HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 12/07/2021 - PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. Agenda Item 16
Item # 16 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY December 7, 2021
City Council
STAFF
Clark Mapes, City Planner
Brad Yatabe, Legal
SUBJECT
Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 166, 2021, Approving the Addition of Permitted Uses
Associated with the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District Overall Development Plan ODP210001.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to consider the Addition of Permitted Uses (APU) in an Overall Development Plan
(ODP) for future expansion of facilities at the existing Fort Collins-Loveland Water (FCLWD) campus. The
proposed expansion will occur over time and includes a new maintenance building, outdoor storage, a publicly
accessible water filling station and covered parking for fleet vehicles.
The property has split zoning, with about half in the Low Density Residential (RL) zone district, which does not
list the proposed uses as Permitted Uses. To directly address this, ODP includes a request for Addition of
Permitted Uses as allowed under Land Use Code Section 1.3.4.
The APU process requires the ODP to be reviewed and decided by the Planning and Zoning Commission
(“P&Z”), in conjunction with a P&Z recommendation to Council on the APU aspect of the plan. Council is then
required to decide whether to authorize the additional uses. On October 21, 2021, P&Z unanimously (7-0 vote)
approved the ODP conditional upon Council approval of the APU and recommended that Council approve the
APU.
If this item is pulled from the consent agenda and Council votes to deny the APU, staff will present an
ordinance to deny the APU at the next regular Council meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The FCLWD is a quasi-municipal water utility that has provided water service to businesses and citizens since
1961. It serves an area of approximately 60 square miles and 50,000-plus people in parts of Fort Collins,
Loveland, Timnath, Windsor and Larimer County.
The FCLWD property comprises four parcels. Three of the parcels are in the Low Density Residential (RL)
Zone District, which does not list the uses in the plan as Permitted Uses. Those uses are: accessory buildings
associated with the office, and outdoor storage. The property is outlined in the solid white line below.
Agenda Item 16
Item # 16 Page 2
The existing development and operations already extend onto the RL portion of the property. The history of
this is not clear, as noted in the P&Z staff report on page 4. (Attachment 2) Now, the ODP proposes to expand
further into the RL portion, and the APU code section is being invoked to permit the uses. (Attachment 1)
Council Approval. In conjunction with development plans for projects located in certain residential-based
zone districts, including RL, any application for the addition of permitted uses must be determined by Council
after a Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation on the APU. The Planning and Zoning Commission
remains the decision maker on the primary application in this case, the ODP, which was approved conditioned
upon Council approval of the APU as noted previously.
APU Criteria. The criteria for APUs are found in Land Use Code Section 1.3.4 and are provided below. The
purpose of the APU process is to allow for approval of a particular land use to be located on a specific parcel
within a zone district that otherwise would not permit such a use.
An applicant may submit a plan with APU, with the understanding that the plan will be subject to a heightened
level of review, with close attention being paid to compatibility and impact mitigation. This process is intended
to allow for consideration of unique circumstances on specific parcels with evaluation based on the context of
the surrounding area. The process encourages dialogue and collaboration among applicants, affected property
owners, neighbors and City staff.
The Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend that Council add the proposed uses if the Board
specifically finds that such use meets the requirements of LUC Section 1.3.4, in that it: (1) conforms to all of
the eight criteria listed below; (2) would not be detrimental to the public good; (3) would be in compliance with
the requirements and criteria contained in Land Use Code Section 3.5.1 (attached); and (4) is not specifically
listed as a "prohibited use" in the zone district in which the proposed site is located.
The Commission found that these requirements are met and recommended approval of the APU.
The eight criteria are:
a) Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added.
b) Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone
district to which it is added.
c) The location, size and design of such use is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use
of nearby properties.
d) Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other
Agenda Item 16
Item # 16 Page 3
objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental
impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public
health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally
resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added.
e) Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area.
f) Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added.
g) Such use, if located within or adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood, shall be subject to two
neighborhood meetings. The second neighborhood meeting must take place after the submittal of an
application and after the application has completed the first round of staff review.
h) Such use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-452 of the City Code or a retail
marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code.
Staff Findings. Staff reviewed the plan for compliance and concluded that the plan meets the APU criteria as
explained below:
a) Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added.
The proposed uses are appropriate in the location, based on the plan and the context and circumstances,
because they already exist on the site and the facility has been a good neighbor for a number of years; and
because the proposed ODP reflects conversations with affected neighbors; and because the facility provides
critical infrastructure for adjacent neighbors and over 45,000 others in a large area of south Fort Collins,
Larimer County and Timnath.
b) Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in
the zone district to which it is added.
The use has basic characteristics appropriate in the location, based on the plan and the circumstances and
context of the proposed location, for the reasons stated under a) above; and because the ODP incorporates
collaboration with neighbors on a landscaped setback on the east with a privacy fence placed well within the
property so that the landscaping provides a sense of space for the neighbors; and because abutting lots on the
north have outdoor storage adjacent to the facility.
c) The location, size and design of such use is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on
the use of nearby properties.
The proposed expansion of existing uses is compatible with the context of the specific location within the zone
district and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties for reasons stated above.
d) Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or
other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse
environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services,
adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of
development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone
district to which it is added.
The most tangible impact that may be generated is noise, based on neighbor comments about the existing
facility: backup beepers on trucks/equipment, occasional late-night emergency dispatch mobilizations. The RL
zone permits public facilities such as fire stations and emergency services providers, and the proposed uses
are part of an operation that is similar or lesser in impact than those uses, which rely on sirens. Any other
impacts will be addressed/accounted for in any subsequent Project Development Plans.
e) Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area.
The proposed expansion continues the existing character, and the surrounding residential area will retain its
character.
Agenda Item 16
Item # 16 Page 4
f) Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added.
The proposed expansion of existing uses is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district
to which it is added, in the given location based on the plan as proposed, for all the reasons stated above.
g) Such use, if located within or adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood, shall be subject to
two (2) neighborhood meetings, unless the Director determines, from information derived from the
conceptual review process, that the development proposal would not have any significant
neighborhood impacts. The first neighborhood meeting must take place prior to the submittal of an
application. The second neighborhood meeting must take place after the submittal of an
application and after the application has completed the first round of staff review.
Two neighborhood meetings were held and the applicants have met with neighbors at an adjacent home.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
Any subsequent development will pay applicable development impact fees, with no financial impacts
associated with the addition of the permitted uses.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that Council approve the Addition of Permitted Uses on
their consent agenda, on a 7-0 vote. Minutes from this meeting were not yet available at the time of
publication.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
As required for this APU in the RL zone, two neighborhood meetings were held, both virtually. The first was
held on January 28, 2021; the second meeting was held on May 10, 2021, following submittal of the ODP, as
required. Two hundred thirty-four letters were mailed to owners within the notice area for both meetings. In
addition, the applicant team met with neighbors at their homes to discuss specific ideas.
There were no public comments at the P&Z hearing. (Attachments 5 and 6)
ATTACHMENTS
1. Overall Development Plan (PDF)
2. Development Review Staff Report (PDF)
3. Applicant's Narrative for ODP (PDF)
4. Applicant's Narrative for APU (PDF)
5. First Neighborhood Meeting Notes, January 28, 2021 (PDF)
6. Second Neighborhood Meeting Notes, May 10, 2021 (PDF)
7. Land Use Code Section 3.5.1 (PDF)
8. Applicant Presentation (PDF)
VEHICLEGATEPUBLIC WATERFILLING STATIONEXISTINGSTORAGEBUILDINGSTORAGEBUILDINGEXISTINGOFFICEBUILDINGSNEAD D
RI
V
E
ECOVEREDPARKINGCOVEREDPARKING EXISTINGPARKINGOFFICEEXPANSIONFAIRWAY ESTATES(ZONED U-E)FOSSIL CREEKDESIGN CENTER(ZONED C-G)FOSSIL CREEKMEADOWS(ZONED R-L)DDETENTIONFOSSIL CREEKMEADOWS(ZONED R-L)PROPOSED VEHICLEACCESS POINT24' PRIVATE DRIVEOUTDOORSTORAGEVEHICLEGATEEXISTING VEHICLEACCESS POINTEXISTING VEHICLEACCESS POINTFOSSILRIDGE DRIVEFIRETURNAROUNDNATURAL HABITAT AREALANDSCAPEBUFFER TO BEDESIGNED INCOLLABORATIONWITH ABUTTINGNEIGHBORSNATURAL HABITATBUFFER ZONE50'OUTDOORSTORAGEPRIVACY FENCEIVACUNDERGROUNDDETENTIONLANDSCAPE BUFFER TO BEDESIGNED IN COLLABORATIONWITH ABUTTING NEIGHBORSDRAWING NAME:REVISIONSNORTH0SCALE:PROJECTCLIENTSHEET DATE:SHEET NUMBER:PROJECT NUMBER:MIKE@MCBRIDELA.COM970.402.0438FORT COLLINS-LOVELAND WATER DISTRICT5150 SNEAD DRIVE, FORT COLLINS, CO 805251" = 30'10.19.21OVERALLDEVELOPMENTPLAN1THE UNDERSIGNED DOES, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I/WE ARE THE LAWFUL OWNERS OF REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED ON THIS SITE PLANAND DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I/WE ACCEPT THE CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONSSET FORTH ON SAID SITE PLAN.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, WE HAVE HEREUNTO SET OUR HANDS AND SEALS THIS THE ________ DAY OF___________________, 20______.BY:____________________________________NOTARIAL CERTIFICATESTATE OF COLORADO))COUNTY OF LARIMER)THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME BY _____________________THIS _______ DAY OF ____________________, 20_____.MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:__________________________________________________________NOTARY PUBLICOWNERS CERTIFICATIONAPPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINSTHIS_____ DAY OF _____________________, 20_____._______________________________________________________________________DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICESCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICESVICINITY MAPA PARCEL OF LAND SITUATE IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION ONE (1), TOWNSHIP SIX NORTH (T.6N.), RANGE SIXTY-NINE WEST(R.69W.)OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN (6TH P.M.), CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, AND BEINGMORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:PARCEL I:LOT 1, TRACTS A AND B, FORT COLLINS - LOVELAND WATER DISTRICT, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADOPARCEL II:BEGINNING AT THE WEST 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATEOF COLORADO; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SW 1/4 S 89DEG 48' 34" E 51.7 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCECONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTH LINE S 89° 48' 34" E835 FEET; THENCE S 00° 48' 47" W 459.76 FEET; THENCE N 89° 48' 34" W 835 FEET TOAPOINT ON THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY US HIGHWAY 287; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT OF WAY N 00° 48' 47" E 459.76 FEET TO THE POINTOF BEGINNING. LESS FOSSIL CREEK DESIGN CENTER PUD AND FORT COLLINS - LOVELAND WATER DISTRICTLEGAL DESCRIPTIONLAND USE TABLEEXISTING ZONINGC-G (GENERAL COMMERCIAL)R-L (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)PROPOSED LAND USEOFFICEACCESSORY BUILDINGOUTDOOR STORAGEMAX BUILDING HEIGHT PERMITTED4STORIESSITE AREA211,706 SF(4.86 AC)PROJECTLOCATION1. PLEASE SEE SECTION 3.4.1 OF THE LAND USE CODE FOR ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONES.2.THIS OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHOWS THE GENERAL LOCATION AND APPROXIMATE SIZE OF ALL NATURAL AREAS, HABITATS,AND FEATURES WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AND THE PROPOSED ROUGH ESTIMATE OF THE NATURAL AREA BUFFER ZONES AS REQUIREDBY LAND USE CODE SECTION 3.4.1(E). DETAILED MAPPING OF THE SITE'S NATURAL AREAS, HABITATS, AND FEATURES WILL BEPROVIDED AT THE TIME OF INDIVIDUAL PDP SUBMITTALS. GENERAL BUFFER ZONESSHOWN ON THISODP MAY BE REDUCED ORENLARGED BY THE DECISION MAKER DURING THE PDP PROCESS.NATURAL AREA BUFFER ZONESAPPROVED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS THIS_____ DAY OF _____________________, 20_____._______________________________________________________________________ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNERENVIRONMENTAL PLANNERBUFFER AREA REQUIRED21,639 SFBUFFER AREA PROVIDED21,640 SFMINIMUM BUFFER DISTANCE 8'MAXIMUM BUFFER DISTANCE150'AVERAGE BUFFER DISTANCE50'ATTACHMENT 1
SNEAD D
RI
V
E
RRRADADADNNN
E
T-22T-17T-18T-20T-21T-19T-23T-11T-12T-13T-14T-15T-16T-7T-8T-9T-10T-6T-4T-5T-3T-1T-2DRAWING NAME:REVISIONSNORTH0SCALE:PROJECTCLIENTSHEET DATE:SHEET NUMBER:PROJECT NUMBER:MIKE@MCBRIDELA.COM970.402.0438FORT COLLINS-LOVELAND WATER DISTRICT5150 SNEAD DRIVE, FORT COLLINS, CO 805251" = 30'10.5.21TREE MITIGATIONPLAN2A PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY TREES ORSHRUBS AS NOTED ON THIS PLAN ARE PLANTED, PRUNED OR REMOVED IN THE PUBLICRIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS INCLUDES ZONES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND CURB, MEDIANSAND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THIS PERMIT SHALL APPROVE THE LOCATION ANDSPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURE TOOBTAIN THIS PERMIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE CITYOF FORT COLLINSCODE SUBJECT TOCITATION (SECTION 27-31) AND MAY ALSO RESULTIN REPLACING OR RELOCATING TREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.1.A PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY TREES OR SHRUBS AS NOTED ON THIS PLAN ARE PLANTED, PRUNED OR REMOVED INTHE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS INCLUDES ZONES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND CURB, MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THIS PERMIT SHALLAPPROVE THE LOCATION AND SPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURE TOOBTAIN THIS PERMIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINSCODE SUBJECT TOCITATION (SECTION 27-31) AND MAY ALSO RESULT IN REPLACINGOR RELOCATING TREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.2.CONTACT THE CITY FORESTER TO INSPECT ALL STREET TREE PLANTINGS AT THE COMPLETION OF EACH PHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. ALL MUST BEINSTALLED AS SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. APPROVAL OF STREET TREE PLANTING IS REQUIRED BEFORE FINAL APPROVAL OF EACH PHASE.3.STREET LANDSCAPING, INCLUDING STREET TREES, SHALL BE SELECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL CITY CODES AND POLICIES. ALL TREE PRUNING ANDREMOVAL WORKS SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A CITY OF FORT COLLINS LICENSED ARBORS WHERE REQUIRED BY CODE.STREET TREES SHALL BE SUPPLIEDAND PLANTED BY THE DEVELOPER USING A QUALIFIED LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR.4.THE DEVELOPER SHALL REPLACE DEAD OR DYING STREET TREES AFTER PLANTING UNTIL FINAL MAINTENANCE INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITYOF FORT COLLINS FORESTRY DIVISION. ALL STREET TREES IN THE PROJECT MUST BE ESTABLISHED, WITH AN APPROVED SPECIES AND OF ACCEPTABLECONDITION PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE.5.SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY FORESTER -- STREET TREE LOCATIONS MAY BE ADJUSTED TO ACCOMMODATE DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS, UTILITY6. SEPARATIONS BETWEEN TREES, STREET SIGNS AND STREET LIGHTS. STREET TREES TO BE CENTERED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LOT TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE.QUANTITIESSHOWN ON PLAN MUST BE INSTALLED UNLESS A REDUCTION IS APPROVED BY THE CITY TO MEET SEPARATION STANDARDS.1.ALL EXISTING TREES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND WITHIN ANY NATURAL AREA BUFFER ZONES SHALL REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED UNLESSNOTED ON THESE PLANS FOR REMOVAL.2. WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED EXISTING TREE, THERE SHALL BE NO CUT OR FILL OVER A FOUR-INCH DEPTH UNLESS A QUALIFIED ARBORIST ORFORESTER HAS EVALUATED AND APPROVED THE DISTURBANCE.3.ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREES SHALL BE PRUNED TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FORESTRY STANDARDS. TREE PRUNING AND REMOVAL SHALL BEPERFORMED BY A BUSINESS THAT HOLDS A CURRENT CITY OF FORT COLLINS ARBORIST LICENSE WHERE REQUIRED BY CODE.4.PRIOR TO AND DURING CONSTRUCTION, BARRIERS SHALL BE ERECTED AROUND ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREES WITH SUCH BARRIERS TO BE OF ORANGEFENCING A MINIMUM OF FOUR (4) FEET IN HEIGHT, SECURED WITH METAL T-POSTS,NOCLOSER THAN SIX (6) FEET FROM THE TRUNK OR ONE-HALF (½)OF THEDRIP LINE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. THERE SHALL BE NO STORAGE OR MOVEMENT OF EQUIPMENT, MATERIAL, DEBRIS OR FILL WITHIN THE FENCED TREEPROTECTION ZONE.5.DURING THE CONSTRUCTION STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANT SHALL PREVENT THE CLEANING OF EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL OR THE STORAGE ANDDISPOSAL OF WASTE MATERIAL SUCH AS PAINTS, OILS, SOLVENTS, ASPHALT, CONCRETE, MOTOR OIL OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL HARMFUL TO THE LIFE OF ATREE WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED TREE OR GROUP OF TREES.6.NO DAMAGING ATTACHMENT, WIRES, SIGNS OR PERMITS MAY BE FASTENED TO ANY PROTECTED TREE.7.LARGE PROPERTY AREAS CONTAINING PROTECTED TREES AND SEPARATED FROM CONSTRUCTION OR LAND CLEARING AREAS, ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY ANDUTILITY EASEMENTS MAY BE "RIBBONED OFF," RATHER THAN ERECTING PROTECTIVE FENCING AROUND EACH TREE AS REQUIRED IN SUBSECTION (G)(3)ABOVE. THIS MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY PLACING METAL T-POST STAKES A MAXIMUM OF FIFTY (50) FEET APART AND TYING RIBBON OR ROPE FROMSTAKE-TO-STAKE ALONG THE OUTSIDE PERIMETERSOF SUCH AREAS BEINGCLEARED.8.THE INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES, IRRIGATION LINES OR ANY UNDERGROUND FIXTURE REQUIRING EXCAVATION DEEPER THAN SIX (6) INCHES SHALL BEACCOMPLISHED BY BORING UNDER THE ROOT SYSTEM OF PROTECTED EXISTING TREES AT A MINIMUM DEPTH OF TWENTY-FOUR (24) INCHES. THE AUGERDISTANCE IS ESTABLISHED FROM THE FACE OF THE TREE (OUTER BARK) AND ISSCALED FROM TREE DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT AS DESCRIBED IN THECHART BELOW:TREE DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHTAUGER DISTANCE FROM FACE OF TREE (FEET)0-213-425-9510-141015-1912OVER 19159.NO TREES SHALL BE REMOVED DURING THE SONGBIRD NESTING SEASON (FEBRUARY 1 TO JULY 31) WITHOUT FIRST HAVING A PROFESSIONAL ECOLOGIST ORWILDLIFE BIOLOGIST COMPLETE A NESTINGSURVEY TO IDENTIFY ANY ACTIVE NESTS EXISTINGON THE PROJECT SITE. THE SURVEY SHALL BE SENT TO THECITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER. IF ACTIVE NESTS ARE FOUND, THE CITY WILL COORDINATE WITH RELEVANT STATE AND FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES TODETERMINE WHETHER ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONSON TREE REMOVAL AND CONSTRUCTION APPLY.STREET TREE NOTESTREE PROTECTION NOTESTREE MITIGATION TABLESYMBOLSPECIESSTEMSSIZE (DBH)QUALITYMITIGATION VALUESTATUST-1HONEY LOCUST12"FAIR +1.5RETAINT-2CATALPA16"FAIR1.5RETAINT-3CATALPA11"FAIR -1RETAINT-4CATALPA11"FAIR +1.5RETAINT-5CATALPA10"FAIR +1.5RETAINT-6PONDEROSA PINE15"FAIR2RETAINT-7HONEY LOCUST12"FAIR +1.5RETAINT-8PONDEROSA PINE10"FAIR1.5RETAINT-9PONDEROSA PINE14"FAIR2RETAINT-10HONEY LOCUST8"FAIR1RETAINT-11WILLOW9"FAIR1RETAINT-12COTTONWOOD411" - 18"FAIR3RETAINT-13COTTONWOOD216", 18"FAIR2RETAINT-14HONEY LOCUST33" - 4"FAIR0RETAINT-15HONEY LOCUST26" - 7"FAIR1RETAINT-16HONEY LOCUST19"FAIR +2.5RETAINT-17PINYON PINE6"FAIR +1RETAINT-18PINYON PINE7"FAIR1RETAINT-19PINYON PINE25"FAIR0RETAINT-20PONDEROSA PINE13"FAIR1.5RETAINT-21PINYON PINE32" - 4"FAIR0RETAINT-22 PINYON PINE4"FAIR0RETAINT-23PINYON PINE7"FAIR +1RETAINTOTAL MITIGATION TREESREQUIRED0
Development Review Staff Report Agenda Item 3
Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p.970-416-4311 f.970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com
Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing October 21, 2021
Fort Collins/Loveland Water District Overall Development Plan
Summary of Request
This is a proposed Overall Development Plan (ODP), #ODP210001,
for future expansion of Fort Collins/Loveland Water District (FCLWD)
office and operations facilities. The plan enables expansion of
existing accessory storage/garage buildings and outdoor storage
associated with the water district office headquarters.
The FCLWD property comprises four parcels. Three of the parcels
are in the Low Density Residential (RL) Zone District, which does
not list the uses in the plan as Permitted Uses, and thus the plan
includes a request for Addition of Permitted Uses (APU) under the
Land Use Code.
Zoning Map
Next Steps
There are two next steps for this project that have different decision-
makers. The Planning & Zoning Commission is the decision-maker
on the Overall Development Plan; and must provide a
recommendation to City Council regarding the Addition of Permitted
Uses. If the Commission approves the ODP and recommends
approval of the APU, the APU will then be considered by City
Council. If the APU is approved, then the applicants could submit
Project Development Plans with the approved uses.
Location
5150 Snead Drive–south of Harmony Road
between Fairway Lane and Fossil Creek
Parkway on the east side of College Avenue.
Parcel #’s 9601333901; 9601334902;
960133490; 9601300905.
Zoning
The zoning map to the left shows the four
parcels that are part of the FCLWD operations.
The large parcel fronting onto Snead Drive,
which contains the main office building, is zoned
General Commercial (CG), and the other three
parcels are zoned Low Density Residential (RL).
Property Owner
Fort Collins/Loveland Water District
5150 Snead Drive
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
Applicant/Representative
Mike McBride
MMLA Landscape and Planning
2339 Spruce Creek Drive
Fort Collins, Colorado 80528
Staff
Clark Mapes, City Planner
Contents
1.Project Introduction .................................... 2
2.Land Use Code Article 1 ............................ 5
3.Land Use Code Article 2 ............................ 9
4.Land Use Code Article 3 .......................... 11
5.Land Use Code Article 4 .......................... 11
6.Findings of Fact/Conclusion .................... 11
7.Recommendation ..................................... 11
8.Attachments ............................................. 11
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Commission
1)make a recommendation to City Council to
approve the Addition of Permitted Uses;
and 2) approve the ODP.
ATTACHMENT 2
Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 3
ODP 210001 | FCWLD ODP with APU
Thursday, October 21, 2021 | Page 2 of 11
Back to Top
1. Project Introduction
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This request for an Overall Development Plan (ODP) with Addition of Permitted Use s (APU) to enable future
expansion of existing facilities at the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District (FCLWD) campus.
The FCLWD is a quasi-municipal water utility that has provided water service to businesses and citizens since
1961. It serves an area of approximately 60 square miles 50,000-plus people in parts of Fort Collins,
Loveland, Timnath, Windsor and Larimer County.
The proposed expansion includes a new garage building for vehicle storage and light maintenance, expanded
outdoor storage, a publicly accessible water filling station, and covered parking for fleet vehicles associated
with the existing office and operations facility. The ODP is shown below.
Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 3
ODP 210001 | FCWLD ODP with APU
Thursday, October 21, 2021 | Page 3 of 11
Back to Top
As shown on the zoning map on the first page of this report, the existing development and operations already
extend onto the portion of the property that is zoned RL, and the ODP proposes to expand further into the RL
zone. The RL zone does not list the outdoor storage and accessory garage for the office as permitted uses,
and thus the APU code section needs to be satisfied in order to permit the uses.
FCWLD needs the ODP to provide a framework for future phased expansion with the uses allowed. The
need for expansion is anticipated over the next 10-15 years to keep up with growth of district service and
operations.
B. DEVELOPMENT STATUS/BACKGROUND
1. Annexation and Planning
The land was annexed as part of the 1984 Fossil Creek Second Annexation. Initial zoning was divided, with
the dividing line being a straight extension of the west edge of the Fossil Creek Estates residential subdivision
on the south. Low Density Residential (RL) zoning in the portion of the area that is a straight northward
extension of the subdivision. The area west of the line was placed into a business designation.
ORIGINAL ZONING
(from 1993 MAP)
SITE w/ RL Zone
On Eastern Portion
TRILBY RD.
HARMONY RD.
FAIRWAY LN.
Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 3
ODP 210001 | FCWLD ODP with APU
Thursday, October 21, 2021 | Page 4 of 11
Back to Top
In 1989, the Fossil Creek Design Center PUD resulted in platting and construction of Snead Drive along the
angled west side of the subject property, along with the shopping center across Snead Drive to the west.
In 1999, the Fort Collins Loveland Water District Project Development Plan (PDP) was approved and the
facility was constructed. That original development was contained within the commercially zoned parcel along
Snead Drive. However, that plan indicated “Future Expansion” onto the abutting parcels on the north and
east which are zoned RL (and were zoned RL at the time).
In 2008-2009 the existing storage/maintenance building was built, which extends into the RL-zoned land.
Staff finds no record of how this development was approved relative to the zoning.
In 2014 an eastern expansion of the outdoor storage area was completed, which extends further into the RL-
zoned land. Similarly, staff finds no record of how this development was approved relative to the zoning.
The above history represents the current state of the property, which is shown on the zoning map on p. 1.
2. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use
North South East West
Zoning Urban Estate (UE) Low Density
Residential (RL)
Low Density Residential
(RL)
General Commercial
(CG)
Land
Use
Single family detached
residential, abutting back
yards
Single family detached
residential, abutting
side yards
Single family detached
residential, abutting back
yards
Multi-tenant strip
shopping center building,
rear side
C. OVERVIEW OF MAIN CONSIDERATIONS IN STAFF’S REVIEW
The initial concept by the applicants was to rezone the RL portion of the property to General Commercial to
create unified zoning on the district-owned property and enable the proposed uses.
Staff advised against a rezoning, in favor of APU, as the appropriate way to propose the desired uses.
Commercial zoning would introduce a whole range of commercial and multi-family residential uses that have
no relationship to FCLWD’s intent and purpose, and which staff felt would not be appropriate next to the
abutting residential subdivisions.
Rather, the proposed uses are a function of the specific intent and purpose of FCLWD. The ODP with APU
fits precisely with the intent and purpose of APU’s. Staff’s considerations have included:
• The uses are already established on the property, which renders the purpose and permitted uses of the
RL zoning seemingly moot. I.e., FCLWD’s ownership and mission to serve their customers with critical
infrastructure will prevent RL uses being built on the RL-zoned land.
• An incidental observation is that FCLWD serves the adjacent neighbors, in addition to providing critical
water infrastructure to approximately 45,000 people and counting.
• At two neighborhood meetings, the closest abutting neighbors spoke about FCLWD being a good
neighbor, but also shared concerns about the expansion, along with ideas to mitigate impacts and an
invitation to visit their properties to get a different perspective. The ODP reflects those conversations.
• There are some unavoidable impacts involving noise and activity levels such as back -up beepers on
FCLWD trucks and potential emergency dispatches at any time of night if necessary. These impacts are
similar to impacts of fire stations or other emergency services, which are permitted in the RL zone.
Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 3
ODP 210001 | FCWLD ODP with APU
Thursday, October 21, 2021 | Page 5 of 11
Back to Top
2. Land Use Code Article 1
A. DIVISION 1.3 – ZONING AND APU
Applicable
Code
Standard
Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff
Findings
1.3.4 –
Addition of
Permitted
Uses
The purpose of the APU process is to allow for approval of a particular land use on a
specific parcel within a zone district that otherwise would not permit such a use.
An applicant may submit a plan that does not conform to the zoning, with the
understanding that such plan will be subject to a heightened level of review, with close
attention being paid to compatibility and impact mitigation.
This process is intended to allow for consideration of unique circumstances on specific
parcels with evaluation based on the context of the surrounding area. The process
encourages dialogue and collaboration among applicants, affected property owners,
neighbors and City Staff.
There are two versions of APUs:
The first version is not the type of APU being proposed in this case; however, it is
important as background for staff’s findings under the required criteria:
(1) Where the proposed use is a new use in the Fort Collins Land Use Code, meaning
that it is not recognized in any existing use classification, and is proposed as being
appropriate to add into a zone district(s).
In other words, it is to incorporate a new use into the code that was not previously
recognized. It is determined by staff (“the Director”).
A list of eight criteria must be met for such a use to be approved.
The eight criteria are:
(a) Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added.
(b) Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other
permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added.
(c) The location, size and design of such use is compatible with and has minimal
negative impact on the use of nearby properties.
(d) Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke,
odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic
generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public
or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety,
morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount
normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it
is added.
(e) Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area.
(f) Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to
which it is added.
(g) Such use, if located within or adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood,
shall be subject to two (2) neighborhood meetings, unless the Director determines,
from information derived from the conceptual review process, that the development
proposal would not have any significant neighborhood impacts. The first
neighborhood meeting must take place prior to the submittal of an application. The
second neighborhood meeting must take place after the submittal of an application
and after the application has completed the first round of staff review.
Complies
Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 3
ODP 210001 | FCWLD ODP with APU
Thursday, October 21, 2021 | Page 6 of 11
Back to Top
(h) Such use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-452 of
the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of
the City Code.
The second type of APU is the type that is proposed:
(2) Where the proposed use is listed in other zone districts other than the zoning on the
subject property, and is proposed based solely on unique circumstances and attributes
of the site and development plan.
In other words, this second type is to allow a use to be added on one specific site in a
given development plan, rather than to add an entirely new use into the Land Use Code.
However, this second type refers to same criteria. Accordingly, staff has consistently
interpreted the criteria differently in this second type than in the first type, because the
use is not proposed to be added to the zone, which is the basis for the criteria as written.
In some cases, a proposed use may not be appropriate to be added to the zone district;
may not conform to basic characteristics of other uses in the zone; may generate more
traffic than other uses permitted in the zone; and may not be compatible with other uses
in the zone district except for under the unique circumstances of a particular plan.
The way staff typically interprets the criteria is illustrated by the yellow highlighted ideas
below for interpreting the pertinent criteria. These can be compared to the criteria as
stated in the code text on the previous page.
(a) Such use is appropriate in the particular location, based on the plan and the
context and circumstances of the location.
(b) Such use has basic characteristics that are appropriate in the particular location,
based on the plan and the circumstances and context of the proposed location.
(c)The location, size and design of such use is compatible with the context of the
specific location within the zone district and has minimal negative impact on the use of
nearby properties.
(d) Such use does not create an y more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke,
odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic
generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or
quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety,
morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount
normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is
added, unless any additional impacts are addressed/accounted for in the plan, and
warranted by the specific plan and context due to minimal negative impact o r offsetting
benefits to adjacent properties and/or the public.
(e) Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area.
(f) Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to
which it is added, in the given location based on the plan as proposed.
Staff intends to propose an update to the code Section with criteria along these lines to
acknowledge the difference in the second type of APU.
Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 3
ODP 210001 | FCWLD ODP with APU
Thursday, October 21, 2021 | Page 7 of 11
Back to Top
Staff finds that the APU request conforms to the code criteria as follows:
(a) Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added.
The proposed uses are appropriate in the particular location, based on the plan and the
context and circumstances, because they already exist on the site and the facility has
been a good neighbor for a number of years; and because the proposed ODP reflects
conversations with affected neighbors; and because the facility provides critical
infrastructure for adjacent neighbors and over 45,000 others in a large area of south Fort
Collins, Larimer County and Timnath.
(b) Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the
other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added.
The use has basic characteristics appropriate in the particular location, based on the
plan and the circumstances and context of the proposed location, for the reasons stated
under (a) above; and because the ODP incorporates collaboration with neighbors on a
landscaped setback on the east with a privacy fence placed well within the property so
that the landscaping provides a sense of space for the neighbors; and because abutting
lots on the north have outdoor storage adjacent to the facility.
(c) The location, size and design of such use is compatible with and has minimal
negative impact on the use of nearby properties.
The proposed expansion of existing uses is compatible with the context of the specific
location within the zone district and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby
properties for reasons stated above.
(d) Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat,
smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards,
traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts
on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public
health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development,
than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the
zone district to which it is added.
The most tangible impact that may be generated is noise, based on neighbor comments
about the existing facility – backup beepers on trucks/equipment, and occasional late-
night emergency dispatch mobilizations. The RL zone permits public facilities such as
fire stations and emergency services providers, and the proposed uses are part of an
operation that is similar or lesser in impact than those uses, which rely on sirens.
Any other impacts will be addressed/accounted for in any subsequent Project
Development Plans.
(e) Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area.
The proposed expansion continues the existing character, and the surrounding
residential area will retain its character.
(f) Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district
to which it is added.
The proposed expansion of existing uses is compatible with the other listed permitted
uses in the zone district to which it is added, in the given location based on the plan as
proposed, for all of the reasons stated above.
(g) Such use, if located within or adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood,
shall be subject to two (2) neighborhood meetings, unless the Director
determines, from information derived from the conceptual review process, that the
development proposal would not have any significant neighborhood impacts. The
first neighborhood meeting must take place prior to the submittal of an
application. The second neighborhood meeting must take place after the submittal
of an application and after the application has completed the first round of staff
review.
Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 3
ODP 210001 | FCWLD ODP with APU
Thursday, October 21, 2021 | Page 8 of 11
Back to Top
Two neighborhood meetings were held. Also, the applicants have met with neighbors at
an adjacent home.
City Council Approval Required In This Case. In certain residential-based zone
districts, includin g RL, any APU application shall be determined by the City Council
after a Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation on the APU. The
Commission shall remain the decision maker on the development plan.
Applicants Justification. The applicants’ justification narrative is attached and
addresses each of the pertinent criteria.
This Google Earth view below shows the site in context of abutting streets and buildings.
SITE
Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 3
ODP 210001 | FCWLD ODP with APU
Thursday, October 21, 2021 | Page 9 of 11
Back to Top
3. Land Use Code Article 2
A. DIVISION 2.2 – DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES
Applicable
Code
Standard
Summary of Code Requirement and Staff Analysis Staff
Findings
2.2.1-2.2.8
Procedural
Steps
These subsections outline the required steps for processing development applications.
Pertinent steps have been:
Conceptual Review – CDR190082
A conceptual review meeting was held on August 20, 2020.
First Submittal –ODP 200001
The application was submitted on March 12, 2021.
Neighborhood Meetings
Pursuant to LUC Section 1.3.4 – Addition of Permitted Uses, two neighborhood meetings
are required for an APU in the RL Zone District. The first meeting was held virtually on
January 28, 2021. The second meeting was held virtually on May 10, 2021 following
submittal of the ODP as required. 234 letters were mailed to owners within the notice
area for both meetings.
Notice (Posted, Written and Published)
Posted Notice: Sign posted January 15, 2021, Sign #593.
Written Hearing Notice: October 7, 2021, 234 addresses mailed.
Published Hearing Notice: Scheduled for October 10, 2021.
Complies
B. DIVISION 2.3 - OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Division 2.3 contains the standards for ODP’s.
Applicable
Code
Standard
Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff
Findings
2.3.1 Purpose
The purpose of the overall development plan (ODP) is to establish general planning and
development control parameters for projects that will be developed in phases with
multiple submittals while allowing sufficient flexibility to permit detailed planning in
subsequent submittals. Approval of an overall development plan does not establish any
right to develop property in accordance with the plan.
Complies
Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 3
ODP 210001 | FCWLD ODP with APU
Thursday, October 21, 2021 | Page 10 of 11
Back to Top
2.3.2 (H)
Standards for
Review
An ODP must comply with the following pertinent criteria:
The plan shall be consistent with the permitted uses and pertinent zone district standards
and pertinent general development standards (Article 3) that can be applied at the level
of detail required for an overall development plan submittal.
• The permitted uses are enabled by the APU request.
• The ODP shows access, building locations, key landscape and fence concepts,
extension of a street stub on the south as a hammerhead turnaround, and key
stormwater detention concepts at an appropriate level of detail.
The plan shall conform to the Master Street Plan requirements and the street
pattern/connectivity standards both within and adjacent to the boundaries of the plan as
required pursuant to Sections 3.6.1 and 3.6.3.
• There are no Master Street Plan facilities involved, which is the subject of Section
3.6.1.
• The ODP reflects appropriate extension of Fossil Ridge Drive on the south, which is
stubbed to the property line, by providing a turnaround. This is the only pertinent
subject of Section 3.6.3 and staff has found the turnaround to be the best solution for
the situation.
The plan shall identify appropriate transportation improvements to be constructed and
shall demonstrate how the development, when fully constructed, will meet the
Transportation Level of Service Requirements in Section 3.6.4, with submittal of a
Master Level Transportation Impact Study.
• A traffic impact memo was done and accepted by City Traffic Engineering. The
memo is attached.
The plan shall provide for the location of transportation connections to adjoining
properties in such manner as to ensure connectivity i nto and through the overall
development plan site from neighboring properties for vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle
movement, as required pursuant to Section 3.6.3(F) and Section 3.2.2(C)(6).
• Besides the Fossil Ridge Drive turnaround mentioned previously, no other
connections to and through the site were appropriate to require, given the existing
development on and abutting the site.
The plan shall show the general location and approximate size of any natural habitats
and features within its boundaries.
• No such features are present. An Environmental Characterization Study was done
and agreed to by staff. The study is attached.
The plan shall be consistent with the appropriate Drainage Basin Master Plan.
• Drainage and detention would be part of any future PDPs, and the ODP has notes
regarding drainage and detention based on thorough discussion among staff and the
applicant team.
Complies
via APU
Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing - Agenda Item 3
ODP 210001 | FCWLD ODP with APU
Thursday, October 21, 2021 | Page 11 of 11
Back to Top
4. Land Use Code Article 3
Article 3 standards do not apply to ODP’s except for the few references found in Section 2.3, as explained above.
5. Land Use Code Article 4
Article 4 standards do not apply to ODP’s except for the few references found in Section 2.3, as explained above .
6. Findings of Fact/Conclusion
In evaluating the request for the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District Overall Development Plan #ODP210001, staff
makes the following findings of fact and conclusions:
1. The Project Development Plan complies with criteria for Addition of Permitted Uses in Article 1, Section
1.3.4 as required for approval of the proposed uses.
2. The Project Development Plan complies with the applicable procedural and administrative requirements of
Article 2 of the Land Use Code.
7. Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission make a motion to recommend that City Council approve
the Addition of Permitted Uses in the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District Overall Development Plan #ODP210001, and
that the Commission make a motion to approve the Overall Development Plan, based on the Findings of Fact and
supporting explanations found in the staff report.
8. Attachments
1. Applicants Narrative for the ODP
2. Applicants Narrative for the APU
3. Overall Development Plan
4. Ecological Characterization Study
5. Drainage Memo
6. Neighborhood Meeting Notes from January 28, 2021
7. Neighborhood Meeting Notes from May 10, 2021
8. Staff Presentation
9. Applicant Presentation
MMLA LANDSCAPE + PLANNING
MMLA
970.402.0438
ATTACHMENT 3
MMLA LANDSCAPE + PLANNING
MMLA
970.402.0438
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
MMLA LANDSCAPE + PLANNING
MMLA
970.402.0438
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
MMLA LANDSCAPE + PLANNING
MMLA
970.402.0438
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
MMLA LANDSCAPE + PLANNING
MMLA
970.402.0438
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
MMLA LANDSCAPE + PLANNING
MMLA
ATTACHMENT 4
MMLA LANDSCAPE + PLANNING
MMLA
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
MMLA LANDSCAPE + PLANNING
MMLA
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
5150 Snead Drive Fort Collins/Loveland Water District
Overall Development Plan
First Neighborhood Meeting Summary
Meeting Date: January 28, 2021
Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting
Staff Attendees:
Alyssa Stephens – Development Review Liaison, astephens@fcgov.com
Clark Mapes – City Planner, cmapes@fcgov.com, 970.221.6225
Applicant Team: Mike McBride, Landscape Architect, Rebecca Spears, RB+B Architects, Brittany,
project manager for FCLWD
Summary
•Meeting Topic: The Fort Collins/Loveland Water District (FCLWD) needs to expand their existing
office and operations headquarters, and both the existing development and proposed
expansion involve property that is split between two zoning districts. One of the zoning districts
does not list the land uses as Permitted Uses, and because of that, the expansion requires
Addition of Permitted Uses (APU), which is a section in the Land Use Code that allows a
developer to propose uses that are not listed.
•Summary Notes: The meeting included ~ 7 attendees other than staff and applicants. The
meeting was recorded and is available on OurCity for viewing and comment.
Questions and answers mainly discussion with homeowners whose back yards are adjoining
with the FCLWD facility. Neighbors are interested in mitigation of any industrial character,
noise, and light.
Staff Presentation
•Clark Mapes briefly introduced the meeting topic – the zoning, the Addition of Permitted Uses
(APU) proposed, and the Overall Development Plan (ODP). The proposed uses are not listed as
as permitted in the zoning but can be proposed as a function of the plan based on the specific
circumstances.
•The meeting is mainly for the applicants and neighbors to share information neighbors to share
information and answer questions about the proposal.
Applicant Presentation
•Mike McBride showed the location, explained the FCLWD operations, and explained the
proposed ODP/APU. It would be a master plan framework to enable future development plans
for phased expansion.
Q & A, Discussion
ATTACHMENT 5
Comment: We live right behind the northeast corner of the property. It’s true that it’s kept very clean.
We are concerned about the loop drive behind the shop – currently green space. Looks like about a 60’
wide drive. It would be a summer heat sink with heat reflecting up off the site. It would be nice to have
landscaping around back of building to cushion that visually and buffer the heat. Also, what type of
fencing is planned?
Applicant Response: Fencing would be 6’ wood residential fence. The garage/shop is drive thru bays, so
that’s why there’s paving around the back.
Question: Snead Drive doesn’t currently connect to the south, and when it does in the future, I wonder
if traffic from this would start to use that connection.
Applicant Response: Yes, we would love to see that connection, but it’s the responsibility of the
property to the south. There’s a current mini-storage project in the works that would build that if it
goes forward.
Question: I live next to this on the south. The district has been a great neighbor. There’s water issues in
this area…where will the runoff go from all of the asphalt and roofs.
Applicant Response: Any development will have to adhere to City regulations with detention of runoff
from the site. The existing detention pond will be expanded. Water runs out to the west, into a ditch
along Snead. We can’t let any of the water leave our site w/o treating it and having proper flow at
historic rates. This issue will have thorough review to handle runoff under regulations, when actual
development plans are submitted with the roofs and paving identified.
We understand that the Snead Drive ditch has constant water in it, not just surface runoff from storms.
It seems to be an existing stream with water in the ground around it. Concerned about more water
going into that ditch. Understanding is that if the property to the south extends Snead Drive, the ditch
would be piped.
Question: Building height?
Applicant Response: Very similar to existing storage building. And covered parking would be just a
single story roofed structure.
Question: Will detention be shown on ODP?
City Response: There will probably be some mention of a conceptual location.
Question: To build this, would the land need to be raised?
Response: The structures would be at similar elevations as existing buildings.
Question: Lighting was put in years ago. Then later, shields were added because of glare spilling onto
other properties. Will there be lighting on the back side?
Applicant Response: All lighting will comply with the limits in City standards…how light it has to be, and
how bright it can be. It is possible that if there’s a water break in the middle of the night, crews might
have to mobilize and some lighting might be needed. We will probably use motion sensors. And no
spillover will be allowed.
Question: Could there be noise abatement using a berm? Along the south and east sides?
Applicant Response: We can’t tell at this point, we will look at landscape and grading for that.
Question: Does this change the zoning?
City Response: This Addition of Permitted Uses doesn’t change the zoning, it only enables this plan with
these uses.
Question: Is this yard used for training? Driving equipment etc.
Applicant Response: Sometimes, but not much. We might need to make sure crews know how to use
boom trucks or new features on equipment. So not a lot, but sometimes need to do some safety
training inside our walls.
Wrap Up and Next Steps
The next step would be a submittal by the applicant, then staff review, then a second neighborhood
meeting, and then a hearing with the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Recording: Available at devreview@fcgov.com
5150 Snead Drive Fort Collins/Loveland Water District
Overall Development Plan
Second Neighborhood Meeting Summary
Meeting Date: May 10, 2021
Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting
Staff Attendees:
Alyssa Stephens – Development Review Liaison, astephens@fcgov.com
Clark Mapes – City Planner, cmapes@fcgov.com, 970.221.6225
Applicant Team: Mike McBride, Landscape Architect, Rebecca Spears, RB+B Architects, Brittany,
project manager for FCLWD
Summary
•Meeting Topic: The Fort Collins/Loveland Water District (FCLWD) needs to expand their existing
office and operations headquarters, and both the existing development and proposed
expansion involve property that is split between two zoning districts. One of the zoning districts
does not list the land uses as Permitted Uses, and because of that, the expansion requires
Addition of Permitted Uses (APU), which is a section in the Land Use Code that allows a
developer to propose uses that are not listed.
•Summary Notes: The meeting included ~ 7 attendees other than staff and applicants. The
meeting was recorded and is available on OurCity for viewing and comment.
Questions and answers mainly discussion with homeowners whose back yards are adjoining
with the FCLWD facility. Neighbors are interested in mitigation of any industrial character,
noise, and light.
Staff Presentation
•Clark Mapes briefly introduced the meeting topic – the zoning, and Addition of Permitted Uses
proposed, tied a master plan for future phased development, called an Overall Development
Plan.
•The meeting is mainly for the applicants and neighbors to share information neighbors to share
information and answer questions about the proposal.
Applicant Presentation
•Mike McBride showed the location and explained the existing facility and operations. This
facility is headquarters of the critical water system for a broad swath of south Fort Collins, North
Loveland, parts of Timnath, and Windsor, and Larimer County subdivisions. The operations at
the facility involve infrastructure maintenance activities with an office building, fleet storage and
minor maintenance, materials storage, and a public water filling station.
•The facility was built in 1999. It serves a big area of about 60 sq. miles, with 45,000 people
served. It’s a critical part of Fort Collins infrastructure systems.
ATTACHMENT 6
• The applicants need the master plan/ODP for future facility planning to meet growing demand,
keep up employee safety. Need a master plan for phased development over time. This is not a
development plan that creates any right to build. Those plans would come later and have their
own review processes.
• The vision: keep up with projected growth with these campus facilities. Want to allow the uses
and general configuration. The ODP would show adcess, a fence, generous landscape screening.
• The APU is for accessory bldgs. to the office, and outdoor storage, and vehicle maintenance,
which are uses that are not permitted in standard RL zoning. Need a document that ties the
uses to the property. Asking for ability to submit phased plans for the uses going forward.
• The design team is doing facility planning for the master plan. The district needs a flexible
development framework so that they can bring projects forward when needed.
• The team considered rezoning to general commercial to match the front part of the property
but that’s not really what anyone wants. The district only needs what’s requested here. Just
want to get the City and neighbors comfortable with the basic uses and general configuration.
• District maintains a high standard of cleanliness and other upkeep on the property and the
vehicles that are kept there.
Q&A
• Q: Screening fence height? Look down over this from north.
• 6’ wood fence.
• With gravel and aggregate we hear dump trucks and loaders beeping…when purchased
property, had idea that this would not go any further. Concerned about additional noise.
Would have like to know that when purchased property, noise could impact property values.
• A: Yes, that is part of the operation.
• Q: how would noise be abated?
• A: beeping is tough. The fence and landscaping is what we’re proposing.
• Q: There was a car use denied on College just to the west – how can this be happening in the
residential zoning, when it was denied there where the zoning allows it. Neighbors were
concerned and got it denied.
• A: Don’t know. If this is the site at College and Fossil Creek Parkway, there have been other
inquiries over the years and the property has a number of challenges for development access
• Q: Currently 3 bays, in a brick bldg. that is good for insulation, sound, and looks nice. I see 5
more proposed. What kind of repair? Air tools? Our property sits up higher so a 6’ dfence
doesn’t do anything to screen noise. Air tools that are loud? Why not put maintenance out
there where it is less likely to bother anybody.
• A: We don’t do any of our own servicing, it’s more storage and a general shop area to store tools
for water operations. This is separate from the other facility which is more sewer, this is a water
facility. As far as additional trucks, we don’t plan on more trucks, unless we grow significantly.
• Q: in previous presentation, there were gonna be bay doors on both sides of the bldg. and then
paving on both sides to drive through the bldg.. If just storage, don’t understand the need for
the drive thru.
• A: still do have the bay doors on both sides just for convenience.
• Q: have to say that you guys overall are pretty good neighbors, noise is not that bad. Concerned
about the air tools noise…work from home, keep windows open…want to be able to enjoy home
office.
• A we don’t have structures designed yet, this part of the process is just thinking about what the
uses might be trying to get the uses permitted…whether the buildings would have doors on both
sides, and what they’re made of would come later.
• Q: Just concerned that if this rezoning gets done, we could have a very industrial area in back of
us, and that’s not what we bought into.
• A: It would be very similar, we’re not trying to change. Maintain the character. Any of these
future projects would go through a PDP with more neighborhood meetings.
• Q I appreciate that. Like the brick building , looks nice. But the other bldg. looks very industrial.
I get the benefits, but the industrial look is not what we bought into when e bought in with
green space zoned industrial.
• A: Clark – just to follow up on that - even thought this plan doesn’t design the bldgs., that’s true;
this plan does show circulation and does indicate that circulation does go all the way through
the bldg.; so its not entirely something to be put off until later – this master plan or ODP does
give an indication…we don’t need to leave it as something that we just don’t know yet…its is
something that an ODP can address so as we all discuss it., I want to be realistic as far as that
goes.
Q: resident of Fossil Creek Meadows – didn’t get notice, it was given to me by a neighbor who did get it.
A significant concern about Guardian storage re site drainage. So this will add to impervious area – do
we just pave it and put buildings up, or does it require a whole new review process.
A: that would be part of any development plan. The ODP wouldn’t really figure out the drainage. But
ALL development in the City has to comply with the all of the same regs for drainage. Part of the review
for this master plan/ODP IS already involving, at a general level, making sure that if this plan gets
approved, that there is some concept that will be possible to handle the additional runoff . Such as the
concept that IF detention underground would be needed because more the land used for surface use,
that that would be part of it. Let me ask the applicants if you know more about that. But this plan
probably should have some kind of note or something about that.
A: yes, detention had been looked at at a high level. We try to provide area for expansion of those
detention areas but we don’t have the exact numbers at this stage.
But conceptually, Stormwater is looking at this and they will want to know that it is possible. One other
thing is that Fossil Creek Meadows is certainly and entirely in the mailing notice area.
Q: Follow on – if district moved away, would this use remain with the property. IF they rezone from RL
to C, new user would not have to go through all of this.
A: if this were to get approved it would be THIS plan with the uses as a function of this plan. This
particular plan on this particular property
A: that’s the benefit of the APU process vs rezoning . Limits it to these uses that work with this plan.
A: This ODP may not need to list vehicle repair. IF it’s not maintenance and repair, just accessory
garage, may not need that.
A: yeah, we will drill down with the district to clarify that.
Q: Has anyone from the City or the developer looked at this from the point of view of what the
neighbors see?
A: yeah, we’ve toured from the edges…don’t want to encroach on neighbors property but think we’ve
done a pretty good tour.
Q: if ever interested to see and hear, be glad to give you permission to get a different perspective.
A: we’ll get contact information for that.
Q: Also, invite you to come to our property to see the view. The reason I was asking about bay doors on
both sides of bldg.. is the amount of hardscape shown there. The way it is currently, we get quite abit of
heat reflection and in the drawing there is a LOT of hardscape there. If you just put a driveway around
there with landscaping there would be a lot less but the way its shown there is a lot. That’s going to
affect us as we are higher up and get that reflection. The other piece of the bays in the back is the
likelihood of lighting over the bays. Don’t want to have lights. Not of lights out here except for the
district as it is now, but don’t want more. Just don’t want that industrial lookewith bay doors, lighting,
metal bldgs.. – fine in its place but not in my back yard.
A: yeah, that’s fair. With lighting if its not needed, there are thing we do – motion sensing on/off. But if
there’s an emergency and they need to mobilize, that needs to be safe. But totally get the point bout
character and will keep that direction as we move forward.
Q: would like to see more idea of what the landscaping would be. Realize this is an ODP, but for us to go
along with this rezoning, would like to see a more detailed plan you can tell us its going to be beautiful
but this plan doesn’t show that.
A: we have some ideas for that.
Q: totally understand. Need to actually screen our view. Again, 6’ fence doesn’t screen anything
because we’re up on a hill. Would l ike to see more about that.
A: we need to balance the amount of specificity. But this meeting is highlighting issues to keep in mind.
There would be more opportunities later in the process with development plans.
A: with an ODP, nothing is off limits…we wouldn’t see a planting plan with exact locations, but it would
be possible for this ODP to identify strategic locations for certain kinds of screening. If applicants do go
and visit and i.d. lines of sight, where a certain scale of plant massing would help, example, to locate
certain scale of tree massing, that’s the kind of thing that would be fine teo put on an ODP. can be
indicated on an ODP. Wouldn’t be a planting plan per se, but whatever is appropriate enable approval
of the plan. There would be something that could be done as parat of a general master plan.
A: We’re not trying to shoehorn some large 5-story project onto the site. We’re sensitive to a the
neighbor that’s sensitive to the surroundings…so as project moves forward, we would take whatever
steps we need to take to make sure that its designed appropriately, will be done.
Q: another related question about expanding the use ad adding more vehicle traffic. An issue with
Guardian storage was completion of Snead Drive. This would change the traffic…what’s the plan for
that?
A: Yea, we did a traffic narrative and small study of projections, and the slow growth that is expected
doesn’t trigger any changes, although we would love to see Snead Drive.
• Comment: We live right behind of NE corner. True that it’s kept very clean. Concerned about
the loop drive behind the shop – currently green space. Look like a 60’ wide drive – summer
heat. Nice to have landscaping around back of building to cushion that visually. Also, what type
of fencing is planned.
• Applicant Response: Fencing 6’ wood residential fence. Shop is drive thru bays so that’s why
theres paving around the back.
Question: Snead doesn’t currently connect to the south and when it does, wonder if traffic from
this would start to use that connection.
• Applicant Response: Would love to see that connection, but it’s the responsibility of the
property to the south. Theres a current storage project in the works…
• Question: Live next to this on the south. The district has been a great neighbor. There’s water
issues in this area…where will the runoff go from all of the asphalt and roofs.
o Applicant Response: Any development will have to adhere to City regulations with
detention of the water. Existing pond will be expanded. Water runs out to west, into a
ditch along Snead. Can’t let any of the water leave our site w/o treating it and having
proper flow. Will have thorough review to handle runoff under regulations.
o Applicant Response: The Snead Drive ditch has constant water in it, not just surface
runoff. Existing underground stream. Concerned about more water going into that
ditch. Understanding is that if they do Snead, the ditch would be piped.
• Question: Building height?
o Applicant Response: Very similar to existing storage building. And covered parking just
single story.
• Question: Will detention be shown on ODP?
o City Response: Clark
• Question: To build this, would the land need to be raised?
• Response: The bldgs. would be at similar elevations as existing buildngs.
• Question: Lighting put in years ago. Later, shields were added. Will there be lighting on the
back side?
o Applicant Response: City standards…how light it has to be, and how bright. It is
possible that if there’s a water break in the middle o the night, crews might have to
mobilize. Probably use motion sensors. And no spillover.
• Question: Noise abatement using a berm? S. and e. side?
o Applicant Response: Will look at landscape and grading for that.
• Question: Does this change the zoning?
o City Response: This Addition of permitted uses doesn’t change the zonng, it only
enables this plan.
• Question: Is this yard used for training? Driving equipment etc.?
o Applicant Response: Sometimes, but not much. Make sure crews know how to use
boom trucks or new features on equipment. Not a lot but sometimes need to do some
safety training inside our walls.
Alyssa: submittal, review, hearings.
Recording: devreview@fcgov.com more comments, access more information.
Created: 2021-08-05 09:44:41 [EST]
(Supp. No. 58)
Page 1 of 6
3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility
(A)Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to ensure that the physical and operational characteristics of
proposed buildings and uses are compatible when considered within the context of the surrounding area.
They should be read in conjunction with the more specific building standards contained in this Division 3.5
and the zone district standards contained in Article 4. All criteria and regulations contained in this Section
that pertain to "developments," "the development plan," "buildings" and other similar terms sh all be read to
include the application of said criteria and regulations to any determination made by the Planning and
Zoning Board under paragraphs 1.3.4(A)(5) and (6) for the purpose of evaluating the authorization of an
additional use.
(B)General Standard. New developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be compatible with
the established architectural character of such areas by using a design that is complementary. In areas where
the existing architectural character is not definitively established or is not consistent with the purposes of
this Code, the architecture of new development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects
or redevelopment in the area. Compatibility shall be achieved through techniques such as the repetition of
roof lines, the use of similar proportions in building mass and outdoor spaces, similar relationships to the
street, similar window and door patterns and/or the use of building materials that have color shades and
textures similar to those existing in the immediate area of the proposed infill development. Brick and stone
masonry shall be considered compatible with wood framing and other materials. Architectural compatibility
(including, without limitation, building height) shall be derived fr om the neighboring context.
(C)Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale. Buildings shall either be similar in size and height, or, if larger, be
articulated and subdivided into massing that is proportional to the mass and scale of other structures, if an y,
on the same block face, abutting or adjacent to the subject property, opposing block face or cater -corner
block face at the nearest intersection. (See Figures 7a and 7b.)
Figure 7a
Infill Buildings
Figure 7b
Infill Buildings
ATTACHMENT 7
Created: 2021-08-05 09:44:41 [EST]
(Supp. No. 58)
Page 2 of 6
New buildings in historic districts should reflect the historic character of the neighborhood through repetition of
roof lines, patterns of door and window placement, and the use of characteristic entry features.
(D) Privacy Considerations. Elements of the development plan shall be arranged to maximize the opportunity for
privacy by the residents of the project and minimize infringement on the privacy of adjoining land uses.
Additionally, the development plan shall create opportunities for interactions among neighbors without
sacrificing privacy or security. (See Figure 8.)
(E) Building Materials.
(1) General. Building materials shall either be similar to the materials already being used in the
neighborhood or, if dissimilar materials are being proposed, other characteristics s uch as scale and
proportions, form, architectural detailing, color and texture, shall be utilized to ensure that enough
similarity exists for the building to be compatible, despite the differences in materials.
Figure 8
Privacy Considerations
Created: 2021-08-05 09:44:41 [EST]
(Supp. No. 58)
Page 3 of 6
(2) Glare. Building materials shall not create excessive glare. If highly reflective building materials are
proposed, such as aluminum, unpainted metal and reflective glass, the potential for glare from such
materials will be evaluated to determine whether or not the glare would create a significant adverse
impact on the adjacent property owners, neighborhood or community in terms of vehicular safety,
outdoor activities and enjoyment of views. If so, such materials shall not be permitted.
(3) Windows.
(a) Mirror glass with a reflectivity or opacity of greater than sixty (60) percent is prohibited.
(b) Clear glass shall be used for commercial storefront display windows and doors.
(c) Windows shall be individually defined with detail elements such as frames, sills and lintels, and
placed to visually establish and define the building stories and establish human scale and
proportion.
(F) Building Color. Color shades shall be used to facilitate blending into the neighborhood and unifying the
development. The color shades of building materials shall draw from the range of color shades that already
exist on the block or in the adjacent neighborhood.
(G) Building Height Review.
(1) Special Height Review/Modifications.
Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to establish a special process to review buildings or structures
that exceed forty (40) feet in height. Its intent is to encourage creativity and diversity of architecture
and site design within a context of harmonious neighborhood planning and coherent environmental
design, to protect access to sunlight, to preserve desirable views and to define and reinforce
Created: 2021-08-05 09:44:41 [EST]
(Supp. No. 58)
Page 4 of 6
downtown and designated activity centers. All buildings or structures in excess of forty (40) feet in
height shall be subject to special review pursuant to this subsection (G).
(a) Review Standards. If any building or structure is proposed to be greater than forty (40) feet in
height above grade, the building or structure must meet the following special review criteria:
1. Light and Shadow. Buildings or structures greater than forty (40) feet in height shall be
designed so as not to have a substantial adverse impact on the distribution of natural and
artificial light on adjacent public and private property. Adverse impacts include, but are not
limited to, casting shadows on adjacent property sufficient to preclude the functional use
of solar energy technology, creating glare such as reflecting sunlight or artificial lighting at
night, contributing to the accumulation of snow and ice during the winter on adjacent
property and shading of windows or gardens for more than three (3) months of the year.
Techniques to reduce the shadow impacts of a building may include, but are not limited to,
repositioning of a structure on the lot, increasing the setbacks, reducing building mass or
redesigning a building shape.
2. Privacy. Development plans with buildings or structures greater than forty (40) feet in
height shall be designed to address privacy impacts on adjacent property by provid ing
landscaping, fencing, open space, window size, window height and window placement,
orientation of balconies, and orientation of buildings away from adjacent residential
development, or other effective techniques.
3. Neighborhood Scale. Buildings or structures greater than forty (40) feet in height shall be
compatible with the scale of the neighborhoods in which they are situated in terms of
relative height, height to mass, length to mass and building or structure scale to human
scale.
(b) Submittal Requirements. All development plans proposing building or structure heights in excess
of forty (40) feet shall, at a minimum, include the following information:
1. a shadow analysis that indicates, on the project development site plan, the location of all
shadows cast by the building or structure (with associated dates of the year);
2. a summary of the key conclusions of the shadow analysis, and steps to be taken to comply
with the review standards set forth above.
(c) Modification of Height Limits. To provide flexibility in meeting the height limits contained in Article 4 of
this Code, such height limits can be either increased or decreased by the decision maker in the
development review process for the following purposes:
1. preserving the character of existing residential neighborhoods;
2. allowing architectural embellishments consistent with architectural style, such as peaked
roof sections, corner turrets, belvederes or cupolas;
3. defining and reinforcing the downtown areas the major focal point in the community;
4. allowing for maximum utilization of activity centers;
5. protecting access to sunlight;
6. providing conscious direction to the urban form of the City through careful placement of
tall buildings or structures within activity centers;
7. allowing rooftop building extensions to incorporate HVAC equipment.
(H) Land Use Transition. When land uses with significantly different visual character are proposed abutting each
other and where gradual transitions are not possible or not in the best interest of the community, the
Created: 2021-08-05 09:44:41 [EST]
(Supp. No. 58)
Page 5 of 6
development plan shall, to the maximum extent feasible, achieve compatibility through the provision of
buffer yards and passive open space in order to enhance the separation between uses.
(I) Outdoor Storage Areas/Mechanical Equipment.
(1) No areas for outdoor storage, trash collection or compaction, loading or other such uses shall be
located within twenty (20) feet of any public street, public sidewalk or internal pedestrian way.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, areas for trash collection may be located within twenty (20) feet of an
internal pedestrian way.
(2) Loading docks, truck parking, outdoor storage (including storage containers), utility meters, HVAC and
other mechanical equipment, trash collection, trash compaction and other service functions shall be
incorporated into the overall design theme of the building and the landscape so that the architectural
design is continuous and uninterrupted by ladders, towers, fences and equipmen t, and no attention is
attracted to the functions by use of screening materials that are different from or inferior to the
principal materials of the building and landscape. These areas shall be located and screened so that the
visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent
properties and public streets.
(3) Conduit, meters, vents and other equipment attached to the building or protruding from the roof shall
be painted to match surrounding building surfaces.
(4) Outside areas, used on a long-term or regular basis for inventory storage or sale, over-stock, seasonal
goods, bulk items and the like shall be located within an area that is permanently screened with walls
or fences. Materials, colors and design of screening walls or fences shall conform to those used as
predominant materials and colors on the building. If such areas are to be covered, then the covering
shall conform to those used as predominant materials and colors on the building.
(5) Outside areas that are used on a temporary basis for the sale of seasonal inventory only shall be
defined by nonpermanent walls or fences. Such an enclosure shall not inhibit fire access to the building
or pedestrian and bicycle access to the building entrance. If ch ain link fencing is used, it must be vinyl-
clad or covered with a mesh material. Any such enclosure shall be removed upon the conclusion of the
seasonal sale period.
Subsections (4) and (5) shall not apply to temporary vendors who have been issued outdoor vendor licenses
as required by Section 15-382 of the City Code, provided that such temporary vendors are not permitted to
operate for more than sixty (60) days in any calendar year.
(6) All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view from both above and below by
integrating it into building and roof design to the maximum extent feasible.
(7) All satellite dishes that are greater than two (2) meters (78.74 inches) in diameter must be screened
and located as required in subsections (1) through (5) of this Section.
(J) Operational/Physical Compatibility Standards. Conditions may be imposed upon the approval of
development applications to ensure that new development will be compatible with existing neighborhoods
and uses. Such conditions may include, but need not be limited to, restrictions on or requirements for:
(1) hours of operation and deliveries;
(2) location on a site of activities that generate potential adverse impacts on adjacent uses such as noise
and glare;
(3) placement of trash receptacles;
(4) location of loading and delivery zones;
(5) light intensity and hours of full illumination;
Created: 2021-08-05 09:44:41 [EST]
(Supp. No. 58)
Page 6 of 6
(6) placement and illumination of outdoor vending machines;
(7) location and number of off-street parking spaces.
(Ord. No. 90, 1998, 5/19/98; Ord. No. 59, 2000 §18, 6/6/00; Ord. No. 107, 2001 §§23, 24, 6/19/01; Ord. No. 204,
2001 §§17—19, 12/18/01; Ord. No. 087, 2002 §§8, 9, 6/4/02; Ord. No. 090, 2003 §3, 6/17/03; Ord. No. 070, 2005
§7, 7/5/05; Ord. No. 104, 2006 §§8, 9, 7/18/06; Ord. No. 073, 2008 §6, 7/1/08; Ord. No. 120, 2011 §12, 9/20/2011;
Ord. No. 025, 2013 §6, 2/26/13; Ord. No. 041, 2013 §§5, 6, 3/19/13; Ord. No. 086, 2014 §33, 7/1/14; Ord. No. 163,
2014 §2, 11/18/14 )
1
1
2
ATTACHMENT 8
2
3
4
3
5
6
4
LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
URBAN
ESTATE
GENERAL
COMMERCIAL
URBAN
ESTATE
GENERAL
COMMERCIAL
URBAN
ESTATE
LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
7
8
5
ADDITIONAL PERMITTED USES
IN R‐L ZONING
ACCESSORY BUILDINGS OUTDOOR STORAGE
9
10
6
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
MASTER PLAN
11
12
7
13
14
8
AFTER HOURS MOBILIZATIONS
2015 12
2016 14
2017 19
2018 12
2019 11
2020 5
2021 (YTD)6
15
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 166, 2021
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROVING THE ADDITION OF PERMITTED USES ASSOCIATED WITH THE
FORT COLLINS-LOVELAND WATER DISTRICT OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
ODP210001
WHEREAS, the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District (“FCLWD”) headquarters office is
located at 5150 Snead Drive and the campus (“Campus”) upon which it is located consists of
four parcels, 9601333901, 9601334901, 9601334902, and 9601300905; and
WHEREAS, parcel #9601333901 is located in the General Commercial (“C-G”) zone
district, while parcels #9601334901, #9601334902, and #9601300905 are located in the Low
Density Residential (“R-L”) zone district; and
WHEREAS, FCLWD submitted an Overall Development Plan, ODP210001, for the
future expansion of the Campus, that proposes, among other things, the expansion and addition
of accessory buildings associated with the office, including garages, and outdoor storage on the
portions of the Campus located in the R-L zone district; and
WHEREAS, the proposed accessory buildings associated with the office and the outdoor
storage are not allowed uses in the R-L zone district; and
WHEREAS, the Addition of Permitted Uses process set forth in Land Use Code (“LUC”)
Section 1.3.4 allows a use not listed in a particular zone district to be conducted on a particular
property in such zone district if certain standards are met; and
WHEREAS, for Addition of Permitted Uses applications in the R-L zone district, City
Council is the decision maker by ordinance after considering a Planning and Zoning Commission
(“P&Z”) recommendation; and
WHEREAS, in association with ODP210001, FCLWD submitted a Addition of Permitted
Uses application to allow the proposed accessory buildings associated with the office and the
outdoor storage uses in the portions of the Campus located in the R-L zone district (“FCLWD
APU”); and
WHEREAS, at its October 21, 2021, regular meeting, P&Z approved ODP210001
conditional upon City Council approving the FCLWD APU and P&Z unanimously (7-0 vote)
recommended that City Council approve the FCLWD APU; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to LUC Section 1.3.4(B)(2), the FCLWD APU proposed uses are
listed as permitted uses in one or more of the City’s other zone districts and are proposed based
solely on unique circumstances and attributes of the site and development plan and are therefore
eligible for consideration to be allowed through the Addition of Permitted Uses process; and
-2-
WHEREAS, pursuant to LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(g), two neighborhood meetings were
held regarding the FCLWD APU with the first meeting held prior to the submittal of the
development application on January 28, 2021, and the second meeting held on May 10, 2021,
after submittal of the development application and completion of the first round of staff review;
and
WHEREAS, LUC Section 1.3.4(C) sets forth the criteria, as further described below, that
must be satisfied in order for Council to approve the FCLWD APU; and
WHEREAS, on December 7, 2021, Council held a public hearing and considered the
FCLWD APU in accordance with the LUC, either as part of the consent or discussion agenda
and if considered on the consent agenda, a public hearing is deemed to have been open ed and
closed, with the only evidence considered being that set forth in the agenda item summary and
the attachments thereto, including the staff report.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes any and all determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That the Council, after considering the P&Z recommendation on the
FCLWD APU, the agenda materials, and any relevant testimony, if any, hereby approves the
FCLWD APU to add accessory buildings associated with the office and the outdoor storage as
uses specifically limited to the portion of the Campus located in the R-L zone district.
Section 3. That the Council, in support of its decision to approve the FCLWD APU,
makes the following findings of fact:
(1) The FCLWD APU satisfies the criteria set forth in LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(1) as
follows:
(a) Such uses are appropriate in the R-L zone district.
(b) Such uses conform to the basic characteristics of the R-L zone district and
the other permitted uses in the R-L zone district.
(c) The location, size and design of such uses are compatible with and have
minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties.
(d) Such uses do not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat,
smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic
hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts,
adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services,
adverse effects on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other
-3-
adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from
the other permitted uses listed in the R-L zone district.
(e) Such uses will not change the predominant character of the surrounding
area.
(f) Such uses are compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the R-L
zone district.
(g) The FCLWD APU fulfilled the LUC requirement for two neighborhood
meetings with the first meeting held prior to the submittal of the
development application on January 28, 2021, and the second meeting
held after submittal of the development application and completion of the
first round of staff review on May 10, 2021.
(h) Such use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-452
of the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section
15-603 of the City Code.
(2) The FCLWD APU is not detrimental to the public good;
(3) The FCLWD APU complies with the requirements and criteria contained in
Section 3.5.1; and
(4) The FCLWD APU does not propose uses specifically listed as prohibited in the
R-L zone district.
Section 5. That the Council approval of the FCLWD APU is based upon the
development proposal described in ODP210001 and the associated Addition of Permitted Uses
application. Any changes to the uses or to its location, size and design, in a manner that changes
the predominant character of or increases the negative impact upon the surrounding area, will
require the approval of a new Addition of Permitted Uses.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 7th day of
December, A.D. 2021, and to be presented for final passage on the 21st day of December, A.D.
2021.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Interim City Clerk
-4-
Passed and adopted on final reading on this 21st day of December, A.D. 2021.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Interim City Clerk