The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08/17/2023 - Planning and Zoning Commission - AGENDA - Regular MeetingPlanning and Zoning Commission Page 1 August 17, 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 August 17, 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/93065626690. 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 August 17, 2023. 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 August 17, 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: 930 6562 6690. 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 August 17, 2023 1. Draft Minutes for the P&Z June Regular Hearing The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes of the June 15, 2023, Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 2. Bohlender Funeral Chapel FDP PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Major Amendment and Final Development Plan for a change of use for the property at 3350 Eastbrook Drive from office to a funeral home. This project proposes to occupy the existing two-story building consisting of office space with a funeral home and offices. A total of 42 existing off-street parking spaces serve the site and proposed land uses. Existing access will remain and be taken from Eastbrook Drive and Danfield Court. This is considered a Secondary Use in the Employment (E) zone district and is subject to a Planning & Zoning Commission (Type 2) review. APPLICANT: Michele Forrest Neenan Company 3325 S Timberline Rd Ste 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 STAFF ASSIGNED: Katelyn Puga, City Planner 3. Water Adequacy Determination Review Code Update PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a recommendation to City Council regarding proposed Land Use Code changes to add specific regulations outlining how the City will make a water adequacy determination for development. The regulations are divided into three different categories: (1) established potable water supply entities; (2) new, or other potable water supply entities; and (3) non-potable water supply entities. The goal is to comply with Colorado state statute (Section 29-20-301, et seq., C.R.S.) and to make sure development has the necessary water supply. APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 STAFF ASSIGNED: Clay Frickey, Interim Planning Manager • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Packet pg. 3 Agenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY August 17, 2023 Planning and Zoning Commission STAFF Shar Manno, Customer and Administrative Manager SUBJECT MINUTES OF THE June 15, 2023 P&Z HEARING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is the consideration and approval of the draft minutes of the June 15, 2023 Planning & Zoning Commission hearing. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft June 15, 2023 P&Z Minutes Packet pg. 4 David Katz, Chair Virtual Hearing Julie Stackhouse, Vice Chair City Council Chambers Michelle Haefele 300 Laporte Avenue Adam Sass Fort Collins, Colorado Ted Shepard Samantha Stegner Cablecast on FCTV, Channel 14 on Connexion & York 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 June 15, 2023 Chair Katz called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Haefele, Katz, Sass, Shepard, Stackhouse, York Absent: Stegner Staff Present: Frickey, Sizemore, Claypool, Haigh, Guin, and Manno Chair Katz provided background on the Commission’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. He noted that members are volunteers appointed by City Council. The Commission members review the analysis by staff, the applicants’ presentations, and input from the public and make a determination regarding whether each proposal meets the Land Use Code. He noted that this is a legal hearing, and that he will moderate for civility and fairness. Agenda Review CDNS Director Sizemore reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas, stating that all items will be heard as originally advertised. Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: None noted. Consent Agenda: 1.Draft Minutes from April 20, 2023, P&Z Hearing 2.Draft Minutes from April 26, 2023, Special Hearing 3.Public Rules of Participation Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes DRAFTPacket pg. 5 Planning & Zoning Commission June 15, 2023 Page 2 of 2 Public Input on Consent Agenda: None noted. Chair Katz did a final review of the items on consent and reiterated that those items will not have a separate presentation unless pulled from the consent agenda. Member Stackhouse made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Consent agenda for the June 15, 2023, Planning and Zoning Commission hearing as originally advertised. Member Haefele seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. Discussion Agenda: No items noted. For more complete details on this hearing, please view our video recording located here: https://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php?search=PLANNING%20ZONING Other Business None noted. Adjournment Chair Katz moved to adjourn the P&Z Commission hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 6:04pm. Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Manno. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on: August 17, 2023. Paul Sizemore, CDNS Director David Katz, Chair DRAFTPacket pg. 6 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: August 17, 2023 FDP230011, Bohlender Funeral Chapel Summary of Request This is a request for a Major Amendment and Final Development Plan for a change of use for the property at 3350 Eastbrook Drive from office to a funeral home. This project proposes to occupy the existing two-story building consisting of office space with a funeral home and offices. A total of 42 existing off-street parking spaces serve the site and proposed land uses. Existing access will remain and be taken from Eastbrook Drive and Danfield Court. This is considered a Secondary Use in the Employment (E) zone district and is subject to a Planning & Zoning Commission (Type 2) review. Zoning Map Next Steps If approved by the decision maker, the applicant will be eligible to submit Final Development Plan mylars and apply for construction and building permits. Site Location The project is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Danfield Court and Eastbrook Drive at the site addressed 3350 Eastbrook Drive (parcel #8730406005). Zoning Employment Zone District (E) Property Owner Gary and Kristin Bohlender Bohlender Funeral Chapel 121 W Olive Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Applicant/Representative Michele Forrest Neenan Company 3325 S. Timberline Road, STE 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 Staff Katelyn Puga, City Planner Contents 1. Project Introduction .................................... 2 2. Public Outreach ......................................... 5 3. Land Use Code Article 2 – Applicable Standards .......................................................... 5 4. Land Use Code Article 3 – General Development Standards.................................. 11 Land Use Code Article 4 – Applicable Standards: ....................................................... 18 5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion .................... 20 6. Recommendation ..................................... 20 7. Attachments ............................................. 20 Staff Recommendation Approval of the Modification of Standards and the Major Amendment/Final Development Plan. Packet pg. 7 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 FDP230011, Bohlender Funeral Chapel Thursday, August 17, 2023 | Page 2 of 20 Back to Top 1. Project Introduction A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Major Amendment (MJA) and Final Development Plan (FDP) proposes an amendment to the previously approved plans to allow for the change of use from offices to a funeral home occupying the first floor and offices to continue to operate on the second floor for the property located at 3350 Eastbrook Drive (parcel #8730406005). The project is surrounded by similar office uses with one vacant lot adjacent to the north. This proposal includes site improvements to the landscaping, vehicular and bicycle parking, pedestrian circulation, trash enclosure, and building. • There is no proposed change to the existing parking lot layout or access into the site from Eastbrook Drive and Danfield Court. 64 parking spaces were approved with the original development and there is no proposed change to the parking provided on site with this proposal, with exception to the addition of handicapped accessible parking spaces. • Minor architectural changes are proposed to the existing building. • Landscaping improvements are proposed to ensure that the site is brought to current land use code standards including addressing full tree-stocking, tree mitigation, and parking lot landscaping and perimeter requirements. • The location of the trash and recycling bins will be relocated to the existing detached garage structure on site. There are no proposed changes to the exterior or access into the building. A service door will allow for patrons of the site to access the trash and recycling bins. A concrete pad is proposed to be poured at the entrance of the garage doors. • The plan includes two modification requests to address the maximum percentage of secondary uses allowed in a development plan in the Employment zone district (4.27(D)(2) – Secondary Uses) and the minimum area of landscape area for all parking lots (3.2.1(E)(5) – Parking Lot Interior Landscaping Requirements). B. DEVELOPMENT BACKGROUND & CONTEXT The 1.57-acre site was originally subdivided as part of the New Hampshire Subdivision in 1980 and was later replated as the Value Plastics Planned Unit Development in 1995. The original project and development of the site for the two-story, 19,000 square foot office and industrial use building was approved in 1984. As part of the larger office park, all uses surrounding the site are offices or light industrial uses. There is one vacant lot located directly north of the site and is also zoned for future Employment zone district land uses. In September 2022, a Conceptual Design Review for the proposed project took place. An official project submittal followed in March 2023. Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses North South East West Zoning Employment (E) Employment (E) Employment (E) Employment (E) Land Use Vacant Lot - Value Plastics PUD Offices, Light Industrial – Collindale Industrial Park Offices – Value Plastics PUD Offices, New Hampshire Subdivision Packet pg. 8 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 FDP230011, Bohlender Funeral Chapel Thursday, August 17, 2023 | Page 3 of 20 Back to Top View from southwest looking northeast, project location shown below by the yellow dashed line: C. OVERVIEW OF MAIN CONSIDERATIONS The main consideration of the project was the need for the modification to allow secondary uses to exceed 25% of the area of the development plan. This involved analysis to determine the overall number of secondary uses in the immediate area and the overall Employment zone district. Additional considerations that were the focus of the review included the following: Building The site has two existing buildings, the primary two-story office building located in the center of the site and an accessory one-story, 4-bay garage building on the east side of the site. Changes to the existing building included a new attached canopy structure at the east side of the building and new vent stacks on the east side of the roof of the primary building. To demonstrate that the vent stacks would not be visible from adjacent properties or rights-of-way, the applicant provided perspectives to show that the vent stacks are not visible. The applicant also revised their design of the vent stacks to be more compatible with the surrounding architecture, using a minimalist form. Parking The existing parking lot has a total of 64 parking spaces on-site. Staff worked with the applicant to ensure that they demonstrated in good faith that additional over-flow parking solutions were considered for the new use. With a limited area on-site to work with and other office uses nearby, additional solutions besides utilizing the available on-street parking were not viable. As an existing development, the funeral-home use is not subject to the Packet pg. 9 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 FDP230011, Bohlender Funeral Chapel Thursday, August 17, 2023 | Page 4 of 20 Back to Top minimum or maximum parking space requirements and the applicant has assured that the number of events that would utilize on-street parking will be minimized. Trash and Recycling Enclosure The existing trash and recycling on-site is proposed to be relocated into the existing accessory garage located on- site. Since the structure was fully enclosed, staff worked with the applicant to demonstrate that the trash and recycling facilities would be easily accessible and fully meet the standards in the Land Use Code, including the required concrete cement surface requirement. Other considerations for the proposal by city staff were related to landscaping, walkways, and ADA accessibility for the site. D. CITY PLAN 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. E. CITY PLAN PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES: 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 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 3.4 – DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES. Ensure that future development advances the community’s sustainability goal and continue to develop and adopt location-specific standards or guidelines where unique characteristics exist to promote the compatibility of infill development. 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: Packet pg. 10 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 FDP230011, Bohlender Funeral Chapel Thursday, August 17, 2023 | Page 5 of 20 Back to Top 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. 2. Public Outreach A neighborhood meeting was held on October 17, 2022 for the MJA/FDP. One member of the public attended the neighborhood meeting. There were no concerns from members of the public discussed at the meeting. There was one question regarding development timing from the public. 3. Land Use Code Article 2 – Applicable Standards A. MAJOR AMENDMENT & FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW 1. Conceptual Design Review – CDR220067 A conceptual design review meeting was held on September 9, 2022. 2. Major Amendment/Final Development Plan Submittal – FDP230011 The Major Amendment/Final Development Plan was submitted on March 22, 2023. 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. A neighborhood meeting was held virtually on October 17, 2022. 4. Notice (Posted, Written and Published) Posted Notice: October 4, 2022, Sign #715. Written Hearing Notice: August 2, 2023, 101 addresses mailed. Published Coloradoan Hearing Notice: Scheduled for August 6, 2023. Packet pg. 11 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 FDP230011, Bohlender Funeral Chapel Thursday, August 17, 2023 | Page 6 of 20 Back to Top B. DIVISION 2.8 – MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS The applicant requests two modification of standards which addresses: • 4.27(D)(2) – Secondary Uses • 3.2.1(E)(5) – Parking Lot Interior Landscaping Requirements 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: 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). Packet pg. 12 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 FDP230011, Bohlender Funeral Chapel Thursday, August 17, 2023 | Page 7 of 20 Back to Top 1. Modification to Section 4.27(D)(2) Secondary Uses The Standard: (2) Secondary Uses. All secondary uses shall be integrated both in function and appearance into a larger employment district 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 Section 4.27(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. Overview Because an Overall Development Plan was never established for the site and the surrounding Employment zone district it is staff’s interpretation of the standard that the 25% limitation for secondary uses applies to each individual project development plan. This modification is necessary because the Major Amendment proposes to replace the originally approved primary office use with a funeral home use which is a secondary use in the zone district. Doing so means that the secondary use will exceed more than the allowed 25% of the total gross area of the development plan. Applicant’s Request & Justification The applicant’s modification request is attached. It contends that the 25% limitation for secondary uses on individual development plans is overly restrictive and limits the ability for complementary secondary uses to develop and utilize adjacent employment uses and services. Additionally, the request provides an analysis of the Employment zone district using the immediate area surrounding the site (Employment zone district north of Horsetooth Rd and west of Timberline Rd) and the entirety of the contiguous zone district. The findings demonstrate that in an analysis of both geographic areas the total number of secondary uses does not exceed 25% of the land area. For the above reasons, the applicant contends that proposed alternative plan promotes the general purpose of the standard equally well or better. Packet pg. 13 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 FDP230011, Bohlender Funeral Chapel Thursday, August 17, 2023 | Page 8 of 20 Back to Top 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) and (4) in subsection 2.8.2(H): A. The plan as submitted will not be detrimental to the public good. While the proposed funeral home secondary use exceeds the Employment District’s 25% limitation for individual development plans (87.4% proposed) the overall context of the area contains a mix of office and commercial uses which would benefit from an occupation of a commercial use in an otherwise, vacant building in the area. While the original primary office use will only account for 20% of the development plan the funeral home use on the site should contribute to the overall employment in the area by occupying an existing vacant office space. B. The modification meets 2.8.2(H)(1) because the plan 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 because the applicant is amending the plans to provide a permitted secondary funeral home use which will integrate in both function and appearance into the larger district while in no way diminishing the Employment District’s purpose of contributing to a variety of workplaces. The funeral home use in this location will still provide employment opportunities for the area, while retaining an existing business within the city and ensuring that it meets the principle of City Plan to revitalizing underutilized properties (Policy LIV 2.1) C. The modification meets 2.8.2(H)(4) because based on the overall distribution of secondary uses in the surrounding area the proposed funeral home will not result in secondary uses exceeding 25% of the overall Employment zone district. The addition of the proposed funeral home as a secondary use in the overall Employment zone district area will only increase the total area of secondary uses by 3%, still leaving 87.4% of the area for primary uses and 12.5% of area for secondary uses. Based on this finding, the plan will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division 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, including: • 1.2.2 (A) ensuring that all growth and development which occurs is consistent with this Code, City Plan and its adopted components, including, but not limited to, the Structure Plan, Principles and Policies and associated sub-area plans. • 1.2.2 (B) encouraging innovations in land development and renewal. • 1.2.2 (C) fostering the safe, efficient and economic use of the land, the city’s transportation infrastructure and other public facilities and services. • 1.2.2 (I) minimizing the adverse environmental impacts of development. • 1.2.2 (J) improving the design, quality and character of new development. • 1.2.2 (M) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods. • 1.2.2 (N) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to natural areas and features. 2. Modification to Section 3.2.1(E)(5) – Parking Lot Interior Landscaping Requirements The Standard: Section 3.2.1 (E)(5) Parking Lot Interior Landscaping. As required in Section 3.2.2 (M)(1) Access, Circulation and Parking, six (6) percent of the interior space of all parking lots with less than one hundred (100) spaces, and then (10) percent of the interior space of all parking lots with one hundred (100) spaces or more shall be landscape areas. All parking lot islands, connecting walkways through parking lots and driveways through or to parking lots shall be landscaped according to the following standards: (b) Maximized Area of Shading. Landscaped islands shall be evenly distributed to the maximum extent feasible. At a minimum, trees shall be planted at a ratio of at least one (1) canopy shade tree per one hundred Packet pg. 14 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 FDP230011, Bohlender Funeral Chapel Thursday, August 17, 2023 | Page 9 of 20 Back to Top fifty (150) square feet of internal landscaped area with a landscaped surface of turf, ground cover perennials or mulched shrub plantings. (c) Landscaped Islands. In addition to any pedestrian refuge areas, each landscaped island shall include one (1) or more canopy shade trees, be of length greater than eight (8) feet in its smallest dimension, include at least eighty (80) square feet of ground area per tree to allow for root aeration, and have raised concrete curbs. Overview Since this is a developed site with changes proposed to the parking lot configuration, the existing interior parking lot landscaped area is 356 square feet. The standard requires that six percent of the total area of interior parking lot area be dedicated for landscaping. To adhere to the standard, the landscaped area would need to be increased to 942 square feet. The addition of landscaped area within the existing parking lot would likely have to convert existing parking spaces to landscape island area to meet the standard. This modification is necessary because the Major Amendment/ Final Development Plan proposes a site plan that includes an interior parking landscape area deficit of 586 square feet. Applicant’s Request & Justification The applicant’s modification request is attached. It contends that this is an existing, developed site with an existing parking lot that is proposing minimal improvements for the proposed funeral home land use. The applicant states that the existing landscaping of the site provides ample screening and shading for the interior parking lot. The proposed landscaping improvements will provide necessary tree mitigation throughout the property while also improving the landscape plant material to include xeric shrubs and ornamental grasses that are more viable in the Fort Collins region. For the above reasons, the applicant contends that proposed alternative plan promotes the general purpose of the standard equally well or better. Packet pg. 15 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 FDP230011, Bohlender Funeral Chapel Thursday, August 17, 2023 | Page 10 of 20 Back to Top 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), (3), and (4) in subsection 2.8.2(H): D. The plan as submitted will not be detrimental to the public good. While the proposed interior parking lot landscaping area is less than the 6% required, the maturity of the existing landscaping throughout the site and the inclusion of more landscape material will enhance the public good. Providing ample parking for the proposed use rather than reducing parking area for the funeral home will not be detrimental to the public good. E. The modification meets 2.8.2(H)(1) because the plan 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 because the applicant is amending the plans to enhance the existing areas designates on the plan for interior landscaping by providing more diverse landscape plant material and quantity of plants. F. The modification meets 2.8.2(H)(3) because it is a site that has already been developed in the City, based on City standards at the time. Since this is an existing, developed site, it has already proven to function with less than 6% of interior parking landscaping without resulting in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or hardship on the owner of the property. Existing site constraints limit the area in which the property owner can add interior parking lot landscaping. Providing additional landscape islands to meet the interior parking landscape areas standards would cause further hardship as the Packet pg. 16 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 FDP230011, Bohlender Funeral Chapel Thursday, August 17, 2023 | Page 11 of 20 Back to Top applicant would not be able to replace parking spaces onsite that would be lost as a result of providing the additional interior landscape area. G. The modification meets 3.8.3 (H)(4) because it is still providing exceptional improvement to the plant diversity and count on the plan throughout the site. Existing landscape areas within the parking lot will still be providing additional plant material then existing. The plan will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division 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, including: • 1.2.2 (I)minimizing the adverse environmental impacts of development. • 1.2.2 (J)improving the design, quality and character of new development. • 1.2.2 (I) minimizing the adverse environmental impacts of development. 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 3.2.1(D) Tree Planting Standards 3.2.1(D)(1)(c) Full Tree Stocking 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. The proposed plan provides the following: • Full tree stocking is provided within 50 feet of all high-use or high-visibility sides of the building. In accordance with the standard, the plan provides 14 new trees to the site and around the building. • New parkway trees are provided along the existing sidewalk for Eastbrook Drive and along the existing sidewalk for Danfield Court. • New planting beds with a minimum width of nine feet are provided around the building. Complies 3.2.1(E)(4) – Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping The parking lot perimeter landscaping requirements are met and exceeded for the project by meeting the following: • At least 1 tree per 40 linear feet is required within the parking perimeter setback. Trees are placed in these perimeter setback areas in informal groupings, with tree quantities that exceed the minimum requirement. • The existing parking areas are effectively landscaped so that the proposed landscaping will screen the majority of vehicle use areas from the adjacent right-of-way. Complies Packet pg. 17 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 FDP230011, Bohlender Funeral Chapel Thursday, August 17, 2023 | Page 12 of 20 Back to Top Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 3.2.1(E)(5) – Parking Lot Interior Landscaping The interior space of all parking lots with less than 100 spaces must contain at least 6% interior landscape coverage. Landscape islands must have a canopy shade tree and ground planting. Further, the standards require an intervening landscape island no more than every 15 parking spaces, landscaping along walkways and driveways, and landscape material placement that preserves driver sight distance at driveway-street intersections. • This standard would require that a minimum of 942 square feet of interior space of the parking lot be landscaped, the plan is providing 356 square feet (no increase from existing interior landscape area) and requires a modification request. Modification Requested 3.2.1(F) – Tree Preservation Mitigation This standard requires that developments provide on-site mitigation in the form of a defined number of replacement trees if existing significant trees are removed. The number of mitigation trees is determined by City Forestry staff based off existing tree species, breast diameter, and health/condition. Mitigation values can range between 1 and 6 for a tree that is removed. Dead, dying, and certain invasive species are exempt from this standard. The site contains several mature trees that were originally planted when Value Plastics PUD in the New Hampshire subdivision project was originally approved. Of the 29 existing on-site trees, 7 will be removed and mitigated. In coordination with city forestry staff, the plan provides the 14 mitigation trees in various places throughout the site and are identified with “-M” on the attached landscape plan. 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. In compliance, the plan includes the following: • Pedestrian connection and circulation to the site is provided through the existing concrete sidewalks along Eastbrook Drive and Danfield Court. • A new walkway will provide additional connection directly to the west side of the building from the right-of-way sidewalks and parking lot for pedestrians. • An existing 6-foot concrete sidewalk connection goes around the north and east side of the building adjacent to the parking areas. • A new drive to allow for hearse and business access directly to the building is proposed on the east side of the building. Existing parking spaces at the entrance of the drive from the drive-aisle have been removed to allow for safe access to the new drive. Complies Packet pg. 18 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 FDP230011, Bohlender Funeral Chapel Thursday, August 17, 2023 | Page 13 of 20 Back to Top Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 3.2.2(C)(4) – Bicycle Parking Space Requirements This standard requires that bicycle parking be provided on site. To meet the minimum bicycle parking requirements, the development must provide bicycle parking for both “enclosed bicycle parking” and “fixed bicycle racks”, as defined in the Land use Code. 20% of the spaces must be enclosed (covered) and 80% must be fixed. Fixed spaces may be uncovered, and the placement of the bicycle facilities must be adequately convenient and easily accessible to building entrances and walkways. • The proposed funeral home and office land use is most similar to the office and assembly land use categories listed in the Bicycle Parking requirements table. An office requires one bicycle parking space per 4,000 square feet (with minimum of 4) of floor area is required. Assembly use requires one bicycle parking space per 3,000 square feet (with minimum of 4) of floor area to be provided. • The proposal provides 1 enclosed bicycle space and 4 fixed spaces. The breakdown of the land uses, and bike parking requirements can be found on the Cover Sheet of the Site Plan. The enclosed/covered bicycle parking is provided under a roof overhang in a sheltered area at a primary entrance. Complies 3.2.2(C)(6,7) – Direct On/Off-Site Access to Pedestrian and Bicycle Destinations These standards require that the on-site/off-site pedestrian and bicycle circulation system be designed to provide for direct connections to major pedestrian and bicycle destinations, including, trails, parks, schools, Neighborhood Centers, Neighborhood Commercial Districts, and transit stops that are located either within the development or adjacent to the development. • The plan maintains the existing 6-foot walkway connection that circulates through the site and out to Eastbrook Dr. A second pedestrian connection is provided from the parking lot area to the adjacent property to the east. A new walkway connection leading from the 6 ft. perimeter walkway to the front of the building provides a patio space for pedestrians walking through the site. Complies 3.2.2(E)(2)- Nonresidential Parking Requirements These standards ensure that enough off-street parking is provided by nonresidential uses by prescribing minimum and maximum allowable spaces for each use. • If the site had been originally developed for the funeral home use, more parking then is existing would have been required (60 parking spaces required). The original site was developed with 40 on site parking spaces. • Since the site is for an existing building, it is eligible for exemption from the minimum parking requirements. Existing Buildings Exemption: Change in use of an existing building shall be exempt from minimum parking requirements. For the expansion or enlargement of an existing building which does not result in the material increase of the building by more than twenty-five (25) percent, but not to exceed five thousand (5,000) square feet in the aggregate, shall be exempt from minimum parking requirements. For the redevelopment of a property which includes the demolition of existing buildings, the minimum parking requirement shall be applied to the net increase in the square footage of new buildings. • Under the Existing Buildings Exemption, the change of use for this site from an office to a funeral home is exempt from the minimum parking requirements. • 42 off-street parking spaces are provided on site to serve the proposed use. • 45 existing on-street parking spaces are directly adjacent to the site and may serve any over-flow from the on-site parking. Complies Packet pg. 19 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 FDP230011, Bohlender Funeral Chapel Thursday, August 17, 2023 | Page 14 of 20 Back to Top Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 3.2.2(K)(5) – Handicap Parking All handicap-accessible dimensional requirements are met. Parking standards require a minimum amount of 3 handicap spaces based on the total spaces in the parking areas provided. • A total of 3 accessible spaces are provided. Complies 3.2.4 – Exterior Site Lighting The purpose of this Section is to ensure adequate exterior lighting for the safety, security, enjoyment and function of the proposed land use; conserve energy and resources; reduce light trespass, glare, artificial night glow, and obtrusive light; protect the local natural ecosystem from damaging effects of artificial lighting; and encourage quality lighting design and fixtures. The updated lighting standards require compliance with the applicable Lighting Context Area which determines the limitations for exterior artificial lighting. The Lighting Context Area for the Employment zone district is LC1. Compliance is based on the specific requirements for the LC1 context area. There are no changes or additions to the existing exterior lighting fixtures on site with the proposal. 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. • Adequately sized, conveniently located, accessible and fully screened trash and recycling enclosures are provided within the existing garage building onsite. A service-door on the north side of the building provides regular and accessible walk-in access to the trash and recycling area. • A concrete extended service area will be poured at the entrance of the garage doors to comply with the surface requirements for trash enclosures and trash haulers. • A trash and recycling detail has been provided with the plans. Complies B. DIVISION 3.3 - ENGINEERING STANDARDS Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 3.3.1(C) – Public Sites, Reservations and Dedications This standard requires the applicant to dedicate rights-of-way for public streets, drainage easements and utility easements as needed to serve the area being developed. In cases where any part of an existing street is abutting or within the property being developed, the applicant must dedicate such additional rights-of-way to meet the minimum width required by Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards and the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. The MJA/FDP complies with this standard by: • The project includes the existing dedication of on-site easements for access, utilities, and emergency access. Complies Packet pg. 20 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 FDP230011, Bohlender Funeral Chapel Thursday, August 17, 2023 | Page 15 of 20 Back to Top 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 This section applies if any portion of the development site is within five hundred feet of an area or feature identified as a natural habitat on the City’s Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map. • No portion of the site is within 500 feet of an area or feature identified as a natural habitat. This section does not apply. NA 3.4.7 – Historic and Cultural Resources This section applies if there are any historic resources within the area of adjacency of a proposal. The area of adjacency is measured at 200 feet in all directions from the perimeter of the development site. Any lot or parcel of property shall be considered within the area of adjacency if any portion of such lot or parcel is within the two hundred (200) foot outer boundary. • No historic resources are within the area of adjacency of the site. This section does not apply. N/A D. DIVISION 3.5 - BUILDING STANDARDS The purpose of this Section is to ensure that the physical and operational characteristics of proposed buildings and uses are compatible when considered within the context of the surrounding area. Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 3.5.1(A) and (B) – Building Project and Compatibility, Purpose and General Standard This section is designed to ensure compatibility of new buildings with the surrounding context. Absent any established character, the standard requires that new buildings set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area. The standards in this section are intended to complement the more specific requirements in Article 4, which are addressed in Section H of this report. For reference, the Land Use Code definition of “compatibility” in Article 5 has been included below: Compatibility shall mean the characteristics of different uses or activities or design which allow them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony. Some elements affecting compatibility include height, scale, mass and bulk of structures. Other characteristics include pedestrian or vehicular traffic, circulation, access and parking impacts. Other important characteristics that affect compatibility are landscaping, lighting, noise, odor and architecture. Compatibility does not mean "the same as." Rather, compatibility refers to the sensitivity of development proposals in maintaining the character of existing development. Overall, staff finds that the design of the plan is compatible with the existing context surrounding the site. • There is no change to the existing building materials or colors. New elements that are proposed with the plans include a covered canopy on the east side of the building to provide shelter over the new concrete drive for the hearse and business operations and two vent stacks located on top of the roof. • The proposed covered canopy is screened by the building from the west and south sides of the site that are adjacent to right-of-way. The inset positioning of the canopy contributes to it’s compatibility with the existing surroundings. Complies Packet pg. 21 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 FDP230011, Bohlender Funeral Chapel Thursday, August 17, 2023 | Page 16 of 20 Back to Top • Existing and proposed landscaping along the site perimeter contributes to the transition between the project and nearby developments. 3.5.1 (C)– Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale Buildings shall either be similar in size and height, or, if larger, be articulated and subdivided into massing that is proportional to the mass and scale of other structures, if any, on the same block face, abutting or adjacent to the subject property, opposing block face or cater-corner block face at the nearest intersection. • There are no proposed changes to the positioning of the buildings on site. The placement of the covered canopy is shielded from view by the existing building from the west and south sides and is only visible from the north and east sides of the building. • The proposed canopy is shorter than the existing building at 10 feet 5 inches in height. Complies 3.5.1 (D)– Privacy Considerations Elements of the development plan shall be arranged to maximize the opportunity for privacy by the residents of the project and minimize infringement on the privacy of adjoining land uses. • There is no change to the existing building footprint or orientation. Nearby uses are nonresidential. Complies 3.5.1 (E)– Building Materials This section addresses building materials, glare, and windows. Building materials shall either be similar to the materials already being used in the neighborhood or, if dissimilar materials are being proposed, other characteristics such as scale and proportions, form, architectural detailing, color and texture, shall be utilized to ensure that enough similarity exists for the building to be compatible, despite the differences in materials. • The primary building material is brick, which will remain. New materials for the proposed canopy structure will be a painted steel canopy frame and roof, painted to match the dark bronze storefront frames on the building. Complies 3.5.1 (F)– Building Color Color shades shall be used to facilitate blending into the neighborhood and unifying the development. The color shades of building materials shall draw from the range of color shades that already exist on the block or in the adjacent neighborhood. • The color scheme for the proposed canopy draws upon the color shades found within adjacent developments in the Employment zone district and will be painted to match the existing color found in the building. The attached architectural plan depicts the color scheme. Complies 3.5.1 (H)– Land Use Transition, 3.5.1 (I)– Outdoor Storage Areas and Mechanical Equipment, and 3.5.1 (J)– Operational and Physical Compatibility Standards The remaining elements of Section 3.5.1 address potential compatibility issues that can arise when different uses are proposed near or adjacent to one another. These sections require separation of incompatible uses through the implementation of buffer yards, careful location of loading docks and storage areas, and restriction on hours of operation among other techniques. • Sections 3.5.1(H) and 3.5.1(J) do not apply to the proposed MJA/FDP. The funeral home use proposed is compatible with the existing mix of uses in the surrounding area. • Section 3.5.1(I) requires that HVAC equipment, areas for trash collection, conduit, meters, and other similar equipment be integrated into the development. Visual disturbances must be minimized, and screening must be of a similar material to the overall development. Rooftop mechanical equipment must be screened from public view from both above and below by integrating it into building and roof design to the maximum extent feasible. • Two new vent stacks are proposed on the rooftop. The applicant has demonstrated that the vents are not visible from adjacent properties and public view along Danfield Ct and Eastbrook Dr to the maximum extent feasible. Complies Packet pg. 22 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 FDP230011, Bohlender Funeral Chapel Thursday, August 17, 2023 | Page 17 of 20 Back to Top 3.5.3(A) and (B) – Mixed- Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings The purpose of this section is to ensure that the design of mixed-use, institutional, and commercial buildings are built to a human scale that provides significant architectural interest. • The buildings on site are existing and there are not proposed changes to their location or orientation. The existing primary building is situated at the corner of Danfield Ct. and Eastbrook Dr. Complies 3.5.3(C)- Relationship of Buildings to Streets, Walkways and Parking This section requires that the entrance of any commercial or mixed-use building is situated to face and open onto a connecting walkway with pedestrian frontage. • The primary building onsite for the funeral chapel use is existing and there are no proposed changes to the location or orientation of the building. The building is situated with the main entrance facing Eastbrook Drive and has a connecting walkway leading to the pedestrian sidewalk connection along Eastbrook Drive. Complies 3.5.3(D)- Variation in Massing This section requires that a single, large, dominant building mass shall be avoided in new buildings and, to the extent reasonably feasible, in development projects involving changes to the mass of existing buildings. • There are no exterior changes to the existing building mass proposed with this development. • The proposed canopy is the only change to the overall mass of the building and is not enclosed. Complies 3.5.3(E)- Character and Image This section ensures that the character and image of development projects with existing buildings that contribute to the City using site specific design and façade treatments that provide architectural interest to the site. • There are no exterior changes to the existing building façade treatment. • The proposed canopy materials will be treated in a manner that compliments the existing façade treatments on site. Complies 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 3.6.2 – Streets, Streetscapes, Alleys And Easements This Section is intended to ensure that the various components of the transportation network are designed and implemented in a manner that promotes the health, safety and welfare of the City. It details minimum requirements for private streets and private drives when they are proposed as part of a development project. • The site is accessed from both Danfield Ct. and Eastbrook Dr. A private drive connects the access points through the site. There are no proposed changes to the existing drive through the site. Complies Packet pg. 23 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 FDP230011, Bohlender Funeral Chapel Thursday, August 17, 2023 | Page 18 of 20 Back to Top Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 3.6.3(A-F) – Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards This standard requires the development be designed to be safe, efficient, convenient, and attractive, considering use by all modes of transportation. • The proposal is on an existing, developed site with no changes to the existing access found at Danfield Court and Eastbrook Dr. • All internal sidewalks on-site connect to the local street network. Complies 3.6.4 – Transportation Level of Service Requirements A Traffic Impact Study was submitted with this MJA (see attached). The TIS analyzed the anticipated traffic for the development and concluded that the impact from the added traffic is nominal and meets city standards. The TIS was reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer and the general conclusions were accepted regarding the overall impacts and trip generation for the site. Bike and pedestrian Level of Service in the area will also be acceptable. The development meets all traffic related requirements in the Land Use Code. Complies 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. Emergency access provided with the site is adequate for the proposed use. Complies F. DIVISION 3.7 - COMPACT URBAN GROWTH Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 3.7.3 – Adequate Public Facilities The proposed project provides adequate service design for water, wastewater, storm drainage, fire and emergency services, and electric facilities. • There are no special needs or requirements necessary to serve the development. Complies Land Use Code Article 4 – Applicable Standards: G. 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, childcare 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 Packet pg. 24 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 FDP230011, Bohlender Funeral Chapel Thursday, August 17, 2023 | Page 19 of 20 Back to Top availability of public facilities and services; and to continue the vitality and quality of life in adjacent residential neighborhoods. Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 4.27(B)(2) - Permitted Uses The proposed use is office and funeral home use which is subject to Type 2 review with the Planning & Zoning Commission. Complies 4.27(D)(2) – Secondary Uses Secondary Uses. All secondary uses shall be integrated both in function and appearance into a larger employment district development plan that emphasizes primary uses. A secondary use shall be subject to the applicable review process required for such use. The Applicant proposes to change the use of the property from office (primary use) to a funeral home, which is considered a secondary use in this zone district and together shall occupy no more than twenty-five (25) percent of the total gross area of the larger employment district development plan. Modification Requested 4.27(D)(4) – Dimensional Standards The maximum height permitted for buildings in the Employment District is 4 stories. • The existing building height is 2 stories with no proposed change to overall height. Complies 4.27(D)(5) – Density/Intensity All residential development in the E Employment District shall have an overall minimum average density of seven (7) dwelling units per net acre of residential land. • The proposal does not propose residential development. NA 4.27(D)(6) – Mix of Housing Residential development shall include a mix of permitted housing types and comply with the outlined standards in this section for proposals of residential uses as secondary uses. • The plan does not propose residential development with the proposal, this section does not apply. NA 4.27(D)(7) – Access to a Park, Central Feature or Gathering Space Within any development proposal that contains a residential component at least 90% of the dwellings of a residential development must be located within a quarter mile of either a neighborhood park, a privately owned park or a central feature or gathering place that is located either within the project or within adjacent development, which distance shall be measured along street frontage without crossing an arterial street. • The plan does not propose residential development with the proposal, this section does not apply. NA Packet pg. 25 Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 2 FDP230011, Bohlender Funeral Chapel Thursday, August 17, 2023 | Page 20 of 20 Back to Top 5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the request for the Bohlender Funeral Chapel, FDP230011, Staff makes the following findings of fact: 1. The Major Amendment/Final Development Plan complies with the applicable procedural and administrative requirements of Article 2 of the Land Use Code. 2. The Modification to Section 4.27(D)(2) - Secondary Uses is not detrimental to the public good and meets criteria 2.8.2(H)(1) and (4). 3. The Modification to Section 3.2.1(E)(5) – Parking Lot Interior Landscaping Requirements is not detrimental to the public good and meets criteria 2.8.2(H) (1)(3) and (4). 4. The Major Amendment complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 – General Development Standards, subject to approval of the Modification of Standard. 5. The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.27 – Employment District (E) in Article 4, subject to approval of the Modification of Standard. 6. Recommendation • Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission make a motion to approve the Modification of Standards to Section and subsection 4.27(D)(2) and to Section and subsection 3.2.1(E)(5) based on the Findings of Fact and supporting explanations found in the staff report and hearing materials. • Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission make a motion to approve the Bohlender Funeral Chapel Final Development Plan, FDP230011, based on the Findings of Fact and supporting explanations found in the staff report and hearing materials. 7. Attachments 1. Project Narrative 2. Site & Landscape Plan 3. Building Elevations, Materials, Trash Enclosure Details, and Perspective Views 4. Utility Plans 5. Modification Request – 4.27(D)(2) 6. Modification Request – 3.2.1(E)(5) 7. Shared Parking Memo 8. Traffic Impact Study 9. Staff Presentation Packet pg. 26 Todd Sullivan Development Review Coordinator City of Fort Collins 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: 3350 Eastbrook Drive – Planning and Zoning Change of Use While taking into consideration the City’s employment zoning district “secondary use” allocation as it relates to the relocation of Bohlender Funeral Chapel to 3350 Eastbrook Drive, we ask that the planning department consider the following benefits that granting this move would have for the City of Fort Collins: - The 3350 Eastbrook Drive building allows the Bohlenders to move out of their downtown location opening the door for a new in-fill development. Vacating the current site at 121 West Olive Street will create an opportunity for economic growth in Fort Collins o The proposed 0.80 ac development will create a six-story complex with 198 apartment units, 178 parking spaces and 4,300 Sf of class A retail space in the Downtown District. o The site is currently underutilized as a funeral home and parking lot when considering unit density and building height permitted on the parcels. o Sales tax will directly increase through the 4,300 Sf retail space and will raise the total sales tax collected by bringing approximately 200 full time residents into Old Town Fort Collins. o The development will address the city’s housing shortage and low apartment vacancy. Considering the location in the TOD district, residents will be able and encouraged to utilized alternative modes of transportation. o Adjacent developments such as Uncommon, Max Flats, Old Town Flats, Mill House, 281 Willow and Mason Street Flats have positively contributed to the economic vitality of Fort Collins. - There will be no change in the number of employees at 3350 Eastbrook o Previously FRII had 11 employees at 3350 Eastbrook. They are currently winding down their business and letting staff go. FRII will remain in the building under a lease allowing them to disassemble their operations. FRII is currently transferring their customers to other local internet service providers and will be letting go all employees. o The Bohlenders will be increasing their staff from 6 to 10-12 to accommodate their service growth at 3350 Eastbrook. o Currently, the majority of the first floor at 3350 Eastbrook, as seen on the drawings attached, is utilized as a data center. The other buyers the Bohlenders competed against March 23, 2023 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 27 to purchase the building intended to continue to use the space as a data center, limiting the number of positions created in the building. o The Bohlenders plan to continue to provide office lease space at 3350 Eastbrook. Initial plans include approximately 7000 Sf of lease space. Current tenants would likely be offered the opportunity to stay in their space at 3350 Eastbrook, retaining employees in the district. Aside from FRII there are three separate tenants, below are employee number provided by the property manager:  Riverside Technology: 5-10 employees (depending on remote workers)  Old Town Computers: 8 employees  Derby Associates: 1 - The Fort Collins class B and C office market is under significant negative vacancy pressure after the onset of COVID. Utilizing 3350 Eastbrook as a funeral home will not impact the City’s ability to offer employers comparable office space. o There is 227,023 SF of available office space in the surrounding areas.  This likely stems from employers allowing staff to work from home.  Please see attached report from CBRE for details. o Three adjacent buildings to the 3350 Eastbrook property have current vacancy.  Madwire – 3405 Timberline - 102,258 Sf of office space available immediately  Neenan – 3325 Timberline- 27,896 Sf of office space available immediately  3351 Eastbrook – 8,429 Sf of office space available immediately o A funeral home will bring much needed activity into the office park surrounding 3350 Eastbrook without stressing the current space, streets or residents. The number of Fort Collins residents choosing cremation as their final disposition continues to increase annually. About 2/3 of the Bohlender’s business is cremation. While some families are still choosing to honor their loved one with a formal funeral or memorial service, the number of large services, on-site at the funeral home, is small. The Bohlender’s estimate that annually, they conduct approximately 50 funeral services at their current facility, less than one/week. Services range in attendance from 20 – 150 with most seeing about 75 participant’s/service. o Due to limited functional building access and ceiling heights, 3350 Eastbrook is not a candidate to be converted for manufacturing/light industrial space which is in higher demand. o As a data center, the building has limited upside for additional employee growth. o If this building is offered as an office building for lease it would add another 10% capacity to the market. Bringing the total up to almost a quarter of a million square feet of vacant office space. o This building will be an owner-occupied facility. Bohlender Funeral Chapel has been a family owned and operated business in Fort Collins since 1980, and a funeral home in it’s existing site since 1930. At this time the Bohlender’s intention is to continue to own and operate the funeral home and provide an opportunity for their oldest daughter to become the third generation leading the business. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 28 - 3350 Eastbrook allows Bohlender Funeral Chapel to grow and offer more services. o They provide an essential service for community members. Clients are comforted knowing a local, family-owned operation can promptly handle challenging circumstances. The Bohlender’s business is unique in that they are the only funeral home in Fort Collins that offers all their services under one roof. This allows them to offer the families they work with the security of knowing their loved one stays in one location. o The Fort Collins community continues to grow at a rapid pace which has put pressure on the funeral industry to grow their service offerings. 3350 Eastbrook creates room for Bohlender Funeral Chapel to grow to meet community needs. The influx of active seniors moving into the Northern Colorado area, as well as the aging of the large “baby- boomer” generation, will continue to force the local death-care industry to adjust to accommodate the increasing number of individuals needing end of life services. o The additional increase in operations and chapel size will grow their employee count from 6 to 10-12. o The Bohlenders have toured 12-15 buildings in Fort Collins over three years. 3350 Eastbrook is the first building that fits all of their requirements. o Throughout the past few years, one of the key areas of office demand from tenants has been from counseling groups. We believe that this building, and the Bohlender’s specific use, creates a unique opportunity to further meet the demands of our community through both the Bohlender’s business but other complementary tenants utilizing the building. - Attached you will find a series of plans the team developed to provide analysis on the impact of the secondary use. The evaluation was done by referencing the New Hampshire Subdivision document. Also, the team provided more detailed floor plans that show the changes on the first floor to accommodate the new chapel and specific program needs. The second floor is to show the existing tenant suites will remain available to either the Bohlenders or future tenants. Thank you for your consideration. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 29 SITE E.HORSETOOTH ROAD DANFIELD CT.EASTBROOK DR.S. TIMBERLINE ROADUNION PACIFIC RAILROADV ER M O N T D R IV E THE UNDERSIGNED DOES/DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I/WE ARE THE LAWFUL OWNERS OF REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED ON THIS SITE PLAN AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I/WE ACCEPT THE CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS SET FORTH ON SAID SITE PLAN. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, WE HAVE HEREUNTO SET OUR HANDS AND SEALS THIS THE _______ DAY OF _______________________, 20________. BY: _____________________________________________________________ NOTARIAL CERTIFICATE STATE OF COLORADO) COUNTY OF _________) THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME BY _______________________ THIS ______ DAY OF ________________________, 20________. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:_____________ __________________ NOTARY PUBLIC (SEAL) Owner's Certification of Approval: BY THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO THIS__________DAY OF _________________________ A.D., 20_______. _____________________________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES Planning Approval: 1. REFER TO FINAL UTILITY PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION FOR STORM DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, UTILITY MAINS AND SERVICES, PROPOSED TOPOGRAPHY, STREET IMPROVEMENTS. 2. REFER TO THE SUBDIVISION PLAT AND UTILITY PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS, AREAS AND DIMENSIONS OF ALL EASEMENTS, LOTS, TRACTS, STREETS, WALKS AND OTHER SURVEY INFORMATION. 3. THE PROJECT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINAL PLANS. AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANS MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY CHANGES TO THE PLANS. 4. ALL ROOFTOP AND GROUND MOUNTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT MUST BE SCREENED FROM VIEW FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY AND PUBLIC STREETS. IN CASES WHERE BUILDING PARAPETS DO NOT ACCOMPLISH SUFFICIENT SCREENING, THEN FREE-STANDING SCREEN WALLS MATCHING THE PREDOMINANT COLOR OF THE BUILDING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED. OTHER MINOR EQUIPMENT SUCH AS CONDUIT, METERS AND PLUMBING VENTS SHALL BE SCREENED OR PAINTED TO MATCH SURROUNDING BUILDING SURFACES. 5. ALL CONSTRUCTION WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN MUST BE COMPLETED IN ONE PHASE UNLESS A PHASING PLAN IS SHOWN WITH THESE PLANS. 6. ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING PROVIDED SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOOT-CANDLE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 3.2.4 OF THE LAND USE CODE AND SHALL USE A CONCEALED, FULLY SHIELDED LIGHT SOURCE WITH SHARP CUT-OFF CAPABILITY SO AS TO MINIMIZE UP-LIGHT, SPILL LIGHT, GLARE AND UNNECESSARY DIFFUSION. 7. SIGNAGE AND ADDRESSING ARE NOT PERMITTED WITH THIS PLANNING DOCUMENT AND MUST BE APPROVED BY SEPARATE CITY PERMIT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. SIGNS MUST COMPLY WITH CITY SIGN CODE UNLESS A SPECIFIC VARIANCE IS GRANTED BY THE CITY. 8. FIRE HYDRANTS MUST MEET OR EXCEED POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY STANDARDS. ALL BUILDINGS MUST PROVIDE AN APPROVED FIRE EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM. 9. ALL BIKE RACKS PROVIDED MUST BE PERMANENTLY ANCHORED. 10. ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS MUST CONFORM TO CITY STANDARDS. ACCESSABLE RAMPS MUST BE PROVIDED AT ALL STREET AND DRIVE INTERSECTIONS AND AT ALL DESIGNATED ACCESSABLE PARKING SPACES. ACCESSABLE PARKING SPACES MUST SLOPE NO MORE THAN 1:48 IN ANY DIRECTION. ALL ACCESSIBLE ROUTES MUST SLOPE NO MORE THAN 1:20 IN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL AND WITH NO MORE THAN 1:48 CROSS SLOPE. 11. COMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS AND LANDSCAPING WITHIN RIGHT OF WAYS, STREET MEDIANS, AND TRAFFIC CIRCLES ADJACENT TO COMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS ARE REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THE COMMON AREA. THE PROPERTY OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SNOW REMOVAL ON ALL ADJACENT STREET SIDEWALKS AND SIDEWALKS IN COMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS. 12. DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF ALL PARKWAY/TREE LAWN AND MEDIAN AREAS IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS. UNLESS OTHERWISE AGREED TO BY THE CITY WITH THE FINAL PLANS, ALL ONGOING MAINTENANCE OF SUCH AREAS IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER/DEVELOPER. 13. THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR EACH RESIDENTIAL LOT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SNOW REMOVAL ON ALL STREET SIDEWALKS ADJACENT TO EACH RESIDENTIAL LOT. 14. PRIVATE CONDITIONS, COVENANTS, AND RESTRICTIONS (CC&R'S), OR ANY OTHER PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IMPOSED ON LANDOWNERS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT, MAY NOT BE CREATED OR ENFORCED HAVING THE EFFECT OF PROHIBITING OR LIMITING THE INSTALLATION OF XERISCAPE LANDSCAPING, SOLAR/PHOTO-VOLTAIC COLLECTORS (IF MOUNTED FLUSH UPON ANY ESTABLISHED ROOF LINE), CLOTHES LINES (IF LOCATED IN BACK YARDS), ODOR-CONTROLLED COMPOST BINS, OR WHICH HAVE THE EFFECT OF REQUIRING THAT A PORTION OF ANY INDIVIDUAL LOT BE PLANTED IN TURF GRASS. 15. ANY DAMAGED CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK EXISTING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, AS WELL AS STREETS, SIDEWALKS, CURBS AND GUTTERS, DESTROYED, DAMAGED OR REMOVED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT, SHALL BE REPLACED OR RESTORED TO CITY OF FORT COLLINS STANDARDS AT THE DEVELOPER'S EXPENSE PRIOR TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLETED IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 16. FIRE LANE MARKING: A FIRE LANE MARKING PLAN MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE FIRE OFFICIAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. WHERE REQUIRED BY THE FIRE CODE OFFICIAL, APPROVED SIGNS OR OTHER APPROVED NOTICES THAT INCLUDE THE WORDS NO PARKING FIRE LANE SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS TO IDENTIFY SUCH ROADS OR PROHIBIT THE OBSTRUCTION THEREOF. THE MEANS BY WHICH FIRE LANES ARE DESIGNATED SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CLEAN AND LEGIBLE CONDITION AT ALL TIMES AD BE REPLACED OR REPAIRED WHEN NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE VISIBILITY. 17. PREMISE IDENTIFICATION: AN ADDRESSING PLAN IS REQUIRED TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY AND POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. UNLESS THE PRIVATE DRIVE IS NAMED, MONUMENT SIGNAGE MAY BE REQUIRED TO ALLOW WAY_FINDING. ALL BUILDINGS SHALL HAVE ADDRESS NUMBERS, BUILDING NUMBERS OR APPROVED BUILDING IDENTIFICATION PLACED IN A POSITION THAT IS PLAINLY LEGIBLE, VISIBLE FROM THE STREET OR ROAD FRONTING THE PROPERTY, AND POSTED WITH A MINIMUM OF SIX_INCH NUMERALS ON A CONTRASTING BACKGROUND. WHERE ACCESS IS BY MEANS OF A PRIVATE ROAD AND THE BUILDING CANNOT BE VIEWED FROM THE PUBLIC WAY, A MONUMENT, POLE OR OTHER SIGN OR MEANS SHALL BE USED TO IDENTIFY THE STRUCTURE. Site Plan Notes: EXISTING ZONING: E - EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT GROSS LAND AREA:68,389.2 S.F. / 1.57 ACRES NUMBER OF BUILDINGS:2 PROPOSED LAND USE:OFFICE / FUNERAL, GARAGE TOTAL STORIES: 2 BUILDING AREA FUNERAL USE: 18,622 SQ. FT. BUILDING AREA GARAGE (5 STALL): 1,440 SQ. FT. BUILDING DETAILS: FIRST FLOOR (CHANGE OF USE) EXISTING OFFICE & DATA CENTER PROPOSED FUNERAL HOME 9,970 SQUARE FEET SECOND FLOOR (NO PROPOSED CHANGES) EXISTING OFFICE USE 9,091 SQUARE FEET GARAGE ( 4 STALL / 1 TRASH AREA)1,440 SQUARE FEET TOTAL 20,501 SQUARE FEET GROSS AREA COVERAGE: SQUARE FEET ACRES % OF BUILDING FOOTPRINTS 10,971 .252 79% LANDSCAPE AREA 5,988 0.137 5% SIDEWALKS 17,895 0.411 16% TOTAL AREA: 114,096 2.619 100% PARKING CALCULATION / ANALYSIS: ** EXISTING BUILDINGS EXEMPTION:CHANGE IN USE OF AN EXISTING BUILDING SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS. FOR THE EXPANSION OR ENLARGEMENT OF AN EXISTING BUILDING WHICH DOES NOT RESULT IN THE MATERIAL INCREASE OF THE BUILDING BY MORE THAN TWENTY-FIVE (25) PERCENT, BUT NOT TO EXCEED FIVE THOUSAND (5,000) SQUARE FEET IN THE AGGREGATE, SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS. FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF A PROPERTY WHICH INCLUDES THE DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS, THE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENT SHALL BE APPLIED TO THE NET INCREASE IN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF NEW BUILDINGS. ** FOR USES THAT ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY LISTED IN SUBSECTIONS 3.2.2(K)(1) OR (2), THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES PERMITTED SHALL BE THE NUMBER PERMITTED FOR THE MOST SIMILAR USE LISTED. ** SCHOOLS, PLACES OF WORSHIP OR ASSEMBLY AND CHILD CARE CENTERS: FOR EACH SCHOOL, PLACE OF WORSHIP OR ASSEMBLY AND CHILD CARE CENTER, THERE SHALL BE ONE (1) PARKING SPACE PER FOUR (4) SEATS IN THE AUDITORIUM OR PLACE OF WORSHIP OR ASSEMBLY, OR TWO (2) PARKING SPACES PER THREE (3) EMPLOYEES, OR ONE (1) PARKING SPACE PER ONE THOUSAND (1,000) SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA, WHICHEVER REQUIRES THE GREATEST NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES. IN THE EVENT THAT A SCHOOL, PLACE OF WORSHIP OR ASSEMBLY, OR CHILD CARE CENTER IS LOCATED ADJACENT TO USES SUCH AS RETAIL, OFFICE, EMPLOYMENT OR INDUSTRIAL USES, AND THE MIX OF USES CREATES STAGGERED PEAK PERIODS OF PARKING DEMAND, AND THE ADJACENT LANDOWNERS HAVE ENTERED INTO A SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT, THEN THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES ALLOWED FOR A PLACE OF WORSHIP OR ASSEMBLY SHALL BE ONE (1) PARKING SPACE PER FOUR (4) SEATS IN THE AUDITORIUM OR PLACE OF WORSHIP OR ASSEMBLY, AND THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES ALLOWED FOR A SCHOOL OR CHILD CARE CENTER SHALL BE THREE (3) SPACES PER ONE THOUSAND (1,000) SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA. WHEN STAGGERED PEAK PERIODS OF PARKING DEMAND DO NOT EXIST WITH ADJACENT USES SUCH AS RETAIL, OFFICE, EMPLOYMENT OR INDUSTRIAL USES, THEN THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES ALLOWED FOR A PLACE OF WORSHIP OR ASSEMBLY SHALL BE ONE (1) PARKING SPACE PER THREE (3) SEATS IN THE AUDITORIUM OR PLACE OF WORSHIP OR ASSEMBLY, AND THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES ALLOWED FOR A SCHOOL OR CHILD CARE CENTER SHALL BE FOUR (4) SPACES PER ONE THOUSAND (1,000) SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA. Land-Use Statistics: 1 COVER SHEET DRAWING INDEX 1 COVER SHEET 2 SITE PLAN A01 BUILDING ELEVATIONS A02 BUILDING ELEVATIONS A03 BUILDING PERSPECTIVES LS1 LANDSCAPE PLAN LS2 EXISTING TREE INVENTORY LS3 HYDROZONE PLAN LS4 IRRIGATION DEMAND LS5 LANDSCAPE NOTES AND DETAILS 1 : 12000 VICINITY MAP BOHLENDER FUNERAL CHAPEL A PART OF LOT 3, NEW HAMPSHIRE SUBDIVISION SITUATE IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 30 T T T T T T E AC T T G G ELOT 1, VALUES PLASTICS PUD OWNER: 3325 SOUTH TIMBERLINE LLC LOT 2,VALUES PLASTICS PUDOWNER: 3325 SOUTH TIMBERLINE LLCDANFIELD COURT 60' RIGHT OF WAY (PLAT)EASTBROOK DRIVE60' RIGHT OF WAY (PLAT)N00°24'43"E 234.96 - DESC.S89°44'29"E 278.00 - DESC. N89°44'29"W 313.89 313.89' N 89°44'29" W 3350 EASTBROOK DRIVE 2-STORY BRICK BUILDING 9,970 SQ.FT. PORTION OF LOT 3, NEW HAMPSHIRE SUBDIVISION RECEPTION NO. 373568 (1980)1-STORY BRICK GARAGE (4 STALL) PROPERTY LINE 12 (E) 7(E) 10 (E) 8 (E) (E) TRANSFORMER NEW CONC. DRIVE 2 (E) 2 (E) DRIVENEW PATIO 7 (E)NO PARKING (E) 5 (E) 10 PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE NEW COVERED CANOPY (E) TRANSFORMER 23 (E) (E) 3 (E) 5 2 (E) EXISTING DRIVE (E) MONUMENT SIGN NEW CONC. WALKWAY20.0'17.0'18.7' EASMENT (PLAT) 8.0' UTILITY (E) CONCRETE SIDEWALK(E) CONCRETE SIDEWALKEASMENT (PLAT)8.0' UTILITY9.3' (E) MASONRY WALL 67.0'41.2'BALCONY ABOVE (E) H.C. SIGN ASHPHALT DRIVE EXCEPTION 12 30' ACCESS EASMENT 15' EA. SIDE OF CENTERLINE EXCEPTION 13 DETENTION EASEMENT TRASH LOCATED IN GARAGE AREA EDGE OF LANDSCAPE AND SHRUB BED EDGE OF LANDSCAPING AND SHRUB BEDEXISTING DRIVE(E) BIKE RACKS QTY. 4 (N) H.C. SIGN PARK'G.NEWS27°30'00"E 53.00'N30°00'00"E 73.00'N72°30'00"E 19.00' S58°57'00"E 122.8'S54°57'00"W 76.85'S00°24'33"W 250.00 -DESC..15.015.09.0 9.0 9.0 18.021.520.0 THERE ARE NO EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS WITHIN THE PROJECT SCOPE (E) WALKWAY LEADS TO ADJ. PROPERTY TYP. 16.0 TYP.9.0WALL MOUNTED BIKE RACK LOCATED UNDER CANOPY QTY. 1 REQ'D. TRASH ROLLING BIN -4 YD. 22.5' (E) 8' X 8' OVERHEAD DOOR (E) 3' X 7' PEDESTRIAN DOOR STEEL ANGLE (2) WALLS FOR PROTECTION 4.06.0 RECYCLE ROLLING BIN -4 YD.4.06.0 EDGE OF PARKING STALL 4.0 EXTENDED SERVICE AREA (CONC.) EXISTING CONC. SLAB 5'-8"WALL RACK WITH LOCKING BAR OPTION (BLACK) 2 SITE PLAN NORTH 0'20'10'20'40' SCALE : 1" = 20'-0" BOHLENDER FUNERAL CHAPEL A PART OF LOT 3, NEW HAMPSHIRE SUBDIVISION SITUATE IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO 1/4" = 1'-0" ENLARGED PLAN FOR TRASH AREA 1/2" = 1'-0" SECTION AT BIKE RACK (WALL MOUNTED) ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 31 313.89'N 89°44'29" WTTTTTTEACTTGGE 1271010227510352DANFIELD COURTEASTBROOK DRIVE8' UEMMM8' UESANDSTONE BOULDER (TYP.)RE: DETAIL 4/LS31 - KCTTF - 2AE - 21 - KCT2 - QBMMMMMMMMMMMCP - 11 - CPAE - 1HSR - 6HO - 113 - PNK4 - FGP13 - SFM5 - CW7 - PK27 - RF17 - FGP8 - CMG5 - LSSVFR - 10BA - 1413 - LSS14 - FGPPH - 8SFM - 35 - RF22 - HSR13 - RF10 - HO11 - PH2 - CW12 - RF10 - HO17 - PHVFR - 7PH - 311 - CMG16 - VFRBA - 2014 - SFM11 - PKEXISTING TREES TO REMAINPROPERTY LINESTEEL EDGEREASEMENTEVERGREEN TREES CODE QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE HEIGHTWIDTHPNK3Pinus nigra 'Komet'Komet Columnar Austrian Pine8` B&B 25`7`ORNAMENTAL TREES CODEQTYBOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE HEIGHT WIDTHCP 2Pyrus calleryana `Chanticleer`Chanticleer Pear1.5" cal. BB 25` 20`SHADE/CANOPY TREES CODEQTYBOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE HEIGHT WIDTHKCT 2Gymnocladus dioica `Espresso`Seedless Kentucky Coffeetree2.0" cal. BB 60` 50`QB2Quercus buckleyiTexas Red Oak2.0" cal. BB 45` 40`TF 2Tilia x flavescens 'Glenleven'Glenleven Linden2.0" cal. BB 45` 25`AE3Ulmus x `Accolade`Accolade Elm2" Cal. B&B50`DECIDUOUS SHRUBS CODEQTYBOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE HEIGHT WIDTHCW 7Cotinus coggygria 'Lilla'Lilla Dwarf Smoke Bush5 gal.4` 4`LSS18Perovskia atriplicifolia `Little Spire` TMLittle Spire Russian Sage5 gal.3` 3`GRASSESCODEQTYBOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE HEIGHT WIDTHBA34Bouteloua gracilis `Blonde Ambition`Blonde Ambition Blue Grama1 gal.2` 2`VFR33Calamagrostis x acutiflora `Overdam`Varigated Feather Reed Grass1 gal.3.5`2`CMG19Miscanthus sinensis `Adagio`Compact Maiden Grass1 gal.5`4`FGP35Miscanthus sinensis `Purpurescens`Flame (Purple Maiden) Grass1 gal.4`3`SFM30Miscanthus sinensis `Silver Feather`Silver Feather Maiden Grass1 gal.6`4`PH39Pennisetum alopecuroides 'Hameln'Hameln Fountain Grass1 gal.3` 2.5`PK18Pennisetum orientale 'Karley Rose'Karley Rose Fountain Grass1 gal.3` 3`PERENNIALSCODEQTYBOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE HEIGHT WIDTHHO31Hemerocallis x 'Stella de Oro'Stella de Oro Daylily1 gal.1` 2`HSR28Hemerocallis x 'Stella in Red'Stella in Red Daylily1 gal.1` 2`RF57Rudbeckia hirta fulgidaBlack-eyed Susan1 gal.2` 2`PLANT SCHEDULE BOHLENDER OVERALLTURF1.5" WASHED RIVER ROCK COBBLEALL SHRUB BEDS TO RECEIVE AMINIMUM 2"-3" DEPTH ROCK COBBLECRUSHER FINESDECORATIVE ROCK3/4" - 1 1/2" SIZECOLOR/TYPE TBD BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTEXISTING COBBLE MULCHLandscape PlanSheet Number:Fort Collins, CO3350 EastbrookLLCContact: Kristin BohlenderGROUPlandscape architecture|planning|illustration444 Mountain Ave.Berthoud,CO 80513T(/:(B970.532.5891TBGroup.usPROJECT TITLEREVISIONSISSUE DATESHEET TITLESHEET INFORMATIONDATESEALMARCH 22, 2023DATEPREPARED FOR3350 Eastbrook DriveBohlender FuneralChapelFort Collins, CO, 805243411 Harbor WayOWNER:REVISION #1 05-24-23REVISION #2 07-11-23SCALE 1" = 20'-0"20'040'30'NORTHLS1Landscape PlanA PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY TREES OR SHRUBS AS NOTED ON THIS PLAN AREPLANTED, PRUNED OR REMOVED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS INCLUDES ZONES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND CURB,MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THIS PERMIT SHALL APPROVE THE LOCATION AND SPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURETO OBTAIN THIS PERMIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS CODE SUBJECT TO CITATION (SECTION 27-31) AND MAYALSO RESULT IN REPLACING OR RELOCATING TREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. “NO TREES SHALL BE REMOVED DURING THE SONGBIRD NESTING SEASON (FEBRUARY 1 TO JULY 31) WITHOUT FIRST HAVING A PROFESSIONAL ECOLOGIST OR WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST COMPLETE A NESTING SURVEY TO IDENTIFY ANY ACTIVE NESTS EXISTING ON THE PROJECT SITE. THE SURVEY SHALL BE SENT TO THE CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER. IF ACTIVE NESTS ARE FOUND, THE CITY WILL COORDINATE WITH RELEVANT STATE AND FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES TO DETERMINE WHETHER ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON TREE REMOVAL AND CONSTRUCTION APPLY.”SONG BIRD NESTINGLandscape Legend2-STORYBRICK BUILDINGNewPatio1-STORYBRICKGARAGETRANSFORMER(TYP.)(E) MONUMENT SIGN15' LIGHT POLE SEPARATION (TYP.)40' LIGHT POLE SEPARATION (TYP.)LIGHT POLE (TYP.)REMOVE ALL EXISTING SHRUBS ANDREPLACE WITH NEW LANDSCAPING(TYP.)REMOVE EXISTING SHRUBSAND REPLACE WITHLANDSCAPING AS SHOWNEXISTING SHRUBSTO REMAINNew Walkway New DriveExisting DriveDETENTIONEASEMENTBIKE RACKSExisting Concrete WalkExisting Concrete Walk 6' BENCH (TYP.)EXISTING TREESTO REMAIN(TYP.)FIRE HYDRANT(E) MASONRYWALLEXISTINGBALCONYABOVEEXISTING WALKWAYSTEEL EDGER(TYP.)EDGE OF EXISTINGSHRUB BEDNote: All trees denoted with 'M' are proposed as mitigation trees.Total mitigation trees = 14WOOD MULCHITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 32 AeccDbGeneralLabel (AeccLand130) #3 Hybrid Cottonwood Size: 35" Condition: Fair Mitigation: 3.5 #1 Green Ash Size: 5", 4" (2-Stem) Condition: Fair Mitigation: 1 #2 Radiant Crabapple Size: 19" Condition: Fair Mitigation: 2 #5 Colorado Blue Spruce Size: 20" Condition: Fair Mitigation: 3 #29 Pinyon Pine Size: 3", 8 (2-Stem) Condition: Fair Mitigation: 1.5 #27 Radiant Crabapple Size: 28" Condition: Fair Mitigation: 2.5 #28 Radiant Crabapple Size: 23" Condition: Fair Minus Mitigation: 2 #22 Rocky Mountain Juniper Size: 9" Condition: Fair Minus Mitigation: 1.5 #24 Rocky Mountain Juniper Size: 10" Condition: Poor Mitigation: 1 #25 Bradford Pear Size: 3-8" (4-STEM) Condition: Fair Minus Mitigation: 1.5 #26 Rocky Mountain Juniper Size: 10" Condition: Fair Minus Mitigation: 1.5 #23 Bradford Pear Size: 4", 7" (3-STEM) Condition: Fair Minus Mitigation: 1 #20 Hybrid Cottonwood Size: 36" Condition: Fair Mitigation: 3 #21 Hybrid Cottonwood Size: 33" Condition: Fair Mitigation: 3 #9 Colorado Spruce Size: 23" Condition: Fair Mitigation: 3 #11 Hybrid Cottonwood Size: 34" Condition: Fair Mitigation: 3 #13 Radiant Crabapple Size: 26" Condition: FAIR- Mitigation: 2 #6 Hybrid Cottonwood Size: 46" Condition: Fair Mitigation: 3.5 #4 Radiant Crabapple Size: 22" Condition: Fair Mitigation: 2.5 #8 Pinyon Pine Size: 11" Condition: Fair Mitigation: 1.5 #7 Bradford Pear Size: 12" Condition: Fair Minus Mitigation: 1.5 #10 Lodgepole Pine Size: 6", 8" (2-Stem) Condition: Fair Minus Mitigation: 1.5 #12 Pinyon Pine Size: 7", 7" (2-Stem) Condition: FAIR Mitigation: 1.5 #14 Austrian Pine Size: 17" Condition: Fair Mitigation: 2 #15 White Ash Size: 13" Condition: Fair Mitigation: 1.5 #16 Austrian Pine Size: 17" Condition: Fair Mitigation: 2 #17 American Elm Size: 4" Condition: Fair Mitigation: 0 #18 Hybrid Cottonwood Size: 34" Condition: Fair Minus Mitigation: 2.5 #19 Hybrid Cottonwood Size: 41" Condition: Fair Minus Mitigation: 3 Existing Tree Inventory LS2 1. ALL EXISTING TREES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND WITHIN ANY NATURAL AREA BUFFER ZONES SHALL REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED UNLESS NOTED ON THESE PLANS FOR REMOVAL. 2. WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED EXISTING TREE, THERE SHALL BE NO CUT OR FILL OVER A FOUR-INCH DEPTH UNLESS A QUALIFIED ARBORIST OR FORESTER HAS EVALUATED AND APPROVED THE DISTURBANCE. 3. ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREES SHALL BE PRUNED TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FORESTRY STANDARDS. TREE PRUNING AND REMOVAL SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A BUSINESS THAT HOLDS A CURRENT CITY OF FORT COLLINS ARBORIST LICENSE WHERE REQUIRED BY CODE. 4. PRIOR TO AND DURING CONSTRUCTION, BARRIERS SHALL BE ERECTED AROUND ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREES WITH SUCH BARRIERS TO BE OF ORANGE FENCING A MINIMUM OF FOUR (4) FEET IN HEIGHT, SECURED WITH METAL T-POSTS, NO CLOSER THAN SIX (6) FEET FROM THE TRUNK OR ONE-HALF (½) OF THE DRIP LINE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. THERE SHALL BE NO STORAGE OR MOVEMENT OF EQUIPMENT, MATERIAL, DEBRIS OR FILL WITHIN THE FENCED TREE PROTECTION ZONE. 5. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANT SHALL PREVENT THE CLEANING OF EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL OR THE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF WASTE MATERIAL SUCH AS PAINTS, OILS, SOLVENTS, ASPHALT, CONCRETE, MOTOR OIL OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL HARMFUL TO THE LIFE OF A TREE WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED TREE OR GROUP OF TREES. 6. NO DAMAGING ATTACHMENT, WIRES, SIGNS OR PERMITS MAY BE FASTENED TO ANY PROTECTED TREE. 7. LARGE PROPERTY AREAS CONTAINING PROTECTED TREES AND SEPARATED FROM CONSTRUCTION OR LAND CLEARING AREAS, ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND UTILITY EASEMENTS MAY BE "RIBBONED OFF," RATHER THAN ERECTING PROTECTIVE FENCING AROUND EACH TREE AS REQUIRED IN SUBSECTION (G)(3) ABOVE. THIS MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY PLACING METAL T-POST STAKES A MAXIMUM OF FIFTY (50) FEET APART AND TYING RIBBON OR ROPE FROM STAKE-TO-STAKE ALONG THE OUTSIDE PERIMETERS OF SUCH AREAS BEING CLEARED. 8. THE INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES, IRRIGATION LINES OR ANY UNDERGROUND FIXTURE REQUIRING EXCAVATION DEEPER THAN SIX (6) INCHES SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY BORING UNDER THE ROOT SYSTEM OF PROTECTED EXISTING TREES AT A MINIMUM DEPTH OF TWENTY-FOUR (24) INCHES. THE AUGER DISTANCE IS ESTABLISHED FROM THE FACE OF THE TREE (OUTER BARK) AND IS SCALED FROM TREE DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT AS DESCRIBED IN THE CHART BELOW: 9. “NO TREES SHALL BE REMOVED DURING THE SONGBIRD NESTING SEASON (FEBRUARY 1 TO JULY 31) WITHOUT FIRST HAVING A PROFESSIONAL ECOLOGIST OR WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST COMPLETE A NESTING SURVEY TO IDENTIFY ANY ACTIVE NESTS EXISTING ON THE PROJECT SITE. THE SURVEY SHALL BE SENT TO THE CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER. IF ACTIVE NESTS ARE FOUND, THE CITY WILL COORDINATE WITH RELEVANT STATE AND FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES TO DETERMINE WHETHER ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON TREE REMOVAL AND CONSTRUCTION APPLY.” Tree Protection Notes TREE DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT (INCHES) AUGER DISTANCE FROM FACE OF TREE (FEET) 0-2 1 3-4 2 5-9 5 10-14 10 15-19 12 OVER 19 15 TREE MITIGATION LEGEND EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN WITH CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (CRZ) SHOWN EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED Existing Tree Schedule COMMON NAME SIZE CONDITION TO BE MITIGATION REMOVED REQUIRED 1. GREEN ASH (2-STEM)5", 4" FAIR NO 1 2. RADIANT CRABAPPLE 22" FAIR NO 2.5 3. HYBRID COTTONWOOD 35" FAIR NO 3.5 4. RADIANT CRABAPPLE 19" FAIR NO 2.5 5. COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE 20" FAIR NO 3 6. HYBRID COTTONWOOD 46" FAIR YES 3.5 7. BRADFORD PEAR 12" FAIR MINUS YES 1.5 8. PINYON PINE 11" FAIR YES 1.5 9. COLORADO SPRUCE 23" FAIR NO 3 10. LODGEPOLE PINE (2-STEM)8", 6" FAIR MINUS YES 1.5 11. HYBRID COTTONWOOD 34" FAIR YES 3 12. PINYON PINE (2-STEM)7", 7" FAIR YES 1.5 13. RADIANT CRABAPPLE 26" FAIR MINUS NO 2 14. AUSTRIAN PINE 17" FAIR NO 2 15. WHITE ASH 13" FAIR NO 1.5 16. AUSTRIAN PINE 17" FAIR NO 2 17. AMERICAN ELM 4" FAIR NO 0 18. HYBRID COTTONWOOD 34" FAIR MINUS NO 2.5 19. HYBRID COTTONWOOD 41" FAIR MINUS NO 3 20. HYBRID COTTONWOOD 36" FAIR NO 3 21. HYBRID COTTONWOOD 33" FAIR NO 3 22. ROCKY MOUNTAIN JUNIPER 9" FAIR MINUS NO 1.5 23. BRADFORD PEAR (2-STEM)4", 7" FAIR MINUS NO 1 24. ROCKY MOUNTAIN JUNIPER 10" POOR NO 1 25. BRADFORD PEAR (4-STEM)3"-8" FAIR MINUS NO 1.5 26. ROCKY MOUNTAIN JUNIPER 10" FAIR MINUS NO 1.5 27. RADIANT CRABAPPLE 28" FAIR NO 2.5 28. RADIANT CRABAPPLE 23" FAIR MINUS NO 2 29. PINYON PINE (2-STEM)3"-8" FAIR YES 1.5 TOTAL MITIGATION REQUIRED 14 TREES MITIGATION PER PLAN 14 TREES Sheet Number: Fort Collins, CO 3350 Eastbrook LLC Contact: Kristin Bohlender GROUP l a n d s c a p e a r c h i t e c t u r e |p l a n n i n g |i l l u s t r a t i o n 4 4 4 M o u n t a i n A v e . Berthoud,CO 80513 T(/ :(B 9 7 0 .5 3 2 .5 8 9 1 T B G r o u p .u s PROJECT TITLE REVISIONS ISSUE DATE SHEET TITLE SHEET INFORMATION DATE SEAL MARCH 22, 2023 DATE PREPARED FOR 3350 Eastbrook Drive Bohlender Funeral Chapel Fort Collins, CO, 80524 3411 Harbor Way OWNER: REVISION #1 05-24-23REVISION #2 07-11-23 Existing Tree Inventory SCALE 1" = 20'-0" 20'0 40'30' NORTH DANFIELD COURTEASTBROOK DRIVE2-STORY BRICK BUILDING 1-STORY BRICK GARAGE ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 33 TTTTTTEACTTGGEDANFIELD COURTEASTBROOK DRIVE Hydrozone PlanSheet Number:Fort Collins, CO3350 EastbrookLLCContact: Kristin BohlenderGROUPlandscape architecture|planning|illustration444 Mountain Ave.Berthoud,CO 80513T(/:(B970.532.5891TBGroup.usPROJECT TITLEREVISIONSISSUE DATESHEET TITLESHEET INFORMATIONDATESEALMARCH 22, 2023DATEPREPARED FOR3350 Eastbrook DriveBohlender FuneralChapelFort Collins, CO, 805243411 Harbor WayOWNER:REVISION #1 05-24-23REVISION #2 07-11-23SCALE 1" = 20'-0"20'040'30'NORTHLS3Hydrozone PlanA PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY TREES OR SHRUBS AS NOTED ON THIS PLAN AREPLANTED, PRUNED OR REMOVED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS INCLUDES ZONES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND CURB,MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THIS PERMIT SHALL APPROVE THE LOCATION AND SPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURETO OBTAIN THIS PERMIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS CODE SUBJECT TO CITATION (SECTION 27-31) AND MAYALSO RESULT IN REPLACING OR RELOCATING TREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. “NO TREES SHALL BE REMOVED DURING THE SONGBIRD NESTING SEASON (FEBRUARY 1 TO JULY 31) WITHOUT FIRST HAVING A PROFESSIONAL ECOLOGIST OR WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST COMPLETE A NESTING SURVEY TO IDENTIFY ANY ACTIVE NESTS EXISTING ON THE PROJECT SITE. THE SURVEY SHALL BE SENT TO THE CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER. IF ACTIVE NESTS ARE FOUND, THE CITY WILL COORDINATE WITH RELEVANT STATE AND FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES TO DETERMINE WHETHER ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON TREE REMOVAL AND CONSTRUCTION APPLY.”SONG BIRD NESTING2-STORYBRICK BUILDING1-STORYBRICKGARAGEExisting Concrete WalkExisting Concrete Walk Hydrozone LegendHydrozone TableZONE AREAWATER USEGALLONSHIGH0 SF18 GAL/SF0 GALMODERATE29,244 SF 14 GAL/SF409,416 GAL(IRRIGATED TURF)50% MODERATE/ 3,486 SF 14 GAL/SF48,804 GAL50% LOW3,487 SF 8 GAL/SF 27,896 GAL(SHRUB BEDS)VERY LOW0 SF 3 GAL/SF0 GALTOTAL / AVERAGE 36,217 SF13.42 GAL/SF486,116 GAL50% MODERATE / 50% LOW HYDROZONE(SHRUB BEDS)MODERATE HYDROZONE(IRRIGATED TALL FESCUE)ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 34 GGDANFIELD COURTEASTBROOK DRIVE Irrigation DemandSheet Number:Fort Collins, CO3350 EastbrookLLCContact: Kristin BohlenderGROUPlandscape architectur e|planning|illustration444 Mountain Ave.Berthoud,CO 80513T(/:(B970.532.5891TBGr oup.usPROJECT TITLEREVISIONSISSUE DATESHEET TITLESHEET INFORMATIONDATESEALMARCH 22, 2023DATEPREPARED FOR3350 Eastbrook DriveBohlender FuneralChapelFort Collins, CO, 805243411 Harbor WayOWNER:REVISION #1 05-24-23REVISION #2 07-11-23SCALE 1" = 20'-0"20'040'30'NORTHLS4Hydrozone PlanA PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY TREES OR SHRUBS AS NOTED ON THIS PLAN AREPLANTED, PRUNED OR REMOVED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS INCLUDES ZONES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND CURB,MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THIS PERMIT SHALL APPROVE THE LOCATION AND SPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURETO OBTAIN THIS PERMIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS CODE SUBJECT TO CITATION (SECTION 27-31) AND MAYALSO RESULT IN REPLACING OR RELOCATING TREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. “NO TREES SHALL BE REMOVED DURING THE SONGBIRD NESTING SEASON (FEBRUARY 1 TO JULY 31) WITHOUT FIRST HAVING A PROFESSIONAL ECOLOGIST OR WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST COMPLETE A NESTING SURVEY TO IDENTIFY ANY ACTIVE NESTS EXISTING ON THE PROJECT SITE. THE SURVEY SHALL BE SENT TO THE CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER. IF ACTIVE NESTS ARE FOUND, THE CITY WILL COORDINATE WITH RELEVANT STATE AND FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES TO DETERMINE WHETHER ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON TREE REMOVAL AND CONSTRUCTION APPLY.”SONG BIRD NESTING2-STORYBRICK BUILDING1-STORYBRICKGARAGEExisting Concrete WalkExisting Concrete Walk Irrigation Demand LegendADDITIONAL SHRUB BED(TO BE IRRIGATED WITH DRIP SYSTEM)ADDITIONAL TURF(TO BE IRRIGATED WITH SPRAYHEADS/ROTORS)EXISTING TURF TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH SHRUB BED(TO BE IRRIGATED WITH DRIP SYSTEM)Irrigation Demand CalculationsADDITIONAL TURF (SPRAYHEAD/ROTOR) = 1600 SQ.FTEXISTING TURF TO BE REMOVED = 1294 SQ.FTTOTAL IRRIGATED TURF (DELTA) = 306 SQ.FTADDITIONAL SHRUB BEDS (DRIP) = 393 SQ.FTEXISTING TURF TO BE REMOVED ANDREPLACED WITH CONCRETE (PATIO) IN THIS AREAITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 35 LS5Sheet Number:Fort Collins, CO3350 EastbrookLLCContact: Kristin BohlenderGROUPlandscape architecture|planning|illustration444 Mountain Ave.Berthoud,CO 80513T(/:(B970.532.5891TBGroup.usPROJECT TITLEREVISIONSISSUE DATESHEET TITLESHEET INFORMATIONDATESEALMARCH 22, 2023DATEPREPARED FOR3350 Eastbrook DriveBohlender FuneralChapelFort Collins, CO, 805243411 Harbor WayOWNER:REVISION #1 05-24-23REVISION #2 07-11-231. A PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY TREES OR SHRUBS AS NOTED ON THISPLAN ARE PLANTED, PRUNED OR REMOVED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS INCLUDES ZONES BETWEENTHE SIDEWALK AND CURB, MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THIS PERMIT SHALL APPROVE THELOCATION AND SPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURE TO OBTAIN THIS PERMIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE CITY OFFORT COLLINS CODE SUBJECT TO CITATION (SECTION 27-31) AND MAY ALSO RESULT IN REPLACING ORRELOCATING TREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.2. CONTACT THE CITY FORESTER TO INSPECT ALL STREET TREE PLANTINGS AT THE COMPLETION OF EACHPHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. ALL MUST BE INSTALLED AS SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. APPROVAL OFSTREET TREE PLANTING IS REQUIRED BEFORE FINAL APPROVAL OF EACH PHASE.3. STREET LANDSCAPING, INCLUDING STREET TREES, SHALL BE SELECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL CITYCODES AND POLICIES. ALL TREE PRUNING AND REMOVAL WORKS SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A CITY OF FORTCOLLINS LICENSED ARBORS WHERE REQUIRED BY CODE.STREET TREES SHALL BE SUPPLIED AND PLANTEDBY THE DEVELOPER USING A QUALIFIED LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR.4. THE DEVELOPER SHALL REPLACE DEAD OR DYING STREET TREES AFTER PLANTING UNTIL FINALMAINTENANCE INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FORESTRY DIVISION. ALLSTREET TREES IN THE PROJECT MUST BE ESTABLISHED, WITH AN APPROVED SPECIES AND OF ACCEPTABLECONDITION PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE.5. SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY FORESTER -- STREET TREE LOCATIONS MAY BE ADJUSTED TOACCOMMODATE DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS, UTILITY SEPARATIONS BETWEEN TREES, STREET SIGNS AND STREETLIGHTS. STREET TREES TO BE CENTERED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LOT TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE. QUANTITIESSHOWN ON PLAN MUST BE INSTALLED UNLESS A REDUCTION IS APPROVED BY THE CITY TO MEETSEPARATION STANDARDS.Street Tree NotesTRUNKTREE2" MULCH12" MIN.SECTION12" MIN.,TYP.NOTE:CEDAR MULCHTREE RING SHALLBE 36" DIA.BACKFILL W/ 2/3 NATIVE SOIL & 1/3COMPOST. THOROUGHLY WATERSETTLETIE GROMMETED NYLON STRAPS TO STAKE WITH WIRE. WIREENDS SHALL BE BENT BACK TO ELIMINATE BURRS AND WHITEPVC PIPE ALONG ENTIRE LENGTH OF WIRE FOR VISUAL ANDSAFETYEXISTING SOILSLOW RELEASE FERTILIZER TABLET (TYP.)DRIVE TWO (2) T-POST STAKES PER TREEREMOVE WIRE CAGE AND/OR TWINE. OPEN BURLAPAROUND TRUNK. CUT & REMOVE TOP 1/3 OF BURLAPPLANTHAN DIA. OF24" GREATERROOTBALLFINISH GRADET-POSTTREE TRUNKWIRE, TYP.NOTE: THE WIRE BETWEEN THE STAKEAND THE TREE MUST HAVE SLACK5' MIN.GROMMETED NYLON STRAP, TYP.NOTE:WIRE BASKETS AND TWINE SHALL BE COMPLETELYREMOVED PRIOR TO TREE INSTALLATION.ROOTBALLDEPTHDECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAILNOT TO SCALETOP OF ROOT CROWN TO BE 1" HIGHER THAN FINISH GRADE1329343.15-01THAN FINISH GRADETOP OF ROOT CROWN TO BE 1" HIGHERDRIVE THREE (3) T-POSTS PER TREEFOR TREES OVER 6' IN HEIGHT.DRIVE TWO (2) T-POSTS FOR TREES6' IN HEIGHT OR LESS. SPACEANCHORS EQUALLY AROUND TRUNK.AVOID DAMAGE TO BRANCHES.EXISTING SOILSLOW RELEASE FERTILIZER TABLET (TYP.)BACKFILL W/ 2/3 NATIVE SOIL & 1/3COMPOST. THOROUGHLY WATERSETTLEREMOVE WIRE CAGE AND/OR TWINE. OPEN BURLAPAROUND TRUNK. CUT & REMOVE TOP 1/3 OF BURLAP18" MIN.,TYP.SECTION12" MIN.ROOTBALLTHAN DIA. OF24" GREATERFINISH GRADEPLANTREE TRUNKT-POSTGROMMETED NYLON STRAP, TYP.WIRE, TYP.NOTE: THE WIRE BETWEEN THE STAKEAND THE TREE MUST HAVE SLACKTOP OF ROOT CROWN TOBE 1" HIGHER THANFINISH GRADENOTE:WIRE BASKETS AND TWINE SHALL BE COMPLETELYREMOVED PRIOR TO TREE INSTALLATION.NOTE:CEDAR MULCH TREERING SHALL BE 36" DIA.2" MULCHROOTBALLDEPTH TIE GROMMETED NYLON STRAPS TO STAKE WITH WIRE.WIRE ENDS SHALL BE BENT BACK TO ELIMINATE BURRSAND WHITE PVC PIPE ALONG ENTIRE LENGTH OF WIREFOR VISUAL AND SAFETYCONIFER TREE PLANTING DETAILNOT TO SCALE2329343.25-01SLOW RELEASE FERTILIZER TABLET (TYP.)3" MIN.2"AWAY FROM FOLIAGEEXISTINGSOILKEEP MULCH LAYERTOP OF ROOT CROWN TO BE 1"HIGHER THAN FINISH GRADECEDAR MULCH RING TO BE TWICEDIAMETER OF ROOT BALL - 2" DEPTHMULCH - SEE NOTES - 5" DEPTHMAXIMUMROOTBALL DEPTHGROUND COVER AND SHRUB PLANTING DETAILNOT TO SCALEBACKFILL W/ 2/3 NATIVE SOIL & 1/3COMPOST. WATER THOROUGHLY WHENBACKFILLINGPLANTING HOLE TOBE 6" LARGER THANDIA. OF ROOTBALLFOR GROUNDCOVER.12" LARGER THANDIA. OF ROOTBALLFOR SHRUBSOPEN BURLAP AROUND TRUNK. CUT &REMOVE TOP 1/3 OF BURLAP3329333.16-01Planting and Landscape DetailsLandscape Notesand Details1.PLANT QUALITY: ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE A-GRADE OR NO. 1 GRADE - FREE OF ANY DEFECTS, OFNORMAL HEALTH, HEIGHT, LEAF DENSITY AND SPREAD APPROPRIATE TO THE SPECIES AS DEFINED BYTHE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN (AAN) STANDARDS. ALL TREES SHALL BE BALL ANDBURLAP OR EQUIVALENT.2.IRRIGATION: ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS WITHIN THE SITE INCLUDING TURF, SHRUB BEDS AND TREE AREASSHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM. THE IRRIGATION PLAN MUST BEREVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WATER UTILITIES DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THEISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. ALL TURF AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC POP-UPIRRIGATION SYSTEM. ALL SHRUB BEDS AND TREES, INCLUDING IN NATIVE SEED AREAS, SHALL BEIRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC DRIP (TRICKLE) IRRIGATION SYSTEM, OR WITH AN ACCEPTABLEALTERNATIVE APPROVED BY THE CITY WITH THE IRRIGATION PLANS. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BEADJUSTED TO MEET THE WATER REQUIREMENTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL PLANT MATERIAL.3.TOPSOIL: TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE, TOPSOIL THAT IS REMOVED DURING CONSTRUCTIONACTIVITY SHALL BE CONSERVED FOR LATER USE ON AREAS REQUIRING REVEGETATION ANDLANDSCAPING.4.SOIL AMENDMENTS: SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED AND DOCUMENTED IN ACCORDANCE WITHCITY CODE SECTION 12-132. THE SOIL IN ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS, INCLUDING PARKWAYS AND MEDIANS,SHALL BE THOROUGHLY LOOSENED TO A DEPTH OF NOT LESS THAN EIGHT(8) INCHES AND SOILAMENDMENT SHALL BE THOROUGHLY INCORPORATED INTO THE SOIL OF ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS TO ADEPTH OF AT LEAST SIX(6) INCHES BY TILLING, DISCING OR OTHER SUITABLE METHOD, AT A RATE OF ATLEAST THREE (3) CUBIC YARDS OF SOIL AMENDMENT PER ONE THOUSAND (1,000) SQUARE FEET OFLANDSCAPE AREA. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, A WRITTENCERTIFICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY THAT ALL PLANTED AREAS, OR AREAS TO BE PLANTED,HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY LOOSENED AND THE SOIL AMENDED, CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTSSET FORTH IN SECTION 12-132.5.INSTALLATION AND GUARANTEE: ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO SOUNDHORTICULTURAL PRACTICES IN A MANNER DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE QUICK ESTABLISHMENT ANDHEALTHY GROWTH. ALL LANDSCAPING FOR EACH PHASE MUST BE EITHER INSTALLED OR THEINSTALLATION MUST BE SECURED WITH AN IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT, PERFORMANCE BOND, ORESCROW ACCOUNT FOR 125% OF THE VALUATION OF THE MATERIALS AND LABOR PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OFA CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR ANY BUILDING IN SUCH PHASE.6.MAINTENANCE: TREES AND VEGETATION, IRRIGATION SYSTEMS, FENCES, WALLS AND OTHER LANDSCAPEELEMENTS WITH THESE FINAL PLANS SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS ELEMENTS OF THE PROJECT IN THESAME MANNER AS PARKING, BUILDING MATERIALS AND OTHER SITE DETAILS. THE APPLICANT,LANDOWNER OR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST SHALL BE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEREGULAR MAINTENANCE OF ALL LANDSCAPING ELEMENTS IN GOOD CONDITION. ALL LANDSCAPING SHALLBE MAINTAINED FREE FROM DISEASE, PESTS, WEEDS AND LITTER, AND ALL LANDSCAPE STRUCTURESSUCH AS FENCES AND WALLS SHALL BE REPAIRED AND REPLACED PERIODICALLY TO MAINTAIN ASTRUCTURALLY SOUND CONDITION.7.REPLACEMENT: ANY LANDSCAPE ELEMENT THAT DIES, OR IS OTHERWISE REMOVED, SHALL BEPROMPTLY REPLACED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THESE PLANS.8. THE FOLLOWING SEPARATIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED BETWEEN TREES/SHRUBS AND UTILITIES ANDTRAFFIC CONTROL:40 FEET BETWEEN CANOPY TREES AND STREET LIGHTS15 FEET BETWEEN ORNAMENTAL TREES AND STREETLIGHTS20 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS AND DEVICES10 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND PUBLIC WATER, SANITARY AND STORM SEWER MAIN LINES6 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND PUBLIC WATER, SANITARY AND STORM SEWER SERVICE LINES.4 FEET BETWEEN SHRUBS AND PUBLIC WATER AND SANITARY AND STORM SEWER LINES4 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND GAS LINES9. ALL STREET TREES SHALL BE PLACED A MINIMUM EIGHT (8) FEET AWAY FROM THE EDGES OF DRIVEWAYSAND ALLEYS PER LUC 3.2.1(D)(2)(a).10. PLACEMENT OF ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SIGHT DISTANCE CRITERIA ASSPECIFIED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS. NO STRUCTURES OR LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS GREATER THAN24" SHALL BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE OR EASEMENTS WITH THE EXCEPTION OFDECIDUOUS TREES PROVIDED THAT THE LOWEST BRANCH IS AT LEAST 6' FROM GRADE. ANY FENCESWITHIN THE SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE OR EASEMENT MUST BE NOT MORE THAN 42" IN HEIGHT AND OFAN OPEN DESIGN.11. THE FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH ALL OTHER FINAL PLAN ELEMENTS SO THATTHE PROPOSED GRADING, STORM DRAINAGE, AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENTS DO NOTCONFLICT WITH NOR PRECLUDE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS ON THISPLAN.12. MINOR CHANGES IN SPECIES AND PLANT LOCATIONS MAY BE MADE DURING CONSTRUCTION -- ASREQUIRED BY SITE CONDITIONS OR PLANT AVAILABILITY. OVERALL QUANTITY, QUALITY, AND DESIGNCONCEPT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED PLANS. IN THE EVENT OF CONFLICT WITH THEQUANTITIES INCLUDED IN THE PLANT LIST, SPECIES AND QUANTITIES ILLUSTRATED SHALL BE PROVIDED.ALL CHANGES OF PLANT SPECIES AND LOCATION MUST HAVE WRITTEN APPROVAL BY THE CITY PRIOR TOINSTALLATION.13. ALL PLANTING BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF THREE INCHES.General Landscape Notes1. ALL SIGNS SHALL BE REQUIRED TO APPLY FOR SIGN PERMIT.2. PROPOSED GRADES SHALL MATCH OR IMPROVE EXISTING GRADES TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAYFROM BUILDING WHILE PROVIDING A SMOOTH TRANSITION BETWEEN ALL ADJACENT UNDISTURBED GRADESAND PROPOSED GRADES.3. JOB SITE TO BE KEPT CLEAN AT ALL TIMES AND CONSTRUCTION AREAS ARE TO BE MAINTAINED FOR SAFETY.4. SOILS DISTURBED ADJACENT TO WORK AREA, INCLUDING AREAS OUTSIDE OF CONSTRUCTION LIMITS, DUE TONEW CONSTRUCTION ARE TO BE REGRADED AND SURFACE CONDITIONS REPAIRED AND SEEDED EQUIVALENTTO THAT CONDITION PRIOR TO START OF WORK.5. PROTECT EXISTING SURFACES BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF CONSTRUCTION LIMITS, DURINGCONSTRUCTION. IF GRADES, CONCRETE OR ASPHALT ARE DAMAGED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONSOR WEATHER THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REPAIR TO THAT EQUIVALENT TO EXISTINGCONDITIONS AT NO EXPENSE TO THE OWNER / CITY.6. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SETUP OF BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNAGE, OR OTHER PROTECTIVEDEVICES IF ANY EXCAVATIONS ARE LEFT EXPOSED AFTER ON-SITE WORK HOURS.7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT PURPOSEFULLY PROCEED WITH ANY CONSTRUCTION PER PLANS PROVIDEDWHEN OBSTRUCTIONS AND/OR GRADE DIFFERENCES EXIST THAT WERE NOT CONSIDERED OR CHANGEDAFTER PLANS WERE SUBMITTED. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY OWNER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE ANDTHE CITY OF LOVELAND IF SITUATION ARISES AND REVISIONS ARE NECESSARY.8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PREVENT SEDIMENT, DEBRIS AND OTHER POLLUTANTS FROM ENTERING ANYSTORM WATER SEWER SYSTEM OR, ADJACENT WATER WAYS, ETC., DURING THE DEMOLITION ORCONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS THAT ARE PART OF THIS PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE HELDRESPONSIBLE AND EXPENSE FOR THE CORRECTION OF ANY ADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE STORM WATERSEWER SYSTEM OR, ADJACENT WATER WAYS, WETLANDS ETC., RESULTING FROM THE WORK DONE AS PARTOF THIS PROJECT/CONTRACT.9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE PRIOR TO BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION, OF BECOMING AWAREOF ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED UTILITIES, PIPES, STRUCTURES, ETC. CALL UNCC THREE DAYS BEFORESCHEDULED WORK AT 811 OR 1-800-922-1987.Site General Notes:1/3 MIN.1'-8" - 2'-0"COMPACTED SUBGRADE PER SOILSREPORTSANDSTONE BOULDER PER SPEC,TYPICALFINISHED GRADESECTIONNOTES:1. STONES SHALL BE PLACED AND BACKFILLED SOTHERE IS NO TIPPING / SHIFTING, TYPICAL2. STONES TO BE ANGULAR, BUFF COLORED,MASONVILLE SANDSTONE FROM CARTER LAKEINDUSTRIES, SIZE AND LOCATION PER PLAN ANDDETAILS4'-0" MIN. LENGTHBOULDER TO BE SET INGRADEAND LEVELED ANDAPPROVED BYLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSANDSTONE BOULDER1/2" = 1'-0"4TBG-L-10ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 36 FIRST FLOOR EL. = 100' - 0" SECOND FLOOR EL. = 112' - 0" PARAPET EL. = 126' - 0" EXPOSED CONCRETE FOUNDATIONEXPOSED CONCRETE FOUNDATION PIN MOUNTED ADDRESS NUMBERS 1'-0"NEW BUILDING SIGNAGE (~36.5 S.F.) NEW VENT STACK (BEYOND) (E) BERM 12.5'28.0' SIDEWALK 5.0' (E)5.5'72 .1°DANFIELD CT. FIRST FLOOR EL. = 100' - 0" SECOND FLOOR EL. = 112' - 0" PARAPET EL. = 126' - 0"3.0NEW VENT STACKS; PAINTED TO MATCH EXISTING MECHANICAL SCREEN BEYOND EXPOSED CONC. FOUNDATION (EXISTING BERM) 'BLACKOUT' WINDOW FILM 72.1°5.5'SIDEWALK 4.5' (E)71.5' EASTBROOK DRIVE EXTERIOR FINISHES EXPOSED CONCRETE WALL FINISH (IMAGE IS ONLY A REPENSENTATION) CANOPY PAINT COLOR A01 BUILDING ELEVATIONS 3/16" = 1'-0" WEST ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0" SOUTH ELEVATION ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 37 FIRST FLOOR EL. = 100' - 0" SECOND FLOOR EL. = 112' - 0" PARAPET EL. = 126' - 0"B.O. CANOPY10.5'FOR NEW DOORS MODIFIED STOREFRONT 21.5' - CANOPY STRUCTURE (EXISTING BERM)(EXISTING BERM) 8' x 8' GARAGE DOOR IN LIEU OF 8' DOUBLE DOORS NEW VENT STACK (BEYOND) EXPOSED CONCRETE FOUNDATION 8" DIA. PIPE PAINTED TO MATCH THE DARK BRONZE STOREFRONT FRAMES 12" TUBE STEEL FRAME CANOPY ROOF STRUCTURE W/ METAL DECK AND ROOFING MEMBRANE ON TOP UNDER SIDE WOULD BE EXPOSED 12X6 TUBE STEEL ALL PAINTED TO MATCH THE DARK BRONZE STOREFRONT FRAMES CANOPY FOUNDATIONS WALL-MOUNTED BIKE RACK WITH LOCKING BAR FIRST FLOOR EL. = 100' - 0" SECOND FLOOR EL. = 112' - 0" PARAPET EL. = 126' - 0" WITH STOREFRONT GLAZING REPLACE (E) VENT (EXISTING BERM)10.5'CANOPY STRUCTURE 19.0' NEW VENT STACKS (BEYOND) 8" DIA. PIPE PAINTED TO MATCH THE DARK BRONZE STOREFRONT FRAMES 12" TUBE STEEL FRAME CANOPY ROOF STRUCTURE W/ METAL DECK AND ROOFING MEMBRANE ON TOP UNDER SIDE WOULD BE EXPOSED 12X6 TUBE STEEL ALL PAINTED TO MATCH THE DARK BRONZE STOREFRONT FRAMES CANOPY FOUNDATIONSPROPERTY LINE72.1°5'-6"WALL-MOUNTED BIKE RACK WITH LOCKING BAR EXTERIOR FINISHES EXPOSED CONCRETE WALL FINISH (IMAGE IS ONLY A REPENSENTATION) CANOPY PAINT COLOR A02 BUILDING ELEVATIONS 3/16" = 1'-0" EAST ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 38 A03 BUILDING PERSPECTIVES PERSPECTIVE - WEST ELEVATION PERSPECTIVE - SOUTH ELEVATION PERSPECTIVE - WEST ELEVATION @ CANOPY ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 39 SITEE. HORSETOOTH ROADDANFIELD CT.EASTBROOK DR. S. TIMBERLINE ROAD UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD VERMONT DR IVE CUSTER DRIVELAKE SHERWOOD CHECKED: DATE: DRAWN: REVISION #: DATE: JOB NO: DATE: BOHLENDER FUNERAL HOME 3350 EASTBROOK DR., FORT COLLINS, COCO14520 NEENAN ARCHISTRUCTIONKnow what'sbelowCallbefore you dig.R46163 East County Road 16 Loveland, CO 80537 p: 970.613.1447 www.tait.com Santa Ana San Diego Sacramento Riverside Denver Boise Dallas AtlantaSince 1964 ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL BUILDING LANDASSOCIATES& COVER SHEET 1CG 03/02/2023 BC 07/12/2023 N'ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 40 CHECKED: DATE: DRAWN: REVISION #: DATE: JOB NO: DATE: BOHLENDER FUNERAL HOME 3350 EASTBROOK DR., FORT COLLINS, COCO14520 NEENAN ARCHISTRUCTIONKnow what'sbelowCallbefore you dig.R46163 East County Road 16 Loveland, CO 80537 p: 970.613.1447 www.tait.com Santa Ana San Diego Sacramento Riverside Denver Boise Dallas AtlantaSince 1964 ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL BUILDING LANDASSOCIATES& STANDARD NOTES 2CG 03/02/2023 BC 07/12/2023 ’“” – ’’’’“” – “”“”ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 41 R=15.00' L=23.60'Δ=90°09'12"CD=N44° 39' 53"W, 21.24'SITEE. HORSETOOTH ROADDANFIELD CT.EASTBROOK DR. S. TIMBERLINE ROAD UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD VERMONT DR IVE CHECKED: DATE: DRAWN: REVISION #: DATE: JOB NO: DATE: BOHLENDER FUNERAL HOME 3350 EASTBROOK DR., FORT COLLINS, COCO14520 NEENAN ARCHISTRUCTIONKnow what'sbelowCallbefore you dig.R46163 East County Road 16 Loveland, CO 80537 p: 970.613.1447 www.tait.com Santa Ana San Diego Sacramento Riverside Denver Boise Dallas AtlantaSince 1964 ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL BUILDING LANDASSOCIATES& SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3CG 02/27/2023 BC 07/12/2023 NNNOTE:PROPOSED LANDSCAPES SHOWN FOR REFERENCE. REFER TOLANDSCAPE PLANS PREPARED BY OTHERS.NOTE:REFER TO PLANS PREPARED BY NEENAN ARCHISTRUCTION FOREXTENT OF DEMOLITION.ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 42 EXCEPTION 13SITEE. HORSETOOTH ROADDANFIELD CT.EASTBROOK DR. S. TIMBERLINE ROAD UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD VERMONT DR IVE CHECKED: DATE: DRAWN: REVISION #: DATE: JOB NO: DATE: BOHLENDER FUNERAL HOME 3350 EASTBROOK DR., FORT COLLINS, COCO14520 NEENAN ARCHISTRUCTIONKnow what'sbelowCallbefore you dig.R46163 East County Road 16Loveland, CO 80537 p: 970.613.1447www.tait.com Santa AnaSan Diego SacramentoRiverside DenverBoise DallasAtlantaSince 1964 ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL BUILDING LANDASSOCIATES&NSITE GRADING PLAN 4CG 03/02/2023 BC 07/12/2023 ···NITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 43 March 22, 2022 City of Fort Collins Current Planning Department 281 North College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 Re: Bohlender Funeral Chapel Please accept this request for a Modification of Standards to Division 4.27(D) Employment District (E) of the Land Use Code. Background This proposal is for a Major Amendment / Final Development Plan for the relocation of the Bohlender Funeral Chapel from their current downtown location to a vacant building at 3350 Eastbrook Drive. The property is located in the Employment (E) Zone District. This building will be an owner-occupied facility. Bohlender Funeral Chapel has been a family owned and operated business in Fort Collins since 1980, and a funeral home in its existing site since 1930. At this time the Bohlender’ s intention is to continue to own and operate the funeral home and provide an opportunity for their oldest daughter to become the third generation leading the business. This modification request is in accordance with the review procedures set forth in Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code as follows: Modification to Division 4.27 Employment District (E) Section D.2. Code Language: Division 4.27 Section D.2. states the following: Secondary Uses. All secondary uses shall be integrated both in function and appearance into a larger employment district 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 Section 4.27(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. (h) Funeral homes. Requested Modification: A modification is requested to develop a funeral home use on the property because the Employment district limits the gross percentage of secondary uses allowed per each development plan within the district to 25%. The application proposes a secondary use that consists of 100% of the development plan. The following Exhibit B illustrates the proposed development plan and degree to which the modification from the standards is made. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 44 2 Exhibit A: Existing Development Plan (Value Plastics Office Building) The 1984-approved development plan shows 19,000 sq. ft. of office space, originally for Value Plastics offices. This plan represents 100% primary use as described in today’s Land Use Code. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 45 3 Exhibit B: Proposed Development Plan (Bohlender Funeral Chapel) In Exhibit B, 100% of the Development Plan continues to be a secondary use as a funeral home facility. The intent of this memo is to prove that allowing for the secondary use to deviate from the district standard si not detrimental to the public good and the proposed plan promotes the general purpose of the standard equally well or better than a plan which complies with the standard. Justification The Land Use Code states that the decision-maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of this modification of standards would not be detrimental to the public good, and the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. The applicant offers the following in support of its request for modification: The Purpose statement from the Employment District states: ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 46 4 Purpose. 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. It is understood that the intent of 4.27(D)(2) is to ensure that the Employment District maintains its name as an employment hub within the City of Fort Collins. For the district to uphold the intent, secondary uses need to be provided within the district. To utilize the existing building as a funeral chapel, the applicant requests a modification to allow for a100% secondary use in the individual development plan. This request is made having considered the implications of the modification to the surrounding Employment District, which comprises many separate development plans, while acknowledging that the twenty-five percent cap of secondary uses severely limits smaller parcels. If the intent of Sec 4.27(D)(2) is to promote primary uses (employment) through complimentary and symbiotic uses, the immediate surroundings and district should be considered for impact to function holistically and conform as Mixed-Employment District as identified in City Plan. The exhibit below details a breakdown of the immediate district north of East Horsetooth Road. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 47 5 Exhibit C: Employment District Use Study – North of Horsetooth Road When considering the surrounding Employment District, the intent of LUC Section 4.27(D)(2) is maintained with the modification taken into consideration – as 87.4% of the District north of Horsetooth would be a primary use and 12.5% of the District would be considered a secondary use. (please refer to Appendix A for calculation) The secondary use percentage is significantly less than the twenty-five percent maximum allowed in Sec. 4.27(D)(2) and the district could benefit from additional secondary uses. When considering the entirety of the contiguous District, the intent of the standard is met as 78.13% of the district would be considered a primary use and 21.8% of the district would be a secondary use. Please see Exhibit D, below, for the District’s extent and Appendix B for a calculation of the entire district. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 48 6 Exhibit D: Employment District Use Study – Overall District ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 49 7 Appendix A: Employment District Use Study – North of Horsetooth Road ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 50 8 Appendix B: Employment District Use Study – Overall District ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 51 9 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 52 10 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 53 July 12, 2023 City of Fort Collins Current Planning Department 281 North College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 Re: Bohlender Funeral Chapel Please accept this modification request for Section 3.2.1 (E)(5) Parking Lot Interior Landscaping Requirements of the Land Use Code. Land Use Code Section 3.2.1 (E)(5) Parking Lot Interior Landscaping. As required in Section 3.2.2(M)(1) Access, Circulation and Parking, six (6) percent of the interior space of all parking lots with less than one hundred (100) spaces, and ten (10) percent of the interior space of all parking lots with one hundred (100) spaces or more shall be landscape areas. All parking lot islands, connecting walkways through parking lots and driveways through or to parking lots shall be landscaped according to the following standards: (b) Maximized Area of Shading. Landscaped islands shall be evenly distributed to the maximum extent feasible. At a minimum, trees shall be planted at a ratio of at least one (1) canopy shade tree per one hundred fifty (150) square feet of internal landscaped area with a landscaped surface of turf, ground cover perennials or mulched shrub plantings. (c) Landscaped Islands. In addition to any pedestrian refuge areas, each landscaped island shall include one (1) or more canopy shade trees, be of length greater than eight (8) feet in its smallest dimension, include at least eighty (80) square feet of ground area per tree to allow for root aeration, and have raised concrete curbs. Background This proposal is for a Major Amendment / Final Development Plan for the relocation of the Bohlender Funeral Chapel from their current downtown location to a vacant building at 3350 Eastbrook Drive. The property is in the Employment (E) Zone District. This building will be an owner-occupied facility. Bohlender Funeral Chapel has been a family owned and operated business in Fort Collins since 1980, and a funeral home in its existing site since 1930. At this time the Bohlender’s intention is to continue to own and operate the funeral home and provide an opportunity for their oldest daughter to become the third generation leading the business. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 54 2 This modification request is in accordance with the review procedures set forth in Section 3.2.1 (E) of the Land Use Code as follows: The Request: The Bohlender Funeral Chapel proposes a modification request to have less than the 6% requirement for the interior parking landscaped area. Interior parking lot landscape calculations are as follows: Total area of interior parking lot = 15,695 sq. ft Required landscape coverage (6% of interior space) = 942 sq.ft Total interior parking lot landscaped area provided = 356 sq.ft Landscaped area deficit = 586 sq. ft. Justification The Land Use Code states that 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. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 55 3 Justification Criterion · This is an existing parking lot and there are minimal improvements planned for the property. Adding landscape islands in the parking lot adds unnecessary expense to the project. · The existing landscape throughout the site is very mature, thus already providing screening. · There are 14 mitigation trees being planted throughout the property. In addition, the owners are improving the existing outdated and overgrown landscape with xeric shrubs and ornamental grasses that were carefully selected to thrive in the Fort Collins region. This is an improvement to the underutilized site. Review Criteria Review Criteria. 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 which complies with the standards of this Section. In reviewing the modification request 1. does not detract from continuity, connectivity and convenient proximity for pedestrians between or among existing or future uses in the vicinity, · The proposed alternative interior landscape ratio does not detract from any pedestrian activity in the area. 2. minimizes the visual and aesthetic impact along the public street by placing parking lots to the rear or along the side of buildings, to the maximum extent feasible, · The parking areas are to the north (side) and east (rear) of the existing building. 3. minimizes the visual and aesthetic impact on the surrounding neighborhood, · The proposed alternative interior landscape ratio has no negative visual impact on the surrounding neighborhood. 4. creates no physical impact on any facilities serving alternative modes of transportation, · There is no impact on any bus routes, bike lanes or any other alternative modes of transportation. 5. creates no detrimental impact on natural areas or features, · There are no natural areas or features within or around the site. 6. maintains handicap parking ratios. · There are 3 ADA spaces, which meets the current Land Use Code. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 56 July 12, 2023 City of Fort Collins Current Planning Department 281 North College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 Re: Bohlender Funeral Chapel While the proposal is exempt from the minimum parking requirements for the proposed office and funeral home land uses, planning staff raised concerns about an adequate amount of off-street parking being provided for the land use. According to the TIS, the site needs approximately 17 on-site parking spaces to accommodate the visitors for the larger services. Therefore, Planning strongly recommended a shared parking agreement with nearby properties to provide additional parking spaces. The property owners reached out to (2) of the adjacent property owners. 3405 S Timberline Road and 3351 Eastbrook Drive. Neither owners did not accept the proposed parking agreement for use of parking spaces. The biggest concern for both were how the agreement could impact potential future tenants and their parking needs. The property at 3351 Eastbrook specifically raised concern how th e parking agreement would impact the purchase of the “condo” offices that are currently on the market for purchase. They also requested to share expenses for repair, snow removal, etc. This wasn’t something the owners wanted to incur due to infrequency of the large events and the need for the overflow parking. They did acknowledge and offer the off-street parking in the area is frequently available and could be considered for the overflow needs. Attached are email correspondence from both. The property owners recognize the need for off-street parking for larger events. These larger services are rare and are often coordinated with a separate facility within the city. Sincerely, Michele Forrest The Neenan Company – Design Manager ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet pg. 57 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet pg. 58 DELICH 3350 Eastbrook Drive Trip Generation Analysis, March 2023 ASSOCIATES Information was provided by Bohlender to determine the number of trips the funeral home and crematory will generate. From January 1, 2022 through September 27, 2022, Bohlender Funeral Chapel provided service for 350 decedents. Using a proportional relationship, that results in approximately 470 decedent per year or 1.3 per day (470/365). Bohlender uses a mini van, kept on-site, to transport the deceased back to the funeral home from their place of death. Approximately half of the removals occur overnight or after business hours. Therefore, it is assumed that 2 daily trip ends and no peak hour trip ends are associated with transporting of the deceased. Approximately 75 percent of decedents are cremated on site. That equates to approximately one decedent per day [(470)*(.75)/365]. Families meet at the site 2-3 times during the cremation process. Therefore, it is assumed that there are 6 daily trip ends [(one decedent per day)(3 visits)(2 trip ends)] associated with the cremation process. It is assumed that one entering trip may occur in the morning peak hour and one existing trip may occur in the afternoon peak hour. Information provided by Bohlender was used to determine the number of trips associated with the chapel. Of the 350 decedents, 215 did not have a funeral service and 135 did have a service. Ninety-Nine of those services were off-site (Church, private home, cemetery) and 36 services were at the Bohlender Funeral Chapel. This equates to approximately 50 services per year (36/0.75). Visitations of the deceased do/will occur within the funeral chapel. There were from 5 to 75 people in attendance. About seventy- five percent of services occur on weekdays between 10 am and 3 pm. Therefore, they will not occur during the school peak hours (Fort Collins High School). Thirty percent of the services had up to 75 people in attendance and seventy percent had ≤50 people in attendance. Using the Fort Collins Land Use Code of one parking space per four seats for an assembly, a service of 50-75 people will have 13-19 additional vehicles (26-38 daily trip ends). This is assumed as a typical service to determine average daily traffic. Table 2 shows the trip generation based on the above discussion. The proposed trip generation for the uses at 3350 Eastbrook Drive is: 206 daily trip ends, 20 morning peak hour trip ends, and 26 afternoon peak hour trip ends. This is a decrease of 62 daily trip ends, 11 morning peak hour trip ends, and 15 afternoon peak hour trip ends compared to the current office use. The 3350 Eastbrook Drive site currently has 41 parking spaces on-site. Two additional parking spaces will be added north of the garage, for a total of 43 parking spaces on-site. According to the Fort Collins Land Use Code, there are 10 parking spaces required for the office and funeral home office uses. Therefore, there would be 33 parking spaces available on-site for the chapel (assembly) use (43 minus 10). Using the data above, all services at the existing site have had 75 people or less. The Fort Collins Land Use Code requires one parking space per 4 seats which equates to 4 persons/vehicle. Based on an estimated 4 persons/vehicle, a service of 75 people would need to accommodate 19 vehicles (75 people)/(4 persons/vehicle). This can be accomplished using the on-site parking spaces. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet pg. 59 DELICH 3350 Eastbrook Drive Trip Generation Analysis, March 2023 ASSOCIATES A large service of 200 people would need parking to accommodate 50 vehicles (200 people)/(4 persons/vehicle). During the weekday, there would be 33 on-site parking spaces available for services. During the weekend, when the office is not in use, there would be 43 on-site parking spaces available. The remainder would have to find on-street parking in the surrounding area. From the foregoing analyses, it is concluded that the trip generation for the proposed land uses at 3350 Eastbrook Drive will be less than the 500 daily trip ends and 50 peak hour trip ends. The daily and peak hour trip generation would be similar as the existing use. The 3350 Eastbrook Drive site can accommodate services of 75 people or less using the on-site parking spaces. Large services of up to 200 people would need find on-street parking in the surrounding area. Therefore, it is respectfully requested that no further transportation analyses be required for the proposed uses at 3350 Eastbrook Drive. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions or desire additional information. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet pg. 60 Fort Collins High School Platte River Power Authority SCALE: 1"=500' SITE LOCATION Figure 1 DELICH ASSOCIATES 3350 Eastbrook Drive Trip Generation Analysis, March 2023 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet pg. 61 DELICH 3350 Eastbrook Drive Trip Generation Analysis, March 2023 ASSOCIATES TABLE 1 Existing Trip Generation Lot Use Size AWDTE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate Trips Rate Trips 712 Small Office (1st Floor) 9.53 KSF 14.39 138 1.67 16 2.16 21 712 Small Office (2nd Floor) 9.09 KSF 14.39 130 1.67 15 2.16 20 Total 18.62 KSF 268 31 41 TABLE 2 Proposed Trip Generation Lot Use Size AWDTE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate Trips Rate Trips 712 Small Office (1st Floort) 2.19 KSF 14.39 32 1.67 4 2.16 5 Funeral Home Service 6 1 1 Funeral Chapel 50-75 guests 38 0 0 712 Small Office (2nd Floor) 9.09 KSF 14.39 130 1.67 15 2.16 20 Total 206 20 26 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet pg. 62 SITE PLAN Figure 2 DELICH ASSOCIATES 3350 Eastbrook Drive Trip Generation Analysis, March 2023 Approximate Scale 1"=50' ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet pg. 63 APPENDIX A ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet pg. 64 Chapter 4 – Attachments Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards – Repealed and Reenacted August 1, 2021 Page 4-35 Adopted by Larimer County, City of Loveland, City of Fort Collins Attachment A Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions Project Information Project Name : Bohlender Funeral Home Project Location: 3350 Eastbrook Drive TIS Assumptions Type of Study Full: No Intermediate: No MTIS:No Memo:Yes Study Area Boundaries North:Site Access South:Danfield Court East:SiteAccess West:Eastbrook Study Years Short Range:N/A Long Range:N/A Future Traffic Growth Rate Study Intersections 1.All access drives 5. 2.6. 3.7. 4.8. Time Period for Study AM: N/A PM: N/A Sat Noon: N/A Trip Generation Rates Trip Adjustment Factors Passby: Captive Market: Overall Trip Distribution SEE ATTACHED SKETCH Mode Split Assumptions Design Vehicle Information Committed Roadway Improvements Other Traffic Studies Areas Requiring Special Study Date: Traffic Engineer: Local Entity Engineer: N/A See Attached None Known None Known Discussion on large event parking December 16, 2022 Delich Associates ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet pg. 65 DELICH Bohlender Funnel Chapel Trip Generation Analysis, December 2022ASSOCIATES TABLE 1 Trip Generation for Lot 2 and Lot 3 per HMGC Tract H TIS Lot Use Size AWDTE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate Trips Rate Trips 712 Small Office (1st Floor) 9.531 KSF 14.39 138 1.67 16 2.16 21 712 Small Office (2nd Floor) 9.091 KSF 14.39 130 1.67 15 2.16 20 Total 18.622 KSF 268 31 41 TABLE 1 Trip Generation for Lot 2 and Lot 3 per HMGC Tract H TIS Lot Use Size AWDTE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate Trips Rate Trips 712 Small Office (1st Floort) 6.031 KSF 14.39 86 1.67 10 2.16 13 Funeral Home 3.500 KSF ? 0 0 712 Small Office (2nd Floor) 9.091 KSF 14.39 130 1.67 15 2.16 20 Total 18.622 KSF 216 25 33 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet pg. 66 SITE PLAN Figure 2 DELICH ASSOCIATES Bohlender Funeral Chapel Trip Generation Analysis, December 2022 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet pg. 67 August 17, 2023Katelyn PugaCity PlannerPlanning and Zoning Commission HearingBohlender Funeral Chapel - FDP230011ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 68 Site Overview2NW Corner of Eastbrook Dr & Danfield Ct1.57 acres site with an existing 19,000 sf buildingZoned Employment District (E)Proposed use is a Funeral Home with OfficesPROJECT SITELMNRLEMMNITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 69 Context & Infill Area3ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 70 Context & Infill Area4ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 71 Site Conditions5View across the site from Danfield Ct, facing north•Existing Building•Existing Garage Building•Existing Access•Danfield frontage & existing LandscapeNITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 72 Site Conditions6View at the corner of Danfield Ct and Eastbrook Dr., facing northeast•Existing landscaping and walkwayNITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 73 Site Conditions7View from Eastbrook Dr., facing northeast.•Front of Existing Building•Existing Access from Eastbrook•View into Parking LotNITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 74 Project Proposal•Major Amendment & Final Development Plan for Bohlender Funeral Chapel•Change of Use to Funeral Home and Offices•First Floor – 9,970 SF used for Funeral Home •Second Floor – 9,091 SF used as existing office space•42 vehicle parking spaces, 5 bicycle parking spaces (1 enclosed)•5% of the gross area of site is landscape areas.•Proposed building changes include the addition of vent stacks on the roof and a canopy•Utilize existing access from Eastbrook Dr. & Danfield Ct. •Applicant is requesting two Modification of Standards8ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 75 Development/Project History101984Sep2022Mar2023May2022Conceptual Review MeetingNeighborhood Meeting HeldP&Z HearingAug20231st SubmittalJul20232nd Submittal3rd SubmittalOct2022Original Development Plan ApprovedITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 76 11I-25City Plan•Consistent with Place Type designation of Mixed Employment•Support the use of creative strategies to revitalize vacant, blighted of otherwise underutilized properties•Encourage infill and redevelopment in a way that is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood or area. PROJECT SITEITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 77 Modification of Standard•When a project cannot meet a particular standard in the Land Use Code, the modification process and criteria in Division 2.8.2(H) provide for evaluation of Modifications of Standard on a case-by-case basis.•Required Findings:•Request for Modification would not be detrimental to the public good•Request for Modification meets one or more of the four criteria in Section 2.8.2(H)12ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 78 Modification Request – Secondary Uses•Modification: Applicant requests a Modification to Section 4.274(D)(2) Secondary Uses. All secondary uses shall be integrated both in function and appearance into a larger employment district development plan that emphasizes primary uses. 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.•Proposed modification contends that the technical application of the standard is restrictive, the plan promotes the Purpose of the zone district, and that when analyzed in the context of the overall district the addition of funeral home use will not result in secondary uses exceeding 25% of the land area.13ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 79 14Analysis of Zone District North of Horsetooth•Primary Uses - 87.4% of land area•Secondary Uses – 12.5% of land areaModification Request – Secondary UsesSTUDY AREASITEITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 80 15Modification Request – Secondary UsesAnalysis of Overall Employment Zone District•Primary Uses – 78.1% of land area•Secondary Uses – 21.8% of land areaSITESTUDY AREA: Overall Employment Zone DistrictITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 81 Modification Staff Findings•The Modification of Standard to Section 3.8.30(C)(2)(b) would not be detrimental to the public good and the Modification meets the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H)(1), (2) and (4):•Achieves the purpose of the standard equally well or better by amending the plans to provide a permitted secondary funeral home use which will integrate in both function and appearance into the larger district while in no way diminishing the Employment District’s Purpose of contributing to the existing employment base.•The deviation from the standard is a nominal, inconsequential because the proposed funeral home will not result in secondary uses exceeding 25% of the overall Employment zone district. It only increases secondary uses in the area by 3%, with 87.4% for primary uses. 16ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 82 Modification Request – Parking Lot Interior Landscaping•Modification: Applicant requests a Modification to Section 3.2.1(E)(5) Parking Lot Interior Landscaping Requirements. Six (6) percent of the interior space of all parking lots with less than one hundred (100) spaces, and then (10) percent of the interior space of all parking lots with one hundred (100) spaces or more shall be landscape areas. •Proposed modification contends that the technical application of the standard is restrictive due to the existing layout, parking lot configuration, and parking needs for the site, the proposed landscaping plan provides ample screening and shading for the interior parking lot, provide necessary tree mitigation, while also making overall improvement to the landscape plant material onsite. 17ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 83 18Analysis of Interior Parking Lot Landscaping•Existing Interior Parking Lot Landscaped Area = 356 SF (shown in red)•Gross area provided for landscaping = 5%•6% requires an increase to 942 SF•Interior Parking Landscape Area deficit of 586 SF•Enhancing plant material is the existing designated planting areas interior to the site. Modification Request – Secondary UsesITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 84 Modification of Standard•When a project cannot meet a particular standard in the Land Use Code, the modification process and criteria in Division 2.8.2(H) provide for evaluation of Modifications of Standard on a case-by-case basis.•Required Findings:•Request for Modification would not be detrimental to the public good•Request for Modification meets one or more of the four criteria in Section 2.8.2(H)19ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 85 Modification Staff Findings•The Modification of Standard to Section 3.8.30(C)(2)(b) would not be detrimental to the public good and the Modification meets the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H)(1), (3) and (4):•Achieves the purpose of the standard equally well or better by proposing additional landscaping plant material overall onsite, and by not further reducing the parking area and assuring that ample parking is provided onsite for the use. •Enforcing the standard would result in difficulties and hardship for the owner of the property since it would result in a reduction of parking spaces.•The deviation from the standard is a nominal, inconsequential because the proposed landscaping plan improves the existing plant diversity and quantity of plant material onsite and continues to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code through the proposed landscape improvements. 20ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 86 21126 multi-family parking spaces (120 required)108 (63 enclosed, 45 fixed) bicycle parking spaces provided (104 required). 6-foot wide connecting walkways16,780 sf centralized outdoor amenity space (10,000 sf required)Site Plan: CompliesITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 87 22126 multi-family parking spaces (120 required)108 (63 enclosed, 45 fixed) bicycle parking spaces provided (104 required). 6-foot wide connecting walkways16,780 sf centralized outdoor amenity space (10,000 sf required)Site Plan: CompliesITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 88 23New Concrete Drive and Canopy on East Side of existing building to serve funeral home use function. New walkway and patio at the front entrance of the building (west side).Trash and Recycling was relocated to existing garage, provided two (2) new parking space. Site Plan: CompliesITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 89 Landscape Plan: Complies24•14 new trees total proposed, 30 existing•6 new street trees; 5 internal trees•7 trees to be removed; 3 mitigation trees provided•New parkway trees proposed•9 ft. min landscaping and shrub beds are provided around the existing building•Updated plant material proposed in existing landscape bed areas. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 90 Landscape Plan: Complies25•14 new trees total proposed, 30 existing•6 new street trees; 5 internal trees•7 trees to be removed; 3 mitigation trees provided•New parkway trees proposed•9 ft. min landscaping and shrub beds are provided around the existing building•Updated plant material proposed in existing landscape bed areas. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 91 Building Standards: Complies26South Elevation – from Danfield Ct. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 92 Building Standards: Complies27West Elevation – from Eastbrook Dr. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 93 Building Standards: Complies28East Elevation – from Adjacent PropertyITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 94 Building Standards: Complies29North Elevation – from Adjacent PropertyITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 95 Building Standards: Complies30West Elevation – from Eastbrook Dr. South Elevation – from Danfield Ct. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 96 Building Standards: Complies31ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 97 MJA/FDP Staff Findings•The Major Amendment/Final Development Plan complies with the process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration.•The Major Amendment/Final Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 – General Development Standards, subject to the approval of the Modification of Standard to Section 3.2.1(E)(5). •The Major Amendment/Final Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.27, Employment District (E) in Article 4, subject to the approval of the Modification of Standard to Section 4.27(D)(2).32ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 98 Recommendation1. Staff recommends the approval of the Modification of Standard to Sections and subsections 4.27(D)(2) and 3.2.1(E)(5) based on the aforementioned Findings of Fact.2. Staff recommends approval of the Bohlender Funeral Chapel Final Development Plan – FDP230011 based on the aforementioned Findings of Fact.33ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 99 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 – August 17, 2023 Land Use Code Amendment – Water Adequacy Determination Review Code Update Summary of Request This is a request for a recommendation to City Council regarding proposed Land Use Code changes to add specific regulations outlining how the City will make a water adequacy determination for development. The regulations are divided into three different categories: (1) established potable water supply entities; (2) new, or other potable water supply entities; and (3) non-potable water supply entities. The goal is to comply with Colorado state statute (Section 29-20-301, et seq., C.R.S.) and to make sure development has the necessary water supply. Next Steps The Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to City Council as part of their consideration to adopt the proposed Land Use Code changes. Staff Recommendation Approval of the proposed Land Use Code changes. Applicant City of Fort Collins PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Staff Clay Frickey, Interim Planning Manager p. (970) 416.2517 e. cfrickey@fcgov.com Contents 1. Project Introduction .................................... 2 2. Comprehensive Plan & City Policy Alignment .......................................................... 3 3. Summary of Proposed LUC Changes ....... 5 4. Public Outreach ......................................... 6 5. Recommendation ....................................... 8 6. Attachments ............................................... 8 Packet pg. 100 Planning & Zoning Commission – Agenda Item 3 Water Adequacy Determination Review Code Update Thursday, August 17, 2023 | Page 2 of 8 Back to Top 1. Project Introduction A. BACKGROUND Water is a crucial and constrained resource, and the City strives to ensure that development meets the community’s vision and expectations for responsible resource management. City Plan includes policies to ensure water is used wisely and our community is prepared for a changing climate. The plan also supports managing water resources in a manner that enhances and protects long-term water quality, supply, and reliability for current and future residents. The necessity for an updated water adequacy review program stems from the limited supply and high cost of water resources, which have resulted in developers pursuing more creative ways to provide water (potable and non-potable) to their proposed developments, particularly projects striving to provide affordable housing or the denser development patterns called for in City Plan. One development contemplating a more unique and potentially innovative approach to supplying water resources is the Montava Planned Unit Development (PUD), which proposes a groundwater-based water supply for both potable and non-potable water service. The developer believes this system will improve the overall resiliency of the water supply for the area while also reducing the cost. Because the City does not currently have a review process or criteria for “non-standard” water service models, including groundwater systems, new policy and code are needed to confirm that future residents are adequately served. While the Montava project has generated the immediate need for this type of review, staff believes a comprehensive program will have benefits for reviewing all new developments moving forward, regardless of the water source. The Planning & Zoning Commission initially provided a recommendation to City Council on a previous iteration of this proposed Code update on April 26, 2023. Planning & Zoning Commission recommended that City Council not adopt the proposed Water Adequacy Determination amendment to the Land Use Code to: • Provide additional time for stakeholders to fully review Code language, especially with respect to timing of a water adequacy determination • Instruct staff to continue study of Section 3.13.5(C)(5) of the proposed Code to fully understand the ramifications of the language, for both water providers and potential applicants, and especially with respect to the applicant’s ability to appeal a determination of a water supply entity. City Council considered the proposed Water Adequacy Determination amendments to the Land Use Code on May 16, 2023. City Council postponed the consideration of the proposed Code amendments and requested a work session to discuss them. Staff brought the proposed Water Adequacy Determination Code amendments to a City Council work session on June 6, 2023. Staff sought direction on the three decision points that Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council considered at their previous hearings. These decision points were: 1. Timing within the development review process when the City makes a water adequacy determination 2. Requirement that established potable water supply entities provide water supply resource information to City Council prior to submitting will serve letters 3. Require new potable water supply entities within the service area of an established potable water supply entity to be excluded from the service area or receive consent to operate City Council provided the following direction to staff at the work session: • Keep existing timing as proposed of water adequacy determination at the time of Final Development Plan (FDP) or Basic Development Review (BDR). • Keep requirement as proposed that established potable water supply entities provide water supply resource information to City Council prior to submitting will serve letters • Due to the potential impact of Decision Point 3 regarding new potable water supply entities within existing potable water supply entities (i.e., Fort Collins Utilities’ and water districts’ service areas), Council Packet pg. 101 Planning & Zoning Commission – Agenda Item 3 Water Adequacy Determination Review Code Update Thursday, August 17, 2023 | Page 3 of 8 Back to Top requested staff go back to the Planning & Zoning Commission for a new recommendation based on the current iteration of the proposed Code amendments. B. REQUIREMENT FOR WATER ADEQUACY REVIEW This review process is being proposed to further effectuate a Colorado state statute (Section 29-20-301, et seq., C.R.S.), which states: A local government shall not approve an application for a development permit unless it determines in its sole discretion, after considering the application and all of the information provided, that the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed water supply will be adequate. A local government shall make such determination only once during the development permit approval process unless the water demands or supply of the specific project for which the development permit is sought are materially changed. A local government shall have the discretion to determine the stage in the development permit approval process at which such determination is made. For this regulation, the Colorado state statute defines some key terms, including the following. “’Adequate’ means a water supply that will be sufficient for build-out of the proposed development in terms of quality, quantity, dependability, and availability to provide a supply of water for the type of development proposed and may include reasonable conservation measures and water demand management measures to account for hydrologic variability.” “’Water supply entity’ means a municipality, county, special district, water conservancy district, water conservation district, water authority, or other public or private water supply company that supplies, distributes, or otherwise provides water at retail.” Currently, development within the City only occurs within the boundaries of existing City (Fort Collins Utilities) and special district water supply entities, such as Fort Collins-Loveland Water District and East Larimer County Water District, and the adequacy determination is made through the issuance of a “will serve” letter from the established water supply entity. The City receives a will serve letter from the established water supply entity during the building permit process for the new development. A will serve letter states that the established water supply entity has the infrastructure and capacity to provide water service to the proposed development project and commits to providing that service. Pursuant to state statute, ‘will serve’ letters meeting certain requirements may satisfy the water adequacy determination, but staff will soon be faced with a proposal that is outside the bounds of the current system and needs a more robust and transparent process to evaluate the more complex proposal. It is partly the responsibility of the City to ensure that future residents are well served by an adequate system. 2. Comprehensive Plan & City Policy Alignment A. CITY PLAN City Plan (2018) offers the following guidance related to water supply in the city. The proposed LUC changes align to this guidance: Principle LIV 9: Encourage development that reduces impacts on natural ecosystems and promotes sustainability and resilience. 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. Principle ENV 6: Manage water resources in a manner that enhances and protects water quality, supply and reliability. Policy ENV 6.1 - WATER RESOURCE PLANNING Partner and collaborate with water service providers to ensure adequate, safe and reliable water supplies in accordance with the Water Supply and Demand Management Policy. To the extent feasible, coordinate on supply and storage development and demand modeling. Packet pg. 102 Planning & Zoning Commission – Agenda Item 3 Water Adequacy Determination Review Code Update Thursday, August 17, 2023 | Page 4 of 8 Back to Top Policy ENV 6.2 - WATER CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCY Continue and enhance water conservation, efficiency and education programs in accordance with the City’s Water Efficiency Plan. Consider new and revised land-use and site-planning standards to reduce water use in both new and redevelopment projects. Where possible, coordinate on programs and services to create consistent experiences for users regardless of their location and water service provider. Policy ENV 6.3 - DROUGHTS AND VULNERABILITY Develop drought and vulnerability planning that takes into consideration the future impacts of climate change; potential demand changes from increased urban and multifamily developments; and other hazards and vulnerabilities, such as disruption of supplies due to wildfires. Partner and collaborate with water service providers in the GMA. Principle SC 3: Minimize risks to life, infrastructure and property from natural hazards or exposure to hazardous materials. Principle HI 1: Be a model for equitable, effective and transparent local governance. Policy HI 1.8 - SERVICE PROVIDERS Coordinate closely with and promote coordination among service providers in needs assessment, facility siting and other matters to ensure continuing delivery of effective, equitable and efficient services. B. HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN The Housing Strategic Plan (2021) provides the following guidance related to water supply. The proposed LUC changes align to this guidance: 18. Increase awareness and opportunities for creative collaboration across water districts and other regional partners around the challenges with water costs and housing. Why Prioritized? Water costs have a significant impact on housing development costs; addressing water cost challenges creates opportunity to improve affordability and housing product diversity. Acknowledges regional nature of water and seeks opportunities for education and collaborative solutions; potential for direct impact on sustainability and affordability. C. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN Our Climate Future (2021) provides the following guidance related to water supply within the City. The proposed LUC changes align to this guidance: Big Move 3 – Climate Resilient Community: People, buildings, watersheds and ecosystems are prepared for the threats of climate change. CRC1 - Adopt a holistic approach to integrated water resource planning and management (One Water Approach) CRC3 - Expand and enhance water efficiency programs and incentives. CRC4 - Update codes to address existing and new developments’ indoor and outdoor water efficiency. Big Move 5 – Live, Work and Play Nearby: No matter where we live, we all can meet our basic daily needs without driving across town. LWPN4 - Increase density and mixed uses through the land use code as guided by City Plan. Big Move 7 – Healthy, Affordable Housing: Everyone has stable, healthy housing they can afford. HAH3 - Increase the number and diversity of housing types and allow more homes per lot (density) via an update to the City’s Land Use Code. D. CITY STRATEGIC PLAN The water adequacy determination review can be viewed as a tool kit to look at water affordability and support sustainable development patterns and objective 1.6 of the City’s 2022 Strategic Plan. 1.6 Transform regulations and revise procedures to increase clarity and predictability to ensure new development advances adopted City plans and policies. Packet pg. 103 Planning & Zoning Commission – Agenda Item 3 Water Adequacy Determination Review Code Update Thursday, August 17, 2023 | Page 5 of 8 Back to Top 3. Summary of Proposed LUC Changes The proposed Water Adequacy Determination amendments to the Land Use Code may be found in Attachment 1, and include an amendment to Article Three, adding Division 3.13, and adding nine new definitions to Article Five, Section 5.1.2 Definitions. A summary of the proposed changes include: 1. Article Three, Division 3.13 – Water Adequacy Determinations The proposed new division is to establish the standards and procedures by which the adequacy of proposed water supplies for development are reviewed and determined pursuant to Section 29-20-301, et seq., C.R.S. The subsequent sections outline the applicability, application, and procedures and standards for the three different review types: • Established potable water supply entities, such as Fort Collins Utilities, Fort Collins-Loveland Water District, and East Larimer County Water District. • Other potable water supply entities, such as new or proposed private water suppliers or metro districts. • Non-potable water supply entities, such as new or proposed private water suppliers or metro districts providing irrigation water to a development. Established Entities For established potable water supply entities, the code provides options for compliance through review of water supply plans or letters from engineers detailing how the water supply system functions. Once an initial approval is completed, the process would move forward similarly to what the City does now with will serve letters. Other Entities A more detailed process is proposed for other potable water supply entities and City staff has identified the following characteristics for evaluation criteria: • Water Quality • Quantity of Water • Dependability of Supply and Supplier o Supply Resiliency o System Redundancy o Maintenance and Outages • Availability of Supply • Financial Sustainability of Supplier Capitalization In general, the standards compare the new proposed system to the City’s existing municipal utility (Fort Collins Utilities). Non-potable Entities The criteria for non-potable water supply entities looks to make sure the supply has enough quantity and quality to support the associated uses such as irrigation for landscape. Packet pg. 104 Planning & Zoning Commission – Agenda Item 3 Water Adequacy Determination Review Code Update Thursday, August 17, 2023 | Page 6 of 8 Back to Top 2. Article Five, Division 5.1.2 ─ Definitions The proposed change to Division 5.1.2 is to add the following definitions that relate to the water adequacy determination review process and provide additional clarity on specific terms used in that section. Adequate shall mean a water supply that will be sufficient for build-out of the proposed development in terms of quality, quantity, dependability, and availability to provide a supply of water for the lifetime of the type of development proposed, and may include reasonable conservation measures and water demand management measures to account for hydrologic variability. Established Potable Water Supply Entities shall mean the City of Fort Collins, the East Larimer County Water District, the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District, the Sunset Water District, and the West Fort Collins Water District. Non-Potable Water shall mean water that has not been treated to state and federal standards safe for human consumption, but can be placed to beneficial uses, including irrigation, dust suppression, toilet and urinal flushing, or make-up water for mechanical equipment. Non-Potable Water Supply Entities shall mean the water supply entities, either Established Potable Water Supply Entities or other water supply entities that provide water that does not meet the state and federal standards for human consumption to developments for the beneficial uses of Non-Potable Water. Other Potable Water Supply Entities shall mean the water supply entities other than the Established Potable Water Supply Entities that provide potable water service, including new proposed water supplies. Potable water shall mean water, also known as drinking water, that is treated to levels which meet state and federal standards for human consumption. Water Adequacy Determination shall mean a determination that the proposed water supply for a development is adequate. Water supply entity shall mean a municipality, county, special district, water conservancy district, water conservation district, water authority, or other public or private water supply entity that supplies, distributes, or otherwise provides water at retail. Water rights portfolio shall mean all rights to water, including water rights, contracts, and agreements associated with water supplies that are used to meet demands. A water rights portfolio that includes non‐ renewable or non‐perpetual water supplies does not mean that the entire portfolio is not renewable and/or sustainable. Water supply system shall mean all infrastructure planned or used to divert and deliver water to a development. 4. Public Outreach A. BACKGROUND Engagement Prior to City Council Work Session This proposed Water Adequacy Determination amendments to the Land Use Code did not include specific public outreach meetings for the general public, however information on the code update was provided on the website, including an educational video. Staff met with representatives from the following groups to present the draft code updates as well to solicit feedback: • West Fort Collins Water District • East Larimer County Water District • Fort Collins Loveland Water District Packet pg. 105 Planning & Zoning Commission – Agenda Item 3 Water Adequacy Determination Review Code Update Thursday, August 17, 2023 | Page 7 of 8 Back to Top • Hartford Homes/Bloom • HF2M/Montava • Polestar Gardens/Polestar Village Staff also received a call from the Sunset Water District expressing they did not have concerns about the update based on their perceived lack of development in their district boundary which they state is entirely in an unincorporated area. Save the Poudre also stated they had no concerns with the proposed update. In general, the stakeholder feedback included an appreciation to discuss the proposed code and a better understanding of the intent after the meetings. The main point of contentions expressed included: • Ability of established providers to “veto” new systems. There was both support and concern over this concept. • The disparity between review criteria for established and new potable water supply entities. • The perception that the City was trying to regulate special districts through the review of a water supply plan or letter establishing the District’s resources. • A desire for more cooperation and consistency between all water supply entities. • Concerns on not duplicating review efforts between other processes, especially for non-potable systems. • Concerns over review costs • Feedback that some metrics were vague. • Feedback on the review timing proposed (FDP versus DCP) with a desire to complete the determination sooner. • Feedback that there is a desire to be able to review new service for an entire development and then true up each phase at the time of final plan or BDR. • Concerns on tight review timing for code update. Engagement Since City Council Work Session Staff met with the following stakeholders: • Fort Collins Loveland Water District • East Larimer County Water District • Montava All stakeholders appreciated the opportunity to continue to weigh in on the recommended Code amendments. All stakeholders also welcomed the additional time to analyze the proposed Water Adequacy Determination amendments to the Land Use Code. Comments from the stakeholders above focused on the following: • Disagreement on the ability for established potable water supply entities to veto new potable water supply entities • Updates to the Code to increase clarity o Consistency with State statute o Provision of water supply plans by existing water potable water supply entities is purely informational (i.e., City Council will not “approve” water supply plans of existing water providers) • Suggestions on how to achieve outcomes of State statutory requirements without implementing Water Adequacy Determination Review process Staff also clarified the appeal process for decisions made by Title 32 districts. Commissioners inquired at the previous hearing what body hears appeals for decisions made by water districts. City staff clarified that, pursuant to Colorado statutes, the Board of County Commissioners would hear appeals for decisions related to excluding property from the service territory of existing water providers. Staff further clarified that legal recourse exists for virtually any decision a water district makes and that the recourse depends on the action taken by the water district. Written comments were received from many of the stakeholders outlined above and are included in the packet. The information for the hearing packet is posted in the Development Review webpage. Packet pg. 106 Planning & Zoning Commission – Agenda Item 3 Water Adequacy Determination Review Code Update Thursday, August 17, 2023 | Page 8 of 8 Back to Top Notice (Posted, Written and Published) Published Notice: August 6, 2023. Coloradoan 5. Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission forward a recommendation to City Council to approve the proposed Land Use Code changes. 6. Attachments 1. Proposed Land Use Code Changes 2. Redline Draft Changes 3. Written Comments from Stakeholders 4. Correspondence About Appeal Process 5. Staff Presentation Packet pg. 107 ORDINANCE NO. 074, 2023 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE LAND USE CODE TO INCLUDE REGULATIONS FOR MAKING WATER ADEQUACY DETERMINATIONS WHEREAS, on December 2, 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 190, 1997, the City Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code"); and WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the understanding of staff and the City Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be subject to future amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of errors, but also for the purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic document capable of responding to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals and citizens of the City; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes (“C.R.S.”) Section 29-20-301, et seq., the City may not approve an application for a development permit until the City has determined that the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed water supply will be adequate; and WHEREAS, water is an increasingly scarce resource and ensuring that a proposed development will have an adequate water supply is essential to protecting public health, safety, and welfare, and ensuring that growth and development within the City is sustainable; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to update and formalize its water adequacy determination process by adopting the procedure and standards set forth in this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, on April 26, 2023, the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended that City Council not adopt the proposed water adequacy determination Land Use Code Changes to allow more time for consideration of the impacts of the timing of the determination, the implications of Section 3.13.5(C)(5) for applicants and water suppliers, in particular regarding the ability of an applicant to appeal the decision of a water supplier; and WHEREAS, City Council finds that the water adequacy determination provisions set forth in this Ordinance are in the best interests of the City of Fort Collins. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That Section 3.7.3 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new Subsection (G) which reads in its entirety as follows: 3.7.3 - Adequate Public Facilities ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 108 . . . (G) Water Supply Adequacy. The determination required by C.R.S. § 29-20-301, et seq., whether the proposed water supply for development is adequate and is not addressed in this Section but is set forth in Division 3.13. Section 3. That the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new Division 3.13 which reads in its entirety as follows: Division 3.13 - Water Adequacy Determinations Section 3.13.1 Purpose. The general purpose of this Division is to establish the standards and procedures by which the adequacy of proposed water supplies for development are reviewed and determined pursuant to C.R.S. § 29-20-301, et seq. The specific purposes are to: (1) Fulfill the C.R.S. § 29-20-303(1) requirement that the City “shall not approve an application for a development permit unless it determines in its sole discretion, after considering the application and all of the information provided, that the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed water supply will be adequate.”; (2) Protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring that the water supplies for developments are adequate; (3) Ensure that growth and development in the City occur in a planned and coordinated manner; (4) Ensure that the City is provided with reliable information concerning the adequacy of developments’ proposed water supplies to inform the City, in the exercise of its discretion, in the approval of development applications and permits; (5) Promote safe, efficient, and economic use of public resources in developing and providing water; and (6) Ensure City participation in the review and approval of development plans that pass through and impact City residents, businesses, neighborhoods, property owners, and resources. Section 3.13.2 Applicability. This Division shall apply to all development, or redevelopment, that requires new, expanded, or increased water use, whether potable or non-potable, within the incorporated municipal ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 109 boundaries of the City. No such development or redevelopment shall be approved and allowed to proceed unless the Director has determined that the proposed water supply for the development or redevelopment is adequate. (1) Temporary non-potable water supply systems to establish native vegetation are exempt from these requirements if the term of use is three (3) consecutive years or less and identified as such on an approved landscape plan. (2) Except as stated in Subsection 3.13.5(D), the modification of standards review set forth in Division 2.8 shall not apply to this Division 3.13. Section 3.13.3 Application. (A) Application Timing. An applicant seeking a water adequacy determination shall file an application with the Director pursuant to this Division at the same time as submitting an application for final plan or basic development review, as outlined in Divisions 2.5 and 2.18, unless the application timing is altered pursuant to the following: (1) Upon written request at the time of application, the Director may defer the timing of an application for a water adequacy determination for potable or non-potable water until submittal with a development construction permit (Division 2.6) if the Director determines such timing will not substantially interfere with or otherwise make it more difficult to determine whether the proposed water supply is adequate. (2) Upon written request at the time of application, the Director may defer the timing of an application for a water adequacy determination for potable water until submittal with a building permit (Division 2.7), if the provider is an established potable water supply entity and the Director determines such timing will not substantially interfere with or otherwise make it more difficult to determine whether the proposed water supply is adequate. (B) Separate Applications. The applicant shall file separate applications for water adequacy determinations for each portion of the development served by different water supply entities or water supply systems unless the Director determines that a single combined application can fully describe and provide needed information and be effectively analyzed. Subsequent sections in this Division provide distinctions in the evaluation process for established potable water supply entities, other potable water supply entities, and non-potable water supply entities. (C) Material Changes. The City shall make a determination that a proposed water supply is adequate only once for each portion of a development served by a different potable or non-potable water supply entities or water supply systems during the development review process unless the water demands or supply of the ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 110 portion of the development for which approval is sought are materially changed. The Director shall determine whether changes to the water demands or supply for any development or redevelopment are material and require a new water adequacy determination. The Director’s determination that a material change has occurred is not subject to appeal pursuant to the Land Use Code or Code of the City of Fort Collins. (D) Application After Director Denial. If the Director denies an application for a water adequacy determination, the applicant may submit another application at any time, subject to applicable fees, that addresses the stated reason or reasons for denial. Section 3.13.4 - Procedures and Standards for Water Adequacy Determinations: Established Potable Water Supply Entities (A) Application Requirements. (1) Requests under this Section shall include a letter as described in Subsection (a), unless exempted pursuant to Subsection (b). (a) A letter prepared by a registered professional engineer or by a water supply expert from the established potable water supply entity that contains the following information: 1. An estimate of the water supply requirements for the proposed development through build-out conditions; 2. A description of the established potable water supply entity’s water supply system and the physical source(s) of water supply that will be used to serve the proposed development. If the proposed source(s) includes groundwater, this description must include water quality test results and results of an analysis into the potential impact on water treatment processes or the quality of delivered potable water; 3. An estimate of the amount of water yield projected from the proposed water supply system and water rights portfolio under various hydrologic conditions; 4. Water conservation and/or water demand management measures, if any, that may be implemented within the proposed development; 5. Results from analyses performed demonstrating the ability for the proposed water supply to meet demands of the proposed development under various hydrologic conditions; ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 111 6. An affidavit signed by the entity manager attesting that to the best of their knowledge, the entity is in compliance with all applicable regulations; and 7. Such other information as may be required by the Director in order to determine whether the proposed water supply will be adequate. All letters shall be provided to City Council for informational purposes only and kept on file with the City’s Community Development and Neighborhood Services Department. At the established potable water supply entity's discretion, the letter may describe their entire service area and be submitted for a determination once updated as required based on any material changes to any of the requirements in this Section or in their reported supply as described in Subsection 3.13.3(C). If the letter describes the entire service area, then the entity does not need to resubmit the approved letter with each letter as outlined in Subsection 3.13.4(A)(2) but should be referenced within the letter content in addition to what is outlined in Subsection 3.13.4(A)(2). (b) The letter described in Subsection (a) shall not be required if the established potable water supply entity has a water supply plan, or other plans that cumulatively provide the information, that: 1. Has been reviewed and updated, if appropriate, within the previous ten years by the governing board of the established potable water supply entity; 2. Has a minimum twenty-year planning horizon; 3. Lists the water conservation measures, if any, that may be implemented within the service area; 4. Lists the water demand management measures, if any, that may be implemented within the development or service area; 5. Includes a general description of the established potable water supply entity's water obligations, such as a general description of customer demands and operational water delivery obligations, such as augmentation requirements and return flow obligations; 6. Includes a general description of the established potable water supply entity's water supply system and water rights portfolio; and 7. Includes an affidavit signed by the entity manager attesting that, to the best of their knowledge, the entity is in ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 112 compliance with Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations, 5 CCR 1002-11. All water supply plans, or other plans that cumulatively provide the information required above shall be provided to City Council for informational purposes only and kept on file with the City’s Community Development and Neighborhood Services Department. The Director may defer providing the Council with any water supply plan or other plans until such time as the established potable water supply entity updates their existing water supply plan. Once the plan, or plans, are on file, they do not need to be resubmitted with each letter as outlined in Subsection 3.13.4(A)(2) but should be referenced within the letter content in addition to what is outlined in Subsection 3.13.4(A)(2). (2) Requests for a water adequacy determination for all or portions of a development to be served with potable water by an established potable water supply entity shall be in a form as required by the Director. Such requests shall include a letter prepared by a registered professional engineer or by a water supply expert from the established potable water supply entity: (a) Identifying the portions of a development to be served with potable water by the established potable water supply entity; (b) Stating its ability to provide an adequate water supply for the proposed development; (c) Stating it is willing to commit to provide an adequate water supply for the proposed development including any conditions of the commitment; and (d) Providing the length of time the letter is valid for should the proposed development not occur immediately. (B) Review of Application. The Director shall promptly review the application and associated materials concurrently with the required Final Plan, Basic Development Review, Development Construction Permit, or Building Permit application. (C) Standards. To issue a determination that a proposed water supply is adequate under this Section, the Director must find that the statements in the application and associated materials are complete, correct, and reliable. (D) Decision. (1) Based upon the information provided by the applicant and developed by the City and any consultants, the Director shall issue all water adequacy determinations pursuant to this Section in writing including specific findings and shall either: ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 113 (a) Approve the application finding that the proposed water supply is adequate; (b) Approve the application with conditions finding the proposed water supply is adequate provided the conditions are met; or (c) Deny the application finding that the proposed water supply is inadequate. (2) All water adequacy determinations shall become part of the plan set for the associated development application, if approved. The Director shall maintain a record of all information submitted or developed upon which any water adequacy decision was based, and that record shall become part of the associated development application. (3) The Director may impose conditions of approval that when met, as determined by the Director, will bring the proposed water supply into compliance with all applicable standards set forth in this Section. No building permit may be issued until all conditions have been met. (4) The Director’s decision is not subject to appeal pursuant to the Land Use Code or Code of the City of Fort Collins. Section 3.13.5 - Procedures and Standards for Water Adequacy Determinations: Other Potable Water Supply Entities (A) Application Requirements for Other Potable Water Supply Entities. Applications for a water adequacy determination for all or portions of a development to be served with potable water by other potable water supply entities shall be in a form as required by the Director. Such applications shall include all of the following: (1) A summary document linking the information to the standard of review. (2) Report including information required under Section 29-20-304(1), C.R.S.: (a) An estimate of the water supply requirements for the proposed development through build-out conditions; (b) A description of the potable water supply entity’s water supply system and the physical source of water supply that will be used to serve the proposed development. This should include water quality test results and proposed methods of water treatment from a registered professional engineer or water supply expert; ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 114 (c) A description of all elements of the water rights portfolio either owned or planned for acquisition required for proposed water supply; (d) An estimate of the amount of water yield projected from the proposed water supply under various hydrologic conditions; (e) Water demand management measures, if any, that may be implemented within the development to account for hydrologic variability; and (f) Description of all water conservation measures to be applied in the development and how they would be enforced and effectuated. (3) Financial documentation establishing that the proposed provider is able to create the proposed water supply system and maintain it in perpetuity. (4) A fee assessment describing the proposed water rates and fees for the new system and how those fees compare with those charged by the established potable water supply entities. This assessment should include consideration of any metro district, homeowners’ or property owners’ association, or other taxes or fees that are also uniquely applicable to the proposed development to be served by the other potable water supply entity. (5) Approval documentation from other regulatory agencies such as CDPHE. At the Director’s discretion, this information may substitute in whole or in part for the application requirements set forth in this Section. If additional approvals will be required, provide an explanation of how those approvals will be obtained, and at the Director’s discretion, the additional approvals may be required as conditions of approval. (6) Detailed process diagrams stamped by a registered professional engineer on any proposed water treatment processes as well as how any waste products created from the treatment process will be properly disposed of. (7) Such other information as may be required by the Director in order to determine whether the proposed water supply will be adequate. (8) An other potable water supply entity with an approved ODP or PUD Overlay as outlined in Division 2.3 and Division 2.15 that includes the entire proposed service area, may at either the other potable water supply entity’s, or Director’s discretion, submit an application that describes their entire proposed service area once with the initial phase of development and then update the initial determination with a letter from a professional engineer for each subsequent phase with the information required in Subsection 3.13.4(A)(2); or as required based on any material changes to: ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 115 (a) Any of the requirements set forth in this Section; (b) The reported water supply as set forth in Section 3.13.3(C); or (c) The proposed development, as determined by the Director. (B) Review of Application. (1) Agreement on Costs. Prior to the City reviewing any application under this Section, the applicant shall agree in writing to reimburse the City for all costs associated with reviewing the application and associated materials, including costs associated with consultants hired to assist the Director’s review. No water adequacy determination shall be issued unless and until all such costs have been paid to the City. The fee assessed by the City shall not exceed the cost of the review and administration of the review process. (2) Review. (a) The Director shall review the materials provided by the applicant following the completion of the agreement identified in Subsection 3.13.5(B)(1). The time needed for the Director’s review shall be based on the complexity of the application, the proposed water supply, and proposed water supply system. (b) Following the submission of the application, the Director shall be entitled to require any such additional or supplemental information from the applicant as may be required to review and ensure compliance with all review criteria. (c) The review will be completed concurrently with the required Final Plan, Basic Development Review, Development Construction Permit, or any plan amendments as specified in Section 3. (C) Standards. To issue a water adequacy determination under this Section, the Director must find that the application and associated materials establish that: (1) The quality of the proposed potable water supply will be sufficient for build- out of the proposed development by: (a) Providing potable water to the development of a quality that meets or exceeds all state and federal water quality standards; (b) Providing potable water to the development of a quality equal to or better than the quality of potable water provided by the City of Fort Collins as measured by appropriate water quality aspects; and ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 116 (c) Establishing and maintaining a water supply entity that has the technical expertise and resources to maintain the quality of the water supply for the lifetime of the development. (2) The quantity of the proposed potable water supply will be sufficient for build-out of the proposed development by: (a) Relying upon a renewable and/or sustainable physical supply of water, that takes into account any impacts if multiple users have rights to use water from a single source, such as an aquifer; (b) Having ability to acquire a water rights portfolio that provides a permanent firm yield equal to or greater than the maximum assumed demand in all hydrological conditions, including a modeled one-in- fifty year drought or equivalent or more stringent standard, when taking into consideration reasonable transit and other losses and all applicable obligations, including augmentation requirements and return flow obligations; and (3) For lands to be served by tributary groundwater, establishing that the plan for augmentation will operate to provide a permanent firm yield equal to or greater than the maximum assumed demand in all hydrological conditions, including a modeled one-in-fifty year drought or equivalent or more stringent standard, when taking into consideration reasonable losses and all applicable obligations, including augmentation requirements and return flow obligations for the lifetime of the development. (4) The dependability of the proposed potable water supply will be sufficient for build-out of the proposed development by: (a) Establishing that the water supply system includes sufficient redundancy equal to or better than the redundancy of the City of Fort Collins system; (b) If the water supply system includes a water treatment facility, include the class of facility and treatment processes and provide information that the level of operations is equivalent or better as required by CDPHE, and demonstrate how the facility operators will ensure they have the technical expertise and resources to operate the treatment facility dependably and sustainably in a manner that is economical, safe, and that does not produce any harmful by- products; (c) Establishing that the water supply system and water rights portfolio can operate during water supply shortages and emergencies, ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 117 including infrastructure issues, natural disasters, and long-term climate change; and (d) Establishing and maintaining a water supply entity that can oversee and maintain the water supply system and water rights portfolio for the lifetime of the development. (5) The availability of the proposed potable water supply will be sufficient for build-out of the proposed development by: (a) Establishing the applicant has, or has the ability to acquire, the necessary property rights and resources to build and operate the proposed water supply system; (b) For lands to be served by tributary groundwater, establishing that the proposed use of the tributary groundwater is sustainable with evidence of assured supply for the lifetime of the development; and (c) For lands within the water service area of an established potable water supply entity, establishing that the lands to be served by the other potable water supply entities have been removed from the water service area of the established potable water supply entity; or the established potable water supply entity consents to the proposed service by the other potable water supply entity. The Director may, however, waive this requirement if an established potable water supply entity is incapable of providing a reasonable level of service to the proposed development. (D) Modification of Standards. If a potable water supply entity cannot meet the standards set forth above in Subsection 3.13.5(C), with the exception of 3.13.5(C)(5)(c) which shall not be subject to modification, then they may seek a modification of standards pursuant to Division 2.8 with the Director as the designated decision maker. In addition to the four standards set forth in Section 2.8.2(H) for granting a modification, the Director may also grant a modification if such modification would not be detrimental to the public good and the standard as modified is comparable to an existing standard already being employed by another established potable water supply entity. The Director’s decision regarding a requested modification of standards is not subject to appeal pursuant to the Land Use Code or Code of the City of Fort Collins. (E) Decision. (1) Based upon the information provided by the applicant and developed by the City and any consultants, the Director shall issue all water adequacy determinations in writing including specific findings and shall either: ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 118 (a) Approve the application finding that the proposed water supply is adequate; (b) Approve the application with conditions finding the proposed water supply is adequate provided the conditions are met; or (c) Deny the application finding that the proposed water supply is inadequate. (2) All water adequacy determinations shall become part of the plan set for the associated development application, if approved. The Director shall maintain a record of all non-privileged information submitted or developed upon which the water adequacy determination was based for the proposed water supply and proposed water supply system, and that record shall become part of the associated development application. (3) The Director may impose conditions of approval that when met, as determined by the Director, will bring the proposed water supply into compliance with all applicable standards set forth in this Section, including conditions that the applicant acquire the required water right decrees and water contracts for the water supply system; and/or the applicant completing construction of all infrastructure for the water supply system. No building permit may be issued until all conditions have been met. (4) The Director’s decision is not subject to appeal pursuant to the Land Use Code or Code of the City of Fort Collins. (5) The Director shall require a disclosure, recorded by the Larimer County Clerk, to be provided at the time of all property sales or transfers that the water supply for the development is being provided by the approved entity. Section 3.13.6 - Procedures and Standards for Water Adequacy Determinations: Non- Potable Water Supply Entities (A) Application Requirements for Non-Potable Water Supplies. Applications for a water adequacy determination for all or portions of a development to be served with non-potable water shall include all of the following: (1) Summary document linking the information to the standard of review. (2) Report including information required under Section 29-20-304(1), C.R.S.: (a) An estimate of the water supply requirements for the proposed development through build-out conditions; ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 119 (b) A description of the water supply system and physical source of water supply that will be used to serve the proposed development. This description must include water quality test results and results of an analysis investigating any limitations of use due to poor quality; (c) A description of all elements of the water rights portfolio either owned or planned for acquisition, contracts, and/or IGAs required for the proposed water supply; (d) An estimate of the amount of water yield projected from each proposed water supply source under various hydrologic conditions. For surface water sources, this should include results of an analysis of historical temporal availability of the proposed supplies throughout the year, annual volumetric yield, and the frequency and flow rate of deliveries. For groundwater sources, this should include descriptions of the decreed place of use, flow rate, and annual volumetric limits, and their temporal availability of the proposed supplies throughout the year, including any augmentation requirements; (e) Water demand management measures, if any, that may be implemented within the development to account for hydrologic variability; and (f) Description of all water conservation measures to be applied in the development and how they would be enforced and effectuated. At a minimum, smart controllers and flow meters are required per the Land Use Code. (3) Financial documentation showing that the proposed provider is able to create the proposed water supply system and maintain it in perpetuity. (4) A narrative describing how the entity plans to ensure compliance equal to or better than City water conservation requirements including those outlined in Division 3.2. (5) Approval documentation from other regulatory agencies, including the established potable water supply entity whose service area contains the proposed non-potable system when applicable. At the Director’s discretion, this information may substitute in whole or in part for the application requirements set forth in this Section. (6) Such other information as may be required by the Director. (B) Review of Application. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 120 (1) Agreement on Costs. Prior to the City reviewing any application under this Section, the applicant shall agree in writing to reimburse the City for all costs associated with reviewing the application and associated materials, including costs associated with consultants hired to assist the Director’s review. No water adequacy determination shall be issued unless and until all such costs have been paid to the City. The fee assessed by the City shall not exceed the cost of the review and administration of the review process. (2) Review. (a) The Director shall review the materials provided by the applicant following the completion of the agreement identified in Subsection 3.13.6(B)(1). The length of the Director’s review shall be based on the complexity of the application, the proposed water supply, and proposed water supply system. (b) Following the submission of the application, the Director shall be entitled to require any such additional or supplemental information from the applicant as may be required for the Director’s review. (c) Applications for water adequacy determinations for Non-potable systems shall be submitted at the same time as Development Construction Permit for review. (C) Standards. To issue a water adequacy determination under this Section, the Director must find that the application and associated materials establish that: (1) The quality of the proposed non-potable water supply will be sufficient for build-out of the proposed development by providing non-potable water to the development of a quality sufficient to meet all planned landscape needs and other intended non-potable water uses shown in the approved landscape or utility plans; (2) The quantity of the proposed non-potable water supply will be sufficient for build-out of the proposed development by: (a) Relying upon a renewable and/or sustainable physical supply of water; (b) Having a water rights portfolio that provides a permanent firm yield equal to or greater than the maximum daily water requirement (accounting for typical conveyance and irrigation and other inefficiencies) under various hydrological conditions, including a modeled one-in-fifty year drought or equivalent or more stringent standard, when taking into consideration all applicable obligations, ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 121 including augmentation requirements and return flow obligations; and (c) For lands to be served by tributary groundwater, establishing that the plan for augmentation will operate to provide a permanent firm yield equal to or greater than the maximum assumed demand under various hydrological conditions, including a modeled one-in-fifty year drought or equivalent or more stringent standard, when taking into consideration all applicable obligations, including augmentation requirements and return flow obligations. (3) The dependability of the proposed non-potable water supply will be sufficient for build-out of the proposed development by: (a) If the non-potable water supply system includes treatment, establishing that the treatment can and will operate sustainably in a manner that is economical, safe, and that does not produce any harmful by-products; and (b) Establishing and maintaining a water supply entity that has the technical expertise and resources to oversee and maintain the non- potable water supply system. (4) The availability of the proposed water supply will be sufficient for build- out of the proposed development by: (a) Establishing the applicant has, or has the ability to acquire, the necessary property rights and resources to build and operate the proposed non-potable water supply system; and (b) For lands to be served by tributary groundwater, establishing that the proposed use of the tributary groundwater is sustainable with evidence of assured supply for the lifetime of the development. (D) Decision. (1) Based upon the information provided by the applicant and developed by the City and any consultants, the Director shall issue all water adequacy determinations in writing including specific findings and shall either: (a) Approve the application finding that the proposed water supply is adequate; (b) Approve the application with conditions finding the proposed water supply is adequate provided the conditions are met; or ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 122 (c) Deny the application finding that the proposed water supply is inadequate. (2) The written determination shall be included in the plan set for the associated development application, if approved. The Director shall maintain a record of all non-privileged information developed to review the proposed water supply and proposed water supply system and that record shall become part of the associated development application. (3) The Director may impose conditions of approval that when met, as determined by the Director, will bring the proposed water supply into compliance with all applicable standards set forth in this Section, including conditions that the applicant acquire the required water right decrees and water contracts for the water supply system. No building permit may be issued until all conditions have been met. (4) The Director’s decision is not subject to appeal pursuant to the Land Use Code or Code of the City of Fort Collins. Section 4. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of the following ten definitions which read in their entirety as follows: Adequate shall mean a water supply that will be sufficient for build-out of the proposed development in terms of quality, quantity, dependability, and availability to provide a supply of water for the lifetime of the type of development proposed and may include reasonable conservation measures and water demand management measures to account for hydrologic variability. Established potable water supply entities shall mean the City of Fort Collins, the East Larimer County Water District, the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District, the Sunset Water District, and the West Fort Collins Water District. Non-potable water shall mean water that has not been treated to state and federal standards safe for human consumption, but can be placed to beneficial uses, including irrigation, dust suppression, toilet and urinal flushing, or make-up water for mechanical equipment. Non-potable water supply entities shall mean the water supply entities, either established potable water supply entities or other water supply entities that provide water that does not meet the state and federal standards for human consumption to developments for the beneficial uses of non-potable water. Other potable water supply entities shall mean the water supply entities other than the established potable water supply entities that provide potable water service, including new proposed water supplies. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 123 Potable water shall mean water, also known as drinking water, that is treated to levels which meet state and federal standards for human consumption. Water adequacy determination shall mean a determination whether the proposed water supply for a development is adequate. Water supply entity shall mean a municipality, county, special district, water conservancy district, water conservation district, water authority, or other public or private water supply entity that supplies, distributes, or otherwise provides water at retail. Water rights portfolio shall mean all rights to water, including water rights, contracts, and agreements associated with water supplies that are used to meet demands. A water rights portfolio that includes non-renewable or non-perpetual water supplies does not mean that the entire portfolio is not renewable and/or sustainable. Water supply system shall mean all infrastructure planned or used to divert and deliver water to a development. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading and ordered published this 16th day of May, 2023, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of June, 2023. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 6th day of June, 2023. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 124 ORDINANCE NO. 074, 2023 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE LAND USE CODE TO INCLUDE REGULATIONS FOR MAKING WATER ADEQUACY DETERMINATIONS WHEREAS, on December 2, 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 190, 1997, the City Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code"); and WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the understanding of staff and the City Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be subject to future amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of errors, but also for the purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic document capable of responding to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals and citizens of the City; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes (“C.R.S.”) Section 29-20-301, et seq., the City may not approve an application for a development permit until the City has determined that the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed water supply will be adequate; and WHEREAS, water is an increasingly scarce resource and ensuring that a proposed development will have an adequate water supply is essential to protecting public health, safety, and welfare, and ensuring that growth and development within the City is sustainable; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to update and formalize its water adequacy determination process by adopting the procedure and standards set forth in this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, on April 26, 2023, the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended that City Council not adopt the proposed water adequacy determination Land Use Code Changes to allow more time for consideration of the impacts of the timing of the determination, the implications of Section 3.13.5(C)(5) for applicants and water suppliers, in particular regarding the ability of an applicant to appeal the decision of a water supplier; and WHEREAS, City Council finds that the water adequacy determination provisions set forth in this Ordinance are in the best interests of the City of Fort Collins. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That Section 3.7.3 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new Subsection (G) which reads in its entirety as follows: 3.7.3 - Adequate Public Facilities ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 125 . . . (G) Water Supply Adequacy. The determination required by C.R.S. § 29-20-301, et seq., whether the proposed water supply for development is adequate and is not addressed in this Section but is set forth in Division 3.13. Section 3. That the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new Division 3.13 which reads in its entirety as follows: Division 3.13 - Water Adequacy Determinations Section 3.13.1 Purpose. The general purpose of this Division is to establish the standards and procedures by which the adequacy of proposed water supplies for development are reviewed and determined pursuant to C.R.S. § 29-20-301, et seq. The specific purposes are to: (1) Fulfill the C.R.S. § 29-20-303(1) requirement that the City “shall not approve an application for a development permit unless it determines in its sole discretion, after considering the application and all of the information provided, that the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed water supply will be adequate.”; (2) Protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring that the water supplies for developments are adequate; (3) Ensure that growth and development in the City occur in a planned and coordinated manner; (4) Ensure that the City is provided with reliable information concerning the adequacy of developments’ proposed water supplies to inform the City, in the exercise of its discretion, in the approval of development applications and permits; (5) Promote safe, efficient, and economic use of public resources in developing and providing water; and (6) Ensure City participation in the review and approval of development plans that pass through and impact City residents, businesses, neighborhoods, property owners, and resources. Section 3.13.2 Applicability. This Division shall apply to all development, or redevelopment, that requires new, expanded, or increased water use, whether potable or non-potable, within the incorporated municipal ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 126 boundaries of the City. No such development or redevelopment shall be approved and allowed to proceed unless the Director has determined that the proposed water supply for the development or redevelopment is adequate. (1) Temporary non-potable water supply systems to establish native vegetation are exempt from these requirements if the term of use is three (3) consecutive years or less and identified as such on an approved landscape plan. (2) Except as stated in Subsection 3.13.5(D), the modification of standards review set forth in Division 2.8 shall not apply to this Division 3.13. Section 3.13.3 Application. (A) Application Timing. An applicant seeking a water adequacy determination shall file an application with the Director pursuant to this Division at the same time as submitting an application for final plan or basic development review, as outlined in Divisions 2.5 and 2.18, unless the application timing is altered pursuant to the following: (1) Upon written request at the time of application, the Director may defer the timing of an application for a water adequacy determination for potable or non-potable water until submittal with a development construction permit (Division 2.6) if the Director determines such timing will not substantially interfere with or otherwise make it more difficult to determine whether the proposed water supply is adequate. (2) Upon written request at the time of application, the Director may defer the timing of an application for a water adequacy determination for potable water until submittal with a building permit (Division 2.7), if the provider is an established potable water supply entity and the Director determines such timing will not substantially interfere with or otherwise make it more difficult to determine whether the proposed water supply is adequate. (B) Separate Applications. The applicant shall file separate applications for water adequacy determinations for each portion of the development served by different water supply entities or water supply systems unless the Director determines that a single combined application can fully describe and provide needed information and be effectively analyzed. Subsequent sections in this Division provide distinctions in the evaluation process for established potable water supply entities, other potable water supply entities, and non-potable water supply entities. (C) Material Changes. The City shall make a determination that a proposed water supply is adequate only once for each portion of a development served by a different potable or non-potable water supply entities or water supply systems during the development review process unless the water demands or supply of the ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 127 portion of the development for which approval is sought are materially changed. The Director shall determine whether changes to the water demands or supply for any development or redevelopment are material and require a new water adequacy determination. The Director’s determination that a material change has occurred is not subject to appeal pursuant to the Land Use Code or Code of the City of Fort Collins. (D) Application After Director Denial. If the Director denies an application for a water adequacy determination, the applicant may submit another application at any time, subject to applicable fees, that addresses the stated reason or reasons for denial. Section 3.13.4 - Procedures and Standards for Water Adequacy Determinations: Established Potable Water Supply Entities (A) Application Requirements. (1) Requests under this Section shall include a letter as described in Subsection (a), unless exempted pursuant to Subsection (b). (a) A letter prepared by a registered professional engineer or by a water supply expert from the established potable water supply entity that contains the following information: 1. An estimate of the water supply requirements for the proposed development through build-out conditions; 2. A description of the established potable water supply entity’s water supply system and the physical source(s) of water supply that will be used to serve the proposed development. If the proposed source(s) includes groundwater, this description must include water quality test results and results of an analysis into the potential impact on water treatment processes or the quality of delivered potable water; 3. An estimate of the amount of water yield projected from the proposed water supply system and water rights portfolio under various hydrologic conditions; 4. Water conservation and/or water demand management measures, if any, that may be implemented within the proposed development; 5. Results from analyses performed demonstrating the ability for the proposed water supply to meet demands of the proposed development under various hydrologic conditions; ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 128 6. An affidavit signed by the entity manager attesting that to the best of their knowledge, the entity is in compliance with all applicable regulations; and 7. Such other information as may be required by the Director in order to determine whether the proposed water supply will be adequate. All letters shall be provided to City Council for informational purposes only and kept on file with the City’s Community Development and Neighborhood Services Department. At the established potable water supply entity's discretion, the letter may describe their entire service area and be submitted for a determination once updated as required based on any material changes to any of the requirements in this Section or in their reported supply as described in Subsection 3.13.3(C). If the letter describes the entire service area, then the entity does not need to resubmit the approved letter with each letter as outlined in Subsection 3.13.4(A)(2) but should be referenced within the letter content in addition to what is outlined in Subsection 3.13.4(A)(2). (b) The letter described in Subsection (a) shall not be required if the established potable water supply entity has a water supply plan, or other plans that cumulatively provide the information, that: 1. Has been reviewed and updated, if appropriate, within the previous ten years by the governing board of the established potable water supply entity; 2. Has a minimum twenty-year planning horizon; 3. Lists the water conservation measures, if any, that may be implemented within the service area; 4. Lists the water demand management measures, if any, that may be implemented within the development or service area; 5. Includes a general description of the established potable water supply entity's water obligations, such as a general description of customer demands and operational water delivery obligations, such as augmentation requirements and return flow obligations; 6. Includes a general description of the established potable water supply entity's water supply system and water rights portfolio; and 7. Includes an affidavit signed by the entity manager attesting that, to the best of their knowledge, the entity is in ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 129 compliance with Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations, 5 CCR 1002-11all applicable regulations. All water supply plans, or other plans that cumulatively provide the information required above shall be provided to City Council for informational purposes only and kept on file with the City’s Community Development and Neighborhood Services Department. The Director may defer providing the Council with any water supply plan or other plans until such time as the established potable water supply entity updates their existing water supply plan. Once the plan, or plans, are on file, they do not need to be resubmitted with each letter as outlined in Subsection 3.13.4(A)(2) but should be referenced within the letter content in addition to what is outlined in Subsection 3.13.4(A)(2). (2) Requests for a water adequacy determination for all or portions of a development to be served with potable water by an established potable water supply entity shall be in a form as required by the Director. Such requests shall include a letter prepared by a registered professional engineer or by a water supply expert from the established potable water supply entity: (a) Identifying the portions of a development to be served with potable water by the established potable water supply entity; (b) Stating its ability to provide an adequate water supply for the proposed development; (c) Stating it is willing to commit to provide an adequate water supply for the proposed development including any conditions of the commitment; and (d) Providing the length of time the letter is valid for should the proposed development not occur immediately. (B) Review of Application. The Director shall promptly review the application and associated materials concurrently with the required Final Plan, Basic Development Review, Development Construction Permit, or Building Permit application. (C) Standards. To issue a determination that a proposed water supply is adequate under this Section, the Director must find that the statements in the application and associated materials are complete, correct, and reliable. (D) Decision. (1) Based upon the information provided by the applicant and developed by the City and any consultants, the Director shall issue all water adequacy determinations pursuant to this Section in writing including specific findings and shall either: Formatted: Highlight ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 130 (a) Approve the application finding that the proposed water supply is adequate; (b) Approve the application with conditions finding the proposed water supply is adequate provided the conditions are met; or (c) Deny the application finding that the proposed water supply is inadequate. (2) All water adequacy determinations shall become part of the plan set for the associated development application, if approved. The Director shall maintain a record of all information submitted or developed upon which any water adequacy decision was based, and that record shall become part of the associated development application. (3) The Director may impose conditions of approval that when met, as determined by the Director, will bring the proposed water supply into compliance with all applicable standards set forth in this Section. No building permit may be issued until all conditions have been met. (4) The Director’s decision is not subject to appeal pursuant to the Land Use Code or Code of the City of Fort Collins. Section 3.13.5 - Procedures and Standards for Water Adequacy Determinations: Other Potable Water Supply Entities (A) Application Requirements for Other Potable Water Supply Entities. Applications for a water adequacy determination for all or portions of a development to be served with potable water by other potable water supply entities shall be in a form as required by the Director. Such applications shall include all of the following: (1) A summary document linking the information to the standard of review. (2) Report including information required under Section 29-20-304(1), C.R.S.: (a) An estimate of the water supply requirements for the proposed development through build-out conditions; (b) A description of the potable water supply entity’s water supply system and the physical source of water supply that will be used to serve the proposed development. This should include water quality test results and proposed methods of water treatment from a registered professional engineer or water supply expert; ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 131 (c) A description of all elements of the water rights portfolio either owned or planned for acquisition required for proposed water supply; (d) An estimate of the amount of water yield projected from the proposed water supply under various hydrologic conditions; (e) Water demand management measures, if any, that may be implemented within the development to account for hydrologic variability; and (f) Description of all water conservation measures to be applied in the development and how they would be enforced and effectuated. (3) Financial documentation establishing that the proposed provider is able to create the proposed water supply system and maintain it in perpetuity. (4) A fee assessment describing the proposed water rates and fees for the new system and how those fees compare with those charged by the established potable water supply entities. This assessment should include consideration of any metro district, homeowners’ or property owners’ association, or other taxes or fees that are also uniquely applicable to the proposed development to be served by the other potable water supply entity. (5) Approval documentation from other regulatory agencies such as CDPHE. At the Director’s discretion, this information may substitute in whole or in part for the application requirements set forth in this Section. If additional approvals will be required, provide an explanation of how those approvals will be obtained, and at the Director’s discretion, the additional approvals may be required as conditions of approval. (6) Detailed information process diagrams stamped by a registered professional engineer on any proposed water treatment processes as well as how any waste products created from the treatment process will be properly disposed of. (7) Such other information as may be required by the Director in order to determine whether the proposed water supply will be adequate. (8) An other potable water supply entity with an approved ODP or PUD Overlay as outlined in Division 2.3 and Division 2.15 that includes the entire proposed service area, may at either the other potable water supply entity’s, or Director’s discretion, submit an application that describes their entire proposed service area once with the initial phase of development and then update the initial determination with a letter from a professional ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 132 engineer for each subsequent phase with the information required in Subsection 3.13.4(A)(2); or as required based on any material changes to: (a) Any of the requirements set forth in this Section; (b) The reported water supply as set forth in Section 3.13.3(C); or (c) The proposed development, as determined by the Director. (B) Review of Application. (1) Agreement on Costs. Prior to the City reviewing any application under this Section, the applicant shall agree in writing to reimburse the City for all costs associated with reviewing the application and associated materials, including costs associated with consultants hired to assist the Director’s review. No water adequacy determination shall be issued unless and until all such costs have been paid to the City. The fee assessed by the City shall not exceed the cost of the review and administration of the review process. (2) Review. (a) The Director shall review the materials provided by the applicant following the completion of the agreement identified in Subsection 3.13.5(B)(1). The time needed for the Director’s review shall be based on the complexity of the application, the proposed water supply, and proposed water supply system. (b) Following the submission of the application, the Director shall be entitled to require any such additional or supplemental information from the applicant as may be required to review and ensure compliance with all review criteria. (c) The review will be completed concurrently with the required Final Plan, Basic Development Review, Development Construction Permit, or any plan amendments as specified in Section 3. (C) Standards. To issue a water adequacy determination under this Section, the Director must find that the application and associated materials establish that: (1) The quality of the proposed potable water supply will be sufficient for build- out of the proposed development by: (a) Providing potable water to the development of a quality that meets or exceeds all state and federal water quality standards; ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 133 (b) Providing potable water to the development of a quality equal to or better than the quality of potable water provided by the City of Fort Collins as measured by appropriate water quality aspects; and (c) Establishing and maintaining a water supply entity that has the technical expertise and resources to maintain the quality of the water supply for the lifetime of the development. (2) The quantity of the proposed potable water supply will be sufficient for build-out of the proposed development by: (a) Relying upon a renewable and/or sustainable physical supply of water, that takes into account any impacts if multiple users have rights to use water from a single source, such as an aquifer; (b) Having ability to acquire a water rights portfolio that provides a permanent firm yield equal to or greater than the maximum assumed demand in all hydrological conditions, including a modeled one-in- fifty year drought or equivalent or more stringent standard, when taking into consideration reasonable transit and other losses and all applicable obligations, including augmentation requirements and return flow obligations; and (3) For lands to be served by tributary groundwater, establishing that the plan for augmentation will operate to provide a permanent firm yield equal to or greater than the maximum assumed demand in all hydrological conditions, including a modeled one-in-fifty year drought or equivalent or more stringent standard, when taking into consideration reasonable losses and all applicable obligations, including augmentation requirements and return flow obligations for the lifetime of the development. (4) The dependability of the proposed potable water supply will be sufficient for build-out of the proposed development by: (a) Establishing that the water supply system includes sufficient redundancy equal to or better than the redundancy of the City of Fort Collins system; (b) If the water supply system includes a water treatment facility, include the class of facility and treatment processes and provide information that the level of operations is equivalent or better as required by CDPHE, and demonstrate how the facility operators will ensure they have the technical expertise and resources to operate the treatment facility dependably and sustainably in a manner that is economical, safe, and that does not produce any harmful by- products; ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 134 (c) Establishing that the water supply system and water rights portfolio can operate during water supply shortages and emergencies, including infrastructure issues, natural disasters, and long-term climate change; and (d) Establishing and maintaining a water supply entity that can oversee and maintain the water supply system and water rights portfolio for the lifetime of the development. (5) The availability of the proposed potable water supply will be sufficient for build-out of the proposed development by: (a) Establishing the applicant has, or has the ability to acquire, the necessary property rights and resources to build and operate the proposed water supply system; (b) For lands to be served by tributary groundwater, establishing that the proposed use of the tributary groundwater is sustainable with evidence of assured supply for the lifetime of the development; and (c) For lands within the water service area of an established potable water supply entity, establishing that the lands to be served by the other potable water supply entities have been removed from the water service area of the established potable water supply entity; or the established potable water supply entity consents to the proposed service by the other potable water supply entity. The Director may, however, waive this requirement if an established potable water supply entity is incapable of providing a reasonable level of service to the proposed development. (D) Modification of Standards. If a potable water supply entity cannot meet the standards set forth above in Subsection 3.13.5(C), with the exception of 3.13.5(C)(5)(c) which shall not be subject to modification, then they may seek a modification of standards pursuant to Division 2.8 with the Director as the designated decision maker. In addition to the four standards set forth in Section 2.8.2(H) for granting a modification, the Director may also grant a modification if such modification would not be detrimental to the public good and the standard as modified is comparable to an existing standard already being employed by another established potable water supply entity. The Director’s decision regarding a requested modification of standards is not subject to appeal pursuant to the Land Use Code or Code of the City of Fort Collins. (E) Decision. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 135 (1) Based upon the information provided by the applicant and developed by the City and any consultants, the Director shall issue all water adequacy determinations in writing including specific findings and shall either: (a) Approve the application finding that the proposed water supply is adequate; (b) Approve the application with conditions finding the proposed water supply is adequate provided the conditions are met; or (c) Deny the application finding that the proposed water supply is inadequate. (2) All water adequacy determinations shall become part of the plan set for the associated development application, if approved. The Director shall maintain a record of all non-privileged information submitted or developed upon which the water adequacy determination was based for the proposed water supply and proposed water supply system, and that record shall become part of the associated development application. (3) The Director may impose conditions of approval that when met, as determined by the Director, will bring the proposed water supply into compliance with all applicable standards set forth in this Section, including conditions that the applicant acquire the required water right decrees and water contracts for the water supply system; and/or the applicant completing construction of all infrastructure for the water supply system. No building permit may be issued until all conditions have been met. (4) The Director’s decision is not subject to appeal pursuant to the Land Use Code or Code of the City of Fort Collins. (5) The Director shall require a disclosure, recorded by the Larimer County Clerk, to be provided at the time of all property sales or transfers that the water supply for the development is being provided by the approved entity. Section 3.13.6 - Procedures and Standards for Water Adequacy Determinations: Non- Potable Water Supply Entities (A) Application Requirements for Non-Potable Water Supplies. Applications for a water adequacy determination for all or portions of a development to be served with non-potable water shall include all of the following: (1) Summary document linking the information to the standard of review. (2) Report including information required under Section 29-20-304(1), C.R.S.: ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 136 (a) An estimate of the water supply requirements for the proposed development through build-out conditions; (b) A description of the water supply system and physical source of water supply that will be used to serve the proposed development. This description must include water quality test results and results of an analysis investigating any limitations of use due to poor quality; (c) A description of all elements of the water rights portfolio either owned or planned for acquisition, contracts, and/or IGAs required for the proposed water supply; (d) An estimate of the amount of water yield projected from each proposed water supply source under various hydrologic conditions. For surface water sources, this should include results of an analysis of historical temporal availability of the proposed supplies throughout the year, annual volumetric yield, and the frequency and flow rate of deliveries. For groundwater sources, this should include descriptions of the decreed place of use, flow rate, and annual volumetric limits, and their temporal availability of the proposed supplies throughout the year, based on including any augmentation requirements; (e) Water demand management measures, if any, that may be implemented within the development to account for hydrologic variability; and (f) Description of all water conservation measures to be applied in the development and how they would be enforced and effectuated. At a minimum, smart controllers and flow meters are required per the Land Use Code. (3) Financial documentation showing that the proposed provider is able to create the proposed water supply system and maintain it in perpetuity. (4) A narrative describing how the entity plans to ensure compliance equal to or better than City water conservation requirements including those outlined in Division 3.2. (5) Approval documentation from other regulatory agencies, including the established potable water supply entity whose service area contains the proposed non-potable system when applicable. At the Director’s discretion, this information may substitute in whole or in part for the application requirements set forth in this Section. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 137 (6) Such other information as may be required by the Director. (B) Review of Application. (1) Agreement on Costs. Prior to the City reviewing any application under this Section, the applicant shall agree in writing to reimburse the City for all costs associated with reviewing the application and associated materials, including costs associated with consultants hired to assist the Director’s review. No water adequacy determination shall be issued unless and until all such costs have been paid to the City. The fee assessed by the City shall not exceed the cost of the review and administration of the review process. (2) Review. (a) The Director shall review the materials provided by the applicant following the completion of the agreement identified in Subsection 3.13.6(B)(1). The length of the Director’s review shall be based on the complexity of the application, the proposed water supply, and proposed water supply system. (b) Following the submission of the application, the Director shall be entitled to require any such additional or supplemental information from the applicant as may be required for the Director’s review. (c) Applications for water adequacy determinations for Non-potable systems shall be submitted at the same time as Development Construction Permit for review. (C) Standards. To issue a water adequacy determination under this Section, the Director must find that the application and associated materials establish that: (1) The quality of the proposed non-potable water supply will be sufficient for build-out of the proposed development by providing non-potable water to the development of a quality sufficient to meet all planned landscape needs and other intended non-potable water uses shown in the approved landscape or utility plans; (2) The quantity of the proposed non-potable water supply will be sufficient for build-out of the proposed development by: (a) Relying upon a renewable and/or sustainable physical supply of water; (b) Having a water rights portfolio that provides a permanent firm yield equal to or greater than the maximum daily water requirement (accounting for typical conveyance and irrigation and other ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 138 inefficiencies) under various hydrological conditions, including a modeled one-in-fifty year drought or equivalent or more stringent standard, when taking into consideration all applicable obligations, including augmentation requirements and return flow obligations; and (c) For lands to be served by tributary groundwater, establishing that the plan for augmentation will operate to provide a permanent firm yield equal to or greater than the maximum assumed demand under various hydrological conditions, including a modeled one-in-fifty year drought or equivalent or more stringent standard, when taking into consideration all applicable obligations, including augmentation requirements and return flow obligations. (3) The dependability of the proposed non-potable water supply will be sufficient for build-out of the proposed development by: (a) If the non-potable water supply system includes treatment, establishing that the treatment can and will operate sustainably in a manner that is economical, safe, and that does not produce any harmful by-products; and (b) Establishing and maintaining a water supply entity that has the technical expertise and resources to oversee and maintain the non- potable water supply system. (4) The availability of the proposed water supply will be sufficient for build- out of the proposed development by: (a) Establishing the applicant has, or has the ability to acquire, the necessary property rights and resources to build and operate the proposed non-potable water supply system; and (b) For lands to be served by tributary groundwater, establishing that the proposed use of the tributary groundwater is sustainable with evidence of assured supply for the lifetime of the development. (D) Decision. (1) Based upon the information provided by the applicant and developed by the City and any consultants, the Director shall issue all water adequacy determinations in writing including specific findings and shall either: (a) Approve the application finding that the proposed water supply is adequate; ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 139 (b) Approve the application with conditions finding the proposed water supply is adequate provided the conditions are met; or (c) Deny the application finding that the proposed water supply is inadequate. (2) The written determination shall be included in the plan set for the associated development application, if approved. The Director shall maintain a record of all non-privileged information developed to review the proposed water supply and proposed water supply system and that record shall become part of the associated development application. (3) The Director may impose conditions of approval that when met, as determined by the Director, will bring the proposed water supply into compliance with all applicable standards set forth in this Section, including conditions that the applicant acquire the required water right decrees and water contracts for the water supply system. No building permit may be issued until all conditions have been met. (4) The Director’s decision is not subject to appeal pursuant to the Land Use Code or Code of the City of Fort Collins. Section 4. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of the following ten definitions which read in their entirety as follows: Adequate shall mean a water supply that will be sufficient for build-out of the proposed development in terms of quality, quantity, dependability, and availability to provide a supply of water for the lifetime of the type of development proposed and may include reasonable conservation measures and water demand management measures to account for hydrologic variability. Established potable water supply entities shall mean the City of Fort Collins, the East Larimer County Water District, the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District, the Sunset Water District, and the West Fort Collins Water District. Non-potable water shall mean water that has not been treated to state and federal standards safe for human consumption, but can be placed to beneficial uses, including irrigation, dust suppression, toilet and urinal flushing, or make-up water for mechanical equipment. Non-potable water supply entities shall mean the water supply entities, either established potable water supply entities or other water supply entities that provide water that does not meet the state and federal standards for human consumption to developments for the beneficial uses of non-potable water. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 140 Other potable water supply entities shall mean the water supply entities other than the established potable water supply entities that provide potable water service, including new proposed water supplies. Potable water shall mean water, also known as drinking water, that is treated to levels which meet state and federal standards for human consumption. Water adequacy determination shall mean a determination whether the proposed water supply for a development is adequate. Water supply entity shall mean a municipality, county, special district, water conservancy district, water conservation district, water authority, or other public or private water supply entity that supplies, distributes, or otherwise provides water at retail. Water rights portfolio shall mean all rights to water, including water rights, contracts, and agreements associated with water supplies that are used to meet demands. A water rights portfolio that includes non-renewable or non-perpetual water supplies does not mean that the entire portfolio is not renewable and/or sustainable. Water supply system shall mean all infrastructure planned or used to divert and deliver water to a development. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading and ordered published this 16th day of May, 2023, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of June, 2023. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 6th day of June, 2023. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 141 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 142 1 Clay Frickey From:Sandra Bratlie <SBratlie@fclwd.com> Sent:Tuesday, July 18, 2023 12:04 PM To:Clay Frickey Cc:Chris Pletcher - Contact Subject:[EXTERNAL] Water Adequacy Determination - Comments Attachments:5_3_23 Redline changes.pdf Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Hi Clay, Thank you again for your Ɵme yesterday to hear our comments and concerns with the pending Water Adequacy DeterminaƟon code. Below is the ﬂow chart that illustrates our ideal workﬂow when development comes through the process. I’ve also aƩached a markup of exisƟng draŌ code with our comments. (Side note, I noƟced that your water adequacy website has an outdated draŌ published). As I menƟoned yesterday, we were very fortunate to provide feedback to DOLA’s county template through Abbye Neel <aneel@brendlegroup.com>, currently with Brendle Group. I recommend reaching out to her for their latest versions as I know that along with the County template they will be starting the municipal one shortly. Thanks! Sandra Bratlie, P.E. District Engineer ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 143 2 FORT COLLINS-LOVELAND WATER DISTRICT 5150 Snead Drive | Fort Collins, CO 80525 OFFICE: 970.226.3104 x 106 MOBILE: 970.786.5273 sbratlie@fclwd.com Please note upcoming PTO: Jul 24 through Aug 4 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 144 DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION Amend Section 3.7.3, Adequate Public Facilities Add Subsection (G): (G) Water Supply Adequacy. The determination required by Section 29‐20‐301, et seq., C.R.S., whether the proposed water supply for development is adequate is not addressed in this Section but is set forth in Division 3.13. Division 3.13 ‐ Water Adequacy Determinations Section 3.13.1 ‐ Purpose. The general purpose of this Division is to establish the standards and procedures by which the adequacy of proposed water supplies for development are reviewed and determined pursuant to Section 29‐20‐ 301, et seq., C.R.S. The specific purposes are to: (A) Fulfill the Colorado Revised Statutes Section 29‐20‐303(1) requirement that the City “shall not approve an application for a development permit unless it determines in its sole discretion, after considering the application and all of the information provided, that the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed water supply will be adequate.”; (B) Protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring that the water supplies for developments are adequate; (C) Ensure that growth and development in the City occur in a planned and coordinated manner; (D) Ensure that the City is provided with reliable information concerning the adequacy of developments’ proposed water supplies to inform the City, in the exercise of its discretion, in the approval of development applications and permits; (E) Promote safe, efficient, and economic use of public resources in developing and providing water; and (F) Ensure City participation in the review and approval of development plans that pass through and impact City residents, businesses, neighborhoods, property owners, and resources. Section 3.13.2 ‐ Applicability. This Division shall apply to all development, or redevelopment, that requires new, expanded, or increased water use, whether potable or non‐potable, within the incorporated municipal boundaries of the City. No such development or redevelopment shall be approved and allowed to proceed unless the Director has determined that the proposed water supply for the development or redevelopment is adequate. (A) Temporary non‐potable water supply systems to establish native vegetation are exempt from these requirements, if the term of use is three consecutive years or less and identified as such on an approved landscape plan. (B) Except as stated in Subsection 3.13.5(D), the modification of standards review set forth in Division 2.8 shall not apply to this Division 3.13. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 145 DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION Section 3.13.3 Application. (A) Application Timing. An applicant seeking a water adequacy determination shall file an application with the Director pursuant to this Division at the same time as submitting an application for final plan or basic development review, as outlined in Divisions 2.5 and 2.18, unless the application timing is altered pursuant to any of the following: (1) Upon written request at the time of application, the Director may defer the timing of an application for a water adequacy determination for potable or non‐potable water until submittal with a development construction permit (Division 2.6) if the Director determines such timing will not substantially interfere with or otherwise make it more difficult to determine whether the proposed water supply is adequate. (2) Upon written request at the time of application, the Director may defer the timing of an application for a water adequacy determination for potable water until submittal with a building permit (Division 2.7), if the provider is an established potable water supply entity and the Director determines such timing will not substantially interfere with or otherwise make it more difficult to determine whether the proposed water supply is adequate. (B) Separate Applications. The applicant shall file separate applications for water adequacy determinations for each portion of the development served by different water supply entities or water supply systems unless the Director determines separate applications are not required.that a single combined application can fully describe and provide needed information and be effectively analyzed. Subsequent sections in this Division provide distinctions in the evaluation process for established potable water supply entities, other potable water supply entities, and non‐potable water supply entities. (C) Material Changes. The City shall make a determination that a proposed water supply is adequate only once for each portion of a development served by a different potable or non‐ potable water supply entities or water supply systems during the development review process unless the water demands or supply of the portion of the development for which approval is sought are materially changed. The Director shall determine whether changes to the water demands or supply for any development or redevelopment are material and require a new water adequacy determination. The Director’s determination that a material change has occurred is not subject to appeal pursuant to the Land Use Code or Code of the City of Fort Collins. (D) Application After Director Denial. If the Director denies an application for a water adequacy determination, the applicant may submit another application at any time, subject to applicable fees, at any time that addresses the stated reason or reasons for denial. Section 3.13.4 ‐ Procedures and Standards for Water Adequacy Determinations: Established Potable Water Supply Entities (A) Application Requirements. (1) Requests under this Section shall include a letter as described in Subsection (a), unless exempted pursuant to Subsection (b). (a) A letter prepared by a registered professional engineer or by a water supply expert from the established potable water supply entity statingthat contains the following information: ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 146 DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 1. An estimate of the water supply requirements for the proposed development through build‐out conditions; 2. A description of the established potable water supply entity’s water supply system and the physical source(s) of water supply that will be used to serve the proposed development. If the proposed source(s) includes groundwater, this description must include water quality test results and results of an analysis into the potential impact on water treatment processes or the quality of delivered potable water; 3. An estimate of the amount of water yield projected from the proposed water supply system and water rights portfolio under various hydrologic conditions including long term variability and future climate risk; 4. Water conservation measures, if any, that may be implemented within the proposed development; 5.4. and, or water demand management measures, if any, that may be implemented to address hydrologic variationswithin the proposed development; 6.5. Results from analyses performed demonstrating the ability for the proposed water supply to meet demands of the proposed development under various hydrologic conditions; 7.6. An affidavit signed by the entity manager attesting that to the best of their knowledge the entity in compliance with all applicable regulations; and 8.7. Such other information as may be required by the Director in order to determine whether the proposed water supply will be adequate;. 9. Has been reviewed byAll letters shall be provided to City Council for informational purposes only and iskept on file with the City’s Community Development and Neighborhood Services Department; and . At the established potable water supply entity's discretion, the letter may describe their entire service area and be submitted for a determination once and updated as required based on any material changes to any of the requirements in this Section or in their reported supply as described in Subsection 3(C). If the letter describes the entire service area, then the entity does not need to resubmit the approved letter with each letter as outlined in Subsection (2) but should be referenced within the letter content in addition to what is outlined in Subsection (2). (b) The letter described in Subsection (a) shall not be required if the established potable water supply entity has a water supply plan, or other plans that cumulatively provide the information, that: 1. Has been reviewed and updated, if appropriate, within the previous ten years by the governing board of the established potable water supply entity; 2. Has a minimum twenty‐year planning horizon; 3. Lists the water conservation measures, if any, that may be implemented within the service area; 4. Lists the water demand management measures, if any, that may be implemented within the development or service area; 5. Includes a general description of the established potable water supply entity's water obligations;, such as a general description of customer demands and ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 147 DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION operational water delivery obligations, such as augmentation requirements and return flow obligations; 6. Includes a general description of the established potable water supply entity's water supplies;supply system and water rights portfolio; and 7. Includes an affidavit signed by the entity manager attesting that, to the best of their knowledge, the entity is in compliance with all applicable regulations; and. Has been reviewed by City Council and is All water supply plans, or other plans that cumulatively provide the information required above shall be provided to City Council for informational purposes only and kept on file with the City’s Community Development and Neighborhood Services Department. The Director may defer providing the Council review requirementwith any water supply plan or other plans until such time as the established potable water supply entity updates their existing water supply plan. Once the plan, or plans, are on file, they do not need to be resubmitted with each letter as outlined in Subsection (2) but should be referenced within the letter content in addition to what is outlined in Subsection (2). (2) Requests for a water adequacy determination for all or portions of a development to be served with potable water by an established potable water supply entity shall be in a form as required by the Director. Such requests shall include a letter prepared by a registered professional engineer or by a water supply expert from the established potable water supply entity: (a) Identifying the portions of a development to be served with potable water by the established potable water supply entity; (b) Stating its ability to provide an adequate water supply for the proposed development; (c) Stating it is willing to commit to provide an adequate water supply for the proposed development including any conditions of the commitment; and (d) Providing the length of time the letter is valid for, should the proposed development not occur immediately. (B) Review of Application. The Director shall promptly review the application and associated materials concurrently with the required Final Plan, Basic Development Review, Development Construction Permit, or Building Permit application. (C) Standards. To issue a determination that a proposed water supply is adequate under this Section, the Director must find that the statements in the application and associated materials are complete, correct, and reliable. (D) Decision. (1) Based upon the information provided by the applicant and developed by the City and any consultants, the Director shall issue all water adequacy determinations pursuant to this Section in writing including specific findings and shall either: (a) Approve the application finding that the proposed water supply is adequate; (b) Approve the application with conditions finding the proposed water supply is adequate provided the conditions are met; or (c) Deny the application finding that the proposed water supply is inadequate. (2) All water adequacy determinations shall become part of the plan set for the associated development application, if approved . The Director shall maintain a record of all ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 148 DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION information submitted or developed upon which any water adequacy decision was based, and that record shall become part of the associated development application. (3) The Director may impose conditions of approval that when met, as determined by the Director, will bring the proposed water supply into compliance with all applicable standards set forth in this Section. No building permit may be issued until all conditions have been met. (4) The Director’s decision is not subject to appeal pursuant to the Land Use Code or Code of the City of Fort Collins. Section 3.13.5 ‐ Procedures and Standards for Water Adequacy Determinations: Other Potable Water Supply Entities (A) Application Requirements for Other Potable Water Supply Entities. Applications for a water adequacy determination for all or portions of a development to be served with potable water by other potable water supply entities shall be in a form as required by the Director. Such applications shall include all of the following: (1) A summary document linking the information to the standard of review. (2) Report including information required under Section 29‐20‐304(1), C.R.S.: (a) An estimate of the water supply requirements for the proposed development through build‐out conditions; (b) A description of the established potable water supply entity’s water supply system and the physical source of water supply that will be used to serve the proposed development. This should include water quality test results and proposed methods of water treatment from a registered professional engineer; (c) A description of all elements of the water rights portfolio either owned or planned for acquisition required for proposed water supply; (d) An estimate of the amount of water yield projected from the proposed water supply under various hydrologic conditions; (e) Water demand management measures, if any, that may be implemented within the development to account for hydrologic variability; and (f) Description of all water conservation measures to be applied in the development and how they would be enforced and effectuated. (3) Financial documentation establishing that the proposed provider is able to create the proposed water supply system and maintain it in perpetuity. (4) A fee assessment describing the proposed water rates and fees for the new system and how those fees compare with those charged by the established potable water supply entities. This assessment should include consideration of any metro district, HOA, or other taxes or fees that are also uniquely applicable to the proposed development to be served by the other potable water supply entity. (5) Approval documentation from other regulatory agencies such as CDPHE. At the Director’s discretion, this information may substitute in whole or in part for the application requirements set forth in this Section. If additional approvals will be required, provide an explanation of how those approvals will be obtained, and at the Director’s discretion, the additional approvals may be required as conditions of approval. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 149 DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION (6) Detailed information on any proposed water treatment processes as well as how any waste products created from the treatment process will be properly disposed of. (7) Such other information as may be required by the Director in order to determine whether the proposed water supply will be adequate. (8) An other potable water supply entity with an approved ODP or PUD Overlay as outlined in Division 2.3 and Division 2.15 that includes the entire proposed service area, may at either the other potable water supply entity’s, or Director’s discretion, submit an application that describes their entire proposed service area once with the initial phase of development and then update the initial determination with a letter from a professional engineer for each subsequent phase with the information required in Section 3.13.4.(A) (2); or as required based on any material changes to: (a) Any of the requirements set forth in this Section; (b) The reported water supply as set forth in Section 3(C); or (c) The proposed development, as determined by the Director. (B) Review of Application. (1) Agreement on Costs. Prior to the City reviewing any application under this Section, the applicant shall agree in writing to reimburse the City for all costs associated with reviewing the application and associated materials, including costs associated with consultants hired to assist the Director’s review. No water adequacy determination shall be issued unless and until all such costs have been paid to the City. The fee assessed by the City shall not exceed the cost of the review and administration of the review process. (2) Review. (a) The Director shall review the materials provided by the applicant following the completion of the agreement identified in the previous Subsection. The time needed for the Director’s review shall be based on the complexity of the application, the proposed water supply, and proposed water supply system. (b) Following the submission of the application, the Director shall be entitled to require any such additional or supplemental information from the applicant as may be required to review and ensure compliance with all review criteria. (c) The review will be completed concurrently with the required Final Plan, Basic Development Review, Development Construction Permit, or any plan amendments as specified in Section 3. (C) Standards. To issue a water adequacy determination under this Section, the Director must find that the application and associated materials establish that: (1) The quality of the proposed potable water supply will be sufficient for build‐out of the proposed development by: (a) Providing potable water to the development of a quality that meets or exceeds all state and federal water quality standards; (b) Providing potable water to the development of a quality equal to or better than the quality of potable water provided by the City of Fort Collins as measured by appropriate water quality aspects ; and (c) Establishing and maintaining a water supply entity that has the technical expertise and resources to maintain the quality of the water supply for the lifetime of the development. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 150 DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION (2) The quantity of the proposed potable water supply will be sufficient for build‐out of the proposed development by: (a) Relying upon a renewable and/or sustainable physical supply of water, that takes into account any impacts if multiple users have rights to use water from a single source, such as an aquifer; (b) Having ability to acquire thea water rights or water contractsportfolio that provideprovides a permanent firm yield equal to or greater than the maximum assumed demand in all hydrological conditions, including a modeled one‐in‐fifty year drought, when taking into consideration reasonable transit and other losses and all applicable obligations, including augmentation requirements and return flow obligations; and (3) For lands to be served by tributary groundwater, establishing that the plan for augmentation will operate to provide a permanent firm yield equal to or greater than the maximum assumed demand in all hydrological conditions, including a modeled one‐in‐fifty year drought, when taking into consideration reasonable losses and all applicable obligations, including augmentation requirements and return flow obligations for the lifetime of the development. (4) The dependability of the proposed potable water supply will be sufficient for build‐out of the proposed development by: (a) Establishing that the water supply system includes sufficient redundancy equal to or better than the redundancy of the City of Fort Collins system; (b) If the water supply system includes a water treatment facility, demonstrate how the facility operators will ensure they have the technical expertise and resources to operate the treatment facility dependably and sustainably in a manner that is economical, safe, and that does not produce any harmful by‐products. ; (c) Establishing that the water supply system and water rights portfolio can operate during water supply shortages and emergencies, including infrastructure issues, natural disasters, and long‐term climate change; and (d) Establishing and maintaining a water supply entity that can oversee and maintain the water supply system and water rights portfolio for the lifetime of the development. (5) The availability of the proposed potable water supply will be sufficient for build‐out of the proposed development by: (a) Establishing the applicant has, or has the ability to acquire, the necessary property rights and resources to build and operate the proposed water supply system; (b) For lands to be served by tributary groundwater, establishing that the proposed use of the tributary groundwater is sustainable with evidence of assured supply for the lifetime of the development; and (c) For lands within the water service area of an established potable water supply entity, establishing that the lands to be served by the other potable water supply entities have been removed from the water service area of the established potable water supply entity; or the established potable water supply entity consents to the proposed service by the other potable water supply entity. The Director may, however, waive this requirement if an established potable water supply entity is incapable of providing a reasonable level of service to the proposed development. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 151 DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION (D) Modification of Standards. If a potable water supply entity cannot meet the Fort Collins Utility standards set forth above in Subsection 3.13.5(C), with the exception of 3.13.5(C)(5)(c) which shall not be subject to modification, then they may seek a modification of standards pursuant to Division 2.8 with the Director as the designated decision maker. In addition to the four standards set forth in Section 2.8.2(H) for granting a modification, the Director may also grant a modification if such modification would not be detrimental to the public good and the standard as modified is comparable to an existing standard already being employed by another established potable water supply entity. The Director’s decision regarding a requested modification of standards is not subject to appeal pursuant to the Land Use Code or Code of the City of Fort Collins. (E) Decision. (1) Based upon the information provided by the applicant and developed by the City and any consultants, the Director shall issue all water adequacy determinations in writing including specific findings and shall either: (a) Approve the application finding that the proposed water supply is adequate; (b) Approve the application with conditions finding the proposed water supply is adequate provided the conditions are met; or (c) Deny the application finding that the proposed water supply is inadequate. (2) All water adequacy determinations shall become part of the plan set for the associated development application, if approved. The Director shall maintain a record of all non‐ privileged information submitted or developed upon which the water adequacy determination was based for the proposed water supply and proposed water supply system, and that record shall become part of the associated development application. (3) The Director may impose conditions of approval that when met, as determined by the Director, will bring the proposed water supply into compliance with all applicable standards set forth in this Section, including conditions that the applicant acquire the required water right decrees and water contracts for the water supply system; and/or the applicant completing construction of all infrastructure for the water supply system. No building permit may be issued until all conditions have been met. (4) The Director’s decision is not subject to appeal pursuant to the Land Use Code or Code of the City of Fort Collins. (5) The Director shall require a disclosure, recorded by the Larimer County Clerk, to be provided at the time of all property sales or transfers that the water supply for the development is being provided by the approved entity. Section 3.13.6 ‐ Procedures and Standards for Water Adequacy Determinations: Non‐Potable Water Supply Entities (A) Application Requirements for Non‐Potable Water Supplies. Applications for a water adequacy determination for all or portions of a development to be served with untreatednon‐potable water shall include all of the following: (1) Summary document linking the information to the standard of review. (2) Report including information required under Section 29‐20‐304(1), C.R.S.: (a) An estimate of the water supply requirements for the proposed development through build‐out conditions; ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 152 DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION (b) A description of the water supply system and physical source of water supply that will be used to serve the proposed development. This description must include water quality test results and results of an analysis investigating any limitations of use due to poor quality; (c) A description of all elements of the water rights portfolio either owned or planned for acquisition , contracts, and/or IGAs required for the proposed water supply; (d) An estimate of the amount of water yield projected from each proposed water supply source under various hydrologic conditions. For surface water sources, this should include results of an analysis of historical temporal availability of the proposed supplies throughout the year, annual volumetric yield, and the frequency and flow rate of deliveries. For groundwater sources, this should include descriptions of the decreed place of use, flow rate, and annual volumetric limits, and their temporal availability of the proposed supplies throughout the year based on augmentation requirements; (e) Water demand management measures, if any, that may be implemented within the development to account for hydrologic variability; and (f) Description of all water conservation measures to be applied in the development and how they would be enforced and effectuated. At a minimum, smart controllers and flow meters are required per the Land Use Code. (3) Financial documentation showing that the proposed provider is able to create the proposed water supply system and maintain it in perpetuity. (4) A narrative describing how the entity plans to ensure compliance equal to or better than City water conservation requirements including those outlined in Division 3.2. (5) Approval documentation from other regulatory agencies, including the established potable water supply entity whose service area contains the proposed non‐potable system. At the Director’s discretion, this information may substitute in whole or in part for the application requirements set forth in this Section. (6) Such other information as may be required by the Director. (B) Review of Application. (1) Agreement on Costs. Prior to the City reviewing any application under this Section, the applicant shall agree in writing to reimburse the City for all costs associated with reviewing the application and associated materials, including costs associated with consultants hired to assist the Director’s review. No water adequacy determination shall be issued unless and until all such costs have been paid to the City. The fee assessed by the City shall not exceed the cost of the review and administration of the review process. (2) Review. (a) The Director shall review the materials provided by the applicant following the completion of the agreement identified in the previous Subsection. The length of the Director’s review shall be based on the complexity of the application, the proposed water supply, and proposed water supply system. (b) Following the submission of the application, the Director shall be entitled to require any such additional or supplemental information from the applicant as may be required for the Director’s review. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 153 DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION (c) Applications for water adequacy determinations for Non‐potable systems shall be submitted at the same time as Development Construction Permit for review. (C) Standards. To issue a water adequacy determination under this Section, the Director must find that the application and associated materials establish that: (1) The quality of the proposed non‐potable water supply will be sufficient for build‐out of the proposed development by providing non‐potable water to the development of a quality sufficient to meet all planned landscape needs and other intended non‐potable water uses shown in the approved landscape or utility plans; (2) The quantity of the proposed non‐potable water supply will be sufficient for build‐out of the proposed development by: (a) Relying upon a renewable and/or sustainable physical supply of water; (b) Having a water rights or water contractsportfolio that provideprovides a permanent firm yield equal to or greater than the maximum daily water requirement (accounting for typical conveyance and irrigation and other inefficiencies) under various hydrological conditions, including a modeled one‐in‐fifty year drought, when taking into consideration all applicable obligations, including augmentation requirements and return flow obligations; and (c) For lands to be served by tributary groundwater, establishing that the plan for augmentation will operate to provide a permanent firm yield equal to or greater than the maximum assumed demand under various hydrological conditions, including a modeled one‐in‐fifty year drought, when taking into consideration all applicable obligations, including augmentation requirements and return flow obligations. (3) The dependability of the proposed non‐potable water supply will be sufficient for build‐ out of the proposed development by: (a) If the non‐potable water supply system includes treatment, establishing that the treatment can and will operate sustainably in a manner that is economical, safe, and that does not produce any harmful by‐products; and (b) Establishing and maintaining a water supply entity that has the technical expertise and resources to oversee and maintain the non‐potable water supply system. (4) The availability of the proposed water supply will be sufficient for build‐out of the proposed development by: (a) Establishing the applicant has, or has the ability to acquire, the necessary property rights and resources to build and operate the proposed non‐potable water supply system; and (b) For lands to be served by tributary groundwater, establishing that the proposed use of the tributary groundwater is sustainable with evidence of assured supply for the lifetime of the development. (D) Decision. (1) Based upon the information provided by the applicant and developed by the City and any consultants, the Director shall issue all water adequacy determinations in writing including specific findings and shall either: (a) Approve the application finding that the proposed water supply is adequate; ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 154 DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION (b) Approve the application with conditions finding the proposed water supply is adequate provided the conditions are met; or (c) Deny the application finding that the proposed water supply is inadequate. (2) The written determination shall be included in the plan set for the associated development application, if approved. The Director shall maintain a record of all non‐privileged information developed to review the proposed water supply and proposed water supply system and that record shall become part of the associated development application. (3) The Director may impose conditions of approval that when met, as determined by the Director, will bring the proposed water supply into compliance with all applicable standards set forth in this Section, including conditions that the applicant acquire the required water right decrees and water contracts for the water supply system. No building permit may be issued until all conditions have been met. (4) The Director’s decision is not subject to appeal pursuant to the Land Use Code or Code of the City of Fort Collins. Water Adequacy Determination Definitions to Place in LUC Art. 5 Adequate shall mean a water supply that will be sufficient for build‐out of the proposed development in terms of quality, quantity, dependability, and availability to provide a supply of water for the lifetime of the type of development proposed and may include reasonable conservation measures and water demand management measures to account for hydrologic variability. Established potable water supply entities shall mean the City of Fort Collins, the East Larimer County Water District, the Fort Collins‐Loveland Water District, the Sunset Water District, and the West Fort Collins Water District. Non‐potable water shall mean water that has not been treated to state and federal standards safe for human consumption, but can be placed to beneficial uses, including irrigation, dust suppression, toilet and urinal flushing, or make‐up water for mechanical equipment. Non‐potable water supply entities shall mean the water supply entities, either established potable water supply entities or other water supply entities that provide water that does not meet the state and federal standards for human consumption to developments for the beneficial uses of non‐potable water. Other potable water supply entities shall mean the water supply entities other than the established potable water supply entities that provide potable water service, including new proposed water supplies. Potable water shall mean water, also known as drinking water, that is treated to levels which meet state and federal standards for human consumption. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 155 DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION Water adequacy determination shall mean a determination whether the proposed water supply for a development is adequate. Water supply entity shall mean a municipality, county, special district, water conservancy district, water conservation district, water authority, or other public or private water supply entity that, at the time of the application, or within three years of application, supplies, distributes, or otherwise provides water at retail. Water rights portfolio shall mean all rights to water, including water rights, contracts, and agreements associated with water supplies that are used to meet demands. A water rights portfolio that includes non‐renewable or non‐perpetual water supplies does not mean that the entire portfolio is not renewable and/or sustainable. Water supply system shall mean all infrastructure planned or used to divert and deliver water to a development. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 156 1 Clay Frickey From:max moss <max@montava.com> Sent:Monday, July 3, 2023 11:26 AM To:Clay Frickey Subject:[EXTERNAL] WAD Attachments:Revised Water Adequacy Presentation -- 7-3-2023 copy.docx Clay, For our call later today please see this that we put together with Steve. Our first opinion is the city has all they currently need to make the decisions in front of them without a 12 page addition to the code. Our second position is if you really really want to add something, the small addition we suggested in #2 completely covers you. Although we really really don’t think you need to do this 12 page document that adds all kinds of pain to the process for everyone, the remaining issues of concern are listed. Max Moss 430 N College Ave. Suite 410 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Cell# 512‐507‐5570 www.montava.com ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 157 WATER ADEQUACY New water adequacy code provisions is overly complicated and probably not necessary. 1. The City already has broad authority to ensure the “acquisition of sufficient water rights as the City grows and develops” and to ensure the “safe and efficient delivery of water to City residents and other water users.” Ch. 26, Article III, § 26-42. • That can be construed as allowing the City to ensure sufficient water rights exist for all new development within the City. 2. But if the City wants a code provision that applies more specifically to the Montava situation, where the City is not currently planning on extending service and where the property is located in an existing district – the City already has a code provision directly on point that could be modified by a sentence or two: If a property located within the City is in an area not supplied with both water and wastewater service from the City but is capable of receiving both water and wastewater service from the one (1) or more duly established quasi-municipal utility service districts, then the City shall not extend or provide either service to the property. The City may, however, extend either or both services to such property if the utility service district is or becomes incapable of providing a reasonable level of service to the property for the proposed development. If a developer proposes alternative water supplies (potable and/or non-potable) for such property that do not rely upon the existing district, the City through its Utilities Executive Director shall review the adequacy of such water supplies consistent with C.R.S. § 29-20-301, et. seq., based upon all available relevant information, and either approve it, approve it subject to conditions, or deny it. Upon the review of the Water Board and the City administration, the City Council may waive any part or all of this Section. Ch. 26, Article I § 26-4 • This would expressly authorize the water adequacy review but allow flexibility to consider all available information. 3. If the City still wants the separate 12-page addition to its code to examine water adequacy – we have several comments that we would like you to consider: A. In the Procedures and Standards for Water Adequacy Determination for Other Potable Water Supply Entities, we have two suggested changes: 3.13.5(A)(4) “A fee assessment describing the proposed water rates and fees for the new system and how those fees compare with those charged by the established potable water supply entities. This assessment should include consideration of any metro district, HOA, or other taxes or fees ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 158 to the extent that are also uniquely applicable to providing the proposed water service development to be served by the other potable water supply entity.” • An HOA or metro district may exist regardless of who supplies water. Since the purpose of this provision is to assess and compare the true costs of the water service being provided by other potable water supply entities, this provision should apply only to HOAs or metro districts to the extent uniquely applicable to the water service that will be provided. The City should compare apples to apples. 3.13.5(C)(5)(c): “For lands within the water service area of an established potable water supply entity, and if required by Colorado law, establishing that the lands to be served by the other potable water supply entities have been removed from the water service area of the established potable water supply entity; or the established potable water supply entity consents to the proposed service by the other potable water supply entity. The Director may, however, waive this requirement if an established potable water supply entity is incapable of providing a reasonable level of service to the proposed development.” • As currently written, if an existing district will not consent to the proposed service and will not exclude the land, then that existing district will control development within the City by controlling the water supply for that development. That should only occur where it is required by Colorado law. As written, the code would give existing districts that legal authority where they wouldn’t otherwise have it. B. In the P rocedures and Standards for Water Adequacy Determinations for Non-Potable Supply Entities, we have one suggested change: 3.13.6(A)(5): “Approval documentation from other regulatory agencies, including the established potable water supply entity whose service area contains the proposed non-potable system if such approval is required by Colorado law. At the Director’s discretion, this information may substitute in whole or in part for the application requirements set forth in this Section. The Director may, however, waive this requirement if an established potable water supply entity is incapable of providing a reasonable level of service to the proposed development.” • These changes (1) ensure approval by the existing district is only required by the City when required by law; and (2) retains the City’s existing authority under the code to assess the reasonableness of the established district’s service and is identical to the last sentence already in 3.13.5(C)(5)(c). ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 159 From:Eric Potyondy To:Ted Shepard Cc:Paul S. Sizemore; Clay Frickey; Aaron Guin; Jenny Axmacher; Brad Yatabe Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Fwd: Housing Priority Group meeting Friday 8:30 - 10:00 Date:Tuesday, May 16, 2023 7:17:39 PM Attachments:image001.png Hi Ted, I appreciate the discussion. As a general matter, I do not think it is safe to assume that the actions and decisions of local governments are unappealable. In our legal system in this country, very few governmental actions are immune from a potential review by the courts, either as an appeal or as another type of legal challenge, with local government actions not really being the type that get a free pass. (Issues like the federal government’s foreign policy decisions are the types of things are unlikely to be reviewed by courts.) For instance, Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure (C.R.C.P.) 106 provides express authority for state district courts to review actions taken by local governments (including municipalities and special districts). Actions and decisions of local governments can also be challenged by lawsuits brought under other legal authorities, like declaratory judgment actions (C.R.C.P. 57), claims that a local government violated a statute or regulations (including its own), breach of contract actions, or tort claims. It is generally true that special districts are independent, local governments. However, they are subject to numerous state laws and regulations, and are not free from potential review by the courts. Eric Ryan Potyondy Water Attorney (Assistant City Attorney) Fort Collins City Attorney’s Office 300 LaPorte Avenue (P.O. Box 580) Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 (80522) (office) 970-416-2126 (cell) 970-371-5610 epotyondy@fcgov.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments may contain confidential attorney-client information intended for City use only, may be confidential or privileged and are protected under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. §§2510-2521). Disclosure of the contents of this email to unauthorized persons is prohibited. Do not forward this email or any attachments to persons outside the City organization or to officers or employees of the City whose duties are unrelated to the subject matter of this email. This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity recipients named above. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. From: Ted Shepard <tshepard533@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 5:23 PM To: Eric Potyondy <epotyondy@fcgov.com> Cc: Paul S. Sizemore <psizemore@fcgov.com>; Clay Frickey <cfrickey@fcgov.com>; Aaron Guin <aguin@fcgov.com>; Jenny Axmacher <jaxmacher@fcgov.com>; Brad Yatabe <byatabe@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Fwd: Housing Priority Group meeting Friday 8:30 - 10:00 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 160 Eric, Thank you for your prompt response. I can see by your message and the attachments that with regard to an exclusion issue, a special district board decision is appealable to the BCC. I wish this was made more clear at the hearing that the appeal provision applies only to the exclusion of property issue. At the hearing, my question was not specific to property exclusion but more in general and I should have made this clear. In other words, I am now assuming that not all special district board decisions are appealable. For example, if a special district water provider decides not to serve a property (or properties) for whatever reason, the affected property owners cannot appeal this decision to the BCC. Their only recourse would be to petition out of the district per the statutes that you attached. Is my understanding correct? Again, thanks for all your help, Ted On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 2:13ථPM Eric Potyondy <epotyondy@fcgov.com> wrote: Hi Ted, Please see the attached C.R.S. § 32-1-501 (Exclusion of property by fee owners or board – procedure). C.R.S. § 32-1-501(1) through -(4) describes exclusion procedures before the board of the special district. C.R.S. § 32-1-501(5)(b)(1) states that “Any petition that is denied or resolution that is finally adopted may be appealed to the board of county commissioners of the county in which the special district’s petition for organization was filed for review of the board’s decision.” (Underlining added). C.R.S. § 32-1-501(5)(c)(1) states that: “Any decision of the board of county commissioners may be appealed for review to the district court of the county which has jurisdiction of the special district pursuant to section 32-1-303 within thirty days of such board’s decision.” I believe that this is the statutory section to which FCLWD and ELCO were referring. The attached C.R.S. § 32-1-502 (Exclusion of property within municipality - procedure) also describes a separate set of procedures pursuant to which, in certain circumstances, a court may order the exclusion of land from a special district. Perhaps County staff is not aware of C.R.S. § 32-1-501, as these procedures may not be commonly invoked. Eric Ryan Potyondy ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 161 Water Attorney (Assistant City Attorney) Fort Collins City Attorney’s Office 300 LaPorte Avenue (P.O. Box 580) Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 (80522) (office) 970-416-2126 (cell) 970-371-5610 epotyondy@fcgov.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments may contain confidential attorney-client information intended for City use only, may be confidential or privileged and are protected under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. §§2510-2521). Disclosure of the contents of this email to unauthorized persons is prohibited. Do not forward this email or any attachments to persons outside the City organization or to officers or employees of the City whose duties are unrelated to the subject matter of this email. This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity recipients named above. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. From: Ted Shepard <tshepard533@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2023 1:53 PM To: Paul S. Sizemore <psizemore@fcgov.com>; Clay Frickey <cfrickey@fcgov.com>; Aaron Guin <aguin@fcgov.com>; Eric Potyondy <epotyondy@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Housing Priority Group meeting Friday 8:30 - 10:00 All, You may not be aware that I also volunteer on the Housing Sub-committee of the Partnership for Age-Friendly Communities. At our monthly meeting last Friday, Laurie Kadrich, assistant County Manager, presented on the topic of Larimer County acting as a convener of water providers in Larimer County as a forum to address a variety of topics. I asked Laurie about the testimony from the two managers of Elco and the FCLWD. Please see the response from the County Attorney's Office. I'm forwarding this message because I'm concerned that P & Z received misleading information during our hearing on amending the Land Use Code regarding water supply standards. At our special hearing on April 26, 2023, the two managers of the Elco and FCLWD informed the Commision that if a party disagreed with a Special District Board decision, that party would then have the ability to appeal the decision to the Board of County Commissioners. This turns out to be incorrect. I think it's important that the entire Commission receive this information. When this item comes back to P & Z, could we get a memo that clarifies this? Thanks, Ted ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 162 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Alea Rodriguez <rodrigal@co.larimer.co.us> Date: Mon, May 15, 2023 at 12:15ථPM Subject: Re: Housing Priority Group meeting Friday 8:30 - 10:00 To: Sue Ballou <sueballou@yahoo.com> Cc: Diane Cohn <cohndm@gmail.com>, Sue Beck-Ferkiss <sbeckferkiss@fcgov.com>, Ted Shepard <tshepard533@gmail.com>, Blake Chambliss <blake.chambliss@pinkardcc.com>, Alan Kress <utoalan@gmail.com>, Nancy Luttropp <nancyluttropp@gmail.com>, Katy Mason <yo_masons@hotmail.com>, Michele Christensen <mchristensen@housingcatalyst.com>, Andy Goldman <andy.goldman@hotmail.com>, Bill Swalling <bill@actuallp.com>, Karrie Hatfield <hatfield.karrie@gmail.com>, Roberto Rey <rrey@aarp.org>, Elicia Ratajczyk <elicia.ratajczyk@colostate.edu>, Lorye McLeod <ed@pafclarimer.org>, Trish Warner <trishwarner27@gmail.com>, Claire Bouchard <claire@nocofoundation.org>, Sam Betters <sbetters@comcast.net> Hello Housing Priority Group, I am following up on Ted's question to Laurie during the meeting on Friday. She reached out to our County attorney and received the following reply: No, a water district is a quasi-municipal entity (basically a "mini" local government of its own) and the BCC does not have oversight or review authority over water district decisions. Please let me know if you all have any follow up questions for her and I would be happy to relay them. thanks, Alea Rodriguez (she/her) Housing Stability Program Manager 200 West Oak Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 (970) 498-7148 On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 4:49ථPM Sue Ballou <sueballou@yahoo.com> wrote: Hello friends, ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 163 The next Housing Priority Group is this Friday, May 12 from 8:30 - 10:00 via Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85620936829? pwd=MHA0UjZCWkF1QzZ4TE9GSGpzbkQ0UT09 As usual, it's a busy meeting. Laurie Kadrich, Assistant County Manager will join us to talk about water issues in the County and then Ian Shuff from Alm2s architects will talk about the 4 plex he's trying to build in Old Town. Not to mention the other things we've been working on. Also, think about if we could move to quarterly meetings in person and if we do, whether they should be at this time or combined with a happy hour, like we did in September. I miss you all. As always, please let me know if you can't come. Call or text my cell if you can't get on the Zoom link (phone number below). Sue ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 164 Water Adequacy Determination ReviewLand Use Code UpdateITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 165 2Introduction• Water is a critical resource and its cost and availably impact new development• Existing review process • Need for a more robust process • More complicated development • Potential for creation of new water providersITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 166 • Water Adequacy Determination Review Program supports the goals of •City Plan• Housing Strategic Plan • Climate Action Plan• Viewed as a tool kit to look at water affordability and support sustainable development patterns• Neighborhood Livability & Social Health - 1.6 - Align land use regulations and review procedures to guide development consistent with City Plan.3Plan AlignmentITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 167 4Project TimelinePlanning & Zoning CommissionCity CouncilCity Council Work SessionPlanning & Zoning CommissionCity CouncilApril 26, 2023May 16, 2023June 6, 2023 August 17, 2023Fall 2023ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 168 5RequirementThis review process is being proposed to further effectuate Section 29-20-301, et seq., C.R.S. which states: A local government shall not approve an application for a development permit unless it determines in its sole discretion, after considering the application and all of the information provided, that the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed water supply will be adequate. A local government shall make such determination only once during the development permit approval process unless the water demands or supply of the specific project for which the development permit is sought are materially changed. A local government shall have the discretion to determine the stage in the development permit approval process at which such determination is made.ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 169 Current Process• Development occurs within the district boundaries of existing water providers• Will Serve Letter issued by provider• Part of the building permit process6ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 170 7Other Agencies• Other Agency Review• Other agencies have the authority to review new providers• CDPHE • Requires public water systems demonstrate adequate capacity to construct, operate and manage the new public waterworks.• Water Court• There is also likely a role for Water Court to plan in validating claims for water under Colorado Law.ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 171 8Code Update Structure• Water Adequacy is a new code division, 3.13 that builds off existing adequate public facilities section 3.7.3.• Creates 3 determination processes for different providers:• Established potable water supply entities, such as Fort Collins-Loveland Water District and East Larimer County Water District• Other potable water supply entities such as new private water supplies or metro districts• Non-potable water supply entities, such as irrigation water supplied by metro districtsITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 172 9Timing and Approval Authority• Timing• The state statute leaves the determination timing during the development process up to the purview of the local jurisdiction however they limit making the determination to only once unless something materially changes. • The draft code identifies the milestone in the development review process when this determination will be made for each of the three different processes.• Approval• The determination of adequacy would be made administratively subject to a review and recommendation by a qualified water consultant. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 173 10Timing of Water Adequacy DeterminationPre-ApplicationProject Development PlanFinal Plan/Basic Development ReviewRecordationBuilding PermitInspections & CompletionITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 174 11Proposed Evaluation Process – Existing Providers• Keep similar process for existing providers• Will Serve Letter• Director can differ timing to building permit for review• Director as the decision maker• Includes opportunities to • Review proposed updates to water supply plans by Council• Improve letters • Increase consistency between different providersITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 175 12Proposed Evaluation Process – New Providers• Evaluation criteria for new providers• Water Quality• Quantity of Water• Dependability of Supply and Supplier• Supply Resiliency• System Redundancy• Maintenance and Outages• Availability of Supply• Financial Sustainability of Supplier• CapitalizationITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 176 13Proposed Evaluation Process – New Providers• Overall Standards Equivalent to Municipal Utility• Allows for a Modification of Standard for noncompliance• Review Timing• At the time of Final Development Plan or Basic Development Review• Initial review anticipated to be done by a consultant• Cost agreement with applicant• Final decision maker is CDNS DirectorITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 177 14Non-potable Water Supply Entities• Non-potable Entities• Criteria:• Supply has enough quantity and; • Quality to support the associated uses such as irrigation for landscape.• Review Timing• At the time of Development Construction Permit• Initial review anticipated to be done by a consultant• Cost agreement with applicant• Final decision maker is CDNS DirectorITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 178 15Additional Code Updates• Article Five, Division 5.1.2 – Definitions• The proposed change to Division 5.1.2 is to add the following definitions that relate to the water adequacy determination review process and provide additional clarity on specific terms used in that section. • Adequate• Established Potable Water Supply Entities• Non-Potable Water • Non-Potable Water Supply • Other Potable Water Supply Entities • Potable Water• Water Adequacy Determination • Water supply entity • Water supply systemITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 179 16Stakeholder Feedback• Stakeholder Meetings:• Water Commission• West Fort Collins Water District• East Larimer County Water District• Fort Collins Loveland Water District• Hartford Homes/Bloom• HF2M/Montava• Polestar Gardens/Polestar Village• Additional Feedback (no concerns):• Sunset Water District• Save the PoudreITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 180 17Feedback and Updates Since City Council Work Session• Disagreement on the ability for established potable water supply entities to veto new potable water supply entities• Updates to the Code to increase clarity• Consistency with State statute• Provision of water supply plans by existing water potable water supply entities is purely informational (i.e., City Council will not “approve” water supply plans of existing water providers)• Suggestions on how to achieve outcomes of State statutory requirements without implementing Water Adequacy Determination Review processITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 181 18Exclusion Process/Appeal Process• Water district board considers exclusions• 8 criteria for exclusions-Best interest of stakeholders-Cost/benefit-Ability of district to provide service-Economic impact-Feasibility of alternative service• Decisions by special districts appealable to County Commissioners• Decisions by County Commissioners appealable to District Court• Decisions by District Court appealable to Appeals CourtITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 182 19RecommendationStaff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend City Council adopt the Water Adequacy Determination Code amendments.ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 183