch of Ziegler Rd, which helps prioritize future funding and projects. The new tunnel near Bacon Elementary is part of a larger capital project that is also expanding Timberline Road that has been in planning for many years. • Comment: It appears a light at Hidden Pond/Ziegler benefits only a few homes in Hidden Pond Estates, meanwhile there are larger numbers of residents in English Ranch and Woodland Park struggling to access Ziegler Rd that could really benefit from a light. A light at Hidden Pond isn’t primarily being driven by traffic on the east side (Hidden Pond) but rather new traffic from the proposed development and additional traffic from Front Range Village and Affinity Multifamily to the west. Traffic studies indicate those combined users would meet traffic levels and warrants for a light. There are tradeoffs in that if there was connectivity north of the site to Paddington Rd then it would warrant a light at Paddington/Ziegler that could also serve English Ranch and Woodland Park neighbors, however, many residents are also concerned about cut-through traffic this would generate within English Ranch. • Comment: Would really like a light at Paddington/Ziegler that could serve both Woodland Park and English Ranch. These neighborhoods have always struggled with access onto Ziegler, especially left turns, and it keeps getting worse. • This is all being driven by density, what is the analysis on the level of density and traffic levels? The density for the overall ODP is approximately 20 units per acre across the entire site. The Harmony Corridor zone district generally encourages higher intensity uses and has density minimums for the zone district and restricts the amount of single-family detached units that can be built. In terms of density levels, the ODP is similar to a multifamily project that could be found in the Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood Zone District and the Affinity project located just to the west of the site. The traffic analysis comes from a traffic study for development proposal. Copies of these studies are available for review for this project and any development proposal. [Applicant]: The original analysis and shape of the ODP limited the site to a channelized-T intersection on Ziegler but now with these proposed changes it opens new options and a potential light along Ziegler. Through this process we’re hoping to understand what the different options are on potentially installing a light along this stretch of Ziegler Rd. • Is there a pass-through between Hidden Pond and Woodland Park so Woodland Park residents could also use the light? There is no street connectivity between those two neighborhoods. • Comment: What’s troubling to many residents on either side of Ziegler is that we’ve been struggling for so long and we have a lot of residents that feel like we don’t matter, and what matters is really this new development. Ever since the roundabout at Horsetooth & Ziegler was installed, it’s created a constant flow of traffic that never allows for left turns onto Ziegler. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 266 Neighborhood Meeting Notes – Ziegler-Corbett ODP Major Amendment Page 3 • The ODP was approved for 4-stories, however I thought this was just for the buildings right by Target. Has this changed? [Applicant]: There are no proposed changes to heights from the original ODP. There would be 4-story buildings near Front Range Village, and then a partial 4th story near the English Ranch detention pond. There are restrictions on those as they are not a full 4th story but it acts as a stairwell/roof access to a small patio. • I had heard the City may move the traffic circle at Horsetooth and Ziegler – is that true? At a previous neighborhood meeting it was shared the City may require adjustments to the Ziegler/Horsetooth intersection in the future based on a potential development proposal northeast of the intersection (Strauss Lakes). There hasn’t been any new information on that potential development recently and the intersection would be studied extensively if/when a submittal is made. • Comment: I think a light at Horsetooth/Ziegler makes a lot of sense. As you’ve heard from everyone here we have to run a gauntlet because the roundabout doesn’t provide any breaks in traffic. The City is very interested in finding a location for a light that can hep address these issues. In an ideal scenario a connection to Paddington from this vacant site and then a light at Ziegler/Paddington would potentially serve all neighborhoods. We’re here tonight to listen to you all because we also know there’s many who don’t want a connection to English Ranch from this site, however, because of spacing requirements it’s not likely there could be two lights, one at Paddington and then another at Hidden Pond. • Comment: I would suggest the City put together both options, a light at Paddington or Hidden Pond to show everyone how their lives could be improved. Right now the traffic issue stinks for everyone. I would be interested if there are any substantial impacts if the light goes in at one intersection versus the other. I would also ask the applicant and City to be sensitive to the last remaining 1 acre development site in English Ranch where we plan to continue our 1-story patio homes. • Hidden Pond is a private road. Will the streets in this development be private as well? Does the City maintain the light? It’s undetermined if any/all of the future streets in the development will be public or private. If the streets are private the full construction cost of the light would fall to the developers. The City would maintain the light after its initial construction just as if a light were installed at Paddington. It would be privately funded, not privately owned. • Comment: Is it possible to build a special access through the English Ranch detention pond area on the far right side of the proposed development so the site could access the Paddington/Ziegler intersection and have the traffic warrants for a signal? (Multiple attendees echoed support for this idea) This would take a lot more study and has several potential issues as begun to explore the idea. The land where this access would traverse is not owned by the City or the applicants and would need the consent from the owners. Based on current standards, the detention pond is also undersized and adding an access point through it would likely make it more deficient. [Applicant] Some of the properties further west of our site were also developed with no detention or undersized detention which is putting additional stormwater requirements we’re having to manage on our proposed development site to help make up the shortfall. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 267 Neighborhood Meeting Notes – Ziegler-Corbett ODP Major Amendment Page 4 • The Harmony Corridor Plan was amended. Did it not used to have the minimum density requirement? We’re getting hammered with density. The minimum density requirement is in the Land Use Code for the zone district. The Harmony Corridor Plan did have to be amended to allow for a regional shopping center (Front Range Village), and the most recent amendments created new standards for the gateway area near the I-25 interchange, but no changes to density in this portion of the corridor. • Comment: I think the City and applicant should consider a 5-way intersection at the corner of Paddington and this development site so everyone still has access to the light but there are still separate entrances for Paddington and this development. • The neighborhood is concerned about additional traffic in the neighborhood, but are you willing to accept additional neighborhood traffic in your development to access the light? [Applicant]: Yes, we’re willing to accept that. • Comment: I want to mention that English Ranch, while not ideal, has multiple access points to Ziegler and also other arterial roads. Woodland Park only has access to Ziegler Rd and no other options to get out onto the arterial street network and a light at Paddington would really help us. • Is there any possibility the funding for the light could instead be used to install a light at Ziegler/Horsetooth and remove the roundabout? That type of study or analysis hasn’t been completed. Likely a trigger for something like this would be the Strauss Lakes development near the roundabout. • If there is a light at Paddinton/Ziegler, how would that change the main access point into the development site? Some additional study would be needed, but it could mean it would potentially be limited to a right-in, right-out only, and the users of Hidden Pond would still have full movement. • Comment: I feel like a connection to Paddington and then a light at Paddington/Ziegler could solve a lot of the issues raised this evening. • Additional comments expressing interest in the idea to put an access point through the English Ranch detention pond to Paddington. • With a light at Hidden Pond, will there be a crosswalk so pedestrians can also cross Ziegler? Yes, that is part of any new signal. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 268 ZIEGLER ROAD TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS Option 1: Signal at Hidden Pond, no vehicleconnection to English Ranch Option 2: Signal at Paddington, vehicleconnection to English Ranch Option 3: No signal on Zielger, no vehicleconnection to English Ranch New development and Hidden Pond can access new signal New development vehicles cannot access English Ranch Pros English Ranch cannot access new signal Prevents any future signal into English Ranch Cons New multifamily development and English Ranch have access to new signal Pros Prevents any future signal at Hidden Pond New multifamily development traffic can access English Ranch Cons Upholds agreement for no vehicle access between new multifamily development and English Ranch Pros No signal at Paddington or Hidden Pond Cons ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 269 Comments Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 270 Corbett & Ziegler Overall Development Plan Neighborhood Meeting Summary Meeting Date: February 2nd, 2022 Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting City Staff Attending: Yani Jones - Neighborhood Services Ryan Mounce - Planning Nicole Hahn - Traffic Operations Spencer Smith-Traffic Operations Sophie Buckingham—Engineering Applicant Team: Jason Sherrill, Landmark homes Jon Mosier, Landmark Homes Chris Beabout, Landmark Homes Mike Walker, TB Group Jason Claeys, Highland Development Services Matt Delich, Delich Associates Summary •Meeting Topic: An Overall Development Plan (ODP) for land between Front Range Village and English Ranch. The ODP is a high level “master plan” showing general land uses, road connections, etc. The applicants are proposing mostly residential or mixed-use dwellings on the site, with opportunities for office, childcare or community facility space on the eastern portions of the property. The plans would require two modifications—one to allow more than 25% of the site to be used for residential development, and one to increase the maximum height of residential buildings from three to four stories. A key change since the first neighborhood meeting is a vehicular connection north from the site to Paddington Road is not longer proposed and would be bike/pedestrian access only. This change is an Alternative Compliance request as part of the proposal's street connectivity standards. •Meeting Details: o Approximately 50 attendees, including staff and applicants o Meeting was recorded and posted online at fcgov.com/developmentreview/agendas •Overview o Q&A and comments primarily focused on: Clarifications that the proposal would no longer make a vehicular connection to English Ranch and Paddington Road; Comments about existing and future traffic issues in the area; including difficulty making left turns onto Ziegler Road and concerns about additional traffic associated with this proposal and another development proposal near Ziegler/ Horsetooth Roads. Comments to make sure the City reviews the operation of the roundabout at Horsetooth and Ziegler as traffic volumes increase. Concern about the proposed number of units and proposed building heights, and a lack of compatibility with surrounding homes. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 271 Corbett & Ziegler Overall Development Plan Neighborhood Meeting Summary Meeting Date: September 8th, 2021 Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting City Staff Attending: Alyssa Stephens—Neighborhood Services Ryan Mounce—Planning Nicole Hahn—Traffic Dave Betley—Engineering Sophie Buckingham—Engineering Applicant Team: Jason Sherrill, Landmark homes Jon Mosier, Landmark Homes Chris Beabout, Landmark Homes Mike Walker, TB Group Jason Claeys, Highland Development Services Matt Delich, Delich Associates Summary •Meeting Topic: An Overall Development Plan (ODP) for land between Front Range Village and English Ranch. The ODP is a high level “master plan” showing general land uses, road connections, etc. The applicants are proposing mostly residential uses on the site, including lower density single-family homes on the north side and higher density multifamily housing on the south side near Front Range Village. The conceptual plans also included mixed-use (commercial and residential) buildings along Ziegler. The plans would require two modifications—one to allow more than 25% of the site to be used for residential development, and one to increase the maximum height of residential buildings from three to four stories. This was the first opportunity to review early ODP documents prior to submitting them to the City for official review and comment. •Meeting Details: o Appr. 105 attendees, including staff and applicants o Meeting was recorded and posted online at OurCity.FCGov.com/DevReview •Overview o Q&A primarily focused on: Desire to prevent connections between the new development and English Ranch, particularly any connection to Paddington; Concerns about safety for pedestrians due to any new connections and increased overall traffic, and desire for improved bike and pedestrian infrastructure in the area; and Concern about the proposed number of units and proposed building heights, and a lack of compatibility with surrounding homes. o Attendees who spoke or submitted questions into the chat were mostly opposed to the development. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 272 From:pam starlingsnest.com To:Ryan Mounce Subject:[EXTERNAL] Ziegler-Corbett Overall Development Plan Major Amendment MJA220004 Date:Saturday, January 7, 2023 12:38:02 PM Dear Mr. Mounce: After the holiday travel, I have just opened my mail which included a notice for the public hearing held 1/5 on the above amendment. I therefore missed the meeting, but I would like to voice my support for this change that may allow for a stoplight at Hidden Pond Dr. As a resident of Woodland Park Estates, I have communicated to the city on many occasions my concern about the increased traffic on Ziegler Rd. And the difficulty in safely exiting our community onto Ziegler Rd., Especially for cyclists and pedestrians wishing to cross Ziegler. A proposed controlled pedestrian crossing at Grand Teton/Paddington is 10-20 years out on the city's long range traffic plan. If this change will address my concerns sooner, I am in favor. Sincerely, Pam Starling 3902 Grand Canyon St. Fort Collins, CO 80525 Get Outlook for Android ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 273 From:DAVID MARCY To:Ryan Mounce Subject:[EXTERNAL] Ziegler Corbett Overall Development Plan Major Amendment Date:Sunday, January 8, 2023 6:06:52 PM I was unable to attend the Jan 6 meeting but would like to inquire and register my objection to putting in a light at the Hill Pond intersection. Inquiry, why is primary access for this subdivision on Ziegler when there is a cutout on Paddington to the North and also on Corbet to the west? A subdivision that has so many access options should not have priority to a stop light that the residents east of Ziegler have been requesting for 20 years at the Paddington/Grand Teton intersection? A street light if installed would back up south bound traffic past Paddington/Grand Teton and make a left hand turn from Grand Teton nearly impossible virtually the entire day. Dave Marcy 3232 Mesa Verde Fort Collins CO 80525 970-218-8722 Sent from Mail for Windows ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 274 From:Dan L To:Ryan Mounce Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: Ziegler-Corbett Overall Development Plan (ODP) Updates Date:Thursday, January 19, 2023 11:22:43 PM Hi Ryan, I attended the Woodland Park Estates board meeting this evening and summarized the Development Meeting discussion points regarding north/east access to the new development. Many folks, for some reason were unaware of the Jan 5 meeting, some just weren't able to attend. Many would like voice their support for a traffic light at Paddington and Zeigler feeling that this is the best option for our community and makes more sense than a light further south. I mentioned six options for the new development to connect to Paddington on the north. Did your team come up with the best option or two for the Paddington connection? Your team knows best what is possible and most likely to succeed. Will there be another meeting to discuss all the options being considered? More folks from Woodland Park would like to attend the next meeting. Thanks Daniel Lenskold On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 09:09:41 AM MST, Ryan Mounce <rmounce@fcgov.com> wrote: Hello everyone, This is the first email for this new distribution list for updates on the Ziegler-Corbett Overall Development Plan (ODP) Major Amendment Project. This first message is simply meant to provide a few initial resources and confirm you’re ‘signed-up’ for updates. If you would prefer not to receive these messages, please let me know and I will remove your email address. Likewise, please share my email with friends and neighbors and have them contact me if they wish to be included. Thank you to everyone who attended the neighborhood meeting on January 5th – we appreciate your time coming out and learning about the proposal and providing input. There’s more review and evaluation taking place in the coming weeks on the different traffic & connection scenarios staff presented and the new ideas brought up at the meeting itself. If you have any additional comments or ideas you would like to share, please feel free to email those to me at this email address or at devreviewcomments@fcgov.com. If you’d like to rewatch the neighborhood meeting or share the recording with others, you can access the ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 275 video via Youtube at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwhdjqz_xrA. A PDF copy of the slides from the presentation are also attached to this message. Thank you, Ryan Mounce Planning Services City of Fort Collins 970.224.6186 | rmounce@fcgov.com ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 276 From:DJ Lenskold To:Ryan Mounce Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: Ziegler-Corbett Overall Development Plan (ODP) Updates Date:Friday, January 20, 2023 10:02:16 AM Hi Ryan, Thanks for the update and re-consideration of a solution that works, is acceptable, for all parties involved. It would be great if your team could identify the best option for a paddington connection. My guess would be a local vs Corbett connection. Perhaps as close as possible to Ziegler. Consideration of control of flow toward Ziegler. A one way exit to Paddington. The entrance to the development can still be off Ziegler. More traffic calming humps in English ranch to discourage cut through. Just some thoughts. You most likely have considered some of these. I am sure that Woodland Park has at least, if not more, citizens that support a Paddington light vs those that oppose it. All the English Ranch folks at the last meeting seemed to be ok with considering this possible solution. Thanks Daniel Lenskold Sent from my mobile On Jan 20, 2023, at 9:03 AM, Ryan Mounce <RMounce@fcgov.com> wrote: Hello Daniel, Thanks for sharing information and passing along these comments from your neighbors. Regarding the Paddington light and connection, it’s been a long and ongoing process evaluating these issues even before this specifical proposal came about. For a long period of time the vision for this area was always to have connections from the area that eventually became Front Range Village to Paddington, which would help connectivity/traffic volumes to support a light at Ziegler and Paddington. When Front Range Village was eventually proposed many neighbors in English Ranch petitioned City Council in 2010 to remove the connection of Corbett Drive to Paddington over concerns about a lot of retail traffic cutting through the neighborhood. City Council agreed to remove any collector-street level connection, but left unresolved the issue of a local street connection. At the moment this has become a very 50-50 type of issue, with many English Ranch neighbors opposed to a connection over concerns of cut-through traffic impacts, and many Woodland Park Estates residents desiring the connection to help support construction of a light at Ziegler/Paddington. A difficulty from the staff perspective is we see benefits for a light at Ziegler/Paddington so both neighborhoods have a controlled intersection to make left-hand turns onto Ziegler, and especially for ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 277 Woodland Park Estates which doesn’t have the same level of connectivity that English Ranch has to multiple other arterial streets. On the other hand, getting a connection from the proposal to English Ranch to support a light essentially creates a very similar type of connection that City Council had previously directly removed from the City’s Master Street Plan in 2010. We’re still evaluating all the options and the specific applicant proposal for a privately- funded light at Hidden Pond and Ziegler. We would like to have some additional follow- up with neighbors once we have more analysis and information to share, but at this time there isn’t a concrete timeline on when another meeting or follow-up would occur until we complete some additional research and evaluation. Regards, Ryan Mounce Planning Services City of Fort Collins 970.224.6186 | rmounce@fcgov.com From: Dan L <delta1force@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 11:22 PM To: Ryan Mounce <RMounce@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Ziegler-Corbett Overall Development Plan (ODP) Updates Hi Ryan, I attended the Woodland Park Estates board meeting this evening and summarized the Development Meeting discussion points regarding north/east access to the new development. Many folks, for some reason were unaware of the Jan 5 meeting, some just weren't able to attend. Many would like voice their support for a traffic light at Paddington and Zeigler feeling that this is the best option for our community and makes more sense than a light further south. I mentioned six options for the new development to connect to Paddington on the north. Did your team come up with the best option or two for the Paddington connection? Your team knows best what is possible and most likely to succeed. Will there be another meeting to discuss all the options being considered? More folks from Woodland Park would like to attend the next meeting. Thanks Daniel Lenskold On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 09:09:41 AM MST, Ryan Mounce <rmounce@fcgov.com> wrote: ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 278 Hello everyone, This is the first email for this new distribution list for updates on the Ziegler-Corbett Overall Development Plan (ODP) Major Amendment Project. This first message is simply meant to provide a few initial resources and confirm you’re ‘signed-up’ for updates. If you would prefer not to receive these messages, please let me know and I will remove your email address. Likewise, please share my email with friends and neighbors and have them contact me if they wish to be included. Thank you to everyone who attended the neighborhood meeting on January 5th – we appreciate your time coming out and learning about the proposal and providing input. There’s more review and evaluation taking place in the coming weeks on the different traffic & connection scenarios staff presented and the new ideas brought up at the meeting itself. If you have any additional comments or ideas you would like to share, please feel free to email those to me at this email address or at devreviewcomments@fcgov.com. If you’d like to rewatch the neighborhood meeting or share the recording with others, you can access the video via Youtube at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwhdjqz_xrA. A PDF copy of the slides from the presentation are also attached to this message. Thank you, Ryan Mounce Planning Services City of Fort Collins 970.224.6186 | rmounce@fcgov.com ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 279 From:Tracey Ryssman To:Ryan Mounce Subject:[EXTERNAL] English Ranch - Ziegler-Corbett Development Date:Saturday, January 28, 2023 5:51:15 PM I am reaching out regarding the Ziegler-Corbett Development MJa220004 I am the HOA president and wanted to share input I have been receiving regarding the proposed traffic (light) solutions. I understand that 3 options were presented but the ongoing consensus of the neighbors within English Ranch is that there should be no connecting streets from English Ranch into the new development. Of the 3 traffic solutions proposed, Option 1 would uphold the agreement for no vehicle access from English Ranch into the new development and still provide a light at hidden pond to address the signal/safety issues of crossing Ziegler. Thank you for listening Tracey Ryssman HOA President, English Ranch ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 280 l(I Comment Card City of ktColli � Please provide your written comments about the proposed project below: � ail/it (I 11'\l lt'!bi.l' :tb»d Wcrd Uwl ear!!. 0 (\ 1 M..s 1K i ± rn, di s ocln li � Ur 1., ie o.lNJI 1 4v. '-o.... 6cnb\L i5ff\l °!'� 1�u.1A." DW of ()ll( w�bJ,orboco/. Contact Information {optional): _ 'f l}yf'W ()._&u,rrtS; ell Name 91:o-3W-9qtl-Phone � burt1@ lcmroJt. ut Email A ress 2qoci1 4lu Irr et.Mailing Address ""J'J<">IJ .. �D-,. ft �ii4 .... C#-'l'AP& IM&Zt .£., ij LS.I � ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 281 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 282 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 283 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 284 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 285 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 286 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6Packet pg. 287 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6Packet pg. 288 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6Packet pg. 289 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6Packet pg. 290 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6Packet pg. 291 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6Packet pg. 292 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6Packet pg. 293 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6Packet pg. 294 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6Packet pg. 295 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6Packet pg. 296 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6Packet pg. 297 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6Packet pg. 298 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 17, 2022 ODP210004, Ziegler-Corbett Overall Development Plan Summary of Request This is a request for an Overall Development Plan for a mixed-use development on approximately 31.3 acres in the Harmony Corridor (H-C) zone district. The ODP proposes modifications of standards to Section 4.26(D)(2) concerning the proportion of primary and secondary uses and Section 4.26(D)(3)(a) concerning residential building heights, as well as a request for Alternative Compliance to Section 3.6.3 regarding street pattern and connectivity standards. Zoning Map Next Steps If approved by the decision maker, future Project Development Plans (PDPs) can be submitted and reviewed for compliance with the Overall Development Plan for this property. Site Location The Ziegler – Corbett ODP is located between Ziegler Road and Corbett Drive, north of Front Range Village, or approximately 1,800 feet northwest of the Harmony Road and Ziegler Road intersection (parcels 8732000002 & 8732000009). Zoning Harmony Corridor (H-C) Property Owner Fort Collins Land I and II LLC PO Box 272699 Fort Collins, CO 80527 Applicant/Representative Chris Beabout Landmark Homes 6341 Fairgrounds Ave, Suite 100 Windsor, CO 80550 Staff Ryan Mounce, City Planner Contents 1.Project Introduction…………………………..2 2.Public Outreach………………………………4 3.Article 2 – Applicable Standards……………5 4.Article 2 – Applicable ODP Standards……13 5.Findings of Fact/Conclusion……………….16 6. Recommendation…………………………...17 7. Attachments…………………………………17 Staff Recommendation Approval of the Modification of Standards to Section 4.26(D)(2) and Section 4.26(D)(3)(a), approval of the Alternative Compliance request to Section 3.6.3 and approval of the Overall Development Plan. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 299 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 ODP210004, Ziegler - Corbett ODP Thursday, February 17, 2022 | Page 2 of 17 Back to Top 1. Project Introduction A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Overall Development Plan (ODP) proposes a 31-acre, mixed-use development located in the Harmony Corridor (HC) zone district. Land-uses include a combination of 400 – 700 single family attached, multifamily, and mixed-use dwelling units, a childcare center, and 50,000 square feet of office or community facility space. The ODP prioritizes higher residential and mixed-use intensity along the Ziegler Road frontage and southern property boundary and single-family attached and drainage/buffer areas along the north and northwestern edges of the site, adjacent to existing single family detached units. The ODP access and transportation network envisions two primary corridors for movement; one corridor oriented east-west connecting the primary site access from Zeigler Road on the east and Corbett Drive on the west. A second north-south corridor would serve the site internally as well as provide opportunities for connections to both the north and south of the site pending future development or redevelopment of adjacent properties. An alternative compliance request proposing a bike/pedestrian-only connection to the north has been submitted as part of this ODP. While all of the land uses proposed within the ODP are permitted in the HC zone district, a modification of standard to Section 4.26(D)(2) regarding the proportion of primary and secondary uses has been submitted, requesting a reduction in the amount of primary uses (e.g. office or light industrial space) that would be provided in relation to the amount of secondary uses (residential dwellings). Separately, a modification of standard related to the maximum height for residential buildings is proposed, requesting up to 4-stories for portions of the ODP site. B. DEVELOPMENT BACKGROUND & CONTEXT The 31-acre ODP site is currently undeveloped and was annexed into the City as part of the Spring Creek Farms 4th Annexation in 1994. Adjacent development includes the Front Range Village shopping center to the south, The English Ranch residential subdivision to the north, Affinity Fort Collins, a senior apartment building, to the west, and the Broadcom/HP Campus to the east across Ziegler Road. The ODP property is located within the HC zone district, designed to implement the policies and goals of the Harmony Corridor Plan. Since adoption of the Harmony Corridor Plan, the site has been included under the ‘Basic Industrial and Non-Retail Employment Activity Center’ designation, requiring a ratio of at least 75% primary and up to 25% secondary uses for the site. In 1996, a previous ODP (Symbios Logic ODP) was approved for large portions of the site and areas further south. This original ODP indicated secondary uses such as hotels, retail, and residential land uses for the property, while areas further south would be reserved for primary uses such as office, light industrial or research uses. In the early 2000s, City Council amended the Harmony Corridor Plan and updated the designation for the property to the south to allow for a regional shopping center (Front Range Village). Portions of the Ziegler-Corbett ODP site are impacted by or relate to the development of Front Range Village, including a berm easement along the southern property boundary of the ODP, as well as incorporating drainage and stormwater improvements along the Ziegler Road frontage that will serve the ODP site, Front Range Village and properties to the west within the Fox Meadows Drainage Basin. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 300 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 ODP210004, Ziegler - Corbett ODP Thursday, February 17, 2022 | Page 3 of 17 Back to Top Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses North South East West Zoning The English Ranch Neighborhood (LMN) Front Range Village Regional Shopping Center (HC) Woodland Park Estates (RL) and Broadcom/HP Campus (HC) Front Range Village Regional Shopping Center (HC) and Affinity Fort Collins Apartments (HC) Land Use Single family detached units Retail Single family attached & detached units; office campus Retail; multifamily C. OVERVIEW OF MAIN CONSIDERATIONS The ODP property represents one of the few remaining large parcels for Harmony Corridor development. The Harmony Corridor Plan envisions a mixed-use, employment-focused corridor that generally supports more intensive development while compatibly transitioning to adjacent residential zoning. The land use and transportation connectivity for surrounding properties have changed dramatically from what was outlined originally in the Harmony Corridor Plan and Master Street Plan for this area. These changes play a significant role in several requested modifications of standards for the project. Surrounding the site are a number of amenities. Within the nearby Harmony Corridor are many jobs and employers, and Front Range Village immediately south provides a mix of neighborhood and regional shopping destinations. Both Ziegler and Harmony Roads are envisioned for additional transit enhancements in the future. Given these opportunities, many City policies and goals align with the Harmony Corridor Plan’s characterization that the zone district is suitable for more intensive development. At the same time, the ODP property abuts existing single-family residential development to the north. A significant portion of this project review has revolved around balancing the efficient use of the property for intensive development and creating a framework to compatibly transition to existing nearby residential zoning. Based on community and neighborhood input, the primary consideration for the project has been the possible vehicular connection between the ODP site and The English Ranch neighborhood to the north, which would have the effect of connecting the neighborhood to the Front Range Village shopping center. When Front Range Village was originally developed, concerns over a vehicle connection with the neighborhood eventually led City Council to remove a collector-street connection from the Master Street Plan between the neighborhood and the shopping center. Requirements for a local street connection that mimics the previous collector street alignment have been questioned by many neighbors who believe the issue was resolved in 2010 when Council amended the Master Street Plan. D. CITY PLAN PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES: 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 City Plan’s Structure Plan Map includes place types—or land use categories—which provide a framework for the ultimate buildout of Fort Collins. These place types provide a policy structure that can apply to several specific zone districts within each place type by outlining a range of desired characteristics. The subject property is consistent with the “Mixed-Employment District” place type, which applies to this property and is typically the overlying land use designation for the Harmony Corridor and Employment zone districts, and those areas with existing or potential for more intensive development with an employment focus. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 301 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 ODP210004, Ziegler - Corbett ODP Thursday, February 17, 2022 | Page 4 of 17 Back to Top City Plan states that the Structure Plan is not intended to be used as a stand-alone tool; rather, it should be considered in conjunction with the accompanying principles, goals and policies contained in City Plan as a tool to guide future growth and development. Key principles and policies relevant to the project include the following: OUTCOME AREA “LIV” -- NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY AND SOCIAL HEALTH – Managing Growth: These principles help the City to manage growth by encouraging infill and redevelopment, ensuring this development is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood or area. PRINCIPLE LIV 2: Promote Infill and Redevelopment: POLICY LIV 2.1 - REVITALIZATION OF UNDERUTILIZED PROPERTIES. Support the use of creative strategies to revitalize vacant, blighted or otherwise underutilized structures and buildings, including, but not limited to: Infill of existing surface parking lots—particularly in areas that are currently, or will be, served by bus rapid transit (BRT) and/or high-frequency transit in the future. PRINCIPLE LIV 3: Maintain and enhance our unique character and sense of place as the community grows: POLICY LIV 3.1 - PUBLIC AMENITIES. Design streets and other public spaces with the comfort and enjoyment of pedestrians in mind …such as plazas, pocket parks, patios, children’s play areas, sidewalks, pathways… POLICY LIV 3.6 - CONTEXT-SENSITIVE DEVELOPMENT. Ensure that all development contributes to the positive character of the surrounding area. Building materials, architectural details, color range, building massing, and relationships to streets and sidewalks should be tailored to the surrounding area. PRINCIPLE LIV 4 – Enhance neighborhood livability: POLICY LIV 4.2 - COMPATIBILITY OF ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT. Ensure that development that occurs in adjacent districts complements and enhances the positive qualities of existing neighborhoods. Developments that share a property line and/or street frontage with an existing neighborhood should promote compatibility by: Continuing established block patterns and streets to improve access to services and amenities from the adjacent neighborhood; Incorporating context-sensitive buildings and site features (e.g., similar size, scale and materials); and Locating parking and service areas where impacts on existing neighborhoods—such as noise and traffic—will be minimized. Principle LIV 5 – Create more opportunities for housing choices. POLICY LIV 5.3 - LAND FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. Use density requirements to maximize the use of land for residential development to positively influence housing supply and expand housing choice. 2. Public Outreach Two virtual neighborhood meetings were held to discuss the project on September 9, 2021 and February 2, 2022. A video of the September 8, 2021 meeting can be viewed at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRu3oU_Ba5M, and a video of the February 2nd, 2022 meeting can be viewed at: https://youtu.be/a3N3ZpMljJIv. Summaries of both neighborhood meetings are attached to this report. Main Topics discussed at the meetings included: 1. Concerns about a vehicular connection north to Paddington Road and additional neighborhood traffic from vehicles accessing Front Range Village; ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 302 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 ODP210004, Ziegler - Corbett ODP Thursday, February 17, 2022 | Page 5 of 17 Back to Top 2. Concerns about existing and increased congestion as a result of the project and nearby proposals at Horsetooth and Ziegler roads; increased traffic would exacerbate issues making left hand turns on to Ziegler Road; 3. Concerns about density, compatibility, and height of the proposal. 3. Land Use Code Article 2 – Applicable Standards A. OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW 1. Conceptual Review – CDR210051 A conceptual review meeting was held on July 8, 2021. 2. First Submittal – ODP210004 The Overall Development Plan was submitted on October 8, 2021. 3. Neighborhood Meeting Pursuant to LUC Section 2.2.2 – Step 2: Neighborhood Meetings, a neighborhood meeting is required for ODP projects. Two virtual neighborhood meetings were held on September 8, 2021 and February 2, 2022. 4. Notice (Posted, Written and Published) Posted Notice: August 25, 2021, Sign #703. Written Hearing Notice: February 3, 2022, 845 addresses mailed. Published Coloradoan Hearing Notice: Scheduled for February 6, 2022 B. DIVISION 2.8 – MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS The applicant requests two modifications of standards. These modifications address: o 4.26(D)(2) Secondary Uses o 4.26(D)(3)(a) Dimensional Standards (Residential Building Height) The Land Use Code is adopted with the recognition that there will be instances where a project would support the implementation of City Plan, but due to unique and unforeseen circumstances would not meet a specific standard of the Land Use Code as stated. Accordingly, code standards include provisions for modifications. The modification process and criteria in Land Use Code Division 2.8.2(H) provide for evaluation of these instances on a case-by-case basis, as follows: ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 303 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 ODP210004, Ziegler - Corbett ODP Thursday, February 17, 2022 | Page 6 of 17 Back to Top Land Use Code Modification Criteria: “The decision maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4) above shall be supported by specific findings showing how the plan, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4). 1. Modification to Section 4.26(D)(2) Secondary Uses. The standard: “Secondary Uses. All secondary uses shall be integrated both in function and appearance into a larger employment-based development plan that emphasizes primary uses. A secondary use shall be subject to administrative review or Planning and Zoning Board review as required for such use in subsection 4.26(B). The following permitted uses shall be considered secondary uses in this zone district and together shall occupy no more than twenty-five (25) percent of the total gross area of the development plan.” (a) Community facilities. (b) Public facilities. (c) Child care centers. (d) Print shops. (e) Food catering. (f) Workshops and custom small industry uses. (g) Residential uses (except mixed-use dwellings when the residential units are stacked above a primary use which occupies the ground floor). (h) Lodging establishments. (i) Convenience shopping centers. (j) Standard restaurants. (k) Bed and breakfast establishments. (l) Clubs and lodges. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 304 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 ODP210004, Ziegler - Corbett ODP Thursday, February 17, 2022 | Page 7 of 17 Back to Top (m) Health and membership clubs. (n) Convention and conference centers. (o) Places of worship or assembly. (p) Limited indoor recreation establishments. (q) Unlimited indoor recreation use and facility. (r) Food truck rally. (s) Microbrewery/distillery/winery. (t) Seasonal overflow shelters. Overview This modification is being requested because the ODP proposes a mix of secondary land uses (residential dwellings, childcare center and community facilities) in excess of 25% of the total gross area of the ODP site. The Harmony Corridor Plan and HC zone district envision an employment-focused corridor and seek to maximize employment-generating land uses, such as office or light industrial, in areas of the corridor designated as ‘Basic Industrial Non-Retail Activity Centers.’ The ODP site is located within such an area in the Harmony Corridor Plan. The applicant is requesting 100% secondary uses for the site, although 50,000 square feet of primary use is proposed on Parcels D & E. Primary uses in the Harmony Corridor can be measured by gross area of the development site or on a square footage basis. By gross area, Parcels D and E represent 17% of the ODP land area. When compared with other lower-intensity primary uses in the Harmony Corridor by square footage, such as non-campus professional and medical office, many of these developments range in intensity between 2,500 – 7,500 square feet of primary use per gross acre. Using the midpoint of this range, the proposed 50,000 square feet represents approximately a 10-acre equivalent of primary uses, or 33% of the ODP land uses. Primary Use Evaluation Summary LUC Requirement Modification Request Proposed (Gross Land Area) Proposed (Square Footage) 75% primary uses 0% primary uses 17% (5.3 acres of 31.3 acre ODP site) 50,000 square feet (Equivalent office intensity to 10 acres of primary employment land, or approximately 33% of ODP land area) Ultimately, staff is evaluating the applicant’s proposal for 100% secondary uses even though primary uses are being offered, as the applicants are seeking flexibility within the ODP approval process to allow other public- benefit oriented land uses on Parcels D and E: either a childcare center or community facility. If a community facility is proposed in a subsequent Project Development Plan, this would likely result in a reduction in the amount of primary office uses being provided. Summary of Applicant Justification The applicant’s modification request is attached. It provides a summary of unique site characteristics, which impact the ability of the site to host large-scale employment land uses as envisioned in the Harmony Corridor Plan. The ODP is requesting no limit on the amount of secondary uses provided but is proposing to include 50,000 square feet of office, a primary use, which the applicants contend is more proportionate to the unique challenges and opportunities for primary uses at this location. In addition, the applicants propose a series of improvements and amenities that would address important community needs and provide community benefits related to sustainability and energy use, access to ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 305 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 ODP210004, Ziegler - Corbett ODP Thursday, February 17, 2022 | Page 8 of 17 Back to Top childcare, and on site park/gathering space. Specifically, the ODP proposes rooftop solar for residential units and buildings, designing and certifying townhome and condominiums buildings to LEED gold criteria, and providing enhanced park and gathering space exceeding HC zone district standards. For the above reasons, the applicant contends that without impairing the intent of the Land Use Code, site conditions result in unusual practical difficulties and hardship in meeting the 75% primary use ratio for the site and that the additional amenities proposed would result in a substantial benefit to the city by substantially addressing an important community need described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy. Staff Findings Staff finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good and that the request satisfies criteria (2), and (3) in subsection 2.8.2(H): A. The modification meets 2.8.2(H)(2), because the project commits to substantially address several important community priorities and provide community benefits that exceed development and building/energy code standards. • The ODP commits to providing a childcare center as one of the project’s land-uses. In both the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Strategic Plan, access to childcare is prioritized as an equity measure, for early childhood learning, and as an economic tool for workforce and business retention. “Affordable, Quality and Accessible Childcare Infrastructure” was also adopted as a 2021-2023 City Council priority. Note 12 on the ODP map references the commitment to provide a childcare as part of the ODP development. Relevant policies/goals from City Plan: Policy EH 3.1 – Business Programs Work with the local business community to ensure that economic health strategies and plans are identified to improve the local economy. Collectively identify programs and support efforts that will help existing businesses and new-business creation. Analyze barriers to the retention of businesses and employees, including access to affordable childcare and attainable housing. Policy HI 2.4 – Early Learning Encourage equitable access to childcare, early learning opportunities and other programs that help families prepare their children for school. Relevant strategies from the 2020 Strategic Plan: Economic Health Strategy 3.2 Understand trends in the local labor market and work with key partners to grow diverse employment opportunities. • Reduce identified barriers of workforce attraction and retention, including access and affordability of quality housing and childcare. • The ODP also commits to providing on-site solar energy generation and greater sustainability through LEED gold certification for townhome and condominium units. City Plan and Our Climate Future include adopted goals for the community to become carbon neutral by 2050, in part through developing new distributed, renewable energy generation, improving energy codes, and designing more efficient and sustainability buildings. The ODP addresses these goals by providing on-site solar generation for residential units and certifying townhome and condominium units to LEED gold standards, which requires minimum energy performance for buildings that exceed the community’s building/energy ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 306 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 ODP210004, Ziegler - Corbett ODP Thursday, February 17, 2022 | Page 9 of 17 Back to Top code standards. Notes 16 and 17 on the ODP map detail requirements for solar generation and LEED gold certification. Relevant policies/goals from City Plan: Policy ENV 3.1 – Renewable Electricity Supply and Integration Encourage the Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) to provide 100% renewable electricity supply by 2030 and continue to integrate distributed energy resources while maintaining affordability and reliability. Policy ENV 3.2 – Efficient Buildings Support continuous improvement in efficiency for existing and new buildings through incentives, reporting requirements and energy codes. Relevant policies/goals from Our Climate Future: Big Move 12 - 100% Renewable Energy Everyone in the community receives affordable and reliable 100% renewable electricity, including from local sources. The 100% renewable electricity big move means: • Working with Platte River to increase utility scale renewable electricity sources; • Continuing to expand the capacity of local solar and battery storage, and • Deploying new capabilities and strategies to support variable renewable energy resources with responsive homes, businesses, and electric vehicles. B. The modification meets 2.8.2(H)(3), because of the unique site location attributes related to visibility, commercial accessibility, and proximity to the Harmony Road frontage. These location characteristics present practical difficulties in fully achieving a 75% primary use mix for the entire ODP site as prescribed by the Harmony Corridor Plan and HC district standards. • The Harmony Corridor Plan, “establishes the corridor as a preferred location for intense urban activity including a mix of residential, industrial, commercial and recreational uses.” While encouraging a broad mix of uses, primary employment for offices, research labs, and light industrial is emphasized through requirements for 75% primary uses in the ‘Basic Industrial Non-Retail Activity Centers,’ which compromise a large plurality of land in the corridor. Separately, the Plan states “the focus of most development activity, especially commercial, should be at the major street intersections. The intensity of land use should decease as distance from Harmony Road increases and as the distance from the major intersections increases.” This pattern of development is frequently observed throughout the corridor, where the majority of primary uses front Harmony Road and secondary uses, especially residential, are located furthest from the highway corridor. This was also the original land vision for the larger vicinity as originally approved in the Symbios Logic ODP from the mid-1990s which included primary uses along the Harmony Road frontage and secondary uses further to the north on what is now the proposed ODP site. The land south of the ODP site hosts Front Range Village, a large shopping center consisting predominantly of secondary uses. The Front Range Village property was originally designated as a ‘Basic Industrial Non-Retail Activity Center’ in the Harmony Corridor Plan; however, its designation was changed by City Council in the early 2000s to permit construction of a regional shopping center. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 307 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 ODP210004, Ziegler - Corbett ODP Thursday, February 17, 2022 | Page 10 of 17 Back to Top While the original Harmony Corridor Plan envisioned a large, contiguous area of primarily employment land northeast of Harmony and Ziegler Roads, through subsequent policy changes, the area has developed predominantly as secondary uses. The only remaining land for primary uses is within the ODP property. Primary employment uses on this site would represent a departure from the traditional pattern of development and would instead see commercial/industrial primary uses abutting adjacent residential zoning, rather than fronting on Harmony Road. • The location of the ODP property further from Harmony Road frontage also impacts the viability of the site for primary uses due to limited visibility and commercial accessibility. The ODP site features HC-zoned land that is located furthest from Harmony Road than all other HC zoned lane in the corridor. With the exception of an assisted living facility (a primary use) and an industrial-flex development in the Harmony Technology Park, all other HC and non-HC zoned land at similar distances from the Harmony Corridor frontage are secondary uses. As the last remaining vacant land in the vicinity, the site’s access is largely dictated by the existing transportation network and pattern of development. A fully signalized intersection to the site that could offer large commercial vehicles protected movements is not planned, given the site’s proximity to an existing signal to the south at Council Tree Avenue and a potential future signal at Paddington Road, a collector street to the north. Secondary access is proposed off Corbett Drive to the west; however, the route is less direct for commercial vehicles as it travels through the Front Range Village’s roundabout and a narrower ‘main street’ cross section when accessing Ziegler Road. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 308 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 ODP210004, Ziegler - Corbett ODP Thursday, February 17, 2022 | Page 11 of 17 Back to Top During the 2019 update to City Plan, a study was commissioned to review the remaining inventory of employment and industrial lands in the community and important factors to the success of employment and industrial development (Attachment 10). Visibility and highway/major arterial access was identified as one of the most important site attributes for these types of land uses These characteristics are marginal for the ODP property in comparison to other HC-zoned sites featuring primary uses. • The same employment and industrial land study also determined the community likely has an excess of employment lands and, “the buildable employment lands the City greatly exceeds the demand for new employment lands by 2040…. The excess capacity would suggest that the City could be more flexible with use of employment lands in some areas.” (City Plan Employment Land Demand Analysis, Attachment 8, Page 37). One area identified for potential flexibility by the study were portions of the Harmony Corridor. “Certain remaining parcels along Harmony Road that are further from Harmony Road and behind larger commercial and employment uses could be considered for designation as residential uses. Specifically, the City should strive for higher density residential uses in these areas given their proximity to employment and potential enhanced transit routes” (City Plan Employment Land Demand Analysis, Attachment 8, Page 48). Given the site’s relative lack of visibility and commercial vehicle accessibility, as well as the community excess inventory of employment land, a reduction in the amount of primary space within the ODP site does not represent a detriment to the public good nor compromise the community’s or Harmony Corridor Plan’s overall employment goals. 2. Modification to Section 4.26(D)(3)(a) Dimensional Standards. The standard: “Maximum height for all nonresidential buildings, including those containing mixed-use dwelling units, shall be six (6) stories. Maximum height for residential buildings shall be three (3) stories.” Overview This modification is being requested because the ODP includes proposed building heights and indicates a full fourth floor for residential-only buildings on Parcel ‘C’ of the ODP map and partial fourth story for residential- only buildings on Parcel ‘B’ of the ODP map. Summary of Applicant Justification The applicant’s modification request is attached. It provides a summary of policies and additional amenities/benefits addressed by the overall project in support of the modification, including providing a childcare center as part of the development and exceeding the park/gathering space requirements of the HC zone district by providing a 1.5-acre park. The justification request also contends unique physical constraints of the site as the ODP property must contain oversized drainage and stormwater facilities to handle drainage from portions of Front Range Village and underdeveloped infrastructure from properties further to the west. This results in less land available to host a similar number of residential units that could be accommodated while meeting the residential building height standards. Staff Findings Staff finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good and that the request satisfies criteria (1) in subsection 2.8.2(H): A. The modification meets 2.8.2(H)(1), because the project promotes the purpose of the standard in an equal or better way. Across the entire ODP site, building heights average three stories, and building ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 309 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 ODP210004, Ziegler - Corbett ODP Thursday, February 17, 2022 | Page 12 of 17 Back to Top heights are minimized closest to existing single-family development while taller structures are proposed near commercial or buffer areas where compatibility, intensity, and privacy impacts can be minimized. This intensity framework helps achieve land use and policy guidance for the corridor to maximize intensity given nearby amenities while compatibly transitioning to adjacent development and residential zoning. • Both the Harmony Corridor Plan and the site’s ‘Mixed Employment District’ designation on the Structure Plan encourage a more intensive development pattern. The ODP site is well positioned to advance many community goals for access to jobs and transportation, and future users are well-served by the regional and neighborhood amenities at Front Range Village. The HC district is one of the few zones that discourages single-family only residential development, requires a minimum residential density, and supports one of tallest building heights in the community for primary uses. While more intensive development is generally encouraged, the Harmony Corridor Plan also calls for intensities to decrease as the distance from Harmony Road and major intersections increase, and the HC district includes standards to minimize abrupt scale/height changes adjacent to existing residential development. Since most commercial development is encouraged along the Harmony Road frontage and residential uses are more likely along district edges, the three-story building height promotes a general tapering of intensity and height to enhance compatibility with development in adjacent zone districts. The ODP continues to meet the purpose of the HC zone district by minimizing height and scale impacts adjacent to the nearest existing residential development and focuses fourth- floor buildings towards the portions of the site where large buffer/detention areas and adjacent commercial development minimizes the impacts of additional height and intensity. Specifically: Parcel ‘C,’ located on the southern portion of the ODP proposes a full fourth floor for residential buildings. Height and compatibility concerns are minimized as adjacent development includes a berm easement, stormwater drainage, and retail loading docks to the south, retail parking and loading docks to the west, and internal ODP phases to the north and east. Note 16 on the ODP map drawing further specifies a 10-ft step back requirement for at least two sides of the fourth floor. Parcel ‘B,’ located along the northern edge of the ODP proposes a recessed fourth floor for ‘loft’ units and rooftop amenity/patio space. Note 15 on the ODP map drawing requires fourth floor living spaces to be step backed from the floor below a minimum of 10-ft on all sides of the building and the floor area of the fourth floor shall be limited to two-thirds the floor area of the floor below. Adjacency of existing development to the north of Parcel B consists of undeveloped land that is identified for future multifamily on the English Ranch ODP or existing stormwater and drainage areas. The drainage area buffer ranges in size from approximately 170 to 260 feet between Parcel ‘B’ and the nearest single-family residential property. Alongside the proposed design parameters, this larger buffer helps further mitigate potential impacts of a fourth-story in comparison to other three- story multifamily buildings found in the Harmony Corridor in closer proximity to single- family detached development. Parcel ‘A,’ represents the area of the ODP that is closest to existing residential development. While other portions of the ODP seek a modification to allow a fourth floor, this portion of the development specifies 2-3 story building heights and lower intensity townhome/condominium development. In addition to the lower building heights, a large drainage and buffer area is proposed between the existing single- ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 310 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 ODP210004, Ziegler - Corbett ODP Thursday, February 17, 2022 | Page 13 of 17 Back to Top family detached homes located to the north and the senior apartments located to the west. 4. Land Use Code Article 2 – ODP Standards Section 2.3.2 (H) of the Land Use Code identifies seven criteria for reviewing the ODP, which are summarized as follows: 1) Section 2.3.2(H)(1) – Permitted Uses and District Standards This standard requires the ODP to be consistent with the permitted uses and applicable zone district standards and any applicable general development standards that can be applied at the level of detail required for an ODP submittal. The ODP proposes a phased, mixed-use development consisting of multiple residential land uses (single-family attached, multifamily, and mixed-use dwellings) as well as a childcare center, community facility, and office uses. All proposed land-uses are permitted within the HC zone district. Additionally, the HC zone district prescribes a minimum of 75% primary employment uses and a maximum of 25% secondary uses. The ODP is proposing a ratio of secondary uses exceeding the 25% secondary use maximum. A modification of standard has been requested and is reviewed in the modifications section of this report. 2) Section 2.3.2(H)(2) – Density This standard requires that the Overall Development Plan be consistent with the required density range of residential land uses. For residential developments, the HC district requires an overall minimum average density of seven dwelling units per net acre. The ODP proposes between 400 – 700 residential units, complying with the standard and representing an average gross density of approximately 12.7 – 22.4 units per acre. 3) Section 2.3.2(H)(3) and 2.3.2(H)(4) – Master Street Plan, Street Pattern, Connectivity, Transportation Connections to Adjoining Properties These standards require the ODP to conform to the Master Street Plan, Street Pattern and Connectivity standards, and also to conform with Transportation Level of Service requirements. There are no issues with ODP compliance related to these standards with the exception of 3.6.3(E) Distribution of Local Traffic to Multiple Arterial Streets and 3.6.3(F) Utilization and Provision of Sub-Arterial Street Connections to and from Adjacent Developments and Developable Parcels. An alternative compliance request has been submitted for the project and is discussed below. The ODP takes access from a collector and arterial streets and is being developed within an existing transportation network, meeting spacing requirements for full access local and collector street intersections. The City’s Engineering and Traffic Operations staff have also reviewed the projects Traffic Impact Study for compliance with Level of Service requirements Street Connectivity Standards 3.6.3(E),(F): The ODP is required to provide for street connectivity within the same section mile, achieving access to a minimum of three arterial streets as well as continuing or creating sub-arterial connections to adjacent development, spaced at intervals not to exceed 660-feet. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 311 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 ODP210004, Ziegler - Corbett ODP Thursday, February 17, 2022 | Page 14 of 17 Back to Top 3.6.3(E) Distribution of Local Traffic to Multiple Arterial Streets. “All development plans shall contribute to developing a local street system that will allow access to and from the proposed development, as well as access to all existing and future development within the same section mile as the proposed development, from at least three (3) arterial streets upon development of remaining parcels within the section mile, unless rendered infeasible by unusual topographic features, existing development or a natural area or feature. The local street system shall allow multi-modal access and multiple routes from each development to existing or planned neighborhood centers, parks and schools, without requiring the use of arterial streets, unless rendered infeasible by unusual topographic features, existing development or a natural area or feature.” 3.6.3(F) Utilization and Provision of Sub-Arterial Street Connections to and From Adjacent Developments and Developable Parcels. “All development plans shall incorporate and continue all sub-arterial streets stubbed to the boundary of the development plan by previously approved development plans or existing development. All development plans shall provide for future public street connections to adjacent developable parcels by providing a local street connection spaced at intervals not to exceed six hundred sixty (660) feet along each development plan boundary that abuts potentially developable or redevelopable land.” From a transportation perspective, the site represents an infill condition, as all surrounding properties have already been developed and a system of local and collector streets are already in place. The ODP proposes a new east-west local street bisecting the property, intersecting with Ziegler Road on the east and Corbett Drive on the west. Both connections will be full movement intersections. The length of the southern and northern boundaries of the ODP trigger requirements for additional sub-arterial connections to adjacent properties. The ODP identifies a primary north-south street through the middle of the property for internal circulation and a potential future connection to the south. A sub-arterial stub is planned along the southern boundary that could connect further south if future redevelopment occurs at Front Range Village. A large drainage area on the Front Range Village property currently prevents an immediate connection. Access to the north and The English Ranch neighborhood is proposed for bike and pedestrian access only, and the lack of a vehicular connection is the principal factor for the proposed alternative compliance request. In the early 1990s, two ODPs were approved for the land located north and east of Harmony Road and Ziegler Road (Symbios Logic ODP and The English Ranch ODP). Pursuant to the Master Street Plan at the time, Corbett Drive was proposed to connect from Harmony Road on the south, travel north and with two 90-degree turns, and connect to Paddington Road in The English Ranch neighborhood. Both ODPs anticipated and planned for this future collector street connection. In the early 2000s, City Council approved an amendment to the Harmony Corridor Plan to allow for the construction of a new regional shopping center (Front Range Village). This Harmony Corridor policy change represented a large shift in the anticipated land uses in the vicinity, and during the project review for Front Range Village, neighbors within The English Ranch expressed concerns about a future street connection that would generate excess cut-through traffic through the neighborhood above and beyond what would have been anticipated had the Front Range Village property remained as a business or light industrial area. In 2011 during updates to City Plan and the Master Street Plan, neighbors in English Ranch successfully petitioned staff and City Council to amend the Master Street Plan to remove the Corbett Drive connection to Paddington Road in The English Ranch neighborhood. During a work session review of the proposed change, staff identified that nearby arterial streets would be able to accommodate any increased traffic due to the loss of the connection, however, there were tradeoffs for vehicular connectivity between the neighborhood and services to the south and vice versa to neighborhood amenities to the north (English Ranch Park, Linton Elementary school). The Master Street Plan only identifies collector and arterial street connections, and while the Corbett Drive connection was removed from the map, Land Use Code requirements still require a local street connection to the ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 312 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 ODP210004, Ziegler - Corbett ODP Thursday, February 17, 2022 | Page 15 of 17 Back to Top north. Engineering and Traffic Operations staff have reviewed the Traffic Impact Study for the proposed ODP, which analyzed scenarios with and without a vehicular connection to Paddington Road. Similar to the 2011 staff findings, nearby arterial streets are able to accommodate additional trips that result from the lack of a local street connection between the ODP property and Paddington Road. Tradeoffs remain that while any detour of vehicular trips are small in distance, it will require travel onto an arterial street, which many neighbors have expressed can be difficult when attempting left-turning movements during busy traffic periods. Alternative Compliance: Review Criteria for Alternative Compliance: To approve an alternative plan, the decision maker must first find that the proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purposes of this section equally well or better than would a plan and design which complies with the standards of this section, and that any reduction in access and circulation for vehicles maintains facilities for bicycles, pedestrians and transit, to the maximum extent feasible. In reviewing the proposed alternative plan, the decision maker shall take into account whether the alternative design minimizes the impacts on natural areas and features, fosters non-vehicular access, provides for distribution of the development’s traffic without exceeding level of service standards, enhances neighborhood continuity and connectivity and provides direct, sub-arterial street access to any parks, schools, neighborhood centers, commercial uses, employment uses and Neighborhood Commercial Districts within or adjacent to the development from existing or future adjacent development within the same section mile. The applicant’s alternative compliance request is attached. Staff recommends approval of alternative compliance, which recognizes the unique history and constraints of land use and transportation policy affecting nearby properties, the enhanced nature of existing and proposed bike/pedestrian connections that can be made, and the limited impact to nearby arterial streets that would result from the lack of a vehicular connection. This recommendation is based on the following findings: 1) The lack of a local street connection and vehicular access does not result in any reduction to access or circulation for bicycles, pedestrians, or transit. The ODP property and adjoining north/south developments share three existing or proposed bike/ped connections along their shared boundaries. 2) The primary amenities to the north of the ODP property include English Ranch Park and Linton Elementary School. Both sites are located approximately half a mile (walking distance) from the center of the ODP property. City policies and goals encourage non-vehicular trips at this distance. Poudre School District bussing eligibility is typically not available within one-mile of an elementary school and no impact is anticipated to bus routes. 3) The land-uses and proposed amenities within the ODP partially mitigate the loss of vehicular access to the nearby park and school. The ODP commits to providing a 1.5-acre park/gathering space for the development, greatly exceeding HC zone district standards. The residential component of the ODP features attached and multifamily residential units. According to a 2015 National Association of Homebuilders study of US Census Data, on average, new multifamily units feature approximately one third the number of children versus single family detached development (21.9 versus 61.5 per 100 units). 4) A local street connection to Paddington Road would mean vehicles could travel to Corbett Drive through the ODP street network in nearly an identical alignment to what was previously illustrated on the Master Street Plan. The removal of a vehicular connection is being requested by many neighbors within English Ranch to reduce cut-through traffic to Front Range Village and reduce the amount of traffic within the neighborhood that they feel detracts from bike/pedestrian safety. The lack of a vehicular connection maintains the intent of the previous policy decision by City Council to remove the Corbett connection from the Master Street Plan. 5) The proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purposes of this section equally well or better than would a plan and design which complies with the standards of this section because the overall neighborhood including and surrounding the ODP is well served by a network of local, collector and arterial streets, has ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 313 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 ODP210004, Ziegler - Corbett ODP Thursday, February 17, 2022 | Page 16 of 17 Back to Top multiple bike and pedestrian access points, and the impact to local vehicular travel distances within the section mile are minimized due to the spacing and intersection of existing local and collector streets, or mitigated by the demands for local trips by the ODP land uses and its on-site amenities. 4) Section 2.3.2(H)(5) – Natural Features This standard requires an ODP to show the general location and size of all natural areas, habitats and features within its boundaries and shall indicate the rough estimate of the buffer zone as per Section 3.4.1(E) The ODP does not contain any identified natural areas, habitats of features as identified on the City’s Natural Habitats and Features inventory map and no natural habitat buffer zones are required within the ODP boundary. 5) Section 2.3.2(H)(6) – Drainage Basin Master Plan This standard requires an ODP to be consistent with the appropriate Drainage Basin Master Plan. The ODP is located within the Fox Meadows Drainage Basin. A drainage report has been reviewed by stormwater staff and there are no drainage issues associated with the ODP. The ODP map indicates the approximate location and sizing of future detention areas. Future project reviews within the ODP boundary will comply with the City’s stormwater management, water quality requirements, and low impact development standards. 6) Section 2.3.2(H)(7) – Housing Density and Mix of Uses This section requires that any standards relating to housing density and mix of uses will be applied over the entire ODP and not on each individual PDP. Within the HC zone district, a mix of housing types is required for projects proposing residential dwellings. For projects greater than 30 acres in size, a minimum of three housing types are required. The ODP proposes a minimum of three housing types, complying with this standard. Housing types shall include single-family attached, multifamily, and mixed-use dwellings. Additional housing types may be provided when individual PDPs are reviewed as multifamily buildings with varying unit numbers per building are identified as different housing types in the HC district, however, this level of detail for future PDP phases is not yet known. In addition to these recognized housing types in the HC district, 12 live-work units are proposed that will feature street-oriented commercial storefronts. 5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the request for the Ziegler - Corbett Overall Development Plan, ODP210004, Staff makes the following findings of fact: 1. The Overall Development Plan complies with the applicable procedural and administrative requirements of Article 2 of the Land Use Code. 2. The Overall Development Plan’s proposed alternative street connectivity accomplishes the purposes of Section 3.6.3 equally well or better than would a plan and design which complies with the standards of this section because the overall neighborhood including and surrounding the ODP is well served by a network of local, collector and arterial streets, the plan continues to enhance the connectivity for bicycle, pedestrian and transit by providing for connectivity through the site, and the proposed on-site amenities and land uses minimize and mitigate the generation of vehicular trips to the north. 3. The Modification to Section 4.26(D)(2) Secondary Uses is not detrimental to the public good and meets criteria 2.8.2(H)(2) because the ODP plan provides a substantial benefit to the community by addressing ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 314 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 ODP210004, Ziegler - Corbett ODP Thursday, February 17, 2022 | Page 17 of 17 Back to Top important community needs including access to childcare and advancing climate action and sustainability goals by providing on-site solar generation capacity and certifying a portion of residential units to LEED gold standards; The Modification to Section 4.26(D)(2) Secondary Uses is not detrimental to the public good and meets criteria 2.8.2(H)(3) because the ODP property has unusual and practical difficulties achieving 75% primary uses due to its visibility, location, and prior policy changes which have altered the land use vision for adjacent properties. The ODP property is substantially setback from Harmony Road and major street intersections, reducing its visibility and accessibility for large-scale primary uses. 4. The Modification to Section 4.26(D)(3)(a) Dimensional Standards is not detrimental to the public good and meets criteria 2.8.2(H)(1) because the plan will promote the general purpose of the standard equally well because the overall ODP site meets the purpose and intent of the Harmony Corridor Plan to compatibly transition from more intensive development to adjacent residential neighborhoods. This is achieved by an ODP average residential building height of 3-stories and locating those buildings with taller building heights and intensity adjacent to commercial land uses or large buffer/detention areas; 5. The Modification to Section 4.26(D)(3)(a) Dimensional Standards is not detrimental to the public good and meets criteria 2.8.2(H)(2) because the ODP plan provides a substantial benefit to the community by addressing important community needs including access to childcare and advancing climate action and sustainability goals by providing on-site solar generation capacity and certifying a portion of residential units to LEED gold standards; 6. The ODP complies with the review standards of Section 2.3.2(H)(1) through (7). 6. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission make a motion to approve the two Modifications of Standard to Land Use Code sections 4.26(D)(2) and 4.26(D)(3)(a); and approve the Ziegler – Corbett Overall Development Plan, ODP210004 based on the Findings of Fact and supporting explanations found in the staff report and hearing materials. 7. Attachments 1. Location & Zoning Map 2. Planning Objectives Narrative 3. Overall Development Plan 4. Overall Drainage Plan 5. Alternative Compliance Request Section 3.6.3 6. Modification Request Section 4.26(D)(2) 7. Modification Request Section 4.26(D)(3)(a) 8. City Plan Employment Land Demand Analysis 9. September 2021 Neighborhood Meeting Summary 10. February 2022 Neighborhood Meeting Summary 11. Public Comments 12. Staff presentation 13. Applicant Presentation 8. Links The documents available at the following links provide additional information regarding the development proposal under review and are incorporated by reference into the hearing record for this item: Overall Drainage Report Overall Traffic Study ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 315 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet pg. 316 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet pg. 317 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet pg. 318 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet pg. 319 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet pg. 320 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet pg. 321 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet pg. 322 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet pg. 323 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet pg. 324 21 41 Corbett Drive Extension – MSP Update Process 42 CORBETT DRIVE AND FRONT RANGE VILLAGE No direct connection to Kingsley per MSP Front Range Village development agreement Acknowledged there may be a street connection to English Ranch in the future Provided $75,000 for a neighborhood traffic calming plan along Corbett Drive Secured through 2015 Includes traffic calming measures such as speed tables, lower speed limits, pedestrian crosswalks, and signage ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet pg. 325 22 43 CITY PLAN AND TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN POLICIES The physical organization of the City will be supported by a framework of transportation alternatives that balances access, mobility, safety, and emergency response throughout the City, while working towards reducing the rate of growth of vehicle miles traveled and dependence upon the private automobile. (City Plan and TMP) 44 CITY PLAN AND TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN POLICIES A well-developed system of connections (walkways, bikeways, and streets) throughout the community will link land uses and travel within and beyond Fort Collins. (TMP) Neighborhood streets will be extensively interconnected, but designed to protect the neighborhood from excessive cut-through traffic. (TMP) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet pg. 326 23 45 IMPLEMENTING THE POLICIES Typical Collector Street without Parking 46 IMPLEMENTING THE POLICIES Typical Collector Street with On-street Parking ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet pg. 327 24 47 CORBETT DRIVE AND THE MASTER STREET PLAN The MSP is adopted by City Council as part of the Transportation Master Plan The MSP is the vision for the City’s street network The adopted MSP shows an indirect connection of Corbett Drive to Paddington Road An indirect street connection has been on the MSP as far back as 1998 48 CORBETT DRIVE AND THE MASTER STREET PLAN Benefits of Connection Neighborhood access to Front Range Village, public library, AMD, Intel, other employers and the Harmony Corridor Connection to schools for students and parents: Linton, Fort Collins HS, Preston, Traut Traffic calming measures along Paddington and Corbett to address concerns Connection for future development to parks and schools ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet pg. 328 25 49 CORBETT DRIVE AND THE MASTER STREET PLAN Concerns of Connection Potential for cut-through traffic along neighborhood streets Direct bicycle and pedestrian connection already provides access to Front Range Village and Harmony Corridor Surrounding arterial streets are able to handle additional traffic volumes Type of future development south of English Ranch is unknown at this time 50 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet pg. 329 26 51 CORBETT DRIVE & THE MASTER STREET PLAN 1998 2000 52 CORBETT DRIVE & THE MASTER STREET PLAN 2002 2009 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet pg. 330 27 53 STREET CONNECTIVITY NORTH OF FRONT RANGE VILLAGE Current MSP Indirect Corbett Drive street connection No direct connection to Kingsley Bicycle and pedestrian trail will remain If Corbett Drive removed from MSP, Land Use Code may require a non-Corbett street connection to the property north of Front Range Village Depends on land uses and traffic impact study May impact traffic signal locations and access points along Ziegler 54 TRAFFIC DATA – KINGSLEY Year Vehicles per Day 85th Percent Speed 2010 1,005 32 mph * Ziegler and Horsetooth roundabout constructed in 2008 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet pg. 331 28 55 TRAFFIC DATA – PADDINGTON Year Vehicles per Day 85th Percent Speed 2002 1,290 32.8 mph 2005 945 33.8 mph 2010 1,113 33 mph * Ziegler and Horsetooth roundabout constructed in 2008 56 NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC SAFETY AND MITIGATION The City has installed traffic calming measures along Kingsley Drive Speed tables, 25 mph speed limit, pedestrian crosswalks and signage Front Range Village development agreement allocates $75,000 for a neighborhood traffic calming plan Secured through 2015; applicable to Corbett Drive Speed tables, lower speed limits, signage ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet pg. 332 29 57 Kingsley Drive will NOT directly extend and connect to Corbett Drive 58 RESIDENT FEEDBACK TO DATE Confusion about where Corbett Drive could connect (Kingsley or further east) Negative impact to walking and biking in neighborhood, especially for kids The benefit of connecting Corbett Drive does not outweigh the impacts of increased traffic and noise Need additional/enhanced traffic calming measures, especially on Paddington ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet pg. 333 Ziegler - Corbett ODP Major AmendmentPlanning & Zoning Commission Hearing – 03.23.23ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 334 2Project OverviewMajor Amendment to Overall Development Plan (ODP)Size: ~33 acresZone: Harmony Corridor (HC)Major Amendment: Review of proposed changes to approved ODP:Expand ODP by incorporating one additional propertyShift Ziegler Rd. access north to align with Hidden Pond Dr.Install traffic signal at Ziegler/Hidden Pond intersectionNo proposed changes to land uses or intensity of existing ODPHidden Pond DrITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 335 3Project & Zoning VicinityODP ExpansionITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 336 4English Ranch – North of ODPITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 337 5Woodland Park / Broadcom – East of ODPITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 338 6Front Range Village – South of ODPITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 339 7Affinity – West of ODPITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 340 8Work Session Follow-UpProposed Signal at Ziegler/Hidden Pond:Privately-funded by project applicants; owned & maintained by the CityCommon traffic signal with timings and activation by vehicles, bikes and pedestrians Traffic counts of nearby streetsStreetLocationDataYear24-hr Vehicle CountSunstoneBetween Caribou & Kingsley2021 854Paddington Between Kingsley & Ziegler2018 1,177KingsleyBetween Horsetooth & Paddington 2018 1,093CaribouBetween Timberline & Sunstone2022 1,691CaribouBetween Horsetooth & Sunstone2017 1,208ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 341 9Work Session Follow-UpRoad classification of East-West Street thru ODPPrivate or local street; Master Street Plan does not identify a collector street at this locationRight-of-way (ROW) for potential street connection to Paddington RoadAs a public street, there are multiple options for ROW width and cross-sections per Larimer County Urban Area Street StandardsResidential Local: 57-ft; Collector without parking: 69-ft; Collector with parking: 81-ftResidential Local Cross SectionCollector without Parking Cross SectionITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 342 10(2022) ODP MapITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 343 11(2022) ODP Ziegler Access – Channelized TNITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 344 Align Ziegler access to Hidden Pond w/ signal12(2023) ODP Map – Major AmendmentEast-West Circulation shifts north to align with Hidden PondExpand ODP BoundaryShape of ODP parcels shifts based on new ODP boundary. No changes in proposed land-uses or intensityITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 345 13Compliance with ODP Standards2.3.2(H)(1) Permitted UsesAll proposed land uses permitted in HC DistrictPreviously approved modification for ratio of primary/secondary uses2.3.2(H)(2) Density 400-700 units proposed (12 – 21 units/acre) complies with HC minimum density requirement (7 du/acre)2.3.2(H)(3) & 2.3.2(H)(4) Access / ConnectivityAlternative Compliance approved (RE: local street connection north of property converted to bike/ped only)2.3.2(H)(5) Natural FeaturesNo identified natural features; no buffer zones required2.3.2(H)(6) DrainageComplies with Fox Meadows Drainage Basin Master Plan2.3.2(H)(7) Housing TypesAt least three housing types provided. Single-family attached, multifamily, mixed-use dwellings.ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 346 14Background – Corbett Dr ConnectionMaster Street Plan (MSP) identifies the long-range vision for the collector & arterial street networkMSP previously identified Corbett Drive connecting from Harmony Road to English Ranch thru ODP siteConcerns during Front Range Village development about the Corbett vehicular connectionCouncil removed collector street connection during 2010 City Plan/ MSP update2010 Master Street Plan Council Work SessionITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 347 15Policy Context – Master Street Plan2010 Master Street Plan Council Work SessionITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 348 16Connectivity Options: Tradeoffs & Public Comment SummaryLocal Street Connection from ODP to Paddington Road Would likely generate warrants for a traffic signal at Ziegler/Paddington/Grand Teton intersectionGenerally opposed by English Ranch neighborsUncertain policy guidance: recreates connectivity condition that originally led to the removal of the Corbett Dr collector street connection in 2010Signalized Intersection at Ziegler/Paddington/Grand TetonGenerally desired by neighbors to improve access onto ZieglerZiegler Road is the only access to Woodland Park Estates neighborhood Signal could potentially serve more development (English Ranch, Woodland Park, ODP/Affinity/FRV via street connection)Could fulfill Active Modes Plan goal for a bike/ped crossing along this stretch of Ziegler RdSignal not warranted under current conditions without a connection to ODP siteITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 349 17Connectivity Options: Tradeoffs & Public Comment SummarySignalized Intersection at Ziegler/Hidden Pond (Major Amendment Proposal)Provides a signal and bike/ped connection across Ziegler (Active Modes Plan)Precludes future possibility of a traffic signal at the Ziegler/Paddington/Grand Teton intersectionIdentified as potential outcome of removing the Corbett Dr connection to English Ranch from MSPAccessible by ODP, Affinity, Front Range Village, Hidden Pond EstatesDoes not address English Ranch, Woodland Park Estates concerns for Ziegler accessMany feel this signal location prioritizes new development over traffic issues faced by existing neighborhoodsConcern of unintended traffic on Hidden Pond Drive east of Ziegler RoadPrivate street with no outletConcern the signal will cause traffic to back-up to Paddington/Grand Teton and block accessDoes not follow typical signalized intersection location at public collector streetITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 350 18Connectivity Options: Tradeoffs & Staff ConsiderationsStaff considerationsContinued opposition to a street connection between ODP site and Paddington Road that would support a signal at the Ziegler/Paddington/Grand Teton intersectionExisting policy guidance and public processes identified removal of this connectionSupport for a signal somewhere along this stretch of Ziegler Rd Supports a near term bike/ped crossing of Ziegler Rd versus a Paddington connection which may depend on timing of future developmentODP access aligned at Ziegler/Hidden Pond preferable to previously approved ‘Channelized-T’ conceptITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 351 19Staff FindingsIn evaluating the request for the Ziegler-Corbett ODP Major Amendment, MJA220004, Staff makes the following findings:1. The Major Amendment complies with the applicable procedural and administrative requirements of Article 2 of the Land Use Code.2. The Major Amendment complies with the applicable review standards for Overall Development Plans of Section 2.3.2(H)(1) through (7).ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 352 20RESOURCESITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 353 21(2022) Ziegler-Corbett ODP OverviewMixed-Use ODP:400 – 700 dwelling units (min. 3 housing types)Childcare Center50,000sf Office/Community Facility spaceApproved Modifications of Standards & Alternative Compliance4.26(D)(2) Secondary Uses (Ratio of Primary & Secondary Uses)4.26(D)(3)(a) Dimensional Standards (Residential Building Height)Section 3.6.3 Street Pattern & ConnectivityNo mid-point vehicular access to north; bike/ped access onlyCondition of Approval – ODP shall demonstrate compliance with City Plan policies:Policy LIV 3.5 – Distinctive DesignRequire the adaptation of standardized corporate architecture to reflect local values and ensure that the community’s appearance remains unique. Development should not consist solely of repetitive design that may be found in other communities.Policy LIV 3.6 – Context-Sensitive DevelopmentEnsure that all development contributes to the positive character of the surrounding area. Building materials, architectural details, color range, building massing, and relationships to streets and sidewalks should be tailored to the surrounding area. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 354 22Ziegler Rd IntersectionsNFormer Master Street Plan ConnectionExisting or ProposedBike/Ped ConnectionZiegler RdITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 355 23Master Street Plan ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 356 24ODP Parcels & ModificationsITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 357 25ODP NotesITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 358 26Unit CountsExhibit provided by project applicantsITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 359 27English Ranch ODPITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 360 28Symbios Logic ODP (Prior Site ODP)ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 361 29Policy Context – Harmony Corridor PlanHarmony Corridor PlanVision for mixed-use corridor with a strong employment base. Land Use Policy Plan:…promotes the maximum utilization ofland within the corridor, higher densitydevelopment, phased growth, a mix ofuses and concentrated building activity.The availability of public facilities, includingstreets, sewer, water, natural gas, andelectricity, establishes the corridor as apreferred location for intense urban activity…(a) Maximize the use of existing services and facilities (streets and utilities).(b) Promote the development of the corridor as a high quality, self-contained and compact business center.(c) Provide for the location of industry and business in the city by identifying prime locations for such uses.(d) Provide shopping and service areas convenient to both residents and employees of the corridor.(e) Provide for a variety of housing types.(f) Preserve and protect existing residential neighborhoods from intrusive or disruptive development.ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 362 30Policy Context – Harmony Corridor PlanStandards require 75% primary uses in most areas of the corridorHarmony Corridor Plan amended by Council in early 2000s to support regional shopping center south of ODP siteSITEITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 363 31Proposed Modification – 4.26(D)(2) – Primary & Secondary UsesLUC RequirementModification Request Proposed Primary Uses(Gross Land Area)Proposed Primary Uses(Square Footage)Minimum 75% primary uses0% primary uses(100% secondary uses)17% (5.3 of 31.3 acres)50,000 square feet(Equivalent intensity to 10 acres of primary employment land, or approximately 33% of ODP land area)Staff evaluation based based on 100% secondary use requestFlexibility to permit either office use OR a combination of office & community facility space in Parcels D & ENo other secondary uses permitted within Parcels D & EITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 364 32Proposed Modification – 4.26(D)(2) – Primary & Secondary UsesStaff EvaluationMeets criterion 2.8.2(H)(2) & 2.8.2(H)(3) due to existing hardship or practical difficulties and providing substantial benefits“the focus of most development activity, especially commercial, should be at the major street intersections…”Harmony Corridor PlanITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 365 33Proposed Modification – 4.26(D)(2) – Primary & Secondary UsesCity Plan Employment Land Demand & Inventory AnalysisIdentified access and visibility as key characteristics for viability of employment and industrial land developmentODP site features reduced visibility and access compared to other key Harmony Corridor propertiesInventory of employment land exceeds anticipated demand through 2040. Harmony Corridor specific recommendation:“Certain remaining parcels along Harmony Road that are further from Harmony Road and behind larger commercial and employment uses could be considered for designation as residential uses. Specifically, the City should strive for higher density residential uses in these areas given their proximity to employment and potential enhanced transit routes” ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 366 34Proposed Modification – 4.26(D)(2) – Primary & Secondary UsesProviding Substantial BenefitsODP will provide on-site childcareAdopted as 2021-2023 Council priority. Policy goals for neighborhood livability and economic health in City PlanAdvances community energy & climate action goalsResidential buildings to feature solar panelsTownhome & condominium structures LEED gold certifiedProposed 1.5-acre park within the development, substantially exceeding HC district standards for park/gathering space (10,000 sf minimum requirement)ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 367 35Proposed Modification – 4.26(D)(3)(a) Residential Building HeightCode RequirementHC district permits up to 6-story building height for primary uses and up to 3-story building height for residentialModification Request:4-story residential building height on Parcels B & CStaff Evaluation:Meets criterion 2.8.2(H)(1) as the building heights across the ODP meet the intent of the Harmony Corridor Plan in an equal or better way ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 368 36Proposed Modification – 4.26(D)(3)(a) Residential Building HeightBalancing Harmony Corridor policy goals and land use guidance Corridor suitable for more intensive development Appropriate transitions to residential neighborhoodsThe LAND USE POLILCIES PLANpromotes the maximum utilization ofland within the corridor, higher densitydevelopment, phased growth, a mix ofuses and concentrated building activity.The availability of public facilities, includingstreets, sewer, water, natural gas, andelectricity, establishes the corridor as apreferred location for intense urban activityincluding a mix of residential, industrial,commercial and recreational uses.Land Use Plan Introduction – “Issues”The issues surrounding future land usein the Harmony Corridor appear to focuson the need to manage developmentto achieve a level of quality consistentwith the economic, environmental, visualand other “quality of life” objectives ofthe community; while guiding the corridorto become a major business centerin northern Colorado that attracts desirableindustries and businesses and, at thesame time, provides effective transitionsfrom residential neighborhoods.ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 369 37Proposed Modification – 4.26(D)(3)(a) Residential Building HeightODP Note:PARCEL C - 4TH STORIES OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS SHALL BE SET BACK AN AVERAGE OF 10-FT ON AT LEAST TWO SIDES FROM THE FLOOR BELOW.ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 370 38Proposed Modification – 4.26(D)(3)(a) Residential Building HeightITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 371 39Proposed Modification – 4.26(D)(3)(a) Residential Building HeightITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 372 40Proposed Modification – 4.26(D)(3)(a) Residential Building HeightITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 373 41Proposed Modification – 4.26(D)(3)(a) Residential Building HeightFuture Multifamily(English Ranch ODP)190’270’ODP Note:PARCEL B - 4TH STORIES SHALL BE SET BACK A MINIMUM OF 10-FT ON ALL SIDES AND THE 4TH STORY FLOOR AREA SHALL NOT EXCEED TWO-THIRDS (2/3) OF THE FLOOR AREA OF THE FLOOR BELOW, BUT NOT INCLUDING OPEN BALCONIES OR ROOFTOP PATIOS.ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 374 42Proposed Alternative Compliance – 3.6.3Code Requirement3.6.3(E) Distribution of Local Traffic to Multiple Arterial Streets.“All development plans shall contribute to developing a local street system that will allow access to and from the proposed development, as well as access to all existing and future development within the same section mile as the proposed development, from at least three (3) arterial streets upon development of remaining parcels within the section mile, unless rendered infeasible by unusual topographic features, existing development or a natural area or feature. The local street system shall allow multi-modal access and multiple routes from each development to existing or planned neighborhood centers, parks and schools, without requiring the use of arterial streets, unless rendered infeasible by unusual topographic features, existing development or a natural area or feature.3.6.3(F) Utilization and Provision of Sub-Arterial Street Connections to and From Adjacent Developments and Developable Parcels. “All development plans shall incorporate and continue all sub-arterial streets stubbed to the boundary of the development plan by previously approved development plans or existing development. All development plans shall provide for future public street connections to adjacent developable parcels by providing a local street connection spaced at intervals not to exceed six hundred sixty (660) feet along each development plan boundary that abuts potentially developable or redevelopable land.”ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 375 43Proposed Alternative Compliance – 3.6.3Staff Evaluation No reduction in access / connection for bikes or pedestriansODP site features three north-south bike/ped access pointsAmenities to the north include English Ranch Park, Linton Elementary SchoolLocated half-mile walking distance from center of ODP siteCity policies / PSD walksheds encourage non-vehicular travel at these distancesODP providing onsite park / gathering space; lower school enrollment demandTIS modeled connection / no connection. Both scenarios do not present level of service issuesNo connection requires trips to access an arterial; but detour is limited in distanceNo connection requested by neighborhood; aligns with previous policy decision made by City Council in 2010 to remove connection from MSPITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 376 Ziegler -Corbett Amended ODPPlanning and ZoningMarch 23, 2023ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 377 Ziegler -Corbett Amended ODPApproved Ziegler -Corbett ODP MapPurpose of the Amended ODP is to modify the following:•Blue -Inclusion of the Young Property •Orange -The approved Channelized ‘T’ IntersectionAdditional Benefits:•Adjusted parcel boundaries (but not modifying density / max. units allowed)Paddington Rd.HiddenPondITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 378 Ziegler -Corbett Amended ODPZiegler -Corbett Amended ODP Map•The 4 –way signalized light at this location is warranted per the TIS.•Provides a safer intersection for vehicles AND pedestrians vs. Channelized ‘T’•The signalized light is fully paid for by the Developer.•Adjusted parcels provide stronger street and block network.•This amended ODP is an improvement to the approved ODP.•No change in density / the maximum units allowed•No vehicular access to English Ranch remains•All conditions and modifications previously approved remain the same.•The “Sense of Place” remain as previously approved•Allows the preferred location of entry to the site from Ziegler (across from an existing street)Paddington Rd.HiddenPondITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 379 Visionary Images –“Making A Place”Photos and Renderings Courtesy of OthersZiegler -Corbett Amended ODPITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 380 Continue the Commitment to the CommunityĞŶĞĨŝƚƐŽĨZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůĂŶĚ^ĞĐŽŶĚĂƌLJhƐĞƐƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐǁŝůůŚĂǀĞ^ŽůĂƌĂŶĚͬŽƌEĞƚĞƌŽ ŶĞƌŐLJZĞĂĚLJ,ŽŵĞĂƐŶŽƚĞĚŝŶKWŽŵŵŝƚŵĞŶƚƚŽĂŚŝůĚĂLJĂƌĞĞŶƚĞƌĂƐŶŽƚĞĚŝŶKWĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƚŚĂƚƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƐĂŶĚŝƐƐƵƉƉŽƌƚĞĚďLJ&ƌŽŶƚZĂŶŐĞsŝůůĂŐĞZĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚŝƚLJWůĂŶdƌĂŶƐŝƚŝŽŶďĞƚǁĞĞŶůĂƌŐĞƌĞƚĂŝůĞŶƚĞƌĂŶĚ^ŝŶŐůĞͲ&ĂŵŝůLJ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐPhotos and Renderings Courtesy of OthersZiegler -Corbett Amended ODPITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 381 Thank you for your Time and SupportZiegler -Corbett Amended ODPITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 382 Discussion –Street Network and Intersection SpacingZiegler -Corbett Amended ODPITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 383 Supplemental Documents Received after Final Hearing Packet was posted prior to Hearing Packet pg. 384 1 Katie Claypool From:Ryan Mounce Sent:Friday, March 17, 2023 2:41 PM To:Katie Claypool; Em Myler Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] North College Manufactured Home Community Categories:P&Z Public comment for the North College Rezoning project. Thanks, Ryan Mounce Planning Services City of Fort Collins 970.224.6186 | rmounce@fcgov.com From: Deb & Chris Bobowski <bobowski.col@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2023 1:36 PM To: Ryan Mounce <RMounce@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] North College Manufactured Home Community Ryan, please forward this email to members of the Planning & Zoning Commission as they consider the rezoning of the North College Manufactured Home Community from its current split zoning condition to that of a single zoning district ‐ Manufactured Housing. Over the years, as a Fort Collins resident who has provided input to the city plan and housing strategic plan process, I've watched the city move positively forward towards its goal of preserving and increasing its stock of affordable housing. I am fully supportive of this latest rezoning initiative that will enable preservation of one of the city's largest manufactured housing communities, enabling it to continue to house those not otherwise able to afford standard stick‐ built housing or even most types of rental housing elsewhere in our town. This is one of many moves that will help keep this type of housing affordable in our high‐priced town. Deborah Bobowski 2001 Rosen Drive, #3‐212 Fort Collins, CO 80528 ITEM 4, CORRESPONDENCE 1 Packet pg. 385 1 Katie Claypool From:Sharlene Manno Sent:Sunday, March 19, 2023 6:02 PM To:Katie Claypool; Development Review Comments Subject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] mobile home park preservation Categories:P&Z Sent from my T‐Mobile 5G Device Get Outlook for Android From: Marilyn Heller <mmhellers@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2023 9:52:19 AM To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] mobile home park preservation I am glad to hear that there is a movement to preserve mobile home parks and manufactured housing communities. They are a valuable source of non‐subsidized affordable housing. ITEM 4, CORRESPONDENCE 2 Packet pg. 386 1 Katie Claypool From:Ryan Mounce Sent:Friday, March 10, 2023 8:43 AM To:Development Review Comments; Katie Claypool Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Re: Ziegler-Corbett Overall Development Plan (ODP) Proposal Categories:P&Z Additional public comment for the Ziegler‐Corbett project. Ryan Mounce Planning Services City of Fort Collins 970.224.6186 | rmounce@fcgov.com From: cj.mmeyer@yahoo.com <cj.mmeyer@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 2:29 PM To: Ryan Mounce <RMounce@fcgov.com> Cc: Sascha Meyer <msascha26@yahoo.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Ziegler‐Corbett Overall Development Plan (ODP) Proposal Hello Ryan, I am a resident of Woodland Park Estates. The new development is overall very concerning considering how congested the area has already recently become, and how much more it will be affected by so many additional residences. I am very surprised to hear the traffic light is planned for Hidden Pond/Ziegler. I wondering the rationale behind this? The traffic light is best suited at Grand Teton/Ziegler. The Hidden Pond neighborhood is private (one cannot enter the neighborhood streets unless a resident) and has significantly fewer homes (a dozen?) than Woodland Park - which has over 100 residences. Woodland Park does not have any access to Hidden Pond when exiting our neighborhood. Turning left/South is a difficulty already. Having a light exiting at Grand Teton/Zielger or would help ensure safety, helping to avoid inevitable accidents if one is not placed there.Grand Teton also directly connects across Zielger to Paddington Rd in English Ranch, providing accessible service to their residents as well. Thank you for your help on this matter. Sincerely, Carolyn Meyer 3908 Grand Canyon St Fort Collins On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 11:51:54 AM MST, Kathy Kulesa <tkulesa@msn.com> wrote: Hello Neighbors, I have attached the most recent Ziegler‐Corbett Development Plan Proposal that you should be receiving in the mail soon. Please note, the current proposal is for a traffic light to be placed at Hidden Pond/Ziegler, not at Grand Teton/Ziegler. As noted below, Ryan Mounce, City of Fort Collins Planning Services, is trying to get feedback either prior to or during the event. Please reach out to him if you would like additional information or would like to be involved in the meeting. ITEM 5, CORRESPONDENCE 1 Packet pg. 387 2 Please share with neighbors not currently getting this email. Thanks, Kathy Kulesa From: Ryan Mounce <RMounce@fcgov.com> Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 9:42 AM To: Craig Latzke <craig@latzke.us>; Kathy Kulesa <TKULESA@msn.com>; S P <sethpickett78@gmail.com>; Chris Sorensen <chriscsorensen@gmail.com>; Alison Morgan <morgan5alison@gmail.com> Subject: RE: Re: Ziegler‐Corbett Overall Development Plan (ODP) Proposal Hi Craig, Thanks for connecting everyone and sharing potential avenues to distribute information. We’re trying to reach as many neighbors as possible to let everyone know this proposal will be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission at their March 23rd meeting and the iteration the Commission will be reviewing proposes aligning the sites primary access point at the Ziegler/Hidden Pond intersection with a traffic signal. Mailed notices are being sent out this week and I will be providing an email update to a distribution list we created for the project after the neighborhood meeting held in January. A digital copy of the mailed notice is attached with all hearing details including date/time, location, and how to participate. Kathy – if this feels like something that would be appropriate to forward to the neighborhood distribution list, we would certainly appreciate the digital exposure in addition to the mailed notices that will be arriving in mailboxes. We’re also trying to encourage neighbors to provide written comments in advance or testimony at the hearing and the notice contains information on how to provide those comments. Craig, if you and any other neighbors have an interest in scheduling a call or meeting before the hearing to discuss the proposal and share thoughts in your capacity as a neighborhood resident, I’d be happy to help coordinate from the City’s end and could also include colleagues from Engineering/Traffic Operations as well. Let me know if this would be helpful and if there’s any particulate dates/times that tend to work well with your schedule. Thanks again, Ryan Mounce Planning Services City of Fort Collins 970.224.6186 | rmounce@fcgov.com From: Craig Latzke <craig@latzke.us> Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 3:51 PM To: Ryan Mounce <RMounce@fcgov.com>; Kathy Kulesa <TKULESA@msn.com>; S P <sethpickett78@gmail.com>; Chris Sorensen <chriscsorensen@gmail.com>; Alison Morgan <morgan5alison@gmail.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Ziegler‐Corbett Overall Development Plan (ODP) Proposal Ryan, Appreciate you reaching out about this matter. I am on the HOA board as you mention. Rest of the board (Seth, Alison, Chris) is copied on this reply. ITEM 5, CORRESPONDENCE 1 Packet pg. 388 3 Sharing bulk contact information (email addresses of all our households) with The City would seem to go beyond what our members have likely consented to their HOA doing. If you would like something forwarded broadly, please send it to Kathy (CCd) who can forward it to the neighborhood distribution list she maintains. I am also happy to cross post to our neighborhood on Nextdoor.com. As a board/HOA we do not involve ourselves in or take positions on matters outside of our specific duties, like politics or this ODP/Amendment. In my capacity as a resident/citizen/individual, I would be interested in attending a meeting like you mention. I am also comfortable sharing my own personal observations/opinions, especially as they seem to align with what I hear from others in the neighborhood on this topic. Regards, Craig craig@latzke.us 970‐227‐7444 On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 11:24 AM Ryan Mounce <RMounce@fcgov.com> wrote: Hello Craig, My name is Ryan Mounce and I work for the City of Fort Collins in the Planning Department. I’m part of the team reviewing the Ziegler-Corbett Major Amendment proposal for the property southwest of Woodland Park Estates along the west side of Ziegler between English Ranch and Front Range Village. You may recall we had some brief email correspondence about the original Overall Development Plan (ODP) proposal for the site back in early 2022 regarding pedestrian improvements/crossings along Ziegler Rd. We’ve been trying to find a contact(s) for HOA members in Woodland Park Estates to share updates on the current major amendment proposal to the original ODP and find a time for a meeting for questions and comments about the proposal from the Woodland Park perspective. We held a call with several English Ranch HOA members earlier this week and wanted to extend a similar invitation for Woodland Park Estates. Another Woodland Park neighbor mentioned you were an HOA board member and I wanted to reach out and see if you have any interest in such a meeting and/or if you’re aware of other board members or neighbors who may also wish to attend and if was possible to share their contact information or distribute information. Regards, Ryan Mounce Planning Services City of Fort Collins 970.224.6186 | rmounce@fcgov.com ITEM 5, CORRESPONDENCE 1 Packet pg. 389 1 Katie Claypool From:Ryan Mounce Sent:Friday, March 10, 2023 8:43 AM To:Development Review Comments; Katie Claypool Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: Ziegler-Corbett Overall Development Plan (ODP) Proposal Categories:P&Z Additional public comment for the Ziegler‐Corbett project. Ryan Mounce Planning Services City of Fort Collins 970.224.6186 | rmounce@fcgov.com From: Craig Latzke <craig@latzke.us> Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 11:57 AM To: Ryan Mounce <RMounce@fcgov.com> Cc: Kathy Kulesa <TKULESA@msn.com>; S P <sethpickett78@gmail.com>; Chris Sorensen <chriscsorensen@gmail.com>; Alison Morgan <morgan5alison@gmail.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: Ziegler‐Corbett Overall Development Plan (ODP) Proposal Ryan, "Craig, if you and any other neighbors have an interest in scheduling a call or meeting before the hearing to discuss the proposal and share thoughts in your capacity as a neighborhood resident, I’d be happy to help coordinate from the City’s end and could also include colleagues from Engineering/Traffic Operations as well. Let me know if this would be helpful and if there’s any particulate dates/times that tend to work well with your schedule." I would definitely be interested in this. With spring break, many families (including mine) are out of town next week. So something the week of March 20? It seems unfortunate meeting with folks in Woodland Park was not pursued earlier, as I get the impression the plan/proposal is already set. There seemed to be some "ah ha"s from staff and english ranch residents in response to my comments about the new development not connecting to Paddington as per original plan (keeping this traffic off Paddington is likely to result in Paddington/GrandTeton never qualifying to become signalled). Yet, because the process was so far along there was not real opportunity to revise ‐ the proposal was there for yes/no‐up/down vote, not refinement. I fear similar here ‐ the proposal is already seemingly fully baked, without much of our input or consideration thereof. So as to not wait until some meeting just days before the proposal is considered, my opinions... Short version: There is a longstanding desire to have a safe location to cross Ziegler from Woodland Park to access the park, elementary school, walking paths, etc in English Ranch. ITEM 5, CORRESPONDENCE 2 Packet pg. 390 2 It is difficult to exit Woodland Park, specifically turning left from westbound Grand Teton Pl onto southbound Ziegler. Signalizing the Paddington/GrandTeton and Ziegler intersection and shifting this development's primary access to Paddington would be a superior solution (to both of these concerns) than locating this development's primary access at Hidden Pond and signalizing that intersection. The development proposal which abandoned Paddington and now the planned adjustment to align with Hidden Pond remain inferior solutions to the original plan of utilizing Paddington. Long version... 1. There is a longstanding desire to have a safe location to cross Ziegler from Woodland Park to access the park, elementary school, walking paths, etc in English Ranch. Personnel at The City have in the past suggested the roundabout at Horsetooth or the signalled intersection at Council Tree present sufficient pedestrian crossing opportunities. I believe they are not sufficiently nearby and cite two observations as evidence: (1) People in Woodland Park rarely if ever detour to those crossings enroute to the park or neighborhood school, opting instead to play Frogger(tm) by crossing Ziegler on foot. (2) Most of the existing signalled crosswalks along similar arterial streets I have surveyed are much closer to the next best option (a signalled driving intersection nearby) than the distances we would travel to the suggested crossing locations. Non‐exhaustive list of existing crosswalks closer to the next best alternative: Power trail to Timberline (crossing Drake and Horsetooth) Illinois Drive to Timberline (crossing Drake) Arctic Fox Drive to Timberline (crossing Horsetooth) Starflower to Shields (crossing Horsetooth) Example detour distances for us: Mesa Verde to Horsetooth Grand Teton to Council Tree The Ziegler‐Corbett Major Amendment proposal I have seen adds a signalled intersection at Hidden Pond Drive. This would result in a pedestrian crossing that requires less of a detour than the current situation, so would address this concern to some degree (some but not all pedestrians would detour to here). Signalizing the intersection at Paddington/GrandTeton and Ziegler (as has been on The City's radar for a couple decades) and shifting this development's primary access to Paddington would fully eliminate the need for pedestrians to detour to reach a signalled crossing, maximizing the amount of pedestrian crossings which occur at a signal. 2. It is difficult to exit Woodland Park, specifically turning left from westbound Grand Teton Pl onto southbound Ziegler. It should be noted that Grand Teton Pl serves as the exit point for 59 households (south half of neighborhood) whereas Hidden Pond serves 15 households. It should also be noted that it is easier to turn left onto Ziegler from Hidden Pond than from Grand Teton. From Hidden Pond one only needs traffic to be clear in the northbound direction on Ziegler to pull into the middle/empty lane of Ziegler. From Grand Teton traffic needs to be clear on Ziegler in both directions as the middle lane on Ziegler is not available to pull into (it is serving as a left‐hand turn lane into English Ranch). ITEM 5, CORRESPONDENCE 2 Packet pg. 391 3 The Ziegler‐Corbett Major Amendment proposal I have seen adds a signalled intersection at Hidden Pond Drive. This does not seem like it would improve the ability to turn left onto Ziegler from Grand Teton for households in Woodland Park nor for households in English Ranch. Signalizing the intersection at Paddington/GrandTeton and Ziegler (as has been on The City's radar for a couple decades) and shifting this development's primary access to Paddington would provide ingress/egress benefits for both Woodland Park and English Ranch neighborhoods at that shared intersection. Shifting access to (and signalizing) Hidden Pond will not help with left‐onto‐southbound‐ziegler egress from Woodland Park. However, Signalizing Paddington/GrandTeton will help left‐onto‐southbound‐ziegler egress from Hidden Pond in this way: They could turn right onto Ziegler, then use the Paddington/GrantTeton signal to make a U‐turn to head south. Regards, Craig On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 9:42 AM Ryan Mounce <RMounce@fcgov.com> wrote: Hi Craig, Thanks for connecting everyone and sharing potential avenues to distribute information. We’re trying to reach as many neighbors as possible to let everyone know this proposal will be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission at their March 23rd meeting and the iteration the Commission will be reviewing proposes aligning the sites primary access point at the Ziegler/Hidden Pond intersection with a traffic signal. Mailed notices are being sent out this week and I will be providing an email update to a distribution list we created for the project after the neighborhood meeting held in January. A digital copy of the mailed notice is attached with all hearing details including date/time, location, and how to participate. Kathy – if this feels like something that would be appropriate to forward to the neighborhood distribution list, we would certainly appreciate the digital exposure in addition to the mailed notices that will be arriving in mailboxes. We’re also trying to encourage neighbors to provide written comments in advance or testimony at the hearing and the notice contains information on how to provide those comments. Craig, if you and any other neighbors have an interest in scheduling a call or meeting before the hearing to discuss the proposal and share thoughts in your capacity as a neighborhood resident, I’d be happy to help coordinate from the City’s end and could also include colleagues from Engineering/Traffic Operations as well. Let me know if this would be helpful and if there’s any particulate dates/times that tend to work well with your schedule. Thanks again, Ryan Mounce ITEM 5, CORRESPONDENCE 2 Packet pg. 392 4 Planning Services City of Fort Collins 970.224.6186 | rmounce@fcgov.com From: Craig Latzke <craig@latzke.us> Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 3:51 PM To: Ryan Mounce <RMounce@fcgov.com>; Kathy Kulesa <TKULESA@msn.com>; S P <sethpickett78@gmail.com>; Chris Sorensen <chriscsorensen@gmail.com>; Alison Morgan <morgan5alison@gmail.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Ziegler‐Corbett Overall Development Plan (ODP) Proposal Ryan, Appreciate you reaching out about this matter. I am on the HOA board as you mention. Rest of the board (Seth, Alison, Chris) is copied on this reply. Sharing bulk contact information (email addresses of all our households) with The City would seem to go beyond what our members have likely consented to their HOA doing. If you would like something forwarded broadly, please send it to Kathy (CCd) who can forward it to the neighborhood distribution list she maintains. I am also happy to cross post to our neighborhood on Nextdoor.com. As a board/HOA we do not involve ourselves in or take positions on matters outside of our specific duties, like politics or this ODP/Amendment. In my capacity as a resident/citizen/individual, I would be interested in attending a meeting like you mention. I am also comfortable sharing my own personal observations/opinions, especially as they seem to align with what I hear from others in the neighborhood on this topic. Regards, Craig craig@latzke.us 970‐227‐7444 ITEM 5, CORRESPONDENCE 2 Packet pg. 393 5 On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 11:24 AM Ryan Mounce <RMounce@fcgov.com> wrote: Hello Craig, My name is Ryan Mounce and I work for the City of Fort Collins in the Planning Department. I’m part of the team reviewing the Ziegler‐Corbett Major Amendment proposal for the property southwest of Woodland Park Estates along the west side of Ziegler between English Ranch and Front Range Village. You may recall we had some brief email correspondence about the original Overall Development Plan (ODP) proposal for the site back in early 2022 regarding pedestrian improvements/crossings along Ziegler Rd. We’ve been trying to find a contact(s) for HOA members in Woodland Park Estates to share updates on the current major amendment proposal to the original ODP and find a time for a meeting for questions and comments about the proposal from the Woodland Park perspective. We held a call with several English Ranch HOA members earlier this week and wanted to extend a similar invitation for Woodland Park Estates. Another Woodland Park neighbor mentioned you were an HOA board member and I wanted to reach out and see if you have any interest in such a meeting and/or if you’re aware of other board members or neighbors who may also wish to attend and if was possible to share their contact information or distribute information. Regards, Ryan Mounce Planning Services City of Fort Collins 970.224.6186 | rmounce@fcgov.com ITEM 5, CORRESPONDENCE 2 Packet pg. 394 1 Katie Claypool From:Ryan Mounce Sent:Sunday, March 12, 2023 11:02 AM To:Katie Claypool Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] MJA220004 Categories:P&Z Additional comment for the Ziegler‐Corbett item to add to public comment. Dev Review comments was already included on the original message and Em should also be tracking. Ryan Mounce Planning Services City of Fort Collins 970.224.6186 | rmounce@fcgov.com From: Julie Baker <ryjubake@comcast.net> Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2023 6:30 PM To: Ryan Mounce <RMounce@fcgov.com>; Development Review Comments <devreviewcomments@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] MJA220004 Mr. Ryan Mounce, Regarding Amendment: Ziegler-Corbett Overall Development Plan Major Amendment, MJA220004 (location map on the back of this letter). Sign #719, Parcel #s: 8732000002, 8732000009, 8732400008 We have been abreast of the development across the street from our home which is located at 3115 Yellowstone Cir. and have been accepting of the change to the property behind the Council Tree Shopping Center to this point. We are NOT in favor of any further development and find it completely irrational and poorly planned as many home owners will be impacted by this late Major Amendment change. The City should not add a light to this area as there are already two within a short distance from Harmony Road. All of the home owners in this area already deal with a significant amount of traffic and DO NOT want any more traffic flow either Southbound or Northbound. This will also cause a huge impact to a small roundabout that is already over-used all times of the day. We will try to attend the virtual meeting but want you to know that we are completely opposed. Thank you, Ryan and Julie Baker 3115 Yellowstone Cir. Fort Collins, CO 80525 ITEM 5, CORRESPONDENCE 3 Packet pg. 395 2 970-420-9834 ITEM 5, CORRESPONDENCE 3 Packet pg. 396 1 Katie Claypool From:Ryan Mounce Sent:Thursday, March 16, 2023 9:04 AM To:Katie Claypool; Development Review Comments Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: Introduction to Ryan Mounce from City of Fort Collins Categories:P&Z Another public comment to include for the Ziegler‐Corbett item. Thanks, Ryan Mounce Planning Services City of Fort Collins 970.224.6186 | rmounce@fcgov.com From: Stephen Clarke <stephen.e.clarke@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 4:36 PM To: Ryan Mounce <RMounce@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: Introduction to Ryan Mounce from City of Fort Collins Hi Ryan, I sent the message out to the Hidden Pond neighborhood. Reading your message, it sounds like it has been decided to move forward with the traffic light aligning with Hidden Pond Drive. Majority of the folks in the neighborhood are against that proposal and would prefer the light be at the intersection of Paddington / Grand Teton & Zeigler. The Woodland Park neighborhood has been requesting a traffic light at Grand Teton for years. I do understand, having lived in the English Ranch neighborhood, the strong desire to not have the new development connect with Paddington. However, our primary concerns are around the increase in traffic in to Hidden Pond ‐ both auto and pedestrian traffic. If the light were to align with Hidden Pond Dr., what signage would be installed indicating ‐ dead end, private road, no through traffic. Anything to mitigate the increase. Every Spring, we see an increase in foot traffic through the neighborhood. With the neighborhood directly "across the street", we know there will be an increase. Would be interested in any mitigation ideas you have. Thanks, Stephen On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 2:11 PM Ryan Mounce <RMounce@fcgov.com> wrote: Hi Stephen, Glad Seth could facilitate that introduction. As mentioned I’m part of the staff team at the City reviewing the Ziegler‐ Corbett proposal along the west side of Ziegler between English Ranch and Front Range Village. You may recall there was a previous Overall Development Plan (ODP) approved for that site in 2022 and they are requesting an amendment to that plan with the key change being their main access off Ziegler Road would shift north and align with Hidden Pond Drive and the installation of a traffic signal at that intersection. The proposal is scheduled to be heard by the Planning ITEM 5, CORRESPONDENCE 4 Packet pg. 397 2 and Zoning Commission at their March 23rd meeting and I’m trying to publicize those hearing details and encourage neighbors to provide written comments or testimony at the hearing if they would like to do so. Mailed notices with hearing details should be arriving in mailboxes over the next few days and we’re also trying to spread the word as much as we can digitally. A copy of the mailed notice is attached and if there are any email distribution lists for Hidden Pond we would appreciate any help forwarding it along to other neighbors and spreading the word. I’ve also reached out to other nearby neighborhoods and their HOAs to see if a call or meeting prior to the hearing to share updates on the project or help answer questions would be helpful. We’d like everyone to have the latest information before the hearing. If you or any neighbors may be interested in such a meeting please let me know and we can find time for a meeting. Regards, Ryan Mounce Planning Services City of Fort Collins 970.224.6186 | rmounce@fcgov.com From: Stephen Clarke (APD) <stephen.clarke@broadcom.com> Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 12:05 PM To: S P <sethpickett78@gmail.com> Cc: Ryan Mounce <RMounce@fcgov.com>; Stephen Clarke <stephen.e.clarke@gmail.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Introduction to Ryan Mounce from City of Fort Collins ITEM 5, CORRESPONDENCE 4 Packet pg. 398 1 Katie Claypool From:Ryan Mounce Sent:Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:58 PM To:Katie Claypool; Em Myler Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Meeting tonight Ziegler/Corbett Categories:P&Z Additional comment for the Ziegler/Corbett project. Thanks, Ryan Mounce Planning Services City of Fort Collins 970.224.6186 | rmounce@fcgov.com ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Megan Engelstad <megan.engelstad@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:45 PM To: Ryan Mounce <RMounce@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Meeting tonight Ziegler/Corbett Good afternoon Mr. Mounce, My name is Megan Engelstad and I live in Woodland Park Estes. I will not be able to attend the meeting this evening due to my kiddo’s schedules of after school activities. That being said, I would like to connect with you about the proposed traffic pattern. I have to turn left from Grand Teton multiple times a day and I will wait (more often than not) for 5 minutes, there are times it has been 8 minutes. With the new building coming across the street, it is going to gravely increase the traffic for Woodland Park and English Ranch. Putting a light in has been a need for years and I am glad there is the prospect of one coming in, however putting the light at Hidden Ponds does nothing to mitigate the traffic that these two larger neighborhoods are dealing with. Hidden Ponds has (I believe) 10 houses and a light does not make sense there. They also have a turn lane that that can go into, whereas the Grand Teton/English Ranch streets do not. Please consider putting a light in this area rather than Hidden Ponds. Thank you for your consideration, Megan Engelstad Woodland Park Estates resident Sent from my iPhone ITEM 5, CORRESPONDENCE 5 Packet pg. 399 1 Katie Claypool From:Ryan Mounce Sent:Tuesday, March 21, 2023 3:31 PM To:Katie Claypool; Em Myler Subject:FW: Fw: Ziegler-Corbett ODP Major Amendment Updates & Discussion Attachments:Proposal for light at Zeigler-Paddington.jpg Categories:P&Z Another comment for the Ziegler‐Corbett proposal. Thanks, Ryan Mounce Planning Services City of Fort Collins 970.224.6186 | rmounce@fcgov.com From: David Worford <davidworford@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 1:54 PM To: Ryan Mounce <RMounce@fcgov.com>; craig@latzke.us; sethpickett78@gmail.com; chriscsorensen@gmail.com; TKULESA@msn.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fw: Fw: Ziegler‐Corbett ODP Major Amendment Updates & Discussion Hi Ryan, My name is David Worford and I am also a resident of Woodland Park. I cannot attend the meeting but I also want to place my concern about where a light/crossing would go with this project. We have been promised for years to get at least a crosswalk across Ziegler. We were also told we needed to wait until this development happens to get one. Now that it is happening you are planning on putting one at Hidden Pond, where at the moment there is little need and you still leave an entire neighborhood without a light/crosswalk? I assume this is due to the complaints from English Ranch on potential traffic on Paddington. So they get their voice heard and the one thing our neighborhood really, really needs we are left in the dark again? During this time we've all been waiting for a crosswalk I have seen one put in across Drake from Lake Sherwood to Parkwood where I have literally never seen anyone use it and neither neighborhood is cut off from the world. There has also been one put across Lemay between Drake and Prospect (again, never seen anyone use it, but I don't travel through there as much). I am sure there are more. But we have our hands tied because of this potential development. Many of us would like a light, but we need something to allow us to get out of our neighborhood. We only have two ways in and out and they are both on Ziegler. ITEM 5, CORRESPONDENCE 6 Packet pg. 400 2 We have kids that go to school across Zeigler, which despite being about a 15‐minute walk is impossible to do so because it isn't safe to cross. Where the school is located is also the closest true park to our neighborhood. We have no way to venture out on recreation as families or individuals because it isn't safe to get across. And of course, traffic is only going to get worse to turn left and sometimes even right with cars. We aren't a large neighborhood, but there are plenty of us here and I feel our voices have been ignored all this time. We've been told use the light at Council Tree or go to the roundabout (neither excatly stone throws away). Now the city is putting something at Hidden Pond and still getting nothing. Please consider our neighborhood in all of this. Thank you, David Worford From: Kathy Kulesa <tkulesa@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 10:57 AM To: Kathy Kulesa <tkulesa@msn.com> Cc: Ryan Mounce <rmounce@fcgov.com> Subject: Fw: Fw: Ziegler‐Corbett ODP Major Amendment Updates & Discussion Hi Neighbors, I would like to remind everyone of the Zoom call scheduled for 5:00 PM tonight to give feedback on the proposed signal light on Ziegler. Please see Zoom link at bottom of this email. The attached drawing was provided by Any Poulsen (proposed by another neighbor) as a possible alternative to a light at Hidden Pond. I believe the darker line on Paddington would be a concrete divider to allow only a right turn out of the new development onto Paddington. This is a very important discussion and may determine traffic patterns for our entire neighborhood so please try to log in and give your input. Thanks Kathy Kulesa From: Andy Poulsen <andy@poulsens.net> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 5:47 PM To: Kathy Kulesa <TKULESA@msn.com>; Craig Latzke <craig@latzke.us>; S P <sethpickett78@gmail.com>; Chris Sorensen <chriscsorensen@gmail.com> Cc: Ryan Mounce <RMounce@fcgov.com> Subject: Re: Fw: Ziegler‐Corbett ODP Major Amendment Updates & Discussion Hi Kathy, Sorry for the short notice, but I just received it from a friend -- I didn't have a copy of it, and it took her a while to find it. ITEM 5, CORRESPONDENCE 6 Packet pg. 401 3 The attached drawing was proposed (I wish I knew whose proposal it was so I could give credit) at the last meeting at the library, and really seemed to generate a lot of interest and energy from the homeowners in attendance (both from our neighborhood and from English Ranch). However, it seemed that the developer and the folks from the city weren't interested in discussing it . The homeowners in attendance seemed to feel that this proposal makes more sense than any of any of the others -- it allows controlled egress from all 3 neighborhoods (WP, ER, and the new development), and makes ER happy because it doesn't allow traffic from Council Tree into the ER neighborhood. A light at Hidden Pond will provide almost no benefit to either English Ranch or Woodland Park, but the one in the attached proposal at Grand Teton/Paddington would seemingly address most of the concerns of all parties. Could we please send this out to all homeowners as a proposal? I'm copying Seth, Chris, and Craig on this as well, hoping to come up with a solution that benefits everyone. Thanks! andy ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Subject: Fw: Ziegler‐Corbett ODP Major Amendment Updates & Discussion From: Kathy Kulesa <TKULESA@msn.com> To: Kathy Kulesa <tkulesa@msn.com> CC: Ryan Mounce <RMounce@fcgov.com> Date: 3/10/2023 12:47 PM Hello again, Neighbors, The following Zoom meeting has been set up for Tuesday, March 21st at 5:00 PM for any that want to participate in the discussion of the Ziegler‐Corbett ODP. Please follow link given below or call in to access meeting. For additional information, please contact Ryan Mounce at rmounce@fcgov.com. ITEM 5, CORRESPONDENCE 6 Packet pg. 402 4 Thanks, Kathy Kulesa From: Ryan Mounce <RMounce@fcgov.com> Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 3:21 PM To: Craig Latzke <craig@latzke.us>; Kathy Kulesa <TKULESA@msn.com>; S P <sethpickett78@gmail.com>; Chris Sorensen <chriscsorensen@gmail.com>; Alison Morgan <morgan5alison@gmail.com> Cc: Em Myler <emyler@fcgov.com>; Sophie Buckingham <sbuckingham@fcgov.com>; Tyler Stamey <tstamey@fcgov.com>; Steve Gilchrist <sgilchrist@fcgov.com> Subject: Ziegler‐Corbett ODP Major Amendment Updates & Discussion When: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 5:00 PM‐6:00 PM. Where: Zoom ‐ https://fcgov.zoom.us/j/99755415966 Development Review is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Topic: Woodland Park / Ziegler‐Corbett ODP Major Amendment Updates & Discussion Time: Mar 21, 2023 05:00 PM Mountain Time (US and Canada) Join Zoom Meeting https://fcgov.zoom.us/j/99755415966 Meeting ID: 997 5541 5966 One tap mobile +17209289299,,99755415966# US (Denver) +12532158782,,99755415966# US (Tacoma) Dial by your location +1 720 928 9299 US (Denver) +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 646 558 8656 US (New York) Meeting ID: 997 5541 5966 Find your local number: https://fcgov.zoom.us/u/acCuWSBgLp ITEM 5, CORRESPONDENCE 6 Packet pg. 403 ITEM 5, CORRESPONDENCE 6Packet pg. 404 1 Katie Claypool From:Ryan Mounce Sent:Wednesday, March 22, 2023 8:08 AM To:Em Myler; Katie Claypool Subject:FW: Written Comments for Zoning Meeting on 03/23/23 Categories:P&Z Additional comment for the Ziegler‐Corbett Project. Ryan Mounce Planning Services City of Fort Collins 970.224.6186 | rmounce@fcgov.com From: CJ O'Loughlin <CJ.OLoughlin@live.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 10:54 PM To: Ryan Mounce <RMounce@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Written Comments for Zoning Meeting on 03/23/23 Hey Ryan, I appreciate you and the others taking the time to talk with us residents this evening. Here are a few comments I was hoping you could pass along at the next meeting: I think most would agree that a light for at least pedestrian crossings out of the Woodland Park/Hidden Ponds area is needed, and one with the option of vehicle traffic would be preferred. To underscore this, it is currently a 1.5 mile and 30 min walk to get to the closest park from the farthest point in our neighborhood. The lack of a crossing almost doubles the walk. To the neighborhood school is even farther. I believe the city signed on to some sort of initiative to put a park within a 10 minute walk of every neighborhood, and regardless the city has always put a high value on bike and pedestrian safety. In my opinion this is a major safety concern. As I mentioned in the meeting, the city installed a light controlled pedestrian crossing at both Horsetooth/Arctic Fox and Drake/ Illinois (874 feet 514 feet respectively from the nearest crosswalk) after a juvenile pedestrian was killed at these intersections. After the pedestrian crossing was removed from Ziegler I feel like we have been on borrowed time, I fear that the only way we may get a light back is if there is another tragedy, this time with one of the kids from my neighborhood name on it. It seems to be close to universally agreed upon that the “normal” location for the light/crossing would be Paddington and Ziegler, absent the 2010 decision which in some way impacts this. I think the original proposal for the light location should be a non‐starter: this would still put the signal over 1500 feet from Mesa Verde and 900 feet from Grand Teton, both much further than the city has already set the precedent as reasonable to expect people to divert to find a safe crossing. Hidden Pond may be considered more reasonable (at 1000 feet and 400 feet) but it comes with the host of other problems and is objected to, at least in part, by all three neighborhoods it sounds like. Once the development plan is approved and the infrastructure is in place it will be difficult and costly to change. Why not put the light in the “ideal” location now while the developer is still playing ball so if the circumstances with English Ranch change down the road we have everything in place? Perhaps the city could respond to the developer that the light needs to be put in at Paddington and Ziegler for the reasons mentioned above, let them change of modify their existing plans accordingly? I may have missed it, but if there was a limited access to the commercial area of the development property at Carrick and Paddington ITEM 5, CORRESPONDENCE 7 Packet pg. 405 2 the impact to English Ranch would be close to nil, and yet it would provide a logical egress for vehicles to go northbound from the commercial development and possible the residential area behind. Then, if down the road Corbett is connected to the neighborhood and Paddington becomes a full “feeder” street the light is already in place. Thanks for your consideration. Feel free to summarize the above. CO’L ITEM 5, CORRESPONDENCE 7 Packet pg. 406