Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/17/2018 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - Regular MeetingPlanning and Zoning Board Page 1 May 17, 2018 Jeffrey Schneider, Chair City Council Chambers Jeff Hansen, Vice Chair City Hall West Jennifer Carpenter 300 Laporte Avenue Emily Heinz Fort Collins, Colorado Michael Hobbs Ruth Rollins Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 & Channel 881 William Whitley 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 May 17, 2018 6:00 PM • ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Individuals may comment on items not specifically scheduled on the hearing agenda, as follows: • Those who wish to speak are asked to sign in at the podium. • The presiding officer will determine and announce the length of time allowed for each speaker. • Each speaker should state their name and address and keep their comments to the allotted time. • Any written materials should be provided to the Secretary for record-keeping purposes. • A timer will beep once and the time light will turn to yellow to indicate that 30 seconds of speaking time remain and will beep again and turn red when a speaker’s time to speak has ended. • CONSENT AGENDA The Consent Agenda is intended to allow the Planning and Zoning Board to quickly resolve items that are non-controversial. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request that an item on this agenda be “pulled” for consideration within the Discussion Agenda, which will provide a full presentation of the item being considered. Items remaining on the Consent Agenda will be approved by the Planning and Zoning Board with one vote. The Consent Agenda generally consists of Board Minutes for approval, items with no perceived controversy, and routine administrative actions. Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Agenda Packet Pg. 1 Planning and Zoning Board Page 2 May 17, 2018 1. MINUTES OF THE APRIL 19, 2018 P&Z HEARING The purpose of this item is the consideration and approval of the draft minutes of the April 19, 2018 Planning & Zoning Board hearing. 2. Affordable Self Storage, PDP170005 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a Project Development Plan to develop 4 lots of the Evergreen Park Replat (Parcel #’s 9701310009, 9701315001, 9701214008 and 9701214007) as a self storage facility. The proposal consists of in a mix of drive up and interior storage units. Building A on the corner of Conifer Street and Red Cedar Circle will be a 2-story facility with interior storage units while the remaining five buildings will each be one story. The overall proposal contains 96,773 feet of building area and is located in the Industrial Zoning district. APPLICANT: Curtis Koldeway Hauser Architects 3780 E 15th St Loveland, CO 80538 3. GINGER AND BAKER TEMPORARY PARKING LOT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to develop a temporary surface parking lot located at the southeast corner of Linden and Willow Streets. The proposal consists of a gravel overlay to the existing undeveloped lot and addition of a chain link fence enclosing the south end of the parking lot. The parking lot will accommodate up to 58 vehicles. The development site is ½ acre and zoned R-D-R, River Downtown Redevelopment. APPLICANT: John C. “Jack” Graham 1108 N. Lemay Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 4. Aweida Annexation, Plan Amendment and Zoning ANX180002 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Aweida Properties, Inc. has submitted a petition requesting the annexation and zoning for one vacant property, along with the abutting arterial street right-of-way totaling 0.862 acres, into Fort Collins’ municipal boundaries. The property located at 4101 S. Taft Hill Road is situated on the southwest corner of South Taft Hill Road and W CR 38 E intersection. The requested zoning for this annexation is Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N). The City Structure Plan Map, an element of City Plan, currently designates the property as Urban-Estate. The requested amendment to the City Structure Plan Map is necessary for the property to be zoned L-M-N upon annexation. A specific project development plan proposal is not included with the annexation application. APPLICANT: Courtney Lockwood Lockwood Architects, Inc. 415 E. Pitkin Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Packet Pg. 2 Planning and Zoning Board Page 3 May 17, 2018 • DISCUSSION AGENDA 5. East Gateway Annexation and Zoning PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to annex and zone 1.77-acres of land consisting of three properties into the City of Fort Collins. The properties are located approximately ¼ mile northeast of the Interstate 25 and East Mulberry Street interchange. The annexation will enclave the East Mulberry Corridor. In accordance with the City’s Structure Plan Map, the requested zoning for this annexation is Industrial (I), General Commercial (C-G), and Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N). APPLICANT: Alex Boggs Tower Management Company 80 S Lake Ave., #719 Pasadena, CA 91101 Colorado Department of Transportation – Region 4 Corey Stewart, Program Engineer 10601 W. 10th St. Greeley, CO 80634 6. Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use, PDP170017 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Project Development Plan to build a telecommunications tower housed within a 1,600 sq. ft. wireless facility. This facility will house wireless telecommunications equipment to provide wireless service to the surrounding area. The proposed tower would be 55 feet tall and disguised as a bell tower. This tower and facility will be used for structural support of up to three wireless providers. Each provider will install antennas and on-the-ground base station equipment. The site is located in the Low Density Residential (RL) zone district and, as such, is subject to review and approval by City Council. Wireless telecommunications facility is not an allowed use in the RL zone. The applicant is seeking an Addition of Permitted Use (APU) to allow a wireless telecommunications facility on this parcel. APPLICANT: Caleb Crossland 4450 Arapahoe Ave. Suite 100 Boulder, CO 80303 • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Packet Pg. 3 Agenda Item 1 Item #1 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY May 17, 2018 Planning and Zoning Board STAFF Shar Gerber, Customer and Administrative Manager SUBJECT MINUTES OF THE APRIL 19, 2018 P&Z HEARING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is the consideration and approval of the draft minutes of the April 19, 2018 Planning & Zoning Board hearing. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft April 19, 2018 P&Z Minutes Packet Pg. 4 DRAFT Jeff Schneider, Chair City Council Chambers Jeff Hansen, Vice Chair City Hall West Jennifer Carpenter 300 Laporte Avenue Emily Heinz Fort Collins, Colorado Michael Hobbs Ruth Rollins Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 & William Whitley Channel 881 on Comcast The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing April 19, 2018 Chair Schneider called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Hansen, Heinz, Hobbs, Rollins, Whitley and Schneider Absent: None Staff Present: Shepard, Yatabe, Tatman-Burruss, Frickey, Everette and Gerber Chair Schneider provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. He described the following procedures: • 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. Agenda Review Chief Planner Ted Shepard reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas, stating that all items will be heard as originally advertised. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 5 DRAFT Planning & Zoning Board April 19, 2018 Page 2 of 6 Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: None noted. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from March 15, 2018, P&Z Hearing 2. Draft Minutes from March 29, 2018, P&Z Special Meeting 3. Paradigm ODP170004 Project Description: This is a request for an amendment to the existing Paradigm Overall Development Plan (ODP). The amendment to the ODP proposes a change to the land use mix to allow broad variety of commercial uses and a change in the road circulation pattern. The new circulation pattern includes a road looping through the site with access drives radiating off the loop road and serving each lot. The site is located in the General Commercial (CG) zone district. Recommendation: Approval 5. Spring 2018 Annual Revisions clarifications and additions to the Land Use Code Public Input on Consent Agenda: None noted Chair Schneider asked if any of the Board members had any issues moving item 5 to the consent agenda. There were no Board members had an issue moving item 5 to consent. Chair Schneider asked if there was anyone in the audience that had an issue with the Board moving item 5 to the consent agenda. No one from the audience took issue. Chair Schneider moved item 5 to consent. Public Input on Non-Agenda Items: None noted Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Consent agenda for the April 19, 2018 Planning and Zoning Board hearing as originally advertised. Member Whitley seconded the motion. Vote: 7:7. Discussion Agenda: Member Rollins recused herself from this item. 4. Oil and Gas Buffers - Land Use Code Changes Project Description: Updates to Land Use Code Sections 3.8.26 (Residential Buffering) and 5.1.2 (Definitions) as they relate to development near existing oil and gas operations, including updates to setbacks and disclosure requirements. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Gerber reported that citizen emails and letters were received and are as follows. Jerry Dauth provided three articles about Oil and Gas for the Board’s consideration. The Board received comment and recommendation from the Natural Resources Advisory Board. Received Code Amendments (to include language that exempts approved development plans. Joyce Devaney sent a letter stating that she is in favor of increased setbacks and hopes that the Board votes in favor as well. Joyce is very concerned about the health effects of fracking. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 6 DRAFT Planning & Zoning Board April 19, 2018 Page 3 of 6 Disclosures Member Whitley disclosed that he had ex parte communication in the form of a presentation he attended presented by the League of Women’s Voters in Longmont Colorado. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Everette gave a brief overview of current and proposed Land Use Code regarding oil and gas wells, their type, how many are known to exist, their locations and development potential near these wells. Planner Everette followed up with clarification and answers to questions asked at the previous months P&Z hearing. Member Hobbs asked if a slide in the presentation could be revisited. Member Hobbs read a bullet point at the bottom of a slide; the direct approval of any sampling plan is required prior to sampling occurring and such plan may be required to include, but is not limited to the following. Member Hobbs remarked and asked that this is a menu of the types of things that a Director of Planning could ask for, but it is not a complete list of all the things that are required, is that correct? Planner Everett responded that that is correct. That the way the code is currently written, allows some flexibility depending on the situation of that particular site. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Jerry Dauth, 1925 Serramonte Dr., emphasized the safety of larger buffers zones. There is evidence that states that plugged wells can leak. Would like measuring to be done over time. Vicky Mclane, 1607 Ticonderoga Dr., asks that the setback not be reduced for plugged and abandoned wells. She is requesting that the setback be increased to 500’. The risk of cancer is 8 times higher if the setback is less. There is a high leakage rate for plugged wells. Would like continuous monitoring, Vicky knows that it is expensive, but also knows that there is equipment not yet vetted, but in process at CSU. Gayla Martinez, 3378 Liverpool St., she seconded what Vicky Mclane requested. Gayla is requesting that the setbacks not be less than 500’. Gayla offered two points to support the argument; 1) Quote from Professor Anthony Ingraffea of Cornell University, “it is physically impossible to ensure that a well will not leak”. 2) Study lead by Lisa McKinzie of Colorado School of Public Health “lifetime cancer risks for those living within 500’ of wells is 8 times higher”. Staff Response Planner Everette appreciated the comments received from the three citizens. Planner Everette stated that all studies reviewed by the citizens were also reviewed by commenter staff and have informed the staff recommendation and added that many of the studies that relate to well leakage and failure also include active and fracked wells. It is hard to teas out how much leakage is associated with plugged and abandoned wells in particular. Board Questions Member Hansen spoke to the amount of $100,000 salary for staff that the City of Longmont pays to have this person monitor wells. The question was, how many wells is this one individual overseeing and how does it compare to the number of wells in Fort Collins? Planner Everette stated that the number of wells in Longmont is comparable to that of Fort Collins. 10 to 20 active and 20-30 plugged and abandoned wells. The $100,000 per year includes oversight of a contractor that goes out and does the sampling and at about $2,500 to $3,000 a well. They are able to sample all of their plugged and abandoned wells across the City. Not necessarily every well every year, but the ones they have the most concerns about, they are able to hit each year. The Longmont program started with initial site investigation and surveying, which is costlier. Roughly $16,000 per well. Staff has estimated that just the initial site investigation would cover about 6 wells in the first year at $100,000. Member Heinz requested clarification. There is a $100,000 position of someone who oversees a contractor that does the testing? And then the contractor charges $2,000 to $3,000 per well. Planner Everette explained that ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 7 DRAFT Planning & Zoning Board April 19, 2018 Page 4 of 6 there is a dedicated staff person that has their own salary that is separate from $100,000. The $100,000 is just to pay a contractor to do the annual site sampling and recording. Member Heinz asked about the setback reduction from 350’ to 150’. Why did this change come up, why the reduction? Planner Everette responded for all wells, active or plugged and abandoned under the proposed code changes the new buffer would be 500’ for residential development or 1000’ for high occupancy building units. This would be the starting point. A developer could pursue alternative compliance for a reduced buffer. The 150’ minimum was determined in consultation with the City of Longmont contractors that do site sampling around wells in Colorado and around the country and the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission staff. The consensus from the groups is that 150’ would be a safe radius for residential development, even if some leakage or site contamination were to occur. Member Heinz asked if the default was 500’, but that if they meet some certain criteria, they could possibly go to 150’. Planner Everette stated that was correct and it would be up to the P&Z Board or an administrative hearing officer to decide. Chair Schneider asked for clarification regarding which type of wells, natural gas or oil, we have in Fort Collins. Planner Everette responded that it was correct, we have oil wells. Chair Schneider stated that all the research and studies were based on natural gas wells leaking. He did not see anything regarding oil wells leaking. Planner Everette stated that much of the research lumps it all together. It is hard to determine what the leakage rate would look like. The most recent well to be drilled in Fort Collins was in the 1990’s. We do not have much of the newer oil and gas production that other communities have. Chair Schneider asked if staff looked at setting different setbacks depending on if it is an oil well or natural gas well. Planner Everette stated that staff did not consider separate setbacks for different types of production. It was asked about the potential for natural gas production in Fort Collins, there is no way to rule it out. It is not impossible, but not likely in the short term, near future there would be any natural gas interest in Fort Collins. Member Carpenter asked if staff looked at adding another requirement to the alternative compliance so that it does have to be somehow the operator that will pay for the continuous monitoring or annual monitoring? Planner Everette stated that staff has not added recommendation for ongoing annual monitoring. There are options for funding and staff wanted to leave that type of consideration up to the Board and City Council as to whether that type of cost is something that is worth putting on the developer or more likely a future homeowner that would live adjacent to that well, or if it is something the City would be willing to take on. Member Hobbs stated that the code verbiage does not require that monitoring equipment is ever installed, it’s one of a number of things that could be asked for, correct? Planner Everette replied that is how it is worded, correct. Staff’s intent is that would be required at all times, but that is not how the code language is worded. Member Hansen asked for verification Planner Everette responded that that was correct. Member Hansen asked if a developer chose to respect the 500’ setback, then they would not be required to verify location or do any testing or provide any monitoring, is this correct? Planner Everette responded that is correct. That is how the proposed code language is written. Member Hanse followed up by stating it would be advantageous to the City and its citizens to encourage developers to do that kind of study. Have you gotten any feedback on the cost versus the benefit? Planner Everette pulled up a slide on cost. For Plugging and abandoning a well is roughly $84,000, the cost for research and sampling if a well is already abandoned is roughly $31,000. The thought behind the alternative compliance option was that it would create a strong financial incentive for a developer to complete the sampling and site investigation and survey work in exchange for developable acreage. Requirements could be shifted around so that certain requirements could applicable no matter what the buffer distance is. The intent behind requiring the full sampling plan and analysis in exchange for the reduced buffer is that there would be a financial incentive for that. Board Deliberation Chair Schneider does not see how the City could demand of the developer extended testing as most often once the site is complete the LLC dissolves and the HOA takes over, and it becomes their burden and probably becomes dues to homeowners. Member Heinz asked if he meant the real estate developer that shows up to do the development, not the oil developer? Chair Schneider, correct. Member Hobbs pointed out that the Board needs to ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 8 DRAFT Planning & Zoning Board April 19, 2018 Page 5 of 6 accept the fact that there may not be HOA’s in some areas. Member Hobbs agrees with Member Hansen in that his concerns center on the alternative compliance issue. In this case we are talking about public health and it is felt that it is difficult to ask the P&Z Board and City staff to administer in perpetuity. Member Whitley wanted to know if staff had considered eliminating alternative compliance or making it more stringent? Member Hobbs responded that he feels we are dealing with a public safety issue that is difficult to access or predict the long-term effects. He feels it is not correct to place responsibility for that on a Planning and Zoning staff. In his view, this is something that needs environmental and scientific experts to deal with, and even then, you don’t know what is going to happen to a well in the future. Airing on the side of being conservative, preference would be to eliminate the alternative compliance and leave the setback at 500’ for abandoned wells. Member Whitley, Heinz and Carpenter all agreed. Member Schneider disagreed as he feels that due diligence needs to be completed to get the reduced setback and that people are willingly buying and willing living in that area. If someone has a major concern, then they should probably not live in that area. It is no different than an airport, people choose to live there. Also, we do not know what the future holds in the way of technology. Member Heinz feels that maybe it could get modified and setback then. She does not want to be responsible for health risks. We just do not know. Chair Schneider stated that we are talking about oil wells, if it were gas wells he might have a different opinion. He just does not see the same risk as fracking. Member Whitley asked what risks have been identified so far? There is no telling what might come in the future. Member Hansen stated that there is also an environmental health concern and if we do not give developers some incentive to investigate and possibly remedy substandard conditions at these wells, there could be a ticking time bomb that we don’t even know about. Even at the projected cost we have, that’s really cheap developable acreage, this is a huge incentive, even if the costs increase 3 to 5 times. Member Hobbs feels that the potential hazards and the potential monitoring of those hazards, the technology to monitor that in real time and in perpetuity is evolving. It is important to keep in mind that we are talking about a hand full of locations within the GMA. Member Hobbs is willing to say there could be situations where the economics curve and the cost of monitoring that satisfied the surrounding citizens and this board, both of which would be voices that would be heard in such a situation, could be arrived at. He feels that the alternative compliance is too much of an open door and that treating those handful of what are currently 5 active and 10 abandoned wells with the ability for a developer to come in with a modification like we saw Waters Edge do and propose something that works, that I would agree to. But, I agree to eliminating the alternative compliance. Member Carpenter agrees with not eliminating the alternative compliance and that we have no way of saying that gas is more harmful than oil. We just don’t have that information in front of us. Member Carpenter would like to get rid of the alternative compliance. They can recommend with a modification. Chair Schneider asked if they would feel better if it was a mandated stipulation, here are the things that need to be done? Member Hansen’s concern with eliminating alternative compliance and opening it up for modifications, is that there is no set of standards that we want to see to justify reducing from 500’ to 200’ or 150’. You will have people coming in to reduce it to 50’, because the land use code will not have any standard to set what we expect out of those modifications. Member Carpenter agrees and feels there could not be a modification. Member Heinz stated that anyone could ask for a modification, but it would make sense if it were, “could be no closer than X”, and in the event that someone was asking for a modification they would have to meet these seven criteria. At that point it would be almost the same as allowing the alternative compliance. Member Heinz is concerned for the health of the people than the developer getting more place to live. Member Whitley agreed. Chair Schneider Is concerned because when the Board approved Waters Edge, there was only one person that objected, he is trying to understand. Member Carpenter feels as though they have more information at this point. At the time the previous project went through, there was no data. This time we have been give much more information. Member Whitley suspects that Waters Edge would be different if it were brought up now. Member Heinz asked if it would make sense to break this up if we are not going to agree to all of the recommendations? Member Whitley asked if they could just eliminate the object of compliance section, section C? Chair Schneider responded that it could be part of the motion. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board submit a recommendation to City Council to approve the land use code amendments relating to oil and gas buffers as submitted in the staff report with the exception of 3.8.26C4C and that this recommendation is based upon the agenda materials presented at work session, this hearing and the public comments that we have heard tonight. Member Whitley seconded. Chair Schneider asked City Attorney Yatabe if the motion made sense. Attorney Yatabe stated yes. Member Hobbs commented that he is appreciative of staff’s work. Having reciprocal buffers ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 9 DRAFT Planning & Zoning Board April 19, 2018 Page 6 of 6 that work in conjunction with the State setbacks that they require of the oil and gas producers. He feels that the way that it has been designed to parallel that into changes that changes. These setbacks will change if the State setbacks become greater. This is a good set to do that and it is a good step to have better notification on the plats for potential land or homeowners to allow a conscious decision of living close to either an abandoned well or existing well. Member Carpenter also thanked staff for their patience in answering all the questions and helping to educate the Board so that they could make an informed decision on the issue. Member Whitley also thanked staff on this new and evolving information. Member Heinz thanked the citizens who attended every meeting to say something and show their passion. Member Hansen appreciated staff’s efforts. He is not in support of the motion as it currently stands. Member Heinz asked if they could make a motion to Council that the City take it upon itself to test out some of those abandoned wells? Chair Schneider thanked the citizens for being active and involved. Staff came to the Board with very well drafted land use code change for oil and gas, unfortunately he cannot support those changes based on the motion. He would like to have the ability to look at potential reductions that people are going to put in the time to look at the wells and make sure they are safe and clean. He does not feel we have all the research yet. He feels there should be the alternative compliance available. Vote: 5:2. Other Business Member Heinz made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to Council that they make it a priority to test plugged and abandoned wells within the GMA. Member Whitley seconded. Planner Everette added that staff does intend to submit a budge offer in the next budget cycle that has already been drafted that would begin the process of site investigation and sampling. She feels the recommendation to Council is relevant. Member Hansen feels the motion should be amended to say we are in support of this budget item that staff is preparing. Both the motion maker and seconder agreed. Attorney Yatabe suggested that the Board may want to, as part of discussion, some of the specifics. You do want to write a letter, do you want to have the Chair talk to our Council liaison, Council Member Martinez. It’s great to adopt recommendation, but you may want to discuss some of the mechanics of that before adopting. Chair Schneider asked what the motion maker would like to see happen. Member Heinz would like to see the Board have a discussion at the next work session and put something together quickly to Ray and get some additional information from Planner Everett on the BFO. Member Heinz withdrew the current motion withdrawn Adjournment Chair Schneider moved to adjourn the P&Z Board hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 8:25pm. Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Gerber. Minutes approved by a vote of the Board on: ____________. Cameron Gloss, Planning Director Jeff Schneider, Chair ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 10 Agenda Item 2 Item #2, Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 17, 2018 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME AFFORDABLE SELF STORAGE, PDP170005 STAFF Clay Frickey, City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a Project Development Plan to develop 4 lots of the Evergreen Park Replat (Parcel #’s 9701310009, 9701315001,9701214008 and 9701214007) as a self- storage facility. The proposal consists of in a mix of drive up and interior storage units. Building A on the corner of Conifer Street and Red Cedar Circle will be a 2- story facility with interior storage units while the remaining five buildings will each be one story. The overall proposal contains 96,773 feet of building area and is located in the Industrial Zoning district. APPLICANT: Curtis Koldeway Hauser Architects 3780 E 15th St Loveland, CO 80538 OWNER: Randy and Deb Milan 1402 Catalpa Ct. Fort Collins, CO 80521 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Affordable Self Storage, PDP170005. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Staff finds the proposed Affordable Self Storage Project Development Plan complies with the applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically: • The Project Development Plan complies with the process located in Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 - Administration. • The Modification of Standard to Section 3.8.11(A) that is proposed with this Project Development Plan meets the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H), in that the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal submitted deviates from the Code in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan. • The Modification of Standard to Section 3.8.11(C) that is proposed with this Project Development Plan meets the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H), in that the granting of the Modification would not be Packet Pg. 11 Agenda Item 2 Item #2, Page 2 detrimental to the public good and the proposal submitted promotes the general purpose of the code standard equal to or better than would a compliant plan. • The Modification of Standard to Section 4.28(E)(3)(a)(2) that is proposed with this Project Development Plan meets the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H), in that the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal submitted promotes the general purpose of the code standard equal to or better than would a compliant plan. • The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards of Article 3 - General Development Standards, if the Modification of Standard to Sections 3.8.11(A) and 3.8.11(C) are approved. • The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.28 Industrial (I) of Article 4 - Districts, if the Modification of Standard to Section 4.28(E)(3)(a)(2) is approved. COMMENTS: Background The property was annexed into the City of Fort Collins as part of the Pine Tree Park Annexation in November 1972. Three of the four lots were platted as part of the Evergreen Park Replat in March 1974. The most easterly lot was platted as part of the Conifer Industrial Park Minor Subdivision on November 12, 1992. The site has been used as an outdoor storage facility for many years and sat vacant prior. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North Industrial (I) Light industrial, office South Service Commercial (CS), Community Commercial - North College (CCN) Retail, residential East Community Commercial - North College (CCN), Industrial (I) Day shelter, vehicle repair, light industrial West Industrial (I), Service Commercial (CS) Metal fabrication shop, motel, vehicle repair A zoning and site vicinity map is presented on the following page. Packet Pg. 12 Agenda Item 2 Item #2, Page 3 Figure 1: Affordable Self Storage Zoning & Site Vicinity Packet Pg. 13 Agenda Item 2 Item #2, Page 4 2. Compliance with Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code - Modification of Standards Modification #1 Description: The applicant requests a modification to Section 3.8.11(A) to provide a fence greater than 100 feet in length without a change in alignment. Land Use Code Standard Proposed to be Modified (areas underlined and bolded for emphasis): Land Use Code 3.8.11(A): If used along collector or arterial streets, such features shall be made visually interesting and shall avoid creating a "tunnel" effect. Compliance with this standard may be accomplished by integrating architectural elements such as brick or stone columns, incorporating articulation or openings into the design, varying the alignment or setback of the fence, softening the appearance of fence lines with plantings, or similar techniques. In addition to the foregoing, and to the extent reasonably feasible, fences and sections of fences that exceed one hundred (100) feet in length shall vary the alignment or setback of at least one-third (1/3 )of the length of the fence or fence section (as applicable) by a minimum of five (5) feet. Land Use Code Modification Criteria: “The decision maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4) above shall be supported by specific findings showing how the plan, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4). Packet Pg. 14 Agenda Item 2 Item #2, Page 5 Applicant’s Justification for Modification: The architectural screen wall in combination with pilasters that mimic the 2-story’s articulation will be equally visually interesting and will avoid a “tunnel” effect. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the request for a Modification of Standard to Section 3.8.11(A) is justified by the applicable standards in 2.8.2(H)(4). A. The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good B. The project design satisfies 2.8.2(H)(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. As the standard states, the purpose of this Code provision is to prevent the “tunnel effect” of a long, undifferentiated mass along arterial streets. The portion of the fence in question is located on the south end of the site along Conifer Street. This portion of the fence is 104 feet in length. A compliant plan would show at least 35 feet of the fence setback an additional five feet. Alternatively, the applicant could provide a fence 100 feet in length and chamfer the corner, which would meet the standard. As proposed, the fence provides visual relief through wide pilasters, changes in height, parapet caps, and a precast sill, which breaks up the mass of the fence. Motorists and other users of Conifer Street would not likely be able to perceive the difference between a fence 100 feet in length and one that is 104 feet in length. Due to the design and the length of fence marginally exceeding the maximum without the need for an additional setback for 1/3 the length of the fence, staff finds this proposal diverges from the standard in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan. Modification #2 Description: The applicant requests a modification to Section 3.8.11(C) to have a fence that exceeds four feet in height in the front yard or side yard setback area in the front yard and six feet in height in the side yard setback area in the rear yard. Land Use Code Standard Proposed to be Modified: Land Use Code 3.8.11(C): Fences or walls shall be: … (2) no more than four (4) feet high if located in the front yard, or within any required side yard setback area in the front yard, except if required for demonstrated unique security purposes; (3) no more than six (6) feet high if located within any required rear yard setback area or within any side yard setback area in a rear yard; Applicant’s Justification for Modification: The screen wall shields out the low visual interest or visually intrusive building element of overhead doors, blank walls and vehicular traffic. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the request for a Modification of Standard to Section 3.8.11(C) is justified by the applicable standards in 2.8.2(H)(1). A. The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good Packet Pg. 15 Agenda Item 2 Item #2, Page 6 B. The project design satisfies 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 the standard for which a modification is requested. The purpose of this standard is to avoid excessively tall fences that create an impression of walled off, impermeable portions of the community. For this development, the applicant proposes buildings characterized by repetitive garage doors. These low visual interest buildings would detract from the character of the community if left unscreened. Some of the proposed garage doors rise to a height of nine feet, six inches per the architectural elevations. A seven-foot tall fence screens more of these low visual interest buildings than a four or six-foot tall fence would. The applicant also proposes a fence that is 100% opaque and with enhanced features such as masonry materials, wide pilasters that rise an additional foot in height, precast sills, and parapet caps. The landscape plan also shows generous evergreen plantings at the base of the fence to further soften the appearance of the fence. For these reasons, staff finds the proposed fence promotes the general purpose of the standard equally well or better than a compliant plan. Modification #3 Description: The applicant requests a modification to Section 4.28(E)(3)(a)(2) to have a landscape buffer yard along a zone district boundary less than 30 feet in depth. Land Use Code Standard Proposed to be Modified: Land Use Code 4.28(E)(3)(a)(2): A minimum thirty-foot deep landscaped yard shall be provided along all arterial streets, and along any district boundary line that does not adjoin a residential land use. If a district boundary line abuts upon or is within a street right-of-way, then the required landscaped yard shall commence at the street right-of-way line on the district side of the street, rather than at the district boundary line. This requirement shall not apply to development plans that comply with the standards contained in Section 3.5.3 of this Code. Applicant’s Justification for Modification: As has been demonstrated, providing plant materials in conjunction with a screen panel and masonry wall provides a more visual integration of materials than that of a security fence. The screen wall also shields out the low visual interest or visually intrusive building element of overhead doors, blank walls and vehicular traffic. The architectural screen wall in combination of plant materials provides an equally well buffering of that of a thirty-foot deep landscape yard, if not better during winter months. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the request for a Modification of Standard to Section 4.28(E)(3)(a)(2) is justified by the applicable standards in 2.8.2(H)(1). A. The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good B. The project design satisfies 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 the standard for which a modification is requested. The purpose of this standard is to screen industrial activities from neighboring properties with a different character through dense landscaping. The applicant could meet this requirement by providing a 30-foot deep landscape yard on the east side of the site extending up 235 feet from the south property line. What the applicant proposes is a seven-foot tall fence in conjunction with evergreen trees. The seven-foot tall fence will screen virtually all the activities of the self-storage facility from adjacent properties not in the Industrial zone district. As discussed previously, this fence will be constructed of high quality materials with the mass broken up through changes in material, plane, and height. The landscape plan shows a series of evergreen plantings that provide year-round greenery to soften the appearance of the fence and provide Packet Pg. 16 Agenda Item 2 Item #2, Page 7 additional visual interest. As such, staff finds the proposed buffer promotes the general purpose of the standard equally well or better than a compliant plan. 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. Section 3.2.1(D) - Tree Planting Standards All developments shall establish groves and belts of trees along all city streets, in and around parking lots, and in all landscape areas that are located within 50’ of any building or structure in order to establish at least a partial urban tree canopy. The proposed landscape plan shows street trees planted at appropriate intervals and ornamental trees planted close to buildings to provide screening and a partial urban tree canopy, which meets this code standard. B. Section 3.2.1(D)(3) - Minimum Species Diversity The proposed landscape plan shows 51 trees. No one species may make up more than 25% of the overall total number of trees when a development proposes 40-59 trees. None of the species proposed makes up more than 25% of the overall total number of trees in accordance with this standard. C. Section 3.2.1(E)(1) - Buffering Between Incompatible Uses and Activities Section 4.28(E)(3)(a) contains more specific language for buffering between developments located in the Industrial zone district and adjacent developments in other zone districts. Since the Article 4 standard is more specific and rigorous, the Article 4 standard applies per Section 3.1.2. The applicant supplied a modification request for the Article 4 standard, which was discussed previously in this staff report. D. Section 3.2.1(E)(3)(b)(2) - Water Budget Total annual water use shall not exceed 15 gallons/square foot over the site. Sheet L-5 of the landscape plan indicates the annual water use of the site is 8.45 gallons/square foot, which meets this standard. E. Section 3.2.1(E)(4)-(5) - Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping The perimeter of parking lots are required to have trees planted at a ratio of 1 per 25 lineal feet along a public street and 1 per 40 lineal feet along a side lot line and parking setback area. Parking lots must also have screening to block at least 75% of light from vehicle headlights. 6% of the interior of the parking lot must also contain landscaping. The proposed landscape plan shows buildings surrounding the six-space parking lot on three sides. The only portion of the parking lot viewable from the street is on the west side. Section 3.2.1(N) allows applicants to seek alternative compliance to a standard so long as the proposed plan meets the purpose of Section 3.2.1 equal to or better than a compliant plan. Section 3.2.1(B) articulates the purpose of this code section, which is, “…to require preparation of landscape and tree protection plans that ensure significant canopy shading to reduce glare and heat build-up, contribute to visual quality and continuity within and between developments, provide screening and mitigation of potential conflicts between activity areas and site elements, enhance outdoor spaces, reduce erosion and stormwater runoff, encourage water conservation and mitigate air pollution.” In the applicant’s Statement of Planning Objectives, they state the buildings screen the self- storage activity. Due to the placement of buildings, headlights from vehicles will not shine onto Packet Pg. 17 Agenda Item 2 Item #2, Page 8 adjacent properties. Due to this layout, a water line runs underneath the landscape area immediately adjacent to the parking area. Developments may not place trees on top of water lines since roots can infiltrate these lines. As such, it would not be possible for the parking area to meet the requirements for tree plantings. In lieu of these tree plantings, the applicant’s proposed landscape plan shows enhanced plantings on the eastern property line and in the landscape buffer yard on Conifer Street to further enhance the site. In total, the applicant proposes 51 trees, four of which are transplanted Pinon trees that currently exist on-site. Through screening the parking lot with buildings and the enhanced tree plantings elsewhere on the site, staff finds the proposal meets this standard through alternative compliance permitted in Section 3.2.1(N). F. Section 3.2.1(F) - Tree Replacement and Protection Existing trees shall be preserved to the extent reasonably feasible. Currently, the site has several trees as shown on the tree mitigation plan. The City Forester and the applicant met on-site on February 5, 2018 to inventory all existing trees and their mitigation value. The City Forester found 11 trees on-site. Of these 11 trees, the applicant proposes to preserve and protect five of the trees, transplant four of the trees, and remove two trees. The applicant gets credit for transplanting four of the trees. The mitigation required for removing the Siberian elms and cottonwood stems is nine trees. The net mitigation required is five trees. The applicant proposes planting five upsized Standing Ovation Serviceberry trees to meet their mitigation requirement per Section 3.2.1(F)(1)(b). Staff finds this proposal to be consistent with this standard. G. Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(b) - Bicycle Parking Space Requirements The minimum number of bicycle parking spaces required for a self-storage facility is 4 since the most similar use is Industrial. Affordable Self Storage proposes one bicycle rack that contains 4 bicycle parking spaces in accordance with this standard. H. Section 3.2.2(C)(5) - Walkways Walkways must be provided to link sidewalks with building entries through parking lots. These walkways must also provide direct connections to off-site pedestrian and bicycle destinations. The proposed site plan shows a sidewalk leading directly to the entry for the office associated with the proposed storage facility. This proposed sidewalk ties into the sidewalk along Red Cedar Circle and does not cross any parking lots or drive aisles. I. Section 3.2.2(D)(1) - Access and Parking Lot Requirements; Pedestrian/Vehicle Separation To the maximum extent feasible, pedestrians and vehicles shall be separated through provision of a sidewalk or walkway. Where complete separation of pedestrian and vehicles is not feasible, potential hazards shall be minimized by using landscaping, bollards, special paving, lighting, and other means to clearly delineate pedestrian areas. Affordable Self Storage proposes separating pedestrians from vehicles by providing a sidewalk separated from the driving and parking area via curb. J. Section 3.2.2(E) - Parking Lot Layout The proposed parking lot layout is consistent with requirements of the Land Use Code in regards to circulation routes, orientation, landscaped islands, and points of conflict. K. Section 3.2.2(J) - Setbacks The proposed parking lot is setback further than the 10-foot minimum along a non-arterial street required per the Land Use Code. Packet Pg. 18 Agenda Item 2 Item #2, Page 9 L. Section 3.2.2(K)(2) - Nonresidential Parking Requirements This section of the Code does not have a specific parking requirement for self-storage facilities. In that event, Section 3.2.2(K)(2)(d) states that uses not listed in the parking table use the parking ratio for the most equivalent use. Recently approved self-storage facilities have used a variety of parking ranges based on the square footage of the office space associated with the facility and its similarity to industrial uses. The proposed self-storage facility is parked similarly to other recently approved self-storage facilities per the table below. Project Parking Provided Timberline Storage 9 West Vine Self-Storage 6 South College Storage 7 Lemay Self-Storage 4 Affordable Self-Storage 6 M. Section 3.2.2(K)(5) - Handicap Parking Parking lots with less than 25 spaces must provide at least 1 handicap parking space. This space must also be van accessible with an 8-foot wide access aisle adjoining the space. The parking lot proposed is less than 25 spaces and shows 1 handicap parking space that is van accessible. N. Section 3.2.3 - Solar Access, Orientation, Shading All developments must be designed to accommodate active and/or passive solar installations and must not deny adjacent properties access to sunshine. The proposed building is designed and located to minimize the casting of shadows on adjacent properties and could accommodate future active and/or passive solar installations. O. Section 3.2.4 - Site Lighting The proposed lighting plan is consistent with the requirements of the Land Use Code in regards to the general standard, lighting levels, and design standards. P. Section 3.5.1(C) - Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale Buildings shall be similar in size, height, bulk, mass, and scale or articulated in such a way to be compatible with nearby buildings. The largest building proposed for Affordable Self Storage is two- stories in height and is consistent in size, height, bulk, mass, and scale to other buildings on Red Cedar Circle and Blue Spruce Drive. Similarly, all of the proposed single-story buildings for Affordable Self Storage feature a complementary size, height, bulk, mass, and scale to surrounding developments. Q. Section 3.5.1(D) - Privacy Considerations Elements of the development plan shall be arranged to maximize the opportunity for privacy by the residents of the project and minimize infringement on the privacy of adjoining land uses. None of the buildings have windows that face onto adjacent properties. The applicant also proposes a fence along the east and south edges of the property to minimize any issues related to privacy. Packet Pg. 19 Agenda Item 2 Item #2, Page 10 R. Section 3.5.1(E) - Building Materials All proposed buildings shall use similar materials to existing buildings in the neighborhood or use similar architectural characteristics if dissimilar materials are proposed. The proposed building uses similar materials and architectural details to the existing buildings in the area. The proposed materials include concrete masonry units, stucco, vertical metal panels, standing seam metal roofs, and storefront windows. Other buildings nearby contain all of the proposed materials. The form of the building is also consistent with the unadorned, simple architectural style established in the area. S. Section 3.5.1(F) - Building Color Colors used in developments should of similar shades to other buildings nearby to create a unified development pattern. All of the colors proposed by the applicant are earth tones similar to those used by other buildings nearby. T. Section 3.5.1(I) - Outdoor Storage Areas/Mechanical Equipment The proposed plan is consistent with the requirements of the Land Use Code in regards to the location of outdoor storage, screening of storage areas, and screening of rooftop mechanical equipment from public view. U. Section 3.5.3(C)(1) - Orientation to a Connecting Walkway One main entrance of any commercial building shall face and open directly onto a connecting walkway with pedestrian frontage. The office portion of the storage facility has a main entrance that faces and directly connects to a walkway that ties in to the sidewalk network on Red Cedar Circle. V. Section 3.5.3(C)(2) - Orientation to Build-to Lines for Streetfront Buildings Along streets smaller than a full arterial, buildings should be located no more than 15 feet from the right-of-way. For buildings fronting arterial streets, buildings must be located 10 - 25 feet behind the street right-of-way. All of the buildings along Red Cedar Circle comply with this standard by being located 10 - 15 feet behind the right-of-way. A zone district boundary lies along the centerline of Conifer Street. Section 4.28(E)(3)(2), however, requires a 30-foot landscape buffer yard along all arterial streets and zone district boundaries for non-residential zones. Per Section 3.1.2, Article 4 trumps Article 3 when the Article 4 standard is more specific or stringent. In this case, the Article 4 requirement makes it impossible to meet the build-to line standard. Given these conflicting requirements, staff finds the buildings to meet this standard. W. Section 3.5.3(D) - Variation in Massing Single, large, dominant building mass shall be avoided in new buildings. Changes in mass should relate to entrances, integral structure, and/or the organization of interior spaces and should not be solely for cosmetic effect. Each street facing portion of the buildings proposed have the mass broken up in multiple ways. Buildings A, B, C, D, K, J, and I all feature setbacks in the building ranging from 10’ to 25’ that relate to storage units with different proportions. All of the street fronting buildings also feature a cultured stone wainscot and pilasters to provide relief to the long horizontal masses of the building. This combination of setbacks, wainscot, and pilasters provides ample variation in massing. X. Section 3.5.3(E) - Character and Image Each building shall contribute to the uniqueness of a zone district and the community at large with predominant materials, elements, features, color range, and activity areas tailored specifically to Packet Pg. 20 Agenda Item 2 Item #2, Page 11 the site and its context. Walls should be articulated, façades should have entry features clearly defined and should have a clear base and top. As discussed in part P of this section of the staff report, the form of the building and proposed materials fit into the established architectural context of the immediate vicinity. Each wall facing the street is clearly articulated with changes in plane, variation in materials, and by having a clear base, middle, and top defined by differing materials. The entry for the building at the corner of Red Cedar Circle and Conifer Street is clearly distinguished with storefront windows. The base and top of each street facing building is established through a change of materials and a cornice. Each street facing building provides screening for the less adorned buildings interior to the site. Y. Section 3.6.6 - Emergency Access All developments must provide adequate access for emergency vehicles by complying with Chapter 9 of the City Code. The proposed emergency access easement shown on the site plan satisfies this code requirement. 4. Compliance with Article 4 of the Land Use Code - Industrial (I), Division 4.28: The project complies with all applicable Article 4 standards as follows: A. Section 4.28(B)(2)(c) - Permitted Uses The proposed use, enclosed mini-storage facility, is an allowed use in the Industrial zone district subject to Administrative review. Since one of the buildings exceeds 50,000 square feet, per Section 4.28(D)(1)(b) this project is subject to review by the Planning & Zoning Board. B. Section 4.28(D)(1)(a) - Dimensional Standards The maximum height of buildings in the Industrial zone district shall be 4 stories. None of the proposed buildings will exceed 2 stories. C. Section 4.28(E)(2)(b) - Orientation Along arterial streets and any other streets that directly connect to other districts, buildings shall be sited so that a building face abuts upon the required minimum landscaped yard for at least 30% of the building frontage. Such a building face shall not consist of a blank wall. The proposed landscape plan shows a 30-foot deep landscape yard along the entirety of the building frontage facing Conifer Street. This building also features windows, pilasters, a cornice, and changes in material that prevent any blank walls. D. Section 4.28(E)(2)(c) - Building character and color New building color shades shall be neutral, with a medium or dark color range, and not white, bright or reflective. All of the proposed building colors are neutral with a medium color range. E. Section 4.28(E)(3)(a)(2) - Screening Sites located along arterial streets and along any district boundary line that does not join a residential land use must provide a 30-foot deep landscape yard along such streets and boundaries. The proposed landscape plan shows a 30-foot deep landscape buffer yard along Conifer Street in accordance with this standard. The applicant seeks a modification to this standard for the proposed buffer along the eastern property boundary, which was discussed earlier in this staff report. Packet Pg. 21 Agenda Item 2 Item #2, Page 12 F. Section 4.28(E)(3)(b) - Storage and Operational Areas Storage, loading, and work operations shall be screened along all district boundary lines and all public streets. At district edges, side yards shall be used for vehicle operations and storage areas. The proposed site plan shows vehicle use areas screened by the proposed buildings and fencing along all district boundary lines and public streets. The proposed parking lot is located to the side of the main building along Red Cedar Circle in accordance with this standard. 5. Public Outreach Projects subject to review by the Planning & Zoning Board must hold a neighborhood meeting per Section 2.2.2 prior to submittal of a formal development application. The Director may waive this requirement if they determine the development proposal would not have significant neighborhood impact. The Director waived the neighborhood meeting for this project due to the scope of the proposal and its minimal impact on the neighborhood. 6. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: In evaluating the request for the Affordable Self Storage, PDP170005, Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The Project Development Plan complies with the process located in Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 - Administration. B. The Modification of Standard to Section 3.8.11(A) that is proposed with this Project Development Plan meets the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H), in that the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal submitted deviates from the Code in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan. C. The Modification of Standard to Section 3.8.11(C) that is proposed with this Project Development Plan meets the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H), in that the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal submitted promotes the general purpose of the code standard equal to or better than would a compliant plan. D. The Modification of Standard to Section 4.28(E)(3)(a)(2) that is proposed with this Project Development Plan meets the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H), in that the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal submitted promotes the general purpose of the code standard equal to or better than would a compliant plan. E. The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards of Article 3 - General Development Standards, if the Modification of Standard to Section 3.8.11(A) and 3.8.11(C) are approved. F. The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.28 Industrial (I) of Article 4 - Districts, if the Modification of Standard to Section 4.28(E)(3)(a)(2) is approved. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Affordable Self Storage, PDP170005. ATTACHMENTS 1. Zoning & Vicinity Map 2. Statement of Planning Objectives 3. Modification of Standard Requests 4. Affordable Self Storage Planning Document Set Packet Pg. 22 I CS CCN MMN RL LMN POL Legacy Park Lee Martinez Community Park «¬287 «¬14 Blue Spruce Dr Osiander St Lupine Dr Cajetan St Red Cedar Cir Bristlecone Dr Hemlock St Blondel St N Mason St Pinon St Steamboat Ln Nokomis Ct Hibdon Ct Sol Vista Ln Copper Mountain Ln La Garita Ln Alpine St Fireweed Ln Aspen Heights Way Wallflower Ln Echo Mountain Ln Conifer St Hickory St Jerome St N College Ave E S uniga R d © Affordable ZoningStorage & Vicinity Self Map 1 inch = 417 feet Site ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 23 Affordable Self Storage Conifer Street and Red Cedar Dr. FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 STATEMENT OF PLANNING OBJECTIVES January 31, 2017 Owner: Randy and Deb Milan Architect/Planner: Alan Hauser, AIA; Hauser Architects, PC Landscape Architect: Tim Briggs, Site Design Civil Engineer: Tricia Kroetch, PE; North Star Design, Inc. Contractor: McCauley Constructors Inc. LEGAL DESCRIPTION BEING A REPLAT OF LOTS 7, 8, & 9, BLOCK 4, REPLAT NO. 1 OF EVERGREEN PARK AND LOT 1, A MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAT OF CONIFER INDUSTRIAL PARK, ALL SITUATE IN SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO PROJECT DETAILS Zoning – (I) Industrial. This is a new self-storage facility that contains 6 buildings with a total of 87,905 square feet. The construction type for all 6 buildings will be type II-B. The multistory building will be fully sprinkled and the single-story buildings will be compartmentalized to a maximum of 5,000 square foot fire areas. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING A neighborhood meeting was not required for this project, this project is subject to Administrative (Type 1) review in the Industrial zone district. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 24 PROJECT STATEMENT/NARRATIVE Currently the site is undeveloped, with a storage yard on roughly half of the proposed development. The new buildings will have a variety of finish’s including split face cmu, stucco, and metal panel on the interior buildings of the development. The primary building, the two story on the corner of Conifer and Red Cedar will predominately screen the site, the materials will consist of CMU split face block veneer, stucco, and concealed fastener metal panels that mimic a wood finish. All mechanical equipment will be on the roof of the two-story building and will be fully screened. The single-story building on site will be unconditioned building. We have designed the site to fully screen the self-storage activity and the visibility of the coiling self-storage doors is limited. We are providing 5 standard parking spaces and 1 handicap van accessible space for the office use a total of 6 spaces. We also have striped dedicated loading zones for the two-story building. Offsite parking is allowed along Conifer and Red Cedar. The civil engineering and public improvement construction have addressed all applicable comments in the CRT review letter and subsequent staff preliminary review comments. Likewise, the landscape plans have also addressed all applicable and pertinent comments to the maximum extent feasible on this site. A new five-foot-wide detached concrete sidewalk will be provided with an eight-foot-wide landscaped parkway with new landscaping. A 30-foot landscape yard will also be provided on Conifer Street. The owners anticipate not more than 2 employees on site during business hours, with a lot of the time having only 1 employee managing the office. The hours of the office will be 8:00am to 5:00 pm Monday thru Friday with the weekends by appointment only. The site will be accessible 24 hours a day 7 days a week for people that rent storage lockers. RESPONSE TO CONCEPTUAL REVIEW COMMENTS A Conceptual Review Team Meeting for this project was held on January 11, 2016. We believe that our Project Development Plan complies with all questions and concerns raised in the CRT letter. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 25 PROJECT SCHEDULE CITYPDP CITY OF FORT COLLINS - PDP RRRREEEESSSSPPPPOOOONNNNSSSSIIIIBBBBIIIILLLLIIIITTTTYYYY DDDDUUUURRRRAAAATTTTIIIIOOOONNNN DUEON DUE ON DDDDAAAAYYYY PROJECT KICKOFF HAUSER / McCAULEY 0 12/9/2016 Fri SEND PLANS AND ELEVATIONS TO CLAY W/ FORT COLLINS PLANNING HAUSER 0 12/12/2016 Mon ISSUE SITE PLAN BASE TEAM 1 12/13/2016 Tue SUBMIT PDP PACKAGE TEAM 51 2/1/2017 Wed ANTICIPATED 1ST COMMENTS CITY 21 2/22/2017 Wed 2ND SUBMITTAL OF PDP TEAM 12 3/7/2017 Tue ANTICIPATED 2ND COMMENTS CITY 21 3/28/2017 Tue 3RD SUBMITTAL OF PDP TEAM 21 4/18/2017 Tue ANTICIPATED PDP APPROVAL CITY 14 5/2/2017 Tue CONSTUCTIONDOCUMENTS CONSTUCTION DOCUMENTS RRRREEEESSSSPPPPOOOONNNNSSSSIIIIBBBBIIIILLLLIIIITTTTYYYY DDDDUUUURRRRAAAATTTTIIIIOOOONNNN Dueon Due on DDDDAAAAYYYY BIGIN BUILDING CD'S HAUSER 0 2/23/2017 Thu BACKGROUND TO CONSULTANTS HAUSER 0 2/23/2017 Thu KICKOFF MEETING W/ CONSULTANTS TEAM 0 2/28/2017 Tue 70% DRAWINGS REVIEW TEAM 28 3/28/2017 Tue 70% BUDGET ESTTIMATE McCAULEY 14 4/11/2017 Tue 100% STAMPED SETS TO McCAULEY TEAM 21 4/18/2017 Tue 100% FINAL ESTIMATE McCAULEY 28 5/16/2017 Tue PERMITPROCESS PERMIT REVIEW PROCESS RRRREEEESSSSPPPPOOOONNNNSSSSIIIIBBBBIIIILLLLIIIITTTTYYYY DDDDUUUURRRRAAAATTTTIIIIOOOONNNN Dueon Due on DDDDAAAAYYYY SUMBIT TO CITY OF FORT COLLINS McCAULEY 3 3/31/2017 Fri BLDG DEPARTMENT REVIEW CITY 21 4/18/2017 Tue RESPOND TO COMMENTS TEAM 7 4/25/2017 Tue BLDG DEPARTMENT REVIEW CITY 14 5/9/2017 Tue ANTICIPATED PERMIT RELEASE CITY 1 5/10/2017 Wed PERMITPROCESS PERMIT REVIEW PROCESS RRRREEEESSSSPPPPOOOONNNNSSSSIIIIBBBBIIIILLLLIIIITTTTYYYY DDDDUUUURRRRAAAATTTTIIIIOOOONNNN Dueon Due on DDDDAAAAYYYY DEVELOP CONTRACT McCAULEY 0 2/28/2017 Tue SIGN CONSRUCTION CONTRACT McCAULEY 0 3/28/2017 Tue MOBILIZE ON SITE McCAULEY 0 5/9/2017 Tue SUB COMPLETION McCAULEY 276 2/9/2018 Fri INSPECTIONS CITY 14 2/23/2018 Fri PUNCH LIST McCAULEY 0 2/26/2018 Mon CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE McCAULEY 4 3/2/2018 Fri ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 26 February 19, 2018 Affordable Storage of Fort Collins Modification of Standards Request Hauser Architects, P.C. is requesting the following modifications of standards in support of a PDP (Project Development Plan) application currently under consideration. The applicant is requesting Modifications of Standards for the following: 3.8.11(C) – No more than six (6) feet high if located within any required rear yard setback area or within any side yard setback area in a rear yard; 3.8.11(A) - If used along collector or arterial streets, such features shall be made visually interesting and shall avoid creating a "tunnel" effect. Compliance with this standard may be accomplished by integrating architectural elements such as brick or stone columns, incorporating articulation or openings into the design, varying the alignment or setback of the fence, softening the appearance of fence lines with plantings, or similar techniques. In addition to the foregoing, and to the extent reasonably feasible, fences and sections of fences that exceed one hundred (100) feet in length shall vary the alignment or setback of at least one-third (1/3) of the length of the fence or fence section (as applicable) by a minimum of five (5) feet. The proposed Affordable Storage of Fort Collins facility is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Conifer Street and Red Cedar Circle. This 3.29-acre site is zoned Industrial and abuts industrial zoned property to the north and a portion to the east. The property also shares a portion of its east boundary line with a property zoned Community Commercial. At issue is the east boundary line where it abuts Community Commercial zoned property line and where the standards require a thirty-foot deep landscape yard to minimize the visual impacts of the proposed industrial use. The proposed self storage facility has been currently designed to have individual drive-up self storage units with overhead doors along the east property line with a twenty-four-foot wide access drive lane. The design team has worked diligently with City of Fort Collins Planning Staff and Poudre Fire Authority in the design of this site and building. In addition, the design team has worked with the owner to provide a facility that will match the market demand of the area and success of this facility. The intent of the 6-foot-high masonry / metal screen wall is to provide adequate visual screening of low visual interest or visually intrusive building elements and uses from dissimilar zone districts. The screen wall materials will consist of charcoal colored split-face cmu block base with pre-cast concrete sill with pilasters spaced every twenty-five-feet and stucco textured finished light stone colored metal panel above masonry base. The screen wall is 6-foot in height with pilaster at 7-foot in height. The longest portion of the screen wall is 104 feet. The is 4 feet longer then the requirement 3.8.11(a) above. We are requesting a modification to allow the fence to be 104 feet long without utilizing the setback of the fence by 1/3 or a minimum of 5 feet. The fence has pilasters along the elevation making the fence visually interesting. Justification: As outlined in 2.8.2(H)(1) We request that our modification of standards request 3.8.11(A) and 3.8.11(C)2 – A 7-foot masonry / metal fence with a maximum length of 104 feet be approved as our request. This 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. 1.2.2 - Purpose The purpose of this Code is to improve and protect the public health, safety and welfare by: ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 27 (A)ensuring that all growth and development which occurs is consistent with this Code, City Plan and its adopted components, including, but not limited to, the Structure Plan, Principles and Policies and associated sub-area plans. (B)encouraging innovations in land development and renewal. (C)fostering the safe, efficient and economic use of the land, the city's transportation infrastructure, and other public facilities and services. (D)facilitating and ensuring the provision of adequate public facilities and services such as transportation (streets, bicycle routes, sidewalks and mass transit), water, wastewater, storm drainage, fire and emergency services, police, electricity, open space, recreation, and public parks. (E)avoiding the inappropriate development of lands and providing for adequate drainage and reduction of flood damage. (F)encouraging patterns of land use which decrease trip length of automobile travel and encourage trip consolidation. (G)increasing public access to mass transit, sidewalks, trails, bicycle routes and other alternative modes of transportation. (H)reducing energy consumption and demand. (I)minimizing the adverse environmental impacts of development. (J)improving the design, quality and character of new development. (K)fostering a more rational pattern of relationship among residential, business and industrial uses for the mutual benefit of all. (L)encouraging the development of vacant properties within established areas. (M)ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods. (N)ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to natural areas and features. (O)encouraging a wide variety of housing opportunities at various densities that are well-served by public transportation for people of all ages and abilities. As has been demonstrated, providing a screen metal / masonry wall provides a more visual integration of materials than that of a security fence. The screen wall also shields out the low visual interest or visually intrusive building element of overhead doors, blank walls and vehicular traffic. The architectural screen wall in combination of pilasters that mimic the 2-story’s articulation will be an equally will be mase visually interesting and will avoid a “tunnel” effect. Sincerely, Curtis Koldeway Hauser Architects, PC ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 28 December 1, 2017 Affordable Storage of Fort Collins Modification of Standards Request Hauser Architects, P.C. is requesting the following modifications of standards in support of a PDP (Project Development Plan) application currently under consideration. The applicant is requesting Modifications of Standards for the following: 4.28(E)(3)(a)2 – A minimum thirty-foot deep landscape yard shall be provided along all arterial streets, and along any district boundary line that does not adjoin a residential land use. Standards: City of Fort Collins Land Use Code Article 4 – Districts Division 4.28 – Industrial District (I) 4.28(E) – Development Standards 4.28(E)(3) – Site Design 4.28(E)(3)(a) – Screening 4.28(E)(3)(a)2 – A minimum thirty-foot deep landscape yard shall be provided along all arterial streets, and along any district boundary line that does not adjoin a residential land use. Discussion: The proposed Affordable Storage of Fort Collins facility is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Conifer Street and Red Cedar Circle. This 3.29 acre site is zoned Industrial and abuts industrial zoned property to the north and a portion to the east. The property also shares a portion of its east boundary line with a property zoned Community Commercial. At issue is the east boundary line where it abuts Community Commercial zoned property line and where the standards require a thirty-foot deep landscape yard to minimize the visual impacts of the proposed industrial use. The proposed self storage facility has been currently designed to have individual drive-up self storage units with overhead doors along the east property line with a twenty four-foot wide access drive lane. The design team has worked diligently with City of Fort Collins Planning Staff and Poudre Fire Authority in the design of this site and building. In addition, the design team has worked with the owner to provide a facility that will match the market demand of the area and success of this facility. The intent of the standard thirty-foot deep landscape yard is to provide adequate visual screening of low visual interest or visually intrusive building elements and uses from dissimilar zone districts. The design team is presenting an approach that still maintains that visual screening, but in a shorter distance than the zoning district development standards and by still utilizing the landscape standards in Division 3.2 – Site Planning and Design Standards. In lieu of thirty-feet, the design team is requesting a seven-foot deep landscape yard that will accommodate a six-foot high masonry / metal screen wall along with tree and shrub or ornamental grass plantings..The screen wall materials will consist of charcoal colored split-face cmu block base with pre-cast concrete sill with pilasters spaced every twenty five-feet and stucco textured finished light stone colored metal panel above masonry base. Justification: As outlined in 2.8.2(H)(1) We request that our modification of standards request 4.28(E)(3)(a)2 – A minimum thirty-foot deep landscape yard be approved as our request 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. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 29 1.2.2 - Purpose The purpose of this Code is to improve and protect the public health, safety and welfare by: (A)ensuring that all growth and development which occurs is consistent with this Code, City Plan and its adopted components, including, but not limited to, the Structure Plan, Principles and Policies and associated sub-area plans. (B)encouraging innovations in land development and renewal. (C)fostering the safe, efficient and economic use of the land, the city's transportation infrastructure, and other public facilities and services. (D)facilitating and ensuring the provision of adequate public facilities and services such as transportation (streets, bicycle routes, sidewalks and mass transit), water, wastewater, storm drainage, fire and emergency services, police, electricity, open space, recreation, and public parks. (E)avoiding the inappropriate development of lands and providing for adequate drainage and reduction of flood damage. (F)encouraging patterns of land use which decrease trip length of automobile travel and encourage trip consolidation. (G)increasing public access to mass transit, sidewalks, trails, bicycle routes and other alternative modes of transportation. (H)reducing energy consumption and demand. (I)minimizing the adverse environmental impacts of development. (J)improving the design, quality and character of new development. (K)fostering a more rational pattern of relationship among residential, business and industrial uses for the mutual benefit of all. (L)encouraging the development of vacant properties within established areas. (M)ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods. (N)ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to natural areas and features. (O)encouraging a wide variety of housing opportunities at various densities that are well-served by public transportation for people of all ages and abilities. As has been demonstrated, providing plant materials in conjunction with a screen panel and masonry wall provides a more visual integration of materials than that of a security fence. The screen wall also shields out the low visual interest or visually intrusive building element of overhead doors, blank walls and vehicular traffic. The architectural screen wall in combination of plant materials provides an equally well buffering of that of a thirty-foot deep landscape yard, if not better during winter months. Attachments: Proposed Site Plan Proposed Screen Wall Elevation Sincerely, Richard J. Hazel, AIA, ALA Hauser Architects, PC ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 30 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 31 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 32 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 33 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 34 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg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acket Pg. 39 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 40 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 41 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 42 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 43 /(9(/    522)/2:($9(    /(9(/    72+,*+3$5$3(7    /,1(2)522)%(<21'  /(9(/    /2:($9(    9(57,&$/0(7$/:$//3$1(/ 0%&,3%5 &2/25%52:16721( 35(),1,6+('*877(5$1' '2:163287 &2/25%52:16721( %8,/',1*,'(17,),&$7,21 &21),50/2&$7,21:3)$35,25 72,167$/ /(9(/    /2:($9(    *$8*(3(,56.,1&2/25 %52:16721( 35(),1,6+('*877(5$1' '2:163287 &2/25%52:16721( 8/75$'(.*$´ :,'( *$/9$/80(522)3$1( 2+&2,/,1*'225:+($'(5 3$1(/%<-$186'225 &203$1<&2/25%521=( %8,/',1*+(,*+7   /(9(/    %2)RRWLQJ    /2:($9(    2+&2,/,1*'225:+($'(5 3$1(/%<-$186'225 &203$1<&2/25%521=( *$8*(3(,56.,1&2/25 35(),1,6+('522)5$.(75,0 %52:16721( 9(57,&$/0(7$/:$//3$1(/ 0%&,3%5 &2/25%52:16721( %8,/',1*+(,*+7   /(9(/    %2)RRWLQJ    /(9(/    /2:($9(    9(57,&$/0(7$/:$//3$1(/ 0%&,3%5 &2/25%52:16721( 8/75$'(.*$´ :,'( *$/9$/80(522)3$1( *$8*(3(,56.,1&2/25 %52:16721( 2+&2,/,1*'225:+($'(5 3$1(/%<-$186'225 &203$1<&2/25%521=( 6,1*/(6/,',1**/$66'225 /(9(/    /2:($9(    8/75$'(.*$´ :,'( *$/9$/80(522)3$1( &2,/,1*'225%<-$186'225 &203$1<&2/25%521=( 9(57,&$/0(7$/:$//3$1(/ 0%&,3%5 &2/25%52:16721( %8,/',1*+(,*+7   /(9(/    /2:($9(    2+&2,/,1*'225:+($'(5 3$1(/%<-$186'225 &203$1<&2/25%521=( 8/75$'(.*$´ :,'( *$/9$/80(522)3$1( *$8*(3(,56.,1&2/25 %52:16721( 9(57,&$/0(7$/:$//3$1(/ 0%&,3%5 &2/25%52:16721( 6,1*/(6/,',1**/$66'225 %8,/',1*,'(17,),&$7,21 &21),50/2&$7,21:3)$35,25 72,167$/ /(9(/    /2:($9(    8/75$'(.*$´ :,'( «'CUV«VJ«5VTGGV«5WKVG«««.QXGNCPF«%QNQTCFQ«  '§OCKN«KPHQ"JCWUGTCTEJKVGEVUREEQO *CWUGT#TEJKVGEVUREEQO 6+((7 .G[YKX°'XINOZKIZY°6) °  °63 &21,)(5$1'5('&('$5&,5&/( $))25'$%/(6725$*(2) )257&2//,16 3(563(&7,9(6 $ &21,)(5675((73(563(&7,9( 2)),&($75('&('$5&,5&/( &251(52)&21,)(567 5('&('$5&,5&/( 5(9,6,216 3'36XEPLWWDO  3'36XEPLWWDO  3'36XEPLWWDO  3'36XEPLWWDO  ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 47 &0863/,7)$&( %/2&.%$6$/,7( &+$5&2$/ 0(7$/3$1(/67. 6758.7852&7(;785(' 678&&2),1,6+ &2/25/,*+76721( $/80,180&/$'/2:( :,1'2:)5$0(6 6725()5217(175<'2256 &2/25'$5.%521=( 9(57,&$/0(7$/:$// 3$1(/ 0%&,3%5 &2/25%52:16721( &08%/2&. 3$,17('720$7&+ 0(7$/:$//3$1(/ 67$1',1*6($00(7$/ 522) 0%&,8/75$'(. «'CUV«VJ«5VTGGV«5WKVG«««.QXGNCPF«%QNQTCFQ«  '§OCKN«KPHQ"JCWUGTCTEJKVGEVUREEQO *CWUGT#TEJKVGEVUREEQO 6+((7 .G[YKX°'XINOZKIZY°6) °  °'3 &21,)(5$1'5('&('$5&,5&/( $))25'$%/(6725$*(2) )257&2//,16 3+2720(75,&3/$1 (  3+ 2720(  75,&3/$1 5(9,6,216 3'36XEPLWWDO  3'36XEPLWWDO  3'36XEPLWWDO  3'36XEPLWWDO  ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 49 «'CUV«VJ«5VTGGV«5WKVG«««.QXGNCPF«%QNQTCFQ«  '§OCKN«KPHQ"JCWUGTCTEJKVGEVUREEQO *CWUGT#TEJKVGEVUREEQO 6+((7 .G[YKX°'XINOZKIZY°6) °  °'3 &21,)(5$1'5('&('$5&,5&/( $))25'$%/(6725$*(2) )257&2//,16 3+2720(75,&'(7$,/6 ( 5(9,6,216 3'36XEPLWWDO  3'36XEPLWWDO  ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 50 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3, Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 17, 2018 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME GINGER AND BAKER TEMPORARY PARKING #PDP180005 STAFF Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to develop a temporary surface parking lot located at the southeast corner of Linden and Willow Streets. The proposal consists of a gravel overlay to the existing undeveloped lot and addition of a chain link fence enclosing the south end of the parking lot. The parking lot will accommodate up to 58 vehicles. The development site is ½ acre and zoned R-D-R, River Downtown Redevelopment. APPLICANT: John C. “Jack” Graham 1108 N. Lemay Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 OWNER: Blue Ocean Enterprises 401 West Mountain Avenue, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The P.D.P. complies with the Article Four, Section 4.17(D) Development Standards in the River Downtown Redevelopment zone district. The P.D.P. complies with the applicable Article Three General Development Standards. Packet Pg. 51 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3, Page 2 . Packet Pg. 52 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3, Page 3 COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: R-D-R Existing Mixed-Use Commercial and Residential Buildings S: R-D-R Mawson Lumber and Kiefer Concrete E: R-D-R El Burrito and Ranch-Way Feeds W: R-D-R Ginger and Baker The site is Block 8 of the original Town Plat. For decades, it has been used as the outside storage yard for Kiefer Concrete at 360 Linden Street and, most recently, as a construction staging site. 2. River Downtown Redevelopment Zone District – Design Guidelines: The Fort Collins River Downtown Redevelopment Zone District Design Guidelines were adopted in June of 2014. The document provides guidelines that promote the community’s vision for the R-D-R zone through compatible new construction and redevelopment. The goal is to support investment that builds a strong, pedestrian-oriented urban fabric and encourages creative design that is compatible with the historic context. The limited guidelines applicable to the applicant’s proposal, and outlined in this document, were codified into the Land Use Code, under Article Four, in the R-D-R zone district development standards which are discussed in the next section. 3. Compliance with the R-D-R, River Downtown Redevelopment Zone District: A. Section 4.17(B)(3) – Land Use: A permanent parking lot is a permitted principal use subject to Planning and Zoning Board review. The Land Use Code generally does not make an allowance for temporary uses; however, an exception is provided for interim parking lots within the R-D-R district. The R-D-R is the only district that permits an interim use such as the requested parking lot. B. Section 4.17(D)(4)(f) – Development Standards – Interim Parking: Interim parking lots as a principal use may be approved by the Planning and Zoning Board with a gravel surface and without lighting and landscape improvements, for up to a three (3) year period. The P.D.P. meets this standard as a fresh gravel overlay will be introduced and graded to provide a sufficient parking surface and the parking lot will be used for up to three years. No site lighting is proposed at this time; however, the applicant has indicated that lighting may be requested at a future date. Should lighting be introduced later, the fixtures must comply with the performance requirements of Section 3.2.4. C. Section 4.17(D)(2)(b) – Development Standards – Streets and Walkways – Driveways: The proposed parking lot will take vehicular access along Linden Street through the existing curb cut and drive apron. The P.D.P. complies with this standard. D. Section 4.17(D)(4)(b) – Site Design – Walls, Fences and Planters: A temporary chain link fence will be constructed at the south end of the parking lot, just north of the properties midpoint that demarcates the parking boundary. The fence will match the height and style of the existing fence found at the site perimeter. Fabric attached to the existing perimeter chain link fence will be removed. Packet Pg. 53 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3, Page 4 4. Compliance with the Applicable Article Three General Development Standards: For those standards not addressed in Section 4.17, a discussion of the applicable General Development Standards is provided. A. Section 3.2.1 – Landscaping and Tree Protection: No landscaping or trees are proposed or required for an interim parking lot. B. Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(b) – Bicycle Parking: There is no minimum required number of bicycle parking spaces given that no buildings are being constructed. Considering the anticipated bicycle use by restaurant staff and patrons, the applicant is considering installation of a small bicycle parking area along the Linden Street frontage. Section 3.2.2 – Parking Lot Layout The proposed parking lot layout is consistent with requirements of the Land Use Code in regards to circulation routes, orientation, and points of conflict. Given the impracticality of paint striping on the gravel surface, wheel stops or comparable dividers will be strategically placed to channel traffic and organize parking spaces yet allow for efficient snow removal. C. Section 3.2.2(K)(5) - Handicap Parking Providing parking to serve disabled users is unsafe and impractical given the gravel surface of the lot. With the interim gravel parking lot an approved principal use, requirements of this section are not applicable. D. Section 3.2.4 – Site Lighting: As mentioned, no lighting is proposed or required for this project. Should the applicant desire to provide illumination beyond the public street lighting levels in the future, lighting would be subject to review and approval through the minor amendment process. All fixtures will need to feature fully shielded, down-directional luminaires in order to comply with the light quality standards of this section. E. Section 3.6.4 – Transportation Level of Service Requirements: Staff’s conclusion is that the development meets the Transportation Level of Service Requirements given the size and location of the proposed parking lot. F. Section 3.8.7 – Sign Requirements: No signs are included with the Project Development Plan application. Should the applicant request that signs be installed, all signs are subject to the requirements of Section 3.8.7. With the exception of those signs less than one (1) square foot in area and not visible from the public right-of-way, sign permits are required. No off-premise advertising is permitted. Packet Pg. 54 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3, Page 5 5. Neighborhood Information Meeting: Projects subject to review by the Planning & Zoning Board must hold a neighborhood meeting per Section 2.2.2 prior to submittal of a formal development application. The Director may waive this requirement if they determine the development proposal would not have significant neighborhood impact. The Director waived the neighborhood meeting for this project due to the scope of the proposal and its minimal impact on the surrounding district. 6. Findings of Fact/Conclusions: In evaluating the request for Ginger and Baker Temporary Parking, P.D.P., staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The P.D.P. complies with the Article Four, Section 4.17 Development Standards in the River Downtown Redevelopment zone district. B. The P.D.P. complies with the applicable Article Three General Development Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that, based on the Findings of Fact of the Staff Report, the Planning and Zoning Board make a motion to approve Ginger and Baker Temporary Parking, P.D.P. 180005 ATTACHMENTS 1. Applicant's Planning Objectives 2. Site Plan Packet Pg. 55 GINGER~BAKER FORT COLLINS, - COLORADO 360 Linden Street - Temporary Parking Project Ginger and Baker is looking to resolve, temporarily, the parking limitation condition that exists in the River District of Old Town, Fort Collins. These parking limitations are impacting our customers and, therefore, our business; and they are impacting the safety of our employees because many of them must walk long distances at night with little light to get to their parked cars. Blue Ocean, Inc. has offered to permit Ginger and Baker to use % of the open lot they own immediately across the street from Ginger and Baker (360 Linden Street). We will use the western-most half of that lot for parking for our customers and our employees. Access to the lot in the form of a "curb cut" already exists. We will upgrade the surface of the lot by putting down 1" of rock (1/2" - 1" size rock) to minimize the "mud factor'' that exists presently - the lot was used for construction parking and staging during the construction of The Elizabeth Hotel; and at times it was muddy. The existing chain link fence will be used; we will add a section of such fencing to the eastern boundary of the lot. The areas outside the fence that are dirt will be kept clean of weeds and garbage; this will be a significant improvement to the appearance of this lot at a key intersection (Linden and Willow Streets). We believe that there is no need to add lighting to the lot; however, if we conclude that lighting is needed for safety or other reasons, then we will add appropriate lighting to mitigate any such issues. The Site Plan we have provided and that accompanies our application provides additional detail pertaining to our plan and temporary use of the lot. We are happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for your help with this project. Sincerely, ember Ginger and Baker, LLC ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 56 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 57 Agenda Item 4 Item #4, Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 17, 2018 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME AWEIDA ANNEXATION, PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING ANX180002 STAFF Pete Wray, Senior City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Aweida Properties, Inc. has submitted a petition requesting the annexation and zoning for one vacant property, along with the abutting arterial street right-of-way totaling 0.862 acres, into Fort Collins’ municipal boundaries. The property located at 4101 S. Taft Hill Road is situated on the southwest corner of South Taft Hill Road and W CR 38 E intersection. The requested zoning for this annexation is Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N). The City Structure Plan Map, an element of City Plan, currently designates the property as Urban-Estate. The requested amendment to the City Structure Plan Map is necessary for the property to be zoned L-M-N upon annexation. A specific project development plan proposal is not included with the annexation application. APPLICANT: Courtney Lockwood Lockwood Architects, Inc. 415 E. Pitkin Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 OWNER: Aweida Properties, Inc. 500 Discovery Pkwy, Suite 300 Superior, CO 80027 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council for the Aweida Annexation, and to amend the City Structure Plan Map, in accordance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan (City Plan), and recommends that the property be placed in the L-M-N Zoning District. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On April 17, 2018, the City Council approved a resolution that accepted the annexation petition and determined that the petition was in compliance with State law. The resolution also initiated the annexation process for the property by establishing the date, time and place when a public hearing would be held regarding the readings of the Ordinances annexing and zoning the area. Packet Pg. 58 Agenda Item 4 Item #4, Page 2 This annexation request is in conformance with the State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to annexations, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, and the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreement Regarding Growth Management. This is a 100% voluntary annexation for a property located within the Growth Management Area. The project satisfies the requirement that no less than one-sixth of the perimeter boundary be contiguous to the existing City boundary. The request for zoning is less than 640 acres and, therefore, is considered quasi-judicial. The zoning satisfies the criteria of Section 2.9.4(H) in that the request is consistent with the City Structure Plan Map as amended, and warranted by the changing conditions of the subject property and surrounding area. The item is scheduled for first reading of the annexation ordinance by City Council on June 5, 2018. The request to amend the City Structure Plan Map, an element of City Plan and referred to as the Plan Amendment, is needed to re-designate approximately 0.862 acres of land from Urban Estate U-E to Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood L-M-N. The L-M-N designated land use is necessary to create a site to accommodate a project consistent with City policies related to mixed-use development, proximity to a re-configured two arterial street intersection, and coordination of public street improvements. The proposed amendment to the City Structure Plan Map is limited to a single element of City Plan and, therefore, constitutes a Minor Amendment. A neighborhood meeting was held on March 22, 2018. The parcel will continue to remain in the Residential Sign District. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: Direction Existing Land Use Zone District North Commercial (County) Commercial (County) South Residential (County) R Rural Estate (County) East Residential Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods West Residential (County) R Rural Estate (County) Project Vicinity Map: (see next page) Packet Pg. 59 Agenda Item 4 Item #4, Page 3 Zoning History (most recent to past): The property located at 4101 S. Taft Hill Road and adjacent lots are zoned Rural Estate in Larimer County. The nearby Taft Canyon PUD was developed in 1987, with the same County zoning. The property and original house (recently demolished) located at 4101 S. Taft Hill Road were developed in 1910. 2. Annexation Analysis: The Aweida Annexation does not create an enclave. A specific project development plan proposal is not included with the annexation application. This is a 100% voluntary annexation for a property located within the Growth Management Area (GMA). According to policies and agreements contained in the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements, the City will agree to consider annexation of property in the GMA when the property is eligible for annexation according to State law. The Aweida Annexation gains the required 1/6 contiguity to the existing city limits from a common boundary with the Horsetooth-Harmony West Annexation (Ordinance No. 68, 1980). The minimum contiguous boundary is 135.39 feet, based on the total perimeter boundary of 810.74 feet. The proposed annexation includes a contiguous boundary of 162.20 feet, thus satisfying the requirement that no less than one-sixth of the perimeter boundary be contiguous to the existing city boundary. Packet Pg. 60 Agenda Item 4 Item #4, Page 4 3. Plan Amendments - City Plan and Related Elements: City Plan Minor Amendment Process Revisions to City Plan and elements thereof shall be conducted according to two distinct procedures: Comprehensive Updates and Minor Amendments. Comprehensive updates to City Plan will take place every five (5) years, ideally in a concurrent process with the Transportation Master Plan and Transit Plan like the on-going City Plan Update effort. A separate process shall be used to make Minor Amendments to City Plan and other adopted elements. Minor Amendments may include revisions to one or a few sections of the plan as a result of adoption of subarea plans or a specific issue, policy, or directive from City Council. Minor amendments may include changes to the City Structure Plan Map as well as corrections to text or map errors. Amendment requests based on proposed development projects that involve re-zonings may also be processed concurrently with re-zoning applications. A plan amendment will be approved if the City Council makes specific findings that:  The existing City Plan and/or any related element thereof is in need of the proposed amendment, and  The proposed amendment will promote the public welfare and will be consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City Plan and the elements thereof. As part of the justification by the Applicant relating to need for plan amendment: The Structure Plan Map needs to be amended in order to Annex and zone approximately 37,537 SF (0.862-acres) of land into City limits with an L-M-N zoning designation. The site is located on the fringe of City Limits within the Growth Management Area on the south/west corner of Taft Hill Road and CR 38E/Harmony Road intersection. Staff has assessed the proposed plan amendment and supports the change relating to the first City Plan criteria, that there is a need for the amendment. The Plan Amendment provides a continuity in zoning for the .86-acre parcel to adjacent L-M-N -zoned property east of S. Taft Hill Road. The L-M-N designated land is necessary to accommodate a mixed-use project consistent with City policies related to use mix, density, proximity to a re- configured two arterial street intersection, and coordination of public street improvements. The City Structure Plan designation of U-E applied to this property results in unfeasible development standards for density and minimum lot size. The U-E minimum density is 2 dwelling units per gross acre, with a minimum ½ acre per lot. The parcel is approximately .45-acres in size. As part of the justification by the Applicant relating to promoting public welfare and City Plan Policies: The proposed Structure Plan Map amendment will allow annexation and L-M-N zoning that will allow for the future development of this site that is consistent with zoning trends in the area and is supported by City Plan Principles and Policies. The net acreage of the existing Urban Estate (U-E) site is 0.45-acres, while the minimum required lot sizes shall be no less than 0.5-acre to develop a single-family project that is consistent with City Policies and neighborhood compatibility. Furthermore, this intersection is in desperate need of improvements that would further decrease the developable acreage to 0.295-acre with additional ROW, Easement requirements, Dwelling Unit per acre and setback requirements rendering this site nearly undevelopable under U-E zoning intent. L-M-N zoning would not only allow for the needed intersection and streetscape improvements, but would also allow future development of this location that is compatible with current development already underway at this intersection. Directly to the east of Taft Hill Road on the southeast corner of Taft Hill Road and CR 38E/Harmony Packet Pg. 61 Agenda Item 4 Item #4, Page 5 Road with the development of an L-M-N District, Harmony Cottages, and the anticipated Neighborhood Commercial District (N-C) to the north. Staff has determined that the proposed plan amendment also complies with the criteria for continuing to promote the public welfare and will be consistent with the vision, principles and policies of City Plan and elements thereof. The location of the L-M-N designation for the Aweida property is adjacent to the existing JJ’s Country Corner commercial businesses to the north, and future L-M-N zoning and viable neighborhood center. The Aweida property is also adjacent to existing L-M-N zoning to the east across S. Taft Hill Road. The proposed plan amendment will continue to promote the public welfare and is consistent with City Plan policies for new single- family and mixed-use development, associated density, and proximity to an established neighborhood center. The site is located at an arterial street intersection with limited access. Potential infrastructure improvements with a future development project include storm drainage, intersection and additional turn lane improvements, and safer access to the site for all transportation modes. 4. Land Use Code Division 2.9 - Amendment to the Zoning Map: Section 2.9.4 (H) (2) - Mandatory Requirements for Quasi-Judicial Zonings or Rezonings: Any amendment to the Zoning Map involving the zoning or rezoning of six hundred forty (640) acres of land or less (a quasi-judicial rezoning) shall be recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board or approved by the City Council only if the proposed amendment is: (a) consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; and/or (b) warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. Section 2.9.4(H)(2)(a) - Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: As part of the Applicant’s justification the following findings were identified: The proposed L-M-N zoning of 0.46-acres is consistent with the zoning of the adjacent L-M-N property to the east and is supported by many City Plan Principles and Policies. The City Structure Plan Map as amended indicates the approximate .45-acre existing parcel and additional street right-of-way to be “Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood.” According to the Land Use Code: The Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District is intended to be a setting for a predominance of low density housing combined with complementary and supporting land uses that serve a neighborhood and are developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of a neighborhood. The main purpose of the District is to meet a wide range of needs of everyday living in neighborhoods that include a variety of housing choices, that invite walking to gathering places, services and conveniences, and that are fully integrated into the larger community by the pattern of streets, blocks, and other linkages. The proposed L-M-N zoning is supported by and consistent with the City Structure Plan Map, an element of City Plan, as amended through this application. The proposed L-M-N zoning is supported by existence of the L-M-N zoned neighborhood to the east, and the future L-M-N zoning to the north, including an established neighborhood center. Section 2.9.4(H)(2)(b) - Changed Conditions: As part of the Applicant’s justification the following findings were identified: In addition to being consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the proposed zoning is also warranted by changed conditions with current zoning trends in the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. The following changes have occurred in the surrounding neighborhood that support L-M-N.  The Master Street Plan alignment of streets in the area will require several thousand square feet of the subject property to be dedicated as right-of-way, leaving a very small parcel of U-E zoned land which Packet Pg. 62 Agenda Item 4 Item #4, Page 6 would be difficult to develop as a large lot (estate) single-family development. Street alignments proposed on the Master Street Plan reduce the amount of existing U-E property rendering it difficult to developable and non-conforming in said zone.  Compatible with the L-M-N zoned development, Harmony Cottages, adjacent to this property on the southeast corner of Taft Hill Road and CR 38E/Harmony Road that is supported by the City Plan and Land Use Code. In review of the proposed zoning, staff acknowledges conditions have changed in the area surrounding this property and on site. The Harmony Road alignment previously terminated at S. Taft Hill Road, approximately ½ mile south of the subject property. The Aweida property is now situated at the intersection of two arterial streets. The proposed L-M-N zoning is more appropriate than U-E zoning at this corner, given its potential to support a mixed-use development adjacent to an existing commercial center. The house previously on the site has been demolished and the site sits vacant. The feasibility of developing a new single-family house at this corner is extremely limited under the U-E requirements. Section 2.9.4(H)(3)(a) - Compatibility: (3) Additional Considerations for Quasi-Judicial Zonings or Rezonings. In determining whether to recommend approval of any such proposed amendment, the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council may consider the following additional factors: (a) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is the appropriate zone district for the land; As part of the Applicant’s justification the following findings were identified: The proposed L-M-N zoning will be consistent with the current L-M-N zoning to the east and compatible with the anticipated Neighborhood Commercial District (N-C) on the north/west corner. The parcel is at the intersection of two arterial streets including S. Taft Hill Road and CR 38 E. To the west and south are existing County subdivisions and estate lots. To the north is the JJ’s Country Corner commercial center (anticipated as future L-M-N zoning). To the east are existing L-M-N neighborhoods. The proposed zoning of the road right-of-way from U-E to L-M-N will result in its zoning being the same as the zoning of the adjacent parcels across S. Taft Hill Road and future L-M-N zoning to the north, and is therefore appropriate. Section 2.9.4(H)(3)(b) - Impacts on Natural Environment: As part of the Applicant’s justification the following findings were identified: The proposed L-M-N zoning would not have adverse impacts on the natural environment. The site is small -- there are no wetlands nor any significant vegetation or wildlife. Any new development for this site and allowed within the LMN Zoning will properly address all issues through the City’s development review process. The zoning will not have an adverse impact on the natural environment. The site does not include any recognized natural features, habitat, or wildlife that would warrant an ecological characterization study. Any new development that includes natural areas determined to be valuable would need to be preserved or mitigated regardless of whether of the property is zoned U-E or L-M-N per Section 3.4.1. Section 2.9.4(H)(3)(c) - Logical and Orderly Development Pattern: As part of the Applicant’s justification the following findings were identified: The L-M-N zoning would allow future development of a Mix-Use project at an appropriate intersection location that is compatible with the current development trend in the surrounding area and a logical buffer to the low-density neighborhoods to the south and west. It is entirely consistent with City Plan to have an L-M-N District next to a U-E District and additional L-M-N. The L- M-N zoning allows for a mix of land uses that are complementary to surrounding uses and supports transit. The Packet Pg. 63 Agenda Item 4 Item #4, Page 7 zoning allows for improved coordination of planned intersection improvements and access to an adjacent commercial center. The zoning of the parcel to L-M-N would be consistent with a logical and orderly development pattern. 5. Neighborhood Information Meeting: A neighborhood meeting was held on March 22, 2018. Examples of concerns expressed at the meetings included increased timing of future annexation of larger area, plan amendment to higher density, traffic and other development impacts, and concerns of additional commercial uses. 6. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: In evaluating the request for the Plan Amendment to the City Structure Plan Map, and associated zoning, Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The Plan Amendment provides a continuity in zoning for the .86-acre parcel to adjacent L-M-N -zoned property east of S. Taft Hill Road. The L-M-N designated land is necessary to accommodate a mixed- use project consistent with City policies related to use mix, density, proximity to a re-configured two arterial street intersection, and coordination of public street improvements. B. The proposed amendment will promote the public welfare and will be consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City Plan and the elements thereof. This is because the location of the L-M- N designation is adjacent to the existing JJ’s Country Corner commercial businesses to the north, and future L-M-N zoning and viable neighborhood center. The Aweida property is also adjacent to existing L-M-N zoning to the east across S. Taft Hill Road. C. The Request for a City Plan Minor Amendment was submitted on March 6, 2018, well ahead of the sixty day minimum requirement prior to the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. D. The zoning request is less than 640 acres and, therefore, is considered quasi-judicial and therefore all required notifications have been satisfied. E. The zoning satisfies the criteria of Section 2.9.4(H) in that the request is consistent with the City Structure Plan Map, an element of City Plan. The proposed L-M-N zoning is supported by the existing L-M-N neighborhood to the east, and future L-M-N zoning to the north, including established neighborhood center. F. The zoning is warranted by the change in conditions in the area and subject property. This is because since Harmony Road was re-aligned, the Aweida property is now situated at the intersection of two arterial streets. The proposed L-M-N zoning is more appropriate than U-E at this corner, providing potential mixed-use development adjacent to an existing commercial center. G. A neighborhood meeting was held on March 22, 2018. The land uses, residential density and character of L-M-N development are generally found to be compatible with the surrounding area. H. The zoning would not have an adverse impact on any natural habitats or features and the zoning would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. I. The parcel involved with the proposed zoning will continue to remain in the Residential Sign District. Packet Pg. 64 Agenda Item 4 Item #4, Page 8 ATTACHMENTS 1. Structure Plan Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Neighborhood Meeting Summary 4. 4101 S. Taft Hill Justifications: Structure Plan and Rezoning Packet Pg. 65 S Taft Hill Rd W County Road 38e W H armony R d Westfield Dr Mesavie w Ln Ce n ter Gat e Ct Mesaview Ln Greengat e Dr Stallion Cir H orsetooth Dr Stallion Cir Colt Ci r P icadilly Dr P into Ln Idledal e Dr Lynda Ln Goodell Ln Brixton Rd T r ail View Ln M esaview Ct L ookout Ln Phia W ay Colt Ci r Westfield Dr Whippeny Dr T rowbri d ge Dr Mustang Ln Aweida Annexation CITY GEOGRAPHIC OF FORT INFORMATION COLLINS SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or S Taft Hill Rd W County Road 38e W H a rmony R d Westfield Dr Mesavie w Ln Ce n ter Gat e Ct Mesaview Ln Greengat e Dr Stallion Cir H orsetooth Dr Stallion Cir Colt Ci r P icadilly Dr P into Ln Idledal e Dr Lynda Ln Goodell Ln Brixton Rd T r ail View L n M esaview Ct L ookout Ln Phia W ay Colt Ci r Westfield Dr Whippeny Dr Trowbr i dge Dr Mustang Ln RL LMN Aweida Annexation CITY GEOGRAPHIC OF FORT INFORMATION COLLINS SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS Aweida Annexation/Conceptual Plans Neighborhood Meeting Summary (3/28/2018) Overview Neighborhood Meeting Date: March 22, 2018 Applicants: Dana Lockwood, Lockwood Architects Courtney Lockwood, Lockwood Architects Dan Aweida, Owner/Developer City Staff in Attendance: Pete Wray, Senior City Planner Sylvia Tatman-Burrus, Development Review Liaison Anna Simpkins, Planning Technician Martina Wilkinson, Assistant City Traffic Engineer Tim Tuttle, Civil Engineer II Proposed Project  The purpose of the neighborhood meeting is to share the developer’s proposal for annexation and zoning, conceptual plans for future project, and for staff to document comments received from attendees to be shared with Decision maker as part of record.  A formal Project Development Plan (PDP) application has not been submitted so this is early in the development review process.  This property is currently located outside of City limits and this first step involves annexation and zoning.  City Council acts as the decision-maker for the annexation, plan amendment, and zoning.  This is a Type II Review, based on mixed-use dwelling and non-residential space in building. If approved, and Planning and Zoning Board would act as the decision-maker for the proposed development.  Neighbors will be notified in advance of the hearing held by the Planning and Zoning Board, and posted notice for a City Council Hearing.  Along with annexation the applicant is also sharing conceptual project development information ahead of a formal application. The proposed building is a 2-story, mixed-use dwelling with 4 units and 1000 square feet of office space.  14 parking spaces are proposed at the interior of the site.  A right-in, right-out access drive is proposed on CR38E and a right-in only on S. Taft Hill Rd.  A Structure Plan Amendment is proposed to zone the parcel Low-Density Mixed-Use (LMN) instead of Urban Estate (UE).  The applicant is Lockwood Architects, architect and landscape architect for the project.  The proposed non-residential space in building intended for professional office. Community Development and Neighborhood Services Planning Services 281 North College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 68 Neighborhood Meeting Notes – 4101 S. Taft Hill Rd. Page 2  In the LMN zoning, the list of permitted uses for non-residential is limited if outside of a neighborhood center. The Code requires a separation distance of ¾ mile between neighborhood centers that include a retail store or convenience store with fuel sales uses. Since the JJ’s center is near this property, a neighborhood center is not proposed for this location.  Landscaping will be all ‘xeriscaping’ with no sod on site.  Proposal required right-of-way dedication to improve traffic function and safety at intersection.  The mixed-use building includes 4 proposed dwelling units: 2 two-bedroom and 2-three bedroom (10 total bedrooms). Questions/Comments and Answers Traffic/Roads  Will there be road improvements at the S Taft Hill Rd and County Road 38E intersection? The architect explained there will be a right-in, right-out driveway on the north side of the property along CR 38E and there will be a right-in only turn on the east side of the property along S Taft Hill Rd. They are required to dedicate approximately 12 feet of right-of way to the City for additional intersection improvements based on the roadway classification. Traffic Engineer Martina Wilkinson explained that the City is also in early conversations with Larimer County about improvements along S Taft Hill Rd between CR 38E and Horsetooth Rd. Traffic Engineering has also identified unusual traffic patterns at this intersection due to commuter traffic and vehicle traveling to and from Horsetooth Reservoir. Unique signal timing has been implements to try and address some of these irregularities.  How much traffic comes through this intersection daily? Traffic Engineer Martina Wilkinson explained that there are about 22,000 trips on S Taft Hill Rd north of Harmony Rd daily. This volume is where they begin discussions about widening. The proposal would not be responsible for all intersection improvements but would contribute.  How much additional traffic will this project generate? The applicant explained that they are not required to do a traffic study due to the small scale of the project. Traffic Engineer Martina Wilkinson explained that when they evaluate a 4-unit building they expect 3-4 trips per hour at peak traffic times, approximately 1 car every 15 minutes. The City cannot legally require one project to fix all deficiencies, but rather mitigate for their impact. This project could potentially contribute a right turn lane and frontage (curb and gutter) improvements along this lot.  What can be done at the intersection to improve mobility and the turning radius for large vehicles and vehicles with trailers? Traffic Engineer Martina Wilkinson explained that they are aware with turning radius issues at this corner and if this proposal necessitated adding a right turn lane from CR38 E onto S Taft Hill Rd then they would also be able to relocate signal poles which is one of the current constraints. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 69 Neighborhood Meeting Notes – 4101 S. Taft Hill Rd. Page 3 Annexation  Is the property moved to City utilities when it is annexed? City Planner Pete Wray explained that electric service will switch from the current provider to Fort Collins Light and Power. A property can keep an existing septic system if it is adequate; future sanitation service provided by the City. Water services provided by the Fort Collins- Loveland Water District.  The County said they would never let this property go commercial, is the City trying to annex this parcel to make it commercial? City Planner Pete Wray explained that the annexation is spurred by the proposed development. The City and County have an agreement that if a development is proposed on a property that is contiguous with City limits and within the set Growth Management Area (GMA) then is will be annexed prior to development, as is the case with this parcel. The existing County zoning for this property is R1 Residential. The County zoning across W CR 38 E at the JJ’s Center is commercial. The City is not proposing to change zoning to Commercial for this location. The City Structure Plan has this quadrant of the intersection indicated as Urban Estate (UE) Land Use designation. As part of this annexation a plan amendment is proposed to change the land use from UE to Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN). This change is consistent with the LMN zoning to the east across S. Taft Hill Road, and to the north across W CR 38 E for future designation. Staff supports this change in part because building a single-family house in the UE zoning for this corner is challenging after street infrastructure improvements are implemented, further reducing the lot size. During the City Plan update process currently underway, if other property owners also desire a plan amendment to LMN, staff may consider a larger Structure Plan map change. However, to clarify that potential option is not part if this application for annexation. City Council would have to approve any Structure Plan amendments and annexation. The structure plan is available online: https://www.fcgov.com/planning/pdf/structure-plan.pdf  If the lot is annexed, are other property owners forced into the City? City Planner Pete Wray explained that properties come into City limits by one of two ways; voluntary annexation with development or involuntary annexation as a result of an enclave. This property is eligible for voluntary annexation because it meets the annexation criteria for being adjacent to existing City Limits and within the Growth Management Area (GMA). Enclaves are created when a parcel or parcels within the County are surrounded by City limits. If an enclave is established, City Council can consider forced annexation after a three-year period. Annexing this property into the City would not force others to do so now.  Do our taxes change if this property is annexed? City Planner Pete Wray explained that taxes for the property that is annexed would be based on the latest County Assessor’s information.  If an adjacent 2-acre lot annexed and they wanted LMN zoning, they could build 18 units [9 per acre]? ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 70 Neighborhood Meeting Notes – 4101 S. Taft Hill Rd. Page 4 City Planner Pete Wray explained that City Council would have to support the annexation and support any proposed change to the City Structure Plan. If this was supported, then yes, the maximum density in the LMN zone is 9 dwelling units per acre. But like this property, other design factors may reduce density such as street access, setbacks, parking and drainage requirements. Any future annexations and development proposals are not part of this proposal. The City is currently updating our comprehensive plan, City Plan, which will be looking at some of these areas where amendments to the structure plan may make sense. Residents and neighbors are encouraged to get involved in the City Plan process to have concerns heard with stakeholder groups and public events over the next 18 months. Please see the City Plan website for additional information on ways to get involved: https://ourcity.fcgov.com/cityplan Miscellaneous  Why do you [the applicant] not think this property is suitable for a single-family house? The applicant explained that this was his opinion, and although there was a single-family house on the lot for 100+ years, the area has changed and developed to the point where there is enough traffic that this site is not appealing for a single-family home. The UE zoning requires a minimum half acre lots, with the existing lot size of .44 acres. Additional Right of Way, setbacks and site drainage may further reduce lot size.  What is our role in the rest of this process? Can we vote on proposed zoning? Where do our comments go? City Planner Pete Wray explained that all comments from the meeting would be put in the official record and provided to the decision maker. Any other communication received (email, phone, etc.) will also be entered into the record. All hearings with these decision-makers are also public and citizens can attend and make additional comments. Neighbors will be provided mailed notice prior to the Planning and Zoning Board hearing. City Council Hearings include posted notice. Development Review Liaison Sylvia Tatman-Burrus encouraged those at the meeting to contact her as well and to share hearing notices with neighbors who may be interested but outside of the notification area. City Planner Pete Wray explained that, although not a Land Use Code requirement, this proposal could have another neighborhood meeting if the design changes significantly and it would benefit neighbors and the applicant see and receive additional feedback prior to moving to a decision-maker.  What is the timeline for this project? City Planner Pete Wray explained that this project will go to a preliminary City Council hearing in April at which time they will determine a schedule as part of an initiating resolution. The Planning and Zoning Board Hearing is tentatively scheduled for May, to forward a recommendation to City Council on the annexation, plan amendment and zoning. The first reading is anticipated at a June City Council meeting and the second reading is expected in July. A hearing with the Planning and Zoning Board for a Project Development Plan item can occur after Council approves an annexation petition (July). ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 71 Neighborhood Meeting Notes – 4101 S. Taft Hill Rd. Page 5 Other citizen Comments:  One neighbor verbally opposing any changes to multi-family zoning. Keep it residential as-is.  One neighbor stated interest in future LMN zoning for their property. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 72 AWEIDA ANNEXATION, 4101 S Taft Hill Road, Fort Collins, Colorado REQUEST FOR STRUCTURE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT & RE-ZONING LOCKWOOD ARCHITECTS, INC., 415 E. Pitkin Street, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 970.493.1023 Page 1 of 4 May 1, 2018 AWEIDA ANNEXATION 4101 S. Taft Hill Rd. Request for Structure Plan Map Amendment and Re-Zoning: The Applicant, Lockwood Architects, Inc., requests that the City Structure Plan be amended to include approximately 37,537 SF (0.862-acres) (Annexation Area) of land currently located in Larimer County, on the southwest corner of the Taft Hill Road and CR 38E/Harmony Road intersection. The Applicant’s proposal also involves the rezoning of 19,980 SF (.45-acres) (Site Area) from the Urban Estate District (U-E) to the Low Density Mix-Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N). Reason for Request: The Applicant would like to Annex and zone the property located on the southwest corner of Taft Hill Road and CR 38E/Harmony Road intersection for future development. Approximately 19,980 SF (.45- acre) of land is currently zoned U-E and is located on the fringe of City Limits and within the Growth Management Area for the City of Fort Collins. The developable area of the original 19,980 SF (0.45-acre) site has been significantly reduced to approximately 0.295-acre due to changed conditions including, but not limited to, Intersection Improvements and additional ROW needed on both Taft Hill Road and CR 38E/Harmony Road, Utility Easement requirements, and Setback requirements. U-E zoning will no longer be relevant or appropriate for a 0.295-acre corner site. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 73 AWEIDA ANNEXATION, 4101 S Taft Hill Road, Fort Collins, Colorado REQUEST FOR STRUCTURE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT & RE-ZONING LOCKWOOD ARCHITECTS, INC., 415 E. Pitkin Street, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 970.493.1023 Page 2 of 4 Request for: Minor Amendment of the City’s Structure Plan Map The process and criteria that is used by City Counsel to evaluate a Structure Plan Map Amendment is as follows: Amendment requests based on proposed development projects that involve re-zonings may also be processed concurrently with re-zoning applications. Amendments initiated by City Council, City staff, boards and commissions, and annexations and initial zoning, may be processed at any time. Requests shall be submitted to the City’s Advance Planning Department at least 60 days prior to the hearing date for the Planning and Zoning Board. The 60-day submittal requirement is necessary in order to permit adequate public notice to be given and to allow adequate time to complete the background work for considering a plan amendment. A plan amendment will be approved if the City Council makes specific findings that: • The existing City Plan and/or any related element thereof is in need of the proposed amendment, The Structure Plan Map needs to be amended in order to Annex and zone approximately 37,537 SF (0.862-acres) of land into City limits with an L-M-N zoning designation. The site is located on the fringe of City Limits within the Growth Management Area on the south/west corner of Taft Hill Road and CR 38E/Harmony Road intersection. • The proposed amendment will promote the public welfare and will be consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City Plan and the elements thereof. The proposed Structure Plan Map amendment will allow annexation and L-M-N zoning that will allow for the future development of this site that is consistent with zoning trends in the area and is supported by City Plan Principles and Policies. The net acreage of the existing Urban Estate (U-E) site is 0.45-acres, while the minimum required lot sizes shall be no less than 0.5-acre to develop a single family project that is consistent with City Policies and neighborhood compatibility. Furthermore, this intersection is in desperate need of improvements that would further decrease the developable acreage to 0.295-acre with additional ROW, Easement requirements, Dwelling Unit per acre and setback requirements rendering this site nearly undevelopable under U-E zoning intent. L-M-N zoning would not only allow for the much needed intersection and streetscape improvements, but would also allow future development of this location that is compatible with current development already underway at this intersection. Directly to the east of Taft Hill Road on the southeast corner of Taft Hill Road and CR 38E/Harmony Road with the development of an L-M-N District, Harmony Cottages, and the anticipated Neighborhood Commercial District (N-C) to the north. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 74 AWEIDA ANNEXATION, 4101 S Taft Hill Road, Fort Collins, Colorado REQUEST FOR STRUCTURE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT & RE-ZONING LOCKWOOD ARCHITECTS, INC., 415 E. Pitkin Street, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 970.493.1023 Page 3 of 4 Request for Zoning: In conjunction with the Applicant’s request for an Amendment to the City’s Structure Plan Map, the applicant is also requesting Annexation and Zoning of 0.46-acres from Urban Estates (U-E) to Low Density Mix-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N). Criteria The City’s Land Use Code outlines the process and the criteria that the decision-makers shall use in approving or denying zoning requests. Criteria are listed below in italic with a narrative following: (2) Mandatory Requirements for Quasi-judicial Zonings or Rezonings. Any amendment to the Zoning Map involving the zoning or rezoning of six hundred forty (640) acres of land or less (a quasi-judicial rezoning) shall be recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board or approved by the City Council only if the proposed amendment is: (a) consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; and/or The proposed L-M-N zoning of 0.46-acres is consistent with the zoning of the adjacent L-M-N property to the east and is supported by many City Plan Principles and Policies. (b) warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. In addition to being consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the proposed zoning is also warranted by changed conditions with current zoning trends in the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. The following changes have occurred in the surrounding neighborhood that support L- M-N. • The Master Street Plan alignment of streets in the area will require several thousand square feet of the subject property to be dedicated as right-of-way, leaving a very small parcel of U-E zoned land which would be difficult to develop as a large lot (estate) single-family development. Street alignments proposed on the Master Street Plan reduce the amount of existing U-E property rendering it difficult to developable and non-conforming in said zone. • Compatible with the L-M-N zoned development, Harmony Cottages, adjacent to this property on the southeast corner of Taft Hill Road and CR 38E/Harmony Road that is supported by the City Plan and Land Use Code. (3) Additional Considerations for Quasi-Judicial Zonings or Rezonings. In determining whether to recommend approval of any such proposed amendment, the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council may consider the following additional factors: (a) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is the appropriate zone district for the land; The proposed L-M-N zoning will be consistent with the current L-M-N zoning to the east and compatible with the anticipated Neighborhood Commercial District (N-C) on the north/west corner. (b) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment; The proposed L-M-N zoning would not have adverse impacts on the natural environment. The site is small -- there are no wetlands nor any significant vegetation or wildlife. Any new development for this site ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 75 AWEIDA ANNEXATION, 4101 S Taft Hill Road, Fort Collins, Colorado REQUEST FOR STRUCTURE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT & RE-ZONING LOCKWOOD ARCHITECTS, INC., 415 E. Pitkin Street, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 970.493.1023 Page 4 of 4 and allowed within the LMN Zoning will properly address all issues through the City’s development review process. (c) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. The L-M-N zoning would allow future development of a Mix-Use project at an appropriate intersection location that is compatible with the current development trend in the surrounding area and a logical buffer to the low density neighborhoods to the south and west. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 76 Agenda Item 5 Item #5, Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 17, 2018 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME EAST GATEWAY ANNEXATION AND ZONING STAFF Kai Kleer, Associate Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to annex and zone 1.77-acres of land consisting of three properties into the City of Fort Collins. The properties are located approximately ¼ mile northeast of the Interstate 25 and East Mulberry Street interchange. The annexation will enclave the East Mulberry Corridor. In accordance with the City’s Structure Plan Map, the requested zoning for this annexation is Industrial (I), General Commercial (C-G), and Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N). APPLICANT: Alex Boggs Tower Management Company 80 S Lake Ave., #719 Pasadena, CA 91101 Colorado Department of Transportation – Region 4 Corey Stewart, Program Engineer 10601 W. 10th St. Greeley, CO 80634 OWNER: Boggs Kurlander Steele LLC 80 S. Lake Ave., Ste. 719 Pasadena CA, 91101 Department of Transportation, State of Colorado 4201 E. Arkansas Ave. Denver, CO 80222 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the annexation and requested zoning of Industrial (I), General Commercial (C-G), and Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This annexation request is in conformance with the State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to annexations, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreement for the Growth Management Area, and the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. Packet Pg. 77 Agenda Item 5 Item #5, Page 2 This is a 100% voluntary annexation. The project satisfies the requirement pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes 31-12-104(1)(a), that no less than one-sixth of the perimeter boundary be contiguous to the existing City boundary. The Industrial (I), General Commercial (C-G), and Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) zoning is consistent with the City’s Structure Plan Map. The item is scheduled for first reading by City Council on June 5, 2018. Background The City of Fort Collins has received a written petition requesting annexation of three properties, known collectively as the East Gateway Annexation. The Annexation area includes three areas of land that consist of railroad-owned property, a narrow strip of land on the western edge of the Cloverleaf Community, and a triangular-shaped parcel owned by the Colorado Department of Transportation. The requested zoning for this annexation is a combination of General Commercial (C-G), Industrial (I), and Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (L-M-N), consistent with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan Map designations. The surrounding properties are a mixture of residential and commercial land uses. Analysis The result of the annexation will surround unincorporated land with City limits, thus creating an enclave. This area, known as the East Mulberry Enclave, closely coincides with the East Mulberry Corridor Plan boundary adopted in 2002 (updated in 2003). The Plan was developed after a two-year joint planning effort between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins. Though an enclave will be created after annexation of this property, Colorado Revised Statutes requires municipalities to wait three-years until annexation can be initiated without property owner consent. Based on the anticipated schedule of the East Gateway Annexation, a future City Council could consider annexation of the East Mulberry Enclave as soon as July 2021. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: ZONING LAND USES N Industrial (I) and Urban Estate (U-E) Agriculture S General Commercial (C-G) Drive-thru restaurant, McDonald’s; Limited Indoor Recreation, The Edge Sports Center E County, M1 Multiple-Family and C Multiple-Family Mobile Home Park, Cloverleaf Community W County, I Industrial and C Industrial Helicopter Repair and Parts Sales, Heli-One; Warehouse and Agriculture The requested zoning for this annexation is Industrial (I), General Commercial (C-G), and Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N), which is consistent with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan. Though the overall size and shape of the annexation restricts development from being feasible, the three recommended zone districts are representative of almost all permitted land uses in the City of Fort Collins. The Land Use Code describes Industrial, General Commercial and Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone districts as follows: Purpose. The Industrial District is intended to provide a location for a variety of work processes and work places such as manufacturing, warehousing and distributing, indoor and outdoor storage, and a wide range of commercial and industrial operations. The Industrial District also accommodates complementary and supporting uses such as convenience shopping, child care centers and housing. While these Districts will be linked to the City's transportation system for multiple modes of travel, some may emphasize efficient commercial trucking and rail traffic as needed. Industrial and manufacturing processes used in this District may, by necessity, be characteristically incompatible with residential uses. Purpose. The General Commercial District is intended to be a setting for development, redevelopment and infill of a wide range of community and regional retail uses, offices and personal and business services. Secondarily, it can accommodate a wide range of other uses including creative forms of housing. Packet Pg. 78 Agenda Item 5 Item #5, Page 3 While some General Commercial District areas may continue to meet the need for auto-related and other auto- oriented uses, it is the City's intent that the General Commercial District emphasize safe and convenient personal mobility in many forms, with planning and design that accommodates pedestrians Purpose. The Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District is intended to be a setting for a predominance of low density housing combined with complementary and supporting land uses that serve a neighborhood and are developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of a neighborhood. The main purpose of the District is to meet a wide range of needs of everyday living in neighborhoods that include a variety of housing choices, that invite walking to gathering places, services and conveniences, and that are fully integrated into the larger community by the pattern of streets, blocks, and other linkages. A neighborhood center provides a focal point, and attractive walking and biking paths invite residents to enjoy the center as well as the small neighborhood parks. Any new development in this District shall be arranged to form part of an individual neighborhood. Typically, Low Density Neighborhoods will be clustered around and integral with a Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood with a Neighborhood Commercial Center at its core. For the purposes of this Division, a neighborhood shall be considered to consist of approximately eighty (80) to one hundred sixty (160) acres, with its edges typically consisting of major streets, drainageways, irrigation ditches, railroad tracks and other major physical features. Public Outreach Since the East Gateway Annexation will create the enclave of the East Mulberry Corridor, City Council requested that staff engage the affected community in a dialogue about the potential future enclave annexation that could be considered as early as July 2021. The attached City Council Memo describes the outreach and results in greater detail. Findings of Fact 1. The property meets the State law eligibility requirements to qualify for a voluntary annexation to the City of Fort Collins. 2. The requested placement into the Industrial (I), General Commercial (C-G), and Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) zone district is consistent with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan Map. 3. The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins contained in the Amended Intergovernmental Agreement - Growth Management Area. 4. On May 1, 2018 the City Council approved a resolution that accepted the annexation petition and determined that the petition is in compliance with State law. The resolution also initiated the annexation process for the property by establishing the date, time and place when a public hearing would be held regarding the readings of the Ordinances annexing and zoning the area. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Structure Plan 4. Draft Council Memo – East Mulberry Corridor Packet Pg. 79 E Mulberry St E Mulberry St Interstate 25 Interstate 25 Ponderosa Dr Ne Frontage Rd Joydance Ct Jutl and L n Cloverleaf Way Box e lder St Brenton Dr Fetlock D r P alamino Ln Wither s Dr Se Frontage R d Aspen Cir Pinion Cir John Deere Rd Brand t Cir Sun c hase D r Loma Linda Dr Willow Ln De n ros e Ct Spruce Ln S w Fr o ntage Rd Maple Ln Cottonwood Ln Locust Ln Birch Ln N w Fr o E Mulberry St E Mulberry St Interstate 25 Interstate 25 Ponderosa Dr Ne Frontage Rd Joydance Ct Jutl and L n Cloverleaf Way Box e lder St Brenton Dr Fetlock D r P alamino Ln Wither s Dr Se Frontage R d Aspen Cir Pinion Cir John Deere Rd Brand t Cir S u ncha s e Dr Loma Linda Dr Willow Ln De n ros e Ct Spruce Ln S w Fro n tage Rd Maple Ln Cottonwood Ln Locust Ln Birch Ln N w Fr o E Mulberry St E Mulberry St Interstate 25 Interstate 25 Ponderosa Dr Ne Frontage Rd Joydance Ct Jutl and L n Cloverleaf Way Box e lder St Brenton Dr Fetlock D r P alamino Ln Wither s Dr Se Frontage R d Aspen Cir Pinion Cir John Deere Rd Brand t Cir Sun c hase D r Loma Linda Dr Willow Ln De n ros e Ct Spruce Ln S w Fr o ntage Rd Maple Ln Cottonwood Ln Locust Ln Birch Ln N w Fr o DRAFT Community Development & Neighborhood Services Planning 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.221.6376 970.224.6111- fax DATE: May 1, 2018 TO: Darin Atteberry, City Manager FROM: Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager THRU: Tom Leeson: Community Development & Neighborhood Services Director Laurie Kadrich, Planning, Development & Transportation Services Director Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager RE: East Mulberry Corridor Enclave Open House Summary Background In advance of the initiating resolution for the East Gateway Annexation, which creates the East Mulberry Enclave, the City Council requested that staff engage the affected community in a dialogue about a potential future enclave annexation that a future City Council may consider as early as July 2021. East Mulberry Open House Events Staff conducted two open house-style events within the East Mulberry Corridor on April 25th and 26th. Thirty-five (35) individuals signed into the first event which was held at the La Quinta Inn, and twenty- four (24) at the second event held at The Elks Lodge. An estimated twenty additional individuals were in attendance at the two events, but preferred not to sign in. Four City staff members were available at the open houses to answer questions and have one-on-one and small group conversations with attendees. Materials presented at the open houses included display boards showing the historical evolution of the area, maps displaying the East Mulberry Corridor Plan Framework Plan, the potential enclave area, water and sewer service areas, Southwest Enclave phasing, and attendees were urged to fill out a questionnaire and provide comments. Copies of the East Mulberry Corridor Plan were available as well as a display outlining the City Plan Update process. During the open houses, staff underscored four elements: 1. No decision about an enclave annexation has been made and the earliest date that an annexation could be considered is more than three years from now; 2. There will be extensive community engagement prior to the enclave annexation being considered; ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 83 DRAFT Page 2 3. The annexation will likely occur in phases over an extended period. 4. A fiscal impact assessment will be conducted in 2019-2020 Questionnaire Results To better understand possible changes in the public’s perception of the East Mulberry Corridor area over time, the same questionnaire was issued at the open houses as that distributed 17 years ago during the East Mulberry Corridor planning process. Comparing and contrasting the questionnaire summary graphs from these two periods (see comparison on the following two pages) appears to indicate some changes in the community’s perceptions and the priorities for public and private investment in the future. When comparing the question about the degree of satisfaction with existing conditions, there was an increased level of dissatisfaction within most categories reviewed. The biggest drops in satisfaction included: • personal safety/security • traffic congestion • bicycle and pedestrian safety • storm drainage • grocery store and retail availability, and • the appearance of buildings, landscaping and signs. With respect to future opportunities, respondents expressed greater interest in: • improvements to bicycle and pedestrian facilities • street improvements • more wildlife/natural areas • improving traffic flow • improvement in overall appearance • provision of a supermarket • increased police service, and • storm drainage improvements Arguably, the sample size of the most recent questionnaire is smaller, but it may still provide a general sense of the community’s perception of the challenges and opportunities within the East Mulberry Corridor. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 84 DRAFT Page 3 2001- Are you satisfied with conditions in the Corridor now 2018 - Are you satisfied with conditions in the Corridor now? ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 85 DRAFT Page 4 2001 - What potential opportunities for change in the Corridor are most important? 2018 - What potential opportunities for change in the Corridor are most important? ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 86 Agenda Item 6 Item #6, Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 17, 2018 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME CENTURY WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AND ADDITION OF PERMITTED USE, PDP170017 STAFF Clay Frickey, City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Project Development Plan to build a telecommunications tower housed within a 1,600 sq. ft. wireless facility. This facility will house wireless telecommunications equipment to provide wireless service to the surrounding area. The proposed tower would be 55 feet tall and disguised as a bell tower. This tower and facility will be used for structural support of up to three wireless providers. Each provider will install antennas and on-the-ground base station equipment. The site is located in the Low Density Residential (RL) zone district and, as such, is subject to review and approval by City Council. Wireless telecommunications facility is not an allowed use in the RL zone. The applicant is seeking an Addition of Permitted Use (APU) to allow a wireless telecommunications facility on this parcel. APPLICANT: Caleb Crossland 4450 Arapahoe Ave. Suite 100 Boulder, CO 80303 OWNER: Southside Baptist Church 620 W Horsetooth Rd. Fort Collins, CO 80526 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that City Council approve the Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use, PDP170017. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff finds the proposed Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use Project Development Plan complies with the applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically: • The Project Development Plan complies with the process and standards located in Division 1.3.4 - Addition of Permitted Uses of Article 1 - General Provisions. Packet Pg. 87 Agenda Item 6 Item #6, Page 2 • The Project Development Plan complies with the process located in Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 - Administration. COMMENTS: 1. Background The property annexed into the City as part of the Horsetooth South Mesa Annex on March 18, 1977. Shortly after annexation in 1978, a church built the current building. In 1992, Southside Baptist Church platted the lot as part of the Southside Baptist Church Minor Subdivision. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North Low Density Residential (RL) Single-family detached residential South Low Density Residential (RL) Duplexes, single-family detached residential East Low Density Residential (RL) Single-family detached residential West Low Density Residential (RL) Single-family detached residential 2. Compliance with Article 1 of the Land Use Code - General Provisions The proposed use, wireless telecommunications facility, is not allowed in the RL zone. For proposals where a use is not allowed in the zone district but is allowed elsewhere in the City, an applicant may apply for an Addition of Permitted Use (APU). An APU will allow the proposed use on this parcel only. In order to grant an APU, the proposal must meet a set of criteria outlined in Section 1.3.4(C)(1) of the Land Use Code. The project complies with these criteria as follows: A. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(a) - Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added Wireless telecommunications equipment is a use allowed in all zones. Wireless telecommunications equipment is defined as, “… equipment used to provide wireless telecommunication service, but which is not affixed to or contained within a wireless telecommunication service facility, but is instead affixed to or mounted on an existing building or structure that is used for some other purpose,” per the definitions found in Article 5 of the Land Use Code. What this implies is that equipment that facilitates improved wireless connectivity is allowed citywide. The difference between wireless telecommunications equipment and a facility is that the facility is a freestanding structure for the sole purpose of providing wireless connectivity. The difference between the two uses is design, not function. As such, the proposed use is appropriate in the RL zone. B. Section 1.3.4 (C)(1)(b) - Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added Per section 4.4(A) of the Land Use Code, the purpose of the RL zone is, “…for predominately single- family residential areas located throughout the City which were existing at the time of adoption of this Code.” As established in the previous section, wireless telecommunications equipment is an allowed use in the RL zone. This means uses allowing for improved wireless connectivity are not inherently in conflict with the other uses allowed in the zone. The purpose statement of the zone district indicates that it encompasses predominately single-family residential areas developed prior to City Plan and the Land Use Code. Since wireless telecommunications uses are accessory to principle uses and provide a needed service for residents of a neighborhood, a wireless telecommunications facility conforms to the basic characteristics of the RL zone so long as the facility is designed in harmony with the existing neighborhoods surrounding the site. Packet Pg. 88 Agenda Item 6 Item #6, Page 3 C. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(c) - The location, size and design of such use is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties The applicant proposes this facility in this location due to the need for cell phone coverage in this portion of the city. Per the propagation maps supplied by the applicant, cell phone coverage is poor in this area of Fort Collins. Two websites dedicated to providing crowd sourced cell coverage maps, Open Signal and Sensorly, back up this claim (attachment 4). The Wireless Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires municipalities to permit cell towers. Municipalities may determine where in the community these towers are located but may not de facto ban cell towers through zoning (attachment 5). Atlas Towers submitted a narrative describing their attempts to locate on parcels with more appropriate zoning to fill the coverage gap in this area. Atlas identified 19 areas in which to secure a lease within their search ring. Most of the properties in the applicant’s search ring have RL, Urban Estate (UE), Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN), or Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN) zoning. None of these zone districts allows wireless telecommunications facilities. Seven parcels within the search ring have Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning, which does allow wireless telecommunications facilities. Atlas Tower described their attempts in securing a lease on these NC-zoned properties in their project narrative. There is also only one co-location possibility in this area. Crown Castle owns a tower located at the southeast corner of Horsetooth Road and Shields Street. This tower does not have capacity for an additional carrier. Given the remaining parcels in the search ring, only two are located on large lots that could accommodate a wireless telecommunications facility: Southside Baptist Church and the LMN parcel owned by Jack Worthington. The Worthingtons were not interested in a lease. This leaves the Southside Baptist Church as the only appropriately-sized property willing to accommodate a cell tower lease in this area. Staff finds Atlas made a bona fide attempt to secure a lease with properties located in the NC zone and could not secure a lease. Land Use Code Section 3.8.13(C)(2) and 3.8.13(C)(15) require wireless telecommunications facilities to fit into the context surrounding the site and to also use stealth technology to hide the facility to the extent reasonably feasible. Southside Baptist Church is a single-story building with a steeple on the east end of the building. The building is 20-feet tall at its highest point excluding the steeple. The steeple is approximately 20-feet tall, rising to 40 feet. Section 3.8.13(C)(15) indicates bell towers are an appropriate method of meeting the stealth technology requirement. Per the APU criteria, the method of stealth technology must also harmonize with the surrounding context. The context around the church is one of an established residential area. Subdivisions predominated by single-family detached homes surround the church on all sides. Most structures in the vicinity are one- story with some two-story apartment, condominium, and commercial buildings east and west of the site. These structures are all modestly scaled and fit the predominantly residential character of the area. Atlas Tower proposes to locate the bell tower immediately adjacent to the church on the east side. This location is near the center of the site along the east-west axis and towards the south end of the site. Horsetooth Road runs along the south property line of the site. By locating the tower in the southern half of the site, the proposed tower has less of an impact on homes abutting the site on the north. A central location on the east-west axis minimizes impacts on properties abutting the site on the east and west. Staff finds the location of the proposed tower on the site is appropriate and minimally impacts neighboring properties. Church buildings are commonly amongst the tallest and largest structures within neighborhoods. Bell towers and steeples often accompany church structures and add to their height. The table below contains the height of various churches located in residential zones throughout the City along with the heights of their associated steeples or bell towers. Packet Pg. 89 Agenda Item 6 Item #6, Page 4 Name of Church Address Zone District Building Height Faith Church 3920 S Shields St. MMN 48’ (85’ including cross) Calvary Baptist 2420 Laporte Ave. LMN 32’ (78’-6” to top of steeple, 50’ bell tower) Westminster Presbyterian 1709 W Elizabeth St. RL 13’-8” (approx. 40’ to top of steeple) First United Methodist 1005 Stover St. Neighborhood Conservation - Low Density (NCL) 47’ (62’ to top of bell tower roof, 81’ to top of cross) The Bridge Church 833 S Taft Hill Rd. MMN Approx.. 30’ (approx. 60’ to top of steeple) Southside Baptist 620 W Horsetooth Rd. RL 20’ (55’ bell tower) The size and scale of the churches noted in the table vary but generally have bell towers or steeples of a similar height to the bell tower proposed at Southside Baptist Church. Southside Baptist, however, is a shorter building compared to these other churches. The proposed tower is also bulkier than the aforementioned bell towers and steeples. This combination of factors creates the perception of a larger structure. When considering all of the above issues, staff finds the proposed tower is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods in a way that is similar to other churches with tall bell towers and steeples. While the proposed tower is bulkier than many other bell towers and steeples in the community, the proposed tower is also shorter than other bell towers and steeples. As stated earlier, Section 3.8.13(C)(15) states bell towers are an appropriate way to meet the stealth technology requirement. Bell towers are common on church properties so the design is appropriate. The applicant has also proposed a location on the site to minimize the impact of this tower on abutting properties. This proposed tower will also not impact the use of adjacent properties. For these reasons, staff finds the proposal meets Criterion C. D. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(d) - Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added Cell towers do not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added. E. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(e) - Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area The predominant character of the surrounding area is that of an established, residential neighborhood. Just as the bell towers and steeples on churches in other parts of the community do not define the character of their neighborhoods, nor shall the proposed bell tower define the character of this neighborhood. Packet Pg. 90 Agenda Item 6 Item #6, Page 5 F. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(f) - Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added As established for Criterion A, wireless telecommunications equipment is an allowed use. This means the design of a wireless telecommunications facility is the principal consideration for establishing compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. As discussed for Criterion C, staff finds the proposed bell tower achieves compatibility with the zone district through its location on the site and design. G. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(g) - Such use, if located within or adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood, shall be subject to two (2) neighborhood meetings, unless the Director determines, from information derived from the conceptual review process, that the development proposal would not have any significant neighborhood impacts. The first neighborhood meeting must take place prior to the submittal of an application. The second neighborhood meeting must take place after the submittal of an application and after the application has completed the first round of staff review Staff conducted two neighborhood meetings for this proposal. The first neighborhood meeting occurred on March 23, 2017, prior to submittal of a development application. Staff convened a second neighborhood meeting on January 31, 2018, after the first round of staff review. The following section of this staff report contains an overview of these neighborhood meetings. H. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(h) - Such use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15- 452 of the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code The proposed use is a Wireless Telecommunications Facility, which satisfies this criterion. 3. Public Outreach Per Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(g), all projects subject to an APU in or adjacent to a residential neighborhood shall be subject to two neighborhood meetings. One of the meetings must be held before submittal of a formal development application with the City and one must be held after the first round of staff review. In compliance with this code section, the applicant held the first neighborhood meeting on March 23, 2017 at Southside Baptist Church. 37 neighbors attended the meeting. After this meeting, the applicant submitted their development application with the City on May 9, 2017. The applicant held the second neighborhood meeting on January 31, 2018. 12 neighbors attended this meeting. Neighbors raised the following issues at these meetings: • Concern about negative health effects due to radio frequency emissions • The proposed design is too bulky and out of scale with the neighborhood o Preference for a more tapered, artistic design • Preference for a different location in a non-residential area 4. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: In evaluating the request for proposed Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use Project Development Plan, Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The Project Development Plan complies with the process and standards located in Division 1.3.4 - Addition of Permitted Uses of Article 1 - General. B. The Project Development Plan complies with the process located in Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 - Administration. Packet Pg. 91 Agenda Item 6 Item #6, Page 6 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that the City Council approve the Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use, PDP170017. ATTACHMENTS 1. Zoning & Vicinity Map 2. Applicant Project Narrative 3. Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility Planning Document Set 4. Coverage Maps from Open Signal and Sensorly 5. Excerpt of the Wireless Telecommunications Act of 1996 6. Century Neighborhood Meeting Summaries 7. Images of Comparable Churches 8. Public Comment Packet Pg. 92 The Learning House Lopez Elementary RL CG LMN MMN LMN MMN MMN NC Tradition Dr A r b o r A ve Eagle Dr Benthaven St Dennison Ave Century Dr Gunnison Dr Albion Way Riva Ridge Dr Blue Mesa Ave R o c k a w a y S t Justice Dr Killdeer Dr Bonita Ave Zuni Cir W a l d e n Way C o r o n a d o A v e Silverthorne Dr Haven Dr Supplementary Narrative – Century Nov 13, 2017 Planning Department Fort Collins Planning Services 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Attn: Clay Frickey RE: Supplementary Narrative – Proposed 55’ Stealth Bell Tower Communications Tower To Whom It May Concern: Atlas Tower 1, LLC is submitting a Commercial Radio Service Facility Application for a proposed telecommunications facility build at 620 W Horsetooth Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80526. This facility will be 1,600 square feet and house a 55’ bell-tower communications tower that can accommodate up to three wireless carriers. Atlas is working to bring quality voice and data services to an area lacking reliable coverage. SITE DETAILS Land Owner: Southside Baptist Church of Fort Collins, Colorado, a Colorado non-profit corporation Address: 620 W Horsetooth Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80526 Applicant: Atlas Tower Holdings, LLC 4450 Arapahoe Ave., Suite 100 Boulder, CO 80303 Coordinates: 40° 32' 19.44" N 105° 05' 13.69” W Zoning: Low Density Residential District RL Lease Area: 1,600 Sq. ft. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The purpose of this request is to build a telecommunications tower disguised as a bell tower and housed within a 1,600 sq. ft. wireless facility. This facility will provide critical wireless coverage to the surrounding area. The proposed site is a residential area where the capacity of the existing infrastructure is reaching its limit. As existing users demand more data for their existing devices, existing infrastructure will reach capacity limits and be unable to meet coverage needs. This tower and facility will be used for structural support of up to three wireless providers. Each provider will install antennas and on-the-ground base-station equipment. WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS Visual Effect The proposed location is currently being used as a church and a Christian school. A three-sided bell tower communications facility will complement this existing use and will be unrecognizable as a telecommunications tower. The walls of the upper portion of the telecommunications facility will be made of RF transparent material that will completely mask telecommunications antennas that will be housed inside of the bell tower. A six-foot fence will surround the supporting ground equipment in the lease area. The portion of the fence facing Horsetooth will be made of brick that matches the existing building. A wooden fence will surround the other three sides of the lease area. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 94 2 Frequency Of Maintenance Work On The Proposed WTF On average, after initial installation, a carrier or its contactors would likely visit the WTF about one time a month for maintenance, though this number could vary greatly depending on the specific circumstances of the WTF. The Average Number Of Vehicles Visiting The WTF The average maintenance visit by a carrier or its contractors would likely involve one pickup truck, but this number could very greatly. With an average of one visit a month and one truck a visit, there would likely be about one pickup truck visiting the site a month per carrier. The Average Duration Work Visits On The WTF For typical maintenance visits, a carrier or its contactors would only be at the site a few hours, but this number could increase substantially depending on the work that needed to be completed at the site. Expected Noise Levels WTF are essentially silent. This would be true whether there were one or three carriers. It is certainly true if you are a few hundred feet from the WTF. A generator could be operated on site in the rare instance that power went out. The generator would create noise, but it would not be noticeable a few hundred feet away, off of the parcel. ZONING & COMMUNITY COMPLIANCE Comprehensive Plan This site is consistent with the intent of the long-range master plans for the local community. The site, once developed, will provide critical local and regional network coverage and was designed to minimize visual effects. a. Increased coverage and network speeds. Residential customers will experience faster connectivity, less dropped calls, and overall better voice and data service. b. Increased capabilities of emergency service responders. Many emergency service responders use devices that operate over cellular networks to communicate valuable information during an emergency. Additionally, the FCC estimates that over 70% of all 9-1-1 calls are made over cellular devices. A tower in this location guarantees more reliable emergency services and response times. c. Greater carrier competition that will result in lower wireless costs for consumers. This tower would allow multiple carriers to provide coverage to this area, and thus to compete for local customers. d. Greater economic growth. Cities that encourage wireless technological advancement and coverage growth will foster economic activity as increased wireless and data connectivity promote ease and growth of commerce. e. Advanced technology for smart phone and tablet users. Many companies are developing smartphone, tablets, and other devices that incorporate LTE technology. This tower will house LTE equipment and further the capabilities of smartphone and tablet users by optimizing increased functionality in LTE capable wireless devices. Land Use Our proposed telecommunications facility disguised as a bell tower is in harmony with the current use of the parent parcel. Facility & Traffic This site is unmanned and only occasionally visited by maintenance personnel. Therefore, it does not require public facilities or services greater than presently available. Given the limited visits to the facility, approximately 1-6 annually, there is no distinguishable impact on existing infrastructure or pedestrian or vehicular traffic flow. Federal Aviation Administration and Federal Communications Commission We will apply for FAA approval and this site will maintain all applicable FAA 7460-1 Obstruction Approvals and FCC required Antenna Structure Registration. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 95 3 Noise, Safety, and Public Health Our proposed uses will not cause any measurable increase in noise levels in the surrounding area, any detriment to the health, safety, and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the vicinity, and will not create any reasonable public health concerns. Fort Collins Land Use Code 3.8.13 (A) Location. Subject to the requirements of paragraph (B) of this Section, wireless telecommunication equipment may be attached to or mounted on any existing building or structure (or substantially similar replacement structure) located in any zone district of the city. Wireless telecommunication equipment shall not, however, be permitted to be attached to or mounted on any residential building containing four (4) or fewer dwelling units. Towers need to be near the users to which they will provide coverage. As more of the population uses smart phones and use their smart phones in a way that requires more data, the demand placed on existing towers has grown exponentially. The result is that even though an existing tower may be able to cover an area, the tower may not have the capacity to meet the demands for data and usage that are placed upon it. This is a difference between coverage and capacity. In order to provide sufficient capacity to a network in a populated area, carriers have to increase the number of towers placed in these areas, so that each tower provides coverage to a smaller geographic area and therefore fewer users. For this reason, towers need to be placed near the population they will be serving, and ideally in the center of that population. For this reason, the proposed telecommunications facility is required to be near the residential areas it will be serving. In order to address the above-described requirements for tower placement, Atlas performed an exhaustive search of potential candidates that had adequate location, favorable zoning and use, and a willing Landlord. Exhibit 1 to this application is a satellite image with one-mile ring around the center of the search area. This shows the limited possible locations for telecommunications equipment with regard to land use. Exhibit 2 is a zoning map with a one-mile ring around the center of the search area. This shows the limited possible locations for telecommunications equipment with regard to preferential zoning. Though the commercial properties near the intersection of Horsetooth and Shields are zone preferentially, most lack adequate space for a telecommunications facility. The properties that do have adequate space were unwilling to engage in a telecommunications lease with Atlas. Exhibit 3 details Atlas’s efforts to secure a lease in the area surrounding the original search ring. Because the search is fairly densely populated, going beyond a mile with the search could put the tower too close to another site—or another planned site—in Verizon’s network. In addition to this, it could place the tower too far from intended users. The commercial properties located near College Avenue and Horsetooth are too far from the coverage objective and too close to another existing Verizon antenna. The proposed site is excellent when taking into account its location in relation to the residential and commercial properties that the tower will serve and the size and use of the proposed property. The proposed location is surrounded by residential properties, but the tower itself would not be close to any residential structures. The use of the proposed location would allow for a convincing stealth use that would minimize the visual effect of the proposed tower. (B) Co-location. No wireless telecommunication facility or equipment owner or lessee or employee thereof shall act to exclude or attempt to exclude any other wireless telecommunication provider from using the same building, structure or location. Wireless telecommunication facility or equipment owner or lessees or employees thereof, and applicant for the approval of plans for the installation of such facilities or equipment, shall cooperate in good faith to achieve co-location of wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment. Any application for the approval of a plan for the installation of wireless ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 96 4 telecommunication facilities or equipment shall include documentation of the applicant’s good faith efforts toward such cooperation. Atlas Tower acknowledges and accepts this requirement. The proposed telecommunications facility is designed to accommodate up to three wireless carriers. Atlas is an independent tower owner/operator and its business model depends on colocation. Atlas will use best efforts to market the site to additional carriers and encourage colocation. See the attached, signed statement of colocation. (C) Standards. (1) Setbacks. With respect to a wireless telecommunication facility that is a tower or a monopole, the setback of the facility from the property lines shall be one (1) foot for every foot of height. However, to the extent that it can be demonstrated that the structure will collapse rather than topple, this requirement can be waived by the Director. In addition, the setbacks for the ground-mounted wireless telecommunication equipment shall be governed by the setback criteria established in Articles 3 and/or 4. The proposed tower facility would be located 137ft from the nearest parcel line, and the nearest ground mounted equipment would be located at least 117ft from the nearest property line. (2) Wireless Telecommunication Facilities. Whether manned or unmanned, wireless telecommunication facilities shall be consistent with the architectural style of the surrounding architectural environment (planned or existing) considering exterior materials, roof form, scale, mass, color, texture and character. Such facilities shall also be compatible with the surrounding natural environment considering land forms, topography and other natural features. If such facility is an accessory use to an existing use, the facility shall be constructed out of materials that are equal to or better than the materials of the principal use. The proposed telecommunications facility, disguised as a bell tower, would be unidentifiable as a communications tower to the untrained eye, and would fit the architectural style of the surrounding architectural environment, which is a church building. The proposed facility would be surrounded with a brick fence on the south side and a wooden fence on the remaining sides. The proposed telecommunications facility could be considered an accessory use and will be constructed out of materials that are equal to or better than the materials of the principal use, the existing church building. (3) Wireless Telecommunication Equipment. Wireless telecommunication equipment shall be of the same color as the building or structure to which or on which such equipment is mounted. Atlas acknowledges and accepts this requirement. Atlas Tower plans to paint the stealth bell tower a beige color that matches the existing church building. All of the antennas on the stealth bell tower will be behind the fiberglass panels of the stealth bell tower and therefore will not be visible from outside of the tower. Whenever a wireless telecommunication antenna is attached to a building roof, the height of the antenna shall not be more than fifteen (15) feet over the height of the building. All wireless telecommunication equipment shall be located as far from the edge of the roof as possible. Even if the building is constructed at or above the building height limitations contained in Section 3.8.17, the additional fifteen (15) feet is permissible. This tower will be a new self-supporting bell tower, and will not be attached to an existing building or roof. Whenever wireless telecommunication equipment is mounted to the wall of a building structure, the equipment shall be mounted in a configuration as flush to ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 97 5 the wall as technically possible and shall not project above the wall on which it is mounted. Such equipment shall, to the maximum extent feasible, also feature the smallest and most discreet components that the technology will allow so as to have the least possible impact on the architectural character and overall aesthetics of the building or structure. All antenna mounted to the stealth bell tower will be mounted behind the paneling of the tower, and therefore will not be visible from the outside. Roof and ground mounted wireless telecommunication equipment shall be screened by parapet walls or screen walls in a manner compatible with the building’s design, color and material. Please see fencing detail on pg. Z-2 of the zoning drawings. A 6’ brick and wooden fence will screen all ground equipment. (4) Landscaping. Wireless telecommunication facilities and ground-mounted wireless telecommunications equipment may need to be landscaped with landscaping materials that exceed the levels established in Section 3.2.1, due to unique nature of such facilities. Landscaping may therefore be required to achieve a total screening effect at the base of such facilities or equipment to screen the mechanical characteristics. A heavy emphasis on coniferous plants for year- round screening may be required. A 6ft wooden fence will surround the telecommunications facility for screening. Atlas is not aware of any landscaping required for the proposed site, but accepts and will comply with this provision. If a wireless telecommunication facility or ground-mounted wireless telecommunication equipment has frontage on a public street, street trees shall be planted along the roadway in accordance with the policies of the City Forester. The telecommunications facility does not have frontage on a public street. (5) Fencing. Chain link fencing shall be unacceptable to screen facilities. Fencing materials shall consist of wood masonry, stucco or other acceptable materials and be opaque. Fencing shall not exceed six (6) feet in height. Fencing detail can be seen on pg. Z-2 of the enclosed Zoning Drawings. A 6’ brick and wooden fence would surround the proposed telecommunications facility. (6) Berming. Berms shall be considered as an acceptable screening device. Berms shall feature slopes that allow mowing, irrigation and maintenance. Not applicable. (7) Irrigation. Landscaping and berming shall be equipped with automatic irrigation systems meeting the water conservation standards of the city. Atlas acknowledges and accepts this requirement. Atlas will install an automatic irrigation system for any required landscaping. (8) Color. All wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment shall be painted to match as closely as possible the color and texture of the wall, building or surrounding built environment. Muted colors, earth tones and subdued colors shall be used. The proposed telecommunications facility, disguised as a stealth bell tower, will be painted to match the buildings on existing parcel, which are muted, subdued earth tones. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 98 6 (9) Lighting. The light source for security lighting shall be high-pressure sodium and feature down-directional, sharp cut-off luminaries so that there is no spillage of illumination off-site. Light fixtures, whether freestanding or tower-mounted shall not exceed twenty-two (22) feet in height. Atlas is not proposing any lighting in the facility, but acknowledges and accepts this requirement. Any lighting will follow the requirements of this section. (10) Interference. Wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment shall operate in such a manner so as not to cause interference with other electronics such as radios, televisions or computers. Atlas Tower will not be installing any radio frequency emitting equipment on the tower, but will ensure that any carrier installing on the tower will follow all applicable local, State, and Federal interference regulations. (11) Access roadways. Access roads must be capable of supporting all of the emergency response equipment of the Poudre Fire Authority. Current access roads are via paved and gravel surfaces capable of supporting emergency response equipment. (12) Foothills and Hogbacks. Wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment located in or near the foothills bear a special responsibility for mitigating visual disruption. If such a location is selected, the applicant shall provide computerized, three-dimensional, visual simulation of the facility or equipment and other appropriate graphics to demonstrate the visual impact on the view of the city’s foothills and hogbacks. Atlas does not believe this provision applies to its application, but photo simulations are shown in Exhibit 6. (13) Airports and Flight Paths. Wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment located near airports and flight paths shall obtain the necessary approvals from the Federal Aviation Administration. Prior to building permit submittal, Atlas will obtain all applicable FAA 7460-1 Obstruction Approvals and FCC required Antenna Structure Registration. (14) Historic Sites and Structures. Wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment shall not be located on any historic site or structure unless permission is first obtained from the city’s Landmark Preservation Commission as required by Chapter 14 of the City Code. Atlas does not believe that the proposed site is located on any designated historic site or structure. NEPA and Phase I environmental studies are currently being performed at the site and will confirm the lack of any historical significance at the site location. (15) Stealth Technology. To the extent reasonably feasible, the applicant shall employ “stealth technology” so as to convert the wireless telecommunication facility into wireless telecommunication equipment, as the best method by which to mitigate and/or camouflage visual impacts. Stealth technology consists of, but is not limited to, the use grain bins, silos or elevators, church steeples, water towers, clock towers, bell towers, false penthouses or other similar “mimic” structures shall have a contextual relationship with the adjacent area. Atlas is proposing a stealth bell tower in order to blend with the existing use of the parcel and the surrounding agricultural area and will be indistinguishable as a communications tower. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 99 7 1.3.4 - Addition of Permitted Uses (C) Procedures and Required Findings. The following procedures and required findings shall apply to addition of permitted use determinations made by the Director, Planning and Zoning Board, and City Council respectively: (1) Director Approval. In conjunction with an application for approval of an overall development plan, a project development plan, or any amendment of the foregoing (the "primary application" for purposes of this Section only), for property not located in any zone district listed in subsection (G), the applicant may apply for the approval of an Addition of Permitted Use for uses described in subsection (B)(1) to be determined by the Director. If the applicant does not apply for such an addition of permitted use in conjunction with the primary application, the Director in his or her sole discretion may initiate the addition of permitted use process. The Director may add to the uses specified in a particular zone district any other use which conforms to all of the following criteria: (a) Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added. The proposed telecommunications facility would be appropriate in and conform to the purpose and characteristic of the Low Density Residential District (R-L). Places of worship or assembly are allowed in the R-L district and the proposed telecommunications facility masked as a bell tower would conform to the current use in the R-L district while providing vital infrastructure. (b) Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added. Please see the response to 1.3.4 – Addition of Permitted Uses, (C), (1), (a) above. (c) The location, size and design of such use is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. The location of the proposed telecommunication facility is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. As detailed in Exhibit 5, the location of the proposed tower is over 117 ft. from the nearest property line. The location of the proposed tower was not the original location, but was later chosen in order to mitigate any visual effect the proposed telecommunication facility would have on neighboring properties. The size of the proposed telecommunication facility is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. The proposed telecommunications will be disguised as a stealth bell tower. The parcel upon which the proposed telecommunications facility would be located and those near it are, or have been, agricultural. Because it would not be unusual to have a 55 ft. bell tower on church property, the 55 ft. telecommunications facility disguised as a bell tower is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on nearby properties. (d) Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added. The proposed telecommunications facility will not create any offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare, or other objectionable influence or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 100 8 (e) Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area. Because the existing church building has been located at this location for around fifty years, the proposed telecommunications facility disguised as a bell tower will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area. (f) Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added. The proposed telecommunications facility would be compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the Low Density Residential District (R-L). The R-L District has “Places of worship or assembly” as an “Institutional/Civic/Public Uses” in Division 4.4, (B) Permitted Uses. (2), (b), (3.). The proposed telecommunications facility disguised as a bell tower would conform to the places of worship or assembly allowed use of the R-L District. The proposed telecommunications facility is compatible with the Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses for the R-L district, which includes wireless telecommunication equipment. (g) Such use, if located within or adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood, shall be subject to two (2) neighborhood meetings, unless the Director determines, from information derived from the conceptual review process, that the development proposal would not have any significant neighborhood impacts. The first neighborhood meeting must take place prior to the submittal of an application. The second neighborhood meeting must take place after the submittal of an application and after the application has completed the first round of staff review. Atlas will fully comply with this requirement. (h) Such use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-452 of the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code. The proposed use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-452 of the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code. CONCLUSION This narrative represents required and supplementary information to document the technological, economic, and social necessity and benefits of a new 55’ stealth bell tower at 620 W Horsetooth Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80526. The information provided highlights the advantages associated with a telecommunications facility at our proposed site. Atlas Tower Holdings respectfully requests the approval of our Wireless Telecommunication Facility Application. Best Regards, Caleb Crossland Atlas Tower Holdings, LLC 4450 Arapahoe Ave., Suite 100 Boulder, CO 80303 Office (303) 448-8896 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 101 9 Exhibit 1 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 102 10 Exhibit 2 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 103 11 Exhibit 3 1) Various Residential Properties – These properties are not zone preferentially, are too small for a telecommunications facility, and the land use is incompatible with a wireless telecommunications facility. 2) J/Jack C Sherman Worthington – Caleb Crossland, of Atlas Tower, pursued a lease at this location in the fall of 2016 and the property owner was vehemently opposed to a lease on his property under any circumstances. 3) Various Residential Properties – These properties are not zone preferentially, are too small for a telecommunications facility, and the land use is incompatible with a wireless telecommunications facility. 4) Southside Baptist Church - This is the location of the proposed telecommunications facility. Though the property is not zoned preferentially for a telecommunications facility, the land use works well for a telecommunications facility, there is sufficient space, and it is well situated among residential parcels in order to provide effective coverage to the surrounding area. 5) Various Properties – These properties are not zone preferentially, are too small for a telecommunications facility, and the land use is incompatible with a wireless telecommunications facility. 6) The Southland Corporation – Though this property is preferentially zoned, it is not of sufficient size to house the proposed wireless telecommunications facility. The proposed facility needs around 2,500 sq. ft. of ground space to house equipment. In addition, this property is used as a gas station which creates environmental complexities related to digging the foundation of a telecommunications facility. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 104 12 7) PVP Property Owners Association – Though this property is preferentially zoned, there is not sufficient space for the proposed telecommunications facility. Mike Powers, of Atlas Tower, spoke to the property owner in 2016 regarding leasing space for the proposed telecommunications facility. The property owner was not interested in leasing space for the proposed telecommunications facility. Exhibit 3 Continued The property owner cited parking space requirements as the primary issue with leasing space to Atlas Tower for the proposed telecommunications facility. There is already an existing telecommunications tower on the property, which cannot house additional carriers. 8) Various Residential Properties – These properties are not zone preferentially, are too small for a telecommunications facility, and the land use is incompatible with a wireless telecommunications facility. 9) Various Residential Properties – These properties are not zone preferentially, are too small for a telecommunications facility, and the land use is incompatible with a wireless telecommunications facility. 10) Various Residential Properties – These properties are not zone preferentially and the land use is incompatible with a wireless telecommunications facility. Atlas Tower pursued a telecommunications facility on one of these properties but was strongly discouraged by Fort Collins Planning and Zoning from pursuing the location. Atlas then pursued other locations. 11) Various Residential Properties – These properties are not zone preferentially, are too small for a telecommunications facility, and the land use is incompatible with a wireless telecommunications facility. 12) Various Residential Properties – These properties are not zone preferentially, are too small for a telecommunications facility, and the land use is incompatible with a wireless telecommunications facility. 13) Associates Investments LLC – In 2016, Mike Powers, of Atlas Tower, visited this location and spoke to representatives of the owners on multiple occasions in 2016. Caleb Crossland, of Atlas Tower, also spoke with a representative of the owner on several occasions in 2016. In the end, the owner decided not to pursue a lease because of concerns with a possible future sale of the property. 14) JDS Properties LLC – There is not sufficient space for a telecommunication facility at this location. In addition, this property is used as a gas station which creates environmental complexities related to digging the foundation of a telecommunications facility. 15) SLR LLC – Both Mike Powers and Caleb Crossland of Atlas Towers pursued a lease on this location in 2016. The property owner was uninterested in a lease. There is no practical location on the property with sufficient space for the proposed wireless telecommunications facility. 16) Bright Horizons Family Solutions – Both Mike Powers and Caleb Crossland, of Atlas Tower, pursued a lease on this property in 2016. The property is currently being used as a daycare facility. The property owner was strongly opposed to a telecommunications facility anywhere near the property. 17) Eyesite LLC – Both Mike Powers and Caleb Crossland, of Atlas Tower, pursued a lease at this location in 2016. Mike Powers met with the property owner in person. After significant correspondence, the property owner determined that it was not interested in a telecommunications lease do to possible future expansion of their building. In addition, the property owner did not want to deal with the possible hassle of the telecommunications facility. 18) Harold J Santner – Mike Powers pursued a lease at this location in 2016. Because of parking requirements, there is not sufficient space to house a wireless telecommunications facility. The property owner was not interested in a lease. 19) Various Residential Properties – These properties are not zone preferentially, are too small for a telecommunications facility, and the land use is incompatible with a wireless telecommunications facility. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 105 13 Exhibit 4 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 106 14 Exhibit 4 Continued The Existing Verizon Network: Verizon’s existing network on Horsetooth between Shields and College is currently not meeting Verizon’s goals for excellent performance, or user expectations. In this area there are issues of both coverage and capacity. Verizon has been working with vendors for over a year to develop a telecommunications facility near the proposed facility. Future Need: The existing infrastructure surrounding the proposed facility is not currently meeting Verizon’s goals for excellent coverage, or user expectations, and its performance will only decrease as time goes on unless the network is expanded. If the network in not improved, the network could reach a point of non-functionality in the next few years. As was mentioned above, an increasing percentage of the population is using cell phones and cell-phone users are demanding increasing amounts of data. Safety: Do to the ubiquity of cell phone use, an unreliable network can be a safety risk. Because an increasing number of people are getting rid of their landlines, it is becoming increasingly common for emergency calls to be made on cell phones. If cell-phone calls are severely degraded, it can be difficult or impossible for a user to make a call in the case of an emergency, which poses severe safety risks. Chart Showing Capacity Issues With the Existing Network: Forward Data Volume in Blue can be seen exceeding capacity. Trend line shows it further increasing as we get towards the end of the year. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 107 15 Exhibit 4 Continued ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 108 16 Exhibit 4 Continued ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 109 17 Exhibit 5 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 110 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: INDEMNIFICATION STATEMENT: BENCHMARKS: TITLE SHEET T-1 SOUTHSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH MINOR SUB SITE NAME: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TOWER TYPE: SITE ADDRESS: 55' STEALTH TOWER CENTURY ZONING: R-L, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 620 W HORSETOOTH ROAD FORT COLLINS, CO 80526 (LARIMER COUNTY) POWER COMPANY: CONTACT: PHONE: METER# NEAR SITE: TELEPHONE COMPANY: CONTACT: PHONE: PEDESTAL # NEAR SITE: TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS 500 E 84TH AVE, SUITE C-10 THORNTON, CO 80229 NICHOLAS M. CONSTANTINE (303) 566-9914 WiBLUE, INC. KEN BRADTKE (303) 448-8896 SITE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER: SITE APPLICANT: SURVEYOR: CIVIL ENGINEER: PROPERTY OWNER: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: CONTACT: PHONE: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: CONTACT: PHONE: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: CONTACT: PHONE: NAME: CONTACT: PHONE: N GENERAL NOTES: STRUCTURAL STEEL NOTES: FORT COLLINS SITE PLAN NOTES F CENTURY KES NMC TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS OFFICE: (303) 566-9914 THORNTON, CO 80229 500 E 84TH AVE, SUITE C-10 76097.67480 ZONING ZONING REVIEW A 06-13-17 B 07-05-17 ZONING C 07-17-17 ZONING D 10-12-17 ZONING E 12-08-17 ZONING F 04-17-18 ZONING GENERAL NOTES I N-1 GENERAL NOTES ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 112 LCUASS GENERAL NOTES: “ ” “ ” F CENTURY KES NMC TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS OFFICE: (303) 566-9914 THORNTON, CO 80229 500 E 84TH AVE, SUITE C-10 76097.67480 ZONING ZONING REVIEW A 06-13-17 B 07-05-17 ZONING C 07-17-17 ZONING D 10-12-17 ZONING E 12-08-17 ZONING F 04-17-18 ZONING GENERAL NOTES II N-2 GENERAL NOTES ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 113 W. HORSETOOTH RD. (100' PUBLIC R.O.W.) LEGEND 1-A COORDINATES NOTES: SCHEDULE B., SECTION II. EXCEPTIONS: SITE PLAN & COMPOUND DETAIL Z-1 SITE PLAN F CENTURY KES NMC TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS OFFICE: (303) 566-9914 THORNTON, CO 80229 500 E 84TH AVE, SUITE C-10 76097.67480 ZONING ZONING REVIEW A 06-13-17 B 07-05-17 ZONING C 07-17-17 ZONING D 10-12-17 ZONING E 12-08-17 ZONING F 04-17-18 ZONING COMPOUND DETAIL ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 114 FENCE NOTE: DRAWING NOTES: 6' HIGH FENCE FOOTINGS WOODEN FENCE ATTACHMENT BRACKET NOTE: 620 TOWER NOTES: TOWER ELEVATION & FENCE DETAILS Z-2 TOWER ELEVATION F CENTURY KES NMC TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS OFFICE: (303) 566-9914 THORNTON, CO 80229 500 E 84TH AVE, SUITE C-10 76097.67480 ZONING ZONING REVIEW A 06-13-17 B 07-05-17 ZONING C 07-17-17 ZONING D 10-12-17 ZONING E 12-08-17 ZONING F 04-17-18 ZONING TYPICAL FENCE ELEVATION GATE DETENT DETAIL BRICK WALL DETAILS WALL SIDE ELEVATION BOARD MOUNTING DETAIL FENCE SIDE VIEW ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 115 SECTION A-A A A NOTES: TYPE IV ATTACHED WALK DRIVEWAY WIDTHS CLASSIFICATION APPROACH TYPE MINIMUM WIDTH MAXIMUM WIDTH ● ● ● GEOTEXTILE FABRIC NOTES: SITE GRADING NOTES: EROSION CONTROL & DRIVEWAY DETAILS Z-3 LCUASS DRAWING 707.2 (STANDARD DRIVEWAY APPROACH) F CENTURY KES NMC TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS OFFICE: (303) 566-9914 THORNTON, CO 80229 500 E 84TH AVE, SUITE C-10 76097.67480 ZONING ZONING REVIEW A 06-13-17 B 07-05-17 ZONING C 07-17-17 ZONING D 10-12-17 ZONING E 12-08-17 ZONING F 04-17-18 ZONING NOT USED EROSION CONTROL PLAN SILT FENCE DETAIL ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 116 t 0STEALTH' GO UNNOTICED ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 117 0STEALTH. GO UNNOTICED ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 118 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 119 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 120 entity (including the owner of such pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way).'. SEC. 704. FACILITIES SITING; RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSION STANDARDS. (a) NATIONAL WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS SITING POLICY- Section 332(c) (47 U.S.C. 332(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: `(7) PRESERVATION OF LOCAL ZONING AUTHORITY- `(A) GENERAL AUTHORITY- Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this Act shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities. `(B) LIMITATIONS- `(i) The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof-- `(I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and `(II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. `(ii) A State or local government or instrumentality thereof shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed with such government or instrumentality, taking into account the nature and scope of such request. `(iii) Any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. `(iv) No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions. `(v) Any person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with this subparagraph may, within 30 days after such ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 121 action or failure to act, commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court shall hear and decide such action on an expedited basis. Any person adversely affected by an act or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with clause (iv) may petition the Commission for relief. `(C) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of this paragraph-- `(i) the term `personal wireless services' means commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services; `(ii) the term `personal wireless service facilities' means facilities for the provision of personal wireless services; and `(iii) the term `unlicensed wireless service' means the offering of telecommunications services using duly authorized devices which do not require individual licenses, but does not mean the provision of direct-to-home satellite services (as defined in section 303(v)).'. (b) RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSIONS- Within 180 days after the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall complete action in ET Docket 93-62 to prescribe and make effective rules regarding the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions. (c) AVAILABILITY OF PROPERTY- Within 180 days of the enactment of this Act, the President or his designee shall prescribe procedures by which Federal departments and agencies may make available on a fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory basis, property, rights-of-way, and easements under their control for the placement of new telecommunications services that are dependent, in whole or in part, upon the utilization of Federal spectrum rights for the transmission or reception of such services. These procedures may establish a presumption that requests for the use of property, rights-of-way, and easements by duly authorized providers should be granted absent unavoidable direct conflict with the department or agency's mission, or the current or planned use of the property, rights-of-way, and easements in question. Reasonable fees may be charged to providers of such telecommunications services for use of property, rights-of-way, and easements. The Commission shall provide technical support to States to encourage them to make property, rights-of-way, and easements under their jurisdiction available for such purposes. SEC. 705. MOBILE SERVICES DIRECT ACCESS TO LONG DISTANCE CARRIERS. Section 332(c) (47 U.S.C. 332(c)) is amended by adding at the end ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 122 1 Development Review Center 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970-221-6750 fcgov.com/DevelopmentReview NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING NOTES Meeting Date March 23, 2017 These notes capture staff’s interpretation of questions, comments and ideas from the meeting. PROJECT: Southside Baptist Church Wireless Telecommunication Facility DATE: March 29, 2017 PLANNER: Clay Frickey, City Planner PROSPECTIVE Caleb Crossland, Atlas Tower APPLICANT City Planner Clay Frickey introduced the purpose of the meeting, the agenda, and the City’s Land Use Code which addresses the placement and design of cell tower facilities and equipment. FCC regulations limit local government authority and specifically restrict State or local governments from regulating wireless facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that a facility complies with FCC regulations on such emissions. The proposed facility would need to proceed through the City’s Development Review process with submittal of plans, staff review of plans, and a public hearing. Plans would be available online for public inspection, and a mailing notice would be sent for the hearing in accordance with the code. Caleb Crossland explained the proposal and rationale.  Service providers are seeing a need for more, smaller towers closer to users based on the increasing demands of communication devices.  Why a tower here? Demand. It is needed to service this area. There is coverage but service level is declining corresponding to increasing demand. The nearest tower is about a mile away.  The FCC views this communication infrastructure as basic utility infrastructure. It is viewed as a safety issue. Emergency services use it on over half of 911 calls.  Works best when surrounded by users, and near busy streets. This location is ideal.  The design concept is a bell tower. The church would decide on the actual design. Shown is a conceptual illustration at 65 feet in height. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 123 Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page | 2 Caleb explained the FR or radio frequency waves used in wireless communications. RF waves are a form of non‐ionizing radiation. They are on the spectrum that includes light, radio, xrays, and other forms of radiation. There are zero studies of a cell antenna causing cancer. A phone next to the ear works at a higher power level than at a typical distance from an antenna tower. Written material handouts are available showing facts and information about RF waves. Any questions or requests for information are welcome at: Caleb.crossland@gmail.com, phone 303.448.8896 Questions and Discussion: Q = Question R = Response C = Comment Q: Where is the tower proposed on the site? R (City): close to the building, on the east side of the building. Q: Is the church the best route to stop or deny this? R: Yes, that would be a good way. Otherwise, it would be approved, changed, or denied after the City review process. C: This is the largest metro area I’ve ever been in with the worst coverage. R: Fort Collins is a hot spot for providers looking to improve coverage. Q: How far would it be from the east property line? R: Much closer to the church than the property line. Outside the east wall of the church building. Q: A church on Prospect backed out of a deal like this. Do you know why? R: Not specifically but typical reasons would be that the owner was never really serious, or they received opposition that persuaded them. C: Southridge Greens is a denial example. It was close to 2 schools. Children’s health is important. Do you have any studies on children specifically? R: Yes, a UK study sort of looked at that. It found no association of cancer with antennas. In general, schools are a common spot for these antennas. They generate revenue for the schools. No peer‐reviewed studies show risk for cancer. Q: Why are there no studies that show definite proof? Can you name any studies? R: Studies have found no statistical increase in cancer related to these facilities. But it’s a different challenge to prove that there’s no effect. The studies have been done. Results are there. You should look at how experts test it, and look at the studies. You can look at the example of water in other cities – people have died from that. That shows that there was a problem, the problem was found, and known, and dealt with. No problem has been found with this. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 124 Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page | 3 Q: Where are the antennas in Fort Collins? R: There may be about 100. They are ubiquitous. Many shopping centers have them, and they are right next to houses. Scotch Pines, King Soopers at Taft and Elizabeth. There’s a church on Laporte Street right across from Poudre High School that has a bell tower facility. C: I feel they’re safe. The signals are everywhere. They’re on your house, in the meter. Q: What’s the time frame to construct? R: About 8 weeks. C: I was against this when I heard about it. A neighbor has a defibrillator and I went to see if he was coming to this meeting to oppose this. His defibrillator runs on Verizon and he needs the coverage. It is sometimes weak. This is the safety aspect. Q: DESIGN is the key thing. Can it be built into the steeple? R: It’s hard to get the height needed, and the ground equipment, and there are structural challenges. It needs to get above trees, and have capacity for multiple carriers. C: We sold a house in another state that had powerlines in back. It’s been found that there’s no risk. But there was a PERCEPTION. So, it’s important to make it stealth. There’s more danger from having your phone at your ear. But DESIGN for stealth to avoid the perceptions. R: That is the plan, we would work with the City on the design. And the church. C: I did read that children are more susceptible. They have thinner skulls, little reproductive organs. Some countries are banning WiFi. Non‐ionizing waves CAN disturb cells. Sot there IS information out there. Maybe the internet just gives too much, maybe that’s what’s happening here. R: There is an established distrust of medical organizations. Acknowledge that. But be real careful with the source. Look for peer review. C: There are lots of overseas studies. I’ve had a medical condition for years, and needed electromagnetic frequency treatment. So it does affect DNA and cells. And property values ARE affected. Q: What IS the power? R: I’m not an expert or engineer but this would follow FCC rules. Being close to users, it’ll be limited. It won’t be a strong signal. C: I bet everybody here has a cell phone. If you look around, you’ll find these towers in all of our backyards. C: I’m a realtor – I can say that some clients see a tower, and say no. Southridge was an example, with a big electrical tower. C: Design, design, design. Clay Frickey dismissed the meeting and thanked everyone for coming. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 125 1 Development Review Center 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970-221-6750 fcgov.com/DevelopmentReview NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING NOTES Meeting Date January 31, 2018 These notes capture staff’s interpretation of questions, comments and ideas from the meeting. PROJECT: Southside Baptist Church Wireless Telecommunication Facility DATE: January 31, 2018 CITY STAFF: Sylvia Tatman‐Burruss, Development Review Liaison Clay Frickey, City Planner PROSPECTIVE Caleb Crossland, Atlas Tower APPLICANT Michael Powers, Atlas Tower Project Description This is a request to construct a wireless telecommunication facility at 620 W Horsetooth Rd. The project proposes the installation of 65 foot stealth bell tower with a 40 foot by 40 foot lease area at the base of the tower. The project proposal is located in a Low Density Residential (RL) district. Wireless telecommunication facilities are not a permitted used in the RL zone district. This proposal is subject to an Addition of Permitted Use (APU) with review by the Planning & Zoning Board and City Council. Meeting Sylvia Tatman‐Burruss introduced the purpose of the meeting and went through the agenda for the evening. Clay Frickey followed up with a presentation on the City’s development review process and Land Use Code. The proposed facility would need to proceed through the City’s Development Review process with submittal of plans, staff review of plans, and multiple public hearings. The proposed used, Wireless Telecommunications Facility, is not allowed in the zone in which it is being proposed. This necessitates an APU. Since this proposal is subject to an APU, City Council will be the ultimate decision maker for this project with the Planning & Zoning Board providing a recommendation for approval or denial to City Council. Plans will be available online for public inspection, and, when scheduled, a mailing notice will be sent for the hearing(s) in accordance with the code. The Land Use Code addresses the placement and design of cell tower facilities and equipment. FCC regulations limit local government authority and specifically restrict State or local governments from regulating wireless facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that a facility complies with FCC regulations on such emissions. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 126 Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page | 2 Caleb Crossland explained the proposal and rationale.  Service providers are seeing a need for more towers closer to their users.  Why a tower here? Demand and few other viable locations. This area has poor capacity due to data usage and few parcels have permissive zoning and available land for a cell tower.  Antennas will be completely shielded from view.  The proposed tower could accommodate multiple carriers.  Brick fence to screen ground equipment along Horsetooth Rd. Wood fence proposed for all other sides of fenced area.  The design concept is a bell tower 55 feet in height. Any questions or requests for information are welcome at: Caleb.crossland@gmail.com, phone 303.448.8896 Questions and Discussion: Q = Question R = Response C = Comment Question: Will the proposed tower be for a GSM or CDMA network? How does this play into the proposal? Response (Applicant): GSM and CDMA are just two different ways of processing a signal. They don’t really make a difference in terms of radio frequency emissions. GSM networks are more common. I believe CDMA has been adopted by Verizon. Question: I know that you can’t consider the health effects as part of the development process, but from what I have read GSM networks emit more radiation, so I would prefer this to be a CDMA network. Response (Applicant): This might be a CDMA network, I am not sure. Either way, GSM and CDMA networks are subject to the same FCC regulations. Radio frequency emissions do not change based on the encoding/decoding method. As you stated, the federal government has pre‐empted the City of Fort Collins with respect to radio frequency emission issues. A way to think about this is how the Federal Drug Administration works with respect to the sale of drugs. The FDA determines what is safe and what isn’t and lower levels of government operate within these regulations. For example, the City of Fort Collins does not have different standards for selling prescription drugs compared to other communities. The FCC has taken the same approach with wireless facilities. The FCC conducts studies and uses experts to create rules. Question: Does the proposed bell tower have real bells? Response (City): No. Comment: I think this is appropriate to say here, thank God. With that being said, I think the proposed tower is out of context. I would like to see you work on the shape of the tower so it is more tapered and similar to a ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 127 Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page | 3 steeple. The proposed tower is jarring. I would also like you to work on the color. The white color is too stark and jarring. A beige color might be more appropriate. Also, consider brick for the fence on the east side as well. This will be very visible from Horsetooth so it would make sense to have brick on the east side as well. Response (Applicant): These are all great suggestions and we would like to accommodate your suggestions. We chose the white color to match the church but that can certainly be changed. Response (City): The City is open to suggestions on design so please feel free to offer your suggestions. Question: Will this site support 5G? Will it require modifications to house 5G equipment? Response (Applicant): Right now, this site will support 4G equipment. There is no official design standard for 5G equipment so we’re not sure how this site could handle 5G equipment. This site will certainly be upgradable, though. Comment: Just to make this clear, I am not against the tower but I am against the design. New Yorkers would not like it. Response (Applicant): We will work on the design. Question: Have you considered a pine tree design similar to the one at Shields and Vine? Response (City): We jokingly refer to the fake pine on Shields and Vine as the Frankenpine. Monopine designs tend to work better when surrounded by other trees. For example, a new monopine recently went up at Prospect and Shields. It’s near my house and hadn’t noticed it until a co‐worker told me it had been built. Now, I can’t un‐see the monopine. Question (City): What other sorts of designs would you prefer? Response (Community): I would prefer a steeple, a canister, or something integrated into other infrastructure like a power line or light pole. Question: What will the environmental impacts of this facility be? I’ve heard we can expect a depreciation of our property value of at least 5%. I would like there to be an Environmental Impact Statement performed for this proposal. Response (City): The FCC disallows consideration of environmental impacts. Response (Applicant): We can talk about these things in a neighborhood meeting; the City just can’t make decisions based on health impacts. Comment: The Canadian government seems more unbiased when it comes to cell phone regulations. The US government has been bought. The World Health Organization (WHO) recently upgraded radio frequency emissions to a Type II carcinogen. European governments are also a lot more strict on radio frequency emissions. It took us 30 years before we realized radon isn’t good for you, I worry we’re doing the same thing with cell phones. I would like to see an Environmental Impact Statement. Response (Applicant): The WHO has not placed radio frequency emissions on the Category 1 list of carcinogens. Category 1 carcinogens are known carcinogens. Category 2A agents are probably carcinogenic, meaning studies show they likely cause cancer but are not conclusive. Comment: I’m talking about radio frequency emission’s impact on birds and bees as well, not just humans. Response (Applicant): Ok, let me finish. Category 2B agents are possibly carcinogenic, meaning there is some evidence they cause cancer in humans but it is not conclusive. Category 2B is not as conclusive and it means there needs to be more research to prove there is a causal relationship between the agent and it causing cancer. Under current rules with current research, there is not causal relationship between radio frequency emissions and cancer, like microwaves. Most of these studies look at the radiation from handsets, not from ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 128 Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page | 4 cell towers. There is RF everywhere. Handsets also operate at a higher wattage when they are further away from cell towers, so having a tower closer to you reduces your exposure to RF. Comment: I’m mainly concerned about the homes around the fence line and their exposure to RF since they will be closest to the tower. Response (Applicant): When you are 50 feet away from the tower, the RF is 1/100th of the safe level approved by the FCC. RF follows an exponential curve in terms of its reduction of power compared to distance from the antenna. We also had to perform a NEPA study as part of this project and we would be happy to share it with you. The NEPA study raised no concerns. Question: Can you comment on the 5% reduction in property values? Response (City): We cannot consider property values either as part of our decision making. There are too many factors when determining the value of a home to single out a cell tower as causing a change in the value of a home. Question: What frequencies will you be using? I’m also concerned about interference with other devices. Response (Applicant): We’re not 100% sure. Verizon typically operates around 700 MHz. We can get that information to you, interference with other equipment is tightly regulated. Question: Will this facility be operating in at a wavelength similar to FM radio? Response (Applicant): No, we will not be operating in a similar frequency range as FM radio. If we cause interference, we have to resolve this issue and it is a very big process. Comment: I disagree, there is some leakage. Response (Applicant): If we interfere with other equipment, we have to address it and we will make sure there is no interference. Question: What is the duration of the lease? Response (Applicant): This is a 20‐year lease with renewals, similar to a telephone pole. Question: Will this be located on the church’s property? Response (Applicant): Yes. Comment: This doesn’t look like a bell tower, it looks like a box kite getting ready to take off. I would like something more artistic with more colors. Did the church approve this design? Response (Applicant): We have worked together with the church on the design. Comment: Maybe the church wants to put their motto on the tower. Response (Applicant): If you see some other design you like, please let us know so we can consider it. Question: Did a designer make the proposed tower? Response (Applicant): Yes, not me, but we have used this design in the past. We’ve also reduced the height to 55 feet. The 65‐foot reference in the City’s presentation was from a previous iteration of the plan. Question: What is the maximum height in this zone district? ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 129 Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page | 5 Response (City): This is a grey area of the code. In this zone district, the maximum height for a non‐residential building is 3‐stories. Since stories are measured from floor‐to‐floor, however, a one‐story structure could technically have an unlimited height. There’s also the issue that per the Land Use Code, this may not be considered a building since it may not have a roof and doesn’t enclose anything. Due to this, we rely on the compatibility requirements of the Land Use Code to deal with height issues for cell towers. Comment: I live on Coronado Court and I miss critical calls all the time due to the lack of coverage. I work from home and have lost business because of this, so it is a real problem. Response (Applicant): Thanks for the feedback. Also, most 911 calls are from cell phones. Most emergency services also rely on cell phones so this is a safety issue. A lot people look for good cell phone coverage when purchasing a home so the price of homes might drop with no cell phone coverage. Question: How much area will this facility cover? Response (Applicant): Back in the 2G and 3G days, you used to be able to put up a tower on a hill and cover a whole city. Now, cell phones are like mini‐computers so the network needs more facilities to service cell phones. Carriers have started building a higher number of low powered facilities closer to end users to fill in gaps. This all depends on network usage and available locations. Either way, we need more facilities to antennas can handle the demand. Question: So this facility won’t provide coverage to the north part of the city, correct? Response (Applicant): That’s right. In some cities, a cell tower will cover only one block. We still have dead spots in Fort Collins and Verizon customers demand that we fix these gaps. Question: Could you put the tower in a less obtrusive location? What is the potential coverage area? Response (Applicant): This facility could theoretically serve up to a mile radius, but that is impossible with the demand we see. Question: So you’re saying you need at least one of these towers every two miles? Response (Applicant): No, we need more than that. Rather than thinking about coverage in terms of an area, think of it in terms of number of users served. Question: Do you have a study showing coverage by height of the tower and the bandwidth of the tower? I think the new stadium would be a much better location. Response (Applicant): We don’t have that level of technical expertise, but Verizon would have that sort of information. Question: What are the closest towers to this location? Response (Applicant): There’s a tower on Shields and Horsetooth as well as some facilities on Drake. These other locations are small, hidden, and often time s only support one carrier. The issue is we have hit or miss coverage and it is tough to meet the expectations of Verizon’s customers as well as the City’s expectations with respect to the Land Use Code. Comment: In New York, I’ve seen they rely more on micro towers. Response (Applicant): Small cell sites like the ones you are referencing augment macro towers. We need both kinds of facilities. Cities like New York and Los Angeles use different technology because of how densely ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 130 Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page | 6 populated those cities are. That technology is not coming to Fort Collins. There’s not enough density of users to support that sort of technology. Response (City): Small cells are coming to Fort Collins. There was a recent statute passed at the state level that requires cities to allow small cells in the right‐of‐way. The City is currently negotiating a Master License Agreement with Verizon on what these facilities in the right‐of‐way will look like. Question: Can we just wait for small cells? Response (Applicant): I can tell you that if there wasn’t a need for this sort of facility, we wouldn’t be trying to build it. Question: If they spend $2 million here on a large tower, why would they spend money on small cell in this area? Response (Applicant): There aren’t any plans for small cell here. As Clay stated, Verizon is working on a master plan with the City. Small cell technology is for low power equipment in densely populated areas. This area isn’t dense enough for small cell. Comment: I’m pro‐wireless but I am anti this design, it needs some work. Response (Applicant): Please submit your ideas to Clay, we will work with you. Comment: I have terrible service and can’t even get data in my front yard. The density in this area is only increasing and I can’t wait 5 years for better coverage. Sign me up for the tower. I even got a booster from Verizon and I still have coverage issues. Comment: I agree on the design, it looks like three billboards. Brick would be a more appropriate material for the tower. I would also like a neutral color better. Also, try to work on the shape. Comment: Perhaps it could be triangular or more tapered? Make it the color of brick so it is more natural? Comment: I’m in favor of the project but I don’t like the design. I know this could take some more time but could you submit this to design classes at CSU or a local high school? Maybe you could do a design competition where you pick the winning design and use it. Maybe you could see if they could use natural materials and make it more artistic. You could use the design on other sites and give credit to the designer. Response (Applicant): I like that idea, thanks. Question: Why was this site chosen? Is there a better fit elsewhere? I’m concerned about the health of the students here. Question: Could we see the front view of the tower again? What shape is it, a square? Response (Applicant): It’s triangular. Comment: They look like billboards, the City could lease them out. Response (City): This would violate the sign code. I hear that you all are concerned about the design so we will work on improving the design. Comment: I agree this tower is a necessary evil and that there is consensus to work on the design, but I have never seen something so out of place. What happened with the proposal at Southridge? ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 131 Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page | 7 Response (Applicant): The City backed away from that proposal. Due to all of the pushback against that tower, the City decided to not allow any new leases on City‐owned property. Question: What replaced the facility at Southridge? Response (Applicant): A silo, I dare you to find it. Question: Did you try to get a lease at the nearby farm? Response (Applicant): Yes, and we got chased off the property. Question: Do you live here? I just ask that you please respect our concerns. Response (Applicant): No, I live in Denver now but grew up in Fort Collins and appreciate your concerns. You’ll start seeing these sorts of facilities in other places. Question: Can you send me examples of other facilities? Response (Applicant): Yes. Question: This seems like an exercise in futility. Is the lease already finalized? Response (Applicant): No, we need to get approval for the facility first. The Planning & Zoning Board cares about the community and considers everyone’s testimony. There are no slam dunk project in Fort Collins. We want what’s best for the community. The Planning & Zoning Board will hear your concerns and say no if everyone comes out against the project. Question: It sounds like the church is at risk here, too. So there’s no guarantee on the lease? Response (Applicant): We have an agreement that if we get approved and get a building permit, then we will have a lease. There are no guarantees. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 132 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 133 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 134 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 135 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 136 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 137 From: Clay Frickey To: Gretchen Schiager Subject: FW: PDP170017 Date: Friday, May 11, 2018 11:51:39 AM Hey Gretchen, Here’s an e-mail about the Century APU item for P&Z. Thanks, Clay From: Patrick Wilson [mailto:patdubb@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 1:21 PM To: Clay Frickey; Sylvia Tatman-Burruss Subject: PDP170017 All, I am writing this letter in objection of the proposed 55' bell tower along W Horsetooth Road, just east of Colony Drive. There is enough commercial area east of this location to allow for a more appropriate site for this type of use. With the opportunity to piggyback on the commercial and multifamily redevelopment occurring east of this area, there is no reason whatsoever to create an "eyesore" and ultimately negatively impact property values in the immediate area. Please deny this request! Regards, Patrick A. Wilson -- Patrick A. Wilson patdubb@gmail.com ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 138 CLARK LAND SURVEYING, INC. 1740 EAGLEBRIDGE BLVD, STE 140 PUEBLO, CO 81008 NATHANIEL J. MAESTAS, P.L.S. (719) 582-1270 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1-A COORDINATES CODE COMPLIANCE UTILITY INFORMATION ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE PERFORMED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING CODES AS ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITES. NOTHING IN THESE PLANS IS TO BE CONSTRUED TO PERMIT WORK NOT CONFORMING TO THE LATEST EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (2012 EDITION) 3. ANSI/TIA/EIA-222-G 4. NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE (2014 EDITION, COLORADO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE) 5. LOCAL BUILDING CODE 6. CITY/COUNTY ORDINANCES CONTACT INFORMATION PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET INDEX DRIVING DIRECTIONS LOCATION MAP FROM DENVER, CO TAKE I-25 NORTH FOR 62.7 MILES. TAKE EXIT 265 ONTO HARMONY ROAD, TURN WEST AND FOLLOW FOR 1.5 MILES. TURN RIGHT ONTO ZIEGLER ROAD AND FOLLOW FOR 1 MILE. AT THE TRAFFIC CIRLCE, TAKE THE 3RD EXIT ONTO EAST HORSETOOTH ROAD AND FOLLOW FOR 3.1 MILES TO SOUTHSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH. SITE LOCATION WILL BE ON THE RIGHT. 620 HORSETOOTH ROAD FORT COLLINS, CO 80526 (LARIMER COUNTY) SITE NAME: CENTURY (DECEMBER 2017) LATITUDE: W 105° 05' 13.689" N 40° 32' 19.442" LONGITUDE: *INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CLARK LAND SURVEYING, INC. IN THE FORM OF A 1-A CERTIFICATION DATED MARCH 3, 2017. SOUTHSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH 620 W HORSETOOTH ROAD FORT COLLINS, CO 80526 CENTURY LINK CUSTOMER SERVICE (877) 496-8581 TBD FORT COLLINS LIGHT & POWER CUSTOMER SERVICE (970) 221-6700 TBD SHEET: DESCRIPTION: REV F CENTURY KES NMC TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS OFFICE: (303) 566-9914 THORNTON, CO 80229 500 E 84TH AVE, SUITE C-10 76097.67480 ZONING ZONING REVIEW A 06-13-17 B 07-05-17 ZONING C 07-17-17 ZONING D 10-12-17 ZONING E 12-08-17 ZONING F 04-17-18 ZONING PARCEL NUMBER: 97263-79-901 GROUND ELEVATION: 5061.8' ATLAS ONE, LLC. 4450 ARAPAHOE AVE, SUITE 100 BOULDER, CO 80303 CALEB CROSSLAND (303)448-8896 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 1, SOUTHSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH MINOR SUBDIVISION, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO (NAD '83) * (NAD '83) * (NAVD '88) * AREA OF CONSTRUCTION: 1600± SQ. FT. (LEASE AREA) 2. INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL JURISDICTION: CITY OF FORT COLLINS PRESENT OCCUPANCY: SOUTHSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 111 Warre n Farm Dr B a le D r Haven Ct W o r t h i n g t o n A v e Gr a n i t e C t R epu blic D r Stre a m C t Placer St Mayflower Ct Plowman Way M o s s Creek Dr Longhorn Ct Elmhurst Dr Bluebird Ct Omaha Ct Sun Disk Ct Riva Ridge Ln Plan t e r W a y Fairplay Ct Robin Ct Homestead Ct Bobolink Ct Dennison Ct Dahlia Ct Ensenada Ct Canosa Ct Tiller Ct Colony Ct Citation Ct Tradition Ct Colony Dr Meadowlark Ave Wabash St Manhattan Ave Mcclelland Dr Windmill Dr Rich m o n d D r W Horsetooth Rd © Century andFacility Wireless Addition Telecommunications of Permitted Use Zoning & Vicinity Map 1 inch = 500 feet Site ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 93 ntage Rd !"`$ !"`$ ÕZYXW ÕZYXW East Gateway Annexation CITY GEOGRAPHIC OF FORT INFORMATION COLLINS SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: April 18, 2018 0 0.055 0.11 0.165 0.22 Miles Scale 1:6,000 © Structure Plan Map City Limits - Outline Commercial Corridor District Industrial District Urban Estate Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods Open Lands, Parks and Stream Corridors Annexation Area Cloverleaf Community ColoCraadreo Air ESquunipsmtaetent Annexation Area POL LMN CG I ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 82 ntage Rd !"`$ !"`$ ÕZYXW ÕZYXW I CG LMN CC I UE East Gateway Annexation CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of theseproducts, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: April 18, 2018 0 0.055 0.11 0.165 0.22 Miles Scale 1:6,000 © Zoning Map City Limits - Outline City Limits Community Commercial (CC) General Commercial (CG) Industrial (I) Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Urban Estate (UE) Annexation Area Cloverleaf Community Air Care Colorado Sunstate Equipment Annexation Area ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 81 ntage Rd !"`$ !"`$ ÕZYXW ÕZYXW East Gateway Annexation CITY GEOGRAPHIC OF FORT INFORMATION COLLINS SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of thepublic. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: April 18, 2018 0 0.055 0.11 0.165 0.22 Miles Scale 1:6,000 © Vicinity Map City Limits - Outline City Limits Annexation Area Cloverleaf Community ColoCraadreo Air ESquunipsmtaetent Annexation Area ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 80 These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: April 10, 2018 0 0.035 0.07 0.105 0.14 Miles Scale 1:4,000 © Zoning Map City Limits - Outline City Limits Buildings Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Low Density Residential (RL) Annexation Area Harmony Cottages Woodridge CountJryJ's Corner ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 67 warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: April 10, 2018 0 0.035 0.07 0.105 0.14 Miles Scale 1:4,000 © Structure Plan Map City Limits - Outline Buildings Urban Estate Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods Annexation Area Harmony Cottages Woodridge CountJryJ's Corner ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 66  &2/25*$/9$/80( 0(7$/3$1(/67. 6758.7852&7(;785(' 678&&2),1,6+ &2/25.+$., 6758.7852&&251,&( 0(7$/&23,1*&$3 723$5$3(7 5((/(9$7,216            «'CUV«VJ«5VTGGV«5WKVG«««.QXGNCPF«%QNQTCFQ«  '§OCKN«KPHQ"JCWUGTCTEJKVGEVUREEQO *CWUGT#TEJKVGEVUREEQO 6+((7 .G[YKX°'XINOZKIZY°6) °  °63 &21,)(5$1'5('&('$5&,5&/( $))25'$%/(6725$*(2) )257&2//,16 ',*,7$/0$7(5,$/%2$5' $    ',*,7$/0$7(5,$/%2$5'    &RUQLFH3URILOH 5(9,6,216 3'36XEPLWWDO  3'36XEPLWWDO  3'36XEPLWWDO  3'36XEPLWWDO  ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 48 *$/9$/80(522)3$1( &2,/,1*'225%<-$186'225 &203$1<&2/25%521=( 9(57,&$/0(7$/:$//3$1(/ 0%&,3%5 &2/25%52:16721( «'CUV«VJ«5VTGGV«5WKVG«««.QXGNCPF«%QNQTCFQ«  '§OCKN«KPHQ"JCWUGTCTEJKVGEVUREEQO *CWUGT#TEJKVGEVUREEQO 6+((7 .G[YKX°'XINOZKIZY°6) °  °63 &21,)(5$1'5('&('$5&,5&/( $))25'$%/(6725$*(2) )257&2//,16 %8,/',1*6)(/(9$7,216 $  % 8,/ ',  1*) ($67 3'3  % 8,/ ',  1*) 1257+ 3'3  % 8,/ ',  1*) :(67 3'3  % 8,/ ',  1*) 6287+ 3'3 5(9,6,216 3'36XEPLWWDO  3'36XEPLWWDO  3'36XEPLWWDO  3'36XEPLWWDO  ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 46 /2:($9(    9(57,&$/0(7$/:$//3$1(/ 0%&,3%5 &2/25%52:16721( 2+&2,/,1*'225%<-$186 '225&203$1< &2/25%521=( /(9(/    /2:($9(    9(57,&$/0(7$/:$//3$1(/ 0%&,3%5 &2/25%52:16721( 35(),1,6+('522)5$.(75,0 35(),1,6+('*877(5$1' '2:163287 &2/25%52:16721( %8,/',1*,'(17,),&$7,21 &21),50/2&$7,21:3)$35,25 72,167$/ /(9(/    /2:($9(    9(57,&$/0(7$/:$//3$1(/ 0%&,3%5 &2/25%52:16721( 2+&2,/,1*'225:+($'(5 3$1(/%<-$186'225 &203$1<&2/25%521=( 35(),1,6+('*877(5$1' '2:163287 &2/25%52:16721( 8/75$'(.*$´ :,'( *$/9$/80(522)3$1( %8,/',1*+(,*+7   *$8*(3(,56.,1&2/25 %52:16721( /(9(/    /2:($9(    2+&2,/,1*'225:+($'(5 3$1(/%<-$186'225 &203$1<&2/25%521=( 35(),1,6+('*877(5$1' '2:163287 &2/25%52:16721( 8/75$'(.*$´ :,'( *$/9$/80(522)3$1( %8,/',1*+(,*+7   *$8*(3(,56.,1&2/25 %52:16721( 9(57,&$/0(7$/:$//3$1(/ 0%&,3%5 &2/25%52:16721( /(9(/    /2:($9(    &2,/,1*'225%<-$186'225 &203$1<&2/25%521=( 9(57,&$/0(7$/:$//3$1(/ 0%&,3%5 &2/25%52:16721( 35(),1,6+('522)5$.(75,0 «'CUV«VJ«5VTGGV«5WKVG«««.QXGNCPF«%QNQTCFQ«  '§OCKN«KPHQ"JCWUGTCTEJKVGEVUREEQO *CWUGT#TEJKVGEVUREEQO 6+((7 .G[YKX°'XINOZKIZY°6) °  °63 &21,)(5$1'5('&('$5&,5&/( $))25'$%/(6725$*(2) )257&2//,16 %8,/',1*% &(/(9$7,216 $  % 8,/ ',  1*% ($67 3'3  % 8,/ ',  1*% 1257+ 3'3  % 8,/ ',  1*% 6287+ 3'3  % 8,/ ',  1*% :(67 3'3  % 8,/ ',  1*& ($67 3'3  % 8,/ ',  1*& 1257+ 3'3  % 8,/ ',  1*& 6287+ 3'3  % 8,/ ',  1*& :(67 3'3 5(9,6,216 3'36XEPLWWDO  3'36XEPLWWDO  3'36XEPLWWDO  3'36XEPLWWDO  ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 45  578 66&5((1('%<%8,/',1* 3$5$3(7:$//7<3,&$/$7$// 675((79,6,%/((/(9$7,216 *$6758.7852&7(;785(' 678&&2),1,6+&251,&( &2/25)2* 0(7$/3$1(/67. 6758.7852&7(;785(' 678&&2),1,6+ &2/25)2* *$6758.7852&7(;785(' 678&&2),1,6+&251,&( &2/25)2* 0(7$/3$1(/67. 6758.7852&7(;785(' 678&&2),1,6+ &2/25/,*+76721( $/80,180&/$'/2:(:,1'2: )5$0(66725()5217(175< '2256&2/25'$5.%521=( $/80,180&/$'/2:(:,1'2: )5$0(66725()5217(175< '2256&2/25'$5.%521=( &0863/,7)$&(%/2&.%$6$/,7( &+$5&2$/ 0(7$/3$1(/67. 6758.7852&7(;785(' 678&&2),1,6+ &2/25/,*+76721( 35(&$676,// %8,/',1*,'(17,),&$7,21 &21),50/2&$7,21:3)$35,25 72,167$/ *$6758.7852&7(;785(' 678&&2),1,6+&251,&( &2/25/,*+76721( /(9(/    522)/2:($9(    /(9(/    0(7$/3$1(/67. 6758.7852&7(;785(' 678&&2),1,6+ &2/25)2* *$6758.7852&7(;785(' 678&&2),1,6+&251,&( &2/25/,*+76721( 72+,*+3$5$3(7    /,1(2)522)%(<21'   578 66&5((1('%<%8,/',1* 3$5$3(7:$//7<3,&$/$7$// 675((79,6,%/((/(9$7,216 &2,/,1*'225%<-$186'225 &203$1<&2/25%521=( &0863/,7)$&(%/2&.%$6$/,7( &+$5&2$/ $/80,180&/$'/2:(:,1'2: )5$0(66725()5217(175< '2256&2/25'$5.%521=( 35(&$676,// 0(7$/3$1(/67. 6758.7852&7(;785(' 678&&2),1,6+ &2/25/,*+76721( *$6758.7852&7(;785(' 678&&2),1,6+&251,&( &2/25)2* /(9(/    522)/2:($9(    /(9(/    0(7$/3$1(/67. 6758.7852&7(;785(' 678&&2),1,6+ &2/25)2* *$6758.7852&7(;785(' 678&&2),1,6+&251,&( &2/25/,*+76721( 72+,*+3$5$3(7    /,1(2)522)%(<21'   578 66&5((1('%<%8,/',1* 3$5$3(7:$//7<3,&$/$7$// 675((79,6,%/((/(9$7,216 $/80,180&/$'/2:(:,1'2: )5$0(66725()5217(175< '2256&2/25'$5.%521=( /,1(2)522)%(<21'     &0863/,7)$&(%/2&.%$6$/,7( &+$5&2$/ 35(&$676,// 0(7$/3$1(/67. 6758.7852&7(;785(' 678&&2),1,6+ &2/25/,*+76721( *$6758.7852&7(;785(' 678&&2),1,6+&251,&( &2/25)2* 0(7$/3$1(/67. 6758.7852&7(;785(' 678&&2),1,6+ &2/25/,*+76721( *$6758.7852&7(;785(' 678&&2),1,6+&251,&( &2/25)2* /(9(/    522)/2:($9(    /(9(/    6,1*/(6/,',1**/$66'225 6(/)&/26,1* (175<&$123< 72+,*+3$5$3(7    %2(175<&$123<   578 66&5((1('%<%8,/',1* 3$5$3(7:$//7<3,&$/$7$// 675((79,6,%/((/(9$7,216 9(57,&$/0(7$/:$//3$1(/ 0%&,3%5 &2/25%52:16721( 8/75$'(.*$´ :,'( *$/9$/80(522)3$1(       $/80,180&/$'/2:(:,1'2: )5$0(66725()5217(175< '2256&2/25'$5.%521=( 0(7$/3$1(/67. 6758.7852&7(;785(' 678&&2),1,6+ &2/25/,*+76721( &0863/,7)$&(%/2&.%$6$/,7( &+$5&2$/ *$6758.7852&7(;785(' 678&&2),1,6+&251,&( &2/25)2*   /,1(2)522)%(<21'   35(&$676,// %8,/',1*,'(17,),&$7,21 &21),50/2&$7,21:3)$35,25 72,167$/ «'CUV«VJ«5VTGGV«5WKVG«««.QXGNCPF«%QNQTCFQ«  '§OCKN«KPHQ"JCWUGTCTEJKVGEVUREEQO *CWUGT#TEJKVGEVUREEQO 6+((7 .G[YKX°'XINOZKIZY°6) °  °63 &21,)(5$1'5('&('$5&,5&/( $))25'$%/(6725$*(2) )257&2//,16 %8,/',1*$(/(9$7,216 $  % 8,/ ',  1*$ 6287+ 3'3  % 8,/ ',  1*$ ($67 3'3  % 8,/ ',  1*$ :(67 3'3  % 8,/ ',  1*$ 1257+ 3'3 5(9,6,216 3'36XEPLWWDO  3'36XEPLWWDO  3'36XEPLWWDO  3'36XEPLWWDO  ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg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«'CUV«VJ«5VTGGV«5WKVG«««.QXGNCPF«%QNQTCFQ«  '§OCKN«KPHQ"JCWUGTCTEJKVGEVUREEQO *CWUGT#TEJKVGEVUREEQO 6+((7 .G[YKX°'XINOZKIZY°6) °  °63 &21,)(5$1'5('&('$5&,5&/( $))25'$%/(6725$*(2) )257&2//,16 $5&+,7(&785$/6,7('(7$,/6 $  % ,.(  5$&.'(7$,/ 3'3  3, 3( %  2//$5'7<3 3'3  $ && (  66,%/(3$5.,1*6,*1$*( 3'3  3$ 5.  ,1*67$//675,3,1* 3'3  123$   5.,1* ),5(/$1(6,*1$*( 3'3  ) (1&  (63(& 3'3  ) (1&  (*$7('(7$,/ 3'3 5(9,6,216 3'36XEPLWWDO  3'36XEPLWWDO  3'36XEPLWWDO  3'36XEPLWWDO   6& 5(  (1)(1&(3/$1 3'3  6& 5(  (1)(1&((/(9$7,21 3'3 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 38  5('&('$5&,5&/( &21,)(5675((7 (;675((775((6 727$/  :,'((0(5),5( $&&(66*$7(  :,'( /$1'6&$3( %8))(5<$5' 5  +&6,*1 5   :,'(:528*+7,521/,)7 6(&85,7<*$7(:,17(*5$7(' .12;.(<6:,7&+ 6,7('$7$ 6) $&5(6 /2$',1*=21( +5),5(%$55,(5 (175<(;,7 6725$*( (;,7 6725$*( 29(5+($'(175<&$123< 3$5.,1*63$&(6 (;,67,1*+<'  %,.(/$1( 675,3('$5($9$1 $&&(66,%/( 5$03 (;,67,1*&21&5(7( 725(0$,1 (;,67,1*6,'(:$/.72 5(0$,1 (;,67,1*6,'(:$/.72 5(0$,1 %8,/',1*) 727$/64 %/'*+(,*+7  +5),5(%$55,(5 (;,67,1*75((6 &$/#$)* (;675((775((6 727$/ 87,/,7<($6(0(17 (;,67,1*6,'(:$/.72 5(0$,1 0$1*$7(: 3$1,&+$5':$5( %2//$5'7<3 %2//$5'7<3 %2//$5'7<3 %2//$5'7<3 %2//$5'7<3 *$7(&21752//(5 %2//$5'7<3 %2//$5'7<3 :$7(5 6(:(5 6,*+775,$1*/( 6,*+775,$1*/( )8785(-(520(52:   +5),5(:$// &08  ),5($5($ 6) ),5($5($ 6) ),5($5($ 6) ),5($5($ 6) 123$5.,1* ),5( /$1(5(6,7('(7$,/6 7<3,&$/ 123$5.,1*),5(/$1(6,*15( 6,7('(7$,/67<3,&$/ 2& ),5($&&(66*$7( '2127(17(5(;,7 21/<6,*1$*( '2127(17(5(;,721/< 6,*1$*( 123$5.,1*),5(/$1(6,*15( 6,7('(7$,/67<3,&$/ 2& 352326('7<3(,,%866723 75$16)257%8667236,*1  :,'(; '((3$'$3$'  [ +,7&+,1*3267%,.(5$&.  %(1&+32:'(5&2$7(' 5()(57275$16)257%86 6723'(6,*167$1'$5'6 $1'*8,'(/,1(6)257<3(,, %8667236 1(:52$':$</,*+7 1(:52$':$</,*+7 [ [ [ [  0(7$/)(1&( 32:'(5&2$7 %/$&.  0(7$/)(1&( 32:'(5&2$7 %/$&.  0(7$/)(1&( 32:'(5&2$7 %/$&.  0(7$/)(1&( 32:'(5&2$7%/$&. [  0(7$/)(1&( 32:'(5&2$7%/$&. )'& 7581&$7(''20(6 6,*+775,$1*/( 6,7(75,$1*/( ),5($5($ 6) ),5($5($ 6) +5),5(%$55,(5 123$5.,1*),5(/$1(6,*15( 6,7('(7$,/67<3,&$/ 2& .12;%2;  :,'(87,/,7< ($6(0(17 123$5.,1*),5(/$1(6,*15( 6,7('(7$,/67<3,&$/ 2& 123$5.,1*),5(/$1(6,*15( 6,7('(7$,/67<3,&$/ 2& 123$5.,1*),5(/$1(6,*15( 6,7('(7$,/67<3,&$/ 2& 123$5.,1*),5(/$1(6,*15( 6,7('(7$,/67<3,&$/ 2& 123$5.,1*),5(/$1(6,*15( 6,7('(7$,/67<3,&$/ 2& 123$5.,1*),5(/$1(6,*15( 6,7('(7$,/67<3,&$/ 2& 123$5.,1*),5(/$1(6,*15( 6,7('(7$,/67<3,&$/ 2& 123$5.,1*),5(/$1( 6,*15(6,7('(7$,/6 7<3,&$/ 2& 123$5.,1*),5(/$1(6,*15( 6,7('(7$,/67<3,&$/ 2& 123$5.,1*),5(/$1(6,*15( 6,7('(7$,/67<3,&$/ 2& 123$5.,1*),5(/$1(6,*15( 6,7('(7$,/67<3,&$/ 2& %8,/',1*( 727$/64 %/'*+(,*+7  123$5.,1*),5(/$1(6,*15( 6,7('(7$,/67<3,&$/ 2& IW IW IW IW IW IW /$1'6&$3(<$5' IW IW IW IW IW IW IW IW IW IW IW IW IW IW IW IW IW IW IW +5),5(%$55,(5 IW 3523(57</,1( ),5($5($ 6) ),5($5($ 6) ),5($5($ 6) +5),5(%$55,(5 +5),5(%$55,(5 +5),5(%$55,(5 123$5.,1*),5(/$1(6,*15( 6,7('(7$,/67<3,&$/ 2& 123$5.,1*),5(/$1(6,*15( 6,7('(7$,/67<3,&$/ 2& 123$5.,1*),5(/$1(6,*15( 6,7('(7$,/67<3,&$/ 2& 123$5.,1*),5(/$1(6,*15( 6,7('(7$,/67<3,&$/ 2& 123$5.,1*),5(/$1(6,*15( 6,7('(7$,/67<3,&$/ 2& 123$5.,1*),5(/$1(6,*15( 6,7('(7$,/67<3,&$/ 2& IW 352326('6&5((1)(1&( 5(6+((7$)25(/(9$7,21 $1'3/$1 $  (175<(;,7 6725$*( (175<(;,7 6725$*( IW IW 123$5.,1*),5(/$1(6,*15( 6,7('(7$,/67<3,&$/ 2& 123$5.,1*),5(/$1(6,*15( 6,7('(7$,/67<3,&$/ 2& %7851,1*7(03/$7( '5$,1$*(($6(0(17 2)),&((175<(;,7 $1<75((:,7+,17+(6,*+7 75,$1*/(61(('672%( 3581('$0,1,0802)  /27 $0,12568%',9,6,213/$72) &21,)(5,1'8675,$/3$5. /27 81,7(':$<+286,1* 6(59,&(6'$<&(17(5 %2//$5'7<3 )LUH+\GUDQW )'& ($('( IW  87,/,7<($6(0(17  ($(  ($( 8(($( IW ($( 8(($( ($( IW ($('( IW ($('( IW ($('( ($('( IW '( IW ($('( IW ($('( IW '5$,1$*(($6(0(17 '5$,1$*(($6(0(17 87,/,7<($6(0(17 ($67(5/<7(50,186 2)87,/,7<($6(0(17 :(67(5/<7(50,186 2)87,/,7<($6(0(17 IW  87,/,7<($6(0(17 IW  '5$,1$*(($6(0(17 '5$,1$*(($6(0(17 '5$,1$*(($6(0(17 ($('( IW '5$,1$*(($6(0(17 IW IW «'CUV«VJ«5VTGGV«5WKVG«««.QXGNCPF«%QNQTCFQ«  '§OCKN«KPHQ"JCWUGTCTEJKVGEVUREEQO *CWUGT#TEJKVGEVUREEQO 6+((7 .G[YKX°'XINOZKIZY°6) °  °63 &21,)(5$1'5('&('$5&,5&/( $))25'$%/(6725$*(2) )257&2//,16 $5&+,7(&785$/6,7(3/$1 $  $ 5&  +,7(&785$/6,7(3/$1 3'3 5(9,6,216 3'36XEPLWWDO  3'36XEPLWWDO  3'36XEPLWWDO  3'36XEPLWWDO  ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 37 ,1'8675,$/',675,&7 66725$*(648$5()((7 %%86,1(66 2)),&( 648$5()((7 727$/%8,/',1*$5($648$5()((7 648$5()((7 $&5(6 =21,1*5(675,&7,216 $//2:(' 352326(' 180%(52)6725,(6   $33/,&$%/(&2'( ,%& %8,/',1*&2'( ,(&& (1(5*<&216(59$7,21 ,)*& )8(/*$6 ,3& 3/80%,1* ,0& 0(&+$1,&$/ ,)& ),5(&2'( 1(& (/(&75,&$/ %8,/',1*'$7$ &216758&7,217<3( ,% 2&&83$1&< 6 635,1./(56 <(61)3$ 6725<21/< 67$1'3,3(6  ),5(',675,&7 328'5(),5($87+25,7< )/22'+$=$5'$5($ 12 %8,/',1*+(,*+7   3$5.,1* 727$/180%(52)63$&(6 180%(52)/2$',1*63$&(6 180%(52)$&&(66,%/(63$&(6 3529,'(' 3529,'(' 3529,'(' 5(48,5(' 5(48,5(0(176 3(5($&+(03/2<((0,1,080$1'3(5(03/2<((0$;,080 (03/2<((6; 63$&(6 5(48,5(' $33/,&$%/(127(6)5207+('(9(/230(17),1$/3/$1  $//3257,2162)7+((;7(5,25:$//62)7+(),5676725<2)$//%8,/',1*6:,//%(/2&$7(':,7+,1 2) $&&(6652$':$<,1:+,&+(0(5*(1&<),5((48,30(17&$1%(0$1(89(5('257+(%8,/',1*6:,//%( 3529,'(':,7+$1$33529('),5((;7,1*8,6+,1*6<67(0  5()(57287,/,7,(63/$1)25/2&$7,212)87,/,7,(6$1''5$,1$*(  6,'(:$/.6$1'5$036:,//&21)25072&,7<67$1'$5'6  352326('(;7(5,25/,*+7,1*:,//%(32/(02817('/80,1$5,(6$7'5,9(6$1'3$5.,1*$5($6%27+32/( $1'%8,/',1*02817('),;785(6:,//)($785('2:1',5(&7,21$/$1'6+$53&872))/80,1$5,(6$//:$// 02817('/,*+7),;785(66+$//%()8//<6+,(/'('72&21&($//,*+76285&(  $//522)723$1'*5281'02817('0(&+$1,&$/(48,30(17,672%()8//<6&5((1(')52038%/,&9,(: :,7+522)7233$5$3(7:$//6$1'/$1'6&$3,1*&21'8,760(7(569(176$1'27+(5(48,30(17 $77$&+('727+(%8,/',1*25352758',1*)5207+(522)6+$//%(3$,17('720$7&+6855281',1* %8,/',1*685)$&(6  $//6,*1$*(72&203/<:,7+/2&$/6,*1&2'(6,*16$5(127$33529(':,7+7+,63/$1$//6,*16:,// %($33529('7+528*+$6(3$5$7(6,*13(50,7  7+(75$6+(1&/2685(6:,//%(02817('21&21&5(7($1'%(&216758&7('2)0$7(5,$/6720$7&+7+( %8,/',1*6$1<*$7(6&216758&7(':,//%(2)62/,'0$7(5,$/  %,.(5$&.6$5(72%(3(50$1(17/<$1&+25('72&21&5(7($1':,//127,17(5)(5(:,7+3('(675,$1 :$/.:$<6  $//+$1',&$33$5.,1*63$&(6$1'5$036$5(72%(9(5,),(':,7+&,9,/(1*,1((5)25*5$',1*'5$,1$*( $1'$&&(66,%/(5287(&216,'(5$7,216+$1',&$33$5.,1*63$&(66+28/'6/23(12025(7+$1,1 $1<',5(&7,21$//$&&(66,%/(5287(66+28/'6/23(12025(7+$1,1',5(&7,212)75$9(/$1'12 025(7+$1&52666/23(  $//,17(51$/3('(675,$1:$/.:$<66+$//%(',67,1*8,6+(')520'5,9,1*685)$&(67+528*+7+(86(2) '85$%/(/2:0$,17(1$1&(685)$&(0$7(5,$/668&+$66&25('&21&5(7(72(1+$1&(3('(675,$1 6$)(7<$1'&20)257$6:(//$67+($775$&7,9(1(662)7+(:$/.:$<6  (/(&75,&$/75$16)250(56$1'1$785$/*$6(48,30(176+$//%()8//<6&5((1(')52038%/,&9,(:%<$ 62/,'+('*(2)3/$170$7(5,$/25$1(1&/2685(0((7,1*7+(&/($5$1&(63(&,),&$7,2162)/,*+7$1' 32:(568&+(1&/2685(08670$7&+7+(35('20,1$7(0$7(5,$/62)7+(%8,/',1*%(,1*6(59(' 75$16)250(560867%(:,7+,17(1)((72)+$5'685)$&(  ,125'(572&203/<:,7+23(5$7,21$/$1'3+<6,&$/&203$7,%,/,7<67$1'$5'67+(287'2256725$*(2) 352'8&76250$7(5,$/6,1&/8',1*7,5(',63/$<5$&.62586('7,5(66+$//%(6&5((1(')52038%/,& 9,(:,1$'',7,219(1',1*0$&+,1(66+$//%(3/$&(',16,'(%8,/',1*625%(+,1'6&5((1:$//6  $1<'$0$*('&85%*877(5$1'6,'(:$/.(;,67,1*35,2572&216758&7,21$6:(//$6675((76 6,'(:$/.6&85%6$1'*877(56'(6752<(''$0$*('255(029(''8(72&216758&7,212)7+,6 352-(&76+$//%(5(3/$&('255(6725('72&,7<2))257&2//,1667$1'$5'6$77+('(9(/23(5 6 (;3(16(35,25727+($&&(37$1&(2)&203/(7(',03529(0(176$1'25 35,25727+(,668$1&(2)7+( ),567&(57,),&$7(2)2&&83$1&<  $1<75((:,7+,17+(6,*+775,$1*/(61(('672%(3581('$0,1,080 2)   1275$6+255(&<&/,1*'80367(5:,//%(216,7(75$6+$1'5(&<&/,1*:,//6725(',1'2256)257+( 86(2)7+(2)),&(21/<7+(75$6+$1'5(&<&/,1*:,//%(52//('287727+(&85%'85,1*7+( 6&+('8/(''(/,9(5<7,0(6)25&85%6,'(&2//(&7,2186,1*$*$//21&$57 )$5 648$5()((7 $&5(6  2)/27 648$5()((7 $&5(6  2)/27 648$5()((7 $&5(6  2)/27 81'(5*5281'6<67(0 648$5()((7 $&5(6  2)/27 1$ «'CUV«VJ«5VTGGV«5WKVG«««.QXGNCPF«%QNQTCFQ«  '§OCKN«KPHQ"JCWUGTCTEJKVGEVUREEQO *CWUGT#TEJKVGEVUREEQO 6+((7 .G[YKX°'XINOZKIZY°6) °  °63 &21,)(5$1'5('&('$5&,5&/( $))25'$%/(6725$*(2) )257&2//,16 &29(56+((7 $ 3URMHFW'HYHORSPHQW3ODQ 3'3 6+((7 180%(5 6+((71$0( ( 3+2720(75,&'(7$,/6 $ &29(56+((7 $ $5&+,7(&785$/6,7(3/$1 $ $5&+,7(&785$/6,7('(7$,/6 $ %8,/',1*$(/(9$7,216 $ %8,/',1*% &(/(9$7,216 $ %8,/',1*' ((/(9$7,216 $ %8,/',1*6)(/(9$7,216 $ 3(563(&7,9(6 $ ',*,7$/0$7(5,$/%2$5' / /$1'6&$3(3/$1 / /$1'6&$3(127(6$1''(7$,/6 / 0,7,*$7,21127(6 / ,55,*$7,213/$1 / ,55,*$7,21127(6$1''(7$,/6 &217$&7 &217$&71$0( 3+ $5&+,7(&7 +$86(5$5&+,7(&763& ($677+675((7 /29(/$1'&2  $/+$86(5 DO#KDXVHUDUFKLWHFWVSFFRP &217$&7 &217$&71$0( 3+ &,9,/(1*,1((5 1257+67$5'(6,*1,1& $8720$7,21'5,9(81,7 :,1'625&2  3$75,&,$.52(7&+ WULFLD#QRUWKVWDUGHVLJQLQFFRP 3+ &217$&7 2:1(5 5$1'<$1''(%0,/$1 &$7$/3$&2857 )257&2//,16&2  GHEPLODQ#DROFRP $))25'$%/(6725$*(2))257&2//,16 352-(&7'(9(/230(173/$1 3'3 %(,1*$5(3/$72)$3257,212)/276 $1'$//2)/27%/2&.5(3/$7122)(9(5*5((13$5.$1' /27$0,12568%',9,6,213/$72)&21,)(5,1'8675,$/3$5.$//6,78$7(,16(&7,2172:16+,31257+ 5$1*(:(672)7+(7+30&,7<2))257&2//,16&2817<2)/$5,0(567$7(2)&2/25$'2 &217$&7 &217$&71$0( 3+ (/(&75,&$/(1*,1((5 %5(7 6(/(&75,&//& %58,1%/9'81,7& )5('(5,&.&2  -867,10$57,1 -867,1#%5(76(/(&75,&&20 2:1(5 6&(57,),&$7,21 7KHXQGHUVLJQHGGRHVGRKHUE\FHUWLI\WKDW,ZHDUHWKHODZIXO RZQHUVRIUHDOSURSHUW\GHVFULEHGRQWKLVVLWHSODQDQGGRKHUHE\FHUWLI\ WKDW,ZHDFFHSWWKHFRQGLWLRQVDQGUHVWULFWLRQVVHWIRUWKRQVDLGVLWH SODQ BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 2ZQHU VLJQHG 'DWH 6WDWHRIBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB  &RXQW\RIBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 6XEVFULEHGDQGVZRUQWREHIRUHPHWKLVBBBBBBBBGD\RI BBBBBBBBBBBBBBB$'E\ :,71(66P\KDQGDQGRIILFLDOVHDO BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 1RWDU\3XEOLF BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB $GGUHVV BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 0\&RPPLVVLRQ([SLUHV ',5(&7252)&20081,7<'(9(/230(17$1' 1(,*+%25+22'6(59,&(6 $SSURYHGE\WKH'LUHFWRURI3ODQQLQJRIWKH&LW\RI)RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGRWKLV BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBGD\RIBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB$' BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 'LUHFWRURI&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQWDQG1HLJKERUKRRG6HUYLFHV 9,&,1,7<0$3 6+((7127(+($',1* 6,7( 3+ &217$&7 /$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&7 6,7('(6,*1//& 32%R[ /29(/$1'&2  LQIR#VLWHGHVLJQOOFFRP &217$&7 )$; 3+ *(1(5$/&2175$&725 0&&$8/(<&216758&7256 ,1129$7,21&,5&/( :,1'625&2   /(21#0&&$8/(<&216758&7256&20 $))25'$%/(6725$*(2))257&2//,16 5(9,6,216 3'36XEPLWWDO  3'36XEPLWWDO  3'36XEPLWWDO  3'36XEPLWWDO  81,76&+('8/(6725<966,1*/(6725< 7<3( &2817 81,7 $5($ 727$/ 81,7$5($ 3(5&(17$*( 0,; 6725< [  6) 6)  [  6) 6)  [  6) 6)  [  6) 6)  [  6) 6)  [  6) 6)  [  6) 6)  6725<   6) [  6) 6)  [  6) 6)  [  6) 6)  [  6) 6)  [  6) 6)  [  6) 6)  [  6) 6)  [  6) 6)  [  6) 6)  [  6) 6)  [  6) 6)  [  6) 6)  [  6) 6)  [  6) 6)  [  6) 6)  [  6) 6)    6) *UDQGWRWDO   6) ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 36