No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/12/2015 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - Regular MeetingJennifer Carpenter, Chair City Council Chambers Kristin Kirkpatrick, Vice Chair City Hall West Jeff Hansen 300 Laporte Avenue Gerald Hart Fort Collins, Colorado Emily Heinz Michael Hobbs Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Jeffrey Schneider on the Comcast cable system The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing February 12, 2015 • ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (30 minutes total for non-agenda and pending application topics) • CONSENT AGENDA 1. Draft P&Z January 15, 2015, Minutes / Draft P&Z January 9, 2015 Special Meeting Minutes The purpose of this item is to review and approve the January 15, 2015, Planning and Zoning Board minutes and the January 9, 2015, P&Z Special Meeting minutes. 2. Mainstreet Health & Wellness Suites PDP140018 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for approval of Project Development Plan (PDP), Mainstreet Health & Wellness Suites, PDP140018. The project is located south of Harmony Road on the east side of Ziegler Road, abutting the south side of the Intel Campus. The site will plat approximately 7.5 acres located in the Harmony Technology Park. The proposal includes 1 building with 69,685 square feet to be used as a Long-term Care (Skilled Nursing and Assisted Living) Facility. The site has two accesses, one from Precision Drive and another from the access easement on Intel property that extends to Ziegler Road. On-site there are 100 off-street parking spaces and 18 bicycle spaces. Also proposed is a major walkway that extends from the Ziegler Road sidewalk to the internal walkway of the main entrance. Planning and Zoning Board Agenda Planning and Zoning Board Page 1 February 12, 2015 1 APPLICANT: Eric Morff Cole & Associates, INC. 401 South 18th Street, Suite 200 St. Louis, MO 63103 3. Various Revisions to the Land Use Code Relating to Fugitive Dust Item has been removed from the agenda 4. CSU Bay Farm Horticulture Center Site Plan Advisory Review, SPA140003 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) by Colorado State University (CSU) to construct a new greenhouse, outdoor research plots, and stormwater improvements at the southwest corner of Centre Avenue and Bay Drive. The new greenhouse and headhouse will be 1-story and approximately 27,566 square feet. New outdoor research plots would be constructed south of the greenhouse and the Arthur Ditch, which bisects the property. Future plans also call for the construction of water quality ponds and an interpretive trail with access to the Gardens on Spring Creek. The project site is located on a portion of land with split zoning. One portion is located in the Employment (E) District and the other on un-zoned land within a Colorado State University Annexation Area. APPLICANT: Fred Haberecht Facilities Management, Colorado State University 6030 Campus Delivery Fort Collins, CO 80521-6030 9. Sigma Phi Epsilon Renovation and Addition Nonconforming Use Expansion, NCU 150001 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to renovate and expand the Sigma Phi Epsilon Fraternity House located at 121 East Lake Street. The fraternity is a legal nonconforming use in the Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (N-C-L) Zone District. The project proposes to add a 797 square foot building addition to be utilized as a library and study hall, and to complete an interior and exterior building renovation. Site upgrades, including bicycle parking, a trash enclosure, and sidewalk improvements are also proposed. Bedrooms in the fraternity house following the renovation will decrease from 29 to 21. Three Modification of Standards requests accompany the proposal: 1) Modification of Standard to Section 4.7(D)(2)(a)(4) to permit a floor area of 51% of the lot area. 2) Modification of Standard to Section 4.7(D)(3) to permit a floor area of 102% of the lot area in the rear half of the lot. 3) Modification of Standard to Section 4.7(E)(5) to permit a maximum building height of 3 stories. APPLICANT: Mitch Christ Sigma Phi Epsilon PO Box 2051 Fort Collins, CO 80522 • PULLED FROM CONSENT City of Fort Collins Page 2 2 • DISCUSSION AGENDA 5. LUC Amendment for Local Street Proportion for Publicly-Conserved Lands Item has been removed from the agenda 6. Landmark Residences on Mountain Avenue Item has been removed from the agenda 7. Global Village Academy Phase Two, Public Charter School, 2130 West Horsetooth Road, Site Plan Advisory Review, #SPA15001 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This a request to construct a new, two-story building, containing 16 classrooms, gymnasium, science room, and expanded cafeteria for a total of 28,500 square feet. Combined with the existing building that includes 24,000 square feet, the new total for the campus would be 52,500 square feet. The new gymnasium, (5,500 square feet), would face east and would operate in conjunction with a new playground and athletic fields. The cafeteria expansion to the west would be a one-story addition. The new classrooms are intended to serve up to 420 additional students. Combined with the existing number of students, 360, the new total of current and projected enrollment would be 780 students ranging from pre-school through eighth grade. The onsite circulation system would be enlarged with a four-lane driveway to accommodate additional buses and an improved student drop-off and pick-up and queueing zone. Two new parking lots, consisting of a total of 48 additional spaces, would be provided for faculty, staff and visitors. The site is 5.02 acres and zoned L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. APPLICANT: Global Village Academy Public Charter School c/o Mr. Doug Talbot Highmark School Development 6900 South 900 East, Suite 100 Murray, Utah 84047 8. Review of City Projects PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Land Use Code Amendment • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT City of Fort Collins Page 3 3 Agenda Item 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 12, 2015 Planning and Zoning Board STAFF Cindy Cosmas, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT Draft P&Z January 15, 2015, Minutes / Draft P&Z January 9, 2015, Special Meeting Minutes EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to review and approve the January 15, 2015, Planning and Zoning Board minutes and the January 9, 2015, P&Z Special Meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft January 15, 2015, P&Z Minutes (DOC) 2. Draft January 9, 2015, P&Z Special Meeting Minutes (DOC) Item # 1 Page 1 4 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Minutes January 15, 2015 6:00 p.m. Council Liaison: Mayor Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Laurie Kadrich Chair: Jennifer Carpenter Phone: (H) 231-1407 Chair Carpenter called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Kirkpatrick, Hansen, Hart, Heinz, Hobbs, and Schneider Absent: Carpenter Staff Present: Kadrich, Eckman, Burnett, Wilkinson, Siegmund, Holland, and Cosmas Election of Officers Member Hart nominated Jennifer Carpenter to serve as Chair of the Planning and Zoning Board for 2015. Member Hobbs seconded the nomination. Vote: 6:0. Member Heinz nominated Kristin Kirkpatrick to serve as Vice Chair of the Planning and Zoning Board for 2015. Member Schneider seconded the nomination. Vote: 6:0. Agenda Review Vice Chair Kirkpatrick provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. She described the following processes: • While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration, citizen input is valued and appreciated. • The Board is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Board once for each item. • Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with city Land Use Code. • Should a citizen wish to address the Board on items other than what is on the agenda, time will be allowed for that as well. • This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak can be heard. Director Kadrich reviewed the items on the Consent agenda, the Discussion agenda, and the item under Other Business. Public Input on Items Not on the Agenda: None. 5 Planning & Zoning Board January 15, 2015 Page 2 Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes from December 11, 2014, P&Z Hearing Public Input: None. Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the January 15, 2015, Consent Agenda as presented, which includes the minutes from the December 11, 2014, Planning and Zoning Board hearing. Member Heinz seconded. Vote: 6:0. Discussion Agenda: 2. Rigden Farm Tract Z Multi-Family PDP #140009 Project: Rigden Farm Tract Z Multi-Family PDP #140009 Project Description: This is a request to construct 33 multi-family dwellings on Tract Z of the 6th Filing of Rigden Farm. The site is approximately 3 acres, bounded by existing public streets including Denver Drive to the northeast, Exmoor Lane to the southwest and Porter Place to the southeast. The project proposes two and three bedroom dwelling units in two-story buildings. Located in the L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone district, the site is part of the Rigden Farm Overall Development Plan (O.D.P.). Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Staff and Applicant Presentations Secretary Cosmas reported that an email from Planner Holland had been received explaining a question that was raised at the work session regarding the size of the lots surrounding the Tract Z multi-family proposal, including maps in support of his email. Planner Holland gave a brief overview of this project. Andrew Gerk, with Journey Homes, gave a more complete presentation, including a PowerPoint demonstration with maps, a proposed site and landscape plan, building statistics, styling options, and various plans. Morgan Kidder, Project Coordinator with Journey Homes, introduced himself as part of the development team. 6 Planning & Zoning Board January 15, 2015 Page 3 Public Input Rudy Albrecht, 2639 Joseph Drive, inquired about whether the proposed occupancy for this project will be sales or rentals. Victoria Wolf, 2909 Joseph Drive, asked whether the proposal to have 33 units will change (go higher or lower). She is concerned that the unit number will change when an amendment is added. Michelle Johnson, 2633 Chase Drive, stated that she is concerned about the street parking, adding that an influx of cars on the street could be too congested. She is across the street from the open space and is concerned that the parking will encroach on her property and that the open space will not be well- managed. Staff/Applicant Response to Citizen Concerns Mr. Kidder responded to the first citizen question by saying that the units were intended as rentals. He added that a property management company will be overseeing the units. He also confirmed that the maximum number of units allowed in this area is 33 units only, and the developer has no intention of increasing that number. He responded to the third citizen question by stating that 4 parking spaces were provided off-street for each unit in addition to the street parking. He acknowledged the prior lapse in maintenance in some of the open areas, and he stated that those areas are better-maintained at present. Planner Holland also concurred that the project will not be permitted to increase the unit size once it is approved, based on the conditions placed on the project during the Overall Development Plan. However, there is an amendment process that the developer could initiate for a reduction in the units only, not an increase. There was more discussion regarding the number of parking spaces available and options for future parking. Board Questions and Staff Response Member Heinz asked whether the colors used are a variation of neutral tones, because they are so similar; the response was that the main colors are very similar, but the trim/accent colors will be different. There was clarification that the City does not have the authority to dictate whether units will be available for ownership or will be rentals. Member Hobbs asked about the parking ratios relative to the code and how they compare with the number of bedrooms per units. Planner Holland responded that the residents will have exactly the number of parking spaces they need depending on the number of bedrooms per unit. Any overflow parking would be off-street or on public streets. The original Overall Development Plan (ODP) was approved in 1999 with several minor amendments, the most recent occurring in 2002. The multi-family aspect has been part of the ODP from the beginning of the project. Vice Chair Kirkpatrick asked about the philosophy on building narrow streets. Martina Wilkinson, Traffic Operations, explained that the concern was generally the high-speed vehicles, so streets have become narrower to slow the traffic down. Member Hart asked what the width of Denver Drive is, and the response was that it is 30 feet curb-to-curb (standard). Board Deliberation Member Hart stated that he believes the plan is compatible with surrounding areas and that access appears to be reasonable and standard. 7 Planning & Zoning Board January 15, 2015 Page 4 Member Hart made a motion to approve the Rigden Farm Filing 6 Tract Z Multi-Family Project Development Plan #140009 based upon the findings of facts and conclusions on page 5 of the Staff Report. Member Heinz seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. Vice Chair Kirkpatrick reiterated her support of this plan and thanked the City Staff for their diligence. Other Business Letter of Support – Lincoln Avenue Improvements Director Kadrich gave an overview of the letter drafted for the City Council’s consideration in support of the Lincoln Avenue improvements. She stated that the main point of this letter is to show the Board’s support that the Lincoln Corridor project remain part of the Building on Basics (BOB) 2.0 funding, which may be a ballot taken up by the Council and community later this year. This letter of support is in line with the needs and concerns of the Board because it stresses the need for good transportation corridors and multi-modal or safe access for pedestrians and cyclists; further, this is a tool needed for a complete street in that location. Member Hansen stated that this letter emphasizes the importance of this plan. Member Hart stressed the importance of the connections between this major employment center and downtown. Member Hobbs stated his support of this letter, including the funding for improvements to the neighborhood, which is a key component. Director Kadrich commented that the initial budget project provided for neighborhood improvements with street improvements following; however, the neighborhood improvements have been accomplished through appropriations, so those two items were separated and put into separate budget offers, as was the design and preliminary construction cost for the Lincoln Corridor project. At the last meeting, the City Council requested that we speed up the remaining portions of the neighborhood improvements and ask for additional appropriations for that; at this time, BOB only includes the Lincoln Corridor street improvements. Vice Chair Kirkpatrick added that the need for beautification creates pedestrian refuge, and a good design generates a well-functioning street overall. Member Heinz added that she also believes the beautification is important, and she would like to specifically add that to the letter. Vice Chair Kirkpatrick will make that change to the letter. Member Hart made a motion to approve the letter of support with the stated amendment added. Member Heinz seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. The meeting was adjourned at 6:50pm. Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director Kristin Kirkpatrick, Vice Chair 8 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Minutes Special Meeting January 9, 2015 12:00 pm. Council Liaison: Mayor Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Laurie Kadrich Chair: Jennifer Carpenter Phone: (H) 231-1407 Chair Carpenter brought the special meeting to order at 12:05pm. Secretary Cosmas took role: Present: Carpenter, Kirkpatrick, Hansen, Hart, Hobbs, Heinz and Schneider (none absent). Deputy City Attorney Eckman recommended that the group adjourn into Executive Session to continue the current discussion. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board immediately adjourn into Executive Session, based on Sections 2-71(b) and 2-31(a)(2) of the City Code, in order to discuss the manner in which particular policies, practices or regulations of the City may be affected by law. Member Hart seconded the motion. Vote: 7:0 – this meets the 2/3 vote requirement to initiate Executive Session. Members of the public and City staff left the meeting at this time (12:10pm). Executive Session Chair Carpenter made some opening remarks and each participant stated their name for the record. Those in attendance included: Laurie Kadrich, Jennifer Carpenter, Michael Hobbs, Jeff Hansen, Kristin Kirkpatrick, Emily Heinz, Paul Eckman, Jerry Hart, Jeff Schneider, Cindy Cosmas, Cameron Gloss, Joe Olson, and Rick Richter. Deputy City Attorney Eckman requested that the recorders be stopped at this point (12:15pm). *********************************************************************************************************************** At 1:00pm, the recorders were restarted, and the Executive Session was concluded by each participant restating their name for the record. Chair Carpenter cautioned each attendee that all information provided during Executive Session is confidential. The meeting was adjourned at 1:02pm. Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director Jennifer Carpenter, Chair 9 Agenda Item 2 STAFF REPORT February 12, 2015 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME MAINSTREET HEALTH & WELLNESS SUITES PDP140018 STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for approval of Project Development Plan (PDP), Mainstreet Health & Wellness Suites, PDP140018. The project is located south of Harmony Road on the east side of Ziegler Road, abutting the south side of the Intel Campus. The site will plat approximately 7.5 acres located in the Harmony Technology Park. The proposal includes 1 building with 69,685 square feet to be used as a Long-term Care (Skilled Nursing and Assisted Living) Facility. The site has two accesses, one from Precision Drive and another from the access easement on Intel property that extends to Ziegler Road. On-site there are 100 off-street parking spaces and 18 bicycle spaces. Also proposed is a major walkway that extends from the Ziegler Road sidewalk to the internal walkway of the main entrance. APPLICANT: Eric Morff Cole & Associates, INC. 401 South 18th Street, Suite 200 St. Louis, MO 63103 OWNER: Harmony Technology Park LLC 2727 South State Street Suite 100 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Mainstreet Health & Wellness Suites Project Development Plan, PDP140018 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Mainstreet Health & Wellness Suites Project Development Plan complies with the applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically:  The PDP complies with process located in Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 - Administration.  The PDP is in conformance with the Harmony Technology Park Overall Development Plan approved by the Planning and Zoning Board in June 2000 and subsequent Item # 2 Page 1 10 Agenda Item 2 minor amendments.  The PDP complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 - General Development Standards.  The PDP complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.26, Harmony Corridor District (H-C) of Article 4 - Districts. COMMENTS: 1. Background: Vicinity Map: The following approvals have been granted to the property:  Harmony Farm Annexation, City Council - July 1994  Harmony Technology Park Overall Development Plan - June 2000 Today the property is used for agricultural purposes. The site does include minimal improvements of curb and gutter along the Ziegler Road. Zoning History:  In 1994, upon annexation, the Harmony Farm Annexation was zoned Employment Park (E-P) zone District. Item # 2 Page 2 11 Agenda Item 2  In 1997 upon adoption of the Land Use Code the property was rezoned to the Harmony Corridor (H-C) district. The H-C zoning has remained intact to the present. The current surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Use North Harmony Corridor Harmony Technology Park First Filing: Intel Campus South Harmony Corridor Public Right-of-Way: Precision Drive Harmony Corridor Harmony Technology Park ODP: Vacant Land East Harmony Corridor Harmony Technology Park ODP: Vacant Land West Harmony Corridor Public Right-of-Way: Ziegler Road Low Density Residential Wild Wood Farm PUD: Single Family Detached homes 2. Compliance with Article 4 of the Land Use Code - Harmony Corridor (H-C): The project complies with all applicable Article 4 standards as follows: . Section 4.26(A) and (B) - Permitted Uses The proposal of the Harmony Corridor District is to be a mixed-use area with a major employment base. A long term care facility will contribute to the mix of uses in the area and will provide new employment opportunities. The long term care facility is permitted as a primary use in the Harmony Corridor District. . Section 4.26(D) - Land Use Standards 1) Section 4.26(D)(1) requires a development project to comply with the Harmony Corridor Standards and Guidelines. These standards are intended primarily for developments that front onto Harmony Road. Therefore, this project is in compliance with the applicable standards. Item # 2 Page 3 12 Agenda Item 2 . Section 4.26(E) - Development Standards 1) Section 4.26(E)(2)(a) requires a project to enter into cooperative agreements with adjacent property owners to create a comprehensive development. Compliance with this standard has been achieved through the projects compatibility with the Harmony Technology Park ODP and the use of the existing access easement on the Intel Campus. Additionally, an access easement is proposed for the new drive aisle on-site. 2) Section 4.26(E)(2)(b) requires the gradual transition from a residential area that abuts an employment area. West side of the project across Ziegler is a residential neighborhood. This project does not create a drastic or abrupt transition from the neighborhood due to the following conditions:  At least 80 feet of Public right-of-way exists between the residential properties and the project boundary.  A proposed 45 foot wide of landscaped yard is located from the property line to the western most portion of the building.  The building along the west property line is 2 stories in height, similar to the 2 story residential buildings across Ziegler Road. 3) Section 4.26(E)(2)(c) requires that all uses are conducted entirely within a structure. The project is not proposing any outdoor uses. 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. . Division 3.2 - Site Planning and Design Standards 1) 3.2.1 Landscaping and Tree Protection: The existing conditions of the site do not include any trees. Therefore, a tree mitigation plan was not provided with this PDP. The proposed landscape plan design has been reviewed by the City Forester. The landscape plan includes the following:  Twenty-five (25) new street trees along Ziegler Road and Precision Drive.  One hundred and thirty-nine (139) new trees to be planted on private property. The number of trees and locations are in compliance with the full tree stocking requirement.  Foundation plantings, such as shrubbery and planting beds, are included around the sides of the building and that are highly visible from Item # 2 Page 4 13 Agenda Item 2 the public right-of-way, in compliance with the standard. 2) 3.2.2 Access, Circulation and Parking:  New sidewalks along both Ziegler Road and Precision Drive will be installed with this project. The sidewalks are detached and are lined with trees.  A major walkway will be installed, extending from Ziegler Road to the internal sidewalk leading to the main entrance. An additional sidewalk extension is proposed from Precision Drive to the internal sidewalk system.  The internal sidewalk system creates safe paths to all points of the building entrances and other parts of the site.  This project is required to provide fourteen (14) bicycle parking spaces. There are two-hundred and eighteen (18) spaces being provided, twelve (12) of those are enclosed spaces.  The project is limited to a maximum 56 off-street parking spaces. The proposal requests 100 off-street parking spaces. This code section allows for an alternative compliance to the standard if the project: does not detract from the connectivity of pedestrians, places parking areas to the rear or side the building, the visual impacts are minimized, and maintains handicap parking ratios. The parking areas of the project are in compliance with these additional standards of the alternative compliance request.  The vehicle parking locations and building minimize impacts to the other modes of transportation. Off-street parking spaces are located to the side of the building and not between the building and the public right-of- way.  As required, the sidewalk system provided contributes to the attractiveness of the development and safety of the pedestrian and bicyclist. 3) 3.2.4 Site Lighting:  A photometric site plan was submitted for the project. As proposed, the project complies with the minimum standards of an average of one (1) foot-candle for the parking area. Item # 2 Page 5 14 Agenda Item 2 . Division 3.4 - Environmental, Natural Area, Recreational and Cultural Resource Protection Standards 1) 3.4.1 Natural Habitats and Features: Mainstreet Health & Wellness Suites site does not include any natural areas, habitats, or features within its boundaries. . Division 3.5 - Building Standards 1) 3.5.3 Institutional Buildings: This project contains one (1) institutional building that incorporates human scale urban design and provides visual interest through the following: o The building fronts to streets and there is no parking in between the building and these streets. o Where there is a vehicle drive area used for the delivery services and trash and recycling removal, between the building and Precision Drive, the landscape has been enhanced with additional tree plantings, meeting the alternative compliance of this section. o The building mass is articulated by projections and recesses of portions of the building facades. o The building elevations are further divided by different fenestration patterns and a variety of building materials. . Division 3.6 - Transportation and Circulation 1) 3.6.3 Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards: The project is proposing to install the section of Precision Drive from Technology Parkway to Ziegler Road. The project was required to build the portion of Precision Drive that fronts the property. However, the applicant has elected to construct the extension all the way through to Technology Parkway. 2) 3.6.4 Transportation Level of Service Requirements: The Traffic Operations Department required completion of a traffic impact study to identify the projected impacts of vehicle traffic. Their review concluded that this project, with the improvements to be built by the applicant, results in an acceptable Level of Service for the surrounding streets and intersections. Item # 2 Page 6 15 Agenda Item 2 4. Neighborhood Meeting A neighborhood meeting was held for the proposed project on September 18 th , 2014. The meeting lasted approximately a half hour and three citizens attended. The following is a summary of the discussion had that night and responses by the applicant (see attachment for full meeting notes). Question (Citizen): What will the side facing our home (toward Ziegler) look like? Will there be landscaping? Response (Applicant): Yes, there will be landscaping facing Ziegler. There is a small building face that is located close to Ziegler, with the “wings” located further back on the site. Question (Citizen): What is the use for the project? Response (Applicant): It’s an assisted living facility, but designed to look and function like a boutique hotel. Question (Citizen): Do you think there will be a lot of landscaping around to shield it? Response (Applicant): We’re still early in design and the City has landscaping requirements as well. Response (City): There will be street trees along the roadways, as well as requirements for general landscaping with trees, and shrubs throughout the site. Response (Applicant): Main Street is committed to make this feel like a home and someplace their clients want to be while they recover; the patients are essentially living there. There has been a landscape architect on board for the project from the beginning. Main Street tries to make these facilities look nice and have done so in their past projects, in my opinion. Since the neighborhood meeting staff has not received any emails concerning this project. 5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the request for Mainstreet Health & Wellness Suites Project Development Plan Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. Mainstreet Health & Wellness Suites PDP complies with the process located in Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 - Administration. C. Mainstreet Health & Wellness Suites PDP is in conformance with the Harmony Technology Park Overall Development Plan approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on June 2000 and subsequent minor amendments. D. Mainstreet Health & Wellness Suites PDP complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 - General Development Standards. E. Mainstreet Health & Wellness Suites PDP complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.26, Harmony Corridor (H-C) District of Article 4 - Districts. Item # 2 Page 7 16 Agenda Item 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Mainstreet Health & Wellness Suites Project Development Plan, PDP140018. ATTACHMENTS 1. Site Plan (PDF) 2. Landscape Plan (PDF) 3. Elevations (PDF) 4. Lighting Plan (PDF) 5. Plat (PDF) 6. Neighborhood Meeting Notes (PDF) 7. Summary of the TIS (PDF) Item # 2 Page 8 17 EXISTING PROPOSED 1 OF 3 14-0019 OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATION OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES 18 T T T T 6ƒ ( DIRT TRAIL IS 10.9' SOUTH OF NORTH PROPERTY LINE 2 OF 3 14-0019 19 A A 4923.50 A A 6ƒ ( DIRT TRAIL IS 10.9' SOUTH OF NORTH PROPERTY LINE 3 OF 3 14-0019 20 4923.50 Dry Pond (3) Gle-t (2) Cat-s (3) Gle-t (3) Gym-d (1) Que-m (3) Gym-d (5) Gle-t (1) Gle-t (4) Cat-s (4) Gym-d (3) Gym-d (1) Que-m (1) Que-m (1) Que-m (1) Que-m (1) Que-m (4) Ulm-x (4) Ulm-x (6) Til-c (4) Pic-f (3) Pic-f (3) Pic-g (3) Mal-t (2) Pic-d (3) Syr-r (59) Gai-a (18) Spo-h (8) Jam-a (32) Spo-h (8) Jam-a (12) Pan-v (20) Jun-b (20) Tax-x (20) Tax-x (20) Jun-b (28) Tax-x (24) Jun-b (20) Jun-b (27) Pan-v (12) Fal-p (11) Fal-p (17) Rhu-t (60) Gai-a (4) Fal-p (1) Que-m (2) Gle-t (4) Gle-t (3) Que-m (3) Mal-t (1) Til-a (2) Til-a (1) Til-c (3) Syr-r (3) Cat-s (126) Ber-l (2) Cat-s (2) Gym-d (2) Cat-s (3) Pic-p (4) Phy-o (106) Ber-l (72) Ber-l (73) Sch-s 4923.50 (2) Ace-t (1) Gym-d (2) Ace-t (2) Syr-r (2) Syr-r (11) Pan-v (7) Pic-b (4) Fal-p (14) Chr-n (47) Sch-s (1) Pic-c (44) Bou-g (13) Jun-s (9) Chr-n (44) Sal-v (21) Pan-v (87) Mah-r (9) Chr-n (10) Bux-g (3) Pic-d (1) Pic-c (1) Pic-c (1) Fal-p (15) Pan-v (104) Aqu-r (6) Jam-a (7) Pic-b (20) Jun-b (33) Spo-h (35) Pen-s (3) Spo-h (22) Phy-o (17) Rhu-t (106) Ach-m (25) Sal-v (21) Jun-b (1) Pic-c (56) Heu-m (6) Sym-x (9) Sym-x (8) Jun-b (1) Hyd-a (1) Hyd-a (2) Hyd-a (20) Phy-o (1) Pic-c (30) Spo-h (56) Heu-m (57) Aqu-r (2) Pic-c (14) Sch-s (32) Ach-m (27) Jun-b (23) Sol-c (1) Hyd-a (11) Rhu-t (1) Hyd-a (13) Jun-s (17) Cha-m (1) Hyd-a 4923.50 Dry Pond Project Number CERTIFIED BY ISSUANCE INDEX DATE: PROJECT PHASE: 9/10/2014 11:57:25 AM MAINSTREET HEALTH & WELLNESS SUITES 2014.00421 ZIEGLER ROAD FT. COLLINS, CO 80528 01/16/2015 95% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS REVISION SCHEDULE NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 1 Per City Comments 12/23/14 2 Per City Comments 1/16/15 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 3 Per City Comments 1/23/15 0 Scale 1" = 30'-0" 15 30 60 North HYDROZONE PLAN L104 Low Water Needs Area Moderate Water Needs Area High Water Needs Area ANNUAL WATER BUDGET High Water Zones: 0 SF x (18 Gal/SF) = 0 Gallons / Season Moderate Water Zones: SF x (10 Gal/SF) = Gallons / Season Low Water Zones: SF x (3 Gal/SF) = Gallons / Season Very Low Water Zones: 0 SF x (0 Gal/SF) = Gallons / Season Total Gallons Needed by All Zones: = 0 Gallons / Season Total Square Feet (SF) of All Zones: = SF Average Gal/SF/Season, All Zones: Total Gallons / Total SF = Gallons / SF / Season SHEET 4 OF 4 3 3 23 FIRST FLOOR 100' - 0" SECOND FLOOR 112' - 9 3/4" LOWER ROOF TRUSS BRG 111' - 4" UPPER TRUSS BRG 122' - 0" FIRST FLOOR 100' - 0" SECOND FLOOR 112' - 9 3/4" LOWER ROOF TRUSS BRG 111' - 4" UPPER TRUSS BRG 122' - 0" FIRST FLOOR 100' - 0" SECOND FLOOR 112' - 9 3/4" LOWER ROOF TRUSS BRG 111' - 4" UPPER TRUSS BRG 122' - 0" FIRST FLOOR 100' - 0" SECOND FLOOR 112' - 9 3/4" LOWER ROOF TRUSS BRG 111' - 4" UPPER TRUSS BRG 122' - 0" 41' - 3 1/2" 36' - 0" Project Number CERTIFIED BY ISSUANCE INDEX DATE: PROJECT PHASE: 1/13/2015 8:44:20 PM A201 OVERALL EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS MAINSTREET HEALTH & WELLNESS SUITES 2014.00421 ZIEGLER ROAD FT. COLLINS, CO 80528 01/16/15 PDP SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1/16" = 1'-0" A201 3 WEST ELEVATION-OVERALL 1/16" = 1'-0" A201 4 EAST ELEVATION-OVERALL 1/16" = 1'-0" A201 1 SOUTH ELEVATION-OVERALL FIRST FLOOR 100' - 0" SECOND FLOOR 112' - 9 3/4" LOWER ROOF TRUSS BRG 111' - 4" UPPER TRUSS BRG 122' - 0" PART A PART B 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 9 6 6 9 1 1 18 1 10 14 8 14 4 2 12 22 7 2 12 21 10 5 4 8 2 A503 FIRST FLOOR 100' - 0" SECOND FLOOR 112' - 9 3/4" LOWER ROOF TRUSS BRG 111' - 4" UPPER TRUSS BRG 122' - 0" PART A PART B 3 3 3 3 6 3 3 4 4 6 5 9 1 1 18 12 18 1 12 8 14 16 19 8 10 14 10 2 7 22 2 TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. 14 4 5 TYP. 9 Project Number CERTIFIED BY ISSUANCE INDEX DATE: PROJECT PHASE: 1/13/2015 8:03:51 PM A209 SOUTH ELEVATION MAINSTREET HEALTH & WELLNESS SUITES 2014.00421 ZIEGLER ROAD FT. COLLINS, CO 80528 FIRST FLOOR 100' - 0" SECOND FLOOR 112' - 9 3/4" LOWER ROOF TRUSS BRG 111' - 4" UPPER TRUSS BRG 122' - 0" PART A PART B 3 3 4 5 3 6 6 9 1 12 1 13 13 8 13 18 8 7 TYP 3 2 3 8 TYP 10 FIRST FLOOR 100' - 0" SECOND FLOOR 112' - 9 3/4" LOWER ROOF TRUSS BRG 111' - 4" UPPER TRUSS BRG 122' - 0" PART A PART B 3 4 4 3 5 5 5 22 9 6 9 1 12 8 14 8 14 7 2 6 2 TYP TYP TYP 10 10 3 Project Number CERTIFIED BY ISSUANCE INDEX DATE: PROJECT PHASE: 1/13/2015 8:48:28 PM A210 WEST ELEVATION MAINSTREET HEALTH & WELLNESS SUITES 2014.00421 ZIEGLER ROAD FT. COLLINS, CO 80528 01/16/15 PDP SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1/8" = 1'-0" FIRST FLOOR 100' - 0" SECOND FLOOR 112' - 9 3/4" LOWER ROOF TRUSS BRG 111' - 4" UPPER TRUSS BRG 122' - 0" 3 3 3 3 3 13 4 9 5 6 5 6 9 19 12 1 18 1 18 12 18 1 18 18 14 13 8 13 16 8 18 24 22 17 PART A PART B 10 2 4 10 23 20 25 18 TYP. TYP. FIRST FLOOR 100' - 0" SECOND FLOOR 112' - 9 3/4" LOWER ROOF TRUSS BRG 111' - 4" UPPER TRUSS BRG 122' - 0" 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 22 9 9 18 18 18 12 18 12 18 1 1 1 24 13 8 13 14 2 2 2 TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. PART A PART B 18 TYP. TYP. 2 10 2 10 Project Number CERTIFIED BY ISSUANCE INDEX DATE: PROJECT PHASE: FIRST FLOOR 100' - 0" SECOND FLOOR 112' - 9 3/4" LOWER ROOF TRUSS BRG 111' - 4" UPPER TRUSS BRG 122' - 0" PART A PART B 3 3 5 3 5 5 6 22 6 9 9 21 12 1 7 8 14 8 10 4 5 2 2 14 10 FIRST FLOOR 100' - 0" SECOND FLOOR 112' - 9 3/4" LOWER ROOF TRUSS BRG 111' - 4" UPPER TRUSS BRG 122' - 0" PART A PART B 3 4 3 4 5 5 6 6 9 1 12 1 8 13 13 8 TYP. TYP. TYP. 10 2 3 2 3 5 Project Number CERTIFIED BY ISSUANCE INDEX DATE: PROJECT PHASE: 1/13/2015 8:03:58 PM A212 EAST ELEVATION MAINSTREET HEALTH & WELLNESS SUITES 2014.00421 ZIEGLER ROAD 29 Project Number CERTIFIED BY ISSUANCE INDEX DATE: PROJECT PHASE: PROJECT NO. 2014-63008 12/18/2014 2:38:27 PM E1 OF 3 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN PHOTOMETRICS MAINSTREET HEALTH & WELLNESS SUITES 2014.00421 ZIEGLER ROAD FT. COLLINS, CO 80528 12/03/14 PROGRESS SET SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" Electrical Site Plan Photometrics 1 N A. ALL PERIMETER LIGHTS WILL HAVE HOUSE SIDE SHIELDS. NOT ALL IES FILES USED WHERE AVAILABLE WITH THE HOUSE SHIELD PHOTOMETRICS. B ALL POLES ARE 20' TALL EXCEPT FIXTURE TYPE "G" IS ON A 14' TALL POLE. C SEE SHEET E2 FOR LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE. GENERAL NOTES REVISION SCHEDULE NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 1 Revision 1 12/17/14 30 Project Number CERTIFIED BY ISSUANCE INDEX DATE: PROJECT PHASE: PROJECT NO. 2014-63008 12/18/2014 2:38:33 PM E2 of 3 EXTERIOR LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE MAINSTREET HEALTH & WELLNESS SUITES 2014.00421 ZIEGLER ROAD FT. COLLINS, CO 80528 12/03/14 PROGRESS SET SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0" Luminaire Schedule 1 A. LIGHTING DESIGN WAS BASED ON ARCHITECTURAL AREA LIGHTING FLEX SS5XP WITH POLE PR5-5R20 (14' POLE PR5-5R14). GENERAL NOTES REVISION SCHEDULE NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 1 Revision 1 12/17/14 31 Project Number CERTIFIED BY ISSUANCE INDEX DATE: PROJECT PHASE: PROJECT NO. 2014-63008 12/18/2014 2:38:33 PM E3 OF 3 LIGHT FIXTURE SPECIFICATION SHEETS MAINSTREET HEALTH & WELLNESS SUITES 2014.00421 ZIEGLER ROAD FT. COLLINS, CO 80528 12/03/14 PROGRESS SET REVISION SCHEDULE NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 1 Revision 1 12/17/14 32 33 34 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROJECT: Main Street Health & Wellness Suites DATE: September 18, 2014 PROJECT PLANNER: Noah Beals The meeting began informally at 6:35 p.m. with two neighbors walking through site plan details and orientation with the applicant using poster boards brought to the meeting. Question (Citizen): What will the side facing our home (towards Ziegler) look like? Will there be landscaping? Response (Applicant): Yes, there will be landscaping facing towards Ziegler. There is a small building face that is located close to Ziegler, with the “wings” located further back on the site. Question (Citizen): The neighborhood meeting notice mentioned there were no modifications, what does that mean? Response (City): What has been presented and shared so far with the City indicates that the standards of the Land Use Code can or will be met, and no modifications to the standards have been requested at this time. Question (Citizen): What will the design look like? Response (Applicant): The design is still in the early stages, but there will be stone elements, and variations in colors/patterns as you see on the boards we have here tonight. Question (Citizen): What is the use for the project? Response (Applicant): It’s an assisted living, but designed to look and function like a boutique hotel. Response (Citizen): So I could move in here? Response (Applicant): No, it’s not a permanent residence. It’s designed for temporary stays for those recovering from operations or surgeries. The average stay is about 21 days, but there are those with longer recovery periods who may stay up to 90 days. The facility is designed with many amenities for those recovering, such as a movie room, kitchens, game rooms, pub, etc. Question (Citizen): Is it only for seniors? Response (Applicant): Yes, I believe the cut-off is 65. Question (Citizen): How long will it take to build? Response (Applicant): Approximately 12 to 18 months. Question (Citizen): Will there be a landscaping berm (along Ziegler)? Response (Applicant): We have not gotten to that level of detail of design yet, we’ll also have to comply with any City standards. Response (City): The issue with the berm at the HP/Avago site is related to their large mechanical equipment and noise that needed to be screened and mitigated and by request from the neighbors. What has been shown so far with this project, their equipment will not be facing Ziegler. 35 Comment (Citizen): Our house is a 2-story, we’re worried about people looking into our windows or being able to see into the rooms at the facility. Question (Citizen): Are you buying the entire property? Response (Applicant): We’re only purchasing a small part of the property, approximately 7.5 acres. Question (Citizen): How many stories is the building? Response (Applicant): 2 stories. Response (Citizen): It looks like 3 stories. Response (Applicant): There are some architectural features that make it appear there are three stories, but the plan is to only have 2 habitable floors. Question (Citizen): What’s the size or how many patients? Response (Applicant): There will be approximately 100 beds. Question (Citizen): How much of a buffer is there going to be between the building and Ziegler? Response (Applicant): The setback from the right-of-way is approximately 15’ to 25’, and then another 10’ to the actual curb line of the road. Response (Citizen): That seems very close to the road. Response (City): The Land Use Code talks about bringing buildings closer to the street to help with pedestrian experience and connectivity. Comment (Citizen): I was thinking of how tall the building was and shadows it would cast in the winter, and whether there could be issues with melting and ice on the street and sidewalks in winter time. Question (Citizen): Where is the access to the building? Response (Applicant): We’re proposing an access on Ziegler near Intel’s southern Ziegler access road. We’re working with the City to evaluate if this is too close Intel’s access and whether they could be combined. There is also access that will be taken off of Precision Drive. Question (Citizen): Ambulances come in and out for assisted living – what is the main way emergency vehicles will be getting to and from the site? Response (Applicant): It depends on the driveway situation and how that works out. I believe the emergency personnel will want to come in the front as the quickest way. There will be ambulances to the facility, but it isn’t a residence, it’s a transitional rehabilitation facility. Our average stay is 20 days. Question (Citizen): What company do you work for? Response (Applicant): I work for Cole and I am representing Main Street as the applicant for this proposal. We’re permitting and building several similar locations in Colorado right now; in Colorado Springs and Lafeyette. Question (Citizen): Where will the patients come from? Response (Applicant): We’re expecting many to come from Banner Health. Question (Citizen): So is this it’s tied to Kaiser? Response (Applicant): They’re not tied to Banner; they’re independent; not associated with anyone specifically. 36 Question (Citizen): Will there be many ambulances? Response (Citizen): You’ll have non-emergency ambulances, not necessarily with lights and sirens. Question (Citizen): Will Precision come out on Ziegler? Response (City): Yes. Question (Citizen): Is there a skilled nursing section to this? Response (Applicant): I’m not an expert on if they will have that, I would need to ask. I believe they do. Response (Audience): With 100 beds, I would think they would need that. Comment (Citizen): Fort Collins needs some place like that, there’s only the one on Centre. Question (Citizen): What is the lighting situation? Response (Applicant): We have not gotten to that level of detail yet. That’s why we’re here, we want to take comments into consideration, but also will follow the City requirements. Response (City): City requirements are for down-directional lighting, with fully-shielded cut-offs. You shouldn’t see the light sources directly. Response (Applicant): The light poles in parking areas are usually 20 to 25’ high. The parking lot is lit for security reasons, and lit enough for the parking lot, but designed not to be lighting entire streets away from the property. I’m sure the City will require a photometric plan. Question (Citizen): Do you think they’ll be a lot of landscaping around to shield it? Response (Applicant): We’re still early in design and the City has landscaping requirement as well. Response (City): There will be street trees along the roadways, as well as requirements for general landscaping with trees and shrubs throughout the site. Response (Applicant): Main Street is committed to make this feel like a home and someplace their clients want to be while they recover; the patients are essentially living there. There is a landscape architect on board for the project from the beginning. Main Street tries to make these facilities look nice and have done so in their past projects in my opinion. Question (Citizen): Do you think the building will shade much? Response (Applicant): The building is about 30’ tall, and my personal feeling is shading is not going to be an issue, only a small portion of the building is located near Ziegler, with the rest of the building set back on the property itself. Question (Citizen): How tall is this building? (Fossil Ridge High School) Do you think it’s about 30’? Response (Applicant): Yes, I believe this room and most of the school is similar in height. Question (Citizen): Is there going to be any type of dementia or Alzheimer care? Response (Applicant): Not to my knowledge, I don’t believe they handle those types of cases. It is not designed to be a permanent residence. The generic term is health and wellness suite; City’s often have different land use categories and definitions that these types of facilities fit into. Question (Citizen): The other open lands in Harmony Technology Park -- will there be a lot of medical campus types of uses? Response (City): There could be some, but there is a lot already built out already including offices, Custom Blending, apartments, etc. Question (Citizen): I thought this was supposed to be a Technology Park? 37 Response (City): This area is located in the Harmony Corridor zone district, which has certain permitted uses. There is also a distinction between primary and secondary uses. An overall development plan for the site called the Harmony Technology Park identified where the primary and secondary uses would go, and this site is located in one of the primary use areas. The secondary uses are things such as residential, of which several sites within the Technology Park have been devoted to. Comment (Citizen): If we get a vote, we don’t want a second driveway (on Ziegler). Question (Citizen): What happens if there is a driveway there? What’s across to the west, does it go straight through? Response (City): That’s just a driveway, it won’t be a street or a signalized intersection. Comments (Citizen): It’s really hard for us with all the traffic on Ziegler. Do you get that too? Response (Audience): It’s not bad for us since we’re set back from the road. Comment (Citizen): There’s a lot of traffic noise from Ziegler. Question (Citizen): Does the City put in the road (Precision)? Response (City): No, it’s the applicant’s responsibility to put the road in. In development we have a philosophy of pay-your-own-way, including providing improvements such as streets, sidewalks, street trees, or other off-site improvements. Question (Citizen): Did the City give you any incentive to build this? Response (Applicant): No, Main Street chose this spot due to the proximity to the hospital. Question (Citizen): You mentioned there’s going to be a movie theater?? Response (Applicant): Well, there will be a room with special seats and a large screen to show movies. There are many amenities provided, it isn’t only rooms/beds. Comment (Citizen): Have you been to the similar facility on 44th? It was very nice. Question (Citizen): When are they proposing to start building; what is the process? Response (City): They have had a conceptual review meeting and are required to have a neighborhood meeting (tonight). After the neighborhood meeting they can submit an application, and they will have rounds of review with the City to evaluate their compliance with the Land Use Code. These rounds of review will continue to happen until the project is at a point where the City feels comfortable recommending it go to the decision maker at a public hearing. For this project, that will be the Planning & Zoning Board. After P&Z makes their decision, there is an appeal period for the project, and after this, Final Plans are reviewed and the project completes 100% design and is eventually recorded before construction would begin. Question (Applicant): Will we be notified again? Response (City): Yes, you will get a mailed notice prior to the Planning & Zoning Board hearing. Question (Citizen): What about the sign? Response (City): The neighborhood meeting sign will go down after the meeting tonight, but another sign will go up after they submit their application. The sign will stay up until and through the P&Z’s decision and the 2-week appeal period. Appeals are made to the City Council. Question (Citizen): How long does the process take? Response (City): Typically, 6 to 8 months. 38 Question (Citizen): Does it make a difference to come to these types of meetings? Response (City): Notes are being recorded with the conversation of tonight’s meeting, and these will go to the Planning & Zoning Board as part of the official record for the project. They will review and consider these notes and other public comments offered for the project. Question (Citizen): Does it do any good since only 3 people showed up? Response (City): Absolutely, everyone’s feedback and comments matter. We will definitely be passing these concerns about the driveway and landscaping along. Comment (Citizen): Our concerns are the noise levels that will be impact our living. Ziegler has already impacted it, and this will impact it even more. Comment (Citizen): The good news is that if most patients are coming from Banner, that is from the new hospital to the east or from Greeley/Loveland off the interstate from the east. Question (Citizen): If you’re not a senior you can’t go to the facility? Response (Applicant): I don’t believe so; they do call this a senior care facility. Comment (Citizen): It sounds like you have a lot of nice amenities. Response (Applicant): That is their goal, and their niche is the baby boomers that don’t want to go to a bland, hospital-like care facility, they want to make it look and feel like a boutique hotel. Comment (Citizen): My concerns are more what type of care will be there? Will there eventually be a psych wing or dementia wing, and will there need to be security and fences. I don’t have anything against those types of residents, but I would like to know exactly who will be using the facility and what their requirements are. Response (Applicant): I don’t’ believe there will be those uses or patients, in other facilities there have not been secure wings or floors that are required for those users. Question (Citizen): How big is the property again, you mentioned 7 acres? Response (Applicant): Our piece for this facility is about 7.5 acres. Question (Citizen): Who is the main land owner out here still? Response (Applicant & City): HP owns the Intel property, the other nearby land in the Harmony Technology Park is mostly owned by MAVD. Question (Citizen): When you sent out notifications, were we the only neighborhood notified? Response (City): The minimum is 800 feet from the property, and we try and extend beyond that to logical boundaries such as streets or bodies of water so that full blocks are notified. Question (Citizen): Do they have any security? Response (Applicant): I would have to ask that. I don’t know that they have security out patrolling the grounds, but I do believe they have a front desk to check-in at, so people aren’t necessarily wandering around. Comment (Citizen): Please record our comments that we wish to have plenty of landscaping along Ziegler. 39 40 41 42 43 44 Agenda Item 4 STAFF REPORT February 12, 2015 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME CSU BAY FARM HORTICULTURE CENTER SITE PLAN ADVISORY REVIEW, SPA140003 STAFF Ryan Mounce, Associate Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) by Colorado State University (CSU) to construct a new greenhouse, outdoor research plots, and stormwater improvements at the southwest corner of Centre Avenue and Bay Drive. The new greenhouse and headhouse will be 1-story and approximately 27,566 square feet. New outdoor research plots would be constructed south of the greenhouse and the Arthur Ditch, which bisects the property. Future plans also call for the construction of water quality ponds and an interpretive trail with access to the Gardens on Spring Creek. The project site is located on a portion of land with split zoning. One portion is located in the Employment (E) District and the other on un-zoned land within a Colorado State University Annexation Area. APPLICANT: Fred Haberecht Facilities Management, Colorado State University 6030 Campus Delivery Fort Collins, CO 80521-6030 OWNER: Colorado State Board of Land Commissioners 1313 Sherman St Rm 621 Denver, CO 80203 RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Site Plan Advisory Review complies with State Statutes and Land Use Code Section 2.16, Site Plan Advisory Review. Item # 4 Page 1 45 Agenda Item 4 COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North Not Zoned CSU Aggie Village South Student Housing South Employment (E) CSU Challenge Course, The Gardens on Spring Creek East Employment (E), Not Zoned Bay Road Gravel Parking Lot (CSU) West Employment (E), Low Density Residential (R-L) USDA Greenhouse, Single-Family Dwellings The Bay Farm Horticulture Center greenhouse and research plots are designed to continue the educational and research work of the Colorado State University Plant Environmental Research Center (PERC), which operates substantially on Lake Street at the location of the planned on-campus stadium. The new horticulture center is planned to enhance the PERC mission and to increase coordination by locating adjacent to nearby plant and horticulture research organizations such as the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) sugar beet research facility and The Gardens on Spring Creek. The existing site consists of an asphalt parking lot north of the Arthur Ditch and the CSU Ropes Challenge Course south of the ditch. The proposed greenhouse would be constructed on top of the existing parking lot, with parking relocated to a redesigned Bay Drive, a CSU-owned and maintained private drive. The Challenge Course apparatus are planned to be moved to the Pingree Park Mountain Campus and new outdoor research plots planted in their place. A zoning vicinity map is included below depicting the site’s context and adjacent City zone districts. Item # 4 Page 2 46 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 3 47 Agenda Item 4 2. Right of Advisory Review: Colorado Revised Statutes C.R.S. allows the City to review the planning and location of public facilities. Section 31-23-209, C.R.S. provides that no public ground or other public way shall be constructed or authorized in a city until the “location, character and extent thereof” has been submitted for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. In the case of disapproval, the Planning and Zoning Board shall communicate its findings to Colorado State University. The disapproval of the Planning and Zoning Board may be overruled by the Colorado State University Board of Governors by a vote of not less than two-thirds of its membership. 3. Site Plan Advisory Review Procedures: The processing and evaluation of Site Plan Advisory Review applications is governed by Division 2.16 or Article 2 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code. The section further defines the evaluation criteria for the “location, character and extent” of Site Plan Advisory Review applications as follows: (1) The site location for the proposed use shall be consistent with the land use designation described by the City Structure Plan Map, which is an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. (2) The site development plan shall conform to architectural, landscape and other design standards and guidelines adopted by the applicant's governing body. Absent adopted design standards and guidelines, the design character of the site development plan shall be consistent with the stated purpose of the respective land use designation as set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan. (3) The site development plan shall identify the level of functional and visual impacts to public rights-of- way, facilities and abutting private land caused by the development, including, but not limited to, streets, sidewalks, utilities, lighting, screening and noise, and shall mitigate such impacts to the extent reasonably feasible. 4. Evaluation A. Location The proposed Bay Farm Horticulture Center is located at the southwest corner of Bay Drive and Centre Avenue. A majority of the site north of the Arthur Ditch does not have City zoning and is part of a CSU annexation area. The remaining portions of the site, primarily south of the Arthur Ditch, are located in the Employment (E) Zone District. The proposed greenhouse and research plots are consistent with the Employment District’s purpose and intent to provide for a variety of workplaces and complementary secondary uses. Public universities and vocational/technical training are permitted uses and classified as primary employment activities in the zone district. In addition, the greenhouse and research plots complement other nearby uses and facilities already devoted to the research and study of plants and the natural environment, including the USDA sugar beet research facility, the Natural Resources Research Center campus, and The Gardens on Spring Creek. B. Character The proposed Bay Farm Horticulture Center greenhouse, site amenities, and site design are consistent with the adopted design standards and guidelines of Colorado State University, including the Colorado State University Master Plan and Colorado State University Aesthetic Guidelines. Architecture & Design The primary material of the greenhouse is glass to allow for natural sunlight exposure. A headhouse with office, storage, and mechanical space is incorporated into the front (east) of the Item # 4 Page 4 48 Agenda Item 4 greenhouse and will face Centre Avenue. As consistent with CSU’s Aesthetic Guidelines, the design of the headhouse features colors, materials, and a building scale that is compatible with nearby structures and the neighborhood context. The headhouse will be constructed of a mixture of building materials, including CMU block, brick coursing, Colorado Red Sandstone and glass/metal. The natural stone materials and colors emphasize Colorado State University’s primary natural stone theme for buildings, while the CMU block, dark glass, and prominent horizontal roof cornice have been designed to mimic structures at the nearby Gardens on Spring Creek. The front and side façade walls of the headhouse have also been expanded in height to provide screening for rooftop-mounted mechanical equipment required for the greenhouse. The building scale is consistent with the existing USDA greenhouse and research facility to the west and the Aggie Village South apartments to the north. The existing USDA facility blocks the new structure from the smaller single-family homes located to the west. Landscaping & Site Furnishing The Bay Farm Horticulture Center meets requirements for CSU’s Aesthetic Guidelines and is consistent with similar City-policies and goals in respect to landscaping and site furnishings. Several existing on-site trees north of the Arthur Ditch are planned to be transplanted to new locations closer to Centre Avenue, and new street trees will be planted along Centre Avenue, completing the street tree network on the west side of the street. Turf and ornamental plants are proposed fronting the entrance to the new headhouse. New bicycle parking will be added near the front entrance of the greenhouse and a direct pedestrian sidewalk connection will be constructed from the headhouse and along a reconfigured Bay Drive to Centre Avenue. The site master plan also proposes a future interpretive trail and connecting access to The Gardens at Spring Creek. The trail and access would wind their way through future water quality ponds and native landscape plantings. C. Extent The extent of impacts generated by the proposed greenhouse and outdoor research plots to drainage, utilities, and transportation systems is expected to be minimal and can be accommodated through existing and proposed infrastructure. The new greenhouse will be built upon an existing asphalt parking lot and has been located outside the boundaries of the nearby floodway/floodplain. The loss of parking from the asphalt lot will be incorporated into a new parking area in a reconfigured Bay Drive, a CSU-owned and maintained private driveway. The reconfigured drive and parking area will be enhanced with a new sidewalk, street trees, and a direct pedestrian connection to Centre Avenue. Drainage for the project site will conform to the Spring Creek Master Drainage Plan and Fort Collins Stormwater Manual. The outdoor research plots and future water quality and water detention ponds south of the Arthur Ditch are located in the floodway/floodplain, and all necessary floodway use permits will be submitted, and a no-rise certificate produced, prior to work within these areas. Visual impacts from the public right-of-way along Centre Avenue will be minimalized and enhanced through transplanted trees, new street trees, and future native landscape plantings. Visual, noise, and light impacts to nearby private property are also expected to be minimal. The greenhouse will be constructed east the existing USDA facility, which blocks the view of the structure and light/noise emissions from the residences located to the west. Greenhouse fans will be of the latest design and technology to reduce Item # 4 Page 5 49 Agenda Item 4 noise and site and greenhouse lighting is planned to be minimal, as it may interfere with plant research and experiments. 5. Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood meeting for the project was held on January 8th, 2015 and attended primarily by neighborhood residents to the west of the proposed facility. Key questions and comments from the neighborhood meeting are presented below, and the full neighborhood meeting summary is attached to this staff report. 1) How is this project related to the stadium? Will the parking be used for game-day activities? Response / Update: Per CSU at the neighborhood meeting, the PERC relocation is a result of the stadium and to allow for additional enhancements to the PERC program. No decision has been made regarding how the parking spaces will be integrated with CSU’s parking management system. The parking on Bay Drive is to accommodate the loss of spaces from the existing parking lot where the greenhouse is proposed. 2) What potential impacts could there be in regards to lighting and fan noise? Response / Update: Per CSU at the neighborhood meeting, the greenhouse and site lighting is planned to be minimal, with supplemental lighting in the greenhouse. The types of plants grown in the greenhouse require significant hours of darkness and strong levels of lighting in the greenhouse or nearby can interfere with research and experiments. The lighting will be similar to the low level currently in use at the PERC site on Lake Street. The fans installed at the greenhouse will be continually monitored for performance and maintenance. They fans will be of the latest design and technology and be “slow-start” fans to reduce noise. Fan noise is also of a concern to students and employees of the facility itself. 5. Findings of Fact/Conclusions: A. The proposed Bay Farm Horticulture Center is subject to evaluation by the City of Fort Collins Planning & Zoning Board as a Site Plan Advisory Review, pursuant to State Statute Section 31-23-209, C.R.S. and Fort Collins Land Use Code Section 2.16. B. The location of the proposed Bay Farm Horticulture Center is consistent with the land use designation described in the City’s Structure Plan Map, an element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. C. The character of the Bay Farm Horticulture Center is consistent with the adopted design guidelines of Colorado State University, including the Colorado State University Master Plan and Colorado State University Aesthetic Guidelines. D. The extent of impacts generated by the Bay Farm Horticulture Center to the City’s infrastructure, utilities, and public right-of-way is minimal and can be accommodated through existing and proposed infrastructure. Impacts to adjacent properties are also expected to be minimal and mitigated through building placement, design, and landscaping. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the CSU Bay Farm Horticulture Center Site Plan Advisory Review, SPA140003. Item # 4 Page 6 50 Agenda Item 4 ATTACHMENTS 1. Project Narrative (PDF) 2. SPAR Planning Set (PDF) 3. Site Plan Update & Comment Response (PDF) 4. Neighborhood Meeting Summary (PDF) Item # 4 Page 7 51 52 53 CSU BAY FARM HORTICULTURE CENTER 12.22.2014 1 SPAR SUBMITTAL 54 ACADEMIC VILLAGE HONORS ACADEMIC VILLAGE ENGINEERING ACADEMIC VILLAGE ASPEN BLDG THERMAL PLANT ACADEMIC VILLAGE COMMONS LORY STUDENT CENTER MORGAN LIBRARY GLENN MORRIS FIELD HOUSE WEED RESEARCH LAB NRRC E NRRC D NRRC C NRRC B PROPERTY 583 CHILL PLANT S.C.A.V.M.A. 540 (2) 8x20 CONTAINERS 590 543 546 544 582 (22) 8x40 CONTAINERS (15) 8x40 SEMI TRAILERS 547 549 706 557 705 139 563 204 209 214 550 704 703 702 566 565 581 NRRC A BAY DRIVE CHALLENGE COURSE PARKING LOT CENTRE AVE. EXISTING CONDITIONS A B D C C B A D CSU BAY FARM HORTICULTURE CENTER EXISTING CONDITIONS/ SITE PHOTOS 12.22.2014 56 3 PERMEABLE PAVING 24’ DRIVE LANE 6’ SIDEWALK 6’ SIDEWALK 107 PARKING SPACES 0’ 10’ 20’ 40’ CSU BAY FARM HORTICULTURE CENTER SITE PLAN 12.22.2014 57 4 GREENHOUSE WATER QUALITY SITE WATER QUALITY PARKING LOT WATER QUALITY PROPOSED CONTOUR RESEARCH PLOTS PERMEABLE PAVING MANHOLE/ INLET 0’ 15’ 30’ 60’ CSU BAY FARM HORTICULTURE CENTER GRADING PLAN 12.22.2014 58 5 59 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 OVERALL FLOOR PLAN A5 108'-8" 42'-0" 80'-0" 10'-0" 42'-4" 70'-4" 59'-4" 16'-6" 5'-4" 11'-10" 6'-4" 5'-4" 18'-2" 24'-4" 8'-0" 9'-2" 11'-6" 11'-0" 10'-0" 8'-4" 29'-8" 24'-10 1/8" 12'-10" 24'-6" 8'-0" 8'-4" 37'-8" 14'-6" 15'-4" 12'-8" 9'-6" 8'-0" 6'-0" 18'-0" NORTH 181'-4" 126'-8" 18'-2" 30'-0" 80'-0" 42'-0" BOILER LAB/ OFFICE 8' X 10' COOLER LAB/ OFFICE HALL N108A 103 103A 102 N108 MECH. OFFICE/ LAB CLASSROOM CLASSROOM OFFICE/ LAB 105 104 N107 107 106 N106 N101B N101A N103B N103A OPEN OFFICE COPY ENTRY HALL HALL WOMEN MEN LOCKERS SHOWER 101A JANITOR N111 N109 SOILS PREP/ STORAGE N112 HALL 108 111A GREENHOUSE 112 ELEV. MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" ELEV. MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" ELEV. MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" ELEV. MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" GROUND FACE BLOCK GLASS CONCRETE CONCRETE CONCRETE GREENHOUSE GREENHOUSE GREENHOUSE FAN- TYP. CORRUGATED METAL SPANDREL GLASS SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" EAST ELEVATION A6 1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" SOUTH ELEVATION A6 2 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" WEST ELEVATION A6 3 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION A6 4 SPLIT FACE BLOCK SPLIT FACE BLOCK CORRUGATED SPANDREL GLASS GROUND FACE BLOCK SPLIT FACE BLOCK METAL CORRUGATED METAL GLASS SPANDREL GLASS SPANDREL GLASS GROUND FACE BLOCK GLASS SPANDREL GLASS CORRUGATED CSU BAY FARM HORTICULTURE CENTER EXTERIOR RENDERINGS 12.22.2014 62 9 EXISTING SITE SURFACE INVENTORY NEW DEVELOPMENT IMPACT TOTAL CHANGE IN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: 13.0% Increased by 36,358 SF BUILDING COVERAGE 0 SF PAVING (ASPHALT/ CONC.) 53,678 SF PAVING (GRAVEL) 3,600 SF LANDSCAPE 211,711 SF TOTAL SITE 269,000 SF 21% Impervious BUILDING COVERAGE 27,566 SF PAVING (ASPHALT/ CONC.) 58,870 SF PAVING (GRAVEL) 7,200 SF LANDSCAPE 175,364 SF TOTAL SITE 269,000 SF 34% Impervious BAY DRIVE PROPOSED PARKING PROPOSED RESEARCH PLOTS PROPOSED RESEARCH GREENHOUSES CENTRE AVE. CSU BAY FARM HORTICULTURE CENTER IMPERVIOUS SURFACE TABULATION PLAN 12.22.2014 10 63 PHASE 1 CSU HORTICULTURE CENTER 01.28.2015 MASTER PLAN GREENHOUSE / HEADHOUSE / OFFICE / LAB COMPLEX PARKING FLOODWAY LIMITS BRIDGE WATER QUALITY SETTLING POND ORGANICS GARDEN TRAIL AND BRIDGE TO THE GARDENS AT SPRING CREEK SPRING CREEK CITY OWNED 100’ BUFFER WATER QUALITY POND SPRING CREEK OUTFALL CONTAINER AREA INTERPRETIVE TRAIL 5.5 ACRES N 64 24’ DRIVE LANE 6’ SIDEWALK 6’ SIDEWALK 107 PARKING SPACES HEADHOUSE PARKING WATER QUALITY GREENHOUSE GREENHOUSE 0’ 10’ 20’ 40’ 6’ SIDEWALLLLLLLLLLLLLLKKKK 6’ SIDEWALK 107 PARKING SPACES CSU BAY FARM HORTICULTURE CENTER 12.22.2014 CSU HORTICULTURE CENTER SITE PLAN - UPDATE FOURTH COLLEGE ANNEXATION 01.28.2015 65 4 Office of Facilities Management Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-6030 6030 Campus Delivery January 28th, 2015 Ryan Mounce Planner Development Review Center 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Bay Farm Horticulture Center (CSU Horticulture Center) –Review, SPA140002. Response to Staff comments from January 15th, 2015. Dear Ryan, The Bay Farm Horticulture Center (CSU Horticulture Center) is still in design, with drawings due to the University on February 6th. The headhouse and greenhouse components of the plan are unchanged in location, scope and character from the SPAR submittal. There has been a subtle change to the site plan, and an updated Site Plan and a Master Plan for the entire Bay Farm Horticulture Center are included in this response. Changes to the Site Plan The access drive: The access drive building complex has moved approximately 40 feet to the east, and on site parking has been shifted to the building side of the access drive. Overall parking spaces associated with the access drive have been reduced to 6 spaces from 15 spaces, and 1 handicap space has been added. Parking associated with Bay Farm Drive: Parallel parking along the south face of Bay Farm Drive will remain, and support parking needs at this complex. The parking lot proposed for the north side of Bay Drive will shift to the north to accommodate parallel parking on the south side of the street. Parking associated with north side of Bay Drive, is contained within the University’s land and is not subject to a SPAR review because of the Annexation Agreement associated with this parcel (the Fourth College Annexation). However, this feature of the plan will continue to be shown because it is an important component of the overall planning of this complex. Bridge over Arthur Ditch: In order to facilitate equipment moving between the upper and lower portions of this site, a 20’- 30’ section of box culvert is proposed for Arthur Ditch immediately south of the paving apron. Components of the Master Plan The overall Master Plan for the Bay Farm Horticulture Center includes a 2.5 acre water quality pond, spanning the entire east side of the site. The water quality pond varies from 100’ to 200’ in width. The water quality pond is contiguous with the 200’ wide swath of land (Lilac Park) that the City owns, 66 adjacent to Spring Creek. We believe that the water quality pond will have ecological value above and beyond what is possible with a 50’ buffer of Arthur Ditch. The water quality pond will contain water year round and is contiguous with Spring Creek. Arthur Ditch runs water 5-6 months out of the year, and daylights into this site after travelling over 5 miles through a culvert (with the exception of a quarter mile section through the CSU Main Campus. A bridge over Spring Creek is proposed in the Master Plan. This bridge would provide access to both the Spring Creek Trail and to the Gardens at Spring Creek. The bridge will provide a greater opportunity to program events jointly between the two horticulture facilities, and to create a trailhead for a proposed bike and pedestrian trail through this site, connecting the Spring Creek Trail to the CSU Main Campus via the proposed underpass of Prospect on the west side of Centre Avenue. Response to Staff Comments General Comments (Ryan Mounce): Bicycle parking and handicap parking will be provided within the project proper. Exterior trash and recycling are part of this facility, and this area will be screened. Street trees will be planted in the parkway of Centre Avenue where feasible. The existing site trees being transplanted are too large to be spaded into the parkway, and will be transplanted to the frontage of Centre Avenue by the CSU Tennis Courts. The north parking lot, while not subject to a SPAR review, will contain additional trees on the north side of the parking lot, which should move it closer to 50% shading. Fan noise will be addressed through equipment selection and maintenance. Direct light sources will be street lights associated with this project. These lights will be shielded in lower to the ground than typical for a parking lot because of the concern for light pollution into the greenhouses. This will benefit the surrounding neighborhood. Engineering Development Review (Marc Virata) Bay Drive will be posted as a “owned and maintained by CSU. Drive and sidewalk modifications along Centre Avenue will meet LCUAS requirements, and will be constructed as suggested in the comments. CSU does not grant specific easements for fire access to the Poudre Fire Authority, but rather grants blanket access to PFA. Environmental Planning (Stephanie Blochowiak) 67 Colorado State University is not subject to the Land Codes referenced in these comments, but has its own standards that address tree protection and landscaping. Although different from City code, these standard address the same issues and have the same intent. Regarding the suggested 50 foot buffer of Arthur Ditch, the area south of the ditch will remain largely unchanged from what it is today. This project will not back off the greenhouse and parking lot 50 feet from Arthur Ditch as suggested for the north side of the ditch. As mentioned in the discussion about the overall Master Plan for this site, we believe that the storm water quality pond planned for this property will have much greater ecological benefit than a ditch buffer, especially when this section of Arthur is looked at in context both up and down stream. Forestry (Tim Buchannan) We will meet with City Forestry as needed. PFA (Ryan Mounce) CSU continues to meet with the Poudre Fire Authority, and is close to resolving all PFA comments. Stormwater Engineering (Mark Taylor) Floodplain: The project is attempting to keep the water quality ponds out of the floodway, and believe that this is technically possible. Floodway use permits will be submitted for any substantial work, and a no rise certificate will be produced for any substantial work. Construction in the floodway will consist primarily of soil preparation and irrigation. The existing fence around the ropes course will remain, and the contents of the ropes course including the yurt, platforms and poles will be removed from the site. General: The project will conform to the drainage design basin of the Spring Creek Master Drainage Plan, as well as the Fort Collins Stormwater Manual. Drawings and a narrative will be produced and reviewed with the city that address water quality and quantity concerns. Specific LID measures may be incorporated into the plans to address these concerns. The current parking lot, on which the new building complex is being constructed currently drains into the Arthur. The current plans for this project divert this water under the Arthur to a storm water quality pond. We would like the opportunity to discuss whether some of this water could continue to discharge into the Arthur as it has historically. Stormwater fees for CSU owned property are currently being incorporated into an IGA between the City and CSU. This project will abide by the requirements spelled out in the IGA when this agreement is finalized. 68 Technical Services (Jeff County) We will correct the formatting and line over text issues, in any drawings the City requires for there records. Transportation (Emma Belmont) No bus turn out will be built as part of this project. We are receptive to providing a concrete pad for an enhanced stop as long as the curb line remains in its present position. As the proposed underpass of Prospect at Center progresses, needs of transit should be discussed as part of that project. Significant changes on the north side of Centre are anticipated with that work, and an actual bus turn out could be part of that project. Water-Wastewater Engineering (Mark Taylor) Plans will be submitted showing all water and sewer connections to city owned infrastructure, along with a verification that those city owned facilities will be adequate to handle the flows. No Development Construction Permit (DCP) will be issued for this project. CSU plans on paying fees (as was the case for Aggie Village North), but needs guidance on the mechanism to pay these fees. Sincerely, Fred Haberecht, LEED AP, ASLA Assistant Director, Landscape and Planning Facilities Services Center North Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-6030 69 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING Project: CSU Bay Farm Horticulture Center Date: January 8, 2015 Planner: Ryan Mounce Applicant: Colorado State University (CSU) CITY PRESENTATION Ryan Mounce started the meeting with a presentation to introduce the project and provide information about the development review process. • This meeting is for a CSU project north of the Gardens on Spring Creek, called the Bay Farm Horticulture Center • The City will be processing this proposal through a Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) process, which is different than the City’s standard development review procedures. • SPAR is a process defined at the state level for projects by public entities (schools, utilities, universities, etc.) • Projects are reviewed as to their location, character and extent o Location: Consistency with the City’s Comprehensive Plan & City Structure Plan Map o Character: Conforms to architectural, landscape, and design standards adopted by the applicant’s governing body o Extent: Identify functional and visual impacts to public right-of-way, facilities, and abutting private land. • SPAR process – shortened timeframe compared to standard development review process. The City will be reviewing this project in January and February. The project will be presented to the Planning and Zoning Board hearing on February 12th. • Anyone who received a mailed notice for the neighborhood meeting will receive a mailed notice of the Planning & Zoning Board hearing. APPLICANT PRESENTATION David Hansen, Landscape Architect in CSU Facilities Management, gave a presentation about the plans for the Bay Farm Horticulture Center. • Described the location of the project, as north of The Gardens on Spring Creek, east of the existing USDA greenhouse, south of the existing Aggie Village South, and west of Centre Avenue. • In total, it’s about a 6.5 acre site that is proposed for redevelopment • Various land ownership interests are associated with the site and surrounding area: CSU Board of Governors, USDA, CSU Research Foundation, State Land Board, and City of Fort Collins. • On-site today is a 100-space parking lot, Bay Drive (private drive owned by CSU), and the CSU Challenge Course • There is FEMA floodway in the southern portion of the site. • This proposal puts the building on higher ground, outside of the floodway. • Arthur’s ditch runs through the middle of the site, which presents constraints. 70 • Approximately 21,000 square feet of greenhouse, plus a 6000 square-foot head house with classroom and lab space. • Architecture: looking at this project as a joint horticulture center with Gardens on Spring Creek, so modeling off of the GOSC’s greenhouse buildings. • There’s a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and CSU about gardens and horticulture facilities within the City. This plan contributes to the intent of this agreement. • Proposing a parking lot to off-set the parking that would be lost with the new building. The number of spaces is within 10 spaces of the existing parking. USDA will be moving all of their parking onto their adjacent parcel. • About 2.5 acres of research plots • The Challenge Course would be removed from the site. Much of the apparatus would be reused at the Pingree Park Mountain Campus. Bulk of the users of this course is not students, even though it is student funded. CSU feels that there would be a better use of student funds. • The building itself includes a head house and greenhouse, with landscape improvements around the building. Landscape enhancements will also be made in the parking lot. • Sidewalk connections will be added out to Centre Ave. • The intent is to break ground on this in March, with a functioning greenhouse in July. This will replace greenhouse space removed by the stadium project. QUESTIONS & ANSWERS Question (Attendee): If I understand correctly, if there is a disagreement, the final decision is made by the CSU Board of Governors. So is this meeting irrelevant? Response (CSU): With a 2/3rd vote by the Board of Governors of Colorado State University, they can overrule a decision made by the Planning and Zoning Board. Question (Attendee): It’s relevant whether this parking will be used for game days or just normal operations. It would be useful to understand if there will be additional noise and tailgating impacts. Response (CSU): We’re not yet sure how this lot relates to game day management or future student housing. That has yet to be determined. Question (Attendee): Will the lightning strike indicator be removed? It’s either an asset (safety) or a liability (noise). Response (CSU): We have not discussed that yet. Question (Attendee): This is a move for the stadium, to replace what the will be removed by the stadium, correct? Response (CSU): That is correct, and this includes additional enhancement for what the PERC gardens and department currently have at the Lake Street site. Question (Attendee): Are you moving the trees in the arboretum? Response (CSU): No, the arboretum is part of the section of PERC that will remain on-site on Lake Street. Question (Attendee): Is there grading or floodplain work? Response (CSU): The research plot area will need to go through a FEMA process to ensure there’s a no rise situation. Any material added will need to be off-set on the site so as not to increase flooding potential. The building and greenhouse is located north of the Arthur Ditch and is not located in the FEMA floodway. 71 Question (Attendee): After the initial construction, soil gets added and amended. Will you be keeping track of maintaining the floodway commitments? Response (CSU): Yes, that is modeled and managed through the FEMA process. Question (Attendee): What kind of research and activities will occur in the greenhouses? Response (CSU): CSU Greenhouse Crops Extension Specialist (Steven Newman) – the kind of research is in line with the research occurring in the existing PERC greenhouses on Lake Street including production support for annual trial gardens, and experiential learning for CSU students. We’ll be maintaining a strict regimen to ensure diseases are not introduced to the site. No pathogen research will be taking place. Sustainable gardening, local farm production, student sustainable development group, research on irrigation scheduling, best management practices research, plant select gardens that support the Plant Select program. Intend to be a showplace as much as anything. Question (Attendee): How will the fan noise compare to USDA? Response (CSU): The fans will not have an instant start and will be brand new of the latest technology to be quiet and efficient, and will not have a screeching start like the USDA fans. Will monitor to make sure the bearings are well-lubricated. I don’t predict any additional contribution to the fan noise that is already there. Question (Attendee): It’s very loud now. The lights and noise level have increased at USDA recently. If anything gets added to that it will be unbearable. Response (CSU): The fans we’re hoping to add will be state of the art and will probably not create as much noise. Response (City): Polly Lauridsen with Neighborhood Services has been working with the neighborhood, the USDA, and NRRC on fan noises at several building. So far, there have been no noise detected above the thresholds in City Code, but will continue to monitor the situation and keep the dialog open with these facilities to improve the situation. Question (Attendee): Are the any places in town that have recently installed these fans? And how many fans are there? Response (CSU): There may be similar fans at the new Cargill greenhouses. We haven’t worked with greenhouse engineers to decide how many fans are needed, but it would probably be around 12 fans. They are probably about 42-in diameter. Question (Attendee): The noise is something the neighborhood worries about quite a bit. There hasn’t been information on how much noise will be generated by the stadium. The problem with the stadium is that it will be multi-use, and the impacts could be far-reaching. The neighborhood could be surrounded with noise. Response (CSU): I understand. We are listening. For this facility, we are pursuing LEED certification and are trying to implement what is modern and efficient for the industry. We also work at the facility and our concerned about noise and energy levels. Question (Attendee): Can you tell us anything about the lighting? Response (CSU): There will be supplemental light in the greenhouses. Much of what we are producing requires significant hours of darkness, so lights will not be run 24-7. The plants I grow require 12 hours of darkness. There is not a lot of light use at the PERC site on Lake Street now. 72 Comment (CSU): For the bottom area, our intent is to make it a better space for everybody. There is currently student gardening and organic gardening on the site. A lot of the stormwater for the university is handled on the site, and we are anticipating potential future stormwater improvements on site. Question (Attendee): What is the State Land Board land? Response (CSU): The SLB is part of the Department of Natural Resources for the state. It is land that is put into trust for the state, and the board legislates how they oversee it. This land was granted to the board for the benefit of the university. Question (Attendee): What is the relationship to the current greenhouses south of Prospect, east of Whitcomb? Will it have any interaction with what you’re proposing? Response (CSU): That is the USDA sugar beet crop research facility. Their parcel of land is long-term leased by the federal government for that purpose. There are a number of researchers and a small staff in the facility. We’re hoping to have more collaboration and synergy with their facility. We will be visiting with the leadership of that facility very soon. Question (Attendee): North of that is student housing? Response (CSU): The current CSU Master Plan shows that as student housing. Specific plans have not been determined. Question (Attendee): Are there going to be any improvements to the Prospect and Centre interchange and getting people to campus? Response (CSU): This project does not trigger those improvements. Question (Attendee): Is there adequate parking for this project? Response (CSU): Yes, we are adding 15 spaces on-site, which is comparable to the existing PERC site. Comment (Attendee): The real concern we have is the stadium. Response (CSU): A significant portion of the existing PERC gardens will remain. This is a great opportunity to provide a high-quality facility for CSU. Question (Attendee): Do you envision any kind of public gardens that people can walk through, like those on Lake Street? Response (CSU): We have a committee looking at the potential for public gardens along Centre or other parts of the site. Question (Attendee): Do you have concerns about deer moving through your research plots? Response (CSU): Yes, that is a concern we have. I believe we are restricted from fences, so they could be amongst the research plots. Question (Attendee): How soon do you plan on planting the lower area? Response (CSU): Next year. Question (Attendee): Do you know what the construction materials will be for the building? Response (CSU): There’s some CMU block, brick coursing, with some Colorado red sandstone, Masonville stone. It will look similar to other CSU buildings and will be quite attractive. The design is also intended to reflect and be compatible with the existing Gardens on Spring Creek. 73 Question (Attendee): If for some reason the stadium does not get built, and you go through the expense of moving this facility, what happens? Is this something that has been in planning apart from the stadium? Response (CSU): This has been planned in conjunction with the stadium. Those greenhouses were built in 1949 and don’t represent modern technology. Question (Attendee): Do lighting requirements vary by season? Response (CSU): Yes, they vary by season and crop. It depends. There will probably be some light research that occurs at this facility. Question (Attendee): Will there be solar panels on the roof? Response (CSU): No, there won’t be any solar panels on the roof. 74 Agenda Item 7 STAFF REPORT February 12, 2015 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME GLOBAL VILLAGE ACADEMY PHASE TWO, PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL, 2130 WEST HORSETOOTH ROAD, SITE PLAN ADVISORY REVIEW, #SPA15001 STAFF Ted Shepard, Chief Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This a request to construct a new, two-story building, containing 16 classrooms, gymnasium, science room, and expanded cafeteria for a total of 28,500 square feet. Combined with the existing building that includes 24,000 square feet, the new total for the campus would be 52,500 square feet. The new gymnasium, (5,500 square feet), would face east and would operate in conjunction with a new playground and athletic fields. The cafeteria expansion to the west would be a one-story addition. The new classrooms are intended to serve up to 420 additional students. Combined with the existing number of students, 360, the new total of current and projected enrollment would be 780 students ranging from pre-school through eighth grade. The onsite circulation system would be enlarged with a four-lane driveway to accommodate additional buses and an improved student drop-of, pick-up and queueing zone. Two new parking lots, consisting of a total of 48 additional spaces, would be provided for faculty, staff and visitors. The site is 5.02 acres and zoned L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. APPLICANT: Global Village Academy Public Charter School c/o Mr. Doug Talbot Highmark School Development 6900 South 900 East, Suite 100 Murray, Utah 84047 OWNER: Mr. Terry Gogerty Global Village Academy 555 W. 112th Avenue Northglenn, CO 80524 RECOMMENDATION: Approval Item # 7 Page 1 75 Agenda Item 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Site Plan Advisory Review for Phase Two complies with Land Use Code Section 2.16, Site Plan Advisory Review. 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: R-L; Single Family Detached (Silver Oaks Subdivision) S: County; Mobile Home Park E: R-L; Single Family Detached (Rossborough Subdivision) W: L-M-N; Single Family Attached (Silver Oaks, First Filing, Subdivision) In 1979, the parcel was included in the 60-acre Ken-Mark Annexation. In 1993, Silver Oaks First Filing was approved consisting of 55 lots on 17.92 acres. In 1994, Silver Oaks Second Filing was approved consisting of 33 lots on 7.98 acres. In 1995, Silver Oaks Third Filing was approved consisting of 56 lots 12.27 acres. In 1997, Silver Oaks Paired Housing was approved consisting of 20 lots on 2.87 acres. On January 9, 2014, Global Village Academy, Phase One, Site Plan Advisory Review, was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board. The school opened in August of 2014. 2. Right of Advisory Review: Colorado Revised Statutes provide two specific references which allow the City to review the planning and location of public facilities: Section 31-23-209, C.R.S. provides that no public building shall be constructed or authorized in a city until the “location, character and extent thereof” has been submitted for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. In the case of disapproval, the Planning and Zoning Board shall communicate its findings to the School District. The disapproval of the Planning and Zoning Board may be overruled by the Colorado State University Board of Governors by a vote of not less than two-thirds of its membership. 3. Site Plan Advisory Review Procedures: The processing and evaluation of Site Plan Advisory Review applications is governed by Division 2.16 or Article 2 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code. The section further defines the evaluation criteria for the “location, character and extent” of Site Plan Advisory Review applications as follows: (1) The site location for the proposed use shall be consistent with the land use designation described by the City Structure Plan Map, which is an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. (2) The site development plan shall conform to architectural, landscape and other design standards and guidelines adopted by the applicant's governing body. Absent adopted design standards and guidelines, the design character of the site development plan shall be consistent with the stated purpose of the Item # 7 Page 2 76 Agenda Item 7 respective land use designation as set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan. (3) The site development plan shall identify the level of functional and visual impacts to public rights-of- way, facilities and abutting private land caused by the development, including, but not limited to, streets, sidewalks, utilities, lighting, screening and noise, and shall mitigate such impacts to the extent reasonably feasible. 4. Evaluation A. Location The proposed school expansion is at 2130 West Horsetooth Road, on a 5.02 acre site and that includes Phase One constructed in 2014. This parcel is located at the intersection of two arterial streets with the exception of Horsetooth Road west of Taft Hill Road which is classified as a collector roadway. The site is on the edge of an established neighborhood known as Silver Oaks. This neighborhood was developed in four phases with all phases preceding City Plan which is why it is zoned R-L. The subject parcel was vacant up until last year which is why it is zoned L-M-N. To the south is an existing Mobile Home Park which was developed and remains in unincorporated Larimer County. The neighborhood is characterized by the Olander Elementary School and its adjacency to the City’s newest community park - Spring Canyon Park. The parcel is served by Transfort Route 12. The neighborhood is predominantly residential featuring a variety of housing types. Staff finds that the location at the edge of an established neighborhood, and at the intersection of an arterial and a collector street, is appropriate for the size and scale of the proposed public charter school addition. The school’s campus acts as a transitional land use between low density residential and arterial street traffic. (Four-lane arterial streets are expected to handle a level of traffic volume ranging between 15,000 and 35,000 vehicle trips per day.) The Global Village Academy is consistent with the Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood‘s purpose and intent to provide public schools as an appropriate secondary use. Public schools are typically found in residential settings and the open space associated with the school campus will complement the established residential neighborhood. B. Character Since the public charter schools are not subject to specific architectural, landscape or other adopted design standards, the proposal has been evaluated for its consistency with the stated purpose of the Low Density Mixed Use zone district. Architecture & Design Phase Two will be a two-story addition consisting of classrooms, gymnasium and a one-story expanded cafeteria. The exterior material will continue to be mostly metal siding with cementitious panels that accent the façade. These materials match Phase One. Phase One consists of six colors. Phase Two will be slightly more subdued with only four colors with accent colors blue and green being deleted. (There is one minor exception on the east elevation where a small wedge of blue at the base of the stairwell is provided in order to symmetrically balance the blue on Phase One). Item # 7 Page 3 77 Agenda Item 7 The main entry will remain as is. New rooftop mechanical equipment will be screened by a parapet wall. With regard to character, the proposed classroom addition is two-stories in height and contains 28,500 square feet. The proposed gymnasium and new classroom wing will be 30 feet in height and the cafeteria expansion will be one-story in height. The new Phase Two additions will extend the existing building mostly to the north and slightly to the west. The long axis of the gymnasium will parallel Taft Hill Road. The long axis of the classroom addition will parallel Bronson Street. As with Phase One, there will continue to be no vehicular use area between the buildings and Taft Hill Road. The building addition will match the materials and color of the Phase One. As with Phase One, the design of the building and the proposed site improvements would not alter the existing character of the larger neighborhood. Staff finds that the overall general architectural character of the facility is acceptable given the setting along four public streets and at the edge of an established neighborhood. Landscaping & Site Layout Phase Two incudes additional landscaping particularly along the west property line adjoining the existing townhomes. A new internal sidewalk will be constructed along the north-south driveway. The new parking will be divided between two separate parking lots thus minimizing large expanses of asphalt. Phase One included street trees along both Taft Hill Road and Horsetooth Road. Phase Two includes a new row of trees in the ten-foot wide buffer strip along the west side of the private driveway for the benefit of the adjoining townhomes. In addition, the new landscaping is designed to mitigate the main parking lot and the entry drive at Silver Trails Drive. A continuous row of landscaping will be provided along the west property between the north-south driveway and the rear property lines of the townhomes providing a buffer and transition to the adjacent residences. The playgrounds will be screened with fencing. No other fences are planned. Lighting As with Phase One, new pole and building-mounted lighting will be fully shielded and down- directional. C. Extent With regard to extent, the construction of Phase Two includes all the land development features required to serve a public facility. The site improvements will include new internal sidewalks that tie into Horsetooth Road on the south and Bronson Street on the north. New playgrounds and athletic fields will be provided. Transportation A Transportation Impact Study was submitted which evaluated the traffic counts and operational aspects of Phase One as well as the estimated impacts of Phase Two. The City’s Traffic Operations Department has reviewed the proposed project. The key findings are as follows:  A new traffic signal is not warranted at the Taft Hill /Bronson intersection. Item # 7 Page 4 78 Agenda Item 7  The eastbound Bronson left turn movement on to northbound Taft Hill will experience significant delays (Levels of Service F in the morning and E in the afternoon at dismissal). This delay is considered to be normal during peak hours at stop-sign controlled intersections along arterial streets.  In the short range (2019), given the full development of Global Village Academy and in increase in background traffic, a southbound right turn lane on Taft Hill Road at Horsetooth Road is warranted but will not be constructed at this time as there is no change in the Level of Service with the added right turn lane. Land area for this future right turn lane was acquired as part of Phase One to accommodate future construction.  In the short range (2019), given the full development of Global Village Academy and in increase in background traffic, a second southbound right turn lane on Taft Hill Road at Bronson Street is warranted. As with the aforementioned right turn lane, this auxiliary lane will not be constructed at this time since there would be no change in the Level of Service. Land area for this future right turn lane would have to be acquired from the Silver Oaks Homeowners Association.  In the short range, a northbound right turn lane is required at the Taft Hill Road and Horsetooth Road intersection. Global Village Academy Phase Two, however, adds no traffic to this movement, and the Taft Hill/Horsetooth intersection operates acceptably.  Based on the morning peak hour traffic forecast, a westbound right turn lane is required at the Horsetooth/Silver Trails intersection. Both the public right-of-way and the existing pavement section are available to provide for this lane by re-striping. As it so happens, the City Streets Department will be re-paving this segment of West Horsetooth Road in 2015 and re-striping for this right turn lane can be accomplished with this project.  On-site circulation consists of the two primary functions: First, for grades pre-school and kindergarten, parents park and walk their children into the school. Second, for grades first through eighth, parents enter a queue and either drop-off (morning) or pick-up (dismissal) their children. These two operations will be provided for with two circulation systems.  The park/walk function will be directed to the 33 spaces in the south parking lot adjacent to the school entrance. Faculty, staff and visitors will directed to park in the other 62 spaces. (See Figure 10 of the Transportation Impact Study).  The drop-off and pick-up function is located at the curb adjoining the school entrance where eight vehicles can unload or load simultaneously. The queue would wrap around the outer parking lot aisle. This aisle is wide enough that vehicles could be double-stacked. The on-site intersection would be kept clear by school staff. The entire queue could hold approximately 64 vehicles. These vehicles would then exit either to Silver Trails Drive or Bronson Street depending on their desired destination. The goal is to prevent vehicles from stacking back onto Silver Trails Drive. (See Figure 10 of the Transportation Impact Study).  At dismissal, traffic congestion is created by parents arriving early and waiting in the queue. When the bell rings, 65% of the parents are already stacked in line. With Phase Two, and based on observed parent arrival time for pick-up, there would be an estimated 123 vehicles in a queue that holds only 64 vehicles. Item # 7 Page 5 79 Agenda Item 7  Staggered dismissal times are recommended in order to relieve congestion, and that these times should be staggered by potentially up to 30 minutes. Further, the Transportation Impact Study recommends that the two dismissal times divide the number of students by roughly a 50 / 50 split.  The existing north-south driveway will be widened to provide two in-bound (south) lanes for the parent queue, a one-lane outbound lane (north) and an exclusive bus lane (bi-directional). Two additional bus routes are anticipated with Phase Two for a total of five routes. Buses will be prohibited from entering the parent circulation queue.  Acceptable pedestrian Level of Service will be achieved for all pedestrian destinations.  The bicycle Level of Service is acceptable.  The parcel is served by Transfort Route 12 with a transit stop at the Taft Hill and Horsetooth intersection. 5. Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood information meeting was held on November 24, 2014. A summary of this meeting is attached. In general, the focus of the discussion centered on issues related to traffic, particularly during morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up activities. Both the applicant’s consultant and the City’s traffic operations engineer were able to address these concerns. The main issues, and their resolution, are summarized as follows:  As was brought up last year, there continues to be a concern that there is only one signalized intersection serving the Silver Oaks Neighborhood located at Taft Hill Road and Horsetooth Road. This intersection is congested and will experience increased congestion due to the new traffic associated with the proposed school. A new signal at Taft Hill / Bronson should be provided. In response, the City’s Traffic Operations Department will not install a signal at Taft Hill Road and Bronson Street because it is too close to the existing signalized intersection. The Transportation Impact Study indicates that acceptable Levels of Service will be retained at the Taft Hill and Horsetooth intersection with the anticipated traffic from the new school at both the morning and afternoon peaks. It is infeasible to install traffic signals at all arterial street and sub-arterial street intersections. Unsignalized intersections of local streets (Bronson) and arterial streets (Taft Hill) is a common condition city-wide. Residents are encouraged to use the existing signal especially if going north.  The signalized intersection could be improved by allowing more green time for the eastbound Horsetooth left turn movement to go north on Taft Hill. Also the stacking lane for this left turn is not long enough and cars waiting to turn left stack back into the eastbound through lane. In response, the applicant will work with the City’s Traffic Operations Department to evaluate increasing the left turn phase and lengthening the left turn stacking lane to improve the operation of the intersection.  There is too much congestion with the drop-off and pick-up traffic. Parents are stacking back on to Silver Trails. Other parents park on Silver Trails sometimes blocking our driveways. Parents are also parking on Horsetooth Road in the bike lane. Item # 7 Page 6 80 Agenda Item 7 In response, the school has designed a new on-site circulation system that should be able to handle the existing and future enrollment without vehicles spilling over into the neighborhood or parking on Horsetooth Road. Further, two new bus routes will be provided for a total of five buses and these buses will have an exclusive lane for loading and unloading. Finally, the school will implement a staggered dismissal time to reduce congestion.  As was mentioned last year, there is unacceptable traffic at Bronson Street and the school driveway. In response, the school will encourage parents, faculty, staff and visitors to only exit on Bronson if their destination is southbound. A northbound destination requires a left turn on to an arterial street which can be delayed during peak travel times. Northbound trips will be encouraged to use the signalized intersection.  As mentioned last year, there is traffic congestion at Horsetooth Road and Silver Trails Drive. This segment of Horsetooth Road is heavily used by Olander Elementary School parents, faculty and staff which will conflict with Global Village Academy. In response, Global Village Academy has established school day timeframe that does not coincide with Olander Elementary School for both morning and afternoon. This will reduce the times of conflict. Olander starts at 9:00 a.m. and ends at 3:38 p.m. G.V.A. starts at 8:00 a.m. and will end at 2:45 p.m. (first shift) and 3:05 p.m. (second shift). Approximately 16% of the students participate in after-school programs which end between 4:45 p.m. and 5:15 p.m. Further, the T.I.S. indicates that acceptable Levels of Service will be retained at this intersection. 6. Findings of Fact/Conclusions: A. The request for an expansion of an existing public charter school is subject to evaluation by the Planning and Zoning Board, pursuant to State Statute Section 31-23-209, C.R.S. and Fort Collins Land Use Code Section 2.16. B. The location of the Global Village Academy Public Charter School, Phase Two, is consistent with the land use designation described in the City’s Structure Plan Map, an element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. In addition, its location along an arterial street provides a transition and buffer for the benefit of the residences to the west. C. The character of the Global Village Academy Public Charter School, Phase Two, is consistent with the stated purpose of the respective low-density mixed use designation of the City’s Comprehensive Plan in that the proposal is a secondary use that serves the neighborhood and is in harmony with the residential character. D. The extent of the Global Village Academy Public Charter School, Phase Two, is mitigated through on-site parking and an internal circulation system that is designed to accommodate school-related traffic, and the construction of new on-site internal sidewalks contributes to the overall bicycle and pedestrian connectivity in relationship to the Silver Oaks neighborhood. Item # 7 Page 7 81 Agenda Item 7 ATTACHMENTS 1. Global Village Academy Phase Two Vicinity Map (PDF) 2. Aerial Map (DOCX) 3. Planning Objectives (PDF) 4. On-site Circulation System (Figure 10, T.I.S.) (DOCX) 5. Global Village Site and Landscape Plan (PDF) 6. Elevations (PDF) 7. Neighborhood Meeting Summary (DOCX) 8. Transportation Impact Study (PDF) 9. Power Point Presentation (PPTX) 10. January 2015 P&Z Minutes Excerpt Item # 7 Page 8 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 Aerial Map 94 95 On-site Circulation Exhibit 96 Landscape Plan 11042.000 NATURE'S DESIGN Licensed Landscape Architecture ASSOCIATES LLC Global Village International Schools GLOBAL VILLAGE ACADEMY - FORT COLLINS - PHASE 2 97 98 99 100 101 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROJECT: Global Village Academy, Phase Two, Site Plan Advisory Review LOCATION: Northwest Corner of South Taft Hill and West Horsetooth Roads DATE: November 24, 2014 G.V.A.: Terry Gogerty, Chief Operations Officers, GVA Schools CONSULTANTS: Adele Wilson, Slater Paul Architects Matt Delich, Delich and Associates Doug Talbot, Highmark Schools Jason Goode, Faurot Construction CITY PLANNER: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner Martina Wilkinson, Traffic Operations Engineer The meeting began with a description of the proposed project. As proposed, the project consists of constructing a new, two-story building, containing 16 classrooms, a science room, an expanded cafeteria and a gymnasium, for a total of 28,500 square feet. Combined with the existing building, 24,000 square feet, the new total for the campus would be 52,500 square feet. The new gymnasium, (5,500 square feet), would face east and would operate in conjunction with new athletic fields. The cafeteria expansion would be one-story. The new classrooms are intended to serve up to 420 additional students. Combined with the existing number of students, 360, the new total potential enrollment would be 780 students. Also, there would be an estimated 20 new faculty and staff associated with the proposed addition. Combined with the existing number of faculty and staff, 20, the new total of faculty and staff would be 40. Phase Two Expansion is planned to provide two new bus routes. Combined with the existing three bus routes, there would be a new total of five bus routes. In general, approximately 40% of the enrollment is expected to be bussed. A new exclusive bus pick-up and drop-off zone would be created. Regarding parking, Phase Two would provide 48 new spaces. Combined with the existing 47 spaces, there would be a new total of 95 spaces. The site is 5.02 acres and zoned L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. (Unless otherwise noted, all responses are from the applicant or consulting team.) 1 102 1. There is congestion in the morning during the drop-off operation. Traffic is worse in the morning than in the afternoon. A. We are aware of the traffic congestion. We are trying to establish an onsite circulation pattern that will relieve the impact on the surrounding streets. The morning drop-off traffic is more concentrated because we have a common start time that coincides with the peak traffic time on the City-wide street system. roadway. The afternoons are different because school lets out in a staggered fashion between 2:30 and 3:30 p.m. which precedes the peak time on roads. And, many students participate in after school programs so parents can pick up later in the day. So we are focusing on improving the morning drop-off function. 2. I’m concerned about the traffic congestion at the Horsetooth / Taft intersection. In the morning, the eastbound traffic on Horsetooth that wants to turn left to go north on Taft stacks back into the eastbound through lane. The left turn pocket is not long enough. A. We will be working with our parents to avoid this intersection if they are traveling east or south. Traffic at this intersection will be lessened if parents traveling east and south would take our internal driveway north to Bronson and then take a right turn onto southbound Taft. Only parents needing to go north need the benefit of the traffic signal at Horsetooth / Taft in order to make the left turn to go northbound. 3. Can you talk to the parents who choose not to enter into your onsite circulation system and instead choose to park in front of our homes on Silver Trails? These parents, in their haste, have been known to block our driveways. A. We will work with our parents to not park on neighborhood streets. 4. Parents are parking on the north side of Horsetooth in the bike lane. A. We will instruct our parents not to park in the Horsetooth bike lane. 5. I’ve observed parents parking on the south side of Horsetooth and then walking across four lanes of traffic to avoid the onsite congestion. Increasing enrollment will just make things worse. It appears that parents are not participating in your traffic circulation plan. A. Our team is working with our traffic engineer to improve the system. 6. You have a lot of work to do in this area. Parent drop-off and pick-up traffic spills over to neighborhood streets and we are seeing an increase in litter, blocked driveways, obstructed sight distance and aggressive behavior. A. We are aware of these issues and are taking steps to improve the situation. 2 103 7. Will there ever be a traffic signal at Taft and Bronson? A. Response from City: No, this intersection is too close to Horsetooth and Taft Hill to qualify for a traffic signal. Generally, this intersection clears out and operates acceptably during off-peak times. 8. Can we have resident parking only on our neighborhood streets? A. Response from City: The City has established the Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3) in a few neighborhoods immediately south of the C.S.U. main campus. It would take a vote of the neighbors to implement this program. If approved by a majority of those voting, parking permits would be available at a fee depending on how many cars in your household need permits. For further information, please contact Randy Hensley, City of Fort Collins Parking Services Manager, for details. 9. I see where the City has installed “No Parking” signs on the north side of Horsetooth. A. Response from City: Yes, this is intended to prevent parents from parking in the bike lane. 10. Can the City install the yellow blinking school zone signal to reduce speeds on Taft Hill? I see these on streets near schools all over town. A. Response from City: These signals are primarily installed to facilitate safe pedestrian crosswalks. They are not intended to slow the speed of general traffic along an arterial street. In this area, pedestrians are encouraged to cross Taft Hill at the signalized intersection, a short distance away, and push the button. This is by far a safer crossing than the type of school zone crossing that you are referring to. 11. How much new parking will you be adding? Are you accounting for the increase in faculty and staff? A. We will be adding 48 new parking spaces. We have 20 faculty and staff now and will be adding 20 new teachers. We also have volunteers who come in to help at various times of day but typically not during our pick-up and drop-off times. 12. On Horsetooth Road, how far west do the “No Parking” signs go? A. Response from City: On the north side of the road, these signs go as far west as Auntie Stone Street. These signs work in conjunction with on-street striping for the bike lane. 3 104 13. Would the City ever consider restricting the left turns during peak times at the Bronson / Taft intersection? A. Response from City: Our experience city-wide at arterial / local street intersections is that residents will self-select to not attempt a left turn out during peak times. Then, when peak traffic clears, residents will feel more comfortable making a left turn onto northbound Taft Hill. This type of self-selection does not warrant installation of a new traffic signal. If there is too much congestion at Bronson / Taft, then the alternative is to use the Horsetooth / Taft signalized intersection instead. It is not unusual citywide to have unsignalized arterial / local street intersections. 14. Will the athletic field be fenced? It’s right along Taft. A. The athletic field is separated from Taft by the stormwater detention pond. We plan on fencing the playgrounds but not the athletic field at this time. 15. Does the school have an overall strategy for addressing parking impacts in the neighborhood? A. Our strategy is to continue to work with our parents to use our onsite circulation system and not rely on adjacent streets. We need to impress upon our parents that safety is more important than speed. We intend to improve our system and implement it on a more consistent basis than in the past. Response from City: We encourage the school to step up monitoring by faculty and staff so that parents can adapt to consistent rules. 16. If the City is encouraging us to go to the Horsetooth / Taft intersection to make the northbound left turn onto Taft, then the duration of the left turn arrow needs to be longer. As it is now, the eastbound left turn queue backs up into the eastbound travel lane. Response from City: We can look at the signal timing to see if we can make some adjustments. 17. Where will the buses park? A. The busses will park along our north-south driveway in an exclusive bus lane. 18. Will any of your buses run on alternative fuels? A. We don’t know at this time. 4 105 19. How many buses run now and how many with the proposed expansion? A. We run three buses now. These buses have a capacity of 60 riders and they presently run at about two-thirds capacity – 40 students. As you can surmise, these three existing buses have available capacity. We are planning on adding up to two and possibly three new buses so our maximum would be six buses. 20. Will you be adding landscaping along the north-south driveway? A. Yes, we intend to landscape this area as we indicated during Phase One. 21. Your landscape architect needs to be aware of the narrow space for adding this new landscaping. For example, if you are thinking of planting Blue Spruce, you will soon find that this species is too wide for the space. You need to select the proper species for the planting area. A. Our landscape architect is aware of this condition and will select the proper species. 22. I recall from last year that you promised to add more landscaping if you proceed with Phase Two. A. You are correct, we committed to adding more landscaping with Phase Two and intend to follow-through on this promise. 23. It looks like the cafeteria is moving closer to our house. Will this be a two-story addition? A. No, the cafeteria extension to the west will be one-story. 24. The paneling on your trash enclosures are not properly installed and are noisy especially when it’s windy. The sound that is made is a nuisance. A. We can work with our supplier to fix this problem. 25. When kids are outside for P.E., the instructor engages in incessant use of a loud whistle (like a referee’s whistle) as a communication device. This excessive use of a loud whistle is aggravating. A. We have learned that in the Hispanic culture, it is considered normal to use a whistle to get the attention of the children playing outside. Our position is that this method of communication is unacceptable in our culture and we intend to address this. 26. Have you considered moving the proposed parking lot from the southwest to the north side of the campus? 5 106 A. We looked at this but moving the parking lot to the north would break up and isolate the gymnasium from the athletic field. These two functions need to be contiguous. 27. Will you install fencing along Bronson? A. No, we will not install a fence along Bronson. 28. Will the new construction be disruptive for school? A. We do not intend to disrupt the school with the new construction. We can start with our prep work in March and then move to heavy construction after school lets out. We need to be finished in August for the beginning of the Fall term. 29. I have not heard anything about encouraging you faculty and staff to car-pool or ride-share or to take Transfort. Have you considered providing Transfort passes for your employees? I’m trying to think of ways to reduce traffic around the campus and lessen the impacts on our neighborhood. A. These are good ideas and we will encourage our faculty and staff to use all available options. 30. Will construction traffic interfere with school and neighborhood traffic? A. No, we can control our construction traffic so that it does not interfere with our operations or the peak time on the roadway. 6 107 108 DELICH Global Village Academy, Phase 2 TIS, January 2015 ASSOCIATES TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 2 Land Use ......................................................................................................................... 2 Streets ............................................................................................................................. 2 Existing Traffic ................................................................................................................. 5 Existing Operation ........................................................................................................... 5 Pederstrian Facilities ....................................................................................................... 8 Bicycle Facilities .............................................................................................................. 8 Transit Facilities .............................................................................................................. 8 Observations ................................................................................................................... 8 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................... 10 Trip Generation ............................................................................................................. 10 Trip Distribution ............................................................................................................. 12 Trip Assignment ............................................................................................................ 12 Background and Total Traffic Projections ...................................................................... 12 Signal Warrants ............................................................................................................. 12 Operation Analysis ........................................................................................................ 17 Geometry ...................................................................................................................... 17 School Access and On-Site Circulation ......................................................................... 21 Pedestrian Level of Service ........................................................................................... 25 Bicycle Level of Service ................................................................................................ 25 Transit Level of Service ................................................................................................. 25 IV. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................... 26 109 DELICH Global Village Academy, Phase 2 TIS, January 2015 ASSOCIATES LIST OF TABLES 1. Current Peak Hour Operation .................................................................................... 7 2. Trip Generation ....................................................................................................... 10 3. Short Range (2019) Total Peak Hour Operation ..................................................... 18 4. Parent Vehicle Arrival Pattern ................................................................................. 24 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Site Location ............................................................................................................. 3 2. Existing Geometry ..................................................................................................... 4 3. Recent Peak Hour Traffic .......................................................................................... 6 4. Site Plan .................................................................................................................. 11 5. Trip Distribution ....................................................................................................... 13 6. Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic ........................................................................... 14 7. Short Range (2019) Background Peak Hour Traffic ................................................ 15 8. Short Range (2019) Total Peak Hour Traffic ........................................................... 16 9. Short Range (2019) Geometry ................................................................................ 20 10. On-Site Circulation System ..................................................................................... 22 APPENDICES A. Base Assumptions Form B. Peak Hour Traffic Counts C. Current Peak Hour Operation/Level of Service Descriptions/Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) D. Short Range (2019) Total Peak Hour Operation E. Pedestrian/Bicycle Level of Service Worksheets 110 DELICH Global Village Academy, Phase 2 TIS, January 2015 ASSOCIATES Page 1 I. INTRODUCTION This intermediate transportation impact study (TIS) addresses the capacity, geometric, and control requirements at and near the proposed Global Village Academy, Phase 2. The proposed Global Village Academy, Phase 2 is to be located in the northwest quadrant of the Taft Hill/Horsetooth intersection in Fort Collins, Colorado. It is an addition to the existing Global Village Academy building at this location. During the course of the analysis, numerous contacts were made with the Global Village Academy staff, other project team members, and the City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineering Staff. The Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions form and related documents are provided in Appendix A. This study generally conforms to the format set forth in the Fort Collins TIS Guidelines in the “Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards” (LCUASS). Since this is a school, it was determined that the peak hours should be the typical morning peak hour and the school dismissal time (2:30pm-3:45pm). The study involved the following steps: - Collect physical, traffic, and development data; - Perform trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment; - Determine peak hour traffic volumes; - Conduct capacity and operational level of service analyses on key intersections; - Analyze signal warrants; - Provide analyses of school access and on-site circulation; - Conduct level of service evaluation of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes of transportation; 111 DELICH Global Village Academy, Phase 2 TIS, January 2015 ASSOCIATES Page 2 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS The location of the proposed Global Village Academy, Phase 2 is shown in Figure 1. It is important that a thorough understanding of the existing conditions be presented. Land Use Land uses in the area are primarily residential. There are residential uses to the west, north, east, and south of the site. There is a school (Olander) and a park (Spring Canyon Park) west of the site. The center of Fort Collins lies to the northeast of the proposed Global Village Academy, Phase 2. Streets The primary streets near the proposed Global Village Academy, Phase 2 site are Taft Hill Road, Horsetooth Road, Bronson Street, and Silver Trails Drive. Figure 2 shows a schematic of the existing geometry at the Taft Hill/Horsetooth, Horsetooth/Silver Trails, Taft Hill/Bronson, and Bronson/Silver Oaks intersections. Taft Hill Road is east of (adjacent to) the proposed Global Village Academy, Phase 2 site. It is a north-south street classified as a four-lane arterial according to the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Taft Hill Road has a four-lane cross section, north of Horsetooth Road transitioning to a two-lane cross section, south of Horsetooth Road. At the Taft Hill/Horsetooth intersection, Taft Hill Road has a northbound and a southbound left-turn lane and two through lanes in each direction. Northbound and southbound right turns are made from the right-most through lane. At the Taft Hill/Bronson intersection, Taft Hill Road has a northbound and a southbound left-turn lane and two through lanes in each direction. The Taft Hill/Horsetooth intersection has signal control. The Taft Hill/Bronson intersection has stop sign control on Bronson Street. The posted speed limit in this area of Taft Hill Road is 40 mph. Horsetooth Road is south of (adjacent to) the proposed Global Village Academy, Phase 2 site. It is an east-west street classified as a two-lane collector, west of Taft Hill Road and a four-lane arterial, east of Taft Hill Road according to the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Horsetooth Road has a two-lane cross section. At the Taft Hill/Horsetooth intersection, Horsetooth Road has an eastbound and a westbound left- turn lane, a through lane in each direction, and an eastbound and westbound right-turn lane. At the Horsetooth/Silver Trails intersection, Horsetooth Road has all movements combined into a single lane. The Horsetooth/Silver Trails intersection has stop sign control on Silver Trails Drive. The posted speed limit in this area of Horsetooth Road is 35 mph, west of Taft Hill Road and 40 mph, east of Taft Hill Road. 112 Taft Hill Road Horsetooth Road Bronson Street Silver Trails Harmony Road SCALE: 1"=1000' SITE LOCATION Figure 1 DELICH ASSOCIATES Global Village Academy, Phase 2 TIS, January 2015 Page 3 113 EXISTING GEOMETRY Figure 2 DELICH ASSOCIATES Global Village Academy, Phase 2 TIS, January 2015 Page 4 Horsetooth Road Silver Oaks Drive Bronson Street Taft Hill Road Silver Trails Drive Site Access Site Access 114 DELICH Global Village Academy, Phase 2 TIS, January 2015 ASSOCIATES Page 5 Bronson Street is north of (adjacent to) the proposed Global Village Academy, Phase 2 site. It is an east-west street classified as a local street according to the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Bronson Street has a two-lane cross section. At the Taft Hill/Bronson intersection, Bronson Street has all movements combined into a single lane. At the Bronson/Silver Oaks intersection, Bronson Street has all movements combined into a single lane. The Bronson/Silver Oaks intersection has stop sign control on Silver Oaks Drive. The posted speed limit in this area of Bronson Street is 25 mph. Silver Trails Drive is west of the proposed Global Village Academy, Phase 2 site. It is a north-south street classified as a local street according to the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Silver Trails Drive only has a north leg at the Horsetooth/Silver Trails intersection. Currently, Silver Trails Drive has a two-lane cross section. At the Horsetooth/Silver Trails intersection, Silver Trails Drive has all movements combined into a single lane. The posted speed limit in this area of Silver Trails Drive is 25 mph. Silver Oaks Drive is north of the proposed Global Village Academy, Phase 2 site. It is a north-south street classified as a local street according to the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. The south leg at the Bronson/Silver Oaks intersection-Site Access intersection is the north driveway of Global Village Academy. Currently, Silver Oaks Drive has a two-lane cross section. At the Bronson/Silver Oaks-Site Access intersection, Silver Oaks Drive and the Site Access have all movements combined into a single lane. The posted speed limit in this area of Silver Oaks Drive is 25 mph. Existing Traffic Recent peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 3. The traffic counts at the Taft Hill/Horsetooth, Taft Hill/Bronson, Horsetooth/Silver Trails, and Bronson/Silver Oaks intersections were obtained in November 2014. Raw traffic count data is provided in Appendix B. Existing Operation The Taft Hill/Horsetooth, Taft Hill/Bronson, Horsetooth/Silver Trails, and Bronson/Silver Oaks intersections were evaluated and the peak hour operation is displayed in Table 1. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix C. The key intersections current meets the City of Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standard during the morning and school dismissal peak hours. At the Taft Hill/Bronson intersection, the calculated delay for the morning peak hour eastbound approach is commensurate with level of service F. The intersections were evaluated using techniques provided in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. A description of level of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections from the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual is provided in Appendix C. Table 4-3 (revised per staff comments regarding type of intersection) showing the Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) is also provided in Appendix C. The Global Village Academy, Phase 2 site is in an area termed “low 115 RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 3 DELICH ASSOCIATES Global Village Academy, Phase 2 TIS, January 2015 Page 6 7:30-8:30 AM/2:45-3:45 PM Silver Oaks Drive Horsetooth Road 52/57 774/470 141/93 55/34 753/527 108/184 135/73 110/72 73/41 149/210 64/113 108/127 10/18 999/722 2/7 71/53 921/716 8/10 11/10 1/0 8/23 20/9 1/4 1/2 4/2 124/68 97/79 59/116 6/3 160/117 Bronson Street Taft Hill Road Silver Trails Drive 0/4 0/0 8/14 7/2 0/0 3/8 0/1 9/14 9/17 0/7 39/50 43/23 Site 31/18 1/0 16/35 81/44 7/7 DELICH Global Village Academy, Phase 2 TIS, January 2015 ASSOCIATES Page 7 TABLE 1 Current Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Taft Hill/Horsetooth (signal) EB LT C C EB T C D EB RT A A EB APPROACH C C WB LT C C WB T C D WB RT C C WB APPROACH C C NB LT A A NB T/RT B B NB APPROACH B B SB LT A A SB T/RT B B SB APPROACH B A OVERALL B B Taft Hill/Bronson (stop sign) EB LT/T/RT F (57.5 secs) C WB LT/T/RT C D NB LT B A SB LT B A Horsetooth/Silver Trails (stop sign) EB LT/T A A SB LT/RT B B Bronson/Silver Oaks-Site Access (stop sign) EB LT/T/RT A A WB LT/T/RT A A NB LT/T/RT A A SB LT/T/RT A A Silver Trails/Site Access (stop sign) WB LT/RT A A SB LT/T A A 117 DELICH Global Village Academy, Phase 2 TIS, January 2015 ASSOCIATES Page 8 density mixed use residential.” In areas termed “low density mixed use residential,” acceptable operation at signalized intersections during the peak hours is defined as level of service D or better. At unsignalized arterial/arterial, arterial/collector, or arterial/local intersections, acceptable operation is considered to be at level of service F for any approach leg. In such areas, it is expected that there would be substantial delays to the minor street movements during the peak hours. This is considered to be normal in urban areas. At unsignalized collector/local intersections, acceptable operation is considered to be at level of service C for any approach leg. A northbound right-turn lane at the Taft Hill/Horsetooth intersection is required with existing traffic. Southbound right-turn lanes at the Taft Hill/Horsetooth intersection and at the Taft Hill/Bronson intersection are required with existing traffic. Typically, when turn lanes are shown to be required based on current volumes and do not exist, they are not built unless the operation at the subject intersection is determined to be unacceptable. The subject intersections operate acceptably. Pedestrian Facilities There are sidewalks along both sides of Taft Hill Road. There are sidewalks along both sides of Bronson Street, Silver Trails Drive, and Silver Oaks Drive. These sidewalks were constructed prior to the current standards. Horsetooth Road has sidewalk along both sides of the street east of Silver Trails Drive. Bicycle Facilities There are bicycle lanes along Taft Hill Road and Horsetooth Road. Transit Facilities Currently, this area of Fort Collins is served by Transfort Route 12. It operates along Taft Hill Road and Horsetooth Road with a bus stop at the Taft Hill/Horsetooth intersection. Observations The Global Village Academy (Phase 1) was opened in August 2014. The current population is 330 students in Kindergarten and Grades 1-8, and 28 students in the Pre- Kindergarten. There are 22 staff members at the site. During traffic counting, observations were conducted at the existing site accesses with regard to function, congestion, and neighborhood issues. In addition, the on-site circulation was also observed. The observations were discussed with the Global Village Academy staff, the project team, and Fort Collins Traffic Operations staff. Many of the observations were raised at the neighborhood meeting held on November 24, 2014. 118 DELICH Global Village Academy, Phase 2 TIS, January 2015 ASSOCIATES Page 9 At the start and dismissal times, there was significant on-street parking by parents on Silver Trails Drive. Some of the parking was not legal. There was congestion at the Silver Trails/Site Access intersection such that the Global Village Academy staff did not allow entrances to the site at this access, but directed vehicles to the north to enter the site from Bronson Street. It was observed that students exited vehicles on Silver Trails Drive and Horsetooth Road while vehicles were in the travel lanes. Parent vehicles parked on the north side of Horsetooth Road in the designated bike lane. On-site circulation seemed to be confusing, although staff attempted to control things at the on-site intersection. The circulation plan suggested in the Global Village Academy, Phase 1 TIS was not followed. Following discussions about the observations, a number of suggestions were made which are reflected in the current site plan. The new site plan, along with analyses and recommendations in this TIS, should enable the traffic aspects of the Global Village Academy, Phase 2 to operate more efficiently and reduce/mitigate the neighborhood impacts. 119 DELICH Global Village Academy, Phase 2 TIS, January 2015 ASSOCIATES Page 10 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Figure 4 shows a site plan of the Global Village Academy, Phase 2. The Global Village Academy staff indicated that this school will have a total of 780 students. The short range analysis (Year 2019) includes development of the Global Village Academy, Phase 2 and an appropriate increase in background traffic due to normal growth and other potential developments in the area. Since this is an intermediate level transportation impact study, a long range analysis is not required. The site plan shows that the Global Village Academy, Phase 2 will utilize the existing accesses on Silver Trails Drive and Bronson Street. Trip Generation Trip generation is important in considering the impact of a development such as this upon the existing and proposed street system. Trip Generation, 9th Edition, ITE is customarily used to estimate the daily and peak hour trip generation for the proposed land uses in a TIS. However, following traffic counting at the existing Global Village Academy and discussions with City Traffic Operations staff it was suggested that rates based upon traffic counts would better reflect the expected trip generation. Details are provided in Appendix A. The calculated rates already reflect both busing and carpooling, therefore no adjustments were made for these aspects. A trip is defined as a one-way vehicle movement from origin to destination. Table 2 shows the expected trip generation on a daily and peak hour basis. The trip generation of the Global Village Academy, Phase 2 resulted in 874 daily trip ends, 346 morning peak hour trip ends, and 245 afternoon peak hour trip ends. As will be discussed later in this TIS, a specific peak hour traffic access procedure is recommended that will reduce/mitigate neighborhood impacts. Therefore, Table 2 also shows the trip generation for Global Village Academy reflecting the total population of 780 students. TABLE 2 Trip Generation Use Size AWDTE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate In Rate Out Rate In Rate Out Phase 2 Charter School (Pre-K-8) 422 students 2.07 874 0.44 186 0.38 160 0.30 127 0.28 118 Phase 1 Charter School (Pre-K-8) 358 students 2.07 742 0.44 159 0.38 135 0.30 109 0.28 101 Total with reduction 1616 345 295 236 219 120 SCALE: 1"=100' SITE PLAN Figure 4 DELICH ASSOCIATES Global Village Academy, Phase 2 TIS, January 2015 Page 11 SECOND FILING SILVER OAKS DR. CO CO HORSETOOTH ROAD 100' RIGHT-OF-WAY SILVER TRAILS DRIVE 54' RIGHT-OF-WAY BRONSON STREET 54' RIGHT-OF-WAY SOUTH TAFT HILL ROAD 100' RIGHT-OF-WAY SILVER OAKS P.U.D. THIRD FILING 121 DELICH Global Village Academy, Phase 2 TIS, January 2015 ASSOCIATES Page 12 Trip Distribution Trip distribution for the Global Village Academy, Phase 2 was based on existing/future travel patterns, land uses in the area, consideration of trip attractions/productions in the area, and engineering judgment. Figure 5 shows the trip distribution for the short range (2019) analysis future. The trip distribution was agreed to by City of Fort Collins staff in the scoping discussions. Trip Assignment Trip assignment is how the generated and distributed trips are expected to be loaded on the street system. The assigned trips are the resultant of the trip generation and trip distribution process. It is recommended that Global Village Academy staff request parents (exiting the site) going to the north on Taft Hill Avenue use the signal at the Taft Hill/Horsetooth intersection. This route would be the safest and most efficient to go north on Taft Hill Road. However, some parents may choose not to do this. Therefore, the traffic assignment shows a portion making a left turn at the Taft Hill/Bronson intersection. However, with regard to entrances to the site it is strongly recommended that Global Village Academy staff require parents to follow the procedures discussed in this TIS. As will be detailed later, there are two access functions: 1) parent drop-off/pick-up; and 2) parent park/walk. The parent drop-off/pick-up function should enter the site via the driveway to Bronson Street. The parent park/walk function should enter the site via the driveway to Silver Trails Drive. The following traffic assignment reflects compliance with the recommended entrance procedure. Figure 6 shows the site generated peak hour traffic assignment. Background and Total Traffic Projections Figure 7 shows the short range (2019) background traffic projections. Background traffic projections for the short range future horizon were obtained by reviewing the North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan and various traffic studies prepared for this area of Fort Collins. Based upon these sources, it was determined that traffic volumes would increase by approximately 1.5% per year in the short range future. Figure 7 shows the growth in traffic on the key streets, but does not reflect the current Global Village Academy traffic. The site generated traffic (Figure 6) reflects that for 780 students. Therefore, the background traffic was adjusted accordingly. Figure 8 shows the short range (2019) total (site plus background) peak hour traffic. Signal Warrants As a matter of policy, traffic signals are not installed at any location unless warrants are met according to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The Taft Hill/Horsetooth intersection is currently signalized. Other key intersections do not meet signal spacing requirements or volume warrants, and will not be signalized. 122 TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 5 DELICH ASSOCIATES Global Village Academy, Phase 2 TIS, January 2015 Page 13 SITE Horsetooth Road Taft Hill Road 40% 20% NOM 40% Bronson Street NOM 123 SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 6 DELICH ASSOCIATES Global Village Academy, Phase 2 TIS, January 2015 Page 14 7:30-8:30 AM/2:45-3:45 PM Silver Oaks Drive Horsetooth Road 22/9 47/38 43/19 48/38 95/75 107/90 23/24 11/12 44/19 141/126 109/47 Bronson Street Taft Hill Road Silver Trails Drive Site 109/47 141/126 94/75 141/113 95/76 11/10 143/113 236/189 154/123 124 SHORT RANGE (2019) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 7 DELICH ASSOCIATES Global Village Academy, Phase 2 TIS, January 2015 Page 15 7:30-8:30 AM/2:45-3:45 PM Silver Oaks Drive Horsetooth Road 25/37 831/505 152/100 26/12 809/566 114/190 79/51 53/49 45/30 140/220 18/80 116/137 9/11 1006/747 2/8 32/41 962/751 9/11 7/8 1/0 5/16 21/10 1/4 1/2 4/2 5/4 3/4 66/125 6/3 172/126 Bronson Street Taft Hill Road Silver Trails Drive 8/2 3/9 0/7 42/49 0/1 10/15 125 SHORT RANGE (2019) TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 8 DELICH ASSOCIATES Global Village Academy, Phase 2 TIS, January 2015 Page 16 7:30-8:30 AM/2:45-3:45 PM Silver Oaks Drive Horsetooth Road 47/46 878/543 152/100 69/31 857/604 209/265 186/141 76/73 56/42 234/295 62/99 116/137 150/124 1113/837 2/8 127/117 1005/770 9/11 18/18 1/0 148/129 21/10 1/4 1/2 4/2 146/130 112/51 66/125 6/3 172/126 Bronson Street Taft Hill Road Silver Trails Drive NOM NOM 154/123 8/2 NOM 3/9 0/1 10/15 NOM 0/7 42/49 236/189 Site 9/6 NOM 9/7 109/47 DELICH Global Village Academy, Phase 2 TIS, January 2015 ASSOCIATES Page 17 Operation Analysis Capacity analyses were performed at the Taft Hill/Horsetooth, Taft Hill/Bronson, Horsetooth/Silver Trails, Bronson/Silver Oaks-Site Access, and Silver Trails/Site Access intersections. The operations analyses were conducted for the short range future, reflecting a year 2019 condition. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 8, the Taft Hill/Horsetooth, Taft Hill/Bronson, Horsetooth/Silver Trails, Bronson/Silver Oaks-Site Access, and Silver Trails/Site Access intersections will operate in the short range (2019) total traffic future as indicated in Table 3 with the existing geometry. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix D. The key intersections will meet the City of Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standard during the morning and school dismissal peak hours. At the Taft Hill/Bronson intersection, the calculated delay for the morning and school dismissal peak hour eastbound approach will be commensurate with level of service F and E, respectively. At the Taft Hill/Bronson intersection, the calculated delay for the morning and school dismissal peak hour westbound approach will be commensurate with level of service E and F, respectively. This is considered to be normal during the peak hours at stop sign controlled intersections along arterial streets. The Taft Hill/Horsetooth and Taft Hill/Bronson intersections were analyzed with and without the southbound right-turn lane with the short range (2019) total peak hour traffic. There are minimal changes in the level of service with or without the southbound right-turn lane at the Taft Hill/Horsetooth and Taft Hill/Bronson intersections. Geometry Figure 9 shows a schematic of the short range (2019) geometry. A southbound right-turn lane is required at both the Taft Hill/Horsetooth and Taft Hill/Bronson intersections. These right-turn lanes are required with the existing peak hour traffic volumes. There is no change in the level of service with the added right-turn lane at the Taft Hill/Bronson intersection. If these right-turn lanes are not built, the City may require variance letters with regard to these lanes. A northbound right-turn lane is required at the Taft Hill/Horsetooth intersection. However, Global Village Academy, Phase 2 adds no traffic to this movement and the Taft Hill/Horsetooth intersection operates acceptably. As mentioned earlier, when existing volumes warrant the subject right-turn lanes, but the intersections operate acceptably without those lanes, they are typically not constructed. It is recommended that the right-turn lanes not be built at this time. Based upon the morning peak hour traffic forecast, a westbound right-turn lane is required at the Horsetooth/Silver Trails intersection. If the City requires this right-turn lane, it appears that it would only require a restriping exercise extending the two existing lanes further to the east. The right- most westbound lane would become the right-turn lane. The need for an eastbound left- turn lane at the Horsetooth/Silver Trails intersection and a westbound left-turn lane at the Bronson/Silver Oaks-Site Access intersection was evaluated. Using LCUASS, Figure 8-1, these left-turn lanes will not be required at these intersections. 127 DELICH Global Village Academy, Phase 2 TIS, January 2015 ASSOCIATES Page 18 TABLE 3 Short Range (2019) Total Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Taft Hill/Horsetooth (signal) EB LT C C EB T C D EB RT A A EB APPROACH C C WB LT C C WB T D D WB RT C C WB APPROACH C C NB LT B A NB T/RT B B NB APPROACH B B SB LT B A SB T/RT B B SB APPROACH B B OVERALL B B Taft Hill/Horsetooth (signal)(SB RT) EB LT C C EB T C D EB RT A A EB APPROACH C C WB LT C C WB T D D WB RT C C WB APPROACH C C NB LT A A NB T/RT B B NB APPROACH B B SB LT B A SB T B B SB RT A A SB APPROACH B A OVERALL B B Continued on next page 128 DELICH Global Village Academy, Phase 2 TIS, January 2015 ASSOCIATES Page 19 Continued from previous page TABLE 3 Short Range (2019) Total Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Taft Hill/Bronson (stop sign) EB LT/T/RT F (323.6 secs) E (48.9 secs) WB LT/T/RT E (48.8 secs) F (55.8 secs) NB LT B B SB LT B B Taft Hill/Bronson (stop sign)(SB RT) EB LT/T/RT F (242.3 secs) E (38.0 secs) WB LT/T/RT E (40.6 secs) E (47.0 secs) NB LT B B SB LT B B Horsetooth/Silver Trails (stop sign) EB LT/T A A SB LT/RT B B Bronson/Silver Oaks-Site Access (stop sign) EB LT/T/RT A A WB LT/T/RT A A NB LT/T/RT A A SB LT/T/RT B C Silver Trails/Site Access (stop sign) WB LT/RT A A SB LT A A 129 SHORT RANGE (2019) GEOMETRY Figure 9 DELICH ASSOCIATES Global Village Academy, Phase 2 TIS, January 2015 Page 20 Horsetooth Road Silver Oaks Drive Bronson Street Taft Hill Road Silver Trails Drive Site Access Site Access Existing Required Existing Existing Existing Required Required Required 130 DELICH Global Village Academy, Phase 2 TIS, January 2015 ASSOCIATES Page 21 School Access and On-Site Circulation There are two access functions for the Global Village Academy at the beginning and at the end of the school day. The trip generation section shows the inbound and outbound traffic during the respective peak hours. However, since this site is somewhat constrained, a rigorous analysis of the on-site circulation was requested. The grade levels in the school are: Pre-Kindergarten, Kindergarten, and Grades 1 to 8. While the size of a given grade can vary from year to year, the following analyses assume that each grade will have the same number of students. At a maximum student population of 780, it is assumed that each grade will have 78 students. The two on-site functions, parent drop-off/pick-up and parent park/walk, have a bearing with regard to the on-site circulation. Research indicates that the parent drop-off/pick-up function primarily occurs in Grades 1-8. Children in these grades are able to unload themselves (unbuckle seat belts, open/close car doors) and load themselves (open/close car doors, buckle seat belts) without significant adult assistance. Therefore, vehicles dropping-off/picking-up students in these grades can be in the vehicle circulation system. The on-site circulation system is depicted in Figure 10. The drop-off/pick-up area occurs along the curb on the south side of the school (main doors). There are eight vehicle positions along this curb. Therefore, under a managed condition, eight vehicles could arrive, drop-off/pick-up, and leave simultaneously. The eight vehicles would be metered/directed in and out by school staff. The vehicle queue would wrap around the outer parking lot aisle. This aisle is wide enough that vehicles could be double stacked. The on-site intersection would be kept clear by school staff. The queue would be metered as it continued to the north, widening to a double stack area. The entire queue could hold approximately 64 vehicles. These vehicles would exit either to Silver Trails Drive or to the north to Bronson Street, depending on their desired destination. Pre-Kindergarten and Kindergarten parents most often desire to park and walk their child in/out of the school. For analysis purposes, it is assumed that 20 percent of vehicular trip generation will use the park/walk function. These parents would use the central portion of the south parking lot. This parking area would not have school staff vehicles. There are 33 parking spaces plus four handicap parking spaces in this area. The park/walk vehicles would enter from Silver Trails Drive. They would exit either to Silver Trails Drive or to the north to Bronson Street, depending on their desired destination. The site plan shows 13 parking spaces in the south portion of the parking lot. These vehicles would be “buried” by the drop-off/pick-up vehicle queue during these periods. Therefore, they should be occupied by school staff vehicles. The new parking lot in the southwest portion of the site (24 parking spaces) could be used by school staff or the park/walk function. However, the walk distance to the main door is longer to this parking lot. 131 SCALE: 1"=100' ON-SITE CIRCULATION SYSTEM Figure 10 DELICH ASSOCIATES Global Village Academy, Phase 2 TIS, January 2014 Page 22 SECOND FILING SILVER OAKS DR. CO CO HORSETOOTH ROAD 100' RIGHT-OF-WAY SILVER TRAILS DRIVE 54' RIGHT-OF-WAY BRONSON STREET 54' RIGHT-OF-WAY SOUTH TAFT HILL ROAD 100' RIGHT-OF-WAY SILVER OAKS P.U.D. THIRD FILING PARK/WALK FUNCTION STAFF PARKING DROP-OFF/PICK-UP FUNCTION 132 DELICH Global Village Academy, Phase 2 TIS, January 2015 ASSOCIATES Page 23 Start of School The following analysis assumes that there is a single start time at Global Village Academy. Based upon data obtained at other schools, the parent vehicle arrival period begins approximately 35 minutes before the bell. That data showed an increasing arrival rate, in five minute increments, as depicted in Table 4. The largest concentration (22%) occurs in the period ending five minutes before the bell. From the trip generation, there will be 295 parent vehicles entering and leaving the site at the start of school. Of these, 236 will be related to the drop-off function and 59 will be related to the park/walk function. It is estimated that the drop-off function (entering the curb space, drop-off the student, leave the curb space) takes 30 seconds. Fifty-two vehicles [(236)(0.22)] would be in the queue in the peak five minute period. The 52 vehicles can be processed in seven cycles (52/8 = 6.5  7). There are ten cycles in a given five minute period. Therefore, the drop-off queue can be accommodated at a single start time for the school. It is expected that the park/walk function will be over a 15 minute period prior to the bell. Approximately 45 percent of the parent vehicles will occur in the five minute period prior to the bell (26 vehicles). The park/walk function takes approximately five minutes (vehicle enter, walk child in/return, vehicle leave). Since there are 33 conventional parking spaces, the park/walk function can be accommodated at a single start time for the school. School Dismissal The following assumes that there is a single dismissal time at Global Village Academy. Based upon data obtained at other schools, the parent vehicle arrival period begins approximately 30 minutes before the bell. That data showed an increasing arrival rate, in five minute increments, as depicted in Table 4. When the bell rings, 65 percent of the parent vehicles are at the school. From the trip generation, there will be 236 parent vehicles entering and leaving the site at the school dismissal. Of these, 189 will be related to the pick-up function and 47 will be related to the park/walk function. It is estimated that the pick-up function (enter the curb space, pick up the student, leave the curb space) takes 40 seconds. There would be 123 vehicles in the queue at the dismissal bell. Since the available queue can only accommodate 64 vehicles, the queue would extend into Bronson Street. If half of the parent vehicles could be at separate dismissal times, the vehicle queue could be accommodated on-site. Therefore, it is recommended that the dismissal times be staggered by potentially up to 30 minutes. It is expected that the park/walk function will be over a 15 minute period prior to the bell and a five minute period after the bell. Approximately 85 percent of the parent vehicles will arrive prior to the bell (40 vehicles). Since there are 33 conventional parking spaces, the park/walk function cannot be accommodated with a single dismissal time for the school. Therefore, it is recommended that the Pre-Kindergarten and Kindergarten dismissal times be staggered. 133 DELICH Global Village Academy, Phase 2 TIS, January 2015 ASSOCIATES Page 24 TABLE 4 Parent Vehicle Arrival Pattern Time (5 minute increments) Percent Entering Vehicles Morning Afternoon -35 3% -30 6% 4% -25 7% 4% -20 11% 8% -15 18% 9% -10 19% 12% -5 22% 16% Bell 7% 12% +5 2% 18% +10 5% 12% +15 5% 134 DELICH Global Village Academy, Phase 2 TIS, January 2015 ASSOCIATES Page 25 The foregoing analyses have demonstrated that the parent vehicle trip generation can be accommodated with a single start time for the school. However, the dismissal times should be staggered in order to keep the vehicle queuing on the Global Village Academy site and adequately provide for parent parking. The on-site circulation system is designed to provide a drop-off/pick-up area on the south side of the school building. There is an on-site intersection which will have both entering and exiting parent vehicles going through it. This intersection should be signed DO NOT BLOCK. The exiting parent vehicles must be allowed to exit from the front of the school in order for the drop-off/pick-up system to operate efficiently. This must be enforced by the school administration. Pedestrian Level of Service Appendix E shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of the Global Village Academy, Phase 2 development. There are four pedestrian destinations within 1320 feet of the Global Village Academy, Phase 2 development. These are: 1) the residential area to the west of the site, 2) the residential area to the east of the site, 3) the residential area to the south of the site, and 4) the residential area to the southeast of the site. This site is in an area type termed “school walking area.” The minimum level of service for “school walking area” is B, except for Visual Interest and Amenity which is C. Acceptable pedestrian level of service will be achieved for all pedestrian destinations. The Pedestrian LOS Worksheet is provided in Appendix E. Bicycle Level of Service There are no bicycle destinations within 1320 feet of the Global Village Academy, Phase 2 development. The bicycle level of service is acceptable. Transit Level of Service This area of Fort Collins is served by Transfort Route 12. This route has a transit stop at the Taft Hill/Horsetooth intersection, which is adjacent to this site. 135 DELICH Global Village Academy, Phase 2 TIS, January 2015 ASSOCIATES Page 26 IV. CONCLUSIONS This study assessed the impacts of the Global Village Academy, Phase 2 on the street system in the vicinity of the proposed development in the short range (2019) future. As a result of this analysis, the following is concluded: - The development of the Global Village Academy, Phase 2 is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. The Global Village Academy, Phase 2 will generate approximately 874 daily trip ends, 346 morning peak hour trip ends, and 245 afternoon peak hour trip ends. At full development (780 students), the Global Village Academy will generate approximately 1616 daily trip ends, 640 morning peak hour trip ends, and 455 afternoon peak hour trip ends. - The Taft Hill/Horsetooth, Taft Hill/Bronson, Horsetooth/Silver Trails, Bronson/Silver Oaks-Site Access, Silver Trails/Site Access intersections currently meet the City of Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standard. - The Taft Hill/Horsetooth intersection is currently signalized. Other key intersections do not meet signal spacing requirements or volume warrants. - In the short range (2019) future, given development of the Global Village Academy, Phase 2 and an increase in background traffic, the Taft Hill/Horsetooth, Taft Hill/Bronson, Horsetooth/Silver Trails, Bronson/Silver Oaks-Site Access, and Silver trails/Site Access intersections will meet the City of Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standard. - The short range (2019) geometry is shown in Figure 9. A southbound right-turn lane is required at both the Taft Hill/Horsetooth and Taft Hill/Bronson intersections with the existing peak hour traffic. There is minimal change in the level of service with the added right-turn lane at the Taft Hill/Horsetooth intersection and Taft Hill/Bronson intersections. A northbound right-turn lane is required at the Taft Hill/Horsetooth intersection. However, Global Village Academy, Phase 2 adds no traffic to this movement and the Taft Hill/Horsetooth intersection operates acceptably. As mentioned earlier, when existing volumes warrant the subject right- turn lanes, but the intersections operate acceptably without those lanes, they are typically not constructed. It is recommended that the right-turn lanes not be built at this time. Based upon the morning peak hour traffic forecast, a westbound right- turn lane is required at the Horsetooth/Silver Trails intersection. If the City requires this right-turn lane, it appears that it would only require a restriping exercise extending the two existing lanes further to the east. The right-most westbound lane would become the right-turn lane. - The detailed analyses of the on-site circulation indicates that the available queue and south parking lot will allow a single start time for the school. However, these analyses indicate that two dismissal times will be necessary to accommodate the traffic on the site itself. 136 DELICH Global Village Academy, Phase 2 TIS, January 2015 ASSOCIATES Page 27 - Acceptable level of service is achieved for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes based upon the measures in the multi-modal transportation guidelines and future improvements to the street system in the area. 137 1 Global Village Public Charter School, Phase Two, Site Plan Advisory Review 138 2 Global Village Public Charter School, Phase Two, Site Plan Advisory Review 139 3 Global Village Public Charter School, Phase Two, Site Plan Advisory Review Students Sq. Ft. Faculty/ Staff Parking Buses Phase 1 360 24,000 20 47 3 Phase 2 420 28,500 20 48 2 Total 780 52,500 40 95 5 140 4 Phase Two Expansion: • Two-Story Addition • 16 new classrooms • New science room • New Gymnasium • Expanded cafeteria – one-story • New Athletic Field • Two new parking lots 141 5 Improved On-site Circulation: • Widened north-south drive – 44 feet – four lanes wide • 2 entering southbound travel and queue lanes • 1 exiting northbound lane • 1 northbound exclusive bus lane • Double wide queueing lane around south parking lot • 8 drop-off /pick-up positions • 33 park / walk spaces • Staggered dismissal times • Start and dismissal times are staggered with Olander School 142 6 View looking northwest 143 7 View looking west 144 8 View looking northeast 145 9 View looking south 146 10 On-Site Circulation System 147 11 Global Village Public Charter School, Phase Two, Site Plan Advisory Review 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 Agenda Item 8 STAFF REPORT February 12, 2015 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME REVIEW OF CITY PROJECTS STAFF Laurie Kadrich, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Dir PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Land Use Code Amendment OWNER: City of Fort Collins RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Currently City development projects are subject to the same development review process as any private sector development project. As such, the project is required to meet all Land Use Code (LUC) requirements and be subject to a Type 1 or Type 2 hearing as outlined in the LUC. Any resulting decision may be appealed to the City Council. Therefore, the Council has been prevented from participating in ex parte discussions in order to avoid procedural issues in the event an appeal of the decision is sought. In most cases, the City Council has authorized a city project to advance through the development review process through a strategic planning and budgeting process. Since the Council has input at the beginning of the project, it has been confusing to the public when the Council is not allowed to participate during the development review process except in deciding appeals that are brought to Council. OPTION TO CONSIDER Staff recommends that Council consider changing the appeal process for City projects to one similar to what occurs in a Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) process. SPAR reviews are currently conducted by the Planning and Zoning Board (P & Z) for most public projects, such as those of the Poudre School District or some CSU projects. The SPAR process is limited to a review of location, character and extent. If a review is disapproved by the P & Z, the governing board of the public entity which is funding the project, by a vote of not less than two-thirds of its entire membership, may overrule the decision and approve the project (Section 31-23-209 Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS)). Staff would recommend that Code amendments are prepared to change the process for City projects to a modified version of the SPAR process and include the following: 1. Require a majority vote to overturn any P & Z decision (whether approval or disapproval) made regarding a city project. 2. Require full development review and not limit the review to location, character and extent (SPAR) for any City project. Item # 8 Page 1 159 Agenda Item 8 3. Require all City projects to be reviewed as a Type 2 (Planning and Zoning Board) hearing rather than a Type 1 (Hearing Officer) hearing. Holding Type 2 hearings may increase the transparency of the hearings by having them televised and by having an appointed board review the project. CRS requires all SPAR reviews under its jurisdiction to be reviewed by the P & Z. Public Engagement Staff suggests holding a public hearing at a Planning and Zoning Board (P & Z) meeting and seeking a recommendation from the P & Z prior to Council consideration of this potential change. Item # 8 Page 2 160 161 162 Agenda Item 9 STAFF REPORT February 12, 2015 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME SIGMA PHI EPSILON RENOVATION AND ADDITION NONCONFORMING USE EXPANSION, NCU 150001 STAFF Ryan Mounce, Associate Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to renovate and expand the Sigma Phi Epsilon Fraternity House located at 121 East Lake Street. The fraternity is a legal nonconforming use in the Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (N-C-L) Zone District. The project proposes to add a 797 square foot building addition to be utilized as a library and study hall, and to complete an interior and exterior building renovation. Site upgrades, including bicycle parking, a trash enclosure, and sidewalk improvements are also proposed. Bedrooms in the fraternity house following the renovation will decrease from 29 to 21. Three Modification of Standards requests accompany the proposal: 1) Modification of Standard to Section 4.7(D)(2)(a)(4) to permit a floor area of 51% of the lot area. 2) Modification of Standard to Section 4.7(D)(3) to permit a floor area of 102% of the lot area in the rear half of the lot. 3) Modification of Standard to Section 4.7(E)(5) to permit a maximum building height of 3 stories. APPLICANT: Mitch Christ Sigma Phi Epsilon PO Box 2051 Fort Collins, CO 80522 OWNER: Red Door House Corporation PO Box 2051 Fort Collins, CO 80522 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Sigma Phi Epsilon Renovation & Addition Nonconforming Use and the Modification of Standards to Land Use Code Sections 4.7(D)(2)(a)(4), 4.7(D)(3), and 4.7(E)(5). Item # 9 Page 1 163 Agenda Item 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff finds the proposed Sigma Phi Epsilon Renovation & Addition Nonconforming Use Expansion complies with the applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically: • The Nonconforming Use Enlargement complies with Division 1.5, Nonconforming Uses and Structures of Article 1 – General Provisions. • The Nonconforming Use Enlargement complies with process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration. • The Nonconforming Use Enlargement complies with relevant standards of Article 3 – General Development Standards. • The Nonconforming Use Enlargement complies with relevant standards of Division 4.7 Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L) of Article 4 – Districts, provided that the three Modifications of Standard are approved. COMMENTS: 1. Background The subject property was annexed in October 1926 as a part of the L.C. Moore’s Second Addition. The surrounding zoning and land use are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density (N-C-L) CSU Annual Trial Garden, University Center for the Arts South Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density (N-C-L) Single Family Detached East Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density (N-C-L) CSU University House (gathering/meeting space), Group Home, Single Family Detached West Community Commercial (C-C) Commercial (retail/restaurant) A zoning vicinity map is presented on the following page. Item # 9 Page 2 164 Agenda Item 9 Nonconforming Uses & Fraternity Status The Lake Street fraternity house was constructed in 1930 and was one of the earliest structures in the neighborhood and has housed CSU student-oriented Greek organizations since completion. During the 1980s, as a result of the Eastside and Westside Neighborhood Plans, new conservation zoning districts were established in the residential areas on either side of downtown. The neighborhood containing the fraternity was rezoned to the Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L), which does not permit fraternities or sororities as a use. As the fraternity was in operation prior to the change in zoning, it was classified a legal nonconforming use. Nonconforming uses are limited in their potential expansion and may only be changed to conforming (permitted) uses. Nonconforming uses also carry an abandonment period of 12 months, whereby the nonconforming use is relinquished and may not be reestablished if active operations have not occurred within a 12-month period. Item # 9 Page 3 165 Agenda Item 9 In the Fort Collins Land Use Code, fraternities and sororities are defined as housing members of student organizations affiliated with Colorado State University. In late 2013 and early 2014, following misconduct by several Sigma Phi Epsilon members, CSU suspended their affiliation with the Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity for four years, and fraternity members were asked to leave the Lake Street fraternity house before the Spring 2014 semester began on January 11, 2014. To avoid abandonment of the nonconforming use designation, Sigma Phi Epsilon has leased the Lake Street fraternity house for the 2015 spring semester to the Delta Eta Chapter of the Theta Chi Fraternity, another CSU-affiliated fraternity. Several members of the Theta Chi fraternity moved into the fraternity house beginning on January 8th, 2015 shortly before the 12-month abandonment period would have expired. Theta Chi also anticipates using the common areas of the fraternity house for fraternity activities during the spring semester. A copy of the recently-executed lease agreement is attached to this staff report. As described in the applicant’s statement of planning objectives, if the proposed enlargement is approved, it is the intent for the building addition and significant interior and exterior rehabilitation work to begin after Theta Chi’s lease ends. To continue maintaining the properties nonconforming use designation, construction and renovation is intended to be completed within 12 months to permit Theta Chi or another CSU-affiliated fraternity or sorority to move back into the house to maintain the nonconforming use designation until such point that Sigma Phi Epsilon is again affiliated with CSU. 2. Compliance with Article 4 of the Land Use Code – Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L), Division 4.7: The project complies with applicable Article 4 standards as follows: A. Section 4.7(B) – Permitted Uses Fraternities and sororities are not a permitted use in the N-C-L District. The fraternity is an existing nonconforming use covered by Division 1.5, Nonconforming Uses and Structures of Article 1 of the Land Use Code. Enlargement of nonconforming uses requires approval by the Planning & Zoning Board. B. Section 4.5(D)(2)(a)(4) – Allowable Floor Area on Lots This section limits the allowable floor area for buildings and uses other than single family dwellings, and is the subject of a request for a modification of standard, discussed below. The granting of a Modification of Standard is governed by Land Use Code Section 2.8.2(H), which states, “…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 Item # 9 Page 4 166 Agenda Item 9 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).  Description of Standard: In the N-C-L District, the maximum floor area for buildings containing permitted uses other than single-family dwellings is 40% of the lot area.  Description of Modification Request: The applicant is requesting a Modification of Standard to Section 4.7(D)(2)(a)(4) to allow a floor area of 51% of the lot area.  Applicant Explanation & Justification: The applicant provides the following explanation and justification for the proposed modification request: “The current prescribed allowable floor area ratio permitted for this use is exceeded by the existing structure, which was due to the Zoning regulations having changed around the established site/building over history. The fraternity house has been long‐established at this location, having a continuing acceptance with the neighborhood. The structure is also approaching its 100‐year anniversary and serves as a historical landmark. The proposed addition for this building does not increase the existing building footprint, only adding floor area to the 2nd and 3rd stories. It should be noted that after renovations, the building’s occupancy will actually decrease, increasing the quality of life for its residents, increasing safety, and lessening the existing burden of other issues such as parking demand. So, the plan as submitted will improve the general condition of the existing non‐conforming use, even though the floor area ratio will increase slightly. Because of the existing conditions and established structures adjacent to the site, it would be infeasible to acquire adjacent property to satisfy contemporary floor area ratio requirements. Item # 9 Page 5 167 Agenda Item 9 The proposed addition is harmonious with the established historical style of the house, and will create a fusion between the original structure and the 1950’s kitchen addition. Many of the existing period specific features will be refurbished to renew the character of the building. Located immediately next to the Colorado State University Trial Gardens, and CSU Center for the Arts, this landmark building complements the traditional elements of the immediate facing neighborhood, and actually serves as a well‐placed transitional element between the large‐scaled Arts Center and the smaller scale of the single‐family residential neighborhood surrounding this area.”  Staff Analysis & Findings: Staff finds the request for the modification to Section 4.7(D)(2)(a)(4) to increase the floor area to 51% of the lot area is justified by applicable standards of 2.8.2(H), and that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good. Criteria 2.8.2(H)(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 this standard. The purpose of the floor area standard in the N-C-L district is to reinforce the N-C-L District’s intent to preserve the character of areas that have a predominance of single-family dwellings. The floor area requirements were recently reduced for this zone district as a result of the 2012 Eastside Westside Character Study, which specifically identified neighborhood concerns from additions and new construction that resulted in loss of privacy, loss of solar access, and “looming,” or large structures in close proximity to smaller buildings. An evaluation of the immediate vicinity of the proposed project highlights a large and visible difference between this neighborhood block and the typical building form, land uses, and character of an average N-C-L block. It is the neighborhood context surrounding the fraternity and the location of the building addition away from other structures that forms the primary justification as to how the proposed addition is still able to promote the general purpose of the floor area standard and achieve compatible building scale, land use, and to protect privacy and solar access. The N-C-L District is comprised primarily of contiguous blocks of single-family dwellings on narrow, rectangular lots. These blocks are relatively homogenous in land use and building form, and are typically buffered from higher-intensity and/or commercial areas by the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer Zone District. Excluding institutional land uses such as churches, schools, and parks, the average lot size in the N-C-L District is 8,496 square feet. The blocks of single-family homes are traditionally located close to the street and feature narrow side yards, often as small as 10’-15’ between homes. By comparison, the lots surrounding the fraternity feature a predominance of non-residential land uses, parcels double the size of a typical N-C-L block, and a mix of building sizes with large side yards. Exhibit A below contrasts a typical N-C-L block and the same area around the fraternity to visually highlight these differences. Item # 9 Page 6 168 Agenda Item 9 Exhibit A: N-C-L Block Item # 9 Page 7 169 Agenda Item 9 Comparison The reduced impact of the neighborhood context and placement of the building addition on these factors and how it addresses the general purpose of the standard is discussed below: Looming / Privacy: A side yard of 32’ exists between the fraternity and the single-family home located to the south. The side yard is between two and three times as large as the typical distance between homes in other N-C-L areas. The side yard is also enhanced by an existing 6’-high privacy fence and multiple large trees that provide landscape screening. The proposed building addition and additional floor area is located at the southwest corner of the fraternity’s lot and the single family home is oriented to the southeast corner of its own lot; the two structures are located as far from one another as is possible given their lot boundaries and existing building placement. The proposed addition itself would be located approximately 65’ from the closest point of the single family home, providing a large distance of separation between the two structures. This distance, in combination with the privacy fence and mature landscaping, serves to reduce any looming effects or privacy concerns. Solar Access: There are no lots or buildings located to the north of the fraternity to be shaded by the proposed addition. Building Scale: The fraternity house is the largest structure (square feet) on the block face, but is not dissimilar in scale or building footprint to the immediately-adjacent properties, including the 2-story commercial buildings to the west, a 3-story former fraternity house to the east, and the much larger Center for the Arts located to the northeast. The proposed addition would not interrupt the existing transition from the University Center of the Arts, one of the largest structures in the community, to the large businesses, homes, and fraternity house along Lake Street that then transition to smaller single family homes located interior to the block. Land Use: The majority of immediately-adjacent lots feature non-residential land uses, unlike the typical N-C-L area. Surrounding the property are retail/restaurants to the west, a park to the north, the CSU Center for the Arts to the northeast, the CSU University House (gathering/meeting space) to the east, and a group home to the southeast. The property to the south is the only adjacent single-family land use. Criteria 2.8.2(H)(3) Staff also acknowledges the extraordinary and exceptional circumstances unique to this property, for which the strict application of the standard to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties. The extraordinary and exceptional circumstance unique to this property results from a series of standards and zoning changes since the building was originally constructed. The structure was specifically designed and has been occupied as a residence for a Greek fraternal organization. As is typical to fraternity houses, there are a large number of bedrooms that result in a floor area in excess of a typical single family home and that also exceeds the present N-C-L floor area standard. The fraternity is proposing additional floor area to accommodate a changing learning environment and to improve building safety. The proposed second floor library would facilitate online distance learning, an increasingly popular form of learning and education at the university-level. In conjunction with the added library space, new egress access points to the second and third stories are proposed to improve building safety. As the existing structure already exceeds the district floor area standard, the proposed modification would allow the fraternity to modernize the structure to today’s prevailing safety Item # 9 Page 8 170 Agenda Item 9 and learning standards while maintaining their presence at their historic chapter house. Were the fraternity to find an alternate location, there may be difficulties utilizing the structure for another immediate use given the building’s size, interior configuration, affordability and the limited uses permitted in the N-C-L district. A change of use of the structure would also likely require significant interior building upgrades such as egress points and fire sprinkle requirements that are already proposed as a part of this nonconforming use expansion. C. Section 4.7(D)(3) – Allowable Floor Area on Rear Half of Lots This section limits the allowable floor area for buildings on the rear half of the lot and is the subject of a request for a modification of standard, discussed below.  Description of Standard: In the N-C-L District, the allowable floor area on the rear half of a lot shall not exceed 25% of the area of the rear 50% of the lot.  Description of Modification Request: The applicant is requesting a Modification of Standard to Section 4.7(D)(3) to allow a floor area of 102% of the area of the rear 50% of the lot.  Applicant Explanation & Justification: The applicant has provided the same explanation and justification for an increase in the floor area on the rear half of the lot as for the overall floor area.  Staff Analysis & Findings: Staff finds the request for the modification to Section 4.7(D)(3) to allow a floor area of 102% of the area of the rear 50% of the lot is justified by applicable standards of 2.8.2(H), and that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good. Criteria 2.8.2(H)(3) Staff also acknowledges the extraordinary and exceptional circumstances unique to this property, for which the strict application of the standard to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties. The exceptional circumstance is a result of the building’s original construction at the rear of its lot, which is an unusual building placement for this zone district, and which cannot be easily remedied without building deconstruction. The typical N-C-L development pattern is comprised of homes built close to the street, with the rear yard dedicated to backyard open space and accessory structures. This development pattern is reflected in the zone district development standards that place restrictions on floor area in the rear of the lot, primarily to limit the size and number of accessory structures. Many of the earliest buildings on this block, including the fraternity house, were originally constructed at the rear of their lots and are not consistent with the typical N-C-L built environment. As the entire floor area of the principal building is located on the rear half of the lot, the fraternity building and its neighborhood analogues exceed this zone district requirement by substantial margins. Any proposed building addition would not be possible without approval of a modification to this standard and result in exceptional practical difficulties when any building expansion is contemplated. D. Section 4.7(E) – Dimensional Standards The existing structure and building addition meet the N-C-L District’s dimensional standards, including front, side, and rear setbacks and solar access setbacks. Item # 9 Page 9 171 Agenda Item 9 E. Section 4.7(E)(5) – Dimensional Standards – Building Height This section limits building height in the zone district and is the subject of a request for a modification of standard, discussed below.  Description of Standard: In the N-C-L District, the maximum building height for principal buildings is limited to two stories.  Description of Modification Request: The applicant is requesting a Modification of Standard to Section 4.7(E)(5) to allow a maximum building height of three stories.  Applicant’s Justification: The applicant provides the following explanation and justification for the proposed modification request: As the building height of the New Addition is considered as 2.5 stories, due to the placement of a mezzanine/loft extending from the existing 3rd story of the house, it is in technical non‐compliance with the current Land Use standard of 2 story restriction the N‐C‐L district. We are requesting a modification of this standard for the following reasons: The new loft is integrated with the existing building, and of lesser height than the existing roof peak. The exterior appearance of the New Addition is that of a two‐story façade, having the 3rd story mezzanine/loft completely concealed within the proposed roof shell. So, the general purpose of the Land Use Code is being conserved by the building’s appearance. Currently, the existing 3rd floor is limited to one stairway and an outdated fire escape as the only means of egress. The new mezzanine/loft provides a second egress stairway for the existing 3rd story, and provides an additional egress route for the existing 2nd story directly to the exterior; so, the level of safety will be greatly improved by the provision of the New Addition. The Addition also serves as a visual transitional element between the existing 3‐story portion and the existing 1‐story 1950’s addition at the West portion of the building. The new mezzanine/loft is needed to provide a feasible second means of egress for the existing 3rd story, as modifying the existing construction would be impractical to provide this feature. Overall, the New Addition does not visually conflict with the spirit of the code, and its mass is of lesser magnitude than the primary existing building mass. The technical non‐compliance of the New Addition should be considered inconsequential, and granting of this modification request will provide greater levels of safety, function, and aesthetics for the Sigma Phi Epsilon House.  Staff Analysis & Findings: Staff finds the request for the modification to Section 4.7(E)(5) to permit a building height of three stories is justified by applicable standards of 2.8.2(H), and that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good. Item # 9 Page 10 172 Agenda Item 9 The existing building contains three stories and exceeds the zone district maximum height. The proposed building addition occurs primarily at the second level, creating a library/study hall space over an existing one-story building element constructed in the 1950s. The addition also includes a landing/loft area above the second floor that allows an additional point of egress from the third-story bedrooms via a stairway designed to improve safety in case of a building fire. The loft and stairs are to be built within the roof structure, extend and continue the existing building roof form, and would feature no windows above the second story. Criteria 2.8.2(H)(1) Staff finds the request for the modification to Section 4.7(E)(5) to permit a building height of three stories is justified by applicable standards of 2.8.2(H), and that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good. Similar to the purpose and intent of the floor area zone district requirements, the building height requirements in the zone district help promote and protect neighborhood character and building scale, access to sunshine, and the protection of privacy. The existing building and proposed addition will continue to promote these general standards for similar reasons as outlined in the previous modification of standards request for overall floor area. Summarizing this analysis and findings:  The existing neighborhood context features large lots, many of which are double the size of typical N-C-L parcels, with wide side yards between buildings that help reduce the impact of looming and loss of privacy and solar access from larger buildings located in close proximity to smaller buildings. The distance between the existing fraternity house and the single family home located to the south is 32', and the distance between the single family house and the proposed building addition is approximately 65'. This large separation also includes a 6' privacy fence and large, mature landscaping to provide screening. The addition does not propose any windows above the zone district maximum height of two stories. Given the location of the proposed addition on the lot and the large distances separating the addition from the single-family home to the south, there is no loss of solar access, privacy is protected and the impact of looming is reduced.  As a component of neighborhood scale, several nearby lots also include 3-story buildings such as the CSU Center for the Arts to the northeast and the CSU University House to the east. The Lake Street fraternity house was also deemed to be individually-eligible for local historic designation. In addition to promoting the general intent and purpose of the building height maximum in this zone district, the height of the addition also better achieves the purpose of Section 3.4.7(D), Reuse, Renovation, Alterations and Additions. In additions and new construction, this standard calls for preserving building details, scale and form. The fraternity house will use similar building materials and mimic the pitch, scale, and roof form of the existing three-story level with the proposed building addition. F. Section 4.7(F)(1)(h) – Front Façade Character To comport with front façade character standards, the proposed building addition is set back 6’ from the footprint of the existing one-story building element on the Lake Street facing side. 3. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code – General Development Standards: The project complies with all applicable General Development Standards as follows: A. Division 3.2.1 – Landscaping and Tree Protection Item # 9 Page 11 173 Agenda Item 9 All existing landscaping is to remain as part of the project and complies with applicable landscaping and tree protection requirements of this division, including tree-stocking. The development currently proposes additional street trees along Lake Street that would meet Land Use Code requirements of canopy shade trees at a spacing of 30-to-40’. B. Section 3.2.2(C)(4) – Bicycle Parking The development will add new on-site bicycle parking spaces in the form of 16 outdoor fixed bicycle parking spaces and 24 enclosed bicycle spaces located within the building or in bike lockers, meeting requirements for one bicycle parking space for each bed. C. Division 3.4.7 – Historic and Cultural Resources In addition to being located adjacent to the boundaries of the Laurel School National Historic District, the fraternity house at 121 E. Lake Street is individually-eligible for local historic designation in accordance with Chapter 14 of City Code. D. Section 3.4.7(D) – Reuse, Renovation, Alterations and Additions During the late summer of 2013, the applicants met with a subcommittee of the Landmark Preservation Committee on the design of the proposed addition, and the current iteration as presented was determined to uphold the significance and integrity of the building and character as required by this code section. Beyond the proposed addition, an extensive interior renovation is planned, along with rehabilitation of certain exterior elements. The rehabilitation will be in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and building materials will be restored to original condition and design. E. Section 3.5.1 – Building and Project Compatibility This code section requires building and project compatibility for new structures and additions. As described in full detail under compliance with the more specific N-C-L District standards, the existing building and proposed addition are compatible in building size, height, bulk, mass, scale and building materials to the surrounding buildings on the same and adjacent block faces. Areas for trash and recyclable materials have been designed to match the design in material and color of the principal building and will be located off the alley and out of public view. 4. Compliance with Article 1 of the Land Use Code – General Provisions The project complies with all applicable General Provisions of Article 1 of the Land Use Code as follows: A. Section 1.5.1- Continuation of Use The proposed expansion of the fraternity, a nonconforming use, complies with the limitations of this section, specifically:  Hours of Operation: The fraternity is not expanding hours of operation. As a residence for students, the site has and will continue to be occupied throughout the day and night year- round.  Multiseasonal Operation: The fraternity is and will remain a year-round operation.  Light intensity: The existing fraternity building and addition feature fully-shielded and down directional lighting that comply with Land Use Code requirements and consistent with its location near a residential neighborhood. Item # 9 Page 12 174 Agenda Item 9  Trash Receptacles: The new trash and recycling enclosure complies with the location and design standards found in Section 3.2.5 and Section 3.5.1(I).  Outdoor storage: There are no areas of outdoor storage. B. Section 1.5.3 – Abandonment of Use The applicants have provided a copy of the lease agreement with the Theta Chi Fraternity, confirming the occupation and use of the fraternity house with another CSU-affiliated Greek organization to maintain the site's nonconforming use designation. C. Section 1.5.5 – Enlargement of Building and Expansion of Facilities, Equipment or Structures The expansion of nonconforming uses must be approved by the Planning & Zoning Board. Consideration of the proposal is governed by the following 12 limitations and that the expansion or addition would not adversely affect the surrounding properties. 1. The nonconforming use shall not be changed (except to a conforming use) as a result of enlargement, expansion or construction. The nonconforming use remains unchanged as a result of the proposed expansion. 2. The enlargement, expansion or construction shall not result in the conversion of the nonconforming use of a seasonal to a year-round operation. The fraternity is an existing year-round operation and will not change as a result of the building expansion. 3. The nonconforming use shall not be expanded beyond the limits of the parcel of property upon which such use existed at the time it became nonconforming. The building expansion takes place on the same parcel of property which existed at the time the use became nonconforming. 4. Additional traffic generated by an enlargement, expansion or construction must be incorporated into the neighborhood and community transportation network without creating safety problems, or causing or increasing level of service standard deficiencies. The proposed expansion can be incorporated into the neighborhood and community transportation network without creating safety problems, and will not cause or increase level of service standard deficiencies. As part of the proposed building addition, the sidewalks along Lake Street will be widened to 8’, improving pedestrian safety and comfort along this street frontage. The building addition and interior renovation will decrease the number of bedrooms and overall intensity will decrease. 5. The noise and vibration levels that may be generated by the nonconforming use shall not be increased beyond the levels that existed prior to the enlargement, expansion or construction that is under consideration. Noise and vibration levels will not increase as a result of the building addition. 6. The outdoor storage areas shall not be expanded or located any closer to an adjoining residential development as a result of the enlargement, expansion or construction. No outdoor storage is proposed or will be expanded. Item # 9 Page 13 175 Agenda Item 9 7. The proposed enlargement, expansion or construction shall not add more than twenty-five percent of new floor area to existing buildings on the site. The proposed building addition is 797 square feet and the existing building floor area is 7,856 square feet. The addition represents an increase in floor area of 10.1%. 8. The enlargement, expansion or construction shall not exceed the building height requirements of the zone district in which the property is located. The zone district height maximum is 2 stories, and the existing building exceeds this as a three-story structure. The proposed addition includes a small habitable area on the third floor to incorporate an extra fire-access egress point and stairway down to the main second-floor addition. The applicant has requested a modification of standard to the zone district height maximum for the existing and proposed building height, as discussed previously in this staff report. 9. The enlargement, expansion or construction shall not further encroach upon any nonconforming setback. The existing building and proposed addition conform to all setback requirements of the N- C-L District. 10. The enlargement, expansion or construction shall not increase or amplify any inconsistency with the parking standards contained within this Code. No on-site vehicular parking exists at the fraternity. Parking requirements for fraternities are based on the number of bedrooms and number of employees present. This proposal seeks to reduce the number of bedrooms in the fraternity from 29 to 21, which decreases the degree of inconsistency with present parking standards. 11. The enlargement, expansion or construction shall not hinder the future development of surrounding properties in accordance with this Code. The proposed building addition does not impact or hinder the development of surrounding properties in accordance with the Land Use Code. 12. The enlargement, expansion or construction shall not present a threat to the health, safety or welfare of the City or its residents. The proposed building enlargement does not present a threat to the health, safety or welfare of the City or its residents. In regards to fraternity members themselves, safety is enhanced through the introduction of a planned interior renovation which introduces a new fire sprinkler system, additional egress access points, and a reduction in overall intensity. 5. Neighborhood Meeting A neighborhood meeting was held for the proposed project on November 12, 2014 and was attended by one member of the public. Key meeting questions and themes are discussed below, and the full neighborhood meeting summary is attached. 1. Why is the sidewalk along Lake Street being expanded to 8'? Is it fair that this exceeds City- standards? Resolution / Update: The sidewalk along Lake Street is proposed to be expanded to 8', which does exceed normal sidewalk widths along a local street. The increased width is a result of two factors. The first is that Lake Street contains diagonal on-street parking and bumpers from parked vehicles can overhang a portion of the sidewalk. The second factor is that a two- foot retaining wall is located adjacent to the walk. Fences and walls are normally required to Item # 9 Page 14 176 Agenda Item 9 be 2' from sidewalks, and the additional sidewalk width provides a safe and comfortable pedestrian experience when considering reduced space from vehicle bumpers and proximity of the retaining wall. 2. Will this be processed as a nonconforming use? Will the nonconforming use expire since the fraternity is not currently recognized by CSU? Resolution / Update: It was determined another CSU-affiliated fraternity or sorority would need to move into the house prior to January 11th, 2015 to continue the nonconforming use designation. Sigma Phi Epsilon has leased the house to the Theta Chi Fraternity for the 2015 Spring semester. As active operations are occurring by another CSU-affiliated fraternity within the 12 month period since the Sigma Phi Epsilon members moved out, the nonconforming use designation is continued for the property. The applicant has provided a copy of the lease agreement with the Theta Chi Fraternity. 3. What are the parking requirements? Do requirements change based on the review process? Resolution / Update: For an expansion of a nonconforming use, any parking inconsistency cannot be amplified or increased. The fraternity is proposing to decrease the number of bedrooms in the building, which decreases the amount of required parking by the Land Use Code and also reduces the current degree of inconsistency with parking requirements. 4. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: In evaluating the Sigma Phi Epsilon Renovation & Addition, staff makes the following findings of fact: A. Staff finds the request for the Modification of Standard to Section 4.7 (D)(2)(a)(4) to increase the floor area of the building to 51% of the lot area is justified by the applicable standards of 2.8.2(H), and that the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good. The request satisfies Criteria 2.8.2(H)(1) as 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. The proposed increase in floor area is located a large distance from the abutting single family home to the south and protects privacy, solar access, and is consistent with the existing building forms found on this N-C-L block. In addition, the request satisfies Criteria 2.8.2(H)(3) in that the property is subject to an extraordinary and exceptional circumstance and the strict application of the standard sought to be modified results in exceptional practical difficulties. The building and use predate the majority of the existing neighborhood and multiple changes in zone district and zoning standards have led to a structure that currently exceeds the standard. The situation results in added difficulty in attempting to modernize the building to prevailing safety and educational standards without a further increase to the building’s floor area. B. Staff finds the request for the Modification of Standard to Section 4.7(D)(3) to increase the floor area of the building on the rear half of the lot to 102% of the floor area of the rear half of the lot is justified by the applicable standards of 2.8.2(H), and that the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good. The request satisfies Criteria 2.8.2(H)(3), as the property is subject to an extraordinary and exceptional situation and the strict application of the standard sought to be modified results in exceptional practical difficulties. Unlike the majority of structures in the N-C-L district, this building was originally constructed on the rear half of its lot and the full floor area of the building is counted and substantially exceeds the standard. Short of deconstructing the Item # 9 Page 15 177 Agenda Item 9 individually-eligible historic structure, the building will remain substantially over this zone district requirement and any building addition requires an approved modification. C. Staff finds the request for the Modification of Standard to Section 4.7(E)(5) to increase the building height to three stories is justified by the applicable standards of 2.8.2(H), and that the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good. The request satisfies Criteria 2.8.2(H)(1) as 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. The proposed building addition is primarily two stories in height, with a small portion at the third level to provide additional egress to the existing third story bedrooms. The addition has been designed and located to reduce looming and privacy impacts being large distance and is approximately 65’ from the single family home to the south. No additional windows are located at the third-story and the expansion is partially screened by existing landscaping. As no buildings or lots are located to the north of the fraternity, there is no loss in solar access. D. The Sigma Phi Epsilon Renovation & Addition nonconforming use expansion complies with the applicable sections of Article 1 of the Land Use Code, including Division 1.5, Nonconforming Uses and Structures. E. The Sigma Phi Epsilon Renovation & Addition nonconforming use expansion complies with the process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration/ F. The Sigma Phi Epsilon Renovation & Addition nonconforming use expansion complies with applicable standards located in Article 3 – General Development Standards. G. The Sigma Phi Epsilon Renovation & Addition nonconforming use expansion complies with applicable standards in Division 4.7 Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density (N-C-L) of Article 4 – Districts. ATTACHMENTS 1. Statement of Planning Objectives (PDF) 2. Site Plan (PDF) 3. Landscape Plan (PDF) 4. Elevations (PDF) 5. Utility Plan (PDF) 6. Requests for Modification of Standards (PDF) 7. Theta Chi Lease Agreement (PDF) 8. Neighborhood Meeting Summary (PDF) Item # 9 Page 16 178 318 East Oak Street + Fort Collins, CO 80524 + 970.493.1220 tel + 970.224.1314 fax Statement of Planning Objectives Sigma Phi Epsilon 121 East Lake Street Page 1 of 3 Fort Collins, CO Statement of Planning Objectives Sigma Phi Epsilon Fraternity House 121 East Lake Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 The Existing Fraternity House is a Legal Non-Conforming use in the Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (N-C-L) Zone District. The fraternity is a non-conforming use and the proposed Library addition is subject to Planning & Zoning Board (Type 2) review. The Fraternity wishes to fully renovate the existing facility, and the planned renovation includes a proposed 790 square foot Library addition on the second floor - West side of the existing building-above the existing kitchen. There will be no increase in the footprint of the building on the site. The Colorado Gamma Chapter of Sigma Phi Epsilon and Colorado State University share a storied tradition dating back to 1915. The Sigma Phi Epsilon proud history speaks for itself through high academic achievement and leadership within Colorado State University. With more than 2,500 initiates, the Colorado Gamma Chapter has influenced the lives of thousands of men and cultivated lasting friendships in the process. Many Alumni have gone on to very successful and distinguished careers in academics and education, business, business planning and consulting, investment management, banking, property management, architecture and engineering, construction and construction machinery, ranching, agriculture and food production, wine making, property and land development, medicine and veterinary medicine, pharmaceuticals, politics, athletics and all pro football and Colorado Hall of Fame and countless other endeavors, the common brotherhood remains along with our shared principles and values. Most trace the beginnings of their success to one place: 121 East Lake Street. Since 1935, the Sig Ep Chapter House at 121 East Lake Street has been continuously occupied as a Fraternity House and a home away from home for hundreds of young men. The Sig Ep House serves as a home and classroom, where young men have learned principles of virtue, diligence, and brotherly love. However, for Colorado Gamma to continue its strong presence on the Colorado State campus, they must ensure they are providing a safe, modern, and competitive facility. Now is the appropriate time to secure and inspire their future. Ten years ago, the Red Door House Corporation completed a strategic assessment with the goal of improving the operations of the corporation and chapter house to position Colorado Gamma for a successful capital campaign. Over the last 10 years, the Red Door House Corporation has developed a solid plan to address the long-term viability of the Sig Ep 179 318 East Oak Street + Fort Collins, CO 80524 + 970.493.1220 tel + 970.224.1314 fax Statement of Planning Objectives Sigma Phi Epsilon 121 East Lake Street Page 1 of 3 Fort Collins, CO experience on the Colorado State campus. Through careful study, assessment, and planning, it has been determined that updates and maintenance to the chapter house, beyond what can be afforded by the House Corporation, are necessary to meet the needs of today’s students. This group has developed the following tactical approach to our future. With the goal of making Colorado Gamma a best-practices accredited Residential Learning Community, the proposed design updates the resident scholar suite including an ADA- compliant bathroom, a new 740-square-foot vaulted ceiling library addition with a study loft, and a new multi-media room. Residential Learning Communities (RLC) enrich the SigEp experience for undergraduate residents by delivering a powerful living-learning environment and a strengthened member development program. RLC chapters embrace the relationship with their host university and local community in recognition that learning does not begin and end in the classroom and we can do more to bring unique learning opportunities into the chapter house. An important byproduct of a great RLC chapter house is a daily study space for members that is quiet, comfortable, and effective for their academic pursuits. There are five basic elements of the RLC: 1. Facility/Learning Environment – Create an environment where it is easy to do right and hard to do wrong; the facility is not only a fraternity house, it is a learning community. 2. Network of Support – Ensure regular involvement and support of members, alumni, volunteers, parents, and the university community. 3. Faculty Fellow/Resident Scholar – Faculty members and/or resident scholar interested in working with students outside the classroom interact as advisors and mentors to individual chapter members. 4. Personal and Academic Development – Encouraged by the faculty fellow, chapter members explore new avenues for personal and academic growth. 5. Faculty Involvement: Faculty fellows are a tremendous asset to a chapter, assisting the men on an individual basis with academic planning. Typically, a faculty fellow holds regular office hours in the chapter facility, shares meals with members, and promotes student-faculty interaction through cultural and educational programming. Faculty fellows may teach a class in the chapter facility, invite other academic professionals to the facility, and share their knowledge of campus resources. The conceptual design for the renovation and Library addition (a key component of the Residential Learning Community) was presented to and approved by the Landmark Preservation Commission (Karen McWilliams) and accepted by the City of Fort Collins. It is our goal to maintain our current non-conforming use designation under the zoning code, thereby eliminating the need to add any on-site parking or interior ADA compliance. The conceptual design is optimized for an occupancy of 40 beds while maintaining a maximum occupancy of 48 beds as is currently accepted by the City. The plan includes adding showers in all the bathrooms, new laundry facilities in the basement, and updated kitchen and after-hours servery. 180 318 East Oak Street + Fort Collins, CO 80524 + 970.493.1220 tel + 970.224.1314 fax Statement of Planning Objectives Sigma Phi Epsilon 121 East Lake Street Page 1 of 3 Fort Collins, CO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SCOPE INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING: EXTERIOR • Restore/repair/paint house exterior including historic Georgian architecture details such as the wooden porch columns/capitals, all wooden house trim, wood siding on dormers, and repair (tuck point) brickwork as necessary (to comply with City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation requirements) • Refurbish/replace all wood windows and doors to be historically accurate and upgraded to be more energy efficient • Reinstall new historically accurate wooden balustrade around the Trophy Room deck, third floor deck, and new balcony deck at library above the kitchen • Repair vertical foundation cold joint between original house and kitchen addition (north) • Analyze foundation/wall structure of kitchen for accommodation of library addition • Demolish roof structure above kitchen and add new vaulted ceiling second-story Library addition above kitchen • Install new roof with ice shield, flashings, gutters, and downspouts • Repair grading in front of house to ensure positive drainage away from house • Add new ADA-compliant concrete ramps from Lake Street sidewalk and alley parking to front entry • Rework retaining wall and sidewalk along Lake Street to meet City code requirements • Upgrade landscaping and add trash and bicycle enclosures INTERIOR • Demolish all interior finishes out to exterior brick walls and interior studs • Demolish all existing mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems • Abate any asbestos and lead paint • Install new mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire suppression systems (add air conditioning if feasible) • Install new Internet communication system • Install new security system • Install all new floor, wall, and ceiling finishes - restore historic architectural details as feasible • Install new millwork and cabinetry • Install sealed, timer-controlled gas fire place inserts in living room, chapter room, and library • Refurbish kitchen walk-in cooler and install new dishwasher, ice maker, range hood, and reach-in freezer 181 DN DN LAKE STREET REMINGTON STREET ALLEY 15' - 8" FACE OF BUILDINIG TO PROPERTY LINE 5' - 0" TO SETBACK 51' - 4 1/2" FACE OF BUILDINIG TO PROPERTY LINE 15' - 0" SETBACK 15' - 0" SETBACK 15' - 6" FROM FACE OF BUILDING N 90d00'00" E 170'-0" S 00d00'00" E 100'-0" N 90d00'00" W 170'-0" N 00d00'00" E 100'-0" PARKING (15 SPACES) ON STREET PARALLEL PARKING EXISTING BASKETBALL COURT EXISTING TREES 15' - 0" SETBACK NEW TRASH ENCLOSURE NEW SIDEWALK 8' - 0" NEW 3' BACK YARD ENTRANCE EXISTING TREE EXISTING TREE EXISTING TREES AND BUSHES NEW LANDING 5' - 0" 19' - 4" NEW PAVED WALK NEW ADDITION INDICATED IN DASHED AREA NEW EXTERIOR EGRESS STAIRS 97.57' 96.57' 97.07' 6' - 0" 94.44' 94.54' 92.40' Slope: 10.5% Slope: 10.5% 97.57' EXISTING PORCH EXISTING PRIVACY FENCE 12 NEW ENCLOSED BICYCLE PARKING LOCKERS, DERO 300 SERIES OR EQ.(ADDITIONAL 12 SPACES IN BUILDING) NEW TREE NEW TREE NEW TREE 183 LEVEL 1 0" LEVEL 2 9' - 7" LEVEL 3 18' - 4" LEVEL B1 -9' - 0 1/2" 9' - 0 1/2" V.I.F. 9' - 7" V.I.F. 8' - 9" V.I.F. LEVEL 4 RAFTER BR'G 21' - 1 1/4" 2' - 9 1/4" V.I.F. LEVEL 1 HEADER 7' - 2 1/2" LEVEL 2 HEADER 16' - 11" 7' - 2 1/2" V.I.F. 7' - 4" V.I.F. NEW ROOF TO MATCH EXISTING IN PITCH AND MATERIAL NEW OGEE GUTTER AND TRIM TO MATCH EXISTING FRENCH DOORS WITH SOLDIER COURSING TO MATCH NEW BALUSTRADE AND POSTS TO MATCH ORIGINAL, TYPICAL NEW VENEER BRICK NEW OGEE TRIM TO MATCH NEW SHUTTERS TO MATCH ORIGINAL, TYPICAL NEW BALUSTRADE AND POSTS TO MATCH ORIGINAL, TYPICAL NEW OGEE AND TRIM TO MATCH NEW SHUTTERS TO MATCH ORIGINAL, TYPICAL NEW BALUSTRADE AND POSTS TO MATCH ORIGINAL, TYPICAL LEVEL 5 28' - 3 3/4" 9' - 11 3/4" V.I.F. NEW ADDITION INDICATED IN DASHED AREA 1 1/4" = 1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION NOTE: HALFTONED OR SCREENED LINEWEIGHTS ARE INTENDED TO INDICATE EXISTING COMPONENTS OF THE BUILDING. REVISIONS SHEET CONTENTS DRAWN CHECKED DATE SHEET NO. REUSE OF DOCUMENTS: THE IDEAS AND DESIGN INCORPORATED HEREON, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, IS THE PROPERTY OF ARCHITECTURE PLUS AND IS NOT TO BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF ARCHITECTURE PLUS 318 East Oak Street + Fort Collins 80524 1531 West 29th Street + Loveland 80538 LEVEL 1 0" LEVEL 2 9' - 7" LEVEL 3 18' - 4" LEVEL B1 -9' - 0 1/2" LEVEL 4 RAFTER BR'G 21' - 1 1/4" LEVEL 1 HEADER 7' - 2 1/2" LEVEL 2 HEADER 16' - 11" 9' - 7" V.I.F. 8' - 9" V.I.F. 2' - 9 1/4" V.I.F. 7' - 2 1/2" 7' - 4" V.I.F. NEW OBSERVATION DECK NEW OGEE GUTTER AND TRIM TO MATCH EXISTING NEW BALUSTRADE AND POSTS TO MATCH ORIGINAL, TYPICAL NEW BALUSTRADE AND POSTS TO MATCH ORIGINAL, TYPICAL NEW DOOR LEVEL 5 28' - 3 3/4" 9' - 11 3/4" V.I.F LEVEL 6 36' - 3 3/4" 1 1/4" = 1'-0" EAST ELEVATION NOTE: HALFTONED OR SCREENED LINEWEIGHTS ARE INTENDED TO INDICATE EXISTING COMPONENTS OF THE BUILDING. REVISIONS SHEET CONTENTS DRAWN CHECKED DATE SHEET NO. REUSE OF DOCUMENTS: THE IDEAS AND DESIGN INCORPORATED HEREON, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, IS THE PROPERTY OF ARCHITECTURE PLUS AND IS NOT TO BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF ARCHITECTURE PLUS 318 East Oak Street + Fort Collins 80524 1531 West 29th Street + Loveland 80538 970.493.1220 + 888.698.7897 + www.aplusarch.com A302 Sigma Phi Epsilon Renovation & Addition 12/01/2014 TMG MSC EXTERIOR ELEVATION - EAST PDP SUBMITTAL 121 E Lake St, Fort Collins, CO 80524 NO. BY DESCRIPTION DATE 185 LEVEL 1 0" LEVEL 2 9' - 7" LEVEL 3 18' - 4" LEVEL B1 -9' - 0 1/2" LEVEL 4 RAFTER BR'G 21' - 1 1/4" LEVEL 1 HEADER 7' - 2 1/2" LEVEL 2 HEADER 16' - 11" 9' - 0 1/2" V.I.F. 9' - 7" V.I.F. 8' - 9" V.I.F. 2' - 9 1/4" V.I.F. 7' - 2 1/2" V.I.F. 7' - 4" V.I.F. NEW ROOF TO MATCH EXISTING IN PITCH AND MATERIAL NEW OGEE GUTTER AND TRIM TO MATCH EXISTING FRENCH DOORS (FIXED) WITH SOLDIER COURSING TO MATCH NEW VENEER BRICK NEW OGEE TRIM TO MATCH NEW BALUSTRADE AND POSTS TO MATCH ORIGINAL, TYPICAL NEW OGEE TRIM TO MATCH NEW SHUTTERS TO MATCH ORIGINAL, TYPICAL LEVEL 5 28' - 3 3/4" 9' - 11 3/4" V.I.F. LEVEL 6 36' - 3 3/4" LEVEL 7 46' - 3 3/4" NEW ADDITION INDICATED IN DASHED REGION 1 1/4" = 1'-0" SOUTH ELEVATION NOTE: HALFTONED OR SCREENED LINEWEIGHTS ARE INTENDED TO INDICATE EXISTING COMPONENTS OF THE BUILDING. REVISIONS SHEET CONTENTS DRAWN CHECKED DATE SHEET NO. REUSE OF DOCUMENTS: THE IDEAS AND DESIGN INCORPORATED HEREON, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, IS THE PROPERTY OF ARCHITECTURE PLUS AND IS NOT TO BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF ARCHITECTURE PLUS 318 East Oak Street + Fort Collins 80524 1531 West 29th Street + Loveland 80538 970.493.1220 + 888.698.7897 + www.aplusarch.com A303 Sigma Phi Epsilon Renovation & Addition LEVEL 1 0" LEVEL 2 9' - 7" LEVEL 3 18' - 4" LEVEL B1 -9' - 0 1/2" LEVEL 4 RAFTER BR'G 21' - 1 1/4" LEVEL 1 HEADER 7' - 2 1/2" LEVEL 2 HEADER 16' - 11" 9' - 0 1/2" 9' - 7" V.I.F. 8' - 9" V.I.F. 2' - 9 1/4" V.I.F 7' - 2 1/2" V.I.F. 7' - 4" V.I.F. NEW ROOF TO MATCH EXISTING IN PITCH AND MATERIAL NEW OGEE GUTTER AND TRIM TO MATCH EXISTING NEW VENEER BRICK FRENCH DOORS (FIXED) WIHT SOLDIER COURSING TO MATCH NEW BALUSTRADE AND POSTS TO MATCH ORIGINAL, TYPICAL NEW OGEE TRIM TO MATCH NEW SHUTTERS TO MATCH ORIGINAL, TYPICAL NEW BALUSTRADE AND POSTS TO MATCH ORIGINAL, TYPICAL LEVEL 5 28' - 3 3/4" 9' - 11 3/4" V.I.F. LEVEL 6 36' - 3 3/4" NEW ADDITION INDICATED IN DASHED AREA 1 1/4" = 1'-0" WEST ELEVATION NOTE: HALFTONED OR SCREENED LINEWEIGHTS ARE INTENDED TO INDICATE EXISTING COMPONENTS OF THE BUILDING. REVISIONS SHEET CONTENTS DRAWN CHECKED DATE SHEET NO. REUSE OF DOCUMENTS: THE IDEAS AND DESIGN INCORPORATED HEREON, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, IS THE PROPERTY OF ARCHITECTURE PLUS AND IS NOT TO BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF ARCHITECTURE PLUS 318 East Oak Street + Fort Collins 80524 1531 West 29th Street + Loveland 80538 970.493.1220 + 888.698.7897 + www.aplusarch.com A304 Sigma Phi Epsilon Renovation & Addition 12/01/2014 TMG MSC NEW ROOF TO MATCH EXISTING IN PITCH AND MATERIALS NEW OGEE GUTTER AND TRIM TO MATCH EXISTING NEW VENEER BRICK FRENCH DOORS (FIXED) WITH SOLDIER COURSING TO MATCH NEW OGEE TRIM TO MATCH NEW BALUSTRADE AND POSTS TO MATCH ORIGINAL, TYPICAL NEW SHUTTER TO MATCH ORIGINALS, TYPICAL NEW BALUSTRADE AND POSTS TO MATCH ORIGINAL, TYPICAL NEW BALUSTRADE AND POSTS TO MATCH ORIGINAL, TYPICAL NEW OGEE TRIM TO MATCH 1 AXONOMETRIC - SW NOTE: HALFTONED OR SCREENED LINEWEIGHTS ARE INTENDED TO INDICATE EXISTING COMPONENTS OF THE BUILDING. REVISIONS SHEET CONTENTS DRAWN CHECKED DATE SHEET NO. REUSE OF DOCUMENTS: THE IDEAS AND DESIGN INCORPORATED HEREON, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, IS THE PROPERTY OF ARCHITECTURE PLUS AND IS NOT TO BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF ARCHITECTURE PLUS 318 East Oak Street + Fort Collins 80524 1531 West 29th Street + Loveland 80538 970.493.1220 + 888.698.7897 + www.aplusarch.com A701 Sigma Phi Epsilon Renovation & Addition 12/01/2014 TMG MSC AXONOMETRIC - SW PDP SUBMITTAL 121 E Lake St, Fort Collins, CO 80524 NO. BY DESCRIPTION DATE NEW ADDITION INDICATED IN DASHED AREA 188 NEW ROOF TO MATCH EXISTING IN PITCH AND MATERIALS NEW OGEE GUTTER AND TRIM TO MATCH EXISTING NEW VENEER BRICK FRENCH DOORS (FIXED) WITH SOLDIER COURSING TO MATCH NEW BALUSTRADE AND POSTS TO MATCH ORIGINAL, TYPICAL NEW OGEE TRIM TO MATCH NEW SHUTTER TO MATCH ORIGINALS, TYPICAL FRENCH DOORS WITH SOLDIER COURSING TO MATCH NEW BALUSTRADE AND POSTS TO MATCH ORIGINAL, TYPICAL NEW BALUSTRADE AND POSTS TO MATCH ORIGINAL, TYPICAL 1 AXONOMETRIC 02 NOTE: HALFTONED OR SCREENED LINEWEIGHTS ARE INTENDED TO INDICATE EXISTING COMPONENTS OF THE BUILDING. REVISIONS SHEET CONTENTS DRAWN CHECKED DATE SHEET NO. REUSE OF DOCUMENTS: THE IDEAS AND DESIGN INCORPORATED HEREON, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, IS THE PROPERTY OF ARCHITECTURE PLUS AND IS NOT TO BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF ARCHITECTURE PLUS 318 East Oak Street + Fort Collins 80524 1531 West 29th Street + Loveland 80538 970.493.1220 + 888.698.7897 + www.aplusarch.com A702 Sigma Phi Epsilon Renovation & Addition 12/01/2014 TMG MSC AXONOMETRIC - NW PDP SUBMITTAL 121 E Lake St, Fort Collins, CO 80524 NO. BY DESCRIPTION DATE NEW ADDITION INDICATED IN DASHED AREA 189 190 191 318 East Oak Street, Fort Collins, CO 80524 + 1531 West 29th Street, Loveland, CO 80538 970.493.1220 + 970.624.6995 + 303.996.3000 + 888.698.7897 02 January 2015 Modification Request Narrative Sigma Phi Epsilon Fraternity House 121 East Lake Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Modification Request for Floor Area Ratio ‐ Section 4.7(D)(2)(a)(4) & 4.7(D)(3): The current prescribed allowable floor area ratio permitted for this use is exceeded by the existing structure, which was due to the Zoning regulations having changed around the established site/building over history. The fraternity house has been long‐established at this location, having a continuing acceptance with the neighborhood. The structure is also approaching its 100‐year anniversary and serves as a historical landmark. The proposed addition for this building does not increase the existing building footprint, only adding floor area to the 2nd and 3rd stories. It should be noted that after renovations, the building’s occupancy will actually decrease, increasing the quality of life for its residents, increasing safety, and lessening the existing burden of other issues such as parking demand. So, the plan as submitted will improve the general condition of the existing non‐conforming use, even though the floor area ratio will increase slightly. Because of the existing conditions and established structures adjacent to the site, it would be infeasible to acquire adjacent property to satisfy contemporary floor area ratio requirements. The proposed addition is harmonious with the established historical style of the house, and will create a fusion between the original structure and the 1950’s kitchen addition. Many of the existing period‐ specific features will be refurbished to renew the character of the building. Located immediately next to the Colorado State University Trial Gardens, and CSU Center for the Arts, this landmark building complements the traditional elements of the immediate facing neighborhood, and actually serves as a well‐placed transitional element between the large‐scaled Arts Center and the smaller scale of the single‐family residential neighborhood surrounding this area. 192 318 East Oak Street, Fort Collins, CO 80524 + 1531 West 29th Street, Loveland, CO 80538 970.493.1220 + 970.624.6995 + 303.996.3000 + 888.698.7897 Modification Request Narrative Sigma Phi Epsilon Fraternity House 121 East Lake Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Modification Request for Building Height – FCLUC Section 4.7: (F): (1)(e) & (2)(a)(1.): As the building height of the New Addition is considered as 2.5 stories, due to the placement of a mezzanine/loft extending from the existing 3rd story of the house, it is in technical non‐compliance with the current Land Use standard of 2 story restriction the N‐C‐L district. We are requesting a modification of this standard for the following reasons: The new loft is integrated with the existing building, and of lesser height than the existing roof peak. The exterior appearance of the New Addition is that of a two‐story façade, having the 3rd story mezzanine/loft completely concealed within the proposed roof shell. So, the general purpose of the Land Use Code is being conserved by the building’s appearance. Currently, the existing 3rd floor is limited to one stairway and an outdated fire escape as the only means of egress. The new mezzanine/loft provides a second egress stairway for the existing 3rd story, and provides an additional egress route for the existing 2nd story directly to the exterior; so, the level of safety will be greatly improved by the provision of the New Addition. The Addition also serves as a visual transitional element between the existing 3‐story portion and the existing 1‐story 1950’s addition at the West portion of the building. The new mezzanine/loft is needed to provide a feasible second means of egress for the existing 3rd story, as modifying the existing construction would be impractical to provide this feature. Overall, the New Addition does not visually conflict with the spirit of the code, and its mass is of lesser magnitude than the primary existing building mass. The technical non‐compliance of the New Addition should be considered inconsequential, and granting of this modification request will provide greater levels of safety, function, and aesthetics for the Sigma Phi Epsilon House. 193 Red Door House Corporation, Inc. 121 East Lake Street P.O. Box 2051 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-2051 January 22, 2015 Sent Via Email Ryan Mounce, Current Planning City of Fort Collins 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 880522 Project: Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity house renovation – 121 E. Lake Street Fort Collins, CO Subject: Zoning - Statement of continued occupancy Dear Mr. Mounce, This letter is to document with the City that the Red Door House Corporation, the owners of the fraternity house at 121 E. Lake Street, have executed a lease (effective January 1, 2015) with the Theta Chi fraternity to occupy the house for the spring semester 2015. The Theta Chi fraternity is an active fraternity recognized by Colorado State University. The full lease agreement is available for review. Several Theta Chi members began living in the house on January 8, 2015 and there will be fraternity activities/meetings occurring in common areas during the semester. We understand that this action maintains our continued non-conforming use of the property. It is our intention to begin demolition and renovation of the fraternity house after the spring semester. Do not hesitate to contact me if there are any questions in regards to this action. Respectfully, Mitchell S. Christ, DBIA Director, Building Committee Chairman 303-916-6199 Mitch.christ@gmail.com Cc: Bryan Harmsen/Red Door House Corp. Tom Kalert/Architecture Plus Jon Kucera/Kucera Architecture 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROJECT: Sigma Phi Epsilon Fraternity House Addition DATE: November 12, 2014 PLANNER: Ryan Mounce APPLICANTS: Mitch Christ, Sigma Phi Epsilon Building Committee Planner & Applicant Presentation: The meeting began with a synopsis of the development review process and the steps completed thus far by the applicants. This is a proposal for an addition to a fraternity at the corner of Lake and Remington. The property is located in the Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (NCL) District. The proposed use for the property is a nonconforming use in the NCL zone district, and there are specific requirements that apply to nonconforming uses. The Planning and Zoning Board will be the decision maker for the project, which requires a neighborhood meeting. So far, the applicants have met with City staff for a conceptual review of the project. The next step will be a formal submittal of the project, which will be reviewed by City staff. This property is individually eligible for designation, so the applicant has been working with the Landmark Preservation Commission on the design for the addition. The applicants then gave brief overview of the project: • The Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity occupied the house since the 1940s, the structure itself was built as a sorority or fraternity in the 1930s • Remodel and renovate existing building for 40 residents • A single story addition was added to the west side of the house at some point, believed to have occurred in the 1950s or 1960s • Plan for future – current status is the fraternity was asked to leave university due to violations, national and state sigma phi org interested in maintaining the house for continued use by the fraternity in the future. Hope to change the culture of the fraternity; have engaged in a lot of planning and fundraising in the past 4-6 years, have raised 1.2 million for this project. • Opportunity while house is vacant to restore house and make improvements • Proposed improvements: o Wall along Lake Street will be moved back to create 8’ sidewalk along front with street tree plantings o Trash enclosure on south side o Will add bicycle parking, not sure where yet o Addition on the west side over the kitchen on the west side of the house o Lower level – eliminating storage room and adding a large laundry room 215 Neighborhood Information Meeting November 12, 2014 o First floor – no change, rooms will be cleaned up, insulation will be added to exterior walls, doors and windows will be removed, rebuilt to match historic character, and reinstalled, kitchen will be reconfigured as a more modern kitchen to serve residents, Portico area will be restored o Second floor – over the existing kitchen proposing to add a library connected to 2 nd floor residents’ rooms, telemedia room for distance learning, opportunity for residents to attend off-site classes at CSU, place to collaborate and study, single story space with a vaulted ceiling, has been through a number of design iterations with the LPC, has been pulled back from the first story, matches design of the balustrade over the trophy room and existing portico o Third floor – Vaulted space of the library extends up to the third floor, with a loft and stair case from the third floor down to the library on the second floor, remove a resident room to enlarge bathroom area for residents • Plan is to repair and restore existing masonry, have specialists in historic preservation on the team • All existing windows will be removed, restored, and reinstalled • Shutters to match historic shutters • French doors will be used for addition to match doors on front of building, all new features (including gutters) will closely match the character and vocab of original building • Existing windows have been neglected for a number of years and are in bad shape. Improvements will increase the comfort of residents and efficiency of building. Questions, Comments & Responses: Question (Attendees): Why are they being asked to construct an 8’ sidewalk? Doesn’t that exceed city standards of 5’? How did you arrive at 8’? Where in the code is one allowed to dictate that? Can see this being a pattern throughout the community; don’t want it to be unfairly applied. Is it fair and equitable? Response (City): Will check with Engineering staff to see how they arrived at that width. It may relate to the pedestrian activity in the area and the vehicle overhang that occurs from parked cars along Lake Street. Response (Applicant): We do a lot of work with Poudre School District, for them an 8’ sidewalk makes it easier to plow. Cars parked diagonally tend to overhang sidewalk, which may be part of the reason for the wider sidewalk. Question (Attendee): When do the parking requirements kick in? Response (City): Can’t add further inconsistency if this is processed as a nonconforming use. Currently there is no onsite parking provided; the applicants would need to add parking if they added employees or beds with the expansion. For a frat the parking ratio is based on the number of beds and employees. 2 216 Neighborhood Information Meeting November 12, 2014 Question (Attendee): Do you have to deal with asbestos abatement? Response (Applicant): Tested for asbestos and lead last week, waiting on results. If tests are positive, we will conduct mitigation work prior to proceeding with construction. Question (Attendee): What is your timeline? Response (Applicant): Our plan is to start construction in February with a grand opening in October. Question (Attendee): Are the balustrades functional? Is the top-level deck used? Response (Applicant): The balustrades are decorative. I don’t think people would be walking on the top deck, people would need to climb out of the windows to access it. Question (Attendee): Did they need a building permit for the basketball court, and why was it built? It is a detractor to the property. It was added recently, before they exited from campus. Response (Applicant): I was not involved with the project at that time, so I don’t know. Question (Attendee): How long has the building been vacant? And it will be vacant until October? Isn’t there something in the code about absence of occupancy? How long does the fraternity need to stay away from CSU? Response (Applicant): It has been vacant since January, and the fraternity has been suspended for 4 years. The plan is to clean up and maintain ownership, but in the meantime lease it with similar occupancy to another fraternity or sorority. We are working with CSU to identify any other groups that might be interested in occupying the building and working with lenders for financing. They hope by making this investment in the building, they might be able to petition the university to be reinstated early, but that’s not guaranteed. Response (City): We’ve raised the same question. Active operations need to be occurring within 12 months for the nonconforming use designation to remain. If the nonconforming use expires, the applicants would need to go through the Addition of a Permitted Use process, which is a special review to allow a use that is not permitted in a zone district. The APU process has different requirements than the nonconforming use process. At this time we don’t know with certainty what the timeline looks like and how the project will be processed. Question (Attendee): How will we know what the review process is, and if the use is continued? Response (City): To demonstrate that someone is back in the house, the City has asked for documentation, like a lease agreement, that shows that someone is occupying the house. It could be occupied by a smaller fraternity or sorority, but they don’t need to utilize the entire house. Question (Attendee): Does it have to be a Greek-recognized fraternity? Response (City): It has to be an organization that has fraternity/sorority recognition from CSU, couldn’t be a group of unaffiliated students, for example. 3 217 Neighborhood Information Meeting November 12, 2014 Comment (Attendee): I’m curious to know more about the [Addition of a Permitted Use] process. Response (City): Zone districts have a list of permitted uses. If a use is not listed, by default that use is not permitted in the zone district. Proposals can be made that specify another use that is not expressly permitted, but they must be approved by the Planning & Zoning Board, and they are to permit a specific use to a specific parcel; it does not permit the use throughout the rest of that particular zoning district. Response (City): In this circumstance, it would be an interesting process, because a proposal for an APU would be attempting to permit a use that has existed on the property for 85 years but which is now otherwise not a permitted use in the current zone district. Comment (Attendee): Needs to be fair, can’t let one project slide. Need to apply requirements fairly to all projects and not provide special treatments. Needs to be a fair and equitable process for everyone to use. Comment (Attendee): I like what they’re proposing, but the 12-month rule is going to hurt them. Should try to get someone in there. Don’t like the basketball court, but I like the proposal. Question (Attendee): So the maximum number is 48 students? Response (Applicant): They’re planning initially on 35, but the current capacity is 45. Question (Attendee): Can they expand the number of people? Is it capped at 48? Response (City): I believe the 48 is related to occupancy and fire regulations. They will run into more difficulty with parking and other requirements if they increase the number of beds. Since they are looking at reducing the number of residents, then that is not currently an issue. If they made a change in the future, would need to get separate approval for that as an amendment to an approved plan if capacity was documented on their recorded planning documents. Comment (Attendee): There are two processes here, which changes how they would need to meet standards. Response (City): If it’s an APU, then would need to bring everything up to standard, or if they could not, apply for a modification of standard. As a nonconforming use, there are slightly different standards to be considered. For instance, one is related to parking in that for a nonconforming use, they cannot increase any existing inconsistency, but if this was an APU, they would be required to meet current parking requirements. Comment (Attendee): The site is landlocked. There isn’t any space for parking spots unless the basketball court went away. Response (City): Yes, adding any parking to this site would be challenging from an access and space perspective. In addition, there are also standards for this one district that limit the amount of impervious space in the front half of the lot and that limits parking between the front of the building and the street. 4 218 Neighborhood Information Meeting November 12, 2014 Comment (Attendee): I think you’re doing a fine job, it looks beautiful, and I see a lot of potential with the library and technology, making it more energy-efficient. It’s something to be proud of. Response (Applicant): This building has good bones. The fraternity’s interest is making it good for another 100 years. These guys live and breathe CSU, and they are all very proud of the building; it means a lot to them. Their vision and goal for this project is to bring the splendor and glory back to this building that has been neglected for a long time. 5 219 EXTERIOR ELEVATION - WEST PDP SUBMITTAL 121 E Lake St, Fort Collins, CO 80524 NO. BY DESCRIPTION DATE 187 12/01/2014 TMG MSC EXTERIOR ELEVATION - SOUTH PDP SUBMITTAL 121 E Lake St, Fort Collins, CO 80524 NO. BY DESCRIPTION DATE 186 970.493.1220 + 888.698.7897 + www.aplusarch.com A301 Sigma Phi Epsilon Renovation & Addition 12/01/2014 TMG MSC EXTERIOR ELEVATION - NORTH PDP SUBMITTAL 121 E Lake St, Fort Collins, CO 80524 NO. BY DESCRIPTION DATE 184 EXISTING TREES NEW RETAINING WALL, RE-USE EXISTING STONE EXISTING FRATERNITY HOUSE (DASHED) EDGE OF DEMO'D EXISTING RETAINING WALL EXISTING TREE 50' - 4" FACE OF BUILDINIG TO PROPERTY LINE NEW 8 SPACE BICYCLE RACK NEW 8 SPACE BICYCLE RACK NEW STREET ACCESS RAMP NEW RETAINING WALL, RE-USE EXISTING STONE ALL LIGHTING WILL BE FULLY-SHIELDED AND DOWN DIRECTIONAL. General Site Plan Notes 1. REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR SPECIFIC PLANTING TYPES AND OTHER RELATED DATA. 2. 4995 4993 40' - 0" 6' - 8" 34' - 7" 25' - 0" Site & Building Information Zone District: Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (N-C-L) Lot Size: 100 ft. (N-S) x 170 ft. (E-W), 17000 sq.ft. Building Area Existing: 10764 sq.ft. (incl. Basement) 7856 sq.ft. (not incl. Basement) Proposed: 11554 sq.ft. (incl. Basement) 8646 sq.ft. (not incl. Basement) Note - the existing building footprint will not increase. The new proposed additon is at 2nd and 3rd floors only. Overall Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) Existing: 0.63 (incl. Basement) 0.46 (not incl. Basement) Proposed: 0.68 (incl. Basement) 0.51 (not incl. Basement) F.A.R. on Rear Half of Lot Existing: 1.27 (incl. Basement) 0.92 (not incl. Basement) Proposed: 1.36 (incl. Basement) 1.02 (not incl. Basement) Bedrooms Existing: 29 Proposed: 21 Bicycle Parking Requirements 40 Beds: 60%=24 Enclosed, 40%=16 Unenclosed Additional Site / Building Information: Lot Size: 0.39 acre / 17000 sq.ft. Building Coverage: 19% / 3160 sq.ft. Open Space: 75% / 12750 sq.ft. Max Building Height: 34 ft. (existing) Demolished S.F.: 0 New Fire Protection: NFPA-13 Construction Type: III-B LEVEL 1 0" BRICK TO MATCH BUILDING (WEST, EAST & SOUTH) 6” O.D. BOLLARD - PAINT W/ GATE HINGE WOOD DOORS - STAINED TO MATCH BUILDING METAL COPING - COLOR TO MATCH BUILDING 6" CONCRETE CURB CANE BOLTS (G.I.) TO G.I. SLEEVE IN CONCRETE PAVEMENT (2" MIN. INTO CONC/SLEEVE) 6' - 6" PAINTED METAL FRAMES, WELDED - COLOR TO MATCH BUILDING W. LAKE ST. REMINGTON ST. MATHEWS ST. PETERSON ST. PROSPECT CT. W. PROSPECT RD S. COLLEGE AVE. W. PITKIN ST. CSU THRUST THEATER CENTER FOR THE ARTS E. LAKE ST. SITE E. PROSPECT RD E. PITKIN ST. TRIAL GARDEN 1 1" = 10'-0" SITE PLAN REVISIONS SHEET CONTENTS DRAWN CHECKED DATE SHEET NO. REUSE OF DOCUMENTS: THE IDEAS AND DESIGN INCORPORATED HEREON, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, IS THE PROPERTY OF ARCHITECTURE PLUS AND IS NOT TO BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF ARCHITECTURE PLUS 318 East Oak Street + Fort Collins 80524 1531 West 29th Street + Loveland 80538 970.493.1220 + 888.698.7897 + www.aplusarch.com A001 Sigma Phi Epsilon Renovation & Addition 01/02/2015 Author MSC SITE PLAN PDP SUBMITTAL 121 E Lake St, Fort Collins, CO 80524 NO. BY DESCRIPTION DATE OWNER'S CERTIFICATION THE UNDERSIGNED DOES/DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I/WE ARE THE LAWFUL OWNERS OF THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED ON THIS SITE PLAN AND DO HERBY CERTIFY THAT I/WE ACCEPT THE CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS SET FORTH ON THE SAID SITE PLAN. OWNER (SIGNED) DATE THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF 20 BY (PRINT NAME) AS MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL NOTARY PUBLIC ADDRESS PLANNING CERTIFICATE APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO ON THIS DAY OF , 20 . Director of Planning N 2 1/2" = 1'-0" TRASH ENCLOSURE - WEST ELEVATION 3 1" = 1000'-0" VICINITY MAP 182 NOM 141/126 126 95/51 116 METAL SPANDREL GLASS ELEV. MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" ELEV. 116'-8" ELEV. T.O. PARAPET 120'-8" ELEV. 114'-6" ELEV. 107'-4" ELEV. 109'-4" ELEV. 111'-4" CONCRETE GREENHOUSE 10'-0" 10'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0" 10'-0" 4'-0" 10'-0" 4'-0" 12 6 12 6 12 6 12 6 STOREFRONT SYSTEM STOREFRONT SYSTEM STOREFRONT SYSTEM CSU BAY FARM HORTICULTURE CENTER PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 12.22.2014 61 8 12'-10" 42'-0" 42'-0" 6'-6" 36'-0" 36'-0" 36'-0" 102A N110 GREENHOUSE GREENHOUSE CORRIDOR 110A 109A 110 109 111 N112B 113 112A 114B2 113A GREENHOUSE GREENHOUSE GREENHOUSE 109C 109D 108C 109B GREENHOUSE AREA: 21,157 SQ. FT. OFFICE/ SUPPORT AREA: 6,207 SQ. FT. GREENHOUSE CORRIDOR 6'-0" 9'-1" 8'-5" 8'0" X 8''0" MOVEABLE PARTITION SINK SINK BENCH BENCH COILING DOOR COILING DOOR 4'0" SL. 4'0" SL. 4'0" SL. COILING DOOR 5 6 8 7 8 4 4 1 (BENCHES) 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 3 3 4'0" SL. EVAP. PADS EVAP. PADS 4'0" SL. EVAP. PADS H.B.- TYP. 2 EVAP. PADS EVAP. PADS 1 (BENCHES) (BENCHES) (BENCHES) TRENCH DRAIN TRENCH DRAIN TRENCH DRAIN (BENCHES) (NO BENCHES) (NO BENCHES) 80'-0" 20'-0" 8'0" X 10'0" COILING DOOR 114 4'0" SL. 114A 4'0" SL. 4'0" SL. 114B EVAP. PADS EVAP. PADS N112A ELEC. COOLER COOLER 108B 108A N113 PHONE DUST EXHAUSTER GROWTH CHAMBERS 10 11 11 11 TRENCH DRAIN 11 TRENCH DRAIN 11 TRENCH DRAIN 11 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 TRENCH DRAIN 11 9 12 13 13 13 13 15 15 15 15 14 14 14 COILING DOOR COILING DOOR 107A 106A 4'-0" 4'-0" CONCRETE CONCRETE STAIRS & RETAINING WALLS AS REQUIRED- TYPICAL 0 4' 8' 16'  4' HIGH CONCRETE KNEE WALL ON EXTERIOR PERIMETER FOR GREENHOUSES. INTERIOR GREENHOUSE WALLS TO GO TO FLOOR. LIGHTS IN GREENHOUSE CORRIDOR PROVIDED & INSTALLED BY ELEC. CONTRACTOR. GROW LIGHTS IN GREENHOUSE BY GREENHOUSE SUPPLIER. PROVIDE & INSTALL SMART A/V EQUIPMENT FOR ROOMS 106 & 107. PLASTIC LAMINATE COUNTERTOPS w/ 4" BACKSPLASH. FURNITURE BY OWNER, N.I.C.. S. S. COVERED COUNTERTOP NO CABINETS UNDERNEATH. CONCRETE BLOCK ALL SIDES OF THIS ROOM. 1. PROVIDE WATER BACKFLOW PREVENTER FROM HEADHOUSE TO GREENHOUSE. 2. PROVIDE S. S. CORNER GUARDS ON GYP. BD. IN HEADHOUSE. 3. PROVIDE SAFETY SHOWERS & EYE WASH AS REQUIRED BY CODE. 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 6  9 ROOF ACCESS HATCH & LADDER. 2 FANS IN EACH GREENHOUSE TO BE ON VARIABLE FREQUENCY 10 GREENHOUSE TRENCH DRAINS TO GO TO STORM DRAIN. 11 12 LOCKERS. DRIVES. METAL CASEWORK, UPPERS & LOWERS. 13 4. CONFIRM BOILER ROOM SIZE WITH GREENHOUSE MANUFACTURER. 14 PROVIDE PHOTOSYNTHESIS/ GROW 15 PROVIDE PHOTO PERIOD LIGHTS ON TIMER IN THIS GREENHOUSE. LIGHTING IN THIS GREENHOUSE. 5. PROVIDE 240 EACH PAR SOURCE GLE ELECTRONIC BALLAST GROW LIGHTS IN THE GREENHOUSE. CSU BAY FARM HORTICULTURE CENTER PROPOSED FLOORPLAN 12.22.2014 60 7 701 431 577 BARNS 555 554 HOSPITAL VETERINARY TEACHING 578 567 568 562 553 580 559 560 570 561 558 425 PUMP HOUSE 422 423 USDA 424 USFW HEADHOUSE HILTON (21) (20) (19) (23) (26) (25) (30) (29) (27) (28) (22) 311 312 CROP RESEARCH U.S.D.A. 380 308 306 304 303 302 305 309 310 313 SURPLUS 136 137 BOOK STORAGE 318 (34) (24) 301 (18) 317 307 206 221 223 229 231 201 202 203 207 211 212 213 210 205 208 217 216 215 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 252 253 254 255 264 250 Parking Garage (Bldg K) (Bldg J) (Bldg L) (Bldg H) (Bldg H) (Bldg P5) (Bldg P3) (Bldg P2) (Bldg C) (Bldg U) (Bldg A) (Bldg A) (Bldg B) 548 DIAGNOSTIC MEDICINE CENTER BSL-3 539 Bus Barn (Bldg K2) UNIVERSITY TENNIS COMPLEX AGGIE VILLAGE NORTH AGGIE VILLAGE SOUTH 314 (31) 315 (32) 316 (33) 391 569 TUBE STEEL STRUCTURE FOR SNOW MELT EQUIPMENT 183 179 187 185 Gail Holmes Equine Orthopaedic Research Center APHI Lab Orthopaedic Research Lab Bay Drive - Private West Prospect Road Gardens on Spring Creek Hilton Hotel USDA CSU Board of Governors State Land Board CSURF FLOODWAY/ FRINGE BOUNDARY Sheely Neighborhood Spring Creek Centre Avenue 100’ LEGEND PROSPECT ROAD Bay Drive - Private CENTRE AVENUE SEE ENLARGEMENT BAY FARM HORTICULTURE CENTER SITE COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY MAIN CAMPUS COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY SOUTH CAMPUS CAMPUS CONTEXT MAP ENLARGED VICINITY MAP PROPOSED RESEARCH PLOTS PROPOSED RESEARCH GREENHOUSES PROPOSED PARKING CSU BAY FARM HORTICULTURE CENTER VICINITY MAP 12.22.2014 55 2 FT. COLLINS, CO 80528 01/16/15 PDP SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1/8" = 1'-0" A212 1 EAST ELEVATION-PART A 1/8" = 1'-0" A212 2 EAST ELEVATION-PART B KEYED ELEVATION NOTES (NOTED WITH ) 1 GROUND FACE BURNISHED CMU - SEE SPECIFICATIONS 2 CAST STONE CAP - SEE DETAIL XXX 3 ALLURA FIBER CEMENT BOARD SIDING, PAINTED 4 VINYL DOUBLE HUNG WINDOW - SEE A600 SHEETS 5 FIBER CEMENT BOARD TRIM, PAINTED 6 PREFINISHED 6" METAL GUTTER AND 3"x4" DOWNSPOUT 7 INSULATED HOLLOW METAL DOOR AND FRAME 8 FASCIA BOARD TRIM, PAINTED, TYPICAL 9 ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING 10 CONTINUOUS RIDGE VENT, TYPICAL 11 PREFINISHED METAL FLASHING 12 PTAC UNIT - SEE MECHANICAL DRAWINGS 13 PREFINISHED FIBER CEMENT PANEL W/ PREFINISHED MATCHING JOINTS 14 PREFINISHED METAL PARAPET COPING 16 ROOF EXPANSION JOINT - SEE DETAIL XXX 17 PORT COCHERE DROP OFF CANOPY 18 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT - SEE A600 SHEETS 19 WALL EXPANSION JOINT - SEE DETAIL XXX 20 INSULATED METAL CANOPY - SEE A300 SHEETS 21 PREFINISHED METAL GATE 22 PREFINISHED METAL 18"X12" SCUPPER CONDUCTOR W/3"X4" D.S. 23 ROOF MEMBRANE ROLL EDGE - SEE A300 SHEETS 24 PREFINISHED SHEET METAL WRAP - SEE A300 SHEETS 25 STRUCTURAL STEEL COLUMNS, PAINTED - SEE STRUCTURAL SHEETS 31 BRICK CONTROL JOINT - SEE DETAIL XXX 32 INSTALL END PANELS AT GUTTERS WHERE TERMINATED ON EITHER SIDE OF EXPANSION JOINT KEYPLAN N 2B 1B 2A 1A 2C 1C 1 2 1 REVISION SCHEDULE NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 28 1/13/2015 8:03:56 PM A211 NORTH ELEVATION MAINSTREET HEALTH & WELLNESS SUITES 2014.00421 ZIEGLER ROAD FT. COLLINS, CO 80528 01/16/15 PDP SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1/8" = 1'-0" A211 1 NORTH ELEVATION-PART A 1/8" = 1'-0" A211 2 NORTH ELEVATION-PART B KEYED ELEVATION NOTES (NOTED WITH ) 1 GROUND FACE BURNISHED CMU - SEE SPECIFICATIONS 2 CAST STONE CAP - SEE DETAIL XXX 3 ALLURA FIBER CEMENT BOARD SIDING, PAINTED 4 VINYL DOUBLE HUNG WINDOW - SEE A600 SHEETS 5 FIBER CEMENT BOARD TRIM, PAINTED 6 PREFINISHED 6" METAL GUTTER AND 3"x4" DOWNSPOUT 7 INSULATED HOLLOW METAL DOOR AND FRAME 8 FASCIA BOARD TRIM, PAINTED, TYPICAL 9 ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING 10 CONTINUOUS RIDGE VENT, TYPICAL 11 PREFINISHED METAL FLASHING 12 PTAC UNIT - SEE MECHANICAL DRAWINGS 13 PREFINISHED FIBER CEMENT PANEL W/ PREFINISHED MATCHING JOINTS 14 PREFINISHED METAL PARAPET COPING 16 ROOF EXPANSION JOINT - SEE DETAIL XXX 17 PORT COCHERE DROP OFF CANOPY 18 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT - SEE A600 SHEETS 19 WALL EXPANSION JOINT - SEE DETAIL XXX 20 INSULATED METAL CANOPY - SEE A300 SHEETS 21 PREFINISHED METAL GATE 22 PREFINISHED METAL 18"X12" SCUPPER CONDUCTOR W/3"X4" D.S. 23 ROOF MEMBRANE ROLL EDGE - SEE A300 SHEETS 24 PREFINISHED SHEET METAL WRAP - SEE A300 SHEETS 25 STRUCTURAL STEEL COLUMNS, PAINTED - SEE STRUCTURAL SHEETS 31 BRICK CONTROL JOINT - SEE DETAIL XXX 32 INSTALL END PANELS AT GUTTERS WHERE TERMINATED ON EITHER SIDE OF EXPANSION JOINT KEYPLAN N 2B 1B 2A 1A 2C 1C 1 2 1 REVISION SCHEDULE NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 27 A210 1 WEST ELEVATION-PART A 1/8" = 1'-0" A210 2 WEST ELEVATION-PART B KEYED ELEVATION NOTES (NOTED WITH ) 1 GROUND FACE BURNISHED CMU - SEE SPECIFICATIONS 2 CAST STONE CAP - SEE DETAIL XXX 3 ALLURA FIBER CEMENT BOARD SIDING, PAINTED 4 VINYL DOUBLE HUNG WINDOW - SEE A600 SHEETS 5 FIBER CEMENT BOARD TRIM, PAINTED 6 PREFINISHED 6" METAL GUTTER AND 3"x4" DOWNSPOUT 7 INSULATED HOLLOW METAL DOOR AND FRAME 8 FASCIA BOARD TRIM, PAINTED, TYPICAL 9 ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING 10 CONTINUOUS RIDGE VENT, TYPICAL 11 PREFINISHED METAL FLASHING 12 PTAC UNIT - SEE MECHANICAL DRAWINGS 13 PREFINISHED FIBER CEMENT PANEL W/ PREFINISHED MATCHING JOINTS 14 PREFINISHED METAL PARAPET COPING 16 ROOF EXPANSION JOINT - SEE DETAIL XXX 17 PORT COCHERE DROP OFF CANOPY 18 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT - SEE A600 SHEETS 19 WALL EXPANSION JOINT - SEE DETAIL XXX 20 INSULATED METAL CANOPY - SEE A300 SHEETS 21 PREFINISHED METAL GATE 22 PREFINISHED METAL 18"X12" SCUPPER CONDUCTOR W/3"X4" D.S. 23 ROOF MEMBRANE ROLL EDGE - SEE A300 SHEETS 24 PREFINISHED SHEET METAL WRAP - SEE A300 SHEETS 25 STRUCTURAL STEEL COLUMNS, PAINTED - SEE STRUCTURAL SHEETS 31 BRICK CONTROL JOINT - SEE DETAIL XXX 32 INSTALL END PANELS AT GUTTERS WHERE TERMINATED ON EITHER SIDE OF EXPANSION JOINT KEYPLAN N 2B 1B 2A 1A 2C 1C 1 REVISION SCHEDULE NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 1 2 26 01/16/15 PDP SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION KEYED ELEVATION NOTES (NOTED WITH ) 1 GROUND FACE BURNISHED CMU - SEE SPECIFICATIONS 2 CAST STONE CAP - SEE DETAIL XXX 3 ALLURA FIBER CEMENT BOARD SIDING, PAINTED 4 VINYL DOUBLE HUNG WINDOW - SEE A600 SHEETS 5 FIBER CEMENT BOARD TRIM, PAINTED 6 PREFINISHED 6" METAL GUTTER AND 3"x4" DOWNSPOUT 7 INSULATED HOLLOW METAL DOOR AND FRAME 8 FASCIA BOARD TRIM, PAINTED, TYPICAL 9 ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING 10 CONTINUOUS RIDGE VENT, TYPICAL 11 PREFINISHED METAL FLASHING 12 PTAC UNIT - SEE MECHANICAL DRAWINGS 13 PREFINISHED FIBER CEMENT PANEL W/ PREFINISHED MATCHING JOINTS 14 PREFINISHED METAL PARAPET COPING 16 ROOF EXPANSION JOINT - SEE DETAIL XXX 17 PORT COCHERE DROP OFF CANOPY 18 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT - SEE A600 SHEETS 19 WALL EXPANSION JOINT - SEE DETAIL XXX 20 INSULATED METAL CANOPY - SEE A300 SHEETS 21 PREFINISHED METAL GATE 22 PREFINISHED METAL 18"X12" SCUPPER CONDUCTOR W/3"X4" D.S. 23 ROOF MEMBRANE ROLL EDGE - SEE A300 SHEETS 24 PREFINISHED SHEET METAL WRAP - SEE A300 SHEETS 25 STRUCTURAL STEEL COLUMNS, PAINTED - SEE STRUCTURAL SHEETS 31 BRICK CONTROL JOINT - SEE DETAIL XXX 32 INSTALL END PANELS AT GUTTERS WHERE TERMINATED ON EITHER SIDE OF EXPANSION JOINT 1/8" = 1'-0" A209 1 SOUTH ELEVATION-PART A 1/8" = 1'-0" A209 2 SOUTH ELEVATION-PART B KEYPLAN N 2B 1B 2A 1A 2C 1C 1 1 2 REVISION SCHEDULE NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 25 1/16" = 1'-0" A201 2 NORTH ELEVATION-OVERALL KEYED ELEVATION NOTES (NOTED WITH ) 1 GROUND FACE BURNISHED CMU - SEE SPECIFICATIONS 2 CAST STONE CAP - SEE DETAIL XXX 3 ALLURA FIBER CEMENT BOARD SIDING, PAINTED 4 VINYL DOUBLE HUNG WINDOW - SEE A600 SHEETS 5 FIBER CEMENT BOARD TRIM, PAINTED 6 PREFINISHED 6" METAL GUTTER AND 3"x4" DOWNSPOUT 7 INSULATED HOLLOW METAL DOOR AND FRAME 8 FASCIA BOARD TRIM, PAINTED, TYPICAL 9 ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING 10 CONTINUOUS RIDGE VENT, TYPICAL 11 PREFINISHED METAL FLASHING 12 PTAC UNIT - SEE MECHANICAL DRAWINGS 13 PREFINISHED FIBER CEMENT PANEL W/ PREFINISHED MATCHING JOINTS 14 PREFINISHED METAL PARAPET COPING 16 ROOF EXPANSION JOINT - SEE DETAIL XXX 17 PORT COCHERE DROP OFF CANOPY 18 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT - SEE A600 SHEETS 19 WALL EXPANSION JOINT - SEE DETAIL XXX 20 INSULATED METAL CANOPY - SEE A300 SHEETS 21 PREFINISHED METAL GATE 22 PREFINISHED METAL 18"X12" SCUPPER CONDUCTOR W/3"X4" D.S. 23 ROOF MEMBRANE ROLL EDGE - SEE A300 SHEETS 24 PREFINISHED SHEET METAL WRAP - SEE A300 SHEETS 25 STRUCTURAL STEEL COLUMNS, PAINTED - SEE STRUCTURAL SHEETS 31 BRICK CONTROL JOINT - SEE DETAIL XXX 32 INSTALL END PANELS AT GUTTERS WHERE TERMINATED ON EITHER SIDE OF EXPANSION JOINT KEYPLAN N 2B 1B 2A 1A 2C 1C 1 3 2 4 1 REVISION SCHEDULE NO. DESCRIPTION DATE NOTE: THE INCREASED HEIGHT OF +40 FEET AT THE BUILDING ENTRANCE IS REQUESTED TO CREATE DESIGN CONTINUITY PER THE FT. COLLINS LAND USE CODE SECTION 3.5.G.1.C, PARTS 2 AND 5. SOLAR STUDIES HAVE BEEN PERFORMED FOR THE TIMES OF GREATEST SHADOW (05.45PM, 06/21/2014 AND 04.20PM, 12/21/2014) AT WHICH TIMES THE SHADOW CREATED BY THIS INCREASED HEIGHT DOES NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES FOR THIS FACILITY. 24 (42) Spo-h (16) Phy-o (44) Heu-m (24) Sch-s (16) Sym-x (1) Pic-c (1) Pic-c (19) Pen-s (6) Bux-x (10) Sch-s (21) Spo-h (1) Hyd-a (9) Rhu-t (14) Sch-s (2) Pic-b (29) Ach-m (24) Mah-r (22) Heu-m (25) Phy-o (29) Spo-h (9) Pic-b (15) Sch-s Project Number CERTIFIED BY ISSUANCE INDEX DATE: PROJECT PHASE: 9/10/2014 11:57:25 AM MAINSTREET HEALTH & WELLNESS SUITES 2014.00421 ZIEGLER ROAD FT. COLLINS, CO 80528 01/16/2015 95% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS REVISION SCHEDULE NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 1 Per City Comments 12/23/14 2 Per City Comments 1/16/15 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 3 Per City Comments 1/23/15 0 Scale 1" = 10'-0" 5 10 60 North ENLARGED COURTYARD PLANTING PLAN L102 SHEET 2 OF 4 22 (10) Jam-a (40) Sch-s (6) Rhu-t (46) Sch-s (3) Pic-b (9) Jam-a (10) Cha-m (25) Sch-s (2) Fall-p (52) Jun-s (55) Spo-h (58) Ach-m (15) Rhu-t (38) Rhu-t (93) Sch-s (15) Fal-p (17) Rhu-t (133) Sch-s (9) Fal-p (3) Pic-g (3) Cel-o (3) Pop-s (2) Pop-s (1) Til-a (2) Pic-p (3) Ulm-x (3) Ros-w (4) Atr-c (3) Chr-y (3) Chr-y (3) Chr-y (3) Rhu-s (3) Rhu-s (5) Rhu-s (9) Pan-v (14) Bux-g (67) Ach-m (3) Til-c Project Number CERTIFIED BY ISSUANCE INDEX DATE: PROJECT PHASE: 9/10/2014 11:57:25 AM MAINSTREET HEALTH & WELLNESS SUITES 2014.00421 ZIEGLER ROAD FT. COLLINS, CO 80528 01/16/2015 95% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS REVISION SCHEDULE NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 1 Per City Comments 12/23/14 2 Per City Comments 1/16/15 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 3 Per City Comments 1/23/15 0 Scale 1" = 30'-0" 15 30 60 North OVERALL PLANTING PLAN L101 REFER TO SHEET L102 GENERAL LANDSCAPE AND PLANTING NOTES LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS STREET TREES 1 Canopy Shade Tree per 30 to 40 LF of road Ziegler Road: 425 LF / 30-40 LF = 11-14 Trees required, 12 Trees provided Precision Drive: 520 LF / 30-40 LF = 13-18 Trees required, 13 Trees provided PARKING LOT PERIMETER LANDSCAPING: 1 Tree / 40 LF along a side lot line North: 209 LF / 40 LF = 6 Trees required and provided East: 280 LF / 40 LF = 7 Trees required and provided 6FUHHQLQJIURPQRQUHVLGHQWLDOXVHVVKDOOKDYHDPLQLPXPKHLJKWRI´DORQJDPLQLPXPRIRIWKHSDUNLQJORW PARKING LOT INTERIOR LANDSCAPING 1 Canopy Shade Tree per Landscape Island required and provided 1 Canopy Shade Tree per 40 LF required along each side of driveways and provided MINIMUM SPECIES DIVERSITY 60 or more trees on site: 15% maximum percentage of any one species FULL TREE STOCKING Additional trees on high visibility sides of the building North: 381 LF elevation / 30-40 LF = 10-13 Trees within 50' of the building required; 4 Canopy, 9 Ornamental, and 3 Evergreen Trees Provided West: 233 LF elevation / 30-40 LF = 6-8 Trees within 50' of the building required; 2 Canopy, 3 Ornamental, and 3 Evergreen Trees Provided South: 381 LF elevation / 30-40 LF = 10-13 Trees within 50' of the building required; 4 Canopy, 8 Ornamental, and 14 Evergreen Trees Provided SCREENING All trash collection, service areas, and loading docks shall be screened from off-site view STREET TREE NOTES 1. A permit must be obtained from the City Forester before any trees or shrubs as noted on this 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. 2. 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. 3. Street trees shall be supplied and planted by the developer using a qualified landscape contractor. 4. The developer shall replace all dead and dying street trees after planting until final maintenance inspection and acceptance by the City of Fort Collins Forestry Division. All street trees in the project must be established of an approved species and of acceptable condition prior to acceptance. 5. Street tree locations and numbers may be adjusted to accommodate driveway locations, utility standards, separation between trees, street signs and street lights. Street trees shall be centered in the middle of the parkway. Quantities shown on plan must be installed unless a reduction occurs to meet separation standards. A free permit must be obtained from the City Forester before any street trees are planted in parkways between the sidewalk and curb. Street tree locations and numbers may change to meet actual utility/tree separation standards. Landscape contractor must obtain approval of street tree location after utility locates. Street trees must be inspected and approved before planting. Failure to obtain this permit is a violation of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. SHEET 1 OF 4 1. Refer to Project Manual for Planting Specifications and Topsoil requirements. Refer to Plant Schedule and Planting Details for additional information. 2. All materials are subject to the approval of the Landscape Architect and Owner at any time. Landscape Architect to inspect all plant locations and plant bed conditions prior to installation. On-site adjustments may be required. 3. Rootballs shall meet or exceed size standards as set forth in 'American Standards for Nursery Stock'. MAIN LEADERS OF ALL TREES SHALL REMAIN INTACT. 4. Remove from the site any plant material that turns brown or defoliates within five (5) days after planting. Replace immediately with approved, specified material. 5. Plant counts indicated on drawings are for Landscape Architect's use only. Contractor shall make own plant quantity takeoffs using drawings, specifications, and plant schedule requirements (i.e., spacing), unless otherwise directed by Landscape Architect. Contractor to verify bed measurements and install appropriate quantities as governed by plant spacing per schedule. Plant material quantities shown on plan are minimum quantities. Additional material may be needed to meet spacing requirements and field conditions. 6. Seed all areas disturbed by construction activities that are not otherwise noted to receive pavement, planting bed, or sod treatment. 7. The Contractor shall install and/or amend topsoil in all proposed bed areas to meet Specifications. Contractor shall coordinate quantity and placement of topsoil. Landscaper shall verify depth of topsoil prior to plant installation. (Refer to specifications for topsoil source and placement requirements) 8. All tree locations shall be marked with 2x2" stakes prior to planting for review and approval by the Landscape Architect or Owner's Representative. Any plant material installed in an incorrect location, by the judgment of the Landscape Architect, shall be reinstalled at the Contractor's expense. 9. All plant beds shall receive 3" minimum of shredded hardwood bark mulch (unless otherwise noted). 10. Verify all utility locations in the field prior to beginning work. Repair all damaged utilities to Owner's satisfaction at no additional cost. 11. The Contractor shall maintain all plant material and lawns until the project is fully accepted by the Landscape Architect, unless otherwise noted. 12. All workmanship and materials shall be guaranteed by the Contractor for a period of one calendar year after Final Acceptance. 13. Install all plant material in accordance with all local codes and ordinances. Coordinate with the Owner to obtain any required permits necessary to complete work. 14. Contractor shall test all tree pits for drainage. Any tree pit that holds water for more than 24 hours shall be installed using tree pit drainage. 15. Trees shall be matched in groups unless otherwise noted. 16. All turf areas shall be irrigated with an automatic pop-up sprinkler system. All shrub beds shall be irrigated with automatic drip irrigation system, or acceptable alternative. Refer to irrigation plans. 17. Trees shall not be planted closer than 4 feet to any gas, no closer than 6 feet to any water or sewer service line, no closer than 10 fee to any water or sewer main, and no closer than 8 feet to a driveway. A horizontal distance of 40 feet between canopy street trees and street lights and 15 feet between ornamental trees and street lights shall be maintained. Shrubs are not to be planted within 4 feet of water or sewer mains. 18. The soil in all landscape areas, including parkways and medians, shall be thoroughly loosened to a depth of not less than 8 inches, and soil amendment shall be thoroughly incorporated into the soil of all landscape areas to the depth of at least 6 inches by tilling discing or other suitable method, at a rate of at least 3 cubic yards of soil amendment per 1,000 square feet of landscape area. 19. Landscaping, including street trees, 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 certificate of occupancy. All City street trees must be installed and established, of an approved species and of acceptable condition prior to final release of financial security. 3 3 21