Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/10/2013 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - P&Z V2 Final AgendaAGENDA PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD -- CITY OF FORT COLLINS Interested persons are invited to attend and be heard at the time and place specified. Please contact the Current Planning Department for further information on any of the agenda items at 221-6750. DATE: Thursday, October 10, 2013 TIME: 6:00 P.M. PLACE: Council Chambers, City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, CO A. Roll Call B. Agenda Review: If the Thursday, October 10, 2013 hearing should run past 11:00 p.m., the remaining items may be continued to Thursday, November 14, 2013 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, City Hall West. C. Citizen Participation (30 minutes total for non-agenda and pending application topics) D. Consent Agenda: The Consent agenda consists of items with no known opposition or concern and is considered for approval as a group allowing the Planning and Zoning Board to spend its time and energy on the controversial items. Any member of the Board, staff, or audience may request an item be “pulled” off the Consent Agenda. 1. Minutes from the September 12, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing E. Discussion Agenda: Specific time for public input has been set aside for discussion on the following items: 2. Trails Master Plan This is a request for the board to recommend to City Council the adoption of the Trails Master Plan. Applicant: City of Fort Collins Staff: Craig Foreman 3. Expansion of the Avenir Museum of Design and Merchandising at the University Center for the Arts Complex, Colorado State University – 216 E. Lake Street, Site Plan Advisory Review, #SPA130003 This is a request to expand the existing Avenir Museum of Design and Merchandising by 10,750 square feet to the east side of the Annex of the old Fort Collins High School building that faces Lake Street. The expansion will be one-story and feature a prominent entry facing Lake Street. The existing driveway off Lake Street would be shifted 120 feet to the east. There would be a reduction in size of the dog park by approximately 25%. The C.S.U. University Center for the Arts comprises the whole block bounded by Remington Street, East Pitkin Street, Peterson Street and East Lake Street. The parcel is zoned N-C-L, Neighborhood Conservation Low Density. Applicant: Colorado State University, College of Health and Human Services c/o CSU Facilities Department, Fort Collins, CO 80523-6030 Staff: Ted Shepard F. Other Business G. Adjourn 1 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Minutes September 19, 2013 6:00 p.m. Council Liaison: Mayor Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Laurie Kadrich Chair: Andy Smith Phone: (H) 482-7994 Chair Andy Smith called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Hart, Hatfield, Heinz, Kirkpatrick, Smith and Schneider Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Bolin, Hendee, Lorson, and Sanchez-Sprague Agenda Review Planning Services Manager Cameron Gloss reviewed the agenda. Chair Smith provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. He described the following processes: • Citizen Participation is an opportunity for citizens to address the board on non-agenda related items. • Consent agenda items are considered items which have no known opposition. They are approved collectively at the beginning of the meeting unless a board member, staff or audience member requests an item is pulled and moved to the discussion agenda. • Discussion agenda items will include an applicant presentation, a staff presentation, and public comment. • At the time of public comment, he asked that you come to the podium, state your name and address for the record, and sign-in. He asked that the speaker clearly state their position. He encouraged speakers to share comments relevant to the topic under discussion. • Responses by applicant and staff will follow public comment. • The board will deliberate and reach a decision once a motion has been made and a vote taken. • He will begin each new item with a description of the development type being considered. The board will do their best not to use acronyms or jargon. Citizen participation: None Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes from the August 8, 2013 Hearing Member Schneider made a motion to approve the consent agenda which consists of the Minutes of the August 8, 2013 Hearing. Member Heinz seconded the motion. The motion passed 7:0. 2 Planning & Zoning Board September 12, 2013 Page 2 Discussion Agenda: 2. Midtown Plan _______ Project: Midtown Plan Project Description: The Midtown Plan establishes a long-term urban design vision to revitalize the College Avenue corridor between Prospect Road and the South Transit Center. It is intended to support current and forthcoming investment by identifying key design principles that will help transform the corridor into a more urban, transit- and pedestrian-friendly environment in support of MAX. Staff has worked collaboratively with a consultant team to develop the Plan over the past year with extensive outreach to community stakeholders. Recommendation: Recommend to City Council Adoption of the Midtown Plan Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Assistant City Manager Bruce Hendee said with the MAX Rapid Transit system and the Midtown Plan are an opportunity for the community to provide for a long term vision. Midtown is envisioned as an urban area with higher densities. It will be an economic generator that is conveniently accessible from abutting residential areas while continuing to serve the community as a whole from an economic, social and environmental sustainability perspective. He said it has been identified in City Plan as a high priority area for redevelopment. Economic Health Analyst Megan Bolin said provided a map that showed boundary areas. It follows the commercial area of College from Prospect to the South Transit Center. She described the process used for the developing the plan including identifying existing conditions, developing design concepts, and drafting the plan. Bolin described the vision and how multi-modal (bikes, pedestrians, bikes, transit and vehicles) was incorporated. She also described how the Plan calls for: • A pedestrian promenade will run parallel in the central part of the Plan between the MAX Spring Creek and Horsetooth Stations. • The use of a combination of frontage roads and wide, detached paths will promote biking along College Avenue. • Improved intersections will reduce conflicts by increasing visibility, predictability and awareness of other road users. • Character Areas will reinforce a theme for the overall district and use symbols such as garden, arts, and innovation symbols made of punched steel streetscape furnishings in each Character Area. It will reinforce a theme for the overall district. They propose public spaces with a network of interconnected walkways and smaller courtyards and plazas. Additionally, Bolin described site design features such as articulated buildings close to the street, internal circulation, outdoor courtyards, and surface parking behind frontage buildings. Design principles include: proved excellence in design, creativity, open spaces and habitat, enhanced pedestrian experience and keeping automobiles subordinate. 3 Planning & Zoning Board September 12, 2013 Page 3 The implementation strategy has been to promote the Midtown’s vision, engage the private sector, incentivize new investment (with financing and regulatory tools) and set priorities for implementation such as continued coordination with the South Fort Collins Business Association. Bolin said City Council will consider adoption of the Midtown Plan at their October 1 Council meeting. Staff asks the Board for their recommendation to City Council to adopt the Plan. Public Input Mike Scheckel with King Soopers Real Estate Department, 65 Tejon Street, Denver said they are very much in support of the Plan. They understand the Plan and have worked with the team at various stages. He said the letter the Board received in their read before materials from King Soopers is from Randall Wright, the Director of Real Estate. He speaks to how they have 11.15 acres within the boundaries of the proposed Plan. Their property is bordered by College, Drake and the Mason Corridor. He said it’s currently the site of a 90,000 square foot Kmart Store, a Loaf n Jug fuel center, and a multi- tenant retail building. Scheckel reinforce the message in Mr. Wright letter, specifically: “…King Soopers has a long-term commitment to the City of Fort, to the existing neighborhood, and the future growth of this area. In an effort to provide a quality shopping experience by redevelopment and revitalization, King Soopers asks that the supermarket use be specifically acknowledges in the Plan as a necessary and complementary commercial use in the Plan area and that flexibility be built into the Plan for supermarket and large retail uses in connection with the building forms, setbacks, parking, urban form, etc. We are confident that King Soopers’ conceptual redevelopment plans discussed with City staff can incorporate many of the guidelines of the Plan and that the redevelopment would not compromise the ability of the remainder of the parcels in the Plan area to develop or redevelop consistent with the Plan objectives.” Scheckel said as it moves forward to adoption, they ask it maintains the flexibility that staff has been discussing with them. They’d like to be able to keep their options open should they have the opportunity to redevelop. If the market drives the required density, they will embrace it. End of Public Input Staff Response Bolin said staff has had several different meetings with King Soopers throughout the timeframe in which they’ve been working on the Plan. She said the Plan is a policy level document. The design guidelines and the development prototypes are conceptual/ideal design scenarios. They are not regulatory. Bolin said ultimately the Land Use Code (LUC) is the regulatory document that would dictate what occurs with a specific development proposal. She said the LUC does provide for modifications should there be a conflict that wouldn’t work well for any development they were proposing. Staff has also had discussions with them relative to the urban renewal tax increment financing available for the Plan area. Chair Smith asked Bolin to respond to the points made in Les Kaplan’s letter relative to visibility. Bolin said from what she understands is he is the new owner of the ToysRUs site and his concerns are related to the visual experience of midtown. Hendee said this is not the first time they’ve heard this from the business community. Their concerns have to do with the visibility of signage. He said the major challenge comes from the Austrian Pines planted 30 years ago. Nobody knew how wide they would get or how they would branch low. He thinks we need to acknowledge the problem and be conscious of that as we move forward with this Plan – he recommends we work with the individual business owners as the issues come up. Board Questions Member Hart said with regard to Mark Lueker’s email, he thinks the issues raised by him about architectural guidelines are implementation issues that are best addressed in the implementation phase. 4 Planning & Zoning Board September 12, 2013 Page 4 Is that how staff sees it? Bolin said yes. The Design Guidelines that have been established in the Plan do encourage better articulation and the use of a variety of high quality materials whenever possible. Bolin said with regard to implementation, the next step would be to look at the design guidelines and the LUC to see if there are ways to help strengthen the regulatory framework for those types of projects. Member Heinz asked where the pedestrian mall starts and stops. Bolin said the promenade is on the east side of MAX from the Spring Creek Station on the north to the Horsetooth Station on the south. Bolin said there is a portion where it would jog over to McClelland. In that case, it would be more of an enhanced sidewalk. Hendee said there are two parts—one is what the College Avenue frontage would look like where vehicles are allowed. The other side (of buildings on College) is the promenade. Its intended use is for pedestrians and bicycles. Chair Smith asked if funds were made available, could the promenade run from Prospect to Harmony. Bolin said initially they intended for it to run the length of the plan area but upon further evaluation there are issues related to grade changes and the space available between MAX and existing buildings. Bolin said on the south end, the parcels are very small and deep so there’s not a lot of space. To implement the promenade would take right-of-way potentially making them undevelopable. Bolin said the team thought rather than creating a separate promenade, it would be preferable to direct the pedestrians to Mason Street in the southern portion of the Plan area. Smith said it would be nice if the opportunities were available-- where we’d have a Plan which would create the opportunity to walk great distances. He said it would also encourage development along the promenade. Member Kirkpatrick said it appears the border for the study area does not include the Mason Trail. Is that because we believe the connectivity to the Mason Trail from MAX is already sufficient? Bolin said they’ve always assumed it would be a part of the Plan area. They consider the Mason Trail to be the expressway for pedestrians and bikes through midtown. It will still be there and it will continue to be a very important connector. Kirkpatrick said she was thinking about the connectivity from the Mason Trail to the enhanced corridor the Plan will provide. Member Kirkpatrick asked about efforts around Bike Share. Will we be providing a lot of enhanced connectivity to the proposed Bike Share stations? Bolin said she’s not completely up to speed on the most recent developments of Bike Share. Bolin said they could probably add language to the Plan to make sure the Bike Share Program that is coming will be made available. Member Kirkpatrick said the board can only really require what’s in the Land Use Code (LUC). She was curious in the smaller public space section how that might be required in the LUC. Planner Seth Lorson said with regard to the requirement for courtyards, the LUC already requires them. Kirkpatrick asked about scale—requirements for small, medium and large parcels. Lorson said we do not have size specific requirements when it comes to plazas and pedestrian gathering spaces. Chair Smith said in the implementation of this Plan, there would a desire on the board’s part to see something above and beyond what is already required. They may be tiered (depending on their proximity to pedestrian spaces) but that the spaces would be larger than normal. Member Kirkpatrick said she would agree with that but that she certainly can appreciate that we want to see economic reinvestment in this corridor and that business owners want to see some degree of flexibility. She said there probably is some ‘sweet spot’ where we’re providing incentives and flexibility and also meeting at least the baseline for this vision. She said she believes we have a world class horizontal land use code but we may have room for improvement for our vertical land use code. Hendee said we’re right in the middle of a series of meetings with business owners to discuss how we can move the Plan forward and still allow some flexibility. He said Kirkpatrick’s comment about the sweet spot might be exactly what they would come up with. He said the long term vision may be one 5 Planning & Zoning Board September 12, 2013 Page 5 generation of buildings away from what exists now and yet we really want to provide the setting for that to happen as clearly and as quickly as we can. He said to ask them to come in and level a perfectly good building to start over from scratch is not really going to work very well. He said we have to find that sweet spot where we find that adaptive reuse. Eventually the value of the land will be reached where we can vertically make this happen and he anticipates that will happen with a series of LUC change recommendations. Member Kirkpatrick said the innovation character area symbol sort of looks like Wayfinding and is sort of distracting. Bolin thank her for her feedback. Chair Smith said with regard to King Soopers, Les Kaplan and what Hendee just said; he thinks it’s important for the city to acknowledge that financially in order to facilitate the development pattern that this vision calls for. He said when we talk about the overall investment of MAX, it makes sense to protect that investment by spending some money up front to catalyze. He said he was speaking from the private sector perspective about phases to get there (not necessarily the larger public improvements like the promenade or how we design bike lanes). He thinks we should be flexible initially. He said once we prove the concept, we can ratchet up standards. Member Carpenter said she knows the Downtown URA (Urban Renewal Authority) has been instrumental in allowing us to have old town the way we want it. Have we thought of anything like that? Hendee said the URA is certainly the appropriate mechanism to use for financing and for trying to make these projects happen. Funds have been budgeted for gateway development. Hendee said in the long term there may be a Business Improvement District very similar to how the DDA (Downtown Development Authority) operates. He said there are 440+ businesses along this stretch of College Avenue so it may take some time to get enough members. He said in the short term they are exploring business strategies that incorporate the use of MAX to create marketing opportunities for businesses along that corridor. Chair Smith asked if the South College Business Association (SCBA) took a formal position on the Plan. Bolin said no. She said they are in general support of the vision. Member Heinz asked if there would be regional rail along Highway 287 from Fort Collins to Denver in the next 50 years. Could this Plan support that? Hendee said CDOT (Colorado Department of Transportation) did an Environmental Impact Study that evaluated different options for transit along I-25 and along the historic cores. Based on their findings they said that any rail that would happen would go along community corridors. In the long term, there may be a great opportunity for rail. Chair Smith asked about the possibility of siting new public facilities along this corridor to help stimulate activity and be catalyst projects. Could this be a part of the BOB (Building on Basics) II discussion? Hendee said there is one item under discussion that he thinks is a real possibility and that is an early childhood care center that would provide transit for folks along the corridor. That’s the only public facility he knows of this point. Chair Smith said the discussion that Creekside Park in upper mid-town may become a main civic focus. He thinks it would be constrained with Highway 287 – College Avenue on the east and the railroad tracks on the west . Is it really feasible for enhanced programming such as summer concerts at that location? Would it make more sense to site it elsewhere? Bolin said the Plan talks about one large civic place within each of the Character Areas so Creekside Park could serve as a smaller venue for public open space. Smith applicants many time offer proposals based on documents such as this Plan. He’d like to suggest we loosen or tighten up Plan specifics to aid the process of implementation. 6 Planning & Zoning Board September 12, 2013 Page 6 Member Schneider asked what the timeframe would be for staff’s recommendations for Land Use Code (LUC) amendments related to this Plan. Bolin said a specific work plan has not been but she thinks it could happen within the next few months. Schneider asked what projects are in the pipeline for that area. Hendee said the only one that comes to mind already fits – Prospect Station (housing on the west side of the tracks). He said Les Kaplan would like to move forward with the ToysRUs project and the Everett Companies have some redevelopment work they’re doing. Member Heinz said when it comes to open space are there plans by the City to purchase some of those parcels? Bolin said the areas noted in the plan are conceptual. She said for he large civic spaces, it is intended for the City will be the owner and developer. Member Kirkpatrick said with regard to plazas and open space, where would the Summit (at College near Stuart) pedestrian plaza or corridor connectivity be. Bolin said she cannot speak to how that particular development fits the LUC. She can only speak to the site plan. Their courtyards and public spaces face west (toward the railroad tracks). She said they connect via a pathway down to the Spring Creek Trail. Kirkpatrick asked if that was considered public space. City Planner Seth Lorson said he does know but when they were talking about the promenade extension, they saw there was a pretty nice connection with green space and trails along where the MAX will run. Lorson said as to plaza space, the LUC does require plaza space. He said it would be a cooperative effort by separate land owners to make a combined larger space. Lorson said the city is also getting started on a Nature in the City project that could ‘help inform’ this concept of plazas and open space in these areas. Kirkpatrick asked if the Summit has public access ‘guaranteed’. Lorson said he’s not familiar enough with that particular project. It would, however, require a public access easement. Member Hart said it seems to him that what we are talking about is what we want to see in the next phase of the Plan. The Summit was built before we have the Plan. He said if we recommend this Plan for adoption and Council adopts it, we will have at least a policy document in place to fall back even if we don’t have LUC requirements. He thinks what we really have to do tonight is to adopt the vision and work on these details in the future. Chair Smith said we’ll probably recommend adoption but he thinks it’s important for the board to not wait to weigh in on enhancements to their recommendation. Member Carpenter said we believe in this vision and we recognize as development proposals come forward that we have the necessary tools. She said we don’t want this Plan to just go on the shelf. She said we’re going to see a lot of change quickly when MAX goes in so it’s very important to the board that we move directly into an implementation stage where the board gets the required tools. She recognizes we need flexibility. She said it’s sort of like the carrot and stick. You need to incentivize but without a little bit of a stick (to make it happen), it’s not going to happen. Chair Smith asked how Creek Side Park, Spring Creek Trail, and Johnson Street connect to the MAX Spring Creek Station. What’s the pedestrian connection there? Bolin said the Mason Trail would be the most direct way. She said they’re also considering a direct pedestrian connection with a pedestrian bridge that would connect to a small residential street – making a mid-block connection to the Spring Creek Trail. Chair Smith asked is parking intended on smaller street like drives that run north/south between the College Avenue frontage and the MAX corridor—buildings ‘bookending’ center parking? Bolin said it’s not shown on the circulation map primarily because it’s intended to be part of a private development but ultimately that would be the ideal. 7 Planning & Zoning Board September 12, 2013 Page 7 Board discussion Member Kirkpatrick moved to recommend approval of the Midtown Plan by City Council followed directly by implementation strategies including Land Use Code updates. We recommend a defining enhanced pedestrian corridor throughout the study area connecting the northernmost boundary to the southernmost boundary. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Chair Smith said this is where he’d like to add some comments. He’d like to recommend a friendly amendment that we see the Grand Promenade contained within the Plan with a goal that it extend from Harmony to Prospect. He thinks that it defines the whole corridor. Member Kirkpatrick said she likes the idea but from her experience with Transportation Planning, she thinks that corridor is really constrained and she has a hard time seeing how we can do it with right-of- way and the business parcels in place. She thinks it’s not included for good reasons. Member Hart asked if Chair Smith would be willing to qualify with a “if possible, if practicable”. Smith said some of this is already practicable – it’s policy. There may be some pieces that are not feasible due to practical limitations. He’d be great to have the language in the Plan, however, to provide the vision. Member Schneider said he doesn’t disagree and the issue is Mason Street. He said if you look at the distance between Mason Street and MAX, he doesn’t think it’s physically feasible. He said all of a sudden, you’re limiting what can be done on that narrow section. Are we creating a dis-service because we’re trying to push too hard for something that is unattainable for that section? Smith said if it’s left open, it could jog some in the mid-block street like drives and there would be some continuity of a promenade. Member Hart asked if you could have it on parcels between College Avenue and Mason. Chair Smith asked staff what they thought. Lorson said staff considered a promenade the full length and then they started to look at the actual dimensions of the lots next to the MAX line south of Horsetooth. They are very narrow. From a practical standpoint it didn’t make sense. Lorson said you can have a really vibrant pedestrian environment from the promenade to Mason Street across from the Mid-town Art Center all the way down to Harmony. Bolin said this particular section is intended to be grand promenade with Mason Street the southern pedestrian connection. Member Kirkpatrick asked Chair Smith if it would be okay if instead of showing it as an internal circulation opportunity it showed as an enhanced pedestrian feature. Smith said he likes the promenade because it has a distinct feel to it and defines the corridor. He thinks south of Horsetooth feels very different than the northern two-thirds of this corridor. His sense is this is a way to really making three distinct character areas. He thinks there should be some unifying themes in the built environment. This is one way to do that. We’ve been talking about how you get to the College Avenue Boulevard Plan--how the different right-of-way discussions will occur. He doesn’t think anything gets implemented unless it’s contained in a policy document. He said we can always get pushed off for practical reasons but he thinks the devil is in the details. Member Carpenter said that Mason from south of Horsetooth would continue with the feel of the grand promenade. What if we recommended that once it got south of Horsetooth, it shifts over to Mason Street? Smith said yes, the way it can be done is a lighter version. He thinks this is good urban design if it conveys the same feeling similar to a ‘light version’ addition to a historic structure. He’d like to see it extended in that fashion from Prospect to Harmony—it’s unifying. 8 Planning & Zoning Board September 12, 2013 Page 8 Member Schneider asked if doing this you see existing buildings being torn down and rebuilt in order to accommodate this vision. He said one thing we don’t want to do is completely bulldoze everything just to rebuild these bigger buildings. He wouldn’t like to see us push too hard. Hendee said you almost have to put on your 50 to100 year glasses to what you’d ultimately like to see. It’s a hard one because of the block scale today. It would be pretty easy to say it doesn’t fit. Hendee said the team struggled with it so they really welcome the board’s thoughts on it. He said he can see it going along from Horsetooth to Harmony and that it will be difficult, generational, and in the future. He used examples of how the San Antonio River Walk and the strand along the Pacific coast beach homes were built in phases. Chair Smith said the hallmark of the Mason Corridor is economic development but it’s also the promotion of multi-modal transportation. Smith said because we’re talking at a policy level he’d like to leave it open to staff’s creativity. It may come back as not possible but let’s work from what’s possible at the policy level and figure out how later. Carpenter said when we get to the implementation we probably ought to say a little bit more about that. She said the promenade is being defined as not an actual street. Member Hart said we’re talked about MAX as multi-modal transportation but what we’re really dealing with is a ‘people place’. Certainly, if you have some type of pedestrian activity throughout the corridor, it’ll be a much better people place. If we want to have something that talks about ‘within the limit of the area’ to have a pedestrian corridor from north to south, that would be great. That makes a lot of sense. Member Carpenter said we may have a better chance of getting the first part of the implementation of that feeling if we did it along Mason between Horsetooth and Harmony. That could happen pretty quickly because so much of it is already there. Member Heinz asked why we’re stopping at Harmony, why can’t we go all the way to the South Transit Center if we’re looking at ‘super long term’. Kirkpatrick agreed. Carpenter said she’d like to see it where’s it’s more feasible before ‘super long term’. Smith said he’d be okay with that and that the amendment to the motion would be the promenade would be extended from Prospect to the South Transit Center. Member Carpenter said she’s not sure she’s comfortable with that and the reason is the practical side of her has a hard time looking at something that she doesn’t think is feasible. Carpenter said if we can make it a way that it’s feasible and you still get that feel, then she’d be comfortable with recommending that to City Council. Hendee said the team has really looked at the pragmatic reality of doing this based on the lot dimensions. He has a little reticence in suggesting going south without taking that into consideration. Hendee said one of the interesting things about district formation is the change in character—it’s not having everything the same. If the promenade shifts over to Mason when you get south of Horsetooth, it creates a whole different character which might be a little intriguing. If we took that idea and really embellished it, that would still give the lot owners the dimension they’d need. Hendee said that’s not to say we couldn’t create some connection points over the Mason Trail and the MAX station. It might be a good idea actually to shift this over, change the character, and give the district a whole new reason for being. That way we could carry Chair Smith’s idea down further to the south without discounting it. Chair Smith said we encourage sidewalks that have a meandering characteristic. Member Carpenter said maybe a bit wider sidewalk would be good. Planning Manager Cameron Gloss said it sounds as if the board would like to promote a high quality pedestrian experience and the form is not as critical as you go to the south portion of the promenade. Maybe the promenade is very specifically defined but as you go south it’s really about the pedestrian experience. Member Schneider said he’d be more in favor of that—he’d rather not say promenade character. Smith said as much promenade character as possible. Carpenter thinks there’s space along Mason Street and it’s practical. 9 Planning & Zoning Board September 12, 2013 Page 9 Member Hart asked if they wanted to limit it to Mason Street—maybe something else would work and we should say within the boundaries of the corridor. Heinz agreed. Chair Smith summarized—within the boundaries of the corridor that some enhanced pedestrian connection be made from the north and south ends of the promenade—all the way from Prospect to the South Transit Center in a character similar to the promenade itself. Member Kirkpatrick said what if we recommend that is a defining enhanced pedestrian corridor throughout the study area connecting the northernmost boundary to the southernmost boundary. Heinz and Schneider agreed. Carpenter agreed. (The language was added to the motion shown above.) Hendee asked if it would be okay if they took the ‘red line’ and shifted it over and drew it south as a schematic to add onto the Plan visually, it would carry the board’s intent forward. Smith said yes – at that point it’s almost a bubble diagram and tight enough for their purposes. Hendee said it would carry the board’s idea on the Plan. Chair Smith asked when we get into implementation will there be certain timeframes when we’d measure success. Bolin said that’s definitely the intent. It’s not specifically called out in the Plan but in all the implementation discussions they’ve had with the South Fort Collins Business Association (SFCBA), they recognize this is going to be a responsive plan as conditions change over time. Hendee asked if it would make sense to provide a specific period of time like 3 or 5 years in which it gets revisited. Smith said he’d just like to know the thinking about predetermined monitoring. When will we come back and check on the status of the Plan with tangible measurements? Chair Smith said he feels strongly about the concerns that King Soopers and Les Kaplan had. Between the two of them, they speak for a lot of property owners. They are probably not the only folks with those concerns. There needs to be some flexibility to some of the standards at least early on. He’s not saying we throw away the Code but we acknowledge that in order to really activate the corridor and its economic viability, there be some flexibility applied. Member Kirkpatrick thinks is a great plan and she hope it comes to life. Member Hatfield said no matter what we approve, things will change anyway because things are always changing. Member Schneider said he thinks the vision is there. It’s good to see thoughts for the future. He wants to be cognizant of the redevelopment aspects and also what can and cannot be done from a practical standpoint. He thinks we’re on the right track having the pedestrian experience from north to south. He also thinks the promenade center needs to be its own entity because that’s going to redevelop faster and not take as much URA or tax increment financing – it can be done through the private sector. He thinks staff has done a good job. He said keep up the good work; he looks forward to seeing the Land Use Code changes coming back. Chair Smith said he really believes that areas revitalize quickest and best when the interface between the public and private realm is activated. He said the human experience is something to celebrate. He thinks about all the great things in our community that people write home about or take visitors to. They’re all focused on people. They are unique and they were bold at conception. He thinks it’s important to recognize the interface between the public and private realm all the way down the spine as the greatest source of opportunity to revitalize the whole corridor. It’ll ‘bleed out’ east and west of there. He’s grateful we have city staff that embraces bold thinking and the notion that we can build a world 10 Planning & Zoning Board September 12, 2013 Page 10 class city. This is one of those fun times to be a Planning and Zoning Board member and a part of something like this. The motion was passed 7:0. Other None The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Cameron Gloss, Planning Services Manager Andy Smith, Chair 11 P&Z Hearing October 4, 2013 Item # 2 Information found at http://www.fcgov.com/parkplanning/trailplan.ph p Trails Master Plan Paved Trail Study Learn more about our paved trails system and how it is used by the community. Check out the Paved Trail Study presentation for the December 11 City Council Work Session. Paved Trail Study Presentation Why do we need a plan? For the first time, the City of Fort Collins will develop a master plan for all its paved, multi-use trails. In the 2012 Citizen Survey, city trails were rated as good or very good by 93% of this survey's responders. The Trails Master Plan will build off our success and help us plan for the future through a collaborative effort of City staff in Park Planning, Transportation Planning, Natural Areas, and the City Manager’s Office. What will the plan accomplish? 1. Research best practices and trail systems in peer communities known for their high quality trails. 2. Analyze and rate the quality and condition of our existing trail system. Examine the current use of the trails using trail counters and observational and intercept surveys. 3. Examine the future use of the trails utilizing demographic and development trends and data. 4. Develop ideas to improve the current trail system including: 5. 12 o Enhanced trail corridors for high traffic areas (similar to Enhanced Travel Corridors for roadways) o Underpasses/overpasses o Trail spurs and connections to commercial centers, residential areas, parks, natural areas and regional trails o Improved safety o High-water alternative routes o Signage and wayfinding o Shelters, restrooms, parking 6. Identify priorities, costs, timelines and standards for new and existing trails, along with potential funding options to complete and enhance the trail system. 7. Involve the community by gathering and sharing information through surveys, public events and discussions with City boards and commissions. 8. Finally, gain City Council adoption of the master plan, scheduled for December 11, 2012. 9. Winter 2012 – City Council considers plan for adoption Downloads for following found at http://www.fcgov.com/parkplanning/trailplan.php Parks & Recreation Policy Plan Bicycle Plan and Program Pedestrian Plan Current Trail Info Bike Map - Front Bike Map - Back Trails Map How do I get involved? Check here for periodic project updates, including an upcoming online survey, as well as future public events. To volunteer for future trail counts and surveys, email Molly North at fcbikes@fcgov.com. Schedule Summer 2012 – Data collection and outreach to public, boards, and commissions Fall 2012 – Analysis and recommendations with additional outreach Winter 2012 – City Council considers plan for adoption Contact Craig Foreman Director of Park Planning and Development 13 970-221-6618 cforeman@fcgov.com 14 PAVED RECREATIONAL TRAIL MASTER PLAN 2013 15 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Karen Weitkunat ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������Mayor Bob Overbeck �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� District 1 Lisa Poppaw ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� District 2 Gino Campana ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ District 3 Wade Troxell ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� District 4 Ross Cunniff ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� District 5 Gerry Horak ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� District 6 BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Bicycle Advisory Committee Commission on Disabilities Land Conservation and Stewardship Board Natural Resource Advisory Board Parks and Recreation Board Senior Advisory Board Transportation Board Youth Advisory Board CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1 CHAPTER ONE: History of the Recreational Trail System ����������������������������������������������������������� 1 CHAPTER TWO: Recreational Trail Funding ������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 4 CHAPTER THREE: Recreational Trails in the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan ������������������������������� 6 CHAPTER FOUR: Recreational Trails in Plan Fort Collins and Transportation Master Plan ������������ 8 CHAPTER FIVE: Trails in Peer Communities ������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 9 CHAPTER SIX: Recreational Trail Inventory ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 10 CHAPTER SEVEN: Recreational Trail Design Standards ��������������������������������������������������������������� 13 CHAPTER EIGHT: Recreational Trail Use ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 17 CHAPTER NINE: On-Line Questionnaire and Outreach CHAPTER TEN: Action Items ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 20 APPENDIX A: Recreational Trail Existing Condition Inventory ��������������������������������� 16 PAGES APPENDIX B: Recreational Trail Use ����������������������������������������������������������������������� 51 PAGES 16 1 INTRODUCTION: The City’s paved recreational trail system has been in existence since 1980 and is one of the most used and treasured recreational facilities the City offers to its citizens� Over the years the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan updates have given the community an opportunity to create the vision for our trail system as the community has grown� However, a comprehensive trail planning effort has not been conducted, until now� This plan provides answers to the following questions: • How well is our trail system meeting the current needs of the community? • How can the trail system be improved to meet the future needs of the community? This Paved Recreational Trail Master Plan covers the paved trails managed by the City of Fort Collins Parks and Recreation and Streets Departments� The City also provides many miles of natural surface paths which are managed through the Natural Areas Program� The Paved Recreational Trail Master Plan focuses primarily on the recreational uses and design of the trail system; however, the City’s paved trail system supports a wide range of users and trip purposes� In connection with the City’s on-street bicycle and pedestrian networks, the trail system serves an important function in encouraging people to walk and bike for both utilitarian and recreation purposes� Paved trails are included in City planning efforts such as City Plan, Transportation Master Plan, and Natural Area Management Plans, The City’s Bicycle Plan and Pedestrian Plan also include the trail system and coordinated connections to the City’s on-street bicycle lanes and sidewalks� The Trail Master Plan project included an extensive outreach effort to obtain information from the community and City Board’s and Commissions� The outreach included open houses, questionnaires and interviews of trail users� CHAPTER ONE: History of the Recreational Trail System The recreational trail system was first envisioned by the community in the 1974 Open Space Plan� This Plan was an element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan� The Plan’s trail map outlined the Poudre River Trail, Spring Creek Trail and the Foothills Trail� The Poudre and Spring Creek Trails were designated for non-motorized uses only such as hiking, bicycling, and equestrian uses� A cleared dirt path separate from the hard surface path was identified for horseback riding� Construction of the first trail segments started with test sections in Lee Martinez Park, Edora Park, and Rolland Moore Park� The response from the public was very positive and trail segments were added on the Poudre River and Spring Creek Trails in future years� The trails were 8 feet wide and constructed of asphalt or concrete� 2 In the early days of trail development both asphalt and concrete were used to construct trail segments� By the early 1990’s the use of asphalt for trails by communities along the Colorado Front Range had fallen out of favor due to the required maintenance resulting from cracking and tree and grass damage� The Americans with Disabilities Act increased the need for the trail surface to be level and smooth with concrete better serving this purpose� Trail underpasses of major roadways and railroads were an important addition to the trail system� The early trail underpasses included the Poudre Trail at N� Shields Street, Lincoln Avenue, and Lemay Avenue� For Spring Creek Trail early underpasses included east Prospect Road, the railroad just west of College Avenue, and at S� Shields Street� The trail system presently has 32 road and railroad underpasses� See Map One� The Poudre Trail was in place from Taft Hill Road to its junction with the Spring Creek Trail by 1986� The trail was expanded to Larimer County’s Lions Open Space in LaPorte to connect with the Larimer County trail system in 2004� A portion of the trail west of Taft Hill Road is a rails-to-trails conversion accomplished through extensive willing seller negotiations with landowners� The trail section from the junction with the Spring Creek Trail down river to the Colorado State University’s Environmental Learning Center was completed in 1987� The underpass of State Highway # 14 (Mulberry Street) was completed in 1991 while the underpass of north College Avenue, near the Power Plant, was completed in 1995� The Spring Creek Trail developed over a few years with sections from College Avenue east to Edora Park and west to Rolland Moore Park completed by 1986� The trail underpass of College Avenue was completed in 1988� Sections of the trail west of Drake Road to Spring Canyon Community Park were installed starting in 1994 with the last section in the park completed in 2007� The Spring Creek Trail east of Edora Park was on- street to Timberline Road until right-of-way was obtained to allow the trail to move off-road in 1997� The Power Trail along the Union Pacific Railroad line was made possible by a trail easement donated to the City by Platte River Power Authority� Platte River obtained a permanent easement for their power line from the railroad in 1994 and included the trail easement in their acquisition� The trail presently extends from near EPIC at Edora Park some 4�75 miles to its terminus at Trilby Road� Development of the trail began in 2000 with the section from Edora Park south to Drake Road� The Fossil Creek Trail has 5�87 miles developed at this time. The first section of the trail was installed from Shields Street west to near Taft Hill Road in 1996� The widening of Shields Street occurred at this time and included the trail underpass of the 3 Poudre Trail and travels 0�50 miles north to Hickory Street� This trail and the Redwood Trail, on the north side of College Avenue, were installed in the 1990’s to help North College residents access the Poudre Trail and downtown Fort Collins� The Redwood Trail has been mostly replaced with bike lanes and sidewalks as development has occurred east of College Avenue� The Rendezvous Trail starts at Case Park and proceeds east through the Ridgen Farm Development� The trail will connect with the Poudre Trail east of Ziegler Road� About 0�80 miles of trail has been constructed� The Mason Trail connects to the Fossil Creek Trail at its south terminus and by 2010 was constructed north to Prospect Road� As part of the MAX Bus Rapid Transit project the trail will extend north from Prospect Road through Colorado State University to Laurel Street� The trail system has about 4 miles of significant spurs that tie the trail system to the City’s street system� These spurs are typically 8 feet wide concrete and allow for trail users, maintenance, and emergency vehicles to access the trail� Trail system connections to the City’s on-street bicycle and pedestrian network have been jointly planned as part of the earliest trail layouts� Connections from trails to streets remain a very important element of the trail planning process and fundamental to the City’s goal of increasing opportunities for people to walk and bike� Presently the City’s on-street bicycle and pedestrian network is well connected to the recreational trail system throughout the city� There are currently 109 connections from trails to the city on-street network� The most connections occur along the Spring Creek Trail due to the considerable number of residential units� Where the trails traverse more rural areas and areas with more businesses fewer connections exist� See Map Two� Chapter Summary The recreational trail system has developed from a few short sections in 1980 to over 34 miles in length and is now a critical recreational amenity serving Fort Collins residents� The trail system will continue to grow to serve our expanding population� CHAPTER TWO: Recreational Trail Funding Initial funding for the recreational trail system came from a ¼ cent sales tax established in 1973 and ending in 1983� In the early 1980’s the citizens of Colorado were interested in the establishment of a state wide funding source for recreation facilities� This lead to the creation of the Conservation Trust Fund in 1982� Conservation Trust Fund receives a portion of Lottery (scratch games) proceeds constitutionally mandated to be distributed directly to local governments, based on population, for acquiring and maintaining parks, open space and recreational facilities� The funds are distributed and monitored through the 4 Lottery� GOCO trail grants can fund up to 70% of the project construction cost� The trail grants are typically administered by the Colorado State Parks and Wildlife Department� Grants are available in the fall of each year and can be obtained for trail planning, design, and construction� The trail system received $140,000 for the development of recreational trails west of Taft Hill Road in the Closing the Gap voter approved ¼ cent tax in 1984� Voters again supported the trail system with the passage of the Building Community Choices ¼ cent tax in 1997 which produced $1,250,000 for regional trail development� The Natural Areas Department has contributed approximately $3�9 M to the recreational trail system since 2000� The Natural Areas Department is funded by a City designated ¼ cent sales tax and a County designated ¼ cent sales tax� The sales tax ballot language provides for the revenues to be used to conserve land and provide public improvements such as trails� The recreational trail system provides 8�5 miles of paved trails across natural areas; provides trail connections to 19 natural areas; and functions as critical wildlife corridors between natural areas� Natural Areas and Park Planning continue to partner to acquire additional lands and rights of way to provide even more important trail connections and wildlife corridors� Funding for the operation and maintenance of the trail system has primarily been from the City’s General Fund� The funding pays to keep the trail surface clean and in good condition, general upkeep of amenities including underpasses, snow removal, mowing and weed control� The operation and maintenance cost for a mile of trail is about $7,350 per year� The annual operation and maintenance budget for trail maintenance in 2012 is about $250,000 for 34 miles of trail� Since 2001 some of the Conservation Trust funding has helped with trail operation and maintenance� The 2008 Parks and Recreation Policy Plan recommends the continued use of Conservation Trust Funds for the development of the trail system� The City’s General Fund is recommended as the continued source for operation and maintenance funds for the trail system� A trail impact fee is another method to fund the expansion of the trail system� The fee would be imposed one-time on each new residential unit in the City� This fee supports the idea of growth paying its way for the expansion of the trail system� This is similar to current park development fees which provide funding for new parks� Current plans call for the development of another 31 miles of paved trails, including 10 underpasses at a cost of over $23 million in today’s dollars� (Note: Underpasses of major arterial streets for the Mason and Power Trails are not included in this estimate�) If the Natural Areas annual contribution of $350,000 stops after 2014 and is not replaced with another 5 CHAPTER THREE: Recreational Trails in the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan The recreational trail system has been included in every Parks and Recreation Policy Plan starting with the City’s 1988 Plan� During the plan updates in 1996 and 2008 the community was able to provide input into the vision of the trail system as it expands to serve new portions of the City� The 1996 and 2008 Parks and Recreation Policy Plans reference the expansion of the trail system to include the Fossil Creek Trail, Power Trail, Canal Trail and connections to neighboring communities� The 2008 Parks and Recreation Policy Plan (The 2008 Plan) contained the goal to “Create an interconnected regional and local trail system”� The following objectives are listed: • Trails are safe and convenient and are connected to residential areas, civic institutions and businesses, and to neighboring communities� • The trail system will be connected to the on- street bicycle and pedestrian network� • The trail system is located and designed with the goal of minimizing or eliminating negative impacts or damage to the environment� This guiding principle applies to the location of new trails and to the location of renovated trail sections, including the conversion of the trails from asphalt to concrete� • During renovation, existing trail placements are reviewed for possible adjustments to lessen impacts to environmentally sensitive areas� • The City’s hard-surfaced trail system connects with the planned natural surfaced trails on open lands� Public input into the 2008 Plan placed priority on increasing the connections of bike lanes and trails� Residents considered recreational trails as one of their “top 3 most important” outdoor facilities to add to, expand, or improve� A Geo-Referenced Amenities Standards Program (GRASP) included in the 2008 Plan indicated the City’s trail system has a high level of service across the community� The program analyzes the geographic placement of the trail to determine its accessibility� The 2008 Plan recommendations include the objective to maintain the level of service and connectivity that trails provide to residents� Ideally, all residents would be served by a recreational trail within walking distance of their home� The Plan provides that trails will continue to connect to public areas, neighborhoods, greenways, and employment centers� Strategies in the 2008 Plan to achieve the trail objectives include: • Work with the Transportation Planning Department to continue to integrate the trail system into the City’s most current Transportation Master Plan� (Status: Trail staff have worked closely with Transportation to integrate trails 6 the connection of the Fossil Creek Trail to the Mason Trail�) • The City shall continue to fund the development of the trail system through the Conservation Trust Fund� (About 3 miles of trail has been added to the system since 2008�) • Prioritize land acquisition for trail development and coordinate this effort to include other City departments� (Example: coordinated effort by Water Utility, Natural Areas and Park Planning on trail land needs along east Horsetooth Road� The 2008 Plan’s Capital Improvement Section includes the completion of the Power Trail including underpasses and the completion of the Poudre River Trail including underpasses in the 2008 to 2013 time frame. Significant progress has been made but funding is not sufficient to complete these trails by 2013� The completion of the Fossil Creek Trail, the Canal Trail, the Boxelder Trail, and the Lake Canal Trail; and the continued work on the Northeast trail system are included in the 2014 to 2018 time frame� Chapter Summary Trails have been a part of the City’s Parks and Recreation plans since 1988� The 2008 Parks and Recreation Policy Plan outlines the continued development of the recreational trail system emphasizing connectivity with the transportation system, and with strong support for this effort heard through the public outreach process� CHAPTER FOUR: Recreational Trails in Plan Fort Collins and Transportation Master Plan City Plan, the comprehensive plan for the City of Fort Collins was updated through the Plan Fort Collins effort in 2010 and includes a Chapter on Culture, Parks, and Recreation� Within this chapter Policy CPR 4�2 – Interconnect the System notes: “Support an interconnected regional and local system of parks, trails and open lands, and promote community interaction� Where environmentally appropriate, line irrigation ditches and storm drainage ways with trails to connect to destinations such as schools, open lands, and Neighborhood Centers� Special attention must be paid to environmentally sensitive trail design, location and construction�” The City’s Transportation Master Plan was also updated with the Plan Fort Collins effort in 2010� The section on Alternative Vehicles and Trails was the third priority selected by the participants at a June public outreach meeting� The Plan notes: “A change that would focus some future investment on adapting the transportation system, including trails, to meeting the changing needs of the future� For example, new trail design standards would be created for commuter trails, new alternative/smaller, slower types of vehicles, and enhanced bicycle use� Emphasis for improvements would be on adapting streets to serve new vehicle types and improving trail 7 The Plan’s Integrated Land Use and Transportation section contains Principle T 5: “Coordinated regional transportation solutions will be pursued”, and Policy T 5�4 – Regional Trail Connections: “Work cooperatively with regional partners to identify opportunities to provide interregional trail connectivity along the Front Range and to surrounding communities�” (Status: Fort Collins has participated in the development of the Fossil Creek Trail to Loveland with Larimer County and the City of Loveland� The Poudre Trail connection to Timnath was included in a successful GOCO Rivers Initiative grant in 2012�) The Mason Trail is the only trail specifically designed for commuting with its 12’ width north of Drake Road, fairly straight alignment, and direct tie to the MAX Bus Rapid Transit corridor� Trail-user data indicates all trail segments are usable by commuters� Widening the narrow sections of the Spring Creek Trail from Shields Street to Lemay Avenue will help commuters and other trail users have a safer experience� The City will continue to make trail connections to neighboring communities � Since the establishment of the City’s Safe Routes to School program in 2006, the paved trail system has become a major point of emphasis for parents needing to identify a safe route for their children to bike or walk to school� Planning for improved connections to schools via the trail system will help drive greater numbers of children to use active transportation to and from school� An example is the planned spur trail from the Poudre Trail to Lincoln Middle School and the Boys and Girls Club� Completion of this spur will provide a much safer alternative for children who now must travel along Vine Drive, which lacks sidewalks and high-quality bike lanes� Chapter Summary Paved trails have been included in Plan Fort Collins and the Transportation Master Plan emphasizing connectivity with the transportation system, population centers and with regional communities� CHAPTER FIVE: Trails in Peer Communities Colorado peer communities provided another source of data for the trail study� Locally, Fort Collins’ 34 miles of recreation trails puts us about in the middle for the miles of trails per capita compared to Colorado Springs, Denver, Boulder, Longmont, Greeley, and Loveland� Peer communities on a national level averaged about 0�28 miles of trails per 1,000 people with a median of 0�24 miles� Fort Collins has 0�22 miles of trails per 1,000 people� Trails in these peer communities average between 8 and 12 feet in width and are generally concrete� The national peer communities included Madison, Wisconsin; Portland, Oregon; Seattle, Washington; Eugene, Oregon; Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Tucson, Arizona� It should be noted that some peer communities include trails in parks in their city wide trail 8 CHAPTER SIX: Recreational Trail Inventory The existing recreational trail system was inventoried to determine the condition of the trail� See Appendix A for a more detailed inventory� The inventory focused on the condition of the trail surface, problem areas that need improvements, and possible improvements to make the trail more enjoyable and usable by the community� The Poudre Trail starts at Lions Open Space in La Porte and travels 10�1 miles east to Colorado State University’s Environmental Learning Center� The trail is in overall excellent condition. The more significant action items include: • a shade shelter west of Taft Hill Road • a vault rest room and paving of the parking lot at Taft Hill Road • a new spur from Vine Drive, near Lincoln Junior High School to the trail • a new spur from Wood Street to the trail • improvements for the trail to cross Linden Street • the realignment of the trail at Lemay Avenue • signage improvements • improvements to prevent or diminish flooding of underpasses The Spring Creek Trail starts at the junction with the Poudre Trail near east Prospect Street and travels 6�93 miles west to Spring Canyon Community Park� The trail is in overall excellent condition except for the 8 feet wide sections between Welsh Street and Shields Street. The more significant action items include: • the widening of the 8 feet wide concrete from Welsh Street to Shields Street to 10 feet or 12 feet • improving the trail alignment in the section west of Lemay Avenue • the widening of the BNSF railroad underpass just west of College Avenue • the replacement of the asphalt with concrete west of the BNSF railroad underpass to Centre Avenue • an improved underpass of Shields Street with improved street connection • the construction of a spur to Drake Road on the east side of Taft Hill Road • signage improvements • improvements to prevent or diminish flooding of underpasses The Fossil Creek Trail starts at Spring Canyon Community Park and travels south and east for lengths totaling 5�87 miles� The trail is in overall excellent condition� The newness of the trail results in few improvements being needed with the only action items being the need for additional shade and continued signage improvements� The North Branch of the Fossil Creek Trail has a section in place east of Ziegler Road that connects to Radiant Park and Zach Elementary School and 9 continued signage improvements� The Rendezvous Trail starts at Stewart Case Park and travels for 0�80 miles east along the Foothills Stormwater Outfall towards Drake Road� The trail is in excellent condition� The only action item for this trail is continued signage improvements� The Hickory Trail starts at Lee Martinez Park and travels north for 0�50 miles to Hickory Street� The trail bridge over the Poudre River is not set above the 100 year flood elevation; but is a break-a-way bridge� The only action item for this trail is continued signage improvements� The 109 Connections from the trail system to the on- street bicycle and pedestrian system are well planned and will continue to improve as new trails are added to the system� See Map Two� The Safe Routes to School program also reviews how trails help school children safely access their schools and seeks opportunities to improve these conditions� The 2014 Bike Plan update will analyze opportunities and barriers to improve the on-street to trail connections� The Bike Plan and Capital Improvement Bicycle Project list will prioritize connection gaps� Signage Improvements In 2012, an inter-departmental, technical team undertook a comprehensive signage initiative to make it easier and safer for trail users to navigate the trail system� The technical team evaluated existing conditions on the paved trail system as a basis for phasing out antiquated signs and replacing the signs with new, updated information� Sign planning and placement was determined by closely examining routes and key intersections along the paved trail system� Signs were generally categorized as “destination”, “etiquette” and “safety”� Destination signs were classified as either Wayfinding or Mile Marker. Wayfinding signs were placed at decision points along the trail and other key locations leading to and along the trail to reinforce to trail users that they are heading in the right direction. Wayfinding signs familiarize trail users with the network of trails, identify the best route to destinations, and increase connectivity between the trail system and existing neighborhoods, Downtown, parks, natural areas, adjacent schools and city facilities� Mile Marker signs use arterial streets to divide the trails directionally� Mile Markers were redesigned to better assist trail users with direction, distance, and location� Mile Markers are also an integral component of the Emergency Locator System (ELS)� If an emergency occurs, trail users are directed to find the nearest Mile Marker/ELS sign and report that information to proper authorities� Etiquette and safety signs encourage responsible use of paved trails� Etiquette signs were designed to give a softer tone to regulatory messages, such as encouraging bicyclists to use an audible signal when passing other trail users� Etiquette signs 10 CHAPTER SEVEN: Recreational Trail Design Standards Introduction: The following design standards are intended to provide trail planners and designers guidance to produce an enjoyable, safe trail system for all users� The standards also ensure the trail is durable and efficient to maintain. Right-of-Way: The recommended right-of-way width is 50 feet� The minimum trail right-of-way width is 30 feet for short distances� These distances allow for the trail to meander and allow for the placement of the adjacent gravel path� Horizontal Alignment: The horizontal alignment for the trail is controlled by many factors including the topography, natural and man-made obstacles, and the amount of right- of-way that can be obtained� An alignment that allows for a pleasant horizontal flow to the trail should be the goal� Sharp horizontal corners should be avoided� Where sharp corners are unavoidable, the right-of-way should allow for a minimum 40 feet centerline radius that will accommodate construction and maintenance vehicles� Vertical Alignment: Trail grades should be less than 5 % where possible to provide an enjoyable experience for the trail user and to minimize cuts and fills. When grades reach more than 5% and up to 8% for a sustained distance, the trail should have rest areas of 2% grade for a distance of 10 feet for every 2�5 feet of rise/fall along the trail center line� Grades over 8% to 10% should only be used for very short distances (less than 50 feet) and have ADA handrails� Grades over 10% should not be used on the trail� Trail Placement and Environmental Sensitivity: Within the urban context of the Fort Collins trail system there is a spectrum from disturbed to less disturbed habitat areas� Waterways are generally considered a critical habitat element and function as movement corridors for a variety of species within Fort Collins� Many of the stream corridors are already highly altered habitats due to the history of agriculture and the urban setting� This however, does not diminish the importance of streams, rivers and even ditches serving as movement corridors, and critical habitat and refuge areas for wildlife� Trail placement should avoid high quality and/or sensitive habitat areas� Trail alignments should avoid fragmenting high quality habitat and be aligned along habitat edges to minimize impact� Trails with a wide buffer from the built environment can function as corridors for wildlife between good habitat patches� The number of river, stream and wetland crossings by the trail should be minimized� As well, efforts should be made to minimize disturbances to and find opportunities to restore floodplain function (e�g� allowing the river or stream to periodically 11 meander back into the riparian areas to provide that balance of good stewardship and visitor experience� It is difficult to set a determined length to how often and for how far these meanders should occur� When opportunities exist to pull the trail further from the waterway, for example when the trail runs through a natural area, the opportunity should be considered while balancing the environmental value with the recreational trail value� Trail Planners and Natural Areas staff will continue to work in collaboration toward this end� Opportunities for Restoration: Construction of new or efforts to widen or realign trails create opportunities for restoration of native vegetation especially within riparian and stream corridors� The City’s Stormwater Department recently assessed the habitat along several stream reaches with the goal of restoring many of these reaches� It is imperative that all future trail work within the City’s stream corridors include consultation with the Stormwater and the Natural Areas Departments to assess restoration opportunities� Width: The trail paved surface should be 10 feet wide - unless in a high congestion area where the width can be 12 feet� The trail thickness should be from 5 to 6 inches, include fiber mesh, light brown color, and have a heavy broom finish. The trail should have a minimum 3 feet wide level shoulder from the trail edge� The trail should be widened at critical areas such as: intersections with other trails; smaller radius curves; underpasses; etc� to allow for safe travel by trail users� The gravel path should have a surface width of 5 to 6 feet, and a depth of 2 to 3 inches� There should be a 3 feet level shoulder from the path edge� Where possible the gravel path should be separated from the trail by a distance of 3 feet to 5 feet� Cross Slope: The trail cross slope should be between 1% and 2%� Horizontal Clearance: The edges of the paved trails should have a minimum 3 feet of horizontal clearance from vertical obstructions� The gravel path should also have 3 feet of horizontal clearance on both sides� Vertical Clearance: The trail and gravel path should have a minimum vertical clearance of 8 feet� Design Speed: The trail does not have a design speed� It is designed to function as a recreation trail that can also be used for commuting� The City Code prohibits bicycle users from riding in a manner that endangers others and riders are encouraged to ride at a controlled speed so they can safely negotiate the trail� Sight Distances: Efforts should be made to provide ample sight distances at intersections and at junctions with streets, underpasses, etc� Curves along the trail 12 Design Guidelines for Grade-Separated Pedestrian, Cyclist, and Equestrian Structures Trail underpasses of busy roads often serve to help wildlife get across the roads� Wildlife use of underpasses should be considered when underpasses are planned and designed� Drainage Structures: Trail bridges should be rated for a 10,000 lb� vehicle, be a minimum of 10 feet wide, have a railing height of 52 inches, utilize weathering steel and iron wood or concrete deck, have a rub rail, and be break-a- way if required for City Stormwater approval� Drainage pipes, box culverts, etc� should be engineered to support the needed construction equipment and the trail loading� Drainage improvements will meet the City’s Stormwater Department regulations, design, and construction standards� All trail crossing and drainage structures will be constructed and placed in a way that does not impede fish passage. Trail designers will work with the City’s Stormwater Department, Natural Resource Department, and if needed Colorado Parks and Wildlife for guidance on this item� Street Connections: The trail design at street crossings or access points to the street should be determined by City Traffic regulations and design standards� Signage: Trail signage should comply with the Uniform Traffic Control Manual. Fencing: The standard fence along the trail should be the Western two-rail� A non-climb horse fabric can be installed on the fence for animal control� Other types of fencing may be needed depending upon the situation and should be determined site-by-site� Fencing along the trail should be wildlife friendly and passable� This includes considering height of the fence as well as analysis with Natural Areas Department staff as to where considerations for wildlife should be made� Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) has guidelines that should be followed for appropriate wildlife fencing for the specific wildlife species found in the area� Mesh fabric can greatly impede movement of smaller animals along riparian corridors and has been a problem for snapping turtles� Tall privacy fences have created barriers to deer, forcing them to cross busy streets� CPW guidelines for wildlife- friendly fencing is ideally 16 inches off the ground and a maximum height of 42 inches on level ground� When mesh is needed in key wildlife movement areas, periodic openings can alleviate problems� Elevating the mesh above the ground, where possible, helps create passages for small wildlife� Keeping the fencing height to a minimum allows safe passage for young deer� Seeding: 13 trails will have an Emergency Locator System for communicating trail location during emergency response situations� Accurate location reporting by trail users helps police dispatchers guide the appropriate responders to the emergency site� Safety signage identifies such conditions as; slow zones, sharp corners, road crossing, etc� and are installed after careful review of conditions� Park and Natural Area Rangers patrol trails and can issue misdemeanor citations for riding in a careless manner and warn users who are not abiding by trail courtesy� Rangers also patrol for unleashed dogs who pose a safety hazard to other trail users� Chapter Summary The recreational trail design standards developed over the years has resulted in a trail system that is safe, sustainable, cost effective and functional� CHAPTER EIGHT: Recreational Trail Use Recreational trail use information was gathered in 2012 by a variety of sources, including automatic trail counters and volunteers who counted and interviewed trail users� See Appendix B for detailed use information� Methodology; The volunteer counts and interviews were conducted based on guidance by the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation project (bikepeddocumentation�org)� Counts were conducted over two-hour periods at ten different locations� In total, 228 separate counts were taken� The count data included type of user (bicyclist, runner/jogger, walker, other), gender, direction of travel, helmet use, and use of leash with dogs� Similar to the counts, surveys were conducted over two-hour periods at ten different locations� In total, 588 interviews were completed� The survey data included questions on zip code of residence, trip frequency and purpose, reasons for choosing that particular trail, as well as suggestions for improvements� 80 volunteers donated over 300 hours to this data collection effort� Eleven automatic trail counters were deployed at a variety of trail locations� These counters collected user counts continually but unlike the volunteer count data, the automatic counters did not distinguish the type of user or direction of travel� Where possible, the volunteer count data was used to calibrate the automatic trail counts� Results; Staff estimate 1�9 million trail visits in 2012 based on count data� The heaviest use was on the Spring Creek Trail with 650,000 visitors while the Poudre Trail had 474,000 visitors� The Mason Trail, Fossil Creek Trail, and the Power Trail ranged from about 240,000 to 296,000 annual visitors� On a typical day there are about 5,000 visitors on the trails� The highest two hour count was 321 visitors on the Spring Creek Trail� 14 time pedestrian visitors were on the trail was about 52 minutes with the reported average distance traveled being about 4 miles� Bicyclists spent about 65 minutes and traveled about 17 miles on average� Pedestrians choose their trail based on accessibility, scenic qualities, and lower traffic volumes. Similarly, bicyclists choose their trail base on accessibility, scenic qualities and separation from vehicle traffic. Chapter Summary There are nearly 1�9 million trail visits each year with Spring Creek Trail seeing the heaviest use� Bicyclists make up 70% of trail users and male visitors outnumber females 61% to 39%� Trail visitors come from all areas of the city and use trails primarily for exercise, recreation, and commuting� People use the trails frequently and throughout the year� CHAPTER NINE: On-Line Questionnaire and Outreach The community provided 541 responses to the questionnaire which was available for comments from July to September, 2012� 85% of survey respondents indicated they were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with how well the trail system meets their needs� Also, 82% were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with how well the trail system is meeting the needs of the community� Respondents (75%) indicated the City’s paved trails are “very important” to their quality of life while 95% said the paved trails are “important” or “very important” to their quality of life� When asked about the 10’ wide concrete trail standard 90% of the respondents felt this was the right width� 57% felt that the 10’ trail width was adequate in heavy use sections of the trail, while 42% felt the width needed to be wider� Respondents were asked to choose their top three new trail projects� The breakdown of projects chosen was: • Fossil Creek Trail between College Avenue and Shields Street (55�3%); • Poudre Trail from the CSU Environmental Learning Center to Arapaho Bend Natural Area (55�1%); • Poudre Trail from Arapaho Bend over I-25 to Timnath (46�8%); • Canal Trail from Horsetooth Road to Drake Road near Taft Hill Road (33�5%); • Trails in northeast Fort Collins (25�9%); • Fossil Creek Trail near Bacon School in southeast Fort Collins (24�5%)� It was important to respondents that trail improvements include underpasses, that trails are located close to nature, have scenic qualities, and continue to have the snow removed� Respondents were interested in easy detours when trails are closed, drinking fountains and restrooms, and better lighting and trailhead parking� Respondents (83%) believe other trail users are “courteous” or “very courteous” with 16% 15 Respondents were asked what one change would make their visit to the trails more enjoyable or more frequent� The top responses were the need for more trails, more underpasses/overpasses; fix the trail by Centre Avenue; new trail along Overland Trail Road; improve running paths, complete missing trail links; Poudre Trail to Windsor; and more trails in southeast Fort Collins� The online questionnaire asked about e-bikes and their use on the trail system� E-bikes are electric assist powered bicycles that typically have a top speed of 20 miles per hour� Respondents (53%) said e-bikes should not be allowed on the recreational trails while 47% felt they should be allowed on the trails� A similar question was asked in the volunteer interviews of trail users� Of those responses, 36% of bicyclists and 28% of pedestrians supported the use of e-bikes on trails� Larimer County also conducted an extensive survey in 2012 to better understand how citizens in the County are using trails and open lands� They received 2,170 responses with 60% coming from Fort Collins residents� The most popular household activity was walking, hiking or running on paved trails or roads (73%), followed by walking, hiking or running on natural surface trails and roads (68%), followed by biking on paved trails (67%)� These activities were also the most frequent with walking, hiking or running on paved trails or roads 8�8 times per month and biking on paved trails 5�1 times each month� The County survey also found that children (18 and under) walked, hiked or ran on paved trails or roads 4�7 times a month and biked on paved trails 3�9 times each month� Families with school-age children are an important trail user group� According to feedback through the Safe Routes to School program, parents consider the City’s trails to be a critical factor when selecting a safe route to school� The Safe Routes program recommends that families begin their route selection process by finding which off-street trails can be included on their children’s trips to and from school� The City’s paved trails provide one of the safest route choices for schoolchildren by keeping them away from traffic and facilitating arterial street crossings via trail underpasses� Chapter Summary The outreach effort verified that the recreational trail system is very important to resident’s quality of life� There is a high level of satisfaction with our trail system� Trails are well used (with approximately 1�9 million annual visitors) but are not generally congested, the 10’ wide concrete trail is working well, and trails are well maintained� People want more trails, gaps in the trail system finished, and more underpasses and overpasses of busy roads� It is important for trails to be scenic and close to nature and the removal of snow is valued by trail visitors� Trail visitors are courteous and people generally feel safe on our trails� The results of the 16 PRIORITIZED TRAIL PROJECTS: (See Map No� 3) 1� Replace and realign the Spring Creek Trail east of Centre Avenue; (2013 funded) 2� Construct the Trilby Road underpass east of Lemay Avenue and finish the trail from Trilby to Carpenter Road; (2013 funded) 3� Replace and realign the Poudre River Trail on the Woodward Technology Center site; (2013- 2014 funded) 4� Complete the Mason Trail from Prospect Street to Laurel Street; (2013-2014 funded) 5� Realign the Poudre River Trail at Lemay Avenue including a new bridge downstream from Lemay in conjunction with the CDOT Mulberry Bridge replacement project; (2014 funded) 6� Extend the Fossil Creek Trail at Shields Street to Trilby Road after the installment of the Xcel pipeline; (2014 funded) 7� Construct the Fossil Creek Trail between College Avenue and Shields Street, including an underpass of the railroad tracks; (2014 funded) 8� Construct the Power Trail railroad underpass at Keenland Drive; (2015 partially funded) 9� Construct the Poudre River Trail from Arapaho Bend Natural Area across I-25 to Timnath; (2015 funded) 10� Construct the Poudre River Trail from CSU Environmental Learning Center to Arapaho Bend Natural Area; (2016 partially funded) 11� Widen, repair/replace the Spring Creek Trail between Welch Street and Shields Street; (2016 unfunded) 12� Construct the Canal Trail from Horsetooth Road to the Spring Creek Trail; (2016 partially funded) 13� Construct the Fossil Creek Trail from Ziegler Road to near the Power Trail; (2017 or later, partially funded) 14� Construct the Boxelder Trail from the Poudre River Trail north to Mulberry Street (2017 or later, unfunded) 15� Construct the new Overland Trail from Drake Road to the Poudre River Trail; (2017 or later, unfunded) 16� Construct the main spur of the northeast trail system from the Poudre River Trail north near Timberline Road to Turnberry Road near Richards Lake Road; (2017 or later, partially funded) 17� Construct the Shields Street Trail from Trilby Road south to Loveland in partnership with Larimer County and the City of Loveland; (2017 or later, partially funded) 18� Construct the south branch of the Fossil Creek Trail east along Carpenter Road to near I-25 and north to Harmony Road; (2017 or later, partially funded) 19� Construct the east-west spur of the northeast trail system, north of Vine Drive from College Avenue to Timberline Road; (2017 or later, partially funded) 20� Construct the south spur of the northeast trail from Timberline Road to Mulberry Street; (2020 il il il il il il il il il il il il il ( ( ( ( hk hk hk ( Lind Richards Lake Maple Hill Trailhead Iron Horse Lake Canal Airport Eastridge Huidekoper Sidehill Elementary School Interstate Fossil Lake Northeast Community Park Southeast Community Park East Community Park Spring Canyon Community Park Blevins Park City Park Nine Golf Course Library Park Old Fort Collins Heritage Park Water's Way Park Indian Hills Park Alta Vista Park Overland Park Rolland Moore Coll ege Lak e Terry Lake Richard's Lake H orsetooth Reservoir Long Pond Claymore Lake Harmony Reservoir Foss i l Creek Res e rvoir Lind e nmeier L a ke Larimer and Weld Canal Lari m er and Weld C anal War r en Lak e D u ck La k e Parkwood L ake Dixon Reservoir La ke Sherwood N Taft Hill Rd W Mulberry St S Shields St Laporte Ave il il il il il il il il il il il il il ( ( ( ( hk hk hk ( !1 !11 !16 !14 !9 !10 !12 !7 !2 !13 !18 !15 !4 !5 !3 !19 !17 !6 !8 !20 Northeast Community Park Southeast Community Park East Community Park Lind Richards Lake Maple Hill Trailhead Iron Horse Lake Canal Airport Eastridge Huidekoper Sidehill Elementary School Interstate Fossil Lake Spring Canyon Community Park C a c h e l a P oudre R i v e r ShLealkdeon T e r r y L a k e Richard's L a ke Long Pond L i nden m eier Lake Dixon Res e r voir Lake Sherwood Fo s sil Cr e e k R ese r voir R o b ert B ens o n La k e ITEM NO ______3__________ MEETING DATE October 10, 2013 STAFF Ted Shepard PLANNING & ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Expansion of the Avenir Museum of Design and Merchandising at the University Center for the Arts Complex, Colorado State University – 216 East Lake Street, - Site Plan Advisory Review #SPA130003 APPLICANT: Colorado State University, College of Health and Human Sciences c/o C.S.U. Facilities Department, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80523- 6030 OWNER: Same PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to expand the existing Avenir Museum of Design and Merchandising by 10,750 square feet to the east side of the Annex of the old Fort Collins High School building that faces Lake Street. The majority of the proposed new building is located on top of the existing faculty and staff parking lot resulting in a loss of 22 parking spaces. The expansion will be one-story and feature a prominent entry facing Lake Street. The brick will match the brick on the existing main building. The existing driveway off Lake Street would be shifted 120 feet to the east. There would be a reduction in size of the dog park by approximately 25%. The purpose for the expansion is primarily to accommodate the existing art collection with new archival space, galleries as well as new classroom space. The overall buildings at U.C.A total 196,000 square feet. The proposed expansion is 10,750 square feet – 5% of the total. The C.S.U. University Center for the Arts comprises the whole block bounded by Remington Street, East Pitkin Street, Peterson Street and East Lake Street. The parcel is zoned N-C-L, Neighborhood Conservation Low Density. RECOMMENDATION: Approval Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750 37 C.S.U. Avenir Museum Expansion #SPA130003 Planning & Zoning Hearing 10/10/2013 Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Site Plan Advisory Review complies with State Statutes as to the location, character and extent of the project. Further, the project complies with the applicable General Development Standards, Zone District Standards and is in conformance with City Plan. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: N-C-M; Existing residential neighborhood S: N-C-L; Existing residential neighborhood E: N-C-L; Existing residential neighborhood W:N-C-L; C.S.U. Horticulture Experimental Gardens 2. Zoning History: Fort Collins High School was constructed in 1924 in the neo-classical style. With its red brick, prominent colonnaded front porch and cupola, the building carries a monumental and distinctive look. The gymnasium was added in 1953. The smaller shop facility east of the original structure was begun in 1927, with additions in 1928, 1941, and 1971. A classroom addition was added in 1983. The original structure was designated has a local historic landmark in 1994. In 2002, Poudre School District sold the facility to Colorado State University. In 2003 – 2004, the Edna Rizley Griffen Concert Hall was constructed to the north in front of the gymnasium. The original high school, and its various out buildings, are now referred to as the University Center for the Arts and serve the College of Liberal Arts and the College of Health and Human Sciences. 3. Right of Advisory Review: Colorado Revised Statutes provide two specific references which allow the City to review the planning and location of public facilities: A. Section 22-32-124, C.R.S., as amended, addresses the right of a public school to construct facilities within a municipality and the location or manner of construction of such schools. The statutes specifically limit the municipalities’ participation in the process to a limited right of review and appeal to the charter school governing body, the Colorado Charter School Institute. 38 C.S.U. Avenir Museum Expansion #SPA130003 Planning & Zoning Hearing 10/10/2013 Page 3 B. Section 31-23-209, C.R.S. provides that 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 Planning and Zoning Board. In the case of disapproval, the Planning and Zoning Board shall communicate its findings to the School District. The disapproval of the Planning and Zoning Board may be overruled by the Colorado Charter School Institute by a vote of not less than two- thirds of its membership. Under Section 31-23-209, C.R.S., the Planning and Zoning Board should make a finding as to the location, character, and extent of the public building relative to the adopted Master Plan (City Plan) of the City. Such findings help ensure that the proposed project conforms to the adopted plan of the City of Fort Collins. 4. Location: With regard to location, the University Center for the Arts is located within an established residential neighborhood. It is connected to the main campus by a bicycle and pedestrian underpass under South College Avenue. The proposed addition is located at the very southeast corner of the one-story, free-standing addition referred to as the Annex. As mentioned, the addition will be on top of an existing faculty parking lot. The front of the addition will face Lake Street which is an improvement over the existing relationship of the Annex to the public street. This relationship strengthens the neighborhood aspect of the overall campus. 5. Character: With regard to character, the primary features are maintaining the one-story height and continuing the brick exterior. The use of columns at the entry reflects, at a smaller scale, the larger columns that adorn the historic entrance along Remington Street. The height, size and material allow the addition to achieve compatibility with both the U.C.A. campus and the neighborhood. Its location along Lake Street helps mitigate the height, mass, bulk and scale of the larger historic facility located north of the proposed addition. The flat roof matches the Annex and is accented with overhangs and a cornice. The brick is intentionally patterned to respect the artistry and flair of the textiles and materials that are on display in the galleries. Seat walls, bike racks and landscaping will be provided along Lake Street to create a plaza effect. The detached sidewalk, mature trees and the prominent entry columns create a distinctive character that is contemporary but respectful of the overall U.C.A. character. The entry and plaza features contribute to establishing a relationship to the neighborhood without being dominating and helps preserve the existing ambiance of the neighborhood. The proposed addition is compatible with the context of the larger area. 39 C.S.U. Avenir Museum Expansion #SPA130003 Planning & Zoning Hearing 10/10/2013 Page 4 The Landmark Preservation Commission held a complimentary design review for the Avenir Museum Expansion project at its June 26, 2013 Work Session. The Commission agreed that proposed plans appear to meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for treatment of historic buildings and the project will uphold the historic significance and integrity of the Old Fort Collins High School building. 6. Extent: With regard to extent, the addition does not result in increased enrollment of students, faculty or staff. The affected parking lot is under-utilized and the impact of displaced parking is minimal. The program calls for one evening class per month and roughly four gallery openings per year. These evening activities will occur when most students are not on campus so there is expected to be ample parking available in the north and south parking lots. The requirement for a Transportation Impact Study was waived. In fulfillment of City Plan policies, the on-campus addition represents infill development and promotes compact urban growth. Existing infrastructure is in place and having this museum as well as the U.C.A. museum contributes to the distinctiveness and vibrancy of the neighborhood. 7. Compliance with Applicable General Development Standards: A. Section 3.2.1 - Landscaping and Tree Protection All six existing street trees along Lake Street will be preserved. New landscaping will be added in the front plaza area and along the east and north sides of the building. B. Section 3.2.1 - Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping The existing parking lot will be reduced in size and is located internally to the site with no exposure along a public street. C. Section 3.2.2 - Access, Circulation and Parking The addition, in conjunction with the larger University Center for the Arts campus, is already well-connected to the local street system by being surrounded by public streets with direct access provided by connecting walkways. The internal circulation system allows for services and fire protection. 40 C.S.U. Avenir Museum Expansion #SPA130003 Planning & Zoning Hearing 10/10/2013 Page 5 D. Section 3.2.2 – Parking As mentioned, there is a loss of 22 parking spaces from a faculty parking lot. There is no loss of parking in the student lot. After 4:00 p.m. both lots are open to the public including users of the dog park. E. Section 3.2.4 - Lighting New lighting will be fully shielded and down-directional. F. Section 3.4.7 – Historic and Cultural Resources As mentioned, the Landmark Preservation Commission found that the addition complies with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for treatment of historic buildings and the project will continue to uphold the historic significance and integrity of the Old Fort Collins High School building. G. Section 3.5.1 – Building and Project Compatibility The existing one-story building was designed such that the materials, colors and scale were selected to be compatible with the existing Annex. The size and scale of the building are appropriate for the context of being located between a large historic structure and the surrounding residential neighborhood. H. Section 3.6.4 – Transportation Level of Service Requirements A Transportation Impact Study was not performed for this building conversion due to the building being designed to serve existing students within an existing program. The entry plaza will include bike racks. Existing sidewalks and the underpass connect the U.C.A. to the main campus on the west side of College Avenue where there are additional sizable parking lots. Remington Street features on-street bike lanes. 8. Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood information meeting was held on September 18, 2013. A summary of this meeting is attached. In general, the focus of the discussion centered on issues related to parking on the surrounding neighborhood streets. C.S.U. is aware of the parking issues during the day as a result of commuter parking. The Parking Services Department is continuously evaluating the balancing act of providing off-street parking capacity while at the same time creating an attractive campus that is not dominated by vehicles. Long term strategies include additional parking structures on the perimeter of campus and further reliance on public transportation such as the Max bus rapid transit service. 41 C.S.U. Avenir Museum Expansion #SPA130003 Planning & Zoning Hearing 10/10/2013 Page 6 In addition, the City of Fort Collins Parking Services is beginning a residential neighborhood parking permit program for the benefit of neighborhoods impacted by commuter parking. These various programs are on-going and are designed to address the issues of parking impacts within the neighborhoods near the campus on a long term basis. 9. Findings of Fact/Conclusions: A. The proposed addition triggers review by the City of Fort Collins as a Site Plan Advisory Review. The construction of a new building for a public university complies with State Statute Section 31-23-209, C.R.S., in that the location, character, and extent of the proposed building conform to the adopted Master Plan (City Plan) of the City of Fort Collins. B. The location is within an established neighborhood served by public streets including access to the west side of College Avenue via an underpass for bikes and pedestrians. The University Center for the Arts is a continuation of educational activities at this location since the construction of Fort Collins High School in 1924. C. The character of the building is compatible with both the U.C.A. campus and the neighborhood by virtue of its size, 10,750 square feet and one-story height. The design is contemporary but respectful of the historic structure by use of matching brick and columns that reflect the grander entry on Remington Street. The prominent entry along Lake Street creates a strong relationship of the building to the street and fits within the established character of the neighborhood. D. The extent of the proposal such that there is no planned increase in student enrollment, faculty or staff as a result of this expansion. The loss of 22 spaces in the faculty parking lot is considered minimal. The U.C.A. campus is well-served by public streets and sidewalks. E. The Site Plan Advisory Review complies with the applicable General Development Standards of Article Three. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Expansion of the Avenir Museum of Design and Merchandising at the University Center for the Arts Complex, Colorado State University – 216 East Lake Street, - Site Plan Advisory Review #SPA130003. 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 W arre n Lak e Po u d r e T ra i l ( E a s t ) F o s s i l C r e e k T r a i l S p r ing C r e e k T r ail ( E a s t) S p rin g C r e e k Tr a il ( W e s t) Poudre T rail (West) F o s si l Cr e e k Trail Mason Trail Hickory Trail Power Trail Pow e r Tra i l Redwood Trail R e n d e z v o us Trail P l e a s a n t Valle y T r a i l ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! CommunityAztlan Northside Center City Hall LMibarinary Discoveryand Fort Collins Science Museum Center LCinecnotelnr VPaoluledyre Hospital EPIC Environmental CSU LCeaernnteinrg Gardens Spring Creek On LHiabrrmaroyny FRCC Council LibrarTyree CSU PVHS Harmony Campus OPoffsicte Post Town Office Station Old Old Square Town The Farm PMouolblerry Fort SeCnoiollrins Center Golden Park Meadows Landings Park Ridgeview Park Harmony Park Miramont Park Southridge Golf Course Southeast Future Community Park Fossil Community Creek Park Radiant Park Registry Park Homestead Park Cottonwood Glen Park Oak Plaza St Park Civic Park Center Way Waters Park Hill Maple Park (Future Site) Lake Richards Park Greenbriar Park Gold Soft Park Rabbit Brush Park Legacy Park Lee Community Martinez Park Iron Park Horse (Future Site) Vista Alta Park Freedom Square Park Romero Park Washington Park Buckingham Park SJtereffeetrson Park GCreamndevteieryw Nine City Park Golf Course City Park Roselawn Cemetery Rogers Park East Park Side Overland Park Avery Park Community Edora Indian Park Hills Park Creek Park Side Lilac Park Spring Park Blevins Park Community Rolland Moore Park Woodwest Park Leisure Park Beattie Park Case Stewart Park Spencer Park Rossborough Park Community Spring Canyon Park Golf Collindale Course Warren Park Ranch English Park Westfield Park Troutman Park (FarmCathy Former Fromme Franz Prairie) WBouottdesrfly NA Cathy Prairie Fromme NA ChCoaruttsail NA MarCipoolisnaa NA CHoottlloonwwood NA RCidogyeote NA Fischer NA Fossil RegionalReservoir Creek Open Space WetlanCdsreek Fossil NA SwGanussotanv NA Hazaleus NA KPinoginftisher NA MeManadgeprie NA NA McMurry NA North PondSshields NA MPaerslihcan NA Pineridge NA MeadowDog Prairie NA PPornodsspect NA MeadowFsox Red NA RGerdotvaeil NA MRaerdswhing NA RRiedsgeervoir NA RPoivnedrbsend NA RNoAss DReuenrning NA SaNlyAer Springer NA CoTtheerie Williams NA Lions Park Farm Long Open View Space e ³I ³I ÕZYXW ÕZYXW ÉZYXW S Howes St Carpenter Rd W Laurel St W Willox Ln W Elizabeth St W Mulberry St S Shields St E Tr il b y Rd Laporte Ave W Drake Rd ad 11 E Lincoln Ave W Horsetooth Rd N Timberline Rd W Vine Dr W Harmony Rd Kechter R d Country C lub Rd E Mul b erry St E Harmony Rd E Prospect Rd W Mountain Ave Landings Dr E Vine Dr S Mason St W P r ospect Rd Mountain Vista Dr E Drake Rd Richards Lake Rd W Tr il b y Rd E Horsetooth Rd C o u nt y Ro a d 4 2 C E Troutman Pkwy Giddings Rd N Taft Hill Rd N Shields St S Lemay Ave S Taft Hill Rd S Lemay Ave Riverside Ave N Overland Tr l Ziegler Rd S Timberline Rd S Timberline Rd N Lemay Ave S Overland Trl S Centen n ial Dr N College Ave Turnberry Rd Gregory Rd Board w al k Dr ad 13 Road 9 S College Ave M cmurry Ave S S u m m it V iew Dr K e e n lan d Dr City of Fort Collins Parks/Trails Park Major Trail Future Trail Suggested Route ! Point of Interest !¬ Call Box !_ Restroom !Z !Water Fountain !A I R Air Station !i Parking 0 0.5 1 2 Miles 36 Blevins Park City Park Nine Golf Course Old Fort Collins Heritage Park Water's Way Park Fossil Creek Community Park Indian Hills Park Alta Vista Park Overland Park Rolland Moore Community Park City Park Troutman Park Soft Gold Park Washington Park Golden Meadows Park Avery Park Woodwest Park Homestead Park Beattie Park Romero Park Harmony Park Radiant Park Archery Range Freedom Square Park Lee Martinez Community Park Cottonwood Glen Park Southridge Golf Course Maple Hill Park Lilac Park Miramont Park Leisure Park Eastside Park Warren Park Collindale Golf Course Rabbit Brush Park Registry Park Greenbriar Park Edora Community Park English Ranch Park Rogers Park Westfield Park Rossborough Park Grandview Cemetery Ridgeview Park Spencer Park Roselawn Cemetery Sheldon Lake Coll ege Lak e Terry Lake Richard's Lake H o rsetooth Reservoir Long Pond Claymore Lake Harmony Reservoir Foss i l Creek Res e rvoir Lind e nmeier L a ke Larimer and Weld Canal Larimer an d Weld Canal R obert Ben s on Lake War r en Lak e D u ck L ake P ortner Res e rvoir Parkwood L a ke Dixon Reservoir Lake Sherwood W e s t S p r i n g C r e e k T r a il Verm o nt Trail Ren d e zv o us T r ail Mason Trail Hickory Trail Redwood Trail Pleasant V a lley Tra il Fo s si l C re e k T r a il West Po u dre Trail F o s s i l C r e e k Trail East Spring Creek Trail E a s t P o u d r e T r a il Poudre Riv e r T r ail Power Trail N Taft Hill Rd W Mulberry St S Shields St S Timberline Rd Strauss Cabin Rd Ziegler Rd 9th St W Laurel St W D r ake Rd E M ulberry St W Willox Ln S Taft Hill Rd Richards Lake Rd Remington St W Mountain Ave S tat e Highway 392 E Wi l lo x L n E T rilby Rd Landings Dr N Mason St W Prospect Rd Jefferson St W Elizabe t h St N Howes St N Lemay Ave W Harmony Rd W County Road 38E E County Road 50 Mountain Vista Dr E Harmony R d N Timberline Rd W Horsetooth Rd Kechter Rd E C o unty Road 38 County Road 54G W Douglas Rd W Vine Dr E Horsetooth Rd E County Road 36 Main St E Prospect Rd W Trilby Rd E Drake Rd W Boardwalk Dr C a rpenter Rd J ohn F K en nedy Pkwy S US Highway 287 E County Road 52 S County Road 11 S Sum m it View Dr S County Road 7 N County Road 17 N U S Hig h way 287 E County Road 48 N County Road 19 E County R o ad 30 E County Road 54 E Douglas Rd S County Road 19 N County Road 5 Giddings Rd N County Road 9 S County Road 9 S College Ave Riv e r s ide Ave S Lemay Ave N Shields St S Overland Trl N College Ave G r e gory Rd S M a son St N Overland T r l Boardwalk Dr S County Road 13 S County Road 5 Country Club Rd E L i ncoln Ave Turnberry Rd E Vine Dr S Lemay Ave !"`$ ÉZYXW ôZYXW ÕZYXW ÕZYXW ³I ³I Map 3 Trail Projects CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: September 09, 2013 hk Proposed Community Parks il Proposed Neighborhood Parks ( Park Land Acquired Existing Parks Water Features Proposed Trails Existing Trails Major Streets Railroads GMA City Limits 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles Scale 1:63,360 © K:\ArcMapProjects\Parks\Park Trails Map\Maps\Map3_TrailProjects11x17.mxd 35 S Timberline Rd Strauss Cabin Rd Ziegler Rd 9th St W Laurel St W Drake Rd W Willox Ln S Taft Hill Rd Kechter Rd Richards Lake Rd Remington St W Mountain Ave State Highwa y 392 E Wi l lo x L n E T r ilby Rd Landings Dr N Mason St W Prospect Rd Jefferson St W Elizabe t h St N Howes St N Lemay Ave E Mulberry S t W Harmony Rd W County Road 38E E County Road 50 Mountain Vista Dr E Harmony R d W Horsetooth Rd E C o unty Road 38 County Road 54G S Howes St W Douglas Rd W Vine Dr E Horsetooth Rd E County Road 36 Main St W Trilby Rd E Drake Rd John F Ke n nedy P k w y S US Highway 287 E County Road 52 E Vine Dr S County Road 11 S Sum m it View Dr S County Road 7 N County Road 17 N U S Hig h way 287 N Timberline Rd E County Road 48 N County Road 19 E County R o ad 30 E County Road 54 E Douglas Rd S County Road 19 N County Road 5 Giddings Rd N County Road 9 S County Road 9 Riv e r s ide Ave S Lemay Ave N Shields St S Overland Trl N College Ave G r e gory Rd S Mason St N Overland T r l S County Road 13 S County Road 5 Country Club Rd E Pro spect Rd E L i ncoln Ave Turnberry Rd S Lemay Ave !"`$ ÉZYXW Spring Canyon Community Park Blevins Park City Park Nine Golf Course Old Fort Collins Heritage Park Water's Way Park Fossil Creek Community Park Indian Hills Park Alta Vista Park Overland Park Rolland Moore Community Park City Park Troutman Park Soft Gold Park Golden Meadows Park Avery Park Woodwest Park Homestead Park Beattie Park Romero Park Harmony Park Radiant Park Archery Range Freedom Square Park Lee Martinez Community Park Landings Park Buckingham Park Spring Park Southridge Golf Course Maple Hill Park Lilac Park Miramont Park Leisure Park Eastside Park Warren Park Collindale Golf Course Rabbit Brush Park Registry Park Greenbriar Park Edora Community Park English Ranch Park Rogers Park Westfield Park Rossborough Park Grandview Cemetery Ridgeview Park Spencer Park Roselawn Cemetery Ea s t P o u d r e T r ail R en d e z vous Trail Mason Tra i l Hickory Trail Redwood Trail Pleasant V a lley Trail Fo s si l C re e k T r a il W est Po u dre Trail F o s s i l C reek Trail Bl u e S ky Trail Poudre River Trail Power Trail E a s t P ou d r e Tra i l ôZYXW ÕZYXW ÕZYXW ³I ³I Map 2 Trail-Street Connections CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: September 09, 2013 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles Scale 1:63,360 © K:\ArcMapProjects\Parks\Park Trails Map\Maps\Map2_Trail-StreetConnections11x17.mxd Proposed Trails selection Connections Local Collector Arterial Existing Trails Proposed Trails Suggested Route Major Streets Railroads Existing Parks Water Features GMA City Limits 34 Community Park City Park Troutman Park Soft Gold Park Washington Park Golden Meadows Park Avery Park Woodwest Park Homestead Park Beattie Park Romero Park Harmony Park Radiant Park Archery Range Freedom Square Park Lee Martinez Community Park Landings Park Cottonwood Glen Park Southridge Golf Course Maple Hill Park Lilac Park Miramont Park Leisure Park Eastside Park Warren Park Collindale Golf Course Registry Park Greenbriar Park Edora Community Park English Ranch Park Rogers Park Westfield Park Rossborough Park Grandview Cemetery Ridgeview Park Spencer Park Roselawn Cemetery Sheldon Lake Coll ege Lak e Terry Lake Richard's Lake H o rsetooth Reservoir Long Pond Claymore Lake Harmony Reservoir Foss i l Creek Res e rvoir Lind e nmeier L a ke Larimer and Weld Canal Larimer a nd Weld C a nal War r en Lak e Duck Lake Portner Res e rvoir Parkwood L a k e Dixon Reservoir Lake Sherwood Verm o nt Trail Ren d e zv o us T r ail Mason Trail Hickory Trail Redwood Trail Pleasant V a lley Trail Fo s si l C re e k T r a il West Po u dre Trail F o s s i l C r e e k T rail East Spring Creek Trail W e s t S p r ing Creek Trail Bl u e S ky Trail Poudre River Trail Power Trail E a st P ou dr e T rail N Taft Hill Rd W Mulberry St S Shields St Laporte Ave S Timberline Rd Strauss Cabin Rd Ziegler Rd 9th St W Laurel St W Drake Rd E M ulberry St W Willox Ln S Taft Hill Rd Richards Lake Rd W Mountain Ave State Highway 392 E Wi l lo x L n E T rilby Rd Landings Dr N Mason St W Prospect Rd Jefferson St W Elizabe t h St N Howes St N Lemay Ave W Harmony Rd W County Road 38E E County Road 50 Mountain Vista Dr E Harmony R d N Timberline Rd W Horsetooth Rd Kechter Rd E C o unty Road 38 County Road 54G S Howes St W Douglas Rd W Vine Dr E Horsetooth Rd E County Road 36 Main St E Prospect Rd W Trilby Rd E Drake Rd W Boardwalk Dr C a rpenter Rd J ohn F K en nedy Pkwy S US Highway 287 E County Road 52 S County Road 11 S Sum m it View Dr S County Road 7 N County Road 17 N U S Hig h way 287 E County Road 48 N County Road 19 E County R o ad 30 E County Road 54 E Douglas Rd S County Road 19 N County Road 5 Giddings Rd N County Road 9 S County Road 9 S College Ave Riverside Ave S Lemay Ave N Shields St S Overland Trl N College Ave G r e gory Rd S M ason St N Overland T r l S County Road 13 S County Road 5 Country Club Rd E L i ncoln Ave T u rnberry Rd E Vine Dr S Lemay Ave !"`$ ÉZYXW ôZYXW ÕZYXW ÕZYXW ³I ³I CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: September 09, 2013 hk Proposed Community Parks il Proposed Neighborhood Parks ( Park Land Acquired Proposed Trails Existing Trails Major Streets Railroads Existing Parks Water Features GMA City Limits 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles Scale 1:63,360 © K:\ArcMapProjects\Parks\Park Trails Map\Maps\Map1_ParksTrailsPlan11x17.mxd Map 1 Parks & Trails Plan 33 or later, unfunded) OTHER ACTION ITEMS • Update this Paved Recreational Trail Master plan as part of future updates to the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan • Continue to seek additional funding for the trail program to keep pace with future needs • Construct trail connections to the street system on existing and future trails at no greater than a ½ mile interval in residential and commercial areas • Continue to employ best practices in locating, building and maintaining trails to avoid, minimize, and mitigate environmental impacts • Add landscaping and trees to beautify the trails and provide shade for trail users where appropriate • Continue to improve the trail system by adding such items as: trailheads, restrooms, drinking fountains, benches, etc� • Connect trails to the brewery industry • Continue to track trail use and survey trail users to refine project priorities and identify ways to continually improve the trail system • Incorporate Safe Routes to Schools in future trail expansion projects where appropriate • Analyze the feasibility and cost of constructing trail underpasses/overpasses of arterial and collector streets and determine priority locations based on feasibility, cost, safety and benefits to greatest number of trail users • Analyze detour routes and signage around flood prone trail areas to determine if any can be improved • Complete implementation of trail location, safety, and destination signage • Maintain or improve best management practices related to trail maintenance 32 public outreach indicate that the trail system meets the needs of the community� Public input validated the prioritized list of trail projects and improvements needed to ensure the trail system meets the needs of the community in the future� CHAPTER TEN: Action Items The culmination of gathering input from the community, and examining trail-use, existing trail conditions, connections to the on-street system and to schools, current trail standards, and comparisons to peer communities has resulted in a prioritized list of trail projects and several action items 31 indicating they are “somewhat courteous”� To better understand trail safety the recreational trail on-line questionnaire asked users “how safe do you feel when using the trail system?” 541 responses were generated: 241 respondents felt very safe, 225 safe, 48 somewhat safe and 27 unsafe� Expressed as a percentage, users who felt safe represented 95 % of the total responses and users who felt unsafe represented less than 5% of respondents� Respondents who felt unsafe were asked to elaborate on their answer and 7 of the 27 respondents provided additional information� Four of the seven respondents felt unsafe at dusk or night, especially on the Spring Creek and Poudre Trail� The other responses were concerns on recreational safety (ie: use of audible signal when passing�) When respondents were asked where else the trails should go the top responses were: • More trails to schools, Downtown, and parks; • Extension of the Power Trail across Harmony Road; • A trail connecting the Foothills Trail to Overland Trail Road; • More trails to CSU; • Extension of the Power Trail to Loveland; • Trails to the Foothills Mall� 30 Bicyclists comprised 70% of trail users while 30% were pedestrians (10% runners/joggers, 19% walkers, and 1% other (e�g�, skateboarders))� Pedestrian visitors went up to about 34% of all users on the weekends� Trails in community parks tended to have a higher than average number of pedestrians� Trails closer to the City limits tended to have a higher than average number of bicyclists� Male trail visitors outnumbered females 61% to 39%� Male bicyclists outnumber female bicyclists 2 to 1� 53% of pedestrians were female� Overall helmet use by bicyclists was just under 60%; this is notably higher than the national average of 25%� Trail visitors enjoyed bringing along their four- legged companions� About 6% of trail visitors had a dog with them and 95% of those dogs were on a leash� The number of dogs on the trail during a year is estimated at about 114,000, or about 312 each day� Trail visitors came from every zip code in the community with the most from the southeast and southwest quadrants of the city� Most trail visitors were using the trail for exercising, recreational activities, and commuting� Many trail visitors use the trail daily or between 11 and 20 times per month� Many use the trails all year long which underscores the need for snow removal on the trails� The average 29 The required seed mix for when the trail is not bisecting irrigated turf areas should be a blend of buffalo grass, blue gramma, and little blue stem� These short growing warm season grasses require less water and mowing� The short grasses should be planted in the 3 foot shoulder area of the paved trail and/or the gravel side path� Any additionally disturbed areas beyond the trail and shoulder width (including staging areas) should be planted with the native seed mixes recommended by the City’s Natural Areas Department� In any of the non-turf areas, no exotic species will be allowed to be planted, specifically no smooth brome (Bromus inermis) or crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum)� Trail Safety: As noted in Chapter Eight, the great majority of trail users feel safe on our trails� Relatedly, paved 28 alignment should not be greater than a 90 degree angle� More pronounced curves require the trail to be placed to avoid any sight distance obstruction being within 30 feet of the trail centerline at the midpoint of the curve� Trail underpasses and bridges should have a straight section of at least 20 feet approaching the structure� Trail Lighting The trail system is not lit except at underpasses where “dark sky” friendly light fixtures are used to help trail users enter, travel through, and exit these facilities� Underpasses: Trail underpasses should comply with the City’s 27 over-top its banks)� Trail alignment should avoid or minimize or mitigate removing native trees or shrubs, especially in riparian areas� All setbacks and seasonal closures for rare, sensitive, threatened or endangered plants and wildlife should be respected with regard to trail placement� When possible and appropriate, trails should be aligned where there is already an existing disturbance, such as a utility right-away or crossing streams at existing roads and bridges� Also careful placement of the trails should be considered to discourage off-trail use in sensitive habitat areas� As new trails are developed along or extending past the urban core of Fort Collins, more sensitive habitats will be found� Trail planners should work with Natural Areas Department staff and Colorado Parks and Wildlife as necessary to assess potential sensitive habitats and to ensure best or next-best case trail placement options� Trail Placement in Riparian Buffer Areas: Many existing trails follow river and stream corridors, which as mentioned above are considered sensitive and important habitat� The condition of this habitat varies greatly throughout the city� Trails are permitted within the development buffers of these waterways� However to alleviate the added pressure on wildlife in these corridors and to help create wildlife refuge areas, the trail should not remain in the riparian buffer for the entire stretch of the corridor� Along river and stream corridors the trail should periodically be pulled toward the edge of the buffer to create areas without constant disturbance from trail users� The trail can then 26 were designed to inform users that the trail system is “multi-use” and shared by bikers, pedestrians and equestrians� Safety signs included messages warning visitors of potential conflict areas and areas where trail users should heed caution� Safety messages included identifying bicycle slow zones and encouraging bicyclists to keep right except to pass� In 2012, destination, etiquette, safety signs, and new quarter mile marker signs were designed for the trail system and installed on the Poudre Trail� The new signage is being installed on the Spring Creek Trail in 2013 and will be installed on the remaining trails in 2013 and 2014� Chapter Summary The existing trail system is overall in excellent condition� The more important action items include the removal of old asphalt and the widening of trails from the old 8 feet standard to the current standard at 10 feet to 12 feet� Studies for trail underpasses/ overpasses are needed at several major street crossing� The new signage program will provide a much needed level of service upgrade� 25 presently ends at Strauss Cabin Road� The trail is only a few years old and is in excellent condition� The Power Trail starts at EPIC and travels south for 3�89 miles to its end at Trilby Road� The trail is in overall excellent condition. The more significant action items include: • the need for shade along the trail • study to determine if an underpass/overpass is feasible at major road crossings • investigate if the UP railroad would grant additional easement just south of Harmony Road where the underpass/overpass is planned to allow a missing section of trail to be completed • signage improvements • railroad underpass at Keenland Drive The Mason Trail begins at Prospect Street and travel South for 3�85 miles to the parking lot south of Harmony Road� The Fossil Creek Trail west of College Avenue ties to the Mason Trail just south of the parking lot� The trail is in excellent condition� The more significant action items include: • a need to improve the sight distance where the trail crosses the Spring Creek Trail • study to determine if an underpass/overpass is feasible at major road crossings • signage improvements The Canal Trail has a half mile section completed south of Horsetooth Road that is in excellent condition� The only action item for this trail is 24 distance� Fort Collins only counts our main paved trail system in our mileage� The mileage of recreational trails varies greatly across the country: Ann Arbor, MI (pop� 115,000) has 55 miles of trails while Chicago, IL (pop� 2�7 million) has only 65 miles of trails� Nationally, cities average 0�20 miles per 1,000 people; which Fort Collins beats with an average of 0�22 miles per 1,000 people� Chapter Summary The length of the Fort Collins’ trail system is very comparable with other Colorado communities, peer communities, and communities across the nation on a per capita basis� 23 linkages and connections between the trail system and key destinations across the City�” The Recommended Changes and Updates associated with the Alternative Vehicle and Trails section included the following Near Term Changes and Updates (2011-2012): “Staff will review the current and future proposed trail network and identify trails and/or trail segments that are more suited for transportation purposes vs� those that should be designed as recreational trails and/or go through sensitive natural areas� Staff will also review changes that need to be made in design standards, regulations and policies, and education and awareness efforts for the different types of trail classifications and locations.” (Status: Transportation staff determined through this planning effort that our current trail design standards are suited for transportation purposes�) 22 into the transportation system� An example is the connection of the trails planned with transportation corridors in the Mountain Vista Sub area Plan�) • Review bicycle parking needs at all park access points, prioritizing parks that connect to side paths, multi-use trails, or greenway trails� (Status: Bicycle parking at parks has been improved and parks are well connected to the trail system�) • Continue making connectivity a priority in trail construction in the City’s trail system� Coordinate with the Transportation Planning and Administration Departments to provide bike and pedestrian connections� (Status: Trail connectivity is a top priority and trail staff has been working with Transportation staff on bike and ped connections� An example is 21 funding source, only $430,000 annually will be available for trail construction and it will take 53 years to complete the trail system, assuming Conservation Trust revenues keep pace with construction inflation. If a trail impact fee is substituted for the Natural Areas funding (with average annual fee revenue projected at $500,000) it would take 25 years to complete the trail system with the current level of Conservation Trust funding� If all Conservation Trust funding (currently $1�2 million) was directed to trail construction it would take 19 years to complete the trail system, again assuming funding increases commensurate with inflation. The trail system could be completed in 15 years utilizing all Conservation Trust funding and trail impact fee revenues� Chapter Summary Funding for the recreational trail system has been primarily from the Conservation Trust Fund� This Fund has grown in revenue as the community has grown and is a very reliable and steady funding source for the trail program. However, a significant amount of Conservation Trust funding has been reallocated to park and trail maintenance� Funding help from the community ¼ cent capital taxes, grants, and Natural Areas have been important for trail development to keep pace with needs� At current funding levels, it will take years to build out the trail system, not including underpasses of major arterial streets on the Mason and Power Trails� 20 Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA)� The City received about $50,000 in Lottery revenue in 1984 and today receives about $1,200,000 annually� City Council by Resolution 83-173 on October 4, 1983 adopted a policy that Lottery monies should be utilized primarily for 1) the acquisition and development of Open Space and Trails, and 2) any other project deemed appropriate by City Council� However, due to General Fund shortfalls, Conservation Trust Funding was redirected by Council to parks and trail maintenance beginning in 2001� Currently, $730,000 is used for maintenance leaving only $470,000 for trail planning, design, right-of-way, and construction� To help offset the loss of Conservation Trust funding, the Natural Areas Department has contributed about $350,000 annually to trail construction since 2003� The Natural Areas Program contribution to trails may not to be available after 2014 due to program funding needs� The Conservation Trust Fund has funded the majority of the paved trail system� Historical records indicate the Conservation Trust has contributed about $18,000,000 since 1984 toward the development of the trail system� The Conservation Trust Fund is scheduled to sunset in 2025 unless renewed by the state legislature� In addition to Conservation Trust funding, the City has been very successful in securing trail grants� Over the years the City has received 11 grants totaling $2,731,312, primarily from Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) which is also funded by the 19 street� The trailhead parking lot at Shields Street was built when the raptor observatory was built on the Cathy Fromme Prairie in 1997� The Fossil Creek Trail underpass of Taft Hill Road was constructed in 1997 with the parking lot built in 1999� The trail west of Taft Hill Road to Luther Lane was built in 1998 and remained the terminus of the trail until 2011 when the trail was extended north under County Road #38E to Spring Canyon Community Park� The Fossil Creek Trail at Fossil Creek Community Park was installed when the park was constructed in 2003� Work at this time also included the underpasses of Fossil Creek Drive and Lemay Avenue� The section of trail from the park west to College Avenue was constructed in 2001� The underpass of College Avenue and connection to the Mason Trail were completed in 2006� The north branch of the Fossil Creek Trail from Ziegler Road East was constructed in segments starting in 2002 with the current trail ending at Strauss Cabin Road completed in 2012� The Canal Trail has 0�50 miles in place south of Horsetooth Road� This section was constructed in 2003 and improves neighborhood access to Westfield Neighborhood Park. The trail will follow the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal for a considerable distance� The Hickory Trail starts at Lee Martinez Park at the 18 The land along the Poudre River and Spring Creek was rural with agricultural uses when the early easements were obtained for the trail� Land for the trail was typically obtained fairly close to the river banks to avoid the agricultural operations� As the City’s natural area program developed and the city became more urban, trails were better located to avoid sensitive environmental areas along waterways; while still providing a pleasant experience for trail users� 17