Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/09/2016 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - Regular MeetingPlanning and Zoning Board Page 1 June 9, 2016 Kristin Kirkpatrick, Chair City Council Chambers Gerald Hart, Vice Chair City Hall West Jennifer Carpenter 300 Laporte Avenue Jeff Hansen Fort Collins, Colorado Emily Heinz Michael Hobbs Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Jeffrey Schneider on the Comcast cable system The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing June 9, 2016 6:00 PM • ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (30 minutes total for non-agenda and pending application topics) • CONSENT AGENDA 1. Draft May 12, 2016, P&Z Hearing Minutes The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes for the May 12, 2016, Planning and Zoning Board hearing. 2. Arrowhead Cottages PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for consideration of consolidated Major Amendment and Final Plan, located on a .97 acre site, consisting of nine multi-family dwelling units divided between two buildings. The proposed buildings will be between one and two stories to better fit the site and to protect views. The two story building (containing 6 units) is to be in alignment with the existing Arrowhead Tower and the one story building (containing 3 units) is located parallel to the Centre Ave frontage. The project will consist of 18 garage spaces, 14 attached garages, and 4 detached garages. Planning and Zoning Board Agenda 1 Planning and Zoning Board Page 2 June 9, 2016 APPLICANT: Landmark Real Estate Holdings, LLC Jason Sherrill 1171170 West Ash Street Suite 100, Windsor 80550 3. Majestic Place Annexation and Zoning PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to annex and zone the Majestic Place property. The applicant, Suburban Land Reserve Inc. c/o Mr. Kenneth Merritt, has submitted a written petition requesting annexation of 19.93 acres located at 2150 Rock Castle Lane (southeast of Timberline Road and Trilby Road) which is presently vacant. The requested zoning for this annexation is Urban Estate, U-E. In accordance with the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Growth Management Area with Larimer County, the City of Fort Collins agrees to annex land that meets the minimum contiguity requirement, and based on a voluntary petition to annex for the purpose of redeveloping the subject parcel. APPLICANT: Ken Merritt JR Engineering, LLC 2900 S. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80525 4. CSU Whitcomb Streetscape Improvements Site Plan Advisory Review – SPA160001 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to construct 70 additional surface parking spaces for the Aggie Village North student housing development with perimeter parking lot screening. The project is located just north of West Prospect Road (parcel #'s 9714310915, 9714310916, 9714310017, 9714310018, 9714310019, 9714310020, 9714310021, and 9714310022). Eight existing residences on these properties have been removed to accommodate the proposed parking area expansion and perimeter landscaping. Improvements within the right-of-way are also planned which are not within the SPAR boundary. These improvements include detached sidewalks and street tree plantings along Whitcomb Street, West Lake Street, and West Prospect Road. A new bike lane on the east side of Whitcomb Street is also planned and an 8’ attached sidewalk on West Lake Street, west of Whitcomb. The site is located in the High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (HMN) zone district. This proposal is subject to Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR). APPLICANT: Fred Haberecht Colorado State University 6030 Campus Delivery Fort Collins, CO 80523 2 Planning and Zoning Board Page 3 June 9, 2016 • DISCUSSION AGENDA 5. Oakridge Crossing Project Development Plan, PDP160009 and Modification of Standards to Sections: 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) - Required Number Of Off-Street Parking Spaces For Type Of Use 4.26(D)(6)(b)(3) - Access To A Public Park, Central Feature, Or Gathering Space This project has been postponed to the July 4, 2016, Planning and Zoning Board hearing. 6. Harmony 23 Modification of Standard This project has been postponed to the July 4, 2016, Planning and Zoning Board hearing. 7. Revisions and Additions to the Land Use Code for Outdoor Vendor Requirements PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board make a motion to recommend that City Council approve Ordinance XX, 2016, that includes revisions and Additions to Articles Three, Four and Five of the Land Use Code for new outdoor vendor requirements. Staff recommends that Council consider allowing existing outdoor vendor license agreements to be completed before new requirements are applicable. Presently, 21 out of 25 Outdoor Vendors have a 12 month License period, and remaining outdoor vendors have a 6 month License. APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT 3 Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 9, 2016 Planning and Zoning Board STAFF Cindy Cosmas, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT Draft Minutes for May 12, 2016, P&Z Hearing EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes for the May 12, 2016, Planning and Zoning hearing. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft May 12, 2016, P&Z Minutes (DOC) 4 Kristin Kirkpatrick, Chair City Council Chambers Gerald Hart, Vice Chair City Hall West Jennifer Carpenter 300 Laporte Avenue Jeff Hansen Fort Collins, Colorado Emily Heinz Michael Hobbs Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Jeffrey Schneider on the Comcast cable system The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing May 12, 2016 Vice Chair Kirkpatrick called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Kirkpatrick, Carpenter, Hansen, Hart, Heinz, and Schneider Absent: Hobbs Staff Present: Leeson, Gloss, Yatabe, Holland, Hanson, Shepard, Virata, Lorson, Mounce, Langenberger, Ragasa, Sexton, Wilkinson and Cosmas Agenda Review Chair Kirkpatrick provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. She described the following 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. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes 5 Planning & Zoning Board May 12, 2016 Page 2 Planning Director Gloss reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas for the audience, noting that 2 items were postponed to the June hearing (Revisions and Additions to the Land Use Code for Food Truck Vendor Requirements and the Harmony 23 Modification). Public Input on Items Not on the Agenda: Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, spoke on an item related to a recent Supreme Court decision that dealt with the Planning and Zoning authorities in Colorado. He is concerned about whether Colorado State University (CSU) should build a stadium on campus, saying that the P&Z Board was preempted by CSU, and he would like to see more local control over city developments. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe stated that he is not able to comment on the legal aspects of the issues presented at this time. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from April 7, 2016, P&Z Hearing 2. Revisions and Additions to the Land Use Code for the I-25/SH 392 – Corridor Activity Center Design Standards 3. Fort Collins Emergency Center 4. Salud Family Health Center Overall Development Plan – ODP#150003 Public Input on Consent Agenda: None noted. Vice Chair Hart has some concerns about the Fort Collins Emergency Center and does not plan to support it. Due to a conflict of interest for Member Hansen, the items on the Consent agenda will be voted on separately. Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve items 1 and 2 (Draft Minutes from April 7, 2016, P&Z Hearing and the Revisions and Additions to the Land Use Code for the I-25/SH 392 – Corridor Activity Center Design Standards) on the May 12, 2016, Consent agenda. Member Heinz seconded. Vote: 6:0. Member Carpenter made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve item 3 (Fort Collins Emergency Center) on the May 12, 2016, Consent agenda. Member Hansen seconded. Vote: 5:1 with Vice Chair Hart dissenting. Member Heinz made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve item 4 (Salud Family Health Center ODP#150003) on the May 12, 2016, Consent agenda. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Vote: 5:0 with Member Hansen abstaining. Planning Director Gloss gave an overview of the new presentation process, including the Staff introduction, the Applicant presentation, and a Staff analysis and recommendation. 6 Planning & Zoning Board May 12, 2016 Page 3 Member Hansen recused himself at 6:12pm due to a conflict of interest. Discussion Agenda: 5. River District Block Eight, Mixed-Use Development PDP#140016 6. Lake Street Apartments PDP#160007 7. Downtown Parking Community Dialogue Project: River District Block Eight, Mixed-Use Development PDP#140016 Project Description: This is a request for a mixed-use project consisting of two buildings located at the southeast corner of Linden and Willow Streets. Building One would face linden Street, be two stories in height and contain 10,251 square feet. This building includes a standard restaurant (2,271 square feet) and various ancillary functions, such as tasting room and retail sales. Building Two would be along Willow Street, range in height between three and four stories and would contain 32,874 square feet for the distilling operation. Offices would be divided between both buildings The development includes a 95-foot-high water tower, grain silos, two courtyards, outdoor patio dining and a second floor bridge connecting the two buildings. The site is 1.16 acres and zoned R-D-R, River Downtown Redevelopment. Recommendation: Approval Staff and Applicant Presentations Chief Planner Shepard introduced the project with a brief overview. Brandon Grebe, Project Manager with 360 Linden LLC, the developer, introduced the applicant team. Eduardo Llannes, the Architecture with Oz Architecture, gave an in-depth presentation of the project, focusing on the coordination of the Old Town District and the River District areas. He discussed the complexity of the site, the current mix of building types, the purpose of each building, and their connectivity. Chief Planner Shepard gave an analysis of the project and its compliance with the R-D-R zone district codes. Public Input Sue White, 714 W. Prospect Road, has a concern about parking in the project area, especially if large crowds are anticipated. Staff Response Chief Planner Shepard stated that there is no parking requirement for this project; however, Staff is aware of the parking issues, and there are new parking structures in the works in connection with other projects. Mr. Grebe agreed and confirmed that other parking options are being considered. Planning Director Gloss added that Staff is working on a preliminary design of Willow Street that will include substantial additional on-street parking. 7 Planning & Zoning Board May 12, 2016 Page 4 Board Questions Member Heinz inquired about the courtyard access and whether it is always private; Mr. Llannes confirmed that the courtyard is accessible to the public during business hours. He added that the offices are for the executives of the Elk Distillery. Vice Chair Hart asked about the parking requirements that would have been applicable with the TOD; Chief Planner Shepard was asked to provide that data. Marc Virata, with City Engineering, also addressed the parking issue, saying he was expecting future on-street parking (which is not funded at this time). Board Deliberation Vice Chair Hart stated his issue with the lack of provided parking, suggesting that the applicant take responsibility for providing acceptable parking. Member Carpenter asked about the available space in the service yard for possible parking. Chief Planner Shepard was not able to provide the parking space requirement because the number is based on a formula (several components would need to be factored into the formula for an accurate estimate). Steve Schroyer, Director of Real Estate for Blue Ocean Enterprises, said he had allowed for future parking spaces along Willow (between Linden and College); the diagonal on-street parking is approximately 50-75 spaces on each side of the street. In addition, there is a lot to the south that will provide additional parking. Chief Planner Shepard could not comment on the time frame for implementing this parking; Planning Director Gloss confirmed that there are 48 parking spaces along Willow between Linden Avenue and Lincoln Avenue. Member Heinz made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the River District Block Eight, Mixed-Use Development PDP#140016 based on the findings of fact on page 11 of the staff report. Member Schneider seconded the motion. Member Carpenter requested that other future projects with no minimum parking be noted during work sessions. Chair Kirkpatrick stated that she is in support of this project. Member Heinz also agreed. Vote: 5:0. Project: Lake Street Apartments PDP#160007 Project Description: This is a request for a five-story, multi-family apartment building consisting of 102 dwelling units. The project consists of demolition and re-development of an existing house at 801 West Lake Street. There would be 388 total bedrooms arranged in a mix of bedrooms ranging from two to five bedrooms per unit. Leasing would be by the unit, not by the bedroom. There would be 253 parking spaces divided among surface, under-structure at-grade and under-structure below-grade. The project includes 403 bicycle parking spaces, clubhouse, indoor amenities, pool and an outdoor courtyard and deck. The site is 2.45 acres and zoned High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (H-M-N). Recommendation: Approval Staff and Applicant Presentations Chief Planner Shepard introduced the project. Stephanie Van Dyken, Project Manager with Ripley Design, gave a detailed presentation, showing slides of the maps, the landscaping and buffering, elevations, material quality, planned mitigation of impacts to neighbors, and connectivity issues. She indicated that the Landmark Preservation Commission had assessed the potential historical properties 8 Planning & Zoning Board May 12, 2016 Page 5 surrounding the area and found none. Chief Planner Shepard gave an analysis of the highlights of this project. Public Input None noted. Board Questions and Staff Response Member Hart asked about the operation of the intersection at Whitcomb and Lake Street and what impacts will occur once the new stadium has been built. Martina Wilkinson, with Traffic Operations, stated they are working on a new plan for traffic flowing in and out of the stadium for both daily use and during events. She added that there are improvements at Prospect and Whitcomb being made by CSU. Board Deliberation Member Carpenter made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Lake Street Apartments PDP#160007 based on the findings of fact on page 9 of the staff report. Member Heinz seconded the motion. Vote: 5:0. Member Hansen rejoined the Board at 6:53pm. Project: Downtown Parking Community Dialogue Project Description: During the 2-15-16 BFO process, Parking Services proposed to pilot an on- street paid parking program. At that time, City Council’s perspective was that additional public outreach was necessary, so funding was limited to a community dialogue aimed at exploring the merits of various parking management strategies. The Community dialogue has focused on strategies to achieve the following objectives as identified in the early phases of the Downtown Plan and the 2013 Parking Plan: • Increase the availability, ease of access to, and turnover of on-street parking; • Develop a parking management system that is supportive of businesses, neighborhoods, and visitors; • Provide and communicate a variety of options for parking and for traveling to and around Downtown; • Encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation to reduce parking demand; and • Identify a sustainable funding source for future access and transportation infrastructure investment. Recommendation: Approval Staff and Applicant Presentations 9 Planning & Zoning Board May 12, 2016 Page 6 Planner Lorson gave an overview of this item, focusing on the process, Staff’s recommendations and the next steps involved. He provided a history of this project, stating this was primarily an outreach endeavor. The objective is to increase availability of parking, improve communication systems, and create a sustainable funding model. Extensive outreach was performed, targeting specific stakeholders in an effort to obtain reliable data. Research was also performed based on the type of downtown trips being taken by patrons. He suggested that there should be some flexibility built into the parking options with respect to location and convenience. Environmental issues result when patrons spend time searching for parking. One solution is to invest in more parking garages. He recommended that a data collection system be established, which will provide real-time data of parking habits. In addition, he is recommending that an on-street paid parking system be created, enforcement be adjusted, and a transportation demand management program be created. He discussed the benefits of these recommendations. Public Input Sue White, 714 W. Prospect Road, has some concerns about these proposals, saying she feels that charging for parking will hurt businesses and unauthorized parking may increase in residential areas. She suggested extending 2-hour parking into the evenings, extending it to 3 hours, or extending MAX and busses into the evenings and on Sundays. She is not in favor of charging a parking fee. Board Questions and Staff Response Planner Lorson responded to the citizen comments by saying he has researched the prospect of injuring businesses, and his research has shown otherwise. A residential permit parking program to regulate and avoid unauthorized parking has already been implemented. While he doesn’t think a 3-hour parking time frame will be helpful in creating additional availability, Transfort is looking for ways to expand their services at this time. Vice Chair Hart clarified that the paid parking would be implemented after the other phases; however, Planner Lorson is recommending that this program start at a predictable and exact time in order to start funding another parking garage. The data collection system should provide useful information for this implementation. Member Hansen asked about the number of parking spaces that would be involved; Planner Lorson confirmed the number would range from 1,000 to1,500 spaces in total. A phone application would also be developed. Member Heinz asked what differences in enforcement would occur. Planner Lorson stated that this system hasn’t been developed yet. In addition, garage permits would have to be adjusted to allow for additional non-permitted spaces. He explained how kiosks would serve the median spaces and would offer various payment options. There was more discussion on the various on-street paid parking options and funding options. Planner Lorson summarized some of the thoughts that other groups and Boards had passed on: • Transportation Board voted to implement the on-street paid parking system (split vote, as they wanted more information on the enforcement staffing particulars); • Parking Advisory Board suggested a pilot program first (in conjunction with the data collection system); • Downtown Development Authority unanimously recommended adoption of Staff recommendation; • Downtown Business Association is abstaining from any comments at this time. Member Schneider asked the size and location of this program; Planner Lorson explained that the core area would cover Mason to Remington, Olive, Oak, Mountain, College, Linden and Walnut. Chair Kirkpatrick asked about whether the opening of MAX has affected the parking issues; ridership and downtown activity has increased dramatically. Planning Manager Gloss added that the current parking 10 Planning & Zoning Board May 12, 2016 Page 7 data is from 2011, which is not indicative of today’s activity; hence the need for a real-time data system. Member Heinz asked about the feedback from business owners, and Planner Lorson stated that the downtown experience is unique and different from the Mall. Board Deliberation Vice Chair Hart supports the proposed data collection system, but he would like to see some of the other aspects of this proposal be put in place before on-street paid parking is implemented. Member Carpenter stated the irony of increasing parking spaces while approving projects with no parking; she supports the data collection but would like to reassess the paid parking. Member Schneider stated his support of on-street paid parking. Member Hansen also supports this proposal and would like to see what the data shows. Member Heinz likes the process of data collection and creating a pedestrian- friendly community. Chair Kirkpatrick likes the idea of a holistic review of this proposal and will support paid parking. Member Carpenter suggested we explore “payment in lieu of” parking options. Vice Chair Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board support the study of the need for an on-street paid parking program, including a data collection system, enforcement adjustment, and transportation demand management. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. There was some discussion on this recommendation, including the wording of the motion and the time frame involved. Member Schneider asked about the funding component; in addition, the data collection would determine whether the on-street paid parking is a viable option. There is a concern about putting the revenue models in place before obtaining the specific data. More discussion continued regarding the content of the motion and how the information was presented. Vote: 5:1, with Member Schneider dissenting. There was more discussion on the content of this motion. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe recommended that, if amendments are desired, another motion be passed or comments passed on with the previous motion. Chair Kirkpatrick motioned to forward the following comments in association with the prior approved motion: “While the P&Z Board recognizes the complexity of parking issues, they primarily focus on Land Use Code issues coupled with a dynamic in-fill and redevelopment market; the only way to be successful in these situations is to focus more holistically on transportation demand management and parking as a strategy within that umbrella.” Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. Other Business None noted. The meeting was adjourned at 8:07pm. Cameron Gloss, Planning Director Kristin Kirkpatrick, Chair 11 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 1 STAFF REPORT June 9, 2016 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME ARROWHEAD COTTAGES STAFF Spencer Branson, Associate Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for consideration of consolidated Major Amendment and Final Plan, located on a .97 acre site, consisting of nine multi-family dwelling units divided between two buildings. The proposed buildings will be between one and two stories to better fit the site and to protect views. The two story building (containing 6 units) is to be in alignment with the existing Arrowhead Tower and the one story building (containing 3 units) is located parallel to the Centre Ave frontage. The project will consist of 18 garage spaces, 14 attached garages, and 4 detached garages. The site is in the (E) Employment zoning district. APPLICANT: Landmark Real Estate Holdings, LLC Jason Sherrill 1170 West Ash Street Suite 100, Windsor 80550 OWNER: Landmark Real Estate Holdings, LLC Jason Sherrill 1170 West Ash Street Suite 100, Windsor 80550 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board make a motion to approve Arrowhead Cottages Major Amendment, FDP 160004. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for consideration of consolidated Major Amendment and Final Plan, located on a .97 acre site, consisting of nine multi-family dwelling units divided between two buildings. The proposed buildings will be between one and two stories to better fit the site and to protect views. The two story building (containing 6 units) is to be in alignment with the existing Arrowhead Tower and the one story building (containing 3 units) is located parallel to the Centre Ave frontage. The project will consist of 18 garage spaces, 14 attached garages, and 4 detached garages. The site is in the (E) Employment zoning district. 12 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board make a motion to approve Arrowhead Cottages Major Amendment, FDP 160004. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Staff finds the proposed Arrowhead Cottages Major Amendment complies with the applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically: · The Major Amendment complies with process located in Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 - Administration. · The Major Amendment complies with relevant standards of Article 3 - General Development Standards. · The Major Amendment complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.27 Employment (E) of Article 4 - Districts, as well as the language in the ODP. COMMENTS: Background The property is included as part of the Centre for Advanced Technology Overall Development Plan, which was established in 2002. Approved in 2009, Centre Avenue Residences included plans for 3 condominium buildings totaling 30-units on a 2.4 acre parcel. Phase 1, a 10 unit building is built and occupied. Arrowhead Cottages is modifying the phase two and three buildings approved as Centre Avenue Residences. The modification does not change the overall character, but decreases the number of dwelling units by 11, resulting in a Major Amendment. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North Employment (E) Vacant land owned by CSURF Southwest Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Long-term Care Facility South Employment (E) Commercial East Employment (E) Commercial West Employment (E) Long-term Care Facility A zoning and site vicinity map is presented on the following page. 13 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 3 Map 1: Arrowhead Cottages Zoning & Site Vicinity 2. Compliance with Article 4 of the Land Use Code -Employment District (E), Division 4.27 Arrowhead Cottages is a Major Amendment to Centre Avenue Residences, approved as 100% residential secondary use. This parcel is included in the Centre for Advanced Technology ODP. The project complies with all applicable Article 4 standards as follows: A. Section 4.27(D)(4) - Dimensional Standards The proposed buildings are one and two stories, well below the 4 story maximum height allowed in this district. 14 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 4 B. Section 4.27(D)(7) - Access to a park, central feature or gathering place The project includes enhancements of an existing central gathering space located in the middle of the three buildings. Features include a paved pedestrian space, sandstone benches, turf and planting beds. 3. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code - General Development Standards: The project complies with all applicable General Development Standards as follows: A. Division 3.2.1 - Landscaping and Tree Protection The proposed landscaping is consistent with requirements of the Land Use Code in regards to preservation of existing trees, the addition of street trees, full tree stocking around new buildings, interior parking lot landscaping and landscape screening of adjacent uses. B. Section 3.2.2(G) - Shared Parking Residential uses are not allowed to count the existing shared parking spaces to meet minimum parking requirements. Although guest-parking for the proposed dwelling units is anticipated in the shared parking area, the minimum parking requirements for each dwelling unit will be met in private garages. C. Section 3.2.2(K)(1) - Residential and Institutional Parking Requirements The 9 dwelling units are 1, 2 or 3 bedroom configurations, totaling 19 proposed bedrooms. A total of 18 parking spaces in attached and detached garages satisfy this code standard. D. Section 3.5.1(C) - Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale The proposed buildings are similar in size, height, bulk, mass and scale to the adjacent existing 3-story building developed as Centre Avenue Residences. The Major Amendment reduces the scale of the proposed buildings, lessening the impact of the proposed development. E. Section 3.5.1(F) - Building Color The proposed buildings feature earth-toned colors that facilitate blending into the color palette of the existing building and nearby developments. F. Section 3.5.2(D) - Relationship of Dwellings to Streets and Parking The proposed buildings and units are oriented to face Centre Avenue, with connecting walkways from front entrances to the street sidewalk as required by this code section. 15 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 5 G. Section 3.5.2(F) - Garages Garage doors in both buildings are on the backside, mitigating any negative impact. The two-story building screens the detached garage from the street. 4. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: In evaluating the request for the Arrowhead Cottages Major Amendment, Staff makes the following findings of fact: . The Major Amendment complies with the applicable procedural and administrative requirements of Article 2 of the Land Use Code. . The Major Amendment complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 - General Development Standards. . The Major Amendment complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.27 Employment (E) of Article 4 - Districts. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board make a motion to approve Arrowhead Cottages Major Amendment, FDP 160004, based on the Findings of Fact on page 5 of the staff report. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map (JPG) 2. Site and Landscape (PDF) 3. Elevations (PDF) 4. Plat (PDF) 5. Easement (PDF) 16 17 VAULT ELEC VAULT ELEC V.P. C.O. C.O. C.O. C.O. CENTRE AVENUE WORTHINGTON CIRCLE 3 UNIT RANCH BUILDING 6 UNIT 2 STORY BUILDING 4 DETACHED GARAGES EXISTING BUILDING 4' 4' 4' 5' 4' 4' 9'-11" 31'-7" 27'-6" EXISTING TRASH ENCLOSURE 4' EXISTING TRANSFORMER EXISTING SIDEWALK EXISTING PROPOSED BIKE RACK BIKE RACK 19' 19' 27'-4" EXISTING PARKING TRACT A 24' EMERGENCY ACESS EASEMENT 97'-3" 25' 4' NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE NOTE: BOUNDARY USED FOR GROSS LAND AREA 15' UE 28'-6" 44'-9" EXISTING 4 ' WALK 10' 10'UE TRANSFORMER TRANSFORMER ELECTRIC METER LOCATION ELECTRIC METER LOCATION MDJ BSP CBS UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD VAULT ELEC S WV T T T T T T T T T T T G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T OPEN BURLAP AROUND TRUNK. CUT & REMOVE TOP 1/3 OF BURLAP BACKFILL W/ 2/3 NATIVE SOIL & 1/3 COMPOST. THOROUGHLY WATER SETTLE SLOW RELEASE FERTILIZER TABLET (TYP.) 3" MIN. 2" AWAY FROM FOLIAGE SECTION EXISTING SOIL FOR SHRUBS THAN DIA. OF TO BE 6" LARGER PLANTING HOLE ROOTBALL FOR DIA. OF ROOTBALL 12" LARGER THAN GROUNDCOVER. KEEP MULCH LAYER FINISH GRADE TOP OF ROOT CROWN TO BE 1" HIGHER THAN FINISH GRADE CEDAR MULCH RING TO BE TWICE DIAMETER OF ROOT BALL - 2" DEPTH MULCH - SEE NOTES - 5" DEPTH MAXIMUM TRUNK TREE 2" MULCH 12" MIN. SECTION 12" MIN., TYP. NOTE: CEDAR MULCH TREE RING SHALL BE 36" DIA. BACKFILL W/ 2/3 NATIVE SOIL & 1/3 COMPOST. THOROUGHLY WATER SETTLE TIE GROMMETED NYLON STRAPS TO STAKE WITH WIRE. WIRE ENDS SHALL BE BENT BACK TO ELIMINATE BURRS AND WHITE PVC PIPE ALONG ENTIRE LENGTH OF WIRE FOR VISUAL AND SAFETY THAN FINISH GRADE TOP OF ROOT CROWN TO BE 1" HIGHER EXISTING SOIL SLOW RELEASE FERTILIZER TABLET (TYP.) DRIVE TWO (2) T-POST STAKES PER TREE. REMOVE WIRE CAGE AND/OR TWINE. OPEN BURLAP AROUND TRUNK. CUT & REMOVE TOP 1/3 OF BURLAP PLAN THAN DIA. OF 24" GREATER ROOTBALL FINISH GRADE T-POST TREE TRUNK 21 22 23 24 Attachment 5 25 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 1 STAFF REPORT June 9, 2016 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME MAJESTIC PLACE ANNEXATION AND ZONING STAFF Seth Lorson, City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to annex and zone the Majestic Place property. The applicant, Suburban Land Reserve Inc. c/o Mr. Kenneth Merritt, has submitted a written petition requesting annexation of 19.93 acres located at 2150 Rock Castle Lane (southeast of Timberline Road and Trilby Road) which is presently vacant. The requested zoning for this annexation is Urban Estate, U-E. In accordance with the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Growth Management Area with Larimer County, the City of Fort Collins agrees to annex land that meets the minimum contiguity requirement, and based on a voluntary petition to annex for the purpose of redeveloping the subject parcel. APPLICANT: Ken Merritt JR Engineering, LLC 2900 S. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80525 OWNER: Suburban Land Reserve, Inc. 79 South Main St., Suite 500 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the annexation and zoning. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The property is located within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. According to policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Growth Management Area, the City will agree to consider annexation of property in the GMA when the property is eligible for annexation according to State law. 26 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 2 The subject property gains the required one-sixth (16.66%) contiguity to existing City limits from two sides. As a result, there is 41.5% of the total perimeter contiguous to the existing municipal boundary which exceeds the required minimum. Contiguity is gained in the following manner: • North: Westchase Annexation No. 2, 157.9 acres, (2001), now known as the Westchase PUD. • West: Leistikow Annexation, 15.7 acres, (2011), now part of the Fort Collins Colorado Temple (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). 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 Agreements. BACKGROUND: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: LMN & U-E in the City of Fort Collins; Single-family Residential & Goddard School E: FA1 – Farming in Larimer County; Single-family Residential S: FA1 – Farming in Larimer County; Single-family Residential W: U-E in the City of Fort Collins; Fort Collins Colorado Temple (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) The annexation initiating resolution is being heard by City Council on June 7 and is scheduled for first and second reading on July 19 and August 16 respectively. ANALYSIS: 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, and the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (Sec. 2.12). The proposed annexation and zoning is subject to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan (1998). The plan identifies the proposed parcel as a receiving area for the Transfer of Density Units (TDU) program. The program is intended to send density from the Fort Collins-Loveland separator (“sending areas”) to areas within the City’s Growth Management Area (GMA). According to the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), development in the receiving areas must first happen in the County to ensure that the transfer of development units occurs. In this case, the applicant has requested a variance to the IGA from the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to allow for the annexation and development to happen through the City of Fort Collins. The BOCC approved the variance request provided that the applicant provides the required 23 TDU’s prior to annexation by the City of Fort Collins. 27 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 3 Zone Districts According to the City’s Structure Plan, the subject parcel is to be zoned Urban Estate (U-E) upon annexation. The U-E District has a maximum density of two dwelling units per acre and minimum lots sizes of ½ acre. Lot sizes may be reduced if the proposed lots are clustered and create additional open space. Future Development The applicant has submitted the Project Development Plan (PDP) for this site and is proposing eight single-family lots, all greater than ½ acre in size, and 13.63 acres of open space. PUBLIC OUTREACH: A neighborhood meeting was not held for this project because it is not a development proposal, and the project complies with State law and the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code regarding annexations. FINDINGS: 1. The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Growth Management Area, except where a variance was approved by the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners. 2. The area meets the eligibility requirements included in State law to qualify for a voluntary annexation to the City of Fort Collins. 3. On June 7, 2016, the City Council is scheduled to approve 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. 4. The requested zoning, U-E Urban Estate (19.93 acres), is in conformance with the policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the annexation and requested zoning of U-E Urban Estate (19.93 acres). ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map (PDF) 2. Structure Plan Map (PDF) 3. Zoning Map (PDF) 4. Annexation Map 5-19-16 (PDF) 5. Petition for Annexation (PDF) 6. Larimer County BOCC Variance (PDF) 28 Loveland Fort Loveland Collins - Separator Carpenter UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD S LEMAY AVE CABIN STRAUSS RD ZIEGLER RD ZIEGLER RD S TIMBERLINE RD S ROAD COUNTY 9 CARPENTER RD S COUNTY ROAD 11 S ROAD COUNTY 7 E HARMONY RD E HARMONY RD S LEMAY AVE KECHTER RD E COUNTY ROAD 36 E ROAD COUNTY 30 S TIMBERLINE RD E COUNTY ROAD 32 E TRILBY RD S COUNTY ROAD 11 S COUNTY ROAD 9 E COUNTY ROAD 30 Majestic Place Vicinity Annexation Map and Zoning Legend City Limits Growth Management Area Boundary - Outline Annexation 0 0.4 0.8 1.6 Miles Majestic and Zoning Place Annexation SWuebsdticvhisaisoen I Attachment 1 29 ns d - or ns d - or UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD E TRILBY RD ZIEGLER RD S TIMBERLINE RD CARPENTER RD E ROAD COUNTY 32 S COUNTY ROAD 11 KECHTER RD E ROAD COUNTY 36 S COUNTY ROAD 11 S COUNTY ROAD 9 S LEMAY AVE S TIMBERLINE RD Structure Plan Map Majestic Place Annexation and Zoning Legend Neighborhood Commercial District Urban Estate Low Density Mixed-Use Medium Density Mixed-Use Community Separator Rural Lands Open Lands, Parks and Water Corridors Growth Management Area Annexation Majestic and Zoning Place - Urban Annexation Estate (U-E) I 1 inch = 1,200 feet 30 ns d - or UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD E TRILBY RD ZIEGLER RD S TIMBERLINE RD CARPENTER RD E ROAD COUNTY 32 S COUNTY ROAD 11 KECHTER RD E ROAD COUNTY 36 S COUNTY ROAD 11 S COUNTY ROAD 9 S LEMAY AVE S TIMBERLINE RD R L LMN LMN MMN POL UE POL RL UE LMN POL UE T POL NC MMN POL UE UE UE LMN Majestic Place Zoning Annexation Map and Zoning Legend City Zoning Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Public Open Lands (POL) Low Density Residential (RL) Transition (T) Urban Estate (UE) Growth Management Area Annexation Majestic and Zoning Place - Urban Annexation Estate (U-E) I 1 inch = 1,200 feet 31 A Westrian Company MAJESTIC PLACE ANNEXATION LOT 3, AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 1-4 OF THE LEISTIKOW M.R.D. S-21-92 LOCATED IN SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO 34176 ” ROCK CASTLE LANE TRILBY ROAD CARMICHAEL ST 32 Attachment 5 33 Attachment 5 34 Attachment 5 35 Attachment 5 36 Attachment 5 37 Attachment 6 38 Attachment 6 39 Attachment 6 40 Attachment 6 41 Attachment 6 42 Attachment 6 43 Attachment 6 44 Attachment 6 45 Attachment 6 46 Attachment 6 47 Attachment 6 48 Attachment 6 49 Attachment 6 50 Agenda Item 4 Item 4 Page 1 STAFF REPORT June 9, 2016 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME CSU WHITCOMB STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS SITE PLAN ADVISORY REVIEW – SPA160001 STAFF Jason Holland, City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to construct 70 additional surface parking spaces for the Aggie Village North student housing development with perimeter parking lot screening. The project is located just north of West Prospect Road (parcel #'s 9714310915, 9714310916, 9714310017, 9714310018, 9714310019, 9714310020, 9714310021, and 9714310022). Eight existing residences on these properties have been removed to accommodate the proposed parking area expansion and perimeter landscaping. Improvements within the right-of-way are also planned which are not within the SPAR boundary. These improvements include detached sidewalks and street tree plantings along Whitcomb Street, West Lake Street, and West Prospect Road. A new bike lane on the east side of Whitcomb Street is also planned and an 8’ attached sidewalk on West Lake Street, west of Whitcomb. The site is located in the High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (HMN) zone district. This proposal is subject to Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR). APPLICANT: Fred Haberecht Colorado State University 6030 Campus Delivery Fort Collins, CO 80523 OWNER: Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System 01 Administration Building Fort Collins, CO 80523 RECOMMENDATION: Approval 51 Agenda Item 4 Item 4 Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Site Plan Advisory Review complies with Land Use Code Section 2.16, Site Plan Advisory Review. VICINITY MAP 52 Agenda Item 4 Item 4 Page 3 COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North n/a CSU Main Campus South Low Density Residential District (R-L) Residential, Sheely Subdivision East n/a Aggie Village North West High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (H-M-N) Residential, Blevins Subdivision The property includes eight parcels which were originally annexed in 1956 as part of the Blevins Annexation. CSU presented the SPAR proposal to the Landmark Preservation Commission as a complimentary review item at their regular meeting on March 31, 2016. A Demolition/Alteration Review process was also conducted in March and the eight residences were removed after that process was completed. 2. Right of Advisory Review: Colorado Revised Statutes provide two specific references which allow the City to review the planning and location of public facilities: Section 31-23-209, C.R.S. provides that no public building shall be constructed or authorized in a city until the “location, character and extent thereof” has been submitted for approval by the Planning Commission (Planning and Zoning Board). In the case of disapproval, the Planning and Zoning Board shall communicate its findings to the applicant’s governing body. The disapproval of the Planning and Zoning Board may be overruled by the Colorado State University Board of Governors by a vote of not less than two-thirds of its membership. 3. Site Plan Advisory Review Procedures: The processing and evaluation of Site Plan Advisory Review applications is governed by Division 2.16 or Article 2 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code. The section further defines the evaluation criteria for the “location, character and extent” of Site Plan Advisory Review applications. Evaluation criteria: (1) The site location for the proposed use shall be consistent with the land use designation described by the City Structure Plan Map, which is an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. (2) The site development plan shall conform to architectural, landscape and other design standards and guidelines adopted by the applicant's governing body. Absent adopted design standards and guidelines, the design character of the site development plan shall be consistent with the stated purpose of the respective land use designation as set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan. 53 Agenda Item 4 Item 4 Page 4 (3) The site development plan shall identify the level of functional and visual impacts to public rights-of-way, facilities and abutting private land caused by the development, including, but not limited to, streets, sidewalks, utilities, lighting, screening and noise, and shall mitigate such impacts to the extent reasonably feasible. 4. Evaluation A. Location (Criterion 1) The project meets this requirement with a proposed use that is consistent with the City’s land use requirements. The site is within the High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone district and the parking area is considered an accessory use serving the Aggie Village North residences. B. Character (Criterion 2) The proposed parking and landscape improvements meet this requirement by conforming to the landscape and other design standards established by the Colorado State University Aesthetic Guidelines and CSU Facilities Construction Standards Manual. For the landscaping surrounding the parking areas, CSU’s standards require low screening using predominantly native, drought-tolerant shrub species that are visually appealing in their natural form. This low screen softens direct views in to the parking lot. In addition to this base screening, ornamental trees are also planted as a second layer to further soften and screen views into the parking lot. The intent of the standards is to provide an enhanced planting edge while preserving lines of sight for security. C. Extent (Criterion 3) The SPAR area proposes approximately 70 additional parking spaces with parking lot landscape screening provided around the perimeter of the parking lot, 12 feet in depth, in excess of the City’s requirements. Automobile access into the parking lot is from West Lake Street and is unchanged. Additional on-site stormwater detention is provided for the added parking area. Adjacent to the SPAR area, improvements within the street right-of way are also proposed, including: • an 8’ detached sidewalk along the east side of Whitcomb; • a 10’ detached sidewalk along Prospect; • a 6’ detached sidewalk on Lake Street east of Whitcomb; • an 8’ attached sidewalk on Lake Street west of Whitcomb; • new street trees within an 8’ tree lawn along the east side of Whitcomb and; • a new bike lane along the east side of Whitcomb. 54 Agenda Item 4 Item 4 Page 5 5. Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood information meeting was held on March 7, 2016 and was well attended. Meeting minutes are attached with this staff report. 6. Findings of Fact: A. The CSU Whitcomb Streetscape Improvements SPAR is subject to evaluation by the Planning and Zoning Board, pursuant to State Statute Section 31-23-209, C.R.S. and Fort Collins Land Use Code Section 2.16. B. The location of the CSU Whitcomb Streetscape Improvements SPAR is consistent with the permitted uses described in the City’s Structure Plan Map, an element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. C. The character of the CSU Whitcomb Streetscape Improvements SPAR conforms to the landscape and other design standards and guidelines adopted by CSU. D. The extent of the CSU Whitcomb Streetscape Improvements SPAR has been addressed through the use of appropriate perimeter landscape screening, consistent with CSU standards, and necessary public improvements to vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle circulation patterns adjacent to the development. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Planning and Zoning Board approval with the following motion: Approve the CSU Whitcomb Streetscape Improvements, Site Plan Advisory Review #SPA160001 based on the findings of fact found on page 5 of the staff report. ATTACHMENTS 1. Zoning Map (PDF) 2. SPAR Project Narrative (PDF) 3. SPAR Site and Landscape Plan (PDF) 4. Neighborhood Meeting Notes (PDF) 55 Legend City Zoning ZONE Public Open Lands (POL) Community Commercial (CC) General Commercial (CG) CSU Employment (E) High Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (HMN) Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (MMN) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) NCB NCL NCM Low Density Residential (RL) CG CSU CSU CSU E LMN HMN HMN MMN MMN NC NC NCB NCL POL RL RL COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY BENNETT ELEMENTARY CREEKSIDE PARK LILAC PARK ROLLAND MOORE COMMUNITY PARK Arthur Canal Spring Creek Sherwood Lateral Spring Creek Arthur Canal Spring Creek S SHIELDS ST W LAKE ST S COLLEGE AVE BAY RD W PROSPECT RD MAX GUIDEWAY W PLUM ST SOUTH DR W PITKIN ST EAST DR MERIDIAN AVE S MASON ST CENTRE AVE SHEELY DR SHIRE CT S WHITCOMB ST CENTER AVENUE ML Office of Facilities Management Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-6030 6030 Campus Delivery May 2, 2016 Jason Holland Current Planning Development Review Center 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Whitcomb Streetscape Improvements Dear Jason, The Whitcomb Streetscape project, as detailed in this SPAR submittal and through a separate submittal of utility plans detailing portions of the project ceded to the City as Right-Of-Way, propose to convert eight residential properties to streetscape and parking. The eight properties are located on the east side of Whitcomb between Prospect Road and Lake Street. It is the intent of this combined project (two approval processes) to improve the overall aesthetic character, as well as the bike and pedestrian safety of Whitcomb Street between Lake Street and Prospect Road, while at the same time providing additional parking for the residents of Aggie Village. Existing Site Pedestrian Context: The eight properties are bordered by an approximately 30” wide attached sidewalk on the three public edges, and parallel parking on the Lake Street and Whitcomb Street edges. Driveways accessing the properties are present on all three public street faces. Bike and pedestrian accessibility is difficult. The sidewalks are not ADA compliant, there is no dedicated bike facility on the south side of Whitcomb, and the current condition on the Prospect and Lake Street edges are not per the West Central Neighborhood Plan. The Whitcomb Street edge is addressed in the Stadium IGA, which calls for sidewalk improvements on Whitcomb Street between Prospect Road and Whitcomb Street. Prior and Concurrent City Approval, and Planning Process to Date: 1. The remaining block east of the proposed project, bordered by Center Avenue on the east, Prospect Road on the south, and Lake to the north is the CSU Aggie Village Project. This project was previously approved by the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board through a SPAR process, and is scheduled to open in July of this year. The approved project has a surface parking lot on the west edge. Attachment 2 57 2. The rear, approximately 35 feet of the existing eight properties in the proposed project, previously received approval for the extension of the Aggie Village Project through a parking easement. 3. The eight existing homes within the project area have received approval for demolition through the City of Fort Collins Historic Review. In addition, CSU has made a courtesy presentation about the proposed streetscape project to the Landmark Preservation Commission. 4. A well-attended Neighborhood Meeting was held for the project on March 7, 2016. The Proposed Project: 1. On Street Parking. On street parallel parking will be eliminated on the west edge of the property, and a buffered bike lane will be striped in its place. We feel that this action will make for a safer situation for bicyclists. This improvement will be approved as part of the ROW plan submittal. 2. Additional Surface Parking for Aggie Village. The previously approved parking lot (through SPAR and easement approvals) is proposed to expand 50 feet to the west. This additional area, plus a reconfiguration of the lot from diagonal parking to parallel parking makes the entire lot more efficient. The total yield of new parking spaces is approximately 70. All parking spaces in the proposed lot are for residents of Aggie Village, and are not commuter parking spaces. 3. Sidewalk Improvements. The Prospect edge is proposed to have a ten foot detached sidewalk and the Lake Street edge a six foot detached sidewalk. These are the standards of the West Central Neighborhood Plan for these streets. The south side of Whitcomb Street will receive an eight foot detached sidewalk. These improvements will be approved as part of the ROW plan submittal. 4. Landscape. An eight-foot-wide parkway with street trees is proposed for the Whitcomb Street. A twelve-foot-wide landscape buffer will separate the detached sidewalk and the proposed parking lot addition. The parking lot, which is approximately 1.5 feet lower than the sidewalk, will be screened with ornamental trees, landform, and evergreen and deciduous shrubs. 5. CSU Monumentation. A CSU stone and brick monument sign will be placed on the northeast corner of the site. 6. Lighting. Pedestrian lighting is proposed for the eight foot detached sidewalk on Whitcomb Street. The project addresses the Character, Location and Extent requirements of pertinent State Statute and City of Fort Collins SPAR requirements in the following ways: Character: The project will conform to the landscape, site furnishing, and lighting standards spelled out in the CSU Aesthetic Guideline and CSU Facilities Construction Standards Manual. Attachment 2 58 Location: Increased parking for this site was suggested by the Planning and Zoning Board during the SPAR hearing for Aggie Village. Pedestrian and sidewalk improvements are per the City of Fort Collins guiding planning document (The West Central Neighborhood Plan) for this parcel, and the Stadium IGA. Extent: The streetscape improvements will improve bike and pedestrian safety on Whitcomb Street, Lake Street, and Prospect Road. Sincerely, Fred Haberecht, LEED AP, ASLA Assistant Director, Landscape and Planning Facilities Services Center North Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-6030 970.491.0162 970.491.0105 - fax Attachment 2 59 Whitcomb Streetscape Improvements Site Plan - SPAR Submittal 0’ 30’ 60’ NORTH SPAR BOUNDARY SPAR BOUNDARY Detention Monument Sign East curbline on-street parking removed NOTE: Whitcomb Street width does not change Expanded parking lot, +/- 70 additional spaces, w/ head-in orientation Previously approved parking lot in Aggie Village North SPAR. Spaces have been reoriented to head-in. Existing home to be removed by others, Typ. all, 8 total New 6’ detached sidewalk on south side of Lake Street 8’ attached sidewalk 8’ Tree Lawn 8’ Detached Sidewalk New 10’ Detached Sidewalk 12’ Parking Lot buffer Screen w/ landscape and grading as practical Bike lane On-Campus Stadium Existing Parking Lot West Prospect Road Whitcomb Street Blevins Court West Lake Street R.O.W granted to City of FC R P S S S S S P P R R R R R R R R SPAR Project Scope R.O.W. Project Scope Scope previously approved by City of Fort Collins LEGEND May 3, 2016 60 May 3, 2016 Whitcomb Streetscape Improvements SPAR Submittal Campus Entry Monument at Whitcomb Street and Prospect Road (Similar to Entry Monument at Center Avenue and Prospect Road) Existing Whitcomb Street Section Proposed Whitcomb Street Improvements Section 0’ 5’ 10’ 20’ 0’ 5’ 10’ 20’ 2’-6” Walk 2’-6” Walk Residential Property On-Street Residential Property Parking Travel Lane Travel Lane On-Street Parking 40’ Street Curb To Curb 2’-6” Walk 8’ Boulevard Residential Property Expanded Parking Lot On-Street Parking Travel Lane 12’ Travel Lane 12’ Landscape Screening 40’ Street Curb To Curb 8’ Walk 6’ Bike Lane 2’ Buffer 61 1 Whitcomb Gateway SPAR Neighborhood Meeting March 7, 2016 Questions/Concerns (Q) & Answers (A) Q AUDIENCE: Can we get a refund on our property taxes, since Prospect is closed in so many places and it’s making life harder/worse for residents to get around? A CITY: It is going to be worse for a while, as all the improvements are put in place, before it can get better. We understand there are things going on all around the Sheely neighborhood and that this neighborhood is impacted. City staff is coordinating with CSU to try to limit construction impacts and street closures. Q AUDIENCE: Why spend or waste the money on fixing the sidewalks and in paving Prospect, if in the future—in the next several years—you’re going to come back and beautify it? A CITY: We don’t know what the timeline is for the street improvements that were identified in the West Central Area Plan. That could be ten years from now. The City will be making repairs to the sidewalks and curbs which is the first step before an asphalt overlay on Prospect. Q AUDIENCE: Weren’t some of those suggested improvements to accommodate access to the stadium, in terms of making the turn on Whitcomb? Is it only going to be with two lanes there and no turn lane? A CSU: In April and May 2016, there will be two general neighborhood meetings to talk about a framework for the game day operational plan, which will discuss where traffic is coming to and going from related to the stadium, and the role of Whitcomb Street and Center Avenue relative to the West Central Plan and the stadium. You’ll get a mailing about when those two meetings are occurring once they’ve been scheduled. We’ll be asking for input at those meetings. A CSU: Also, there will be a neighborhood meeting on 3/24/16 to discuss the sewer project. We’ll be walking the Whitcomb neighborhood on Wednesday, 3/10/16, from 4:00–6:00 p.m., ringing doorbells to talk in general about the project, to invite residents to the meeting, and we will have some handouts that talk about the sequence of that project. Q AUDIENCE: I read on the postcard about the sewer project that the purpose of CSU replacing the sewer was because it is a “more than 50-year-old” line. There was nothing in the Attachment 4 62 2 information provided on the postcard about the need to increase capacity due to the stadium. It would be nice to not have the spin on it and to have the postcard actually say that. A CSU: It is for increased capacity. Q If the sewer line is happening on Whitcomb, something needs to be done to help people get out of that neighborhood, so what can the City do to help people get out of the neighborhood? It’s already a nightmare trying to get out of that neighborhood, to make a left onto Prospect Road, at certain times of day, a driver can sit there for a long time. I don’t know what the City can do while working on the sidewalks and other stuff to help people get out of the neighborhood. We’re talking two years of improvements and that’s a lot to ask of a neighborhood. A CSU: We’re talking just the summer for repairs for the sewer project on the Whitcomb Street. We are trying to coordinate with CDOT to make sure the closures are as short as possible. Timothy Kemp, from the City, will be there at the future neighborhood meetings to answer questions about Prospect. We are devoting an entire meeting about that for the Sewer Whitcomb meeting on 3/24. Q AUDIENCE: Is Whitcomb Street getting narrower? A CSU: Whitcomb’s cross section stays the same, but parking will be removed on the east side and in its place there will be a one-way bike lane heading north into campus. Q AUDIENCE: If people don’t attend this meeting, how will they know where they can park, if parking is being removed? They won’t know what to do: which side of the street to park on, which side to ride their bikes on… A CSU: There will be striping to indicate this, so it will be very obvious. Q AUDIENCE: Where are you expecting all these northbound bicyclists to come in from? A CSU: We’ve heard some from the Sheely Neighborhood saying that there are inadequate bike facilities today coming into campus. At another neighborhood meeting, for example, we heard from Jeff Morisette who bikes that way; he had a concern, in which he talked about needing greater bike and pedestrian facility coming into campus. Q AUDIENCE: I’m more worried about the Sheely neighborhood becoming a through-traffic bike lane dependent on what happens to access to the southeast. The North Central Plan had an idea of poking through the southeast corner of Whitcomb, down by Wallenberg Drive. When we did the Stadium Advisory Group (SAG), we recommended that it be reconsidered on grounds that the original cycle plan predated the decision of CSU to put an awful lot of parking for campus and for game day down by the Vet School. If you begin to have a lot more people coming to the Attachment 4 63 3 stadium because of a major increase in parking, then the idea of having an access down there at the southeast corner begins to look a lot less appealing because then you will have a lot more through-traffic on game days. It’s not clear to me, depending on what happens coming into the Sheely subdivision either from the southeast or the southwest, exactly where all these bikes are going to come from. I wouldn’t want a decision to put in a bike lane in here to make it more likely that we were going to poke a hole in the neighborhood to become a throughway for stadium events. A CSU: We have a 6-million-dollar underpass on the next block. Q AUDIENCE: I understand that; I just don’t understand where all the bikes are coming from when there is no bike lane on Prospect. A CITY: The West Central Plan looks at a detached walk on Prospect, and this provides a route on Prospect that could be used for bikes. Q AUDIENCE: So they’re going to be able to go under the underpass, take a left, and then go up to Whitcomb and then go into campus? A CSU: This improvement would take you all the way to Lake; that would be the desire. It takes half a block to come out of the underpass, so this is the facility that goes from Lake Street to Bay Drive. Q AUDIENCE: As people come off the bike trail at Wallenberg, they are going to cut through the neighborhood around Burkey or Juniper, and then go up this new bike lane. They’ll figure this out fast. A CSU: I perceive this as a safer situation. The City and CSU both agree that if you have two streets leading into campus from the southside—Whitcomb and Center—they should be as pedestrian and bike-friendly as possible. So that’s the premise of removing the parking. Q AUDIENCE: It’s only safer if you do something south of Prospect to Juniper because otherwise when the Sheely neighborhood is coming out of Whitcomb, and all these bicycles are coming out of the bike path and trying to get through our neighborhood, it’s not safe. Q CSU: Would you propose that we have no bicycle facility here? A AUDIENCE: It’s a possibility. We just want CSU and the City to think about what it is connected to. A CSU: Generically, we are trying to look at a safer situation. Attachment 4 64 4 Q AUDIENCE: If you already make one street safer on Center, why make them both safe? Funnel them in one direction? A CSU: I would say that we try to make every street as safe as possible. A AUDIENCE: You can make every street safe, but if you funnel the traffic in one direction, then you don’t have to worry about every street because it’s all funneled in one direction. Q CSU: So what I think we’re hearing from the Sheely neighborhood is that you are worried about bicyclists coming through your neighborhood. A AUDIENCE: I think we’re just worried about more traffic in general. Because if you look at the plan, you have one parking lot that is added across from the stadium. We have a few signs that were put up through the neighborhood saying “Permit Parking Only.” But even when things are going on at the church across the street, we keep getting a bunch of people parking in the neighborhood. So I have to assume that on game days people will still be parking on our front lawns or u-turning on our front lawns, no different from what happens when big church things are going on. I don’t see what’s going to happen when there’s only a parking lot instead of a parking garage going in. Q CSU: Specifically, we’ve talked about a bicycle facility on a local street with a pretty narrow section. You see that as not a desirable thing? A AUDIENCE: I think one of the dilemmas is the intersection of Prospect and Whitcomb because it is so congested now. If you put a bike path on that part of Whitcomb, if that’s desirable for them, then that intersection as it even goes to the Sheely division, then it will be even worse and it will not be safe. So I think the answer is no, when your question is, Do you think we can have a bike path there? A CSU: I think it’s for the City and their infrastructure to talk about. Q AUDIENCE: It’s just only a couple of blocks there and there is no access or ingress to it. A CSU: At which time the West Central Neighborhood Plan was instituted, you saw that as a desirable thing. That’s the premise: to have bikes on Prospect. Would you think having bikes on Prospect as a greater likelihood to have people coming into your neighborhood? Because that’s the premise with the West Central Plan: The grand vision is to have bike facility on Prospect; that is the root of that plan. Is that part of the same concern? That having bicycle traffic on Prospect will increase traffic into the Sheely neighborhood? This will be a detached off-road bike facility. Attachment 4 65 5 Q AUDIENCE: It will keep people from cutting through from Wallenberg, through the neighborhood to get to Whitcomb to get onto that thing, if and when there are biking abilities on Prospect. But the problem with Whitcomb, trying to make a right to go eastbound on Prospect, is that there’s a giant fir tree on the left. In order to see if cars are coming from the left, you have to stick your nose out there. At which point, you have these bicycles on Whitcomb and they don’t pay attention to the green light; they just wait for a gap in the traffic. Just about the time you’re about to make a right-hand turn onto Prospect, you almost run over the cyclist, even if you are cyclist-aware. They are on the passenger side of the vehicle. All they are doing is looking for a gap in the traffic. A suggestion is to cut down that tree to help drivers see. Q CSU: I’ve heard several people talk negatively about having a buffered bike lane here. Is anyone an advocate for that facility? A AUDIENCE: I know that whether you build it or not they are going to ride their bikes down the street. I would say just for safety purposes, as a cyclist myself, I would want a bike path to ride on to get across there, but I also understand what the neighborhood people are saying and I’m concerned too. But I’d rather have bike traffic coming through my neighborhood. Just like people who drive cars, there are unconscious bike people out there who do what she was saying. That’s one more thing we have to be conscious of when driving through the neighborhood. A AUDIENCE: I don’t object to this notion; I think it’s a good idea to trade parking for a bike path. The point I was trying to raise was I think we need to pay attention to where bikes are going to come from and not use this amendment, this improved safety feature for that one block, as a rationale for taking another step in the future, which would lead people to believe that we’ve identified a major new artery for bike traffic coming through. So what I worry about is the unintended consequences of this improvement. I’m not opposed to the improvement, if people don’t use it as an excuse a year or two from now for intentionally pushing a hole through our neighborhood. A CSU: It’s pretty straight forward. We are trying to make a safer situation on a narrow street, but we haven’t talked about the other consequences of that. A CITY: I don’t anticipate that we would be putting forward any proposal to put a bike path connection from the southeast corner of the Sheely neighborhood. A AUDIENCE: It is in the plan, but the plan predated the stadium decision and the parking lot descion and I think there is a big difference between a couple of people on Attachment 4 66 6 Wallenberg deciding they want to get to the bike path faster by having it go to the east than having 200–300 people streaming through the neighborhood. A CITY: It’s in the current version of the West Central Plan? A AUDIENCE: It was brought up at the Gardens on Spring Creek meeting that people were concerned about it. A CSU: We should look at the Campus Master Plan to talk about this. Long-term, what we are talking about, is the underpass as it cycles on the edge of this facility, then crossing Spring Creek going directly, regardless of Spring Creek, so that’s a crossing to bring people into campus. That crossing is over by where the community gardens are; it’s far to the east. A CITY: That input helps me, something I can follow up on and we can make sure to keep our eyes on that. It seems like a situation where sometimes too much connectivity can be a detriment. Q AUDIENCE: Would it make more sense to push the bicycles over to Lake rather than Prospect? Do you see Lake becoming a not-through-street sometime in the future? A CSU: Lake remains a through-street in both the City and CSU’s plans; it is a city street. In near to midterm, it is what you say: It is transit, bicycle, and pedestrian. But the West Central Plan, which was adopted by Council, calls for a future 10 ft. detached sidewalk for its length between College and Shields. That’s the improvement that is shown in the West Central Plan and it had a lot of community involvement. The portion of the plan is being realized with the CSU health and medical center with the block between College and the tracks and with the detached sidewalk. Q AUDIENCE: Is the underpass open to bike traffic? A CSU: Yes. Q AUDIENCE: That’s a fat bike lane. Would it be better to have two smaller ones? A CSU: No, we’re less than 6 ft. from curb to buffer bike lane, including gutter; that’s really minimal. Q AUDIENCE: It seems inevitable that there will be a chance of a southbound bike lane. Would that eliminate all parking on Whitcomb? A CSU: Yes, if that were to happen, it would eliminate all parking on Whitcomb. Q AUDIENCE: Is that realistic? A CSU: It’s not for CSU to say. Attachment 4 67 7 Q AUDIENCE: You don’t own any of those properties? A CSU: CSURF owns a property in the cul-de-sac and they own the corner property. There’s another one or two on Blevins that they own. Q AUDIENCE: Any future plans from CSURF as to why they are owning houses in that neighborhood? A CSU: I can’t speak for CSURF, but I can speak for CSU. Since the 1996 Master Plan, CSU has indicated if there were properties available in this block, we would be interested in acquiring them for the campus. That’s been in our Master Plan for twenty years as one of our goals. Q AUDIENCE: In the buffer zone, west of the parking lot, could you add a low wooden fence, some kind of barrier to not see the cars, the headlights? A CSU: I would prefer not to add a fence. I think that it can be accomplished through the landscaping. And because the parking lot is going to be considerably lower, about 2.5 feet lower than the street, the headlights will be lower. Q AUDIENCE: Evergreens could do that. A CSU: I think you want a view into the parking lot for safety. The city is very specific about parking lots. A CITY: Yes, we do require parking lot screening. There are some options that can be done through a combination of plant materials and walls, but the walls have to be set off of the sidewalk by a couple of feet. Q AUDIENCE: It seems we will be wide open to what happens on campus from Blevins Court; anything that happens on campus could just flood right through the landscape buffer zone right into our neighborhood. A CSU: This is resident parking for this complex; this is not a turnover parking lot. This is long-term parking, not a general day-use parking lot for campus. It is not a parking lot for game day. A CITY: The screening idea is a good suggestion; the City will take a look at that. As to how we accomplish the screening, I think we need to talk through that. A CSU: I agree we need screening, but from the CSU perspective, we don’t see a cedar fence as appropriate. We have done a good job with landscaping in the Horticulture Department and I think we can do a good job with this rather than having a fence as a barrier. Attachment 4 68 8 Q AUDIENCE: You say it is resident parking for apartment life now, but that could change in the future. A CSU: That is very highly unlikely. This is apartment life, not resident life. None of these parking lots will be in play on game day. Nobody will be required to move their cars on game day in this parking lot. When you buy this parking space, it is part of living in this complex. People are paying a premium for it. Q AUDIENCE: It will take years for the landscaping to mature and fill in. A CSU: Again, we are well below the street level. Q AUDIENCE: Is the parking lot designed to flood? A CSU: It is lower than the street and it has a detention pond on the end of it, connected to a detention facility that runs to the new apartment complex and West Prospect. As required by the City, detention is taken care of. Q AUDIENCE: CSU is a dry campus. Are these apartments not dorms? A CSU: North of the Horticulture Center is apartment life like the same as City Park and Elizabeth Street and International House. This is targeted to upper-class students and international students. It doesn’t come with any residence dining facility; you have your own kitchen. But it does have the same restrictions as CSU does. Q AUDIENCE: My understanding is that you said there is going to be a 10 ft. detached sidewalk all the way from College to Shields along the northside of Lake? A CSU: In the West Central Plan that is the preferred option shown for the Prospect portion of it. It is being instituted as development projects are approved by the City. Q AUDIENCE: So next to the stadium, you’re always going to do that? A CSU: On Prospect the West Central Plan calls for a 10 ft. detached sidewalk. Q AUDIENCE: What will you have along the stadium on Lake? A CSU: Opposite the stadium on Lake, in the next six months, we will remove the same kind of Hollywood curb and gutter, and then an 8 ft. attached sidewalk will go in on the southside of the street within the city ROW. The City ROW is 9.5 ft. wide. On the northside, along the stadium it will have something twice as wide. Q AUDIENCE: What about down by the medical center on Lake? A CSU: It will be a 6 ft. detached sidewalk with a parkway (maybe 4 ft.–6 ft.) Q AUDIENCE: Will there be no street parking on either side of Lake Street west of the stadium? Attachment 4 69 9 A CSU: There will be no street parking on the northside, but there will still be street parking on the southside. Q CSU: It sounds like the audience has two big issues: 1. Questioning the desirability of a dedicated bike lane in the street with a buffer—there is some difference of opinion on that. 2. A desire for very full screening of that parking lot is the other thing I hear coming through. Q AUDIENCE: Is redevelopment of Aggie Village South going to get torn down and rebuilt? A CSU: There is no date certain, but Aggie Village South will be torn down. Currently, there is no funding for it to be redeveloped, but our Master Plan shows it being torn down and built in a more intense footprint for the same apartment life. Q AUDIENCE: Will the houses on the eastside of Whitcomb on the south of Prospect get torn down too? I’m wondering if it will be cookie-cutter on the other side of Prospect as well. A CSU: No, not on other side of Prospect. Q AUDIENCE: What is the plan with CSURF’s two houses on the southside of Prospect? A CSU: They will continue to rent them. Q AUDIENCE: So there is no plan to integrate those houses into Aggie Village South? A CSU: The only thing that could happen that I can perceive as a need is that if there was a need for an emergency egress. This is five to ten years from now. If Aggie Village North or South is redeveloped, there could be an emergency egress out of the property to Whitcomb. It would not be an entrance or exit. That would be the only foreseen need. Q AUDIENCE: Why did CSURF buy those properties? A CSU: I can’t speak for CSURF. CSURF was approached and they bought them. One of the houses would have a good use for an emergency egress if there was a need. Q AUDIENCE: It makes us suspicious. A CSU: Understood. Q AUDIENCE: Who can we contact to ask about that? A CSU: You can contact CSURF. I think we are being very forthcoming. CSURF was offered two homes. They bought them. When I talked to CSURF I think one has utility with the redevelopment of an emergency egress. Q AUDIENCE: What is to prevent CSURF from buying up the whole Sheely neighborhood and turning it over to the CSU and making it into a parking lot? A CSU: We need to capture these concerns, but this has never been in the planning. Attachment 4 70 10 Q AUDIENCE: We are concerned and perplexed by the way in which things migrate from CSURF, which is still required to follow the zoning, and then what happens when CSURF transfers what they have acquired to CSU, which appears does not have to pay any attention to the underlying zoning. And although there is a political cost to pay if CSU goes in a direction different than Planning and Zoning does, state law does make it possible for the governors to decide to do whatever they believe is in the long-term best interest of CSU. There doesn’t appear to be any point in the process when neighborhoods get to weigh in on the transfer of properties from CSURF to CSU or much clarity on how much a neighborhood can be unzipped by this kind of stripped transfer. I’m just noting that this is one of the things that continues to concern folks. A CSU: I want to make it clear that for this specific project the planning process is very much the same in this case. I agree that in other cases, it may be different. A CITY: There is a process with Site Plan Advisory Review and with that it does give CSU more flexibility, but within that framework staff can make a recommendation based on location, character, and extent. And the location aspect of that is the underlying zoning, deciding if what is being proposed is appropriate for the district. It’s hard to speculate. There are a lot of “What ifs?” We don’t know what the future is going to hold. But if something happens with additional properties, there is the advisory review process. Staff does make recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Board based on location, character and extent. Staff can recommend denial to the Planning and Zoning Board If the Planning and Zoning Board doesn’t approve a SPAR project then the SPAR can be appealed to the CSU Board of Governors. Q AUDIENCE: But then there is the concern that the Board of Governors can do whatever it wants to. The bottom line is there is no protection. A CSU: I understand, and point well taken. Please understand that CSU is doing half a million dollars in city-mandated improvements to align with the community plan and the IGA. So there is a lot of good faith in this plan to align with community goals through an open planning process. Q AUDIENCE: How do they exit that parking lot? Where do they get out? A CSU: Only off of Lake Street, we don’t want anyone to exit off of Whitcomb. In case there is an emergency, I think we will ask for an easement, so we have some ability to get fire access. Attachment 4 71 11 Q AUDIENCE: How long do you anticipate not being able to exit from Whitcomb onto Prospect during the sewer project? A CSU: You’ll be able to do it for the whole project, except for the last few days. The crossing is scheduled for a weekend. This will be around June 17 or mid-June, which is when they expect to be working on the last section. Current thinking is to have flaggers employed to help people get out. It will be open to the very end of the project; then maybe the closure will last about three days when we need a flagger. If it’s longer than that, then we would suggest that they need to take other measures to get people out of the neighborhood because there will only be the one lane. Q AUDIENCE: Will Blevins Court always be accessible during this sewer project? A CSU: Yes, but it will be accessible, but it may be limited. Q AUDIENCE: Who is the contractor? A CSU: Mortensen is the general contractor and the subcontractor is Duran Excavating. Q AUDIENCE: Where is the sewer line that it connects to? A CSU: It is the trunk line that runs through the bottom of this property. From Wallenberg, it follows Spring Creek all the way east from where it picks up at Wallenberg. Q AUDIENCE: Does a new connection need to be made from Wallenberg to the irrigation channel? A CSU: No, it just ties into a manhole at the intersection. Q AUDIENCE: So the capacity that it’s going to tie into, where Whitcomb dead ends at Wallenberg, is adequate that they just need to tie it in? A CSU: That’s what the study shows. It is just a matter upsizing the line for those blocks. But not to diminish that this is very intrusive to the neighborhood and that’s why we keep talking about it and will keep coming back to it. There will be other inconveniences, for example, whether you need to move your car out of your driveway for a few days. It’s possible. With no more questions, the meeting was adjourned. Attachment 4 72 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 1 STAFF REPORT June 9, 2016 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME OAKRIDGE CROSSING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PDP160009 AND MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS TO SECTIONS: 3.2.2(K)(1)(A) - REQUIRED NUMBER OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES FOR TYPE OF USE 4.26(D)(6)(B)(3) - ACCESS TO A PUBLIC PARK, CENTRAL FEATURE, OR GATHERING SPACE STAFF Ryan Mounce, Associate Planner This item has been postponed to the July 14, 2016, Planning and Zoning Board hearing. 73 Agenda Item 6 Item #6 Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 12, 2016 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME HARMONY 23 MODIFICATION STAFF Clark Mapes, City Planner This item has been postponed to the July 14, 2016, Planning and Zoning Board hearing. 74 Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 1 STAFF REPORT June 9, 2016 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME Revisions and Additions to the Land Use Code for Outdoor Vendor Requirements STAFF Pete Wray, Senior City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding an update to the City Land Use Code for outdoor vendor requirements. The project includes proposed changes for outdoor vendor mobility options, land use review process for types of vending operations, and potential separation requirement between vendors operating near existing restaurants. Note the project also includes revisions to Chapter 15 of the City Code for reference. APPLICANT / OWNER: RECOMMENDATION: City of Fort Collins Staff recommends approval of the Ordinance EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff has developed new outdoor vendor requirements to ensure greater mobility, identify a land use review process for vendor operations, and assess if there is support for a new separation distance between outdoor vendors and existing brick and mortar restaurants. A public engagement process was conducted in the fall of 2015 and continued into May, 2016 including public meetings and online questionnaires. Staff has received considerable feedback from vendors, citizens, and business interests familiar with outdoor vendor operations in the City. Based on research of other communities, staff analysis, and public input; staff identified three categories for potential changes to consider in response to requests for updated outdoor vending requirements. The proposed changes are included in the Ordinances. Ordinance XX, 2016 includes Revisions and Additions to Articles Three, Four and Five of the Land Use Code for New Outdoor Vendor Requirements. Ordinance XX, 2016 includes Revisions and Additions to Article XIV of Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code, for Outdoor Vendor Requirements (for which the Board need not make a recommendation). 75 Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 2 BACKGROUND: In 2012, the City of Fort Collins implemented new regulations to better manage and support outdoor vendors, including food trucks, trailers and push carts operating in the City. In 2014, in response to evolving vendor needs, the City implemented additional allowances for the number of vendors operating on private lots and food truck rallies. Now that these operations have been active for a few years, the City is re-evaluating the overall operations of outdoor vendors to determine if any updates are needed or desired. While initially focusing on food truck vendors, staff has identified other vendor types and operation conditions that need to be assessed as part of this update. Most outdoor vendors with vehicles move around the City regularly and, as a result, are mobile. However, over the past few years some outdoor vendors, including food truck and trailer operators, have set up semi-permanent locations for vending on private lots, reflecting a less-mobile operation. The intent of the Code for outdoor vendor operations using vehicles was to ensure a mobile operation and it addressed the specific impacts and requirements of a mobile operation. Such impacts and requirements of a mobile operation are different when the mobile operation becomes more stationary in the same location for extended periods of time. They become more akin to a brick and mortar restaurant business, without accounting for the impacts associated with a brick and mortar business such as improving private and public infrastructure, providing additional parking, paying building permit fees, and access to public restrooms. The recent examples mentioned above of outdoor vendors operating on the same privately-owned lot on a continuous basis are not meeting the underlying intent of being temporary or mobile. Outdoor food vendors are required by the State and County to work out of and return to an approved commissary kitchen each day they vend. These stationary vendors need to comply with the same health requirements for their food truck and associated commissary kitchen, as other mobile food truck vendors, and brick and mortar restaurants do for their fixed-location restaurants. Staff has also observed other vendor types that sell non-food items out of a vehicle operating on a stationary basis in the same locations. In response, staff proposes new code provisions to identify an appropriate land use process for approving vendor locations, and the length of time an outdoor vendor may operate on the same private lot on a temporary basis and semi-permanent basis. In addition, staff has explored if there is public support for a new separation requirement between outdoor food vendors operating near existing brick and mortar restaurants. ANALYSIS: Staff addressed the following issues associated with outdoor vendors: 1. Ensuring more mobility for outdoor vendors operations, city-wide; 2. Addressing the recent trend of vendors operating on a semi-permanent and stationary basis in same location; 3. Consider a new land use process for managing outdoor vending operations, in addition to existing Outdoor Vendor Licensing requirements; and 4. Assess support for a new separation requirement for outdoor food vendors operating near existing fixed-location restaurants. 76 Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 3 Staff identified four categories for potential Land Use Code, City Code, and administrative process changes. 1. Mobile Outdoor Vendors The issue of mobility is not limited to just food truck vendors. In reviewing outdoor vendor categories, some vendor types were not evaluated such as Christmas tree lots, car washes, pumpkin patch sales, and transportation related vendors. Outdoor vendors using vehicles including trucks, trailers and push carts were assessed together for consistency in considering changes to operating requirements. While most of these outdoor vendors serve food, some are vending non-food items on a more stationary basis in the same location. The online questionnaire asked for feedback on maximum length of time a vendor is allowed to stay on a private lot per day. Approximately 66% responded supporting no new restrictions, 13% for on-site for 12 hours, and 5% supporting on-site for 8-10 hours. Staff has identified additional Code requirements to ensure outdoor mobile vendors operating on a daily basis that use vehicles are more mobile, while continuing to support these small businesses and not over-regulate. Proposed key new code requirements:  New definitions for approved vending location, type of vendor, and clarification for outdoor mobile vendor operations.  No more than three days at same approved vending location (lot or on-street parallel parking space) per week – remaining days of week no other vending allowed  Time limit for maximum number of hours to vend on the same location per day.  Vehicle not allowed to be left unattended at approved vending location for more than short breaks, or overnight. In discussing potential changes with the vending community, these new provisions were generally supported to ensure more mobility while not being overly restrictive for normal mobile vending operations. Most outdoor vendors operate consistent with these proposed standards on a daily basis. Although a majority of participants attending public meetings and taking the online questionnaires did not support any new requirements (see attached Questionnaire Report). 2. Stationary Vendors Recent examples of outdoor vendors operating on the same privately-owned lot on a continuous and stationary basis are not meeting the underlying intent of being temporary or mobile. Outdoor food vendors are required by the State and County to work out of and return to an approved commissary kitchen each day they vend. These stationary vendors need to comply with the same health requirements for their food truck and associated commissary kitchen, as brick and mortar restaurants do for their fixed-location. Consequently, County Health Officials have been contacted to help address this issue. The number of outdoor vendors operating on a semi-permanent and stationary basis is limited to approximately 5 out of 25 current licensed outdoor vendors. Staff has also observed a few of these stationary vendors leaving their vehicle unattended between vending operations and overnight. While staff initially focused on mobile operations, this type of stationary operation needs to be addressed as well. These vendors need to comply with not only County Health requirements and move off-site daily, but also City Code requirements for this type of operation. 77 Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 4 Staff has also observed other vendor types that sell non-food items out of a vehicle operating on a stationary basis in the same locations. Other mobile food truck vendors operating in Fort Collins are concerned of unfair treatment by the City and in some cases the County, between mobile and stationary operations, including leaving vehicles unattended, servicing out a commissary kitchen and length of time at same location. The online questionnaire strongly supports allowing these stationary vendors to operate in the City, 87% of respondents. Staff researched other communities and found most implement more restrictive requirements for outdoor vendor operations than existing Fort Collins regulations, particularly in downtown areas (see attached Peer Cities review). As a result, staff has developed a new option for stationary food truck vendors, including additional administrative process and Code requirements to permit these outdoor vendors operating in the same location on a continuous basis, except in the Downtown. In the Downtown area, staff supports only allowing more mobile operations to minimize impacts. Compared to other non-residential zones in the City, the Downtown is unique, reflecting a high density commercial core, vibrant streetscape environment, and significant pedestrian circulation and activity. Staff is proposing to not allow stationary vendors to operate in the Downtown Zone for the following reasons:  The street sidewalk and plaza space is limited and bike and pedestrian circulation should not be impeded.  Minimize conflicts between principal business operations and needs and access and outdoor vehicle vending needs and access on same location.  Minimize potential conflicts between existing restaurant and retail businesses and outdoor vendors operating in close proximity.  Safety concerns associated with stationary and at times unattended vehicles on active public spaces  Aesthetics of leaving semi-permanent and stationary vehicles in the same location for extended periods of time at prominent locations in Downtown, potentially diminishing the attractiveness of this highly valued community destination. The existing City and Downtown Development Authority Concession Agreements for vendors are separate from and excluded from these proposed stationary vending requirements in the Downtown area. Outside of the Downtown area, opportunities exist for stationary vendors to pursue this type of operation with permission by owner and Minor Amendment approval. Proposed key new code requirements:  Add a new definition for stationary vendors (vending from mobile food truck, pushcart or other vehicle more than three days consecutively or per week at same location)  Minor Amendment by owner  Time limit for maximum number of hours to vend on the same location per day.  Vehicle not allowed to be left unattended for more than short breaks, or overnight, unless owned by principal business.  Not permitted in the Downtown zone Stationary food vendors will still need to comply with County Health requirements and work out of a commissary kitchen. In most cases, outdoor vendors will need to store their vehicles at a different location than the approved vending location each night. 78 Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 5 3. Administrative Review Process Mobile Outdoor Vendors The current Outdoor Vendor application to obtain an Outdoor Vendor License includes requested information but not limited to vending location, type of operation, zoning, property owner approval, and description of operations. A new step will include forwarding the approved license application to the Zoning Office for the record to be used for zoning compliance. By including the Zoning Department, this will provide additional oversight and management along with the Sales Tax Office. Zoning staff will provide compliance review on a complaint basis and coordinate with Sales Tax staff to ensure License requirements are being met. The proposed zoning review and compliance will not result in any new fees. Stationary Vendors A stationary vendor will require an Administrative Minor Amendment process and approval. The Minor Amendment will review the original approved plan for that property, to add an accessory use with the existing Principal Use at the same location on a stationary basis. The request for a Minor Amendment will be submitted by the property owner or representative; this review will also verify appropriate zoning, vending location, and operation requirements. With a Minor Amendment approval, the Outdoor Vendor Licensing application can be completed. The Minor Amendment process will result in an additional administrative review fee of $350.00, reflecting a one-time action by the owner. With approval of the Minor Amendment, any future stationary vendor can operate at this location with approval by the owner. Zoning staff will provide zoning related compliance review and again coordinate with Sales Tax Office staff for License compliance. 4. New separation requirement between food truck vendor operations and existing brick and mortar restaurants Staff has explored requirements for a new separation requirement between outdoor food vendors operating near existing brick and mortar restaurants to warrant a potential Code amendment. An online questionnaire was available starting in March, 2016 and open until April 29 (see attached results Report). The total number of people taking the questionnaire was 1,009. Of those participants, 58 were business owners and 26 owned or operate an existing brick and mortar restaurant in the City. When asked if they are concerned with food truck vendors operating within close proximity to existing restaurants (572 participants), 12 responded yes, and 507 responded no. The next question asks which separation requirement is supported, ranging from no requirement to greater than 500 feet. Of the total number of respondents, 78% supported no separation requirement (660 out of 850 respondents). Of the total number of respondents taking the questionnaire, very few (less than 20) restaurant owners or managers participated. In an attempt to get more feedback, staff initiated a separate mailing to 317 restaurant owners or managers in the City to encourage them to take this questionnaire (see attached results). The results of this focused outreach included 8 participants, with only 5 responding they are concerned of vendors operating within close proximity to existing restaurants and also supported a 500 foot separation requirement. A single respondent supported a separation requirement greater than 500 feet. In 2012 this topic was discussed at length including extensive public outreach. An online questionnaire included 583 respondents, with approximately an equal number of respondents supporting some 79 Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 6 separation between vendors and existing restaurants than no buffer requirements. Staff provided a recommendation to City Council to support a 200 foot separation (one-half downtown City block) between food truck vendors and existing restaurants. City Council did not support this requirement. To date there are no separation requirements between two restaurants selling similar food products, and no separation requirement between food vendors operating Downtown as part of sidewalk push-cart vending Concession Agreements with the City and nearby restaurants. Staff has researched other communities having a separation requirement and the results are across the board from no requirements to as much as 1,500 feet. Typically we observed separation distances between 200-400 feet. The online questionnaire included the following separation distances: Which of the following separation requirements do you support - between existing brick and mortar restaurants (front entrance) and food truck vendor operations in the City?  No new separation requirements  50 foot separation  100 foot separation  200 foot separation  300 foot separation  400 foot separation  500 foot separation  Greater than 500 feet Based on public feedback to date, there is not sufficient public support for implementing a new separation requirement between food vendors and existing restaurants. As a result of this feedback and analysis, staff is not recommending the proposed Ordinances include this option. PUBLIC OUTREACH: The proposed update for outdoor vendor requirements included a public outreach process for a portion of 2015 and extending to May, 2016. Community engagement opportunities included meetings with the general public, vendors, and online questionnaires (see attached public input summaries). Project information was available on the City’s website with regular updates including proposed ideas, schedule and meeting dates. Outreach Activities: Public Meetings (October 22, 2015, and March 3, 2016) Vendor Meetings (September 24 and November 9, 2015; and April 20, May 9, and June 2, 2016) Online Questionnaires (September – October, 2015; March – May, 2016; April – May, 2016 for restaurants) In listening to vendor throughout this process, they really desire to operate in active areas in the community, especially in the Downtown area, and like other cities favor a recognized location to vend on a more regular basis accommodating multiple vendors. Staff will continue to coordinate opportunities for a food truck park to happen either on public or private lots as part of this continued discussion. 80 Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 7 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Planning and Zoning Board make a motion to recommend that City Council approve Ordinance XX, 2016 that includes Revisions and Additions to Articles Three, Four and Five of the Land Use Code for new outdoor vendor requirements. Staff recommends Council consider allowing a six (6) month amortization period be implemented to delay enacting new Code requirements, until approximately January 15, 2017. ATTACHMENTS 1. Outdoor Vendor Meetings Summary (10-20-15) (PDF) 2. Outdoor Vendor 2016_4_20_Meeting_Notes (PDF) 3. Peer City Review - Regional Outdoor Vendor Regulations (PDF) 4. Online Questionnaire #1 Results - Outdoor Vendors (10-26-15) (PDF) 5. Online Questionnaire #2 Results - Outdoor Vendors (4-29-16) (PDF) 6. Online Questionnaire #2A Results - Restaurants (5-6-16) (PDF) 7. Draft City Code Outdoor Vendor Changes 5.26.16 (PDF) 8. Draft LUC Changes - Outdoor Vendors P&Z Draft (PDF) 81 Attachment 1 Proposed 2015 Mobile Food Truck Vendor Changes Summary of Outreach Meetings 1. Outdoor Vendor Meetings – September 24 and November 9, 2015 Vendor Meeting #1 - September 24, 2015 (281 N. College Ave) A meeting was held by the City for Outdoor Vendors on September 24, 2015 at 281 North College Avenue with 23 vendors attending. The following comments were recorded during the meeting discussion with staff.  What is the problem the City is trying to solve?  Need further clarification on the issues with requiring more mobility from vendors  Vendors are required by County Health to return daily to approved commissary so we are mobile  Why are the few vendors that have set up a semi-permanent operation not required to move off-site daily to commissary?  There is unanimous opposition form the vendors for any new requirements or further restrictions on us – again what is the problem here?  Who has complained about vendors operating in Downtown area?  This is our livelihood and we need to work regularly. Please do not further restrict our work  Will you distinguish between food trucks that vend only for on-site principal use customers and vendors serving to general public?  Of the proposed range of options for vendors to operate on-site in the same location, staff should offer more options for duration vending and time away from these locations Planning, Development and Transportation Services Planning Services 281 North College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/currentplanning 1 82 Attachment 2  Is the issue unfair competition between vendors and existing brick and mortar restaurants, safety, health requirements, or what?  The City needs to identify a consistent, fair and predictable approach for all vendors for new requirements  How can we be involved and what is the schedule for bringing these changes forward to Council? Vendor Meeting #2 - November 9, 2015 (215 N. Mason) A meeting was held by the City for Outdoor Vendors on November 9, 2015 at 215 North Mason Street with 6 vendors attending. The following comments were recorded during the meeting discussion with staff.  We really appreciate being involved in this process  As part of the staff recommendation, we prefer to see 160 hours in any calendar month vs. 80  Food truck vendors typically operate for 10 hours a day at any location, the 8 hours per day mentioned is not consistent with our situation  For those vendors who operate more than one truck per day, the recommended hours per week or month are not reasonable – we need more time  The online questionnaire responses clearly did not see an issue or problem with vendors operating in the same location and that no further restrictions should be made for duration vendors operate on a private lot, or how long to remain away form same location  What are you trying to solve?  Why pose additional restrictions on all food truck vendors, just because a few are causing an issue?  How will new changes be enforced?  Are the new changes for food trucks and pushcart operators?  What are next steps in process and will we see proposed changes before the Planning and Zoning Board meeting? 2 83 Attachment 2 2. Public Open House Meeting – October 22, 2015 A public open house meeting was held by the City on October 22, 2015 at 215 North Mason with 7 meeting participants. The following comments were recorded during the meeting discussion with staff.  For new potential vendors, what is the process and how can I get more information?  The online survey clearly shows support for the no-action option – we do not need more restrictions  Is the online survey still available?  What is the problem the City is trying to solve?  Who will be making the decision on potential changes?  Vendors are required to be mobile based on County health standards and return to commissary each day  Has the County inspected the vendors operating at the same locations semi- permanently?  What is the definition of being “more mobile”?  Do the vendors that are operating extensively from the same location using a commissary on the same lot?  Of the 7 meeting participants, all selected the no new restrictions options on the wall, vs. supporting any of the range of operation times identified.  Staff shared a middle option of a 3-week operation on-site, and 3-day off-site requirement for potential consideration, but this was not supported by any of the meeting attendees. 3 84 4/20/2016 Update to Food Truck Vendor Requirements April 20, 2016 Meeting Summary – Proposed Food Truck Vendor Changes Purpose The purpose of the April 20, 2016 meeting was to hold an open discussion about potential changes to the Land Use Code and City Code. The meeting was well attended with about 20 participants and structured around the discussion of three main land use code changes. Below is a summary of the discussion with “C” representing the summarized comments from the city staff, and “P” representing the summarized comments from the public. Summary of Presentation Introduction Online questionnaire has been available since March and it’s open until the end of the month. Status Report – 972 respondents took the current survey. 2012 – Came up with new framework for licensing provisions  Food trucks are an accessory use to the existing principal use  No restrictions for duration vending on and off site  Most operate on a mobile basis (not everyone)  What changes for more mobility 2014 allowed 4 vendors per site, 8 for special event and food truck rallies 2015/2016 we are considering a potential update if it is warranted  Recommendations that came forward which did not make it past the zoning and planning board All commercial areas are permitted areas for food trucks and anything residential is not permitted (shows map from 2012 study) (Presents a list of regulatory options from other cities) 2012 Council didn’t support a separation buffer between food truck vendors and restaurants City Staff identified 3 main categories for changes in relation to how food truck vendors operate. • Potential Land Use Code changes: o Mobile Food Truck Vendor operations o Stationary food truck vendor o Separation requirement between vendors and existing restaurants 85 4/20/2016 Update to Food Truck Vendor Requirements Mobile Vendors Discussion Summary Given by City Staff For mobile vending operations would include “on a temporary and transitory basis” to the existing municipal definition. Some key question that the city would like to ask is: C- Should food trucks be restricted to vend for a maximum number of hours in the same location (4,8, or 10 )? C - Should food trucks be allowed to stay in the same location they vend overnight? C - Restroom Availability? Comments P - Typically most restrictions are due to parking street side and proximity between restaurants. Disagree with the 4 hour vending limitations, feels that it’s more of a parking issue P - Not even worth going to a vending location for a 4 hour block because the operating window would be too short for what we do C - What type of time blocks do you guys run? P - Our shift happens to be 4 hours 11-3 P - It is not typical for someone to move locations after a vending block is done (it’s too difficult to break down and set back up) P - The more efficient we can be the better… It’s better to be in one location one day, because you need to break down and set back up, which takes time. There is more risk for accidents to happen inside the truck such as spills if you move multiple locations in a single day. P – City sidewalk will not allow vending past 6pm P – If are restricted to 4 or 6 hours and then we calculate in an hour of labor before and after each shift the amount of time not selling would hurt our business greatly P – We feel like the market will tell us the hours that are needed, we don’t want to be there outside a time that no one has a need for food P – I feel like any brick and mortar restaurant doesn’t get told when and when it can and can’t sell, why should it be different for a food truck? P – If the market can support the food service then it will. C – The normal shift may be 7-9 hours. Would 10 hours of active vending support the business? P – Yes we feel like 10 hours could be a good number (a vote yielded 0 in favor of 4 hour limit and 0 in favor of a 6 hour limit. 86 4/20/2016 Update to Food Truck Vendor Requirements P - New Belgium asked a food vendor to be there for 12 hours, although it was out of the ordinary we liked having the option to be able to stay and serve our customers if we felt we were needed. P - On a typical Sunday I’m there at 10 and leave at 8 P – What is the motive of the hour regulation? C – We are just taking a broad look at what all of our options are and if it’s appropriate or needed. P – Is it safety base? Is it… P – Honestly we vend 12 hours or more. I think the hour timeline would be too restrictive. P – how many special events permits does the city want be making? I feel like it would be a waste of time for the city to process special event permits for trucks. P - We float and adapt to needs. We can’t agree to numbers because it restricts the foundation of our business model P – New Belgium can hold events and not have a special event permit; it would hinder the food truck business to not have flexibility to accommodate customer needs P - 2 trucks can operate at one property without a special event permit P – We have a license and we are not required to move as long as we have an offsite commissary per the health department P – Larimer county provides flexibility so that food trucks don’t necessarily move as long as they can shuffle containers back and forth to take care of dirty dishes and gray water. P- To unplug would be more risk for a refrigerator to maintain temps and keep ingredients fresh. c- How many stay static? P – about 4 people raise their hand P- Even though we are not moving the food truck we are still moving all the waste gray water waste by other means. C – We are not trying to get in the way of the county health department P- More work and more risk could become a factor if overnight regulations come in place. It’s challenging to keep the right temps when moving and less chance of other issues. C - Provide restroom availability? P – Technically through a health department we can’t serve to tables. P - We are also required to have a hand washing station 87 4/20/2016 Update to Food Truck Vendor Requirements P – Health department says that if you offer 15 seats there needs to be a public restroom C – We don’t allow tables around the truck P – We’d love to provide comforts for people to enjoy our food we are trying to No one vends on the street because there is a 2 hour limit, takes almost an hour to set up. Leeway would be a great change to the code P- There has to be an audience, foot traffic C- here Is a snapshot of the questionnaire How long should food trucks be required to stay offsite? Clearly shows no restrictions Stationary Vendors Discussion Summary Presented by City Staff Staff is proposing a new definition to describe this new food truck situation of being stationary in the same location for extended periods of time. Comments C - Do we do anything for semi-permanent vending operations? There are maybe 5 right now that are considered semi-permanent. (Shows results from survey that shows almost no support restrictions) C – Polling shows an overwhelming response for no additional requirements to semi-permanent vending operations on private lots. (shows two of the questionnaire results to audience) Separation Requirement Discussion Summary Presented by City Staff Option C asks you to consider the possibility of separation requirements between vendors and existing restaurants. Options include a range of separation between 50 and 400+ feet. Comments C - Most of the other adjoining communities have separation requirements. In 2012 we forwarded a 200ft recommendation and it was denied by council P – we are all competitors and the more we cooperate the more we come together the better we can all do. The more we operate it can extrapolate to others who can benefit C – When we look at this issue again in 2014 there was a stronger request for more food trucks 88 4/20/2016 Update to Food Truck Vendor Requirements P - We do invite food trucks to our brick and mortar locations, even in some ways if it’s a competing item I think that P - I think It would be a great solution to give restaurants the ability to allow or deny a food trucks in certain proximities. C – Where should it happen? Downtown? P – It would be the hardest place to do it. We really can’t be downtown anyways C - We discussed a couple public lots where vendors may be able to set up lots. Do you have any suggestions for gathering areas in the downtown? C – (Lays out map) P – Please look at public lots for us to use. P – What about parking lot where they have the farmers market? Harmony and Lemay, in front of Ace P- It has to be approved by the business owners, and you have to be part of the farmers market, strip malls have a no compete privilege. C – (Went over next steps in the planning process) P – I heard about a meeting that happened when I was in Mexico where tensions were high. I’d like to apologize for all of us about our reaction P- I appreciate that you’re hearing us out and making us feel like our voices are heard. 89 Peer City Review - Regional Outdoor Vendor Regulations City Summary of Regulations Code Language Boulder, CO Permits • No requirements Hours of Operation • Cannot operate on public or private property before 7 a.m. or after 9 p.m. • Maximum of 4 hours at any one approved location Mobility • No requirements 1. (3.) Operating Requirements: No person who operates any mobile food vehicle on public property or private property shall: a. (E) Operate before 7 a.m. or after 9 p.m. and for more than a maximum of four hours at any one approved location; b. (J) Fail to have the vehicle attended at all times Denver, CO Permits • Permits shall be valid for twelve consecutive months • Permits must be renewed annually Hours of Operation • Maximum of 4 consecutive hours each day at each zone lot Mobility • No Requirements 1. (1) In all Mixed Use Commercial Zone Districts; I-A, -B Zone Districts; and OS-B Zone District, where permitted with limitations, mobile retail food establishments are permitted subject to compliance with the following standards: a. (A) Permits shall be valid for 12 consecutive months and shall be renewed annually. b. (B) Permits shall be valid for 4 consecutive hours for each day at each zone lot. c. (C) No more than 1 retail food establishment, mobile shall be permitted to operate per day at each zone lot. d. (D) Hours of operation shall be between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Greeley, CO Permits • A Temporary Vendor license. Food trucks can use either. • Peddler's license is required Hours of Operation • Maximum of 4 hours outside of Downtown Peer City Review - Regional Outdoor Vendor Regulations City Summary of Regulations Code Language renewed annually Hours of Operation • No requirements Mobility • Must be readily moveable. Loveland, CO Permits • License is only valid for one year (all expire on December 31) • Written consent from businesses in direct competition if located within 100 feet of primary location Hours of Operation • Must operate on specified times and days which is required on the application. Mobility • No Regulations 1. (B) Each license shall be valid for one year beginning January 1 or the date of issuance, whichever is later and ending December 31 of the same year. 2. (H) No licensee shall operate within one hundred feet of any business with which such licensee is in direct competition unless the licensee receives prior written approval from such business. 3. (N) Each license, when issued, shall specify the days of the week and the hours during the day the licensee shall operate as stated in the application. The licensee shall generally operate during such hours on all of such days. Failure to operate for a period of fourteen consecutive days for which the license is issued may be deemed to be an abandonment of the licensed location, and such location shall be open for assignment to another vendor. National Outdoor Vendor Regulations City Summary of Regulations Code Language Atlanta, GA Permits • No regulations Hours of Operation • Restricted to 5:00am- 2:00am Mobility • Can't be left unattended or stored on the vending site 1. (c) Vending structures shall not be left unattended or stored at any time on the open vending site when vending is not taking place or during restricted hours of operation. Austin, TX National Outdoor Vendor Regulations City Summary of Regulations Code Language on private property for 3 hours or less between the hours of 6a.m. and 10:00p.m. Permits • Must be licensed with the health authority • Only Permitted in Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts Hours of Operation • May not operated between the hours of 3:00a.m. and 6:00a.m. Mobility • Units must maintain a state of mobile readiness at all times • The health authority may prohibit alteration, removal, attachments, placement or change in, under, or upon the mobile food establishment that would prevent or otherwise reduce ready mobility Proximity • Cannot be located within 20ft of a restaurant • Cannot be located within 50ft of a residential/commercial building or general office (GO) zoning district; c. (3) may not be located within 50 feet of a lot with a building that contains both a residential and commercial use; d. (4) may not operate between the hours of 3:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.; and e. (5) May not be located within 20 feet of a restaurant (general) or restaurant (limited) use. 2. (Q) This ordinance does not apply to a mobile food establishment that is located on private property for three hours or less between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Charlotte, NC Permits • Required to obtain a zoning use permit • Maximum permit is 30 days at one location • Permits are renewable twice for a total of 90 National Outdoor Vendor Regulations City Summary of Regulations Code Language Hours of Operation • No regulations Mobility • No regulations Chicago, IL Permits • Written consent is required on private property and must be carried by the vendor when on the property Hours of Operation • 2 hour per-stop maximum Mobility • Cannot be operated at a fixed location Proximity • Cannot be located within 200ft to a restaurant’s principle entrance (does not apply between the hours of 12a.m. and 2a.m. 1. (b) Stops shall be made only to service customers and shall not exceed a total of two hours 2. (f) No operator of a mobile food vehicle shall park or stand such vehicle within 200 feet of any principal customer entrance to a restaurant which is located on the street level; provided, however, the restriction in this subsection shall not apply between 12 a.m. and 2 a.m. 3. (k(1)) No operation of a mobile food vehicle is allowed on any private property unless all of the following requirements are met: a. (i) The mobile food vendor has obtained the express written consent of the owner or lessee of such property and such written consent is kept in the mobile food vehicle at all times when the vehicle is on the property; b. (ii) The mobile food vendor is in compliance with all applicable requirements of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance; and c. (iii) The mobile food vendor is in compliance with subsection (b)(i) and, except for the private property that allows the operation of the mobile food vehicle, subsection (f) of this section. Hillsboro, OR Permits • No regulations Hours of Operation • Limited to 2 hours on a single property (unless otherwise approved by the city) • May not exceed 6 hours National Outdoor Vendor Regulations City Summary of Regulations Code Language Houston, TX Permits • No regulations Hours of Operation • No regulations Mobility • Mobile food units must be taken to a commissary daily to be serviced Other • Units operating for more than 1 hour must have restroom access and permission from property owner 1. ((c)(4))Operation on private property. Prior to the issuance of a medallion or renewal, the operator of a mobile food unit that will be operated on private property for more than one hour in a single day shall submit to the department proof of ownership of the property or a signed and notarized written statement from the owner or owner's agent. a. (e)Servicing of mobile food units by commissaries; servicing records. 2. (1) Servicing by commissaries. Mobile food units, other than restricted service mobile food units, shall operate from a commissary approved by the health officer and shall report to such location for supplies, cleaning, and servicing operations as follows: a. (a) Fixed location mobile food units shall return to the commissary at least once per day of operation for the performance of all servicing operations. Las Vegas, NV Permits • No regulations Hours of Operation • Limited to 4 hours in a single location in a 24- hour period Mobility • No regulations 1. (6.55.090) Unlawful operations. It is unlawful for any mobile food vendor to: a. (K) Vend on any one parcel, lot or commercial subdivision for more than four hours within any twenty-four hour period Napa, CA Permits • Any vendor operating on private property will require a permit (other than at non-profit special events) Hours of Operation • No regulations Mobility National Outdoor Vendor Regulations City Summary of Regulations Code Language Phoenix, AZ Permits • No regulations Hours of Operation • Food vendor shall not operate between the hours of 2a.m. and 6a.m. Mobility • Must be removed from the site when not in operation, daily, by 2:30am at the latest 1. (B.) Mobile vending and mobile food vending on private property shall be subject to the following operational restrictions: 2. (1.) Any mobile vending unit or mobile food vending unit shall be removed from the site during the hours of non-operation. Any semi-permanent structure used and/or associated with the mobile vending or mobile food vending operation shall also be removed from the site during hours of non-operation. This means that any mobile vending unit shall be removed from the site no later than 10:30 p.m. Any mobile food vending unit shall be removed from the site no later than 2:30 a.m. 3. (2.) A mobile vendor shall not operate between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. A mobile food vendor shall not operate between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. The mobile vending unit or mobile food vending unit shall be removed from the site in accordance with subsection (B)(1) above. Salem, OR Permits • License good for one year Hours of Operation • No Regulations Mobility • Must be movable but are not required to relocate at any particular interval • Must provide screening for utilities and storage tanks 1. (a) A mobile food unit license shall be valid for a period of one year from the effective date of the license, and may be renewed pursuant to SRC 30.055. 2. (c) All mobile food units which are parked in a stationary location for a period of 24 hours or longer shall provide screening for all conduit, tanks, and storage areas from all public areas and streets by sight- obscuring fencing and/or temporary landscaping and skirting shall be provided along the perimeter of the mobile food unit. 3. (d) Mobile food units are not permanent structures and must remain capable of being moved San Jose, CA National Outdoor Vendor Regulations City Summary of Regulations Code Language site business is closed Seattle, WA Permits • 1 year use permit if no more than 2 days per week and doesn’t require the erection of a permanent structure Hours of Operation • No regulations Mobility • Can establish mobile food vending as a permanent use with a construction permit to establish use process. 1. (A.1.) A Master Use Permit for a time period of up to one year may be authorized for any use that occurs no more than two days per week and does not involve the erection of a permanent structure, provided that: a. (a) The use is not materially detrimental to the public welfare; and b. (b) The use does not result in substantial injury to the property in the vicinity; and c. (c) The use is being consistent with the spirit and purpose of the Land Use Code. 96 Interested citizen 77.6% 90 Licensed outdoor food vendor 10.3% 12 Employee of a licensed outdoor food vendor 1.7% 2 Business owner 18.1% 21 Other 4.3% 5 Total 116 New Summary Report - 26 October 2015 1. Which of the following best describes you (choose all that apply)? 77.6% 10.3% 1.7% 18.1% 4.3% Interested citizen Licensed outdoor food vendor Employee of a licensed outdoor food vendor Business owner Other 0 100 25 50 75 1 97 Unfamiliar 3.5% 4 Somewhat familiar 59.1% 68 Very familiar 37.4% 43 Total 115 2. How familiar are you with outdoor vendors operating within the City? Unfamiliar 3.5% Somewhat familiar 59.1% Very familiar 37.4% 2 98 Yes 93.1% 108 No 6.9% 8 Total 116 3. Have you ever purchased food or merchandise from an outdoor vendor in Fort Collins? Yes 93.1% No 6.9% 3 99 A couple of times a year 22.2% 24 Every other month 19.4% 21 Once a month 33.3% 36 Once a week 16.7% 18 More than once a week 8.3% 9 Total 108 4. How often do you purchase food or merchandise from outdoor vendors? A couple of times a year 22.2% Every other month 19.4% Once a month 33.3% Once a week 16.7% More than once a week 8.3% 4 100 Yes 19.0% 22 No 81.0% 94 Total 116 5. Do you believe there is an issue or problem with how long a vendor can operate in the same location on a private lot? Please explain. Yes 19% No 81% 5 101 Count Response 1 As long as site is appropriately zoned commercial 1 As long as they are licensed it seems ok for them to operate on private property. 1 As long as they are not skirting any property tax laws 1 As long as they have permission. 1 Don't notice 1 Don't think that there should be a time limit. 1 Food trucks provide a valuable service for breweries and their customers. 1 Food trucks should be temporary 1 I don't see any problem with it as long as they have permission from the private lot owner. 1 I don't think this is an issue at all. It's between the private lot owner and the vendor. 1 I don't. I'm curious who does though. Competing vendors, or brick and mortars complaining? 1 I have never thought about it... 1 I have no problem with them on PRIVATE LOTS at all. 1 I like that they can stay in the same place. That way I can find them. 1 I see no problem with those that choose to be in the same location at all times. 1 I want variety, small business owners and community strengthened by allowing outdoor vendors. 1 I wish they would be in one place more often so I would know where to find them. 1 I would like to visit some of the food trucks, but I never know where they are. 1 If it's a private lot, the owners are the only ones with a say 1 If the private lot owner doesn't mind. It shouldn't matter. 1 If they are at the Breweries no but next-door to another restaurant on the sidewalk looks bad. 1 If zoned for comercial use private property should be avilable for use for any period of time. 1 It is private property. Vending from private property should not be a concern for Council. 1 It seems like an issue best handled between the vendor and the property owner. 1 Just let them do their thing! 1 Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand why it would be a problem. 1 NA 1 No 1 No issue 1 No issues. Comments 6 102 1 No problem 1 No, but there IS an issue in that Bicycle based Vendors cannot vend from the Trails System. 1 Not a problem in any way 1 Seems like we have bigger fish to fry. 1 Should only be addressed if it becomes an issue on an individual basis. 1 There are no problems. 1 There is no problem. I can't think of any reason why this needs to be regulated. 1 There is not a problem with vendors on one location for any duration of time. 1 There should be no restrictions on private property 1 Unless it effects the business or safety of others 1 When a vendor is located in the same location, we know where to find them! 1 free market 1 wasn't aware there is a problem 1 what does it matter? I prefer to know where a truck is on a regular basis. 1 x 1 As long as said vendor is not causing problems, let them be. Good for them to have found a private lot! 1 Customers come to expect certain foods to fill their appetitesite on certain days. How can food trucks aquire regulars if they aren't allowed regular access to their customers? 1 Regulate public property if you must, private property can decide if they want a regular vendor. 1 Private property is just that. City involvement should continue to be licensing and code enforcement. The length of time an operator operates on private property is a private matter not a public one. As long as an operation is legally operating, the city should leave well enough alone. 1 If the vendor is on a private lot, then the city should not be involved in making decisions. If the food truck is on a street for a prolonged period of time, this is an issue. 1 Personally I have not experienced an outdoor vendor with a permanent presence on a private lot that is not theirs. Some vendors have a "home" of sorts where they can frequently be found and that is a good thing, as it simplifies things and allows people to find them more easily if they are not familiar with them, and then seek then out elsewhere at other locations. I have a few food trucks that I have discovered this way. If the city provided specific locations where food trucks could gather any day - in Old Town, Midtown, maybe Council Tree area and near the campuses and breweries - that might help. I believe this is what other big cities do, at least in their downtown areas. It establishes a routine for customers which even movable vendors need despite their lack of permanent storefront. 1 I don not think it is a problem yet, but it will be. Vendor trucks are a more economically feasable business in downtown area and their popularity is bound to increase their numbers. Keeping them mobile will encourage multiple vendors and possible avoid cluttering of many. 1 Truck! Mobile! They DON'T have to meet the same standards as a brick and mortar food service place does!!! Count Response 7 103 1 It would be unfair to restaurants because lower overhead from not having a permanent location would mean lower prices. It also allows for enhancements, like outdoor seating, that would not be restricted as with restaurants. 1 I think it is unfair to "real" restaurants that are a bigger part of our community. I also worry about food safety. 1 If it is aprivate lot, Isee no problem, unless there are specific issues with the location, vendor,, or zoning. I have seen any reason given for this further regulation, just some soft "concerns". New regulation should address specifics, not, "It doesn't feel right." 1 I love the fact that a cart at Home Depot sells grilled hot dogs... and has done so for years! Food fans shouldn't have to wonder where their favorite vendor is this week! 1 For the sake of competition, if they are not paying for the space, they should not be allowed to permanently occupy the same area. 1 I do not see that this is restricting or harming the public or in any meaningful way. Respectful, tidy, tax-paying vendors should be allowed to set up on private property. Most will be seasonal, anyway. These small entrepreneurs should be allowed to make money, pay sales taxes, etc. With the price of rental realestate in FOCO, the city should be willing to develop reasonable guidelines and ordinances to assist its citizens in contributing to the city. 1 why would there be? If they are given permission from a private land owner, then why does the city even have a say? And why confuse customers? It seems manipulative to make people move around, just because they have wheels. 1 If the owner of the private lot has given permission to the vendor, then there is no problem, as long as both are in compliance with other applicable regulations. 1 It makes it easy to find your favorite food truck knowing that they are always in the same location. It does not need to be the same location every day, but the same schedule week to week is helpful. 1 Having vendors able to operate in a consistent location or locations enables customers to reliably find them. I would like to see Fort Collins go the same route as Portland, OR and establish food truck pods, stable locations where several food trucks set up semi-permanent residence. 1 It's nice to know where they are set up so when you are looking for a particular vendor you can find them. 1 As long as the owner of the private lot has given explicit permission, I see no issue with a food truck set up at the same location for an extended period of time. 1 I prefer that food trucks/trailers move around. If you want to be in one location, continuously, for longer than a few days, you should get a brick and mortar location. 1 A business operation that becomes effectively a permanent location, becomes effectively "unproved" uses under zoning. 1 If the lot owner is okay with the vendor using the space for an indefinite amount of time, there should be no issue. 1 As long as they meet zoning, taxation etc requirements why should they be treated different than brick and mortar location. Many of these vendors often have higher up front costs and operating costs than fixed locations. 1 If the issue is allowing other food truck operators a better chance at competition, that seems like public property ordinances take care of that, but I could be wrong. If a private property has an arrangement with a vendor, I don't see what business it is of the city to regulate that. The only way I would think it's okay to regulate is so it allows other vendors to jump in the game, but the proposed regulation below for offsite time (48 hours) makes this ordinance petty. Let's say onsite for 3 months, then another vendor can come in for 3 months, and so on. over night to 48 hours makes it seem like you're trying to limit a vendor's ability to make money. 1 If a vendor is not moving then they should invest in a permanent brick and stick location, as other in the food industry. Also at locations that see high traffic , why should only one vendor monopolize that spot. Count Response 8 104 1 I'm not understanding what part of PRIVATE property makes this a problem. Every business should have the opportunity to succeed or fail - based on how they perform and the quality of their product. Government should not be regulating practices that interfere with this. 1 There is a food truck that has set up what is essentially a permanent location in a mostly residential neighborhood (on Maple, near Sherwood, at the auto shop). This makes it essentially a restaurant and is inappropriate in the neighborhood (for that matter so is that auto shop). Food trucks are good for outdoor events, or a nice addition to the breweries where no food is otherwise available, but they should be inspected and should be stored in appropriate locations when not in use, not allowed to just set up as though they were regular restaurants. Another "permanent" food truck parks at another auto-related business (on North College, just south of Jax Outdoors). This one has been there for decades. This location is somewhat less bothersome, since the area is commercial, but again, this should be made a permanent restaurant. 1 I like knowing where the trucks and carts are gomma be, but I wonder whey there arent more around town or on the trails or something? 1 I don't believe the Food Truck vendors have enough flexibility. There are too many restraints on time and location. 1 Why do you keep going after ordinary people trying to get by and let the huge billionaire corporations slide? 1 I think the vendors should rotate regularly so all vendors get an opportunity to use a "prime" location. 1 If it's private property then it lies outside the jurisdiction of city ordinances. If it's public property then some rules already apply 1 It is good for the business to have consistent locations so then customers know where to find their favorite food trucks and when! If a truck is always at the same location then you always know where to get your favorite eats. 1 At some point they should go through planning and zoning review to be a permanent business so that location, traffic, parking, neighborhood appropriateness, etc. gets reviewed. 1 Why place unnecessary restrictions on entrepreneurs and those providing the community with the foods they enjoy? 1 It's easier as someone visiting the vendors to know where they're located, preferably in a consistent location. It hurts their business if they can't locate in the same spot consistently. 1 If someone owns private property and wants to let an outdoor vendor be there, they should be allowed to be there for as long as they want 1 If a food truck is successful then they should listen to their customers and continue selling especially if it's a private lot. 1 It's on private property presumably already zoned for commercial use. I don't see a need to create new law/regulation to satisfy the council's anti-business agenda when there's no demonstration of harm. 1 If they are pretty much permanently located on someone else's property, there should probably be some kind of agreement between them and the owner. 1 Limited by Larimer County Health Department license requirements for regular trips to commissary, otherwise contained in private property rights. 1 I go to certain established outdoor vendors based on location, and am not interested when I find that another vendor is there. 1 I believe that in some cases, those mobile vendors become restaurants, but don't have to follow the same rules that restaurants do. That doesn't seem fair. The City should keep mobile vendors mobile by encouraging events where they can gather, serve their food, and then disperse. 1 I know vendors that have established relationships with business owners whose lots that they set up on. In some cases this is the vendors best source of income and they don't have a lot of luck at other venues. The business owners in turn receive more customers as well. If you're consistently successful in one spot, why would you move? Count Response 9 105 1 In Austin and Portland, cities known for their food cart cultures, they have lots where food carts are set up long term. It allows you to frequent a business you like when you know where they are. 1 We don't need to keep inventing new rules and regulations - surely we have better things to spend taxes on! 1 As long as the owner of the private lot is aware and not being taken advantage of in the situation 1 If an outdoor vendor has permission from the private lot then why would there be an issue or problem? 1 I believe as long as they are far enough away from the brick and mortar stores it should be permissible. In fact, I think outdoor vendors actually bring in more traffic to the stores. 1 Depending on the location, it can provide unfair competition to existing brick-and-mortar businesses (they can earn a profit without paying as many development fees, or for example, block signage of existing restaurant). 1 If they are on private property and it's worked out with the owner I don't see a problem with it, its. Also nice to know that vendor will most likely be in that same place if I want them again. 1 I like food trucks, but once they build a fence it looks trashy. If they want to run food truck, it needs to drive away; if the want to open a restaurant, then they need to buy a building and meet fire code. 1 If location is used more than 10 hours a week, property should be taxed as a structure exists All health safety and sanitary requirements of fixed business should be analyzed/enforced Audit to really see if sales tax is collected, audit for employment taxes, workers comp. Employees should not be considered independent contractors who are often paid in cash 1 I have never been impacted by a vendor staying for an extended period of time. But I can see how this is a problem. 1 Why does the city of Fort Collins care? If a vendor is making good money b staying at one place, why would you mess with their business and have them potentially loose money by having to move? 1 I don't see a problem with this. A clear problem has not been stated, other than there is a perception of a problem. If people enjoy the merchandise or food, a vendor is doing well, and there are no ill effects, why should we get in the way of that? 1 It's nice to have consistency. I like to know where to go to get my favorite food truck. If they are forced to move around it will be harder to get the food I want when I want it. 1 As long as said vendor is operating within Larimer county dept of health requirements and time limits set (based on trucks capacity, water tank size, etc.) and within current city and zoning rules. It should not be an issue for a business to rent a space to operate their business. 1 I think there is enough difference between restaurants and food trucks/carts that they don't really compete for the same business. I seek out different experiences--sitting and dining with table service, or getting something to go and eating outside. It doesn't matter how long a vendor is on private property unless there's some sort of environmental issue. 1 The health department rules say a vendor must return to their commissary every 24 hours. That should be sufficient to cover this situation. 1 Most are on the move - that is the whole idea, right? Seems those stuck in one place are hurting themselves mostly. 1 It's private property, why is it any business of the city to determine how long a vendor can park there as long as the agreement is mutual. 1 Dear unnamed city council member, Increasing regulation on mobile vendors is just a terrible idea all around. The increase in regulation will visibly restrict the amount of sales tax revenue the city receives, on top of that there will be the added cost of policing these new policies. 1 I think they should have to leave after being there for the day or evening but able to return the next day or next week on the same day...ie Every Monday. Count Response 10 106 1 If these vendors are meeting all health code and licensing requirements and they are on private property you have no business messing with them. 1 I like food vendors but think they are meant to be transient and not stay in one location all the time. If they want to do that they should rent/buy a brick and mortar location. 1 Only if it is longer than a month. Keeping a food cart in a similar location each day allows customers to know where their favorite dishes reside. 1 As long as the vendor is compliant with safe food handling practices, why would it matter? If the public supports this vendor, so should the city. If the public does not support this vendor, the issue resolves itself. 1 Owners should be able to choose their location based on pediatrician traffic. If an owner knows an area to be busy, they should be able to go to that location freely 1 I believe that it detracts from the "food Truck" experience. Part of the excitement surrounding this new food culture is going out to find your favorite taco/pizza/potsticker by using social media, blogs and tweets. Count Response 11 107 No restrictions 69.8% 81 On-site for 6 months 3.5% 4 On-site for 3 months 4.3% 5 On-site for 1 month 1.7% 2 On-site for 3 weeks 1.7% 2 On-site for 2 weeks 3.5% 4 On-site for a week 6.0% 7 On-site for 3 days 5.2% 6 On-site for 1 day 4.3% 5 Total 116 6. Which of the following options is appropriate for the maximum length of time a vendor is allowed to stay on site on a private lot (consecutive period of time)? No restrictions 69.8% On-site for 6 months 3.5% On-site for 3 months 4.3% On-site for 1 month 1.7% On-site for 3 weeks 1.7% On-site for 2 weeks 3.5% On-site for a week 6% On-site for 3 days 5.2% On-site for 1 day 4.3% 12 108 7. How long should mobile vendors be required to remain off-site? No restrictions 68.7% 1 week 13% 48 hours 6.1% 24 hours 5.2% Overnight 7% No restrictions 68.7% 79 1 week 13.0% 15 48 hours 6.1% 7 24 hours 5.2% 6 Overnight 7.0% 8 Total 115 Statistics Sum 495.0 Average 17.7 StdDev 19.7 Max 48.0 13 109 No restrictions 63.2% 72 On-site for 3 weeks, then must leave for at least 48 hours 9.7% 11 On-site for 2 weeks, then must leave for at least 48 hours 4.4% 5 On-site for a week, then must leave for at least 48 hours 10.5% 12 On-site for 3 days, then must leave overnight 7.0% 8 On-site for 1 day, then must leave overnight 5.3% 6 Total 114 8. If a new option is approved, which option best addresses the concern of vendors operating on a permanent or semi-permanent basis? On-site for 3 weeks, then must leave for at least No restrictions 63.2% 48 hours 9.7% On-site for 2 weeks, then must leave for at least 48 hours 4.4% On-site for a week, then must leave for at least 48 hours 10.5% On-site for 3 days, then must leave overnight 7% On-site for 1 day, then must leave overnight 5.3% 14 110 Count Response 1 Be sure they pay same taxes, as fixed site locations. 1 I am more concerned about health codes than location. 1 I just want to keep it fair competition with brick and mortar food vendors. 1 I prefer 3 consecutive days on-site, then 48 hours off-site, which is not an option listed above 1 Keep small Fort Collins vendors free to operate their businesses how they see fit! 1 Leave the system alone. It's working fine as it is. 1 Let the vendors and property owners figure it out. 1 No 1 No. 1 Outdoor vendors are good for the city. Less regulation is better in this regard. 1 Outdoor vendors should be able to use the property at the discretion of the property owner. 1 There should be an exception if done prior and in writing if there is a need for 3+ days 1 This should be up to the private property owner 1 Try some decent city planning for a change instead of harassing the little guy. 1 no 1 Just moved here, so I don't know the current regulations well, but food trucks seem to require good regulations on noise, trash collection, and any emissions and/or odors. 1 I wouldn't have any restrictions on them, but if they were to cause health, safety or traffic problems, then intervention may be needed. We have lived here for 4 years now and haven't visited any of the trucks, because I am not familiar with their locations. 1 This seems like an unnecessary use of city resources to even debate. If the private property owner has no problem letting that truck park there for any period of time then it's no business of the city whatsoever. 1 The current process is fine except for having to physically turn in the application. Online options should exist to turn in an app as well as paying the fee via credit card online for example. An application once, approved, should be allowed to simply renew as long as there are no changes from the past use pattern and location. This would help simplify the process as opposed to doing a new application each time. 1 I believe that outdoor food vendors are a critical benefit to the charm of Fort Collins and adds to the culture of tourism that Fort Collins currently benefits. 1 This is a matter that should be determined via the private property owner. The impact is still the same whether it's the same truck or different trucks in a location. Trying to control the private property's decision is not keeping the rights of a free market. 1 I own a franchise called Hokulia Shave Ice (hokuliashaveice.com) and am planning on opening a location in 2016. We would be open from May - Sep. I am hoping the ordinance will allow me to set up for these months. We would set up in a parking lot far away from the stores so as not to interfere with their business or parking for customers. 1 It's hard for me to believe there have been so many problems with this model that additional regulation is necessary. Food trucks bring desperately-needed diverse food options to our boring array of pizza, burgers, and burritos--we should encourage more to come and flourish, not restrict them! 9. Do you have any other comments about regulations regarding outdoor vendors? 15 111 1 If the property owner and the food vendor have an agreement that works then the city has no business getting involved. This is a perfect example of unnecessary government restrictions if you limit food vendors from operating on private property. 1 I guess that I don't really see any of them as permanent, yes there are some that are regularly in the same location but I would think that it is up to the property owner to determine if they want more variety at their location. 1 I really like our food trucks here and don't want to discourage them but I also appreciate that if a business is permanent then it should go through the reviews to be permanent. 1 Restricting how long a food truck can park in one place will disrupt operations for many of them and hurt both food trucks and the businesses they compliment. Basically, they'll have to move for a day or so, park somewhere, then move back to where they were. How productive is that? If they're licensed and pass health department inspections all should be good. Maybe food trucks should have some sort of consent/registration form for where they park, so there's something on record, but if both the food truck and brewery/business where they are parked is okay with it, just let it go. 1 I think we need more of an explanation on why these new restrictions are needed. Going only on the fact that "Council thinks they should be more mobile" seems dubious. If you're worried about competitive chances, then propose time frames that make more sense. The proposed off-site times just create inconvenience and make it look as though you are purposefully inconveniencing vendors. 1 Why is this a concern to the city council? Don't they have better things to worry about? Btw I am abusiness owner downtown but do not own or operate a food truck or a food truck site. I just think it's a non issue. 1 Ask yourselves what the motivation is for the council to be more restrictive on one group of entrepreneurs. If the people are keeping the public safe by conducting their business properly, then they should be able to operate from wherever the legally can regardless of time in one location. 1 I would be very sad if restrictions made being a mobile vendor much more difficult. While I understand they should have some sort of permission or agreement from the property owner, I think it is imperative that the regulations are not too restrictive. Mobile vendors are a great addition to the City and very popular with many people. 1 I think it wold b cool to ahve some on the bike trails system, like from some kind of cart on a bike or I guess trike, like I've seen internationally. 1 As long as the what is done on someone's private property is not unseemly, and as long as people aren't living on property zoned for businesses,the city shouldn't be able to restrict what someone does with their own private property. 1 The options in questions 6, 7, 8 are too restrictive. I would include some sort of seasonal allowance and focus on the effect of that vendor on the surrounding public venue in terms of public safety and health. It might be more complicated than this survey focus. Is it their land, do they have a contract/agreement with the underlying landowner? Do they meet the basic public safety/health requirements, are they considerate of neighborhood characteristics? FOCO needs to try to make things more democratic. I realize the City is headed mostly by business types and politicians. There may be a group-think bias against smaller businesses with a different way of doing business than out of permanent buildings. 1 Vendors should not be able to sublease sidewalk space to get around the city system to allocate and regulate vendor spaces 1 I can only think of 2 vendors that have not seen move. This does not seem to rise to the level of requiring additional regulations, which must then be enforced. 1 You make an assumption that all outdoor vendors are full time or selling food/drinks, and are doing the cart as a full time business. What about those who want to do an occasional cart, that is not food, that is for fun and entertainment for the public, and may not necessarily make any money? $60 is prohibitive to anyone who is a "hobby" and not a "business", as the IRS sees it. And what about event permits, where several small vendors sell under one permit? Count Response 16 112 1 I don't like the wording used here - if it is private property owned by the vendor and zoned appropriately then there should be no restrictions. If the private property is another business', but they don't allow the vendor access to their facilities, again I see no problem and no restrictions. They still have to follow health regulations and pay fees and permits. Why the heck do we care if they choose to stay somewhere? If we so desperately need to do something about this and get money for it, why not do like other cities do and license locations? Pretty sure that's how the same hot dog stand can always be operating on the same street corner every day I've been in NYC. But to me this is a solution looking for a problem. Don't we have larger concerns to worry about? Like train delays and a lack of overpasses??? 1 Find something more important to spend our money on! Let the free market decide how long a vendor can stay in business! 1 I think it's appropriate for a food truck to remain parked for a weekend or multi-day work week event. That makes sense. Parking a food truck as a defacto restaurant detracts from property values, skirts safety regulations and unfairly competes with fixed-building restaurants. Also, the point of a food truck is to take your flavors to different markets for maximum exposure, and to rotate the flavor within a market (I.E.; craft breweries). If it doesn't move, it's a restaurant, and needs to meet zoning codes, fire codes and health codes to remain. 1 Food trucks create a unique culture in FoCo, one that is constantly changing. Don't punish the whole due to the immobile practices of the few. 1 I would prefer Staff spends their valuable time on other issues that have IMPACT on our city. The one food truck I know you are referring to is owned and managed by hard working folks that are serving extremely popular food. I know FIRST HAND that there are restaurant owners, particularly in Old Town that are anti-free market and will go to any length to get business they think they "deserve." 1 Not sure what the complaint is. If vendor A cannot stay for more than a day, but vendor B can then come in to take vendor A's spot, who is the winner? What are we trying to prevent? Does it matter more that a vendor is ALWAYS there, or that it's the SAME vendor all the time? 1 I understand being proactive about solving problems before they might occur, but I don't see what the problem would be here. 1 I've heard rumors that there might be a permanent food truck alley near where the new Lyric Cinema will be. This is a great idea! It would be similar to the Portland, OR model. 1 I think keeping the area clean and void of their garbage and power cords not strung all over the sidewalk in the way of strollers and wheel chairs. 1 Non-food vending push carts should be allowed. There are some very nice examples of these carts selling jewelry, sunglasses, hammocks, etc on Boulder's pearl street mall that could be used as an example for old town square once it is finished. 1 I always worry about food safety practices with outdoor vendors. Are the regulations as strictly enforced as they are with brick and mortar restaurants? 1 If other businesses are feeling threatened, then the burden should be on them to improve their offerings, not on the mobile food vendors. People want easy, affordable and healthy food access - and the food trucks often do a better job of that than some of the restaurants around town. 1 Why does this need to be regulated? Is there some sort of harm coming from it? There's none that I perceive. Just let the carts deal with the business owners individually and stay out of the market's way. 1 This is a solution in search of a problem. Went to meeting last night. Bottom line: People see no reason to make a change, so the council should listen to that. Regulation for sake of regulation is stupid. 1 Old town could be a little trickier due to the other restaurant choices. But breweries, food truck rallies, special events such as Sustainable Living Fair type set ups, and places without so many choices need to be thought of as well in considering the new policies. Count Response 17 113 1 Regarding question 8 - my preferred option is that there should be NO "semi-permanent" food trucks. So the option I would select is "On-site for one day, must leave for 1 week." This whole phenomenon is just bizarre. Food trucks are a good way to bring food to events (better than what you might be able to provide from a folding tent arrangement), but as a "destination" they are sub-par, too expensive for what one is getting (the prices are usually really high, like you would expect if you are a "captive audience" at some sort of event like a concert or festival), and I have doubts about how well they are inspected. 1 I love the regular Food Truck Rallies in City Park. I'd like to see it moved the diagonal closest to Oak and Jackson. It's more visible to the City Park neighborhood to attract more business. 1 I have no problems with vendors setting up on private property for as long as they want. They seem to have a lot of other restrictions and there seem to be a lot of hoops to jump through to get a license. 1 If the idea is to create a fair market where one vendor doesn't have a monopoly on a prime location then I am for regulating time on-site. Otherwise, i haven't seen or heard about any issues so I don't see the necessity of changing the regulations. 1 It would be beneficial for Fort Collins to have food truck pods similar to how Portland, Oregon has their trucks set up, while also giving truck owners the option to be as mobile as they need to be for success. 1 Make event permit fees reasonable and then food trucks could gather for one day or night events and then disperse 1 This would mean the world hat the vendor outside of the exit door at Home Depot would have move for some period of time, even though Home Depot, its emplyees, and its customer all like the service and product offered and theywant it available all the time. 1 This just sounds like the city being racist and trying to get rid of the Mexican food trucks on north college 1 Outdoor vendors add culture and interest to downtown Fort Collins. Fewer restrictions would be a real "love note" to the citizens of Fort Collins. 1 I think that if the vendor is on private property then how long that vendor stays on property should be determined between the vendor and the private property owner not the city. 1 If a vendor remains in a site "permanently" they should be subject to the same ordinances any permanent business/brick & mortar is. 1 Bring more! Become a foodie truck destination, along with bet gardens or wide allowance of drinks on hand like Savannah, GA. Love growth' 1 My concern would be that food items and dishes are then not always taken back to the commissary kitchens. Staying in one spot could potentially lead to less food safety and compromised cleanliness. 1 I don't see a problem if a vendor is on a private lot - only if it is blocking a street, or on a private residential driveway -- this is an issue. 1 Yes, Please make provisions for mobile Bicycle based Vendors, allowing for 6a.m. to 9p.m. mobile Vending from, on & adjacent to the Trails Systems, particularly Mason Trail. Count Response 18 114 Count Response 5 This Week - Oct. 19-23 2015 URL Variable: utm_campaign 19 115 Count Response 5 email URL Variable: utm_medium 20 116 Count Response 5 MailingList URL Variable: utm_source 21 117 22 118 Report for Update to Food Truck Vendor Requirements Completion Rate: 84.6% Complete 854 Partial 155 Disqualified 0 Total 1,009 1. Response Counts 2. Which of the following best describes you? Interested citizen: 86.4% Licensed outdoor food vendor: 2.7% Employee of a licensed outdoor food vendor: 0 .6% Business owner: 6.8% Restaurant owner/manager: 2.2% Other - Write In (Required): 1.3% Value Percent Count Interested citizen 86.4% 736 Licensed outdoor food vendor 2.7% 23 Total 852 119 Employee of a licensed outdoor food vendor 0.6% 5 Business owner 6.8% 58 Restaurant owner/manager 2.2% 19 Other - Write In (Required) 1.3% 11 Total 852 Value Percent Count 3. How familiar are you with outdoor food vendors operating within the City? Unfamiliar: 4.6% Somewhat familiar: 56.7% Very familiar: 38.7% Value Percent Count Unfamiliar 4.6% 39 Somewhat familiar 56.7% 484 Very familiar 38.7% 330 Total 853 120 4. Have you ever purchased food or merchandise from an outdoor vendor in Fort Collins? Yes: 98.2% No: 1.6% Not sure: 0 .1% Value Percent Count Yes 98.2% 837 No 1.6% 14 Not sure 0.1% 1 Total 852 5. How often do you purchase food or merchandise from outdoor vendors? 121 A couple of times a year: 19.9% Every other month: 19.4% Once a month: 36.6% Once a week: 18.1% More than once a week: 6.1% Value Percent Count A couple of times a year 19.9% 166 Every other month 19.4% 162 Once a month 36.6% 306 Once a week 18.1% 151 More than once a week 6.1% 51 Total 836 6. Do you own or operate an existing brick and mortar restaurant in Fort Collins? 122 Yes: 3.1% No: 94.9% Other - Write In: 1.1% Not applicable: 0 .9% Value Percent Count Yes 3.1% 26 No 94.9% 808 Other - Write In 1.1% 9 Not applicable 0.9% 8 Total 851 7. If you do own or operate an existing brick and mortar restaurant in Fort Collins, are you concerned with food truck vendors operating within close proximity to existing restaurants? 123 Yes: 2.1% No: 88.6% Please explain - Write In: 9.3% Value Percent Count Yes 2.1% 12 No 88.6% 507 Please explain - Write In 9.3% 53 Total 572 8. Which of the following separation requirements do you support - between existing brick and mortar restaurants (front entrance) and food truck vendor operations in the City? 124 No new separation requirements: 77.6% 50 foot separation: 6.8% 100 foot separation: 7.1% 200 foot separation: 1.2% 300 foot separation: 1.2% 40 0 foot separation: 0 .4% 500 foot separation: 1.1% Greater than 500 feet: 1.3% Other - Write In: 3.4% Value Percent Count No new separation requirements 77.6% 660 50 foot separation 6.8% 58 100 foot separation 7.1% 60 200 foot separation 1.2% 10 300 foot separation 1.2% 10 400 foot separation 0.4% 3 500 foot separation 1.1% 9 Greater than 500 feet 1.3% 11 Other - Write In 3.4% 29 Total 850 125 9. If a separation requirement between food vendor operations and existing brick and mortar restaurants is supported, should this restriction be applied just on the Downtown area, or citywide? Downtown area only: 23.9% Not sure: 28.3% Citywide: 25.1% Other - Write In (Required): 22.7% Value Percent Count Downtown area only 23.9% 192 Citywide 25.1% 202 Not sure 28.3% 228 Other - Write In (Required) 22.7% 183 Total 805 10. Which of the following options are appropriate for the maximum length of time a vendor is allowed to stay on a private lot (consecutive period of time or combination per day for active vending operation)? 126 No restrictions: 65.8% On-site for 12 hours: 13.3% On-site for 10 hours: 5.2% On-site for 8 hours: 5.3% On-site for 6 hours: 1.7% On-site for 4 hours: 1.2% Less than 4 hours: 0 .5% Not sure: 3.1% Other - Write In: 4.0% Value Percent Count No restrictions 65.8% 556 On-site for 12 hours 13.3% 112 On-site for 10 hours 5.2% 44 On-site for 8 hours 5.3% 45 On-site for 6 hours 1.7% 14 On-site for 4 hours 1.2% 10 Less than 4 hours 0.5% 4 Not sure 3.1% 26 Other - Write In 4.0% 34 Total 845 127 11. How long should mobile food truck vendors be required to remain off-site, after completing vending operation and returning to associated commissary kitchen to meet County Health Requirements and re- stocking supplies that day? No restrictions: 68.1% 2 hours: 4.3% 4 hours: 2.5% 6 hours: 2.9% Overnight - after 6:0 0 a.m. next calendar day: 18.6% 2 days: 1.2% Other - Write In: 2.5% Value Percent Count No restrictions 68.1% 571 2 hours 4.3% 36 4 hours 2.5% 21 6 hours 2.9% 24 Overnight - after 6:00 a.m. next calendar day 18.6% 156 2 days 1.2% 10 Other - Write In 2.5% 21 Total 839 128 12. Do you support mobile food truck vendors operating on a private lot on a semi-permanent basis? Yes: 86.8% No: 5.3% Not sure: 5.1% Other - Write In: 2.7% Value Percent Count Yes 86.8% 733 No 5.3% 45 Not sure 5.1% 43 Other - Write In 2.7% 23 Total 844 13. What additional requirements should the City consider to allow a food truck vendor to operate on a semi-permanent basis on a privately-owned lot? Select all that apply. 129 Percent Identified as a secon… Required to return to … Add commissary kitch… Add access to public r… Planning and Zoning r… New landscaping and … No additional require… Not sure Other - Write In 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Value Percent Count Identified as a second principal use with an existing primary principal business on property 10.7% 89 Required to return to associated commissary kitchen each day after vending operation, but then can return to site and park overnight 15.9% 132 Add commissary kitchen on-site 4.8% 40 Add access to public restrooms on-site 11.6% 96 Planning and Zoning review process and associated fees (in addition to Outdoor Vendor Licensing Requirements) 9.7% 80 New landscaping and other site improvements 4.0% 33 No additional requirements 54.6% 452 Not sure 15.1% 125 Other - Write In 2.9% 24 14. Do you have any other comments about the proposed new regulations regarding outdoor food truck vendors? collin k 130 food city collins business fort truck mortar restaurants brick or regulations businesses town vendors people restaurant restrictions great long owners love other community local 131 Report for Update to Food Truck Vendor Requirements - Restaurant Feedback Completion Rate: 75% Complete 6 Partial 2 Disqualified 0 Total 8 1. Response Counts 2. Which of the following best describes you? Restaurant owner/manager: 100.0% Value Percent Count Restaurant owner/manager 100.0% 6 Total 6 Attachment 6 132 3. How familiar are you with outdoor food vendors operating within the City? Somewhat familiar: 83.3% Very familiar: 16.7% Value Percent Count Somewhat familiar 83.3% 5 Very familiar 16.7% 1 Total 6 4. Have you ever purchased food or merchandise from an outdoor vendor in Fort Collins? Attachment 6 133 Yes: 83.3% No: 16.7% Value Percent Count Yes 83.3% 5 No 16.7% 1 Total 6 5. How often do you purchase food or merchandise from outdoor vendors? Attachment 6 134 A couple of times a year: 80.0% Every other month: 20.0% Value Percent Count A couple of times a year 80.0% 4 Every other month 20.0% 1 Total 5 6. Do you own or operate an existing brick and mortar restaurant in Fort Collins? Attachment 6 135 Yes: 100.0% Value Percent Count Yes 100.0% 6 Total 6 7. If you do own or operate an existing brick and mortar restaurant in Fort Collins, are you concerned with food truck vendors operating within close proximity to existing restaurants? Attachment 6 136 Yes: 83.3% No: 16.7% Value Percent Count Yes 83.3% 5 No 16.7% 1 Total 6 8. Which of the following separation requirements do you support - between existing brick and mortar restaurants (front entrance) and food truck vendor operations in the City? Attachment 6 137 500 foot separation: 83.3% Greater than 500 feet: 16.7% Value Percent Count 500 foot separation 83.3% 5 Greater than 500 feet 16.7% 1 Total 6 9. If a separation requirement between food vendor operations and existing brick and mortar restaurants is supported, should this restriction be applied just on the Downtown area, or citywide? Attachment 6 138 Citywide: 100.0% Value Percent Count Citywide 100.0% 6 Total 6 10. Which of the following options are appropriate for the maximum length of time a vendor is allowed to stay on a private lot (consecutive period of time or combination per day for active vending operation)? Attachment 6 139 No restrictions: 16.7% On-site for 8 hours: 16.7% Less than 4 hours: 16.7% On-site for 6 hours: 16.7% Other - Write In: 33.3% Value Percent Count No restrictions 16.7% 1 On-site for 8 hours 16.7% 1 On-site for 6 hours 16.7% 1 Less than 4 hours 16.7% 1 Other - Write In 33.3% 2 Total 6 11. How long should mobile food truck vendors be required to remain off-site, after completing vending operation and returning to associated commissary kitchen to meet County Health Requirements and re- stocking supplies that day? Attachment 6 140 No restrictions: 16.7% Overnight - after 6:0 0 a.m. next calendar day: 66.7% 2 days: 16.7% Value Percent Count No restrictions 16.7% 1 Overnight - after 6:00 a.m. next calendar day 66.7% 4 2 days 16.7% 1 Total 6 12. Do you support mobile food truck vendors operating on a private lot on a semi-permanent basis? Attachment 6 141 Yes: 16.7% No: 16.7% Not sure: 50.0% Other - Write In: 16.7% Value Percent Count Yes 16.7% 1 No 16.7% 1 Not sure 50.0% 3 Other - Write In 16.7% 1 Total 6 13. What additional requirements should the City consider to allow a food truck vendor to operate on a semi-permanent basis on a privately-owned lot? Select all that apply. Attachment 6 142 Percent Identified as a second p… Required to return to … Add access to public r… Planning and Zoning r… New landscaping and … No additional require… Not sure 0 50 25 75 Value Percent Count Identified as a second principal use with an existing primary principal business on property 16.7% 1 Required to return to associated commissary kitchen each day after vending operation, but then can return to site and park overnight 16.7% 1 Add access to public restrooms on-site 50.0% 3 Planning and Zoning review process and associated fees (in addition to Outdoor Vendor Licensing Requirements) 66.7% 4 New landscaping and other site improvements 33.3% 2 No additional requirements 16.7% 1 Not sure 33.3% 2 14. Do you have any other comments about the proposed new regulations regarding outdoor food truck vendors? Attachment 6 143 bank boxes festivals food including littered location mobile paperwork property trash trucks typically Attachment 6 144 May 26, 2016 Draft Page 1 ARTICLE XIV. - OUTDOOR VENDORS Sec. 15-381. - Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this Section: Block face shall mean the portion of a street between two (2) intersections, including all on-street parking within such boundaries. Commissary shall mean a commissary that is approved as such under the laws and regulations of the State and County that govern retail food establishments. Commissary-prepared shall mean prepared, cooked and assembled in a commissary, without further preparation, cooking or assembly after leaving said commissary. Food shall mean a raw, cooked or processed edible substance, ice, beverage or ingredient used or intended for use or for sale in whole or in part for human consumption. Food truck rally shall mean a temporary or periodic special event, operating under a special vending license, of more than two (2) outdoor vendors (such as food trucks and carts), held on an improved private lot with permission of the owner thereof, and only serving pedestrians. Licensee shall mean a person who has been issued a license under the provisions of this Article. Mobile food truck shall mean a motorized wheeled vehicle or towed wheeled vehicle designed and equipped to serve food. Mobile food truck shall include both "hot trucks," upon which food is cooked and prepared for vending, and "cold trucks," from which only commissary-prepared, ready-to-eat or packaged foods in individual servings are handled. Mobile food truck vendor shall mean an outdoor vendor who operates from a mobile food truck. Neighborhood mobile food vendor shall mean an outdoor vendor operating in locations on streets that are in neighborhood zone districts from a mobile food truck or pushcart licensed for use in the retail sale or service of only commissary-prepared, ready-to-eat or packaged food in individual servings. Neighborhood mobile food vendor shall not include a vendor operating from a mobile food truck or pushcart on which food is cooked. Neighborhood zone district shall mean one (1) of the following zone districts, as established in Article 4 of the Land Use Code: Rural Lands (R-U-L); Urban Estate (U-E); Residential Foothills (R-F); Low Density Residential (R-L); Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N); Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (M-M-N); Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density (N-C-L); Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density (N-C-M); Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer (N-C-B); and High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (H-M-N). Non-neighborhood zone district shall mean any zone district, as established in Article 4 of the Land Use Code, that is not a neighborhood zone district. 145 May 26, 2016 Draft Page 2 Old Town Plaza shall mean the outdoor plaza area owned and managed by the Downtown Development Authority within the area bounded on the south by the northern edge of the Mountain Avenue right-of-way; on the west by the eastern edge of the College Avenue right-of- way; on the north and northeast by the southern and southwestern edge of the Walnut Street right-of-way; and on the east by the most westerly point at which the Walnut Street and Mountain Avenue rights-of-way intersect. Outdoor vendor or vendor shall mean any person, whether as owner, agent, consignee or employee, who sells or attempts to sell, or who offers to the public free of charge, any services, goods, wares or merchandise, including, but not limited to, food or beverage, from any outdoor location, except that outdoor vendor shall not include a person who: (1) Vends from private premises where the same or similar services or goods are also offered on a regular basis from an indoor location on such premises; (2) Vends from a public sidewalk pursuant to a City encroachment permit if the person vending also vends the same or similar services or goods on a regular basis from an indoor location on premises immediately adjacent to such location; (3) Vends directly and exclusively to manufacturers, wholesalers or retailers for the purpose of resale; (4) Vends by or on behalf of the City or at an outdoor event sponsored by the City; (5) Vends from property owned by the City, if such vending is pursuant to a concession agreement or other agreement with the City or is pursuant to a facility-specific permit issued for operation at said facility by the City department authorized to issue such permits, such as a permit to operate in a park or recreation area or on a trail pursuant to Subsection 23-203(d) of this Code; (6) Vends from a public sidewalk within the Downtown Zone District, as defined and established in the Land Use Code, pursuant to a concession agreement with the City; (7) Vends from and within Old Town Plaza under a written license or other agreement with the Downtown Development Authority; (8) Vends at a yard sale; provided, however, that this exception shall not apply to a person who has vended at five (5) or more previous yard sales within the preceding twelve (12) months; (9) Vends as part of an auction conducted pursuant to a license issued by the City under Division 2, Article IV of this Chapter; (10) Vends outdoor transportation services as a public utility under a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission; or (11) Vends food or catering services at an individual private residence for a private event. Outdoor vendor of miscellaneous goods and services shall mean an outdoor vendor who offers miscellaneous goods or services to the public on private property. Outdoor vendor of miscellaneous goods and services shall include, but not be limited to, Christmas tree lots, pumpkin patches and other temporary outdoor holiday sales; vehicle windshield chip repair; temporary car wash events; and temporary nonprofit fundraising sales. 146 May 26, 2016 Draft Page 3 Outdoor vendor of transportation services shall mean an outdoor vendor (not regulated by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission) who offers transportation services to the public. Outdoor vendor of transportation services shall include, but not be limited to, vendors of valet parking services; transportation services by pedal power such as pedi-cab or conference bicycle services; horse-drawn carriage rides; or other means of transportation service offered for hire. Packaged shall mean bottled, canned, cartoned, securely bagged or securely wrapped, whether packaged in a food establishment or a food processing plant. Packaged shall not include a product in a wrapper, carry-out box or other nondurable container used to protect food during the service and receipt of the food by the consumer. Private shall mean relating or belonging to an individual or non-governmental entity as opposed to the public or government. any location that is not a public right-of-way or public street, alley or sidewalk. Pushcart shall mean a mobile vending cart, pushcart or trailer that is not motorized or attached to a vehicle for towing and that does not exceed ten (10) feet in length (excluding the length of the trailer hitch, if any), four (4) feet in width or eight (8) feet in height. A pushcart may be used to cook and prepare food for vending or to serve commissary prepared, ready-to-eat or packaged food in individual servings. Pushcart vendor shall mean an outdoor vendor operating from a pushcart. Ready-to-eat food shall mean food that is edible and that is in the form in which it is reasonably expected to be consumed without further washing, cooking or additional preparation. Special vending license shall mean a temporary outdoor vendor license issued pursuant to Subsection 15-382(c) below for outdoor vending at an occasional, temporary event located solely on a single private lot when the event does not require the issuance of a special events permit under Chapter 23.5 of this Code, which event may include, without limitation, a food truck rally. Stationary vending shall mean an outdoor vendor vending from the same private parcel of land or lot for more than three (3) consecutive calendar days or for more than three (3) calendar days within a single calendar week and, when doing so, is vending from a mobile food truck, pushcart or any other vehicle. Stationary vendor shall mean an outdoor vendor who engages in stationary vending. Vehicle shall mean a device capable of moving itself, or being moved, from place to place upon wheels or endless tracks. Vend or vending shall mean the sale, attempt to sell or offering to the public of any services, goods, wares or merchandise. Yard sale shall mean the offering of goods for sale for no longer than a period of three (3) consecutive days, from an informal stand or display on an individual residential lot in a residential zone district by or on behalf of the owner or resident of the lot, provided that such owner or resident is not in the business of selling at retail or wholesale the goods offered at the 147 May 26, 2016 Draft Page 4 yard sale. Yard sale shall include, but not be limited to, yard sales, garage sales, lemonade stands and bake sales. Sec. 15-382. - License required. (a) It shall be unlawful for any outdoor vendor to engage in such business within the City without first obtaining a license in compliance with the provisions of this Article. (b) Any person who arranges for or allows one (1) or more outdoor vendors to operate at a special event held pursuant to a license issued under Chapter 23.5 of this Code must obtain an outdoor vendor license under this Article. Upon the issuance of such license, the outdoor vendors vending at such special event shall be relieved of the obligation to obtain individual licenses under this Article in order to operate as part of said special event. Notwithstanding the provisions of § 15-386 and § 15-387 of this Article, the requirements applicable to outdoor vendors operating as part of a special event held under a license issued pursuant to Chapter 23.5 of this Code shall be determined by the Financial Officer on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the location, nature and scope of the special event, and any related circumstances. (c) The Financial Officer may issue a special vending license to a person responsible for an occasional, temporary event located solely on a single private lot when the event does not require the issuance of a special events permit under Chapter 23.5 of this Code. Notwithstanding the provisions of § 15-386 and § 15-387 of this Article, the requirements applicable to outdoor vendors operating as part of a special vending license event shall be determined by the Financial Officer on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the location, nature and scope of the special vending event and any related circumstances. The number and type of outdoor vendors to be allowed as part of a licensed event shall be determined by the Financial Officer based on the specific circumstances of the proposed event, including, but not limited to, the location of the event, the size of the lot where the event is held, the types of surrounding land uses and their proximity to the event, such as restaurant buildings and residences, and any other potential impacts on public health, safety or welfare that the proposed event may have. Upon the issuance of such special vending license, an outdoor vendor operating within the terms of and as part of a special vending license shall not be required to obtain a separate outdoor vendor license for that operation. (d) The application fee to be paid to the City for the issuance, modification or renewal of any license pursuant to this Article shall be set by the City Manager pursuant to his or her authority to establish administrative fees as set forth in Chapter 7.5 of this Code. Sec. 15-383. - Application for license; license modifications. (a) An application for a license under this Article shall be submitted to the Financial Officer no less than five (5) working days prior to the first day of proposed operation. (b) A license may be issued under this Article for a period of either six (6) months or twelve (12) months, except that a special vending license as described in Subsection 15-382(c) above may be issued for a specified period not to exceed three (3) days. (c) A request for a modification of a license to add new vehicles, operations or locations or to modify other license restrictions or conditions, as applicable, shall be submitted to the 148 May 26, 2016 Draft Page 5 Financial Officer and shall meet all of the requirements and be reviewed in the same manner as an application for a license hereunder. The term of a license may not be modified to extend beyond the originally applicable six- or twelve-month period. Sec. 15-384. - Contents of application. (a) The application shall contain the following information: (1) Name, address and telephone number of the applicant and, if other than the applicant, name, address and telephone number of the person managing or supervising the applicant's business during the proposed period of operation; and, if a corporation, the state under which it is incorporated and appropriate evidence of good standing to do business in the State; (2) Type of operation to be conducted, including the particular type of service, goods, wares or merchandise to be sold; (3) A description of the design of any vehicle, pushcart, kiosk, table, chair, stand, box, container or other structure or display device to be used in the operation by the applicant, including the size and color, together with any logo, printing or sign which will be utilized by the applicant, and the license plate and registration information for any vehicle to be used; (4) The proposed period of operation, if less than the entire six- or twelve-month license period; (5) The proposed hours and days of operation; (6) An address or legal description for Eeach location on private property and an address or other description acceptable to the Financial Officer for each public right-of-way location for which the application is made; (7) Written consent of the property owner if the location for which the application is made is on private property; (8) Proof of liability insurance as required by Subsection 15-387(c) of this Article; (9) A plan of each (not every) location on private property for which the application is made, showing the location of existing and proposed structures, access, equipment and parking; (10) Documentation of a sales and use tax license in good standing issued by the Colorado Department of Revenue, the County and the City; and (11) For the vending of food, documentation of regulatory approval as a retail food establishment by the County; and (12) For an application to engage in stationary vending, documentation that the owner of the private property from which the stationary vending is proposed to be conducted has received under the Land Use Code all approvals required for such vending on that property. (b) The Financial Officer may request and require such additional information as he or she deems necessary in order to consider the application and make the required determinations 149 May 26, 2016 Draft Page 6 as set forth in this Article. The time frame for review of any application shall be suspended during the pendency of any such request for additional information. Sec. 15-385. - Review and approval. (a) Applications shall be considered individually and in chronological order as established by the date of receipt of a properly completed application. However, no application will be accepted for review more than sixty (60) days prior to the proposed period of operation. Within five (5) working days of the filing of an application under § 15-384 above, the Financial Officer shall review such application and shall make a determination as to whether the application contains the required information and, if so, whether the issuance of a license is consistent with the requirements of this Article and compatible with the public interest. In making such determination, the Financial Officer shall consider the following factors and may consider other factors the Financial Officer considers necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public: (1) The degree of congestion of any public right-of-way that may result from the proposed use and the design and location of any operating locations on private property, including the probable impact of the proposed use on the safe flow of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Factors to be considered shall include but not be limited to, the width of streets and sidewalks, the volume of traffic and the availability of off-street parking; (2) The proximity, size, design and location of existing street fixtures and furniture at or near the specified locations, including, but not limited to, sign posts, lampposts, bus stops, benches, telephone booths, planters and newspaper vending devices; (3) The probable impact of the proposed use on the maintenance, care and security of the specified location; (4) The recommendations of the Planning, Development and Transportation Services Director and the Community and Operations Services, insofar as the specified locations may affect the operation of those service areas, based upon the factors recited herein; and (5) The level and types of outdoor vendor activity already licensed for the specific locations proposed in the application, and the impacts that the issuance of a license may have on surrounding properties. (b) The Financial Officer shall also obtain the determination of the Zoning Administrator as to whether the proposed use conforms to the requirements of the Land Use Code as applied to any specified location. If the Zoning Administrator determines the proposed use is not in compliance with the requirements of the Land Use Code, the application shall not be approved. (c) If the Financial Officer determines that the issuance of a requested outdoor vendor license would be consistent with the requirements of this Article, with or without additional conditions, the Financial Officer shall issue the license, subject to any such conditions. If the Financial Officer determines that the issuance of an outdoor vendor license would not be consistent with the requirements of this Article, the Financial Officer shall notify the 150 May 26, 2016 Draft Page 7 applicant of his or her determination in writing, with an explanation of the reasons for such denial. Sec. 15-386. - Requirements for issuance. (a) Each license shall be valid only for the specific location or locations described on the face of the license. (b) In addition to the licensee's name, address and telephone number, the license shall contain the following: (1) The type or types of vendor operation the licensee will conduct (i.e., mobile truck vendor, stationary vendor, pushcart vendor, etc.); (2) The period of time for which the license was issued; (3) The hours and days of operation; (4) The designated location or locations, including specified types of public rights-of-way, as applicable; (5) A brief description of any vehicle, cart, kiosk, table, chair, stand, box, container or other structure or display device to be utilized by the licensee; (6) Any special terms and conditions of issuance; (7) A statement that the license is personal and is not transferable in any manner; (8) A statement that the license is valid only when used at the location or locations designated on the license; and (9) A statement that the license is subject to the provisions of this Article. Sec. 15-387. - Restrictions and operation. (a) No licensee may use, for the purpose of on-site storage, display or sale, any vehicle, cart, kiosk, table, chair, stand, box, container or other structure or display device not described on the face of the license. (b) No such The vehicles, structures, or devices and other similar items described on the face of the license for any outdoor vendor shall not referred to in Subsection (a) above shall be located by the vendor in any of the following manners or places: (1) In any on-street parking space that is not parallel to the adjacent street; (2) In any public parking space in a manner that does not comply with applicable parking regulations or a properly issued parking permit for the use of said parking space; (3) Upon a public sidewalk within the extended boundaries of a crosswalk; (4) Within ten (10) feet of the extension of any building entranceway, doorway or driveway; (5) Upon a public sidewalk within the Downtown Zone District, as defined and established in Article 4 of the Land Use Code (except as a concessionaire of the City); 151 May 26, 2016 Draft Page 8 (6) Upon a public right-of-way, or public street, alley or sidewalk within a City park or other City facility (except as a concessionaire or pursuant to a permit issued for operation in a park or recreation area or on a trail pursuant to Subsection 23-203(d) of this Code, or for operation at another City facility pursuant to a facility-specific permit issued by the City); or (7) In any location in which the vehicle, structure or device may impede or interfere with or visually obstruct: a. the safe movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic; b. parking lot circulation; or c. access to any public street, alley or sidewalk; or (8) Leave outdoors overnight (3:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m.) the mobile food truck, pushcart and other vehicles from which the vendor vends at any location authorized in the vendor’s license, unless the vendor is a stationary vendor and is the owner of the licensed location or of the principal business on the licensed location. (c) No licensee shall operate during the hours of 3:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. (d) Each licensee who, during the course of its licensed activities, operates within or enters upon a public right-of-way or publicly owned property shall maintain liability insurance in an amount to be determined by the Financial Officer according to administrative regulation with proof of the same to be presented at the time of submission of the application. Any licensee who fails to provide proof of such insurance shall be prohibited from operating within or entering upon such property. (e) Each licensee shall pick up and dispose of any paper, cardboard, wood or plastic containers, wrappers or any litter which is deposited within twenty-five (25) feet of the designated location or within twenty-five (25) feet of the point of any sale or transaction made by the licensee if the radius of the designated location exceeds twenty-five (25) feet. The licensee shall carry a suitable container for the placement of such litter by customers or other persons. (f) Each licensee shall maintain in safe condition any vehicle, structure, or device or any other similar item as described on the face of the license, in Subsection (a) above so as not to create an unreasonable risk of harm to the person or property of others, and shall use flashing lights and other similar warning and safety indicators when stopped to vend services in any location in a street right-of-way. (g) No licensee shall leave unattended for more than fifteen (15) minutes at any one time while vending any vehicle, structure, or device or any other similar item as described on the face of the license, in Subsection (a) above on a public right-of-way or at any licensed location, or place on public sidewalks or in public streets or alleys any structures, canopies, tables, chairs or other furniture or equipment. (h) Each licensee shall prominently display the license issued hereunder in a location readily visible to the public on each vehicle, structure, or device and any other similar item as described on the face of the license in Subsection (a) above. 152 May 26, 2016 Draft Page 9 (i) Each licensee operating in an on-street location must serve the public only from the sidewalk and not from the street or adjacent parking spaces. (j) Each licensee shall comply with the provisions of all applicable ordinances of the City as well as the requirements of all state and federal laws, including, but not limited to, City noise restrictions, sign regulations, limitations on discharge of liquid waste, sales and use tax requirements and food safety and other related requirements established by State or County regulation. (k) No more than two (2) outdoor vendors of any specified type may be licensed to operate concurrently on any lot, tract or parcel of land, except that this limitation shall not apply to special vending licenses and licenses for special events as described in § 15-382 of this Article. (l) Each licensee shall have an affirmative and independent duty to determine the safety and suitability of any particular stopping point or location of operation, both in general and at any particular time and to operate in a manner reasonably calculated to avoid and prevent harm to others in the vicinity of the licensee's operations, including, but not limited to, potential and actual customers, pedestrians and other vendors or vehicles. (m) No licensee shall operate from a location that is not authorized in the licensee’s license. (n) Licensees that vend from mobile food trucks, pushcarts or any other vehicles shall not operate from a location approved in the licensee’s license for more than three (3) consecutive calendar days or for more than three (3) calendar days within a single calendar week, unless the licensee is authorized in the license to operate as a stationary vendor at that location. (o) No licensee shall vend for more than ten (10) hours per calendar day from any one location approved in the licensee’s license. (p m) The following additional requirements shall apply to particular types of outdoor vendor licensees, as specified: (1) Mobile food truck vendors shall: a. Vend only on lots in non-neighborhood zone districts or on streets in locations in non-neighborhood zone districts where parallel parking is allowed; b. Not stop to vend within two hundred (200) feet of the property boundary of any public or private school for students within the grade range of kindergarten through twelfth (12th) grade; c. Vend only food and nonalcoholic beverages; and d. Permanently affix or paint any signage on the mobile food truck, with no signs/banners in or alongside street right-of-way or across roadways. (2) Pushcart vendors shall: a. Vend only on lots in non-neighborhood zone districts or on streets in locations in non-neighborhood zone districts where parallel parking is allowed; 153 May 26, 2016 Draft Page 10 b. Not stop to vend within two hundred (200) feet of the property boundary of any public or private school for students within the grade range of kindergarten through twelfth (12th) grade; c. Vend only food and nonalcoholic beverages; and d. Stop to vend only in locations that are no more than twelve (12) inches from a curb or edge of travel lane. (3) Neighborhood mobile food vendors shall: a. Vend only on streets in locations in neighborhood zone districts where parallel parking is allowed; b. Not stop to vend within two hundred (200) feet of the property boundary of any public or private school for students within the grade range of kindergarten through twelfth (12th) grade; c. Vend only during the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.; d. Vend only food and nonalcoholic beverages; e. Stop to vend only in locations that are no more than twelve (12) inches from a curb or edge of travel lane; and f. Not stop to vend for more than fifteen (15) minutes in any particular cul-de-sac, or on any particular block face. (4) Outdoor vendors of miscellaneous goods and services shall operate only on lots in nonresidential zone districts. (5) Outdoor vendors of transportation services shall: a. Operate in accordance with all vehicular traffic laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, equipment requirements such as front and back lights and side reflectors; b. Limit stopping and standing in street rights-of-way or alleys so as to avoid delay or obstruction of traffic; c. Stop to vend services only in locations that are no more than twelve (12) inches from a curb or edge of travel lane; and d. Operate so as to avoid obstruction of pedestrian traffic and not on sidewalks. (6) Stationary vendors shall only vend on private parcels of land or lots within non- neighborhood zone districts, but they shall not vend from a private parcel or lot within the Downtown Zone District, as defined and established in Article 4 of the Land Use Code, and they shall not vend from a private parcel or lot within any neighborhood zone district. Sec. 15-388. - Renewal. Renewal of a license shall be treated as a new application under the provisions of this Article. Any violation by the licensee of the provisions of this Article shall be an additional factor to be considered in the review and approval procedure described in § 15-385 of this Article. 154 May 26, 2016 Draft Page 11 Sec. 15-389. - Transfer of license or location. If the licensee requests the transfer of a license to a new licensee or to a new location, such request shall be treated as a new application. Sec. 15-390. - Restrictions due to changed conditions. The Financial Officer may suspend the vending operation of any licensee or all licensees at any designated location if he or she determines that the licensed activity in that location will no longer meet the requirements of this Article due to construction activity or other changed conditions affecting public health, safety or welfare. In such event, the Financial Officer shall provide written notice to the affected licensee or licensees, and the authorization to operate in such location shall not be reinstated until such time, if at all, as the licensed operations may be safely resumed in the judgment of the City Engineer. Any such suspension shall not extend the term of the affected license or licenses. Sec. 15-391. - Revocation or nonrenewal. The Financial Officer may temporarily suspend, or permanently revoke and shall not renew, any license issued pursuant to this Article if the Financial Officer determines that any of the following have occurred: (1) Fraud, material misrepresentation or false statement in the application for the license or any renewal application; (2) Failure to obtain a sales and use tax license as required by the City or to remit any sales tax due the City; (3) Failure to operate or supervise operations conducted under the license, so as to reasonably ensure that such operation is in compliance with the terms of the license and with the provisions of this Article; or (4) Authorizing, condoning or knowingly tolerating any unlawful vending operations or any operation conducted in such a manner as to constitute a menace to the health, safety or general welfare of the public. Sec. 15-392. - Violations and penalties. In addition to the suspension, revocation or denial of any license issued hereunder, any person who violates the provisions of this Article may be punished by a fine or imprisonment or both, in accordance with § 1-15 of this Code. Sec. 15-393. - Administration. The Financial Officer shall administer the provisions of this Article and is authorized to promulgate reasonable rules and regulations for its administration and implementation. Such rules and regulations shall include a process for obtaining input from interested parties concerning the granting of outdoor vendor licenses and the selection of concessionaires. 155 May 26, 2016 Draft Page 12 Sec. 15-394. - Appeal. An applicant or licensee may appeal any decision relating to his or her application or license by the Financial Officer to the City Manager in accordance with Chapter 2, Article VI of this Code. The City Manager's decision shall be final. Secs. 15-395—15-410. - Reserved. 156 Permits • Hours of Operation • Outdoor vendors can only operate during hours that the "fixed- base business" operates, and not during the hours of 10pm-6am Mobility • Vending facility must be removed from site or stored indoors when 1. (20.80.890) Conditions of issuance. All outdoor vending facilities must comply with the following conditions: 2. (H) The hours of operation of a vending facility shall be limited to the hours of operation of the fixed-base businesses on the fixed-base host site; however no vending facility shall operate during the hours from 10:00 p.m. through 6:00 a.m. During hours in which the fixed-base host site businesses are closed, the vending facility shall be removed from the parcel or lot on which it operates, or shall be stored indoors. 95 • No regulations 1. (H.1.)Peddlers and vendors wishing to sell goods anywhere in the city shall comply with NMC Chapter 5.40. 2. (H.3.) Any peddler or vendor operating on private property (other than at non-profit special events) requires a use permit. 94 on a single property (7 total including set up and break down) Mobility • No regulations 1. (H.) No mobile or temporary business may conduct operations at a fixed location for more than two hours at one time unless the location is approved by the city as part of the permit. 2. (B.) Mobile business operations may not exceed six consecutive hours on a single property except an additional hour is allowed for set-up and take-down for a maximum time of seven hours total. 93 days in a calendar year 1. (2) Any operator of a mobile food vending service must receive a zoning use permit and display placard from Neighborhood Development. The maximum duration of a mobile food vending service permit is for thirty (30) days at one location, renewable up to two (2) additional times, for a total period of ninety (90) days per calendar year at that one location. 92 Exemptions • Regulations do not apply to mobile establishments located 1. (C.) A mobile food establishment: a. (1) must be licensed by the health authority; b. (2) is permitted in all commercial and industrial zoning districts, except in a neighborhood office (NO), limited office (LO), 91 • Maximum of 8 hours inside Downtown Mobility • No Requirements 1. (d.1) Any person operating a peddler's wagon or truck on the streets of the City shall not keep such wagon or truck, or any other conveyance used in such peddling, in one (1) place more than four (4) hours at a time. 2. (d.2) A new location, in the meaning of this Subsection, shall be at least three hundred (300) feet from the previous location. 3. (e.3) The downtown vendors permit will allow the peddler to park his or her wagon or approved conveyance in any of the designated vendor areas of the downtown area for a maximum of eight (8) hours in any one (1) designated area, notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection (d) of this Section. 4. (f) The licensee shall not leave unattended any such vehicle, structure or device on a public right-of-way or at the designated location. Longmont, CO Permits • Permit valid for one year • Permit must be 1. Mobile retail food establishments and pushcarts must be removed from any site at the end of each business day (unless otherwise approved). 90 JUNIPER LN CENTER AVE BALSAM LN OVAL DR MOBY DR BAY DR JOHNSON DR HERITAGE CIR JAMES CT W PITKIN ST ± Site 56 WIRE, TYP. NOTE: THE WIRE BETWEEN THE STAKE AND THE TREE MUST HAVE SLACK 5' MIN. GROMMETED NYLON STRAP, TYP. NOTE: WIRE BASKETS AND TWINE SHALL BE COMPLETELY REMOVED PRIOR TO TREE INSTALLATION. THAN FINISH GRADE TOP OF ROOT CROWN TO BE 1" HIGHER DRIVE THREE (3) T-POSTS PER TREE FOR TREES OVER 6' IN HEIGHT. DRIVE TWO (2) T-POSTS FOR TREES 6' IN HEIGHT OR LESS. SPACE ANCHORS EQUALLY AROUND TRUNK. AVOID DAMAGE TO BRANCHES. EXISTING SOIL SLOW RELEASE FERTILIZER TABLET (TYP.) BACKFILL W/ 2/3 NATIVE SOIL & 1/3 COMPOST. THOROUGHLY WATER SETTLE REMOVE WIRE CAGE AND/OR TWINE. OPEN BURLAP AROUND TRUNK. CUT & REMOVE TOP 1/3 OF BURLAP 18" MIN., TYP. SECTION 12" MIN. ROOTBALL THAN DIA. OF 24" GREATER FINISH GRADE PLAN TREE TRUNK T-POST GROMMETED NYLON STRAP, TYP. WIRE, TYP. NOTE: THE WIRE BETWEEN THE STAKE AND THE TREE MUST HAVE SLACK TOP OF ROOT CROWN TO BE 1" HIGHER THAN FINISH GRADE NOTE: WIRE BASKETS AND TWINE SHALL BE COMPLETELY REMOVED PRIOR TO TREE INSTALLATION. NOTE: CEDAR MULCH TREE RING SHALL BE 36" DIA. 2" MULCH ROOTBALL DEPTH ROOTBALL DEPTH ROOTBALL DEPTH TIE GROMMETED NYLON STRAPS TO STAKE WITH WIRE. WIRE ENDS SHALL BE BENT BACK TO ELIMINATE BURRS AND WHITE PVC PIPE ALONG ENTIRE LENGTH OF WIRE FOR VISUAL AND SAFETY NON IRRIGATED NATIVE GRASS - NATIVE GRASS - CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATIVE PRAIRIE SEED MIX 1. SEED SHALL BE AS MANUFACTURED BY ARKANSAS VALLEY SEED SOLUTIONS, 4625 COLORADO BOULEVARD, DENVER, CO 80216, (877) 957-3337 OR APPROVED EQUAL. 2. SEED SHALL BE A MIXTURE THAT MATCHES THE FOLLOWING: SCIENTIFIC NAME (VAR.) COMMON NAME PLS LBS./ACRE* GRASSES ARISTIDA PURPUREA PURPLE THREE-AWN 2 BUCHLOE DACTYLOIDES BUFFALOGRASS 8 CHONDROSUM GRACILE BLUE GRAMA 3 ELYMUS ELYMOIDES SQUIRRELTAIL 2 PASCOPYRUM SMITHII (ARRIBA) WESTERN WHEATGRASS 6 POA SECUNDA SANDBERG BLUEGRASS 1/2 STIPA COMATE NEEDLE AND THREAD 4 SUBTOTAL 25 ½ FORBES ASTERMISIA FRIGIDA FRINGED SAGE 1/16 COREOPSIS TINCTORIA PLAINS COREOPSIS 1/16 ERYSIMUM ASPERMUM PLAINS WALLFLOWER 1/8 GAILARDIA PULCHELLA BLANKET FLOWER 1/2 LIATRIS PUNCTATE DOTTED GAYFEATHER 1/2 PENSTEMON ANGUSTIFOLIUS NARROWLEAF PENSTEMON 1/2 RATIBIDA COLUMNIFERA PRAIRIE CONEFLOWER 1/8 RUDBECKIA HIRTA GLORIOSA DAISY 1/16 SPHAERALCEA COCCINIA SCARLET GLOBEMALLOW 1/16 SUBTOTAL 2 TOTAL 27 ½ 3. DRILLED IN TWO PERPENDICULAR DIRECTIONS PER SPECIFIED APPLICATION RATE. DOUBLE THE APPLICATION RATE IF BROADCASTING SEED. 4. ADEQUATE TEMPORARY IRRIGATION OR BY WATER TRUCK WILL BE PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF THESE SEEDED AREAS, AND THAT NATIVE GRASSES SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION OF ACCEPTABLE, COVERAGE, HEIGHT, FREE OF WEEDS, TRASH AND DEBRIS, AND SHALL NOT BECOME A NUISANCE SITE FOR WATER OR WIND EROSION NOR REPRESENT A FIRE HAZARD. IRRIGATED TURF GRASS SEED MIX- 1. SEED MIX SHALL BE DURA-TURF MIX AS MANUFACTURED BY GRAFF'S TURF FARM1 (800) 280-TURF 1. DRILLED / APPLIED PER MANUFACTURES RECOMMENDATION AND SPECIFICATIONS 2. APPLICATION RATE: PER GRAFF'S TURF RECOMMENDATION AND SPECIFICATIONS. MULCH IN ALL NATIVE SEED AREAS: 1. IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE RAKING / SEEDING OPERATION, ADD STRAW MULCH TO THE SEEDED AREAS. 2. APPLY STRAW MULCH AT A MINIMUM OF 1.5 TONS PER ACRE OF AIR DRY MATERIAL. SPREAD STRAW MULCH UNIFORMLY OVER THE AREA WITH MECHANICAL MULCH SPREADER / CRIMPER. DO NOT MULCH WHEN WIND VELOCITY EXCEEDS 10 MPH. 3. WHEREVER THE USE OF CRIMPING EQUIPMENT IS PRACTICAL, PLACE MULCH IN THE MANNER NOTED ABOVE AND ANCHOR IT INTO THE SOIL. USE A DISC SUCH AS A MULCH TILLER, WITH A FLAT SERRATED DISC AT LEAS ¼ INCH IN THICKNESS, HAVING DULL EDGES, AND SPACE NO MORE THAN 9 INCHES APART, WITH DISCS OF SUFFICIENT DIAMETER TO PREVENT THE FRAME OF THE EQUIPMENT FROM DRAGGING THE MULCH. ANCHOR MULCH A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 2 INCHES AND ACROSS THE SLOPE WHERE PRACTICAL WITH NO MORE THAN TWO PASSES OF THE ANCHORING EQUIPMENT. 4. IMMEDIATELY UPON COMPLETION OF THE MULCHING AND BINDING OPERATION, THE SEEDED AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED, KEEPING THE TOP 2 INCHES OF SOIL EVENLY MOIST UNTIL SEED HAS UNIFORMLY GERMINATED AND GROWN TO A HEIGHT OF 2-INCHES. 5. WATERING APPLICATION SHALL BE DONE IN A MANNER WHICH WILL PROVIDE UNIFORM COVERAGE BUT WHICH WILL NOT CAUSE EROSION, MOVEMENT, OR DAMAGE TO THE FINISHED SURFACE. 1 Z 10" min. CDOT No. 4 Aggregate Bottom Width(W) 4" Perforated HDPE Pipe Sideslope: Z > 4 6" Pea Gravel Layer 12" Bio-Retention Sand Media TURF AREAS TO BE SEEDED PER NOTES 2" min Min. 30-mil HDPE Impervious Membrane 2-year flow Depth (D) < 1.0 feet FORT COLLINS, CO ARROWHEAD COTTAGES GROUP landscape architecture|planning|illustration 444 Mountain Ave. Behtroud,CO 80513 TEL WEB 970.532.5891 TBGroup.us PROJECT TITLE REVISIONS ISSUE DATE SHEET TITLE SHEET INFORMATION DATE SEAL January 27, 2016 DATE PREPARED FOR LANDMARK REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS LLC 1170 W Ash St # 100 Windsor, CO 80550-4783 (970) 460-0567 CONTACT: Jason Sherrill MAJOR AMENDMENT COMMENTS 2/17/16 COMMENTS 4/12/16 COMMENTS 5/6/16 General Landscape Notes 1. ENTIRE IRRIGATION SYSTEM WITH RAIN SENSOR TO BE DESIGNED FOR LANDSCAPE SHOWN ON PLAN AND BUILT BY CONTRACTOR UTILIZING EXISTING IRRIGATION SYSTEM. IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY P.S.I. AND GPM AVAILABLE. SYSTEM SHALL BE DESIGNED TO MEET THE AVAILABLE P.S.I. AND GPM. 2. ALL INDICATED SOD GRASS AREAS ARE TO BE IRRIGATED BY A PERMANENT UNDERGROUND AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM. TURF AREAS LESS THAN 25 FEET IN WIDTH ARE TO BE IRRIGATED WITH POP-UP SPRAY HEADS AND AREAS GREATER THAN 25FEET SHALL USE A ROTOR POP-UP SPRAY SYSTEM. 3. ALL TREES, SHRUBS AND PERENNIALS OUTSIDE OF POP-UP IRRIGATED AREAS, ARE TO BE IRRIGATED WITH A PERMANENT DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM WITH RAIN SENSOR. IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND NECESSARY SLEEVING WILL BE DESIGNED AND BUILT BY CONTRACTOR AND ADJUSTED TO A LOW WATER REQUIREMENT, BASED ON THE NEEDS OF SELECTED PLANT MATERIAL. 4. QUICK COUPLERS SHALL BE PROVIDED AT EACH POINT OF CONNECTION AND AT REGULAR SPACING ALONG THE IRRIGATION MAINLINE. SPACING OF QUICK COUPLES SHALL NOT EXCEED 200 FEET. LOCATE QUICK COUPLING VALVE AT A POINT OF EASY ACCESS. 5. ALL IRRIGATION TRENCHES SHALL BE PROPERLY WATERED AND COMPACTED TO AVOID FUTURE SETTLING. ANY SETTLING DURING WARRANTY PERIOD WILL BE REPAIRED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. 6. COORDINATE ALL IRRIGATION WORK WITH EXISTING UTILITIES AND RESPECTIVE TRADES. 7. ALL IRRIGATION SLEEVING SHALL BE PROVIDED AND INSTALLED BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR. IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE SLEEVING LOCATIONS WITH GENERAL CONTRACTOR. ALL IRRIGATION SLEEVING TO BE STAKED IN THE FIELD OR LOCATED ON DIMENSIONED "AS-BUILT" DRAWING BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO ALLOW FUTURE USE AND LOCATION. Tree Protection Notes Irrigation Notes 1. PLANT QUALITY: ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE A-GRADE OR NO. 1 GRADE - FREE OF ANY DEFECTS, OF NORMAL HEALTH, HEIGHT, LEAF DENSITY AND SPREAD APPROPRIATE TO THE SPECIES AS DEFINED BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN (AAN) STANDARDS. ALL TREES SHALL BE BALL AND BURLAP OR EQUIVALENT. 2. IRRIGATION: ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS WITHIN THE SITE INCLUDING TURF, SHRUB BEDS AND TREE AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM. THE IRRIGATION PLAN MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WATER UTILITIES DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. ALL TURF AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC POP-UP IRRIGATION SYSTEM. ALL SHRUB BEDS AND TREES, INCLUDING IN NATIVE SEED AREAS, SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC DRIP (TRICKLE) IRRIGATION SYSTEM, OR WITH AN ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE APPROVED BY THE CITY WITH THE IRRIGATION PLANS. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO MEET THE WATER REQUIREMENTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL PLANT MATERIAL. 3. TOPSOIL: TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE, TOPSOIL THAT IS REMOVED DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHALL BE CONSERVED FOR LATER USE ON AREAS REQUIRING REVEGETATION AND LANDSCAPING. 4. SOIL AMENDMENTS: SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED AND DOCUMENTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY CODE SECTION 12-132. THE SOIL IN ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS, INCLUDING PARKWAYS AND MEDIANS, SHALL BE THOROUGHLY LOOSENED TO A DEPTH OF NOT LESS THAN EIGHT(8) INCHES AND SOIL AMENDMENT SHALL BE THOROUGHLY INCORPORATED INTO THE SOIL OF ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS TO A DEPTH OF AT LEAST SIX(6) INCHES BY TILLING, DISCING OR OTHER SUITABLE METHOD, AT A RATE OF AT LEAST THREE (3) CUBIC YARDS OF SOIL AMENDMENT PER ONE THOUSAND (1,000) SQUARE FEET OF LANDSCAPE AREA. Prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy, A written certification MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY that all planted areas, or areas to be planted, have been thoroughly loosened and the soil amended, consistent with the requirements set forth in SECTION 12-132. 5. INSTALLATION AND GUARANTEE: ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO SOUND HORTICULTURAL PRACTICES IN A MANNER DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE QUICK ESTABLISHMENT AND HEALTHY GROWTH. ALL LANDSCAPING FOR EACH PHASE MUST BE EITHER INSTALLED OR THE INSTALLATION MUST BE SECURED WITH AN IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT, PERFORMANCE BOND, OR ESCROW ACCOUNT FOR 125% OF THE VALUATION OF THE MATERIALS AND LABOR PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR ANY BUILDING IN SUCH PHASE. 6. Maintenance: Trees and vegetation, irrigation systems, fences, walls and other landscape elements WITH THESE FINAL PLANS shall be considered as elements of the project in the same manner as parking, building materials and other site details. The applicant, landowner or successors in interest shall be jointly and severally responsible for the regular maintenance of all landscaping elements in good condition. All landscaping shall be maintained free from disease, pests, weeds and litter, and all landscape structures such as fences and walls shall be repaired and replaced periodically to maintain a structurally sound condition. 7. REPLACEMENT: ANY LANDSCAPE ELEMENT THAT DIES, OR IS OTHERWISE REMOVED, SHALL BE PROMPTLY REPLACED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THESE PLANS. 8. THE FOLLOWING SEPARATIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED BETWEEN TREES/SHRUBS AND UTILITIES: 40 FEET BETWEEN CANOPY TREES AND STREET LIGHTS 15 FEET BETWEEN ORNAMENTAL TREES AND STREETLIGHTS 10 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND PUBLIC WATER, SANITARY AND STORM SEWER MAIN LINES 6 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND PUBLIC WATER, SANITARY AND STORM SEWER SERVICE LINES. 4 FEET BETWEEN SHRUBS AND PUBLIC WATER AND SANITARY AND STORM SEWER LINES 4 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND GAS LINES 9. ALL STREET TREES SHALL BE PLACED A MINIMUM EIGHT (8) FEET AWAY FROM THE EDGES OF DRIVEWAYS AND ALLEYS PER LUC 3.2.1(D)(2)(a). 10. PLACEMENT OF ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SIGHT DISTANCE CRITERIA AS SPECIFIED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS. NO STRUCTURES OR LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS GREATER THAN 24" SHALL BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE OR EASEMENTS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DECIDUOUS TREES PROVIDED THAT THE LOWEST BRANCH IS AT LEAST 6' FROM GRADE. ANY FENCES WITHIN THE SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE OR EASEMENT MUST BE NOT MORE THAN 42" IN HEIGHT AND OF AN OPEN DESIGN. 11. THE FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH ALL OTHER FINAL PLAN ELEMENTS SO THAT THE PROPOSED GRADING, STORM DRAINAGE, AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENTS DO NOT CONFLICT WITH NOR PRECLUDE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS ON THIS PLAN. 12. MINOR CHANGES IN SPECIES AND PLANT LOCATIONS MAY BE MADE DURING CONSTRUCTION -- AS REQUIRED BY SITE CONDITIONS OR PLANT AVAILABILITY. OVERALL QUANTITY, QUALITY, AND DESIGN CONCEPT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED PLANS. IN THE EVENT OF CONFLICT WITH THE QUANTITIES INCLUDED IN THE PLANT LIST, SPECIES AND QUANTITIES ILLUSTRATED SHALL BE PROVIDED. ALL CHANGES OF PLANT SPECIES AND LOCATION MUST HAVE WRITTEN APPROVAL BY THE CITY PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 13. ALL PLANTING BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF THREE INCHES. 14. PLEASE SEE SECTION 3.4.1 OF THE LAND USE CODE FOR ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE 15. THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE IS MEANT TO BE MAINTAINED IN A NATIVE LANDSCAPE 1. ALL EXISTING TREES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND WITHIN ANY NATURAL BUFFER ZONES SHALL REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED FOR REMOVAL. 2. WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED EXISTING TREE, THERE SHALL BE NO CUT OR FILL OVER A FOUR INCH DEPTH UNLESS A QUALIFIED ARBORIST OR FORESTER HAS EVALUATED AND APPROVED THE DISTURBANCE. 3. ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREES SHALL BE PRUNED TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FORESTRY STANDARDS. TREE PRUNING AND REMOVAL SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A BUSINESS THAT HOLDS A CURRENT CITY OF FORT COLINS ARBORIST LICENSE WHERE REQUIRED BY CODE. 4. PRIOR TO AND DURING CONSTRUCTION,BARRIERS SHALL BE ERECTED AROUND ALL PROTECTED EXISTING REES WITH SUCH BARRIERS TO BE OF ORANGE FENCING A MINIMUM OF FOUR (4) FEET IN HEIGHT, SECURED WITH METAL T-POSTS, NO CLOSER THAN SIX (6) FEET FROM THE TRUNK OR ONE-HALF (1 2) OF THE DRIP LINE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. THERE SHALL E NO STORAGE OR MOVEMENT OF EQUIPMENT, MATERIAL, DEBRIS OR FILL WITHIN THE FENCED TREE PROTECTION ZONE. 5. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANT SHALL PREVENT THE CLEANING OF EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL OR THE STORAGE OR DISPOSAL OF WASTE MATERIAL SUCH AS PAINTS, OILS, SOLVENTS, ASPHALT, CONCRETE, MOTOR OIL OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL HARMFUL TO THE LIFE OF A TREE, WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED TREE OR GROUP OF TREES. 6. NO DAMAGING ATTACHMENT, WIRES, SIGNS OR PERMITS MAY BE FASTENED TO ANY PROTECTED TREE. 7. LARGE PROPERTY AREAS CONTAINING PROTECTED TREES AND SEPARATED FROM CONSTRUCTION OR LAND CLEARING AREAS, ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND UTILITY EASEMENTS MAY BE 'RIBBONED OFF', RATHER THAN ERECTING PROTECTIVE FENCING AROUND EACH TREE AS REQUIRED IN SUBSECTION (G)(3) ABOVE. THIS MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY PLACING METAL T-POST STAKES A MAXIMUM OF FIFTY (50) FEET APART AND TYING RIBBON OR ROPE FROM STAKE-TO-STAKE ALONG THE OUTSIDE PERIMETERS OF SUCH AREAS BEING CLEARED. 8. THE INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES, IRRIGATION LINES OR ANY UNDERGROUND FIXTURE REQUIRING EXCAVATION DEEPER THAN SIX (6) INCHES SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY BORING UNDER THE ROOT SYSTEM OF PROTECTED EXISTING TREES AT A MINIMUM DEPTH OF TWENTY-FOUR (24) INCHES. THE AUGER DISTANCE IS ESTABLISHED FROM THE FACE OF THE TREE (OUTER BARK) AND IS SCALED FROM TREE DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT AS DESCRIBED IN THE CHART BELOW. TREE DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT (INCHES) AUGER DISTANCE FROM FACE OF TREE (FEET) 0-2 1 3-4 2 5-9 5 10-14 10 15-19 12 OVER 19 15 9. ALL TREE REMOVAL SHOWN SHALL BE COMPLETED OUTSIDE OF THE SONGBIRD NESTING SEASON (FEB 1-JULY 31) OR CONDUCT A SURVEY OF TREES ENSURING NO ACTIVE NESTS IN THE AREA 10. SEE APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR SPECIFIC LOCATIONS OF TREES TO BE REMOVED, AND TREES TO BE PROTECTED. 11. EXISTING TREES MARKED FOR PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION SHALL NOT BE REMOVED OR MITIGATED. 12. HEAVY EQUIPMENT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO COMPACT OVER THE SOIL OVER THE ROOT ZONE OF EXISTING TREES. 13. AVOID CUTTING SURFACE ROOTS WHEREVER POSSIBLE. SIDEWALKS AND PAVING LEVELS SHOULD BE CONTOURED SUFFICIENTLY TO AVOID DAMAGE. 14. ROOT CUTS FROM EXCAVATION SHOULD BE DONE RAPIDLY. SMOOTH FLUSH CUTS SHOULD BE MADE. BACKFILL BEFORE THE ROOTS HAVE A CHANCE TO DRY OUT AND WATER THE TREE IMMEDIATELY. 15. SIDEWALK DEMOLITION WILL NOT INCLUDE ANY OVER EXCAVATION IN ORDER TO PROTECT EXISTING TREES. 16. ALL EXISTING TREES WITH THE EXCEPTION OF 7 HONEYLOCUST SHOWN SHALL BE KEPT IN PLACE AND PROTECTED. Landscape Notes and Details LS 3 Hydrozone Table ZONE AREA WATER USE GALLONS HIGH 0 SF 18 GAL/SF 0 GAL MODERATE 16,530 SF 10 GAL/SF 158,300 GAL. LOW 0 SF 3 GAL/SF 0 GAL VERY LOW 2,698 SF 0 GAL/SF 0 GAL TOTAL / AVERAGE 19, 228 SF 165,300 GAL 8.59 GAL/SF Planting Notes Bioswale Detail and Seeding Tall Fescue Seed Mix NON IRRIGATED NATIVE GRASS - NATIVE GRASS - CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATIVE PRAIRIE SEED MIX 1. SEED SHALL BE AS MANUFACTURED BY ARKANSAS VALLEY SEED SOLUTIONS, 4625 COLORADO BOULEVARD, DENVER, CO 80216, (877) 957-3337 OR APPROVED EQUAL. 2. SEED SHALL BE A MIXTURE THAT MATCHES THE FOLLOWING: SCIENTIFIC NAME (VAR.) COMMON NAME PLS LBS./ACRE* GRASSES ARISTIDA PURPUREA PURPLE THREE-AWN 2 BUCHLOE DACTYLOIDES BUFFALOGRASS 8 CHONDROSUM GRACILE BLUE GRAMA 3 ELYMUS ELYMOIDES SQUIRRELTAIL 2 PASCOPYRUM SMITHII (ARRIBA) WESTERN WHEATGRASS 6 POA SECUNDA SANDBERG BLUEGRASS 1/2 STIPA COMATE NEEDLE AND THREAD 4 SUBTOTAL 25 ½ FORBES ASTERMISIA FRIGIDA FRINGED SAGE 1/16 COREOPSIS TINCTORIA PLAINS COREOPSIS 1/16 ERYSIMUM ASPERMUM PLAINS WALLFLOWER 1/8 GAILARDIA PULCHELLA BLANKET FLOWER 1/2 LIATRIS PUNCTATE DOTTED GAYFEATHER 1/2 PENSTEMON ANGUSTIFOLIUS NARROWLEAF PENSTEMON 1/2 RATIBIDA COLUMNIFERA PRAIRIE CONEFLOWER 1/8 RUDBECKIA HIRTA GLORIOSA DAISY 1/16 SPHAERALCEA COCCINIA SCARLET GLOBEMALLOW 1/16 SUBTOTAL 2 TOTAL 27 ½ 3. DRILLED IN TWO PERPENDICULAR DIRECTIONS PER SPECIFIED APPLICATION RATE. DOUBLE THE APPLICATION RATE IF BROADCASTING SEED. 4. ADEQUATE TEMPORARY IRRIGATION OR BY WATER TRUCK WILL BE PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF THESE SEEDED AREAS, AND THAT NATIVE GRASSES SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION OF ACCEPTABLE, COVERAGE, HEIGHT, FREE OF WEEDS, TRASH AND DEBRIS, AND SHALL NOT BECOME A NUISANCE SITE FOR WATER OR WIND EROSION NOR REPRESENT A FIRE HAZARD. IRRIGATED TURF GRASS SEED MIX- 1. SEED MIX SHALL BE A TALL FESCUE TURF MIX AS MANUFACTURED BY GRAFF'S TURF FARM1 (800) 280-TURF 1. DRILLED / APPLIED PER MANUFACTURES RECOMMENDATION AND SPECIFICATIONS 2. APPLICATION RATE: PER GRAFF'S TURF RECOMMENDATION AND SPECIFICATIONS. MULCH IN ALL NATIVE SEED AREAS: 1. IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE RAKING / SEEDING OPERATION, ADD STRAW MULCH TO THE SEEDED AREAS. 2. APPLY STRAW MULCH AT A MINIMUM OF 1.5 TONS PER ACRE OF AIR DRY MATERIAL. SPREAD STRAW MULCH UNIFORMLY OVER THE AREA WITH MECHANICAL MULCH SPREADER / CRIMPER. DO NOT MULCH WHEN WIND VELOCITY EXCEEDS 10 MPH. 3. WHEREVER THE USE OF CRIMPING EQUIPMENT IS PRACTICAL, PLACE MULCH IN THE MANNER NOTED ABOVE AND ANCHOR IT INTO THE SOIL. USE A DISC SUCH AS A MULCH TILLER, WITH A FLAT SERRATED DISC AT LEAS ¼ INCH IN THICKNESS, HAVING DULL EDGES, AND SPACE NO MORE THAN 9 INCHES APART, WITH DISCS OF SUFFICIENT DIAMETER TO PREVENT THE FRAME OF THE EQUIPMENT FROM DRAGGING THE MULCH. ANCHOR MULCH A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 2 INCHES AND ACROSS THE SLOPE WHERE PRACTICAL WITH NO MORE THAN TWO PASSES OF THE ANCHORING EQUIPMENT. 4. IMMEDIATELY UPON COMPLETION OF THE MULCHING AND BINDING OPERATION, THE SEEDED AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED, KEEPING THE TOP 2 INCHES OF SOIL EVENLY MOIST UNTIL SEED HAS UNIFORMLY GERMINATED AND GROWN TO A HEIGHT OF 2-INCHES. 5. WATERING APPLICATION SHALL BE DONE IN A MANNER WHICH WILL PROVIDE UNIFORM COVERAGE BUT WHICH WILL NOT CAUSE EROSION, MOVEMENT, OR DAMAGE TO THE FINISHED SURFACE. 20 T T VAULT ELEC GAS V.P. ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T ST ST E E E E E E E E E E E E E E W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W CONTROL IRR F E S S h2o H2O C S W WV H Y D WV S S C.O. C.O. C.O. C.O. WV H2OW ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST W W D D D D ST ST ST MDJ MDJ GATHERING AREA SANDSTONE BENCHES NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE PER APPROVED MINOR AMMENDMENTS PHASE 1 PLANS RAIN GARDEN CENTRE AVENUE WORTHINGTON CIRCLE 3 UNIT RANCH BUILDING 6 UNIT 2 STORY BUILDING 4 DETACHED GARAGES EXISTING BUILDING TRACT A SANDSTONE BENCHES SANDSTONE BENCHES BSP CBS CBS ELECTRIC METER LOCATION ELECTRIC METER LOCATION FORT COLLINS, CO ARROWHEAD COTTAGES GROUP landscape architecture|planning|illustration 444 Mountain Ave. Behtroud,CO 80513 TEL WEB 970.532.5891 TBGroup.us PROJECT TITLE REVISIONS ISSUE DATE SHEET TITLE SHEET INFORMATION DATE SEAL January 27, 2016 DATE PREPARED FOR LANDMARK REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS LLC 1170 W Ash St # 100 Windsor, CO 80550-4783 (970) 460-0567 CONTACT: Jason Sherrill MAJOR AMENDMENT COMMENTS 2/17/16 COMMENTS 4/12/16 COMMENTS 5/6/16 Plant List Landscape Legend SCALE 1" = 20'-0" 0 20' 30' 40' NORTH Landscape Plan Landscape Plan LS 2 A FREE PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY STREET TREES ARE PLANTED IN PARKWAYS BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND CURB AND IN STREET MEDIANS. STREET TREE LOCATIONS AND NUMBERS MAY CHANGE TO MEET ACTUAL UTILITY/TREE SEPARATION STANDARDS. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR MUST OBTAIN APPROVAL OF STREET TREE LOCATIONS AFTER UTILITY LOCATES. STREET TREES MUST BE INSPECTED AND APPROVED BEFORE PLANTING. FAILURE TO OBTAIN THIS PERMIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS. Gleditsia triacanthos inermis Size: 9" Mitigation: 1 Gleditsia triacanthos inermis Size: 11" Mitigation: 1 Gleditsia triacanthos inermis Size: 12" Mitigation: 1 Gleditsia triacanthos inermis Size: 9" Mitigation: 2 Gleditsia triacanthos inermis Size: 10" Mitigation: 2 Gleditsia triacanthos inermis Size: 11" Mitigation: 2 Gleditsia triacanthos inermis Size: 16" Mitigation: 2 NOTE: PLEASE SEE SECTION 3.4.1 OF THE LAND USE CODE FOR ALLOWBALE USES WITHIN THE BUFFER ZONE. THE NHBZ IS MEANT TO BE MAINTAINED IN A NATIVE LANDSCAPE Note: Proposed upsized mitigation trees/size marked with *. Existing mitigation trees listed on plan. 13 Trees to be upsized per the mitigation requirements from Arrowhead Phase 1 Minor Ammendment 6"-8" WASHED RIVER COBBLE OVER FABRIC BARRIER (MOD. HYDROZONE) IRRIGATED DURA TURF TYPE TALL FESCUE SOD (MOD. HYDROZONE) 5" DEPTH SHREDDED CEDAR MULCH OVER FABRIC BARRIER (MOD. HYDROZONE) RAIN GARDEN GRASS SEED MIX NATIVE GRASS (VERY LOW HYDROZONE) ROLLED TOP METAL EDGING SANDSTONE BENCHES NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE TALL FESCUE SEED MIX BOUNDARY OF PROPOSED LANDSCAPE STREET LIGHT EXISTING PROPOSED STREET LIGHT LOCATION PER PHOTOMETRIC PLANS TRANSFORMER TRANSFORMER 19 32'-9" FORT COLLINS, CO ARROWHEAD COTTAGES GROUP landscape architecture|planning|illustration 444 Mountain Ave. Behtroud,CO 80513 TEL WEB 970.532.5891 TBGroup.us PROJECT TITLE REVISIONS ISSUE DATE SHEET TITLE SHEET INFORMATION DATE SEAL January 27, 2016 DATE PREPARED FOR LANDMARK REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS LLC 1170 W Ash St # 100 Windsor, CO 80550-4783 (970) 460-0567 CONTACT: Jason Sherrill MAJOR AMENDMENT COMMENTS 2/17/16 COMMENTS 4/12/16 COMMENTS 5/6/16 SCALE 1" = 30'-0" 0 30' 45' 60' NORTH Site Plan - Arrowhead Cottages Site Plan LS 1 General Notes: Legal Description: Owner's Certification of Approval: THE UNDERSIGNED DOES/DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I/WE ARE THE LAWFUL OWNERS OF REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED ON THIS SITE PLAN AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I/WE ACCEPT THE CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS SET FORTH ON SAID SITE PLAN. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, WE HAVE HEREUNTO SET OUR HANDS AND SEALS THIS THE _______ DAY OF _______________________, 20_____. OWNER , A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY BY:___________________________________ (NAME HERE) , MANAGER NOTARIAL CERTIFICATE STATE OF COLORADO) COUNTY OF ___________________) THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME BY________________________________________________ THIS ______ DAY OF ________________________, 20_____. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:_____________ __________________ NOTARY PUBLIC (SEAL) ARROWHEAD COTTAGES, LOCATED IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO HANDICAP PARKING STALL EASEMENT LINE PROPERTY LINE Legend ARROWHEAD COTTAGES Ft Collins, Colorado SQUARE FEET ACRES % OF BUILDING FOOTPRINT 14,982 0.34 35.6% LANDSCAPE AREA 19,228 0.44 45.7% PAVED DRIVE AND PARKING 6,924 0.16 16.4% SIDEWALKS/HARDSCAPE 966 0.024 2.3% TOTAL AREA: 42,100 .97 100% Lot 1 Area Coverage # UNITS PARKING REQUIREMENT ONE BEDROOM UNITS 1 x 1.5 = 1.5 SPACES TWO BEDROOM UNITS 6 x 1.75 = 10.5 SPACES THREE BEDROOM UNITS 2 x 2.0 = 4 SPACES TOTAL 9 UNITS 16 SPACES 19 BEDROOMS NUMBER OF SPACES PROVIDED: ATTACHED GARAGE = 14 SPACES DETACHED GARAGE = 4 SPACES TOTAL 18 SPACES BICYCLE PARKING 1 PER BEDROOM : 19 TOTAL REQUIRED BICYCLE PARKING SPACES 60% = 11 REQUIRED COVERED SPACES PROVIDED: FIXED RACKS 5 SPACES COVERED 14 SPACES (LOCATED IN GARAGES) TOTAL PROVIDED: 19 SPACES Parking Requirements BIKE RACK 1. REFER TO FINAL UTILITY PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION FOR STORM DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, UTILITY MAINS AND SERVICES, STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND PROPOSED GRADING. 2. REFER TO THE SUBDIVISION PLAT AND UTILITY PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS, AREAS AND DIMENSIONS OF ALL EASEMENTS, LOTS, TRACTS, STREETS, WALKS AND OTHER SURVEY INFORMATION. 3. ALL ROOFTOP AND GROUND MOUNTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT MUST BE SCREENED FROM VIEW FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY AND PUBLIC STREETS. IN CASES WHERE BUILDING PARAPETS DO NOT ACCOMPLISH SUFFICIENT SCREENING, THEN FREE-STANDING SCREEN WALLS MATCHING THE PREDOMINANT COLOR OF THE BUILDING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED. OTHER MINOR EQUIPMENT SUCH AS CONDUIT, METERS AND PLUMBING VENTS SHALL BE SCREENED OR PAINTED TO MATCH SURROUNDING BUILDING SURFACES. 4. ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING PROVIDED SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOOT-CANDLE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 3.2.4 OF THE LAND USE CODE AND SHALL USE A CONCEALED, FULLY SHIELDED LIGHT SOURCE WITH SHARP CUT-OFF CAPABILITY SO AS TO MINIMIZE UP-LIGHT, SPILL LIGHT, GLARE AND UNNECESSARY DIFFUSION. 5. SIGNAGE AND ADDRESSING ARE NOT PERMITTED WITH THIS PLANNING DOCUMENT AND MUST BE APPROVED BY SEPARATE CITY PERMIT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. SIGNS MUST COMPLY WITH CITY SIGN CODE UNLESS A SPECIFIC VARIANCE IS GRANTED BY THE CITY. 6. FIRE HYDRANTS MUST MEET OR EXCEED POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY STANDARDS. ALL BUILDINGS MUST PROVIDE AN APPROVED FIRE EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM. 7. ALL BIKE RACKS PROVIDED MUST BE PERMANENTLY ANCHORED. 8. ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS MUST CONFORM TO CITY STANDARDS. ACCESSABLE RAMPS MUST BE PROVIDED AT ALL STREET AND DRIVE INTERSECTIONS AND AT ALL DESIGNATED ACCESSABLE PARKING SPACES. ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES MUST SLOPE NO MORE THAN 1:48 IN ANY DIRECTION. ALL ACCESSIBLE ROUTES MUST SLOPE NO MORE THAN 1:20 IN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL AND WITH NO MORE THAN 1:48 CROSS SLOPE. 9. PRIVATE CONDITIONS, COVENANTS, AND RESTRICTIONS (CC&R'S), OR ANY OTHER PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IMPOSED ON LANDOWNERS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT, MAY NOT BE CREATED OR ENFORCED HAVING THE EFFECT OF PROHIBITING OR LIMITING THE INSTALLATION OF XERISCAPE LANDSCAPING, SOLAR/PHOTO-VOLTAIC COLLECTORS (IF MOUNTED FLUSH UPON ANY ESTABLISHED ROOF LINE), CLOTHES LINES (IF LOCATED IN BACK YARDS), ODOR-CONTROLLED COMPOST BINS, OR WHICH HAVE THE EFFECT OF REQUIRING THAT A PORTION OF ANY INDIVIDUAL LOT BE PLANTED IN TURF GRASS. 10. ANY DAMAGED CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK EXISTING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, AS WELL AS STREETS, SIDEWALKS, CURBS AND GUTTERS, DESTROYED, DAMAGED OR REMOVED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT, SHALL BE REPLACED OR RESTORED TO CITY OF FORT COLLINS STANDARDS AT THE DEVELOPER'S EXPENSE PRIOR TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLETED IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. Planning Approval: BY THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO THIS__________DAY OF _________________________ A.D., 20_______. _____________________________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES Land-Use Statistics EXISTING ZONING: E - EMPLOYMENT LAND USE: MULTI-FAMILY NUMBER OF BUILDINGS: 3 BUILDING STORIES: 2 GROSS LAND AREA: 42,100 SF - .97 ACRES (SEE PLAN) BUILDING GROSS S.F.: 20,559 S.F. FLOOR AREA RATIO (F.A.R.): .49 UNITS PER ACRE 9.3 PER ACRE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT: 33'-2" HEIGHT AT BOTTOM OF EAVE: 19'-8" UNITS PER FLOOR 3 1 BEDROOM 1 2 BEDROOM 6 3 BEDROOM 2 TOTAL UNITS 9 TOTAL BEDROOMS 19 Major Amendment Sheet Index: Sheet LS1 - Site Plan Sheet LS2 - Landscape Plan Sheet LS3 - Landscape Notes and Details Sheet A1 - Architectural Elevations Sheet A2 - Architectural Elevations Sheet A3 - Architectural Elevations Sheet E1 - Site Photometric Plan Sheet E2 - Site Photometric Plan BOUNDARY USED FOR GROSS LAND AREA EXISTING STREET LIGHT PROPOSED STREET LIGHT LOCATION PER PHOTOMETRIC PLANS 18