No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/17/2015 - 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 December 17, 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 29, 2015, P&Z Special Hearing Draft Minutes The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes for the October 29, 2015, P&Z Special Hearing. 2. November 12, 2015, Draft Minutes for P&Z Hearing The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes for the November 12, 2015, Planning and Zoning Board hearing. Planning and Zoning Board Page 1 November 12, 2015 1 DISCUSSION AGENDA 3. Foothills Mall Apartments 11 5 PROJECT This is a request to amend Lots 3 — 6 of the Foothills Mall Redevelopment Final Ph DESCRIPTION: for a multi -family apartment project that consists of 402 dwelling units divided amoi 18 buildings. The site is located on four blocks along the northern and the entire eastern edge of the Foothills Mall. Lots 4, 5, and 6 front Stanford Road. The site gains primary access from two private drives: the former East Foothills Parkway or the north and the former East Monroe Drive on the south. There would be 522 bedrooms and 489 parking spaces for a ratio of .94 spaces per bedroom. Of the 1 buildings, 16 are a mix of two and three stories. Two buildings along Stanford Roa at the southern end of the site are four stories and include the office and clubhous( The parcel is 11.93 acres in size and located in the General Commercial (C-G) zor district and also within the Transit -Oriented Development Overlay Zone. APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins Fugitive Dust Regulation & Guidance Manual 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 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 January 5, 2016. 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 First Reading. 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. APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins Center for Advanced Technology 22nd Filing — Community Horticulture Center MJA#150006 PROJECT This is a Major Amendment to the Centre for Advanced Technology 22nd Filing, DESCRIPTION: Community Horticulture Center, which is the formal name and location of the Gardens on Spring Creek. The proposed plan reflects the major components outlined in the original master plan, which was approved in 2001. At that time, the master plan included a number of future components, which are now planned in detail with this amended plan. Specifically, the amended components that are shown with these proposed plans include: City of Fort Collin • expanded garden areas including — Plant Select Garden, Fragrance Garden, • Rose Garden, Moon Garden, Undaunted Garden, Prairie Garden, Bird Garden, and Foothills Garden; • a stage structure and sound walls for outdoor performances; • modified circulation through the gardens and to the existing Spring Creek Trail; • a parking area for approximately 150 bikes; • small arbor structures at various gardens and one larger structure in the Undaunted Garden; and Page 2 2 • operational and management standards for events. APPLICANT: • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT City of Fort Collin John Beggs, Senior Landscape Architect Russell + Mills Studios 141 South College Avenue, Suite 104 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Page 3 3 Agenda Item 1 STAFF Cindy Cosmas, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT October 29, 2015, Draft P&Z Special Hearing Minutes EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the Draft Planning and Zoning Minutes from the October 29, 2015, Special Hearing. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft October 29, 20151 P&Z Minutes (DOC) Item # 1 Page 1 M 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. Special Hearing October 29, 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 Gloss, Yatabe, Branson, Wilkinson, Burnett, Mapes, Frickey, McWilliams, Schmidt, 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. 5 Planning & Zoning Board October 29, 2015 Page 2 Planning Director Gloss presented the items on both the Consent and Discussion agendas. Public Input on Items Not on the Agenda: None noted. Consent Agenda: 1. Wood Street Second Annexation Public Input on Consent Agenda: None noted. Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the October 29, 20155 Consent agenda, which includes the Wood Street Second Annexation. Vice Chair Kirkpatrick seconded. Vote: 7:0. Discussion Agenda: 2. Uncommon — 310 S. College Avenue k /! Project: Uncommon — 310 S. College Avenue Project Description: This Project Development Plan (PDP) is for development of a terraced 4- to 6- story, mixed -use building at the southeast corner of College Avenue and Olive Street. The site formerly contained Perkins restaurant, which was demolished and removed in early 2015. The property is zoned Downtown (D), Canyon Avenue Subdistrict. The proposed land uses are permitted, and the PDP is subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board. The site is 35,000 square feet. Proposed building coverage is 30,600 square feet. The ground floor consists of street -front retail commercial spaces totaling 8,900 square feet, and the upper levels contain apartment units totaling 120 units. The units are a mix of studio and 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units with a total of 248 bedrooms. Total floor area is 150,000 square feet. 125 parking spaces are provided. Parking is below grade and on the ground level below upper floor building space, with access from the alley. Recommendation: Denial Planning & Zoning Board October 29, 2015 Page 3 Secretary Cosmas reported that, since the work session, 12 citizen emails had been received in support of the project, an email from Eric Sutherland with concerns relating to the prominent legal issues involved, various historic materials and evidence related to the project (857 pages) from Lucia Liley's office to become part of the public record, and a draft of the Quality Improvement Plans for Development Review Process prepared by Zucker Systems. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe also stated that he was presenting email correspondence between himself and Lucia Liley that will be designated as Exhibit 1. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Mapes gave a broad PowerPoint presentation of this project, including pictorial comparisons of the applicant's renderings and the renderings prepared by City Staff, which indicates significant differences with regard to building size and massing proportions, design and materials, and character/architecture. He also discussed the affected Land Use Codes and concluded that this project does not meet the prescribed standards, especially for adjacent historic properties, and he detailed each standard and demonstrated the incompatible aspects of the project. He stated that the buildings are not compatible with the surrounding buildings with respect to height, massing, and character. Planner Branson began his presentation by calling attention to the inaccurate renderings provided by the applicant, and he presented a set of images modeling these inconsistencies. He also stated that the images created by Staff were meant to be compatible with the ongoing Downtown Plan, and they were taken using a "human perspective" (approximately 5'/z' off of the ground). He made comparisons between the Uncommon building and other similar sites, concentrating on the percentage of the footprint that would be consumed. Uncommon will use 90% of the lot, which is significantly higher than other similar buildings. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe added that, regarding the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) findings, Ms. Liley had made an inquiry about adjacent historic properties, and he had provided her with information indicating that some of those properties are questionable for historic designation purposes. Chris Johnson, representing CA -Ventures as the applicant, stated that this location would not be housing CSU students and that it would be multi -family residential. He discussed the pedestrian scale regarding massing, mentioning that the models did not show the landscaping, so he feels that some of the Staff's models are inaccurate. He stated that the lot coverage is actually 84%, not 90%. He also discussed the parking situation. He gave some of his personal background and the need for this project in Fort Collins. He said that the zoning was considered, and all of the uses were allowed. He has also considered the future development possibilities, and the construction costs involved. He praised the density of the project and how it fits with the City plan. He indicated that his revenue has been affected already (materials, time, etc.). Mr. Johnson stated that due diligence has been employed through various "community listening" opportunities, and he said that the community has been very supportive of the project overall. The applicant is interested in maintaining economic feasibility, and they are striving to integrate this building into the community in a sensitive way. He noted that the surroundings continue to vary, which makes being sensitive even more challenging. He has spoken to neighbors and the community, and they have made some changes: • Because Old Town is made up of mostly young professionals, they have removed the 4-bedroom units and increased the smaller unit types to accommodate the demographics. • They have altered their renting model to renting by the unit, not by the bed. • They are changing their marketing practices to attract graduating CSU students. • They are reducing floor -to -floor heights and increased the setbacks. 7 Planning & Zoning Board October 29, 2015 Page 4 He feels the applicant has responded with multiple design solutions during the planning process, since they were asked by Staff to consider reduction of the overall project by 1/3, which he said is economically infeasible. In response, more concessions were made to increase outdoor space, etc. In addition, they presented their project to the LPC and attempted to get more direction. They have subsequently obtained a letter of support from the Armstrong Hotel. The project was denied by the LPC; he believes that their recommendation was not warranted. They have continued their community outreach, receiving positive input overall. In conclusion, he reviewed the overall criteria that they used when developing the property, citing the desirability of higher density in the Downtown -Canyon Avenue subdistrict area. Lucia Liley, 419 Canyon Avenue, is the attorney representing the applicant. She discussed the significant, positive changes that the applicant has made in order to go forward with this project. The nature of the disagreement with Staff has been the height and mass of the building as it relates to neighborhood scale. These qualifications are based on subjective, qualitative metrics, which she feels can be difficult to interpret consistently. She discussed the context of the project and the zoning issues involved; she showed visual graphics of the neighboring blocks, the Downtown plan criteria and considerations, the historic development of downtown, and the 1989 Downtown Plan suggestions that taller buildings should be built amid historic buildings. She discussed the Downtown Strategic Plan criteria and demonstrated how the City has encouraged buildings that meet the criteria that this project strives to do. She listed the defining characteristics for the area and how they are expected to evolve over time. She also discussed LUC 3.4.7 and 3.5.1: including height, scale, mass and bulk, along with landscaping, architecture, pedestrian features, lighting, and parking. She questioned the historic considerations and how they should be considered with respect to this project. She said that Staff had acknowledged that the project had met all of the criteria for historic criteria; therefore, she questioned what the negative impacts were specifically, saying that the applicant had reviewed the historic structures recommended by Staff for consideration. She also discussed the LPC findings and comments, along with the comments made by dissenting LPC members. Eduardo Illanes, Architect representing CA -Ventures for the project, also gave a detailed presentation of the building architecture, including the integration of the LUC into the project and the considerations shown to uphold the Fort Collins landscape and heritage. He spoke of how daily life would be enhanced and the adjustments and concessions that had been made over the project development. He discussed in detail the building and surrounding area designs, including the rationale for the landscaping, sidewalks, and open spaces. He compared the various building facades with older surrounding buildings. He discussed the need for housing along with the higher desired densities prescribed by the City plan. He mentioned the creation of the paseo, and how this will further enhance the quality of life for Uncommon residents. Parking for residents will be mostly in the underground garage with several public parking spaces available to the public. He discussed at length the vision for downtown and how Uncommon fits into that vision. Ms. Liley concluded the applicant presentations by reviewing the 2006 Strategic Plan, which had been subsequently amended after adoption. She pointed out some of the changes, including the 75% coverage" rule that has since been modified. She reviewed some of the features of other buildings (setbacks, footprint, level of urbanization, height ranges, and historic significance) that had been approved in the past (some with modifications) and how they compare with Uncommon. She acknowledged that this project does not supply the required amount of open space; however, she pointed out that the paseo alone has enough space to satisfy this requirement. The Board took a break at 8:15pm and resumed at 8:25pm. EOO Planning & Zoning Board October 29, 2015 Page 5 Public Input Steve Levinger, 511 Mathews Street, the owner of the Armstrong Hotel, spoke about the various buildings that had been built and destroyed over the last 10 years and how he is in support of this project. He doesn't feel that historic preservation issues should be a reason for denial. Dave Derbes, 618 Wabash Street, is a developer and spoke in support of this project. He cited the evolution of the project and appreciates the quality and thoughtfulness of the applicant. He also commended them for considering the City plans in place. Justin Larson, 419 Canyon Avenue, is a neighbor and also supports the project, saying the project meets the various codes, commending the design team overall. Joanne Eskildsen, 210 W. Magnolia, is a neighbor and spoke in support of the project, even though she initially did not support it. She also commended the developers. Spiro Palmer, 901 W. Mountain Avenue, who represents Palmer Properties and owns other local businesses, spoke in favor of this project; he stated his belief that this is a special project and is a good reflection of the downtown overall. Myrne Watrous, 723 W. Olive Street, spoke in support of City Staff and the Landmark Preservation Commission, saying she feels the building is too tall and large for that area and the parking is inadequate. She cited several other developments that do not have adequate parking, and she suggested another location for the project. Eric Nichols, 1401 Riverside, helped negotiate this building site transaction, and he spoke in favor of the project, saying the code standards have been met. He was also involved in other Fort Collins projects, and he commended the design team for providing a well -designed building compared to similar buildings. Board Questions and Staff Response Ms. Liley asked to submit several other items into the records (Exhibit 2). Mr. Johnson responded to the citizen's question about the origin of the name "Uncommon" by explaining that the name is chosen as the project evolves; they noticed that the project was named "Uncommon" because of the various aesthetic features which distinguish this building from others. Member Hobbs requested Planner Mapes to review the setbacks on all four sides of the proposed buildings, including City right-of-way areas. Planner Mapes confirmed that there is landscaping within the City right-of-way, and he discussed the setbacks on each street. He also reviewed the zoning requirements for the Canyon Avenue area. Marc Ragasa, Engineering, stated that the Poudre Fire Authority required a 5-foot setback to accommodate their truck loading needs. Member Hobbs also asked what the reason is for the discrepancy of lot coverage stated by City staff versus the applicant. Mr. Ragasa responded that the discrepancy is due to variations in data used by each (including rounding). Planner Mapes indicated that the paseo has been enhanced recently, and he feels that the applicant has met the prescribed standard. 9 Planning & Zoning Board October 29, 2015 Page 6 Member Hansen inquired about the ground floor public space (including the paseo) and how it will be perceived. Mr. Illanes responded that there are no barriers to these public spaces, and they will be accessible thru an open walkway. He added that there will be an upstairs roof area and possibly an outdoor restaurant or retailer. Member Heinz clarified that the common space is for the public, and she also asked other questions regarding the retail strip and the parking spaces with regard accessibility by the public. She also asked if the alley to the south would be improved, and Planner Mapes stated that it will remain a parking lot. Member Hart asked Staff what kind of reduction of mass and scale would be adequate to improve the context of the building, and Planner Mapes responded that the extent of the 5th and 6th levels are the primary issues. Planning Director Gloss noted that this building is significantly higher than surrounding buildings, and he feels that the transitional areas are the core issues. The code does not prescribe a specific way to do that. Vice Chair Kirkpatrick asked why the taller heights were created for individual blocks. Planner Mapes gave some background as to how that evolved, saying that, at that time, there were competing objectives among various interests (citizens vs. developers). He detailed the criterion that was considered for this particular block regarding the number of stories allowed (5-6 stories, which can have variable heights depending on the floor height). Chair Carpenter also added how difficult those conversations had been, since the stories were not specifically decided. Planner Mapes said there had been opposition from the communities; therefore, standards were inserted with the idea that they should be broadly interpreted. Member Hart also asked about the massing of this and future buildings. Planner Mapes responded that it is always possible to have exceptions, and he showed slides indicating how blocks should be transitioned compared to a mock-up of what Uncommon will look like once completed. Member Hansen asked about setbacks, and Mr. Illanes responded that, from the street, we would see a step lower than what is being proposed. There was more discussion on the building heights and the appropriate number of stories, focusing on the transition of the proposed building and the surrounding areas. There was also discussion on what the standards require for lot coverage and whether removing the 75% standard would mean moving more toward an urban form. Planner Mapes stated that the purpose of the code change was to provide more of what was desired by the community. Discussion ensued regarding the 6- story wall on the Montezuma Alley; Planner Maps clarified that the design of that wall was left to the compatibility standards backing up the zoning district standards. He added that the factors that led to Staff's findings are the combination of the height, the extent of the footprint and construction, and the resulting East wall. While other buildings are taller or bigger, it is those elements taken together that led to Staff findings. Member Schneider asked for clarification on what element is more important: the code language or the Strategic Plan? Planning Director Gloss stated that there have been voids in the building that create some open spaces, but the building is still massive without significant relief. Mr. Illanes acknowledged that, while this is a large building, it is also divided into three sections. Planner Mapes also stated that one of the goals of the Planning Department is to allow change to occur over time with buildings gradually becoming taller, as opposed to this happening all at once. There was more discussion regarding scale issues with the historic district on the east side of the building and how the open space will be used by residents. The courtyard is 30 feet wide and 60 feet deep; therefore, Staff believes it is unlikely that there will be sunshine in those open spaces, although Mr. Illanes believes the sun will sometimes penetrate that area. The disposition of snow melt has not been considered by the applicant. There was discussion regarding the compliance to standards for the fenestration on the back wall. Vice Chair Kirkpatrick asked what impacts would occur if the 5th and 6th stories were stepped back, especially along the east wall; Mr. Johnson said the impacts would be incompatible with what has been done to date in ensuring success. The applicant had been encouraged 10 Planning & Zoning Board October 29, 2015 Page 7 to put the height on the alley side in order to avoid creating the "birthday cake" effect. Member Heinz suggested that it would be helpful to have more prescriptive code standards for transitioning. Chair Carpenter asked adding setbacks to the East side of the building would be helpful, and Planning Director Gloss stated that they would prefer to alter the setbacks on the west side. Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planning Manager, stated that the length of the unarticulated east wall (which is closest to buildings in the national register district) is the most critical to maintaining proper historic preservation elements. The Landmark Preservation Commission had previously determined that this building is too large in this space. She also disputed some of Ms. Liley's statements that the compatibility is entirely about the massing, the transitioning, the setbacks and stepbacks, and the shape of the building, rather than just a comparison to other historic buildings. Member Hobbs asked about the 3D models presented by Staff, since they significantly conflict with the images presented by the applicant. He asked if the models shown by staff are objective and unbiased portrayals of the buildings. Both Planning Director Gloss and Planner Branson confirmed that these models are as accurate and unbiased as possible. Member Hansen commented on the various techniques of including landscaping in the mock-ups. The applicant also clarified that this project is not considered to be "affordable housing". Board Deliberation Member Schneider stated that this project supports the City plan and Strategic Plan, and he commended the developer for trying to make concessions where possible. Member Hansen agreed and stated that the challenge is in making the transition on the edge of the zoning district; he is in favor of the current transition, with the exception of the East side of the building, and he believes that the impact of that wall may be mitigated over time. Member Hobbs is not in favor of the project as it stands based on the compatibility of the project with the surrounding neighborhoods. He feels this is a gateway project to the historic Downtown district, and, even though the arithmetic calculations are in line, the context of this project does not fit well. Member Heinz would support more prescriptive measure regarding the massing of this building, but she will still support this project. Member Hansen supports this project, and he added that these types of structures won't work in the future without confidence in the long-term plan. Member Hart supports this project and thinks that this is the future of Fort Collins, even though he agrees that the code will need some adjustments. Vice Chair Kirkpatrick is very conflicted with this project. She believes that this project is meeting the LUC standards; therefore, she is unable to find a good faith argument why it shouldn't be approved, even though she doesn't support the design of the east wall. Chair Carpenter does not support the project because it is right at the edge of the zoning district; she concedes that this is primarily a subjective decision. Planner Mapes gave an overview on the modification, saying that the lower portions of the building do comply with the specified materials. The applicant declined to provide a separate presentation. Member Hansen stated that he is in favor of the modification and believes that the use of these materials is appropriate. Member Hart made a motion to approve the modification of standard to subsection 4.1.6 (D)(5)(e) Exterior Fagade and Materials for the Uncommon project PDP#150013, based upon the findings of fact on page 11 in the staff report. Member Hansen seconded. Vote: 6:1, with Member Hobbs abstaining. 11 Planning & Zoning Board October 29, 2015 Page 8 Member Hart made a motion to approve the Uncommon project PDP#150013 because it complies with all of the applicable requirements of the Land Use Code. Member Heinz seconded. Vote: 5:2, with Member Hobbs and Chair Carpenter dissenting. Other Business None noted. The meeting was adjourned at 10:16pm. Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager Jennifer Carpenter, Chair qqq 12 Agenda Item 2 STAFF Cindy Cosmas, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT November 12, 2015, Draft P&Z Hearing Minutes EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the Draft Planning and Zoning Board Hearing minutes on November 12, 2015. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft November 12, 20151 P&Z Minutes (DOC) Item # 2 Page 1 13 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 November 12, 2015 Chair Carpenter called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Absent: Staff Present: Agenda Review Kirkpatrick, Hansen, Hart, Heinz, Hobbs, and Schneider Carpenter Gloss, Yatabe, Wilkinson, Langenberger, Shepard, Mounce, Wray, Smith (Tiana), Smith (Lucinda), Burnett, Langenberger, Ragasa and Cosmas Vice Chair Kirkpatrick provided background on the board's role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. She described the following processes: • While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration, citizen input is valued and appreciated. • The Board is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Board once for each item. • Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with city Land Use Code. • Should a citizen wish to address the Board on items other than what is on the agenda, time will be allowed for that as well. • This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak can be heard. 14 Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 2015 Page 2 Planning Director Gloss reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas. Vice Chair Kirkpatrick also read the following statement prepared by Assistant City Attorney Yatabe: 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. Public Input on Items Not on the Agenda: None noted. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from October 2, 2015, P&Z Special Meeting 2. Draft Minutes from October 8, 2015, P&Z Hearing 3. 2015 Three -Mile Plan Update 4. Lodgepole Investments, LLC, Annexation ANX#150003 Public Input on Consent Agenda: None noted. Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the November 12, 20155 Consent agenda, including the draft minutes from the October 2, 2015, Planning and Zoning Board special meeting and from the October 8, 2015, Planning and Zoning Board hearing, the 2015 Three -Mile Plan Update, and Lodgepole Investments, LLC, Annexation ANX#150003. Member Hobbs seconded. Vote: 6:0. Discussion Agenda: 5. Lemay Avenue Craft Brewery & Self -Storage Facility PDP #150009 6. The Slab Property PDP#150016 7. Fall 2015 Biannual Revisions, Clarifications and Additions to the Land Use Code 8. Clarifications and Additions to the Municipal Code and the Land Use Code for Outdoor Vendor Mobility Options 9. Various Revisions to the Land Use Code Relating to Fugitive Dust Project: Lemay Avenue Craft Brewery & Self -Storage Facility PDP #150009 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 15 Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 2015 Page 3 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. Recommendation: Approval Staff and Applicant Presentations Chief Planner Shepard gave a brief overview of the project. Ken Merritt, with JR Engineering, also provided a PowerPoint presentation of the project, pointing out the prominent features of the project along with the surrounding properties. He explained that it is an industrial transition property, meaning that it provides a good transition for this and neighboring breweries. He showed slides of the property with landscape buffers. He discussed the traffic concerns as a result of this development and the improvements planned for Buckingham Street. He also discussed how the self -storage will play into the anchoring of the buildings to the corner, the parking lot and on -street parking options available, and he showed some renderings of the building when complete. He showed the interworkings of the self - storage facility, illustrating that patrons would be able to access this facility independently from the brewery. There will also be a building that would house offices, and he showed some perspectives from various angles and views in order to illustrate the articulated roof -line, store -front glass, masonry, and the elevational views of the units along Lemay Avenue. Public Input None noted. Board Questions and Staff Response Member Hart asked about the amount of traffic travelling along Buckingham, and Mr. Merritt responded that traffic would be increasing by approximately 50%, which is why there will be a dedicated right-hand turn lane, along with the additional turn lanes to the north and south. Michael Delich, Delich Associates, confirmed that approximately one-third of the current traffic would be increased. Member Hobbs asked if the design that incorporates glass to the north and east will have an issue with light escaping, and Mr. Merritt responded that the interior building lights would be dimmed in the evenings, making it difficult to see into the breweries at night. Brewing activities would be occurring mostly during the daytime hours. Regarding the winding path proposed along Lemay, Mr. Merritt also confirmed that there is about 60 feet of right-of-way along that corridor, so the walkway will be "meandering", and they will be incorporating a series of storm water basins and berms that will allow water to convey from north to south to improve the water quality. Secretary Cosmas confirmed that we have had one citizen contact Ted Shepard to voice her opposition to this project, which is documented as a memo in the public record. Member Hart asked additional questions regarding the future traffic on Buckingham. Martina Wilkinson, Traffic Operations, responded that there will be approximately 15% increase in traffic. Member Hart asked about the hours of operation for the tap room in the brewery; Mr. Merritt responded that the hours generally range from noon to 7pm. Member Heinz asked about the self -storage hours, and Mr. Merritt 16 Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 2015 Page 4 responded that they will probably be 7am-7pm (it will not be a 24-hour facility). She also asked whether any lighting mitigation for the eastern Andersonville neighborhood had been considered, and Mr. Merritt reviewed the various types of lighting sources that are planned, focusing on public security and being sensitive to that neighborhood. Member Schneider asked whether the sidewalk crossing at Lemay and Buckingham would be a safety issue regarding vehicle blockage, and Ms. Wilkinson responded that the stop sign would be behind the crosswalk, but she offered to reconsider this setup. Board Deliberation Member Hart indicated his approval of this project and that it fits with the neighborhood and the transition with surrounding properties. Member Hobbs agreed and likes the setback and the landscaping plan. Member Heinz agreed and is glad to see sidewalks in this area. Vice Chair Kirkpatrick also agreed with these comments. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Lemay Avenue Craft Brewery & Self -Storage Facility PDP #150009, based on the findings of facts on page 8 of the staff report. Member Schneider seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. Project: The Slab Property PDP#150016 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. Recommendation: Approval Assistant City Attorney Yatabe disclosed that he had received a mailed notice regarding this hearing, although he does not officially live in the notice area, which should not affect his ability to offer objective legal advice regarding this project. Member Hansen also disclosed that he had considered doing some contractual work on this property, but had declined, and he does not consider that to be a conflict of interest. Staff and Applicant Presentations Chief Planner Shepard gave a brief overview of the project. Secretary Cosmas stated that one email had been received in support of this project, and Chief Planner Shepard had sent a memo to the Board members indicating some adjustments to the project that were made by the applicant. Dave Lingle, a principle with ALM2S Architects, also gave a PowerPoint presentation, discussing the history of the project, which was begun prior to the recession. He stated that there is a significant amount of infrastructure already in place. He reviewed the existing conditions and neighborhood context as well. He discussed the style of architectural that would be employed, the current zoning structure, and the comparison between the previously -approved project and the current project, and he feels that the current project is less impactful than the previous design. Craig Russell, Russell+Mills Studio, 17 Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 2015 Page 5 showed the site plan and conceptual design of the property, indicating the compliance with the City codes. He discussed bike and vehicle access, the planned parking, a planned arbor and landscaping, and the overall plaza development. Karen Jackson, with ALM2S Architects, also showed slides of the building design, stating that the design had been developed in conjunction with the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC). She discussed the building materials, the building features, and the reduction of the scale and new massing. She showed site perspectives, the location on the road, and the landscape buffering. She also noted that the LPC has approved this design. Board Questions and Staff Response Member Hart asked the width of the emergency exit on the pedestrian bike path, and Mr. Russell responded that it is 16 paved feet. Member Heinz asked whether the property would utilize the geothermal, and Ms. Jackson responded that the current developers are considering that implementation. Member Hansen received confirmation that the property to the north will not operate on the easement. He also asked the applicant if they had made any enhancements to the current buffer, and Mr. Russell responded that a 5 foot buffer has been maintained to the west using conifer trees. Member Hart asked whether this project would affect the future expansion of Prospect Road, and Chief Planner Shepard responded that the dedication for additional right-of-way was made back in 2005 in the original final plan. Member Hobbs asked if the parking requirements are the same for studio and one - bedroom apartments, and Chief Planner Shepard confirmed that they are. Public Input: None noted. Board Deliberation Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the request to modification of standard to Section 3.8.30(F)(1) - orientation to bufferyards - for The Slab Property PDP#150016, based on the findings of facts on page 9 and 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 Slab Property PDP#150016, based on the findings of facts on page 9 and 10 of the staff report. Member Heinz seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. The Board took a short recess at 7:15pm and reconvened at 7:25pm. Project: Fall 2015 Biannual Revisions, Clarifications and Additions to the Land Use Code (LUC) 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. Recommendation: Approval in Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 2015 Page 6 Staff and Applicant Presentations Chief Planner Shepard gave an overview of the eight items included in this round of LUC revisions, translating into 27 different ordinance sections. He explained that the emphasis of these changes is on "process", and there are also some changes to modify marijuana dispensing. Board Questions and Staff Response Member Schneider asked about the transition for a medical marijuana provider becoming a retailer. Chief Planner Shepard responded that there is a distinct process for this transition. Public Input None noted. Board Deliberation Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to the City Council adoption of the Fall 2015 Biannual Revisions, Clarifications and Additions to the Land Use Code based on the findings of fact on page 10 of the staff report. Member Hansen seconded the motion. Vote: 6:01 Project: Clarifications and Additions to the Municipal Code for Outdoor Vendor Mobility Options 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. Recommendation: Approval Staff and Applicant Presentations Senior Planner Wray gave a brief overview of this recommendation, explaining the reasons that these amendments were developed and the ordinances that had been previously passed. He stated that City Leadership had charged Staff with evaluating the following issues: • Some vendors are operating on a semi -permanent basis, and • Vendors should be changing locations more frequently. He reviewed some of the key questions as part of an online questionnaire, the key processes in place, peer city reviews, and public outreach to date. As a result, staff has been specifically considering these changes to the Municipal Code: • no vehicle left unattended more than 2 hours during hours of operation; • move off -site daily after vending/return to commissary; and • no more than 50 hours per calendar week./ no more than 100 hours per calendar month vending at the same licensed location. 19 Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 2015 Page 7 Public Input Sarah Gilman, owner of Umami Mobile Eatery, is not in support of this ordinance, stating various reasons. She does not believe there is a problem and doesn't understand the reason for these changes, especially because of the Health Department restrictions already in place. Taylor Smith, owner of another food truck in Fort Collins, is interested in the reason for the proposed changes. He does not perceive any issues with the current laws and feels that the food trucks provide a nice service to the community. Bonnie Ward, who works for Umami Mobile Eatery, is here opposing these new ordinances, as she does not feel that changes are necessary. Board Questions and Staff Response Senior Planner Wray reviewed the purpose of presenting changes to the P&Z Board, also stating that with these changes he believes that there are still a fair amount of vending opportunities and flexibility for vending operations. Member Hart asked how enforcement will occur. Tiana Smith, Revenue and Project Manager, responded that, consistent with current practices, enforcement is monitored on a non -active bases, including suspending or revoking licenses. Member Schneider sees this issue as an accessory use problem rather than a mobility issue. Senior Planner Wray replied that the vendor would be accessory on private property; the existing primary use has already been pre -approved. Member Schneider questioned whether the proposed changes would actually provide a resolution, acknowledging that vendors could actually be doing no more than rotating parking positions. Senior Planner Wray stated that they were trying to avoid too many restrictions. Member Hart also questioned the proposed resolutions when the scope of the problem is unclear. Member Hart clarified that there has only been one complaint in several years. Senior Planner Wray acknowledged that the problem is limited. Only a handful of vendors are operating on a non -mobile basis; there are approximately 40 mobile licenses currently issued. Member Heinz asked if the County Health Department does any policing; Jim Devore, County Environmental Health Specialist, responded by saying that mobile vendors are treated similarly to regular food vendors regarding licensing, routine inspections, follow ups and enforcement actions with non- compliance. The County's focus is more that they operate from a commissary kitchen and that menus and food handling is limited (no high hazard food handling due to lack of water and refrigeration). Member Hansen asked about the negative impacts of the vendors who are non -mobile; Senior Planner Wray responded that more "fixed" operations would require Land Use Code amendments. Member Heinz asked if this should be considered more of a zoning issue and what the resolution would be; Senior Planner Wray denied that zoning is the issue, as food vendors are an accessory use. Member Schneider suggested that, if mobility is the main concern, perhaps other options should be considered that might restrict the use. Vice Chair Kirkpatrick also asked about the health requirements related to mobility. Mr. Devore restated the need for mobile vendors to report to a commissary. Senior Planner Wray clarified that up to 2 vendors can be on the same lot at a time. More discussion continued with the overall theme that the proposed changes would not necessarily resolve the issues presented and what qualifies a vendor to be "mobile" versus a fixed location. 20 Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 2015 Page 8 Board Deliberation Planning Director Gloss suggested that the Board can make changes to the recommendation or make no recommendation at all. Member Hobbs stated that, while he understands the reason for Staff's recommendation, he believes that these code changes may prove to be punitive to those who are not creating any problems; he would like to see a code that allows more use for the mobile vendors. Therefore, he does not support this recommendation. Member Hart does not feel that this ordinance addresses the underlying problem; he does not believe that this recommendation effectively deal with the issue at hand, but thinks it could be more of an accessory use standard instead. Member Heinz acknowledged Staff's position on this issue, she thanked the mobile vendors, and she suggested that we seek an alternative solution involving the food truck vendors. Member Hansen agreed and doesn't see that a problem exists and thinks the solution should be aimed at redefining the accessory use. Vice Chair Kirkpatrick agreed as well; she will not support Staff's recommendation. To summarize the overriding opinions of the Board members: • None of the Board members believe there is a problem to be solved. • The Board does not support the proposed ordinance. • If pursued further, the Board would like to consider a different approach. There was additional discussion as to the best method of conveying the Board's thoughts to City Council. Member Hart made a motion that, after lengthy discussion, the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to the City Council not approve the ordinance in question and not pursue this issue any further. Member Heinz made a friendly amendment, adding that she would feel more comfortable that, if the City Council does decide to pursue this in the future, that they focus on the site -based land use code issues instead of on the vendors. Member Hobbs seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. Project: Various Revisions to the Land Use Code Relating to Fugitive Dust 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 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 January 5, 2016. 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. Recommendation: Approval Staff and Applicant Presentations Lucinda Smith, Environmental Services, gave a detailed presentation of this project. She discussed the implications of adopting the proposed code and the associated costs, health concerns, safety concerns, nuisance, and ecosystem concerns. She described the problems in detail, including how enforcement has evolved, even though there has been no clear guidance. The City is proposing: 21 Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 2015 Page 9 • code changes, • Dust Control Manual, • training and support, and • public outreach. She discussed the cost impacts of this ordinance (building permits, restricting access to sites, removing deposition, street sweeping without a wet suppression system, or reducing vehicle speeds). The goal is to prevent/reduce off -site dust transportation. Staff has collected data, participated in community outreach, approached several other City Boards, and will finally present this topic to City Council on January 5, 2016. Public Input None noted. Board Questions and Staff Response Member Hart asked about the timing of adoption, and Ms. Smith responded that the LUC changes and the manual will be the items up for consideration. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe added that the P&Z Board's recommendation would be appropriate unless specific questions about the manual exist. Member Schneider clarified that the purpose of the LUC changes would be to impose the same requirements for properties that are'/2 acre or larger; Ms. Smith clarified that this is true, which extends the County regulations. The question was raised about lot qualifications (individual lots versus the entire subdivision). Ms. Smith said that the earth -moving activities are not limited to lot size; rather, it is the activity in question. The manual would not specify a stockpile size, but whether dust is leaving the location. A stockpile permit would not be necessary in most cases. She also offered to have additional clarification prepared regarding these questions. Member Hobbs asked if these regulations would apply within the City limits only (not on state-owned properties); and Ms. Smith responded that it would apply within City limits to dust -generating activities, although she will have to clarify if this would apply to CSU- owned properties. Regarding unpaved roads, vehicle speeds would have to be reduced and access would be restricted. Member Schneider asked if there would be an exemption for agricultural use, such as "ranchettes51, and Ms. Smith offered to clarify this at a later time. He also asked who would be responsible in the event a citation were issued, and Ms. Smith clarified that the responsibility would fall to the owner/operator of the dust -generating activity. He also inquired whether such an ordinance could be suspended during certain drought conditions. More discussion continued regarding specific examples of when dust suppression should occur and what would constitute an issue. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe confirmed that the City Council could suspend the ordinance at certain times. Member Schneider asked to define some of the vague terms used in the ordinance language, and Ms. Smith confirmed that that language has been used in other government topics, although the language is somewhat nebulous and makes it more difficult to apply "best practices". Issues relating to wind speeds were also discussed. Board Deliberation Member Hobbs suggested that some of the clarifications could be addressed in December, since the City Council won't hear it until January anyway. Member Hansen agreed that there are some ambiguous sections that should be clarified. Member Hart also agreed but feels that the changes are not closely tied to the LUC. Member Heinz agreed that a manual will be helpful, but she would like to see some of the questions clarified. Ms. Smith offered to come back for the December hearing to continue the discussion. Vice Chair Kirkpatrick also agreed that this is a worthwhile topic, although she would prefer more clarification of the details. 22 Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 2015 Page 10 Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board continue this topic at the December hearing. Member Hansen seconded. Vote: 6:0. Other Business Schedule Change for December Planning Director asked the Board would consider a date change for the December hearing (from the 10" to the 17t".) The work session would also be rescheduled to December 11t", instead of December 4t". Member Heinz would not be available if we reschedule the hearing, and Vice Chair Kirkpatrick would not be available if we reschedule the work session. Clarification of Fall LUC Changes Member Schneider asked for clarification on the Fall LUC approval, which includes the Fugitive Dust, which has been tabled until December. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe recommended that the original motion be amended to exclude the Fugitive Dust proposals. Member Schneider made a motion to amend the prior motion to approve the Biannual Revisions to the Fall 2015 Land Use Code to exclude issue ID#1024, amending 2.6.3(G)(H) and 3.4.1(G) regarding proposed changes to Fugitive Dust Ordinance, Member Hobbs seconded. Vote: 6:0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15pm. Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager Kristin Kirkpatrick, Vice Chair 23 Agenda Item 3 PROJECT NAME FOOTHILLS MALL MULTI -FAMILY AMENDMENT MJA#150002 STAFF Ted Shepard, Chief Planner PROJECT INFORMATION APPLICANT: McWhinney Real Estate Services 2725 Rocky Mountain Way Loveland, CO 80538 OWNER: Walton Foothills Holdings VI LLC c/o Walton Street Capital 900 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1900 Chicago, IL 60611 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to amend Lots 3 — 6 of the Foothills Mall Redevelopment Final Plan for a multi -family apartment project that consists of 402 dwelling units divided among 18 buildings. The site is located on four blocks along the northern and the entire eastern edge of the Foothills Mall. Lots 4, 5, and 6 front Stanford Road. The site gains primary access from two private drives: the former East Foothills Parkway on the north and the former East Monroe Drive on the south. There would be 522 bedrooms and 489 parking spaces for a ratio of .94 spaces per bedroom. Of the 18 buildings, 16 are a mix of two and three stories. Two buildings along Stanford Road at the southern end of the site are four stories and include the office and clubhouse. The parcel is 11.93 acres in size and located in the General Commercial (C-G) zone district and also within the Transit -Oriented Development Overlay Zone. RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Conditions EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Major Amendment complies with City Plan policies for a Community Commercial District and the Midtown Plan. The Major amendment complies with the applicable zone district standards of Article Four and the general development standards of Article Three with one exception. A Request for Modification of Standard to Section 3.8.30(F)(1) - Buffer Yards is recommended for approval. Staff has introduced points of emphasis regarding the architectural character of the buildings on Lots 3,4 and 5 to Item # 3 Page 1 24 Agenda Item 3 ensure that the overall intent of the applicable standards are carried forward at Final Plan. Two conditions of approval are recommended to ensure compliance with the standards related to Lighting and the Bus Stop Design at the time of Final Plan. 1, Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: M-M-N Existing Single Family S: C-G Existing Mixed Commercial E: M-M-N Existing Multi -Family W: C-G Existing Mixed Commercial The original Foothills Fashion Mall was constructed on the Strachan Farm in 1973. Various additions and external pad buildings were constructed between 1973 and 2014 including: • The Foley's Expansion • The Sears Expansion • The Safeway/ARC Building • Two Pad Buildings on South College Avenue • Major Renovation and Architectural Upgrades • Re -alignment and Privatization of East Foothills Parkway • Re -alignment and Privatization of East Monroe Drive • The Corner Bakery • Demolition of Buildings for the Redevelopment On June 3, 2014, the Foothills Mall Redevelopment Final Plan and Subdivision were approved, which authorized the major renovation and expansion that is currently underway. The Foothills Mall Multi Family project represents a Major Amendment of Lots 3 — 6 of the 2014 Final Plan. A brief comparison between the existing Final Plan and the proposed Major Amendment is summarized in the following table: Approved Final Plan Proposed Major Amend. Units 800 402 Buildings 5 18 Heights All 4-story 16-2 & 3-story 2-4 story d.u./a 67 d.u/.a 34 d.u/.a Parking 1422 489 Daily Trips 4975 2687 City Plan: The Major Amendment continues to meet the principles and policies of City Plan for land development within the Community Commercial District. In particular, the Major Amendment complies with the following: Item # 3 Page 2 25 Agenda Item 3 "Principle LIV 35: Community Commercial Districts will be community -wide destinations and hubs for high -frequency transit system. They will be quality mixed -use urban activity centers that offer retail, offices, services, small civic uses, and higher density housing, in an environment that promotes walking, bicycling, transit and ridesharing.55 In fulfillment of this principle, the Major Amendment provides high density housing, is located along Transfort Routes 5 and 6 and includes multiple connecting walkways that link the project to the Foothills Mall and the public and private streets. Further, the Major Amendment implements the Community Commercial District policies by transforming underutilized land into a more intense center of activity that supports nearby employment and offers opportunities for mobility by alternative modes. 2. Midtown Plan: The Midtown Plan was adopted in September of 2013. The Major Amendment supports the objectives of the Plan by being located within walking and biking distance of The MAX Bus Rapid Transit System. Access to The MAX is enhanced by the South College Avenue underpass. This multi -modal connectivity allows tenants to access the City's central spine for points north and south. The Major Amendment supports the vision of the Midtown Plan by providing a housing choice in a convenient, pedestrian -oriented environment in close proximity to employment, retail, services and entertainment. The project is more urban and creates a more vibrant mix of uses that will support each other than exists today. The distinctive architecture will contribute to the unique character of the area. 3. Compliance with ADDlicable General Commercial Zone District Standards: A. Section 4.21 (B) - Permitted Uses: Multi -family dwellings consisting of more than 50 units or more than 75 bedrooms are permitted subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board. The P.D.P consists of 403 dwelling units and 511 bedrooms and is therefore forwarded to the P & Z Board for consideration. B. Section 4.21(D) -Maximum Allowable Height: The maximum allowable height in the C-G zone is four stories. Buildings 1 — 16 (Lots 3-5) are a mix of two and three stories and Buildings 17 and 18 (Lot 6) are four stories. C. Section 4.21(E)(2)(a) -Site Design -Pedestrian Outdoor Spaces: This standard requires that outdoor spaces be placed next to activity areas that generate the users (such as street corners, shops, stores, offices, daycare and dwellings). The 11.93 acre site flanks the redeveloped Foothills Mall. All dwelling units are within walking distance of what is considered to be a major activity center which includes a variety of shops, restaurants and a movie theatre. The apartments are connected to the Mall by a network of walkways that link internal outdoor spaces of the apartments to the plazas and open activity areas of the mall. Item # 3 Page 3 26 Agenda Item 3 D. Section 4.21(E)(2)(b) —Design of Outdoor Spaces: This standard requires that outdoor areas are planned to be integral to the project and not merely left over residual spaces. The outdoor spaces are varied, distributed and include the following outdoor features per block (blocks are numbered sequentially from north to south): • Block Three features two landscaped courtyards with each containing 7,168 square feet for a total of 14,336 square feet. Block Three also includes a garden plus two bocce ball courts. • Block Four includes the pool and dog park. • Block Five includes a landscaped courtyard containing 3,528 square feet. • Block Six features the clubhouse (combined with Building 18) and plaza containing about 7,500 square feet. All courtyards, plazas and outdoor spaces are integral to each block and include a variety of amenities such as pergolas, arbors, seating, grills and shade sails. 4. Compliance with Applicable General Development Standards A. Section 3.2.1(C)(D) —Landscaping —General Standard and Tree Planting: The site is served by Stanford Road and a network of five private drives and all are landscaped with street trees. All buildings feature foundation shrubs. Open space areas are landscaped in a manner that is coordinated with their active and passive components. A diversity of species is provided in accordance with the minimum requirements to avoid a monoculture. The sizes of all trees and shrubs comply with minimum standards. B. Section 3.2.1(E)(1) —Buffering Between Incompatible Uses and Activities: The north side of Block Three adjoins single family detached homes that front on East Swallow Drive. The buffering along this property line includes a continuous six foot solid wood fence and a continuous row of trees and shrubs. In addition to three typical parking lot landscape islands, there are three additional landscape islands that are over 50 feet in length and a garden that is 72 feet in length allowing for a denser screen of trees and shrubs. This landscaping, combined with the reduced mass and height when compared with the approved Final Plan, will ensure that privacy is attained. This buffering is also addressed in subsequent standards relating to parking lot screening and buffer yards for multi -family development. C. Section 3.2.1(E)(4) —Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping: The primary area where this standard is most acute is along the aforementioned north property line of Block Three. As described above, the combination of fencing and landscaping and garden will provide solid screening of the parking lot. The other area where this condition applies is along Blocks Four and Five where each block includes two parking lots that lead to the under -structure parking. Where the ends of these four parking lots face Stanford Road, the plan provides for a combination of existing and proposed trees and shrubs that screen the parking lots from the public view. In some locations, the existing trees are evergreens with 25 to 30 years of maturity which will provide screening during winter. Along the west property line, the perimeter parking lot faces the large parking fields that serve the Foothills Mall. This westerly parking lot features a detached sidewalk and parkway. The parkway allows Item # 3 Page 4 27 Agenda Item 3 for street trees to be planted in a similar manner as if the private drive were public. Between the detached walk and parking lot, there is a row of plant materials at a height of that exceeds 30 inches and extends for more than 70% of the private drive frontage. D. Section 3.2.1(E)(5) -Parking Lot Interior Landscaping: There are no large parking lots. Of the total of 492 spaces, 200 are provided in tuck -under garages. Parking lots are distributed on a per lot basis which contributes to meeting the overall intent of the standard. There are no rows that exceed 15 spaces without a landscaped island. All parking lots comply with the minimum required amount of landscaping. E. Section 3.2.1(F) -Tree Protection and Replacement: A comprehensive Tree Mitigation Plan was established by the City Forester and approved as part of the Foothills Mall Redevelopment Final Plan. This Tree Mitigation Plan included the removal of all existing trees on the Lots 3 — 6. Now, with the Major Amendment, 36 existing trees along Stanford Road are being preserved. These trees are mostly evergreens and range in age from 25 to 30 years. With the reduction in the number of units from 800 to 403, and the re -distribution of these units over 18 buildings versus four large-scale buildings, the Major Amendment offers opportunities to capture the value of these existing trees. Consequently, 36 trees along Stanford Road that were once slated to be removed are now being preserved. (Several existing trees were removed by the construction of the private access drives serving the Mall.) By careful placement of buildings, and by designing an internal circulation system that provides the necessary fire access for aerial apparatus from the west, the Major Amendment achieves a superior result over the existing Final Plan. By preserving existing trees, the Tree Mitigation Plan has been amended such that fewer replacement trees are needed. Per the existing Final Plan, 282 mitigation trees would have been required to be planted on Lots 3 — 6. Now, by saving 36 existing trees (the equivalent of 102 mitigation trees) 180 new trees mitigation trees are required and are shown on the Landscape Plan in compliance with the standard. F. Section 3.2.1(H) -Placement and Interrelationship of Required Landscape Plan Elements: The preserving of 36 existing trees along Stanford Road has been coordinated with other aspects of land development such as installation of utilities, stormwater detention, over -lot grading, height of the finish floor elevation, connecting walkways and public sidewalk placement. This vertical and horizontal integration allows the Major Amendment to accomplish a variety of public objectives that the preceding plan did not. In addition, the existing trees will be supplemented with new street trees as well. G. Section 3.2.2(B) - Access, Circulation and Parking - General Standard: As mentioned, the 11.93 acre site is located between the Foothills Mall and Stanford Road and is served by one public street and five private drives. This network creates the four blocks that contain the 18 buildings. The block pattern allows for an extensive network of distributed parking lots and connecting walkways. One of the key design features is the design of the parking areas between the buildings. These small parking lots lead to head -in, under -structure parking stalls and are designed as "auto courts" or "mews" characterized by a generous amount of landscaping in the form of islands that are at -grade and not protected by raised concrete vertical curbs. This design allows for a visually seamless expanse of both pavement and landscaping that does not impede pedestrian access. Further, the auto courts are all connected to the breezeways of the adjoining buildings allowing for a high level of connectivity through Item # 3 Page 5 COO Agenda Item 3 the middle of the buildings on a per lot basis. Finally, by placing the landscape islands at -grade, the quality of the stormwater runoff is improved. H. Section 3.2.2(C)(4) — Bicycle Facilities: This standard requires that the minimum number of bike parking is no less than the number of bedrooms and that no less than 60% are enclosed and the others may be outside in fixed racks. There are 522 bedrooms and there are 522 bike parking spaces. Of the total spaces, 336 (66%) are enclosed and 175 (34%) are outside in fixed racks. The bike parking is provided and distributed in the following manner: B.R.'s 60 % Enclosed 40 % Fixed Total Lot 3 168 132 (78%) 36 (22%) 168 Lot 4 82 60 (73%) 22 (27%) 82 Lot 5 92 68 74% 24 26% 92 Lot 6 180 87 (48%) 93 (93%) 180 Total 522 347 (66%) 175 (34%) 522 Section 3.2.2(K)(1) — Vehicle Parking: The site is located within the T.O.D. Overlay Zone which requires that parking be provided at ratios no less than 0.75 spaces per studio and one bedroom units, and 1.00 spaces per two bedroom unit. There are 60 studios and 222 one bedroom units for a total of 282 bedrooms requiring 212 parking spaces. There are 120 two -bedroom units requiring 120 parking spaces. A total of 332 spaces are required. The Major Amendment provides 480 parking spaces thus exceeding the standard. This number equates to a ratio of .94 spaces per bedroom. The parking spaces are divided between surface (S) and garage (G) and are distributed in the following manner: Studio/ Two B.R. 1.00 Min. Req. Provided One B.R. 0.75 Lot 3 88 66 40 40 106 72S+96G=168 Lot 4 54 41 14 14 55 43S +36G = 79 Lot 5 41 31 22 22 58 58S+33G=91 114S+37G = Lot 6 99 74 44 44 118 151 287S+202G = Total 282 212 120 120 332 489 Item # 3 Page 6 29 Agenda Item 3 J. Section 3.2.4 - Site Lighting: A Lighting Plan was not submitted with the Major Amendment. This omission indicates that the approved Lighting Plan for the Foothills Mall Redevelopment Final Plan would govern the Major Amendment. Staff finds, however, that the approved Final Plan does not control off -site light spillage such that there is no more than 0.1 (one tenth) foot-candle as measured 20 beyond the north property line. Nor does the approved Final Plan address the excessive glare related to the use of LED lighting at Kelvin temperatures that exceed 3,000. Both of these design attributes have an impact on the residential properties to the north of Lot Three. Therefore, staff recommends the following condition of approval: At the time of submittal for the Major Amendment Final Plan, the applicant must submit a revised Lighting Plan that indicates compliance with Section 3.2.4(113)(8) by demonstrating that illumination levels do not exceed 0.1 as measured 20 feet north of the north property line of Lot Three. Further the Lighting Plan must specify compliance with Section 3.2.4(D)(5) such that color rendition, as measured by the Kelvin scale, not exceed 3,000 degrees. K. Section 3.5.1(B) -Building and Project Compatibility- General Standard: The proposed multi -family apartment complex represents the build -out of the easterly portion of the 77- acre Foothills Mall. While the test of achieving compatibility would normally be evaluated based on the contextual relationship with Foothills Mall, Staff finds that given the size and scale of the project, compatibility with the larger neighborhood is equally valid. The 18 buildings are oriented along Stanford Road, the former Foothills Parkway on the north and the former Monroe Drive on the south. Each building includes a street -facing entry. Each building features a direct connecting walkway to the sidewalks (public and private) the length of which never exceeds 45 feet (up to 200 feet is allowed). The north portions of all eight buildings on Lot Three, which adjoin the single family homes to the north, have been reduced to two stories. The context of the neighborhood is characterized by groupings of two and two and one-half story multi- family buildings along the east side of Stanford Road. Similarly, all of the proposed buildings along Stanford are a mix of two and three stories. In addition, along Stanford Road, all but one building on Lot Five are oriented such that the short side of the rectangular -shaped building faces the streets. The height, mass, bulk and scale of the buildings have been placed and apportioned in a manner that is sensitive to the overall context of the neighborhood. The two larger, four story buildings on Lot Six are arranged in an L-fashion that frame the intersection of Stanford and the former Monroe Drive. Their height and mass are mitigated by their proximity to the Foothills Mall parking structure and movie theatre. L. Section 3.5.1(H) -Land Use Transition: The eight buildings on Lot Three are setback from the north property line by a range of 46.3 to 47.4 feet. As mentioned, within this setback there is an existing six-foot high solid wood fence and a variety of landscape features, including the garden. The homes to the north front on East Swallow Road and are a mix of two-story and bi-level houses. Currently, these homes have a two-story commercial building, Foothills East, as the adjoining land use to the south. All eight residential buildings on Lot 3 that will replace Foothills East are designed with a reduction to two stories on the north side of the buildings to Item # 3 Page 7 30 Agenda Item 3 provide a sensitive transition. Staff finds that the conversion of the current land use from commercial to multi -family residential, combined with the reduced height and mass, allow for the Major Amendment to be compliant with the standard. M. Section 3.5.2(D)(1) — Orientation to Connecting Walkway: As mentioned, all buildings will orient to walkways that connect directly to a private sidewalks on the former Foothills Parkway, former Monroe Drive and Stanford Road at distances that are considerably less than 200 feet. Although for Buildings 1 - 16, the ends of the buildings will face these streets (public and private) each end includes a street -facing entry feature. N. Section 3.6.4 — Transportation Level of Service Requirements: The Major Amendment represents a reduction of 396 units as compared to the approved Foothills Mall Redevelopment Final Plan. Based on this de -intensification, an amended Transportation Impact Study was waived. The Traffic Operations Department, however, will continue to monitor potential impacts of additional traffic on a neighborhood -wide basis and work with the neighborhood on installing traffic calming measures should the need arise. O. Section 3.6.5 — Bus Stop Design Standards: The site is located along Transfort Routes 5 and 6. This standard requires that all development located on an existing or planned route must construct, or provide an escrow, for a transit stop. The original Final Plan calls for a transit stop along Stanford Road. But, with the significant changes in the design of the Stanford Road streetscape due to saving the existing trees, the exact location of the transit stop needs to be re-evaluated. In addition, a connecting walkway needs to be provided linking the project to the transit stop. At this stage, the exact location of the transit stop has not yet been determined. In order to ensure that compliance with Section 3.6.5 at the time of Final, the following condition of approval is recommended: At the time of submittal of the Final Plan, the location and extent of the transit stop along Stanford Road, along with a connecting walkway that links to the project, shall be fully depicted and described in accordance with Section 3.6.5. P. Section 3.8.30 — Multi -Family Development Standards — Block Requirements: This standard requires that multi -family projects be developed as a series of blocks bounded by streets (public or private) and that blocks not exceed seven acres. Further, each block face must have at least 50% of its frontage consist of buildings, plazas or other functional open space. As mentioned, the Major Amendment is 11.93 acres and consists of four blocks none of which exceed seven acres. Lot 3 is bounded by a street on only one side due to existing platting of houses along its north property line. Lots 4, 5 and 6 are bounded by public and private streets. Since all buildings front on these streets, the percentage of building frontage along each block face significantly exceeds 50%. Q. Section 3.8.30(F)(1) — Multi -Family Development Standards — Orientation and Buffer Yards: This standard requires that buffer yards along the property line of abutting property containing single and two family dwellings shall be 25 feet. Since this standard was adopted in 2012, staff interprets the buffer yard to not allow parking lots or access drives. It is interesting to note that this standard was crafted to address multi -family development in more suburban settings; in fact, the N-C-M and N-C-B zone districts Item # 3 Page 8 31 Agenda Item 3 are specifically exempted from the standard. Nevertheless, staff contends that the quality of buffering multi -family relative to single and two family dwellings needs to be addressed so that compatibility issues can be resolved. (1.) Major Amendment Buffer Yard The Major Amendment provides for a buffer yard along the north side of Lot 3 that ranges in depth from 5.3 to 6.4 feet along the parking lot edge and 23 feet at the four landscaped yards. (2.) Applicant's Justification The applicant contends that the reduction in the buffer yard corresponds to the reduction in the height from three to two stories on the north side of all eight buildings along the north property line. The reduced buffer yard is proportional to the context in that buildings are set back from the north property line by a distance ranging from 46.3 to 47.4 feet. The rectangular buildings are oriented such that the short end faces north. The existing six foot, solid wood privacy fence provides for sufficient opacity to screen the parking lot. Landscaping in the form of trees and shrubs is provided to supplement the privacy fence. All buildings feature four-sided architecture so there is no back side. (3.) Staff Analysis Staff finds that the lowering of the building height from three to two stories, 36 feet in height, is the key to establishing a reasonable contextual relationship between the proposed eight buildings on Lot 3 and the existing single and two family dwellings that front on East Swallow Road. As mentioned, these eight buildings are oriented with the short end facing north. For all eight buildings, the total linear footage of building facing north is 504 feet. In contrast, the existing Final Plan allows for two three-story buildings at 43 feet in height with a total linear footage of building facing north of 748 feet. Consequently, the Major Amendment represents a reduction in height, mass and scale when compared to the approved Final Plan. Given the reduced scope, the reduction in the buffer yard is commensurate with the impact. (4.) Staff Findings Staff finds that Request for Modification to Section 3.8.30(F)(1) is not detrimental to the public good. Further, Staff finds that the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard equally well or better than would a plan which otherwise complies with the specific metric. This is because the height, mass and scale of the eight buildings are more residential in character and more sensitive to the context of the surrounding area versus the two larger buildings allowed under the current Final Plan. It is important to note that while the houses north of Lot 3 are single and two-family dwellings, the entire block face of East Swallow Drive is zoned M-M-N. Staff finds that the compelling need for the prescribed buffer yard is diminished given the reduced scope in size and scale of the proposed buildings. The buffering elements provided per the Major Amendment are sufficient so that compatibility between the existing houses and the proposed buildings is achieved. Staff also finds that the standard is intended to address conditions that are more suburban in nature whereas the City Plan principles and policies that guide the vision for the Community Commercial District call for urban, infill, mixed -use redevelopment at high density levels that support transit. The challenge is that the applicability of the standard needs to be balanced with Item # 3 Page 9 32 Agenda Item 3 City Plan. Staff finds that the Request for Modification results in a plan that provides a fair balance between competing objectives and meets the overall intent of the standard. R. Section 3.8.30(F)(2) — Variation Among Buildings: This standard requires that for any multi -family development containing more than five buildings (excluding stand-alone clubhouse/leasing office), there must be at least three distinctly different building designs with no two similar buildings next to each other. Buildings must vary significantly in terms of footprint, size and shape. Buildings must be further differentiated by architectural details and entrance features. In this case, the clubhouse and leasing office are contained within the buildings on Lot 6. Of the 18 buildings, 15 have the same perpendicular orientation to the street. For these 15 buildings, six different entry features have been established to be divided such that no two repeat sequentially. Of the 18 total buildings, there are three broad themes that are distributed over the four blocks in the following manner: • Lot 3: These eight buildings are architecturally categorized as "neighborhood one" and characterized by the uniform step down from three to two stories along the north elevations. Of the eight buildings, there are four distinct street (private) facing entries none of which are repeated sequentially. The materials and color palette include light brick, wood and metal cladding, and stucco in four colors. • Lots 4 and 5: These eight buildings are categorized as "neighborhood two" and the height variations are more random. Of the eight buildings, five entries have been distributed to avoid repetition. The materials and color palette include darker brick, metal cladding, and stucco in four colors, three of which are not found on Lots 3 or 6. • Lot 6: These two buildings are categorized as "neighborhood three" and are four stories. They are oriented and setback in a manner that differs significantly from Lots 4 and 5. Their placement next to the theater and parking structure helps mitigate the height and mass and overall commercial aspect of the Foothills Mall. The materials and color palette include the aforementioned light and dark brick, wood cladding and stucco in four colors, two of which are not found on Lots 3 — 5. Overall, the architectural theme reflects the context of the smaller commercial buildings within the Foothills Mall. The 18 buildings are dramatically reduced in scale versus the five large buildings per the approved Final Plan. There are no pitched roofs. Instead, buildings are streamlined and feature clean horizontal lines. A variety of geometric forms creates interest and compensate for the otherwise lack of architectural adornment. Balconies, breezeways, overhangs, and non-structural wing walls are used to punctuate the wall planes. Facades are proportioned horizontally versus vertically (base, middle, top). The variety of roof heights within individual buildings represents the most dramatic relief especially along Stanford Road. In general, the project is complementary to the commercial attributes of the Foothills Mall. While staff finds that overall intent of the standard is satisfied, there remain some points that should be emphasized in enriching the variety and guiding the formulation of the Final Plan. These points do not rise to the level of becoming conditions of approval, but are brought to the attention of the both the Board and the applicant so that there is a clear expectation as the project moves forward. • Staff advises that various window details and cornices should be investigated to include additional trim and detail in order to ensure more three -dimensionality and mitigate flat, uniform surfaces. Item # 3 Page 10 33 Agenda Item 3 • Staff advises that for the eight buildings along Stanford Road (Lots 4 and 5), additional opportunities should be considered to create more recesses, projections, reveals and the like in order to add shadowlines and depth to the facades that are visible to the public. Such features would help mitigate the emphasis on the overall horizontality of the buildings. • Staff advises that current mix of materials be looked at to enrich the use of wood and masonry versus stucco in order to add recognizable texture. S. Section 3.10.3(A) — Development Standards for the Transit -Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone — Site Planning: This standard requires that buildings and entrances face streets or connecting walkways to the maximum extent feasible. While somewhat duplicative with preceding standards, the existing series of blocks, bounded by streets (public and private), allows all buildings to front on and face these streets. As noted, each street -facing building elevation includes an entry feature. T. Section 3.10.3(C) — Development Standards for the Transit -Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone — Outdoor Spaces: This standard requires that buildings be designed to form outdoor spaces such as courtyards, plaza, arcades, terraces, balconies and decks for interaction and to integrate the development with the adjacent physical context. Further, walkways must provide both intra- and interconnectivity. Again, while somewhat duplicative, it bears emphasis that the project provides a unique attribute in that the breezeways at the midpoint of the long side of the rectangular -shaped buildings are connected to "auto courts" or "mews" allowing residents to traverse the project internally and not have to rely on perimeter walkways. In addition, as mentioned, there are a series of outdoor spaces such as courtyards, garden, dog park, bocce ball court, pool, plazas, and a clubhouse that all allow a high degree of interaction among residents. U. Section 3.10.5 — Transit -Oriented Development — Character and Image: As mentioned, this standard is geographically specific to the T.O.D. Overlay Zone and is to be considered in conjunction with Section 3.8.30(F)(2). The overall design objective is establish a broad relationship with the 77-acre Foothills Mall by use of similar building shapes and materials and avoiding a sharp contrast in building styles. While the Foothills Mall contains massive structures (enclosed mall, movie theatre, parking garage), there are a variety of smaller -scale free-standing buildings from which the proposed apartment buildings take their cue. Hence, the project borrows the flat roof profile, brick and masonry materials, stucco as the building fields and wood and metal cladding as the predominant accents all with a range of earth -tone colors. (1.) Articulation: This standard requires that: exterior building walls be subdivided and proportioned to the human scale, using projections, overhangs and recesses in order to add architectural interest and variety and avoid the effect of a single, massive wall with no relation to human size. In response, all buildings are treated with four-sided architectural detail. There are various patterns of windows and balconies. All buildings feature recesses and projections to varying degrees. Breezeways break up the horizontal plane. Overhangs provide relief. Wood and metal cladding are arranged both vertically and horizontally. As mentioned, building entrances are differentiated. (2.) Rooflines: This standard requires that flat -roofed buildings feature three-dimensional cornice treatment on walls facing streets or connecting walkways. Accent roof elements or towers may be use to provide articulation of the building mass. In response, the flat roof buildings are punctuated not by cornices per se but by the various recesses and projections and different building materials. The combination of two and three stories contained within a single building contributes varied rooflines. Item # 3 Page 11 34 Agenda Item 3 (3.) Materials and Colors: This standard requires that "predominant exterior building materials shall be high quality materials." "All building facades shall incorporate stone veneer, brick, brick veneer, stucco, corrugated metal, wood and/or equivalent accent material in a manner that highlights the articulation of the massing or base and top of the building." In response, the buildings feature a combination of two colors of brick, multiple colors of stucco, and both wood and metal cladding as accent features. There are no large blank walls. All garage doors are internal to the project. In summarizing compliance with this standard, Staff reinforces the points of emphasis discussed under Section 3.8.30(F)(2) — Variation Among Repeated Buildings in order to create a level of expectation that further architectural refinement is required for Final Plan. 5, Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood information meeting was held on October 5, 2015. A summary of this meeting is attached. Generally, the reduction in the scope of the project from 800 to 403 dwelling units was viewed favorably. • Concerns were expressed about the potential for apartment residents to park their cars north of Swallow Road in the residential neighborhood and that the project needs to provide sufficient parking. In response, the applicant indicted that there will be approximately one parking space per bedroom which exceeds the required minimum. A comparison of the proposed parking against the two types of minimum required parking ratios (assuming 522 bedrooms) is as follows: T.O.D Minimum 334 .64 spaces per Required bedroom Non- T.O.D Min. 634 1.22 spaces per Required bedroom Provided Per Plan 490 .94 space per bedroom • Concerns were expressed about the four-way stop at Swallow and Stanford Roads and that this intersection appears to be eligible for a traffic signal. In response, the original traffic study indicated that with the projected traffic volumes of 800 units, the four-way stop should be sufficient. With the reduction to 403 units, this is still the case. • Concerns were expressed about speeding on Stanford Road. In response, the City's Traffic Operations Department has an ongoing program to address speeding in neighborhoods. There are a variety of measures that can be implemented if warranted and desired by the residents. The City's traffic engineers will continue to monitor both the volume and speeding on the neighborhood streets around the Foothills Mall. 6. Conclusions and Findings of Fact: In evaluating the request for the Foothills Mall Multi -Family Major Amendment, Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The Amendment represents a significant reduction in the overall intensity (number of dwelling units, number of parking spaces and building height, mass and scale) when compared with the approved Final Plan. Item # 3 Page 12 35 Agenda Item 3 B. The Amendment continues to comply with City Plan principles and policies associated with the Community Commercial District and the Midtown Plan. C. The Amendment continues to comply with the applicable General Development standards of Article Three with one exception. D. A Request for Modification of Standard to Section 3.8.30(F) — Design Standards for Multi -Family Dwellings — Orientation and Buffer Yards as it relates to the north property line along Lot 3 has been submitted and evaluated by Staff. E. Staff finds that based on the overall design attributes of the site plan, landscape plan and architectural elevations: (1.) The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good. (2.) The plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the Modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan that otherwise comply with the standard. (3.) This is because the height, mass and scale of the eight buildings are more residential in character and more sensitive to the context of the surrounding area versus the two larger buildings allowed under the current Final Plan. The buffering elements provided per the Major Amendment are sufficient so that compatibility between the existing houses and the proposed buildings is achieved. F. The Major Amendment complies with the applicable standards of the General Commercial zone district per Article Four. G. Staff recommends one Condition of Approval that ensures the Final Plan will include a Lighting Plan that meets the specifications of Section 3.2.4 H. Staff recommends passing along to the applicant the points of emphasis regarding improving the overall architectural character of the buildings on Lots 3, 4 and 5. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends: 1. Approval of the Modification of Standard to Section 3.8.30(F)(1). 2. Approval of the Foothills Mall Multi -Family Major Amendment #MJA150002, subject to the following conditions: A. At the time of submittal for the Major Amendment Final Plan, the applicant must submit a revised Lighting Plan that indicates compliance with Section 3.2.4(D)(8) by demonstrating that illumination levels do not exceed 0A as measured 20 feet north of the north property line of Lot Three. Further the Lighting Plan must specify compliance with Section 3.2.4(D)(5) such that color rendition, as measured by the Kelvin scale, not exceed 3,000 degrees. B. At the time of submittal of the Final Plan, the location and extent of the transit stop along Stanford Road, along with a connecting walkway that links to the project, shall be fully depicted and described in accordance with Section 3.6.5. Item # 3 Page 13 36 Agenda Item 3 ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map(PDF) 2. Landscape Plan (PDF) 3. Site Plan and Architectural Elevations (PDF) 4. Lot 4 Stanford Road Cross -Section (PDF) 5. Lot 5 Stanford Road Cross -Section (PDF) 6. Neighborhood Meeting Summary (DOCX) 7. Traffic Letter (PDF) Item # 3 Page 14 37 Foothills Mall Apartments 1 inch = 600 feet N 38w E s SWALLOW ROAD MEWS COURTYARD MEWS MEWS COURTYARD MEWS lt' If•r_IIVA61 FOOTHILLS MALL T� Nw -- ImA41 " EXISTING DECIDUOUS EXISTING Q 100 150 200. � H CONIFEROUS scaler=so DETENTION POND NOT A PART DETENTION �u POND NOT A PART DOG PARK L T 4 �. Q 0 v/ LO 5 POOL DETENTION POND NOT A PART COURTYARD DETENTION POND NOT A PART Building Summary Buldirg# Type EMry# Neighborhood Lot# Stories Common Area 1 D3 1 1 3 3,3,2 No 2 C3 2 1 3 3,3,2 Yee 3 E2 3 1 3 3,3,2 No 4 D2 6 1 3 3,3,2 No 5 D3 1 1 3 3,3,2 No 6 C3 2 1 3 3,3,2 Yes E2 3 1 3 3,3,2 No B 02 6 1 3 31312 No 9 Maintenance NA 2 4 1 Wash, Caro ihnjii Arm, Bicycle Repair 10 DI 6 2 4 3,3,2 No 11 12 C2 E1 5 2 2 2 4 4 3,3,2 3,3,2 No Yes 13 DI 1 2 4 3,3,2 No 14 DI 6 2 5 3,3,2 No 15 c1 NA 2 5 2,3,2 Yes 36 B 4 2 5 3 No Il A 5 2 5 3.3.3.2 No 1s 19 H I NA NA 3 3 6 6 4 4 No Yes Atl chment2 PROJECT #15 6 mmmmm "IMP VI CANOPY lowROOF a�■ ��� mil III 1 .■_ is :I ,��la :r1�1�BRICK 2 BUILDING 1, TYPE D3. EAST r 0 MErauwoao BUILDING 1, TYPE D3 - NORTH r 101W Ism - -- - 111W- III ,� .._ III II� �. 6111, .. .,II 6 .I.in ■ 1 pion -formI:III::. INN��� ���Q1:�All I:1:1 n BUILDING 1, TYPE D3 - WEST U r=10n BUILDING 1, TYPE D3 - SOUTH r=10a NEIGHBORHOOD 1 - COLOR PALETTE BRICK - ROR>x m 4 LL F D J G VJ J 0 0 LL I 0 z p z 8 o e z a 0 F FA 11/10/2015 NEIGHBORHOOD 1 - TYPE D3 A2 41 Attechment2 PROJECT #15 6 BUILDING 2, TYPE C3 - EAST r mn• BUILDING 2, TYPE C3 - WEST r-law J BUING 2, TYPE C3 - NORTH r=10-a ILD METAL MUNRO STUCCO STUCCO F BRICK vlrvnwwoawG � STUCCO F BUILDING 2, TYPE C3 - SOUTH NEIGHBORHOOD 1 - COLOR PALETTE BR CK >111 J_ 75 Q LL J Lu Z J Z MTM U VJ 75 J O LL 0 . s oe __ e _ 11/10/2015 NEIGHBORHOOD 1-TYPE C3 `o 42 Atl chment2 PROJECT #15 6 BUILDING 14, TYPE D1 - NORTH 1.=1a-0.. n BUILDING 14, TYPE D1 - SOUTH J mess BUILDING 14, TYPE D1 - WEST n BUILDING 14, TYPE D1 - EAST r =1aa NEIGHBORHOOD 2 - COLOR PALETTE ITV Er L C LADD, Inc 9TDCCD y J_ 75 LL J 1 L LU Z J Z_ 2 U U) 75 J J_ 2 O O LL 0 z p z 8 o e z e _ 11/10/2015 NEIGHBORHOOD 2 - TYPE D1 A4 43 Abachment2 PROJECT #15 6 METAL EMORY METNJkVOOEWREEN MNYLWN0CVfS METAL COPING BRICK SPUCCD METALCANOPY LH BUILDING 15, TYPE Cl EAST 1"=19 9, BUILDING 15, TYPE Cl WEST 111-1010, METNIWOCO SCREEN r MNYLWINOOWS r METAL RAILINGS BUILDING 15, TYPE Cl NORTH 1' =1a-0• BUILDING 15, TYPE Cl SOUTH r 1nn• NEIGHBORHOOD 2 - COLOR PALETTE tAET LCuoowG 1\� STUCCO INGS GS J_ J 5� LU Z J Z_ 2 U U) 75 J J_ 2 O O LL 0 . s oe __ e _ 11/10/2015 NEIGHBORHOOD 2 - TYPE Cl MU 44 METALfMOW Abachment2 PROJECT #15 6 BUILDING 18, TYPE H - NORTH 1"=1U-0 METAL CMOW � META LUNGS STUCCO BRICK BRICK n BUILDING 18, TYPE H - EAST �J r=16'-0•• NEIGHBORHOOD 3 - COLOR PALETTE IN IN IC: ■ ■ l 0' MINE STUCCO STUCCO, 0 . s oe __ "y��y�■I � xe 11/10/2015 NEIGHBORHOOD 3 - TYPE H Hb 45 n BUILDING 18, TYPE H - SOUTH m w STUCCO BRICK n BUILDING 18, TYPE H - WEST NEIGHBORHOOD 3 - COLOR PALETTE 1r ■ 1 STUCCO STUCCO Atl chment2 PROJECT #15 6 J_ 75 Q LL J u1 Z J Z_ Q U c V J C LL 2 O O o H® L ��E�I� J L n�I J H H ®H z 8 o e z m E1 0 % 0 n In 01 oe 0 01 � ❑a 11/10/2015 NEIGHBORHOOD -� 3 -TYPE H I I I � I A7NIXSI11 I I EY PLAN 46 Atl chment2 PROJECT #15 6 BUILDING Cl BUILDING D1 NEIGHBORHOOD 2 - TYPE Cl & D1 PARTIAL STANFORD ROAD ELEVATION r=10n" BUILDING D3 BUILDING C3 NEIGHBORHOOD 1 - TYPE D3 & C3 PARTIAL MALL LOOP ROAD ELEVATION 1 =10n• J_ 75 Q LL J J U) J J_ 2 O O LL I ii U 75 0 z o z z 8 o e z 0 F 11/10/2015 STREET ELEVATIONS A8 47 •a .� tit Nor All[ i1 ti .:_ i i well _gym mom .. WIN Alm In 11-0 Mot EN -'' ,L 14 UFA all mo"r 0 rit, ■ or ' IIIIII 1' d rn y1,� ry y�9�5 n r F EXISTING TREES REMAIN STREET TREE TYPICAL 5' EXISTING ATTACHED WALK ORNAMENTAL TREE TYPICAL EXISTING TREE TYPICAL BUILDING SHIFTED TO THE WEST PRESERVES EXISTING TREES PROPERTY LINE EXISTING TREE TYPICAL PROPOSED STREET TREE TYPICAL TURF TYPICAL LOT 4 STANFORD ROAD STREETSCAPE PLAN VIEW {�� al I. SC El'-20'4' NCRIH BLDG D2 = _II 18' SETBACK 16' TO SIDEWALK PROPERTY LINE BU ILDING TYPE D2 EXISTING TREE PROPOSEDTREE ELEVATION 5005' PROPOSED WALK EXISTING SIDEWALK ELEVATION 4999.21 SECTION A -A LOOKING NORTH (WITH ATTACHED WALK) SCALE: 111 = 5' STANFORD RD 7e(� FOOTHILLS MALL MULTI -FAMILY Fort Collins, Colomdo McWhinney Real Estate Services Inc. 2725 Rocky Mountain Avenue Suite 200 Loveland CO BOMB 7DECEMBER 3 22015 LOT 4 SOLUTION 1 WITH ATTACHED WALK SHEET 1 OF 2 54 LOT 5 STANFORD ROAD STREETSCAPE PLAN VIEW 0 20, 30 40 YY SCRLE I"=20'0' NORTH STREET TREE TYPICAL SECTION LINE CC TURF TYPICAL 4' EXISTING ATTACHED WALK PROPERTY LINE EXISTING TREE TYPICAL TURF TYPICAL 5' SHRUB BED TO BE PLANTED AROUND ALL BUILDINGS. SHRUB PLANTINGS WILL BE SHOWN ON FINAL PLANS EXISTING TREE TYPICAL PROPERTY ENE BUILDING TYPE Di PROPOSEDTREE PROPOSED SHRUB BED _ ELEVATION 5011.5' PROPOSED WALK BLDG DI EXISTING SIDEWALK 11) ELEVATION 5000.64' STANFORD RD 10-SETBACK I 16'TO SIDEWALK SECTION C—C LOOKING NORTH (WITH ATTACHED WALK) SCALE: 111 = 5' w (GROUP ��m.e��.Nl�� LMMniYeln Me. a 4A.S1 ."H31 P¢JatlfD 9b13 va T6a�wn�u5 FOOTHILLS MALL MULTI -FAMILY Fort Collins, Colomdo McWhinney Real Estate Services Inc. 2725 Rocky Mountain Avenue Suite 200 Loveland CO BOMB 7DECEMBER 3 22015 LOT 5 SOLUTION 1 WITH ATTACHED WALK SHEETL OF 2 55 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROJECT: Foothills Multi -Family LOCATION: Foothills Mall — Along Stanford Road DATE: October 5, 2015 APPLICANT: McWhinney Inc. c/o David Jaudes and Ben Krasnow CONSULTANTS: Dale Sanders, Johnson, Nathan, Strohe Architects CITY PLANNER: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner The meeting began with a description of the proposed project. As proposed, the project consists of a multi -family apartment complex containing 402 dwelling units divided among 18 buildings. The site is located within the boundary of the Foothills Mall on the west side of Stanford Road, east of Macy's and extends as far south as the Foothills Mall southern boundary. The site is 11.93 acres in size. There will be 509 parking spaces. Of the 18 buildings, 16 are a mix of two and three stories. Two buildings along Stanford Road at the southern end of the site are proposed to be four stories. The parcel is located in the General Commercial (C-G) zone district and also within the Transit -Oriented Development Overlay Zone. This proposal will be subject to review and consideration by the Planning & Zoning Board at a future public hearing with the date to be determined. Unless otherwise noted, all responses are from the applicants and consultant. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS 1. Currently, the intersection of Stanford and Swallow is controlled by a four-way stop sign. Given the increase in traffic, would this control be upgraded with a traffic signal? A. No, per the original Transportation Impact Study, which assumed a multi -family development consisting of 800 units, this intersection will remain a four-way stop. 2. 1 live on Cortez Street north of Swallow and we get drivers parking on our street in front of our houses who don't live on our block. I'm concerned about this spillover parking. Will you be providing enough parking for all your tenants? 1 56 A. Yes, we will be providing 509 spaces for 520 total bedrooms. This equates to .98 spaces per bedroom which exceeds the City's minimum requirements for multi- family dwelling in the T.O.D. From a competitive perspective with other apartment complexes, we do not want our residents parking in the surrounding neighborhoods and we think 509 on -site spaces will be sufficient so that there will no spillover parking. 3. Will there be garage spaces? Is so, what percentage of the total spaces? A. Yes, at this time, we estimate that 35% - 40% of the spaces will be in garages. 4. What is the mix of bedrooms? A. At this time, our best thinking is that the bedroom mix will be as follows: Studio — 40 (10%) 1 B.R. — 240 (60%) 2 B.R. — 124 (30%). 5. What will be the total occupancy at full capacity? A. We expect full capacity to be roughly 500 tenants plus or minus. This is an estimate because our experience is that some tenants will rent a two -bedroom unit as a single occupancy while couples may rent a one -bedroom unit as a double occupancy. 6. 1 live just to the north for 15 years and appreciate the reduction in the number of units from 800 to 402. But I am concerned the impact of parking in our neighborhood. What about the Christmas parking crunch at the mall? Will your parking be shared with mall customers? Is your parking first come first serve? How do you manage your parking? A. We actively manage our parking. We do not share or depend on mall parking. Garages will be assigned and tuck -under parking will be assigned but surface parking will be first come first serve. Tenants receive a parking tag so we can monitor non -tenant parking and have those cars removed. Our strategy is that we will put ourselves at a competitive disadvantage if we under -park the project. Please note that we do not contract out to a third party the management of our apartment communities. 7. What is the estimated total cost of the project? A. We estimate that this will be a $92 million dollar project. 8. What attracted you to this site. I'm having a hard time with the concept of apartments next door to a shopping mall. 2 57 A. We have apartment projects in Westminster next to shopping centers at 1-25 and 144t" Avenue and we have found that our tenants enjoy the convenience of the restaurants, retail shops and other services that are within walking distance. The revamped mall will have a movie theatre and attractive outdoor spaces for cafe dining and other activities. 9. Do you allow your tenants to sub -lease? A. No, sub -leasing is not allowed. 10. Do you program activities for your tenants? A. Yes, for example at The Trails at Timberline (located at the northwest corner of East Drake Road and Timberline Road), we have various activities that promote socialization and opportunities for residents to get to know their neighbors. 11. Are guests allowed? A. Of course and we have designated parking spaces for guests. We monitor guest parking so we can control the parking so it is not abused by long term parking. 12. Do you have an eviction policy? A. Yes, eviction procedures are in the lease and we have a three -strikes -and - you're -out policy. 13. I'm concerned about lighting. The construction at the mall has intrusive lighting. A. Our lighting will comply with City standards and dark -sky compliant. This means that light fixtures will be down -directional. We plan on using LED light fixtures which have the ability to be aimed precisely to minimize off -site spillover. 14. Cars are speeding on Stanford. We need speed tables like in other neighborhoods. A. Your neighborhood would have to work with the City's Traffic Operations Department which has certain criteria that must be addressed before speed tables are installed on a public street. 15.1 live across the street and the construction activity associated with the mall has been a nightmare. The construction crews routinely violate the legal limits on the hours of operation. Trucks off-load pipe and re -bar at all hours of the night. Large and bright security lighting faces our windows. Crews eat lunch on our common areas. Loud language is profane. Litter is profuse. Construction materials are strewn about. Work is done on Saturdays and Sundays. The sound of multiple back-up beepers is annoying. 9 16. The mall construction has been a serious detriment to our quality of life. Construction managers ignore our concerns. We have met with various City officials over the last several months and despite good intentions, results have been spotty. Given that you are coming in at the tail end of this saga, you need to be aware that we are hyper sensitive about noise, dust, and other various nuisances associated with large-scale construction. How long will it take to construct this project and how do you manage your construction activity? A. We anticipate that it will take about 18 months to fully complete the project. Please note that residential construction is different from large-scale commercial construction. We are not under any deadline due to requirements under tax increment financing. For example, we control our construction hours, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and while there may be some work on Saturdays, there will be no work on Sundays. We will comply with the City's hours of operation requirements and don't plan on any construction at night. Note that the site is already graded and we will not be excavating since the buildings will be slab on grade — no basements. This should minimize noise and dust. Above the foundation we use wood framing — no steel beams. There will less heavy machinery. You will hear nail guns and we use cranes to hoist large framed components. My name is Ben Krasnow, construction manager, and you can contact me anytime if there are any problems. 17.1 live across Stanford and I'm concerned about the four story buildings at the southern end of the site. These upper floor units will look directly into my condo and I'll lose my views to the west. A. Our project is separated from your building by our setback and Stanford Road. With this distance, we don't think there will be an impact on your privacy. These two four-story buildings will screen the mall parking garage which, we think, is not as attractive as our two four-story buildings. 18. The project is too intense. Adding 500 people to our neighborhood will be impactful. A. We understand but please note that we are reducing the number of units by one- half from 800 to 402. 19. Just as an example of the impact of living in a construction zone and the speeding on Stanford, the little white picket fence at the corner of Stanford and Swallow has been taken down twice by reckless drivers. 20. When will Foothills East be demolished? A. Alberta is responsible for the demo and we don't know the schedule. 21.1 am sensitive to air quality and concerned about idling diesel engines. 0 59 A. We will post a sign that diesel engines cannot idle if parked on Stanford 22. How will the construction be phased? A. We will start at the south end, Lot 6, by constructing the two four-story buildings one of which contains our clubhouse and leasing office. After that, we haven't decided the next phase. 23. Will you have big parties at the clubhouse like the pool parties around campus? A. No. 24. Will a percentage of the units be officially designated as affordable? A. No, all units will be leased at the market rate. 25. What do you expect the lease rates to be? A. We estimate: 1 b.r - $1,450 and 2 b.r. - $2,000 per month. 26. When do you expect to start construction: A. May of 2016. 27. Can outside groups rent your clubhouse? A. No, only residents can rent the clubhouse. 28. Will the project be age -restricted? A. There are no age restrictions. Note, however, that we will not be providing a playground which may have the effect of discouraging families with children. We will market the project to boomers who seek to downsize and young professionals. 29. Will you have to submit a traffic study? A. No, the original traffic study remains valid since we are reducing units. 30.1 support the project especially with the reduction in units. I think it will be a nice buffer from the mall. 31. How would the number of parking spaces, as required under the T.O.D. compare with the requirement under the non-T.O.D. standards. Non a A. Response from City: Here is the comparison among the two requirements and what is provided by the applicant per the plan (assuming 520 bedrooms)- T.O.D. Minimum Required 334 = .63 spaces per bedroom Non-T.O.D. Min. Required 637 = 1.2 spaces per bedroom Provided Per Plan 509 = .96 spaces per bedroom 32. Will any of the units be for -sale? A. No, all units will be leased. 33.1 remember when all of this area was a farm. I guess you just have to chalk this up to progress. 34.Your lease rates are high. Are you sure you can rent these units out? A. Yes, our market research indicates that there is a large demographic group that, at this stage in their lives, are choosing rent versus purchase. There is an attraction to the rental lifestyle that we are seeing in our market. 35. More street -lighting is needed at the Stanford / Swallow intersection. I see drivers running the four-way stop. A. Response from City: I'll have our Light and Power Utility check this out. 0 61 �OLSSON ASSOCIATES September 30, 2015 Ben Krasnow Senior Project Manager McWhinney 1404 Larimer Street Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 RE: Traffic Analysis Major Amendment to a Portion of Foothills Mall Redevelopment Planning Area 3 (Lots 3, 43 5, and 6 of Foothills Mall Redevelopment) Dear Mr. Krasnow Olsson has completed an analysis of the traffic for Lot 3, 43 5, and 6 of Foothills Mall Redevelopment. Per the original traffic impact analysis prepared by Felsburg Holt & Ullevig, dated June 2014, the traffic analysis for the multi -family assumed 800 apartment units. The following table summarizes the analysis from that report. Use Units Daily PM Peak Hour SAT Daily SAT Peak Hour Trips In Out Trips In Out Apartments 800 4,975 1 298 160 1 6,025 174 173 Per the proposed major amendment, the total apartment units will be 404. The following table summarizes the analysis for the major amendment. The analysis is based on the ITE 9th Edition trip generation rates (ITE Code 220). Use Units Daily PM Peak Hour SAT Daily SAT Peak Hour Trips In Out Trips In Out Apartments 404 21687 163 88 21582 210 Based on a comparison of the traffic analysis from the original plan to the proposed major amendment, the major amendment would reduce daily traffic by 2,288 trips, reduce afternoon peak hour trips by 208 trips, reduce Saturday daily traffic by 3,443 trips, and reduce the Saturday peak hour trips by 137. 5285 McWhinney Blvd., Suite 160 TEL 970.461.7733 Loveland, CO 80538 FAX 970.635.3709 www.olssonassociates.cIST Traffic Analysis Major Amendment to a Portion of Foothills Mall Redevelopment Planning Area 3 (Lots 3, 43 5, and 6 of Foothills Mall Redevelopment) Page 2 If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, Olsson Associates Oq�PDO .. O v�Hy•;� �.; v o�`�13altS • 39337 9� NA1.�N�'�, Daniel Hull, PE Technical Leader Enclosures 63 Agenda Item 4 PROJECT NAME VARIOUS REVISIONS TO THE LAND USE CODE RELATING TO DUST PREVENTION AND CONTROL 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 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 January 5, 2016. 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 First Reading. 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. APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 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 # 4 Page 1 .A Agenda Item 4 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Land Use Code Ordinance (PDF) 2. Cover Memo to Planning and Zoning Board - Responses to Questions Raised (DOC) 3. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual - Legal Review Pending (DOCX) 4. Fugitive Dust Code Changes - Problem Statement (DOCX) Item # 4 Page 2 65 Attachment 1 DRAFT - FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW PENDING ORDINANCE NO. 12015 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, 19975 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 Be! Attachment 1 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 Y..�, the Stof,ater- Design I krite f /1 ra r,.v.stifl ,.t.;,,,, ct,,, dar-as 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 building regulations related to such permit adopted by the city by reference or otherwise, as amended. Vault/Planning/Ordinances/ LUC Fugitive Dust 2 67 Attachment 1 DRAFT - FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW PENDING (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 building 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 Manual. 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: Pi If III SAN ol 0 IF 9 IF 111111 'oil III III III of %, I OF III III I I III I I IN III Ill IN V I If, Ill III V Ill IF I IN Ill Pill III I N'll Ill PillNSA 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 Attachment 1 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 Attachment 2 City of Fort Collins MEMORANDUM Date: December 1, 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.com Re: Fugitive Dust and Proposed Land Use Code Changes — Project Update Purpose: The purpose of this memo is to provide a draft response to the questions raised by the Planning and Zoning Board during the November Work Session and Hearing regarding dust prevention and control. Questions and Responses: • Question: What is the anticipated amount of water that will be used? What are the associated cost impacts of the various proposals and the impacts on water conservation and affordability? o Water: 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. 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. o Costs. One question that has arisen throughout this project is what the cost implications are of implementing these proposed changes. Staff has worked with the Fugitive Dust Working Group and AECOM (a private consulting firm) to assess the cost of the required dust mitigation measures for each dust generating activity. The full assessment will be provided to Council with the Agenda Item Summary prior to the January 5 First Reading. However, initial findings are as follows: • Costs were defined into initial, upfront costs, and ongoing operations and maintenance costs (O&M); • Costs can generally be broken into five categories: 70 Attachment 2 Fort Collins 1. Measures that result in nealiaible or no additional initial or O&M costs to the operator (less than $100): ■ Negligible costs include lowering drop height, covering loads, leaf blowing techniques, reducing vehicle speeds, and restricting access (in small projects). 2. Measures that result in minor O&M or initial upfront costs (hundreds of dollars): ■ Minor cost measures include minimizing the disturbed areas, reducing vehicle speeds (on unpaved or haul roads), and restricting access (on larger projects) 3. Measures that have little to no initial cost (<$100s) but have high O&M costs (ranging in the thousands to tens of thousands of dollars): ■ These measures include the high winds restriction (over 30 mph, which is consistent with state regulations) and cleaning up work area; 4. Measures that have high initial costs (ranging in the thousands to tens of thousands of dollars), but negligible or low O&M costs: ■ These measures include chemical stabilization (on parking lots), vegetating open areas, cleaning up the slurry after saw cutting/grinding or abrasive blasting, and erecting wind barriers. 5. Measures that have both high initial costs and high O&M costs (ranging in the thousands to tens of thousands of dollars):: ■ Measures include soil retention, surface improvements (paving roads), sweeping, synthetic or natural cover, prohibited uncontrolled sweeping, vegetating areas, and wet suppression on unpaved parking lots. • Note that all of these assessments are still under review by the Fugitive Dust Working Group and will be finalized prior to the January 5, 2016 Council Hearing. • Question: Why is the manual addressing leaf blowing? Isn't this overkill? o Response: 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 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. • Question: Does this program change anything in the building permit process? o Response: No. However, as these changes are based in the Municipal Code, anyone who is conducting dust generating activities has to comply with the Manual. Thus, it will be helpful to inform contractors and others obtaining building permits about these regulations, should they be adopted in January. 2 71 Attachment 2 Fort Collins • Question: Would implementation of these regulations require stockpiling permits for any project in the City, e.g., a single-family home that has a stockpile associated with excavating the foundation? o Response: No. A stockpiling permit is required when: Land Use Code 2.6.1- Purpose: A stockpiling permit is required in order to regulate the placement of fill dirt on properties not covered by a site specific development plan, to protect against adverse impacts to floodplains, drainage systems, natural areas, wildlife habitat, wetlands or other areas of public interest, and to assure that public nuisances will not be created by the stockpiling activities. Thus, while the dust control and prevention standards would apply to all properties generating dust, a stockpiling permit would only be required if a project was not covered under a site specific development plan. • Question: How would this program affect ranchettes in the south of town where they are raising horses, for example, or have an arena? o Response: The manual defines open area as "shall mean any area of undeveloped land greater than one-half acre that contains less than 70 percent vegetation. 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." Thus, agricultural properties are exempt. However, ranchettes with a home on them as well as arenas, e.g., the horse arenas mentioned in the Hearing, would be regulated under this program. • Question: Who will receive the citation? For example, who would receive a citation on a single-family home when a contractor was not controlling dust? o Response: It's important to emphasize that the purpose of the regulations is not to cite individuals regarding the regulations, but instead to prevent, minimize, and mitigate fugitive dust. Still, while the Ordinance allows for all parties to be cited, the most culpable party will be cited (if needed) and that would be the contractor and not the homeowner. • Question: Can the term "technologically feasible and economically reasonable" be better defined? o Response: This term has been removed from the manual. • Comment: It's important to ensure that City staff is trained in these regulations as well as the development/contracting community. Include the front line staff in these trainings. o Response: Staff agrees and will include the front counter staff in the training program. 3 72 !1A just Prevention and Contra Attachment 3 CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 1 1.3 Applicability 1 2.0 Fugitive Dust and the Problems it Causes 5 2.1 What is Fugitive Dust, Generally? 5 2.2 Why is the City Addressing Fugitive Dust? 5 2.3 Health and Environmental Effects 6 2. 4 Nuisance and Aesthetics 7 2.5 Safety Hazard and Visibility 7 3.0 Dust Control Measures 8 3.1 Earthmoving Activities 9 3.2 Demolition and Renovation 12 3.3 Stockpiles 14 3.5 Track -out / CarrV-out 19 3.6 Bulk Materials Transport 20 3.7 Unpaved Roads and Haul Roads 22 3.8 Parking Lots 24 3.9 Open Areas and Vacant Lots 26 3.10 Saw Cutting and Grinding 28 3.11 Abrasive Blasting 30 3.12 Mechanical Blowing 32 4.0 Dust Control Plan for Land Development Greater Than Five Acres 34 5.0 Resources 5.1 Cross Reference to Codes, Standards, Regulations, and Policies 40 5.2 City of Fort Collins Manuals and Policies 43 5.3 References for Dust Control 44 DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or quote - Legal Review Pending Page Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold, Check spelling and grammar Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold, Check spelling and grammar Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Italic, Check spelling and grammar 74 Attachment 3 DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or quote - Legal Review Pending Page ii Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Italic, Check spelling and grammar Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Italic, Check spelling and grammar Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Italic, Check spelling and grammar Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold, Check spelling and grammar Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Italic, Check spelling and grammar Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Italic, Check spelling and grammar Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Italic, Check spelling and grammar Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Italic, Check spelling and grammar Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold, Check spelling and grammar Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Italic, Check spelling and grammar Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Italic, Check spelling and grammar Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Italic, Check spelling and grammar Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Italic, Check spelling and grammar Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Italic, Check spelling and grammar Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Italic, Check spelling and grammar Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Italic, Check spelling and grammar Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Italic, Check spelling and grammar Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Italic, Check spelling and grammar Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Italic, Check spelling and grammar Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Italic. Check soellina and arammar Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Italic, Check spelling and grammar Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold, Check spelling and grammar Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold, Check spelling and grammar Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Italic, Check spelling and grammar Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Italic, Check spelling and grammar Formatted 75 Attachment 3 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 "available technelegoGa" y feasible and ecenommeally Feasenableclescribe applicable dust control measures to prevent, minimize, and mitigate 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. �he 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. L 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. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or quote - Legal Review Pending Pagc 1 Comment [LEI]: Mirror Ordinance here once completed. rComment [LE2]: Mirror ordinance when complete. 76 Attachment 3 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 or inorganic material containing particulate matter onto a public road or right-of-way in an unenclosed trailer, truck bed, bin, or other 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 are 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 - Legal Review Pending Code shall mean the Fort Collins Municipal as amended from time to time. 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 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 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 will use anemometers whenever 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. Off -property transport shall mean the visible emission of fugitive dust beyond the property Page 2 77 Attachment 3 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 dustsuppression 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. Open area shall mean any area of undeveloped land greater than one-half acre that contains less than 70 percent vegetation. 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 orownershall 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 water, and includes dust, smoke, soot, fumes, aerosols and mists. Sensitive area shall mean a specific area that warrants special protection from adverse DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or quote - Legal Review Pending 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 undercarriages from a private, commercial, or industrial site onto a public road or right-of- way. Page 3 Attachment 3 Vegetation shall mean the planting or seeding of appropriate grasses, plants, bushes, or trees to hold soil or to create a wind break. All seeded areas must be mulched, and the mulch should be adequately crimped and or tackified. If hydro -seeding is conducted, mulching must be conducted as a separate, second operation. All planted areas must be mulched within twenty- four (24) hours after planting. Wet suppression 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 DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or quote - Legal Review Pending at a rate that prevents runoff from entering any public right-of-way, storm drainage facility or watercourse. Wind barrier shall mean an obstruction at least five feet high with 150 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. Page 4 Comment []H3]: How do we measure porosity? Comment [LS4]: I can't find an answer yet, other than to say the 50% porosity is referenced in other entities' dust mitigation measures. Comment [LES]: Needs resolution - Caitlin 79 Attachment 3 2.0 Fugitive Dust and the Problems it Causes 2.1 What is Fugitive Dust, Generally? 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 particulate matter are emitted into the air in Larimer County annually. The primary sources of this particulate matter 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 Why is the City Addressing Fugitive Dust? 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 DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or quote - Legal Review Pending Page 5 :1 Attachment 3 to local man-made dust emissions. The City has established Chapter 12, §12-147 in the Municipal Code to address dust generating activities that negatively impact citizens in 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. 2.3 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 •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 - Legal Review Pending Page 6 Attachment 3 2.4 Nuisance and Aesthetics Dust, dirt and debris that become airborne 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, 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. 2.5 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 often caused by particulate matter and other pollutants in the air. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or quote - Legal Review Pending Page 7 Attachment 3 3.0 Dust Control Measures 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. 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. ContForMinitnize - reduce dust emissions with methods that capture, collect, or contain emissions. Mitigate feasible, the manual provides specific options More specifically, the Manual establishes the following procedures for each dust generating activity outlined in this Chapter: 1. AUn4atGpV-Required Measures - this section includes the specific measures that are required to be implemented if the dust generating activity is occurring. For example, high wind restrictions (temporarily halting work when wind speeds exceed 30 mph) are mandatory measures for earthmoving, demolition/renovation, saw cutting or grind, abrasive blasting, and leaf blowing. 2. Engineering Controls -this section includes additional measures if the mandatory measures are ineffective at preventing off -property transport of particulate matter. At least one of the engineering controls outlined in the manual must be implemented on the site to be in compliance with the Manual. 3. Additional Requirements - When applicable, additional measures may als are also required, e.g., a dust control plan when project sites are over 5 acres in size. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or quote - Legal Review Pending Page 8 Attachment 3 3.1 Earthmoving Activities dd n ♦v1. IT Above: This figure illustrates earthmoving, which is an activity that can generate dust. Dust emissions from earthmoving activities are dependent on the type of activity being conducted, the Comment []H6]: i don't understand this amount of exposed surface area, wind conditions, and soil type and moisture content. Earthmoving sentence. The amount is dependent, the kind is includes: dependent... both? Needs clarification. • 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) Required Measures: 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 to mitigate off -property transport of dust entrained by vehicles. (iii) Minimize drop height:: Drivers and operators shall unload truck beds and loader or excavator buckets slowly, and minimize drop height of materials, by any means and at the lowest height possible, including screening operations. Minimize drop height of rnateF"'s- (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 - Legal Review Pending Page 9 • A Attachment 3 (v) Restrict access: restrict access to the work area to only authorized vehicles and personnel. (b) Engineering Controls:I In the event 3.1(a)(i)-(v) are proven ineffective at preventing off -property , -- Comment [LE7]: How do we want to address transport, the person, owner, or operator shall use at least one of the following engineering controls.: when alternative options are Identified? (i) 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. (ii) Wind barrier: construct a fence or other type of wind barrier to prevent wind erosion of top soils. (iii) Vegetation: plant vegetation appropriate for retaining soils or creating a wind break. (iv) Surface roughening: stabilize an active construction area during periods of inactivity or when vegetation cannot be immediately established. (v) Synthetic or natural cover: install cover materials during periods of inactivity and properly anchor the cover. (vi) Soil retention: stabilize disturbed or exposed soil surface areas that will be inactive for more than 30 days or while vegetation is being established. (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. 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 Drohibited by the U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv 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 are non -toxic, non-combustible, and harmless to fish, wildlife, Dlants. oets. and humans may be used for chemical stabilization. (c) Additional requirements: 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. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or quote - Legal Review Pending Page 10 Attachment 3 (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 - Legal Review Pending Page 11 me Attachment 3 3.2 Demolition and Renovation Above: This photo illustrates restricting access (a mandatory measure) and a wind barrier (an engineering control) for demolition and renovation activities. 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) Required Measures:_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; Comment [LE8]: Include all regulations are in this manual that are already required... (iii) Restrict access: restrict access to the demolition area to only authorized vehicles and personnel; (iiiv) High winds restriction: temporarily halt work activities during high wind events greater than 30 mph if operations would result in off -property transport; and (iv) Minimize drop height: Drivers and operators shall unload truck beds and loader or excavator buckets slowly, and minimize drop height of materials, by any means and at the lowest height possible, including screening operations. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or quote - Legal Review Pending Page 12 Attachment 3 (b) Engineering Controls: I In the event 3.2(a)(i)-(iv) are proven ineffective at preventing off -property transport, the person, owner, or operator shall use at least one of the following engineering controls. The City Code compliance officer may direct the use of more than one engineering control in response to repeated complaints about the same dust -generating activity: (i) 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. (ii) 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. Asphalt -based products or any product containing cationic polvacrylamide 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 Aeencv 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 are non -toxic, non-combustible, and harmless to fish, wildlife, plants, pets, and humans may be used for chemical stabilization. (iii) Wind barrier: construct a fence or other type of wind barrier to prevent onsite dust generating materials from blowing offsite. (c) Additional requirements: (R) Building permit: obtain a building permit, if required. per Land Use Code 42.7.1.: 3 Above: This photo illustrates reducing drop height, a mandatory measure. Comment [LE9]: How do we want to address when alternative options are identified? Attachment 3 3.3 Stockpiles Above: This photo illustrates wet suppression, an engineering control for stockpiles. 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) ReguiredMeasures: Any owner or operator of a stockpile that is a dust generating activity or source Formatted: Font: Bold shall implement the following dust control measures to prevent off property transport of fugitive dust emissions: (i) Minimize drop height:: Drivers and operators shall unload truck beds and loader or excavator buckets slowly, and minimize drop height of materials, by any means and at the lowest height possible, including screening operations. Comment []H10]: These are only conditionally required. I think it might be a good idea to have these set off from iii. (+ub) Engineering controls: In the event 3.3(a)(i) is proven ineffective at preventing off -property transport, the person, owner, or operator shall use at least one of the following engineering controls: _f. the fellewing engineering controls as necessary or as directed by a City Formatted: Indent: Left: 0" DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or quote - Legal Review Pending Page 14 Attachment 3 (Ai) Wet suppression: Apply water to the active face when working the pile or to the entire pile Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.51 ,I during periods of inactivity. Prevent water used for dust control from entering any public right- of-way, storm drainage facility, or watercourse. (€ii) Synthetic or natural cover: install cover materials during periods of inactivity and anchor the cover. (6iii) Surface roughening: stabilize a stockpile during periods of inactivity or when vegetation cannot be immediately established. (Div) Stockpile location: locate stockpile at a distance equal to ten times the pile height from property boundaries that abut residential areas. (€v_) Vegetation: seed and mulch any stockpile that will remain inactive for 30 days or more. (vi) 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. Asphalt -based products or any product containine cationic polvacrvlamide or products deemed environmentallv incompatible — Formatted: Indent: Left: 1" �— Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5" —1 Formatted: Indent: Left: 1" Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5" with Municipal Code §26-498, or defined as a pollutant per Municipal Code §26-491, or explicitly prohibited by the U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv or the state of Colorado may not be Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5" used for chemical stabilization. Water soluble plant -based oils or gums, clay additives, or other synthetic polymer emulsion that are non -toxic, non-combustible, and harmless to fish, wildlife, plants, pets, and humans may be used for chemical stabilization. Formatted: Indent: Left: 1" (Gvii) Enclosure: construct a three -sided structure equal to or greater than the height of the pile f Formatted: Indent: Left: o.s" to shelter the pile from the predominant winds. (c) Additional requirements: llig 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. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or quote - Legal Review Pending Page 15 •f Attachment 3 Above: This picture illustrates one of the engineering controls for stockpiles —to use a synthetic cover. Formatted: Font: Italic DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or quote - Legal Review Pending Page 16 91 Attachment 3 3.4 Street Sweeping Above: This figure illustrates the use of a wet suppression and vacuum system, an engineering control for street sweeping. 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) Required Measures: 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 all of 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, due to engineering requirements associated with these operations. (4b) Engineering controls: In the event 3.4(a)(i) is proven ineffective at preventing off -property transport, the person, owner, or operator shall use at least one of the following engineering controls: (Ai) 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 - Legal Review Pending Page 17 Comment []H11]: Forgive my ignorance on this, but does the City provide its own street sweeping or is it a contract? If it is contractual, I think we might have some contractual concerns since these likely would not have been provisions in the contract. 92 Attachment 3 (iia) Vacuum system: use sweeper or power broom equipped with a vacuum collection and filtration system. (fK-) 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 - Legal Review Pending Page 18 93 Attachment 3 3.5 Track -out / Carry -out Above: This figure illustrates an installed grate (left) and a gravel bed (right), both of which are engineering controls associated with track-out/carry-out. Mud, dirt, and other debris can be carried from a site on equipment's wheels or undercarriage onto public roads. When this material dries, it can become airborne by wind activity or when other vehicles travel on it. This is a health concern and can cause visibility issues and safety hazards. Dust Control Measures (a) Required Measures: 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. (b) Engineering controls: In the event 3.5(a)(i)-(ii) are proven ineffective at preventing off -property transport, the person, owner, or operator shall use at least one of the following engineering controls: (i) Install rails, pipes, grate, or similar track -out control device. (ii) Install a gravel bed track -out apron that extends at least 50 feet from the intersection with a public road or right-of-way. (iii) Install gravel bed track -out apron with steel cattle guard or concrete wash rack. (iv) Install vehicle and equipment washing station. (v) Install a paved surface that extends at least 100 feet from the intersection with a public road or right-of-way. (vi) 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 - Legal Review Pending Page 19 Comment []H12]: what does this mean? Comment []H13]: A 5 gallon bucket and a sponge would meet this requirement, as written. • A Attachment 3 3.6 Bulk Materials Transport PFV Above: This figure illustrates covered loads, a mandatory measure for bulk materials transport. 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) Required Measures: Any owner or operator of a site in which vehicles used for transporting bulk materials to and from the site on a public or private road or on a public right-of-way and whose operations are a dust generating activity or source shall prevent off -vehicle transport of fugitive dust emissions. To prevent off -vehicle transport of fugitive dust to and from the site, the owner or operator may require: (i) Drivers to Cover Loads: Drivers shall 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. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or quote - Legal Review Pending Page 20 95 Attachment 3 (ii) Minimize drop height:: Drivers and operators shall unload truck beds and loader or excavator buckets slowly, and minimize drop height of materials, by any means and at the lowest height possible, including screening operations. (b) Engineering controls: In the event 3.6(a)(i)-(ii) are proven ineffective at preventing off -property transport, the person, owner, or operator shall use at least one of the following engineering controls: (i) 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. I(ii) 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. I 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. clav additives. or other synthetic polymer emulsion that are non -toxic, non-combustible, and harmless to fish, wildlife, plants, pets, and humans may be used for chemical stabilization. Comment [LE14]: From GM —should this really apply as it applies to transport? I(iii) other technology: use other equivalent technology, such as limiting the load size to provide at least three inches of freeboard to prevent spillage. Comment [LEIS]: who decides? Above: This figure illustrates minimizing drop heights, a mandatory measure for bulk materials transport. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or quote - Legal Review Pending Page 21 Attachment 3 Above: This figure illustrates surface improvements on an unpaved road, an engineering control. 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) Required Measures: 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. _ Comment []H16]: How can a private owner establish a speed limit on a public right-of-way? (ii) Restrict access: restrict travel on unpaved roads by limiting access to only authorized vehicle use. (b) Engineering controls: In the event 3.7(a)(i)-(ii) are proven ineffective at preventing off -property transport, the person, owner, or operator shall use at least one of the following engineering controls: (i) 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. (ii) Surface improvements: install gravel or similar materials with sufficient depth to reduce dust or pave high traffic areas. (iii) 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. Asphalt -based products or any product containing cationic polvacrylamide or products deemed DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or quote - Legal Review Pending Page 22 97 Attachment 3 environmentallv incompatible with Municipal Code 626-498. or defined as a pollutant 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 are non -toxic, non- combustible, and harmless to fish, wildlife, plants, pets, and humans may be used for chemical stabilization. (iv) Access road location: locate site access roads away from residential or other populated areas. Above: This figure illustrates wet suppression, an engineering control for unpaved or haul roads. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or quote - Legal Review Pending Page 23 Attachment 3 3.8 Parking Lots Above: This figure illustrates an unpaved parking lot in Fort Collins. 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 a Dust Control Measures- Unpaved Parking Lots (a) Required Measures: -Any owners or operator of an unpaved parking lot greater than one-half acre and whose operations are a dust generating activity or source shall use at least one of the following dust control 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. (WO) Vegetation: plant vegetation appropriate for retaining soils or creating a wind break. (�AH) 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. (v4iv) 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. Asphalt -based products or anv product containine cationic polvacrvlamide 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 are 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 - Legal Review Pending Page 24 Comment []H17]: Might need a definition here. I'm not sure what that means. Formatted: Indent: Left: 0" Attachment 3 (vii) Wind barrier: construct a fence or other type of wind barrier. (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. (vii+*) Restrict access: restrict travel in parking lots to only those vehicles with essential duties and limit access to hours of operation or specific events. Dust Control Measures- Paved Parking Lots (+i) Maintenance: repair potholes and cracks and maintain surface improvements. (iii) Mechanical sweeping: (applies to paved parking lets enly- Ssweep 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. (iii) 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. (iv) Restrict access: restrict travel in parking lots to only those vehicles with essential duties and limit access to hours of operation or specific events. Above: This photo represents improving the surface of a parking area, which is one measure to comply with the manual. DI -..___ �... r___ Do not cite or quote - Legal Review Pending Page 25 Comment [LE18]: From 1H: Ambiguous. This should refer to the when the parking lot itself is used for or is the source of the dust generating activity. The City has dust generating operations. Therefore every parking lot we own becomes subject to this regulation. Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Indent: Left: 0" Formatted: Indent: Left: 0" 100 Attachment 3 3.9 Open Areas and Vacant Lots .r• gob� JIM Above: These photos illustrate open areas in Fort Collins, which have the potential to generate dust. 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) Required Measures: 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 (necessaryier as ,+Feat, by a City ,.,.a,. ,.,......i:..nc ,4fic .-to stabilize disturbed or exposed soil surface areas that will be inactive for 30 days or more and to prevent off-arooerty 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 DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or quote - Legal Review Pending Page 26 Comment [31419]: says who? Comment [31420]: What is an inactive exposed soil surface? I don't think it's generally known, so we might want to define that term. Comment [31421]: This repeats the clause above. No need. But what does it mean? 101 Attachment 3 public right-of-way, storm drainage facility, or watercourse. 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 are 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 - Legal Review Pending Page 27 102 Attachment 3 3.10 Saw Cutting and Grinding 14 Above: This photo illustrates concrete cutting and how the activity can generate dust. 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) Required Measures: 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. (Yb) Engineering controls: In the event 3.10(a)(i)-(iv) are proven ineffective at preventing off -property transport, the person, owner, or operator shall use at least one of the following engineering controls: DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or quote - Legal Review Pending Page 28 Formatted: Font: Bold Comment [LE22]: From GM: In general, while it may seem to be a rather concentrated and sig. source, in reality, residential saws/grinders have a pretty minimal generating capacity, especially with new silica rules in place... could be redundancy. Engineering controls should be in place for business/commercial practices. Overrun with residential issues (potentially) and done by the time anyone would arrive based on a complaint. Do inspectors have access in the case of a complaint? 103 Attachment 3 Formatted: Indent: Left: 0" (Ai) On -tool local exhaust ventilation: use a tool -mounted dust capture and collection system. —` Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5" (9ii) On -tool wet suppression: use a tool -mounted water application system. (Ciii) Vacuuming: use a vacuum equipped with a HEPA filter simultaneously with cutting or grinding operations. (Div) Wet suppression: use a water sprayer or hose simultaneously with cutting or grinding operations. (E,v_) Enclosure: conduct cutting or grinding within an enclosure with a dust collection system or temporary tenting over the work area. Above: These photos illustrate how dust generated from cutting can be minimized by applying on -tool wet suppression, an engineering control associated with saw cutting and grinding. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or quote - Legal Review Pending Page 29 Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25' —` Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5" Formatted: Indent: Left: 0" 104 Attachment 3 3.11 Abrasive Blasting Above: This photo illustrates abrasive blasting without dust mitigation in place. 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) Required Measures: 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 all of 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. Comment [LE23]: From JH: This is probably a good one to create a specific regulation to prohibit the outdoor blasting of any 'portable' surface. Meaning you can't do what is shown in the picture, bring it inside. (vb) Engineering controls: In the event 3.11(a)(i)-(iv) are proven ineffective at preventing off -property transport, the person, owner, or operator shall use at least one of the following engineering controls: 11se at least ene er mere of the fellewing engineering eentrels as necessary or as direeted by a City Formatted: Indent: Left: 0" DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or quote - Legal Review Pending Page 30 105 Attachment 3 (,4i) Enclosure: conduct abrasive blasting within an enclosure with a dust collection system or temporary tenting over the work area. (E ii) Wet suppression blasting: use one of several available methods that mix water with the abrasive media or air during blasting operations. (6iii) Vacuum blasting: conduct air -based blasting that uses a nozzle attachment with negative air pressure to capture dust. (9iv) Abrasive media: select less toxic, lower dust -generating blasting media sl1 at * Blasting on surfaces that contain lead paint or wastes from sand blasting that contain hazardous materials may be subject to additional state and federal requirements. Above: This photo illustrates wet suppression blasting, an engineering control. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or quote - Legal Review Pending Page 31 �— Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5" 106 Attachment 3 3.12 Mechanical Blowing Above: This photo illustrates mechanical blowing without dust mitigation in place. 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 4ea )-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) Required Measures: 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 of the following dust control measures as necessary to prevent off -property transport of fugitive dust emissions- (i) Alternative method: use an alternative_wheFe 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 off -property or in close proximity totewards people, animals, open windows, air intakes, ^F paFke•l vehieler or onto adjacent property, public right-of-way, storm drainage facility, or watercourse. (iii) PFevent Minimize 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 and equipment. (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 - Legal Review Pending Page 32 107 Attachment 3 (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. Above: These photos illustrate alternative methods to mechanical blowing that can minimize dust generation. DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or quote - Legal Review Pending Page 33 Attachment 3 Comment [LE24]: Add into the Executive Summary, to be developed, this information... right • process. 0 Dust Control Plan for Land Development Greater Than Five Acre now, it's too buried. Same with enforcement .s. 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.fcaov.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 - Legal Review Pending Page 34 Comment []H25]: This is out of my ken. Probably Brad Yatabe and Judy's territory. 109 Attachment 3 City Of Fo'rt Collins 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-mail Developer --,a ue, 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 hov✓ this project ti= III 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 - Legal Review Pending Page 35 Comment [LE26]: 1. From BrimHergott: When would this be required to be submitted, is it to be part of the permit process for the project? a. Sheet29 has spots for your to dictate three subcontractors but really every subcontractor has a chance of creating dust on a project at some point or another. Also all sub -contractors may not all be on board when this form gets filled out. Projects could have thirty (30) subcontractors or more that would need to be included so perhaps a separate sheetjust for subcontractors and it may need to be submitted as additional information as the project progresses. 2. 1 think that an acknowledgement by the subcontractors that they are to prevent any and all dust from leaving the jobsites would seem to be applicable. Maybe more of a daily report or a contractor report that each contractor would submit prior to being paid would be more fitting. This would allow each contractor to evaluate their scopes independently and weigh in when they are brought on board. 3. This form may be a good submittal from the GC to get them thinking about sequence for the project and what they need to do and what the contractor needs to do for dust control measures. 110 Attachment 3 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 /Dust Control Measure L m _ ] o c E Y C ¢ 3 j J ti A nQ' cc J A N = = C Y C m G J C U N M N 2 n Q '; O m 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 - Legal Review Pending Page 36 111 Attachment 3 Dust CONTROL PLAN CERTIFICATION I certify the infornnation and attachments contained in this Dust Control Plan are true and €orrecttothe best of my knowledge and that I have received a copy of this Dust Control Plan and admowledge my understanding of and abilityto comply with best management practices for €ontrvllingfugitive dusternissions. I hereby permit City officials to enter upon the property for the purpo-se of inspection aPanydust generati ng activity or source for which I am the responsible person, owner, or operator_ Name: Title: Role on project: Address: Phase: wabKe: Date: + • • s • • + + 0 + + + + + + + • + + + + + • • + + + + + • • + + + + + • • • • + + s s • • • + + • s s • • + + • • s 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: Sigrtabare: Date: DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or quote - Legal Review Pending Page 37 112 Attachment 3 r zI =0 1 1 m, . .......... . .111 am etsas9MnMnssam Am `— - - - 111.11.111011FACT"MMO —am ap, am am - - - - - - A winiatien of Munieipal Gede Chapter 12, §12 147 will net him irswed of off property transport of fugkive DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or quote - Legal Review Pending Page 38 Formatted: Heading 1 Formatted: Normal, No bullets or numbering 113 Attachment 3 WN DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or quote - Legal Review Pending Page 39 Comment [31428]: I'm pretty uncomfortable with this entire section... Let me think about it a bit more so I can figure out why. 114 Attachment 3 65.0 Resources 65.1 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 - Legal Review Pending Page 40 115 Attachment 3 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 - Legal Review Pending Page 41 116 Attachment 3 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 - Legal Review Pending Page 42 117 Attachment 3 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. 65.2 City of Fort Collins Manuals and Policies Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual http://www.fcpov.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.fcaov.com/parks/pdf/bmp.pdf City of Fort Collins Building Design and Construction Standards, Oct. 2013 http://www.fcpov.com/opserv/pdf/bu i Id ing-design-sta ndards2. 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 - Legal Review Pending Page 43 118 Attachment 3 65.3 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.ng.us/health/surv/documents/dry cutting.pdf Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - Engineering Controls for Silica in Construction http://www.cdc.gov/n iosh/topics/siI ica/cutoffsaws. htm I 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.htmi 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 - Legal Review Pending Page 44 119 Attachment 3 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/Cata log.xhtm I USGS Columbia Environmental Research Center Project: Environmental Effects of Dust Suppressant Chemicals on Roadside Plant and Animal Communities, http://www.cerc.usgs.gov/Promects.aspx?Prowectld=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/3fsl6.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 - Legal Review Pending Page 45 120 Attachment 3 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. http://caages.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-d ust-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 - Legal Review Pending Page 46 121 Attachment 3 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/aq/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/fuizitivedust 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://co,zcc.state.co.us/ DRAFT Dust Prevention and Control Manual Do not cite or quote - Legal Review Pending Page 47 122 Attachment 4 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. 123 Attachment 4 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 allg 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 124 Agenda Item 5 PROJECT NAME CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 22ND FILING, COMMUNITY HORTICULTURE CENTER #MJA150006 STAFF Jason Holland, City Planner U:tea]X4&91►I&INJi/_yl1l[*]► PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a Major Amendment to the Centre for Advanced Technology 22nd Filing, Community Horticulture Center, which is the formal name and location of the Gardens on Spring Creek. The proposed plan reflects the major components outlined in the original master plan, which was approved in 2001. At that time, the master plan included a number of future components, which are now planned in detail with this amended plan. Specifically, the amended components that are shown with these proposed plans include: APPLICANT: OWNER: RECOMMENDATION • expanded garden areas including — Plant Select Garden, Fragrance Garden, • Rose Garden, Moon Garden, Undaunted Garden, Prairie Garden, Bird Garden, and Foothills Garden; • a stage structure and sound walls for outdoor performances; • modified circulation through the gardens and to the existing Spring Creek Trail; • a parking area for approximately 150 bikes; • small arbor structures at various gardens and one larger structure in the Undaunted Garden; and • operational and management standards for events. John Beggs Senior Landscape Architect Russell + Mills Studios 141 South College Avenue, Suite 104 Fort Collins, CO 80524 City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Approval Item # 5 Page 1 125 Agenda Item 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Centre for Advanced Technology 22nd Filing, Community Horticulture Center Major Amendment (MJA), commonly referred to as the Gardens on Spring Creek, complies with the applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically: • The MJA complies with the Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 - Administration. • The MJA complies with the relevant standards of the Employment District (E) located in Division 4.27 of Article 4. • The MJA complies with the relevant standards located in Article 3 - General Development Standards. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North Employment (E) Undeveloped CSU parcel South Employment (E) Child care facility, residential student housing East Employment (E) Offices, including the Natural Resources Research Center (NRRC) West Low Density Residential (R-L) Residential - single-family lots and open space tracts • The property was annexed in September 1965 as part of the 4th College Annexation. • The property was included in the Centre for Advanced Technology Overall Development Plan (ODP) in 1983. At that time, the use for the property was designated as Recreation on the ODP. The ODP was revised in 1985, 1988, 1994, and 1999, all with the same Recreation use designation for the parcel. The ODP was then revised several times from 2002 through 2012. • As the current use was finalized with the approved master plan for the Gardens on Spring Creek facility, the parcel was eventually removed from the Centre for Advanced Technology ODP boundary. • The Gardens on Spring Creek (GSC) facility was approved by a Hearing Officer in 2001 as the Centre for Advanced Technology 22nd Filing Community Horticulture Center. The approved plan includes two primary uses - Community Facility and Neighborhood Park. The park designation applies to portions of the Plan along the Spring Creek Trail, known as Lilac Park. The approved plan includes all of the elements of the GSC facility that currently exist today, including the main facility building and greenhouse/conservatory, themed gardens, parking area, trail alignment and perimeter landscaping. The approved plan also includes several elements to be built with future phase construction, including additional themed gardens, a great lawn, gazebo and bandstand. In conjunction with the great lawn, gazebo and bandstand, the approved plan proposes a maximum of 350 people on -site for amplified music performances and other events. A copy of the current plan is included with this staff report. The amended plans propose to expand the scope of the amplified music performances to accommodate a maximum of 1,500 people. 2. Compliance with Applicable L-M-N Standards: The project remains in compliance with all applicable Employment District standards with the following relevant comments provided: Item # 5 Page 2 126 Agenda Item 5 A. Section 4.27 - Permitted Uses While the current approval describes the Gardens on Spring Creek facility as a "Community Horticulture Center", the designated permitted use per the Land Use Code (LUC) is community facility. This specific land use designation is listed in Section 4.27(13)(2)(b)(4) of the Employment District as a permitted use subject to Administrative Review with a Hearing Officer. However, effective July 21, 2015, under Ordinance No. 82, 2015, all projects in which the City is the applicant are reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board. The new review process is described in Division 2.17: City Projects. Development projects for which the City is the applicant shall be processed in the manner described in this Land Use Code, as applicable, but shall be subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board in all instances, despite the fact that certain uses would otherwise have been subject to administrative review. Additionally, the process may include an Alternate Review as follows: Section 2.2.12 - Step 12: Appeals/Alternate Review (A) Appeals. Appeals of any final decision of a decision maker under this Code shall be only in accordance with Chapter 2, Article 11, Division 3 of the City Code, unless otherwise provided in Divisions 2.3 through 2.11 and 2.16 of this Code. (B) Alternate Review. Despite the foregoing, if the City is the applicant for a development project, there shall be no appeal of any final decision regarding such development project to the City Council. In substitution of an appeal of a development project for which the City is the applicant, the City Council may, by majority vote, as an exercise of its legislative power and in its sole discretion, overturn or modify any final decision regarding such project, by ordinance of the City Council. Any Councilmember may request that the City Council initiate this exercise of legislative power but only if such request is made in writing to the City Clerk within fourteen (14) days of the date of the final decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. City Council shall conduct a hearing prior to the adoption of the ordinance in order to hear public testimony and receive and consider any other public input received by the City Council (whether at or before the hearing) and shall conduct its hearing in the manner customarily employed by the Council for the consideration of legislative matters. When evaluating City projects under alternate review, the City Council may, in its legislative discretion, consider factors in addition to or in substitution of the standards of this Land Use Code. 3. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code - General Development Standards The project complies with all applicable General Development Standards with the following relevant comments provided: A. Division - 3.2, Site Planning and Design Standards The project plan, as amended, remains in compliance with the standards in this Division of the code, which includes Landscaping and Tree Protection, Access, Circulation and Parking, Solar Access, Orientation and Shading, Site Lighting, and Trash and Recycling Enclosures. The majority of the site elements that relate to these standards have already been constructed, including the on -site parking lot, main building/conservatory, street trees along Centre Avenue, alignment of the Spring Creek Trail, and perimeter plantings. 1) Section 3.2.4 - Site Lighting. A photometric plan is provided for the additional light fixtures that are included in the amended phases of the facility. The additional lighting provided incorporates down -directional and sharp cut-off fixtures. All lighting complies with the lighting levels and design standards of this section. 2) Section 3.2.2 - Access, Circulation and Parking. The amended plans comply with the minimum parking required by providing off -site parking for events as needed. The minimum parking required is based on the City's standards for Alternative Compliance, and is based on the minimum parking required for the peak demand Item # 5 Page 3 127 Agenda Item 5 anticipated at a ticketed performance event, for a maximum of 1,500 people. Parking demand for a 1,500 person event is anticipated to arrive using the following travel modes: • 150 visitors travel to events via bicycle • 50 visitors travel to events via MAX • 1300 visitors travel to events via car w/2 persons per vehicle average. This demand estimate requires total of 650 parking spaces. A total of 700 parking spaces are provided with the plans as follows: • 65 vehicles will utilize the existing Gardens on Spring Creek on -site parking lot, of the 74 spaces available in this parking lot. • 350 vehicles will utilize the NRRC facility parking lot located across Centre Avenue to the east. • 285 vehicles will utilize the CSU Research Blvd parking Lot, which is located 1,800 feet (.34 miles) along Center Avenue to the south of the Gardens. The applicant's alternative compliance narrative attached with this staff report provides more detail. Staff finds that the off -site parking arrangement provides an adequate solution within acceptable proximity to the facility to accommodate larger planned events. The operational standards provided with the site plan outline the need for traffic control and other measures that will be provided in conjunction with this off -site event parking. B. Division - 3.3 Engineering Standards Utility Plans are provided for the amended project that comply with all City requirements. Site grading and stormwater drainage design are the major focus of these plans. The proposed design and drainage analysis demonstrates that the project complies with the original design from the approved drainage and erosion control report for the project, dated January 31, 2003 and prepared by EDAW, Inc. Portions of the site are in the City floodplain and a Floodplain Use Permit is required, which must show that there will be no rise in the Base Flood Elevation on neighboring properties. C. Section 3.4.1 Natural Habitats and Features The project is located within 500 feet of a number of special features that require protection, including the Spring Creek and associated wetlands, the re-routed Sherwood Lateral ditch and associated wetlands, and a series of small wetlands on the eastern edge of the site. Based on the updated Ecological Characterization Study for the site and the requirements of Section 3.4.1(E), the following Natural Habitat Buffer Zones apply to this project, which have been delineated on the site and landscape plans: • Spring Creek Corridor and wetlands (100 feet) • Sherwood Lateral Ditch and wetlands (50 feet) • Two groups of wetlands on east side of property (50 feet for each wetland area) Section 3.4.1(E) limits the type of development activity that may occur within these buffer zones. As proposed, this project conflicts neither with the intended purpose nor the specific requirements for these buffer zones. While some disturbance will occur within the buffers (e.g., the addition of paths and walkways), these impacts will be adequately mitigated through the restoration of disturbed areas with additional plantings and habitat enhancements throughout the site. D. Municipal Code Chapter 20, Article 11 - Noise. Noise levels from the Gardens on Spring Creek Facility must be below the maximum decibel levels (dBA) at the following adjacent receiving land uses: Item # 5 Page 4 128 Agenda Item 5 Low Density Residential District (R-L): 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. 55 dBA 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 50 dBA Employment District (E): 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. 70 dBA 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 65 dBA An acoustical model was developed by the applicant's consultant in conjunction with the design of the outdoor stage and great lawn seating area. The design narrative provided by the applicant is attached with this staff report. In conjunction with the outdoor stage orientation, a series of sound walls are provided to absorb and diffuse sound from amplified music performances. The design recommends a series of four sound barrier walls, ranging in height between 12 and 19.5 feet above the stage level. The proposal demonstrates that compliance with the maximum permissible noise levels at the receiving land uses can be achieved. In addition, staff recommends that operational and management standards be provided, which are attached with this staff report. These standards outline the type, frequency and duration of events that may occur, requirements for sound monitoring at events, and general operational standards. 4. Neighborhood Meeting Two neighborhood meetings were held for the proposed project. Neighborhood meeting summaries are attached with this staff report. 5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion A. The Major Amendment complies with the process located in Division 2.2 -Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 - Administration. B. The Major Amendment complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 - General Development Standards. C. The Major Amendment complies with the applicable Employment District standards in Division 4.27 of Article 4. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Planning and Zoning Board approval with the following motion: Approve the Major Amendment of the Centre for Advanced Technology 22nd Filing, Community Horticulture Center #MJA150006 based on the findings of fact found on page 7 of the staff report. Item # 5 Page 5 129 Agenda Item 5 ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity map (PDF) 2. Zoning map (PDF) 3. Applicant's Planning Narrative (PDF) 3a. Operational and Management Standards (PDF) 4. Site Plan (PDF) 5. Landscape Plan (PDF) 6. Elevations and Perspectives (PDF) 7. Applicant's Sound Model Report (PDF) 8. Alternative Compliance Parking Request (PDF) 9. Off -site parking letter of intent (PDF) 10. Traffic analysis memorandum (PDF) 11. Drainage memorandum (PDF) 12. Ecological characterization memo (PDF) 13. Utility Plans (PDF) 14. Notes - 1 st neighborhood meeting (PDF) 15. Notes - 2nd neighborhood meeting (PDF) 16. Meeting notification boundary map (PDF) 17. 1st neighborhood meeting letter (PDF) 18. 2nd neighborhood meeting letter (PDF) 19. Supplemental letter for 2nd neighborhood meeting (PDF) 20. Sound demonstration notes from 2nd Neighborhood meeting (PDF) 21. Background - Alternate Review Ordinance 082,2015 (PDF) 22. Background - Gardens planning objectives from 2000 (PDF) 23. Background - Approved site plan from 2003 (PDF) 24. Background - 2001 decision and staff report (PDF) 25. Background - Ecological Study 2001(PDF) 26. Background - Windtrail PUD plat (PDF) 27. Letter from Resident (DOC) Item # 5 Page 6 130 Attachment 1 Ct James Ct South Dr O A St L p a N N -T W W W.Pitkin St Colorado -State -University W pitkin St� W Lake St W Drake Rd Gardens on Spring Creek Major Amendment 900 450 0 900 Feet 1 inch = 900 feet E 131 Legend City Zoning ZONE = Public Open Lands (POL) Community Commercial (CC) = General Commercial (CG) CSU ■ Employment (E) High Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (HMN) Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood (LMN) Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (MMN) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Low Density Residential (RL) Gardens on Spring Creek Zoning Map Attachment 3 CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 22ND FILING COMMUNITY HORTICULTURE CENTER - MAJOR AMENDMENT Statement of Proposed Planning Objectives September 16, 2015 This project shall be titled Centre For Advanced Technology 22d Filing Community Horticulture Center - Major Amendment. The project components include the following: • 5.78 AC project site area • Stage structure for outdoor performances • Expanded garden areas — including botanical/display gardens • Improved circulation through -out gardens and to existing Spring Creek Trail • 150 total bike parking spaces • Existing property zoning — Employment District SITE PLAN This project is a major amendment to the approved PDP submittal titled - Centre for Advanced Technologies 22d Filing "Community Horticultural Center" PDP, #53-85AV. This plan reflects the major components outlined in the approved master plan. The proposed plan also fulfills a need of providing an outdoor performance facility outlined in the Cultural Plan approved in 2008. Some outdoor events will require additional parking from adjacent parking locations surrounding the Gardens. These parking areas have been identified on the LS002 sheet in the site submittal. These parking areas have also been outlined in a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that was developed in 2000. This MOU outlines the agreements that have been reached between surrounding landowners and the City regarding the use of these parking areas. The proposed major amendment is needed to approve increased occupancy during events at the facility. Other site improvements include • Expanded garden areas including — Plant Select Garden, Fragrance Garden, Rose Garden, Moon Garden, Undaunted Garden, Prairie Garden, Bird Garden, and Foothills Garden. • Stage structure for outdoor performances • Improved connectivity through gardens and to existing Spring Creek Trail • Bike parking area that will accommodate approx. 150 bikes. • Small arbor structures at gardens and larger structure in Undaunted Garden. ARCHITECTURE The proposed stage structure has been designed to accommodate outdoor performances that will be held at the Gardens. See architectural elevations and perspectives. 1. CITY PLAN PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES ACHIEVED BY THE PROPOSED PLAN ENV 1.1 - Protect and Enhance Natural Features The Gardens expansion is planned to showcase and highlight natural features of the region. Where existing features exist on site the Gardens will conserve and protect those Centre for Advanced Technology 22"d Filing Community Horticulture Center -Major Amendment Page 1 of 12 STATEMENT OF PROPOSED PLANNING OBJECTIVES Russell + Mills Studios I September 2015 133 Attachment 3 features. Those include the existing wetland area to the NE of the site and Sherwood Lateral running through the middle of the site. ENV 2.2 - Outreach to the Public The Gardens will promote activities and events occurring at the facility and provide a variety of formal, non -formal education and interpretive programs. ENV 4: The City will pursue new opportunities to provide multifunctional open lands. The gardens act as a multi -functional use by providing a variety of educational opportunities, as well as entertainment and passive recreation for the community. ENV 4.3 - Improve Water Quality and Detention The site will highlight a water quality feature that starts in the foothills garden, travels through a bio-swale and ends in a detention area. The existing wetland area, that acts as another water quality area will be retained and will be an additional highlight of the site. ENV 4.5 - Support Community Horticulture As the City's community horticultural center, they will continue to encourage and support community horticulture programs. This is a core value of the gardens and it's mission statement, "To improve the lives of people and foster environmental stewardship through horticulture." ENV 15.1 - Encourage Composting The Gardens will explore and encourage composting on site and educate visitors to the beneficial use of composting. ENV 18.5 - Provide Education Careful planning of the site was needed in order to maintain a no -rise condition in this flood area - this presents a unique educational opportunity for all visitors to understand the delicate balance of developing within one of these areas. ENV 20.2 - Follow Design Criteria for Stormwater Facilities All stormwater BMP's will be followed for all the stormwater facilities. LIV 11.2 - Incorporate Public Space Public spaces will be included throughout the entire site with a variety of cafe seating types, overlooks, children's play area and plazas/walkways. LIV 14.1 - Encourage Unique Landscape Features The garden expansion will highlight many unique landscape features - these include: The undaunted garden, foothills garden, prairie garden, great lawn, cafe grove, along with a variety of smaller unique, highly designed landscaped spaces. LIV 14.2 - Promote Functional Landscape All planting will be designed with native/adaptive plants, as well as highlighting a variety of botanical planting areas that will showcase unique plants of the region. LIV 14.3 - Design Low Maintenance Landscapes Native and adaptive planting and the great lawn turf area, reserved for functional/multi-use will allow a minimum of maintenance. Shrub beds will be maintained without excessive pruning or `snow -balling' of shrubs. Centre for Advanced Technology 22nd Filing Community Horticulture Center -Major Amendment Page 2 of 12 STATEMENT OF PROPOSED PLANNING OBJECTIVES Russell + Mills Studios I September 2015 134 Attachment 3 LIV 21.2 - Establish an Interconnected Street and Pedestrian Network The pedestrian network will allow access to all proposed garden areas as well as providing easy access to other structures within The Garden areas. LIV 23.1 - Provide Neighborhood Parks and Outdoor Spaces The garden expansion will provide a unique neighborhood and community asset by providing a passive park setting with unique and highly designed outdoor spaces. The Gardens are within walking distance of several residential neighborhoods. LIV 23.2 - Integrate Natural Features The existing Spring Creek as well as the existing wetland areas on site will be protected and will be integrated into the design of The Gardens expansion. LIV 30.3 - Improve Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Additional bike parking to the north of the gardens expansion will be provided. This will accommodate approximately 150 bikes. LIV 31.4 - Design for Pedestrian Activity The pedestrian walks ensure connectivity throughout the facility. SW 3.1 - Encourage Community Gardens and Markets The Gardens will continue to encourage and support cooperative efforts for the establishment and continuation of community gardens and markets throughout the community. The gardens will foster its partnerships with several local programs and community events at The Gardens and around the community. CPR 2.2 - Build Identity The Gardens has and will continue to help solidify Fort Collins as a world -class cultural center and destination by providing an invaluable horticultural education and entertainment experience through classes, events and partnerships within the community. CPR 4.1 - Provide World -Class Facilities The expansion will provide an invaluable facility that will educate and foster smart and sustainable horticulture practices. CPR 5.2 - Provide Multi -Purpose Lands The Gardens expansion will bring together several City departments to maintain and develop a valuable City resource and provide a passive recreation experience through an extensive expansion of walking trails that will connect to the existing facility and the Spring Creek Trail. HI 1.3 - Welcome and Support Volunteerism in the City Organization The expansion will provide more opportunities for volunteer work within the Garden by providing insight into how the Gardens can provide a range of opportunities for citizens to volunteer and learn about the Gardens on Spring Creek. HI 2.1 - Support a Learning Community Several classes will be offered with the addition of classes and events once the additional garden areas are complete. These will support an already robust educational experience for the entire community. These will be in conjunction with many informal learning opportunities throughout the community that are sponsored by a wide range of organizations. Centre for Advanced Technology 22nd Filing Community Horticulture Center -Major Amendment Page 3 of 12 STATEMENT OF PROPOSED PLANNING OBJECTIVES Russell + Mills Studios I September 2015 135 Attachment 3 HI 4.1 - Forge Partnerships The development and growth of partnerships between the Gardens, City and other local agencies will help to share information, use resources efficiently, and avoid duplication of efforts. 2. DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE Planning Phase (PL) Neighborhood Meeting #1 Completed Neighborhood Meeting #2 Completed Submit Major Amendment September 16, 2015 Receive Major Amendment Comments October 14, 2015 Submit FP October 21, 2015 Receive FP Comments November 18, 2015 D.A. approved/mylars signed December 2, 2015 Building Design (DD-CD) Backgrounds to S/E consultants Completed Design Development Submittal Completed Cost Estimate Due Completed Design Development Comments Due Completed 80% CDs Due November 16, 2015 80% CD Comments Due November 30, 2015 Final Construction Documents December 14, 2015 Permit and Bidding Phase (B) Submit CD drawings for permit review and start Bid January 11, 2016 Bids Due January 25, 2016 Building permit approved Feb. 8, 2016 Construction Phase (CA) Begin site work & core and shell building Feb. 15, 2016 construction Complete construction May 16, 2016 3. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ISSUES/CONCERNS NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING #1 - JULY 247 2014 Q: The limit was capped before at 500, why is the cap expanding? A: Another public process is needed to accommodate something of this size. Standard will be enforced. Centre for Advanced Technology 22nd Filing Community Horticulture Center -Major Amendment STATEMENT OF PROPOSED PLANNING OBJECTIVES Russell + Mills Studios I September 2015 Page 4 of 12 136 Attachment 3 Q: Do you think people will sit on the trail, or around my house? A: Security will be on site Q: For how long? A: No answer at this point in time Q: The limit was capped before at 500, why is the cap expanding? A: Another public process is needed to accommodate something of this size. Standard will be enforced. Q: Our property values will go down if we don't have life, liberty and the use of our property. This is the city reviewing the city, and trust is gone. How will the city enforce noise? A: Decibel limits for sound levels are enforced by Neighborhood Services Code Compliance staff Q: Neighborhood Services doesn't show up now. Why will they show up then? A: They respond as they can Q: Why does the city need to be in this business? Why would you dump another problem on our neighborhood? Would you buy my house right next to all of this? None of this matters. What happens when a city blights another neighborhood? Police don't show up when called. A: That is not our intent as a city Q: Is there a limit to weddings and smaller events? A: Won't be going past 8 pm. Will be within sound limits required by the City of Fort Collins in the municipal code Q: Where do you measure these lines? A: property lines with a decibel meter C: Measure of decibels: 90, which is like a diesel truck 10 m away C: The sound models proposed must be false (before sound mitigation walls) because the sound on my porch from a wedding reception this past weekend was much louder than your saying it will be. A: We will be moving away from the wedding reception venue, and more of a wedding ceremony event A: Alternative sound options when moving the stage is the same amount of decibels in an average household (50 -55 decibels) A: Grove of trees around the wall sound barriers will begin at 15 feet, stucco and transparent on top, surround the walls with Evergreen trees Q: Why are the walls so close to the houses? A: There is plenty of room between the house and the wall Q: Is topography accounted for here? A: Floodplain technology used to account for that C: The wall is an eyesore and it right up against our houses. The wall will have too much graffiti. A: Conifers will cover the wall C: Conifers need space, they will die Centre for Advanced Technology 22"d Filing Community Horticulture Center -Major Amendment Page 5 of 12 STATEMENT OF PROPOSED PLANNING OBJECTIVES Russell + Mills Studios I September 2015 137 Attachment 3 A: What about vine covered walls? C: They take too long to grow over a wall C: You put the stage so close to the houses. Move Spring Creek Trail to move the stage away from neighborhoods A: This is the already approved framework Q: Why go back to the Master Plan when you're trying to modify Master Plan? A: We are trying to make the Master Plan a reality C: This is not implementing the Master Plan when you add 1000 people on top ofthe 500 originally stated in the Master Plan Q: Can the fence be moved? Q: Is revenue not decent enough for the city right now? A: We are trying to be a more self-sustaining C: If you can't support yourself, tax us more A: That is not my call Q: Increasing number of attendees... will this help your business problem? A: Admission revenues, donations, and grants Q: Where did the 1500 people come from? Why 1500 of all numbers? A: Quality acts to charge admission for, and people in the industry tell me this is the game changer number C: Chataqua in Boulder seats 1300, and this is larger than Chataqua A: I was not aware of that, I will look into that Q: Has this money already been allocated? A: No, we are in the process of getting donations Q: What is the offer? A: 2.5 million in total. Comprehensive capital campaign is in order. Building is 3 million and gardens are 2.5 million. We will raise 5.5 million and receive a $500,000 endowment Q: So this is under Bob 2 in the BFO? A: Yes, we don't have the BFO numbers for this project yet, but we proposed 2 million Q: Are you asking for additional revenue from the city? A: We will be operating and supporting ourselves Q: Is providing financial models part of the review process? A: I don't know, I will look into it Q: Will the 1500 be coming all at one time? A: All attendance numbers are tracked Q: How does Lincoln Center get involved? A: They handle getting the performers involved Centre for Advanced Technology 22"d Filing Community Horticulture Center -Major Amendment Page 6 of 12 STATEMENT OF PROPOSED PLANNING OBJECTIVES Russell + Mills Studios I September 2015 138 Attachment 3 Q: Our neighborhood does not have a pocket park. There's no place for kids to play. What do you think Ted? A: Ted Shepard: Parks and Rec won't replicate services so close to Rolland Moore. I understand the concern, we don't have an answer. Q: Are there places around here where a playground could go? A: Currently not supporting pocket parks of the original plan in the Master Plan Q: Flood plain issue, where the stage might sit in terms of flood plain. Our neighborhood was adversely affected by the Grove by the changes in flood plain. A: We have been working with flood plain folks. Great Lawn acts as a basin for flood control Q: What's the surface of the bike parking area? Will there be bike racks? A: The bike parking area will be a permeable surface or permeable pavers. This will be permanent bike parking. Q: Concern about parking —only 66 guaranteed spots, but 1500 people coming in, is this a concern? A: Synergistic relationship between shared parking facilities, plus connections to MAX and bike parking Q: What is break down time like for performances? A: By 9:00 everyone would be gone including performers and stray folks after concerts Q: Lighting impacts? A: Small ball lighting in the ground Q: Lighting around bike parking? A: We haven't submitted anything yet Q: Will the walls impact flood plain? A: That shouldn't be an issue Q: Are there any plans for all day festival events? A: No Q: Will people begin to park on our street? A: Permits can be issued Q: Gardens of Spring Creek is a failed operation. You are not paying interest. At what point do you say this doesn't make any sense? Yes it's beautiful, but this is not botanical A: This is very botanical Q: What are all of your revenue streams? A: Charge admission, museum memberships, education programs, increasing attendance in general with 60,000 residents last year with only half the facility completed, donations, and an annual campaign. Essentially anyway a non-profit supports themselves is what we are doing Centre for Advanced Technology 22"d Filing Community Horticulture Center -Major Amendment Page 7 of 12 STATEMENT OF PROPOSED PLANNING OBJECTIVES Russell + Mills Studios I September 2015 139 Attachment 3 Q: What other avenues have you explored to obtain the same objective other than an event venue? A: Other smaller options, but the Great Lawn is the fundraising magnet Q: We need this place to raise money? A: Encompassed by surrounding garden open 365 days per year which will bring in revenue as well Q: Can we stick with the original 500 as stated in the Master Plan? A: There wasn't a lot of original thought in that number. This all depends on the types of performers we are going to showcase. The types of performances we will have will have larger crowds than 500 people Q: Do they have police for trails in Boulder? A: Yes Q: I can envision trash in my yard, but your responsibility ends at your fence lane. So that's alright, but then we would have to call the police which is another responsive issue. They are slow to respond if they respond at all A: We are trying to build in regulations to avoid creep in the future Q: Timing of this and public input in front of City council ... what is this timeline? A: Public meetings will occur where all of you will be invited Q: When will ground be broken to begin this project? A: Spring of 2015 Q: Is private fundraising dependent on the whole package? A: Assumption we would have to raise 5.5 million dollars (Spring Creek representatives) Q: Is this a Type 1 review, requiring an administrative hearing officer? A: Cameron Gloss: Yes Q: Why is this Type 1? Is it listed as a Type 1 review use? A: Cameron Gloss: It's based on the original approval. Increasing number of people from the Master Plan constitutes a Type 1 hearing and major amendment. Q: When will there be further detail in the progress of the plan? A: In the coming months. Is there anything to be done to generally help with your concern? C: move the Great Lawn further away from homes C: We don't want the dense forest with no lighting near the wall Q: Has this facility seen more traffic from the Grove? A: More kids at the bus stops, many coming in to volunteer but no significant increase in traffic. Q: What do you foresee as the demographics who would be interested in this kind of music? A: Middle aged Centre for Advanced Technology 22nd Filing Community Horticulture Center -Major Amendment Page 8 of 12 STATEMENT OF PROPOSED PLANNING OBJECTIVES Russell + Mills Studios I September 2015 140 Attachment 3 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING #2 — SEPTEMBER 8, 2014 Q: Where does Lilac Park go? A: We're having discussions with Park Planning. We want to create an expression of a neighborhood pocket park and it would likely be more linear along the creek. Q: Won't developing Lilac Park mean more people hanging out at Lilac Park durinc concerts? A: There would be a separate planning and design process for Lilac Park. C: Concern was expressed that reconfiguring Lilac Park would sacrifice the wildlife corridor for the benefit of an event venue. Q: The Employment zone doesn't allow for this as a permitted use. Starting at a macro level — the amphitheater use is not permitted in the Employment zone district. Does this zone allow for an amphitheater? A: (City staff) Staff looked at the use when this question came up after the first neighborhood meeting. The current use listed on the plan is a neighborhood park. The closest appropriate use for the whole center is a Community Facility, and the amphitheater would be permitted as part of the facility. C: If it's a community facility, it has to be open to the community. This would be walled off and there would be an entrance fee — the definition of a community facility does not speak to that. Q: Concerns with ability of pedestrians to cross Center Avenue. Will there be a signal/light at grade crossing? A: Don't know yet, the City's traffic review might address this once the project is submitted for staff review. Q: Are the Gardens on Spring Creek a part of the Park Department? Is this proposal from them? A: It is a facility within the Parks Department and owned by them. C: Why would Parks Department pick a small site for an amphitheater? I don't remember an amphitheater being a part of the mission/vision of the Gardens. The original approval was for 300 people, this is over 800% bigger. There are also already more than 6-8 events and they run later than 8 p.m. A: We would end the performance music at 8 p.m. and these events would be done by 8:30. Q: Will alcohol be served? A: Still undecided. May be served, cannot be sold. C: We want to see the Garden's budget, rate of return, etc. We want to see the numbers. We're worried that there will be a ton of events to make it work financially. A: We're offering to cap the performance events. C: Concern that fire truck/emergency vehicles can't get to great lawn. A: (City staff) Poudre Fire Authority will be reviewing the access if the formal submittal comes in for review. Centre for Advanced Technology 22nd Filing Community Horticulture Center -Major Amendment Page 9 of 12 STATEMENT OF PROPOSED PLANNING OBJECTIVES Russell + Mills Studios I September 2015 141 Attachment 3 Q: The original plan projected sound away from the residents. Why does this not need to go to the Planning and Zoning Board? A: (City staff) It's based on the original approval. Because the original approval was approved by a hearing officer, the major amendment also is reviewed by a hearing officer. Q: An appeal stills goes to City Council even if it's not a Planning and Zoning Board project? A: (City staff) Yes, and appeal of a hearing officer would go to City Council, same as if the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the project. Q: How will events be counted? A: All performances would be hosted by the Gardens through the Lincoln Center, and we would be able to count and schedule the number of events. C: Concern with a multi -day event only being counted as one event. A: There would not be any multi -day performance events. Q: Will there still be wildlife corridors? A: (City staff) There is still a buffer requirement along the Spring Creek corridor and the Gardens would be required to provide an ecological study that staff will review with their formal submittal. Q: Will there be sound mitigation between the crowd and the residents? A: Yes, the sound walls are intended to buffer crowd noise and the music. (Applicant continues presentation showing where the proposed walls are located) Q: What is the size of the walls and what will they look like? Q: How do they know there won't be more or longer events? What happens if they don't follow it? A: (City staff) They would need to incorporate notes/requirements into the plans with a much tighter approval document. The enforcement would be through City zoning. C: An event needs to be defined as one day, not multi -day. You should also include the max number of events per calendar year. A: (Applicant) All events will be ticketed and we can control the timing of the events. Q: How will security work and how far along trail will security be placed? Already concerns now, will be worse with 1,500 people dispersing. A: This could be provided by off -duty police and park rangers. It's unclear what a reasonable distance would be. Security would make sure artists end on time. C: This will be primarily foot and bike traffic, 1,500 people through the neighborhoods, concerned if people linger after an event is over. Q: Can there be additional lighting along the trail? A: There will be some additional lighting within the grounds but not more along the trail due to Parks Department policy on trail lighting. Q: How did you decide on 1,500 people for an event? Centre for Advanced Technology 22"d Filing Community Horticulture Center -Major Amendment Page 10 of 12 STATEMENT OF PROPOSED PLANNING OBJECTIVES Russell + Mills Studios I September 2015 142 Attachment 3 A: Lincoln Center staff has advised that in order to get high quality ticketed events, this is the number to make it work. C: Need to make sure it's clear that this proposal is bigger than the Lincoln Center venue. Q: The music already seems over the allowable noise level. I can hear it in my basement. What about when you include the crowd noise? That will push the noise levels louder. A: Crowd noise is factored into the sound models. Q: In "perpetuity" in the notes, what does that mean? When can it be changed? A: (City Staff) There's no guarantee that a plan will not change and will remain the same "in perpetuity". If they proposed a change, it would need to go through a review process and new public hearing for any major change. C: More concerns were expressed about how to enforce the plan and how to enforce conditions written on the plan. Q: Would this be viable with a smaller venue (less than 1,500 people)? A: We don't think so, and the event stage is pretty common with other botanical gardens around the country. C: More concerns were expressed about the frequency of the events, and that 8 events per season could be more than 2 events per month. Concerns were expressed that 8 events seem like a lot for the surrounding neighborhoods. C: Concerns were expressed about how loud 1,500 people would be before, after and during the performance and the role alcohol would play in increasing the crowd noise. Q: How can sound walls be put into the flood plain? What would happen if it flooded like in 1997? A: The stage and lawn area is part of the flood storage zone, not the conveyance zone. Also all of the removable structures must be cabled down. Q: Why do the Gardens need to be self-sustaining? Other City services are not. A: We are currently 50% self -funded. Q: What about lowering the stage and lawn seating and putting it into a bowl? A: We have lowered it about 3 feet, but there are ground water issues with lowering it further. Q: What is the effect on noise levels if the sound wall and stage / lawn are moved further east? A: The sound model shows only a small reduction in the sounds levels if the venue is moved east. C: The property line is not the correct line where the sound levels should be measured. This should be the HOA line further east. C: Other alternatives should be explored to generate revenue other than the performance venue. Centre for Advanced Technology 22nd Filing Community Horticulture Center -Major Amendment Page 11 of 12 STATEMENT OF PROPOSED PLANNING OBJECTIVES Russell + Mills Studios I September 2015 143 Attachment 3 Q: Will the mission / vision of the gardens be re -done? The venue seems to be a change philosophically. Centre for Advanced Technology 22"d Filing Community Horticulture Center -Major Amendment Page 12 of 12 STATEMENT OF PROPOSED PLANNING OBJECTIVES Russell + Mills Studios I September 2015 144 Elk ' Attachment 3 . D (wo) ram+{" 4. �•x�, Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Colorado State University Research Foundation, and The Colorado State Board of Agriculture acting by and through Colorado State University pertaining to the Community Horticulture Center, Plant Environmental Research Center and, University Annual Trial Garden .-• This Memorandum, of Understanding for the City's Community Horticulture Center (CHC) and the University's Plant Environmental Research Center (PERC) and University Annual Trial Garden (ATG) at the High School Park (HSP) is entered into on this 29" day, of February, 2000, by and between the Colorado State Board of Agriculture acting by and through Colorado State University, a State of Colorado institution of higher education (University), the Colorado State University Research Foundation (CSURF), a private, not for profit Colorado Corporation and the City of Fort Collins (City), a Colorado municipal corporation. Recitals l . The University is a comprehensive research university with a tripartite land-grant mission of teaching, research, and service. This mission includes the promotion and development of linkages with other agencies, organizations, and institutions to promote and enhance undergraduate and graduate educational and research experiences and the development, adoption, and transfer of knowledge. 2. The City is a Colorado municipal corporation with a purpose to provide municipal services to its citizens and to enhance the provisions of those municipal services through partnerships with other public and private entities. 3. The Colorado State University Research Foundation (CSURF) has accepted $50,200 and deed and title to 2.87 acres, more or less, of City property known as the High School Park (HSP) as shown in Attachment I and, in return, has conveyed to the City property in the Bay -Hahn Farm comprising approximately 2.0 acres out of the floodplain/floodway and approximately 15.6 acres in the floodplain/floodway as shown on Attachment 2 (the CHC site), 145 Attachment 3 4. HSP, by deed, contains a restriction that the property must be used as a public park, and will revert to the City if used in a manner inconsistent with this restriction. 5. CSURF, in its deed to the City of the CHC site has retained a first right of refusal to acquire the CHC site in the event the City decides to sell. Now, therefore, in consideration of the above Recitals, the mutual promises contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree to a cooperative effort between the City, CSURF and the University for the expressed purpose of developing cooperative planning and use of all sites in providing maximum benefits to the City, University and the cominunity at large. A. CSURF and the University a reg e that: l . the HSP shall remain a public park in perpetuity, operated and maintained and open for use and enjoyment of the general public, in a manner consistent with the University's generally accepted standards for open space. CSURF shall not convey or transfer the HSP at any time, except to the University, or to some other governmental, charitable or educational organization that is in the business of and capable of operating public parks, as determined by the City in its reasonable discretion. Any such transfer would be contingent upon receiving the appropriate approvals from the City, CSURF, SBA and the Colorado Commission on Higher Education (CCHE), at time of transfer. 2, plantings of annual trial flowerbeds other than trees, shrubs and turf grasses at the HSP will be limited to a total of 25,000 gross square feet of bed space, unless otherwise agreed by the Horticulture Programs Steering Committee created pursuant to this Memorandum of Understanding. Also, the University will remove the annual trial flowerbeds and replace with turf if at some future date the ATG is no longer Rinded (or is decreased for any reason). 3, the gazebo structure located on the HSP at the time of the conveyance shall be maintained in good and usable condition for its natural life. In the event any or all of the HSP property is no longer planted or seeded with annual, perennial, herbaceous or ornamental grass plants, the land shall not remain fallow, but shall in lieu thereof be planted with turf grasses. The University will design the University Annual Trial Garden at the HSP in a manner that assures off-season attractiveness. Annually, after the blooming season, old annual flower vegetation will be removed and beds will be cultivated and maintained in a neat manner until the next planting season. 146 Attachment 3 4, arrangements with the federal government will be pursued for facilitating the use of the Natural Resources Research Center (NRRC) parking lot during non -working hours by the CHC. 5, use of the PERC for CHC receptions and other gatherings will be allowed on a space available basis as determined by the University in consultation with the Horticulture Programs Steering Committee. 6, use of the PERC and ATG at HSP for teaching and demonstration for CHC programs will be provided on a space available basis as determined by the University in its discretion. B. The City agrees to: 1. maintain the CHC open to the public and offer free admission to CSU students and faculty affiliated with horticulture programs if there is an entry fee to the CHC. 2. pursue providing space at the CHC for the growing of sustainable agricultural products by CSU student organizations. 3. pursue a design for the CHC site that will accommodate facilities such as an amphitheater or other space appropriate for small concerts or performances and provide for CSU use of the facilities, as determined by the City in consultation with the Horticulture Programs Steering Committee. 4t develop a greenhouse/conservatory structure on the CHC site that will include a work station that could be used for such programs as Master Gardeners and offer CSU Horticulture faculty the opportunity and space for teaching an indoor plant materials course as determined by the City in consultation with the Horticulture Programs Steering Committee. 5, provide for the use of the CHC for teaching and demonstration for CSU classes on a space available basis as determined by the City in its discretion. C. The City and the Universi1 agree 1. develop a Horticulture Programs Steering Committee to encourage and coordinate their joint activities. The Steering Committee will facilitate communications between the two entities, look for opportunities to share resources and coordinate programs, and encourage networking between the entities. The structure and membership of the committee will be determined administratively and as mutually acceptable to both parties. 147 Attachment 3 The Steering Committee will work to coordinate programming and activities to avoid unnecessary duplication, to maximize opportunities to develop programs, and to encourage and coordinate the guest use of each other's facilities (for example: City use of the woody plant collection at the PERC for classes where site visits to the collection would be appropriate). Examples of possible program areas to be coordinated include activities such as Master Gardeners, information on plant and tree diseases, entomology, community gardening and other outreach efforts. 2o develop and use signs identifying PERC, the ATG at the HSP and the City Community Horticulture Center as part of a coordinated program. Such shared identification may also include shared promotion, directional signage, and names. Shared marketing opportunities will be used whenever practical. 3, provide the loaned use of equipment and services to the extent that such loans do not interfere with the primary purpose of the equipment. The Horticulture Programs Steering Committee will coordinate and help facilitate these loans. It will also look for opportunities for other cooperative use of equipment and materials. 4. encourage coordination of the development of "theme gardens" to maximize community benefits, increase opportunities for diversity and avoid inappropriate duplication. These gardens may include themes such as a children's garden, formal rose garden, annual and herbaceous perennial trial gardens and turf test plots, woody plants (arboretum), native plants, xeriscape garden, backyard wildlife habitats, wetland and water features, and kitchen garden. S. work together on joint fund raising efforts where appropriate. 6, work together to maximize program impact by sharing facilities and personnel through such approaches as: a. providing internships, service learning, and volunteerism opportunities for students and citizens, including experience in public horticulture, landscape architecture, sustainable horticulture and occupational therapy, b, providing instruction to Larimer County Master Gardeners on selected topics, and utilizing trained Master Gardeners as a resource to expand mutual programs, ce displaying plants, including those from the Plant Select Program that have been evaluated through research to assure that the gardening public receives fall benefit of new information. Attachment 3 7, provide access to each other's facilities, as appropriate and available. Classroom and other space at each facility will be available for loan to both parties as coordinated by the directors. D. Term. The term of this Agreement begins as of the date written above and ends 5 years thereafter. The term shall then be automatically extended for an additional 5-year period. Each party may terminate this Agreement at any time for any reason, or for no reason, by giving the other parties written notice no later then 3 months prior to the requested termination date. E. Waiver of Performance. The failure of either party to insist upon the strict performance of any agreement, term, covenant, or condition hereof or to exercise any right or remedy consequent upon a breach thereof will not constitute a waiver of any such breach of such agreement, term, covenant or condition hereof to be performed, and no breach hereof will be waived, altered, or modified, except by written instrument executed by the parties. F. Force Majeure. If a party's performance under this Agreement or any obligation hereunder, is interfered with by reason of any circumstance beyond that party's control, including without limitation, fire, explosion, power failure, acts of God, war, revolution, civil commotion, or acts of public enemies; any law, order, regulation, ordinance, or requirement of any government or legal body or any representative of any such government or legal body; labor unrest, including without limitation strikes, slowdowns, picketing or boycotts; then that party will be excused from its performance on a day-to-day basis to the extent of such interference. G. Applicable Law. The laws of the State of Colorado and rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto will be applied in the interpretation, execution and enforcement of this Agreement. Any provision of this Agreement, whether or not incorporated herein by reference, which provides for arbitration by any extra judicial body or person or which is otherwise in conflict with said laws, rules and regulations will be considered null and void. H. Consent. Unless otherwise specifically provided, whenever consent or approval of the University, CSURF or the City is required under the terms of this Agreement, such consent or approval will not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. If any party withholds any consent or approval, such party will on written request deliver to the other party a written statement giving the reasons therefore. 149 Attachment 3 I. Notice. Any notice, request, demand, consent or approval, or other communication required or permitted hereunder will be in writing and will be deemed to have been given when personally delivered or deposited in the United States mail with proper postage and address as follows: University: Vice President for Administrative Services 309 Administration Building Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 CSURF: President/CEO Colorado State University Research Foundation P. 0. Box 483 Fort Collins, CO 80522 City: City of Fort Collins City Manager P. 0. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 J. Complete Agreement. This Agreement, including all exhibits, supersedes any and all prior written or oral agreements and there are no covenants, conditions, or agreements between the parties except as set forth herein. No prior or contemporaneous addition, deletion, or other amendment hereto will have any force or effect whatsoever unless embodied herein in writing. No subsequent novation, renewal, addition, deletion, or other amendment hereto will have any force or effect unless embodied in a written contract executed and approved pursuant to the State Fiscal Rules. K. Captions, Construction, and Agreement Effect. The captions and headings used in the Agreement are for identification only, and will be disregarded in any construction of the lease provisions. All of the terms of this Agreement will inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the respective heirs, successors, and assigns of both the University and the City. If any portion, clause, paragraph, or section of this Agreement will be determined to be invalid, illegal, or without force by a court of law or rendered so by legislative act, then the remaining portions of this Agreement will remain in full force and effect. L. No Beneficial Interest. The signatories aver that to their knowledge, no state employee has any personal or beneficial interest whatsoever in the service or property described herein and that no Bribery and Corrupt Influences or Abuse of Public Office under the Colorado Criminal Code is present. 150 Attachment 3 M. Non=ropriation Clause. The respective obligations of the University and the City hereunder in each fiscal year subsequent to such party's respective current fiscal year are contingent upon the appropriation of funds sufficient to carry out the intended purpose. In witness whereof, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date written above. City of Fort Collin; Martinez Mayor B T: )L ••�.r l Wanda Krajicek City Clerk Kathleen B G 0 APPROVED AS TOFORM: By:01(-- V`�VOF Foundation Carrie M. Dap Assistant City The State Board of Agriculture - For the use and benefit of Colorado State University By: 44 Gerry Bomotti Vice President for Administrative Services, Colorado State University APPROVED: By: Donna W. Aurand Associate Legal Counsel 151 Attachment 3 Attachment 1 (page 1 of 2 ) Legal Description of High School Park Block 5, L.C. Moore's Second Addition to the City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, According to the Plat Filed September 20, 1923, Together with the South Half of That Portion of Buckeye Street as Vacated by Ordinance No. 22, 1978 Recorded April 12,1978 in Book 1848 at Page 421, Records of the Clerk and Recorder of the Said Larimer County. Note: The site is subject to a Right of Way, whether in fee or easement only, for a Perpetual Easement as granted to the State Highway Commission of Colorado by the City of Fort Collins recorded April 16, 1959 in Book 1090 at Page 405 records of the said Clerk and Recorder described as follows: A tract or parcel of land No. 13 of Colorado Department of Highways Project No. C 06-0001-17 containing 9647 sq. ft. more or less, in L.C. Moore's Second Addition to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, being in the S W 1 A of the S W 1/4 of Section 13, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, in Larimer County, Colorado, said tract or parcel being more particularly described as follows; That portion of Block 5, L.C. Moore's Second Addition to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado lying West of the following described line; Beginning at a point on the N. Line of Block 5, L.C. Moore's Second Addition, 17.1 feet Easterly of the NW corner of Block 5 and extending S. 2 degrees 47 minutes E., a distance of 375.5 feet to a point on the south line of Block 5, said point being 34.3 feet Easterly of the SW corner of Block 5. The above described parcel contains 9647 sq. ft. more or less. 152 Attachment 3 S 89.59'370W 119,42' CD z NTS FESRUARY 18, 2000 162,77' S 89.59137'W HIGH SCHOOL PARK F9 7 F--r z El PERPETUAL EASEMENT GRANTED ly, ........... ...... ......_..........._ EAST LAKE TO THE STATE HIGHWAY � o C❑MMISSI❑N IN BOOK 1090 0 � o AT PAGE 405 •, ANJ .P .P P N $96540170E - 337,70' '? APTACBME;W 1 (page 2 of 2) ST: rcae nwr_ 153 Atta&ment-a IMM in LU a cc LL 0 .>= F— Z V a Z Z Z U h' tia a� W � Z V N :L O H S 0 H VN w H U (SJNI8d38 J0 SISV2) a318vno iSV3HAON 3Hi J0 3NII iS3M ,ss •jvz 2 m is AT2AOT4ENT 2 (page 2 of 5) *LOCO „; ^: •. o® �a II N = 1 r low Ca N 0 a LLI z FJ za LLB fr. U H w 4 Qo �o o� wQ� QV) Li \ �oLi co •`"� o co cor o t� tD i z � V) Q U O ato N N CD .LC'L49z W CD < C Imo. H N WW . ' <£: . U. i .:... J� UM ON ., �. ». az rw U\Z <N2U » � cr O j CNN z o z z La. S W / Q W + � J�rnaN a o / w °O + ar ULi 9L + U N Pj ° N J J d� [ Q N N < m P O z �. L� oj O 1 L) t po po \,a� O��A `, s � �nmn ai rn od W ~ n 'S O to ID0 a n ui kd r- N U 1A in r7 W W W W S z z iD rl N Imo. w N Y N CL' in 0 LoLo N Q n to N r . W i► — :� in ie mm to co < Inyv+mz r W G N D o a Do 0 �ooaoa� U <vt� mnm Q ^ cc N to < Y Y h Oi cc %n w tON J iD cc P Y W O r C Q N h ID C Cc �NONrf W > Nnrkn < a a t a � U U U U U U Zo� Ln C::W ?C Y W 00 x LL) N O N � I... oz U w w C 2W ON Z < w L LJ r 0 z F- u U omoyDLfoOZI :3wvM 'OM( A AC'HMM 2 (page 1 of 5) THE SEAR -BROWN GROUP, ( FULL -SERVICE DESIGN PROFESSIONALS 209 SOUTH MELDRU?.1 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521.2603 ' 970482.5922 FAX:970482-6368 DESCRLPTION A portion of Tract C, Windtrail Townhomes First Replat and a tract of land located in the Northeast Quarter of Section 23 all in Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, being more particularly described as follows: Considering the West line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 23 as bearing South 00016'54"Nest and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto: Commencing at the North Quarter Corner of said Section 23; thence along said West line of the Northeast Quarter, South 00016'54" Nest, 2124.33 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, said point being on the approximate centerline of Sherwood Lateral and on a non -tangent curve concave to the North having a central angle of 12°06'54", a radius of 850,00 feet and the chord of which bears South 87035'46"East, 179.40 feet; thence along the arc of said curve 179.73 feet to a reverse curve concave to the South having a central angle of 23' 18'44", a radius of 140.00 feet and the chord of which bears South 81'59'51" East, 56.57 feet; thence along the arc of said curve 56.96 feet to a reverse curve concave to the Northeast having a central angle of 06°17'47", a radius of S80.00 feet and the chord of which bears South 73029'23"East3 96.66 feet; thence along the arc of said cunde 96.71 feet; thence, South 76°38' 16" East, 80.16 feet to a point on a curve concave to the Southwest having a central angle of 26'43'09", a radius of 270.00 feet and the chord of which bears South 63'16'42"East, 124.77 feet; thence along the are of said curve 125.91 feet to a point on the Westerly line of Centre Avenue; thence along said Westerly line, South 42°50'32" West, 280.07 feet to a point on the North line of the Proposed Rolland Moore Drive; thence along said North line, North 47°09'28"West, 67.94 feet to a point on a curve concave to the South having a central angle of 38'05'58", a radius of 5S4.00 feet and the chord of tiVhich bears Forth GG°12'27"�Cest, 3S 1.22 feet; thence along said North line and the arc of said can e 3SS.34 feet; thence leaving said North line and along a non -tangent line, North 30' 16' 17"East, 142.26 feet to the Point of Beginning. The above described tract of land contains 2.203 acres and is subject to all easements and rights- of-wav nou• on record or existing. 120041 ca.doc 01 CO) 5'00 gde f `._ . - .. r i • • .. • .. , .. . - . 1. ' STANDARDS IN EXCELLENCE 155 TACHMMvT 2 (page 3 of 5) :6ai. 209 SOUTH MELDRUM FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521-2603 970-482-5922 FAX:970-482-6368 DESCRIPTION A tract of land located in the Northeast Quarter of Section 23 all in Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, being more particularly described as follows: Considering the West line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 23 as bearing South 00° 16'54"West and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto: Commencing at the North Quarter Corner of said Section 23; thence along said West line of the Northeast Quarter, South 00° 16'54" West, 1462.44 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, said point being on a non -tangent curve concave to the North having a central angle of 17°07'42", a radius of 50.00 feet and the chord of which bears North 65° 17' 14"East, 14.89 feet; thence along the are of said curve 14.95 feet to a reverse curve concave to the South having a central angle of 44023'00", a radius of 250.00 feet and the chord of which bears North 78°54'53" East, 188.85 feet; thence along the arc of said 193.66 feet; thence, South 78053'37" East, 101.76 feet; thence, North 77015'49" East, 165.46 feet to a point on a curve concave to the South having a central angle of 17°44'53", a radius of 300.00 feet and the chord of which bears North 86°08' 16"East, 92.56 feet; thence along the arc of said curve 92.93 feet; thence, South 84059' 17" East, 21.36 feet; thence North 55°27'35"East, 20.69 feet; thence, North 25'16'37" West, 22.84 feet to a point on a curve concave to the East hawing a central angle of 56°14'33", a radius of 150.00 feet and the chord of which bears North 02°50'39"East, 141.40 feet; thence along the arc of said cun-e 147.24 feet; thence, North 30°57'56"East, 140.40 feet to a point on a curve concave to the Southeast having a central angle of 16°44'05", a radius of 300.00 feet and the chord of which bears North 39° 19'5S"East, 87,31 feet; thence along the arc of said curve 87.62 feet; thence, North 47042'00"East, 89.30 feet to a point on the Westerly line of Centre Avenue; thence along said Westerly Iine by the following 3 courses and distances, South 14°OS'25" East, 321.70 feet to a point on a curve concave to the West having a central angle of 56°58'57", a radius of 866.00 feet and the chord of which bears South 14°21'O3"West, 826.21 feet; thence along the arc of said cun•e 861.27 feet; thence, South 42'50'32"West, 207.SS feet to a point on the approximate centerline of Sherwood Lateral, said point being on a non -tangent curve concave to the Southwest hawing a central angle of 26`43'09", a radius of 270.00 feet and the chord of which bears North 63'l6'42" VVest, 124.77 feet; thence along said approximate centerline by the following 5 courses and distances and along the arc of said curve 125.91 feet; thence, North 76° )S'16" West, SO.16 feet to a point on a cun•e concave to the Northeast hawing a central angle of 06°17'47", a radius of 890.00 feet and the chord of which bears North 73°29'23" West, 96.66 v STANDARDS IN EXCELLENCE 156 �.At ac men - ACID= 2 (page 4-of 5) feet; thence along the arc of said curve, 96.71 feet to a point on a reverse curve concave to the ID South having a central angle of 23°18'44", a radius of 140.00 feet and the chord of which bears North 81°59'51"West, 56.57-feet; thence along the arc of said curve 56.96 feet to a reverse curve concave to the North havina a central angle of 12°06'54", a radius of 850.00 feet and the chord of which bears North 87°35'46"West, 179.40 feet; thence along the arc of said curve 179.73 feet to a point on the West line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 23; thence along said West line, North 00°16'54"East, 661.89 feet to the Point of Beginning. The above described tract of land contains 15.849 acres and is subject to all easements and rights-ofwway now on record or existing. 120041cb.doc 01/25/00 gdg V) 157 f,. -- Aft a`c 1�ment 3 T "ACHMENT 2 (page 5 of 5) TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER F SECTION 23,.TOWNSHIPNORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, ®LINTY OF LAR�ygl�jR, STATE OLOA® . ACVV ! F NORTH 1/4 CORNER SECTION 23-7-69 r" FND. 2-1/20ALUM. CAP ~ - i k IN RANGE BOX tz n�to Q0N N 305756 o 140640' A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE ; v' N 55027'35" NORTHEAST QUARTER 20.69' ` SECTION 23-7-69 ; S 78 53 37 E P.O.B. CA1 101.76' o `o1Di� C~� mtm°���t^v0i 03 JN `4t to to ^ � w td Ln to z vtotomioMNto:- tol bt . to of Q1 to < 10 O ^ N w to CO 4 cn in CD toNm0t"1^ tontn to < zzzzzvlzzZz Ld 1n �ooa0000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t lc� U INo,no00r�00 < N O M +7 to to N t` 1T n N mr st q- F v- o to M1 0 to o 4it * 0 J N r) t sit et co M N to t0 Uj O N r st to 4IF O Q N 44t �' N tD to &4t to to tD 17 N ^ st ^ to .^ U7 N O N .- > IN to to n to m o � U U u u u u u u U V U OWC, NAME: 120041MDWIG 1-25-2000 RAN CST-1192-0472 +1 — a � rt z , m. N 77'15'49" E o i CO 165.46' — n .� to LO G N to m v st W to w w un O O �- 0 w to O z J Z H CA CA10 I N 47042'00" E 1 89.30' t h N � ci r LA c ; t lob : 1r•0. U: 1 elf L) in . t q t LO J� nt N t .� z S 84*59'17" E 21,36' j APPROXIMATE � 0 CENTERLINE OF SPRING CREEK uQ TOTAL—N 690,402 SY, � + 15.849 AC. APPROXIMATE CENTERLINE OF SHERWOOD LATERAL / N 76438'16" W 80.16' CA9 C�$ Cq) 'L��c.�o� ,• C2 ♦ • CENTER 1/4 CORNER SECTION 23-7-69 FND, 2"ALUM. CAP L.S. 25372 L E CA3 NOTE: NO RECORDED OR EXISTING EASEMENTS SHOWN HEREON, SCALE: 1 " = 2004 I DATE 1-25-00 4 Attachment 3a GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK OPERATIONAL AND MANAGEMENT STANDARDS THE FOLLOWING OPERATIONAL AND MANAGEMENT STANDARDS SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR ALL FUTURE GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK EVENTS. GENERALSTANDARDS: 1. ALL EVENTS, INCLUDING TICKETEED, NON -TICKETED, WEDDINGS OR OTHER EVENTS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE APPLICABLE FORT COLLINS MUNICIPAL CODE NOISE STANDARDS OF CHAPTER 20, ARTICLE II. 2. THERE SHALL BE A MAXIMUM OF (8) PERFORMANCE EVENTS WITH AN ATTENDANCE CAP OF 1,500 PERSONS. THE MAXIMUM ATTENDANCE SHALL BE MANAGED AND REGULATED THROUGH TICKET SALES. 3. EACH TICKETED PERFORMANCE EVENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO ONE EVENING. THERE SHALL BE NO MULTI -DAY TICKETED PERFORMANCE EVENTS SUCH AS MUSIC FESTIVALS. 4. THERE SHALL BE NO ATTENDANCE CAP FOR NON -TICKETED EVENTS (I.E. WEDDINGS, GARDEN OF LIGHTS, ETC.). SUCH EVENTS MAY PROVIDE AMPLIFIED MUSIC IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE MUNICIPAL CODE. ALL EVENTS SHALL FOLLOW STANDARDS AS DESCRIBED BELOW. TIME LIMITATION STANDARDS: 1. ALL MUSIC AND ANY ASSOCIATED SOUNDS GENERATED FROM ANY EVENT SHALL CONCLUDE NO LATER THAN 8PM. 2. EGRESS FOR ALL VISITORS DURING PERFORMANCE EVENTS SHALL BEGIN AT 8PM AND CONCLUDE NO LATER THAN 9PM. NO PERFORMANCE RELATED SOUNDS SHALL BE GENERATED DURING THIS TIMEFRAME. 3. ALL EVENT OPERATIONS PERSONNEL SHALL EXIT THE GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK PREMISES NO LATER THAN 10PM. 4. ALL TICKETED, NON -TICKETED AND NON-MUSICAL PERFORMANCE EVENTS SHALL CONCLUDE BY 9PM AND ALL PERSONNEL SHALL EXIT THE GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK PREMISES NO LATER THAN 10PM. SOUND MONITORING STANDARDS: 1. DURING ALL AMPLIFIED PERFORMANCE EVENTS, A PROFESSIONAL SOUND ENGINEER SHALL BE PRESENT ON SITE AND ACTIVELY MONITOR AND REGULATE SOUND LEVELS TO MEET THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MUNICIPAL CODE STANDARDS - NOT TO EXCEED 55 DBA AT THE DESIGNATED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-L) RECEIVING PROPERTY LINE AND 70 DBA AT THE EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT (E) RECEIVING PROPERTY LINE. 2. FOR ALL OTHER EVENTS, GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK STAFF SHALL BE PRESENT ON SITE AND ACTIVELY MONITOR AND REGULATE SOUND LEVELS TO MEET THE 159 Attachment 3a CITY OF FORT COLLINS MUNICIPAL CODE NOISE STANDARDS - NOT TO EXCEED 55 DBA AT THE R-L ZONE RECEIVING PROPERTY LINE AND NOT TO EXCEED 70 DBA AT THE EMPLOYMENT ZONE RECEIVING PROPERTY LINE. SECURITY AND SAFETY STANDARDS: 1. DESIGNATED SECURITY STAFF SHALL BE PRESENT AT THE GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK ENTRY POINTS AND PERIMETER OF THE PREMISES DURING ALL PERFORMANCE EVENTS. DESIGNATED SECURITY STAFF SHALL CONSIST OF EITHER GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK STAFF OR A PRIVATE SECURITY COMPANY CONTRACTED THROUGH THE GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK. 2. EGRESS LIGHTING CONSISTING OF LOW LIGHT LEVEL, FULL CUT-OFF PEDESTRIAN LEVEL LIGHTS SHALL BE USED TO FACILITATE EGRESS FROM ALL TICKETED PERFORMANCE EVENTS. EGRESS LIGHTING SHALL BE ACTIVATED USING A TIMER AND ALL EVENT -RELATED LIGHTING SHALL BE TURNED OFF NO LATER THAN 10PM. 3. CROSSING ASSISTANTS SHALL BE PRESENT AT CENTRE AVENUE TO FACILITATE CROSSING FROM THE NRCS PARKING DURING ALL TICKETED PERFORMANCE EVENTS, UNLESS A SIGNALIZED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IS CONSTRUCTED AT THIS LOCATION IN THE FUTURE. ADDITIONAL STANDARDS: 1. ANY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES SOLD DURING EVENTS SHALL REQUIRE A PROFESSIONAL CONCESSIONAIRE TO SERVE AND FOLLOW ALL ASSOCIATED REGULATIONS AND MONITORING AS REQUIRED WITH ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES AT OTHER COMMUNITY FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS. 2. NO PARKING ALONG CENTRE AVENUE SHALL BE STRICTLY ENFORCED 160 CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 22ND FILING COMMUNITY HORTICULTURE CENTER MAJOR AMENDMENT - SITE PLAN LEGAL DESCRIPTION: CENTRE FORADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 22ND FILING COMMUNITY HORTICULTURE CENTER U � N n w W Lake St W Lake St W Prospect Rd W Prospect Rd SHEELY ADDITION Birky PI E Pitkln St C, S Annual Flower Trial Garden Hilton Fort Collins Parker St 7LD PROSPECT E LS001 COVER SHEET LS002 PROJECT DIAGRAMS - NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY OPERATIONAL AND MANAGEMENT STANDARDS LS003 PREDICTED SOUND LEVEL MAP LS100 CONTEXTUAL SITE PLAN LS101 OVERALL SITE PUN LS501 SITE DETAILS LS502 SITE DETAILS LS503 SITE DETAILS LS504 SITE DETAILS LS505 SITE DETAILS OWNER'S CERTIFICATION THE UNDERSIGNED DOES/DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT /WE ARE THE LAWFUL OWNER'S OF THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED ON THIS SITE PUN AND DO HEREBY CERPFY THAT /WE ACCEPT THE CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS SET FORTH ON SAID SITE PIRA. OWNER SIGNED DATE (STATE OF )ss (COUNTY OF J SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BE BEFORE THIS DAY OF 20 BY WITNESS W HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES DIRECTOR OF CURRENT PLANNING APPROVED BY THE CURRENT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING OF THE CITY OF FORT COLUNS, COLORADO, THIS OF . 20 DIRECTOR OF CURRENT PLANNING - _ *0//r+nberg or E Stit fi L Lawol 5 - I B +Gardens on Spring Creek — �` MIN garden with N N, 111'II I - educational events ShTte Ct Da� - - ' dMoore Dr ;lOUAN1tail H Rota IT L STOVER AREA r1ima Rolland Moore Park Colur I L- - M ` � c� eDr ri Z Joao O rat Area o Princeton Rd GARDENS ON fill ro SPRING CREEK PRESERVE _ m .... W Drake Rd >E Dr L 0 n c ountain z, d III III - — School t° Dei Clair Rd r F gal n 3 a o 'Lill i`I9iI CONTEXT MAP „ ZONING MAP NORTH SOUND MITIGATION WALL LOCATION DIAGRAM MODIFICATIONS - RESPONDING TO NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS 1 SOUND MITIGATION WALLS WALL HEIGHTISI: 24' LOCATION OF WALLS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE LARGE PROMENADE WALK ]2' ' B n -1S0• I -< t OVERALL SITE PLAN - MAY 2014 PARKING LOCATION DIAGRAM '' tals Parking 74 FGoSCExisting ing 397 Parking 900 19371 LJ SPRING CREEK TRAIL GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK EXISTING PARKING LOT NRRC PARKING LOT PROPERTY OWNED BY STATE LAND BOARD CSU RESEARCH PARKING LOT PROPERTY OWNED BY STATE LAND BOARD SOUND MITIGATION WALLS MOVED FROM SOUND MITIGATION WALLS WEST SIDE OF WALK TO EAST SIDE OF WALL HEIGHT(S): 24' _I WALK CLOSER TO STAGE AREA LOCATION OF WALLS ON THE WEST SIDE WALL HEIGHT WAS DECREASED FROM 24' OF THE LARGE PROMENADE WALK TO IT- FOR THE NORTH, 19' FOR THE MIDDLE WALL AND 19.5' FOR THE SOUTHERN MOST WALL 91' e t i 11S. 1 OVERALL SITE PLAN - JUNE 2014 40P' :-MAX BRT STATION --MASON CORRIDOR 1 T —MAX BRT STATION Distance to Project Site 0.06 NRRC Parking miles 350 ft 0.34 CSU Research Parking miles 11800 f! 0.71 MAX BRT Station (Prospect) miles 39750 ft MAX BRT Station (S. of 0.40 Prospee!) miles 29150 ft NOTE: COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY AND STATE "ND BOARD IS IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PARKING AS LISTED ABOVE Y ORIGINAL EXTENTS IN JUNE 2014 PLAN OF GREAT LAWN AREA. FEBRUARY 2013 PLAN HAS SHIFTED EASTERN EDGE OF GREAT LAWN APPROX. 60' TO THE EAST OVERALL SITE PLAN - FEBRUARY 2015 GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK OPERATIONAL AND MANAGEMENT STANDARDS THE FOLLOWING OPERATIONAL AND MANAGEMENT STANDARDS SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR ALL FUTURE GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK EVENTS. GENERAL STANDARDS: 1. ALL EVENTS, INCLUDING TICKETEED, NON -TICKETED, WEDDINGS OR OTHER EVENTS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE APPLICABLE FORT COLLINS MUNICIPAL CODE NOISE STANDARDS OF CHAPTER 20, ARTICLE II. 2. THERE SHALL BE A MAXIMUM OF (8) PERFORMANCE EVENTS WITH AN ATTENDANCE CAP OF 19500 PERSONS. THE MAXIMUM ATTENDANCE SHALL BE MANAGED AND REGULATED THROUGH TICKET SALES. 3. EACH TICKETED PERFORMANCE EVENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO ONE EVENING. THERE SHALL BE NO MULTI -DAY TICKETED PERFORMANCE EVENTS SUCH AS MUSIC FESTIVALS. 4. THERE SHALL BE NO ATTENDANCE CAP FOR NON -TICKETED EVENTS (I.E. WEDDINGS, GARDEN OF LIGHTS, ETC.) SUCH EVENTS MAY PROVIDE AMPLIFIED MUSIC IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE MUNICIPAL CODE. ALL EVENTS SHALL FOLLOW STANDARDS AS DESCRIBED BELOW. TIME LIMITATION STANDARDS: 1. ALL MUSIC AND ANY ASSOCIATED SOUNDS GENERATED FROM ANY EVENT SHALL CONCLUDE NO LATER THAN SPM. 2. EGRESS FOR ALL VISITORS DURING PERFORMANCE EVENTS SHALL BEGIN AT SPM AND CONCLUDE NO LATER THAN 9PM. NO PERFORMANCE RELATED SOUNDS SHALL BE GENERATED DURING THIS TIMEFRAME. 3. ALL EVENT OPERATIONS PERSONNEL SHALL EXIT THE GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK PREMISES NO LATER THAN 10PM. 4. ALL TICKETED, NON -TICKETED AND NON-MUSICAL PERFORMANCE EVENTS SHALL CONCLUDE BY 9PM AND ALL PERSONNEL SHALL EXIT THE GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK PREMISES NO LATER THAN 10PM. SOUND MONITORING STANDARDS: 1. DURING ALL AMPLIFIED PERFORMANCE EVENTS, A PROFESSIONAL SOUND ENGINEER SHALL BE PRESENT ON SITE AND ACTIVELY MONITOR AND REGULATE SOUND LEVELS TO MEET THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MUNICIPAL CODE STANDARDS - NOT TO EXCEED 55 DBA AT THE DESIGNATED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-L) RECEIVING PROPERTY LINE AND 70 DBA AT THE EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT (E) RECEIVING PROPERTY LINE. 2. FOR ALL OTHER EVENTS, GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK STAFF SHALL BE PRESENT ON SITE AND ACTIVELY MONITOR AND REGULATE SOUND LEVELS TO MEET THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MUNICIPAL CODE NOISE STANDARDS NOT TO EXCEED 55 DBA AT THE R-L ZONE RECEIVING PROPERTY LINE AND NOT TO EXCEED 70 DBA AT THE EMPLOYMENT ZONE RECEIVING PROPERTY LINE. SECURITY AND SAFETY STANDARDS: 1. DESIGNATED SECURITY STAFF SHALL BE PRESENT AT THE GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK ENTRY POINTS AND PERIMETER OF THE PREMISES DURING ALL PERFORMANCE EVENTS. DESIGNATED SECURITY STAFF SHALL CONSIST OF EITHER GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK STAFF OR A PRIVATE SECURITY COMPANY CONTRACTED THROUGH THE GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK. 2. EGRESS LIGHTING CONSISTING OF LOW LIGHT LEVEL, FULL CUT-OFF PEDESTRIAN LEVEL LIGHTS SHALL BE USED TO FACILITATE EGRESS FROM ALL TICKETED PERFORMANCE EVENTS. EGRESS LIGHTING SHALL BE ACTIVATED USING A TIMER AND ALL EVENT -RELATED LIGHTING SHALL BE TURNED OFF NO LATER THAN 10PM. 3. CROSSING ASSISTANTS SHALL BE PRESENT AT CENTRE AVENUE TO FACILITATE CROSSING FROM THE NRCS PARKING DURING ALL TICKETED PERFORMANCE EVENTS, UNLESS A SIGNALIZED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IS CONSTRUCTED AT THIS LOCATION IN THE FUTURE. ADDITIONAL STANDARDS: 1. ANY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES SOLD DURING EVENTS SHALL REQUIRE A PROFESSIONAL CONCESSIONAIRE TO SERVE AND FOLLOW ALL ASSOCIATED REGULATIONS AND MONITORING AS REQUIRED WITH ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES AT OTHER COMMUNITY FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS. 2. NO PARKING ALONG CENTRE AVENUE SHALL BE STRICTLY ENFORCED 3a E w � EY$E N "IS u, MNuu� 0 z J W T FJ O Z N U O� ZF U W H � w U a' W Z W U U F K I 0 n O U 0Z iw O D x U w In In y D f W f a 2 a i i z � K a Q < 2 O � o � W Q W O n a A O z U Date: 10-21-15 Drawn By. Checked By. Sheet LSQ02 z z W O ¢ Zoning ; 1 boundary - n , Min 17' above stage level. Residential Zoning 50.2 (55 dBA) Stage walls I Min 19' above stage level J West wall 12' above stage 51.4 minimum f 90 54.3 r 34.7 67.9 50.4 mployment Zoning; (7.0__d_B__A_)_ t D. L. ADAMS Predicted Sound Level Map FI ure 2 9 ASSOCIATES August 26, 2015 g acoustics I performing arts I technology not to scale 153609den5treet Denver,Colora&80218 3031455-1900 FA%303/455-9187 PREDICTED SOUND LEVEL MAP Property Line *3 C>-99.0dB > 35.0 dB > 40.0 dB C > 45.0 dB > 50.0 dB > 55.0 dB > 60.0 dB > 65.0 dB > 70.0 dB > 75.0 dB > 80.0 dB > 85.0 dB Date: 10-21-15 Drawn By. Checked By z z Q 0 Sheet LS003 ..... -----;5Po n CONTEXTUAL SITE PLAN rmmmmmLmmrmmLmmmmmj 50' 0 25' 50' NOV NORTH BIKE BACK - 15 BIKE RACKS TOTAL (150 BIKE CAPACITY) c� TABLE 4 CHARS ®® HUSH AND RECYCLING RECEPIACLE AAOL WE CONCRETE PLANTER(S) GO POLE LIGHT ♦ OUTDOOR RECEPTACLE PA PUNTING AREA LIMIT OF WORK EXISTING FENCE — — — PROPOSED FENCE ARBOR STRUCTURES) iffl COVERED PERFORMANCE PLATFORM o CONCRETE WALL GTPO EXISTING WOES ------ EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED CONTOUR HANRA HABITAT BUFFER DRY STACK STONE WALL 7 BOULDERS PAVEMENT SCHEDULE CONCRETE PAVEMENT -STD GRAY, 4' THICK CONCRETE PAVEMENT -COLOR, 4' NICK (COLOR -Teo) CONCRETE PAVEMENT -STD GRAY, 6' THICK CONCRETE PAVEMENT -COLOR, 6' THICK (COLOR -Teo) CRUSHER FINES PAVEMENT FLAGSTONE PAVEMENT SIZE PAN NOTES I. REFER TO UNLL UTWtt PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS OF STORM DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, MINT MAINS AND SERVICES. Z. REFER TO THE FINAL CINL ENGINEERING PLANS FOR DEVILED INFORMATION REGARDING PROPOSED TOPOGRAPHY, UTILITY AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS. 3. REFER TO THE SUBDIVISION PLAT AND UT URY FLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS, ARCS AND DIMENSIONS OF ALL EASEMENTS, LOTS, TRACTS, STREETS. WALKS AND OTHER SURVEY INFORMATION. 4. All CONSTRUCTION WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN MUST BE COMPLETED IN ONE PHASE UNLESS A PHASING PLAN IS SHOWN WIN THESE PLANS. 5. All UCHIING FUTURE ILLUMINATION LEVELS PRONGED WNH THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOOT-CANDLE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 3.1.4 OF THE LAND USE CODE AND WTIH CITY OF FORT COLLINS UDD AND POWER FILMY REQUIREMENTS. All LIGHTING UMBER PROVIDED WNH THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL USE A CONCEALED, FULLY SHIELDED LIGHT SOURCE AND SHALL FUTURE SHARP CUT-OFF CAPABILITY SO AS TO MINIMIZE UP -LIGHT, SPILL UGM, GLARE AND UNNECESSARY DIFFUSION. 6, FIRE HYDRANTS MUST MEET OR EXCEED POUDRE FIRE AUIHORItt STANDARDS. ALL BUILDINGS MUST PROVIDE AN APPROVED FIRE EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM. ]. All BIKE WKS PROVIDED MUST BE PERMANENTLY ANCHORED. 8, All SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS MUST CONFORM TO CRY STANDARDS. ACCESSIBLE FAMES MUST BE PROVIDED AT ALL STREET AND DRIVE INTERSECTIONS AND AT All DESIGNATED ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES. ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES MUST SLOPE NO MORE THAN L48 IN ANY DIRECTOR. All ACCESSIBLE ROUTES MUST SLOPE NO MORE THAN 120 IN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL AND WIN NO MORE THAN I:RE CROSS SLOPE. T ANY WINGED CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK EXISTING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTED. AS WELL AS STREETS. SIDEWALKS. CURBS AND GUTTERS, DESTROYED, DAMAGED OR REMOVED DUE TO CONSTRUMON OF MIS PROJECT, SHALL BE REPLACED OR RESTORED N Cltt OF FORT GOWNS STANDARDS AT THE DEVELOPER'S EXPENSE PRIM TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLETED IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR PRIM TO ME ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 10, ALL AREAS WITHIN THE SPRING CREEK, SHERWOOD LATERAL AND WETLAND AREA BUFFER ZONE SHALL BE MA TAINED IN A NATIVE LANDSCAPE. 11. PLEASE SEE SECTION 3.4.1 OF THE CARD USE CODE FOR ALLOWABLE USES WHIN THE BUFFER ZONE. 13, SEE SHEET U002 FOR PARKING LOCATION DIAGRAM. SHOULD DESIGNATED OFF -SIZE PARKING LOCATIONS CHANGE, THE PARKING LOCATION DUGGAN SHOULD BE AMENDO IN ORDER TO SYDN Y ME MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS. 13. COVERED PERFORMANCE PLATFORM IS DEFINED BY THE PAMORM BURDEN IN ME 2012 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE AS: A BASED AREA WITHIN A BUILDING USED TURN ALI THE PRESENTATION OF MUSIC, PLAYS OR OTHER ENTERTAINMENT; ME HEAD TABLE FOR SPECIAL COMM; THE RAISED AREA FOR LECTURERS AND SPEAKERS: BO%LNG AND WRESTLING PRIM THEATER -IN -THE -ROUND STAGES; AND SIMILAR PURPOSES WHEREIN MERE ARE NO OVERHEAD HANDING CURTAINS, DROPS, SCENERY OR STALE EFFECTS OTHER N4N LENDING AND SOUND. Z W p Z N Z Z wg U a_W J O LJ Z F F— U 7 n W U H F J W ¢ O Q � ? j X L LI p Z F— ¢ Z O O p U U W K F Z W U Date: 10-21-15 Drawn By. JB Checked By CR Sheet LS 1400 M— \A\ �I Ili K^ III' /IIII / IIII K I Illj NIL I i IIII 111 I \ I111 IIII fII/ III / I 1 �l iW 11 I I I I I DIKE AREA FENCE iO MALW EXISTING FENCE �1 (150 BIKE CAPACITY) \ C ON —SITE / __ _ _ / /—__/ /____ _ /`� .PORTABLE RESTROOM AREA TOP. 1 �I / i STO /// '� \ —� i _ i—� FUTURE POTENTIAL CONNECTION TO CRUSHER FINES TPNL, T'P � DEENT RUNS 'ov NATO ^HABNAT BLfiEA C HW81CHE f I YEASTING SPRING CREEK \\\ IIII\/v'Lyj/ SECIICH / \\\ — I rC04ERED PERFORMANCE PLATFORM \ I _ I I �I LOADING G) �! .W BEAT LVANI LWHIM HEN AT SIT . X IF\ 6 1 IN C_ARBONI U \ PUNT SELECT BARREN \ \\\ \ U \ \\ )\ � UYR AN WW4W RUNNING BRIDGE M,I AN ` — RETIAIN'_ 110 \ I i✓ l '1 OVERALL SITE PLAN IIIIII I � 1 �) 11 II II II II II / All III I fII 111 I IIII f jlll I C I I �IIII 1 I I111 1 II I \ IIIII I II 1 II I I I I IT 1 1 IIII I II 1 I 1111111 II I \111 IIIIII II I 1 I IIIII II I I I I 1 1111111111 1 y IIIII I / I 1I I I 1 CII111j1j, If If If 11 1 IIIIII II 1 1 ROeROYl jj I I I I I I I Lsnl ' I]1111111 1 li1� I I \I/ 1 I II 1 11 i111111 1 1[� I I I \ EXISTING 1 II CI II 1 I CONTOUR,TYP. I IIL II / / \ I PROPOSED IIif II 1 I / 1 I CONTOUR, TrP, PRAIRIE �// IIIII % I ONCRf% CARGO I F 1lT 1 1 I I PRARE MAZE I- `�i �/pp OR SHER / I / IOU' NATURAL I I I HABITAT BUFFER �1 0°� STORMNAIER I DRY SIREANINF �pY/l I l I l n \\ \\ F I / ill I l I l l /AP FlpLSf / UNDAUNTED { ` \ I / NSW, AP WMEW I \ CnADEN 1� \ � Y \• _ \ I — UN EEl COMMUNITY \ GARDENS KNOX LOCK PRO A / ':.+: '... I •: VEHICI£ ACCESS / l I // n l 11 INERRANCY ACCESS `\\\ ) / //// / I 1 GENERA LAND DOE DATA EXISTING PARKING \_ / \ LNT ��//// EXISTING ZONING EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT EXISTING PARCEL SIZE 250,00250,000 SF/S Z4 AC �) \ PROPOSED PROJECT NANO USE , DATA � \\ (� \ \/ /////i� /I SIZE AREA (9) SITE AND LSF) VOTA \/ / PROPOSED: ,� \\ \\ \\ ///j%// HARDSGPE 123 AC 53,690 SF 21% // LANDSCAPE/OPEN SPACE 446 AC 195,310 SF 79% \;\ \\ ; I \ /////i/�i/� iOrN 5]4 AC 250,000 SF IWS REQUIRED ONSNE VEHICLE PARKING COUNT PROGRAM . iA MINIMUM \ 1 ///j // /' OUTDOComm R CILITYRECR BIG O 13 3 PER L000 SF IOCESSR RECRUTON 600 PEOPLE 60 0.1/CAPACItt ACCESSORY USE— (/ (1HFATER/COVERED PLATFORM) 1,5W SGITNG 250 I PER 6 SGP3 T \ \ \ i �ii \\\\ / / / / \\ \ / / / // / / // i0r41 PROVIDED fMSUf VFHICI£ PARKING I11 I/ / / 9'-0" % 19'-0" STANDARD 62 9'-0" X 19'-0" ACCESSIBLE 4 \\, OVERSIZED PARKING B C/ / / // / REQUIRED MERE BICYCLE PARKING COUNT F AND REQUIRED INIM PARKING MODERN RECREATION 250,000 OF 125 1 PER 2,000 SF TOTAL PROPOSED &CYCI£ PARKING BIKE PARKING TOTAL = 150 SPACE U 40' 0 20' 40' 60' NORTH BIKE RACK - 15 BIKE RACKS TOTAL EX19ING TREES (150 BIKE CAPACITY) O TABLE 4 CHAINS ®® - — — — — - EXISTING CONTOUR HUSH AND RECYCLING RECEPTACLE PROPOSED CONTOUR AAOL WE CONCRETE PUNIER(5) mmmaam NATURA HABITAT BUFFER Oe POLE UGM ♦ OUTDOOR RECEPTACLE PA PUNTING AREA LIMIT OF WORK EXISTING FENCE — — — PROPOSED FENCE ARDOR STRUCTURE(S) iffl COVERED PERFORMANCE PLATFORM o CONCRETE WALL DRY STACK STONE WALL 41 7 MULDERS PAVEMENT SCHEDULE CONCRETE PAVEMENT -STD GRAY, 4" THICK CONCRETE PAVEMENT -COLOR, 4' NICK (COLOR -Teo) CONCRETE PAVEMENT -STD GRAY, 6" THICK CONCRETE PAVEMENT -COLOR, 6' NICK (COLOR -Teo) CRUSHER FINES PAVEMENT FLAGSTONE PAVEMENT SIZE PAN NOTES I. REFER TO FINAL UTWtt PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS OF STORM DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, MINT MAINS AND SERVICES. 2. REFER TO THE FINAL CINL ENGINEERING PLANS FOR DETAILED INFORMATION REGARDING PROPOSED TOPOGRAPHY, UTILITY AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS. 3. REFER TO THE SUBDIVISION PLAT AND MUIY FUNS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS, ARCS AND DIMENSIONS OF AL EASEMENTS, LOTS, TRACTS, STREETS. WALKS AND OTHER SURVEY INFORMATION. 4. ALL CONSTRUCTION WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT PUN MUST BE COMPLETED IN ONE PHASE UNLESS A PHASING PLAN IS SHOWN WIN THESE PUNS. 5. All UNWING PLXMRE IUU NINATION LEVELS PRONDED WITH HIE DEVELOPMENT SHALL COMPLY WIN THE FOOT -CANOE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 3.2.4 OF THE LAND USE CODE AND MM CITY OF FORT COLLINS NIGHT ADD POWER UTILITY REQUIREMENTS. Ell LIGHTING NUMBER PROVIDED WITH ME DEVELOPMENT SHNL USE A CONCEALED, FULLY SHIELDED LIGHT SOURCE AND SHALL FUTURE SHARP CM -OFF CAPABILITY SO AS TO MINIMIZE UP -LIGHT, SPILL LIGHT, GLARE AND UNNECESSARY DIFFUSION. 6, FlRE HYDRANTS MUST MEET OR EXCEED RADOM ARE AUTHORITY STANDARDS. ALL BUILDINGS MUST PROVIDE AN APPROVED FIRE EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM. ). All BIKE WKS PROVIDED MUST BE PERMANENTLY ANCINWEO. 8, All SIDEWALKS AND GAMES MUST CONFORM TO CITY STANDARDS. ACCESSIBLE RAMPS MUST BE PROVIDED AT NL STREET AND DRIVE INTERSECTIONS AND AT NL DESIGNATED ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES MUST SLOPE NO MORE THAN L48 IN ANY DIRECTION. ILL ACCESSIBLE ROUTES MUST SLOPE NO MORE THAN 120 IN DIREWON OF TRAVEL AND WIN NO MORE THAN 1:48 CROSS SLOPE. 9. ANY DAMAGED CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK EXISTING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. AS WELL AS STREETS. SIDEWALKS, CURDS AND GUTTERS. DESTROYED, D)UOMD OR REMOVED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PRPIECT SHALL BE REPLACED OR RESTORED TO Cltt OF FORT GOWNS STANDARDS AT THE DEVELOPERS EXPENSE PRIM TO ME ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLETED IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR PRIM TO ME ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST CERTIHGTE OF OCCUPANCY 10, ILL ARDS WITHIN THE SPRING CREEK, SHERWOOD LATERAL ALAI WETLAND AREA BUFFER ZONE SHALL BE MVMAINED IN A NATIVE LANDSCAPE. 11. PLEASE SEE SECTION 3.4.1 OF THE CARD USE CODE FOR ALLOWABLE USE WITHIN THE BUFFER ZONE. 12, SEE SHEET U002 FOR PARKING LOCATION DMGRAM. SHOULD DESIGNATED OFF -SIZE PARKING LOCATIONS CHANGE, THE PARKING LOCATION DIAGRAM SHOULD BE AMENDED IN ORDER TO SA➢SFY ME MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS. 13. COVERED PERFORMANCE PLATFORM IS DEFINED BY THE PLATFORM DEFINRION IN ME 2012 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE AS: A RASED AREA WITHIN A BUILDING USED FOR MRSHIP, THE PERSONATOR OF MUSIC, PLAYS OR OTHER ENTERTAINMENT THE HEAD TABLE FOR SPECIAL COMM; THE RAISED AREA FOR LECTURERS AND SPEAKERS: BD%LNG AND WRESTLING All THEATER -IN -THE -ROUND STAGES; AND SIMILAR PURPOSES WHEREIN MERE ARE NO OVERHEAD HAAONG CURTAINS, ORCPS, SCENERY OR STALE EFFECTS OTHER THAN LIGHTING AND SOUND. LOCATE LARGE BOULDERS PER SITE PLAN SEE GRADING PLAN FOR LANDSCAPE AREA 9" MIN. ELEVATION. TOP OF WALL SPOT STANDARD GW1Y CONCRETE, p 1/2° RADIUS EDGES, EL - r I SEE SITE PUN BROOM FINISH PARALLEL W/LENGTH OF EDGER- 2` THICK STABIH_ZED GRANITE CRUSHER FINES = = I = 4" OR 6" THICK CONCRETE o 1— PAVING WITH FIBER i - 6" 2THICK CRUSHER FINES .I SAWCUT CONTROL JOINT Ya OF SUB BASE s -1- GEOI EXOIE FABRIC. IS SLAB THICKNESS, 5 6 4r--= DRAINAGE FILL WIDTH OF PAVEMENT / - ' f \// COLLOIDAL CONCRETE 11-1 OR AS SHOWN ON DRAWINGS \ \ \ \ \ \ / N 2 BEHIND WALL 1' MAX. Jf, FILL w _ ANGULAR WITH BREEZE, / `t a _ = SANDSTONE COLOR: TO NO. 4# REBAR, CONTINUOUS COLOR STONE BUFF MIN. SIZE 6° \\`/\`/\�`1 MATCH STONE = rc ����\'/ \ \ FLAGSTONE, 3- — I III IN 1INTERLOCKINGUCE =III III =11 II \\\\\\\\ _ Ili III III h' THICK MIN. — ) = MANNER TO FORM A CONCRETE PAVEMENT 1" SAID SETTING = SINGLE MASS. COMPACTED SUBGRADE '`` •` i i�� BED z 1. TES:CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE TO EXISTING CONDRIONS \\/� 4° COMPACTED °' III : SEE SITE PLAN NOTES: WALK, IRRIGATION, TO DURINGTREES CONSTRUCTION -THIS INCLUDES EXISTING CONCRETE aAA�E.��i� ������ ii��i�� ���� ����= CON ACT 84SE III BASE COMPACTED SUBGRADE 1. EXPANSION JOINTS PLACED PER PUN, BUT NO LESS THAN 100' D.C. 2. CONTRACTOR TO TAKE SPECIAL PRECAUTION TO NOT OVER EXCAVATE AROUND 1� s SOIL TO 9RA s- 2. MAXIMUM SPACING OF CONTROL JOINTS, 100 SF. EXISTING TREES 3. CONCRETE TO HAVE FINE BROOM FINISH PERPENDICULAR TO CENTERLINE 3. BLEND STABILIZER: BLEND 12 TO 16 LEE OF STABILIZER PER TON OF NOTES: OF PAVING, DECOMPOSED GRANITE FINES. IT IS CRITICAL THAT STABILIZER BE THOROUGHLY AND 1. FLAGSTONE COLOR TO MATCH EXISTING ROCK GARDEN FLAGSTONE. — —� UNIFORMLY MIXED THROUGHOUT DECOMPOSED GRANITE FINES. 2. MINIMUM SURFACE AREA OF EACH FLAGSTONE PIECE TO BE 1'x1'. -III—I L=III=III=III=III=III=III=I I- 4. PLACE STABILIZED GRANITE FINES PER STABILIZER SOLUTIONS INC. APPROVED METHOD. CONCRETE PAVEMENT CRUSHER FINES FLAGSTONE PAVEMENT DRY STACK WALL A Uv r.„? B xe1 l/:-r-o' oT-cwe-wo G eI'-f-o' m-mn-u -a D m-om-w ELEV 98.60 2% ONC. PLAZA °al 2X12 P IORESSURE ,. TREATED JOISTS CIP GOING. (BEYOND), SPACED F 12" O.C. 2X4 PRESSURE 2X6 PRESSURE TREATED ANGULAR PINE WHEEL STOP i TREATED DECKING 8 _p° 24`-30" — 12°-18° X 4'-6' F.S. , GALVANIZED CARRIAGE BOLT, ROCK DRY op SANDSTONE BOULDER BOLT SIZE TO FIT POST STACK WITH a ° . #4 REBAR ® 18" O.C. ACCORDINGLY DRY JOINTS. BOTH WAYS x 2° 2X12 PRESSURE TREATED F.G. —III MIN. PINE GRAB BUM 15" TYP COMPACTED III FIG III III I I I I III— z°x 4" KEY �tr — o =1I III —I p 5 o SUBGRADE =III ICI 'III Y_ s _ GALVANIZED POST ANCHOR III III—III-1 SETTING BED .o = ° COMPACTED o)#a As SHOWN CONCRETE FOOTING BASE _ �I11—I 1= ANGULAR 18•_2• STRUCAGGREGATE L BACKFILL —I —I —III—I =11—I �I II„ ROCK DR s ADK —III— -2 e' _ =1I --III—III—III—I — COMPAC ED suBGRADE -11I —I I- F I— — —III—III. WITH DRY — —I I—II- 11=11—I1=" _I JOINTS. BUR ' I—= — — = BOTTOM TT —I 1=I' _I L=1-1 L= L=1I L=1 -I II I1= = r J I —III —I 1=1 1=1 6" r BOULDER --= 1=' =III=III- -III=III=III=III=1 2'-6"1'-0° =ITT—ITT=11=11 L—III=I HOGBACKS - SECTION F LOADING DOCK G BOARDWALK H BOULDER STEPS m- E V 1/Y=f-o' oT-Wal stm=9 N' -o' DT—•ail—a«La.g ar.1/e'=1—o' elemoom—mil—mpt H N w J � a z ~ w W � W O N ¢ s Date: 10-21-15 Drawn By. JB Checked By. CR Sheet LS,501 m 13'-11 �4 0 a i 01 5" TYP n 2) " }" THICK STEEL j PLATE-LATE-PoWDERCOAT BUCK 4) SST 5/8" THROUGH 30LTS- EACH POST 5.5"X12" ALASKAN YELLOW CEDAR ,LULAM BEAM )"W CEDAR 2"%10" CEDAR POST (2) TOTAL IT EACH GLULAM BEAM ARBOR ELEVATIONS ARBOR - PLAN A �yr_,_e• 7 ARBOR - ELEVATION B 20'-B" (2) gj"X17" J" THICK STEEL PLATE-POWDERCOAT BLACK (4) SST 5/8" THROUGH BOLTS- EACH POST 3.5"1(12" ALSKAN YELLOW CEDAR GLULM BEAM 2"106" CEDAR 2"x1O" CEDAR POST (2) TOTAL AT EACH GLULAM BEAM 93/4 `HCICOKTSTL I CRUSHER FINES )NDUIT BOLT, I.:. •CONCRETE FOOTER L'--J 1. CONCRETE FOOTER TO BE ENGINEERED BY LICENSED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER 1 PEDESTRIAN LIGHT ,a I a CONCRETE FOOTING 1'-0" V-6" 45 2X8 CEDAR 2X6 CEDAR ARCHITECTURAL AREA LIGHTING °p I UNIVERSE COLLECTION MEDIUM BLANK TOP, SOLID RING (T2/LED4K/700-3000K COLOR TEMP) 2X6 CEDAR DECORATIVE BANNERS W/ ATTACHMENTS ELECTRICAL CONDUIT `O I OUTDOOR ELEC. RECEPTACLE TO BE MOUNTED 6" ABOVE B.F.E. I" CARRIAGE BOLT, TYP. �'.1....r}-.IANCHOR BOLT Dz C;.t;•:•1 Az w CONCRETE FOOTER rc L'_iJ ml z 10' 6" '� 10'-6" �o 10' fi" � � t W(2) 9J"X17" ]' THICK STEEL PLATE-POWDERCOAT BLACK (4) SST 5/8" THROUGH BOLTS- EACH POST 3.5"X12' ALASKAN YELLOW CEDAR GLULAM BEAM 2"X6" CEDAR �n a I � - I I I I I I I I I ARBOR ELEVATIONS ARBOR -UNDAUNTED GARDEN - PLAN 4' 9" 12' 6" TYP 10 —fi ttP 3.5X72" ALASKAN YELLOW CEDAR GWLAM BEAM 2'X6' CEDAR 9;"X12"-1/4" THICK STL PLATE, POWDER COAT BLACK 2"x10" CEDAR POST (2) TOTAL AT EACH GLULAM BEAM I I I p I I I I I WX24"-1/4" THICK STL PLATE, POWDER COAT BLACK ITS ARBOR- UNDAUNTED GARDEN - ELEVATION A H In z W J .j 0 a z ~ w W LU 0 N 'Q Date: 10-21-15 Drawn By. JB Checked By CR Sheet LS,503 Im 2X12 PRESSURE TREATED JOISTS (BEYOND), SPACED 12" O.C. 2X4 PRESSURE TREATED DECKING 6' ROUGH SAWN CEDAR TOP RAIL MR ICI V III ICI ICI III' - GALVANIZED POST ANCHOR -III- III—III=III=III —CONCRETE FOOTING I- I I I -III I I I -I 11=I I I III _ III- =11 II -III' SECTIONIIIIII'I Illli ITI�TI ELEVATION BRIDGE 0 v 1/2'=1-a' cbmm- -moz THICKENED CONCRETE EDGE TYPICAL BOTH ENDS OF BRIDGE 16'-0" 8'-0. 8'-0. MAX. MAX. SEE ENLARGEMENT -TOP LEFT nr GALVANIZED METAL CASING — — — �2'X12" GIRTS 0 24" O.C. BEAD -SIZED TO THICKNESS OF III CABLE STOP ACOUSTEMENT 40 (1" THICK) 24 GAUGE GAL. METAL WALL -- -- 2'X12" NAILER 3j" COPING 2"X12" NAILER 10" POST }')" APA RATED SHEATHING 10'X6'X4' ASS POST HSS EACH FACE -METAL LATH ON TOP STL III 2"X12" NAILER GALVANIZED METAL LATH PYROK ACOUSTEMENT 40 PYROK ACOUSTEMENT 40 - - (1" THICK) -APPLY PER 1" THICK) -APPLY PER PER PYROK ACOUSTEMENT 40 MANUFACTURER'S ( iLLOW CEDAR SPECIFICATIONS MANUFACTURERS a 3}" GAL STL CABLE ROPE SPECIFICATIONS i� CABLE THIMBLE STL ARA III CABLE TENSIONER III EACH FACETED SHEATHING (C" GAL STL 2) TOTAL AM VINE CABLE SYSTEM-8' O.C. CABLE STOP VINE-VIRGINA 4 CREEPER/ENGLISH SCALE: T'=i'-0" 24"0 X 4' IVY ALL (4) SIDES, TOP & BOTTOM SEE ENLARGEMENT SCALE: ABOVE }"=1'-0" FG _ _ FG STL dll II%II II —III —I - III III = — .0 I��II III � :. _ �-Llldll IN II II II N I=III I I I I N N I I H I I=III = I -ZT I I I-11111 p, � I I� I IIII I :. I T II INII I III Tullul .II IIRI II I I I -I I I I I -III � I - _ 24'0 CONCRETE DRILLED PIER III III- dll W 6 #6 VERT AND #3 HOOP TIES 0 36' III—II _I CONCRETE FOOTING IIII $l B SOUND WALL 6" ROUGH SAWN CEDAR TOP RAIL 2' ROUGH SAWN CEDAR RAILING 3' ROUGH SAWN CEDAR POST 2X12 PRESSURE TREATED PINE GRAB BEAM GALVANIZED CARRIAGE BOLT BOLT SIZE TO FIT POST ACCORDINGLY ;H:1\F.\CIp7�11Qy/:11[N:P]:a IHtlQTNAiliiQ0lNIe, EVERGREEN TREES EVERGREEN TREES �PYROK ACOUSTEMENT 40 PYROK ACOUSTEMENT 40 — EXAMPLE PHOTO D WALL E OF -D TREE, SEE PLE, TYP. E OF TREE. —PYROK ACOUSTEMENT 40 SOUND WALL —VINE CABLE SYSTEM-8" O.C. n SOUND WALL SECTION A sc+��i/W'-P. DT-KU104-s ND-WU N z w J � a z ~ w W � W 0 N ¢ s Date: 10-21-15 Drawn By. JB Checked By OR Sheet LS,505 CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 22ND FILING COMMUNITY HORTICULTURE CENTER MAJOR AMENDMENT - LANDSCAPE PLAN LEGAL DESCRIPTION: CENTRE FORADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 22ND FILING COMMUNITY HORTICULTURE CENTER SHEETINDEX LP001 COVER SHEET LP101 TREE PROTECTION/TRANSPLANT PUN LP102 OVERALL PUNTING PUN LP103 OVERALL TREE PUNTING PUN LP501 LANDSCAPE DETAILS 4L� rn Imm1 0 E Pitkin St y Annual Flower Trial Garden W Lake St W Lake St W Prospect Rd W Prospect Rd E Pro SHI ADDITION Hilton Fort Collins Birky PI Parker St 7LD PROSPECT — _ %//enberg or E Sti. Gardens on Spring Creek — °`' � � INi Botanical garden with educational events i, ShTte Ct Da� Moore or ty�Ztail RoW6 N STOVER AREA A. Rolland Moore Park Colur I L----_- _.. c� eDr 41 WlIII _. O rat Area o Princeton Rd GARDENS ON fill .... SPRING CREEK PRESERVE _ m W Drake Rd E Dr L D n c ountain d - — School gal 0 DO Clair Rd t F Fill 3 a o 1 CONTEXT MAP ZONING MAP NORTH s / IIII ,. IIII Ijl I II Iji I I III / \ T28 5 — T27 _ LEGEND TREE INVENTORY CHART NAME SPECIES SIZE CONDITION TRANSPLANT TREE TO O BE TRANSPLANTED T1 BUR OAK 5' CAL. GOOD T2 BUR OAK 4" CAL. GOOD TREE TO BE REMOVED T3 CANYON MAPLE 3' CLUMP— MIFAIR ® POD REPLACED T4 CANYON MAPLE 10' CLUMP— MULR—STEM FAIR TS CANYON MAPLE 10' CLUMP— MULR—S1EM GOOD E%17ING TREES T6 CANYON MAPLE 10' CLUMP— MULTI FAIR TO REMAIN T7 SW WHILE PINE 5' CAL. — 157 HT. FAIR T8 BLACK HILLS SPRUCE 4-5" CAL. — 15' HT. GOOD T9 BLACK HILLS SPRUCE 4-5" CAL. — 15' HT. GOOD FIG BLACK HILLS SPRUCE 4-5" CAL — 15' HE GOOD T11 BLACK HILLS SPRUCE 4-5" CAL — 15' ILL GOOD T12 COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE 5m CAL. — 15' HT. FAIR NOTE: ALL TREE REMOVAL/TRANSPLANTING TO OCCUR T13 PEKING TREE ❑IAC 10' HT. GOOD OUTSIDE THE MIGRATORY SONGBIRD NESTING T14 PEKING TREE ❑LAC 10' HE GOOD TRANSPLANT SEASON (FEB 1—JULY 31) T15 PEKING TREE ❑LAC 10' HE GOOD TRANSPLANT TI6 PEKING TREE LILAC 10' HT, GOOD TRANSPLANT T17 PEKING TREE LILAC 10' HT, GOOD TRANSPLANT T18 PEKING TREE UTAC 10' HT. GOOD TRANSPLANT TO USSURIAN PEAR 5" OAF. GOOD TRANSPLANT T20 COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE 4' CAL. GOOD (TRIBUTE TREE) T21 USSURIAN PLAN 5' CAL. GOOD TRANSPLANT T22 USSURIAN PEAR 5' CAL. GOOD TRANSPLANT T23 SW WHITE PINE 7' CAL. GOOD TRANSPLANT T24 PONDEROSA PINE 12' 9. GOOD TRANSPINT T25 REDMOND LINDEN 5" CAL. FAIR (TRIBUTE TREE) T26 TATARIAN MAPLE 3' CAL. DEAD — REPLACE T27 TATARIAN MAPLE 3' CAL. POOR — REPLACE T28 TATARIAN MAPLE 3' CAL. FAIR T29 ROCKY MEN. JUNIPER 3' CAL. — 10' HT. GOOD TRANSPLANT T30 ROCKY MEN. JUNIPER 3' CAL. — 10' HT. GOOD TRANSPLANT T31 ROCKY MEN. JUNIPER 3' CAL. — 10' HT. GOOD TRANSPLANT T32 GAMBEL OAK 8' HT. GOOD TRANSPLANT T33 GAMBEL OAK 8' HT. GOOD TRANSPLANT T34 GAMBEL OAK 8' HE GOOD TRANSPMT T35* (16) COTTONWOODS 2-4" Ce GOOD (4) PEACH LEAF WILLOWS (1) ALDER TOTAL TREES TO BE TRANSPLANTED: 12 / y IIIII I � � I �11111 I I 1NI IIII I� I IIIII I I I^, I, I_ III C I I I I I I I I I I 41111 II I I I II I II IIII I II I I I\j I IIIII II I I II I l 1111111 11 I I 1I 1 II IIIII II I I }} IIII I II l I I I IIII I I I I � ilHlll I I l l I IIIIII I/ I t ` I41I111I I IIIIII II I IIIIII II I FCCjlil II I II I IIIII II I / IIIII II I �I�I III II 11 I jjI IIII �1 � I I IILII I/ / I l I I I I l l��ll 11 1 I� l l,l/// l l I I �/✓/i i' i i i i( i TREE PROTECTION/TRANSPLANT PLAN Q 30' 0 15' 30' 60' NORTH 111111 41 Opel 1 i• �nI /�/,,/��i. .,�.'� p7 ��' ���e�►��-w�.i��`')�I��'�/ ��CI�� I „ •1.�1 IN QVd I. �„ III l �:°?I A� '�♦!♦!� � �%�����Q �� ��. ����'� i r 1 l' ..,� ,. � :ly � . - � ♦ � ai t�r� . ; 'ter //��� �IBM ? i,�Q -�� �' ,a;' �♦•�/��Ih�+e,�°i♦�;y� �.:`=� �i��'n,�`�s� C� Ci• � � '�Il/�j//��//%'� le 11•'1 1 • . �►� o�►j �� f bic �:/�I�I�I♦/♦♦�♦� ��C�� �. 1' 1 ��� 11 1. •1 , . l ��.//'�` �j � Fy,• w �I�II�fiR .�. / 1 �� j, ������� 11 1• alle0��°� - r♦e♦ 11 I �i%Iii` %� ��� ,u�1�.' //�/ ///� .1 �1.-� F '�..'� � i� &®�r ��♦♦♦ .. �r fir° � � „ I 1,,, - �/, ��` � i ♦ ♦Ifr 1♦�► r.� ��i E'� �� �♦°�� ' � pP ♦%r�G•.�i'�/ r � " .III/��i� �//G�i//� ,. ., / I ♦ � 1 �l' a_a .+ate,) 11� r' • • 1 ' •♦♦i♦:♦o♦iii �i♦i°°!♦♦i♦i`o\ i f�`fi r.�` •:!i •Ai / r p ► I r,.>♦♦♦�♦Oi♦i♦i����c♦i♦i`.♦i♦i♦i`.. ii�ii/i r/ �.��j �I 11'1 1 M7All9: vl "! +� • 1 :1 : �•.,♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ..f♦♦O>♦♦♦s \ram OII II HIGHLIGHT PLANTS THAT LOOK /i1 $s♦ ♦.♦♦r ♦♦♦♦ ♦♦ ♦ ♦♦o��1/ /I/ A �� LUMINOUS`•1♦i`. �t�:� .9�aZii4♦i°.! 'F♦♦Oi's O��i�i♦i°f Ei r��� J •.1 1 1, :. FEATURE PLANTS WITH WHITE LIGHT PETALS ♦♦i a `ova . ir O♦ A° Di.4♦OOi ODOOOi♦ op♦01 Iic, I� !� NOCTURNALGRANT SPECIES THAT ATTRACT PrAIM '.♦♦• °• °♦° �s3i1, Isi♦i!�° iOO i i♦O. `i♦Oi� �DOO°�®�+`Oo'o�o"i♦Oi� �i1� 11 O•1 ♦♦e. ♦♦♦ �♦♦- COLORADO FOUR O'CLOCK O I�•1 .�.'.�'♦�' Of►°♦♦•i♦O.!!!Oi♦al��i♦��♦:`r:i♦i♦iD`Qi♦i ���VVI n, PRIMROSE- EVENING �.VI ♦✓ ��i. �,t.w,1 •�i♦�♦i♦c °i�0i♦ice �! �-`: � ��ID4�r♦p 1 :1 � ♦. .q+��� ♦ ♦♦a t�,♦♦. �r r i�i "♦4♦.'OOi I? 0 �, ��i♦i♦i ♦OOi♦ia R. IA i4• ,y�y�� �L�♦�♦��•♦�p�� A�, .. tI� �O. ♦O♦.♦i0. .0 Jf�. A r/y� . .c �((�,t ,I�1� o�♦♦♦♦♦A ♦�♦��:ramIVA ♦♦♦♦♦����♦�♦i O♦i#i�0 ��'��r�iA ��, ♦�♦�i�♦♦i jai♦t ♦♦'� >�♦�f ♦� , 1 . • . ,.. 1 , •. I/�► �.�♦ Ri�♦ .� I �� .♦j , e����r�.i♦i♦i♦i♦i '%'�' 1 •1 1 •1 1 1 7/� � 1.♦i♦ �.�Are�l.i I�Ate Q1� .{�� N .f ♦��f>♦♦♦♦♦� ��i♦ ..♦ 1♦♦ ♦���i ♦ ro..r r • Y .m "li �+1 �. ♦°♦cf°A�'..♦♦♦♦♦♦�� ♦ ♦..♦�♦♦i i�i� v♦j♦♦♦ "1 1 1 1 i`�♦♦ ♦o•f •�> it �J 6r. �♦ E �..♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦� ♦♦♦ •1 1� .wi.d♦S��♦ .•i♦ ��d'♦♦i` ' o+ �+�ti :.Ilse ,. �..•> + ♦cii♦♦♦♦.�i.♦' i♦♦i0�' ' '' ' ' ' •� ! �lQ • p♦ I • 'e, o . � ,'��.� � aao0`dr♦�t►j� i .gip .•.pp� � 11 1 1 •1 1 V1Ji� A��i' J♦♦�i'.�• �♦♦r� ����� �lbi 1 ��!` ♦♦.♦. - ii OO♦c'♦% , 1•. 1• 1 1 1 Ld ♦..O IE/O Op 4 e�i��� to ♦•o�♦p♦♦O� ♦♦•�♦♦♦pp♦p ., . 1 1 1 1 1 �� • ,,� ♦� � ArF i/ • �., .♦♦A ..... �► 20 r I• 1 _ , , :•, 1.1 11 1• I ' ' , , I��IIIIiI�°III III 1 i� ii �I I � • y'� I �I' 1 �I: „ . :, . ., • liilll 111 III 1. II 1 /( / // \ \ -. ----' �' \ "1 ♦ / I / �,\ +III I I I I 1 1 I I I100l NATURAL HABITAT 1 I I 1 I\ 0 IiI;BUFFER p ''—_-- 100' NATURAL HABITAT I BUFFER III \\ + // \� + ��� O/ \\ ■ I lal II I l\ I / rc III I � 1 1�1j ' \ —* ♦�'''= � \ pi o O 4 "4 0 � �I+llll�l I � i / IIII '�I LI l� _ oo / I vv � � p � • I l I III 11j 1/ � I l� I 11 1 � I l _ �! 1 A ■ / I I /I� Ill r I • I 1 I I r I I a PIP 0 LANOScmE LEGEND — ■ / I / EXISTING WE MAGREEN TREE 1 O ♦v o v Ay NATIVE NATIVE OAK GROVE �1,,M.`(, _ W DECIDUOUS SHADE TREE O. ORNAMENTAL TREE / /// ,SELECTION TBD BY CITY / /� 'FORESTER ( / / /// / TRANSPUNIED E4 RGRE£N TREE PROPOSED TREE \ \ \\ \ ■ /NOTABLE SPECIES GROVE \\ ♦ I / / / ENDM JDROnn's TREE FARM O C17 FORESTER Tw Br SELECTION TBD BY \\ \ / /y� (31 TOTAL) crn POREsrtR CITY FORESTER L \\ o LANDSCAPE SCHROTIE ' OTL SYMBOL BOTANIC NAME COMMON NAME SIZE III I I Ill II\1� I ♦ \ DECIDUOUS TREES ♦ / \ I 1 1 II + NOTABLE SPECIES \ I GROVE , `r ID M ACER NEGUNoo 'SENSAEON SENSATION BOXELDER z' CL ,`T t t \ _i O\/ - SELECTION TBD BY 1 I ` o J \ \l • —\ c— CITY FORESTER I v ( \\\ \ 1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / I O CATALPA SPECIM NORTHERN CATALPA 2" CLL. 9 O OUERCUS SiERNBERGII HIGH AWNS OAK R" CALL. y p o JOB V /I E CELTS OCCIDEM0.15 XACKBERRY z" CAL 9� o _E \ \ \ 1 \ \ 6 o POruLus AuwnATA LANCE" conowooD z' CALL. ♦ \ \ \ \ \� \ ��� B• / \L ` NOTABLE SPECIES > ) �� / / ///j//i 5 ■ POPULUs SARGENT SAR EW srwuort z" CAL Z GROVE (///// / JERoxIMus' PLANS coTrowooD SELECTION TBD BY /n/ O z J Cltt FORESTER \ / ////'2 v QUEENS MACROCABPA BUR OAK 2' CAL Z w H- EL w — \ / ♦ \ \ \ \ \ _� _\ \ \ ( O \ \ \ \ / ///// / / / 12 + UOJUS DAHDww DARN ELM 'CHOCE Cm' 2' a1 > U 0 0 OUT //i /// / I OM mCOMMON eOrnNlc NAME MMON NAME E BRIGHT WIDTH D z ORMENTAL WES = J g z EVERGREEN TREES w U a - ACES ACES G"INDIOENTATUM •GTOOTH MAPLE (MULTI6' HT 10-zo' 10-15' t- F 2 12 O JUNIPERUS SCOPULORUM ROCKY MOUNTAIN JUNIPER 6' Hi. 16-20' 8-12' Of w Q ACES iRTPRICUM 'HOT WINGS' HOT WINGS TATARIPN MAPLE fi' Hi. I5-20' 12-I5' V 2 l K =`\\ ^\\ q p w�P AMOSCOPULORUM SKYROCKET Q DCKEf JUNIPER 6' . 12-20' 2-4' W (WLN-S1EM) Q I Q G _ O _ _ _ \ \ \ \\ \ , \ - ALNUS TENNFOLIA THINLEAF ALDER (MULTI -STEM) 6' Hi. IS-ZO' IS-20' < 10 PICEA PUNCENS COLOUDO SPRUCE 10-17 HE 80-100' 25-30' VVV 4L J "'JYYY'444`XXX� - OUERCUS GNJBELII GAMBOL OAK 6' HT. 15-30' I2-20' OfM Of 9 I L PREA RUNNERS 'FAT ALBER' FAT ALERT BLUE SPRUCE 10-12' HE 50-60' 20-30' (YULE -STEM) Q w \ \ \\\\ \ J \ \ \ \\ � � \ 26 S) POPULUS TREMULA SWEDISI COLUMNAR ASPEN L5' CAL. AE-W' IB-I5' 1y 11 PICEA GWG'DENSATA' BLACK HILLS SPRUCE 6'H7. R0-10' 15-25' 'ERECTA' 0 12 Oi PRUNUS NRGINIAN4 WCKERPUNCH CHNECHERRY 1.5' CAL. 15-M 15-20' W 21 RUNS E ® DUOS PINON PINE 6' HT. 12-20, 12-15' V I J 21 AMELANCHIER X MANOIROVA ALI BRILLIANCE (MULTI-S EMU 15 CAL. 15-20' I0-I5' \ / , MINUS ELEKIS UMBER PINE 18-20' HI 20-25' 10-15' O 'AUTUMN BRIIllAMCE' SERVICEBERRY 1r� / Date: 10-21-15 36 MINUS YUGO TANNENBuIN' iNNNENBAUM MUM PINE 6' M. II-15' S-6' Drawn By. JB ® 3 MINCA RERCU1ATA POKING WE UWD 1.5' CAL. 2a-25' 20-25' Checked By CR A OVERALL TREE PLANTING PLAN Q Sheet 30' 0 15' 30' 50' NORTH LP1403 I AT 1/2 TREE HEIGHT ?AP WOOD POSTS (2) ROWN 2" ABOVE GRADE. GRADE. WIRE TIES AND BURLAP OP 3 OF FOOTBALL. L MATERIAL. DE. n DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING " scar: xrs m-o-ee-osNa.q TREES :EDED AREAS HOLD SEED M TREE TRUNK 6" DW iAN FOOTBALL. FORM A NATER RING AND MULCH. VRAP COTTONWOODS WEBBING CONSTRUCT A 4" DEEP WATER HOLDING WELL FROM COMPACTED SOIL APPROX. LINE OF SLOPE GUY WIRE WITH WEBBING LOOPS AT FIRST BRANCHES (MIN 4'-6" ABOVE FINISH GRADE) GUY ANCHOR. TOP OF ANCHOR TO BE FLUSH WITH FINISH GRADE. TREE WRAP WEED BARRIER MULCH PLANTING SOIL SUBGRADE �]N.131f'l"9Ni" .1' . rZiIJ11119L- DECIDUOUS TREE ON SLOPE r B e t12' -x' 57_7rceO7 d.q SHRUB CENTER 1//2 O.C. SPACING MIN. TR UT WALL, CONIC HEADER, OR TREE TRUNKS PAN SHALL BE EQUAL DISTANT APART (SEE PUNT E0. E0. LIST AND PUNT SPACING OETPIL FOR SPACING) 2" MIN. MULCH OVER ENTIRE BED; DO NOT COVER CROWNS OF PUNTS Ar2' MOUNDED SAUCER (D TRIANGULAR SHRUB SPACING E �� xn xT-PMl-gxsa-sPK FABRIC F PERENNIAL PLANTING qT-pmnnolarq WEBBING AT i HEIGHT OF TREE. GUY WIRE. WARNING SLEEVE ON ALL GUYS FOR ALL TREES IN LAWN OR PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC AREAS. ROOT CROWN 2" ABOVE EXISTING GRADE. MULCH. FINISH GRADE. REMOVE WIRE TIES AND BURLAP FROM TOP 3 OF ROOTBALL. GUY ANCHOR, TOP OF ANCHOR TO BE FLUSH WITH FINISH GRADE. BACKFILL MATERIAL. COMPACTED SUBGRADE. A¢ X ROOTBALL DIA. n EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING V SCN£'.N5 4e>my 'q 1/2 O.C. SPACING MIN. TO WALLS, CONC HEADER ATERIAL SUBGRADE )ES n SHRUB PLANTING U SGIf:xS M An Date: 10-21-15 Drawn By. Checked By Sheet LP501 No Text Abachment6 0 Z E O AR 4- U -BUR US a/n M r METAL ROOF wax ewe CHWEEDOUGLONEFIR METAL ROME DARK BLUE BUREAU BOBER PROBRUMAPPERTANKE FEWER DOUGLAS GannE,OUR STary MURGUABIEWS _ rtGRAOE,RM¢Em suaFTA¢mmmorx MRuEoaa nury PDT FIGURED METAL MEDIA STRING BERINSTYLEDOURS n[R /` COLOR TO MATCH DRAFT wR , awFj - _ _ %:Ea DOIJORT) FOOF PAL WED TO MATCH BLAME - aEvwom MMONEY TwsnwE MASONRY vw¢RWAU MET TONGUEANDGRmRE • MOD 9)FFT smm¢c SnrvosrcxE VENEEDWALL-Burt re-nnsslev¢ /` _ oz nna lEv¢ IRA _a HU _ EL - - - _- _ — — — - —_— J�A„ — -- T EAST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION ME r US .1/4E M 31/4 & RE E_/_. --- - m FRAN u, B EL — iBE IF �ICED off'°, 01 LEVEL TREY B EL — — 12 41/2- HE IN -0 WEST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION J _ o � � N Z LED � U Q F— OU OC Z p LEE 2 Q U N Z w U W ~ Of 0 U X a Of > 0 Z BID T Q = (D Z K U U STANDING SEAM METAL STEEL COLUMNS AND SYNTHETIC ASHLAR RULING WOOD BARN ACCENT COLOR FOR DOOR GLUTAM BEAMS-CLEARSTAIN CEILING/SOFFIT-TONGUE CONCRETE FLOOR AND m ROOF AND FASCIA STE UCTU RE PAI FIE D TO SANDSTONE VENEER DOORPAINTHARDWARE AND STRUCTURAL ANDGROOVEWOOD STRUCTURAL SUPPORT F ORATCHSTONE FASTENERS PLANES Z LEI Date: 10-21-15 fir)BUILDING MATERIALS EXHIBIT Drawn By. CAK Checked By. CAK aU�"=L'-a•• Sheet A2 177 ii , ADAMS t��ASSOCIATES acoustics performingarts technology August 26, 2015 Mr. Craig Russell, Principal Russell + Mills Studios 141 S College Street, Suite 104 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Attar�059'B'gtden Street Denver, CO 80218 www.dlaa.com 303.455.1900 RE: Gardens on Spring Creek— Noise Modeling Narrative (DLAA #9678A) Dear Craig, Per your request, we have updated our acoustical model based on the most recent stage design and expanded modeling area for the Gardens on Spring Creek in Fort Collins, Colorado. Included in this report are results from the updated model and a narrative explaining the analysis and modeling methodology. Please note that our comments and recommendations are based entirely on meeting acoustical objectives. Compliance with building codes should be reviewed by qualified personnel prior to implementing any recommendations. Modeling We have modeled several scenarios to predict the noise impact of the proposed Gardens on Spring Creek Amphitheatre based on architectural and landscape drawings, locations of adjacent buildings and neighborhoods, the surrounding topography, conversations with the architect, and meetings with the City of Fort Collins and representatives from the Gardens. The models were made in CadnaA, a computer aided environmental noise assessment and predictions software which allows for 3D noise mapping based on the layout of the environment and designated source and receiver locations. The model was constructed by overlaying the plans for the proposed Gardens renovations over a map of the existing site with building locations and terrain contours. Three dimensional models of sound reflecting features such as buildings, sound barriers, and the stage were then placed according to their location on the site plan. The building models account for their roles in regard to both blocking and reflecting sound. Receiver locations indicating resulting sound levels were placed in the neighborhoods of concern to the west, northwest, and south of the Gardens. Another receiver location was placed in the center of the lawn at the assumed mixing console location in order to calibrate source levels. The sound source used in the model consisted of two subwoofers on the stage and two line array stacks placed on the stage and directed toward the audience area. This sound source is similar to 178 Attachment 7 Mr. Craig Russell August 26, 2015 Page 2 what we would expect for concerts and events. Source levels were calibrated so that the level at the assumed mixing console location was 90 dBA. We recommend that a 90 dBA limit at the assumed mixing location will need to be established in order to prevent excessive sound levels at the nearest properties. In addition to the loudspeakers, an audience area was added to the lawn in front of the stage to simulate the noise impact that a 1,500 member audience may have on nearby sound levels. The predicted sound spectrum of the audience was based on prior concert crowd noise measurements, and the overall level was calibrated based on the expected sound level of concerts at the Gardens. Design Criteria Section 20-23 Maximum permissible noise levels of the Fort Collins Municipal Code and Charter establishes maximum noise levels in Low Density Residential zones (R-L) to be 55 dBA from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm and 50 dBA from 8:00 pm to 7:00 am. It is our understanding that the Gardens on Spring Creek have agreed to stop performances at 8:00 pm in order to remain in the 55 dBA limit window. Our recommendations will be based on meeting the 55 dBA noise limits. The maximum noise levels in Employment zones (E) is 70 dBA from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm. The surrounding area of the Gardens on Spring Creek consist of both Low Density Residential, and Employment zones. Zone boundaries as well as property lines are shown and labeled in the noise mapping graphic attached. Recommendations Stage Design Our recommendations shown in Figure 1 are based on the latest design of the Gardens on Spring Creek stage. The design features a segmented wall along the north and west edges of the stage, and a curved floating roof structure. The northwestern and western segments of the wall extend up to the bottom of the roof structure, which will help prevent a direct path for sound to travel form the stage to the residential zone to the west. The curved western segment of the wall extends south beyond both the stage and the footprint of the roof. We recommend this portion of the wall extend up to at least 12 feet above stage level and 17 feet south of the west corner of the stage. 179 Attachment 7 Mr. Craig Russell August 26, 2015 Page 3 While the stage walls are beneficial for mitigating the sound directed towards the adjacent neighborhoods, the curved walls will provide unwanted sound focusing and reflections back to the stage and audience area. To address this, we recommended finishing the inner side of the stage walls with a sound absorbing material such as Pyrok Acoustement 40. Product literature is attached. Another option would be to use a splayed, tiered, or rough finish with varying depths for the stage walls that would diffuse incoming sound. Smooth, sound reflecting finishes should be avoided. Sound Barriers In addition to the stage walls, sound barriers will be needed along the western edge of the lawn. The barriers should be at least 23 feet tall; or a minimum of 17' above the stage level on the northern end of the barrier, and a minimum of 19.5' above stage level on the southern end. Figure I shows recommendations for the barriers in regards to minimum height and approximate location relative to the stage. If the barriers are curved to match the perimeter of the lawn, the barriers will focus sound, and similar treatment to the stage walls will be needed; either a sound absorbing or sound diffusing finish should be used. Breaking up the sound barriers into smaller or straight segments will also help prevent unwanted reflections. If this is done, the barrier segments should be staggered to fully block the line of sight from the stage with no gaps and at least 7 feet of overlap between them. Loudspeaker Placement and Restrictions In order to keep the sound barriers down to a reasonable size, height limits for loudspeakers brought in for shows need to be established. All loudspeakers used for events should be stage mounted and be no higher than 9 feet above the stage. The sound pressure level in the center of the audience area should not exceed 90 dBA. Predicted Results Noise contours showing the predicted conditions with our recommendations incorporated is displayed in Figure 2. The map shows the predicted sound level at receiver points in various locations throughout the surrounding area. The predicted sound level at the worst case condition in the residential zone is below the 55 dBA limit. Sound levels in the adjacent properties zoned for employment are not expected to exceed 68 dBA, which is below the 70 dBA limit. As shown by the noise contours in Figure 2, the building to the south of the Gardens will not provide significant sound reflections back to the lawn or the adjacent neighborhoods. The reflections are minimized due to the directionality of the loudspeakers on the stage being aimed downward toward the audience and reducing the sound that is directed to the buildings. The sound level in the audience area and adjacent neighborhoods from sound reflected off the building will be well below the level of direct sound from the stage and main loudspeakers. we Attachment 7 Mr. Craig Russell August 26, 2015 Page 4 The sound generated by the audience will be mostly directed toward the stage. The level of any noise from the audience reflected off the buildings is expected to be below the direct sound level from the main loudspeakers. The reflected audience noise is not predicted impact the overall sound level in the adjacent neighborhoods. Please let us know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Z ,. . Ian Patrick Staff Consultant Enclosed: Figures 1 and 2 Product Literature 181 Attachment 7 0 O O O Extend to a minimum 17' above stage level. + Curved stage walls shall be sound absorbing or diffusive. Extend to a minimum 19' above stage level. 17' Q ' 9 9� LO Extend wall 17' south of west stage corner. Minimum 12' above stage level. Interior barrier finish 'Jn shall be sound 9_ absorbing or diffusive. Extend to a minimum 19.5' above stage level. AD. L. ADAMS siommosooASSOCIATES acoustics I performing arts I technology 1536 Ogden Street Denver, Colorado 80218 303/455-1900 FAX 303/455-9187 Stage Wall and Sound Barrier Layout August 26, 2015 Figure 1 not to scale 182 Attachment 7 Residential Zoning (55 dBA) L. - Zoning :' -- boundary -- IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN Min 17' above stage level. I Stage walls ■ ■ A AMM- Sound Barrier ■ 11 Min 19.5' above stage level. MENEM .' I �7 • �, Employment Zoning; �...7(70 dBA) ■7 0 ......... acoustics I performing arts I technology 1536 Ogden Street Denver, Colorado 80218 303/455-1900 FAX 303/455-9187 West wall 12' above stage minimum Predicted Sound Level Map Figure 2 August 26, 2015 not to scale Property Line > -99.0 dB \ > 35.0 dB > 40.0 dB > 45.0 dB > 50.0 dB > 55.0 dB > 60.0 dB > 65.0 dB > 70.0 dB > 75.0 dB > 80.0 dB > 85.0 dB 183 Attachment 7 Pyrok Acoustement 40 Decorative/Acoustical Surfacing Material Product Data 1. Description Pyrok Acoustement 40 is a nominal 41 PCF (air-dried density) Portland cement/exfoliated vermiculite spray -applied formulation 100% free from asbestos and mineral fibers, polystyrene, and cellulose. Pyrok Acoustement 40 is highly abuse resistant (impact, abrasion, moisture, hostile industrial environments), has excellent adhesion to a variety of substrates, allows substrates to breath and be cleaned by a variety of methods. 2. Uses Pyrok Acoustement 40 can be used as a decorative surfacing material or as a combination of these qualities even in conjunction as a fireproofing material. This material is recommended for exterior exposures where resistance to environmental pollution, rain, corrosion, and spalling is required. It may be used in interior exposures where superior abuse resistance is required. Typically Pyrok Acoustement 40 is specified for transportation facilities, correctional projects, lobbies, atriums, tunnels, natatoriums, gymnasiums, manufacturing facilities, contact wall areas, and any other area requiring high abuse resistance and sound absorption qualities. It can also be used on interior surfaces of walkways, hallways, and rooms where a purely decorative finish is desired. Pyrok Acoustement 40 may also be used on ceilings as a combination acoustical finish and fireproofing material. Custom integral coloration is available within the limits of iron oxide pigmentation. 3. Packaging 351b. Kraft paper/polyethylene lined bags 55 bags shrink wrapped pallet (minimum) 1100 bags per truckload 4. Yield 17 Bd. ft./bag (ideal) 5. Applications Pyrok, Inc. recommends application of Pyrok Acoustement 40 be performed only by approved Pyrok applicators. An approved applicator list is available from Pyrok, Inc. 6. Application Procedures Summary Pyrok Acoustement 40 may be applied directly to clean, bare steel, clean galvanized steel or a wide variety of unpainted concrete, cement board and other clean, sound substrates. Some substrates will require metal lath. Contact Pyrok, Inc. for verification of compatibility with substrate, suitability of primer and potential requirement of expanded metal lath. Mix in mechanical type mixer with paddle or ribbon type blades. Use 4-5 gallons of clean, potable water per each 35-pound bag of Pyrok Acoustement 40. Mix 1 to 3 minutes. Spray -apply using equipment recommended by Pyrok, Inc. Air supply at the spray nozzle shall be a minimum of 40 pounds per square inch. Wet density at the nozzle shall be 70-85 pounds per cubic foot. Application Brush or roll -apply a liberal coat of Weldcrete to substrate immediately prior to application of Acoustement 40. Apply a splatter coat covering 60% to 80% of the substrate surface. Allow splatter coat to cure overnight. Successive coats of Pyrok Acoustement 40 shall not exceed 1/4 inch thick per application. Thicknesses that exceed 2 1/8 inches may require metal lath. Contact Pyrok, Inc. to determine if metal lath is required. Topcoating/Curing Pyrok Acoustement 40 may be supplied in several integral colors or may be topcoated for more pleasing aesthetic finish or for curing. Consult Pyrok, Inc. for further information regarding suitable topcoating and curing compounds. Patching or Repair Contact Pyrok, Inc. or your construction representative for patching or repair procedures. Cleaning Wet Pyrok Acoustement 40 may be removed by brushing or with water. Dry Pyrok Acoustement 40 may require scraping or chipping to remove. Pyrok Acoustement 40 may be steam cleaned or pressure washed after full cure (minimum 28 days). Attachment 7 Storage and Shelf Life Store Pyrok Acoustement 40 off the ground in unopened, original packages and keep dry. Pyrok Acoustement 40, kept dry, has a five (5) year shelf life. Warranty Manufacturer warrants the material to be supplied, agreeing to replace that which has cracked, flaked, dusted excessively, peeled or fallen from substrate, or otherwise deteriorated to a condition where it would not perform effectively as intended for fire protection and sound absorbent purposes; due to defective materials and not due to abuse, or improper maintenance, unforeseeable ambient exposures or other causes beyond anticipate conditions by manufacturer. The warranty period will be 10 years from date of installation. Manufacturer's liability under any expressed or implied warranty is limited solely to replacement of Pyrok products proved defective and does not include labor or other consequential damages. The suitability of the product for any intended use shall be solely up to the user. The express warranties set forth herein are in lieu of all other warranties, express or implied, including without limitation, any warranties or merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. In no event shall manufacturer be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages resulting from any defect in the material even if manufacturer has been advised of the possibility of such damages. Physical Performance Properties Property Test Method Asbestos Content EPA 400/4M-82-020 Bond Strength Compressive Strength Density Sound Absorption Surface Burning Toxicity Combustibility ASTM E 736 ASTM E 761 ASTM E 605 ASTM C 423 ASTM E 84 University of Pittsburgh Toxicity Test ASTM E 136 Value No Asbestos No Mineral Fiber 5000 PSF 300 PSI 41 PCF (Avg) 0.60 NRC @1" 0 Flame Spread 0 Smoke Developed LC(50)>300 Grams Non -Combustible Sound absorption coefficient on solid backing with no air gap ASTM C 423 Frequency (HZ) 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 NRC Absorption Coefficient @ 3/8" 0.17 0.20 0.29 0.34 0.56 1.00 0.35 Absorption Coefficient @ 1/2" 0.01 0.20 0.43 0.68 0.75 0.80 0.50 Absorption Coefficient @ 1" 0.18 0.35 0.64 0.73 0.73 0.77 0.60 Absorption Coefficient @ 1 1/2" 0.36 0.51 0.64 0.74 0.84 0.91 0.70 Acoustement 40 Data I Distributed by Pyrok, Inc. I info@pyrok.com I www.pyrok.com 185 Attachment 8 Alternative Compliance — Section 3.2.2(K) — Parking Lots - Required Number of Off -Street Spaces for Type of Use Gardens on Spring Creek Major Amendment — Alternative Parking Strategy 10/21 /2015 Gardens on Spring Creek Alternative Parking Strategy The following parking strategy outlines assumptions made for ticketed events with a maximum of 1500 people at the Gardens on Spring Creek. Number of tickets sold will serve as the means of controlling attendance at these events. The events will allow visitors to arrive at 5pm, begin at 6pm, then conclude promptly at 8pm. Egress for all ticketed visitors shall begin at 8pm and conclude no later than 9pm. Entry points are provided at the north edge of the facility along the Spring Creek Trail, as well as the south main facility entry. Gardens on Spring Creek Parking Availability: Location Available Parking Distance to Gardens on Spring Creek Existing Gardens on Spring Creek facility 74 On -Site NRRC facility 397 350 feet (.06 miles) CSU Research Blvd Parking Lot 900 1800 feet (.34 miles) Total 1371 General parking assumptions include the following visitor travel mode estimates: • 150 visitors travel to events via bicycle • 50 visitors travel to events via MAX • 1300 visitors travel to events via car w/2 persons per vehicle average. • Requires total of 650 parking spaces. Based on the above estimated modes of travel used by visitors, it is assumed that 65 vehicles will utilize the existing Gardens on Spring Creek parking. Nine staff and/or board members will likely occupy the remaining spaces. It is assumed that approximately 350 vehicles will utilize the NRRC facility parking lot, (with the remaining 47 spaces potentially being used by NRRC employees working after business hours) then walk 350 feet, crossing Centre Avenue with the help of a crossing assistant, or walk to the Spring Creek Trail underpass at the northeast edge of the property, entering the facility at the north entry point. The remaining 285 vehicles will utilize the CSU Research Blvd. Parking Lot, then walk 1800 feet (.34 miles) to the Gardens along Center Ave. and use the south/main entry to the facility No shuttle service is currently planned from the parking lots, however, this could be arranged through Transfort if necessary. Bicycle parking is provided on -site with approximately 20 available spaces at the south entry and 150 available spaces on the north side of the facility. Additional temporary bicycle parking will be provided during events along the edge of the Spring Creek Trail, directly north of the trail from the north entry point. 200 temporary bicycle parking spaces will be provided here initially, with additional bicycle parking provided as demand is encountered. we Attachment 8 Alternative Compliance — Section 3.2.2(K) — Parking Lots - Required Number of Off -Street Spaces for Type of Use Gardens on Spring Creek Major Amendment — Alternative Parking Strategy 10/21 /2015 This narrative requests that the decision maker approve an alternative compliance of the required number of off-street spaces and the alternative parking areas for the Gardens on Spring Creek Major Amendment — which the expansion of the gardens and subsequent enlarged performance capacity would necessitate the need for additional off-street parking. Please see the text of Section 3.2.2(K)(2) below: 3.2.2(K)(2) Nonresidential Parking Requirements: Nonresidential uses shall provide a minimum number of parking spaces, and will be limited to a maximum number of parking spaces as defined by the standards defined below. Use Minimum Parking Maximum Parking Spaces Spaces Restaurants a. Fast Food 7/1000 sq. ft. 15/1000 sq. ft. b. Standard 5/1000 sq. ft. 10/1000 sq. ft. Bars, Taverns, and 5/1000 sq. ft. 10/1000 sq. ft. Nightclubs Commercial Recreational a. Limited Indoor Recreation 3/000 sq. ft. 6/1000 sq. ft. b. Outdoor .1/person cap. .3/person cap. c. Bowling Alley 2.5/1000 sq. ft. 5/1000 sq. ft. Theaters 1/6 seats 1/3 seats General Retail 2/1000 sq. ft. 4/1000 sq. ft. Personal Business and 2/1000 sq. ft. 4/1000 sq. ft. Service Shop Shopping Center 2/1000 sq. ft. 5/1000 sq. ft. Medical Office 2/1000 sq. ft. 4.5/1000 sq. ft. Financial Services 2/1000 sq. ft. 3.5/1000 sq. ft. Grocery Store, Supermarket 3/1000 sq. ft. 6/1000 sq. ft. General Office 1/1000 sq. ft. 3/1000 sq. ft. or .75/employee on the largest shift or 4.5/1000 sq. ft. if all additional parking spaces gained by the increased ratio (over 3/1000 sq. ft.) are contained within a parking garage/structure Vehicle Servicing & 2/1000 sq. ft. 5/1000 sq. ft. Maintenance Low Intensity Retail, Repair 1/1000 sq. ft. 2/1000 sq. ft. Service, Workshop and Custom Small Industry Lodging Establishments 0.5/unit 1/unit Health 0.5/bed Facilities 1/bed a. Hospitals .33/bed b. Long -Term Care Facilities plus 1/two employees on major shift Industrial: Employee 0.5/employee 75/employee Parking Explanation of need for alternative compliance: The required number of stalls for the project is 323 spaces. There are 74 existing parking spaces on site. As mentioned above in the alternative parking strategy, the need for additional parking in the amount outlined in this document would only be necessary 8 times a year for scheduled outdoor events. 187 Attachment 8 Alternative Compliance — Section 3.2.2(K) — Parking Lots - Required Number of Off -Street Spaces for Type of Use Gardens on Spring Creek Major Amendment — Alternative Parking Strategy 10/21 /2015 As a size comparison to another similar Community Facility, ticketed events at the Lincoln Center near Downtown Fort Collins are capped at 1200 visitors. Parking is found throughout downtown with limited on site parking available. Given that this is an existing site the project is spatially constrained in providing the additional parking that is required per code. Additional parking would be a difficult task without making an inoperable and inefficient parking layout that would be a detriment to the project and the public good. Also given the minimal use of the alternative - parking scenario it would an irresponsible use of public funds to require this facility to accommodate the required parking per the land use code. Justification for alternative compliance The alternative compliance for the off-street parking requirement will not be detrimental to the public good. The off-street parking alternative areas outlined above will satisfy the parking requirement per the land use code. In addition, alternate modes of transportation are also an option for visitors — MAX station to the northeast and Spring Creek Trail and associated pedestrian and bike entrance to the north of the gardens expansion. For all the reasons cited above, the Applicant requests the approval of the alternative compliance per the parking alternative strategy outlined above. The project completes the vision of the master plan and will serve as a valuable cultural and educational facility. Attachment 9 October 23, 2015 Michelle Provaznik, Director The Gardens on Spring Creek 2145 Centre Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80526 Dear Michelle: FACILITIES MANAGEMENT AT COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY Colorado State University intends to work with the Gardens on Spring Creek to fulfill the intent of a Memorandum of Understanding from 2001, specifically item #4 that states: "arrangements with the federal government will be pursued for facilitating the use of the Natural Resources Research Center (NRRC) parking lot during non -working hours by the CHC." Additionally, Colorado State University intends to work with The Gardens on secondary parking in the lot on Research Blvd, for select events that are held after business hours and during University events. Sincerely, Steve Hultin Executive Director, Facilities Management Colorado State University CC: Fred Haberecht Campus Planner, Facilities Management Colorado State University OWO Attachment 10 DELICH ASSOCIATES Traffic & Transportation Engineering 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, Colorado 80538 Phone: (970) 669-2061 Fax: (970) 669-5034 "7 j r MEMORANDUM TO: Michelle Provaznik, Gardens on Spring Creek Craig Russell/John Beggs, Russell+Mills studios Martina Wilkinson, Fort Collins Traffic Operations FROM: Matt Delich DATE: November 9, 2015 SUBJECT: Gardens on Spring Creek Transportation Impact Study (File: 1582ME01) This memorandum is the transportation impact study (TIS) for the Centre For Advanced Technology 22"d Filing, Community Horticulture Center Major Amendment (Gardens on Spring Creek). The site location is shown in Figure 1. The scope of this TIS was discussed with Martina Wilkinson, Fort Collins Traffic Operations. This Major Amendment is for up to eight ticketed events per year, primarily described as concerts. The maximum attendance is 1500 persons. An event could occur on any day of the week. Weekday events would start at approximately 6:00 pm, concluding no later than 8:00 pm. Given the outdoor venue, the ticketed events would occur during the warmer weather months. The facility is also available for non -ticketed events (weddings, reunions, etc.). However, these events are much smaller. They would conclude no later than 9:00 pm on any given day. This TIS addresses the ticketed event at 1500 persons. Based upon its location and the time of year of a ticketed event, it is not unreasonable that 10 percent of the attendees would utilize bicycles or be pedestrians. A reasonable trip shed for pedestrians is approximately 0.5 miles from the site. The bicycle trip shed could be city wide. There are bike lanes/routes on Centre Avenue, Rolland Moore Drive, Drake Road, and Shields Street. The Spring Creek Trail also serves this site. Transfort Routes 7 and 34 operate on Centre Avenue. There are two MAX Stations within 0.75 miles of the site. It is not unreasonable that at least 10 percent of the attendees would utilize Transfort. Therefore, 300 persons are expected to utilize alternative transportation modes. Given the expected use of alternative transportation modes, up to 1200 attendees would utilize private automobiles. Automobile occupancy for these types of events is approximately 2.5 persons per vehicle. Therefore, the private vehicle attendee trip generation is 960 trip ends (480 ingress/480 egress). It is expected that event staff would arrive before and leave after the peak attendee traffic times. At a 1500 person event, 480 parking spaces would be required for attendee private vehicles. Figure 2 shows the locations of nearby parking lots. There are 74 parking spaces within the Gardens on Spring Creek site. While it may vary, it is assumed that 20 on -site parking spaces would be reserved for performers and event staff, leaving 54 spaces for event attendees on -site. The nearest external parking lot is on the east side of Centre Avenue at the NRRC facility. There are 397 spaces in this lot (350 feet from the site). Since events are after normal work hours, this lot can be used by event attendees. Conservatively, it is assumed that 85-90 percent (350 spaces) would be available for event parking. The on -site and NRRC lots can provide approximately 400 parking spaces of the 480 needed. The next closest external parking lot is the CSU Research facility on the east side of Centre Avenue, south of Phemister Road (1800 feet from the site). There are/will be 900 parking spaces in this lot. This lot can easily provide the remaining 80 parking spaces for a large event. Use of the NRRC and CSU parking lots will be coordinated by the Gardens on Spring Creek staff. Attachment 10 Attendees parking in the NRRC and CSU parking lots and some using Transfort will be required to cross Centre Avenue. There are recent afternoon peak hour (4:30-5:30 pm) traffic forecasts of 930 vehicles on this segment of Centre Avenue. Traffic on Centre Avenue will be much less after an event (8:00-9:00 pm). There could be 1000-1200 pedestrians crossing Centre Avenue before and after a large ticketed event. Pedestrian crossing assistance will be provided at large events. With concentrated ingress and egress activity times of the parking lots related to an event, management of the parking lots is essential. As necessary, Gardens on Spring Creek Staff should be used to facilitate/control ingress and egress. This would be similar to other events in Fort Collins, such as CSU basketball and volleyball games. Some of the traffic control on the public streets will likely utilize uniformed Fort Collins Police. SUMMARY This Major Amendment is for up to eight large ticketed events in a year. The impact will be similar to other events in Fort Collins, such as CSU basketball and volleyball games. Parking will be available on the site, in the NRRC parking lot, and in the CSU Research facility parking lot. It is expected that as much as 20 percent of the attendees would utilize alternative transportation modes (walk, bike, transit). Traffic control and parking lot management should be implemented during ingress and egress times for each event. Attachment 10 Z� W is � :a W lake St W Prospect did P,4. W Pro rpect P.d Biricy Pt W Lake St Wilton r ort Collins F Pitkin St Annual Flower Trial Garden PAW St E Pro; 60berg Dr f Stt Gardens on Spring Creek Botanical garden with educational events Dyf� a,moore Dr a Rofiand Moore Park �` 'oiur G) Dr on rail Area � c Princeton Bd r. dr W Drake fed < d � C O n R ountain ti" ro y School C7 DO Glair Ad SITE LOCATION Figure 1 _�// L—DELICH -71 rASSOCIATES /ch NORTH 192 Attachment 10 PARKING LOCATION DIAGRAM t Parking Totals °b GoSC Existing Parking 74 r NRRC Parking 397 CSU Research Parking 900 a- Total 11371 PROJECT SITE PERC SPRING CREEK TRAIL --GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK EXISTING PARKING LOT a� --NRRC PARKING LOT / PROPERTY OWNED BY STATE LAND BOARD - CSU RESEARCH PARKING LOT PROPERTY OWNED BY STATE LAND BOARD PARKING LOTS _�// L—DELICH �71 rASSOCIATES 4e MAX BRT STATION MASON CORRIDOR In MAX BRT STATION ■ ■ ■ �. 1 ■ ■ i ■ 4 N Distance to Project Site NRRC Parking 0.06 miles 350 ft CSU Research Parking 0.34 miles 1,800 ft MAX BRT Station (Prospect) 0.71 miles 3,750 ft 0.40 miles MAX BRT Station (S. of Prospect) 2,150 ft NOTE: COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY AND STATE LAND BOARD IS IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A SHARED ARKING AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PARKING AS ISTED ABOVE Figure 2 Attach mentlA incorporated September 9, 2015 Basil Hamdan, P.E., CFM Stormwater Quality Engineer Fort Collins Utilities, Stormwater 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: City of Fort Collins Gardens on Spring Creek — Drainage & Erosion Control Memo JVA Job No. 2257c Dear Mr. Hamdan: 25 Old Town Square Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80524 970.225.9099 info0jvajva.com www,jvajva.com This letter has been prepared to summarize the drainage concept, solutions and changes in impervious area associated with the site improvements for the Gardens on Spring Creek project located at the Community Horticulture Center, 2145 Centre Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. This letter represents an addendum to the Center for Advanced Technologies 22" d Filing ("Community Horticulture Center") Final Project Development Drainage and Erosion Control Report, dated January 31, 2003, prepared by EDAW, Inc. (EDAW). Overview The existing 18.3 acre site consists of the Community Horticulture Center (CHC) and outdoor classrooms, visitor parking lot, Children's Garden, Garden of Eatin', Experiential Garden, and the Rock Garden, all constructed as part of the first phase of the Master Plan for the development of the City -owned property. In general, as part of the final buildout of the project (phase 2) on the remaining 5+ acres of undeveloped land, proposed improvements include the addition of the Great Lawn and bandstand/stage, the Prairie Garden, Foothills Garden, Undaunted Garden, extensive trail system expansion, and enlargement of the stormwater detention pond/Wetlands Demonstration Site to the east. The project site is located in the FEMA 100-year regulatory floodway and City of Fort Collins Spring Creek Drainage Basin (SWMM Subbasin 130), and no stormwater detention is required (refer to the project Floodplain Memo prepared by JVA, Inc. dated September 8, 2015 for compliance with Chapter 10 of City Municipal Code: Flood Prevention and Protection). The referenced Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for the project accounts for the anticipated phase 2 buildout of the gardens and corresponding increase in runoff into Spring Creek. This letter will serve to supplement the original report and demonstrate that the final development of the Gardens on Spring Creek complies with the approved stormwater drainage plan designed by EDAW. Existing Drainage Design As discussed in the approved drainage report, the predeveloped site historically drained overland directly into Spring Creek. The original storm design by EBAW mimics the historic drainage pattern; runoff from the site flows via curb & gutter (in the existing parking lot), grass swales, culverts, and through a perforated underdrain system within the water quality porous landscape detention areas, ultimately discharging into Spring Creek. The southern portion of the site is interrupted by the Sherwood Ditch Lateral, and the original suspended CMP storm culverts were replaced with RCP culverts underneath the ditch to convey runoff into Spring Creek as part of the phase 1 project. Other than the area immediately adjacent to the Sherwood Lateral, no runoff will enter the ditch except in the 100-year event. B 0 U L D E R FORT C0LLINS W I NTER PARK G L E N WOOD SPRINGS DENVER194 CoFC Gardens on Spring Cre6Vt%9di li WPPJe11 September 9, 2015 2 of 2 Proposed Drainage Design The drainage characteristics of the phase 2 buildout of the Gardens on Spring Creek comply with the original stormwater design intent as described in the approved drainage report and no major variations are proposed. Runoff will continue to be conveyed to Spring Creek via a combination of overland flow, vegetated swales, and perforated piping. The existing constructed wetlands basin (previously referred to as the Wetlands Demonstration Site) will be expanded to approximately 15,000 square feet of area and 0.491 acre-feet of volume. This enlarged basin will encompass and replace the existing southeastern porous landscape detention (PLD) area (identified as water quality basin Ala in the original Report) while retaining the existing concrete sill structure and downstream PLD area to the north, eventually outfalling into Spring Creek. The wetlands basin will provide 11,843 cubic feet of storage volume above the permanent water surface created by the concrete sill at an elevation of approximately 4990.94 feet (NAVD88 datum), an increase of 8,149 cubic feet over the existing condition. The small PLD area to the north referred to in the original plans as basin Alb will also remain. See the attached grading plans, sheets C1.0-C1.2. EBAW's Report anticipated the Gardens full buildout by assuming an overall runoff coefficient value of 0.35 and an approximated 10% imperviousness. Based on as -built drawings of the Horticulture Center, the existing/post-phase 1 overall site imperviousness was calculated to be 12.5%, with a coefficient of 0.40. The Gardens final proposed layout was calculated to be 17.8% and 0.44 respectively, resulting in a minor increase over the existing and an insignificant deviation from the original assumptions. The associated increase in runoff is more than offset by the increased volume in the constructed wetlands basin. See attached calculations. Erosion and Sediment Control During construction, temporary erosion and sediment control practices will be used to limit soil erosion and sediment discharge off the site. An erosion and sediment control plan with stormwater management plan and details will be provided in the utility plans for construction. Refer to the Erosion Control Report prepared by JVA dated September 9, 2015. Please feel free to contact myself or Karen Brigman to discuss any questions you may have. Sincerely, JVA, INCORPORATED By: Project Manager By: //J Karen Bri Design Ei 195 HILL POND v ; ll I II 1 11 1 AAA `V 1,1AA , 1\ 1111111 \r I 11 I 1 `I m A` 11 1 1 Ij I I 1 I III I 11 I, 11 1( `\ `\\\\. •\ 1 1 1 I I I 110 I `p A 1 A/ I I I I II 11\ \I ' I `I `, 111'1I Illr\II 11`` INS EXISTING EXISTING CONCRETE SL ' I'1' 1 il'l f / i----------- � / ' SEDIMENT CONTROL LOGS, ltl PROPERTY LINE M —__ ' APPROX. aMITS 0E WORK,M 4992 __;�_—_ �_--__-- '—, \�_c—';— G=� —--'' —__—__ NAPS TRAL --_______ \ - T \ SPRINGCONNECTOR K Aacss vaxc artEN ` I j'�i - _� • -- /ROCK SOCKS IW'.10 \ _ ) \ TNG E SPRING i -/ -- ` - 18' MDE SCfWAIX CHASE PROPOSED FEWC£, 1 W CHEEK TRAIL TV \ CDIO i \ RE LSCAPE 6' PVC m BEND. _/ INV•92:A1 11596, PVC SO M S=ABS SG PI UNDER TUE DRAINAGES SYSTEM, TV I y� /\�D SOUND WAILS, TV RE STRUCT 95 �-� WAILS rtiP " RE LSCAPE 1/ r EXISTING RDEN GARDEN OF EA71N° �1 _ I ' J0 IN EXISTING 0 EXISTING ROCK GARDEN EXISTING-----_--'T� It FNZ) 11 Q / 0 SCL �.'I II' 1 I I I._/ I I I% 1 1 GESi.0 LIMFURARY SEAMENTAI Bill TVI 90 IN DECK AND BOARDWAIR. TAP 1 ` I RE. LSCAPE 11 11 I I I III it// I, Inv=Blaso ' II i i I i it 111 I ,IIII II II LI 111 'm 100 IT B` P\C SD Y 5—I 1 I I `Po I I I II i li%(i'il 1`` I ' 'IIII 1 i I i ( lI I( � �___• I II;11 l;;l; 1 ' I ' 1 BRIDGES AND CONCRETE 1 iS CROSSINGS RE LSCAPE ✓ �� I I I I if '//_ Ii /illil / EROSION CONTROL LEGEND CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA AEHICLE TRACKING CONTROL NAGSEROSION CONTROL BLANKET WA AT D BANNS PER ®® SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG MANUFACTURER'S AND SPECIFICATIONS ` ° 1@00MIli ROCK SOCK CONCORD E WASHOUTTV . / CELDy ' / / / % / i// ' SEDIMENTATION BASIN VEHICIE TRACKING CE1.0 CONTROL PAD TV / //i 'J'/Ili( •__ ' ,ill/ i It 50 0 50 100 ' i i i a \, 111 1,1 SCALE IN FEET It \1:F, I 1 \ I \I� I ll Cit-oJ:ort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPROVED. cws"mm mo nv,°.mus.mr r...vu°neu 1 DRAWN av: KRa DATE'. SFPT1015 0 NA, INC z z 3 J a LL _J Z F Q Z Z O c) 0U Ow— : z O O 5 1 Got O x ~ ~ w C) W }�} O Z < Z Q m w = O M Z LL. Z Q U (7 C1.0 HIYdCfllll¢lll ll IN -- - ---'� II -N996 \ - `, "--- - 1111rr1 1I .4991 G %o- •, CONMACTOR TO POTHOLE AND MENDS, —_' __-_,I .. , _i,'� _ _ _ \\v _: -- - '� i PLD AREA TO CONFIRM PIPE DEPTHS, 11 ____ b _/-�_ -�---_�_M, �.y9� ___,. NOTfY ENGINEER IF WNNCiS EAST �__��_______ I -__ BEEN EMSTNG PIN NC TO REMAIN l/ I \\ %\, l II --,% `.�IN NNI P RETURE MAIL CONNECTON 1 � Imm .musrva. . � lI _ - \9,� r ` ACROSS SPRING CREIX II 11 PROPOSED FENCE. FEE / ISCAPE ARPROI[ uMlts OF xoRK, Tro all WE m M.M le 9424 M i I CREW NG SPRING PRI — / -N9.96 Has 1 I1/I Ii PIP II11 IIII ` BA w 1 +91Re / wwR II 11 III unn uwro Hill III �\ \\ _ • ♦• 91im IDn1 i Ill I Ino iC •••MIL fc }M fG �BSw F6lr li r BANDSTAND/STAGE, - 9996. + + �\ I I I I IIII RE: DCAPE x� .'••' AIM j1 III IIII II / �� `Iii li ili �i\ J/ vslzro Mmro '•MM Fc +Sawro / 97 5 111 IIII E%STNG FENCE , TIPI 1 9V9 1 \ m Mw ro 96 �� S ILL ulero 9A9]m Maro F _ / ' MU Ffi BEAD FG g `PJ vAVO f6 MBI Po III I x�x�—x wso F6 1.30 FG / Pf YYY I SONND W11LB. Ell Mvz is M: STiU11C _ w.1 roi9B MtY m \� Mls ro 92 91 A' v1u ro N I I ` ux MaN ro _ 11 ffi25 R NH F6 96' Iyf it 1 nyl /��rI1 _ _ V ` V A 1 AMIXDeD Taasa4 w IIIIII 1 1 V IA I / 11 RE: LSCAP Ail"N RE: W Mm i6 IIII II'll1 II �\ \1 \\ 1 IT I k tl i III I I I \ I IDOI� 6 Iii II I\ I I II 111 ii ` r w.nro 98 mm>w Ilill /Ili i II\ 11 II I \ 4sro 97MM xb Z I`111/ JIB MiwN •• � \� \ g 97IO f6 wmM wm w.mro9B 9E]B FB 9]9 F41tliG\m Ii i l l mmro Mm Fc w.Mm I.'I'. Inll I � � `� mm,./ �M9.ro •.• mwr« o IIIII �i pl / 1 am EG n uu Fc Q IIII / I f \ 'MR Po w)I E4 w.m fE' 99 IN IIIII , .... liiil� II ll E71IS11NG 1 IJI \ L__ oaso lw M14 Mc j _ DESIGNED BY, uc Illliwce'c` ll III GARDEN \\ \I 11 `, � a99B-• °B DRAWN Nv: MEN IllIN' BV l l OP LAIN a wm roMw Fa r GGSG lµ W.13 m i• V 1 V 1 �� CHECKED : CRH Ili I I I Iln 11 \ �n NE I4�__-� MIL¢ 9) 4991- JOB NUMBER'. 251 I o \cl \ 11 Im \ I \ 0050 N9 •• wm F4 / I j ` /"1 ` pA1E'. SEPT 1015 1\ \�\ ` y4 ✓96w iG 9Am iC 99 I b I \ \. 9].m EC 44 Fe 4" 0NA�IND \\\ \ ' MbP 1E \\ I Mm YE ` wym 9].N FG l l� A\V 1V A \ M 77 FG • + 949 EG _ I A A•\\ w%iG Of GIm i EXISTING Av zy IIII v4 _- NgPz - ROCK GARDEN __ >I uN ro _A99a- O ll 1 wmro••u.lbro mw uE. 0` iV ALNv vsM Fc / I;I M]4 wt6 FG " +w.H]Y / 9&m ME S / NFQ r \ \ `y C •3 0.18 ro I6 I _ 9a Mn ro39g N Z J (n m68 R �99�s 99.15 f6� IV 'GY 0 0 O W Min E __ 9s,4 uE�4 < '/ F _ J ne J Z / H I�. 11 i Al I r A v V9vp lc 9ve urn w.aw / Z Q III,: ll� / q `..� 96 tY9>. I \ / & w95uV/ 00 0 J0 60 WUH Z 1 / / EXISTING BRIDGE - O \. <998; (� mm YE./ SCALE IN fF£i F W \ `v �� LL O 0 �` ----` \��9.\\\`�,____ \�"J '� / \ Cit-o�ort Collins, Colorado Z }O} Z O 1 ` N� __ s \,Ak /{ UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL I _ _ ,'�l, \ EXISTING o z ¢ J i ii I I i IN ___-` -___-_ 1 .kyz�— INN \ \ \ PARKING LOT APPNovEo. ¢ ¢ I I V `� . A A aM3Eca,m �o a' H N \ \ CNECI ED BY O O -III />4i _ow.gm.o��.o �.to I - ECKED Nv sm.00.o��.o woo r � EXISTING '� ' T 1� ' _ HORTICULTURE v :: 1 \\\ \ LLO \ J \\ CN ILL U � v 1 v V��v b H CENTER I I 1 v��J 1 \ � cN .�.mmo.m �o z yII/1 I CMECKED By /II IO 1 11 1\ �I SN03 IN \\\\\\ CHECKED BY e.o�omia n.�.o wm SHEET NUMBER __ a' CNECKEDBY C1.1 U �� ,I I � •� .I � , I it , III � '1 i i I 'I III 1 I I .I' lilll' I I I I li it 'I 'ii/i 11 l i , ii I I I I 1 11 I I iI I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 DEOI AND'BOARDWnu. RE. LSCAPE I If I I I 'i i l i ii I I I I I I I / r I l' 1 1 rll I I \I `, FY / -4999_—I / If 11 jl 1 , / / I I I r if r// r / r i l i "/ili r r I r l l I r l/ rf i i i i /i i i r If I I l / rl 11 I '1 1' 1111rr1 '1 1 II tJIJ';III . / 1 ` / 1 1 1 11 1 1 i 11 1 I I 'I 1 1 I I I I 1 I II 'I s I g I 1 I \I i / i 3 444444 4 /1 I r r / I I I � 1 I I / I ` r [)MGNM Br, WC DRAWN Bv, XN6 Y ■ 10 0 DO 00 SCALE IN FEET Cit-oJ:ort Collins, Colonado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPROVED'. cwE.mm mo crvECNED BY o.m m otko wo crvECNED BY smoo 0 o wo crvECNED BY T.®[Imo.m �0 crvECNED BY P e MR� Mo crvECNED BY E.O.Og IR .o Mo CHECNEo BY Mo DATE. sFPTsats O NA, INC ED Z LL Z F J >wa ¢ U' O W O J W a — J z _M� a o U Z Z_ ~ W � WOM C) CD }} 0 Z < O Q Q OHO p O z U C1.2 Attachment 11 JVA Incorporated 25 Old Town Square Fort Collins, CO 80524 Ph: 970.225.9099 Fax 970.225.6923 Gardens on Spring Creek Historic Runoff Coefficient Calculations Location: FortCollins Minor Design Storm: 2 Major Design Storm: 100 Soil Type: C/D Job Name: Gardens on Spring Creek 1% C2 C5 c10 Cloo Job Number: 2257c Streets Paved 100% 0.95 0.00 0.95 1.00 Date: 9/15/15 Concrete DriveslWalks 90% 0.95 0.00 0.95 1.00 By: KRB Roof 90% 0.95 0.00 0.95 1.00 Gravel 40% 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.63 Landscaping (B soil) 0% 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.19 Landscaping (C/D soil) 0% 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.31 Playground 10% 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.14 Artificial Turf 25% 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.25 Basin Design Data I (%) = 100% 90% 90% 40% 10% 25% 0% 0% 1 (%) Runoff Coeff s Basin Design paved Adrives/c Ar •Q pgravel • Aart. turf ^Iscape (B ^Iscape A A Total Im p Name Point streets (SO oof (SO (SO plygnd (so (SO soil) (C/D soil) (so (ac) N C2 C5 C10 C100 (SO(so one (st) H 1 49,942 39,309 10,331 12,087 51900 678,427 795,996 1827 12.5% 0.34 0.00 0.34 0.40 2257c - Rational Calculations.xlsx Historic C Page 1 of 1 199 Attachment 11 JVA Incorporated 25 Old Town Square Fort Collins, CO 80524 Ph: 970.225.9099 Fax 970.225.6923 Gardens on Spring Creek Developed Runoff Coefficient Calculations Location: FortCollins Minor Design Storm: 2 Major Design Storm: 100 Soil Type: C/D Job Name: Gardens on Spring Creek 1% C2 C5 C10 clop Job Number: 2257c Streets Paved 100% 0.95 0.00 0.95 1.00 Date: 9/15/15 Concrete DriveslWalks 90% 0.95 0.00 0.95 1.00 By: KRB Roof 90% 0.95 0.00 0.95 1.00 Gravel 40% 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.63 Landscaping (B soil) 0% 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.19 Landscaping (C/D soil) 0% 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.31 Playground 10% 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.14 Artificial Turf 25% 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.25 Basin Design Data I (%) = 100% 90% 90% 40% 10% 25% 0% 0% 1 (%) Runoff Coeff s Basin Design paved Adrives/c Ar oof •Q pgravel • plygnd Aart. turf ^Iscape (B ^Iscape A A Total Im p Name Point streets (SO (SO (so (so (SO soil) (C/Dsoil) (so (ac) (%) C2 C5 C10 C100 (sf) one (so (st) D 1 49,942 79,073 10,817 27,864 51900 622,400 795,996 1827 17.8% 0.38 0.00 0.38 0.44 2257c - Rational Calculations.xlsx Developed C Page 1 of 1 200 Attachment 11 Gardens on Spring Creek Critical Pond Elevations Design Engineer: Design Firm: Project Number: Date: DESIGN CRITERIA K. Brigman JVA, Inc. 2257c September 9, 2015 Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, June 2001 Stage Storage Volume (pond volume calculated using the prismoidal formula): V _ (Al + AZ + AIAZ Depth 3 CONTOUR (FT) AREA (FT2) AREA (ACRE) VOLUME (ACRE -FT) DEPTH (FT) CUMULATIVE VOLUME (ACRE -FT) CUMULATIVE VOLUME (CUBIC FT) 4987.50 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 4988.0 790.00 0.018 0.003 0.50 0.003 131.67 4989.0 1,480.00 0.034 0.026 1.50 0.029 1248.77 4990.0 41200.00 0.096 0.063 2.50 0.091 3973.16 4990.94 1 7,860.00 1 0.180 1 0.128 1 3.44 0.219 9552.25 4991.0 1 8,075.00 1 0.185 1 0.011 3.50 0230 1003029 4992.0 15,010.00 0.345 0.261 4.50 0.491 21395.07 4992.5 4993.00 11. 4991.00 z O 4990.00 P: w 4989.00 J 2or ':: 11, 4987.00 0.0 DETENTION POND VOLUME VERSUS ELEVATION 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 DETENTION POND VOLUME (AC -FT) 0.6 Permanent WSE 2257c Pond Calcs.xls - Pond Stage Storage #1 JVA, Inc. 201 Attachment 12 Jason Holland Subject: Gardens on Spring Creek ECS Memo Hi Rebecca, Attached is a letter/memo from Mike Phelan at Cedar Creek Associates as well as a map documenting the overall site conditions and change that has taken place since the previous ECS was completed in 2001. A map outlining habitat types is included as well. Thanks, Craig Russell RLA, ASLA Principal Russell + Mills Studios 141 S. College Ave, Suite 104 Fort Collins, CO 80524 p: 970.484.8855 c: 970.631.2072 i 202 Attachment 12 .. 4 'v •r• Spring Creek Drainage & Wetlands 1 t � ►Iwos: "Oqmmw�- N/N Native/Non-native Grassland (N/NG) AJ\jLerououted Sherwood Lateral Wetlands) A Swale Wetlands (Wetland Demon- stration Site) Swale Wetlands -- Existing Gardens i - •�V 'dill at Spring Creek {• ' Development t• Rerouted Sherwood Lateral Wetlands Original �' 4 ' / `..r✓ i1 Sherwood v ♦`�',AN _ Lateral Wetlands No` + 000 ._ LEGEND Gardens at Spring Creek Property Boundary Habitat Boundary Scale: 1 inch = � 120 feet Aerial Photo Source: Larimer County Landscape & Imagery Explorer - 2012 Aerial Imagery FIGURE 1 Habitat Mapping for the Gardens at Spring Creek Property Attachment 12 Craig, This e-mail is submitted as an update to the 2001 ECS Report for CSURF property that covered the Gardens at Spring Creek Property before the development of the Gardens and other project on nearby CSURF properties. I reviewed site conditions of the Gardens at Spring Creek Property today and produced the attached habitat map that documents current site conditions. Based on today's field review some habitat changes have occurred since the 2001 ECS report on undeveloped portions of the property. The primary upland shift in habitats has been the conversion of what was formerly alfalfa hayfield to native/non-native grassland and mowed turf grass areas (see attached Figure 1). Native/non-native grassland and mowed turf grass areas do not meet any City of Fort Collins criteria for protection or buffer setbacks. In addition their habitat quality is low for wildlife use since they are consistently mowed. The other habitat change has been the development of wetlands in two areas that were formerly alfalfa hayfield uplands. This includes wetland development along the re-routed segment of the Sherwood Lateral and wetland creation along a constructed swale along the eastern property boundary (see Figure 1). In addition, wetlands continue to be supported along the original segment of the Sherwood Lateral adjacent to the west property boundary. All of these wetlands are dominated primarily by narrow -leaf cattail (Typha angustifolia), and sandbar willow (Salix exigua). The swale wetlands would likely be considered non - jurisdictional by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers since they have no continuous wetland or hydrologic connection to Spring Creek. Wetlands in the original and rerouted segments of the Sherwood lateral would likely be considered jurisdictional since they have continuous hydrologic connection to Spring Creek. The largest swale wetland at the northeast corner of the property was created as a Wetland Demonstration Site and also serves as a wetland mitigation area for wetlands lost on a nearby CSURF development parcel. All wetland parcels appear to less than 0.3 acre in size, although the largest swale wetland may be approaching 0.3 acre. The wetland site would need to be surveyed to determine its exact size. Wetlands over 0.3 acre would require a 100-foot buffer. Wetlands are the only special habitat feature on the property, and the City of Fort Collins buffer requirement of 50 feet for wetlands under 0.3 acre would apply to these features. Wetlands and riparian habitat along Spring Creek appear to similar to stream corridor conditions documented by the 2001 ECS Report so no additional buffer or mitigation recommendations would apply for Spring Creek. The Spring Creek corridor represents the only potential threatened or endangered species habitat near the Gardens at Spring Creek Property. As long a buffer setback are applied to the wetland areas connected to Spring Creek and no new development encroaches into the existing Spring Creek corridor, no 204 Attachment 12 threatened or endangered species consultation would be required with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Craig, this concludes my update of the 2001 ECS Report for the Gardens at Spring Creek Property. Let me know if you have any questions or need a more formal report for the update. Mike T. Michael Phelan Senior Wildlife Biologist Cedar Creek Associates, Inc. 916 Willshire Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80521 Office - 970-493-4394 FAX - 970-493-4394 Cell - 970-231-3680 205 CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 22ND FILING COMMUNITY HORTICULTURE CENTER 2145 CENTRE AVENUE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, COLORADO CONTACTS OWNER CITY OF FORT COLLINS 281 N. COLLEGE AVE. FORT DOWNS, CO 80521 970-221-6881 CIVIL ENGINEER JVA, INC 25 OLD TOWN SQUARE SUITE 200 FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 970-225-9099 BRIAN CAMPBELL, P.E. BCAMPBELL@JVAJVA.COM LANDSCAPE RUSSELL + MILLS STUDIOS ARCHITECT 141 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE SUITE 104 FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 970-484-8855 JOHN BEGGS JBEGGS@RUSSELLMILLSSTUDIOS.COM SITUATED IN THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST, 6TH P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO MAJOR AMENDMENT UTILITY PLANS rvA, Incorporated 25 old Town Square Suite lop rortCO, 80524 o Phone5.9099 wee: ww..N,l.asom E.m,,l SEPTEMBER, 2015 S 4 as MULBERRY STREET _- i ga..AAA A. G ems. v ul — CSU A. 'EPROSPECT "m RDA - — ° i RAl g Arn Ad t " PROJECT f o I a a w L 1 DRAKE ROAD = e3a 1 .3'� S VICINITY MAP SCALE 1'=150 DRAPING INDEX SHEET TITLE CO.0 COVER CO.1 NOTES, LEGEND, & ABBREVIATIONS CO2 CITY OF FORT COLLINS NOTES CO.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DEMOLITION PLAN C1.0 GRADING, DRAINAGE, & EROSION CONTROL PLAN C1.1 DETAILED GRADING PLAN — WEST C1.2 DETAILED GRADING PLAN — EAST C1.3 FLOODPLAIN EXHIBIT CD1.0 DRAINAGE DETAILS CE1.0 SWMP & EROSION CONTROL DETAILS I EMERY ALI MAT HAVE RNAL CONSTRUCTION PUNS HERE PREPARED UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERN50N, IN ACCORDANCE WTH ALL APPLICABLE Ott OF FORT DOWNS AND STALE DF COLORADO STANDARDS AND STARVE, RESPECRWLY, AND MAT I AM FULLY REEM NSIBEE FOR ME ACCURACY BE ALL DESIGN, REN90NS AND RECORD CONDITIONS MAT I HAW NOTED ON MESE PLANS NAME: DRINK CAMPODI P.E. P.E. No. Q196 THEY PLANS HAVE HEN RENEND BY ME CITY BE FORT COLLINS FOR CONCEPT ONLY. WE RENEW DOES NOT IMPLY REPONSIBIUTY BY ME RENEMNG HPARI.MENT, ME CITY ENGINEER, OR ME CITY OF FORT WULNS FOR ACCURACY AND CORRECTNESS Of ME CALCULATOR& FURTHERMORE. ME RENEW DOES NOT IMPLY MAT ME WAN IDES OF ME ITEMS ON ME PUNS ARE ME TRIAL WANAMS REWIRED. ME RENEW SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED IN ANY REASON AS ACCEPTANCE OF RNANOAL RESPONSIBILITY BY ME CITY Of FORT COLONS FOR ADDITIONAL WORRIES Of ITEMS SA M MAT MAY BE REWIRED DURING ME CONSTRUCTOR PHASE. Cil Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPROVED CHECKED BY CHECKED BY ran CHECKED BY T.011i ran CHECKED BY CHECKED BY EA0.130AARearair ran CHECKED BY LAI .. ,,. 1 mi BY: NRB 1 DATE'. SEW2015 © NA INC 0 Z J LL TED (If Z N ~ J Z � (})Ul!- O W — J 0�IEZ K J FAA S LED U W Z W W m El p U Q K W 000 U � � F Z W U CH ABBREMATIONS LEGEND GENERAL NOTES: Ali AMERICAN ASTI OF STATE HIGHWAY UPS "NOS B BENCHMARK I. ALL MATERIALS AND NORKMANSHIP SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE AM ME LATEST STANDARDS AND SPECIHCA➢ONS OF THE OR OF FORT W WN% AND MM90RTAION OFFICIALS MANHOLE LARIMER CWNN URBAN AREA STREET STANDARDS (LCUASS), COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATON (COOT), JUMMICDMAL FIRE PROTECDON am ABANDON KB KIMBLOCN O AREA DRAIN REQUIREMENTS, AND APMCABLE STALE AND LOCAL STANDARDS AND SPECIHCATWS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE IN POSSESSION AT THE JOB SITE AC ASPHALTIC CONCRETE BRAND NO KNOCKOUT AT ALL TIMES WE (I) SIGNED COPY OF APPROWD PUNS, STANDARDS AND SPEORGA DONS. CONTRACTOR SHALL CCNSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN AIR ADDITIONAL 8 COMBINATION DUST EMERGENCY ACCESS ROVES TO ME SIR AND ENABLE AT ALL TIMES PER THE APPLICABLE JURISDICTIONAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ADDM ADDENDUM L LEFT OR OUR Q TONE R INLET DOCUMENTS. ME CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN WRITTEN APPROVAL FOR MY VARIANCE M ME ABOVE DOCUMENTS NOTIFY ENMEM OF ANY J TA ADJUSTABLE APW(TNG) STANDARDSOR MENENT OF ANY CONFUCTNG STANDARD OR SPECIFICATION, ME MORE STRINGENT OR HIGHER PEMICAMONS. II� AS EASEMENT LE<PE LINEAR ® TYPE 1} FlEL) MUST OUAEFISTANDARD, RA AL ALUMINUM UP LIGHT POI£ FLARED END SEWON W/ RIPRAP ALT ALIERNATE LT LIGHT 2. ME CONTRACTOR MALL OBTAIN, AT HIS OWN EXPENSE, ALL APPUCADID CODES, LICENSES, STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, PERMITS, BONDS, ETC., AM MOUNT LY.L LOW WATER RAN WB RE W/ THRUST BLOM WHICH ME NECESSARY TO PERFORM ME PROPOSED WORK, INCLUDING. BUT NOT LIMITED TO A LOCAL AND STAR GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE AND APPRO% APPROXIMATE JK END W/ THRUST &GCN MLCRADO DMARMENT OF HEALTH AND ENNRONMEM RNHE) STORM WATER USGHARGE KNIT AS5MUND WITH CONSTRUCTION ACTT ARCH ARCHIRCT(LRAL) MAMT MAINTENANCE ARV AIR RELIEF VALVE MAN MANUAL H END CAP W/ THRUST BLOCK 3. ME CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR HOOFING ME REQUIRED PARTY (OWNER. OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. MUMCIPAL/DISWICT INSPECTOR. ASTN AMERICAN QUEEN FOR MAR MATERIAL ® GATE VALVE GEOROINICAL ENGINEER. ENGINEER AND/OF UTUTY OYMM) AT LEAST 18 HOURS PRIOR TO START OF ANY CONSTRUCICN. PRIOR TO BACKFlWNG. TESTING AND MATERIALS MAX MAXIMUM p REDUCER/INCREAfffl AND AS REQUIRED BY JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY AND/OR PROJECT SPECFlCA➢DNS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTINUE MM NOTIFICATIONS ASPH ASPHALT ME MATCH EASING THROUGHOUT ME PROJECT AS REQUIRED BY ME STANDARDS AND SPECIFICA➢ON& AMY ASSEMBLY ARM MECHANICAL 4D WARR METER AUTO AU MARC MEN MANUFACTURER Ilt NRE HYDRANT 4. ME LOCATONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES ARE MON IN ME APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON INFORMATION BY OTHERS. NOT All UTILIZES MAY BE ACAVERAGE MH MANHOLE SHOWN. ME CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE ME EXACT LOCATION OF All EASING UMIES WHETHER SHOWN OR MET BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. MIN MIMMUM i SM W/ FOIST THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE FULLY AND SOLELY RESPONE BLE FOR ANY AND All DAMAGES AND COSTS WHICH MIGHT OCCUR BY ME CONTRACTOR'S BE BACK OF CURB RISC MISo1MNE0US STORM DRAIN - LARGER PIPE FAILURE TO EXACRY LOCATE AND PRESERVE MY AND ALL UTILITIES. ME CONTRACTOR SHALL NOBLY ALL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UTILITY COMPANIES ON BUTTERFLY VALY£ AND DERRMINE ME LOCATION Of ALL EXISTING UTILITIES PRIOR TO PROCEEDING MTH GRADING AND CONSTRUCTOR ALL WORK PERFORMED IN ME BIDS BUILDING N NORM STORM DRAIN - SMALLER FEE AREA OF UTLITES SHALL BE PERFORMED AND INSPECTED ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF ME UTUTY OWNER. UKEWSE. ME CONTRACTOR BIM BLOCK NA NOT APPLICABLE gyp— AWE DRAIN SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING AND MAPPING ANY EASING UTILITY (INCLUDING DEPTH) WICH MAY CONFLICT AM THE PROPOSED BM BENCH MARK ME NOT IN CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR RELOCATING ENCOUNTRED TIRE AS M ECTED BY ME MONIR. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT AND RECEIVE APPROVAL BMP BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE HURT NATIONAL PIPE TREAD tl SANITARY SEXIER FROM CITY OF FORT COLLINS, OMER, AND ENGINEER BEFORE RELOCATING MY ENCOUNTERED UTILITIES. CONTRACTOR RESPONSBLE FOR SEANCE GOT BOTTOM TUTS N07 TO SCALE W WARR CONNECTIONS, AND RELOCATING AND RECMNECTNG AFFECTED MU TES AS COORDINATED MM UTILITY BANNER Mi ENGINEER, INCLUDING BEAT BASEMENT NON -MUNICIPAL UTILITIES (RLMHONE, GAS, CABLE, ETC., MACH SOUL BE COORORDINATEO WITH ME UTILITY OWNER). ME CONTRACTOR SHALL BVEE BEGIN VERTICAL CURVE ELNATON W ON CENTER �KW IRMGATON IMMEDIATELY CONTACT ENGINEER UPON DISCOVERY IT A UTILITY DISCREPANCY M CONDUCT. AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. ME BUGS BEGIN WRICAL CURVE STATION W MERGE DIAMETER W MDERDRAIN CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ME UTUTY NOMCATON COMER OF COLORADO (1-800-922-198). WWWUNW.ORG). BW BOTTOM OF WALL OAP OPPOSITE OPT OPTIONAL -TiTRENCH DRAIN 5. ME CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SOLELY AND BON II:TELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDITONS AT AND ADJACENT TO ME JOB SIR. INCLUDING SAFETY OF CB CATCH BASIN ­m FLOW DRAIN / FOUNDATION DRAIN All PERSONS AND PROPERTY DURING ME PERFORMANCE OF ME WORK. ME CONTRACTOR SIAL_ PREPARE A TRAFFIC CONTROL REM FOR OWNER COW COUNTER CLWKWSE PC POINT OF CURVATURE E ELECTRIC APPROVAL AN PROADE ALL LENTS, SIGNS, BARRICADES. FENCING. FLAGMEN OR OMER DEDUCES NECESSARY TO PROMDE FAIR PUBLIC SAFETY MIS BUT COLORADO DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION PRO PRESSURE 0.EAN OUT REQUIREMENT MALL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE UMIIED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS. ME CONTRACTOR AGREES N COMPLY WITH ME GP CAST IRON PIPE PM POINT OF CURVE RETURN UE UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC PROMISING OF ME TRAFFIC CONTROL PUN AND ME LATST EOTM OF ME'MANUAL W UNIFORM MAFEC CONTROL DEDIBES,' PART V, FOR W CONSTRUCTION JOINT PI POINT OF INRRSECTW -OE— OVERHEAD ELECTRIC CONSTRUCTION SENATE AND WARR WNTRCI. ALL IEMPCRMY AND PERMANENT Ti SIGNS STALL COMPLY N ME MANUAL ON UNIFORM 0. CENTER LINE OR CHAIN LINK PM POINT OF CRITICAL INTERSECTION TRAFFIC CONTROL DEUCES (MUTED) WITH REGARD TO SOLI SHAPE, COLOR, SIZE, LETTERING, ETC UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. IF APPLICABLE, PART COPY CLEAR PL PROPERTY LINE T TELEPHONE NUMBERS ON MANAGE DETAILS REFER TO MUTED SM NUMBERS. CARP CORRUGATED METAL ARE RE POLIERMENE —QATW— CABLE N DAN CONCRET MASONRY UNIT PREUM PRELIMINARY MALL & ME CONTRACTOR ALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR WORD ANY GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED DURING ME CONSTRUCTION OF MY PORTION OF M5 W CLEANWT PREP PREPARATION FIBER OPTIC PROJECT. GNWNDWARR STALL BE PUMPED, PLOD, REMOVED AND DISPOSED OF IN A MANNER YMICH DOES NOT CAUSE REBOUND O EXISTING CARE CITY OF FORT GOWNS PROP PROPOSED ur JOINT UTILITY TERM STREETS NOR MO N ON ABUTTING DARKNESS IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT ME IMPFOVEMMTS SHOWN ON MEE PUNS. CONC CONCRETE PRY PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE OR CONST CONSTRUCTION PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE GAS T RIM AND GRAZE ELEVATIONS MOM ON PARS ARE APPROAMAR ONLY AND ME NOT TO BE TAKEN AS FINAL ELEVATIONS. ME CONTRACTOR CONT CONMUWSUTION) PT POINT OF TANGENCY X FENCE SHALL ADJUST RIMS AND OMER IMPROVEMENTS TO MATCH FINAL PAVEMENT AND FNICHED GRADE ELEVATIONS. CDR CORNER PV PLUG VALVE CTR GENDER PVC POEYDINYL CHLORIDE OR POW LINE N DITCH OR WASH B. ME EASING AND PROPOSED ELEVATIONS OF FIATWORK, SOEWALKS, CURBS, RADIUS, ETC. AS SHOMI HEREON ARE BASED ON EXTRAPOLATION OE CY CUBIC YARDS POINT OF VERTICAL CURVATURE 5.M MORE APRON HELD WRWY DATA AND EXISTING CONDITIONS AT CRITICAL AREAS WCH AS TEMPS AND SIR FEATURES, CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE FORMWORK PART PAVEMENT INSPECTED AND APPROVED BY OWNER PRIOR TO PLACING CONCRETE MINOR ADJUSMENTS AS APPROVE) BY OWNER. TO PROPOSED GRADES, INVERTS. DE DRAINAGE EASEMENT ♦N W PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION FTC, MAY BE REQUIRED TO PREVENT PONDING. ALL ARTWORK MUST PREVENT PONONG AND PROVED FOROW MANAGE AWAY FROM EXISTNG AND DEMO DEMOUTON OTY QUANTITY i20.5 EAST TOT ELEVATION PRCPoffD BUILDINGS, WALLS, RON DRAIN WT ALLS, ACROSS MINES AND RANKS, ETC., MWARDS ME PROPOSED DINNER DRAINAGE FEATURES MD CIA DIAMETER CONVEYANCES, DIAG DIAGONPL R RUT ��1p PROPOSED INDEX CONTOUR DIP DOCILE IRON RPE BAD RADIUS 9. FINAL LIMITS N REQUIRED ASPHALT SAWCUTING AND PATCHING MAY VARY FROM UMI1S MOM ON PLM& CONTRACTOR TO PROVED SAWCUT AND DOVE DOMESTIC MY RIONFORCED CONCRETE PIPE /�h PATCH MURK TO ACHIEVE POSITIVE DRANABE AND A SMOOM MANSION TO EASING ASPHALT WITHIN ACCEPTABLE DRIVE SLOPE STANDARDS PER DR DRAIN RD ROOF DRAIN MERGED INTERMEDIATE GORDON MONEER. CONTRACTOR MALL PROVED ADDITIONAL MIAMTINC AND PATCHING AT UTUTY WOVE. EM THAT MAY NOT BE DELINEATED ON FLANS. NO DRAWING RE REFERENCE DINE DOWEL RENT RECTANGULAR / / INDEX CONTOUR DO. MY EXISTING MMITCWNG WELLS, OEM MOU, VA1E BOXES, ETC. TO BE PROTECTED AND TO REMAIN IN SEANCE. IF FEATURES EXIST, EXTEND M RDNF REINFORCE (D) (ING) (VENT) _ LONER TO NNAL WM LINT KIND CAP WM STANDARDPR CAST ACCESS LID WITH SAME RANKINGS IN LANDSCAPED ARMS PROKIOE A E EAST ROW REWIRED - ��?A_ EAST INTERMEDIATE CONTOUR BU 8'XI CONCRETE DOUR (IB'x18'v6' MIgO AT All EXISTING AND PROPOSED MONITORING WELLS. CLEANWIS, V0.1E BOXES. ELL. U EACH, EMERGENCY ACCESS ROW RIGHT N WAY TU EXPANSION JT 11. OWNER M APPROVE AIL CONCRETE FINISHING, JOINT PATTERNS AND COLORING REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTM. SUBMIT JOINT LAYOUT FL ELEVATION SA SANITARY CURB AND GUMER PLAIN TO OMER RON APPINDRAL PRIM TO ' So STORM DRAIN III SPILL/CATCH CURB TRANSITION 12 PIPE LENGTHS AN HORIZONTAL CONTROL POINTS MOM ARE FROM CENTER Of STRUCTURES, END OF FLARED EN SECT ONS, ETC BEE ERIC ELECTRICAL SECT SECTOR ENM ENGINEER SPEC SPECIFICATM STRUCTURE DETAILS FM EXACT HORIZONTAL CONTROL LOCATON. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ADJUSTING ACTUAL PIPE LENGTHS TO ACCOUNT EDP EDGE OF PAVEMENT W SQUARE SIDEWALK FOR STRUCTURES AND LENGTH BE FARED END SECTIONS. EO EQUAL W R SOME FEET CONCRETE PAVING IS ALL WRPWS MATERIALS, TEENS, AND TEMPORARY STRUCTURES, FURNISHED BY ME CMMACTOR, SHALL BE REMOVED FROM ME PROJECT STE BY EQUIP EQUIPMENT SQ RD SQUARE YARD THE CONTRAGTM. ALL DEBRIS AND RUBBISH CAUSED BY ME OPERATIONS OF ME CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REMOVED, AND ME AREA OCCUPIED WUIV EQUIVALENT SS SMEARY SEVER 0 AS PAAING DURING CONSTRUCTEDACOWDES STALL BE RESTORED TO ITS ORIGIN AL CONDITION, WMIN 9HOURS OF PROJECT COMPLETION, UNLESS OTHERWISE MAN EASMENT SST STAINLESS STEEL DIRECTED BY ME MUNICPALIN OR OWNER REPRESENTATIVE. EST ESTIMATE STA STATION NCE END WRTCAL CURVE ELEVATION am STANDARD MERGED BUILDING EWS END VERTICAL CURVE STAIM SR STEEL 14. ME CONTRACTOR IS REWIRED TO PROVEN AND MAINTAIN BROWN AND SATU Ni CONTROL MEASURES IN ACCORDANCE W J ME LOCAL > BLED ACCESS JURSDIGTION, FART COONS Si01MWARR OPERA MANUAL. AND ME APPROVED EROSON CONTROL PLAN. JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY MAY REWIRE EAR JT EAST EXPANSION JOINT EXISTING SMUCT STRUCTURAL THE CONTRACTOR TO PROMS ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AT ME CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE WE TO UNFORESEEN MOSIM PROBLEMS OR SHIP STMMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN � EAST BUILDING IF THE PLANS W NOT FUNCTION AS INTENDED. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROHIMING SET AND DEBRIS LADEN RUNNER FROM LEAKING SM SMMETRICAL THE SIR, AND FOR KEEPING ALL PUBLIC AREAS FREE OF MUD AND OEIMTS. ME CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSBLE FM RE-ESTABURDNG FINAL GROB MO FOUNDATION AND FOR REMOVNG ACCUMULATED SEDIMENTADON FROM ALL AREAS INCLUDING SWALES AND DETENDM/WATER WALITY AREAS. CONTRACTOR SHALL END FF "RED MD SECTION FINISH FLOOR M IBC THRUST BLOCK TOP BACK BE CURB END (REMOVE) TREE REMOVE TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AND REPAIR AREAS AS REWIRED AFTER VEGETATON IS NTMLISIED AND ACCEPTED BY OWNER EG FINISH GRADE IBM TEMPORARY BENCH MARK AND MUNICIPALITY. FH HIRE HYDRANT RAP TEMPORARY - UNITS OF SAWCUT 15 ADA COMPLIANCE ME MOSS -SLOPE OF ML WAITS MUST BE 10% MARK. PERPENDICULAR TO DIRECTON OF TRAi MAXMUM GRADE OF FL FLOW LINE MK NICK UNITS O MARK HANDICAPPED ACCEMBLE WAITS MUST BE 50% MAX. IN D RECTON O TRAVEL MAXIMUM GRADE N ALL HANDICAP RAMPS IS &3% OVER A MAXIMUM IN FENCE ION TOR OF BANK EASEMENT LINE 5' RISE. MAXIMUM DRAW AT HANDICAP PARKING IS TYPICALLY 80%IN ALL DIRECIMS CMIRACTM TO NOTIFY ENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF FOG FT FACE OF CONCBER FEET TOG TOP Of CONCRETE OR TOP OF CURB ---- PROPERTY LINE / ROW FLATWORK OF SITE CONDITIONS OR MEMBRANES WHIM PREVENT TYPICAL REQUIRED GRADES FROM BEING ACHIEVED. ALL RAMPS. STAIRS AND RAWNG SHALL BE CMSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WTH CURRENT ADA STANDARDS. HANDICAP RAMPS SHALL CONFORM TO CITY N FORT COONS RG FWTNG OR nUNG TOP TOP N PIPE CONSTRUCTION DETAILS. TOT TOTAL G GAS TW TOP OF WALL 16 PROJECT DATUM: GA GAUNT M TYPICAL GAL GALLON PAWNS (CITY OF FORT DOWNS DAMM) GALV GALVANIZED BE UTILITY EASEMENT DEC MADE 0.EMOUT USE UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC BENCHMARK 11: 28-92, SOUTHWEST COMER OF WEST PROSPECT RD. AND BENTRE ARE., ON A WATER VALVE PIT. MO GROUND UM UTILITY ELEVATION: 501065 FEET GV GATE VALVE SYMBOLS CRT CRTGAL BENCHMARK /2: SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY FEET NEST O THE INTERBECTON W BEMIRE APE. AND RESEARCH CALVE., ON ME NEST EN M ME H HIGH VC POINT OE WRTCAL CURVATURE NT SWAN HEADWALL ON CENTRE AVER HB HOSE BIB �T�I DETAIL I I ILO DETAIL NUMBER I)ENTIFlCAION ELEVATION: 5051T6 FEET HE HORIZONTAL EWPTICAL W WIDE M WIDTH HOW HEADWALL W/ MM �-^LL \/'— SHEETS WHERE ME SECTION OR NOTE: IF NGW29 DAIWM IS REQUIRED FOR MY PURPOSE, ME FOLLOWING EQUATOR MOULD BE USED: NG029 = NA1088 - aIT HNML HAND RAE Wi ARGON EIEVADON IS qn OR CALLED WT HORIZ HORIZONTAL WAGE WATER WALITY GENERAL DETAIL TITLE - INDICATES SAME DRAWNG HP HIGH POINT ELEVATON 17, ME CONTRACTOR SINE EDRNISH ME OR N FORT COLONS, MEMBER. AND OWNER WIN A SET OF CONSTRUCTION RECORD DRAWNGS MATED HR HOUR ME WARR SURFACE ELEVATION DETAIL NUMBER IOENIFICATON OAS -BULLY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ME OR OF FORT COLLINS STANDARDS ME PLANS SHALL SHOW MAL PAVEMENT AND, ROW LINE ELEVATIONS, HVAC HADNG WNDLANAL 1 GERMANS AT PERDURABLE FEATURES US SURVEYED AND CERTIFIED BY A COLORADO P.LS), MANHOLE, PIPE, AND INLET LOCATIONS, INVERTS AIR CONOTWANC X SECT CROSS MUM C1D SHEETS WHERE ME DETAIL IS DRAW! GRADE ELEVATIONS, AND SMS OF ALL UTIOTES AND ANY VARIATIONS FROM ME APPROVED PLAN. HWY HIGHWAY - INDICATES SAME DRAINING HW HIGH WATER ONE M YARD HYDRANT DETAIL MARKER IB LOCATIONS OF CIEANOUTS, LIGHTS, SMAGE, JUNCTIM BOXES, AND OMER SIGNIFICANT SR FEATURES TO BE STAKED FOR ENGINEER AND OWNER NO HYDRANT APPROVAL PRIM TO WORK. CLEMWTS, JUNCTION BOXES, AND ADJACENT MARES TO MATCH GRADES AT ASPHALT/CMCHER (OR RAISE I- AT C. INCLUDED BENSON CWOD LANDSCAPING) i0 PPOKIDE PoSTIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM FEATURES. ID INSIDE DIAMETER r IN INLLi DUST A FENSON NUMBER NV NVERT LRR IRMGATON CitOoEFort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPROVED: cmElD m ueu CHECKED BY: will o W.MIMiino Di CHECKED BY: y00mouew Di CHECKED BY: MEEMAm oeo CHECKED BY: P,R nd Ammo. Di cHECIa=D M: E.0iAli Psi Di : CHECKED MDi me,sm.Punon ...armnxn B DROWN BY: KRB B DAIS: GEPTMIS ®JV0.INC CD Z J LL Z N � Q N Z a ((DDU� O w = J x O OzR J ~ ~ Z C) O Z O Z < Q M K DOC QI DO U M Z W U C0.1 N O Z CITY OF FORT COLLINS GENERAL NOTES 1. ALL MATERIAS. WORKMANSHIP, AND CONSTRUCTON OF FUELS IMPROVEMENTS SHALL MEET OR EXCEED ME STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS GET FORM N ME LARMER COUNTY URBAN AREA STREET STANDARDS AND APPLICABLE STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS. WHERE (HERE IS CONFLICT BETWEEN THESE PLANS AND ME SPECIRCATONS, OR WY APPLICTBI£ STANDARDS, ME MOST RESTRICTIVE STANDARD SHALL APPLY. ALL WORK SHLL BE INSPECTED AND APPROVED BY ME LOCAL CHITY. 2. All REFERENCES TO ANY PUBLICHED STANDARDS SHALL REFER TO ME LATEST REM90N OF SAD STANDARD. UNLESS SPEGFICALLY STATED OMERWSE. 3. ME% PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTOR PUNS SHALL BE VALID FOR A PERIM OF THREE YEARS FROM ME DAIS OF APPROVAL BY ME LOCAL CHIN ENGINEER. UM OF THESE PLANS AVER THE EXPIRATION DATE WLL REWIRE A NEW REMEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS BY ME LOCAL CHIN PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WEAK SHOWN IN MESS PLANS. 4. ME ENGINEER WHO HAS PREPARED OEM PLANS, BY EXECUTOR ANO/OR PEAL HEREOF, DOES HEREBY AFFIRM RESPONSOON TO ME LOCAL CHIN, AS BENEFICIARY OF SAID ENGINEER'S WORK, FOR ANY ERRORS AND DAMNS CONTAINED IN THESE PLANS, AND APPROVAL Of AREA PLANS BY ME LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER SHALL NOT RELIEVE ME ENGINEER WO HAS PREPARED THESE PLANS OF ALL BOOM RESPONSIBILITY FURTHER, TO ME EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, ME ENGINEER HEREBY AGREES TO HOW HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFY ME LOCAL ENTITY, AND ITS OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES, MGM AND AGAINST ALL LABIUTES, CUIM% AND DEMANDS WIN MAY ARSE FROM WY ERRORS AND EMISSIONS CONTAINED IN THESE PLANS. 5. ALL SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER, AND WATER LINE CONSTRUCTOR, AS ASTI AS POWER AND OMER "DRY UIUTY INSTAL MI SHALL CONFORM TO ME LOCAL ENTITY STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS CURRENT AT ME DAIS OF APPROVAL OF ME PLANS BY ME LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER. 6. ME TYPE, SIZE, LOCATION AND NUMBER OF ALL KNOW UNDERGROUND CERES ME APPROXIMATE WEN SHORN W ME GRAMMES IT SHALL BE ME RESPLNSIBNIY OF ME CE4EILPER TO VILIFY THE EASIENCE AND LOCATION BE ALL UNDERMOUND MOWS ALONG ME ROLE OF ME MORN BEFORE COMMENCING NEW COMBUSTION. ME DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSBLL FOR UNKNOMN UNDERGIMUND UTUTES. Z. ME ENGINEER SHALL CONTACT ME UTILITY NCFI UVRON CENTER OF COLORADO ENE) AT 1800-922-1982, AT LEAST 2 WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO BEGINNING EXCAVATOR OR GRADING. TO HAVE ALL REGISTERED UTILITY LOCATIONS MARKED. OTHER UNREGISTERED UTNY ENTRIES (LE. DITIN /IRRIGATION COMPANY) PRE TO BE LOCATED BY CONTACTING ME RESPECTIVE REPRESENTATIVE. UIILRY SERVICE LATERALS ARE &SO W BE LOCATED PRIOR TO BEGINNING EXCAVATION OR GRADING IT SHALL BE ME RESPON90UU OF THE DEVELOPER TO RLLOC,AT All EXISTING MOTES MAT CONFLICT MR ME PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN CN THESE PLANS B ME DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTING ALL MOVES DURING CMSMUCDM AND FOR COORDINATING WM ME APPROPRIATE UILIN COMPANY FOR ANY MUHY CROS9NC5 REQUIRED. 9. IF A CONVICT EXISTS BETWEEN EMSING AND PROPOSED UOUMES AND/M A DESIGN MODIFICATION IS REWIRED, ME DEVELOPER MALL CCORDNATE MR ME ENGINEER TO MODIFY ME DESIGN. DESIGN MWIFICATW(S) MUST BE APPROKO BY ME LOCK ENTW PRIOR TO BEGINNING CWSMIRPON. TV ME DEVELOPER SHALL COORDINATE AND COOPERATE ME ME LOCAL ENTRY, AND ALL URN COMPANIES INVOLVED. TO ASSURE MAT ME 11. NO MEN MAY COMMENCE WEN ANY PUBLIC STORM WATER, SMITHY $ETHER OR POTABLE WATER SYSTEM UNTIL ME DEVELOPER MOVES ME UTILITY BLONDER, NOTIFICATION SHALL BE A MINMUM OF 2 MIMING DAYS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF MY WORK. AT ME OISNE110M O ME WATER LION PROVIDER, A PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING MAY BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY NORM. 1D ME DEVELOPER SHALL SEQUENCE INSULLADON OF MUTES IN MGM A MANNER AS TO MINIMIZE POTND& LEON CONVICTS. IN G£NERAI, STORM SEVER AND SNITARY SEVEN SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR M INSTALLATION OF ME WATER LINES AND DRY MUTES 13. ME MINIMUM COVER OVER WATER ONES IS 4.5 FEET AND ME MAXIMUM COVER IS 5.5 FEET UNLESS OMERWI NOTED IN ME PLOPS AND APPROVED BY ME WATER UIMN 14. A STALE CONSTRUCTOR DEWATERING WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT IS REWIRED IF DEWATERING IS REWIRED IN ORDER TD INSTALL UTUTES OR WARR IS DISCHARGED INTO A STORM SERER, CHANNEL, IRRIGATOR DITCH OR ANY WATERS OF ME UNITED STATES. 15 ME DEVELOPER SHALL COMPLY WEN ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ME COLORADO PERMIT FOR STORM WATER MECHANICS (CONTACT COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, WATER QUALITY 00 IRtt DIVISION. (303) 692-3590), ME STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. AND ME EROSION CONTROL PLAN. 16. ME LOCK ENITY SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ME MMNTENANCE OF STORM MANAGE FACILITIES LOCATED W PMVATE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE OF ONME DRAINAGE FACILITIES SHALL BE ME RESPONSOUN OF ME PROPERTY OMNEMS). 1L PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE BY ME LOCAL ENTRY, ffRIIPCANCN OF ME DRAINAGE FTCIURES, BY A REGISTERED 18, ME LOCK MEN SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MY DAMAGES OR INJURIES SUSTAINED IN MIS DEVELOPMENT AS A WERE OF GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE, MHETTER RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER FLOWING, STRUCVR& DAMAGE OR OVER DAMAGE UNLESS OUCH DAMAGE OR INJURIES ARE WSTANED AS A RESULT OF ME LOCAL ENTRY FAILURE TO PROPERLY MAINTAIN ITS WATER, WASTEWATER, AND/OR STORM DRAINAGE HOMES IN ME CEMBLON NT 19. ALL RECOMMENDATIONS OF ME DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL MEMO LAID 09/09/2015 BY JVA INC. SHALL BE FOLLOWED AND IMPLEMENTED. 20. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PROVIDED AS SHOWN W ME EROSION CONTROL PUN. All EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN WOO REPAIR BY ME DEVELOPER, UNTIL BOOM TIME AS ME MIRE DISTURBED AREAS IS STABILIZED WM HARD SURFACE OR LAN ELAPND 21. ME DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR INSURING MAT NO MUD OR DEBRIS MALL BE TRACKED WHO ME USING PUBLIC STREET SYSTEM. MUD AND DEBRIS MUST BE REMOVED WITH 24 HOURS BY AN APPROPRIATE MECHANICAL METHOD D.C. MACHINE BROW SWEEP, LOT DUTY FRONT-END LOADER, ETC.) OR AS APPROVED BY ME LOCO UNITY STREET INSPECTOR. 22. NO WEN MAY COMMENCE WMIN ANY IMPROVED OR UNIMPROVED WOO RIGHT-OF-WAY UML A MIGHT-T-WAY PERMIT OR WAFLOPMENT CWSMUCTIW PERMIT IS WTAINED, IF APPLICABLE, 23. ME DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL NECESSARY KNIFE FOR ALL APPLICABLE AGENCIES PRIM TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTOR. ME DEVELOPER SHALL NOTIFY ME LOCO UNITY ENGINEERING INSPECTOR (FORT COLLINS - 221-E605) AND ME LOCAL ENTRY EROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR (EMT DOWNS - 221-6200) AT LEAST 2 WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO ME START OF ANY EARTH DISTURBING ASTI OR CONSTRUCTION ON ANY AND ALL PUBUC IMPROVEMENTS. IF ME LOCAL ENTRY MEMBER IS NOT AVALABLE AFTER 24. ME DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR WEANING SOILS TESTS WMIN ME PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AFTER ROT OF WAY GRADING AND ALL MET TRENCH MARK IS COMPILER AND PRIOR TO ME PLACEMENT OF CURB, GUTTER SIDEWALK AND PAVEMENT. IF ME RI COILS/PAV£MENT DESIGN REPORT DOES NOT CORRESPOND WM ME RESULTS OF ME ORIGIN& GEOMCHNICA REPORT, ME DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR A RE-CESM M ME SUBJECT PAVEMENT SECTION OR. ME DEMMOPER MAY UK ME LOCO BURNS DEFAULT ENTRY ENGINEER APPROVES THE FINK REPORT. 25. ME CONTRACTOR SHALL HIRE A LICENSED ENGR O BASE COURSE OR ASPHALT WILL BE ALLOWED ON ME STREETS 26. All LION INSTALLATIONS WITHIN OR ACROSS ME ROADBED BE NEW RESIDENTIAL ROAM MUST BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ME FINK STAGES O ROAD CONSMUMON. FOR ME PURPOSES O THESE STANDARDS ANY TRIM EXCEPT C/G AW)W ME 9JBGRADE IS CONSIDERED FINAL STAGE WREN. All SERVICE USES MUST BE SEEKS TO ME PROPERTY ONES AND MARKED ED AS TO REDUCE THE EXCAVATION NECESSARY FOR BUILDING CONNECTIONS. 27, N/A 28. ALL ROM CONSTRUCTION IN AREAS DESIGNATED AS MW FIRE HAZARD AREAS WALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WM THE CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA AS E5TARLIWED IN ME LULU FIRE HAZARD AREA MIN"TON REGULATIONS IN FORCE AT ME ONE OF FINK FLAT APPROVAL 29. PRIER TO ME COMMENCEMENT OF MY GNSWUMON, ME CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT ME LOCAL ENTRY FIMESIER TO SCHEDULE A SITE INSPECTION FOR ANY WEE REMOVAL REWIRING A PERMIT W. ME DEVROPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL ASPECTS OF SAFETY INCLUDING, BUT NOT UNITED M. EXCAVATOR, TRENCHING, SHORNG TRAFFIC CONTROL AND SECURITY. REFER TO OSHA PUBHCARW 2226, EXCAVATING AND TRENCHING 31. ME DEVELOPER SHALL SUBMIT A CONSTRUCTOR TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN, IN ACCORDANCE WITH NOES, TO ME APPROPRIATE MCHT-OF-WAY AUTHORITY (LEA ENTITY, COUNTY OR STATE), FOR APPROVAL, PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION ACUMWS WMIN, M AFFECTING. ME RIGHMOF-WAY ME DEVELOPER MALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING WY AND ALL TRAFnC CONTROL DEVICES AS MAY BE REWIRED BY ME CONSTRUCTION ACRNRES. 32 PRIM TO ME COMMENCEMENT OF MY CONSTRUCTOR MAT MALL AFFECT TRAFFIC SIGNS OF ANY TYPE, ME CONTRACTOR SHALL WNTACT LOCAL ENTITY MAGIC MEGATONS DEPARTMENT, WO WILL TEMPORARILY REMOVE W RELOCATE ME SON AT NO COST TO ME CONTRACTOR; HOWEVER, IF ME CONTRACTOR MOVES ME TRAFFIC SIM THEN ME CONTRACTOR WLL BE CHARGED FOR ME LABOR, MATRIKS AND EQUIPMENT TO REINSTALL ME SIGN AS NEEDED. 33. ME DEVELOPER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL COSTS FOR ME INITIA INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIMING AND STRIPING FOR ME DEVELOPMENT RELATED M ME DEVELOPMENT S LOCAL STREET OPERAOONS. IN AMMON. THE DELIVER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL COSTS FOR TRAFFIC SWING AND STRIPING RELATED TO DIRECTING (RATES ACCESS TO AND FROM ME DEVELOPMENT. 34. NEW SHALL BE NO BE CONSTRUCTOR ACRNRES ON SAILNOAYS, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AWROIED BY ME LOCAL BREW ENGINEER, ANY NO 97 CONSTRUCTOR ACTNIES ON SUNDAYS W HWDAYS, UNLESS THERE IS PRIOR WRITTEN APROVK BY ME LOCAL EARN. 35. ME DEVELOPER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING ALL LABOR AND MAMMALS NECESSARY FOR THE COMPLETION OF ME INTENDED IMPROVEMENTS, SHOW ON THESE DRAMNGS OR DESIGNATED TO BE PROVIDED, INSTALLED, OR CONSTRUCTED, UNLESS SPECIFICkLY NOTED OTHERWSE. 36. DIMENSIONS FOR LAYOUT AND CONSTRUCTION ARE NOT TO BE X&ED FROM ANY ONAMNG. IF PFRMENT DIMENSIONS ARE NOT SHOW, CONTACT ME DESIGNER FOR CLARIFICA➢ON, AND ANNOTATE ME DIMM90N ON ME AS -QUILT RECORD DRAWINGS. 37. ME DEVELOPER SHALL HAVE, MOM AT ALL TMES, WE (1) SOWED COPY OF ME APPROVED PLANS, ONE (1) COPY OF ME APPROPMAT STANDARDS ANY SPEOFIGTRWS AND A COPY OF ANY PERMITS AND EXTENSION AIFRMENM NEEDED FOR ME RON. M. IF, DURING ME CONSTRUCTION PROCESS CONDITIONS ARE ENCOUNTERED MIN COUCH INDICATE A SITUATE MAT IS NOT IDENTIFIED IN ME PLANS OR SPECIFICAIONS. ME DEVELOPER SHALL CONTACT THE DESIGNER AND ME LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY. M. ME DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR RECORDING AS -BUILT INFORMATW W A SET O RECORD DRAMNGS KEPT ON ME CWSTRUCIIW SIT, AND AVALABLE M ME LOCAL CHINS INSPECTOR AT ALL TIMES UPON COMPLETE O ME WORK, ME CONTRACTORS) %ALL SUBMIT RECORD DRAWINGS TO ME LOCK UNITY ENGINEER 40. THE DESIGNER SMALL PROMDE IN THIS LOCATION M ME PLAN, ME LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION BE ME NEAREST SURVEY BENCHMARK FOR ME PROJECT AS KM AS ME BASIS OF BEARINGS ME INFORMATION SHALL BE AS EMBLEM HAVEN (nTY CS FORT OWNS DATUM) BENCHMARK JH 28-92, SOUMWESi CORNER OF WEST PROSPECT 0. AND CENTRE ARE, ON A WATER VALVE PIT. ELEVATION: W10.65 FEET BENCHMARK IN: 14-99, APPROMMATELY ION FEET NEST OF ME INTER ECRON OF MORE AW AID REMARCH BLVD., ON ME REST END OF ME SQUM HEADWAIL ON CENTRE AVE. ELEVATION: 5O51J6 FEET NOT' IF NGVD29 DATUM IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE. THE FOLLOWING EQUATOR SHOULD BE USED: NGV029 - NAM0E8 - 31i BASS OF BEARINGS: N/A 41. &_ STATIONING IS BASED ON CENTERLINE O ROADWAYS UNLESS OMERWSE MOM. 42 DAMAGED CURB, BUFFER AND SIDEWALK EMSING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, AS HELL AS EASING FENCES, TREES, STREETS, SOEWAKS CURBS AND GUTTERS, LANDSCAPING, STRUCTURES, AND IMPROVEMENTS DESTROYED, DAMAGED OR REMOVED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OF MIS PROTECT, $HALL BE REPLACED OR RESTORED IN ONE KIND AT ME DEWLOPEI EXPENSE, UNLESS OTHEAMSE INDICATED ON THESE PANS PRIM TO ME ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLETED IMPROVEMENTS MI PRIM TO ME ISSUANCE OF ME FIRST CEATINC4IE OF OCCUPANCY 41 MIEN AN EMI ASPHALT SWEET MUST BE CUT, ME STREET MUST BE RESTORED TO A CONDITION EQUAL TO OR BETTER MAN ITS ORM#N& CONDITION. ME EXISTING SWEET CONDITION WELL BE LOWERED BY ME LOCAL BARRY CONSIMICAN INSPECTOR BEFORE ANY CUTS ARE MADE. PATCHING SHELL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WIN ME LOCAL ENTRY STREET MEAN STANDARDS. ME RNI91E0 PATCH SHALL BLEND IN 9MWMLY INN ME EXISTING SURFACE. ALL LARGE PATCHES SHALL BE PAVED MM AN ASPHALT LAY -DOWN MACHINE IN STREETS WERE MORE THAN ONE CUT IS MADE, AN OVflWAY OF ME EN➢RE STREET MOM, INCLUDING ME PAMPER AREA, MAY BE REQUIRE ME DETERMINATION OF NEED FOR A COMPETE OVERLAY SHALL BE MADE BY ME LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER AND/CFI ME LOCAL BEN INSPECTOR AT ME TIME ME CUM ARE MADE. 44. UPON COMPLERON OF CONSTRUCTION, ME SITE SHALL BE CLEANED AND RESTORED TO A CONDITION EW& TO. OR BETTER MAN, THAT MACH EXISTED BEFORE CONSTRUCTION. OR TO ME MOB AND CONDIIW AS REQUIRED BY MESS PLANS 4S STANDARD HANDICAP NAMES ARE TO BE WNSWUBM) AT All CURB RETURNS AND AT All T INTERSECTIONS 45. KTER ACCEPTANCE BY WE LCCK ENTRY, PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS REPORT IN USE PLANS SHALL BE GUARANTEED RI BE FREE INN MATERIAL AND WORKMANSHIP DEFECTS FOR A MINIMUM PERIOD BE TKO YEARS MGM THE DAM BE ACCEPTANCE. 47. ME LOCAL ENTITY SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ME MAINTENANCE OF ROADWAY AND APPURTENANT IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING STORM DRAINAGE STRUCTURES AND PIPES, FOR ME FOLLOWING PRIVATE SWEETS N/A 40, APPROVED VARIANCES ME LISTED AS FOLLOWS: N/A CITY OF FORT COLLINS CONSTRUCTION NOTES N DISCI i' , 1 I Im1 1! W19I!1 ICI 10clummil"1111m WILE III I. ME EROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR MUST BE NOIFIED AT LEAST TWENTY-FOUR (24) HOURS PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTOR ON MIS 97. I THERE 4WD BE NO EARTH-DISMWING ACTMW OUTSIDE ME LIMITS DEMMATW ON ME ACCEPTED PLANS. I ALL REQUIRED PERIMETER SILL AND CONSTRUCTOR FENDING SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY LAND DISTURBING ACONTY (SMcMLING, STRIPPING, GRADING ETC). ALL OVER REWIRED EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED AT ME APPROPRIATE THE IN ME CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE AS INDICATED IN ME APPROVED PROJECT SCHEDULE, CONSMUCION PLANS, AND EROSION CONTRO REPORT. 4, AT All TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTOR, ME DEVELOPER MALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PREVENTING AND CONTROWNG W-97 EROSION INCLUDING KEEPING ME PRYPMW &V IC NITY WAVERED SO AS TO MINIMIZE MIND BLOW SEDIMENT. ME DEVELOPER SHALL ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLING AND MAINTAINING ALL BEGAN CONTROL EXCITERS SHOWN HEREIN. 5 PRE-DSERBANCE VEGETATION SHALL BE PROTECTED AND RETAINED WEREVER POSSIBLE. REMOVAL ON DISTURBANCE OF ROMIING VEGETATION SHALL BE UNITED TO ME AEA(S) REWIRED FOR IMMEDIATE CONSTRUCTION OPERATORS, AND FOR ME SHORTEST PRACTICAL PERIOD OF IRE 6. AI SOILS EXPOSED DURING LAND DISTURBING ACTNTY(STRIPMNG GRADING, UTILITY INSTALLAIONS, SMCKPWNG MI ETC.) SHALL BE LANDSCAPING. ETC.) IS INSTALLED. UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY ME STORMWATR DEPARTMENT. * IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE EROSION PDTENIW, ALL TEMPORARY (STRUCTURAL) EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL: 0. BE INSPECTED AT A MINIMUM OF ONCE EMERY TWO (2) WEEKS AND AIM EACH SIGNIFICANT STORM EVENT AND REPAREO OR RECONSTRUCTED AS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO ENSURE ME CONTINUED PERFORMANCE OF MDR INTENDED FUNCTION. b. REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL MOM TIME AS Ell ME SJRRWNDING DISTURBED AREAS PRE SUFFICIENTLY S MRKED AS DETERMINED BY ME M09ON CONTROL INSPECTOR. BE KNOWS AFTER ME SIZE HAS BEEN SUFFICIENTLY STMIU3ED AS DETERMINED BY ME EROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR. B WEN TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ARE REMOVED, ME WWMNI R SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ME DRUNK UP AND REMOVK OF AL SEDIMENT AND DEBRIS PROW ALL DRAINAGE INFRAMWUCTURE AND OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES. I ME CWTRACRN MALL CLEAN UP MY INADVERTENT DEPOSITED MARRIA IMMEDIATELY AND MAKE ARE SWEEM ARE FREE OF Ill MATERIALS BY ME END O EACH WORKING DAY. 10. ALL RETANED SEDIMENTS, PARTICULARLY THOSE W PAVED ROADWAY SURFACES, SHAL BE REMOVED AND DISPOSED OF IN A MANNER AND LOCATOR SO AS NOT TO CAUSE THEIR RELEASE INTO ANY WATERS OF ME UNITED STATES. 11. NO SOIL STOCKPILE SHALL EXCEED HER (10) FEET IN MOT. ALL SUIT STOCKPILES %1 BE PROTECTED FROM SEDIMENT HARSHER BY SURFACE ROUMENING WARRING, AND PERIMETER SILT FENCING ANY SOIL STOCKPILE REMARKS AFTER THRTY (30) DAYS SHALL BE SEEDED AND MULCHED. 12. ME SERMWATR VOLUME WAIN OF DEIEMON KINDS PULL BE RESTORED AND FORM KKR ONES MILL BE GEARED UPON COMPLETION OF ME PRWECT AND BEFORE TURNING ME MMNTNANCE OVER TO ME LOCK ENTRY UP HOMEOWNERS ASSWIATON (HOA). 13. ON ORDINANCE AND COLORADO DISCHARGE PERMIT SYSTEM (COPS) REQUIREMENTS MAKE IT UNLAWFUL TO DISCHARGE OR ALLOW ME DISCHARGE CE ANY POLLUTANT UP CONTAMINATED WATER FROM CONSTRUCTION STEEL POLLUTANTS INCLUDE, BUT IRE NOT UMITED TO DISCARDED BUILDING MAIERWS. CONCRETE TRUCK WASHOUT. CHEMICALS, OIL AND GAS PRODUCTS, UTTER. AND SANITARY WASTE. ME DEVELOPER SHALL AT All TIMES TAKE WAIVER MEASURES ARE NECESSARY N ASSURE ME PROPER CONTANMENT AND DISPOSAL OF POLLUTANTS ON ME 97 IN ACCORDANCE WIN ANY AND ALL APPLICABA LOCAL, STALE, WD FF➢FR& WORKING. 14. A DFSIWAHED AREA SHALL BE PROVIDED ON 4T FOR CON EIE TRUCK CHUTE WASHOUT. ME AREA SHALL BE CGN I JCTEO SO AS M CONTAIN WASHOUT MAIERW AND LOCATED AT LEAST BEN (50) FEET AWAY FROM ANY WATERWAY DURING CONSTRUCTION. NEW COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIMMS ME CONCRETE WASHOUT MATERIAL MLL BE HUMMED AND PROPERLY DISPOSED OF PRIOR TO ME AREA BEING RESTORED. 15. TO ENSURE MAT SEDIMENT DOES NOT MOVE OF ME INDIMOU& LOTS ONE OR MORE OF ME FOCUSING SEDIMENT/EROSIW CONE% MPS SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTANED UNTIL ME LOTS ARE SUFFICIENTLY ST BNIID. AS DETERMINED BY ME EROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR. BELOW ALL GUTTER DOWSPOUTS. b. CUT TO DRAINAGE SWALQ &ONG LOT PIONEIER. I OVER LOCATONS, IF NEEDED. 16. CONDITIONS IN ME FIELD MAY WARRANT EROSION CONTROL MEASURES IN ADOMON TO MAT IS MOM ON THESE PLANS. ME DEVELOPER SHALL IMPLEMENT WARMER MEASURES ME DETERMINED NECESSARY, AS DIRECTED BY ME OTY/COUNTY. 17. A VEHICLE TRACKING CWTRIL PAD SHALL BE INSTALLED MIEN NEEDED FOR CONSTRUCTOR EQUIPMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO PERSON& WHIMS EXITING EXISTING ROADWAYS. NO EARTHEN MATERIALS, I.E. SANE, DIRT, ETC. SHALL BE PLACED IN THE CLIMB k WHIR OR ROADWAY AS A RAMP M ACCESS TEMPORARY ENCOMIUM, STAND AREAS CWSTRWRGN MAIFRI&% CONCRETE WA91WT ARE0. AND/are TURNING SITES 18. ME PROPERTY MUST BE WARNED AND MANTANED AT All TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION ACIVIES SO AS TO PREVENT MND-CWSED ERD9ON. All LAND DISTURBING ACTMLES SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY DISCONTINUED WEN HORNE DUST IMPACTS ADJACENT PROPQMUES AS DETERMINED BY ME ON ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. 19. ALL TEMPORARY (51RWTURAL) ER09M CONTROL MEASURES MUST RE INSPECTOR AND REPAIRED OR RECONSTRUCTED AS NECESSARY an EACH RUNOFF EVENT AND EVERY 14 DAYS IN ORDER TO ASSURE CONTINUED PERFORMANCE OF NOR INTENDED FUNCTION. ALL RETANED SEDIMENTS, PARTICULARLY ROSE ON PAVED ROADWAY SURFACES. SHALL BE REMOVED AND DISPOSED OF IN A MANNER AND LOCATION W AS NOT TO CADGE HEIR RELEASE INTO MY DRAINAGEWAT 20 NO SOIL STOCKPILE SHALL EXCEED TEN (10) FEET IN HEIGHT ALL SCIL STOCKPILES MALL BE PROTECTED MOM SEDIMENT TRANSPORT BY SURFACE ROUMENING WATERING, AND PERIMETER SILT ENDING MY SGL STOCKPILE REMANING AFTER SO DAYS SMALL BE SEEDED AND MULCHED. 21. ON CRI MANC£ PROHIBITS ME TRACKING, DROPPING, OR DEPOSITING OF SOILS OR ANY OTHER MATER& ONTO CITY STREETS BY OR MOM DRY VEHICLE. ANY INADVERTENT DEP09U MATERW SHML BE BLAMED IMMFUIATELY BY THE CW TRACTOR. 1. ALL STREET CONSTRUCTOR IS SUBJECT TO ME GENERAL NOTES ON ME COVER SHEET OF LIEGE PLANS AS HELL AS ME STREET IMPROVEMENTS NOTES USED HERE. 2. A PATINE SECTOR DESIW, SIGNED AND STAMPED BY A COLORADO LICENSED ENGINEER, MUST BE %OMITTED M ME LOCAL ENTRY ENGINEER FOR APPROI PRIOR TO ANY STREET CONSTRUCTION ACINTY, (TILL METH ASPHALT SECTIONS PRE NOT PERMITTED AT A DEPTH GREATER MAN 8 INCHES OF ASPHALT). ME JOB MIX 4WD BE SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO PLACEMENT O ANY ASPHALT. 3. WERE PROPOSED PAMNG ADJOINS EASING ASPHALT. ME EXISTING ASPHALT SHALL BE SAW CUT, A MINIMUM DISTMICE OF 12 INCHES FROM ME EASING EDGE, TO CREATE A OMAN WATERLOO JOINT. ME DEVELOPER SHALL BE REWIRED TO REMOVE EASING PAVEMENT TO A DISTANCE WERE A GEAN CONSTRICTOR JOINT CAN BE MADE. WEEL CUTS SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED. 4. SMEER 91BCkA0E5 SHALL BE SCARIFIED ME TOP 12 INCHES AND RE -COMPACTED PRIM TO WMk3E INSTALLATON. NO BASE MATERIAL SHALL BE LAD UNTL ME BARRAGE HAS BEEN INSPECTED AND APPROVED BY ME LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER. 5. VALVE BOXES AND MANHOLES ARE TO BE BROUGHT UP TO MADE AT ME TIME OF PAVEMENT PLACEMENT OR OVERLAY. VALVE BOX ADJUSTNG RINGS ARE NOT OWNER 6. WEN AN EXISTING ASPHALT STREET MUST BE ME ME STREET MUST BE RESTORED TO A CONDIION EQUAL TO M BETTER MAR M ORIGINAL COMMON. ME EXILING STREET CONDIION SHALL BE DOCUMENTED BY ME INSPECTOR BEFORE ANY CUTS ARE MADE CUTTING AND B. ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WEN THESE PLANS OR AS OTHERMSE SPECIFIED IN MAMICD. (NCLUONG COLORADO SUPPLEMENT) AND AS PON ME MCHT-OF-WAY WORK PERMIT TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN. 8. ME DEVELOPER IS REWIRED TO PERFORM A WERE WATER ROW MST IN ME PRESENCE OF ME LOCO ENTITY INSPECTOR AND PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ASPHKT. CUTTERS MAT HOLD MORE MAN R INCH DEEP OR 5 FEET LONGITUDINALLY, OF WATER, SHALL BE COMPLETELY REMOVID AND RECONSTRUCTED TO WAN PROPERLY 9. PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF H.B.P. CF CONCRETE WRIN ME SWEET AND AFTER MOSMFE/DEN9tt TESTS HAVE BEEN TAKEN ON ME WKWADE MATERIAL (COVEN A BULL NEW SECTION IS PROPOSED) CF W ME SAGRADE AND BASE MATERIAL (COVEN A COMPOSITE BEGIN IS PROPOSED), A MECHANICAL 'PROOF ROLL" WILL BE REQUIRED. ME ENTIRE SURFACE AND/W BASE MATERIK SHALL BE ROILED MM A HEAVILY LOADED VEHICLE HALING A TOTK GVW OF NOT LESS THAN SMWO IBM. AND A SAME AXIS COLT BE AT LEAST ROM I.M. WEN PNEUMATIC R ES INFLATED TO NOT LESS MAT 90 P.S.I.G. "PROOF ROLL" WHIMS SHALL NOT TRAVEL AT SPEEDS GREATER MAN 3 MPM, ANY ENTER BE ME SUBGRADE OR BASE MI WITCH EXHIBITS EXCESSIVE PUMPING OR DEFORMATION, AS DETERMINED BY ME LOCAL ENTRY ENGINEER, SHALL BE REWIRED, REPLACED OR OMERMSE MODIFIED TO FORM A SMOOTH, NON -MELDING SURFACE. ME LOCK ENTITY ENGINEER SHALL BE HOTBED AT LEAST 24 HOURS PRIOR TO ME "PROS ROLL.' ALL "PROOF ROLLS" SHALL BE PREFORMED IN ME PRESENCE OF AN INSPECTOR. C. TRAFFIC SIGNING AND PAVEMENT MARKING CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1. ALL SIGNAL£ MO MARKING IS W&ECT TO ME GENERAL NOTES ON ME CANER SHEET OF THESE PLANS, AS WLL AS THE TRAFFIC SIGNING AND MARKING CONSWUCTON NOTES LISTED HERE. 3. ALL SYMBOLS, INCLUDING ARROWS, ONLYS, CROSSWALKS, STOP BAPS, ETC. SHALL BE RE FORMED THERMO-PIASTC 3. ALL SIGNAL£ SHALL BE PER LOCAL ENTITY STANDARDS ANY THESE PUNS OR AS MESSAGE EFFORT IN MUTCR 4. ALL LANE LINES FOR ASPHALT PAVEMENT SHALL RECOW TWO COATS BE LATEX PANT MEN GLASS BEADS 5. ALL LANE LINES FOR CONCRETE PAVEMENT SHOUW BE EPDXY PANT 6. PRIOR TO PERMANENT INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC STRIPING AND SYMBOLS, ME DEVELOPER SHALL PLACE TEMPORARY TABS OR TAPE DEPICTING ALIGNMENT AND PLACEMENT OF ME SAME. MDR PLACEMENT SHALL BE APPROVED BY ME LOCAL ENTRY TRAFFIC MONEY KIM TO PERMANENT INSTALL NIIN OF STRIPING AND SYMBOLS B. PRE -FORMED THERMO-BASIC APPLICATIONS SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED IN THESE PLANS AND/OR THEM STANDARDS 0. EPDXY APPLICATIONS SHALL BE APPLIED AS SPECIFIED IN COOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROAD AND BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION. 9, ALL SURFACES SBAI BE THOROUGHLY CLEANED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF STRIPING OR MARKINGS 10. ALL SIGN POSTS SHALL RUDE BREAK -AWAY ASSEMBLIES AND FASTENERS PER ME STANDARDS 11. A MEW INSPECTION OF LOCATOR AND INSF UGN OF ALL SIGNS MH BE PERFORMED BY ME LOCK ENTRY TRAFFIC ENGINEER. ALL DISCREPANCIES IDENTIFIED WRING ME FIELD INSPECTOR MUST BE CONNECTED BEFORE ME 2-YEAR WARRANTY PERIOD GILL MON. 12 ME DEVELOPER INSTAWNG SIGNS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING AND PRBTCTNG ALL UNDERGROUND UMTES 13. SFEOK CARE SHALL BE TAKEN IN 9W LOCATION N ENTIRE AN UNOBSTRUCTED NEW M EACH SM. 1T SMAG£ AND STRONG HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY INFORMATION AVAILABLE AT THE TIME BE RENEW. PRIOR TO INMATON OF ME WARRANTY PERIOD, THE LOCK MIN MOVIES ENGINEER RESERVES ME RICHE TO REWIRE ADDITIONAL 9MAGE AND/W STRIPING IF ME LOCAL ENTRY TRAFFIC ENGINEER DETERMINES MAT AN UNFORESEEN CONDITION WARRANTS SUCH SWAGE ACCORDING TO ME MUTCD OR ME MOT M AND S STANDARDS AIL SIGNAL£ AND STRIPING SHAL FALL UNDER ME REQUIREMENTS OF ME 2-Y R WARRANTY PERIOD FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION (EXCEPT FAR WEAR ON MARC MARKINGS). 15. BEEVES FOR SIGN POSTS SHAL BE REWIRED FOR USE IN ISHAN05/MEOARS BEER TO NUMBER 14. WARC CONTROL DEVICES FOR ADOMONAL DETAL. D. STORM DRAINAGE NOTES I. ME CITY OF FORT COLLINS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ME MANnMCE O STORM MANAGE FACILITIES LOCATED ON PRIVATE PROPMT! MANTENANCE OF M97 DRAINAGE FACTURES SHALL BE ME REPONSIBI E OF ME PROPERTY OWEMS). 2. ALL RECWMENDATONS OF ME DRAINAGE AND M09N CONTROL MEMO DATED 09/09/2015 BY OVA INC. SHALL BE FOLLOWED AND IMPLEMENTED. 3. PRIOR N FINK INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE BY ME CITY OF FORT CWLNS CEMFICAION OF WE DRANAGE FAOUIES BY A REGISTERED ENGINEER, MUST BY SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY ME SRMNWAIER WILE MPARTMEW.. CERRNCAT N MALL BE SUBMITTED W ME 5TONWATER UTUTY DEPARTMENT AT LEAST IN WEEKS PROP TO ME RELEASE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR SINGLE FAMILY UNITi. FOR CWMEROAL PROPERTIES, CERMRCATW MALL BY 9IBMI M TO ME STORMWATER UTILITY DEPARTMENT AT LEAST TWO WEEKS KIM TO ME RELEASE OF MY BUILDING MINE IN EXCESS O THOSE ALLOWED PRIOR TO ORTIFICATON PER ME DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. CitOoffort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPROVED: cmu,o.m oeo CHECKED BY: Pymp ow.nmmowino De0 CHECKED BY: yygoomouew De0 CHECKED BY: rn®E mm oeo CHECKED BY: P.,¢.,d RMm.. DeJ CHECKED BY: E.0..Do IPiI DeJ CHECKED BY: mesm.Pundn ...armnxn DRAWN BY: KIM CHECKED BY: CAN JOB NUMBER: M7c CAVE: SEPTMIS ID JV0.INL CD CIE J LL p z uj N � Q ED W a C7U_I ow_ J 7 OzQ = J ~ ~ Z Z O Z p Z Q M Of 0mc K U Z U C0.2 W F Q Z Z J 0 LL O F u 111 I � I I �1 Il I I I 1 . \ HILL POND kk / -------- 7; l % ---- p U ,r99r''--- I / r1 / d \I vA\ \\ EASING 4' COMES \DINED DIP SO AND 4" BE BOOSTED is* SS FIR A AyamV PW SO TO FEW `� NIIf Yf __-4994._ 4995' PROPERTY ONE, TAP BAR I s EXISTING 6CEMENT LINED DIP W i0 REMAIN Y994 pg9M1_ 4901_' WORK, TIP--,, , "% Exlsmc zr u E.R. 1 11 iOIA XX EXISTING '�,'1, JAI \1 GARDEN vI`; . 1� �— OF EATIN' 11 n 1 vn 11.� II E y EXISTED IY SB, i1P \ ; \;\• e� ,ky EASED NiN EXISTING B' IRON. EYISTING USING 4' Ss ' -HORTICULTURE S re C �• CENTER i \ IsmG 4' ME WC I\ — DO u Svc, Ire --_—_ V W \ Exlsnxc B' \\�\Lfj ,n\^I FIN IN `\� \ avJ \ J EASING BM EXISTING ROOK Q%RDEN- IN 1 EXISTED FENCE, TYP EASING CONCRETE 40, SILL TO REMAIN ABANDON EXISTING A - CEMENT LINED DIP SO SEI SEEING 4' HEAR PVC SO TO REMAIN �1 1 \ V 1 \1 PARKING LOT \ lop \�\ /, lroS;; � \n 1 1 \I'I 1lli/ i q / EMSTNC IS SS EYE,\\ \ 1 /4 EMmxc l7\w\AT/p i \, 1 \�EXISTING ; /J\ GARDEN. J I NX r I 111 \1 \ \\ 1 \ 111 1\\'1'I 1\ \I ,11.f \I 1 111'1 '1 ' ''1 D 1 1 f 1 E 1 I l k l `V A 1 Ill lllll'1\'I call cam illl\li\ \ l ll 111 r4'\ .,,. lii. 1 11'II'I \N3 II \ I \ IT 111 I 'll I11 I I '\ 1 111'1''1 4L�' 1'II III„Il i 11/II .55 II I I 11 '1 Lull IIm ;III \ I I I I 11 I I 11 111'I I I II I I I I I I I 1I III g IIIIII \ JIIlk I I'j ; 1 ;' DEMOLITION LEGEND II I / i l OMITS M WORK E%ISTN018' SS TM ABANDON UTOTY I RYO SITE FEATURES EASING 17 WATER FAR ,) I X MYO STRUCTURE X/p I' Nil 1 \ _ 4 dr / GENERAL NOTES: 1. "SITHEM M UTILITY LOCAOTHER UEN5 ARE NOT ROMMAIESHOWN O AND CEPTERDRAVI ARE UNKNOMI. j r w i THEM MAY XI OTTER E MCA NOT NSTRU ON TIE ONTRACT RICH r I I I li GERRY PRESENTLY EXIST IN TIE ION 11L EXISTED VI. CONTRACTOR NS AN CROSSI DEPTH P AND O ANY C a AIL ION. IF UTOtt ICI OCCURS AND l l I l/ I / CROSSINGS S PRIOR i0 ANY CONSTRUCTION. A A CONFLICT OCCURS BEIR£fN I l ; l IF REWIRE AND PROPOSED OR SHALL AND/OP A TEESON M E EIRGTION IS REWIRED. DESIGN, CGNME ER SHALL COORDINATE O EWITHRA TIE ES NO i0 MODIi l RESPOY THE NSIBILITY FOR WE ACCURACYENGINEER ORCOMPLETENESS SHOWN aaaaaa Q 2 CONTRACTOR 5 RESPONSIBLE ER ALL SURFACE REPAIR/REPLACEMENT TO WN AND NOT SHOWN ON DISSTURBED BY THIS WORK,T70STORE ALL EXISTED WR OR BETTERS PLAN a RE"SING CONCRETE AND AW CUT AND MOVED PRIM TO EXCAVATION ON.REMOVE CONCRETE FAMED SHAI.J. BE S TO NEAREST ANT. 3 I l / / IF/ 1 4. ALL UTLIEY CONNECTOR MIME AND SCHEDULE SHALL OE COORDINATED RMH FORT COLLINS UTunES. /, / / S CONTRACTOR i0 PLACE C ALL DNECESSARY ONTROL EROSION CONTROL DURING i i i/ I CONSTRUCTION I PLACE CROSSED CONTROL PROTECTION AT ALL PROPOSED AND O EN Wile INLETS PROTECTION SHALL. LRCM LEE IN PLACE TONUNI ARE0. i CONSTRUCTION CONTROL COMPLETE SHALL REMAIN IN PLACED IS DmlGxm Br, WC // VEGETATED WITH IS COMPLETE AND ALL ALDISTUREEDR MOUND IS ADEQUATELY VEGETATED NM TEE OWNER'S APPROVAL fM REMOVAL. DRAWN BY, ARE CHECKED BY: CAN R. PRY DAMAGED CURB, CUTLER THE SIDEWALK SIDEWALKS. PRIOR i0 / _ DESTROYED.CONSTRUCTIDAMAGED A HELL AS MO STREETS. D E TO CONS RUCT AND WTIERS, JCH NUMBER. &'Mc DESTROYED. DAMAGED OR REMOVED DUE TO CTO CITY CONSTRUCTON M ITS i/ SPRONECT,TANDARDS SHALL HE REPLACED OR RESTORED TO CITY M FONT COLLINS DATE'. 9FPT20I5 / STANDARDS AT THE DEVELOPER'SPRIGEXERCISE O THE i0 TIE A OF MEIY S ®NA, INC COMPLETION IOF OI£NENIs PNO/M PRIOR i0 1HE ISSUANCE OF ME FIRST cwnMUTE a axuPulcr. iz 3 0 CA a Z F Q Z N J 0 II 1'L I r w d H 1\'lll Ow O \ J (YJ \ O r W \ l\ \\ \\\\ /__ 1 so 0 W TOO\ w V r z CONTRACTOR IS TO VERIFY LOCATION AND DEPTH M EXISTING LETTERS IN ME NONITY FAIR TO BEGINNING THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CDJfAINATE AND PRONDE FOE CilOoffort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPROVEDCMEc. mm mo CHECKED BY meooeno woo CHECKED BY o no w'o CHECKED BY E.u"m woo CHECKED BY P.,M MRm woo CHECKED BY E"m. 0Dia N."o woo CHECKED BY Nato z=Z H Z ¢�¢ O i O O Z O w z T C0.3 HILL POND v ; ll I II 1 11 1 AAA `V 1,1AA , 1\ 1111111 \r I 11 I 1 `I m A` 11 1 1 Ij I I 1 I III I 11 I, 11 1( `\ `\\\\. •\ 1 1 1 I I I 110 I `p A 1 A/ I I I I II 11\ \I ' I `I `, 111'1I Illr\II 11`` INS EXISTING EXISTING CONCRETE SL ' I'1' 1 il'l f / i----------- � / ' SEDIMENT CONTROL LOGS, ltl PROPERTY LINE M —__ ' APPROX. aMITS 0E WORK,M 4992 __;�_—_ �_--__-- '—, \�_c—';— G=� —--'' —__—__ NAPS TRAL --_______ \ - T \ SPRINGCONNECTOR K Aacss vaxc artEN ` I j'�i - _� • -- /ROCK SOCKS IW'.10 \ _ ) \ TNG E SPRING i -/ -- ` - 18' MDE SCfWAIX CHASE PROPOSED FEWC£, 1 W CHEEK TRAIL TV \ CDIO i \ RE LSCAPE 6' PVC m BEND. _/ INV•92:A1 11596, PVC SO M S=ABS SG PI UNDER TUE DRAINAGES SYSTEM, TV I y� /\�D SOUND WAILS, TV RE STRUCT 95 �-� WAILS rtiP " RE LSCAPE 1/ r EXISTING RDEN GARDEN OF EA71N° �1 _ I ' J0 IN EXISTING 0 EXISTING ROCK GARDEN EXISTING-----_--'T� It FNZ) 11 Q / 0 SCL �.'I II' 1 I I I._/ I I I% 1 1 GESi.0 LIMFURARY SEAMENTAI Bill TVI 90 IN DECK AND BOARDWAIR. TAP 1 ` I RE. LSCAPE 11 11 I I I III it// I, Inv=Blaso ' II i i I i it 111 I ,IIII II II LI 111 'm 100 IT B` P\C SD Y 5—I 1 I I `Po I I I II i li%(i'il 1`` I ' 'IIII 1 i I i ( lI I( � �___• I II;11 l;;l; 1 ' I ' 1 BRIDGES AND CONCRETE 1 iS CROSSINGS RE LSCAPE ✓ �� I I I I if '//_ Ii /illil / EROSION CONTROL LEGEND CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA AEHICLE TRACKING CONTROL NAGSEROSION CONTROL BLANKET WA AT D BANNS PER ®® SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG MANUFACTURER'S AND SPECIFICATIONS ` ° 1@00MIli ROCK SOCK CONCORD E WASHOUTTV . / CELDy ' / / / % / i// ' SEDIMENTATION BASIN VEHICIE TRACKING CE1.0 CONTROL PAD TV / //i 'J'/Ili( •__ ' ,ill/ i It 50 0 50 100 ' i i i a \, 111 1,1 SCALE IN FEET It \1:F, I 1 \ I \I� I ll Cit-oJ:ort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPROVED. cws"mm mo nv,°.mus.mr r...vu°neu 1 DRAWN av: KRa DATE'. SFPT1015 0 NA, INC z z 3 J a LL _J Z F Q Z Z O c) 0U Ow— : z O O 5 1 Got O x ~ ~ w C) W }�} O Z < Z Q m w = O M Z LL. Z Q U (7 C1.0 HIYdCfllll¢1I115 IN -- - ---'� II -N996 \ - `, "--- - 1111rr1 1I .4991 G %o- •, CONMACTOR TO POTHOLE AND MENDS, —_' __-_,I .. , _i,'� _ _ _ \\v _: -- - '� i PLD AREA TO CONFIRM PIPE DEPTHS, 11 ____ b _/-�_ -�---_�_M, �.y9� ___,. NOTfY ENGINEER IF WNNCiS EAST �__��_______ I -__ BEEN EMSTNG PIN NC TO REMAIN l/ I \\ %\, l II --,% `.�IN NNI P RETURE MAIL CONNECTON 1 � Imm .musrva. . � lI _ - \9,� r ` ACROSS SPRING CREIX II 11 PROPOSED FENCE. FEE / ISCAPE ARPROI[ uMlts OF xoRK, Tro all WE m M.M le 9424 M i I CREW NG SPRING PRI — / -N9.96 Has 1 I1/I Ii PIP II11 IIII ` BA w 1 +91Re / wwR II 11 III unn uwro Hill III �\ \\ _ • ♦• 91im IDn1 i Ill I Ino iC •••MIL fc }M fG �BSw F6lr li r BANDSTAND/STAGE, - 9996. + + �\ I I I I IIII RE: DCAPE x� .'••' AIM j1 III IIII II / �� `Iii li ili �i\ J/ vslzro Mmro '•MM Fc +Sawro / 97 5 111 IIII E%STNG FENCE , TIPI 1 9V9 1 \ m Mw ro 96 �� S ILL ulero 9A9]m Maro F _ / ' MU Ffi BEAD FG g `PJ vAVO f6 MBI Po III I x�x�—x wso F6 1.30 FG / Pf YYY I SONND W11LB. Ell Mvz is M: STiU11C _ w.1 roi9B MtY m \� Mls ro 92 91 A' v1u ro N I I ` ux MaN ro _ 11 ffi25 R NH F6 96' Iyf it 1 nyl /��rI1 _ _ V ` V A 1 AMIXDeD Taasa4 w IIIIII 1 1 V IA I / 11 RE: LSCAP Ail"N RE: W Mm i6 IIII II'll1 II �\ \1 \\ 1 IT I k tl i III I I I \ I IDOI� 6 Iii II I\ I I II 111 ii ` r w.nro 98 mm>w Ilill /Ili i II\ 11 II I \ 4sro 97MM xb Z I`111/ JIB MiwN •• � \� \ g 97IO f6 wmM wm w.mro9B 9E]B FB 9]9 F41tliG\m Ii i l l mmro Mm Fc w.Mm I.'I'. Inll I � � `� mm,./ �M9.ro •.• mwr« o IIIII �i pl / 1 am EG n uu Fc Q IIII / I f \ 'MR Po w)I E4 w.m fE' 99 IN IIIII , .... liiil� II ll E71IS11NG 1 IJI \ L__ oaso lw M14 Mc j _ DESIGNED BY, uc Illliwce'c` ll III GARDEN \\ \I 11 `, � a99B-• °B DRAWN Nv: MEN IllIN' BV l l OP LAIN a wm roMw Fa r GGSG lµ W.13 m i• V 1 V 1 �� CHECKED : CRH Ili I I I Iln 11 \ �n NE I4�__-� MIL¢ 9) 4991- JOB NUMBER'. 251 I o \cl \ 11 Im \ I \ 0050 N9 •• wm F4 / I j ` /"1 ` pA1E'. SEPT 1015 1\ \�\ ` y4 ✓96w iG 9Am iC 99 I b I \ \. 9].m EC 44 Fe 4" 0NA�IND \\\ \ ' MbP 1E \\ I Mm YE ` wym 9].N FG l l� A\V 1V A \ M 77 FG • + 949 EG _ I A A•\\ w%iG Of GIm i EXISTING Av zy IIII v4 _- NgPz - ROCK GARDEN __ >I uN ro _A99a- O ll 1 wmro••u.lbro mw uE. 0` iV ALNv vsM Fc / I;I M]4 wt6 FG " +w.H]Y / 9&m ME S / NFQ r \ \ `y C •3 0.18 ro I6 I _ 9a Mn ro39g N Z J (n m68 R �99�s 99.15 f6� IV 'GY 0 0 O W Min E __ 9s,4 uE�4 < '/ F _ J ne J Z / H I�. 11 i Al I r A v V9vp lc 9ve urn w.aw / Z Q III,: ll� / q `..� 96 tY9>. I \ / & w95uV/ 00 0 J0 60 WUH Z 1 / / EXISTING BRIDGE - O \. <998; (� mm YE./ SCALE IN fF£i F W \ `v �� LL O 0 �` ----` \��9.\\\`�,____ \�"J '� / \ Cit-o�ort Collins, Colorado Z }O} Z O 1 ` N� __ s \,Ak /{ UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL I _ _ ,'�l, \ EXISTING o z ¢ J i ii I I i IN ___-` -___-_ 1 .kyz�— INN \ \ \ PARKING LOT APPNovEo. ¢ ¢ I I V `� . A A aM3Eca,m �o a' H N \ \ CNECI ED BY O O -III />4i _ow.gm.o��.o �.to I - ECKED Nv sm.00.o��.o woo r � EXISTING '� ' T 1� ' _ HORTICULTURE v :: 1 \\\ \ LLO \ J \\ CN ILL U � v 1 v V��v b H CENTER I I 1 v��J 1 \ � cN .�.mmo.m �o z yII/1 I CMECKED By /II IO 1 11 1\ �I SN03 IN \\\\\\ CHECKED BY e.o�omia n.�.o wm SHEET NUMBER __ a' CNECKEDBY C1.1 U �� ,I I � •� .I � , I it , III � '1 i i I 'I III 1 I I .I' lilll' I I I I li it 'I 'ii/i 11 l i , ii I I I I 1 11 I I iI I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 DEOI AND'BOARDWnu. RE. LSCAPE I If I I I 'i i l i ii I I I I I I I / r I l' 1 1 rll I I \I `, FY / -4999_—I / If 11 jl 1 , / / I I I r if r// r / r i l i "/ili r r I r l l I r l/ rf i i i i /i i i r If I I l / rl 11 I '1 1' 1111rr1 '1 1 II tJIJ';III . / 1 ` / 1 1 1 11 1 1 i 11 1 I I 'I 1 1 I I I I 1 I II 'I s I g I 1 I \I i / i 3 444444 4 /1 I r r / I I I � 1 I I / I ` r [)MGNM Br, WC DRAWN Bv, XN6 Y ■ 10 0 DO 00 SCALE IN FEET Cit-oJ:ort Collins, Colonado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPROVED'. cwE.mm mo crvECNED BY o.m m otko wo crvECNED BY smoo 0 o wo crvECNED BY T.®[Imo.m �0 crvECNED BY P e MR� Mo crvECNED BY E.O.Og IR .o Mo CHECNEo BY Mo DATE. sFPTsats O NA, INC ED Z LL Z F J >wa ¢ U' O W O J W a — J z _M� a o U Z Z_ ~ W � WOM C) CD }} 0 Z < O Q Q OHO p O z U C1.2 ___ _ _ n=\r�H t I :I• J u ; .•,��� r�=- _-'_{,•i; tl If -_ _-• <'_ !-�� _u l _�"w '•`ate ' ^_ 4Nellie, u ' 1__ - __�� I 1 '_ 1 1 \ 11 I i_ - _vl r_/• _ _ - NF / I / L `ILt I lr ,\ \ L�� • - ' Ji\ I _ 1 " . / ,._�3\I rtn l: /�`_ '\ 1 I r - , i me / _I 1 h1 II`::. _o \ 111(� aA llll\/ wom ! \ / `q ., /'`�'� I` I I . , t / ell_ ; +o t- I \.- m / ,-S, i� it i r / r / / — i i 1i�'\I \ �'_____� I% / �• If . / / / I / ._ :/_ : ^^_ _ �1 / \_ I 111/ ' 1 r /r / C`I Ili - --- ` ell--- - `� I— - l - _.'.. /\ `I —_S— ' - n+, IIII , i - - `I =i •^+ \ i / +\_+ r-:�_\i ) IS, / I _i fill '�\8 \' i ' °' (ii' -.'ti / 1 ..>"v,...•..,,,.,,° I / /,\ \\ / +n / _�- `/III' _ / l l I l '_'� _ ` _` : _ /r^ , \ 1, I /1 / 1 `- ,-�i �' ' �••�-___; •_ .\y �I,_t/ I ,. I III I• - I _.� :- I lr\'/ \ ` -\ t/ 0 1` / ! I I % /__i'^ - _-_ �i'_^`LLYYyy��%i .i`a r/Y / \ I II III\\ /; �µ\p. / ii -'11+ •_' \v ^'___- 10_ _✓ / _ ,-i, `\ ` ,: •_l1i'�____ I %.:� 41I \'� Ir \I \' N MII�1 I i i i•i n� 1 �%_ __ = = ter\\ 1 `:T1 \l\ 1\` `` _ _ c �" /l\r\`_�-...4_. 'I� \1 I /11 it 111 /� I O/ r3=-`IL`)_I / _ +,a `'='�-1..... _="' I .:\��� i /x �! / /rd- IrL_:✓ I_'• \ ` : \ I i _ ^\ __ , \III a 1\I 1 i SYvIL _ %�sac� _ -_` t_ Cl/'- p - _ \ "\ 111 l� / `I \ \ 1 J')-' • j am I Oct /6 I I / `,. -1/1rid_- 1 1 ..'' ../!_J �/\_n-• , �s//g _ P.'-_l' / / - I I ♦' _ _ ` _\ \ I III��YCCi��� r _ Y ,� , - T r%! I \\ /�% ' / \ ^^+\ 1\ r \ice } _ \ _ p3� J•i� y—1 /� 1 'S i( n 11 I I I I \ / pf , S_ LLa / / //v / , \ -s- I /, IN I \ \ 1 1 \ , �_ �s>:"___^ o R 1 I t_" %rII,C i+ 1 / a'aJ.�l �.<��r �y /l /mil � _ / J 1 i�1 \-`�W'V Y j �S-' ' C3�_3'C-:a pq�u'�m('H 4 � _ .l,-i_•''.� / Isa�� �"�' r i^ A ,,1 NJ ,dl W�emI I -ffffftm�_ Fit -I 1 r/ , vl I 1 \ � \\III I `/�NO /K�r�� 1\�o-1 I♦ I 1 (w 1> I \ IL 1 \ \ PRLPERIY LINE, iYP \ HILL POND ' FEMA 100-YEAR ROODWAY,IL lYP _ �i MI J/ I 1♦ / / __r II\ /II o ♦ _// / _ e ♦ 1-/-1i Ili illfrl R, F^ IN r I, IN •_ 1 11, 1., p I <2 1 IIII_ \jllrel ! -ZD i • J _ 1 I I III n0 `.I'!_t 5 Ill 1 III I II 1 o• �___ __ I/ / /u / i= 1 y♦_ I J � ___ � I I. 1 \ I i/ 1 If /n1 /- ID L LEGEND o (,Ni So EMSTNG SNRM DRAIN PIPE `\ - - - - - - AS9JILi (MR) FEWA 100-YR FLOOUWAY I 1 I 61 PROPOSED CONDOR I -L300- - EIOSTNC CONTOUR w 11,cc-N a HEC-RAS CROSS SECTOR � / 1 I �I 1 18809 HEC-RAS SECTM NUMBER BASE ROOD ELEVATOR CONDOR (NGWDJ U i j i ♦\ 1 GENERAL NOTES i QQQQQQ 4 I 1. ELEVATORSDATUM. PLANIFRO NEW ARE NAMD8ATIONS 1 ,1 SHOWMERTICN ALL EIEVAPOS SHOWN 10 pJll\fRi 11 OND •_ , ROM NCi B N ROM NAYD99 xROPER \ 111 1 III THIS 2 POTONS UE T115 PR0-lEA ARE LOCATED IN --\ FMALTHE 1 SPRING GREEN OO AND „ / = CMUNICI TO TIE 54FE1Y REOLATOS a p1APT:R 10 MUST CONFORM TO E OF OF CHAPTDWAY,ER 1 OF O MUNICIPAL CODE a 1 + j }. A EMA EI£VATCN CERTFICATE M0IS BE AP%10l£D PRIM 10 A RVI OF OCCUPANCY BEING ISSUED. MY DEVELOPMENT (INCLUDING FILL. 4 ANY DEVflOPMENi IN TIE RTC.) EEC) MU BEE ER AN EXCAVATIAPPROWDN, MUKAOOKLAIIN UKNG, CON USE PERMIT AND ME CONSTRUCTOR! APPROVED T AN C - I ELEVATOR CORB RCATE AT:. DESIGNED Uv: DIE j I I"1 WHICH CAN ROAD (SUCHAS TABLPLAIN S.M BIKE S ANY HillsET RAWN B BY, KRE I .) V FLOCSOME RACKS ETC.) TiRi ARE LOCATED IN TIE FLOOPLAIN MUST BE IN CHECK CHECKED BY : ORB ORB ` ANCHEREO RNA APPROVED LOUR fi. ELOODWAY UNEJULY JOB NUMBER'. &513 25. 014,REF By CA EFFECTIVE .ULY 35, z014, BY CASE N0. 1YC9-116W, pAIE'. SEPi 1015 CONDIIIOAL CASE N0. ffi MULBASE ® RA, INC i STAG)35R. ) BASE ROOD ELEVATOR (TOE) NUCLEVA _ FLOOD E RACE _ --rj FL OD TI NAVD00. PROTECTION ELEVATION _ _ ' ` IfREGULATORY96. 1NA (RfFE) = BE + If = 499fi.21 NAYDB4 NRFE) (7 J LL O (If n W u N Q N Z J U 0 W KJ_ CO 5r = Z W I I 00 0 SO 180 W U ♦- Z SCALE IN FEET F W g O Cit-o wort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPROVED. cwE.mm mo CHECHED BY m:tmeoUeno ueo CHECKEDBYsil'o oeouuno woo crvECHED By „31311mu.m nvo CHECKEDBY ,mrzm®m. mo crvECHED ByE.O .oN,DR .o I o CHECHED BY Ilo OEM I Q Ma' c) O O ul O �Q O M z U C1.3 Amemled T ReLomtlao Sod ME VERTICLL HOCK OF THE MULTI -ROW SYSTEM (12j AND INSTALLATION DEPTH SHOULD PE CHOSEN BASED ON EXISTNG COMMONS AND DESIGN CRDERN ES MUSHED IN ME ENGINEER. INSTAL MULTI-FLM IN THE CENTER OF THE TRENCH. BACI W.TERA SHOULD BE A VERY COARSE SAID. MIN. RECOMMENDER SLOPE Ix. UNDER TURF INSTALLATION L45 miI MULTI -FLOW NOTES: 1. UNDER TURF MANAGE SYSTEM MANUFACTURER TO BE MULO-ROW, TIME EWE, OR ENGINEER APPROVED EQUAL- 2, CONTRACTOR TO PROWDE MANAGE PIPE LAYOUT PUN TO ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTOR. UNDER TURF DRAINAGE SYSTEM TYPICAL DETAILS NR_ Z f VECETAPON EXTEND GONG PAID 6" AT INV OF CHASE. TAPER PAD UP TO / MEET SIDEWALK GRADE AT EDGE h 0 EXPANSION ANT, W I' RADIUS TOP SEE NOTE 2 GF / "'Am"0N ANT WC PAD SIDEWALK IF �W 6 SEE NOTE IA V— PLAN VIEW ARMBE SEE NOTE IA V— PLAN VIEW ARMBE I0•_24• 5/8' NOTES: 1. WON AS NOTED ON PLANS 2 SO UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED WIDETAPON IDIMENSIONS TO BE INCLUDED IN DETAILED CONSTRUCTOR PLANS /4 6' LONG WELDED TO ANGLE NUI SELL NEW LUTE 1/2'A' DALY OR BRATS FIAT HEAD MACHINE SCREWS IRON AT 18' OTC EACH SBEVARIABLED PATTERN VARIABLE SIM ` 0 2' GOCOUNTERSINK RUSH W/ RATE (1 2' ANCHOR BOLT MAY BE USED) (SEE CNAPi FOR MIIXNE50j 2' b_4'• a NISFICY .R S. YE NOTE T EXPANSION SECTION SIDEWALK CHASE z ME c.o L I-1/4'xl-I/4' ONILLED AND TMPED FOR I' MAWINE SCREWS 0 2' OC CONCRETE TO BE REUERED FOR SCREW PENETRATION WAIF 676' MAMA WE MESH 4000 PS DOW O 28 DAYS NEW PAVEMENT SURFACE MATCH EMST(MIN C ASPHALT AND 6' CLAM 6 ROAD BASE) IN OPEN ELM IN STREET BADMLL r RMSH GR A C E GLASS -B BEDDING MAMMAL 6' MIN UNIFORM SAW CUT UNE ASPHALT / CONCRETE MUM TO PAWNG 02' EXISTING STREET SURFACE EXISTNG BASE COURSE UNDISTURBED SOIL NEW BASE COURSE (IF REWIRED) I. IIFF+UNSTABLE MATERIALS ME FOUND IN TRENCH, DVNEXC4VATE PER SPEOFICAOONS OR AS REQUIRED. 2. TRENCH TO BE BRACED OR SEETED AS NECESSARY FOR THE SAFETY BE ME WORKERS AND ME PROTECTION OF OTHER UrIMIES. 6. MINIMUM WYA IS 16 BELOW RNISHED GRADE. STORM SEWER PIPE BEDDING - cLo CitOoEFort Collins, Colorado /4 6' LONG WELDED TO ANGLE NUI SELL NEW LUTE 1/2'A' DALY OR BRATS FIAT HEAD MACHINE SCREWS IRON AT 18' OTC EACH SBEVARIABLED PATTERN VARIABLE SIM ` 0 2' GOCOUNTERSINK RUSH W/ RATE (1 2' ANCHOR BOLT MAY BE USED) (SEE CNAPi FOR MIIXNE50j 2' b_4'• a NISFICY .R S. YE NOTE T EXPANSION SECTION SIDEWALK CHASE z ME c.o L I-1/4'xl-I/4' ONILLED AND TMPED FOR I' MAWINE SCREWS 0 2' OC CONCRETE TO BE REUERED FOR SCREW PENETRATION WAIF 676' MAMA WE MESH 4000 PS DOW O 28 DAYS NEW PAVEMENT SURFACE MATCH EMST(MIN C ASPHALT AND 6' CLAM 6 ROAD BASE) IN OPEN ELM IN STREET BADMLL r RMSH GR A C E GLASS -B BEDDING MAMMAL 6' MIN UNIFORM SAW CUT UNE ASPHALT / CONCRETE MUM TO PAWNG 02' EXISTING STREET SURFACE EXISTNG BASE COURSE UNDISTURBED SOIL NEW BASE COURSE (IF REWIRED) I. IIFF+UNSTABLE MATERIALS ME FOUND IN TRENCH, DVNEXC4VATE PER SPEOFICAOONS OR AS REQUIRED. 2. TRENCH TO BE BRACED OR SEETED AS NECESSARY FOR THE SAFETY BE ME WORKERS AND ME PROTECTION OF OTHER UrIMIES. 6. MINIMUM WYA IS 16 BELOW RNISHED GRADE. STORM SEWER PIPE BEDDING - cLo CitOoEFort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPROVED: GHEnHnO oeH CHI I3Y: w HHw�m.tamlto o H CHI I3Y: �HoaoNNm o H CHECKED BY: T,.®E.am o.H crvECKE0I3Y: P. .dRME�.. DaD CHI I3Y: E.J..D IPi,..H DaD CHI I3Y: ..e,11 o",...i E DRAWN BY: KRB E DAIS: SEPTMIS ®JVA, INC CD Z J LL p C ED Z ED w a C7U_ O K J J W 0 w 0 w O � Z Z Z Q Kw < O Z Q K O O U Z w U CD1.0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) Sedmem Conmollu„NCI., SC-: THIS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IS M BE RETAINED AND MAINTAINED ONSITE INCLUDING MAL LANDSCAPING PLANS AND ANY OTHER EROSION CONTROL DOCUMENTATION. A SOP ADMINISTRATOR ALL BE DESIGNATED BY SHE CONTRACTOR AND IS RETON96U FOR DEVELOPING. IMPLEMENTING. MAINTAINING. AND REVISING THIS SHIP. ME - ---- SOP ADMINISTRATOR IS ME CONTACT FOR All SI MP -RELATED ISSUES AMC IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS ACCURACY, SCL COMPI£TENM AND IMPLLMENTAMN. ME FOLLOMNG HAS BEEN DESIGNATED AS ME GOP ADMINISTRATOR FOR THIS PROJECT. OA -� "" NAME: I "4N CONTACT INfO ' In m y FF ME SIZE IS LOCATED AT SIA5 CENTRE AVENUE IN ME GUY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO. ME PROMISED PRO.ECT SEDIMENT rOu CON95TS OF PAVING OF SIDEWALKS, CONSTRUCTION OF A STAGE STRUCTURE, AND LANDSCAPING IN SHE CITY OF FORT e�m COLLINS. THE TOTAL SIZE AREA IS APPROXIMATELY IRS ACRES WIN AT TOT& DISTURBANCE OF 5.2 ACRES. NO m u AREAS GREATER MAN 40 ACRES SHALL BE OSTOROM AT ANY OVEN TIME. NO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES BULL ,- - OCCUR OFPSIE OR OUTSIDE OF THE CONSIRUCTON UNITS SUGAR ON ME CONSTRUCTION IF DOCUMENTS. ME SEQUENCE UP CWSTRUCTW STARTS IS AS FCLLOMS: I `/ sLCDULN ?HAX ESTIMATED ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION START MONTH, YEAR '... On . •'^ `� ROAD AND OVFRLOT GRADING MONTH, YEAR m . UTILITY CONSMUCTON MONTH, YEAR BUILDING CONSTRUCTION MONTH, YEAR u PAVING MONTH. YEAR �.rnn n-) SIZE RESTORATION MONTH, YEARa..w°...x�+.- ME EXISTING SIT: CONSIST: OF DEVELOPED LAND, NAME GRASSLAND, AND SECIETATW AND IS APPROXIMATELY 95% COVERED AM VEGETATIVE GROUND COVER. ME ESTIMATED HISTMC AND DEIFLOPED RUNDE WERRIENTS ARE DUN AND BUT RESPECTIVELY. OMER REFORM POLLUTION SOURCES SUCH AS VEHICLE FUELING STORAGE OF FERTILIZER OR CHEMICALS, MUCTE WASHING, WASTE INCINERATION. HAUL -ROADS, LOADING/ UNLOADING AREAS DO NOT EXIST AT THIS SIZE. THERE ARE NO NON-STOBMWAMR COMPONENTS OF ME DISCHARGE. SUCH AS SPItlNGS LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION RETURN ROW. BE. BEST MANAGEMENT FRACT6S FOR SRBMWATER MANAGEMENT NON STRUCTURAL (IMPS ALL BE IMPLEMENTED TO ME MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE. ME UTLIZATON OF NON STRUCTURAL BLIPS ALL BE AN ONGOING PROCESS DIRECTED AT PREVENTING ER09ON. ME NON STRUCTURAL BLIPS WILL RECEIVE CONTNUOUS EMPHASIS THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTON BECAUSE MEN AVERT PROBLEMS BEFORE THEY OCCUR AM REDUCE ME NEED POP STRUCTURAL BLIPS. NW STRUCTURAL BLIPS WILL CONSIST PRINARILT OF PRESERVATION OF EXISTING MATURE VEGETATION AND TREES PLANNING AND SCIEMLNG CONSTRUCTION AC➢MTIES AIMED AT ANEMIC ME COAL OF MINIMIZING EROSION. FURTHERMORE, CONSTRUCTION PERSONNEL MLL BE INSTRUCTED AND SUPERVISOR IN CONSTRUCTION METHODS CONSISTENT MEN EROSION PREENTON PRACTICES PLANNED STRUCTURAL BLIPS FOR ER09M AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ARE SHOM! ON ME (SPEECH AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN. IMPLEMENTING THESE MEASURES SHOULD MINIMIZE NUISANCE SILT AND SEDIMENTATION EXITING ME SIZE AND PREVENT CLOWNG EMSINC STORM SEVERS AND STREET GUTTERS. APPLICATION OF MESE CAMPS FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AGE FOR WNSTRUCTON PERIODS AND ARE CW9CERE0 TEMPORARY.. POST -DEVELOPMENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IS FRONDED MRgIGH VEGETATED LANDSCAPED AREAS. G W3SED SWAGES STORM COLLECTION SYSTEM. AND ME U ILIZAON OF ME PERMANENT WATER DUALITY POND. A STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE MLL BE PRONGED AT ME EXISTING PARKING LOT. THE CONSTRUCTION ACCESS AND PARKING MLL BE GRACED AND COVERED MM A CRUSHED STONE BAY COURSE DURING CONSTRUCTION. ME VEHICLE TUCKING CONTROL WILL BE REWCATEO MTH ME MNSTRUCTON ACCESS AS NECESSARY DUST COMM MEASURE` DISTURBED AREAS N07 YET READY TO BE SEEDED. LANDSCAPES. PAVED. OR OTHERMY STABILIZED WAIL BE WATERED. OR RIPPED AS NECESSARY TO PRECULOE MSIBLE DUST EMISSIONS. ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE IMPLEMENTED ACCORDING TO ME CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE. AS MIRK PROCEEDS IMPLEMENTATION OF INDMDU& DIPS IS M COINCIDE WIN ME CONSTRUCTION THEREBY MINIMIZING ME EXPOSURE OF UNPROTECTED AREAS. ME SILT PENCE, INLET PROTECTION (FOR EXISTING MI AND GRAVELING G ME CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE MLL BE PERFORMED MIEN ME GRADING BEGINS. ME INLET PROTECTION ALL BE INSTALLED AS ME STORM SEVER STRUCTURES ARE CONSTRUCTED. ME RIPRAP PROTECTION WILL BE INSTALLED AS ME STORM SEVER OUTALLS OR CULVERTS ARE CONSTRUCTED. ME STRUCTURAL BLIPS MAT DO NOT BECOME PART OF ME PERMANENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT RAN AGE TO BE REMOVED, AS ME PAVING. LANDSCAPING, AND OTHER PERMANENT GRGUNDCOVER INSTNUTIGNS ARE COMPLETED. PURI DUST EMISSIONS RESULTING FROM CRAGNG ACTIVITIES ANO/CR MIND SHNL BE CONTROLLED USING ME BEST AVNURI E CONTROL TECHNOLOGY AS CERNLU BY ME COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AT ME TIME OF GRADING. ME GRANUUNG IS TO BE MAINTAINED AND EXTENDED CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES ESPECIALLY AROUND ME WILDING SIZE. ME STRUCTURAL BMPS PRE TO BE REMOVED. AS ME PERMANENT LANDSCAPING INSTALLATONS PRE COMPLETED. STORMWATER DETENTION IS NOT REWIRED W THIS ME. WATER WANT MEAIMENT IS PROVED) WSITE IN WATER QUALITY ARE0. ME PROPOSED WATER OU&ITY AREA MLL BE UTILIZED AS A SEDIMENT BASIN. TEMPORARY SEEDING AND MUNING ALL SEEDS FURNISHED SHALL BE FREE MGM NOXIOUS SEEDS (SUCH AS RUSSIAN OR UNMAN THEME, COURSE FESCUE, EUROPEAN BINDWEED, JOHNSON GRASS, KNMNEED, AND LEAFY SPURGE. ME FORMULA USED FOR DETERMINING ME QUALITY OF PURE LIVE SEEN (PLS) SHALL BE (POUNDS OF SEED) X (PURITY) X (GERMINAAM) In POUNDS OF FURE LIVE SEED IRS). SEEDING RECOMMENDATIONS ME FRONDED BELOW, BUT MAY BE MODIFIED WM ME OMNER'S APPROVAL TO MAKE ME EST USE OF EXISTING CLEARINGS AND GRUMINGS SPECIES CGNW NAME VARIETY LBS/ACRE AGROPMON SMIEN1 RESEW MHEATGRASS ARIBA 8.0 ARRHENATHERUM ELATES TAIL LANAI DO LOCUM PERENNE PERENNIAL RIEGRASS PENNINE 2.0 ALL SEEDS eRI BE DRILLM NOT HYDROSEfMU ALL GSMRBEO AREAS SHALL BE FORM AND CHIMP MULCHED IF PDRMMENT VEGETATON IS NOT IMMEDIATELY INSTALLED. AFTER SEEDING HAS BEEN COMPLETED, A RAZE OF LOCO IBC. OF STRAW PER ACRE SHALL BE APPLIED UNIFORMLY, CRIMPED IN WIN A CRIMPER OR OMER APPROVED EQUIPMENT OR OTHERASE ATTACHED. A FAWNER OR JUTE NETTING TD ATTACH MULCH MAY BE USED MTH ME ONNEPS APPROVAL ME SEEDED AREA SHALL BE CRIMPED MULCHED AND ME MULCH ATTACHED MAIN TMNTY-FOUR (24) HOURS AFTER SEEDING. AREAS NOT MULCHED AND ATTACHED WMIN IMNTY-FOUR (24) HOURS AFTER SEEDING MUST BE RESEEDED MFI ME SPE09M MIX AT ME CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE PRIOR TO MULCHING AND ATTACHING. ON SLEEP SLOPES OR OMER SPECIFIED AREAS AS SHOMH W ME PLANING PUN, MACH AM DIFFICULT TO MULCH AND ATTACH BY CONVENTIONAL METHOD, BURLAP OR OMER BLANKETING MATERI&S PROPERLY ANCHORED AND SECURED MAY BE USED R EN APPROVED BY ME CITY OF FORT COLLINS ENGINFLR. NOT BE REMOVED. PERMANENT BE ESTABLISHED IN MEASURES MLL BE SPECIFIED BY MLL PERFORMED IN A DESIGNATED AREA AND STANDARD MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES, SUCH AS ME USE G DRIP PAS WILL BE USED TO CERTAIN PETROLEUM PRODUCTS ME EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MLL BE INSPECTED DAILY DURING CONSTRUCTION BY THE CONTRACTOR AND AFTER EACH MAN EVENT. ALL INSPECTIONS SHk- BE DOCUMENTED AND SHALL INCLUDE ME DAIS Of INSPECTION, MY INCIDENCE OF NON-COMPLIANCE. SIGNED CERTInCATON MAT ME SIZE IS IN COMPLIANCE, AND ANY NOTES DR RINGS. MAPS BE. PERTAINING TO REPAIRS. COPIES OF ALL DOCUMENTATION SIULL BE DISTRIBUTED TO MUNICIPAL TIES AND OMER ON A REGULAR BASIS AS SPECIFlED BY OMER. SILT PENCE AND STRAW BARE BARRIERS MLL BE CHECKED FOR UNDERMINING AND BYPASS AND REPAIRED OR EXPANDED AS NEEDED. SEDIMENT SHOWN BE REMOVED FROM INLET FILTERS AND AGENT SHALL INSPECT ALL BMPS EVERY 14 DAYS AND ARIER 9GNIRCANT PRECIPITATION OR SNONNI EVENTS. INSTALLATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS AS REWIRED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WLL BE IMPLEMENTED IMMEDIATELY AFTER NOTIFICATION. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE TEMPORARY ER09N CONTROL MEASURES AND REPAIR AREAS AS REQUIRED AFTER VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED AND ACCEPTED BY OTHER AND IMMORALITY. FINAL STABILIZATION IS REACHED MIEN ALL SOIL DISTURBING ACTNTIES AT ME 97 HAVE BEEN COMPLETED, AND UNIFORM VEGETAEE COVER HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED WM A DENSITY OF AT LEAST TOR ON PRE -DISTURBANCE LEVELS OR EWIVALLNT PERMANENT, PHYSICAL EROSION MODERN METHODS HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED. FINAL SWALZATON MLL BE ACHIEVED USING SOD. NATIVE SEEDING PERMANENT UPS. AND OMER METHODS. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FIN& STABILIZATION REGARDLESS OF ACCEPTANCE BY CANER OF ME CONTRACTOR ITEM. W4 ShillumWI Comm Lat(WL) SED\WENT CONTROL LOG 1 xrs SCL CL0 Concrele Washoet Aree(CWA) MM-1 CAA-1 CONCRETE WIPHOUT AN Netllmenl(lmval Loc d( l ) S(-2 MINI-1 CWnerete WYMaMt AtAa(C1MAL) CONCRETE WASHWT FACILITY DEML/: xrs (CD p r L F N11iL SCd Sediment Bann HlBR L. I iu i d I k IF IF 2 IF IF e Il ^S♦y R."5iST8.... In SEDIEN ITATION BASIN 5 s 56 cl.D \'chicle Tracking Control l\'I OF SM1H nFF S%F4 %chicle'Ibaking(iiwk,d ft VEHICLE TRACKING CONTROL DETAIL\ xs JT( BCd RUN lock HRH) Ruck Seck(INS) SCd ROCK SOCK DETAIL 4 In ®FIFELGer Sediment BaW(SB) SC-] IF ILL IF LIL" Cl CitOoEFort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPROVED: cnLE.L.m nen CHECKED BY: w.m Lwneft[E no DID CHECKED BY: EUIDOMooew DID CHECKED BY: Tn®E.mm DID CHECKED BY: P.F¢.�dRmmr. DID CHECKED BY: E" oA.ommi Pi...o DID CHECKED BY: B EXAM BY: KRB B DAM. GFPTMIS ®JV0.INC EJ Z J LL Z N � Q N Z a EDDU� OW_ I O = J _ ~ ~ Z Of ILL CID FULL O Z 022 Q M Of DULF OC W U FIFF W U CE1.0 Attachment 14 Gardens on Spring Creek Master Plan Major Amendment Neighborhood Meeting July 24th, 2014 1. Introductions Proposed amendment to original Master Plan 2. Overview of West Central Area Plan (WCAP) also provided: ➢ Overview of WCAP ➢ Council work session August 26th 3. Main presentation for the proposed master plan amendment: Presenters: Consultants: Craig Russell and John Beggs with Russell Mills; Ben Seeps with DLM associates in Denver Applicant: Michelle Provaznik, Director, The Gardens on Spring Creek Introductions of the vision o Building on Master Plan from 2000 o Find new solutions for growing a garden o Garden must be revenue generating o Developing remaining 5 acres with various landscapes Project goals and objectives o Welcoming and inspirational settings for events, including 1500 people for events o Create a foothills landscape that "captures regional context" o Develop Undaunted Garden—xeriscaping ➢ Storm water will grow slightly, but buffer along Spring Creek Trail will remain intact ➢ Large bike parking area ➢ Sound mitigation walls next to the stage will be nestled in trees 15-20 feet in height. ➢ More like a park setting and less like an amphitheater ➢ Themed gardens meant to be a showing/viewing area ➢ Stage structure will play off of structures already existing in the gardens, and is shaped for sound mitigation ➢ CSU Master Plan o Using shared parking with new tennis facility o Currently in the stages of proposed plans that aren't currently funded Connectivity o MAX it 216 Attachment 14 o Potential CSU shared parking garage o Bike parking off Spring Creek Trail o Shared parking across the street o Parking ratio: 1.4 people per vehicle ➢ Performances o Frequency: 6-8 Events per season, 1 every 2 weeks o Times: 6-8 PM -No music after 8pm Q: have afternoon events been planned? A: possibility o Programming: Acoustic, adult contemporary Q: Are tickets sold, to limit the number of people? A: Yes 4. Question and answer portion Q: Your sign said + or— 1500, what does this mean? A: Current calculations are based on comfort of square foot per person, so about 15 feet per person Q: Do you think people will sit on the trail, or around my house? A: Security will be on site Q: For how long? A: No answer at this point in time Q: The limit was capped before at 500, why is the cap expanding? A: Another public process is needed to accommodate something of this size. Standard will be enforced. Q: Our property values will go down if we don't have life, liberty and the use of our property. This is the city reviewing the city, and trust is gone. How will the city enforce noise? A: Decibel limits for sound levels are enforced by Neighborhood Services Code Compliance staff Q: Neighborhood Services doesn't show up now. Why will they show up then? A: They respond as they can Q: Why does the city need to be in this business? Why would you dump another problem on our neighborhood? Would you buy my house right next to all of this? None of this matters. What happens when a city blights another neighborhood? Police don't show up when called. A: That is not our intent as a city Q: Is there a limit to weddings and smaller events? K 217 Attachment 14 A: Won't be going past 8 pm. Will be within sound limits required by the City of Fort Collins in the municipal code Q: Where do you measure these lines? A: property lines with a decibel meter C: Measure of decibels: 90, which is like a diesel truck 10 m away C: The sound models proposed must be false (before sound mitigation walls) because the sound on my porch from a wedding reception this past weekend was much louder than your saying it will be. A: We will be moving away from the wedding reception venue, and more of a wedding ceremony event A: Alternative sound options when moving the stage is the same amount of decibels in an average household (50 -55 decibels) A: Grove of trees around the wall sound barriers will begin at 15 feet, stucco and transparent on top, surround the walls with Evergreen trees Q: Why are the walls so close to the houses? A: There is plenty of room between the house and the wall Q: Is topography accounted for here? A: Floodplain technology used to account for that C: The wall is an eyesore and it right up against our houses. The wall will have too much graffiti. A: Conifers will cover the wall C: Conifers need space, they will die A: What about vine covered walls? C: They take too long to grow over a wall C: You put the stage so close to the houses. Move Spring Creek Trail to move the stage away from neighborhoods A: This is the already approved framework Q: Why go back to the Master Plan when you're trying to modify Master Plan? A: We are trying to make the Master Plan a reality C: This is not implementing the Master Plan when you add 1000 people on top of the 500 originally stated in the Master Plan Q: Can the fence be moved? Q: Is revenue not decent enough for the city right now? A: We are trying to be a more self-sustaining 9 218 Attachment 14 C: If you can't support yourself, tax us more A: That is not my call Q: Increasing number of attendees... will this help your business problem? A: Admission revenues, donations, and grants Q: Where did the 1500 people come from? Why 1500 of all numbers? A: Quality acts to charge admission for, and people in the industry tell me this is the game changer number C: Chataqua in Boulder seats 1300, and this is larger than Chataqua A: I was not aware of that, I will look into that Q: Has this money already been allocated? A: No, we are in the process of getting donations Q: What is the offer? A: 2.5 million in total. Comprehensive capital campaign is in order. Building is 3 million and gardens are 2.5 million. We will raise 5.5 million and receive a $500,000 endowment Q: So this is under Bob 2 in the BFO? A: Yes, we don't have the BFO numbers for this project yet, but we proposed 2 million Q: Are you asking for additional revenue from the city? A: We will be operating and supporting ourselves Q: Is providing financial models part of the review process? A: I don't know, I will look into it Q: Will the 1500 be coming all at one time? A: All attendance numbers are tracked Q: How does Lincoln Center get involved? A: They handle getting the performers involved Q: Our neighborhood does not have a pocket park. There's no place for kids to play. What do you think Ted? A: Ted Shepard: Parks and Rec won't replicate services so close to Rolland Moore. I understand the concern, we don't have an answer. Q: Are there places around here where a playground could go? A: Currently not supporting pocket parks of the original plan in the Master Plan rd 219 Attachment 14 Q: Flood plain issue, where the stage might sit in terms of flood plain. Our neighborhood was adversely affected by the Grove by the changes in flood plain. A: We have been working with flood plain folks. Great Lawn acts as a basin for flood control Q: What's the surface of the bike parking area? Will there be bike racks? A: The bike parking area will be a permeable surface or permeable pavers. This will be permanent bike parking. Q: Concern about parking —only 66 guaranteed spots, but 1500 people coming in, is this a concern? A: Synergistic relationship between shared parking facilities, plus connections to MAX and bike parking Q: What is break down time like for performances? A: By 9:00 everyone would be gone including performers and stray folks after concerts Q: Lighting impacts? A: Small ball lighting in the ground Q: Lighting around bike parking? A: We haven't submitted anything yet Q: Will the walls impact flood plain? A: That shouldn't be an issue Q: Are there any plans for all day festival events? A: No Q: Will people begin to park on our street? A: Permits can be issued Q: Gardens of Spring Creek is a failed operation. You are not paying interest. At what point do you say this doesn't make any sense? Yes it's beautiful, but this is not botanical A: This is very botanical Q: What are all of your revenue streams? A: Charge admission, museum memberships, education programs, increasing attendance in general with 60,000 residents last year with only half the facility completed, donations, and an annual campaign. Essentially anyway a non-profit supports themselves is what we are doing I✓ 220 Attachment 14 Q: What other avenues have you explored to obtain the same objective other than an event venue? A: Other smaller options, but the Great Lawn is the fundraising magnet Q: We need this place to raise money? A: Encompassed by surrounding garden open 365 days per year which will bring in revenue as well Q: Can we stick with the original 500 as stated in the Master Plan? A: There wasn't a lot of original thought in that number. This all depends on the types of performers we are going to showcase. The types of performances we will have will have larger crowds than 500 people Q: Do they have police for trails in Boulder? A: Yes Q: I can envision trash in my yard, but your responsibility ends at your fence lane. So that's alright, but then we would have to call the police which is another responsive issue. They are slow to respond if they respond at all A: We are trying to build in regulations to avoid creep in the future Q: Timing of this and public input in front of City council ... what is this timeline? A: Public meetings will occur where all of you will be invited Q: When will ground be broken to begin this project? A: Spring of 2015 Q: Is private fundraising dependent on the whole package? A: Assumption we would have to raise 5.5 million dollars (Spring Creek representatives) Q: Is this a Type 1 review, requiring an administrative hearing officer? A: Cameron Gloss: Yes Q: Why is this Type 1? Is it listed as a Type 1 review use? A: Cameron Gloss: It's based on the original approval. Increasing number of people from the Master Plan constitutes a Type 1 hearing and major amendment. Q: When will there be further detail in the progress of the plan? A: In the coming months. Is there anything to be done to generally help with your concern? 11 221 Attachment 14 C: move the Great Lawn further away from homes C: We don't want the dense forest with no lighting near the wall Q: Has this facility seen more traffic from the Grove? A: More kids at the bus stops, many coming in to volunteer but no significant increase in traffic. Q: What do you foresee as the demographics who would be interested in this kind of music? A: Middle aged 7 222 Attachment 15 Gardens on Spring Creek Master Plan Major Amendment Neighborhood Meeting #2 September 8, 2014 Project Applicants: • Consultants: Craig Russell and John Beggs of Russell + Mills Studios • Michelle Provaznik, Gardens on Spring Creek Manager Questions and answers: Q: Question; A: Answer; C: Comment (Unless noted, answers provided are from the applicants) Q: Where does Lilac Park go? A: We're having discussions with Park Planning. We want to create an expression of a neighborhood pocket park and it would likely be more linear along the creek. Q: Won't developing Lilac Park mean more people hanging out at Lilac Park during concerts? A: There would be a separate planning and design process for Lilac Park. C: Concern was expressed that reconfiguring Lilac Park would sacrifice the wildlife corridor for the benefit of an event venue. Q: The Employment zone doesn't allow for this as a permitted use. Starting at a macro level — the amphitheater use is not permitted in the Employment zone district. Does this zone allow for an amphitheater? A: (City staff) Staff looked at the use when this question came up after the first neighborhood meeting. The current use listed on the plan is a neighborhood park. The closest appropriate use for the whole center is a Community Facility, and the amphitheater would be permitted as part of the facility. C: If it's a community facility, it has to be open to the community. This would be walled off and there would be an entrance fee — the definition of a community facility does not speak to that. Q: Concerns with ability of pedestrians to cross Center Avenue. Will there be a signal/light at grade crossing? A: Don't know yet, the City's traffic review might address this once the project is submitted for staff review. Q: Are the Gardens on Spring Creek a part of the Park Department? Is this proposal from them? A: It is a facility within the Parks Department and owned by them. it 223 Attachment 15 C: Why would Parks Department pick a small site for an amphitheater? I don't remember an amphitheater being a part of the mission/vision of the Gardens. The original approval was for 300 people, this is over 800% bigger. There are also already more than 6-8 events and they run later than 8 p.m. A: We would end the performance music at 8 p.m. and these events would be done by 8:30. Q: Will alcohol be served? A: Still undecided. May be served, cannot be sold. C: We want to see the Garden's budget, rate of return, etc. We want to see the numbers. We're worried that there will be a ton of events to make it work financially. A: We're offering to cap the performance events. C: Concern that fire truck/emergency vehicles can't get to great lawn. A: (City staff) Poudre Fire Authority will be reviewing the access if the formal submittal comes in for review. Q: The original plan projected sound away from the residents. Why does this not need to go to the Planning and Zoning Board? A: (City staff) It's based on the original approval. Because the original approval was approved by a hearing officer, the major amendment also is reviewed by a hearing officer. Q: An appeal stills goes to City Council even if it's not a Planning and Zoning Board project? A: (City staff) Yes, and appeal of a hearing officer would go to City Council, same as if the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the project. Q: How will events be counted? A: All performances would be hosted by the Gardens through the Lincoln Center, and we would be able to count and schedule the number of events. C: Concern with a multi -day event only being counted as one event. A: There would not be any multi -day performance events. Q: Will there still be wildlife corridors? A: (City staff) There is still a buffer requirement along the Spring Creek corridor and the Gardens would be required to provide an ecological study that staff will review with their formal submittal. Q: Will there be sound mitigation between the crowd and the residents? A: Yes, the sound walls are intended to buffer crowd noise and the music. (Applicant continues presentation showing where the proposed walls are located) Q: What is the size of the walls and what will they look like? N 224 Attachment 15 Craig Russell continues the presentation showing the proposed wall design and buffer landscaping. Q: How do they know there won't be more or longer events? What happens if they don't follow it? A: (City staff) They would need to incorporate notes/requirements into the plans with a much tighter approval document. The enforcement would be through City zoning. C: An event needs to be defined as one day, not multi -day. You should also include the max number of events per calendar year. A: (Applicant) All events will be ticketed and we can control the timing of the events. Q: How will security work and how far along trail will security be placed? Already concerns now, will be worse with 1,500 people dispersing. A: This could be provided by off -duty police and park rangers. It's unclear what a reasonable distance would be. Security would make sure artists end on time. C: This will be primarily foot and bike traffic, 1,500 people through the neighborhoods, concerned if people linger after an event is over. Q: Can there be additional lighting along the trail? A: There will be some additional lighting within the grounds but not more along the trail due to Parks Department policy on trail lighting. Q: How did you decide on 1,500 people for an event? A: Lincoln Center staff has advised that in order to get high quality ticketed events, this is the number to make it work. C: Need to make sure it's clear that this proposal is bigger than the Lincoln Center venue. Craig Russell continues with a presentation of the revised master plan and sound level exhibits, and an outline of the proposed event restrictions that will be in perpetuity with the project. Q: The music already seems over the allowable noise level. I can hear it in my basement. What about when you include the crowd noise? That will push the noise levels louder. A: Crowd noise is factored into the sound models. Q: In "perpetuity" in the notes, what does that mean? When can it be changed? A: (City Staff) There's no guarantee that a plan will not change and will remain the same "in perpetuity". If they proposed a change, it would need to go through a review process and new public hearing for any major change. C: More concerns were expressed about how to enforce the plan and how to enforce conditions written on the plan. 91 225 Attachment 15 Q: Would this be viable with a smaller venue (less than 1,500 people)? A: We don't think so, and the event stage is pretty common with other botanical gardens around the country. C: More concerns were expressed about the frequency of the events, and that 8 events per season could be more than 2 events per month. Concerns were expressed that 8 events seem like a lot for the surrounding neighborhoods. C: Concerns were expressed about how loud 1,500 people would be before, after and during the performance and the role alcohol would play in increasing the crowd noise. Q: How can sound walls be put into the flood plain? What would happen if it flooded like in 1997? A: The stage and lawn area is part of the flood storage zone, not the conveyance zone. Also all of the removable structures must be cabled down. Q: Why do the Gardens need to be self-sustaining? Other City services are not. A: We are currently 50% self -funded. Q: What about lowering the stage and lawn seating and putting it into a bowl? A: We have lowered it about 3 feet, but there are ground water issues with lowering it further. Q: What is the effect on noise levels if the sound wall and stage / lawn are moved further east? A: The sound model shows only a small reduction in the sounds levels if the venue is moved east. C: The property line is not the correct line where the sound levels should be measured. This should be the HOA line further east. C: Other alternatives should be explored to generate revenue other than the performance venue. Q: Will the mission / vision of the gardens be re -done? The venue seems to be a change philosophically. With no more questions, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:15 p.m. w 226 Attachment 16 II James Ct Summer 0 Hohhit St Wind TW ' _J Ly N%\\ ire South Dr "- A St L p a N N W W W.Pitkin St Colorado_State Ilniversity W Pitkin St� Ct W Lake St d a 111 '1111111111���� �111� 1..1 -11111�111��'� j 11 oil W Stuart Johnson Dr' Spring Cr ek Arthur x e E Stuart St Q Q L cc 0 >+ y O � J �n 1 liiilllilli�,l • �,,��■ Lon. CHColorado State University Centre -Ave 0 . 1• lil �� ■■ /'� Gardens on Spring Creek Major Amendment 1 •11 450 0 900 F227 eet City of Fort Collins N E I G H B 0 M E E T I N G July 10, 2014 R H 0 0 D I N V I T A T 1 0 N This letter is being sent to let you know of a potential development proposal near your property and to invite you to the neighborhood meeting, where you can learn more about the proposal. Specific information about this development proposal is to the right and on the back. We welcome and encourage your participation, as your input is an important part of the development review process. Check out our online guide explaining how you can participate in the development review process by visiting fcgov.com/CitizenReview. You may also contact me or Sarah Burnett, Neighborhood Development Review Liaison, at 970-224-6076 or sburnett@fcgov.com. Sarah is available to assist residents who have questions about the review process and how to participate. You received this notice because records from the Larimer County Assessor's Office indicate you own property near the proposed development site. Because of the lag time in recordkeeping, or because of rental situations, some neighbors may be missed. Please feel free to notify your neighbors of the neighborhood meeting so they can attend. This letter and attachments are available online at fgaov.com/ReviewA,gendas. We look forward to your participation at the neighborhood meeting. Public comment is encouraged during all phases of the review process. If you have questions at any time, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, 4QU Jason Holland, PLA City Planner City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.224.6126 jhollandgfc og v.com 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 970- 220-6750 for assistance. Esta es una notificacion sobre la reunion de su vecindario o sobre una audiencia pu'blica sobre el desarrollo o proyecto en la propiedad cerca de donde usted es el dueno de propiedad. Si usted desea que esta notificacion sea traducida al espanol sin costo alguno, favor enviar un correo electronico en espanol a la siguiente direccion electronica: titlesix@fcgov.com. DevelopmAnt RQ0 EQ#J t 17 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970-221-6760 fogov.com/DevelopmentReview MEETING TIME AND LOCATION Thursday, July 245 2014 6-8:00 p.m. Meeting will be at The Gardens on Spring Creek facility at: 2145 Centre Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80526 PROPOSAL NAME & LOCATION The Gardens on Spring Creek Master Plan -- Major Amendment 2145 Centre Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80526 (Please see location map on the back of this letter) PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION ■ Update to the Garden's master plan to create a welcoming and inspirational setting for performances and other events ■ Accommodate approximately 1500 visitors for performances with a Great Lawn and performance stage including sound barrier walls ■ Create a foothills, prairie and wetland landscape that captures and celebrates our regional context ■ Develop the Undaunted Garden in which xeriscape principles are easily translatable ZONING INFORMATION ■ Employment District (E) HELPFUL RESOURCES ■ Information About the Review Process: fcqov.com/CitizenReview 228 F=ortCity of Collins N E I G H B 0 M E E T I N G August 25, 2014 R H 0 0 D I N V I T A T 1 0 N This letter is being sent to let you know of a potential development proposal near your property and to invite you to the second neighborhood meeting for the Gardens on Spring Creek Master Plan, where you can learn more about the proposal. Specific information about this development proposal is to the right and on the back. We welcome and encourage your participation, as your input is an important part of the development review process. Check out our online guide explaining how you can participate in the development review process by visiting fcgov.com/CitizenReview. You received this notice because records from the Larimer County Assessor's Office indicate you own property near the proposed development site. Because of the lag time in recordkeeping, or because of rental situations, some neighbors may be missed. Please feel free to notify your neighbors of the neighborhood meeting so they can attend. This letter and attachments are available online at kzov.com/ReviewAgendasI We look forward to your participation at the neighborhood meeting. Public comment is encouraged during all phases of the review process. If you have questions at any time, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, D� 00 1 Jason Holland, PLA City Planner City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522 970,224,6126 iholland(a)fcgov. com 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 970- 220-6750 for assistance. Esta es una noticacion sobre la reunion de su vecindario o sobre una audiencia pciblica sobre el desarrollo o proyecto en la propiedad cerca de donde usted es el dueno de propiedad. Si usted desea que esta notificacion sea traducida al espai:ol sin costo alguno, favor enviar un correo electrdnico en espanol a la siguiente direcci6n electronica: titlesix@,fcgov.com. Attachment 18 Development Review Center 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970421w6750 t9ov.com/DevelopmentReview MEETING TIME AND LOCATION Monday, September 8, 2014 6-8:00 p.m. Meeting will be at The Gardens on Spring Creek facility at: 2145 Centre Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80526 PROPOSAL NAME & LOCATION The Gardens on Spring Creek Master Plan -- Major Amendment 2145 Centre Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80526 (Please see location map on the back of this letter) PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION • NOTE: An on -site demonstration of sound levels will be provided at the meeting. ■ Update to the Garden's master plan to create a welcoming and inspirational setting for performances and other events ■ Accommodate approximately 1500 visitors for performances with a Great Lawn and performance stage including sound barrier walls ■ Create a foothills, prairie and wetland landscape that captures and celebrates our regional context ■ Develop the Undaunted Garden in which xeriscape principles are easily translatable ZONING INFORMATION ■ Employment District (E) HELPFUL RESOURCES ■ Information About the Review Process: fc og v.com/CitizenRevlew 229 Attachment 18 South Dr a - c A O 'o w � w W Pitkin Summer St Hobbit St Wind •Tj Ja 0 L nd otiOt o RollaO 900 450 0 J N E ' Balsam Ln o QI H u aTJuniperLn t 1 Wallenberg O- - A a Pitkin Stil: Q VA Creekside. lfSite Johnson a a ❑ � m o `0 � o 0 � J c Colorado State University v tr toF O LL Ya �e, �.: oil .a film ■1Rd Gardens on Spring Creek Major Amendment 900 Feet 1 inch = 900 feet 230 City of Fort Collins September 3, 2014 RE: Additional information regarding the Gardens on Spring Creek Major Amendment Dear Resident or Property Owner: Planning, Development and Transportation Planning Services 281 North College Ave P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins. CO 80522-0580 970,221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax upcoming neighborhood meeting for the This is a follow up letter for the upcoming neighborhood meeting scheduled for Monday, September 8, starting at 6 p.m. The meeting will be at The Gardens on Spring Creek facility at 2145 Centre Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80526. An on -site demonstration of sound levels will be provided at the meeting using a mobile stage, sound equipment, and sound technicians. The mobile stage is known as the Showmobile and is owned by the City Parks Division. City staff will be at the meeting to measure sound levels in the surrounding neighborhoods. • Prior to the meeting, from 5 p.m. — 6 p.m., the Showmobile will begin playing music at a sound level and character that simulates the proposed performance venue. You may find it helpful to listen to the sound demonstration at your residence, both within and outside your home, so that you may have more information on what to expect with the proposed performance stage. More information will be provided at the meeting as to how the sound levels are simulated. • Please note that there may be intermittent sound from the Showmobile as it is set up and calibrated earlier in the day, prior to 5 p.m. The simulation will not start until 5 p.m. Meeting Agenda 6 — 6:30 p.m. Updated sketch plans of the project will be available for review and comment at the Garden's meeting room facility. 6:30 — 7:30 p.m. Residents will be invited to walk with City staff into surrounding neighborhoods to measure and record sound levels at various points within the neighborhoods. 7:30 p.m. The meeting will then reconvene at the facility for follow-up discussion. Please feel free to notify your neighbors of this and future meetings so that all may have an opportunity to attend. We look forward to your participation at this neighborhood meeting. Public comment is encouraged during all phases of the review process. If you have questions at any time, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, J 40 �, Jason Holland City Planner 970.224.6126 jhoffand(afcgov.com 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 970-220-6750 for assistance. Esta es una noticacibn sobre la reunion de su vecindario o sobre una audiencia ptiblica sobre el desarrollo o proyecto en la propiedad cerca de donde usted es el dueno de propiedad. Si usted desea que esta noticacion sea traducida al espanol sin costo alguno, favor enviar un correo electronico en espanol a la siguiente direccion electronica: titlesix@jcgov,com. 231 • South Dr a' c O � W W. Pitkin St C James I I I I OEM NO _ME : Dr. Wind-Ti J L— n 07 Site III J(WA nrr IN Pond Its gton . C/, I�o�i' / Colorado State University 900 450 0 l N 16 O- 9 Gardens on Spring Creek Major Amendment 900 Feet HO N �� I In St Buckeye_St E Cake St W Stuart St 1 E nson 1 inch = 900 feet Di h - �N E Drake Rd 232 Gardens on Spring Creek Sound Demonstration Notes Page 1 of 2 U) U) 7D L U) U) 'ol° u Legend a Paved Major Trail ❑ Paved Minor Trail Water Parks Decibel MeasurLIt Location "' Area Enlargement 0 50100 200 300 400 Feet Hobbit St .. E /wl ropx rlmlwlr N ��IIII� i morn wjml Rolm M —1 Birky PI IF I �! 'M % � 1 • Al- Sheely Dr Ulm IdaOR &I&a Is I a Native P 11, ■ Rolland Moore Dr (XA tin dyl I _ b p.m 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 50 Gardens on Spring Creek; 1 1 1 1 1 /eej--pa�2 0W ay g° 71p 4 233 r-------------------------------- ----------------- Gardens on Spring Creek Sound-------------- Demonstration ; Spring Creek Trail Notes I Page 2 of 2 5 Note: Sound +Ma kO'Conno measurements shown +5 -60 taken from 5:15 to 5:30 1 1 Blu Grass 1 1 1 I I I I I I +6 -63 1 1 Blu Grass 1 44 + 1 Gilgalad Way Blue Travelers I I I I I 51 57 I Mar O'Connor 55 58 - +Blue rass 1 +555 591ers 1 I +4 -50 I Legend N I Paved Major Trail I Paved Minor Trail Water � Trail Spur Parks i Decibel Measurement Location I I I 0 1020 40 60 80 Feet- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I .1 ........ wA i ----------------------- Gardens on Spring Creek /----------, 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 23 - J ORDINANCE NO. 0822 2015 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE LAND USE CODE WITH REGARD TO CITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WHEREAS, currently the Land Use Code provides that City development projects must go through the same process and analysis as any other project subject to the Land Use Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that although such City projects should be reviewed under the full terms and conditions of the Land Use Code, all such reviews should be conducted by the Planning and Zoning Board, and there should be no right of quasi-judicial appeal to the City Council of any final decision regarding such City projects; and WHEREAS, the City Council has further determined that in substitution of right of quasi- judicial appeal, the City Council in its legislative function should, by majority vote, have the power to overturn or modify any final decision regarding such City project; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City that the Land Use Code be amended accordingly. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 2.2.12 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.2.12 Step 12: Appeals/Alternate Review (A) Appeals. Appeals of any final decision of a decision maker under this Code shall be only in accordance with Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code, unless oth- erwise provided in Divisions 2.3 through 2.11 and 2.15 of this Code. (B) Alternate Review. Despite the foregoing, if the City is the applicant for a development project, there shall be no appeal of any final decision regarding such development project to the City Council. In substitution of an appeal of a development project for which the City is the applicant, the City Council may, by majority vote, as an exercise of its legislative power and in its sole discretion, overturn or modify any final decision regarding such project, by ordinance of the City Council. Any Councilmember may request that the City Council initiate this exercise of legislative power but only if such request is made in writing to the City Clerk within fourteen (14) days of the date of the final decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. City Council shall conduct a hearing prior to the adoption of the ordinance in order to hear public testimony and receive and consider any other public input received by the City Council (whether at or before the hearing) and shall conduct its hearing in the manner customarily employed by the Council for the consideration of legislative matters. When evaluating City projects F -1- 235 under alternate review, the City Council may, in its legislative discretion, consider factors in addition to or in substitution of the standards of this Land Use Code. Section 2. That Article 2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new Division 2.17 which reads in its entirety as follows: Division 2.17 City Projects Development projects for which the City is the applicant shall be processed in the manner described in this Land Use Code, as applicable, but shall be subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board in all instances, despite the fact that certain uses would otherwise have been subject to administrative review. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 7th day of July, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 21st day of July, A.D. 2015. ATTEST: City Clerk aar SEAL :V,uy.,I Passed and adopted on final reading on the 21st day of July, A.D. 2015, ATTEST: City Clerk �J6 1:ORT•eo •l LO one Cis :z -2- 236 N N M Ln r--1 La1 F15w .a NUt w TJ � w.. aoffm wni I LEA ,1 r�atwea ew Vie �S �HIM bK TprK y Oo GblN lixt WiW TwwPmnbm•Jerw 'S1 swm wwm cooem �Amr9+^w.m rov.l. blpae mllmM law axn ,1 ... I. �.. ... ... ' ., .... .. ... ,................... ...I�..,i. C. '\ m tA�amer mle� man rw ar Nvs \ O RMESOMAN Denis NOTE- PHASE ONE CONSTRUCTION IS REPRESENTED IN BLACK. ALL FUTURE PHASED ITEMS APPEAR IN GREY. NO ORDER FOR FUTURE CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. START OF NEXT PHASE OF CONSTRUCTION NOT OENTFED. 10 [ZJI noaa+o.Avl 12 sw M �...... b... .. �..� a<PA,ED eA.�na� 2. OWNER Wlness oar hands and seals this day o[1f49�d A.D. 2003 CITY MA GER 240 EAST MOUNTAIN AVENUE By /,(J FORT COLLINS. COLORADO r,,a. Lz c,.-- �yp'"-LyICily Manager. City f Fort Ihms. 8052A STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss. TEL 970 484 8073 COUNTY OF LARIMER ) FAX 970 484 8158 The foregoing instrument was acknoMedged before me this_i/ day of A.D.. 200 S by,IBHN-TISCNBABH, City M ager, Cty o✓Fort Cdlins. DtyyG Sml4l0tPix"I Witness by hand and official oseal. My commission expires^ VMESA a.Ir �3Lmiw- T" Notary Public _ PLANNING CERTIFICATE AKROWD BY 111E Bill 6 6111E aiY 6 FMT Ca1N5. C6MADa M MSDAY 6 ��� �L� .Yn ma's.+..` —a- 9-9 pip.... C1M 6 RYNNG /' BAR City of Fort Collins Center for Advanced Technologies 22nd Filing ,Community Horticultural I Center" PDP, #53-85AV REV. COMMENT DATE ttrt � /• e' SEALA to kv 0 25 50 100 N DATE- JANUARY 10, 2003 JOB NO, 7f082.20 DRAWN BY- CR. DS, DT CHECKED BY• GAH DRAWING TITLE - SITE �1 PLAN 'V SHEET NO, CS101 UAW NC. ALL ROR3 RESERVED C-153 2342 237 Project Development Plan - Community Horticulture Center Statement of Planning Objectives 11/9/00 1. Applicable City Plan Principles and Policies a. LU-1.1: Compact urban growth. The project is centrally located in Fort Collins, within an infill area, and contiguous with existing vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic routes. b. CAD-2.1: Functional, attractive, safe, and comfortable civic buildings and grounds. As a civic facility, the Community Horticulture Center (CHC) will be located in a central and highly visible location. The architectural quality of the building and grounds will express permanence and importance. A primary objective for the design and the programming of the CHC will be to reflect and interpret our local heritage, and through that create a sense of community identity. The project will be adjacent to the existing Spring Creek bike trail, and within easy walking distance of the Mason Street Transit Corridor. The safety and comfort of our visitors will be strongly addressed. c. CAD-5.2: Education and awareness of our local heritage. Throughout our design and the development of our programming, we will be looking for opportunities to create a local "sense of place", and to educate our visitors about Fort Collins history, particularly related to horticulture (for example, sour cherry orchards and lilacs), agriculture (such as with irrigation ditches), climate, and soils. d. CAD-6.2: Cultural development and participation. In addition to serving as a recreational and educational facility, the CHC will also provide cultural services as a venue for art shows, small concerts, and other art - related programs. e. ENV-2: Protect environmental resources. The foremost mission of the CHC will be to demonstrate sustainable horticulture, including water -conserving landscaping, backyard wildlife habitat, use of native plants, "organic" gardening techniques, composting, and alternatives to fossil fuel requiring maintenance practices. f. ENV-4: Encouraging energy efficiency and use of renewable energy. The CHC building will be a state-of-the-art facility demonstrating the use of solar energy, energy efficiency and "green" construction. It will serve as a public demonstration site with educational programming to extend its impact. g. ENV-5.1: Protection and enhancement of ecosystems. The restoration of 5 acres of the Spring Creek corridor will be a major element of our site development. It will include extensive re -grading of the area to approximate a 238 more naturalistic cross-section, wetlands will be added, and the entire area will be replanted with appropriate native plants. h. ENV-7.3:. Minimize flood damage. The site grading will result in the creation of an additional - 20 acre feet of stormwater detention along Spring Creek, a high priority of the city's Stormwater Utility, I. ENV-7.5: Flood education. One element of our programming will be the interpretation of the Spring Creek 1997 flood, and associated education. j. ENV-7.6: Educational programs on stormwater quality. The proposed development includes a boardwalk path along Spring Creek and over the created wetlands, to serve as an outdoor laboratory for environmental education. k. NOL-1.3: Public opportunities for educational and recreational opportunities related to natural features. This project will create numerous opportunities to learn about and enjoy Spring Creek, 1, NOL-3: Balancing opportunities for passive and active recreation within city's parks and natural areas. This project will provide the opportunity for both active (athletic and play activities in the neighborhood park, and participatory gardening at the CHC) and passive (strolling the grounds, relaxing on a bench, listening to a concert, etc.) recreation. in. GM-4. l: City commitment to providing capital facilities. As one of the projects in the Building Community Choices capital improvement plan, the CHC will help meet the needs and desires of our growing community. n. RD-5.2: Neighborhood parks in residential districts. This project includes the development of a several acre neighborhood park, within easy walking and biking distance of the residential areas to the west. It will have an unprogrammed multi -use turf area, a picnic shelter, benches, and gardens. o. ED-1: Appropriate development within an Employment District. The CHC and neighborhood park represent an appropriate addition to this Employment District, as it will provide recreational/educational/cultural opportunities, it will have an attractive appearance, and will be designed to encourage bicycle, pedestrian, and transit access. 2 239 p. WC- 1.1 and 1.2: Functions of water corridors and protection of natural resources. This development will not only preserve, but it will enhance, the functions of Spring Creek for drainage (floodwater detention will be increased), recreation, habitat conservation, and wildlife movement. q. WC-2.1: Appropriate placement of recreational trails. This development includes the re-routing of the Spring Creek bike trail along the creek, in a manner that minimizes habitat impact and maximizes human enjoyment. r. WC-2.3: Connections between water corridors, open lands, and trails. The restoration of Spring Creek through our site will serve as a critical component of the entire Spring Creek corridor, hopefully inspiring further restoration along its length. The bike trail along the corridor and through our site provides a great opportunity for people to experience the beauty of this area. 2. Description of proposed open space, buffering, landscaping, circulation, transition areas, wetlands and natural areas on site and in the general vicinity of the project: Ecologists assessing the Spring Creek corridor through our site have determined that it currently has little natural resource value in the way of native vegetation or wildlife. The water course is lined with one large cottonwood, several non-native crack willows, and about a dozen invasive Russian olives. The adjacent fields have been leveled right up to the banks, for the purpose of flood irrigation, and are vegetated primarily with alfalfa, weeds, and non-native grasses. This corridor does, however, have great potential for restoration. In order to improve the natural resource value and to create much -needed floodwater detention, our proposed grading includes extensive pulling back of the top several feet of the existing banks (leaving the existing channel and bottom 2 feet of embankment as is) to create a more naturalistic two-year floodplain with meandering high water channels and wetland areas within it. The existing trees within the corridor will be preserved, other than the Russian olives and the smaller crack willow (Salix fragilis). The corridor will be replanted extensively with appropriate wetland, riparian, and upland native plants, including trees, shrubs, fortis, sedges, rushes, and grasses. This area of native plantings will be for the entire 100 feet width of the CHC property on the north side of the creek. On the south side, the native plantings will vary between 60 feet (for a portion of the neighborhood park area) and 200 feet (in the area of the Habitat Garden), with an average of over 100 feet. These plantings will consist of native trees, shrubs, forbs, and unmowed grasses. A portion of the south side of the corridor will be accessible by an informal path and boardwalks for the purpose of environmental education. Interpretive signage in this area will be kept to a minimum. The restoration work will be done with the assistance of riparian naturalists and restoration hydrologists. This area will be maintained with a naturalistic approach, with an example being that the grasses will not be mowed. The bike trail will be located 3 240 on the south side of Spring Creek with a meandering route that varies between 60 and 130 feet from the creek. Section 3.4.1D of the Land Use Code deals with natural feature buffer zones, and subsection (2) states that "no disturbance shall occur within any buffer zone .... except as provided in subsection (c)." Subsection (c) states that "the decision maker may allow disturbance or construction activity within the buffer zone for the following limited purposes: ", and goes on to list six situations. We feel that our proposed development meets the second and fourth situations due to the environmental improvements to this previously disturbed area and due to the creation of stormwater detention as a "utility installation". The second and fourth exceptions read as follows: "2. restoration of previously disturbed or degraded areas or planned enhancement projects to benefit the natural area or feature" and 114. utility installations when such activities and installations cannot reasonably be located outside the buffer zone or other nearby areas of development". We have met with the Natural Resources staff on several occasions over the past 6 months, and have received their tentative approval of this concept. The Natural Resources staff has also tentatively determined that it will provide financial assistance to this project, to be used for the restoration of the Spring Creek corridor. We have also given presentations to the natural areas committee of the Natural Resources Advisory Board and the full Natural Resources Advisory Board. The committee and the full board were supportive of the project as a whole, and with our proposed development along Spring Creek, with the proviso that several specific concerns be addressed. The proposed development indicated in this Project Development Plan submittal does address those concerns. 3. Statement of proposed ownership and maintenance of public and private open space areas. The Community Horticulture Center and the neighborhood park will be owned and maintained by the City of Fort Collins. No future change is foreseen in the ownership and maintenance. 4. Estimate of number of employees. The Community Horticulture Center will initially be staffed with four full-time, several part-time employees, and possibly an intern. We will also rely heavily on the assistance of volunteers for the operation and maintenance of the facility and grounds. At any point in time, this could vary between no volunteers and 10 or 15 volunteers. As additional gardens are built and more maintenance is required, the number of paid staff will increase. When the project is completed, we estimate that there would be ten full- time and part-time staff during the growing season. 241 5. Description of rationale behind the assumptions and choices made by the applicant. The only design -related decision that might not be self-evident, and that varies from what might be expected by City staff or directed by City Plan, has to do with the location of our parking lot. The parking lot was originally proposed to be in the southwestern corner of our site due to our believing that, with the information we had at that time, that location was the most cost-effective, the most practical in terms of site layout and flow, the safest for traffic, the least impact to flood detention volumes, and the most consistent with City Plan objectives. However, as described in #8 below, the Windtrail neighborhood to the west of our site was strongly opposed to that location, for several reasons. As a result of that vocal resistance, we re -assessed our options for the parking lot location, including a further contact with Eric Bracke, City traffic engineer. Because of the circumstances, he stated that he would allow our parking lot access to be directly across from the Natural Resources Research Center's north entrance, rather than the previously stipulated 315 feet north of that entrance. This allowed us to avoid a very large amount of filling within the floodway, thereby eliminating a major disadvantage (and possible "fatal flaw") of the previous design for this parking lot location. Allowing the parking lot access at this point also eliminated other drawbacks previously identified with locating the parking lot along Centre Avenue, and even created some additional benefits, most notably allowing us to have a staff parking lot and service access on the "back side" of our building. This was a feature that was not possible with the parking lot as previously considered. In re -assessing the pros and cons of the two options and in wanting to meet the neighborhood's request, we determined that the location alongside Centre Avenue was best. Therefore, that is what we are now proposing, as seen in our attached plans. This is in a more visible location than what might be preferred by City Plan. However, this best meets the concerns of the neighborhood, and has received their strong support (see attached). It also, we feel, results in a better overall project for the community. The view of the parking lot from Centre Avenue will be mitigated as much as possible with screening from trees and shrubs. 6. Evidence of successful completion of the applicable criteria. Not applicable 7. Narrative description of how conflicts between land uses or disturbances to wetlands or natural areas are being avoided or mitigated. The net effect of our project will be a greater amount and improved quality of wildlife habitat on our site, as compared with its current condition. However, before it can be improved with a vast amount of replanting, we will have to do a considerable amount of earthwork that will be intially disruptive. With all of this earthwork, we will need to provide appropriate measures to protect Spring Creek, certain trees, and any existing 47 242 animal shelters/habitat that are deemed important, such as fox dens. Protective measures will include: construction documents that clearly and explicitly state areas requiring special care (with stiff penalties for violation); orange plastic fencing to protect trees to be saved and any important animal habitat areas; silt fencing along the border of Spring Creek; and close construction observation/supervision. 8. Narrative addressing each concern/issue raised at the neighborhood meetings: During the course of our extensive public outreach, strong support was expressed for the project as a whole and for having it located on the intended site. There was not a single opinion expressed against the project itself or our location. During the five neighborhood meetings and about a dozen phone conversations and E-mails, however, about 26 people expressed some concern (ranging from mild to strong) about a particular aspect(s) of our proposed development. The following narrative relates the nature of those concerns and how we have addressed them. One minor concern expressed by one individual had to do with the proposed location of our compost bins. He was concerned that the compost would result in offensive odors that could be smelled from his residence. This concern was addressed by moving the compost bin location about 100 feet further away (so that it is now at least 300 feet from his property), in addition to assuring him that a well -tended compost bin produces very little odor, certainly nothing that could be detected from that distance. We also encouraged him to contact us in the future if he was able to smell it, and convinced him that we would then take further corrective actions. Beyond that minor concern, all other concerns that were expressed boiled down to two issues, one regarding the initially -proposed location of the parking lot and the second regarding our serving as a venue for concerts or wedding receptions. Between these two issues the most concern, both in terms of number of people and strength of opposition, was regarding the parking lot. The parking lot was originally proposed to be in the southwest corner of our site due to our believing that location was the most cost-effective, the most practical in terms of site layout and flow, the safest for traffic, the least impactful to flood detention volumes, and the most consistent with City Plan objectives. The specific concem(s) about the parking lot varied between people, but in all cases it was some combination of: excessive noise, visual unsightliness, annoying lighting, harmful traffic exhaust, and safety risk for the neighborhood children. They all expressed that the parking lot should be located along Centre Avenue, rather than along our southwest corner. We felt that many of their concerns were based at least somewhat on inaccurate assumptions (for example, we are not proposing that the parking lot lights be on after 10:00 p.m.) and that we could mitigate some of the issues (such as with a sound wall and trees for visual and sound buffer), but our justifications and proposed mitigations were not adequate to satisfy their concerns. We therefore re -assessed our options, the result of which is now proposing that the parking lot be located along Centre Avenue, as requested by the neighbors. They are happy with this decision (see attached letter), and we and the neighbors consider that issue resolved. I 243 The second issue of concern, as expressed by about 12 people, has to do with our proposed use of our site as a venue for small concerts, wedding receptions, special events, etc. In order to provide a highly -demanded service to the community, and to provide some earned revenue for our facility, we would like to be able to rent out our meeting room, the adjoining patio area, and the Great Lawn (see our Landscape Plan) for these type of events. Associated with these events, there would be live music or amplified recorded music, and possibly the serving of alcohol. These people's specific concerns related to these events were/are: (1) noise, (2) spillover parking in their neighborhood, and (3) drunken behavior from alcohol served at the events. The first order of addressing these concerns has been with clarification. Many of the people expressing concern have had an inaccurate perception that we are proposing very loud concerts with a thousand or more people, similar to the CSU Lagoon Concert Series. In fact, we are envisioning much more subdued music and much smaller audiences, comparable to the Lincoln Center's summer "Nooner" series with minimally amplified music and about 300 people attending. Controlling the number of people attending is a key issue, as that relates to both the noise level and the risk of people not finding convenient parking and resorting to looking for it in the adjoining neighborhood. We can control the number of attendees in several ways, including through strict limitations in our contracts with the groups that rent our facility, through limiting the number of tickets sold, and through the fact that our site will be secured with fencing and a single entrance. We will make sure ahead of time that there is adequate parking for the maximum number attending, through a combination of our parking lot, the Natural Resources Research Center parking lot across the street (we are in -the process of obtaining a signed Memorandum of Understanding), and/or possibly the vacant field to the south of Rolland Moore Drive, owned by CSURF. Any remaining risk of people trying to park in the adjacent neighborhood should be eliminated by the fact that our parking lot location and entrance is now along Centre Avenue (rather than the previously -proposed parking location and entrance that were closer to the neighborhood), in addition to signage and parking enforcement, if needed. We have recognized all along that the noise level of any event, whether from people or music, is a critical one. We also understand that the nearest homes are relatively close to the Great Lawn, and that sound travels more readily in this creek basin, for geographic and climatological reasons. To begin with, we re -oriented the gazebo/bandstand so that sound would be projected away from the residential neighborhoods to the west and northwest. Since June we have been performing tests and gathering information on this issue. We have sought the input of Rich Kopp, who enforces the city's noise ordinance, on several occasions. We also hired Balloffet and Associates to perform a very detailed scientific analysis of the existing noise levels at the site. Their opinion is that, with reasonable precautions, it will be possible to have amplified music and other activities on 7 244 the Great Lawn, that meets both the desires of attendees and the city's noise ordinance levels. The time of day and frequency of these events is also a key issue. We have informed the neighbors that we do not intend to have any event last past 10:00 p.m., and in most cases they would not go past dusk. Events would most likely be limited to Friday and Saturdays during the summer. The serving of alcohol is quite common for social events at botanic gardens. Alcoholic drinks are also permissible for adults attending events at the Senior Center and the Lincoln Center. Both facilities consider the option of serving alcohol to be essential for the rental market that they serve, and they report negligible problems associated with it. We do not want to short change our revenue -earning potential by limiting ourselves at the outset. We also feel that we can adequately establish, control and enforce limitations on the consumption of alcohol during events at our facility. Furthermore, if problems develop, they can be resolved, as we do not need to view any particular policy as "written in stone". That is particularly true for a public facility that is held to a higher standard and subject to citizen oversight and review. Thus far, we have not been able to alleviate all of the concerns of the neighbors related to the holding of small concerts and other events. Our intent for the further resolution of these issues --the noise levels, time of day, frequency, number of people attending, and the serving of alcohol --is to continue researching and discussing them with the neighborhood. When we are further along in our planning, for example, we would be happy to conduct sound demonstrations for the neighbors so they will know what, exactly, we are proposing in terms of noise level. We feel that we do not have to have these programming issues firmly resolved in order to obtain approval of this project, given that none of these issues impact our physical design. Even if we thought that we would never hold a concert on the grounds, we would still intend to have the Great Lawn and gazebo/bandshell, for the benefit of other social events without amplified music. Furthermore, the construction of the Great Lawn and gazebo/bandshell is not anticipated to be part of phase one, and will likely be several years into the future, pending private fundraising. We feel that there is ample time to discuss these issues further, and a process set up for doing so, in parallel to the construction of the project so that it is not held up. 9. Current and past names of the project, as submitted for conceptual review: This project has solely been referred to as the Community Horticulture Center, throughout its 14 year history of being envisioned and planned. 0 245 City of Fort Collins STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. MEETING DATE 12/05/01 STAFF Steve Olt HEARING OFFICER PROJECT. Centre for Advanced Technology, 22"d Filing, Community Horticulture Center - Project Development Plan - #53-85AV APPLICANT. City of Fort Collins c/o Jim Clark 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO. 80524 OWNER. City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO. 80524 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a (public) community horticulture center and public park on approximately 18 acres located on the west side of Centre Avenue, east of the Windtrail residential neighborhood, south of Spring Creek, and north of the proposed Rolland Moore Drive street extension. The facility will include one main conservatory building, two accessory outbuildings, a parking lot for approximately 75 vehicles, gazebo and bandstand, gardens, bicycle/pedestrian trails, and a small (1 to 2 acres) neighborhood park. The property is in the E — Employment Zoning District. RECOMMENDATION. Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. This PDP complies with the applicable requirements of the Land Use Code LUC , more specifically: the process located in Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of ARTICLE 2 - ADMINISTRATION; standards located in Division 3.2 - Site Planning and Design Standards, Division 3.3 — Engineering Standards, Division 3.4 — Environmental, Natural Area, Recreational and Cultural Resource COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-05802:4�9) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT C.A.T., 22"d Filing, Community Horticulture Center - #53-85AV December 5, 2001 Administrative Hearing Page 2 Project Development Plan, Protection Standards, and Division 3.5 - Building Standards of ARTICLE 3 = GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; and the proposed use of a community horticulture center, being a public facility, is permitted in Division 4.22 Employment District (E) of ARTICLE 4 — DISTRICTS, subject to an administrative review. The proposed use of a neighborhood park is permitted in the E District, subject to a building permit review. Public facilities are permitted in the E — Employment Zoning District, subject to administrative (Type 1) review. Neighborhood parks are permitted in the E District, subject to a building permit review. The purpose of the E District is: Intended to provide locations for a variety of workplaces including light industrial uses, research and development activities, offices and institutions. This District also is intended to accommodate secondary uses that complement or support the primary workplace uses, such as hotels, restaurants, convenience shopping, child care and housing. Additionally, the Employment District is intended to encourage the development of planned office and business parks; to promote excellence in the design and construction of buildings, outdoor spaces, transportation facilities and streetscapes; to direct the development of workplaces consistent with the availability of public facilities and services; and to continue the vitality and quality of life in adjacent residential neighborhoods. This proposal complies with the purpose of the E District as it is a public community horticulture center and small neighborhood park, with a community. wide emphasis and intended service. COMMENTS. 1. Background The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: E; undeveloped land (Centre for Advanced Technology) S: E; undeveloped land (Centre for Advanced Technology) E: E; existing office uses (NRRC) W: RL; existing residential (Windtrail) 247 C.A.T., 22"d Filing, Community Horticulture Center - Project Development Plan, #53-85AV December 5, 2001 Administrative Hearing Page 3 The property was annexed in September, 1965 as part of the Fourth College Annexation. The property is part of the Center for Advanced Technology Overall Development Plan that was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board in September, 1983 for recreational uses. The property has not been previously platted or planned. 2. Division 4.22 of the Land Use Code, Employment Zone District The proposed community horticulture center, a public facility, is permitted in the E — Employment Zoning District, subject to administrative (Type 1) review. The proposed neighborhood park, being an integral part of the facility, is permitted in the E District, subject to a building permit review. This proposal complies with the purpose of the E District as it is a public community horticulture center and small neighborhood park, with a community -wide emphasis and intended service. 3. Article 3 of the Land Use Code — General Development Standards The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable General Development Standards as follows: A. Division 3.2, Site Planning and Design Standards 1. Section 3.2.1, Landscaping and Tree Protection a. The proposal complies with Section 3.2.1(D)(1)(c) in that it provides "full tree stocking" within 50' of the main conservatory building, according to the standards set forth in this section. b. The proposal complies with Section 3.2.1(D)(2)(a) in that canopy shade (street) trees are provided at a 40' spacing in the parkways along Centre Avenue and Rolland Moore Drive. c. The proposal complies with Section 3.2.1(D)(3) in that no one species of the proposed new trees on the development plan exceeds 15% of the total trees on -site. MR C.A.T., 22"d Filing, Community Horticulture Center - Project Development Plan, #53-85AV December 5, 2001 Administrative Hearing Page 4 d. The proposal complies with Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(a) in that trees are provided at a ratio of at least 1 tree per 25 lineal feet along Centre Avenue adjacent to the parking lot. e. The proposal complies with Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(b) in that the on - site parking area will be screened from Centre Avenue to the east with deciduous and evergreen trees and shrub plantings that will block at least 75% of the vehicle headlights and extend along at least 70% of the street frontage along the parking area. f. The proposal complies with Section 3.2.1(E)(5) in that it provides at least 6% interior landscaping in the parking areas, satisfying the minimum requirement. 2. Section 3.2.2, Access, Circulation and Parking a. The proposal complies with Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(a) in that it provides secure and conveniently located bicycle parking in the amount of 20% of the total number of automobile parking spaces on -site, satisfying the minimum requirement of 5%. b. The proposal complies with Section 3.2.2(C)(5) in that it provides direct, safe, and continuous walkways and bicycle connections to major pedestrian and bicycle destinations in the surrounding area. c. The proposal complies with Section 3.2.2(D) in that it provides for safe, convenient, and efficient bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicular movement to and through the site. Vehicular access will occur via a curb cut from Centre Avenue to the public parking area and a curb cut from Rolland Moore Drive to the maintenance area only. B. Division 3.3, Engineering Standards 1. Section 3.3.1, Plat Standards The proposal complies with the general plat requirements as set forth in this section. 249 C.A.T., 22"d Filing, Community Horticulture Center - Project Development Plan, #53-85AV December 5, 2001 Administrative Hearing Page 5 2. Section 3.3.5, Engineering Design Standards The proposal complies with the design standards, requirements, and specifications for the services as set forth in this section. D. Division 3.4, Environmental, Natural Area, Recreational and Cultural Resource Protection Standards 1. Section 3.4.1, Natural Habitats and Features The proposed community horticulture center PDP provides for adequate setbacks and buffer zones between the proposed development and Spring Creek. 2. Section 3.4.8, Parks and Trails The proposal complies with Section 3.4.8(B) in that it provides for trails within the development plan, connecting to off -site trails in the area, and incorporates a small neighborhood park in conformance with the City's adopted West Central Neighborhood Plan. Co Division 3.5, Building Standards 1. Section 3.5.1, Building and Project Compatibility The proposed community horticulture center and neighborhood park contains a total of 4 buildings. They include the main conservatory building, a gazebo/bandstand, a hoop house, and a pump house. The buildings are somewhat internal to the site and relate to the horticulture center activities. They are unique to the specific community horticulture center theme. 2. Section 3.5.3, Mixed Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings The proposed public buildings in this community horticulture center and neighborhood park are situated internal to the site and relate to the various activities within the facility. The main conservatory building meets the "build -to" line standards because it provides a courtyard/plaza and gardens between the building and the public sidewalks on Centre Avenue and Rolland Moore Drive. This 250 C.A.T., 22"d Filing, #53-85AV December 5, 2001 Page 6 Community Horticulture Center - Project Development Plan, Administrative Hearing satisfies the permitted exception as set forth in Section 3.5.3(B)(2)(d)1 of the Land Use Code. 4, Neighborhood Information Meeting The C.A.T., 22"d Filing, Community Horticulture Center, PDP contains proposed land uses that are permitted as Building Permit and Type I uses, subject to an administrative review. The proposed uses are a public community horticulture center and a neighborhood park. The LUC does not require that a neighborhood meeting be held for a Type I development proposal and a City -facilitated neighborhood meeting was not held to discuss this proposal. FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS After reviewing the Centre for Advanced Technology, 22Id Filing, Community Horticulture Center - Project Development Plan - #53-85AV, staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: 1. The proposed land uses are permitted in the E — Employment Zone District. 2, The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable General Development Standards contained in Article 3 of the Land Use Code. 3. The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable Land Use and Development Standards contained in Article 4, Division 4.22 of the Land Use Code. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Centre for Advanced Technology, 22"d Filing, Community Horticulture Center - Project Development Plan - #53-85AV. 251 City of Fort Collins Commu. .y Planning and Environmental rvices Current Planning CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER TYPE 1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DATE: PROJECT NAME: APPLICANT, OWNER: HEARING OFFICER, December 5, 2001 Centre for Advanced Technology, 22Id Filing, Community Horticulture Center - Project Development Plan - #53-85AV City of Fort Collins c/o Jim Clark 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Linda Michow, Esq. Gorsuch Kirgis LLP Tower 1, Suite 1000 1515 Arapahoe Street Denver, Colorado 80202 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A project development plan (PDP) to construct a public horticultural center and public park on approximately 18 acres located on the west side of Centre Avenue, east of the Windtrail residential neighborhood, south of Spring Creek, and north of the proposed Rolland Moore Drive street extension. The PDP proposes one main conservatory building, two accessory outbuildings, a parking lot for approximately 75 vehicles, gazebo and bandstand, gardens, bicycle/pedestrian trails, and a small (1 to 2 acres) neighborhood park. SUMMARY OF HEARING OFFICER DECISION: Approval. ZONE DISTRICT: E — Employment Zoning District. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING: Testimony presented reflects that proper notice was given and that City staff conducted several neighborhood meetings prior to the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING: The Hearing Officer, presiding pursuant to the Fort Collins Land Use Code, opened the hearing at approximately 6:30 p.m. on December 6, 2001 in a LCM\57069.171395618.01 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 9 (970) 221-6750 9 FAX (970) 41(2220 City of Fort Collins -Type 1 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Administrative Hearing Date: 12/05/01 Community Horticulture Center PDP - #53-85AV December 13, 2001 Page 2 conference room of the City of Fort Collins Planning Department located at 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, RECORD OF HEARING: The Hearing Officer accepted during the hearing the following evidence: (1) Planning Department Staff Report; (2) application, plans, maps and other supporting documents submitted by the applicant and the applicant's agents; (3) a sign-up sheet of persons attending the hearing and citizens speaking in favor of or against the application; (4) email correspondence from and between City staff and Windtrail Neighborhood HOA concerning the project; (5) a tape recording of the public hearing; (6) as well as the Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), Comprehensive Plan and any and all formally promulgated policies of the City, as applicable. FACTS AND FINDINGS A. Property Overview The property was annexed in September, 1965 as part of the Fourth College Annexation. The property, as part of the Center for Advanced Technology Overall Development Plan, was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board in September, 1983 for recreational uses. The property, comprising approximately eighteen acres, is proposed to contain a horticultural center with community gardens, band stand/gazebo, conservatory, and public park. Be Conformance with Division 4.22, E Zone District Uncontroverted evidence at the public hearing established that the proposed horticultural center, as a public/community facility, is a permitted use in the E- Employment zoning district, subject to administrative Type I review. The evidence further showed that a neighborhood park is also a permitted use within the E zoning district, subject to building permit review. The staff report and testimony indicates that the proposed uses meet the purpose of the E District, which is intended to provide, in part, for development of work places consistent with the availability of public facilities and services and to promote excellence in the design and construction of buildings, outdoor spaces, transportation facilities and streetscapes. LCM\57069.17\395618.01 253 City of Fort Collins -Type 1 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Administrative Hearing Date: 12/05/01 Community Horticulture Center PDP - #5MMV December 13, 2001 Page 3 The testimony by adjacent residential property owners expressed overall support for the project; however, there was some concern about the potential noise from use of the proposed bandstand for concerts and live music. The applicant testified that the issue of noise would be addressed and mitigated through the City's existing noise ordinance which imposes limits on noise levels throughout the City. The applicant further testified that concerts would be small with low amplification and that the future design of the bandstand would include sound tests to further mitigate noise levels. The site plan also indicates that the availability of parking will also serve to limit the size of events scheduled for the facility. Given the size and proposes uses of the property, the City 's existing noise ordinance and future design considerations of the bandstand offered by the applicant, the Hearing Officer finds that the PDP, including the use of the proposed bandstand for live entertainment, will not have a detrimental effect on the residential neighborhood to the west of the property. In addition, because the City is the applicant in this case, the Hearing Officer is confident that the applicant will comply with all of its ordinances and will work with the neighboring property owners in the design of the bandstand. C. Conformance with Article 3 of the LUC The staff report indicates that the PDP is in conformance with all applicable general development standards set forth in Article 3 of the LUC. In particular, the evidence reflects that the PDP complies with Division 3.2, site planning and design standards, in that it meets all of the criteria relative to landscaping and tree protection and parking and traffic circulation. According to the staff report, the proposal is also in compliance with Division 3.3, concerning engineering standards, Division 3.4, regarding environmental and natural resource protection, and Division 3.5, building standards. There was no evidence or testimony presented at the hearing to refute the statements and conclusions made in the staff report, nor has the Hearing Officer found any contrary evidence through independent review of the LUC and application materials. Certain testimony by neighboring property owners raised concerns about the safety of the irrigation facilities, trail construction detours, and lighting along the interior paths. The applicant addressed these concerns to the apparent satisfaction of the adjacent property owners and to the satisfaction of the Hearing Officer. Apart from these specific LCMW7069.17\395618.01 254 City of Fort Collins -Type 1 Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Administrative Hearing Date: 12/05/01 Community Horticulture Center PDP - #53-85AV December 13, 2001 Page 4 concerns, the testimony from adjacent owners reflected overwhelming support for this project. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS A. The proposed land uses for a community horticultural center, as a public facility, and neighborhood park are permitted in the E- Employment zone district, and meet the purposes of the E zone district. B. The PDP complies with all applicable general development standards contained in Article 3 of the Land Use Code. C. The PDP complies with the applicable land use and development standards in Division 4.22, Employment District, of the Land Use Code. DECISION The Centre for Advanced Technology, 22Id Filing, Community Horticultural Center — Project Development Plan, #53-85, is hereby unconditionally approved by the Hearing Officer. DATED THIS 13th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2001 a Linda C. Michow, Hearing Officer LCM\57069.17\395618.01 255 ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION STUDY REPORT FOR THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS HORTICULTURE CENTER PROPERTY AND CSURF SOUTH CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT PARCELS Prepared by Cedar Creek Associates, Inc. Fort Collins, Colorado Prepared for The City of Fort Collins and Colorado State University Research Foundation Fort Collins, Colorado March 6, 2001 256 ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION STUDY REPORT FOR THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS HORTICULTURE CENTER PROPERTY AND CSURF SOUTH CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT PARCELS Prepared by Cedar Creek Associates, Inc. Fort Collins, Colorado Prepared for The City of Fort Collins and Colorado State University Research Foundation Fort Collins, Colorado March 6, 2001 257 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 Introduction and Location...........................................................................................................1 2.0 Methodology.........................................................................................................0.......0...........1 3.0 Habitat Conditions and Wildlife Use..............................................................................................2 3.1 City of Fort Collins Horticulture Center Property ......................................................................2 3.2 CSURF South Campus Development Parcel A.......................................................................9 3.3 CSURF South Campus Development Parcel B.....................................................................12 3.4 CSURF South Campus Development Parcel C.....................................................................14 3.5 CSURF South Campus Development Parcel Do.., ........................... 16 3.6 CSURF South Campus Development Parcel E.....................................................................17 3.7 CSURF South Campus Development Parcel F.....................................................................19 3.8 CSURF South Campus Development Parcel G.....................................................................21 4.0 Ecological Study Characterization Checklist............................................................0.................. 23 5.0 Wildlife Mitigation Recommendations.........................................................................................24 6.0 References Cited.....................................................................................................................25 258 014M [6111 WOMMUrtwilloll FOR THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS HORTICULTURE CENTER PROPERTY AND CSURF SOUTH CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT PARCELS This report documents the evaluation of habitat conditions of potential development parcels owned by the City of Fort Collins and the Colorado State University Foundation (CSURF) in Fort Collins, Colorado. The report was prepared in accordance with Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins regarding the preparation of a Ecological Characterization Study Report. The City of Fort Collins' parcel consists of approximately 18 acres in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 23 (T. 7 N., R. 69 W.). This parcel is designated for development of a Community Horticulture Center, The CSURF properties addressed by this report includes seven separate parcels (A, B, C, D, E, F, and G) totaling approximately 79.2 acres in the Northeast, Northwest, and Southwest 1/4s of Section 23 (T. 7 N., R. 69 W.). Locations of the properties are depicted on Figure 1. This report was combined for the City of Fort Collins and CSURF properties since the City of Fort Collins parcel is located near the center and adjacent to the CSURF properties and portions of both properties are within 500 feet of each other. Combining the ecological characterization of the two property areas into one report also provides a more complete ecological overview of the remaining undeveloped land parcels within Section 23. The concept of a combined Ecological Characterization Study Report was discussed with City of Fort Collins, Natural Resources staff (Doug Moore, 2/12/01), and it was agreed that a combined report would be appropriate for these properties. 2.0 METHODOLOGY Cedar Creek completed a field survey of all the development parcels on February 26, 2001. The field survey was completed to characterize existing wildlife habitats, as well as to identify any unique or sensitive natural resource features. Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly SCS) soils mapping (Soil Survey of Larimer County Area, Colorado) was also reviewed to determine if any known hydric soil mapping units were located on the property. Observations recorded during the field evaluation included: major vegetation communities / wildlife habitats present within the property; dominant vegetation associated with each community / habitat; unique habitat features; and observations of wildlife species and/or definitive sign. Photographs showing representative views of existing habitats were also taken to document site conditions. Wildlife presence and habitat use was based on on -site observations and habitat presence in conjunction with the known habitat requirements of potential wildlife species. 1 259 spruce & Siberian elms Parcel G _ Q. r •)3 n Siberia+ elms +� cottonwoods & NNG :. :F Siberian elms _ jParcel F - NNG D W j t phut pitch - D - pring D .Q `r �►', -y - _ Creek& �- ^.�; - T p Wetlands m .Parcel E 1 GP m ' D Austria s o I Pi' D a iNalen ec ve - NNG D D NNG s I, _ V o _ fC = . i" NNG - AH a D Op d pring Creek & = - Wetlands `-�t�'— 7 - (� + Spring Creek Trail NG AH l `� ' !►, + nit Sherwood Lateral — -- --_---I y . I)1 AH RP 4r� lofyoung trees, D .-tm J -/��: NN Parcel Ate- NNG W R/ G abandoned prairie W /b GH /� �urrow,, GH GH large cottonwoods Gaoa� Larimer No.2 GH NNG We W GH GH IIIIIIIIIIIIII Poll! Parcel vc ,J "L Lin, — oung cottonwood trees { ' Centte Aye ntle LEGEND W - NNG NNG W -0 G NW NNG e + DIp �I D ,eR, Sherwood t. e • S NNG toP Developed - H aGec Natural Resources NNG dog D �e`e Research Centert: _ -- a,;�!-• RQ (NRRC) • Go -... Parcel C \ _ Is �- - Realigned Canalent D .1 + IIIII.Parcel D� `Ditch NNG/ NNG/ We w We ' - young � cottonwoods m U i•� IN Z _. .. it JitY INC. -•% 916 Wiltshire Ave., Fort Collins, CO 80521 (970) 493-4394 Horticulture Center Property Boundary South Campus Development Parcels Boundary Habitat or Land Use Boundary AH - Alfalfa Hayfield D - Disturbed or Developed GH - Grass Hayfield GP - Garden Plots NNG - Non-native Grassland NW - Non -jurisdictional Wetland RP - Recently Plowed TF -Tree Farm W - Wetland We - Weedy Scale: 1" = -415' FIGURE 2 Habitat Mapping for the City of Fort Collins Horticulture Center Property and CSURF South Campus Parcels Photo Source: City of Fort Collins, Geographic Information Services I Photo Date: April 1999 .k yam/ 1 r �. T . a t}t1N ., R . 6Y W y/' `5 diode 9 t 1 M M } �'� • • •.•� t tip• - ti• �� 4`�. ' � � • l 1 J. an Milan �1 ••.' •.•• - ; �) r • • ' • I _ � 1 an ti; • Uq �•. �.V a •�iT-e •...•�' :.•:: rt•. r ., r; y�i41 t F� Clty of Fart Collins Horticulture k J1� Center Development Site �_ E � , l F r t !' l.7No f 0 }I ♦r Jr t,I•#t ti; jam/'. . _ C• rt: r ti ._ - Y �.,• - i i1 rJ. Ares (A• E. Co Dt E, F• & G) Outlined in Drown Are CSL1p'F South Canaipus Development Parcels -- i— — • - -- � t,Jinitt + -. rt,.■ r 1 r ',`soling All I v�k yr FIGURE 1 Locations of City of Fart Collins Community Horticulture Center and CSU RF South Campus Development Parcels Scale: 14 1 = 2.000 Ui;jF) Sourrrr: 11 5�,G S 7 IQ' Ou;jdnjrnt�lcio . r«rt CE311Inn, CO 2 261 Existing habitats were also evaluated regarding their ability to support populations of threatened, endangered, and other sensitive plant and wildlife species. 3.1 City of Fort Collins Horticulture Center Property Topography of the project site is relatively flat and gently sloping to the east. According to the Soil Conservafion Service's (SCS) Soil Survey of Larimer County Area, Colorado, the predominant soil over most of the Horticulture Center parcel is Nunn clay loam, wet, 1 to 3 percent slopes. A small finger of Paoli fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes also is present along the Spring Creek drainage near the western property edge. Nunn day loam is a deep, somewhat poorly drained soil on low terraces and alluvial fans, commonly adjacent to drainage ways. Paoli fine sandy loam is a deep, well drained soil on low terraces. Although both of these soils are located along the Spring Creek drainage, neither are classified as hydric soils but they can contain hydric inclusions. Existing habitats and land uses within the Horticulture Center property consist of the Spring Creek drainage and wetlands, non-native grassland, alfalfa hayfield, and disturbed (see Figure 2), The Spring Creek drainage is a perennial stream flowing from west to east along the northern edge of the property. Portions of the Arthur Ditch and the Sherwood Lateral are located adjacent to the eastern edge of the property. The following sections summarize the characteristics of habitats existing on the property and wildlife use of the area. Non-native ra land Non-native grassland is located along the northern edge of Spring Creek and along the east side of Spring Creek in the northeast property corner. These areas had been mowed, possibly for hay production or weed control. Non-native grassland along Spring Creek is dominated by smooth brome (Bromus inermis) and weedy species including cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), kochia (Kochia scoparia), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), and yellow sweetclover (Melilotus officinale). Scattered individuals of alfalfa (Medicago sativa) are also supported in these areas. Total vegetation cover was estimated to average between 30 and 60 percent. Vegetation height was generally less than 6 inches because of mowing. Aside from trees growing along the edge of Spring Creek, the only woody species growing in this habitat are three young trees north of Spring Creek that were tentatively identified as Carolina basswood (Tilia caroliniana). A representative view of non-native grassland is provided in Photo 1. 3 262 w ...•tom �.T� .�`: .. ad ab:� i^jll�y,✓/� 1 ..-i�'. sr..r,S. J. t ..'`r•4'.1"1 �' _� . �.r: ad �', • f •s�►.+r, .. , x ;.: _ . r .:. .r... ' -We,, , 1.4 .14 k7l��gr."-..f$ !w. e,`¢. r'is: s��•r - y�-.��.w,,LX`4; �� � ��, •'•"_'.� 1_. l'c .,.� ) 'r �' '� yr• ; r. •� ,�!' BC�� y� 7.• �.1�� ^ad a}�� Photo 1. View of Non-native Grassland Habitat Along the North Side of Spring Creek in the Horticulture Center Development Parcel. (View is from northwest corner of property looking east. Trees along the Spring Creek drainage can be seen on the right of photo.) Photo 2. View of Alfalfa Hayfield on the Horticulture Center Property. (View is from south end of parcel looking north toward trees along Spring Creek.) 5 263 Two other small parcels of non-native grassland are located near the south end of the Horticulture Center property on each side of the Sherwood Lateral (see Figure 2). The central portion of non-native grassland on the north side of the Sherwood Lateral supports a number of young (1 to 3 inch diameter at breast height, dbh) Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila), locust (Robinia sp.), and Russian ohve IElaeagnus ,angustifoTia) trees, and neither of these non-native grassland areas had been mowed. Grass cover by smooth brome, tall fescue, and intermediate wheatgrass (Agropyron intermedium) was more dense (nearly 100 percent) in these areas. Habitat value and wildlife use of non-native grassland habitat is limited by mowing practices and the general lack of woody vegetation diversity. Mice, voles, and western meadow lark are the only species likely to establish resident populations in non-native grassland and weedy edge areas. Songbirds such as Brewer's blackbird, common grackle, and black -billed magpie may also occasionally use non-native grassland habitat. There was no evidence of prairie dogs or prairie dog burrows observed in non-native grassland habitat. Young trees in the southern non-native grassland area and taller grass cover create additional habitat diversity as well as nesting and perching habitat for songbirds. The only wildlife species observed in non-native grassland were Canada geese. Based on the amount of goose droppings noted in this habitat, it appears the area receives extensive grazing pressure from Canada geese. Alfalfa Hayfield. Alfalfa hayfield occupies the majority of the property south of Spring Creek. Dominant vegetation species supported within this portion of the property are alfalfa (Medicago sativa), smooth brome, tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea), yellow (oxtail (Setaria glauca), common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), and Canada thistle. This area is seasonally mowed for hay production and vegetation height was less than 6 inches. Total vegetation cover was estimated at 50 to 75 percent. Photo 2 provides a view of alfalfa hayfield. Habitat value and wildlife use of alfalfa hayfield is similar to that described for non-native grassland. Disturbed Area The eastern portion of the property north of Spring Creek had been recently disturbed by ground -clearing activities and construction of the Centre Avenue extension project. Vegetation supported in this habitat area is relatively sparse and consists primarily of annual weeds such as kochia, prostrate knotweed (Polygonum arenastrum), Canada thistle, and curly -cup gumweed (Grindelia squarrosa). Straw mulch had been scattered over much of the ground surface apparently to stabilize soils and minimize erosion. This area has little value as wildlife habitat because of recent disturbance and the general lack of vegetation cover. on 264 The riparian/wetland corridor along this portion of Spring Creek is confined within the embankments of the creek and ranges from approximately 3 to 10 meters in width. To the west of the property the Spring Creek drainage broadens and a wider wetland zone as well as a small reservoir are present (see Figure 2). Spring Creek to the west of the property is bordered by existing residences and the Spring Creek bike trail. Woody species within the riparian corridor are comprised of peach -leaf willow (Salix amygdaloides), plains cottonwood (Populus deltoides), Russian olive, and box elder (Acer negundo) trees. Russian olive and box elder trees are non-native to the area. The trees range in height from 15 to 50 feet tall and provide approximately 10 to 20 percent canopy cover along this portion of the creek. Most of the trees are relatively young (4 to 8 inches dbh), but a few of the peach -leaf willows and cottonwoods range in size from 1.5 to 3 feet dbh and 40 to 50 feet tall. Understory vegetation within the riparian/wetland corridor is composed almost entirely of dense stands of reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) approximately 3 feet tall and exhibiting 60 to 70 percent total vegetation cover. Weedy forbs such as Canada thistle, kochia, and curly dock (Rumex crispus) provided only about 5 to 10 percent vegetation cover. Small pockets of red -osier dogwood (Swida sericea) and coyote willow (Salix e)ogua) are also present. Along some portions of the creek, active erosion has created near vertical cut -banks with little to no vegetation cover. Woody debris, trash, and drift lines of vegetation debris were also noted at some locations along the creek. Some of this debris was probably the result of the August 1997 flood along this drainage. A view of the north side of Spring Creek is provided by Photo 3. Wetlands along the Spring Creek drainage are jurisdictional wetland since the Spring Creek drainage eventually connects to Waters of the U.S. Any disturbance related to the placement of fill in these wetlands would be regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. In terms of vegetation and wildlife species diversity and wildlife habitat value, riparian and wetland habitats along the Spring Creek drainage represent the most important habitats within the Horticulture Center property. The Spring Creek drainage also provides an important movement corridor and security cover for urban -adapted wildlife species such as mallard, raccoon, striped skunk, coyote, and mule deer. Trees and snags in riparian habitats provide foraging and/or nesting habitat for hawks, great blue heron, owls, woodpeckers, and a variety of songbirds. Although some trees are of appropriate size and configuration to support raptor nesting activity, no raptor nests were observed in the trees along the drainage. The proximity of the creek to developed areas and the Spring Creek bike trail may limit the suitability of this 7 265 0• /��i � • fl. ��� Yj Y. Photo 3. View of a Portion of Spring Creek in the Horticulture Center Property. (View is from west edge of property looking east along northern edge of creek.) �'.a�t�tY Yrlr �, �r�rr rr rr wr rr r�rr�r -�• •-� i R 'NU/W i Oe 1 Fry 411 4dMR P. 13 TI 4TI Ot 4 L Aw ` ,-Y',qq,,���+✓�'y(,�`, _.ice Photo 4. View of Sherwood Lateral Near the South End of the Horticulture Center Property. (View is from west edge of property looking east.) 266 riparian area for use by raptors. Wildlife species observed along the creek during the field survey included Canada goose, mallard, belted kingfisher, and American robin. The Spring Creek wetland and riparian corridor represents potentially suitable habitat for two U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed threatened species, Preble's meadow jumping mouse and Ute ladies' -tresses orchid. Surveys completed for these two species for the Centre Avenue crossing of Spring Creek yielded negative results for both species (Cedar Creek Associates, Inc. 1998, Riverside Technology, Inc. 1998). The surveys and their findings were approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. TrIMMOTIM OMI TM Two irrigation ditches are located along the perimeter or within the Horticulture Center property. Arthur Ditch exits from the Spring Creek pond west of the property and runs northward along the northwest property corner. The above ground portion of this ditch ends on the east side of Centre Avenue, and therefore it does not provide a suitable wildlife movement corridor to other natural areas within the City of Fort Collins. The Sherwood Lateral carries irrigation water flow from the Spring Creek pond along the southeast edge of the property and then flows east across the southern end of the property. This ditch eventually passes under College Avenue and through residential areas east of College Avenue. It also does not provide any connection to other natural areas within the city. Both ditches support a narrow strip of herbaceous wetland vegetation along the inside portion of the ditch embankments. Woody vegetation cover is lacking. Wetland vegetation growing along the ditch banks is composed primarily of dense stands of reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) and Emory's sedge (Carex emoryii) (see Photo 4). Wetlands within the ditches would not be considered jurisdictional by the Corps of Engineers since the wetlands have formed in association with water used for agricultural purposes. Wildlife habitat value along the ditches is limited by the lack of woody cover and adjacent disturbed or developed areas as well as non-native grassland. When water is present these ditches can be used by urban -adapted waterfowl such as Canada goose and mallard as loafing and feeding sites. l Topography of Parcel A is relatively flat and gently sloping to north and the east. According to the Soil Conservation Service's (SCS) Soil Survey of Larimer CountyArea, Colorado, the predominant soil over all of this parcel is Caruso clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes. Caruso clay loam is a deep, somewhat poorly drained soil on low terraces and bottomlands. This soil is classified as a hydric soil. Existing habitats within Parcel A consist of the grass hayfield and wetland (see Figure 2). Surrounding land uses consist of residential development and grass hayfield. iJ 267 Although the grass hayfield area coincides with the Caruso clay loam soil mapping unit, only the northern edge of Parcel A exhibited any soil, vegetation, or hydrology characteristics indicating wetland presence. The remainder of Parcel A is dominated primarily by upland pasture grasses that are mowed for hay production. Vegetation cover is composed almost entirely of introduced pasture grass species including smooth brome, tall fescue, and intermediate wheatgrass. Because of past and existing management practices of this area, no woody species grow within grass hayfield habitat. Vegetation height was 6 inches or less due to past mowing actions. Total vegetation cover was estimated to range from 50 to 80 percent. Habitat value and wildlife use of this area is similar to that described for non-native grassland and alfalfa hayfield in Section 3.1. However, the large size of this habitat area in conjunction with adjacent areas of grass hayfield in Parcel C as well as the presence of several large plains cottonwood trees and two box elder trees along the Larimer No. 2 Canal to the south makes this area suitable for hunting by open country raptors such as red-tailed hawk, Swainson's hawk, and northern harrier. The large cottonwood trees are of suitable size and configuration (2 to 5 feet dbh and 30 to 50 feet tall) to support perching and nesting by red-tailed hawk and Swainson's hawk, but no raptor nests were observed. A number of black - billed magpie nests were noted, however. Photo 5 provides a view of the Larimer No. 2 Canal and trees growing along the canal. Coyote, red fox, and raccoon may also occasional forage in open grassland habitat as well as along the grassland/wetland edge within the property. During the field survey, a red fox was noted moving through the construction at the west end of the parcel and then bedding down in grass hayland habitat at the west end of the parcel. The Larimer No. 2 Canal embankments and other possible sites for denning (downed trees and dirt piles) within and near Parcels A, B, and C were searched for evidence of red fox denning activity, but none was found. UMM The wetland along the northern edge of Parcel A corresponds to a drainage and a wetland mitigation area that has been established along the northern property boundary. The wetland mitigation area was established for the Windtrail Subdivision to the north. Dominant vegetation species in this wetland are reed canarygrass, common cattail (Typha latifolia), nutsedge (Cyperus sp.), Baltic rush (Juncus balticus), Torrey's rush (Juncus torreyi), coyote willow (Salix exigua ), hairy willowweed (Epilobium ciliatum), alkali muhly (Muhlenbergia asperifolia ), and speedwell (Veronica sp.). Common cattail is the dominant plant in more saturated areas along the drainage, while reed canarygrass and alkali muhly dominate the more upland transitional areas of the wetland. Soils were saturated along the wetland transition zone, and 10 268 Photo 5. View of Larimer No. 2 Canal Along the South Side of CSURF South Campus Parcel C and the North Side of South Campus Parcel B. (Trees along the ditch are primarily mature plains cottonwoods.) Photo 6. View of Grass Hayfield in CSURF South Campus Parcel C. (View is from the northeast portion of the parcel looking southwest. Trees in the background are the large cottonwood trees along the Larimer No. 2 Canal.) 11 269 standing or flowing surface water was present along the more central portions of the drainage. Surface water in this drainage flows to the east then north along the west side of the Spring Creek Trail into the Spring Creek drainage. In terms of vegetation and wildlife species diversity, wildlife habitat value, and potential to support sensitive plant and wildlife species, wetland habitat in conjunction with areas of shallow aquatic habitat represent one of the most important habitats in the areas addressed by this report. Wetland habitats are limited in areal extent in the eastern plains along the Front Range and are usually found only in association with perennial and intermittent drainages as well as lakes and reservoirs. Existing wetlands and aquatic habitats are valuable habitats in that they typically support a greater diversity of plants and animals than that found in adjacent dryland habitats. In addition, many wildlife species from adjacent dryland habitats rely on wetland habitats for obtaining food, cover, and water on a regular or intermittent basis. Wetlands and associated open water habitats provide foraging, resting, and breeding habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds. Wetlands with herbaceous and woody vegetation cover also support a variety of other wildlife populations including small mammals, mammalian predators, songbirds, reptiles, and amphibians. However, because of the proximity of developed areas next to the wetlands addressed by this report, wildlife use of wetlands is restricted primarily to urban -adapted species. Suitable habitat conditions for Ute ladies' -tresses orchid and Preble's meadow jumping mouse were judged to be present along the wetland transition zone of this wetland and its continuation in Parcel C (see Section 3.4). An orchid survey completed by Riverside Technology, Inc. in this wetland area for the Windtrail Subdivision in 1993 had negative results. 3.3 CSURF South Campus Development Parcel B Topography of Parcel B is essentially flat. According to the Soil Conservation Service's (SCS) Soil Survey of Larimer County Area, Colorado, the predominant soil over all of this parcel is Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes. This is a deep, well drained soil on high terraces and fans. It is not classified as a hydric soil but it can contain hydric inclusions. Existing habitats within Parcel B consist of grass hayfield and weedy areas (see Figure 2). Surrounding land uses are commercial and residential development, grass hayfield, and roadway. The north and south sides of this parcel are bordered by the Larimer No. 2 Canal and New Mercer Ditch, respectively. 12 270 Characteristics and habitat value of grass hayfield in Parcel B are similar to those described for Parcel A, except the presence of considerable amounts of goose droppings indicated heavier Canada goose grazing in this habitat in Parcel B. Weedy habitat areas occur as inclusions within grass hayfield habitat. These weedy sites are dominated primarily by two annual weedy species, cheatgrass and Canada thistle. Characteristics and habitat value of weedy habitat in Parcel B are similar to those described for grass hayfield in Parcel A. Irrigation Ditches Two irrigation ditches are located along the north and south sides of Parcel B. The Larimer No. 2 Canal runs along the north side of the property while the New Mercer Ditch runs along the south side of Parcel B. Both ditches originate from the Cache la Poudre River west of Laporte and follow somewhat parallel courses through northwest Fort Collins. The Larimer No. 2 Canal and New Mercer Ditch eventually empty into Warren Lake and Mail Creek, respectively, in south Fort Collins. Along the Parcel B boundaries, both ditches support a narrow strips of herbaceous wetland vegetation along the inside portion of the ditch embankments. Woody vegetation cover is lacking except for the mature trees along the Larimer No. 2 Canal. Wetland vegetation growing along the ditch banks is comprised primarily of reed canarygrass and Emory's sedge. Wetlands within the ditches would not be considered jurisdictional by the Corps of Engineers since the wetlands have formed in association with water used for agricultural purposes. Wildlife habitat value along the ditches is diminished by the general lack of woody cover and the presence of adjacent disturbed or developed areas along much of their lengths. When water is present, these ditches can be used by urban -adapted waterfowl such as Canada goose and mallard as loafing and feeding sites. Urban -adapted waterbirds may also use these ditches as movement corridors when they carry water. Their value as terrestrial wildlife movement corridors is restricted by numerous box culvert road crossings and their passage through substantial areas of residential development with minimal development setbacks from the ditches. 13 271 Topography of Parcel C is relatively flat and gently sloping to north and the east. According to the Soil Conservation Service's (SCS) Soil Survey of Larimer County Area, Colorado, the predominant soil over most of this parcel is Caruso clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes. Nunn day loam, wet, 1 to 3 percent slopes is located in the northeast comer of the parcel along the wetland drainage. Characteristics of these soils are described in Sections 3.1 and 3.2. Existing habitats within Parcel C consist of the grass hayfield, non-native grassland, disturbed, non - jurisdictional wetland, and wetland (see Figure 2). development, grass hayfield, and roadway. Grass Hayfield Surrounding land uses consist of residential Characteristics and habitat value of grass hayfield in Parcel C are similar to those described for Parcel A except that areas of abandoned prairie dog burrows were located in grass hayfield within Parcel C (see Figure 2). These areas were examined and most burrows had collapsed. There were a few remaining open burrows, but none exhibited any evidence (i.e., droppings or fresh diggings) of recent occupation by prairie dogs. There is a slight potential that the few open burrows could provide suitable nesting habitat for burrowing owls. Photo 6 provides a view of grass hayfield habitat in Parcel C. Non-native Grassland Non-native grassland is located between grass hayfield and the wetland drainage along the northern edge of the parcel and in the northeast corner of Parcel C. These areas had not been mowed and are dominated by dense grass cover comprised primarily of non-native grass species including smooth brome, intermediate wheatgrass, cheatgrass, and desert wheatgrass (Agropyron desertorum). Other common but less dominant species noted in this area were Canada thistle, curly dock, and young Russian olive trees. A representative view of non-native grassland in Parcel C is provided in Photo 7. Habitat value and wildlife use of non-native grassland habitat is similar to that described for unmowed non-native grassland in Section 3.1. Disturbed Disturbed habitat in Parcel C is associated with the recent construction of Centre Avenue along the east side of Parcel C. Vegeta4on in this area consists primarily of sparse stands of smooth brome and annual weeds. This habitat has limited value as wildlife habitat because of recent disturbance and its proximity to the Centre Avenue roadway. 14 272 Yi .;1 • a to ,. ;r11r FW:r 1n, 1 j Vital t OF s � tot ytt,. tjtIFI top It tolloo a -'t- e. jltt :, \ :R tZ Photo 7. View of Non-native Grassland Habitat in CSURF South Campus Parcel C. (View is from northeast corner of parcel looking west. The non -jurisdictional wetland habitat area can be seen in the left and middle background portions of the photo.) 4 k'0nt7of .� ,y ` I ag!'?'l' . .. iia�i+! . ![A :w�..li... ��:'. sad , �. \ � ! t• r ..e >�' ..:, do x { \ rt k lid out 4 10 ' ,`` �; .tk` '�, � t• 11. :'T r�'vr Ir, I >j. it !d tot \i tdt u ai �ti YA"M �Ca^.(% t'!I.-%�`Y.fil���i �,. �il ! ► i1 Photo B. View of Wetland Drainage Along the Northern Edge of CSURF South Campus Parcel C. (View is from northeast parcel corner looking west. Note proximity of housing development on north side of wetland.) 15 273 This habitat area consists of a depression that appears to have collected sufficient hayfield irrigation water to support stands of wetland vegetation. This area currently does not exhibit any wetland hydrological characteristics that would permit its classification as a wetland under the jurisdiction under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A portion of the wetland mitigation area along the wetland drainage at the northern edges of Parcels A and C was created to address disturbance to the non -jurisdictional wetland site that never occurred in association with the Windtrail Subdivision. Kim Kreimeyer with the City of Fort Collins Natural Resource Department (conversation with Julie Birdsall of CSURF) has indicated that the City would not require additional wetland mitigation for this non -jurisdictional wetland area if future development affected this .it" Vegetation in the non -jurisdictional wetland is dominated by dense (nearly 100 percent cover) stands of creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera ) and switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) intermixed with American three -square (Scirpus americanus). Wildlife use of this habitat is similar to that described for unmowed non-native grassland described under Section 3.1. Photo 7 provides a view of this habitat area. IlTl�lO ��M Characteristics and habitat value of wetlands along the northern edge of Parcel C are similar to those described for Parcel A except the wetland drainage is wider with a larger wetland transition zone along most of its length. A view of this wetland area is provided by Photo 8. 3.5 CSURF South Campus Development Parcel D Topography of Parcel D is essentially flat. According to the Soil Conservation Service's (SCS) Soil Survey of Larimer County Area, Colorado, the predominant soil over all of this parcel is Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes. This soil's characteristics are described in Section 3.3 Existing habitats within Parcel D consist of a mix of non-native grassland and weedy areas (see Figure 2). Surrounding land uses are commercial development, non-native grassland, and roadway. Non-native Grassland/Weedv This habitat area appears to have been cleared of vegetation in the past, and it currently supports sparse stands of non-native grasses and annual weeds. Total vegetation cover was estimated to range from 15 to 45 percent. The principal grasses recorded in this parcel were smooth brome, cheatgrass, and yellow 16 274 foxtail while kochia and prostrate knotweed were the dominant weeds noted. A group of young plains cottonwood trees (6 to 6 inches dbh and 20 to 30 feet tall) grow in a small depression area at the middle western comer of Parcel D (see Figure 2). Additional young cottonwoods grow at scattered locations along a small ditch immediately east of the eastern parcel boundary. The overall habitat value of this parcel was rated as low because of past disturbance to the site and relatively low vegetation cover and diversity. Adjacent developed areas and roadways on the west side as well as current construction activity to the northeast and southeast also reduce the overall habitat value of this area. 3.6 CSURF South Campus Development Parcel E Topography of Parcel E is relatively flat and gently sloping to the southeast. According to the Soil Conservation Service's (SCS) Soil Survey of Larimer County Area, Colorado, the predominant soil over all of this parcel is Nunn clay loam, wet, 1 to 3 percent slopes. Characteristics of this soil are described in Sections 3.1. Existing habitats within Parcel E consist of non-native grassland, garden plots, tree farm, and disturbed (see Figure 2). Surrounding land uses are residential and commercial development, non-native grassland, Spring Creek, and roadway. Non-native Grassland and Disturbed The characteristics and habitat value of non-native grassland and disturbed habitats in this parcel are similar to that described in Section 3.1 for the City of Fort Collins Horticulture Center property except for the following. The buildings shown on Figure 2 in the disturbed area have been removed since the date of the aerial photo used for the figure. The northwest portion of the disturbed area is currently being used by Colorado State University for wood cutting and forestry activities. Photo 9 provides a view of the disturbed habitat area in Parcel E. Tree Farm and Garden Plots The tree farm site currently supports a row of planted junipers as well as several rows of young deciduous trees. The garden plot area is currently managed as community vegetable plot during the summer months. Both site's habitat values were rated as low because of a lack of native vegetation cover and current levels of human activity and disturbance. 17 275 -�-aim -.• �r,.i•d.L.6r„S.w a,�.a —Otis..- ,C..— ��. r`-�a►�,�-,.. C.. !_-_..ij 'a' -"�- ._Z� __ �... r • '•, - _ A. AI 1 N:. �.41 1AMMA IN ..- AN I III A �: - ,.r I,Ao- ��..s>... �t .qr fit.,.. ,..�. 4. 7"14 r • j. ,� r If AI I I vn — is'!'i"1'f" V T1' f'1+' Al" .� '➢?�.•e j'f _` �,,AIIIi,"{' �, Ty�l;',t c`�ity ILA` wI. rNr I.-SAd, .!��� ;} +, Y, r'WAA • �t ;lr a r !t !"sal✓.5-.:, r AL t •l.... "� _� .p WIIN �•1s: A. _ Af C 1. v ►f t .I,� .f i- , r 1 rJyl1 ,. �{ •: III u. A. .vAw.-!`_ Ata 1 �. 1 i •'�. .I ��a[:X'r IWAA,A..�, � `sa• 'l'. ♦.•.l i. 3.7 CSURF South Campus Development Parcel F Topography of Parcel F is essentially flat. According to the Soil Conservation Service's (SCS) Soil Survey of Larimer County Area, Colorado, the predominant soil over all of this parcel is Nunn day loam, wet, 1 to 3 percent slopes. Characteristics of this soil are described in Section 3.1. Existing habitats within Parcel F consist of alfalfa hayfield, non-native grassland, Spring Creek and wetlands, disturbed and developed, tree farm, and recently plowed (see Figure 2). Surrounding land uses are commercial development, non-native grassland, roadway, and railroad right-of-way. Alfalfa Hayfield The characteristics and habitat value of alfalfa hayfield in this parcel are similar to that described for alfalfa hayfield in Section 3.1. A short row of planted Austrian pines (Pins nigra) and shrubs in the northwest portion of this habitat area (see Figure 2) provides some potential perching and nesting habitat for urban - adapted songbirds. Portions of alfalfa hayland adjacent to Spring Creek contained substantial amounts of goose droppings indicating extensive grazing use of these areas by Canada geese. A view of alfalfa hayfield within Parcel F is provided by Photo 10, Non-native Grassland The characteristics and habitat value of non-native grassland in this parcel are similar to that described for unmowed portions of non-native grassland in Section 3.1. Dominant grasses in non-native grassland in Parcel F are smooth brome, intermediate wheatgrass, and tall fescue. Scattered individuals of reed canarygrass (a weband species) were also noted in this habitat area. The ability of this area to support minor amounts of reed canarygrass was assumed to be the result of excess irrigation since there were no other indicators of wetland presence. Photo 11 provides a view of non-native grassland in Parcel F. Snrina Creek and Wetlands Characteristics of the Spring Creek drainage and associated wetlands in the northwest portion of Parcel F are similar to those described for Spring Creek in Section 3.1 for the Horticulture Center property except that fewer trees are supported along the drainage. Trees along this section of the drainage are limited to a few small Russian olives and one mature peach-leal willow tree. Wetlands and aquatic habitat associated with Spring Creek in the northeast portion of Parcel F are broader and more diverse with greater amounts of tree cover (see Photo 12). Tree cover in this area is dominated by mature peach -leaf willow and plains cottonwood trees. These trees range in size from 1 to 3 feet dbh and 30 to 50 feet tall. Smaller Russian olive trees are also present in the understory. 19 277 . lam. � ' �. j�• -L 4� 1.: 0.7.. r. rr ya. 1+r'• .��. !ti �3' �t ti f•?1T-T- ' �'-I�.�t - T. 1� ? ,'T`� '� • i. �' r pry rr 1 \ � a A'er.rr i I Two adjacent wetland areas were also identified along the north side of Spring Creek (see Figure 2). The western wetland consists of a depression next to Spring Creek supporting an overstory of young plains cottonwoods, Russian olives, and Siberian elms (3 to 6 inches dbh and 15 to 25 feet tall) with an understory dominated by reed canarygrass and Emory's sedge. The eastern wetland is another depression next to Spring Creek. This wetland supports an overstory of young Russian olives and Siberian elms with reed canarygrass in the understory. The section of Spring Creek along the east side of Parcel F has been channelized and represents the least diverse section of riparian/wetland associated with the creek. Wetland vegetation is limited to small, discontinuous pockets of reed canarygrass and coyote willow. Tree cover is restricted to a few sapling Russian olives. Photo 13 provides a representative view of this section of Spring Creek. In terms of vegetation and wildlife species diversity and wildlife habitat value, riparian and wetland habitats along these portions of the Spring Creek drainage represent the most important habitats within the CSURF South Campus Parcel F. The wildlife habitat value of Spring Creek and wetlands in Parcel F are similar to that described for Spring Creek in Section 3.1 for the City of Fort Collins Horticulture Center property. In addition still water portions of Spring Creek in the northeast portion of Parcel F represent potential breeding habitat for amphibian species such as boreal chorus frog and Woodhouse's toad. Disturbed. Developed, and Tree Farm As described previously in Section 3.6 for Parcel E, these areas support little in the way of natural habitat and have minimal value as wildlife habitat. Recently Plowed Recently plowed habitat areas in Parcel F appeared to have been plowed under earlier in 2000 and not replanted. These sites supported primarily sparse annual weed cover and have minimal value as wildlife habitat. Vegetation cover was estimated at 10 to 25 percent and was dominated by kochia, Canada thistle, field bindweed, prostrate knotweed, and curly dock. 3.8 CSURF South Campus Development Parcel G Topography of Parcel G is relatively level and gently sloping to the south into Spring Creek. According to the Soil Conservation Service's (SCS) Soil Survey of Larimer County Area, Colorado, the predominant soil over all of this parcel is Nunn day loam, wet, 1 to 3 percent slopes. Characteristics of this soil are described in Section 3.1. 21 279 Photo 11. View of Non-native Grassland at the South End of CSURF South Campus Parcel F. (View is from south-central portion of parcel looking west.) Photo 12. View of the Spring Creek Drainage and Wetlands in the Northeast Portion of CSURF South Campus Parcel F. (View is from northeast corner of the parcel looking west. Larger trees are primarily peach -leaf willow and plains cottonwood.) 22 Existing habitats within Parcel G consist of non-native grassland and some tree plantings (see Figure 2). Surrounding land uses are commercial development, non-native grassland, Spring Creek, and railroad right-of-way. The characteristics and habitat value of non-native grassland in this parcel are similar to that described for mowed portions of non-native grassland in Section 3.1 for the City of Fort Collins Horticulture Center property. Dominant grasses in non-native grassland in Parcel G are smooth brome and cheatgrass. This area had either been mowed or heavily grazed by geese since grass cover was less than 3 inches tall in most areas. The southern portion of non-native grassland near Spring Creek contained substantial amounts of goose droppings indicating extensive grazing use of this area by Canada geese. Photo 14 provides a view of non-native grassland in Parcel F. Tree Plantings Small areas of planted trees within Parcel G are shown on Figure 2. The southwest tree site consists of one large plains cottonwood (2.5 feet dbh and 40 feet tall) and a few young cottonwoods, Siberian elms, and Russian olive trees. The northwest tree site consists of two relatively large Siberian elms (1.5 to 3 feet dbh and 30 to 40 feet tall). The remaining tree site near the northeast parcel corner consists of four Englemann spruce (Picea englemannil) trees (1 to 1.5 dbh and 30 to 40 feet tall) and several young Siberian elms. Additional conifers and ornamental trees are located along the northern parcel edge in association with the adjacent commercial developments. A line of young Siberian elms also grows between the eastern boundary of Parcel G and the adjacent railroad right-of-way. 4.0 ECOLOGICAL STUDY CHARACTERIZATION CHECKLIST The following provides a summary of information required by Fort Collins Land Use Code under 3.4.1 (D) (1) items (a) through (i). Items 0) and (k) are addressed under the following section, 5.0 Wildlife Mitigation Recommendations. (a) Wildlife use of the areas is described in Section 3.0. (b) As indicated in Section 3.0, the only wetlands on the properties are located along Spring Creek and in the drainage along the northern edges of Parcels A and C. (c) The southern portions of Parcels A, C, and F provide partial views of the Front Range mountains to the west. 23 281 (d) As described under Section 3.0, the only native trees or other sites of native vegetation on the Properties are along Spring Creek and in the wetlands along the northern edge of Parcels A and C. Mature native plains cottonwoods also grow along the Larimer No. 2 Canal. (e) Two natural drainages exist in the area. The Spring Creek drainage passes through the City of Fort Collins Horticulture Center property and Parcel F of the CSURF South Campus property. Another unnamed wetland drainage flows from west to east along the northern edges of Parcels A and C and then north into the Spring Creek drainage. (f) Suitable habitat conditions were judged to be present for Preble's meadow jumping mouse and for Ute ladies' -tresses orchid along portions of Spring Creek as well as along the edge of wetlands along the north edge of Parcels A and C. Searches for the orchid in Parcels A and C in 1993 by Riverside Technology, Inc. were negative. Surveys completed for the jumping mouse and orchid in 1998 along Spring Creek for the Centre Avenue Extension project also had negative results (Cedar Creek Associates, Inc. 1998, Riverside Technology, Inc. 1998). Consultation would be required with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine if additional surveys would be required for future developments in these areas. (9) Because of development or past disturbances and cultivation practices over most portions of the development parcels, there are no special habitat features present except wetlands in Parcels A and C; mature the plains cottonwoods along the Larimer No. 2 Canal; and Spring Creek aquatic, riparian, and wetland habitats in Parcel F and the Horticulture Center property. (h) The Larimer No. 2 Canal, the New Mercer Ditch, Spring Creek, and the railroad right-of-way all represent potential wildlife movement corridors for urban -adapted wildlife species. However, the continuity of these corridors is disrupted by major street crossings for the railroad and culverted road underpasses for the irrigation ditches. 5.0 WILDLIFE MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS General mitigation recommendations are provided in this section based on existing habitat conditions and current City of Fort Collins guidelines provided in Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code. As indicated the only special habitat features present are wetlands in Parcels A and C; mature the plains cottonwoods along the Larimer No. 2 Canal; and Spring Creek aquatic, riparian, and wetland habitats in Parcel F and the Horticulture Center property. The City buffer zone standard for Spring Creek and wetlands greater than 0.3 acre without significant waterfowl use is 100 feet. This would apply to the Spring Creek riparian corridor and wetlands in Parcels A and C. A 100 foot setback along Spring Creek along the east side of Parcel F would also protect the potential wildlife movement corridor along the existing railroad right-of-way. Based on current projections of the required alignment of Rolland Moore Drive through Parcel C a 100- 24 282 foot setback will be difficult to maintain from some portions of the wetlands in this parcel. It is recommended that CSURF initiate negotiations with the City of Fort Collins regarding the best placement of Rolland Moore Drive and minimizing potential impacts to existing wetlands in Parcel C. Any disturbance over 0.1 acre to jurisdictional wetlands in Parcels A or C would require 404 permit coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers. The same would apply to any potential disturbance to the Spring Creek drainage in Parcel F and the Horticulture Center property. Since the New Mercer Ditch and, especially, the Larimer No. 2 Canal could serve as wildlife movement corridors, the City standard for a 50-foot setback would apply to these features. This setback from the Larimer No, 2 Canal would also protect the isolated mature plains cottonwood trees that grow along the canal. In addition, because potential raptor nesting habitat is provided by these trees, the trees should be surveyed again prior to any construction activities to confirm the presence or absence of raptor nesting activity. If an active raptor nest is discovered, a buffer zone setback, as prescribed in Section 3.4A of the Fort Collins Land Use Code, should be maintained during the breeding, nesting, and nestling rearing period. Much of the property has been degraded by past disturbances and cultivation practices. Areas to remain as open space or to be landscaped within future development sites could be considerably enhanced by the conversion of areas dominated by mostly weedy or non-native species to areas revegetated by perennial woody and herbaceous native species. This would be particularly valuable in sites adjacent to existing wetlands, the Spring Creek drainage, and the irrigation ditches 6.0 REFERENCES CITED Cedar Creek Associates, Inc. 1998. Preble's meadow jumping mouse survey report for the Centre Avenue extension project. Unpublished report submitted to CSURF and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Riverside Technology, Inc. 1998. Ute ladies' -tresses orchid survey report for the Centre Avenue extension project. Unpublished report submitted to CSURF and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 25 283 r I ' �C KMA Lf cc i l J i P10 of Windtrail on Spring Creek P.U.D. t: COMMON INT R5T COMMUNITY i �,=WLII UI 1P'i1Cl /\ V�✓INDT AIL TOV�✓NH f 1 5 I'J �1 SITUr.IC IN II-i- Nl�)h111'�:,,I 51 CIIWN INN 1240TZ✓ e) ffitlI !.Ili 01,11111MGMITY OF FUhI CU f lI -Ih "'*NI�r 3 I I[9�1�1�11� ■��. I .I =INFY MAP .r.,F f - I", NOBS: 1. ALL OPEN SPACES RATTED HEREON ARE HEREBY DEDICKTED AS UTILITY, DRAINAGE, FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS, AND PUBLIC ACCESS E EMENIS. ]. ALL OPEN SPACES SHALL BE MNWMM BY ME VRNDMML ON SPRING CREEK P.U.D. HOMEOWNERS A55 AFON. KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENM TWIT T1AE U/IDERSWYIED, BEING THE OWNERS AND PRlWRIETORs CF R4F PoLLOWWG OESCMBED LWD. TO MT.. Eroct A' a MMtm9 Tawnhwaes P.U.B. City a FL CKIBM la A County. CwbroM.. ace'ord�rg M Me ~ Mernat reeve✓! on Au9usl I. 19 of Reveo;2: N✓mbev 9s065RE] BmhMr Me some as I t A; MMbwT Townhomes P.U.O., Fast ReploE Pccwdr'�rqq to Me Ftsf thereof recolWH m January 11, 19M w R ceah n Number %POZ6ye, m Me rsuwde o{ Me Lorimer County Ckrs oM Rscwder. Me above xMpw !6n27 Acres t. c Gs s&rM my aM aW commAw1pWy wMeh MWutw a Tatar✓. IMAE CAUSED ME ABOVE LIEWA19E111 WC'T OF LAv0 N BE SUH4EYED AND SLIBOMDED ft T LOTS TRACTS AND STREETS AS SHOWN W THIS PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS MNOTRAR ON SPRING CREEK P.H.O.. AND DOES MREBY DEDICATE AMID CONVEY TO AND FOR PUM.IC USE. FORF T THE STREES AND EASEMENTS AS UIO WE AND DEM WTED ON M5 FLAT,, PRXMfi ED WWFVFR TWIT' 1) ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY OF BITS BElVC4M)N OF E4SE:NENl5 DOES NOT IMPOSE HPoN RYE CITY A DUTY TO AMINTAV REF EASEMENTS 50 DEOMATED. AW 2) ACCEPTANCE BY THE CHY W N DEDICATION BE STREETS DOES NOT IMPOSE UPON THE CITY A q W AfNNTAIN THE STREETS 50 DEMCAWD UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE STREETS ARE LYWIS/AN/CIED AND ACCEPTED By THE DIRECTOR OF ENGDVEEMW ALL MAMREN WE OF IHE ABOVE DESCMBED STREETS S L BE PERFORMED BY THE UNDERSIONFD (AND MS/HER sll(Y:E35DR5 N I fE r) UIRDL SUCH EWE AS EMF CITY EXPRESSLY ASSUMES W WRITING THE DUTY OF SUCH MARRENANCE G.c. oCtAIK+tIe 4;n;frd tlbil'IRy cwm by WEwnaaer te`{p�7� a rY" 501E Er crxaww) ,�-� cnHNn Er uRBRRI ss e Ore Ma9oom9 msftummt was wk0OWAId9ed be{we tee Mis L Fa4sle/— . 1996. by Mndtmd L.L.L. W Lnmmisx'ml emirer r-/d' 92 ^ w/ ory PuOFc LE1W.i1P.' .bcA F. Tigq f� N-I-- r i^ 74� STATE pe tlXpeeDO) rorLNn ar fARWEx) A. Me /ornsemo mshument wee o w*nalgM beAae me Ma f•� My a f 2aia R4) , 1994 ty Jock f. Trigg. As, eammiewAm aWl s =/S/-9f Notary Pud INC TST, SKodwee.. It lrli I - t Q L00011141:11 AAr AAW Ma is to ceMly Mo-� f on Me day' a INS samirad fM flNe fo Me pmMrfy as Cescnbsd hetwooY east "M603Aed Mot Me owners eM wowiefoes a recortl a Me said property as consMrsJ he CR.S 19)J, 3I-23-111. " m shown tpv o as a saAf Eels. BY. 71�64P,G. ///fy(rseFX AEmeer 125 5.4,Awe, SA,L rlar FT cdltm, (a to 8o S2/ A%9NNofb,'r Mr.: 4'7S S A��mra�EAMWAYW "M� DY Ms OLrmscfw of EngmeerWg a Ms Obf a Fwt CoRMv, cvvl e w the /G � oby o{IeEA ,1996. ���J BOA: ........ U A'l fw as frameerDa ;.0 ti l5 irk PLANAI/hY� ANO�M� . y�op¢r�pved by Ms Pmnnirq oM Zwiny Bowl of Me, ply of Fort Collins, COMmde, on the ai57A d%' o{1}Pl t� ,r$9W9 �St4a Unniv end Z m9 Beonf -mil/90.ih 7 L Don J. MMtes, a Colomde RogtMerM Pm{eSs l GOM serve o,, M Aemby state Mot this plat a Mlbw Sprtngs P.UD. was prepared Dy mew under my msponsmk charye and is Due and correct to Me Last of my know/edge, mromrofiwr mtl be6s/. Md Mat Mis plot contains as Me inrormafion required by CR.S JB-JJJ-209 /w Common mferosf Commumbes. p00IIE6i jCI f9c a��x 564 t.. aeNJ. ML Ns zp �. Jp Common ReyisfanYM of LaM SurValar No. 256s6 W. ACC MYq to CohrmW Ass, youmust eammenw eny M2ef eeo based upon oY ds{eet m this ;aM w mA fA M yeols after you h'mt W'.xovered such defect. m m event may my action Dosed upon any defect a Ibis sac De commenced mom Man ten yeah f Me dote or certi! lion shown hereon. Kno7mv7 wr Sprrilg &Isek P.U.O. SHEET E of 2 1-85 1969 285 PEe4 of Windtrail on Spring Creek RUA Sh"t2of2 to 005 ON ~\ ) ,. a MU AOND ON SPMW CREEK2ND RLAV Spring Creek DEVELOPED CONDPL D � c100 FLOQpFLINA S?9J9'i5'E lOII.ER'D—YEAR ' ya t .. ____-__- __ _ �.. �.. 63 4 X' 09 Y[ nOf Of 10, 14 :o �xy msm a �r � F - FWv (ah M' ub a/ fi hMs mlma. p • . Aid N+m --/�w rsr-as ess)s w I/ M A[.:3 IM FQT rre s F14. . we, m. is F44PI 777AC7 C 07NDTJWL 7OWWWES P.UD. w • eo m Aide W hM -- IWM'45m11' -- V --- FI�'Ii ST, INC. 1�yCTTajum mgxeer. WND7RAK ON SPR/NG CREEK P.U.D. SHEET 2 OF 2 N-8r, 1969 286 December 7, 2015 Jason Holland City of Fort Collins Current Planning Department Dear Mr. Holland, As a homeowner inthe Windtrail on Spring Creek neighborhood, directly impacted bythe Center for Advanced Technology/Gardens on Spring Creek major development change, I would like the following questions answered priorto the Planning and Zoning Board meeting on December 17th. My questions are specific to the change to the plan allowing a large amplified sound stage inthe Gardens. • Why has mV neighborhood, which will be negatively impacted bythe addition of the sound stage, been excluded from event planning meetings? We are definitely 'stakeholders' inthis project, much more than arts organizations that have been included. We were part of two neighborhood meetings held at the Gardens a long time ago, atwhich large lists of concerns were collected. None of us has ever been contacted about this project since that time and it appears that none of our concerns have been addressed inthe amended plan. • How can the City abandon the minimal Ipark' space required on the north side of the Garden boundaries (called Lilac Park and never developed as reauired) in the original PDPwhen the densityinthis area continues togrow? Thereporttalks about recreation offered by the Gardens to the neighborhood, but it is not open to the public in the evenings oron Sunday, and istryingto move to an admission - only model. Most square miles have a park and a school playground. There is neither inour area. • Regarding the amplified sound stage, what isthe actual total numberof amplified events (notjust ticketed music events") that will be held at the sound stage per year? The majorfunder of this sound stage frequently provides concerts that do not require a paid ticket -so include those concerts and other theatre events, non- ticketed/free music events. The noise and traffic impact will be the same on our neighborhood, whether an event isticketed/paid or not. • Will a maximum event number be written in a contract somewhere and who will enforce this number? • Who will enforce noise ordinances? We were part of a sound test during our neighborhood meeting process, and the test failed. We expect that these failed test results will be part of the information given to the Planning and Zoning Board. • Will the event parking befree? If our neighborhood (and adjacent ones) needs a permit parking program as a resultofthe sound stage, will the City pick up costs of the program? We were told earlier that the Gardens did NOT have permission to use the federal building parking across the street -has that changed and if so, do they have a longterm written agreement? The same question exists for the new CSU lot at Research and Centre. 287 • How is it legal or safe to put an event venue like this sound stage, with its sound walls and porta-potties, in the FEMA-designated floodplain (even ifanchored). If cars aren't allowed in the flood plain during the summer, how can porta-potties, food trucks and bike parking be allowed? Has the engineering been done to show how the potential floodwaters will react to the obstructions created by the sound walls and stage as the flows migrate to the north and east during a 100 year plus event, including further obstruction caused by debris buildup along the length of 200 feet of wall/stage with a minimum height of 5'? • Are porta-potties realistic for the1500 people who would attend an event and what safeguards will be put in place to ensure that people do not walk onto adjacent property to relive themselves at both ticketed/paid events and non - paid events? Thank you for your time, Stacy Poncelow 620 Gilgalad Way Fort Collins, CO 80526 (970) 219-7390 sponcelow@comcast.net cc: WindtraiIon Spring Creek HOA Forwarded message From: "Jennifer Lowry" <]elowry@frii.com> Date: Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 7:44 PM -0800 Subject: The plan for big concerts at the Gardens on Spring Creek To: "Ross Cunniff" <rcunniff@fcgov.com>, "Jason Holland" <JHolland@fcgov.com> Hi Ross and Jason I'm a resident on Gilgalad Way and have been a long time supporter of the Gardens, even donating $1000.00 to build the original building. I'm pretty unhappy with the plan for the Gardens to host large concerts of 1000 people or more. I remember the early planning stages when Jim Clark was involved and they talked of a small amphitheater area to host weddings and family events like that. With sound mitigation, I was on board with that. But large concerts of over a thousand participants and all the noise, trash and parking issues is something I never imagined. Is there any way this can be blocked? Thanks, Jennifer Lowry 820 Gilgalad Way 690-3062 CEO From: Kevin Barrier[mailto:kevin(a)kevinbarrier.com] Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 10:15 AM To: Jason Holland; Ross Cunniff; Polly Lauridsen; Delynn Coldiron; Jan Sawyer Subject: The Gardens counter points for P&Z review in work session Jason, Please confirm once this email has been presented to the planning and zoning board. Your notice of hearing is deceptive and incorrect. You told the public the attendance caps are being modified to 1,500 when in fact, as proposed, all attendance caps are removed. Only 8 ticketed concerts are limited to 1,500 attendees. We discussed this with Jan, Cameron, Polly and Delynn well before the neighborhood notice went out. Ross, Once this has been through planning and zoning either way I believe it takes one councilman to propose a review and a majority of council to agree to hear the issue. Can you confirm this? Essentially this means no appeal by either party without a majority of council. Even though an amphitheater specifically must go through type 11 approval. I will be able to give you more reasons for appeal than we had on the grove if necessary. The Gardens on Spring Creek Master Plan Major Amendment Dec. 2015 It's not about finishing the planting. It is a ruse to steal a public, city park and turn it into a walled, gated amphitheater and concert venue. If you've donated to the Gardens on Spring Creek, because you like their philosophy and mission statement, you might want to ask for your money back. The control of The Gardens has been taken from Parks and Rec and turned over to the government body that manages Lincoln Center. If you approve of this, it's no longer our park or gardens it's their for profit concert venue. The Horticulture Center was approved as a city park allowing a children's garden, green house, classroom, great lawn and band stand for 5 piece quartets and 300 to 350 person gatherings. It is surrounded by residential homes on three sides it functions well as a park even though there is no enforcement of noise or gathering size so far. Weddings, receptions and events have far surpassed noise and size limits from the original approval. The request to Planning and Zoning to remove all event attendance caps on unticketed concerts and increasing the size of the ticketed events 500% to 1,500 while building a 1,400 square foot amphitheater instead of the band stand, as designed, is a massive change in scope and use. This would replace the primary use of Horticulture Center with Concert venue all summer long. 1. Amphitheaters are allowed in seven zoning districts but NOT in employment zoning. They not compatible with residential development. Period. a. Hiring an Amphitheater Design firm, calling it an Amphitheater for two years, keeping the design then referring to it as a, "stage area" shouldn't fool you. It is an amphitheater and it belongs in another zoning. b. Staff claiming that a Park can have an entertainment venue thus allowing a stage is ridiculous. This is gated, fenced and recently turned over to the Lincoln Center from Parks and Rec. It's no longer run as a park at all. 290 c. Amphitheaters, for compatibility reasons, are allowed in other zoning districts. And yes now that concert venue is admittedly the primary use that's what it is not a park not a public facility with secondary, secondary use. The majority of the income and expense and even the management is for a concert venue no longer parks. Amphitheaters are specifically allowed in specific zoning with type II approvals. Not this back door approval. AMIPHITHFATEK AME ALLOWED FH SPE{IM 61917lM FOR A AEaSOw "dI6krl[i N1hoev FA AnWoihsmer N■PprGkVO4 I%a Typo II•ppso •II LP&L" �f`:�II'o Y1W11.Y.V I#+11`. inS•81YT��•IY-�I�fNI! 1 iYrl_II iI1}'ITFRM TTNT SRIIA• T•yr I I�.'r I T*jY I ••%,• 11 ,+}r RTC TrmIr1] T, I1rI •rI •!j6rI %IYet GiYfM1f 1} �.+i 11lnry+ Uwdy' GPM r•r krNI�LY 11LW 41 L\i} rlT 5 _ —__ •. IYIR Ium PIM 1 ��.. Ampt9ihrate" sm aftwa4 Im t W S 4K MHWV DIvIsIOIv 4,17 RIVER Dowrarown R1F0EVELOPAAEr':F D67FLICF (R-DL+R) "A DIVISION 44,t9 CQMMLFr4Irr COMMERCrAL 131SYRICT jC-[I'°cr ENVISION is_19 corAM UNITYi;0DA CACIAL- NQRTN COLLEGE OMTRICT{C.C•N}wT C4VPS19ry 4.ZO Ct,]MMUrdl Ty COMMERCIAL=POU DOE RIVER DISTRICT { } s 01Vs5FQw 4.22 5E14VrCE COMMERCIAL 67STRICT tC-sj eeyl DFV 15RON 4_2a NEIOHBORHQOD cOMMERCIAL DISTRACTVA-Cl"P! DIVI5141V4.26HARMCINYCQRRIbORpFSTRIC74M-Cj 19 p- 2. The request for 1,500 person, ticketed events is 3-5 times greater in scope of the original approval. Even if Employment Zoning allowed this use it wouldn't be approved as its not compatible to what already exists. The eight ticketed "small" events would eclipse almost every weekend all summer long. There is no way P&Z ever would have approved this originally. You might note the original approval bypassed P&Z by executive signature. 3. In the operation standards of the application, the eight "ticketed events" is the ruse. The defining term should be, "events" or "concert events11 or "amplified events". Like Bohemian Nights. The Bohemian Foundation is the Horticulture Center's biggest donor and they don't charge for music remember? This is surrounded on three sides by residential homes. Jason you left out Wallenberg in your recommendation. Definitely not zoned for this use. Definitely not compatible. 4. The original approval had a drawing of a band stand the size of a gazebo. The proposed half shell amphitheater is 1,400 square feet and larger than the average main floor of the neighboring homes. It's not compatible. 5. P&Z should consider that this does not fit adjacent to residential neighborhoods in any way. a. Infrastructure. There are no bathroom facilities. They want to bring in portalets for 1,500 people. And, that's at the small ticketed events! Have you ever seen a line at a big concert for portalets? Goodbye Spring Creek natural area. If it doesn't fit the zoning, why would you consider bringing this to the area? Note, portalet vendors state that 28 portalets per concert with concessions would be needed for each of the small 1,500 attendee events. b. Picture in your mind a flood, this is a FEMA flood plain, the ONLY FLOOD PLAIN where people have died in a flood in Fort Collins. This doesn't belong in the zoning, its not compatible to the neighborhood and it certainly isn't compatible to the terrain next to our homes in a flood plain. CARS ARE NOT ALLOWED IN FLOOD PLAINS IN THE SUMMER MONTHS WHY ARE Sound walls, a minimum of 28 portalets (for 1,500) and stage? When these are washed against Center Avenue, which was not there in the last flood, it will be catastrophic. Again it isn't compatible socially, per code or geographically in this area at all. Monsoon season is concert season, Spring Creek floods. c. The noise from 1,500 people at a concert belongs in the proper zoning. The manager of the Lincoln Center stated, at the neighborhood meeting, that this is where he would hold hiF291 "big events" 2,000 plus. And, any fines for noise would be charged to the performer. That doesn't help us. Their largest donor has massive concerts in town. In residential neighborhoods, in employment zoning what part of compatibility don't they understand? I'm sure they will say, "oh the noise came from the 2,000 people listening outside the fence not us, Parks is responsible not the Lincoln Center" d. The Horticulture Center has plenty of parking for its approved use. If it's ever been full it is because their events were larger than allowed by the original approval. Changing this use will wreak havoc on surrounding residential neighborhoods. The parking documented in the application is ridiculous and dangerous and no one should believe it for a second. Let's not lie to each other. People will park closest to the concert event in the residential neighborhoods. I would. You would. Note the agreement with CSU for parking states reciprocal use. That simply means the applicant's stated eight events are now joined by CSU tailgates. Ten more huge events! Remember the underpass at Prospect and Center? Now its incredibly incompatible with the neighborhood. You're replacing a Garden Center with a concert venue and the old Sonny Lubic Stadium tailgating! Their parking plan is a nightmare for the city and neighborhoods. e. Biking to the proposed 1,500 bike stalls. The Spring Creek trail under Center Avenue is not only flooded most of the summer concert season it's the only way east from the Horticulture Center without crossing Center. So new crossing lights need to be installed for all these people to cross Center. But to go where, the Max couldn't move half that many people in 5 hours if it was dedicated to just that use. Center avenue will be complete gridlock from Drake Shields and Prospect. f. Noise. Self -measured tests have never been allowed. The city must do this independently as done in Oxbow. The weddings at the Horticulture Center routinely break the law for noise. We call them, they hang up on us. We call the police and they can hear it in the phone were calling from 120 feet away. They blame a DJ but don't stop. We're told it will be strict enforcement but it never has been. And, the fine for the noise violation is paid to the city... not the neighbor damaged by the broken law. If you approve the change in use to concerts with 1,500 people and an amphitheater this illegal use will cost the city a lot more money in fines for noise violations. But who is damaged? Not the city. We're the ones that cannot enjoy our homes in the summer anymore. g. Noise 2: The Mayor, and city council trounced CSU for the stadium and the noise it will bring to our neighborhood. They even required a multimillion dollar distributed sound system for the stadium. If P&Z approved this use as proposed, in a zoning it is not allowed in, will you also require a similar system for your own facility? The Planning and Zoning Board needs to see the dangers and impact this would impose on the neighbors and city itself, recognize the violation of zoning being requested and turn this down. If we as a city are really going to start walling off our parks to charge entry fees, blatantly disregard, flood plains, zoning laws, health safety, infrastructure, neighborhood input the city council needs to own the decision themselves. Turn this down. Remember this the next time you get a recommendation to, "approve" without any mention of neighborhood compatibility, be suspicious. Planning and Zoning board is the check and balance. Footnote: Look at December 17`" 2015 agenda item #5 of the staff report to the Planning and Zoning Board (on page 125 of 286) Page 159 General Standards Number 2 states: THERE SHALL BE A MAXIMUM OF (8) PERFORMANCE EVENTS WITH AN ATTENDANCE CAP OF 10500 PERSONS. THE MAXIMUM ATTENDANCE SHALL BE MANAGED AND REGULATED THROUGH TICKET SAL292 The (8) Ticked events are the small ones. The, unlimited, non ticketed events, according to the neiahborhood meetina and the manaaer at the Lincoln Center. will be the "BIG EVENTS" that he cant at the Lincoln Center. His words. But add to been to the Gardens the fence won't bother another 2-3,000 people from camping along Spring Creek. You only need a ticket if you come inside. Page 159 General Standards Number 3 states: EACH TICKETED PERFORMANCE EVENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO ONE EVENING. THERE SHALL BE NO MULTI - DAY TICKETED PERFORMANCE EVENTS SUCH AS MUSIC FESTIVALS. No "multiday ticketed events" is clearly worded to mean non ticketed events can be multiday. Their largest donor the Bohemian foundation does not charge for music this is a ruse to get approval but will be in writing and enforceable non the less. Page 159 General Standards Number 4 states: THERE SHALL BE NO ATTENDANCE CAP FOR NON -TICKETED EVENTS (I.E. WEDDINGS, GARDEN OF LIGHTS, ETC.). SUCH EVENTS MAY PROVIDE AMPLIFIED MUSIC IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE MUNICIPAL CODE. Sound like a familiar concert series hosted by the Bohemian Foundation? You approved the grove with 35 macro level code and zoning violations and now you are reaping the whirlwind trying to collect fines. Don't make that mistake here again. We built our homes and lives in this location based on knowledge of zoning and city codes. Our use of our homes depends on your following the codes and zoning laws. Thank you, Kevin K. Barrier, 602 Gilgalad Way 970 310 3450 293 DENVER BOTANIC GARDENS December 15, 2015 City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO, 80522 Good evening. Botanic gardens occupy a special place in the cultural firmament. Because of the ubiquitous appeal of plants in virtually every aspect of our lives, gardens have become more than just showcases for horticulture design and aesthetic beauty, they are increasingly vital centers for community gatherings and events. Holiday lights are simply better when displayed in gardens. Outdoor dinners, from farm to table, nourish the body and soul. Exhibits of art have been integrated with gardens since ancient times. And concerts, outdoors and surrounded by beautiful gardens, create memories for a lifetime. At Denver Botanic Gardens, we have hosted concerts for over 30 years. They are a cherished summer tradition for countless members and guests. The management of the concerts is something we take very seriously, concentrating on a great experience for attendees and a low impact on surrounding neighborhoods. Parking is managed, patrons are well-behaved and sound is constantly monitored and controlled. Because of improved sound technology and talent selection, we have received only two complaints from neighbors in the past five years regarding concerts and one of them was because he thought it wasn't loud enough. Concerts have become a critical tool for gardens around the country to create experiences that are relevant and meaningful in people's lives. The Gardens on Spring Creek is an institution with the leadership and capacity to do it right. We all admire their progress and their promise to become a true shining light among public gardens nationwide and a beloved community asset in Fort Collins. Denver Botanic Gardens will assist our friends at Spring Creek in any way we can as they evolve their programming. After all, over three decades of concerts, we have pretty much tried everything that fails and everything that works to strike the perfect balance. CEO 909 York Street Denver, Colorado 80206 720-865-3500 www.botanicgordens.org 294 City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board Greetings, I am writing this letter to express concerns I have over the Spring Creek Gardens Major Amendment and assuming there will be a time limit on comments at the hearing, I respectfully request this letter be provided to the P&Z Board for their deliberations. As a longtime resident of the adjacent single family home development, I have been involved with the Gardens from the original project and review back in 2000/2001 and based on assurances we received from the Applicant at that time, have supported the project as originally proposed, designed and approved. This latest change on the other hand has caused me to question the original intent of the Applicant as well as the entire process where the neighbors spend countless hours to work with the developer to find common ground, only to have all those concerns ignored several years later. I also must admit that I am somewhat cynical that we can have any impact on this project... as they say, you can't fight City Hall, but I feel compelled to at least ask you consider the following points and attempt to get us answers to the attached questions. This project has the potential to have a significant impact on the adjacent neighborhood, one that has already been impacted by changes to prior development plans such as the Grove Apartments and by CSU with the Stadium being less than 1/3 mile away. In our opinion the Gardens are moving from the one positive development we have seen to just another dumping on our homes and neighborhood, regrettably in this case by the very organization we expect to protect us. The gardens as originally approved included a great lawn with up to 500 guests for small concerts. Obviously this new proposal far exceeds that agreement, but even goes so far as to take away from us the only neighborhood park in an entire square mile.... The only square mile in the city without a park or school to provide a recreation area for the residents. In documents provided by the City I have provided a few of the promises that were made to us, and even to the Administrative Hearing Officer who approved the original project. From the original Statement of Planning Objectives dated 11/09/2000 I would like to provide you with the following quotes. These citations can be found on pages 7 and 8 of that document in case you need to see them in context. The first order of addressing these concerns has been with clarification. Man,, o�people expressing concern have had an inaccurate perception that we are proposing very loud concerts with a thousand or more people, similar to the CSU Lagoon Concert Series. In fact, we are envisioning much more subdued music and much smaller audiences, comparable to the Lincoln Center's summer "Nooner" series with minimally amplified music and about 300people attending Apparently our inaccurate perception is proving to even exceed our worst expectations for this and this original promise made to the community has now increased by 500% more people and full blown amplification system. The next paragraph of the document begins with the following statement. 295 Controlling the number of people attendingis issue, as that relates to both the noise level and the risk of people not finding convenient parking and resorting to looking for it in the adjoining neighborhood. I question if the public will agree with applicants current assumption that parking in the CSU Research lot located more than a third of a mile away (by the way it would appear the measurement provided in the Applicants documents are from corner to corner and don't accurately reflect that the CSU Research lot is almost 4 clocks long and on the other side of a major street) will be as "convenient" as parking in a neighborhood less than 175 feet away? As long as we are on parking by the way, no where do we see parking considerations for non -ticketed events, which by definition are unlimited in size and scope, will this plan accommodate 8000 people? The applicant is requesting approval of an alternate parking strategy, one that will negatively impact our neighborhood and the response we have received to date has been "if it becomes an issue, we can go to permit parking". While we fully expect this on game days, to now add 8 more ticketed events and who knows how many non -ticketed events for thousands of people with 74 on -site spots is more than an alternative parking strategy, it is another Summit parking debacle. Additionally we don't want permit parking and needing to "buy" permits to have folks over after work on a Friday or host a small Holiday gathering. Why does the applicant think that permit parking is a good strategy for us? I offer the following from the applicants Alternative Compliance Document for parking. Additional parking would be a difficult task without making an inoperable and inefficient parking layout that would be a detriment to the project and the public good_ Also given the minimal use of the alternative parking scenario it would an irresponsible use of public funds to require this facility to accommodate the required parking_per the land use code. My only comment is to hold the applicant to the same standard all other developers must be held to. Keep in mind that this major amendment is not about more flowers, it is about a change of use in an effort to make this facility profitable, no different than a concert venue on the Ox Bow, downtown or next door to any other neighborhood in the community. If this proposal was coming from Ticket Master and they desired building a 50,000 square foot amphitheater with enough room for 8000 or more people, would the same alternative strategy be acceptable and would the concern over costs be the deciding factor? Again from the 2000 Statement of Planning Objectives Page 7: We have recosnized all along that the noise level of any event, whether from people or music, isa criticalone Wealsounderstandthatthe nearest homes are relatively closeto the Great Lawn, and that sound travels more readily in this creek basin, for geographic and climatological reasons. The applicant has told us repeatedly that crowd noise is not a factor, although 15 years ago it apparently was and was considered a limiting factor in the size of the venue. Additionally, although we have repeatedly told the applicant that noise travels more readily in this basin, apparently their opinion on this fact has changed in the last decade or so. Of course living in this area we have experienced the effects that projects like the Summit and Grove have had on sound reflection, but again, are being told that this won't 296 be an issue with the new venue, even if it is 1200 more people with greater amplification. Hopefully you can appreciate our skepticism. Finally from that 11/09/2000 document I provide the following: Thus far. we have not been able to alleviate all of the concerns of the neighbors related to the holding of small concerts and other events. Our intent for the further resolution of these issues -- the noise levels, time of day, freguencv, number of people attending, and the serving of alcohol -- is to continue researching and discussing them with the neighborhood. Once again we have a statement made by the very same applicant that was obviously ignored once the project was approved. This is the same thing we have seen from the Grove and other developers, but certainly did not expect from this applicant. We have not been part of any discussions or planning, other than a couple of neighborhood meetings many months ago (over a year?) where we were permitted to offer comments and ask questions, but apparently have not even been considered for a on the planning and management committee that has reportedly been formed to manage the concerts. Certainly seats on the committee have been saved for those who intend to use the facility. Finally I offer the below excerpts from the Conclusions and Decision from the Type 1 12/05/2001 Staff Report and the Findings, Administrative Hearing: 1. Section 3.5.1, Building and Project Compatibility The proposed community horticulture center and neighborhood park contains a total of 4 buildings. They include the main conservatory building, a gazebo bandstand, a hoop house, and a pump house. The buildings are somewhat internal to the site and relate to the horticulture center activities. They are unique to the specific community horticulture center theme. I don't believe the Staff at the time would have considered a concert venue that can hold 8000 plus people to "relate to the horticulture center activities." and I am not certain that they do even today. From the Hearing Officers findings: The testimony by adjacent residential property owners expressed overall support for the project: however, there was some concern about the potential noise from use of the proposed bandstand for concerts and live music. The applicant testified that the issue of noise would be addressed and mitigated through the City's existing noise ordinance which imposes limits on noise levels throughout the Ct. The applicant further testified that concerts would be small with low amplification and that the future design of the bandstand would include sound tests to further mitigate noise levels. The site plan also indicates that the availability of parking will also serve to limit the size of events scheduled for the facility. Given the size and proposes uses of the property, the City's existing noise ordinance and future design considerations of the bandstand offered by the applicant, the Hearing Officer finds that the PDP, including the use of the proposed bandstand for live entertainment, will 297 not have a detrimental effect on the residential neighborhood to the west of the propertL addition, because the City is the applicant in this case, the Hearing Officer i confident that the applicant will comply with all of is ordinances and will work with the neighboring property owners in the design of the bandstand. My question is; would the hearing officer have ruled as she did 14 years ago if this same proposal was being presented? I can't answer that, but I can tell you the neighbors would not have actually supported the proposal as we did then, apparently based on promises from the developer that were never intended to be kept. I plan to speak at the hearing tonight and will clarify why I believe this venue will be used by far more than 1500 people 8 times a year, but I know time will be limited so please consider our remarks and concerns with the following history in mind. We support the gardens, enjoy having them as a neighbor, use Lilac park and are not opposed to the concert venue as originally proposed, but in this instance the applicant is asking for far more than this site can support and impacting any single neighborhood far more than should ever be allowed. I sincerely ask that you deny this proposal until the applicant can address these concerns and define the non -ticketed events, establish a relationship with the neighborhood and take real and meaningful steps to control the noise, the parking and the crowds that will impact us so negatively. Attached are questions submitted by other neighbors that we hope will be addressed. Bob Poncelow 620 Gilgalad Way Fort Collins, CO 80526 NW Additional Neighbor Questions that have not been addressed by the Applicant • Will the porter -potties be removed after each event? If there were a flash flood, would a large bank of cabled porta-potties float downstream? How tall are the sound walls off the ground (rather than above the stage)? Why have they been reduced in height, and will that reduce effectiveness? How long will the material remain effective before it needs to be replaced? What was the decibel level in the middle of the listening area when the measurements shown in the neighborhoods were taken? Can we get a copy of the staff comments from the staff review meetings? Trees are being proposed for buffering, but do not grow quickly in this area — note that the conifers planted west of the trail on the west side of the Gardens still are not very large 14 years (is this right?) after the Garden was established. How can large amounts of trees be added for buffering if they are in the floodway? Was a new Environmental C....? Study (ECS) required? If not, why not? Concern: the sound study was prepared by the developer. At the hearing, only this point of view will be presented. Without hiring its own sound consultants, neighbors will not know if the study was accurate. Appears to be computer -generated rather than any actual testing? In real life during neighborhood meeting demo, sound was bouncing back off of the Grove buildings; report states there will be no echo. Occupants of the Grove are not being shielded by sound walls, and not considered or mentioned in the hearing documents. Please note that the City never constructed the park with playground and picnic shelter that was required by the original 2004 PDP. This proposal removes Lilac Park where the playground and picnic shelter was supposed to be and removes it as an accessible space to a fenced -in area, not open to the public during evenings and weekends. People often use the area as an amenity near the trail. Bike -to -work day events are held in the area that will be taken over by the Gardens with this proposal. This square mile does not have a public park with a playground, though one was approved with the PDP. It is now being removed with this Major Amendment. • What would happen if the brief computer -modelled report from the sound consultant hired by the developer is not accurate and the venue cannot comply with the City's noise requirements? 299 • Sound travels along the creek bottom and over Hill Pond unusually well. This was noted by the sound consultant in the 2001 approval process, and public comments about this have been discounted/not mentioned in the current review process. o The Board should be aware that we already hear the Lagoon Concerts from CSU and the loudspeaker and bands from French Field. The Lagoon area is over 1 mile from our homes, but can tell which verse is being sung in familiar songs. French Field and the Lagoon concerts are not a particular nuisance, but having a larger venue MUCH closer to our homes and backyards is extremely concerning. The hours likely to have events (weekend evenings and afternoons) are exactly the time that working families are trying to enjoy their yards for gardening, cooking outside, and visiting with friends — without amplified music next door. o We already hear music from the Gardens and from The Grove. We can clearly hear specific songs and lyrics from the Grove. When reported to police, the noise is rarely, if ever, addressed. o We will soon be hearing game day noise from the stadium, which is about (how far - a third to a half mile away?). Does the City really want to impose additional stress on this area? • We were told that the Gardens has not been financially self-sustaining and that staff was given direction to improve the profitability of the operation (though other parks facilities do not have that directive). Given that: o What would happen if the ownership of the Gardens changed to CSU, which does not have to and has asserted its right not to comply with the City's noise ordinance? o What would happen if the ownership of the Gardens changed to a private form profit or non-profit party? This use is not allowed by the zoning in the area, and it would no longer be a "community facility" if it were purchased by a non -City entity. What then? • Neighborhood concern is not simply how many ticketed music events are planned, but how many amplified events and events mith large numbers of people are planned. • What is the vision for this venue from the City's perspective? Is this venue being developed because of concerns about the number and impacts of downtown festivals? Can we see the business plan or feasibility study weighing this and other sites for a venue like this? Was there a feasibility study done, or did the project move directly to implementation phase? Can we see documentation of the stakeholder meetings where event planning has been taking place (without neighborhood stakeholders)? 300 Are game day events planned? Would request a condition that no game day events be allowed. Would extend impacts on neighborhoods before and perhaps after games. If game day events are allowed, request no amplified sound and no alcohol. Will event parking at the proposed lots be free or will a fee be collected? If overflow parking becomes a problem in the neighborhoods to the west or at the Grove, will the City cover the cost of a residential parking permit program? • Why are lights needed for the amphitheatre if amplified events will be ending at 8 p.m.? Still very light at &9 p.m. during the summer. Who will manage the operations of the venue? What is the relationship with Bohemian Foundation's music program? What are the CSU events that the letter from CSU Facilities referred to in the letter included in the P&Z board packet? 301