No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/12/2015 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - Regular MeetingJennifer Carpenter, Chair Kristin Kirkpatrick, Vice Chair Jeff Hansen Gerald Hart Emily Heinz Michael Hobbs Jeffrey Schneider City Council Chambers City Hall West 300 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 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 November 12, 2015 6:00 PM • ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (30 minutes total for non -agenda and pending application topics) • CONSENT AGENDA (NOTE: Any public hearing item approved on the Consent Agenda shall be considered to have been opened and closed. The information furnished in connection with any such item and provided to this Board shall be considered as the only evidence presented for consideration. Approval of any public hearing item as a part of the Consent Agenda constitutes adoption by this Board of the staff recommendations, findings, and conditions of approval for those items.) 1. October 2, 2015, P&Z Special Meeting Draft Minutes The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes for the October 2, 2015, P&Z Special Meeting. 2. October 8. 2015. Draft Minutes for P&Z Heari The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes for the October 8, 2015, Planning and Zoning Board hearing. 3. 2015 Three -Mile Plan Update Planning and Zoning Board Page 1 November 12, 2015 1 PROJECT 2015 draft update of the Three -Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins. The Three -Mil DESCRIPTION: Plan for the City of Fort Collins (Plan) is a policy document for coordinating potend future annexations and provision of services. Colorado State Statutes Section 31-1 105 requires cities to complete a plan within three miles in any direction from any point of their municipal boundary to describe the general location, character, utilitie and infrastructure for areas of potential annexation. These plans must also be updated on an annual basis. APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins 4. Lodaeaole Investments LLC Annexation, ANX150003 PROJECT Lodgepole Investments, LLC, representing the Owner along with the Applicant, DESCRIPTION: has submitted a petition requesting the annexation of two properties and right-of- way totaling 39.7 acres located approximately 670 feet southwest of the intersection of 1-25 and State Highway 392 into Fort Collins municipal boundaries. The requested zoning for this annexation includes the General Commercial (G- C) for the Interstate Land Holdings properties and Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) right-of-way. The requested zoning is in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan, the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, and the 1-251SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan - Corridor Activity Center. A specific project development plan proposal is not included with the annexation application. APPLICANT: Kenney Lee Architecture Group, Inc. Walt Gant, Architect 209 E. 4th Street Loveland, CO 80537 • DISCUSSION AGENDA 5. Lemay Avenue Craft Brewery & Self -Storage Facility PDP#150009 PROJECT Request to develop a 7,219 square foot craft brewery and seven self -storage DESCRIPTION: buildings, containing a total of 103,000 square feet at the southwest corner of North Lemay Avenue and Buckingham Street. One lot, .73 acre, would remain vacant. The vacant site is 6.3 acres in size and zoned I, Industrial. APPLICANT: Mr. Stan Scott, Aspen Property Management, LLC c/o Mr. Ken Merritt JR Engineering 2900 South College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80525 6. The Slab Property PDP#150016 PROJECT This is a request for a three-story multi -family building containing 59 dwelling DESCRIPTION: units and 70 bedrooms. There would be 87 parking spaces and 77 bicycle parking spaces. The P.D.P. is within the Transit -Oriented Development Overlay Zone. The site is located at 808 West Prospect Road and is 1.44 acres in size and zoned H-M-N, High Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. APPLICANT: Mr. and Mrs. Christian and Robin Bachelet MDAG, LLC c/o Russell + Mills Studios 141 South College Avenue, Suite 104 Fort Collins, CO 80524 7. Fall 2015 Biannual Revisions. Clarifications and Additions to the Land Use Code City of Fort Collins Page 2 2 0 • • PROJECT This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding the annual DESCRIPTION: update to the Land Use Code. There are proposed revisions, clarifications and additions to the Code that address a variety of subject areas that have arisen since the last annual update in the Spring of 2015. APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins Clarifications and Additions to the Municipal Code for Outdoor Vendor Mobility Options PROJECT This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding an update to DESCRIPTION: the City Municipal Code and Land Use Code for Outdoor Vendor Mobility Options. The proposed options address a range of operational requirements for the duration outdoor vendors can operate on privately -owned lots. APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins Various Revisions to the Land Use Code Relating to Fugitive Dust PROJECT This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding various DESCRIPTION: revisions to the Land Use Code related to a comprehensive approach to governing fugitive dust on a city-wide basis. The proposed revisions have been initiated by the Department of Natural Resources Environmental Services Department and are intended to work in conjunction with a larger set of proposed revisions to City Code that will be considered by City Council on March 3, 2015. In addition, a Dust Prevention and Control Manual will be provided describing best practices for a variety of activities and industries and at various scales. Revisions to the Land Use Code must first be evaluated by the Planning and Zoning Board before City Council Second Reading. APPLICANT: OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT City of Fort Collin These revisions are being brought to the Planning and Zoning Board outside the annual update process in order to ensure that complete package of all code revisions, including the Dust Prevention and Control Manual, are forwarded to City Council in a comprehensive manner. City of Fort Collins Page 3 3 Agenda Item 1 STAFF Cindy Cosmas, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT October 2, 20151 P&Z Special Meeting Draft Minutes EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes for the October 2, 2015, P&Z Special Meeting. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft October 2, 2015, Special Meeting Minutes (DOC) Item # 1 Page 1 M Executive Session October 2, 2015 Chair Carpenter brought the special meeting to order at 3:36pm. Secretary Cosmas took role: Present: Carpenter, Kirkpatrick, Hansen, Hart, Hobbs, Heinz and Schneider (none absent). Assistant City Attorney Yatabe recommended that the group adjourn into Executive Session to continue the current discussion regarding his confidential memo. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board immediately adjourn into Executive Session, based on Sections 2-71(b) and 2-31(a)(2) of the City Code, and CRS Section 24-6-402(4)(b), in order to receive legal advice regarding Planning and Zoning Board work session procedures. Member Schneider seconded the motion. Vote: 7:0 — this meets the 2/3 vote requirement to initiate Executive Session. Executive Session Chair Carpenter made some opening remarks and each participant stated their name for the record. Those in attendance included: Jennifer Carpenter, Michael Hobbs, Jeff Hansen, Kristin Kirkpatrick, Emily Heinz, Jerry Hart, Jeff Schneider, Cindy Cosmas, Ted Shepard, and Brad Yatabe Assistant City Attorney Yatabe requested that the recorders be stopped at this point (3:39pm). At 4:29pm, the recorders were restarted, and the Executive Session was concluded by each participant restating their name for the record. Chair Carpenter cautioned each attendee that all information provided during Executive Session is confidential. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe offered his opinion that the Executive Session constituted in its entirety a privileged attorney -client communication and is, therefore, not required to be electronically recorded. The meeting was adjourned at 4:31 pm. Jennifer Carpenter, Chair Tom Leeson, CDNS Director 5 Agenda Item 2 STAFF Cindy Cosmas, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT October 8, 2015, Draft Minutes for P&Z Hearing EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes for the October 8, 2015, Planning and Zoning Board hearing. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft October 8, 20151 P&Z Minutes (DOC) Item # 2 Page 1 Jennifer Carpenter, Chair Kristin Kirkpatrick, Vice Chair Jeff Hansen Gerald Hart Emily Heinz Michael Hobbs Jeffrey Schneider City Council Chambers City Hall West 300 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 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 October 8, 2015 Chair Carpenter called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Absent: Staff Present: Agenda Review Carpenter, Hansen, Hart, Heinz, Hobbs, Kirkpatrick and Schneider None Leeson, Yatabe, Olson, Wilkinson, Shepard, Burnett, Holland, Mapes, Lorson, Langenberger, Virata, Ragasa and Cosmas Chair Carpenter provided background on the board's role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. She described the following processes: • While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration, citizen input is valued and appreciated. • The Board is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Board once for each item. • Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with city Land Use Code. • Should a citizen wish to address the Board on items other than what is on the agenda, time will be allowed for that as well. • This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak can be heard. 7 Planning & Zoning Board October 8, 2015 Page 2 CDNS Interim Director Leeson presented the items on both the Consent and Discussion agendas. Public Input on Items Not on the Agenda: Belinda Voit, 2542 Sandstone Drive, stated her concern about traffic flow issues located at Sandstone Drive between Ziegler Road and Timberline, which has become a shortcut to avoid travelling other intersections. She presented a map of the area and discussed the issues occurring now. She requested that Staff look back at the previous traffic study and consider the pedestrian interaction with traffic congestion. Director Leeson will do some follow-up. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from September 10, 2015, P&Z Hearing Public Input on Consent Agenda: None noted. Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the October 8, 20155 Consent agenda, including the draft minutes from the September 10 , 2015, Planning and Zoning Board hearing. Member Hansen seconded. Vote: 7:0. Discussion Agenda: 2. CSU Medical Center, Site Plan Advisory Review, SPA #150005 3. Affinity at Fort Collins 4. Fort Collins Hotel Parking Garage 5. Midtown Urban Renewal Plan Modification Project: CSU Medical Center, Site Plan Advisory Review, SPA #150005 Project Description: This is a request for a Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) by Colorado State University to construct a new medical center at the northwest the corner of South College Avenue and West Prospect Road. The project includes a 113,000 square foot, four-story building within an approximately 4-acre site. The site is located in the Community Commercial (CC) zone district. Recommendation: Approval Planning & Zoning Board October 8, 2015 Page 3 Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Holland gave a presentation of this project and reminded the Board how the Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) is determined based on location, character, and extent, using the Colorado State Statutes as the guideline. He reviewed each criterion, focusing on the concerns related to the each. He finally concluded that this project meets all of the SPAR requirements. Ann Hutchins, Executive Director of the CSU Health Network, began by describing her role at CSU and giving some history of the CSU building in question, justifying the need for additional university medical space. She also described the collaboration between Columbine Health Systems and CSU. This medical office will be an occupational health clinic, one of two such facilities in Fort Collins. Fred Haberecht, also from CSU, gave a separate presentation of this project, including the transportation options currently in place, the increased parking available, and the various access points. He reviewed which buildings would be demolished and indicated that the Landmark Preservation Commission had also evaluated those buildings and found several needing a separate review. He also mentioned the collaboration between the City of Fort Collins (COFC), the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and CSU and CSU's intention to conform to the West Central Plan and COFC regulations. He reviewed CSU's efforts to provide adequate landscaping while maintaining high standards for the campus and the City. Public Input None noted. Board Questions and Staff Response Board members asked questions about several of the properties affected by this project, access points other than from College Avenue, and right-of-way issues. Sheri Langenberger, City Engineering, stated that some road -widening is anticipated, and they will work to minimize the inconvenience of that. Other questions regarding the traffic flows were asked; Ms. Langenberger confirmed that the City has requested funding from City Council to do some additional improvements at the intersection of College and Prospect. Joe Olson, City Traffic Operations, also confirmed that the traffic study for this project was very conservative; most new traffic was assumed to be coming mostly from campus (approximately 1,500 trips per day). He stated he feels confident that the traffic issues will be solvable. Board members also asked about the possibility of having overnight beds, available bicycle parking spaces (75 so far), the proposed hours of operation for the clinic (7:30am — 8pm), and whether emergency services will be provided. While this facility was not designed to handle emergencies, they will have the ability to transport patients to local emergency rooms. Ms. Langenberger explained that the emergency areas shown on the maps are for Poudre Fire Authority and/or City emergency services access. Member Heinz asked about the existing homes slated for demolition and whether the Landmark Preservation Commission had evaluated them for historical importance and Mr. Haberecht replied that the LPC had identified several homes requiring further evaluation. Board members asked whether moving these or other homes had been considered; Mr. Haberecht confirmed that technical barriers exist for moving homes (cost, receiving site, etc.). Board members inquired about the hours of operation and location of the Urgent Care Clinic, which will be consistent with other such facilities and will be located on first floor of the building. Urgent Care will 9 Planning & Zoning Board October 8, 2015 Page 4 be open to the public in addition to CSU students as an after-hours "convenient care". Board members asked other questions regarding the height of the retaining wall and the landscape buffering. Board members inquired about access options, wayfinding efforts, and parking spaces planned. Planner Holland stated that the parking ratio of 4 spaces / 1,000 square feet, assuming 20% of this building will need medical access, which is consistent with standards, indicating that an appropriate number of spaces have been planned. Several questions were asked about the number of daily visits anticipated and if there would be a way to prevent others from parking in this lot. Mr. Haberecht responded that this area would be subject to university control, especially during events, in order to preserve the parking for core functions. Board Deliberation Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the SPAR #150005 for CSU Medical Center based on the findings of fact on page 3 of the staff report. Member Heinz seconded the motion. Several Board members voiced their appreciation to CSU and City Staff for their diligence in developing this project. Vote: 7:0. Member Hansen recused himself at 7:10pm due to a conflict of interest. Project: Affinity at Fort Collins Project Description: This Project Development Plan (PDP) would create 161 new apartment units for seniors (age 55 and up) on an undeveloped 8.4-acre parcel accessed from Corbett Drive, north of Lowes home improvement store. The units are all contained in a single three-story building with a footprint of 62,731 square feet. Units are a mix of 1 and 2-bedroom units totaling 246 bedrooms. A community building with a pool anchors a 1.3-acre multi -use outdoor space with walkways, gardens, BBQ area, and recreational features. 263 parking spaces are provided in a mix of surface parking, garage spaces, and carport spaces. Access is via a private drive extended northward from the cul-de-sac terminus of Corbett Drive. The access configuration is largely directed by City Engineering, Transportation, and Planning staff. Modifications of standards are requested for wall length of perimeter garages, a buffer yard setback for perimeter garages, and to allow the private drive access configuration mentioned above. Recommendation: Approval Staff and Applicant Presentations Clark Mapes, Planner, gave a brief presentation of this project, finding that the proposal is in compliance with the Land Use Code standards, including all modifications. Linda Ripley, with Ripley Design, Inc., also gave a presentation of this project, including an overview of the community development (retail, residential, etc.) and the vehicular and pedestrian accesses. She provided graphics of the buildings, including the fencing features, bicycle parking (278 spaces onsite), and the architectural renderings of the buildings. She discussed the three modifications being proposed: 10 Planning & Zoning Board October 8, 2015 Page 5 • Mod 1: Increasing the length of garages (60' rather than 55') to accommodate 9' garage doors • Mod 2: Decreasing the west side setbacks (25' minimum requirement) • Mod 3: Accessing private drive sidewalk rather than using Corbett Drive sidewalk Scott Morris, with Inland Group (developer, contractor and owner of Affinity project), explained how this project was designed to fill a gap in senior housing. He discussed the proposed amenities and how it is designed to be more affordable while providing independent living. He also showed some conceptual picture of interior rooms. Ms. Ripley told the Board that they will be reserving 10% of units for households earning less than 80% of the area median income, adjusted for household size. They have held two neighborhood meetings and have altered the project based on input. She concluded by reviewing the principles and policies that this project meets. Public Input Russell Holdredge, 4057 Harrington Court, asked how access from Kingsley will be controlled to ensure its availability to emergency services and bicycles rather than autos. Board Questions and Staff Response Mr. Morris responded to the citizen question by showing the street access points and how fencing and landscaping will prevent vehicular access other than emergency vehicles. Board members asked questions about the location of the dog park, the configuration of the units (including garages), the prices of the units (including the 10% with discounted prices), and the lack of articulation regarding the roof lines. Planner Mapes explained that the garages serve the function of a fence because of their placement and spacing; he will work with the team about the possible garage colors and whether a second garage should be added. The main building is 600' long, but the wings on each side and the northern pool building create a transitional feature as well. Given the distances and surrounding buildings, he feels the building and perimeter landscaping is well -designed. Board members asked whether there will be short- term or sub -leasing and whether the rent on the 10% affordable units could be raised above certain levels. Mr. Morris stated that there will be onsite management, although not a requirement. Board Deliberation Member Hart would like to see more articulation but feels the project does meet the intent of protecting the surrounding properties. Vice Chair Kirkpatrick stated she understands the reason for the garage modifications. Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the modification of standard to section 3.5 (2)(D) of the Land Use Code to allow buildings to be placed in direct relation to a private drive rather than a street, based upon the findings of fact on page 10 of the staff report. Member Hobbs seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the modification of standard to section 3.5 (2)(G)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code to allow rear garage walls to exceed the stated 55' limit as described in the findings of fact on page 10 of the staff report. Member Schneider seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. 11 Planning & Zoning Board October 8, 2015 Page 6 Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the modification of standard to section 3.8.30(F)(1) of the Land Use Code to allow a portion on the required 25' buffer yard abutting single-family homes to be reduced to 20' based on the findings of fact on page 10 of the staff report. Member Hobbs seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Affinity at Fort Collins PDP #150010 based on the findings of fact found on page 10 of the staff report. Member Heinz seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. The Board took a break at 7:55pm and resumed at 8:05pm. Project: Fort Collins Hotel Parking Garage Project Description: This project proposes to construct a 3-level mixed -use parking garage with 325 parking spaces and 3,200 square feet of retail space at the corner of Chestnut and Jefferson Streets (363 Jefferson Street). The parking garage is proposed as a public -private partnership between the City of Fort Collins, the Downtown Development Authority, and the developers of the Fort Collins Hotel (Bohemian Companies, McWhinney, and Sage Hospitality). 113 parking spaces will be dedicated to the Fort Collins Hotel (approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on August 10, 2015) and 212 parking spaces will be public parking managed by the City. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Cosmas reported that two items had been received since the work session: the LPC findings of fact and conclusion from their September 28t" hearing recommending approval, and an updated modification request from 4240 Architecture, Inc., regarding the size of the parking stalls. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Lorson gave a brief overview of the project, showing slides of the site map, renderings and the overall project dimensions. He stated that the right-of-way improvements are consistent with those pertaining to the Fort Collins Hotel. He also reviewed the modification request details, answering some questions that were previously brought up at the work session regarding the number of parking spaces used seasonally by existing Fort Collins garages and showing capacity images of each. Lou Bieker, 4240 Architecture, also reviewed some of the major points of the project, incorporating the role of the hotel and the River District into the overall design. He also illustrated some of the colors and textures planned for the hotel, as well as the external landscaping plans for the project. Public Input None noted. 12 Planning & Zoning Board October 8, 2015 Page 7 Board Questions and Staff Response Board members asked about the future occupation of the associated retail spaces, the modification impacts, and long- and short-term parking needs of patrons. Larry Hofmockel, with Walker Parking Consultants, stated that compliance with the City code would require elimination of an entire row of the parking spaces planned; therefore, the modification is important. He added that the hotel -level parking is considered long-term parking. There was in-depth discussion about the size of parking spaces with respect to the various hotel levels and the parking needs. Josh Birks, Economic Health Director for COFC, informed the group that his team has worked with Parking Services regarding the modifications to standards and he believes they are consistent with the other facilities in town. Board members also asked about the parking stall degrees relative to the distance when accessing the stall and the justification for needing 20 feet for pulling out of an angled stall (pertains to the request for modification for angled drive aisle standards). Planner Lorson suggested that perhaps the code should be updated to better reflect the standards and requirements. Board members also asked who owns this structure for future maintenance and security. Mr. Birks responded that there are several owners of the parking areas (FC Hotel, Bohemian, and the COFC). Each owner will operate will operate different floors, and a Condo Association will be established to specify the maintenance of garage. Board members inquired about the progress in wayfinding, and Planner Lorson responded that there would not be wayfinding established with this application. He acknowledged that this is currently part of the Downtown Plan discussion. He added that the code standards have been reviewed extensively and tests were done to ensure larger vehicles would be accommodated. Chair Carpenter asked about the safety factors for drive aisle widths from an auto and a pedestrian standpoint. Board members asked about the projected bike parking and whether alternative compliance was being proposed and whether the P&Z Board would be the final decision maker for this project. The P&Z Board is the final decision maker; however, it will be heard by the City Council eventually from a legislative standpoint. Mr. Bieker also confirmed that this will be a public parking facility. Board Deliberation Each Board member presented their opinion: Chair Carpenter supports; Member Hart supports but has some concerns with the modifications; Member Hobbs supports, especially the public/private partnership, but still has some concern with the proximity to the transient population; Member Schneider does not support the modification related to large and small vehicles, coupled with the low demand for this parking garage; Vice Chair Kirkpatrick supports and would like to see a future review of the land use code standards for parking; Member Hansen supports this project; and Member Heinz supports but still has concerns over whether another parking garage is needed. Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the modification of standard to subsection 3.22(L) of the Land Use Code related to the size of parking spaces based on the findings of fact on page 10 of the staff report. Member Hansen seconded the motion. Vote: 6:1 with Member Schneider dissenting. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Fort Collins Hotel Parking Garage PDP#150018 based on the findings of fact on page 10 of the staff report. Member Hansen seconded the motion. Vote: 7:0. 13 Planning & Zoning Board October 8, 2015 Page 8 Project: Midtown Urban Renewal Plan Modification Project Description: The purpose of this item is for the Planning and Zoning Board to determine whether two proposed modifications to the Midtown Plan are in conformity with City Plan. This Resolution follows the action taken by the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority Board (the "URA Board") at its September 8, 2015 meeting and City Council at its September 15, 2015 meeting. One modification would remove the territory in the Midtown Plan area that is currently not in either of the Midtown Plan's two approved tax increment financing district, Prospect South and Foothills Mall (other than the area preserved in the plan to connect the two tax increment financing districts). The other modification would amend wording in the Midtown Plan to clarify that the Plan identifies and describes only one urban renewal project. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Cosmas reported that, since the work session, 3 documents have been received: a resolution for the Board approval, a boundary map from the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (URA) showing existing Midtown boundaries and a separate map showing proposed Midtown boundaries. Staff and Applicant Presentations Josh Birks, Economic Health Director, along with Patrick Rowe, Interim Redevelopment Program Coordinator, gave a brief overview of this project and the proposed modifications. He explained that, when House Bill 2015-1348 was passed (the Urban Renewal Reform Bill), substantial changes were made to the way urban renewal operates in the state by adding additional representation to the school districts, the County, and special districts. He added that new plans or amendments/modifications to plans will have to go through a process of discussion and negotiation with the taxing entities to determine tax allocations. Staff is proposing this modification to create some insulation for the existing tax increment districts and the projects within them from potential changes that may occur after January V. Public Input Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant Road, has a concern that the URA exists only to reform the slums and blighted areas within Fort Collins; he doesn't feel that this modification complies with City policy or that due process has been properly followed. Board Questions and Staff Response Mr. Birks responded to the citizen's concerns by saying that he has consulted with both the City Attorney and outside counsel that specializes in URA in both the formation of the Midtown district as well as in the substantial modification. Mr. Birks clarified that the goal was not too compromise the financial commitments that had already been made by the URA; the concern was that the modifications and additional tax increments in Subdistrict areas within the Plan, that might be considered a modification under the new House Bill and would have to be re-evaluated. He also wants to recognize that future urban renewal activities should be done using the tax levies as a financing tool. He confirmed that the mall would not comply with the new bill requirements; therefore, it would be excluded. Mr. Birks stated that there are $53M in committed bonds 14 Planning & Zoning Board October 8, 2015 Page 9 that need to be supported. The intent is not to retroactively impact existing plans. Board members also asked what the implications would be if this modification isn't approved: the likely result would be bond default. Member Heinz also inquired about the projected income to the City; Mr. Birks responded that it is projected to be about $100 million over 25 years. Member Schneider asked about statutory conditions of blight existing; a fair estimate of cost and impact would be developed to project a fiscal impact model. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe suggested that the P&Z Board focus on whether the modifications are in compliance with City Plan. Board Deliberation Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to the City Council that the proposed modification to the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan is in conformance with the City Plan and to authorize the Chair of the Planning and Zoning Board to sign the resolution presented to the Planning and Zoning Board by the Assistant City Attorney. Member Schneider seconded the motion. Vote: 6:1, with Heinz dissenting. Other Business 2016 Work Plan Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the proposed 2016 Planning and Zoning Work Plan, as detailed in the memo from the P&Z Board dated October 7, 2015. Member Kirkpatrick seconded. Vote: 7:0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:20pm. Tom Leeson, Interim CDNS Director Jennifer Carpenter, Chair 15 Agenda Item 3 PROJECT NAME 2015 THREE-MILE PLAN UPDATE STAFF Ryan Mounce, Associate Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 2015 draft update of the Three -Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins OWNER: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Board forward a recommendation to City Council to approve the 2015 update to the Three -Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Three -Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins (Plan) is a policy document for coordinating potential future annexations and provision of services. Colorado State Statutes Section 31-12-105 requires cities to complete a plan within three miles in any direction from any point of their municipal boundary to describe the general location, character, utilities, and infrastructure for areas of potential annexation. These plans must also be updated on an annual basis. The 2015 update to the Three -Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins is routine and recurring and highlights newly - adopted or revised plans and documents applicable to those areas defined in the State Statutes. This draft 2015 update of the Plan is presented for Planning and Zoning Board review. After reviewing the Plan, the Planning and Zoning Board will forward a recommendation to the City Council. COMMENTS Section 31-12-105 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires the City to complete a plan within three miles in any direction from any point of such municipal boundary as follows: Prior to the completion of any annexation within the three-mile area, the municipality shall have in place a plan for that area, that generally describes the proposed location, character, and extent of streets, subways, bridges, waterways, waterfronts, parkways, playgrounds, squares, parks, aviation fields, other public ways, grounds, open spaces, public utilities, and terminals for water, light, sanitation, transportation, and power to be provided by the municipality and the proposed land uses for the area. Item # 3 Page 1 16 Agenda Item 3 The Plan describes each of the items listed in the State Statute in four categories as follows: ■ Transportation -related Items ■ Parks, Natural Areas and Open Lands -related Items ■ Utilities and Related Items ■ Proposed Land Uses The Three -Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins lists the plans, policies, maps, and other documents that have been adopted by the City of Fort Collins which generally describe the proposed location, character, and extent of the specific characteristics listed above. In addition, several plans and policies listed have been adopted by other jurisdictions such as Larimer County, Colorado State University, or adjoining municipalities, as they are also located within the boundaries of the Three -Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins. As Fort Collins limits future annexations to areas within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA), the Plan is less applicable to lands within the three-mile area beyond the boundary of the Fort Collins GMA. There have been few changes to the documents described in the Plan since the previous update in 2014. This annual update to the Plan represents a routine and recurring action, to ensure the City complies with the State Statute requirements. Section II of the Plan highlights in bold newly -adopted or revised plans and documents since the last update. A summary of newly -adopted or revised plans and documents is presented below: Transportation -Related Items: ■ City of Fort Collins Strategic Plan ■ Climate Action Plan: Framework ■ Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards Amendments ■ Nature in the City Strategic Plan ■ West Central Area Plan ■ Transfort Bus Stop Design Standards & Guidelines Parks, Natural Areas and Open Lands -related Items ■ City of Fort Collins Strategic Plan ■ Climate Action Plan: Framework ■ Nature in the City Strategic Plan ■ West Central Area Plan Proposed Land Uses ■ Affordable Housing Strategic Plan ■ City of Fort Collins Strategic Plan ■ Climate Action Plan: Framework ■ Economic Health Strategic Plan ■ Fort Collins Five-year Consolidated Plan (HUD) ■ West Central Area Plan City Plan and related elements of the Comprehensive Plan provide sufficient guidance for managing growth within the GMA, and to some degree outside the GMA for contextual purposes. More specifically, the City Structure Plan map shows future land use designations to provide direction for potential annexation and zoning within the GMA. City Plan takes into account all land that is functionally related to the growth of the municipality, not just land within three miles of the municipal boundary. Although the Three -Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins is similar to City Plan, it goes further in requiring the location, character, and extent of future utilities and infrastructure as well as proposed land uses for the area. As such, the Plan takes a broader approach to the annexation and development of land. Item # 3 Page 2 17 Agenda Item 3 The four maps that are included in the Plan reflect the general resources, infrastructure for significant waterways and airports, and future land uses within the three-mile boundary of City limits. FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSION A. The 2015 update of the Three -Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins generally and accurately describes the proposed location, character, and extent of street, subways, bridges, waterways, waterfronts, parkways, playgrounds, squares, parks, aviation fields, other public ways, grounds, open spaces, public utilities, and terminals for water, light, sanitation, transportation, and power to be provided by the City of Fort Collins and the proposed land uses for the area. B. The Three -Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins is in compliance with regulations set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes Section 31-12-105. FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the 2015 update to the Three -Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft 2015 Three -Mile Plan (PDF) Item # 3 Page 3 Three -Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins 2015 Update f. .,y�V ♦ ) ill F„ ' WHI II 1 , r% ,y il. ✓- LIN tN l I .�.�.�. .rry" j r +� 1 . irk a. ---rA� - 4 .1 t t %It 4 � r 4- Ijr 1b'IA'I. •• S' 4d.Aoe q .,.err 57I9r �� ` �� •�� '9." '. , r )'. - lit) j tm 41, t..3 'r r 1-1 J y� City of ort Col 'n Table of Contents I. Introduction 2 What is the Purpose of the Three -Mile Plan? 2 What Does the Three -Mile Plan Describe? 2 II. Elements of the Three -Mile Plan 4 Transportation -Related Items 4 Parks, Natural Areas & Open Lands -Related Items 5 Utilities & Related Items 7 Proposed Land Uses 8 Attachments Attachment A: Three -Mile Plan Boundary 10 Attachment B: Significant Waters & Waterfronts 11 Attachment C: Airports within the Three -Mile Plan Boundary 12 Attachment D: Future Land Use: City Structure Plan Map 13 Three -Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins 2015 Update 20 I. Introduction What is the Purpose of the Three -Mile Plan? The Three -Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins is a policy document for coordinating potential future annexations and provision of services, required to be updated annually per Colorado Revised Statutes. The Three -Mile Plan describes the general location, character, utilities, and infrastructure for areas of potential annexation within three miles in any direction of the municipal boundary. In comparison to a specific annexation impact report, a Three -Mile Plan takes a broader approach to the annexation and development of land. A proposed annexation should be consistent with the municipality's Comprehensive Plan and Three -Mile Plan, in addition to other policies. Section 31-12-105 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires cities to complete a plan within three miles in any direction from any point of their municipal boundary as follows: Prior to the completion of any annexation within the three-mile area, the municipality shall have in place a plan for that area that generally describes the proposed location, character, and extent of streets, subways, bridges, waterways, waterfronts, parkways, playgrounds, squares, parks, aviation fields, other public ways, grounds, open spaces, public utilities, and terminals for water, light, sanitation, transportation, and power to be provided by the municipality and the proposed land uses for the area. Updates to the Three -Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins are routine and occur on an annual basis. The 2015 update highlights the changes to approved plans and documents applicable to areas within three -miles of the municipal boundary as defined in the State Statutes. What Does the Three -Mile Plan Describe? This Three -Mile Plan describes each of the items listed in the State Statute in four categories, as follows: Transportation -related Items: ■ Streets ■ Subways ■ Bridges ■ Parkways ■ Aviation Fields ■ Other Public Ways ■ Terminals for Transportation Parks, Natural Areas and Open Lands -related Items: ■ Waterways ■ Waterfronts ■ Playgrounds Three -Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins Page 2 2015 Update 21 ■ Squares ■ Parks ■ Grounds ■ Open Spaces Utilities and Related Items: ■ Public Utilities ■ Terminals for Water, Light, Sanitation, and Power Provided by the Municipality Proposed Land Uses: ■ Inside Growth Management Area (GMA) ■ Outside Growth Management Area (GMA) For each of these four categories, the plans, policies, maps, and other documents are identified that have been adopted by the Fort Collins City Council, which generally describe the proposed location, character and extent of the specific characteristics listed above. In addition, there are some plans and policies that have been adopted by other jurisdictions such as Larimer County, Colorado State University, or adjoining municipalities that are also located within the boundaries of the Three -Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins. There have been relatively few changes to existing plans or newly -adopted plans within the three-mile study area since the 2014 update. The following section highlights in bold text newly -adopted or revised plans and documents from the past year. Three -Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins Page 3 2015 Update 22 II. Elements of the Three -Mile Plan Transportation -related Items 1. Streets: ■ Capital Improvement Plan ■ City Plan ■ City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan ■ City of Fort Collins Street Standards ■ City of Fort Collins Bicycle Plan ■ City of Fort Collins Bicycle Safety Education Plan ■ City of Fort Collins Pedestrian Plan ■ City of Fort Collins Strategic Plan ■ Climate Action Plan: Framework ■ Colorado State University Parking and Transportation Master Plan ■ Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan ■ Harmony Road ETC Master Plan ■ Harmony Road Access Control Plan ■ 1-25/392 Interchange Improvement Plan ■ Larimer County Transportation Master Plan ■ Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards ■ Mason Corridor Master Plan ■ Nature in the City Strategic Plan ■ North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan ■ North College and Highway 14 Access Control Plan ■ Northern Colorado Regional Planning Study ■ Northern Colorado Regional Communities 1-25 Corridor Plan ■ Downtown Parking Plan ■ South College Access Control Plan ■ Fort Collins Streetscape Design Standards ■ Subarea Plans o CDOT US392 Environmental Overview Study o CDOT North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement o CDOT US287 Environmental Overview Study o Downtown Plan o Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program Summary Report o Downtown Strategic Plan o East Mulberry Corridor Plan o East Side Neighborhood Plan o Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan o Harmony Corridor Plan o 1-25 Subarea Plan o Lincoln Corridor Plan o Midtown in Motion o Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update o North College Corridor Plan o Northside Neighborhood Plan o Northwest Subarea Plan Three -Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins Page 4 2015 Update 23 o Old Town Area Plan o Prospect Road Streetscape Program o South College Corridor Plan o State Highway 392 Access Control Plan o West Central Area Plan o West Side Neighborhood Plan ■ Transfort Bus Stop Design Standards & Guidelines ■ Transfort Strategic Operating Plan ■ Transit Plan: Fort Collins, Loveland, and Larimer County (1996-2002) ■ Transit Oriented Development Parking Study 2. Subways: None 3. Bridges: ■ Master Street Plan ■ North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan 4. Parkways: LCUASS Streetscape Standards Update 5. Aviation Fields: ■ Airport Master Plan Update 6. Other Public Ways: None 7. Terminals for Public Transportation: ■ Mason Corridor Master Plan ■ Transfort Bus Stop Design Standards & Guidelines Parks, Natural Areas, and Open Lands -related Items 1. Waterways: ■ Cache La Poudre River Landscape Opportunities Study ■ City of Fort Collins Strategic Plan ■ Climate Action Plan: Framework ■ Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program ■ Nature in the City Strategic Plan ■ Poudre River Downtown Master Plan ■ Stormwater Master Plan and Floodplain Regulations ■ Watershed Approach to Stormwater Quality 2. Waterfronts: ■ Poudre River Downtown Master Plan 3. Playgrounds, Squares, Parks: ■ City Plan ■ Larimer County Comprehensive Parks Master Plan ■ Nature in the City Strategic Plan ■ Parks and Recreation Policy Plan ■ Poudre School District Master Plan Three -Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins Page 5 2015 Update 24 ■ Subarea Plans o Campus West Community Commercial District Planning Study Report o CDOT US392 Environmental Overview Study o CDOT North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement o CDOT US287 Environmental Overview Study o Downtown Plan o Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program Summary Report o Downtown Strategic Plan o East Mulberry Corridor Plan o East Side Neighborhood Plan o Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan o Harmony Corridor Plan o 1-25 Subarea Plan o Lincoln Corridor Plan o Midtown in Motion o Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update o North College Corridor Plan o Northside Neighborhood Plan o Northwest Subarea Plan o Old Town Area Plan o Prospect Road Streetscape Program o South College Corridor Plan o State Highway 392 Access Cor o West Central Area Plan o West Side Neighborhood Plan ■ Thompson School District Master Plan ■ Trails Master Plan 4. Grounds, Open Spaces: ■ Bobcat Ridge Natural Area Management Plan — outside Growth Management Area (GMA) ■ Cache La Poudre River Natural Areas Management Plan ■ City Plan ■ City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Program Land Conservation and Stewardship Master Plan ■ Foundation for a New Century, Colorado State University (CSU) Master Plan ■ Foothills Natural Areas Management Plan ■ Foothills Study ■ Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plans ■ Fossil Creek Natural Areas Management Plan ■ Fossil Creek reservoir Regional Open Space Management Plan ■ Larimer County Open Lands Master Plan ■ Larimer County Comprehensive Parks Master Plan ■ Natural Areas Master Plan ■ Nature in the City Strategic Plan ■ Northern Colorado Regional Planning Study ■ Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland ■ Regional Community Separator Study ■ Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Management Plan — outside GMA ■ Subarea Plans Three -Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins Page 6 2015 Update 25 o Campus West Community Commercial District Planning Study Report o CDOT US392 Environmental Overview Study o CDOT North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement o CDOT US287 Environmental Overview Study o Downtown Plan o Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program Summary Report o Downtown Strategic Plan o East Mulberry Corridor Plan o East Side Neighborhood Plan o Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan o Harmony Corridor Plan o 1-25 Subarea Plan o Lincoln Corridor Plan o Midtown in Motion o Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update o North College Corridor Plan o Northside Neighborhood Plan o Northwest Subarea Plan o Old Town Area Plan o Prospect Road Streetscape Program o Poudre River Downtown Master Plan o South College Corridor Plan o State Highway 392 Access Control Plan o West Central Area Plan o West Side Neighborhood Plan ■ Wellington Community Separator Study ■ Windsor Community Separator Study _ Utilities and Related Items 1. Public Utilities: ■ 2007 East Larimer County Water District (ELCO) Master Plan Update ■ 208 Plan ■ Boxelder Sanitation District Wastewater Utility Plan ■ City Plan ■ Drinking Water Quality Policy ■ Fort Collins -Loveland Water District Master Plan ■ Fort Collins Water Supply and Demand Management Policy ■ Fort Collins Wastewater Master Plan Update ■ Fort Collins Revised Water Treatment Facility Master Plan ■ Fort Collins Utilities Energy Policy Update ■ South Fort Collins Sanitation District Master Plan for Wastewater Collection and Treatment ■ Stormwater Master Plan and Floodplain Management ■ Water Conservation Plan 2. Terminals for Water, Light, Sanitation, Transportation, and Power Provided by the Municipality: ■ 208 Plan ■ City Plan ■ City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan Three -Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins Page 7 2015 Update 26 ■ City of Fort Collins Electric Long Range Plan ■ Drinking Water Quality Policy ■ Fort Collins -Loveland Water District Master Plan ■ Fort Collins Water Supply and Demand Management Policy ■ Fort Collins Wastewater Master Plan Update ■ Fort Collins Revised Water Treatment Facility Master Plan ■ Fort Collins Utilities Energy Policy Update ■ South Fort Collins Sanitation district Master Plan for Wastewater Collection and Treatment ■ Stormwater Master Plan and Floodplain Management ■ Water Conservation Plan Proposed Land Uses 1. Land Uses Defined within the Growth Management Area (GMA): ■ Affordable Housing Strategic Plan ■ City Plan ■ City of Fort Collins Strategic Plan ■ City of Fort Collins Structure Plan ■ Climate Action Plan: Framework ■ Economic Health Strategic Plan ■ Fort Collins Five-year Consolidated Plan (HUD) ■ Fort Collins and Larimer County Intergovernmental Agreement ■ Fort Collins and Windsor Intergovernmental Agreement ■ Fort Collins and Timnath Intergovernmental Agreement ■ Colorado State University (CSU) Master Plan ■ City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements (Town of Timnath, South Fort Collins/Loveland Water District) ■ Subarea Plans o Campus West Community Commercial District Planning Study Report o CDOT US392 Environmental Overview Study o CDOT North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement o CDOT US287 Environmental Overview Study o Downtown Plan o Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program Summary Report o Downtown Strategic Plan o East Mulberry Corridor Plan o East Side Neighborhood Plan o Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan o Harmony Corridor Plan o Harmony Road ETC Master Plan o 1-25 Subarea Plan o Midtown Plan o Midtown Urban Renewal Plan o Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update o North College Corridor Plan o Northside Neighborhood Plan o Northwest Subarea Plan o Old Town Area Plan o Prospect Road Streetscape Program Three -Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins Page 8 2015 Update 27 o South College Corridor Plan o State Highway 392 Access Control Plan o West Central Area Plan o West Side Neighborhood Plan 2. Land Uses Outside the GMA: ■ A Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland ■ City of Loveland Three -Mile Area Plan ■ LaPorte Area Plan ■ Larimer County Master Plan ■ Loveland Comprehensive Master Plan ■ Loveland Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan ■ Northern Colorado Community Separator Study ■ Northern Colorado Regional Communities 1-25 Corridor Plan ■ Town of Windsor Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code ■ Town of Timnath Comprehensive Plan ■ Town of Wellington Comprehensive Master Plan ►I Three -Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins Page 9 2015 Update Ed 1 ii �MIAa roFA a O W-A 0WE �� r, �0 iow 0 I/I is ON OWN Attachment B: Fort Collins Significant Waters & Waterfronts City of ,;,art Collins Water Supply/ Curtis Res No 2�&'3 //Windsor j Lake / /Dixon/Reservoi r er Reservoir ,Kluver/ i i // Reseriroir/ Annex/ cd �� / No 8 Elder Water Supply / Reservoir iCD Res IVo 4 Cobb d Lake m �eCach/La �N),/ / re Ddch G��Q2@ Richard's re Lai Colle a Collins• � Res• Inlet c� y 9 Sheldon Lake o Lake, Goldeneye Uitcel on Lake °o -- Spring Weg�eo�n G g Greek Pond d, Deadman m She Muskrat �� y / Lake N aO�`a�� Pond p / o Parkwood di m / a Dion L%ake Foothills Timnath/ Reservoir Z G�anne/ Reservior/ f v � �0iy, -� Lake / ° Sherwood Oo / Zoe Warren + ��LYke o Harmony Dixon C 0 Resenr--�atera�yo� 0 Fort Collins City Limits ® City Limits Three -Mile Buffer Waterways Waterbodies i Boyd Lake A N 30 Page 11 i r .•Ji% OAj ii jAV %/ No Text Agenda Item 4 PROJECT NAME LODGEPOLE INVESTMENTS LLC ANNEXATION, ANX150003 STAFF Pete Wray, Senior City Planner Ua I iN STSIN►,rJAIEel ilk PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Lodgepole Investments, LLC, representing the Owner along with the Applicant, has submitted a petition requesting the annexation of two properties and right-of- way totaling 39.7 acres located approximately 670 feet southwest of the intersection of 1-25 and State Highway 392 into Fort Collins municipal boundaries. APPLICANT: OWNER: RECOMMENDATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The requested zoning for this annexation includes the General Commercial (G- C) for the Interstate Land Holdings properties and Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) right-of-way. The requested zoning is in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan, the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, and the 1-251SH 392 Interchange Improvement Plan - Corridor Activity Center. A specific project development plan proposal is not included with the annexation application. Kenney Lee Architecture Group, Inc. Walt Gant, Architect 209 E. 4►" Street Loveland, CO 80537 Lodgepole Investments, LLC 5951 Middlefield Road, Suite 105 Littleton, CO 80123 Staff recommends approval of the Lodgepole Investments LLC Annexation and recommends that the properties be placed in the G-C Zoning District. On November 3, 2015, the City Council approved a resolution that accepted the annexation petition and determined that the petition was in compliance with State law. The resolution also initiated the annexation process for the property by establishing the date, time and place when a public hearing would be held regarding the readings of the Ordinances annexing and zoning the area. Item # 4 Page 1 33 Agenda Item 4 This annexation request is in conformance with the State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to annexations, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreement for the Growth Management Area, and the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. This is a 100% voluntary annexation for a property located within the Growth Management Area. The project satisfies the requirement that no less than one -sixth of the perimeter boundary be contiguous to the existing City boundary. The G-C zoning is consistent with the City's Structure Plan Map. The item is scheduled for first reading by City Council on December 15, 2015. BACKGROUND: Lodgepole Investments, LLC representing the Owner along with the Applicant have submitted a written petition requesting the annexation of two properties and right-of-way totaling 39.7 acres located approximately 670 feet southwest of the intersection of 1-25 and State Highway 392 into Fort Collins municipal boundaries. The requested zoning for this annexation includes the G-C District for the Lodgepole Investments LLC properties (Tract A and B) and a portion of CDOT right of way, consistent with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. The properties are bordered by the existing County subdivision, Eagle Ranch Estates on the west side, Interstate 25 to the east, vacant commercial properties and State Highway 392 to the north and vacant commercial and residential properties to the south. The property is currently zoned AP -Airport in Larimer County. This is a 100% voluntary annexation for a property located within the Growth Management Area (GMA). According to policies and agreements contained in the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements, the City will agree to consider annexation of property in the GMA when the property is eligible for annexation according to State law. The Board of County Commissioners approved the Special Review Application for this property on March 9, 2015, with Findings and Resolution signed on April 14, 2015. As a condition of approval of the Special Review by the County, the applicants were required to petition the City of Fort Collins for annexation by September 30, which initiated this annexation process. The Lodgepole Investments LLC Annexation gains the required 1/6 contiguity to existing city limits from a common boundary with the Fossil Creek 392 Annexation (Ordinance No.139, 2009), thus satisfying the requirement that no less than one -sixth of the perimeter boundary be contiguous to the existing city boundary. In accordance with the May, 2013 Amended Intergovernmental Agreement, the City of Fort Collins and the Town of Windsor will share the property tax increment and sales tax increment generated by properties and businesses located within the boundaries of the Corridor Activity Center. ANALYSIS: The Lodgepole Investments LLC Annexation does not create an enclave. There are no immediate plans to develop property within this annexation proposal area. This is a 100% voluntary annexation for a property located within the Growth Management Area (GMA). According to policies and agreements contained in the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements, the City will agree to consider annexation of property in the Growth Management Area when the property is eligible for annexation according to State law. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Item # 4 Page 2 34 Agenda Item 4 Zoning: Land Uses: N: FC GC - General Commercial Zoning District S: Larimer County AP Airport Zoning District E: CDOT - None E: Windsor C - Commercial Zoning District W: LC AP Airport Zoning District Vacant Vacant/Single-family residence Frontage Rd. /1-25 Existing Commercial businesses Existing Residential (Eagle Ranch Estates) The Lodgepole Investments LLC Annexation gains the required 1/6 contiguity to existing city limits from a common boundary with the Fossil Creek 392 Annexation (Ordinance No.139, 2009), thus satisfying the requirement that no less than one -sixth of the perimeter boundary be contiguous to the existing city boundary. The requested zoning for this annexation includes the G-C District for the Lodgepole Investments LLC properties (Tracts A and B) and a portion of CDOT right-of-way. The requested zoning district is consistent with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. There are numerous uses permitted in this G-C District, subject to either administrative review or review by the Planning and Zoning Board. The Land Use Code describes this zone district as follows: The General Commercial District is intended to be a setting for development, redevelopment and infill of a wide range of community and regional retail uses, offices and personal and business services. Secondarily, it can accommodate a wide range of other uses including creative forms of housing. While some General Commercial District areas may continue to meet the need for auto -related and other auto -oriented uses, it is the City's intent that the General Commercial District emphasizes safe and convenient personal mobility in many forms, with planning and design that accommodates pedestrians. The Lodgepole Investment LLC Annexation properties are also within the 1-25/SH 392 CAC overlay that includes a limited list of permitted uses, subject to either administrative review or review by the Planning and Zoning Board. The Land Use Code describes the Development Standards for the 1-25 Corridor as follows: The 1-25 Corridor Standards provide standards to implement the model standards outlined in the "Development Standards for the 1-25 Corridor, and the 1-25/State Highway 392 Corridor Activity Center in addition to standards contained elsewhere in the Land Use Code. PUBLIC OUTREACH: A neighborhood meeting was not held for this project because this is not a development proposal, there is no immediate plan to develop the land, 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 as contained in the amended Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements. 2. The area meets the eligibility requirements included in State law to qualify for a voluntary annexation to the City of Fort Collins. 3. The requested zone district, G-C, General Commercial is in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan, the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, and with the policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Item # 4 Page 3 35 Agenda Item 4 4. On November 3, 2015, the City Council approved a resolution that accepted the annexation petition and determined that the petition was in compliance with State law. The resolution also initiated the annexation process for the property by establishing the date, time and place when a public hearing would be held regarding the readings of the Ordinances annexing and zoning the area. ATTACHMENTS 1. Lodgepole Investments LLC Vicinity Map (PDF) 2. Lodgepole Investments LLC Structure Plan Map (PDF) 3. Proposed zoning (PDF) Item # 4 Page 4 36 Lodgepole Investments LLC Annexation Vicinity Map a d LL t3: Fossil Creek Reservoir u °u M d � AMA 3 y �L �M aN ��❑� : State Highway-392 w i v ) 8� M] � � 3 sag'e r M a ay. Ln SHaths* e Annexation Area �e ❑ 6 i ❑ @ e0 ai aysl a � o LL CD o`aea Q ° fj LOtry: Farms Or C9 -View. Dr Eder Qea iCd V° Legend [7°°°°z�] 1 inch = 1,250 feet g°C°° 1 1-25/392 Corridor Activity Center N GMA City Limits - Area water ® Annexation Area 37 Fort Collins Plan �Fort Collins s Lodgepole Investments LLC Structure Plan/Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Map Boundaries Fort Collins GMA Potential GMA Expansion Other City GMA Planning Area Adjacent Planning Areas rr. i,e City Limits Districts Downtown District Community Commercial District General Commercial District Neighborhood Commercial District Campus District Employment District Industrial District Neighborhoods Edges Corridors Urban Estate dr Community Separator Open Lands, Parks and Water Corridors Low Density Mixed -Use Foothills 63 Poudre River Corridor N Medium Density Mixed -Use Rural Lands Enhanced Travel Corridor (Transi W 5 E Annexation - Area 1 inch = 0.3 miles Lodgepole Investments LLC Annexation Proposed Zoning City Zoning General Commercial (CG) C Public Open Lands (POL) 1 inch = 833 feet N 39w E s Agenda Item 5 PROJECT NAME LEMAY AVENUE CRAFT BREWERY & SELF -STORAGE FACILITY PDP#150009 STAFF Ted Shepard, Chief Planner U9 1 iN STSIN►,fit 11Eel ► PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to develop a craft brewery and self -storage facility at the southwest corner of North Lemay Avenue and Buckingham Street. The craft brewery would be 7,219 square feet and located directly on the corner. The seven self -storage buildings are arranged in a variety of sizes and configurations. One building would be 60,000 square feet, three -stories, temperature controlled and include both drive -up and walk-through storage units. The second building would be 15,000 square feet, one-story, temperature controlled and also include both drive -up and walk through units. A third building would be 16,000 square feet and one-story. Four buildings would be typical one- story, drive -up mini -storage units. Lot Three, .73 acre located along North Lemay Avenue, would remain undeveloped at this time. The vacant site is 6.3 acres in size and zoned I, Industrial. APPLICANT: Mr. Stan Scott, Aspen Property Management, LLC c/o Mr. Ken Merritt JR Engineering 2900 South College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80525 OWNER: Mr. Stan Scott Fort Collins Self -Storage, LLC 5013 Blue Stem Court Fort Collins, CO 80525 RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The project is in compliance with the overall findings of the Northside Neighborhoods Sub -area Plan. The project complies with the applicable Industrial zone district land use and development standards of Article Four. Further, the project complies with the applicable General Development standards of Article Three. A neighborhood information meeting was held and the P.D.P. is found to be compatible with the surrounding area. Item # 5 Page 1 Agenda Item 5 1, Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: Industrial Vacant, (New Belgium Brewery) S: Industrial Existing, Mixed -Use Commercial E: Industrial Vacant E: M-M-N Vacant and Mixed -Use Commercial E: Low Density Residential Andersonville and San Cristo Neighborhoods W: Industrial Existing Manufacturing The site was annexed in 1974 as part of the Northeast Consolidated Annexation. It was platted as part of the Second Replat of the North Lemay Subdivision Second Filing in 1993. It remains vacant and undeveloped at this time. 1 inch = 6W feet Lemay Avenue Craft Brewery & i Self -Storage Facility 2. Compliance with the Northside Neighborhoods Sub -Area Plan: The site is located within the Northeast Neighborhoods Sub -Area Plan, adopted in 2005. According to the Framework Plan, the subject site is located within an area designated as the "Industrial/Residential Interface." This area is along the west side of North Lemay Avenue generally between East Vine Drive on the north and Lincoln Avenue on the south. The plan states: Item # 5 Page 2 41 Agenda Item 5 "The Plan establishes this new classification, in currently zoned industrial areas that abut residential, to promote small-scale industry or mixed -use development. In essence, the classification is an overlay district and a fine-tuning of industrial zoning. The plan discourages heavy industry - those generating excessive traffic, odor, noise or ones visually incompatible with the neighborhoods. For example, a junk yard, abutting residential, should not be allowed in the interface area. The zoning, however, will provide some greater flexibility to develop a mix of industry and housing. Loft -style, live -work units (with ground -level retail or office and upper -level residential) or small scale offices are good examples. A mix of live -work units could serve as "transitions" between existing neighborhoods and existing and future industrial lands. In addition, industrial -residential buffer standards of the Land Use Code will apply and developers of industrial properties must adhere to requirements to provide buffers and setbacks near residential properties but some flexibility could be provided for mixed -use developments." In applying the elements of the Northside Neighborhoods Plan to subject P.D.P. staff offers the following: • The subject site is across Lemay Avenue, and slightly south of the Andersonville and San Cristo neighborhoods. While this location does not represent an abutting condition, there is a generous amount of setback and landscaping along Lemay Avenue. For example, due to the existing easement for the Platte River Power Authority overhead high voltage power line, the buildings are setback from the flowline of North Lemay Avenue by 68 feet. (This flowline will hold as the future arterial widening for North Lemay Avenue will be shifted over to the future bypass alignment. If the bypass is constructed, the arterial right-of-way on existing North Lemay Avenue will be reduced to the local street cross-section by deeding land back to the abutters.) • The proposed uses, micro -brewery and self -storage, are not heavy industry. In fact, self - storage is considered one of the least intensive of the permitted uses in the Industrial zone district generating passive, not active operations. • Although the P.D.P. contains two distinct uses, and a potential third use on Lot 3, the development is not mixed -use in the sense envisioned by the Plan. There is no residential, no live -work, and loft -style dwelling units. Instead, the six acre site features a combination of uses that activate the street frontages that are closest to Andersonville and San Cristo which help buffer and screen the self -storage buildings. The future development of Lot 3 has the potential of enhancing this mix. • The size (7,219 square feet) and scale (one-story) of the brewery are more commercial in character versus industrial. The self -storage buildings are well designed. These factors combine to provide a level of character along North Lemay Avenue that is sensitive to the neighborhoods. • There are heavier industrial uses to the west along Buckingham with the Phelps-Tointon Manufacturing (cabinets and doors) and Colorado Iron and Metal (recycling and metal fabrication). The P.D.P. will contribute to transitioning and buffering these uses from the neighborhoods to the east. Item # 5 Page 3 42 Agenda Item 5 3, Compliance With Applicable Land Use and Development Standards of the Industrial Zone District - Article Four: A. Zoning Enclosed mini -storage facilities are permitted in the I zone subject to Administrative Review (Type One). Building C, however, is 60,000 square feet and any building over 50,000 square feet must be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board. Micro -breweries are permitted also subject to Planning and Zoning Board Review (Type Two). B. Land Use Standards - Height The maximum allowable height in the I zone is four stories. The tallest building is Building C at three stories. C. Development Standards - Orientation Both the micro -brewery and Buildings D-3 and D-4 are sited so that all three buildings abut the landscaping along both North Lemay Avenue and Buckingham Street without an intervening parking lot or drive aisle. The standard requires these building relationships for at least 30% of each building's fagade. In this case, all three buildings are oriented along the landscaping for 100% of their street -facing facades. When Lot 3 develops in the future, it will be held to the same standard. D. Development Standards - Building Character and Color For all buildings, the colors are neutral (gray tones), with a medium color range for accents (brown, red - brown, burgundy). are no white, bright, or reflective colors. There E. Development Standards - Screening Since North Lemay Avenue is an arterial street, and since there is land across North Lemay Avenue that is zoned M-M-N, a 30-foot wide landscape yard is required. As designed, there will be a landscape yard that ranges between 64 and 74 feet located between the existing edge of pavement and the three buildings facing North Lemay Avenue. F. Storage and Operational Areas There is no outside storage associated with either of the two uses. For the brewery, the loading area is located internally to the site and screened from North Lemay Avenue by a combination of setback and landscaping in the form of five Austrian Pines. 4. Compliance With Applicable General Development Standards - Article Three: A. Section 3.2.1 -Landscaping and Tree Protection: Street trees are provided at the required intervals along both North Lemay Avenue and Buckingham Street. Due to the existing high -voltage overhead power line along North Lemay, the species have been intentionally selected to not interfere with electrical transmission at maturity. Landscaping along North Lemay Avenue is designed to buffer the rear elevations of two drive -up storage units - Buildings D-3 and D-4, both of which are one-story, as well as the east elevation of the brewery. The Platte River Power Authority easement is a total of 85 feet in width with 60-feet being west of the North Lemay Avenue flowline and runs along the entire length of the site. This allows a range of 64 feet to 74 feet of landscaped area between the buildings and the flowline. This area contains not only a combination of trees and shrubs, but the required water quality basins required for low impact Item # 5 Page 4 43 Agenda Item 5 development per the Stormwater Utility. This amount of landscaping significantly exceeds minimum requirements. Along the west property line, along the rear elevations of Buildings D-1 and D-2, both of which are one- story, landscaping is provided in a combination of trees and shrubs. Since the adjoining property is zoned Industrial and features a manufacturing plant, this landscaping is not as dense as along North Lemay Avenue but is sufficient to mitigate the long horizontal planes of the two buildings. Overall, the Landscape Plan demonstrates compliance with the minimum required sizes and maximum percentage of any one species. B. Section 3.2.1(E)(4) -Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping: The project is designed in such a way that there are no parking lot edges along both North Lemay Avenue and Buckingham Street. C. Section 3.2.1(E)(5) -Parking Lot Interior Landscaping: The parking lot is designed to primarily serve the brewery. The interior parking lot landscaping exceeds the minimum requirement of 6% for lots with less than 100 spaces. There are no parking bays that exceed 15 spaces without a landscape island. D. Section 3.2.1(E)(6) -Screening: There is only one area of low visual interest along North Lemay Avenue where the trash, recycling and electrical transformer associated with the brewery are located. As mentioned, this area is screened by a closely spaced grouping of five Austrian Pines. E. Section 3.2.2(B) - Access, Circulation and Parking - General Standard: The onsite parking and circulation system safely accommodates the movement of vehicles, bikes and pedestrians. An eight -foot wide connecting walkway ties the on -street bike lane on Buckingham Street directly to the bike parking area located near the brewery entrance. This walkway is angled such that bikes do not have to make a 90-degree turn gain access to the site. Direct connecting walkways to Buckingham Street will lead to Transfort stops for Routes 5 and 14. F. Section 3.2.2(C)(5) - Bicycle Facilities: The brewery component features a bike parking area with a capacity of 54 bikes significantly exceeding the minimum requirement for employee parking (4). The bike racks are directly visible from the patio providing a measure of security. G. Section 3.2.2(C)(5) - Walkways: There are two connecting walkways that tie the brewery to Buckingham Street. H. Section 3.2.2(D)(1) - Pedestrian/Vehicle Separation: The site is designed to allow in -bound self -storage customers to flow through the site without mixing with brewery traffic. Out -bound customers will mix with brewery traffic only within the western portion of the parking lot. Brewery pedestrian and bike circulation and bike parking only intersects with the entry drive and otherwise does not mix with vehicles in the parking lot. I. Section 3.2.2(K)(2) - Non -Residential Parking Requirements: The P.D.P. provides 33 spaces. Four of these spaces are assigned to the office portion of the self - storage for employees and customers with 29 allocated to the tap room and brewery operations. Item # 5 Page 5 MA Agenda Item 5 The standard contains no categories for either micro -brewery or self -storage. The only applicable category is "industrial" which is overly broad and does not account for the number visitors to a micro - brewery tap room. Evaluating the 33 spaces by the required minimum of 0.5 and the allowable maximum of 0.75 spaces per employee makes little sense. Staff contends that for the micro -brewery, the nearest equivalent category by which to assess a workable parking ratio is for "bars, taverns and nightclubs." This is because the seating arrangements and style of service is more like a bar than a standard or a fast food restaurant. The minimum required number of parking spaces for a bar is 5 spaces and the maximum number is 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet. The Lemay Craft Brewery indicates a tap room that is 2,796 square feet which would yield a minimum requirement of 14 and maximum allowable of 28 spaces. As mentioned, the P.D.P. shows 29 of the 33 total spaces dedicated to the brewery. Absent a reliable and data -supported ratio between the size micro -breweries and a required minimum number of parking spaces, and accounting for employees, the proposed 29 spaces is justified as a reasonable approach and meets the intent of the standard. J. Section 3.2.4 - Site Lighting: The lighting will be sharp cut-off and down -directional in compliance with the standard. K. Section 3.2.5 - Trash and Recycling Enclosures: All trash and recycling containers are fully enclosed. As is typical of a micro -brewery, spent grain will be hauled off -site for use in agricultural operations. L. Section 3.4.1 -Environmental and Natural Area Standards: An Ecological Characterization Study was performed for this P.D.P. This E.C.S. concludes the following: • The proposed development would eliminate all of the disturbed weedy agricultural grassland from the site. However, all of the ornamental trees on the adjacent parcels to the west and south would remain and would not be adversely impacted by the proposed project. The project would not impact federally listed or sensitive plant species, Colorado Natural Heritage Program listed Natural Communities, or City of Fort Collins Natural Areas, because none occur on the site. • The native habitats on the site were eliminated in the past and the disturbed introduced vegetation present today only provides habitat for wildlife species capable of using highly impacted urban areas. • The one wildlife feature of note is the approximately 7.5 acre prairie dog colony. Relocation of the prairie dogs is not a viable option. The project would not impact federally listed species, sensitive species or Colorado Natural Heritage Program listed wildlife resources because none occur on the site. Prairie dogs will be removed in accordance with state and local regulations. M. Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility: There are two components to the P.D.P., seven self -storage buildings and one micro -brewery. Four perimeter buildings would be the most visible to the two public streets. (1.) The 7,219 square foot micro -brewery is a one-story building featuring three distinct pitched roofs. The main shed roof includes a significant dormer with a row windows allowing for Item # 5 Page 6 45 Agenda Item 5 interior day -lighting. Expansive glass areas reveal the inner -workings of the brewery operation. Exterior materials include stone/slate base, metal wall panels and standing seam metal roof panels. All four elevations are articulated with a variety of wall planes. In general, the architectural theme is reflective of the ag-industrial vernacular found among various buildings in northeast Fort Collins. (2.) The 60,000 square foot three-story self -storage building is 45-feet to the ridgeline and located interior to the site and is partially obscured by two one-story buildings along North Lemay Avenue. The Lemay-facing east elevation is 200 feet in length which is broken up into seven modules for horizontal relief. These modules alternate between dark gray vertical and light gray horizontal metal wall panels. Two overhangs, with windows underneath and supported by exposed brackets, add interest. Two stories of glass help frame both the north and south ends. Portions of the roof are sloped offering various rooflines. (3.) The two one-story buildings along North Lemay Avenue each contain 21,000 square feet. The east elevations both feature a distinct base (masonry with color to match the brewery), middle (metal wall panels) and store -front glazing, and top (metal shed roof). Each building contains two rooflines. Two one-story buildings (15,000 and 16,000 square feet) form the interior. Building A-2 includes the north -facing office. These buildings feature similar materials and color but with less architectural detail. Two one-story buildings (3,600 and 4,200 square feet) are located along the west property line. The northerly building has exposure to Buckingham Street and is articulated with two rooflines (metal panels) and a series of pilasters for horizontal relief. N. Section 3.6.4 - Transportation Level of Service Requirements: A Transportation Impact Analysis was performed for this P.D.P. and reveals the following: • At full development, the P.D.P. will generate approximately 471 daily weekday trip ends, 20 morning peak hour trip ends, and 59 afternoon peak hour trip ends. • A new northbound, Lemay Avenue left -turn lane at Buckingham Street will be constructed to accommodate the new traffic generated by the P.D.P. • A new eastbound Buckingham right -turn lane at North Lemay will be constructed by this project. • Acceptable levels of service are achieved for pedestrian, bicycle and transit modes based upon the measures in the multi -modal transportation guidelines. The site is served by Transfort Routes 5 and 14 along Lincoln Avenue and Routes 8 and 81 along East Vine Drive. 5, Neighborhood Information Meeting: A neighborhood information meeting was held on June 15, 2015. A summary of this meeting is attached. The major issues, and their resolution are summarized as follows: A. Traffic on North Lemay Avenue: Traffic on North Lemay was identified as a major issue. Since several homes in Andersonville front on North Lemay, there are times when it's difficult to back out of the driveway. In response, the applicant will be required to construct a northbound left -turn lane on North Lemay. This will help relieve some of the congestion. Item # 5 Page 7 EEO Agenda Item 5 B. Parking Spillover into the Neighborhood: Parking spillover across North Lemay onto the residential streets was also identified as a major issue. In response, the applicant is providing 29 spaces for the brewery and 4 spaces for the self -storage office. In addition, 54 bike spaces are also provided in anticipation of customers arriving by bike. With the close proximity of other existing micro -breweries, there will be an attraction to ride bikes versus drive cars as has become evident over the last few years. C. On -street Bike Lanes Adding on -street bike lanes would be seen as an improvement. In response, the developer will be constructing a six-foot wide on -street bike lane along the frontage of the property. This bike lane will tie into the existing bike lane. 6. Conclusion and Findings of Fact: In evaluating Lemay Avenue Craft Brewery and Self -Storage Facility, Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The land uses, micro -brewery and enclosed mini -storage, are permitted uses in the Industrial zone subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board. B. The P.D.P. complies with the applicable land use and development criteria of the Industrial zone district in Article Four. C. The P.D.P. complies with the applicable General Development standards per Article Three. D. Based on the design of the site, the extent of the landscaping and the architectural character of the buildings, the P.D.P. is found to be compatible with the surrounding area. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Lemay Avenue Craft Brewery and Self -Storage Facility #150009. ATTACHMENTS 1. Applicant Plan Objectives (PDF) 2. Site Plan (PDF) 3. Landscape Plan (PDF) 4. Architectural Elevations (PDF) 5. Architectural Elevations 2 (PDF) 6. Plat(PDF) 7. Neighborhood Mtg Summary (DOCX) 8. Traffic Impact Study(PDF) 9. Northside Neighborhood Framework Plan (PDF) Item # 5 Page 8 47 Statement of Planning Objectives Lemay Avenue Craft Brewery & Self Storage Property Project Development Plan Introduction • The proposed site is located on the southwest corner of Lemay Avenue and Buckingham Street The property is approximately 6.35 acres in size and is currently a legal lot in the City or Fort Collins currently known as Lot 2, Second Replat of the North Lemay Subdivision, Second Filing. The site is currently vacant and has no existing trees or shrubs that need to be preserved located on -site the site is sparsely covered by native grasses and weeds. • The property is currently annexed to the City of Fort Collins and is Zoned I, Industrial. Microbrewery's and Self -Storage facilities are permitted in the I Zoning District, as a Type Administrative Review but due to the total square footage of the Self -Storage Facility exceeding 50,000 square feet the Project is subject to a Type 11 Planning and Zoning Board review. • The intent of the applicant (Fort Collins Self -Storage, LLC) is to further subdivide the property into a total of 3 lots. Lot I shall be developed as a Craft Brewery, Lot 2 will be developed as a Self -Storage Facility and Lot 3 shall be used as a future expansion site for either the Brewery or Self -Storage as the need for a future expansion may occur for either of these original uses. Until such time that future expansion is needed Lot 3 shall be landscaped and irrigated as open space amenity for use by the Craft Brewery and Self -Storage facility. Development Phasing • The Lemay Avenue Property is proposed to be constructed as two separate phases of development and shall include the following. • Lot I -Block 1(1.066 Acres): The Craft Brewery Building being approximately 7,219 Square Feet shall be built after the completion of the Self -Storage facility located on Lot 2; unless a Tenant for the Brewery is identified during the construction of the Self -Storage facility at which time construction of the brewery would also begin. The brewery will be responsible for the construction of all proposed on -site buildings, site infrastructure and outdoor amenities, on-sote Landscape and irrigation which has not previously been built by the owner of Lott, Self -Storage Facility. • Lot 2-Block 1(4.536 Acres): The Self -Storage site and buildings being approximately 104,000 Square Feet shall be the first phase of development and shall include the construction of the following improvements: o Construction of the interim roadway design of Buckingham Street including curb/gutter and sidewalk along the south side of Buckingham, widening of the north side of Buckingham, roadway restriping and drainage improvements to Buckingham and the 1 (-, ) J R ENGINEERING Lemay Avenue west roadside swale. Along Lemay Avenue from Buckingham Street to the south property boundary a new 8' wide concrete pedestrian walk will be constructed no other improvements to the Lemay Ave. roadway are anticipated. o Landscape and irrigation along the south tree lawn of Buckingham Street and landscape and irrigation along the west side of Lemay Avenue between the existing edge of asphalt and the new 8 foot wide pedestrian walk will be constructed from, Buckingham St. to the south property boundary. o The access Drive from Buckingham into the site will be constructed including all parking lot areas and private drives, curb/gutter and sidewalk, pervious pavers, parking lot site lighting, parking lot striping and associated parking lot landscape and irrigation. o 7 Self -Storage buildings including buildings, curb/gutters and private drives, water, sewer and storm drainage utilities and services to each building, site perimeter fencing and gates, detention pond and LID storm drainage improvements, all landscape and irrigation contained within Lot 2 including the detention pond area, Lemay Avenue Streetscape landscape located between the west edge of the new 8' pedestrian walk and the building/fence line, landscape and irrigation of the west property boundary and soft swale areas. • Lot 3-Block 1(0.173 Acres): Lot 3 is intended as a future building expansion site for either the Craft Brewery or Self -Storage facility. It will initially be used as a construction staging area for the construction of Lot 1, Craft Brewery and Lot 2, Self -Storage buildings. Once the construction of both of these building is complete the site will be landscaped and irrigated as shown on the PDP Landscape Plans. Any future development of Lot 3 will be subject to the review and approval of a new Project Development Plan. Property & Development Ownership • Fort Collins Self -Storage is the current owner of the property and has been since February of 2015. The ownership of Lots 2 and 3 which includes the Self -Storage facility and all its building and site improvements shall be owned and maintained by Fort Collins Self -Storage, LLC Colorado Limited Liability Corporation. Lots I is also owned by Fort Collins Self -Storage, LLC but may be sold in the future to a yet unnamed Owner/Operator of the proposed Craft Brewery. Site Planning and Overall Design Concept • The Lemay Avenue Self -Storage Facility will be locally owned and operated and represents a much needed service for the Fort Collins Community. The lack of sufficient Self -Storage rental space requires that Fort Collins residences travel outside the City in order to find storage rental opportunities. It is expected that the current "Economic Leakage" which Fort Collins is currently experiencing in the Self -Storage market place will be reversed by the Lemay Avenue Self -Storage development. • The Lemay Avenue Craft Brewery is expected to employ local Brewers and Hospitality Professionals and serve as a welcomed addition to the "Cluster" of Craft Breweries located in the Northeast quadrant of the City. The Breweries in this area represents a "Target Industry Z J R ENGINEERING i • Cluster" that is Uniquely Fort Collins. It is expected that the Brewery will employ approximately 10 - 12 Brewers and Brew Staff as well as 10 - 12 Hospitality Professional. The Brewery will also serve as a magnet for educational collaboration with Colorado State University and supporting the University's growing Fermentology Science, Beverage Management and Hospitality majors. The Brewery will help to support and provide employment opportunities and Professional Internship programs that will encourage and support a health and vibrant brewing business climate present in Fort Collins. • The proposed project is located within the City's Downtown Development Area boundary and will be a "Catalyst" development for this area of the City spurring redevelopment of other industrial property throughout the Buckingham Neighborhood. The project is also located within the City's defined Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas as identified by the City's "Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map". As such this development is expected to promote the further redevelopment and revitalization of the existing and underutilized industrial area of the Buckingham Neighborhood. The developments proximity to existing housing will result in fewer and shorter trips for nearby residents. The development will also enhance the economic activity and vitality of the area and providing further stimulus for redevelopment of the surrounding neighborhood. • Lemay Avenue Craft Brewery and Self -Storage Facilities will represent two low intensity land uses that are identified as allowed uses within the Industrial Zoning District. These uses are adequately buffered form the surrounding residential areas by appropriate building setbacks and extensive streetscape landscaping. The Self -Storage land use represents one of the very lowest impact and low intensity land uses that could be considered within the Industrial Zoning District thus generating very few vehicle trip to and from the site. As such the proposed uses provide for a strong land use transitions along the edges of the industrial district. • The proposed project will develop much needed new public facilities adjacent to its development including ADA accessible pedestrian walks along Lemay Avenue and Buckingham Street, landscaped tree lined streetscapes, public access to onsite plazas and site amenities directly from the Public Right -of -Way. • Lemay Avenue Craft Brewery and Self -Storage Facilities will "Anchor" the intersection of Lemay Avenue and Buckingham Street and will create a major new Gateway to the Buckingham and Andersonville Neighborhoods thus punctuating the importance of this historic area of Fort Collins and the City's "Brewery Business Cluster". • By "Anchoring" the Lemay/Buckingham intersection with the Craft Brewery and by providing pedestrian scale buildings along Lemay Avenue coupled with the addition of street trees, shrub beds and natural grass plantings, and by strategically placing plaza spaces, patios and an inviting Biergaten adjacent to the Lemay and Buckingham Right -of -Way the Lemay Avenue Craft Brewery and Self -Storage Facilities will greatly improve the visual quality and character of the existing streetscape as viewed from the surrounding neighborhoods, pedestrian ways, and vehicles passing by. • Lemay Avenue Craft Brewery and Self -Storage Facility was intentional in the sighting of its buildings in order to maximize solar access and natural day -lighting to the Brew House, Community Tap Room, outdoor plazas/patios and Biergarten areas. In addition the Self -Storage J R ENGINEERING 50 buildings have been oriented on the site so as to allow for the possible addition of roof mounted solar panels that may be added by the developer in the future. • Lemay Avenue Craft Brewery and Self -Storage Facility will encourage the use of alternative and multi modal transportation and will capitalize on the existing Brewery Tourists trade visiting the other nearby Brewey's located in this quadrant of the City. Additionally by providing new, safe and high tech Self -Storage rental space to the Fort Collins market the residents of Fort Collins will no longer be required to travel outside the City limits to find available Self -Storage rental space thus reducing moving and storage vehicle miles traveled and reducing air pollution. • Lemay Avenue Craft Brewery and Self -Storage Facilities will construct new ADA accessible pedestrian walks and facilities along Lemay Avenue and Buckingham Street as well as new on - street bike lanes on Buckingham Street. Also the Brewery will promote alternative fuel source vehicles by offering an on -site electric vehicle charging station for its guests and patrons. Extensive bicycle facilities are also provided and include nearly 60 fixed bike rack parking spaces and a bicycle repair station. • Finally the site has been designed in such a way as to exceed the City's desired LID goals. The Grading and stormdrainage design will allow 85% of the new impervious area of the site to passes through an LID Stromwater Quality feature thus reducing impacts to the urban watershed and nearby streams and downstream drainage conveyances. Lemay Avenue Craft Brewery and Self -Storage Facility is a model for Low Impact Urban Stormwater Development. Landscape and Site Design • Tree Planting Standard — The project will provide streetscaping along Lemay Avenue and Buckingham Street as well as in and around on -site parking areas, and landscaping of areas identified within the property and surrounding each of the proposed building. Tree planting as per city standards shall be met in order to add to the urban tree canopy of the immediate area. The tree planting will be interspersed throughout the site, and within LID storm drainage areas and designated Detention Pond areas as is feasible. • Landscape Standards — It is the intent for the development's landscaping to meet or exceed the City's standards for building, site, streetscape and parking lot landscaping. All areas that are landscaped shall be irrigated with a permanent automatic underground irrigation system unless they are intended to be non -irrigated. Any areas identified on the Landscape Plan to be non - irrigated shall be irrigated with a temporary above ground irrigation system and irrigated until such time that proper establishment of seeded areas has been achieved, a minimum of two growing season. • Tree Protection and Replacement — There are currently no existing trees within the development area that will need to be removed to accommodate the proposed development and its improvements. The landscape plans accurately identify the locations of all existing off - site trees each labeled showing the applicant's intent for these trees to remain. • Bicycle Parking — Given the nature of the proposed development on Lot I, Craft Brewery Site the Developer has significantly exceeded the number of required fixed rack outdoor bicycle parking spaces and enclosed bike parking spaces for emplyees. See Sheet I of the Project Development Plan for a detailed accounting of bicycle parking provided for each lot. 41 ,J J R ENGINEERING 51 • Walkways — Walkways within the site are located and aligned to directly and continuously connect areas or points of pedestrian origin and destination. Walkways will link street and sidewalks with building entries and parking lots. Pedestrian access from the public right of way of both Lemay Avenue and Buckingham Street has been provided at three locations as shown on the PDP Site Plan. • Direct On -Site Access to Pedestrian and Bicycle Destinations — On -site pedestrian and bicycle circulation system is designed to provide, and allow for, direct connections to pedestrian and bicycle destinations. • Transportation Impact Study — Based on a previously meeting with the City's Transportation Department it was determined that the proposed development would be required to submit a Transportation Impact Study which has been included with this PDP submittal. • Vehicular Site Access — Site access to Lots I, 2 and 3 shall be provided via a shared private access drive connected to Buckingham Drive and shall be located approximately 40 feet from the west property boundary so as to maximize the separation distance between the proposed access drive and the Lemay Avenue intersection. The on -site vehicular drives have been designed to be safe, efficient, convenient and attractive, considering the use by all modes of transportation that will use the site. • Trash and Recycling — Trash and Recycling containers shall be provided to accommodate the collection, separation, storage, loading and pickup of trash and recyclable materials. Trash and Recycling containers for Lot I shall be provided by a fully enclosed and gated outdoor trash enclosures. Trash for Lots 2 & 3 shall be stored inside the proposed building Al (see PDP Site Plan for the building location). Trash and Recycling shall be put outside for pickup and removal on the designated trash collection day. • Emergency Vehicle Access — To ensure that emergency vehicles can gain access and maneuver within each of the proposed lots, and so that emergency personnel can provide fire protection and emergency services, Lot I and 2 will each provide a 20' — 30' wide unobstructed Emergency Access Easement. Parking • The parking needs of the three new lots and proposed land uses will be met on -site and shall meet or exceed the City's required parking standards. • All required parking is to be provided on -site. See Sheet I of the Project Development Plan for a detailed accounting of vehicle parking proposed for each lot. • A shared access and parking agreement and/or easement can be provided for Lots I, 2 and 3 in the event the City determines it as being necessary. Access, utility, and drainage easements have been provided and are shown on the proposed Plat. • Parking lot drive lanes, Emergency Vehicle Access, turnaround and parking space layout have been designed in order to provide for a well-defined circulation system for vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists. J R ENGINEERING 52 Architectural Design Craft Brewery Architectural Design: • Building and Project Compatibility — Section 3.5.1 of the City's Land Use Code requires that the physical and operational characteristics of the proposed buildings and their uses be compatible with the context of the surrounding area. The proposed development, we believe can be determined to be compatible based upon the existing business and commercial uses in close proximity to the site. • Architectural Character — Other than some nearby standard metal `factory' buildings to the west, the architectural character of the neighborhood to the south is defined by small commercial businesses and large craft breweries (Fort Collins Brewery, Odell Brewery, New Belgium Brewery) as well as one small craft brewery, Snowbank Brewery. A block north of the site, the old sugar beet plant (now the City Streets Department) exemplifies the old-style factory/industrial feel of the district. These existing uses are what has influenced the design of this new brewery with its modern -agricultural feel, blending the region's history with the surrounding industrial zone. • Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass and Scale — The proposed building's size, height, mass, and scale of the Brewery is all integral to the intended use as well as adding to the neighborhood's character and quality. The placement of the brewery close to the intersection of Lemay and Buckingham, is consistent with the requirements of the City Land Use Code. The Brewhouse can be viewed through large glass openings exposing interior brewing equipment to passers-by. The west side of the Tasting Room opens to an attractive Biergarten, which is completely fenced per City code and fully landscaped. o The proposed brewery is a one story building with sloping roofs. It includes a masonry base on the front and side elevations of the buildings, combined with attractive metal siding and glass. • Building Materials — There is no current consistent theme of building material usage in the area. Therefore commonly used steel building construction materials are to be utilized for the project. Similar building forms, architectural detailing, color and texture, will be in order to enhance the overall architectural experience in the area. o Glare: Building materials will not create excessive glare. No highly reflective building materials are proposed, such as aluminum, unpainted metal or highly reflective glass. o Building Color: Wall color shades are intended to be neutral. The roof of the structure is proposed to be a soft color as well, yet bold enough to indicate that this is not a `factory' but rather a welcoming craft brewery. The color shades of building materials shall draw from the range of color shades that already exist in the region (locally quarried stone) and the surrounding natural environment. G J R ENGINEERING 53 • Building Height — The height of the proposed building will be as allowed by the City's code in the I Zoning District. The impact of this project on access to sunlight and on desirable views has been considered. No undesirable effects are anticipated by the proposed height or placement of the brewery building. Self -Storage Architectural Design: • Building and Project Compatibility — Section 3.5.1 of the City's Land Use Code requires that the physical and operational characteristics of the proposed buildings and their uses be compatible with the context of the surrounding area. The proposed development, we believe can be determined to be compatible based upon the existing business and commercial uses in close proximity to the site. • Architectural Character — Along with some nearby standard metal `factory' buildings to the west, the architectural character of the neighborhood to the south is defined by small commercial businesses and large craft breweries (Fort Collins Brewery, Odell Brewery). A block or so to the north, the old sugar beet plant (now the City Streets Department) exemplifies the old- style factory/industrial feel of the district. These existing uses are what have influenced the design of this of our Storage Facility with its modern -agricultural feel, adding additional character to the surrounding industrial zone. • Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass and Scale — The proposed building's size, height, mass, and scale of the Self -Storage buildings are all integral to the intended use as well as adding to the neighborhood's character and quality. The placement of the storage buildings across the central and southern portion of the site creates an inviting lawn and open corner for a future Craft Brewery development on Lot I. There are seven new Self -Storage buildings proposed on Lot 2 of the site. One 3-story facility will be located facing Lemay Avenue and flanking the south side of the Lawn. The other 6 buildings are single story and utilize sloped roofs and pedestrian scale elements to create a dialogue of size and scale with the future Brewery site. The main facades of the multi -level storage facility utilizes glazing and agricultural design details to enhance the building view from Lemay Avenue and Buckingham Street • Building Materials — There is no current consistent theme of building material usage in the area. Therefore commonly used steel building construction materials are to be utilized for the project. Similar building forms, architectural detailing, color and texture, will be in order to enhance the overall architectural experience in the area. o Glare: Building materials will not create excessive glare. No highly reflective building materials are proposed, such as aluminum, unpainted metal or highly reflective glass. o Building Color: Wall color shades are intended to be neutral. The roof of the structure is proposed to be a soft color as well, yet bold to create some site connectivity to the design narrative created with the craft brewery. The color shades of building materials 7 -,J J R ENGINEERING 54 shall draw from the range of color shades that already exist in the region) and the surrounding natural environment. • Building Height — The height of the proposed building will be as allowed by the City's code in the I Zoning District. The impact of this project on access to sunlight and on desirable views has been considered. No undesirable effects are anticipated by the proposed height or placement of the 7 Storage Buildings. Storm Drainage & LID Design • The overall design concept related to site drainage for the Lemay Avenue Craft Brewery and Self -Storage Facility is to convey all developed runoff through porous pavement, bio-swales and pre -sedimentation basins which are located throughout the property in order to accomplish the required LID goals as established by the City of Fort Collins. Developed runoff from the site will then be conveyed into a detention pond designed to meet the detention requirements of the proposed project at full build out. The detention pond will discharge the detained release from the site at the south east corner of the property into an existing storm drainage swale located at the southeast corner of Lemay Avenue. • Lemay Avenue Craft Brewery and Self -Storage Facility has been designed in such a way as to exceed the City's desired LID goals. The Grading and stormdrainage design will allow 85% of the new impervious area of the site to passes through an LID Stromwater Quality feature thus reducing impacts to the urban watershed and nearby streams and downstream drainage conveyances. Lemay Avenue Craft Brewery and Self -Storage Facility is a model for Low Impact Urban Stormwater Development. Development Schedule • Construction Start: Winter/Spring 2016 • Construction Completion: Winter 2016/Spring 2017 Narrative Addressing Concerns Raised at Neighborhood Meeting A Neighborhood Meeting was conducted on June 16, 2015, at Living Waters Church. Approximately Fifteen (15) neighbors from the notification area attended the meeting. Questions and concerns were addressed by the applicant's consultant at this meeting. The most significant issue discussed at this meeting by the neighbors had to do with the existing traffic congestion along Lemay Avenue which was expressed by many of the neighbors as a problem which has existed for many years. The existing traffic inhibits the residents from back out of their driveways in the morning. Ted Shepard, Chief Planner for the City explained to the neighbors that there is a long term plan in place to address this existing traffic issues along Lemay Avenue by possibly realigning Lemay Avenue in the future and by converting the existing Lemay Avenue roadway both north and south of Buckingham Street to a local road which would possibly no longer connect to either Vine or to Lincoln Avenue in the future. Ted also informed the audience that although there was a plan in place to improve the existing congestion along Lemay Avenue that the funding needed to activate this plan did not currently exist. J R ENGINEERING 55 I I I I I m' Ex I rroma� I }�p�j y`Bvrurovo A # RYPJ B' G PAW E PARKINS I' TREE L~4 �BIEh PIONIO PROPOSED EDGE OF ASRIALT 4' GRAVEL SIVJULDER MDRTH BIDE ONLY) cDNCRETE cERVI 6uTTER (SMH SIDE ONLY, EXI5TIN5 PA LEMAY AVE, CRAFT BREWERY & SELF -STORAGE FACILITY PRELIMINARY PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN SITE PLAN IYRW11Mdt(/WiNIg RXJII NRMVMIE(BVK BCAIIDER +8 2B �� (tt 6' IB' RI DRIVE YWK 'IW S y$§ y d9F Pdax�Vi PAW PATIO TAME t CHAIRS ( ) -EGO COMFORT CHAIRS (IYP) mK GRAVEL PA ES _ZAWlleZZJ&Affi1 Alp ��e■ee:e■■ewe.. ._�� PA -' - LI055I.A4NE _ - ' b HIEH FB_YE PA HI 6 4I91 F@Y.E r —T I I / ID D3 LRIVE{P STCRPGE LNITS WLftIVEW STCRP!£ F.eat_.../ �1m4(I STUY O+as) y�sn s«re� �.: I IYR 1F£LLIS PA � � — E : FIRE n K 3O TJRNINO RADIUS °SeC[K -- EAfBEM / DRIVE IF. PA SOR — / � LAHFI.fSY. Ors Ia SS. �Tes�nn.F m TGRA6E 05 sear 2 DRIVE C noxiv. azcJ I I [ PA IE 000L COMB 4 `E"'ER TOP 1PEL16 1 1 FF r �J 4 SATE 0000� 000 - RETE IJOG STATION --. III o0000VEI000 e' oez eel P ------------ ]0000r la mlutt PA PA b'WG IFEIGE 5TEEL HEADER (TYP) / / KX Is' 5. £REPAIR STATIGN �e eff --� / L0r3 DRIVE IVImER LPNLPY PLE ]o'BB/eBICY mYxs UrIER DRIVE ffi IFlp emt'.efr _ _ _ _ ncce'n en¢rcnr . °s K 26. _ —/ Fear K•a — EJ ululuL -IuuuuLr EI�4 I� pry/ `A'� TJ LJ LJoH 0000 oH[ PNA EASEMENT L'oLJL K1 ==T 0HHOHI IHHHHHHC r F ^� "IDHOHI HH00H� �'^n° P^ BP. % a ]HH00 7HooHC .. a PPfXINb " ter — iV=T 344YSI6N PAV65 IR rn9 >YJ DRIVE 3 DRI GONCFETE SO' etlRv 30 :REIE SO' UTILITY/ EFER6ENCY VE CURB 6 SUTTER } 6urTER ACCE`Y EAse-Exr R m.P) �£r 20• /..., \ 6' CONCRETE PAry hYP) 57DC A�C£� IUN� I nDHke° n 5T3bO'a�m-/ FUTURE NGRm RDW CEm�aot IU uDSFr LD / - - - -- - _ SETBACK ' 4'TO S'H4K tI __ OT ITHE 7FlR�TORM N�Etl911Ni 0.1£6 A'iiVLT rl� lwralvsircl R.E 12"-Ib' SEC, BLOCK RETAINIFS YtALL (TTP) ACCESS R9FiR]NRN MLLEV.'iA' IIL II II _ _ E ROAD Y Exisn FESrRIPIN6 I U6 PE0 w.LK I I I Ir 12 10.111-I IS 1I 3T' EXIST. y'1 EXISTING EDGE PL TO EOA 1 OF ASPHALT O EOSTIN66RAVEL IIII I I SHd1LOER N I � � l C i DR VE PA 6Hal rat GE _ j1 -1 I # �I \ STEEL HEADER T'PJ I IL F- f I / X/R\ I sTldOnlrE \ �FSTPA t l 1 I I �I 111 IF — AV FTavAFFiEaa.E� a I I �I I I�II �I II _ Iv IBI ✓I�II sal IL DRIVE uvB FrnX�IrI l� I0)mxuBvc GETEEiTot - II K-`.smr�FRa nau� Pl2SO Adm.A I 411]II]7Ji l I I I �j IyYW.901W� I I I 20'EXIST. IOU Ii Ex STORMWATER INFILTRATION I I I I BASIN `L LID MEAS)REs I Imo) DRAINAbE EASEHSBr Ia�_ol LONLREIE I: I ` 4942— CURB It FIRIEC fTrPJ I JI' L= ' P I ++ r\ II -I TI.RF TYPEB�I _ :3 ` rvDPavATE1'RVAM I I cw.E l_N vwix-r'E�I�rotRA� - � I sTatr�l -0L_ LIHODL 0000HT �ooHH 0H0oH „�4� —00000H 0Ho0H1 0H00� � 0000000 OHHHH, oHHHHI °Ra o00o00 o0oor IHHHH vl F00000 --� zr lrtl r ln9 50' HF MI N IH' -------sr----lln --------- D2-cwvE4R 4 � - 15, LIDS} SET SI 94WE ~PA 6EO BLOCK RETAINING W ( ) it I_ I -15 SO I DRIVE x LJ rRD+ IENIAn?I :I LID SKIN JTLIEXIST. vnLlx 20' UTILITY / I A T —i EASEMEM ~ PAASEMEM.../ In I I 12- IB' GEO BLOCK wTAIHIx6 hYLLL ( PJ 9 T1l 15 0 30 60 ® DRIVE& PARKING PEKYiOUS PAVERS ORIGNAL SCALE: 1' COMPACTED CRUSHER FINES (BIERGARTEN&BIKE PARKING) 07/01/15 PATIO PERVIOUS PAVERS 5HEET20F 17 ® COLOREDCONCRETE_PAVING 0 BLUEGRASS TU STEEL HEADER W/GRAVEL MULCH ® J•R ENGINEERING ---- 6'HGT WIKE-WEIR FENCE P Wx'Inan CwlFeny —a— fi'HGT CRAFTBREWERV PATIO FENCE H BIKE LACK (9&3 BI KES) CelwW 35-74) -W C�*rgs 719-593-2W FA CnF° 910-95F9BBB. rIMIoMrewgmn i P� I� 1:acL�oo��i STEEL LEMAY AVE. CRAFT BREWERY & SELF -STORAGE FACILITY PRELIMINARY PRO)EGT DEVELOPMENT PLAN LANDSCAPE PLAN NTdIW lMR(, UMMLI£RM•X b IFMAY AVENIE easTns aff of AEPxaLr (ARIH3IPL Rol O WIIFLLVEE6 N1nYE 3tAYF .. 9J£6RA^t1• 77— 9 M`IP aIEHWs 3- fuf6 3EC�IF -d OG �P5El OLE.a�IZ 3Y1P- 9GLb E B a IIII SA 1 lei'' 1j 0...�.. 1 �° Nk5 �/ Y 6 J V G"J�y'IL 17 A 111• it 1 � AL, e1•`7I o eIIIIINW4,•W �11 ii- �°� I��IN t 'f i ••Vf� =I•li 9 i 1 1,1 �;.�•� III � ��„�, �� IIII 1�ii1��771111 _. ii�sfei_�.el�-- _ _ZBINf r------------------- BUM 11,��( (M1H 10 GEGi ����-12'--IB"6EBLOLK RETAI1£KWP) fi 1 I IL sTEL HEADER 1T_'P_J______________ EXISTIN5 019F-SITE COW FEl TREE TO BE H+E'iERVEO �pv�� Z ..2 EXISTINS OFF -SITE G IIWOJS f-l.'ftS1 TREE TO BE PRESERVED PROPOSED MIN' - CONTp �- PROPOSED MA R5- LONTCUR TREE, - Sl STREET/ SHPI TREE ^\ TREE.YLALIPER I ` ORNAMENTAL TREE, 2- LPLIFl3L 513E \�•/� DECI ADIX, SH21d, 5 5l CONTAINER C IFERP)554l 5 Ill CONTAINER \� PERENNIAL/ORNAMEMAL 6RASEEs, I OR 5 GALLON CONTAINER / ON PER - , iitliiii !! „ tAra�A .16"�•..,.. �_w'n�Ji(G� "�� eIL_.�ir� IuLL•�Y'-. Lfs _W-mL3 -- ---- - --- w A�.�r�azsJ I%O ELP'.K RETAININS WALL (TTP) SRASS III � MASTER L..' BLUE 6RPMA 6RA%SEEP MIX MVIROTRIF GR PPPRIVED EGUAL TURF TYPE B: PAYNE< 911TEs FB51 F IRIE IETLAND SEED MIX Oq.I TED GRUSHEA FINS 13LB/IMMSF)IXE APPROVED EOUAL .. -:.- (00LOR TO BE DETERMINED) nWF TYFF C.PF iNT TQHEANT STEEL HEPDEA . 2-_3" DIAMETER IRRIGATED SEED MIX `�Jl� RIVER ROLK KI MITH 4 0 B RRI� o SEE MIX 6 NATNE GRASSES SEED MIX _ STEEL XEPDER 20 T -- [XDMNT Doer _ �x w4K- sT(� 40F1BN Will:MRi18U 000°� �: o Y I.' no MH AM y ,--- /. 4-LLC 3 W ` I..' �VS�� I `EtlST PHmN3 � I 1 VI �I aoPRVAEDa.E� I il�� �11 Ali I I NENrnn � I I L I LIDeKNx I 'I �I b ) RJIIIMEDLx. ML b ux.T wXAft2'FFiw I I I `� �.� I I :'I PAwNnws�ETeRNARra)NG DETENTION I �� � � f 1121ul 9-XJ 20'EXIST. / nu B°F (_.. I'. IEh£MENT } I_ STORMWATER INFILTRATIOx 1V BASIN FOR LID MEASURES If.' f •�_. DFA KAOEEA5EMENi- 1' . ai - in B vR=TrPI ENSTFNAl I tac I if I I Z PzvnJEas£ 3-w 3ue �E F 3 w _ I 1 1 1 EXOTEAMS, 19 s Y.dr UTA 3-LLPB� t � R£�I19.'TATQ! I ID EKIH 2TILITT. �� uTY .•1 Pe 20' LTLITY-- EA' ENT .. ��IIyy{{yypp AS£LNITS y 3.ASB 4-BYD 1 .I -_ 5-BYD 9-GC 5-R38 12--18" 6E0 ELOGK R�ET�AiIWNy�6H�^LL (TYP) 30 15 0 30 60 ORIGINAL SCALE: 10 - 30' 07/01/15 Sl4 OF 17 J•R ENGINEERING AW ftian Cmryny Cl 3U3-740-W • GYvarlo $m9: 76-543-2M FON CUFG 911F991-9333 • Y.TVMLmgn�r.3mn 5 D iC 133'-0" B uA 133•-D•' 128•-0- 12D•-D' ERR D. C91EXTERIO 4s• _ ea^ B9 EXTERIOR ELEVATION - EAST LIR" = I, Al 1 AERIAL PERSPECTIVE - NE ' 5 LOCATION OF BUILDING SIGNAGE TO BE DETERMINED). SIGNAGE LORDANCE WITH CITY LAND USE NOBS AND APPROVED& IDER SEPARATE SUBMITTAL iTANDING-SEAM AGES LL WALLPANELS TAP SIDING APPEARANCE) IS & CANOPY IMINUM SECTIONAL S IMINUM STOREFRONT w nrw wa n DOORS APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BUILDING SIGNAGE (NAME/LOGO TO BE DETERMINED). SIGNAGE SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY LAND USE CODE REGULATIONS AND APPROVED& PERMITTED UNDER SEPARATE SUBMITTAL PREFINISHEDSTANDINGSCAM M FLAT ROOF PANELS FORMED METAL WALL PANELS (HORIZONTAL LAP SIDING APPEARANCE) NONREFLECTIVECORRUGATED GRAIN SILO FORMED METAL WALL PANELS (HORIZONTAL LAP SIDING APPEARANCE) ANODIZED ALUMINUM STOREFRONT WINDOWS ALUMINUM ARCHITECTURAL PANELS STONE/SLATE BASE d h AAY I AERIAL PERSPECTIVE -AXON SE s D C B A RB+B ARCHITECTS J-R ENGlNEMNG KKEN MERRILL DIRECTOR OF PLANNING 7200 SOUTH ALTON WAY SUITE COW CENTENNIAL, CO 80112 Z I— U J Lu a n O F L r W Z O. Lu p 1 i aV)a W. ON jujj » (( Q W W >a � LV W 3 W m ro F- 0 LL Q N Z J O Lu O ¢ L,_ Z O ¢ W > W O a �wz > _� Q o� J g Um Lu lme m J u- ED PROJECT a: 1505 ISSUE DATE: 6/16/2015 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS & AERIAL PERSPECTIVES 8 of 1 D iC B uA 2 1 3 ' 4 ' 133'-0- 11". D 11 EXTERIOR ELEVATION -SOUTH _ 1i-0ii 1W'-0" B 9 EXTERIOR ELEVATION -WEST 11, -1-0° All SE SW 5 PREFINISHEDSTANDINGSCAM METAL ROOF PANELS FORMED METAL WALL PANELS (HORIZONTAL LAP SIDING APPEARANCE) NON -REFLECTIVE CORRUGATED GRAIN SILO FORMED METAL WALL PANELS (HORIZONTAL LAP SIDING APPEARANCE) TRANSLUCENT PANELS PAINTED HOLLOW METAL DOORS STONE/SLATE BASE ANODIZED ALUMINUM SECTIONAL GA UAE DOORS PREFINISHEDSTANDINGSEAM METALROOFPANELS FORMED METAL WALL PANELS (HORIZONTAL LAP SIDING APPEARANCE) TRASH & RECYCLING ENCLOSURE STONE/SLATE BASE ANODIZED ALUMINUM STOREFRONT WINDOWS APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BUILDING SIGNAG (NAME/LOGO TO BE DETERMINED). SIGNAGE SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY LAND USE CODE REGULATIONS AND APPROVED& PERMITTED U HUGE SEPARATE SUBM FLAT. ®S9 A31 AERIAL PERSPECTIVE - AXON SE N WPERSPECTIVE - AXON SE N W D C B A RB+B ARCHITECTS J-R ENGINEMNG KKEN MERRILL DIRECTOR OF PLANNING 7200 SOUTH ALTON WAY SUITE COW CENTENNIAL, CO 80112 Z I— U J Lu a n OF �Wz O. Lu O(x aV)a W. OJ ON ujj » I -I O UJ W >a � LV W 3 W US W W F— 0 LL Q N Z J O Lu O ¢ 0 Z O ¢ W > W O a ulul w > _U1 Q o� LIU g UDO Lu Ime NO J 0 PROJECT a: 1505 Li5UE DATE: 6/16/2015 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS & AERIAL PERSPECJWES 9 of i M 1 1 LEMAY SELF -STORAGE S E LF.SMA ORAG E 000 II I II ie Lpa•�I! 11 11 11 II � li 1� I� � } '- '�.,; S T BUILDING a= d A EAST ELEVATION U � 1 (\ BULDINO A SOUTH ELEVATION J SCN£1H'=1d /BUILDING A WEST ELEVATION �/ 5CN£1iH'=1d in1 PPG BUILDINA NORTH ELEVATION Y YNE 19'= ru?w aasE"an eiaEii>"m TORW n zla Galloway Bmg.ANiAle Egin 6162 S MMLtire, 90e 320 M37MUM 0 M37MW�00111 F I F xw.galbnyllSom FOR Collis SeRSlarage, LLC W13 BLUESTEM COURT, FORT COILINS, W W525 LL J W N 06 LU W W of m H F } Z U � a Lu O z ¢ w > LL i W U U lL Z wo as MaN 9y SHEET WIFE: STORAGEFMLIW EUNATION0 BUIMING A _-rr ■fiTrim OB WEST ELEVATION II:,i F PANELS TO ROOT TO ROOF FORKEDNET�MLLPANEIS Ttm © • •' • ©: 1 B SOUTH ELEVATION e- x- x- x- =- ■- x- v� •B EAST ELEVATION Galloway Wng.ANiAle Egin 6161SMML ,9 120 Geamo6 ge.CO00111 361.7MMU 0 M37MWM F xw.ylNwyUsS FOR Collis Seff-Sbmge, LLC 5013BLUESTEMCOURT, FORT COLLINS, W W525 LL J W N » } LU W W of m H F } Z U � a Lu O Z Q > Lu LL i W U U lL Z wo as SHEET WIFE STORAGE FACILITY EL=/ATONS BUILDING B 12 62 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BUILDING SICNAGE(N9MHL(I TORE GEIERMIN EO). ROWE STEEL ROSFSI1FWMi FCW.EDAETSiW RANKS PRELENISH®sTANDINGSFAM Galloway SWLLL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY LAND USE CODE REGUlATI0NSAND AWROVED& ITMOSENTAT EETOLHS£PMEIS PEMIIIIEO UNDER SEPARATE M MIIIAL. Fl162SM Dw, SaWADSq TO RNF W 77DWIox Ltire.9nell0 —i14-S� Pf¢gmpJ41L9e. CO0B111 361.7MWM 0 MllA5636 F FORM®METAL WPILPNELS 9aINwyUSLpn IYHIIICPI) o..�....m.,...imw _ • • — — _RNF NOTING SICIEAttM1iGIFZING FOR Collins Self-Sl➢rage, LLC •• .• .. .. KDFLWRPVN� - — . — - - — - — - - — - — - - - — - - 12<'-B' W13 RLUESTEM COUBF, FORT COLLINS, WW525 2NDROCR" JM PREFINISHEDSTCFAC£DOUR MAM ON BREWE1WiOMATO1 flnFE FLaDRIF FOB \BUILDING C EAST ELEVATION O� SG4E 18'=1'd METAL IA EDSWNDIxD eFAM ADMIT BEINACOTIONRDANCE BUIWITH GTE LAND UK ODEREBOTOONS ADDRAPEDEBED) SGNAGE =6ET F'CrSHERASTANDING SCAM METAL RACE RANKS sIWLBEDUNDERDELARAT1HUYlY LAND usECODERHiuNHone ANOAPE ROVEO& C3i. FOCF PAnRS PERu111R1urvDEASBARAIE suBMIiTN. COPYRIGHT TOR FORMED1.ETILW PANRs 1MLLMEKUR(S)AMPF03CNED. IFIRS (xatlmxloL) FORMED kEieL wAUPAXRs W FORMEDC J W N _]Im RacnnAN od Lu — W W Ml RaptnPN m . } C)Lu 771 a J Z Q W _ W W W W 0 FLOOIM�� Ur 1- M PPEFINSHEO FORADEDOOR CMD &l.E(Ia FALSE TO M ATCNwB'BE11 CC LOS TO NI ATCH CNIU BASE (2L COLOR TO M ATOH BASE ON BPEWEHY EASEON BRHNEhT PRE4IrvIeHEO GfoRAGE DOOR BAR ON BREWERY } W CM UBASEN)CWORMMATCH Z BUILDING C SOUTH ELEVATION �1 BUILDING C NORTH ELEVATION BASECHBREWERY L SBAL£tB=ra 9AIEIR'=rn J On METAL ROSE PANELSxc SEPM MEIALRWFPPNELS TO'OSR, 0 AN, breDaat _ _ ROOFBEARING — FORMED METAL WALL PANELS W HALT FORMED METAL WALL PANELS JHDRZONTAU ._._ _. _... 31WF.144 Nh RIND FLOCRPLW112 � O^^0✓NGN 4 BUILDING scue tM'=ru' D BABE STORAGEFAOLIIYELEVATIONS BUILDING G 13 63 T1 1BUILDING D3 EAST ELEVATION �R" — aax IaP-P ( )BUILDING D3 NORTH ELEVATION L Y.NE 19'=1'V ( Y)BUILDING D3 WEST ELEVATION �/ SCNE 19'=,m TO ROOF2 ,11-s TO RmF — — - 115 VP FLCCRPIPN� TO P _ FILURPVX� 1W-0' %1 BUNE.ILDINlWNG D3 SOUTH ELEVATION J SP. TO FA51 ,R-5. Tf" FTmRPva lw w s BUILDING D4 EAST ELEVATION (`TJ scXe tM'=rs TO RD" F iRPVNA& 1W-P (�a1 BUILDING D4 NORTH ELEVATION V WC lm'=" BUILDING D4 WEST ELEVATION �i scXe tM'=rs MEFX IUOF PMEI3 - - - To es aacMul —W-P BUILDING D4 SOUTH ELEVATION T scue tr' - PRE FIu l9 ED STPNO M SFAM METXROOFPPREIS TOM 11T-5' TORW amRPva� Galloway Bmg.ANiAle Egin fi163S WIox Ltire,9nell0 M37MUM 0 �BO111 M37MWM O l WlWi6 F xw.ylbweyOScpn Fort C him SOI-Sbmge, LLCi W13 BLUESTEM COURT, FORT COLLINS, W W525 ,COS J� o� eo QO O� COPYRIGHT LL w 06 Y Lu w w of m H F z > w U a Lu 0 Z Q > Lu LL i w CD U w Z wo as 7w �m SHEET TITLE STORAGE FACILITY EL-VATONS WIMING 03,04 15 E4 T`I I!MT D1 EAST ELEVATION (Y )BUILDING D1 WEST ELEVATION 117 T ID]-P L BUILDING D7 NORTH ELEVATION sauE ,�=,a BUILDING D2 EAST ELEVATION „p BUILDING D2 WEST ELEVATION ,�=, w _ TO POST 11d-6" FLOCI —JIL W-P BUILDING D1 SOUTH ELEVATION _— _ _ _ _ Ta.RooF� 1 HOE BUILDING D2 NORTH ELEVATION UsauE ,�=,a TO PRIOR 112 6' JA _ RTjoy� tl-P 7 BUILDING D2 SOUTH ELEVATION To RaoF 11j-66 METXRCOFPPNFTS TaRaC& 6" FLWRPIANN lotl-o" I Galloway PI NJdV1e EgiAFnq 61623Bffi xPMx,90e310 ffeNromm i¢,colo111 M3770MM 0 M3770MM F rn.we usm ASPEN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC 5013 BLUESTEM COURT, FORT COW NS, GO TOUR O� G�\ a5 00 O� COPYRIGHT THESE PLANE ME BN INSTRUSENT OF SERGCE MDAPETHEPROPERTYOFTHEBRUTTECTUD BRIFY NOT BE EUPLICEPED DISCLOSED OR REPRODUCEOWTHOUTTHEWRTTENCONSENTOF THE ARCHLECT COPYRIGHTS ME INFRINGMENTS ALL BE ENFORCEDAND PROSECUTED LL w U) ca w w W m � z w U a W O z Q w ELIi �i lL � U GO z wo as M W@ ImiaDm'm[Om 1 Berpgmyml�l T P W fCSW lol SHEET TITLE STORAGE FAGLIW ELEVATIONS BUILDING 01,@ 14 65 NORTH LEMAY SUBDIVISION, THIRD FILING BEING A REPLAT OF LOT 2, THE SECOND REPLAT OF NORTH LEMAY SUBDIVISION, SECOND FILING, A MINOR SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M. CITY OF FORT COLLINS, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP AND SUBDIVISIONS KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THEY PRESENTS. THAT ME UNDERSIGNED. BEING ME OWNER OF ME FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LAND A PENTON OF ME NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12. TOWNSHIP 7 NORM, RANGE fig WEST OF THE 6TH PM, CITY OF FORT COLLINS COUNTY CE LARIMER, STATE CE COLORADO. MORE PARTWLARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOT 2. ME SECOND REPIAT OF NORTH LEMAY SUBDMSICN, SECOND FILING, A MINOR SUBDIVISION, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, RECORDED UNDER RECEPTOR NO. 93067682 IN ME RECORDS OF ME LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER. FOR THEMSELVES AND WEIR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST (COWECTVELY. -OWNER-) HAVE CAUSED ME ABOVE DESCRIBED LAND TO BE SURVEYED AND SUBDIVIDED INTO LOTS, TRACTS AND STREETS AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS 'NORTH LEMAY SER IVSI[N, MIRE HUNG', (ME 'DEVELOPMENT') SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS -OF -WAY NOW OF RECORD OR EXISTING OR INDICATED ON THIS PLAT. ME RIGHTS AND CBUCATONS OF THIS PLAT SHALL RUN WW ME LAND, CERTIFICATE OF DEDICATIONS ME PAVER DOES HEREBY DEDICATE AND CONVEY TO ME CITY OF EMT DOWNS. COLORADO (HEREAFTER 'CITY), FOR PUBLIC USE, FOREVER, A PERMANENT RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR STREET PURPOSES AND ME 'EASEMENTS" AS LAID OUT AND DESIGNATED ON THIS PLAT; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT (I)ACCEPTANCE BY ME CITY OF THIS DEDICATION OF CASEMENTS DOES NOT IMPOSE UPON ME CITY A DUTY TO MAINTAIN ME EASEMENTS SO DEDICATED, AND (2) ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY OF THIS DEDICATION OF STREETS DOES NOT IMPOSE UPON ME CITY A DUTY TO MAINTAIN SWEETS 50 DEDICATED UNTIL SUCH TIME AS ME PROVISIONS OF ME MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE HAYS BEEN FULLY SATISFIED. PROPERTY OWNERS FORT COLLINS SELF-STORAC£. L.C. BY: STATE OF COLORADO ) )S.S. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) ME FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF , 20, BY AS OF FORT COLLINS SELF -STORAGE. LED, FOR ME PURPOSE HEREIN ABOVE SET FORM. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. MY COMMISSION NOTICE ALL RESPONSIBILITIES AND COSTS OF OPERATION. MAINTENANCE AND RECONSTRUCTON OF ME PRIVATE STREETS AND/OR DRIVES LOCATED ON ME PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS PLAT SHALL BE BORNE BY THE OWNERS OF SAID PROPERTY. EITHER INDIVIDUALLY, OR COLLECTVELY. THROUGH A PROPERTY OWNERSASSOCIATES. IF APPUCABLE. FIE CITY OF EMT COLONS SHALL HAVE NO OBLIGATION OF OPERATION, MAINTENANCE OR RECONSTRUCTION OF SUCH PRIVATE STREETS AND/OR DRIVES BOB SHALL ME CRY HAYS ANY C9UGATCN TO ACCEPT SUCH SWEETS AND/OR DRIVES AS PUBLIC SWEETS OR DRIVES E. VNE DR. N.T.S, y4 d BUCKINCJIAM $i 10 J SITE ke4E \ SA E. UNCOLN AVE. VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE NOTICE OF OTHER DOCUMENTSS ALL PERSONS TAKE NOTICE THAT WE OWNER HAS EXECUTED CERTAIN DOCUMENTS PERTNNING TO THIS DEVELOPMENT WHICH CREATE CERTAIN RIGHTS AND CBUGATONS OF TIE DEVELOPMENT, ME OWNER AND/OR SUBSEQUENT OWNERS OF ALL OR PORTIONS CF THE DEVELOPMENT SIZE. MANY OF WHICH MEGATONS CONSTITUTE PROMISES AND COVENANTS THAT. ALONG NOR THE OBLIGATIONS UNDER THIS PLAT. RUN WITH THE LAND. FIE SAID DOCUMENTS MAY ALSO BE AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME AND MAY INCLUDE, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, SIZE AND LANDSCAPE COVENANT$ FINAL SIZE PLAN, FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN, AND ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS, MICH DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN ME OFFICE OF ME CLERK OF THE CITY AND SHOULD BE CLOSELY EXAMINED BY ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN PURCHASING ANY PORTEN BE ME DEVELOPMENT SITE. SURVEYOR'S STATEMENTS I, JARR00 ADAMS, A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR IN ME STATE OF COLORADO, DO HEREBY STAIR THAT THIS SUBDIVISION PLAT WAS PREPARED MGM AN ACTUAL SURVEY UNDER MY PERSONAL SUPERVSICN. THAT FIE MCNUMENTAPON AS INDICATED HEREON WERE FOUND OR SET AS SHOWN, AND THAT THE FORGOING PLAT IS AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION THEREOF, ALL THIS TO ME BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION AND BELIEF. 111• \e ILV _ 1 �io07�I1 NOTICES ACCORDING TO COLORPDO LAW YW MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WMIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT. MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN MY YEARS AFTER ME DAM OF ME CERTMCATON SHOWN HEREON, I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SUBDIVISION PLAT HAS BEEN DULY EXECUTED AS REWIRED PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.23(C)(3)(0) THROUGH (e) INCLUSIK OF THE LAND UK CODE OF ME CRY OF FORT COLLINS AND THAT ALL PERSONS SIGNING THIS SUBDIVISION PLAT ON BEHALF OF A CORPORATION OR OTHER ENTITY ARE DULY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORIES MAINTENANCE GUARANTEES RECORDER OF TANNER ME STATE COLORADO AS OF ME DAMlOF EXECUTION D`TF UPON Pui AND OTMER`ME IN naN AND ME OWNER HEREBY WARRANTS AND GUARANTEES TO ME CITY, FOR A SEEING OF TWO (2) YEARS FROM THE DATE OF COMPLETION AND FIRST ACCEPTANCE DISCOVERED BY ME THROUGH REASONABLE INQUIRY AND IS LIMITED AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 2. 2.3(C)(3)(0 BE ME BY ME CITY OF ME IMPROVEMENTS WARRANTED HEREUNDER. ME FULL AND COMPLETE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF FIE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE LAND USE CODE ME OWNER SHALL MAINTAIN SAID IMPROVEMENTS IN A MANNER THAT WILL ASSURE COMPLIANCE ON A CONSISTENT BASIS WITH ALL CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS OF ME CRY. ME OWNER SHALL ALSO CORRECT AND REPAIR, OR CAUSE TO BE CORRECTED AND REPAIRED, ALL DAMAGES TO SAID IMPROWMENTS RESULTNG MOM DEVELOPMENT -RELATED CR BUILDING -RELATED ACTIVITIES. IN ME EVENT ME UNDERGONE) FAILS TO CORRECT ANY DAMAGES NIMIN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER WRITTEN NOTICE THEREOF, MEN SAID DAMAGES MAY BE CORRECTED BY THE CITY AND ALL COSTS AND CHARGES BILLED TO AND PAID BY THE OWNER. WE CITY SHALL ALSO HAVE ANY OTHER REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO IT AS AUTHORIZED BY LAW. ANY DAMAGES WHICH OCCURRED PRIOR TO ME ENO OF SAID TWO (2) YEAR PERIOD AND WHICH ARE DEMEANED AT ME TERMINATION OF SAID PERIOD SHALL REMAIN THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ME OWNER. REPAIR GUARANTEES IN CONSIDERATION OF WE APPROVAL OF THIS FINAL PLAT AND OTHER VALUABLE CONSIDERATION. ME OWNER DOES HEREBY AGREE TO HOLD ME CITY. ADDRESS'. REGISTRATION APPROVED AS TO FORM. CITY ENGINEERS BY ME CITY ENGINEER OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO THIS DAY OF A.D., 20 CITY ENONEER WB-DRAINS, CULVERTS, WALLS AND BRIDGES WITHIN ME RIGHT-OF-WAY, EASEMENTS AND OTHER PUBLIC PROPERTIES, RESULTING FROM FNITURES CAUSED BY PLANNING APPROVALS DESIGN AND/OR WNSWUCTON DEFECTS THIS AGREEMENT TO HOLD ME CITY HARMLESS INCLUDES DEFECTS IN MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP, AS WELL AS DEFECTS CAUSED BY OR CONSSTNG OF SETTLING TRENCHES, FILLS OR EXCAVATIONS. BY ME DIRECTOR OF PLANNING OF ME CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO THIS DAY ME OWNER WARRANTS THAT HE/SHE OWNS FEE SIMPLE TIME TO ME PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON AND AGREES THAT ME Cltt SHALL NOT BE ME OWNER OR HIS/HER SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST DURING ME WARRANTY PERIOD, FOR ANY CI -AIM OF DAMAGES RESULTED MGM NEGUGENCE IN ENGINEERING TECHNIQUES AND DUE CAUTION IN FIE CONSTRUCTION OF CROSS DRAINS, DRIVES, STRUCTURES OR BUILDINGS, ME CHANCING OF DF STREAMS AND RIVERS. FLOODING MGM NATURAL CREEKS AND RIVERS. AND ANY OMER MATTER WHATSOEVER ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. ANY AND ME OBLIGATIONS OF ME OWNER PURSUANT TO THE 'MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE' AND 'REPAIR GUARANTEE` PROVISIONS SET FORM ABOVE MAY NOT BE ASSIGNED OF TRANSFERRED TO ANY OMER PERSON OR REMY UNLESS ME WARRANTED IMPROVEMENTS ARE COMPLETER BY, AND A LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE WARRANTED IMPROVEMENTS IS RECEIVED FROM ME CITY BY, SUCH OMER PERSON OR ENTRY. GENERAL NOTESS 1. PER C.R.S. IB-OA-WB, ANY PERSON WHO KNOWINGLY REMOVES, ALTERS OR DEFACES ANY PUBLIC LAND SURVEY MONUMENT OR LAND MONUMENT OR ACCESSORY. OWNERS A CLASS TWO (2) MISDEMEANOR. 2. PER C R.S. 38-51-105, 'ALL LINEAL UNITS DEPICTED ON THIS LAND SURVEY PLAT ARE LLS. SURVEY FI ONE METER EQUALS 39.37/12 LL5. SURVEY FEET, EXACTLY ACCORDING TO FIE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY 3, ME BASIS OF BEARINGS IS THE EAST ONE OF ME NORTHEAST 1/4 BE SECTION 12. TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 61H P.M. BEING MONUMENIED AT ME NORTHEAST CORNER BY A 3-1/6' ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED 'LS 17697' AND AT ME EAST 1/6 CORNER BY A 2-11V ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED 'LS 17497', BEING ASSUMED TO BEAR SOOLO.00'E A DISTANCE OF 2643,59 FEET {. WERE SHALL BE NO PRIVATE CONDITIONS. COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS THAT PROHIBIT OR LIMIT FIE INSTALLATION OF RESOURCE CONSERVING EQUIPMENT OR LANDSCAPING THAT ARE ALLOWED BY SECTIONS 12-120 - 12-122 OF THE Cltt CODE. 5. THIS LAND SURVEY DOES NOT CONSTNTE A TEE SEARCH BY JR ENGINEERING. LTD. TO DETERMINE OWNERSHIP OF THIS TRACT. OR VERIFY EASEMENTS OF RECORD. FOR ALL INFORMATION REGARDING EASEMENTS. RIGHTS -OF -WAY OR TEE OF RECORD. JR ENGINEERING. LTD. RELIED UPON TILE ORDER N0. FCC25125330-3. PREPARED BY LAND TIME GUARANTEE COMPANY, DATED DECEMBER 12, 2016 AT 5:NO P M. OF A.D., 20� DIRECTOR OF PLANNING NORTH LEMAY SUBDIVISION, THIRD FILING JOB NO. 39708.02 06-30-2015 SHEET 1 OF 2 J'R ENE A AYNFian Cmryny QKI41i 4��ha�u H^, H '9G ' U�:iu']'J:vv NORTH LEMAY SUBDIVISION, THIRD FILING BEING A REPLAT OF LOT 2, THE SECOND REPLAT OF NORTH LEMAY SUBDIVISION, SECOND FILING, A MINOR SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M. CITY OF FORT COLLINS, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO NE CCR. SEC. 12 E 1/4 COR. SEC. 12 TJN, R.69W. BM P.M. TJN, R.69W. 6TH P.M. RECOVERED 3-1/4" ALUMINUM CAP RECOVERED 2-1/2• ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED YS 17497STAMPED 'LS 1]49]" PER MONUMENT RECORD ACCEPTED DAMfERRVART 1994 - - - - - - - BASS TM.RGs - - - - - - PER MONUMENT RECORD ACCEPTED DATE NOVEMBER 2C01 �^\ - - - - -1 - - - - - - - - E LAME, AC 114 SEC . C I T]N, 69W, 6]H PM a V r 500V0'00'E 264159' 1F- 539.6' V - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,SFF DETAIL A .. CH-21.21 \ sow'DOT RECOVERED NO, 5 REBAR RECOVERED NO. 5 REBAR WM MANGE PLASTIC CAP rSTAMPED TTS 3M42" Dl1 EAST OF PROPERTY CORNER - - - - -NORTH LEMAY AVE. - I ------ ----------------------gL------- "1 3 gl $I RECOVERED E PLASM 5 REBAR P S ORANGE MCAP $TAMPED "PL$ 33542" 014' uti EAST OF PROPERTY CORNER 500'CO'W"E 732.12' 4.00' - - - - - - - - - - - - - -T 9UTILITY EASEMENT I I I LOT 1 0.422 SF I 1.089 AC DEDICATION B ROW S !V/ .479 0,0340 AC xl of nl gl � I F n pl Im y �I s I v Q I I C9 ? I �B'UmITY U EASEMEN! REC NO. 9J081881 m I I I I I F90V000' R-2000' L-31.a2'' CH-28 M' 400' N4500'00"W 6__0_____ I I'e ].0'_ 9' UTILITYEASEMENT N0. 4 SW'CO'DO'E 152.50_ UTILITY AND 81 I GI '81 $I z1 I LOT 3 31.055 M 0.7129 AC I 1 sOOW'oD'E I I p.BB' N909100E o.00'� -I _Be' 83.I2 163.88' NCOGO'CO"E 247.00 - - - - - - - - - - - 60'PLATIE R/1¢R PoKR M90,00- BOCWZcr PACT Tr R-40.00' rf9' AfFEC15 SY/B.ECT PFLPEFTY rL= 6; I CH-55]' 1II1YN45tl0OO Al � NOOtl0007E 182.`A / o NOOVO_00Y 182.W / / Ik90W'OO' 2, EMERGENCY 31.4 I-CH-282' ACCESS EASEMENT o I CH-283B' N45T10'00"W I I to al I� �I Im ^I 13 �I to al Ip pl 1ml Iz zI I I I I J I I / I NOOW OO•E 241.M' / R- M9"C" AEMERGUNCY R-45.G0NODW00'E 18-W-70.89M90tl0'00" CH-6364'/�\ 25.00' N45V0'00"W �L--35.3 ACCESS EASEMENT CH-35.36' NC'OO-W "W 42.W'OO'W �42.So' ---------------------------------- SOGWbO'E 423.50' 421.66 ISO(TWOO"E `NNOW OOT 5.00' RECOMERED NO. 5 REBAR W� ORANGE PLASTIC CAP EAST OF PROPERTY C;0RNEER 00 .115 156 23 STAMPED VIES M642 4 EAST OF PROPERTY CORNER DETAIL A 15 um/TYEAMf r REC NO. 9JM8 MF Q•90V0'W" NOOGO'CO'W 107.26'- R=45.Oo' -]0.89' CH-63 a' NIStlO'10000W"E tr90V0'00" V R-25.00'� N45TO V 1 L-39.2Y T 1 cE tl0'0O"E I I LINE TABLE LINE BEPRING DISTANCE L1 510'29'31"W &ale CURVE TABLE CURVE DELTA RADIUS LENGTH CHORD Cl 9000'00' 15.00' 2156' 445WWW 21.21' C2 90100'00' 25.00' 39.27' N45W'00'W 35.39' C3 46W'49' 45.00' 36.M' s2311'54i 35.45' Ca 43YA-1V 45.00' U25' S6811.54-E 33.43' I m IQ 0 IIQ $II 1" LOT 2 19 197.582 SF to !+I n 4.5359 AC 0 0 0 of fi 9 PIIQ g i� o.l Iv 2 z z z 2D' umrTr ORAM'AGE EASEMENT FEC N0. 931 N �M1 EMERGENCY Y "a ACCESS EASEMENT I o�i I W� R-25.00' L-39.27' I /A CH-35.36' / SOW'00•E / ti irk UTILITY EASEMENT $' e n SOOGOVOOT I.BW c / 1p82a• ___________ _-_ UTLITY AND EMERCENCT ___I- ACCESS EASEMENT Nf0'2g'3PE yy28 LOT NE MCOMO MEPLAT OF NORTH LEMA Y WRIGNN9q✓, SECOND FILING A MINAS SUB OCW REC NA 9"7582 RECOVERED NO 5 REBAR MW GREY PLASTC CAP ILLEGIBLE 0.16' NORM OF PROPERTY CORNER NORTH LEMAY SUBDIVISION, THIRD FILING JOB NO. 39708.02 06-30-2015 SHEET 2 OF 2 � W. J'R ENGINEMUN 30 15 0 30 Ay Ilan CnnPanY ORIGINAL SCALE' 1" - 3C Colwal 3DO-740-Si93.O]varlG SY^9178-543-2W FOB Gib 971F491-9BB3 • wwMrae ^7m S NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROJECT: Lemay and Buckingham LOCATION: Southwest Corner of N. Lemay and Buckingham DATE: June 15, 2015 APPLICANT: Self Storage CONSULTANTS: Ken Merritt, JR Engineering Tim Halopoff, JR Engineering CITY PLANNER: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner As proposed, the project consists of micro -brewery and self -storage at southwest corner of Lemay Avenue and Buckingham Street. The self -storage buildings are arranged in a variety of configurations. One building would be 60,000 square feet, three -stories, temperature controlled and include both drive -up and walk-through storage units. One building would be 15,000 square feet, one-story, temperature controlled and also include both drive -up and walk through units. A third building would be 16,000 square feet and one-story. Four buildings would be typical drive -up mini -storage units. The vacant site is 6.3 acres in size and zoned I, Industrial. Unless otherwise noted, all responses are from the applicant or consulting team. Questions, Concerns, Comments 1. How big is the pad site for the micro -brewery? A. About one acre. 2. What about parking? A We anticipate that the self -storage will generate very little demand for parking on an ongoing basis. We have three spaces at the office entrance. For the micro -brewery, we have 27 spaces. We also have nine parallel parking spaces along our frontage on Buckingham. These on -street spaces will become available after we improve our street frontage although these spaces will not count towards our required minimum. 3. Will 27 spaces be enough parking? We don't want cars spilling into our neighborhood. 1 A. We think for a micro -brewery of this size, 27 spaces will be sufficient. We also expect many patrons to arrive by bike so we have provided 57 bike parking spaces. 4. Will there be parking on -site for a food truck? A. Yes, we have provided space for a food truck in such a way so as to not block parking spaces. 5. Is sole access gained from Buckingham? No access onto Lemay? A. That's correct. We plan on a single driveway on Buckingham as the sole access to both the self -storage and micro -brewery. 6. How was your traffic data derived? A. Our traffic engineer derived our data from the Institute of Traffic Engineers Handbook which anticipates trip generation rates for a wide range of land uses. For the micro -brewery, we used two trip generation rates — one for the brewery (industrial land use) and one for the tap room (standard restaurant). Note that the standard restaurant was used for a trip generation rate only and that the tap room will not be serving food. For the self -storage... 7. We have congestion at the Lemay / Buckingham intersection. A. Our Transportation Impact Study evaluated this intersection. This T.I.S. has been submitted to the City but we have not received any feedback as of yet. We are aware that there is congestion and delay at this intersection during the afternoon peak. Lemay is classified as an arterial but not constructed to full arterial standards since there is no continuous left turn lane. Turning left from Buckingham onto Lemay during afternoon peak is delayed because traffic stacks up on Lemay. We intend to discuss these issues with the City's traffic operations department as part of the development review process. 8. You mentioned that Lemay is classified as an arterial. What is Buckingham's classification? A. Buckingham is classified on the City's Master Street Plan as a collector street. 9. Will Lemay ever be widened between Lincoln and Vine? A. The long term proposal (per the City's Master Street Plan) is to construct the Lemay Bypass so that the arterial roadway swings east around Andersonville (and San Christo and Via Lopez), then go over both the railroad tracks and East Vine Drive, then swing back down and tie back into Lemay well north of the Vine intersection. This will allow north -south travel to not be impacted by the train 2 crossing. Because of this long term proposal, the City may be reluctant to widen Lemay as a short term improvement. Under the long term scenario, with construction of the Bypass, existing Lemay could be down -graded to a local street with the possibility of a cul-de-sac versus crossing Vine Drive. A. Response from City: Please note that the Lemay Bypass is not a fully funded capital project at this time. 10. Will there be a traffic signal installed at Lemay and Buckingham? A. A full -movement traffic signal would have to be determined by the City 5s Traffic Operations Department. As part of the Lincoln Avenue improvements, however, the City may install a pedestrian -only signal for bikes and pedestrians. 11. What about the potential for flooding? Is the site flood prone? A. The site is not in the Poudre River or Dry Creek 100-year floodplains. As you probably know, the City constructed a levee along the Poudre just west of First Street on the Oxbow property. This protects a large area from the 100-year flood. 12. Will you be required to provide on -site stormwater detention? A. Yes, since the site naturally drains to the south, our detention pond would be located at the south edge of the site. 13.1 would like to comment that while we keep referring to Lemay, but along Andersonville, it is referred to as Ninth Street. 14.1 heard you mention that there is parking on -site for a food truck. Please make sure that there would be no food truck parking on either Lemay or Buckingham. 15. What about on -street bike lanes. A. As we develop our site and improve our Buckingham Street frontage, we expect that there will be a six-foot wide on -street bike lane along the south side of the roadway. We intend to develop in such a way that we hold the existing curb line constant, then stripe for an eight foot wide parallel parking lane, then stripe for the six foot bike lane. Since the north side of the road will not likely see re- development in the short term, the bike lane may be reduced to four feet wide, depending on how it is striped. 16. What is the height of the brewery? A. As you can see, the brewery is a one-story building with a large gable end. The height will be 28 feet to the top of the ridgeline. The gable end is 1.5 story. 9 70 17. What about the height of the 3-story self -storage building? A. This building will be 35 feet to the top. This will be lower than the existing building to the west. 18. Is the Conceptual Review site plan available on the web? A. Yes, all our Conceptual Review documents are on the City's website. 19. Will other property owners be responsible for widening Buckingham? A. Yes, Colorado Iron and Metal and New Belgium Brewery will be obligated to participate in road widening to the extent of the linear front footage. 20. Traffic in our neighborhood will just get worse. It's hard to get out of our neighborhood whether by car or bike. This is frustrating. A. The developer and the City are aware of the larger neighborhood access issues in this area. Please note that the potential Capstone Multi -Family project may allow a connection to Lincoln Avenue via internal local streets that do not exist now. There may be public participation opportunities to influence the Capstone overall design and circulation as the project is still in the review process, although it appears to be on hold at the present time. 21. What about the City forming a Special issues in our neighborhood. Improvement District to address the traffic A. Response From City: A Special Improvement District is a valid financing tool that funds public improvements and would need to be approved by City Council. There needs to enough interest from the surrounding property owners that are interested in developing vacant property in the short term to justify such a formation. To date, there has no interest expressed. 22. I'm concerned about the concentration of breweries in the northeast part of the City. A. We are aware of this concentration. Our belief is that the proposed brewery is relatively small compared to New Belgium and Odell which are the primary draws. Our proposed micro -brewery, however, will be much smaller and we think we will capture patrons that are already drawn to the area and that we, by ourselves, will not generate significant levels of new traffic. We also think that during nice weather, many patrons will arrive by bike and we have, as mentioned, 57 bike parking spaces. 0 71 23. Do you have any plans for parking overflow? A. At this time, we expect any overflow parking to be parallel parking on Buckingham. 24. How does the size of the micro -brewery compare to Equinox Brewery? A. The Equinox Tap Room is about 4,500 square feet and our Tap Room will be about 2,700 square feet. 25. What about the prairie dogs? A. We have submitted an Ecological Characterization Study to the City. Our preliminary finding is that since we are under 50 acres, we are allowed by the Land Use Code to undertake humane eradication. 26. What is your timeframe for moving forward from here? A. We anticipate making a submittal of a Project Development Plan (P.D.P.) to the City in July. We would then hope to have our public hearing with the Planning and Zoning Board in the Fall. We hope to have our Final Plan recorded in the Winter so we can break ground in the Spring of 2016. Ron 72 LEMAY AVENUE MICROBREWERY & SELF -STORAGE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO JULY 2015 Prepared for: JR Engineering 2900 South College Avenue, Suite 3D Fort Collins, CO 80525 Prepared by: DELICH ASSOCIATES 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, CO 80538 Phone: 970-669-2061 FAX: 970-669-5034 Project #1512 73 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS.......................................................................................... 2 LandUse.........................................................................................................................2 Roads.............................................................................................................................. 2 ExistingTraffic................................................................................................................. 5 ExistingOperation...........................................................................................................5 PedestriansFacilities...................................................................................................... 9 BicycleFacilities.............................................................................................................. 9 TransitFacilities.............................................................................................................. 9 III, PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT............................................................................... 10 TripGeneration............................................................................................................. 10 TripDistribution............................................................................................................. 10 Background Traffic Projections..................................................................................... 10 TripAssignment............................................................................................................ 15 SignalWarrants............................................................................................................. 15 Geometry...................................................................................................................... 15 OperationAnalysis........................................................................................................ 19 Vine/Lemay Adequate Public Facitlies.......................................................................... 21 Pedestrian Level of Service........................................................................................... 23 Bicycle Level of Service................................................................................................ 23 Transit Level of Service................................................................................................. 23 IV. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................. 24 LIST OF TABLES 1. Current Peak Hour Operation.................................................................................... 8 2. Trip Generation....................................................................................................... 12 3. Short Range (2020) Background Peak Hour Operation .......................................... 20 4. Short Range (2020) Total Peak Hour Operation..................................................... 22 //' DELICH �71 rASSOCIATES Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage TIS, July 2015 74 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Site Location.............................................................................................................3 2. Existing Intersection Geometry..................................................................................4 3. Recent Peak Hour Traffic.......................................................................................... 6 4. Balanced/Adjusted Recent Peak Hour Traffic........................................................... 7 5. Site Plan.................................................................................................................. 11 6. Trip Distribution....................................................................................................... 13 7. Short Range (2020) Background Peak Hour Traffic ................................................ 14 8. Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic........................................................................... 16 9. Short Range (2020) Total Peak Hour Traffic........................................................... 17 10. Short Range (2020) Geometry................................................................................ 18 APPENDICES A. Base Assumptions Packet B. Recent Peak Hour Traffic C. Current Peak Hour Operation/Level of Service Descriptions/Fort Collins LOS Standards D. Signal Warrant E. Short Range (2020) Background Peak Hour Operation F. Short Range (2020) Total Peak Hour Operation G. Pedestrian/Bicycle Level of Service //' DELICH �71 rASSOCIATES Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage TIS, July 2015 75 I. INTRODUCTION This intermediate transportation impact study (TIS) addresses the capacity, geometric, and control requirements at and near the proposed Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage. The proposed Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage is located in the southwest quadrant of the Lemay/Buckingham intersection in Fort Collins, Colorado. During the course of the analysis, numerous contacts were made with the project civil engineer/planner (JR Engineering) and the Fort Collins Traffic Engineering staff. This study generally conforms to the format set forth in the Fort Collins transportation impact study guidelines contained in the "Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards" (LCUASS). Appendix A contains the Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions form and related attachments for the Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage. The study involved the following steps: • Collect physical, traffic, and development data; • Perform trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment; • Determine peak hour traffic volumes; • Conduct capacity and operational level of service analyses on key intersections; • Analyze signal warrants; • Conduct level of service evaluation of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes of transportation. /J'DELICH �71 rASSOCIATES Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage TIS, July 2015 Page 1 76 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS The location of Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage is shown in Figure 1. It is important that a thorough understanding of the existing conditions be presented. Land Use Land uses in the area are primarily commercial and residential. There are residential uses to the northeast and southeast (future) of the site. There are commercial uses to the south and west of the site. The center of Fort Collins lies to the southwest of the proposed Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage site. Land adjacent to the site is flat (<2% grade) from a traffic operations perspective. The primary streets near Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage site are Lemay Avenue, Lincoln Avenue, Buckingham Street, and Vine Drive. The existing geometry at the key intersections is shown in Figure 2. Lemay Avenue is to the east of (adjacent to) the proposed Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage site. It is a north -south street classified as a four -lane arterial according to the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. North of Lincoln Avenue, the four -lane arterial classification assumes that Lemay Avenue will have a grade separation over Vine Drive. The segment of Lemay Avenue, adjacent to this site, is classified as a local street. It is not known when the Lemay Avenue grade separation will occur. Until that happens, Lemay Avenue does/will carry volumes commensurate with that of an arterial street. Currently, Lemay Avenue has a four -lane cross section, south of Lincoln and a two-lane cross section, north of Lincoln. At the Lemay/Lincoln intersection, Lemay Avenue has a northbound and a southbound left -turn lane, a through lane in each direction, and a northbound right -turn lane. While not marked with a right -turn arrow, the bike lane on the west side of Lemay Avenue widens to a 12 foot lane (approximately 105 feet long). This lane appears to be a shared motor vehicle/ bicycle lane. It functions as a southbound right -turn lane. At the Lemay/Buckingham intersection, Lemay Avenue has all northbound and southbound movements combined into single lanes. At the Lemay/Vine intersection, Lemay Avenue has all northbound and southbound movements combined into single lanes. The Lemay/Lincoln and Lemay/Vine intersections have signal control. The Lemay/Buckingham intersection has stop sign control on Buckingham Street. The posted speed limit in this area of Lemay Avenue is 35 mph, south of Lincoln Avenue, 30 mph from Lincoln to Vine Drive, and 35 mph, north of Vine Drive. Lincoln Avenue is to the south of the proposed Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage site. It is an east -west street classified as a two-lane arterial according to the Fort Collins Master Street plan. Currently, Lincoln Avenue has a two-lane cross //' DELICH Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage TIS, July 2015 771 rASSOCIATES Page 2 77 E Lemay Avenue Microbrewery U & Self Storage Vine Buckingham Lincoln Mulberry ag SCALE: 1 "=2000' SITE LOCATION Figure 1 _-// L-DELICH Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage TIS, July 2015 �7 1 rASSOCIATES Page 3 78 Buckingham - Denotes Lane c� E N J Vine Lincoln EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRY Figure 2 LDELICH Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage TIS, July 2015 �7 1 rASSOCIATES Page 4 79 section. At the Lemay/Lincoln intersection, Lincoln Avenue has an eastbound and a westbound left -turn lane, a through lane in each direction, and an eastbound and a westbound right -turn lane. The posted speed limit in this area of Lincoln Avenue is 35 mph. Buckingham Street is to the north of the proposed Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage site. It is an east -west street classified as a two-lane collector according to the Fort Collins Master Street plan. Currently, Buckingham Street has a two-lane cross section. At the Lemay/Buckingham intersection, Buckingham Street has all eastbound and westbound movements combined into single lanes. The east and west legs of Buckingham Street are offset by approximately 18 feet at the Lemay/ Buckingham intersection. West of Lemay Avenue, Buckingham Street is approximately 32 feet wide. East of Lemay Avenue, Buckingham Street is approximately 18 feet wide. The posted speed limit in this area on Buckingham Street is 30 mph, west of Lemay Avenue and 25 mph, east of Lemay Avenue. Vine Drive is to the north of the proposed Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self - Storage site. It is an east -west street classified a two-lane collector according to the Fort Collins Master Street plan. Currently, Vine Drive has a two-lane cross section. At the Lemay/Vine intersection, Vine Drive has an eastbound and a westbound left -turn lane and a through/right-turn lane in each direction. The posted speed limit in this area of Vine Drive is 35 mph, west of Lemay Avenue and 45 mph, east of Lemay Avenue. Existing Traffic Figure 3 shows recent peak hour traffic counts at the Lemay/Lincoln, Lemay/ Buckingham, and Lemay/Vine intersections. The traffic counts at the Lemay/Lincoln intersection were obtained in April 2014 by the City of Fort Collins. The traffic counts at the Lemay/Vine intersection were obtained in May 2014 by the City of Fort Collins. The traffic counts at the Lemay/Buckingham intersection were obtained in April 2015. Raw traffic count data are provided in Appendix B. Since the counts were done on different days, the counts were adjusted/balanced. The adjusted/balanced recent peak hour traffic is shown in Figure 4. The Lemay/Vine intersection counts were not adjusted, since they are the basis of the Adequate Public Facilities analysis. Existing Operation The Lemay/Lincoln, Lemay/Buckingham, and Lemay/Vine intersections were evaluated using techniques provided in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual and 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (for Lemay/Vine intersection). Calculation forms are provided in Appendix C. Using the morning and afternoon peak hour traffic shown in Figure 4, the peak hour operation and the calculated delay for levels of service E & F are shown in Table 1. The key intersections will meet the City of Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standard during in the morning and afternoon peak hours, except the //' DELICH Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage TIS, July 2015 �71 rASSOCIATES Page 5 80 Buckingham I A M 1A O L0 co :!t Lp M V 00 N r) 1 � 6/13 119/194 74/100 V 00 LO U�) N 0 N O J� 1O i 1 4/2 1/6 — 27/87 30/78 173/188 — 83/183 88/115 172/155 43/53 v v � LO 00 co LO M 6� M N N 0/2 2/4 2/3 O co ti 7t CO w v in `4 M 87/228 133/233 49/136 � i 10 CO Vine Lincoln RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 3 LDELICH Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage TIS, July 2015 �71 rASSOCIATES Page Buckingham I A M 1A L0 m :!t Lp M V W N r) 1 � 6/13 119/194 74/100 M LO V) CO i 1 4/2 1/6 — 28/86 Nt O co O v `L" 00 co m (0 ) i 1 ' 29/77 173/188 — 83/183 88/115 172/155 43/53 v v � LO 0 m LO M 6� M N N 0/2 2/4 2/3 O M r� 7t Oco v in `4 (.0 M 85/227 133/233 49/136 O h V) N O r� CO (Cv C W J Vine Lincoln BALANCED/ADJUSTED RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 4 LDELICH Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage TIS, July 2015 �71 rASSOCIATES Pagel TABLE 1 Current Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Lemay/Lincoln (signal) EB LT D D EB T E (57.1 secs) D EB RT A D EB APPROACH D D WB LT D D WB T D E (56.4 secs) WB RT A D WB APPROACH D D NB LT A A NB T B B NB RT A A NB APPROACH B B SB LT A B SB T B A SB RT A A SB APPROACH B A OVERALL C C Lemay/Buckingham (stop sign) EB LT/T/RT C C WB LT/T/RT D F (69.2 secs) NB LT/T/RT A A SB LT/T/RT A B Lemay/Vine (signal) EB LT C D EB T/RT D D EB APPROACH D D WB LT D E (55.7 secs) WB T/RT D D WB APPROACH D D SB LT/T/RT A A NB LT/T/RT A A OVERALL B C DELICH �71 rASSOCIATES Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage TIS, July 2015 Page 8 ME Lemay/Buckingham intersection in the afternoon peak hour. At the Lemay/Buckingham intersection, the calculated delay in the afternoon peak hour westbound approach was commensurate with level of service F. At the Lemay/Vine intersection, the calculated delay for the afternoon peak hour eastbound left turns was commensurate with level of service E. A description of level of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections from the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual is provided in Appendix C. Table 4-3 (revised per staff comments regarding type of intersection) showing the Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) are also provided in Appendix C. This site is in an area termed "all other areas" on the Fort Collins Structure Plan. In areas termed "all other areas," acceptable overall operation at signalized intersections during the peak hours is defined as level of service D or better. At signalized intersections, acceptable operation of any leg and any movement is level of service E. At arterial/arterial and arterial/collector or local stop sign controlled intersections, acceptable operation is considered to be at level of service E. At collector/local stop sign controlled intersections, acceptable operation is considered to be at level of service C for any approach leg. Pedestrian Facilities There are sidewalks along Lincoln Avenue adjacent to developed properties. There are sidewalks along the west side of Lemay Avenue, between Lincoln Avenue and Vine Drive. There are sidewalks along the east side of Lemay Avenue, south of Lincoln Avenue. There is sidewalk/curb/gutter on the south side of Buckingham Street along the frontage of the property to the west of this site. It is expected that as properties in this area are developed or redeveloped, sidewalks will be installed as part of the street/property infrastructure. Bicycle Facilities Bicycle lanes exist along Lincoln Avenue, Lemay Avenue, Buckingham Street, and Vine Drive within the study area. The bike lane on the south side of Buckingham Street, adjacent to the property to the west of the site, is 10-11 feet wide. This segment appears to have on -street parking. Transit Facilities Currently, this area of Fort Collins is served by Transfort routes 5 and 14. //' DELICH �71 rASSOCIATES Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage TIS, July 2015 Page 9 :E III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage is a proposed commercial development. Figure 5 shows a site plan of Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self - Storage. Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage is proposed as an approximately 8,200 square foot microbrewery with taproom and approximately 104,575 square feet in a self -storage facility. Primary access to Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage will be via a full -movement access to/from Buckingham Street. The short range analysis (Year 2020) includes development of the Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self - Storage site and an appropriate increase in background traffic, due to normal growth, and other approved or expected developments in the area. Trip Generation Trip generation is important in considering the impact of a development such as this upon the existing and proposed street system. A compilation of trip generation information contained in Trip Generation, 9t" Edition, ITE was used to estimate trips that would be generated by the self -storage portion of this site. For the self -storage, Land Use Code 151 — Mini -warehouse was used. Since ccmicrobrewery" is not a land use category contained in the cited reference, a combination of trip generation sources was used. The Microbrewery will have a taproom at 2,285 square feet and a brew house at 5,052 square feet. For the taproom, Land Use Code 925 - Drinking Place was used from the cited reference. For the brew house portion of the Microbrewery, it assumed that a maximum of 6 employees would work in the brew house based upon the information from research (3 trips per day per employee & all ingress in AM and egress in PM). This employee trip generation was compared to Land Use Code 110 - Light Industrial. Since the trip generation was comparable, an average of the two was used. Table 2 shows the daily and peak hour trip generation for Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self - Storage. Full development of Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage resulted in 471 daily weekday trip ends, 20 morning peak hour trip ends, and 59 afternoon peak hour trip ends. Trip Distribution Trip distribution for the Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage was based on existing/future travel patterns, land uses in the area, consideration of trip attractions/ productions in the area, and engineering judgment. Figure 6 shows the trip distribution for the short range (2020) analysis future. The trip distribution was agreed to by City of Fort Collins staff in the scoping emails. Background Traffic Projections Figure 7 shows the short range (2020) background peak hour traffic projections. These forecasts assume that the current street network exists in this area. Background traffic projections for the short range were obtained by reviewing the North Front Range DELICH Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage TIS, July 2015 �71 rASSOCIATES Page 10 85 RMT B"JISIAW STR U�T- r t j Mr 1 Jill 9 4_Q 9_ S b fij 111 j}{ EE _.. �. v 1 I • is �] � � I is I' r •"S'--? ejC � I i I I 3 lit 1 a` . 1`!- ' Iloilo I f ' I I � I i 1 I I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - fill _ t I c MY6k4M6\4@MY.Y ., y . .. $ - 41J r___J •aXeIOMIKL rIm!'1.- 5—_ .N. I � SITE PLAN /CiO`JDELICH �7 1 rASSOCIATES A& N SCALE: 1 "=100' Figure 5 Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage TIS, July 2015 Page 11 me TABLE 2 Trip Generation Code Use Size AWDTE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate In Rate Out Rate In Rate Out Self -Storage 151 Mini -warehouse 104.9 KSF 2.50 262 0.08 8 0.06 6 0.13 13 0.13 14 Microbrewery N/A Brew House 6 Employees N/A 18 N/A 6 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 6 110 Light Industrial 5.052 KSF 6.97 35 0.81 4 0.11 1 0.12 1 0.85 4 Average 27 5 1 1 5 925 Drinking Place 2.285 KSF N/A 182 N/A N/A N/A N/A 7.48 17 3.86 9 Total 471 13 7 31 28 /J'DELICH �71 rASSOCIATES Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage TIS, July 2015 Page 12 Lo N 55% NOM low - Vine 30% Buckingham ' cu 10% � � J Lincoln S o OR OR LO TRIP DISTRIBUTION _-// I DELICH �7 1 rASSOCIATES SCALE: 1 "=600' Figure 6 Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage TIS, July 2015 Page 13 Buckingham o M Ln LLO o o 00 M (O Ln 1 � 13/25 156/300 99/119 5/3 1/6 - 30/90 Ln O O Ln CD CO 00 L o CO Jrn 1 i 1 ' 43/165 208/309 - 128/240 119/135 265/221 129/112 0/2 2/4 2/3 7t O CD CD v 00 N V 128/273 201/328 122/204 O M CO coCO co 00 N co Vine Lincoln SHORT RANGE (2020) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 7 LDELICH Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage TIS, July 2015 �71 rASSOCIATES Page 14 Regional Transportation Plan, engineering judgment, and various traffic studies prepared for this area of Fort Collins. Based upon these sources, it was determined that the traffic volumes would increase by approximately 1.0 percent per year. The Waterfield, Woodward Governor, and Capstone developments were added to the background traffic. The Lemay/Vine intersection traffic was increased due to approved projects in the area that are yet to be built or built out. This data was provided by Fort Collins City staff. Trip Assignment Trip assignment is how the generated and distributed trips are expected to be loaded on the street system. The assigned trips are the resultant of the trip distribution process. Using the trip distribution shown in Figure 6, Figure 8 shows the assignment of the site generated peak hour vehicle traffic. The site generated vehicle traffic was combined with the background traffic to determine the total forecasted vehicle traffic at the key intersections. Figure 9 shows the short range (2020) total peak hour vehicle traffic at the key intersections. Signal Warrants As a matter of policy, traffic signals are not installed at any location unless warrants are met according to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. For the streets in the vicinity of the Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage development, four hour and/or eight hour signal warrants are applicable. These warrants require much data and are applied when the traffic is actually on the area street system. It is acknowledged that peak hour signal warrants should not be applied, but since the peak hour forecasts are readily available in a traffic impact study, it is reasonable to use them to get an idea whether other signal warrants may be met. If peak hour signal warrants will not be met at a given intersection, it is reasonable to conclude that it is not likely that other signal warrants would be met. If peak hour signal warrants are met, it merely indicates that further evaluation should occur in the future as the development occurs. However, a judgment can be made that some intersections will likely meet other signal warrants. Using the short range (2020) total peak hour traffic (Figure 9), the Lemay/Buckingham stop sign controlled intersection will meet the lower threshold volume for the minor street approach (100 vehicles) during the afternoon peak hour. The short range (2020) total peak hour warrant is provided in Appendix D. However, other signal warrants will not be met. It is not likely that the Lemay/Buckingham intersection will be signalized. Geometry Figure 10 shows a schematic of the short range (2020) geometry. The eastbound right -turn volumes, at the Lemay/Buckingham intersection, indicate the need for a right - turn lane. The eastbound right -turn lane may not be required when Lemay Avenue reverts //' DELICH Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage TIS, July 2015 �71 rASSOCIATES Page 15 90 Buckii SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC _//_LDELICH �71 rASSOCIATES 'ine icoln %W E a) J Figure 8 Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage TIS, July 2015 Page 16 91 Buckingham 63/63 9/22 36/99 4/9 00 N N � AM/PM U�) LO o o CO co (O LO i 1 � 13/25 — 4( 156/300 99/119 s o N CD � L 00 5/5 1/6 — 35/108 00 00 M m 00 rn r� 44/168 208/309 —► 128/240 119/135 265/221 129/112 LO co V 00 CO rh N CO Mt M N (O M 0/2 2/4 2/3 129/275 201/328 122/204 o in CO CO M r� 00 N co E a) J Vine Lincoln SHORT RANGE (2020) TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 9 LDELICH Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage TIS, July 2015 "71 rASSOCIATES Page 17 92 Buckingham . Existing Lane . Proposed Lane c� a) J Vine Lincoln SHORT RANGE (2020) GEOMETRY Figure 10 LDELICH Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage TIS, July 2015 �71 rASSOCIATES Page 18 93 to a local street classification. Therefore, it is recommended that the south curb of Buckingham Street (adjacent to this site) not be widened to provide a right -turn lane. Rather, the on -street parking lane and the bike lane be used (and striped) to provide for the right -turning motor vehicle traffic and the bike traffic. This will require temporary elimination of the on -street parking adjacent to this site. The eastbound left -turn and through movements will be in the same lane, which will approximately align with the existing east leg of Buckingham Street. This will require widening on the north side of the west leg of Buckingham Street. Design details will be prepared by the project civil engineer. Since Lemay Avenue does/will carry traffic volumes commensurate with that of an arterial street, Figure 10 shows that a northbound and a southbound left -turn lane is required at the Lemay/Buckingham intersection. These left -turn lanes are required with the current traffic volumes. It is doubtful that these left -turn lanes will be required when this segment of Lemay Avenue reverts to the local street classification. That said, implementation of these left -turn lanes would require widening Lemay Avenue, south and north of the subject intersection. This may require additional right-of-way to accomplish the widening. As noted in the "Operation Analysis" section, the addition of the northbound and southbound left -turn lanes results in a calculated reduction in delay on the minor street legs at the Lemay/Buckingham intersection. It is suggested that the practical difficulties of building these left -turn lanes be the subject of City and developer discussions as the proposed Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage project proceeds through the City development review process. The traffic volume on this segment of Lemay Avenue may approach/exceed the upper end of the range for a two-lane arterial street. However, since this segment of Lemay Avenue will revert to a local street in the future, it is likely that it will not be widened. Operation Analysis Operation analyses were performed at the key intersections. The operation analyses were conducted for the short range analysis, reflecting a year 2020 condition. In the intersection operation tables, the calculated delay for each movement/leg is provided when the level of service falls in the LOS E/F categories. Using the short range (2020) background peak hour traffic volumes, the key intersections operate as indicated in Table 3. The background traffic analyses at the Lemay/Buckingham intersection were run with the existing geometry on Buckingham Street and Lemay Avenue. It was also run with the geometry shown in Figure 10. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix E. The key intersections operate acceptably with existing control and geometry in the morning and afternoon peak hours, except for the Lemay/Vine and Lemay/Buckingham intersections in the afternoon peak hour. At the Lemay/Vine intersection, the calculated delay for the afternoon peak hour westbound left -turn will be commensurate with level of service F. At the Lemay/Buckingham intersection, the calculated delay for the afternoon peak hour eastbound and westbound approaches is commensurate with level of service F with and //' DELICH Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage TIS, July 2015 �71 rASSOCIATES Page 19 94 Short TABLE 3 Range (2020) Background Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Lemay/Lincoln (signal) EB LT D D EB T E (65.3 secs) D EB RT D D EB APPROACH E (61.0 secs) D WB LT D D WB T D E (57.3 secs) WB RT D D WB APPROACH D D NB LT C B NB T B D NB RT B B NB APPROACH B D SB LT B D SB T B A SB RT A A SB APPROACH B B OVERALL C D Lemay/Buckingham (stop sign) EB LT/T/RT C E (45.9 secs) WB LT/T/RT E (46.1 secs) F (169.6 secs) NB LT/T/RT B (10.3 secs) A (9.7 secs) SB LT/T/RT A (8.3 secs) B (11.5 secs) Lemay/Buckingham (stop sign) (With NB & SB LT -lanes RT-lane) and EB EB LT/T E (45.7 secs) F (131.1 secs) EB RT C C EB APPROACH C D WB LT/T/RT E (44.3 secs) F (135.5 secs) NB LT B (10.3 secs) A (9.7 secs) SB LT A (8.3 secs) B (11.5 secs) Lemay/Vine (signal) EB LT D C EB T/RT D D EB APPROACH D D WB LT E (60.8 secs) F (176.4 secs) WB T/RT D D WB APPROACH D E (72.5 secs) SB LT/T/RT B D NB LT/T/RT B C OVERALL C D DELICH �71 rASSOCIATES Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage TIS, July 2015 Page 20 95 without the northbound and southbound left -turn lanes on Lemay Avenue, and the eastbound right -turn lane on Buckingham Street. In an urban environment along arterial streets, this level of delay is normal during the peak hours. The addition of the northbound and southbound left -turn lanes on Lemay Avenue results in a calculated reduction in delay on the minor street legs at this intersection. The calculated delay on the west leg of Buckingham Street is further reduced with the eastbound right -turn lane. The calculated delay on the west leg of Buckingham Street is further reduced with the eastbound right - turn lane. However, there is no change in the calculated delay to the northbound and southbound legs on Lemay Avenue. This is counter -intuitive. The analyses show zero delay to the through movements even though there is delay shown for the left -turn movements. It is acknowledged that the through traffic on Lemay Avenue would be delayed without the left -turn lanes whenever a left -turning vehicle is present. However, this is not reflected in the calculated delay for the Lemay Avenue legs as shown in Table 3. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 9, the key intersections operate in the short range (2020) total condition as indicated in Table 4. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix F. The key intersections operate similar to the background operation with existing control and geometry in the morning and afternoon peak hours. At the Lemay/Vine intersection, the calculated delay for the afternoon peak hour westbound left -turn will be commensurate with level of service F. However, this project does not have a significant negative impact at the Lemay/Vine intersection since the project traffic causes less than a two percent increase in the intersection delay. At the Lemay/Buckingham intersection, the analyses were conducted with and without the eastbound right -turn lane on Buckingham Street and the northbound and southbound left - turn lanes on Lemay Avenue. The calculated delay for the eastbound and westbound approaches during the afternoon peak hour is commensurate with level of service F with and without the additional lanes. In an urban environment along arterial streets, this level of delay is normal during the peak hours. The addition of the northbound and southbound left -turn lanes on Lemay Avenue results in a calculated reduction in delay on the minor street legs at this intersection. However, there is no change in the calculated delay to the northbound and southbound legs on Lemay Avenue. This is counter -intuitive. The analyses show zero delay to the through movements even though there is delay shown for the left -turn movements. It is acknowledged that the through traffic on Lemay Avenue would be delayed without the left -turn lanes whenever a left -turning vehicle is present. However, this is not reflected in the calculated delay for the Lemay Avenue legs as shown in Table 4. Vine/Lemay Adequate Public Facilities Proposed developments in Northeast Fort Collins are required to address the operation at the Vine/Lemay intersection. This intersection has operational and geometric constraints that may create an adequate public facilities (APF) issue. Succinctly, if this intersection does not meet the overall level of service (LOS) criteria, then a development may add traffic such that the overall intersection delay is not increased by more than 2 percent over the base condition. The intersection falls under the operational criteria of "All other areas." In this area, acceptable operation at signalized intersections during the peak hours is defined as level of service D or better for the overall intersection. //' DELICH Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage TIS, July 2015 �71 rASSOCIATES Page21 96 Short Range TABLE 4 (2020) Total Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Lemay/Lincoln (signal) EB LT D D EB T E (65.3 secs) D EB RT D D EB APPROACH E (61.0 secs) D WB LT D D WB T D E (57.3 secs) WB RT D D WB APPROACH D D NB LT C B NB T B D NB RT B B NB APPROACH B D SB LT B E (62.1 secs) SB T B A SB RT A A SB APPROACH B B OVERALL C D Lemay/Buckingham (stop sign) EB LT/T/RT C F (79.4 secs) WB LT/T/RT E (49.1 secs) F (237.9 secs) NB LT/T/RT B (10.4 secs) A (9.9 secs) SB LT/T/RT A (8.3 secs) B (11.5 secs) Lemay/Buckingham (stop sign) (With NB & SB LT -lanes and EB RT-lane) EB LT/T E (47.1 secs) F (168.8 secs) EB RT C C EB APPROACH C D WB LT/T/RT E (46.5 secs) F (156.5 secs) NB LT B (10.4 secs) A (9.9 secs) SB LT A (8.3 secs) B (11.5 secs) Buckingham/Site Access (stop sign) NB LT/RT A A WB LT/T A A Lemay/Vine (signal) EB LT D C EB T/RT D D EB APPROACH D D WB LT E (61.3 secs) F (176.4 secs) WB T/RT D D WB APPROACH D E (72.5 secs) SB LT/T/RT B D NB LT/T/RT B C OVERALL C D DELICH �71 rASSOCIATES Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage TIS, July 2015 Page 22 97 City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations staff has developed the base condition. The base condition is described as the current traffic (2012) plus traffic from those development projects that have a commitment at this intersection. Figure 7 shows the base condition peak hour traffic. Table 3 shows the operation at the Vine/Lemay intersection with the base condition traffic and using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual techniques. In the morning and afternoon peak hours, this intersection meets the overall level of service criteria. Therefore, under the base condition, there is not an APF issue at this intersection. Figure 9 shows the base condition plus the site traffic at the Vine/Lemay intersection. Table 4 shows the base condition plus site traffic operation at the Vine/Lemay intersection. In the morning and afternoon peak hours, this intersection continues to meet the overall level of service criteria. Therefore, there is not an APF issue at this intersection. Pedestrian Level of Service Appendix G shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of the Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage development. There are two pedestrian destinations within 1320 feet of the Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage development. These are: 1) the residential area to the northeast of this site and 2) future residential to the southeast (if approved). The Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage site is located within an area termed as "transit corridor," which sets the level of service threshold at LOS B for directness and security and LOS C for all other measured categories. Pedestrian level of service is achieved. The Pedestrian LOS Worksheet is provided in Appendix G. Bicycle Level of Service Appendix G shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of the Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage development. There is one bicycle destination within 1320 feet of the Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage development, the commercial to the south. The Bicycle LOS Worksheet is provided in Appendix G. The minimum level of service for this site is C. This site is connected to bike lanes on Lemay Avenue and Buckingham Street. Therefore, it is concluded that level of service A can be achieved. Transit Level of Service This area of Fort Collins is served by Transfort Routes 5 and 14. //' DELICH �71 rASSOCIATES Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage TIS, July 2015 Page 23 IV. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS This study assessed the impacts of the Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self - Storage development on the short range (2020) street system in the vicinity of the proposed development. As a result of this analysis, the following is concluded: • The development of the Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage site is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. At full development, the Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage site will generate approximately 471 daily weekday trip ends, 20 morning peak hour trip ends, and 59 afternoon peak hour trip ends. • Current operation at the key intersections is acceptable with existing control and geometry. • Figure 10 shows a schematic of the short range (2020) geometry. The eastbound right -turn volumes, at the Lemay/Buckingham intersection, indicate the need for a right -turn lane. The eastbound right -turn lane may not be required when Lemay Avenue reverts to a local street classification. Since Lemay Avenue will carry traffic volumes commensurate with that of an arterial street, northbound and southbound left -turn lanes are required at the Lemay/Buckingham intersection with the current traffic volumes. It is suggested that the practical difficulties of building these auxiliary lanes be the subject of City and developer discussions as the proposed Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage project proceeds through the City development review process. • In the short range (2020) future, given development of the Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage and an increase in background traffic, the Lincoln/Lemay, Lemay/Buckingham, Buckingham/Site Access, and Lemay/Vine intersections will meet the City of Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standard, except for the Lemay/Vine and Lemay/Buckingham intersections in the afternoon peak hour. At the Lemay/Vine intersection, the calculated delay for the afternoon peak hour westbound left -turn will be commensurate with level of service F. However, this project does not have a significant negative impact at the Lemay/Vine intersection since the project traffic causes less than a two percent increase in the intersection delay. At the Lemay/Buckingham intersection, the calculated delay for the afternoon peak hour eastbound and westbound approaches is commensurate with level of service F with and without the northbound and southbound left -turn lanes on Lemay Avenue and the eastbound right -turn lane on Buckingham Street. Although the Lemay/Buckingham intersection operates at this level of service, a signal is not likely in the short range (2020) future. In an urban environment along arterial streets, this level of delay is normal during the peak hours at stop sign controlled intersections. • Acceptable level of service is achieved for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes based upon the measures in the multi -modal transportation guidelines. //' DELICH Lemay Avenue Microbrewery & Self -Storage TIS, July 2015 �71 rASSOCIATES Page24 99 Figure 16: FmmeworkPlw ti- �; ,L `j !' r I .IL •I L:� •4 I I ��* Fv* ' '"Ip" W �m6116,III Fulurn Mlnr dtirs No Jrm 1 r L Wilrb a•+Y• Y mum ---- — F1LL I !ar t�� �1r11111a1 ii.ab • —� Yc' TOOT"' 1' 4F R:l :Irrih= l ' Imiiiiiir L&fll s Fw1� L..r, crr bro. how la 41 ME" I 1J ` � 1 : 1 L • .= '• - %. kL { •� L 1 1j J,! ,. k FRAMEWORK PLAN •• :-:y IN +lilt Wm"Lf1MRALJ7lI GM~ •• Newilmok vm RMIOMr Cow Im ■id Um 1rtt11i �f;.�M '�1 �rJ1aj 1i§Fc :.a qm LLU ww411141 Am WI G}rr Irlai CbrJ: Maas} b cH"i1trvr113 4J 1-0 Wipd6*MK+jWyr•1*+'WI bmm-Llyda rar.�'-- InI ' � '� I�lurS4i�nd NUILLha idwdh dwrm�' '� I,rY l� d L I• '1F bjyWp Ind Lelnal Arm f-y Y 36 1 Northside Neighborhoods Plan 100 Agenda Item 6 PROJECT NAME THE SLAB PROPERTY PDP#150016 STAFF Ted Shepard, Chief Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a three-story multi -family building containing 59 dwelling units and 70 bedrooms. There would be 87 parking spaces and 77 bicycle parking spaces. Primary access is gained via a driveway on Prospect Road that is limited to right-in/right-out turn movements only. An emergency access and bike and pedestrian access connects the project to Lake Street to the north. The P.D.P. is within the Transit - Oriented Development Overlay Zone. The P.D.P. represents the re - submittal of an expired project but with significant design changes. The site is located at 808 West Prospect Road and is 1.44 acres in size and zoned H-M-N, High Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. APPLICANT: OWNER: RECOMMENDATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Mr. and Mrs. Christian and Robin Bachelet MDAG, LLC c/o Russell + Mills Studios 141 South College Avenue, Suite 104 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Colorado State University Research Foundation c/o Mr. Rick Callan 601 South Howes Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 Approval The P.D.P. represents the resubmittal of a partially constructed project called Observatory Park which is now expired. The new P.D.P. complies with the policies of the West Central Area Plan. The P.D.P. also complies with the land use and development standards of the High Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood, H-M-N, zone district of Article Four. And, the P.D.P. complies with the applicable General Development Standards of Article Three with one exception. A Request for Modification to Section 3.8.30(F)(1) - Orientation to Buffer Yards has been evaluated and recommended for approval. Item # 6 Page 1 101 Agenda Item 6 ft 1 inch =600 feet The Slab Property PDP •�1kr 1. Background The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows N H-M-N Existing Apartments and Existing Fraternity House S R-L Existing Single Family Detached Dwelling Units E H-M-N Existing Single Family Detached Dwelling Unit W H-M-N Existing Single Family Detached Dwelling Unit The lot at 808 West Prospect Road once contained a single family detached home. In 2002, planning efforts to develop the property began and the project was known as 808 West Prospect Road - The Frazier Subdivision. The first request for a P.D.P. was for a four-story multi -family building but this proposal did not proceed to a public hearing. This was followed by a resubmittal in 2004. In 2005, The Frazier Subdivision Final Plan was approved, with conditions, and consisted of a four-story building with 55 multi -family dwellings with 812 square feet of mixed -use in the form of ground floor commercial space. In 2007, under new ownership, Observatory Park Subdivision replatted the Frazier Subdivision and the project now included the existing house to the east, 730 West Prospect Road. This project consisted of a four-story building and 66 multi -family dwelling units with the existing house at 730 West Prospect Road being designated as an office. This Final Plan began land development and building construction which proceeded as far as installing Item # 6 Page 2 102 Agenda Item 6 utilities, excavating the basement and pouring the foundation. Due to the great recession, this project was abruptly terminated, building permit fees were refunded, vested rights were expired and foreclosure proceedings involved not only the owner but also a failed bank and the F.D.I.C. Since 2007, the exposed foundation and security fencing was all that resulted from Observatory Park, hence earning the name "The Slab." After foreclosure proceedings, the 808 and 730 West Prospect Road were purchased by C.S.U. Research Foundation. The current P.D.P. utilizes the existing utilities and the basement and foundation as the building footprint. The project represents a collaborative effort between the applicant and C.S.U.R.F. but only for 808 West Prospect Road, Lot One of the Observatory Park Subdivision. 2, West Central Area Plan: The West Central Area Plan was adopted in March of 2015 and reaffirmed the validity of both the existing geography and development parameters of the H-M-N zone. This is the area south of the C.S.U. campus bounded by West Prospect Road, Shields Street, Lake Street and Whitcomb Street. With regard to the H-M-N zone, the W.C.A.P. states: "Given the numerous parcels that comprise this area, new development will likely occur through multiple small or medium scale projects. Sensitivity to historic structures will require careful design solutions and collaboration with the Landmark Preservation Commission." "This area is expected to build out in accordance with the existing zoning, with residential density at a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre. While five -story buildings are allowed, the height, mass and scale of buildings will be critically evaluated to achieve compatibility with adjacent development and to positively impact the neighborhood and community. The allowable density and proximity to campus create opportunities for mixed -use buildings and campus -related uses as well." "Land Use Policy 1.9 - Neighborhood Character: The height, mass and scale of new development in the High Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood (HMN) zone district... should be compatible with adjacent development and sensitive to the context of the area." "Land Use Policy 1.10 - Emphasize and respect the existing heritage and character of neighborhoods through a collaborative design process that allows for neighborhood dialogue. The neighborhoods are generally characterized by Craftsman, Prairie and Mid -Century Modern architectural styles (and their various derivations). These styles are well -accepted and should serve as a starting point for achieving neighborhood compatibility." Staff finds that The Slab Property P.D.P. fulfills the vision of the Plan in the following manner: • The P.D.P. demonstrates sensitivity to the historic houses to the east. • The P.D.P. exceeds the minimum required density of 20 dwelling units per acre. • The building is three stories, not five, to achieve compatibility. • The building is influenced by the Craftsman style and the height, mass and scale are mitigated by a variety of architectural elements and details. • The placement of multi -family housing at the south edge of campus will promote alternative modes of transportation to and from the main campus. 3. Compliance with Applicable Standards of the H-M-N Zone: A. Section 4.10(B)(3) -Land Use: As a residential use consisting of more than 50 multi -family dwellings, the P.D.P. is permitted in the H-M-N zone district subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board. B. Section 4.10(D)(1) -Density: Item # 6 Page 3 103 Agenda Item 6 The P.D.P. contains 59 dwelling units on 1.44 acres for a density of 41 dwelling units per acre which exceeds the required minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre. C. Section 4.10(D)(2)(a) -Dimensional Standards -Maximum Height: The P.D.P. is three stories which is below the maximum allowable height of five stories. D. Section 4.10(D)(2)(b) -Dimensional Standards -Setbacks: This standard requires that for all setbacks, building walls over 35 feet in height must be setback an additional one foot beyond the minimum required, for each two feet of wall that exceeds 35 feet. The issue at hand for interpreting this standard is determining the minimum required setback. Unfortunately, the Code is not clear. To wit: (1.) 2005 - Mixed -Use Building - Section 3.5.3(C)(2)(c) In 2005, the Final Plan (now expired) included 812 square feet of non-residential lease space for a tenant capable of providing goods or services for the residents. This qualified the building as "mixed -use" which then required compliance with the build -to line of Section 3.5.3(C)(2)(c) (between 10 and 25 feet) and not the minimum required setback. As a result of the build -to line standard, the building was placed 15 feet back from the front property line (as measured from the new property line after a dedication of public right-of-way of 21 feet). Note that if the building was not considered mixed -use, then the required minimum front yard setback, at that time, per the H-M-N standard 4.10(D)(2)(b), was 45 feet, a standard considered unrealistic due to the shallowness of the parcels fronting on Prospect Road, and since deleted. Now, The Slab Property P.D.P proposes a leasing office of 415 square feet. Staff interprets the leasing office to be accessory to the principal use and, without offering goods and services to the public, is not sufficient to qualify the building as mixed -use. Therefore, Section 3.5.3(C)(2)(c) does not apply. (2.) Residential Building Setbacks - Arterial Streets - Section 3.5.2(E)(1) Since the front setback standard of 45 feet has been deleted out Article Four H-M-N zone district standards, the governing regulation is found in the General Development standards of Article Three. Section 3.5.2(E)(1) requires buildings to be setback from arterial streets by 30 feet except for those buildings regulated by Section 3.8.30. (Emphasis added.) (3.) Multi -Family Development Standards - 3.8.30 These standards, under Section 3.8.30(E)(3), require that the minimum front setback along an arterial street shall be 15 feet. But, under the applicability section of 3.8.30(A), the standard states explicitly that: "Multi -family developments in the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone are exempt from subsections (C) and (E) of this Section. " (4.) Transit Oriented Development - Section 3.10 But, under the applicability section of 3.10.1(A), the standard states explicitly that: "These standards apply to applications for development within the boundary of the TOD Overlay Zone, south of Prospect Road..." (5.) Staff Interpretation - Section 3.5.2(E)(1) Applies When confronted with internal conflicts within the Code, Staff is guided by two sections in Article One: Item # 6 Page 4 104 Agenda Item 6 Section 1.4.9 - Interpretations: "in the interpretation and application of any provision of the Land Use Code, such provision shall be held to be the minimum requirement adopted for the promotion of the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare. Where any provision of the Land Use Code imposes greater restrictions upon the subject matter than another provision of the Land Use Code, the provision imposing the greater restriction or regulation shall be deemed to be controlling. In other words, the more stringent controls over the less stringent. Section 1.7.2 - Conflict with Other Laws: "Except as is provided in Section 3.1.2, if the provisions of this Land Use Code are internally conflicting or if they conflict with any other statute, code, local ordinance, resolution, regulation or other applicable Federal, State or local law, the more specific standard, limitation or requirement shall govern or prevail to the extent of the conflict. If neither standard is more specific, then the more stringent standard, limitation or requirement shall govern or prevail to the extent of the conflict." Staff interprets that lacking any clear front yard setback standard under H-M-N, Multi -Family Development or TOD sections, reverting back to the General Development Standard of Section 3.5.2 fl(1) would prevail as this standard is the most stringent. This standard requires a 30 foot setback from Prospect Road. (6.) Staff Finding Since the adoption of the Land Use Code, Staff has consistently interpreted both required minimum setbacks and mandatory build -to lines in such a way as to not be applied to existing buildings. It has never been considered reasonably feasible to move or demolish existing buildings to satisfy these standards. This allows the Code to be administered to the extent reasonably feasible for projects approved under prior law. For reference, the definition of "extent reasonably feasible" is as follows: Extent reasonably feasible shall mean that, under the circumstances, reasonable efforts have been undertaken to comply with the regulation, that the costs of compliance clearly outweigh the potential benefits to the public or would unreasonably burden the proposed project, and reasonable steps have been undertaken to minimize any potential harm or adverse impacts resulting from noncompliance with the regulation. In this case, the existing foundation is substantial due to both its depth (full basement) and its size (118' x 83' not including window wells). The only portion of the building that is constructed is the basement and foundation (along with utilities). While there may be a 600 square foot leasing office, Staff finds that this non-residential component does not rise to the level of being mixed -use, but is still significant enough to be considered equivalent to an existing structure. By utilizing the existing foundation, there is an efficiency that is gained resulting in a more sustainable development. Further, the foundation was established per an approved Final Plan and Building Permit (2007) that preceded the adoption of Section 3.8.30 - Multi -Family Development Standards (2012). Finally, if a modification is requested, it is not clear exactly what standard would need to be modified under a Request for Modification procedure of Section 2.8. For these reasons, a Modification of Standard is not warranted and that the 15 foot front setback from West Prospect Road complies with the Land Use Code as interpreted for existing buildings. Given the existing placement of the basement and foundation 15 feet behind the front property line, and assuming that this 15 feet represents a valid starting point for measuring the front setback, a proposed building height of 43 feet, Section 4.10(D)(2)(b) (one -foot beyond the minimum required setback for each two -feet of wall height that Item # 6 Page 5 105 Agenda Item 6 exceeds 35 feet) would require that the front setback be 19 feet. At 15 feet, the front setback deviates from this standard by four feet. If a Request for Modification were to be processed, Staff would find that the 15 foot front setback is nominal and inconsequential when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan and based on the hardship of the existing conditions. E. Section 4.10(E)(1)(a) -Buildings -Doorways Facing Streets: There are two main doorways to the building both located in the southwest corner. One entry faces south along Prospect Road and one faces west and is associated with the entry plaza. Both entries are accented with architectural features to further establish a presence. F. Section 4.10(E)(1)(b) -Relationship of Doorways to Streets: As mentioned, the south -facing doorway along Prospect Road allows the building to establish a connection to the public street as well as the Sheely neighborhood. G. Section 4.10(E)(1)(c) -Front Yards: The building, in conjunction with the site plan, provides for landscaping between the back of the public sidewalk and the building. In addition, the front yard includes a low entry wall, a seat wall with a column, and a walkway that connects to the west entrance. H. Section 4.10(E)(1)(d) -Roof Form: The building features both flat and sloped roof forms. The building has been broken into a series of three larger masses on both the north and south elevations, with prominent side gabled roof elements featuring shed dormers at the third story. The gable roof forms have overhangs with supporting brackets. The various components combine to form an interesting three-story building where the height, mass and scale are mitigated in a proportional manner. 1. Section 4.10(E)(1)(e) - Fa9ade Variation: The facades of the building are varied by use of recesses, projections, balconies, roof overhangs and shed dormers. Along the east elevation, facing the existing house, the third floor is stepped back to reduce the mass. J. Section 4.10(E)(1)(0 -Outdoor Activity: The outdoor active area is located at the entry plaza at the southwest corner of the building. This area is partially covered with a pergola and includes seat walls, benches, patio furniture and grills. These features complement the main entrance to accommodate informal gatherings. K. Section 4.10(E)(2)(a) -Street Sidewalks: The public sidewalk along Prospect Road will be detached and 10 feet wide in accordance with the recommendation of the West Central Area Plan and the Prospect Corridor Plan so that it will function as a shared path allowing safe and comfortable travel for bikes and pedestrians in both directions. This shared path compensates for the narrow attached sidewalk on the south side of Prospect Road. Street trees planted on 40- foot centers in the parkway will accentuate the urban design of the streetscape. L. Section 4.10(E)(2)(b) -Parking Lots: As with the previously approved plan, the parking lot is located to the rear of the building and thus screened from Prospect Road. Item # 6 Page 6 106 Agenda Item 6 4. Compliance with Applicable General Development Standards: A. Section 3.2.1(C)(D) - Landscaping and Tree Protection The P.D.P. provides street trees along Prospect Road and full tree stocking and foundation shrubs around the perimeter of the building that does not face the driveway or parking lot. The entry plaza features a variety of plants to soften the traffic associated with the entry drive. Existing trees have been inventoried by the City Forester. Most of the existing trees that are to be removed are Siberian Elms. The one Ponderosa Pine that is to be removed will be properly mitigated. B. Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(a) - Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping As mentioned, the parking lot is located to rear of the building in order to be obscured from view from Prospect Road. The western and eastern edges of the parking lot adjoin residential properties. Accordingly, the west property line is screened by a six-foot high solid wood fence. The east edge is screened by landscaping and four -foot high metal fence as the adjoining lot is owned by CSURF and future integration between the lots is anticipated. C. Section 3.2.1(E)(5) - Parking Lot Interior Landscaping Since the parking lot contains less than 100 spaces, 6% is required to be in the form of landscaping. The P.D.P. meets this minimum standard by providing landscaping in the form of islands and along the entrance drive. D. Section 3.2.2(B) - Access Circulation and Parking The site is an infill location surrounded by existing development and Prospect Road. Connections for vehicles, bikes and pedestrians are provided. Sidewalks will be constructed in three directions to link the dwelling units to adjacent development and the Colorado State University campus. The emergency access lane that ties into Lake Street will double as a bike and pedestrian lane. Bike racks are provided as well at the northeast corner of the building, next to the emergency access lane allowing for convenient connection to campus. E. Section 3.2.2(C)(4) - Bicycle Facilities: With a total of 70 bedrooms, 70 bicycle parking spaces are required with 60% (42) to be enclosed and 40% (28) that may be in a fixed outdoor rack. The P.D.P. provides for a total of 77 spaces with 63 (81 %) that are enclosed and 14 (19%) in fixed racks. F. Section 3.2.2(K)(1) - Parking Lots - Required Number of Spaces There are 27 studio units, 21 one -bedroom units and 11 two bedroom units. This number of units, at the proposed mix of bedrooms, requires a total of 59 parking spaces. 87 spaces are provided thus exceeding the standard. The extra 28 spaces will accommodate the employees in the leasing office, potential tenants and guests. G. Section 3.4.7 - Historic and Cultural Resources: There are two existing houses to the east that require the P.D.P. to be sensitive to their historic character. The first house is the larger of the two and is located on Lot Two at 730 West Prospect Road. This house is known as the Harris House which is set back from Prospect Road, and is not designated as a historic landmark but is potentially eligible for such designation. The second house is smaller which is located close to Prospect Road, and is located one parcel to the east of the Harris House. This house is known as the Brown/Winter House and has been designated as a local historic landmark. Item # 6 Page 7 107 Agenda Item 6 In response, the architectural design of the building reflects the Craftsman character of the two houses. Per the formal recommendation of the Landmark Preservation Commission, issued on August 12, 2015, the P.D.P. is found to be in compliance with this standard. The following is an excerpt from the memo to the Planning and Zoning Board from Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Manager (full memo is attached). At its August 12, 2015 Regular Meeting, the Commission adopted the following motion on a vote of 5-0: That the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the decision maker, the Planning and Zoning Board, the approval of the Development Proposal for 808 West Prospect Road, finding that it complies with Land Use Code 3.4.7. H. Section 3.5. 1 (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) - Building and Project Compatibility This section of the General Development Standards is superseded by more specific standards in Article Four. The standards in Article Four are considered more specific and, therefore, in accordance with Section 1.7.2, prevail over the standards in Article Three. Section 3.6.4 - Transportation Level of Service A Transportation Impact Analysis was performed for this P.D.P. The number of dwelling units, 59, represents a slight increase over the original Observatory Park, 55 dwelling units but the mixed -use component has been eliminated. Because the use is expected to be mostly student housing, the evaluation was based on the proposed number of beds, not just the number of units. There will be only one vehicular access - a driveway off Prospect that will be geometrically restricted to right-in/right-out only, since Prospect Road doesn't currently have a center left turn lane. The emergency access easement that ties into Lake Street to the north will allow bikes and pedestrians to gain convenient and direct access to the main campus. A pedestrian connection will be provided north to the adjoining apartment complex and the P.D.P. will be required to accommodate any future walkway connection when the parcel to the east develops (presently under the same ownership as the subject site). The primary difference between the former project and the current P.D.P., however, is the addition of a ten -foot wide, detached sidewalk along Prospect Road. Known as a "shared path," this walkway is provided in fulfillment of the West Central Area Plan and the Prospect Corridor Plan which calls for improved bicycle and pedestrian safety along West Prospect Road between South College Avenue and South Shields Street. By providing a shared path on the north side of Prospect, east -west bike and pedestrian traffic will be safer than using the sub -standard sidewalk on the south side. The site is also within one-half mile of the Around the Horn transit service which is the free on campus shuttle with a stop at Prospect and Center Avenue. J. Section 3.8.30(F)(1) - Multi -Family Dwelling Development Standards - Orientation to Buffer Yards - Request for Modification (As mentioned, since the P.D.P. is within the T.O.D., Section 3.8.30 subsections (C) Access to a Park, Central Feature or Gathering Place, and (E) Buildings do not apply.) The Orientation to Buffer Yard standard requires a 25-foot wide landscaped area if the abutting property contains a single or two-family dwelling. There is a single family home to the west. The landscaping yard along the west property line ranges from six to 23 feet. Item # 6 Page 8 Agenda Item 6 The applicant is requesting a Modification of Standard. As justification, the applicant states that the subject standard was adopted 2012, seven years after the original Final Plan approval and five years after the construction of the basement and foundation. Further, the adjoining property is similarly zoned H-M-N and the West Central Area Plan creates an expectation that this area will undergo significant redevelopment. No issues with regard to buffering, land use transition or compatibility have been raised by the adjoining property owner(s) during the years that development was contemplated for the subject parcel. Finally, the landscaping along the west property line includes a six-foot solid wood fence and a screen of both deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs. Per Section 2.8.2(H)(1), Staff finds the following: ❑ Staff finds that the granting of the Modification would not be a detriment to the public good. ❑ This is because the plan, as submitted, is well -designed at three stories (versus five stories permitted under zoning) in a manner that promotes neighborhood compatibility. The landscaping and buffering on three sides will mitigate the impacts associated with traffic in and out of the parking lot. The west elevation is the most articulated and detailed with the entry plaza, pergola, two entrances, and outdoor gathering area. ❑ Staff finds that the granting of the Modification is justified by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant. ❑ This is because the site is essentially developed with grading and installation of underground utilities to a finished condition. A building permit was then issued. A full basement and foundation were constructed. Five years after this activity, the Orientation to Buffer Yard standard was adopted. Applying this standard retroactively represents a legitimate hardship per Section 2.8(H)(1). K. Section 3.10 - Development Standards for the Transit -Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone As mentioned, the TOD standards apply only to areas south of Prospect Road. 5, Neighborhood Information Meeting: A neighborhood information meeting was held on June 18, 2015. A summary of this meeting is attached. In general, with the reduced height, the enhanced architecture and the new ten -foot wide shared path, this P.D.P. is seen as an improvement over the previous development plans. As is typical for a neighborhood meeting, a wide range of topics were discussed. Overall, the various issues have been addressed in a satisfactory manner. 6. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: A. The P.D.P. is in compliance with the West Central Neighborhoods Plan. B. The P.D.P. is in compliance with the applicable standards of the High Density Mixed -Use zone district. C. The P.D.P. is in compliance with the applicable General Development Standards with one exception. D. A request for a Modification of Standard to Section 3.8.30(F)(1) - Orientation to Buffer Yards - has been submitted and evaluated. This standard requires that along the west property line, a 25-foot buffer yard is required. The P.D.P. indicates that the buffer yard ranges from six to 23 feet in width. Staff recommends Item # 6 Page 9 109 Agenda Item 6 approval of this request and makes the following findings: (1.) Staff finds that the granting of the Modification would not be a detriment to the public good. (2.) This is because the plan, as submitted, is well -designed at three stories (versus five stories permitted under zoning) in a manner that promotes neighborhood compatibility. The landscaping and buffering on three sides will mitigate the impacts associated with traffic in and out of the parking lot. The west elevation is the most articulated and detailed with the entry plaza, pergola, two entrances, and outdoor gathering area. (3.) Staff finds that the granting of the Modification is justified by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant. (4.) This is because the site is essentially developed with grading and installation of underground utilities to a finished condition. A building permit was then issued. A full basement and foundation were constructed. Five years after this activity, the Orientation to Buffer Yard standard was adopted. Applying this standard retroactively represents a legitimate hardship per Section 2.8(H)(1). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the following: 1. The Request for Modification to Section 3.8.30 (F)(1) - Orientation to Buffer Yards; and 2. The Slab Property P.D.P. #150016. ATTACHMENTS 1. Plan Objectives (DOCX) 2. Rendered Site Plan (PDF) 3. Site Plan (PDF) 4. Landscape Plan (PDF) 5. Architectural Elevations (PDF) 6. Neighborhood Mtg Summary (DOC) 7. Traffic Impact Study(PDF) Item # 6 Page 10 110 The Slab Property PDP 808 West Prospect Road Statement of Proposed Planning Objectives August 5, 2015 This project shall be titled The Slab Property - consisting of the following components: • Multi -Family Attached (54 units) This project includes development within the High Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood Zone District. Site Area Information Parcel Size: 62,564 SF (1.44 AC) Right -of -Way Improvement Area: 6,629 SF (0.15 AC) Parking and Drive Area: 28,075 SF (0.645 AC) Landscape Area (turf & shrub areas): 11,875 SF (0.27 AC) Dwelling Units: 59 Gross Density: 40.9 DU/AC (min. 20 DU/AC) Net Density: 43.3 DU/AC Project Description The Slab Property is located on the north side of Prospect Road, approximately halfway between Shields St. and College Ave. and in the High Density Mixed -Use (HMN) zone district. Colorado State University's campus in to the north of the property while single- family detached homes surround the property to the east, south and west. Tenant access is provided from Prospect Road. Emergency access is provided through an easement to and from Lake Street. A patio area with tables and chairs will be located on the west side of the building at the main entrance. A low wall and planting to the north will screen the parking lot from neighboring apartment buildings to the north. Screen planting and a privacy fence on the east and west side of the property will screen from the existing single-family home to the west and the property to the east. The West Central Area Plan outlines goals and visions for redevelopment in this area. The property is within the HMN zone district where taller building and higher densities are encouraged to provide for the residential needs of the university. The development includes fifty-nine (59) multi -family attached units, within one building. Basement: (12) studio units, (3) 2-bedroom units First Floor: (5) studio units, (6) 1-bedroom units, (3) 2-bedroom units Second Floor: (5) studio units, (7) 1-bedroom units, (3) 2-bedroom units Third Floor: (5) studio units, (8) 1-bedroom units, (2) 2-bedroom units 111 A previous project on this site was originally designed and approved as a 4-story apartment building with a basement and included 61 total units with (7) 1 bedroom units and (54) 2 bedrooms units for a total of 115 beds. The basement foundation was installed in 2008, but the project came to a stop shortly thereafter for various financially - related issues with the previous developer. The current proposed project has been reduced to a 3-story apartment building, utilizing the same existing basement and overall building footprint. This change will help in reducing the overall scale and visual impact to the neighborhood which has been encouraged by the Planning Department, Landmark Preservation Commission and surrounding neighborhood residents. The proposed project now consists of (27) studio units, (21) 1 bedroom units and (11) 2 bedroom units with a total of 70 beds. This represents nearly a 40% reduction in density over the previously approved plan. The architectural design and use of building materials, massing and fenestration has also been completely redesigned since the original project. The building has been broken into a series of 3 larger masses on both the north and south elevations, with prominent side gabled roof elements utilizing shed dormers at the 3rd story, 1 bedroom loft spaces. The gable roof forms have extensive overhangs with large supporting brackets that are designed to be in scale with the building, yet relate to the historic craftsman style structures in close proximity to the site. The masses include extensive use of brick veneer with stucco at the third level. Other materials being utilized are synthetic stone veneer, and lap siding. The window fenestration has also been designed to relate to the surrounding neighborhood with use of single hung windows that are placed in single and double window unit configurations. Adjacencies The project site is currently a vacant parcel with an existing foundation slab located to the north of the Sheely Neighborhood on the Prospect Road. Single-family detached residential land uses are located to the west and south and CSU campus to the north. Access, Vehicular/Pedestrian Circulation and Parking Primary vehicular and pedestrian circulation is provided from Prospect Road and a 16' wide emergency access (EAE) alley connecting the property and pedestrian flow from Prospect to Lake Street. • A 24' drive aisle from Prospect Road provides access to a parking lot with 87 spaces. • Pedestrian access is provided from the southeast corner of the property via a 10' wide sidewalk, this connects into the 16' EAE to Lake Street. • 77 bike parking spaces are provided with 63 (81%) covered on the NE corner of the building and by the main entrance and 14 (19%) uncovered on the NE corner and west side of the building. • A total of 66 parking spaces are required for the project. 87 parking spaces are provided. 47 spaces are standard, 36 spaces are compact (42.8%), and 4 spaces are handi-cap. 112 Stormwater/Detention The Slab Project was previously designed and approved in 2007. Within the current design, it is proposed to maintain the previously approved drainage patterns. The site is broken into two major basins, Basin N1 and Basin S1. Basin N1 routes stormwater to the northeast corner of the site into a proposed detention pond. The detention pond releases into a swale and discharges directly into W. Lake St. Basin S1 routes stormwater to the southeast corner of the site into another proposed detention pond. The detention pond releases directly into W. Prospect Road. 1. CITY PLAN PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES ACHIEVED BY THE PROPOSED PLAN City Plan LIV 4: Development will provide and pay its share of the cost of providing needed public facilities and services concurrent with development. Access points, sidewalks and street trees/roadway landscaping within the project will be paid for by the developer. LIV 5: The City will promote redevelopment and infill in areas identified on the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map. This site is within Figure LIV1, Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas of the City Plan and meet this policy. The HMN Zone district emphasizes infill and increased density. LIV 5.1 — Encourage Targeted Redevelopment and Infill This site is within Figure LIV1, Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas of the City Plan and meet this policy. LIV 5.4 — Contribute to Public Amenities This site will provide pedestrian connection from Prospect to Lake Street for flow in and out of CSU's campus and residential areas to the south of the site. LIV 6.1 — Types of Infill and Redevelopment in Residential Areas Adjacent to CSU campus this site will add additional needed residential living space. LIV 6.2 — Seek Compatibility with Neighborhoods Located in the HMN district, the architectural design shall be in context of its surroundings. Compatibility shall be achieved through techniques such as the repetition of roof lines, the use of similar proportions in building mass, similar window pattern, use of materials that have similarity on color shade and texture. LIV 7.1— Encourage Variety in Housing Types and Locations Multi -family attached housing will provide an additional housing type along the south end of CSU's campus in a primarily single-family detached area. LIV 10.1 — Design Safe, Functional, and Visually Appealing Streets Well lit private drives and pedestrian plazas and walkways with low-water use planting and pedestrian amenities such as tables and benches are included within the development. LIV 10.2 — Incorporate Street Trees Five additional street trees will be added to the Prospect Road R.O.W. at 40' o.c. 113 LIV 14.2 — Promote Functional Landscape All planting will be designed with native/adaptive plants, emphasizing foundation planting. LIV 14.3 — Design Low Maintenance Landscapes Native and adaptive planting and a minimized turf area, reserved for functional/multi-use lawns will allow a minimum of maintenance. Shrub beds will be maintained without excessive pruning or `snow -balling' of shrubs. LIV 21.2 — Establish an Interconnected Street and Pedestrian Network The street and pedestrian network will allow access from Prospect Road through to CSU's campus at Lake street by utilizing the proposed pedestrian walkway and emergency access easement. LIV 21 A — Provide Access to Transit The sidewalk connection from Prospect Road to Lake Street provides connection to the Mason Street Corridor to the east. LIV 22.5 — Create Visually Interesting Streetscapes With native landscape and street trees the streetscape on Prospect Road will be visually interesting and will provide foundation planting, anchoring the building to the site. LIV 22.6 — Enhance Street Design and Image Prospect Road sidewalk and R.O.W. will conform to future conditions outlined in the West Central Area Plan. A 10' wide sidewalk with a 10' wide tree lawn will provide safety and comfort for pedestrians and cyclists. LIV 23.1 — Provide Neighborhood Parks and Outdoor Spaces With the limited space on Prospect the development will have a combination of lawn and native landscape combined with a seating plaza and picnic area. LIV 26.3 — Promote Compatibility of Uses The multi -family attached building provides a compatibility with the adjacent single-family residential uses to the east and west in through building step backs, massing and residential scale elements. The landscaping at the west edge of the site also establishes effective buffering and transitioning between the site and existing single-family home. LIV 30.2 —Connect to Surrounding Neighborhoods Sidewalk connections enhance pedestrian connectivity and bicycle connectivity on Prospect and Lake street frontages in front of the site and to the north. 2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED OPEN SPACE, WETLANDS, NATURAL HABITATS AND FEATURES, LANDSCAPING, CIRCULATION, TRANSITION AREAS, AND ASSOCIATED BUFFERING ON SITE AND IN THE GENERAL VICINITY OF THE PROJECT. The site plan works to preserves several existing cottonwood, hackberry and spruce trees along the east side of the site with walkways meandering around trees and structurally engineered walls protecting existing trees at detention areas. Several dead trees on the north boundary and SE corner will be removed. 114 Open space enhancements are provided along the pedestrian and bike access on the east side of the property and within the proposed detention area at the northeast corner of the property. These include a picnic table, native seeding, and low-water use plantings and trees. Visual buffering and transitional landscapes on the north and west property edges are accomplished with 6' privacy fencing and columnar evergreen and deciduous trees, providing a buffer between the single-family to the west and multi -family attached residential uses to the north. 3. MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AREAS The property owner or property manager shall perform all maintenance on private residential lots. In addition, the property manager shall maintain all sidewalks and landscaped common areas, and any other non -private amenity and or feature. The City of For Collins shall only be responsible for typical ROW maintenance of infrastructure and snow removal within the roadway. Storm water infrastructure Landscape maintenance and trash removal within storm water infrastructure including detention areas, swales, culverts, inlets, etc. shall be the responsibility of the property manager. This maintenance shall include all required mowing, weeding, cleanout, removal of trash and debris and other typical maintenance required in order to ensure storm water infrastructure and features function according to their designed intent. Landscape - All landscape maintenance within the lot other than ROW adjacent to residential lots shall be the responsibility of and performed by the property manager. Snow Removal - The property manager shall perform snow removal within all common areas, trails, private drives and parks. Trash - All trash removal on private lots or within the sidewalk/parkway areas adjacent to private lots shall be performed by property owner or tenant. The HOA shall perform trash removal within common areas and other non -private lots. 4. ESTIMATE OF NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES FOR BUSINESS, COMMERCIAL, AND INDUSTRIAL USES, N/A. 5, DESCRIPTION OF RATIONALE BEHIND THE ASSUMPTIONS AND CHOICES MADE BY THE APPLICANT. 115 A modification request is submitted for a variance to the width of the parking lot island within the parking lot. Due to existing site constraints, a 4' wide bioswale is provided with 2' overhang on each side verses the 7' minimum width required per Section 3.2.2L.4. A modification to the building overhang into the 15' ROW setback is submitted. This modification will allow for a more interesting fagade to the public side of the building. A modification request is submitted for the allowable number of compact parking. A maximum of 40% compact parking is allowed (section 3.2.2L.2), 42.8% is provided. This plan works well because of its proximity to CSU and the MAX, the current percentage is negligible. 6. EVIDENCE OF COMPLETION FOR APPLICABLE CRITERIA, 7. NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF HOW CONFLICTS BETWEEN LAND USES OR DISTURBANCES TO WETLANDS, NATURAL HABITATS AND FEATURES AND OR WILDLIFE ARE BEING AVOIDED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE OR ARE MITIGATED. The primary land use conflict is between the multi -family attached use on -site and the adjacent single family detached residential uses to the south and west respectively. Transition ing/buffering is accomplished with privacy fencing and columnar deciduous and evergreen trees, providing a buffer between the on -site uses and adjacencies. 8. WRITTEN NARRATIVE ADDRESSING EACH CONCERN/ISSUE RAISED AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING(S), IF A MEETING HAS BEEN HELD. Concerns about protecting the Spruce tree to the east of property were raised (shown as tree #14 on the tree protection plans). Following direction from the City Forester the retaining wall will be 16' from the spruce to to protect the root system and preserve the tree. Additionally, concerns were raised about the architectural character of the building within the surrounding single-family neighborhoods. This is addressed with step backs and architectural modulation. 9. NAME OF THE PROJECT AS WELL AS ANY PREVIOUS NAME THE PROJECT MAY HAVE HAD DURING CONCEPTUAL REVIEW. This project shall be titled The Slab Property. 10. DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE Phase I Finalize Demolition March 2016 116 Earthwork/Grading/Utilities Drive And Sidewalk Construction Parks, Amenities And Landscaping Residential Construction May 2016 July 2016 September 2016 October 2016 — July 2017 117 -a c o N � R Q V y� T w 'V N a CL W to N O V V O M W OQ co n THE SLAB PROPERTY SITE PLANS �I L I o nm I I = THE SLAB 11 or IIIWI II j; d IH� k ZONING MAP: HMN ZONE NORTH LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOTS 1 & 2, OBSERVATORY PARK SUBDIVISION, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF ARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO (730 & 808 WEST PROSPECT ROAD) LS001 SITE COVER SV001 EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY LS101 SITE PUN LS501 SITE DETAILS LS502 SITE DETAILS OWNER'S CER➢BCATION ME UNDERSIGNED DOES/DO HEREBY CERREY THAT I/WE PRE THE LAWFUL OWNER'S OF THE REAE PROPERIY DESCRIBED ON THIS SIZE PUN AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I/WE ACCEPT THE COMMONS AND RESTRICTIONS BE FORTH ON SAID SITE PUN. OWNER SIGNED ATE OWNER (SIGNED) FAT (STATE OF )55 (COUNTY OF ) SUBSCRIBED MO SWORN TO HE BEFORE THIS DAY OF 20 BY WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL MY COMMISSION EXPIRES DIRECTOR OF CURRENT PLANNING APPROVED BY ME CURRENT DIRECTOR OF PUNNING OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, THIS OF 20 INN CONTEXT MAP NORTH DESCRIPTION LOLL 1 and 2, OBSERVATORY PARK SUBDIVISION, City of Fuel Collins, County ofLarimeT, State ofColeredo ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY OBSERVATORY PARK SUBDIVISION, LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO (730 & 808 WEST PROSPECT ROAD) rA NSP EP31 E 4965 (R) wx+En x WEGA R'14 E 50.00•(M) 'ARCHERS uL _. --_ — -- --- xce w 7- _ _ � 58MREWISE 21201(ED ) a" O or maxstar xorrctslm '— -- Poc NO u=m imB -R MEF an11 —— — — — — — — — — — — -—J°)-- WEAPHM END IN RwAR IW'r34RAm PRO 0 WF1➢OFEB3 mom TocaNGp NOTES: or. I) Fidelity Nadoml Title lasu,ence Company. Commiment No.580-F0405413-383-11,111, dated Febmary 10. 2014 a 7:00 am. was used in Me n process of this survey and the following comments correspond to Schedule B of Ow 9¢W Commitment. 8 Schedule B- Section 2 Exceptions: g Rum 9 -Right of wry for the Moveman Bud Flans Seepage and dtzinAge ditch ED; Aescribd EE Oced M set fmTR below: Recording dare: Janmany 7,1916 Recording No.: Bock 338 M Page 214, Nothingpluoablefrom documents. Hart 10-Euemangs) for the p rpose(s) shown below and rights incidental Thomsen. M adoc City Gantt to m: City of Collies yolk Recording Date Octob«26, 1989 Recording No: RecountionC6mdo suroyedproto. No ref IPembn described in documea, mnror be deJirled on survzyedpropery. Item 11-E otd(s) for the purpose(s) slmwn below and righn mcideotal thereto, M granted in a document: Gmnld to: City of Fort Collins Purpose: pdeatsim Recording DATE: May 8, 2002 Reessung No.: Receptim No. 2002051395. As shown hereon, located Borah of sec dproperry. Item 12 Terms, cmmmaes, povislon. agreemonts and abligatioes contained BE the Grant ofEaxment Bud Agreement by and betsv«n Colorado Farmhouse Asv,mabun and Jeffrey J. Evans BE; sot Soon below: Recording Date June 6,207 Retooling No Reception No 2007OD42816 a. Closed ofDdicaton recorded August 19, M07 a Reception No. M090063525. Asshownhereom han 13 -AR notes, atamnmtq easements and rights of way, M son forlb an the Pia(s) ofObservnnry Park Subdivisim An forth below: Recording Dore: Oclober23,2007 Recurdug No Reception NO 20070080132 As shown hereon Item 14 Terms, condldans, pmvidons, agreements and oblrgaowts contained] N the Ordinance No 027, 2000 offln City of Fort Collins Designating the From, BmwdSusan Winter Nauss, 7M West Prospect Sod As a Fort CEA ins Landmark HE; set Soon below Recording Date. NovemM 19, 2009 Recording1w: Recephot No 200700116151. As shown hereon. s oBs m the I, Obsmvaory Pmk Subdivision M Fm W Mra haring N99=14W (saamed Marring). vawsmw 3) There are no evidence of use of this site As a solid waste dmp, sump or sanitary landfill. 4) The lineal unit of measurement for this drawing is U.S. Survey F«L 5) Cumen0y zoned m HAN (Nigh Comity Moved -Use Neighborhood) Fmml®RR — sNORFa,ma 0190 He mom im LOT 62.564 S.F. 4 I I i E�F�LyA«P�aLaBv. I %!— — — — — — — — — IIXC. m. M]mm�m6me. NO. mMNF m — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — m } � T� I' / axc smrrl — L I sg aI I I I I I I ! BUILDING PAD c° cl I `� I (1375g S.F.) 1-I1.• l I AN IA I ! I Are I --L—I------ _---- Fwasarr wNeMoc TRY min I�.m m�Im aMN� xnow q aMaonTevuu 1 8 >x 1 \ .e e•N Nrww.Iu ag. m.marmtm nwGLAa .f4B1 JT'OV GRACE —� To MINI RAfKICADC Pmpmty M, LLC, a Delaware Linked liability comlwny, ad Fidelity Natural Trtk Company: This is As citify tha this map a pal and the: survey m which it is bash were mtle m ammniance with the ME I Mini man Standard Derail Frequentness Bar ALTMACSM LUW Tbk Survrys,jotndy estAblided and tloptel by ALTA and NSPS and inclodce Items 1, 2, 4, 6,'/(bXU, 8, HER), 13, ad 18 ofTable A tbernof The 0eld work wss romplad «March 26, 2011. �`?�pAY1D G FRR�RV TS v4 flee: = OF CO N ��--/Y-Y For and on behafofNoMem E"Accong Services, us. Gerald D. Gilliland Regismed LarxJ Surveyor Colonsdo RegislNion No. 14823 Sumbol egend AWN JY WATE U PIfiOf FIRE HVMMHF WATER METER e WATER MANHIXE ® SWrtMY MAraHpE 8 GASMAR4R m EIECTRICVAULT 4 MGM NOT 'U. POWER PIXE GUy WIRE ® GBIE VAULT ® TRAFFICAMULT CGNIFEROI6TREE OEClD00051REE g $aaA tourre4 ) a "'R09To '-i J9- Line Legend — — — — ——FMTIIXG FA4MEM REFUND LOTO IXLSE OF LOT ONE EWE OF GRAVELY — — — — — — — — — — — FWF OF GRAVEL ——ROWFIME FENCE ONE ac ow WFRXEAO ELECTRIC ® COR ERfOUND O CORNEWIET N4 RERAR W/nK U 1148]3 (MI = MEASURED BEBRING AND DLSTAND: (R)=RECORDED HEARING AND DISTANQ SHOWN ON OBSERVATION PERK SUBDNISION FIAT AS(MEASURED) w .«am.munono OWNERS COLOORADO Farr. HM pWMOEEASBBR I^�Nnm f NETESASOUNBSTRANT n uhl vxrav sot7s•t4f Mw10134 ENr I— 8 UTUT mOlmw�m — I I \ 1 rypA I �I C4 LEFT I \ 62,006 S.F. I IR rr s; € os E i i I I FINDIERMAR s9'R(fq iiv rocanelu ael � m€ n g I b !i w w I F—Z a EEj .. --I I I. 1. 11 �a I �1 fsmuccoE tor a, (MET IF)e I �__a•_s NN IBB 1 III R6R Oar t �� NIL,I as mslm Aowt I Al I T' e _ ¢e as g o Iry \\ j I ,gran I Fg Gg B E$ \ I 1 ! mucw fin` J a A/ (SHIFT 1 � I I I i I —_--Air - - ousammur ,�b \ uuvaamawrf n no.w. gggg I m«. No amamMm FF MowREaw SSPPtt WCAPsmw Nos+v mww BlYmwaYY'ElE RaarGIDTE WYL 1gYMCROFW arvrc �wun eD4NaPRrz — — — `— —— — — — — — — ® NORTH 20 0 20 40 ED Fw, ( IN u& sto TEV EEET ) - nO n. CALL UTILITY LORADO x CONGER OF BmCMNM1DNOW. Call h AINomaKV Mc. MAN. AN EACAVAM Is OF 91 VnLmYNOIE: THE LCf Ppl CF OF MY UNDERGROUND PXE NOT S UI-D B THE DUCT DETERMINED BY LOCATION VNOERLNWNV FOR AUT SXWID BE OETEflMIXEO BY CONTACTING ONE LALL'Fdi P V11Lm LOGPTE. 0 00 (n O NOU Ir a Z � J WJ �O 00 LN 0 LL 060 LL M Sheet Of 1 Sheet 120 SITE LEGENDBLUE W I KE STTV ET RIDGE: �1 CONCRETE - 4' HICK, GO GRAY APARTMENTS �' EXISTING WALK RAR HERS uc OWNER RIDGE ` BLUE RIDGE FROM BLUE RIDGE APARTMENTS CONCRETE - 6' HICK. STI) GRAY 9' TO TREE APARTMENTS PARKING LOT SHARED TRASH ENCLOSURE " -- V 2'-0' OVERHANG U OWNER `Ds RADDoxRw, COLORED CONCRETE - 4" HICK ACCESS _ '- -- - - - - METES a HOUNDS TRI FLAGSTONE BROWN _ -... QeqJ7 _DUMSPTER - - - - S, AUTUMN -ENCLOSURE DUMSP 8'_ 0" -- A O° \\�� = --i-� BORGERTPERMEABLPRODUCTS Fl TRPPAVE (REFER °_�Rec. ' \ f PA PA T__ __ _- a T MexT Su imaoRA �ucE Ens CIVIL SHEETS FOR MORE �\ xo. aomomoiaziTO --- BIKE/PEOESTRLtlb INFORMATION) n A ACCESS TO LAKE__ GO! STREET CRUSHER FINES PAVEMENT . xDAR. wenzez _ _ _ _ _ - 2'-0° .,P........... ocnVery 6' PRIVACY FENCE COVERED BIKE PARKING ARBOR, REFER TO - ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS GENERAL LAND USE DATA EXISTING ZONING EXISTING PARCEL SIZE EXISTING LAND USE PROPOSED LAND USE MAXIMUM PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT PROPOSED PROJECT LAND USE DATA PA PA 0 In HE SLAB PROPERTY '�, FENCE PROPERTY BOUNDARY (NEW ROW ALONG PROSPECT ROAD) 5/3yZVyl - - EASEMENT CRUSHER FINES C i LANDSCAPE EDGER �-LJCNIC F -- EXISTING TREES PA PLANTING AREA DIX DO PARKING LOT LOFTING WOOD SHED LID (M PEDESTRIAN UGHTING COLLAPSIBLE BOLLARD \ SARA BIKE RACK `wiuPUC ' 91 - o BENCH SF)sE �{�aS�sE� � PATIO TABLE LSSoi 7R DENTAL li OME ® PICNIC TABLE x I� 0 TRASH/RECYCUNG RECEPTACLE 1 K' COSERED PORCH - �/ kl/ SITE PLAN NOTES: IEREO BIKE PARKING 52 ( ) 1. REFER TO FINAL UTIUTY PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS OF STORM DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, =ERED BIKE PARKING (3) , I UTILITY MAINS AND SERVICES. I \ 2. REFER TO HE FINAL CIVIL ENGINEERING PLANS FOR DETAILED INFORMATION REGARDING 10'-0° iw�omCsEisMExT ROOF wxnrw.D UREnNO m7N8]IS2) Is RewncEA.oOaii �- (RE NO MODIFIED) _-_-__WEST PROSPECT ROAD _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ HMN (HIGH DENSITY MIXED -USE NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT) 62,564 SF (1.44 AC) VACANT - SLAB IN PLACE HMN - MULTI -FAMILY ATTACHED 40' (3 STORIES) SITE AREA (AC.) SITE AREA ME) RTOTAL PROPERTY LIMIT IMPROVEMENTS BUILDING .35 PARKING AND DRIVEWAY - ASPHALT .37 PARKING AND DRIVEWAY - PERMEABLE PAVER (46.5%) .24 LANDSCAPE AREA (TURF, SHRUB BEDS, SEED) .27 CONCRETE WALKS .14 CRUSHER FINES PAVEMENT .004 RIGHT-OF-WAY -!F-WAYJIMPROVEMENC DRIVEWAY .02 LANDSCAPE AREA (TURF) .08 CONCRETE SIDEWALK .06 15,665 25.0 19,155 30.6 8,920 14.2 11.875 18.9 6,245 9.9 180 .003 727 .01 3,360 .05 2,542 .04 EAST OF PROPERTY IMPROVEMENTS DRIVEWAY (EMERGENCY ACCESS) .14 6.045 LANDSCAPE AREA (SHRUB BED) .046 2,025 CONCRETE SIDEWALK .029 1,305 PROPOSED BUILDING FLOOR AREA DATA NAME STATUS AREA(GROSS) FAR LAND USE MULTI -FAMILY ATTACHED NEW 56,400 SF .90 MULTI -FAMILY ATTACHED ON SITE VEHICLE & BICYCLE PARKING VITA TYPE OF PARKING COMPONENT COUNT PARKING COMPONENT COUNT STANDARD PARKING (9'x17' - 2' OVERHANG) 47 COMPACT PARKING (B'x15') 36 (42.8%) HANOI-CAP PARKING (13'x17' - 2' OVERHANG) 4 TOTAL It 87 (1.2 SPACES/BEDROOM) ENCLOSED BIKE PARKING 63 (81%) FIXED BIKE PARKING 1 1 TOTAL = 77 POP C ADCESUASEMExT PROPOSED TOPOGRAPHY, UTILITY AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS. 3. REFER TO HE SUBDIVISION PLAT AND UTILITY PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS, AREAS AND _ DRn No`v0m005015:) % � DIMENSIONS OF ALL EASEMENTS, LOTS, TRACTS, STREETS, WALKS AND OTHER SURVEY FRI INFORMATION. 4. ALL CONSTRUCTION WITH HIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN MUST BE COMPLETED IN ONE PHASE -- x UNLESS A PHASING PLAN IS SHOWN WITH THESE PLANS. 5. ALL ROOFTOP AND GROUND MOUNTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT MUST BE SCREENED FROM MEW �- FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY AND PUBUC STREETS. IN CASES WHERE BUILDING PARAPETS DO \ NOT ACCOMPLISH SUFFICIENT SCREENING, THEN FREE-STANDING SCREEN WALLS MATCHING HE 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. \ 6. ALL LIGHTING HXTURE ILLUMINATION LEVELS PROVIDED WITH HE DEVELOPMENT SHALL COMPLY OETENIION - WITH THE FOOT-CANDLE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 3.2.4 OF THE LAND USE CODE AND WITH �(2.724 CITY OF FORT COLLINS LIGHT AND POWER UTILITY REQUIREMENTS. ALL LIGHTING FIXTURES PROVIDED WITH HE DEVELOPMENT SHALL USE A CONCEALED, FULLY SHIELDED UGHT SOURCE 591 MISS � - AND SHALL FEATURE SHARP CUT-OFF CAPABILITY SO AS TO MINIMIZE UP -LIGHT, SPILL LIGHT, V GLARE AND UNNECESSARY DIFFUSION. ` -" V 7. SIGNAGE AND ADDRESSING ARE NOT PERMITTED WITH THESE FINAL PLANS AND MUST BE D APPROVED BY SEPARATE CITY PERMIT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. SIGNS MUST COMPLY WITH DEWALK CITY SIGN CODE UNLESS A SPECIFIC VARIANCE IS GRANTED BY THE CITY. FIRE HYDRANTS MUST MEET OR EXCEED POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY STANDARDS. ALL BUILDINGS �� B. _ MUST PROVIDE AN APPROVED FIRE EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM. -- - - - - 9. ALL BIKE RACKS PROVIDED MUST BE PERMANENTLY ANCHORED. 10. ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS MUST CONFORM TO CITY STANDARDS. ACCESSIBLE RAMPS MUST BE PROVIDED AT ALL STREET AND DRIVE INTERSECTIONS AND AT ALL DESIGNATED ACCESSIBLE 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. - - - - - - - - 11. PRIVATE CONDITIONS, COVENANTS, AND RESTRICTIONS (CC&R'S), OR ANY OTHER PRIVATE RESTRICTIVELANDOWNERSAY NOT BE TED OR ENFORCED HANG HE EFFECT PROHIBITINGORLIMITING THEM CREATED INSTALLATION OF XERISCAPE LANDSCAPING, SOLAR/PHOTO-VOLTAIC COLLECTORS (IF MOUNTED FLUSH UPON MY 20' 0 10' 20' 40' FORTH ESTABLISHED ROOF UNE), CLONES LINES (IF LOCATED IN BACK YARDS), ODOR -CONTROLLED DENSITY CALCULATIONS GROSS DENSITY TOTAL DWELLING UNITS = 59 TOTAL GROSS ACREAGE = 1.44 GROSS DENSITY = 40.9 UNITS/ACRE NET DENSITY TOTAL DWEWNG UNITS = 59 TOTAL NET ACREAGE = 1.44 AC - .08 AC (GATHERING AREAS & BIKEWAY) = 1.36 AC NET DENSITY = 43.3 UNITS/ACRE TOTAL OCCUPANCY TOTAL DWEWNG UNITS = 59 STUDIO UNITS = 27 1 BEDROOM UNITS = 21 2 BEDROOM UNITS = 11 TOTAL BUILDING OCCUPANCY (BEDS)= 70 COMPOST BINS, OR WHICH HAVE THE EFFECT OF REQUIRING THAT A PORTION OF ANY INDIVIDUAL LOT BE PLANTED IN TURF GRASS. 12. 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 HE ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLETED IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 13. REFER TO CIVIL SHEETS FOR ALL EASEMENTS VACATIONS AND DEDICATIONS. !\:42J:loIJ2: ■ q�" 1 wF•knRsl _ wi,n"l. "i tll i� m N r t 4 J Il t tie Tirii. in i nn,. it I rr S!! i4i4 ®RT rj eennen W La Mes - W Lrkr sl _ter El em.. Cl scowl ac, Blue Ridge Apartment I '_ 1' Old Boar Cate .I i � 3J I • - `r,� I m W ProspeI, Red — W PFosoeSt Rd v AgRe Village Apartments an, A pnaimncye r _ - BAsam Ln. Blann Bonle Bieweryp v q r HillonFdwGollnsChuck Ei it • 'Mae V J 1 rLn IT� 1 W BulkyPI: i JJLI• _ I r allP kAOnmets m- - - amao,,no s®n -ksl 1 _ sllnrre RAT and F I `{ r I:p,r �,,E j., Dr I O \ r Mare Bam i 111J TREE MITIGATION LEGEND: I / 1 PROTECT EXISTING TREE I REMOVE EXISTING TREE r I I I� TREE PROTECTION NOTES: II `� 1. ALL EXISTING TREES WITHIN THE LIMES OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND WITHIN ANY NATURAL AREA BUFFER ` ZONES SHALL REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED UNLESS NOTED ON THESE PLANS FOR II O2. WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED EXISTING TREE, THERE SHALL NO CUTUTREMOVAL, ORR FILL OVER A ` I FOUR —INCH DEPTH UNLESS A QUADFIED ARBORIST OR FORESTER HAS EVALUATED AND APPROVED THE DISTURBANCE. ` I 3. ALL PROTECTED EXISTINGREM TREES SHALL BE PRUNED TO THE CITY OF FORT HOLDS FORESTRY CITYSTANDARDS. F i/ J TREE PRUNING AND REMOVAL SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A BUSINESS THAT HOLDS A CURRENT CITY OF 11„— i II FORT CO AN AURINGT CUCENSEONSTRUCTION, WHERE REQUIRED BY CODE. I / I 4. PRIOR TO AND DURING CONSTRUCTION, BARRIERS SHALL BE ERECTED AROUND ALL PROTECTED EXISTING ` / I TREES WITH SUCH BARRIERS TO BE OF ORANGE FENCING A MINIMUM OF FOUR (4) FEET IN HEIGHT, 1 2 3 4 5 III 6 / I KE 8 ET SECURED WITH METAL T—POSTS, NO CLOSER THAN SIX (6) FEET FROM THE TRUNK OR ONE—HALF (h) OF I — THE DRIP LINE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. THERE SHALL BE NO STORAGE OR MOVEMENT OF EQUIPMENT, BLUE RIDGE II I MATERIAL, DEBRIS OR FILL WITHIN THE FENCED TREE PROTECTION ZONE. APARTMENTS OVVNE�EDGEI ' 5. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANT SHALL PREVENT THE CLEANING OF _ Pnmxexs, uc" A RTM DG EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL OR THE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF WASTE MATERIAL SUCH AS PAINTS, OILS, / SOLVENTS, ASPHALT, CONCRETE, MOTOR OIL OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL HARMFUL TO THE LIFE OF A TREE / PPRKINLG\L T / WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED TREE OR GROUP OF TREES. _ mHOMEa oxos.xN 6. NO DAMAGING ATTACHMENT, WIRES, SIGNS OR PERMITS MAY BE FASTENED TO ANY PROTECTED TREE. 7. URGE PROPERTY AREAS CONTAINING PROTECTED TREES AND SEPARATED FROM CONSTRUCTION OR LAND u I I CLEARING AREAS, ROAD RIGHTS OF WAY AND UTIDTY 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 PULING METAL i—POST STAKES A MAXIMUM OF FlFtt (50) FEET APART AND TYING xIrtiurvs0wxuaeusrxr V\ _ -- — l --____ t-C. xo.mvr00>— RIBBON OR ROPE FROM STAKE —TO —STARE ALONG THE OUTSIDE PERIMETERS OF SUCH AREAS BEING / ___ '. x -- ------------ -- — CLEARED. o.r i v 8. THE INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES, IRRIGATION ONES OR ANY UNDERGROUND FIXTURE REQUIRING EXCAVATION I \ — 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 1 DETENTION _ __ ESTABLISHED FROM THE FACE OF THE TREE (OUTER BARK) AND IS SCALED FROM TREE DIAMETER AT AREA 7 BREAST HEIGHT AS DESCRIBED IN THE CHART BELOW: ' — �� i TREE DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT (INCHES) AUGER DISTANCE FROM FACE OF TREE FEET 0-2 1 Ep __ 3-4 2 5-9 5 10-14 10 / 9 15-19 12 4� Over 19 15 n I— —_ i 9. ALL TREE REMOVAL SHOWN SHALL BE COMPLETED OUTSIDE OF THE SONGBIRD NESTING SEASON (FEB 1 — as xs.nccess, GACCESS / I JULY 31) OR CONDUCT A SURVEY OF TREES ENSURING NO ACTIVE NESTS IN THE AREA. (RECNO uoauxn°E ensemNO. --� _—�` °�. ro. zom0ceo1s east. NO xwowzsis) 1 °Eo II i � — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —----------., ---- � I� -'-- .�� t TREE MITIGATION CHART I - TREE SPECIES SIZE CONDITION ACTION MITIGATION TREES REI s of 1 SIBERUN ELM 15° FAR PROTECT 2 — — — ---I rvcw i i i 11 II °""° 2 SIBERIAN ELM 42° POOR REMOVE 0 ! / `.s\uccoxouse 3 SIBERVN ELM 6' DEAD REMOVE 0 — /�aal srl `�, 2 ug 4 SIBERMN ELM 5 OFID REMOVE 0 I _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ 5 SIBERIAN ELM 6' DEAD REMOVE 0 I _ _ a r R��S5MENTAL j i 6 SIBERIAN ELM 7° DEAD REMOVE 0 _r bo HOME �I 7 SUCKERING LESS 6' FAR REMOVE 1 / I COTTONWOOD STAND 8 HYBRID COTTONWOOD 310 FAIR PROTECT 3 CoNOxeo PORCH �/ - 9 HYBRID COTTONWOOD 28° FAR PROTECT 2.5 `CEidy' _ 4 10 SUCKERING 2-5.50 FAR REMOVE 2 COTTONWOOD STAND °a -- - - — -- — -- -- — i 11 HYBRID COTTONWOOD 3Y FAR PROTECT 3 �1 1 THE SLAB \ 12 CE$s"MEWr fi 12 HACKBERRY T7° FAR + PROTECT 2.5 PROPERTY 1� _ CBO/ Y - _ 13 BLACK WALNUT 18W DEAD REMOVE 0 I r I DMw vsxexr r' 14 SPRUCE 210 FAIR PROTECT 3 Pue`�FEC. No z00rw 01 \ '' I 15 PONDEROSA PINE HE GOOD REMOVE 2.5 l3 16 SPRUCE ME FAR PROTECT 3.5 1 —� I _ % --_16 Q 17 SPRUCE 240 FAR - PROTECT 3 18 SPRUCE no FAR - PROTECT 3 0q - 17 rII 19 SPRUCE 28° FAIR - PROTECT 2.5 \ /,I 20 SPRUCE 30° FAR - PROTECT 3 TOTAL MITICAiION TREES REO'0: 5.5 CnY orrio °m�wsIveN FnseuexrJ IaEc�raio aMENTw awxscE UDC. No. 2007M01ul ACCESS WEST PROSPECT ROAD /RT 20' 0 10' 20' 40' NORTH No Text 4 View from South West STEEL OFF %WN GE MRVINKFRPR ��N° ° UP �ELAT R aEF�.EEE`NER AV PRECAPA TswOSED-OF.-w11FTE/BE,GE SOUTH ELEVATION NOTE: ALL EXPOSED !ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND METERS ARE TO BE SCREENED OR OTHERWISE PAINTED TO MATCH THE BUILDING. WEST ELEVATION 5 uB•=.•-D.. o�L M®� ILTBOHRWQMENTCOWICE OFFMITF,TECKRE FIBERCEMENTHORICONTALSID ING BLUE GRAY DECK RAIL BLACK PRECURSTRYI GFFWBrtE,RBGE �WNE� B GW HEB 77F- 1 mil SR GEA.;eE�F, NGWMNGwRCNF STEEL SPACE ECE [� ° °RNWDEVG D iLwW. Cssrx IUBANO-OF MINSIVEIGE /GRAY E GAWRE EIGRAY - Sllrt[61W IRA) BERL LOSS >. to O NO r O 0 Q U d 0 Vl � � m a = N o u 00 H 00 ,L SHIPPED PLAUDE BAR 080415 BUILDING ELEVATIONS L J o PDP-1 125 1 ■ iii ii I���I n View from SouthEast i EAST ELEVATION FT I NOTE: ALL EXPOSED ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND METERS ARE TO BE SCREENED OR OTHERWISE PAINTED TO MATCH THE BUILDING. B� 70 wRRm�ss o c M NO r O 0O Q U d H FA O Y to m = N o u 00 00 LL PART ALL M(415 MAN BIDDING ELEVATIONS NVKIIll [L[VAI IVN O 126 City of ort Collins Planning, Development & Transportation Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970,416,2740 970.224.6134-fax fcgov. com Notes from Neighborhood Meeting for 808 W. Prospect Road (the Slab) Meeting Date: June 18, 2015; 7:00 — 8:30 p.m. Ian Shuff, Principal of alm2s Architects and Craig Russell, Principal of Russell -Mills Studio provided an overview of this project. Generally, the proposed project is for a 3-story, multi -family apartment building, with 59 dwelling units, 70 bedrooms, 83 parking spaces, and 70 bike parking spaces on a 1.44 acre lot in the H-M-N (High Density Mixed -Use) zoning district. The project is designed to work with the new plans for the Prospect Corridor and the vision created by the West Central Area Plan for this area. Although the HMN zone allows for five stories, the building has been scaled back to three, and steps down in places to be sensitive to surrounding historic properties and to stay in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. The project strives to balance open space with the increased density that is allowed. The presenters mentioned that they had given this same presentation to the Landmark Preservation Commission who had some interest in the project due to surrounding historic properties. The presenters provided a comparison from a previously approved project to the proposed one and then described their project in more detail. Public input followed: There was a question about whether the large Spruce trees would truly be able to stay since the City is taking 20' for the Prospect changes. The presenters stated that they are working with the City Forester to see how they can work around this and find ways to make accommodations that would enable them to keep the trees. They think the trees can be maintained. A participant asked if this meant that the sidewalk at the proposed building would move back. The presenters confirmed this but stated that the curb line is not changing. The participant asked whether on the parkway where landscaping trees are being placed the area would get narrower to help accommodate the trees. The presenters confirmed this and stated that they had worked on an inventory and really think they have found a way to keep the trees. They added that if something happens where trees would have to be removed, they would alter the project accordingly to make something else work. They stated that they could make some adjustments to the plan and have the sidewalk go around the trees if needed, etc. There was some concern about the difficulty of in/out access off of Prospect Drive — there were a couple of mentions of an accident that had happened on Prospect just prior to the meeting. Concerns included ensuring that there were no left-hand turns from the property (right in and 127 Neighborhood Meeting — 808 W. Prospect Road (the Slab) June 18, 2015 Page 2 right out is what is proposed) and about the sight difficulties that might be created later on as the landscape trees planted start to mature. There was a question about the elevation of the 3rd story. The presenters estimated the height at the mid-30' to 40' range. The highest points of the building were described as having a parapet with a membrane roof below it. Questions followed about the height of the Juliette balconies — how high off of the slab are these? The height was estimated at about 10' and 22' off slab, depending on their location on the building. There was a question as to whether the Juliette balconies were a final design feature. The presenters noted that nothing is final at this point — everything is still in the conceptual phase. They mentioned that they have also looked at just using larger windows. The goal is to try to bring natural light into the units since the units are kind of deep due to design and lot. Participants just wanted to ensure that there would be no open balconies or patios on the 3rd floor. It was confirmed that there would be none. A development at 1335 W Elizabeth, near Five Guys Burgers and Fries, was mentioned as a finished product that has these Juliette features. They encouraged people to go by and take a look at these. There was a question related to the variance requested for the cantilever sections of the building that extend out past the plane of the building. The presenters confirmed that the cantilever portions do extend out into the setback. They stated that there was a flat building face in the previous architectural plans but they chose to come back with the cantilevers to give the building more interest. There was some discussion about bicycle access to the campus. Is the expectation for bicyclists to head to the north to get to campus? Would they use the emergency access? The presenters stated that a component of the West Central Area Plan, as well as the previous project plan, included an 8' pathway which extends out to the emergency access. They have included this in the proposed project as well. It is anticipated that the path will be concrete and pavement or asphalt. They clarified that this path will be closed to vehicle use and primarily open to pedestrian, bicycle and emergency vehicle use. Focus turned back to traffic issues. A participant mentioned that the traffic on Prospect now is atrocious, evidenced by the accident earlier tonight. When the north/south bus system on Mason was put in place, this participant thought the buses would be the problem. He stated that he lives in the Sheeley addition with Prospect being his only way in or out of his subdivision. He is finding that pedestrians and bicyclists are way worse than the bus problem he expected. He suggested a need for an over- or underpass to help mitigate this. He asked if there was any access to the north of the project onto Lake Street for pedestrians. The presenters confirmed that there was and highlighted the pedestrian/bike access that hooks into Lake Street from the project plans. The participant added that he thought having access to Lake Street was a crucial element versus increasing the traffic impact on Prospect. The owner of Blue Ridge Apartments stated that his development has more units and twice as many beds as the proposed project. He stated that his parking lot is only half full and that the kids who live there do so because of easy access to the campus. He added that they generally travel by bike or walk, at least to campus, and that any traffic generated by them generally occurs after hours when this would have less impact on normal traffic patterns on Prospect. He -2- 128 Neighborhood Meeting — 808 W. Prospect Road (the Slab) June 18, 2015 Page 3 reiterated that most of the time their cars sit in the parking lot. There was some question about vehicle access to the north of the project to help avoid Prospect impacts. It was mentioned that the easement obtained for the walkway which will be used by pedestrians, bicycles, and for emergency access does not allow for regular vehicle traffic. A participant mentioned that if we cannot get access for cars to the north then we should eliminate the damn stadium. Participants were highly supportive of keeping the proposed building within the historical context of the neighborhood. A building to the west of the project site, the Kaufman House, was identified as a historical home that is being preserved. Craftsman -type homes, such as Blevins house, were also mentioned as important historical properties. Participants think it is important to continue this Craftsman -type architecture. They think it might provide an example so that future projects would do the same thing — create buildings that would have the same elements and that would maintain the character of the neighborhood. It was suggested that the developers add window treatments or other exterior detailing that would more solidify the Craftsman style. Participant would like to see the whole block from Whitcomb down to Prospect incorporate this style. Another participant had just moved his 96 year old dad to McKenzie Place. He really liked the way the development picked up this type of architecture, even in the way they did the porticos outside as well as sloping vertical elements. It was his opinion that this really defined the building as a Craftsman style. The presenters stated that their goal with this design is to make enough of a statement with some modern elements that people know it is a building of today while still maintaining respect for the past. Some participants stated a preference for sticking to a true Craftsman style and not mixing metaphors. It was suggested that the more modern features really take away from the Craftsman style. The presenters added that one challenge with staying true to a Craftsman style with a building of this size is not creating something that tends to look like a resort property. They added that nothing shown is final and mentioned that they do have time to make some changes. There was some discussion on whether there were any plans for the adjacent historic buildings. The presenters stated that the scope of this project did not include the historic properties at this point and clarified that these are on a different parcel. They are just addressing the 808 parcel at this point. There was a question about the density of project. A participant stated that this project would be an extension of campus as far as housing goes. He was in favor of the project stating that this is the whole idea — to put higher density projects where they make the most good. There was some discussion about whether bus service from either CSU or the City would serve this property and whether residents would gain any advantage due to this. A participant stated that a Transit line currently goes along Prospect now but doesn't stop there. The presenters clarified that there are future transit stops planned as part of the West Central Area Plan improvements that may provide additional access then. This was an item identified for follow- up - verify with City Transportation Planning. It was also suggested that a follow-up occur with -3- 129 Neighborhood Meeting — 808 W. Prospect Road (the Slab) June 18, 2015 Page 4 CSU to see of the Round the Horn bus service on campus could provide any service from this location. It was noted that some of the lack of service today may be due to the fact that so many roads are closed on or around campus due to construction activities. There was brief discussion on when Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code (Historic and Cultural Resources) comes into play. It was clarified that this occurs whenever a proposed project is adjacent to a historic designated or eligible property. A participant asked if CSURF owns the property that is being developed. It was confirmed by a CSURF representative at the meeting that CSURF does own the property and that they are a separate entity from the university. CSURF is contemplating entering into a ground lease with the developer so that they can build the project. He also clarified that over time the two houses next door to the proposed project were combined into one parcel and reiterated that 808 is a separate parcel. There was a question regarding whether CSURF is subject to City zoning. It was confirmed that they are since they are considered a private entity. There was some discussion about the type of units on the project. The presenters stated that there will be a mix of studios, one -bedroom and two -bedroom units. They plan to lease by unit, not by bedroom. They clarified that there are a higher number of one -bedroom and studios units in this project and, it has been their experience that people tend to have less parties with this type of unit mix. They stated that providing a high quality project and a mix of this type of units is likely to encourage a different type of renter and not necessarily typical students. A participant asked whether the project will have a swimming pool. The presenters confirmed that it will not, just outdoor seating/gathering areas. The owner from Blue Ridge Apartments stated that the kids at his complex are different these days and he doesn't have anyone using his pool. But, there was some concern expressed about the huge welcome back pool party that was experienced a couple of years ago that caught so much attention. A participant mentioned that it is challenging to develop something economically more feasible, with a large amount of density, and still provide a nice building that has some interest. He stated that this project shows much more effort in this regard than other projects he has seen recently. He wanted to give the development team kudos for making these extra efforts. There was a question as to whether the geo-thermal system that was started with previous project would be used. The presenters stated that they are hoping to use the wells that have been drilled, but are not sure whether the system is viable at this point. If it is intact, they will look at using it. There was a question about the basement units having only one window. The presenters mentioned that most units only have one exterior wall and, therefore, only one window that gives natural light. Some of the two -bedroom units have more. -4- 130 Neighborhood Meeting — 808 W. Prospect Road (the Slab) June 18, 2015 Page 5 A participant encouraged having outdoor gathering space where residents could interact and get to know one another. He stated that this helps people break down the sense of having a little cubicle where they simply come and go and don't get to know their neighbors. He stated that having this type of space is good and asked about the number of spaces provided. The presenters mentioned that they are looking at developing a couple other spaces throughout the site that can be used for this. Someone added that it would be nice to do an inside/outside space that would serve this purpose as well. The presenters clarified that they have looked at a leasing office and could combine this purpose with some lounge space. It was mentioned that it is important for people to know who they are living with and to have some interaction. Someone added that opportunities for engagement with neighbors are good. Think people using the walkway and bicycle access will get this type of interaction as well. The presenters committed to continuing to explore this. A question was posed as to whether the detention basin on NE corner could be adapted for this type of use (gathering space). The presenters mentioned that the City's criteria does allow for multi -use in these types of areas. There might be an option to put some benches or picnic tables in there if allowed. Red Fox Meadows is a good example of how this has been done effectively. Think there are opportunities for these spaces to have more uses. There was some question about the pavers being used to capture stormwater and whether these were problematic (ones in Old Town were mentioned as having plugged up). It was clarified that they do have to be maintained and that the key is to do routine and timely maintenance. There was some question about how lighting is going to work. Have bushes close to the building — great place for people to hide, etc. The presenters stated that the previous design had grates over the egress areas from the basements to keep people going down — they could only go up. They were open to provide more lighting in these areas to make this safer. The added that their goal is to ensure they meet dark skies requirements and light closer to the ground versus having light spill into the sky. The lighting plan will at least meet any minimum requirements of the City for parking lots and walkways. There was a question about whether a fence would be installed. The presenters stated that they are looking at doing a boundary fence to create some privacy. Not sure what fencing will be made of — cedar or steel (with vines growing up). Do want to make sure they are being sensitive to light issues. The owner of the Blue Ridge Apartments stated that he has not had any trouble with break-ins or safety. He stated that they are all fortunate to have a neighborhood where safety issues are not as prevalent. Others added that they want to keep it that way and build in whatever features they can to do so. The developer added that they will be installing a security camera system on the premises as well. He also mentioned that they have reached out to City Police to see if they are interested in any of the basement space for a substation. Nothing finalized in this regard. There was a comment to the presenters that they had done a great job with the architecture. Like that the building is scaled and more compatible with the neighborhood. Think they are respectful of the historic buildings. Hope it will be the example for future developments. -5- 131 Neighborhood Meeting — 808 W. Prospect Road (the Slab) June 18, 2015 Page 6 Another participant stated that they had taken an under -performing asset and made something quite nice. Architecture is nice, less bedrooms, more parking, etc. Well done. There was a suggestion that additional detail and scaling to bring the building to an even further personal level would be beneficial. They suggested window sills and similar improvements. There was a question about the project timeline. The presenters stated that they have to go through the planning process and do not anticipate being finished with this until November/December. They thought it was likely they would break ground this spring. There was an area on the site plan related to access to the site that was dashed in. There was a question on why. The presenters clarified that this is somewhat tentative right now. There is some concern that the geometry and radius gets so fine that people might try to do a left turn anyway, then curb gets destroyed, etc. So, this area is still being worked on and they intend to continue to work with Traffic Engineering on this item. Participants reiterated the importance of getting this right and wanted to stress what a problem allowing people to turn against traffic would create - would cause a lot of traffic congestion. There was a question about how far the City's median would go and whether it could be extended in an effort to keep people from turning left. The presenters thought there might be some room for negotiation in this regard. There was concern about getting rid of the chance for people to U-turn as well. The City Planner stated that at the time the project gets submitted to the City, all related documents will be placed on the City's website. Anyone interested would have access to the plans, could see how things have changed, etc. He added that there will be several additional opportunities to provide feedback as the plan progresses through the process. Adjourned at 8:30 pm. -6- 132 DELICH ASSOCIATES Traffic & Transportation Engineering 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, Colorado 80538 Phone: (970) 669-2061 Fax: (970) 669-5034 MEMORANDUM TO: Robin/Christian Bachelet, Maxiimo Development Group City of Fort Collins �o�N00 C1CF�s v0 � •QN M. p'•. F� FROM: Joseph Delich ' : 9 06 DATE: September 17, 2015 :•• g /��5, • �� 000 SUBJECT: 808 West Prospect Road Transportation Impact Study O�FSS��NAtEN�\��c (File: 1564ME01) This memorandum addresses the transportation impacts of the proposed development at 808 West Prospect Road. The site location is shown in Figure 1. The development at 808 West Prospect Road is a 70 bed apartment building development north of Prospect Road Street in Fort Collins. The scope of this study was discussed with the Fort Collins Traffic Operations Engineer. A brief memorandum was requested. The Base Assumptions form is provided in Appendix A. Figure 2 shows the current geometry at the Prospect Road/Prospect Lane intersection. Prospect Road is to the south of (adjacent to) the proposed 808 West Prospect Road site. It is an east -west street classified as a four -lane arterial street according to the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Prospect Road has a four - lane cross section in this area. At the Prospect Road/Prospect Lane intersection, Prospect Road has a westbound left-turn/through lane, a through lane in each direction, and an eastbound through/right-turn lane. The Prospect Road/Prospect Lane intersection has stop sign control on Prospect Road. The posted speed limit in this area of Prospect Road is 35 mph. There is an approximately 4 foot sidewalk along both sides of Prospect Road. There are no bicycle lanes along Prospect Road. Prospect Lane is to the south of the proposed 808 West Prospect Road site. It is a north -south street classified as a local street according to the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Prospect Lane only has south leg at the Prospect Road/Prospect Lane intersection. Currently, Prospect Lane has a two-lane cross section in this area. At the Prospect Road/Prospect Lane intersection, Prospect Lane has all movements combined into a single lane. There is no posted speed limit on Prospect Lane. There are sidewalks along both sides of Prospect Lane. There are no bicycle lanes along Prospect Lane. Figure 3 shows recent peak hour counts at the Prospect Road/Prospect Lane intersection. The traffic volumes at the Prospect Road/Prospect Lane intersection were collected in September 2015. Raw traffic data is provided in Appendix B. Table 1 shows the current morning and afternoon peak hour operation of the Prospect 133 Road/Prospect Lane intersection. The Prospect Road/Prospect Lane intersection currently meets the City of Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards during the morning and afternoon peak hours with existing control and geometry. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix C. A description of level of service for unsignalized intersection from the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual is provided in Appendix C. Table 4-3 (revised per staff comments regarding type of intersection) showing the Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) are also provided in Appendix C. The 808 West Prospect Road site is in an area termed "mixed use districts." In areas termed "mixed use districts," acceptable operation at unsignalized intersections, acceptable operation is considered to be at level of service F for any approach leg for an arterial/arterial, arterial/collector and arterial/local intersections. In such areas, it is expected that there would be substantial delays to the minor street movements at unsignalized intersections during the peak hours. This is considered to be normal in urban areas. At unsignalized collector/local intersections, acceptable operation is considered to be at level of service C for any approach leg. Figure 4 shows the site plan for the development at 808 West Prospect Road. The development at 808 West Prospect Road is a 70 bed apartment complex. Currently the site is vacant (foundation slab). Access to the site will be via a right- in/right-out access to/from Prospect Road. There will be emergency access to Lake Street that will, also, serve pedestrians and bicyclists. Trip generation is important in considering the impact of a development such as this upon the existing and proposed street system. A compilation of trip generation information contain in Trip Generation, 9t" Edition, ITE is customarily used to estimate the trips that would be generated by the proposed/expected uses at a site. However, the City of Fort Collins has performed a trip generation study for apartments in Fort Collins. Therefore, the trip generation rates calculated by the City will be used. A person/bed was used as the trip generation variable. A trip is defined as a one-way vehicle movement from origin to destination. Table 2 shows the expected trip generation on a daily and peak hour basis. The trip generation of the 808 West Prospect Road development resulted in 186 daily trip ends; 14 morning peak hour trip ends; and 30 afternoon peak hour trip ends. Directional distribution of the generated trips was determined for 808 West Prospect Road site and is shown in Figure 5. Figure 6 shows the site generated peak hour traffic assignment of 808 West Prospect Road. Figure 7 shows the short range (2020) background morning and afternoon peak hour traffic at the Prospect Road/Prospect Lane intersection. Background traffic volume forecasts for the short range (2020) future were obtained by reviewing traffic studies for other developments in this area and reviewing historic counts in the area. Traffic volumes at the Prospect Road/Prospect Lane intersection were increased at a rate of 2.0 percent per year. Table 3 shows the short range (2020) background morning and afternoon peak hour operation at the Prospect Road/Prospect Lane intersection. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix D. The Prospect Road/Prospect Lane intersection will meet the City of Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards during the morning and afternoon peak hours with the existing control and geometry in the short range (2020) future. ld _LDELICH �7 1 rASSOCIATES 808 West Prospect Road TIS, September 2015 134 Figure 8 shows the short range (2020) total morning and afternoon peak hour traffic at the Prospect Road/Prospect Lane and Prospect Road/Site Access intersections. Table 4 shows the short range (2020) total morning and afternoon peak hour operation at the key intersections. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix E. The Prospect Road/Prospect Lane and Prospect Road/Site Access intersection will meet the City of Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards during the morning and afternoon peak hours with the existing control and geometry. The recommended short range (2020) geometry is shown in Figure 9. The right- in/right-out access should be designed to discourage other traffic movements. This is the existing geometry. A westbound right -turn lane is not required based on Figure 8-4 in LCUASS. According to Figure 8-1 in LCUASS, left -turn lanes are required on all arterial streets. This segment of Prospect Road is constrained and does not have a left - turn lane. This is addressed by the City of Fort Collins in the "West Central Area Plan" (adopted March 17, 2015). The 808 West Prospect Road site is in an area within which the City requires pedestrian and bicycle level of service evaluations. Appendix F shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of the 808 West Prospect Road site. The 808 West Prospect Road site is located within an area termed as "pedestrian district," which sets the pedestrian level of service threshold at LOS A for all measured categories, except for Street Crossing at LOS B. There are three destination areas within 1320 feet of the proposed development at 808 West Prospect Road: 1) the residential area to the west, 2) the residential area to the south, and 3) Colorado State University to the north. The primary pedestrian destination is CSU. There is not likely to be a significant pedestrian affinity between this site and the other residential areas shown. Pedestrians will have direct access to Lake Street via the emergency access. The adopted plan for this corridor shows a multi -use path on the north side of Prospect Road. It is assumed that this multi -use path will be implemented. Practically speaking, the only significant pedestrian destination is CSU. For that reason, it is suggested that CSU be the only pedestrian destination considered in this evaluation. With the availability of the emergency access to Lake Street, the pedestrian level of service will be met for CSU. This development will build the 10 foot multi -use path along the site frontage. Appendix F contains a Pedestrian LOS Worksheet. Based upon Fort Collins Bicycle LOS criteria, there is one destination area within 1320 feet of the 808 West Prospect Road site: Colorado State University to the north. Appendix F contains a Bicycle LOS Worksheet. Bicyclists will have access to Lake Street via the emergency access. Lake Street has on street bike lanes. With the multi- use path and direct access to Lake Street, the bicycle level of service will be met. Currently, this area is not served by Transfort. The nearest bus stop is at the Prospect Road/Shields Street intersection. It is concluded that, with development of the 808 West Prospect Road, the future level of service at the key intersections will be acceptable. The Prospect/Site Access intersection should be designed as a right-in/right-out access. _LDELICH rASSOCIATES 808 West Prospect Road TIS, September 2015 135 808 West N Lake Street Prospect Road Prospect Road (D U) y a)��� 0 U L �` a U) Spring Creek Trail t SCALE: 1 "=500' SITE LOCATION —// f DELICH Figure 1 808 West Prospect Road TIS, September 2015 �7 1 rASSOCIATES 136 CURRENT GEOMETRY /IIDELICH �71 rASSOCIATES - Denotes Lane Prospect Road Figure 2 808 West Prospect Road TIS, September 2015 137 RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC _//_LDELICH �71 rASSOCIATES 478/1138 0/3 AM/PM Prospect Road Figure 3 808 West Prospect Road TIS, September 2015 138 TABLE 1 Current Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Prospect Road/Prospect Lane (stop sign) EB LT/T A A NB LT/RT C E TABLE 2 Trip Generation Code Use Size AWDTE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate In Rate Out Rate In Rate Out 220 Apartment 70 Beds/Persons 2.65 186 0.04 3 0.15 11 0.27 19 0.15 11 /J LDELICH �71 rASSOCIATES 808 West Prospect Road TIS, September 2015 139 SHARED TRASH ENCLOSURE ACCESS MwESIER 1ffi ENCU)SURE tun 2'-Ow 6' PPNKY TLNCE A CDNCREIL L901 PAVEMENT PATIO ]ABLE S1pl TYE. , I TO WEST I AKE STREET BLUE RIDGE `, I O TRFf EXISIINC WALK APARTMENTS <.FROM BLUE RIGGE waw.w 1R r BLUE RIDGEAPARTMEM 8 APARIEFNIS i it a 11r"m Plkw. 1 -0 OhFTNNG PARKING IOT r _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Qly{ , BIKE/PEDESTIRM ACCESS ,S ^•VA' - yam- A •i PA 1U -PA ----.� .ri - 1TO =sIREET����-����. O B -0T T 8 -D• r,m iwk. uu lurn, - -- 1810. 1'-0� Dw DRIVE it ,� — DLILNIION V4' STEEL FENCE I; I IT-0• I _ y _D• AREA f (END AT GIGYA DRJr DE) ASS 24 E i 9' 0 -¢r� All I '� 0. 2'-0• I I PA ._ -l. COVERED BIKE PARKING (II)— ARBOR (RADA TO — ARCIIITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR IDRI INFORMATION) I N BIXE RACK 15501 TYP. 1 T J T � I F i PA PA ti RIGHT -IN / RIGHT -OUT 4 41Y gIWIiCCW,f4MMFN A[ Ilu m,m. W GFNFR I IAND USE DATA 911 AREA (AC„) SIT AREA Col) DENSITY CALWILATI +$ "STING LONING LAIN (HIGH DENSITY NIXED -USE IiIGHBOREID00 DISTRICT) FAST OF PROPFRN IMPRnJF16NTS CROSS OU4SIIT EXISTING PARCEA SUE 62,564 Sr (1.44 AC) DRNMY (EMERGENCY ACCESS) .14 6.045 TOTAL WILLING UNITS - 59 EXISTING AND USE VACANT - STAB IN PIACI LANDSCAPE ARIA (SHRUB BED) .046 2,025 DAL GROSS ALRUGL - 1.44 PROPOSED LAID USE TUN MLL71 FAIN ATTACHED CONCRETE SIDEWALK .029 1•3D5 GROSS IANSIIY = 409 UNINACRE MAXIMUM PROPOSED BUILDING HEKGHR 48- (3 STORIES) PROPM0 BUILDING FLOOR ARM NET DENSITY PRO SED PROJECT LAND USE DATA -DMA IOIN TIWEIi WG ALIAS = 59 SITE AESA (AC-) SITE AREA (%n %TOTAL NAME STATUS ARGIff NI rAR LAND USE TOTAL Nrr ACRCACE _ 1.44 AC - .OR AC (rATTrRING AREA; YVOI FAMILY ATTACHED NEW 55.400 SF .90 MULTI -FAMILY ATTACHED A H KFWAY) - 1.36 AC FFtlPERTY LINT IMPRIA4MENTS NET DENSITY = 43.3 uNTS/ACRE BUILDING .35 15.10 25.0 ON SITE VEHICLE & &CYCLE PML(NG DATA PANNING AND DRNEAAY - ASPHNI .37 19.155 30.6 TOTAL OCCUPANCY PARKING AND DAm-vAY - PRUrABLF PAIR (46.SV .24 8.920 14.2 TREE OF PARKING. COMPONENT COUNT TOTAL INIMINC LINTS - 59 INDSCAPE AREA (TURF, SHRUB BEDS, SEED) .27 11,875 1&9 STANDARD PARKING (9'417' 2' OVERHANG) 47 STUDIO UNITS - 27 CONCRFTF WN KS All 6,245 9.9 COMPACT PARIONG (8'.15') 36 (42A%) 1 BEDROOM UNITS - 21 CRUSHER PAVEMENT,004 LBO A0J IUnq-GP PARKING (IJ'KI7' - 2'ONDFf )T 2 BEDROOM UNTS - 11 TON - B7 (1.2 SPACES TOTAL BUILDING OCCUPANCY (BEDS)- 70 WAY RIGHT of WAY MPTKOVEAEHTS LXAYEWAY .02 727 .01 ENCLOSED DNC PARKING 63 (81%) LANDSCAPE AREA (TURF) .08 3.360 .05 nxm IKKr PANNING 14 (19%) CONCRETE SIDEWALK .06 2.542 .04 TOTAL = 77 SITE PLAN Figure 4 DELICH 808 West Prospect Road TIS, September 2015 [""""""ASSOCIATES 140 808 West N Prospect Road Lake Street 25% 5°% Prospect Road 55% a� O 15% (n s — o N t0 O U !E Spring Creek Trail I SCALE: 1 "=500' TRIP DISTRIBUTION —// L—DELICH Figure 5 808 West Prospect Road TIS, September 2015 �7 1 rASSOCIATES 141 SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC _//_LDELICH �71 rASSOCIATES AM/PM Prospect Road Figure 6 808 West Prospect Road TIS, September 2015 142 528/1256 0/3 Prospect Road AM/PM SHORT RANGE (2020) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 7 LDELICH 808 West Prospect Road TIS, September 2015 �71 rASSOCIATES 143 TABLE 3 Short Range (2020) Background Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Prospect Road/Prospect Lane (stop sign) EB LT/T A A NB LT/RT D E TABLE 4 Short Range (2020) Total Peak Hour Operation Level of Service Intersection Movement AM PM Prospect Road/Prospect Lane EB LT/T A B (stop sign) NB LT/RT D E Prospect Road/Site Access SB RT B C (stop sign) Iji _LDELICH �7 1 rASSOCIATES 808 West Prospect Road TIS, September 2015 144 SHORT RANGE (2020) TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC _//_LDELICH �71 rASSOCIATES AM/PM Prospect Road Figure 8 808 West Prospect Road TIS, September 2015 145 -a c o N � R Q V y� T w 'V N � a CL W N O V V O M W OQ co a 146- Agenda Item 7 PROJECT NAME FALL 2015 BIANNUAL REVISIONS, CLARIFICATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE LAND USE CODE STAFF Ted Shepard, Chief Planner :1:loalx0121ki1701Nkvile'llIIQki PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding the annual update to the Land Use Code. There are proposed revisions, clarifications and additions to the Code that address a variety of subject areas that have arisen since the last annual update in the Spring of 2015. APPLICANT: RECOMMENDATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City of Fort Collins Approval There are seven proposed items that change, clarify or add to the Land Use Code. The revisions, by Article, are summarized as follows: • Article One — Organization — one change; • Article Two — Administration — three changes; • Article Three - General Development Standards — two changes; • Article Four — Districts — 1 change; • Article Five — Definitions — zero (three are embedded in the aforementioned.) ATTACHMENTS 1. List of Issues (PDF) 2. Summary of Issues (PDF) 3. Summary of Ordinances Cross -Referenced (PDF) Item # 7 Page 1 147 Land Use Code Issues Friday, November 06, 2015 Issue ID# Issue Name 1016 Amend 1.3.4(E) -Addition of Permitted Use -Conditions - to correct an inadvertent omission due to overlapping Ordinances and a lag time in publishing. 1017 Amend 3.8.28(A) -Extra Occupancy Rental House -to correct an inconsistency with the type of development review designated in the permitted use list in the L-M-N zone district. 1018 Amend 2.2.10(A) -Minor Amendments -to clarify that the process maybe used to amend development projects approved under prior law with no formally adopted and recorded final plans in City records. Works with item 1021. 1019 Amend Article Four Zone Districts -Permitted Use Lists -to align the dispensing of Retail Marijuana with the same type of review process as listed for Medical Marijuana as the differences between the two are no longer distinctive. 1020 Amend Article Two - Add a New Division - 2.18 - to formally explain the Basic Development Review procedure and establish a new Minor Subdivision which may be processed as a B.D.R. 1021 Amend 2.2.10 - Amendments - to clarify that the Amendment procedure may also be used to process Changes of Use, and consolidate various references throughout the Code for consistency. Works with item 1018. 1024 Amend 2.6.3(G)(H) and 3.4.1(G) -Stockpiling Permit and Environmental, Natural Area, Recreational and Cultural Resource Protection - to update the reference to the Stormwater Criteria Manual (part of new regulations for Fugitive Dust), 1026 Amend 3.8.19(A)(5) - Features Allowed Within Setbacks - to add basement egress windows, and the foundation that forms the window well, to the list. Friday, November 06, 2015 e* Page 1 of 1 Land Use Code Maintenance Process Annotated Issue List 1016 Amend 1.3.4(E) - Addition of Permitted Use = Conditions = to correct an inadvertent omission due to overlapping ordinances and a lag time im publishinng. Problem Statement At the time the Land Use Code Changes of Ordinance No. 086, 2014 were being revised, the changes of the preceding Ordinance No.042, 2014 were not yet published, and, therefore not included in the latter Ordinance. The result was the inadvertent loss of text of within the Addition of Permitted Use code section. Proposed Solution Overview Revise the Addition of Permitted Use — Conditions to reinsert the text that was lost in the subsequent code changes. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 2 1.3.4(E) Reinserts lost text. 1017 Amend 3.&28(A) = Krtra occnpmwy Rental House = to correct at inconsistency with the type of development review designated in the permitted use list in the L-M-N zone district. Problem Statement Section 3.8.28 of the Land Use Code is not consistent with the permitted uses listed in the L-M-N zone district. This inconsistency has created confusion. Proposed Solution Overview Revise section 3.8.28 to be consistent with the permitted uses listed in the L-M-N zone district in Article Four. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 9 3.8.28(A) Aligns Article 3 General Development Standard with L-M-N permitted use list. 1018 Amend 21*10(A) = Minor Amendments = to claify that the process maybe used to amend development projects approved wider prior law with no formrdly adopted and recorded fund plans in City records. Works with item 10210 Problem Statement Friday, November 06, 2015 The Minor Amendment section is not clear if the process can be used when there are no plans in the City Records. Thus, the Code does not provide clear direction whether or not the existing conditions of a site or building can be amended through a Minor Amendment. For much of the City's history, under prior law, a Building Permit was all that was required to develop a site and construct a building. In addition, this older process may or may not have required the submittal and recording of site and landscape plans and architectural elevations. Where there were no recorded plans, there were questions as to exactly what is being amended. As long as the property was platted, and the building was issued a Certificate of Occupancy, Staff has informally adopted the Minor Amendment process as the most efficient and practical level of review to regulate changes to these Page 1 of 6 149 situations. The proposed revision would formalize this practice. Proposed Solution Overview Revise the Minor Amendment code section to allow the existing conditions of platted properties and buildings to be eligible for the Minor Amendment process even if approved under prior law when there are no recorded final plans. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 2 2.2.10(A) Allows existing conditions to be eligible for minor amendments. 1019 Amend Article Fore Zone Districts = Permitted Use Lists = to align the dispensing of Retail Marijuana with the same type of review process as listed for Medical Mmquana as the differences between the two are no longer distinctive. Problem Statement The dispensing of Medical Marijuana preceded the adoption dispensing Retail Marijuana. Medical was generally listed in the various applicable zone districts as a Basic Development Review (BDR) whereas Retail was generally listed as a Type One or Type Two. Now that both uses are legal, staff has found that dispensing retail marijuana is similar to dispensing medical marijuana and that it is difficult to find distinguishing differences. Further, through the City's marijuana licensing requirements, only an established medical marijuana dispensary is allowed to also dispense retail marijuana. Proposed Solution Overview Revise the type of development review process in each applicable zone district so that the dispensing of retail marijuana would be consistent with dispensing of medical marijuana. Related Code Revisions Friday, November 06, 2015 Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 10 4.16(B)(2) Aligns retail and medical marijuana as BDR's in the D zone. 11 4.17(B)(1)(f)(g) Adds retail, cultivation, manufacturing and testing marijuana as a BDR in R-D-R. 12 4.17(B)(2)(c)(d) Deletes retail, cultivation, manufacturing and testing marijuana from Type 1 in R-D-R. 13 4.18(B)(1)(f) Adds retail marijuana as a BDR in C-C. 14 4.18(B)(2)[c] Deletes retail marijuana as a Type 1 in C-C. 15 4.19(B)(1)(f)(g) Adds retail, cultivation,manufacturing, testing marijuana as BDR in C-C-N. 16 4.19(B)(2)(c)(d) Deletes retail, cultivation, manufacturing, testing marijuana as Type 1 in C-C-N. 17 4.20(B)(1)(f) Adds retail marijuana as a BDR in C-C-R. 18 4.20(B)(2)[c] Deletes retail marijuana as a Type 1 in C-C-R. 19 4.21(13)(2) Changes retail marijuana from Type 1 to BDR in C-G but still not permitted in CAC. 20 4.22(B)(1)(f)(g) Adds retail, cultivation, manufacturing, testing marijuana as BDR in C-S. 21 4.22(B)(2)(c)(d) Deletes retail, cultivation, manufacturing, testing marijuana as Type 1 in C-S. 22 4.24(B)(2) Changes retail marijuana from Type 1 to BDR in C-L. Page 2 of 6 150 23 4.28(13)(1)(f) Adds retail, cultivation, manufacturing, testing marijuana as BDR in I. 24 4.28(13)(2)(d) Deletes cultivation, manufacturing, testing marijuana as Type 1 in I. 1020 Amend Article Two = Add a New Division - 2.18 = to formaUy explain the Basic Development Review procedure and establish a new Minor Subdivision which may be processed as a B.D.R. Problem Statement Friday, November 06, 2015 The problem is that when the Code was first adopted, there was an emphasis on establishing procedures for Overall Development Plans, Project Development Plans and Final Plans. Less emphasis was placed on what was formally called under prior law a Use - By -Right. A Use -By -Right was renamed "Building Permit Review" under the Land Use Code. Generally, the development review aspects of a Use -By -Right were carried over from prior law into the Land Use Code. But after a while, this terminology was deemed to be confusing with issuance of building permits for houses (already on platted lots), garages, carports, decks, out -buildings, roofs, tenant finishes, mechanical equipment, etc. where there was no land development per se. To remove this confusion, we then adopted the term "Basic Development Review" (BDR) to distinguish between use -by -right projects that enter the development review process and those projects simply needing a building permit. But the problem is that the Land Use Code never contained a consolidated explanatory section on par with O.D.P., P.D.P.'s and Final Plans. References to the BDR process were random. In fact, the first direct reference to a BDR is in the Appeal of Administrative Decisions in Article 2.11. It is important to note that every permitted use list in Article Four contains a list of uses that are subject to the BDR process. Not having an easy -to -find, direct section in Article Two that fully explains what a BDR process entails is a problem. Minor Subdivisions: For Minor Subdivisions, there is only one path to gaining approval for a Subdivision Plat and that is via an affirmative decision from either the Administrative Hearing Officer (Type 1) or Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2). For most projects, this is not a problem as the Plat is generally a component of a Project Development Plan or a Major Amendment. There are other cases, however, where a plat may be part of a Basic Development Review, Minor Amendment, Change of Use or Building Permit and not tied to a project where the procedure results in a public hearing. In these cases, a plat becomes a stand-alone project that requires its own public hearing. For example, in addition to the aforementioned, an applicant may wish to subdivide a parcel without necessarily intending to engage in land development or construction of a building. Or, in many cases, parcels that are not part of a recorded Plat and are defined only by a metes and bounds legal description, and seek to obtain a building permit, are required to file a submittal for a Plat. This is often the case in older parts of the City that are re -developing or in areas that have been recently annexed. It is important to note a fundamental aspect of the Land Use Code and that is the trigger for submitting a plat is found in the section that regulates Building Permits. Section 2.7.2 reads as follows: "Application for a building permit may be made at any time. A building permit may be Page 3 of 6 151 issued only after a site specific development plan has been approved for the property upon which the proposed principal building or structure is to be erected. The building permit is the only authorization under which a building or structure may be constructed, moved, placed, altered or demolished, with some exceptions, such as fences and certain types of storage sheds." (Emphasis added.) As can be seen, the mere application for a Building Permit requires an approved site specific development plan, or Plat, prior to issuance. The problem is not the requirement for a plat. Buildings in an urban area should be on platted lots in order to ensure proper dedications for public purposes and utilities. The problem is that there is only one way in which to gain an approval for a Plat. In other words, Section 2.7.2 sets a project down a path to a public hearing whether there is a land development proposal or not. The existing process results in an unintended one - size -fits -all approach where Plats that are minor in scope and complexity are lumped in with Plats for residential subdivisions, commercial development, industrial projects and the like. The Land Use Code would be more efficient and user-friendly, with no loss of public review, if there were a way to differentiate Plats that are minor from Plats that are associated with land development. Proposed Solution Overview The proposed solution is to consolidate various references to the Basic Development Review process into one new section and then define and add Minor Subdivisions as eligible for this process. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 5 2.11.1 Removes appeals of BDR's from Z.B.A.. 6 2.18.1 Adds a new explanatory section for BDR's in Article Two. 27 5.1.2 Adds a new definition for Minor Subdivisions. 1021 Amend 2.2.10 = Amendments - to clarify that the Amendment procedwe may also be used to process Changes of Use, and consolidate various references throughout the Code for consistency. Works with item 101& Problem Statement Friday, November 06, 2015 The problem is that the current procedure for a Change of Use is not well-defined or easily referenced in the Land Use Code. Currently, the Change of Use process is not clearly explained and is poorly cross-referenced with the balance of the Code. The path to a Change of Use is convoluted and obscure. The first mention of a Change of Use is not until Section 2.14 which then references back to Section 3.8.20 which, in turn, references back to Section 1.6.5 with a final reference to Section 2.7 For example, the problem with the Change of Use procedure is that the path is as follows: •2.14(B) and 2.14(A) •3.8.20(B) •2.7 (no expansion), or 1.6.5(A) (with expansion) •2.7 The indirect path is not self-evident or user-friendly and relies on an excessive use of cross-references. In some parts of the Code, the cross-references are missing. The cross- reference to a Basic Development Review leads to Section 2.7 where the B.D.R. process is not clear. (We propose to fix this with a new Division in Article Two, 2.18, that will Page 4 of 6 152 offer a detailed and specific description of the B.D.R. process.) Finally, it is not clear that a review of Change of Use per the applicable standards in Articles 3 and 4 shall be to the extent reasonably feasible as opposed to the criteria for Minor Amendments (no greater deviation) and Site Specific Development Plans (to the maximum extent feasible). Proposed Solution Overview The proposed solution is to amend the Article Two Table of Contents and Minor Amendment section to now include Changes of Use, and to clarify the extent of the review for compliance with the applicable standards based on whether or not the original project was approved under the Land Use Code or under prior law. The revision fully integrates Changes of Use into the Minor Amendment process. Also recommended is a slight revision to the definition of Change of Use. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision ffLect 2 2.2.10(B) Integrates Changes of Use into the criteria for determining a Major Amendment. 2 2.2.10(A)(4) Integrates Changes of Use into the Minor Amendment appeal process. 2 2.2.10(A)(3) Integrates Changes of Use into the Minor Amendment referral process. 2 2.2.10(A)(2) Integrates Changes of Use into the Minor Amendment process for projects approved as Type 2. 2 2.2.10(A)(1) Integrates Changes of Use into the Minor Amendment process for projects approved as Type 1. 3 2.2.10(A) Adds Changes of Use to the Minor Amendment process. 26 5.1.2 Clarifies the definition of Change of Use. 1024 Amend 2.6.3(G)(LO and 3.4.1(G) - Stockpiling Permit and Envinonnment4 Natwial Area, Recreational and Cultwal Resowre Protection - to rpdate the reference to the Stormwater CMe>ria Manual (part of new regulations for F}rgWve Dust). Problem Statement The City of Fort Collins presently lacks a comprehensive approach to controlling fugitive dust that results from a variety of activities. The current regulatory approach is to rely on existing regulations, permitting and enforcement that are in place at the State and County levels. As the City has grown, and the various activities that produce fugitive dust proliferate, State and County regulatory systems, while well-intentioned, have not kept pace thus impacting our air quality. In implementing this new system, now is the time to update the cross reference to the Stormwater Criteria Manual, Proposed Solution Overview The proposed solution is to amend two sections of the Code to update the cross reference to the Stormwater Criteria Manual. Related Code Revisions Ord. Section Code Cite Revision Effect 4 2.6.3(G)(H) Updates the reference to the Stormwater Criteria Manual. 7 3.4.1(G) Updates the reference to the Stormwater Criteria Manual. 1026 Amend 3.&19(A)(5) - Featwws Allowed Within Setbacks - to add basement egress windows, and the fowrdahion that forms the window welt; to the list Friday, November 06, 2015 Page 5 of 6 153 Problem Statement Section 3.8.19(A) is the list of structures and features that may be located within required setbacks. Currently, basement egress windows are not included in the list. Over the years, however, staff has interpreted the standard to allow basement egress windows, and the foundation that forms the window well, as being allowed within the setback as these features are considered part of the yard. Designers, builders, architects, etc. have to call or visit the Building or Zoning Departments to glean this information. The proposed revision will allow the Code to be more informative and consistent with current practice. Proposed Solution Overview The proposed code revision is to clarify that basement egress windows and foundations as a feature allowed within setbacks but not to exceed the height of the house foundation Related Code Revisions Friday, November 06, 2015 Ord. Section Code Cite Revision E ect 8 3.8.19(A)(5) Clarifies basement egress windows may encroach into setbacks. Page 6 of 6 154 Land Use Code Revisions Annotated Ordinance Index Ord. Section # Code Cite Revision Effect Issue 1020 Amend Article Two - Add a New Division - 2.18 - to formally explain the Basic Development Review procedure and establish a new Minor Subdivision which may be processed as a B.D.R. l .3.4(E) Reinserts lost text. 1016 Amend 1.3.4(E) - Addition of Permitted Use - Conditions - to correct an inadvertent omission due to overlapping Ordinances and a lag time in publishing. 2 2.2.10(A) Allows existing conditions to be eligible for minor 1018 amendments. Amend 2.2.10(A) - Minor Amendments - to clarify that the process may be used to amend development projects approved under prior law with no formally adopted and recorded final plans in City records. Works with item 1021. 2 2.2.10(A)(1) Integrates Changes of Use into the Minor Amendment 1021 process for projects approved as Type 1. Amend 2.2.10 - Amendments - to clarify that the Amendment procedure may also be used to process Changes of Use, and consolidate various references throughout the Code for consistency. Works with item 1018. 2.2.10(A)(2) Integrates Changes of Use into the Minor Amendment 1021 process for projects approved as Type 2. Amend 2.2.10 - Amendments - to clarify that the Amendment procedure may also be used to process Changes of Use, and consolidate various references throughout the Code for consistency. Works with item 1018. 2 2.2.10(A)(3) Integrates Changes of Use into the Minor Amendment 1021 referral process. Amend 2.2.10 - Amendments - to clarify that the Amendment procedure may also be used to process Changes of Use, and consolidate various references throughout the Code for consistency. Works with item 1018. 2.2.10(A)(4) Integrates Changes of Use into the Minor Amendment 1021 appeal process. Amend 2.2.10 - Amendments - to clarify that the Amendment procedure may also be used to process Changes of Use, and consolidate various references throughout the Code for consistency. Works with item 1018. 2.2.10(B) Integrates Changes of Use into the criteria for determining 1021 a Major Amendment. Amend 2.2.10 -Amendments to clarify that the Amendment procedure may also be used to process Changes of Use, and consolidate various references throughout the Code for consistency. Works with item 1018. 2.2.10(A) Adds Changes of Use to the Minor Amendment process. 1021 Amend 2.2.10 - Amendments - to clarify that the Amendment procedure may also be used to process Changes of Use, and consolidate various references throughout the Code for consistency. Works with item 1018. Friday, November 06, 2015 Page 1 of 4 155 Ord. Section # Code Cite Revision Effect Issue 4 2.6.3(G)(H) Updates the reference to the Stormwater Criteria Manual. 1024 Amend 2.6.3(G)(H) and 3.4.1(G) - Stockpiling Permit and Environmental, Natural Area, Recreational and Cultural Resource Protection - to update the reference to the Stormwater Criteria Manual (part of new regulations for Fugitive Dust). 2.11.1 Removes appeals of BDR's from Z.B.A.. 1020 Amend Article Two - Add a New Division - 2.18 - to formally explain the Basic Development Review procedure and establish a new Minor Subdivision which may be processed as a B.D.R. 2.18.1 Adds a new explanatory section for BDR's in Article Two. 1020 Amend Article Two - Add a New Division - 2.18 - to formally explain the Basic Development Review procedure and establish a new Minor Subdivision which may be processed as a B.D.R. 7 3.4.1(G) Updates the reference to the Stormwater Criteria Manual. 1024 Amend 2.6.3(G)(H) and 3.4.1(G) -Stockpiling Permit and Environmental, Natural Area, Recreational and Cultural Resource Protection to update the reference to the Stormwater Criteria Manual (part of new regulations for Fugitive Dust). 3.8.19(A)(5) Clarifies basement egress windows may encroach into 1026 setbacks. Amend 3.8.19(A)(5) - Features Allowed Within Setbacks - to add basement egress windows, and the foundation that forms the window well, to the list. 3.8.28(A) Aligns Article 3 General Development Standard with L-M- 1017 N permitted use list. Amend 3.8.28(A) - Extra Occupancy Rental House - to correct an inconsistency with the type of development review designated in the permitted use list in the L- M-N zone district. 10 4.16(B)(2) Aligns retail and medical marijuana as BDR's in the D 1019 zone. Amend Article Four Zone Districts - Permitted Use Lists - to align the dispensing of Retail Marijuana with the same type of review process as listed for Medical Marijuana as the differences between the two are no longer distinctive. 11 4.17(B)(1)(f)(g) Adds retail, cultivation, manufacturing and testing 1019 marijuana as a BDR in R-D-R. Amend Article Four Zone Districts - Permitted Use Lists - to align the dispensing of Retail Marijuana with the same type of review process as listed for Medical Marijuana as the differences between the two are no longer distinctive. 12 4.17(B)(2)(c)(d) Deletes retail, cultivation, manufacturing and testing 1019 marijuana from Type 1 in R-D-R. Amend Article Four Zone Districts - Permitted Use Lists - to align the dispensing of Retail Marijuana with the same type of review process as listed for Medical Marijuana as the differences between the two are no longer distinctive. 13 4.18(B)(1)(f) Adds retail marijuana as a BDR in C-C. 1019 Amend Article Four Zone Districts - Permitted Use Lists - to align the dispensing of Retail Marijuana with the same type of review process as listed for Medical Marijuana as the differences between the two are no longer distinctive. Friday, November 06, 2015 Page 2 of 4 156 Ord. Section # Code Cite Revision Effect Issue 14 4.18(B)(2)[c] Deletes retail marijuana as a Type 1 in C-C. 1019 Amend Article Four Zone Districts - Permitted Use Lists - to align the dispensing of Retail Marijuana with the same type of review process as listed for Medical Marijuana as the differences between the two are no longer distinctive. 15 4.19(B)(1)(f)(g) Adds retail, cultivation,manufacturing, testing marijuana 1019 as BDR in C-C-N. Amend Article Four Zone Districts - Permitted Use Lists - to align the dispensing of Retail Marijuana with the same type of review process as listed for Medical Marijuana as the differences between the two are no longer distinctive. 16 4.19(B)(2)(c)(d) Deletes retail, cultivation, manufacturing, testing 1019 marijuana as Type 1 in C-C-N. Amend Article Four Zone Districts - Permitted Use Lists - to align the dispensing of Retail Marijuana with the same type of review process as listed for Medical Marijuana as the differences between the two are no longer distinctive. 17 4.20(B)(1)(f) Adds retail marijuana as a BDR in C-C-R. 1019 Amend Article Four Zone Districts - Permitted Use Lists - to align the dispensing of Retail Marijuana with the same type of review process as listed for Medical Marijuana as the differences between the two are no longer distinctive. 18 4.20(B)(2)[c] Deletes retail marijuana as a Type 1 in C-C-R. 1019 Amend Article Four Zone Districts - Permitted Use Lists - to align the dispensing of Retail Marijuana with the same type of review process as listed for Medical Marijuana as the differences between the two are no longer distinctive. 19 4.21(B)(2) Changes retail marijuana from Type 1 to BDR in C-G but 1019 still not permitted in CAC. Amend Article Four Zone Districts - Permitted Use Lists - to align the dispensing of Retail Marijuana with the same type of review process as listed for Medical Marijuana as the differences between the two are no longer distinctive. 20 4.22(B)(1)(f)(g) Adds retail, cultivation, manufacturing, testing marijuana 1019 as BDR in C-S. Amend Article Four Zone Districts - Permitted Use Lists - to align the dispensing of Retail Marijuana with the same type of review process as listed for Medical Marijuana as the differences between the two are no longer distinctive. 21 4.22(B)(2)(c)(d) Deletes retail, cultivation, manufacturing, testing 1019 marijuana as Type I in C-S. Amend Article Four Zone Districts - Permitted Use Lists - to align the dispensing of Retail Marijuana with the same type of review process as listed for Medical Marijuana as the differences between the two are no longer distinctive. 22 4.24(B)(2) Changes retail marijuana from Type 1 to BDR in C-L. 1019 Amend Article Four Zone Districts - Permitted Use Lists - to align the dispensing of Retail Marijuana with the same type of review process as listed for Medical Marijuana as the differences between the two are no longer distinctive. 23 4.28(B)(1)(f) Adds retail, cultivation, manufacturing, testing marijuana 1019 as BDR in I. Amend Article Four Zone Districts - Permitted Use Lists - to align the dispensing of Retail Marijuana with the same type of review process as listed for Medical Marijuana as the differences between the two are no longer distinctive. Friday, November 06, 2015 Page 3 of 4 157 Ord. Section # Code Cite Revision Effect Issue 24 4.28(B)(2)(d) Deletes cultivation, manufacturing, testing marijuana as 1019 Type 1 in 1. Amend Article Four Zone Districts - Permitted Use Lists - to align the dispensing of Retail Marijuana with the same type of review process as listed for Medical Marijuana as the differences between the two are no longer distinctive. 26 5.1.2 Clarifies the definition of Change of Use. 1021 Amend 2.2.10 - Amendments - to clarify that the Amendment procedure may also be used to process Changes of Use, and consolidate various references throughout the Code for consistency. Works with item 1018. 27 5.1.2 Adds a new definition for Minor Subdivisions. 1020 Amend Article Two - Add a New Division - 2.18 - to formally explain the Basic Development Review procedure and establish a new Minor Subdivision which may be processed as a B.D.R. Friday, November 06, 2015 10-MrST&I 158 PENDING FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW ORDINANCE NO. , 2015 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING VARIOUS AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE WHEREAS, on December 2, 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 190, 1997, the City Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code"); and WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the understanding of staff and the City Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be subject to future amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of errors, but also for the purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic document capable of responding to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals and citizens of the City; and WHEREAS, City staff and the Planning and Zoning Board have reviewed the Land Use Code and identified and explored various issues related to the Land Use Code and have made recommendations to the Council regarding such issues; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the recommended Land Use Code amendments are in the best interests of the City and its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes any and all determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That Section 1.3.4(E) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (E) Conditions. When any use has been added to the list of permitted uses in any zone district in accordance with this Section, the Director; or the Planning and Zoning Board with respect to any zone district not listed in subsection (G), or the City Council with respect to any zone district listed in subsection (G), may impose such conditions and requirements, including, but not limited to, conditions related to the location, size and design on such use as are necessary or desirable to: (1) accomplish the purposes and intent of this Code, (2) ensure consistency with the City Plan and its adopted components and associated sub -area plans, or (3) prevent or minimize adverse effects and impacts upon the public and neighborhoods, and to ensure compatibility of uses. Section 3. That Section 2.2.10 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: r L 159 PENDING FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW 2.2.10 Step 10: Amendments and Changes of Use (A) Minor Amendments and Changes of Use. Minor amendments and changes of use meeting the criteria of 2.2.10(A)(1) or 2.2.10(A)(2) to any approved development plan, including any Overall Development Plan or Project Development Plan, or -any site specific development plan (except replats'or existing conditions of platted properties may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied administratively by the Director and may be authorized without additional public hearings. Such minor amendments and changes of use may be authorized by the Director as long as the development plan, as so amended, continues to comply with the standards of this Code to the extent reasonably feasible, at least to theextent of its origi eomplianee (so as to preclude any greater deviation from the standards of this Cod by reason of stteh amendments). Minor amendments and changes of use shall only consist of any or all of the following: (1) Any change to any approved development plan or any site specific development plan (except ., fninof subdivision [no longer authorized i this which was originally subject only to administrative review and was approved by the Director, or any change of use of any property that was developed pursuant to a basic development review or a use -by -right review under prior law; provided that such change would not have disqualified the original plan from administrative review had it been requested at that time; and provided that the change or change of use complies with all of the following criteria applicable to the particular request for change or change of use: (a) the fain f amendment Rresults in an increase by one (1) percent or less in the approved number of dwelling units, except that in the case of a change of use of any property that was developed pursuant to a basic development review or use -by -right review under prior law, the number of dwelling units proposed to be added may be four (4) units or less; -or (b) the minor amendment Rresults in an increase or decrease in the amount of square footage of a nonresidential land use or structure that does not change the character of the project; -or (c) the ,a;no f ffie di fie t Rresults in a change in the housing mix or use mix ratio that complies with the requirements of the zone district and does not change the character of the project; -or (d) the minor amendment Ddoes not result in a change in the character of the development; -or (e) the minor amendment -Ddoes not result in new buildings, building additions or site improvements, such as parking lots and landscaping, that are proposed to be located outside the boundaries of the approved Project Development Plan or approved site specific development plan;-er (f) the rai„or amendment Rresults in a decrease in the number of approved dwelling units and does not change the character of the project, and that the 2 160 PENDING FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW plan as amended continues to comply with the requirements of this Code.; and/or (g) Iin the case of a change of use of any property that was developed pursuant to a basic development review or use -by -right review under prior law, the change of use results in the building and parcel of ground upon which the building is located being brought into compliance, to the extent reasonably feasible, with the applicable general development standards contained in Article 3 and the applicable district standards contained in Article 4 of this Code. (2) Any change to any approved development plan or any site specific develop- ment plan which was originally subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board (either as a Type 2 project or as a project reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board under prior law), or any change of use of any property that and was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board; provided that the change or change of use complies with all of the following criteria applicable to the particular request for change or change of use: (a) the miner- amendment Wesults in an increase or decrease by one (1) percent or less in the approved number of dwelling units; or (b) the minor amendment Rresults in an increase or decrease in the amount of square footage of a nonresidential land use or structure that does not change the character of the project; or (c) theminof amendment Rresults in a change in the housing mix or use mix ratio that complies with the requirements of the zone district and does not change the character of the project; or (d) the miner - amendment Ddoes not result in a change in the character of the development; and/or (e) the minor-amendmei4Ddoes not result in new buildings, building additions or site improvements, such as parking lots and landscaping, that are proposed to be located outside the boundaries of the approved Project Development Plan or approved site specific development plan. (3) Referral. In either (1) or (2) above, the Director may refer the amendment or change of use to the Administrative Hearing Officer or Planning and Zoning Board. The referral of minor amendments or changes of use to development plans approved under the laws of the City for the development of land prior to the adoption of this Code shall be processed as required for the land use or uses proposed for the amendment as set forth in Article 4 (i.e., Type 1 review or Type 2 review) for the zone district in which the land is located. The referral of minor amendments or changes of use to project development plans or final plans approved under this Code shall be reviewed and processed in the same manner as required for the original development plan for which the amendment or change of 3 161 PENDING FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW use is sought, and, if so referred, the decision of the Hearing Officer or Planning and Zoning Board shall constitute a final decision, subject only to appeal as provided for development plans under Division 2.3, 2.4 or 2.5, as applicable, for the minor amendment or change of use. (4) Appeals. Appeals of the decision of the Director regarding the approval, approval with conditions or denial of changes of use or minor amendments of any approved development plan, or site specific development plan, or existing conditions of platted properties shall be to the Planning and Zoning Board. Any such appeal shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal of the final decision with the Director within fourteen (14) days after the action that is the subject of the appeal. The decision of the Planning and Zoning Board on such appeals shall constitute a final decision appealable pursuant to Section 2.2.12 (Step 12). (B) Major Amendments and Changes of Use Not Meeting the Criteria of 2.2.10(A). (1) Procedure/Criteria. Amendments and changes of use to any approved development plan (including any Overall Development Plan or Project Development Plan) or site specific development plan that are not determined by the Director to be minor amendments or qualifying changes of use under the criteria set forth in subsection (A) above, shall be deemed major amendments. Major amendments to approved development plans or site specific development plans approved under the laws of the City for the development of land prior to the adoption of this Code shall be processed as required for the land use or uses proposed for the amendment as set forth in Article 4 (i.e., Type 1 review or Type 2 review) for the zone district in which the land is located, and, to the maximum extent feasible, shall comply with the applicable standards contained in Articles 3 and 4. Major amendments to development plans or site specific development plans approved under this Code shall be reviewed and processed in the same manner as required for the original development plan for which amendment is sought. Any major amendments to an approved project development plan or site specific development plan shall be recorded as amendments in accordance with the procedures established for the filing and recording of such initially approved plan. Any partial or total abandonment of a development plan or site specific development plan approved under this Code, or of any plan approved under the laws of the City for the development of land prior to the adoption of this Code, shall be deemed to be a major amendment, and shall be processed as a Type 2 review; provided, however, that if a new land use is proposed for the property subject to the abandonment, then the abandonment and new use shall be processed as required for the land use or uses proposed as set forth in Article 4 (i.e., Type 1 review or Type 2 review) for the zone district in which the land is located. Section 4. That Section 2.6.3 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2 162 PENDING FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW (G) Step 7 (Public Hearing - Stockpiling Permit): Not applicable, and in substitution therefor, an application for a Stockpiling Permit shall be processed, reviewed, considered and approved, approved with modifications or denied by the City Engineer based on its compliance with the City Code and all regulations related to such permit adopted by the City by reference or otherwise, as amended, including, without limitation, the erosion control standards as contained in the Stormwater Desip Criteria and Genstimeltion Standards Criteria Manual. (H) Step 8 (Standards - Stockpiling Permit): Not applicable, and in substitution therefor, an application for a Stockpiling Permit shall be reviewed for compliance with the City Code and all regulations related to such permit adopted by the city by reference or otherwise, as amended, including, without limitation, the erosion control standards as contained in the Stormwater Desip Criteria and Genstruestia StandardsCriteria Manual, Section 5. That Section 2.11.1(B) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.11.1 Purpose and Applicability (B) Applicability. This Division shall apply to appeals from an administrative decision regarding the interpretation and/or application of the land use regulations which preceded this Land Use Code, and to appeals from the following administrative decisions made under this Land Use Code, provided such administrative decision is not for approval, approval with conditions, or denial either of a project development plan or a final plan pursuant to Divisions 2.4 or 2.5 or of an administrative amendment/abandonment of any such plan or of any plan approved under prior law, processed pursuant to Section 2.2.10 (Step 10): al in ■- NO 11 :. :• :: .� 010 ., a.M. a. IWO k� L"<.:.P�4S, a.� rl� 1.1.5 Section 6. That Article 2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new Division 2.18 Basic Development Review, which reads in its entirety as follows: 2.18.1 Purpose and Applicability 5 163 PENDING FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW The purpose of the Basic Development Review process is to establish a process for approval of a site specific development plan and where the decision maker is the Director. There is no public hearing and the Basic Development Review process shall not be construed to be the same as an Administrative (Type 1) review process for which Director, or his designee, conducts a public hearing, or a review that is subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2). The Basic Development Review shall be the review process for: (A) Those uses listed as such in each of the Article Four Zone Districts. (B) Existing Limited Permitted Uses (1.6.5) (C) Expansions and Enlargements of Existing Buildings (3.8.20 and 3.8.25). (D) Building Permit Applications (2.7). (E) Minor Subdivisions (2.18.2). 2.18.2 Minor Subdivisions A Minor Subdivision is a plat or replat that does not create more than one new lot. A minor subdivision shall not be permitted if the property is within a parcel, any part of which has been subdivided by a Minor subdivision plat within the immediately preceding twelve (12) months. For an unplatted metes and bounds lot undergoing the Minor Subdivision process to create a platted lot with the same boundaries, Step 6 (Notice) of Section 2.18.3 is not applicable. 2.18.3 Basic Development Review and Minor Subdivision Review Procedures An application for a Basic Development Review or Minor Subdivision shall be processed according to, in compliance with, and subject to the provisions contained in Division 2.1 and Steps (1) through (12) of the Common Development Review Procedures (Sections 2.2.1 through 2.2.12, inclusive), as follows: (A) Step I (Conceptual Review): Not applicable. (B) Step 2 (Neighborhood Meeting): Not applicable. (C) Step 3 (Development Application): Applicable. (D) Step 4 (Review of Applications): Applicable. (E) Step S (Staff Report): Not applicable and in substitution thereof, a staff report shall be prepared in the case of an appeal of a final decision pursuant to Section 2.2.12(Step 12). (F) Step 6 (Notice): 0 164 PENDING FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW Step 6(A) (Mailed Notice): Applicable. Notice to be mailed to the owners of record of all real property within eight hundred (800) feet (exclusive of property rights -of -way, public facilities, parks or public open space) of the property lines of the parcel of land to be subdivided. Step 6(B) (Posted Notice): Applicable. Step 6(Q (Published Notice): Applicable, Step 6(D) (Supplemental Notice): Not Applicable, Step 6(E) Applicable. (G) Step 7 (Public Hearing): Not Applicable. Step 7(A)(1 and 2): (Decision maker): Not applicable and in substitution thereof, the Director shall be the decision maker and there shall be no public hearing. Steps 7(B — Q — Not Applicable. Step 7(D)(1 and 2): (Decision and Findings): Not applicable and in substitution thereof, after consideration of the development application, the Director shall issue a written decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the development application based on compliance with the standards referenced in Step 8 of the Common Development Review Procedures (Section 2.2.8). The written decision shall be mailed to the applicant and to any person who provided comments during the comment period and shall also be posted on the City's website at www.fcgov.com, Step 7(D)(3): (Findings): Applicable Step 7(E): (Notification to Applicant): Applicable. Step 7(F)(1): (Recording of the Public Hearing): Not Applicable. Step 7(F)(2)(a): (The Record): Not Applicable, Step 7(F)(2)(b): (Minutes): Not applicable and in substitution thereof, the Director shall issue the decision in writing. Step 7(F)(2)(c and d): (Verbatim Transcript and Videotape Recording): Not Applicable. Step 7(G): (Recording of Decisions and Plats): Applicable for Minor Subdivisions only. 7 165 PENDING FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW (H) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable. (I) Step 9 (Conditions of Approval): Applicable. (J) Step 10 (Amendments): Applicable. (K) Step 11 (Lapse): Applicable Step 11(A): (Application Submittals): Applicable Step 11(B and C): Not Applicable. Step 11(D)(1-8): (Final Plan and Plan and Other Site Specific Development Plan): Applicable, Step 11(D)(9): (Post denial re -submittal delay): Not Applicable. Step 11(D)(10): (Automatic repeal; waiver): Applicable (L) Step 12 (Appeals): Applicable and in explanation thereof, appeals of the decision of the Director regarding approval, approval with conditions or denial of a Basic Development Review and Minor Subdivision shall be to the Planning and Zoning Board. Any such appeal shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal of the final decision of the Director within 14 days after the action that is the subject of the appeal. The appeal hearing with the Planning and Zoning Board shall be considered a new, or de novo, hearing. The decision of the Planning and Zoning Board on such appeals shall constitute a final decision appealable to City Council pursuant to Section 2.2.12(Step 12). Section 7. That Section 3.4.1(G) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (G) Lakes/Riparian Area Protection. (2) Streambank Stabilization. When the Stormwater Master Plans and the Stof.,., D,..,inage Design Cr te- fi and Const,-,,etion StandafdsStormwater Criteria Manual of the city require streambank stabilization, native vegetation shall be utilized for such purpose, and engineered stabilization techniques such as exposed rip rap shall be avoided, to the maximum extent feasible. The use of native vegetation shall be the principal means of streambank stabilization, and the use of rip -rap for streambank stabilization shall be restricted to locations where the use of vegetation techniques is not reasonably feasible. 0 166 PENDING FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW Section 8. as follows: That Section 3.8.19(A) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read 3.8.19 Setback Regulations (A) Features Allowed Within Setbacks. The following structures and features may be located within required setbacks: (1) trees, shrubbery or other features of natural growth; (2) fences or walls, subject to permit approval, that do not exceed the standards established in Section 3.8.11; (3) driveways and sidewalks; (4) signs, if permitted by the sign regulations of this Land Use Code; (5) bay windows and similar sized cantilevered floor areas, and architectural design embellishments of dwellings that do not project more than two (2) feet into the required setback, basement egress windows including the foundation that forms the window well, as long as the window foundation does not exceed the elevation or height of the house foundation, provided they do not none of the foregoing elements shall encroach upon any public easements; Section 9. That Section 3.8.28 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.8.28 Extra Occupancy Rental House Regulations (C) In all zone districts allowing extra occupancy rental houses exeept L N an application for extra occupancy rental house use for more than five (5) tenants shall be subject to Type 1 administrative review, (D) in the L M N zone distriet, an appheation for extra oeeupaney rental house use four (4) or fewer tenants steal be subject to basic developmental roc»ni: (BD) In the L-M-N zone district, an application for extra occupancy rental house use for more than four (4) tenants shall be subject to Type 1 administrative review. Section 10. That the table contained in Section 4.16(B)(2) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 0 167 PENDING FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW Land Use Old City Center Canyon Avenue Civic Center C. COMMERCIAL/RETAIL Retail marijuana store Type 1BDR Type 113DR Type 113DR Section 11. That Section 4.17(B)(1)(f) and (g) of the Land Use Code are hereby amended to read as follows: (f) Commercial/Retail Uses: 1. Medical marijuana centers. 2. Retail marijuana store. (g) Industrial Uses: 1. Medical marijuana optional premises cultivation operations. 2. Medical marijuana -infused product manufacturers. 3. Retail marijuana cultivation facility. 4. Retail marijuana product manufacturing facility. 5. Retail and medical marijuana testing facility. Section 12. That Section 4.17(B)(2)(c) and (d) of the Land Use Code are hereby amended to read as follows: (c) Commercial/Retail Uses: . • 154. Music studios. 165. Food truck rally. 1-76.Music facility, multi -purpose. (d) Industrial Uses: ftlLuNIKO ME MINE M FOR= NEW WON Egg /AI& IR!II I I&L%r"ISSII/I-MJ109L l ME We MENU I Ilk %Q IMpg ICl/�� 10 PENDING FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW 41. Small-scale and medium -scale solar energy systems. Section 13. That Section 4.18(B)(1)(f) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (f) Commercial/Retail Uses: 1. Medical marijuana centers. 2. Retail marijuana store. Section 14. That Section 4.18(B)(2)(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (c) Commercial/Retail Uses: i\n wen M_:: FORM Nam Sena.. clap:Aa 287. Music studios. 298. Food truck rally. 3929. Music facility, multi -purpose. Section 15. That Section 4.19(B)(1)(f) and (g) of the Land Use Code are hereby amended to read as follows: (f) Commercial/Retail Uses: 1. Medical marijuana centers. 2. Retail marijuana store. (g) Industrial Uses. 3. Retail marijuana cultivation facility. 4. Retail marijuana product manufacturing facility. 5. Retail and medical marijuana testing facility. Section 16. That Section 4.19(B)(2)(c) and (d) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 11 169 PENDING FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW (c) Commercial/Retail Uses: I4S�\\�ISI�SSt•SS[!S�SIS SI SS [!�!l\\l\� 276. Music studios. 287. Food truck rally. 218. Music facility, multi -purpose. (d) Industrial Uses: 1. Light industrial uses. 2. Research laboratories. 3. Workshops and custom small industry uses. y�\\mISINSt•SS[!SuS\SSISS[!�R!SS9 t•'l!S9 \vISt•R\9 MEN am'!S !S� \\V1S!mom SS Wks wS SSSZ4=R\mISSS�1'/S \\,v1 wen y= go S!S\ Sl!S!S SS!wkl xgmow :�SS.1' 74. Small-scale and medium -scale solar energy systems. Section 17. That Section 4.20(B)(1)(f) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (f) Commercial/Retail Uses: 1. Medical marijuana centers. 2. Retail marijuana store. Section 18. That Section 4.20(B)(2)(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 12 170 PENDING FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW (c) Commercial/Retail Uses. — 019. Music studios. 2470. Music facility, multi -purpose. Section 19. That the table contained in Section 4.21(B)(2) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Land Use I-251SH392 (CAC) General Commercial District (C-G) C. COMMERCIAL/RETAIL Retail marijuana store Not permitted Type 1BDR Section 20. That Section 4.22(B)(1)(f) and (g) of the Land Use Code are hereby amended to read as follows: (f) Commercial/Retail Uses: 1. Medical marijuana centers. 2. Retail marijuana store. (g) Industrial Uses: 1. Medical marijuana optional premises cultivation operations. 2. Medical marijuana -infused product manufacturers. 3. Retail marijuana cultivation facility. 13 171 PENDING FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW 4. Retail marijuana product manufacturing facility. 5. Retail and medical marijuana testing facility. Section 21. That Section 4.22 (13)(2)(c) and (d) of the Land Use Code are hereby amended to read as follows: (c) Commercial/Retail Uses: �-rpariml rw�r_iwr�r•w••ee•oirs.•r 4443. Music studios. (d) Industrial Uses: •��OM iIM�r.r•wii•.•r••rr.• i•.w'.r•• rre•w•EAN w•.•7MMmull •�M"Wnwen •wiicaru:neic:= ii•!•0irQ400•e 1774••.irr 96. Small-scale and medium -scale solar energy systems. Section 22. That the table contained in Section 4.24(B)(2) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Land Use Riverside Area All Other Areas D. NDUSTRiAL Retail marijuana cultivation facility Not permitted BDR Retail marijuana product manufacturing facility Not permitted Type4BDR Retail and medical marijuana testing facility Not permitted Type4BDR 14 172 PENDING FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW Section 23. read as follows: Section 24. read as follows: That Section 4.28 (13)(1)(f) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to (f) Industrial Uses: 1. Medical marijuana optional premises cultivation operations. 2. Medical marijuana -infused product manufacturers. 3. Retail marijuana cultivation facility. 4. Retail marijuana product manufacturing facility. 5. Retail and medical marijuana testing facility. -36. Small-scale and medium -scale solar energy systems. That Section 4.28(B)(2)(d) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to (d) Industrial Uses. •- ■��f-\l�l 4-411. Large-scale solar energy systems. Section 25. That the definition of "Basic development review" contained in Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Basic development review shall mean a review without a public hearing by the City of Fei4 G pins sta- L'irector for the purpose of determining compliance with the applicable 15 173 PENDING FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW standards of Article 3 and Article 4 of this Code for any use that is not subject to a Type 1 or Type 2 review. Section 26. That the definition of "Change of use" contained in Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Change of use shall mean the act of changing the occupancy of a building or land from use that is specifically listed as a "Pe-fmitted Use" in Aftiel to a different use that is specifically listed as a "Permitted Use" in Article 4. A change of use occurs whenever: Section 27. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new definition "Minor subdivision" which reads in its entirety as follows: Minor subdivision shall mean the subdivision of a lot, tract or parcel into not more than one (1) new lot and may include adjustments to lot lines. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this day of , A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the day of , A.D. 2015, Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on this day of ATTEST: City Clerk iET Mayor A.D. 2015, 174 PENDING FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW I 175 _ City of DATE: October 27, 2015 Planning, Development & Transportation Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins. CO 80522.0580 970,416,2740 970.224 6134- fax fcgov.com MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Board TH: Tom Leeson, Interim Director of Community Development & Neighborhood Services Seth Lorson, City Planner FR: Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Manager RE: Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Findings of Fact and Conclusions Pertaining to the Slab Project, 808 West Prospect Road. As provided for in Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(F)(6), in its consideration of the approval of plans for properties containing or adjacent to designated, eligible or potentially eligible sites, structure, objects or districts, the Decision Maker shall receive, and consider in making its decision, a written recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission. This memorandum contains the Commission's Findings of Facts and its motion for this project. 1) The development project known as the Slab is located adjacent to the Sheely Drive Landmark District; the Landmark designated Emma Brown/Susan Winter property, at 720 West Prospect Road; and the Benjamin Harris Property at 730 W. Prospect Road, which has been previously determined to be individually eligible for Landmark designation. 2) At its August 12, 2015 Regular Meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission reviewed the development project known as the Slab, and as authorized under LUC Section 3.4.7(F)(6), made the following findings of facts: a. The new project is compatible with the historic character of the buildings to the east. b. The east elevation of the new building is compatible in materials and design in relation to the historic buildings to the east. c. The new building pays homage to the character of the historic buildings in materials, roof slopes and other architectural details. d. There is an appropriate buffer and use of space between the new building and the old, as described in Section 3.4.7, F1. e. The massing is appropriate in terms of scale, and is mitigated by the setbacks. 3) At its August 12, 2015 Regular Meeting, the Commission adopted the following motion on a vote of 5-0: That the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the decision maker, the Planning and Zoning Board, the approval of the Development Proposal for 808 West Prospect Road, finding that it complies with Land Use Code 3.4.7. 176 Agenda Item 8 PROJECT NAME CLARIFICATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE FOR MOBILE FOOD TRUCK VENDOR MOBILITY OPTIONS STAFF Pete Wray, Senior City Planner U :te3j *0 A I Z 1 ;101 V J,flylIIC7 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding an update to the City Municipal Code for mobile food truck vendor mobility options. The proposed changes address a range of operational requirements for the duration outdoor vendors can operate on privately -owned lots. APPLICANT: OWNER: RECOMMENDATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City of Fort Collins City of Fort Collins Staff recommends approval of the Ordinance The 2012 Outdoor Vendor Ordinance and current text in the Municipal Code and Land Use Code includes allowances for mobile food truck vendors to operate on privately -owned lots in all non-residential zone districts as an accessory use. The City Code does not include restrictions on requiring mobile food truck vendors to move off - site after a certain period of time, and how long to stay off -site. Most food truck vendors move around the City regularly and, as a result, are more mobile. However, over the past few years some food truck vendors, including food truck and trailer operators, have set up semi -permanent locations for vending on private lots, reflecting a non - mobile operation. The intent of the Code for mobile food truck vendor operations was drafted 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 non -mobile. The impacts and requirements then become more akin to a brick and mortar restaurant business. The recent examples mentioned above of food truck vendors operating on the same privately -owned lot on a continuous basis are not meeting the underlying intent of being temporary or mobile. Mobile food truck vendors are required by the State and County to work out of and return to an approved commissary kitchen each day they vend. These non -mobile 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. This raises the question: should mobile food trucks be more mobile and not perceived as operating in the same location semi -permanently? In response, staff is developing proposed new code provisions to clarify the length of time a mobile food truck Item # 8 Page 1 177 Agenda Item 8 vendor operates on the same private lot on a temporary basis. The proposed code amendments provide more predictability for food truck vending operations at various locations throughout the City. BACKGROUND: As part of a growing national trend and interest in the community in allowing outdoor vendors as a mode of delivery of foods and other goods and services, staff responded in 2011 by conducting a general review of the treatment of outdoor vendors in the City codes and regulations, including extensive public engagement. In 2012, City Council adopted two Ordinances regarding licensing of outdoor vendors, Ordinance 057 enacting amendments to the Land Use Code, and Ordinance 058 enacting amendments to the City Code for modifications to Chapter 15, Article XIV. Additional amendments were approved in 2014 to expand the licensing of mobile food truck vendors, relating to the number of vendors allowed to operate in a single location, including food truck rallies. The 2012 Outdoor Vendor Ordinance and current text in the Municipal Code and Land Use Code includes allowances for mobile food truck vendors to operate on privately -owned lots in all non-residential zone districts as an accessory use. The City Code does not include restrictions on requiring mobile food truck vendors to move off - site after a certain period of time, and how long to stay off -site. Most food truck vendors move around the City regularly and, as a result, are more mobile. However, over the past few years some food truck vendors, including food truck and trailer operators, have set up semi -permanent locations for vending on private lots, reflecting a non - mobile operation. The intent of the Code for mobile food truck vendor operations was drafted 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 non -mobile. The impacts and requirements then become more akin to a brick and mortar restaurant business. The recent examples mentioned above of food truck vendors operating on the same privately -owned lot on a continuous basis are not meeting the underlying intent of being temporary or mobile. Mobile food truck vendors are required by the State and County to work out of and return to an approved commissary kitchen each day they vend. These non -mobile 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 restaurants. This raises the question: should mobile food trucks be more mobile and not perceived as operating in the same location semi -permanently? In response, staff is developing proposed new code provisions to clarify the length of time a mobile food truck vendor operates on the same private lot on a temporary basis. The proposed code amendments provide more predictability for food truck vending operations at various locations throughout the City. ANALYSIS: Staff has assessed the advantages and disadvantages of two mobile food truck Vendor Options. Option 1 represents the default "no -action" alternative with no proposed changes to existing regulations. Option 2 represents adding new Code language to further clarify the daily outdoor vendor operations on a privately -owned lot, consistent with County Health requirements and intent of mobile outdoor vendor operations, as an accessory use. Staff has also assessed other peer cities throughout the Country for reviewing similar options and requirements for Outdoor Vendors (See attachment 3). Option 1 Existing Regulations (No change) Pros: ■ This no -change option was identified by staff as part of a range of options to assess different levels of vending mobility while operating on privately -owned lots Item # 8 Page 2 178 Agenda Item 8 Cons: • Strongly supported by the vendor community ■ Allows more flexibility for vendors to operate on a privately owned lot on a daily basis ■ Since 2012, only one complaint has been received by the City of a food truck vendor operating on a semi -permanent basis on a private lot ■ Existing zoning requirements were based on the premise that mobile food truck vendors operating on a private lot are accessory to the existing principal use on site. Food trucks operating on a semi -permanent basis in the same location do not reflect a temporary accessory use, but rather a second principal use on- site. ■ A City process is not in place to permit these non -mobile operations in all non-residential zoning districts. ■ Mobile food trucks are considered temporary and must move on a daily basis while operating throughout the City, while meeting County Health requirements for returning to approved commissary kitchen ■ Some business owners may be concerned of unfair competition with food truck vendors operating on a semi -permanent basis within close proximity to existing brick and mortar restaurants. Option 2 Proposed City Code Amendments to further clarify duration vendors can operate on -site and length of time off -site Pros: Cons: ■ Ensures greater predictability for vendors operating on private lots for durations allowed on -site and length of time off -site ■ Proposed time for vendors to remain on -site on a daily basis is consistent with a majority of existing vendors for how they operate now throughout the City, and consistent with existing City and County Code requirements. ■ Consistent with many other communities for minimizing the duration vendors can operate in the same location as an accessory use on private lots ■ Vendors need to return to their commissary on a daily basis for complying with County Health regulations. ■ Some existing business owners may be more comfortable with this new change ■ Addresses the concern that vendors should not be allowed to operate at the same location every day ■ Some vendors may feel this requirement is too restrictive ■ More difficult to oversee and enforce by City PUBLIC OUTREACH: The proposed Food Truck Vendor Mobility Options project conducted from May through November, 2015 included public outreach using several techniques. Project information was available on the City website with regular updates including proposed ideas, schedule and meeting dates. A press release and follow-up media articles by the local Coloradoan were in distribution. A public opinion survey was available from September to October 23 (See attachment 1). An outdoor food truck vendor meeting was held on September 24 and November 9, and public open house meeting on October 22 (See attachment 2). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Planning and Zoning Board make a motion to recommend that City Council approve the Ordinance. Item # 8 Page 3 179 Agenda Item 8 ATTACHMENTS 1. Online Vendor Survey Results - 10.26.15 (PDF) 2. Outdoor Vendor Meeting Summary (10-20-15) (PDF) 3. Peer Cities - Outdoor Vendor Restrictions (PDF) 4. Ordinance (PDF) Item # 8 Page 4 New Summary Report - 26 October 2015 1. Which of the following best describes you (choose all that apply)? too 75 25 C 77.6% Interested citizen 10.3% Licensed outdoor food vendor Interested citizen Licensed outdoor food vendor Employee of a licensed outdoor food vendor Business owner Other 18.1% 1.7% Employee of a licensed Business owner outdoor food vendor 77.6% 90 10.3% ' 12 1.7% I 2 18.1% . 21 4.3% I 5 Total 116 MIVA Other 181 1 2. How familiar are you with outdoor vendors operating within the City? Unfamiliar Somewhat familiar Very familiar Very familiar 37.4% 3.5% 59.1 % 37.4% I4 Total Somewhat familiar 59.1 % 43 115 182 2 3. Have you ever purchased food or merchandise from an outdoor vendor in Fort Collins? I ua Jo. 1 /O Yes 93.1 % 108 No 6.9% ' Total 16 116 183 3 4. How often do you purchase food or merchandise from outdoor vendors? More than one of times a year 22.2% Once a week 16.7% Every other month 19.4% Once a month oo.o io 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 108 184 4 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. �VKO"n Yes 19.0% ■ 19% 22 No 81.0% 94 Total 116 185 5 Comments 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 1 don't see any problem with it as long as they have permission from the private lot owner. 1 1 don't think this is an issue at all. It's between the private lot owner and the vendor. 1 1 don't. I'm curious who does though. Competing vendors, or brick and mortars complaining? 1 1 have never thought about it... 1 1 have no problem with them on PRIVATE LOTS at all. 1 1 like that they can stay in the same place. That way I can find them. 1 1 see no problem with those that choose to be in the same location at all times. 1 1 want variety, small business owners and community strengthened by allowing outdoor vendors. 1 1 wish they would be in one place more often so I would know where to find them. 1 1 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 No 1 No issue 1 No issues. 186 6 Count Response 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 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 1 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!!! 187 7 Count Response 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 1 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 1 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 1 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 1 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. 188 8 Count Response 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 1 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 1 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 1 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 1 go to certain established outdoor vendors based on location, and am not interested when I find that another vendor is there. 1 1 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 1 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? 189 9 Count Response 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 1 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 1 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 1 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 1 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 1 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 1 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. 190 10 Count Response 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 1 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 1 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. 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 On -site for 6 months On -site for 3 months On -site for 1 month On -site for 3 weeks On -site for 2 weeks On -site for a week On -site for 3 days On -site for 1 day On-s On -site for a On -site for 2 weeks 3.! On -site for 3 weeks 1.70G On -site for 1 month 1.7% On -site for 3 months 4.3% On -site for 6 months 3.5% 69.8% 3.5% 4.3% 1.7% 1.7% 3.5% 6.0% 5.2% 4.3% Total No restrictions 69.8% 81 4 5 2 2 0 7 6 5 116 192 12 7. How long should mobile vendors be required to remain off -site? L 48 hours 1 week 13% No restrictions 68.7% No restrictions 68.7% 79 1 week 13.0% , 15 48 hours 6.1% ' 7 24 hours 5.2% I 6 Overnight 7.0% ' 8 Total 115 Statistics Sum 495.0 Average 17.7 StdDev 19.7 Max 48.0 193 13 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 1 day, ther On -site for 3 days, then must leav On -site for a week, then must leave for at lea 48 hours 10.° On -site for 2 weeks, then must leave for at least 48 hours 4.4% On -site for 3 weeks, then must leave for at lea: 48 hours 9.7 No restrictions 63.2% 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% 1 12 On -site for 3 days, then must leave overnight 7.0% ' 8 On -site for 1 day, then must leave overnight 5.3% I 6 Total 114 194 14 9. Do you have any other comments about regulations regarding outdoor vendors? Count Response 1 Be sure they pay same taxes, as fixed site locations. 1 1 am more concerned about health codes than location. 1 1 just want to keep it fair competition with brick and mortar food vendors. 1 1 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 1 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 1 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 1 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! 195 15 Count Response 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 1 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 1 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 1 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 1 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 1 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, 71 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 1 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? 196 16 Count Response 1 1 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 1 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 1 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 1 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 1 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 1 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. 197 17 Count Response 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 1 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 1 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 1 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 1 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. 198 18 URL Variable: utm_campaign Count Response 5 This Week - Oct. 19-23 2015 199 19 URL Variable: utm medium Count 5 Response email 200 20 URL Variable: utm source Count 5 Response MailingList 201 21 202 22 Attachment 2 F6rt of ,ram Proposed 2015 Outdoor Vendor Changes Summary of Outreach Meetings 1, Outdoor Vendor Community Meeting — September 24, 2015 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 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 203 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? 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. 2 204 Peer Cities - Outdoor Vendor Time Restrictions City Regulations (General) Section of Code Code Language 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. d.2. A new location, in the meaning of this Subsection, shall be at least three hundred (300) feet from the previous location. Vendors can not operate for more than 4 hours at same location outside of downtown, 6.04.390 -Peddlers. e.3. The downtown vendors permit will allow the peddler to park his or her wagon or Greeley, CO and no more than 8 hours at one location in designated DT area. (peddler's license) Also approved conveyance in any of the designated vendor areas of the downtown area for a have a Temporary Vendor license. Food trucks can use either. 6.05.080 -Restrictions and operations. (Temporary Vendors) maximum of eight (8) hours in any one (1) designated area, notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection (d) of this Section. f. The licensee shall not leave unattended any such vehicle, structure or device on a public right-of-way or at the designated location. A.I. 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 Up to 1 year use permit if no more than 2 days per week. Can establish mobile food permanent structure, provided that: Seattle, WA 23.42.040 - Intermittent, temporary and interim uses vending as a permanent use with a construction permit to establish use process. a.The use is not materially detrimental to the public welfare; and b.The use does not result in substantial injury to the property in the vicinity; and c.The use is be consistent with the spirit and purpose of the Land Use Code. H.1. Peddlers and vendors wishing to sell goods anywhere in the city shall comply with NMC Chapter 5.40. Napa, CA No time restrictions for private property. 17.52.490 Temporary uses. H.3. Any peddler or vendor operating on private property (other than at non-profit special events) requires a use permit. 3. Operating Requirements: No person who operates any mobile food vehicle on public No person who operates any mobile food vehicle on public or private property shall: [...] property or private property shall: operate 9-6-5. -Temporary Lodging, Dining, Entertainment, and Boulder, CO E. operate before 7 a.m. or after 9 p.m. and for more than a maximum of four hours at before 7 a.m. or after 9 p.m. and for more than a maximum of 4 hours at any one Cultural Uses. any one approved location; approved location J. fail to have the vehicle attended at all times 205 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 Retail food establishments, mobile shall operate under the following guidelines: Permits Section 11.11.14 RETAIL FOOD ESTABLISHMENT, MOBILE with the following standards: Denver, CO shall be valid for twelve consecutive months and shall be renewed annually; permits (Zoning Code) A. Permits shall be valid for 12 consecutive months and shall be renewed annually. shall be valid for four (4) consecutive hours for each day at each zone lot... B. Permits shall be valid for 4 consecutive hours for each day at each zone lot. C. No more than 1 retail food establishment, mobile shall be permitted to operate per day at each zone lot. D. Hours of operation shall be between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. 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 Must move locations every two hours to help sustainable local businesses that are in 5.08.020 General provisions (Mobile and Temporary Business) permit. Hillsboro, OR competition, large fine if vehicle is not moved. Additional fee if applying for more than 2 hours at a time. 5.08.080 Additional requirements for mobile businesses 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. (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. (c) All mobile food units which are parked in a stationary location for a period of 24 hours 30.400. Mobile Food Unit, License Required. License good for one year, must be movable but are not required to relocate at any or longer shall provide screening for all conduit, tanks, and storage areas from all public Salem, OR particular interval. Mobile food units are "not permanent structures." areas and streets by sight -obscuring fencing and/or temporary landscaping and skirting 30.410. Mobile Food Unit, Standards. shall be provided along the perimeter of the mobile food unit. (d) Mobile food units are not permanent structures and must remain capable of being moved K111 (b) Stops shall be made only to service customers and shall not exceed I. a total of two hours (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. MFVs (mobile food vendors) shall move from place to place upon the public ways and k (1) No operation of a mobile food vehicle is allowed on any private property unless all shall not be operated at a fixed location. Stops shall be made to service customers and Article II: Mobile Food Vendors; 7-38-115 Operational Chicago, IL of the following requirements are met: shall not exceed a total of two hours or the maximum permitted period for parking, requirements i. The mobile food vendor has obtained the express written consent of the owner or whichever is lesser, in any one block. 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; ii. The mobile food vendor is in compliance with all applicable requirements of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance; and 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. C. A mobile food establishment: (1) must be licensed by the health authority; (2) is permitted in all commercial and industrial zoning districts, except in a neighborhood office (NO), limited office (LO), or general office (GO) zoning district; Units must maintain a state of mobile readiness at all times. The health authority may (3) may not be located within 50 feet of a lot with a building that contains both a Austin, TX prohibit alteration, removal, attachments, placement or change in, under, or upon the § 25-2-812 - MOBILE FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS. residential and commercial use; mobile food establishment that would prevent or otherwise reduce ready mobility. (4) may not operate between the hours of 3:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.; and (5) may not be located within 20 feet of a restaurant (general) or restaurant (limited) use. 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. E.4.c.iv. Mobile retail food establishments and pushcarts must be removed from any site Longmont, CO Permits valid for one year, renewable annually. Must be readily moveable. 15.04.040. -Temporary uses. at the end of each business day (unless otherwise approved). K01A (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... Mobile food units must be taken to a commissary daily to be serviced; units operating (e) Servicing of mobile food units by commissaries; servicing records. Houston, TX Sec. 20-22. Mobile food units and commissaries. for more than 1 hour must have restroom access and permission from property owner. (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.Fixed location mobile food units shall return to the commissary at least once per day of operation for the performance of all servicing operations. (c) Vending structures shall not be left unattended or stored at any time on the Mobile food units can't be left unattended or stored on the vending site; hours of Atlanta, GA Sec. 30-1471. Vending from mobile food units. open vending site when vending is not taking place or during restricted hours of operation restricted to 5:00am-2:OOam operation. (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 Charlotte, NC Permits available for 30 days, renewable twice for a total of 90 days in a calendar year. Sec. 12.510. Mobile food vending service. 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. 6.55.090 - Unlawful operations. It is unlawful for any mobile food vendor to: Las Vegas, NV Mobile food vendors must move after 4 hours in one location in a 24-hour period. Chapter 6.55. Mobile food vendors. (K) Vend on any one parcel, lot or commercial subdivision for more than four hours within any twenty-four hour period B. Mobile vending and mobile food vending on private property shall be subject to the following operational restrictions: 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 Mobile food units must be removed from the site when not in operation, by 2:30am Chapter 10 - Businesses, Article XIV. Mobile Vending; 10-166. removed from the site during hours of non -operation. This means that any mobile Phoenix, AZ daily at the latest. Mobile vending operations on private property; restrictions. 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. 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 (13)(1) above. 20.80.890 - Conditions of issuance. All outdoor vending facilities must comply with the following conditions: Outdoor vendors can only operate during hours that the "fixed -base business" operates, H. The hours of operation of a vending facility shall be limited to the hours of operation San Jose, CA and not during the hours of 10pm-6am. Vending facility must be removed from site or Title 20 - Zoning. 20.80 - Specific use regulations. of the fixed -base businesses on the fixed -base host site, however no vending facility shall stored indoors when site business is closed. 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. K1183 DRAFT - FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW PENDING ORDINANCE NO. , 2015 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING SECTION 15 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS PERTAINING TO OUTDOOR VENDORS WHEREAS, WHEREAS, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 15-387(g) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: (g) No licensee shall leave unattended any vehicle, structure or device as described in Subsection (a) above, on a public right-of-way or at any licensed location for more than two (2) hours total during the applicable hours of operation for the day such operations are conducted, or place on public sidewalks or in public streets or alleys any structures, canopies, tables, chairs or other furniture or equipment. Section 2. That Section 15-387(m) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: (m) The following additional requirements shall apply to particular types of outdoor vendor licensees, as specified: (1) Mobile food truck vendors shall: e. Move all mobile food trucks that have been vending food within the last twenty-four (24) hours off all licensed lots and to a Commissary at or prior to 3:00 a.m. After completing any necessary tasks at the Commissary, the food truck may be placed on a licensed lot but shall not operate during the hours of 3:00 a.m. to 7 a.m. f. Not vend on the same licensed lot for a total of more than fifty (50) hours in any calendar week and for a total of more than one -hundred (100) hours in any calendar month. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this day of , A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the day of , A.D. 2015. Vault/planning/ordinances/Outdoor vendors City Code Changes ORD 1 209 DRAFT — FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW PENDING Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on this day of , A.D. 2015, Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Vault/planning/ordinances/Outdoor vendors City Code Changes ORD 2 210 Agenda Item 9 PROJECT NAME VARIOUS REVISIONS TO THE LAND USE CODE RELATING TO FUGITIVE DUST STAFF Lindsay Ex, Environmental Program Manager U91►IITSIN►,rJAIEel ilk PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding various revisions to the Land Use Code related to a comprehensive approach to governing fugitive dust on a city-wide basis. The proposed revisions have been initiated by the Department of Natural Resources Environmental Services Department and are intended to work in conjunction with a larger set of proposed revisions to City Code that will be considered by City Council on March 3, 2015. In addition, a Dust Prevention and Control Manual will be provided describing best practices for a variety of activities and industries and at various scales. Revisions to the Land Use Code must first be evaluated by the Planning and Zoning Board before City Council Second Reading. APPLICANT: RECOMMENDATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY These revisions are being brought to the Planning and Zoning Board outside the annual update process in order to ensure that complete package of all code revisions, including the Dust Prevention and Control Manual, are forwarded to City Council in a comprehensive manner. City of Fort Collins Approval The proposed revisions are to the following Sections: • 2.6.3(H) Stockpiling Permit and Development Construction Permit Review Procedures • 2.7.3(G)(H) Building Permit Review Procedures • 3.4.2(A) Air Quality General Standard • 5.1.2 Definitions Item # 9 Page 1 211 Agenda Item 9 ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposed Land Use Code Changes (DOCX) 2. Memorandum to the Board (DOC) 3. DRAFT Dust Control Manual (PDF) 4. Memorandum to Council (for Reference) (PDF) Item # 9 Page 2 212 Amend Sections 2.6.3(H) — Stockpiling Permit, 2.7.3(G)(H) — Building Permit Procedures, 3.4.2(A) — Air Quality and 5.1.2 Definitions in order to fully implement a comprehensive approach to improve air quality by enacting regulations that govern fugitive dust on a city-wide basis. Problem Statement: The City of Fort Collins presently lacks a comprehensive approach to controlling fugitive dust that results from a variety of activities. The current regulatory approach is to rely on existing regulations, permitting and enforcement that are in place at the State and County levels. As the City has grown, and the various activities that produce fugitive dust proliferate, State and County regulatory systems, while well-intentioned, have not kept pace thus impacting our air quality. Proposed Solution Overview: The proposed solution is to amend both the Land Use Code and City Code to enact regulations that address a wide range of activities that generate fugitive dust. The current definition of Fugitive Dust is proposed to be deleted from the Land Use Code and then re -defined and placed into City Code. Proposed Land Use Code Revisions: Article 2 — Administration: 2.6.3(H) Stockpiling Permit and Development Construction Permit Review Procedures (H) Step 8 (Standards — Stockpiling Permit): Not applicable, and in substitution therefor, an application for a Stockpiling Permit shall be reviewed for compliance with the City Code and all regulations related to such permit adopted by the city by reference or otherwise, as amended, including, without limitation, the erosion control standards as contained in the Stormwater Design Criteria and Construction Standards Manual —and the dust control measures contained in the Dust Prevention and Control Manual. Step 8 (Standards — Development Construction Permit): Not applicable, and in substitution therefor, an application for a Development Construction Permit shall be reviewed for compliance with the Site Specific Development Plan, the City Code and all regulations related to such permit adopted by the city by reference or otherwise as amended- , including, without limitation, the erosion control standards as contained in the Stormwater Design Criteria and Construction Standards Manual and the dust control measures contained in the Dust Prevention and Control Manual. 213 2.7.3(G)(H) Building Permit Review Procedures (G) Step 7 (Public Hearing): Not applicable, and in substitution therefor, an application for a Building Permit shall be processed, reviewed, considered and approved, approved with modifications, or denied by the Building and Zoning Director based on its compliance with the site specific development plan, the City Code and allbuildiRg regulations related to such permit adopted by the city by reference or otherwise, as amended. (H) Step 8 (Standards): Not applicable, and in substitution therefor, an application for a Building Permit shall be reviewed for compliance with the site specific development plan, the City Code and all buildiRg regulations related to such permit adopted by the city by reference or otherwise, as amended; and if the Building Permit is for the enlargement of a building and/or for the expansion of facilities, equipment or structures regulated under the provisions of Division 1.6, such application shall also comply with Division 1.6. Article 3 - General Development Standards: 3.4.2(A) Air Quality (A) General Standard. The project shall conform to all applicable local, state and federa air quality regulations and standards, including, but not limited to, those regulating odor, dust, fumes or gases which are noxious, toxic or corrosive, and suspended solid or liquid particles. The project shall be designed and constructed to comply with the dust control measures contained in the Dust Prevention and Control Manual. Article 5 — Definitions: Section 5.1.2 MMIEr mr ON" 0 MR MOO IN �Vq IN AS w W M. �• •• • • • • • • uI••� • • • • •m • IN • • . . u • • . • • • u . . • • • . • • • • u • • .11 • u . . • . • . • Ah Ah • • • • •L IN a 214 City of Fort Collins MEMORANDUM Date: October 29, 2015 To: Planning and Zoning Board Thru: Cameron Gloss, Planning Director Lucinda Smith, Environmental Services Director From: Lindsay Ex, Environmental Program Manager Re: Fugitive Dust and Proposed Land Use Code Changes Environmental Services 215 N. Mason PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221-6600 970.224-6177 - fax fcgov.com Purpose: The purpose of this memo is to provide a brief update to the Planning and Zoning Board on the proposed amendments to the Land Use Code related to Fugitive Dust. Background: As directed by Council in its 2014 Work Plan, staff in the Environmental Services Department has developed an approach to address fugitive dust issues that includes proposed code changes and a guidance manual. The Municipal Code changes require dust generating activities to comply with the manual, and the manual outlines 13 dust generating activities, e.g., site grading, street sweeping, stockpiles, saw cutting and grinding, etc. and provides a suite of required and optional control measures to control dust tailored to each activity. Several minor Land Use Code changes are necessary in order to require compliance with the proposed fugitive dust regulations; these changes are outlined in Attachment 1. Staff initially presented these recommendations at a Planning and Zoning Board Work Session in January of 2015. When Council First Reading was postponed to December 1, staff also postponed requesting a recommendation from P&Z in order to ensure that if any changes were made, P&Z had the opportunity to recommend the most recent version. Additional Information: Attached to this information please find two additional documents: • The most recent version of the DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control manual, which illustrates the variety of best management practices that can be applied to the activity generating dust; and • A copy of memo recently provided to City Council with an update on the project, including field data collected and outreach efforts conducted over the past year. 215 U awe •«91114141INVirlall re bid :3 VAMI /d Ni CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 Title 1 1.2 Purpose of Manual 1 1.3 Applicability 1 1.4 Definitions 2 2.0 Fugitive Dust and the Problems it Causes 5 2.1 What is Fugitive Dust? 5 2.2 Health and Environmental Effects 5 2.3 Nuisance and Aesthetics 7 2.4 Safety Hazard and Visibility 7 3.0 Dust Control Measures 8 3.1 Earthmoving Activities 9 3.2 Demolition and Renovation 11 3.3 Stockpiles 13 3.4 Street Sweeping 15 3.5 Track-out/Carry-out 17 3.6 Bulk Materials Transport 19 3.7 Unpaved Roads and Haul Roads 21 3.8 Parking lots 23 3.9 Open Areas and Vacant Lots 25 3.10 Saw Cutting and Grinding 26 3.11 Abrasive Blasting 28 3.12 Mechanical (Leaf) Blowing 30 4.0 Dust Control Plan for Land Development Greater Than Five Acres 32 5.0 Enforcement of Dust Control Requirements 36 6.0 Resources 37 6.1 Cross Reference to Codes, Standards, Regulations, and Policies 37 6.2 City of Fort Collins Manuals and Policies 40 6.3 References for Dust Control 41 DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote Page i 217 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Title The contents of this document shall be known as the Dust Prevention and Control Manual ("the Manual"). 1.2 Purpose of Manual The purpose of the Manual is to establish minimum requirements consistent with nationally recognized practices for controlling fugitive dust emissions and to define "all available dust control measures that are technologically feasible and economically reasonable to prevent off -property transport or off -vehicle transport of fugitive dust emissions" pursuant to Fort Collins' Municipal Code §12-146(a) for specific dust generating activities. The objective of the City's fugitive dust control program is to prevent health and ecosystem impacts as well as nuisances from dust emissions through the application of readily available and generally accepted dust control measures. 1.3 Applicability The Manual applies to any person, owner, or operator who owns or operates a dust generating activity or source, as defined in this manual, within the City of Fort Collins. A dust generating activity or source creates dust emissions that are transported beyond the property or project boundary or transported off of a vehicle onto a public road or right-of-way. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote Page 1 218 1.4 Definitions Bulk materials transport shall mean the carrying, moving, or conveying of loose materials including, but not limited to, earth, rock, silt, sediment, sand, gravel, soil, fill, aggregate, dirt, mud, construction or demolition debris, and other organic and/or inorganic material containing particulate matter onto a public road or right-of-way in trailers, truck beds, bins, or other open container. Chemical stabilization shall mean the application of chemicals used to bind soil particles or increase soil moisture content including, but not limited to, dust suppressants, palliatives, tackifiers, surfactants, and soil stabilizers. Asphalt based products or any product containing cationic polyacrylamide or products deemed environmentally incompatible with Municipal Code §26-498, or defined as a pollutant per Municipal Code §26-491, or explicitly prohibited by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or the state of Colorado may not be used for chemical stabilization. Water soluble plant -based oils or gums, clay additives, or other synthetic polymer emulsion that is non -toxic, non-combustible, and harmless to fish, wildlife, plants, pets, and humans may be used for chemical stabilization. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote Dust control measure shall mean any action or process that is used to prevent or mitigate the emission of fugitive dust into the air. Dustgenerating activity or source shall mean a process, operation, action, or land use that creates emissions of fugitive dust and causes an air pollution nuisance pursuant to Municipal Code§20-1 or causes off -property or off -vehicle transport. Earthmoving shall mean any process that involves land clearing, disturbing soil surfaces, or moving, loading, or handling of earth, dirt, soil, sand, aggregate, or similar materials. Fugitive dust shall mean solid particulate matter emitted into the air by mechanical processes or natural forces but is not emitted through a stack, chimney, or vent, and includes fugitive particulate emissions as defined in Colorado Air Quality Control Commission Regulation No. 1. Local wind speed shall mean the current or forecasted wind speed for the Fort Collins area as measured at the surface weather observation station KFNL located at the Fort Collins Loveland Municipal Airport or at Colorado State University's Fort Collins or Christman Field weather stations or as measured onsite with a portable or hand-held anemometer. The City shall use anemometers where practicable. Mechanical blower shall mean any portable machine powered with an internal combustion or electric -powered engine used to blow leaves, clippings, dirt or other debris off sidewalks, driveways, lawns, medians, and other surfaces including, but not limited to, hand-held, back- pack and walk -behind units, as well as blower - vacuum units. Page 2 219 Off -property transport shall mean the visible emission of fugitive dust beyond the property line of the property on which the emission originates or the project boundary when the emission originates in the public right-of-way or on public property. Off -vehicle transport shall mean the visible emission of fugitive dust from a vehicle that is transporting dust generating materials on a public road or right-of-way. On -tool local exhaust ventilation shall mean a vacuum dust collection system attached to a construction tool that includes a dust collector (hood or shroud), tubing, vacuum, and a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter. On -tool wet dust suppression shall mean the operation of nozzles or sprayers attached to a construction tool that continuously apply water or other liquid to the grinding or cutting area by a pressurized container or other water source, such as a hose connected to a faucet. Open area shall mean any area of undeveloped land greater than one-half acre that is less than 70 percent vegetated. This includes undeveloped lots, vacant or idle lots, natural areas, parks, or other non-agricultural areas. Recreational and multi -use trails maintained by the City are not included as an open area. Operator or owner shall mean any person who has control over a dust generating source either by operating, supervising, controlling, or maintaining ownership of the activity or source including, but not limited to, a contractor, lessee, or other responsible party of an activity, operation, or land use that is a dust generating activity or source. Particulate matter shall mean any material that is emitted into the air as finely divided solid or liquid particles, other than uncombined DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote water, and includes dust, smoke, soot, fumes, aerosols and mists. Sensitive area shall mean a specific area that warrants special protection from adverse impacts due to the deposition of fugitive dust, such as natural areas (excluding buffer zones), sources of water supply, wetlands, critical wildlife habitat, or wild and scenic river corridors. Soil retention shall mean the stabilization of disturbed surface areas that will remain exposed and inactive for 30 days or more or while vegetation is being established using mulch, compost, soil mats, or other methods. Stockpile shall mean any accumulation of bulk materials that contain particulate matter being stored for future use or disposal. This includes backfill materials and storage piles for soil, sand, dirt, mulch, aggregate, straw, chaff, or other materials that produce dust. Storm drainage facility shall mean those improvements designed, constructed or used to convey or control stormwater runoff and to remove pollutants from stormwater runoff after precipitation. Surface roughening shall mean to modify the soil surface to resist wind action and reduce dust emissions from wind erosion by creating grooves, depressions, ridges or furrows perpendicular to the predominant wind direction using tilling, ripping, discing, or other method. Synthetic or natural cover shall mean the installation of a temporary cover material on top of disturbed soil surfaces or stockpiles, such as tarps, plastic sheeting, netting, mulch, wood chips, gravel or other materials capable of preventing wind erosion. Track -out shall mean the carrying of mud, dirt, soil, or debris on vehicle wheels, sides, or Page 3 220 undercarriages from a private, commercial, or industrial site onto a public road or right-of- way. Vegetation shall mean the planting or seeding of appropriate grasses, plants, bushes, or trees to hold soil or to create a wind break. Wetsuppression shall mean the application of water by spraying, sprinkling, or misting to maintain optimal moisture content or to form a crust in dust generating materials and applied at a rate that prevents runoff from entering any DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote public right-of-way, storm drainage facility or watercourse. Wind barrier shall mean an obstruction at least five feet high with 50 percent or less porosity, comprised of a solid board fence, chain link and fabric fence, vertical wooden slats, hay bales, earth berm, bushes, trees, or other materials installed perpendicular to the predominant wind direction or upwind of an adjacent residential, commercial, industrial, or sensitive area that would be negatively impacted from fugitive dust. 221 2.0 Fugitive Dust and the Problems it Causes 2.1 What is Fugitive Dust? Dust, also known as particulate matter, is made up of solid particles in the air that consist primarily of dirt and soil but can also contain ash, soot, salts, pollen, heavy metals, asbestos, pesticides, and other materials. "Fugitive" dust means particulate matter that has become airborne by wind or human activities and has not been emitted from a stack, chimney, or vent. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) estimates that more than 4,300 tons of dust are emitted into the air in Larimer County annually. The primary sources of this dust include construction activities, paved and unpaved roads, and agricultural operations. The quantity of dust emitted from a particular activity or area and the materials in it can depend on the soil type (sand, clay, silt), moisture content (dry or damp), local wind speed, and the current or past uses of the site (industrial, farming, construction). 2.2 Health and Environmental Effects Dust particles are very small and can be easily inhaled. They can enter the respiratory system and increase susceptibility to respiratory infections, and aggravate cardio-pulmonary disease. Even short- term exposure to dust can cause wheezing, asthma attacks and allergic reactions, and may cause increases in hospital admissions and emergency department visits for heart and lung related diseases. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), studies have linked particulate matter exposure to health problems such as: •Irritation of the airways, coughing, and difficulty breathing •Reduced lung function •Aggravated asthma DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote Page 5 222 •Chronic bronchitis •Irregular heartbeat •Increases in heart attacks •Lung cancer In addition, dust particles that have been stirred up from construction sites, industrial areas, agricultural operations, or roadways can contain pesticides, heavy metals, asbestos, bacteria, fungi, and a variety of other contaminants and carcinogens that cause adverse impacts not only to humans but to animals and vegetation as well. Fugitive dust emissions can cause significant environmental impacts as well as health effects. When dust from wind erosion or human activity deposits out of the air, it may impact vegetation, adversely affect nearby soils and waterways, and cause damage to cultural resources. Wind erosion can result in the loss of valuable top soil, reduce crop yields, and stunt plant growth. According to the EPA, effects of particulate matter deposition include: •Haze and reduced visibility •Increased acidity of lakes and streams •Nutrient balance changes in coastal waters and river basins •Reduced levels of nutrients in soil •Damage to forests and crops •Reduced diversity in ecosystems •Damage to stone and other materials DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote 223 2.3 Nuisance and Aesthetics Dust, dirt and debris that become air borne eventually settle back down to the surface. How far it travels and where it gets deposited depends on the size and type of the particles as well as wind speed and direction. When this material settles, it can be deposited on homes, cars, lawns, pools and ponds, hanging laundry, and other property. The small particles can get trapped in machinery and electronics causing abrasion, corrosion, and malfunctions. The deposited dust can damage painted surfaces, clog filtration systems, stain materials and cause other expensive clean-up projects. 2.4 Safety Hazard and Visibility Blowing dust can be a safety hazard at construction sites and on roads and highways. Dust can obstruct visibility and can cause accidents between vehicles and bikes, pedestrians, or site workers. Dust plumes can also decrease visibility across a natural area or scenic vistas. The "brown cloud" that is often visible along the Front Range during the winter months and the brilliant red sunsets that occur some afternoons are caused by particulate matter and other pollutants in the air. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote Page 7 224 3.0 Dust Control Measures Colorado state air regulations, Larimer County air quality standards, and Fort Collins' Municipal Code generally require owners and operators of dust generating activities or sources to use all available and practical methods that are technologically feasible and economically reasonable in order to prevent fugitive dust emissions. However, state regulations and permitting requirements typically apply to larger stationary sources rather than to specific activities that generate dust. Larimer County fugitive dust standards apply to land development only. Although state and county requirements apply to many construction activities, they do not address many sources of dust emissions and City code compliance officers do not have authority to enforce state or county regulations. Fort Collins is experiencing rapid growth and development that has contributed to local man-made dust emissions. The City has established Chapter 12, §12-147 to address dust generating activities that negatively impact citizens in Fort Collins. This manual describes established methods for controlling dust emissions that are practical and used in common practice to prevent or mitigate impacts to air quality from dust generating activities and sources that are relevant to Fort Collins. Fort Collins is located in a dry region where dust in the air can be affected by high winds and natural sources of dust such as wildfire smoke, pollen, and transport of dust from other regions. The objective of the dust control measures included in this manual are to reduce dust emissions from human activities and to prevent those emissions from impacting others and are based on the following principles: Prevent— avoid creating dust emissions through good project planning and modifying or replacing dust generating activities. Control — reduce dust emissions with methods that capture, collect, or contain emissions. Restrict Access — prevent public exposure by restricting access to the dusty area when a dust generating activity cannot be modified or dust emissions cannot be adequately controlled. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote 225 3.1 Earthmoving Activities I -W .`,ac I.-, _ Y A.v. ' P 11 Dust emissions from earthmoving activities are dependent on the type of activity being conducted, the amount of exposed surface area, wind conditions, and soil type and moisture content. Earthmoving includes: • Site preparation (clearing, grubbing, scraping) • Road construction • Grading and overlot grading • Excavating, trenching, backfilling and compacting • Loading and unloading dirt, soil, gravel, or other earth materials • Dumping of dirt, soil, gravel, or other earth materials into trucks, piles, or receptacles • Screening of dirt, soil, gravel, or other earth materials Dust Control Measures (a) Any person, owner, or operator who conducts earthmoving that is a dust generating activity or source shall implement the following dust control measures to prevent off -property transport of fugitive dust emissions: (i) Minimize disturbed area: plan the project or activity so that the minimum amount of disturbed soil or surface area is exposed to wind or vehicle traffic at any one time. (ii) Reduce vehicle speeds: establish a maximum speed limit or install traffic calming devices to reduce speeds to a rate that prevents off -property transport of dust entrained by vehicles. (iii) Drop height: unload truck beds and loader or excavator buckets slowly and at the lowest height possible. Minimize drop height of materials through screening operations. (iv) High winds restriction: temporarily halt work activities during high wind events greater than 30 mph if operations would result in off -property transport. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote 226 (v) Restrict access: restrict access to the work area to only essential vehicles and personnel. (vi) Engineering Controls: Use at least one or more of the following engineering controls as necessary or as directed by a City code compliance officer when (i) — (v) alone are not effective at preventing off -property transport: (A) Wet suppression: apply water to disturbed soil surfaces, backfill materials, screenings, and other dust generating operations as necessary and appropriate considering current weather conditions, and prevent water used for dust control from entering any public right-of-way, stormwater drainage facility, or watercourse. (B) Wind barrier: construct a fence or other type of wind barrier to prevent wind erosion of top soils. (C) Vegetation: plant vegetation appropriate for retaining soils or creating a wind break. (D) Surface roughening: stabilize an active construction area during periods of inactivity or when vegetation cannot be immediately established. (E) Synthetic or natural cover: install cover materials during periods of inactivity and properly anchor the cover. (F) Soil retention: stabilize disturbed or exposed soil surface areas that will be inactive for more than 30 days or while vegetation is being established. (G) Chemical stabilization: apply chemical stabilizers using manufacturer's recommended application rates. Avoid over -application and prevent runoff of chemical stabilizers into any public right-of-way, storm drainage facility, or watercourse. (b) Any person, owner, or operator who conducts earthmoving that is a dust generating activity or source at a construction site or land development project with a total disturbed surface area equal to or greater than five (5) acres also shall implement the following dust control measures: (i) Dust Control Plan: submit a plan that describes all potential sources of fugitive dust and methods that will be employed to control dust emissions with the development construction permit application or development review application (see Chapter 4). A copy of the Dust Control Plan must be onsite at all times and one copy must be provided to all contractors and operators engaged in dust generating activities at the site. (ii) Construction sequencing: include sequencing or phasing in the project plan to minimize the amount of disturbed area at any one time. Sites with greater than 25 acres of disturbed surface exposed at any one time may be asked to provide additional justification, revise the sequencing plan, or include additional dust control measures. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote Page 10 227 3.2 Demolition and Renovation Dust Control Measure and Engineering Control= Restrict Access and Wind Barrier Dust generated from demolition activities may contain significant levels of silica, lead, asbestos, and particulate matter. Inhalation of silica and asbestos is known to cause lung cancer, and exposure to even small quantities of lead dust can result in harm to children and the unborn. In addition to complying with the dust control measures below, any person engaged in demolition or renovation projects must comply with applicable state and federal regulations for asbestos and lead containing materials and notification and inspection requirements under the State of Colorado Air Quality Control Commission's Regulation No. 8, Part B Control of Hazardous Air pollutants. Dust Control Measures (a) Any person, owner, or operator who conducts demolition or renovation that is a dust generating activity or source shall implement the following dust control measures to prevent off -property transport of fugitive dust emissions: (i) Asbestos and lead containing materials: demolition and renovation activities that involve asbestos or lead containing materials must be conducted in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 5 Sec. 5-27 (59) §3602.1.1 . (ii) Building permit: obtain a building permit, if required, per Land Use Code §2.7.1. (iii) Restrict access: restrict access to the demolition area to only essential vehicles and personnel. (iv) High winds restriction: temporarily halt work activities during high wind events greater than 30 mph if operations would result in off -property transport. (v) Drop height: unload truck beds and loader or excavator buckets slowly and at the lowest height possible. Minimize drop height of materials through screening operations. (vi) Engineering controls: use at least one or more of the following engineering controls as necessary or as directed by a City code compliance officer when (i) — (v) are not effective at preventing off -property transport: DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote Page 11 228 (A) Wet suppression: apply water to demolished materials or pre -wet materials to be demolished as necessary. Prevent water used for dust control from entering any public right-of-way, storm drainage facility, or watercourse. (B) Chemical stabilization: apply chemical stabilizers to demolished materials or materials to be demolished using manufacturer's recommended application rates. Avoid over -application and prevent runoff of chemical stabilizers into any public right- of-way, storm drainage facility, or watercourse. (C) Wind barrier: construct a fence or other type of wind barrier to prevent onsite dust generating materials from blowing offsite. Dust Control Measure= Drop Height DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote Page 12 229 3.3 Stockpiles Engineering Control= Wet Suppression Stockpiles are used for both temporary and long-term storage of soil, fill dirt, sand, aggregate, woodchips, mulch, asphalt and other industrial feedstock, construction and landscaping materials. Fugitive dust can be emitted from stockpiles while working the active face of the pile or when wind blows across the pile. The quantity of emissions depends on pile height and exposure to wind, moisture content and particle size of the pile material, surface roughness of the pile, and frequency of pile disturbance. Dust Control Measures (a) Any owner or operator of a stockpile that is a dust generating activity or source shall implement the following dust control measures to prevent off property transport of fugitive dust emissions: (i) Stockpile permit: obtain a stockpile permit, if required, per Land Use Code §2.6.2. (ii) Erosion Control Plan: implement an Erosion Control Plan, if required, per Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual and comply with soil stockpile height limit of ten feet, watering, surface roughening, vegetation, and silt fencing requirements as outlined in Section XX-XXX of the Municipal Code. (iii) Drop height: unload truck beds and loader or excavator buckets slowly and at the lowest height possible. Minimize drop height of materials through screening operations. (iv) Engineering controls: use at least one or more of the following engineering controls as necessary or as directed by a City code compliance officer when (i) — (iii) are not effective at preventing off -property transport: (A) Wet suppression: Apply water to the active face when working the pile or to the entire pile during periods of inactivity. Prevent water used for dust control from entering any public right-of-way, storm drainage facility, or watercourse. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote Page 13 230 (B) Synthetic or natural cover: install cover materials during periods of inactivity and properly anchor the cover. (C) Surface roughening: stabilize a stockpile during periods of inactivity or when vegetation cannot be immediately established. (D) Stockpile location: locate stockpile at a distance equal to ten times the pile height from property boundaries that abut residential areas. (E) Vegetation: seed and mulch any stockpile that will remain inactive for 30 days or more. (F) Chemical stabilization: apply chemical stabilizers using manufacturer's recommended application rates. Avoid over -application and prevent runoff of chemical stabilizers into any public right-of-way, storm drainage facility, or watercourse. (G) Enclosure: construct a three -sided structure equal to or greater than the height of the pile to shelter the pile from the predominant winds. Engineering Control= Synthetic Cover DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote Page 14 231 3.4 Street Sweeping Engineering Control= Wet Suppression and Vacuum System Street sweeping is an effective method for removing dirt and debris from streets and preventing it from entering storm drains or becoming airborne. Newer technology sweepers can achieve particulate matter removal efficiencies between 80-90 percent using a vacuum assisted dry sweeper. Regenerative air sweepers and mechanical sweepers with water spray can also be effective at removing particulate matter from hard surfaces. Dust Control Measures (a) Any owner or operator that conducts sweeping operations or services on paved or concrete roads, parking lots, rights -of -way, pedestrian ways, plazas or other solid surfaces, and whose operations are a dust generating activity or source shall implement the following dust control measures to prevent off - property transport of fugitive dust emissions: (i) Uncontrolled sweeping prohibited: the use of rotary brushes, power brooms, or other mechanical sweeping for the removal of dust, dirt, mud, or other debris from a paved public road, right-of-way, or parking lot without the use of water, vacuum system with filtration, or other equivalent dust control method is prohibited. Mechanical or manual sweeping that occurs between lifts of asphalt paving operations is excluded from this prohibition. (ii) Engineering controls: use at least one or more of the following engineering controls as necessary or as directed by a City code compliance officer: (A) Wet suppression: use a light spray of water or wetting agent applied directly to work area or use equipment with water spray system while operating sweeper or power broom. Prevent water used for dust control from entering any storm drainage facility or watercourse. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote Page 15 232 (B) Vacuum system: use sweeper or power broom equipped with a vacuum collection and filtration system. (C) Other method: use any other method to control dust emissions that has a demonstrated particulate matter control efficiency of 80 percent or more. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote Page 16 233 3.5 Track -out / Carry -out Engineering Control= Installed grate and gravel bed Mud, dirt, and other debris can be carried from a work site on the wheels or undercarriage of trucks and other equipment onto public roads. When this tracked out material dries, it can become airborne by wind activity or when other vehicles travel over it. This dust is not only a health concern but can also cause visibility issues and safety hazards. Dust Control Measures (a) Any owner or operator of any operation that has the potential to result in track -out of dirt, dust, or debris on public roads and rights -of -way and whose operation is a dust generating activity or source shall implement the following dust control measures to prevent off -property transport of fugitive dust emissions: (i) Contracts and standards: comply with track -out prevention requirements and construct engineering controls as specified in applicable construction standards, contract documents, or Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. (ii) Remove deposition: promptly remove any deposition that occurs on public roads or rights - of -way as a result of the owner's or operator's operations. Avoid over -watering and prevent runoff into any storm drainage facility or watercourse. (iii) Engineering controls: use at least one or more of the following engineering controls as necessary or as directed by a City code compliance officer at each access point to public roads and rights -of -way: (A) Install rails, pipes, grate, or similar track -out control device. (B) Install a gravel bed track -out apron that extends at least 50 feet from the intersection with a public road or right-of-way. (C) Install gravel bed track -out apron with steel cattle guard or concrete wash rack. (D) Install vehicle and equipment washing station. (E) Install a paved surface that extends at least 100 feet from the intersection with a public road or right-of-way. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote Page 17 234 (F) Manually remove mud, dirt, and debris from equipment and vehicle wheels, tires and undercarriage. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote 235 3.6 Bulk Materials Transport PW Dust Control Measure= Load Cover Haul trucks are used to move bulk materials, such as dirt, rock, demolition debris, or mulch to and from construction sites, material suppliers and storage yards. Dust emissions from haul trucks, if uncontrolled, can be a safety hazard by impairing visibility or by depositing debris on roads, pedestrians, bicyclists, or other vehicles. Dust Control Measures (a) Any owner or operator of a vehicle used for transporting bulk materials on a public or private road or on a public right-of-way and whose operations are a dust generating activity or source shall implement the following dust control measures to prevent off -vehicle transport of fugitive dust emissions: (i) Load cover: completely cover or enclose all material in a manner that prevents the material from blowing, dropping, sifting, leaking, or otherwise escaping from the vehicle. This includes the covering of hot asphalt and asphalt patching material with a tarp or other impermeable material. (ii) Drop Height: unload truck beds and loader or excavator buckets slowly and at the lowest height possible. Minimize drop height of materials through screening operations. (iii) Engineering controls: use at least one or more of the following engineering controls as necessary or as directed by a City code compliance officer if load covering alone does not adequately control dust emissions or if load covering is not feasible: (A) Wet suppression: apply water to bulk materials loaded for transport as necessary to prevent fugitive dust emissions and deposition of materials on roadways. Prevent water used for dust control from entering any public right-of-way, storm drainage facility, or watercourse. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote Page 19 236 (B) Chemical stabilization: apply chemical stabilizers using manufacturer's recommended application rates. Avoid over -application and prevent runoff of chemical stabilizers into any public right-of-way, storm drainage facility, or watercourse. (C) Other technology: use other equivalent technology, such as limiting the load size to provide at least three inches of freeboard to prevent spillage. At Ai_�_ T Dust Control Measure= Drop Height DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote /I - Page 20 237 4=4" Engineering Control= Surface Improvements Road dust from unpaved roads is caused by particles lifted by and dropped from rolling wheels traveling on the road surface and from wind blowing across the road surface. Road dust can aggravate heart and lung conditions as well as cause safety issues such as decreased driver visibility and other safety hazards. Dust Control Measures (a) Any owner or operator of an unpaved road located on a construction site greater than five acres or an unpaved road used as a public right-of-way and whose operations are a dust generating activity or source shall implement the following dust control measures to prevent off -property transport of fugitive dust emissions: (i) Reduce vehicle speeds: establish a maximum speed limit or install traffic calming devices to reduce speeds to a rate that prevents off -property transport of dust entrained by vehicles. (ii) Restrict access: restrict travel on unpaved roads by limiting access to only essential vehicle use. (iii) Engineering controls: use at least one or more of the following engineering controls as necessary or as directed by a City code compliance officer when (i) — (ii) are not effective at preventing off -property transport: (A) Wet suppression: apply water to unpaved road surface as necessary and appropriate considering current weather conditions, and prevent water used for dust control from entering any public right-of-way, storm drainage facility, or watercourse. (B) Surface improvements: install gravel or similar materials with sufficient depth to reduce dust or pave high traffic areas. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote Page 21 238 (C) Chemical stabilization: apply chemical stabilizers appropriate for high traffic areas using manufacturer's recommended application rates. Avoid over -application and prevent runoff of chemical stabilizers into any public right-of-way, storm drainage facility, or watercourse. (D) Access road location: locate site access roads away from residential or other populated areas. Engineering Control= Wet Suppression DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote Page 22 239 3.8 Parking Lots This section applies to paved and unpaved areas where vehicles are parked or stored on a routine basis and includes parking areas for shopping, recreation, or events; automobile or vehicle storage yards; and animal staging areas. Dust Control Measures (a) Any owners or operator of a parking lot greater than one-half acre and whose operations are a dust generating activity or source shall use one or more of the following dust control measures as necessary or as directed by a City code compliance officer to prevent off -property transport of fugitive dust emissions: (i) Surface improvements: install gravel or similar materials with sufficient depth to reduce dust or pave high traffic areas. (ii) Maintenance: repair potholes and cracks and maintain surface improvements. (iii) Mechanical sweeping: (applies to paved parking lots only) sweep lot with a vacuum sweeper and light water spray as necessary to remove dirt and debris. Avoid overwatering and prevent runoff from entering any public right-of-way, storm drainage facility, or watercourse. (iv) Vegetation: plant vegetation appropriate for retaining soils or creating a wind break. (v) Wet suppression: apply water as necessary and appropriate considering current weather conditions to prevent off -property transport of fugitive dust emissions. Prevent water used for dust control from entering any public right-of-way, storm drainage facility, or watercourse. (vi) Chemical stabilization: apply chemical stabilizers appropriate for high traffic areas using manufacturer's recommended application rates. Avoid over -application and prevent runoff of chemical stabilizers into any public right-of-way, storm drainage facility, or watercourse. (vii) Wind barrier: construct a fence or other type of wind barrier. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote Page 23 240 (viii) Reduce vehicle speeds: establish a maximum speed limit or install traffic calming devices to reduce speeds to a rate that prevents off -property transport of dust entrained by vehicles. (ix) Restrict access: restrict travel in parking lots to only those vehicles with essential duties and limit access to hours of operation or specific events. "W �4. V�t� �-,•6T' '. ,3.�tyF, � �.�+. '� _.w. y%+, +�,�,� � IV � �. T, - # .C+ � ♦ .n � � b�N�l � ; } {S� ..�t � ���1 � y'S .r �i �i a kr �-a �i �' _ w•, �'+M �� r. �' iA jVA.�' i`aT . �.: �!` 'mow-� :S':- - }�. �rti ' •.wae.. i_._♦� Dust Control Measure= Surface Improvements DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote Page 24 241 3.9 Open Areas and Vacant Lots Open areas are typically not a significant source of wind-blown dust emissions if the coverage of vegetation is sufficient or soil crusts are intact. However, if soils in open areas are disturbed by vehicle traffic, off -highway vehicle use, bicycling or grazing, or if they have become over populated by prairie dogs, dust emissions can become a problem. Dust Control Measures (a) Any owner or operator of an open area greater than one-half acre whose operations are a dust generating activity or source shall use one or more of the following dust control measures as necessary or as directed by a City code compliance officer to stabilize disturbed or exposed soil surface areas that will be inactive for 30 days or more and to prevent off -property transport of fugitive dust emissions: (i) Vegetation: plant vegetation appropriate for retaining soils or creating a wind break. (ii) Synthetic or natural cover: install cover materials over exposed areas during periods of inactivity and properly anchor the cover. (iii) Surface roughening: stabilize an exposed area during periods of inactivity or when vegetation cannot be immediately established. (iv) Soil retention: stabilize disturbed or exposed soil surface areas that will be inactive for more than 30 days or while vegetation is being established. (v) Wet suppression: apply water to disturbed soil surfaces as necessary and appropriate considering current weather to prevent off -property transport of fugitive dust emissions. Prevent water used for dust control from entering any public right-of-way, storm drainage facility, or watercourse. (vi) Wind barrier: construct a fence or other type of wind barrier to prevent wind erosion of top soils. (vii) Chemical stabilization: apply chemical stabilizers using manufacturer's recommended application rates. Avoid over -application and prevent runoff of chemical stabilizers into any public right-of-way, storm drainage facility, or watercourse. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote Page 25 242 3.10 Saw Cutting and Grinding Cutting and grinding of asphalt, concrete and other masonry materials can be a significant short-term source of fugitive dust that creates a nuisance condition and can expose workers and the public to crystalline silica. Inhalation of silica can cause lung disease known as silicosis and has been linked to other diseases such as tuberculosis and lung cancer. Using engineering controls during cutting and grinding operations can significantly reduce dust emissions. Dust Control Measures (a) Any person, owner, or operator that cuts or grinds asphalt, concrete, brick, tile, stone, or other masonry materials and whose operations are a dust generating activity or source shall use the following dust control measures to prevent off -property transport of fugitive dust emissions: (i) Restrict access: prevent the public from entering the area where dust emissions occur. (ii) High winds restriction: temporarily halt work activities during high wind events greater than 30 mph if operations would result in off -property transport. (iii) Equipment and work area clean up: use wet wiping, wet sweeping, or vacuuming with HEPA filtration for equipment and work area clean up and do not cause dust to become airborne during clean up. (iv) Slurry clean up: prevent water used for dust control or clean up from entering any public right-of-way, storm drainage facility, or watercourse by using containment, vacuuming, absorption, or other method to remove the slurry, and dispose of slurry and containment materials properly. Follow additional procedures prescribed in the City's Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual or contract documents and specifications. (v) Engineering controls: use at least one or more of the following engineering controls as necessary or as directed by a City code compliance officer when (i) — (iv) alone are not effective at preventing off -property transport: DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote Page 26 243 (A) On -tool local exhaust ventilation: use a tool -mounted dust capture and collection system. (B) On -tool wet suppression: use a tool -mounted water application system. (C) Vacuuming: use a vacuum equipped with a HEPA filter simultaneously with cutting or grinding operations. (D) Wet suppression: use a water sprayer or hose simultaneously with cutting or grinding operations. (E) Enclosure: conduct cutting or grinding within an enclosure with a dust collection system or temporary tenting over the work area. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote Page 27 244 3.11 Abrasive Blasting Abrasive blasting is used to smooth rough surfaces; roughen smooth surfaces; and remove paint, dirt, grease, and other coatings from surfaces. Abrasive blasting media may consist of sand; glass, plastic or metal beads; aluminum oxide; corn cobs; or other materials. Abrasive blasting typically generates a significant amount of fugitive dust if not controlled. The material removed during abrasive blasting can become airborne and may contain silica, lead, cadmium or other byproducts removed from the surface being blasted*. Dust Control Measures (a) Any person, owner, or operator who conducts outdoor abrasive blasting or indoor abrasive blasting with uncontrolled emissions vented to the outside and whose operations are a dust generating activity or source shall implement the following dust control measures to prevent off -property transport of fugitive dust emissions: (i) Restrict access: prevent the public from entering the area where dust emissions occur. (ii) High winds restriction: temporarily halt work activities during high wind events greater than 30 mph if operations would result in off -property transport. (iii) Equipment and work area clean up: use wet wiping, wet sweeping, or vacuuming with HEPA filtration for equipment and work area clean up and do not cause dust to become airborne during clean up. (iv) Slurry clean up: prevent water used for dust control or clean up from entering any public right-of-way, storm drainage facility, or watercourse by using containment, vacuuming, absorption, or other method to remove the slurry, and dispose of slurry and containment materials properly. (v) Engineering controls: use at least one or more of the following engineering controls as necessary or as directed by a City code compliance officer when (i) — (iv) alone are not effective at preventing off -property transport: (A) Enclosure: conduct abrasive blasting within an enclosure with a dust collection system or temporary tenting over the work area. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote 245 (13) Wet suppression blasting: use one of several available methods that mix water with the abrasive media or air during blasting operations. (C) Vacuum blasting: conduct air -based blasting that uses a nozzle attachment with negative air pressure to capture dust. (D) Abrasive media: select less toxic, lower dust -generating blasting media such as walnut shells, dry ice, sponge or baking soda. *Blasting on surfaces that contain lead paint or wastes from sandblasting that contain hazardous materials maybe subject to additional state and federal requirements. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote Page 29 246 3.12 Mechanical Blowing Mechanical blowers are commonly used to move dirt, sand, leaves, grass clippings and other landscaping debris to a central location for easier pick-up and removal. Mechanical blowing with a leaf blower can be a significant source of fugitive dust in some situations and can create nuisance conditions and cause health effects for sensitive individuals. Mechanical (leaf) blowing can resuspend dust particles that contain allergens, pollens, and molds, as well as pesticides, fecal contaminants, and toxic metals causing allergic reactions, asthma attacks and exacerbating other respiratory illnesses. Dust Control Measures (a) Any person, owner, or operator who operates a mechanical leaf blower (gas, electric, or battery - powered) in a manner that is a dust generating activity or source shall use one or more of the following dust control measures as necessary or as directed by a City code compliance officer to prevent off - property transport of fugitive dust emissions: (i) Alternative method: use an alternative where possible, such as a rake, broom, shovel, manual push sweeper or a vacuum machine equipped with a filtration system. (ii) Prevent impact: do not blow dust and debris towards people, animals, open windows, air intakes, or parked vehicles or onto adjacent property, public right-of-way, storm drainage facility, or watercourse. (iii) Prevent use on dirt: minimize the use of mechanical blower on unpaved surfaces, road shoulders, or loose dirt. (iv) Low speed: use the lowest speed appropriate for the task. (v) Operation: use the full length of the blow tube and place the nozzle as close to the ground as possible. (vi) Wet suppression: use a light spray of water, as necessary and appropriate considering current weather conditions, to dampen dusty work areas. Prevent water, dirt, and debris from entering any storm drainage facility, or watercourse. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote Page 30 247 (vii) Remove debris: remove and properly dispose of blown material immediately. (viii) High winds restriction: temporarily halt work activities during high wind events greater than 30 mph if operations would result in off -property transport. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote Page 31 4.0 Dust Control Plan for Land Development Greater Than Five Acres A dust control plan is required for all development projects or construction sites with a total disturbed surface area equal to or greater than five (5) acres. If the project is required to obtain a development construction permit, then the dust control plan shall be submitted with the development review application or the development construction permit application. A copy of the dust control plan shall be available onsite at all times for compliance and inspection purposes. For dust control plans associated with a Development Construction Permit (DCP), applications for the DCP are available online at www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/applications.php. The dust control plan may be submitted on the Dust Control Plan Form included in Chapter 4 or other equivalent format and shall include the following information: • Project name and location. • Name and contact information of property owner. • Project start and completion dates. • Name and contact information of the developer, general contractor, and each contractor or operator that will be engaged in an earthmoving activity. • Total size of the development project or construction site in acres. • A description of the project phasing or sequencing of the project to minimize the amount of disturbed surface area at any one time during the project. • A list of each dust generating activity or source associated with the project. • A list of each best management practice and engineering control that will be implemented for each dust generating activity or source. • A list of engineering controls that will be implemented if initial controls are ineffective. • A signed statement from the property owner, developer, general contractor, and each contractor or operator engaged in an earthmoving activity acknowledging receipt of the Dust Control Plan and an understanding of and ability to comply with the dust control measures in the plan. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote Page 32 249 City Of F6rtCollins DUST CONTROL PLAN PROJECT INFORMATION Project Name Project Location Start and Completion Dates Total Size of Project Site (acres) Maximum disturbed surface area at any one time (acres) Property Owner name, address, phone, e-moil Developer name, address, phone, e-mail General Contractor name, address, phone, e-mail Subcontractor or Operator of a dust generating activity or source name, address, phone, e-mail Subcontractor or Operator of a dust generating activity or source name, address, phone, e-mail Subcontractor or Operator of a dust generating activity or source name, address, phone, e-mail PROJECT PHASING OR SEQUENCING Provide a description of how this project will Attach phasing plan or map if available. be phased or sequenced to minimize the disturbed surface area. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote Page 33 250 Instructions: Place an X in each box indicating all dust control measures that will be implemented for each dust generating activity. Please refer to the Dust Prevention and Control Manual for requirements. Dust Generating Activity b /Dust Control Measure 4 bo o LO w 0 4 _ j O E c °C .2 c V o N aa+ N Z u 7 p q m r ��_ ° O cc oc c C c � a v n O L O0 °0 Y c u L _a coo N Q 00 Abrasive media Asbestos or lead materials Building permit Chemical stabilization Construction sequencing Drop height Enclosure Equipment &work area clean up Erosion Control plan High winds restriction Load cover Leaf blowing techniques Location Minimize disturbed area On -tool local exhaust ventilation On -tool wet suppression Other method Reduce vehicle speeds Remove deposition Restrict access Slurry clean up Soil retention Stockpile permit Surface improvements Surface roughening Sweeping Synthetic or natural cover Track -out prevention system Uncontrolled sweeping prohibited Vacuum Vegetation Wet suppression Wind barrier Describe any other dust generating activities and dust control measures (not already indicated in the table above) that will be used to control fugitive dust emissions. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or quote Page 34 251 DU57 OONTROL PLAN CERTIFICATION I certify the irfformation and attachments contai ne-d in -this Dust Control Pla n are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I have received a copy of this Dust Control Plan and acknowledge rrrf understanding of and ability to comply with best management practi€es for €ontrOlingfugitive dust -emissions. I hereby permit City officials to enter upon the Property for the Purpose of i nspection of a ny dust generati ng activity or source for which I am the responsible person, owner, or opera F. Name: Title: Role on project: Address: Phone: Signature: Date: Name: Title: Role on project: Address: Phone: Signature: Date: Name: Title: Role on project: Address: Phone: SignatL r= Date: Name: Tr. e: Role on projecr Address: Phone: S LgnatL r = Date: DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or quote Page 35 252 5.0 Enforcement of Dust Control Requirements It is the responsibility of any person, owner, or operator who conducts a dust generating activity or who owns or operates a dust generating source to be aware of and comply with the requirements contained in this manual, as well as any other local, county, state, or federal requirements related to the control of fugitive dust emissions. The City of Fort Collins will monitor the effectiveness of dust control measures for controlling fugitive dust through inspections and response to citizen complaints and concerns. City inspectors conduct routine inspections in response to building permits, development construction permits, excavation permits, stockpile permits, erosion control plans, and a variety of infrastructure and capital improvement construction projects. Code compliance officers respond to citizen concerns and complaints to determine if a code violation has occurred. As a part of a routine inspection or in response to a citizen complaint, City inspectors or code compliance officers who have been trained in fugitive dust control will evaluate the presence and effectiveness of dust control measures that are in place at the site. Code compliance officers respond to complaints from citizens who are being impacted by fugitive dust. If, during a routine inspection or a response to a specific complaint, there is (1) evidence of off -property transport of fugitive dust emissions attributable to dust generating activities or sources at the inspection site and (2) there are no or ineffective dust control measures in place, then the inspector or code compliance officer may take the following action(s): • Determine if off -property or off -vehicle transport of fugitive dust emissions has occurred or is occurring. • Determine if dust control measures have been implemented appropriately and effectively. • Direct the person, owner, or operator responsible for the dust generating activity or source to improve existing dust control measures. • Direct the person, owner, or operator responsible for the dust generating activity or source to implement additional dust control measures. • Allow a reasonable time for implementation of improved or additional dust control measures and re -inspect. • Issue a notice of non-compliance in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 1 §1-15 if dust control measures have not been improved or implemented that resolve the off -property or off - vehicle transport of fugitive dust emissions. A violation of Municipal Code Chapter 12, §12-147 will not be issued if off -property transport of fugitive dust emissions occurs during periods of local wind speeds greater than 30 miles per hour if the person conducting the dust generating activity or the owner or operator of a dust generating source has implemented the dust control measures as described in this manual. Cross Reference to Codes, Standards, Regulations, and Policies: Fort Collins Land Use Code §2.14.3 Inspection. Fort Collins Municipal Code §1-15. General penalty and surcharges for misdemeanor offenses, traffic offenses, and traffic and civil infractions. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote Page 36 253 6.0 Resources 6.1 Cross Reference to Codes, Standards, Regulations, and Policies Earthmoving Activities Fort Collins Land Use Code Article 3 General Development Standards §3.2.2 Access, Circulation and Parking. Fort Collins Land Use Code Article 3 General Development Standards §3.4.1(N) Standards for Protection During Construction. Fort Collins Land Use Code Article 3 General Development Standards §3.4.2 Air Quality. Fort Collins Municipal Code, Chapter 5 Buildings and Building Regulations, Section 5-27 (59) §3602.1.1 Building demolitions. Fort Collins Municipal Code Chapter 20 Nuisances, Article 1 In General, §20-1 Air pollution nuisances prohibited. Fort Collins Municipal Code Chapter 23 Public Property §23-16. Permit required; exception in case of emergency. Fort Collins Municipal Code Chapter 26 Utilities, Article VII Stormwater Utility, §26-498 Water quality control. Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, Volume 3, Chapter 7, Section 1.3 Policy, Standards and Submittal Requirements, §1.3.3.e.5. Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual — Fact Sheet SM-1 Construction Phasing/Sequencing and Fact Sheet EC-1 Surface Roughening. Larimer County Land Use Code §8.11.4. Fugitive dust during construction. State of Colorado, Air Quality Control Commission, 5 CCR 1001-3, Regulation No. 1, §III.D.2.b Construction Activities. OSHA Safety and Health Regulations for Construction 29 CFR Part 1926.55 Gases, vapors, fumes, dusts, and mists. Demolition and Renovation Fort Collins Land Use Code, Division 2.7 Building Permits §2.7.1 Fort Collins Municipal Code, Chapter 5 Buildings and Building Regulations, Section 5-27 (59) §3602.1.1 Building demolitions. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote Page 37 254 Fort Collins Municipal Code Chapter 20 Nuisances, Article 1 In General, §20-1 Air pollution nuisances prohibited. Fort Collins Municipal Code Chapter 26 Utilities, Article VII Stormwater Utility, §26-498 Water quality control. State of Colorado, Air Quality Control Commission, Regulation Number 8, Part B Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants, 5 CCR 1001-10. Stockpiles Fort Collins Land Use Code, Division 2.6 Stockpiling Permits and Development Construction Permits §2.6.2. Fort Collins Land Use Code §2.6.3 (K) Stockpiling Permit and Development Construction Permit Review Procedures. Fort Collins Municipal Code Chapter 20 Nuisances, Article 1 In General, §20-1 Air pollution nuisances prohibited. Fort Collins Municipal Code Chapter 26 Utilities, Article VII Stormwater Utility, §26-498 Water quality control. Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual Volume 3, Chapter 7, Section 1.3 Policy, Standards and Submittal Requirements, §1.3.3.e.7. Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual - Fact Sheet MM-2 Stockpile Management. State of Colorado, Air Quality Control Commission, 5 CCR 1001-3, Regulation No. 1, §III.D.2.c Storage and Handling of Materials. Street Sweeping Fort Collins Municipal Code Chapter 20 Nuisances, Article 1 In General, §20-1 Air pollution nuisances prohibited. Fort Collins Municipal Code Chapter 26 Utilities, Article VII Stormwater Utility, §26-498 Water quality control. Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual - Fact Sheet SM-7 Street Sweeping and Vacuuming. Track-out/Carry-out Fort Collins Traffic Code, Part 1407 Spilling loads on highways prohibited. Fort Collins Land Use Code §5.2.1 Definitions Maintenance (of a newly constructed street). Fort Collins Municipal Code: Chapter 20 — Nuisances, Article V - Dirt, Debris and Construction Waste, §Sec. 20-62. Depositing on streets prohibited. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote 255 Fort Collins Municipal Code Chapter 26 Utilities, Article VII Stormwater Utility, §26-498 Water quality control. Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, Volume 3, Chapter 7, Section 1.3 Policy, Standards and Submittal Requirements, §1.3.3.e.8. Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual — Fact Sheet SM-4 Vehicle Tracking Control. Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual — Fact Sheet SM-7 Street Sweeping and Vacuuming. State of Colorado, Air Quality Control Commission, 5 CCR 1001-3, Regulation No. 1, §III.D.2.a.(ii).(B) General Requirements. Bulk Materials Transport Fort Collins Traffic Code, Part 1407 Spilling loads on highways prohibited. Fort Collins Municipal Code Chapter 20 Nuisances, Article 1 In General, §20-1 Air pollution nuisances prohibited. Fort Collins Municipal Code Chapter 26 Utilities, Article VII Stormwater Utility, §26-498 Water quality control. State of Colorado, Air Quality Control Commission, 5 CCR 1001-3, Regulation No. 1, §III.D.2.f Haul Trucks. Colorado Revised Statutes. 42-4-1407 Spilling loads on highways prohibited. Unpaved Roads and Haul Roads Fort Collins Municipal Code Chapter 20 Nuisances, Article 1 In General, §20-1 Air pollution nuisances prohibited. Fort Collins Municipal Code Chapter 26 Utilities, Article VII Stormwater Utility, §26-498 Water quality control. State of Colorado, Air Quality Control Commission, 5 CCR 1001-3, Regulation No. 1, §III.D.2.a Roadways and §III.D.2.e Haul Roads. Parking Lots Fort Collins Municipal Code Chapter 20 Nuisances, Article 1 In General, §20-1 Air pollution nuisances prohibited. Fort Collins Municipal Code Chapter 26 Utilities, Article VII Stormwater Utility, §26-498 Water quality control. Open Areas and Vacant Lots Fort Collins Municipal Code Chapter 20 Nuisances, Article 1 In General, §20-1 Air pollution nuisances prohibited. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote Page 39 256 Fort Collins Municipal Code Chapter 26 Utilities, Article VII Stormwater Utility, §26-498 Water quality control. Saw Cutting and Grinding Fort Collins Municipal Code Chapter 20 Nuisances, Article 1 In General, §20-1 Air pollution nuisances prohibited. Fort Collins Municipal Code Chapter 26 Utilities, Article VII Stormwater Utility, §26-498 Water quality control. Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual — Fact Sheet SM-12 Paving and Grinding Operations. Colorado Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, Section 208.04 Best Management Practices for Stormwater. Abrasive Blasting Fort Collins Municipal Code Chapter 20 Nuisances, Article 1 In General, §20-1 Air pollution nuisances prohibited. Fort Collins Municipal Code Chapter 26 Utilities, Article VII Stormwater Utility, §26-498 Water quality control. Mechanical (Leaf) Blowing Fort Collins Municipal Code Chapter 20 Nuisances, Article 1 In General, §20-1 Air pollution nuisances prohibited. Fort Collins Municipal Code Chapter 26 Utilities, Article VII Stormwater Utility, §26-498 Water quality control. 6.2 City of Fort Collins Manuals and Policies Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and- developers/development-forms-guidelines-regulations/stormwater-criteria City of Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Environmental Best Management Practices Manual 2011, Chapter Four: Best Management Practices for Construction http://www.fcgov.com/parks/pdf/bmp.pdf City of Fort Collins Building Design and Construction Standards, Oct. 2013 http://www.fcgov.com/opserv/pdf/building-design-standards2.pdf?1390850442 City of Fort Collins, Recommended Species and Application Rates of Perennial Native Upland Grass Seed for Fort Collins, Colorado. City of Fort Collins Plant List, April 2011. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote 257 6.3 References for Dust Control Leaf Blowing A Report to the California Legislature on the Potential Health and Environmental Impacts of Leaf Blowers, California Environmental Protection Agency —Air Resources Board, Feb. 2000. http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/mailouts/msc0005/msc0005.pdf Abrasive Blasting Sandblasting and Other Air -based Blasting Fact Sheet, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Dec. 2011. Protecting Workers from the Hazards of Abrasive Blasting Materials, OSHA Fact Sheet. California Air Resources Board, Abrasive Blasting Program. http://www.arb.ca.gov/ba/certabr/certabr.htm Saw Cutting OSHA Fact Sheet on Crystalline Silica Exposure https://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/data General Facts/crystalline-factsheet.pdf State of New Jersey — Dry Cutting and Grinding Fact Sheet http://www.state.ni.us/health/surv/documents/dry cutting.pdf Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - Engineering Controls for Silica in Construction http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/silica/cutoffsaws.html Shepherd-S; Woskie-S, Controlling Dust from Concrete Saw Cutting. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 2013 Feb; 10(2):64-70. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nioshtic-2/20042808.html Akbar-Khanzadeh F, Milz SA, Wagner CD, Bisesi MS, Ames AL, Khuder S, Susi P, Akbar-Khanzadeh M, Effectiveness of dust control methods for crystalline silica and respirable suspended particulate matter exposure during manual concrete surface grinding. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 2010 Dec;7(12):700-11. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058155 HSE, On -Tool Controls to Reduce Exposure to Respirable Dusts in the Construction Industry —A Review. Health and Safety Executive, RR926, 2012, Derbyshire, U.K. http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr926.pdf Croteau G, Guffey S, Flanagan ME, Seixas N, The Effect of Local Exhaust Ventilation Controls on Dust Exposures During Concrete Cutting and Grinding Activities. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 2002 63:458-467 http://deohs.washington.edu/sites/default/files/images/general/CroteauThesis.pdf Unpaved Roads, Parking Lots, and Open Areas Dust Control from Unpaved Roads and Surfaces, Code 373, USDA-NRCS, April 2010. http://www.nres.usda.gov/Internet/FSE DOCUMENTS/nres143 025946.pdf DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote Page 41 258 CPWA, 2005, Dust Control for Unpaved Roads, A Best Practice by the National Guide to Sustainable Municipal Infrastructure, Canadian Public Works Association. Colorado Forest Road Field Handbook, Colorado State Forest, Editor: Richard M. Edwards, CF; CSFS Assistant Staff Forester, July 2011. Fay L., Kociolek A., Road Dust Management and Future Needs: 2008 Conference Proceedings, Western Transportation Institute, March 2009. Chemical Stabilizers Interim Guidelines on Dust Palliative Use in Clark County, Nevada. Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Feb. 2001. http://ndep.nv.gov/admin/dustpal.pdf Bolander, Peter, ed. 1999. Dust Palliative Selection and Application Guide. Project Report. 9977-1207- SDTDC. San Dimas, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and Development Center. http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/html/99771207/99771207.html Techniques for Fugitive Dust Control — Chemical Suppressants, City of Albuquerque NM, website last accessed on Oct. 25, 2014. http://www.cabq.gov/airguality/business-programs-permits/ordinances/fugitive-dust/fugitive-dust- control USDA BioPreferred Catalog: Dust Suppressants http://www.biopreferred.gov/BioPreferred/faces/catalog/Catalog.xhtml USGS Columbia Environmental Research Center Project: Environmental Effects of Dust Suppressant Chemicals on Roadside Plant and Animal Communities, http://www.cerc.usgs.gov/Prowects.aspx?Proiectld=77 Street Sweeping U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Stormwater Best Management Practices: Street Sweeper Fact Sheet. http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/ecosystems/ultraurb/3fs16.asp Agriculture and Livestock Agricultural Air Quality Conservation Measures - Reference Guide for Cropping Systems and General Land Management, USDA-NRCS, Oct. 2012. http://www.nres.usda.gov/Internet/FSE DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1049502.pdf Dust Control from Animal Activity on Open Lot Surfaces, Code 375, USDA-NRCS, Sept. 2010. http://www.nres.usda.gov/Internet/FSE DOCUMENTS/nres143 025821.pdf Residue and Tillage Management, Reduced Till, Code 345, USDA-NRCS, Dec. 2013. http://www.nres.usda.gov/Internet/FSE DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1251402.pdf Herbaceous Wind Barriers, Code 603, USDA-NRCS, Jan. 2010. http://www.nres.usda.gov/Internet/FSE DOCUMENTS/nres143 025927.pdf DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote Page 42 259 Michalewicz, D. A., J. D. Wanjura, B. W. Shaw, and C. B. Parnell. 2005. Evaluation of sources and controls of fugitive dust from agricultural operations. In Proc. 2005 Beltwide Cotton Conference. httD://caaaes.tamu.edu/Publication-Particulate%20Matter.html Harner J., Maghirang R., Razote E., Water Requirements for Dust Control on Feedlots, from the proceedings of Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference, May 2008. http://www.extension.org/pages/23966/water-requirements-for-dust-control-on-feedlots California Air Pollution Control Officers Association Agriculture Clearinghouse http://www.capcoa.org/ag-clearinghouse/ U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service - Nevada, Fugitive Dust: A Guide to the Control of Windblown Dust on Agricultural Lands in Nevada. Jan. 2007. http://www.cdsn.org/images/FugitiveDustGuide v7 201 .pdf Demolition and Renovation CDPHE, Demolition and Asbestos Abatement forms and information https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/asbestos-forms Earthmoving Activities CDPHE, An Overview of Colorado Air Regulations for Land Development, August 2014 https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/AP Land -Development -Guidance -Document 1.pdf Working With Dirt When the Wind Blows http://www.gradingandexcavation.com/GX/Articles/Working With Dirt When the Wind Blows 5455 .aspx EPA — Stormwater Best Management Practices: Dust Control http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/swbmp/Dust-Control.cfm EPA—Stormwater Best Management Practices: Wind Fences and Sand Fences http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/swbmp/Wind-Fences-and-Sand-Fences.cfm EPA—Stormwater Best Management Practices: Construction Sequencing http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/swbmp/Construction-Sequencing.cfm EPA—Stormwater Best Management Practices: Construction Entrances http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/swbmp/Construction-Entrances.cfm An Overview of Colorado Air Regulations for Land Development. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment — Air Pollution Control Division. https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/AP Land -Development -Guidance -Document 1.pdf Health Effects of Particulate Matter U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter. EPA/600/R-08/139F Dec. 2009. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546#Download DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote Page 43 260 World Health Organization, Health Effects of Particulate Matter- Policy. 2013 http://www.euro.who.int/ data/assets/pdf file/0006/189051/Health-effects-of-particulate-matter- final-Eng.pdf Preventing Silicosis in Construction Workers, NIOSH http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/96-112/ General Dust Abatement Handbook, Maricopa County Air Quality Department, June 2013. http://www.maricopa.gov/ag/divisions/compliance/dust/docs/pdf/Rule%20310-Dust%20Handbook.pdf Fugitive Dust Control: Self Inspection Handbook, California Air Resources Board, 2007. http://www.arb.ca.gov/pm/fugitivedust large.pdf WRAP Fugitive Dust Handbook, Western Governors' Association. Sept. 2006. Managing Fugitive Dust: A Guide for Compliance with the Air Regulatory Requirements for Particulate Matter Generation, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. March 2014. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, Rules and Regulations, Rule 805 Odors and Dust http://cogcc.state.co.us/ DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or Quote 261 Date. To: �of ollins MEMORANDUM September 30, 2015 Mayor and Councilmembers Thru: Darin Atteberry, City Manager n Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manage • ( S Lucinda Smith, Environmental Servi s Director IsPs From: Lindsay Ex, Environmental Program Manager ftp, Re: Dust Prevention and Control Project Update Environmental Services 215 N. Mason PO Box 560 Fort Collins, CO 60522 970.221-6600 970.224-6177 - fax /cgov.com Purpose: The purpose of this memo is to provide an update to Council on the current status of the Dust Prevention and Control project. This project is currently scheduled for First Reading at the December 1 Council Regular Hearing, and the project is on track to meet this timeframe. Summary: The following issues are addressed in this memo: • Project need — This project is intended to fill gaps in existing regulations related to fugitive dust and to minimize health impacts from dust generating activities. • Background— This project was initiated in 2014 at the direction of Council and includes code changes and guidance manual to provide solutions for how to address the proposed regulations. The adoption hearing for this project was delayed to allow additional data to be collected and for additional public engagement. • Current efforts — Staff is engaged in a pilot project that includes the collection of field data and stakeholder engagement primarily through the Fugitive Dust Working Group. These efforts are designed to answer the following questions: o Will addressing fugitive dust increase construction costs? It varies. There are some cases, e.g., street sweeping, saw cutting, where state and local regulations do not apply and there would be increased costs. In other cases, some contractors are already complying with the practices outlined in the manual and no additional costs would arise. Where costs will increase, regional data have been compiled to quantify these amounts. Staff is currently reviewing these numbers with local contractors to ensure they apply to Fort Collins. o Will addressing fugitive dust reduce air quality impacts? Yes, initial field data suggest that employing mitigation techniques can reduce the dust generated by up to 90=95%. o Does water use increase with mitigation techniques? Certain dust mitigation measures do increase water use while others require no water to implement. Local data have been difficult to collect and vary significantly. Exact data is currently being collected at the .Utilities Administration Building construction site to help inform the project. o Does the overall construction timeline increase with the implementation of these regulations? If planned appropriately, construction timelines should not change, but additional labor costs are anticipated. As with water use, these data vary significantly depending on the type of dust generating activity that is conducted. 262 Fort Collins Need. "Fugitive dust" consists primarily of soil particles in the air caused by wind and human activities such as excavating, demolition, abrasive blasting, and other activities. Dust causes health impacts; safety, visibility, and aesthetic issues, and is a nuisance that can cause expensive damage to property and machinery. While there are existing state and county regulations that address dust, these regulations are not sufficient at controlling dust emissions in many cases because: • Some sources of dust emissions, e.g., sweet sweeping, saw cutting, etc, that affect Fort Collins citizens are not covered by state or county regulations. • State and county compliance and enforcement resources are limited. • City code compliance officers cannot enforce state and county dust control requirements. • Based on data collected in association with this project (see below), dust control measures appear to be applied inconsistently in the City and additional guidance is necessary. Staff is also working on a diagram to illustrate more clearly the exact gaps in regulations that this program is addressing; this diagram will be prepared prior to the December 1 Council Hearing. Background: As directed by Council in its 2014 Work Plan, staff in the Environmental Services Department has constructed an approach to address fugitive dust issues that includes proposed code changes and a guidance manual. The Municipal Code changes require dust generating activities to comply with the manual, and the manual outlines 13 dust generating activities, e.g., site grading, street sweeping, stockpiles, saw cutting and grinding, etc. and provides a suite of required and optional control measures to control dust tailored to each activity. Originally scheduled to be adopted in the spring of 2015, the project was delayed to allow for a pilot project in 2015 to collect additional data related to the costs, air quality impacts, water use, and overall time required should the regulations and best practices be implemented. The pilot project also includes the formation of a Fugitive Dust Working Group (FDWG) to review the field study, the proposed Ordinance, and the guidance manual. Staff has also conducted additional public engagement efforts related to the project, further described below. Current Efforts: Staff is working on the following tasks: Field Study— Staff has visited construction sites on 30 occasions and conducted 8 controlled measurement observations to assess (1) cost, (2) air quality impacts, (3) water use and (4) overall time requirements. In the 30 observations conducted on construction sites, dust mitigation measures, in any form, were observed in 23 of the 30 site visits. There was no dust mitigation measures employed and observed in 7 of the 30 field site visits. Only 4 of the 30 site visits included dust mitigation measures that would comply with the best management practices outlined in the manual. Staff also observed that construction sites were inconsistent in their application of dust mitigation practices, e.g., the site may not have dust mitigation measures in place for one portion of a site and then have no measures in place for another portion of a site. This inconsistency in the application of dust mitigation measures reinforces the need for the additional guidance and standards provided by the code changes and the manual. (1) Cost: Cost data were initially collected to inform the project and included information from a regional manual on construction costs (RS Means 2014 Construction Cost Data) and City contracts from the past five years. These data are currently being reviewed with local contractors to assess if they are reasonable for Fort Collins. This comparison is expected to be available in advance of the next FDWG meeting on October 14"'. 263 Fort ColUns (2) Air Quality impacts: Controlled observations included observing and sampling a dust generating activity without any mitigation measures and then conducting the same activity with mitigation measures in place. In the initial set of controlled measurement observations, staff observed up to a 90=95% decrease in dust generated by applying the best management practices outlined in the manual. Further controlled observations are planned to test the full range of activities included in the manual. (3) Water Use: Certain dust measures do require water use, though data collection on specific amounts is difficult to collect, e.g., the amount of water spraying from a hose to spray down a site during site compaction. In some cases, water use can be minimal. For example, one construction site sprayed water from a Gatorade water bottle while cutting concrete. On the other hand, a water truck required to be on site daily to reduce fugitive dust from stockpiles can require significantly more water (exact data for this activity is being collected at the Utilities Administration Building construction site). It should be noted the greatest water use would likely be seen at sites over 25 acres or exceeding 6 months duration; these sites already are required to have a dust control plan in accordance with county regulations, and thus, overall water use may not increase significantly because of these regulations. (4) Overall Time Requirements: Similar to water use, time requirements vary significantly for different dust measurements. The concrete cutting example required a second laborer to hold the water bottle, but the entire activity's duration was short (approximately 30 minutes). During the completion of the Horsetooth and Timberline intersection renovation, cutting occurred over a four day period, so an additional laborer would likely be required for a four day period. With the water truck example, operation of the equipment can vary based on site scale and the number of materials that need to be watered. Thus, while specific data on time were difficult to collect, staff's observation during the field project indicate that while time to implement these requirements would increase, overall time varies significantly based on the dust generating activity. Stakeholder engagement —The main mechanism for public engagement is via the Fugitive Dust Working Group, which includes a group of contractors, environmental consultants, CSU representatives, and City staff. This group has met three times to review the proposed regulations and guidance manual. Two more meetings are scheduled prior to First Reading. In addition to the Working Group, staff is meeting with the Air Quality Advisory Board on October 19`h and the Chamber of Commerce Local Legislative Affairs Committee on October 30"'. The project has also engaged the public in the following manner throughout the project: • Stakeholder meeting (2014) • Public open house (February, 2015) • Presentations to the Chamber and North Fort Collins Business Association (2015) • Visited with 6 Boards and Commissions (2014 and 2015) • Conducted a dust impact survey with almost 200 respondents • Individual discussions with contractors, citizens, and City Departments through the field study and in various meetings. 3 264 City of MEMORANDUM Date: November 2, 2015 To: Planning and Zoning Board Thru: Cameron Gloss, Planning Director Lucinda Smith, Environmental Services Director From: Lindsay Ex, Environmental Program Manager Environmental Services 215 N. Mason PO Box 580 Fort Collins CO 80522 970,221-6600 970 224-6177 - fax fcgov. corn Re: Fugitive Dust and Proposed Land Use Code Changes — Draft Ordinance Purpose: The purpose of this memo is to provide the Draft Ordinance for the fugitive dust related Land Use Code Amendments, The Draft Ordinance is attached. 265 DRAFT - FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW PENDING ORDINANCE NO. _, 2015 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE LAND USE CODE BYTHE ADDITION OF PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO FUGITIVE DUST WHEREAS, on December 2, 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 190, 1997, the City Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code"); and WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the understanding of staff and the City Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be subject to future amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of errors, but also for the purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic document capable of responding to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals and citizens of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the City Plan Environmental Health Vision, which includes the aspirational goal of continuous improvements in air quality; and WHEREAS, City Plan contains numerous policies supporting air quality, including Policy ENV 8.6 which directs staff to promote prevention of air pollution at its source as the highest priority approach in reducing air pollution emissions; and WHEREAS, in furtherance of the Air Quality Advisory Board's 2015 Work Program, which calls for addressing fugitive dust as a priority air quality initiative, City staff has proposed amendment of Chapter 12 of the Fort Collins City Code to protect air quality by adopting dust control and prevention standards set forth in the "Dust Prevention and Control Manual" adopted therein; WHEREAS, in addition to amendment of the City Code, City staff has proposed Land Use Code changes to align with such City Code amendments adopting the Dust Prevention and Control Manual; and WHEREAS, City staff has vetted these proposed changes through a Fugitive Dust Working Group composed of contractors, interested stakeholders, and City staff, as well as through numerous public events and a project website; and WHEREAS, City staff and the Planning and Zoning Board have reviewed the proposed Land Use Code changes regarding fugitive dust and have recommended to the City Council that they be adopted; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the recommended Land Use Code amendments are in the best interest of the City and its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Vault/Planning/Ordinances/ LUC Fugitive Dust 1 266 267 DRAFT - FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW PENDING Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes any and all determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That Section 2.6.3(H) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.6.3 Stockpiling Permit and Development Construction Permit Review Procedures (H) Step 8 (Standards — Stockpiling Permit): Not applicable, and in substitution therefor, an application for a Stockpiling Permit shall be reviewed for compliance with the City Code and all regulations related to such permit adopted by the city by reference or otherwise, as amended, including, without limitation, the erosion control standards as contained in the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual and the dust control measures contained in the Dust Prevention and Control Manual. Step 8 (Standards — Development Construction Permit): Not applicable, and in substitution therefor, an application for a Development Construction Permit shall be reviewed for compliance with the Site Specific Development Plan, the City Code and all regulations related to such permit adopted by the city by reference or otherwise as amended , including, without limitation, the erosion control standards as contained in the Fort Collins Stormwater Criterial Manual and the dust control measures contained in the Dust Prevention and Control Manual, Section 3. That Section 2.7.3(G) and 2.7.3(H) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.7.3 Building Permit Review Procedures (G) Step 7 (Public Hearing): Not applicable, and in substitution therefor, an application for a Building Permit shall be processed, reviewed, considered and approved, approved with modifications, or denied by the Building and Zoning Director based on its compliance with the site specific development plan, the City Code and all regulations related to such permit adopted by the city by reference or otherwise, as amended. Vault/Planning/Ordinances/ LUC Fugitive Dust 2 DRAFT - FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW PENDING (F) Step 8 (Standards): Not applicable, and in substitution therefor, an application for a Building Permit shall be reviewed for compliance with the site specific development plan, the City Code and allying regulations related to such permit adopted by the city by reference or otherwise, as amended; and if the Building Permit is for the enlargement of a building and/or for the expansion of facilities, equipment or structures regulated under the provisions of Division 1.6, such application shall also comply with Division 1.6. Section 4. That Section 3.4.2(A) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.4.2 Air Quality (A) General Standard. The project shall conform to all applicable local, state and federal air quality regulations and standards, including, but not limited to, those regulating odor, dust, fumes or gases which are noxious, toxic or corrosive, and suspended solid or liquid particles. The project shall be designed and constructed to comply with the dust control measures contained in the Dust Prevention and Control Nlanual. Section 5. That the definition "Fugitive Dust' contained in Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby deleted in its entirety as follows: rim �_ WW::'1A0V0 "TIMM"Tourrwol AMOS. WIT". WIT A WAY* a MET Cw Pill 0 Section 6. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of the following definitions, to be inserted in the listing set forth therein in alphabetical order; Dust Prevention and Control Manual shall mean the dust control and prevention standards enacted to protect air quality adopted under the Chapter 12 of the Fort Collins City Code. Fort Collins Stormwater Criterial .Manual shall mean the standards for design, planning, and implementation of practices and improvements to manage stormwater adopted under Chapter 26 of the Fort Collins City Code, Vault/Planning/Ordinances/ LUC Fugitive Dust 3 269 DRAFT - FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW PENDING Section 6. That the standards set forth herein shall be effective June 1, 2016. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this _ day of , A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the day of , A.D. 2015. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the day of , A.D. 2015. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Vault/Planning/Ordinances/ LUC Fugitive Dust 4 270