HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/21/2024 - Planning and Zoning Commission - AGENDA - Regular MeetingPlanning and Zoning Commission Page 1 November 21, 2024
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
November 21, 2024
6:00 PM
Julie Stackhouse, Chair City Council Chambers - City Hall West
Adam Sass, Vice Chair 300 Laporte Avenue
Russell Connelly Fort Collins, Colorado
David Katz
Shirley Peel Virtual (Zoom or Telephone)
Ted Shepard Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 on Connexion &
York Channels 14 & 881 on Comcast
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/98398577193 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 November 21, 2024. 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 November 21, 2024
• 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: 983 9857 7193.
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 mmatsunaka@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 mmatsunaka@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 devreviewcomments@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 November 21, 2024
1. Draft Minutes for the P&Z August 28, 2024, Extra Hearing
The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes of the August 28, 2024, Planning and Zoning
Commission hearing.
2. Draft Minutes for the P&Z September 19, 2024, Regular Hearing
The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes of the September 19 , 2024, Planning and Zoning
Commission hearing.
3. Three-Mile 2024 Update
This is a request for a recommendation to City Council adopting the 2024 Update to the Three-Mile Plan.
The Three-Mile Plan is a reference document of approved plans and policies describing infrastructure,
land use planning, and provision of services for areas of potential annexation within three miles of the
municipal boundary. The Plan is required per Colorado Revised Statues Section 31-12-105 and is
updated annually to reflect new or revised plans and policies.
• DISCUSSION AGENDA
Liberty Common Junior High, SPA24002
This is a request to convert an office into a charter school at 1825 Sharp
Point, (parcel #s 8720105004). The applicant is proposing an interior
remodel of the existing building to a charter school. There are
anticipated future phases. Access is taken from Riverbend Ct. The
o to the Planning and Zoning Commission for
OWNER:
900 S Taft Hill Rd. #1227
80521
APPLICANT:
David Kasprzak
Loveland, CO 80537
STAFF ASSIGNED:
Packet Pg. 3
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 4 November 21, 2024
5. Land Use Code Update: State Requirements for Accessory Dwelling Units and Parking
Regulations
This is a request for a Recommendation to the City Council regarding an
update to the Land Use Code. There are proposed revisions,
clarifications, and organizations to the Code that address specific areas
that are the subject of two State House Bills passed earlier this year.
HB24-1152 requires the ability to build an ADU in more areas of the city,
-1304 removes the minimum parking requirements for new
-unit and residential mixed-
-up to the code are also included.
City of Fort Collins
300 Laporte Ave
Fort Collins, CO 80524
STAFF ASSIGNED:
• OTHER BUSINESS
• ADJOURNMENT
Packet Pg. 4
Agenda Item 1
Item 1, Page 1
Planning and Zoning Commission
STAFF
Melissa Matsunaka, Sr. Project Coordinator
SUBJECT
MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 28, 2024 P&Z HEARING
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is the consideration and approval of the draft minutes of the August 28, 2024 Planning
& Zoning Commission hearing.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft August 28, 2024 P&Z Minutes
Packet Pg. 5
Julie Stackhouse, Chair Virtual Hearing
Adam Sass, Vice Chair City Council Chambers
Russell Connelly 300 Laporte Avenue
David Katz Fort Collins, Colorado
Shirley Peel Spanish Interpretation Available
Ted Shepard 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.
Special Hearing
August 28, 2024
Chair Stackhouse called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Katz, Stackhouse, Connelly, Peel, York, Shepard
Absent: Sass
Staff Present: Yatabe, Frickey, Mapes, Matsunaka, Myler, Escalante, Swoboda, Hill
Chair Stackhouse provided background on the Commission’s role and what the audience could expect as to the
order of business. She described the role of the Commission and 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. She noted that
this is a legal hearing, and that she will moderate for civility and fairness.
Agenda Review
Planning Manager Clay Frickey reviewed the item on the Discussion agenda.
Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda
Michele Pullaro, Old Town business owner, expressed concern about homeless individuals loitering in her entryway
and near her store for days and weeks at a time.
Planning and Zoning
Commission Minutes
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
DRA
F
T
Packet Pg. 6
Planning & Zoning Commission
August 28, 2024
Page 2 of 8
Discussion Agenda:
1. Fort Collins Rescue Mission
This is a proposed combined Project Development Plan/Final
Development Plan for development of a homeless shelter located at
Hibdon Court and the existing access drive north of Hickory Street, one
block west of North College Avenue. Parcel #’s 9702100918 and
9702100007.
PROPERTY OWNER:
APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE:
STAFF ASSIGNED:
Recommendation: Approval
Chair Stackhouse outlined the order of procedure for the hearing.
Staff Presentation
Clark Mapes, City Planner, discussed the project location noting it is within the Service Commercial, CS, zone
district.
Applicant Presentation
Claire Havelda, land use attorney with Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber, and Schreck, discussed the role of the Fort
Collins Rescue Mission in the community and showed a video of firsthand accounts from members of the
community who have been assisted by the Mission. Havelda went on to discuss the housing crisis in Fort Collins,
part of which is homelessness, and noted the property is one of only a few in the city that is zoned for the shelter
use. Havelda also stated the project meets all applicable Land Use Code criteria.
Seth Forwood, Fort Collins Rescue Mission, discussed the two reports issued by the Homelessness Advisory
Committee’s two iterations, both of which listed 24/7 men’s sheltering as the top priority. Forwood discussed the
proposal for a more trauma-informed program with a housing focus for the shelter, which will include 250 beds, and
will eliminate the need for a seasonal overflow shelter to operate during the winter months.
Forwood discussed other recommendations of the Homelessness Advisory Committee for the shelter, including
access to transit, walkability, on-site behavioral health support, commercial kitchen, laundry, shower facilities,
adequate parking for staff, and adequate bicycle parking. Forwood discussed how the proposed location was
determined and outlined the neighborhood outreach process that occurred once the site was selected, including
two neighborhood meetings, one of which was offered with full Spanish translation services. Forwood noted
individual meetings were held with directly adjacent neighbors to help inform the design of the facility.
Forwood discussed the operations of the existing shelter at Jefferson and Linden, noting it is a low-barrier shelter;
therefore, those under the influence of drugs or alcohol may be accepted in, though no drugs or alcohol are allowed
in the building. Forwood commented on the close working relationship the shelter has with Police Services and
noted the shelter switched to 24/7 operations to help with eliminating loitering outside the shelter building.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
DRA
F
T
Packet Pg. 7
Planning & Zoning Commission
August 28, 2024
Page 3 of 8
Klara Rossouw, Ripley Design, discussed the advantages of the proposed location and noted the future Hickory
regional pond will exist to the west and south of the site providing a significant buffer to the community to the west.
Rossouw provided additional details about the design and layout of the building, landscaping, fencing, and parking.
Additionally, Rossouw outlined the ways in which the proposal meets applicable Land Use Code standards and
discussed how the building’s architecture and materiality fits within the area.
Havelda commented on the project’s compliance with City Code, the Housing Strategic Plan, the North College
Corridor Plan, and the Land Use Code.
Staff Analysis
Mapes noted there is a previously approved infrastructure plan for the area which will support the shelter. He stated
staff’s review of the proposal showed no notable concerns or issues in terms of compliance with applicable
standards. Mapes noted much of the neighborhood concern has been around compatibility, which is considered
from both physical and operational perspectives, and stated staff was unable to find that those standards are not
met with this proposal.
Commission Questions
Commissioner Shepard asked if Mason Street will be fully improved all the way south to Hickory. Mapes replied
the approved plan shows the construction of Mason Street to the property line as well as acquisition of right-of-way
for a future connection to Hickory.
Commissioner Katz asked how the shelter enforces its no drug and alcohol policy. Forwood replied all guests are
informed of the expectations frequently, and any individual who refuses to surrender any drugs or alcohol or who
repeatedly violates the rule is asked to leave. Forwood noted the partnership with Police Services is important in
the instances wherein an escalation might occur.
Commissioner Katz asked if it is appropriate to consider Land Use Code Section 1.7.1 which involves compatibility
with City Code, including nuisances. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe replied there is a tenuous relationship between
a potential offense and the Land Use Code.
Commissioner Peel asked about the entryway lighting, noting it seems similar to that at the Behavioral Health
building, which has become an issue for neighbors. Rossouw replied that the amount of light spillage is limited.
Sam Severance, Shopworks Architecture, noted a compliant photometric plan was submitted and that the entryway
to the building is tucked back to help collect some of that lighting.
Commissioner Peel asked if staff always reviews projects for compatibility based on the physical structure and not
on social and economic factors. Frickey replied that the main focus of the compatibility section of the Land Use
Code is physical compatibility and social and economic factors are not typically considered.
Commissioner Peel asked how much the Commission should be considering compatibility or compliance with the
North College Corridor Plan, given the recent court ruling from the Sanctuary on the Green appeal. Frickey noted
the court order said the Hearing Officer needed to make findings of fact related to compliance and consistency with
the Northwest Subarea Plan and did not make a ruling as to whether the plan was consistent with the Northwest
Subarea Plan. Mapes stated compliance is the wrong concept when considering City Plan and associated subarea
plans; they contain more policy direction used to inform staff’s evaluation and interpretation of standards.
Assistant City Attorney Yatabe stated the interpretation of the court order is that adopted subarea plans do need to
be complied with, though primacy is given to the Land Use Code.
Commissioner Peel asked the applicant to address compliance with the North College Corridor Plan. Rossouw
stated there are seven goals in that Plan, and the applicant believes they meet five of those, including a more
complete street network, community appearance and design, and land uses and activity. In terms of the financing
and administrative aspect of the North College Corridor Plan, Rossouw stated the project helps to solve
infrastructure deficiencies in the area.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
DRA
F
T
Packet Pg. 8
Planning & Zoning Commission
August 28, 2024
Page 4 of 8
Havelda acknowledged the project’s case is a bit weaker in terms of generating economic revenue; however, that
does not make it non-compliant with the North College Corridor Plan.
Commissioner Peel asked about having a concentration of non-profits in an area and whether that would have an
impact on the financial base in terms of URA plans and the like. Frickey replied it is difficult to assess how
concentration of a certain type of business would impact the tax base; therefore, staff tends not to utilize it as part
of its analysis. Frickey noted there is a similar argument for concentration of affordable housing as well.
Mapes stated no project can completely comply with all components of the North College Corridor Plan and noted
no good mechanism has been identified to prevent the location of additional agencies or facilities within the North
College corridor.
Assistant City Attorney Yatabe noted the subarea plans were not drafted in the same manner as Land Use Code
standards and are generally more aspirational in nature; therefore, they are subject to more interpretation in what
could be viewed as compliance. Additionally, he stated he has consistently advised that the economic impact of
one particular development is not under consideration for the Commission or the Land Use Code.
Commissioner York asked where the loading dock is located. Rossouw pointed it out on the site plan noting it is
east of courtyard three and the parking is to the south.
Commissioner York asked about the material for the six-foot security fences. Rossouw replied there are two
different styles of fences, the six-foot privacy fence is along the property line to the north and will be wood cedar,
and the security fence will be a metal fence.
Commissioner York asked about bicycle parking and whether additional spaces, if needed, could be
accommodated on site. Rossouw replied it was determined that 40 spaces would be adequate at this time;
however, the Mission would work with staff to find an appropriate location on site if additional spaces are needed.
Commissioner York asked about the distance to a northbound bus stop. Mapes replied that is a fundamental issue
with North College and there is a quarter- to half-mile distance between crossings all along the corridor.
Commissioner Shepard asked about panic hardware and cameras. Severance replied there will be panic hardware
at all exits and there are more than 70 cameras planned covering the inside and outside of the building.
Commissioner Shepard asked if there will be a pull-out on Mason Street that would get vehicles out of the through
lane. Rossouw replied in the affirmative.
Commissioner Peel asked if individuals experiencing homelessness who may be living out of their cars would be
allowed to park on site. Forwood replied that the parking lot will be designated for staff, volunteers, and people
utilizing the building only.
Chair Stackhouse asked if the existing shelter at Jefferson and Linden would be closed if this shelter is approved.
Forwood replied in the affirmative.
Chair Stackhouse asked if the winter overflow shelter will continue to be needed if this shelter is approved.
Forwood replied in the negative.
Chair Stackhouse requested input from Police Services regarding issues with shelters in the past. Police Chief
Swoboda replied that the Police Department is equipped to handle any type of call in the city. Sargent Annie Hill
commented on the good relationship the Mission has with Police Services and outlined how trespassing issues
would be handled, but noted the existing shelter does not have to be regularly patrolled and officers only respond to
issues there about twice weekly.
Commissioner Katz asked if a larger shelter is expected to attract more transients to the community. Chief
Swoboda replied that the word will get out to the community that the police will not tolerate illegal behavior and will
address the issues.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
DRA
F
T
Packet Pg. 9
Planning & Zoning Commission
August 28, 2024
Page 5 of 8
(**Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Public Comment
Adela Gonzales opposed the proposal, stating the use is out of character with the existing neighborhood.
Maitay Marcha opposed the proposal, stating the concentration of services in a single area is incompatible with the
need to spread resources more evenly throughout the city. Additionally, the traffic study was based on a two
hundred bed facility.
Anna (no last name given) opposed the proposal stating it risks worsening crime rates and further marginalizing the
community.
Rebecca Mendoza opposed the proposal stating the concerns of those that live and work in the area were ignored
during the public outreach process.
Adiana Quintero opposed the proposal, stating there was inadequate notice provided to Spanish speaking
residents of the area.
David Rout, Homeward Alliance Executive Director, supported the proposal, stating the current shelter is
undersized for the community need. Rout commented on the plans of the Rescue Mission to address security
issues and other concerns.
Debbie Bradberry opposed the proposal, stating people in the area are afraid of the types of individuals the shelter
may attract to the neighborhood. She stated the shelter is needed, but in a different location.
Allison Hade commented on working with the Rescue Mission to set up a 24/7 shelter in Loveland and noted the
additional shelter space is needed.
Patricia Alvarez Harrell, Alianza NORCO Director, discussed current issues with transients in the area of Hickory
Village and Soft Gold Park. Additionally, Harrell stated the area neighborhoods were not invited to community
meetings and the Spanish meeting that was held only occurred because Spanish-speaking residents requested it.
Joe Rowan stated the key to success with these projects is a good operator, and that is the case with the Fort
Collins Rescue Mission. He stated the plan is in compliance with the Land Use Code and North College Corridor
Plan and stated the decision cannot be based on speculative behavior.
Nina Rubin stated the concerns of the neighborhood are realistic, and are currently occurring, but without the
Rescue Mission. Rubin suggested having the Mission there actually has the potential to assist the neighborhood in
monitoring what is going on with additional attention.
Jared Stallones suggested staff erred in interpreting project compatibility solely in terms of the built environment
and that social and behavioral issues must also be addressed. Stallones stated the shelter use is incompatible with
the North College community.
Don Butler opposed the proposal and expressed concern about safety for the children in the neighborhood.
Samantha Stegner expressed concern about the proposed location of the shelter and that it could potentially
expand beyond two hundred and fifty beds.
Lisa Cunningham expressed support for the proposal and stated opposition to the shelter will disappear once it is
proven to be well-run.
Paula Stearns stated the shelter will alleviate many of the concerns by broadly addressing the challenges faced by
people who need to find a place to sleep every night and will provide services and activities for those individuals
during the day.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
DRA
F
T
Packet Pg. 10
Planning & Zoning Commission
August 28, 2024
Page 6 of 8
Chuck Hubbard, Together Colorado Larimer County, expressed support for the proposal stating sound leadership
will be provided by the Rescue Mission. Hubbard highlighted the success of existing businesses that are located
around the current Rescue Mission.
Jason Smith expressed support for the proposal citing its buffering and value to the homeless community.
Stefanie Berganini, Affordable Housing Board, stated the Board supports the project and commented on the need
for the shelter in the community.
Ronnie Casias stated the Mission has changed his life for the better and he is currently there awaiting an affordable
housing option.
DeWayne Barton commented on the ways in which the Rescue Mission has assisted him.
Charlie Messerlian opposed the proposal, stating it is incompatible with the neighborhood in various ways.
Sarah Murphy expressed support for the proposal, stating it is a well-planned, practical solution that is also
compassionate.
Lyle Smithgraybeal, Northern Colorado Continuum of Care, expressed support for the proposal.
Sue McFaddin expressed support for the need for the shelter but opposed the proposed location.
Troy Jones stated the subarea plan cautions against the concentration of social services in one area and discussed
the Land Use Code section related to operational compatibility arguing the intensity of this use is incompatible with
the neighborhood. Jones suggested the Mission could leave its current 89 bed facility open and continue the use of
the winter overflow shelter in order to reduce the size of the proposed facility.
Patrick Gaebler questioned how far the applicants and Commission members live from the proposed site and
suggested the process of finding a suitable location should be restarted.
Peter Erickson stated the City has approached the housing crisis in a haphazard way and the Land Use Code does
not do enough to address the root causes of homelessness, the shortage of affordable housing, or to meet the
City’s racial equity and social justice goals. Erickson expressed support for the proposal.
Commission Questions
Chair Stackhouse requested staff address the concerns mentioned about noise, traffic, massing, and the potential
the shelter could expand beyond 250 beds. Mapes replied he was unaware of any noise issues and stated the
traffic study came from the previously approved infrastructure plan, but the conclusion of that study was that
Mason, which is designated as a collector, could actually function as a local street. Additionally, there are no traffic
issues related to the proposal.
Cassie Slade, Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, acknowledged the traffic study was completed based on a 200 bed
estimate rather than 250; however, the guests are not likely to have vehicles, and if they do, they are not allowed to
park on site. Additionally, the extra beds will not result in an increase in traffic; therefore, the results of the study
are still valid.
Havelda noted there will never be more than 250 beds in the building. Additionally, Havelda stated the presumption
that people experiencing homelessness are criminals or will engage in criminal behavior flies in the face of equity
and inclusion. Havelda also noted there is no Code requirement for a compatibility study.
Severance discussed the community outreach process that was undertaken to help inform the trauma-informed
design.
Chair Stackhouse asked if proper notice was provided for neighborhood meetings. Mapes replied in the affirmative.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
DRA
F
T
Packet Pg. 11
Planning & Zoning Commission
August 28, 2024
Page 7 of 8
Chair Stackhouse asked if the notice was provided in Spanish. Mapes replied the first notice was not; however, the
second notice was.
Commissioner Peel asked Severance if the outreach mentioned included the area residents. Severance replied in
the affirmative and stated they also spoke with La Familia, a local organization that does work in the area.
Commissioner Peel asked if the area residents had to request a second meeting to be held with Spanish
interpretation or if City staff set up the meeting. Em Myler replied staff noticed the lack of representation at the first
meeting and set up a second meeting to be held with Spanish interpretation. Myler noted some equity standards
have been created since the first neighborhood meeting that did not exist previously, and those would include
automatically sending notice in Spanish if a mobile home park is within the notification radius.
Reico Ishiwada, Shopworks Architecture, stated a 24/7 facility is crucial as it provides guests with a reserved bed,
reducing stress and helping them move beyond survival mode. Additionally, access to showers and having a place
to store belongings supports the transition out of homelessness. Ishiwada also noted the lobby has been made
large enough to keep people from having to wait outside. Security measures have also been significantly
enhanced, including the aforementioned cameras and fencing.
(**Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Commissioner York requested staff reiterate the compatibility definition in the Code. Mapes noted the purpose
statement in the applicable Code section, 3.5.1, relates to ensuring physical and operational compatibility, and staff
does not review projects for compliance with purpose statements, but rather with the specific standards such as
building mass and scale, hours of operation, and so forth. Frickey stated staff reports now include a statement with
a finding of fact related to consistency with purpose statements per the Sanctuary on the Green ruling; however, if a
project complies with the more specific standards found in the Code, it is therefore consistent with the purpose
statement for that section.
Commission Deliberation
Chair Stackhouse noted the Commission will be evaluating the proposal’s compliance with the Land Use Code, not
whether it should be located elsewhere.
Commissioner Connelly stated the project was designed with the Land Use Code in mind and appears to be
compliant with all applicable sections; however, he expressed sympathy for the public safety concerns.
Commissioner York concurred that the proposal meets the applicable Land Use Code standards.
Commissioner Shepard commented on past controversial projects that seem to settle in from an operational
perspective after a bit of time and stated building scale has evolved over time as the population has increased.
Additionally, Commissioner Shepard stated this building is architecturally compatible.
Commissioner Peel commended the work of the Mission in the community and commended the design of the new
shelter. She questioned the wisdom of placing a vulnerable population in the midst of another vulnerable
population; however, the project does seem to meet the Land Use Code and the way it has been historically
interpreted.
Commissioner Katz commended the design of the shelter and stated it will likely be run well; however, he stated
there are ripple effects that will go beyond the boundaries of the property, and he fears the site will attract unsavory
members of the transient population. He stated that while the Land Use Code needs to be considered, it is
important to think critically about the safety of the city’s residents.
Commissioner Shepard commented on buffering of the site with existing mature trees which lends to compliance
with the compatibility standards.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
DRA
F
T
Packet Pg. 12
Planning & Zoning Commission
August 28, 2024
Page 8 of 8
Chair Stackhouse commented on the difference between homelessness and a homeless shelter, which provides a
community and services for individuals. She commended Police Services and the positive relationship with the
Mission and stated the proposal is compatible with all applicable Land Use Code requirements.
Commissioner Katz expressed sympathy with the North College businesses, but reiterated Joe Rowan’s comment
that a decision cannot be based on speculative behavior.
(**Secretary’s Note: A couple iterations of the motion were made until the proper wording was determined.)
Commissioner York made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Connelly, that the Fort Collins Planning
and Zoning Commission approve the Fort Collins Rescue Mission combined project development plan,
final development plan, FDP230022, with the following condition: that the final development plan will not be
signed by the City until all final development plan requirements are met as determined by the Director of
Community Development and Neighborhood Services. The Commission finds in consideration of the
condition of approval that the project complies with all Land Use Code requirements. This decision is
based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and
this hearing, and the Commission discussion on this item. Further, this Commission hereby adopts the
information, analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions regarding this project contained in the staff report.
Commissioner Connelly seconded. Yeas: Shepard, Katz, Peel, Connelly, York, and Stackhouse. Nays:
none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
For more complete details on this hearing, please view our video recording located here:
https://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php?search=PLANNING%20ZONING
Other Business
None.
Adjournment
Chair Stackhouse moved to adjourn the P&Z Commission hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30pm.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Melissa Matsunaka.
Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on: November 21, 2024.
Clay Frickey, Planning Manager Julie Stackhouse, Chair
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
DRA
F
T
Packet Pg. 13
Agenda Item 2
Item 2, Page 1
Planning and Zoning Commission
STAFF
Melissa Matsunaka, Sr. Project Coordinator
SUBJECT
MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2024 P&Z HEARING
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is the consideration and approval of the draft minutes of the September 19, 2024
Planning & Zoning Commission hearing.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft September 19, 2024 P&Z Minutes
Packet Pg. 14
Julie Stackhouse, Chair Virtual Hearing
Adam Sass, Vice Chair City Council Chambers
Russell Connelly 300 Laporte Avenue
David Katz Fort Collins, Colorado
Shirley Peel
Ted Shepard 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
September 19, 2024
Chair Stackhouse called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Katz, Sass, Stackhouse, Connelly, Peel, York, Shepard
Absent: None
Staff Present: Yatabe, Matsunaka, Baty, Myler, Vonkoepping, Meyer
Chair Stackhouse provided background on the Commission’s role and what the audience could expect as to the
order of business. She described the role of the Commission and 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. She noted that
this is a legal hearing, and that she will moderate for civility and fairness.
Agenda Review
Kim Meyer reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas.
Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda
None.
Planning and Zoning
Commission Minutes
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
DRA
F
T
Packet Pg. 15
Planning & Zoning Commission
September 19, 2024
Page 2 of 6
Consent Agenda:
1. Draft Minutes for the P&Z July Regular Hearing
The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes of the July 18, 2024, Planning and Zoning
Commission hearing.
2. Draft Minutes for the P&Z August Regular Hearing
The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes of the August 15, 2024, Planning and Zoning
Commission hearing.
Commissioner Katz made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda for the September 19, 2024,
hearing as originally advertised. Commissioner Peel seconded the motion. Yeas: Shepard, Katz,
Connelly, York, Sass, Peel, and Stackhouse. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Discussion Agenda:
3. 117 N. Mason St. – Seasonal Overflow Shelter
This is a request to establish a men’s seasonal overflow shelter at 117
N. Mason in a 2,408 square foot portion of the existing building. The
shelter will be overnight only and open November –
s taken off of N.
City of Fort Collins
300 Laporte Ave
STAFF ASSIGNED:
Recommendation: Approval
Staff Presentation
Jill Baty, City Planner, outlined the project to establish a men’s seasonal overflow shelter at 117 North Mason
Street, noting this is the first project being reviewed under the 2024 Foundational Land Use Code. Baty discussed
the location of the site and discussed its access, noting the site is within the Downtown zone district. Baty outlined
the nearby historic structures and noted there are no external changes proposed to the subject building.
Additionally, Baty discussed the Land Use Code requirements that are applicable to a seasonal overflow shelter.
Applicant Presentation
Klara Rossouw, Ripley Design, commented on the urgent need to shelter more individuals during the winter months
and noted the Fort Collins Rescue Mission will be operating the shelter, though the building will remain under the
ownership of the City. Additionally, Rossouw noted there are no plans to make the building a permanent shelter.
Rossouw outlined the timeline of the project and stated the hope is to open the shelter on November 1st. Rossouw
also commented on the site’s access to transit and pedestrian and bicycle facilities and reiterated the exterior of the
building will not change.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
DRA
F
T
Packet Pg. 16
Planning & Zoning Commission
September 19, 2024
Page 3 of 6
Rossouw outlined the proposals that will help mitigate impacts to the neighborhood, including: 1) having a minimum
of two staff members in addition to a third-party security officer each night; 2) hours of operation being 5:30 PM to
7:45 AM; 3) Rescue Mission staff will cleaning the site every morning and trash pick-up being scheduled six days a
week 4) discouraging guests from congregating outside the entrances of the shelter outside of operation hours 5)
intaking guests at the main shelter on Jefferson Street prior to checking in at the overflow location, and; 6)checking
bags prior to guests entering the building.
Rossouw outlined the applicable Land Use Code criteria, noting the seasonal overflow shelter use is permitted in
the Civic subdistrict of the Downtown zone and the proposal meets all of the necessary Codes and does not put the
current building use out of compliance. Rossouw stated the application does include a modification request to
increase the allowable occupancy from 50 to 70 due to the increased community need, particularly during the
winter months. Additionally, Rossouw stated the seasonal overflow shelter substantially alleviates an existing
defined problem of city-wide concern.
Staff Review
Baty discussed the notification requirements for the neighborhood meeting, which were met; however, the mailing
that was sent out did include a typo indicating the meeting was to be held on Thursday, June 12th, when it was
actually to be held on Wednesday, June 12th. As a result, staff members were available both nights for the
neighborhood meeting, though no attendees were present on Thursday. Baty stated the main topics at the
neighborhood meeting were about the hour-long gap in services between when the previous temporary shelter at
this location closed after the night and when daytime shelter space opened. This proposal would change the
operating hours to allow the overnight shelter to operate until 7:45 AM which would still allow for City workers to
arrive at work at 8:00 AM and for guests to move to a daytime shelter which opens at 8:00 AM.
Additional topics at the neighborhood meeting included what repercussions would exist for poor behavior in the
shelter and whether there would be time limits the City could impose on the land use, which Baty noted is not
typical. Baty outlined the six criteria a seasonal overflow shelter must meet and noted the applicant has shown
they will all be met.
In terms of the requested modification of standard to increase the number of guests from 50 to 70, Baty stated
there is room for thirty-five bunk beds in the space, providing room for 70. Baty stated the Commission will need to
find that the modification request would not be detrimental to the public good and that it meets one of four criteria
outlined in the Land Use Code. Baty stated staff has found the modification is not a detriment to the public good
and substantially addresses an important community need. Additionally, staff recommends the Commission
approve the seasonal overflow shelter at 117 North Mason.
Commission Questions
Commissioner York asked why access is being taken from the west side of the building. Baty replied that the area
that is going to be used as the shelter is on the west side of the building.
Commissioner York asked how guests are expected to get between the permanent shelter and the overflow shelter.
Paula Ordaz, Fort Collins Rescue Mission Director, replied everyone must sign up on a lottery list before 2 PM or
as they are exiting the shelter in the morning and only new guests need to check in at the Jefferson location.
Commissioner York asked why the initial cap was placed at 50 guests. Baty replied that this section of the Code is
several years old, and she was unsure of the history.
Chair Stackhouse noted the October of 2023 ordinance allowed for 70 guests.
Commissioner Katz asked if Poudre Fire Authority will be reviewing the proposal. Baty replied they will review the
proposal after the building permit application.
Chair Stackhouse requested confirmation that the Fort Collins Rescue Mission will not be operating the overflow
shelter after the completion of its new shelter building. Ordaz replied in the affirmative.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
DRA
F
T
Packet Pg. 17
Planning & Zoning Commission
September 19, 2024
Page 4 of 6
Chair Stackhouse asked about the typical number of guests in the overflow shelter last year. Ordaz replied that the
overflow shelter operated for 162 nights last year, with 83 of those nights having over 60 guests.
Chair Stackhouse asked how people will be discouraged from congregating outside the building during non-
operating hours. Ordaz replied that security officers arrive at 4 PM and ask guests to leave the property if they are
congregating. Additionally, guests are not allowed to congregate outside the Jefferson shelter and are familiar with
the standard on that issue.
Commissioner Katz asked about the Code section related to the new use not increasing its deviation from the
standard of the Code and whether the increased capacity would be a deviation from the Code. Assistant City
Attorney Yatabe provided an explanation and noted the building has been used in the past for 70 guests.
Public Comment
Terri Hanna, Opera Galleria Manager, stated the Opera Galleria often has individuals in the building before and
after the overflow shelter hours and expressed concern about health, safety, and security issues. Hanna stated
they have spent over $55,000 on additional security to clear the space and ensure the safety of tenants.
Additionally, Hanna stated the building worked with the City and the DDA to create and post building rules that
allow for individuals to be charged with trespass. Hanna acknowledged the need for the shelter but requested the
use not be allowed beyond when the new permanent shelter building is complete.
Jenny Bramhall, owner of a store in Old Town, expressed support for the temporary overflow shelter.
Commission Questions / Deliberation
Chair Stackhouse requested staff address the issue as to whether the amount of time the building could serve as a
temporary shelter could be limited. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe replied that the Land Use Code contemplates
that approved uses run with the property and are indefinite in nature. Additionally, there are provisions under which
uses could be abandoned.
Assistant City Attorney Yatabe clarified this use will need a year-to-year review process outside of the Land Use
Code.
Commissioner Peel asked if the standard could be met by allowing only 50 guests. City Attorney Yatabe replied in
the affirmative.
Commissioner Peel questioned whether the Commission could approve a modification of standard in this case.
Assistant City Attorney Yatabe replied the modifications are not just for a threshold standard but are also used to
essentially make changes to a standard or metric.
Commissioner Peel asked how the detriment to the public good issue is evaluated. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe
replied he views that portion of the evaluation to be more of a catch-all and there could be circumstances under
which the Commission judges that there is an issue that is contrary to the public good.
Commissioner Peel asked where individuals go who have to be turned away from the shelter. Ordaz replied no
guests have had to be turned away in the winter months over the past three years because of the additional space.
Chair Stackhouse requested additional input on health and safety concerns. Ordaz replied the hope is that the
extended morning hours will allow for guests to get on the MAX and head straight to the Murphy Center.
Additionally, Ordaz stated either Police Services or Outreach Fort Collins will be contacted for assistance to deal
with any security or safety issues.
Commissioner Shepard requested a summary of Outreach Fort Collins. Ordaz replied the organization is a liaison
between business owners and people experiencing homelessness.
Commissioner Peel asked Police Services to explain what happens when they are called to address homeless
individuals trespassing. Annie Hall, Fort Collins Police Services, replied that officers would first ask the business or
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
DRA
F
T
Packet Pg. 18
Planning & Zoning Commission
September 19, 2024
Page 5 of 6
landowner if they want to pursue criminal charges. The officer responds with the intent of enforcing the law. If
anyone refuses to leave, a ticket is issued, and if they continue to refuse to leave, a person could be taken into
custody, though in general, once people are issued a citation for trespassing, they leave the area. The trespass
citations would require the individual to appear in court, typically municipal court for individuals experiencing
homelessness. Additionally, if individuals do not appear in court, a warrant is issued for arrest for failure to appear.
Commissioner Katz expressed support for the request, but stated he is a bit hung up on compliance with Section
4.3.2(c)(3)(g). However, he will trust the legal team that it is in compliance.
Commissioner Connelly expressed support for the request.
Commissioner York stated the modification request meets three of the four requirements and expressed support for
the request.
Commissioner Shepard also expressed support for the modification and the final plan.
Commissioner Peel stated the Commission is well within its purview to grant the modification request and
expressed appreciation for the Rescue Mission working with the neighborhood to address concerns.
Commissioner Sass commended this public/private partnership. He stated he had similar concerns to those of
Commissioner Katz initially, but noted the previous ordinance allowed for 70 individuals.
Chair Stackhouse stated she would support the request and concurred allowing for 70 guests is not inconsistent
with City Council’s intent based on the previous ordinance.
Commissioner York made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the
requested modification of standard to the Land Use Code, Section 4.3.2(c)(3)(a) to allow a maximum of 70
people to be housed in the seasonal overflow shelter. The Commission finds the modification would not
be detrimental to the public good and the following modification criteria is met without impairing the intent
and purposes of the Land Use Code, the granting of the modification would substantially address the
important community need to house people experiencing homelessness in furtherance of City Plan policy
objectives, and the strict application of Section 4.3.2(c)(3)(a) would rend the project practically infeasible.
This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work
session and this hearing, and the Commission discussion. Further, this Commission hereby adopts the
information, analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions regarding this modification contained in the staff
report. Commissioner Connelly seconded. Yeas: Peel, Katz, Connelly, York, Sass, Shepard, and
Stackhouse. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Commissioner Sass questioned how the strict application of the Code, allowing for 50 guests, would render the
project practically infeasible. Commissioner York replied that the overflow shelter has had over 60 guests for many
of the nights it was open; therefore, they would need to turn people away if the number was not increased.
Commissioner Katz also stated not increasing the number would make it infeasible to meet the community need.
Commissioner Katz made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the 117
North Mason Street seasonal overflow shelter final development plan, FDP240011, finding that the project
complies with all applicable land use requirements, including the previously approved modification. This
decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work
session and this hearing, and the Commission discussion. Further, this Commission hereby adopts the
information, analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions regarding this project contained in the staff report.
Commissioner Peel seconded. Yeas: Peel, Katz, Connelly, York, Sass, Shepard, and Stackhouse. Nays:
none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
DRA
F
T
Packet Pg. 19
Planning & Zoning Commission
September 19, 2024
Page 6 of 6
Commissioner Shepard stated he is reassured by the agreement with the City of Fort Collins as well as the land
use compliance. Additionally, he stated this is a function of a city.
For more complete details on this hearing, please view our video recording located here:
https://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php?search=PLANNING%20ZONING
Other Business
None.
Adjournment
Chair Stackhouse moved to adjourn the P&Z Commission hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 7:13 pm.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Manno.
Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on: November 21, 2024.
Clay Frickey, Planning Manager Julie Stackhouse, Chair
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
DRA
F
T
Packet Pg. 20
Development Review Staff Report Item 3
Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com
1. Introduction
The Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins (Plan) is a reference document for coordinating potential future annexation areas
and the provision of services, infrastructure, and land uses. Colorado State Statutes Section 31-12-105 requires cities to
complete a plan within three miles in any direction of their municipal boundary to describe the general location, character,
utilities, and infrastructure for future annexation areas and to update the plan on an annual basis.
The 2024 update to the Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins is routine and recurring and highlights newly adopted or
revised plans and policies applicable to those areas defined in state statutes. The 2024 update is presented for Planning
and Zoning Commission review and a recommendation to City Council for adoption.
2. Three-Mile Plan State Requirements
Section 31-12-105 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires municipalities to complete a plan within three miles in any
direction from any point of such municipal boundary as follows:
Prior to the completion of any annexation within the three-mile area, the municipality shall have in place a plan for
that area, that generally describes the proposed location, character, and extent of streets, subways, bridges,
waterways, waterfronts, parkways, playgrounds, squares, parks, aviation fields, other public ways, grounds, open
spaces, public utilities, and terminals for water, light, sanitation, transportation, and power to be provided by the
municipality and the proposed land uses for the area.
The Plan describes and references adopted policies and documents for each of the items listed in the state statute in four
categories as follows:
Transportation-related Items
Parks, Natural Areas and Open Lands-related Items
Utilities and Related Items
Proposed Land Uses
Planning and Zoning Commission: November 21, 2024
Three-Mile Plan 2024 Update
Summary of Request
This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding
adoption of the 2024 Three-Mile Plan Update.
Next Steps
• The Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation
will be forwarded to City Council for its consideration of
adoption of the Plan update in December 2024.
Applicant
City of Fort Collins
PO BOX 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Staff
Ryan Mounce, City Planner
Contents
1. Introduction .................................................. 1
2. Three-Mile Plan State Requirements .......... 1
3. 2022 Three Mile Plan Updates .................... 2
4. Findings of Fact/Conclusion ........................ 2
5. Recommendation ......................................... 2
6. Attachments ................................................. 2
Staff Recommendation
Approval
Packet Pg. 21
Planning & Zoning Commission - Agenda Item X
2024 Three-Mile Plan Update
November 21, 2024 | Page 2 of 2
Back to Top
As Fort Collins limits future annexations to areas within an established Growth Management Area (GMA), the Plan is less
applicable to areas beyond the boundary of the Fort Collins GMA. While the Three-Mile Plan generally references City-
adopted plans and policies, it also includes several plans adopted by other jurisdictions such as Larimer County, Colorado
State University, or adjoining municipalities, as they may provide contextual guidance for areas within three miles of Fort
Collins’ municipal boundary.
3. 2024 Three Mile Plan Updates
This annual update to the Plan represents a routine and recurring action to ensure compliance with state requirements.
Section II of the Plan highlights in bold text revised plans, policies, and regulations adopted since the prior Three-Mile
Plan update, including:
Fort Collins Land Use Code
City of Fort Collins Strategic Plan
City Plan (Structure Plan Map)
Town of Windsor Comprehensive Plan
City Plan and related elements of the comprehensive plan provide sufficient guidance for managing growth within the
GMA, and to some degree outside the GMA for contextual purposes. The City Plan Structure Plan Map also provides
guidance on future land use designations if/when annexations occur within the GMA. Although the Three-Mile Plan is
similar to City Plan, it provides additional, generalized information on the location, character, and extent of future utilities
and infrastructure and takes a broader approach to the annexation and development of land.
The Three-Mile Plan also includes four maps illustrating the general resources, infrastructure, waterways, airports and
land uses to be found inside and within three-miles of City limits.
4. Findings of Fact/Conclusion
A. The 2024 update of the Three-Mile Plan generally and accurately describes the proposed location, character, and
extent of street, subways, bridges, waterways, waterfronts, parkways, playgrounds, squares, parks, aviation fields,
other public ways, grounds, open spaces, public utilities, and terminals for water, light, sanitation, transportation,
and power to be provided by the City of Fort Collins and the proposed land uses for the area.
B. The Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins complies with regulations set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes
Section 31-12-105.
5. Recommendation
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to City Council adoption of the 2024 Three-Mile Plan
update.
6. Attachments
1. Draft 2024 Three-Mile Plan Update
Packet Pg. 22
2024 Update
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 23
City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2024 Update Page 2
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ 2
I.Introduction .............................................................................................................. 3
What is the Purpose of the Three-Mile Plan? ........................................................... 3
What Does the Three-Mile Plan Describe? .............................................................. 3
II.Elements of the Three-Mile Plan .............................................................................. 5
Transportation-related Items .................................................................................... 5
Parks, Natural Areas, and Open Lands-related Items .............................................. 6
Utilities and Related Items ....................................................................................... 8
Proposed Land Uses ................................................................................................ 9
ATTACHMENT A: Three-Mile Plan Boundary .............................................................. 11
ATTACHMENT B: Significant Waterways and Waterfronts within the Three-Mile Plan
Boundary ....................................................................................................................... 12
ATTACHMENT C: Airports within the Three-Mile Plan Boundary ................................ 13
ATTACHMENT D: Land Uses within the Three-Mile Plan Boundary……………………14
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 24
City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2024 Update Page 3
I.Introduction
What is the Purpose of the Three-Mile Plan?
The Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins is a reference document of approved plans
and policies describing infrastructure, land use planning, and provision of services for
areas of potential annexation. The Plan is required per Colorado Revised Statues Section
31-12-105 and is updated annually to reflect new or revised plans and policies.
The Three-Mile Plan describes the general location, character, utilities, and infrastructure
for areas within three miles of the municipal boundary. The Three-Mile Plan takes a much
broader approach to the annexation and development of land than a specific annexation
impact report and ensures proposed annexations are consistent with the City’s
comprehensive plan and other annexation and land development policies.
Section 31-12-105 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires municipalities to complete
a plan within three miles in any direction of the municipal boundary as follows:
Prior to the completion of any annexation within the three-mile area,
the municipality shall have in place a plan for that area that generally
describes the proposed location, character, and extent of streets,
subways, bridges, waterways, waterfronts, parkways, playgrounds,
squares, parks, aviation fields, other public ways, grounds, open
spaces, public utilities, and terminals for water, light, sanitation,
transportation, and power to be provided by the municipality and the
proposed land uses for the area.
Updates to the Three-Mile Plan are routine and occur on an annual basis. The 2024
update highlights changes to approved plans, policies, and other applicable documents
which have occurred since the prior Three-Mile Plan was adopted in 2023.
What Does the Three-Mile Plan Describe?
This Three-Mile Plan references and illustrates adopted plans, policies, maps, and other
documents adopted by the City which generally describe the location, character, and
extent of land uses, transportation facilities, and infrastructure required by State Statutes
listed above. These documents are organized into four categories, as follows:
Transportation-related Items:
Streets
Subways
Bridges
Parkways
Aviation Fields
Other Public Ways
Terminals for Transportation
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 25
City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2024 Update Page 4
Parks, Natural Areas and Open Lands-related Items:
Waterways
Waterfronts
Playgrounds
Squares
Parks
Grounds
Open Spaces
Utilities and Related Items:
Public Utilities
Terminals for Water, Light, Sanitation, and Power Provided by the Municipality
Proposed Land Uses:
Inside Growth Management Area (GMA)
Outside Growth Management Area (GMA)
In addition to adopted plans and policies adopted by the City, the Three-Mile Plan may
also reference other plans and policies adopted by neighboring jurisdictions or
organizations that provide contextual guidance as they overlap with Fort Collins’ Three-
Mile Plan study area.
2024 Three-Mile Plan Updates
There have been relatively few updates to existing plans or newly-adopted plans within
the three-mile study area over the past year. Section II highlights updated or newly-
adopted documents from the preceding year in bold text.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 26
City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2024 Update Page 5
II. Elements of the Three-Mile Plan
Transportation-related Items
1. Streets:
1041 Regulations
2024 City of Fort Collins Strategic Plan
Actives Modes Plan
Airport Master Plan
Capital Improvement Plan
City Plan
City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan
City of Fort Collins Street Standards
City of Fort Collins Bicycle Safety Education Plan
Colorado State University Parking and Transportation Master Plan
Downtown Parking Plan
Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan
Harmony Road ETC Master Plan
Harmony Road Access Control Plan
I-25/392 Interchange Improvement Plan
Larimer County Transportation Master Plan
Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards
Mason Corridor Master Plan
North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan
North College and Highway 14 Access Control Plan
Northern Colorado Regional Planning Study
Northern Colorado Regional Communities I-25 Corridor Plan
Our Climate Future
South College Access Control Plan
Fort Collins Streetscape Design Standards
Resilient Recovery Plan
Subarea Plans
o CDOT US392 Environmental Overview Study
o CDOT North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement
o CDOT US287 Environmental Overview Study
o Downtown Plan
o Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program Summary Report
o Downtown Strategic Plan
o East Mulberry Plan
o East Side Neighborhood Plan
o Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan
o Harmony Corridor Plan
o I-25 Subarea Plan
o Lincoln Corridor Plan
o Midtown in Motion
o Mountain Vista Subarea Plan
o North College Corridor Plan
o North College MAX BRT Plan
o Northside Neighborhood Plan
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 27
City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2024 Update Page 6
o Northwest Subarea Plan
o Old Town Neighborhoods Plan
o Prospect Road Streetscape Program
o South College Corridor Plan
o State Highway 392 Access Control Plan
o West Central Neighborhoods Plan
Transfort Strategic Operating Plan
Transit Plan: Fort Collins, Loveland, and Larimer County (1996-2002)
Transit Oriented Development Parking Study
Vision Zero Action Plan
West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan
2.Subways: None
3. Bridges:
1041 Regulations
Master Street Plan
North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan
4.Parkways:
Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards
5.Aviation Fields:
Airport Master Plan
The attached map entitled “Airports within the Three-Mile Area Plan
Boundary” locates all airports within the plan area
6.Other Public Ways: None
7.Terminals for Public Transportation:
1041 Regulations
North College MAX BRT Plan
Mason Corridor Master Plan
Parks, Natural Areas, and Open Lands-related Items
1. Waterways:
Cache La Poudre River Landscape Opportunities Study
Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program
Poudre River Downtown Master Plan
Stormwater Master Plan and Floodplain Regulations
Water Quality Management Policy for City-owned Lakes & Stormwater Basins
Watershed Approach to Stormwater Quality
The attached map entitled “Significant Waterways and Waterfronts within the
Three-Mile Area Plan Boundary” locates all significant waterways within the
plan area
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 28
City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2024 Update Page 7
2. Waterfronts:
Water Quality Management Policy for City-owned Lakes & Stormwater Basins
The attached map entitled “Significant Waterways and Waterfronts within the
Three-Mile Area Plan Boundary” locates all significant waterways within the
plan area
3.Playgrounds, Squares, Parks:
2024 City of Fort Collins Strategic Plan
City Plan
Larimer County Comprehensive Parks Master Plan
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Poudre School District Master Plan
Resilient Recovery Plan
Subarea Plans
o Campus West Community Commercial District Planning Study Report
o CDOT US392 Environmental Overview Study
o CDOT North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement
o CDOT US287 Environmental Overview Study
o College & Drake Urban Renewal Plan
o Downtown Plan
o Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program Summary Report
o Downtown Strategic Plan
o East Mulberry Plan
o East Side Neighborhood Plan
o Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan
o Harmony Corridor Plan
o I-25 Subarea Plan
o Lincoln Corridor Plan
o Midtown in Motion
o Montava PUD Master Plan & Montava PUD Overlay
o Mountain Vista Subarea Plan
o North College Corridor Plan
o North College MAX BRT Plan
o Northside Neighborhood Plan
o Northwest Subarea Plan
o Old Town Neighborhoods Plan
o Prospect Road Streetscape Program
o South College Corridor Plan
o State Highway 392 Access Control Plan
o West Central Neighborhoods Plan
Thompson School District Master Plan
Trails Master Plan
4.Grounds, Open Spaces:
Bobcat Ridge Natural Area Management Plan – outside Growth Management
Area (GMA)
Cache La Poudre River Natural Areas Management Plan
City Plan
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 29
City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2024 Update Page 8
City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Program Land Conservation and
Stewardship Master Plan
Colorado State University (CSU) Master Plan
Foothills Natural Areas Management Plan
Fossil Creek Natural Areas Management Plan
Fossil Creek Reservoir Regional Open Space Management Plan
Larimer County Open Lands Master Plan
Larimer County Comprehensive Parks Master Plan
Northern Colorado Regional Planning Study
Natural Areas Master Plan
Our Climate Future
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland
Regional Community Separator Study
Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Management Plan – outside GMA
Wellington Community Separator Study
Windsor Community Separator Study
Utilities and Related Items
1.Public Utilities:
1041 Regulations
208 Plan
2007 East Larimer County Water District (ELCO) Master Plan Update
2024 City of Fort Collins Strategic Plan
Boxelder Sanitation District Wastewater Utility Plan
City Plan
Drinking Water Quality Policy
Fort Collins Communitywide 100% Renewable Electricity Goal
Fort Collins-Loveland Water District Master Plan
Fort Collins Metropolitan District Policy
Fort Collins Water Supply and Demand Management Policy
Fort Collins Water Supply Shortage Response Plan
Fort Collins Wastewater Master Plan Update
Fort Collins Revised Water Treatment Facility Master Plan
Fort Collins Utilities Energy Policy 2016 Update
Fort Collins Utilities Water and Wastewater Design Criteria Manual
Greywater Ordinance
Our Climate Future
Resilient Recovery Plan
South Fort Collins Sanitation District Master Plan for Wastewater Collection
and Treatment
Stormwater Criteria Manual
Stormwater Master Plan and Floodplain Management
Water Conservation Plan
Water Efficiency Plan
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 30
City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2024 Update Page 9
2.Terminals for Water, Light, Sanitation, Transportation, and Power Provided by
the Municipality:
1041 Regulations
208 Plan
City Plan
City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan
City of Fort Collins Electric Long Range Plan
Drinking Water Quality Policy
Fort Collins Communitywide 100% Renewable Electricity Goal
Fort Collins-Loveland Water District Master Plan
Fort Collins Water Supply and Demand Management Policy
Fort Collins Water Supply Shortage Response Plan
Fort Collins Wastewater Master Plan Update
Fort Collins Revised Water Treatment Facility Master Plan
Fort Collins Utilities Energy Policy 2016 Update
Fort Collins Utilities Water and Wastewater Design Criteria Manual
South Fort Collins Sanitation district Master Plan for Wastewater Collection
and Treatment
Stormwater Criteria Manual
Stormwater Master Plan and Floodplain Management
Water Quality Management Policy for City-owned Lakes & Stormwater Basins
Water Conservation Plan
Water Efficiency Plan
Proposed Land Uses
1.Land Uses Defined within the Growth Management Area (GMA):
2024 City of Fort Collins Strategic Plan
City Plan
Fort Collins Housing Strategic Plan
Fort Collins Land Use Code
Fort Collins and Larimer County Intergovernmental Agreement
Fort Collins Metropolitan District Policy
Fort Collins and Windsor Intergovernmental Agreement
Fort Collins and Timnath Intergovernmental Agreement Eighth Amendment
Colorado State University (CSU) Master Plan
City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements (Town of Timnath, South
Fort Collins/Loveland Water District)
Resilient Recovery Plan
Subarea Plans
o Campus West Community Commercial District Planning Study Report
o CDOT US392 Environmental Overview Study
o CDOT North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement
o CDOT US287 Environmental Overview Study
o College & Drake Urban renewal Plan
o Downtown Plan
o Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program Summary Report
o Downtown Strategic Plan
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 31
City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2024 Update Page 10
o East Mulberry Plan
o East Side Neighborhood Plan
o Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan
o Harmony Corridor Plan
o Harmony Road ETC Master Plan
o I-25 Subarea Plan
o Midtown Plan
o Montava PUD Master Plan & Montava PUD Overlay
o Mountain Vista Subarea Plan
o North College Corridor Plan
o North College MAX BRT Plan
o Northside Neighborhood Plan
o Northwest Subarea Plan
o Old Town Neighborhoods Plan
o Prospect Road Streetscape Program
o South College Corridor Plan
o State Highway 392 Access Control Plan
o West Central Neighborhoods Plan
Wireless Telecommunications Master Plan
2. Land Uses Outside the GMA:
A Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland
City of Loveland Three-Mile Area Plan
Fort Collins-Windsor Intergovernmental Agreement for Development of the
Interstate 25 / State Highway 392 Interchange
LaPorte Area Plan
Larimer County Comprehensive Plan
Larimer County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
Loveland Comprehensive Master Plan
Loveland Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan
Northern Colorado Community Separator Study
Northern Colorado Regional Communities I-25 Corridor Plan
Town of Windsor Comprehensive Plan
Town of Timnath Comprehensive Plan
Town of Wellington Comprehensive Master Plan
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 32
City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2024 Update Page 11
ATTACHMENT A: Three-Mile Plan Boundary
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 33
City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2024 Update Page 12
ATTACHMENT B: Significant Waterways and Waterbodies within
the Three-Mile Plan Boundary
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 34
City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2024 Update Page 13
ATTACHMENT C: Airports within the Three-Mile Plan Boundary
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 35
City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2024 Update Page 14
ATTACHMENT D: Land Uses within the Three-Mile Plan
Boundary
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 36
2024 Three-Mile Plan Update
Planning & Zoning Commission – Nov. 21, 2024
2Overview
Three-Mile Plan
Identifies and coordinates the provision of infrastructure, services, and land uses for
areas of potential annexation within three miles of City limits
Plan and annual updates required by State statute
Plan functions as a reference document of Plans and Policies adopted by the City
1
2
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 37
32024 Update
New or Updated Plans & Policies Referenced:
City of Fort Collins Strategic Plan
Land Use Code (Phase 1 Updates)
City Plan (Structure Plan Map – East Mulberry updates)
Town of Windsor Comprehensive Plan
4Three-Mile Plan Vicinity
3
4
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 38
5Three-Mile Plan Waterways
6Three-Mile Plan Airfields
5
6
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 39
7Three-Mile Plan Land Uses
7
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 40
Development Review Staff Report Agenda Item 4
Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com
Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing: November 21, 2024
Liberty Common Charter School, Site Plan Advisory Review SPA240002
Summary of Request
This is a request for a Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) to
repurpose an existing building for the purposes of a charter school
on Lots 4 & 5 of the Prospect Industrial Park Ssubdivision.
The SPAR process allows the Planning and Zoning Commission to
provide comments on the plan to the governing body of the charter
school per State statutes.
Zoning Map
Next Steps
If the Planning and Zoning Commission is not satisfied with the
response to its comments by the governing body, the Planning and
Zoning Commission can request a hearing before the Poudre School
District Board of Education.
Site Location
Lots 4 and 5 of the Prospect Industrial Park,
located west of the Prospect Ponds Natural
Area at 1825 Sharp Point Drive.
Zoning
Industrial (I)
Property Owner
West Hampden Investors LLC
2601 Blake Street STE 200
Denver, CO 80205
Applicant/Representative
Jeff Jensen
Jensen LaPlante Development
1603 Oakridge Drive, STE 101
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Staff
Kai Kleer, Senior City Planner
p. (970) 416-4284 e. kkleer@fcgov.com
Contents
1. Project Introduction ....................................... 2
2. Public Outreach ............................................ 4
3. Procedural Requirements – Land Use Code
Article 2 ......................................................... 4
4. Staff Evaluation ............................................ 5
5. Staff Conclusions and Recommendation ..... 9
6. Attachments .................................................. 9
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the P&Z Commission
provide comments to the governing body on
several issues explained in this staff report.
Site
Packet Pg. 41
P&Z Agenda Item #4
SPA240002 | Liberty Common Junior High School
Thursday, November 21, 2024 | Page 2 of 10
Back to Top
1. Project Introduction
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION & STAFF REVIEW OVERVIEW
The Liberty Common School is a charter school within the Poudre School District. The proposed school expansion
is Phase 1 of a two-phase expansion that anticipates initial enrollment of 240 students and, after Phase 2, a total
enrollment of 384 students and 30-35 staff members. The proposed plans conceptually show both Phase 1 and the
full expansion, including the vacation of Riverbend Court and incorporation of the buildings located at 1901 Sharp
Point Drive, 2609 Riverbend Court, 2601 Riverbend Court, and 2600 Canton Court. With exception of the right-of-
way vacation of Riverbend Court, the campus expansion of Phase 2 will be submitted as part of a separate Site
Plan Review and Approval (SPAR) submittal in the future.
For Phase 1, the proposed plan involves changing the occupancy and completing interior tenant finish renovations.
The new school will serve junior high, grades 7 and 8. Capacity is expected to be approximately 240 students. The
plan anticipates utilizing the existing 115 parking spaces (47 front 68 rear) and routing vehicular traffic through the
parking lots and Riverbend Couty. The drop off lane will accommodate 7 vehicles. Parking and traffic needs are
adequately served by Phase 1 of the proposed project.
In anticipation of Phase 2, the applicant has already applied to vacate the existing ROW of Riverbend Court.
Engineering, utilities, and Poudre Fire Authority staff have preliminarily reviewed the application and have no
significant concerns. City Council is the decision-making authority for any Right of Way Vacation request.
Phase 2 is anticipated to be submitted under a second, future SPAR application. The future SPAR anticipates
building a gymnasium to connect the buildings located at 1825 and 1901 Sharp Point Drive. The three buildings
located behind the proposed campus expansion are also proposed to be utilized for administrative staff space and
vehicle circulation for pick-up and drop-off.
The applicant's narrative, which provides a more detailed description of the school's phased approach, is attached.
The City's review of charter schools is governed by State statutes. The criteria for review are more general than the
City's Land Use Code standards, necessitating a degree of interpretation. Staff's review of the proposed school
aligns with established practice, which does not evaluate compliance with Land Use Code standards per se.
Instead, plans are evaluated based on the specific requirements outlined below.
1. State Requirements for City Review
Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended (C.R.S.), govern the City’s review of public charter school
development plans, in two specific Sections. These supersede the City’s typical processes for development
plan review.
• Section 22-32-124, C.R.S. specifically governs charter school reviews with the following pertinent
provisions:
o The process of City review: the Planning and Zoning Commission may review and comment on
the plan to the PSD Board of Education, but it must do so, if at all, within 30 days of a
development plan submittal.
o The basis for City review: the proposed site shall conform to the adopted plan of the
community insofar as is feasible.
• Section 31-23-209, C.R.S. generally governs all public facilities with the following pertinent provision:
o “no public building shall be constructed or authorized in a city until the location, character, and
extent thereof has been submitted for approval by the commission [the Planning and Zoning
Commission].”
Verbatim excerpts from the statutes are attached.
Packet Pg. 42
P&Z Agenda Item #4
SPA240002 | Liberty Common Junior High School
Thursday, November 21, 2024 | Page 3 of 10
Back to Top
2. Land Use Code Requirements
The Land Use Code incorporates the statutory requirements above into Sections 6.2.3(F) and 6.11.2(Q)
under the Site Plan Advisory Review Procedures (“SPAR”). Following are pertinent excerpts for convenient
reference:
“6.2.3(F)(1) Site Plan Advisory Review. The Site Plan Advisory Review process requires the submittal and
approval of a site development plan that describes the location, character, and extent of improvements to
parcels owned or operated by public entities. In addition, with respect to public and charter schools, the
review also has as its purpose, as far as is feasible, that the proposed school facility conforms to the
City's Comprehensive Plan.”
“6.11.2 Site Plan Advisory Review Procedures
(Q) Standards: [LUC standards are] Not applicable, and in substitution thereof, an application for a Site
Plan Advisory Review shall comply with the following criteria:
1) The site location for the proposed use shall be consistent with the land use designation
described by the City Structure Plan Map, which is an element of the City's Comprehensive
Plan.
2) The site development plan shall conform to architectural, landscape and other design
standards and guidelines adopted by the applicant's governing body. Absent adopted design
standards and guidelines, the design character of the site development plan shall be
consistent with the stated purpose of the respective land use designation as set forth in the
City's Comprehensive Plan.
3) The site development plan shall identify the level of functional and visual impacts to public
rights-of-way, facilities and abutting private land caused by the development, including, but
not limited to, streets, sidewalks, utilities, lighting, screening and noise, and shall mitigate
such impacts to the extent reasonably feasible.
B. SITE CHARACTERISTICS
1. Current Conditions
The Phase 1 site is 1.81-acre and contains an existing 19,200 square foot office/research building that was
constructed in 1988. The site is bound by three existing roadways: Sharp Point Drive, March Court, and
Riverbend Court. Surface parking exist in front and behind the building envelope, all street frontages provide
attached sidewalks, and numerous mature trees just behind the street sidewalks and within parking area
landscape islands.
Most recent users of the site include Elevate Sports and Spine Center, Turning Point Spinal Care, LLC, and
Niner Bikes.
The property was subdivided into Lot 3&4 of the Prospect Industrial Park (1978) and later developed as an
office/research building in 1988.
2. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use
North South East West
Zoning Public Open Lands (POL) Industrial (I) Industrial (I) Employment (E) and
Industrial (I)
Land
Use
Prospect Ponds Natural
Area
Wholesale retail, and
professional services
Professional services,
office
Liberty Common
Elementary School
Packet Pg. 43
P&Z Agenda Item #4
SPA240002 | Liberty Common Junior High School
Thursday, November 21, 2024 | Page 4 of 10
Back to Top
2. Public Outreach
A. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
A neighborhood meeting was held on October 16, 2024 at Liberty Commons High School in the Rigden Farm
neighborhood. Much of the attendance at the meeting was comprised of school staff and members of the applicant
team. One member from Larimer County Sheriff’s office was in attendance and expressed concerns about the
potential of additional traffic affecting sheriff’s office response operations on Midpoint Drive.
B. PUBLIC COMMENT
No other public comment has been received. Any communication received between the public notice and the
hearing will be provided to the Commission for the hearing.
3. Procedural Requirements – Land Use Code Article 2
A. SITE PLAN ADVISORY REVIEW PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW
1. Conceptual Review
A conceptual review meeting was held on August 1, 2024.
2. Neighborhood Meeting
Held on October 16, 2024 and satisfies the applicable requirement of Section 6.11.2 – Site Plan Advisory
Review Procedures.
3. Submittal
The project development plans were submitted on Wednesday, October 30, 2024 and deemed complete on
November 1, 2024, and subsequently routed to all reviewing departments.
The staff report was issued on November 6, to enable compliance with statutory requirements for local review
of charter school development plans. Staff’s initial review will be completed November 15.
Notice (Posted, Written and Published)
Posted notice: September 24, 2024, Sign #796
Written notice: November 7, 2024, 21 letters sent.
Packet Pg. 44
P&Z Agenda Item #4
SPA240002 | Liberty Common Junior High School
Thursday, November 21, 2024 | Page 5 of 10
Back to Top
Hearing notification area (blue shading)
4. Staff Evaluation
A. LOCATION
Standard 1 – Location. The site location for the proposed use shall be consistent with the land use designation
described by the City Structure Plan Map, which is an element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
City Plan designates this site as “R&D Flex” land use place type which is currently zoned Industrial (I). Locating
schools within Industrial districts is prohibited under current law and is not consistent with traditional community
planning principles which describe locating schools as highly visible focal points to residential neighborhoods.
Although the site is zoned Industrial (I), City Plan does envision the evolution of both, the Employment district,
where the existing Liberty Common elementary school is located, and the industrial district, where Phases 1 and 2
of the school expansion are proposed, into the R&D Flex District. The R&D Flex District is a new concept introduced
in the 2019 City Plan and is described as:
• “A district that accommodates a wide range of business types and sizes, allowing the City to remain flexible
in the types of employers and employment uses it can support and attract.”
• “Primary uses of the district to be administrative, engineering and/or scientific research, design, or
experimentation, offices, breweries, manufacturing, warehouses, wholesaling, and business incubator
space.”
800’ Radius SITE
Prospect Road
Sh
a
r
p
Po
i
n
t
D
r
i
v
e
Packet Pg. 45
P&Z Agenda Item #4
SPA240002 | Liberty Common Junior High School
Thursday, November 21, 2024 | Page 6 of 10
Back to Top
• “Secondary uses of the district include limited distribution and logistics, convenience retail, commercial
services, outdoor storage, and other uses related to the principal uses.”
The vision of this new place type can be described as a place that narrows in on a wide expanse of industrial and
uses into a blend of employment and light industrial users. Under the current Employment zone district zoning law,
public/private schools are permitted as a primary land use.
Although not explicitly stated as a primary land use under City Plans R&D Flex designation, staff assumes that
primary employment land uses would continue to be permitted within the new district and therefore finds that the
location of the proposed use to be consistent with the land use designation as described by the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
Existing Zoning Map Structure Plan Map
I I
E
R&D Flex
Packet Pg. 46
P&Z Agenda Item #4
SPA240002 | Liberty Common Junior High School
Thursday, November 21, 2024 | Page 7 of 10
Back to Top
B. CHARACTER
Standard 2 – Character. The site development plan shall conform to architectural, landscape and other design
standards and guidelines adopted by the applicant's governing body. Absent adopted design standards and
guidelines, the design character of the site development plan shall be consistent with the stated purpose of the
respective land use designation as set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan.
The stated purpose of the R&D Flex District is to be a zone district that, “accommodates a wide range of business
types and sizes allowing the City to remain flexible in the types of employers and employment uses it can support
and attract.”
Staff evaluated several character related factors related to the state purpose of the R&D Flex district.
Building Placement.
A fundamental concept in the City’s planning and development system is that buildings must be placed in direct
relation to street sidewalks, with no intervening vehicle use areas.
Multiple purposes behind this concept involve community character, with an emphasis on streets as attractive public
space; walkable neighborhoods and districts; and visual interest and pedestrian comfort generally. Parking lots and
drives are to be fitted into development sites behind or beside buildings where they don’t impact the visual and
pedestrian environment of the city to the same degree.
In this particular case, staff does suggest enhancing the site to help mitigate the character of the existing building
placement and site layout:
• All vehicle use areas between the building and Sharp Point Drive should be fully screened with
architecturally designed walls or fencing that bring the building architecture out toward the street sidewalks
in combination with landscaping; and
• Enhanced walkways that connect to the adjoining street network.
Staff recommends that the Commission provide a comment to the governing body that these features are important
and should be included in the change of use to the existing building
Architecture
The existing one-story building is a flat roofed design, without modulated proportions. Windows are distributed
evenly between business units and feature an overhanging canopy. Building material appears to be a concrete
ribbed façade with a single projecting entry feature located at the center of the building’s street facing facade. These
aspects are combined to create building form, scale, character and color that are compatible with the purpose of the
R&D Flex district.
Landscaping
The proposed school expansion does not include full details of the existing or proposed landscaping for the site.
From staff’s survey of the site, it appears that the existing site lacks adequate tree stocking within parking areas and
adjoining frontages. The Phase 2 construction of the gymnasium overtop the existing Riverbend Court would also
impact 6 mature trees and should be augmented. Staff does recommend that through build-out of Phase 1 that to
Packet Pg. 47
P&Z Agenda Item #4
SPA240002 | Liberty Common Junior High School
Thursday, November 21, 2024 | Page 8 of 10
Back to Top
the extent reasonably feasible that existing trees be preserved, and that tree stocking be provided in a way that is
consistent with the City’s streetscape and parking lot landscaping standards to achieve full tree stocking.
Staff recommends that the Commission provide a comment to the governing body that these features are important
and should be assimilated into the land purchase and project program.
C. EXTENT
Standard 3 – Extent. The site development plan shall identify the level of functional and visual impacts to public
rights-of-way, facilities and abutting private land caused by the development, including, but not limited to, streets,
sidewalks, utilities, lighting, screening and noise, and shall mitigate such impacts to the extent reasonably feasible.
Transportation
The development plan submittal includes a Traffic Impact Study (TIS), which includes a review of anticipated
vehicles to/from the site; reviews operations for level of service; analyzes queuing for pick-up and drop-off; and
provides recommendations. Pertinent aspects of staff’s review of the TIS include:
• The project is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. Phase 1 and Phase 2 will generate significant
additional traffic, particularly during peak hours.
• To improve the operation of the Sharp Point/March intersection the City Traffic Engineering agrees with
the recommendation to prohibit parking on March Court and stripe separate left-turn and right-turn lanes
and that other intersections can maintain their current configuration. The applicant team has indicated
their willingness to restripe March Court.
• Acceptable levels of service are generally achieved for bicycle and transit modes. Some areas may not
meet acceptable levels of service for pedestrians due to factors like continuity and street crossings.
• The Liberty Common Middle School Expansion project is proposed in two phases. Phase 1 will occupy
the office building at 1845 Sharp Point Drive and accommodate 240 students. Ingress for Phase 1 will be
through the northern parking lot and Riverbend Court from the south, with egress through March Court.
• Phase 2 will occupy the office building at 1901 Sharp Point Drive and construct a gymnasium connecting
the two buildings. This phase will accommodate 384 students (full occupancy) and use Canton Court for
all ingress and March Court for egress. Riverbend Court will be vacated to accommodate the gymnasium
construction.
• The study assumes that 70% of traffic will come from Prospect Road down Sharp Point Drive while the
remaining portion coming from the south through the Bucking Horse neighborhood.
• The study recommends that the existing elementary and proposed junior high stagger start times by 20
minutes. The applicant has indicated that they will implement this recommendation.
• The applicant will need to obtain access, and excavation permits for work in the public right-of-way. That
will require a final set of plans post hearing.
• Staff is strongly encouraging the applicant provide a further queueing analysis as there is potential for
queueing to occur through March Court for Phase 2 of the junior high expansion.
• Staff is strongly encouraging a proportional share for a crossing from March Ct to the Poudre Trail to meet
pedestrian level of service requirements.
• Staff is strongly encouraging the applicant to consider detaching the sidewalk along Sharp Point Drive per
the jointly adopted Larimer County/City standards.
Staff recommend that the Commission provide a comment that the understanding is that final plans will
address necessary technical design for work in City-owned right-of-way.
Packet Pg. 48
P&Z Agenda Item #4
SPA240002 | Liberty Common Junior High School
Thursday, November 21, 2024 | Page 9 of 10
Back to Top
Utilities
The development plan occupies an existing site that currently provides stormwater infrastructure; however, it
does not provide treatment for filtering runoff as is required by the City. The requirement for LID will likely be
activated with Phase 2 and the excavation of Riverbend Court. Staff has reviewed the application and
confirmed no additional action is necessary as part of Phase 1 of the school expansion.
Lighting
A photometric plan was not provided as part of the application.
Staff recommend that the Commission provide a comment that lighting be retrofitted to be consistent with
current City standards to better protect the night sky, conserve energy, and reflect lighting best practices.
Screening & Noise
The plan does not provide any components for screening as part of Phase 1, however, under a future SPAR
application for Phase 2, staff will strongly encourage establishment of a buffer yard consistent with 5.2.10(C)
of the City’s Land Use Code established between the school site and any existing commercial or industrial
users within the immediate vicinity.
5. Staff Conclusions and Recommendation
In evaluating the request for the, #SPA240002, Staff recommend that the Planning and Zoning Commission send a
letter to the governing body of the charter school recommending approval of the development plan with the following
message:
The Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the location, character, and extent of the proposed
development plan for the Liberty Common Junior High School, City of Fort Collins Project #SPA240002, is consistent
with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and mitigates its functional and visual impacts to streets, sidewalks, utilities,
lighting, screening and noise, to the extent reasonably feasible, with the following understanding:
1. Final Civil engineering plans for work in the City-owned ROW of Sharp Point Drive, Riverbend Court, and March
Court will address vacation of Riverbend Court signage and restriping on March Court.
2. Pedestrian and visual mitigation of lighting and vehicle use areas is a fundamental aspect of community character
as called for in the City’s comprehensive plan and should be included in the reconfiguration of the parking lot and
drives and establishment of the school.
3. The establishment of an urban tree canopy is a fundamental aspect of community character, as called for in the
City's Comprehensive Plan. Any trees removed should be mitigated through the planting of additional trees on-site.
Any existing gaps in the tree canopy in parking lot, parkway, and perimeter landscape areas should be planted with
additional trees, consistent with the City's tree stocking standards.
4. Public improvements to comply with current adopted standards to mitigate additional student-related traffic to the
site. Improvements include a proportional contribution to a pedestrian crossing signal at March Court and River
Ponds Trail and, to the extent feasible, the construction of detached sidewalks along Sharp Point Drive.
These issues are typical of issues that are addressed routinely in discussions and plan revisions in Fort Collins’
development review process.
6. Attachments
1. Applicants Narrative
2. Site Plan Title Sheet
3. Site Plan
Packet Pg. 49
P&Z Agenda Item #4
SPA240002 | Liberty Common Junior High School
Thursday, November 21, 2024 | Page 10 of 10
Back to Top
4. Landscape Plan
5. Architectural Elevations
6. Utility Plan
7. Neighborhood Context Plan
8. Traffic Study
9. Neighborhood Meeting Notes
10. Excerpts from Colorado Revised Statues Pertinent to the Proposed School
11. Draft Letter to Governing Commission
Packet Pg. 50
Project Information and Design Narrative
Liberty Common Junior High School – Phase 1
October 28, 2024
The project consists of the change of use, change of occupancy and interior tenant finish renovations to
change the existing building located at 1825 Sharp Point Drive from an office building into a school,
Liberty Common Junior High School. There are no proposed changes to the site grading, utilities, site
drainage, landscape, or irrigation as part of this project. There are no proposed changes to the existing
building elevations or building envelope as part of this project.
The tenant finish will include construction of classrooms, administrative space, a cafeteria and support
spaces to accommodate 240 junior high school students, opening in the fall of 2025.
Liberty Common is working on plans to develop the site farther to the southeast, including vacation of
the ROW in Riverbend Court and tenant finish of the building at 1901 Sharp Point. The future work will
be submitted as a separate SPAR submittal in the future.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 51
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 52
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 53
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 54
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Pg. 55
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Pg. 56
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7
Packet Pg. 57
LIBERTY COMMON MIDDLE SCHOOL EXPANSION
INTERMEDIATE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
OCTOBER 2024
Prepared for:
LCS Building Corporation
225 East Monroe Avenue, Suite #4
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Prepared by:
DELICH ASSOCIATES
2272 Glen Haven Drive
Loveland, CO 80538
Phone: 970-669-2061
FAX: 970-669-5034
Project #2413
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 58
DELICH Liberty Common Middle School Expansion ITIS, October 2024 ASSOCIATES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 2
Land Use ......................................................................................................................... 2
Streets ............................................................................................................................. 2
Existing Traffic ................................................................................................................. 2
Existing Operation ........................................................................................................... 6
Observations of Existing Trafffic Patterns ....................................................................... 6
Pedestrian Facilities ........................................................................................................ 9
Bicycle Facilities .............................................................................................................. 9
Transit Facilities ............................................................................................................ 10
III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................... 11
Trip Generation ............................................................................................................. 11
Trip Distribution/Trip Assignment .................................................................................. 15
Background Traffic Projections ..................................................................................... 15
Total Traffic Projections ................................................................................................. 15
Signal Warrants ............................................................................................................. 23
Geometry ...................................................................................................................... 23
Operation Analysis ........................................................................................................ 23
Pedestrian Level of Service ........................................................................................... 26
Bicycle Level of Service ................................................................................................ 30
Transit Level of Service ................................................................................................. 30
IV. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................... 31
LIST OF TABLES
1. Current Peak Hour Operation .................................................................................... 8
2. Trip Generation ....................................................................................................... 14
3. Phase 1 Short Range (2026) Background Peak Hour Operation ............................ 27
4. Phase 2 Short Range (2029) Background Peak Hour Operation ............................ 27
5. Phase 1 Short Range (2026) Total Peak Hour Operation ....................................... 28
6. Phase 2 Short Range (2029) Total Peak Hour Operation ....................................... 28
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 59
DELICH Liberty Common Middle School Expansion ITIS, October 2024 ASSOCIATES
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Site Location ............................................................................................................. 3
2. Existing Intersection Geometry.................................................................................. 4
3. Recent Peak Hour Traffic .......................................................................................... 5
4. Averaged/Balanced Recent Peak Hour Traffic .......................................................... 7
5. Phase 1 Site Plan .................................................................................................... 12
6. Phase 2 Site Plan .................................................................................................... 13
7. Trip Distribution ....................................................................................................... 16
8. Phase 1 Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic ............................................................. 17
9. Phase 2 Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic ............................................................. 18
10. Phase 1 Short Range (2026) Background Peak Hour Traffic .................................. 19
11. Phase 2 Short Range (2029) Background Peak Hour Traffic .................................. 20
12. Phase 1 Short Range (2026) Total Peak Hour Traffic ............................................. 21
13. Phase 2 Short Range (2029) Total Peak Hour Traffic ............................................. 22
14. Phase 1 Short Range (2026) Geometry .................................................................. 24
15. Phase 2 Short Range (2029) Geometry .................................................................. 25
APPENDICES
A. Base Assumptions Form
B. Recent Peak Hour Traffic Counts
C. Current Peak Hour Operation/Level of Service Descriptions/Fort Collins Motor Vehicle
LOS Standards (Intersections)
D. Phase 1 Short Range (2026) Background Peak Hour Operation
E. Phase 2 Short Range (2029) Background Peak Hour Operation
F. Phase 1 Short Range (2026) Total Peak Hour Operation
G. Phase 2 Short Range (2029) Total Peak Hour Operation
H. Pedestrian/Bicycle Level of Service Worksheets
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 60
DELICH Liberty Common Middle School Expansion ITIS, October 2024 ASSOCIATES Page 1
I. INTRODUCTION
This Intermediate Transportation Impact Study (ITIS) addresses the capacity,
geometric, and control requirements for the proposed Liberty Common Middle School
Expansion. The proposed Liberty Common Middle School Expansion site is located in the
buildings at 1845 Sharp Point Drive (Phase 1) and 1901 Sharp Point Drive (Phase 2) in Fort
Collins, Colorado.
During the course of the analysis, numerous contacts were made with the project
developer (LCS Building Corporation), project planning consultant (Jensen Laplante
Development), the project architect/civil engineering consultant (Neenan Archistruction),
and Fort Collins Traffic Engineering. This study generally conforms to the format set forth
in the Fort Collins ITIS Guidelines in the “Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards”
(LCUASS). A scoping discussion was held with the Fort Collins Traffic Engineering staff.
The Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions form and related documents are
provided in Appendix A. The study involved the following steps:
- Collect physical, traffic, and development data;
- Perform trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment;
- Determine peak hour traffic volumes;
- Conduct capacity and operational level of service analyses on key intersections;
- Analyze signal warrants;
- Conduct level of service evaluation of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes of
transportation
THE INITIAL SUBMITTAL OF THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY IS NOT
SIGNED/STAMPED. THE FINAL TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY WILL BE SIGNED/
STAMPED REFLECTING COMMENTS FROM THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 61
DELICH Liberty Common Middle School Expansion ITIS, October 2024 ASSOCIATES Page 2
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The location of the Liberty Common Middle School Expansion site is shown in
Figure 1. It is important that a thorough understanding of the existing conditions be
presented.
Land Use
Land uses in the area are primarily commercial and industrial. There are
commercial and industrial uses to the north, south, and west of the site. The Bucking
Horse residential neighborhood is approximately 1,700 feet to the south of the site. The
center of Fort Collins lies to the west of the proposed Liberty Common Middle School
Expansion site.
Streets
The primary streets near the Liberty Common Middle School Expansion site are
Sharp Point Drive, March Court, Riverbend Court, and Canton Court. Figure 2 shows a
schematic of the existing geometry at the Sharp Point/March, Sharp Point/Building
Driveway, Sharp Point/Riverbend, and Sharp Point/Canton intersections.
Sharp Point Drive is east of (adjacent to) the proposed Liberty Common Middle
School Expansion site. It is a north-south street classified as a collector street on the Fort
Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Sharp Point Drive has a two-lane cross section
with limited parking on both sides of the street. Sharp Point Drive is 34 feet wide (edge
of asphalt to edge of asphalt). There is no parking allowed on the east side of the street
from the Riverbend parking lot to just south of March Court. At the Sharp Point/March,
Sharp Point/Building Driveway, Sharp Point/Riverbend, and Sharp Point/Canton
intersections, Sharp Point Drive is set up with all northbound and southbound movements
in a single lane. The posted speed on Sharp Point Drive is 25 mph.
March Court is north of (adjacent to) the proposed Liberty Common Middle School
Expansion site. Riverbend Court is south of (adjacent to) the proposed Phase 1 of Liberty
Common Middle School Expansion site. Canton Court is south of (adjacent to) the
proposed Phase 2 of Liberty Common Middle School Expansion site. March Court,
Riverbend Court, and Canton Court are local streets. March Court is approximately 250
feet long with a cul-de-sac at the west end and 34 feet wide. Riverbend Court is
approximately 350 feet long with a cul-de-sac at the west end and 34 feet wide. Canton
Court is approximately 260 feet long with a cul-de-sac at the west end and 34 feet wide.
Existing Traffic
Recent morning and afternoon school peak hour (7:00-8:00am & 2:30-3:30pm)
traffic volumes at the Sharp Point/March, Sharp Point/Building Driveway, Sharp Point/
Riverbend, and Sharp Point/Canton intersections are shown in Figure 3. The counts at
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 62
BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD
Prospect
Sh
a
r
p
P
o
i
n
t
March
Ct.
Riverbend
Ct.
Midpoint
Existing Liberty
Common Elem.
School
Ti
m
b
e
r
l
i
n
e
Pou
d
r
e
T
r
ail
Poudre Trail
NancyGray
Drake
Canton
Ct.
SCALE: 1"=1000'
SITE LOCATION Figure 1
DELICH
ASSOCIATES Liberty Common Middle School Expansion TIS, October 2024
Page 3
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 63
EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRY Figure 2
DELICH
ASSOCIATES Liberty Common Middle School Expansion TIS, October 2024
Page 4
March Ct.
Building
Driveway
Sharp P
oint
Riverbend Ct.
Canton Ct.
STOP
- Denotes Lane
STOP
STOP
STOP
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 64
7:00-8:00am/2:30-3:30pm
RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 3
DELICH
ASSOCIATES Liberty Common Middle School Expansion TIS, October 2024
Page 5
0/4
239/161
0/11/2
0/0
13/45
139/118
23/18
134/11443/35
100/47
March Ct.
Building
Driveway
Sharp P
oint
156/130
7/22
238/138
4/16
160/1182/10
7/30
Riverbend Ct.
9/3
171/133
3/6
216/180
1/5
4/11
Canton Ct.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 65
DELICH Liberty Common Middle School Expansion ITIS, October 2024 ASSOCIATES Page 6
the Sharp Point/March, Sharp Point/Building Driveway, Sharp Point/Riverbend, and
Sharp Point/Canton intersections were obtained in September and October 2024. Raw
traffic data is provided in Appendix B. Since counts were obtained on different days, the
traffic volumes were averaged/balanced and are shown in Figure 4.
Existing Operation
The Sharp Point/March, Sharp Point/Building Driveway, Sharp Point/Riverbend,
and Sharp Point/Canton intersections were evaluated, and the peak hour operation is
displayed in Table 1. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix C. Since school traffic
peaks within a 20-30 minute time period, the calculated peak hour factors for the individual
traffic movements were used in the operational analyses. The Sharp Point/March, Sharp
Point/Building Driveway, Sharp Point/Riverbend, and Sharp Point/Canton intersections
are currently operating acceptably with existing control and geometry in the morning and
afternoon school peak hours. The intersections were evaluated using the unsignalized
intersection techniques provided in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 6th Edition. A
description of level of service for unsignalized intersections from the Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM), 6th Edition and a table showing the Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS
Standards (Intersections) are also provided in Appendix C. Acceptable operation is
considered to be at level of service D overall and level of service F for any approach leg at
unsignalized intersections.
Observations of Existing Traffic Patterns
Observations were conducted during the school peak hours for the existing Liberty
Common Elementary School. Liberty Common Elementary School has three drop-
off/pick-up locations. One is in the front of the school in the main parking lot exiting to
Sharp Point Drive via March Court, one is on the south side of the school that is accessed
from March Court and is a one-way access exiting to Midpoint Drive, and the third is
located on the west side of the school that is accessed from a driveway to/from Midpoint
Drive.
During the morning peak hour, there was minor queuing of vehicles on Sharp Point
Drive at the driveway to the main parking lot in front of the school. Many parents would
park their vehicles along both sides of Sharp Point Drive (in allowed areas) and along
March Court and walk their children to the school. Some parents would park in the
Riverbend Trailhead parking lot and walk their children across Sharp Point Drive. There
is a planned rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) crosswalk to be constructed just
north of March Court. This will provide a safe crossing of Sharp Point Drive. The morning
peak hour drop-off period was approximately 20 minutes.
During the afternoon peak hour, vehicles would queue along both sides of Sharp
Point Drive waiting to access the main parking lot in front of the school. Prior to dismissal,
the southbound queue was 20-25 vehicles long. There was also a queue on March Court
(westbound) to access the pick-up area to the south of the school. This queue spilled out
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 66
7:00-8:00am/2:30-3:30pm
AVERAGED/BALANCED
RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 4
DELICH
ASSOCIATES Liberty Common Middle School Expansion TIS, October 2024
Page 7
0/4
242/161
0/11/2
0/0
13/45
142/118
23/18
137/11343/35
100/47
March Ct.
Building
Driveway
Sharp P
oint
159/129
7/22
235/139
4/16
157/1202/10
7/30
Riverbend Ct.
9/3
160/131
3/6
239/163
1/5
4/11
Canton Ct.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 67
DELICH Liberty Common Middle School Expansion ITIS, October 2024 ASSOCIATES Page 8
TABLE 1
Intersection Movement
Sharp Point/March
(stop sign)
Sharp Point/Building Access
(stop sign)
Sharp Point/Riverbend
(stop sign)
Sharp Point/Canton
(stop sign)
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 68
DELICH Liberty Common Middle School Expansion ITIS, October 2024 ASSOCIATES Page 9
to Sharp Point Drive. Parking is prohibited along the west side of Sharp Point Drive
between 2:45-3:15pm so that vehicles can queue when waiting for access to the main
parking lot in front of the school and waiting to turn onto March Court. Along the east side
of Sharp Point Drive, vehicles would queue in the prohibited parking areas, which are
from the entrance to the Riverbend Trailhead parking lot to approximately 500 feet to the
south (March Court). Some parents would park in the Riverbend Trailhead parking lot
with some vehicles not using designated parking stalls. Vehicle were parked on either
side of the access to the Riverbend Trailhead parking lot leaving only enough room for a
single vehicle to use the access. This caused congestion within the Riverbend Trailhead
parking lot. Some vehicles parked along March Court very close to the Sharp Point/March
intersection. The vehicles parked along both sides of Sharp Point Drive south of March
Court. This extended beyond Riverbend Court. Along the west side of Sharp Point Drive,
the vehicles parked close to the Sharp Point/March intersection caused line of sight
issues for vehicles egressing from March Court. In addition to this, the parked/queued
vehicles along both sides of Sharp Point Drive caused significantly narrow travel lanes on
Sharp Point Drive. The narrow travel lanes appeared to cause some driver discomfort.
The afternoon peak hour pick-up period was approximately 25-30 minutes.
Pedestrian Facilities
There are attached sidewalks (4 foot width) adjacent to the west side of Sharp
Point Drive. Along the east side of Sharp Point Drive is the Poudre Trail sidewalk (10 foot
width). There are attached sidewalks (4 foot width) along both sides of March Court,
Riverbend Court, and Canton Court. It was requested that an inventory of all pedestrian
facilities within one mile of the Liberty Common Middle School Expansion site be
conducted. There are sidewalks along all streets within a mile of the Liberty Common
Middle School Expansion site, except for a short break in the sidewalk system on the west
side of Sharp Point Drive from the intersection of Midpoint Drive to Canton Court to the
north. This section of sidewalk is also missing on the north side of Midpoint Drive for
approximately 420 feet. In addition to this, there are no sidewalks along Summit View
Drive. The sidewalk system is complete within the Bucking Horse neighborhood to the
south and within the Rigden Farm neighborhood south of Drake Road. Pedestrians can
use the sidewalks along the east side of Nancy Gray Avenue. There is one flashing
beacon pedestrian crosswalk across Drake Road at Illinois Drive. There is access to the
Poudre Trail, the Spring Creek Trail, and the Power Trail. There is also access to the trail
adjacent to Prospect Road, east of Sharp Point Drive. This trail extends to Summit View
Drive.
Bicycle Facilities
There are bicycle lanes along Prospect Road, east of Sharp Point Drive. There
are no bicycle lanes along Prospect Road west of Sharp Point Drive. These bicycle lanes
connect to the Poudre Trail. Sharp Point Drive is a collector street that was constructed
without bicycle lanes prior to the current City of Fort Collins standards. As Sharp Point
Drive transitions into Nancy Gray Avenue to the south, Nancy Gray Avenue has on-street
bicycle lanes.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 69
DELICH Liberty Common Middle School Expansion ITIS, October 2024 ASSOCIATES Page 10
Transit Facilities
Currently, this area of Fort Collins is served by Transfort Route 18. Route 18
operates along Prospect Road, Midpoint Drive, and Sharp Point Drive. There is a transit
stop on Sharp Point Drive, just to the north of March Court.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 70
DELICH Liberty Common Middle School Expansion ITIS, October 2024 ASSOCIATES Page 11
III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Phase 1 of the Liberty Common Middle School Expansion project is proposed to
occupy the office building at 1845 Sharp Point Drive. The proposed student population
for Phase 1 is 240 students. The site plan for Phase 1 is shown in Figure 5. Also shown
on Figure 5 is the proposed site traffic pattern for the drop-off and pick-up of students. It
is proposed that the Building Access be used for ingress vehicles from the north.
Riverbend Court would be used for ingress vehicles from the south. All ingress vehicles
would proceed to the back of the building for student drop-off/pick-up. The egressing
vehicles from the site will use March Court. Phase 2 of the Liberty Common Middle
School Expansion project is proposed to occupy the office building at 1901 Sharp Point
Drive and construct a gymnasium connecting the two buildings. The proposed student
population for Phase 2 (full occupancy) is 384 students. The site plan for Phase 2 is
shown in Figure 6. Riverbend Court will be vacated with Phase 2 of the Liberty Common
Middle School Expansion so that a gymnasium can be constructed to join the two
buildings. Also shown on Figure 6 is the proposed site traffic pattern for the drop-off and
pick-up of students. It is proposed that the Canton Court be used for all ingress vehicles.
All ingress vehicles would proceed to the back of the building for student drop-off/pick-
up. The egressing vehicles from the site will use March Court.
It is recommended and assumed that the start and dismissal times for the proposed
middle school and the existing elementary school will be staggered by 20 minutes.
Staggering the start and dismissal times will mitigate some of the traffic congestion;
particularly at the Sharp Point/March intersection since all elementary and middle school
traffic will egress using this intersection. The Phase 1 short range analysis year will be
2026 and the Phase 2 short range analysis year will be 2029. Each short range analysis
includes development of the Liberty Common Middle School Expansion site and an
appropriate increase in background traffic due to normal growth and other potential
developments in the area.
Trip Generation
Trip generation is important in considering the impact of a development on the
existing and proposed street system. Trip Generation, 11th Edition, ITE was used to
determine the trips that would be generated by the Liberty Common Middle School
Expansion project. A trip is defined as a one-way vehicle movement from origin to
destination. Middle School (Code 522) was used for the land use for the Liberty Common
Middle School Expansion project. However, the ITE trip generation rates in the afternoon
peak hour were deemed too low. Therefore, adjustments to the afternoon peak hour trip
generation were applied. Afternoon peak hour rate from ITE was deemed too small.
Adjustment made by using 0.59 (AM Generator (0.74) minus PM Street (0.15)). Table 2
shows the expected trip generation from the Liberty Common Middle School Expansion
site on a daily and peak hour basis. Phase 1 of the Liberty Common Middle School
Expansion trip generation resulted in 504 daily trip ends, 161 morning peak hour trip ends,
and 142 afternoon peak hour trip ends. Phase 2 of the Liberty Common Middle School
Expansion trip generation resulted in 806 daily trip ends, 257 morning peak hour trip ends,
and 227 afternoon peak hour trip ends.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 71
SCALE: 1"=100'
PHASE 1 SITE PLAN Figure 5
DELICH
ASSOCIATES Liberty Common Middle School Expansion TIS, October 2024
Page 12
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 72
PHASE 2 SITE PLAN Figure 6
DELICH
ASSOCIATES Liberty Common Middle School Expansion TIS, October 2024
Page 13
SCALE: 1"=100'
175' (7 VEHICLES)
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 73
DELICH Liberty Common Middle School Expansion ITIS, October 2024 ASSOCIATES Page 14
TABLE 2
Trip Generation
Code Use Size Rate Trips Rate In Rate Out Rate In Rate Out
Phase 1
522 Middle School 240
students 2.10 504 0.67
54% 87 0.67
46% 74 0.59
46% 65 0.59
54% 77
Phase 2
522 Middle School 384
students 2.10 806 0.67
54% 139 0.67
46% 118 0.59
46% 104 0.59
54% 123
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 74
DELICH Liberty Common Middle School Expansion ITIS, October 2024 ASSOCIATES Page 15
Trip Distribution/Trip Assignment
Trip distribution for the Liberty Common Middle School Expansion site was based
on existing/future travel patterns, land uses in the area, consideration of trip attractions in
Fort Collins, and engineering judgment. Figure 7 shows the trip distribution for the Phase
1 short range (2026) and Phase 2 short range (2029) analysis futures. The trip distribution
was agreed to by City of Fort Collins staff in the scoping discussions.
Trip assignment is how the generated and distributed trips are expected to be loaded
on the street system. The assigned trips are the resultant of the trip distribution process.
Figure 8 shows the Phase 1 site generated morning and afternoon peak hour traffic
assignment at the Sharp Point/March, Sharp Point/Building Driveway, Sharp Point/
Riverbend, and Sharp Point/Canton intersections. Figure 9 shows the Phase 2 site
generated peak hour traffic assignment at the Sharp Point/March and Sharp Point/Canton
intersections. The Sharp Point/Building Driveway intersection is not shown since all site
generated traffic was assumed to be for drop-offs/pick-ups. The Sharp Point/Riverbend
intersection is not shown since Riverbend Court will be vacated with Phase 2 of the Liberty
Common Middle School Expansion.
Background Traffic Projections
Figure 10 shows the Phase 1 short range (2026) background traffic projections at
the Sharp Point/March, Sharp Point/Building Driveway, Sharp Point/Riverbend, and
Sharp Point/Canton intersections. The Building Driveway shows no traffic due to the fact
that this building will be unoccupied in preparation of the proposed Liberty Common
Middle School. Figure 11 shows the Phase 2 short range (2029) background traffic
projections at the Sharp Point/March and Sharp Point/Canton intersections. The Sharp
Point/Building Driveway intersection is not shown since all site generated traffic was
assumed to be for drop-offs/pick-ups. The Sharp Point/Riverbend intersection is not shown
since Riverbend Court will be vacated with Phase 2 of the Liberty Common Middle School
Expansion. Some of the existing traffic for the three office buildings to the southwest of the
site was assigned to Canton Court. Background traffic projections for the Phase 1 short
range (2026) and Phase 2 short range (2029) future horizons were obtained by increasing
the through traffic volumes on Sharp Point Drive by approximately two percent per year.
The background traffic growth was agreed to by City of Fort Collins staff in the scoping
discussions.
Total Traffic Projections
Figure 12 shows the Phase 1 short range (2026) total traffic at the Sharp Point/
March, Sharp Point/Building Driveway, Sharp Point/Riverbend, and Sharp Point/Canton
intersections. Figure 13 shows the Phase 2 short range (2029) total traffic at the Sharp
Point/March and Sharp Point/Canton intersections.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 75
Sh
a
r
p
P
o
i
n
t
March
Ct.
Riverbend
Ct.
Midpoint
Poudre Trail
Phase 1
70%
30%
Phase 2
Canton
Ct.
SCALE: 1"=300'
TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 7
DELICH
ASSOCIATES Liberty Common Middle School Expansion TIS, October 2024
Page 16
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 76
7:00-8:00am/2:30-3:30pm
PHASE 1 SITE GENERATED
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 8
DELICH
ASSOCIATES Liberty Common Middle School Expansion TIS, October 2024
Page 17
61/45
22/23
61/45
52/54
22/23
March Ct.
Building
Driveway
Sharp P
oint
22/23
26/20
Riverbend Ct.
26/20
22/23
Canton Ct.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 77
7:00-8:00am/2:30-3:30pm
PHASE 2 SITE GENERATED
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 9
DELICH
ASSOCIATES Liberty Common Middle School Expansion TIS, October 2024
Page 18
97/73
83/86
35/37
March Ct.
Sharp P
oint
42/31
97/73
35/37
Canton Ct.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 78
7:00-8:00am/2:30-3:30pm
PHASE 1 SHORT RANGE (2026)
BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 10
DELICH
ASSOCIATES Liberty Common Middle School Expansion TIS, October 2024
Page 19
0/0
248/170
0/00/0
0/0
13/45
148/123
23/18
143/11843/35
100/47
March Ct.
Building
Driveway
Sharp P
oint
166/136
7/22
241/148
4/16
164/1262/10
7/30
Riverbend Ct.
9/3
169/137
3/6
244/171
1/5
4/11
Canton Ct.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 79
7:00-8:00am/2:30-3:30pm
PHASE 2 SHORT RANGE (2029)
BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 11
DELICH
ASSOCIATES Liberty Common Middle School Expansion TIS, October 2024
Page 20
13/45
157/130
23/18
151/12543/35
100/47
12/15
171/130
8/13
249/164
3/13
9/34
March Ct.
Sharp P
oint
Canton Ct.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 80
7:00-8:00am/2:30-3:30pm
PHASE 1 SHORT RANGE (2026)
TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 12
DELICH
ASSOCIATES Liberty Common Middle School Expansion TIS, October 2024
Page 21
61/45
270/193
0/00/0
0/0
13/45
209/168
23/18
143/11895/89
122/70
March Ct.
Building
Driveway
Sharp P
oint
166/136
7/22
263/171
30/36
164/1262/10
7/30
Riverbend Ct.
9/3
195/157
3/6
266/194
1/5
4/11
Canton Ct.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 81
7:00-8:00am/2:30-3:30pm
PHASE 2 SHORT RANGE (2029)
TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 13
DELICH
ASSOCIATES Liberty Common Middle School Expansion TIS, October 2024
Page 22
13/45
254/203
23/18
151/125126/121
135/84
54/46
171/130
105/86
284/201
3/13
9/34
March Ct.
Sharp P
oint
Canton Ct.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 82
DELICH Liberty Common Middle School Expansion ITIS, October 2024 ASSOCIATES Page 23
Signal Warrants
As a matter of policy, traffic signals are not installed at any location until such time
that signal installation warrants are met according to the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices. For the roads in the vicinity of the Liberty Common Middle School
Expansion site, four hour and/or eight hour signal warrants are applicable. These warrants
require much data and are applied when the traffic is actually on the area road system. It is
acknowledged that peak hour signal warrants should not be applied, but since the peak hour
forecasts are readily available in a traffic impact study, it is reasonable to use them to
estimate whether other signal warrants may be met. If peak hour signal warrants will not be
met at a given intersection, it is reasonable to conclude that it is not likely that other signal
warrants would be met. If peak hour signal warrants are met, it merely indicates that further
evaluation should occur in the future as the development occurs. However, a judgment can
be made that some intersections may meet other signal warrants. None of the stop sign
controlled intersections analyzed in this study will meet peak hour signal warrants or signal
spacing criteria and will not be signalized.
Geometry
Figure 14 shows a schematic of the Phase 1 short range (2026) geometry. It is
recommended and assumed that parking will be prohibited along March Court. This will
allow separate eastbound left-turn and right-turn lanes to be striped on March Court
approaching Sharp Point Drive. Since March Court is 34 feet wide, three 10-11 foot lanes
can fit within the width of March Court. The separate turning lanes will improve the operation
of the Sharp Point/ March intersection. The geometry at the Sharp Point/Building Driveway,
Sharp Point/ Riverbend, and Sharp Point/Canton intersections can remain as it currently
exists. Figure 15 shows a schematic of the Phase 2 short range (2029) geometry at the
Sharp Point/March and Sharp Point/Canton intersections.
Operation Analysis
Operation analyses were performed at the Sharp Point/March, Sharp Point/Building
Driveway, Sharp Point/Riverbend, and Sharp Point/Canton intersections for the Phase 1
short range (2026) future. Operation analyses were performed at the Sharp Point/March
and Sharp Point/Canton intersections for the Phase 2 short range (2029) future. Since it
is assumed that the Liberty Common Elementary School and Middle School will have
staggered start/dismissal times of 20 minutes, the school traffic will be more consistent over
the school peak hours rather than peaking in a 20-30 minute time period. Therefore, peak
hour factors of 0.70 were used for the eastbound left-turn and right-turn movements at the
Sharp Point/March intersection for the Phase 1 short range (2026) and Phase 2 short range
(2029) total analyses. In addition to this, peak hour factors of 0.50 were used for the school
ingressing movements at the key intersections as observed under the existing conditions.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 83
PHASE 1 SHORT
RANGE (2026) GEOMETRY Figure 14
DELICH
ASSOCIATES Liberty Common Middle School Expansion TIS, October 2024
Page 24
March Ct.
Building
Driveway
Sharp P
oint
Riverbend Ct.
Canton Ct.
STOP
- Denotes Lane
STOP
STOP
STOP
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 84
PHASE 2 SHORT
RANGE (2029) GEOMETRY Figure 15
DELICH
ASSOCIATES Liberty Common Middle School Expansion TIS, October 2024
Page 25
STOP
- Denotes Lane
STOP
March Ct.
Sharp P
oint
Canton Ct.
Parking Lot
Driveway
STOP
Parking Lot
Driveway
STOP
Parking lots are not
expected to be very
active during the
analyzed peak hours.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 85
DELICH Liberty Common Middle School Expansion ITIS, October 2024 ASSOCIATES Page 26
Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 10, the Sharp Point/March, Sharp
Point/Building Driveway, Sharp Point/Riverbend, and Sharp Point/Canton intersections
operate in the Phase 1 short range (2026) background traffic future as indicated in Table 3.
Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix D. The Sharp Point/March,
Sharp Point/Building Driveway, Sharp Point/Riverbend, and Sharp Point/Canton
intersections will meet the Fort Collins operational criteria with stop sign control and
existing geometry in the morning and afternoon school peak hours.
Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 11, the Sharp Point/March and Sharp
Point/Canton intersections operate in the Phase 2 short range (2029) background traffic
future as indicated in Table 4. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix
E. The Sharp Point/March and Sharp Point/Canton intersections will meet the Fort Collins
operational criteria with stop sign control and existing/recommended geometry in the
morning and afternoon school peak hours.
Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 12, the Sharp Point/March, Sharp
Point/Building Driveway, Sharp Point/Riverbend, and Sharp Point/Canton intersections
operate in the Phase 1 short range (2026) total traffic future as indicated in Table 5.
Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix F. The Sharp Point/March,
Sharp Point/Building Driveway, Sharp Point/Riverbend, and Sharp Point/Canton
intersections will meet the Fort Collins operational criteria with stop sign control and
existing/recommended geometry in the morning and afternoon school peak hours.
Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 13, the Sharp Point/March and Sharp
Point/Canton intersections operate in the Phase 2 short range (2029) total traffic future as
indicated in Table 6. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix G. The
Sharp Point/March and Sharp Point/Canton intersections will meet the Fort Collins
operational criteria with stop sign control and existing/recommended geometry in the
morning and afternoon school peak hours.
Pedestrian Level of Service
Appendix H shows a map of the area that is within one mile of the Liberty Common
Middle School Expansion site. Based upon observations and the expected attendance
from the pedestrian destinations within one mile of the Liberty Commons Schools, the
number of students that will walk to/from these areas will likely be small. The Liberty
Common Middle School Expansion site is located within an area termed as “School
Walking Area,” which sets the level of service threshold at LOS B for all measured factors,
except for Visual Interest and Amenity which is LOS C. There will be eight pedestrian
destinations within one mile of the Liberty Common Middle School Expansion site. These
are: 1) the residential uses to the northeast of the site (Summit View Drive), 2) the
commercial/industrial uses to the west of the site, 3) the EPIC Center to the west of the
site, 4) the residential uses to the west of the site, 5) the residential uses (Bucking Horse)
to the southwest of the site, 6) the residential uses to the southwest of the site (Joseph
Allen Drive), 7) the commercial uses to the south of the site, and 8) the residential uses
(Rigden Farm) to the south of the site.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 86
DELICH Liberty Common Middle School Expansion ITIS, October 2024 ASSOCIATES Page 27
TABLE 3
Phase 1 Short Range (2026) Background Peak Hour Operation
Intersection Movement
Sharp Point/March
(stop sign)
Sharp Point/Building Access
(stop sign)
Sharp Point/Riverbend
(stop sign)
Sharp Point/Canton
(stop sign)
TABLE 4
Intersection Movement
Sharp Point/March
(stop sign)
Sharp Point/Canton
(stop sign)
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 87
DELICH Liberty Common Middle School Expansion ITIS, October 2024 ASSOCIATES Page 28
TABLE 5
Phase 1 Short Range (2026) Total Peak Hour Operation
Intersection Movement
Sharp Point/March
(stop sign)
Sharp Point/Building Access
(stop sign)
Sharp Point/Riverbend
(stop sign)
Sharp Point/Canton
(stop sign)
TABLE 6
Phase 2 Short Range (2029) Total Peak Hour Operation
Intersection Movement
Sharp Point/March
(stop sign)
Sharp Point/Canton
(stop sign)
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 88
DELICH Liberty Common Middle School Expansion ITIS, October 2024 ASSOCIATES Page 29
There is a planned rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) crosswalk to be
constructed just north of March Court. This will provide a safe crossing of Sharp Point
Drive. There are attached sidewalks (4 foot width) adjacent to the west side of Sharp
Point Drive. Along the east side of Sharp Point Drive is the Poudre Trail sidewalk (10 foot
width). There are attached sidewalks (4 foot width) along both sides of March Court,
Riverbend Court, and Canton Court. There are sidewalks along all streets within a mile
of the Liberty Common Middle School Expansion site, except for a short break in the
sidewalk system on the west side of Sharp Point Drive from the intersection of Midpoint
Drive to Canton Court to the north. This section of sidewalk is also missing on the north
side of Midpoint Drive for approximately 420 feet. In addition to this, there are no
sidewalks along Summit View Drive. The sidewalk system is complete within the Bucking
Horse neighborhood to the south and within the Rigden Farm neighborhood south of
Drake Road. Pedestrians can use the sidewalks along the east side of Nancy Gray
Avenue. There is one flashing beacon pedestrian crosswalk across Drake Road at Illinois
Drive. There is access to the Poudre Trail, the Spring Creek Trail, and the Power Trail.
There is also access to the trail adjacent to Prospect Road, east of Sharp Point Drive.
This trail extends to Summit View Drive. Some of the sidewalks along Prospect Road
were built prior to the current standards. Therefore, some of the sidewalks may be
considered to be substandard. The LOS evaluation is below:
• Directness – The distance ratio to all pedestrian destinations is less than 1.2 (LOS
A) using the existing street/sidewalk system.
• Continuity – The sidewalk system to all destination areas has no breaks or gaps,
except for a short break in the sidewalk system on the west side of Sharp Point
Drive and north side of Midpoint Drive. Therefore, destination #2 can only achieve
LOS D. These gaps should be completed by the adjacent properties. In addition
to this, there are no sidewalks along Summit View Drive. Therefore, destination
#1 can only achieve LOS E. Some of the sidewalks along Prospect Road were
built prior to current standards and some are built directly adjacent to the streets
with no landscaped parkways. Therefore, destination #3 can only achieve LOS C.
However, the Spring Creek Trail and the Power Trail are adjacent to destination
#3.
• Street Crossings – There is a signalized pedestrian crossing for destination #1 at
the Prospect/Summit View intersection. However, since there are no sidewalks
along Summit View Drive, only LOS C can be achieved for destination #1. The
street crossings for destinations #3, #4, #6, #7, and #8 all have adequate (LOS B)
signalized pedestrian crosswalks. The street crossings for destinations #2 and #5
have minor street (local/collector) crossings, many of them with stop sign control.
There are no crosswalks on Nancy Gray Avenue. Since Liberty Common Middle
School is a charter school that draws the student population from all over Fort
Collins, it is not likely that the number of pedestrians will exceed the threshold that
would require crosswalk treatments. Therefore, LOS B is achieved for all
destination areas except for destination #1.
• Visual Interest and Amenity – The visual interest and amenity category will be
acceptable at LOS B and C for destination areas #2 through #8, since these are
active pedestrian areas, which generally have enhanced pedestrian features (large
sidewalk widths, landscaping, etc.). Since there are no sidewalks along Summit
View Drive, destination #1 can only achieve LOS E.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 89
DELICH Liberty Common Middle School Expansion ITIS, October 2024 ASSOCIATES Page 30
• Security – The security category will be acceptable at LOS A and B for destination
areas #2 through #8, since these are active pedestrian areas, which generally have
good lighting levels and clear lines of sight. Destination #1 can only achieve LOS
E since there are no sidewalks along Summit View Drive, which may make
pedestrians feel uncomfortable walking along the street.
Bicycle Level of Service
Appendix H shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of the Liberty Common
Middle School Expansion site. There will be one bicycle destination within 1320 feet of
the Liberty Common Middle School Expansion site. This is: 1) the Poudre Trail to the
east of the site. The Bicycle LOS Worksheet is provided in Appendix H. The base level
of service is A and is LOS A for the bicycle destination, since there is a planned
rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) crosswalk to be constructed just north of March
Court.
Transit Level of Service
Currently, this area of Fort Collins is served by Transfort Route 18. Route 18
operates along Prospect Road, Midpoint Drive, and Sharp Point Drive. There is a transit
stop on Sharp Point Drive, just to the north of March Court. In addition to the Transfort
service, Liberty Common will provide school bus service.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 90
DELICH Liberty Common Middle School Expansion ITIS, October 2024 ASSOCIATES Page 31
IV. CONCLUSIONS
This study assessed the impacts of the Liberty Common Middle School Expansion
site on the street system in the vicinity of the proposed development in the short range
(2029) future. As a result of this analysis, the following is concluded:
- The development of the Liberty Common Middle School Expansion site is feasible
from a traffic engineering standpoint. Phase 1 of the Liberty Common Middle School
Expansion trip generation resulted in 504 daily trip ends, 161 morning peak hour
trip ends, and 142 afternoon peak hour trip ends. Phase 2 of the Liberty Common
Middle School Expansion trip generation resulted in 806 daily trip ends, 257
morning peak hour trip ends, and 227 afternoon peak hour trip ends.
- The Sharp Point/March, Sharp Point/Building Driveway, Sharp Point/Riverbend,
and Sharp Point/Canton intersections are currently operating acceptably with
existing control and geometry in the morning and afternoon school peak hours.
- None of the stop sign controlled intersections analyzed in this study will meet peak
hour signal warrants or signal spacing criteria and will not be signalized.
- In the Phase 1 short range (2026) future, given development of the Liberty Common
Middle School Expansion site and an increase in background traffic, the Sharp
Point/March, Sharp Point/Building Driveway, Sharp Point/Riverbend, and Sharp
Point/Canton intersections will meet the Fort Collins operational criteria with stop
sign control and existing/recommended geometry in the morning and afternoon
school peak hours.
- In the Phase 2 short range (2029) future, given development of the Liberty Common
Middle School Expansion site and an increase in background traffic, the Sharp
Point/March and Sharp Point/Canton intersections will meet the Fort Collins
operational criteria with stop sign control and existing/recommended geometry in
the morning and afternoon school peak hours.
- Figure 14 shows a schematic of the Phase 1 short range (2026) geometry. It is
recommended and assumed that parking will be prohibited along March Court. This
will allow separate eastbound left-turn and right-turn lanes to be striped on March
Court approaching Sharp Point Drive. Since March Court is 34 feet wide, three 10-
11 foot lanes can fit within the width of March Court. The separate turning lanes will
improve the operation of the Sharp Point/ March intersection. The geometry at the
Sharp Point/Building Driveway, Sharp Point/ Riverbend, and Sharp Point/Canton
intersections can remain as it currently exists. Figure 15 shows a schematic of the
Phase 2 short range (2029) geometry at the Sharp Point/March and Sharp
Point/Canton intersections.
- Acceptable level of service is achieved for bicycle and transit modes based upon the
measures in the multi-modal transportation guidelines and the Fort Collins
Pedestrian Plan. Generally, all categories in the pedestrian analysis achieve
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 91
DELICH Liberty Common Middle School Expansion ITIS, October 2024 ASSOCIATES Page 32
acceptable levels of service. The residential uses northeast of the site (Summit
View Drive) could not achieve acceptable LOS with the continuity, street crossings,
visual interest and amenities, and security categories. The commercial uses
northwest of the site and the EPIC Center could not achieve acceptable LOS with
the continuity category.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 92
APPENDIX A
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 93
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 Liberty Common Middle School
Project Location 1845 & 1901 Sharp Point Drive
TIS Assumptions
Type of Study Full:Intermediate: Yes
MTIS: Memo:
Study Area Boundaries North: March Court South: Canton Court
East: Sharp Point Drive West: Sharp Point Drive
Study Years Short Range: 2026
(Phase 1)
Short Range: 2029
(Phase 2)
Future Traffic Growth Rate 2% per year (through traffic)
Study Intersections 1. Sharp Point/March 5.
2. Sharp Point/Building
Drivewa 6.
3. Sharp Point/Riverbend 7.
4. Sharp Point/Canton 8.
Time Period for Study AM: 7:00-9:00 PM: 2:15-4:15 Sat Noon: N/A
Trip Generation Rates (see
attached)Per ITE
Trip Adjustment Factors Passby: N/A Captive Market: N/A
Trip Distribution (see attached)
Mode Split Assumptions All Motor Vehicle
Design Vehicle Information Passenger Car
Committed Roadway Improvements City Provide
Other Traffic Studies Prospect Sports
Areas Requiring Special Study Bike & Ped LOS – 1. Access to the trail 2. Access to
the neighborhood to the south
Date: ____October 17, 2024________________________________________
Traffic Engineer: ____Delich Associates________________________________________
Local Entity Engineer: __________________________________________________________
________
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 94
BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD
Prospect
Sh
a
r
p
P
o
i
n
t
March
Ct.
Riverbend
Ct.
Midpoint
Existing Liberty
Common Elem.
School
Ti
m
b
e
r
l
i
n
e
Poudre Trail
Poudre Trail
NancyGray
Drake
Canton
Ct.
SCALE: 1"=1000'
SITE LOCATION Figure 1
DELICH
ASSOCIATES Liberty Common Middle School Expansion TIS, October 2024
Page 3
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 95
Sh
a
r
p
P
o
i
n
t
March
Ct.
Riverbend
Ct.
Midpoint
Poudre Trail
Phase 1
70%
30%
Phase 2
Canton
Ct.
SCALE: 1"=300'
TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 7
DELICH
ASSOCIATES Liberty Common Middle School Expansion TIS, October 2024
Page 3
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 96
SCALE: 1"=100'
PHASE 1 SITE PLAN Figure 5
DELICH
ASSOCIATES Liberty Common Middle School Expansion TIS, October 2024
Page 5
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 97
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
TABLE 2
Trip Generation
Code Use Size Rate Trips Rate In Rate Out Rate In Rate Out
Phase 1
522 Middle School 239
students 2.10 502 0.67
54% 86 0.67
46% 74 0.59
46% 65 0.59
54% 76
Phase 2
522 Middle School 384
students 2.10 806 0.67
54% 139 0.67
46% 118 0.59
46% 104 0.59
54% 123
Afternoon peak hour rate from ITE was deemed too small. Adjustment made by using
0.59 (AM Generator (0.74) minus PM Street (0.15)).
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 98
PHASE 2 SITE PLAN Figure 6
DELICH
ASSOCIATES Liberty Common Middle School Expansion TIS, October 2024
Page 5
SCALE: 1"=100'
175' (7 VEHICLES)
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 99
APPENDIX B
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 100
DELICH ASSOCIATES 2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE
LOVELAND, CO 80538
Phone: (970) 669-2061
TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS
Day: Tuesday Jurisdiction: Fort Collins
R = right turn Intersection: Sharp Point/March
S = straight
L = left turn
Time Northbound: Sharp Point Southbound: Sharp Point Total Eastbound: March Westbound: Total Total
Begins L S R Total L S R Total north/south L S R Total L S R Total east/west All
7:00 0 11 11 14 0 14 1 0 1 0 1 26
7:15 1 25 26 34 1 35 1 6 7 0 7 68
7:30 22 63 85 42 5 47 17 43 60 0 60 192
7:45 0 35 35 49 7 56 24 51 75 0 75 166 #
8:00 8 27 35 27 2 29 3 8 11 0 11 75 #
8:15 0 23 23 36 1 37 3 1 4 0 4 64 #
8:30 0 28 28 29 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 57 #
8:45 0 17 17 24 1 25 5 3 8 0 8 50 #
7:00-8:00 23 134 0 157 0 139 13 152
PHF 0.26 0.53 n/a 0.46 n/a 0.71 0.46 0.68 0.59 0.45 n/a 0.49 0.48 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.48 0.59
2:15 1 13 14 15 1 16 2 4 6 0 6 36
2:30 5 32 37 20 8 28 0 0 0 0 0 65
2:45 5 30 35 37 9 46 1 2 3 0 3 84
3:00 5 22 27 40 14 54 26 31 57 0 57 138 #
3:15 3 30 33 21 14 35 8 14 22 0 22 90 #
3:30 3 34 37 29 3 32 17 13 30 0 30 99 #
3:45 1 21 22 18 2 20 5 3 8 0 8 50 #
4:00 3 22 25 18 1 19 2 3 5 0 5 49 #
2:30-3:30 18 114 0 132 0 118 45 163
PHF 0.9 0.89 n/a 0.89 n/a 0.74 0.8 0.75 0.91 0.34 n/a 0.38 0.36 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.36 0.68
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 101
DELICH ASSOCIATES 2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE
LOVELAND, CO 80538
Phone: (970) 669-2061
TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS
Day: Tuesday Jurisdiction: Fort Collins
R = right turn Intersection: Sharp Point/Building Driveway
S = straight
L = left turn
Time Northbound: Sharp Point Southbound: Sharp Point Total Eastbound: Westbound: Total Total
Begins L S R Total L S R Total north/south L S R Total L S R Total east/west All
7:00 0 11 11 14 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 25
7:15 0 26 26 40 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 66
7:30 0 84 84 85 0 85 1 0 1 0 1 170
7:45 0 35 35 100 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 135 #
8:00 0 35 35 35 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 70 #
8:15 0 23 23 36 1 37 0 0 0 0 0 60 #
8:30 1 28 29 28 1 29 0 0 0 0 0 58 #
8:45 0 16 16 27 0 27 1 0 1 0 1 44 #
7:00-8:00 0 156 0 156 0 239 0 239
PHF n/a 0.46 n/a 0.46 n/a 0.6 n/a 0.6 0.58 0.25 n/a n/a 0.25 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.25 0.58
2:15 0 14 14 18 1 19 0 2 2 0 2 35
2:30 0 37 37 20 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 57
2:45 1 35 36 35 4 39 0 0 0 0 0 75
3:00 0 26 26 71 0 71 1 0 1 0 1 98 #
3:15 0 32 32 35 0 35 1 0 1 0 1 68 #
3:30 1 35 36 42 0 42 2 0 2 0 2 80 #
3:45 0 22 22 20 1 21 0 0 0 0 0 43 #
4:00 0 25 25 21 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 46 #
2:30-3:30 1 130 0 131 0 161 4 165
PHF 0.25 0.88 n/a 0.89 n/a 0.57 0.25 0.58 0.76 0.5 n/a n/a 0.5 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.5 0.76
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 102
DELICH ASSOCIATES 2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE
LOVELAND, CO 80538
Phone: (970) 669-2061
TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS
Day: Wednesday Jurisdiction: Fort Collins
R = right turn Intersection: Sharp Point/Riverbend
S = straight
L = left turn
Time Northbound: Sharp Point Southbound: Sharp Point Total Eastbound: Riverbend Westbound: Total Total
Begins L S R Total L S R Total north/south L S R Total L S R Total east/west All
7:00 1 14 15 18 2 20 0 1 1 0 1 36
7:15 1 28 29 36 1 37 0 0 0 0 0 66
7:30 0 55 55 79 1 80 0 1 1 0 1 136
7:45 2 63 65 105 3 108 2 5 7 0 7 180 #
8:00 1 19 20 32 3 35 0 1 1 0 1 56 #
8:15 2 21 23 27 1 28 0 1 1 0 1 52 #
8:30 3 22 25 27 2 29 2 0 2 0 2 56 #
8:45 2 24 26 29 2 31 0 1 1 0 1 58 #
7:00-8:00 4 160 0 164 0 238 7 245
PHF 0.5 0.63 n/a 0.63 n/a 0.57 0.58 0.57 0.59 0.25 n/a 0.35 0.32 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.32 0.58
2:15 3 16 19 21 1 22 0 3 3 0 3 44
2:30 1 28 29 16 6 22 3 4 7 0 7 58
2:45 11 30 41 16 7 23 4 4 8 0 8 72
3:00 3 28 31 78 8 86 2 13 15 0 15 132 #
3:15 1 32 33 28 1 29 1 9 10 0 10 72 #
3:30 5 30 35 46 2 48 2 8 10 0 10 93 #
3:45 0 31 31 25 3 28 1 1 2 0 2 61 #
4:00 1 24 25 19 3 22 2 4 6 0 6 53 #
2:30-3:30 16 118 0 134 0 138 22 160
PHF 0.36 0.92 n/a 0.82 n/a 0.44 0.69 0.47 0.63 0.63 n/a 0.58 0.67 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.67 0.63
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 103
DELICH ASSOCIATES 2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE
LOVELAND, CO 80538
Phone: (970) 669-2061
TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS
Day: Wednesday Jurisdiction: Fort Collins
R = right turn Intersection: Sharp Point/Canton
S = straight
L = left turn
Time Northbound: Sharp Point Southbound: Sharp Point Total Eastbound: Canton Westbound: Total Total
Begins L S R Total L S R Total north/south L S R Total L S R Total east/west All
7:00 1 21 22 17 1 18 0 3 3 0 3 43
7:15 1 42 43 53 0 53 1 1 2 0 2 98
7:30 2 85 87 90 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 177
7:45 5 23 28 56 2 58 0 0 0 0 0 86 #
8:00 2 14 16 19 5 24 0 3 3 0 3 43 #
8:15 1 19 20 20 1 21 1 0 1 0 1 42 #
8:30 4 20 24 13 0 13 2 1 3 0 3 40 #
8:45 2 16 18 12 1 13 2 0 2 0 2 33 #
7:00-8:00 9 171 0 180 0 216 3 219
PHF 0.45 0.5 n/a 0.52 n/a 0.6 0.38 0.61 0.56 0.25 n/a 0.33 0.42 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.42 0.57
2:15 1 15 16 18 1 19 1 2 3 0 3 38
2:30 0 22 22 23 0 23 1 1 2 0 2 47
2:45 1 44 45 19 3 22 1 3 4 0 4 71
3:00 2 27 29 92 1 93 2 6 8 0 8 130 #
3:15 0 40 40 46 2 48 1 1 2 0 2 90 #
3:30 0 24 24 45 1 46 2 3 5 0 5 75 #
3:45 1 27 28 37 1 38 1 2 3 0 3 69 #
4:00 0 26 26 23 1 24 0 3 3 0 3 53 #
2:30-3:30 3 133 0 136 0 180 6 186
PHF 0.38 0.76 n/a 0.76 n/a 0.49 0.5 0.5 0.66 0.63 n/a 0.46 0.5 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.5 0.65
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 104
APPENDIX C
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 105
HCM 6th TWSC Recent AM
3: Sharp Point Drive & March Court
Scenario 1 10/18/2024 Synchro 11 Light Report
recent am.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6.3
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 43 100 23 137 142 13
Future Vol, veh/h 43 100 23 137 142 13
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 45 49 26 53 71 46
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 96 204 88 258 200 28
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 648 214 228 0 - 0
Stage 1 214 - - - - -
Stage 2 434 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 435 826 1340 - - -
Stage 1 822 - - - - -
Stage 2 653 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 402 826 1340 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 402 - - - - -
Stage 1 759 - - - - -
Stage 2 653 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 16.2 2 0
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1340 - 618 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.066 - 0.485 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 0 16.2 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 2.6 - -
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 106
HCM 6th TWSC Recent PM
3: Sharp Point Drive & March Court
Scenario 1 10/18/2024 Synchro 11 Light Report
recent pm.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.9
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 35 47 18 113 118 45
Future Vol, veh/h 35 47 18 113 118 45
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 34 38 90 89 74 80
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 103 124 20 127 159 56
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 354 187 215 0 - 0
Stage 1 187 - - - - -
Stage 2 167 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 644 855 1355 - - -
Stage 1 845 - - - - -
Stage 2 863 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 634 855 1355 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 634 - - - - -
Stage 1 831 - - - - -
Stage 2 863 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 12 1 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1355 - 738 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.015 - 0.307 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.7 0 12 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 1.3 - -
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 107
HCM 6th TWSC Recent AM
7: Sharp Point Drive & Building Driveway
Scenario 1 10/18/2024 Synchro 11 Light Report
recent am.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 0 0 159 242 0
Future Vol, veh/h 1 0 0 159 242 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 25 85 85 46 60 85
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 4 0 0 346 403 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 749 403 403 0 - 0
Stage 1 403 - - - - -
Stage 2 346 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 379 647 1156 - - -
Stage 1 675 - - - - -
Stage 2 716 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 379 647 1156 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 379 - - - - -
Stage 1 675 - - - - -
Stage 2 716 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 14.6 0 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1156 - 379 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.011 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 14.6 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - -
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 108
HCM 6th TWSC Recent PM
7: Sharp Point Drive & Building Driveway
Scenario 1 10/18/2024 Synchro 11 Light Report
recent pm.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.2
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 0 1 129 161 4
Future Vol, veh/h 2 0 1 129 161 4
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 50 85 25 88 57 25
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 4 0 4 147 282 16
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 445 290 298 0 - 0
Stage 1 290 - - - - -
Stage 2 155 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 571 749 1263 - - -
Stage 1 759 - - - - -
Stage 2 873 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 569 749 1263 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 569 - - - - -
Stage 1 757 - - - - -
Stage 2 873 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 11.4 0.2 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1263 - 569 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - 0.007 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 0 11.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - -
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 109
HCM 6th TWSC Recent AM
5: Sharp Point Drive & Riverbend Court
Scenario 1 10/18/2024 Synchro 11 Light Report
recent am.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.6
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 7 4 157 235 8
Future Vol, veh/h 2 7 4 157 235 8
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 25 35 50 63 57 58
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 8 20 8 249 412 14
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 684 419 426 0 - 0
Stage 1 419 - - - - -
Stage 2 265 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 414 634 1133 - - -
Stage 1 664 - - - - -
Stage 2 779 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 411 634 1133 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 411 - - - - -
Stage 1 659 - - - - -
Stage 2 779 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 11.9 0.3 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1133 - 549 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - 0.051 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 0 11.9 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.2 - -
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 110
HCM 6th TWSC Recent PM
5: Sharp Point Drive & Riverbend Court
Scenario 1 10/18/2024 Synchro 11 Light Report
recent pm.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.9
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 30 16 120 139 22
Future Vol, veh/h 10 30 16 120 139 22
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 63 58 36 92 44 69
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 16 52 44 130 316 32
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 550 332 348 0 - 0
Stage 1 332 - - - - -
Stage 2 218 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 496 710 1211 - - -
Stage 1 727 - - - - -
Stage 2 818 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 477 710 1211 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 477 - - - - -
Stage 1 699 - - - - -
Stage 2 818 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 11.3 2.1 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1211 - 637 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.037 - 0.106 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.1 0 11.3 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.4 - -
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 111
HCM 6th TWSC Recent AM
9: Sharp Point Drive & Canton Court
Scenario 1 10/18/2024 Synchro 11 Light Report
recent am.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 4 9 160 239 3
Future Vol, veh/h 1 4 9 160 239 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 25 33 45 50 60 38
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 4 12 20 320 398 8
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 762 402 406 0 - 0
Stage 1 402 - - - - -
Stage 2 360 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 373 648 1153 - - -
Stage 1 676 - - - - -
Stage 2 706 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 365 648 1153 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 365 - - - - -
Stage 1 662 - - - - -
Stage 2 706 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 11.8 0.5 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1153 - 543 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.017 - 0.03 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 0 11.8 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.1 - -
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 112
HCM 6th TWSC Recent PM
9: Sharp Point Drive & Canton Court
Scenario 1 10/18/2024 Synchro 11 Light Report
recent pm.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 11 3 131 163 6
Future Vol, veh/h 5 11 3 131 163 6
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 63 46 38 76 49 50
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 8 24 8 172 333 12
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 527 339 345 0 - 0
Stage 1 339 - - - - -
Stage 2 188 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 512 703 1214 - - -
Stage 1 722 - - - - -
Stage 2 844 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 508 703 1214 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 508 - - - - -
Stage 1 717 - - - - -
Stage 2 844 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 10.9 0.3 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1214 - 642 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - 0.05 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8 0 10.9 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.2 - -
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 113
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Level-of-Service Average Total Delay
sec/veh
A < 10
B > 10 and < 15
C > 15 and < 25
D > 25 and < 35
E > 35 and < 50
F > 50
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 114
Table 4-2
Fort Collins (GMA and City Limits)
Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections)
Overall Any
Approach Leg
Any
Movement
Signalized D1 E E2
Unsignalized E3 F4
Arterial/Arterial
Collector/Collector
Unsignalized 4
Arterial/Collector
Arterial/Local
Collector/Local
Local/Local
1 In mixed use district including downtown as defined by structure plan, overall LOS E is acceptable
2 Applicable with at least 5% of total entering volume
3 Use weighed average to identify overall delay
4 Mitigation may be required
5 Apply unsignalized delay value thresholds to determine LOS
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 115
APPENDIX D
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 116
HCM 6th TWSC Phase 1 Short Bkgrd AM
3: Sharp Point Drive & March Court
Scenario 1 10/18/2024 Synchro 11 Light Report
sb am.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6.3
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 43 100 23 143 148 13
Future Vol, veh/h 43 100 23 143 148 13
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 45 49 26 53 71 46
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 96 204 88 270 208 28
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 668 222 236 0 - 0
Stage 1 222 - - - - -
Stage 2 446 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 423 818 1331 - - -
Stage 1 815 - - - - -
Stage 2 645 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 390 818 1331 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 390 - - - - -
Stage 1 751 - - - - -
Stage 2 645 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 16.6 1.9 0
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1331 - 606 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.066 - 0.494 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 0 16.6 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 2.7 - -
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 117
HCM 6th TWSC Phase 1 Short Bkgrd PM
3: Sharp Point Drive & March Court
Scenario 1 10/18/2024 Synchro 11 Light Report
sb pm.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.8
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 35 47 18 118 123 45
Future Vol, veh/h 35 47 18 118 123 45
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 34 38 90 89 74 80
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 103 124 20 133 166 56
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 367 194 222 0 - 0
Stage 1 194 - - - - -
Stage 2 173 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 633 847 1347 - - -
Stage 1 839 - - - - -
Stage 2 857 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 623 847 1347 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 623 - - - - -
Stage 1 826 - - - - -
Stage 2 857 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 12.2 1 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1347 - 728 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.015 - 0.311 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.7 0 12.2 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 1.3 - -
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 118
HCM 6th TWSC Phase 1 Short Bkgrd AM
7: Sharp Point Drive & Building Driveway
Scenario 1 10/18/2024 Synchro 11 Light Report
sb am.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 166 248 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 166 248 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 25 85 85 46 60 85
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 361 413 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 774 413 413 0 - 0
Stage 1 413 - - - - -
Stage 2 361 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 367 639 1146 - - -
Stage 1 668 - - - - -
Stage 2 705 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 367 639 1146 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 367 - - - - -
Stage 1 668 - - - - -
Stage 2 705 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1146 - - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 0 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - -
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 119
HCM 6th TWSC Phase 1 Short Bkgrd PM
7: Sharp Point Drive & Building Driveway
Scenario 1 10/18/2024 Synchro 11 Light Report
sb pm.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 136 170 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 136 170 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 50 85 25 88 57 25
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 155 298 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 453 298 298 0 - 0
Stage 1 298 - - - - -
Stage 2 155 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 565 741 1263 - - -
Stage 1 753 - - - - -
Stage 2 873 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 565 741 1263 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 565 - - - - -
Stage 1 753 - - - - -
Stage 2 873 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1263 - - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 0 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - -
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 120
HCM 6th TWSC Phase 1 Short Bkgrd AM
5: Sharp Point Drive & Riverbend Court
Scenario 1 10/18/2024 Synchro 11 Light Report
sb am.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 7 4 164 241 8
Future Vol, veh/h 2 7 4 164 241 8
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 25 35 50 63 57 58
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 8 20 8 260 423 14
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 706 430 437 0 - 0
Stage 1 430 - - - - -
Stage 2 276 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 402 625 1123 - - -
Stage 1 656 - - - - -
Stage 2 771 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 399 625 1123 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 399 - - - - -
Stage 1 651 - - - - -
Stage 2 771 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 12.1 0.2 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1123 - 538 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - 0.052 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 0 12.1 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.2 - -
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 121
HCM 6th TWSC Phase 1 Short Bkgrd PM
5: Sharp Point Drive & Riverbend Court
Scenario 1 10/18/2024 Synchro 11 Light Report
sb pm.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.8
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 30 16 126 148 22
Future Vol, veh/h 10 30 16 126 148 22
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 63 58 36 92 44 69
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 16 52 44 137 336 32
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 577 352 368 0 - 0
Stage 1 352 - - - - -
Stage 2 225 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 478 692 1191 - - -
Stage 1 712 - - - - -
Stage 2 812 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 459 692 1191 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 459 - - - - -
Stage 1 684 - - - - -
Stage 2 812 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 11.5 2 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1191 - 618 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.037 - 0.109 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.1 0 11.5 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.4 - -
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 122
HCM 6th TWSC Phase 1 Short Bkgrd AM
9: Sharp Point Drive & Canton Court
Scenario 1 10/18/2024 Synchro 11 Light Report
sb am.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 4 9 169 244 3
Future Vol, veh/h 1 4 9 169 244 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 25 33 45 50 60 38
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 4 12 20 338 407 8
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 789 411 415 0 - 0
Stage 1 411 - - - - -
Stage 2 378 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 359 641 1144 - - -
Stage 1 669 - - - - -
Stage 2 693 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 351 641 1144 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 351 - - - - -
Stage 1 654 - - - - -
Stage 2 693 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 12 0.5 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1144 - 532 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.017 - 0.03 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 0 12 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.1 - -
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 123
HCM 6th TWSC Phase 1 Short Bkgrd PM
9: Sharp Point Drive & Canton Court
Scenario 1 10/18/2024 Synchro 11 Light Report
sb pm.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 11 3 137 171 6
Future Vol, veh/h 5 11 3 137 171 6
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 63 46 38 76 49 50
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 8 24 8 180 349 12
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 551 355 361 0 - 0
Stage 1 355 - - - - -
Stage 2 196 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 495 689 1198 - - -
Stage 1 710 - - - - -
Stage 2 837 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 492 689 1198 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 492 - - - - -
Stage 1 705 - - - - -
Stage 2 837 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 11.1 0.3 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1198 - 626 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - 0.051 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8 0 11.1 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.2 - -
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 124
APPENDIX E
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 125
HCM 6th TWSC Phase 2 Short Bkgrd AM
3: Sharp Point Drive & March Court
Scenario 1 10/18/2024 Synchro 11 Light Report
sb am phase 2.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6.4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 43 100 23 151 157 13
Future Vol, veh/h 43 100 23 151 157 13
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 45 49 26 53 71 46
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 96 204 88 285 221 28
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 696 235 249 0 - 0
Stage 1 235 - - - - -
Stage 2 461 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 408 804 1317 - - -
Stage 1 804 - - - - -
Stage 2 635 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 376 804 1317 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 376 - - - - -
Stage 1 740 - - - - -
Stage 2 635 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 17.2 1.9 0
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1317 - 590 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.067 - 0.508 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 0 17.2 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 2.9 - -
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 126
HCM 6th TWSC Phase 2 Short Bkgrd PM
3: Sharp Point Drive & March Court
Scenario 1 10/18/2024 Synchro 11 Light Report
sb pm phase 2.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.8
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 35 47 18 125 130 45
Future Vol, veh/h 35 47 18 125 130 45
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 34 38 90 89 74 80
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 103 124 20 140 176 56
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 384 204 232 0 - 0
Stage 1 204 - - - - -
Stage 2 180 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 619 837 1336 - - -
Stage 1 830 - - - - -
Stage 2 851 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 609 837 1336 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 609 - - - - -
Stage 1 817 - - - - -
Stage 2 851 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 12.4 1 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1336 - 715 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.015 - 0.317 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.7 0 12.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 1.4 - -
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 127
HCM 6th TWSC Phase 2 Short Bkgrd AM
9: Sharp Point Drive & Canton Court
Scenario 1 10/18/2024 Synchro 11 Light Report
sb am phase 2.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 9 12 171 249 8
Future Vol, veh/h 3 9 12 171 249 8
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 25 33 45 50 60 38
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 12 27 27 342 415 21
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 822 426 436 0 - 0
Stage 1 426 - - - - -
Stage 2 396 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 344 628 1124 - - -
Stage 1 659 - - - - -
Stage 2 680 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 334 628 1124 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 334 - - - - -
Stage 1 639 - - - - -
Stage 2 680 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 12.9 0.6 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1124 - 495 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.024 - 0.079 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.3 0 12.9 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.3 - -
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 128
HCM 6th TWSC Phase 2 Short Bkgrd PM
9: Sharp Point Drive & Canton Court
Scenario 1 10/18/2024 Synchro 11 Light Report
sb pm phase 2.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.2
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 13 34 15 130 164 13
Future Vol, veh/h 13 34 15 130 164 13
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 63 46 38 76 49 50
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 21 74 39 171 335 26
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 597 348 361 0 - 0
Stage 1 348 - - - - -
Stage 2 249 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 466 695 1198 - - -
Stage 1 715 - - - - -
Stage 2 792 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 449 695 1198 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 449 - - - - -
Stage 1 689 - - - - -
Stage 2 792 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 11.8 1.5 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1198 - 621 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.033 - 0.152 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.1 0 11.8 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.5 - -
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 129
APPENDIX F
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 130
HCM 6th TWSC Phase 1 Short Total AM
3: Sharp Point Drive & March Court
Scenario 1 10/18/2024 Synchro 11 Light Report
st am.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.9
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 95 122 23 143 209 13
Future Vol, veh/h 95 122 23 143 209 13
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 200 0 - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 85 85 26 53 71 46
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 112 144 88 270 294 28
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 754 308 322 0 - 0
Stage 1 308 - - - - -
Stage 2 446 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 377 732 1238 - - -
Stage 1 745 - - - - -
Stage 2 645 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 345 732 1238 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 345 - - - - -
Stage 1 682 - - - - -
Stage 2 645 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 15.2 2 0
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1238 - 345 732 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.071 - 0.324 0.196 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.1 0 20.4 11.1 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A C B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 1.4 0.7 - -
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 131
HCM 6th TWSC Phase 1 Short Total PM
3: Sharp Point Drive & March Court
Scenario 1 10/25/2024 Synchro 11 Light Report
st pm.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.3
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 89 70 18 118 168 45
Future Vol, veh/h 89 70 18 118 168 45
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 200 0 - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 70 70 90 89 74 80
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 127 100 20 133 227 56
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 428 255 283 0 - 0
Stage 1 255 - - - - -
Stage 2 173 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 584 784 1279 - - -
Stage 1 788 - - - - -
Stage 2 857 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 574 784 1279 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 574 - - - - -
Stage 1 775 - - - - -
Stage 2 857 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 11.8 1 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1279 - 574 784 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.016 - 0.222 0.128 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 0 13 10.3 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.8 0.4 - -
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 132
HCM 6th TWSC Phase 1 Short Total AM
7: Sharp Point Drive & Building Driveway
Scenario 1 10/18/2024 Synchro 11 Light Report
st am.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 166 270 61
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 166 270 61
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 25 85 50 46 60 50
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 361 450 122
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 872 511 572 0 - 0
Stage 1 511 - - - - -
Stage 2 361 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 321 563 1001 - - -
Stage 1 602 - - - - -
Stage 2 705 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 321 563 1001 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 321 - - - - -
Stage 1 602 - - - - -
Stage 2 705 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1001 - - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 0 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - -
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 133
HCM 6th TWSC Phase 1 Short Total PM
7: Sharp Point Drive & Building Driveway
Scenario 1 10/18/2024 Synchro 11 Light Report
st pm.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 136 193 45
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 136 193 45
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 50 85 25 88 57 50
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 155 339 90
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 539 384 429 0 - 0
Stage 1 384 - - - - -
Stage 2 155 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 503 664 1130 - - -
Stage 1 688 - - - - -
Stage 2 873 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 503 664 1130 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 503 - - - - -
Stage 1 688 - - - - -
Stage 2 873 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1130 - - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 0 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - -
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 134
HCM 6th TWSC Phase 1 Short Total AM
5: Sharp Point Drive & Riverbend Court
Scenario 1 10/18/2024 Synchro 11 Light Report
st am.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.1
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 7 30 164 263 7
Future Vol, veh/h 2 7 30 164 263 7
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 25 35 50 63 57 58
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 8 20 60 260 461 12
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 847 467 473 0 - 0
Stage 1 467 - - - - -
Stage 2 380 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 332 596 1089 - - -
Stage 1 631 - - - - -
Stage 2 691 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 311 596 1089 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 311 - - - - -
Stage 1 591 - - - - -
Stage 2 691 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 13.1 1.6 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1089 - 472 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.055 - 0.059 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.5 0 13.1 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.2 - -
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 135
HCM 6th TWSC Phase 1 Short Total PM
5: Sharp Point Drive & Riverbend Court
Scenario 1 10/18/2024 Synchro 11 Light Report
st pm.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.1
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 30 36 126 171 22
Future Vol, veh/h 10 30 36 126 171 22
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 63 58 50 92 44 69
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 16 52 72 137 389 32
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 686 405 421 0 - 0
Stage 1 405 - - - - -
Stage 2 281 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 413 646 1138 - - -
Stage 1 673 - - - - -
Stage 2 767 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 385 646 1138 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 385 - - - - -
Stage 1 627 - - - - -
Stage 2 767 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 12.4 2.9 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1138 - 557 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.063 - 0.121 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.4 0 12.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.4 - -
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 136
HCM 6th TWSC Phase 1 Short Total AM
9: Sharp Point Drive & Canton Court
Scenario 1 10/18/2024 Synchro 11 Light Report
st am.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 4 9 195 266 3
Future Vol, veh/h 1 4 9 195 266 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 25 33 45 50 60 38
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 4 12 20 390 443 8
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 877 447 451 0 - 0
Stage 1 447 - - - - -
Stage 2 430 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 319 612 1109 - - -
Stage 1 644 - - - - -
Stage 2 656 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 312 612 1109 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 312 - - - - -
Stage 1 629 - - - - -
Stage 2 656 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 12.5 0.4 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1109 - 494 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.018 - 0.033 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.3 0 12.5 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.1 - -
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 137
HCM 6th TWSC Phase 1 Short Total PM
9: Sharp Point Drive & Canton Court
Scenario 1 10/18/2024 Synchro 11 Light Report
st pm.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 11 3 157 194 6
Future Vol, veh/h 5 11 3 157 194 6
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 63 46 38 76 49 50
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 8 24 8 207 396 12
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 625 402 408 0 - 0
Stage 1 402 - - - - -
Stage 2 223 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 449 648 1151 - - -
Stage 1 676 - - - - -
Stage 2 814 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 445 648 1151 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 445 - - - - -
Stage 1 671 - - - - -
Stage 2 814 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 11.5 0.3 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1151 - 582 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - 0.055 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.1 0 11.5 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.2 - -
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 138
APPENDIX G
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 139
HCM 6th TWSC Phase 2 Short Total AM
3: Sharp Point Drive & March Court
Scenario 1 10/25/2024 Synchro 11 Light Report
st am phase 2.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 7.8
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 126 135 23 151 254 13
Future Vol, veh/h 126 135 23 151 254 13
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 200 0 - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 70 70 26 53 71 46
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 180 193 88 285 358 28
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 833 372 386 0 - 0
Stage 1 372 - - - - -
Stage 2 461 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 339 674 1172 - - -
Stage 1 697 - - - - -
Stage 2 635 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 309 674 1172 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 309 - - - - -
Stage 1 635 - - - - -
Stage 2 635 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 21.8 2 0
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1172 - 309 674 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.075 - 0.583 0.286 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.3 0 31.7 12.5 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A D B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 3.4 1.2 - -
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 140
HCM 6th TWSC Phase 2 Short Total PM
3: Sharp Point Drive & March Court
Scenario 1 10/25/2024 Synchro 11 Light Report
st pm phase 2.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.2
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 121 84 18 125 203 45
Future Vol, veh/h 121 84 18 125 203 45
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 200 0 - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 70 70 90 89 74 80
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 173 120 20 140 274 56
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 482 302 330 0 - 0
Stage 1 302 - - - - -
Stage 2 180 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 543 738 1229 - - -
Stage 1 750 - - - - -
Stage 2 851 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 533 738 1229 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 533 - - - - -
Stage 1 737 - - - - -
Stage 2 851 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 13.3 1 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1229 - 533 738 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.016 - 0.324 0.163 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8 0 15 10.8 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A C B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 1.4 0.6 - -
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 141
HCM 6th TWSC Phase 2 Short Total AM
9: Sharp Point Drive & Canton Court
Scenario 1 10/18/2024 Synchro 11 Light Report
st am phase 2.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.5
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 9 54 171 284 105
Future Vol, veh/h 3 9 54 171 284 105
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 25 33 50 50 60 50
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 12 27 108 342 473 210
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1136 578 683 0 - 0
Stage 1 578 - - - - -
Stage 2 558 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 223 516 910 - - -
Stage 1 561 - - - - -
Stage 2 573 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 190 516 910 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 190 - - - - -
Stage 1 479 - - - - -
Stage 2 573 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 17 2.3 0
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)910 - 339 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.119 - 0.116 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.5 0 17 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - 0.4 - -
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 142
HCM 6th TWSC Phase 2 Short Total PM
9: Sharp Point Drive & Canton Court
Scenario 1 10/18/2024 Synchro 11 Light Report
st pm phase 2.syn
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.3
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 13 34 46 130 201 86
Future Vol, veh/h 13 34 46 130 201 86
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 63 46 50 76 49 50
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 21 74 92 171 410 172
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 851 496 582 0 - 0
Stage 1 496 - - - - -
Stage 2 355 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 330 574 992 - - -
Stage 1 612 - - - - -
Stage 2 710 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 296 574 992 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 296 - - - - -
Stage 1 550 - - - - -
Stage 2 710 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 14.4 3.1 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)992 - 476 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.093 - 0.199 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9 0 14.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - 0.7 - -
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 143
APPENDIX H
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 144
BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD
Prospect
Sh
a
r
p
Po
i
n
t
March
Ct.
Riverbend
Ct.
Liberty Common
Middle School
Expansion
Midpo
i
nt
Existing Liberty
Common Elem.
School
Ti
m
b
e
r
l
i
n
e
Pou
d
r
e Trail
Poudre Trail
NancyGray
Drake
Canton
Ct.
Po
w
e
r
T
r
a
i
l
Spring
Creek Trail
SCALE: 1"=2000'
PEDESTRIAN INFLUENCE AREA
DELICH
ASSOCIATES Liberty Common Middle School Expansion TIS, October 2024
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 145
Table 3
Pedestrian LOS Worksheet
Project Location Classification: School Walking Area
Description of
Applicable Destination
Area Within 1320’
Destination
Area
Classification
Directness Continuity Street
Crossings
Visual
Interest &
Amenities
Security
Residential uses to the
northeast of the site Residential
Minimum B B B C B
1 Actual A E C E E
Proposed A E C E E
Commercial uses to the
west of the site Commercial
Minimum B B B C B
2 Actual A D B C B
Proposed A D B C B
EPIC Center to the west
of the site Recreational
Minimum B B B C B
3 Actual A C B B A
Proposed A C B B A
Residential uses to the
west of the site Residential
Minimum B B B C B
4 Actual A A B B B
Proposed A A B B B
Residential uses to the
southwest of the site Residential
Minimum B B B C B
5 Actual A A B B A
Proposed A A B B A
Residential uses to the
southwest of the site Residential
Minimum B B B C B
6 Actual A A B B A
Proposed A A B B A
Commercial uses to the
south of the site Commercial
Minimum B B B C B
7 Actual A A B B A
Proposed A A B B A
Residential uses to the
south of the site Residential
Minimum B B B C B
8 Actual A A B B A
Proposed A A B B A
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 146
BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD
Prospect
Sh
a
r
p
Po
i
n
t
March
Ct.
Riverbend
Ct.
Midpoint
Poudre Trail
Poudre Trail
Canton
Ct.
SCALE: 1"=600'
BICYCLE INFLUENCE AREA
DELICH
ASSOCIATES Liberty Common Middle School Expansion TIS, October 2024
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 147
Bicycle LOS Worksheet
Minimum Actual Proposed
Base Connectivity: A
Specific connections to priority sites:
Description of
Applicable Destination
Area Within 1320’
Destination
Area
Classification
Poudre Trail Recreation A B A
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8
Packet Pg. 148
Development Review Center
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Liberty Common Junior High School
Neighborhood Meeting Notes
October 10, 2024
These notes are a summary of the neighborhood meeting discussion and not a verbatim transcript.
Most neighborhood meetings are recorded and posted on the City’s YouTube page:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7cZylpMlgCKqkcNsNCKAEevDf1P6r-Xk
Attendees
City Staff:
Kai Kleer, Sr. City Planner, kkleer@fcgov.com
Em Myler, Neighborhood Development Liaison, emyler@fcgov.com
Tim Dinger, Civil Engineer II
Applicant Team:
Shelby Hinchliff – Neenan Archistruction
Public:
In-person -1
Virtual - 1
Agenda
1.Purpose of the Meeting and Development Review Process – NDL and Planner
Neighborhood Development Liaison Em Myler introduced the purpose of the meeting and how it fits
into the process for prospective development in the City Notes. The City of Fort Collins knows that
development can have a meaningful impact on neighbors who live, work and play nearby. Because
of this, when someone wants to build something new in the city, we often require a neighborhood
meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to give the public an opportunity to:
•Learn about the project
•Ask questions about the project
•Share their feedback on the project
Meeting discussion is intended to be considered by the development team as they decide whether
and how to formulate an actual application for submittal to the City for review. The notes and
recordings of neighborhood meetings are also provided to the decision maker at the end of the
Development Review process.
2.Proposal Overview - Applicant
The applicant presented their plans for the proposal.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 9
Packet Pg. 149
N e i g h b o r h o o d M e e t i n g N o t e s - P a g e | 2
3. Questions (Q), Responses (R), and Comments (C) - Responses are by the applicant unless
otherwise noted
Q: Where is the primary access to the site?
A: Off of Sharp Point Drive
C: It gets gnarly on Midpoint Drive during certain times of day right now.
Q: Sometimes I notice traffic gets stacked up on Midpoint Drive. Are you hoping to address that traffic
or just the traffic on Sharp Point Drive with the increased parking? I assume there will be a sizeable
amount of additional traffic volume from the new school.
A: As of right now, we’re only looking at Sharp Point Drive. The queue that forms on Midpoint Drive is
solely traffic for the elementary school and outside the bounds of this project. But none of the
activities for the Junior High School will occur on Midpoint Drive. A lot of Liberty families have
students who would go to both the elementary school and the junior high school so in that case there
would be a place where they can drop off both students. Liberty also has their own internal bussing
system that takes students between campuses so that can help alleviate traffic among all the Liberty
campuses
Q: Has the Sherrif’s office ever reached out to you with any concerns getting out of their facility there?
A: No we have not heard any concerns from them.
Q: What is the duration of the project?
A: For phase one we anticipate construction from January 2024 to July 2025 so school can start in
August 2025. For phase two we are still working on the timeline.
4. Next Steps and Adjourn - NDL
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 9
Packet Pg. 150
Colorado Revised Statutes – Excerpts Regarding City Review of Charter Schools
1
Statute Section Generally Regarding All Public Facilities
2016 Colorado Revised Statutes
Title 31 - Government - Municipal
Powers and Functions of Cities and Towns
Article 23 - Planning and Zoning
Part 2 - Planning Commission
31-23-209. Legal status of official plan
When the commission has adopted the master plan of the municipality or of one or
more major sections or districts thereof, no street, square, park or other public way,
ground or open space, public building or structure, or publicly or privately owned
public utility shall be constructed or authorized in the municipality or in such planned
section and district until the location, character, and extent thereof has been
submitted for approval by the commission. In case of disapproval, the commission
shall communicate its reasons to the municipality's governing body, which has the
power to overrule such disapproval by a recorded vote of not less than two -thirds of
its entire membership. If the public way, ground space, building, structure, or utility is
one the authorization or financing of which does not, under the law or charter
provisions governing the same, fall within the province of the municipal governing
body, the submission to the commission shall be by the governmental body having
jurisdiction, and the planning commission's disapproval may be overruled by said
governmental body by a vote of not less than two -thirds of its membership. The
failure of the commission to act within sixty days from and after the date of official
submission to it shall be deemed approval.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10
Packet Pg. 151
Colorado Revised Statutes – Excerpts Regarding City Review of Charter Schools
2
Statute Section Specifically Regarding Charter Schools
Colorado Revised Statutes Annotated
Title 22. Education
School Districts
Article 32. School District Boards--Powers and Duties (Refs & Annos)
22-32-124. Building codes - zoning - planning - fees - rules - definitions
(1) (a) Prior to the acquisition of land or any contracting for the purchase thereof, the board
of education of the school district in which the land is located shall consult with and advise in
writing the planning commission, or governing body if no planning commission exists, that
has jurisdiction over the territory in which the site is proposed to be located in order that the
proposed site shall conform to the adopted plan of the community insofar as is feasible. In
addition, the board of education shall submit a site development plan for review and
comment to the planning commission or governing body prior to construction of any
structure or building. The planning commission or governing body may request a public
hearing before the board of education relating to the proposed site location or site
development plan. The board of education shall thereafter promptly schedule the hearing,
publish at least one notice in advance of the hearing, and provide written notice of the
hearing to the requesting planning commission or governing body.
(b) Prior to the acquisition of land for school building sites or construction of any buildings
thereon, the board of education of the school district in which the land is located also shall
consult with the Colorado geological survey regarding potential swelling soil, mine
subsidence, and other geologic hazards and to determine the geologic suitability of the site
for its proposed use.
(c) All buildings and structures shall be constructed in conformity with the building and fire
codes adopted by the director of the division of fire prevention and control in the department
of public safety, referred to in this section as the "division".
(c.5) In constructing buildings and structures, a school district, district charter school, or
institute charter school may consult the guidelines adopted by the public school capital
construction assistance board pursuant to section 22-43.7-106 (2)(a).
(d) Nothing in this subsection (1) shall be construed to limit the authority of a board of
education to finally determine the location of the public schools of the school district and
construct necessary buildings and structures.
(1.5) (a) Prior to contracting for a facility, a charter school shall advise in writing the
planning commission, or governing body if no planning commission exists, which has
jurisdiction over the territory in which the site is proposed to be located. The relevant
planning commission or governing body may request the charter school to submit a site
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10
Packet Pg. 152
Colorado Revised Statutes – Excerpts Regarding City Review of Charter Schools
3
development plan for the proposed facility, but must issue such request, if any, within ten
days after receiving the written advisement. If requested by the relevant planning
commission or governing body, the charter school, acting on behalf of its sponsoring school
board, shall submit such a site development plan. The relevant planning commission or
governing body may review and comment on such plan to the governing body of the charter
school, but must do so, if at all, within thirty days after receiving such plan. The relevant
planning commission or governing body, if not satisfied with the response to such
comments, may request a hearing before the board of education regarding such plan. Such
hearing shall be held, if at all, within thirty days after the request of the relevant planning
commission or governing body. The charter school then may proceed with its site
development plan unless prohibited from doing so by school board resolution.
(b) An institute charter school authorized pursuant to part 5 of article 30.5 of this title shall
proceed pursuant to the provisions of this subsection (1.5). Notwithstanding the provisions
of paragraph (a) of this subsection (1.5) to the contrary, the relevant planning commission or
governing body may request a hearing before the state board of education. The institute
charter school then may proceed with its site development plan unless prohibited from doing
so by the state board of education.
(2) (a) (I) (A) This subsection (2) shall apply to building or structure construction. Except as
specified in subparagraph (II) of this paragraph (a), the division shall conduct the necessary
plan reviews, issue building permits, cause the necessary inspections to be performed,
perform final inspections, and issue certificates of occupancy to assure that a building or
structure constructed pursuant to subsection (1) or (1.5) of this section has been
constructed in conformity with the building and fire codes adopted by the director of the
division and that the school district or charter school, whichever is appropriate, has complied
with the provisions of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section. Pursuant to this sub-
subparagraph (A), the division may contract with third-party inspectors that are certified in
accordance with section 24-33.5-1213.5, C.R.S., to perform inspections. The affected board
of education, state charter school institute, or charter school may hire and compensate third-
party inspectors under contract with the division or hire and compensate other third-party
inspectors that are certified in accordance with section 24-33.5-1213.5, C.R.S., to perform
inspections. If the board of education, state charter school institute, or charter school is
unable to obtain a third-party inspector and no building department has been prequalified,
the division shall perform the required inspections. If a third-party inspector is used, the
division shall require a sufficient number of third-party inspection reports to be submitted by
the inspector to the division based upon the scope of the project to ensure quality
inspections are performed. Except as specified in sub-subparagraph (B) of this
subparagraph (I), the third-party inspector shall attest that inspections are complete and all
violations are corrected before the board of education, state charter school institute, or
charter school is issued a certificate of occupancy. Inspection records shall be retained by
the third-party inspector for two years after the certificate of occupancy is issued. If the
division finds that inspections are not completed satisfactorily, as determined by rule of the
division, or that all violations are not corrected, the division shall take enforcement action
against the appropriate board of education, state charter school institute, or charter school
pursuant to section 24-33.5-1213, C.R.S.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10
Packet Pg. 153
Colorado Revised Statutes – Excerpts Regarding City Review of Charter Schools
4
(B) If inspections are not completed and a building requires immediate occupancy, and if
the board of education, state charter school institute, or charter school has passed the
appropriate inspections that indicate there are no life safety issues, the division may issue a
temporary certificate of occupancy. The temporary certificate of occupancy shall expire
ninety days after the date of occupancy. If no renewal of the temporary certificate of
occupancy is issued or a permanent certificate of occupancy is not issued, the building shall
be vacated upon expiration of the temporary certificate. The division shall enforce this sub-
subparagraph (B) pursuant to section 24-33.5-1213, C.R.S.
(II) Pursuant to a memorandum of understanding between the appropriate building
department and the division, the division may prequalify an appropriate building department
to conduct the necessary plan reviews, issue building permits, conduct inspections, issue
certificates of occupancy, and issue temporary certificates of occupancy pursuant to sub-
subparagraph (B) of subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (a), to ensure that a building or
structure constructed pursuant to subsection (1) or (1.5) of this section has been
constructed in conformity with the building and fire codes adopted by the director of the
division, and take enforcement action. Nothing in the memorandum of understanding shall
be construed to allow the building department to take enforcement action other than in
relation to the building and fire codes adopted by the division. An appropriate building
department shall meet certification requirements established by the division pursuant to
section 24-33.5-1213.5, C.R.S., prior to prequalification. An affected board of education,
state charter school institute, or charter school may, at its own discretion, opt to use a
prequalified building department that has entered into a memorandum of understanding with
the division as the delegated authority. If a building department conducts an inspection, the
building department shall retain the inspection records for two years after the final certificate
of occupancy is issued. The fees charged by the building department shall cover actual,
reasonable, and necessary costs. For purposes of this section, "appropriate building
department" means the building department of a county, town, city, or city and county and
includes a building department within a fire department.
(III) The division shall cause copies of the building plans to be sent to the appropriate fire
department for review of fire safety issues. The fire department shall review the building
plans, determine whether the building or structure is in compliance with the fire code
adopted by the director of the division, and respond to the division within twenty business
days; except that the fire department may request an extension of this time from the director
of the division on the basis of the complexity of the building plans.
(IV) If the fire department declines to perform the plan review or any subsequent inspection,
or if no certified fire inspector is available, the division shall perform the plan review or
inspection. As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires, "certified fire
inspector" has the same meaning as set forth in section 24-33.5-1202 (2.5), C.R.S.
(V) If the building or structure is in conformity with the building and fire codes adopted by
the director of the division, and if the appropriate fire department or the division certifies that
the building or structure is in compliance with the fire code adopted by the director of the
division, the division or the appropriate building department shall issue the necessary
certificate of occupancy prior to use of the building or structure by the school district or by
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10
Packet Pg. 154
Colorado Revised Statutes – Excerpts Regarding City Review of Charter Schools
5
the institute charter school. The division is authorized to charge a fee to cover the actual,
reasonable, and necessary costs of the inspections of buildings and structures. The amount
of the fee shall be determined by the director of the division by rule, on the basis of the
direct cost of providing the service.
(VI) If the division authorizes building code inspections by a third-party inspector pursuant
to subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (a) or authorizes building code planreviews and
inspections by an appropriate building department pursuant to subparagraph (II) of this
paragraph (a), the plan reviews and inspections shall be in lieu of any plan reviews and
inspections made by the division; except that this subsection (2) shall not be construed to
relieve the division of the responsibility to ensure that the plan reviews and inspections are
conducted if the third-party inspector or appropriate building department does not conduct
the plan reviews and inspections. Nothing in this subsection (2) shall be construed to require
a county, town, city, city and county, or fire department to conduct building code plan
reviews and inspections.
(b)
(I) If the division conducts the necessary plan reviews and causes the necessary
inspections to be performed to determine that a building or structure constructed pursuant to
subsection (1) or (1.5) of this section has been constructed in conformity with the building
and fire codes adopted by the director of the division, the division shall charge fees as
established by rule of the director of the division. The fees shall cover the actual,
reasonable, and necessary expenses of the division. The director of the division by rule or
as otherwise provided by law may increase or reduce the amount of the fees as necessary
to cover actual, reasonable, and necessary costs of the division. Any fees collected by the
division pursuant to this paragraph (b) shall be transmitted to the state treasurer, who shall
credit the same to the public school construction and inspection cash fund created in section
24-33.5-1207.7, C.R.S.
(II) Any moneys remaining as of December 31, 2009, in the public safety inspection fund
created pursuant to section 8-1-151, C.R.S., from fees collected by the division of oil and
public safety in the department of labor and employment pursuant to this paragraph (b) as it
existed prior to January 1, 2010, shall be transferred to the public school construction and
inspection cash fund created in section 24-33.5-1207.7, C.R.S.
(c) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2009, (HB 09-1151), ch. 230, p. 1045, Section 1, effective
January 1, 2010.)
(d) The inspecting entity shall cooperate with the affected board of education or the state
charter school institute in carrying out the duties of this section.
(e) If the inspecting entity and the board of education or the state charter school institute
disagree on the interpretation of the codes or standards adopted by the division, the division
shall set a date for a hearing as soon as practicable before the board of appeals in
accordance with section 24-33.5-1213.7, C.R.S., and the rules adopted by the director of the
division pursuant to article 4 of title 24, C.R.S.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10
Packet Pg. 155
Colorado Revised Statutes – Excerpts Regarding City Review of Charter Schools
6
(f) The rules authorized by this subsection (2) shall be adopted in accordance with article 4
of title 24, C.R.S.
(g) School buildings shall be maintained in accordance with the fire code adopted by the
director of the division pursuant to section 24-33.5-1203.5, C.R.S.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 10
Packet Pg. 156
City of Fort Collins
Planning and Zoning Commission
c/o Community Development and Neighborhood Services
Development Review Coordinators
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.221.6750
bbethuremharras@fcgov.com
1 of 2
COMMENTS ON LIBERTY COMMON SCHOOL EXPANSION -- SITE
PLAN ADVISORY REVIEW, SPAR # 240002
Corner of March Court and Sharp Point Drive
November 21, 2024
Liberty Common School Board of Directors
c/o Jeff Jensen
Jensen LaPlante Development
1603 Oakridge Drive STE 200
Denver, CO 80205
Liberty Common School Board of Directors:
On Thursday, November 21, 2024, at the regular meeting of the City of Fort Collins
Planning and Zoning Commission, the Commission voted 0–0 to provide comments to
the Liberty Common School governing board pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes §
22-32-124(1.5)(a) regarding the Liberty Common School Expansion Site Plan Advisory
Review application (SPAR # 240002), as follows.
The application has satisfied the applicable Land Use Code Site Plan Advisort Review
criteria, specifically that the location, character, and extent of the proposed plan is
consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan as required under the Site Plan Advisory
Review criteria. The application satisfies the applicable Land Use Code Site Plan
Advisory Review criteria, provided the plan mitigates its functional and visual impacts to
streets, sidewalks, utilities, lighting, screening and noise, to the extent reasonably
feasible, with the following understanding:
1. Final plans for work in the City-owned rights-of-way of March Court, Sharp Point
Drive, and Riverbend Court will address signing and striping, as needed to issue
required permits for the work. City staff will assist if needed in developing the
solution.
2. The establishment of an urban tree canopy is a fundamental aspect of community
character, as called for in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Any trees removed should
be mitigated through the planting of additional trees on-site. Any existing gaps in the
tree canopy in parking lot, parkway, and perimeter landscape areas should be
planted with additional trees, consistent with the City's tree stocking standards.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 11
Packet Pg. 157
2 of 2
3. Pedestrian and visual mitigation of the vehicular use areas, with screen fencing and
architectural column features, is a fundamental aspect of community character as
called for in the City’s comprehensive plan; is needed to mitigate the visual impacts of
vehicular use areas on streets and sidewalks; and should be included with each
phase of construction.
Response requested:
If FCMS has any response (e.g. disagreement or acknowledgment of comment
and how it will be addressed) to the comments by the Planning and Zoning
Commission, please provide such response in time for consideration by this
Commission at its December 19, 2024 meeting.
(Addresses provided at the top of this letter.)
Also, please feel welcome to call the City’s Development Review Coordinator, Brandy
Bethurum-Harras, at 970.416.2744 if you have questions.
Sincerely:
Julie Stackhouse, Chair
Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission
Sent via email to:
Brandy Bethurum Harras, bbethuremharras@fcgov.com
Heather Jarvis, hjarvis@fcgov.com
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 11
Packet Pg. 158
1 1 . 2 1 . 2 0 2 4
Liberty Common
Expansion
ITEM 4, APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Packet Pg. 159
Charter School
Context
ITEM 4, APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Packet Pg. 160
LCS
Building Corporation
ITEM 4, APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Packet Pg. 161
ITEM 4, APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Packet Pg. 162
Liberty Common
School Community
ITEM 4, APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Packet Pg. 163
ITEM 4, APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Packet Pg. 164
ITEM 4, APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Packet Pg. 165
From: charity larson <terrierstimes2@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2024 1:13 PM
To: Development Review Comments <devreviewcomments@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Liberty Common proposal #796
Hi Em,
After reviewing the power point I would like to comment on the existing Sharp Point Drive Liberty school
traffic pattern. I work on the end of the road at the City's Drake Water Reclamation Facility (DWRF),
which by the way, did not receive any notice of the neighborhood meeting, even though we are an
affected business. However, my son is a 6th grader in the Aristotle campus and will be entering junior
high next fall. I have driven on Sharp Point Drive for 20 years now due to my employment, and every
morning and afternoon there is traffic congestion during drop off and pick up. Vehicles parking on Sharp
Point Drive and vehicles trying to turn into traffic are the two main factors on Sharp Point. Sharp Point
Drive is not wide enough for parked cars on both sides of the road and two way traffic to continue to drive
though. I commend Liberty for adding more parking with the 1825 and eventual 1901 building
purchases. I also think that allowing a drive through pattern that starts on Sharp Point and exits on
Midpoint could keep the backups off of Sharp Point Drive from occurring. Can the City consider one-way
traffic patterns for drop off and pick up of Liberty parents? When someone tries to make a left into the
Liberty campus it blocks all traffic in both directions. Now that Nancy Gray is open, it is happening all the
time. Signage to not allow parking in front of the junior high and no left hand turns would be beneficial to
keeping Sharp Point Drive accessible. Finally, how will Liberty address the vehicles that need to park for
sporting events, grandparents day, Olympic Day, etc.? Are there enough spots on the east and west side
of the campuses?
thank you for allowing me to comment,
charity larson
On Wednesday, October 23, 2024 at 11:38:28 AM MDT, Development Review Comments
<devreviewcomments@fcgov.com> wrote:
Hi Charity, I am so glad you emailed me. I somehow lost the sheet where you put down
your email. I am very sorry about that!
Anyway, you can find the video from the meeting here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=pjpqzZVKzWM&list=PL7cZylpMlgCKqkcNsNCKAEevDf1P6r-Xk&index=47
ITEM 4, PUBLIC COMMENT
Packet Pg. 166
If you have any questions or comments I am happy to take them here!
Respectfully,
Em Myler
Neighborhood Development Liaison
From: charity larson <terrierstimes2@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2024 11:13 AM
To: Development Review Comments <devreviewcomments@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Liberty Common proposal #796
This message is for Em.
I met her at the open house, which was a presentation instead so I missed it as I showed up as the
meeting ended. Em took my email to send me information regarding the open house, but I still haven't
received anything from her. Please send the link to the virtual presentation and an opportunity to
comment.
thanks,
charity larson
ITEM 4, PUBLIC COMMENT
Packet Pg. 167
Development Review Staff Report Item 5
Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com
1.Updates
The list of updates is summarized into 35 specific areas; see the attached summary. These include changes to
the following sections:
•Article 2 Zone Districts Sections: 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.4, 2.1.5, 2.1.6, and 2.2.1
•Article 3 Building Types Sections: 3.1.6, 3.1.7, 3.1.9, and 3.1.10
•Article 4 Use Standards Sections: 4.2, and 4.3.1
•Article 5 General Development and Site Design Sections: 5.9.1 and 5.10.3
•Article 6 Administration and Procedures Sections: 6.4.3 and 6.21.4
•Article 7 Rules of Measurement and Definitions Section: 7.2.2
2. Background
During Phase 1 of the Land Use Code update, Accessory Dwelling Units were contemplated to expand into more
residential districts. However, this did not change during this process, and ADUs remained the same. Since the
adoption of the Land Use Code, the State passed HB24-1152. This bill requires jurisdictions within a metropolitan
planning organization with a population of at least 1000 residents to allow ADUs. Specifically, an ADU may be
built on lots where a single-unit dwelling exists or where a single-unit dwelling could be built. The State requires
jurisdictions to comply with this bill by June 2025. Most of the current changes proposed are to bring the Land
Use Code into compliance with the State bill. The following is a summary of the requirements of the state bill:
•Expand the zone districts where an ADU can be built.
•ADU is to be built on the same lot as primary dwelling.
•ADU may be attached or detached to the primary dwelling.
•Allow existing accessory buildings to be converted into an ADU.
•Allow an ADU to be at least 750sf in size.
•May not require setbacks to be greater than minimum for the primary dwelling.
•May not require more restrictive design standard than are applied to the primary dwelling.
Planning and Zoning Board: November 21, 2024
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) and Parking regulations
Summary of Request
This is a request for a Recommendation to the City Council
regarding an update to the Land Use Code. There are proposed
revisions, clarifications, and organizations to the Code that address
specific areas that are the subject of two Colorado State House Bills
passed earlier this year. HB24-1152 requires the ability to build an
ADU in more areas of the city, and HB24-1304 removes the
minimum parking requirements for new multi-unit and residential
mixed-use development. Items considered clean-up to the code are
also included.
Next Steps
November Planning and Zoning Commission Work Session
November Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing
•Council Regular Hearing to be scheduled
Applicant
City of Fort Collins
PO BOX 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Staff
Noah Beals, Development Review Manager
Contents
1.List of Updates
2.Background
3.Attachments
Packet Pg. 168
P&Z - Agenda Item 5
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) and Parking regulations
Thursday, November 21, 2024 | Page 2 of 2
Back to Top
• May not require a new off-street parking space for the ADU.
• May not require owner occupancy of one of the units on the lot.
• Must be reviewed and decided by local government staff based solely on objective standards and cannot
be elevated to an elected or appointed public body including a hearing officer.
In addition to these requirements, the bill also allows subject jurisdictions to:
• Require a historic preservation commission to offer a recommendation to the local government staff.
• Restrict an ADU from being used as a short-term rental.
• Apply and enforce safety codes.
• Require a statement from the water service provider regarding the capacity of the service.
The proposed changes will bring the Land Use Code into compliance with State requirements. However, more
discussion and Council direction will be need for other parts of this bill. For instance, the bill also included
provisions for local governments to become a certified "accessory dwelling unit supportive jurisdiction." The
certification requirements address items that are programmatic in nature and not necessarily based in code.
These include fee waivers, working with designers and builders to create pre-approved plans, and enabling more
home ownership. Though the additional provisions to become an "accessory dwelling unit supportive jurisdiction"
are part of HB24-1152, they are not a requirement, so this will be a separate discussion with the community. City
staff has already been directed to bring this to a Council work session in the first part of 2025.
In opening more areas of the City to ADU uses, it is necessary to clarify what an accessory building with habitable
space is. Additionally, with the recent elimination of occupancy requirements, we are seeing more accessory
buildings with habitable space being used as dwelling units. The use of accessory buildings with habitable space
is a safety concern through the lens of the building and fire codes. To prevent safety issues in these buildings, the
proposed code changes clarify that an accessory building shall not include water/sewer service except for ADUs.
This will reduce the number of accessory buildings used as dwelling units and ensure the correct type of permit is
being reviewed for ADUs.
Along with the passage of HB24-1152 the State passed HB24-1304, regarding minimum parking requirements for
multi-unit and residential mixed-use development projects. This bill requires jurisdictions within a metropolitan
planning organization to eliminate minimum parking requirements for multi-unit dwellings and residential mixed-
use development projects. The associated code changes strike out all minimum parking requirements for these
residential uses. This does not affect single-unit, institutional, and commercial parking standards.
The bill does not impact other requirements for off-street parking spaces. For instance, if a multi-unit project does
provide off-street parking, such spaces will still be required to meet minimum size, accessibility, EV readiness,
and landscaping requirements.
Other proposed code changes include clean-up items that provide clarification, such as deleting duplicative
standards, updating references, and combining tables.
3. Attachments
1. Summary of Proposed Changes
2. Draft Code Changes
3. Staff Presentation
Packet Pg. 169
Item #Article Section Page Description
1 2 2.1.2 2-2 Added Accessory Dwelling Unit to List of Building Types
2 2 2.1.2 2-2 Clarification by adding a table
3 2 2.1.3 2-3
4 2 2.1.4 2-5
5 2 2.1.5 2-8 Clarification by adding a table. Clarification distance between accessory
structures. Removed building types not allowed in this zone district.
7 2 2.1.6 2-10 structures and ADUs.
8 2 2.1.6 2-11 Added Attached Accessory Dwelling Unit, Clarified location of Accessory structures
10 2 2.1.6 2-14 Added Exclusion of ADU Floor Area to rear floor area calculations.
11 2 2.2.1 2-19 Added the Clarification that setback apply to accessory buildings
13 3 3.1.6 3-17 group home was permitted in MH. Detached House is not allowed in the MH only
Summary of Proposed Land Use Code Changes ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 170
15 3 3.1.7 3-20 group home was permitted in MH. Detached House is not allowed in the MH only
16 3 3.1.7 3-21 Clarified lot minimum is zone district specific. Moved lot area exception from the
building Type and placed it in the RL zone district see 2.1.4 pg 2-5.
17 3 3.1.9 3-24 Description Clarified to match state regs, Clarification on applicable zone districts.
20 3 3.1.10 3-28 buildings and setback table. Added an * to clarify that an ADU could be added to
22 4 4.2 4-3
28 5 5.9.1(K)(1)(a)68
Removed minimum parking requirements for Multi-unit projects to align with State
HB24 1304. Also cleaned up Single Unit and Two unit requirements.
31 6 6.4.3 6-34 Removed the ability to have a public appeal hearing of a BDR for ADU applications
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 171
DRAFT PROPOSED LAND USE CODE CHANGES.
SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND CHANGE
ARTICLE 2 ZONE DISTRICTS, DIVISION 2.1 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Section 2.1.2,
UE – Urban Estate District, BUILDING TYPES and DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS,
Building Types list, Lot size Table, Lot Width Table, Building Height Table is hereby
amended to read as follows:
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 172
DRAFT PROPOSED LAND USE CODE CHANGES.
SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND CHANGE
ARTICLE 2 ZONE DISTRICTS, DIVISION 2.1 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS,
Section 2.1.3, RF – Residential Foothills District, BUILDING TYPES and
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, Building Types list, Lot size Table, Lot Width Table,
Building Height Table is hereby amended to read as follows:
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 173
DRAFT PROPOSED LAND USE CODE CHANGES.
SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND CHANGE
ARTICLE 2 ZONE DISTRICTS, DIVISION 2.1 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS,
Section 2.1.4, RL – Low Density Residential District, BUILDING TYPES and
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, Building Types list, # Of Units Table, and Lot Area Table
is hereby amended to read as follows:
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 174
DRAFT PROPOSED LAND USE CODE CHANGES.
SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND CHANGE
ARTICLE 2 ZONE DISTRICTS, DIVISION 2.1 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Section 2.1.5,
MH – Manufactured Housing District, BUILDING TYPES and DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS, Building Types list, Building Height Table, Building Footprint Table, and
Setbacks Table is hereby amended to read as follows:
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 175
DRAFT PROPOSED LAND USE CODE CHANGES.
SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND CHANGE
ARTICLE 2 ZONE DISTRICTS, DIVISION 2.1 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Section
2.1.6, OT – Old Town District, BUILDING TYPES, Building Types list, Additional Site
Requirement Table, is hereby amended to read as follows:
OT-A
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 176
DRAFT PROPOSED LAND USE CODE CHANGES.
SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND CHANGE
OT-B
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 177
DRAFT PROPOSED LAND USE CODE CHANGES.
SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND CHANGE
OT-C
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 178
DRAFT PROPOSED LAND USE CODE CHANGES.
SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND CHANGE
Development Standards
ARTICLE 2 ZONE DISTRICTS, DIVISION 2.1 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS,
Section 2.2.1., LMN – Low Density Mixed Use Residential District, DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS, Residential Building Setbacks table is hereby amended to read as follows:
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 179
DRAFT PROPOSED LAND USE CODE CHANGES.
SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND CHANGE
ARTICLE 2 ZONE DISTRICTS, DIVISION 2.1 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS,
Section 2.2.3, HMN – High Density Mixed Use Residential District, BUILDING TYPES,
Minimum Density Table is hereby amended to read as follows:
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 180
DRAFT PROPOSED LAND USE CODE CHANGES.
SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND CHANGE
ARTICLE 3 BUILDING TYPES, DIVISION 3.1 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING TYPES,
Section 3.1.6 Detached, Urban House, ZONE DISTRICTS and LOT STANDARDS is
hereby amended as follows:
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 181
DRAFT PROPOSED LAND USE CODE CHANGES.
SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND CHANGE
ARTICLE 3 BUILDING TYPES, DIVISION 3.1 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING TYPES,
Section 3.1.7 Detached, Suburban House, ZONE DISTRICTS and LOT STANDARDS is
hereby amended as follows:
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 182
DRAFT PROPOSED LAND USE CODE CHANGES.
SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND CHANGE
ARTICLE 3 BUILDING TYPES, DIVISION 3.1 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING TYPES,
Section 3.1.9 Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), DESCRIPTION, ZONE DISTRICTS,
Detached ADU FLOOR AREA, and ADU FLOOR AREA is hereby amended as follows:
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 183
DRAFT PROPOSED LAND USE CODE CHANGES.
SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND CHANGE
…
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 184
DRAFT PROPOSED LAND USE CODE CHANGES.
SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND CHANGE
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 185
DRAFT PROPOSED LAND USE CODE CHANGES.
SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND CHANGE
ARTICLE 3 BUILDING TYPES, DIVISION 3.1 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING TYPES,
Section 3.1.10 Residential Cluster, Setbacks for attached, detached and accessory
buildings in a Residential Cluster and Units Per Acres in a Residential Cluster is hereby
amended as follows:
…
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 186
DRAFT PROPOSED LAND USE CODE CHANGES.
SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND CHANGE
ARTICLE 4 USE STANDARDS, DIVISION 4.2 TABLE OF PRIMARY USES is hereby
amended to add Accessory Dwelling Unit to all zone districts where an existing
Detached House is or can be built and change the level of review for an ADU to a Basic
Development Review, and add Public/Private schools as Type 1 use to read as follows:
…
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 187
DRAFT PROPOSED LAND USE CODE CHANGES.
SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND CHANGE
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 188
DRAFT PROPOSED LAND USE CODE CHANGES.
SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND CHANGE
ARTICLE 4 USE STANDARDS, DIVISION 4.3 ADDITIONAL USE STANDARDS, Section
4.3.1 RESIDENTIAL USES, Subsection (A) Accessory Building is hereby amended to
read as follows:
4.3.1 RESIDENTIAL USES
(A) Accessory Building shall be subordinate to a primary building and may contain finished space,
unfinished space and habitable space.
(1) Accessory buildings shall not be eligible for a new short term rental License on or after January 1,
2024. Existing short term rental licenses issued before January 1, 2024, may be renewed or a new
license after this date may be issued per Section 15-646 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins.
(2) On or after January 1, 2025, all new accessory buildings shall not include water and/or sewer
services, except for accessory dwelling units.
(B) Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be subordinate to a primary dwelling unit The land underneath the
primary structure and the accessory dwelling unit is not divided into separate lots. This does not
exclude the ability to create a condominium plat.
(1) Accessory dwelling units shall have a resident manager residing on the property in the ADU or
primary building, when the owner does not reside on the property.
(a) The resident manager shall have one (1) primary residence and shall reside on the property for
nine (9) months of the calendar year.
(b) If the designated resident manager no longer resides on the property, a new one shall be
established by the property owner.
(c) If the resident manager shall be authorized by the property owner to manage the property and
all dwelling units.
(d) Before the Certificate of Occupancy is issued for an ADU the property owner shall provide the
name, address, and the resident manager’s authorization to manage the property and dwelling
units. Any ongoing verification of such information shall be provided by the owner upon
request of the City.
(2) Accessory Dwellings Units that apply for a building permit on or after January 1, 2024, shall not be
used for a short term rental. Existing short term rental licenses issued before January 1, 2024, may
be renewed or a new license after this date may be issued per Section 15-646 of the Code of the
City of Fort Collins.
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 189
DRAFT PROPOSED LAND USE CODE CHANGES.
SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND CHANGE
ARTICLE 4 USE STANDARDS, DIVISION 4.3 ADDITIONAL USE STANDARDS,
Section 4.3.1 RESIDENTIAL USES, Subsection (E)(1)(j) Home Occupations is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(j) A home occupation shall not be interpreted to include the following:
(I) animal hospital;
(II) long-term care facility;
(III) restaurant;
(IV) bed & breakfast;
(V) group home; adult-oriented use;
(VI) adult-oriented use; vehicle repair, servicing, detailing or towing if vehicles are
dispatched from the premises, or are brought to the premises, or are parked or
stored on the premises or on an adjacent street.
(VII) vehicle repair, servicing, detailing or towing if vehicles are dispatched from the
premises, or are brought to the premises, or are parked or stored on the premises or
on an adjacent street. medical marijuana businesses ("MMBs"), as defined in Section
15-452 of the City Code;
(VIII) medical marijuana businesses ("MMBs"), as defined in Section 15-452 of the City
Code. retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code;
(IX) retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code. short
term primary rentals and short term non-primary rentals.
(X) short term primary rentals and short term non-primary rentals.
ARTICLE 4 USE STANDARDS, DIVISION 4.3 ADDITIONAL USE STANDARDS,
Section 4.3.1 RESIDENTIAL USES, Subsection (K) Shelter for victims of Domestic
Violence is hereby amended to read as follows:
(K) Shelter for victims of Domestic Violence
(1) Shall be separated from a group home or shelter by a minimum of one thousand five hundred
(1,500) feet.
ARTICLE 4 USE STANDARDS, DIVISION 4.3 ADDITIONAL USE STANDARDS,
Section 4.3.1 RESIDENTIAL USES, Subsection (Y)(1)(g) Small Scale Reception center
is hereby amended to read as follows:
(g) Buffering. If the reception center abuts a single-family unit dwelling or property zoned for such
activity, buffering shall be established between the two (2) land uses sufficient to screen the
building, parking, outdoor lighting and associated outdoor activity from view. A combination of
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 190
DRAFT PROPOSED LAND USE CODE CHANGES.
SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND CHANGE
setbacks, landscaping, building placement, fences or walls and elevation changes and/or berming
shall be utilized to achieve appropriate buffering.
ARTICLE 5 General Development and Site Design, DIVISION 5.9 BUILDING
PLACEMENT AND SITE DESIGN, Section 5.9.1(K) Parking Lots is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(K) Parking Lots - Required Number of Off-Street Spaces for Type of Use.
(1) Residential, Commercial, and Institutional Parking Requirements. Residential,
commercial, and institutional uses shall provide a number of parking
spaces as defined by the standards below.
(a) Attached Dwellings: for each single-unit attached, two-unit, and multi-unit
dwelling there shall be parking spaces provided as indicated by the following
table:
-street parking then the percentage of garage parking spaces provided for the
(I) Multi-unit dwellings and mixed-use dwellings within the Transit-
Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone shall provide a
minimum number of parking spaces as shown in the following
table:
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 191
DRAFT PROPOSED LAND USE CODE CHANGES.
SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND CHANGE
provided in a structure
(i) Multi-unit dwellings and mixed-use dwellings within the
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone may
reduce the required minimum number of parking spaces by
providing demand mitigation elements as shown in the
following table:
(equal to or less than 60% Area Median Income).
(Walking distance shall mean an ADA-compliant,
contiguous improved walkway measured from the
most remote building entrance to the transit station
and contained within a public ROW or pedestrian
shall be subject to audit for the duration of the project.
Management.
(II) Alternative Compliance. Upon written request by the applicant,
the decision maker may approve an alternative parking ratio, other
than the minimum required in Section 2.6.1, TOD Overlay Zone, per
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 192
DRAFT PROPOSED LAND USE CODE CHANGES.
SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND CHANGE
subparagraph 5.9.1.(K)(1)(a)(I), that may be substituted in whole or
in part for a ratio meeting the standards of this Section.
(ii) Procedure. Alternative compliance parking ratio plans shall be
prepared and submitted in accordance with the submittal
requirements for plans as set forth in this Section. The request
for alternative compliance must be accompanied by a Parking
Impact Study, Transportation Demand Management proposal,
or Shared Parking Study which addresses issues identified in
the City's submittal requirements for such studies.
(iii) Review Criteria. To approve an alternative plan, the decision
maker must find that the proposed alternative plan
accomplishes the purposes of this Section and Section 2.6.1,
TOD Overlay Zone equally well or better than would a plan
which complies with the standards of these Sections. In
reviewing the request for an alternative parking ratio plan in
order to determine whether it accomplishes the purposes of
this Section, the decision maker shall take into account the
objective and verifiable results of the Parking Impact Study,
Transportation Demand Management proposal, or Shared
Parking Study together with the proposed plan's compatibility
with surrounding neighborhoods in terms of potential spillover
parking.
(b) Multi-Unit. Parking on an internal street fronting (streets only serving one
development) on a lot or tract containing multi-unit, attached or two-unit
dwellings (except for mixed-use dwellings and single-unit detached
dwellings) may be counted to meet the parking requirements for the
development.
(c) Single-Unit. For each Detached House there shall be one (1) parking space
on lots with greater than forty (40) feet of street frontage or two (2) parking
spaces on lots with forty (40) feet or less of street frontage.
(d) Single Unit and Two-Unit.
Detached House: there shall be one (1) parking space on lots with greater than
forty (40) feet of street frontage or two (2) parking spaces on lots with forty
(40) feet or less of street frontage.
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 193
DRAFT PROPOSED LAND USE CODE CHANGES.
SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND CHANGE
Duplex and Rowhouse: for each dwelling unit with two (2) or fewer bedrooms
there shall be one (1) parking space and two (2) parking spaces for each
dwelling unit with three (3) or more bedrooms.
Parking of any vehicle in the front yard of a lot on which exists a Detached
House or Duplex shall be prohibited unless such vehicle is parked on an
improved area having a surface of asphalt, concrete, rock, gravel or other
similar inorganic material, and such improved area has a permanent border.
(e) Accessory Dwelling Unit. One (1) additional parking space required.
For each manufactured home in a manufactured
home community there shall be one (1) parking spaces per dwelling unit.
(f) Manufactured Homes. For each manufactured home in a manufactured
home community there shall be one (1) parking spaces per dwelling unit.
. For each fraternity or sorority house, there
shall be two (2) parking spaces per three (3) beds. The alternative
compliance provisions Section 5.9.1(K)(1)(a)(II) may be applied to vary this
standard.
(h) Fraternity and Sorority Houses. For each fraternity or sorority house, there
shall be two (2) parking spaces per three (3) beds. The alternative
compliance provisions Section 5.9.1(K)(1)(a)(II) may be applied to vary this
standard. For each recreational use located in a
residential district there shall be one (1) parking space per four (4) persons
maximum rated capacity.
(i) Recreational Uses For each recreational use located in a residential district
there shall be one (1) parking space per four (4) persons maximum rated
capacity. .
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
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 194
DRAFT PROPOSED LAND USE CODE CHANGES.
SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND CHANGE
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.
(j) 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. .
For each reception center there shall be one (1) parking space per four (4)
persons maximum rated occupancy as determined by the building code.
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 195
DRAFT PROPOSED LAND USE CODE CHANGES.
SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND CHANGE
(k) Small Scale Reception Centers in the UE, Urban Estate District. For each
reception center there shall be one (1) parking space per four (4) persons
maximum rated occupancy as determined by the building code.
. The
minimum number of off-street parking spaces required are as follows:
(I) The number of additional off-street parking spaces required for
more than six (6) bedrooms rented shall be calculated in the same
manner used in the above chart (e.g., 7-8 bedrooms rented
requires four (4) off-street parking spaces).
(II) Short term rentals licensed pursuant to the Code of the City of
Fort Collins Section 15-646 and for which the license application
was submitted prior to October 31, 2017, are exempt from
compliance with these parking requirements so long as such
license remains continuously valid. Subsequent licenses issued
pursuant to Section 15-646 shall comply with these parking
requirements.
(l) Short term non-primary rentals and short term primary rentals. The
minimum number of off-street parking spaces required are as follows:
(I) The number of additional off-street parking spaces required for
more than six (6) bedrooms rented shall be calculated in the same
manner used in the above chart (e.g., 7-8 bedrooms rented
requires four (4) off-street parking spaces).
(II) Short term rentals licensed pursuant to the Code of the City of
Fort Collins Section 15-646 and for which the license application
was submitted prior to October 31, 2017, are exempt from
compliance with these parking requirements so long as such
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 196
DRAFT PROPOSED LAND USE CODE CHANGES.
SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND CHANGE
license remains continuously valid. Subsequent licenses issued
pursuant to Section 15-646 shall comply with these parking
requirements.
ARTICLE 5 General Development and Site Design, DIVISION 5.10 LANDSCAPING AND
TREE PROTECTION, Section 5.10.3(F) Disclosure is hereby amended to read as follows:
(3) Sellers and lessors of any real property within an oil and gas buffer must provide the following
written notice of material facts related to oil and gas facilities identified by environmental site
assessments the disclosure notice must be provided in at least fourteen (14) point font to any
potential purchaser who intends to resell, occupy and/or lease the property prior to or as part of
the purchase or rental agreement:
As required by 5.10.3 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code, notice is hereby given that [insert
description of lot] is within [insert buffer standard set forth in Subsection (D) including well
status and distance from well]. At the time of [sale or lease], environmental assessments,
studies or reports done involving the physical condition of the Property impacted by oil and
gas production are within the acceptable Environmental Protection Agency limits. For more
information contact the City of Fort Collins Environmental Planner or the Colorado Energy
and Colorado Carbon Management Commission formerly known as the Colorado Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission.
The above notice shall be provided by the prospective seller or lessor to the
prospective buyer or lessee of real property no less than thirty (30) days before
closing or such shorter time period agreed to by the parties and shall be provided
before the signing of any purchase, sale, or rental agreement for the subject
property
Article 6, ADMINISTRATION and PROCEDURE, DIVISION 6.4 BASIC
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, Section 6.4.3(L) STEP 12: (Appeals) is hereby amended to
read as follows:
Step 12 (Appeals): Applicable pursuant to Section 6.3.12(C). Regardless of the foregoing
the Appeals step is not applicable to applications for Accessory Dwelling Units.
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 197
DRAFT PROPOSED LAND USE CODE CHANGES.
SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND CHANGE
Article 6, ADMINISTRATION and PROCEDURE, DIVISION 6.21 PROJECT
STOCKPILING PERMITS, AND DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION AND OFF-SITE
CONSTRUCTION STAGING is hereby amended to read as follows:
DIVISION 6.21 PROJECT STOCKPILING PERMITS , AND
DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION PERMITS AND OFF -SITE
CONSTRUCTION STAGING
…
6.21.4 Off-Site construction staging
(A) Location. Subject to issuance of and compliance with an off-site construction staging license under
subsection (D) below, off-site construction staging shall be permitted in specified zone districts as
listed in Article 4.
(B) Off-site construction staging license.
(1) An application for an off-site construction staging license shall be accompanied by a site and
grading plan that shows the following for the site on which the off-site construction staging is to
occur:
(a) Existing grade contours of the site and of adjoining properties;
(b) Locations of different activities to be located on the site;
(c) List of materials and equipment to be stored on the site, including the means
and methods to safely store any hazardous material or dangerous equipment;
(d) Any proposed grading necessary to stabilize the site;
(e) Proposed erosion control measures and storm drainage control measures to
prevent wind and water erosion, drainage impacts and tracking mud onto
streets;
(f) Flood ways and flood plains;
(g) Natural habitat and features;
(h) Fences;
(i) Restrooms;
(j) Existing trees;
(k) Existing easements and rights-of-way;
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 198
DRAFT PROPOSED LAND USE CODE CHANGES.
SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND CHANGE
(l) Existing underground utilities;
(m) Other information necessary to describe the site;
(n) Traffic control plan reflecting means of ingress and egress to be used;
(o) Mitigation plan to address any adverse impacts to the site, or adjacent parcels,
caused by the off-site construction staging during and after the staging; and
(p) Restoration and final site condition plan.
(2) An off-site construction staging license shall be issued, with or without conditions, if the Director
finds that the off-site construction staging:
(a) is not detrimental to the public good; and
(b) will not cause substantial adverse impacts to the parcel on which it is located or
adjacent parcels or the environment, with or without mitigation; and
(c) is located within a quarter (.25) of a mile of the construction or development
site to be served by the off-site construction staging.
(3) An off-site construction staging license issued hereunder shall expire eighteen (18)
months after the date of issuance unless an extension is granted.
(a) A six (6) month extension may be granted by the Director upon a finding
that the conditions specified in Section 6.21.4(B)(2), including any
conditions to mitigate adverse impacts, have been and continue to be
satisfied.
(b) The Director may further extend the license up to an additional twelve
(12) months beyond the first six (6) month extension, for a maximum total
of not more than thirty-six (36) months, if a neighborhood meeting for
which the neighborhood is notified in compliance with Section 6.3.2 is
conducted and the Director determines: the extension is not detrimental
to the public good; and that the license conditions specified in Section
6.21.4(B)(2), including any conditions to mitigate adverse impacts, have
been and continue to be satisfied.
(4) After expiration of an off-site construction staging license, at least four (4) consecutive months
shall lapse before a new license is issued for the same parcel.
(5) The Director may modify or revoke any off-site construction staging license issued by the City for
any of the following:
(a) After issuance of the license, the site or activities thereon are found to be
out of compliance with the approved application or license, including any
conditions to mitigate adverse impacts; or
(b) An adverse impact not previously anticipated at the time the license or
license extension was issued is identified and such adverse impact cannot
be adequately mitigated and/or is detrimental to the public good.
The Director shall inform the license holder in writing of the decision to modify or revoke the
license and the reasons for same.
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 199
DRAFT PROPOSED LAND USE CODE CHANGES.
SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND CHANGE
(6) The license holder may appeal any decision denying, modifying or revoking an off-site
construction staging license to the Zoning Board of Appeals pursuant to Section 6.14.
(C) Restoration of Site. Within fifteen (15) days after expiration of the license, the license holder must
have completed restoration of the site consistent with the approved restoration or final site condition
plan included in the application.
ARTICLE 7 RULES OF MEASUREMENT and DEFINITIONS, DIVISION 7.2 DEFINITION
7.2 DEFINITION, SECTION 7.2.2 DEFINITIONS is hereby amended to read as follows:
Accessory dwelling unit (ADU), detached shall mean an additional, subordinate dwelling
unit created on a lot with a primary dwelling unit. The additional unit is smaller than the
primary dwelling unit (except when the accessory dwelling unit is in an existing basement).
The accessory dwelling unit includes its own complete independent living facilities
including facilities for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation including habitable
space. It is designed for residential occupancy by one or more people, independent of the
primary dwelling unit.
Accessory dwelling unit (ADU), attached shall be defined as an additional, subordinate
dwelling unit created on a lot with a primary dwelling unit. The additional unit is smaller
than the primary dwelling unit (except when the accessory dwelling unit is in an existing
basement). The accessory dwelling unit includes its own complete independent living
facilities including facilities for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation which
constitute habitable space. It is designed for residential occupancy by one or more people,
independent of the primary dwelling unit. The unit may have a separate exterior entrance or
an entrance to an internal common area accessible to the outside.
Building Footprint, the outline of the total area that is covered by a building's
perimeter occupied or obstructed from ground to sky by the structure or portion of
the structure, as measured to the exterior face at or above-grade including exterior
walls on all levels, to the furthest edge of roofs, and to the furthest edge of any other
above-grade surfaces. This does not include structures or portions of structures with
surfaces located no more than 30-inches above grade; fences and retaining walls; or
detached ground-mounted mechanical equipment serving permitted uses.
…
Occupant, in relation to extra occupancy and in other parts of this Code, shall mean a person who
occupies habitable space in a dwelling unit or any portion thereof.
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Pg. 200
Headline Copy Goes Here
Development Review Manager
Noah Beals
ADU & Parking LUC
Code Changes
11/21/2024
Headline Copy Goes HereState House Bill
2
House Bill HB24-1152
• Requires municipalities to allow Accessory Dwelling Units on the
same lot with all single-unit dwellings
• Eliminate all restrictive standards that would prohibit and ADU
• May not require additional parking for an ADU
• ADU applications are reviewed by government staff and shall not
be deferred to elected or appointed public body including a
hearing officer.
• May restrict Short Term Rental use
• May require recommendation from Historic Preservation
• May require Water service provide to provide a letter stating
capacity
1
2
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 201
Headline Copy Goes HereState House Bill
3
House Bill HB24-1304
• Eliminate all minimum parking requirements for multi-unit
dwellings and residential mixed-used developments
• May continue to require design standards when a parking is
being provided.
Headline Copy Goes Here
4
ADU Proposed Changes
Building Type Section 3.1.9 Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
PROPOSEDEXISTING
3
4
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 202
Headline Copy Goes Here
5
ADU Proposed Changes
Building Type Section 3.1.9 Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
PROPOSEDEXISTING
Headline Copy Goes Here
6
ADU Proposed Changes
Building Type Section 4.2. Table of Primary Uses
5
6
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 203
Headline Copy Goes Here
7
ADU Proposed Changes
Building Type Section 4.3.1 Additional Use Standards
Headline Copy Goes Here
8
Findings of Fact
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission to recommend approval of the proposed
Land Use Code changes.
7
8
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 204
From:Lisa
To:Melissa Matsunaka; Clay Frickey
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Accessory Buildings NEED Water/Sewer - please forward to P&Z decision makers
Date:Tuesday, November 12, 2024 1:42:52 PM
Dear Planning & Zoning,
I heard from Noah Beals in late August that the City may be considering whether to disallow plumbing in future Accessory
Structures. It is now November 12th and it sounds like it’s all but a done deal and is going before P&Z on 11/21/24. “Added
restriction for all Accessory Buildings to exclude water services” 23|4|4.3.1(A)(2)
The only reason I know this is because I reached out to Noah and he followed through on letting me know when it would be
on the calendar. However, the Development Review Center newsletter today simply says the following about upcoming P&Z
meetings (with zero mention of ADUs):
Next Work Session: November 15, 12 p.m. IN-PERSON at 281 N. College Ave., or
VIRTUAL on Zoom
Next Regular Meeting: November 21, 6 p.m. IN-PERSON at City Hall, 300 Laporte
Ave., or VIRTUAL on Zoom
This is not transparency. A citizen should be able to scan written materials and get a pretty good sense of what the City is
working on.
Disallowing plumbing in an Accessory Building goes DIRECTLY AGAINST what it is we are trying to achieve - for
example, the ability for an aging family member who may not be able to afford to purchase their own place in Fort Collins -
but may have enough to add on to their child’s home and live in it. If I’m an aging family member I definitely want my own
bathroom in my Accessory Building! In addition, I have been told all along when I asked, well, what exactly is an accessory
building?! And one response I received from Noah was someone who wanted to do canning so they needed plumbing in their
accessory structure to do so.
I did a search for “Creative Housing Fort Collins” and didn’t come up with much. I did come across something written by
someone in Fort Collins that you should already be familiar with at https://onevoiceforhousing.org/kathy-maloney/ THIS is a
great example of creative housing - AND we also need creative housing for renters.
Noah Beals and I have had an ongoing dialogue about ADU/Carriage House/Accessory Buildings for 10 years. I met with
Noah and Caryn years ago and said that it wasn’t a “cooking appliance” that was the issue in the conversations around
ADUs/Carriage Houses as Dwelling Units vs. Accessory Buildings as Habitable Spaces. I said it was plumbing - people can
figure out how to feed themselves without a "cooking appliance" but most of us would at least like a toilet and sink.
However,
1. I want to stress to all decision makers that what I was referring to is in ARREARS. The code always should have read no
plumbing vs. no cooking appliance if what the City wanted to achieve was that only legal units with allowed cooking
appliances (legal ADUs/Carriage Houses with Certificates of Occupancy) could actually be rentals (this is what I was told by
City Staff in 2013/14 when we paid almost $19,000 in development fees through the DRC to create our legal ADU/Carriage
House).
2. However, if what the City now wants is to create as many rental units as possible it should be obvious that disallowing
plumbing in Accessory Buildings would achieve the opposite.
3. The best way to increase “housing stock” is to reduce over regulation through simplifying code. Please help me understand
why we need to differentiate between ADUs vs. Carriage Houses vs. Accessory Buildings vs. having an addition on a house?
And what on Earth is the difference between an attached ADU, which can even be in a basement, and a Duplex? I would call
that an over/under duplex. Why do cities insist on splitting hairs, making housing overly complicated and over controlling
how people live? Remember when the City did this with U+2? Now we no longer have this restrictive code thanks to the State
- how HAS that been going since it came into law? I haven't heard that the sky is falling.
ITEM 5, PUBLIC COMMENT
Packet Pg. 205
5. I asked Noah in August, 2024 what housing/rental demographics the City was targeting with ADUs? Who might be willing
to live in/afford to rent a 500-600 square foot space? Young professionals? Retirees? Noah could not answer that question.
Can you, please? There must be some data on Americans’ love for space and square footage.
6. I have been a landlord for 30 years and a short term/furnished rental landlord for 13 years. My experience is that people
will pay up to 2,000/month for a 6-8 month lease for a furnished studio apartment with the utilities included. But after 6-8
months they want more square footage no matter how high end the space is and what a walkable/prime location it has.
7. Spread the word: ADUs/Carriage Houses/Accessory Buildings cost 300K and up to build. Wealthy people in our
community who can afford to pay cash likely don’t need/want renters. The rest of us are taking out loans to create these
spaces. See #8.
8. Primary homeowners are NOT "Developers". I have been saying to City Staff and City Councils for 10 years that this
system and process is ALL WRONG for ADUs/Carriage Houses. And referring to it as a “small” project in the DRC
accomplishes nothing. I know because I’ve been through it. Is the proposed code reflecting this?
A property owner who wants to add an ADU/Carriage House to their OWN Primary Property - is NOT a “Developer”. How
do I know that? Because I am not creating the ADU/Carriage House for immediate resale in order to gain a profit/recapture
my investment. I am investing for the long term and will not see a profit for YEARS.
Please make it as easy, inexpensive (building permit only) and streamlined (building permit only) to ALLOW as many
citizens as possible to both provide and benefit from having an extra space to rent on their property. This will drive the
monthly rent on said rental property DOWN due to an increase in supply in relation to demand (for this particular size of
rental and the demographic who would be willing to live in it long term 12+ months, unfurnished). For example, with
increased supply, a 500-600 square foot apartment that might only command $1500/month or less may be more attractive to
someone on a 12 month lease at that lower rate. Increase the allowable square footage and demand for these types of rental
units would increase.
This would contribute BOTH to more “affordable housing” in terms of more affordable rents AND “Housing Affordability”
for homeowners with such rentals to offset the costs of owning their home - especially considering the rising costs of fees,
supplies, contractors, property taxes, and insurance.
Thank you for your service in making Fort Collins a great place to live for ALL.
Lisa Eaton
ITEM 5, PUBLIC COMMENT
Packet Pg. 206
From:Clay Frickey
To:Lisa
Cc:Noah Beals; Melissa Matsunaka
Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: I cannot find the zoom link for the P&Z Work Session today Please Advise
Date:Friday, November 15, 2024 4:32:10 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Hey Lisa,
Thanks for sending your comments to us and for attending the work session. I did receive an
earlier e-mail you sent regarding ADUs. We will send your comments to the Planning & Zoning
Commission.
With respect to fees, we will be discussing how to become an ADU supportive community at a
work session with City Council that is currently scheduled for March 25. One of the purposes
of this meeting is to discuss the impact of fees on ADUs. Input like yours will be really helpful
with informing how we calibrate these Codes and fees to align with our housing goals.
Thanks,
Clay
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Clay Frickey
Pronouns: he/him
Planning Manager
City of Fort Collins
281 N College Ave.
970-416-2625 office
cfrickey@fcgov.com
From: Lisa <notael02@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2024 3:46 PM
To: Clay Frickey <cfrickey@fcgov.com>
Cc: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: I cannot find the zoom link for the P&Z Work Session today Please Advise
Thanks, Clay - I decided to attend in person after all and didn't see this email until after
the meeting.
Did you receive my email about Accessory Buildings needing Water/Sewer (and no, I
ITEM 5, PUBLIC COMMENT
Packet Pg. 207
don't believe you can have one without the other unless it falls under gray water in code
somewhere?)?
Did you forward it to the Planning & Zoning Commissioners?
I truly believe the City needs to take this opportunity with Land Use Code updates to stop
differentiating among/splitting hairs around accessory buildings, ADUs, additions, etc.
so an increase in housing opportunities for a variety of people and scenarios can occur.
I remember when we were going through STR regulations. Municipalities knew it would
be easier to create codified space, if you will, for these types of short term lodging, than
to pretend they didn't exist, didn't have a place in the marketplace or that the economy
didn't need or want such a thing.
Wouldn't this also apply to Accessory Buildings and ADUs? It's Municipalities that insist
on differentiating between these. Citizens, owners, renters are literally showing
municipalities the reality of how these structures could and should be used to meet
current economic marketplace conditions.
It's the municipalities who keep pushing back and saying: no, it's not "safe".
In reality, what it really comes down to is an attempted coup to force Accessory
Buildings defacto into ADUs by disallowing Water/Sewer thus forcing citizens to go the
expensive DRC route and create revenue for the municipality. I'm not buying it.
I have strong feelings against being ripped off as a homeowner in being called a
"Developer" and being FORCED to pay arbitrary, insulting fees. My ADU has been
demoted to the same thing as an Accessory Building which can also be used as an STR
(providing proper zoning). The impact of said Accessory Buildings who were not put
through the arduous and expensive DRC process have the SAME "IMPACT" as my ADU.
I will fight against this and speak this out loud all day long as I have for 10 years.
Please forward this to P&Z Commissioners - I'm especially interested in Ted Shepherd's
take.
I know the City thinks this is about Safety and aligning with Building code etc.
Yes, one can argue that all day long.
ITEM 5, PUBLIC COMMENT
Packet Pg. 208
Here's the reality. I'm a parent. My top value is safety/health. Because you can't have
Fun unless you are Safe first and foremost.
Here's the deal: My young adult son is going to Las Vegas for the weekend. I'm a mom - I
want him to be safe. When he was younger I would say, "Have Fun! Be Safe!". Now that
he's an adult I just texted him, "Have fun this weekend!!"
Because he's an adult. And capable. And while accidents happen he also values his own
safety and health and that of others.
The idea that having Water, Sewer or a Cooking Appliance in any accessory building,
ADU, addition, duplex, etc. is not safe just does not add up. Instead of the City of Fort
Collins insisting upon this then let's just figure out a way to create safe housing without
over regulation and over burdensome fees and costs.
I realize city staff may see this differently but it goes back to what someone said at the
Work Session today: why are we codifying things that aren't achieving what we think
codifying them is going to accomplish? What are we trying to accomplish?
Common sense will dictate that there are so many literally unsafe structures in any given
city in the country. But we ignore those and go after things we're making up inside our
heads. The City of Fort Collins is taking the easy route: add more code, create more
costs, add more staff, pretend to be able to enforce things, make things so expensive
only the wealthy can afford them.
I didn't realize when we moved to Fort Collins 22 years ago that Fort Collins would one
day become unaffordable for even the middle class. My husband and I are ready to
downsize. But into what? We're looking at expanding on a rental property but we're
running into issue after issue that just keeps jacking the price higher and city codes that
are making it look so difficult from a monetary and code policy that we're considering
other options. We budgeted 300K and it's looking like at least 350K for either an
Accessory Building or ADU. I am not going through the arduous DRC process again and I
am not paying those ridiculously insulting fees. And here I am caught in the middle of
this lengthy LUC process along with the rest of our city and it is just beyond.
The City of Fort Collins just has this Accessory Building vs. ADU thing all wrong. Just fix it.
Stop making it complicated. Let people live.
ITEM 5, PUBLIC COMMENT
Packet Pg. 209
Lisa Eaton
On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 12:06 PM Clay Frickey <cfrickey@fcgov.com> wrote:
Here’s the link - https://fcgov.zoom.us/j/93989546300
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Clay Frickey
Pronouns: he/him
Planning Manager
City of Fort Collins
281 N College Ave.
970-416-2625 office
cfrickey@fcgov.com
From: Lisa <notael02@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2024 12:02 PM
To: Clay Frickey <cfrickey@fcgov.com>; Melissa Matsunaka <mmatsunaka@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] I cannot find the zoom link for the P&Z Work Session today Please Advise
To Participate: Residents may attend and comment in-person or via Zoom at Planning and
Zoning Commission meetings, and can watch work sessions. Zoom participation instructions will
be posted at https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/proposals 48 hours before the
meeting.
ITEM 5, PUBLIC COMMENT
Packet Pg. 210