No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/8/2013 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - Aug P&Z Final Agenda PacketAGENDA Version 2 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, August 8, 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, August 8, 2013 hearing should run past 11:00 p.m., the remaining items may be continued to Thursday, August 15, 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 July 18, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing 2. Fort Collins Veterinary Emergency and Rehab Hospital Expansion Project Development Plan, #PDP130018 This is a request for a 4,232 square foot addition to the existing 2,832 square foot veterinary hospital located at 816 South Lemay Avenue. With this proposal, the adjacent car wash to the north at 808 South Lemay Avenue would be deconstructed to accommodate the new two-story addition. The site is located in the Employment (E) Zone District and veterinary hospitals are a permitted use. Applicant: Alan Hauser, AIA, 3780 E. 15 th Street, Suite 201, Loveland, CO 80538 Staff: Levingston 3. Rigden Farm 14th Filing Ext. of Vested Rights (Center at Rigden Farm), #56-98- AS This is a request for a second one year extension (to August 31, 2014) of the approved Final Plan for the Rigden Farm 14th Filing also known as The Center at Rigden Farm. The project is located at the southwest corner of Drake Road and Timberline Road, and has been approved for 8 mixed-use buildings totaling 95,000 square feet on 5.9 gross acres. Applicant: Ladco Properties, LLC, c/o Don Tiller, 4714 Valley Ridge Court, Fort Collins, CO. 80526 Staff: Holland 7. Colorado Water Conservation Board Floodplain Regulation Adoption and other Minor Policy and Clean-up Items 1 This is a request for a recommendation to City Council to adopt the proposed statewide floodplain regulations and the additional proposed policy and procedural changes and clarifications to Chapter 10 of City Code. Applicant: City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utilities Staff: Sampley 9. Land Use Code Amendment related to Definition of Large Base Industry This is a request for a recommendation to City Council regarding a proposed revision to the Land Use Code. This revision pertains to amending the definition of Large Base Industry to add a reference to firms that provide products and services other than manufactured goods which may include medical, internet and telecom, educational, publishing products and services and corporate offices. Applicant: City of Fort Collins Staff: Shepard 10. Land Use Code Amendment related to One Year Extension of PDOD (Planned Development Overlay District) Pilot This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council to extend the Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) pilot for one additional year. This extension would continue the pilot as it was originally adopted by Ordinance No. 24, 2013. Up to five PDOD submittals would be accepted before September 9, 2014, and projects must be located within the established boundary. E. Discussion Agenda: Specific time for public input has been set aside for discussion on the following items: 4. Feeders Supply Project Development Plan, PDP#130012 This is a request to renovate the existing Feeders Supply building at 359 Linden Street, demolish three non-historic additions, and construct a new, two-story building addition along Linden Street for a restaurant or commercial use. The project also includes a new apartment building along Willow Street that would contain 54 dwelling units and be four stories in height with ground level parking. The site is 1.19 acres in size and located within the Old Town National Historic District and zoned R-D-R, River Downtown Redevelopment District. Applicant: Feeders Supply, LLC c/o Jon Prouty, 1001 E. Harmony Rd., Suite 510, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Staff: Shepard 5. Prospect and Timberline Overall Development Plan, #ODP130001 This is a request for an Overall Development Plan located at the intersection of East Prospect Road and South Timberline Road. The intent of the ODP is to establish a general land use pattern in each of the four areas on the 30.57 acre site. The ODP is zoned Industrial (I) and Employment (E). Applicant: Daman Holland, Ripley Design, Inc., 401 W. Mountain Ave., #100, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Staff: Ex 2 6. Integrated Recycling Facility Project Development Plan, # PDP130020 This is a request to develop an Integrated Recycling Facility located on South Timberline Road, approximately ¼ mile south of the intersection with East Prospect Road. The Integrated Recycling Facility will replace and expand upon the Rivendell recycling facility by providing two drop-off areas. The project will be located on approximately 3.7 acres of the 30-acre Timberline and Prospect Overall Development Plan (ODP). The site is zoned Industrial (I). Applicant: Daman Holland, Ripley Design, Inc., 401 W. Mountain Ave., #100, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Staff: Ex 8. Land Use Code Amendment related to Transit Oriented Development Minimum Parking Requirements This is a request for a recommendation to City Council regarding a proposed revision to the Land Use Code. This revision pertains to creating a minimum parking requirement for multi-family development in the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone. The recommendation is to revise the Land Use Code to require a minimum ratio of 70% parking spaces to the proposed number of bedrooms and a provision to meet the standard through alternative compliance. Applicant: City of Fort Collins Staff: Lorson F. Other Business G. Adjourn 3 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Minutes July 18, 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 6:02 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Hatfield, Hart, Heinz, Smith and Schneider Excused Absence: Kirkpatrick Staff Present: Kadrich, Daggett, Levingston, Lorson, Stanford, and Sanchez-Sprague 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 topics. • 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. Agenda Review Director Laurie Kadrich reviewed the agenda. She noted Magnum Motors of Loveland Final Plan is a consent item. If anyone in the audience is here to speak to that item, she recommended they make their interest known to the Chair when asked otherwise the consent item will move forward without a staff presentation or any public comment. Citizen participation: Brian Schumm, 5807 Ballina Ct. said he would like to speak about the South College Corridor Plan. He’s seen an implementation status report dated 2010. He asked for the board’s help in requesting to get an update on the implementation status (where we are and where we need to go). He’d like to know the results of the goal Community Appearance and Design # 1. It formulates a program of themes and 4 Planning & Zoning Board July 18, 2013 Page 2 elements that could be incorporated into design guidelines. His interest has to do with upgrades to streetscapes and buildings with newer and better quality buildings replacing aging properties when they deteriorate. He also thinks the board should review projects for compliance with the South College Corridor Plan and make sure the Plan is fully implemented. Schumm said in reviewing the agenda, he saw the board had sought feedback to the Addition of Permitted Use (APU) at their June 20 hearing. He said his family home was impacted by the APU process on the southeast corner of Drake and Lemay. He thinks the process puts citizens at a huge disadvantage. He said he would rate the APU process at a ‘C’. Schumm said his last comment has to do with citizen participation process. He thinks it’s disadvantageous to citizens who oppose a development proposal. He thinks they are not given time for a coherent argument or time for rebuttal whereas staff and applicants are allowed time to respond to citizen comments. He thinks the board needs to give citizens the last word – a few extra minutes to overcome the advantages a developer has in being able to say whatever they want thinking there would be no rebuttal. Chair Smith said Mr. Schumm’s comments have been duly noted. The board would have an interest in reviewing the South College Corridor Plan implementation at a work session. He said the board is in the process of reviewing both APU and citizen participation. Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes from the June 20, 2013 Hearing 2. Magnum Motors of Loveland, # FDP130016 Member Hatfield made a motion to approve the consent agenda which consists of the Minutes of the June 20, 2013 Hearing and Magnum Motors of Loveland Final Plan, # FDP130016. Member Hart seconded the motion. The motion passed 6:0. Discussion Agenda: 3. Crowne on Timberline Project Development Plan, #PDP130009 _______ Project: Crowne on Timberline (6111 S. Timberline Rd.), #PDP130009 Project Description: This project proposes to develop 285 multi-family dwelling units (467 bedrooms) and 25 single-family attached units (75 bedrooms) on a 12 acre undeveloped site at 6111 South Timberline Road. The site is adjacent to existing neighborhoods; directly to the south is Linden Park and east across Timberline is Westchase. The land to the north (recently annexed as Hansen Farm Annexation) and west is currently vacant. The property is zoned Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (M-M-N) in which multi-family dwellings with more than 50 dwelling units are permitted subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2). Recommendation: Approval with condition 5 Planning & Zoning Board July 18, 2013 Page 3 Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence City Planner Seth Lorson described the existing developments in the area: Linden Park – 184 lots (South), Westchase and Timbers (East), Willow Springs (North), and Southridge (West). He said future developments will be Hansen Farm Annexation (not yet submitted) and Kechter Crossing (approved). Lorson reviewed a slide that showed the current and future street network. He said Zephyr Road to Red Willow Drive will be a collector street. Access will be made to Rosen Drive when the commercial center to the north is developed. The intersection of Zephyr and Timberline is expected to be signalized sometime in the future. Lorson reviewed a slide that showed connections to the trail system via the new collector (Zephyr/Red Willow) street bike lanes. He said a future multi-use trail through the Hansen Farm development will connect to a future neighborhood park. He said there will be a pedestrian crosswalk across Timberline at Fossil Creek Parkway. Lorson said the applicant plans to buffer the existing single family homes to the south with single-family attached townhomes and place the higher density product to the north near a future commercial area. He reviewed elevations and said Crowne on Timberline PDP has been reviewed by staff and has been found to be in compliance with all applicable Land Use Code (LUC) standards. In order for the proposed addition of 310 dwelling units to comply with the City’s transportation level of service, they are required to design and construct a southbound right turn lane at Kechter and Timberline. The following condition of approval is recommended: “The project is responsible for the design and construction of the southbound right turn lane at Kechter Road and Timberline Road to City standards in order to address transportation level of service requirements.” Applicant Presentation Terence Hoaglund of Vignette Studios introduced the team which included Owner Alan Levow of Crowne Partners, David English of Pucciano & English (architects), John Gooch of Aspen Engineering (engineer) and Matt Delich (traffic engineer). He described how the 310 unites will include 285 multi-family units in 6 buildings, and 25 single-family attached townhomes in 7 buildings. He reviewed the public and private street design and described how it would provide circulation and define blocks that would meet the block standards outlined in the Land Use Code (LUC). Hoaglund described the site plan and the L-shaped buildings which will have different configurations of units as well as different sizes with common architectural features. He said the townhomes will have varied facades with a variety of colors and a variety of siding styles. The townhomes have patios in the rear. Hoaglund said the applicant will be providing a total of 543 bicycle parking spaces. They will be meeting the overall bike parking requirements; however, they have chosen to provide more of the bike parking in covered spaces and reduce the amount of fixed (uncovered) spaces in a corresponding amount. They propose a total of 363 covered spaces (66.8%) and 180 fixed spaces (33.2%). They believe the majority of their residents will want to park their bikes close to the building and will want their bikes covered. He said they will be providing the required 523 vehicle parking spaces with 34 rentable garages raising the total to 557 vehicle parking spaces. He said the applicant has agreed to construct a southbound right turn lane at Kechter into Willow Springs. They are required to construct full frontage improvements at Timberline. Additionally, they’ve agreed to continue those improvements down to Fossil Creek Parkway. They will provide a public street (Rosen Drive) to Red Willow enabling Linden Park residents to head north on Zephyr to Timberline. 6 Planning & Zoning Board July 18, 2013 Page 4 Alan Levow of Crowne Partners said they have been in business for 30 years and they have owned most of their properties for the past 20 years. He said they are the ‘middle property’ (between Linden Park and a future commercial area). He said to be able to make it work they’ve had to provide benefits to neighbors on the north and south. Levow said to the south they’ve listened to adjacent neighbors’ concerns about being able to go left on Timberline Road. When making inquiries, they learned from Traffic Operations staff that based on where Fossil Creek sits; they cannot put a traffic light there. Levow said the neighbor to the north has issues related to water and sewer. For them to have a viable site, they need sewer and water to come through Crowne property. He said they spent 3-4 months working out an agreement to enlarge the sewer which has been presented to the water district. He said by having their site, they make the site north of them viable. It requires the northern neighbor (commercial development) to put the light in at Zephyr. He said as proposed neighbors to the south can take public and private roads north through their property to Zephyr. When installed, the signalized light will aid them in making left turns. Levow said they’re excited about Fort Collins and this project. Public Input Robert Wideman, 2527 Owens Avenue, # 103, said he lives in the Timbers. He’s concerned about the light at Zephyr. He understands the light will not go in until the development to the north goes in. How long will that be—months, years? End of Public Input Applicant Response Levow said he does not know when the project to the north will break ground. Some is dependent on the sewer being in place. At that point, they will be financially obligated to pay a significant amount of money. In his opinion that will lead them to follow with development relatively quickly after them. He said if they (Crowne) open in a year, he would think the developers to the north would probably open 6 to 12 months after that. Staff Response Ward Stanford of Traffic Operations said typically a light will be installed once it meets traffic warrants. He said they don’t know if the commercial piece will be enough to drive the installation of the light at Timberline and Zephyr. They do expect that due to projected growth for the area that it will be sooner rather than later. Board Questions Member Hart asked if the current traffic levels do not justify a traffic light. Stanford said that is correct. Member Hatfield asked if there are any plans for adjusting the timing of the traffic light at Timberline and Kechter. Stanford said they do monitor and adjust traffic lights from time to time to improve performance. He said they can certainly look at it now to determine if adjustments should be made. Member Hart said public comment received by the board related not only to traffic on Timberline but also to traffic coming from this development and developments to the north going through the Linden Park neighborhood. Do we have any idea how much traffic will go through Linden Park from this project? Do we have any information on when Timberline will have four lanes down to Trilby? Stanford said the traffic study showed a little bit of traffic coming from Crowne south. It will be relatively light. Stanford said they do expect traffic to come from the Linden Park neighborhood north to a collector when it would prove beneficial to use the two-way left turn ability at Rosen. 7 Planning & Zoning Board July 18, 2013 Page 5 Stanford said in conversation with engineering staff he’s learned there is currently no capital project to make Timberline Road a four lane road to Trilby. He learned Engineering plans to improve the intersection at Kechter and Timberline. They also recognize growth may be coming more rapidly than expected and they working to see what can be done. Member Heinz asked if some pressure could be taken off both neighborhoods (Linden Park and Crowne) by adding more access to Timberline. Stanford, said in the short term there could be a benefit but in the long term it would be negative to the arterial network system. Stanford said they try to limit access to arterials because of their potential for accidents if they are not signalized. He said it’s also important to meet spacing requirements. Stanford said volumes do not currently indicate the need for another connection. He said adequate connections will be made with projected growth build out. Chair Smith said he’d like to get an understanding of the overall transportation network around Linden Park. It’s his understanding it was developed in the county and subsequently annexed into the city. Was it always intended for them to have one access point to Timberline? Aaron Iverson of Transportation Planning said it is pretty clear the way it was laid out with the two stubs that there was intent that there would be connections to the north and south. He said the Master Street Plan (MSP) did not include any collector level roadways but that does not mean those were not intended. He said with this project, there was a request to include a collector level roadway as an amendment to the MSP. Staff agreed that the roadway to the north that connects with Zephyr rose to a collector level street. Chair Smith asked what kind of connection would be made to Trilby. Iverson said some of that depends on what development will come in and whether or not it will be a straight shot down to Trilby. He said it will likely be to the south using the southern stub in Linden Park. Smith asked if that would require an amendment to the MSP and Iverson said yes. Chair Smith said it’s important to understand when street improvements are made whether they’ll be upsized or get signalization. He said often, they are brought on after development occurs. He said some might say if we know this area will have a lot more rooftops why wouldn’t we build the improvements in advance. Smith asked for information on mechanism for funding those improvements. Stanford said most cities rely on development to bring the improvements with them. Iverson said the Street Oversizing Fund as well as the adequate public facilities ordinances are the funding mechanisms. Iverson said we get the majority of our streets from the expectation that developers are responsible for street frontage improvements with capital funds filling in the gaps. City Traffic Engineer Joe Olson said he’d like to add a little more to the conversation. We identify what improvements are needed based on traffic studies that are submitted as developments occur. There are specific standards in our Larimer County Urban Area Street Standard (LCUASS) that say how much congestion is okay at any particular intersection. Development can happen and still maintain a certain Level of Service (LOS)/delay standards. Olson said as Member Hatfield has noted the intersection of Timberline and Kechter is currently pretty full. That was the focus of this traffic study. He said the Engineering Department has a project to add a northbound right turn lane which will improve capacity. This development is going to be required to build a southbound right turn lane. Olson said the city has an adequate public facilities ordinance so going forward the conversations with potential additional developers about how we’re going to make that happen will be very interesting. Chair Smith had questions about adequate public facilities. Olson said typically developers have to provide adequate public facilities to meet the level of service standards. They are required to do certain things on site or adjacent to their site. He said there is the Street Oversizing Fund they pay into which then can be used for larger projects. ‘They’ (whoever is doing development) would have to ‘up-front’ the 8 Planning & Zoning Board July 18, 2013 Page 6 cost of improvements. He said the Street Oversizing Fund is used primarily for arterial street improvements. Member Hatfield asked if there were any plans to put a right turn lane northbound at Timberline and Kechter. Olson said yes, the Engineering Department has a project to do that coming up. Hatfield asked if there are plans for four lanes on Timberline from Kechter to County Road 30. Olson said Timberline is shown as a 4 lane arterial to Trilby and from there the volumes drop off. Olson said the Master Street Plan shows doing the design and funding the improvement. He said we’re talking about how that will happen. Member Hatfield asked if they took into consideration the vehicle trips of the proposed development. Olson said yes. Member Heinz asked staff to ‘decode’ the Master Street Plan map—what do the colors indicate. Iverson the gold (Harmony) is six lanes, purple is a four lane arterial. Chair Smith asked for information on connections going north, east, south, and west from the site. He asked staff to comment on eastward and westward expansion of Trilby. How will it function with the railroad underpass? Olson said based on the analysis of this development and the traffic study (with existing and proposed roadway system), they’ve determined it meets the standards as far as the level of service. He said they are meeting the requirements of the code as relates to congestion. Chair Smith asked when east and west bound Trilby would be improved. Olson said as far as Trilby goes, it’s going to be development driven. Olson indicated how Trilby would be built out as the various developments come on board. Member Schneider asked what the plans are for Transfort service/multi-modal access for the Crowne development. Iverson said currently there is no Transfort service south of Harmony. Chair Smith said he’d like to talk about bike/pedestrian connections. He’s interested how people in Crowne and Hansen Farm neighborhood as well as south all the way to Trilby would connect to the Power Trail heading north to establish connections to the overall system. Iverson said the general intent is for folks from Crowne, Linden Park, and other new developments in the area to connect via a future trail that goes up to the Willow Springs neighborhood. He said there is a planned bike/pedestrian railroad underpass that would connect them to the Power Trail. Craig Foremen, Director of Park Planning and Development, agreed and indicated other system connections besides the Power Trail to Spring Creek and Poudre Trails, including one that goes past Zach Elementary and the Strauss Cabin Road to the Fossil Creek Trail and to the Harmony and Poudre Trails. Foreman said once you get under the tracks and to the west, you can get to Trilby bike lane. You can then get over to Fossil Creek Community Park with access to the Fossil Creek Trail. He said that would take you all the way to the Mason Trail/MAX. Member Schneider asked for information on the project’s plan for bike storage. David English (architect) said the idea is it would be fully enclosed with a garage type door with card or remote control access. Schneider asked if those spaces would be leased. English said no, they are available to anyone. English said it would be prudent to use locks on both the inside and outside bike storage areas. Chair Smith wow would a bicyclist get to the South Transit Center or MAX? Iverson said the challenge is the railroad (tracks) to the west. Between Harmony and Trilby (a 2 mile stretch) the only access east is via the railroad underpass. He said once they get to the Power Trail, they would have access to the larger system. Chair Smith said that underpass is fairly constricted, how would a dedicated bike trail work there? Smith asked about the timing of the railroad underpass. Foreman said it is on the capital improvement plan list. 9 Planning & Zoning Board July 18, 2013 Page 7 Iverson said it’s on the Long Range Capital Improvement Plan but as far as he knows it’s not on a current project list. Member Carpenter asked if the underpass is funded. Foreman said they do have funding but there have been delays due the railroad approval process and their consulting engineering firm downsizing. They hope to have something in a couple of years. John asked if the road improvements could be made prior to construction starts. Development Review Engineering staff member Marc Virata said the improvement would likely be constructed in a Spring/Summer 2014 timeframe with Crowne providing funding for the southbound right turn lane at Kechter Road and Timberline Road. Chair Smith asked Lorson about an email he’d seen from Member Kirkpatrick relative to safe routes to schools for Bacon Elementary. Lorson said there is a pedestrian crossing at Fossil Creek Parkway. In the future, with the signalization at Zephyr, there would be an additional safe route. Member Schneider asked about proposed projects to the east. Could the vehicle trips generated from those projects influence the installation of the signal at Zephyr? Stanford said Kechter Farms (a Larimer County project) is in the preliminary stages. He said when they come in they very well could influence it. Member Hart said his understanding was when the commercial property to the north develops, they will be providing the funding for the signalization of that intersection. Is staff saying they would wait for traffic counts to reach a certain point before requiring a signal? Stanford said typically they won’t install a signal until it meets warrants. Stanford said they do recognize the significance of this signal. Hart asked if they anticipated traffic counts getting to that point in the next year or two. Stanford said if the development to the north comes in and their density is adequate, it very well could warrant a signal. Member Heinz asked does Zephyr Road continue west. Iverson said it continues past Crown to Linden Park. He said the extension to the south of Linden Park would be determined when that area is developed. It could ultimately be a connection to Trilby but is speculation at this point. Member Hart said it seems as if the folks in Linden Park are concerned about their neighborhood, they should be more concerned about the southern connection. He would think that would generate more traffic. Board Discussion Member Hart said he had been pretty concerned about the design of the project and the impact of traffic on Linden Park but staff has indicated that would be negligible He thinks the developer deserves credit for the design. By providing a pretty large space between the single family homes and the apartment complex, he thinks we have a pretty well designed project and one that isn’t going to have a significant impact on the Linden Park neighborhood. Member Hatfield said he agreed. He has no problems with the design. His main concern is the huge traffic impact. He’s familiar with that area and it’s already bad. If you add another 1,000 cars, he doesn’t think the streets are ready to handle that kind of traffic. Member Schneider he agrees. His initial concerns related to traffic but the applicant has alleviated those concerns. He likes more covered than uncovered bike parking. They are still meeting code but flip- flopping the numbers with which he has no problem. He thinks it’s a good design for the neighborhood. He does like the separation from single family with the town homes. He’ll be supporting the proposal. Member Heinz said she like the plantation style porches. She likes the project in general. Her biggest concerns have been traffic. She will be supporting the project. 10 Planning & Zoning Board July 18, 2013 Page 8 Member Hart said he agrees with other members about the traffic in southern Fort Collins. He thinks it’s very bad but as traffic staff has indicated that situation is not going to improve until we have enough development to justify those improvements. At least at the moment, based on standards used by traffic engineers it’s just not there yet. The only way is to get a little more development to get us to the point where improvements will occur. Member Hart made a motion the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Crowne at Timberline Project Development Plan, #PDP130009 based on the findings and facts/conclusions on page 13 of the staff report with the following condition: The project is responsible for the design and construction of the southbound right turn lane at Kechter Road and Timberline Road to City standards in order to address transportation level of service requirements. Member Schneider seconded the motion. Chair Smith said he spent a lot of time trying to get a better understanding of the context of the area. He believes that transportation planning is best done system wide. He said we do have a very high value placed on multi-modal transportation. Bike and pedestrian connections are important. This is a ‘tough’ area. It is not easy to move east, west or north. He can appreciate the Linden Park’s neighborhood frustration with making a left turn onto Timberline to head north. He said the area is rapidly changing – there are a lot of moving parts in that area. There are choke points and he believes overall it’s going to be somewhat painful in the interim. He appreciates that staff heard what we said at work session about wanting to have a bigger discussion about the transportation system in that area. He appreciates the collection of a good team to address the issues. Chair Smith asked that as much as possible we become more vigilant and proactive in that area from a system wide approach. He said to access the BRT (Bus Rapid Transit); it’s just not safe, direct or convenient. To whatever degree we can, we need to be a little more visionary and proactive to make that transportation network function well. He would encourage staff when they get the opportunity to talk to City Council about the resources needed for this area. Smith said he will support the proposal. To do nothing would freeze it in time and because improvements for that area would be predicated on development; as long as the development proposals meet our criteria, it’s important they move forward. This is needed to build the infrastructure out. Member Carpenter said she agrees with most everything Chair Smith said. She thinks because we have the funding in place for the railroad underpass, she asked that we move forward as urgently as possible. She thinks that’s a very important piece. The motion was approved 5:1 with Member Hatfield dissenting. Other None The meeting was adjourned at 7:47 p.m. 11 Planning & Zoning Board July 18, 2013 Page 9 Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director Andy Smith, Chair 12 ITEM NO _______2___________ MEETING DATE August 8, 2013 STAFF Levingston PLANNING & ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Fort Collins Veterinary Emergency & Rehabilitation Hospital, #PDP130018 Modification of Standard to Section 4.27(D)(2), Modification of Standard to Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(a) and Section 3.2.2 (J). APPLICANT: Alan Hauser, AIA 3780 East 15 th Street, Suite 201 Loveland, CO 80538 OWNER: Jon Geller, DVM Fort Collins Veterinary 816 South Lemay Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a 4,232 square foot addition to the existing 2,832 square foot veterinary hospital located at 816 South Lemay Avenue. With this proposal, the adjacent car wash to the north at 808 South Lemay Avenue would be deconstructed to accommodate the new two-story addition. The project provides17 parking spaces. The veterinary hospital is not proposing any day care, long term boarding or outdoor canine uses with this expansion project. The site is located in the Employment (E) Zone District and veterinary hospitals are a permitted use. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Fort Collins Veterinary Emergency & Rehabilitation Hospital, #PDP130018; approval of Modification of Standard to Section 4.27(D)(2), Section 3.2.1E(4)(a) and Section 3.2.2(J). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The approval of Fort Collins Veterinary Emergency & Rehabilitation Hospital complies with the applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically: Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970.221.6750 13 Fort Collins Veterinary Emergency & Rehabilitation Hospital #PDP130018 August 8, 2013 Page 2 • The P.D.P. complies with process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration. • The Modification of Standard to Section 4.27(D)(2), Modification of Standard to Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(a) and 3.2.2(J) that are proposed with this P.D.P. meet the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H), and the granting of these Modifications would not be detrimental to the public good. • The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 – General Development Standards, provided that the Modification of Standard to Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(a) and Section 3.2.2(J) that are proposed with this P.D.P. are approved. • The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.27, Employment District (E) of Article 4 – Districts, provided that the Modification of Standard to Section 4.27(D)(2) proposed with this P.D.P. is approved. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The subject properties were part of the First Lemay Annexation in September, 1967. The property at 816 South Lemay Avenue was part of the Lemay LTD First Filing Subdivision plat and the building at 816 South Lemay Avenue was constructed in 1973 for use as an animal hospital. The property at 808 South Lemay Avenue was plated in 1986 as part of the 800 Lemay Properties Subdivision and the building was constructed in 1987 as a self-service car wash. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: Employment (E): Commercial; Peerless Tires S: Employment (E): Commercial; Public Service Credit Union E: Employment (E): Commercial; Smart Document Management W: Neighborhood Commercial (NC): Commercial; Wendy’s, Albertson’s 2. Compliance with Article 4 of the Land Use Code - Employment (E) District: 14 Fort Collins Veterinary Emergency & Rehabilitation Hospital #PDP130018 August 8, 2013 Page 3 The project complies with all applicable Article 4 standards as follows: A. Section 4.21(A) and (B) – Purpose and Permitted Uses Purpose. The Employment District is intended to provide locations for a variety of workplaces including light industrial uses, research and development activities, offices and institutions. This District also is intended to accommodate secondary uses that complement or support the primary workplace uses, such as hotels, restaurants, convenience shopping, child care and housing. Additionally, the Employment District is intended to encourage the development of planned office and business parks; to promote excellence in the design and construction of buildings, outdoor spaces, transportation facilities and streetscapes; to direct the development of workplaces consistent with the availability of public facilities and services; and to continue the vitality and quality of life in adjacent residential neighborhoods. Veterinary hospitals are a permitted use in the Employment (E) District and subject to review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. B. Section 4.27(D) – Land Use Standards Veterinary facilities are considered a secondary use in the Employment District. This Section states that, “all secondary uses shall be integrated both in function and appearance into a larger employment district development plan that emphasizes primary uses… [Secondary uses] together shall occupy no more than twenty-five (25) percent of the total gross area of the development plan.” As proposed, the existing building will be undergo an exterior remodel and expansion; however it will continue to be visually functional, integrated and compatible with the larger Employment Zone District. The gross area of the P.D.P. is 24,506 square feet. A modification to this standard is requested because the building footprint is 6,967 square feet, which is 28% of the total gross area of the development plan, exceeding the 25% minimum permitted and for which a modification was requested. Request for Modification: The applicant requests a modification that is applicable to Section 4.27(D)(2): 15 Fort Collins Veterinary Emergency & Rehabilitation Hospital #PDP130018 August 8, 2013 Page 4 1) Section 4.27 (D)(2) : A Modification of Standard is requested because veterinary facilities are considered a secondary use in the Employment zone and can comprise no more than 25% total of the development site. With the proposed addition, the building footprint will be 6,967 square feet, which is 28% of the total gross area of the development plan. Land Use Code Modification Criteria: “The decision maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4) above shall be supported by specific findings showing how the plan, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4).” 16 Fort Collins Veterinary Emergency & Rehabilitation Hospital #PDP130018 August 8, 2013 Page 5 Applicant’s Justification: The following is the applicant’s written justification: “The proposed expansion of the Fort Collins Veterinary Emergency and Rehabilitation Hospital is eliminating and redeveloping a blighted property that has been an eyesore along the S. Lemay Avenue right-of-way for several years. The proposed expansion of the existing veterinary facility will return this adjacent parcel to an attractive building façade, complementary to the existing veterinary façade. It will return the property to a productive use and expand the employment base of the current facility. The reuse of a portion of the existing car wash facility in the extreme northeast corner of the site, along with required connection points to the existing veterinary facility for operational efficiency resulted in a 3% overage in the allowable floor area. This amount is truly negligible given the added site and building esthetics and landscaping improvements that this proposal offers in comparison to the existing property conditions.” A Modification of Standard to Section 4.27(D)(2), Secondary Uses, is justified by the applicable standards in contained in Section 2.8.2(H). This is because: The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good because it meets the general purpose of the standard while providing for the property to be otherwise greatly improved in a wide variety of ways. It does not impair the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code with respect to a small individual infill redevelopment within the Employment zone district. The request satisfies Criteria 4 (2.8.2(H)(4): The plan as submitted does not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2.” Staff Finding: Staff finds that the request for a Modification of Standard to Section 4.27(D)(2), Secondary Uses, is justified by the applicable standards in 2.8.2(H). 17 Fort Collins Veterinary Emergency & Rehabilitation Hospital #PDP130018 August 8, 2013 Page 6 The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good. The plan provides enhancements to the existing site including a larger, detached sidewalk, new landscaping and street trees. The plan features an articulated two- story addition, providing a more integrated urban street frontage along South Lemay Avenue. The request satisfies Section 2.8.2(H)(4) as the plan does not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. The additional square footage over what is allowed (3% more) does not negatively impact the Employment Zone District and this project continues to comply with the overall vision of the area. C. Section 4.27(E)(1) – Site Design The Land Use Code requires all veterinary hospitals to be carried out entirely within completely enclosed buildings or structures. The Applicant has indicated that there are no “doggy day care” uses associated with the vet hospital and the PDP does not call out any outdoor use areas associated with the development plan. 3. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code – General Development Standards The project complies with all applicable General Development Standards; with the following relevant comments provided: A. Division 3.2 – Site Planning and Design Standards 1) 3.2.1 Landscaping and Tree Protection: • Three Skyline Honeylocust trees are proposed on 40 foot centers in the parkway strip adjacent to South Lemay Avenue, meeting the street tree requirement. • The project provides “full tree stocking” as required by Code in and around the existing building and proposed addition. • The minimum species diversity requires no more than 50% of the tree total on site to be of one species to prevent insect or disease susceptibility. With 12 trees proposed to be planted, the largest quantity of any one species is 3, meeting the standard. 18 Fort Collins Veterinary Emergency & Rehabilitation Hospital #PDP130018 August 8, 2013 Page 7 • There are eleven trees existing on the combined site. One maple tree located south of the existing car wash bays is proposed to be removed and mitigated. • Foundation plantings are required along at least 50% of high-visibility areas along building exteriors. The project meets this requirement, with deciduous and evergreen shrubs as well as ornamental grasses used extensively. • In terms of water conservation standards, the Code requires that the total water use for a project cannot exceed 15 gallons per square foot of landscaped area per year. Water conservation techniques and materials are incorporated into the landscape plan by the use of drought tolerant trees and low to moderate water-use plant materials. The water budget chart calls out that the average water usage for the site is 13.69 gallons per square foot, meeting the standard. 2) 3.2.2 Access, Circulation and Parking: • New 6 foot detached sidewalks will be provided with this proposal along South Lemay Avenue. • The Land Use Code requires the project to provide a minimum of 4 bicycle parking spaces with at least 1 space enclosed. The project has a bike rack located west of the addition and dedicated internal space to store 1 bicycle. • Nonresidential uses are limited to a maximum number of parking spaces. In this instance, the most similar parking maximum ratio would be 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building space (personal business and service shop ratio). The proposed project is 7,667 square feet in size and is allowed up to 30 parking spaces. The project proposes 17 parking spaces and meets the requirements. In addition, the project provides 1 van-accessible handicapped parking space meeting the handicap parking requirement. Request for Modification: The applicant requests a modification that is applicable to 3.2.1(E)(4)(a), Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping and Section 3.2.2(J), Setbacks. Section 3.2.2(J): A Modification of Standard is requested because of the three parallel parking spaces proposed directly adjacent to the south property line and two parallel parking spaces proposed adjacent to the east property line. These 19 Fort Collins Veterinary Emergency & Rehabilitation Hospital #PDP130018 August 8, 2013 Page 8 parking spaces are not setback 5 feet from the property line with a landscaped area that includes canopy trees. Applicant’s Explanation of the Nature of the Modification Request: “The parking and drive areas along the south and east sides of the existing veterinary clinic (at 816 S. Lemay Ave.) are existing. The asphalt paving in these locations currently extends to the property lines. These areas are not highly visible from the public right-of-way along S. Lemay Avenue. In addition, there is an existing densely landscaped detention area immediately to the south of this property and there is an existing parking lot immediately to the east of this area. The addition of a three (3) foot high solid vinyl fence along these two drive areas, placed on the property line, will adequately screen these areas from view and is allowed by Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(b). The five (5) foot setback required by Section 3.2.2(J) is not needed to accomplish the screening of these drive areas as this is accomplished by the three (3) foot high solid vinyl fence. As further justification for this Modification of Standard request, the trees required by Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(a) that would be placed in this setback area have been provided at other locations within the site. Applicant’s Justification: A Modification of Standard to Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(a), Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping, and Section 3.2.2(J), Setbacks, is justified by the applicable standards in contained in Section 2.8.2(H). This is because: • The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good because provides substantial screening of the drive areas and enhancements at the property line to adjacent properties. • The existing physical conditions unique to this property, including the narrowness of the drive areas on the south and east sides of the existing structure to remain, would create an undue hardship to the owner’s continued historical use of the property. Modification of these areas to meet the standard as written would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties with regard to continued efficient use of the property.” Staff Finding Staff finds that the request for a Modification of Standard to Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(a) Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping, and Section 3.2.2(J), Setbacks, is justified by the applicable standards in 2.8.2(H). 20 Fort Collins Veterinary Emergency & Rehabilitation Hospital #PDP130018 August 8, 2013 Page 9 The granting of the Modifications would not be detrimental to the public good as the parking lot currently has and will continue to have ample landscaping and shading. The request satisfies Section 2.8.2(H)(1) as adjacent to the parallel parking spaces exists a heavily landscaped detention area that provides adequate setbacks and landscaping. 3) 3.2.4 Site Lighting: • A photometric plan was submitted for the project. The minimum foot- candle for parking areas is 1.0 and all lights are required to be concealed and down-directional. The photometric plan is in compliance with the lighting level requirements and the lighting fixtures are shielded and down- directional. B. Division 3.5 – Building Standards 1) 3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility • The proposed addition is 28 feet in height and blends well with the existing 1 story building. The existing building will be upgraded with new metal roofing over the canopy, further assisting with the transition to the new addition. The addition has appropriate articulation and massing as it relates to the overall context of the area. C. Division 3.6 – Transportation and Circulation 1) 3.6.4 Transportation Level of Service Requirements: • The City’s Traffic Operations department waived the requirement for a Transportation Impact Study as this site is currently used as a vet hospital and the proposed addition is not anticipated to generate a significant increase in traffic. 4. Neighborhood Meeting A neighborhood meeting was held for the proposed project on Monday, March 25, 2013. One person from the neighborhood was in attendance and was support of the project. There were no concerns raised. 5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion 21 Fort Collins Veterinary Emergency & Rehabilitation Hospital #PDP130018 August 8, 2013 Page 10 In evaluating the request for the Fort Collins Veterinary Emergency & Rehabilitation Hospital Project Development Plan, Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The granting of the Modification of Standard to Section 4.27(D)(2) regarding secondary uses would not be detrimental to the public good and the Modification meets the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H)(4). This is because the building square footage comprises 28% of the total site plan, or 3%, over the allowed 25% for secondary uses. This overage has virtually no impact on adjacent properties and continues to promote the purpose and the characteristics of the Employment Zone District. Therefore, the plan as submitted does not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan. B. The granting of the Modification of Standard to Sections 3.2.1(E)(4)(a) and 3.2.2(J) relating to parking lot perimeter landscape setbacks would not be detrimental to the public good and the Modifications meet the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H)(1) as the plan promotes the purpose of the standards equally well as a plan that complies with the strict application of the standard due to the existing landscaped detention area to the south when considered from the perspective of the site context as a whole. C. The project complies with process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration. D. The project complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 – General Development Standards. E. The proposed use, Animal Hospital, is permitted in the Employment District (Division 4.27). F. The project complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.27, Employment (E) of Article 4 – Districts. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Fort Collins Veterinary Emergency & Rehabilitation Hospital, #PDP130018 including approval of Modification of Standard to Section 4.27(D)(2), Section 3.2.1E(4)(a) and Section 3.2.2(J). 22 Fort Collins Veterinary Emergency & Rehabilitation Hospital #PDP130018 August 8, 2013 Page 11 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Statement of Planning Objectives 2. Site Plan 3. Landscape Plan 4. Elevations 5. Photometric Plan 6. Applicant Modification of Standards Requests 23 FORT COLLINS VETERINARY EMERGENCY & REHABILITATION HOSPITAL 808 & 816 S. LEMAY AVENUE FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 PROPOSED MAJOR AMENDMENT STATEMENT OF PLANNING OBJECTIVES May 13, 2013 Owner: Jon Geller, DVM, and partners Architect/Planner: Alan Hauser, AIA; Hauser Architects, PC General Contractor: Dohn Construction, Inc. Landscape Architect: David Kasprzak, Exedra Design Civil Engineer: Tricia Kroetch, PE; North Star Design, Inc. LEGAL DESCRIPTION – Lot 2, 800 Lemay Properties (aka: 808 S. Lemay Ave.) City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, CO Parcel Number 87182-28-002, and Lot 1, Lemay Ltd. First Subdivision (aka: 816 S. Lemay Ave.), City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado. Parcel Number 87182-11-001 PROJECT DETAILS – Zoning – E / Employment District. Veterinary Clinics are considered to be a secondary use in the Employment zone district. The old/abandoned car wash that exists on the north lot will be raised to accommodate the new addition. The existing 475 SF building at the northeast corner of the car wash will be retained and incorporated into the building envelope of the new addition. The new addition will connect to the existing veterinary clinic to the south. Total Lot Area (both lots combined) 24,506 SF or 0.563 ac. (100%) Building Footprint Area 6,967 SF (28%) Parking, Walks & Drives 12,795 SF (52%) Landscaped Open Area 4,744 SF (19%) Total Parking Spaces 17 Spaces (including 1 handicapped accessible space) Maximum Building Height 28 Feet above finished grade Total Building Area – Existing Main Floor Vet Clinic 2,832 SF Existing Area to Remain (at car wash) 475 SF Main Floor, North Addition 3,532 SF East Vestibule Addition (at Vet Clinic) 128 SF Main Level Total Area 6,967 SF Second Floor Total Area 700 SF Total Building Area 7,667 SF NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING – A neighborhood meeting was held on March 25, 2013. Only one person from the neighborhood was in attendance, which was the owner of the existing tire store immediately to the north of this property. She was there to voice her support for the project. PROJECT STATEMENT/NARRATIVE – This small scale, urban infill, redevelopment project supports many of the principles and policies as outlined in City Plan, including (but not limited to) Economic & Environmental Health, Community & Neighborhood Livability, Safety & Wellness and Transportation. 24 The existing single-story, 3307 SF veterinary clinic at 816 S. Lemay will remain and retain its existing southwest character in exterior elevation. The tile roofing on the front, shed roof covered entry will be replaced with new standing seam metal roofing. The former car wash facility will be razed except for the 475 SF portion at the far northeast corner of the site. This portion of the existing structure will be incorporated into the new 4232 SF, two-story rehabilitation hospital addition at 808 S. Lemay. The addition will abut and connect to the existing veterinary clinic. The new addition will be done in a more contemporary southwest style to complement the existing structure. The shed roof elements and entry column design will be repeated from the existing building to the new addition. Large expanses of street-facing glass will provide for an inviting entrance and improved curb appeal. The two individual lots or properties will remain as they are today, without a new plat. The two lots will be deed restricted so that they cannot be conveyed or sold separately. The additional new right-of-way that is required will be dedicated and recorded by separate instrument or deed of dedication. The civil engineering and public improvement construction plans have addressed all applicable comments in the CRT review letter and subsequent staff preliminary review comments. Likewise, the landscape plans have also addressed all applicable and pertinent comments to the maximum extent feasible on this small urban infill site. A new six foot wide detached concrete sidewalk will provide for a ten foot wide landscaped parkway with much additional new landscaping in front of the existing building and proposed new addition. The two large mature trees in this area will be retained and incorporated into the new landscaping. The owner of the veterinary clinic has procured the use of ten (10) parking spaces on a long-term renewable lease agreement from his abutting neighbor (property owner) to the east. This will allow more of the parking spaces located on-site to remain available for short-term emergency use by clients. The number of employees at the existing facility is currently 34 full-time and part time-employees. With the proposed expansion, the total number of employees will increase to 40 full-time and part-time employees. The hours of operation are currently 24 hours/day, 7 days/week, 365 days/year. The hours of operation will be unchanged with the proposed addition and expansion. OWNER’S STATEMENT - This expansion will allow the emergency hospital to treat cases more effectively, with better care, less waiting time and a less crowded experience. The rehabilitation service will also be able to better serve existing and new patients by offering more appointment options to pet owners, with multiple teams of doctors and nurses working concurrently. Additional ancillary services such as cardiology, internal medicine and surgery will be added, for better patient care. We also hope to be able to continue participating in Climate Wise and improve upon our Gold Standing with an energy efficient building and design. PROJECT SCHEDULE – The General Contractor for this project will be Dohn Construction, Inc. of Fort Collins. The project will be completed in one phase of construction. The existing car wash facility will be demolished between May 15th and June 15th of this year. The building has been tested and contains no ACM’s (asbestos containing materials) or lead paint. The construction of the addition to the veterinary clinic is scheduled to begin on August 5, 2013. RESPONSE TO CONCEPTUAL REVIEW COMMENTS – A Conceptual Review Team Meeting for this project was held on December 17, 2012. We believe that our Project Development Plan complies with all questions and issues raised in the CRT letter, with the following clarifications: Zoning Comment #2 - The addition is located within 36 feet of the ROW line on Lemay. From an internal circulation standpoint, the new addition required three connection points to the existing vet clinic. Therefore, it 25 was impractical to move the addition any further to the west. We were able to keep the entire area in front of the new addition and the street entirely landscaped, without vehicle parking in front of the building. Zoning Comment #3 – The trash enclosure is sized for both trash and recycling containers. The size and location of the trash enclosure required for this use does not warrant walk-in access without having to open the main service gate. There is no public sidewalk in the vicinity of this trash enclosure. Fire Authority Comment #1 – The rear drive area on the east side of the building is not required to be a fire lane. The entire length of the east and south sides of the building are within 150 feet from fire apparatus access. In addition, the adjacent property to the east has a large accessible paved parking area which abuts the vet clinic. Engineering Development Review Comment #11 – The 50 foot setback required from the existing flow line of Lemay to the first parking space (by LCUASS Figure 19-6) cannot be achieved on this existing property due to its small size and existing configuration/development. This is a low-volume use and back-up movements will not block the existing public sidewalks. We have provided for the landscaped area of at least 15 feet as required by LUC 3.2.2(J). Current Planning Comment #5 - The driveway and parking areas located immediately west of the building addition in our preliminary (original) site plan have been eliminated. Our proposed Site Plan is in compliance with this comment. Current Planning Comment #6 and #7 – Our proposed Landscape Plan has been designed to offer compliance, to the maximum extent feasible, with all areas identified in these two comments. Respectfully Submitted, Alan Hauser, AIA LEED AP Hauser Architects, PC 26 27 28 L1 4 1619 KELMSLEY CT., WINDSOR, CO 80550 deanne@TFGcolorado.com (970) 674-3323 PLANNERS / LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS FORT COLLINS VETERINARY EMERGENCY AND REHABILITATION HOSPITAL LANDSCAPE NOTES AND PLANT LIST 1. LANDSCAPE TREATMENTS SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED BY THE OWNER. 2. THE LOCATION OF PLANT MATERIALS ARE SHOWN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS SITE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES. ALL TREES ARE SHOWN ACCORDING TO THEIR SIZE AT TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF PLANTING. 3. PLANT MATERIAL SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COLORADO NURSERY ACT OF 1973, CRS TITLE 38, ACT 26, AS AMENDED. PLANT MATERIALS SHALL ALSO MEET THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN (AAN) FOR NUMBER ONE GRADE. 4. SCHEDULED SIZES STATED REPRESENT MINIMUM CALIPER AND HEIGHT. SIZES PROVIDED MAY EXCEED MINIMUM REQUIRED, BUT IN NO EVENT SHALL SMALLER PLANT MATERIALS SIZES BE PROVIDED. 5. TOPSOIL SHALL BE REMOVED DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHALL BE CONSERVED FOR LATER USE. 6. ANY AREA THAT HAS BEEN COMPACTED OR DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY TO BE THOROUGHLY LOOSENED AND ORGANIC AMENDMENTS SUCH AS COMPOST, PEAT, OR AGED MANURE SHALL BE INCORPORATED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF PLANT MATERIALS 7. LANDSCAPE AREAS, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC UNDERGROUND IRRIGATION SYSTEM. AN IRRIGATION PLAN SHALL BE PREPARED AND SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 3.2.1 (J) IRRIGATION. AN IRRIGATION PLAN WILL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST BUILDING PERMIT. 8. TURF AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AUTOMATIC POP-UP IRRIGATION SYSTEM WHILE ALL SHRUB BEDS AND TREES SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM OR ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO MEET THE WATER REQUIREMENTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL PLANT MATERIALS AND HYDRAZONES. 9. $//3/$17,1*%('6:,//%(('*(':,7+´;´67((/+($'(56(7/(9(/:,7+ THE TOP OF SOD. THE PLANTING BEDS SHALL ALSO BE MULCHED WITH COBBLE OR FIBER MULCH WITH A WEED BARRIER UNDERLAY AS DESCRIBED IN THE LANDSCAPE SPECIFICATION AND DETAILS INCLUDED HEREIN. 10. GROUND COVER WILL CONSIST OF IRRIGATED AND NON-IRRIGATED TURF, COBBLE, AND FIBER MULCH, AND PERENNIAL GROUND COVERS AS INDICATED ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. SPECIFICATIONS INCLUDED HEREIN. 11. THIS LANDSCAPE PLAN IS DIAGRAMMATIC. TREE AND SHRUB LOCATIONS MAY BE ADJUSTED AS NEEDED AT THE TIME OF PLANTING TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM SEPARATION FROM UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, WALKS AND DRIVEWAYS. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHALL BE LOCATED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF LANDSCAPE MATERIALS.MINIMUM SEPARATION SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: a. 40' BETWEEN STREET TREES AND STREETLIGHTS. b. 15' BETWEEN ORNAMENTAL TREES AND STREETLIGHTS; c. 10' BETWEEN TREES AND WATER OR SEWER MAIN LINES: 6' BETWEEN WATER AND SEWER SERVICE LINES. d. 4' BETWEEN TREES AND GAS LINES e. 4' BETWEEN SHRUBS AND ANY UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. f. 2.5' BETWEEN STREET TREES AND THE FACE OF CURB g. 8' OR MORE BETWEEN TREES AND SHRUBS AND DRIVEWAYS AND ALLEYS. 13. NO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY CAN BE ISSUED WITHOUT COMPLETION OF LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION OR FINANCIAL SECURITY OF 125% OF REMAINING LANDSCAPE MATERIALS/INSTALLATION COSTS VIA PERFORMANCE BOND, LETTER OF CREDIT OR ESCROW. 14. DEVELOPER SHALL ENSURE THAT THE LANDSCAPE PLAN IS COORDINATED WITH E01 TO REMAIN AND TO BE PROTECTED EXISTING OFFSITE TREES SHOWN FOR REFERENCE, (TYP) E02 TO REMAIN AND TO BE PROTECTED E03 TO BE REMOVED EXISTING EVERGEEN SHRUBS TO BE REMOVED EXISTING EVERGEEN SHRUBS TO BE REMOVED EXISTING EVERGEEN SHRUBS TO BE REMOVED EXISTING EVERGREEN SHRUB TO BE REMOVED EXISTING DECIDUOUS SHRUB TO BE REMOVED EXISTING DECIDUOUS SHRUB TO BE REMOVED EXISTING DECIDUOUS SHRUB(S) TO BE PROTECTED E04 TO REMAIN AND TO BE PROTECTED E10 TO REMAIN AND TO BE PROTECTED E11 TO REMAIN AND TO BE PROTECTED E09 TO REMAIN AND TO BE PROTECTED E08 TO REMAIN AND TO BE PROTECTED E07 TO REMAIN AND TO BE PROTECTED E06 TO REMAIN AND TO BE PROTECTED E05 TO REMAIN AND TO BE PROTECTED EXISTING DECIDUOUS SHRUBS TO BE REMOVED EXISTING DECIDUOUS SHRUBS TO BE REMOVED EXISTING EVERGREEN SHRUB(S) TO BE PROTECTED EXISTING VINES TO REMAIN ON WALL EXISTING RED FLAGSTONE PAVERS TO REMAIN EXISTING DECIDUOUS SHRUBS TO BE REMOVED EXISTING EVERGEEN SHRUBS TO BE REMOVED EXISTING EVERGREEN SHRUB(S) TO BE PROTECTED EXISTING DECIDUOUS SHRUB(S) TO BE PROTECTED EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING 4 HFG (ORNAMENTAL GRASSES) EXISTING ASPHALT DRIVE EXISTING LANDSCAPE TO REMAIN SEE SHEET L2 EXISTING OFFSITE TREES SHOWN FOR REFERENCE EXISTING VINES TO REMAIN ON WALL EXISTING RED FLAGSTONE PAVERS TO REMAIN E01 TO REMAIN AND TO BE PROTECTED E02 TO REMAIN AND TO BE PROTECTED E04 TO REMAIN AND TO BE PROTECTED E10 TO REMAIN AND TO BE PROTECTED E11 TO REMAIN AND TO BE PROTECTED E09 TO REMAIN AND TO BE PROTECTED E08 TO REMAIN AND TO BE PROTECTED E07 TO REMAIN AND TO BE PROTECTED E06 TO REMAIN AND TO BE PROTECTED E05 TO REMAIN AND TO BE PROTECTED 2 CSK 5 HFG (ORNAMENTAL GRASSES) 4 PMW 6 CSK 7 POC 10 HFG (ORNAMENTAL GRASSES) 8 FG 3 JHB 1 QRS 3 CIJ 7 JHB 5 RAL 1 QRS 8 HMS 9 JCA 2 POC 10 FG 4 JHB 3 CIJ APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF EXISTING TURF 2 RAL 3 HFG 1 QB (3" cal.) L4 4 1619 KELMSLEY CT., WINDSOR, CO 80550 deanne@TFGcolorado.com (970) 674-3323 PLANNERS / LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS FORT COLLINS VETERINARY EMERGENCY AND REHABILITATION HOSPITAL LANDSCAPE PLAN - DETAILS ö TREE AND SHRUB INSTALLATION LANDSCAPE SPECIFICATIONS 32 1 2 3 1" A1 10 1" A2 10 1" A3 10 1" A5 7 1" A6 Drip 1" A7 Drip A 4 4 1" A4 7 SYMBOL MANUFACTURER/MODEL/DESCRIPTION PSI HUNTER PROS-06-PRS30-CV-NSI 8` RADIUS 30 TURF SPRAY, 30 PSI REGULATED 6.0" POP-UP. WITH FACTORY INSTALLED DRAIN CHECK VALVE. NO SIDE INLET HUNTER PROS-06-PRS30-CV-NSI 10` RADIUS 30 TURF SPRAY, 30 PSI REGULATED 6.0" POP-UP. WITH FACTORY INSTALLED DRAIN CHECK VALVE. NO SIDE INLET HUNTER MP3000 PROS-06-CV 40 TURF ROTATOR, 6" (15.24 CM) POP-UP WITH FACTORY INSTALLED CHECK VALVE, PRESSURE REGULATED TO 40 PSI (2.76 BAR), MP ROTATOR NOZZLE ON PRS40 BODY. B=BLUE ADJ ARC 90-210, Y=YELLOW ADJ ARC 210-270, A=GRAY 360 ARC. HUNTER MP3500 PROS-06-CV 40 MP ROTATOR NOZZLE ON PRS40 BODY WITH FACTORY INSTALLED CHECK VALVE, PRESSURE REGULATED TO 40 PSI (2.76 BAR). LB=LIGHT BROWN ADJUSTABLE ARC, 90-210. SYMBOL MANUFACTURER/MODEL/DESCRIPTION RAIN BIRD XCZ-PRB-100-COM MEDIUM PLUS FLOW DRIP CONTROL KIT FOR COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS. FLOW RANGE 3GPM TO 20GPM. RAIN BIRD MDCFCAP DRIPLINE FLUSH VALVE CAP IN COMPRESSION FITTING COUPLER. SYMBOL MANUFACTURER/MODEL/DESCRIPTION HUNTER ICV-G 1", 1-1/2", 2", AND 3" PLASTIC ELECTRIC REMOTE CONTROL VALVES (SIZE AS DESIGNATED). HUNTER HQ-5RC QUICK COUPLER VALVE, YELLOW RUBBER COVER, RED BRASS AND STAINLESS STEEL, WITH 1" NPT INLET, 1-PIECE 34 35 36 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.3 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.7 1.7 0.5 0.3 1.1 1.1 1.3 0.9 0.4 1.7 1.6 1.6 2.3 1.8 1.2 0.4 0.8 0.9 2.6 2.7 1.5 0.5 2.6 1.5 0.4 2.5 0.8 0.3 2.0 0.5 0.3 1.4 1.6 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.6 1.8 1.8 2.1 1.3 1.6 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.7 2.2 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.6 2.3 1.9 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.5 2.2 2.8 1.5 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.9 1.5 1.7 2.0 1.6 2.6 2.5 1.6 0.6 0.7 1.7 1.6 2.0 1.5 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.2 3.6 1.9 1.5 0.9 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.7 1.5 1.2 0.4 1.9 2.3 0.8 1.5 1.2 0.9 Calculation Summary Label CalcType Units Avg Max Min Max/Min GENERAL AREA Illuminance Fc 1.34 3.6 0.2 18.00 X 07/01/2013 E1P 37 X 07/01/2013 E2P 38 Request for Modification 1: The Applicant requests a modification that is applicable to Section 4.27(D)(2): 1)4.27(D)(2): Secondary Uses. All secondary uses shall be integrated both in function and appearance into a larger employment district development plan that emphasizes primary uses. A secondary use shall be subject to administrative review or Planning and Zoning Board review as required for such use in Section 4.27(B). The following permitted uses shall be considered secondary uses in this zone district and together shall occupy no more than twenty-five (25) percent of the total gross area of the development plan. Land Use Code Modification Criteria: “The decision maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4) above shall be supported by specific findings showing how the plan, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4).” Applicant’s Explanation of the Nature of the Modification Request: 39 e. It will return t ndscaping improvements that this proposal offers in comparison to the existing property conditions. Applicant’s Justification: ndary Uses, is justified by the applicable andards in contained in Section 2.8.2(H). This is because: Use Code with respect to a small dividual infill redevelopment within the Employment zone district. t plan, and will ontinue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. The proposed expansion of the Fort Collins Veterinary Emergency and Rehabilitation Hospital is eliminating and redeveloping a blighted property that has been an eyesore along the S. Lemay Avenue right-of-way for several years. The proposed expansion of the existing veterinary facility will return this adjacent parcel to an attractive building façade, complementary to the existing veterinary façad he property to a productive use and expand the employment base of the current facility. The reuse of a potion of the existing car wash facility in the extreme northeast corner of the site, along with required connection points to the existing veterinary facility for operational efficiency resulted in a 3% overage in the allowable floor area. This amount is truly negligible given the added site and building esthetics and la A Modification of Standard to Section 4.27(D)(2), Seco st A.The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good because it meets the general purpose of the standard while providing for the property to be otherwise greatly improved in a wide variety of ways. It does not impair the intent and purpose of the Land in B.The request satisfies Criteria 4 (2.8.2(H)(4): The plan as submitted does not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire developmen c 40 Request for Modification 2: The Applicant requests a modification that is applicable to Section 3.2.1(E)(4) and Section 3.2.2(J) (4) Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping. Parking lot perimeter landscaping (in the minimum setback areas required by Section 3.2.2(J) (Access, Circulation and Parking) shall meet the following minimum standards: (a) Trees shall be provided at a ratio of one (1) tree per twenty-five (25) lineal feet along a public street and one (1) tree per forty (40) lineal feet along a side lot line parking setback area. Trees may be spaced irregularly in informal groupings or be uniformly spaced, as consistent with larger overall planting patterns and organization. Perimeter landscaping along a street may be located in and should be integrated with the streetscape in the street right-of-way. (b) Screening. Parking lots with six (6) or more spaces shall be screened from abutting uses and from the street. Screening from residential uses shall consist of a fence or wall six (6) feet in height in combination with plant material and of sufficient opacity to block at least seventy-five (75) percent of light from vehicle headlights. Screening from the street and all nonresidential uses shall consist of a wall, fence, planter, earthen berm, plant material or a combination of such elements, each of which shall have a minimum height of thirty (30) inches. Such screening shall extend a minimum of seventy (70) percent of the length of the street frontage of the parking lot and also seventy (70) percent of the length of any boundary of the parking lot that abuts any nonresidential use. Openings in the required screening shall be permitted for such features as access ways or drainage ways. Where screening from the street is required, plans submitted for review shall include a graphic depiction of the parking lot screening as seen from the street. Plant material used for the required screening shall achieve required opacity in its winter seasonal condition within three (3) years of construction of the vehicular use area to be screened. (J) Setbacks. Any vehicular use area containing six (6) or more parking spaces or one thousand eight hundred (1,800) or more square feet shall be set back from the street right-of- way and the side and rear yard lot line (except a lot line between buildings or uses with collective parking) consistent with the provisions of this Section, according to the following table: Minimum average of entire landscaped setback area (feet) Minimum width of setback at any point (feet) 41 Along an arterial street 15 5 Along a nonarterial street 10 5 Along a lot line * 5 5 Land Use Code Modification Criteria: “The decision maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (1) the plan as subm itted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is ly defined and described in and exceptional practical difficulties, odified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the supported by specific findings showing (1), (2), (3) or (4).” foot high solid vinyl fence. As further justification for this Modification of Stan red by Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(a) that would be placed in this setback area have been rovide e site. requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city- wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and express the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be m entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4) above shall be h ow the plan, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph Applicant’s Explanation of the Nature of the Modification Request: The parking and drive areas along the south and east sides of the existing veterinary clinic (at 816 S. Lemay Ave.) are existing. The asphalt paving in these locations currently extends to the property lines. These areas are not highly visible from the public right-of-way along S. Lemay Avenue. In addition, there is an existing densely landscaped detention area immediately to the south of this property and there is an existing parking lot immediately to the east of this area. The addition of a three (3) foot high solid vinyl fence along these two drive areas, placed on the property line, will adequately screen these areas from view and is allowed by Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(b). The five (5) foot setback required by Section 3.2.2(J) is not needed to accomplish the screening of these drive areas as this is accomplished by the three (3) dard request, the trees requi p d at other locations within th 42 ides of the existing structure to remain, would create an undue hardship to the owner’s continued historical use of the property. Modification of these areas to meet the standard as written would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties with regard to continued efficient use of the property. Applicant’s Justification: A Modification of Standard to Section 3.2.1(E)(4), Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping, and Section 3.2.2(J), Setbacks, is justified by the applicable standards in contained in Section 2.8.2(H). This is because: A.The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good because the alternative plan provides substantial screening of the drive areas and enhancements at the property line to adjacent properties. B.The existing physical conditions unique to this property, including the narrowness of the drive areas on the south and east s 43 ITEM NO ______3_________ MEETING DATE August 8, 2013 STAFF Holland PLANNING & ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Extension of Final Plan Vested Rights for Rigden Farm 14th Filing, The Center at Rigden Farm, # 56-98-AS APPLICANT: Ladco Properties, LLC c/o Don Tiller 4714 Valley Ridge Court Fort Collins, CO. 80526 OWNER: Ladco Properties, LLC c/o Don Tiller 4714 Valley Ridge Court Fort Collins, CO. 80526 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for consideration a second one year extension, to August 31, 2014, of the approved Final Plan for the Rigden Farm 14th Filing also known as The Center at Rigden Farm. The project is located at the southwest corner of Drake Road and Timberline Road, and has been approved for 8 mixed-use buildings totaling 95,000 square feet on 5.9 gross acres. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the Extension of Final Plan Vested Rights for Rigden Farm 14th Filing, The Center at Rigden Farm EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a request for a second one year extension by the Planning and Zoning Board, for vesting of the Final Plan through August 31, 2014. The Rigden Farm 14th Filing was approved on February 2, 2007 by the Planning and Zoning Board. The Final Development Plan was approved and a Development Agreement was executed on July 27, 2007. The three year final plan approval that was to expire in 2010 has since been extended twice administratively (see attached) per LUC Sec. 2.2.11(D)(4). Having exercised the two available administrative extensions, the Final Plan was granted a one year extension at the August 23, 2012 Planning and Zoning Board Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750 44 Extension of Final Plan Vested Rights of Rigden Farm 14th Filing Planning & Zoning August 8, 2013 Page 2 Hearing, valid through August 31, 2013. A Minor Amendment was also approved on August 3, 2012, #MA120073, which added enclosed and fixed bicycle parking spaces to bring the project into compliance with the current Land Use Code. The project continues to comply with LUC ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS and ARTICLE 4 - DISTRICTS, Division 4.23 – Neighborhood Commercial District (NC). COMMENTS: 1. Background: On February 2, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Board approved Rigden Farm 14th Filing. The project is a component of a neighborhood center in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone district. The plan provides for 8 buildings on 11 lots surrounding a parking lot containing 233 parking spaces. The approved uses are noted on the plans as any that are permitted within the NC zone district. On April 27, 2010, the Rigden Farm 14th Filing Final Plan vesting was extended for one year by the Director pursuant to Section 2.2.11(D)(4) (See attached). On July 11, 2011, the Rigden Farm 14th Filing Final Plan vesting was again extended for one year by the Director pursuant to Section 2.2.11(D)(4) (See attached). 2. Article 2 - Administration Section 2.2.11(D)(4) Extensions (Notes and emphasis added). Extensions for two (2) successive periods of one (1) year each may be granted by the Director, upon a finding that the plan complies with all general development standards as contained in Article 3 and Zone District Standards as contained in Article 4 at the time of the application for the extension. (Both administrative extensions have been exhausted.) Any additional one-year extensions shall be approved, if at all, only by the Planning and Zoning Board, upon a finding that the plan complies with all applicable general development standards as contained in Article 3 and Zone District Standards as contained in Article 4 at the time of the application for the extension, and that (a) the applicant has been diligent in constructing the engineering improvements required pursuant to paragraph (3) above, though such improvements have not been fully constructed, or (b) due to other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, completing all engineering improvements would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the applicant, and granting the extension would not be detrimental to the public good. A request for an extension of the term of vested right under this Section must be submitted to the Director in writing at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of expiration. Time is of the 45 Extension of Final Plan Vested Rights of Rigden Farm 14th Filing Planning & Zoning August 8, 2013 Page 3 essence. The granting of extensions by the Director under this Section may, at the discretion of the Director, be referred to the Planning and Zoning Board. The request for an extension of vested rights (see attached) outlines the attempts to get the construction started on this project. The economic downturn has delayed project construction but, according to the developer, the residential market is beginning to show signs of recovery and the commercial market should also show signs of stronger growth in the next 12 to 18 months. As noted in the extension request, “installing the infrastructure without an end-user would put Ladco Properties a financial risk and would place an undue hardship on the company.” Extending the vested right for the Final Plan for one additional year is not detrimental to the public good. This is because the project continues to meet all aspects of the Land Use Code. Further, the project continues to represent a pattern of land use that complies with the Structure Plan Map, and is specifically designed to decrease trip length due to the close proximity between the Rigden Farm neighborhood and the adjoining commercial activity center. The request for an extension of vested rights was made on June 14, 2013, more than 30 days prior to the date of expiration of August 31, 2013. 3. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the request for the Extension of Final Plan Vested Rights for Rigden Farm 14th Filing, The Center at Rigden Farm, Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. Rigden Farm 14th Filing is in compliance with all applicable Article 3 General Development Standards of the Land Use Code. B. Rigden Farm 14th Filing continues to be in compliance with Article 4 Districts, Division 4.23 – Neighborhood Commercial District (NC) of the Land Use Code. C. The request for extension of vested rights satisfies Section 2.2.11(D)(4) Extensions, due to other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, completing all engineering improvements would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the applicant, and granting the extension would not be detrimental to the public good. D. The request for extension of vested rights was made at least 30 days prior to the date of expiration of the approval. 46 Extension of Final Plan Vested Rights of Rigden Farm 14th Filing Planning & Zoning August 8, 2013 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Extension of Final Plan Vested Rights to Rigden Farm 14th Filing, The Center at Rigden Farm, to August 31, 2014. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Applicant request for extension of vested rights 2. Approved site plan 3. Approved extension of vested rights, April 27, 2012 4. Approved extension of vested rights, July 11, 2011 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 ITEM NO ____4_______ MEETING DATE August 8, 2013 STAFF Ted Shepard PLANNING & ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT Project: Feeders Supply, Project Development Plan, #PDP130012 Applicants: Feeders Supply, LLC c/o Mr. Jon Prouty 1001 East Harmony Road, Suite 510 Fort Collins, CO 80525 Owner: Northern Colorado Feeders Supply, Inc. 359 Linden Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Project Description: This is a request to renovate the existing Feeders Supply building at 359 Linden Street, demolish three non-historic additions, and construct a new building addition along Linden Street for a restaurant or commercial use called the New West Addition. The request also includes a new four-story apartment building along Willow Street. The original Feeders Supply building is designated as a historic structure. The historic Feeders Supply building would be adaptively re-used primarily for a restaurant or other permitted commercial uses. Both floors would be utilized and served by an elevator. A small patio would be added along Willow Street. There would be no major exterior changes. The New West Addition along Linden Street would also be two stories and further set back from Linden Street than Feeders Supply to offer views to the historic structure and allow for a small, off-street patio. The proposed design, exterior materials and colors are intentionally basic and relatively unadorned allowing emphasis to remain with the historic and distinctive Feeders Supply building. The Apartment Building along Willow Street would contain 54 dwelling units and be four stories in height with the fourth floor stepped back from the lower three floors. The building includes three stories of residential dwellings over a ground level parking garage which is faced with studio apartments along Willow Street. The building is accented by a glass tower feature which projects forward and is not stepped back. The ground floor apartments would to allow for conversion to commercial space if justified by Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750 56 Feeders’ Supply Project Development Plan, #PDP130012 Planning & Zoning Hearing August 8, 2013 Page 2 future market conditions. The building consists of red brick, stone accents, cornice details and the central glass tower is topped with a gable roof. The garage contains 41 spaces, and combined with 13 surface spaces, results in a total of 54 spaces achieving a ratio of one space per unit. The site is 1.19 acres in size and located within the National Historic District and zoned R-D-R, River Downtown Redevelopment District. Recommendation: Approval with Condition Executive Summary: The P.D.P. is consistent with the Downtown Plan and City Plan. The P.D.P. complies with the land use and development standards of the R-D-R zone. The P.D.P. complies with the applicable General Development Standards of Article Three with one exception. A Modification of Standard to allow less interior parking lot landscaping has been evaluated and found to be not detrimental to the public good and nominal and inconsequential in relation to the project as a whole. A condition of approval is recommended in order to ensure that the Final Plan is in compliance with Section 3.4.7 – Historic and Cultural Resources. Comments: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows (note that Linden Street runs northeast to southwest and Willow Street runs from northwest to southeast): N: R-D-R; Interstate Batteries, Glass Shop and Bas Bleu Theatre; NE: R-D-R; Willow Street, Single Family and Education and Life Training Center; E: R-D-R ; El Burrito restaurant; SE: R-D-R; Mawson Lumber and Kiefer Concrete, Ranchway Feeds; S: R-D-R; New Bridges Day Shelter; SW: R-D-R; Linden Street, CTL Thompson and Downtown Athletic Club; W: R-D-R; Jefferson Park and Rodizio Grill; NW: R-D-R; Schrader Oil (outside storage yard, warehouse, office and convenience store with fuel sales and one-bay automatic carwash). The mill and grain elevator were constructed in 1910 by the Poudre Elevator Company followed by the construction of the hay warehouse (the first northwest addition) in about 1917. The location was considered strategic with proximity to railroad tracks of the Colorado and Southern Railway line to allow for loading and unloading of goods to and from the train. The building featured a retail store, two and one-half story grain elevator, 57 Feeders’ Supply Project Development Plan, #PDP130012 Planning & Zoning Hearing August 8, 2013 Page 3 hay warehouse and coal storage. The stepped parapets, gable roof and head-house have been, and continue to be the building’s defining features. Between approximately 1917 and 1949 four subsequent additions were successively added on along Willow Street. These four additions have been determined to have no historic significance. In 1944, the stucco was added to the exterior. While there was no significant building permit activity and relatively few changes since 1949, there were a number of additional alterations to the building that are not documented to a specific date or timeframe. Feeders Supply (the mill, grain elevator and hay warehouse) was included in the larger Old Town Historic District, which was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1978. The site was originally zoned I-G, General Industrial. In 1996, the site was included in a larger rezoning that down-zoned the general area bounded by North College Avenue, Jefferson Street, Lincoln Avenue and the Poudre River from I-G, General Industrial to R-C, River Corridor as part of the implementation of the Downtown Plan. In 1997, the site was rezoned R-D-R, River Downtown Redevelopment as part of the overall implementation of City Plan, the City’s comprehensive plan. The site was placed into the Transit-Oriented Development Overlay District (T.O.D.) upon the original adoption of the District in 2007. 2. Downtown Plan: Although not zoned D, Downtown, the site is located within the boundary of the Downtown Plan originally adopted in 1989 and supplemented in 2006 with the Downtown Strategic Plan. The subject parcel is located within a larger area identified as a “Special River Area” on the fringe of the Downtown. The Downtown Plan (1980) Concept Plan states the following: “The Downtown Corridor of the Poudre River is viewed in the plan as a fragile, valuable and irreplaceable resource. Major pedestrian and visual connections between the River and the Downtown are recommended. In addition, special treatment of the riverfront is suggested that enhances the attractiveness of the river and Downtown. The plan offers some specific activities for the riverfront area, including a new performing arts theatre, an open air amphitheater, 58 Feeders’ Supply Project Development Plan, #PDP130012 Planning & Zoning Hearing August 8, 2013 Page 4 botanical gardens, preservation of important natural areas, quality hotel, active and passive open space areas and limited retail activities.” (Page 58.) Under the section titled Policy 2, Land Use: “Permit destination retail uses, light manufacturing, research and scientific laboratories and similar uses in locations within the Poudre River Corridor District that are compatible with the scenic, natural, recreational values of the river.” (Page 69.) “Encourage the development of a special riverfront area that mixes hospitality, hotel, recreation, entertainment, culture, and some limited retail land uses in the Poudre River Corridor District and being especially sensitive to the natural area features of the river. Specific activities which should be encouraged in this area include a new performing arts theatre, an open air amphitheater, botanical gardens, preservation of important wetlands and vegetation, and water related recreation.” (Page 70.) Under the section titled Policy 3, Special Land Use Opportunities, Major Policy: “Aggressively explore, develop and take action to attract major retail, government, cultural, educational, entertainment, recreation and employment anchors including new housing development, that enhance the Downtown as the preeminent business, retailing and cultural center of region.” (Page 72.) The Downtown Strategic Plan, 2006, states the following: “2.1.2 Relative to the west side, the river corridor area presents a different, additional set of opportunities for supportive redevelopment, which the City and DDA should remain equally prepared to pursue or support if an initiative arises. Redevelopment projects in the river area could strengthen the commercial health of downtown as well, and if a core-supportive development project or public works stimulus project emerges, it should be supported.” “2. Particular core-supportive uses include housing, employment, mixed live/work buildings, special attractions and architecture unique to the river environment and historic setting(e.g. cultural/arts venues, a restaurant with windows and outdoor spaces oriented to the river landscape, educational institutes) and small neighborhood-serving commercial uses. The intent is to bring patrons downtown with development that reinforces the unique historic and environmental character.” “2.2.5 Encourage apartments, loft units, and/or offices on upper floors of buildings.” 59 Feeders’ Supply Project Development Plan, #PDP130012 Planning & Zoning Hearing August 8, 2013 Page 5 “a. Any additional housing and jobs will help support the core by adding to a critical mass of people living, working, and investing in downtown.” In fulfillment of the vision for Downtown, the proposed P.D.P. would contribute to establishing a pedestrian and visual connection between the River and the Downtown along Linden Street. The proposed land uses would add to the mix of activities associated with Downtown. Further, the P.D.P. represents a re-development opportunity that offers a mix of core- supportive uses. The addition of housing and jobs will contribute to the critical mass of people living and working and investing in downtown. 3. City Plan Fort Collins – 2011: The comprehensive plan was updated in 2011. While the proposed project furthers the objectives of numerous policies, three are highlighted for emphasis: “Policy LIV 5.1 Promote revitalization of existing under-utilized commercial and industrial areas.” “Policy LIV 5.1 Encourage redevelopment and Infill in Activity Centers and Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas. Areas identified on the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map are parts of the city where general agreement exists that redevelopment and infill would be beneficial. “ “Policy LIV 45.3 The Poudre River Corridor has distinct segments containing unique characteristics, opportunities, and constraints. The Historic and Cultural Core Segment (College Avenue to Lemay Avenue) segment of the river includes many of the community’s oldest and most significant historic and cultural features. Land uses in the area should be more flexible than in other river segments and emphasize connecting the river to Downtown, providing multi- purpose spaces that celebrate the historic relevance of the river to the community, continuing the important and unique relationship between the waterway and surrounding urban environment, and maintaining those natural elements of the river as it passes through Downtown.” “LIV 7.1 Encourage a variety of housing types and densities, including mixed-use developments that are well-served by public transportation and close to employment centers shopping, services, and amenities.” “LIV17.1 Preserve historically significant buildings, site and structures throughout Downtown and the community. Ensure that new building design respects the existing historic and architectural character of the surrounding 60 Feeders’ Supply Project Development Plan, #PDP130012 Planning & Zoning Hearing August 8, 2013 Page 6 district by using compatible building materials, colors, scale, mass, and design detailing of structures.” The site is located within the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Area and the P.D.P. would strengthen the connection between the Downtown and the River. The proposal provides housing within a cultural and shopping area close to amenities like the Poudre River Trail. The preservation and adaptive re-use of the historic building allows for economic revitalization that contributes to its preservation over the long term. 4. Article Four – Applicable R-D-R Zone District Standards: A. Section 4.17(B)(2) – Permitted Uses Standard Restaurants and Professional Offices are permitted in the R-D-R subject to Administrative Review. The residential building consists of more than 50 dwelling units and is permitted subject to Planning and Zoning Board review. Whenever a P.D.P. consists of both Type One and Type Two uses, the P.D.P. must be processed subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board. B. Section 4.17(D)(2)(a) – Street Connections – Maintain Existing Block Grid System Redevelopment shall maintain the existing block grid system of streets and alleys. To the extent reasonably feasible, the system shall be augmented with additional connections, including new walkway spines in substitution of streets and/or alleys. The P.D.P. is located at the corner of two public streets and does not include any new public streets or alleys. Two private alleys, however, will be provided serving the rear of the New West Addition and Feeders Supply for deliveries and serving both the garage and surface parking spaces of the Apartment building. These two private alleys gain access to both public streets. C. Section 4.17(D)(2)(b) – Linden Streetscape Improvements Redevelopment activity along the Linden Street frontage shall be designed to provide for the extension of the streetscape improvements found between Walnut Street and Jefferson Street, including on-street parking defined by landscaped curb extensions, wide sidewalks with trees in cutouts and tree grates, and pedestrian light fixtures. Specific design details are subject to approval by the City Engineer in accordance with the design criteria for streets. The P.D.P. fronts on Linden Street which was recently upgraded by a City of Fort Collins and Downtown Development Authority capital improvement project that included enhanced streetscape features. These include widened sidewalks, street trees in 61 Feeders’ Supply Project Development Plan, #PDP130012 Planning & Zoning Hearing August 8, 2013 Page 7 grates, pavers, benches, planter pots, public art and accent lighting. This project was completed in 2012 and contributes to linking the Downtown to the Poudre River. Current and future development along Linden Street will also contribute to filling the gaps between Jefferson Street and the Poudre River (Legacy Apartments and River District Block One – Encompass). The project will repay its share of the street improvements. D. Section 4.17(D)(3)(a) – Buildings – Landmarks Exception Changes or additions to structures or properties designated (or determined by the Landmark Preservation Commission to be eligible for designation) as landmarks in accordance with Chapter 14 of the City Code shall be permitted to emulate the shapes, sizes, proportions, heights, patterns and materials of the landmark (or eligible) structure(s) rather than being required to conform to the standards for buildings contained in this subsection (3). The Feeders Supply Building has been designated as a historic structure and is located within a National Historic District in conformance with Chapter 14 of the City Code. The New West Addition to the southwest along Linden Street has been specifically designed to be sensitive and respectful of the original historic building. For example, the addition, while two stories, is of lower height than Feeders Supply. The addition is set back from Linden Street further than the original building by a varying distance ranging from 10 to 28 feet. Along Linden Street, the exterior materials have been selected to be a combination of light and dark gray brick, like the new buildings in Old Town Square, so as to allow the original building, with its white stucco façade, to gain a more prominent position along the street. The second floor is stepped back from the first floor allowing better visibility of the Feeders Supply façade. Both floors feature low parapet walls that purposely lack embellishment or a stepped cornice. The southwest elevation (facing the Downtown Athletic Club and CTL Thompson) will feature a gray brick base with the primary field being a gray stucco. The character and design of the New West Addition is allowed by the preceding section to emphasize compatibility with the historic Feeders Supply. The Apartment Building, however, is detached from the historic building by 78 feet and, therefore subject to the requirements of subsection (3). E. Section 4.17(D)(3)(b) – Industrial and New Non-residential Buildings Except as otherwise provided in this subsection (3), all new nonresidential buildings, including industrial buildings, shall comply with the standards for Mixed-use and Commercial Buildings contained in Section 3.5.3. 62 Feeders’ Supply Project Development Plan, #PDP130012 Planning & Zoning Hearing August 8, 2013 Page 8 The Apartment Building is organized as a 54-unit residential project with eight units on the ground floor facing Willow Street designated as studio apartments. The applicant has indicated, however, that these units are intentionally designed to allow conversion to commercial space should future market conditions allow. Such conversion would add activity and interest at the street level and is supported by Staff. If such conversion occurs, the building would then qualify as being a Mixed-Use Dwelling and, therefore, subject to Section 3.5.3. In anticipation of a possible conversion, staff provides the following analysis: (1.) Section 3.5.3(B)(2)(b) – The apartment building is located two feet behind the property line, with the entrance and tower feature at the property line, thus complying with the standard that it be placed no further back than 15 feet. (2.) Section 3.5.3(C)(1) – The building is varied in height and includes projecting and recessed elements that break up the mass. (3.) Section 3.5.3(C)(2) – The entrances relates to the organization of interior space leading directly to the lobby and elevator and is not cosmetic. There are no false fronts or parapets. (4.) Section 3.5.3(D) – The building includes articulated facades on all four sides. There is no blank wall along the street. (5.) There is a steel canopies over the entrance and there are no awnings. (6.) The building features a recognizable base of native stone and storefront glazing and entrances. There is a recognizable top with a cornice. F. Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)1. – Massing and Placement – Height / Mass Multiple story buildings of up to five (5) stories are permitted; however, massing shall be terraced back from the River and from streets as follows: (1) buildings or parts of buildings shall step down to one (1) story abutting the River landscape frontage; and (2) buildings or parts of buildings shall step down to three (3) stories or less abutting any street frontage. The Apartment Building fronts on Willow Street and is not located along the Poudre River. Terracing is provided nonetheless with the fourth floor being stepped back from the third floor. 63 Feeders’ Supply Project Development Plan, #PDP130012 Planning & Zoning Hearing August 8, 2013 Page 9 G. Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)2. – Massing and Placement – Parking Lots Buildings shall be sited so that any new parking lots and vehicle use areas are located in either: (1) interior block locations between buildings that face the street and buildings that face the River, or (2) side yards. All 54 total parking spaces are located either within the at-grade garage (41) or to the rear of the building (13). H. Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)3. – Massing and Placement – Street Frontage Proposed parking lots and/or vehicular use areas located within fifty (50) feet of any street right-of-way shall not exceed fifty (50) percent of the street frontage of the parcel upon which the parking lot or vehicular use area is proposed. There are no spaces located along public street frontage. (There is on-street diagonal parking in the public right-of-way along Linden Street and parallel parking in the public right-of-way along Willow Street.) I. Section 4.17(D)(3)(d)1. – Character and Image – Articulation Exterior building walls shall be subdivided and proportioned to human scale, using offsets, projections, overhangs and recesses, in order to add architectural interest and variety and avoid the effect of a single, massive wall with no relation to human size. The fundamental design objective is for the Apartment Building is to be a modern interpretation of a historic mill building. Grain mills have been a key part of agricultural - industrial heritage of the general area. The peaked roof on the tower is meant to reflect this character and is capped by a cupola which was usually an element of historic buildings. The Apartment Building is primarily red brick. The ground floor includes a base of gray colored stone and store-front like components with tall glass windows, and separate entrances to each individual unit. The main entrance to the lobby is highlighted by the tower feature. Upper floors include windows with sills and balconies. All units above the ground floor will feature these balconies, 70 square feet in area that are flush with the wall plane. The size of these balconies, behind the wall plane, creates a recess that provides a shadow line. The mass of the building is softened by fourth floor step back of six feet allowing both the third and fourth levels to feature a cornice. The building features four-sided architecture so there is no back-side where inferior materials are used. 64 Feeders’ Supply Project Development Plan, #PDP130012 Planning & Zoning Hearing August 8, 2013 Page 10 J. Section 4.17(D)(3)(d)2. – Character and Image – Outdoor Spaces Buildings and extensions of buildings shall be designed to form outdoor spaces such as balconies, arcades, terraces, decks or courtyards, and to integrate development with the landscape to the extent reasonably feasible. Along Linden Street, the building entrances and walkway are elevated above the street in a terrace-like manner and highlighted by a plaza. The varying setback from the property line allows for the New West Addition to feature a plaza and possibly an outdoor dining patio. K. Section 4.17(D)(3)(d)3. – Character and Image – Windows Windows shall be individually defined with detail elements such as frames, sills and lintels, and placed so as to visually establish and define the building stories and establish human scale and proportion. Glass curtain walls and spandrel-glass strip windows shall not be used as the predominant style of fenestration for buildings in this District. This requirement shall not serve to restrict the use of atrium, lobby or greenhouse-type accent features used as embellishments to the principal building. The original windows in the Feeders Supply building will not be altered. There are three casement windows proposed in new openings on the second floor for the purpose of allowing light into the space. The New West Addition will feature white window frames to complement Feeders Supply but not to be identical in order to distinguish the historic windows. The Apartment Building will feature balconies and decks and bay windows. Windows are intended to remain unadorned with brick sills only and no lintels so as to not compete visually with Feeders Supply detailing. L. Section 4.17(D)(3)(d)4. – Character and Image – Rooflines A minimum pitch of 8:12 shall be used for gable and hip roofs to the maximum extent feasible. Where hipped roofs are used alone, the minimum pitch shall be 6:12. Flat- roofed buildings shall feature three-dimensional cornice treatment on all walls facing streets, the river or connecting walkways, unless they are stepped and terraced back to form a usable roof terrace area(s). A single continuous horizontal roofline shall not be used on one-story buildings except as part of a design style that emulates nearby landmarks (or structures eligible for landmark designation). The Apartment Building will feature flat roofs at the third and fourth levels. As mentioned, the fourth floor will be stepped back by six feet. This will allow both the third and fourth levels to be topped with a cornice. 65 Feeders’ Supply Project Development Plan, #PDP130012 Planning & Zoning Hearing August 8, 2013 Page 11 M. Section 4.17(D)(3)(e) - Materials Textured materials with native and historic characteristics such as brick, stone and wood, and materials with similar characteristics and proportions shall be used in a repeating pattern as integral parts of the exterior building fabric, to the maximum extent feasible. Other exterior materials, if any, shall be used as integral parts of the overall building fabric, in repeating modules, proportioned both horizontally and vertically to relate to human scale, and with enough depth at joints between architectural elements to cast shadows, in order to better ensure that the character and image of new buildings are visually related to the Downtown and River context. The primary material is red brick. The base will be stone, beige in color. The central tower will feature a generous amount of glass and steel in order to provide a pleasing contrast with the brick and to contribute to horizontal relief by mitigating the length of the building along Willow Street. In addition, two horizontal bands of stone, red in color, will run across the length of the wall under the second and third level balconies. In general, the building positively relates to the established context of both the Downtown and R-D-R zone. N. Section 4.17(D)(4)(b) – Site Design – Walls, Fences and Planters Walls, fences and planters shall be designed to match or be consistent with the quality of materials, the style and colors of nearby buildings. Brick, stone or other masonry may be required for walls or fence columns. There are no walls or fences associated with the P.D.P. 5. Article Three Applicable General Development Criteria: A. Section 3.2.1(D) – Tree Planting Standards Four street trees placed in grates are already installed in a 20-foot wide public sidewalk in the public right-of-way along Linden Street spaced on roughly 40-foot intervals. These improvements were part of a public capital project. Eight new street trees would be installed along Willow Street. These trees are also placed in grates in a 12-foot wide sidewalk, spaced on 30-foot intervals. The plants selected exceed the minimum species diversity requirement and meet or exceed minimum size standards. 66 Feeders’ Supply Project Development Plan, #PDP130012 Planning & Zoning Hearing August 8, 2013 Page 12 B. Section 3.2.1(E)(1) – Buffering Between Incompatible Uses and Activities There are no uses and activities in the adjacent area that are considered to be incompatible relative to each other. Buffering between uses, therefore, is not applicable. C. Section 3.2.1(E)(3) – Water Conservation The site has been divided among three hydrozones and, per the standard; the overall annual water use does not exceed 15 gallons per square foot over the course of one growing season. D. Section 3.2.1(E)(4) – Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping The surface parking lot contains xx spaces, is located to the rear of the building and will not be visible from Linden Street. E. Section 3.2.1(E)(5) – Parking Lot Interior Landscaping The parking lot landscaping provides 14% interior landscaping in the form of islands thus exceeding the standard of 6%. In addition, there are 12 canopy shade trees which exceed the standard by one. F. Section 3.2.1(E)(6) - Screening The trash and recycling enclosures and electrical transformer are located in the alley running along the southwest edge of the buildings and are screened by solid decorative fences G. Section 3.2.2(C) – Development Standards The public sidewalk along Linden Street ranges in width from 5’8” where it becomes attached to the street at the bridge to 9’9” feet not including the plaza. The sidewalk features street trees in grates, raised planters, planter pots and pedestrian lighting. H. Section 3.2.2(C)(4) – Bicycle Facilities Both the commercial and residential components are required to provide a minimum number of bicycle parking spaces with a percentage of spaces being enclosed. For the residential component, the 54 dwelling units will yield 8 studios, 23 one bedroom, and 23 two-bedroom units for a total of 77 bedrooms, of which 60%, 46, are to be enclosed and 40%, 31, are to be in fixed exterior racks. In compliance, the P.D.P. provides a total of 101 spaces, of which 68%, 69 are enclosed and 32%, 32, are fixed. 67 Feeders’ Supply Project Development Plan, #PDP130012 Planning & Zoning Hearing August 8, 2013 Page 13 The enclosed bike spaces are provided in all the one and two bedroom units 46, but not in the studios. The bike space is being provided a four x six foot alcove located near the front door that can be concealed with a roll top door. This mini garage exceeds the minimum requirement of six square feet per bike for enclosed storage and is specifically intended to be a sports closet which responds to the active lifestyle. The indoor storage feature is supported by an over-sized elevator, lobby and hallways. For the studios, there are fixed racks located in the public sidewalk directly in front of their individual, entrances. For the restaurant, estimated to be 20,000 square feet, there must be no less than one space per 1,000 square feet, of which 0% are to be enclosed, requires 20 spaces to be located in fixed exterior racks. In compliance, 20 fixed spaces are provided. (For comparison purposes, and in case all or a portion of the commercial floor area were to be converted to general office, for the 20,000 square feet, there must be no less than one space per 4,000 square feet, 5, of which 20%, 1, must be enclosed, and 4 in a fixed rack.) I. Section 3.2.2(C)(5) – Walkways In addition to the public sidewalk on Linden Street, there is a pathway along the River. This path will be constructed out of crusher fines as opposed to concrete to better integrate with the riparian character. J. Section 3.2.2(D)(E)(J) – Parking Lot Design As mentioned, the off-street parking is divided between 31 spaces under the structure and 34 surface spaces to the rear of the structure. Both lots gain access to Linden Street in a safe and efficient manner. There is proper separation between vehicles and bicycles and pedestrians. The surface parking design exceeds the required minimum side lot line setback of five feet. K. Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a)1. – Residential Parking Requirements This standard allows multi-family dwellings within the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone to be relieved from having to provide the required minimum number of parking spaces. This does not mean that parking is prohibited. While not being subject to a required minimum number, the P.D.P. provides 54 spaces. This equates to one space per dwelling unit and .7 space per bedroom. L. Section 3.2.2(K)(2) – Non-Residential Parking Requirements The number of spaces must not exceed a prescribed maximum ratio. There are no off- street private parking spaces assigned to the non-residential land uses. 68 Feeders’ Supply Project Development Plan, #PDP130012 Planning & Zoning Hearing August 8, 2013 Page 14 M. Section 3.2.2(M)(1) – Parking Lot Landscape Coverage This standard requires that 6% of the surface parking lot be landscaped in the form of islands or 238 square feet. The Landscape Plan indicates 394 square feet of landscaping thus complying with the standard. N. Section 3.2.4 – Site Lighting There will be two pole lights in the surface parking lot for the Apartment Building. All other fixtures will be wall-mounted providing illumination along the two private alleys and the Apartment Building courtyard. All fixtures will be fully shielded in compliance with the standard. There is no illumination exceeding one-tenth foot-candle as measured 20 feet beyond the property lines. O. Section 3.2.5 – Trash and Recycling Enclosures The trash and recycling enclosure is located to the rear of the New West Addition and Apartment building and served by the two private alleys. The areas are of sufficient size to accommodate the needs of all users. In order to protect the residences from disturbance, the pick-up times have been voluntarily limited to business hours only, Monday through Friday, and between Noon and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. P. Section 3.4.7 – Historic and Cultural Resources This standard is evaluated in a separate subsequent section. Q. Section 3.5.1(G) – Building Height Review The Apartment Building is 46 feet to the top of the fourth floor and 60 feet to the top of the central tower. The height of Feeders Supply is 44 feet and 51 feet to the top of the cupola. The New West Addition is specifically designed to be lower in height than Feeders Supply. There are no views that are impacted by the height of the proposed buildings. The shadow analysis indicates that there are no substantial adverse impacts on the distribution of natural and artificial light on adjacent public and private property. There is no infringement on the privacy of adjacent public and private property. Finally, height of the building is compatible with the scale of the neighborhood in terms of relative height, height-to-mass, length-to-mass and building-scale to human-scale. Tall buildings in the vicinity include Ranch-Way Feeds, Northside Aztlan Center, Willow Street Lofts, New Belgium Brewery and the Colorado State University Engines and Energy Conversion Lab. Finally, a new building under construction one block to the northeast along Linden Street, Legacy Apartments, will be four stories upon completion. 69 Feeders’ Supply Project Development Plan, #PDP130012 Planning & Zoning Hearing August 8, 2013 Page 15 R. Section 3.5.1(I) – Outdoor Storage Areas / Mechanical Equipment The proximity of dwelling units to the potential restaurant is a laudable example of mixed-use that is envisioned for the R-D-R zone. In order to address the issue of the proper placement of outdoor mechanical equipment associated with a restaurant in relation to the dwelling units, a note has been added to the Site Plan. This note states that exterior air handling equipment and hood and duct exhaust systems that, when operating, shall be mitigated in order to ensure compatibility for the future residents. S. Section 3.5.1(J) – Operational / Physical Compatibility Standards As noted above, the closeness of the dwelling units to the restaurant, while an urban condition found in most cities, creates a challenge with regard to ensuring as much peace and quiet for the future residents. To promote compatibility and minimize disturbance, the Site Plan contains a note that the hours of operation for trash and recycle pick up for both the residential and non-residential users be shall be limited to business hours only, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between Noon and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. T. Section 3.6.4 – Transportation Impact Study A T.I.S. was prepared for this P.D.P. The study estimated that the project would include a standard restaurant, general office and 54 multi-family dwelling units. While the general office component is now expected to be a secondary commercial use, and could possibly be limited to the future conversion of eight studio apartments, its inclusion into the trip generation for the project reflects a conservative approach to the impact analysis. The study also includes an analysis for both pedestrian and bicycle Level of Service. There were no reductions for alternative modes even though the project is located within the T.O.D. and some modal split is to be expected. Estimated trip generation was based on three proposed uses: • Standard Restaurant – 10,000 square feet • General Office – 4,500 square feet • Apartments – 54 dwelling units Three intersections were evaluated for Level of Service analysis: • North College Avenue and Willow/Cherry Streets • Linden Street and Willow Street • Jefferson Street and Linden Street The T.I.S. states the following: 70 Feeders’ Supply Project Development Plan, #PDP130012 Planning & Zoning Hearing August 8, 2013 Page 16 • Current operation is acceptable at all key intersections. • Operation at key intersections will be acceptable at full build-out of the project. • For the entire project, and without assuming any trip reductions, during the morning peak, 96 trips are expected. During the afternoon peak, 99 trips are expected. • No new traffic signals or signal modifications will be required. • No auxiliary lanes are required. • Bike lanes currently exist on Linden and Willow and connect to the Poudre River Trail. • The site is served by Transfort Routes 8 and 81 and within walking distance of the Downtown Transit Center. • Multi-modal Level of Service Standards can be achieved. • The project is feasible from a traffic standpoint. 6. Section 3.4.7 – Historic and Cultural Resources: A. Section 3.4.7(B) – General Standard The project includes the Feeders Supply building which is located within an officially designated historic district. The P.D.P. has been reviewed by staff and the Landmark Preservation Commission. The P.D.P. has been found to provide for the preservation and adaptive use of this historic structure. Further, the P.D.P. protects and enhances the historical and architectural value of Feeders Supply. Finally, the two new structures, the New West Addition and the Apartment Building, through the use of design and site planning, are found to be compatible with Feeders Supply. B. Section 3.4.7(C) – Determination of Landmark Eligibility Feeders Supply has been designated as a historical structure that contributes to the Old Town Historic District. This District is on the National Register of Historic Places. This standard requires that the determination of eligibility, or in this case, continued eligibility, for the National Register of Historic Places shall be according to the processes and procedures of the Colorado Historical Society. The State Historic Preservation Office has reviewed and evaluated the P.D.P. and there are two primary concerns, one relating to Feeders Supply and one relating to the Apartment Building. These concerns are as follows: • There is a concern that the three proposed new windows on the upper level of the southwest elevation of Feeders Supply are found to have an impact on the large blank wall which is a character-defining feature of Feeders Supply. 71 Feeders’ Supply Project Development Plan, #PDP130012 Planning & Zoning Hearing August 8, 2013 Page 17 The State recommends that only one new window be allowed and that this window should be a little smaller than the existing, historic windows. • There is a concern about the placement of the central tower feature of the Apartment Building. The State recommends that this central tower be recessed behind the planes of the apartment wings. C. Section 3.4.7 (D) – Reuse, Renovation, Alterations and Additions The reuse and renovation of Feeders Supply will preserve the original materials and details, as well as the distinctive form and scale that contribute to the historic significance of the building and historic district. D. Section 3.4.7(F)(1) – New Construction Both the attached New West Addition along Linden Street and the detached Apartment Building along Willow Street are found to exhibit height, setback and width that are similar to Feeders Supply on both block faces, with the exception of the setback of the aforementioned central tower feature of the Apartment Building. E. Section 3.4.7(F)(2) – New Construction The new structures are found to be in character with Feeders Supply. The horizontal elements, such as cornices and windows are aligned with those of Feeders Supply. Window patterns, with the exception of the aforementioned windows on the upper portion of the southwest elevation, strengthen the visual ties among the buildings. F. Section 3.4.7(F)(3) – New Construction The primary building material of Feeders Supply is white stucco over brick. The primary material for the two new buildings is gray brick for the New West Addition and red brick for the Apartment Building. This variety in materials is found to be appropriate given the overall context of the surrounding area. G. Section 3.4.7(F)(4) – New Construction Visual and pedestrian connections between the site and neighborhood focal points, such as the Northside Aztlan Center, are preserved by the extensions of public sidewalks. H. Section 3.4.7(F)(5) – New Construction 72 Feeders’ Supply Project Development Plan, #PDP130012 Planning & Zoning Hearing August 8, 2013 Page 18 There is no existing, mature landscaping associated with Feeders Supply. All proposed landscaping consists primarily of planting deciduous shade trees in the public right-of-way spaced at uniform intervals. In general, based on review and evaluation by Staff, the Landmark Preservation Commission and the State of Colorado Historic Preservation Office, the P.D.P. complies with Section 3.4.7, subject to the following two conditions: 1. At the time of submittal for Final Plan, and in order to comply with Section 3.4.7, the applicant shall provide architectural elevations for the Feeders Supply Building that depict only one window on the upper level of the southwest elevation, and that this window shall be subordinate in size to the historic windows so as to not compete visually with the historic building details. 2. At the time of submittal for Final Plan, the Apartment Building tower feature along Willow Street shall be recessed back from the front wall plane by at least two feet so as to promote a more pedestrian scale. This also has the effect of physically interrupting the front building line to more clearly define the area between the building and the public street which is more in character with the surrounding area. 7. Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood information meeting was held on March 14, 2013. A summary of this meeting is attached. The primary concerns raised by those in attendance, and their resolution, were the following: A. Access. Access for the Feeders Supply and New West Addition will via public streets. A service alley intersecting with Linden Street will be provided for emergency services, deliveries, trash removal and electrical transformer. Access to the under-structure and at-grade parking for the Apartment Building will be via a service alley intersecting with Willow Street. B. Parking. There will be no off-street parking for Feeders Supply and the New West Addition. There will be 54 off-street spaces for the Apartment Building. Opportunities for on-street parking on Willow Street will improve over time as Willow Street gets improved to the Two-Lane Collector standard. C. Agricultural Heritage. A feeling of remorse was expressed for the loss of land uses that function for the benefit of agriculture. D. Noise. The sound generated from the activity of diners on the outdoor patios and plazas will continue to be governed by the parameters of Chapter 20 of the City 73 Feeders’ Supply Project Development Plan, #PDP130012 Planning & Zoning Hearing August 8, 2013 Page 19 Code which governs the maximum allowable sound level at a receiving property based on its zone district E. Timing of Public Improvements. The improvements to Linden Street for the block between Jefferson and Willow Streets are complete. Along Willow Street, however, improvements will be based on the rate and extent of private development and the possible future public participation of the City, and or the Downtown Development Authority by way of a capital project. 9. Conclusion and Findings of Fact: In evaluating the request for a P.D.P for Feeders Supply, Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The P.D.P. is consistent with the Downtown Plan as adopted in 1989 and as supplemented in 2006, and City Plan as adopted in 2011. B. The three proposed land uses, standard restaurant, commercial and dwelling units, are permitted in the R-D-R zone. C. The P.D.P. complies with the applicable development standards of the R-D-R zone per Section 4.17(D). D. The P.D.P. complies with the applicable general development standards of Article Three with one exception. E. Section 3.4.7 – Historic and Cultural Resources – is satisfied but only with the two proposed conditions of approval recommending changes to the proposed number and shape of the windows on the southwest elevation of Feeders Supply and recessing the central tower by two feet back from the front wall plane of Apartment Building. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval or approval with conditions or continuance of Feeders Supply P.D.P., #PDP130012, subject to the following two conditions: 1. At the time of submittal for Final Plan, and in order to comply with Section 3.4.7, the applicant shall provide architectural elevations for the Feeders Supply Building that depict only one window on the upper level of the southwest elevation, and that this window shall be subordinate in size to the existing windows so as to not compete visually with the existing building details. 74 Feeders’ Supply Project Development Plan, #PDP130012 Planning & Zoning Hearing August 8, 2013 Page 20 2. At the time of submittal for Final Plan, the Apartment Building tower feature along Willow Street shall be recessed back from the front wall plane of the by at least two feet so as to promote a more pedestrian scale. This also has the effect of physically interrupting the front building line to more clearly define the area between the building and the public street which is more in character with the surrounding area. 75 Teaching Tree Early Childhood Learning Old Fort Collins Heritage Park Jefferson Street Park Cache la Poudre River «¬287 «¬14 Pine St Poudre St Chestnut St Maple St Pine St Willow St Linden St Walnut St Cherry St N College Ave Jefferson St Lincoln Ave Feeders Supply © 1 inch = 250 feet Site 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 From: Rich Shannon [mailto:richs@pinnacleconsultinggroupinc.com] Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 10:25 AM To: Ted Shepard Subject: August 8th P and Z re NCFS site Ted, Please forward this email to the Planning and Zoning Board members. I am writing in support of the proposed redevelopment of the Northern Colorado Feeders Supply property at 359 Linden, including the applicants requested design elements. This project is scheduled for hearing on August 8, 2013. For several years I have been working with most of the property owners in the River District about redevelopment opportunities that will produce the best long term results for a unique and energized addition to downtown Fort Collins. I am serving as real estate broker and/or owner’s representative for six property owners in the River District, including the owners of the Block One project and Dennis Nater, owner of the NCFS site. The NCFS site, on the corner of Linden and Willow, is at the heart of the emerging River District. The site presents a unique set of challenges and opportunities. Few developers would be willing to take the effort needed to design a viable adaptive reuse of this particular historic building. Mr. Prouty’s proposal has been thought through in great detail. He has spent a lot of time and effort working with both the state and city staff to find a design that honors the historic building and allows for an economically viable use. It is important for the entire River District that this building is successful, contributing to the activity and energy of the area. That is only possible if all of the building, including the second floor, is allowed to be a viable part of the project. The applicant’s request for three windows on the west side of the building is not only reasonable it is essential. I encourage you to tour the inside of the NCFS building. It is hard to imagine a meaningful use for the second floor without additional natural light. I would be glad to arrange a tour for any P and Z Board member interested in viewing the interior of the building (481-4438). Please vote in favor of this project including the two design elements being requested by the applicant. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Rich Shannon Vice President Loveland: (970) 669-3611 Denver:(303) 333-4380 Fax: (970) 669-3612 Cell: (970) 481-4438 Richs@pinnacleconsultinggroupinc.com 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 ITEM NO ______5____________ MEETING DATE ____August 8, 2013__ STAFF ______Ex___________ PLANNING & ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Timberline and Prospect Overall Development Plan – ODP #130001 APPLICANT: Daman Holland Ripley Design, Inc. 401 W Mountain Avenue, #100 Fort Collins, CO 80525 OWNER: City of Fort Collins PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for an Overall Development Plan (ODP) located at the intersection of East Prospect Road and South Timberline Road. The site is 30.57 acres in size and four areas within the parcel are managed by different City departments. The intent of the ODP is to establish a general land use pattern in each of the four areas. The current uses include parks and open space, outdoor storage and public facility uses (Timberline Substation). The proposed uses include recycling facilities, light and heavy industrial uses, plant nurseries, offices, and other open space and park uses, e.g., a disc golf course. The ODP is zoned Industrial (I) and Employment (E). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Timberline and Prospect Overall Development Plan, ODP #130001. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This Overall Development Plan is 30.57 acres in size and is zoned Industrial (I) and Employment (E). The existing land uses within the ODP area are public facilities (Timberline Substation), parks and open spaces (Spring Creek Trail and the Coterie Natural Area), and storage for the Parks Department. Proposed uses included recycling facilities (Integrated Recycling Facility) and additional parks and open spaces (Parks Disc Golf course). Site access is currently limited to the entrances off South Timberline Road for vehicles; pedestrians access the site largely from the Spring Creek Trail. The existing substation entrance is the proposed access for the Integrated Recycling Facility. Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750 146 Timberline and Prospect ODP - #120004 Planning & Zoning Hearing August 8, 2013 Page 2 The proposed ODP is in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Industrial (I) and Employment (E) zone districts, as well as the requirements for ODPs regarding land uses, the Master Street Plan, transportation connectivity, natural features, drainage master plan, and compact urban growth standards. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: I; Front Range Community College E; Bath Nursery NE: E; vacant land at the corner of E Prospect Road and S Timberline Road E: E; Riverbend Trail Office Condos, Centerpoint Plaza, and Spring Creek Center I; Buckinghorse Filing No. 1 S: I; Timberline Star Properties, including car repair and machinists W: M-M-N; Union Pacific Railroad, Edora Park, and Parkwood East Estates I; Hampton Lumber Sales The site was annexed into the city as part of the 389.9 acre East Prospect Street Annexation in 1973, along with numerous other properties. The site has been used as a Natural Area (the Coterie), a public facility (Timberline substation), outdoor storage for the Forestry and Parks Departments, and the parcel houses a portion of the Spring Creek Trail. The only new, proposed use at this time is recycling facilities. 2. Compliance with Applicable Standards of the Land Use Code: A. Section 2.3.2(H)(1) – Permitted Uses and District Standards This criterion requires the ODP to be consistent with the permitted uses and applicable zone district standards and any applicable general development standards. The ODP is zoned Industrial (I) and Employment (E). The current uses include parks and open space (Parcel A), outdoor storage (Parcel D) and public facility uses (Parcel C, Timberline Substation). The proposed Industrial Zone uses include recycling facilities, light and heavy industrial uses, plant nurseries, offices, and other open space and park uses, e.g., a disc golf course. The proposed Employment Zone uses (in Parcel B) include commercial, retail, industrial uses, and institutional and civic uses. 147 Timberline and Prospect ODP - #120004 Planning & Zoning Hearing August 8, 2013 Page 3 B. Section 2.3.2 (H)(2) - Density This criterion requires that the ODP be consistent with the required density range of residential land uses (including lot sizes and housing types) if located in the E zone district. No residential land uses are proposed, thus, this standard does not apply. C. Section 2.3.2 (H)(3) – Master Street Plan This criterion requires the ODP to conform to the Master Street Plan and street pattern and connectivity standards as required by Section 3.6.1 and 3.6.3 (A) through (F). In addition, the ODP shall also conform to the Transportation Level of Service Requirements as contained in Section 3.6.4. The proposed ODP is in conformance with the City’s Master Street Plan. The site is bordered by South Timberline Road on the east and East Prospect Road on the north. South Timberline Road and East Prospect Road are both classified as 4-lane arterials. The developer will be required to provide funds for the local street portion of the required capital improvements on South Timberline Road. Though it is not planned or expected, should redevelopment occur along Parcel A (the Coterie Natural Area), which is adjacent to East Prospect Road, the developer would be required to provide funds for the local street portion of this street as well. D. Section 2.3.2 (H)(4) – Transportation Connections to Adjoining Properties This criterion requires an ODP to provide for the location of transportation connections to adjoining properties to ensure connectivity into and through the ODP from neighboring properties for vehicles, pedestrians and bikes as per Sections 3.6.3 (F) and 3.2.2(C)(6). Vehicular access to the ODP will be from South Timberline Road. No vehicular connections are planned from East Prospect Road. In the north portion of the site, pedestrians travel through the site via the Spring Creek Trail. Sidewalk connections into the trail are provided via East Prospect Road. On the south portion of the site, there will be recreational access to the site via the proposed disc golf course. However, due to the industrial nature of the recycling facility and the railroad right-of-way to the west, no further pedestrian amenities are planned. The Traffic Operations and Engineering Departments have reviewed the submitted Transportation Impact Study and have determined that the vehicular, pedestrian and 148 Timberline and Prospect ODP - #120004 Planning & Zoning Hearing August 8, 2013 Page 4 bicycle facilities proposed with this ODP are consistent with the standards contained in Part II of the City of Fort Collins Multi-modal Transportation Level of Service Manual. Timberline Road, in the vicinity of this ODP, currently carries approximately 28,000 vehicles per day. Based on the existing, similar facility currently located at Rivendell Elementary School, the proposed recycling facility could generate an estimated 900 vehicle trips per day. Midday Saturday is expected to generate the highest number of trips at 130 per hour, with a peak of 120 trips per hour possible during a typical weekday afternoon. The peak traffic for the facility is expected to occur outside of the peak period for traffic on Timberline Road. Staff should note that while there are numerous land uses identified for potential development at Parcel B, the expansion of Timberline Road (to be constructed approximately 2014-2015) will limit the overall area available for site development. Thus, the traffic access study was based on the impacts associated with the Integrated Recycling Facility (see Attachment 3). Subsequent traffic studies could be required if future development proposals warrant additional review. E. 2.3.2 (H)(5) – Natural Features This criterion requires an ODP to show the general location and size of all natural areas, habitats and features within its boundaries and shall indicate the rough estimate of the buffer zone as per Section 3.4.1(E). The northern end of this ODP contains a portion of Spring Creek. The 100-year FEMA floodway and floodplain for this creek are shown on the ODP, as is the approximate 100’ wide natural habitat buffer for the area. Any PDP for the northern portion of the property would need to address the buffer in greater detail. There are existing trees on the northern portion of the ODP and several on the southern portion. Mitigation required for trees that are proposed to be removed will be addressed by the City Forester at the PDP stage. F. Section 2.3.2 (H)(6) – Drainage Basin Master Plan This criterion requires an ODP to be consistent with the appropriate Drainage Basin Master Plan. The proposed ODP is consistent with the Spring Creek Master Drainage Basin Plan. The southern portion of the site currently drains from south to the north between the substation and Timberline over the turf and landscaping and into Spring Creek. The northern portion of the site drains south into Spring Creek. Individual projects, including the Integrated Recycling Facility, will have to meet stormwater and floodplain requirements as they proceed through the Project Development Plan submittals. 149 Timberline and Prospect ODP - #120004 Planning & Zoning Hearing August 8, 2013 Page 5 G. Section 2.3.2 (H)(7) – Housing Density and Mix of Uses This criterion requires that any standards relating to housing density and mix of uses will be applied over the entire ODP and not on each individual PDP No residential uses are planned within the ODP, thus, this standard does not apply. 3. Compact Urban Growth - Section 2.3.2 (H)(3): This criterion requires that the ODP conform to the contiguity requirements of the Compact Urban Growth Standards as per Section 3.7.2. This site is an infill site and the ODP meets the requirements of the Compact Urban Growth Standards because at least 1/6 of the proposed development’s boundaries are contiguous to existing development. 4. Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood meeting was held on June 3, 2013 for the Integrated Recycling Facility and the larger parcel (see attached meeting notes). Five residents attended and commented on the proposed recycling facility, specifically the following elements: • How the development of this site will affect the Rivendell site, o Rivendell will be closed once this site is opened. • How the project can be buffered from the road and surrounding parcels through noise, pollution, visual, and odor mitigation techniques, o Landscaping and grading to minimize the visual impacts of the facility have been included in the recycling facility PDP, a Hazardous Materials Impact Analysis has also been provided. • What materials will be recycled at the site and if any are of a toxic nature, o The free-drop off area will accept cardboard, paper, newspapers glass, commingled containers, and clothing. The fee-drop off area will accept concrete/asphalt/aggregate, lumber materials, metal, yard waste, e-waste, batteries, paints, oil and antifreeze. A special materials area is also proposed, which will provide free landscape mulch to the public, and a glass collection (for shipment to glass bottle-making plants) area. A Hazardous Materials Impact Analysis has been submitted for the project and reviewed by the Poudre Fire Authority. • How traffic on Timberline will be affected, o The traffic study for the PDP indicates the highest traffic impacts from the project will occur outside of peak hours. The proposed recycling facilities 150 Timberline and Prospect ODP - #120004 Planning & Zoning Hearing August 8, 2013 Page 6 will add approximately 900 vehicle trips per day; Timberline Road, in this area, sees almost 28,000 trips per day. Note that the majority of these comments are applicable at the time of the PDP. 5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: In reviewing the request for the Timberline and Prospect ODP, staff makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: 1. The proposed ODP is consistent with the permitted land uses within the Industrial and Employment Zone Districts. 2. The proposed ODP conforms to the Master Street Plan and street pattern and connectivity standards as required in Section 3.6.1 and 3.6.3 (A) through (F) and conforms to the Transportation Level of Service Requirements in Section 3.6.4. 3. The ODP identifies all natural areas, habitats and features. 4. The ODP conforms to the Spring Creek Master Drainage Basin Plan. 5. The ODP conforms to the contiguity requirements of the Compact Urban Growth Standards of Section 3.7.2. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Timberline and Prospect Overall Development Plan – ODP# 130001. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Overall Development Plan (ODP) 2. ODP Conceptual Drainage Plan 3. ODP Traffic Study Letter (please also see the Traffic Study with the Integrated Recycling Facility PDP) 4. Notes from June 3, 2013 Neighborhood Meeting 151 ATTACHMENT 1 152 ATTACHMENT 1 153 ATTACHMENT 2 154 ATTACHMENT 3 155 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROJECT: City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility DATE: June 3, 2013 APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins (Environmental Services Department) CITY PLANNER: Lindsay Ex The meeting began with Lindsay Ex providing a brief explanation of the City development review process as well as an overview of the neighborhood meeting agenda. Susie Gordon, Senior Environmental Planner from the City of Fort Collins and Daman Holland with Ripley Design presented background information and history of the project as well as information on future operations and the concept site plan: The City has a goal of diverting half of its waste from landfills. The City began the Rivendell Recycling Drop-off Facility in 2002 for common recyclables such as cardboard, paper, glass bottles, etc. but realized there is a need for a one-stop facility that could also intake harder-to- recycle materials. The proposed Integrated Recycling Facility was modeled after several recycling organizations in other communities, including the Center for Hard-to-Recycle Materials (CHaRM) in Boulder. We believe there is a need and appetite for a similar facility in Fort Collins. The new Integrated Recycling Facility would begin by accepting harder to recycle materials like heavy duty plastics, wood debris, aggregates, scrap metal, etc. with the goal of adding additional recyclable materials as the facility is established. The current Rivendell site is unmanned and the new facility would have 1-3 staff members present who would operate the gate-house, forklifts, etc. A vendor would be responsible for haul-away of the materials to appropriate businesses and processing/recycling facilities. Recyclables would be unloaded into 1-3 yard tipper bins and then dumped into larger 40-yard open top boxes that will be emptied as soon as they are full. There would be a free drop-off area similar to the Rivendell site, but also a gated section with a small fee to unload the hard-to-recycle materials. The free site is sloped and will utilize the slope to allow easier drop-off by situating access on the high side and setting the container storage on the low. We have walked the site with the City Forester and will be moving the large evergreen trees on the site closer to Timberline Road to create a cluster/grouping of trees for screening. The large existing deciduous trees will be located to the lawn area fronting the PRPA substation along Timberline. 1 ATTACHMENT 4 156 QUESTIONS, COMMENTS AND RESPONSES: Question: (Citizen) Will there be any fencing? Answer: (Applicants, referring to the City of Fort Collins Environmental Services Department or their consultants) There will be a fence around the hard-to-recycle area for security purposes; the rest will not be fenced. Question: (Citizen) Will there be any structures? Answer: (Applicants) No structures. Question: (Citizen) Will you be closing the Rivendell site? Answer: (Applicants) Yes, we will also be placing signs and advertising the move so everyone is informed. We will need to train people about the new facility/location. Question: (Citizen) With the grade on site, has there been any discussion on lowering the drive aisles so you have an extra buffer for noise, pollution, etc? Answer: (Applicants) The free to drop area is below grade. About 5 to 6 feet difference between the bins and the unloading area. Site is 4 feet below the Timberline Star property. Answer: (City) It is important to point out this is also an area designated the Industrial Zone District and this is a low intensity use for this zoning designation. From a land use code perspective, placing industrial uses adjacent to existing industrial land uses is compatible. Question: (Citizen) On a windy day, what will prevent litter from drifting off site? Answer: (Applicants) This will not be the same type of operation as the landfill, who closes operations when winds are over 40mph. What you may see drifting form the landfill comes from waste that is not yet covered with dirt at the end of the day. We will shut down the facility if weather becomes an issue. Answer: (Applicants) The types of recyclables, such as yard waste or wood debris won’t be flying out of the bins and it is too heavy. The cardboard would likely go into a compactor, similar to the Rivendell Facility. It is not in our interest to be losing material off-site. Answer: (Applicants) The bins for paper will have tops and you will be unloading into them through doors. Question: (Citizen) What will the seepage consist of in the detention center? E.g. paint spills. Answer: (Applicants) Handling of any hazardous materials will be per State of Colorado statues/codes. They will be placed in appropriate containers to handle these materials. Answer: (Applicants) Will be modeling after programs and best-practices used elsewhere. Used oil as an example will be placed in a container so it doesn’t leak. The runoff and detention we spoke of earlier will be for rain/stormwater. Answer: (Applicants) We will not be accepting pesticides, herbicides or toxic materials. We will only be accepting lower toxicity materials, such as electronics (inert), batteries, latex paints (not oil-based), used motor oil, antifreeze. Question: (Citizen) What will the yard waste look like? Answer: (Applicants) Hard to say at this point. We’re looking into putting it into a 40-yard roll-off container which will be removed as soon as it is full. This may then end up with local companies who may use it for compost – the company or vendor running the site will be in charge of marketing the 2 ATTACHMENT 4 157 materials. There is also the potential the waste may be placed in a 3-walled “bunker.” One bunker may be for glass so the large volume can be efficiently moved to the glass bottling plant in Wheat Ridge – we’re working with local breweries on this. Question: (Citizen) What are aggregates? Answer: (Applicants) Rubble, cement, asphalt, etc. The aggregates will go to City’s crushing facility on Hoffman Mill Road. Question: (Citizen) Are you going to be taking business away from Hageman’s? Answer: (Applicants) We are going to be in a similar business and they view it as competition. Question: (Citizen) Can people bring Christmas trees? Answer: (Applicants) That is not known at this time. The Christmas tree program is a long established program in Fort Collins with 4 locations. There is the potential but don’t want to promise at this point. Question: (Citizen) When you mentioned the $3.75 per yard – you’re talking about the vehicles coming in? Answer: (Applicants) Yes. Question: (Citizen) What will be the effect on Timberline? (Access) Answer: (Applicants)The facility is designed so you can exit to the right (southbound Timberline) and you can left-in and right-in from Timberline, but you cannot left-out and head north on Timberline. The access options are still under design. Question: (Citizen) Is there a left turn lane now? Will lanes be added? Answer: (Applicants) As Timberline is improved you can see where Timberline will be. I understand there will be a center turn lane. Portions of Timberline will have a median as you see further south, but here I believe there will be a center turn lane. In terms of trips, the morning peak is 30 trips per hour (1 car = 2 trips) or about 15 cars per hour, and similar in the evening. Currently on Timberline you have 28,000+ trips going on a day. On the weekends the trips double. A consultant did a traffic analysis. Those peak times people worry about (e.g. 7:30 a.m.) there are 3,000 cars going past and 16 or so will be going to the recycling facility. Question: (Citizen) Will vehicles coming in be required to be covered? Answer: (Applicants) Haven’t talked about this yet but it will be considered. I believe the Landfill requires covered loads or they charge you extra. Question: (Citizen) Will there be acceleration and deceleration lanes? There are going to be large, slow trucks with trailers. Answer: (Applicants) Do not believe there will be either. Question: (Citizen) Is there someone on staff who made this determination (traffic study)? Answer: (Applicants) There was a traffic consultant. Development applications are required to do a traffic study. Bill Fox out of Boulder did the study. Traffic studies are reviewed by our traffic operations department and look at the level of service and any changes from added trips. Comment: (Citizen) I think we need to get to a point where high-paid consultants don’t have to do what we have trained staff that is being paid for can do. We need to wean ourselves from high-paid, outside consultants. 3 ATTACHMENT 4 158 Question: (Citizen) When is the roadwork on Timberline going to occur? Answer: (Applicants) I believe it will occur in 2015 now; may have originally been scheduled for 2014. Question: (Citizen) Will that be BOB (Building on Basics) money? Answer: (City) Yes, some of the last of the BOB money. Comment: (Citizen) Any decision made to delay any longer really affects me; I can’t get anyone to tell me when it’s coming. **Italicized text below is information added after the neighborhood meeting** The project, identified as “Timberline Road – Drake Road to Prospect Road” from the 2005 ballot language is funded through the Building on Basics (BOB) quarter cent sales tax. Right-of-way acquisition is planned for July-December 2013 with construction starting in 2014/2015 (right-of-way dependent). Tim Kemp, Capital Projects Engineer is the contact for the project at 970-416-2719 or tkemp@fcgov.com. For more information please visit the project webpage at http://www.fcgov.com/engineering/prospect-timberline.php. Question: (Citizen) So the trucks (unloading the bins) won’t be exiting off Timberline? Answer: (Applicants) It’s an option we’re still talking about with the southern neighbor. If the trucks can exit via the property to the south then the trucks have access to a full movement intersection at Nancy Grey. Comment: (City) The roll-off units we tried to tuck behind some of the existing buildings seen on the southern property. I notice when I drive-by you can’t really tell what’s going on due to the rise of the land. Comment: (Citizen) I’m concerned about the yard waste and it blowing, seeding and the way it smells as it is decomposing on a west-wind day. Response: (Applicants) The Boulder site has a much different set-up. We will be using a company that manages composting. The yard waste will not stand in those bins any longer than it takes the bin to fill. It will not be decomposing or seeding. We expect we’ll be receiving plenty of yard waste so the bins will full quickly and be moved off site quickly as well. Question: (Citizen) What kind of metal scrap? A broken down grill – can someone bring that over? Answer: (Applicants) Metal has a very strong market and is another area where we may be in competition with some of the scrap metal processors. If you know you can sell your scrap metal and get paid for it you will go there and not pay the City to drop it off, but we will be accepting it to create the one-stop drop-off spot as a convenience factor. Question: (Citizen) Where do plastic bags come into this? Answer: (Applicants) Can’t say exactly what will happen at this point. We are talking with some of the industry groups, but there are some vested interests in seeing us use plastic bags. You may remember the recent talk of banning or charging a fee on it plastic bags, both locally and in communities over the country. Two months ago Council decided not to apply a fee on bags, but the issue may come back up on the Council’s agenda in the future. It’s a very sensitive issue. In a perfect world there will be fewer 4 ATTACHMENT 4 159 bags to recycle. There are collection barrels at many supermarkets currently, although they may not be very well marked. Question: (Citizen) Isn’t there a place on Riverside (to recycle plastic bags)? Answer: (Applicants) A lot of people collect and bring their recyclables to the Rivendell site in a plastic bag, but if it gets into the container it becomes a contaminant. Had a collection at Rivendell and was overwhelmed by the usage. Not sure what the answer is to it, but talking with the plastic manufacturers about pilot programs. Comment: (Citizen)I’ve noticed the plastic bags are loose and on a windy day they can go flying. Response: (Applicants) It is a dilemma, but the contents of our bins are much better now. Question: (Citizen) Will that be brought to this facility? Answer: (Applicants) This is up for discussion. If we do it, we’ll need to find a better way to do it. Comment: (Citizen) My concern is with the neighborhood right across the street. Want to make sure you had trees and conscious of how it looks for neighbors – I like your plan. I didn’t want to have some big stinky area where people are dumping stuff. Comment: (Citizen) I want to echo the comment. My concerns are having dinner at the restaurant right across the street. Hope there is some consideration to those living around the new facility. Question: (Citizen) Have you worked with Bucking Horse or that developer? Answer: (Applicants) I have talked with the developer and they are aware of it. There will be an interesting balance. It is industrial-zoned and we have to have good places to do it. This is almost transitional. A lot of people will come here and get introduced to recycling. It’s a valuable experience to see this. Recycling creates a lot more jobs than putting that into a landfill. The children at Rivendell really connect with that facility. Comment: (Citizen) I’d rather have this than maybe another industrial use. Comment: (Applicants) Hopefully this is helping your neighborhoods too and is a convenient location to bring yard wastes to. Question: (Citizen) Is all the gray (on the site plan) concrete or are you using asphalt? Answer: (Applicants) Concrete under the heavy equipment and unloading bins. Largely will be asphalt and where we can, permeable surfaces in some of the other areas. 5 ATTACHMENT 4 160 ITEM NO _____6___________ MEETING DATE ___August 8, 2013__ STAFF _____Ex___________ PLANNING & ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Integrated Recycling Facility – PDP #130020 APPLICANT: Daman Holland Ripley Design, Inc. 401 W Mountain Avenue, #100 Fort Collins, CO 80525 OWNER: City of Fort Collins PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This Project Development Plan (PDP) is a request to develop an Integrated Recycling Facility located on South Timberline Road, approximately ¼ mile south of the intersection with East Prospect Road. The project will be located on approximately 3.7 acres of the 30-acre Timberline and Prospect Overall Development Plan (ODP). The site is zoned Industrial (I). The Integrated Recycling Facility will replace and expand upon the Rivendell recycling facility by providing two drop-off areas: one for free and one for a fee. The free-drop off area will accept cardboard, paper, newspapers glass, commingled containers, and clothing. The fee-drop off area will accept concrete/asphalt/aggregate, lumber materials, metal, yard waste, e-waste, batteries, paints, oil and antifreeze. A special materials area is also proposed, which will provide free landscape mulch to the public, and a glass collection (for shipment to glass bottle-making plants) area. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Integrated Recycling Facility Project Development Plan, PDP #120033, with one condition. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This Project Development Plan is approximately 3.7 acres in size and is zoned Industrial (I). The proposed project is to develop recycling facilities on the south portion of City-owned land within the Timberline and Prospect Overall Development Plan (ODP) Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750 161 Integrated Recycling Facility Project Development Plan (PDP) - #130020 Planning & Zoning Hearing August 8, 2013 Page 2 for the purpose of providing an Integrated Recycling Facility serving both the general population and those involved in deconstruction. This project is designed to further the City’s waste diversion goal of diverting 50% of the community’s waste stream from the landfill. Access to the site will be from South Timberline Road. A ¾ movement is planned for the site (with no left-turns from the site onto South Timberline Road). These improvements will be completed with the South Timberline Road capital improvements, currently under design, and actual intersection geometry and turning movements will be evaluated and constructed as a part of the capital project, planned for 2014-2015. This project will be required to provide funds in-lieu of the construction of the road and the associated improvements, including street trees. Staff finds that the approval of the Integrated Recycling Facility Project Development Plan complies with the applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically: • The P.D.P. complies with the process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration. • The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 – General Development Standards. • The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.28, Industrial (I) of Article 4 – Districts. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: I; City of Fort Collins, leased to Platte River Power Authority for the Timberline Substation E: I; Buckinghorse Filing No. 1 S: I; Timberline Star Properties, including car repair and machinists W: I; City of Fort Collins, Parks and Forestry Departments outdoor storage M-M-N; Union Pacific Railroad, Edora Park, and Parkwood East Estates The site was annexed into the city as part of the 389.9 acre East Prospect Street Annexation in 1973, along with numerous other properties, and was zoned Limited Industrial. The site has been used as outdoor storage for the Forestry and Parks Department. 162 Integrated Recycling Facility Project Development Plan (PDP) - #130020 Planning & Zoning Hearing August 8, 2013 Page 3 2. Consistency with City Plan: The proposed project is consistent with the Industrial policies outlined in City Plan by providing recycling services within the broader mix of uses in the area and by adequately buffering the proposed use from surrounding residential land uses. The project also furthers the City’s waste diversion goal of diverting 50% of the community’s waste stream from the landfill (Policy ENV 14.1). 3. Compliance with Overall Development Plan: The proposed PDP is consistent with the Timberline and Prospect Overall Development Plan (ODP) in terms of land use, access, circulation and connectivity, and the drainage basin master plan. 4. Compliance with Applicable Industrial (I) Land Use and Development Standards: The Integrated Recycling Facility PDP is in compliance with the applicable land use and development standards of the Industrial (I) district, including the following: A. Section 4.28(B)(2) – Permitted Uses The proposed PDP is for an Integrated Recycling Facility. Recycling facilities are permitted in the I district subject to administrative review. This PDP will be considered for approval concurrently with the Overall Development Plan by the Planning and Zoning Board. B. Section 4.2(D) – Land Use Standards No buildings are proposed with the Integrated Recycling Facility. One small structure (less than 120 sq. ft.) will be provided to house the vendor at the fee drop-off area. C. Section 4.2(E) – Development Standards 1) The recycling facilities do not abut surrounding residential uses. The facility is buffered on the western portion of the site by the Parks and Forestry Department’s outdoor storage and the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way. On the east, the project is separated from residential uses by South Timberline Road. 163 Integrated Recycling Facility Project Development Plan (PDP) - #130020 Planning & Zoning Hearing August 8, 2013 Page 4 2) The Land Use Code requires that a minimum 30-foot deep buffer yard be provided between industrial land uses and arterial streets. The project has provided for an almost 250’ separation between the access road into the facility and the Timberline right-of-way. 3) The Land Use Code also requires a minimum 80-foot deep landscaped buffer yard between residential land uses and industrial land uses. In addition to the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way separating the site from adjacent residential land uses, the project is also providing an 80- foot deep landscape yard on its west boundary. 5. Compliance with Applicable General Development Standards: The project complies with all applicable General Development Standards, with the following relevant comments provided: A. Division 3.2 – Site Planning and Design Standards 1) 3.2.1 Landscaping and Tree Protection: • Street trees will be provided by the project via the Timberline Corridor – Prospect to Drake Capital Improvement Project (funded through Building on Basics and slated to begin construction in 2014). Street trees will be selected by the City Forester. A shrub and tree landscape screen is proposed between the facility and South Timberline Road. Landscaping is also provided within the facility to screen drop-off areas from surrounding uses and to increase the aesthetics within the facility. • The proposal complies with Section 3.2.1(D)(3) in that no one species of the proposed 26 trees on the development plan exceeds 33% of the total trees on-site, or 8 trees. The most of any one species, including the bigtooth maple (Acer grandidentatum) and the transplanted pinyon pines (Pinus edulis), is 6 trees. • Section 3.2.1(E) is complied with in that the parking lot interior landscaping (required for areas with 6 spaces or more) for the larger parking area is met by the islands at the entrance and exits from the free drop-off area. The planting includes a mix of oak (Quercus spp.) and juniper (Juniperus spp.) shrubs that will reach up to 20’ in height. 164 Integrated Recycling Facility Project Development Plan (PDP) - #130020 Planning & Zoning Hearing August 8, 2013 Page 5 • Section 3.2.1(E)(3) is complied with by the overall water budget of 1.0 gallons per square feet, which is dramatically less than the 15 gallons per square feet allowed. • The parking area has been adequately screened from the industrial land use to the south by lowering the drop-off area between 4 to 6’ in grade and by providing landscaping along this slope. • The City Forester has inventoried the existing trees and a tree mitigation plan has been provided by the applicant in accordance with Section 3.2.1(F) of the Land Use Code. All of the existing trees on the site were evaluated by the City Forester. Of the 23 existing trees on the site, 8 are proposed to be removed, 14 are proposed to be transplanted, and 1 large Ponderosa Pine is still be assessed for whether it can be successfully transplanted or if it needs to be mitigated. The mitigation numbers include the Ponderosa Pine, in case it is determined that it will be removed. Transplanting the existing trees, which have a diameter greater than the minimum required by the Land Use Code, meets this plan’s mitigation requirements. 2) 3.2.2 Access, Circulation and Parking: • The site’s access will be from an alignment off South Timberline Road. 14 spaces have been provided for the free drop-off area, and 7 stalls are provided in the fee drop-off area. All access is one-way through the site. One, van-accessible stall has been provided on the west side of the free drop-off parking area in compliance with Section 3.2.2(K)(5). • The Industrial Zone District requires four bicycle parking spaces for employee parking, which has been provided for on the site plan. • By grading the site so that vehicles are able to pull directly into the drop-off areas, pedestrian conflicts have been minimized. Parking lots are required to be setback from arterial streets by 15 feet. The parking area is over 250’ from South Timberline Road, and thus, exceeds the required setback (Section 3.2.2(J) of the Land Use Code). 3) 3.2.4 Site Lighting • Cut-off style, downlighting fixtures are proposed for the facility. There are no illumination levels that exceed 10 foot-candles on-site, or one- tenth (0.1) foot-candle as measured 20 feet beyond the property line, so the PDP complies with the lighting standard. 165 Integrated Recycling Facility Project Development Plan (PDP) - #130020 Planning & Zoning Hearing August 8, 2013 Page 6 B. Division 3.4 – Environmental, Natural Area, Recreational and Cultural Resource Protection Standards While the Overall Development Plan contains Spring Creek, and the Spring Creek Trail, the PDP does not contain any natural habitats or features. 1) 3.4.3 Water Quality: The site currently drains from south to the north between the substation and Timberline over the turf and landscaping. The Integrated Recycling Facility is proposing to construct a detention pond to treat the water, and after treatment, the drainage will continue to flow north between the road and the substation. A 40’ drainage easement is proposed to capture this drainage, see Attachment 3. A stormwater outfall for the project, and the outfall’s alignment, is still under design; a completion of this design is recommended as a condition of approval for the project. 2) 3.4.5 Hazardous Materials: A Hazardous Materials Impact Analysis has been provided in compliance with Section 3.4.5 of the Land Use Code, se Attachment 5. Poudre Fire Authority has reviewed the analysis against the International Fire Code and has noted that the quantities and plan for containment outlined in the analysis statement comply with the requirements of the IFC. However, to ensure that the plans outlined within the analysis remain consistent from this stage to project implementation and ongoing operations, PFA supports the recommendation that they be involved in the development and review of the RFP for the site. Notice of the requirement of the analysis has been included in the notice for this hearing, in accordance with Section 3.4.5(C) of the Land Use Code. C. Division 3.5 – Building Standards No buildings requiring a building permit are proposed with the site. There is one enclosed space planned for the vendor, but the space could take the form of a mobile unit or a unit without a foundation. As both of these potential configurations are not classified as a building, Division 3.5 of the Land Use Code does not apply. 166 Integrated Recycling Facility Project Development Plan (PDP) - #130020 Planning & Zoning Hearing August 8, 2013 Page 7 D. Division 3.6 – Transportation and Circulation 1) 3.6.3 Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards: No streets are proposed with this development, but access to the site will be from South Timberline Road. A ¾ movement is planned for the site (with no left-turns from the site onto South Timberline Road). These improvements will be constructed with the South Timberline Road capital improvements and actual intersection geometry and turning movements will be evaluated and constructed as a part of the capital project, planned for 2014-2015. This project will be required to provide funds in-lieu of the construction of the road and the associated improvements, including street trees. 2) 3.6.4 Transportation Level of Service Requirements: • The Traffic Operations and Engineering Departments have reviewed the submitted Transportation Impact Study (Attachment 4) and have determined that the vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle facilities proposed with this ODP are consistent with the standards contained in Part II of the City of Fort Collins Multi-modal Transportation Level of Service Manual. Timberline Road, in the vicinity of this ODP, currently carries approximately 28,000 vehicles per day. • Based on the existing, similar facility currently located at Rivendell Elementary School, the proposed recycling facility could generate an estimated 900 vehicle trips per day. Midday Saturday is expected to generate the highest number of trips at 130 per hour, with a peak of 120 trips per hour possible during a typical weekday afternoon. The peak traffic for the facility is expected to occur outside of the peak period for traffic on Timberline Road. 6. Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood meeting was held on June 3, 2013 for the Integrated Recycling Facility and the larger parcel (see attached meeting notes). Five residents attended and commented on the proposed recycling facility, specifically the following elements: • How the development of this site will affect the Rivendell site, o Rivendell will be closed once this site is opened. • How the project can be buffered from the road and surrounding parcels through noise, pollution, visual, and odor mitigation techniques, 167 Integrated Recycling Facility Project Development Plan (PDP) - #130020 Planning & Zoning Hearing August 8, 2013 Page 8 o Landscaping and grading to minimize the visual impacts of the facility have been included in the recycling facility PDP, a Hazardous Materials Impact Analysis has also been provided. • What materials will be recycled at the site and if any are of a toxic nature, o The free-drop off area will accept cardboard, paper, newspapers glass, commingled containers, and clothing. The fee-drop off area will accept concrete/asphalt/aggregate, lumber materials, metal, yard waste, e-waste, batteries, paints, oil and antifreeze. A special materials area is also proposed, which will provide free landscape mulch to the public, and a glass collection (for shipment to glass bottle-making plants) area. A Hazardous Materials Impact Analysis has been submitted for the project and reviewed by the Poudre Fire Authority. • How traffic on Timberline will be affected, o The traffic study for the PDP indicates the highest traffic impacts from the project will occur outside of peak hours. The proposed recycling facilities will add approximately 900 vehicle trips per day; Timberline Road, in this area, sees almost 28,000 trips per day. 7. Findings of Fact and Conclusion: In evaluating the request for the Integrated Recycling Facility Project Development Plan, staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The P.D.P. complies with process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration. B. The P.D.P. is in conformance with the Timberline and Prospect Overall Development Plan. C. The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 – General Development Standards. D. The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.28, Industrial (I) of Article 4 – Districts. E. Staff recommends a condition of approval regarding the proper completion of a stormwater outfall for the project and alignment for the outfall, in accordance with Section 3.4.3 of the Land Use Code. 168 Integrated Recycling Facility Project Development Plan (PDP) - #130020 Planning & Zoning Hearing August 8, 2013 Page 9 RECOMMENDATION Approval of Integrated Recycling Facility Project Development Plan, PDP #120033, subject to the following condition: 1) The proper completion of a stormwater outfall and alignment for the Integrated Recycling Facility outfall must be submitted to the City Stormwater Utility with final utility plan documents, in accordance with Section 3.4.3 of the Land Use Code. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Statement of Planning Objectives 2. Combined Site, Landscape, and Lighting Plans 3. Utility Plans 4. Traffic Impact Study 5. Hazardous Materials Impact Analysis 6. Prospect and Timberline Overall Development Plan 7. Notes from June 3, 2013 Neighborhood Meeting 169 land planning  landscape architecture  urban design  entitlement Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 200  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.vfrdesigninc.com June 12, 2013 Ms. Lindsay Ex Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Fort Collins Integrated Recycle Center Planning Objectives Project Vision: The City of Fort Collins Environmental Services Department is planning to relocated their current recycle center at 1702 Riverside to a new location located on the west side of Timberline Road, approximately ¼ mile south of the intersection of East Prospect Road and South Timberline Road, and just south of the PRPA substation. This new location is planned to take the current Riverside recycle program and expand services to bolster the City’s Road Zero Waste goals. The City has a goal of diverting half of its waste from landfills. The City began the Rivendell Recycling Drop-off Facility in 2002 for common recyclables such as cardboard, paper, glass bottles, etc. but realized there is a need for a one-stop facility that could also intake harder-to-recycle materials. The new facility will be known as the “Fort Collins Integrated Recycle Facility”, and will operate on a 3.7 acre site located within a 30 acre (city-owned) parcel. The site is owned and maintained by the city of Fort Collins. The Fort Collins Parks Department and Light & Power Utilities Department have controlling ownership of the parcel area where the new facility will locate, and have arranged a lease agreement with Environmental Services for their facility. The facility recycle operations will be contracted to a private vendor. 1 to 3 contracted employees are expected to manage the recycling operations of the site, including operation of the fee-drop gate-house, forklifts, haul away, cleanup, etc. A vendor will also be responsible for haul-away of the materials to appropriate businesses and processing/recycling facilities. The expanded facility program includes a free-drop area, fee-drop area and special materials area. The free-drop area will accept cardboard, paper, commingled containers, news paper and clothing. The added fee-drop area will accept construction materials, metal, yard waste, e-waste, batteries, paints, oil and antifreeze. A Hazardous Materials Impact Analysis will guide the safe storage, handling of these items, and plan for emergency spill containment. The special material areas will also provide free landscape mulch for take home use; high grade trees logs for woodworkers and firewood; and special containment area for glass from community breweries and restaurants. There are no permanent structures anticipated with the exception of a maximum 120 square foot shed or trailer, where fee collection entrance management to the fee-drop area will occur. Employee restroom facilities will be provided by port-a-let service and part of the vendor contract. In 2015 there will be future lane widening project anticipated for Timberline Road and the site design takes in account the extent of this build out. No acceleration/deceleration lanes area anticipated at the site entrance do to the level of service the site will demand. The entrance to the site will be a shared ATTACHMENT 1 170 City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Center Planning Objectives June 30, 2013 Page 2 of 2 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 200  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.vfrdesigninc.com access with the PRPA substation at the current substation access location. This access will provide ¾ movement, with the left-out turning movement prohibited. A second drive connection at the southwest corner of the fee-drop area is also being negotiated with the south property owner to allow recycle transport cart-off trucks opportunities to take loads south to Joseph Allen Drive and the full movement light at Nancy Gray Avenue and Timberline. The internal site circulation has been designed to accommodate semi-truck and emergency vehicle turning movements. An emergency access easement is included from the Timberline entrance, across the center of the site and through the fee-drop yard (with gate actuation in between) for emergency vehicle access. The main drive will be 28 feet wide with 4’ striped shoulders for pedestrians and bikes. The site design is divided in sections to allow the slope of the site to work with the planned operations. By grading into the site and utilizing excess soil from the grading for berms, the views of parking, drives and storage/handling operations are buffered to Timberline. Additional site lowering will generate more fill than can be handled by current berm locations. Some allowance for undisturbed areas are needed along the Timberline frontage to allow for the relocation of existing trees. Site detention is located at the lower (northern) edge of the site with bio-swale and rain gardens making connections from above hardscape areas. The free-drop area recycle containers are worked into a grade separation to allow accessible access to container openings. Swales and landscape buffers screen views of containers and provide bio-retention/rain garden opportunities. The landscape site design utilizes native plant material throughout, which keeps water resource demand very low; and with the spade relocation/re-use of existing large trees, the site will maintain some amount of mature habitat within the surrounding open space. Fencing will be utilized to control access to the free-drop container storage and fee-drop public approach. The Parks Department fence will be re-aligned to accommodate the new site design, but remain fully fenced to secure their storage facility. The north side property fence will be preserved as-is. The site entrance will be gated to limit off hour access, but will employ PRPA controlled access override for emergency entrance. The site recycling operation practices coupled with the container storage equipment will focus on limiting open storage exposure of materials to reduce subsequent debris blowing from the site. Free-drop area containers will have lids and restricted openings that limit debris blowing from the site. Similarly, the fee- drop area will be tended by vender(s) that will ensure material is managed from client to roll-off container, and from roll-off container to regional facility. Covered loads will be required (fines and/or added service charges for uncovered loads similar to County landfill operations) for client and vendor vehicles will be enforced to further reduce debris impacts on surrounding areas. There will not be composing at this facility. Yard waste that is dropped at the fee-drop area will be moved from client to roll-off container. Filled roll-off containers will be taken to regional facilities to be ground to compost. Likewise, metals and aggregates will be moved to roll-off container and taken from the site for processing. Sincerely, Daman Holland, RLA, ASLA RIPLEY DESIGN INC. ATTACHMENT 1 171 land planning  landscape architecture  urban design  entitlement Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com June 12, 2013 Integrated Recycling Facility Project Development Plan (PDP) is supported by the following Principles and Policies found in City Plan Fort Collins Adopted February 15, 2011 ECONOMIC HEALTH Principle EH 1: The City will pursue development of a vibrant and resilient economy that reflects the values of our unique community in a changing world. Although managed by the city, the Fort Collins Integrated Recycle Facility operations will be performed by private contractor. The Center will facilitate moving recyclable materials into the recycle market where they will generate revenue by sale and reuse. The Fort Collins Integrated Recycle Facility will help the community divert unneeded waste from the landfill, while promoting a more sustainable opportunities dealing with domestic materials. Policy EH 1.1 – Support Job Creation Support the enhancement of the community’s economic base and job creation by focusing on retention, expansion, incubation, and recruitment efforts that bring jobs and import income or dollars to the community, particularly businesses in the adopted Target Industry Clusters. Policy EH 1.2 – Prioritize Essential Infrastructure/Capital Facilities Prioritize investment in infrastructure that supports economic health activities within the constraints of City financial resources and that satisfies the triple bottom line objectives of the community. Principle EH 2: The City will support the growth of the innovation economy to set the stage for business development, job creation, and a thriving entrepreneurial environment. The Fort Collins Integrated Recycle Facility PDP aids to support citizen participation in the recycle industry (with the assumption that the recycling industry is an innovative economy). ATTACHMENT 1 172 Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 2 of 6 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com Policy EH 2.2 – Support an Innovative Economy Support a regional innovation ecosystem that fuels business development and job creation by leveraging local assets including human capital, research institutions, industrial base, physical infrastructure, and quality of life. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Principle ENV 1: Within the developed landscape of Fort Collins, natural habitat/ecosystems (wildlife, wetlands, and riparian areas) will be protected and enhanced. The natural features of the site will be enhanced with native grasses, trees and shrubs. All non- hazardous existing trees will be protected and/or spade-relocated -maintaining their size advantage for screening and wildlife habitat. Policy ENV 1.1 – Protect and Enhance Natural Features Use regulatory powers to conserve, protect, and enhance the resources and values of high value biological resources such as wetlands, riparian areas, and wildlife habitat by directing development away from sensitive natural areas. When it is not possible to direct development away from sensitive natural resources the development will be integrated into these areas to minimize impacts and mitigate any losses. Principle ENV 4: The City will pursue new opportunities to provide multifunctional open lands. Portions of the project’s stormwater detention and open space area will be utilized by the City Parks Department to provide a disk golf course for public use. Policy ENV 4.1 – Improve Connectivity Explore opportunities for land conservation partnerships between Stormwater, Parks and Recreation, Transportation, and Natural Areas departments to provide and enhance trail corridors to connect open lands, to enhance wildlife habitat and corridors, and to improve bicycle and pedestrian access to schools, parks, natural areas, rivers, shopping areas, and neighborhoods. Principle ENV 8: Continually improve Fort Collins’ air quality. Policy ENV 8.6 – Prevent Pollution Promote prevention of air pollution at its source as the highest priority approach in reducing air pollution emissions. The Fort Collins Integrated Recycle Facility will be a closer, more convenient location than the Larimer County landfill for a large segment of the City, reducing transportation resources and resulting emissions. Recycled materials will be placed directly into collection bins, limiting exposure to the environmental factors. No, composting facilities are planned and materials such as pesticides are not accepted. ATTACHMENT 1 173 Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 3 of 6 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com Principle ENV 15: The City will recognize that discarded materials, such as recyclable commodities, reusable products, and organics, can be economic resources for the community. The Fort Collins Integrated Recycle Facility will provide drop-off and pickup opportunities for quality wood (woodworking), landscape mulch and house hold yard waste. These provide local re-use opportunities and divert potential material from local the landfill. Principle ENV 16: The City will collaborate with other organizations to develop infrastructure that will accommodate larger quantities of discarded materials, such as recyclable commodities, organics, and hazardous waste, for appropriate processing and that will reduce shipping distances. The Fort Collins Integrated Recycle Facility PDP will provide free drop-off services for paper, plastics, containers, newspaper, cardboard and clothing; and pay drop-off services for difficult to dispose of items such as bulk metal, aggregates, electronics, house-hold paints and chemicals (excluding pesticides). Materials are aggregated categorically and distributed to surrounding handling facilities. Principle ENV 17: The City will act as a steward of the environment and public health by using its regulatory authority. The Fort Collins Integrated Recycle Facility is a fundamental part of the City’s 2006 Strategic Plan for 50% Waste Reduction, 2009 Sustainability Action Plan, Climate Action Plan and Fort Collins City Plan. The facility is part of a deliberate effort to aid the community to divert unneeded waste from the landfill, while promoting a more sustainable opportunities dealing with domestic materials. In addition to accepting and diverting more common consumer products, the Facility will accept construction waste (e.g. aggregates, wood, and drywall). This will aid reducing construction waste as the community changes and grows. Policy ENV 17.4 – Construction Waste Reduction Encourage activities that help divert debris from construction-related activities. Explore the feasibility of requiring any City-subsidized projects to employ reduction and solid waste diversion practices that reduce the volume of material sent from city construction sites to landfills for disposal. COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY Principle LIV 1: City development will be contained by well-defined boundaries that will be managed using various tools including utilization of a Growth Management Area, community coordination, and Intergovernmental Agreements. Principle LIV 3: The City will coordinate facilities and services with the timing and location of development and ensure that development only occurs where it can be adequately served. ATTACHMENT 1 174 Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 4 of 6 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com The Fort Collins Integrated Recycle Facility PDP is located within the City’s Growth Management Area where it can be adequately served by streets, utilities and urban services. Principle LIV12: Security and crime prevention will be important factors in urban design. The Fort Collins Integrated Recycle Facility PDP will provide a full, code reviewed lighting design. Special lighting attention is given to the drop-off bin areas, making sure hidden areas receive adequate illumination. Additionally, lighting will be full cut-off to avoid nuisance lighting to the night sky and surrounding neighborhoods. The landscape buffering between the site and Timberline Road utilizes predominately relocated mature trees that allow understory view site lines. Space between trees is provided for plant growth and views. An important part of site security is to provide additional uses that may invite social policing. The site will have a disc golf course on the east and north sides that will provide additional surveillance opportunities. Policy LIV 12.1 – Design for Crime Prevention and Security Employ a natural approach to crime prevention through the design and layout of new development. Natural crime prevention means the natural community surveillance that results from visibility and observation by citizens who feel a sense of ownership of the community. Foster these qualities through urban design and development patterns, avoiding and addressing hidden areas and those difficult to access. Policy LIV 12.2 – Utilize Security Lighting and Landscaping Provide security lighting at low, even levels to create comfortable area-wide visibility and pedestrian security, not highly contrasting bright spots and shadows. Design landscaping to avoid hidden areas, particularly where such areas may be used at night, such as near building approaches and entrances, transit stops and stations. Principle LIV 14: Require quality and ecologically sound landscape design practices for all public and private development projects throughout the community. The landscape design is intended to be compatible and build on the sustainable themes set forth by the recycle facility. This design celebrates a Northern Colorado landscape: utilizing proven native plants in interesting naturalized patterns, mixing changing textures, colors and forms, while requiring minimal water resources. Policy LIV 14.1 – Encourage Unique Landscape Features In addition to protecting existing natural features, encourage integration of unique landscape features into the design and architecture of development and capital projects. These unique features may range from informal and naturalized to highly structured and maintained features. Some examples include tree groves within a project, stormwater facilities that become naturalized over time, walls with vines, drainageway enhancements, and other small, uniquely landscaped spaces. Policy LIV 14.2 – Promote Functional Landscape Incorporate practical solutions to ensure a landscape design is functional in providing such elements as natural setting, visual appeal, shade, foundation edge to buildings, screening, edible landscapes, buffers, safety, and enhancement of built environment. Consider and address practical details such as sight distance requirements and long-term maintenance in landscape design. ATTACHMENT 1 175 Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 5 of 6 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com Policy LIV 14.3 – Design Low Maintenance Landscapes Design new landscaping projects based on maintainability over the life cycle of the project using proper soil amendment and ground preparation practices, as well as the appropriate use of hardscape elements, trees, mulches, turf grass, other plant materials, and irrigation systems. Low maintenance practices can be achieved in both turf and non-turf planting areas, provided these areas are designed and installed to minimize weeds, erosion and repairs. Principle LIV 19: The City Structure Plan Map establishes the desired development pattern for the City, serving as a blueprint for the community’s desired future. The Fort Collins Integrated Recycle Facility PDP is located in an industrial zone. Required setbacks are provided from Timberline Road and east MMN neighborhoods to reduce visual impacts. Policy LIV 19.1 – Land Use Designations Utilize the City Structure Plan Map to set forth a basic framework, representing a guide for future land use and transportation decisions. SAFETY AND WELLNESS Principle SW 1: The City will foster a safe community. Close attention to traffic and pedestrian flow has been addressed in the site design. Access to the site will partner with current access to the utility substation to eliminate added roadway cuts to Timberline. An access gate will be provided to provide after hour security for the site. Driveway fronting the access gate will allow exiting traffic from Timberline to avoid blocking conflicts on Timberline when the facility is closed. The facility roadway width and turning radii layout is designed to accommodate the semi-sized trucks that will move recycle commodities to handling facilities, as well as smaller vehicles to the two recycle drop-off areas. The main drive will be 28 feet wide and striped on each side with a 4 foot shoulder/lane to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian traffic. The free drop-off area (news paper, paper, plastic, glass) is kept to a one-way traffic flow layout to reduce pedestrian car conflicts. Past experience with two-way traffic flow in this type of area has been found to add to pedestrian/vehicle congestion and conflicts. The phase 1 parking area will include 13 standard spaces and 1 handicap space on the lot’s north side. Phase 2 will include 15 parking spaces on the south side of the lot with the addition of 6 future recycle bins. The recycle bin area is separated from the parking/public access area by a 4 foot retaining wall. This grade separation provides an accessible route between the parking to the recycle bins. Fencing and lighting are added to provide site safety and security. Security gates at the site entrance and the for pay drop-off area are used to restrict access to the site during closed periods of operation and restrict uncontrolled dumping. Site operations will be managed by on- site contractor. Policy SW 1.5 - Maintain Public Safety through Design Provide a sense of security and safety within buildings,parking areas, walkways, alleys, bike lanes, public spaces, and streets through environmental design considerations, such as adequate lighting, visibility, ATTACHMENT 1 176 Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 6 of 6 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com maintained landscaping, and location of facilities. (Also see the Community and Neighborhood Livability chapter’s Community Appearance and Design section). TRANSPORTATION Principle T 12: The pedestrian network will provide a safe, easy, and convenient mobility option for all ages and abilities. Policy T 12.1 – Connections Direct pedestrian connections will be provided from places of residence to transit, schools, activity centers, work, and public facilities. Policy T 12.2 – Pedestrian Network Develop a complete pedestrian network in ETCs and Activity Centers. Policy T 12.3 – Pedestrian Plan The adopted pedestrian plan will be considered in the development of all transportation projects. Policy T 12.4 – ADA Compliance Pedestrian facilities will comply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. Policy T 12.5 – Safe and Secure Develop safe and secure pedestrian settings by developing and maintaining a well-lit, inhabited pedestrian network and by mitigating the impacts of vehicles. Connections will be clearly visible and accessible, incorporating markings, signage, lighting, and paving materials. Policy T 12.6 – Street Crossings Design street crossings at intersections consistent with Fort Collins Traffic Code, Land Use Code, the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, and the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards with regard to crosswalks, lighting, median refuges, corner sidewalk widening, ramps, signs, signals, and landscaping. Policy T 12.7 – Safety of School Children Safety of children going to/from school will be a priority for the City. Principle T 16: The transportation system will be managed to minimize environmental impacts. Policy T 16.1 – Roadway Design Design the transportation system to minimize stopping, starting, and idling. Principle T 17: The transportation system will be managed to provide effective automobile mobility and access. Principle T 18: The transportation system will be managed to provide safe travel conditions. Principle T 19: The transportation system will be adequate for the movement of goods and people. ATTACHMENT 1 177 E. PROSPECT RD. S. TIMBERLINE RD. EDORA COMMUNITY PARK (POL) SIDEHILL (LMN) UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD EDORA ACRES (MMN) PARKWOOD EAST APARTMENTS PUD (RL) PROSPECT EAST B.P. (E) CITY OF FORT COLLINS (I) RIVENDELL (I) TELLEDYNE AQUA (E) (I) TIMBERLINE CENTER (I) (MMN) (I) (T) (I) LARIMER COUNTY MIDPOINT (E) GREAT WESTERN RAILROAD (E) (I) SITE EDORA POOL/ICE CTR (MMN) PROSPECT ESTATES 3RD (RL) RIVERSIDE AVE. MIDPOINT DR. BLACKBIRD DR. BUCKING HORSE (LMN) SPRING CREEK CTR (E) CENTRE POINT PLAZA (E) 14 DRAWING NUMBER: TIMBERLINE & PROSPECT PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 401 West Mountain Avenue Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 fax 970/224.1662 phone 970/224.1191 www.vfrdesigninc.com Ŷ land planning Ŷ landscape architecture Ŷ Ŷ urban design Ŷ entitlement Ŷ ISSUED No. DESCRIPTION DATE 1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN 6-12-2013 REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE PROJECT No.: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: SEAL: PREPARED BY: IN CONJUNCTION WITH: CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPROVED: CITY ENGINEER DATE CHECKED BY: WATER & WASTEWATER UTILITY DATE CHECKED BY: STORMWATER UTILITY DATE CHECKED BY: PARKS & RECREATION DATE CHECKED BY: TRAFFIC ENGINEER DATE CHECKED BY: ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER DATE &+(&.('%< DATE  . . . PREPARED FOR: City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Ave., Building B (970) 221-6610 1 PDP COMMENT REVIEW 7-16-2013 THIS IS A LAND USE PLANNING DOCUMENT, NOT A CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT. REFER TO CIVIL ENGINEERING PLANS. 0 SCALE: 1"=40'-00" 20' 40' 80' NORTH LEGEND SITE DATA PARCEL # LOT 1 69,819 SF 1.60 AC LOT 2 92,636 SF 2.13 AC TOTAL (LOTS 1 & 2) 162,455 SF 3.73 AC ZONING: INDUSTRIAL ASPHALT AREA (ON-SITE) 65,874 SF ASPHALT AREA (OFF-SITE) 6,151 SF CONCRETE PAD AREA 8,840 SF GRAVEL LOT AREA 12,112 SF TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA 80,865 SF OPEN SPACE AREA (PHASE 1) 81,590 SF PHASE 2 RECYCLE EXPANSION AREA 6,345 SF PHASE 2 PARKING AREA 3,587 SF PARKING PHASE 1 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 17 18 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 21 22 23 8 11 7 6 5 3 17 16 15 10 9 14 13 16 12 14 18 # # # # DRAWING NUMBER: TIMBERLINE & PROSPECT PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 401 West Mountain Avenue Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 fax 970/224.1662 phone 970/224.1191 www.vfrdesigninc.com Ŷ land planning Ŷ landscape architecture Ŷ Ŷ urban design Ŷ entitlement Ŷ ISSUED DRAWING NUMBER: TIMBERLINE & PROSPECT PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 401 West Mountain Avenue Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 fax 970/224.1662 phone 970/224.1191 www.vfrdesigninc.com Ŷ land planning Ŷ landscape architecture Ŷ Ŷ urban design Ŷ entitlement Ŷ ISSUED No. DESCRIPTION DATE 1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN 6-12-2013 REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE PROJECT No.: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: SEAL: PREPARED BY: IN CONJUNCTION WITH: CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPROVED: CITY ENGINEER DATE CHECKED BY: WATER & WASTEWATER UTILITY DATE CHECKED BY: STORMWATER UTILITY DATE CHECKED BY: PARKS & RECREATION DATE CHECKED BY: TRAFFIC ENGINEER DATE CHECKED BY: ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER DATE &+(&.('%< DATE  . . . PREPARED FOR: City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Ave., Building B (970) 221-6610 1 PDP COMMENT REVIEW 7-16-2013 1. TREES NOTED TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE REMOVED BY A CITY OF FORT COLLINS LICENSED ARBORIST. 2. TRANSPLANTED PINES SHALL BE TREATED FOR MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE FOR TWO YEARS AFTER TRANSPLANTING FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FORESTRY DIVISION. 3. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS PARK PLANNING DIVISION SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COSTS OF REMOVING AND REPLACING TREES THAT MAY BE DAMAGED OR DESTROYED BY FRISBEE DISC GOLF PLAY. 4. TREE TRANSPLANTING TO BE BY A QUALIFIED AND EXPERIENCED TREE TRANSPLANTING CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR TO HAVE EXPERIENCE IN TRANSPLANTING THE SPECIES AND SIZES OF TREES LISTED IN THE TABLE. 5. TREE TRANSPLANTING TO OCCUR DURING A TIME OF THE YEAR AS RECOMMENDED BY A QUALIFIED AND EXPERIENCED TREE TRANSPLANTING CONTRACTOR. 6. EXISTING TREES MARKED FOR PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION SHALL NOT BE REMOVED. 7. IF ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AFFECTS ANY EXISTING TREES NOT NOTED ON THIS PLAN, CONTACT THE CITY FORESTER TO DETERMINE WHAT PROTECTION SHALL APPLY. 8. IF TRANSPLANTING TREES IS NOT FEASIBLE MITIGATION TREES SHALL BE UPSIZED AS FOLLOWS: 8.1. DECIDUOUS TREES: FROM 2" CALIPER TO 3' CALIPER 8.2. EVERGREEN TREES: FROM 6' HEIGHT TO 8' HEIGHT 8.3. ORNAMENTAL TREES: FROM 1.5" CALIPER TO 2.5" CALIPER 9. TREES TO BE TRANSPLANTED SHALL BE MOVED WITH A MINIMUM 100 INCH SIZE SPADE. FINAL DETERMINATION OF TREE SPADE SIZE SHALL BE CONFIRMED WITH THE CITY FORESTER PRIOR TO ANY TREE RELOCATIONS. 10. SEE TRANSPLANTING DETAIL FOR SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS. 11. HEAVY EQUIPMENT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO COMPACT OVER THE ROOT ZONE OF EXISTING TREES. 12. AVOID CUTTING SURFACE ROOTS WHENEVER POSSIBLE. SIDEWALKS AND PAVING LEVELS SHOULD BE CONTOURED SUFFICIENTLY TO AVOID DAMAGE. 13. ROOT CUTS FROM EXCAVATION SHOULD BE DONE RAPIDLY. SMOOTH FLUSH CUTS SHOULD BE MADE. BACKFILL 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 DRAWING NUMBER: INTEGRATED RECYCLING FACILITY TIMBERLINE ROAD FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 401 West Mountain Avenue Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 fax 970/224.1662 phone 970/224.1191 www.vfrdesigninc.com Ŷ land planning Ŷ landscape architecture Ŷ Ŷ urban design Ŷ entitlement Ŷ ISSUED No. DESCRIPTION DATE 1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN 6-12-2013 REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE PROJECT No.: APS..521-13 DRAWN BY: SJM, ARB REVIEWED BY: RJB, CP SEAL: PREPARED BY: CIVIL ENGINEER: CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPROVED: CITY ENGINEER DATE CHECKED BY: WATER & WASTEWATER UTILITY DATE CHECKED BY: STORMWATER UTILITY DATE CHECKED BY: PARKS & RECREATION DATE CHECKED BY: TRAFFIC ENGINEER DATE CHECKED BY: ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER DATE &+(&.('%< DATE  . . . . . . PREPARED FOR: City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Ave., Building B (970) 221-6610 ELECTRICAL ENGINEER: LUMINAIRE LOCATIONS No. Label X Y Z MH Orientation Tilt X Y Z Location Aim 1 AA 669.0 481.0 30.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 669.0 482.2 0.0 2 AA 576.0 381.0 30.0 30.0 -65.1 0.0 574.9 381.5 0.0 3 AA 387.0 302.0 30.0 30.0 178.3 0.0 387.0 300.8 0.0 4 AA 219.0 262.0 30.0 30.0 155.6 0.0 219.5 260.9 0.0 5 BB 164.0 138.0 30.0 30.0 180.0 0.0 164.0 136.8 0.0 6 BB 287.0 170.0 30.0 30.0 180.0 0.0 287.0 168.8 0.0 7 BB 416.0 173.0 30.0 30.0 178.6 0.0 416.0 171.8 0.0 8 AA 521.0 222.0 30.0 30.0 -90.0 0.0 519.8 222.0 0.0 9 CC 217.0 1.0 30.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 217.0 2.2 0.0 10 CC 90.0 0.0 30.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 90.0 1.2 0.0 LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE Symbol Label Qty Catalog Number Description Lamp File Lumens LLF Watts AA 5 DSX1_LED_60 C_1000_40K_T 2M_MVOLT.ie s Absolute 0.92 209 BB 3 DSX1_LED_60 C_1000_40K_T 5W_MVOLT.ie ATTACHMENT 3 184 ATTACHMENT 3 185 ATTACHMENT 3 186 Integrated Recycling Facility Traffic Access Study May 28, 2013 Prepared For: City of Fort Collins Submitted By: Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC P.O. Box 19768 Boulder, CO 80308 (303) 652-3571 ATTACHMENT 4 187 Ms. Susie Gordon May 28, 2013 Integrated Recycling Facility Traffic Access Study Page 1 May 28, 2013 Ms. Susie Gordon City of Fort Collins 300 Laporte Avenue, Building B Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: Integrated Recycling Facility Traffic Access Study Dear Ms. Gordon: At your request I have prepared a traffic access study for the proposed Integrated Recycling Facility to be located on the west side of Timberline Road approximately ¼ mile south of Prospect Street in Fort Collins. Figure 1 includes an illustration of the site vicinity. In the process of completing this study I have:  discussed the proposed site design and uses with you and members of the project team;  reviewed plans for the new facility;  discussed traffic access issues and study scope with City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineering staff;  reviewed recent and historic traffic count information at the existing recycle facility on Riverside Avenue;  reviewed trip generation and access information for a similar recycling facility in Boulder, CO;  procured AM and PM peak hour traffic counts at the adjacent industrial driveway just south of the site;  reviewed existing and projected Year 2035 traffic information at the Timberline Road/Prospect Street intersection;  projected the daily and peak hour traffic that will be added to area roadways by the Integrated Recycling Facility;  evaluated the impacts of this additional traffic on the site access intersection on Timberline Road;  and, recommended access intersection configuration. Findings and conclusions of this evaluation are summarized by topic as follows: Site Use and Access The proposed new Integrated Recycling Facility will be located on the west side of Timberline Road approximately ¼ mile south of Prospect Street in Fort Collins, CO. This site is just south of an electrical substation, and just north of an industrial site. As currently proposed, the Integrated Recycling Facility will include: ATTACHMENT 4 188 Ms. Susie Gordon May 28, 2013 Integrated Recycling Facility Traffic Access Study Page 2  relocated recycling facility (Rivendell Recycling Center) that is currently on Riverside Avenue just north of Prospect Street – open 7 days per week – free to the public;  a new recycling space for “hard to recycle” materials – open weekdays during business hours – fee to be collected by a small staff;  a new yard waste drop-off facility – open 7 days per week;  and related City recycling operations – open on weekdays. It is my understanding that the site will be configured such that different areas may be open 7 days per week and some areas will be open only on weekdays during the business day. As proposed, the site will share the existing access drive onto Timberline Road that currently serves the electrical substation. Figure 2 includes a site plan for this recycling facility. In this vicinity Timberline Road has two through lanes in each direction and a painted center two-way left turn lane. Existing and Projected Background Traffic Conditions Based on recent peak hour traffic counts at area intersections it is estimated that Timberline Road currently carries approximately 28,000 vehicles per day in the vicinity of this site. Figure 3 includes recent peak hour traffic counts from the industrial driveway intersection just south of the project site. It has been assumed that there is little or no existing traffic accessing the electrical substation driveway (locked gate) during the AM and PM peak traffic hours on Timberline Road. Future traffic projections from the City’s travel model indicate that background traffic on Timberline Road in this area will increase by approximately 12% by the year 2035. Trip Generation, Distribution and Assignment An estimate of daily and peak hour traffic that will access the new Integrated Recycling Facility has been made based on our understanding of the proposed site uses, historic traffic access patterns at the Rivendell site, and our experience with recycling facilities in another community of similar size to Fort Collins. The results are detailed in Table 1 and summarized as follows:  On a daily basis the amount of traffic accessing the new facility will be approximately double the traffic that currently accesses the Rivendell site. This equates to 900 one- way vehicle trips per day on weekdays.  Due to the type of new uses at the Integrated Recycling Facility, the peak hour traffic access is not projected to double the existing traffic at the Rivendell site. Rather, it is projected that the AM and PM peak hour traffic (while Timberline traffic is highest) will increase by approximately 50% to 30 trips per hour. This projection assumes that citizens are not as likely to drop off yard waste and hard to recycle materials on the way to and from work as they might be to drop off conventional recyclables. ATTACHMENT 4 189 Ms. Susie Gordon May 28, 2013 Integrated Recycling Facility Traffic Access Study Page 3  The weekday hourly traffic accessing the new facility will be highest mid-day, with approximately 120 vehicle trips per hour (while Timberline traffic is not at its peak).  Saturday traffic will likely be the highest, with a peak of over 130 trips per hour.  It is our understanding that there will not be “site owned” trucks operating from the site, and recycled materials will be hauled off by outside trucks. It is likely that these trucks will avoid the AM and PM weekday peak hours when servicing the site.  The new facility will include a small staff (2 to 3 employees) who will likely access the site during weekday peak hours. All trips accessing the site will utilize Timberline Road. It is estimated, based on the site’s location relative to the entire community and the roadway network in the area, that 45% of the traffic will be to/from the north on Timberline and 55% will be to/from the south. This access pattern is illustrated on Figure 4, and for the moment assumes that the site driveway will have full turning access. Using the trip generation and trip distribution patterns described above, the peak hour site access traffic is illustrated on Figure 5. Again, assuming full access, it is projected that there will be less than 10 vehicles per hour in any one direction accessing the site. Near Term Traffic Access If full turning access is provided, the projected near term peak hour traffic at the site driveway is illustrated on Figure 6. The projected peak hour level of service (LOS) at the site driveway has been calculated using procedures defined in the Highway Capacity Manual, assuming stop sign control on the site exit. The results are included in Table 1 below, and detailed LOS calculation reports are attached. Also attached is a description of the traffic conditions associated with each LOS letter grade. Table 2 Peak Hour Level of Service at Site Driveway (LOS and Seconds of Delay) Scenario/ Movement Existing Full Access Existing ¾ Access Year 2035 Full Access Year 2035 ¾ Access AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Eastbound Left Out F 154 sec. F 184 sec. n/a n/a F 83 sec. F 218 sec. n/a n/a Eastbound Right Out B 14 sec. C 17 sec. B 14 sec. C 18 sec. B 11 sec. C 14 sec. B 11 sec. Ms. Susie Gordon May 28, 2013 Integrated Recycling Facility Traffic Access Study Page 4 Year 2035 Traffic Access By the year 2035 it has been projected that the background traffic on Timberline Road has increased by approximately 12 percent. We have also projected that the site access traffic increases by 25% by this time. It has also been assumed that Timberline has been widened to include 3 through lanes in each direction. The resulting traffic at the site access intersection (assuming full movement access allowed) is illustrated in Figure 7. Again, the site access LOS was calculated with full movement access and ¾ access and the results are detailed in Table 1. As with the near term results, it is projected that the outbound left turn will operate at LOS F with significant delay if full turning access is allowed. If the driveway is restricted to a ¾ access, all turning movements will operate acceptably in the B/C range. Conclusions and Recommendations This traffic study has projected and evaluated the traffic that will access the new Integrated Recycling Facility on Timberline Road in Fort Collins. Significant observations, conclusions, and recommendations include:  The new recycling facility is projected to generate approximately 900 trips per day on weekdays. This is approximately double the existing traffic generated by the Rivendell site currently.  On weekdays during the AM and PM peak hours when traffic on Timberline Road is highest, the recycling facility will generate approximately 30 site access trips.  There will be minimal truck traffic accessing the site during the AM and PM peak hours.  The daily traffic accessing the site will likely be highest on Saturdays when background traffic on Timberline Road is not at its peak. The Saturday peak hour traffic is projected to be just over one inbound and one outbound vehicle per minute during the highest hour.  If full movement access is maintained at the site driveway, the outbound left turning traffic will experience LOS F during the weekday AM and PM peak hours.  If the site driveway is restricted to ¾ access (right in, right out, and left in only) then all access traffic will operate well in the LOS B/C range during peak hours.  Timberline Road will be able to easily accommodate the relatively low level of traffic generated by this Integrated Recycling Facility.  The grid of arterial roadways in the area will be able to accommodate diverted traffic if the site access driveway is restricted to a ¾ access and all outbound traffic is forced to turn right onto southbound Timberline Road.  Given the projected congestion for the left turning outbound traffic, and the potential for safety issues (vehicles exiting with trailers, etc.) we recommend that the site driveway be configured as a ¾ access with right in, right out, and left in access only. This intersection access control should be implemented with the construction of a raised median in Timberline Road that prevents left turns out of the site. I hope this information is helpful as you continue planning for the new Integrated Recycling Facility in Fort Collins. Please let me know if you have any questions. ATTACHMENT 4 191 Ms. Susie Gordon May 28, 2013 Integrated Recycling Facility Traffic Access Study Page 5 Sincerely, Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC William C. Fox, P.E. Principal Attachments – Tables, Figures, and LOS Reports ATTACHMENT 4 192 Table 1 Intergrated Recycling Facility Traffic Study Trip Generation Estimate Site User and Use Type: Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total Existing Recycle Facility at New Site Employment Employees 0 Employee Trips 000000000000000 Drop Off Patrons Patrons per day 220 Trips 220 220 440 11 11 22 11 11 22 35 35 70 36 36 72 Trucks Site Owned Truck Trips0000000000000000 Service Truck Trips 224000000224000 Traffic Subtotal: 222 222 444 11 11 22 11 11 22 37 37 74 36 36 72 New Uses at Integrated Recycling Site - Hard to Recycle Materials, Yard Waste Drop Off Etc. Employment Employees 2 Employee Trips 3 3 6 2 0 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Daily Trips Weekday AM Peak Hour Trips Weekday PM Peak Hour Trips Weekday Peak Hour of Site Use Trips Saturday Peak Hour Employee Trips 3 3 6 2 0 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Drop Off Patrons Patrons per day 220 Trips 220 220 440336336202040252550 Trucks Site Owned Truck Trips0000000000000000 Service Truck Trips 5510000000224112 Traffic Subtotal: 228 228 456538358232346272754 Total Trips at Integrated Recycling 450 450 900 16 14 30 14 16 30 60 60 120 63 63 126 Notes: 1. Assume existing recycle facility will have similar useage as existing site once relocated to new facility. 2. Assume that the site will not own any trucks and all materials will be hauled off by off-site trucking. 3. Assume that most if not all truck access trips will avoid the weekday AM and PM peak hours of the adjacent road system. 4. It is projected that the new facility will approximately double the daily traffic as exists at the current facility. However, it is projected that the Hard TO Recycle trips and the Yard Waste drop off trips will typically be outside of the AM and PM peak hours of the day (not as likely to be dropped off on the way to or from work). 5. Trip estimates based on traffic counts at existing facility, estimates of expanded use based on conversations with site operators, and experience with similar facilities in other communities. ATTACHMENT 4 193 Future Integrated Recycling Facility Site Integrated d Recycling li Facility ili Traffic ffi Study d Site Vicinity Figure 1 ATTACHMENT 4 194 Integrated Recycling Facility Traffic Study Site Plan Figure 2 ATTACHMENT 4 195 Road Future Integrated Recycling Facility Site Timberline /12 T 2 /1553 10 / 1152 1 / 13 3 / 23 /1238 Integrated Recycling Facility Traffic Study 3 / 23 8 / 8 1927/ g yg y ff y Existing Peak Hour Traffic at Adjacent Industrial Driveway: AM/PM Figure 3 ATTACHMENT 4 196 45% Future Integrated Rli 55% Recycling Facility Site 55% Integrated Recycling Facility Traffic Study Directional Trip Distribution Figure 4 ATTACHMENT 4 197 7 / 6 Future Shared 6 / 7 Site Access Drive 8 / 9 Future Integrated Recycling Site Access Drive 9 / 8 Future Integrated Recycling Facility Site Timbe erline Road Integrated Recycling Facility Traffic Study Peak Hour Site Generated Trips: AM/PM Figure 5 ATTACHMENT 4 198 7/6 /1565 6/7 Future Shared Site Access Drive 1162/ 8/9 8 Site Access Drive 251 9/8 Future Integrated Recycling Facility Site 1928/12 Integrated Recycling Facility Traffic Study Ttl Total N Near T Term Pk Peak H Hour Di Driveway Traffic: T ffi AM/PM Figure 6 ATTACHMENT 4 199 9/8 /1750 8/9 Future Shared Site Access Drive 1300/ 10/11 /10 Site Access Drive 400 11/ Future Integrated Recycling Facility Site 2125/14 Integrated Recycling Facility Traffic Study Ttl Total Y Year 2035 Peak Pk H Hour Di Driveway Traffic: T ffi AM/PM Figure 7 ATTACHMENT 4 200 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS In rating roadway and intersection operating conditions with existing or future traffic volumes, “Levels of Service” (LOS) A through F are used, with LOS A indicating very good operation and LOS F indicating poor operation. Levels of service at signalized and unsignalized intersections are closely associated with vehicle delays experienced in seconds per vehicle. More complete level of service definitions and delay data for signal and stop sign controlled intersections are contained in the following table for reference. Level of Service Rating Delay in seconds per vehicle (a) Definition Signalized Unsignalized A 0.0 to 10.0 0.0 to 10.0 Low vehicular traffic volumes; primarily free flow operations. Density is low and vehicles can freely maneuver within the traffic stream. Drivers are able to maintain their desired speeds with little or no delay. B 10.1 to 20.0 10.1 to 15.0 Stable vehicular traffic volume flow with potential for some restriction of operating speeds due to traffic conditions. Vehicle maneuvering is only slightly restricted. The stopped delays are not bothersome and drivers are not subject to appreciable tension. C 20.1 to 35.0 15.1 to 25.0 Stable traffic operations, however the ability for vehicles to maneuver is more restricted by the increase in traffic volumes. Relatively satisfactory operating speeds prevail, but adverse signal coordination or longer vehicle queues cause delays along the corridor. D 35.1 to 55.0 25.1 to 35.0 Approaching unstable vehicular traffic flow where small increases in volume could cause substantial delays. Most drivers are restricted in ability to maneuver and selection of travel speeds due to congestion. Driver comfort and convenience are low, but tolerable. E 55.1 to 80.0 35.1 to 50.0 Traffic operations characterized by significant approach delays and average travel speeds of one‐half to one‐third the free flow speed. Vehicular flow is unstable and there is potential for stoppages of brief duration. High signal density, extensive vehicle queuing, or corridor signal progression/timing are the typical causes of vehicle delays at signalized corridors. F > 80.0 > 50.0 Forced vehicular traffic flow and operations with high approach delays at critical intersections. Vehicle speeds are reduced substantially and stoppages may occur for short or long periods of time because of downstream congestion. (a) Delay ranges based on 2010 Highway Capacity Manual criteria. ATTACHMENT 4 201 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Recycle Center Driveway & Timberline 5/28/2013 Fort Collins Integrated Recycle Center 5/28/2013 Existing AM Synchro 8 Report BF Page 1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 6 8 9 1928 1162 7 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 7 9 10 2096 1263 8 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2334 635 1271 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 2334 635 1271 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 78 98 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 30 421 543 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 7 9 10 1048 1048 842 429 Volume Left 7 0 10 0000 Volume Right 0900008 cSH 30 421 543 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.22 0.02 0.02 0.62 0.62 0.50 0.25 Queue Length 95th (ft) 17 210000 Control Delay (s) 154.1 13.7 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F B B Approach Delay (s) 73.9 0.1 0.0 Approach LOS F Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 ATTACHMENT 4 202 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Recycle Center Driveway & Timberline 5/28/2013 Fort Collins Integrated Recycle Center 5/28/2013 Existing PM Synchro 8 Report BF Page 1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 7 9 8 1251 1565 6 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 8 10 9 1360 1701 7 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2402 854 1708 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 2402 854 1708 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 72 97 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 27 302 368 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 8 10 9 680 680 1134 574 Volume Left 8090000 Volume Right 0 10 00007 cSH 27 302 368 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.28 0.03 0.02 0.40 0.40 0.67 0.34 Queue Length 95th (ft) 22 320000 Control Delay (s) 183.8 17.3 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F C C Approach Delay (s) 90.2 0.1 0.0 Approach LOS F Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 ATTACHMENT 4 203 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Recycle Center Driveway & Timberline 5/29/2013 Fort Collins Integrated Recycle Center 5/28/2013 Existing AM with 3/4 access Synchro 8 Report BF Page 1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 0 14 9 1928 1162 7 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 15 10 2096 1263 8 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2334 635 1271 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 2334 635 1271 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 96 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 30 421 543 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 15 10 1048 1048 842 429 Volume Left 0 10 0000 Volume Right 15 00008 cSH 421 543 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.02 0.62 0.62 0.50 0.25 Queue Length 95th (ft) 310000 Control Delay (s) 13.9 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B B Approach Delay (s) 13.9 0.1 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 ATTACHMENT 4 204 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Recycle Center Driveway & Timberline 5/29/2013 Fort Collins Integrated Recycle Center 5/28/2013 Existing PM with 3/4 access Synchro 8 Report BF Page 1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 0 16 8 1251 1565 6 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 17 9 1360 1701 7 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2402 854 1708 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 2402 854 1708 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 94 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 27 302 368 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 17 9 680 680 1134 574 Volume Left 090000 Volume Right 17 00007 cSH 302 368 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.02 0.40 0.40 0.67 0.34 Queue Length 95th (ft) 520000 Control Delay (s) 17.6 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C C Approach Delay (s) 17.6 0.1 0.0 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 ATTACHMENT 4 205 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Recycle Center Driveway & Timberline 5/29/2013 Fort Collins Integrated Recycle Center 5/28/2013 2035 AM with 6 lanes Synchro 8 Report BF Page 1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 6 8 9 1928 1162 7 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 7 9 10 2096 1263 8 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1985 425 1271 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1985 425 1271 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 88 98 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 52 578 543 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 NB 4 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 7 9 10 699 699 699 505 505 260 Volume Left 7 0 10 000000 Volume Right 090000008 cSH 52 578 543 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.12 0.02 0.02 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.30 0.30 0.15 Queue Length 95th (ft) 10 11000000 Control Delay (s) 83.3 11.3 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F B B Approach Delay (s) 42.2 0.1 0.0 Approach LOS E Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 ATTACHMENT 4 206 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Recycle Center Driveway & Timberline 5/29/2013 Fort Collins Integrated Recycle Center 5/28/2013 2035 AM with 6 lanes with 3/4 access Synchro 8 Report BF Page 1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 0 14 9 1928 1162 7 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 15 10 2096 1263 8 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1985 425 1271 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1985 425 1271 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 97 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 52 578 543 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 NB 4 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 15 10 699 699 699 505 505 260 Volume Left 0 10 000000 Volume Right 15 0000008 cSH 578 543 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.02 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.30 0.30 0.15 Queue Length 95th (ft) 21000000 Control Delay (s) 11.4 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B B Approach Delay (s) 11.4 0.1 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 ATTACHMENT 4 207 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Recycle Center Driveway & Timberline 5/29/2013 Fort Collins Integrated Recycle Center 5/28/2013 Year 2035 PM Synchro 8 Report BF Page 1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 9 11 10 1400 1750 8 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 10 12 11 1522 1902 9 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2436 638 1911 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 2436 638 1911 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 61 97 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 25 419 307 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 NB 4 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 10 12 11 507 507 507 761 761 389 Volume Left 10 0 11 000000 Volume Right 0 12 0000009 cSH 25 419 307 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.39 0.03 0.04 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.45 0.45 0.23 Queue Length 95th (ft) 29 23000000 Control Delay (s) 218.4 13.8 17.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F B C Approach Delay (s) 105.9 0.1 0.0 Approach LOS F Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 ATTACHMENT 4 208 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Recycle Center Driveway & Timberline 5/29/2013 Fort Collins Integrated Recycle Center 5/28/2013 Year 2035 PM with 3/4 access Synchro 8 Report BF Page 1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 0 20 10 1400 1750 8 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 22 11 1522 1902 9 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2436 638 1911 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 2436 638 1911 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 95 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 25 419 307 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 NB 4 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 22 11 507 507 507 761 761 389 Volume Left 0 11 000000 Volume Right 22 0000009 cSH 419 307 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.04 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.45 0.45 0.23 Queue Length 95th (ft) 43000000 Control Delay (s) 14.1 17.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B C Approach Delay (s) 14.1 0.1 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 ATTACHMENT 4 209 land planning  landscape architecture  urban design  entitlement Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com To: Ron Gonzales, Poudre Fire Authority From: Daman Holland, RLA Date: 07-17-2013 RE: City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycle Facility – Hazardous Material Storage The following is a summary of our findings of code requirements for the temporary storage of hazardous materials related to the proposed Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility. The 2006 International Fire Code was utilized to formulate this analysis. The recycling facility is divided into two areas: a free-drop area where non-hazardous materials such as paper, plastic, metal and glass containers will be disposed of by residents; and a fee-drop area where non-hazardous and hazardous materials such as motor oil, antifreeze, batteries, e-waste, latex paints, aggregates, yard waste, scrap metal will be accepted for a small fee per load. Internal drive circulation includes an emergency access easement and full turning accommodations for emergency vehicles. Knox boxes will be provided at all gates for emergency vehicle access. The facility will be operated by contracted employees. The intake of potentially hazardous materials will occur only during business hours. The handling of material to the on-site storage containers will either be performed or supervised by on-site staff. The transfer of hazardous waste, including all 55 gal drum material, will be performed by contracted employees. The hazardous material storage area will have code required containment, natural ventilation and emergency vehicle access, and the removal of waste items from the site shall follow all Colorado Department of Transportation requirements. The hazardous material storage area will be about 26,000 sf and located behind a six foot chain link security fence with two access gate locations (one for entrance and one for exit). Two containment areas are anticipated within this area: one for batteries (corrosives) and e-waste, and one for motor oil (Class IIIB) and antifreeze (ethylene glycol/non-health hazardous). Battery and oil containment will be separated from each other by 30 ft. Oil and antifreeze spill containment will be provided by 55 gal steel and/or poly drums over spill containment pallets per IFC 2006, 2704.2.3. Covered/vented poly containers will house battery storage, providing both spill containment and weather protection. An open-sided lean-to shelter (per IBC, overhead non- combustible) will provide weather protection for oil and antifreeze containment pallets. Specific material rated fire extinguishers will be located at the oil/antifreeze containment area. Attachment 5a 210 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com Proposed Storage Items & Quantities: Non-reactive Wastes Code Classification Quantity Containers Spill Control Batteries (lead-acid, Ni-Cd, NiMH) Corrosives 2 (24 cu. ft. poly containers) Covered/Vented Poly Container, spill containment included Antifreeze (Ethylene glycol) Not a Hazardous Material 2 (55 gal drums, 1,000 gallon-lbs) Spill Containment Pallet & Shelter E-Wastes (electronics & monitors) Universal Wastes 1 (30 yd. roll-off container) Covered roll-off Container Flammable/Combustible Wastes Code Classification Quantity Containers Spill Control Motor Oil IIIB 4 (55 gal drums, 2,200 gallon-lbs.) Spill Containment Pallet & Shelter 211 E. PROSPECT RD. S. TIMBERLINE RD. EDORA COMMUNITY PARK (POL) SIDEHILL (LMN) UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD EDORA ACRES (MMN) PARKWOOD EAST APARTMENTS PUD (RL) PROSPECT EAST B.P. (E) CITY OF FORT COLLINS (I) RIVENDELL (I) TELLEDYNE AQUA (E) (I) TIMBERLINE CENTER (I) (MMN) (I) (T) (I) LARIMER COUNTY MIDPOINT (E) GREAT WESTERN RAILROAD (E) (I) SITE EDORA POOL/ICE CTR (MMN) PROSPECT ESTATES 3RD (RL) RIVERSIDE AVE. MIDPOINT DR. BLACKBIRD DR. BUCKING HORSE (LMN) SPRING CREEK CTR (E) CENTRE POINT PLAZA (E) 14 DRAWING NUMBER: TIMBERLINE & PROSPECT PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 401 West Mountain Avenue Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 fax 970/224.1662 phone 970/224.1191 www.vfrdesigninc.com Ŷ land planning Ŷ landscape architecture Ŷ Ŷ urban design Ŷ entitlement Ŷ ISSUED No. DESCRIPTION DATE 1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN 6-12-2013 REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE PROJECT No.: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: SEAL: PREPARED BY: IN CONJUNCTION WITH: CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPROVED: CITY ENGINEER DATE CHECKED BY: WATER & WASTEWATER UTILITY DATE CHECKED BY: STORMWATER UTILITY DATE CHECKED BY: PARKS & RECREATION DATE CHECKED BY: TRAFFIC ENGINEER DATE CHECKED BY: ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER DATE &+(&.('%< DATE  . . . PREPARED FOR: City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Ave., Building B (970) 221-6610 1 PDP COMMENT REVIEW 7-16-2013 THIS IS A LAND USE PLANNING DOCUMENT, NOT A CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT. REFER TO CIVIL ENGINEERING PLANS. 0 SCALE: 1"=40'-00" 20' 40' 80' NORTH LEGEND SITE DATA PARCEL # LOT 1 69,819 SF 1.60 AC LOT 2 92,636 SF 2.13 AC TOTAL (LOTS 1 & 2) 162,455 SF 3.73 AC ZONING: INDUSTRIAL ASPHALT AREA (ON-SITE) 65,874 SF ASPHALT AREA (OFF-SITE) 6,151 SF CONCRETE PAD AREA 8,840 SF GRAVEL LOT AREA 12,112 SF TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA 80,865 SF OPEN SPACE AREA (PHASE 1) 81,590 SF PHASE 2 RECYCLE EXPANSION AREA 6,345 SF PHASE 2 PARKING AREA 3,587 SF PARKING PHASE 1 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 17 18 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 21 22 23 8 11 7 6 5 3 17 16 15 10 9 14 13 16 12 14 18 # # # # DRAWING NUMBER: TIMBERLINE & PROSPECT PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 401 West Mountain Avenue Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 fax 970/224.1662 phone 970/224.1191 www.vfrdesigninc.com Ŷ land planning Ŷ landscape architecture Ŷ Ŷ urban design Ŷ entitlement Ŷ ISSUED DRAWING NUMBER: TIMBERLINE & PROSPECT PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 401 West Mountain Avenue Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 fax 970/224.1662 phone 970/224.1191 www.vfrdesigninc.com Ŷ land planning Ŷ landscape architecture Ŷ Ŷ urban design Ŷ entitlement Ŷ ISSUED No. DESCRIPTION DATE 1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN 6-12-2013 REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE PROJECT No.: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: SEAL: PREPARED BY: IN CONJUNCTION WITH: CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPROVED: CITY ENGINEER DATE CHECKED BY: WATER & WASTEWATER UTILITY DATE CHECKED BY: STORMWATER UTILITY DATE CHECKED BY: PARKS & RECREATION DATE CHECKED BY: TRAFFIC ENGINEER DATE CHECKED BY: ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER DATE &+(&.('%< DATE  . . . PREPARED FOR: City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Ave., Building B (970) 221-6610 1 PDP COMMENT REVIEW 7-16-2013 1. TREES NOTED TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE REMOVED BY A CITY OF FORT COLLINS LICENSED ARBORIST. 2. TRANSPLANTED PINES SHALL BE TREATED FOR MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE FOR TWO YEARS AFTER TRANSPLANTING FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FORESTRY DIVISION. 3. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS PARK PLANNING DIVISION SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COSTS OF REMOVING AND REPLACING TREES THAT MAY BE DAMAGED OR DESTROYED BY FRISBEE DISC GOLF PLAY. 4. TREE TRANSPLANTING TO BE BY A QUALIFIED AND EXPERIENCED TREE TRANSPLANTING CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR TO HAVE EXPERIENCE IN TRANSPLANTING THE SPECIES AND SIZES OF TREES LISTED IN THE TABLE. 5. TREE TRANSPLANTING TO OCCUR DURING A TIME OF THE YEAR AS RECOMMENDED BY A QUALIFIED AND EXPERIENCED TREE TRANSPLANTING CONTRACTOR. 6. EXISTING TREES MARKED FOR PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION SHALL NOT BE REMOVED. 7. IF ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AFFECTS ANY EXISTING TREES NOT NOTED ON THIS PLAN, CONTACT THE CITY FORESTER TO DETERMINE WHAT PROTECTION SHALL APPLY. 8. IF TRANSPLANTING TREES IS NOT FEASIBLE MITIGATION TREES SHALL BE UPSIZED AS FOLLOWS: 8.1. DECIDUOUS TREES: FROM 2" CALIPER TO 3' CALIPER 8.2. EVERGREEN TREES: FROM 6' HEIGHT TO 8' HEIGHT 8.3. ORNAMENTAL TREES: FROM 1.5" CALIPER TO 2.5" CALIPER 9. TREES TO BE TRANSPLANTED SHALL BE MOVED WITH A MINIMUM 100 INCH SIZE SPADE. FINAL DETERMINATION OF TREE SPADE SIZE SHALL BE CONFIRMED WITH THE CITY FORESTER PRIOR TO ANY TREE RELOCATIONS. 10. SEE TRANSPLANTING DETAIL FOR SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS. 11. HEAVY EQUIPMENT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO COMPACT OVER THE ROOT ZONE OF EXISTING TREES. 12. AVOID CUTTING SURFACE ROOTS WHENEVER POSSIBLE. SIDEWALKS AND PAVING LEVELS SHOULD BE CONTOURED SUFFICIENTLY TO AVOID DAMAGE. 13. ROOT CUTS FROM EXCAVATION SHOULD BE DONE RAPIDLY. SMOOTH FLUSH CUTS SHOULD BE MADE. BACKFILL 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 DRAWING NUMBER: INTEGRATED RECYCLING FACILITY TIMBERLINE ROAD FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 401 West Mountain Avenue Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 fax 970/224.1662 phone 970/224.1191 www.vfrdesigninc.com Ŷ land planning Ŷ landscape architecture Ŷ Ŷ urban design Ŷ entitlement Ŷ ISSUED No. DESCRIPTION DATE 1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN 6-12-2013 REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE PROJECT No.: APS..521-13 DRAWN BY: SJM, ARB REVIEWED BY: RJB, CP SEAL: PREPARED BY: CIVIL ENGINEER: CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPROVED: CITY ENGINEER DATE CHECKED BY: WATER & WASTEWATER UTILITY DATE CHECKED BY: STORMWATER UTILITY DATE CHECKED BY: PARKS & RECREATION DATE CHECKED BY: TRAFFIC ENGINEER DATE CHECKED BY: ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER DATE &+(&.('%< DATE  . . . . . . PREPARED FOR: City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Ave., Building B (970) 221-6610 ELECTRICAL ENGINEER: LUMINAIRE LOCATIONS No. Label X Y Z MH Orientation Tilt X Y Z Location Aim 1 AA 669.0 481.0 30.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 669.0 482.2 0.0 2 AA 576.0 381.0 30.0 30.0 -65.1 0.0 574.9 381.5 0.0 3 AA 387.0 302.0 30.0 30.0 178.3 0.0 387.0 300.8 0.0 4 AA 219.0 262.0 30.0 30.0 155.6 0.0 219.5 260.9 0.0 5 BB 164.0 138.0 30.0 30.0 180.0 0.0 164.0 136.8 0.0 6 BB 287.0 170.0 30.0 30.0 180.0 0.0 287.0 168.8 0.0 7 BB 416.0 173.0 30.0 30.0 178.6 0.0 416.0 171.8 0.0 8 AA 521.0 222.0 30.0 30.0 -90.0 0.0 519.8 222.0 0.0 9 CC 217.0 1.0 30.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 217.0 2.2 0.0 10 CC 90.0 0.0 30.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 90.0 1.2 0.0 LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE Symbol Label Qty Catalog Number Description Lamp File Lumens LLF Watts AA 5 DSX1_LED_60 C_1000_40K_T 2M_MVOLT.ie s Absolute 0.92 209 BB 3 DSX1_LED_60 C_1000_40K_T 5W_MVOLT.ie ATTACHMENT 6 218 ATTACHMENT 6 219 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROJECT: City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility DATE: June 3, 2013 APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins (Environmental Services Department) CITY PLANNER: Lindsay Ex The meeting began with Lindsay Ex providing a brief explanation of the City development review process as well as an overview of the neighborhood meeting agenda. Susie Gordon, Senior Environmental Planner from the City of Fort Collins and Daman Holland with Ripley Design presented background information and history of the project as well as information on future operations and the concept site plan: The City has a goal of diverting half of its waste from landfills. The City began the Rivendell Recycling Drop-off Facility in 2002 for common recyclables such as cardboard, paper, glass bottles, etc. but realized there is a need for a one-stop facility that could also intake harder-to- recycle materials. The proposed Integrated Recycling Facility was modeled after several recycling organizations in other communities, including the Center for Hard-to-Recycle Materials (CHaRM) in Boulder. We believe there is a need and appetite for a similar facility in Fort Collins. The new Integrated Recycling Facility would begin by accepting harder to recycle materials like heavy duty plastics, wood debris, aggregates, scrap metal, etc. with the goal of adding additional recyclable materials as the facility is established. The current Rivendell site is unmanned and the new facility would have 1-3 staff members present who would operate the gate-house, forklifts, etc. A vendor would be responsible for haul-away of the materials to appropriate businesses and processing/recycling facilities. Recyclables would be unloaded into 1-3 yard tipper bins and then dumped into larger 40-yard open top boxes that will be emptied as soon as they are full. There would be a free drop-off area similar to the Rivendell site, but also a gated section with a small fee to unload the hard-to-recycle materials. The free site is sloped and will utilize the slope to allow easier drop-off by situating access on the high side and setting the container storage on the low. We have walked the site with the City Forester and will be moving the large evergreen trees on the site closer to Timberline Road to create a cluster/grouping of trees for screening. The large existing deciduous trees will be located to the lawn area fronting the PRPA substation along Timberline. ATTACHMENT 7 220 QUESTIONS, COMMENTS AND RESPONSES: Question: (Citizen) Will there be any fencing? Answer: (Applicants, referring to the City of Fort Collins Environmental Services Department or their consultants) There will be a fence around the hard-to-recycle area for security purposes; the rest will not be fenced. Question: (Citizen) Will there be any structures? Answer: (Applicants) No structures. Question: (Citizen) Will you be closing the Rivendell site? Answer: (Applicants) Yes, we will also be placing signs and advertising the move so everyone is informed. We will need to train people about the new facility/location. Question: (Citizen) With the grade on site, has there been any discussion on lowering the drive aisles so you have an extra buffer for noise, pollution, etc? Answer: (Applicants) The free to drop area is below grade. About 5 to 6 feet difference between the bins and the unloading area. Site is 4 feet below the Timberline Star property. Answer: (City) It is important to point out this is also an area designated the Industrial Zone District and this is a low intensity use for this zoning designation. From a land use code perspective, placing industrial uses adjacent to existing industrial land uses is compatible. Question: (Citizen) On a windy day, what will prevent litter from drifting off site? Answer: (Applicants) This will not be the same type of operation as the landfill, who closes operations when winds are over 40mph. What you may see drifting form the landfill comes from waste that is not yet covered with dirt at the end of the day. We will shut down the facility if weather becomes an issue. Answer: (Applicants) The types of recyclables, such as yard waste or wood debris won’t be flying out of the bins and it is too heavy. The cardboard would likely go into a compactor, similar to the Rivendell Facility. It is not in our interest to be losing material off-site. Answer: (Applicants) The bins for paper will have tops and you will be unloading into them through doors. Question: (Citizen) What will the seepage consist of in the detention center? E.g. paint spills. Answer: (Applicants) Handling of any hazardous materials will be per State of Colorado statues/codes. They will be placed in appropriate containers to handle these materials. Answer: (Applicants) Will be modeling after programs and best-practices used elsewhere. Used oil as an example will be placed in a container so it doesn’t leak. The runoff and detention we spoke of earlier will be for rain/stormwater. Answer: (Applicants) We will not be accepting pesticides, herbicides or toxic materials. We will only be accepting lower toxicity materials, such as electronics (inert), batteries, latex paints (not oil-based), used motor oil, antifreeze. Question: (Citizen) What will the yard waste look like? Answer: (Applicants) Hard to say at this point. We’re looking into putting it into a 40-yard roll-off container which will be removed as soon as it is full. This may then end up with local companies who may use it for compost – the company or vendor running the site will be in charge of marketing the ATTACHMENT 7 221 materials. There is also the potential the waste may be placed in a 3-walled “bunker.” One bunker may be for glass so the large volume can be efficiently moved to the glass bottling plant in Wheat Ridge – we’re working with local breweries on this. Question: (Citizen) What are aggregates? Answer: (Applicants) Rubble, cement, asphalt, etc. The aggregates will go to City’s crushing facility on Hoffman Mill Road. Question: (Citizen) Are you going to be taking business away from Hageman’s? Answer: (Applicants) We are going to be in a similar business and they view it as competition. Question: (Citizen) Can people bring Christmas trees? Answer: (Applicants) That is not known at this time. The Christmas tree program is a long established program in Fort Collins with 4 locations. There is the potential but don’t want to promise at this point. Question: (Citizen) When you mentioned the $3.75 per yard – you’re talking about the vehicles coming in? Answer: (Applicants) Yes. Question: (Citizen) What will be the effect on Timberline? (Access) Answer: (Applicants)The facility is designed so you can exit to the right (southbound Timberline) and you can left-in and right-in from Timberline, but you cannot left-out and head north on Timberline. The access options are still under design. Question: (Citizen) Is there a left turn lane now? Will lanes be added? Answer: (Applicants) As Timberline is improved you can see where Timberline will be. I understand there will be a center turn lane. Portions of Timberline will have a median as you see further south, but here I believe there will be a center turn lane. In terms of trips, the morning peak is 30 trips per hour (1 car = 2 trips) or about 15 cars per hour, and similar in the evening. Currently on Timberline you have 28,000+ trips going on a day. On the weekends the trips double. A consultant did a traffic analysis. Those peak times people worry about (e.g. 7:30 a.m.) there are 3,000 cars going past and 16 or so will be going to the recycling facility. Question: (Citizen) Will vehicles coming in be required to be covered? Answer: (Applicants) Haven’t talked about this yet but it will be considered. I believe the Landfill requires covered loads or they charge you extra. Question: (Citizen) Will there be acceleration and deceleration lanes? There are going to be large, slow trucks with trailers. Answer: (Applicants) Do not believe there will be either. Question: (Citizen) Is there someone on staff who made this determination (traffic study)? Answer: (Applicants) There was a traffic consultant. Development applications are required to do a traffic study. Bill Fox out of Boulder did the study. Traffic studies are reviewed by our traffic operations department and look at the level of service and any changes from added trips. Comment: (Citizen) I think we need to get to a point where high-paid consultants don’t have to do what we have trained staff that is being paid for can do. We need to wean ourselves from high-paid, outside consultants. ATTACHMENT 7 222 Question: (Citizen) When is the roadwork on Timberline going to occur? Answer: (Applicants) I believe it will occur in 2015 now; may have originally been scheduled for 2014. Question: (Citizen) Will that be BOB (Building on Basics) money? Answer: (City) Yes, some of the last of the BOB money. Comment: (Citizen) Any decision made to delay any longer really affects me; I can’t get anyone to tell me when it’s coming. **Italicized text below is information added after the neighborhood meeting** The project, identified as “Timberline Road – Drake Road to Prospect Road” from the 2005 ballot language is funded through the Building on Basics (BOB) quarter cent sales tax. Right-of-way acquisition is planned for July-December 2013 with construction starting in 2014/2015 (right-of-way dependent). Tim Kemp, Capital Projects Engineer is the contact for the project at 970-416-2719 or tkemp@fcgov.com. For more information please visit the project webpage at http://www.fcgov.com/engineering/prospect-timberline.php. Question: (Citizen) So the trucks (unloading the bins) won’t be exiting off Timberline? Answer: (Applicants) It’s an option we’re still talking about with the southern neighbor. If the trucks can exit via the property to the south then the trucks have access to a full movement intersection at Nancy Grey. Comment: (City) The roll-off units we tried to tuck behind some of the existing buildings seen on the southern property. I notice when I drive-by you can’t really tell what’s going on due to the rise of the land. Comment: (Citizen) I’m concerned about the yard waste and it blowing, seeding and the way it smells as it is decomposing on a west-wind day. Response: (Applicants) The Boulder site has a much different set-up. We will be using a company that manages composting. The yard waste will not stand in those bins any longer than it takes the bin to fill. It will not be decomposing or seeding. We expect we’ll be receiving plenty of yard waste so the bins will full quickly and be moved off site quickly as well. Question: (Citizen) What kind of metal scrap? A broken down grill – can someone bring that over? Answer: (Applicants) Metal has a very strong market and is another area where we may be in competition with some of the scrap metal processors. If you know you can sell your scrap metal and get paid for it you will go there and not pay the City to drop it off, but we will be accepting it to create the one-stop drop-off spot as a convenience factor. Question: (Citizen) Where do plastic bags come into this? Answer: (Applicants) Can’t say exactly what will happen at this point. We are talking with some of the industry groups, but there are some vested interests in seeing us use plastic bags. You may remember the recent talk of banning or charging a fee on it plastic bags, both locally and in communities over the country. Two months ago Council decided not to apply a fee on bags, but the issue may come back up on the Council’s agenda in the future. It’s a very sensitive issue. In a perfect world there will be fewer ATTACHMENT 7 223 bags to recycle. There are collection barrels at many supermarkets currently, although they may not be very well marked. Question: (Citizen) Isn’t there a place on Riverside (to recycle plastic bags)? Answer: (Applicants) A lot of people collect and bring their recyclables to the Rivendell site in a plastic bag, but if it gets into the container it becomes a contaminant. Had a collection at Rivendell and was overwhelmed by the usage. Not sure what the answer is to it, but talking with the plastic manufacturers about pilot programs. Comment: (Citizen)I’ve noticed the plastic bags are loose and on a windy day they can go flying. Response: (Applicants) It is a dilemma, but the contents of our bins are much better now. Question: (Citizen) Will that be brought to this facility? Answer: (Applicants) This is up for discussion. If we do it, we’ll need to find a better way to do it. Comment: (Citizen) My concern is with the neighborhood right across the street. Want to make sure you had trees and conscious of how it looks for neighbors – I like your plan. I didn’t want to have some big stinky area where people are dumping stuff. Comment: (Citizen) I want to echo the comment. My concerns are having dinner at the restaurant right across the street. Hope there is some consideration to those living around the new facility. Question: (Citizen) Have you worked with Bucking Horse or that developer? Answer: (Applicants) I have talked with the developer and they are aware of it. There will be an interesting balance. It is industrial-zoned and we have to have good places to do it. This is almost transitional. A lot of people will come here and get introduced to recycling. It’s a valuable experience to see this. Recycling creates a lot more jobs than putting that into a landfill. The children at Rivendell really connect with that facility. Comment: (Citizen) I’d rather have this than maybe another industrial use. Comment: (Applicants) Hopefully this is helping your neighborhoods too and is a convenient location to bring yard wastes to. Question: (Citizen) Is all the gray (on the site plan) concrete or are you using asphalt? Answer: (Applicants) Concrete under the heavy equipment and unloading bins. Largely will be asphalt and where we can, permeable surfaces in some of the other areas. ATTACHMENT 7 224 Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com Planning, Development & Transportation Services MEMORANDUM DT: August 6, 2013 TO: Members of the Planning and Zoning Board TH: Laurie Kadrich, Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services FM: Lindsay Ex, Senior Environmental Planner RE: Work Session Follow Up: Timberline and Prospect Overall Development Plan Integrated Recycling Facility Project Development Plan At the August 2, 2013 Work Session, several questions were asked of staff and the applicant (City of Fort Collins) regarding the Timberline and Prospect Overall Development Plan (hereafter ODP) and the Integrated Recycling Facility Project Development Plan (hereafter IRF). The following is a compilation of responses to those questions. • Is The Coterie Natural Area planned to be permanently a Natural Area or are there other plans for that land? o (Response from Natural Areas Department): There are no other plans for this land and the Natural Areas Department would like to keep the Coterie Natural Area as an open space along the Spring Creek Trail. City Council has the ultimate authority over the use of City property and they could decide to use this property for another use; however the Natural Areas Department would have to be compensated for the value of that land and the funds used for natural areas purposes. • Does the City own the Rivendell site? What will happen with the area that is leased once it is closed? o (Response provided by the Environmental Services Department): The City does not own the Rivendell site and staff is not sure what the school has in mind for the future use of the site. Before the City came to Rivendell with the proposal to use their parking lot back in 2002, it was vacant. They haven’t mentioned to the City that anyone else is ready to take the place of the existing recycling facility once the City moves the recycling center. • What is the access planned into the site – is a ¾ movement or something else? How will traffic go back to the north? o (Response from Traffic Engineering and Development Review Engineering): The City’s roadway improvement project is only in the conceptual stages with no drawings drafted yet. Discussions are still taking place on the design. Transportation staff believes the 225 Work Session Follow-up: Timberline and Prospect ODP and Integrated Recycling Facility PDP August 6, 2013 Page 2 Integrated Recycling Center should share the current power station access and that access could be up to a three-quarter access. Regarding how traffic will head back north, until the median improvements take place (estimated in 2015) the access will remain a full movement. Once the median is built a motorist would have to exit south bound and then locate a suitable route to allow them to head back to the north. A couple of possibilities include making a U-turn at Timberline and Nancy Grey or making a right turn onto Bear Mountain and then proceeding to the traffic signal at Timberline and Nancy Grey via Joseph Allen. • How will the disc golf course interact with the recycling facility? Does pedestrian access need to be provided on the south portion of the ODP? o (Response from Parks Planning and Environmental Services): The beginning and end of the disc golf course occurs at Edora Park; the Integrated Recycle Facility will share a property edge for a few holes at the course’s mid-section. There shouldn’t be a situation where disc golfers need mid-course access. The question of pedestrian access for our visitors to the IRF, however, is perhaps a second question. Those people who want to walk or bicycle to the facility with their recyclables are going to be given access via the same driveway as visitors who are driving their vehicles. There will be a 4’ striped shoulder on each side of the drive for pedestrians and bicycles, although bicycles may use the main drive as well. • Integrated Recycling Facility questions (all responses from Environmental Services): o Consistency with City Plan – how much will this recycling facility further the 50% waste diversion goal? How will it address the City Plan policies related to air quality and vehicle travel?  There is significant public usage of, and need for, the Rivendell site (typical volumes at Rivendell Recycling Center average 110 tons/month). The IRF will continue to meet this need along with providing additional avenues of recycling for: electronic waste, glass, batteries, scrap metal, wood, aggregate materials, and yard waste. The study done by the City’s consultants in 2011-12 (http://www.fcgov.com/recycling/pdf/integrated-recycling-facility-feasibility- analysis.pdf?1329241951) made a conservative estimate that between 8-15,000 new tons/year of material will be collected at the IRF; the report looked at a phasing schedule to gradually accept more materials over time. With changes requested by Council for an IRF, we are on track for being closer to Phase II (15,438 tons/year) than the original idea of starting with Phase I (7,719 tons/year), which is calculated to increase Fort Collins’ waste diversion between 2.1% - 4.35%. Having a “one stop shop” that accepts a variety of materials will help recyclers reduce the number of visits they need to make to go to separate facilities such as scrap metal shops, commercial composting sites, recycling centers, etc., thereby reducing their VMT. The east-central location of the new IRF on Timberline should provide good convenience for many people in Fort Collins to use. For those who live in the southwest part of town, it may continue to be - 2 - 226 Work Session Follow-up: Timberline and Prospect ODP and Integrated Recycling Facility PDP August 6, 2013 Page 3 just as easy to go to the Larimer County recycling center (co-located with the landfill) to recycle their bottles/cans/cardboard, etc. Part of what we hope to accomplish is to redirect people from going to the landfill to throw away mixed loads of wood, aggregate, scrap metal, and yardwaste, and to bring them to the IRF instead, where those materials will be recycled. Saving people the trip to the landfill will save on VMT for people who live in the northern areas of Fort Collins. Finally, we are also working with the Air Quality lead planner, Melissa Hovey, on the idea of posting some education/outreach information at the new IRF once it’s built, to help urge people to consolidate their driving trips and reduce VMT. o How will this recycling facility help reduce the percentage of glass that is not actually recycled?  A portion of the west end of the IRF has been designated for large amounts of glass to be staged for recycling at the bottle-making plant in Wheatridge, CO. Environmental Services has been in communication with local companies that have expressed a need for glass recycling, and this will give them an option. Being able to collect glass separately, the way we do at Rivendell Recycling Center – and will also do at the IRF - is important for keeping it clean enough to meet manufacturing standards set by the Rocky Mountain Bottle Company. (Glass collected in the single-stream curbside recycling program ends up getting mixed up with a lot of “contaminants” and therefore is used for beneficial secondary uses, for instance as a drainage material in trenches, instead of being made into new bottles.) At the IRF, we will be storing clean, separated glass in a bunker for greater efficiency in transporting loads going to Wheatridge. We are also working with local breweries to bring their broken glass (from their assembly lines) to the IRF, to then be taken to the plant to be made into new bottles. In fact, New Belgium Brewing has offered to help pay some of the costs of building the glass storage bunker at the IRF. o Will drywall be able to be brought into the facility? If so, how will asbestos be handled?  No, there is no intent to handle drywall at this point in time, since options for recycling drywall in Northern Colorado are very limited. We share a similar concern for asbestos along with lead base paint. If, in the future, we are able to find a market for recycling drywall, we would first establish a protocol to avoid accepting material that was contaminated. o Will the facility have to address state and federal regulations, especially regarding scales?  The State requires recycling facilities, like Fort Collins, to report how many tons/year of material are collected at drop-off sites. Data on the numbers of tons for each material will be established off-site since the IRF is not being designed to include an in-ground scale. For instance, when scrap metal is hauled to a metal dealer, or when aggregate is taken to Hoffman Mill Road Crushing Plant, those loads are weighed and documented by the receiving - 3 - 227 Work Session Follow-up: Timberline and Prospect ODP and Integrated Recycling Facility PDP August 6, 2013 Page 4 facility. The same is true for the bottles/cans/cardboard commodities, which are taken to Larimer County’s Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) co-located with the landfill on South Taft Hill Road. Wood debris and yard waste will be taken to a commercial composting facility; these sites typically do not have scales and we will do a yards-to-tons conversion using EPA factors to establish those weights. o Will the facility be staffed by a City employee or a consultant? Why?  The facility will be not be staffed by City employees, but instead will be contracted out to a firm whose core competencies lie in marketing the recyclable materials that are collected at the IRF. This requires an active market participant and ability to negotiate sales agreements on an ongoing basis, which is not something the City has skills, time, nor interest in doing. The job will be awarded on a competitive bid system after we have issued a Request for Proposals sometime this fall. The consultants will also be able to provide other resources that the City is not currently set up with, such as supplying, operating, and maintaining the kind of trucks used for “pulling” roll-off boxes full of recyclables. o Can you describe what trees will be used on the east side of the plan for screening?  The site’s existing large evergreen and deciduous trees will be transplanted from their current locations to areas between the project’s main drive and Timberline Road, and on the east side of the PRPA substation. The condition and relocation of these trees was assessed with aid from City Forestry and a large tree relocation contractor. The size and tough nature of these existing trees (ponderosa pine, pinion pine, Kentucky coffees tree and bur oaks) will serve well for site screening and overall landscape water efficiency. - 4 - 228 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Staff: Jon Haukaas, Ken Sampley, Marsha Hilmes-Robinson, Brian Varrella SUBJECT: Colorado Water Conservation Board Floodplain Regulation Adoption and other Minor Policy and Clean-up Items EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) adopted minimum state-wide floodplain regulations in January 2011. All communities must adopt these new standards by January 2014. The City of Fort Collins already has adopted many of these standards. Therefore, there are relatively few changes needed to meet the CWCB state-wide regulations. The key areas where changes are needed include:  Additional critical facilities to be regulated;  Higher freeboard for additions and substantial improvements;  Additional items to be included in substantial improvement cost determinations for City Basin Floodplains;  Hardship provisions for variance requests; and  Elimination of waivers for properties in areas where capital projects are under construction and reduce the floodplain in City Basin Floodplains.  New Section Heading for Division 5 entitled “FEMA Basin and City Basin Floodplains” combining the regulations for FEMA Basin floodplains and City Basin floodplains into one division. In addition, the current regulations were reviewed for recommended policy or procedural changes. Items proposed for revision include:  The definition of abandoned;  Escrow procedures;  Mapping criteria; and  LOMR- Fill criteria for properties annexed into the City. Additional minor clarifications are also proposed. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION CWCB Adoption Rules and Regulations Adoption Process For a community to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), it must adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations that meet or exceed the minimum NFIP standards as well as any more restrictive State requirements. The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) is the State agency responsible for floodplain management. The Colorado Water CWCB commenced a process in 2010 to revise and update the Floodplain Rules and Regulations (Rules) governing floodplains within the State of Colorado. The Rules were initially promulgated in 1987, revised in 2005 and updated in January 2011. As provided in the Colorado Revised Statutes, flooding is considered to be an issue of statewide concern, and therefore any 229 2 Rules governing it will apply statewide in all municipalities and counties, regardless of home rule status. A number of goals were formulated by CWCB staff leading to the stimulus to initiate the revision process. 1. The need for increased public safety in times of ever-growing flood losses around the country. 2. Regulations that would result in lower flood insurance premiums statewide. 3. Clarification that all state agencies must comply with the Rules. 4. Housekeeping language clarifications and other small items to correct known conflicts from the prior revisions. The CWCB initiated a considerable public outreach process prior to adoption of the Rules. The City of Fort Collins Stormwater staff engaged in various opportunities to learn more about the regulations and informally comment on the proposed standards. The City also discussed the proposed changes with the various City Boards and Commissions and community organizations, including:  DDA on March 7, 2010  Chamber of Commerce on March 16, 2010  Water Board on March 25, 2010  Council’s Legislative Review Committee on April 13, 2010. Attachment 1 is a letter from Mayor Hutchinson providing formal comment to the CWCB. The City also formally commented in writing (Attachment 2) and orally as part of the official Rule Making Process in November 2010. The City strongly supported the CWCB’s efforts and the CWCB was responsive to the City’s comments and concerns on specific issues. Effective January 14, 2011, the State of Colorado adopted higher standards for floodplain management, which are outlined in the Rules and Regulations for Regulatory Floodplains in Colorado (Rules). The Rules are the minimum standards for the State of Colorado and by extension, the NFIP in Colorado. A three-year implementation was provided, such that all communities have until January 14, 2014 to adopt the new regulations. The Federal Emergency Management Agency and the CWCB both must review any proposed changes to a community’s floodplain regulations to ensure conformance with the minimum standards. Comparison of City of Fort Collins Floodplain Regulations to CWCB Minimum Standards The National Flood Insurance Program's (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS) is a voluntary incentive program that recognizes and encourages community floodplain management activities that exceed the minimum NFIP requirements. As a result, flood insurance premium rates are discounted to reflect the reduced flood risk resulting from the community actions meeting the three goals of the CRS: 1. Reduce flood damage to insurable property; 2. Strengthen and support the insurance aspects of the NFIP, and 3. Encourage a comprehensive approach to floodplain management. 230 3 The City of Fort Collins is recognized by FEMA as one of the top 1% of communities in the country with regard to the Community Rating System (CRS) and is the highest rated community in the State of Colorado. Compared to many other communities in Colorado, the City of Fort Collins is required to only make minor code changes to be in compliance with the State Rules. For many communities, the new regulations are more restrictive than their current adopted standards and will result in a major shift in floodplain regulation. The differences between the City’s Current Floodplain Regulations, FEMA minimum standards, new State standards and the proposed City regulations are shown in Attachment 3. There are two criteria from the State Rules that need to be directly included in the City of Fort Collins Regulations. Listed below are the City Code sections and corresponding State Rule with detailed explanations of the changes: 1. 10-16 - Critical Facilities Definition - Rule 6 A (p. 12-14, Attachment 4) – The definition of Critical Facilities has expanded from the definition the City of Fort Collins currently utilizes. Attachment 5 is a table comparing the two definitions. The State has categorized critical facilities into four categories:  Essential Services  Hazardous Material Facilities  At-Risk Population Facilities, and  Government Services. Staff proposes to adopt the State’s general definition for critical facilities and add separate definitions for each of the above categories, providing specific details on what types of facilities are included. Facilities currently regulated by the City and not included in the State’s list have been included into the appropriate category. The State outlines regulatory requirements for Critical facilities in Rule 6 D and E (p. 15, Attachment 4). The State Rules offer communities the option of prohibiting critical facilities in the 100-year floodplain or requiring them to elevate and have dryland access. The City has had the prohibition of critical facilities since 1995. Staff recommends maintaining the prohibition of all critical facilities in the 100-year floodplain because of the truly critical nature of these facilities. In addition, dry access is very difficult to obtain and in many cases infeasible. Only essential services and at-risk population critical facilities will be prohibited in the 500-year floodplain. This change has been incorporated into City Code Section 10-81(a). This matches with Larimer County and the alignment of regulations for the Poudre River that took place in 2007 between the City and County. 2. 10-37(c)(2) b-c - Freeboard - Rule 11 B (p. 23, Attachment 4) – Minimum freeboard for additions and substantial improvements in City and FEMA designated floodplains will change from six inches to one foot to meet the State standard. For reference, it should be noted that in 2005, the City lowered the freeboard for additions and substantial improvements from eighteen inches to 6 inches in City and FEMA designated floodplains. 231 4 There are three policies in the City of Fort Collins Regulations that are no longer valid given the adoption of the State Rules. Listed below are the City Code sections and corresponding State Rule with explanations of the changes: 1. 10-29(c) and 10-29(d) - Hardship Exemption - Rule 15 (p. 27. Attachment 4) – Variances. The City currently does not require hardship to be shown when seeking a variance in a City Basin Floodplain. The new State standards require hardship be shown for any variances to the State Rules. 2. 10-138(3)b-c., 10-139(3)c-d., and 140(3)c-d -Remodeling - Rule 11 A (p. 23, Attachment 4) - Remodeling criteria in City Basin floodplains will need to meet the minimum FEMA standards. (i.e. “Pop-top” additions in City Floodplains will no longer be treated differently than any other remodel. All improvements, including those on floors above the flood elevation, will be counted toward substantial improvement.) For reference, it should be noted that in 2005, this standard was lowered from the minimum NFIP regulation to accommodate easier redevelopment in City Basins, such as Old Town. 3. 10-114 - Waivers - Rule 5 (p. 11 , Attachment 4) - Waivers for properties expected to be removed from a City Basin floodplain by construction of a Capital Improvement Project will no longer be allowed. The property will be required to conform to the floodplain regulations of Chapter 10 until the Capital Project is complete and the mapping has been updated to formally remove the property from the floodplain. The waiver policy was implemented in 2005 to allow development in City Basin floodplains to not have to wait for completion of a project and the corresponding remapping. 4. New Section Heading for Division 5 - Because the City Basin Floodplains will now be administered nearly identically to the FEMA Basin Floodplains, Division 6 has been removed. Division 5 will be renamed to be “FEMA BASIN and CITY BASIN FLOODPLAINS”. Necessary code sections from Division 6 that are not already included in Division 5, have been moved and incorporated into Division 5. (Example: Section 10- 143 moved to now be 10-114) Policy and Procedure Changes Unrelated to the State mandatory changes, City staff has identified policy and procedure changes that will assist in the implementation of the floodplain regulations. Listed below are the City code sections along with an explanation of the proposed change: 10-16 – Definitions - Add a definition for the word “Abandoned” to facilitate implementation of the nonconforming structures standards in Section 10-46(1). The definition is proposed to be: Abandoned shall mean any structure that has been used or was intended for use as an occupied structure, in whole or in part, including an accessory building, that has become vacant or unused for a period of at least 365 consecutive days, and meets at least two of the following conditions: 1. Is open to casual entry or trespass; 232 5 2. Is damaged by fire, flood, weather, or vandalism to an extent that prevents safe occupation; 3. Is the site of loitering or vagrancy; 4. Demonstrates a lack of property maintenance and upkeep as evidenced by one or more violations of the International Property Maintenance Code, as adopted in City Code Section 5-47; 5. Is under notice for being in violation of City ordinances; 6. Has been secured or boarded up for at least 365 days; 7. Has utilities disconnected or not in use; 8. Is subject to a condemnation notice or legal order to vacate; 9. Is structurally unsound to an extent that prevents safe occupation; or 10. Is a potential hazard or danger to the public. 10-26(11) - Provide the Executive Director the ability to require escrow for improvements that are required as part of approval of a floodplain use permit. 10-45 - Refine the criteria for when map revisions are needed when working in the floodway and the flood elevation is decreasing. This allows projects to progress to construction faster, by shifting some of the documentation to the end of the project, rather than the beginning. This new standard will be in alignment with State minimum requirements. The City’s Streets Department Pavement Management Program will benefit from this change. However, it may result in portions of projects needing to be redone because not enough analysis was provided at the front-end of the project and problems are then discovered at the back-end. In certain situations, this may also lead to the City’s mapping becoming out-of-date and/or shifting the responsibility of updates to subsequent private applicants or the City’s Stormwater Department. 10-80 - Removal of Property from the Poudre River Flood Fringe – Adds a provision that the requirements of this section apply even if the LOMR-F occurred when not located in the City. This closes a loop-hole of obtaining a LOMR-F prior to annexation and then not being subject to the conditions established for properties in the City that go through the same processes. This is especially important related the prohibition of residential structures and critical facilities on LOMR-F areas in the Poudre River floodplain. A provision is included that stipulates that this requirement does not apply to properties already annexed into the City. 10-113 – Removal of Property from the Flood Fringe of FEMA Basin Floodplains – Adds a provision that the requirements of this section apply even if the LOMF-F occurred when not located in the City. This closes a loop-hole of obtaining a LOMR-F prior to annexation and then not being subject to the conditions established for properties in the City that go through the same processes. This is especially important related the prohibition of critical facilities on LOMR-F areas in the FEMA Basin floodplains. A provision is included that stipulates that this requirement does not apply to properties already annexed into the City. 233 6 Clarifications Several clarification items have been identified by staff. These items include references to updated FEMA publications, code language that is not written clearly, removing outdated construction techniques, and clarification of long-standing policies and practices that will help staff and applicants with understanding the floodplain requirements. Listed below are the City code sections along with an explanation of the proposed change: 10-16 Definitions – Add a definition for the word “Colorado Floodplain Regulations.” 10-16 Definitions – Add a definition for the word “Conditional Letter of Map Revision. (CLOMR)” 10-16 Definitions - Cumulative Substantial Improvements – clarify that this value is tracked only during the time period that the structure is mapped in the floodplain. A provision is being added clarifying ordinary maintenance repairs are not to be included in the calculation of cumulative substantial improvement so long as there are no other structural improvements taking place. If structural improvements are taking place, then these items are still to be included in the calculation of substantial improvement or cumulative substantial improvement. This has been standard practice for over 16 years. 10-16 – Definitions – Add a definition for the word “hardship”. This was at the request of the Water Board. The definition is based on FEMA guidance. 10-16 – Definitions – Market value is modified with minor clarifications. 10-16 – Definitions - Add a definition for the word “Physical Map Revision (PMR).” 10-16 – Definitions - Add a definition for the word “Preliminary Map Revision.” 10-16 – Definitions – Start of Construction is modified with minor clarifications. 10-16 – Definitions - Substantial Improvement is modified to clarify how the time period for calculation of substantial improvement is determined. A provision is being added clarifying ordinary maintenance repairs are not to be included in the calculation of substantial improvement so long as there are no other structural improvements taking place. If structural improvements are taking place, then these items are still to be included in the calculation of substantial improvement or cumulative substantial improvement. This has been standard practice for over 16 years. 10-26(4) Executive Director’s Powers and Duties – Revise to only allow a Professional Land Surveyor to complete a FEMA Elevation Certificate. This is per State law regarding who is allowed to certify elevations. 10-27 Floodplain Use Permit – Add several clarifications: 234 7  Clarify that a floodplain use permit is still required for structures in LOMR-Fill areas.  Clarify the standards that should be used when preparing floodplain mapping. All floodplain mapping should meet the requirements set forth in the latest version of the FEMA publication, “Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners.” 10-29 Conditions for Variance – Clarify that all variances must meet the standards set forth in this section. 10-37 General Provisions related to Elevation of Structures – Add a provision clarifying that a FEMA Elevation Certificate or FEMA Floodproofing Certificate is required to be submitted and approved for any structure required to elevate under the provisions of 10-37. This is a minimum FEMA requirement and has been in practice by the City for over 20 years per 10-26 (4) Executive Director’s Power’s and Duties. Stating this requirement in Section 10-37 will provide clarification on this requirement for applicants. 10-38 Specific Standards for Floodproofing – clarified that Section 10-38(3)a. is a “pre-construction” floodproofing certificate and 10-38(4) is a “post-construction” elevation certificate. 10-41 Specific Standards for Mobile Buildings and Manufactured Homes – Details regarding acceptable methods for mobile home installation are removed from code. Many of these methods are no longer used. The FEMA publication has been updated and will be used for determining acceptable installation methods. FINANCIAL/ECOMOMIC IMPACTS There will be some short-term financial impacts to some floodplain properties due to the adoption of the Statewide Floodplain Regulations that require properties to follow certain new regulations. However, these regulations are also designed to provide long-term financial benefits by protecting properties from flood damage. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS There are no significant environment impacts or benefits to the proposed regulation changes ACTION REQUESTED Staff requests the Board provide a recommendation to City Council to adopt the proposed Statewide floodplain regulations and the additional proposed policy and procedural changes and clarifications to Chapter 10 of City Code. 235 8 PUBLIC OUTREACH City staff will be conducting public outreach during July and August to make the public aware of these required changes. The City will be giving presentations at local business organization meetings, City Boards and Commissions, and various building, engineering and realtor group meetings. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from Mayor Hutchinson providing formal comment to the CWCB. 2. City of Fort Collins Formal comment on CWCB Regulations. 3. The differences between the City’s Current Floodplain Regulations, FEMA minimum standards, new State standards and the proposed City regulations. 4. Rules and Regulations for Regulatory Floodplains in Colorado 5. Table comparing the critical facilities definitions of the State of Colorado and the City of Fort Collins. 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 FLOODPLAIN REGULATION COMPARISON TABLE - Current City vs. FEMA Minimum vs. State (CWCB) vs. Proposed City Regulation ISSUE 100-year Floodplain Poudre River 500-year Floodplain FEMA and City Moderate Risk Floodplain Existing City Regulation Color Key Does not meet FEMA minimum regulations FEMA Minimum Regulation State (CWCB) Regulation New as of January 2011 Proposed City Regulation Color Key MORE RESTRICTIVE NO CHANGE Existing City Regulation FEMA Minimum Regulation State (CWCB) Regulation New as of January 2011 Proposed City Regulation Color Key MORE RESTRICTIVE NO CHANGE Existing City Regulation FEMA Minimum Regulation State (CWCB) Regulation New as of January 2011 Proposed City Regulation Color Key MORE RESTRICTIVE NO CHANGE Floodway Rise 0.5 foot 1.0 foot 0.5 foot 0.5 foot none none none none none none none none Freeboard for New Structures and Redevelopment Poudre River = 24 inches above flood level. City and FEMA ISSUE 100-year Floodplain Poudre River 500-year Floodplain FEMA and City Moderate Risk Floodplain Existing City Regulation Color Key Below FEMA minimum regulations FEMA Minimum Regulation State (CWCB) Regulation Proposed City Regulation Color Key MORE RESTRICTIVE NO CHANGE Existing City Regulation FEMA Minimum Regulation State (CWCB) Regulation Proposed City Regulation Color Key MORE RESTRICTIVE NO CHANGE Existing City Regulation FEMA Minimum Regulation State (CWCB) Regulation Proposed City Regulation Color Key MORE RESTRICTIVE NO CHANGE LOMR-Fill requirements Poudre River- Must meet freeboard requirements, no residential and no critical facilities. FEMA Basin - Must meet freeboard requirements and no critical facilities. City Basin - NA Be “reasonably DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR REGULATORY FLOODPLAINS IN COLORADO November 17, 2010 267 2 RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR REGULATORY FLOODPLAINS IN COLORADO COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES TABLE OF CONTENTS Rule Title Pages 1 Rules and Regulations for Regulatory Floodplains in Colorado 3 2 Authority 3 3 Purpose and Scope 3 4 Definitions 4 5 The State Regulatory Floodplain 11 6 Critical Facilities 12 7 Standards for Delineation of the Regulatory Floodplain Information 15 8 Standards for Regulatory Floodways 18 9 Criteria for Determining the Effects of Flood Control Structures on Regulatory Floodplains 19 10 Criteria for Determining the Effects of Levees on Regulatory Floodplains 21 11 Floodplain Management Regulations 23 12 Effects of Flood Mitigation Measures and Stream Alteration Activities on Regulatory Floodplains 23 13 Process for Designation and Approval of Regulatory Floodplains 25 14 Designation and Approval of Changes to Regulatory Floodplains 26 15 Variances 27 16 Enforcement of Floodplain Rules and Regulations 28 17 Incorporation by Reference 29 18 Severability 29 19 Recommended Activities for Regulatory Floodplains 29 20 Effective Date 31 Note: Statement of Basis and Purpose follows last page of Rules 268 3 RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR REGULATORY FLOODPLAINS IN COLORADO Rule 1. Title: The formal title of the previous Rules and Regulations was "Rules and Regulations for the Designation and Approval of Floodplains and of Storm or Floodwater Runoff Channels in Colorado" as approved in 1988. The title for these Rules and Regulations was revised in 2005 to "Rules and Regulations for Regulatory Floodplains in Colorado," and amended here under the same title (referred to herein collectively as the "Rules" or individually as "Rule"). These Rules supersede both the 2005 and the 1988 Rules. Rule 2. Authority: These Rules are promulgated pursuant to the authority granted the Colorado Water Conservation Board (Board or CWCB) in sections 24-4-103, 24-65.1-101(1)(c)(I), 24-65.1-202(2)(a)(I), 24-65.1-302(2)(a), 24-65.1-403(3), 30-28-111(1)–(2), 31-23-301(1)– (3), 37-60-106(1), 37-60-106(1)(c)–(g), (j), (k), C.R.S. (2010). Rule 3. Purpose and Scope: A. Purpose. The purpose of these Rules is to provide uniform standards for regulatory floodplains (or floodplains) in Colorado, to provide standards for activities that may impact regulatory floodplains in Colorado, and to stipulate the process by which floodplains will be designated and approved by the CWCB. Rules for Regulatory Floodplains are of statewide concern to the State of Colorado and the Colorado Water Conservation Board in order to prevent flooding and the negative impacts of floods, as well as to assure public health, safety, welfare and property by limiting development in floodplains. These Rules will also assist the CWCB and communities in Colorado to develop sound floodplain management practices and implement the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). These Rules shall apply throughout the State of Colorado, without regard to whether a community participates in the National Flood Insurance Program. These Rules shall also apply to activities conducted by state agencies and to Federal activities that are fully or partially financed by state funds. These Rules also apply to projects or studies for which the Board has made a loan or grant pursuant to sections 37-60-120(2) and 37-60-121(1)(b)(VII), (IX)(C). B. Scope (1) Zoning. These Rules apply to all floodplain information developed for zoning and for floodplain permitting purposes for waterways in the State of Colorado by, but not limited to, individuals, corporations, local government agencies, regional government agencies, state government agencies, Indian tribes, and federal government agencies. (2) Subdivisions. These Rules generally apply to the local approval of subdivision drainage reports that provide 100-year floodplain information. Local governments should ensure that site-specific floodplain delineations, intended for regulatory purposes when they are prepared, for development activities are consistent with floodplain information designated and approved by the Board. (3) Dam Failure floodplain. These Rules do not apply to the identification of the area potentially inundated by the catastrophic or sudden failure of any man-made structure such as a dam, canal, irrigation ditch, pipeline, or other artificial channel. 269 4 Rule 4. Definitions: The following definitions are applicable to these Rules and Regulations for Regulatory Floodplain in Colorado: Term Definition 100-year Flood A flood having a recurrence interval that has a one- percent chance of being equaled or exceeded during any given year (1-percent-annual-chance-flood). The terms "one-hundred-year flood" and "one percent chance flood" are synonymous with the term "100-year flood." The term does not imply that the flood will necessarily happen once every one hundred years. 100-year Floodplain The area of land susceptible to being inundated as a result of the occurrence of a one-hundred-year flood. 500-year Flood A flood having a recurrence interval that has a 0.2-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded during any given year (0.2-percent-chance-annual-flood). The term does not imply that the flood will necessarily happen once every five hundred years. 500-year Floodplain The area of land susceptible to being inundated as a result of the occurrence of a five-hundred-year flood. Addition Any activity that expands the enclosed footprint or increases the horizontal square footage of an existing structure. Alluvial Fans A fan-shaped sediment deposit formed by a stream that flows from a steep mountain valley or gorge onto a plain or the junction of a tributary stream with the main stream. Alluvial fans contain active stream channels and boulder bars, and recently abandoned channels. Alluvial fans are predominantly formed by alluvial deposits and are modified by infrequent sheet flood, channel avulsions and other stream processes. Approximate Floodplain Floodplain information that significantly reduces Information the level of detail for topographic mapping or hydraulic calculations to arrive at floodplain delineations without a comparison of water surface profiles with a topographic map of compatible accuracy. The level of detail for hydrology is consistent with that of detailed floodplain information. 270 5 Base Flood Is synonymous with 100-year flood and is a flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. Base Flood Elevation (BFE) The elevation shown on a FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map for Zones AE, AH, A1-A30, AR, AR/A, AR/AE, AR/A1-A30, AR/AH, AR/AO, V1-V30, and VE that indicates the water surface elevation resulting from a flood that has a one percent chance of equaling or exceeding that level in any given year. Basin The total land surface area from which precipitation is conveyed or carried by a stream or system of streams under the force of gravity and discharged through one or more outlets. Channel The physical confine of stream or waterway consisting of a bed and stream banks, existing in a variety of geometries. Channelization The artificial creation, enlargement or realignment of a stream channel. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) The codification of the general and permanent Rules published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government. It is divided into 50 titles that represent broad areas subject to Federal regulation. Colorado Floodplain and The Manual prepared by the CWCB to aid local Stormwater Criteria Manual officials and engineers in the proper regulation and design of flood protected facilities. The Manual is advisory, rather than regulatory, in purpose. Community Any political subdivision in the state of Colorado that has authority to adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations through zoning, including, but not limited to, cities, towns, unincorporated areas in the counties, Indian tribes and drainage and flood control districts. Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) FEMA's comment on a proposed project, which does not revise an effective floodplain map, that would, upon construction, affect the hydrologic or hydraulic characteristics of a flooding source and thus result in the modification of the existing regulatory floodplain. Critical Facility or Critical Facilities Means a structure or related infrastructure, but not the land on which it is situated, as specified in Rule 6, that if 271 6 flooded may result in significant hazards to public health and safety or interrupt essential services and operations for the community at any time before, during and after a flood. See Rule 6. Debris Flow Movement of mud, water, and other materials downward over sloping terrain. The flow typically consists of a mixture of soil, rock, woody debris and water that flows down steep terrain. Designation and Approval Certification by formal action of the Board that technical information developed through scientific study using accepted engineering methods is suitable for local governments making land use decisions under statutorily authorized zoning powers. Detailed Floodplain Information Floodplain information prepared utilizing topographic base mapping, hydrologic analysis, and hydraulic calculations to arrive at precise water surface profiles and floodplain delineations suitable for making land use decisions under statutorily authorized zoning powers. Development Any man-made changes to improved or unimproved real estate, including, but not limited to, buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations. DFIRM Database Database (usually spreadsheets containing data and analyses that accompany DFIRMs). The FEMA Mapping Specifications and Guidelines outline requirements for the development and maintenance of DFIRM databases. Digital Flood Insurance FEMA digital floodplain map. These digital Rate Map (DFIRM) maps serve as “regulatory floodplain maps” for insurance and floodplain management purposes. Federal Register The official daily publication for Rules, proposed Rules, and notices of Federal agencies and organizations, as well as executive orders and other presidential documents. FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA Guidelines & Specifications Floodplain mapping specifications published by for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners FEMA. The FEMA Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners (2009) are incorporated herein by reference and available for viewing at www.fema.gov/fhm/dl_cgs.shtm and for inspection at the CWCB offices at 1313 Sherman Street, Room 721, 272 7 Denver CO 8020. The regulations may also be examined at any state or federal publications depository library. The FEMA Mapping Specifications and Guidelines incorporated herein by reference are only those in existence at the time of the promulgation of these Rules and Regulations for Regulatory Floodplains in Colorado and do not include later amendments to or editions of the incorporated material. "Flood" or "Flooding" A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from: 1. The overflow of water from channels and reservoir spillways; 2. The unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source; or 3. Mudslides or mudflows that occur from excess surface water that is combined with mud or other debris that is sufficiently fluid so as to flow over the surface of normally dry land areas (such as earth carried by a current of water and deposited along the path of the current. Flood Contour A line shown on a map joining points of equal elevation on the surface of floodwater that is perpendicular to the direction of flow. Flood Control Structure A physical structure designed and built expressly or partially for the purpose of reducing, redirecting, or guiding flood flows along a particular waterway. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) A FIRM is the official map of a community on which FEMA has delineated both the special hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. Flood Mitigation Project A project within or adjacent to a flooding source that is specifically intended to reduce or eliminate the negative impacts caused by excessive floodwaters through improvement of drainage, flood control, flood conveyance or flood protection. Floodplain The area of land that could be inundated as a result of a flood, including the area of land over which floodwater would flow from the spillway of a reservoir. Floodplain Management The operation of an overall program of corrective and preventive measures for reducing flood damage, including, but not limited to, zoning or land-use 273 8 regulations, flood control works, and emergency preparedness plans. Floodplain Management Regulations Zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, building codes, health regulations, land-use permits, special purpose ordinances (floodplain ordinance, grading ordinance, or erosion control ordinance) and other applications of regulatory powers. The term describes state/local regulations that provide standards for flood damage preservation and reduction. Floodplain Maps Maps that show in a plan view the horizontal boundary of floods of various magnitudes or frequencies. Such maps include, but are not limited to, Flood Hazard Boundary Maps (FHBM), Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), and Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRM) published by FEMA, Flood Prone Area Maps published by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Flooded Area Maps published by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), Floodplain Information Reports published by the CWCB or others, Flood Hazard Area Delineations (FHAD) published by the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD), and other locally adopted floodplain studies and master plans. Floodplain Studies A formal presentation of the study process, results, and technical support information developed for floodplain maps. Floodway The channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be kept free of obstructions in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height. Foreseeable Development The potential future development of, or changes in, the land uses that are likely to take place during the period of time covered by a community's adopted master land use plan or comprehensive community plan, or if no time period is specified, over a 20-year period. If there is no adopted community plan, then potential development patterns based on zoning, annexations, and other relevant factors should be evaluated. Freeboard The vertical distance in feet above a predicted water surface elevation intended to provide a margin of safety to compensate for unknown factors that could contribute to flood heights greater than the height calculated for a 274 9 selected size flood such as debris blockage of bridge openings and the increased runoff due to urbanization of the watershed. Geographic Information Computer software that utilizes databases and Systems (G.I.S.) terrain mapping to store and display spacial and tabular data, such as floodplains, as layers (e.g. political boundaries, roadways, structures, topographic information) for natural resource management and other uses. Hydraulic analysis The determination of flood elevations and velocities for various probabilities based on a scientific analysis of the movement and behavior of floodwaters in channels and overbank areas. Hydrologic Analysis The computation of the peak rate of flow, or discharge in cubic feet per second, for various selected probabilities for streams, channels, or watersheds based on a scientific analysis of the physical process. Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) An official revision to the currently effective FEMA map. It is issued by FEMA and changes flood zones, delineations, and elevations. Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill (LOMR-F) FEMA’s modification of the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) based on the placement of fill outside the existing regulatory floodway. Levee An artificial structure or land feature that has been designed and is operated, wholly or in part, for the purpose of containing, controlling, or diverting the flow of water. Low Impact Development (LID) Development design/construction strategy that maintains the predevelopment hydrologic regime to the extent possible. The goal of LID is to mimic the natural runoff hydrograph as much as practicable in terms of magnitude, frequency, duration, timing, and rate of change of stream flows. LID focuses on small scale stormwater retention and detention, reduced impervious areas, and increased runoff periods. Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) A form with data regarding the properties of a particular substance. An important component of product stewardship and workplace safety, it is intended to 275 10 provide workers and emergency personnel with procedures for handling or working with that substance in a safe manner, and includes information such as physical data (melting point, boiling point, flash point, etc.), toxicity, health effects, first aid, reactivity, storage, disposal, protective equipment, and spill-handling procedures. Mitigation The process of preventing disasters or reducing related hazards. Structural Mitigation, includes, but is not limited to, flood proofing structures, diverting floodwaters, detention ponds, floodwalls or levees. Nonstructural Mitigation includes, but is not limited to, education, planning, and design of flood prevention measures, emergency preparedness plans, elevating relocating structures, purchasing property for open space, or early flood warning detection systems. National Flood Insurance FEMA’s program of flood insurance coverage Program (NFIP) and floodplain management administered in conjunction with the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. The NFIP has applicable Federal regulations promulgated in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The U.S. Congress established the NFIP in 1968 with the passage of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. Post-Wildfire Hydrology Methodologies and calculations developed to account for the increased stormwater runoff following forest fires. Post-wildfire hydrology is typically evaluated every 3 to 5 years to assess the need for further revision based on watershed recovery, forest re-growth, and other factors. Provisionally Accredited Levee (PAL) A levee that FEMA has previously credited with providing protection from a 1-percent-chance-annual- flood on an effective FIRM or DFIRM, for which FEMA is awaiting data and/or documentation that will show the Levee’s compliance with Levee certification requirements of the NFIP regulations. Regulatory Floodplain Floodplain Maps, Profiles, and related information for flood hazard areas that have been designated and approved by the CWCB. See Rule 5. Residual Risk The threat to the areas behind levees that may still be at risk for flooding. Although the probability of flooding may be lower because a levee exists, the consequence to 276 11 personal safety and property is much higher should a levee overtop or fail. Stream Alteration Activity Any manmade activity within a stream or floodplain that alters the natural channel, geometry, or flow characteristics of the stream. Substantial Change Any improvement to, or rehabilitation due to damage of, a structure for which the activity performed equals or exceeds 50% of the pre-improvement or pre-damaged value of the structure. The value of the structure shall be determined by the local jurisdiction having land use authority in the area of interest. Threshold Planning Quantity (TPQ) A quantity designated for each chemical on the list of extremely hazardous substances that triggers notification by facilities to the State that such facilities are subject to emergency planning requirements. Topography Configuration (relief) of the land surface elevation; the graphic delineation or portrayal of that configuration in map form, as by lines of constant elevation called contour lines. Use Change Any change in the primary use of a facility. Water Surface Profile A graph that shows the relationship between the vertical elevation of the top of the floodwater and of the streambed with the horizontal distance along the stream channel. Rule 5. Regulatory Floodplain: The Regulatory Floodplain in Colorado is the 100-year floodplain. However, the CWCB will Designate and Approve 500-year floodplain information but only at the written request of a local authority having land use jurisdiction. In addition, previously designated floodplain areas that have been removed from FEMA’s effective regulatory floodplain by a Letter of Map Revision based on Fill (LOMR-F) shall remain within the Regulatory Floodplain for all activities affected by Rule 11(c). All Designated and Approved Regulatory Floodplain information can be used by local authorities having land use jurisdiction for the purpose of local regulation. The General Assembly has deemed the designation of floodplains a matter of statewide importance and interest and gave the CWCB the responsibility for the designation of Regulatory Floodplains and to assure protection of public health, safety, welfare and property by protecting development in the Regulatory Floodplains. §§ 24-65.1-101, 24-65.1- 202(2)(a)(I), 24-65.1-302(1)(b), (2)(a), 24-65.1-403(3), 24-65.1-404(3). 277 12 Rule 6. Critical Facilities: A. Classification: Critical Facilities are classified under the following categories: (1) Essential Services; (2) Hazardous Materials; (3) At-risk Populations; and (4) Vital to Restoring Normal Services. (1) Essential services facilities include public safety, emergency response, emergency medical, designated emergency shelters, communications, public utility plant facilities , and transportation lifelines. These facilities consist of: a. Public safety (police stations, fire and rescue stations, emergency vehicle and equipment storage, and, emergency operation centers); b. Emergency medical (hospitals, ambulance service centers, urgent care centers having emergency treatment functions, and non-ambulatory surgical structures but excluding clinics, doctors offices, and non-urgent care medical structures that do not provide these functions); c. Designated emergency shelters; d. Communications (main hubs for telephone, broadcasting equipment for cable systems, satellite dish systems, cellular systems, television, radio, and other emergency warning systems, but excluding towers, poles, lines, cables, and conduits); e. Public utility plant facilities for generation and distribution ( hubs, treatment plants, substations and pumping stations for water, power and gas, but not including towers, poles, power lines, buried pipelines, transmission lines, distribution lines, and service lines); and f. Air Transportation lifelines (airports (municipal and larger), helicopter pads and structures serving emergency functions, and associated infrastructure (aviation control towers, air traffic control centers, and emergency equipment aircraft hangars). Specific exemptions to this category include wastewater treatment plants (WWTP), Non-Potable water treatment and distribution systems, and hydroelectric power generating plants and related appurtenances.. Owners of these facilities are encouraged to meet the spirit of Rule 6(D) when practicable in order to protect their own infrastructure and to avoid system failures during extreme flood events. Emergency restoring plans following major flood events should be considered as a prudent addition to operation and maintenance plans for those facilities. Public utility plant facilities may be exempted if it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the local authority having jurisdiction that the facility is an element of a redundant system for which service will not be interrupted during a flood. At a minimum, it shall be demonstrated that redundant facilities are available (either owned by the same utility or available through an intergovernmental agreement or other contract) and connected, the alternative facilities are either located outside of the 100-year floodplain or are compliant with this rule, and an operations plan is in effect that states how redundant systems will provide service to the affected area in the event of a flood. Evidence of ongoing redundancy shall be provided to the local authority on an as-needed basis upon request by that local authority. 278 13 (2) Hazardous materials facilities include facilities that produce or store highly volatile, flammable, explosive, toxic and/or water-reactive materials. These facilities may include: a. Chemical and pharmaceutical plants (chemical plant, pharmaceutical manufacturing); b. Laboratories containing highly volatile, flammable, explosive, toxic and/or water- reactive materials; c. Refineries; d. Hazardous waste storage and disposal sites; and e. Above ground gasoline or propane storage or sales centers. Facilities shall be determined to be Critical Facilities if they produce or store materials in excess of threshold limits. If the owner of a facility is required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to keep a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) on file for any chemicals stored or used in the work place, AND the chemical(s) is stored in quantities equal to or greater than the Threshold Planning Quantity (TPQ) for that chemical, then that facility shall be considered to be a Critical Facility. The TPQ for these chemicals is: either 500 pounds or the TPQ listed (whichever is lower) for the 356 chemicals listed under 40 C.F.R. § 302 (2010), also known as Extremely Hazardous Substances (EHS); or 10,000 pounds for any other chemical. This threshold is consistent with the requirements for reportable chemicals established by the Colorado Department of Health and Environment. OSHA requirements for MSDS can be found in 29 C.F.R. § 1910 (2010). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation “Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification,” 40 C.F.R. § 302 (2010), available at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/40cfr302_03.html, and OSHA regulation “Occupational Safety and Health Standards,” 29 C.F.R. § 1910 (2010), available at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_99/29cfr1910_99.html, are incorporated herein by reference and include the regulations in existence at the time of the promulgation of these Rules, but exclude later amendments to or editions of the regulations. Specific exemptions to this category include: a) Finished consumer products within retail centers and households containing hazardous materials intended for household use, and agricultural products intended for agricultural use. b) Buildings and other structures containing hazardous materials for which it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the local authority having jurisdiction by hazard assessment and certification by a qualified professional (as determined by the local jurisdiction having land use authority) that a release of the subject hazardous material does not pose a major threat to the public. c) Pharmaceutical sales, use, storage, and distribution centers that do not manufacture pharmaceutical products. These exemptions shall not apply to buildings or other structures that also function as Critical Facilities under another category outlined in this Rule 6(A). (3) At-risk population facilities include medical care, congregate care, and schools. 279 14 These facilities consist of: a. Elder care ( nursing homes); b. Congregate care serving 12 or more individuals ( day care and assisted living); c. Public and private schools (pre-schools, K-12 schools), before-school and after- school care serving 12 or more children); (4) Facilities vital to restoring normal services including government operations. These facilities consist of: a. Essential government operations (public records, courts, jails, building permitting and inspection services, community administration and management, maintenance and equipment centers); b. Essential structures for public colleges and universities (dormitories, offices, and classrooms only); These facilities may be exempted if it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the local authority having jurisdiction that the facility is an element of a redundant system for which service will not be interrupted during a flood. At a minimum, it shall be demonstrated that redundant facilities are available (either owned by the same entity or available through an intergovernmental agreement or other contract), the alternative facilities are either located outside of the 100-year floodplain or are compliant with this rule, and an operations plan is in effect that states how redundant facilities will provide service to the affected area in the event of a flood. Evidence of ongoing redundancy shall be provided to the local authority on an as-needed basis upon request by that local authority. B. Identification of Critical Facilities. It is the responsibility of the local jurisdiction having land use authority to identify and confirm that specific structures in their community meet the criteria outlined in Rule 6(A) and are deemed to be Critical Facilities. All structures that clearly meet the intent of Rule 6 shall be deemed Critical Facilities by that jurisdiction. For those structures for which it is unclear or otherwise ambiguous if the criteria are met, the local jurisdiction shall have the sole discretion to determine if the structure is a Critical Facility. Local jurisdictions may adopt ordinances that regulate to higher standards or that include additional facilities within the definition of Critical Facilities. Critical Facilities that are also designated as historic structures (determinations by the State Historic Preservation Office) are exempt from these requirements. Pursuant to section 24-65.1-202(2)(a)(I)(A), C.R.S. (2010), open space activities such as agriculture, horticulture, floriculture, recreation, and mineral extraction, including oil and gas activities, shall be encouraged in the floodplain, and are exempt as Critical Facilities unless provisions within Rule 6(A)(2) apply. Required identification of Critical Facilities shall be limited to owner-occupied structures. Local jurisdictions may, at their sole discretion, include leased facilities in their identification of Critical Facilities. C. 500-year Flood Events. The CWCB acknowledges that flooding does occur above and beyond 100-year (1% annual chance) events. Communities are encouraged to regulate development of Critical Facilities within the 500-year floodplain, when available. 280 15 D. Protection of Critical Facilities. All new and Substantially Changed Critical Facilities, and new Additions to Critical Facilities, shall be regulated to a higher standard than those structures not determined to be Critical Facilities. Local jurisdictions having land use authority are encouraged to consult with the owner of the Critical Facility in determining the value of the Critical Facility when a Substantial Change is being considered. This Rule 6 shall be applied to a Use Change if the new use meets the provisions within Rule 6(A). Further, although Rule 6 shall apply to new Additions made at Critical Facilities, it shall only apply to the new Additions, and not the Critical Facility to the extent the Critical Facility existed prior to the amendment of these Rules. The higher standard for Critical Facilities shall be as follows: For Critical Facilities located within the 100-Year Floodplain, the structure shall be protected according to Rule 11(B) herein, with the exception of a freeboard of two feet substituted for the standard one-foot freeboard. The International Building Code (2006) and Flood Resistant Design and Construction (ASCE 24) (2005) can be used as reference tools for this standard, but are not incorporated by reference herein. For the purposes of this Rule 6(D), protection shall include one of the following: a) Location outside the Regulatory Floodplain; or b) Elevation or Flood-proofing of the structure so that it is protected to the level indicated in this Rule 6(D). Unimproved lands associated with a Critical Facility that lie within a regulatory floodplain shall not be subject to this requirement, until future development takes place on those lands. Likewise, if an undeveloped portion of a facility’s property lies within a Regulatory Floodplain, but the developed portion of that facility lies outside of the Regulatory Floodplain, then that facility shall not be classified as a Critical Facility. All other rules and regulations governing structures not deemed Critical Facilities remain in effect and unchanged. E. Ingress and Egress for New Critical Facilities shall, when practicable as determined by the local jurisdiction having land use authority, have continuous non-inundated access (ingress and egress for evacuation and emergency services) during a 100-year flood event. This criterion is also recommended, but not required, for changes to existing Critical Facilities and use changes involving existing structures whose classification changes to Critical Facilities. F. For all Critical Facilities, the Variance procedure outlined in Rule 15 herein remains available and may be considered when deemed necessary and appropriate by the local jurisdiction having land use authority over the Critical Facility. Rule 7. Standards for Delineation of Regulatory Floodplain Information: A. Intent of this Rule. This Rule contains standards for approximate and detailed floodplains. All floodplain information intended to be used by local jurisdictions for the purpose regulating flood hazard areas, with the exception of local stormwater drainage reports, 281 16 CLOMR, LOMR, and LOMR-F submittals, and supporting documentation submitted to FEMA, shall be provided to the CWCB for designation and approval in order to enable local governments to regulate floodplains appropriately. The standards in this rule reference, and incorporate herein, the FEMA Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners. Whenever such a reference is made, it includes the FEMA Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners material in existence at the time of the promulgation of these Rules, but excludes later amendments to or editions of the material. B. Level of Detail. (1) Approximate Floodplain Information will be based on detailed hydrology computed for 100-year floods. Hydraulic information shall be produced using approximate, field, or limited techniques and best available topographic/survey data. (2) Detailed Floodplain Information will be based on detailed hydrologic and hydraulic determinations for 100-year floods Flood profiles and floodplain delineations for 100-year flood and other frequencies, if any, shall be plotted, preferably using a digital method. The CWCB shall designate and approve 100-year floodplain information, and 500-year information but only at the request of a local authority having land use jurisdiction. C. Base Mapping. Base mapping for floodplain studies shall meet the minimum standards as set forth in FEMA Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners, as incorporated herein by reference. D. Topography and Surveys. Topographic and field survey information for floodplain studies shall meet the minimum standards as set forth in FEMA Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners, as incorporated herein by reference. E. Geographic Information Systems (GIS). GIS information for floodplain studies in Colorado shall meet the minimum standards as set forth in FEMA Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners, as incorporated herein by reference. F. Hydrology. Hydrologic analyses for floodplain studies in Colorado shall be completed using the information set forth in FEMA Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners, as incorporated herein by reference. The Colorado Floodplain and Criteria Manual may be used as a reference document to aid in this analysis. In addition, hydrology studies must comply with the following: (1) All floodplain studies, regardless of the level of detail, (e.g., approximate or detailed) shall utilize detailed hydrologic information. The CWCB recognizes existing and future watershed conditions for the purposes of computing flood hydrology. The CWCB may evaluate future watershed conditions, in addition to existing conditions when Foreseeable Development is expected. (2) Any new study to evaluate hydrologic information and/or design storm criteria shall be completed in such a way that it is scientifically defensible and technically reproducible. (3) All jurisdictions and communities affected by revised hydrologic data, due to their geographic proximity to the affected stream reach within a particular watershed, 282 17 are encouraged to participate in the update process, and shall be given the opportunity by the study sponsor to review and comment on the revised information. Opponents to the revised information may present technically accurate and sound scientific data to the CWCB that clearly demonstrates that the information in question is inaccurate pursuant to Rule 12. The CWCB shall make the final determination regarding disputes. (4) Within any given watershed, or hydrologic subregion, consistency in hydrologic data and runoff methodology shall be pursued to the extent possible through cooperation of all affected jurisdictions and entities. G. Detailed Hydraulic Method. Hydraulic analyses for floodplain studies in Colorado shall be completed using protocols set forth in FEMA Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners, as incorporated herein by reference. H. Floodplain Delineations. Floodplain delineations shall be completed using protocols set forth in FEMA Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners, as incorporated herein by reference, and shall, at a minimum, comply with the technical quality assurance standards as follows: (1) The flood elevations and the floodplain delineations on the maps must correlate reasonably to the best available topographic information for the stream and adjacent corridor and must meet an acceptable level of technical accuracy. (2) The planimetric features on the floodplain maps (including, but not limited to, streets and highways, stream centerlines, bridges and other critical hydraulic features, corporate limits, section lines and corners, survey benchmarks) must be consistent with the best available aerial photographs or other suitable information for the stream and the adjacent corridor, as determined through prevailing industry practices, and must meet an acceptable level of technical accuracy. I. Special Floodplain Conditions. There are a number of special floodplain conditions, or natural flood hazards, in Colorado that fall outside of the standard riverine environment. Studies for the 100-year flood involving special conditions shall be completed using protocols set forth in FEMA Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners, as incorporated herein by reference. The special conditions are: (1) Alluvial Fan and Debris Flow floodplains located within foothill and mountainous regions of Colorado shall be considered on a case-by-case basis. (2) Post-wildfire hydrology shall be evaluated on a case-by-case basis in forested areas immediately following moderate to intense wildfires resulting in approximately 15% or greater burn area of the affected watershed. Interim flood advisory maps, based on burned watershed conditions, shall be produced at the request of the local governing authority or by Board initiative. The interim floodplain maps shall show increased runoff from hydrophobic soils and lack of vegetation. The post-wildfire maps shall be evaluated every 3 to 5 years to assess the need for further revision based on watershed recovery, forest re-growth, and other factors. (3) Ice jam flooding shall be considered within stream reaches where this phenomenon is known to occur. Ice jam flooding may be analyzed utilizing methodologies 283 18 available through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL), located in Hanover, New Hampshire. J. Written reports and maps. The results of the hydrologic analyses, hydraulic analyses, and floodplain delineations shall be summarized in a written report and submitted to the CWCB. All Approximate and Detailed Floodplain Information that is presented to the CWCB for designation and approval shall be properly titled, dated, organized, and bound as a stand-alone document. In addition to the hard copy final report, the CWCB requires that a digital copy of the final report be submitted in MS Word and PDF formats. All pertinent technical backup data such as GIS files, and hydrologic and hydraulic models shall also be provided to the CWCB in acceptable digital formats. The CWCB shall electronically distribute to interested parties, to the extent possible, pertinent study information. Access to original GIS information shall be provided to local governments and other authorized users through a secure and protected website or other secure means. (1) The Regulatory Floodplain maps shall show, at a minimum, the flood boundaries, the location of all cross sections used in the hydraulic analysis, the reference line drawn down the center of the floodplain or low flow channel, and a sufficient number of flood contours in order to reconstruct the flood water surface profiles. (2) New Physical Map Revisions requested by local jurisdictions or involving local jurisdictions should include detailed 500-year floodplain information when practicable. (3) Flood contours, or Base Flood Elevations, shall be shown as wavy lines drawn perpendicular to the direction of flow of floodwater and shall extend completely across the area of the mapped Regulatory Floodplain. Each flood contour shall indicate its elevation to the nearest whole foot. (4) The Regulatory Floodplain map scale shall be 1-inch equals 1000 feet or such map scale showing greater detail. FEMA map panels may also be published at 1 inch equals 500 feet, 1 inch equals 1,000 feet or 1 inch equals 2000 feet. (5) Where discrepancies appear between Regulatory Floodplain maps and water surface profiles, any regulatory water surface profile designated and approved by the Board shall take precedence over any corresponding flooded area map for the same stream reach or site location, unless a profile error is identified and substantiated. K. Contractor Qualifications (1) Qualified engineers licensed in Colorado shall direct or supervise the floodplain mapping studies and projects pertaining to the Regulatory Floodplain. All floodplain maps, reports and project designs pertaining to the Regulatory Floodplain, except those prepared by federal agencies, shall be certified and sealed by the Colorado Registered Professional Engineer of record. (2) Federal agencies or other recognized and qualified government authorities may produce floodplain mapping work as a study proponent or on behalf of a study proponent. Rule 8. Standards for Regulatory Floodways: 284 19 A. Establishment of Floodway Criteria. The CWCB recognizes that Designated Floodways are administrative limits and tools used by communities to regulate existing and future Floodplain developments within their jurisdictions. This Rule 8(A) does not require communities to automatically map ½ foot floodways within their jurisdictions. However, at such time when floodways are to be delineated through Physical Map Revisions involving local government participation, communities shall delineate floodways for the revised reaches based on ½-foot rise criteria. Letters of Map Revision to existing floodway delineations may continue to use the floodway criteria in place at the time of the existing floodway delineation. Until such time that floodways are revised and designated, communities may continue to regulate their mapped one-foot floodways. For reaches where a transition must be shown to connect new studies to existing studies with different floodway criteria, the transition length shall not exceed 2,000 feet. B. Designation of floodways. Designation and approval of Floodplain information shall also include the designation and approval of corresponding Floodway Information. For waterways with Base Flood Elevations for which Floodways are not computed, the community shall apply a ½ foot floodway regulation according to its own determination, as outlined in FEMA Regulation 44 C.F.R. § 60.3(c)(10) (2010),incorporated herein by reference, for a 1-foot floodway. This reference is available at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/44cfr60_02.html, and is hereby incorporated by reference into this Rule and includes the material in existence at the time of the promulgation of these Rules, but does not include later amendments to or editions of this incorporated material C. Incorporation of FEMA’s Floodway Regulations. All regulations defined in the FEMA regulations “Criteria for Land Management and Use,” 44 C.F.R. § 60.3(c)(10), (d) (2010) available at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/44cfr60_02.html, are hereby incorporated by reference into this Rule and includes the material in existence at the time of the promulgation of these Rules, but does not include later amendments to or editions of this incorporated material. All communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program that have Base Flood Elevations defined for one or more of the waterways within their jurisdictions shall adopt and enforce these floodway regulations. Failure to enforce floodway regulations may impact the community’s standing in the National Flood Insurance Program and may eliminate or reduce eligibility for federal or state financial assistance for flood mitigation and disaster purposes. D. Communities in Which This Rule Applies. Communities with Regulatory Floodplains that have been Designated and Approved by the CWCB with Base Flood Elevations defined for one or more of the waterways within their jurisdictions shall be required to establish technical (quantified) surcharge criteria for floodway determination and regulation, which must meet or exceed the requirements set forth in this Rule. This Rule shall not apply in communities without Base Flood Elevations established, unless otherwise adopted by the community. This Rule shall not apply to approximate stream reaches for which Base Flood Elevations have not been defined. Rule 9. Criteria for Determining the Effects of Flood Control Structures on Regulatory Floodplains: 285 20 A. For the purposes of this Rule, local and regional hydraulic structures providing local or regional flood or stormwater detention, shall be considered to be “Flood Control Structures.” There are no separate criteria for these structures. B. Flood Control Structures. If a publicly operated and maintained structure is specifically designed and operated either in whole or in part for flood control purposes, then its effects shall be taken into consideration when delineating the floodplain below such structure. The effects of the structure shall be based upon the 100-Year Flood with full credit given to the diminution of peak flood discharges, which would result from normal Flood Control Structure operating procedures. The hydrologic analysis pertaining to State Regulatory Floodplains shall consider the effects of on-site detention for rooftops, parking lots, highways, road fills, railroad embankments, diversion structures, refuse embankments (including, but not limited to, solid waste disposal facilities), mill tailings, impoundments, siltation ponds, livestock water tanks, erosion control structures, or other structures, only if they have been designed and constructed with the purpose of impounding water for flood detention and are publicly operated and maintained. For the purposes of this Rule, Public operation and maintenance may include direct responsibility or ultimate responsibility through written agreement. Detention structures that are privately operated or maintained shall not be included in the hydrologic analysis unless it can be shown that they exacerbate downstream peak discharges. C. Non-Flood Control Structures. If a structure is not specifically designed and operated, either in whole or in part, for flood control purposes, then its effects, even if it provides inadvertent flood routing capabilities that reduce the 100-Year Flood downstream, shall not be taken into account, and the delineation of the Floodplain below such structure shall be based upon the 100-Year Flood that could occur absent the structure’s influence. However, if adequate assurances have been obtained to preserve the flood routing capabilities of such structure, then the delineation of the Floodplain below the structure may, but need not, be based on the assumption that the reservoir formed by the structure will be filled to the elevation of the structure’s emergency spillway and the 100-Year hydrology can be routed through the reservoir to account for any flood attenuation effects. D. Adequate Assurances. For the purposes of this Rule 9 "adequate assurances" shall, at a minimum, include appropriate recognition in the community's adopted master plan of: (1) the flood routing capability of the reservoir, as shown by comparison of the 100-Year Floodplain in plan and profile with and without the structure in place, in order that the public may be made aware of the potential change in level of Flood protection in the event that the reservoir flood routing capability is lost; (2) the need to preserve that flood routing capability by whatever means available in the event that the reservoir owners attempt to make changes that would decrease the flood routing capability; and (3) a complete operations and maintenance plan. E. Irrigation Facilities. The CWCB recommends that irrigation facilities (including, but not limited to, ditches and canals) not be used as stormwater or flood conveyance facilities, unless specifically approved and designated by local governing jurisdictions and approved by the irrigation facility owners. The flood conveyance capacity of irrigation facilities shall 286 21 be acknowledged only by agreement between the facility owners and local governing jurisdictions, with review and concurrence from the Colorado Division of Water Resources to ensure that water rights administration needs are properly considered. A maintenance easement or agreement shall be in place allowing the local government maintenance access if needed. Unless specified otherwise by aforementioned written agreement, flood hydrology for State Regulatory Floodplain mapping purposes shall consist of peak hydrologic flows that are identical immediately downstream and immediately upstream of a ditch or canal that is generally perpendicular to the stream or drainageway of interest. The irrigation facility shall be assumed as running full so that there are no computed flood reduction benefits downstream of the irrigation facility. Backwater behind irrigation facilities shall be mapped. The CWCB will designate and approve 100-Year Floodplain information for irrigation facilities if the above recommendations are met. This Rule is not intended in any way to interfere with Colorado water law. Rule 10. Criteria for Determining Effects of Levees on Regulatory Floodplains: General. The use of levees for property protection, flood control, and flood hazard mitigation is not encouraged by the CWCB, unless other mitigation alternatives are not viable. The areas landward of an accredited levee and Provisionally Accredited Levee (PAL) system shall be mapped as Zone X (shaded). The Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMs) for these areas will include an informational note that advises users of the flood risk in levee-impacted areas. In situations where levees are the only viable alternative for protection of existing development, “setback” levees should be designed and constructed to maintain the natural channel and reserve a portion of the natural floodplain capacity. Levees should not be used for flood protection along streams or watercourses where new development is planned. However, levees may be used to protect public utility plant facilities for wastewater treatment and pumping as well as electric power plants due to their close proximity to natural waterways. For existing levees that protect existing development, proper maintenance should be performed by levee owners/operators, or non- federal sponsors in the case of federal levees, according to an operations and maintenance plan. Levees should not be constructed for the primary purpose of removing undeveloped lands from mapped floodplain areas for the purposes of developing those lands because of the potential impairment of the health, safety, welfare and property of the people. Design and construction of levees identified for this purpose will not be eligible for CWCB grants or loans. When constructed, levees for which protection will be considered for designation and approval must meet the requirements set forth in “Mapping of Areas Protected by Levee Systems,”44 C.F.R. § 65.10 (2010). Artificial embankments that either function as a Levee or a Flood Control Structure must meet the provisions of this Rule or “Office of the State Engineer Rules and Regulations for Dam Safety and Dam Construction,” 2 C.C.R. § 402-1 (2010), respectively, in order to be considered as providing protection. 44 C.F.R. § 65.10 (2010), available at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/44cfr65_02.html, and 2 C.C.R. § 402-1 (2010), available at http://water.state.co.us/pubs/rule_reg/ds_rules07.pdf, 287 22 are hereby incorporated by reference and include the incorporated material in each in existence at the time of the promulgation of these Rules, but do not include later amendments to or editions of either. A. Maintenance. An Operating and Maintenance manual that ensures continuing proper function of the structure shall be prepared and updated. The levee shall be structurally sound and adequately maintained. Sedimentation effects shall be considered for all levee projects. Certification from a federal agency, state agency, or a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer that the levee meets the minimum freeboard criteria, as stated above, and that it appears, on visual inspection, to be structurally sound and adequately maintained shall be required on a three-year basis and provided to the CWCB. Levees that have obvious structural defects or that are obviously lacking in proper maintenance shall not be considered in the hydraulic analysis. B. Ownership. Privately-operated or maintained levee systems will not be considered in the hydraulic analysis performed pursuant to Rule 7 unless a local ordinance mandates operation and maintenance of the levee system and the criteria set forth below are met. Levees for which the community, State, or Federal government has responsibility for operations and maintenance will be considered, provided that the criteria set forth below are met. Privately-owned levee systems shall only be considered in the hydraulic analysis if a fully executed agreement exists between the levee owner and a governmental entity enabling unrestricted access to the governmental entity for the purposes of inspection and maintenance and gives the governmental entity responsibility for maintenance. A copy of the executed agreement shall be provided to the Board and the Board shall be notified in writing of any changes made to this agreement. C. Freeboard. A minimum levee freeboard of 3 feet shall be necessary, with an additional 1- foot of freeboard within 100 feet of either side of hydraulic structures within the levee or wherever the flow is constricted, such as at bridges. An additional 0.5-foot above this minimum is also required at the upstream end of the levee. D. Interior Drainage. In cases where levees are mapped as providing 100-year protection the adequacy of interior drainage systems, on the landward side of the levee, shall be evaluated. Areas subject to flooding from inadequate interior drainage behind levees will be mapped using standard procedures. E. Human Intervention and Operation. In general, evaluation of levees shall not consider human intervention (e.g., capping of levees by sandbagging, earth fill, or flashboards) for the purpose of increasing a levee's design level of protection during an imminent flood. Human intervention shall only be considered for the operation of closure structures (e.g., gates or stop logs) in a levee system designed to provide at least 100-year flood protection, including adequate freeboard as described above, provided that such human operation is specifically included in an emergency response plan adopted by the community. F. Analysis. For areas protected by a levee providing less than 100-year protection (e.g., 10- year protection), flood elevations shall be computed as if the levee did not exist. For the unprotected area between the levee and the source of flooding, the elevations to be shown shall be obtained from either the flood profile that would exist at the time levee overtopping 288 23 begins or the profile computed as if the levee did not exist, whichever is higher. This procedure recognizes the increase in flood elevation in the unprotected area that is caused by the levee itself. This procedure may result in flood elevations being shown as several feet higher on one side of the levee than on the other. Both profiles shall be shown in the final report and labeled as "before levee overtopping" and "after levee overtopping" respectively. Rule 11. Floodplain Management Regulations: A. Compliance with Minimum Standards of the National Flood Insurance Program. Each community in the State of Colorado shall comply with the minimum floodplain criteria set forth in the FEMA regulation“Criteria for Land Management and Use,”44 C.F.R. §§ 60.3–60.5 (2010), unless more restrictive standards have been adopted as set forth in Rules 1 through 20 of these Rules and Regulations for Regulatory Floodplains in Colorado or pursuant to regulations adopted by the local community. These Rules do not apply to local stormwater or local storm drainage studies where riverine flooding sources are not considered. 44 C.F.R. §§ 60.3–60.5 (2010) available at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/44cfr60_02.html, are hereby incorporated by reference and include the material in existence at the time of the promulgation of these Rules, but do not include later amendments to or editions of the material. B. Minimum Freeboard. A minimum freeboard of one foot above the 100-year flood elevation (Base Flood Elevation) shall apply to structures in the floodplain as follows: (1) Residential Structures. New and Substantially Changed residential structures, and Additions to existing residential structures shall be constructed with the lowest floor, including basements, placed with a minimum of one foot of freeboard above the Base Flood Elevation. (2) Non-residential Structures. New and Substantially Changed non-residential structures, and Additions to existing non-residential structures shall be constructed with the lowest floor, including basements, placed with a minimum of one foot of freeboard above the Base Flood Elevation, or be flood-proofed to an elevation at least one foot above the Base Flood Elevation. Agricultural structures shall be exempt from this requirement. Critical Facilities shall be regulated according to Rule 6.D. This rule does not affect the freeboard requirement for levees described in Rule 10.C. C. Permit Restrictions for Properties Removed from the Floodplain by Fill. No Community shall issue a permit for the construction of a new structure on a property removed from the floodplain by the issuance of a FEMA Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill (LOMR-F) with a floor elevation placed below the base flood elevation with one foot of freeboard that existed prior to the placement of fill. Issuance of any such permit shall constitute a violation of these Rules. Critical Facilities are exempted from this restriction if the facility is protected according to Rule 6.D herein. Rule 12. Effects of Flood Mitigation Measures and Stream Alteration Activities on Regulatory Floodplains: 289 24 In order to assist the CWCB in carrying out its mission to protect the health, safety, welfare and property of the public, through the prevention of floods in Colorado, the CWCB requires the following: A. Detention/flood control storage and LID should be considered, when practicable, as part of a basinwide program for the watershed. B. Flood control channels shall include a low-flow channel with a capacity to convey the average annual flow rate, or other appropriate flow rate as determined through a hydrogeomorphological analysis, without excessive erosion or channel migration, with an adjacent overbank floodplain to convey the remainder of the 100-year flow. The channel improvement shall not cause increased velocities or erosive forces upstream or downstream of the improvement. C. Channelization and flow diversion projects shall appropriately consider issues of sediment transport, erosion, deposition, and channel migration and properly mitigate potential problems through the project as well as upstream and downstream of any improvement activity. A detailed geomorphological analysis should be considered, when appropriate, to assist in determining the most appropriate design. Project proponents for a mitigation activity must evaluate the residual 100-year floodplain. Proponents are also encouraged to map the 500-year residual floodplain. D. All public and private Flood Control Structures shall be maintained to ensure that they retain their structural and hydraulic integrity. Annual inspections including, as appropriate, field surveys of stream cross-sections, shall demonstrate to the appropriate regulatory jurisdictions that the project features are in satisfactory structural condition, that adequate flow capacity remains available for conveying flood flows, and that no encroachment by vegetation, animals, geological processes such as erosion, deposition, or migration, or by human activity, endanger the proper function of the project. If any significant problems, as identified within annual inspection reports, , the facility or project owner shall notify the CWCB within 60 days of the inspection. The inspections shall be conducted by the local jurisdiction for all publicly owned or publicly maintained facilities, and shall be conducted by the property owner or facility owner for all privately owned and maintained facilities. E. Any stream alteration activity proposed by a project proponent must be evaluated for its impact on the regulatory floodplain and be in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local floodplain rules, regulations and ordinances. F. Any stream alteration activity shall be designed and sealed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer or Certified Professional Hydrologist. G. All activities within the regulatory floodplain performed by federal agencies using local or state funds, or by private, local or state entities shall meet all applicable federal, state and local floodplain requirements. H. Stream alteration activities shall not be constructed unless the project proponent demonstrates through a floodway analysis and report, sealed by a Colorado Registered 290 25 Professional Engineer, that there are no adverse floodway impacts resulting from the project. This requirement only applies on stream reaches with Base Flood Elevations established. I. No adverse floodway impact means that there is a 0.00-foot rise in the proposed conditions compared to existing conditions floodway. J. Whenever a Stream Alteration activity is known or suspected to increase or decrease the established Base Flood Elevation in excess of 0.3 vertical feet (or a more stringent standard adopted by the local government authority), a Letter of Map Revision showing such changes shall be obtained in order to accurately reflect the proposed changes on FEMA’s regulatory floodplain map for the stream reach. The local community is responsible for ensuring that this process is pursued. This section herein does not require a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) to be applied for, unless mandated by the local government having land use authority. Rule 13. Process for Designation and Approval of Regulatory Floodplains: A. Designation and Approval Requirements. The Board will designate and approve Regulatory Floodplains by the adoption of written resolutions based only upon such floodplain information as the Board determines meets the standards set forth in Rule 7, as applicable, with consideration of the effects of dams and levees being subject to the criteria or Rules 9 and 10, respectively and any mitigation activity in Rule 12. B. Base Flood. 100-year floodplain information shall generally be the basis for all designation and approval actions by the Board for regulatory purposes in Colorado. However, the CWCB will designate and approve 500-year floodplain information but only at the written request of a local authority having land use jurisdiction. C. Provisional Designation. The CWCB may designate and approve, on a provisional basis and for a maximum period of time not to exceed two years, floodplain information that does not meet the minimum requirements as set forth in Rule 7. D. Process for Taking Designation and Approval Actions. The Board shall consider the designation and approval of floodplain information either by request of a community or by acting on its own initiative. (1) Consideration at a Community's Request. The Board shall consider designation and approval of floodplain information upon written request from the governing body of any community having jurisdiction in the area where the floodplain information is applicable. The letter of request shall identify the report title, date, author or agency which prepared the report, stream name(s), upstream and downstream limits of the stream reach(es) to be designated, stream length(s) in miles, type of designation requested (detailed or approximate), and any other relevant information. The Board shall receive such a request at least 30 days prior to the Board meeting at which consideration of designation and approval is requested. 291 26 (2) Consideration at the Board's initiative. If designation and approval of a floodplain would be in the best interest of the health, safety, welfare and property of the citizens of the State of Colorado, then the Board may take action at its own initiative to consider the designation and approval of floodplain information. In such cases, the Board shall notify the affected communities in writing at the time of study initiation or, in the case of a previously completed study, the Board shall receive concurrence in writing from the affected community at least 45 days prior to the Board meeting at which it will consider the designation and approval of floodplain information within their jurisdiction. (3) Notification of Adopted Resolutions. The CWCB shall send signed copies of each adopted resolution of designation and approval to the applicable local legislative bodies of each community having jurisdiction over land-use decisions in the study area and to FEMA within 30 days of adoption. Rule 14. Designation and Approval of Changes to Regulatory Floodplains: When changes are made to the characteristics of a floodplain that result in a revision of a community’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps or Flood Hazard Boundary Maps (and a subsequent designation of the new map), the Board will designate and approve changes to the regulatory floodplain caused by development, new or better technical information, or other sources. The CWCB will designate the changed floodplains by adopting written resolutions based upon such floodplain information as the Board determines meets the standards set forth in Rules 6-12. In the event that a community is aware of and has access to better available information on a previously designated flooding source, then the CWCB allows for that undesignated information to be used for regulatory purposes. A. Conditions. All changes to designated floodplains shall meet the same conditions as those required for original approval and designation. B. Process for Designation and Approval of Changes to a Regulatory Floodplain. The Board may consider the designation and approval of floodplain information either by request of a community or by acting on its own initiative. (1) Consideration at a Community’s Request. The Board shall consider designation and approval of changes to a regulatory floodplain upon written request from the governing body of any community having jurisdiction in the area where the floodplain information is applicable. The Board staff shall receive such requests at least 30 calendar days prior to the Board meeting at which consideration of designation and approval is requested. (2) Consideration at the Board’s Initiative. If designation and approval of a floodplain would be in the best interest of the health, safety, welfare and property of the citizens of the State of Colorado, then the Board may take action at its own initiative to consider the designation and approval of floodplain information. In such cases, the Board shall notify the affected communities in writing at the time of the study initiation or, in the case of a previously completed study, the Board shall receive concurrence in writing from the affected community at least 45 days prior to the Board meeting at which it will consider the designation and approval of floodplain information within their jurisdiction. 292 27 (3) Notification of Adopted Resolution. The CWCB shall send signed copies of each adopted resolution of designation and approval of changes to a regulatory floodplain to the applicable local legislative bodies of each community having jurisdiction over land-use decisions within the limits of the changed floodplain within 30 calendar days of designation and approval. C. Identification of Designations of Changes to a Regulatory Floodplain. The designation of the changes to the regulatory floodplain will be given a reference identification number that will differentiate the changed designation from the original. It is implied that designations to changes to a regulatory floodplain will only rescind the affected portions of the previously designated floodplain information. All other unaffected reaches will remain as originally designated. D. Map Revisions to Flood Insurance Rate Maps or Flood Hazard Boundary Maps. Floodplain map revisions (e.g., FEMA Letters of Map Revision) will be designated twice annually by the CWCB during a regularly scheduled Board meeting and will not be subject to a full technical review by the CWCB staff. Rule 15. Variances: A. Consideration by local jurisdiction. Request for a variance to any of these Rules may be considered by the local jurisdiction having land use authority , provided the entity or individual requesting the variance has submitted a written request to the appropriate authority. A notice of the Request must be provided to any adjacent communities that would be affected by the variance. B. Contents of a Request for Variance. The request for a variance shall identify: (1) The Rule from which the variance is requested; (2) The communities that would be affected by the variance; (3) The reasons why the Rule cannot be complied with; (4) The estimated difference in water surface elevations, flood velocities and flood boundaries that would result if the requested variance were granted than if the calculations were made through strict compliance with the Rule; (5) The estimated number of people and structures that will be impacted by granting of the variance; and (6) Any other evidence submitted by the community, the CWCB staff, or other party of interest. C. Factors to be considered. Variances may be issued if it can be determined that: (1) There is a good and sufficient cause; and (2) The variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief; and (3) Failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the community or the requestor and that the hardship is not the community's or requestor’s own making; and 293 28 (4) The granting of a variance will not result in increased vulnerability to flood losses, additional threats to public safety and welfare, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud or victimization of the public, hide information of significant interest to the public or conflict with existing local laws or regulations. (5) In lieu of items C(1) through C(4) above, a local jurisdiction having land use authority may, at its sole discretion, use an established variance procedure. D. Variance Process. Variance requests shall be processed as follows: (1) Local jurisdictions having land use authority shall render, confirm, modify, or reject all variance requests pertaining to these Rules. (2) The Board may review local variance decisions on a case-by-case basis to ensure that the overall intent and spirit of these Rules are properly considered at the local level. (3) Informal variance determination request may be presented to CWCB staff in order to guide community officials or project applicants as to whether a formal variance would be needed on a case by case basis. Rule 16. Enforcement of Floodplain Rules and Regulations: A. Procedure to be followed regarding alleged violations (1) Notice of Non-Compliance. a. A Notice of Non-Compliance (NONC) may be prepared and transmitted by the CWCB or its Director. Information regarding potential violations may be discovered directly by CWCB staff or can be brought to the CWCB or its Director by a Complainant, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, other state agencies, the local government within whose boundaries the alleged violation took place, or by any other person who may be directly and adversely affected or aggrieved as a result of the alleged violation. b. Oral complaints shall be confirmed in writing by the Complainant. Persons making a complaint are required to submit a formal letter of complaint to the CWCB Director. c. NONC process. i. An NONC issued by the CWCB shall be delivered to an alleged violator by personal delivery or by certified mail (return receipt requested). A copy of the NONC shall be transmitted to FEMA Region VIII and the local jurisdiction having land use authority. ii. The NONC does not constitute final agency action. iii. The NONC shall identify the statute, Rule, regulation, or policy subject to CWCB jurisdiction allegedly violated and the facts alleged to constitute the violation. The NONC may propose appropriate corrective action and suggested corrective action(s) if any, that the CWCB elects to require. (2) FEMA Region VIII shall support, through its National Flood Insurance Program activities, these Rules. This support will include the existing ability for FEMA to place sanctions upon a community for non-compliance. 294 29 (3) Certain CWCB decisions to provide flood and watershed related grant funding to communities may be directly dependent upon a community’s compliance with these Rules. Rule 17. Incorporation by Reference: FEMA Regulations 44 C.F.R. §§ 59, 60, 65, and 70 (2010), available at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_00/44cfrv1_00.html, EPA Regulations 40 CFR § 302 (2010), available at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/40cfr302_03.html, and OSHA Regulations 29 CFR § 1910 (2010), available at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_99/29cfr1910_99.html, are incorporated herein by reference. In addition, The Colorado “Office of the State Engineer Rules and Regulations for Dam Safety and Dam Construction Materials,” set forth in 2 C.C.R. § 402-1 (2010), available at http://water.state.co.us/pubs/rule_reg/ds_rules07.pdf, are incorporated herein by reference. The FEMA Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Mapping Partners (2009), available at www.fema.gov/fhm/dl_cgs.shtm, are also incorporated herein by reference. These regulations are hereby incorporated by reference by the Colorado Water Conservation Board and made a part of these Rules and Regulations for Regulatory Floodplains in Colorado. Materials in these Rules, including, but not limited to those mentioned here in Rule 17, which are incorporated by reference are those materials in existence as of the effective date of these Rules and do not include later amendments to or editions of these materials. The material incorporated by reference is available for public inspection during regular business hours at the Colorado Water Conservation Board, 1313 Sherman Street, Room 721, Denver, CO 80203 or may be examined at any state or federal publications depository library, or on the FEMA or CWCB website. Rule 18. Severability: If any portion of these Rules is found to be invalid, the remaining portion of the Rules shall remain in force and in effect. Rule 19. Recommended Activities for Regulatory Floodplains: The following list contains floodplain management activities and actions suggested by the CWCB to increase a community’s overall level of flood protection. Communities and other authorized government entities may: A. Adopt local standards above and beyond the FEMA and CWCB minimum requirements. B. Develop a Flood Response Plan that identifies responsibilities/actions before, during and after a flood event. C. Enroll in FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and possibly FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS) Program. D. Develop an early warning flood detection system (flood warning system) using available technologies such as automated precipitation and stream flow gages linked to an appropriate notification system. E. Coordinate with lenders, insurance agents, real estate agents, and developers to prepare and discuss educational tools based on state and federal requirements. 295 30 F. Promote wise floodplain development and support effective structural and non-structural flood mitigation projects. G. Conduct floodplain studies in areas of Foreseeable Development that do not currently have detailed floodplain studies. H. Maintain an electronic or paper library of local flood related data. I. Develop a flood risk outreach program and notify flood prone residents annually of flood hazards and the need for flood insurance. J. Encourage elevation of flood-prone structures and flood-proofing of structures in the floodplains. K. Utilize available state/federal mitigation and preparedness funds. L. Require certified floodplain managers to review proposed land developments. M. Advise the public at large that flooding does occur above and beyond the 100-year and 500- year floods. Floods greater than 500-year floods do occur, and loss of life and property is possible in areas mapped outside of both the 100-year and 500-year floodplains. . N. Utilize the concept of “No Adverse Impact” floodplain management where the action of one property owner does not adversely impact the rights of other property owners, as measured by increased flood peaks, flood stage, flood velocity, and erosion and sedimentation. No Adverse Impact could be extended to entire watersheds as a means to promote the use of retention/detention or other techniques to mitigate increased runoff from urban areas. O. Prohibit the construction of new levees that are intended to remove land from a regulatory floodplain for the purpose of allowing new development activity to take place in areas that are otherwise flood prone. P. Require an appropriate level of freeboard at bridges between the 100-year water surface elevation and the lowest elevation of the lowest structural member to allow for passage of waterborne debris. Q. Identify areas prone to flooding outside of the 500-year floodplain where loss of life or substantial property damage may occur. Flooding greater than 500-year (0.2% chance) events can and do occur as well, and loss of life and property is possible in areas mapped outside of both the 100-year and 500-year regulatory floodplains. Communities are encouraged to map and regulate 500-year floodplains for Critical Facilities at their sole discretion. R. Maintain a flood hazard page on the community website with links to the CWCB, FEMA Flood Map Store, National Flood Insurance Program, National Weather Service, local building codes, and local permitting information. 296 31 S. The CWCB discourages Compensatory Flood Storage because existing flood storage volume should be preserved. However, when necessary, structures and fill that displace floodplain storage volume shall be compensated for by excavation of equivalent volumes at equivalent elevations within a nearby vicinity of the displaced volume. The compensatory storage area shall be hydraulically connected to the source of flooding. T. Adopt Buffer Ordinances that limit development in and near natural protective features such as riparian stream corridors and wetlands. Natural protective features may extend beyond 100 year flood elevations. Extra protections for these areas are beneficial because these areas attenuate runoff periods, improve water quality, stabilize streambanks, recharge groundwater aquifers, allow for lateral stream migration, and protect aquatic and terrestrial habitat. Riparian and wetland areas also enhance the general aesthetic value of a community. U. Buffer ordinances are often seen as part of land use or zoning code. They may also stand alone in other portions of the municipal code. Options for widths include fixed width, variable width, or multi-zoned buffers. V. Establish Residual Risk Mapping. Residual Risk is the threat to the areas behind levees that may still be at risk for flooding. FEMA has identified thousands of miles of levees nationwide, affecting millions of people. It is important for levee owners, communities, and homeowners to understand the risks associated with living in levee-impacted areas and the steps that can be taken to provide full protection from flooding. Even the best flood protection system or structure cannot completely eliminate the risk of every flood event, and when levee systems fail, the results may be catastrophic and the damage may be more significant than if the levee system had not been built. Rule 20. Effective Date: These Rules shall apply to the designation and approval of all floodplain information made by the Board and all other floodplain activities on or after January 14, 2011 and are, therefore, not retroactive to any floodplain information designated and approved by the Board or other floodplain activities prior to the effective date. These Rules contain provisions that will require many local ordinances to be updated to be consistent with these rules. A transition period of three years beginning from the effective date of these rules will be in effect during which all local governments may follow current local ordinances but must undertake activities to come into compliance with these Rules. Following this transition period, all floodplain activities shall be in conformance with these Rules. In addition, communities may, at their sole discretion, allow un-built projects that were previously permitted by the local government, prior to the adoption date of the local ordinance for which these Rules are incorporated, to be built and therefore considered to be in compliance with these Rules. Communities may also, at their sole discretion, permit and allow projects for which a valid CLOMR was issued prior to the adoption date of the local ordinance for which these Rules are incorporated. 297 Floodplain Rules and Regulations Statement of Basis and Purpose – November 17, 2010 Proposed Basis and Purpose for CWCB floodplain Rules and Regulations: 1. These Rules are promulgated to carry out the authority and responsibilities of the Colorado Water Conservation Board (“the Board” or “CWCB”) pursuant to sections 24-4-103, 24-65.1- 403(3), 24-65.1-101(1)(c)(I), 24-65.1-202(2)(a)(I), 24-65.1-302(2)(a), 30-28-111(1)–(2), 31- 23-301(1) & (3), 37-60-106(1), 37-60-106(1)(c)–(g), (j), (k), C.R.S. (2010). The General Assembly has deemed the designation of floodplains a matter of statewide importance and interest and gave the CWCB the responsibility for the designation of regulatory floodplains and to assure public health, safety, welfare and property by limiting development in regulatory floodplains. §§ 24-65.1-202(2)(a)(I), 24-65.1-302(1)(b)&(2)(a), 24-65.1-403(3), 24-65.1-101 and 24-65.1-404(3), C.R.S. (2010). 2. The Rules will help the CWCB carry out its statutory mission to devise and formulate methods, means, and plans for the prevention of flood damages. § 37-60-106(1)(c). 3. The purpose of the Rules is to provide uniform standards for regulatory floodplains in Colorado, to provide standards for activities that may impact regulatory floodplains in Colorado, and to stipulate the process by which floodplains will be designated and approved by the CWCB. These Rules will also assist the CWCB and Colorado communities in developing sound floodplain management practices and in assisting with the implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program. 4. Implementing a sound flood protection program is necessary to reduce flood damages because flooding is the most devastating natural disaster in terms of both property damage and human fatalities in Colorado. 5. The General Assembly gave the CWCB the authority to prevent flood damages and regulate and designate floodwater runoff channels or basins. §§ 37-60-106(1)(c), 37-60-106(1)(e), 37- 60-106(1)(f), 37-60-106(1)(g), 37-60-106(1)(h), 37-60-106(1)(k), 37-60-108. The CWCB, in cooperation and coordination with local governments, ensures proper regulation of floodplains. 6. Floodplain administration is an area of state interest. §§ 24-65.103(7) & 24-65.1-202(2)(a), C.R.S. (2010). The General Assembly gave local authorities broad authority to plan for and regulate land use within their jurisdictions, including regulation of development in hazardous areas and regulating on the basis of impacts to the communities and surrounding areas. §§ 29- 20-102(1) & 29-20-104(1)(a)&(g), C.R.S. (2010). County planning commissions may establish, regulate and limit uses on or along any storm or floodwater runoff channel or basin that has been designated and approved by the CWCB in order to lessen or avoid flood damage. § 30-28-111(1), C.R.S. (2010). The governing body of municipalities may establish, regulate and limit uses on or along any storm or floodwater runoff channel or basin that has been designated and approved by the CWCB in order to lessen or avoid flood damage. § 31-23- 301(1), C.R.S. (2010). Thus, all federal agencies using local or state funds, and all private, local or state entities conducting activities on or along any storm or floodwater runoff channel or basin shall abide by all state and federal regulations and applicable local regulations on or along any storm or floodwater runoff channel or basin that has been designated and approved 298 2 by the CWCB. Such activities shall also be in conformance with FEMA Regulations 44 C.F.R. § § 59, 60, 65, and 70 (2009). 7. Domestic water and sewage systems, such as wastewater treatment facilities or water treatment facilities, any systems of pipes, structures and facilities through which wastewater is collected for treatment, are areas of state interest. § 24-65.1-104(5), C.R.S. (2010). Similarly, the site selection and construction of major new domestic water and sewage treatment systems and major extension of existing domestic water and sewage treatment systems are also areas of state interest as determined by local governments. § 24-65.1-203(1)(a), C.R.S. (2010). Structures, such as domestic water and sewage systems, in the floodplain shall be built and designed to incorporate flood protection devices, consider proposed intensity of use and the structure’s effects on the acceleration of floodwaters and any potential significant hazards to public health and safety or to property. § 24-65.1-202(2)(a)(I)(A), C.R.S. (2010). Shallow wells, solid waste disposal sites, and septic tanks and sewage disposal systems shall be protected from inundation by floodwaters. § 24-65.1-202(2)(a)(I)(A), C.R.S. (2010). 8. The Rules apply throughout the State of Colorado, without regard to whether a community participates in the National Flood Insurance Program. The Rules also apply to activities conducted by state agencies. §§ 24-65.1-301(1), 24-65.1-403(3)(a), 24-65.1-404(3), 24-65.1- 501, 31-23-301 and 30-28-111(1), C.R.S. (2010). 9. The Rules incorporate new standards for critical facilities that, if flooded, may result in severe consequences to public health and safety or interrupt essential services and operations for the community at any time before, during, and after a flood. These Rules are proposed for promulgation in recognition that such critical facilities must be protected to a higher standard from flood damages. § 37-60-106(1)(c). Further, the General Assembly has required that building of structures in the floodplain must be designed in terms of the availability of flood protection devices, proposed intensity of use, effects on the acceleration of floodwaters, potential significant hazards to public health and safety or to property, and other impact of such development on downstream communities such as the creation of obstructions during floods. § 24-65.1-202(2)(a)(I)(A), C.R.S. (2009). Finally, floodplains shall be administered so as to minimize significant hazards to public health and safety or to property. § 24-65.1- 202(2)(a)(I)(A). 10. The Rules provide for procedures for and conditions of proposed variances from the Rules if such variance is for good and sufficient cause and will not increase flooding or threaten public safety. 11. The Rules contain standards and specifications for approximate and detailed regulatory floodplain determinations in Colorado. The 2005 Rules contained detailed standards within Appendix A, Appendix B, and Appendix C. These Appendices have been omitted as incorporation into the Rules, but are still available as a reference tool. 12. The Rules will provide the necessary steps for floodplain mapping partners to follow in order to have county and community flood hazard information designated and approved by the CWCB so that statutory requirements can be met. 13. The Rules will assist communities and other floodplain mapping partners with developing and providing accurate regulatory floodplain information for use in wise floodplain management activities. The Rules provide for a process whereby all affected communities have the 299 3 opportunity to review, analyze, and object to the floodplain studies if not based on technically accurate and sound scientific data. 14. The Rules provide for the CWCB’s review of the results of the hydrologic analyses, hydraulic analyses, and floodplain delineations in a published floodplain study report. The Rules provide that a qualified Colorado registered professional engineer in good standing shall direct or supervise the floodplain mapping studies and projects within the regulatory floodplain and that such floodplain maps, reports and project designs within the regulatory floodplain shall be certified and sealed by the Colorado registered professional engineer of record. 15. The Rules provide that designation and approval of floodways shall be considered, as requested by the local governing entity, as part of the designation and approval of corresponding regulatory floodplains. The Rules provide criteria for determining the effects of dams, levees, stormwater detention, irrigation facilities, flood mitigation measures and stream alteration activities on or in regulatory floodplains in order to quantify peak flood discharges and to assess the effects of flooding conditions that would result. 16. The Rules set forth the process and procedures for the CWCB to designate and approve regulatory floodplains. The 100-year flood shall be the basis for all designation and approvals by the Board, for zoning and land use purposes, of regulatory floodplains in Colorado, unless the 500-year flood is requested for designation in writing by the local jurisdiction. 17. The Rules provide the process and procedures for the CWCB to designate and approve changes to regulatory floodplains resulting from development, watershed changes, new or better technical information, or other factors, subject to the same criteria as required for an original approval and designation. 18. The Rules will provide additional information and recommendations, above and beyond the regulatory floodplain requirements, that can serve communities in need of technical, regulatory, and administrative information in order to allow for safe and reasonable floodplain development that will lead to better protection of Colorado citizens and their property. 19. The Rules will increase the quantity of statewide uniform credit for the Community Rating System, a program within FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program that provides flood insurance discounts for flood programs that exceed federal minimum standards. This will serve to make flood insurance premiums more affordable statewide for the citizens of Colorado. 20. The Rules establish freeboard for all new and substantially changed structures statewide. Freeboard tends to compensate for the many unknown factors that could contribute to flood heights greater than the height calculated for a selected size flood and floodway conditions, such as debris blocking bridge openings, inherent uncertainty in hydrologic and hydraulic models, rainfall in excess of design events, legal encroachments into the floodplain, and the hydrological effect of urbanization of the watershed. Freeboard results in substantially safer construction and significantly lower flood insurance rates due to lower flood risk. This standard will not apply to existing mapping, but rather, it will be in effect for future mapping and studies. This new standard does not result in any new requirements. 300 4 21. The Rules provide for a uniform statewide floodway criteria. Current minimum standards set by the National Flood Insurance Program allow for encroachment into the floodplain that raises base flood elevations by one foot. While legally permissible in most cases, this encroachment results in increased risk to neighboring property owners without recourse that may result in lower property values and increased liability for the permitting communities. Some local communities in Colorado have already successfully adopted and implemented a ½ foot surcharge, as proposed by these Rules. However, due to the non-uniform surcharge criteria between neighboring communities, this higher local regulation is difficult to enforce near community boundaries and is often unable to be reflected on countywide floodplain maps due to the non-uniform regulations. While this regulation only applies to future activities, it has the potential to provide benefits for both existing and future facilities by limiting higher flood depths impacting these structures due to encroachment. This regulation has the net effect of lowering flood elevations on nearby properties, thus increasing the safety and property value of these positively impacted properties. 22. These Rules apply higher standards to regulations and processes that currently exist, including requirements to: 1) follow all state and federal regulations, 2) obtain a local permit for development in the floodplain (where applicable), 3) elevate or floodproof structures to a safe elevation, and 4) get a local determination of when substantial changes occur. These Rules do not change the current need to obtain a local permit for development in the floodplain and do not alter how substantial change determinations are made by local governments. Identification of a structure as a critical facility does not create a new regulatory nexus nor does it prevent its occupation in the floodplain; rather it simply requires an additional foot of freeboard when designed and constructed. 23. These Rules contain provisions that will require many local ordinances to be updated to be consistent with these rules. A transition period of three years beginning from the effective date of these rules will be in effect during which all local governments may follow current local ordinances but must undertake activities to come into compliance with these Rules. Following this transition period, all floodplain activities shall be in conformance with these Rules. In addition, communities may, at their sole discretion, allow un-built projects that were previously permitted by the local government, prior to the adoption date of the local ordinance for which these Rules are incorporated, to be built and therefore considered to be in compliance with these Rules. Communities may also, at their sole discretion, permit and allow projects for which a valid CLOMR was issued prior to the adoption date of the local ordinance for which these Rules are incorporated. 24. These Rules reduce expenditure of public money for costly flood control structures. In many cases, proper application of these Rules may reduce, or in some cases, eliminate the need for these costly public expenditures due to wiser use of floodplain areas and safer development within them. 25. These Rules minimize the need for response and rescue efforts associated with flooding and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public. While these Rules actually regulate only structures and facilities in the regulatory floodplain, response and rescue efforts associated with flooding affect all residents of a community in terms of cost and reduced availability of these services during and following a flood to non-floodplain areas. Depending on the circumstances for a particular flood event, the cost of these services can be enormous and, in 301 5 worst cases, can impact the financial viability of a community. 26. These Rules minimize business interruptions. While there is a tangible cost of complying with these Rules, it often pales in comparison to the lost business income, tax revenue, and employment that are often experienced following flood events. There are many examples, both from Colorado and around the nation, of a damaging flood impacting the financial stability of a community or region for long periods. While disaster assistance may be available following some events, it is often not sufficient to fully restore services, especially to individuals and businesses. These Rules reduce the risk of flooding to future infrastructure and therefore lessen the vulnerability of communities to losses and economic risk. 27. These Rules minimize expenses to taxpayers for costly disaster bailouts, relief efforts, and recovery programs. Disaster assistance only benefits those directly affected by a flood disaster but the costs are shared by entire communities, the state as a whole and, in some cases, the entire nation. Application of these Rules places responsibility and costs on property owners most likely to be directly affected by a flood event. These costs are often low compared to costs experienced during flood events. These Rules reduce the risk of flooding to future infrastructure and therefore lessen the vulnerability of communities and the State to costly and avoidable post-flood activities. 28. These Rules are not to be applied retroactively. These Rules are in effect for future construction, substantial changes to existing construction, and new additions. Substantial change determinations are already made by local governments, and the process for this decision is not altered by these Rules. 302 Critical Facility Regulation Comparison Table This table compares the types of critical facilities regulated by the City of Fort Collins and the State of Colorado. Items that are not currently regulated by the City, but are proposed to be regulated are marked as “To be included.” Critical Facility Type Regulated by the City of Fort Collins Regulated by the State of Colorado Essential Service Facilities (Emergency Response) Public Safety –  Police  Fire  Rescue  Emergency Operation Centers  Ambulance  Emergency Vehicle and Equipment Storage X X X X X X X X X X X X Emergency Medical  Hospitals  Ambulance Service Centers  Urgent Care Centers – emergency  Non-ambulatory Surgical Centers X X X X X X X X Designated emergency shelters To be included. X Communications – main hubs for telephone, cable, satellite dish systems, cellular systems, TV, radio, emergency warning systems To be included. X Public and Private Utility Plant Facilities for Generation and Distribution (hubs, water treatment plants, substations and pumping stations for water, power and gas, but not including towers, poles, power lines, buried pipelines, transmission lines, distribution lines, and service lines). X X State excludes wastewater treatment Hazardous Material Facilities Chemical and Pharmaceutical company X X Laboratories X X Refineries X X Hazardous waste storage and disposal sites X X Gasoline storage or sales stations X X Quick Lubes, automotive paint or repair facilities X X Warehouses X X Manufacturing Facilities X X Propane storage or sales X X Cemeteries X At Risk Population Facilities (Life-Safety) Elder Care - Nursing Homes and Assisted Living Facilities X X Congregate Care, residential care facilities, group homes X X Housing likely to contain occupants who many not be sufficiently mobile to avoid death or injury during a flood. X Day Care and Child Care Facilities X X Public and Private schools – pre-schools and K- 12 schools X X Before and After-school care, summer day-camp facilities X X Government Services Essential Government Operations – public records, libraries, courts, jails, building permitting and inspections services, community administration and management To be included. X Essential structures for public colleges and universities (dormitories, offices and classrooms only). To be included. X 304 ITEM NO _______8___________ MEETING DATE ____August 8, 2013 _ STAFF ______LORSON_____ PLANNING & ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Parking Minimums in the TOD Overlay Zone APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins PROJECT DESCRIPTION: At the July 9 Joint Work Session of City Council and Planning and Zoning Board, the lack of a minimum parking requirement for multi-family development in the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone was identified as an issue. More specifically, they discussed whether the standards in the Land Use Code (LUC) are providing adequate capacity for the parking demand being generated by multi-family development and how it relates to the City’s vision for the TOD Overlay Zone and the Mason Corridor. The discussion formulated direction to implement minimum parking requirements for the TOD Overlay Zone but maintained that the vision for the TOD should stay intact. Staff is recommending revising the LUC to require minimum ratio of 70% parking spaces to the proposed number of bedrooms and a provision to meet the standard through alternative compliance. RECOMMENDATION: Approval BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION: Problem Statement The vision expressed in City Plan and implemented in the Land Use Code (LUC) is for concentrated higher density housing and mixed-use development supported by investment in infrastructure including high-frequency transit, streetscape and urban design improvements, and pedestrian and bicycling facilities. The removal of minimum parking requirements for multi-family development within the TOD Overlay Zone is premised upon the full implementation of these infrastructure investments. While progress is being made on those investments, the full system is not yet in place. In the meantime, the limited parking for multi-family development, combined with commuter traffic, could cause spillover parking into existing neighborhoods. To reduce the impacts from spillover on neighborhood on-street parking, address the demand for parking capacity, and reduce parking demand, the following strategies could be implemented: Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750 305 Parking Minimums in the TOD (Transit Overlay District) Planning & Zoning Hearing August 8, 2013 Page 2 Parking Capacity • Require minimum parking requirements in the TOD Overlay Zone. (Proposed with this report) • Require a Parking Analysis to determine parking demand as identified in the Parking Plan. (Proposed with this report, to be expanded with consultant input) • Create a parking district that would facilitate the creation of parking infrastructure as recommended in the Midtown Plan. (Could be included with parking fee discussion) • Require off-site parking storage. (Proposed as possible mitigation) • Create a parking impact fee or parking fee-in-lieu as identified in the Parking Plan. (To be discussed at November 26 Work Session) Spillover Parking • Create a Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP). (Ordinance adopted by City Council on first reading at July 16, 2013 hearing) • Impose time limits for parking on public streets in affected areas as identified in the Parking Plan and already implemented in the Mantz Neighborhood. Parking Demand • Require mitigation measures to reduce parking demand (e.g., require purchase of bus passes, enhanced bike facilities, implement car share and bike share programs). (Proposed with this report) • Implement high-frequency transit. (In process) • Support TOD with mixed-use development including residential, employment, and commercial services. (Being discussed in Midtown Plan) Land Use Code Staff analyzed eleven multi-family development projects in the TOD Overlay Zone (see attached) and found that, on average, they provided a ratio of 57% parking spaces to bedrooms. If these same projects were to be developed outside the TOD Overlay Zone, subject to existing minimum parking requirements, they would have been required to provide an average ratio of 89% parking spaces to bedrooms. Staff averaged these two numbers, representing the current market ratio being proposed with development and the Land Use Code’s minimum requirement for multi-family dwellings, which resulted in ratio of 73% parking spaces to bedrooms. Thus, staff is recommending a ratio of 70% parking spaces to bedrooms. The proposed alternative compliance section is premised on promoting the goals of the TOD Overlay Zone - such as concentrated higher density residential development, high-frequency transit, and enhanced pedestrian and bicycle facilities - without compromising compatibility with existing neighborhoods in terms of excessive spillover parking. In order to request alternative compliance, a Parking Analysis is required to be submitted that will provide an in-depth analysis of parking demands 306 Parking Minimums in the TOD (Transit Overlay District) Planning & Zoning Hearing August 8, 2013 Page 3 created by the proposed development and mitigation measures taken to reduce demands for on-site parking. The Parking Analysis criteria are a result of preliminary implementation work done by staff for the Fort Collins Parking Plan. However, these proposed criteria are a temporary solution until we can procure an expert consultant to assist in writing the full criteria that will amend the chapter 4 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) to include a Parking Analysis within the requirements for a Transportation Impact Study (TIS). Staff has received a proposal from Kimley-Horn and Associates to develop these criteria. LUC Amendment Section 3.2.2 (K) Parking Lots - Required Number of Off-Street Spaces for Type of Use. (1) Residential and Institutional Parking Requirements. Residential and institutional uses shall provide a minimum number of parking spaces as defined by the standards below. (a) Attached Dwellings: For each two-family and multi-family dwelling there shall be parking spaces provided as indicated by the following table: Number of Bedrooms/Dwelling Unit Parking Spaces Per Dwelling Unit* One or less 1.5 Two 1.75 Three 2.0 Four and above 3.0 * Spaces that are located in detached residential garages (but not including parking structures) or in attached residential garages, which attached garages do not provide direct entry into an individual dwelling unit, may be credited toward the minimum requirements contained herein only if such spaces are made available to dwelling unit occupants at no additional rental or purchase cost (beyond the dwelling unit rental rate or purchase price). 307 Parking Minimums in the TOD (Transit Overlay District) Planning & Zoning Hearing August 8, 2013 Page 4 1. Multi-family dwellings and mixed-use dwellings within the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone shall have no minimum parking requirements provide a minimum number of parking spaces in an amount equal to or greater than 70% of the number of proposed bedrooms in the development. 2. Alternative Compliance. Upon written request by the applicant, the decision maker may approve an alternative parking ratio, other than the minimum required in the TOD Overlay Zone per Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a)(1), that may be substituted in whole or in part for a ratio meeting the standards of this Section. (a) Procedure. Alternative compliance parking ratio plans shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the submittal requirements for plans as set forth in this Section. The request for alternative compliance must be accompanied by a Parking Analysis. (b) Parking Analysis. A Parking Analysis shall consist of the following: (1) Data related to expected parking demand based on project size, location, employees, units, and/or bedrooms. To the extent reasonably feasible, comparable local and regional parking demand rates for similar uses shall be utilized together with the average demand rates for similar facilities compiled by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). (2) Data related to estimated non-vehicular mode usage shall be determined based on Transportation Impact Study analysis. (3) Parking mitigation measures beyond non-vehicular mode usage and support shall be identified and included in the analysis. Specific measures to reduce on-site parking demand may include, but are not limited to: a. Shared parking. b. Off-site parking. c. Parking pricing. d. Transit pass program. e. Unbundling the leasing cost of parking spaces from residential units for both enclosed and surface parking. f. Flexible work hours and telecommuting. g. Rideshare, guaranteed ride home programs, car sharing, shuttle services. h. Enhancements that encourage bicycle and pedestrian mobility. i. Other verifiable parking demand reduction measures. (4) The number and location of parking spaces proposed to be removed as part of the project, if any, shall be identified. 308 Parking Minimums in the TOD (Transit Overlay District) Planning & Zoning Hearing August 8, 2013 Page 5 (5) Assignment of parking demand to proposed parking locations; surplus/deficit shall be identified. (c) Review Criteria. To approve an alternative plan, the decision maker must first find that the proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purposes of this Section and the TOD Overlay Zone (3.10) equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standards of these Sections. In reviewing the request for an alternative parking ratio plan in order to determine whether it accomplishes the purposes of this Section, the decision maker shall take into account the objective and verifiable results of the Parking Analysis together with the proposed plan’s compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods in terms of potential spillover parking.* *This language has not had a final review by Legal Staff and therefore is subject to change. Parking Plan The Parking Plan, adopted by Council on January 15, 2013, action item #7 calls for an amendment to the requirements for Transportation Impact Studies (TIS) to require that TISs for development proposals include an assessment of parking impacts in Fort Collins. Policy 6.4 – Review of New Development Parking Impacts New development will be systematically evaluated for its impact on Downtown parking within a Transportation Impact Study. The evaluation will include information about expected parking generation for new uses, parking created or lost, demand reduction measures, impacts to public parking, anticipated impacts to public parking, anticipated spillover effects, and any other information relevant to changes in parking demand and supply. Parking Fee Discussion Planning Development and Transportation (PDT) and Finance staff have been discussing the potential of creating a parking impact fee that would off-set impact created by utilization of public parking; and/or creating a parking fee-in-lieu as a mechanism to permit lowered parking ratios that would pay into facilities that absorb some of the parking demand generated by a development. The parking fee discussion is scheduled for Council Fee Committee on October 21, 2013 and Council Work Session on November 26, 2013. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance (Forthcoming) 2. TOD Project Analysis Spreadsheet 3. TOD Parking Study, May 10, 2013 309 Version 2 ORDINANCE NO. ___ 2013 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING SECTION 3.2.2(K) OF THE LAND USE CODE REGARDING MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN THE TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVEOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT WHEREAS, the vision expressed in City Plan and implemented in the Land Use Code calls for a higher concentration of residential density and mixed-use development supported by investment and infrastructure, including high-frequency transit, streetscape and urban design improvements, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the Transit-Oriented Development Overlay Zone District (the “TOD”); and WHEREAS, the Land Use Code presently contains no minimum parking requirements for multi-family developments within the TOD; and WHEREAS, the lack of a minimum parking standard for multi-family development within the TOD was premised upon the full implementation of the above-mentioned infrastructure investments; and WHEREAS, given that such investments have not yet been fully implemented, the City Council has determined that the Land Use Code should be amended to require a certain minimum number of parking spaces for multi-family developments in order to alleviate concerns about spillover parking into existing neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board has recommended to the City Council that Section 3.2.2(K) of the Land Use Code be amended to establish certain minimum parking requirements in the TOD; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City that Section 3.2.2(K) be so amended. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 2.2.2(K)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (K) Parking Lots - Required Number of Off-Street Spaces for Type of Use. (1) Residential and Institutional Parking Requirements. Residential and institutional uses shall provide a minimum number of parking spaces as defined by the standards below. (a) Attached Dwellings: For each two-family and multi-family dwelling there shall be parking spaces provided as indicated by the following table: pending/LUC - Section 3.2.2 - minimum parking 310 Number of Bedrooms/Dwelling Unit Parking Spaces Per Dwelling Unit* One or less 1.5 Two 1.75 Three 2.0 Four and above 3.0 * Spaces that are located in detached residential garages (but not including parking structures) or in attached residential garages, which attached garages do not provide direct entry into an individual dwelling unit, may be credited toward the minimum requirements contained herein only if such spaces are made available to dwelling unit occupants at no additional rental or purchase cost (beyond the dwelling unit rental rate or purchase price). 1. Multi-family dwellings and mixed-use dwellings within the Transit- Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone shall have no minimum parking requirements provide a minimum number of parking spaces in an amount equal to or greater than 70% of the number of proposed bedrooms in the development. 2. Alternative Compliance. Upon written request by the applicant, the decision maker may approve an alternative parking ratio, other than the minimum required in the TOD Overlay Zone per Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a)(1), that may be substituted in whole or in part for a ratio meeting the standards of this Section. a. Procedure. Alternative compliance parking ratio plans shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the submittal requirements for plans as set forth in this Section. The request for alternative compliance must be accompanied by a Parking Analysis. b. Parking Analysis. A Parking Analysis shall include the following: 1) Data related to expected parking demand based on project size, location, employees, units, and/or bedrooms. To the extent reasonably feasible, comparable local and regional parking demand rates for similar uses shall be utilized together with the average demand rates for similar facilities compiled by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). pending/LUC - Section 3.2.2 - minimum parking 311 2) Data related to estimated non-vehicular mode usage shall be determined based on Transportation Impact Study analysis. 3) Identification of parking mitigation measures to be utilized (beyond non-vehicular mode usage and support). Specific measures to reduce on-site parking demand may include, but are not limited to: a) Shared parking. b) Off-site parking. c) Parking pricing. d) Transit pass program. e) Unbundling parking spaces from residential dwelling units. f) Rideshare, guaranteed ride home programs, car sharing, shuttle services. g) Enhancements that encourage bicycle and pedestrian mobility. h) Other verifiable parking demand reduction measures. 4) The number and location of parking spaces proposed to be removed as part of the project, if any. 5) Assignment of parking demand to proposed parking locations. c. Review Criteria. To approve an alternative plan, the decision maker must first find that the proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purposes of this Section and the TOD Overlay Zone (3.10) equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standards of these Sections. In reviewing the request for an alternative parking ratio plan in order to determine whether it accomplishes the purposes of this Section, the decision maker shall take into account the objective and verifiable results of the Parking Analysis together with the proposed plan’s compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods in terms of potential spillover parking. . . . Section 2. That this Ordinance shall terminate and be of no further force and effect at the close of business on __________, 2014, unless extended by ordinance of the City Council. pending/LUC - Section 3.2.2 - minimum parking 312 Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this___ day of _______, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the ____ day of ______, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the _____ day of ________, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk pending/LUC - Section 3.2.2 - minimum parking 313 Projects in the TOD Overlay Zone Bedrooms Parking Provided Ratio of Parking Spaces to Bedrooms Parking Required If Outside TOD Ratio of Parking Spaces to Bedrooms Willow Street Lofts 46 36 78.3% 42 91% Flats at the Oval 98 57 58.2% 83 85% Penny Flats 280 260 92.9% 255 91% Pura Vida Place 100 49 49.0% 90 90% 318 W Myrtle 17 8 47.1% 13 76% Sherwood Forts 9 5 55.6% 6 67% Ram's Crossing K2 140 47 33.6% 191 136% The Summit (Choice Center)* 676 217 32.1% 471 70% Legacy Senior Apts* 112 52 46.4% 118 105% District at Campus West* 658 461 70.1% 431 66% Carriage House Apts* 89 58 65.2% 94 106% Average 57.1% Average 89% *under construction Parking Analysis of Projects in the Transit‐Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone Average of Ratio of Parking Provided, and Ratio of Parking Required if Outside the TOD 73.2% 314 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study P&Z Board Work Session Discussion Paper May 10, 2013 I. Purpose of the Discussion Planning and Zoning Board members requested a Work Session discussion of the parking impacts of multi-family projects within the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone - TOD is characterized by higher-density mixed-use development within walking distance of a transit station supported by features to enhance transit ridership and walkability. This paper provides background and information of the creation of the TOD and preliminary research on parking impacts of TOD projects and research from other communities. The intent is to facilitate a Board discussion and to gain an understanding of the Board’s concerns. II. Overview and Summary  The vision supporting TOD is articulated in City Plan, the Transportation Master Plan, Mason Street Transportation Corridor Master Plan, and other related plans. An element of the community vision speaks to inward revitalization supported by a robust transit network.  The implementation of TOD is still in its infancy. Many of the critical TOD components, particularly a high-frequency transit network, are not yet in place. As a result, Fort Collins does not yet have significant experience with fully-implemented TOD projects sufficient to fully gauge benefits and impacts.  P&Z and City Council created compatibility standards allowing the decision maker to require additional parking, and in the fall of 2012 re-confirmed the suitability of the TOD boundary.  The parking inventory and utilization survey shows that the area north of Laurel Street is heavily utilized at all times of the day. Other areas have lower parking utilization and on- street parking capacity is not currently an issue.  There are broader issues of parking around CSU linked to commuter travel related but separate from multi-family parking demands. North of Laurel Street, parking by commuters exacerbates an already tight parking supply. Several possible solutions to parking issues are identified in the Parking Plan. III. Summary of Transit Oriented Development Overlay District Standards The Land Use Code contains three elements directly referencing Transit Oriented Development: 315 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013 2 1. Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone definition (Definitions 5.1.2, Article 5 page 45) represented by a map (see Attachment 1). The map includes Downtown, an area surrounding the CSU Main Campus, and south along College Avenue to Fossil Creek Parkway. 2. Parking Compatibility (Section 3.5.1(J) page 92): This section allows additional parking to be required by the decision maker to ensure compatibility with existing neighborhoods. 3. Development Standards for the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone (Division 3.10, Article 3 page 195): Applies to development within the TOD Overlay Zone south of Prospect. These standards encourage land uses, densities, and design that support attractive public spaces, transit and other alternative transportation. 4. Parking Lots – Required Number of Off-Street Spaces for Type of Use (Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a)(1), Article 3 page 30): Multi-family dwellings and mixed-use dwellings within the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone shall have no minimum parking requirements. IV. Background City Plan Vision and Policies Related to TOD City Plan Vision Statement (in part): In Fort Collins, development and growth are focused within the community’s designated Growth Management Area in order to protect sensitive natural resources and the regional landscape setting, encourage infill and redevelopment (inward revitalization), and make the most efficient use of public infrastructure. By increasing the overall average density of the city, the community’s neighborhoods will foster efficient land use, support a mix of housing types, increase efficiency of public utilities, streets, facilities, and services, and accommodate multiple modes of travel (including vehicle, bus, bike, and walking)… While earlier versions of City Plan focused largely on new development, the 2010 City Plan continues to shift the focus toward redevelopment and infill development. These activities are increasing as the remaining vacant lands within the community’s Growth Management Area build out. The Targeted Redevelopment Areas Map identifies possible locations for future infill and redevelopment activities. Many of the Targeted Redevelopment Areas are designated as activity centers or areas where higher intensity development is encouraged and expected to occur to support existing and future transit. Specific City Plan Policies:  Policy LIV 5.1 – Encourage Targeted Redevelopment and Infill  Policy LIV 5.2 – Target Public Investment along the Community Spine  Policy EH 4.2 – Reduce Barriers to Infill Development and Redevelopment  Policy LIV 30.6 – Reduce Land Devoted to Surface Parking Lots To support transit use and a more pedestrian-friendly environment, reduce land devoted to surface parking lots as infill and redevelopment occur. Adhere to maximum parking ratios for commercial uses and reduce or eliminate minimum parking requirements for transit- supportive uses. Encourage alternatives such as structured parking, angled or parallel on- street parking, shared parking, and others as appropriate.  Policy T 3.3 – Transit Supportive Design Implement and integrate Transit Supportive Design strategies with respect to new and infill development opportunities along Enhanced Travel Corridors. 316 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013 3 Transportation Master Plan Policies:  Transportation policies are same as those contained within City Plan. Mason Street Transportation Corridor Master Plan (2000) Next Steps - Regulatory actions:  Establish Enhanced Development Areas, possibly through creation of an overlay zone.  Reduce residential parking requirements in development areas proximate to transit stops/stations.  Encourage more residential development in the corridor.  Modify development code to incorporate requirements for community amenities.  Streamline City development process.  Increase signage allowance on rear of buildings. Formation and Approval of the TOD Overlay Zone The Transit Oriented Development (TOD) overlay zone was added to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code in 2006 and further amended in 2007. The TOD zone addresses land use, density, height and compatibility for a specific geographic zone, as shown in Attachment 1. TOD Overlay Zone: Map, Definition, Parking, and Compatibility (Ordinance No. 192, 2006) Hearing Dates: 11/16/06 – P&Z 12/5/06 – CC 1st Reading 12/19/06 – CC 2nd Reading Staff Presentation Topics:  Incentivize redevelopment in proximity to high activity centers and alternative transportation.  Identified in City Plan as targeted infill and redevelopment areas.  Financial challenges and physical site constraints make providing minimum parking difficult.  Existing parking minimums are closer related to green-field as opposed to redevelopment standards. Parking is expected to be required but as a function of market conditions.  The city could receive an FTA grant for the Mason Corridor and MAX if it shows a true commitment to multi-modal development and transit-oriented design. P&Z Discussion – November 16, 2006: Approved 6 - 0  There were no members of the public present to comment on the creation of the TOD Overlay.  One board member felt the boundary went too far to the west, while another board member felt it didn’t go far enough. The justification was that the transit line through Campus West is well traveled.  The Chair asked what research supports eliminating parking instead of reducing minimums. Staff worked with developers and implemented a code revision allowing additional parking to be required in the compatibility section (3.5.1). Also, an FTA grant for the MAX requires commitment to TOD and reducing vehicle miles traveled. The community has been working toward this for a long time and is ready to take the bold next step that is supported by policies for infill and redevelopment within our fixed Growth Management Area (GMA). 317 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013 4  The Chair questioned zero parking in the Myrtle/Meldrum area and discussed the need to utilize the neighborhood compatibility criteria (permitting the decision-maker to require additional parking) and ensured staff was willing to do that.  Is there multi-family zoning adjacent to the TOD boundary where one side will have parking and the other (TOD) will not? Staff has adjusted the boundary accordingly to avoid such a conflict. City Council Discussion 1st Reading – December 5, 2006: Approved 5 – 2  No discussion occurred regarding the TOD Overlay Zone. Other LUC topics were discussed with this ordinance that lead to a split vote. City Council Discussion 2nd Reading – December 19, 2006: Approved 5 – 2  No discussion occurred regarding the TOD Overlay Zone. Other LUC topics were discussed with this ordinance that lead to a split vote. TOD Overlay Zone: Development Standards (Ordinance No. 078, 2007) Hearing Dates: 5/17/07 – P&Z 6/5/07 – CC 1st Reading 6/19/07 – CC 2nd Reading Staff Presentation Topics:  Development pattern supports compact urban growth, infill, redevelopment, and multi- modal transportation.  It is primarily a commercial area.  Remove “greenfield-type” standards from TOD Overlay.  Federal grant application with the FTA.  Ingredients for successful transit-oriented development (which can also be thought of for successful MAX) o Compact development (density) o High-quality, active, and safe streetscapes o Diversity of uses (especially mixed-use buildings) o District orientation o Civic spaces  Performance based incentives for community objectives o Compact development aimed at residential and employment o Affordable housing (height incentives) o Structured parking (height incentives) o Compatibility with neighborhoods  Encourage pedestrian-orientation without compromising the commercial nature of the area and not try to “re-create” downtown.  Public outreach with various community, civic, and business groups informed the proposed ordinance. P&Z Discussion – May 17, 2007: Approved 7 - 0  The chair asked about parking structure standards, transparency requirements, and the material and colors section. City Council Discussion 1st Reading – June 5, 2007: Approved 7 – 0 318 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013 5  A councilmember asked why changing parking standards for mixed-use dwellings is a good idea.  A councilmember asked why parking on the side of building would not be allowed. o He requested that staff address this in writing on second reading. City Council Discussion 2nd Reading – June 19, 2007: Approved 7 – 0 (Consent)  Written response: The intent was to eliminate “greenfield-based” parking requirements for multi-family and mixed-use is essentially multi-family with ground level commercial.  Written response: Another councilmember had suggested disallowing side parking and staff agreed in light of Council’s direction to aim for very high level of quality. Recent discussions regarding TOD Overlay Zone P&Z Discussion – September 20, 2012  A board member questioned the boundary west of the Mason Corridor. Staff responded that it contains the most high performing transit lines in the city and thus was included in the TOD.  The board consensus was that no adjustment to the boundary is warranted. City Council Work Session – October 9, 2012  Council determined to leave the TOD boundary in its current location by reasoning that it has only been established since 2007, the transit system is not yet fully built (notably the MAX), and large scale developments within the district are too new to understand the impacts. Parking Requirements Rationale The intent of the parking provision was to remove minimum parking requirements as a barrier to proposed projects in the TOD, and to reflect the fact that enhanced travel options were available or planned for those areas such as high frequency transit, and enhanced bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The removal of minimum parking requirements was not meant to remove the entire obligation for development-related parking. Instead, the provision was intended to recognize that the need for parking should be a market-based decision based on specific project needs, the surrounding context, and available travel options and facilities. The alternate situation is one where the City mandates parking minimums. The purpose of parking minimums is to reduce the likelihood of spillover parking into residential areas. However, because minimums are a “one-size-fits-all” approach, they may or may not address the specific needs of the project, and thus could add unnecessary project costs. This may result in excessive parking and possibly prevent some projects from moving forward. Excessive parking increases auto dependency, reduces the ability to support travel options, increases stormwater, contributes to air quality issues, and other problems (for a complete Triple Bottom Line analysis of the impacts of minimum parking requirements, see the Parking Plan pages 25- 26 and 34-35). While there is no firm evidence that the TOD parking requirements are resulting in spillover parking issues, the City Council recently gave the authorization to move forward on a Neighborhood Permit Program that could address residential spillover parking issues. In addition, Council approved the Parking Plan: Downtown and Surrounding Neighborhoods that 319 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013 6 contains a policy requiring parking impact studies which would identify any parking impacts generated by new development. Inter-Related Strategies and Programs that Support TOD Transit Oriented Development is characterized by higher-density mixed-use development within walking distance of a transit station supported by features to enhance transit ridership and walkability. The purpose of Table 1 is to show that the City is implementing a broad array of TOD tools in addition to the parking requirements. These strategies are both inter-related and synergistic. Table 1. TOD Tools TOD Tool Description/Notes Source MAX High Frequency Bus Rapid Transit Service 10 minute bus service from the South Transit Station to Downtown Mason St Corridor Master Plan TOD Overlay Zone Standards standards encourage land uses, densities, and design that support attractive public spaces, transit and other alternative transportation Land Use Code Bicycle Parking Requirements bicycle parking minimums for enclosed and fixed racks Land Use Code Neighborhood permit program addresses spillover parking in neighborhoods Parking Plan Parking impact study new development will be evaluated for parking needs and impacts Parking Plan Improved transit service full grid transit network and increased service frequencies Transit Strategic Operating Plan Financial incentives tax increment financing assistance Midtown Urban Renewal Plan In addition, consultants for the draft Midtown Urban Design Plan are currently recommending additional strategies for implementation of the TOD dealing with: 1. Streetscape and intersection improvements 2. Gateways, urban design elements, and design guidelines 3. Pedestrian promenade along the MAX line 4. Parking strategies:  Parking district for parking management and oversight and could be linked to financing.  Maximum parking ratios for residential developments.  Unbundled parking from housing costs where costs for parking are separated from the cost for housing.  Preferential parking for carpools/vanpools, car share programs and electric vehicles.  Provide transit passes for residents and employees. V. Fort Collins TOD Data Existing TOD Projects 320 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013 7 Attachment 2 shows all projects containing multi-family units that are under review, approved, under construction, or have been built in the TOD since 1998, and the proximity of these projects to transit service. Since adoption of the TOD overlay zone in 2007 there have been nine residential projects completed or under construction within the TOD overlay zone (see Table 2). Each of these projects included automobile parking, although no minimum parking was required. On average they provided about 31% less parking than would have been required without the TOD exemption. The range of difference from what would otherwise have been required was between +2% and -56%. Table 2. Parking Analysis of Significant Residential TOD Projects Project Name Bedrooms Parking Provided Required If Outside TOD Difference Percent Difference Willow Street Lofts 46 36 42 ‐6 ‐13% Flats at the Oval 98 57 83 ‐26 ‐32% Penny Flats 280 260 255 5 2% Pura Vida Place 100 49 90 ‐41 ‐46% 318 W Myrtle 17 8 13 ‐5 ‐38% Sherwood Forts 9 5 6 ‐1 ‐17% Ram's Crossing K2 58 47 67 ‐20 ‐30% The Summit (Choice Center)* 676 217 471 ‐254 ‐54% Legacy Senior Apts* 112 52 118 ‐66 ‐56% Average ‐46 ‐31% * Under construction In addition to project data, staff interviewed several of the managers of the projects listed in Table 2 to better understand the parking situation: A. Flats at the Oval:  Estimated percentage of residents with cars: 75%  Parking spaces lease for: $50/mo. (uncovered), $100/mo. (covered), $100/mo. (for a rented garage space in alley)  Have parking for just under 60% of bedrooms (including 5 off-site spaces Flats at the Oval is renting), but could use a lot more. Waiting list for parking spaces this year.  Occupants without leased spaces park on streets in area; typically Meldrum and Howes. B. Pura Vida Place:  Estimated percentage of residents with cars: 80%  Parking spaces lease for $50/mo. Waiting list for parking spaces this year  75% of spaces are leased for next year (lower % of apartments are leased)  Occupants without leased spaces park on streets in area C. Mason Street Flats (part of Penny Flats owned by Brinkman; north of corner Penny Flats building):  24 parking spaces underground  On-street parking is more limited in this area than at Flats at the Oval 321 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013 8 D. The Summit (multi-family portion of Choice Center):  Parking spaces lease for $35/mo. – will have a hanging tag  170 spaces are available to residents to lease (there is other parking that may be available to tenants – up to 217 spaces). It is unknown how parking allocated for retail uses will be restricted. Parking Utilization Parking utilization surveys are a common way to understand parking patterns at different times of the day. In neighborhoods having parking concerns, they provide parking data on the blocks and identify times that are under- or over-utilized. For this study, parking was inventoried and counts gathered around five projects inside the TOD. These areas are where multi-family projects are in close proximity to single family neighborhoods, and included the following:  Big Horn Village II (Springfield/City Park)  Clock Tower Lofts (Birch west of Shields)  Flats at the Oval (Laurel/Howes)  Pura Vida Place (Laurel/Sherwood)  The Summit* (College/Stuart)  Viale Collegio (College/Laurel) ______________________________ * Under construction, parking survey provided for future comparison A count was conducted from 6 – 7 a.m. representing a time when most residents are still at home, and 2:30 – 3:30 p.m. representing a time when commuters to CSU park on the street. The area for the on-street parking counts was a two-block walking area around each projects. Table 3 shows the utilization of off-street parking at the five existing projects. Table 3. Off-Site Parking Utilization Project Parking Capacity Utilization TH 6:00 ‐ 7:00 am TH 2:20 ‐ 3:30 pm Big Horn Village II 110 70% 85% Clock Tower Lofts 48 90% 63% Flats at the Oval* 57 88% 70% Pura Vida Place* 49 98% 92% Viale Collegio 25 52% 92% *TOD Parking Requirements Off-street parking utilization for the five existing projects ranges from 52% (Viale Collegio) to 98% (Pura Vida Place) at 6 a.m. However, since some of the parking inventory included handicapped spaces, and possibly reserved for commercial uses (especially for Viale Collegio), staff estimates that the likely utilization is closer to 100% for most projects at 6 a.m. 322 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013 9 Table 4 shows the on-street parking utilization of areas around the six subject sites for the two time periods. Table 4. On-Street Parking Utilization Summary on Streets Surrounding Projects Project Area On‐Street Parking Capacity TH 6:00 ‐ 7:00 a.m. TH 2:30 ‐ 3:30 p.m. Count Utilization Count Utilization Big Horn Village II 413 148 36% 175 42% Clock Tower Lofts 476 161 34% 145 30% Flats at the Oval 311 212 68% 258 83% Pura Vida Place 351 212 60% 326 93% The Summit 277 70 25% 63 23% Viale Collegio 471 219 46% 255 54% The area of greatest parking utilization is north of Laurel Street around Flats at the Oval and Pura Vida Place. Unlike other areas that typically have driveways and garages for single family dwellings, this area has very limited off-street parking for all types of residential units. These experience high occupancies at all times of the day, and particularly at 2:30 p.m. One obvious reason for the high occupancies in this area is the close proximity to primary campus destinations like the Lory Student Center. The other areas experience much lower utilization rates of between 23 – 54%. For maps of overall parking utilization and detail for specific block faces, refer to the maps contained in Attachments 3-5. VI. Literature/Research on TOD Parking Needs TOD Principles Achievement of successful Transit Oriented Development depends upon public-private partnerships based on interrelated and interdependent actions. Kimley-Horn and Associates summarized the elements needed for an effective TOD strategy (see Attachment 6) as follows:  Land Use and Development: Concentrate a mix of complementary, well-integrated land uses within walking distance of the transit station.  Provide a Mixture of Complementary Transit-Supportive Uses  Increase Land Use Intensity  Mobility Management: Enhance the existing transportation network to promote good walking, bicycle, parking and transit connections.  Provide an Extensive Pedestrian & Bicycle System  Design a Multi-Modal Street Network  Implement Parking & Transportation Demand Management 323 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013 10  Community Design: Use urban design to enhance the community identity of station areas and to make them attractive, safe and convenient places.  Provide Pedestrian-Friendly Building & Site Design  Design the Streetscape to Encourage Pedestrian Activity  Establish Open Space Around Transit Stations and Centers of Activity  A sufficient density of housing and employment is critical to supporting high-frequency transit service like the MAX system. Studies show that the minimum overall residential density threshold is approximately 15 dwelling units per acre along transit routes. They also show that the minimum employment density threshold is approximately 25 jobs per acre. These levels of densities do not currently exist anywhere within the TOD or along the MAX line. Many communities with TOD regulations require minimum residential and non-residential densities for development projects near TOD station areas. Vehicle Ownership and Storage  Vehicle ownership by students living in off-campus housing in Fort Collins appears to be around 75 – 80% based on the off-campus housing survey and interviews of housing managers.  A Pew Research Study (February 21, 2013) found that after the recession, the percentage of young adults (younger than 35) owning a vehicle dropped from 73% in 2007 to 66% in 2011 (www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/02/21/young-adults-after-the- recession-fewer-homes-fewer-cars-less-debt/).  Studies have shown a lower percentage of vehicle ownership for residents of TOD. TOD households typically own fewer cars because they have smaller households, and because they may forego extra cars due to transit’s proximity. TOD households are almost twice as likely to not own any car, and own almost half the number of cars of other households.  A study based on Census data found that TOD households own an average of 0.9 cars compared to 1.6 cars for comparable households not living in TODs. TOD households were almost twice as likely to not own a car (18.5% versus 10.7%). While about 66% of non-TOD households own two or more cars, only about 40% of TOD households own as many cars. In TODs, about 63% of households own fewer than two cars, compared to 45% for other households.  Studies and surveys of developers and transit agencies show that proximity to Bus Rapid Transit had at least some positive impact on reducing parking demand.  A survey of households living in TOD projects in Portland found that 28% do not own or lease a car, and that there were between .5 and 1.2 average cars per unit.  From a survey of residents of TOD projects, most people are reluctant to get rid of their vehicles. For those who would consider a car-free life, the most important amenities include: o Easy access to transit and services such as stores and restaurants o Transit that travels to my place of work/school o More car-sharing options o Affordable, high quality daycare in the area 324 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013 11 Neighborhood Concerns  Neighborhood concerns over parking impacts from multi-family projects was the reason Portland re-instituted minimum parking requirements for certain projects. Buildings that are less than 40 units will still have no minimums, while those over 40 units will have to provide one space for every four units, and the requirement can be reduced through car- sharing.  One major challenge developers face with TOD is the increased time and expense getting development approvals for infill development because of neighborhood concerns about traffic and parking. Faced with opposition, a typical response is for the developer to cut the density below transit-supportive levels and increase parking in order to get a development approval and recover fixed costs. Parking Requirements  Communities with TOD regulations often, but not always, reduce or eliminate minimum parking requirements. For example: o Denver Zoning Code: Maximum number of spaces shall not exceed 110% of the minimum parking spaces required by context-specific ratios (Denver’s method of calculating parking requirements everywhere). Parking in structures doesn’t count toward the maximums. o Aurora TOD Zoning Sub-District: Minimum 5 – 1.0 space per multi-family dwelling unit depending on proximity to station compared to 1.0 – 2.5 spaces per unit depending on number of bedrooms outside TOD. o Lakewood Transit Mixed Use Zone District: Minimum 1 space per unit, maximum 2 spaces per unit. Parking in structures doesn’t count toward the maximums. The parking requirements may be met on-site or off-site at a distance of up to 600 feet from the use. o Eugene, Oregon: Establishes parking exempt areas not subject to minimums including Downtown and a couple other areas.  Metro Portland recommends three actions when the parking ratio is below 1.0 space/unit: 1. Charge for all covered parking 2. Get flexcar (car-share) in your building or nearby 3. Provide first rate bicycle facilities (lockers, wash areas, secured bike parking, etc.) VII. Attachments 1. Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Boundary 2. Multi-Family Projects in the TOD Since 1998 Map 3. Overall Parking Utilization Map – AM Counts 4. Overall Parking Utilization Map – PM Counts 5. Parking Utilization Maps for Specific Project Areas 6. Transit Oriented Development and Station Area Design Principles 7. TOD Information Resources 325 Transit Or Attachm riented Devel ment 1: Tran lopment (TOD sit Oriented D) Parking Stu d Developm udy 12 ment (TOD) OOverlay Boundary May 10, 2013 326 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013 13 Attachment 2: Multi-Family Projects in the TOD Since 1998 327 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013 14 Attachment 3: Overall Parking Utilization Map – AM Counts 328 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013 15 Attachment 4: Overall Parking Utilization Map – PM Counts 329 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013 16 Attachment 5: Parking Utilization Maps for Specific Project Areas 330 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013 17 331 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013 18 332 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013 19 333 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013 20 334 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013 21 335 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013 22 336 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013 23 337 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013 24 338 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013 25 339 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013 26 340 Transit Or riented Devellopment (TODD) Parking Stuudy 27 May 10, 2013 341 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013 28 342 Transit Or Attachm riented Devel ment 6: Tran lopment (TOD sit Oriented D) Parking Stu d Developm udy 29 ment and Staation Area DDesign Prin May 10, nciples 2013 343 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study May 10, 2013 30 Attachment 7: TOD Information Resources “A Toolbox for Alleviating Traffic Congestion”, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1989. Aurora Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) District, City of Aurora, Planning Department, February 21, 2009. Bus Rapid Transit and Transit Oriented Development: Case Studies on Transit Oriented Development Around Bus Rapid Transit Systems in North America and Australia. Breakthrough Technologies Institute, Washington D.C., 2008. City of Lakewood Land Use Code, Article 22: Transit Mixed Use Zone District, May 2011. City of Portland Land Use Code, Chapter 33.266 Parking and Loading, July 1, 2011. City of Portland Parking Impacts for New TOD Along Portland Inner Corridors Parking Study. David Evans and Associates, November 2012. Denver Zoning Code, Division 10.4 Parking and Loading, June 25, 2010. “Portland Reimposes Parking Requirements,” Cities&Towns Online, Robert Steuteville, 2013. Role of Parking Management in Livable Communities, Todd Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Railvolution, November 7, 2006. Statewide Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Study: Special Report - Parking and TOD: Challenges and Opportunities. Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, California Department of Transportation, February 2002. Strengths and Weakness of Bus in Relation to Transit Oriented Development, Professor Graham Currie, Chair of Public Transport, Institute of Transport Studies, Monash University, Australia TCRP Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide, Kittleson & Associates; Transportation Research Board, 2007. TCRP Report 128: Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel, Robert Cervero; G B Arrington; Transportation Research Board, 2008. Transit Oriented Development, Oregon Metro, website www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id/140 344 ITEM NO ____9___________ MEETING DATE August 8, 2013 STAFF Ted Shepard PLANNING & ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Revision to the Land Use Code APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding a proposed revision to the Land Use Code. This revision pertains to amending the definition of Large Base Industry to add a reference to firms that provide products and services other than manufactured goods which may include medical products and services, internet and telecom products and services, educational products and services, publishing products and services and corporate offices. RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The affected code section is Article Five, Section 5.1.2 – Definition of Large Base Industry. The proposed revision would expand the definition. Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750 345 Land Use Code Revision Planning & Zoning Hearing August 8, 2013 Page 2 Item #953 – Amend the definition of Large Base Industry by broadening the eligibility to include other firms that provide products and services that do not manufacture goods but make significant contributions to the local economy. Problem Statement As presently stated the definition of Large Base Industry contains three parameters by which a firm may qualify: 1. Produces, or will produce, manufactured goods, at least eighty percent of which are, or will be, produced for export to areas outside of the city; 2. Employs, or will employ no fewer than one hundred persons for at least thirty- five hours of year-round employment per week; 3. Owns or leases, or will own or lease, real property or equipment within the city limits that is used in the operation of the firm's business and that has, or will have, as of the date of the commencement of the firm's operation, a fair market value of no less than one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000.). As can be seen, the first qualification calls for the production of manufactured goods. The definition, however, is silent as to the provision of products and services that are of comparable economic value as manufactured goods but may be provided by products and services that are not necessarily manufactured. One example is medical services. Since there are soon to be significant changes in the delivery of medical services due to the federal Affordable Care Act and the State of Colorado Connect For Health, the medical services industry is poised for growth, not the least of which is general care hospitals, medical office buildings, urgent care clinics and emergency room facilities, all which could be included in a campus setting. Other firms that supply products or services either for export outside the region or by attracting outside economic activity include firms associated with internet and telecom, education, publishing and corporate offices. The jobs associated with the medical services industry and other comparable enterprises, are considered high-quality jobs. The services provided will attract patients and customers from outside the region. Further, since development of a campus is likely to be phased over time, by being classified as a Large Base Industry, such facilities would then be eligible for long term vesting. 346 Land Use Code Revision Planning & Zoning Hearing August 8, 2013 Page 3 No changes are proposed to the other two qualifying criteria which eligible firms are also required to satisfy: • Employs, or will employ no fewer than one hundred persons for at least thirty- five hours of year-round employment per week; • Owns or leases, or will own or lease, real property or equipment within the city limits that is used in the operation of the firm's business and that has, or will have, as of the date of the commencement of the firm's operation, a fair market value of no less than one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000.). Proposed Solution The proposed solution is to expand the current definition to include firms that provide other products and services that are not manufactured goods and that may locate in a campus setting to be developed over more than one phase. Large base industry shall mean a firm that, in an integrated campus setting located on a minimum of twenty-five (25) gross acres, (1) either: A. produces, or will produce, manufactured goods, at least eighty (80) percent of which are, or will be, produced for export to areas outside of the city or B. provides medical (including complementary and ancillary medical services), internet, telecom, education or publishing products and services for local and regional users or C. establishes corporate offices; (2) employs, or will employ, no fewer than one hundred (100) persons for at least thirty- five (35) hours of year-round employment per week; and (3) owns or leases, or will own or lease, real property or equipment within the city limits that is used in the operation of the firm's business and that has, or will have, as of the date of the commencement of the firm's operation, a fair market value of no less than one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000.). 347 ITEM NO ______10__________ MEETING DATE ___August 8, 2013__ STAFF _____Bolin_________ PLANNING & ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Extension of Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) Pilot for one additional year APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a recommendation to City Council to extend the Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) pilot for one additional year. This extension would continue the pilot as it was originally adopted by Ordinance No. 24, 2013. Up to five PDOD submittals would be accepted before September 9, 2014, and projects must be located within the established boundary. RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: To address the challenges of infill and redevelopment, staff worked collaboratively in 2011-2012 with the Planning and Zoning Board (P&Z) to develop the Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD), a unique zoning mechanism that blends the concepts of Planned Unit Developments and performance-based zoning. The PDOD provides flexibility on certain development regulations in the Land Use Code without having to use the existing Addition of a Permitted Use or Modification processes. In return for this flexibility, projects must achieve at least 60 points on a supplemental performance matrix that is designed to reward projects for going beyond minimum standards. The PDOD has a defined boundary, which was drawn to be consistent with the City’s targeted infill and redevelopment areas and Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay District (see PDOD pilot map, Attachment 1). One final characteristic to note is that all PDOD projects are processed as Type 2, meaning P&Z is the decision- maker. Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750 348 Extension of Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) Pilot for One Additional Year Planning & Zoning Hearing August 8, 2013 Page 2 Being an untested concept for the City, the PDOD was proposed first as a pilot to allow for real-world test cases. The pilot was unanimously recommended by P&Z and ultimately adopted by City Council on February 26, 2013. The pilot provided a six- month window where PDOD submittals would be accepted, but the number of applications accepted was capped at five. The pilot began immediately after adoption and is set to expire on September 9, 2013. According to the PDOD pilot Ordinance, City Council has the option to extend the pilot “in the event that, during the six-month term of its existence, there have been insufficient development proposals presented to the City within the boundaries of the PDOD map to adequately inform the City Council as to the viability of the District” (see Ordinance No. 024, Attachment 2). Since there have not been any PDOD submittals to-date, and none are anticipated within the remaining month of the pilot, P&Z discussed whether or not to extend the pilot at a work session on August 2, 2013. Staff presented feedback gathered from local planning/design consultants and the PDOD Citizen Taskforce to inform the discussion in terms of why no PDOD projects have been submitted. Ultimately, there was support to extend the pilot without modifications for an additional twelve months. This extension would allow PDOD submittals to be accepted through September 9, 2014, but maintains the original cap that would only allow five submittals within that timeframe. The Citizen Taskforce that was formed to evaluate PDOD projects will continue to meet as-needed to assist staff with such evaluations. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planned Development Overlay District Pilot Map 2. Ordinance No. 24, 2013 349 E PROSPECT RD S SHIELDS ST INTERSTATE 25 S COLLEGE AVE E VINE DR S TIMBERLINE RD E DRAKE RD E MULBERRY ST E TRILBY RD S LEMAY AVE N SHIELDS ST W DRAKE RD W TRILBY RD LAPORTE AVE E LINCOLN AVE RIVERSIDE AVE W HARMONY RD N COLLEGE AVE E COUNTY ROAD 52 W MULBERRY ST N LEMAY AVE KECHTER RD W HORSETOOTH RD ZIEGLER RD COUNTRY CLUB RD N TIMBERLINE RD E WILLOX LN N COUNTY ROAD 11 TERRY LAKE RD S SUMMIT VIEW DR S COUNTY ROAD 7 S COUNTY ROAD 9 E COUNTY ROAD 36 S LEMAY AVE Planned Development Pilot Boundary Overlay District (PDOD) Legend PDOD Pilot Boundary PoudreRiver Major Streets Property Lines 350 1 ORDINANCE NO. 024, 2013 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE LAND USE CODE BY THE ADDITION OF A TEMPORARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT WHEREAS, on March 18, 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 051, 1997, the City Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code"); and WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the understanding of staff and the City Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be subject to future amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of errors, but also for the purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic document capable of responding to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals and citizens of the City; and WHEREAS, in February 2011, City Council adopted City Plan Policy EH 4.2 which directs staff to develop new policies, procedures, and practices to reduce and resolve barriers to infill development and redevelopment with emphasis on a sustainable, flexible, and predictable approach to such development; and WHEREAS, in furtherance of the Planning and Zoning Board’s 2011/2012 Work Program, which identifies a need for a flexible zoning tool, primarily for redevelopment, City staff has prepared the Planned Development Overlay Zone District (“PDOD”), which provides such flexibility while also ensuring that the City’s broader sustainability goals are met; and WHEREAS, the PDOD is being proposed as a pilot program to give the City an opportunity to analyze its viability and, accordingly, is limited to a period of six months for projects applying for the equivalent of a Project Development Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council will have the opportunity to extend the proposed PDOD in the event that, during the six-month term of its existence, there have been insufficient development proposals presented to the City within the boundaries of the PDOD map to adequately inform the City Council as to the viability of the District; and WHEREAS, City staff will evaluate the pilot program during and after its existence and will report the outcomes to City Council; and WHEREAS, based on City staff’s report, City Council will determine whether the PDOD should be continued, amended, or terminated; and WHEREAS, City staff and the Planning and Zoning Board have reviewed the proposed Land Use Code changes regarding the PDOD and have recommended to the City Council that they be adopted; and 351 2 WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the recommended Land Use Code amendments are in the best interest of the City and its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 1.4.9 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subsection (M) which reads in its entirety as follows: (M) Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) References. In applying the provisions of Division 2.15 and Division 4.29 of this Land Use Code, the term project development plan shall be deemed to mean a detailed development plan, and the term final plan shall be deemed to mean a complete development plan. This Land Use Code shall be administered accordingly unless, with respect to a specific provision, the subject matter or context requires a different interpretation. Section 2. That Section 2.2.11(D)(9) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (D) Final Plan and Plat and Other Site Specific Development Plans. . . . (9) Post denial re-submittal delay. Property that is the subject of an overall development plan or a project development plan that has been denied by the decision maker or denied by City Council upon appeal, or withdrawn by the applicant, shall be ineligible to serve, in whole or in part, as the subject of another overall development plan or project development plan application for a period of six (6) months from the date of the final decision of denial or the date of withdrawal (as applicable) of the plan unless the Director determines that the granting of an exception to this requirement would not be detrimental to the public good and would: (a) substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of City-wide concern; or (b) result in a substantial benefit to the City by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the City's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council. The provisions of this section shall not apply to applications filed under Division 2.15. Section 3. That Section 2.8.1 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 352 3 2.8.1 Purpose and Applicability The decision maker is empowered to grant modifications to the General Development Standards contained in Article 3 and the Land Use Standards and Development Standards contained in Article 4 and any separation or proximity standards that are established as a specific measurement of distance in the District Permitted Uses contained in Article 4, either for: (1) overall development plans and/or project development plans which are pending approval at the time that the request for proposed modification is filed; (2) overall development plans and/or project development plans which the applicant intends to file, provided that such plans are in fact filed with the Director as development applications within one (1) year following the determination of the decision maker on the request for the proposed modification; or (3) development plans approved under prior law and which are sought to be amended (either as a minor or major amendment) pursuant to Section 2.2.10. This modification of standards process shall not apply so as to allow any modification of the requirements contained in Division 4.29 of this Land Use Code. Section 4. That Article 2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new Division 2.15 which reads in its entirety as follows: DIVISION 2.15 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT (PDOD) REVIEW PROCEDURES 2.15.1 Detailed Development Plan (A) Purpose. The detailed development plan shall contain descriptions of the uses of the land, the layout of landscaping, circulation, architectural elevations and buildings and shall include the plat (when such plat is required pursuant to Section 3.3.1 of this Code). Approval of a detailed development plan does not establish any vested right to develop property in accordance with the plan. (B) Applicability. Upon completion of the conceptual review and preliminary design review meetings and after the Director has made written comments, and after a neighborhood meeting has been held, an application for a PDOD detailed development plan review may be filed with the Director. (C) Process. A detailed development plan shall be processed according to, in compliance with, and subject to the provisions contained in Division 2.1 and Steps 1 through 12 of the Common Development Review Procedures, as follows: (1) Step 1 (Conceptual Review/Preliminary Design Review): Applicable. 353 4 (2) Step 2 (Neighborhood Meeting): Applicable. (3) Step 3 (Development Application Submittal): All items or documents required for detailed development plans as described in the development application submittal master list shall be submitted. The Director may waive or modify the foregoing submittal requirements if, given the facts and circumstances of the specific application, a particular requirement would either be irrelevant, immaterial, redundant or otherwise unnecessary for the full and complete review of the application. (4) Step 4 (Determination of Sufficiency): Applicable. (5) Step 5 (Staff Report): Applicable. (6) Step 6 (Notice): Applicable. (7) Step 7(A) (Decision Maker): All detailed development plans will be processed as Type 2 reviews. Step 7(B)-(G) (Conduct of a Public Hearing, Order of Proceedings at Public Hearing, Decision and Findings, Notification to Applicant, Record of Proceedings, Recording of Decisions and Plats): Applicable. (8) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable. A detailed development plan shall be consistent with Division 4.29; and, when a detailed development plan is within the boundaries of an approved general development plan, the detailed development plan shall be consistent with the general development plan. (9) Step 9 (Conditions of Approval): Applicable. (10) Step 10 (Amendments): Applicable. (11) Step 11 (Lapse): Applicable. Except that the term “detailed development plan” is referred to as “project development plan”, and except that the law in effect at the time of filing of the application shall govern, unless the director determines that it is in the best interest of the City that this provision be waived. (12) Step 12 (Appeals): Applicable. (13) Optional Step A (Pre-application session). Applicants for approval of detailed development plans in the PDOD are 354 5 encouraged to participate in the following optional review procedure: This optional review is available to applicants that have completed their conceptual review and neighborhood meeting. Such review is intended to provide an opportunity for applicants to present conceptual information to the Planning and Zoning Board about the ways in which they intend to deal with site constraints, issues of controversy or opportunities related to the development project. Applicants participating in such review procedure should present specific plans showing how, if at all, they intend to address any issues raised during the initial comments received from staff and the affected property owners. All pre-application sessions under this provision will be held in accordance with the provisions contained in Steps (6), (7)(B), and (7)(C) of the Common Development Review Procedures, except that the signs required to be posted under Step (6)(B) shall be posted subsequent to the scheduling of the session and not less than fourteen (14) days prior to the date of the session. The Board may, but shall not be required to, comment on the proposal. Any comment, suggestion, or recommendation made by any Board member with regard to the proposal does not bind or otherwise obligate any City decision maker to any course of conduct or decision pertaining to the proposal. Only one (1) optional review session may be requested for any detailed development plan. 2.15.2 Complete Development Plan (A) Purpose. The purpose and applicability of a complete development plan is contained in Section 2.1.3(D). (B) Process. A complete development plan may only be submitted after approval of a detailed development plan for the subject property or concurrently with a detailed development plan for the subject property. For consolidated applications for a detailed development plan and a complete development plan, the applicant shall follow both the detailed development plan and complete development plan review procedures. A complete development plan shall be processed according to, in compliance with and subject to the provisions contained in Division 2.1 and Steps 1 through 12 of the Common Development Review Procedures (Sections 2.2.1 through 2.2.12, inclusive) as follows: (1) Step 1 (Conceptual Review): Not applicable. (2) Step 2 (Neighborhood Meeting): Not applicable. 355 6 (3) Step 3 (Development Application Submittal): All items or documents required for complete development plans as described in the development application submittal master list shall be submitted. The Director may waive or modify the foregoing submittal requirements if, given the facts and circumstances of the specific application, a particular requirement would either be irrelevant, immaterial, redundant or otherwise unnecessary for the full and complete review of the application. (4) Step 4 (Determination of Sufficiency): Applicable. (5) Step 5 (Staff Report): Not applicable. (6) Step 6 (Notice): Not applicable. (7) Step 7(A)-(C) (Decision Maker, Conduct of Public Hearing, Order of Proceeding at Public Hearing): Not applicable, and in substitution therefore, the Director is hereby authorized to, and shall, review, consider and approve, approve with conditions or deny the development application for a complete development plan based on its consistency with a valid detailed development plan for the subject property and its compliance with all of the standards established in Step 8 of this Section. The Director may, but is not obligated to, confer with the applicant or other city staff to obtain clarification or explanation, gain understanding, suggest revisions, or otherwise discuss or learn about the development proposal and a complete development plan, all for the purpose of ensuring a fully consistent and compliant complete development plan. Step 7(D) (Decision and Findings): Not applicable, except that Step 7(D)(3) shall apply. Step 7(E) (Notification to Applicant): Applicable. Step 7(F) (Record of Proceedings): Not applicable, except that Step 7(F)(2) shall apply. Step 7(G) (Recording of Decisions and Plats): Applicable. (8) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable. A complete development plan shall comply with Division 4.29 and be consistent with the detailed development plan. (9) Step 9 (Conditions of Approval): Applicable. (10) Step 10 (Amendments): Applicable. 356 7 (11) Step 11 (Lapse): Applicable. Except that the term “complete development plan” is referred to as “final plan”. (12) Step 12 (Appeals): Not applicable. The Director’s decision shall be final and no appeal of the Director's decision will be allowed; however, the Director may refer the decision to the Planning and Zoning Board when the Director is in doubt as to the compliance and consistency of the complete development plan with the approved detailed development plan. If the Director refers the decision to the Planning and Zoning Board, the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board shall be final and shall not be appealable to the City Council, notwithstanding any provision of the City Code to the contrary. Section 5. That the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new Division 4.29 which reads in its entirety as follows: DIVISION 4.29 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT (P-D-O-D) (A) Purpose and Applicability. (1) Purpose. The Planned Development Overlay District (“PDOD”) is a district within certain areas of the City designed to provide an optional process for reviewing an applicant’s compliance with the applicable land use, design and development standards established by underlying zone districts and Article 3 of this Land Use Code. The district is intended to further the City’s sustainability goals as set forth in City Plan, and to provide flexibility in the design of development to best utilize the potential of sites that are characterized by exceptional geographic features, topography, size, shape and/or the constraints of existing development. The district is intended to provide a development review process that encourages heightened dialogue and collaboration among applicants, affected property owners, neighbors and City staff. (2) Applicability. Any property located within the PDOD (Figure 22) shall be eligible to develop according to the standards set forth in Section D at the option of the developer. This Division 4.29 shall be applicable only to an application for approval of a detailed development plan which has been filed with the City on or before September 9, 2013, unless said deadline has been extended by subsequent ordinance of the City Council. No more than five (5) applications shall be received and accepted for processing during the effective term of this ordinance, which term ends on September 9, 2013; and the Director may determine to close the acceptance of 357 8 applications prior to September 9, 2013, if necessary in order to properly and adequately process and administer the applications received. (a) In order to utilize the PDOD zone district regulations, the proposed development must be under single ownership or control to ensure that there is a single entity responsible for completing the project. The applicant shall provide sufficient documentation of ownership or control to indicate the development will be completed in its entirety by a signal entity as proposed. 358 9 Figure 22 (B) Permitted Uses. 359 10 (1) Any use permitted in the underlying zone district is permitted in the PDOD. (2) Any use permitted in any other zone district of the City will be permitted, but only if such use conforms to all of the following conditions: (a) Such use is designed compatibly with the other listed permitted uses in the underlying zone district to which it is added; (b) The impacts of such use will be mitigated to the maximum extent feasible; and (c) Such use, whether a use permitted in the underlying zone district or a use permitted in any other zone district of the City, complies with the land use standards contained in paragraph (D) of this Section. (C) Prohibited Uses. There are no expressly prohibited uses in the PDOD zone district except those uses listed in Section 4.28(C)(1 through 9) of this Land Use Code, and uses that are not listed as permitted uses in any zone district of the City. (D) Land Use Standards. Development in the PDOD shall comply with the following: (1) Divisions 3.3 and 3.7 through 3.11 of Article 3 of this Land Use Code in their entirety; (2) The “General Standards” of all Sections in Divisions 3.2, and 3.4 through 3.6; (3) Section 3.4.1 Natural Habitat and Features in its entirety; (4) Section 3.4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources in its entirety; (5) Section 3.6.2 Streets, Streetscapes, Alleys, and Easements in its entirety; and (6) Any development in the PDOD must also score at least sixty (60) points from at least four (4) categories as established on the PDOD performance matrix (Figure 23). Figure 23 360 11 Application of the Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) Performance Matrix The following provides clarification as to the way in which projects will be evaluated under the Planned Development Overlay District Performance Matrix and provides more detailed definitions for the performance criteria contained in the matrix. The performance criteria established in this performance matrix are not intended to supersede any requirements established in other documents governing public rights-of- way such as the Municipal Code, Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, and the City’s Streetscape Design Standards and Guidelines. Any proposal to implement performance criteria within public rights-of-way is subject to additional review under the criteria previously established within the appropriate other documents. Performance Matrix Evaluation An applicant may choose which of the performance criteria to incorporate within the development project and will be assigned a score. A minimum of sixty (60) points must be obtained from at least four (4) of the seven (7) performance categories in order for the development project to be approved. An applicant may receive a score of 0, 2, or 4 if a particular criterion has been established in the matrix as being of significant value to the City. The numerical score is assigned based upon the following: 0 Failure to implement the criterion. 2 Minimal implementation and/or quality of the criterion given the constraints and opportunities of the site. 4 Standard implementation and/or quality of the criterion given the constraints and opportunities of the site. An applicant may receive a score of 0, 1, or 2 if a particular criterion has been established in the matrix as being of lesser value to the City. The numerical score is assigned based upon the following: 0 Failure to implement the criterion. 1 Minimal implementation and/or quality of the criterion given the constraints and opportunities of the site. 2 Standard implementation and/or quality of the criterion given the constraints and opportunities of the site. Some of the criteria are worded such that they will either be implemented or not. Therefore, there are no degrees of implementation for these criteria. Depending upon the 361 12 value of the criterion to the City, the numerical score is assigned based upon the following: 0 Failure to implement the criterion. 1/2/4 Implementation of the criterion given the constraints and opportunities of the site. Applicant Innovation or Outstanding Performance Within each performance category is a criterion that is intentionally left blank and can be completed by the applicant. The purpose of this criterion is to encourage innovative techniques not otherwise identified within the performance matrix. An applicant must clearly describe the proposed technique and how it will promote established City policies relevant to the particular category. Furthermore, an applicant may receive points for performing exceedingly well in a particular category. There is no limit to the number of “applicant innovations” within each category. The numerical score for an innovation or outstanding performance is assigned based upon the following: 0 Failure to implement the criterion. 2 Minimal implementation and/or quality of the criterion given the constraints and opportunities of the site. 4 Standard implementation and/or quality of the criterion given the constraints and opportunities of the site. 8 Maximum implementation and/or outstanding performance in the category given the constraints and opportunities of the site. Definitions: Environmental Health 3.5 See Section 3.2(E)(3) of the Land Use Code that details the considerations associated with waterwise, or xeriscape, landscaping. 3.15 See the Land Use Code definitions in article V: Tree, significant shall mean any tree with a DBH of six (6) inches or more. Section 3.2.1(F) describes in detail what a significant tree is within the City of Fort Collins. Economic Health 2.2 & 2.3 Primary job shall mean a job that derives fifty (50) percent or more of its income and purchases outside of the City and sells fifty (50) percent or more of its products or services outside of the City. 2.8 Underdeveloped or underutilized – shall mean a parcel/lot with less than twenty- five (25) percent of its total land area developed or utilized. Culture, Parks, and Recreation 1.4 Natural play area shall mean a natural playground, natural playscape, green playground or natural play environment is an area where children can play with natural elements such as sand, water and wood. Natural play areas must be 362 13 designed for active play and preferably by a landscape architect. Safety and Wellness 7.7 Floatable material shall mean any material that is not secured in place or completely enclosed in a structure, so that it could float off site during the occurrence of a flood and potentially cause harm to downstream property owners, or that could cause blockage of a culvert, bridge or other drainage facility. This includes, without limitation, lumber, vehicles, boats, equipment, trash dumpsters, tires, drums or other containers, pieces of metal, plastic or any other item or material likely to float. Floatable material shall not include motor vehicles parked temporarily on property for the purpose of customer or employee parking, or a business's temporary outdoor display of inventory during its usual hours of operation. 7.8 Fill shall mean a deposit of materials of any kind placed by artificial means. 7.9 Dryland Access shall mean a gravel, paved or concrete access route that connects a structure to a Dry Public Street, that is constructed above the base flood elevation, and that is of sufficient width to accommodate both emergency vehicles and other emergency access during evacuation of the site, considering the estimated number of people using the site and the expected mode (car, walking) of evacuation. Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) Performance Matrix Applicant must score 60 points at minimum from at least 4 categories. * Definitions are available in the Appendix. Points Culture, Parks, Recreation 1.1 Incorporates art, sculpture or fountains viewable to the public. 0 1 2 1.2 Designates the site, structure(s) or object(s) determined to be individually eligible as a local landmark designation or for individual listing in the State or National Register of Historic Places. 0 2 4 1.3 Provides a plaza, pedestrian mall, public square, park or other similar public open space within the project. 0 2 4 1.4 Rather than creating play spaces dominated by turf/sod grasses, incorporates natural play opportunities into the site.* 0 2 4 1.5 Site is located within ¼ mile of an existing (4 points) or planned (2 points) bike or other recreational trail and provides a pedestrian/bike connection to the trail. 0 2 4 1.6 If the site/building is eligible for local landmark designation, participate in a complementary design review with the Landmark Preservation Commission, and incorporate feedback into the design. 0 2 4 363 14 1.7 If the site/building is eligible for local landmark designation, participate in the Design Assistance Program administered through the Historic Preservation Department, and incorporate feedback into the design. 0 2 4 1.8 Demonstrates innovation or outstanding performance to promote the City’s culture, parks, and recreation policies: 0 2 4 8 Economic Health 2.1 Creates or retains at least one locally-owned business, meaning a business enterprise (sole proprietorship, partnership, limited liability company, corporation, or other similar business entity) with headquarters located within a 40 mile radius from the City's Growth Management boundary. 0 1 2 2.2 Retains existing primary jobs.* 0 2 2.3 Creates at least 5 new primary jobs.* 0 2 4 2.4 At least one (1) business created or retained by the project is associated with one of the City’s established Targeted Industry Clusters (Bioscience, Water, Clean Energy, Software/Hardware, Uniquely Fort Collins). 0 1 2 2.5 At least ten (10) percent of residential units are affordable to households earning between sixty (60) -eighty (80) percent of Area Median Income (AMI). 0 1 2 2.6 At least ten (10) percent of residential units are affordable to households earning less than sixty (60) percent of Area Median Income (AMI). 0 2 4 2.7 Employs at least one (1) local contractor for design/construction/deconstruction work, meaning a City- licensed contractor with headquarters located within a forty (40) mile radius from the City's Growth Management boundary. 0 1 2 2.8 Site is undeveloped, underdeveloped, and/or underutilized.* 0 2 2.9 Site is located within the boundary of an Urban Renewal Plan Area or the Downtown Development Authority. 0 2 2.10 Locates site within one quarter (¼) mile of an existing (4 points) or funded (2 points) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stop along the Mason Corridor. 0 2 4 2.11 Assembles two (2) or more lots/parcels. 0 2 4 2.12 Demonstrates innovation or outstanding performance in promoting the City’s economic health policies: 0 2 4 8 Environmental Health 3.1 Designs and builds at least one (1) principal building to be eligible for LEED certification. 0 2 4 3.2 Designs and builds all buildings to exceed the City’s Building Energy Code by at least ten (10) percent. 0 2 4 364 15 3.3 Uses runoff from small rainfall events (total rainfall of .5 inches or less) for landscape irrigation and/or onsite infiltration to exceed minimum standards in the City’s Stormwater Criteria Manual. Exceeds minimum standards by 25% (2 points); exceeds minimum standards by 50% (4 points). 0 2 4 3.4 Uses paving materials with a Solar Reflective Index (SRI) of at least twenty-nine (29). 0 1 2 3.5 Uses at least fifty (50) percent waterwise landscaping materials.* 0 1 2 3.6 Uses native plants for landscaping as defined in the Fort Collins Native Plants guide. 0 1 2 3.7 In mixed-use and non-residential developments, includes recycle containers adjacent to other waste collection receptacles in areas accessible to the public. 0 1 2 3.8 Implements a three (3)-bin waste system by providing space for trash, recycling, and composting accessible to residents and/or tenants. 0 2 3.9 Restores preexisting degraded natural resources area on or adjacent to the site, e.g. wetlands, native grasslands, riparian forests, streams. 0 2 4 3.10 If the site is contiguous with a natural area or natural habitat or feature, creates internally contiguous habitat opportunities on a minimum of ten (10) percent greater than the requirements specified in 3.4.1. 0 1 2 3.11 Designs and incorporates on-site renewable energy for at least five (5) percent of total energy generation using technologies such as solar, wind, geothermal, or biomass. 0 2 4 3.12 Designs and builds at least one (1) building so that it will readily accommodate the installation of solar photovoltaic panels or solar thermal hot water heating devices, including all necessary conduit, chases, roof penetrations, roof pitch, and orientation. For projects with multiple buildings, designs and builds at least twenty (20) percent to be solar ready as described. 0 1 2 3.13 Uses any combination of solar reflective index (SRI) compliant and vegetated roofing materials, provided they collectively cover at least seventy-five (75) percent of the total project roof area. 0 2 4 3.14 Specifies and installs high efficiency equipment such as water heaters, appliances, furnaces or air conditioning units in any newly constructed or renovated buildings. 0 2 3.15 Protects valuable features including creeks, significant trees and wetlands and, to the maximum extent feasible, integrate such 16 removal. 3.17 Re-uses deconstructed materials in the construction of new buildings and/or other site features. 0 2 4 3.18 Provides and retrofits water quality treatment beyond minimum requirements established in the City's Stormwater Criteria Manual, including treatment for the original developed site, the redeveloped portion, and any newly developed area. 0 1 2 3.19 Detains off-site runoff (identify source and provide adequate volume of storage) beyond minimum requirements established in the City's Stormwater Criteria Manual. 0 1 2 3.20 Coordinates with adjacent property owners to share water quality and detention systems and/or facilities. 0 2 4 3.21 Provides on-site composting system(s) to process the site’s organic waste. 0 1 2 3.22 Develops and implements a long-term vegetation management plan that ensures proper training for staff, addresses weed management and native plant establishment, and provides a funding mechanism to address problems when they occur. 0 4 3.23 Demonstrates innovation or outstanding performance in promoting the City’s environmental health policies: 0 2 4 8 High Performing Community 4.1 Implements citizen engagement best practices throughout their development review process such as an extra neighborhood meeting, design-charrette with neighbors, or interactive project blog. Provides the City with a written assessment of the needs and concerns of the adjacent area, and indicates how those needs and concerns are being addressed by the project design. 0 4 4.2 The business(es) occupying the development is (1 point) or will become (2 points) a City of Fort Collins Climate Wise partner. 0 1 2 4.3 Participates in the City’s Integrated Design Assistance Program (IDAP) administered through the Utilities Department using the Prescriptive Approach. 0 2 4.4 Participates in the City’s Integrated Design Assistance Program (IDAP) administered through the Utilities Department using the Whole Building Approach. 0 4 4.5 Utilizes alternative dispute resolution processes, e.g. mediation, to engage surrounding neighbors in the project design process and provide the City with a written assessment of the identified concerns, and address how those are being addressed by the project. 0 4 4.6 Demonstrates innovation or outstanding performance to promote 0 2 4 8 17 the City’s high performing community policies: Livability 5.1 Includes two (2) or more use types. No one use shall amount to less than ten (10) percent or more than eighty (80) percent of the total development gross floor area. Individual phases of projects may have a lesser mix if the applicant provides assurances acceptable to the City that later phases will produce the required overall mix. 0 2 4 5.2 Locates any residential component of the project within one-half (½) mile of at least four of the following community facilities: school, library, childcare or daycare, health care facilities, community centers, family and human services, community assembly use, park, recreation facility, public safety, public buildings. 0 2 5.3 Adapts or re-uses at least one (1) existing non-accessory building on the site. 0 2 4 5.4 Incorporates a mix of two (2) or more uses vertically. 0 4 5.5 Uses natural stone, synthetic stone, brick and/or concrete masonry units (solely or in combination) to cover the first floor elevation on exterior buildings that are visible to the public. 0 1 2 5.6 Adapts and incorporates prominent or distinctive design elements from neighboring structures, e.g. rooflines, recesses, projections. 0 1 2 5.7 Designs the first floor of mixed-use building(s) so it can accommodate commercial/retail and residential uses. 0 2 5.8 Includes neighborhood-serving retail in the project, e.g. grocery store, dry cleaner. 0 1 2 5.9 Demonstrates innovation or outstanding performance in promoting the City’s community and neighborhood livability policies: 0 2 4 8 Transportation 6.1 Site is located within one-quarter (¼) mile of existing (4 points) or planned (2 points) transit stop. 0 2 4 6.2 Provides or enhances an existing pedestrian connection from the site to an existing or funded transit stop. 0 2 4 6.3 Provides at least one (1) preferred parking space for carpool, shared-use, and/or other alternatively-fueled vehicles along street- like private drives and/or parking lots for every twenty-five (25) parking spaces. 0 1 2 6.4 Uses street-like private drives for internal roadway connections where connections are not necessary to be public streets. 0 1 2 367 18 6.5 Establishes pedestrian and bicycle Level Of Service (LOS) A as defined in the Fort Collins Multimodal Transportation Level of Service Manual. 0 1 2 6.6 Provides at least one (1) charging station (“plug-in”) along street- like private drives and/or parking lots for electric/hybrid vehicles. 0 2 4 6.7 Provides secured and covered bicycle storage spaces for residents or employees. 0 2 4 6.8 Provides or enhances an existing public area and/or facility on site for awaiting transit passengers. 0 1 2 6.9 Provides bicycle parking spaces greater than ten (10) percent of the requirements specified in 3.2.2. 0 2 4 6.10 Provides structured or below-ground parking (reduced parking footprint). 0 2 4 6.11 Provides employees with at least one (1) shower per gender on- site for every thirty (30) bicycle parking spaces. 0 2 4 6.12 Devotes less than twenty-five (25) percent of site to surface parking. 0 1 2 6.13 Site is located within one-quarter (¼) mile of a vehicle share station (auto and/or bike share). 0 2 4 6.14 Coordinates with adjacent property owners to provide shared auto parking facilities for the development. 0 2 4 6.15 Demonstrates innovation or outstanding performance in promoting the City’s transportation policies: 0 2 4 8 Safety and Wellness 7.1 Provides at least twenty (20) percent of the total landscaping with plants that are edible or produce edible material, e.g. fruit or nut- bearing trees. 0 1 2 7.2 Provides managed open space for a community garden or composting activity with fencing and/or irrigation as needed. 0 2 4 7.3 Installs fire sprinkler systems in all single-family residential units. 0 4 7.4 Provides an emergency evacuation plan which identifies important safety features of all buildings, such as exit routes and internal shelter locations (in case of tornados), safety equipment such as fire escape ladders or extinguishers, and locations of shutoffs for gas, water, and electricity. 0 2 7.5 Locates development outside of the flood fringe. 0 4 7.6 If the site is adjacent to a culvert or bridge, relocates buildings and/or raises the elevation of the lowest floor (including basement and crawlspace) to minimize flood damage should the culvert or bridge become blocked by debris during a 100-year flood. 0 2 4 7.7 Refrains from putting floatable materials on a site in the floodplain fringe of any FEMA or City floodplain.* 0 2 4 368 19 7.8 Does not put fill in the 100-year flood fringe.* 0 4 7.9 Provides dryland access for 100-year flood.* 0 2 4 7.10 Demonstrates innovation or outstanding performance in promoting the City’s safety and wellness policies: 0 2 4 8 Section 6. This Ordinance shall terminate and be of no further force and effect at the close of business on September 9, 2013 unless extended by ordinance of the City Council. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 12th day of February, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the 26th day of February, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 26th day of February, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk 369 366 features into the overall design of the site as shared amenities.* 0 1 2 3.16 Provides space and equipment for shared trash/recycling/composting activities and coordinates with adjacent property owners to establish service sharing for waste 0 2 4 365 plants that have no alternative location. Air Transportation Lifelines – airports (municipal and larger), helicopter pads and structures serving emergency functions, and associated infrastructure (aviation control towers, air traffic control centers, and emergency equipment aircraft hangars). To be included. X 303 Safe from Flooding.” Must meet freeboard requirement. Poudre River- Must meet freeboard requirements, no residential and no critical facilities. FEMA Basin - Must meet freeboard requirements and no critical facilities. City Basin - NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Variance Hardship Poudre and FEMA Basins – hardship must be shown for variances to FEMA minimum standards. City Basins – hardship does not need to be shown. Hardship must be shown for variances to FEMA minimum standards. Hardship must be shown for variances to State standards. Poudre and FEMA Basins – hardship must be shown for variances to State standards. City Basins – hardship must be shown for variances to State standards. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Note: This is not a complete itemization of all floodplain regulations. It is a summary of key regulations reviewed and changed by the State. 266 Basins = 18 inches above flood level. At flood level. 12 inches above flood level. Poudre River = 24 inches above flood level. City and FEMA Basins = 18 inches above flood level. none none none none none none none none Freeboard for additions, substantial improvements and accessory structures Poudre River = 24 inches above flood level. City and FEMA Basins = 6 inches above flood level. At flood level. 12 inches above flood level. Poudre River = 24 inches above flood level. City and FEMA Basins = 12 inches above flood level. none none none none none none none none Remodels or repair of damaged buildings - improvements to be included in substantial damage calculation. Poudre River and FEMA Basins – include all items. City Basins – include only items below the Flood Protection Elevation. Include all items. Include all items. Poudre River and FEMA Basins – include all items. City Basins – include all items. none none none none none none none none Critical facilities Not allowed – Essential Service, At-Risk Population and Hazardous Material Critical Facilities. See Attachment 2 for types of critical facilities. Allowed. Not allowed or must elevate 2 feet and have dry access. See Attachment 2 for types of critical facilities. Not allowed - Essential Service, At-Risk Population, Government Services and Hazardous Materials. See Attachment 3 for types of critical facilities. Not Allowed – Essential Service and At-Risk Population. Allowed Allowed. Not Allowed – Essential Service and At-Risk Population. See Attachment 3 for types of critical facilities. Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Special exception for properties to be removed by future capital improvement Poudre River and FEMA Basins - No, must wait for project to be done or follow regulations. City Basins - It is the Utilities Executive Director decision once project is under construction. No, must wait for project to be done or follow regs No, must wait for project to be done or follow regs. Poudre River and FEMA Basins - No, must wait for project to be done or follow regulations. City Basins - No, must wait for project to be done or follow regulations. No, must wait for project to be done or follow regs. No, must wait for project to be done or follow regs. No, must wait for project to be done or follow regs. No, must wait for project to be done or follow regs. Poudre River and FEMA Basins - No, must wait for project to be done or follow regulations. City Basins - NA No, must wait for project to be done or follow regs No, must wait for project to be done or follow regs. Poudre River and FEMA Basins - No, must wait for project to be done or follow regulations. City Basins - NA July 18, 2013 265 s Absolute 0.92 209 CC 2 DSX1_LED_60 C_1000_40K_T FTM_MVOLT.i es Absolute 0.92 209 DSX1 LED 60C 1000 40K T2M MVOLT DSX1 LED WITH (2) 30 LED LIGHT ENGINES, TYPE T2M OPTIC, 4000K, @ 1050mA LED DSX1 LED 60C 1000 40K T5W MVOLT DSX1 LED WITH (2) 30 LED LIGHT ENGINES, TYPE T5W OPTIC, 4000K, @ 1050mA LED DSX1 LED 60C 1000 40K TFTM MVOLT DSX1 LED WITH (2) 30 LED LIGHT ENGINES, TYPE TFTM OPTIC, 4000K, @ 1050mA LED STATISTICS Description Symbol Avg Max Min Max/Min Avg/Min Calc Zone #1 0.4 fc 2.7 fc 0.0 fc N / A N / A NOTES 1. file=visual-files-may2013-integratedrecycling2.vsl PM-2 SITE LIGHTING DETAILS 217 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.7 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.9 2.3 2.1 1.7 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.7 2.1 2.0 1.7 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.5 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.8 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.8 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.1 1.5 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.7 2.1 2.1 1.8 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.7 1.9 2.3 2.5 2.1 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.8 2.2 2.1 1.8 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.4 1.8 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.6 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.6 2.0 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.9 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.9 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.0 1.4 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.4 1.7 1.8 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.6 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.1 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.1 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.2 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.9 2.3 2.5 2.2 1.3 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.9 2.4 2.5 2.2 1.5 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.7 2.1 2.4 2.1 1.2 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.3 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.5 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.5 2.2 1.8 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.5 2.0 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.0 1.6 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.6 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.8 2.0 2.1 1.9 1.5 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.4 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.3 2.2 1.7 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.9 1.4 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.3 1.8 1.4 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.7 1.2 1.6 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.5 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 1.5 2.0 1.9 1.6 1.3 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.7 1.7 2.2 2.3 1.9 1.5 1.0 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.8 1.9 2.3 2.3 2.1 1.6 1.0 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 1.6 2.2 2.2 1.9 1.5 1.0 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 1.5 1.9 1.9 1.6 1.2 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.5 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.1 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 2.7 DRAWING NUMBER: INTEGRATED RECYCLING FACILITY TIMBERLINE ROAD FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 401 West Mountain Avenue Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 fax 970/224.1662 phone 970/224.1191 www.vfrdesigninc.com Ŷ land planning Ŷ landscape architecture Ŷ Ŷ urban design Ŷ entitlement Ŷ ISSUED No. DESCRIPTION DATE 1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN 6-12-2013 REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE PROJECT No.: APS..521-13 DRAWN BY: SJM, ARB REVIEWED BY: RJB, CP SEAL: PREPARED BY: CIVIL ENGINEER: CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPROVED: CITY ENGINEER DATE CHECKED BY: WATER & WASTEWATER UTILITY DATE CHECKED BY: STORMWATER UTILITY DATE CHECKED BY: PARKS & RECREATION DATE CHECKED BY: TRAFFIC ENGINEER DATE CHECKED BY: ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER DATE &+(&.('%< DATE  . . . . . . PREPARED FOR: City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Ave., Building B (970) 221-6610 ELECTRICAL ENGINEER: PM-1 PHOTOMETRIC PLAN 216 BEFORE THE ROOTS HAVE A CHANCE TO DRY OUT AND WATER THE TREE IMMEDIATELY. 14. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, ALL PROTECTED TREES SHALL HAVE ORANGE PROTECTION BARRIER FENCING ERECTED, WHICH AS A MINIMUM ARE SUPPORTED BY 1" X 1" OR SIMILAR STURDY STOCK, FOR SHIELDING OF PROTECTED TREES, NO CLOSER THAN SIX (6) FEET FROM THE TRUNK OR ONE HALF ( 1 2) OF THE DRIP LINE, WHICH EVER IS GREATER. WITHIN THIS PROTECTION ZONE THERE SHALL BE NO MOVEMENT OF EQUIPMENT OR STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, DEBRIS, FILL OR CUT UNLESS APPROVED BY THE CITY FORESTER. 15. ALL EXISTING TREES SHALL BE PRUNED TO THE CITY FORESTER'S "MEDIUM PRUNE STANDARDS. 16. WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED EXISTING TREE, THERE SHALL BE NO CUT OR FILL OVER A FOUR-INCH DEPTH UNLESS A QUALIFIED ARBORIST OR FORESTER HAS EVALUATED AND APPROVED THE DISTURBANCE. 17. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANT SHALL PREVENT THE CLEANING OF EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL OR THE STORAGE OR DISPOSAL OF WASTE MATERIAL SUCH AS PAINTS, OILS, SOLVENTS, ASPHALT, CONCRETE, MOTOR OIL OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL HARMFUL TO THE LIFE OF A TREE, WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED TREE OR GROUP OF TREES. 18. NO DAMAGING ATTACHMENT, WIRES, SIGNS OR PERMITS MAY BE FASTENED TO ANY PROTECTED TREE. 19. LARGE PROPERTY AREAS CONTAINING PROTECTED TREES AND SEPARATED FROM CONSTRUCTION OR LAND CLEARING AREAS, ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND UTILITY EASEMENTS MAY BY "RIBBONED OFF," RATHER THAN ERECTING PROTECTIVE FENCING AROUND EACH TREE AS REQUIRED IN NOTE (5) ABOVE. THIS MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY PLACING METAL T-POSTS STAKES A MAXIMUM OF FIFTY FEET APART AND TYING A RIBBON OR ROPE FROM STAKE-TO-STAKE ALONG THE OUTSIDE PERIMETERS OF SUCH AREAS BEING CLEARED. TREE PROTECTION & TRANSPLANTING NOTES L-2 LANDSCAPE DETAILS AND NOTES PRUNING NOTES: DO NOT HEAVILY PRUNE SHRUB AT PLANTING. PRUNE ONLY DEAD OR BROKEN BRANCHES. IF FORM IS COMPROMISED BY PRUNING, REPLACE SHRUB PLACEMENT NOTES: SET SHRUB PLUMB. SPACE PLANTS, AND PLACE FOR BEST EFFECT SET TOP OF ROOTBALL 1-2" HIGHER THAN ADJACENT GRADE SCARIFY SIDES AND USE 1:1 SLOPE 4" DEEP MULCH RING 3' IN DIA. PLACE ON GEOTEXTILE WEED BARRIER REMOVE CONTAINER (INCLUDING FIBER CONTAINERS), BASKETS, WIRE, ETC. FROM THE ROOTBALL. BREAK UP ENCIRCLING ROOTS WITH SHARP KNIFE OR SPADE. SPLIT BOTTOM OF ROOT BALL. PLACE ON UNDISTURBED SOIL TO PREVENT SETTLEMENT BACKFILL WITH BLEND OF EXISTING SOIL AND A MAX. 20% (BY VOL.) ORGANIC MATERIAL. WATER THOROUGHLY TO SETTLE AND REMOVE AIR POCKETS 2 X BALL DIA. 4" HIGH WATER SAUCER STAKING NOTES: STAKE TREES PER FOLLOWING SCHEDULE, THEN REMOVE AT END OF FIRST GROWING SEASON AS FOLLOWS: 1 1/2" CALIPER SIZE - MIN. 1 STAKE ON SIDE OF PREVAILING WIND. (GENERALLY N.W. SIDE) 1 1/2" - 3" CALIPER SIZE - MIN. 2 STAKES - ONE ON N.W. SIDE, ONE ON S.W. SIDE 3" CALIPER SIZE AND LARGER - 3 STAKES PER DIAGRAM WIRE OR CABLE SHALL BE MIN. 12 GAUGE, TIGHTEN ONLY ENOUGH TO KEEP FROM SLIPPING. ALLOW FOR SOME TRUNK MOVEMENT. NYLON STRAPS SHALL BE LONG ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE 1 1/2" OF GROWTH AND BUFFER ALL BRANCHES FROM WIRE REMOVE ALL WIRE, TWINE BURLAP, MESH AND CONTAINERS FROM ENTIRE ROOT BALL AND TRUNK GUYING PLAN PLANT SO THAT TOP OF ROOT BALL IS 2" HIGHER THAN FINISHED GRADE GROMMETED NYLON STRAPS GALVANIZED WIRE TWIST TO TIGHTEN 6' STEEL T-POSTS (SEE SCHEDULE) DRIVEN (MIN. 24") FIRMLY INTO UNDISTURBED SOIL OUTSIDE ROOTBALL. SCARIFY SIDES OF PLANTING HOLE LEAVING 1:1 SLOPE BACKFILL WITH BLEND OF EXISTING SOIL AND A MAXIMUM 20% (BY VOL.) ORGANIC MATERIAL TAMP SOIL AROUND ROOT BALL W/ FOOT PRESSURE SO THAT IT DOESN'T SHIFT. WATER THOROUGHLY TO SETTLE AND REMOVE AIR POCKETS PRUNING NOTES: DO NOT HEAVILY PRUNE THE TREE AT PLANTING. PRUNE ONLY CROSSOVER LIMBS, CO-DOMINANT LEADERS AND BROKEN BRANCHES. SOME INTERIOR TWIGS AND LATERAL BRANCHES MAY BE PRUNED. HOWEVER, DO NOT REMOVE THE TERMINAL BUDS OF BRANCHES THAT EXTEND TO THE EDGE OF THE CROWN 2 X BALL DIA. PREVAILING WIND PREVAILING WIND 4" WATER SAUCER (OMIT IN LAWN AREAS) SCARIFY SIDES OF HOLE LEAVING 1:1 SLOPE NOTES: SET S0 THAT TOP OF ROOT 1-2" HIGHER THAN FINISHED GRADE MARK NORTH SIDE OF TREE IN NURSERY AND ROTATE TREE TO FACE NORTH AT THE SITE WHENEVER POSSIBLE 2 STRAND 12 GAUGE GAL. WIRE (TWIST TO TIGHTEN) & GROMMETED NYLON STRAPS STEEL T-POSTS (SEE SCHEDULE) DRIVEN (MIN. 24") FIRMLY INTO UNDISTURBED SOIL OUTSIDE OF PLANTING HOLE BEFORE BACKFILLING STAKE ABOVE FIRST BRANCHES OR AS NECESSARY FOR FIRM SUPPORT BACKFILL WITH BLEND OF EXISTING SOIL AND A MAXIMUM 20% (BY VOL.) ORGANIC MATERIAL PLACE FIRMLY BUT DON'T TAMP OR COMPACT AROUND ROOT BALL. WATER WATER THOROUGHLY TO SETTLE AND REMOVE AIR POCKETS REMOVE ALL WIRE, TWINE BURLAP, MESH AND CONTAINERS FROM ENTIRE ROOT BALL AND TRUNK 4" DEEP MULCH RING PLACED A MINIMUM OF 6' IN DIAMETER. DO NOT PLACE MULCH IN CONTACT WITH TREE TRUNK PLAN VIEW - THREE STAKES 2 X BALL DIA. C SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL B CONIFER TREE PLANTING DETAIL A TREE PLANTING DETAIL 1. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL MEET SPECIFICATIONS OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN (AAN) FOR NUMBER ONE GRADE. ALL TREES SHALL BE BALLED AND BURLAPPED OR EQUIVALENT. 2. TREES SHALL NOT BE PLANTED CLOSER THAN 4 FEET TO ANY GAS LINE AND NO CLOSER THAN 10 FEET TO ANY WATER OR SEWER LINE. SHRUBS SHALL NOT BE PLANTED CLOSER THAN 4 FEET TO ANY WATER OR SEWER LINE. TREE PLANTING SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY. LOCATIONS OF ALL UTILITIES SHALL BE VERIFIED IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO PLANTING. A HORIZONTAL DISTANCE OF 40' BETWEEN STREET TREES AND STREET LIGHTS SHALL BE MAINTAINED. 3. A PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY TREES OR SHRUBS AS NOTED ON THIS PLAN ARE PLANTED, PRUNED OR REMOVED. THIS PERMIT SHALL APPROVE THE LOCATION AND SPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURE TO OBTAIN THIS PERMIT MAY RESULT IN REPLACING OR RELOCATING TREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. THE PROJECT MANAGER SHALL CONTACT THE CITY FORESTER TO INSPECT ALL STREET TREE PLANTINGS AT THE COMPLETION OF EACH PHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. ALL TREES NEED TO HAVE BEEN INSTALLED AS SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. APPROVAL OF STREET TREE PLANTING IS REQUIRED BEFORE FINAL APPROVAL OF EACH PHASE. 4. LANDSCAPING SHALL BE INSTALLED OR SECURED WITH A LETTER OF CREDIT, ESCROW, OR PERFORMANCE BOND FOR 125% OF THE VALUE OF THE LANDSCAPING AND INSTALLATION PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 5. LANDSCAPING WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYS AND COMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS SHALL BE INSTALLED BY THE DEVELOPER AND MAINTAINED BY THE OWNER. 6. DEVELOPER SHALL ENSURE THAT THE LANDSCAPE PLAN IS COORDINATED WITH THE PLANS DONE BY OTHER CONSULTANTS SO THAT THE PROPOSED GRADING, STORM DRAINAGE, OR OTHER CONSTRUCTION DOES NOT CONFLICT NOR PRECLUDE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS ON THIS PLAN. 7. ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS WITHIN THE SITE SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC UNDERGROUND IRRIGATION SYSTEM. AN IRRIGATION PLAN WILL BE REQUIRED AND APPROVED BY WATER UTILITY DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. 8. ALL SHRUB BEDS, INCLUDING IN NATIVE SEED AREAS, ARE TO BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC DRIP (TRICKLE) IRRIGATION SYSTEM, OR ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE. ALL TREES SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH A BUBBLER SYSTEM APPROVED BY THE CITY FORESTER. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS TO BE ADJUSTED TO MEET THE WATER REQUIREMENTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL PLANT MATERIAL. 9. ALL SHRUB BEDS, NEW TREES AND TRANSPLANTED TREES SHALL BE MULCHED WITH A FOUR INCH (4") LAYER OF SHREDDED WOOD MULCH (SEE PLANTING DETAILS). SHREDDED WOOD MULCH TO BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY FORESTRY DEPARTMENT. CONTACT FORESTRY DEPARTMENT TO ARRANGE PICKUP. 10. EDGING BETWEEN GRASS AND SHRUB BEDS SHALL BE 1 8" X 4" STEEL SET LEVEL WITH TOP OF GRASS. 11. TOPSOIL. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE, TOPSOIL THAT IS REMOVED DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHALL BE CONSERVED FOR LATER USE. 12. SOIL AMENDMENTS. PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF PLANT MATERIALS, AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPACTED OR DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHALL BE THOROUGHLY LOOSENED. ORGANIC AMENDMENTS SUCH AS COMPOST, PEAT, OR AGED MANURE SHALL BE THOROUGHLY INCORPORATED. LANDSCAPE NOTES WATER BUDGET CHART NATIVE SEED MIX SIZE ITEM PROVIDE 5" HEIGHT WATERING SAUCER AT EDGE OF TREE WELL FOR WATERING BASIN 4" DEEP MULCH RING PLACED A MINIMUM OF 6' IN DIAMETER. DO NOT PLACE MULCH IN CONTACT WITH TREE TRUNK PROVIDE 5" HEIGHT WATERING SAUCER AT EDGE OF TREE WELL FOR WATERING BASIN SPECIES PREFERRED VARIETIES SEEDED RATE LBS./ACRE (DRILLED) PLS SEEDED/ACRE LEYMUS CINEREUS GREAT BASIN WILDRYE MANGAR 3 285,000 NASSELLA VIRIDULA GREEN NEEDLEGRASS LODORM 2 362,000 ACHNATHERUM HYMENOIDES INDIAN RICEGRASS PALOMA, NEZPAR 1 188,000 ELYMUS TRACHYCAULUS SLENDER WHEATGRASS PRIMAR, REVENUE 2 320,000 ELYMUS LANCEOLATUS THICKSPIKE WHEATGRASS CRITANA 3 580,500 PASCOPYRUM SMITHII WESTERN WHEATGRASS ARRIBA, BARTON 4 504,000 TOTALS = 15 2,239,500 (~51 SEEDS/ SQ. FT.) DO NOT PRUNE OR DAMAGE LEADER. PRUNE LOWEST BRANCHES ONLY IF NECESSARY FOR SPACE CLEARANCE. 2-SRAND TWISTED 12 GAUGE GALVANIZED WIRE ATTACHED TO 2" NYLON WEBBING TREE STRAPS. PLANT SO THE TOP OF THE ROOT BALL IS EVEN WITH THE FINISHED GRADE TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE. MINIMIZE GRADE DIFFERENCES RESULTING FROM UNEVEN SURFACES. 6' HEAVY DUTY METAL "T" POSTS DRIVEN STRAIGHT IN THE SOIL OUTSIDE THE ROOTBALL PRIOR TO BACKFILLING FORM 8" HEIGHT SOIL BERM 6" THICK SHREDDED WOOD MULCH FILL IN ALL AIR POCKETS AROUND ROOT BALL WITH SOIL AFTER WATERING & BEFORE MULCH IS APPLIED. STAKE ABOVE FIRST BRANCHES OR AS NECESSARY FOR FIRM SUPPORT. 3 TO 5 STAKES TYP. GUYING PLAN NOTE: FOLLOWING TRANSPLANTING, AND THROUGH FIRST TWO GROWING SEASONS, TREES SHALL RECEIVE SUPPLEMENTAL WATERING AT A MINIMUM RATE OF 100 GALLONS OF WATER EACH WEEK DURING THE GROWING SEASON (APRIL THROUGH SEPTEMBER) AND 100 GALLONS EVERY FOUR WEEKS DURING WINTER (OCTOBER THROUGH MARCH). WATER REQUIREMENTS MAY VARY DUE TO PRECIPITATION AND TEMPERATURE. D TREE TRANSPLANTING DETAIL PLANT TYPE QUANTITY (EA) WATER REQUIREMENT EA. (GAL./WEEK) WATERINGS (APRIL - SEPT.) GAL./PLANT TYPE (GROWING SEASON) WATERINGS (OCT. - MARCH) GAL./PLANT TYPE (WINTER WATERING) TRANSPLANTED DECIDUOUS TREES 5 100 27 13,500 7 3,500 TRANSPLANTED PINION TREES 6 70 27 11,340 7 2,940 TRANSPLANTED PONDEROSA PINE TREES 4 100 27 10,800 7 2,800 DECIDUOUS TREES 13 30 27 10,530 EVERGREEN TREES 27 15 27 10,935 LARGE SHRUBS 31 15 27 12,555 SMALL SHRUBS 76 5 27 10,260 TOTAL ANNUAL GROWING SEASON WATER USE: 79,920 TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 81,590 AVERAGE WATER NEEDED (TOTAL GAL./SF.): 1.0 215 No. DESCRIPTION DATE 1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN 6-12-2013 REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE PROJECT No.: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: SEAL: PREPARED BY: IN CONJUNCTION WITH: CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPROVED: CITY ENGINEER DATE CHECKED BY: WATER & WASTEWATER UTILITY DATE CHECKED BY: STORMWATER UTILITY DATE CHECKED BY: PARKS & RECREATION DATE CHECKED BY: TRAFFIC ENGINEER DATE CHECKED BY: ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER DATE &+(&.('%< DATE  . . . PREPARED FOR: City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Ave., Building B (970) 221-6610 1 PDP COMMENT REVIEW 7-16-2013 THIS IS A LAND USE PLANNING DOCUMENT, NOT A CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT. REFER 0 TO CIVIL ENGINEERING PLANS. SCALE: 1"=40'-00" 20' 40' 80' NORTH PLANT LIST LEGEND EXISTING TREE DISPOSITION TABLE L-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN SYM. QTY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME K-VAL HEIGHT SPREAD CONDITION ARG 6 ACRE GRANDIDENTATUM BIGTOOTH MAPLE L 30-40' 20-25' 2.5 " CAL. B&B ARN 4 QUERCUS MACROCARPA BUR OAK L 50-80' 50-80' 2.5 " CAL. B&B CSO 3 CELTIS OCCIDENTALIS COMMON HACKBERRY L 40-60' 40-60' 2.5 " CAL. B&B AXC 13 ATRIPLEX CANESCENS FOUR WING SALTBUSH VL 3-5' 3-4' 5 GAL. CONT. CNG 11 CHRYSOTHAMNUS NAUSEOSUS GRAVEOLENS TALL GREEN RABBITBRUSH VL 4-6' 4-6' 5 GAL. CONT. CNN 11 CHRYSOTHAMNUS NAUSEOSUS NAUSEOSUS DWARF BLUE RABBITBRUSH VL 1-4' 1-4' 5 GAL. CONT. CSB 6 CERCOCARPUS BREVIFLORUS HAIRY MOUNTAIN MAHOGANY VL 8-12' 6-10' 5 GAL. CONT. FAN 16 FORESTIERA NEO-MEXICANA NEW MEXICAN PRIVET VL 8-15' 8-12' 5 GAL. CONT. FAR 9 FENDLERA RUPICOLA CLIFF FENDLER BUSH VL 4-6' 4-5' 5 GAL. CONT. FAP 2 FALLUGIA PARADOXA APACHE PLUME VL 3-6' 3-6' 5 GAL. CONT. JSM 18 JUNIPERUS SCOPULORUM 'MOONGLOW' MOONGLOW JUNIPER VL 16-20' 8-12' 6' HT B&B JSC 9 JUNIPERUS SCOPULORUM 'COLOGREEN' COLOGREEN JUNIPER VL 15-20' 8-12' 6' HT B&B QSG 7 QUERCUS GAMBELII GAMBEL OAK VL 15-30' 12-20' 6' CLUMP B&B QSU 3 QUERCUS UNDULATA WAVEYLEAF OAK VL 10-20' 8-16' 6' CLUMP B&B RAG 19 RHUS AROMATICA 'GRO-LOW' FRAGRANT DWARF SUMAC L 2-3' 6-8' 5 GAL. CONT. YAG 25 YUCCA GLAUCA SOAPWEED VL 2-4' 2-4' 5 GAL. CONT. ID No. EXISTING TREE CALIPER CONDITION REMOVE = R TRANSPLANT = T MITIGATION VALUE (IF THE TREE DOES NOT SURVIVE) MITIGATION TREES MITIGATION TREE CREDITS SPADE SIZE (MIN. SIZE TO BE USED) 1 SIBERIAN ELM 2 STEM (19" & 16") FAIR/POOR R 1X (3" CAL. DEC. OR 8' CONF.) 1 0 - 2 SIBERIAN ELM 43" HAZARDOUS R NONE 0 0 - 3 PINION PINE 10" FAIR T 1X (6' CONF.) 0 1 100" 4 PINION PINE 7" POOR R NONE 0 0 - 5 PINION PINE 8" FAIR T 1X (6' CONF.) 0 1 100" 6 PINION PINE 9" FAIR T 1X (6' CONF.) 0 1 100" 7 PINION PINE 8" FAIR T 1X (6' CONF.) 0 1 100" 8 PINION PINE 9" FAIR T 1X (6' CONF.) 0 1 100" 9 BUR OAK 10" FAIR/POOR R 1X (2.5" CAL. DEC. OR 8' CONF.) 1 0 100" 10 BUR OAK 10" FAIR T 1X (3" CAL. DEC. OR 8' CONF.) 0 1.5 100" 11 PINION PINE 8" FAIR T 1X (6' CONF.) 0 1 100" 12 PONDEROSA PINE 14" FAIR/GOOD TBD 1X (3" CAL. DEC. OR 8' CONF.) 2.5 0 100" 13 KENTUCKY COFFEE TREE 8" FAIR T 1X (3" CAL. DEC. OR 8' CONF.) 0 1.5 100" 14 KENTUCKY COFFEE TREE 10" FAIR T 1.5X (3" CAL. DEC. OR 8' CONF.) 0 1.5 100" 15 PONDEROSA PINE 15" FAIR/GOOD T 1X (3" CAL. DEC. OR 8' CONF.) 0 1.5 100" 16 PONDEROSA PINE 14" FAIR/GOOD T 1X (3" CAL. DEC. OR 8' CONF.) 0 1.5 100" 17 PONDEROSA PINE 14" FAIR/GOOD T 1X (3" CAL. DEC. OR 8' CONF.) 0 1.5 100" 18 KENTUCKY COFFEE TREE 8" FAIR T 1X (3" CAL. DEC. OR 8' CONF.) 0 1.5 100" 19 EXISTING TREES - PROTECT IN PLACE 20 COLORADO SPRUCE 24" FAIR/GOOD R 2.5X (2.5" CAL./TREE) 2.5 21 COLORADO SPRUCE 21" FAIR/GOOD R 2.5X (2.5" CAL./TREE) 2.5 22 COLORADO SPRUCE 18" FAIR/GOOD R 2.5X (2.5" CAL./TREE) 2.5 23 COLORADO SPRUCE 16" FAIR/GOOD R 2.5X (2.5" CAL./TREE) 2.5 REFER TO TREE PROTECTION & TRANSPLANTING NOTES, AND TREE TRANSPLANTING DETAIL ON SHEET L2 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. TOTAL MITIGATION TREES: 14.5000 TOTAL MITIGATION TREE CREDITS: 16.5000 214 PARKING PHASE 2 15 (1 HANDICAP SPACE PHASE 1) S-2 SITE PLAN SCALE: 1/2"=1'-0" BIKE RACK DETAIL 213 UPLANDS B.P. (E) CACHE LA POUDRE INDUSTRIAL PARK PUD (I) PROSPECT TIMBERLINE PUD (E) BMC WEST PUD (E) PROSPECT RIVERSIDE RPLT1 (I) PARKWOOD EAST PATIO HOMES PUD (RL) SPRING CREEK FARMS (I) E. PROSPECT RD. E. PROSPECT RD. S. TIMBERLINE RD. RIVERSIDE AVE. NANCY GRAY AVE. MIDPOINT DR. GREAT WESTERN RAILROAD SEVEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK PUD (E) SPRING CREEK TRAIL DRAWING NUMBER: TIMBERLINE & PROSPECT PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 401 West Mountain Avenue Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 fax 970/224.1662 phone 970/224.1191 www.vfrdesigninc.com Ŷ land planning Ŷ landscape architecture Ŷ Ŷ urban design Ŷ entitlement Ŷ ISSUED No. DESCRIPTION DATE 1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN 6-12-2013 REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE PROJECT No.: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: SEAL: PREPARED BY: IN CONJUNCTION WITH: CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPROVED: CITY ENGINEER DATE CHECKED BY: WATER & WASTEWATER UTILITY DATE CHECKED BY: STORMWATER UTILITY DATE CHECKED BY: PARKS & RECREATION DATE CHECKED BY: TRAFFIC ENGINEER DATE CHECKED BY: ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER DATE &+(&.('%< DATE  . . . PREPARED FOR: City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Ave., Building B (970) 221-6610 1 PDP COMMENT REVIEW 7-16-2013 THIS IS A LAND USE PLANNING DOCUMENT, NOT A CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT. REFER TO CIVIL ENGINEERING PLANS. OWNER (SIGNED) LEGAL DESCRIPTION GENERAL NOTES OWNER'S CERTIFICATION PLANNING CERTIFICATE 0 SCALE: 1" = 500' 250' 1000' A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO PDP LEGAL DESCRIPTION (FORMAL LEGAL PENDING): THE SOUTHERLY 3.72 ACRES OF LARIMER COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER 87191-00-917 LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO SHEET INDEX (PLANNING SET) S-1 SITE PLAN COVER SHEET S-2 SITE PLAN L-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN L-2 LANDSCAPE DETAILS AND NOTES PM-1 PHOTOMETRIC PLAN PM-2 SITE LIGHTING DETAILS INTEGRATED RECYCLE FACILITY 1. REFER TO UTILITY PLANS FOR LOCATIONS OF STORM DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, UTILITY MAINS AND SERVICES. 2. REFER TO THE CIVIL ENGINEERING PLANS FOR DETAILED INFORMATION OF PROPOSED TOPOGRAPHY, UTILITY, AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS. 3. REFER TO THE PLAT FOR LOT AREAS, TRACT SIZES, EASEMENTS, LOT DIMENSIONS, UTILITY EASEMENTS, OTHER EASEMENTS, AND OTHER SURVEY INFORMATION. 4. ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS WILL CONFORM TO CITY STANDARDS. ALL HANDICAP PARKING SPACES, AND RAMPS ARE TO BE VERIFIED WITH CIVIL ENGINEER FOR GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND ACCESSIBLE ROUTE CONSIDERATIONS. HANDICAP PARKING SPACES SHOULD SLOPE NO MORE THAN 1:48 IN ANY DIRECTION. ALL ACCESSIBLE ROUTES SHOULD SLOPE NO MORE THAN 1:20 IN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL AND NO MORE THAN 1:48 CROSS SLOPE. 5. ACCESSIBLE RAMPS TO BE PROVIDED AT ALL STREET AND DRIVE INTERSECTIONS AND AT ALL DESIGNATED ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES. 6. PROPOSED EXTERIOR LIGHTING WILL BE BUILDING-MOUNTED FIXTURES WITH DOWN-DIRECTIONAL AND SHARP CUTOFF LUMINARIES, AND SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL CITY OF FORT COLLINS LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS. 7. ALL SIGNS UTILIZED WILL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS SIGN CODE. 8. PLACEMENT OF ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SIGHT DISTANCE CRITERIA AS SPECIFIED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS. NO STRUCTURES OR LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS GREATER THAN 24" SHALL BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE OR EASEMENT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DECIDUOUS TREES PROVIDING THE LOWEST BRANCH IS AT LEAST 6' FROM GRADE. ANY FENCES WITHIN THE SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE OR EASEMENT SHALL BE NO MORE THAN 42" IN HEIGHT AND OF AN OPEN DESIGN. 9. THE ON-SITE STORAGE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 2006 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE. E-WASTE, ANTI-FREEZE, BATTERIES, OIL, AND PAINT ARE INCLUDED IN THIS CATEGORY. 9.1. INCOMPATIBLE MATERIALS ARE TO BE COLLECTED AND STORED SEPARATELY. 9.2. NO MORE THAN FOUR CONTROL AREAS ARE ALLOWED ON SITE. 9.3. PROVIDE FOR CONTAINMENT AND SPILL CONTROL. 9.4. QUANTITY LIMITS MUST COMPLY WITH 2006 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE CHAPTER 27. 9.5. MSDS SHEETS ARE TO BE AVAILABLE AND KEPT ON-SITE AT ALL TIMES. 10. OPERATIONS FOR COLLECTIONS OF RECYCLE MATERIALS ANTICIPATED AS FOLLOWS: 10.1. FREE DROP AREA: PUBLIC WILL ACCESS AND PARK ON THE SOUTH SIDE, AND TRANSFER RECYCLABLE PAPER, CARDBOARD AND CONTAINERS TO APPROPRIATE ROLL-AWAY CONTAINERS. VENDER ACCESS TO THE CONTAINERS WILL BE FROM THE NORTH SIDE, WHERE THEY WILL BE HAULED AWAY WHEN FULL. SELF-CONTAINED COMPACTORS WILL BE USED IN SOME OF THE CONTAINERS TO MAXIMIZE AVAILABLE SPACE. 10.2. FEE DROP AREA: THE PUBLIC WILL ACCESS THE FEE DROP AREA BY ENTRANCE GATE SHELTER. PARKING SPACES ARE PROVIDED INSIDE THE FENCED FEE DROP AREA WHERE THE PUBLIC WILL STAGE TRANSFER OF MATERIALS. SMALL 5 YARD ROLL-AWAY CONTAINERS ARE PROVIDED FOR THE PUBLIC TO TRANSFER HARD MATERIALS (RIGID PLASTIC, CONCRETE, AGGREGATES, SCRAP METAL, YARD WASTE, LUMBER). THE TRANSFER OF COLLECTED MATERIALS FROM THE SMALL 5 YARD ROLL-AWAY CONTAINERS TO THE LARGE 40 YARD ROLL-OFF CONTAINERS WILL BE PERFORMED BY CONTRACTED EMPLOYEES WITH FORK-LIFT OR OTHER APPROPRIATE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. TRANSFER AND INTAKE OF LIQUIDS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES (E-WASTE, BATTERIES, USED OIL AND ANTI-FREEZE) TO BE PERFORMED BY CONTRACTED EMPLOYEES. 11. THE POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY SHALL BE INVOLVED WITH REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF VENDER RFP AND THE VENDER OPERATION AGREEMENT. THE VENDER OPERATION AGREEMENT SHALL OUTLINE GENERAL OPERATIONS, MATERIAL STORAGE AND TRANSFER PROTOCOLS, HANDLING OF SPILLS, ETC. 12. ANY SPILLS OF HAZARDOUS WASTES SHALL BE CONDUCTED BY CONTRACTED VENDER AND HANDLED AS OUTLINE IN THE VENDER OPERATION AGREEMENT. 13. THE VENDER WILL MONITOR SITE LEVEL STORAGE OF HAZARDOUS WASTES AND SCHEDULE NECESSARY TRANSFERS BASED ON VENDER OPERATION AGREEMENT. 14. THE INSTALLATION OF SECURITY GATES ACROSS ACCESSALIGNMENTS SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE FIRE CHIEF. WHERE SECURITY GATES ARE INSTALLED, THEY SHALL HAVE AN APPROVED MEANS OF EMERGENCY OPERATION. THE SECURITY GATES AND THE EMERGENCY OPERATION SHALL BE MAINTAINED OPERATIONAL AT ALL TIMES. SCALE: 1"=500' CONTEXT VICINITY MAP S-1 SITE PLAN COVER SHEET Attachment 5b 212 B 14 sec. Northbound Left In B 12 sec. C 15 sec. B 12 sec. C 15 sec. B 12 sec. C 17 sec. B 12 sec. C 17 sec. It can be seen in Table 1 that providing full turning movement access with lefts in and out of the site driveway will result in poor LOS for vehicles turning left out onto Timberline Road in both the AM and PM peak hours. If a median were constructed to limit the site driveway to a ¾ access (right in, right out, and left in only), the outbound traffic would operate at LOS A in the AM peak hour and LOS C in the PM peak hour. The left in traffic would also operate well in the B/C range. ATTACHMENT 4 190 s Absolute 0.92 209 CC 2 DSX1_LED_60 C_1000_40K_T FTM_MVOLT.i es Absolute 0.92 209 DSX1 LED 60C 1000 40K T2M MVOLT DSX1 LED WITH (2) 30 LED LIGHT ENGINES, TYPE T2M OPTIC, 4000K, @ 1050mA LED DSX1 LED 60C 1000 40K T5W MVOLT DSX1 LED WITH (2) 30 LED LIGHT ENGINES, TYPE T5W OPTIC, 4000K, @ 1050mA LED DSX1 LED 60C 1000 40K TFTM MVOLT DSX1 LED WITH (2) 30 LED LIGHT ENGINES, TYPE TFTM OPTIC, 4000K, @ 1050mA LED STATISTICS Description Symbol Avg Max Min Max/Min Avg/Min Calc Zone #1 0.4 fc 2.7 fc 0.0 fc N / A N / A NOTES 1. file=visual-files-may2013-integratedrecycling2.vsl PM-2 SITE LIGHTING DETAILS ATTACHMENT 2 183 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.7 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.9 2.3 2.1 1.7 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.7 2.1 2.0 1.7 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.5 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.8 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.8 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.1 1.5 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.7 2.1 2.1 1.8 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.7 1.9 2.3 2.5 2.1 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.8 2.2 2.1 1.8 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.4 1.8 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.6 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.6 2.0 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.9 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.9 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.0 1.4 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.4 1.7 1.8 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.6 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.1 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.1 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.2 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.9 2.3 2.5 2.2 1.3 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.9 2.4 2.5 2.2 1.5 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.7 2.1 2.4 2.1 1.2 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.3 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.5 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.5 2.2 1.8 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.5 2.0 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.0 1.6 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.6 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.8 2.0 2.1 1.9 1.5 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.4 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.3 2.2 1.7 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.9 1.4 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.3 1.8 1.4 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.7 1.2 1.6 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.5 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 1.5 2.0 1.9 1.6 1.3 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.7 1.7 2.2 2.3 1.9 1.5 1.0 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.8 1.9 2.3 2.3 2.1 1.6 1.0 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 1.6 2.2 2.2 1.9 1.5 1.0 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 1.5 1.9 1.9 1.6 1.2 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.5 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.1 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 2.7 DRAWING NUMBER: INTEGRATED RECYCLING FACILITY TIMBERLINE ROAD FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 401 West Mountain Avenue Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 fax 970/224.1662 phone 970/224.1191 www.vfrdesigninc.com Ŷ land planning Ŷ landscape architecture Ŷ Ŷ urban design Ŷ entitlement Ŷ ISSUED No. DESCRIPTION DATE 1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN 6-12-2013 REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE PROJECT No.: APS..521-13 DRAWN BY: SJM, ARB REVIEWED BY: RJB, CP SEAL: PREPARED BY: CIVIL ENGINEER: CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPROVED: CITY ENGINEER DATE CHECKED BY: WATER & WASTEWATER UTILITY DATE CHECKED BY: STORMWATER UTILITY DATE CHECKED BY: PARKS & RECREATION DATE CHECKED BY: TRAFFIC ENGINEER DATE CHECKED BY: ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER DATE &+(&.('%< DATE  . . . . . . PREPARED FOR: City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Ave., Building B (970) 221-6610 ELECTRICAL ENGINEER: PM-1 PHOTOMETRIC PLAN ATTACHMENT 2 182 BEFORE THE ROOTS HAVE A CHANCE TO DRY OUT AND WATER THE TREE IMMEDIATELY. 14. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, ALL PROTECTED TREES SHALL HAVE ORANGE PROTECTION BARRIER FENCING ERECTED, WHICH AS A MINIMUM ARE SUPPORTED BY 1" X 1" OR SIMILAR STURDY STOCK, FOR SHIELDING OF PROTECTED TREES, NO CLOSER THAN SIX (6) FEET FROM THE TRUNK OR ONE HALF ( 1 2) OF THE DRIP LINE, WHICH EVER IS GREATER. WITHIN THIS PROTECTION ZONE THERE SHALL BE NO MOVEMENT OF EQUIPMENT OR STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, DEBRIS, FILL OR CUT UNLESS APPROVED BY THE CITY FORESTER. 15. ALL EXISTING TREES SHALL BE PRUNED TO THE CITY FORESTER'S "MEDIUM PRUNE STANDARDS. 16. WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED EXISTING TREE, THERE SHALL BE NO CUT OR FILL OVER A FOUR-INCH DEPTH UNLESS A QUALIFIED ARBORIST OR FORESTER HAS EVALUATED AND APPROVED THE DISTURBANCE. 17. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANT SHALL PREVENT THE CLEANING OF EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL OR THE STORAGE OR DISPOSAL OF WASTE MATERIAL SUCH AS PAINTS, OILS, SOLVENTS, ASPHALT, CONCRETE, MOTOR OIL OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL HARMFUL TO THE LIFE OF A TREE, WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED TREE OR GROUP OF TREES. 18. NO DAMAGING ATTACHMENT, WIRES, SIGNS OR PERMITS MAY BE FASTENED TO ANY PROTECTED TREE. 19. LARGE PROPERTY AREAS CONTAINING PROTECTED TREES AND SEPARATED FROM CONSTRUCTION OR LAND CLEARING AREAS, ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND UTILITY EASEMENTS MAY BY "RIBBONED OFF," RATHER THAN ERECTING PROTECTIVE FENCING AROUND EACH TREE AS REQUIRED IN NOTE (5) ABOVE. THIS MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY PLACING METAL T-POSTS STAKES A MAXIMUM OF FIFTY FEET APART AND TYING A RIBBON OR ROPE FROM STAKE-TO-STAKE ALONG THE OUTSIDE PERIMETERS OF SUCH AREAS BEING CLEARED. TREE PROTECTION & TRANSPLANTING NOTES L-2 LANDSCAPE DETAILS AND NOTES PRUNING NOTES: DO NOT HEAVILY PRUNE SHRUB AT PLANTING. PRUNE ONLY DEAD OR BROKEN BRANCHES. IF FORM IS COMPROMISED BY PRUNING, REPLACE SHRUB PLACEMENT NOTES: SET SHRUB PLUMB. SPACE PLANTS, AND PLACE FOR BEST EFFECT SET TOP OF ROOTBALL 1-2" HIGHER THAN ADJACENT GRADE SCARIFY SIDES AND USE 1:1 SLOPE 4" DEEP MULCH RING 3' IN DIA. PLACE ON GEOTEXTILE WEED BARRIER REMOVE CONTAINER (INCLUDING FIBER CONTAINERS), BASKETS, WIRE, ETC. FROM THE ROOTBALL. BREAK UP ENCIRCLING ROOTS WITH SHARP KNIFE OR SPADE. SPLIT BOTTOM OF ROOT BALL. PLACE ON UNDISTURBED SOIL TO PREVENT SETTLEMENT BACKFILL WITH BLEND OF EXISTING SOIL AND A MAX. 20% (BY VOL.) ORGANIC MATERIAL. WATER THOROUGHLY TO SETTLE AND REMOVE AIR POCKETS 2 X BALL DIA. 4" HIGH WATER SAUCER STAKING NOTES: STAKE TREES PER FOLLOWING SCHEDULE, THEN REMOVE AT END OF FIRST GROWING SEASON AS FOLLOWS: 1 1/2" CALIPER SIZE - MIN. 1 STAKE ON SIDE OF PREVAILING WIND. (GENERALLY N.W. SIDE) 1 1/2" - 3" CALIPER SIZE - MIN. 2 STAKES - ONE ON N.W. SIDE, ONE ON S.W. SIDE 3" CALIPER SIZE AND LARGER - 3 STAKES PER DIAGRAM WIRE OR CABLE SHALL BE MIN. 12 GAUGE, TIGHTEN ONLY ENOUGH TO KEEP FROM SLIPPING. ALLOW FOR SOME TRUNK MOVEMENT. NYLON STRAPS SHALL BE LONG ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE 1 1/2" OF GROWTH AND BUFFER ALL BRANCHES FROM WIRE REMOVE ALL WIRE, TWINE BURLAP, MESH AND CONTAINERS FROM ENTIRE ROOT BALL AND TRUNK GUYING PLAN PLANT SO THAT TOP OF ROOT BALL IS 2" HIGHER THAN FINISHED GRADE GROMMETED NYLON STRAPS GALVANIZED WIRE TWIST TO TIGHTEN 6' STEEL T-POSTS (SEE SCHEDULE) DRIVEN (MIN. 24") FIRMLY INTO UNDISTURBED SOIL OUTSIDE ROOTBALL. SCARIFY SIDES OF PLANTING HOLE LEAVING 1:1 SLOPE BACKFILL WITH BLEND OF EXISTING SOIL AND A MAXIMUM 20% (BY VOL.) ORGANIC MATERIAL TAMP SOIL AROUND ROOT BALL W/ FOOT PRESSURE SO THAT IT DOESN'T SHIFT. WATER THOROUGHLY TO SETTLE AND REMOVE AIR POCKETS PRUNING NOTES: DO NOT HEAVILY PRUNE THE TREE AT PLANTING. PRUNE ONLY CROSSOVER LIMBS, CO-DOMINANT LEADERS AND BROKEN BRANCHES. SOME INTERIOR TWIGS AND LATERAL BRANCHES MAY BE PRUNED. HOWEVER, DO NOT REMOVE THE TERMINAL BUDS OF BRANCHES THAT EXTEND TO THE EDGE OF THE CROWN 2 X BALL DIA. PREVAILING WIND PREVAILING WIND 4" WATER SAUCER (OMIT IN LAWN AREAS) SCARIFY SIDES OF HOLE LEAVING 1:1 SLOPE NOTES: SET S0 THAT TOP OF ROOT 1-2" HIGHER THAN FINISHED GRADE MARK NORTH SIDE OF TREE IN NURSERY AND ROTATE TREE TO FACE NORTH AT THE SITE WHENEVER POSSIBLE 2 STRAND 12 GAUGE GAL. WIRE (TWIST TO TIGHTEN) & GROMMETED NYLON STRAPS STEEL T-POSTS (SEE SCHEDULE) DRIVEN (MIN. 24") FIRMLY INTO UNDISTURBED SOIL OUTSIDE OF PLANTING HOLE BEFORE BACKFILLING STAKE ABOVE FIRST BRANCHES OR AS NECESSARY FOR FIRM SUPPORT BACKFILL WITH BLEND OF EXISTING SOIL AND A MAXIMUM 20% (BY VOL.) ORGANIC MATERIAL PLACE FIRMLY BUT DON'T TAMP OR COMPACT AROUND ROOT BALL. WATER WATER THOROUGHLY TO SETTLE AND REMOVE AIR POCKETS REMOVE ALL WIRE, TWINE BURLAP, MESH AND CONTAINERS FROM ENTIRE ROOT BALL AND TRUNK 4" DEEP MULCH RING PLACED A MINIMUM OF 6' IN DIAMETER. DO NOT PLACE MULCH IN CONTACT WITH TREE TRUNK PLAN VIEW - THREE STAKES 2 X BALL DIA. C SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL B CONIFER TREE PLANTING DETAIL A TREE PLANTING DETAIL 1. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL MEET SPECIFICATIONS OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN (AAN) FOR NUMBER ONE GRADE. ALL TREES SHALL BE BALLED AND BURLAPPED OR EQUIVALENT. 2. TREES SHALL NOT BE PLANTED CLOSER THAN 4 FEET TO ANY GAS LINE AND NO CLOSER THAN 10 FEET TO ANY WATER OR SEWER LINE. SHRUBS SHALL NOT BE PLANTED CLOSER THAN 4 FEET TO ANY WATER OR SEWER LINE. TREE PLANTING SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY. LOCATIONS OF ALL UTILITIES SHALL BE VERIFIED IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO PLANTING. A HORIZONTAL DISTANCE OF 40' BETWEEN STREET TREES AND STREET LIGHTS SHALL BE MAINTAINED. 3. A PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY TREES OR SHRUBS AS NOTED ON THIS PLAN ARE PLANTED, PRUNED OR REMOVED. THIS PERMIT SHALL APPROVE THE LOCATION AND SPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURE TO OBTAIN THIS PERMIT MAY RESULT IN REPLACING OR RELOCATING TREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. THE PROJECT MANAGER SHALL CONTACT THE CITY FORESTER TO INSPECT ALL STREET TREE PLANTINGS AT THE COMPLETION OF EACH PHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. ALL TREES NEED TO HAVE BEEN INSTALLED AS SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. APPROVAL OF STREET TREE PLANTING IS REQUIRED BEFORE FINAL APPROVAL OF EACH PHASE. 4. LANDSCAPING SHALL BE INSTALLED OR SECURED WITH A LETTER OF CREDIT, ESCROW, OR PERFORMANCE BOND FOR 125% OF THE VALUE OF THE LANDSCAPING AND INSTALLATION PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 5. LANDSCAPING WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYS AND COMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS SHALL BE INSTALLED BY THE DEVELOPER AND MAINTAINED BY THE OWNER. 6. DEVELOPER SHALL ENSURE THAT THE LANDSCAPE PLAN IS COORDINATED WITH THE PLANS DONE BY OTHER CONSULTANTS SO THAT THE PROPOSED GRADING, STORM DRAINAGE, OR OTHER CONSTRUCTION DOES NOT CONFLICT NOR PRECLUDE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS ON THIS PLAN. 7. ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS WITHIN THE SITE SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC UNDERGROUND IRRIGATION SYSTEM. AN IRRIGATION PLAN WILL BE REQUIRED AND APPROVED BY WATER UTILITY DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. 8. ALL SHRUB BEDS, INCLUDING IN NATIVE SEED AREAS, ARE TO BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC DRIP (TRICKLE) IRRIGATION SYSTEM, OR ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE. ALL TREES SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH A BUBBLER SYSTEM APPROVED BY THE CITY FORESTER. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS TO BE ADJUSTED TO MEET THE WATER REQUIREMENTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL PLANT MATERIAL. 9. ALL SHRUB BEDS, NEW TREES AND TRANSPLANTED TREES SHALL BE MULCHED WITH A FOUR INCH (4") LAYER OF SHREDDED WOOD MULCH (SEE PLANTING DETAILS). SHREDDED WOOD MULCH TO BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY FORESTRY DEPARTMENT. CONTACT FORESTRY DEPARTMENT TO ARRANGE PICKUP. 10. EDGING BETWEEN GRASS AND SHRUB BEDS SHALL BE 1 8" X 4" STEEL SET LEVEL WITH TOP OF GRASS. 11. TOPSOIL. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE, TOPSOIL THAT IS REMOVED DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHALL BE CONSERVED FOR LATER USE. 12. SOIL AMENDMENTS. PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF PLANT MATERIALS, AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPACTED OR DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHALL BE THOROUGHLY LOOSENED. ORGANIC AMENDMENTS SUCH AS COMPOST, PEAT, OR AGED MANURE SHALL BE THOROUGHLY INCORPORATED. LANDSCAPE NOTES WATER BUDGET CHART NATIVE SEED MIX SIZE ITEM PROVIDE 5" HEIGHT WATERING SAUCER AT EDGE OF TREE WELL FOR WATERING BASIN 4" DEEP MULCH RING PLACED A MINIMUM OF 6' IN DIAMETER. DO NOT PLACE MULCH IN CONTACT WITH TREE TRUNK PROVIDE 5" HEIGHT WATERING SAUCER AT EDGE OF TREE WELL FOR WATERING BASIN SPECIES PREFERRED VARIETIES SEEDED RATE LBS./ACRE (DRILLED) PLS SEEDED/ACRE LEYMUS CINEREUS GREAT BASIN WILDRYE MANGAR 3 285,000 NASSELLA VIRIDULA GREEN NEEDLEGRASS LODORM 2 362,000 ACHNATHERUM HYMENOIDES INDIAN RICEGRASS PALOMA, NEZPAR 1 188,000 ELYMUS TRACHYCAULUS SLENDER WHEATGRASS PRIMAR, REVENUE 2 320,000 ELYMUS LANCEOLATUS THICKSPIKE WHEATGRASS CRITANA 3 580,500 PASCOPYRUM SMITHII WESTERN WHEATGRASS ARRIBA, BARTON 4 504,000 TOTALS = 15 2,239,500 (~51 SEEDS/ SQ. FT.) DO NOT PRUNE OR DAMAGE LEADER. PRUNE LOWEST BRANCHES ONLY IF NECESSARY FOR SPACE CLEARANCE. 2-SRAND TWISTED 12 GAUGE GALVANIZED WIRE ATTACHED TO 2" NYLON WEBBING TREE STRAPS. PLANT SO THE TOP OF THE ROOT BALL IS EVEN WITH THE FINISHED GRADE TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE. MINIMIZE GRADE DIFFERENCES RESULTING FROM UNEVEN SURFACES. 6' HEAVY DUTY METAL "T" POSTS DRIVEN STRAIGHT IN THE SOIL OUTSIDE THE ROOTBALL PRIOR TO BACKFILLING FORM 8" HEIGHT SOIL BERM 6" THICK SHREDDED WOOD MULCH FILL IN ALL AIR POCKETS AROUND ROOT BALL WITH SOIL AFTER WATERING & BEFORE MULCH IS APPLIED. STAKE ABOVE FIRST BRANCHES OR AS NECESSARY FOR FIRM SUPPORT. 3 TO 5 STAKES TYP. GUYING PLAN NOTE: FOLLOWING TRANSPLANTING, AND THROUGH FIRST TWO GROWING SEASONS, TREES SHALL RECEIVE SUPPLEMENTAL WATERING AT A MINIMUM RATE OF 100 GALLONS OF WATER EACH WEEK DURING THE GROWING SEASON (APRIL THROUGH SEPTEMBER) AND 100 GALLONS EVERY FOUR WEEKS DURING WINTER (OCTOBER THROUGH MARCH). WATER REQUIREMENTS MAY VARY DUE TO PRECIPITATION AND TEMPERATURE. D TREE TRANSPLANTING DETAIL PLANT TYPE QUANTITY (EA) WATER REQUIREMENT EA. (GAL./WEEK) WATERINGS (APRIL - SEPT.) GAL./PLANT TYPE (GROWING SEASON) WATERINGS (OCT. - MARCH) GAL./PLANT TYPE (WINTER WATERING) TRANSPLANTED DECIDUOUS TREES 5 100 27 13,500 7 3,500 TRANSPLANTED PINION TREES 6 70 27 11,340 7 2,940 TRANSPLANTED PONDEROSA PINE TREES 4 100 27 10,800 7 2,800 DECIDUOUS TREES 13 30 27 10,530 EVERGREEN TREES 27 15 27 10,935 LARGE SHRUBS 31 15 27 12,555 SMALL SHRUBS 76 5 27 10,260 TOTAL ANNUAL GROWING SEASON WATER USE: 79,920 TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 81,590 AVERAGE WATER NEEDED (TOTAL GAL./SF.): 1.0 ATTACHMENT 2 181 No. DESCRIPTION DATE 1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN 6-12-2013 REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE PROJECT No.: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: SEAL: PREPARED BY: IN CONJUNCTION WITH: CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPROVED: CITY ENGINEER DATE CHECKED BY: WATER & WASTEWATER UTILITY DATE CHECKED BY: STORMWATER UTILITY DATE CHECKED BY: PARKS & RECREATION DATE CHECKED BY: TRAFFIC ENGINEER DATE CHECKED BY: ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER DATE &+(&.('%< DATE  . . . PREPARED FOR: City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Ave., Building B (970) 221-6610 1 PDP COMMENT REVIEW 7-16-2013 THIS IS A LAND USE PLANNING DOCUMENT, NOT A CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT. REFER 0 TO CIVIL ENGINEERING PLANS. SCALE: 1"=40'-00" 20' 40' 80' NORTH PLANT LIST LEGEND EXISTING TREE DISPOSITION TABLE L-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN SYM. QTY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME K-VAL HEIGHT SPREAD CONDITION ARG 6 ACRE GRANDIDENTATUM BIGTOOTH MAPLE L 30-40' 20-25' 2.5 " CAL. B&B ARN 4 QUERCUS MACROCARPA BUR OAK L 50-80' 50-80' 2.5 " CAL. B&B CSO 3 CELTIS OCCIDENTALIS COMMON HACKBERRY L 40-60' 40-60' 2.5 " CAL. B&B AXC 13 ATRIPLEX CANESCENS FOUR WING SALTBUSH VL 3-5' 3-4' 5 GAL. CONT. CNG 11 CHRYSOTHAMNUS NAUSEOSUS GRAVEOLENS TALL GREEN RABBITBRUSH VL 4-6' 4-6' 5 GAL. CONT. CNN 11 CHRYSOTHAMNUS NAUSEOSUS NAUSEOSUS DWARF BLUE RABBITBRUSH VL 1-4' 1-4' 5 GAL. CONT. CSB 6 CERCOCARPUS BREVIFLORUS HAIRY MOUNTAIN MAHOGANY VL 8-12' 6-10' 5 GAL. CONT. FAN 16 FORESTIERA NEO-MEXICANA NEW MEXICAN PRIVET VL 8-15' 8-12' 5 GAL. CONT. FAR 9 FENDLERA RUPICOLA CLIFF FENDLER BUSH VL 4-6' 4-5' 5 GAL. CONT. FAP 2 FALLUGIA PARADOXA APACHE PLUME VL 3-6' 3-6' 5 GAL. CONT. JSM 18 JUNIPERUS SCOPULORUM 'MOONGLOW' MOONGLOW JUNIPER VL 16-20' 8-12' 6' HT B&B JSC 9 JUNIPERUS SCOPULORUM 'COLOGREEN' COLOGREEN JUNIPER VL 15-20' 8-12' 6' HT B&B QSG 7 QUERCUS GAMBELII GAMBEL OAK VL 15-30' 12-20' 6' CLUMP B&B QSU 3 QUERCUS UNDULATA WAVEYLEAF OAK VL 10-20' 8-16' 6' CLUMP B&B RAG 19 RHUS AROMATICA 'GRO-LOW' FRAGRANT DWARF SUMAC L 2-3' 6-8' 5 GAL. CONT. YAG 25 YUCCA GLAUCA SOAPWEED VL 2-4' 2-4' 5 GAL. CONT. ID No. EXISTING TREE CALIPER CONDITION REMOVE = R TRANSPLANT = T MITIGATION VALUE (IF THE TREE DOES NOT SURVIVE) MITIGATION TREES MITIGATION TREE CREDITS SPADE SIZE (MIN. SIZE TO BE USED) 1 SIBERIAN ELM 2 STEM (19" & 16") FAIR/POOR R 1X (3" CAL. DEC. OR 8' CONF.) 1 0 - 2 SIBERIAN ELM 43" HAZARDOUS R NONE 0 0 - 3 PINION PINE 10" FAIR T 1X (6' CONF.) 0 1 100" 4 PINION PINE 7" POOR R NONE 0 0 - 5 PINION PINE 8" FAIR T 1X (6' CONF.) 0 1 100" 6 PINION PINE 9" FAIR T 1X (6' CONF.) 0 1 100" 7 PINION PINE 8" FAIR T 1X (6' CONF.) 0 1 100" 8 PINION PINE 9" FAIR T 1X (6' CONF.) 0 1 100" 9 BUR OAK 10" FAIR/POOR R 1X (2.5" CAL. DEC. OR 8' CONF.) 1 0 100" 10 BUR OAK 10" FAIR T 1X (3" CAL. DEC. OR 8' CONF.) 0 1.5 100" 11 PINION PINE 8" FAIR T 1X (6' CONF.) 0 1 100" 12 PONDEROSA PINE 14" FAIR/GOOD TBD 1X (3" CAL. DEC. OR 8' CONF.) 2.5 0 100" 13 KENTUCKY COFFEE TREE 8" FAIR T 1X (3" CAL. DEC. OR 8' CONF.) 0 1.5 100" 14 KENTUCKY COFFEE TREE 10" FAIR T 1.5X (3" CAL. DEC. OR 8' CONF.) 0 1.5 100" 15 PONDEROSA PINE 15" FAIR/GOOD T 1X (3" CAL. DEC. OR 8' CONF.) 0 1.5 100" 16 PONDEROSA PINE 14" FAIR/GOOD T 1X (3" CAL. DEC. OR 8' CONF.) 0 1.5 100" 17 PONDEROSA PINE 14" FAIR/GOOD T 1X (3" CAL. DEC. OR 8' CONF.) 0 1.5 100" 18 KENTUCKY COFFEE TREE 8" FAIR T 1X (3" CAL. DEC. OR 8' CONF.) 0 1.5 100" 19 EXISTING TREES - PROTECT IN PLACE 20 COLORADO SPRUCE 24" FAIR/GOOD R 2.5X (2.5" CAL./TREE) 2.5 21 COLORADO SPRUCE 21" FAIR/GOOD R 2.5X (2.5" CAL./TREE) 2.5 22 COLORADO SPRUCE 18" FAIR/GOOD R 2.5X (2.5" CAL./TREE) 2.5 23 COLORADO SPRUCE 16" FAIR/GOOD R 2.5X (2.5" CAL./TREE) 2.5 REFER TO TREE PROTECTION & TRANSPLANTING NOTES, AND TREE TRANSPLANTING DETAIL ON SHEET L2 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. TOTAL MITIGATION TREES: 14.5000 TOTAL MITIGATION TREE CREDITS: 16.5000 ATTACHMENT 2 180 PARKING PHASE 2 15 (1 HANDICAP SPACE PHASE 1) S-2 SITE PLAN SCALE: 1/2"=1'-0" BIKE RACK DETAIL ATTACHMENT 2 179 UPLANDS B.P. (E) CACHE LA POUDRE INDUSTRIAL PARK PUD (I) PROSPECT TIMBERLINE PUD (E) BMC WEST PUD (E) PROSPECT RIVERSIDE RPLT1 (I) PARKWOOD EAST PATIO HOMES PUD (RL) SPRING CREEK FARMS (I) E. PROSPECT RD. E. PROSPECT RD. S. TIMBERLINE RD. RIVERSIDE AVE. NANCY GRAY AVE. MIDPOINT DR. GREAT WESTERN RAILROAD SEVEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK PUD (E) SPRING CREEK TRAIL DRAWING NUMBER: TIMBERLINE & PROSPECT PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 401 West Mountain Avenue Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 fax 970/224.1662 phone 970/224.1191 www.vfrdesigninc.com Ŷ land planning Ŷ landscape architecture Ŷ Ŷ urban design Ŷ entitlement Ŷ ISSUED No. DESCRIPTION DATE 1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN 6-12-2013 REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE PROJECT No.: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: SEAL: PREPARED BY: IN CONJUNCTION WITH: CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPROVED: CITY ENGINEER DATE CHECKED BY: WATER & WASTEWATER UTILITY DATE CHECKED BY: STORMWATER UTILITY DATE CHECKED BY: PARKS & RECREATION DATE CHECKED BY: TRAFFIC ENGINEER DATE CHECKED BY: ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER DATE &+(&.('%< DATE  . . . PREPARED FOR: City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Ave., Building B (970) 221-6610 1 PDP COMMENT REVIEW 7-16-2013 THIS IS A LAND USE PLANNING DOCUMENT, NOT A CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT. REFER TO CIVIL ENGINEERING PLANS. OWNER (SIGNED) LEGAL DESCRIPTION GENERAL NOTES OWNER'S CERTIFICATION PLANNING CERTIFICATE 0 SCALE: 1" = 500' 250' 1000' A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO PDP LEGAL DESCRIPTION (FORMAL LEGAL PENDING): THE SOUTHERLY 3.72 ACRES OF LARIMER COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER 87191-00-917 LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO SHEET INDEX (PLANNING SET) S-1 SITE PLAN COVER SHEET S-2 SITE PLAN L-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN L-2 LANDSCAPE DETAILS AND NOTES PM-1 PHOTOMETRIC PLAN PM-2 SITE LIGHTING DETAILS INTEGRATED RECYCLE FACILITY 1. REFER TO UTILITY PLANS FOR LOCATIONS OF STORM DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, UTILITY MAINS AND SERVICES. 2. REFER TO THE CIVIL ENGINEERING PLANS FOR DETAILED INFORMATION OF PROPOSED TOPOGRAPHY, UTILITY, AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS. 3. REFER TO THE PLAT FOR LOT AREAS, TRACT SIZES, EASEMENTS, LOT DIMENSIONS, UTILITY EASEMENTS, OTHER EASEMENTS, AND OTHER SURVEY INFORMATION. 4. ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS WILL CONFORM TO CITY STANDARDS. ALL HANDICAP PARKING SPACES, AND RAMPS ARE TO BE VERIFIED WITH CIVIL ENGINEER FOR GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND ACCESSIBLE ROUTE CONSIDERATIONS. HANDICAP PARKING SPACES SHOULD SLOPE NO MORE THAN 1:48 IN ANY DIRECTION. ALL ACCESSIBLE ROUTES SHOULD SLOPE NO MORE THAN 1:20 IN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL AND NO MORE THAN 1:48 CROSS SLOPE. 5. ACCESSIBLE RAMPS TO BE PROVIDED AT ALL STREET AND DRIVE INTERSECTIONS AND AT ALL DESIGNATED ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES. 6. PROPOSED EXTERIOR LIGHTING WILL BE BUILDING-MOUNTED FIXTURES WITH DOWN-DIRECTIONAL AND SHARP CUTOFF LUMINARIES, AND SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL CITY OF FORT COLLINS LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS. 7. ALL SIGNS UTILIZED WILL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS SIGN CODE. 8. PLACEMENT OF ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SIGHT DISTANCE CRITERIA AS SPECIFIED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS. NO STRUCTURES OR LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS GREATER THAN 24" SHALL BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE OR EASEMENT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DECIDUOUS TREES PROVIDING THE LOWEST BRANCH IS AT LEAST 6' FROM GRADE. ANY FENCES WITHIN THE SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE OR EASEMENT SHALL BE NO MORE THAN 42" IN HEIGHT AND OF AN OPEN DESIGN. 9. THE ON-SITE STORAGE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 2006 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE. E-WASTE, ANTI-FREEZE, BATTERIES, OIL, AND PAINT ARE INCLUDED IN THIS CATEGORY. A. INCOMPATIBLE MATERIALS ARE TO BE COLLECTED AND STORED SEPARATELY. B. NO MORE THAN FOUR CONTROL AREAS ARE ALLOWED ON SITE. C. PROVIDE FOR CONTAINMENT AND SPILL CONTROL. D. QUANTITY LIMITS MUST COMPLY WITH 2006 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE CHAPTER 27. E. MSDS SHEETS ARE TO BE AVAILABLE. 10. THE ON-SITE COLLECTION OF COMBUSTIBLE LIQUIDS SHALL REQUIRE THE INSTALLATION OF ABOVE GROUND STORAGE TANK(S) UNDER A SEPARATE PERMIT. 11. THE INSTALLATION OF SECURITY GATES ACROSS ACCESS EASEMENTS SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE FIRE CHIEF. WHERE SECURITY GATES ARE INSTALLED, THEY SHALL HAVE AN APPROVED MEANS OF EMERGENCY OPERATION. THE SECURITY GATES AND THE EMERGENCY OPERATION SHALL BE MAINTAINED OPERATIONAL AT ALL TIMES. SCALE: 1"=500' CONTEXT VICINITY MAP S-1 SITE PLAN COVER SHEET ATTACHMENT 2 178 BODY. HUNTER ICV-G-FS 1", 1-1/2", 2", AND 3" PLASTIC ELECTRIC MASTER VALVE, WITH FILTER SENTRY (SIZE TO MATCH POC). WILKINS 375B REDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOW PREVENTER WITH BLOW OUT/FLUSH FITTING. REINFORCED NYLON HOUSING AND CAST BRONZE BALL VALVES. EXISTING HUNTER PRO-C INSTALL PCM 300 MODULAR TO EXISTING 6 STATION CONTROLLER TO INCREASE AVAILABLE STATIONS TO 9. IRRIGATION LATERAL LINE: PVC CLASS 200 SDR 21 PVC CLASS 200 IRRIGATION PIPE. ONLY LATERAL TRANSITION PIPE SIZES 1 1/4" AND ABOVE ARE INDICATED ON THE PLAN, WITH ALL OTHERS BEING 1" IN SIZE. DRIP IRRIGATION LATERAL LINE TO EMITTERS: UV RADIATION RESISTANT POLYETHYLENE PIPE, 3/4-INCH UNLESS OTHEWISE SPECIFIED. CONTROL WIRES INSTALLED WITH WARNING TAPE PER SPECIFICATIONS IRRIGATION MAINLINE: PVC CLASS 200 SDR 21. 1.25-INCH UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. PIPE SLEEVE: PVC CLASS 200 SDR 21 TYPICAL PIPE SLEEVE FOR IRRIGATION PIPE. REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS. A Valve Number Valve Flow Valve Size Valve Callout # #" # IRRIGATION_SCHEDULE SYMBOL DESCRIPTION CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD LOCATE EXISTING 3/4-INC DOMESTIC METER AT THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION SHOWN. INSTALL BACKFLOW PREVENTION UNIT, MASTER VALVE ASSEMBLY AS INDICATED. VERIFY EXACT LOCATION OF POC WITH OWNER`S REPRESENTATIVE. VERIFY PRESSURE AND FLOW ON SITE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD LOCATE EXISTING CONTROLLER INSIDE BUILDING (WALL MOUNTED ON NORTH WALL). CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL NEW 3 STATION MODULE TO EXISTING CONTROLLER. INSTALL NEW CONTROL WIRES AND ROUTE AS INDICATED. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE EXISTING SPRINKLERS AND ABANDON LATERAL LINES IN PLACE IN THIS AREA. INSTALL NEW SPRINKLERS AND LATERALS AS INDICATED. MAINLINE, SPRINKLER LATERAL, AND/OR DRIP LATERAL SHOWN SLEEVED TOGETHER IS FOR CLARITY ONLY. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL MAINLINE, CONTROL WIRES, AND LATERAL LINES IN SEPARATE SLEEVES. 1 2 3 4 REFERENCE_NOTES_SCHEDULE INSTALLATION GENERAL NOTES 1. DESIGN ASSUMES A MINIMUM DYNAMIC PRESSURE FOR THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM (PER CITY METER SHOP) OF 80 PSI+, AT A MINIMUM FLOW OF 10 GPM AT THE EXISTING 3/4-INCH POINT-OF-CONNECTION (POC). VERIFY PRESSURE AND FLOW ON SITE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CONTACT GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE IMMEDIATELY IF FLOW OR PRESSURE ARE LOWER THAN LISTED ABOVE. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS AND INSTALLATION DETAILS FOR THIS AND RELATED WORK PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. FOR CLARIFICATION, CONTACT IRRIGATION DESIGNER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 3. COORDINATE UTILITY LOCATES OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION ("811-CALL BEFORE YOU DIG") . 4. IF DISCREPANCIES ARE NOTED IN THE FIELD BETWEEN SITE CONDITIONS AND PROVIDED DESIGNS, CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE OR GENERAL CONTRACTOR IMMEDIATELY. DO NOT PROCEED WITH THE INSTALLATION OF THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM IF SUCH DISCREPANCIES IN THE FIELD AFFECT THE PROVIDED DESIGN, DETAILS, OR SPECIFICATIONS. 5. ALL IRRIGATION COMPONENTS (MAINLINE, WIRES, LATERAL LINES, ETC.) SHALL BE INSTALLED IN LANDSCAPED AREAS WHENEVER POSSIBLE, EVEN THOUGH SAID IRRIGATION COMPONENTS MAY BE SHOWN OUTSIDE PLANTING AREAS FOR CLARITY. 5. AVOID CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM, PLANTING MATERIALS, AND ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES WHENEVER POSSIBLE. COORDINATE POTENTIAL RELOCATION OF BOULDERS AND TREES IN TURF AREAS WITH LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO SPRINKLER LAYOUT. IF LANDSCAPE MATERIAL CANNOT BE REOLOCATED,ADDITIONAL SPRINKLERS MAY BE REQUIRED. 6. CROSS FITTINGS ARE NOT ALLOWS, ONLY STANDARD TEES AND ELBOWS. 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL NOZZLES PER PLAN, UNLESS IRRIGATED AREA CHANGED IN SIZE OR PLANT MATERIAL TYPE CHANGES. IF NOZZLE CHANGES ARE REQUIRED AND ARE SIGNIFICANT IN SIZE, CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT IRRIGATION DESIGNER FOR APPROVAL. 8. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD LOCATE ANY EXISTING SLEEVES ON SITE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION WITH THE AID OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. MISSING SLEEVES SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY. NEW SLEEVES SHOWN ON PLANS ARE REQUIRED FOR BOTH PIPING AND ELECTRICAL WIRING AT EACH HARDSCAPE CROSSING. COORDINATE INSTALLATION OF SLEEVING WITH OTHER TRADES. ANY PIPE OR WIRE WHICH PASSES BENEATH EXISTING HARDSCAPE WHERE SLEEVING WAS NOT INSTALLED WILL REQUIRE HORIZONTAL BORING BY THE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR. 9. INSTALL ALL ELECTRICAL POWER TO THE IRRIGATION CONTROL SYSTEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE AND ALL APPLICABLE LOCAL ELECTRIC UTILITY CODES. 10. THE FOLLOWING SHOULD BE NOTED REGARDING PIPE SIZING: IF A SECTION OF UNSIZED PIPE IS LOCATED BETWEEN THE IDENTICALLY SIZED SECTIONS, THE UNSIZED PIPE IS THE SAME NOMINAL SIZE AS THE TWO SIZED SECTIONS. THE UNSIZED PIPE SHOULD NOT BE CONFUSED WITH THE DEFAULT PIPE SIZE NOTED IN THE LEGEND. 11. INSTALL THREE (3) #14 AWG CONTROL WIRES FROM CONTROLLER LOCATION TO EACH DEAD-END OF MAINLINE FOR USE AS SPARES INCASE OF CONTROL WIRE FAILURE. COIL 3 FEET OF WIRE IN VALVE BOX. 12. TREES IN TURF ARE NOT IRRIGATED BY DRIP SYSTEM. DRIP LATERAL ROUTED NEAR TREES IN TURF ARE NOT TO RECEIVE DRIP IRRIGATION. TREES IN NATIVE SEEDED AREAS ARE IRRIGATED ON DRIP SYSTEM. IR1 2 NORTH 0 5' 10' 20' 30' SCALE: 1"= 10'-0" 1619 KELMSLEY CT., WINDSOR, CO 80550 deanne@TFGcolorado.com (970) 674-3323 PLANNERS / LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS FORT COLLINS VETERINARY EMERGENCY AND REHABILITATION HOSPITAL IRRIGATION PLAN P.O. BOX 345 Windsor, CO 80550 970.402.3047 irrigationlady@gmail.com MPi Designs 33 2 PAH 3 CIJ 1 QRS 3 JHB 1 POC 3 JHB STREET TREES PLACED WITHIN SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLES SHALL BE LIMBED UP TO 6' ABOVE GROUND SURFACE. 3 GT EXISTING PARKING SPACE, (TYP). EXISTING LANDSCAPE AREA CONCRETE CONCRETE WALK CONCRETE WALK EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING WATER LINE EXISTING WATER LINE EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINE 2 PMW EXISTING WATER LINE NEW WATER LINE CONNECTION 1 QB (3" cal.) 2 MA 2 PCC EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING NEW ADDITION NEW ADDITION SOUTH LEMAY AVENUE EXISTING IRRIGATED TURF TO REMAIN TURF TURF L3 4 NORTH 0 5' 10' 20' 30' SCALE: 1"= 10'-0" 1619 KELMSLEY CT., WINDSOR, CO 80550 deanne@TFGcolorado.com (970) 674-3323 PLANNERS / LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS FORT COLLINS VETERINARY EMERGENCY AND REHABILITATION HOSPITAL LANDSCAPE PLAN EXISTING TREES TO PROTECT EXISTING LANDSCAPE LEGEND: EXISTING SHRUBS TO PROTECT PROPOSED LANDSCAPE LEGEND: DECIDUOUS SHADE/ STREET TREE DECIDUOUS SHRUBS EVERGREEN SHRUBS ORNAMENTAL GRASSES COBBLE MULCH STEEL EDGER WOOD FIBER MULCH EXISTING IRRIGATED TURF NEW IRRIGATED TURF 31 CAR WASH BAYS EXISTING BUILDING SOUTH LEMAY AVENUE L2 4 NORTH 0 5' 10' 20' 30' SCALE: 1"= 10'-0" 1619 KELMSLEY CT., WINDSOR, CO 80550 deanne@TFGcolorado.com (970) 674-3323 PLANNERS / LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS FORT COLLINS VETERINARY EMERGENCY AND REHABILITATION HOSPITAL EXISTING LANDSCAPE PLAN EXISTING TREES EXISTING LANDSCAPE LEGEND: EXISTING SHRUBS EXISTING SHRUB MASSINGS EXISTING TREE LIST ID QUANTITY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME SIZE ACTION CONDITION / NOTES MITIGATION TREES E01 1 Austrian Pine Pinus nigra 18" cal. PROTECT good, lower branches limbed up - E02 1 Honeylocust Gleditsia triacanthos inermis sp. 24" cal. PROTECT good - E03 1 Hawthorn Crataegus sp. 11" cal. REMOVE fair, remove for building expansion 2 E04 1 Honeylocust Gleditsia triacanthos inermis sp. 12" cal. PROTECT fair - E05 1 Upright Juniper Juniperus chinensis sp. 12-15' ht. PROTECT poor, topped off - E06 1 Upright Juniper Juniperus chinensis sp. 15-20' ht. PROTECT fair - E07 1 Upright Juniper Juniperus chinensis sp. 15-20' ht. PROTECT fair - E08 1 Upright Juniper Juniperus chinensis sp.. 15-20' ht. PROTECT fair - E09 1 Upright Juniper Juniperus chinensis sp. 15-20' ht. PROTECT fair - E10 1 Amur Chokecherry Prunus maackii 8" cal. PROTECT good condition - E11 1 Amur Chokecherry Prunus maackii 8" cal. PROTECT good condition - NOTES 1. TREE MITIGATION IS SUBJECT TO SECTION 3.2.1(F) " TREE PROTECTION AND REPLACEMENT" IN THE FORT COLLINS MUNICIPAL CODE. 2. THE MITIGATION NUMBER REFERS TO THE NUMBER OF REPLACEMENT TREES THAT WILL BE REQUIRED TO MITIGATE TREE LOSS AS A RESULT OF CONSTRUCTION. MITIGATION NUMBER SHALL BE VERIFIED BY CITY FORESTER. 3. REPLACEMENT TREES WILL BE PLACED ON THE PREMISES AND ARE SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THE PROJECT. 4. THE SINGLE TREE SHOWN AND IDENTIFIED TO BE REMOVED IS A RESULT OF NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR THE BUILDING ADDITION. 5. REPLACEMENT TREES SHALL MEET THE FOLLOWING MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENTS: CANOPY SHADE TREES: 3.0" CALIPER BALLED AND BURLAP OR EQUIVALENT ORNAMENTAL TREES: 2.5" CALIPER BALLED AND BURLAP OR EQUIVALENT EVERGREEN TREES: 8' HEIGHT BALLED AND BURLAP OR EQUIVALENT 6. A PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY TREES OR SHRUBS AS NOTED ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN ARE PLANTED, PRUNED OR REMOVED ON THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS INCLUDES ZONES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND CURB, MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THIS PERMIT SHALL APPROVE THE LOCATION AND SPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURE TO OBTAIN THIS PERMIT MAY RESULT IN REPLACING OR RELOCATING TREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 7. SEET SHEET L1 FOR TREE PROTECTION NOTES AND SPECIFICATIONS. 30 THE PLANS DONE BY OTHER CONSULTANTS SO THAT THE PROPOSED GRADING, STORM DRAINAGE, OR OTHER CONSTRUCTION DOES NOT CONFLICT NOR PRECLUDE INSTALLATION OF MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS ON THIS PLAN. 15. MINOR CHANGES IN SPECIES AND PLANT LOCATIONS MAY BE MADE DURING CONSTRUCTION. OVERALL QUANTITY AND QUALITY SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED PLANS. 16. SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLES / EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LARIMER COUNTY URBAN AREA STREET STANDARDS FIGURE 7-16. NOTHING HIGHER THAN 24" MEASURED FROM THE TOP OF THE CURB IS PERMITTED WITHIN THES TRIANGLE. STREET TREES MUST BE LIMBED UP TO 6' ABOVE TOP OF CURB. GENERAL NOTES LANDSCAPE AREAS TOTAL SF NOTES: WATER USE TABLE with WATER BUDGET CHART LANDSCAPE NOTES AND PLANT LIST EXISTING LANDSCAPE PLAN LANDSCAPE PLAN LANDSCAPE DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS UNDER SEPARATE COVER IRRIGATION PLAN IRRIGATION DETAILS INDEX TO DRAWINGS L1 L2 L3 L4 IR1 IR2 HIGH WATER USE MEDIUM WATER USE LOW WATER USE* TOTAL ACRES TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREAS PROPOSED LANDSCAPE LIST (Total Oversized Trees = 2; See Plan) ID QUANTITY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME SIZE HEIGHT SPREAD WATER DECIDUOUS SHADE TREE (Total Oversized Deciduous Shade Trees = 2) QB 2 Texas Red Oak Quercus buckleyi 3" cal. 50'-75' to 60' L-M QRS 3 Skymaster English Oak Quercus robur 'Fastigiata' 2" cal. 40'-60' 15'-20' L-M GT 3 Skyline Honeylocust Gleditsia triacanthos inermis 'Skyline' 2" cal. 40'-50'' 30'-40' L-M CONIFEROUS SHRUB JCA 9 Armstrong Juniper Juniperus chinensis 'Armstrong' 5 gal. 3'-4' 3'-4' VL-L JHB 19 Blue Chip Juniper Juniperus horizontalis 'Blue Chip' 5 gal. 8"-12" 6'-10' VL-L PAH 2 Hillside Upright Spruce Picea abies 'Hillside Upright' 5 gal. 4'-6' 10'-15' M PMW 6 White Bud Mugo Pine Pinus mugo 'White Bud' 5 gal. 3'-4' 3'-6' VL-L DECIDUOUS SHRUBS CIJ 9 Sunshine Blue Bluebeard Caryopteris x incana 'Jason' 5 gal. 2'-3' 2'-3' POC 2 Center Glow Ninebark Physocarpus opulifolius 'Center Glow' 5 gal. 6'-8' 6'-8' RAL 7 Alpine Currant Ribes alpinum 5 gal. 3'-5' 3'-5' M ORNAMENTAL GRASSES FG 18 Elijah Blue Fescue Festuca ovina glauca 'Elijah Blue' 1 gal. 6"-12" 7"-12" L-M HMS 8 Heavy Metal Switch Grass Panicum virgatum 'Heavy Metal' 1 gal. 3'- 3 1/2' 1'- 2' HFG 22 Hameln Fountain Grass (Dwarf) Pennisetum alopecuroides 'Hameln' 1 gal. 2'-3' 2'-3' M 3,531 2,105 695 (4,744) .08 .05 .02 (0.11) TREE-LAWNS AND IRRIGATED TURF (NOT INCLUDING R.O.W. LANDSCAPE) SHRUBS AND PERENNIAL BEDS ON A PERMANENT DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM NATIVE SEED, ROCK MULCH BEDS AND SHRUBS AND TREES NEEDING TEMPORARY DRIPS SYSTEM FOR ESTABLISHMENT. M M CSK 8 Kelsey Dogwood (Dwarf) Cornus sericea 'Kelsyi' 5 gal. 2'-3' 2'-3' M M 6,331 0.15 INCLUDING SITE AND R.O.W. LANDSCAPE WATER NEED (gallons/s.f.) 18 10 3 13.69 ANNUAL WATER USE (gallons) 63,558 21,050 2,085 86,693 1. TREE PROTECTION SPECIFICATIONS. THE FOLLOWING TREE PROTECTION SPECIFICATIONS SHOULD BE FOLLOWED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE FOR ALL PROJECTS WITH PROTECTED EXISTING TREES. 2. WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED EXISTING TREE, THERE SHALL BE NO CUT OR FILL OVER A FOUR-INCH DEPTH UNLESS A QUALIFIED ARBORIST OR FORESTER HAS EVALUATED AND APPROVED THE DISTURBANCE. 3. ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREES SHALL BE PRUNED TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FORESTRY STANDARDS. 4. PRIOR TO AND DURING CONSTRUCTION, BARRIERS SHALL BE ERECTED AROUND ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREES WITH SUCH BARRIERS TO BE OF ORANGE FENCING A MINIMUM OF FOUR (4) FEET IN HEIGHT, SECURED WITH METAL T-POSTS, 12&/26(57+$16,;  )((7)5207+(7581.2521(+$/) ò 2)7+('5,3 LINE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. THERE SHALL BE NO STORAGE OR MOVEMENT OF EQUIPMENT, MATERIAL, DEBRIS OR FILL WITHIN THE FENCED TREE PROTECTION ZONE. 5. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANT SHALL PREVENT THE CLEANING OF EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL OR THE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF WASTE MATERIAL SUCH AS PAINTS, OILS, SOLVENTS, ASPHALT, CONCRETE, MOTOR OIL OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL HARMFUL TO THE LIFE OF A TREE WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED TREE OR GROUP OF TREES. 6. NO DAMAGING ATTACHMENT, WIRES, SIGNS OR PERMITS MAY BE FASTENED TO ANY PROTECTED TREE. 7. LARGE PROPERTY AREAS CONTAINING PROTECTED TREES AND SEPARATED FROM CONSTRUCTION OR LAND CLEARING AREAS, ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND UTILITY EASEMENTS MAY BE "RIBBONED OFF," RATHER THAN ERECTING PROTECTIVE FENCING AROUND EACH TREE AS REQUIRED IN SUBSECTION (G)(3) ABOVE. THIS MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY PLACING METAL T-POST STAKES A MAXIMUM OF FIFTY (50) FEET APART AND TYING RIBBON OR ROPE FROM STAKE-TO-STAKE ALONG THE OUTSIDE PERIMETERS OF SUCH AREAS BEING CLEARED. 8. THE INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES, IRRIGATION LINES OR ANY UNDERGROUND FIXTURE REQUIRING EXCAVATION DEEPER THAN SIX (6) INCHES SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY BORING UNDER THE ROOT SYSTEM OF PROTECTED EXISTING TREES AT A MINIMUM DEPTH OF TWENTY-FOUR (24) INCHES. THE AUGER DISTANCE IS ESTABLISHED FROM THE FACE OF THE TREE (OUTER BARK) AND IS SCALED FROM TREE DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT AS DESCRIBED IN THE CHART BELOW.THES TRIANGLE. STREET TREES MUST BE LIMBED UP TO 6' ABOVE TOP OF CURB. TREE DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT (INCHES) AUGER DISTANCE FROM FACE OF TREE (FEET) BORING DISTANCE TABLE 0-2 1 3-4 2 5-9 5 10-14 10 15-19 12 OVER 19 15 TREE PROTECTION NOTES DECIDUOUS ORNAMENTAL TREE PCC 2 Chanticleer Pear Pyrus calleryana 'Chanticleer' 1-1/2" cal. 30'-35' 15'-20' L-M MA 2 Adams Crabapple Malus 'Adams' 1-1/2" cal. 20'-25' 20'-25' L-M 29