No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 12/20/2022 - REGULAR MEETINGFort Collins City Council Agenda Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, December 20, 2022 City Council Chambers at City Hall, 300 Laporte Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Zoom Webinar link: https://zoom.us/j/98241416497 NOTICE: Regular meetings of the City Council are held on the 1st and 3rd Tuesdays of each month in the City Council Chambers. Meetings are conducted in a hybrid format, with a Zoom webinar in addition to the in person meeting in Council Chambers. City Council members may participate in this meeting via electronic means pursuant to their adopted policies and protocol. How to view this Meeting:: Meetings are open to the public and can be attended in person by anyone. Meetings are televised live on Channels 14 & 881 on cable television. Meetings are livestreamed on the City's website, fcgov.com/fctv Upon request, the City of Fort Collins will provide language access services for individuals who have limited English proficiency, or auxiliary aids and services for individuals with disabilities, to access City services, programs and activities. Contact 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance. Please provide advance notice. Requests for interpretation at a meeting should be made by noon the day before. A solicitud, la Ciudad de Fort Collins proporcionará servicios de acceso a idiomas para personas que no dominan el idioma inglés, o ayudas y servicios auxiliares para personas con discapacidad, para que puedan acceder a los servicios, programas y actividades de la Ciudad. Para asistencia, llame al 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Marque 711 para Relay Colorado). Por favor proporcione aviso previo. Las solicitudes de interpretación en una reunión deben realizarse antes del mediodía del día anterior. Meetings are available through the Zoom platform, electronically or by phone. Meeting agendas, minutes, and archived videos are available on the City's meeting portal at https://fortcollins-co.municodemeetings.com/ Written comments can be mailed or dropped off at the City Manager's Office at City Hall, at 300 Laporte Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Email comments about any item on the agenda to cityleaders@fcgov.com During the public comment portion of the meeting and discussion items: In person attendees can address the Council in the Chambers. The public can join the Zoom webinar and comment from the remote meeting, joining online or via phone. All speakers are required to sign up to speak using the online sign up system available at www.fcgov.com/council-meeting-participation-signup/ Staff is also available outside of Chambers prior to meetings to assist with the sign up process for in person attendees. There are in person and remote options for members of the public who would like to participate in Council meetings: Comment in real time:: Full instructions for online participation are available at fcgov.com/councilcomments. Join the online meeting using the link in this agenda to log in on an internet-enabled smartphone, laptop or computer with a speaker and microphone. Using earphones with a microphone will greatly improve audio experience. To be recognized to speak during public participation portions of the meeting, click the 'Raise Hand' button. Participate via phone using this call in number and meeting ID: Call in number: 720 928 9299 Meeting ID: 982 4141 6497 During public participation opportunities in the meeting, press *9 to indicate a desire to speak. Submit written comments:: Documents to Share during public participation: Persons wishing to display presentation materials using the City’s display equipment under the Public Participation portion of a meeting or during discussion of any Council item must provide any such materials to the City Clerk in a form or format readily usable on the City’s display technology no later than two (2) hours prior to the beginning of the meeting at which the materials are to be presented. NOTE: All presentation materials for appeals, addition of permitted use applications or protests related to election matters must be provided to the City Clerk no later than noon on the day of the meeting at which the item will be considered. See Council Rules of Conduct in Meetings for details. City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 7 City Council Summary Agenda City Council Regular Meeting Agenda December 20, 2022 at 6:00 PM Jeni Arndt, Mayor Emily Francis, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem Susan Gutowsky, District 1 Julie Pignataro, District 2 Tricia Canonico, District 3 Shirley Peel, District 4 Kelly Ohlson, District 5 City Council Chambers 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins & via Zoom at https://zoom.us/j/98241416497 Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 on Connexion Channel 14 and 881 on Xfinity Carrie Daggett Kelly DiMartino Anissa Hollingshead City Attorney City Manager City Clerk PROCLAMATIONS & PRESENTATIONS 5:00 PM A) PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS PP 1. Proclamation Declaring December 21, 2022, as Interfaith Holidays of Light Day. REGULAR MEETING 6:00 PM B) CALL MEETING TO ORDER C) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE D) ROLL CALL E) CITY MANAGER'S AGENDA REVIEW +City Manager Review of Agenda +Consent Calendar Review, including removal of items from Consent Calendar for individual discussion. F) COMMUNITY REPORTS G) PUBLIC COMMENT ON ANY TOPICS OR ITEMS OR COMMUNITY EVENTS (Including requests for removal of items from Consent Calendar for individual discussion.) Individuals may comment regarding any topics of concern, whether or not included on this agenda. Comments regarding land use projects for which a development application has been filed should be submitted in the development review process** and not to Council. • Those who wish to speak are required to sign up using the online sign-up system available at www.fcgov.com/council-meeting-participation-signup/. Page 1 City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 7 • Each speaker will be allowed to speak one time during public comment. If a speaker comments on a particular agenda item during general public comment, that speaker will not also be entitled to speak during discussion on the same agenda item. • All speakers will be called to speak by the presiding officer from the list of those signed up. After everyone signed up is called on, the presiding officer may ask others wishing to speak to identify themselves by raising their hand (in person or using the Raise Hand option on Zoom), and if in person then will be asked to move to one of the two lines of speakers (or to a seat nearby, for those who are not able to stand while waiting). • The presiding officer will determine and announce the length of time allowed for each speaker. • Each speaker will be asked to state his or her name and general address for the record, and, if their comments relate to a particular agenda item, to identify the agenda item number. Any written comments or materials intended for the Council should be provided to the City Clerk. • A timer will beep one time and turn yellow to indicate that 30 seconds of speaking time remain and will beep again and turn red when a speaker’s time has ended. [**For questions about the development review process or the status of any particular development, consult the Development Review Center page on the city’s website at https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/,, or contact the Development Review Center at 970.221.6760.] H) PUBLIC COMMENT FOLLOW-UP I) COUNCILMEMBER REMOVAL OF ITEMS FROM CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION CONSENT CALENDAR The Consent Calendar is intended to allow council to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Calendar. Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar by either Council or the City Manager will be considered separately under the their own Section, titled “Consideration of Items Removed from Consent Calendar for Individual Discussion.” Items remaining on the Consent Calendar will be approved by Council with one vote. The Consent Calendar consists of: • Ordinances on First Reading that are routine; • Ordinances on Second Reading that are routine; • Those of no perceived controversy; • Routine administrative actions. 1. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the November 1, 2022 and November 15, 2022, Regular Council Meetings and the November 22, 2022 Adjourned Council Meeting. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes of the November 1, 2022 and November 15, 2022 regular Council meetings and the November 22, 2022 adjourned Council meeting. 2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2022, Making Supplemental Appropriations from the State of Colorado Childcare Operations Stabilization and Workforce Sustainability Grant Program and Reviewing and Approving of the Grant Funding. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 6, 2022, accepts two State of Colorado grants funded by the American Rescue Plan Act. The Childcare Operations Page 2 City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 7 Stabilization and Workforce Sustainability Grant Program will fund childcare enhancements in City childcare programs. 3. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 2022, Adopting the 2023 Larimer County Regional Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Schedule. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 6, 2022, adopts the 2023 Larimer County Regional Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Schedule. 4. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 2022, Designating the Leslie P. and Ruth A. Ware Property, 1801 Sheely Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 6, 2022, requests City Landmark designation for the Leslie P. and Ruth A. Ware Property at 1801 Sheely Drive. In cooperation with the property owner, City staff and the Historic Preservation Commission have determined the property to be eligible for designation under Standard 3, Design/Construction, for the property's embodiment of the Usonian style of architecture and for the public’s interest in the property during the time of construction. The owner is requesting designation, which will provide protection of the property's exterior and access to financial incentives for historic property owners. 5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 145, 2022, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Extend and Clarify the Water Annual Allotment Management Program. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 6, 2022, amends Chapter 26 of the City Code to extend the Allotment Management Program to allow for applications to be filed through December 31, 2024 for the benefit of eligible nonresidential Utilities water customers. The Allotment Management Program serves eligible nonresidential Utilities water customers by waiving excess water use surcharges during the implementation of a landscape project intended to reduce the long-term water use on a property. The ordinance also includes a few language revisions to clarify certain aspects of the program. 6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 146, 2022, Amending Section 2-596 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins and Setting the Salary of the City Manager. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 6, 2022, establishes the 2023 salary of the City Manager. Council met in executive session on November 22, 2022, to conduct the performance review of Kelly DiMartino, City Manager. This Ordinance sets the 2023 salary of the City Manager. 7. Second reading of Ordinance No. 147, 2022, Amending Section 2-606 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins and Setting the Salary of the Chief Judge. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 6, 2022, establishes the 2023 compensation of the Chief Judge. Council met in executive session on November 22, 2022, to conduct the performance review of Chief Judge Jill Hueser. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2022, Amending Section 2-581 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins and Setting the Salary of the City Attorney. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 6, 2022, establishes the 2023 compensation of the City Attorney. Council met in executive session on November 22, 2022, to conduct the performance review of Carrie Daggett, City Attorney. Page 3 City of Fort Collins Page 4 of 7 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 2022, Adopting the Active Modes Plan as a Component of City Plan. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 6, 2022, adopts the Active Modes Plan. 10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 150, 2022, Amending Ordinance No. 084, 2022 to Amend the Effective Date of the 2022 Council District-Precinct Map. This item amends Ordinance No. 084, 2022, Amending the City of Fort Collins District-Precinct Map, adopted on second reading on July 19, 2022, in order to move forward clarification and amendment of the District-Precinct Map in order to eliminate confusion and practical impacts and inconsistencies in Councilmember districts. 11. Resolution 2022-140 Approving Expenditures from the Art in Public Places Reserve Account in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund to Commission an Artist to Create an Art Project for the Vine and Lemay Project Pursuant to the Art in Public Places Program and Approving the Art Project. The purpose of this item is to approve expenditures from the Art in Public Places (APP) Reserve Account to commission an artist to create art for the Vine & Lemay Project and to approve the art project. The expenditures of $160,000 will be for design, engineering, materials, signage, fabrication, delivery, installation, and contingency for Joshua Wiener of Flowcus to create the art for the overpass at Vine & Lemay. 12. Resolution 2022-141 Authorizing the Mayor to Execute City-Sponsored 457(b) and Police 401(a) Restated Adoption Agreements. The purpose of this item concerns an administrative requirement to restate adoption agreements and related documents for City-sponsored 457(b) and Police 401(a) plans. Restatement of the City 457(b) and Police 401(a) adoption agreements is required in order to bring into alignment the internal procedural operation of each Plan with the governing documents controlling the plan. Restating the plans is an administrative action and will have no financial impact on the City or on benefits provided to participating employees. The City’s deadline to restate its plan documents is December 31, 2022. 13. Resolution 2022-142 Adopting the 2022 Update to the Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins. The purpose of this item is to adopt the annual update of the Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins. The Three-Mile Plan is a reference document of plans and policies coordinating the general location, character, utilities, infrastructure, and land uses for areas of potential annexation within three miles of the municipal boundary. An annual update of the Three-Mile Plan is required by Colorado Revised Statutes and highlights applicable plans and policies adopted or amended by City Council over the preceding year. 14. Resolution 2022-144 Superseding and Replacing Resolution 2022-119 Making Appointments to the Natural Resources Advisory Board. The purpose of this item is to amend the appointment made to Seat E on Resolution 2022-119 to list Lisa Andrews as the appointed member on the Natural Resources Advisory Board. This Page 4 City of Fort Collins Page 5 of 7 matches the initial determinations made for appointments by the Council liaison and the decisions communicated to applicants at that time. 15. Resolution 2022-145 Making an Appointment to the Art in Public Places Board The purpose of this item is to fill a vacancy on the Art in Public Places Board created by the resignation of Miriam Chase. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR J) ADOPTION OF CONSENT CALENDAR K) CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW-UP (This is an opportunity for Councilmembers to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent Calendar.) L) STAFF REPORTS M) COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS N) CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR INDIVIDUAL DISCUSSION O) CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PLANNED FOR DISCUSSION The method of debate for discussion items is as follows: • Mayor introduced the item number and subject; asks if formal presentation will be made by staff • Staff presentation (optional) • Mayor requests public comment on the item (three minute limit for each person) • Council questions of staff on the item • Council motion on the item • Council discussion • Final Council comments • Council vote on the item Note: Time limits for individual agenda items may be revised, at the discretion of the Mayor, to ensure all have an opportunity to speak. If attending in person, please sign in at the table in the back of the room. The timer will buzz when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. It will buzz again at the end of the speaker’s time. 16. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 143, 2022, Amending Section 2-73 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Allow City Commissions to Conduct Quasi-Judicial Hearings Using Remote Technology. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted as amended on First Reading on December 6, 2022, amends provisions of Article III of Chapter 2 of the City Code to permit boards and commissions considering quasi-judicial matters to incorporate participation by remote technology into proceedings. The proposed amendment would enable the presiding officer of the board or commission, upon consultation with the staff liaison, to allow remote participation by members of the public and parties-in-interest. As it was presented at First Reading, the Ordinance would have also allowed remote participation and voting by commission members. Council removed the provision allowing Page 5 City of Fort Collins Page 6 of 7 participation and voting by commission members at First Reading, and this change is reflected in the revised ordinance. 17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2022, Amending the Land Development Code to Regulate Oil and Gas Facilities and Pipelines. The purpose of this item is to update the Land Development Code to regulate new oil and gas facilities and pipelines within City limits. These regulations include zoning standards, setbacks, development standards and a process for development review. Per new authority granted through Senate Bill 19-181, these local regulations exceed Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) requirements related to surface oil and gas activities and are designed to ensure the protection of public health, safety, welfare, the environment, and wildlife resources. 18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2022, Amending the Definition of Discrimination in City Code Chapter 13 to Prohibit Discrimination on the Bases of Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Gender Expression. The Ordinance modifies anti-discrimination language in City Code Chapter 13, Article II, to prohibit discrimination on the bases of “sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.” Absent this new language, our residents in these classes feel unprotected from discrimination, resulting in not including “all” in our growing community. The amendment advances the City of Fort Collins’ vision to be a safe and welcoming community for all. 19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 153, 2022, Amending Section 2-569 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Update and Clarify the Process for Review of Ethics Complaints. This Ordinance updates the Code provisions describing the ethics complaint process and establishing a new process for screening and investigation of complaints alleging ethics violations by councilmembers. The Ethics Review Board met in November 2021, January 2022, May 2022, and October to discuss options for improvements to the ethics complaint screening and review process. The Ethics Review Board recommended the changes in the Ordinance for adoption. 20. Appeal of the Historic Preservation Commission’s Decision Finding 825 North College Avenue Eligible for Landmark Designation. The purpose of this quasi-judicial item is to consider an appeal of the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission (“HPC”) on October 19, 2022, determining that a portion of the property at 825 North College Avenue (historically, the M-K Service Station/North College Standard Service, is eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark. Appellant, GARA, LLC, the owner of the property, raises two issues on appeal: First, Appellant argues that the HPC considered evidence relevant to its findings that was grossly misleading. More specifically, Appellant alleges that the HPC was prejudiced by City staff’s “overuse and emphasis of the history of the property, which caused a lack of proper consideration as to whether the Quick Lube Building retains sufficient integrity today to qualify as an historic structure.” Second, Appellant argues that the HPC failed to properly interpret and apply provisions of the City Code Section 14-22, which establishes standards for determining the eligibility of structures for designation as landmarks or landmark districts. Specifically, Appellant alleges that the HPC failed Page 6 City of Fort Collins Page 7 of 7 to properly determine whether the service station located on the property retained the significance and integrity required for Landmark designation under the Code. P) OTHER BUSINESS OB 1. Consider a motion to direct the City Clerk to add an editor's note to the City Charter. "I move that the Council direct the City Clerk to work with the City's codifier to add an editor’s note into the City Charter to be published at Charter Article II, Section 2, to state “With respect to eligibility to be a candidate for, or hold, the office of Councilmember, see also article VII, section 10 and article XII, section 4 of the Colorado Constitution”, or substantially similar language the City Clerk may determine appropriate in consultation with the City Attorney, and to include substantially similar language in the City’s election guideline materials." OB 2. Possible consideration of the initiation of new ordinances and/or resolutions by Councilmembers. (Three or more individual Councilmembers may direct the City Manager and City Attorney to initiate and move forward with development and preparation of resolutions and ordinances not originating from the Council's Policy Agenda or initiated by staff.) Q) ADJOURNMENT Every regular Council meeting will end no later than midnight, except that: (1) any item of business commenced before midnight may be concluded before the meeting is adjourned and (2) the Council may, at any time prior to adjournment, by majority vote, extend a meeting beyond midnight for the purpose of considering additional items of business. Any matter that has been commenced and is still pending at the conclusion of the Council meeting, and all matters for consideration at the meeting that have not yet been considered by the Council, will be deemed continued to the next regular Council meeting, unless Council determines otherwise. Upon request, the City of Fort Collins will provide language access services for individuals who have limited English proficiency, or auxiliary aids and services for individuals with disabilities, to access City services, programs and activities. Contact 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance. Please provide advance notice. Requests for interpretation at a meeting should be made by noon the day before. A solicitud, la Ciudad de Fort Collins proporcionará servicios de acceso a idiomas para personas que no dominan el idioma inglés, o ayudas y servicios auxiliares para personas con discapacidad, para que puedan acceder a los servicios, programas y actividades de la Ciudad. Para asistencia, llame al 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Marque 711 para Relay Colorado). Por favor proporcione aviso previo. Las solicitudes de interpretación en una reunión deben realizarse antes del mediodía del día anterior. Page 7 PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, throughout the history of our state and nation we have welcomed people with diverse backgrounds and beliefs, many of whom were seeking relief from religious persecution, giving them the freedom to practice their faith without fear; and WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins respects the equality of rights and privileges of residents from all diverse communities, and encourages dialogue among people of different faiths and beliefs to enhance mutual understanding and respect, harmony and cooperation as vital in the promotion of peace and goodwill among all people and between all nations; and WHEREAS, there are many communities of faith, belief and ethnicity that help make up the fabric of society and culture in the City of Fort Collins, the State of Colorado, and beyond; and WHEREAS, many of these communities feature the symbolism of light at this time of the Winter Solstice, the darkest time of the year, including: the African-American observance of Kwanzaa, the Buddhist observance of Bodhi Day the Christian observance of Christmas, the Hopi Native American observance of Soyal the Jewish observance of Chanukah, the Pagan observance of Samhain, or Yule, the Secular Humanist observance HumanLight the Wiccan observance of Yule, and others; and WHEREAS, our community and our world are made much brighter by the combining of these symbols and celebrations of light into a vision of a bright future for all, regardless of faith, belief or ethnicity. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Jeni Arndt, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby proclaim December 21, 2022, the date of the Winter Solstice, as INTERFAITH HOLIDAYS OF LIGHT DAY IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort Collins this 20th day of December, A.D. 20222. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ City Clerk Page 8 Item PP 1. City Council Agenda – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 1 December 20, 2022 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council STAFF Anissa N. Hollingshead, City Clerk SUBJECT Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the November 1, 2022 and November 15, 2022, Regular Council Meetings and the November 22, 2022 Adjourned Council Meeting. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes of the November 1, 2022 and November 15, 2022 regular Council meetings and the November 22, 2022 adjourned Council meeting. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Minutes, November 1, 2022 2. Draft Minutes, November 15, 2022 3. Draft Minutes, November 22, 2022 Page 9 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 20 November 1, 2022 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council-Manager Form of Government Regular Meeting – 6:00 PM A) PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS – 5:00 pm PP 1. Proclamation Declaring November as Native American Heritage Month. PP 2. Proclamation Declaring the Year of November 2022 to November 2023 as Natural Areas 30th Anniversary. Mayor Jeni Arndt presented the above proclamations at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. REGULAR MEETING 6:00 PM B) CALL MEETING TO ORDER Mayor Jeni Arndt called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, with hybrid participation available via the City’s Zoom platform. C) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Jeni Arndt led the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag. D) ROLL CALL PRESENT Mayor Jeni Arndt Mayor Pro Tem Emily Francis Councilmember Susan Gutowsky Councilmember Julie Pignataro Councilmember Tricia Canonico Councilmember Shirley Peel Councilmember Kelly Ohlson STAFF PRESENT City Manager Kelly DiMartino City Attorney Carrie Daggett Deputy City Clerk Aimee Jensen Page 10 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 20 E) CITY MANAGER'S AGENDA REVIEW City Manager Kelly DiMartino announced next week’s work session will occur on Monday at 6 p.m. rather than Tuesday due to the general election. City Manager Kelly DiMartino provided an overview of the agenda, including:  There were no changes to the published agenda; however, DiMartino noted there was an amendment to item No. 6, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 112, 2022, Amending Chapter 23, Article III of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Regarding Obstructions and Encroachments to Allow for the Expansion of Outdoor Dining Areas onto City Property and Adopting by Reference the City of Fort Collins Outdoor Dining Design Manual, to restrict the use of concrete Jersey barriers.  All items on the consent agenda were recommended for approval. F) COMMUNITY REPORTS None. G) PUBLIC COMMENT ON ANY TOPICS OR ITEMS OR COMMUNITY EVENTS (Including requests for removal of items from Consent Calendar for individual discussion.) Kent Bruxvoort, Water Commission member, recommended the inclusion of one offer that currently sits below the acceptance line in the budget: offer 4.47 to fund one full-time civil engineer as a project manager to facilitate the replacement of utilities aging infrastructure. Nathaniel Coffman commended the Land Development Code updates and supported adoption. Holly Tarry expressed support for adoption of the Land Development Code phase one updates and commended the public input process. Jerry Gavaldon commended City staff and volunteers for excellent work at the Museo de las Tres Colonias event. Alan Lamborn expressed concern about unintentional consequences of certain regulations in the proposed revised Land Development Code. Laurie Klith, Center for Family Outreach Executive Director, commended staff for work on the overflow shelter new location and commented on efforts to secure the building at 212 West Mountain Avenue for a teen center. Lauren Storeby thanked Councilmembers for meetings with the restaurant sector regarding the upcoming minimum wage discussion. She commented on upcoming issues that will continue to affect the restaurant industry and decrease profitability, including bird flu and a diesel shortage. Mark Morehouse discussed the southeast recreation center pool and the outcome of the City’s aquatics study which showed there is not enough lane space in Fort Collins, particularly in the southeast part of town. He suggested funding recreation through an excise tax on marijuana sales. Kennedy Glasgow discussed the southeast recreation center requesting additional pool lane space. She commented on the benefits of swimming as a teenager. Page 11 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 20 Brian Tracy expressed concern about the multi-unit structures that could be built in the Old Town area with the new Land Development Code updates. He stated the public outreach efforts should have better matched the potential impacts of the changes and he opposed adoption of the updates. Rob Duran, Blue Agave and Vato’s Tacos, discussed the detrimental effects of increasing the minimum wage on restaurants. Mark Sluss questioned what problems will be solved by an increase in minimum wage and suggested restaurants receive credits for providing learning opportunities to young employees. Abby Crum commented on the high level of swimming in Fort Collins and on the benefits of swimming as a teenager. She supported increasing lane space in the city. Sidney O’Neal commented on the benefits of swimming as a teenager and supported increasing lane space in the city. Steve Valdes commented on the special nature of Old Town and opposed updates to the Land Development Code that will change its character. Joe Rowan opposed increasing the minimum wage. Ian Taylor supported adoption of the Land Development Code updates. Steve Kuehneman, Care Housing Executive Director, supported adoption of the Land Development Code updates. Sally Lee expressed concern about the proposed changes to Old Town regulations in the Land Development Code and specifically opposed the elimination of neighborhood meetings for certain projects. Lester Kaplan commented on his time as the City’s Planning Director and on his time as a developer. He expressed concern about certain aspects of the proposed updates to the Land Development Code, specifically opposing the change in which projects are heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Jason Stentz opposed increasing the minimum wage and discussed the increase in costs for restaurants. Brian Barbieri supported the proposed Land Development Code updates. Deana Munoz stated she cannot afford to live in the community she serves and opposed aspects of the proposed Land Development Code. Nick Frey opposed changing the public input process in the Land Development Code and stated the proposed changes will reduce property values. Michelle Haefele requested Council delay the final vote on Land Development Code changes to allow additional time for input from a broader share of members of the public. Margit Hentschel stated the public involvement process related to the Land Development Code was not inclusive, transparent, or equitable. She stated the changes disproportionately reflect the interests of developers. Ronnie Estelle opposed the proposed changes to the public involvement process aspect of development review and requested Council postpone this vote to allow for additional public input. Page 12 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 4 of 20 Sean McCoy discussed solar metering and solar generation credits. Dan Siegfried concurred with Ms. Haefele’s and Ms. Estelle’s comments on the lack of public input in the Land Development Code revisions. Richard Cavendish supported adoption of the Land Development Code updates citing its incentivization of affordable housing. Jared Karen opposed the adoption of the Land Development Code updates stating they will change the character of Old Town. He urged Council to delay a vote. Bill Whitley urged Council to pause the process related to the Land Development Code updates. Rory Heath concurred with Ms. Haefele’s comments and opposed adoption of the Land Development Code updates stating not enough public outreach occurred. Dave Szmasky expressed support for the Land Development Code updates but suggested additional public input should occur prior to a final decision being made. Beth Fisher opposed adoption of the Land Development Code updates and stated she does not see how the proposed changes will impact housing costs. Clerk’s Note: Mayor Arndt called for a ten-minute break at 7:46 p.m. The meeting resumed at 7:56 p.m. H) PUBLIC COMMENT FOLLOW-UP Councilmember Pignataro requested information regarding next week’s work session as it relates to the aquatics issue. City Manager DiMartino replied there will be a work session discussion item regarding the status of discussions and a recommended path forward regarding development of the southeast community innovation center. Councilmember Pignataro requested an update on the status of the Mulberry Pool. City Manager DiMartino replied another short-term investment of about $500,000 will be made to extend the life of the facility. Councilmember Gutowsky expressed support for a teen activity center as recommended by Ms. Klith. She also commended City staff efforts and the multi-modal participation at the Museo event. I) COUNCILMEMBER REMOVAL OF ITEMS FROM CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION Councilmember Gutowsky requested Item No. 15, First Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2022, Updating References in City Code to the Land Use Code, be withdrawn from the Consent Calendar for discussion of the change of name from the Land Use Code to the Land Development Code. City Attorney Daggett clarified this would only move forward if the new Land Development Code updates are adopted on Second Reading. Councilmember Gutowsky rescinded her request to remove the item from the Consent Calendar. J) CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 107, 2022, Appropriating Philanthropic Revenue Received By City Give for the Bucking Horse Park Trail Spur Project as Designated by the Donor. Page 13 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 5 of 20 This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 18, 2022, amends $5,000 in philanthropic revenue received by City Give for Park Planning and Development as designated by the donor. Adopted on Second Reading. 2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 108, 2022, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue From Philanthropic Donations Received in 2022 By City Give for Various City Programs and Services as Designated by the Donors. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 18, 2022, appropriates $4,070 in philanthropic revenue received by City Give. These miscellaneous gifts to various City service areas support a variety of programs and services and are aligned with both the City’s strategic priorities and the respective donors’ designation. In 2019, City Give, a formalized enterprise-wide initiative was launched to create a transparent, non-partisan governance structure for the acceptance and appropriations of charitable gifts. Adopted on Second Reading. 3. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 109, 2022, Making a Supplemental Appropriation of HOME Investment Partnership Program - American Rescue Plan Act Funding from the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 18, 2022, appropriates $2,628,410 in HOME Investment Partnership Program – American Rescue Plan funds received from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Adopted on Second Reading. 4. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 110, 2022, Amending Article IX of Chapter 23 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Regarding Natural Areas. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 18, 2022, amends various provisions in Article IX of Chapter 23 of the City Code regarding natural areas to close loopholes, add new definitions, and add new regulations that better protect the natural environment and promote visitor safety. Natural Areas Department rangers researched existing Code and worked with Natural Areas Department staff and the City Attorney’s Office before the proposed changes were brought to the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board in July 2022. Adopted on Second Reading. 5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 111, 2022, Amending Certain Sections of Chapter 25 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Relating to the Imposition, Collection, and Enforcement of the City’s Sales and Use Taxes. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 18, 2022, amends Chapter 25 of City Code concerning sales and use tax. The updates include revisions to the Grocery Tax Rebate Program to increase the area median income threshold for a rebate as part of ongoing City-wide initiatives to streamline and broaden access to City income-qualified programs. Other updates include but are not limited to: (1) updating the deadlines for refund claims and petitions protesting the denial of tax-exempt organization license applications to align with other deadlines in Chapter 25; (2) amending the appeals process to align with state statute; and (3) adding exemptions from sales and use tax for the state carryout bag fee and retail delivery fee. (The Page 14 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 6 of 20 Council approved Ordinance No. 053, 2022, in May 2022, which created an exemption from sales tax for the City’s disposable bag fee). For Second Reading, in light of prior discussions by the Council Finance Committee, the City Manager is proposing a Whereas clause be revised. The revision will document that the City Manager has committed that City staff will return to the Council Finance Committee after approximately one year not only to discuss the effectiveness of the Code update increasing the area median income threshold for the Grocery Tax Rebate Program, but also to discuss other options to expand participation, such as removing income verification requirements. Adopted on Second Reading. 6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 112, 2022, Amending Chapter 23, Article III of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Regarding Obstructions and Encroachments to Allow for the Expansion of Outdoor Dining Areas onto City Property and Adopting by Reference the City of Fort Collins Outdoor Dining Design Manual. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 18, 2022, amends City code to allow outdoor dining areas on public property. During the COVID pandemic and declared local emergency, Emergency Orders were put in place to support hospitality businesses by allowing extended outdoor patios on public property. The extended patios have been popular and successful both economically and as a vibrant way to activate streets and sidewalks. Staff is proposing changes to the City Code obstruction and encroachment permit provisions and a framework, including the City of Fort Collins Outdoor Design Manual (“Design Manual”), to make these spaces permittable after the expiration of the Emergency Orders. In response to Council feedback regarding concrete barriers, staff has replaced previous language, which said “Concrete ‘Jersey Barriers’ shall only be installed where required or deemed appropriate by the City Engineering Department.” with “Crash rated barriers will only be required for safety or traffic volume. In those cases, the City will not allow a concrete "Jersey-barrier" style and will require a crash-rated barrier that meets the urban design standard of the location (Downtown, for instance).” Adopted on Second Reading. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 113, 2022, Suspending Certain Provisions of the City’s Land Use Code and Building Code to Permit Temporary Use of City Property at 117 North Mason Street as a Homeless Shelter. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 25, 2022, suspends certain provisions of the City’s Land Use Code to allow the temporary use of 117 North Mason Street as a men’s overflow shelter site from November 2022 – April 2023. Adopted on Second Reading. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 116, 2022, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Make Various Changes to the Water Supply Requirement for Nonresidential Water Service. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 25, 2022, adopts changes to Fort Collins Utilities (Utilities) Water Supply Requirement (WSR) in Chapter 26 of City Code. Changes to the WSR went into effect January 1, 2022, through Ordinance No. 119, 2021. However, after administering the WSR under that ordinance for several months, staff realized a need for further revision. The Ordinance broadened when Utilities nonresidential water customers Page 15 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 7 of 20 doing redevelopment must meet the WSR, such that these customers must meet WSRs for almost any redevelopment. The Ordnance also results in the assignment of an annual allotment and the potential for excess water use surcharges. These changes have resulted in significant staff time for previously routine matters and impacts to customers that are perceived as unfair. The proposed ordinance would return to the previous, historical requirement, where customers must only meet the WSR for new development and redevelopment that is replacing and existing meter or service with a larger size. Adopted on Second Reading. 9. First Reading of Ordinance No. 117, 2022, Approving the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget, and Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance for the Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority, and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Downtown Development Authority for Fiscal Year 2023. The purpose of this item is to set the Downtown Development Authority ("DDA") Budget. The following amounts will be appropriated: DDA Public/Private Investments & Programs $7,800,493 DDA Operations & Maintenance $2,030,378 Revolving Line of Credit Draws $7,000,000 DDA Debt Service Fund $7,431,611 The Ordinance sets the 2023 Mill Levy for the Fort Collins DDA at five (5) mills, unchanged since tax year 2002. The approved Budget becomes the Downtown Development Authority's financial plan for 2023. Adopted on First Reading. 10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 118, 2022, Adopting the 2023 Budget and Appropriating the Fort Collins Share of the 2023 Fiscal Year Operating and Capital Improvements Funds for the Northern Colorado Regional Airport. The purpose of this item is to adopt the 2023 budget for the Northern Colorado Regional Airport and appropriate Fort Collins’ share of the 2023 fiscal year operating and capital funds for the Airport. Under the Amended and Restated Intergovernmental Agreement for the Joint Operation of the Airport between Fort Collins and Loveland (the “IGA”), the Airport is operated as a joint venture with each City owning 50% of the assets and revenues and responsible for 50% of the operating and capital costs. The proposed budget does not include any financial contributions from the City’s General Fund. Because each City has an ownership interest in 50% of the Airport revenues, each City must appropriate its 50% share of the annual operating and capital budget for the Airport under the IGA. Adopted on First Reading. 11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 119, 2022, Appropriating Philanthropic Revenue Received Through City Give to Benefit Income-Qualified Youth Sports Programming and Services in the Recreation Department. The purpose of this item is to request appropriation of $17,000 in philanthropic revenue received through City Give for Recreation to benefit income-qualified youth sports programming and services. Page 16 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 8 of 20 In 2019, City Give, a formalized enterprise-wide initiative was launched to create a transparent, non-partisan governance structure for the acceptance and appropriations of charitable gifts. Adopted on First Reading. 12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 2022, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund and Transportation Services Fund for Snow Removal. The purpose of this item is to appropriate prior year reserves to cover snow removal costs that have exceeded the 2022 budget. Overspend in the snow budget is driven by severe snowstorms that present cold temperatures, ice, and higher volumes of snow. Adopted on First Reading. 13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 2022 Amending Chapter 7.5 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Increase for Inflation the Capital Expansion Fees and the Transportation Expansion Fee. The purpose of this item is to make annual inflation updates effective January 1, 2023, associated with the City’s Capital Expansion Fees and its Transportation Expansion Fee. Inflation updates are 8.6% for the Capital Expansion Fees and 7.1% for the Transportation Expansion Fee. Adopted on First Reading. 14. Items Related to an Affordable Housing Development Incentives Grant from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs for Kechter Townhomes. A. Resolution 2022-109 Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Intergovernmental Grant Agreement for an Affordable Housing Development Incentives Grant from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs. Adopted. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2022, Making Supplemental Appropriations in the General Fund of Grant Proceeds from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs for the Kechter Townhomes Project. Adopted on First Reading. The purpose of this item is to consider a Resolution authorizing execution of a state Grant Agreement providing $2.2 million to pay water and wastewater tap and permit fees to the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District for the Kechter Townhomes project and adoption of an Ordinance making an appropriation of unanticipated grant revenue in the General Fund. In November of 2021, the City sold a property from the Land Bank Program located at 3620 Kechter Road to Kechter TWG, LLLP for the purpose of building 54 permanently affordable townhomes. The City applied for and was awarded a grant from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) to support water and wastewater utility costs associated with this development. This item seeks approval of the intergovernmental grant agreement and authority to spend the grant proceeds. 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2022, Updating References in City Code to the Land Use Code. This purpose of this item is to update the City Code’s existing references to Land Use Code to the new name Land Development Code. Page 17 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 9 of 20 Adopted on First Reading. 16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2022, Authorizing an Extension of the Temporary Exception to the Land Use Code to Allow T-Mobile to Place a Temporary Wireless Telecommunication Facility at 1800 East Harmony Road to Replace Lost Wireless Service Coverage. The purpose of this item is to extend the authorization for a temporary wireless telecommunication facility known as a cell-on-wheels (COW), operated by T-Mobile, currently located at 1800 East Harmony. The current temporary authorization is set to expire on December 1, 2022. This temporary facility is in place to address a critical loss in T-Mobile's existing cellular coverage in south Fort Collins caused by T-Mobile’s removal of wireless equipment from Platte River Power Authority (“PRPA”) infrastructure and is to be used only until a permanent facility (proposed at 4518 Innovation Drive) is fully constructed in Spring 2023. Adopted on First Reading. 17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2022, Conditionally Vacating a Portion of Crestridge Street Right-of-Way. The purpose of this item is to approve the conditional vacation of Crestridge Street right-of-way, currently known as Crestridge Drive, that is no longer desirable or necessary to retain for street purposes. Portions of the right-of-way area, once vacated, will be retained as public access and emergency access easements to the City in order to provide continued access for the neighboring properties. The right-of-way vacation will be conditional upon the construction of the extension of Venus Drive. These conditions are outlined in detail in the Ordinance. Adopted on First Reading. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Pro Tem Francis moved, seconded by Councilmember Pignataro, to approve the recommended actions on items 1-17 on the consent calendar. The motion carried 7-0. K) CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW-UP (This is an opportunity for Councilmembers to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent Calendar.) Councilmember Peel highlighted item No. 11, First Reading of Ordinance No. 119, 2022, Appropriating Philanthropic Revenue Received Through City Give to Benefit Income-Qualified Youth Sports Programming and Services in the Recreation Department. L) STAFF REPORTS None. M) COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS Councilmember Shirley Peel  Recent listening session at Front Range Reptiles  Attended the Linden Street ribbon cutting  Participated in a Dutch-inspired intersection test Page 18 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 10 of 20  Boards and Commissions interviews are currently occurring, and she thanked the applicants  Small business recovery grants are still open  Remembrance of Hugh McKean, a former Loveland City Councilmember and state representative, who recently passed away Councilmember Susan Gutowsky  Participated in Linden Street ribbon cutting  Met with restaurant owners  Attended grand opening of affordable senior housing development on Drake near Timberline  Attended bias workshop at the Senior Center  Attended Habitat for Humanity fundraiser breakfast  Attended Halloween symphony event at the Lincoln Center Mayor Jeni Arndt  Announced the Downtown lighting even Friday at 5:30 PM  Condolences to Hugh McKean’s family N) CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR INDIVIDUAL DISCUSSION None. O) CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PLANNED FOR DISCUSSION 18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 2022, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance Relating to the Annual Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2023; Adopting the Budget for the Fiscal Years Beginning January 1, 2023, and Ending December 31, 2024; and Fixing the Mill Levy for Property Taxes Payable in 2023. The purpose of this item is to present the Annual Appropriation and Budget Ordinance for First Reading. This Ordinance sets the City Budget for the two-year period (2023-2024) which becomes the City’s financial plan for the next two fiscal years. This Ordinance sets the amount of $778,543,584 to be appropriated for fiscal year 2023. However, this appropriated amount does not include what is being budgeted and appropriated by separate Council/Board of Director actions to adopt the 2023 budget for the General Improvement District (GID) No. 1 of $313,275, the 2023 budget for General Improvement District (GID) No. 15 (Skyview) of $1,000, the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) 2023 budget of $6,005,369 and the Downtown Development Authority 2023 budget of $24,262,482. This results in the City-related total operating appropriation of $809,125,710 in 2023. This Ordinance also sets the 2023 City mill levy at 9.797 mills, unchanged since 1991. Travis Storin, Chief Financial Officer, commented on the process leading up to the presentation of the budget and provided highlights of enhancement offers across the seven outcome areas. Lawrence Pollack, Budget Director, summarized the changes that have been made to the budget resulting from the work sessions and public hearings. Public Comment Page 19 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 11 of 20 Joe Rowan commented on a false economy created with the federal funding resulting from the pandemic. He stated the economy is likely heading into a recession and he urged Council to be more conservative with its spending. Council Questions and Comments Councilmember Ohlson requested a staff response regarding Mr. Bruxvoort and the Water Commission’s request to fund one full-time civil engineer as a project manager to facilitate the replacement of utilities aging infrastructure. Jason Graham, Water Utility Executive Director, replied the Water Commission is highly motivated to achieve a 1% replacement rate on water infrastructure and the offer that will assist in getting to that point is currently unfunded. He stated the FTE would help in achieving the 1% replacement rate. Councilmember Ohlson asked why the position was not funded. Storin replied a great deal of turnover amongst the engineering staff has occurred and the desire was to determine whether the right resources exist to execute on all capital projects that are already appropriated within the budget. Councilmember Ohlson asked if the position could come back as a mid-cycle offer. Storin replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Pignataro asked about offer 20.9 regarding Fort Collins Public Access. Storin replied FC Public Media had requested the inclusion of this offer though there was some reservation by staff as this would constitute a new and different operating agreement with FC Public Media. Councilmember Pignataro asked what other options the group has. Storin replied he is unequipped to answer that question but assumed there may be some federal funding opportunities. City Manager DiMartino clarified the City is required to have a public access studio as a result of its franchise agreement with Comcast. She stated there is a competitive process involved and FC Public Media, which is a non-profit, is the selected provider. She clarified the City does own the studio equipment and provides office space at a discounted rate. Councilmember Ohlson stated this situation is not analogous to other non-profit organizations because of the franchise agreement. Mayor Pro Tem Francis moved, seconded by Councilmember Pignataro, to adopt Ordinance No. 126, 2022, on First Reading. The motion carried 7-0. Councilmember Ohlson thanked staff and management for their efforts and commended the response to Council concerns. Councilmember Peel thanked staff and acknowledged Mr. Rowan’s comments. Mayor Pro Tem Francis thanked staff. Mayor Arndt thanked all involved in the budget process. 19. Items Relating to 2023 Utility Rates, Fees, and Charges. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2022, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Revise Electric Rates, Fees and Charges and Updating Related Provisions. Page 20 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 12 of 20 B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 128, 2022, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Revise Water Rates, Fees and Charges. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2022, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Revise Wastewater Rates, Fees and Charges. D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 2022, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Revise Stormwater Rates, Fees and Charges. E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 2022, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Regarding Calculation and Collection of Development Fees Imposed for the Construction of New or Modified Electric Service Connections. F. First Reading of Ordinance No. 132, 2022, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Revise Sewer Plant Investment Fees. G. First Reading of Ordinance No.133, 2022, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Revise the Stormwater Plant Investment Fees. H. First Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 2022, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Revise Water Plant Investment Fees. The purpose of this item is to consider Ordinances related to proposed 2023 rates and fees being brought forward for Council consideration, including the following items: Items (A-D) – Monthly utility charges to increase 5% for Electric customers, 4% for Water customers, 4% for Wastewater customers, and 3% for Stormwater customers. Items (E–H) – A 9% inflationary increase to development fees including Electric Capacity Fees (ECFs) and Water, Wastewater, Stormwater Plant Investment Fees (PIFs). Lance Smith, Utilities Finance Director, introduced Randy Rusher. Randy Rusher, Utilities, discussed the difference between monthly fees and one-time development fees and outlined the area served by City of Fort Collins Utilities. He detailed the proposed monthly rate increases and one-time fees. He also discussed the portfolio of affordability and efficiency programs, including the Income-Qualified Assistance Program, medical assistance program, and water and electric retrofit programs. Public Comment None. Council Questions and Comment None. Mayor Pro Tem Francis moved, seconded by Councilmember Canonico, to adopt Ordinance No. 127, 2022, on First Reading. Councilmember Peel thanked staff for addressing her questions and reiterated her concerns about moving completely toward solar and wind energy. Page 21 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 13 of 20 Councilmember Pignataro noted there was an extensive discussion about this topic at the Council Finance Committee meeting and she stated the recording of that meeting is available for members of the public. The motion carried 7-0. Mayor Pro Tem Francis moved, seconded by Councilmember Pignataro, to adopt Ordinance No. 128, 2022, on First Reading. The motion carried 7-0. Mayor Pro Tem Francis moved, seconded by Councilmember Pignataro, to adopt Ordinance No. 129, 2022, on First Reading. The motion carried 7-0. Mayor Pro Tem Francis moved, seconded by Councilmember Canonico, to adopt Ordinance No. 130, 2022, on First Reading. The motion carried 7-0. Mayor Pro Tem Francis moved, seconded by Councilmember Pignataro, to adopt Ordinance No. 131, 2022, on First Reading. The motion carried 7-0. Mayor Pro Tem Francis moved, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to adopt Ordinance No. 132, 2022, on First Reading. The motion carried 7-0. Mayor Pro Tem Francis moved, seconded by Councilmember Pignataro, to adopt Ordinance No. 133, 2022, on First Reading. The motion carried 7-0. Mayor Pro Tem Francis moved, seconded by Councilmember Gutowsky, to adopt Ordinance No. 134, 2022, on First Reading. The motion carried 7-0. 20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 135, 2022, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Related to Water, Wastewater and Electric Rates, Fees, and Charges Applied Under the Income-Qualified Assistance Program. The Income-Qualified Assistance Program (IQAP) that provides income-qualified Fort Collins Utilities (Utilities) customers reduced rates on select Utilities services was introduced in October 2018 as a pilot program. The IQAP program bill adjustment effectively applies a 23% rate discount on electric, water, and wastewater services, and is due to expire December 31, 2022. In July 2021, City Council approved moving the program from an application-based, opt-in program to an auto-enroll, opt-out program, subject to participants’ participation in the complementary state Low-income Energy Assistance Program (LEAP). At that time, City Council also requested an evaluation of the discounted rate percentage to ensure it was still sufficient to meet program objectives. Since July 2021, participation in IQAP has increased 128%. Staff are seeking a motion Page 22 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 14 of 20 from City Council to adopt the program. The Council Finance Committee reviewed this proposal on October 20, 2022 and provided staff direction for presentation to the full City Council. Gretchen Stanford, Utilities Customer Connections Director, introduced her team and provided a history of the Income-Qualified Assistance Program (IQAP). She stated this item would adopt the IQAP as an ongoing program. Heather Young, Community Engagement Manager, discussed the IQAP’s areas of strategic alignment, including Neighborhood Livability and Social Health and Our Climate Future. Shannon Ash, Utilities Affordability Supervisor, discussed the background of the IQAP and stated staff would like to have the program be formally adopted prior to the end of the year so as to prevent program participants from having any disruptions in their discounts. She stated the IQAP provides a 23% rate reduction on electric, water, and wastewater services and she noted customers are approved through the Low-Energy Assistance Program, or LEAP, and are automatically enrolled in IQAP if they are approved through LEAP. She noted there are still qualifying households that are not yet enrolled; therefore, staff will be doing specific and targeted outreach during this time period of LEAP enrollment. Young provided an update on the program and noted there was a 128% increase in enrollment when the auto-enrollment component was instituted. She discussed the energy use for IQAP customers and noted statistics showed it increased for IQAP customers in the initial years of participation but evened out with non-IQAP customers after the third year of participation. She summarized the benefits customers have experienced when being on the program and stated staff is recommending the rate reduction be increased from 23% to 25% based on the fact that utility bills have increased at a higher rate than income since 2018. She suggested the number should be reexamined every three to five years and she outlined the financial implications to customers and the utilities of that change, noting it would be nominal for the utilities and other customers. Young summarized the reasons to make the IQAP a permanent utilities program. Public Comment None. Council Questions and Comments Mayor Arndt asked how the program works given Fort Collins water service does not geographically cover the same area as Fort Collins electric service. Young replied customers only receive the discount on the services they have with Fort Collins Utilities. Mayor Pro Tem Francis supported the program becoming permanent and the rate reduction being increased. Mayor Arndt concurred and stated she was glad to see water included in the program. Mayor Pro Tem Francis moved, seconded by Councilmember Pignataro, to adopt Ordinance No. 135, 2022, on First Reading. The motion carried 7-0. Clerk’s Note: Mayor Arndt called for a ten-minute break at 9:17 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:26 p.m. 21. Items Relating to the Adoption of the Land Development Code. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 114, 2022, Repealing and Reenacting Section 29-1 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Adopt the Land Development Code and Separately Codifying Page 23 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 15 of 20 the 1997 Land Use Code as “2022 Transitional Land Use Regulations”. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 115, 2022, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins to Rename all Neighborhood Conservation Low Density, Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density, and Neighborhood Conservation Buffer Zone District to the Old Town Zone District in Conjunction with the Adoption of the Land Development Code. These Ordinances, adopted on First Reading on October 18, 2022 by a vote of 6-1 (Nay: Ohlson), consider adoption of changes to the City’s Land Use Code including renaming to the Land Development Code. The Land Use Code (LUC) Phase 1 Update implements policy direction in City Plan, the Housing Strategic Plan, and the Our Climate Future Plan. Changes are intended to address one or more of the following Guiding Principles: 1. Increase overall housing capacity and calibrate market-feasible incentives for affordable housing 2. Enable more affordability, especially near high frequency transit and priority growth areas 3. Allow more diverse housing choices that fit in with the existing context and priority place types 4. Make the LUC easier to use and understand 5. Improve predictability of the development review process, especially for housing In conjunction with adoption of the Land Development Code, a conforming change to the zoning map to rename the Neighborhood Conservation Low Density, Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density, and Neighborhood Conservation Buffer Zone District to the Old Town zone district is proposed by means of a rezoning. At first reading, Council directed that “2022” be added to the term “Transitional Land Use Regulations” to avoid possible confusion with the previous Transitional Land Use Regulations utilized when the Land Use Code was adopted in 1997. If adopted by Council, staff recommends that the proposed LUC changes and renaming to the Old Town zone district take effect on January 1, 2023. Meaghan Overton, Housing Manager, noted the proposed updates to the City’s land use regulations are a direct implementation of the City’s adopted policies and plans. She summarized Council’s actions at First Reading, including the 15 specific changes Council voted to add to the public draft of the Land Development Code. She noted Council voted to adopt the Code overall including those changes. Noah Beals, Development Review Manager, further detailed the specific changes Council adopted during First Reading as well as three edits that pertain to grammar, clarification, and existing Code language that was not visible in the initial draft. Public Comment Robin Hause stated the change in the density needs to be revised downward as an increase in density will result in a decrease in trees and increase in global warming. She opposed the proposed changes to the Old Town zones and supported allowing public input for all development projects. Kathy Williams opposed the elimination of single-family neighborhoods and stated she believes Old Town is being unfairly targeted. Page 24 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 16 of 20 James Burtis expressed support for the proposed Land Development Code updates. He suggested the adoption of the Code should be followed up by a comprehensive affordable housing plan. Martha Hedrick stated this process has not been transparent and she was unaware of these proposed changes until yesterday. She stated these changes would alter the character of Old Town, which is known nation-wide for its charm. Amy Hahn spoke in favor of many of the strategies put forth in the Land Development Code; however, she expressed concern about the lack of data-driven background as to how the updates will create affordable housing and about the lack of communication and outreach in the process. Adam Eggleston expressed support for the proposed Land Development Code updates and stated single-family and multi-family uses can co-exist. Jim Troxell discussed the history of the Mantz neighborhood and its residents and expressed concern the proposed Land Development Code changes may potentially change the unique character and significance of Old Town. He requested Council postpone a vote until more engagement of affected neighborhoods is completed. Kristin Fritz, Housing Catalyst, expressed support for the proposed Land Development Code updates stating it provides tools that reflect the City’s adopted goals related to affordable housing. Joe Rowan, One Voice for Housing, expressed support for the proposed Land Development Code updates. Tom Ridgely stated he does not want to see the character of Old Town change. Chris Holmquist-Johnson stated there was a lack of public input in this process and requested neighborhood meetings not be eliminated from the development review process. Virginia Pervis stated she appreciates the uniqueness of Old Town and stated there was not enough public outreach in this process. She suggested employment should be mapped to affordable housing locations. Gary Fisher expressed concern about the lack of transparency and public input in this process. He questioned how these changes will improve housing affordability. Kevin Murray stated it has taken ten to twelve years to change the development review process to allow the community to be notified early and these changes seem to be moving backward. Paul Patterson opposed the public input process regarding the Land Development Code updates. Suzanne Murray stated she worked hard to have her neighborhood designated as an historic district and expressed concern the proposed allowed densities would change the character of the district. Susan Patchen stated these Code updates will lead to increased investment opportunities; however, residents are not well represented. Nicole Swan spoke in support of the Land Development Code updates. Diane Marshky stated she was not aware of the Land Development Code updates and while she understands the goals, she expressed concern there may be unintended consequences. She specifically expressed concern about reduced parking requirements for affordable developments. Page 25 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 17 of 20 Mary Grant requested Council postpone this vote and expressed concern about the lack of transparency in the process. She stated many of the proposed updates are too dramatic. Council Questions and Comments Mayor Pro Tem Francis requested clarification regarding how square footage is calculated in Old Town. Beals replied the different calculation in Old Town has been in place for some time and is calculated from outside wall to outside wall counting every floor at grade or above. He stated that calculation formula was developed in part to maintain the character of the Old Town area and the proposed changes maintain some of that while also tweaking the definition to align more with the new building types being presented. Mayor Pro Tem Francis asked about the process for the proposed multi-units that would be added as an allowed use in Old Town. Beals replied building types that can relate to the character of the neighborhoods were introduced as part of the form-based standards. He noted historic preservation standards are not being changed and historic review as currently required will remain. Overton noted the Old Town districts have specific building design requirements that apply when things are changing. Additionally, none of the current setback requirements are proposed to change. Mayor Pro Tem Francis requested information about form-based standards. Overton replied the new Code will regulate more what something looks like and how it relates to its context and less about what is happening inside. She also noted the new Code proposes to carry forward the rear lot area limitations. Mayor Arndt noted the current Code already allows non-single-family homes in Old Town, citing the townhomes on Mountain at Shields. Overton noted the zoning of that parcel was different and allowed that use. Councilmember Peel asked if adding these dwellings to Old Town would be supported by existing utilities infrastructure. Beals replied Utilities updates and increases capacity as projects are added. He noted capital expansion fees would be paid by any new development to help cover costs. Councilmember Peel asked about the concerns mentioned about parking. Beals replied parking is a tradeoff in terms of increasing housing capacity and affordable housing. He stated the parking standards that are proposed for reduction only apply to studio and one-bedroom units. For affordable housing projects, the new parking requirements would match those that are currently in the transit-oriented parking overlay zones. Mayor Arndt requested staff review the public input process for the Code update project. Overton replied it is an implementation action of many different policy and planning processes beginning in 2018 with City Plan engagement, followed by the Housing Strategic Plan and Our Climate Future in 2020 and 2021, both of which included their own years-long engagement processes. She stated all the engagement processes resulted in specific policies that directed updates to the City’s land use regulations and the Land Development Code is a tool the City has to shape the built environment based on alignment with those policy documents. Overton discussed the opportunities for public engagement since the draft Land Development Code was made available to the public in July, including office hours, virtual public workshops, internal workshops, and meetings with community groups and Boards and Commissions. Councilmember Ohlson noted he never saw it clearly stated that single-family low-density housing is set to be eliminated in 98% of the city. Additionally, he stated the ability for public input is being reduced due to the elimination of neighborhood meetings and the involvement of the Planning Page 26 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 18 of 20 and Zoning Commission. He stated that is a massive governance and leadership failure. He opposed the formation of the updates solely by people with a vested economic interest as opposed to a broad sector of the city population. Councilmember Peel requested clarification on Councilmember Ohlson’s comments related to eliminating 98% of single-family zoning. Beals replied there are still zone districts that will not allow multi-unit buildings; however, accessory dwelling units are being proposed to be allowed throughout the city. Overton noted the different types of housing permitted in different zone districts depends on geographic locations within the city. Councilmember Peel asked if neighbors would still be notified of developments. Beals replied, for any project that would increase density, mailings to the surrounding neighborhood will still occur, signs will still be posted, and staff will be available for questions and comments via email or in person. Mayor Arndt asked if there is an instance in which a notification process would not occur. Beals replied in the negative. Councilmember Ohlson asked what new uses would be allowed in the low-density residential zone district. Beals replied the proposed Code would allow a detached house with a detached accessory dwelling unit, a detached house with an attached accessory dwelling unit, a duplex, or a three-unit building if one of the units is deed-restricted affordable housing. Councilmember Canonico asked about the number of out-of-state investors and the number of units they own in the city. Overton replied she would collect that information and share the statistics shortly. Councilmember Pignataro replied her recollection is that 90% of investors own another rental and live in a unit. Mayor Pro Tem Francis moved, seconded by Councilmember Canonico, to adopt Ordinance No. 114, 2022, on Second Reading. Councilmember Pignataro suggested adding links to the videos of work sessions and previous meetings on this topic to the City’s website. Councilmember Ohlson stated he believes the motives and intentions of the rest of Council are sincere. However, he stated he does not support the proposed updates and stated this is one of the worst proposals to ever make it this far with such extensive changes. He stated the elimination of single-family zoning will negatively impact existing neighborhoods and residents and lead to a denser more congested community with little to no impact on affordable housing. He stated this proposal will eliminate neighborhood meetings, public hearings, and Planning and Zoning Commission involvement which is a huge step backward. He stated increased density does not create increased affordable housing. He suggested the Second Reading should be postponed until the new year to garner additional public input. Councilmember Gutowsky noted the number of comments related to members of the public having not had enough time to understand these changes. She stated the City needs to do a better job of informing community members of the impacts of the proposed updates. She suggested postponing this vote and questioned the rush to adopt these updates. Mayor Pro Tem Francis thanked the individuals who spoke. She concurred with Councilmember Ohlson that these updates are a huge change but are more representative of what the community wants. She noted housing choice has been listed as a number one priority over the years of development of plans and policies and stated the Land Development Code is a technical document that reflects that; therefore, there was a technical advisory committee to provide input. Page 27 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 19 of 20 She stated housing choice is essential to the foundation of the community. She stated the city does not have the density to support inclusionary zoning that would require the development of affordable housing. Mayor Pro Tem Francis stated public hearings and the Planning and Zoning Commission are not being eliminated; however, projects that meet the objectives and regulations are not required to have a public hearing, though public involvement is still an option. She stated this is not a high- density plan. Councilmember Peel stated she still believes the name should be Land Use and Development Code and opposes the 2,400 square foot limitation in Old Town and the restriction on square footage of accessory dwelling units. However, she stated the city is growing and the needs of its residents are changing, and this Code will help the city adapt to the changes. Councilmember Canonico stated this Code reflects the values of the community which is seeking diversity of housing, more affordability, and sustainability. She specifically cited the plan providing options for seniors and the Code updates being data-driven. Councilmember Peel noted the Land Use Code has not been updated since 1997 and development happening under that Code is not beneficial, which is part of the reason for the rush to make changes. She stated this process has been ongoing for three years and does not seem rushed. Councilmember Pignataro concurred and stated constituents want the accessory dwelling unit option. Mayor Arndt stated this Code makes generational changes and sets the city up for the next 50 years. She noted these changes are not going to occur overnight and she is solidly in support of the changes. Councilmember Gutowsky stated she believes the community will feel it has not been heard and she will not support the motion. The motion carried 5-2. Ayes: Mayor Arndt, Mayor Pro Tem Francis, and Councilmembers Pignataro, Canonico and Peel. Nays: Councilmembers Gutowsky and Ohlson. Mayor Pro Tem Francis moved, seconded by Councilmember Pignataro, to adopt Ordinance No. 115, 2022, on Second Reading. The motion carried 6-1. Ayes: Mayor Arndt, Mayor Pro Tem Francis, and Councilmembers Gutowsky, Pignataro, Canonico and Peel. Nay: Councilmember Ohlson. 22. First Reading of Ordinance No. 136, 2022, Repealing and Reenacting Article IX of City Code Chapter 20 Concerning Public Nuisances and Making Conforming Changes to City Code Section 19-3. The purpose of this item is for Council to consider the adoption of a new public nuisance ordinance (PNO) that allows for a clearer, broader definition of public nuisance and adds new enforcement mechanism for abating public nuisances and chronic nuisance properties. The new PNO will allow staff to address the current community issues and nuisance situations more effectively. Page 28 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 20 of 20 City Manager DiMartino gave Council the option to discuss this item at its next work session prior to considering it at a regular meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Francis moved, seconded by Councilmember Peel, to postpone consideration of Ordinance No. 136, 2022, to November 15, 2022. The motion carried 7-0. P) OTHER BUSINESS OB 1. Possible consideration of the initiation of new ordinances and/or resolutions by Councilmembers. No other business was discussed. Q) ADJOURNMENT – 11:26 pm There being no further business before the Council, the meeting adjourned at 11:26 p.m. to a meeting of the General Improvement District No. 1. ______________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ City Clerk Page 29 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 15 City Council Proceedings November 15, 2022 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council-Manager Form of Government Regular Meeting – 6:00 PM PROCLAMATIONS & PRESENTATIONS 5:00 PM A) PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS PP1. Proclamation Declaring November 2022 as Transgender Acceptance Month. Mayor Jeni Arndt presented the above proclamation at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. REGULAR MEETING 6:00 PM B) CALL MEETING TO ORDER Mayor Jeni Arndt called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, with hybrid participation available via the City’s Zoom platform C) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Jeni Arndt led the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag. D) ROLL CALL PRESENT Mayor Jeni Arndt Mayor Pro Tem Emily Francis Councilmember Susan Gutowsky Councilmember Julie Pignataro Councilmember Tricia Canonico Councilmember Shirley Peel Councilmember Kelly Ohlson STAFF PRESENT City Manager Kelly DiMartino City Attorney Carrie Daggett City Clerk Anissa Hollingshead Page 30 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 15 City Council Proceedings E) CITY MANAGER'S AGENDA REVIEW City Manager Kelly DiMartino provided an overview of the agenda, including:  There were no changes to the published agenda.  Item 15 will have corrections made on second reading at the next meeting to the pay plan document included as Exhibit A to the ordinance to fix some transposition of numbering in table three on page 19.  Item 20 is a public hearing on the proposed resolution and requires providing an opportunity for City employees to comment directly to Council, which can occur during general public comment.  Item 22 includes an amended version of Resolution 2022-118 in which a prospective appointee to the Human Services and Housing Funding Board was removed after withdrawing from consideration.  All items on the consent agenda were recommended for approval. F) COMMUNITY REPORTS None. G) PUBLIC COMMENT ON ANY TOPICS OR ITEMS OR COMMUNITY EVENTS (Including requests for removal of items from Consent Calendar for individual discussion.) Silen Wellington, Fort Collins resident, spoke in appreciation for the action Transgender Acceptance Proclamation, to request amendments to City Code Chapter 13 Article II to include sexual orientation, and to increase the availability of gender-neutral bathrooms particularly in public buildings. G. Inguanta, Fort Collins resident, spoke regarding trans history, in appreciation for the openly welcoming action taken by Council in issuing the Transgender Acceptance Proclamation, and shared about their experience while working for the City's Parks department and the willingness of the department to ensure their ability to use a bathroom of choice and feel like a welcome and valued employee. Sabrina Herrick, Fort Collins resident, spoke in favor of amending Chapter 13 Article II to include gender identity and sexual orientation. Lauren Storeby, Fort Collins resident and business owner, spoke regarding concerns about the minimum wage increase, sharing the types of cuts businesses make when costs increase and questioning what problems are sought to be solved by an increase. Shawn Storeby, Fort Collins resident and business owner, spoke regarding the proposed minimum wage increase, sharing his experience in the marine corps where he was paid below minimum wage as well as examples from his business operations and concerns about a minimum wage increase pushing businesses and consumers to other neighboring cities that are booming, which will also reduce sales tax revenues. Jessie Miglus, Fort Collins resident and Poudre Library District employee, spoke about concerns regarding the discrepancy in current benefits for library district employees and belief short term disability is a poor substitute for the FAMLI program. Carolyn Bartwood, long term owner of an apartment building in Fort Collins, spoke regarding rental registration and licensing and how this as a solution for the limited number of bad landlords is overly bureaucratic and will increase costs. Page 31 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 15 City Council Proceedings Ann Hutchison, Fort Collins resident and president of the Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce, spoke on a few topics. First, she thanked Council for taking action on adopting the Land Development Code and what that will mean for housing. Regarding 1041 regulations, she expressed appreciation to the Council's action to extend the moratorium and expressed a desire to see a thoughtful approach to future action. She also spoke to encourage the Council to postpone the minimum wage ordinance indefinitely, noting her comments were on behalf of many business owners unwilling to speak publicly to avoid retaliation and urged consideration of unintended consequences. Lisa Winchester, community director for Crowne Apartments and president of Northern Colorado Rental Housing Association, read a statement on behalf of the association arguing a rental registration or licensing program is a harsh response to incomplete information from the City regarding the need for such a program. Alexander Adams, Fort Collins resident, spoke as a public policy analyst regarding the proposed increase to the minimum wage, sharing information about the consensus of research about minimum wage increases leading conclusively to negative employment effects as well as the amplified negative impact to youth employment in real time as well as into the future and also lead to increases in crime due to fewer youth working. He also noted an increase to the minimum wage would increase the median wage and therefore Council compensation given the ballot question that just passed. Laura McWaters, Fort Collins resident, (not on the sign in sheet) spoke to encourage the City to amend the municipal code to include sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression to match Colorado state laws; and also thanked the City to converting single use rest rooms to gender neutral restrooms and encouraged converting existing rest rooms. McWaters also spoke about the importance of making the minimum wage a livable wage. Amber Kelly (not on the sign in sheet and no residency indicated) spoke regarding rental licensing, offering an alternative as a landlord of 24 units with a great relationship with tenants. Kelly noted it is already challenging to keep track of the number of inspections and associated paperwork that are required and suggested considering rental mediation to prevent evictions and other issues as an alternative and looking for how to collaborate in other ways. Rev. Kimberly Salico-Diehl, pastor at American Baptist Church in Fort Collins, (not on the sign in sheet) shared appreciation for the Council's action on Transgender Awareness and expressed support for revisions to Chapter 13 of the City Code as well as committing to ensuring there are gender neutral restrooms in all City facilities. Tom Paisan, Fort Collins resident, (not on the sign in sheet) came forward to speak against the proposed increase to the minimum wage. He noted such an increase will also increase building costs and therefore impact affordable housing. Doreen Paisan, Fort Collins resident, (not on the sign in sheet) came forward as a CPA with an accounting firm and payroll company that works with several small businesses to encourage the Council to table this for right now at least until a later time due to the financially challenging time for businesses right now. H) PUBLIC COMMENT FOLLOW-UP Councilmember Julie Pignataro noted there is a service area request in progress right now regarding gender neutral bathrooms as well as code changes to Chapter 13. City Manager DiMartino noted that speakers tonight who provided email addresses will be included in the SAR response. If Council wishes to amend the Code, that could be addressed under Other Business and is also being discussed by the Human Relations Commission. Page 32 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 4 of 15 City Council Proceedings Mayor Arndt thanked everyone for coming out to speak tonight. I) COUNCILMEMBER REMOVAL OF ITEMS FROM CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION None. J) CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the October 4, 2022 Regular Council Meeting. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes of the October 4, 2022 regular Council meeting. Approved. 2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 117, 2022, Approving the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget, and Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance for the Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority, and Fixing the Mill Levy for the Downtown Development Authority for Fiscal Year 2023. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 1, 2022, sets the Downtown Development Authority ("DDA") Budget. The following amounts will be appropriated: DDA Public/Private Investments & Programs $7,800,493 DDA Operations & Maintenance $2,030,378 Revolving Line of Credit Draws $7,000,000 DDA Debt Service Fund $7,431,611 The Ordinance sets the 2023 Mill Levy for the Fort Collins DDA at five (5) mills, unchanged since tax year 2002. The approved Budget becomes the Downtown Development Authority's financial plan for 2023. Adopted on Second Reading. 3. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 118, 2022, Adopting the 2023 Budget and Appropriating the Fort Collins Share of the 2023 Fiscal Year Operating and Capital Improvements Funds for the Northern Colorado Regional Airport. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 1, 2022, adopts the 2023 budget for the Northern Colorado Regional Airport and appropriate Fort Collins’ share of the 2023 fiscal year operating and capital funds for the Airport. Under the Amended and Restated Intergovernmental Agreement for the Joint Operation of the Airport between Fort Collins and Loveland (the “IGA”), the Airport is operated as a joint venture with each City owning 50% of the assets and revenues and responsible for 50% of the operating and capital costs. The proposed budget does not include any financial contributions from the City’s General Fund. Because each City has an ownership interest in 50% of the Airport revenues, each City must appropriate its 50% share of the annual operating and capital budget for the Airport under the IGA. Adopted on Second Reading. Page 33 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 5 of 15 City Council Proceedings 4. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 119, 2022, Appropriating Philanthropic Revenue Received Through City Give to Benefit Income-Qualified Youth Sports Programming and Services in the Recreation Department. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 1, 2022, appropriates $17,000 in philanthropic revenue received through City Give for Recreation to benefit income- qualified youth sports programming and services. In 2019, City Give, a formalized enterprise-wide initiative was launched to create a transparent, non-partisan governance structure for the acceptance and appropriations of charitable gifts. Adopted on Second Reading. 5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 2022, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund and Transportation Services Fund for Snow Removal. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 1, 2022, appropriates prior year reserves to cover snow removal costs that have exceeded the 2022 budget. Overspend in the snow budget is driven by severe snowstorms that present cold temperatures, ice, and higher volumes of snow. Adopted on Second Reading. 6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 2022 Amending Chapter 7.5 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Increase for Inflation the Capital Expansion Fees and the Transportation Expansion Fee. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 1, 2022, makes annual inflation updates effective January 1, 2023, associated with the City’s Capital Expansion Fees and its Transportation Expansion Fee. Inflation updates are 8.6% for the Capital Expansion Fees and 7.1% for the Transportation Expansion Fee. Adopted on Second Reading. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2022, Making Supplemental Appropriations in the General Fund of Grant Proceeds from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs for the Kechter Townhomes Project. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 1, 2022, appropriates unanticipated grant revenue in the General Fund. In November of 2021, the City sold a property from the Land Bank Program located at 3620 Kechter Road to Kechter TWG, LLLP for the purpose of building 54 permanently affordable townhomes. The City applied for and was awarded a grant from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) to support water and wastewater utility costs associated with this development. A resolution authorizing the execution of the intergovernmental grant agreement was adopted on November 1, 2022 with First Reading of this Ordinance. Adopted on Second Reading. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2022, Updating References in City Code to the Land Use Code. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 1, 2022, updates the City Code’s existing references to Land Use Code to the new name Land Development Code. Page 34 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 6 of 15 City Council Proceedings Adopted on Second Reading. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2022, Authorizing an Extension of the Temporary Exception to the Land Use Code to Allow T-Mobile to Place a Temporary Wireless Telecommunication Facility at 1800 East Harmony Road to Replace Lost Wireless Service Coverage. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 1, 2022, extends the authorization for a temporary wireless telecommunication facility known as a cell-on-wheels (COW), operated by T-Mobile, currently located at 1800 East Harmony. The current temporary authorization is set to expire on December 1, 2022. This temporary facility is in place to address a critical loss in T-Mobile's existing cellular coverage in south Fort Collins caused by T-Mobile’s removal of wireless equipment from Platte River Power Authority (“PRPA”) infrastructure and is to be used only until a permanent facility (proposed at 4518 Innovation Drive) is fully constructed in Spring 2023. Adopted on Second Reading. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2022, Conditionally Vacating a Portion of Crestridge Street Right-of-Way. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 1, 2022, adopts the conditional vacation of Crestridge Street right-of-way, currently known as Crestridge Drive, that is no longer desirable or necessary to retain for street purposes. Portions of the right-of-way area, once vacated, will be retained as public access and emergency access easements to the City in order to provide continued access for the neighboring properties. The right-of-way vacation will be conditional upon the construction of the extension of Venus Drive. These conditions are outlined in detail in the Ordinance. Adopted on Second Reading. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 2022, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance Relating to the Annual Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2023; Adopting the Budget for the Fiscal Years Beginning January 1, 2023, and Ending December 31, 2024; and Fixing the Mill Levy for Property Taxes Payable in 2023. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 1, 2022, adopts the Annual Appropriation and Budget Ordinance. The Ordinance sets the City Budget for the two-year period (2023-2024) which becomes the City’s financial plan for the next two fiscal years. This Ordinance sets the amount of $778,543,584 to be appropriated for fiscal year 2023. However, this appropriated amount does not include what is being budgeted and appropriated by separate Council/Board of Director actions to adopt the 2023 budget for the General Improvement District (GID) No. 1 of $313,275, the 2023 budget for General Improvement District (GID) No. 15 (Skyview) of $1,000, the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) 2023 budget of $6,005,369 and the Downtown Development Authority 2023 budget of $24,262,482. This results in the City-related total operating appropriation of $809,125,710 in 2023. This Ordinance also sets the 2023 City mill levy at 9.797 mills, unchanged since 1991. Adopted on Second Reading. 12. Items Relating to 2023 Utility Rates, Fees, and Charges. Page 35 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 7 of 15 City Council Proceedings A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2022, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Revise Electric Rates, Fees and Charges and Updating Related Provisions. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 128, 2022, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Revise Water Rates, Fees and Charges. C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2022, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Revise Wastewater Rates, Fees and Charges. D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 130, 2022, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Revise Stormwater Rates, Fees and Charges. E. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 2022, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Regarding Calculation and Collection of Development Fees Imposed for the Construction of New or Modified Electric Service Connections. F. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 132, 2022, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Revise Sewer Plant Investment Fees. G. Second Reading of Ordinance No.133, 2022, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Revise the Stormwater Plant Investment Fees. H. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 2022, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Revise Water Plant Investment Fees. These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 1, 2022, adopt changes related to proposed 2023 rates and fees being brought forward for Council consideration, including the following items: Items (A-D) – Monthly utility charges to increase 5% for Electric customers, 4% for Water customers, 4% for Wastewater customers, and 3% for Stormwater customers. Items (E–H) – A 9% inflationary increase to development fees including Electric Capacity Fees (ECFs) and Water, Wastewater, Stormwater Plant Investment Fees (PIFs). Adopted all Ordinances on Second Reading. 13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 135, 2022, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Related to Water, Wastewater and Electric Rates, Fees, and Charges Applied Under the Income-Qualified Assistance Program. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 1, 2022, adopts the Income-Qualified Assistance Program (IQAP) providing income-qualified Fort Collins Utilities (Utilities) customers reduced rates on select Utilities services was introduced in October 2018 as a pilot program. The IQAP program bill adjustment effectively applies a 23% rate discount on electric, water, and wastewater services, and is due to expire Decem ber 31, 2022. In July 2021, Council approved moving the program from an application-based, opt-in program to an auto- enroll, opt-out program, subject to participants’ participation in the complementary state Low- income Energy Assistance Program (LEAP). At that time, Council also requested an evaluation of the discounted rate percentage to ensure it was still sufficient to meet program objectives. Since July 2021, participation in IQAP has increased 128%. Staff are seeking a motion from City Council to adopt the program. The Council Finance Committee reviewed this proposal on October 20, 2022 and provided staff direction for presentation to Council. Page 36 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 8 of 15 City Council Proceedings Adopted all Ordinances on Second Reading. 14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 2022, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Light & Power Fund and the Water Fund for the Purchase of Vendor Services to Support a Major Version Upgrade to the Utilities Meter Data Management System. The purpose of this item is to bring forward an off-cycle supplemental appropriation of Light & Power and Water Fund reserves to fund vendor services needed to support a major version upgrade to the Utilities Meter Data Management System. The Meter Data Management System (MDMS) owned and operated by Utilities has been in place since the inception of the Advanced Meter Fort Collins implementation in 2010. It receives water and electric meter data for all advanced meters deployed across Fort Collins Utility Service’s territory throughout the day, performs quality checks on that data, and then at the end of the billing cycle it calculates the billing determinants for each customer that are necessary to generate individual customer bills. Fort Collins Utilities has utilized the same version of the EnergyIP software since it was installed. For the reasons described below, this software must be upgraded to a more current version and the upgrade cannot wait for the new budget cycle to begin (i.e., January 2023). Utilities staff will need vendor support to complete this major software version upgrade. As the MDMS system supports both the water and electric utilities, the cost of the upgrade will be shared between them. Utilities has historically allocated costs for shared software based on customer counts as determined by the number of deployed meters to establish the cost share for each utility. Applying this method here, the Water Enterprise’s share of this expense would be 31.6% and the Electric Utility Enterprise’s share would be 68.4%. The total supplemental appropriation being proposed for your consideration is for $629,588. Adopted on First Reading. 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 2022, Adopting the 2023 Classified Employee Pay Plan. The purpose of this item is to recommend the 2023 City Classified Employee Pay Plan. Classified jobs are grouped according to job functions, a business practice commonly used by both the public and private sectors. Pay ranges are developed by career group (management, professional, administrative, operations and trades) and level for each job function. The result of this work is a City Classified Employee Pay Plan which sets the minimum, midpoint and maximum of pay ranges for the level, within each career group and function. Actual employee pay increases are awarded through a separate administrative process in accordance with the budgeted amount approved by Council. Adopted on First Reading. 16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 2022, Extending the Moratorium on Certain Activities of State Interest Designated in Ordinance No. 122, 2021. The purpose of this item is to consider an ordinance extending the length of a moratorium previously imposed through Ordinance No. 122, 2021, on two designated activities of state interest. The proposed Ordinance extends the length of the existing moratorium for three months beyond December 31, 2022, or until Council adopts guidelines for the administration of the two designated activities. Extending the moratorium allows staff to continue public engagement and Page 37 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 9 of 15 City Council Proceedings seek feedback on version 2 of the Draft 1041 regulations discussed during the Council work session held on November 7, 2022. Adopted on First Reading. 17. Resolution 2022-110 Approving the Midtown Business Improvement District 2022 and 2023 Operating Plans and Budgets and Appointing District Directors. The purpose of this item is to approve the Midtown Business Improvement District 2022 and 2023 Operating Plans and Budgets and appoint District Directors. Adopted. 18. Resolution 2022-111 Approving the 2023 Annual Plan and Budget of the Fort Collins Tourism Improvement District. The purpose of this item is to consider a Resolution approving the Fort Collins Tourism Improvement District’s 2023 Annual Plan and 2023 Annual Budget, which are attached as Exhibits A and B, respectively, to the proposed Resolution. Adopted. 19. Resolution 2022-112 Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County and the City of Loveland to Partner in the Purchase of Fee and Conservation Easement Interests on a 1,547-acre Property in the Blue Mountain Conservation Priority Area. The purpose of this item is to seek authorization to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Larimer County and the City of Loveland for the Heaven’s Door Conservation Project. The project will conserve 1,547 acres in fee adjacent to the Big Thompson Canyon. Adopted. 20. Public Hearing and Resolution 2022-113 To Decline the City of Fort Collins’s Participation in the Colorado Paid Family and Medical Leave Insurance Program. The purpose of this item is to obtain authorization for the City to decline participation in the Colorado Family and Medical Leave Insurance (“FAMLI”) program, which is a state-run insurance program that will provide paid family and medical leave to eligible employees of participating employers. Adopted. 21. Resolution 2022-114 Making the Determination that the City Park Train Project Funded Through the Community Capital Improvement Program is not Financially Feasible. The purpose of this item is to declare the City Park Train project financially unfeasible and remove it from the Community Capital Improvement Program (CCIP) project list. Adopted. Page 38 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 10 of 15 City Council Proceedings 22. Items Relating to Appointments to Various Boards and Commissions. A. Resolution 2022-115 Making Appointments to the Art in Public Places. B. Resolution 2022-116 Making Appointments to the Economic Advisory Board. C. Resolution 2022-117 Making Appointments to the Energy Board. D. Resolution 2022-118 Making Appointments to the Human Services and Housing Funding Board. E. Resolution 2022-119 Making Appointments to the Natural Resources Advisory Board. F. Resolution 2022-120 Making Appointments to the Planning and Zoning Commission. G. Resolution 2022-121 Making Appointments to the Water Commission. The purpose of this item is to fill vacancies on various boards and commissions. Adopted. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Francis moved, seconded by Councilmember Canonico to approve the recommended actions on items 1-22 on the consent calendar. The motion carried 7-0. K) CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW-UP (This is an opportunity for Councilmembers to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent Calendar.) Teresa Roche, Human Resources Executive, and Kelley Vodden, Director of Compensation, Benefits and Wellness, provided an overview comparing City benefits to the Colorado FAMLI leave program, noting in most instances City benefits will be more favorable for most employees, and individual employees could still opt into FAMLI if needed. She also noted the City is looking at making shifts Mayor Pro Tem Emily Francis commented regarding concerns the City’s parental leave does not match the benefit level offered by the state program for new parents as well as other broader family leave situations and expressed appreciation for the continuing work happening to examine those gaps and how they can be addressed. L) STAFF REPORTS None. M) COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS Councilmember Shirley Peel  Congratulated those who have been appointed to Boards and Commissions.  Visted Foundation Music House and encouraged all to visit them and see the good work they do to make music accessible to people across the community.  Did a walk along with Outreach Fort Collins, reaching out to people experiencing homelessness.  Also gave a shout out to City staff for Fort Collins receiving an economic development award for large community of the year, from the Economic Development Institute. Councilmember Susan Gutowsky.  Echoed how impressed she also was by Foundation Music School in visiting their open house as well. Page 39 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 11 of 15 City Council Proceedings  Downtown Holiday Lights is always so exciting, and noted we get to keep enjoying them through Valentine’s Day.  The Museum of Discovery celebrated their 10th anniversary, and it was a very fun event highlighting their work. Mayor Jeni Arndt  Acknowledged the loss of Nick Verni-Lau, homeless advocate and the first program director of Outreach Fort Collins and acknowledged his contributions to the community. Clerk’s Note: The Mayor called for a 10-minute recess at 7:02 p.m. The meeting resumed at 7:13 p.m. N) CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR INDIVIDUAL DISCUSSION None. O) CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PLANNED FOR DISCUSSION 23. First Reading of Ordinance No. 136, 2022, Repealing and Reenacting Article IX of City Code Chapter 20 Concerning Public Nuisances and Making Conforming Changes to City Code Section 19-3. The purpose of this item is to consider the adoption of a new public nuisance ordinance (PNO) that allows for a clearer, broader definition of public nuisance and adds new enforcement mechanism for abating public nuisances and chronic nuisance properties. The new PNO will allow staff to address the current community issues and nuisance situations more effectively. Marcy Yoder, Neighborhood Service Manager, and Assistant Police Chief John Feyen provided a brief presentation summarizing the information provided to the Council at the work session last week on November 7, 2022. It was noted these changes have broadened the Code significantly, pulling issues from multiple other areas of the code to give a better set of tools to address what is seen happening in communities and neighborhoods now. There is also a shift to demonstrate there is a violation rather than a strict requirement to have a written citation for additional steps to be taken. There was no public comment. Councilmember Shirley Peel asked about nuisance activity and the references to marijuana use and asked if the passage of proposition 122 if that will make it necessary to also add psychedelic mushrooms. Deputy City Attorney John Duval responded it would be a good idea to look at that. Mayor Jeni Arndt asked if it would be possible if this is to pass to get a report on what kind of impact adoption of this ordinance has after six months to a year. Marcy Yoder noted staff would be happy to provide that follow up. Councilmember Julie Pignataro noted there was a robust discussion on this item last week and encouraged anyone interested to review the work session recording for more of those details. Councilmember Kelly Ohlson stated his strong support for these changes and the robust set of tools included, as well as the continued emphasis on compliance. He noted he also followed up on the financial side of things and whether there are resources for low-income residents who may need assistance to be able to resolve potential nuisance issues and was assured that is the case. Page 40 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 12 of 15 City Council Proceedings Mayor Pro Tem Francis moved, seconded by Councilmember Pignataro, to adopt the ordinance on first reading. The motion carried 7-0. 24. First Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2022, Establishing a Fort Collins Minimum Wage and Associated Recordkeeping and Enforcement Provisions. The purpose of this item is to bring forth an ordinance setting a local minimum wage in compliance with HB19-1210. Ginny Sawyer, Senior Project Manager, led the staff presentation on this item. She was joined by Deputy Director of Sustainability Josh Birks and Assistant City Attorney Ted Hewitt. Sawyer presented as set forth in the PowerPoint in the agenda packet. Public Comment Silen Wellington, Fort Collins resident, spoke in support of raising the minimum wage, noting it is not only an economic health issue but also a mental health issue and is correlated with a reduction of suicide rates. Adam Eggleston, Fort Collins resident, spoke about the unintentional consequences of raising the minimum wage, noting bigger corporation can better absorb increases and are able to reduce employees by automating through the use of kiosks and self -checkouts. He shared his concerns about his ability to open a coffee shop with an increase, pointing out places like Starbucks will still be in Fort Collins but mom and pop businesses will not. He noted concerns this will push towards more automation and increase investments in AI to replace workers. Allie Eaton, Fort Collins resident, spoke as a small business owner with compassion for both sides of this issue, noting the ability of small businesses to be able to pivot and address issues, and spoke in support of raising the minimum wage, noting the discrepancy between t he cost of living and wages. Robert Duran, a representative with a business operating two locations in Fort Colins, spoke with appreciation for holding off on a minimum wage for the first year under what is proposed and expressed concern about the impacts that haven’t been investigated yet including the impact on neighboring communities as well as the impacts demonstrated by Denver’s increases. Council Discussion Mayor Jeni Arndt asked about slide 8, and where Fort Collins would fall on the chart shown. Josh Birks shared where Fort Collins would fall in 2023. Councilmember Julie Pignataro asked if there was initially an intent to perform a community conversation on this topic. Ginny Sawyer noted that was the initial intention and did result in two separate RFPs to develop a robust public engagement effort, with the first receiving no response and resulting in splitting the RFP into two components. At Council’s midcycle conversations, there was direction to shift plans for engagement implementation. Councilmember Shirley Peel asked for clarification if information shared by businesses about increases to wages also increasing other costs, such as required contributions to unemployment insurance. Staff confirmed that is accurate. Page 41 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 13 of 15 City Council Proceedings Mayor Pro Tem Emily Francis noted the slides provided were helpful as was the table to get to the range desired. She shared thoughts about how Council direction around public engagement was perhaps not clear, with a desire to have engagement that includes hearing from residents who would be directly impacted by changes as well as around what the right level for a minimum wage should be for all stakeholders. She stated support for postponing this action to allow for more engagement and for it to come back to this Council before the election for action with more time to work through details and to provide more notice to businesses. Mayor Jeni Arndt spoke regarding other pending increases, such as to unemployment insurance costs. She also noted the existence of a regional group working on this topic and her concerns with Fort Collins taking an action on its own and the impacts in a regional environment. She spoke to concerns about what is occurring in Denver and wants to ensure any action in Fort Collins is truly helping the people intended to be helped. Councilmember Julie Pignataro expressed appreciation the City is walking the talk by increasing its own minimum wage and suggested taking further steps, such as only contracting with companies that adhere to a higher minimum wage. She also expressed a desire to hear from workers and an interest in exploring how to make that happen after an initial good showing in participating in the survey. She also expressed appreciation to business owners for the time that they have given in sharing information and having discussions. She expressed a desire to ensure there is truly a conversation across the community on this topic to get to the right number. Councilmember Shirley Peel thanked staff for continuing on a winding path with this item and expressed appreciation for listening to concerns from businesses. She noted she is not hearing from businesses that they don’t want to pay employees more but are asking for more time to recover from the pandemic and to see the impacts of inflation. Councilmember Tricia Canonico also thanked staff for their ongoing work on this topic. She expressed support for postponing this item for more research and engagement. She noted a desire to clarify what is being sought to be achieved in a change and compar ed this to the work done around Council compensation in identifying what would be appropriate to benchmark this to. Councilmember Kelly Ohlson shared his disappointment in the direction the Council is heading on this, given a desire to ensure something would be done tonight to benefit the lowest paid workers in this community. He noted he had dramatically lowered his expectations and the amount he was seeking to see in terms of an increase, in response to the concerns brought up by businesses. He stated he had desired to see option 2 tonight and was also willing to propose an option 3 that would start at an even earlier level. He proposed if there is a postponement that it come back to the Council by May 1, giving six months, noting he doesn’t believe we wil l hear new information and the same people will have the same opposition in the future. He also shared concerns about faulty logic around social services and the argument to keep people paid at low levels to prevent losing public benefits. Mayor Pro Tem Francis asked a follow up question to Councilmember Ohlson about whether he agrees with implementation in 2024, which he stated he is. He noted his concern is with having trust that something will be done in future. Mayor Pro Tem Francis shared her conversations have led her to the conclusion the benefit in waiting to act is in engaging with people earning the lowest wages to help identify an appropriate wage level. Councilmember Susan Gutowsky shared she had been willing to move forward with option 2 but is in support of a delay to get more input from workers as well as in general. She noted we do need to maintain concern for our local small businesses that are very much an important and integral part of our city and do need time to recover. She also noted the state is going to implement Page 42 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 14 of 15 City Council Proceedings an increase and that is something we can also study to see what the impact of that is. The market in the amount of time the Council has been discussing this has been driving wages up naturally. Mayor Pro Tem Francis moved, seconded by Councilmember Canonico, to postpone first reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2022 until May 16, 2023. There was discussion about the proposed timing for postponement and the potential for a work session to review additional research and engagement findings prior to it returning for a vote. The motion carried 7-0. 25. Resolution 2022-122 Creating an Ad Hoc Council Committee on Boards and Commissions to Consider and Make Recommendations Regarding Improved Efficiency and Consistency of Board and Commission Processes and to Reduce Barriers to Participation. The purpose of this item is to bring forth a Resolution to establish an Ad Hoc committee to discuss and make recommendations to improve the efficiency and consistency of board and commission processes and to reduce barrier to participation on boards and commissions. There was no staff report and no public comment. Councilmember Julie Pignataro nominated herself for this board and noted her excitement for this work to commence. Mayor Pro Tem Emily Francis noted her excitement about the committee as well and nominated herself for service. Councilmember Tricia Canonico nominated herself to serve as well. Councilmember Kelly Ohlson nominated himself to serve as an alternate to the board. Mayor Pro Tem Francis moved, seconded by Mayor Arndt, to adopt Resolution 2022-122 and add Julie Pignataro, Emily Francis, and Tricia Canonico as members of the ad hoc committee and Kelly Ohlson as an alternate. The motion carried 7-0. Q) OTHER BUSINESS A. Possible consideration of the initiation of new ordinances and/or resolutions by Councilmembers. (Three or more individual Councilmembers may direct the City Manager and City Attorney to initiate and move forward with development and preparation of resolutions and ordinances not originating from the Council's Policy Agenda or initiated by staff.) Mayor Pro Tem Emily Francis acknowledged this was Assistant Police Chief John Feyen’s final meeting before taking office as Larimer County Sheriff and expressed the City’s appreciation for his service. B. Consideration of a motion to cancel the January 3, 2023 Council meeting, as permitted under Section 2-28 of the City Code. Mayor Pro Tem Francis moved, seconded by Councilmember Pignataro, to cancel the January 3, 2023 Council meeting as permitted under section 2-28 of the City Code. Page 43 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 15 of 15 City Council Proceedings The motion carried 7-0. R) ADJOURNMENT Consideration of a motion to adjourn to 6:00 P.M. on November 22, 2022 for the purpose of annual performance evaluations of Council's direct report employees. Mayor Pro Tem Francis moved, seconded by Councilmember Gutowsky, that Council adjourn this meeting to 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 22, 2022, to consider a motion to go into executive session to conduct annual performance reviews of the Council’s direct report employees, and for such other business as may come before the Council. The motion carried 7-0. There being no further business before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. ______________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ City Clerk Page 44 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 2 November 22, 2022 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council-Manager Form of Government Adjourned Meeting – 6:00 PM Clerk’s note: No remote participation or FCTV broadcast. Public comment could be made live in Council Chambers. A) CALL MEETING TO ORDER Mayor Jeni Arndt called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. B) ROLL CALL PRESENT Mayor Jeni Arndt Mayor Pro Tem Emily Francis Councilmember Julie Pignataro Councilmember Susan Gutowsky Councilmember Kelly Ohlson Councilmember Shirley Peel ABSENT Councilmember Tricia Canonico STAFF PRESENT City Manager Kelly DiMartino City Attorney Carrie Daggett Chief Deputy City Clerk Rita Knoll Page 45 Item 1. City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 2 C) ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 1. Consideration of a motion to adjourn into executive session. The meeting of November 15, 2022 was adjourned to this date to consider going into executive session to conduct the annual evaluations of the Chief Judge, City Manager, and City Attorney. “I move that the City Council go into executive session, as permitted under Article Two, Section Eleven of the City Charter, Section 2-31(a)(1) of the City Code and Colorado Revised Statutes Section 24-6-402(4)(f)(roman numeral one), for the purpose of conducting annual performance reviews of the Chief Municipal Judge, City Attorney and City Manager.” Chief Judge 60 minutes City Manager 75 minutes City Attorney 60 minutes Note: Times are approximate with breaks, as necessary. Mayor Pro Tem Francis moved, seconded by Councilmember Pignataro, to go into executive session, as permitted under Article Two, Section Eleven of the City Charter, Section 2-31(a)(1) of the City Code and Colorado Revised Statutes Section 24-6- 402(4)(f)(roman numeral one), for the purpose of conducting annual performance reviews of the Chief Municipal Judge, City Attorney and City Manager. The motion carried 6-0. Absent: Councilmember Canonico. C) OTHER BUSINESS None. D) ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:12 p.m. ___________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________________ Chief Deputy City Clerk Page 46 Item 1. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 2 December 20, 2022 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council STAFF LeAnn Williams, Director, Recreation Ted Hewitt, Legal SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2022, Making Supplemental Appropriations from the State of Colorado Childcare Operations Stabilization and Workforce Sustainability Grant Program and Reviewing and Approving of the Grant Funding. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 6, 2022, accepts two State of Colorado grants funded by the American Rescue Plan Act. The Childcare Operations Stabilization and Workforce Sustainability Grant Program will fund childcare enhancements in City childcare programs. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Childcare Operations Stabilization and Workforce Sustainability grants provide funding for childcare operational expenses, tuition relief, capital improvements, workforce retention, and health and mental health support. The grants are entitlement grants for licensed childcare providers awarded through the State of Colorado Department of Early Childhood. The Childcare Operations Stabilization Grant may be used for existing and new childcare operating expenses. The Workforce Sustainability Grant must be used for expenses related to recruiting and/or retaining existing employees. The grants do not require the City to sign a post-award agreement. Funds must be expended by September 20, 2023. Monthly reporting and attestations about the use of grant funds is required to receive the next monthly payment. All expenses that will be paid for by the grants are one-time and will not cause new expenses to be added to future City budgets. There is no City match requirement. Page 47 Item 2. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 2 CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS City resources will increase by $84,449. These funds will be received from the State of Colorado in the Recreation Fund and spent from the Recreation Fund on the following: childcare programming, tuition assistance, workforce retention, and facility enhancements. BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. PUBLIC OUTREACH None. ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance for Consideration Page 48 Item 2. -1- ORDINANCE NO. 141, 2022 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO CHILDCARE OPERATIONS STABILIZATION AND WORKFORCE SUSTAINABILITY GRANT PROGRAM AND REVIEWING AND APPROVING OF THE GRANT FUNDING WHEREAS, the State of Colorado’s Department of Early Childhood has awarded the City two grants totaling up to $84,449 through its Childcare Operations Stabilization and Workforce Sustainability Grant Program to help fund the City’s licensed childcare programs (the “Grants”); and WHEREAS, the Grants may be used by the City’s licensed childcare programs for childcare operational expenses, childcare programming, necessary health and safety facility enhancements, and workforce retention; and WHEREAS, the Grants require no contribution of matching funds; and WHEREAS, this appropriation benefits the public health, safety and welfare of the residents of Fort Collins and serves the public purpose of funding publicly-provided childcare; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council, upon recommendation of the City Manager, to make a supplemental appropriation by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriation, in combination with all previous appropriations for that fiscal year, do not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues and all other funds to be received during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended the appropriation described herein and determined that this appropriation is available and previously unappropriated from the Recreation Fund and will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Recreation Fund to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues and all other funds to be received in this Fund during this fiscal year. WHEREAS, Article V, Section 11 of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to designate in the ordinance when appropriating funds for a federal, state or private grant, that such appropriation shall not lapse at the end of the fiscal year in which the appropriation is made, but continue until the earlier of the expiration of the federal, state or private grant or the City’s expenditure of all funds received from such grant; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to designate the appropriation herein from the Grants as an appropriation that shall not lapse until the earlier of the expiration of the Grants or the City’s expenditure of all funds received from the Grants. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Page 49 Item 2. -2- Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated from new revenue or other funds in the Recreation Fund the sum of EIGHTY-FOUR THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED FORTY-NINE DOLLARS ($84,449) to be expended in the Recreation Fund for childcare programming, tuition assistance, workforce retention, and facility enhancements. Section 3. That the appropriation herein from the Grants is hereby designated, as authorized in Article V, Section 11 of the City Charter, as an appropriation that shall not lapse at the end of this fiscal year but continue until the earlier of the expiration of the Grants or the City’s expenditure of all funds received from the Grants. Section 4. That the City Council has reviewed the Grants and approves of such funding and further authorizes the City Manager to take appropriate action necessary to be able to expend the grant funds as contemplated by the Childcare Operations Stabilization and Workforce Sustainability Grant Program. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of December, A.D. 2022, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of December, A.D. 2022. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of December, A.D. 2022. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Page 50 Item 2. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 3 December 20, 2022 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council STAFF Marc Virata, Civil Engineer Dana Hornkohl, Capital Projects Manager Brad Buckman, City Engineer Aaron Guin, Legal SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 2022, Adopting the 2023 Larimer County Regional Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Schedule. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 6, 2022, adopts the 2023 Larimer County Regional Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Schedule. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION In 2000, the City and Larimer County (the “County”) entered into an intergovernmental agreement (the “IGA”) authorizing the City to collect Larimer County Regional Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (“Regional TCEFs”) on behalf of the County. The Regional TCEFs generate revenue for capacity-related improvements to regionally significant roadways that are necessitated by new development. The regional TCEFs are used only for improvements that mutually benefit both the City and the County. Regional TCEFs are collected at the time of issuance of a building permit. Per the IGA, the County serves as the Regional TCEF administrator and is responsible to develop project recommendations for fee utilization. The County’s recommendations typically are based on the County’s Transportation Master Plan, a document that identifies regionally significant roadways. Once a project has been identified, City and County staff work together to determine Regional TCEF funding allocations. Regional TCEFs frequently are leveraged with other funds to support larger scale capital projects and can fully support small scale capacity related improvements. The City and County previously have partnered to design and construct several projects along regionally significant roadways using Regional TCEFs, including improvements to Taft Hill Road, Shields Street, and the Shields Street/Vine Drive intersection. City and County staff continue to collaborate on efficient and effective uses for the Regional TCEF funds; most recently agreeing to use these funds to improve a section of Taft Hill Road between Horsetooth Road and Harmony Road. Page 51 Item 3. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 3 The Larimer County Land Use Code specifies that its Regional TCEF must be updated annually to reflect changes in road construction costs during the previous year. In July 2022, the County adopted a revised fee schedule which increased the Regional TCEF by 3.9%. A copy of the June 6, 2022, “Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Adjustments for 2022” memorandum to the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners outlining the revised fees is attached as Exhibit A to the Ordinance. The Regional TCEF increase of 3.9% is based on the Colorado Construction Cost Index reported by the Colorado Department of Transportation (eight-quarter moving average). In comparison, the recently approved City TCEF increase of 7.1% is based on the Construction Cost Index (Denver) reported by the Engineering News Record (twelve-month average ending in August). The City and County met earlier this year to discuss the differing indices used between the jurisdictions and whether there is an opportunity to agree to utilizing a common index. The County indicated that they were comfortable with maintaining their current methodology. With the City conducting a routine TCEF Program Fee Update in January 2023, City staff will further investigate opportunities to coordinate with the County and/or investigate the suitability in adopting the County‘s methodology. The revised (2023) Regional TCEFs, along with a comparison to the 2022 Regional TCEFs, are as follows: Development Type 2023 Regional Road TCEF 2022 Regional Road TCEF Increase or Decrease Residential (per Dwelling) by Square Feet of Finished Living Space 900 or less $191 $184 $7 901 to 1300 $268 $258 $10 1301 to 1800 $324 $312 $12 1801 to 2400 $380 $366 $14 2401 to 3000 $426 $410 $16 3001 to 3600 $462 $445 $17 3601 or more $495 $476 $19 Nonresidential (per 1,000 Square Feet of Floor Area) Commercial $498 $479 $19 Office & Other Services $294 $283 $11 Industrial $118 $114 $4 The revised fees became effective within the County on July 1, 2022. Under the IGA, revisions to the Regional TCEFs do not take effect in the City until Council approves a new fee schedule. Page 52 Item 3. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 3 CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS The fees are collected on behalf of Larimer County and the Regional TCEF program. Revenues from the fees will pass through City accounts and will not affect City revenue limits under Article X, Section 20 of the Constitution of the State of Colorado. The City retains a 2% administrative fee. Adoption of the Regional TCEF Schedule will result in an increase to development fee payers. BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION City staff did not present this item to any Boards and Commissions as the fees are being adjusted only for inflation. PUBLIC OUTREACH As these fees are managed and administered by Larimer County, City staff did not participate in scheduled public outreach. ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance for Consideration 2. Ordinance Exhibit A Page 53 Item 3. -1- ORDINANCE NO. 142, 2022 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADOPTING THE 2023 LARIMER COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL EXPANSION FEE SCHEDULE WHEREAS, the City and Larimer County (the “County”) previously entered into an intergovernmental agreement (the “IGA”), as amended from time to time, whereby the City collects a Regional Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (also known as a “regional road impact” fee) on behalf of Larimer County at the time of issuance of building permits, which fee raises revenue for road improvements on regionally significant roadways that are necessitated by new development; and WHEREAS, the City and the County have established a procedure pursuant to City Code Section 7.5-82 for the City Council to consider and approve any County-proposed changes to the Regional Transportation Capital Expansion Fee schedule (the “Regional TCEF Schedule”) to reflect changes in construction costs, or other relevant factors; and WHEREAS, the last changes to the Regional TCEF Schedule were accomplished by City Council’s adoption of Ordinance No. 165, 2021, and the County is now proposing a revised fee schedule that increases the Regional TCEF by 3.9%, reflecting increases in road construction costs based on an eight-quarter moving average calculated from the Colorado Construction Cost Index data compiled by the Colorado Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS, under the terms of the IGA, revisions to the Regional TCEF Schedule do not take effect in the City until the City Council approves the new fee schedule; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City that the County’s proposed changes to the Regional TCEF Schedule be adopted to further the public interest of adequately funding road improvements that are necessitated by new developments along regionally significant roadways that impact the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the 2023 Larimer County Regional Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference is hereby adopted and approved and shall go into effect in Fort Collins upon the effective date of this Ordinance. Page 54 Item 3. -2- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of December, A.D. 2022, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of December, A.D. 2022. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of December, A.D. 2022. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Page 55 Item 3. LARIMER COUNTY | ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT P.O. Box 1190, Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190, 970.498.5700, Larimer.org MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Mark Peterson, County Engineer DATE: June 6, 2022 RE: Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Adjustments for 2022 Since 1998, under the terms of the Land Use Code, Larimer County has been collecting transportation capital expansion fees (TCEF) from new traffic generating development to be used for improvements to the road system to accommodate the increase in traffic generated by the new development. The current Land Use Code specifies an effective date for the annually updated TCEF’s as July 1st, which is consistent with the effective date for the annual cost of living updates for the Planning and Building Department fees. This memorandum is intended as notification to the Board of County Commissioners that the annual review of the Larimer County Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (TCEFs) for 2021 is resulting in an increase of 3.9% from the 2021 values. As an example of what this change would mean, the TCEF on a new single-family home (between 1,801 SF – 2,400 sf) would increase by $185, from $4,738 to $4,923. See the table below for the complete current 2021 fee schedule and the schedule that would be effective based on a 3.9% increase. The methodology for the adjustment in the TCEF’s each year is specified in the Land Use Code and is intended to reflect changes in road construction costs. The data is based on an 8-quarter moving average calculated from Colorado Construction Cost Index quarterly data compiled and reported by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). The procedure spelled out in the Land Use Code states that, if the change in fees is less than or equal to 5%, the new fees become effective without further action by the BCC. If the change in fees is greater than 5%, the BCC shall determine the percentage to be used to update the fees. Since the percentage change is less than 5% this year at 3.9%, approval by the BCC is not required. However, we still wanted to bring this to the BCC for informational purposes on the TCEF schedule that will be applied for the upcoming year, which will be effective July 1, 2022. EXHIBIT A Page 56 Item 3. June 6, 2022 Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Adjustments Page 2 Residential TCEF 2021 TCEF ($) 2022 TCEF (with 3.9% Increase) ($) Finished Living Space per Dwelling (Square Feet) 900 or less $2,396 $2,489 901-1300 $3,360 $3,491 1301-1800 $4,047 $4,205 1801-2400 $4,738 $4,923 2401-3000 $5,317 $5,524 3001-3600 $5,788 $6,013 3601 or more $6,185 $6,427 2021 TCEF 2022 TCEF (with 3.9% Increase)Commercial Use per 1,000 SF of Floor Area ($) ($) Industrial $1,474 $1,531 Commercial $6,208 $6,450 Office & Other Services $3,654 $3,796 EXHIBIT A Page 57 Item 3. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 2 December 20, 2022 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council STAFF Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner Brad Yatabe, Legal SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 2022, Designating the Leslie P. and Ruth A. Ware Property, 1801 Sheely Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First reading on December 6, 2022, requests City Landmark designation for the Leslie P. and Ruth A. Ware Property at 1801 Sheely Drive. In cooperation with the property owner, City staff and the Historic Preservation Commission have determined the property to be eligible for designation under Standard 3, Design/Construction, for the property's embodiment of the Usonian style of architecture and for the public’s interest in the property during the time of construction. The owner is requesting designation, which will provide protection of the property's exterior and access to financial incentives for historic property owners. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Leslie P. and Ruth A. Ware Property is significant under Standard 3 (Design/Construction) because it is a representative example of the Usonian style of architecture and because of the public interest it drew at the time of its construction. This 1961 house followed the design of Colorado Springs architect Robert Bullock and used materials from the Valley Block Company. The design was called “The Silhouette of the Sixties,” and it served as a show home for builder Ben Olds and Valley Block Company’s Ormond Sherwood. Olds and Sherwood intended “to show future homeowners, architects, and builders, and the bankers who finance home building, that concrete block houses were not always minimum housing” (Joanne Ditmer, 1961). During construction, the promoters had to erect wooden sawhorse barricades to keep the interested public from interfering with the building work, and curiosity about the house continued even after the Wares moved in later in 1961. Character-defining features include the streamlined appearance, achieved by the white-painted concrete, clerestory windows, “floating” roof with wide overhangs and plexiglass globe details, attached carport with decorative screen, the horizontality of the structure, the general absence of street-facing windows with significant glazing on the rear elevation, and the integration of the home within the landscape and through landscape features like the circular pavers. Page 58 Item 4. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 2 CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS Designation as a Fort Collins Landmark qualifies property owners for certain financial incentives funded by the City, as well as allows private property owners to leverage State tax incentives for repairs and modifications that meet national preservation standards. These include a 0% interest revolving loan program and Design Assistance mini-grant program through the City and the Colorado State Historic Tax Credits. BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION At its November 16, 2022, regular meeting, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) adopted a motion on a vote of 7-0 (2 absences) to recommend that Council designate the Leslie P. and Ruth A. Ware Property as a Fort Collins Landmark in accordance with City Code Chapter 14, based on the property’s significance under Standard 3, Design/Construction, and its integrity under all seven aspects, and that designation of the property will advance the policies and purposes of City Code Chapter 14 set forth in City Code Sections 14-1 and 14-2 in a manner and extent sufficient to justify the designation. PUBLIC OUTREACH Because this Landmark nomination was owner-initiated, public outreach or notice described under Municipal Code Sec. 14-34 was not required. Outreach was limited to the property owners and included discussions of the eligibility of the property for designation, financial incentives for preservation, design review obligations for future exterior alterations, and the designation process in general. ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance for Consideration Page 59 Item 4. -1- ORDINANCE NO. 144, 2022 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS DESIGNATING THE LESLIE P. AND RUTH A. WARE PROPERTY 1801 SHEELY DRIVE, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, AS A FORT COLLINS LANDMARK PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 14 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code Section 14-1, the City Council has established a public policy encouraging the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of historic landmarks within the City; and WHEREAS, by resolution adopted on November 16, 2022, the Historic Preservation Commission (the “Commission”) determined that the Leslie P. and Ruth A. Ware Property, 1801 Sheely Dr., in Fort Collins, as more specifically described in the legal description below (the “Property”), is eligible for landmark designation pursuant to City Code Chapter 14, Article II, under Standard 3, Design/Construction, contained in City Code Section 14-22(a)(3), specifically for its embodiment of the Usonian style of architecture and for the public interest in the property during its construction; and the property’s remarkable degree of historic integrity of Location, Setting, Design, Materials, Workmanship, Feeling, and Association under City Code Section 14-22(b)(1-7), and; WHEREAS, the Commission further determined that designation of the Property will advance the policies and purposes set forth in City Code Sections 14 -1 and 14-2 in a manner and extent sufficient to justify designation; and WHEREAS, the Commission recommends that the City Council designate the Property as a Fort Collins landmark; and WHEREAS, the owner of the Property has consented to such landmark designation and desires to protect the Property; and WHEREAS, such landmark designation will preserve the Property’s significance to the community; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the recommendation of the Commission and desires to follow such recommendation and designate the Property as a landmark; and WHEREAS, designation of the Property as a landmark is necessary for the prosperity, civic pride, and welfare of the public. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Page 60 Item 4. -2- Section 2. That the Property located in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, described as follows, to wit: LOT 22, PECK MINOR SUB, FORT COLLINS ALSO KNOWN BY STREET AND NUMBER AS 1801 SHEELY DRIVE, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO be designated as a Fort Collins Landmark in accordance with City Code Chapter 14. Section 3. That alterations, additions and other changes to the buildings and structures located upon the Property will be reviewed for compliance with City Code Chapter 14, Article IV, as currently enacted or hereafter amended. Section 4. That in compliance with Section 14-36 of the City Code, the City shall, within fifteen days of the effective date of this Ordinance, record among the real estate records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder a certified copy of this Ordinance designating the property. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of December, A.D. 2022, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of December, A.D. 2022. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of December, A.D. 2022. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Page 61 Item 4. December 20, 2022 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council STAFF Katie Collins, Water Conservation Specialist Mariel Miller, Water Conservation Manager Eric Potyondy, Legal SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 145, 2022, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Extend and Clarify the Water Annual Allotment Management Program. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 6, 2022, amends Chapter 26 of the City Code to extend the Allotment Management Program to allow for applications to be filed through December 31, 2024 for the benefit of eligible nonresidential Utilities water customers. The Allotment Management Program serves eligible nonresidential Utilities water customers by waiving excess water use surcharges during the implementation of a landscape project intended to reduce the long-term water use on a property. The ordinance also includes a few language revisions to clarify certain aspects of the program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Beginning in 1984, nonresidential water taps have been assigned allotments, the annual volume of water a tap can use. The allotment volume is based on the Water Supply Requirement satisfied for a tap. During the year, if water consumption exceeds the allotment volume, an excess water use surcharge is applied for the remainder of the billing year. The excess water use surcharge rate is tied to the Water Supply Requirement rate. The current excess water use surcharge rate is billed at $16.67 per 1,000 gallons over the allotment, a rate that has increased steadily for the past five years, commensurate with increases in the Water Supply Requirement. About 1,800 nonresidential water taps have assigned allotments which is approximately two-thirds of all nonresidential water taps. It was during the increase of excess water use surcharge rates in 2018 when it was discovered that some properties have allotments that are significantly undersized for the landscape they cover. In those cases, even the most efficient landscape water management results in excess water use surcharges because the water needs of the landscape type and size exceed the allotment. The reason some allotments are undersized is because, in the past, the W ater Supply Requirement calculation for new development did not account for a property’s landscape water need. After the property has been developed and sold, the developer no longer has financial obligations to buy more water, putting new property owners and HOAs in a financially challenging position. Ordinance No. 119, 2021 fixed this gap Page 62 Item 5. in City Code and now requires the landscape water need be factored into the Water Supply Requirement calculation at new development (and redevelopment, when applicable). Any new commercial development after January 1, 2022 should be assigned an allotment that better matches the landscape’s water needs and estimated water use on the property. This addresses new development into the future, but it remains that an estimated 40-50 accounts that went through the development process prior to 2022 are in a situation with an undersized allotment for their landscape. The Allotment Management Program (“AMP”) serves certain nonresidential customers by waiving some or all excess water use surcharges accrued while implementing a landscape project. The accounts eligible for a surcharge waiver through AMP must be in the situation where the minimum volume of water needed for a landscape exceeds the allotment. To qualify for a waiver, a proposed landscape project must demonstrate long-term water savings that brings the property’s water needs closer to the allotment. AMP is good for conservation and landscapes. Customers can always increase an allotment by purchasing more Water Supply Requirement. While this approach reduces the likelihood of excess water use in the future, it does not save water. The AMP waiver allows customers to utilize the money that would otherwise be spent on the surcharge to implement changes that reduce water need on a property long-term. AMP is also an incentive to customers to skip short-term fixes, which can have negative impacts on the landscape, like shutting off irrigation zones for the summer, and instead pursue long-term solutions. AMP was first enacted through Ordinance No. 050, 2019. AMP was initially enacted to only allow the Utilities Executive Director to waive excess surcharges where an application was filed before December 31, 2022. Since 2020, AMP has benefitted 28 accounts across 20 properties. The types of properties that have taken advantage of AMP include HOAs, businesses, churches, multi-family and a large shopping center. Just over $207,000 of excess water use surcharges have been waived between 2020 and October 2022. This amounts to 6% of the total surcharges collected over the last three years. Ten million gallons of actual annual water savings can be attributed to these AMP projects alone. These annual savings are likely to continue for many years and not only benefit the Utilities account owner, but the Utility itself by minimizing water demands, which translates to less water shortage risk. Staff proposes to extend the current AMP application to December 31, 2024. An extension of the application period would support any remaining AMP-eligible customers with a surcharge waiver while they implement a water saving project. A decreasing program participation trend suggests the volume of applications is unlikely to exceed four participants in 2023 and 2024. The number is small but impactful. Staff has identified at least two properties built in 2021 that are paying surcharges because their allotments were undersized from day one. Both properties are new HOAs that have recently taken over utility accounts following development. These new properties just finished their first or second irrigation seasons and have only recently been subject to an excess water use surcharge. Extending the AMP application by two years allows these properties time to plan for a project and secure funding. If approved, staff would take the program offline in first quarter of 2023 to update the program rules to include limiting participation to one time, and a threshold of reasonable water savings for approval, changes that are also reflected in the ordinance. Staff expects to open AMP applications to customers, with these new changes, in second quarter 2023. BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Water Commission unanimously recommends Council adopt an extension of the Allotment Management Program by one year. At their October 20, 2022 meeting, Water Commission was presented with a staff recommendation to extend the Allotment Management Program by three years. Water Commission expressed concern that a three-year extension would be too lengthy and enables those who had made short-sighted decisions Page 63 Item 5. at the time of development but recognized that in some cases, those decisions were then handed down to current property owners, such as HOAs. Water Commission acknowledges the importance of providing property owners an opportunity to fix this issue. Taking the Water Commission recommendation into consideration as well as conversations with heavily impacted customers, staff landed on proposing a two-year extension which provides time to those customers who have recently entered an AMP-eligible situation to plan and budget. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS The Allotment Management Program partially or fully waives excess water use surcharges accrued during an agreed-upon period of time. In 2019, when this program was initially approved, it was estimated that the revenue implication of waived surcharges would be $370,000. Since 2020, just over $207,000 have been waived. This amounts to 6% of the total surcharges collected over the last three years. However, this is more than offset by reduced long-term demand for water. A decreasing program participation trend suggests the volume of applications is unlikely to exceed four participants in 2023 and 2024. To mitigate the potential short-term financial impact, this program implements:  A decreasing tiered exemption for multi-year projects up to three years.  A mechanism to back bill accounts should projects not follow the signed contract agreement. For example, if an approved project was not completed or proposed water savings was not achieved. Should the AMP application deadline be extended, staff will review AMP in Q3 of 2024 to evaluate the impact of AMP and prepare for the end of the program. PUBLIC OUTREACH No public outreach was done for the AMP extension. ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance for Consideration Page 64 Item 5. -1- ORDINANCE NO. 145, 2022 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO EXTEND AND CLARIFY THE WATER ANNUAL ALLOTMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City owns and operates Fort Collins Utilities, including a water utility that provides treated water service to customers pursuant to the City Code and other applicable law, rules, and regulations; and WHEREAS, water service permits are issued to customers of the water utility for either residential service or nonresidential service, which nonresidential service includes water service for commercial, irrigation, and other purposes, as indicated in City Code Section 26-149(a); and WHEREAS, water service permits applied for since March 1, 1984 by nonresidential users are to have received an annual allotment of water, as set forth in City Code Section 26-149(e); and WHEREAS, as set forth in City Code Section 26-149(f), when a nonresidential user uses more water than its annual allotment, as determined by monthly billing records in a given calendar year, an excess water use surcharge in the amount prescribed in City Code Section 26-129 will be assessed on the volume of water used in excess of the annual allotment; and WHEREAS, funds acquired from the excess water use surcharge are used to acquire and develop water supplies, an underlying policy goal of which is to manage and equalize the supplies and demands for treated water from the water utility; and WHEREAS, certain customers of the water utility for nonresidential service for irrigation purposes with annual allotments have experienced challenges with the excess water use surcharge, in particular, being customers who have and are anticipated to exceed their annual allotments for current uses and landscaping while employing practices to efficiently use water for irrigation purposes; and WHEREAS, some of these customers may be able to reduce the amount of water they use for irrigation purposes, including by modifying landscapes, but require adequate time to plan and budget for such projects for their annual planning and budgetary processes, and would benefit from being able to fund such projects with money that would otherwise be spent on paying excess water use surcharges; and WHEREAS, water conservation and efficiency are tools that are used by the water utility to manage and reduce the demand for treated water, which is beneficial to the water utility and its ratepayers by, among other reasons, helping to ensure that the demand for treated water does not exceed supplies, which could result in more shortages and other adverse impacts; and WHEREAS, the City adopted Ordinance No. 50, 2019, to enact a program related to annual water allotments and excess water use surcharges, known as the Allotment Management Program (“AMP”), which is set forth in City Code Section 26-129(h); and WHEREAS, AMP has provided for a temporary waiver of the excess water use surcharge for certain nonresidential customers and has been beneficial to the water utility and its ratepayers Page 65 Item 5. -2- by managing and reducing the long-term demand for treated water by such customers through allowing such customers to spend the money that would have been spent on the excess water use surcharge on other means to reduce their demand for treated water out into the indefinite future, thus achieving the same underlying policy goal of the excess water use surcharge of balancing the supplies and demands for treated water from the water utility; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 26-129(h) has required that applications to participate in AMP be filed on or before December 31, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City desires to extend AMP to allow for applications to be filed through December 31, 2024, in part, because current analyses indicate that AMP’s long-term benefits to the water utility and its ratepayers from extending the deadline for two years will outweigh any short-term reductions in foregone excess water use surcharge revenues or increased WSR funds; and WHEREAS, staff of the water utility and the City Manager have recommended to the City Council that the City Code be amended as described below in order to address the issues described above. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section . That Section 26-129(h) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-129. - Schedule D, miscellaneous fees and charges. The following fees and service charges shall be paid by water users, whether inside or outside the City limits: . . . (h) Notwithstanding the provisions of this Section or §26-149, the Utilities Executive Director may waive payment of all or portions of the excess water use surcharge of Subsection (c)(2) pursuant to this Subsection (h). (1) A customer of the water utility with nonresidential water service seeking such a waiver shall, on or before December 31, 2024, complete and file with the Utilities Executive Director an application accompanied by any required filing fee as determined by the Utilities Executive Director. The Utilities Executive Director shall prepare a form of such application identifying for the applicant all of the necessary information for the Utilities Executive Director to evaluate the requested waiver. (2) The Utilities Executive Director may, following any appropriate investigations including requests for additional information from the applicant, waive payment of the excess water Page 66 Item 5. -3- use surcharge by the applicant if the Utilities Executive Director finds that the following conditions are met: a. The application was timely filed and complete; b. The applicant has not previously executed a written agreement consistent with this Subsection (h) regarding the same property; c. The applicant is expected to exceed its annual allotment for its current uses and landscaping on a participating property when employing practices to efficiently use water for irrigation purposes without waste; d. The applicant has an adequate and detailed plan to reduce the use of water for irrigation purposes for the indefinite future as determined by the Utilities Executive Direct or, though the reduction need not reduce the use of water below the annual allotment; e. The applicant and the Utilities Executive Director have executed a written agreement consistent with this Subsection (h) setting forth such plan and other related matters, with such agreement being approved as to form by the City Attorney. . . . Introduced, considered favorably on first reading and ordered published this 6th day of December, A.D. 2022, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of December, A.D. 2022. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 20th day of December, A.D. 2022. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Page 67 Item 5. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 2 December 20, 2022 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council STAFF Teresa Roche, Human Resources Executive Kelley Vodden, Compensation, Benefits and Wellness Director Ryan Malarky, Legal SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 146, 2022, Amending Section 2-596 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins and Setting the Salary of the City Manager. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 6, 2022, establishes the 2023 salary of the City Manager. Council met in executive session on November 22, 2022, to conduct the performance review of Kelly DiMartino, City Manager. This Ordinance sets the 2023 salary of the City Manager. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Council is committed to compensating employees in a manner which is market based, competitive and based on performance. The goal as an employer is to attract, retain, engage, develop and reward a diverse and competitive workforce to meet the needs of the community now and in the future. The 2022 salary for the City Manager is $295,000. Resolution 2019-099 establishes the process for evaluating the performance of the City Manager, City Attorney, and Chief Judge. It states that any change in compensation for these employees will be adopted by Council by Ordinance. This Ordinance will establish the 2023 compensation of the City Manager. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS The City financial impact will be the new base salary for the City Manager as approved by Council. BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION None. Page 68 Item 6. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 2 PUBLIC OUTREACH None. ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance for Consideration Page 69 Item 6. -1- ORDINANCE NO. 146, 2022 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING SECTION 2-596 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND SETTING THE SALARY OF THE CITY MANAGER WHEREAS, pursuant to Article III, Section 1 of the City Charter, the City Council is responsible for fixing the compensation of the City Manager; and WHEREAS, the City is committed to compensating its employees in a manner that is fair, competitive and understandable; and WHEREAS, the City Council supports a compensation philosophy of paying employees a competitive salary based on established market data and performance, and may adjust the salary of the City Manager to bring that salary more in line with the approved market data; and WHEREAS, the City Council met with the City Manager to conduct a review and establish next year’s goals; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the base salary of the City Manager should be established at the amount of $305,325 effective January 9, 2023. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That Section 2-596 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 2-596. Salary of the City Manager. The base salary to be paid the City Manager shall be three hundred five thousand three hundred twenty-five dollars ($305,325) per annum, payable in biweekly installments. Forty (40) percent of such sum shall be charged to the city electric utility, twenty (20) percent to the city water utility and forty (40) percent to general government expense. Section 3. That the effective date of the salary adjustment shall be January 9, 2023. Page 70 Item 6. -2- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading and ordered published this 6th day of December, A.D. 2022, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of December, A.D. 2022. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 20th day of December, A.D. 2022. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Page 71 Item 6. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 2 December 20, 2022 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council STAFF Teresa Roche, Human Resources Executive Kelley Vodden, Compensation, Benefits and Wellness Director Ryan Malarky, Legal SUBJECT Second reading of Ordinance No. 147, 2022, Amending Section 2-606 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins and Setting the Salary of the Chief Judge. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 6, 2022, establishes the 2023 compensation of the Chief Judge. Council met in executive session on November 22, 2022, to conduct the performance review of Chief Judge Jill Hueser. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Council is committed to compensating employees in a manner which is market-based, competitive, and tied to performance. The goal as an employer is to attract, retain, engage, develop, and reward a diverse and competitive workforce to meet the needs of the community now and in the future. To accomplish this goal, Council and the Chief Judge meet twice a year to discuss performance and set goals for the coming year. The 2022 salary of the Chief Judge is $171,600. Resolution 2019-099 establishes the process for evaluating the performance of the City Manager, City Attorney, and Chief Judge. It states that any change in compensation for these employees will be adopted by Council by Ordinance. This Ordinance will amend City Code to reflect Chief Judge Hueser’s 2023 compensation. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS The City financial impact will be the new base salary for the Chief Judge as approved by Council. BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. PUBLIC OUTREACH Page 72 Item 7. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 2 Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance for Consideration Page 73 Item 7. -1- ORDINANCE NO. 147, 2022 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING SECTION 2-606 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND SETTING THE SALARY OF THE CHIEF JUDGE WHEREAS, pursuant to Article VII, Section 1 of the City Charter, the City Council is responsible for fixing the compensation of the Chief Judge; and WHEREAS, the City is committed to compensating its employees in a manner which is fair, competitive and understandable; and WHEREAS, the City’s pay philosophy is based on total compensation, which includes not only base salary but also deferred compensation payments, vacation and holiday leave, and amounts paid by the City for medical, dental, life and long-term disability insurance; and WHEREAS, members of the City Council, with the assistance of City staff, and the presumed Chief Judge have discussed terms and conditions of the presumed Chief Judge’s employment, including the base salary to be paid to the presumed Chief Judge; and WHEREAS, the City Council supports a compensation philosophy of paying employees a competitive salary and is setting the salary of the presumed Chief Judge based on established market data; and WHEREAS, the City Council met with the Chief Judge to conduct a review and establish goals for her performance; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes the annual base salary of the Chief Judge for 202 3 should be established at the amount of $185,000 effective January 9, 2023. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That Section 2-606 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 2-606. - Salary of the Chief Judge. The base salary to be paid to the Chief Judge shall be one hundred eighty-five thousand dollars ($185,000) per annum, payable in biweekly installments, which sum shall be charged to general government expense. Section 3. That the effective date of the salary adjustment shall be January 9, 2023. Page 74 Item 7. -2- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading and ordered published this 6th day of December, A.D. 2022, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of December, A.D. 2022. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 20th day of December, A.D. 2022. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Page 75 Item 7. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 2 December 20, 2022 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council STAFF Teresa Roche, Human Resources Executive Kelley Vodden, Compensation, Benefits and Wellness Director Ryan Malarky, Legal SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2022, Amending Section 2-581 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins and Setting the Salary of the City Attorney. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 6, 2022, establishes the 2023 compensation of the City Attorney. Council met in executive session on November 22, 2022, to conduct the performance review of Carrie Daggett, City Attorney. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Council is committed to compensating employees in a manner which is market-based, competitive, and tied to performance. The goal as an employer is to attract, retain, engage, develop, and reward a diverse and competitive workforce to meet the needs of the community now and in the future. To accomplish this goal, Council and the City Attorney meet twice a year to discuss performance and set goals for the coming year. The 2022 salary of the City Attorney is $212,273. Resolution 2019-099 establishes the process for evaluating the performance of the City Manager, City Attorney, and Chief Judge. It states that any change in compensation for these employees will be adopted by Council by Ordinance. This Ordinance will amend the City Code to reflect the City Attorney’s 2023 compensation. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS The City financial impact will be the new base salary of the City Attorney as approved by Council. BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION None. Page 76 Item 8. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 2 PUBLIC OUTREACH None. ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance for Consideration Page 77 Item 8. -1- ORDINANCE NO. 148, 2022 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING SECTION 2-581 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND SETTING THE SALARY OF THE CITY ATTORNEY WHEREAS, pursuant to Article VI, Section 1 of the City Charter, the City Council is responsible for fixing the compensation of the City Attorney; and WHEREAS, the City is committed to compensating its employees in a manner that is fair, competitive and understandable; and WHEREAS, the City Council supports a compensation philosophy of paying employees a competitive salary based on established market data and performance, and may adjust the salary of the City Attorney to bring that salary more in line with the approved market data; and WHEREAS, the City Council met with the City Attorney to conduct a review and establish goals for her performance; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes the base salary of the City Attorney for 2023 should be established at the amount of $222,244 effective January 9, 2023. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That Section 2-581 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 2-581. Salary of the City Attorney. The base salary to be paid the City Attorney shall be two hundred twenty-two thousand two hundred forty-four dollars ($222,244) per annum, payable in biweekly installments. Sixty (60) percent of such sum shall be charged to general government expense, twenty (20) percent to the City water utility and twenty (20) percent to the City electric utility. Section 3. That the effective date of the salary adjustment shall be January 9, 2023. Page 78 Item 8. -2- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading and ordered published this 6th day of December, A.D. 2022, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of December, A.D. 2022. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 20th day of December, A.D. 2022. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Page 79 Item 8. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 3 December 20, 2022 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council STAFF Cortney Geary, Active Modes Manager Aaron Iverson, Senior Manager, FC Moves Aaron Guin, Legal SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 2022, Adopting the Active Modes Plan as a Component of City Plan. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 6, 2022, adopts the Active Modes Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Active Modes Plan (the “Plan”) combines and updates the 2011 Pedestrian Plan and 2014 Bicycle Master Plan and incorporates micromobility devices such as skateboards and scooters. The Plan identifies key opportunities to significantly improve and expand the City’s active modes networks, support facilities, policies, and programs. Staff presented the draft Active Modes Plan to City Council f or review at its Work Session on October 25, 2022. Additional information on the Plan vision goals, recommendations, and implementation strategy are available in staff’s October 25th Agenda Item Summary. The following changes have been incorporated into the Plan to address feedback received from Councilmembers:  Chapter 4: Big Moves and Next Moves o Next Move Comprehensive Access to Destinations 4 was revised to focus on identifying optimal locations for and expanding access to short-term and long-term bicycle and micromobility parking.  Chapter 5: Policy and Program Recommendations o Action items under recommendations 2b and 2c related to development practices and parking policies were revised to emphasize support for amending the Land Development Code to increase bicycle and micromobility parking and reduce requirements for motor vehicle storage. Page 80 Item 9. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 3 o An action item was added to recommendation 3d related to signal timing and intersection design standards to include public information materials with new or innovative treatments. o For recommendation 3e related to micromobility standards and policies, a reference was added to guidelines for accommodating micromobility in design and right-of-way use. While the City’s shared micromobility program contract sets maximum speed limits for devices based on various contexts, staff anticipate that improving infrastructure will be more effective at improving safety than imposing further speed restrictions on shared micromobility devices. o Action items were added under recommendations 4a, 4b, and 5b related to Safe Routes to School programs, a Transportation Demand Management Program, and Open Streets to elaborate on fun, creative strategies the City and partner organizations can use to encourage people to try using active modes of transportation.  Chapter 7: Implementing the Vision o The description of the High Priority/Readiness phase of infrastructure recommendations was modified to clarify the focus on expanding the core network, while improving strategic crossing locations citywide. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS Adoption of this Ordinance does not commit dedicated funding for implementation. As with any plan, policy change, or new program, future City investments in implementing the plan recommendations need to follow standard budget processes. BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION While staff has engaged with eleven City Boards, Commissions, and Committees throughout the planning process, seven provided specific feedback and recommendations on the draft Active Modes Plan as follows:  On August 10, 2022, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board recommended adoption of the Active Modes Plan.  On August 24, 2022, the Parks and Recreation Board recommended adoption of the Active Modes Plan.  On September 8, 2022, the Downtown Development Authority Board provided feedback on the Active Modes Plan.  On September 15, 2022, the Bicycle Advisory Committee recommended adoption of the Active Modes Plan.  On September 21, 2022, the Transportation Board recommended adoption of the Active Modes Plan.  On September 28, 2022, the Natural Resources Advisory Board submitted a memo expressing support for the Active Modes Plan.  On October 20, 2022, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a memo expressing support for the Active Modes Plan. PUBLIC OUTREACH The project team sought broad feedback from the community, with an emphasis on elevating the voices of historically underrepresented groups. Community feedback informed every aspect of the plan. A Technical Advisory Committee, composed primarily of City staff and partner agencies, and a Community Advisory Committee, composed of pedestrian and bicycle advocates and community members of diverse backgrounds, provided feedback at key junctures throughout the plan development. The project team Page 81 Item 9. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 3 utilized both traditional engagement methods such as visioning workshops and focus group meetings as well as non-traditional methods that “meet people where they are” such as pop-up events along trails and at community events. The project team estimates that 3,500 people contributed feedback to the plan. Total public participation in each engagement opportunity is as follows:  Visioning questionnaire = 350 participants  Community Survey = 771 participants  Mapping activity #1 = 879 participants; 1,376 submissions  Prioritization questionnaire = 1,182 participants  Mapping Activity #2 = 559 participants; 1,449 submissions  Draft plan review = 800 comments ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance for Consideration 2. Active Modes Plan Executive Summary 3. Active Modes Plan (Ordinance Exhibit A) 4. Active Modes Plan Appendices Page 82 Item 9. -1- ORDINANCE NO. 149, 2022 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADOPTING THE ACTIVE MODES PLAN AS A COMPONENT OF CITY PLAN WHEREAS, the Active Modes Plan (the “Active Modes Plan”) was developed after extensive public outreach, discussion and consideration of community needs and priorities; and WHEREAS, the Active Modes Plan combines and updates the 2011 Pedestrian Plan and 2014 Bicycle Master Plan, and focuses on how the City can better accommodate and improve safety for active modes of transportation, such as walking, bicycling, micromobility use (skateboards and scooters), and rolling (wheelchair use); and WHEREAS, the Active Modes Plan identifies key opportunities to significantly improve access to amenities and transit options and expands the City’s active modes networks, support facilities, policies, and programs; and WHEREAS, the Active Modes Plan provides strategies for focusing efforts and funding toward building a transportation network that makes it easy and safe to use all modes; and WHEREAS, the Active Modes Plan has been the subject of extensive public outreach and stakeholder presentations and has received the favorable recommendation of the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board, the Parks and Recreation Board, the Bicycle Advisory Committee, the Transportation Board, the Natural Resources Advisory Board, and the Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS, at its work session on October 25, 2022, City Council reviewed the Active Modes Plan and provided input, which City staff incorporated, and a final version of the Active Modes Plan reflecting the work session discussion is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the residents of the City of Fort Collins to adopt formally the Active Modes Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the City Council hereby adopts the Active Modes Plan attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” Page 83 Item 9. -2- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of December, A.D. 2022, and to be presented for final passage on the 20 day of December, A.D. 2022. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of December, A.D. 2022 __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Page 84 Item 9. walk.bike. roll. ACTIVE MODES PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 85 Item 9. 2 Fort Collins Active Mode Plan | Executive Summary Sitting at the foothills of the Rocky Mountains, Fort Collins is a northern Colorado city with a thriving downtown surrounded by unique residential neighborhoods. While it is just one of the country’s hundreds of mid-size cities, people across the United States most likely have heard of this unique place. People may know of Fort Collins because of the city’s outdoor recreation and open space, like Horsetooth Reservoir and the Poudre River. They might also be familiar with Colorado State University and its world- renowned equine sciences program and research facilities. Some may be drawn to Fort Collins because of its many high-quality craft breweries that make up 70 percent of Colorado’s total craft beer production. While these characteristics have distinguished Fort Collins, they are not the only things that have helped get Fort Collins on the map. The City of Fort Collins has become a trailblazer when it comes to innovative planning and engineering work that puts people first and supports active modes of transportation, such as walking, bicycling, micromobility use (skateboards and scooters), and rolling (wheelchair use). The city consistently tops lists of the best places in the United States to walk and bike, and it comes as no surprise. Fort Collins has developed a strong foundational set of guiding plans, policies, and programs to build up active transportation and encourage sustainable transportation practices. The result is a thriving active transportation network of 266 miles of on-street bikeways and 97 miles of impressive off -street trails and pathways. What is the Active Modes Plan? The Active Modes Plan (AMP) combines and updates the City’s 2011 Pedestrian Plan and 2014 Bicycle Plan, and focuses on how Fort Collins can better accommodate and improve safety for active modes. The Fort Collins AMP identifies opportunities for improved access to amenities and transit options, and provides strategies for focusing efforts and funding toward building a transportation network that makes it easy and safe to use all modes. What are active modes? Active modes of transportation are any forms of transportation that require physical movement, such as walking, bicycling, micromobility use (scooters and skateboards), and rolling (wheelchair use). It refers to non-motorized modes of travel as well as small motorized modes such as e-bicycles and e-scooters. Active modes does not include vehicles or public transit. Who is FC Moves? FC Moves is a department within the City’s Planning, Development, and Transportation Service Area that was initiated to dedicate staffing and resources towards advancing mobility solutions and increasing walking, bicycling, transit use, and shared and environmentally sustainable modes. FC Moves is spearheading the Fort Collins AMP to identify opportunities to improve and expand the City’s existing active modes network and facilities. Why the Time is Right for the Fort Collins Active Modes Plan Due to the success of the 2011 Pedestrian Plan and 2014 Bicycle Plan, and societal changes that have taken place over many years, the time is right to reevaluate strategies for elevating walking, bicycling, rolling, and micromobility use to substantially amplify active modes in Fort Collins. Additionally, an AMP is necessary to establish a framework for addressing existing citywide climate, safety, mode shift, and equity goals. Introducing the Active Modes Plan Page 86 Item 9. 3 Fort Collins Active Mode Plan | Executive Summary Envisioning the Future of Active Modes in Fort Collins Kicking off in August 2021, the Fort Collins Active Modes Plan began gathering insights from residents, businesses, and community organizations with an emphasis on creating a bold and imaginative vision for the future of Fort Collins’ active transportation environment. The conversation was centered on what Fort Collins community members value and what is important to them when it comes to being mobile and safe using active modes on Fort Collins roads. The result was a vision statement, goals, and a set of Big Moves and Next Moves targeted at positively impacting active transportation in Fort Collins. Big Moves & Next Moves Big Moves describe the intended outcomes of this Plan-what Fort Collins will be like once Fort Collins AMP goals are achieved. Next Moves are the tactics and methods for achieving the transformational outcomes that are the Big Moves. Each Big Move includes 3-5 related Next Moves. BIG MOVE: A Complete and Connected Network (CCN) Provide direct connections Locate and fill network gaps Connect to the trail system Expand the wayfinding system BIG MOVE: Comprehensive Access to Destinations (CAD) Upgrade facilities to meet ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) standards Connect to mobility hubs Repair sidewalks and bikeways Manage parking and placement of bicycles and micromobility Reevaluate snow removal procedures BIG MOVE: Safe and Comfortable Travel (SCT) Support the implementation of Vision Zero goals Carry out traffic calming improvements Provide increased street lighting Frequently evaluate safety BIG MOVE: A Healthy and Equitable Community (HEC) Create appropriate programming Increase diverse community involvement Improve network equity by using the Health Equity Index (HEI) Expand multimodal options BIG MOVE: A Supportive and Inclusive Culture (SIC) Advance active transportation culture and coordinate with the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program Build active modes awareness Increase active school trips Expand recreational active modes opportunities Vision Statement Active transportation is an integral part of daily life and the local cultural experience. Fort Collins is a place where walking, bicycling, and using other active modes are safe, accessible, convenient, joyful, and desired by people of all ages and abilities. The Plan is oriented around the year 2032 and embraces a forward-thinking approach to active transportation infrastructure, policies, and programs, aiming to: Achieve 50% active mode share by 2032 Eliminate active mode fatalities and serious injuries by 2032 AND Next MovesNext MovesNext MovesNext MovesNext MovesPage 87 Item 9. 4 Fort Collins Active Mode Plan | Executive Summary Plan Recommendations Recommended Policies and Programs Policies and programs, when combined with on-the-ground infrastructure, are key ingredients in creating a community where active transportation is safe, comfortable, convenient, encouraged, and celebrated. Policies are exclusively set by local government and help to shape investment strategies and direct work. Programs, on the other hand, may be led by external organizations such as advocacy organizations and/or managed by the City of Fort Collins. Prioritizing Active Modes Overarching Policy: Fort Collins prioritizes projects, programs, and funding that support the use, sustainability, and growth of active modes. Adopt the Transportation Hierarchy as the overarching framework for Fort Collins’ transportation system. Ensure that the percent of transportation funding allocated to active modes aligns with the City’s strategic outcomes related to mode shift, safety, climate action, and equity. Prioritize the safety and efficiency of Active Modes users by expanding the Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program (NTMP). Updating Land Use Policies to Support Active Modes Overarching Policy: Fort Collins’ City Plan and land use policies support the use and growth of the active modes network. Evaluate how the active modes network can increase 15-minute communities. Adopt development practices that support active modes. Establish motor vehicle parking policies that encourage and support active modes. Aligning Standards with Active Mode Goals Overarching Policy: Fort Collins uses standards that support, encourage, and prioritize active modes when making infrastructure improvements. Align Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) with desired design outcomes. Update Multimodal Level of Service framework. Evaluate opportunities to improve the City’s sidewalk maintenance program and asset management plan, and to expand in-house implementation capacity. Revise signal timing and intersection design standards along integral pieces of the active modes network. Expanding and Creating Programs that Support Active Modes Overarching Policy: Fort Collins manages and supports community programming that educates and encourages residents to use active modes. Build and expand the Safe Routes to School program. Create a Transportation Demand Management program that provides resources and strategies for employers and residents in Fort Collins. Engaging Communities Authentically Around Active Modes Overarching Policy: Active modes in Fort Collins should be designed for, used by, and supported by historically underserved groups. Conduct equitable engagement that meaningfully involves and values participation by historically underserved groups. Continue to promote and grow Fort Collins’ Open Streets and Asphalt Art programs. Increase the visibility and importance of the role of walking and access for people with disabilities in Fort Collins. Take action to move Fort Collins towards being a Vision Zero city. Page 88 Item 9. 5 Fort Collins Active Mode Plan | Executive Summary Recommended Networks The following themes guided network planning and analysis: Adapt to growth Consider varying travel needs Unlock active modes for more trips Design safe streets and intersections Plan with context sensitivity AMP network recommendations will play a key role in the forthcoming Vision Zero Action Plan and 15-Minute City Analysis. While the AMP emphasizes connections to Fort Collins’ urban core, network recommendations attempt to strike a balance between improving connections to activity centers and providing basic coverage of safety and access throughout the city. 1 2 3 4 5 Page 89 Item 9. 6 Fort Collins Active Mode Plan | Executive Summary miles of shared-use paths or sidepaths adjacent to roadways miles of separated bicycle lanes miles of buffered bicycle lanes miles of conventional bicycle lanes miles of neighborhood bikeways 45 21 3 11 64 Recommended Bicycle Network Page 90 Item 9. Page 91 Item 9. 8 Fort Collins Active Mode Plan | Executive Summary Locations with changes to Signal Operations Locations with High-Visibility Markings and Signage Locations with new Signals, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons, or Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons New Median Refuge Islands, Intersection Diverters, or Offset Crossings Intersections for Geometric Redesign New Connections or Crossings, which may include constructing new intersections or short path segments 24 49 15 37 19 21 Recommended Spot Treatments Page 92 Item 9. Page 93 Item 9. 10 Fort Collins Active Mode Plan | Executive Summary Implementation The Implementation Strategy translates the Fort Collins AMP’s Big Moves into an actionable set of projects and phases, as well as an order of magnitude assessment of what resources may be needed to deliver on the plan’s goals. Based on project prioritization and the Fort Collins AMP’s primary goals for active mode share and active mode safety, the plan offers an implementation strategy based on three phases: Phase 1: High Priority/Readiness, which is anticipated to take place in the first five years of plan rollout; these projects are generally concentrated around strengthening the core network, while providing a basic citywide level of service for active modes. Phase 2: Medium Priority/Readiness is anticipated to roll out in five to ten years; this phase expands the core network to a larger geography of the city and includes more complex projects. Phase 3: Low Priority/Readiness projects complete the “full-build” network and include transformational projects to complete the citywide network, but may be delivered beyond the ten-year plan horizon. Because resources—both funding and time—are limited, this implementation strategy seeks to maximize the impact of projects by implementing transformational (but often small-scale) projects in the near term, and gathering momentum to implement the larger and more complex projects strategically over a longer period. While the prioritization depicted in the map on the next page reflects a strategic roll-out based on the AMP’s goals, values, and practicality based on current conditions, opportunities may arise that shift the prioritization over time. This prioritization exists as just the first part of a three-part implementation approach: 1. Grow funding to prioritize strategic efforts to increase network connectivity, connect key destinations, and implement strategic crossing improvements citywide. This can include extending the Community Capital Improvement Program, requesting expanded support through Budgeting for Outcomes, and seeking state and federal grants to implement transformational projects. 2. Maximizing existing programs, such as the Street Maintenance Program, subsurface utility projects, or major capital projects where core funded programs or grant opportunities can unlock synergies. 3. Leveraging partnerships and development to seize opportunities through development review and partnerships with major stakeholders such as Larimer County and Colorado State University to implement network segments. As the Active Modes Plan becomes more institutionalized over time, coordination of efforts across City departments can allow the AMP to become a critical driver of citywide infrastructure investments and accelerate plan delivery. Page 94 Item 9. Page 95 Item 9. 12 Fort Collins Active Mode Plan | Executive Summary Conclusion While the analysis, action planning, and engagement for developing this AMP occurred over the span of just one year, the Fort Collins Active Modes Plan is the result of many years of dedication and intentional actions towards improving walking, bicycling, and sustainability outcomes. Through implementation, the AMP will help Fort Collins achieve the vision for the future of active modes and create a place where walking, bicycling, rolling, and using micromobility are safe, accessible, convenient, joyful, and desired. What’s Next? The City of Fort Collins and partners in local agencies and community-based organizations all have important roles to play in supporting initiatives that meet the needs of people using active modes, including the needs identified in this document. This Fort Collins AMP is designed to be flexible, providing sufficient direction while also encouraging the City to respond as opportunities arise and conditions change over time. For successful implementation, the City will: • Continue to meaningfully engage the public, focusing on elevating the voices of historically underrepresented individuals and groups • Collaborate with neighboring jurisdictions, regional agencies, and local partners • Integrate the Fort Collins AMP into citywide databases and processes • Seek grants and other funding opportunities to advance projects, and make budgeting decisions to support matching grants • Evaluate needs and monitor progress over time The Active Modes Plan and You It will take everyone working together to increase active modes share to 50% and eliminate active modes fatalities and serious injuries in the next 10 years. You can help ensure this future by participating in engagement activities and educational opportunities, spreading the word about the AMP, and being a leader and advocate for active modes in Fort Collins. Share the Active Modes Plan story with your friends, families, and communities, and learn how you can continue to be involved by visiting fcgov.com/fcmoves. Page 96 Item 9. Page 97 Item 9. walk. bike. roll. ACTIVE MODES PLAN December 2022 Page 98 Item 9. ii Fort Collins Active Modes Plan Done right, improving the active modes environment can help our city become happier, healthier, more sustainable, safer, and people-first. By 2032, the City of Fort Collins will: Achieve 50 percent active mode share for all trips Eliminate all active modes traffic fatalities and serious injuries The Active Modes Plan prioritizes mode shift and safety in Fort Collins and serves as a blueprint for realizing these central goals in the next 10 years. Information contained in this document is for planning purposes and should not be used for final design of any project. All results, recommendations, cost opinions, and commentary contained herein are based on limited data and information and on existing conditions that are subject to change. Further analysis and engineering design are necessary prior to implementing any of the recommendations contained herein.Page 99 Item 9. iii Fort Collins Active Modes Plan ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS City Council Jeni Arndt, Mayor Susan Gutowsky, District 1 Julie Pignataro, District 2 Tricia Canonico, District 3 Shirley Peel, District 4 Kelly Ohlson, District 5 Emily Francis, District 6 City Leadership Kelly DiMartino, City Manager Tyler Marr, Interim Deputy City Manager Rupa Venkatesh, Assistant City Manager Caryn Champine, Director, Planning, Development & Transportation Dean Klingner, Deputy Director, Planning, Development & Transportation Active Modes Plan Partners City of Fort Collins Colorado State University (CSU) Project Management Team Cortney Geary, FC Moves Aaron Iverson, FC Moves Nick Heimann, formerly FC Moves Rob Mosbey, Engineering Tyler Stamey, Traffic Operations Nicole Hahn, Traffic Operations Steve Gilchrist, Traffic Operations Kyle Lambrecht, Park Planning & Development Aaron Fodge, CSU Staff Team Amy Gage Amanda Mansfield Brian Kurotsuchi Lauren Nagle Melina Dempsey Nancy Nichols Rachel Ruhlen Sara Hull Seth Lorson Tracey Lipfert Communications and Design Matt Murphy, Communications & Public Involvement Office Spanish Translation, Interpretation, and Engagement Community Language Co-op Community Connectors, LLC Project Consultants Toole Design Group City Boards, Commissions, and Committees Air Quality Advisory Board Bicycle Advisory Committee Dial-A-Ride Transit Advisory Committee Disability Advisory Board Downtown Development Authority Land Conservation and Stewardship Board Natural Resources Advisory Board Parks and Recreation Board Planning and Zoning Commission Senior Advisory Board Transportation Board Youth Advisory Board Project Advisory Groups Community Advisory Committee Betsy Turnbull Christina Rivera Dave Dixon Dimitry Volchansky Jan Iron Jesus Castro Kenny Bearden Kimberley Chambers Laura MacWaters Lorye McLeod Tim Anderson Technical Advisory Committee Alex Gordon, North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization Bryce Reeves, Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Page 100 Item 9. iv Fort Collins Active Modes Plan Drew Brooks, Transfort Eric Keselburg, Parking Services Eric Tracy, Larimer County Heidi Wagner, formerly Natural Areas Honore Depew, Environmental Services Jerry Garrettson, Poudre School District Mark Connelly, CDOT Mike Avrech, Police Services Mike Brunkhardt, Parks Paul Sizemore, Community Development & Neighbor- hood Services Rachel Rogers, Economic Health Rebecca Everette, City Planning Sandra Bratlie, Utilities Todd Dangerfield, Downtown Development Authority Tom Knostman, Streets Stakeholder Groups Colorado State University Associated Students of Colorado State University (ASCSU) Campus Bicycle Advisory Committee (CBAC) Corridor Committee Facilities Management Foothills Campus Parking and Transportation Services School of Public Health Veterinary Teaching Hospital (VTH) Local Organizations and Businesses Bike Fort Collins Brave New Wheel CARE Housing Food Bank for Larimer County Fort Collins Bike Co-op Fort Collins Running Club Fort Follies Fuerza Latina Gnar Runners Health District of Northern Larimer County Launch Skate New Belgium Brewing Northern Colorado Equality Northern Colorado Intertribal Powwow Association Overland Mountain Bike Association Partnership for Age Friendly Communities Poudre School District SPLASH Youth of Northern Colorado SummitStone Health Partners The Arc of Larimer County UCHealth Visit Fort Collins Thank you to the over 3,500 community members, City staff members, businesses, organizations, and partners who shared their feedback and contributed to this Active Modes Plan! Page 101 Item 9. v Fort Collins Active Modes Plan CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction ................................2 Celebrating Fort Collins ...................................................................3 Why Fort Collins Needs an Active Modes Plan ......................4 How the Active Modes Plan Came to Be ..................................5 Building Upon Current and Past Plans.......................................7 • How Trails Fit Into the AMP ...................................................7 • Focus Groups ..............................................................................9 Engaging with the Community .....................................................9 Chapter 2: Fort Collins Today ...................12 Different Identities Have Different Travel Needs ..................14 Many Current Driving Trips Can Be Made by Using Active Modes .......................................................15 Fort Collins has Multiple Distinctive Planning Contexts .....17 The Evolution of Shared Micromobility in Fort Collins and Beyond ................................................................19 Safety Concerns are a Barrier to Active Modes ....................19 Chapter 3: Active Modes vision ...............24 Vision Statement ..............................................................................26 Chapter 4: Big Moves and Next Moves ...28 A Complete and Connected Network .....................................30 Comprehensive Access to Destinations ...................................31 Safe and Comfortable Travel .......................................................32 A Healthy and Equitable Community .......................................33 A Supportive and Inclusive Culture ..........................................34 Chapter 5: Policy and Program Recommendations .....................................36 Prioritizing Active Modes ..............................................................37 Updating Land Use Policies to Support Active Modes .....39 Aligning Standards with Active Modes Goals ........................41 Expanding and Creating Programs that Support Active Modes ....................................................................................44 Engaging Communities Meaningfully Around Active Modes .....................................................................46 Chapter 6: Infrastructure Recommendations .....................................50 Network Development Approach ...............................................51 • Pedestrian Network Development .....................................51 • Bicycle Network Development ...........................................55 Implementation Toolkit ..................................................................56 Bicycle and Micromobility Network Recommendations ...59 Spot Treatment Recommendations ...........................................61 Chapter 7: Implementing the Vision .......64 Putting Big Moves into Action ....................................................65 Prioritizing Projects .........................................................................65 • High Priority/Readiness Projects .......................................68 • Medium Priority/Readiness Projects ................................72 • Low Priority/Readiness Projects ........................................76 Maintenance Costs .........................................................................80 Delivering the Active Modes Network ......................................81 • Existing and Anticipated Funding ......................................81 • Funding Options ......................................................................82 • From Start-Up Program to Core Business Practice ....83 • Prioritizing Access for People over Movement of Vehicles ........................................................................................84 Chapter 8: Conclusion ...............................86 The Active Modes Plan and You .................................................87 Page 102 Item 9. vi THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. Page 103 Item 9. vii Fort Collins Active Modes Plan Page 104 Item 9. Page 105 Item 9. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Page 106 Item 9. 3 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 1: Introduction For many years, transportation plans across the United States focused narrowly on motor vehicle travel and mitigating congestion. This approach does not include the many people who travel by walking, bicycling, rolling, and using micromobility, and ignores the need to improve trip efficiency and mobility for people not using a personal vehicle. Over the past decade, there has been a shift in focus toward planning for places that are walkable, bikeable, and more human scale. This is often referred to as active transportation, an umbrella term for human-powered, active modes of transportation that do not include personal motorized vehicles-such as cars, trucks, and SUVs-or transit such as bus and train services. An Active Modes Plan (AMP) focuses on how communities can better accommodate and improve safety for these smaller, slower, and more vulnerable modes as an integral and welcome part of the overall transportation system. AMPs consider all types of trips including commuting, utility, school, recreation, or leisure, and use trip purpose information to identify opportunities for improved access to amenities and transit options. Focusing efforts and funding toward building a transportation network that makes it easy and safe to use all modes makes communities stronger, more resilient, more inclusive, and healthier. Supporting active modes in community planning efforts reinforces that these modes are valid forms of transportation, and not just forms of recreation. Celebrating Fort Collins Unlike many parts of the United States that have only recently begun to shift focus away from planning exclusively for vehicular travel, the City of Fort Collins is no stranger to this approach. Fort Collins has a rich history of intentional planning and investment in critical grade separations and robust trail system development that provided an exceptional framework for the existing pedestrian and bicycle network. The City has spent decades dedicating time and resources towards shifting citywide focus to improve active modes use, build a more human-scale environment, and enhance sustainability outcomes. As evidenced by its Silver-Level Walk-Friendly Community and Platinum-Level Bicycle-Friendly Community designations, the latter awarded to only four other communities in the country, the City’s infrastructure, programs, and policies have prioritized engagement, safety, access, and equity. The thoughtful, and fundamental work completed by the City of Fort Collins has helped make it one of the best places for choosing, using, and enjoying active modes of transportation. When the AMP says Rolling it means Wheelchair Use When the AMP says Micromobility it means Scooters and Skateboards When the AMP says Active Modes User It means anyone walking, bicycling, rolling, or using micromobility. When the AMP says Facility It means paths and spaces designated specifically for the movement of pedestrians, bicyclists, and micromobility users. When the AMP says Mobility Hub It means areas similar to transit centers that include additional infrastructure to support shared mobility devices, cars, bikes, scooters, and space for on-demand and microtransit connections. When the AMP says Active Modes Network It means all on- and off-street pedestrian facilities, bicycle facilities, and facilities designated for micromobility use, combined as a single network of routes. IMPORTANT TERMS TO REMEMBER WHEN READING THE AMP Page 107 Item 9. 4 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 1: Introduction Why Fort Collins Needs an Active Modes Plan In the past decade, the City has developed plans that put people first including the City Plan Transportation Master Plan, 2014 Bicycle Master Plan, and 2011 Pedestrian Plan. Together, these plans set the stage for creating a better network of bikeways and pedestrian-friendly streets. The City has made significant strides to implement the recommendations of those plans by constructing or providing wayfinding and protected bikeways, downtown alleyways, connections to Colorado State University (CSU), increased micromobility (small human-powered or electric vehicles that travel under 30 mph) options, and the creation and expansion of active modes-focused programs such as the Bicycle Friendly Driver program and Safe Routes to School (SRTS). Due to the success of these plans and societal changes that have taken place over many years, it is time to reevaluate strategies for elevating walking, bicycling, rolling, and micromobility use to substantially amplify active modes in Fort Collins. This 2022 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan (AMP) provides a framework for addressing citywide goals related to: CLIMATE Reducing emissions, improving energy efficiency, and achieving zero waste. SAFETY Reducing crashes and the severity of crashes. MODE SHIFT Increasing the percentage of trips taken by using active modes. EQUITY Removing systemic barriers so that persons of all identities can fully participate in and enjoy City services. AMP actions and strategies will play key roles in achieving these existing goals. Active modes help connect people of all ages and abilities to their jobs, schools, health care services, recreation, neighbors, and communities without the need for a personal vehicle. By focusing on expanding and improving inclusive access to active transportation options, the lives of people throughout Fort Collins can be improved, and significant health, safety, equity, economic, and livability benefits across the community will be realized. Page 108 Item 9. Fort Collins Bicycle Program Plan The Fort Collins Bicycle Program Plan was created to center all future bicycle-related projects around engineering, education, enforcement, and encouragement. Pedestrian Level of Service The Pedestrian Level of Service (LOS) booklet acts as a “user’s guide” to assist in analyzing Fort Collins existing conditions, and proposed public and private improvement projects. Fort Collins was one of the first cities to create a pedestrian Level of Service (LOS). Bicycle Safety Education Plan City Council directs City staff to prepare a Bicycle Safety Education Plan (BSEP) that provides programs to improve bicycle safety. Fort Collins Bike Library (FCBL) Launch Located in Old Town and offered rentable bicycles available from one hour rentals up to multiple day rentals. SmartTrips TDM Program Funded SmartTrips Program, creator of Bike to Work Day and National Bike Month, receives funding to promote Transportation Demand Management (TDM) in Fort Collins with an emphasis on bicycle access. Pedestrian Plan The Pedestrian Plan addresses citywide pedestrian needs, like gaps in the sidewalk, safer ways to cross, outlines issues, and proposes strategies for making pedestrian travel safe, easy, and convenient. Fort Collins Becomes a Platinum-Level Bicycle Friendly Community Awarded by the League of American Bicyclists for demonstrating commitment to improving the bicycle environment, Fort Collins became one of the first communities to achieve this award. How the Active Modes Plan Came to Be With the support of City leadership and staff, Fort Collins has become nationally known for its advancements in active transportation. Through a number of progressive planning projects and initiatives over the past three decades, Fort Collins has remained dedicated to creating a community that is walkable and bikeable for all. 2008 Fort Collins Builds First Bicycle Lanes The City installs its first bikeway after residents petition to mitigate traffic and bicycling- related crashes. Beginning of the Sidewalk Prioritization Model To advance pedestrian needs identified by the 2011 Pedestrian Plan, an inventory of existing sidewalks is created under the Citywide Pedestrian Access Project. Soon after, the Sidewalk Prioritization Model is developed to provide a data-driven approach to prioritizing pedestrian facilities across the city in need of repair. 1970 1995 1996 2010 2013 2011 2012 Page 109 Item 9. Zagster “PACE” Bike Share Launch FCBL is replaced by PACE bike share that offers a larger fleet of dockless bicycles and bike share stations accessible through a smartphone app. Fort Collins becomes a Silver-Level Walk Friendly Community Awarded by the Walk Friendly Communities program for demonstrating commitment to expanding opportunities for walking. The Active Modes Plan Bicycle Master Plan adopted by City Council The Bicycle Master Plan sets goals for the year 2020 that include reducing bicycle-related crashes and increasing bicycle mode share. CSU created their first Bicycle Master Plan as part of this planning effort. Moving Toward Vision Zero Fort Collins is the first public local entity to join the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) initiative to eliminate traffic-related deaths. Our Climate Future Our Climate Future is a comprehensive plan to address climate, energy, and waste goals. E-Bike and E-Scooter Program Launch Spin launches e-bike and e-scooter share program in Fort Collins. Transportation Master Plan The Transportation Master Plan establishes a vision for mobility in Fort Collins, achieved through a safe and reliable multimodal transportation network. Bike Share Business Plan Presents a model for scaling, phasing, operations, and funding for a new bike share program in Fort Collins. City Plan Guidance for supporting land use and transportation over the next two decades as Fort Collins grows. Colorado State University (CSU) becomes a Platinum-Level Bicycle Friendly University Awarded by the League of American Bicyclists for demonstrating commitment to optimizing bicycling on campus and improving bicycle connections across the campus and to other parts of the city. 2018 2014 2016 2017 2015 2019 2021 2022 Page 110 Item 9. 7 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 1: Introduction Building Upon Current and Past Plans Fort Collins has a strong planning foundation that has informed many of the recommendations contained in the Fort Collins AMP. Several themes emerged from existing plans, as presented in the following table. These themes influenced the development of this Plan from the creation of its goals to the development of the project recommendations and implementation strategy. Plan Equity Safety Accessibility Mobility Health Education State Active Modes Planning Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (amended 2015) X X X X X Regional Active Modes Planning NFRMPO Regional Active Transportation Plan (2021)X X X X X City Local Comprehensive Planning 2040 City Plan (2019)X X X X X Local Action Planning Fort Collins Strategic Plan (2020)X X X X X Sustainability Planning Our Climate Future (amended 2021)X X X X X Transportation Planning Transit Master Plan (2019)X X X X Transportation Master Plan (2019)X X X X X Active Modes Planning Pedestrian Plan (2011)X X X X Bicycle Master Plan (2014)X X X X X Toolkit/Guidance Equity Indicators Report (2021)X X X Sidewalk Prioritization Model X X X X Sub-Area Sub-Area Action Plan Downtown Plan (amended 2017)X X X X Table 1: Past plans and their key themes How Trails Fit Into the AMP Fort Collins’ network of trails is a backbone for active modes travel and is one of the many reasons why Fort Collins is an excellent place to use active modes of transportation. However, this planning effort does not include trails and does not consider the 2021 ReCreate: Parks & Recreation Master Plan, outside of existing and planned trail extensions. This is not to say that trails and open space in Fort Collins are not important to improving the safety and accessibility for active modes users. The AMP focuses on creating low-stress options for active modes travel to induce demand, improve roadway safety, and inspire mode shift. Because the trail network is considered low-stress within these criteria, improvements along the system of trails in Fort Collins is not addressed in the AMP. While the Fort Collins AMP does not address the open space trail network in Fort Collins (identified as part of the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organizations’s Regional Active Transportation Corridors), it does address and provide recommendations for improving connections to the trail network, including the regional trail network that Fort Collins is continuing to build out. X = Key theme of plan Detailed Local Strategy High-Level Guidance Page 111 Item 9. 8 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 1: Introduction In addition to adopted plans and initiatives, this Plan considers information related to active modes-related policies and programs to inform its recommendations: Policy/Program Description Infrastructure Operations Development Land Use Code Establishes zoning rules and districts, including permitted uses, pro- vision of parking facilities, and guidelines for the built environment X X Traffic Code Sets traffic laws, vehicle regulations, and provision of traffic control devices on all public streets in the City X X Municipal Code Enables all other codes and ordinances, and sets law for the City including for land use and transportation system X X X Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) Adopted engineering design and construction standards for streets in Growth Management Areas of Larimer County, Fort Collins, and Loveland X X X Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Program Sets fees applied to new development applications to support infrastructure costs X X Engineering Permits Contractors performing work in public right-of-way (ROW) are required to seek and comply with permits issued by FC Engineering, including encroachments, placement of signs, driveways, develop- ments, and outdoor seating X X X Work Area Traffic Control Policies Policies and procedures for safely managing traffic during completion of work in the ROW X X Speed Limit-Setting Policy Policy establishing Traffic Operations’ approach to setting posted speed limits on City roadways X X Table 2: Existing policies and programs, and key themes involving infrastructure, operations, and development Program Description Infrastructure Education Encouragement Enforcement Safe Routes to School The City SRTS program leads youth skills classes, hosts encouragement events, and identifies infrastructure projects near schools X X X Adult Bicycle Education Classes taught by Bicycle Ambassadors include Winter Cycling, Bike-Friendly Driver, Maintenance, and Traffic Skills X Bicycle Ambassador Program Trained community members who lead classes and outreach and encourage new riders X X Bike-Friendly Driver Program An interactive curriculum on safety and rules of the road X X Learn-from- Home Classes A collection of multi-lingual educational resources about bicycle commuting, safety, and maintenance X Ride Smart Drive Smart outreach Brochure created by FC Bikes and Police Services to outreach about laws and safety tips X X X Bike to Work Day Annual special event to encourage workers to commute by bicycle X Open Streets Special event days to close major streets and activate with community programs X Shift Your Ride TDM program offering resources for alternative commute modes X Bike Parking Program Program managing rack requests in public ROW and provid- ing developer guidance X X Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program Focused on reducing speeding on local streets by distributing free collateral, enforcement actions, and traffic calming treatments X X X CDOT Moving Towards Zero Deaths Shared goal in partnership with CDOT to reduce traffic related fatalities through extensive analysis of crash data in Fort Collins. X X Table 3: Existing programs and nd key themes involving infrastructure, education, encouragement, and enforcement strategies X = Key theme of policy/programPage 112 Item 9. 9 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 1: Introduction Engaging with the Community Engaging diverse groups of stakeholders and community members during the development of the Fort Collins AMP was crucial to identifying aspirations, needs, and opportunities for the future of active modes projects, programs, and policies. Engagement was also important for understanding community values and locating barriers and gaps that exist today in the active transportation network in Fort Collins. The engagement process had four key objectives for achieving holistic outreach and creating an AMP that was driven by the entire Fort Collins community: • Inclusive: Engagement activities should be accessible and welcoming to people of various ages, abilities, races, and gender identities. • Equitable: Outreach strategies must intentionally elevate the voices of historically underrepresented people and groups. • Flexible: Engagement events need to be adaptable to COVID-related guidelines and public comfort. • Transparent: Fort Collins AMP’s development must ensure an open and transparent engagement that inspires trust in the process. To achieve these objectives during the development of the Fort Collins AMP, engagement included comprehensive and thoughtful strategies for reaching businesses, employers, employees, individuals, and community groups, including low-income and BIPOC populations of Fort Collins, who are most often left out of important conversations. Fort Collins AMP outreach activities met people where they already were to have meaningful conversations and gather input. Engagement strategies also included hosting focus groups at a number of Fort Collins schools, meeting with Disability Advisory Groups, and partnering with local organizations such as Community Connectors, who surveyed residents living in mobile homes. Additionally, the engagement strategy ensured all project materials including surveys were also available in Spanish and distributed to non-English speaking community members. Public and stakeholder engagement informed every step of the Fort Collins AMP’s development including the creation of vision and goals, the identification of key issues and opportunities, the development of project recommendations, and the framework for scoring and ranking project recommendations. Outreach activities included stakeholder meetings, online maps and surveys, pop-up events and workshops, and focus group interviews with various departments and interested parties within the City of Fort Collins and CSU (see Appendix C for more details about engagement at CSU). During engagement events, the public shared fundamental information that helped define active modes user needs and provided an initial understanding of existing conditions in Fort Collins. For example, AMP engagement early-on in the planning process revealed significant differences in trends found in the survey results of the Spanish language surveys versus English language surveys. English-speaking respondents felt that using active modes is more difficult because of network gaps and safety of existing infrastructure. Spanish-speaking respondents felt that using active modes is most difficult because of the far distances to destinations and an overall lack of knowing where safe routes exist. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic and to comply with public health guidelines, engagement activities were performed virtually and in person. Key engagement strategies included: 50 6 29 3 2 3 4 4 6 18 13 2 3 STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS Visioning workshops Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings Community Advisory Committee (CAC) meetings Transportation Board presentations Bicycle Advisory Committee presentations Presentations to other City Boards and Commissions Presentations to other community organizations ONLINE MAPS AND SURVEYS Public online map exercises (offered in English and Spanish) Questionnaires (online and print; offered in English and Spanish) POP-UP EVENTS AND INTERCEPT SURVEYS FOCUS GROUPS with various organizations, departments, schools, and interested parties within the City of Fort Collins and CSU CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS 5 Page 113 Item 9. Survey and mapping input from members of the Fort Collins community emphasized the following themes: Northeast and Central Fort Collins were identified as the areas where most people find it difficult to use active modes. People would enjoy using active modes to reach City Park, the South Lemay Walmart Supercenter, and North College Ave. Over 70% of people would like to walk, bike, or roll more than they currently do. Many community members who bike identify as “enthused and confident” bicyclists. The majority of survey participants believe that active modes projects that advance network connectivity should be the highest priority. Top 3 active modes priorities in Fort Collins: 1. Better connecting and expanding the pedestrian and bicycle networks 2. Increasing the available protected infrastructure, physically separated from vehicle traffic 3. Improving the quality and safety of sidewalks, intersections, and crossings Top 3 Challenges for using active modes in Fort Collins: 1. Safety concerns with existing Intersections, crossings, and bicycling in mixed traffic 2. Key destinations are too far away 3. There are gaps or disconnects in the existing sidewalk network Lincoln Middle School AMP Workshop AMP Visioning Workshop AMP Pop-Up Event AMP Pop-Up Event AMP Pop-Up Event Page 114 Item 9. Page 115 Item 9. CHAPTER 2: FORT COLLINS TODAY Page 116 Item 9. 13 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 2: Fort Collins Today Fort Collins is a nationally recognized leader in active modes, and was one of the first cities in the nation to achieve the Platinum Bicycle Friendly Community designation. Consistent themes emerged during engagement and visioning activities that provide an understanding of the starting line for the Fort Collins AMP. The following primary lessons and themes were developed based on thoughts from community members and existing conditions analysis and guided planning and analysis tasks during the development of the plan: 1. Adapting for Growth Fort Collins has had rapid population growth over the last three decades. For people to continue to move reliably and affordably while meeting the City’s Climate Action Goals, Fort Collins will require a robust multimodal transportation system in Fort Collins where a large share of trips are made using active modes. 2. Different Identities Have Different Travel Needs Within the population, the residents and workers of Fort Collins have diverse identities—characteristics from age to race and gender to family status each inform how people decide to move. To meet the City’s goals for an equitable and just Fort Collins, programming including the City’s Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program should be responsible for enabling reliable and accessible mobility across the transportation system. 3. Many Current Driving Trips Can Be Made by Using Active Modes Nearly 70 percent of people in Colorado still choose to drive when traveling less than 2.5 miles. The City of Fort Collins is setting aggressive goals for itself to make using active modes possible and attractive for more people and more trips. 4. Fort Collins has Multiple Distinctive Planning Contexts From downtown to suburban periphery, the city is made up of multiple distinct land use contexts. Unlocking active transportation requires context- sensitive approaches, ranging from managing conflicts in activity centers to closing network gaps and barriers. 5. Safety Concerns are a Barrier to Active Modes To increase the number of people using active modes, the City must reduce or eliminate the number of traffic crashes resulting in fatalities or serious injuries, and improve the experience of using active modes to ensure people feel safe and comfortable. Adapting to Fort Collins’ Growth Like many communities along Colorado’s Front Range, Fort Collins has attracted many new residents in recent decades. Since 1990, the city’s population has nearly doubled in size, adding more than 2,700 residents per year on average over the past thirty years. Year Population Population Change (10 years) 2020 169,810 +25,824 2010 143,986 +25,334 2000 118,652 +30,894 1990 87,758 Table 4: Population Change, City of Fort Collins (source: Decennial Census, 1990 – 2020) While the population growth has been continuous in the areas around downtown and CSU’s Main Campus, new development in the northeast and southern areas of the city have begun to urbanize previously pastoral landscapes. This population expansion has introduced new demands for mobility, and with that the challenges of managing congestion and access. Additionally, it is notable that the fastest growing age group by percent change is people over the age of 65: Year Population Under 18 18-24 25-64 65 & over 2020 166,069 29,804 36,397 81,727 18,141 2010 140,082 28,297 30,678 69,341 11,767 Change 25,987 1,507 5,719 12,386 6,374 % Change 19%5%19%18%54% Table 5: Population Change by Age Group, City of Fort Collins (source: Decennial Census, 2020 and 2010) While the student- and working-age populations have grown quickly, the proportion of older adults has jumped quickly, suggesting a population that is aging and will have changing mobility and access needs in the coming years, with greater emphasis on access to goods and services than on commute trips. Additionally, the population of children has grown, but much more slowly than other age groups. Active modes infrastructure that is accessible and comfortable will be key to helping Fort Collins grow while providing a safe, reliable, and sustainable transportation system. Page 117 Item 9. 14 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 2: Fort Collins Today Different Identities Have Different Travel Needs A key lesson from both demographic analysis and the public engagement conducted for this Fort Collins AMP is that diverse demographic groups have diverse travel needs and desires. Whether by age, race and ethnicity, or income and poverty status, identity informs how people move and how the City should develop a relevant and equitable plan for expanding active modes use. To understand Fort Collins’ active transportation conditions, the city is shown in comparison to two jurisdictions: Larimer County (the county in which Fort Collins is located) and Boulder (a comparable Colorado city with a large public university and a developed active transportation network). By age, Fort Collins has a significantly larger population aged 18 – 24 due to the presence of CSU (Table 6). Excluding CSU’s student population, Fort Collins has a slightly larger child and working age population (64 and under) than surrounding Larimer County and Boulder. Fort Collins (city) Larimer County (all)Boulder (city) Population, 2020 169,810 359,066 108,250 Under 18 18%20%12% 18-24 22%14%29% 25-61 49%51%47% 65 & Over 11%16%12% Table 6: Population by Age Comparison (source: Decennial Census, 2020) By race and ethnicity, Fort Collins is comparable to Larimer County and Boulder Fort Collins Larimer County Boulder Population, 2020 169,810 359,066 108,250 White alone 81%82%79% Asian alone 4%2%6% Black alone 1%1%1% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 0.8%0.8%0.6% Native Hawaiian and Oth- er Pacific Islander alone 0.1%0.1%0.1% Some other race 5%5%5% Two or more races 10%9%8% Hispanic / Latino 12%12%10% Table 7: Population by Race/Ethnicity Comparison (source: Decennial Census, 2020) While the large majority of the population identifies as white alone, there is increased racial diversity in the area around CSU’s Main Campus (Figure 1). Race and ethnicity informed the Fort Collins AMP’s development for both recommendations and prioritization of infrastructure. Figure 1: Population Density by Race/Ethnicity (source: ACS 5-Year Estimates 2020, Block Groups) Page 118 Item 9. 15 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 2: Fort Collins Today Many Current Driving Trips Can Be Made by Using Active Modes Fort Collins’ residents bicycle to work or school (“Commute Trips”) at four times the rate of the state of Colorado overall, and walk to work or school at nearly twice the rate of the state of Colorado overall (Table 8). Means of Transportation to Work Fort Collins Colorado (Statewide) Walk 4.2%2.8% Bike 4.9%1.1% Motor Vehicle 76.4%81.4% Public Transit 2.0%2.8% Table 8: Means of Travel for Commute Trips (source: US Census Bureau 2020 5-Year Estimates) A higher bicycle commute share in Fort Collins is a testament to the efforts Fort Collins has made to improve the safety and connectivity for bicycling and walking. Stakeholders across Fort Collins—residents, businesses, City leaders—recognize the economic, environmental, and social benefits of bicycling, and how building a low-stress bicycle network is critical to achieving larger citywide goals. Investments in infrastructure supporting safe and comfortable mobility for active modes users contributes significantly to decisions regarding mode of travel. However, since the adoption of Fort Collins’ 2014 Bicycle Plan, bicycle commuting has fallen slightly from 6.5 percent to 4.9 percent of commuters (ACS 5-year estimates, 2014 and 2020). Decreases in bicycle commuting can be attributed in part to the COVID-19 pandemic. Fort Collins has not only seen a decrease in bicycle commuting, but has also found that fewer people are commuting by motor vehicle (previously 81.3 percent). Also, more people are working from home, 11.6 percent of commuters in 2020 compared to 6.3 percent in 2014. However, commute trips only tell part of the story. Shifting Focus from Commute Trips to Short Trips Across the state of Colorado, commute trips (i.e., trips between home and place of work in either direction) account for just 14 percent of all trips (NHTS, 2017). Additionally, commute trip distances are generally longer than other types of trips. To unlock active modes for more people and more trips, the City of Fort Collins is focusing its efforts on shifting short trips—specifically those less than 15 minutes by any travel mode—to active transportation. For instance, errands and shopping trips, social or recreational trips, medical appointments, and other activities may be within a comfortable distance for using active modes if the infrastructure provides comfortable and low-stress conditions. Additionally, low-stress connections to transit and shared bicycles and micromobility can further extend trip range and provide redundant travel options for those not using personal vehicles. Means of Transportation for Commute Trips vs All Trips (State of Colorado) % of Commuting Trips (2017) % of All Trips (2017) Walk 3%12% Bike 1%3% Motor Vehicle 91%84% Public Transit 4%2% Table 9: State of Colorado Means of Travel for Commute Trips vs All Trips. Source: National Household Travel Survey (2017) and US Census Bureau (2017 5-Year Estimates, Commute Trips exclude 8.5 percent who work from home) Note to Reader: Available citywide and statewide travel data does not include information on rolling and micromobility. Only walking and bicycling are included in the remaining discussion of existing data. However, trends and trip characteristics may be similar to those for walking and bicycling. Page 119 Item 9. 16 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 2: Fort Collins Today Due to the sample size of the National Household Travel Survey—a large diary-based study conducted every eight years—this Fort Collins AMP uses the state of Colorado as representative to understand travel patterns for all trips. The Fort Collins AMP also reviewed the Fort Collins Travel Diary Study (2022) to understand how trip statistics in Fort Collins compare when looking statewide—which includes both urban and rural contexts (see the next page). In Colorado, nearly 12 percent of all trips are pedestrian trips, and 3 percent are by bicycle, compared with 3 percent and 1 percent of commute trips made by walking or bicycling (Table 9). Statewide data indicates that the percentage of trips made by bicycling increases for shopping activities and the percentage of trips made by walking increases for social/recreational activities (Figure 3). Moreover, as the distance of trips decreases, the likelihood of using active modes increases (Table 10). National Household Travel Survey data at the state level indicates that trips made by walking and bicycling are more likely for short-range trips. Results of the Fort Collins Travel Diary Study similarly show that Fort Collins residents are more likely to walk, bicycle, and ride transit for shorter trips on average (Figure 2). Activating greater use of active modes for those trip types and short distances can be enabled through investments in safe and comfortable infrastructure for people using active modes. Average Miles Traveled by Means of Transportation in Fort Collins (All Trips) 1.1 1.212.3 0.6 Figure 2: Trip Characteristics by Mode (source: Fort Collins Travel Diary Study, 2022) Figure 3: State of Colorado Means of Travel by Trip Purpose (source: National Household Travel Survey, 2017) Table 10: State of Colorado Means of Travel by Distance (source: National Household Travel Survey, 2017) 0%20%40%60%80%100% % of all Person Trips % of Trips < 0.5 miles % of Trips < 2 .5 miles % of Trips < 3.5 miles % of Trips ≥3.5 miles Motor Vehi cle Walk Bik e Public Transit Page 120 Item 9. 17 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 2: Fort Collins Today Fort Collins has Multiple Distinctive Planning Contexts Downtown Downtown Fort Collins growth and development is guided by the Downtown Plan, which sets forth a vision for the city’s core to be unique, innovative, and inclusive. The Downtown context is a unique urban setting where historic buildings and the Poudre River corridor blend seamlessly with new development to create a regional destination for arts, culture, retail, entertainment, and recreation. It is designed to provide ample transportation options and streets, buildings, and places that put pedestrians first. Per the Downtown Plan, “protecting and enhancing historic character, visual distinctiveness and pedestrian friendliness is paramount through the entire Downtown as it continues to evolve.” Planning for active modes use in the Downtown context is focused on providing a complete and connected sidewalk network, and multiple low-stress routes for bicycling and micromobility. The core district, Old Town Square, is characterized by small-scale brick and stone buildings featuring inviting storefronts along comfortable sidewalks, with a dense and walkable street grid, activated alleys and laneways, and vibrant commerical and social destinations. Urban Core Neighborhood Surrounding Downtown are Fort Collins’ urban core neighborhoods, with tightly woven street grids, a mix of single-family and multi-unit housing, with some mixed uses interspersed. Nearly all block faces have sidewalks, though some are narrow or not fully accessible. Colorado State University’s main campus is stitched into the urban core, with many active modes connections and destinations. Suburban Commercial Outside of the urban core on streets such as College Avenue and Shields Street, arterials are multilane with active commercial development. Block lengths become longer and crossings less safe for active modes users, transitioning to Fort Collins’ one-mile arterial street grid. Key concerns for active modes use include higher vehicle speed limits (generally between 30 and 40 mph), less comfortable crossings at major intersections, and decreased ability to comfortably move within the network to access destinations. Page 121 Item 9. 18 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 2: Fort Collins Today As the city’s population grows and diversifies, its land use and urban landscape is becoming denser and more diverse. City Plan (2019) identifies the following five priority place types for infill and redevelopment over the next 10-20 years: • Mixed-Neighborhoods • Neighborhood Mixed Use • Suburban Mixed-Use • Urban Mixed Use • Mixed-Employment City Plan provides mobility considerations for each of the place types, including traffic circulation, active transportation infrastructure and amenities, and transit access. These place types inform this Plan’s project recommendations and priorities. Suburban Residential In areas of the city developed in the last five decades, the neighborhoods are almost exclusively residential and generally characterized by single-family houses and a curvilinear street network, requiring longer trips to reach schools, parks, and commercial destinations. However, non-arterial streets can be made low-volume and low-speed, allowing for safe and comfortable active modes use. Rural Interface Finally, at the outlying edges of the city, land use transitions from urban to rural interface, with less developed infrastructure (and generally little or no sidewalk coverage), and less dense activity. Many of these areas have existing trails and paths that connect to the regional active transportation network; however, e-bikes are the only motorized micromobility devices permitted on most paved trails. Park and Rides and Mobility Hubs in these areas should provide equitable access to mode selection as commuters approach Fort Collins. Page 122 Item 9. 19 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 2: Fort Collins Today Safety Concerns are a Barrier to Active Modes Despite the investments the City of Fort Collins has made in paved trails, bike lanes, sidewalks, and crossings, safety is still a barrier to active modes. Between 2017 and 2021, there were 16,963 total crashes in Fort Collins, including 746 (4.4 percent) involving people walking and bicycling. Of the 16,963 crashes, 1,422 resulted in a fatality or serious injury, also referred to as Killed or Seriously Injured Crashes (KSI crashes), with 343 of those involving bicyclists or pedestrians. Despite only accounting for 4 percent of total collisions, 24% of KSI crashes involved people walking or bicycling. People using active modes in Fort Collins face significantly increased risk of death or serious injury during crashes, indicating a need to focus consideration on protecting people outside of motor vehicles. Additionally, a disproportionate share of crashes— especially serious crashes—take place on a small share of streets in Fort Collins. Specifically, streets classified as major and minor arterial streets constitute only 21 percent of the centerline mileage, but are where 89 percent of the crashes where people are killed or seriously injured occur. Because these streets have higher travel speeds and volumes, where there are conflicts, those conflicts have greater consequences. However, these conflicts can be mitigated by well-designed and separated infrastructure. A Geospatial Crash Analysis was conducted to identify which street segments have had the greatest share of pedestrian and bicycle crashes per mile, weighted by severity. The results of that analysis are illustrated in Map 1 and Map 2. In summary, the following street segments were identified as having the highest crash risk for active users: • Mulberry Street from S Whitcomb Street to Lilac Lane • S College Avenue from E Stuart Street to Yale Avenue • Remington Street from E Mountain Avenue to E Myrtle Street • Mason Street from Maple Street to W Myrtle Street • S Shields Street from Mantz Place to W Pitkin Street • N College Avenue from Jefferson Street to E Vine Drive • Harmony Road from Hinsdale Drive to S College Avenue • S Taft Hill Road from W Elizabeth Street to W Prospect Road This analysis, alongside community feedback about safety and comfort issues, has guided development of the active modes recommendations, with the goal of making Fort Collins’ most stressful streets and intersections feel substantively safer and more inviting for active use. The Evolution of Shared Micromobility in Fort Collins and Beyond Shared micromobility refers to self-service bicycle or scooter rental programs, which have flourished in the United States over the past decade. It has proven that shared micromobility is a viable transportation alternative that provides people who do not have access to a personal vehicle and people who do not desire to own a personal vehicle a means to get where they need to go efficiently. From 2011 to 2019, shared micromobility ridership in the United States increased from 35 million to 136 million. Many Colorado communities offer innovative shared micromobility programs including adaptive device rentals, bike libraries, and dockless bikeshare. The Fort Collins Bike Library, launched in 2008, pioneered bike sharing regionally and nationally, and since 2010, when the City and County of Denver introduced one of the country’s first station-based bikesharing programs, shared micromobility has become commonplace in Colorado. In July 2021, Fort Collins introduced Spin, an e-bike and e-scooter program that has been widely used by residents and visitors. Working with Spin to set up policies early and clearly has been beneficial for micromobility operations in Fort Collins and has set the City up to establish a shared micromobility program. What’s Up Next for Shared Micromobility in Fort Collins? Fort Collins is well situated to expand micromobility offerings and build on the success of what is already available. Next steps for shared micromobility in Fort Collins will include developing programming focused on increasing the availability of shared micromobility, studying how land use can be leveraged to implement Mobility Hubs that feature shared micromobility options, and revising policies to accommodate micromobility. More information is needed about micromobility travel patterns, crashes, and crash risk. Information about micromobility has not been collected in studies and surveys and is not consistently reported in police reports. As micromobility usage increases, the City may also explore how to ensure safety and network connectivity for these users just as it does for other active modes users.Page 123 Item 9. Laporte Elizabeth Prospect Drake Horsetooth Harmony Trilby Mulberry Vine OVerland TrTaft HillShieldsCollegeLemayTimberlineZieglerCollegeTimberlineTaft HillShieldsLemay20 Map 1: Pedestrian Crash Risk Weighted by Severity (Geospatial Crash Analysis, 2017-21) Page 124 Item 9. 21 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 2: Fort Collins Today Laporte Elizabeth Prospect Drake Horsetooth Harmony Trilby Mulberry Vine OVerland TrTaft HillShieldsCollegeLemayTimberlineZieglerCollegeTimberlineTaft HillShieldsLemayMap 2: Bicyclist Crash Risk Weighted by Severity (Geospatial Crash Analysis, 2017-21) Page 125 Item 9. 22 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. Page 126 Item 9. Page 127 Item 9. CHAPTER 3: ACTIVE MODES VISION Page 128 Item 9. 25 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 3: Active Modes Vision Fort Collins has grown and changed rapidly in the past few decades, and the City's challenges and opportunities around active modes have evolved. The community engagement process included a collaborative visioning workshop that convened City staff, elected officials, members of the TAC and CAC, and the general public to create a vision for the Fort Collins AMP that reflects community needs, desires, and values. The Fort Collins AMP includes an update to pedestrian and bicycle network, policy, and programming goals set in the 2011 Pedestrian Plan and 2014 Bicycle Plan and incorporates new goals for improving micromobility use. However, it also shifts the approach to achieving goals entirely based on delays in meeting previously stated goals. For example, the 2014 Bicycle Plan presented a 20 percent mode shift goal, which was not met in the specified time frame. The AMP took lessons learned from this and other previous planning work to determine what needed to change to achieve even loftier goals. The Fort Collins AMP demonstrates a systematic approach to intensify community efforts to make Fort Collins a place where every person can get anywhere in the city using active transportation safely, efficiently, and comfortably. Moreover, unike past efforts, AMP recommendations emphasize short trips, which are the most bikeable and walkable, elevate mode shift and safety goals, and addresss all forms of active transportation to achieve widespread improvements. “Active modes should be major, preferred, and common modes of safe transportation. Routes should feel safe, peaceful, efficient, and convenient.” “Fort Collins must address problematic intersections, separate bike lanes from traffic, and reduce the supremacy of automobiles within the city.” “The City should provide users an extensive network of safe, well maintained, paths and lanes that enable access to all parts of town for recreation, commuting, and access to the city’s infrastructure.” “Micromobility should be an integral part of the transportation landscape.” “I hope using active modes can become the easiest and safest way to travel around town.” From the Community: Your Vision The creation of the vision for the AMP was 100 percent spearheaded by the community and comments from individual residents, businesses, and other stakeholders of the plan. In the following recommendation chapters, “From the Community” boxes display quotes from the community gathered during various outreach activities to illustrate how each and every recommendation was guided by the experiences of Fort Collins community members. Here are just a few of the many comments that helped establish Fort Collins’ active modes values. Page 129 Item 9. 26 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 3: Active Modes Vision Vision Statement Active transportation is an integral part of daily life and the local cultural experience. Fort Collins is a place where walking, bicycling, and using other active modes are safe, accessible, convenient, joyful, and desired by people of all ages and abilities. Eliminate active mode fatalities and serious injuries by 2032AND Why is a goal to achieve 50 percent active modes share needed? The current active modes trip share in Fort Collins is 22 percent for all trip purposes. The AMP focuses on converting trips 3 miles or less to active modes. If 75 percent of these short trips were shifted to walking, bicycling, or micromobility, Fort Collins would achieve a 50 percent active mode share, and reduce vehicle miles traveled 13.5 percent—and would reduce 7,500 metric tons of CO2 annually, supporting Fort Collins’ goals to reduce citywide emissions and reach its climate goals. Achieve 50% active mode share by 2032 Why is a goal to eliminate active modes fatalities and serious injuries needed? Fort Collins is dedicated to making streets and intersections across the city safe for all. To support Fort Collins’ commitment to Vision Zero, a goal aimed at fatal and serious crashes involving active modes is necessary. The upcoming Vision Zero Action Plan will address all roadway fatalities and serious injuries and the recommendations presented in the AMP will guide that plan. The Active Modes Plan is oriented around the year 2032 and embraces a forward-thinking approach to active transportation infrastructure, policies, and programs, aiming to: Page 130 Item 9. Page 131 Item 9. CHAPTER 4: BIG MOVES AND NEXT MOVES Page 132 Item 9. 29 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 4: Big Moves And Next Moves The Fort Collins AMP is oriented around five Big Moves and related Next Moves, which reflect the character of Fort Collins and the desired outcomes of this Plan. So, what are Big Moves and Next Moves? Just like the AMP vision, the Big Moves were developed with community members and stakeholders during in-person workshops and through a survey and an online mapping exercise. The outcomes and strategies presented on the following pages were prominent themes during the engagement process as central to positively impacting active transportation in Fort Collins. Together, Big and Next Moves set forth strategies that will guide the City of Fort Collins in reaching Fort Collins AMP and other City goals. Recommendations, found in Chapters 5 and 6, were determined by considering what projects might influence the advancement of the Big Moves and Next Moves. Cost breakdowns for each recommendation, including construction and maintenance costs, can be found in Appendix F. Big Moves describe the intended outcomes of this Plan-what Fort Collins will be like once Fort Collins AMP goals are achieved. Next Moves are the tactics and methods for achieving the transformational outcomes that are the Big Moves. Each Big Move includes 3-5 related Next Moves. From the Community “Ubiquitous and embraced as a beneficial alternative to driving through increased education, accessibility, and infrastructure.” “Easier and safer with more pedestrian crossings, filled in sidewalk gaps, and detached sidewalks.” “Available for all, including for those with limited mobility, and in all neighborhoods.” “Fort Collins should be a fully connected city where every citizen feels comfortable leaving their home via bicycle.” Page 133 Item 9. 30 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 4: Big Moves And Next Moves BIG MOVE A Complete and Connected Network (CCN) Create continuous, low-stress active transportation networks. Next Move ID Next Moves Description Connections to other Big Moves CCN1 Provide direct connections Provide direct and visible pedestrian and bicyclist connectivity between neighborhoods and key destinations to shorten travel time, minimize out of direction travel, and eliminate user confusion. CAD, SCT CCN2 Locate and fill network gaps Fill in missing links where sidewalks are non-existent or feel unsafe, bicycle facilities end, and crossings on major roads are missing or feel unsafe. Eliminate gaps by building and maintaining on- and off-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities that better connect users to the existing low-stress network from residential neighborhoods and high classification streets. CAD, SCT, HEC CCN3 Connect to the trail system Expand the availability of connections to multi-use trails that link to each other and provide access to natural spaces and adjacent communities. While this Plan does not focus on building out trails, it does recognize that trails support bicycle commuting and recreation by improving safe connections and wayfinding, and offers recommendations for connecting to local and regional trails that the City should continue to expand. CAD CCN4 Expand the wayfinding system Continue expanding and implementing clear and cohesive wayfinding, through markings and signage, to direct people to connections and destinations across Fort Collins. SCT ccn PROGRESS TRACKERS Progress on this Big Move can be tracked in the following ways: •Land Use Code changes that implement connectivity alongside development and redevelopment projects •Average active mode user delay and travel time across Fort Collins •Distance between marked crossings •Number of high-priority/readiness infrastructure projects in progress or completed •Number of trail connections implemented •Built out multi-use trails from the 2021 Parks and Recreation Master Plan •Wayfinding routes implemented from the 2015 Bicycle Wayfinding Network Master Plan •Ability of residents to reach community destinations from their homes by walking, biking, rolling, and using micromobility on continuous facilities without gaps in available infrastructure (Community Survey) While the Fort Collins AMP does not address the open space trail network in Fort Collins (identified as part of the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organizations’s Regional Active Transportation Corridors), the City acknowledges that trails support bicycle commuters and recreation by improving safe connections and wayfinding. Page 134 Item 9. 31 BIG MOVE Comprehensive Access to Destinations (CAD) Foster a transportation network for all people regardless of skill level, age, economic status, background, or ability. Next Move ID Next Move Description Connections to other Big Moves CAD1 Upgrade facilities to meet ADA standards Update facilities, especially signals and curb ramps, to meet or exceed Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards to accommodate the needs of people with mobility challenges, visual impairments, and auditory impairments in areas of Fort Collins where these facilities are most lacking. CCN, HEC, SCT CAD2 Connect to mobility hubs Mobility hubs are community locations where people can find available transit services, shared micromobility, carshare, and more all in one place, which can be used to reach destinations, replacing the need for a private vehicle. The City can remove the need to drive to and from transit options, also referred to as eliminating the first and last mile gap, by expanding pedestrian and bicycle connections to public transit and providing ample bicycle parking and shared micromobility at transit stops. Strategies for improving these connections should be included in a citywide Mobility Hubs Plan. CCN, HEC, SIC CAD3 Repair sidewalks and bikeways Protect active mode users by continuing to repair cracked and uneven pavement surfaces through the Street Maintenance Program and develop best practice policies for regular maintenance of infrastructure, including protected bikeway barriers that separate bicycles from traffic, recommended in Chapter 6. CCN, HEC, SCT CAD4 Manage parking and placement of bicycles and micromobility Identify optimal locations for bicycle and micromobility parking to enhance convenience and security, minimize conflicts between modes, eliminate barriers along sidewalks, and sustainably connect users to key destinations. Expand options for both short- term and long-term parking. HEC, SCT CAD5 Reevaluate snow removal procedures Revisit the Fort Collins street snow clearing priorities and review designated emergency routes. Revise snow clearing prioritization considering active modes facilities along key connecting corridors that are addressed in this Plan. SCT PROGRESS TRACKERS Progress on this Big Move can be tracked in the following ways: • Residential proximity to mobility hubs • Number of first-mile/last-mile connections • Pavement Quality Index • Miles of active modes facilities that meet or exceed ADA standards • Active mode share during winter months • Availability and quality of supportive bicycle parking and shared micromobility and proximity of bicycle parking to parks and opens space, retailers, schools, and other destinations Fort Collins Active Mode Plan | Chapter 4: Big Moves And Next Moves Page 135 Item 9. 32 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 4: Big Moves And Next Moves 32 BIG MOVE Safe and Comfortable Travel (SCT) Develop and maintain a safe transportation network that prioritizes active transportation users. Next Move ID Next Move Description Connections to other Big Moves SCT1 Support the implementation of Vision Zero goals Prioritize active transportation projects and programs that will help reduce and eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries amongst all road users, including motorists. The City of Fort Collins is developing a Vision Zero Action Plan that will address additional safety measures such as speed limit reductions. CCN, CAD, HEC, SIC SCT2 Install traffic calming improvements Encourage lower vehicle speeds and eliminate mode conflicts along high-stress priority corridors by implementing traffic calming measures and bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements. CCN, CAD SCT3 Provide increased street lighting Increase lighting that complies with the City’s Night Sky Initiative, for security, visual safety, and user comfort on the active modes network where the City of Fort Collins has the ability and authority to install such features. CCN, CAD SCT4 Frequently evaluate safety Perform regular evaluations of safety improvements by monitoring progress toward improvement goals before and after a project is implemented. CCN, CAD PROGRESS TRACKERS Progress on this Big Move can be tracked in the following ways: • Number of serious injuries and fatalities amongst active modes users caused by traffic collisions • Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress (PLTS) • Percent of bicycle network that is considered low-stress • 85th percentile speeds on active transportation corridors • Low-stress network of protected bicycle facilities, detached sidewalks, and off-road multiuse trails that is also accessible to micromobility users, including motorized micromobility The City of Fort Collins is developing a Vision Zero Action Plan that will address additional safety measures such as speed limit reductions to eliminate traffic deaths amongst all road users, including motorists. Page 136 Item 9. 33 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 4: Big Moves And Next Moves 33 BIG MOVE A Healthy and Equitable Community (HEC) Provide equitable programs and opportunities for walking, bicycling, and rolling that help increase activity and improve environmental health throughout the community. Next Move ID Next Move Description Connections to other Big Moves HEC1 Create appropriate programming Seek input from diverse community members on how active modes programming can best work for them and tailor programs as needed in response. CAD, SIC HEC2 Increase diverse community involvement Recruit community members who are diverse in race, ethnicity, age, ability, and socioeconomic status and partner with community nonprofits to deliver active transportation programming. SIC HEC3 Improve network equity by using the HEI Use the Health Equity Index (HEI) to prioritize access to active modes facilities for historically overlooked populations to advance health equity. CCN, CAD, SCT HEC4 Expand multi-modal options Prioritize expanding access to bikes, low-cost shared micromobility, and secure bike parking.CAD hec PROGRESS TRACKERS Progress on this Big Move can be tracked in the following ways: • Number of people in target populations engaged during programming efforts • Number of active modes infratructure projects implemented in high-priority areas identified by the Health Equity Index • Demographic breakdown of participants of engagement activities, community surveys, and programming events related to active transportation • Number of people enrolled and number of trips taken in micromobility discount programs for income-qualified individuals • Programs that offer rebates for electric bicycles or for bicycle accessories that make using a bicycle for short trips, such as shopping and errands, easier to complete A Healthy and Equitable Community (HEC) and Comprehensive Access to Destinations (CAD), while closely related, are fundamentally different strategies for propelling transformational change in Fort Collins. Big Move CAD focuses on applying infrastructure improvements to enhance people’s ability to reach destinations, while Big Move HEC speaks to strategies for implementing programs that aim to intentionally engage and provide mobility options for diverse groups in Fort Collins. Page 137 Item 9. 34 BIG MOVE A Supportive and Inclusive Culture (SIC) Expand upon programs and education to raise awareness of transportation safety and strengthen the culture of respect and responsibility for all transportation system users. Next Move ID Next Move Description Connections to other Big Moves SIC1 Advance active transportation culture and coordinate with the TDM program Implement active modes-related programs and initiatives by leveraging the City’s Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program and strengthening relationships with internal and external partners including community organizations and advocates that promote understanding and empathy among transportation users and can collaborate on developing innovative and inclusive road safety solutions. HEC, SCT SIC2 Build active modes awareness Continue developing educational opportunities for all mode users to improve community understanding of how to share the road successfully and safely. HEC, SCT SIC3 Increase active school trips Increase active modes commute trips by advancing Safe Routes to School across all schools in Fort Collins and designing inclusive programs that support, educate, and encourage both new and long-time active transportation users. CAD, HEC, SCT SIC4 Expand recreational active modes opportunities Support Park Planning & Development, Natural Areas, and community organizations’ efforts to build recreational amenities like a bike park and unpaved trails. Recreational amenities can help people, particularly youth, develop skills and confidence and build a culture of support for active modes. CCN, CAD, HEC, PROGRESS TRACKERS Progress on this Big Move can be tracked in the following ways: • Number of people engaged through education campaigns • Number of active modes friendly and supportive businesses and employers who offer rewards and programs to facilitate active modes commuting • Percent of Fort Collins students (K-12) using active modes to travel to and from school and percent of those students and parents who report a positive experience using active modes to, from, and around school • Mode share across all trips • Completed active modes improvements and adopted programs that align with guidelines from the League of American Bicyclists • Active modes improvements and adopted programs that align with the Walk Friendly Community Report Card Fort Collins Active Mode Plan | Chapter 4: Big Moves And Next Moves Page 138 Item 9. Page 139 Item 9. CHAPTER 5: POLICY AND PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS Page 140 Item 9. 37 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 5: Policy And Program Recommendations Policies and programs, when combined with on-the- ground infrastructure, are key ingredients in creating a community where active transportation is safe, comfortable, convenient, encouraged, and celebrated. Policies are exclusively set by local government and help to shape investment strategies and direct work. Programs, on the other hand, may be led by external organizations such as advocacy organizations and/or managed by the City of Fort Collins. The following policy and program recommendations were created by translating the Fort Collins AMP’s vision and goals (Chapter 3) into policies and programs that can be integrated into the City’s existing roles, programs, and overall functions. The recommendations are organized into five categories: 1. Prioritizing active modes 2. Updating land use policies to support active modes, including bicycle parking and mobility hubs 3. Aligning standards with active mode goals 4. Expanding and creating programs that support active modes 5. Engaging communities around active modes in thoughtful and intentional ways Each policy and programmatic category has specific policy and/or programmatic recommendations, background on the policy or programmatic recommendation, and then an associated action essential to implementing the program or policy recommendation. The policy and program recommendations presented on the following pages consist of action steps designed to directly advance the Big Moves and Next Moves outlined in Chapter 4. 1. Prioritizing Active Modes Overarching Policy: Fort Collins prioritizes projects, programs, and funding that support the use, sustainability, and growth of active modes. 1a. Adopt the Transportation Hierarchy as the overarching framework for Fort Collins’ transportation system. Background The transportation hierarchy prioritizes transportation modes according to the following ordered list: • Walking and rolling • Bicycling and micromobility devices • Transit • Fleets of electric, fully automated, multiple passenger vehicles • Other shared vehicles • Low or no occupancy vehicles, fossil-fueled non-transit vehicles The Transportation Hierarchy is a functional prioritization model that helps planners, engineers, and designers create spaces that serve active modes first. People walking, rolling, and bicycling are given the highest priority because these modes encourage healthy, lively, and environmentally sound ways of moving. In addition, people walking, rolling, and bicycling are most vulnerable because they will bear a greater risk of injury in crashes with vehicles and therefore need greater protection against such crashes. Transit is next in the hierarchy because of its efficiency, both per space and environmental impacts, as well as its function of increasing mobility for active mode users, especially people with disabilities or who are unable to drive. Commercial vehicles and trucks, including emergency vehicles, are a higher priority than personal vehicles because of services they provide to the economy and safety of the community as a whole. Single occupant vehicles are at the bottom of the pyramid because of their significant environmental impact, resource intensiveness, and high space needs per person served. Additionally, personal vehicles protect occupants, but pose greater risk to people outside of vehicles. The Transportation Master Plan (2019) was developed using a layered network framework, which focuses on Page 141 Item 9. 38 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 5: Policy And Program Recommendations how the City’s transportation network can function, as a system, to meet the needs of all users. The layered network concept envisions streets as systems; each street type is designed to create a high-quality experience for intended users. A layered network approach allows for certain streets to emphasize specific modes or user types, while discouraging incompatible uses. The transportation hierarchy should inform decision making in locations where these networks overlap and tradeoffs are necessary to ensure that accomodations for one mode do not degrade safety or access for other modes, especially those at the top of the hierarchy. In Action The transportation hierarchy should be considered when reviewing or developing new plans, policies, and strategies and when designing the public realm, including streets, sidewalks, and open spaces, especially in areas where right-of-way tradeoffs need to be made between modes. When implementing this hierarchy, ensure that: • The needs and safety of each group of users are considered. • Improvements of any kind do not make existing conditions worse for the most vulnerable users higher on the ordered list. • Policy-based rationale is provided if modes lower in the transportation hierarchy are prioritized. • Update and adopt Complete Street Standards that codifies this hierarchy. • Hierarchy information is added to the City’s Structure Plan Map, Master Street Plan, and City Plan Place Type descriptions. 1b. Ensure that the percent of transportation funding allocated to active modes aligns with the City’s strategic outcomes related to mode shift, safety, climate action, and equity. Background When left unchanged, prioritization and allocation methods that do not proactively expand the active travel network can result in decreased investments in active modes. These methods may be fully internal – such as 1. The City has implemented miles of the bike network at relatively low cost through the street maintenance program. While the Pave- ment Condition Index (PCI) and the International Roughness Index (IRI) ratings are the primary factors used to establish the repav- ing schedule, coordination with priority active modes improvements should be a secondary factor used to set the repaving schedule. putting together the City’s Capital Improvement Plan – or may have an external component, such as deciding on the project that the City will write a grant for. In order to meet the goals of the Fort Collins AMP, it is essential that there are clear and transparent criteria in project and funding prioritization methods that include accessibility, multimodal connectivity, reduction of health inequities, environmental impact, and economic return on investment – to accurately represent the value that the City places on active modes. In Action Fort Collins has the following major transportation project prioritization functions under its purview: • Capital Improvement Plan • Maintenance Schedule • Sidewalk Prioritization Model • Paving Schedule1 • Regional grant applications • State/federal grant programs • Transit Master Plan • Budgeting for Outcomes process • Paved Recreational Trails Master Plan • Siting Bicycle Parking and Mobility Hubs The current criteria for these processes should be reviewed for the presence of and the weights given to the following criteria: active transportation infrastructure incorporated into the project or program; addressing of active modes safety issue, benefit to underserved communities; improvement in multimodal access to destinations; potential to result in increase of active modes/transit mode share; and filling gaps in the City’s active modes network and supportive infrastructure. From the Community “Updating existing connections is great. But I hope that long-term, there is emphasis on a complete, layered network and investing in active mode corridors that prioritize those modes.” Page 142 Item 9. 39 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 5: Policy And Program Recommendations 1c. Prioritize the safety and efficiency of Active Modes users by expanding the Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program (NTMP). Background Vehicle speeds play a significant role in the safety and comfort of active modes users and largely contribute to the severity and frequency of crashes. Speed reduction programs can spur roadway design improvements and marketing, communication, and education efforts that focus on providing information on the relationship between safety and speed and focus on protecting active modes users. Similarly, improving traffic flow and efficiency for active modes users can have a positive effect on safety and in decreasing user delays. Fort Collins Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program uses education, engineering, and enforcement to achieve safer movement of traffic on two-lane local or collector streets, and aims to reduce speeds to enhance active modes travel. In Action Fort Collins should continue the NTMP and consider expansion of the program to not only enhance the safety of active modes users, but also prioritize the safety of active modes users. While the NTMP focuses on reducing traffic speeds, there is an opportunity to supplement the existing program by incorporating offerings to also improve active modes flow across active transportation corridors. The City can strengthen the NTMP by: • Expanding the NTMP to include arterial segments and crossings that also serve as active mode routes. • Incorporating NTMP education into all future outreach activities for transportation-related infrastructure projects. • Prioritizing active modes corridors for physical mitigation improvements submitted through the NTMP, and expanding the engineering toolbox to include neighborhood traffic circles, curb extensions, miniature traffic circles, and road closures. • Reducing speed limits where appropriate and where engineering improvements are also planned. • Incorporating dedication to improving the efficiency of active modes into NTMP goals and guidelines and offering the reconfiguration or removal of stop signs as an engineering tool under the “Signs and Pavement Markings Category” and upon completion of a traffic study, also completed through the NTMP. 2. Updating Land Use Policies to Support Active Modes Overarching policy: Fort Collins’ City Plan and land use policies support the use and growth of the active modes network. 2a. Evaluate how the active modes network can increase 15-minute communities. Background A 15-minute community is an area in which residents can access most of their day-to-day needs within a 15-minute walk, bike, or roll of their home. This method of community building leans towards creating destinations where people already are instead of expanding to the outer edges of the City. In Action Fort Collins is aiming for residents to be within a 15-minute walk or bicycle trip of most of their daily needs. Through development of a 15-Minute Communities Framework, the City will map the availability of services such as schools, transit stops or stations, parks or greenspaces, and grocery stores in Fort Collins to better understand which areas of the City are lacking and if any improvements in active modes infrastructure would improve the prevalence of 15-minute communities. Zoning will be reviewed after this analysis to identify if there are any areas where zoning changes could allow additional uses that would support 15-minute communities where they currently do not exist. 2b. Adopt development practices that support active modes. Background City code and development review practices shape the City’s active transportation network based on what transportation infrastructure is required to be built with development. Designing, implementing, and enforcing citywide practices and code that support active mode use and networks can assist in incrementally improving active modes as the city continues to develop. Page 143 Item 9. 40 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 5: Policy And Program Recommendations In Action Zoning laws should be reviewed to require or favor mixed- use developments that place destinations within walking, bicycling, and rolling distance of homes. Additionally, when reviewing design applications, staff should evaluate development to ensure that its design creates walkable frontages (such as those found Downtown, and identified in the Downtown Plan) and amenities for people of all ages and abilities walking, bicycling, and rolling. Developers proposing plans that exceed Fort Collins standards for integrating and supporting active modes in new development could receive incentives such as reduced parking requirements, density bonuses, or changes to the level of review required. Identify opportunities within the development code where active modes infrastructure (such as trails or bike racks) can co-exist with other right-of-way uses (e.g., detention basin or swales, or furnishing zone requirements) to grow the active modes network. These actions should be further codified with updates to the following sections of Fort Collins Land Use Code: • Division 3.2 Site Planning and Design Standards. Should offer additional details about active modes circulation standards within developments, and may bolster bicycle and micromobility parking types and minimum provisions by land uses. • Division 3.6 Transportation and Circulation. Should address connectivity standards for active modes infrastructure, and set bicycle and micromobility parking minimums based on occupancy. 2c. Establish motor vehicle parking policies that encourage and support active modes. Background Free and widely available parking has been shown to discourage the use of active modes and incentivize the use and storage of private vehicles. Updates to parking policies allow developers to create places where active modes are highly valued as well as encourage the use of active modes over single-occupancy vehicles. In Action Fort Collins should consider updating parking requirements as well as the 2013 Parking Plan, to potentially include the following components: • Create a demand mitigation strategy for residential developments outside of Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zones. • Change from parking minimums to parking maximums (at least in TOD and bicycle/pedestrian level of service A areas). • Require developments with decreased parking to incentivize more sustainable transportation options through strategies such as unbundled parking passes, free bus fare, mobility hubs, and electric vehicle (EV) car share. Pursue a TDM ordinance for neighborhoods to manage local demand. • Continue to evaluate how downtown parking policies encourage or discourage the use of active modes. • Consider increasing fines for parking infractions that impair mobility such as parking that blocks sidewalks, crosswalks, or bicycle lanes. • Establish “percentage usage” thresholds for reallocating on-street parking space to bicycle and micromobility facilities where observed usage compels additional bicycle parking spaces. From the Community “I hope we see Fort Collins build more raised and painted bicycle paths along roads, with no parking next to bicycle paths. A change in focus in Fort Collins from being car focused to bicycle, public transportation, and walking focused.” Page 144 Item 9. 41 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 5: Policy And Program Recommendations 3. Aligning Standards with Active Modes Goals Overarching policy: Fort Collins uses standards that support, encourage, and prioritize active modes when making infrastructure improvements. 3a. Update the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). Background The revised Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) were adopted by Larimer County, City of Loveland, and City of Fort Collins on August 1, 2021. These Standards set the acceptable design and construction guidance for the design and construction of new and reconstructed streets in Fort Collins. These standards have specific Chapters related to people walking and bicycling (Chapter 16 and 17, respectively), which have information and guidance beneficial to promoting and growing the active modes network in Fort Collins. However, there are some sections and associated metrics within the standards that are only vehicle focused that could be updated to be more supportive of active mode use including micromobility. Furthermore, the chapters specific to active modes could be reviewed to be supportive of micromobility and shared micromobility. In Action Review and offer recommendations to the LCUASS standards, specifically around strengthening active modes criteria, inclusive design users, and Complete Streets language, in the following chapters and sections: • Chapter 4 – Transportation Impact Study • Types of Study • Project Impacts (LOS and delay standards) • Integrate Appendix H, Multi-Modal Level of Service into Chapter 4 • Chapter 8 – Intersections • Exclusive right turn lanes • Design Vehicles • Roundabouts • Bicycle Lanes at Intersections • Pedestrian Requirements • Chapter 15 – Street Lighting 3b. Update Multimodal Level of Service framework. Background Historically, transportation engineers and planners have designed roadways using the traditional Level of Service model to maximize vehicular volume throughput and capacity, which has often come at the expense of safety and comfort for people walking, bicycling, and rolling. Fort Collins currently uses a Multimodal Transportation Level of Service model to integrate people walking, biking, and using transit when determining whether a roadway design will retain the desired function. This model integrates access, connectivity, and continuity functions into the LOS, as well as differentiates needs based on land use and roadway functional classification. This model, while an improvement from the original LOS model, can continue to be improved to better account for the needs of and increase the safety and comfort of those using active modes. In Action Update and integrate the City’s Multimodal Level of Service into Chapter 4 of LCUASS to account for the growth of active mode use and encourage continued growth, including: • Clear identification of active mode prioritization zones (formerly pedestrian prioritization zones). • Context based requirements that reflect guidance from guiding plans (such as the Active Modes Plan, the Downtown Plan, specific corridor plans like Midtown in Motion, Area Plans, and the various Capital Improvement Plans). • Develop methodology to collect improvement fees for active modes. 3c. Evaluate opportunities to improve the City’s sidewalk maintenance program and asset management plan, and to expand in-house implementation capacity. Background Currently the City maintains streets on a 20-year cycle. The City maintains sidewalks in conjunction with the annual street maintenance program (SMP) including curb, gutter, and sidewalk repair and correction of pedestrian curb ramps that do not meet the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. Typically, the SMP Page 145 Item 9. 42 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 5: Policy And Program Recommendations only addresses sidewalk issues that are considered safety hazards and curb and gutter issues that might undermine the structural integrity of the roadway. The City should explore opportunities to make other ADA improvements such as addressing driveway slopes as part of the SMP. The City also upgrades and constructs new sidewalks through the Pedestrian Program. The program utilizes a documented prioritization model based on health and equity, safety, and location. In Action Update the sidewalk components of the asset management plan to include at minimum, the following parts: • Quick response procedures to address hazards • Planned sidewalk replacement program • Funding • Coordination • Documentation • Inventory and inspection procedures and schedule • ADA accessibility • Pedestrian levels of service • Street tree canopy and citywide shade equity • Key performance indicators In addition, this evaluation should review the current Sidewalk Prioritization Model to assess whether the weight for the various criteria align with AMP goals. 3d. Revise signal timing and intersection design standards along integral pieces of the active modes network. Background Signal timing is a combination of standards and calculations that are used to allow users right-of-way at a signalized intersection for defined time intervals. The time intervals are often tied to an individual mode – a pedestrian would need a longer interval to cross a street than a vehicle. Signal timing is also an important part of creating a consistent flow along a street, discouraging high speeds, and encouraging active modes by creating routes that allow continuous movement on foot, bike, or transit. In Action Evaluate and, if necessary, update signal timing and intersection design standards to allow more consistent and convenient flow for active mode users. Continue to explore opportunities to implement the following improvements: • Install accessible and audible pedestrian push buttons, including in pedestrian refuge islands on streets with long crossing distances so that slower pedestrians don’t get trapped in the median. • Increase pedestrian intervals and/or incorporate pedestrian leading intervals along pedestrian priority routes, near schools or other destinations with high percentages of students and/or older adults. • Evaluate and strategically consider integrating “all walk” and “all bike” phases in areas with high amounts of pedestrian and bicycle traffic, acknowledging that this strategy has the potential to increase delays for all users. • Identify corridors to implement “green wave” signal timing for bicyclists, to allow a cyclist travelling at 10- 12 mph to move continually along the route. • Evaluate current transit priority signal routes and, if necessary, identify others for future implementation. • Identify where various types of signal timing and active modes signals should be used. • Identify tools to minimize delay along key bikeways, working with traffic to remove stop control where appropriate. Additionally, evaluate bicycle and micromobility detection technologies to ensure reliability and minimize delay for active users. • Prioritize where signals and intersection design standards are appropriate based on nearby destinations (e.g., schools, parks, transit stops, etc.), and expand application for pro-pedestrian treatments such as curb extensions that narrow crossing distances. Additionally, when deploying new or innovative design approaches, inlcude public information signs and materials to increase awareness. From the Community “We need bicycle friendly driver classes and the programs in schools to teach kids that bicycle handling and safety are important” Page 146 Item 9. 43 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 5: Policy And Program Recommendations 3e. Revise standards and regulations to support micromobility as a mode of transportation. Background The sudden appearance of a bewildering variety of motorized micromobility devices has left many cities scrambling to figure out how these fit in: on roads? In bike lanes? On sidewalks? On paved trails? Legally these devices, except for bicycles, e-bikes, and e-scooters, are defined as “toy vehicles”. However, they are no longer just toys; they are transportation vehicles, and they need a safe and connected network just as bicyclists and pedestrians do. In Fort Collins, e-scooters are allowed on roads, bike lanes, and sidewalks but prohibited from paved trails, while non-motorized toy vehicles (such as skateboards and roller skates) are allowed on sidewalks and paved trails, and motorized toy vehicles are allowed only on sidewalks. Thus, toy vehicles like electric skateboards and one-wheels have a restricted, fragmented network of sidewalks that were not designed for these vehicles. People who are using micromobility have a lot in common with bicyclists. People on both human-powered and motorized micromobility devices like skateboards, one- wheels, scooters and e-scooters travel at similar speeds, have a small profile, are agile, and are vulnerable road users. Micromobility users are generally well served by networks designed for bicyclists. In addition to the need for a safe and connected network for micromobility users, there are concerns about how people on micromobility devices will affect the experience and safety of people walking and biking on existing facilities, the ability to regulate different user groups and devices with limited Park Ranger and City staff to monitor the paved trail network, and where these devices will be parked that won’t interfere with other modes or pose additional barriers for people with disabilities. In Action • Make sure the membership of the City’s Active Modes Advisory Committee reflects micromobility use. • Incorporate micromobility into maps featuring bicycle or walking routes. • Incorporate micromobility in a traffic safety campaign. • Expand micromobility education and encouragement program for adults. • Identify ordinances and regulations that restrict the network for micromobility users. Engage stakeholders to determine what changes to ordinances and regulations could provide a safe and connected network for micromobility users. • Where micromobility users currently share space with other modes, monitor where conflict points emerge to prioritize improvements that better accommodate all users. • Establish a methodology and baseline to monitor conflicts with parked shared micromobility so that the effectiveness of countermeasures can be assessed. • For additional guidance on accommodating micromobility using on-street facilities and parking in right-of-way, refer to best practice resources including the NACTO Guidelines for Regulating Shared Micromobility and forthcoming 3rd Edition of the Urban Bikeway Design Guide. Page 147 Item 9. 44 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 5: Policy And Program Recommendations 4. Expanding and Creating Programs that Support Active Modes Overarching policy: Fort Collins manages and supports community programming that educates and encourages residents to use active modes. 4a. Build and expand the Safe Routes to School program. Background The City's Safe Routes to School program works with strategic partners such as Poudre School District (PSD) and Bike Fort Collins to increase the number of students safely walking, bicycling and taking the bus to school. The program holds bicycle and pedestrian safety classes, strategically implements improved sidewalks, crossings, and bicycle lanes for student use, and enforces school- zone speed limits and other traffic calming in school areas. Historically, much of the City’s efforts have focused on elementary schools. The high school program includes traditional “Bike PE” curriculum as well as “Bicycle Friendly Driver” certification but can do more to encourage active mode use amongst high school students. Safe Routes to School programming focused on safe use of the roadway is especially important for high schoolers as they are beginning to use the roadway independently using multiple modes. In Action • Partner with PSD to construct traffic gardens on school property. Traffic gardens, such as the Walk and Wheel Skills Hub, are a small-scale set of connected streets where people can practice safe walking and bicycling skills. • Host kidical mass rides and walks to get kids and families out enjoying active modes together for trips to places like parks, pools, ice cream shops, and special events. These events demonstrate that using active modes of transportation can be fun and easy for the whole family. • Implement “school streets” where possible, or temporary closures to motor vehicle traffic during school drop-off and pick-up times. • Provide protected signal phases for bikers/walkers at school-area signalized intersections. • Consider active modes of transportation in the design of traffic-circulation plans for school-specific traffic. • Designate remote drop-off and pickup locations near schools. • Launch anti-idling strategies, campaigns, or policies in school areas. • Provide high-quality, high-capacity bike/scooter/ skateboard storage facilities in convenient locations at schools. • Create waiting platforms and bike boxes with adequate capacity at signalized intersections near schools. • Add ramps in school areas to accommodate bikes/ trailers/wheelchairs/scooters transitioning between in-street and sidewalk-level facilities. Create a high school program (prioritizing schools with deficient infrastructure) that includes the following components: • High school curriculum that integrates Safe Routes to School themes, lessons, and skills into classroom subjects. • A student-led high school task force to guide the high school program, as well as encourage leadership skills amongst students. • “Big Events” as one-time encouragement events to get the word out about Safe Routes to School and promote active modes. • Leverage curriculum created by CSU and the City of Fort Collins to support Safe Routes programming. • Implement innovative strategies such as a requirement to take the Bicycle-Friendly Driver class before receiving a parking pass for high-school parking lots, and allowing students using active modes to be dismissed first. • Create new campaigns to reduce car driving by high- schoolers, such as an e-bike promotion that would get students to use active modes instead of cars. • Work with PSD to change policies such as allowing students to leave campus for lunch. Such policies create a massive amount of unnecessary car trips near high schools. Such policies may actually be the main reason students drive to school. If they had to stay on campus for lunch, they might bike, walk or take the bus instead. Perhaps create an innovative program of having food trucks on high-school campus at lunchtime. • Continuation of existing SRTS programs. Page 148 Item 9. 45 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 5: Policy And Program Recommendations 4b. Create a Transportation Demand Management program that provides resources and strategies for employers and residents in Fort Collins. Background Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is a set of strategies aimed at maximizing traveler choices and, often, lowering barriers for commuters and residents who want to use active modes through encouragement, incentives, or education. In Action Currently the City has initiated the “Shift Your Ride Travel Options Program” TDM program that provides residents with resources about active modes. This program should be expanded to include trainings, resources, and encouragement strategies that employers can use to promote active modes amongst their employees. In addition, the City should expand its TDM program to document program goals, objectives, desired outcomes, potential partners, and prospective users of the program to ensure consistency and sustainability of the program. This framework should be accompanied by a work plan that includes a proposed timeline, funding strategy, and staff needs. Additional near-term strategies to encourage active mobility may include: • Creating micromobility education and encouragement programs for adults. • Sharing information with employers on promoting active travel with tools such as secure bike parking and supportive facilities, purchasing or leasing e-bikes for employees, paying employees to commute by active modes, free or subsidized transit passes, and shared micromobility access. • Setting policy and performance measurement tools for institutionalizing TDM strategies into development projects. • Working with the Chamber of Commerce and Visit Fort Collins to create a walking and micromobility map for the City. The map should highlight popular tourist destinations along with routes for residents to get to desirable destinations. • Support businesses with achieving Bike Friendly Business and Best Workplaces for Commuters designations. Partner with these businesses to host Shift Your Ride Challenges and targeted engagement activities for their employees. • Using principles of behavior change theory, develop programming that reshapes social norms and attitudes towards active transportation. • Partner with community organizations, city leaders, and elected officials to host social rides and walks oriented towards specific neighborhoods or community groups. These events can help to build community, highlight destinations within walking or biking distance, and demonstrate that using active modes of transportation can be fun and easy. • Host events to introduce people to options for transporting cargo such as groceries or children by bike. • Expand the City’s bike buddy program to be inclusive of all active modes. The program partners residents with Bike Ambassadors who teach them everything they need to know about getting around by bike. • Raise awareness about active modes programs and classes with utility bill inserts, the Chamber’s relocation resource packet, short videos, and other creative marketing techniques. Page 149 Item 9. 46 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 5: Policy And Program Recommendations 5. Engaging Communities Meaningfully Around Active Modes Overarching policy: Active modes in Fort Collins should be designed for, used by, and supported by historically underserved groups 5a. Conduct equitable engagement that meaningfully involves and values participation by historically underserved groups. Background Equitable engagement in Fort Collins is a combination of efforts that support involving historically underserved residents of the city, specifically youth, low English proficiency speakers, low-income residents, people of color, people with disabilities, and the elderly. Equitable engagement goes beyond the “acts” of engagement – meetings, newsletter, etc. – and instead focuses on building strong, trusting, and sustainable relationships and partnerships. The first step in making engagement more equitable is building the capacity and knowledge of Fort Collins staff to understand the implications of race, culture, and socio-economic status in decision-making. Once the staff are trained to update their historic practices, the City can improve and standardize more inclusive engagement. Additionally, historically underserved communities should be genuinely valued -- and should feel valued -- in their roles providing insight, feedback, and recommendations to active modes processes and projects. Compensating community members for their knowledge and contribution to projects shows that they are valued and encourages sustainable relationship building. In Action The following should be completed to further Fort Collins' efforts on more equitable engagement: • City staff that work on active modes projects should all receive cultural competency training and education. This training should focus on groups that FC Moves staff currently interact with regularly, including K-12 youth, the LGBTQIA+ community, adults with limited English, people with disabilities, people from low- income households, seniors, and culturally, racially, and ethnically diverse people and groups. • Utilize the Health Equity Index to evaluate the effectiveness of active modes public engagement efforts and ensure outreach to historically marginalized demographic groups. • When working on transportation projects and active modes, staff should put extra emphasis on how a project may impact people walking or bicycling, and especially those who use active travel to connect to transit. • The City should create procedures, which include incentivization, to encourage residents and community-based organizations from historically underserved groups, to participate in active modes planning and project processes. • Create new ways to involve youth in City planning efforts, guided by University of Colorado Community Engagement, Design and Research Center, https:// www.colorado.edu/cedar/. • Create youth-friendly maps of the City, similar to what Growing Up Boulder has done: https://www. growingupboulder.org/child-and-teen--friendly-city- maps.html • Seek input from diverse community members on how active modes programming can best work for them and tailor programs, as needed, in response. • Transparently prioritize active modes improvements based on feedback from historically underrepresented groups. 5b. Continue to promote and grow Fort Collins’ Open Streets and Asphalt Art programs. Background Open Streets events are 1-2 miles of car-free, family- friendly streets where participants are encouraged to use active modes and enjoy “Activity Hubs”- temporary clusters of activity provided by local businesses and organizations. Historically, Open Streets (sometimes called “Ciclovia” events) have been used to engage the public in dialogue about how streets can be transformed into places for people, and have broadened the conversation about the economic, social, and public health functions of streets as public space. Open Streets routes are generally considered walkable and bikeable, Page 150 Item 9. 47 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 5: Policy And Program Recommendations and they include attractive neighborhood elements such as parks and other key destinations like churches, schools, and commercial centers. The Asphalt Art program is a collaborative program between the City and Bike Fort Collins that selects locations and artists to paint sections of the City’s bicycle and pedestrian networks to improve the users’ experience. Consider coordinating asphalt art installations with Open Streets celebrations. Both the Open Streets and Asphalt Art programs are opportunities for the City to engage historically underserved groups throughout the City and engage them in active modes in their neighborhoods. In Action Create a 10-year plan for both the Open Streets and Asphalt Art program that focuses on the programs’ abilities to integrate both placemaking and transportation functions when designing and managing streets, along with identifying opportunities to engage historically underserved groups. This plan should include, at minimum, the following: • Program goals, especially strategies for supporting ambitious street transformations • Consideration of opportunities for more regular, consistent street closures • Metrics of success, including measures such as local economic activity during street closures • Engagement strategies to encourage participation from historically underrepresented groups • Implementation strategies • Funding strategies • Staffing implications • Partnership strategies with community-based organizations • A framework to pilot projects for artistic and innovative sidewalk treatments and crosswalk treatments, and an expanded engineering toolbox of operational treatments to codify street space for active travel and placemaking (i.e., “paint-and-post” implementations) 5c. Increase the visibility and importance of the role of walking and access for people with disabilities in Fort Collins. Background Everybody is a pedestrian at some point of their trip, whether they make the trip by foot, bike, scooter, transit, or vehicle. However, in the world of active modes, walking often is overshadowed by advocacy around bicycling, which has historically had more vocal and organized advocates. More specifically, people with disabilities—mobility, vision, hearing, speech, cognitive, etc.—face acute barriers to mobility. Improvements that center people with disabilities enable independence and autonomy, and typically improve access for all users. For instance, curb cuts are a design tool targeted at people using wheelchairs, but ease travel for all, especially people pushing strollers or carts and delivery workers. Fort Collins understands the value of walking and rolling to the city’s future and recognizes that promoting safe and comfortable navigation by foot, by wheelchair, and by other mobility devices is essential to the city’s future growth and success, especially for historically underserved groups. As such, the city should take the initiative to foster the growth of advocacy and engagement opportunities for pedestrians, especially those with disabilities, and their advocates to build a strong foundation in the city. In Action Create and identify opportunities to address pedestrian issues and bring pedestrian-focused stakeholders into decision making processes through the following efforts: • Transition the City’s existing Bike Advisory Committee to an “Active Modes Advisory Committee” and make sure membership is reflective of mode use, people with disabilities, and historically underrepresented groups. • Continue and accelerate sidewalk infill program with the Sidewalk Prioritization Model. • Institutionalize documentation of identified and needed ADA improvements, and proactively continue to address ADA needs and compliance. • Review feedback from the City’s prior Walk Friendly Community application and use the application feedback to work towards achieving a “Gold” status. Asphalt Art Installation Page 151 Item 9. 48 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 5: Policy And Program Recommendations Pedestrian Wayfinding Panel (credit: NYC DOT) • Continue to conduct Poudre School District and City traffic-safety studies around schools, and act on implementing identified recommendations. • Create and launch a pedestrian safety campaign unique to Fort Collins (media announcements, crosswalk zebras, etc.). Highlight mobility challenges specific to people with disabilities, such as using a wheelchair or crossing the street as a blind or low- vision user, and promote awareness of street users most vulnerable during traffic crashes. • Implement district-based pedestrian wayfinding. 5d. Take action to move Fort Collins towards being a Vision Zero city. Background In 2016, Fort Collins was the first public local entity to join the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Moving Towards Zero Deaths initiative. The proclamation reflects the City’s commitment to the vision of zero traffic-related deaths. This CDOT initiative is related to the national and international Vision Zero safety project. To become a Vision Zero community, a city must meet specific criteria: • A clear goal to eliminate traffic fatalities and severe injuries is set. • The community has adopted a Vision Zero plan or strategy. • Key city departments are involved with leading the effort. • The Mayor has officially committed to Vision Zero. While Fort Collins is continually working towards their Vision Zero goals internally, it is also important to work with the community to educate them on what Vision Zero is, why it’s important, and how they can make their community’s roadways safer for all users, especially for those using active modes. In Action • Create a Vision Zero Action Plan that includes steps that Fort Collins will take to reach zero deaths and severe injuries on its roadways, as well as strategies to educate, involve, and empower the community in meeting the City’s goals. • Adopt Complete Street Standards that uphold Transportation Hierarchy and principles of Vision Zero. • Develop steps for following national best practices, such as new techniques for motor-vehicle speed reduction. Consider a blanket lower speed limit for all or part of the city, as has been done in other cities. • Leverage the regional Toward Zero Deaths policy adopted by the North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council to include Vision Zero policies, strategies, and goals into future projects and plans. Page 152 Item 9. Page 153 Item 9. CHAPTER 6: INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS Page 154 Item 9. 51 Fort Collins Active Mode Plan | Chapter 6: Infrastructure Recommendations The Fort Collins Active Modes Plan is oriented around the year 2032 and embraces a forward-thinking approach to active transportation infrastructure, policies, and programs, aiming to: achieve 50% active mode share by 2032, and to eliminate active mode fatalities and serious injuries by 2032. The AMP’s infrastructure recommendations reflect input received from diverse engagement activities and are supported by City staff expertise and data analysis, which identified gaps and barriers that affect walking and bicycling in Fort Collins. Analysis of the active transportation networks in Fort Collins considered the locations of low-stress crossing opportunities, high- comfort bicycle corridors, and high-priority sidewalk segments identified by the Fort Collins Sidewalk Prioritization Model. Additionally, recommendations were guided and informed by engagement efforts in which stakeholders and the public identified specific locations in need of improvements. The following pages illustrate proposed network improvements and locations for spot treatments, defined as improvements, such as building medians, upgrading crossings, and adding signage at specific locations within a larger segment of the network. Pedestrian infrastructure and bicycle infrastructure, which include other forms of rolling, were analyzed independently and therefore resulted in separate sets of recommendations. Recommendations are organized as follows: 1. Pedestrian Infrastructure Locations: Recommendations for spot treatments at high-priority intersections. 2. Bicycle Infrastructure Projects: Recommendations for bicycle facility improvements (linear projects) and recommendations for spot treatments at crossings. These recommendations seek to fulfill the Fort Collins AMP’s Big Moves including a Complete and Connected Network, Comprehensive Access to Destinations, a Healthy and Equitable Community, and Safe and Comfortable Travel. Network Development Approach As discussed in Chapter 2, the following themes guided network planning and analysis: • Adapt to growth • Consider varying travel needs • Unlock active modes for more trips • Design safe streets and intersections • Plan with context sensitivity Pedestrian Network Development To make walking a comfortable, convenient, and safe travel option for people of all ages and abilities, the City of Fort Collins seeks to provide a comprehensive and accessible sidewalk network. For many people with disabilities or using assistive mobility devices, a connected and accessible sidewalk network is essential for independent mobility. In 2013, based on a recommendation from the 2011 Pedestrian Plan, the City completed its first Pedestrian Needs Assessment, a citywide assessment of sidewalk conditions and prioritization of street segments for sidewalk improvement. Using the Pedestrian Needs Assessment, the City prioritizes, selects, and implements its annual Sidewalk Program, which aims to complete a fully connected and ADA-compliant walking and rolling network in Fort Collins. The City’s Sidewalk Program installs missing sidewalks and ramps and improves inadequate sidewalks and ramps, in accordance with the Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) and ADA standards for sidewalk cross slopes (2% maximum), running slopes (5% maximum), and sidewalk width (4 feet minimum). There are currently 221 miles of missing sidewalk in the city and 217 miles of existing sidewalks that are not ADA-compliant. Downtown Fort Collins and many of its residential neighborhoods have existing sidewalk coverage, but many neighborhood streets in the southern, western, and northeastern parts of the city have too narrow and inaccessible sidewalks or they are missing sidewalks altogether. To prioritize and close these sidewalk gaps, the Pedestrian Needs Assessment assigns a score to each sidewalk segment—one on either side of each block—based on three criteria: location, safety, and health and equity. The City uses these criteria each year to select and implement sidewalk projects, as displayed on Map 3. The Fort Collins AMP does not supersede the Pedestrian Needs Assessment. Rather, the Fort Collins AMP identifies spot improvements to complement the City’s Sidewalk Program to address access and comfort issues identified by network analysis and public feedback. Page 155 Item 9. 52 Fort Collins Active Mode Plan | Chapter 6: Infrastructure Recommendations Map 3: Pedestrian Needs Assessment, which guides the City’s Sidewalk Program. This AMP was informed by—but does not supercede—the Pedestrian Needs Assessment. Page 156 Item 9. 53 Fort Collins Active Mode Plan | Chapter 6: Infrastructure Recommendations for spot treatments. Finally, the analysis incorporated community feedback from engagement maps and outreach activities to inform the recommendations. What We Heard During outreach activities, community members shared feedback on barriers to mobility in the pedestrian network and identified locations where they would like to see pedestrian improvements. Community members communicated that the largest challenges for walking in Fort Collins are the long distances they must travel to reach key destinations and that they often feel unsafe walking, not knowing how or where to access low-stress pedestrian routes. Feedback revealed that the community feels the City’s top priorities should be improving sidewalk connectivity, intersections and crossings, and sidewalk widths and quality. Public mapping exercises pointed to specific regions where walking concerns are most prevalent in Fort Collins. The northern, downtown region of Fort Collins was where public mapping participants noted the majority of issues in the pedestrian infrastructure and indicates a need to focus on the downtown core. Areas of concern generally aligned with key destinations in Fort Collins where the community would most like to be able to safely and easily walk, including parks, schools and CSU campus, and commercial districts that offer shopping and grocery options, mainly located in the northern region. Feedback reaffirmed existing challenges to connect people to the pedestrian network via safe and accessible routes and crosswalks in the southern areas of Fort Collins. Map 4: Walking Distance to Access an Existing Low-Stress Crossing This map reflects an analysis of walking distance to an available low-stress crossing based on contextual factors including functional classification, posted speed, number of travel lanes, vehicle volume, and traffic control devices. The analysis findings were compared with and augmented by location-based public input to develop recommendations. Page 157 Item 9. 54 Fort Collins Active Mode Plan | Chapter 6: Infrastructure Recommendations Key Issues & Opportunities In addition to supporting the full build-out of the sidewalk network across the city, the Fort Collins AMP seeks to identify and close barriers to pedestrian mobility (especially for people with disabilities for whom walking and rolling access is essential), chiefly those that prevent safe and comfortable street crossings. Because Fort Collins’ arterial streets are laid out in a one-mile grid and—especially in the urban core neighborhoods—are multiple lanes wide, the arterial network often has limited opportunities for people to cross at marked crosswalks and requires pedestrians to cross long distances. The Fort Collins AMP focuses on identifying long gaps between comfortable and low-stress pedestrian crossings, and it makes recommendations for spot treatments to close those gaps. To identify crossing gaps, the Fort Collins AMP set a quarter-mile crossing distance goal: in typical circumstances, a person walking or rolling should not need to travel more than a quarter-mile to reach a low- stress crossing (or five minutes for someone walking or rolling at 3 mph, a typical pedestrian speed). In the downtown area, where pedestrians are placed atop the modal hierarchy, it is assumed that all crossings should be low-stress and give pedestrians priority for circulation. The technical analysis assessed each crossing in the city and assigned a high- or low-stress rating based on several contextual factors, including: • Functional classification of the street • Number of travel lanes for pedestrians to cross • Posted speed limit of the roadway being crossed • Average daily traffic volume of the roadway being crossed • Presence of a signal, beacon, or stop sign • Presence of a pedestrian median refuge Once each crossing leg of each intersection was graded, a geospatial analysis measured each street segment in the city for distance to a low-stress crossing (illustrated in Map 4). The segment analysis located opportunities for pedestrian improvements. Additionally, the Pedestrian Crash Risk Analysis (described on page 19 and illustrated on Map 1), which identified street segments and intersections that saw the most severe pedestrian-involved crashes from 2017-2021, was used to determine locations for spot treatments. Finally, the analysis incorporated community feedback from engagement maps and outreach activities to inform the recommendations. What We Heard During outreach activities, community members shared feedback on barriers to mobility in the pedestrian network and identified locations where they would like to see pedestrian improvements. Community members communicated that the largest challenges for walking in Fort Collins are the long distances they must travel to reach key destinations and that they often feel unsafe walking, not knowing how or where to access low-stress pedestrian routes. Feedback revealed that the community feels the City’s top priorities should be improving sidewalk connectivity, intersections and crossings, and sidewalk widths and quality. Public mapping exercises pointed to specific regions where walking concerns are most prevalent in Fort Collins. The northern, downtown region of Fort Collins was where public mapping participants noted the majority of issues in the pedestrian infrastructure and indicates a need to focus on the downtown core. Areas of concern generally aligned with key destinations in Fort Collins where the community would most like to be able to safely and easily walk, including parks, schools and CSU campus, and commercial districts that offer shopping and grocery options, mainly located in the northern region. Feedback reaffirmed existing challenges to connect people to the pedestrian network via safe and accessible routes and crosswalks in the southern areas of Fort Collins. Map 4: Walking Distance to Access an Existing Low-Stress Crossing Page 158 Item 9. 55 Fort Collins Active Mode Plan | Chapter 6: Infrastructure Recommendations Bicycle Network Development The Fort Collins AMP aims to bring high-comfort infrastructure for bicycling and rolling within reach of every person in Fort Collins, regardless of age, ability, or experience. The city currently has a strong foundational bicycle network with 266 miles of on-street bikeways and 97 miles of paved off-street trails and pathways available for bicycling and non-motorized micromobility. Key Issues & Opportunities The Fort Collins AMP targets “Interested but Concerned” bicyclists, i.e., people who are interested in bicycling and have concerns about personal safety or stress from riding alongside motor vehicle traffic. As displayed in Table 11, national surveys suggest that the majority of the population falls into this category. What We Heard During outreach activities, community members shared feedback on bicycling and rolling comfort in Fort Collins and where they would like to see bicycle infrastructure improvements. Community members communicated that the largest challenges for bicycling and rolling in Fort Collins are that they do not feel safe bicycling in mixed traffic and find intersections and unprotected trail crossings unsafe and dangerous to navigate. Gaps and disconnects in the bicycle network and wayfinding network are also significant challenges. Feedback revealed that the community feels the City’s top priorities should be expanding the bicycle network and building more protected bicycle infrastructure. Public mapping exercises pointed to specific regions where bicycling concerns are most prevalent in Fort Collins. Online mapping participants noted the most issues in the bicycling and rolling infrastructure in the northern region of Fort Collins. Areas of concern aligned with destinations in Fort Collins where the community would like to be able to safely and easily bicycle and roll, including parks, schools, and commercial districts that offer shopping and grocery options. Southern Fort Collins, particularly East Harmony Road and to the south, was also identified as an area that lacks important bicycling and rolling infrastructure, which impedes access to important destinations like Edora Park and the Foothills Shopping Mall. The City classifies each of its on- street bicycle facilities into two categories: • High Comfort—which are expected to provide an inviting riding experience to people of all ages, abilities, and capabilities, especially centering the experiences of Interested but Concerned riders • Low Comfort—which can be useful to those users who are skilled and confident bicycling with motor vehicle traffic but are not expected to be broadly appealing to all riders. 148 miles of the City’s existing bicycle network is classified as “high comfort,” while 121 miles of the City’s bicycle network are classified as “low comfort.” Table 11: Comfort Typology of Bicyclists Page 159 Item 9. 56 Fort Collins Active Mode Plan | Chapter 6: Infrastructure Recommendations Implementation Toolkit Recommendations in this plan are divided into two categories: bicycle network facilities and multimodal spot treatments. Bicycle Facility Tools Bicycle facilities, or linear infrastructure that enables high-comfort bicycling, scootering, and use of micromobility devices, were selected based on contextual appropriateness to provide an inviting active travel experience for the broadest range of potential users. Roadway factors considered in facility selection include motor vehicle speed and volumes, number of travel lanes, frequency of curb cuts and driveways, and implementation feasibility. With the goal of creating a comprehensive and continuous citywide network, street segments and facilities were evaluated for the most appropriate facilities to meet the AMP’s goals, and for the necessary implementation actions to achieve each facility. Where practical, facilities are recommended to fit within the existing roadway, either by narrowing excessively wide travel lanes, reallocating travel lanes where vehicles volumes exceeded the current number of travel lanes, or reallocating on-street parking. Where the existing roadbed was insufficient to accommodate a bicycle facility, either more involved construction measures are recommended (such as moving curb lines), or a suitable parallel route was identified to minimize diversion. In some cases, as projects are refined, additional right- of-way acquisition may be required to implement the recommended facility. Bicycle facilities include: • Neighborhood Bikeway: Street that has low motorized traffic volumes and speeds, and prioritizes bicycle travel through signage, pavement markings, and traffic calming features. Bicycle Boulevard is another term for Neighborhood Bikeway. • Paved Shoulder: Separated space for the operation of bicycles and micromobility, but are not considered dedicated travel lanes. • Conventional Bicycle Lane: Exclusive space for bicyclists and micromobility users to travel in designated lane with pavement markings, but is not separated or buffered from motor vehicle traffic. • Buffered Bicycle Lane: Separated from motor vehicle traffic by a dedicated buffer space marked on the pavement. • Separated Bicycle Lane: Separated from both motor vehicles and pedestrian traffic by a physical buffer such as bollards or constructed curb. • Sidepath: Facilities completely separated from motor vehicle traffic, built within separate right-of way (ROW), that may be used by most active modes. Depending on the context, some facilities do not currently permit electric micromobility devices other than e-bikes. Page 160 Item 9. 57 Fort Collins Active Mode Plan | Chapter 6: Infrastructure Recommendations Spot Treatment Tools Pedestrian Spot Treatments While the Pedestrian Needs Assessment and City Sidewalk Program inform which street segments have sidewalks and accessible curb ramps constructed, the following treatments were considered for the planned spot improvements (see Map 6). These comprise overarching treatment categories; planners and designers should refer to LCUASS and other relevant guidance and standards when selecting and designing pedestrian infrastructure. Treatment Description Typical Application High-Visibility Crosswalk Crosswalk with either continental or ladder markings to increase crossing conspicuity and visibility for people with low vision Anywhere the pedestrian route crosses a street, including higher volume and higher speed streets. Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon or RRFB Actuated Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon or Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon Unsignalized intersections or midblock crossings, especially on multi-lane roadways; beacons should be paired with high-visibility crosswalks and crossing may optionally be raised Signal Operations Change Leading pedestrian intervals, protected turn phases, or exclusive pedestrian phases Where turning vehicles conflict with people walking and rolling, signal operations give pedestrians priority. Leading intervals may give pedestrians a 3-7 second head start. Turn movements across the crosswalk may also be fully separated and can lag the pedestrian crossing phase to reduce pedestrian delay. Median Refuge or Diverter Minimum 6-foot wide refuge island installed in the median between travel directions, which may optionally restrict vehicle movements Often suitable on multi-lane roads to shorten crossing exposure and add refuge space, as well as to add visual friction and calm through and turning speeds. On very wide streets, median refuges should include push buttons so that slower pedestrians don’t get trapped in the median. Geometric Redesign Reconfiguration of the intersection to mitigate conflicts, including bulb-outs, raised crossings, or turn lane removal Where wide crossing distances, large curb radii, or slip lanes increase pedestrian exposure, geometric redesign may enhance safety and comfort. New Pedestrian Crossing New signal installation or intersection construction Especially on high-speed or high- volume roadways, or adjacent to priority destinations such as schools or commercial districts. Page 161 Item 9. 58 Fort Collins Active Mode Plan | Chapter 6: Infrastructure Recommendations Bicycle Spot Treatment Tools The proposed bicycle network provides direction for what facilities to place on large segments across Fort Collins. It is equally important to ensure these new facilities are both well connected and safely connected and that areas where facilities are not proposed will be comfortable for bicycling and rolling. The following treatments were considered for the planned spot improvements (see Map 6). Recommended spot projects focus primarily on applying crossing treatments and widening existing infrastructure. While these comprise overarching treatment categories, planners and designers should refer to LCUASS and other relevant guidance and standards when selecting and designing bicycle infrastructure. Treatment Description Typical Application Signs and Markings Crossing, approach, or conflict markings and signage Typically low-volume and low-speed crossing locations where increased conspicuity can improve crossing comfort Signals Actuated Hybrid Beacon, Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon, or new signal construction At existing uncontrolled or midblock locations where bicycle demand or conflicts may necessitate enhanced crossing infrastructure Two-Way Sidepath Short bidirectional bikeway to close short gaps Offset crossings and half signals Intersection Redesign Complex redesign of intersections to increase separation in space or time for bicyclists and active users Generally at signalized locations where traffic and bicycling conditions require full design New Connection Trail, underpass, or overpass typically outside of right-of-way to bridge key network barriers Rail crossings, surface parking lots, or informal access paths Page 162 Item 9. 59 Fort Collins Active Mode Plan | Chapter 6: Infrastructure Recommendations Bicycle and Micromobility Network Recommendations Since the 2014 Bicycle Master Plan’s adoption, Fort Collins has implemented 53 miles of new bicycle infrastructure. This Fort Collins Active Modes Plan builds on that strong foundation of on- and off-street lanes, trails, and neighborhood bicycling routes, and it aims to enhance comfort and safety for all types of riders, regardless of skill level or experience. Using the Fort Collins AMP’s vision and goals, the following network design principles guided route and facility selection recommendations: • The bicycle network should connect people to their destinations, with a concentrated focus on equitable access. Schools, commercial districts, job centers, parks, and recreation facilities are priorities for access. Where destinations are more densely located, the bicycle network should also be more dense. • The bicycle network should foster direct, understandable routes and minimize diversion to reduce delay and maximize accessibility for all types of riders. • Facility recommendations must match roadway context and create routes that feel safe and comfortable for all ages, abilities, and capabilities. Bicycle facilities should minimize conflicts between street users who have different travel speeds and masses; on routes with higher vehicle traffic speeds and volumes, increase separation in space and time. • Focus on high-comfort routes and facilities. Consider likely sources of stress (e.g., wide or busy crossings, frequent stops) when designating bicycle routes. The planned network, adds the following facilities: • 45 miles of shared-use paths or sidepaths adjacent to roadways • 64 miles of separated bicycle lanes • 11 miles of buffered bicycle lanes • 3 miles of conventional bicycle lanes • 21 miles of neighborhood bikeways Map 5: Bicycle and Micromobility Network Facility Recommendations, Existing Trails, and Planned and Existing Crossings From the Community “Crossing the busiest streets in Fort Collins still feels dangerous. I have had numerous occasions where drivers are rushing through traffic lights and nearly hit me. I have seen multiple bicyclists hit by cars at busy intersections.” “Fort Collins has minimal separated and protected lanes and the south/southeast side of town where I live doesn’t contiguously connect to the larger trail system.” “We should have safe and minimally complex routes to move around the city on bicycles. Currently, putting together a route, especially north-south, is complex and winding which reduces options for bicycling instead of driving.” “Need more bicycle lanes separated from traffic, like the ones on Mulberry.” “I would like to see better bicycle and micromobility connections to the north side of Fort Collins.” Page 163 Item 9. 60 Fort Collins Active Mode Plan | Chapter 6: Infrastructure Recommendations Bicycle and Micromobility Network Recommendations Since the 2014 Bicycle Master Plan’s adoption, Fort Collins has implemented 53 miles of new bicycle infrastructure. This Fort Collins Active Modes Plan builds on that strong foundation of on- and off-street lanes, trails, and neighborhood bicycling routes, and it aims to enhance comfort and safety for all types of riders, regardless of skill level or experience. Using the Fort Collins AMP’s vision and goals, the following network design principles guided route and facility selection recommendations: • The bicycle network should connect people to their destinations, with a concentrated focus on equitable access. Schools, commercial districts, job centers, parks, and recreation facilities are priorities for access. Where destinations are more densely located, the bicycle network should also be more dense. • The bicycle network should foster direct, understandable routes and minimize diversion to reduce delay and maximize accessibility for all types of riders. • Facility recommendations must match roadway context and create routes that feel safe and comfortable for all ages, abilities, and capabilities. Bicycle facilities should minimize conflicts between street users who have different travel speeds and masses; on routes with higher vehicle traffic speeds and volumes, increase separation in space and time. • Focus on high-comfort routes and facilities. Consider likely sources of stress (e.g., wide or busy crossings, frequent stops) when designating bicycle routes. The planned network, adds the following facilities: • 45 miles of shared-use paths or sidepaths adjacent to roadways • 64 miles of separated bicycle lanes • 11 miles of buffered bicycle lanes • 3 miles of conventional bicycle lanes • 21 miles of neighborhood bikeways Map 5: Bicycle and Micromobility Network Facility Recommendations, Existing Trails, and Planned and Existing Crossings Laporte Elizabeth Prospect Drake Horsetooth Harmony Mulberry Vine OVerland TrTaft HillShieldsCollegeLemayTimberlineZieglerTurnberryTimberlinePage 164 Item 9. 61 Fort Collins Active Mode Plan | Chapter 6: Infrastructure Recommendations Spot Treatment Recommendations Between 2016 and 2020, the City Sidewalk Program constructed more than 250 accessible ramps and more than 7 miles of new or repaired sidewalk. As this citywide build-out continues, this Plan seeks to bridge critical connections in the pedestrian network. The Fort Collins AMP does not supersede the Pedestrian Needs Assessment. Rather, the Fort Collins AMP identifies spot improvements to complement the City’s Sidewalk Program and address access and comfort issues identified by network analysis and public feedback. Using the Fort Collins AMP’s vision and goals, the following network design principles guided route and facility selection recommendations: • The pedestrian network should connect people to their destinations, with a concentrated focus on equitable access. Schools, commercial districts, job centers, parks, and recreation facilities are priorities for access. • The pedestrian network should provide direct paths and regular opportunities to cross the street, reducing delay and maximizing network accessibility. • The pedestrian network should prioritize improvements on streets that are less safe and comfortable for people walking and rolling, and reduce injury risk especially on major arterial streets. • Spot recommendations must match roadway context and existing pedestrian conditions. Pedestrian facilities should minimize conflict especially with motor vehicles by providing separation both in space and time. Places where people walking or using mobility devices must cross multiple lanes of traffic, must cross unmarked or uncontrolled intersections, or where safe crossing distance is greater than a quarter-mile out of direction will all decrease comfort and potentially increase risk for pedestrians. • The recommendations consider segments of roadway where safety and crash risk issues have been identified, where large gaps between comfortable crossings currently exist (a quarter-mile is generally used as a guideline, though may be more frequent in the urban core), or where dense activities or trip generators are expected. This AMP recommends: • 24 locations with changes to Signal Operations, • 19 locations with High-Visibility Markings and Signage, • 37 locations with new Signals, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons, or Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons, • 15 new Median Refuge Islands, Intersection Diverters, or Offset Crossings, • 49 intersections where Geometric Redesign is indicated, and • 21 New Connections or Crossings, which may include constructing new intersections or short path segments. Map 6: Spot Improvement Recommendations, Existing Trails, and Planned and Existing Crossings From the Community “If you are BIPOC you might not have sidewalks in your neighborhood. Also many of the sidewalks are only 36” wide which is nearly impossible to use with a wheelchair.” “Most of the streets are engineered with only cars in mind and are hazardous to cross, especially on College, where the massive big box corporate chains have moved in.” “Outside of very specific block faces in Old Town, almost every intersection or block has some major missing feature related to basic pedestrian safety including painted crosswalks, pedestrian bulb-outs, etc.” “There are too many huge residential intersections that encourage fast driving and take a long time to cross.” Page 165 Item 9. 62 Fort Collins Active Mode Plan | Chapter 6: Infrastructure Recommendations This AMP recommends: • 24 locations with changes to Signal Operations, • 19 locations with High-Visibility Markings and Signage, • 37 locations with new Signals, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons, or Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons, • 15 new Median Refuge Islands, Intersection Diverters, or Offset Crossings, • 49 intersections where Geometric Redesign is indicated, and • 21 New Connections or Crossings, which may include constructing new intersections or short path segments. Map 6: Spot Improvement Recommendations, Existing Trails, and Planned and Existing Crossings Laporte Elizabeth Prospect Drake Horsetooth Harmony Mulberry Vine OVerland TrTaft HillShieldsCollegeLemayTimberlineZieglerTurnberryTimberlinePage 166 Item 9. Page 167 Item 9. CHAPTER 7: IMPLEMENTING THE VISION Page 168 Item 9. 65 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 7: Implementing The Vision Putting Big Moves into Action The Implementation Strategy translates the Fort Collins AMP’s Big Moves into an actionable set of projects and phases, as well as an order of magnitude assessment of what resources may be needed to deliver on the AMP’s goals. • To expand a Complete & Connected Network, this implementation strategy assesses how effectively projects bridge connections to existing and planned active transportation facilities, and priority destinations (e.g., schools, parks, childcare, senior living, and commercial districts). • To nurture a Healthy & Equitable Community by leveraging the City’s Health-Equity Index score to guide project selection and prioritization. • To promote Safe & Comfortable Travel by focusing efforts on the Bicycle & Walking High-Injury Network and closing gaps for multimodal users. • To foster a Supportive and Inclusive Culture by raising awareness for multimodal transportation through street design and infrastructure. This Implementation Strategy is a roadmap to pursue and achieve the goals set forth in Chapter 3: • Achieve 50 percent active mode share by 2032. • Projects are prioritized that focus on capturing and connecting short trips for bicycling and walking. • The multimodal network connects people to destinations. • The citywide transportation system reduces barriers to walking and bicycling caused by traffic stress and discomfort. • Eliminate active mode fatalities and serious injuries by 2032. • Projects aim to address all streets on the High- Injury Network by 2032. Prioritizing Projects The Fort Collins AMP’s prioritization framework is a data-driven process to determine project impact, i.e., what projects will improve the pedestrian and bicycle networks most effectively. For prioritizing pedestrian and bicycle projects, the Fort Collins AMP used a two-step prioritization process: an “outcomes-based” step followed by an “implementation-based” step. Based on feedback from the public and community stakeholders, it is critical that both the projects themselves and the strategy for delivering those projects reflect the City’s values and goals while strategically building momentum and delivering the most benefit possible. The prioritization process includes four factors which represent core values of the Fort Collins AMP, and within those factors are a series of measures to operationalize the factors. Multiple Paths to Implementation Based on project prioritization and the Fort Collins AMP’s primary goals for active mode share and active mode safety, this section offers a project selection and implementation strategy based on three time horizons: • High Priority/Readiness, which is anticipated to take place in the first five years of plan rollout; these projects are generally concentrated around strengthening the core network, while improving strategic crossing locations citywide. • Medium Priority/Readiness, anticipated to roll out in five to ten years; this phase expands the core network to a larger geography of the city and includes more complex projects. • Low Priority/Readiness projects complete the “full- build” network and include transformational projects to complete the citywide network, but may be delivered beyond the ten-year plan horizon. Because resources—both funding and time—are limited, this implementation strategy seeks to maximize the impact of projects based on the Fort Collins AMP’s goals by implementing transformational (but often small-scale) “quick-win” projects in the near term and gathering momentum to implement the larger and more complex projects strategically over a longer period. Page 169 Item 9. 66 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 7: Implementing The Vision While the prioritization list that follows reflects a strategic roll-out based on the AMP’s goals, values, and practicality based on current conditions, opportunities may arise that shift the prioritization over time. This prioritization exists as the first leg in a three-legged stool of implementation approaches: 1. Grow funding to prioritize strategic efforts to increase network connectivity, connect key destinations, and implement strategic crossing improvements citywide. This can include extending the Community Capital Improvement Program, requesting expanded support through Budgeting for Outcomes, and seeking state and federal grants to implement transformational projects. 2. Maximizing existing programs, such as the Street Maintenance Program, subsurface utility projects, or major capital projects where core funded programs or grant opportunities can unlock synergies. 3. Leveraging partnerships and development to seize opportunities through development review and partnerships with major stakeholders such as Larimer County and Colorado State University to implement network segments. As the Active Modes Plan becomes more institutionalized over time, coordination of efforts across City departments can allow the AMP to become a critical driver of citywide infrastructure investments and accelerate plan delivery. Pedestrian Projects For pedestrian projects, the outcomes-based step scored and ranked projects, which were then grouped into quintiles. Those factors and measures are included below in Table 12. After the projects were grouped based on alignment with the outcomes-based factors, projects were then ranked based on implementation-based factors and measures (Table 13). Factor Measure Weight Network Connectivity Number of connections to existing and planned sidewalks or trails 40% Number of priority destinations within 1/4 mile Access Number of transit stations or stops within 1/4 mile (weighted by service frequency) 20% Safety and Comfort Pedestrian High-Injury Network 20% Distance to low-stress crossing Health and Equity Health-Equity Index score 20% Table 12: Outcomes-Based Prioritization for Pedestrian Projects Factor Measure Weight Cost Planning-level opinion of probable cost 25% Readiness Whether or not additional study or planning is needed, based on implementation action 25% Multimodal Benefit Coincides with another modal network plan (e.g., bicycle or transit) 25% Synergy Overlap with planned or programmed projects (e.g., Transportation Capital Projects Prioritization Study, Street Maintenance Program) 25% Table 13: Implementation-Based Prioritization for Pedestrian Projects A complete list of the pedestrian projects, organized by outcomes-based score and implementation-based score, can be found in Appendix E: Prioritization Scoring. Page 170 Item 9. 67 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 7: Implementing The Vision Bicycle Projects Similar to the pedestrian projects, the bicycle projects were scored and ranked using a two-step prioritization process which included an outcomes-based step and an implementation-based step. The criteria for the outcomes- based step are listed below in Table 14. Factor Measure Weight Network Connectivity Number of connections to existing and planned bikeways or trails 40% Number of priority destinations within 1/4 mile Access Number of transit stations or stops within 1/4 mile (weighted by service frequency) 20% Safety and Comfort Bicycle High-Injury Network 20%Difference between existing and proposed comfort designation Health and Equity Health-Equity Index score 20% Table 14: Outcomes-Based Prioritization for Bicycle Projects All network projects were geospatially evaluated and ranked for alignment with the Fort Collins AMP’s goals and values. Once the outcomes-based step was completed, projects within each of the ranked groupings were evaluated for implementation-based criteria (Table 15) to develop the final prioritization and identify the first projects that could be delivered. The top-ranking projects are illustrated in Map 7. Factor Measure Weight Cost Planning-level opinion of probable cost 25% Readiness Whether or not additional study or planning is needed, based on implementation action 25% Multimodal Benefit Coincides with another modal network plan (e.g., pedestrian or transit) 25% Synergy Overlap with planned or programmed projects (e.g., Transportation Capital Projects Prioritization Study, Street Maintenance Program) 25% Table 15: Implementation-Based Prioritization for Bicycle Projects Because the Fort Collins AMP’s recommended bicycle network and spot treatments include a mix of projects that are either complex capital design projects or small projects that can be integrated into regular operations and maintenance, the implementation strategy generally separates projects by the required action to implement (simple striping and signage modifications compared to complex design and construction). The implementation strategy assumes a mix of projects each period so that the bicycle network includes both “quick-win” connections and larger transformational projects that have the greatest impact on network connectivity and comfort. A complete list of the bicycle projects, organized by value-based score and implementation-based score, can be found in Appendix E: Prioritization Scoring. Page 171 Item 9. 68 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 7: Implementing The Vision High Priority/Readiness Projects In the near term, to achieve the goals of improving safety and increasing mode share, the focus is placed on quick wins— projects that can be readily implemented and will have immediate impact. Project Focus PID Street Cross-Street or Extents Treatment Length (mi) Outcomes Score Imple. Score Cost Opinion (2022) Pedestrian 7 Drake Timberline Signal Operations Spot 44 8 $ 206,000 Lemay Geometric Redesign Spot Shields Signal Operations Spot Shields St Casa Grande Signal Operations Spot Pedestrian 46 Harmony Rd Mason Signal Operations Spot 44 8 $ 206,000 Boardwalk Signal Operations Spot Lemay Signal Operations Spot Starflower Geometric Redesign Spot Pedestrian 1 College Ave Willow Signal Operations Spot 44 7 $ 109,000 Laporte Signal Operations Spot Mountain Signal Operations Spot Olive Signal Operations Spot Magnolia Signal Operations Spot Pedestrian 4 Mulberry St College Signal Operations Spot 44 7 $ 453,000 Mason Signal Operations Spot Loomis Geometric Redesign Spot Shields Signal Operations Spot Taft Hill Signal Operations Spot Whitcomb / Canyon Geometric Redesign Spot Pedestrian 11 Willow St Linden High-Visibility Crosswalk Spot 46 3 $ 50,000 Lincoln Beacon / RRFB Spot Pedestrian 29 Taft Hill Rd Prospect Signal Operations Spot 40 8 $ 153,000 Valley Forge Geometric Redesign Spot 40 8 Pedestrian 3 College Ave Monroe Signal Operations Spot 42 6 $ 303,000 Rutgers Geometric Redesign Spot Columbia Geometric Redesign Spot Pedestrian 9* Shields St Plum Geometric Redesign Spot 44 4 $ 600,000 Elizabeth St Shields Geometric Redesign Spot Taft Hill Geometric Redesign Spot Constitution Geometric Redesign Spot Bicycle 61 Taft Hill Rd Glenmoor Signals Spot 45 2 $ 600,000 Pedestrian 2 College Ave Laurel Signal Operations Spot 44 3 $ 343,000 Prospect Geometric Redesign Spot Mason Trail Prospect Geometric Redesign Spot Pedestrian 10 Mason St Mountain Signal Operations Spot 38 7 $ 6,000 Olive Signal Operations Spot Bicycle 51 W Prospect Rd Sheely Dr Signals Spot 40 5 $ 600,000 Bicycle 33 E Magnolia St Remington St Signs & Markings Spot 40 4 $ 3,000 *Project includes a partner such as Colorado DOT, Larimer County, or Colorado State University Page 172 Item 9. 69 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 7: Implementing The Vision Project Focus PID Street Cross-Street or Extents Treatment Length (mi) Outcomes Score Imple. Score Cost Opinion (2022) Pedestrian 5 Mulberry St Stover Beacon / RRFB Spot 40 4 $ 1,302,000 Remington Median / Diverter Spot Peterson New Crossing Spot Bicycle 30 Mountain Ave, Lincoln Ave N Howes St - Willow St Buffered Bike Lane, Separated Bike Lane 0.5 38 6 $ 193,000 Pedestrian 31 Harmony Rd Corbett Geometric Redesign Spot 37 7 $ 200,000 Timberline Signal Operations Spot Bicycle 52 W Lake St S Shields St - S Mason St Separated Bike Lane 1.2 39 5 $ 251,000 Bicycle 50 E Vine Dr Jerome St Signals Spot 42 2 $ 600,000 Pedestrian 22 Lemay Ave Prospect Signal Operations Spot 36 7 $ 100,000 Stuart Signal Operations Spot Bicycle 39 S Shields St W Mulberry St - Davidson Dr Separated Bike Lane 1.6 38 5 $ 1,489,000 Bicycle 32 Magnolia St S Sherwood St - Whedbee St Bike Boulevard 0.8 37 5 $ 29,000 Bicycle 41 S Shields St W Lake St Two-Way Sidepath Spot 34 8 $ 29,000 Pedestrian 21 Lemay Mulberry Geometric Redesign Spot 39 3 $ 150,000 Bicycle 2 E Elizabeth St S College Ave Intersection redesign Spot 37 4 $ 585,000 Bicycle 7 S Taft Hill Rd W Elizabeth St - W Horsetooth Rd Separated Bike Lane 2.5 34 7 $ 707,000 Bicycle 52 City Park Ave W Mulberry St Signals Spot 35 6 $ 600,000 Bicycle 6 S Taft Hill Rd Laporte Ave - W Elizabeth St Separated Bike Lane 1.1 34 6 $ 279,000 Bicycle 12 Birch St S Shields St Signs & Markings Spot 34 6 $ 3,000 Bicycle 28 Jefferson St N College Ave - E Mountain Ave Separated Bike Lane 0.5 35 5 $ 116,000 Pedestrian 40 Shields Stuart Geometric Redesign Spot 36 4 $ 150,000 Pedestrian 15 Mason Maple Geometric Redesign Spot 38 2 $ 150,000 Bicycle 35 Birch St, Crestmore Pl, Skyline Dr Orchard Pl - City Park Ave Bike Boulevard 1.4 32 7 $ 6,000 Bicycle 36 Glenmoor Dr, W Plum St S Taft Hill Rd - Skyline Dr Bike Boulevard 1.1 32 7 $ 3,000 Bicycle 50 Springfield Dr Castlerock Dr - S Shields St Bike Boulevard 0.6 32 7 $ 6,000 Bicycle 12 S Shields St W Mountain Ave - W Mulberry St Separated Bike Lane 2.2 31 7 $ 111,000 Pedestrian 67 Horsetooth Platte Median / Diverter Spot 33 6 $ 234,000 Auntie Stone Median / Diverter Bicycle 47 Castlerock Dr, Lake St, Skyline Dr, Clearview Ave S Taft Hill Rd - W Elizabeth St Bike Boulevard 3.5 34 5 $ 5,000 Bicycle 58*Gillette Dr Phemister Rd - W Drake Rd Separated Bike Lane 3.0 34 5 $ 135,000 Bicycle 76 E Horsetooth Rd S Lemay Ave - Ziegler Rd Separated Bike Lane 0.7 34 5 $ 561,000 Bicycle 11 Conifer St N College Ave Intersection redesign Spot 34 5 $ 585,000 Bicycle 57 Centre Ave S Shields St - Phemister Rd Separated Bike Lane 1.0 35 4 $ 347,000 Bicycle 40 S Shields St Davidson Dr - Hilldale Dr Separated Bike Lane 0.1 32 6 $ 777,000 *Project includes a partner such as Colorado DOT, Larimer County, or Colorado State University Page 173 Item 9. 70 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 7: Implementing The Vision Project Focus PID Street Cross-Street or Extents Treatment Length (mi) Outcomes Score Imple. Score Cost Opinion (2022) Bicycle 11 Laporte Ave Fishback Ave - N Washington Ave Bike Lane 1.7 33 5 $ 61,000 Bicycle 104 Boardwalk Dr JFK - Harmony Buffered Bike Lane 0.3 33 5 $ 51,000 Pedestrian 72 Riverside Ave Prospect Rd Geometric Redesign Spot 33 5 $ 150,000 Bicycle 64 Drake Rd S Taft Hill Rd - Tulane Dr Separated Bike Lane 0.3 34 3 $ 1,312,000 Bicycle 74 W Horsetooth Rd Richmond Dr - S Mason St Sidepath (both sides)0.8 34 3 $ 2,594,000 Bicycle 51*W Pitkin St S Shields St - S College Ave Separated Bike Lane 0.7 33 4 $ 1,314,000 Pedestrian 13 Magnolia Sherwood Geometric Redesign Spot 33 3 $ 903,000 Loomis Geometric Redesign Spot Meldrum Geometric Redesign Spot Washington High-Visibility Crosswalk Spot Pedestrian 12 Olive Remington Geometric Redesign Spot 34 2 $ 300,000 Mathews Geometric Redesign Spot Bicycle 40 N Roosevelt Ave Laporte Ave Signals Spot 30 5 $ 600,000 Pedestrian 60 Ziegler Saber Cat Beacon / RRFB Spot 29 6 $ 32,000 Bicycle 44 Centre Ave W Lake St Intersection redesign Spot 35 0 $ 585,000 Bicycle 59 Booth Rd Tietz Dr - Bay Rd Sidepath (one side)0.5 32 3 $ 130,000 Bicycle 62 S Lemay Ave E Stuart St - E Horsetooth Rd Sidepath (both sides)0.2 32 3 $ 4,439,000 Bicycle 62 Spring Creek Trail Taft Hill Rd New connection Spot 32 3 $ 320,000 Pedestrian 30 Taft Hill Lake New Crossing Spot 32 2 $ 585,000 Bicycle 7 E Horsetooth Rd Kingsley Dr Signals Spot 27 6 $ 600,000 Bicycle 1 E Prospect St Stover St Two-Way Sidepath Spot 27 6 $ 29,000 Bicycle 48 S Howes St W Laurel St Signs & Markings Spot 29 4 $ 3,000 Bicycle 39 S College Ave Rutgers Ave New connection Spot 32 1 $ 320,000 Bicycle 26 W Stuart St S Taft Hill Rd (Project #1)Two-Way Sidepath Spot 26 5 $ 29,000 Bicycle 34 Riverside Ave E Mulberry St Intersection redesign Spot 29 2 $ 585,000 Bicycle 46 Jackson Ave W Mulberry St Two-Way Sidepath Spot 23 6 $ 29,000 Pedestrian 48 Cinquefoil Kechter Median / Diverter Spot 21 4 $ 32,000 Bicycle 20 S Timberline Rd E Lincoln Ave Intersection redesign Spot 21 2 $ 585,000 Pedestrian 25 Frey Laporte Geometric Redesign Spot 21 2 $ 150,000 Pedestrian 75 Mason Trail Prospect Rd Beacon / RRFB Spot 18 3 $ 600,000 Pedestrian 34 Timberline Horsetooth Geometric Redesign Spot 17 3 $ 150,000 Bicycle 8 E Horsetooth Rd Caribou Dr Signals Spot 18 2 $ 600,000 High-Priority/Readiness Phase, Opinion of Probable Cost: $30,400,000 over five years (2022 costs) Page 174 Item 9. 71 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 7: Implementing The Vision ShieldsMap 7: High Priority/Readiness Projects Laporte Elizabeth Prospect Drake Horsetooth Harmony Trilby Mulberry Vine OVerland TrTaft HillCollegeLemayTimberlineZieglerKechter Page 175 Item 9. 72 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 7: Implementing The Vision Medium Priority/Readiness Projects In the medium priority/readiness phase of implementation, program resources and capacity grow to deliver more and more complex projects. Project Type PID Street Cross-Street or Extents Treatment Length (mi) Outcomes Score Imple. Score Cost Opinion (2022) Bicycle 24 Timberline Rd Annabel Ave - E Prospect Rd Separated Bike Lane 1.8 31 6 $ 605,000 Bicycle 65 E Drake Rd Tulane Dr - Rigden Pkwy Sidepath (both sides)0.5 34 2 $ 5,817,000 Bicycle 75 E Horsetooth Rd Mitchell Dr - S Lemay Ave Sidepath (both sides)0.3 34 2 $ 2,941,000 Bicycle 46 Clearview Ave Ponderosa Dr - Skyline Dr Bike Boulevard 1.0 30 6 $ 4,000 Bicycle 48 W Lake St S Overland Tr - S Taft Hill Rd Bike Boulevard 1.1 30 6 $ 7,000 Bicycle 69 Worthington Ave W Drake Rd - W Swallow Rd Bike Boulevard 1.6 30 6 $ 4,000 Pedestrian 19 3rd St Lincoln Beacon / RRFB Spot 30 6 $ 32,000 Pedestrian 20 Riverside Lemay Geometric Redesign Spot 31 5 $ 150,000 Bicycle 67 Water Blossom Ln, Willow Fern Way W Drake Rd - Marshwood Dr Bike Boulevard 1.0 28 7 $ 2,000 Bicycle 56*Rolland Moore Dr, Phemister Rd S Shields St - Bay Rd Separated Bike Lane, Bike Lane 1.7 30 5 $ 331,000 Bicycle 85 Harmony Rd S Taft Hill Rd - S Lemay Ave Separated Bike Lane 2.6 30 5 $ 1,218,000 Bicycle 29 Linden St Walnut St - Jefferson St Bike Route 1.0 30 5 $ 7,000 Bicycle 80 John F Kennedy Pkwy, E Troutman Pkwy E Horsetooth Rd - E Harmony Rd Separated Bike Lane, Buffered Bike Lane 1.2 26 8 $ 383,000 Bicycle 66 E Drake Rd, Ziegler Rd Rigden Pkwy - William Neal Pkwy Separated Bike Lane 1.4 27 7 $ 195,000 Bicycle 38 Laurel St S Shields St - S Howes St Separated Bike Lane, Buffered Bike Lane 0.2 28 6 $ 371,000 Bicycle 42 Pennock Pl all Bike Boulevard 1.4 28 6 $ 1,000 Pedestrian 65 Center Phemister Beacon / RRFB Spot 28 6 $ 32,000 Bicycle 99 Howes St W Mountain Ave - W Laurel St Buffered Bike Lane 0.5 30 4 $ 58,000 Bicycle 14 Mcmurry Ave E Harmony Rd Intersection redesign Spot 30 4 $ 585,000 Bicycle 60 East Spring Creek Trail Lemay Ave Two-Way Sidepath Spot 30 4 $ 29,000 Bicycle 54 E Suniga Rd Jerome St Signs & Markings Spot 31 3 $ 3,000 Bicycle 2 N Shields St W Willox Ln - W Mountain Ave Separated Bike Lane 0.9 27 6 $ 433,000 Bicycle 26 S Timberline Rd Vermont Dr - Battlecreek Dr Separated Bike Lane 2.0 27 6 $ 708,000 Bicycle 63 W Drake Rd S Overland Tr - S Taft Hill Rd Separated Bike Lane 1.1 27 6 $ 299,000 Bicycle 27 Skyline Dr W Prospect Rd Signals Spot 28 5 $ 600,000 Pedestrian 16 College Myrtle Geometric Redesign Spot 30 3 $ 117,000 Pedestrian 43 College Willox Signal Operations Spot 30 3 $ 50,000 *Project includes a partner such as Colorado DOT, Larimer County, or Colorado State University Page 176 Item 9. 73 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 7: Implementing The Vision Project Type PID Street Cross-Street or Extents Treatment Length (mi) Outcomes Score Imple. Score Cost Opinion (2022) Bicycle 25 S Timberline Rd E Prospect Rd - Vermont Dr Separated Bike Lane 0.4 25 7 $ 414,000 Bicycle 10 West St, Maple St N Roosevelt Ave - N Shields St Bike Boulevard 0.5 26 6 $ 5,000 Bicycle 21 Redwood St, Linden St Conifer St - Linden Center Dr Buffered Bike Lane 0.8 26 6 $ 41,000 Bicycle 60 Purdue Rd, Tulane Dr, Mathews St, Rutgers Ave S College Ave - E Swallow Rd Bike Boulevard 0.6 26 6 $ 9,000 Pedestrian 55 Redwood Conifer High-Visibility Crosswalk Spot 27 5 $ 36,000 Suniga High-Visibility Crosswalk Spot Bicycle 37 W Elizabeth St S Overland Tr - CSU Transit Center Separated Bike Lane 6.8 28 4 $ 4,062,000 Bicycle 28 Heatheridge Rd W Prospect Rd Signals Spot 28 4 $ 600,000 Pedestrian 14 Sherwood Cherry High-Visibility Crosswalk Spot 30 2 $ 168,000 Maple Geometric Redesign Spot Bicycle 58 Willox Ln Blue Spruce Signals Spot 31 1 $ 600,000 Pedestrian 41 Timberline Mulberry Geometric Redesign Spot 31 1 $ 150,000 Bicycle 44 S Lemay Ave Riverside Ave - E Stuart St Separated Bike Lane 1.6 25 6 $ 740,000 Bicycle 45 E Elizabeth St S College Ave - S Lemay Ave Buffered Bike Lane, Bike Lane 1.9 26 5 $ 90,000 Bicycle 98 Loomis Ave Laporte Ave - W Mulberry St Buffered Bike Lane 0.6 26 5 $ 31,000 Pedestrian 61 Timberline International New Crossing Spot 26 5 $ 632,000 Sykes Beacon / RRFB Spot Pedestrian 56 Willox Bramblebush Beacon / RRFB Spot 27 4 $ 32,000 Bicycle 43*Phemister Rd Mason Trail New connection Spot 28 3 $ 320,000 Bicycle 103 E Lincoln Ave Lemay - Timberline Separated Bike Lane 0.9 30 1 $ 3,019,000 Bicycle 27 N Loomis Ave Cherry St - Laporte Ave Bike Boulevard 1.0 24 6 $ 2,000 Bicycle 34 Ponderosa Dr, Fuqua Dr, Clearview Ave W Mulberry St - W Prospect Rd Bike Boulevard 0.6 24 6 $ 8,000 Bicycle 49 Underhill Dr, Skyline Dr Springfield Dr - Westbridge Dr Bike Boulevard 1.4 24 6 $ 3,000 Bicycle 53 Emigh St, McHugh St, Welch St E Elizabeth St - E Prospect Rd Bike Boulevard 1.0 24 6 $ 4,000 Bicycle 61 Brookwood Dr, Rollingwood Ln, Silverwood Dr, Oxborough Ln E Stuart St - Centennial Rd Bike Boulevard 3.1 24 6 $ 10,000 Bicycle 89 S Lemay Ave E Harmony Rd - Carpenter Rd Separated Bike Lane 1.1 25 5 $ 830,000 Bicycle 49*S College Ave W/E Swallow Rd Signs & Markings Spot 25 5 $ 3,000 Bicycle 41*Meridian Ave W Plum St - Hughes Way Separated Bike Lane 2.5 26 4 $ 682,000 *Project includes a partner such as Colorado DOT, Larimer County, or Colorado State University Page 177 Item 9. Project Type PID Street Cross-Street or Extents Treatment Length (mi) Outcomes Score Imple. Score Cost Opinion (2022) Pedestrian 53 JFK Monroe Geometric Redesign Spot 26 4 $ 150,000 Pedestrian 74 Troutman Pkwy Boardwalk Geometric Redesign Spot 26 4 $ 150,000 Bicycle 73 W Horsetooth Rd Horsetooth Ct - Richmond Dr Sidepath (both sides)3.6 28 2 $ 3,599,000 Bicycle 20 Conifer St N College Ave - N Lemay Ave Buffered Bike Lane 0.4 24 5 $ 97,000 Bicycle 18*Turnberry Rd Country Club Rd - Mountain Vista Dr Separated Bike Lane 0.9 25 4 $ 1,254,000 Pedestrian 63 Lake West of Whitcomb Beacon / RRFB Spot 25 4 $ 32,000 Pedestrian 66 Prospect Whedbee New Crossing Spot 25 4 $ 600,000 Bicycle 23 E Vine Dr Linden St - I-25 Sidepath (one side)0.1 27 2 $ 4,447,000 Bicycle 83 S Lemay Ave E Horsetooth Rd - E Harmony Rd Sidepath (both sides)3.0 27 2 $ 2,689,000 Pedestrian 44*College Ave Palmer Beacon / RRFB Spot 27 2 $ 1,200,000 Saturn Beacon / RRFB Spot Bicycle 45 Red St Canal Crossing New connection Spot 28 1 $ 320,000 Bicycle 56 Horsetooth Seneca Signals Spot 24 4 $ 600,000 Pedestrian 69 Mason Boardwalk High-Visibility Crosswalk Spot 24 4 $ 18,000 Bicycle 81 W County Road 38E Red Fox Rd - S Taft Hill Rd Sidepath (both sides)0.4 25 3 $ 1,600,000 Bicycle 97 Overland Trail W Vine Dr - W Drake Rd Separated Bike Lane 0.3 25 3 $ 7,624,000 Pedestrian 71 JFK Pkwy Pavilion New Crossing Spot 23 4 $ 585,000 Pedestrian 45*College Fossil Creek Geometric Redesign Spot 25 2 $ 190,000 Bicycle 64 Willox Ln Lemay Ave Intersection redesign Spot 26 1 $ 585,000 Pedestrian 62 Shields Laurel Beacon / RRFB Spot 21 5 $ 600,000 Pedestrian 6 Shields Laporte Geometric Redesign Spot 17 8 $ 50,000 Pedestrian 33 Timberline Vermont Geometric Redesign Spot 19 6 $ 117,000 Pedestrian 52 Harmony Silvergate Beacon / RRFB Spot 21 4 $ 117,000 Pedestrian 59 Laporte Impala High-Visibility Crosswalk Spot 19 5 $ 32,000 Pedestrian 42 Airpark Lincoln New Crossing Spot 20 1 $ 585,000 Pedestrian 27 Overland Trail Mulberry Beacon / RRFB Spot 16 4 $ 1,185,000 Rampart New Crossing Spot Pedestrian 35 Miles House Drake New Crossing Spot 11 6 $ 600,000 Pedestrian 49 Lemay Brittany New Crossing Spot 17 2 $ 632,000 Trilby Beacon / RRFB Spot Medium Priority/Readiness Projects, Opinion of Probable Cost: $57,100,000 over five years (2022 costs) Page 178 Item 9. 75 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 7: Implementing The Vision {MAP} Laporte Elizabeth Prospect Drake Horsetooth Harmony Mulberry Vine OVerland TrTaft HillShieldsCollegeLemayTimberlineZieglerTurnberryTimberlineMap 8: Medium Priority/Readiness Projects Kechter Page 179 Item 9. 76 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 7: Implementing The Vision Low Priority/Readiness Projects While low priority/readiness projects fall beyond the expected delivery timeline of this AMP, they form the vision network and may be implemented as opportunities arise. Project Type PID Street Cross-Street or Extents Treatment Length (mi) Outcomes Score Imple. Score Cost Opinion (2022) Bicycle 17 Turnberry Rd, Richards Lake Rd Serramonte Dr - Country Club Rd Separated Bike Lane 0.8 23 6 $ 390,000 Bicycle 9 Lyons St, Roosevelt Ave, Cherry St, Maple St W Vine Dr - W Oak St Bike Boulevard 0.6 22 6 $ 6,000 Bicycle 14 W Magnolia St, Jackson Ave W Mulberry St - S Shields St Buffered Bike Lane, Bike Boulevard 2.3 22 6 $ 12,000 Bicycle 72 Red Mountain Dr, Fieldston Dr, Kingsley Dr, Creekstone Dr Pinecone Cir - E Horsetooth Rd Bike Boulevard 1.2 22 6 $ 5,000 Pedestrian 57 Taft Hill Bronson Beacon / RRFB Spot 23 5 $ 1,800,000 Imperial Beacon / RRFB Spot Brixton Beacon / RRFB Spot Bicycle 22 William Neal Pkwy Ziegler Rd Intersection redesign Spot 23 5 $ 585,000 Bicycle 31 W Mulberry St S Overland Tr - Tyler St Separated Bike Lane 0.1 23 5 $ 437,000 Bicycle 86 E Harmony Rd, CR 38 S Lemay Ave - Weitzel St Separated Bike Lane, Sidepath (both sides)2.2 23 5 $ 2,155,000 Bicycle 42 S Overland Trail W Lake St Two-Way Sidepath Spot 21 6 $ 29,000 Bicycle 24 Hampshire Rd W Prospect Rd Two-Way Sidepath Spot 23 4 $ 29,000 Bicycle 4 N Taft Hill Rd Stonecrest Dr - Laporte Ave Separated Bike Lane 0.7 23 4 $ 3,075,000 Bicycle 25 W Stuart St S Taft Hill Rd (Project #2)Signals Spot 24 3 $ 600,000 Bicycle 88 Fossil Blvd, Cameron Dr, Conejos Rd W Fairway Ln - S College Ave Bike Boulevard 1.3 20 6 $ 3,000 Pedestrian 73 Washington Ave Mulberry New Crossing Spot 22 4 $ 585,000 Bicycle 13 Sheldon Dr W Oak St - W Mulberry St Bike Boulevard 1.0 22 4 $ 20,000 Bicycle 77 Ziegler Rd Percheron Dr - Rock Park Dr Separated Bike Lane, Sidepath (one side), Bike Lane 0.3 19 6 $ 1,087,000 Bicycle 57 Vine East of Timberline Signs & Markings Spot 21 4 $ 3,000 Pedestrian 68 Sharp Point March Beacon / RRFB Spot 21 4 $ 32,000 Bicycle 67 Prospect Rd Welch Signals Spot 23 2 $ 600,000 Bicycle 93 Trilby Rd Taft Hill Rd - Timberline Rd Sidepath (one side & both sides)1.5 23 2 $ 8,384,000 Bicycle 33 E Mulberry St S Lemay Ave - I-25 Sidepath (both sides)3.7 24 1 $ 13,634,000 Bicycle 5 W Vine Dr N Overland Tr - Lancer Dr Separated Bike Lane 0.4 18 6 $ 315,000 Bicycle 43 Riverside Ave S Lemay Ave - E Prospect Rd Separated Bike Lane 0.8 18 6 $ 335,000 Page 180 Item 9. 77 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 7: Implementing The Vision Project Type PID Street Cross-Street or Extents Treatment Length (mi) Outcomes Score Imple. Score Cost Opinion (2022) Bicycle 55 Midpoint Dr Prospect Park Way - Sharp Point Dr Bike Lane 0.3 18 6 $ 47,000 Pedestrian 50 Cunningham Richmond High-Visibility Crosswalk Spot 19 5 $ 18,000 Bicycle 70 Moss Creek Dr, Colony Dr, Tradition Dr W Swallow Rd - W Troutman Pkwy Bike Boulevard 0.6 20 4 $ 9,000 Bicycle 79 Troutman Pkwy (planned extension) Seneca St - S Shields St Bike Lane 0.4 20 4 $ 660,000 Bicycle 87 Fossil Blvd, Fairway Ln, Palmer Dr Fossil Blvd - Hogan Dr Bike Boulevard 2.9 20 4 $ 6,000 Bicycle 95*Kechter Rd, CR 36 Timberline Rd - CR 5 Separated Bike Lane 0.6 20 4 $ 2,148,000 Bicycle 47 Overland Laporte Signs & Markings Spot 21 3 $ 3,000 Bicycle 30 Skyline Dr Clearview New connection Spot 22 2 $ 320,000 Bicycle 1* N College Ave, Bristlecone Dr, Blue Spruce Dr Terry Lake Rd - Willow St Sidepath (both sides), Buffered Bicycle Lanes 0.9 22 2 $ 4,785,000 Bicycle 90 Southridge Greens Blvd S Lemay Ave - Center Greens Blvd Bike Route 0.6 16 7 $ 5,000 Pedestrian 26 Impala Mulberry Geometric Redesign Spot 17 6 $ 150,000 Pedestrian 17 Grant Mountain Geometric Redesign Spot 20 3 $ 150,000 Bicycle 3 N Shields St US 287 - W Willox Ln Buffered Bike Lane 2.1 20 3 $ 569,000 Bicycle 54 Prospect Rd Mason Trail - Sharp Point Dr Sidepath (one side)0.5 20 3 $ 3,282,000 Bicycle 68 Claremont Dr, Hull St, Hanover Dr W Drake Rd - W Swallow Rd Bike Boulevard 5.4 16 6 $ 4,000 Bicycle 78 Westfield Dr, Capitol Dr W Horsetooth Rd - Seneca St Bike Boulevard 2.9 18 4 $ 5,000 Bicycle 82 Harbor Walk Dr, Breakwater Dr, Ticonderoga Dr, McMurry Ave Boardwalk Dr - Monte Carlo Dr Bike Boulevard 0.8 18 4 $ 14,000 Bicycle 96 Laporte Ave City Line - N Overland Tr Buffered Bike Lane 4.2 18 4 $ 92,000 Bicycle 53 Suniga Blue Spruce Signs & Markings Spot 19 3 $ 3,000 Pedestrian 47 Wheaton Harmony New Crossing Spot 20 2 $ 585,000 Pedestrian 51 Wabash Benthaven Geometric Redesign Spot 21 1 $ 150,000 Bicycle 94 Nassau Way S Lemay Ave - Barbuda Dr Bike Boulevard 3.0 14 7 $ 2,000 Bicycle 6 Trilby Avondale Signals Spot 18 3 $ 600,000 Bicycle 8 S Taft Hill Rd W Horsetooth Rd - W Trilby Rd Sidepath (one side), Separated Bike Lane 1.0 18 3 $ 4,456,000 Bicycle 100 Lemay Ave Country Club Rd - Lowell Ln Sidepath (one side)0.1 18 3 $ 822,000 Bicycle 65 Canal Access Road Trail Head / Waterglen neighborhoods New connection Spot 20 1 $ 320,000 Page 181 Item 9. Project Type PID Street Cross-Street or Extents Treatment Length (mi) Outcomes Score Imple. Score Cost Opinion (2022) Pedestrian 64 Lake Stover Median Refuge / Diverter Spot 15 5 $ 117,000 Bicycle 32 Kecther Tilden Two-Way Sidepath Spot 16 4 $ 29,000 Bicycle 71 Vermont Dr Eastbrook Dr - S Timberline Rd Bike Boulevard 7.1 16 4 $ 1,000 Bicycle 84 Paddington Rd, Sunstone Dr, Sunstone Way Caribou Dr - Ziegler Rd Bike Boulevard 1.0 16 4 $ 6,000 Bicycle 91 W Skyway Dr, Constellation Dr W Trilby Rd - S College Ave Bike Boulevard 0.7 16 4 $ 7,000 Bicycle 19 Mountain Vista Dr, Richards Lake Rd Turnberry Rd - I-25 Sidepath (both sides)0.8 18 2 $ 10,751,000 Bicycle 92 Zephyr Rd (Planned) Red Willow Dr - S Timberline Rd Bike Lane 1.9 18 2 $ 635,000 Bicycle 16 Country Club Rd, Terry Lake Rd N College Ave - Turnberry Rd Sidepath (one side)0.7 20 0 $ 2,819,000 Pedestrian 32 Ziegler Harmony Geometric Redesign Spot 15 4 $ 150,000 Bicycle 15 Power Trail Caribou Dr New connection Spot 18 1 $ 320,000 Bicycle 9 Dunbar Capitol Two-Way Sidepath Spot 15 3 $ 29,000 Bicycle 4 Horsetooth Lemay Two-Way Sidepath Spot 16 2 $ 29,000 Bicycle 10 Power Trail Nancy Gray New connection Spot 16 2 $ 320,000 Pedestrian 70 Kechter Old Mill Beacon / RRFB Spot 11 6 $ 32,000 Bicycle 13 Ziegler Paddington Signals Spot 13 4 $ 600,000 Bicycle 37 Power Trail Keenland New connection Spot 16 1 $ 320,000 Bicycle 66 Southridge Greens Blvd Trilby Rd Intersection redesign Spot 16 1 $ 585,000 Bicycle 59 Lemay Ave Ticonderoga Signs & Markings Spot 9 5 $ 3,000 Pedestrian 37 Creekwood Dr north of Kirkwood High-Visibility Crosswalk Spot 12 4 $ 18,000 Bicycle 63 Fossil Creek Trail County Road 38-E New connection Spot 14 1 $ 320,000 Bicycle 5 Lemay Nassau Signals Spot 10 4 $ 600,000 Pedestrian 54 Vine Irish Beacon / RRFB Spot 9 4 $ 32,000 Pedestrian 24 Lancer Vine Geometric Redesign Spot 9 2 $ 150,000 Bicycle 18 Ziegler Lady Moon Signs & Markings Spot 7 2 $ 3,000 Low Priority/Readiness Projects, Opinion of Probable Cost: $71,200,000 (2022 costs) Overall, the AMP proposes the following relative program levels over each phase: Plan Phase Opinion of Probable Cost (2022) Pedestrian Projects Bicycle Projects Total High Priority/Readiness $7.6 million $22.8 million $30.4 million Medium Priority/Readiness $8.2 million $48.9 million $57.1 million Low Priority/Readiness $4.0 million $67.2 million $71.2 million Page 182 Item 9. 79 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 7: Implementing The Vision Laporte Elizabeth Prospect Drake Horsetooth Harmony Trilby Mulberry Vine OVerland TrTaft HillShieldsCollegeLemayTimberlineZieglerMap 9: Low Priority/Readiness Projects Kechter Page 183 Item 9. 80 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 7: Implementing The Vision Maintenance Costs In addition to the capital costs of implementing new facilities, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure requires maintenance and should be incorporated into standard maintenance programs to ensure continued safety and usefulness. Because bicycles and people walking put less force and wear on roadways, paving surface requires considerably less maintenance but high-visibility conflict zone markings in high-traffic locations require more frequent upkeep and encompass some specific maintenance items that can be planned for up front. Phase Facility Type Maintenance Needs Additional Maintenance Cost per Mile Additional Planned Mileage Additional Annual Cost High Priority/ Readiness Phase Bicycle Boulevards, Shared Roadways, and Bicycle Lanes On-street bicycle facilities can be swept and snow cleared as a part of regular street maintenance. Striping may be refreshed annually to ensure continued visibility. $3,000 per mile annually 5.4 mi $5,000 - $15,000 Separated Bicycle Lanes and Shared-Use Paths Primary and secondary bicycle streets and paths should be swept regularly and plowed after snow events. Sand and salt may be applied to improve traction, and should be removed from the street when conditions permit. A narrow sweeper vehicle (with plow attachment) can be purchased to maintain separated bicycle lanes. As the network expands, bicycle routes can be cleared more efficiently. Light vertical separation materials, including flexible delineators, may need to be replaced periodically (assume 15 percent of flexible delineators may be replaced annually). $15 - 20,000 per mile annually 23.3 mi $100,000 - $250,000, depending upon implementation cadence Medium Priority/ Readiness Phase Bicycle Boulevards, Shared Roadways, and Bicycle Lanes Markings may need to be refreshed on some routes within 10 years. $10 - 15,000 per mile 9.7 mi $75,000 - $150,000 Separated Bicycle Lanes and Shared-Use Paths As the bicycle network expands, additional sweep and plow vehicles may be purchased. Debris and snow clearance can become more efficient as more facilities are connected to one another. Some striping and vertical separators may need to be replaced with wear and tear. $15 - 20,000 per mile annually 42.8 mi $125,000 - $250,000, depending upon implementation cadence Page 184 Item 9. 81 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 7: Implementing The Vision Delivering the Active Modes Network Currently, the following local programs provide funding and support for Active Modes infrastructure. Multimodal Funding Source Recent Multimodal Funding Budgeting for Outcomes (multimodal requests)~ $1 million (annually) Street Maintenance Program $15 – 18 million for all street maintenance projects Community Capital Improvement Program (ending 2025) Sidewalk / ADA Compliance $14 million Bicycle Infrastructure $5 million Grade-Separated Crossings $6 million HSIP ~$400,000 received in 2024 - 2025 Existing and Anticipated Funding Gathering and leveraging funding for multimodal projects requires strategic selection of project types, alignment between project purpose and funding strategy, and preparedness for opportunities. Below is a summary of funding sources available to Fort Collins for implementing the Fort Collins AMP’s recommended projects. Funding Source Local Funding Community Capital Improvement Program: A voter-approved quarter-cent sales tax renewal that includes dedicated funding for arterial intersection reconstruction, bicycle infrastructure expansion, and other multimodal improvements. Budgeting for Outcomes: The City’s budgeting process, Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO), is designed to prioritize community goals, organized around seven Key Outcome Areas. In the past, this local funding has been successfully leveraged to either implement multimodal projects or match state and federal sources to extend program reach. Street Maintenance Program (SMP): The SMP has successfully implemented a number of bicycling and pedestrian projects especially through regular maintenance and resurfacing projects, including striping bicycle lanes, repairing sidewalks and curbs, and reconstructing curb ramps for ADA compliance. Projects that can be implemented through regular operations and maintenance (e.g., lane diets and small concrete construction) may be good candidates to program via SMP. State Funding FASTER Safety Program: To support construction, reconstruction, or maintenance of projects to enhance the safety of a state highway, county road, or city street. This program is administered by Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). Safer Main Street: These grants can be used for safety and economic revitalization projects of state-owned roadways with dense commercial activities. FASTER Transit Grants: These grants can be used for bicycle amenities or connections that support transit projects. These grants are administered by CDOT regional offices. Federal Funding Urbanized Area Formula: This funding can be used for transit capital and operating assistance in urbanized areas and for transportation-related planning. These grant funds can be used to improve active modes access to transit stations. This grant is administered by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Capital Investment Grant (CIG): This funding can be used for transit capital investments, including heavy rail, commuter rail, light rail, streetcars, and bus rapid transit. These grant funds can be used to improve active modes access to transit stations. This grant is administered by the FTA. USDOT Discretionary Grants: The US Department of Transportation administers several discretionary programs to fund local projects, such as the RAISE and INFRA grant programs. Page 185 Item 9. 82 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 7: Implementing The Vision Funding Source Federal Funding (cont.) Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP): The goal of this program is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. This is a federal program administered by CDOT. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program: This program can fund transportation projects designed to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality, particularly in areas of the country that do not attain national air quality standards. In the Fort Collins region, these funds are provided to CDOT and distributed through the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO). Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) Program: This program funds projects that preserve and improve the conditions and performance on any Federal-aid highway, bridge and tunnel projects on any public road, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and transit capital projects, including intercity bus terminals. In and around Larimer County, these funds are provided to CDOT and distributed through NFRMPO. Safe Routes to School (SRTS): This funding can be allocated to infrastructure improvements, enforcement, tools, safety education, and incentives to encourage walking and bicycling to school. This grant is a federal program administered by CDOT. Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP): TAP provides funding for programs and projects defined as transportation alternatives, including on- and off-road pedestrian and bicycle facilities, infrastructure projects for improving non-driver access to public transportation and enhanced mobility, community improvement activities, and environmental mitigation; recreational trail program projects; and projects for planning, designing, or constructing boulevards and other roadways largely in the right-of-way of former Interstate System routes or other divided highways. In and around Larimer County, these funds are provided to CDOT and distributed through NFRMPO. Partnerships Larimer County Capital Improvement Plan: For projects falling outside City Limits but within the Growth Management Area, the City may partner with Larimer County to include projects in the County’s five-year Capital Plan. Colorado State University Campus Projects: The university funds capital construction and maintenance of streets, sidewalks, and trails on campus, which includes many active modes routes. Development Review: Private developers provide both direct infrastructure investments and fees that support management of streets and right of way during the development review process. Funding Options This Fort Collins AMP sets an aggressive program and timetable for achieving the City’s goals. In addition to the projects set out in the AMP, the City estimates that it will cost $150 million to complete the sidewalk network and bring streets and intersections into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. While Fort Collins has allocated funding to bicycling and walking programs through Budgeting for Outcomes and the Community Capital Improvement Program (CCIP), as well as implementing some projects through the SMP, two current primary funding sources are expected to sunset in 2025. To achieve mode share and safety goals, the City will need to both seek grant and formula funding and develop creative funding approaches for durable program maintenance. Potential funding sources may include a renewal of the CCIP program at adequate funding levels, as well as the opportunity for bond funding which may specify a project list. Both of these sources would require voter approval from City residents. Finally, the City can seek partnerships to implement the AMP, including with Larimer County for projects in the Growth Management Area, with Colorado State University (which is responsible for funding projects on CSU-maintained streets), and with private developers to implement street improvements through development projects. Current Expected & Targeted Funding for Active Modes 2023 2028 2033 2038 $16,000,000 $12,000,000 $8,000,000 $4,000,000 0 Funding Target Current Funding CCIP Extended Page 186 Item 9. 83 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 7: Implementing The Vision From Start-Up Program to Core Business Practice Currently, FC Moves is responsible for initiating and planning most active modes work in Fort Collins. However, the responsibility for delivering the Fort Collins AMP will cut across many divisions and job titles, with shared responsibility and buy-in being necessary for success. Below is each of the AMP’s Next Moves, and who will be critical collaborators for making each move. Next Move ID Next Move Responsible Agencies A Complete & Connected NetworkCCN1 Provide direct connections FC Moves, Transfort & Parking, Engineering, Traffic, Streets CCN2 Locate and fill network gaps FC Moves, Transfort & Parking, Engineering, Traffic, Streets CCN3 Connect to the trail system Park Planning & Development, Natural Areas CCN4 Expand the wayfinding system FC Moves, Traffic Comprehensive Access to DestinationsCAD1 Upgrade facilities to meet ADA standards FC Moves, Streets, Engineering, Traffic CAD2 Connect to mobility hubs FC Moves, Transfort & Parking CAD3 Repair sidewalks and bikeways Engineering, Streets CAD4 Manage parking and placement of micromobility, bikeshare, and car share FC Moves, Transfort & Parking CAD5 Reevaluate snow removal procedures FC Moves, Transfort & Parking, Engineering, Traffic, Streets Safe & Comfortable TravelSCT1 Support the implementation of Vision Zero goals FC Moves, Community Development & Neighborhood Services, Sustainability Services, Office of Equity and Inclusion, Police Services, Streets, Engineering, Traffic SCT2 Coordinate traffic calming improvements FC Moves, Transfort & Parking, Engineering, Traffic, Streets SCT3 Provide increased street lighting Engineering, Light & Power Operations SCT4 Frequently evaluate safety FC Moves A Healthy & Equitable CommunityHEC1 Create appropriate programming FC Moves, Community Development & Neighborhood Services, Sustainability Services, Office of Equity and Inclusion HEC2 Increase diverse community involvement FC Moves, Community Development & Neighborhood Services, Sustainability Services, Office of Equity and Inclusion HEC3 Improve network equity by using the Health- Equity Index FC Moves, Community Development & Neighborhood Services, Sustainability Services, Office of Equity and Inclusion HEC4 Expand multimodal options FC Moves, Community Development & Neighborhood Services, Sustainability Services, Office of Equity and Inclusion, Transfort & Parking, Streets, Engineering and Traffic A Supportive & Inclusive CultureSIC1 Advance active transportation culture and coordinate with the TDM program FC Moves, Community Development & Neighborhood Services, Sustainability Services SIC2 Build active modes awareness FC Moves, Community Development & Neighborhood Services, Sustainability Services SIC3 Increase active school trips FC Moves, Community Development & Neighborhood Services, Sustainability Services, Poudre School District Page 187 Item 9. 84 Fort Collins Active Modes Plan | Chapter 7: Implementing The Vision Prioritizing Access for People over Movement of Vehicles Finally, this AMP is based on a commitment that transportation is about enabling people to move where they want reliably and affordably. The transportation industry in North America has historically prioritized movement of private vehicles over all other modes, resulting in a transportation system that too often constructs barriers to people not moving in vehicles—with fast-moving traffic, wide and challenging roadways, and circuitous routing required of people walking, bicycling, and rolling. This Fort Collins AMP proposes a mobility system for Fort Collins that flips the script—to create urban streets that are more efficient and promote safe movement, this Plan prioritized small modes: walking, bicycling, scootering, skating, and rolling. These modes can maximize the spatial efficiency of Fort Collins’ streets, while opening opportunities for more people to walk, bicycle, and roll for more trips. However, to achieve these gains, the City needs to adopt key performance indicators that correctly value all movement and efficient mobility: • Total person throughput, instead of Average Daily Traffic for vehicles only • Multimodal Level of Service, rather than just vehicle Level of Service • Access to 15-Minute Communities, so that residents are able to access the majority of their daily needs via active mobility • Systemic Safety and reduction of all traffic fatalities and injuries While some of these initiatives will be addressed in forthcoming plans (e.g., the 15-Minute City Analysis and Vision Zero Action Plan), this Plan’s success will hinge on collecting data and communicating progress by centering access for people over movement of private vehicles. PRIVATE MOTOR VEHICLES600-1,600/HR MIXED TRAFFIC WITH FREQUENT BUSES1,000-2,800/HR TWO-WAY PROTECTED BIKEWAY7,500/HR DEDICATED TRANSIT LANES4,000-8,000/HR SIDEWALK9,000/HR ON-STREET TRANSITWAY, BUS OR RAIL10,000-25,000/HR Source: NACTO, Transit Street Design Guide (2016). Page 188 Item 9. Page 189 Item 9. CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSION Page 190 Item 9. 87 Fort Collins Active Mode Plan | Chapter 8: Conclusion While the analysis, action planning, and engagement for developing this AMP occurred over the span of just one year, the Fort Collins Active Modes Plan is the result of many years of dedication and intentional actions towards improving walking, bicycling, and sustainability outcomes. Through implementation, the AMP will help Fort Collins achieve the vision for the future of active modes and create a place where walking, bicycling, rolling, and using micromobility are safe, accessible, convenient, joyful, and desired. This Fort Collins AMP and its projects, policies, and programs provide a framework for implementing this citywide vision and enhancing opportunities for using active modes in Fort Collins. The Fort Collins AMP presents a detailed roadmap for how the City of Fort Collins and its partners can strategically plan for innovations, infrastructure improvements, and investments in the active transportation network, and create a vibrant, dynamic, and accessible community for all. The City of Fort Collins and partners in local agencies and community-based organizations all have important roles to play in supporting initiatives that meet the needs of people using active modes, including the needs identified in this document. This Fort Collins AMP is designed to be flexible, providing sufficient direction while also encouraging the City to respond as opportunities arise and conditions change over time. For successful implementation, the City is committed to: • Continuing to meaningfully engage the public, focusing on elevating the voices of historically underrepresented individuals and groups • Collaborating with neighboring jurisdictions, regional agencies, and local partners • Integrating the Fort Collins AMP into citywide databases and processes • Seeking grants and other funding opportunities to advance projects, and making budgeting decisions to support matching grants • Evaluating needs and monitoring progress over time The Fort Collins AMP should be viewed as a “living document” that is re-evaluated and expanded over time. A formal review and progress update is recommended in five years, with a particular focus on updating the recommended pedestrian and bicycle network and priority projects and incorporating the needs of micromobility users. In the short term, the City of Fort Collins should focus on continuing to build community support and stewardship for safe and active streets and focus on funding and implementation to create a functional active transportation environment. Finally, to reach a safer, more just, and more sustainable Fort Collins, the City recognizes that the AMP cannot alone achieve the goals for mobility set forth in City Plan, Our Climate Future, and the Transportation Master Plan— it must lead to other steps that make walking, bicycling, shared micromobility, and transit more accessible, and reduce auto-dependency in Fort Collins. The AMP is intended to catalyze further action that advances systemic safety, vibrant multimodal communities, and reduced demand for driving and parking. The world has changed over the past several years in many ways, and so has Fort Collins. The City has found success in strategies aimed at strengthening citywide active transportation, has adapted to fundamental societal changes related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and has prepared to answer calls for social and racial justice. The entire Fort Collins community is prepared to leverage this moment in time to refresh the roadmap for active modes, work together to have different and important conversations, and focus on the recommendations laid out in the AMP that will take Fort Collins to the next level. The Active Modes Plan and You This plan is all about your future in Fort Collins and was made by you and other residents, business owners, employees, and organizations across Fort Collins. It will take everyone working together to increase active modes share to 50% and eliminate active modes fatalities and serious injuries in the next 10 years. You can help ensure this future by participating in engagement activities and educational opportunities, spreading the word about the AMP, and being a leader and advocate for active modes in Fort Collins. Share the Active Modes Plan story with your friends, families, and communities, and learn how you can continue to be involved by visiting fcgov.com/fcmoves. Page 191 Item 9. 88 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. Page 192 Item 9. Page 193 Item 9. walk.bike. roll. ACTIVE MODES PLAN APPENDICES Page 194 Item 9. APPENDIX A: INTERSECTION GUIDELINES FOR PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLES Page 195 Item 9. Fort Collins Intersection Guidelines for Pedestrian and Bicycles November 2022 Page 196 Item 9. Insert disclaimer here, see templates here: I:\Administrative\Project Management\Deliverable Disclaimers. Acknowledgements City of Fort Collins Planning, Development, and Transportation Administration FC Moves Engineering Traffic Prepared by: Toole Design Group Page 197 Item 9. III Chapter 1. Introduction ..........................1 1.1 Purpose of Guidelines ...................................................2 1.2 Policy Framework ..........................................................3 1.3 Structure of this Guide ..................................................3 1.4 Relationship to other Plans, Design Guides, and Manuals .....................................................................4 1.5 Definitions ........................................................................5 Chapter 2. Intersection Design Objectives ................................10 2.1 Characterizations of Intersections............................12 2.2 Intersection Design Objectives ..................................13 Chapter 3. Design Controls .................20 3.1 Design and Control Vehicle .........................................22 3.2 Overlays .........................................................................24 Chapter 4. Intersection Evaluation & Treatment Selection ............................30 4.1 Evaluation of Right of Way Assignment ...................32 4.2 Evaluations of Uncontrolled Roadway Approaches to Bicycle Crossings ...............................33 4.3 Volume Assessment ....................................................34 4.4 Considerations for Crossings with No Control .......34 4.5 Considerations for Yield or Stop Control .................35 4.6 Sight Distance ...............................................................36 4.7 Protected Intersections Considerations for Bicyclists ..................................................................37 Chapter 5. Treatment Design ..............40 5.1 Geometrics ....................................................................42 5.2 Warning and Regulatory Traffic Control Devices .................................................67 5.3 Pavement Markings .....................................................72 5.4 Signals, Beacons, and Signs ......................................89 5.5 Signal Design Guidance for Pedestrian Facilities ..90 5.6 Signal Design Guidance for Bicycle Facilities ........97 5.7 Toucan Crossings with Traffic Signals ..................109 5.8 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons .....................................111 5.9 Warning Beacons .......................................................113 Chapter 6. Maintenance ......................118 6.1 Project Types ..............................................................120 6.2 Organizational Responsibilities ..............................121 6.3 Maintenance Responsibilities .................................122 Chapter 7. Appendix ............................126 7.1 Additional Resources................................................128 Contents Page 198 Item 9. Page 199 Item 9. 1 Chapter 1. Introduction Page 200 Item 9. 2 | CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1. Introduction 1.1 Purpose of Guidelines The Fort Collins Intersection Design Guide (referred to herein as the “guide”) provides a framework to guide the City of Fort Collins, its partner agencies, and private developers in designing, constructing, and maintaining intersections across the City. The guidelines describe and illustrate design guidance for future investments and also provide specific information and parameters related to design, construction, and maintenance of Fort Collins’ intersections. The guidance presented herein should be implemented with engineering judgment. The guide integrates design flexibility that supports all modes of transportation while meeting requirements mandated by local, state, and federal authorities. Construction-ready design standards and details are not included, as these are provided in separate City of Fort Collins documents. The guide includes best practices to ensure consistency and quality as the City’s transportation network develops over time. The information provided is compatible with the inherent flexibility provided in Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), and Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) guidance. In some cases, the guide may include more innovative, people-first designs and approaches than the aforementioned guidance. The guide supplements existing City of Fort Collins engineering practices by providing guidance on right- of-way decisions. The guide should be used by anyone advancing an intersection project in Fort Collins, including City staff and private developers. If there are inconsistencies between the guide and existing City policies, practitioners should look to the plans, manuals, and policies listed in Section 1.4 of this guide for direction. References in this document are relevant at the time of publication. The City will evaluate and consider updating associated rules and regulations over time based on the best practices guidance provided in this document. Rationale for not incorporating best practice guidance should be documented. Bicyclists Using a Marked Crossing Page 201 Item 9. CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION | 3 1.2 Policy Framework 1.2.1 Flexible Design The safety of active modes users is a key consideration in the planning, design, construction, and operation of intersections because they are the most vulnerable transportation facility users. This approach encourages flexible design, which emphasizes the role of the planner and designer in determining appropriate design dimensions based on project-specific conditions and existing and future performance criteria more than on meeting specific nominal design criteria. Traditional approaches to roadway design took that position that, if the geometric design of a project met or exceeded specific dimensional design criteria, it would be likely to perform well. 1.2.2 Protecting Vulnerable Users Due to the vulnerability of active modes users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, and those scootering and skating, crash rates and fatalities at or below nominal design criteria do not ensure a safe or comfortable facility for bicycle travel. Designers, engineers, and planners in Fort Collins must shift their practices to also consider the perception of safety and comfort at intersections. In many instances the use of minimum design criteria does not account for the user’s perception of safety and comfort of intersection environments. 1.2.3 Perceived Safety The perception of how safe a person feels in an intersection can have significant impacts on how they choose to use or avoid the facilities provided. Assessments of perceived safety and comfort for the same site will vary between observers but is increasingly measurable by comfort rating tools found in the Highway Capacity Manual. Perceived safety is analogous to “subjective” safety as defined by the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual. 1.2.4 Context and Engineering Judgement The selection of an appropriate design value requires the application of engineering judgement supported by data (where appropriate and available) to develop cost- effective solutions that consider the preservation of scenic, aesthetic, historic, cultural, and environmental resources balanced within the constraints of design standards and guidelines to provide for the safety and mobility of all transportation users navigating intersections. All design values presented in this document are in U.S. customary units. 1.3 Structure of this Guide Chapter 2 of the Fort Collins Intersection Design Guide (referred to herein as the “guide”) provides users with guidance for elements of design that are common to a wide range of intersection types. This chapter defines intersection configurations and overviews important objectives for designing safe intersections. Chapters 3 and 4 provide guidance for identifying design controls and evaluating existing intersections to successfully select intersection treatments and solutions, and enabling safe and efficient movement through intersections. Chapter 5 provides design guidance for specific intersection treatments including geometrics, pavement markings, signals, and beacons, and addresses the basic elements of intersection design that apply to the topics described in the previous chapters. The concluding chapter, Chapter 6, provides details on routine and long-term maintenance and operations. References to literature and resources are given in Section 1.4 and in the Appendix. These references include works that: 1. Were cited and consulted during the development of this guide, 2. Contain standards, policies and procedures that align with this guidance document, and 3. Are of interest to the discussion of intersection design in Fort Collins. Page 202 Item 9. 4 | CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1.4 Relationship to other Plans, Design Guides, and Manuals The following plans, guides, manuals, and policies align with and provide the context for this Guide, and should be referred to as additional resources for intersection design in Fort Collins. See the appendix for further resources and literature that were reviewed and considered during the development of this guiding document. 1.4.1 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Signs, signals, and pavement markings are presented in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), which should be used in conjunction with this Guide. The MUTCD is incorporated by reference in 23 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 655, Subpart F, and is approved as the national standard for planning, designing, and applying traffic control devices installed on any street, highway, or bikeway open to public travel. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) issues the MUTCD, which contains all national design, application, and placement standards, as well as, guidance, options, and support provisions for traffic control devices used with bikeways. The jurisdiction implementing the bike facility must ensure that traffic control devices for the project conform with the MUTCD. The FHWA may periodically issue Interim Approvals (IAs) to allow the use of new traffic control devices between updates of the MUTCD. Agencies that desire to use these treatments must request specific approval from the FHWA. A State Department of Transportation can request statewide approval from FHWA that will apply to all jurisdictions in the state. This Guide provides guidance for treatments that have been given Interim Approval status. The guide also provides guidance for treatments that do not have Interim Approval status and require experimental approval by FHWA. Treatments that require FHWA experimental approval, but have been used by transportation agencies in efforts to improve bicycling conditions, are located at the end of their respective section and identified as experimental. The guide provides guidance for their use and highlights issues for designers to be aware of to inform experimentation efforts. It is anticipated that further guidance for these treatments will be developed as they are researched and observed under experimental processes. Designers who wish to experiment with these traffic control devices must request and receive approval from the FHWA using the procedure outlined in Paragraphs 8 through 11 of Section 1A.10 of the MUTCD. 1.4.2 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guides Highway Safety Manual (HSM) The Highway Safety Manual (HSM) is the premier guidance document for incorporating quantitative safety analysis in the highway transportation project planning and development processes. The HSM was first published in 2010 – with a supplement for freeways published in 2014 – and presents contemporary scientific methodologies for estimating safety performance of highways and streets to inform the highway transportation decision-making process. Fort Collins uses the HSM to complete statistical reviews of intersections to identify locations where more crashes are occurring than would be expected. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (the Green Book) A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (the Green Book) contains current design research and practices for highway and street geometric design. The Green Book acknowledges the need for prioritizing vulnerable road users and increasing safety and comfort at intersections. 1.4.3 2019 Fort Collins City Plan The 2019 Fort Collins City Plan is Fort Collins’ comprehensive plan that guides how the community will grow and travel in the next 10-20 years. City Plan provides policy guidance and implementation actions to plan, build, and maintain streets, trails, intersections, and sidewalks using sustainable design principles and best practices. City Plan includes the Transportation Master Plan that supports the enhancement of safety for all modes through intersection improvements. The plan emphasizes the need to design street crossings at intersections consistent with the Fort Collins Traffic Code, the Land Use Code, the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), ADA, and the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LUCASS) with regard to crosswalks, lighting, median refuges, bike boxes, corner sidewalk widening, ramps, signs, signals, and landscaping. Page 203 Item 9. CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION | 5 1.4.4 Fort Collins Traffic Code and Land Use Code The Fort Collins Traffic Code and Fort Collins Land Use Code provide rules and regulations for standardized intersection development and improvements. The standards outlined in these codes exist to best align new design and construction with the existing transportation network and surrounding land use. This guide incorporates and expands upon the high-level intersection design standards outlined in both codes. This guide should be referenced for design solutions by the City of Fort Collins in conjunction with the Traffic and Land Use Codes. 1.4.5 Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) Larimer County, City of Loveland, and City of Fort Collins adopted the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standard (LCUASS) in 2021. These standards apply to the design and construction of new and reconstructed streets within the two cities and within the Growth Management Areas for Fort Collins and Loveland within Larimer County. These standards incorporate Fort Collins-specific design standards and guidelines outlined in the Fort Collins Streetscape Design Standards and Guidelines, Fort Collins Master Street Plan, Fort Collins Traffic Operations Manual, Fort Collins Multimodal Transportation Level of Service Manual, Fort Collins Bus Stop Design Standards and Guidelines, and Roundabout Design Manual. TThe City will evaluate and consider updating LCUASS based on the best practices guidance provided in this document. Rationale for not incorporating best practice guidance should be documented. 1.4.6 Compliance with Accessibility Guidelines The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, a Federal law referred to as the ADA, requires public entities, such as state and local governments, to operate services, programs, and activities, including pedestrian facilities in public street rights-of-way, such that, when viewed in their entirety, are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. The ADA requires that a public entity’s newly constructed facilities be made accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities to the extent that it is not structurally impracticable to do so. The ADA also requires that, when an existing facility is altered, the altered facility be made accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities to the maximum extent feasible. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, generally referred to as Section 504, includes similar requirements for public entities that receive Federal financial assistance. 1.5 Definitions The following definitions are provided for the purposes of this Guide; therefore, definitions may vary when reviewing other sources. Accessible – Describes a facility in the public right-of-way that complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and this guide. Accessible Pedestrian Signal (APS) – A device that communicates information about pedestrian signal timing in non-visual format(s) such as audible tones, speech messages, and/or vibrating surfaces. Alley – A street or highway intended to provide access to the rear or side of lots or buildings in urban areas and not intended for the purpose of through vehicular traffic. Alteration – A change to a facility in the public right- of-way that affects or could affect pedestrian access, circulation, or use. Alterations include, but are not limited to, resurfacing, rehabilitation, reconstruction, historic restoration, or changes or rearrangement of structural parts or elements of a facility. Arterial (Highway or Street) – A street that primarily serves through traffic and that secondarily provides access to abutting properties. An arterial may be interrupted by traffic control devices (e.g., signals, STOP signs, or YIELD signs). Barrier – A device which provides a physical limitation through which a vehicle would not normally pass. It is intended to contain or redirect an errant vehicle. Bicycle – A pedal-powered vehicle upon which the human operator sits. The term “bicycle” for this publication includes two-, three-, and four-wheeled human- powered and electrically assisted (E-Bike) vehicles, but not tricycles for children. In some states, a bicycle is considered a vehicle, while in other states it is not. Bicycle Boulevard – Streets designed to prioritize bicycle traffic by minimizing motorized traffic volumes and operating speeds. They are also referred to as neighborhood greenways, slow streets, or bicycle priority streets. Page 204 Item 9. 6 | CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Bicycle Box or Bike Box – A designated area on the approach to a signalized intersection, between an advance motorist stop line and the crosswalk or intersection, intended to provide bicyclists a visible place to wait in front of stopped motorists during the red signal phase. Bicycle Facilities – A general term denoting provisions to accommodate or encourage bicycling, including bikeways, bicycle boulevards, bicycle detection, shared lane markings, wayfinding, in addition to parking and storage facilities. Bicycle Lane or Bike Lane – A portion of the roadway that has been designated for preferential or exclusive use by bicycles by pavement markings and, if used, signs. Bikeway – Any road, path, or facility intended for bicycle travel which designates space for bicyclists distinct from motor vehicle traffic. A bikeway does not include shared lanes, sidewalks, signed routes, or shared lanes with shared lane markings, but does include bicycle boulevards. Blended Transition – A raised pedestrian crossing, depressed corner, or similar connection between the pedestrian access route at the level of the sidewalk and the level of the pedestrian crossing that has a grade of 5 percent or less. Buffer – The space between the outside edge of the paved roadway (or face of curb, if present) and the near edge of the sidewalk. Counterflow Bicycle Travel – Bicyclist traveling in a direction opposite from the normal flow of motorized traffic. Clear Space – (1) A space free of sight distance obstructions to allow motorists and bicyclists in motion to see each other and yield (or stop) accordingly as they approach intersections or driveways. (2) A space free of obstruction for pedestrian maneuverability complying with PROWAG Section R404. Collector (Highway or Street) – a highway that in rural areas connects small towns and local highways to arterial highways, and in urban areas provides land access and traffic circulation within residential, commercial, industrial, and business areas and connects local highways to the arterial highways. Cross Slope – The grade that is perpendicular to the direction of pedestrian travel. Crosswalk – The pedestrian accessible route within a street used to cross a street or portion of a street. Further defined in the Colorado Revised Statutes, Section 42-1-102, as that portion of a roadway ordinarily included within the prolongation or connection of the lateral lines of sidewalks at intersections or any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other marking on the surface. Curb Extension – A section of sidewalk extending into the roadway at an intersection or midblock crossing that narrows the roadway width and reduces the crossing distance for pedestrians, reduces pedestrian exposure, and may help reduce traffic speeds by functioning as a traffic calming device. Curb Line – A line at the face of the curb that marks the transition between the curb and the gutter, street, or highway. Curb Ramp – A ramp that cuts through or is built up to the curb. Curb ramp types can be perpendicular or parallel, or a combination of parallel, perpendicular, and diagonal ramps. Design Speed – A selected speed used to determine the various geometric design features of the roadway or bikeway. Design User – The transportation system user (pedestrian, bicyclist, vehicle) considered while designing elements of an intersection and incorporating various accommodations. Design User Profile – The selected transportation system user comfort profile used to select appropriate design solutions for an intersection. Detectable Warning Surface – A standardized surface feature built in, or applied to, walking surfaces to indicate the boundary between a pedestrian route and a vehicular route where there is a curb ramp or blended transition, and at the edge of transit boarding platforms. Diagonal Curb Ramp – A single curb ramp, serving two crossing directions, located at the midpoint of the curb return curve. Drainage Inlet – Site where water runoff from the street, sidewalk, or site enters the storm drain system. Driveway Crossing – An extension of a sidewalk across a driveway. Page 205 Item 9. CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION | 7 Engineering Judgment – The evaluation of available pertinent information, and the application of appropriate principles, provisions, and practices as contained in design guides, for the purpose of deciding upon the applicability, design, operation, or installation of design elements and traffic control devices. Engineering judgment shall be exercised by the designer through the application of procedures and criteria established by the engineer. Documentation of engineering judgment is recommended but not required. Flare – Sloped surface that flanks a curb ramp and provides a graded transition between the ramp and the sidewalk. Flares are not considered part of the accessible route. Grade – a slope that is calculated by dividing the vertical change in elevation by the horizontal distance covered, commonly expressed as a percentage. Grade Break – the line where two surface planes with different grades meet. Grade-Separated Crossing – a facility such as an overpass, underpass, skywalk, or tunnel that allows pedestrians and motor vehicles to cross each other at different levels. Grate – a framework of latticed or parallel bars that prevents large objects from falling through a drainage inlet but permits water and some sediment. HAWK Signal – A High intensity Activated crossWalK. See Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Highly Confident Bicyclist – A general term denoting bicyclists who have the most tolerance for traffic stress and are generally comfortable operating in mixed traffic. This group represents 4-7% of the general population. Highway – A general term denoting a public way for purposes of vehicular travel, including the entire area within the right-of-way. Intersection – The area where two or more user travel paths meet. Further defined in the Colorado Revised Statutes, Section 42-1-102 as the area embraced within the prolongation of the lateral curb lines or, if none, then the lateral boundary lines of the roadways of two highways which join one another at, or approximately at, right angles, or the area within which vehicles traveling upon different highways joining at any other angle may come in conflict. Where a highway includes two roadways thirty feet or more apart, every crossing of each roadway of such divided highway by an intersecting highway shall be regarded as a separate intersection. In the event such intersecting highway also includes two roadways thirty feet or more apart, every crossing of two roadways of such highways shall be regarded as a separate intersection. The junction of an alley with a street or highway does not constitute an intersection. Island – A defined area between traffic lanes for control of vehicular movements, for toll collection, or for pedestrian refuge when raised. It includes all end protection and approach treatments. Within an intersection area, a median or an outer raised corner separation is considered to be an island. Landing – Part of a pedestrian accessible route or walkway that provides space for turning, pedestrian pushbutton accessing, or resting. Landings are typically level with a cross slope and grade of 1.56 percent maximum. Paved Shoulder – Portion of shoulder with concrete or asphalt surfacing to support vehicle loading and bicycle travel. Major Street – The street normally carrying a higher volume of vehicular traffic. Marked Crosswalk – A crosswalk designated with pavement markings. Median – The portion of a highway separating opposing directions of the traveled way. Median Island – An island in the center of a road that physically separates the directional flow of traffic. Midblock Crossing – A crossing point positioned within a block rather than at an intersection. Minor Street – The street normally carrying a lower volume of vehicular traffic. Multilane Roundabout – A roundabout with more than one lane on at least one entry and at least part of the circulatory roadway. Mutual Yielding – A general term describing the responsibility among motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians to yield the right of way depending upon the timing of their arrival at an intersection or conflict point. Parallel Curb Ramp – A curb ramp design where the sidewalk slopes down on either side of a landing. Pedestrian – A person on foot or in a wheelchair. Pedestrian Access Route (PAR) – A continuous and unobstructed path of travel provided for pedestrians within or coinciding with sidewalks and walkways. Pedestrian Clearance Time – the time provided for a pedestrian crossing in a crosswalk, after leaving the curb or shoulder, to travel to the far side of the traveled way or to a median. Page 206 Item 9. 8 | CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Pedestrian Curb Cut – A break or cut in the vertical curb to eliminate curb barriers. Pedestrian curb cuts are typically provided where sidewalk does not exist or the pedestrian access route is at the same elevation as the crossing and a curb separates the PAR from the crossing. Pedestrian Facilities – A general term denoting provisions to accommodate or encourage walking. Pedestrian facilities include, but are not limited to, accessible routes, sidewalks, crosswalks, crossing islands and medians, traffic control features, curb ramps, bus stops and other loading areas, shared use paths, and stairs. Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon – A special type of traffic control device used to assist pedestrians in crossing a street or highway at a marked crosswalk at unsignalized locations, by warning and controlling traffic. It is placed in dark mode for roadway traffic between periods of operation, and when activated, displays both steady and flashing traffic control signal indications. Perpendicular Curb Ramp – Curb ramp design where the ramp path is perpendicular to the edge of the curb. Physical Barrier – A physical object that prohibits pedestrian, bicyclist, or motorist movement. This could be a curb, guardrail, fence, street amenities such as benches or planters, etc. Public Right-of-Way – Public land or property, usually in interconnected corridors, that is acquired for or dedicated to transportation purposes. Pushbutton – A button to activate a device or signal timing for pedestrians or bicyclists. Pushbutton Information Message – A recorded message that can be actuated by pressing a pushbutton when the walk interval is not timing and that provides the name of the street that the crosswalk associated with that pushbutton crosses and can also provide other information about the intersection signalization or geometry. Pushbutton Locator Tone – A repeating sound that informs approaching pedestrians that a pushbutton exists to actuate pedestrian timing or receive additional information and that enables pedestrians with vision disabilities to locate the pushbutton. Ramp – A pedestrian pathway or access route with a slope greater than 5 percent. A ramp may or may not be part of a curb ramp. Raised Bike Lane – A bike lane which is elevated above the adjacent motor vehicle travel lane. Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon – A special type of traffic control device used to assist pedestrians in crossing a street or highway at a marked crosswalk at unsignalized locations, by warning vehicular traffic of crossing pedestrians. It consists of two rapidly and alternately flashed rectangular yellow indications placed under a pedestrian crossing warning sign or school crossing warning sign. Right-of-Way – A general term denoting land, property, or interest therein, usually in a strip, acquired for or devoted to transportation purposes. Right of Way (Assignment) – The right of one driver, bicyclist, or pedestrian to proceed in a lawful manner in preference to another driver, bicyclist, or pedestrian. Roadway – The portion of a highway, including shoulders, for vehicular use. A divided highway has two or more roadways. Roundabout – A circular intersection that generally provides yield control to all entering vehicles and that features channelized approaches and geometry to encourage reduced travel speeds through the circular roadway. Running Slope – Also known as longitudinal slope. The slope that is parallel to the direction of travel. Separated Bike Lanes – A bicycle lane that is physically separated from motor vehicle traffic by vertical elements as well as a horizontal buffer or elevation change from the street. These may also be referred to as protected bike lanes or cycle tracks. On-street parallel or angled motor vehicle parking can serve as the vertical elements. Shared Lane – A lane where motor vehicles and bicycles share operating space. Shared Lane Marking – A bicycle pavement marking symbol indicating a preferred bicyclist operating position in a shared travel lane. Shared Street – A street that does not designate separate spaces for walking, bicycling or driving, where all users travel in the same area. Motor vehicle speeds on shared streets are intended to be very low. Shared Use Path – A bikeway physically separated from motor vehicle traffic by an open space or barrier and either within the highway right-of-way or within an independent right-of-way. Shared use paths may also be used by pedestrians, skaters, wheelchair users, joggers, and other nonmotorized users. Shared use paths are also commonly referred to as trails, paths, or greenways. Page 207 Item 9. CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION | 9 Shoulder – The portion of the roadway contiguous with the traveled way that accommodates stopped vehicles, emergency use, conveyance of drainage, and lateral support of subbase, base, and surface courses. Shoulders, where paved, may be used by bicyclists and pedestrians. Side path – A shared use path located adjacent and parallel to a roadway. Sidewalk – An improved surface for pedestrian travel paralleling a highway, road, or street. Somewhat Confident Bicyclist – A general term denoting bicyclists who have some tolerance for traffic stress and generally prefer physical separation from traffic but are comfortable operating in bicycle lanes. This group represents 5-9% of the general population. Splitter Island – A raised median island used to separate opposing directions of traffic entering and exiting a roundabout. Traffic Calming – the combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior and improve conditions for non-motorized street users. Traveled Way – The portion of the roadway that allows for the movement of through traffic, including vehicles, transit, and freight. It does not include such facilities as curbs, shoulders, turn lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks, or parking lanes. Divided highways are made up of two separate roadways, each with its own traveled way. Truncated Domes – See Detectable Warning Surface. Two-Stage Turn – The act of a bicyclist turning left in stages, by first crossing the perpendicular street, and then crossing the approach street during a gap in traffic or upon receiving a green indication at a traffic signal. Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Box – A designated area at an intersection to provide bicyclists a place to wait to complete a two-stage turn outside of the path of moving traffic. Uncontrolled Crossing– A crossing of a roadway which does not have yield, stop, or signal control facing approaching roadway users. Unmarked Crosswalk – A crosswalk that exists legally by virtue of its position at an intersection, but which is not indicated by pavement markings. Vehicular Way – A route provided for vehicular traffic, such as in a street, driveway, or parking facility. Vertical Curb – Curb with a vertical or near vertical face intended to discourage vehicles from leaving the roadway. Walk Interval – An interval during which the WALKING PERSON (symbolizing WALK) signal indication is displayed. Walkway – A general term used to describe a paved or improved area for use by pedestrians. Walkways include sidewalks, shared use paths, curb ramps, blended transitions, etc. Wayfinding – A general term for the provision of directional guidance for bicycle routes or destinations on signs. Page 208 Item 9. 10 | Page 209 Item 9. Chapter 2. InterseCtIon DesIgn objeCtIves | 11 Chapter 2. Intersection Design Objectives Page 210 Item 9. 12 | Chapter 2. InterseCtIon DesIgn objeCtIves 2. Intersection Design Objectives 2.1 Characterizations of Intersections each intersection is unique and requires engineering judgment to determine an appropriate design to maximize safety. Intersection design is determined based on various elements of the surrounding environment. Intersection configurations can be decided based on: •the types of intersecting facilities (shared use path, separated bike lane, bike lane, roadway, etc.) •the number of lanes a pedestrian or bicyclist needs to cross •Whether the roadway is divided or undivided •the number of approach legs •the speeds and volumes of traffic •existing traffic controls including uncontrolled and controlled (yield-, stop, or signal) Due to the mixed nature of traffic at intersections (pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles), the designer should keep in mind the speed variability of each travel mode and its resulting effect on design values when considering design treatments. the fastest vehicle should be considered for approach speeds (typically the bicyclist and motor vehicle) because these modes have the greatest difficulty stopping for cross traffic at the intersection. by contrast, for departures from a stopped condition, the characteristics of slower users, including Figure 1: Intersection Functional area ELEMENTS OF DESIGN 5-31 GUIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF BICYCLE FACILITIES | AASHTO Figure 5-14: Crossing Locations Relative to Intersection Functional Area sidepathroad shared use pathmid-block crossing crossing at an intersection driveway crossing functional area of intersection legend road and driveway path median Page 211 Item 9. Chapter 2. InterseCtIon DesIgn objeCtIves | 13 pedestrians and bicyclists, should be considered due to their greater exposure to cross traffic. Intersection crossings occur within the functional area of an intersection of two or more roadways (see Figure 1). Intersection crossings are typically parallel to at least one roadway and have unique operational challenges. geometric design guidance for intersections should be applied to driveway crossings and alley crossings to promote safety and legibility for bicyclists and pedestrians (see section 5.1). grade-separated crossings pass over or under a roadway and eliminate conflicts between bicyclists and motor vehicles. Crossings may be controlled or uncontrolled. Uncontrolled pedestrian or bicycle crossings of a roadway are locations where approaching motorists do not face yield, stop, or signal control. section X provides guidance for evaluating uncontrolled crossings. 2.2 Intersection Design Objectives the design of intersections has a significant impact on each intersection user’s comfort, safety, and mobility. bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists inevitably cross paths at intersections unless their movements are grade- separated. the design of intersections should consider how pedestrians, bicyclists, and other users navigate both the approach, departure, and the crossing of the intersection. Intersection design should strive to reduce conflicts and reduce the risk of injury for all users in the event of a crash. the geometric design features should complement traffic control devices to promote compliance as well as improve safety and comfort where users are expected to yield right of way. the design principles described in this section apply to all intersections, but unique design considerations for roundabouts, interchanges, and alternative intersections can be found in Chapter 5. 2.2.1 Minimize Exposure to Conflicts Intersections should be designed to minimize pedestrian and bicyclist exposure to motorized traffic and minimize bicyclist conflicts with both motorists and pedestrians. pedestrians and bicyclists experience more exposure to motor vehicle traffic at locations with high traffic volumes and operating speeds, and the amount of exposure will vary based on the type of accommodation provided. exposure to conflicts can be eliminated using a variety of strategies; however, these strategies must be balanced against creating excessive delay or detour for each mode of travel. Where conflicts with motor vehicles involve high traffic volumes, high-speed turns across crosswalks and bikeways, or at locations with limited sight distance, steps should be taken to reduce or eliminate conflicts using strategies such as geometric design treatments (see section 5.1), restricting turn movements, providing traffic signal phasing that manages conflicts (see Chapter 5.4), or providing grade separation where appropriate (see Chapter 5). Where elimination of conflicts is not possible or practical, intersection designs should limit the amount of time and space that active mode users are in the following locations: •Cross multiple vehicular travel lanes •operating between moving vehicular travel lanes •Wait in areas exposed to moving motor vehicle traffic (e.g., waiting to turn left in a shared lane) •Merging with motorists or where motorist turn across pedestrian and bicycle paths •Cross pedestrian travel paths or other bicycle facilities Page 212 Item 9. 14 | Chapter 2. InterseCtIon DesIgn objeCtIves Figure 2 uses bicyclists as an example to illustrate active mode user exposure to potential motor vehicle conflicts in four common intersection designs. Figure 2: Comparison of bicyclist exposure to Motor vehicles at Intersections ELEMENTS OF DESIGN 5-33 GUIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF BICYCLE FACILITIES | AASHTO Figure 5-15: Comparison of Bicyclist Exposure to Motor Vehicles at Intersections conventional bike lanes and shared lanes separated bike lanes through roundabouts * * Left turn conflicts not depicted for two-stage turns bicycle travel path motorist travel path potential conflict protected intersections * separated bike lanes with mixing zones * legend While they do occasionally occur, crashes between bicyclists and pedestrians are comparatively more rare than those between bicyclists and motorists or between pedestrians and motorists. Crash risk between bicyclists and pedestrians can be minimized by providing clear sight distance between pedestrians and approaching bicyclists at locations where bicyclists cross a pedestrian facility. Care should be taken to avoid the placement of infrastructure within the approach clear space which may block either user’s view of the other user (see Section 5.5.4). Due to the potential discomfort for both bicyclists and pedestrians, on facilities where bicyclists and pedestrians share the same space the width of the facility, speed differential between users, and frequency of these conflicts should be considered. It may be appropriate to separate bicyclists and pedestrians to reduce the frequency of conflicts between these users. Page 213 Item 9. Chapter 2. InterseCtIon DesIgn objeCtIves | 15 Design of intersections should aim to not only minimize points of conflict, but also simplify areas of conflict, limit conflict frequency, and limit conflict severity. these objectives can be achieved by applying design elements presented in Sections 2.2.2 through 2.2.7 and Chapter 5. For more information on minimizing conflicts at intersections, please refer to Chapter 8, section 8.1.1 “Intersections as Conflict Locations” in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. While they do occasionally occur, crashes between bicyclists and pedestrians are comparatively rarer than those between bicyclists and motorists or between pedestrians and motorists. Crash risk between bicyclists and pedestrians can be minimized by providing clear sight distance between pedestrians and approaching bicyclists at locations where bicyclists cross a pedestrian facility. Care should be taken to avoid the placement of infrastructure within the approach clear space which may block either user’s view of the other user. Due to the potential discomfort for both bicyclists and pedestrians, on facilities where bicyclists and pedestrians share the same space the width of the facility, speed differential between users, and frequency of these conflicts should be considered when designing the facility. It may be appropriate to separate bicyclists and pedestrians to reduce the frequency of conflicts between these users. 2.2.2 Reduce Speeds at Conflict Points If conflict points cannot be eliminated, intersection design should minimize the speed differential between users at the points where travel movements intersect. reducing speeds of all users at conflict points may allow users more time to react to avoid a crash and can reduce the severity of a potential injury if a crash does occur. Intersections where bicyclists operate should be designed to ensure slow speed turning movements (10 mph or less) and weaving movements (20 mph or less) across the path of bicyclists. additional guidance to improve safety at intersections is provided in Chapter 5. 2.2.3 Communicate Right of Way Priority bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists should be provided with cues that both clearly establish which users have the right of way and consistently communicate expected yielding behavior. this may include features designed to meet accessibility guidelines. Page 214 Item 9. 16 | Chapter 2. InterseCtIon DesIgn objeCtIves the priority right of way should be communicated through the provision of traffic control devices, including: •Marked crosswalks at shared use path crossings (see Section 5.3.3) •providing audible and vibrotactile devices for people with disabilities where appropriate (see Section 5.1) •regulatory or warning signs for crossing or turning traffic where appropriate (see Section 5.5.6) •signalization where appropriate (see Section 5.4.2) 2.2.4 Providing Adequate Sight Distance It is necessary to provide adequate sight distances and visibility between bicyclists, motorists, and pedestrians as they approach intersections. adequate sight distance is needed to perceive and avoid potential conflicts. see Section 4.6 for a detailed discussion of sight distance considerations for various situations and types of intersection control. 2.2.5 Transitions to Other Facilities Intersections are likely to be locations where active mode users transition into and out of different types of facilities. these transitions should be intuitive to all users of the intersection. It is also important to provide clear and direct paths for pedestrians across bicycle facilities and to provide intuitive separated bike lane intersection designs to reduce the likelihood that pedestrians will use a bike lane as a walkway or crossing. specific solutions to blended transition designs can be found in Section 5. 2.2.6 Accommodating Persons with Disabilities Intersections should be designed in accordance with accessibility guidelines. attention should be given to ensuring that people with limited or no vision are given sufficient cues at intersections to prevent them from unintentionally moving into the street or a bike-only facility. additional guidance relating to persons with disabilities is provided in the specific facility design chapters of this guide. Intersection Design accommodating all Users Page 215 Item 9. Chapter 2. InterseCtIon DesIgn objeCtIves | 17 2.2.7 Midblock crossings Drivers have a greater expectation of encountering pedestrians at intersections than at midblock crossings. additionally, vehicles are typically travelling faster at midblock locations than at intersections. Consequently, where practical, pedestrians should be encouraged to cross roadways at intersections. however, there are situations for which midblock crossings are appropriate. More than 70 percent of pedestrian fatalities occur away from intersections. thus, it is critical to design midblock crossings that both increase drivers’ awareness of the crossing and expectation of encountering pedestrians and encourage pedestrians to cross in the designated location. Midblock crossings are often more desirable for pedestrians because they provide a direct route to their destinations, and design features can be applied that promote safety when a midblock crossing is applied. In addition, crossings should be designed to clarify the legal and expected responsibilities of both drivers and pedestrians to make complying with those responsibilities intuitive. Midblock crossings have fewer conflict points between vehicles and pedestrians, which is a safety advantage over crossings at intersections. When crossing at intersections, pedestrians should be aware of both right- and left- turning vehicles, in addition to through traffic. Drivers making left turns during a permissive signal phase and those making right turns during a red indication are often focused on identifying acceptable gaps in traffic to make their turns and may be less likely to notice pedestrians. at midblock crossings, pedestrians typically only have cross traffic to consider, and where islands or medians are provided, only one direction of traffic must be considered at a time. Figure 3 illustrates the number and location of potential vehicle-pedestrian conflict points at crosswalks at an intersection and a midblock crossing for comparison.NCHRP 15-45 Proposed Update of the AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities Revised Final Report October 31, 2017 - Appendix A: Proposed Guide Text 3-95 safety advantage over crossings at intersections. When crossing at intersections, pedestrians should be aware of both right- and left-turning vehicles, in addition to through traffic. Drivers making left turns during a permissive signal phase and those making right turns during a red indication are often focused on identifying acceptable gaps in traffic to make their turns and may be less likely to notice pedestrians. At midblock crossings, pedestrians typically only have cross traffic to consider, and where islands or medians are provided, only one direction of traffic has to be considered at a time. Figure 3-42 illustrates the number and location of potential vehicle- pedestrian conflict points at crosswalks at an intersection and a midblock crossing. Figure 3-42. Potential Vehicle-Pedestrian Conflict Points at Intersection and Midblock Crossings Many of the principles of crossing design discussed in the previous section are applicable to midblock crossings, so where relevant, previously presented material is referenced, rather than presented again, in this section. For specific design guidance and requirements, refer to Section 3.6.4. Midblock Crossing Design Principles Midblock crossings are more challenging than intersection crossings in three ways: there are many more potential crossing locations midblock than at intersections, motorists are less likely to expect pedestrians crossing at midblock, and pedestrians with vision disabilities have fewer audible clues for determining when to cross midblock. These differences lead to design considerations for midblock crossings, which include the following: Figure 3: potential Conflict points at Intersection and Midblock Crossings Page 216 Item 9. 18 | Chapter 2. InterseCtIon DesIgn objeCtIves Midblock Crossing Design Principles principles for designing midblock crossings need to be different than those for intersections because of three main operational differences between the two: 1) there are many more potential crossing locations midblock than at intersections, 2) motorists are less likely to expect pedestrians crossing at midblock, and 3) pedestrians with vision disabilities have fewer audible clues for determining when to cross midblock. these differences lead to design considerations for midblock crossings, which include the following: •The crossing location should be convenient for pedestrians. Midblock crossings should be provided at locations where intersection crossings are not available or are inconvenient for pedestrians to use. Midblock crossings should be placed in convenient locations to encourage pedestrians to use them rather than other, more convenient, unmarked midblock locations. •The crossing location should alert drivers of the crossing as they approach it. Drivers should be warned of the pedestrian crossing in advance of the crossing location, and the midblock crossing should be highly visible to approaching drivers. Lighting should be used to improve driver awareness of the crossing and the visibility of the pedestrians at night. the approach to the crossing should encourage drivers to reduce their speed prior to the crossing. Drivers should be given plenty of time to recognize the presence of a pedestrian and stop in advance of the crossing. •The crossing location should alert pedestrians of the opportunity to cross. signs and pavement markings should be used to clearly communicate where pedestrians should cross. In addition, aids should be provided for pedestrians with vision disabilities to recognize the presence of a midblock crossing and the opportunities for crossing. auditory and tactile information should be provided for pedestrians with vision disabilities since cues present at an intersection crossing (such as the sound of traffic stopping and starting) are not always available at a midblock crossing. •The crossing location should alert drivers and pedestrians of their responsibilities and obligations at the crossing and provide opportunities to meet these responsibilities/obligations. vehicle approach, pedestrian approach, and traffic control design should provide pedestrians with clear messages about when to cross and drivers about where to yield. Where necessary, a raised refuge area should be provided for pedestrians to complete the crossing in stages. traffic control devices can be used to create gaps in traffic for pedestrians to cross. In addition, MUtCD guidance should be used to establish a legal crossing. Midblock Crossing Infrastructure Page 217 Item 9. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 218 Item 9. 20 | Page 219 Item 9. Chapter 3. Design Controls | 21 Chapter 3. Design Controls Page 220 Item 9. 22 | Chapter 3. Design Controls 3. Design Controls 3.1 Design and Control Vehicle streets and intersections should enable safe and efficient movement by a variety of different vehicle sizes and types. it is important to consider the size of vehicles that will reasonably be expected to move through the intersection, the frequency of these movements, and the City’s policy for lane encroachment when designing an intersection. 3.1.1 Design Vehicle the design vehicle is the least maneuverable vehicle that routinely uses the street. Designers use a design vehicle to determine corner radii at intersections and should use this vehicle when conducting intersection analysis with software such as autoturn. the design vehicle for Fort Collins is a 30-foot single unit truck (sU-30) with a 42-foot turning radius (Figure 4). Designers should analyze impacts and select the smallest appropriate design vehicle to support safer pedestrian crossings, while still accommodating motor vehicle turns. if an intersection includes a bus route where buses are frequently required to make turns, an appropriately sized bus may be used as the design vehicle. the designer should be cognizant of the bus route and accommodate necessary turning movements through the intersection. if the bus route goes straight through the intersection, it is not necessary to make the bus the design vehicle. Designers have the discretion to use a larger design vehicle than the default for industrial arterials, Downtown arterials, Mixed-Use arterials, Commercial arterials and other streets where larger vehicles are anticipated to comprise more than 8 percent of the turning movements at the intersection, and no alternate route exists that would accommodate larger vehicle turns without compromising pedestrian safety. examples of typical turning templates for these unique conditions include a WB-40, WB-50, WB-62, or in rare instances on industrial streets, a WB-67. Designers should be prepared to submit supporting documentation, including detailed autoturn or equivalent turning analyses, in support of their evaluation of specific corner designs. More information on street types can be found in the City’s Master street plan. Conversely, in locations where vulnerable roadway users are frequent users of the street, smaller design vehicles should be considered. smaller design vehicles should be used on local and shared streets as well as near land uses such as schools, parks, and older adult housing. Figure 4: the design vehicle is a 30-foot single unit truck (sU-30) with a 42-foot turning radius. Page 221 Item 9. Chapter 3. Design Controls | 23 Figure 5: the Control Vehicle is a 47’6” Fire truck with a 50-foot turning radius. 3.1.2 Control Vehicle the control vehicle is an infrequent but necessary user of the street. the control vehicle (Figure 5) for intersection design in many cities and in Fort Collins is a fire truck. the control vehicle can be assumed to use full encroachment at all intersections and may use all traversable parts of an intersection, including across centerlines. encroachment is the ability for a vehicle to use space outside of its designated travel lane, but within the roadway, to navigate a turning movement. encroachment does not include tracking over curbs, bike facilities or onto the sidewalk area. encroachment can occur on single lane and multilane roadways. allowing large vehicles to encroach on adjacent travel lanes is an important consideration when designing intersections with shorter crossing distances for pedestrians and lowering turning speeds. Consultation should occur as needed with Fort Collins’ Fire Code and Fire official. Page 222 Item 9. 24 | Chapter 3. Design Controls 3.2 Layered Network overlay networks are zoning tools that require specific design standards for development in a designated area and must be considered when designing a street. an overlay can protect the existing character of the area or create a character above and beyond that in the base zoning. overlays do not affect the uses allowed or prohibited on a property. the information in this section can be combined with any street type and should be used alongside street type guidance to help set priorities, identify street design features, and create intuitive multimodal networks. 3.2.1 Pedestrian Priority Overlay pedestrian priority overlays aim to create designs that serve high levels of walking. this overlay should indicate places where a vibrant, green, and shaded streetscape is desired to support economic vitality and sense of place. at a minimum within pedestrian priority overlays, more width should be allocated to the amenity zone, sidewalk zone, and frontage zone and streets should be operated so that pedestrian convenience is paramount (e.g., shorter cycle lengths at traffic signals). other streetscape design features—such as pedestrian-scale street lighting, sidewalk café design, and wayfinding—should be prioritized in pedestrian priority overlay areas. Where design and operations tradeoffs are needed, elements that promote pedestrian comfort should be given priority. these trade-offs may include removal of a general- purpose travel lanes or on-street parking, or siting new buildings with more generous setbacks. the pedestrian priority overlay is worth noting not only in how it effects the street design leading up to the intersection, but also how the intersection is designed. intersections should consider increased pedestrians enhancements (e.g., curb extensions, marked crossings, etc.) in pedestrian priority overlay areas. 3.2.2 Bicycle Priority Overlay Bicycle priority streets, and those with designated bikeways, should be designed and operated to prioritize people riding bicycles over other modes. Bicycle priority streets are typically selected based on a street’s motor vehicle volumes, motor vehicle speeds, width, and number of travel lanes. sometimes, building appropriate Bicycle priority streets requires trade-offs to prioritize safety for people using all modes of transportation. in these instances, it is appropriate to remove travel lanes and or on-street parking in order to build comfortable and convenient bikeways. on Bicycle priority streets and intersections, the following design criteria and street elements should be prioritized: Protected Intersections people biking are most vulnerable at intersections. Where space allows, protected intersections and adequate street buffers should be prioritized (Figure 7). refer to Section 4.7. Protected Intersections and the 2014 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan for details on designing protected intersections. Bicycle Signals When space is limited and high turning volumes are anticipated, separate bicycle signal phasing should be considered. Bicycle Parking end-of-trip facilities are particularly important to encourage bicycling. Bicycle parking in the amenity zone or curbside zone should be prioritized on most blocks. Pedestrian Priority Overlay Design User Profile areas with pedestrian priority should meet the needs of limited-mobility users, including children, older people, parents with strollers, pedestrians who have vision impairments, and people using wheelchairs and other assistive devices, which will also create a more comfortable experience for all users. the pedestrian zone should never be less than 1.2 m (4 ft), which is the minimum width required for people using a guide dog, crutches, and walkers. Wheelchair users need about 1.5 m (5 ft) to turn around and 1.8 m (6 ft) to pass other wheelchairs. Page 223 Item 9. Chapter 3. Design Controls | 25 Bicycle Priority Overlay Design User Profile the minimum design vehicle for this overlay is the adult typical bicycle (85th percentile: 70” length, 27” width) whereas the preferred design vehicle is the adult typical bicycle with a trailer. see Figure X additional types of adult bicycles, including a typical upright bicycle, recumbent bicycle, etc., and their key dimensions that can be expected on most bikeways. 5’ 10” 8’ 6’ 10” 3’ 11”2’ 5” 9’ 7” Figure 6: Dimensions of typical adult Bicycles source: aashto guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th edition *aashto does not provide typical dimensions for tricycles. A B C D E 59Chapter 4: Bicycle Network Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan including signalization, crossing islands, high visibility crosswalks, and flashing warning beacons. The appropriate solution will require site- specific analysis at each location. In all cases, the provision of Dutch-style protected intersections should be considered wherever two protected bike lanes (existing or proposed) intersect (see image above). 4.16 Incorporate 2014 Plan recommendations into existing and future Arterial Intersection Prioritization studies Chapter 5 and Appendix F identify intersections that should be considered for bicycle improvements during future City planning efforts. The Design Guidelines provided in Appendix C should be consulted during this process. Signage Improvements 4.17 Review streets for potential applications of regulatory and advisory signs at intersections and along existing and new bicycle facilities BICYCLES MAY USE FULL LANE Signs with Shared Lane Markings Install BICYCLES MAY USE FULL LANE signs (R4- 11) on arterials or collectors where gaps exist in MUTCD Signage Examples the bicycle lane network, lanes are too narrow for bicyclists and motorists to travel side by side, and evaluation of conditions shows that the signs will improve safety and operation. RIGHT TURNING TRAFFIC YIELD TO BIKES Signs Install RIGHT TURNING TRAFFIC YIELD TO BIKES signs (R4-4) at all locations where a right turn lane develops to the right of a bicycle lane requiring motor vehicles to merge across a bicycle lane. Figure 7: elements of a protected Bike lane in an intersection tYpiCal CoMMUte BiCYCle tanDeM BiCYCle single reCUMBent BiCYCle ChilD trailer trainer BiCYCle Page 224 Item 9. 26 | Chapter 3. Design Controls 3.2.3 Transit Priority Overlay there are three tiers of transit priority overlay areas – (1) high-Capacity transit Corridors can be rail or full bus rapid transit (Brt) corridors, (2) Medium-Capacity transit Corridors are those with either a rapid bus or full Brt, and (3) speed and reliability Corridors. each corridor type benefits from investments like transit-priority signals and transit lanes at key locations. Where design and operations trade-offs are needed, transit reliability and access will be given priority in transit priority overlay areas. these trade-offs may include removal of a general-purpose travel lane or on- street parking. the following factors play a role in deciding when and where to make these types of trade-offs and will impact the intersection design, including the allocation of roadway right of way. Person Throughput. transit-only lanes are justified if the shift from general-purpose travel lanes to transit lanes increases the total number of people that can be carried through a corridor. •Bus Volume. transit-only or Brt lanes are typically more useful when there are higher volumes of buses using the dedicated lanes. refer to City policy to determine if bus volumes warrant use of dedicated transit lanes. •Speed. the transit-only or Brt lane provides an increase in transit operating speed (for the distance of the lane or in the corridor), improves the overall person speed through the corridor, or improves service reliability. •Increased Reliability. the transit-only or Brt lane dramatically improves reliability and reduces travel time on consistently delayed bus routes and formalizes existing bus operational patterns. in transit priority overlay areas, the following design criteria and street elements should be prioritized, while balancing vegetation priorities. Wider Outside Lanes outside travel lanes used by buses should be between 11’ and 12’ wide to accommodate transit vehicles. Wider Sidewalk Corridors sidewalk corridors on frequent transit routes should be sufficiently wide to accommodate higher volumes of people walking and rolling to and from transit, as well as space for transit stop amenities. Floating Bus Stops Floating bus stops “float” between a protected bike lane and travel lane. they should be prioritized on streets with both transit and bicycle priority. Transit Signal Priority at key intersections, transit signal priority should be considered to increase speed and reliability of transit vehicles. transfort Max Bus operating on the Mason Corridor transitway (source: Jeffrey Beall) Page 225 Item 9. Chapter 3. Design Controls | 27 table 1: transit priority elements by Corridor Element Corridor Type High Capacity Transit Medium Capacity Transit Speed & Reliability Corridor Transit Priority • Dedicated transit lanes, either center- of side-running • running way treatments • signal priority • transit lanes (including bus-and-turn lanes) in strategic locations, at specific times, and/or in the peak travel direction • running way spot improvements • Queue jumps/bypass lanes • signal priority • Queue jumps/bypass lanes in select locations • signal priority in conjunction with queue jumps Stop and Station Spacing 1/3 to 1/2-mile 1/4 to 1/2-mile 1,000 feet to 1/4 mile Transit Priority Overlay Design User Profile transit design vehicles for neighborhood corridors with low to moderate speeds most typically are the standard 40’ non-articulated bus. the design vehicle should be based upon the typical fleet of the city’s public transportation system with additional considerations for widely used private transit vehicles (serving universities or other institutions). the larimer County Urban area street standards (lUCass) identifies the all CitY-BUs (formerly B-40) as the transit design vehicles to be accommodated at intersections. these vehicles may use more than one traffic lane to complete the turn when turning from the correct lane without crossing into opposing traffic lanes and without tracking onto the curb at corners. this shall apply to all streets with transit priority. additional information on transit deign vehicles can be found in the naCto transit street Design guide. Page 226 Item 9. 28 | Chapter 3. Design Controls 3.2.3 School Zone Overlay elementary, middle, and high schools exist on all types of streets and, as such, these streets should be designed with slower speeds to prioritize students and allow them to safely walk, roll, bike, or scoot to and around the school grounds. School Zone Required Elements: •in order to ensure that people driving, biking, and walking in school zones know how to behave safely, it is important that all school zones include some of the same elements, such as signage, pedestrian crossings, and standard speed limits. school zone speed limits are set according to City policy; please refer to this policy for more direction. •signs let people know that they are entering a school zone and that they should drive with extra caution when children are present. on all streets that surround a school property, school zone and speed limit signs should be placed within one to two blocks of the school to alert drivers. •all marked crosswalks in a school zone should be high- visibility (continental) to promote motorist yielding. Other School Zone Considerations: there are many engineering tools and designs that support safer streets, particularly around schools. application of these elements vary depending on the problem being addressed, adjacent roadway context, speeds, and traffic volumes. streets in school zones should be designed with a high degree of safety features for vulnerable users; Table 2 shows the engineering treatments that are most appropriate for school zones. Designers should also consider the operational characteristics of school zone overlay areas. For instance, streets bordering school facilities have special peaks during arrival and dismissal periods; curb ramps, transit stop platforms, and bicycle crossings may be sized with additional capacity to accommodate increased active user numbers, especially children and care-givers. alternatively, time-of-day closures may be appropriate to accommodate school activities (i.e., “school streets”). in addition to coordinating education, enforcement, and encouragement activities in schools, Fort Collins’ safe routes to school program works with the community to identify engineering solutions that promote safety around Fort Collins schools. if the practitioner is designing a interesection within a school zone, they should coordinate with safe routes to school staff to ensure that any known issues are being addressed. School Zone Overlay Design User Profile Within school zones, the design user should be the least agile member of the student population. For pedestrians, this is a young, slow walker with limited vertical visibility. For bikes, this is the adult typical bicycle with a trailer. Motorized vehicle design vehicles would likely be the typical buses that service the school. Page 227 Item 9. Chapter 3. Design Controls | 29 Typical Engineering Treatments for School Zones Performance Objective Treatment Application Reduce Vehicle Speeds Increase Visibility Reduce Pedestrian Exposure Along the Roadway roadway/lane narrowing (add bike or bus only lanes, sidewalks, medians, parking)arterial, Collector speed Cushions/humps/tables local Chicanes local Midblock Crossings arterial, Collector, local raised pedestrian Crossing (Midblock)Collector, local Median refuge island arterial, Collector pedestrian hybrid Beacon/ rectangular rapid Flashing Beacon arterial, Collector shared street (Woonerf)Collector, local play street/temporary street Closure local At Intersections parking setbacks (daylighting)arterial, Collector, local Curb extensions arterial, Collector, local high-Visibility Crosswalks (Continental)arterial, Collector, local advance Yield/stop lines Collector, local in-street pedestrian Crossing sign Collector, local raised intersection Collector, local smaller Curb radii arterial, Collector, local hardened Centerlines arterial, Collector Mini traffic Circles local leading pedestrian intervals arterial, Collector right turn on red restrictions arterial, Collector pedestrian scale lighting arterial, Collector, local asphalt art Collector, local table 2: school Zone overlay table (source: FhWa peDsaFe) Page 228 Item 9. 30 | Page 229 Item 9. Chapter 4. InterseCtIon evaluatIon & treatment seleCtIon | 31 Chapter 4. Intersection Evaluation & Treatment Selection Source: Alta Planning + Design Page 230 Item 9. 32 | Chapter 4. InterseCtIon evaluatIon & treatment seleCtIon 4. Intersection Evaluation & Treatment Selection 4.1 Evaluation of Right of Way Assignment there are three key factors that should be considered when designing interactions between bicyclists, motorists, and pedestrians in Fort Collins: 1. motorists and bicyclists have a legal responsibility to yield to (or stop for) pedestrians in crosswalks. 2. most state codes stipulate that a pedestrian may not suddenly leave any curb (or refuge median) and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible for the motorist to yield. 3. motorists have the legal responsibility to exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian or bicyclist. the result is a mutual yielding or stopping responsibility among motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians, depending upon the timing of their arrival at an intersection. some states extend the rights and responsibilities of pedestrians at crosswalks to bicyclists, while others do not. regardless, the mutual yielding or stopping responsibility is relevant in many locations where bicyclists cross paths with motorists or pedestrians. When designing intersections between bikeways and roadways, or between bikeways and pedestrian facilities, designers should understand the application of traffic control devices to communicate right of way, and the laws within their state regarding assignment of right of way for pedestrians and bicyclists (and other bicycle facility users). the effectiveness of mutual yielding or stopping is dependent on clear sight lines between users (see Section 4.6), appropriate traffic control to communicate right of way, and sufficient lighting (see Section 5). the type of bicycle facility provided, and its configuration in relation to the motorist and pedestrian areas, has an impact on potential conflicts between bicyclists and other users. 4.2 Evaluations of Uncontrolled Roadway Approaches to Bicycle Crossings Where it is determined that bicycle approaches to intersections must be yield- or stop-controlled, the designer should evaluate traffic characteristics and quantify crossing opportunities where motor vehicles have an uncontrolled approach to the bicycle crossing. at these locations, crossing opportunities are created when motorists stop or yield to crossing pedestrians or bicyclists, or when there are sufficient crossing opportunities (e.g., gaps) in traffic for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross. Crossing opportunities are created when motorists yield to crossing bicyclists or when there are sufficient gaps in traffic. at crossings where the average delay experienced by a person exceeds 30 seconds due to insufficient or inconvenient crossing opportunities, pedestrians and bicyclists may begin to exhibit higher risk behaviors in order to cross the street. these behaviors include accepting shorter gaps between motor vehicles to cross or beginning to cross when gaps are only present on the near side of the roadway. these behaviors put the pedestrian or bicyclist at increased risk of a crash where: •motorists fail to yield or sufficiently reduce speed. •motorists are not provided sufficient time to yield due to their approach speeds or a late entry into the roadway by the pedestrian or bicyclists. •an approaching motorist cannot see the person crossing due to a stopped vehicle blocking the motorist’s view of the person crossing as in the case of a multiple threat crossing. to reduce the likelihood of higher-risk crossing behavior, crossing opportunities during the motorist peak hours should be provided. Designers should evaluate the crossing opportunities provided during the peak hour, as well as the peak 15-minute period, similar to the evaluation of level of service for motorized traffic. Page 231 Item 9. Chapter 4. InterseCtIon evaluatIon & treatment seleCtIon | 33 Where sufficient crossing opportunities are not provided, countermeasures should be provided to increase the frequency of opportunities (see Section 4.4). Location is adjacent to an existing or proposed park, school, hospital, or other major trip generator / attractor 20 pedestrians per hour (15 seniors and/or children) or 60 in 4 hours cross at location and ADT 1,500 vpd Pedestrian crash history indicates a need for a crossing Citizen surveys or walkability audits overwhelmingly suggest the need for proactive treatment No action recommended Direct pedestrians to the nearest marked or protected crosswalk Nearest appropriately marked or protected crosswalk is at least 300 feet away (600 feet outside of Pedestrian Districts) 40 pedestrians per hour (30 seniors and/or children) or 120 in 4 hours cross at location Is it feasible to remove sight distance obstruction or lower speed limit? Pedestrians can be easily seen from a distance 10x the speed limit Use Intersection Guidelines in chapters 4 & 5 and Engineering Judgment to determine treatment options Direct pedestrians to the nearest marked or protected crosswalk or consider alternate location for crossing NONONONO NO NO NONO YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Optional Figure 8: Fort Collins Crossing policy, pedestrian plan, 2011 Page 232 Item 9. 34 | Chapter 4. InterseCtIon evaluatIon & treatment seleCtIon 4.3 Volume Assessment average Daily traffic (aDt) directly impacts the safety, comfort, and yielding likelihood (Table 3) on a street. Generally, a low-speed differential between motorists and bicyclists enhances the comfort and safety of bicyclists and reduces crash severity should a collision occur. 4.4 Considerations for Crossings with No Control at locations where gaps and motorists yielding do not provide the recommended minimum crossing opportunities engineering countermeasures to increase motorists yielding should be considered. the FhWa Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations, FhWa Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations, and NCHRP - Report 562 Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings research has determined there are two distinct tiers of countermeasures that can increase motorist yielding (tier 1 and 2 in table 3-same as above) for motorist approaches to midblock and intersection crossings. For most roadways operating over 30 mph, it table 3: uncontrolled Crossing evaluation table Uncontrolled Crossing Countermeasure Evaluation Table Roadway Type Vehicle ADT < 9,000 Vehicle ADT9,000 - 12,000 Vehicle ADT 12,000 - 15,000 Vehicle ADT > 15,000 (Number of Travel Lanes and Median Type) Speed Limit (mph) ≤30 35 40≥*≤30 35 40≥*≤30 35 40≥≤30 35 40≥ 2 Lanes 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 3 3 Lanes 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 4 Lanes with raised median**1 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4+ Lanes without raised median 1 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 * Where the speed limit exceeds 40 mph, Tier 3 should be considered ** Raised medians must be at least 6 feet wide to serve pedestrians. See Figure 2-2 for diff erent bicycle lengths to serve bicyclists. Where median width is less than these values, review category of 4+ lanes without raised median. Tier 1: Tier 2: Tier 3: legend 1 2 3 Page 233 Item 9. Chapter 4. InterseCtIon evaluatIon & treatment seleCtIon | 35 will be necessary for a traffic control device to display a red signal to require motorists to stop for bicyclists and pedestrians crossing roadways at locations where gaps in traffic are not sufficient (tier 3 in table 3). the following guidance describes countermeasures which may be effective within each tier based upon the FhWa Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations. In many contexts, the installation of multiple countermeasures may improve yielding and safety outcomes. tier 1 should be considered as the base countermeasures that support tier 2 and 3 countermeasures. tier 1 and 2 countermeasures should support tier 3 countermeasures. 4.4.1 Tier 1 Countermeasures the goal of tier 1 countermeasures is to clearly communicate the presence of a crossing to all users as the traffic volumes and speeds are conducive to motorists yielding. these roadways typically have only one through lane per direction of travel thus eliminating the risk of multiple threat crashes. these countermeasures include: •provide Crossing markings and signs •Improve sight Distance •reduce approach speeds 4.4.2 Tier 2 Countermeasures the goal of tier 2 countermeasures is to not only clearly communicate that pedestrians will be crossing, but create roadway design components that encourage motorists to naturally slow down. these countermeasures include: •optimize Geometric Design •reduce approach speeds •provide active Beacon or rectangular rapid Flashing Beacon 4.4.3 Tier 3 Countermeasures the goal of tier 3 countermeasures is to require motorists to stop for crossing pedestrians or bicyclists at a pedestrian hybrid beacon or traffic signal or to eliminate the conflict using grade separation. these roadways have higher volumes of traffic with two or more through lanes per direction of travel where motorists generally do not yield. tier 3 recommendations require an evaluation of mutCD warrants for signalized treatments. 4.5 Considerations for Yield or Stop Control In the case of permissive vehicular right and left turns across a bikeway, a turning motorist should yield to a through bicyclist unless the motorist is at a safe distance from the bicyclist to complete the turn at a reasonable speed prior to the bicyclist arriving at the conflict point. Bicyclists should yield to motor vehicles already within the intersection or so close that it is impossible to stop. Bicyclists and motorists must yield to (or stop for) pedestrians within a crosswalk. to facilitate these responsibilities, adequate sight distances and sight lines are needed between bicyclists, motorists, and pedestrians as they approach intersections. at intersections with permissive turning movements where bicyclists and motorists are traveling in the same direction, there are two scenarios that occur depending upon who arrives first at the crossing. the two yielding scenarios are: •Turning motorist yields to (or for) through bicyclist. this scenario occurs when a through moving bicyclist arrives or will arrive at the crossing prior to a turning motorist, who must stop or yield to the through bicyclist. For locations where bicyclists are operating on separated bike lanes, sidewalks, and side paths, vertical elements near the intersection, including on-street parking, should be set back sufficiently for the motorist to see the approaching bicyclist and provide sufficient time to slow or stop before the conflict point. •Through bicyclist yields to (or for) turning motorist. this scenario occurs when a turning motorist arrives or will arrive at the crossing prior to a through moving bicyclist. this scenario can occur when a bicyclist approaches after a motorist has yielded to other people crossing in the intersection and the crossing is clear for the motorist to proceed. the motorist may begin turning as the bicyclist approaches, requiring the bicyclist to slow and potentially stop while the motorist completes the turning movement. Page 234 Item 9. 36 | Chapter 4. InterseCtIon evaluatIon & treatment seleCtIon *motor vehicle calculated stopping distance, assuming wet conditions. 4.6 Sight Distance the basic ability to see what lies ahead and to see intersecting users is fundamental to bicyclist safety, regardless of the facility type. adequate sight lines and sight distances are needed to enable bicyclists and motorists to slow, stop, or maneuver to avoid a conflict at all locations where motorists and bicyclists intersect (e.g., street and roadway intersections, driveways, and alleys). adequate sight lines should also be provided between bicyclists and pedestrians where they interact at crosswalks, intersections, bus stops, and other conflict areas. aashto’s A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets establishes a range of recommended sight triangles that correspond to requirements for motorists to have sufficient space to identify, react, and potentially yield to other traffic at an intersection based on the traffic control applied at the intersection. applying the sight triangle requirements provided in the aashto guidance will result in sufficient sight distance for some bicycle facilities, such as shared lanes and conventional bike lanes. Designers should consider the placement of bicyclists (often closer to the edge of the road in a shared lane environment, on the shoulder, or in a conventional bike lane) and their design speed when determining the sight triangles for these bicycle facilities. however, these sight triangles were developed primarily to allow motorists to judge gaps in approaching motorized traffic. they do not account for the fact that bicyclists may be operating on sidewalks, separated bike lanes, or shared use paths. this requires an understanding of mutual yielding or stopping responsibilities (see Section 4.5), which are not covered in aashto guidance. additionally, street furniture, landscaping, and obstructions should be kept clear from sightlines. Table 4 presents calculated stopping sight distances for vehicles by travel speed and roadway grade, demonstrating a more realistic assumption for reaction distances. Stopping Sight Distance (ft) Based on Speed and Grade for a 1.5 Second Perception-Reaction Time Speed (mph) Grade (Positive indicates ascending) 10 32 31 31 30 30 30 29 29 11 36 35 35 34 34 34 33 33 12 40 40 39 38 38 37 37 37 15 56 54 53 52 51 51 50 49 49 18 76 74 72 70 69 67 66 65 64 63 62 20 89 86 84 82 80 78 76 75 74 72 25 125 121 117 113 110 108 105 103 101 30 167 160 155 150 146 142 138 135 35 214 205 198 191 185 180 185 170 40 266 255 246 237 229 222 216 210 45 325 311 298 287 277 268 260 253 50 389 371 356 342 330 319 309 300 -10% -8% -6% -4% -2% 0 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% Motor Vehicle on Wet Pavement (f = 0.4) table 4: minimum stopping sight Distance vs. Grades for various Design speeds—1.5 second reaction time Page 235 Item 9. Chapter 4. InterseCtIon evaluatIon & treatment seleCtIon | 37 4.7 Protected Intersections Considerations for Bicyclists research has identified motor vehicle approach speed, roadway configuration, pedestrian assertiveness, vehicle class, and race of the pedestrian as having a major influence on motorist yielding rates. From the standpoint of pedestrian and bicyclist safety, as traffic volumes approach 9,000 vehicles/day, vehicle speeds exceed 30 mph, or the number of travel lanes to be crossed exceed two lanes, the rate of motorist yielding on the uncontrolled approach drops significantly which can create crossing challenges for people walking or bicycling.1,2,3 additionally, the injury risk for bicyclists and pedestrians increases substantially when they are struck by vehicles operating at speeds over 30 mph. research has also identified that drivers are less likely to yield to Black pedestrians than white pedestrians, increasing the injury risk for street users who are black.4 Intersection design for separated bike lanes should strive to reduce conflicts and reduce the risk of injury for all users in the event of a crash. Intersections include not only bicycle crossings of streets, but also crossings with driveways, alleys, sidewalks, and other separated bike lanes or side paths. Intersections are likely to be locations where bicyclists transition into and out of separated bike lanes or side paths to other types of bikeway accommodations. these transitions should be intuitive to all users of the intersection, including pedestrians with disabilities. this section only covers issues that are unique to separated bike lane and side path intersection design. specific design guidance for protected intersections can be found in section 4.7 and Chapter 5. 1 Bertullis, t. and D. Dulaski. Driver approach speed and its Impact on Driver Yielding to pedestrian Behavior at unsignalized Crosswalks. In transportation research record 2464. trB, national research Council, Washington, DC, 2014. 2 Fitzpatrick, K., s. turner, m. Brewer, p. Carlson, B. ullman, n. trout, e. s. park, J. Whitacre, n. lalani, and D. lord. 3 National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 562: Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings. nChrp, transportation research Board, Washington, DC, 2006. 4 Goddard, t., K. B. Kahn, and a. adkins. racial Bias in Driver Yielding Behavior at Crosswalks. transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior. vol 33, 2015, pp.1-6. 5 schepers, J.p., p. a. Kroeze, W. sweers, and J.C. Wust. road Factors and Bicycle-motor vehicle Crashes at unsignalized priority Intersections. Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol. 43, 2011, pp. 853-861. 6 madsen, t., and h. lahrmann. Comparison of Five Bicycle Facility Designs in signalized Intersections using traffic Conflict studies. Transport Research Part F, vol. 46, 2017, pp. 438-450. 4.7.1 Minimizing Exposure to Conflicts a major goal in providing separated bike lanes is to minimize conflicts between bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists at intersections. For this reason, it is preferable to maintain separation between the separated bike lane and the adjacent motor vehicle travel lanes at intersections. While one strategy in constrained locations has been to reintroduce the bicyclist into travel lanes at intersections (termed “mixing zones”), this is a strategy that is only appropriate in low-speed environments with infrequent turns across the bikeway, and is not a preferred design due to conflicts that are inherent in mixing zones.5,6 at locations where there are more than 100-150 vehicle turns across the bikeway per hour, signal separation of turns across the bikeway may be preferred. side paths should also remain separated up to intersections. at intersection approaches, the designer should consider the many different directions in which a bicyclist may need to travel. In some contexts it may be beneficial to provide an opportunity for a bicyclist to exit the separated bike lane in advance of the intersection, or provide a two-stage bicycle turn box, to allow a bicyclist to proceed in the desired direction. 4.7.2 Reducing Speeds at Conflict Points Intersections with separated bike lanes and side paths should be designed to ensure slow-speed turning movements for motor vehicles (10 mph or less) to improve yielding, reduce stopping distance requirements, and reduce crashes. Where they are used, mixing zones should be designed to encourage the weaving movement to occur at slow speeds (20 mph or less) near the corner, at a location where motorists have slowed their speed in anticipation of the turn so they are more likely to yield to bicyclists. mixing zones are not appropriate for side paths. Page 236 Item 9. 38 | Chapter 4. InterseCtIon evaluatIon & treatment seleCtIon strategies for reducing speeds at conflict points should address motor vehicle traffic turning left, turning right, and weaving across the separated bike lane or side path at intersections and driveways. strategies for reducing turning speeds include the following: •employ traffic calming measures on the road prior to the crossing, thereby reducing speeds on the approach •minimize the curb radius at the corner •provide a raised crossing •Install a median or hardened center line •provide a mountable truck apron at the corner to reduce speeds but accommodate a large vehicle; where mountable aprons are installed, the pedestrian curb ramp and detectable warning strip should be set back along the curb line, clear of the large vehicle turn path. Where conflicts are severe due to the volume of conflicting traffic, it may be necessary to consider traffic signal phasing to mitigate the conflicts. 4.7.3 Transitions Between Elevations raised crossings are an effective strategy to reduce motor vehicle turning speeds and conflicts with bicyclists at intersections and driveways. at intersections and transit stops, or any location where the bikeway transitions from one elevation to another, it is necessary to provide transition ramps for bicyclists. the ramp for the bicyclist should provide a smooth vertical transition with a maximum slope of 8 percent (15 percent at driveways); however, a 5 percent slope is generally preferred. For side paths, any transitions must be consistent with pedestrian accessibility guidelines. the transition ramp should generally not be located within a lateral shift or curve in the bike lane alignment near an intersection. speed hump markings may be desirable at locations where the ramp is located in a constrained location or may otherwise be hard to detect for approaching bicyclists. Designers should consider raising the entire separated bike lane to intermediate or sidewalk level where the density of transit stops, driveways, alleys or minor street crossings would otherwise result in a relatively quick succession of transition ramps. too many transition ramps in close proximity can result in an uncomfortable bicycling environment. 4.7.4 Right of Way Priority In general, the separated bike lane and side path should be provided the same right of way priority as through traffic on the parallel street. exceptions to this practice may be considered at: •locations with high volumes of conflicting turning traffic •locations where bicyclists must cross high-speed (greater than 30 mph) traffic 4.7.5 Sight Distance adequate sight distance is needed between bicyclists, motorists, and pedestrians as they approach the junction between separated bike lanes and side paths with streets, alleys, and driveways. When a separated bike lane or side path is located behind a parking lane, it may be necessary to restrict parking and other vertical obstructions near a crossing to ensure adequate sight distances are provided. this is primarily an issue at intersection and driveway locations with permissive right and left turns across the bicyclist path of travel. at intersections and driveways with stop signs, where motorists must stop before turning across the separated bike lane or side path, the standard local parking restrictions adjacent to the intersection (recommended 20 ft minimum) may be adequate. at intersections with permissive turning movements where bicyclists and motorists are traveling in the same direction, parking restrictions (and the resulting sight distances) are a key consideration. to determine parking restrictions near the crossing, it is necessary to know the approach speed of the bicyclist and the turning speed of the motorist. 4.7.6 Restricting Motor Vehicles separated bike lanes and side paths are intended for use by bicyclists (and pedestrians) only. however, because of the close proximity of separated bike lanes and side paths to motor vehicle travel lanes, careful design consideration is necessary to communicate the intended user and restrict motor vehicle access. Geometrically, the alignment of travel lanes across an intersection or in front of a driveway should be reviewed to ensure that the bikeway does not visually appear to be the receiving lane crossing an intersection or driveway. locations with an offset intersection, along horizontal curves, or where turning movements occur should be carefully reviewed to address this issue, with edge lines Page 237 Item 9. Chapter 4. InterseCtIon evaluatIon & treatment seleCtIon | 39 and lane extension lines used where appropriate to identify the intended vehicle path. separated bike lanes and side paths should be marked with bicycle crossings and crosswalks, respectively, at intersections and driveways. these marked crossing treatments are often sufficient to communicate that motor vehicles are not the intended user of the bikeway. Bike lane symbol markings located close to an intersection or driveway can further reinforce the intended user. Green- colored pavement or markings in the bicycle crossing and/or close to an intersection or driveway can further enhance the conspicuity and reinforce that vehicles are not authorized. Keep rIGht or Keep leFt signs (r4-7, r4-8), supplemented with an optional eXCept BIKes plaque, can be installed in the street buffer to reinforce that motorists should not enter the bikeway. If the above-mentioned treatments have been implemented and found to be ineffective, changes to the width of the separated bike lane or side path may be considered. visually narrowing the width of the bikeway using white edge lines should first be considered. For one- way separated bike lane, the use of flexible delineators or other vertical elements may be used to narrow the physical width of a one-way separated bike lane to no more than 6 feet at intersections and driveways, but these treatments should not be placed in the middle of a one- way separated bike lane. For two-way separated bike lanes or side paths, if the above treatments are found to be ineffective, some two-way separated bike lanes have included flexible delineator posts on the center line as a temporary measure to acclimate drivers to the lane configuration and then the flexible delineator is removed once driver education has occurred. restricting motor vehicle access signage Page 238 Item 9. 40 | Page 239 Item 9. Chapter 5. treatment Design | 41 Chapter 5. Treatment Design Source: Alta Planning + Design Page 240 Item 9. 42 | Chapter 5. treatment Design 5. Treatment Design 5.1 Geometrics the following sections describe design measures that may be used to address specific design objectives for people walking and biking at intersections. some of the measures improve conditions regardless of the pedestrian or bicycle facility type incorporated. For example, facilities that intersect at 90 degrees optimize sight lines and minimize crossing distances and, therefore, exposure. the principles that apply to design for pedestrians at crossings (controlled and uncontrolled) are usually applicable to bicycle crossings as both pedestrians and bicyclists are disproportionately vulnerable to injury or death in the event of a crash with a motor vehicle. several countermeasures have been shown to reduce pedestrian and bicyclist crashes at such intersections. this guide provides a general overview of crossing measures; other sources, such as the AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, should be consulted for more detail. intersection geometry can also be used to create space for bicyclists and pedestrians to queue while waiting to cross the road. these queuing areas, such as the refuge medians and curb extensions described in the following sections, are separated from other moving traffic. 5.1.1 Raised Refuge Median, Median Islands, and Hardened Centerlines at signalized intersections, single stage crossings are preferred. Where a wide intersection cannot be designed or timed to accommodate a pedestrian crossing of the intersection at one time, a crossing island or median must be provided with a pedestrian refuge. a crossing island should be considered where crossing distances are greater than 50 feet to better accommodate slower-moving pedestrians. When a crossing island is placed at a signalized crossing, use pedestrian recall to prevent “trapping” a pedestrian in the median. in any case, pedestrian crossing phases must be timed to accommodate pedestrians crossing the entire roadway. Raised Refuge Median raised medians are curbed medians located between travel lanes that serve as a pedestrian refuge space. triangular channelization islands adjacent to right -turning lanes can also act as crossing islands. Crossing islands can be coupled with other traffic calming features, such as partial diverters and curb extensions at mid-block and intersection locations. Median Islands the minimum width for a crossing island to provide an accessible refuge is 6 feet, measured from outside edge of the detectable warning surfaces, and the minimum width between detectable warning surfaces is 24 inches. Where medians are constructed using curbing and the detectable warnings are placed at the back of curb, the minimum width of the island is 7 feet, measured from curb face to curb face (each curb is 6 inches, so the accessible refuge, essentially, is still 6 feet). When pedestrians must cross more than three travel lanes before a refuge, crossing equipment (e.g., aps buttons) should be provided in the median. Figure 8 illustrates a median crossing island with curbing where the detectable warning surface is placed at the back of the flush curb in the pedestrian refuge area. Figure 9 illustrates crossing islands with a 6 feet width where detectable warnings are placed in line with the median island face of curb to meet accessibility requirements. median island at intersection Page 241 Item 9. For roadways with speeds of 50mph or greater, the preferred minimum width for crossing islands is 10 feet, which accommodates bicyclists with trailers and wheelchair users more comfortably. a width of 8 feet can be constructed if there are constraints, but it is not preferred. Cut-through openings should match the width of the corresponding crosswalk. a “nose” that extends past the crosswalk toward the intersection is recommended to separate people waiting on the crossing island from motorists, and to slow turning motorists. traffic control equipment, vegetation, and other aesthetic treatments may be incorporated, but must not obscure pedestrian visibility. When less than 6 feet in width is available, designers can still provide a center median, also known as a hardened centerline, to channelize and slow the speeds of left- turning motorists as they prepare to cross the path of pedestrians and bicyclists. this treatment is especially important to provide where permissive left turns are permitted across the crosswalk to calm turn speeds. however, this treatment does not meet the definition of an accessible median refuge. Figure 8: median Crossing island – Detectable Warning surface placed at Back of Curb Figure 9: median Crossing island – Detectable Warning surface placed in Line with island Face of Curb 96 ODOT MULTIMODAL DESIGN GUIDE | CHAPTER 4: PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES 4.5.4. Curb ExtensionsOn streets with on-street parking, curb extensions can be used at intersections and mid-block crossings to extend the sidewalk or curb line into the parking lane. Curb extensions reduce crossing distance for pedestrians and bicyclists, improve sight distance for all road users, and prevent parked cars from encroaching into the crosswalk area. At intersections, curb extensions can better control the effective turning radius (see Section 7.2.3) and can be used in conjunction with truck aprons (see Section 7.2.5).Designers should consider the following for intersection and mid-block locations: Curb extensions are typically used where there is an on-street parking lane and its width is typically the width of, or 1 ft. less than, the width of the parking lane. Curb extensions may be considered for use where shoulders exist if bicyclists will not be operating on the shoulder. Mid-block curb extensions can be co-located with fire hydrants to maintain access to hydrants and to reduce impacts to on-street parking. Figure 4-7: Median Crossing Island – Detectable Warning Surface Placed at Back of Curb Figure 4-8: Median Crossing Island – Detectable Warning Surface Placed in Line with Island Face of Curb Chapter 5. treatment Design | 43Page 242 Item 9. 44 | Chapter 5. treatment Design Hardened Centerline a hardened centerline comprises a painted centerline supplemented by flexible delineators, mountable curb, rubber curb, concrete curb, “in-street pedestrian Crossing” signs (r1-6), or a combination of these treatments. the dimensions of a hardened centerline will depend on the intersection geometry and vehicle turning radius. hardened centerlines should be considered where higher-speed left turns occur concurrent with pedestrian and/or bicyclist movements, as they have been found to reduce the speed of left turning motorists by reducing the effective turning radius. hardened centerlines can be appropriate on both the departure roadway and the receiving roadway to control the left turning motorist path of travel (see Figure 10). 5.1.2 Curb Extensions On streets with on-street parking, curb extensions can be used at intersections and mid-block crossings to extend the sidewalk or curb line into the parking lane. Curb extensions reduce crossing distance for pedestrians and bicyclists, improve sight distance for all road users, and prevent parked cars from encroaching into the crosswalk area. at intersections, curb extensions can better control the effective turning radius and can be used in conjunction with truck aprons (see Section X). Design Considerations Designers should consider the following for intersection and mid-block locations: •Curb extensions are typically used where there is an on- street parking lane and its width is typically the width of, or 1 feet less than, the width of the parking lane. Curb extensions may be considered for use where shoulders exist if bicyclists are not expected to operate on the shoulder. •mid-block curb extensions can be co-located with fire hydrants to maintain access to hydrants and to reduce impacts to on-street parking. •Curb extensions can create additional space for curb ramps, low-height landscaping, and street furniture where sidewalks are otherwise too narrow. Care should be taken to ensure that street furniture and landscaping do not block motorists’ views of pedestrians. •Curb extension designs should facilitate adequate drainage, either by providing inlets upstream of the curb extension, or by providing grading that maintains drainage flows along the curb line (in which situation the inset area should be constructed using concrete to improve durability, and drainage maintained along the bump-out). the designer should consider factors such as maintenance in the selection of drainage facilities, as some options may be more prone to clogging and require more routine maintenance to function properly, and the ability of bicyclists or pedestrians to safely traverse the structures or grating. •Designers should consider providing reflective vertical elements to alert drivers and snowplow operators to the presence of curb extensions. •the length of a curb extension should extend at least 20 feet on both sides of the crosswalk but can be longer depending on the use desired within the extension (e.g., stormwater management, bus loading, restricting parking) or where additional parking restrictions are desired (e.g., where “advance Yield here to pedestrians” sign and yield lines are provided more than 20 feet from the crosswalk). •painted curb extensions may be used as an interim measure and should be paired with edge objects such as flexible delineators to create a sense of enclosure and buffer from motor vehicle traffic. •approaches to curb extensions can be created as a straight taper or using reverse curves, though reverse curves are easier for snowplow operators to guide along without catching the plow edge. Figure 10: Flexible Delineators and hardened Centerline to Control turning speed 244 ODOT MULTIMODAL DESIGN GUIDE | CHAPTER 7: MOTOR VEHICLE FACILITIES SUPPORTING MULTIMODAL ACCOMMODATION Figure 7-7: Flexible Delineators and Hardened Centerline to Control Turning Speed Figure 7-6: Example of Hardened Centerline Applications with Flexible Delineators on the Departure Roadway and a Pedestrian Crossing Island on the Receiving Roadway Page 243 Item 9. 5.1.3 Corner Islands a corner island allows the bike lane and side path to be physically separated up to the intersection crossing point where potential conflicts with turning motorists can be controlled more easily. it serves an important purpose in protecting the bicyclist from right-turning motor vehicle traffic. the corner island also provides the following benefits: •Creates space for a forward bicycle queuing area. •Creates additional space for vehicles to wait while yielding to bicyclists and pedestrians who are crossing the road. •reduces crossing distances where raised refuge medians are provided. •reduces motorist turning speeds. •Can reduce through bicyclist speeds by adding deflection to the bike lane or side path. Design Considerations the corner island geometry will vary greatly depending upon available space, the location and width of buffers, and the corner radius. the corner island should be constructed with a standard vertical curb to discourage motor vehicle encroachment. in retrofit projects, corner islands may be constructed with flexible delineators posts. Where the design vehicle exceeds an sU-30, a mountable truck apron can be considered to supplement the corner island; however, the corner island should not be eliminated, as it serves an important function to protect crossing bicyclists and pedestrians and control motorist speeds, as described above. 5.1.4 Curb Radius Corner design has a significant impact on how well an intersection serves the diversity of roadway users. two of the most important corner design elements are the effective corner radius and the actual curb radius. actual curb radius refers to the curve that the face of curb line makes at the corner, while effective corner radius refers to the curve which motor vehicles follow when turning, which may be affected by on-street parking, bicycle lanes, medians, and other roadway features. Curb radii should be 10 feet for local roads and 25 feet for arterials and above. sharper curb radii may be needed at intersections where further speed reductions are needed or larger vehicles are prevalent. Figure 11: effective vs actual radii actual curb radius effective corner radius 54’ radius10’ radiu s Chapter 5. treatment Design | 45Page 244 Item 9. 46 | Chapter 5. treatment Design Design Considerations •the smallest feasible curb radii should be selected for corner designs. small curb radii benefit pedestrians by creating sharper turns that require motorists to slow down, increasing the size of waiting areas, allowing for greater flexibility in the placement of curb ramps, and reducing pedestrian crossing distances. •a smaller curb radius should be used wherever possible including where: •there are higher pedestrian volumes •there are low volumes of large motor vehicles •Bicycle and parking lanes create a larger effective radius •the maximum desired effective corner radius is 35’ to accommodate large motor vehicles; however, all factors that may affect the curb radii must be taken into consideration. these include: •the street type •the angle of the intersection •presence of curb extensions •the number and width of receiving lanes •On streets where fire trucks and buses need to make tight turns and on frequent freight routes, larger turning radii may be necessary to accommodate turning movements. •small curb radii may be more difficult for large motor vehicles to negotiate. however, on-street parking or bicycle lanes may provide the larger effective radii to accommodate the appropriate design vehicle. •the corner design must accommodate the design vehicle’s turning path around the effective corner radius, which is based on street configuration (e.g., the presence of on-street bikeways, on-street parking, etc.). •Where there are high volumes of large motor vehicles making turns, inadequate curb radii could cause large motor vehicles to regularly travel across the curb causing damage to the curb and compromising the pedestrian waiting area at protected intersections with bike facilities, at least a 10 feet corner radius (15 feet preferable) should be provided where bicyclists make turning movements between bikeways. the radius may be reduced to a minimum of 5 feet in constrained conditions; however, the designer should recognize that this may require bicyclists with longer bicycle types (e.g., bicycle with trailer, adult box bicycle) to slow significantly to facilitate the turn. 5.1.5 Curb Ramps and Detectable Warning Surfaces pedestrian curb ramps are required to transition pedestrians from the sidewalk (and bicyclists and pedestrians from side paths) to the street where there is a change in elevation between the two. it is preferable to use the curb ramp style that will shorten crossing distances and provide directional cues to pedestrians. parallel curb ramps may be necessary at locations where the sidewalk is constrained and the provision of a level landing requires an alternative approach. the curb ramp must meet pedestrian accessibility guidelines. Curb Ramp Types there are five types of curb ramps used in street corner designs: •perpendicular •parallel •Blended transition •Combination •Diagonal Curb ramps should be located entirely within the marked crosswalks (where they exist). Drainage grates or inlets should not be located within the crosswalk area, as wheelchair casters or cane tips could get caught. Design Considerations there are a variety of curb ramp designs. the appropriate type of curb ramp to be used is a function of sidewalk and border width, curb height, curb radius, and topography of the street corner. three types of curb ramps are commonly used in street corner designs: perpendicular, parallel, and blended transitions. these types of curb ramps can also be used in various combinations. these general curb ramp types are illustrated in Figure 12 through 15. table 5 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of the respective curb ramp types. Perpendicular Curb Ramps these curb ramps are perpendicular or nearly perpendicular to the curb face. they are generally the preferred design for pedestrians, provided that a 4 feet (1.2 m) landing is available for each approach, although a 5-foot landing is preferred if space is available. Landings allow pedestrians to move completely from the curb ramp before turning to proceed along the sidewalk. if landings Page 245 Item 9. are not provided, perpendicular curb ramps may not be accessible and should not be used because they create severe cross slopes and rapid changes in cross slopes over short distances. From perpendicular curb ramps, users will generally be traveling perpendicular to vehicular traffic when they enter the street at the bottom of the curb ramp. Where practical, the curb ramp path should be aligned with the crosswalk. at large curb return radii, if may not be possible to provide a curb ramp that is both aligned with the crosswalk and exactly perpendicular to the curb face. generally, alignment of the curb ramp with the crosswalk is preferable to providing a ramp that is exactly perpendicular to the curb face. single perpendicular ramps serving two crosswalks (sometimes referred to as diagonal ramps) are not recommended. such ramps are typically not aligned with either of the crosswalks that extend across the intersecting streets. as a result, the single perpendicular curb ramp may direct pedestrians with vision disabilities or wheelchair users toward the center of the intersection, rather than toward either crosswalk. Where physical constraints prevent provision of separate perpendicular curb ramps for each crosswalk in alteration projects, a single perpendicular ramp (or diagonal ramp) may be used; the single perpendicular curb ramp needs a 4 feet by 4 feet (1.2 m by 1.2 m) clear space in the roadway to accommodate a turning maneuver (a 5 feet by 5 feet space should be used if space allows). a curb return radius of at least 20 feet (6.1 m) is generally needed so that the clear space does not encroach on a travel lane. 4’ Min. Clear Path 4’ x 4’ 10” Max. Pedestrian Push Button 4” Min. Signal Infrastructure Chapter 5. treatment Design | 47Page 246 Item 9. 48 | Chapter 5. treatment Design Parallel Curb Ramp parallel curb ramps are used where the available space between the curb and the property line is too constrained to permit the installation of both a perpendicular curb ramp and a landing. in some cases, merely reducing the curb radius can permit the construction of perpendicular curb ramps. Where this is not practical, the full width of the sidewalk is brought down to the street grade beyond the intersection crosswalk area with only a 2 percent drainage slope to the gutter. thus, a parallel curb ramp has two curb ramps leading down towards a centered landing at the bottom of both curb ramps. a 4 feet by 4 feet (1.2 m by 1.2 m) landing is needed between the two curb ramps, although a 5 feet by 5ft landing is preferred. the two curb ramps leading to the centered landing are oriented so the path of travel on the curb ramps is parallel to vehicular traffic on the adjacent street and the pedestrian’s path of travel on the sidewalk. Detectable warning surfaces are needed on the landing at the curb line between the two curb ramps (see Figure 12). a landing at the top of a parallel curb ramp is required only if turning is needed. parallel curb ramps result in pedestrians continuing along the sidewalk traveling down one curb ramp and up the other. For this reason, where practical, it is preferred that two perpendicular curb ramps be installed rather than parallel curb ramps. Figure 12: parallel Curb ramps NCHRP 15-45 Proposed Update of the AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities Revised Final Report October 31, 2017 - Appendix A: Proposed Guide Text 3-63 Figure 3-28. Parallel Curb Ramps [NOTE TO REVIEWERS: In response to a reviewer comment, this figure has been deleted.] Page 247 Item 9. Blended Transitions With a blended transition, the sidewalk elevation is lowered to the street level with a gradual change in slope. the maximum grade in the direction of pedestrian travel is 5 percent, and the maximum cross slope is 2 percent (except at pedestrian street crossings without yield or stop control where the cross slope is permitted to equal the street or highway grade). the maximum cross slope of the pedestrian access route around the blended transition is 2 percent. Blended transitions without accessible pedestrian signals (apss) should be used sparingly since they provide limited directionality for pedestrians with vision disabilities. Combinations Curb ramps can also be designed using a combination of curb ramp types to take advantage of the characteristics of the different types of curb ramps. For example, a combined parallel and perpendicular curb ramp (see Figure 13) can use the concept of a parallel curb ramp to lower the elevation level of the landing and then use a perpendicular curb ramp to complete the remaining elevation gap between the landing and the street. this type of combined parallel and perpendicular curb ramp may be helpful where the sidewalk is narrow, has a steep grade, or has a high curb. Where sedimentation is a problem for parallel ramps, combination ramps should be considered as an alternative. Figure 13: Combined parallel and perpendicular Curb ramp NCHRP 15-45 Proposed Update of the AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities Revised Final Report October 31, 2017 - Appendix A: Proposed Guide Text 3-63 Figure 3-28. Parallel Curb Ramps [NOTE TO REVIEWERS: In response to a reviewer comment, this figure has been deleted.] Diagonal Diagonal curb ramps are a single curb ramp that is located at the apex of the corner (see Figure 14). Diagonal curb ramps are not acceptable designs for access to new sidewalks but may be applied in retrofit locations where a pair of perpendicular ramps is not feasible due to existing site constraints. this design directs a visually impaired person away from the crosswalk and into traffic. therefore, the entire lower landing area must fall within the crosswalk that the ramp serves and cannot be located in the traveled lane of traffic. 104 ODOT MULTIMODAL DESIGN GUIDE | CHAPTER 4: PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Tier 2: Combined curb ramps (Type C1 and C2 in Standard Construction Drawing BP-7.1) use features of both perpendicular and parallel curb ramps (see Figure 4-13). This design can be advantageous when dealing with a narrow sidewalk or a steep grade. These ramps may be more expensive and complicated to install. Tier 3: Parallel curb ramps (Type B1, B2, and B3 in Standard Construction Drawing BP-7.1) have one ramp (B1 and B3) or two ramps (B2) leading down towards a level landing at the bottom, with a level landing at the top of each ramp (Figure 4-14). They can be installed where the available space between the curb and property line is too tight to permit the installation of both a ramp and a landing, and they are effective on steep terrain or at locations with high curbs. Unfortunately, sidewalk users have to negotiate two ramp grades. Since the landing is depressed and level, drainage of the ramp landing at the street must be carefully designed. Tier 4: Diagonal curb ramps (Type D in Standard Construction Drawing BP-7.1) are a single curb ramp that is located at the apex of the corner (Figure 4-15). Diagonal curb ramps are not acceptable designs for access to new sidewalks, but may be applied in retrofit locations where a pair of perpendicular ramps is not feasible due to existing site constraints. This design directs a visually impaired person away from the crosswalk and into traffic. Therefore, the entire lower landing area must fall within the crosswalk that the ramp serves and cannot be located in the traveled lane of traffic. Figure 4-13: Combined Curb Ramp Examples Figure 4-14: Parallel Curb Ramp Example Figure 4-15: Diagonal Curb Ramp ExampleFigure 14: Diagonal Curb ramp example Chapter 5. treatment Design | 49Page 248 Item 9. 50 | Chapter 5. treatment Design Considerations Table 5 summarizes the considerations for curb ramp design. Best Design Practices and/or Design Requirements Rationale prOWag requires turning space at the top of perpendicular curb ramps. provision of level turning spaces at the top of other curb ramps represents a best practice. Landings are critical to allow wheelchair users space to maneuver on or off of the curb ramp. Furthermore, they allow pedestrians continuing along the sidewalk to avoid negotiating a surface with a changing grade or cross slope. Clearly identify the boundary between the bottom of the curb ramp and the street with a detectable warning. Without a detectable warning, pedestrians with vision disabilities may not be able to identify the boundary between the sidewalk and the street. Design curb ramp grades perpendicular to the curb. assistive devices for mobility are unstable if one side of the device is lower than the other or if the full base of support (e.g., all four wheels on a wheelchair) is not in contact with the surface. this commonly occurs when the bottom of a curb ramp is not perpendicular to the curb. place the curb ramp within the marked crosswalk area.pedestrians outside of marked crosswalks are less likely to be seen by drivers because they are not in an expected location. the difference in grade between a gutter and adjacent curb ramp should not exceed 11 percent without providing a level strip of at least 24 in. (0.6 m). severe or sudden grade changes may not provide sufficient clearance for the frame of a wheelchair causing the user to tip forward or backward. Curb ramps should be designed so that pedestrians do not need to turn or maneuver on the curb ramp surface. maneuvering on a steep grade can be very difficult for people with mobility disabilities. Curb ramps should have a grade between 5 percent and 8.3 percent; and lengths not exceeding a length of 15 feet (4.6 m), exclusive of the landing. shallow grades are difficult for people with vision disabilities to detect, but steep grades are difficult for those using assistive devices for mobility. a curb ramp and gutter should have across slope equal or less than than 2.0 percent. Curb ramps should have minimal cross slope so users do not have to negotiate a steep grade and cross slope simultaneously. adequate drainage should be provided to prevent accumulation of water or debris on or at the bottom of the curb ramp. Water, ice, or debris accumulation will decrease the slip resistance of the curb ramp surface. transitions from curb ramps to gutters and streets should be flush and free of elevation changes. maneuvering over any more-than-minimal vertical rise, such as a lip or defect, can cause wheelchair users to propel forward when wheels hit them. align the curb ramp with the crosswalk, so there is a straight path of travel from the top of the curb ramp to the center of the roadway to the curb ramp on the other side. people using wheelchairs often build up momentum in the crosswalk to get up the curb ramp grade leading to the sidewalk on the opposing side of the roadway (i.e., they “take a run at it”). this alignment may also be useful for people with vision disabilities. table 5: Considerations for Curb ramp Design [adapted from (21)] Curb Ramp Locations it is desirable to provide an accessible route for persons with disabilities. When a curb ramp is built on one side of a street, a companion curb ramp is required on the opposite side of the street. therefore, when normal project or work limits end within an intersection, the work limits must extend to allow construction of companion ramps. in accordance with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) “Chapter 16: pedestrian Facilities Design and technical Criteria,” curb ramps shall be installed at all intersections for all new construction or reconstruction of curb and sidewalk, as follows: •4-Way intersections: access ramps shall be included at all intersection comers. access ramps shall be constructed in accordance with the Construction Drawings from the LCUASS. •t-intersections: all “t” intersections shall have a minimum of three access ramps as detailed in the LCUASS. Page 249 Item 9. •intersections may have unique characteristics that can make the proper placement of curb ramps difficult, particularly in retrofit situations. however, there are some fundamental guidelines that may be followed: •perpendicular curb ramps should be built at an angle perpendicular to the curb face; where the curb ramp meets the roadway, the full width of the curb ramp (exclusive of flares) must be within the crosswalk. aligning the curb ramp with the crosswalk provides an additional cue for in-line travel across a street by pedestrians with vision disabilities. •at large curb return radii, if may not be possible to provide a curb ramp that is both aligned with the crosswalk and exactly perpendicular to the curb face. generally, alignment of the curb ramp with the crosswalk is preferable to providing a ramp that is exactly perpendicular to the curb face. •One curb ramp should be placed for each direction of pedestrian travel. Where space is limited, a blended transition may be used to serve both directions of pedestrian travel. •Curb ramps should not be located coincident with storm drain inlets, which can catch wheelchair casters or cane tips. •Curb ramps should be designed for adequate drainage. the presence of a puddle of water at the base of a curb ramp can hide pavement discontinuities and can lead to icy conditions during cold weather. •Curb ramps should be situated so they are adequately separated from parking lanes. regulatory signs and parking enforcement can discourage vehicles from blocking or backing across a crosswalk or curb ramp. •Use of curb extensions physically separates parked vehicles from the curb ramp. Where the sidewalk is too narrow to accommodate the length of a curb ramp without exceeding the maximum grade or too narrow to accommodate a landing, alternatives include: (1) providing a gradual lowering of the sidewalk and curb height on the approaches to the corner; (2) purchasing or obtaining an easement from the adjacent property to provide additional right of way adjacent to the sidewalk; (3) installing a raised crossing; or (4) adding a curb extension. Where a large turning radius cannot be made smaller, it may not be practical to align the curb ramp run entirely parallel to the crosswalk and still be perpendicular to the curb face. in these cases, an alternative is to install two perpendicular curb ramps aligned parallel to the crosswalk by introducing a short landing at the bottom of the curb ramp. this will improve wayfinding into the intersection for pedestrians with visual disabilities. another alternative for large turning radii, where sufficient right-of-way is available, is to construct two perpendicular curb ramps leading to a single 5-ft (1.5 m) landing area just behind the curb line. if a perpendicular approach is not provided, pedestrians who use wheelchairs would face a change in cross slope with only one front or rear wheel in contact with the ground. thus, where a perpendicular approach is not provided, a grade break perpendicular to the direction of travel must be installed at the bottom of the ramp. Chapter 5. treatment Design | 51Page 250 Item 9. 52 | Chapter 5. treatment Design Curb Ramp Components the basic components to the standard curb ramp design are explained in the following subsections and depicted on Figure 15. Ramps ramps serve as the primary travel path for wheelchair users and other pedestrians traversing the curb between the sidewalk and the roadway. the grade of a ramp shall not exceed 8.33 percent. the cross slope shall not be greater than 2 percent. the minimum width of a curb ramp is 4 feet. to ensure ramp slopes do not exceed the maximum, ramps should be designed for 7.69 percent and 1.56 percent for running and cross slopes, respectively, to account for construction tolerances. Gutters gutters facilitate the movement of water from the roadway into the local drainage system. gutters require a counter slope (i.e., roadway cross slope) at the point at which the ramp meets the street for proper drainage. this counter slope should be 2 percent or less where possible, but shall not exceed 5 percent, and the change in angle must be flush, without a lip, raised joint, or gap. Lips or gaps between the curb ramp slope and counter slope can arrest forward motion by catching caster wheels or crutch tips. the algebraic difference between the ramp slope and the gutter counter slope cannot exceed 11 percent, or a 24-inch level strip must be provided between the two slopes. in Fort Collins, barrier curbs should be used in accordance with Construction Drawings from the LCUASS. Otherwise, inflow curb and storm drainage inlets and systems shall be provided to carry storm water. Figure 15: perpendicular Curb ramp types: non-Directional (top) and Directional (lower) 103 ODOT MULTIMODAL DESIGN GUIDE | CHAPTER 4: PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES ODOT MULTIMODAL DESIGN GUIDE | CHAPTER 4: PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES 4.5.9.3 Curb Ramp TypesThere are four types of curb ramps currently used in street corner designs: Perpendicular (Tier 1) Combined (Tier 2) Parallel (Tier 3) Diagonal (Tier 4)Ramp types are categorized above in tiers by preferred order of use, with Tier 1 being the most desirable. The designer should not use a lower tiered ramp without first determining and having justification that the upper tiered ramp is not constructible. Justification may be based on factors such as the presence of drainage features, utilities, right-of-way restrictions, geometric impacts, or operational issues. In all cases, curb ramps should be located entirely within the marked crosswalks (where they exist). Drainage grates or inlets should not be located within the crosswalk area, as wheelchair casters or cane tips could get caught. Tier 1: Perpendicular curb ramps (Type A1 and A2 in Standard Construction Drawing BP-7.1) are generally perpendicular to the curb. Users will generally be traveling perpendicular to vehicular traffic when they enter the street at the bottom of the ramp. Perpendicular curb ramps can be designed as directional curb ramps that align pedestrians with the crosswalk orientation and eliminate the need for people in wheelchairs to reorient themselves within the street. Non-directional ramps are perpendicular to the curb even on corner radii, which means they do not provide a straight path of travel for pedestrians. If the angle of the curb ramp is greater than 20 degrees to the angle of the crosswalk (i.e., angle Z in Figure 4-12), a directional curb ramp should be considered. All perpendicular ramps have the disadvantage of requiring a level landing that takes up additional right-of-way at the top of ramp. Perpendicular ramps are generally the best design for pedestrians, provided that a minimum 4 ft. landing is available for each approach. Figure 4-12: Perpendicular Curb Ramp Types: Non-Directional (top) and Directional (lower) Target: 7.69% Max. Slope: 8.33% Target Slope: 1.56% Max. Slope: 2% Min. Width: 4’ Page 251 Item 9. Landings Landings provide a level area for wheelchair users to maneuver into or out of the curb ramp and can serve as turning areas. a level, 5 feet square landing is preferred; a 4 feet square landing is the minimum. Level landings are required at the top of ramps with slopes designed for 1.56 percent slope (2 percent maximum) in any direction. Flares Curb ramp flares are graded transitions from a curb ramp to the surrounding sidewalk. Flares are not intended to be wheelchair routes, are considered a non-walkable surface, and often serve as one of the cues used to identify the presence of a curb ramp. in most instances, flares are not required for curb ramps. When provided, flare slopes shall not exceed a 10 percent slope. side flares are essential in alterations when space for a top landing (36 inches deep minimum) is not available; in this instance, side flares with a max slope of 8.33 percent are necessary to accommodate wheelchair maneuvering that will partially occur at flares in the absence of full landing space at the top of the ramp unless a parallel-type curb ramp is provided. parallel curb ramps provide an alternative in such conditions. Detectable Warnings Detectable warnings are a distinctive surface pattern of truncated domes, detectable by cane or underfoot, used to alert people with vision disabilities of their approach to streets and raised crossings. Detectable warnings are also used at drop-offs on transit boarding platforms. the detectable warning surface indicates the boundary between pedestrian and vehicle routes where there is a flush rather than curbed connection. in fact, detectable warnings are a replacement cue for the curb to indicate the location of the street. Detectable warnings are required on curb ramps at pedestrian street crossings on pedestrian access routes and must contrast visually with the adjacent surfaces. Detectable warning surfaces must extend a minimum of 2 feet (0.6 m) in the direction of pedestrian travel and must extend the full width of the curb ramp or blended transition (see Figure 16). Truncated Domes truncated domes are specified as the detectable warnings to be used at the interface between the sidewalk and the roadway. they are to be included in all connections to all street crossings to mark the street edge where a pedestrian through Zone crosses a vehicular way. NCHRP 15-45 Proposed Update of the AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities Revised Final Report October 31, 2017 - Appendix A: Proposed Guide Text 3-58 Figure 3-24. Detectable Warning Treatment Detectable warning surfaces are not required, nor desirable, at crossings of residential driveways, since the pedestrian right-of-way continues across residential driveway aprons. However, where the geometric design and traffic control at a commercial driveway might lead to pedestrians with vision disabilities perceiving the driveway as a street, detectable warnings should be used. For further discussion, see the inset box “Detectable Warning Surfaces at Driveway Crossings” in Section 3.3.8. Detectable warnings should generally be placed at back of curb, which is often where the bottom grade break of a curb ramp is found (see Figure 3-25). When perpendicular curb ramps meet curb radii, however, irregularly shaped areas often result between the bottom grade break and back of curb. The proposed PROWAG indicates that detectable warnings should be placed at such locations, namely: • Where the ends of the bottom grade break are in front of the back of curb, the detectable warnings should be placed at the back of curb. • Where the ends of the bottom grade break are behind the back of curb, and both ends of the grade break are 5.0 ft (1.5m) or less from the back of curb, the detectable warnings shall be placed on the ramp run within one dome spacing of the grade break. • Where the ends of the bottom grade break are behind the back of curb and the distance from one or both ends of the grade break are more than 5.0 ft (1.5 m) from the back of curb, the detectable warnings should be placed on the lower landing at the back of curb. Figure 16: Detectable Warning treatment Chapter 5. treatment Design | 53Page 252 Item 9. 54 | Chapter 5. treatment Design Placement and Orientation Detectable warnings should generally be placed at back of curb, which is often where the bottom grade break of a curb ramp is found (see Figure 17). When perpendicular curb ramps meet curb radii, however, irregularly shaped areas often result between the bottom grade break and back of curb. the proposed public rights-of- Way accessibility guidelines (prOWag)1 indicates that detectable warnings should be placed at such locations, namely: •Where the ends of the bottom grade break are in front of the back of curb, the detectable warnings should be placed at the back of curb. •Where the ends of the bottom grade break are behind the back of curb, and both ends of the grade break are 5.0 feet (1.5m) or less from the back of curb, the detectable warnings shall be placed on the ramp run within one dome spacing of the grade break. •Where the ends of the bottom grade break are behind the back of curb and the distance from one or both ends of the grade break are more than 5.0 feet (1.5 m) from the back of curb, the detectable warnings should be placed on the lower landing at the back of curb. 1 PROWAG is currently being updated by the Access Board under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) and will address access to sidewalks and streets, crosswalks, and curb ramps. The Board is in the process of finalizing these guidelines. More can be found at access-board.gov/prowag/. Detectable warning surfaces should be oriented such that the rows of domes are perpendicular to the grade break at the bottom of the ramp, so pedestrians in wheelchairs can more easily “track” between the domes, especially on surfaces with grades greater than 5 percent. the orientation of domes within the detectable warning strip is not intended to orient pedestrians with vision disabilities to the direction of the crossing. the domes are to be spaced not less than 1.6 in on center and not more than 2.4 in on center. some textured surfaces intended to provide information about the location of a street or other feature are not, in fact, detectable. grooves, crosshatching, exposed aggregate, and similar surfaces may be useful to prevent slippage, but are not detectable underfoot and not approved for this purpose, and may cause discomfort for some individuals using wheeled assistive devices. NCHRP 15-45 Proposed Update of the AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities Revised Final Report October 31, 2017 - Appendix A: Proposed Guide Text 3-59 Figure 3-25. Location of Detectable Warning Surfaces on Curb Ramps. Detectable warning surfaces should be oriented such that the rows of domes are perpendicular to the grade break at the bottom of the ramp, so pedestrians in wheelchairs can more easily “track” between the domes, especially on surfaces with grades greater than 5 percent. The orientation of domes within the detectable warning strip is not intended to orient pedestrians with vision disabilities to the direction of the crossing. The domes are to be spaced not less than 1.6 in on center and not more than 2.4 in on center. Some textured surfaces intended to provide information about the location of a street or other feature are not, in fact, detectable. Grooves, crosshatching, exposed aggregate, and similar surfaces may be useful to prevent slippage, but are not detectable underfoot and not approved for this purpose, and may cause discomfort for some individuals using wheeled assistive devices. Curb Ramp Types There are a variety of curb ramp designs. The appropriate type of curb ramp to be used is a function of sidewalk and border width, curb height, curb radius, and topography of the street corner. Three types of curb ramps are commonly used in street corner designs: perpendicular, parallel, and blended transitions. These types of curb ramps can also be used in various combinations. These general curb ramp types are illustrated in Figure 3-26 through 3-29. Table 3-1 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of the respective curb ramp types. • Perpendicular Curb Ramps — These curb ramps are perpendicular or nearly perpendicular to the curb face. They are generally the preferred design for pedestrians, provided that a 4-ft (1.2 m) landing is available for each approach (see Figure 3-27). Landings allow pedestrians to move completely from the curb ramp before turning to Figure 17: Location of Detectable Warning surfaces on Curb ramps Page 253 Item 9. Blended Transitions a blended transition is a raised pedestrian street crossing, depressed corner, or similar connection between the pedestrian access route made at the level of the sidewalk and crossing a street where the grade is 5 percent or less, such as on an uncurbed roadway. Blended transitions can occur at intersection corners as well as at other street crossings. Blended transitions can be advantageous for pedestrians for several reasons. With the flat grade, no landing or turning space is needed at the top or bottom of the transition area. maintaining the same sidewalk and ramp running slopes also simplifies the overall facility design and increases ease of use. the flatter design also eliminates sharp grade breaks between the walk and the traditional curb ramp area. Blended transitions may also be used at raised pedestrian street crossings or raised crosswalks. to provide a clear delineation between the pedestrian walkway and the crossing or crosswalk, the detectable warning mat shall extend across the entire width of the interface between the sidewalk and the raised crossing or crosswalk. Blended transitions may also be found at street crossings near major pedestrian generators such as sports arenas, transit hubs, convention centers, college or university campuses, or pedestrian-centric commercial areas. Blended transitions in these areas permit large volumes of pedestrians to cross roadways at a time. similar to the raised crosswalk and intersection applications, truncated dome mats shall be placed along the full length of the transition area to delineate the boundary between pedestrian and vehicular facilities. Design Considerations aDa requirements for cross slopes and detectable warnings for blended transition are similar to those of a curb ramp. a landing is not required for a blended transition. Blended transitions must be wholly contained within the pedestrian street crossing served. at intersection corners, attempts to install actual curb ramps should be made before blended transition options are examined. to delineate the boundary between the pedestrian area and the vehicular area, detectable warning mats shall be placed along the entire extent of the depressed area, as shown in Figure 18. it is critical to ensure the detectable warning mats encompass the entire length of the area flush with the adjacent roadway so the boundary between the pedestrian area and vehicular area is clear to pedestrians with vision disabilities. it is important to note that blended transitions between pedestrian travel ways and vehicular travel ways can create difficulties for pedestrians by providing a large area where the corner and street are at the same elevation. this can make it much more difficult to detect the boundary between the sidewalk and the street for persons with vision disabilities. Like diagonal curb ramps, depressed corners can make it more difficult for motorists to determine in which direction a pedestrian intends to cross the street. Figure 18: Blended transition example 106 ODOT MULTIMODAL DESIGN GUIDE | CHAPTER 4: PEDESTRIAN FACILITIESsidewalk and ramp running slopes also simplifies the overall facility design and increases ease of use. The flatter design also eliminates sharp grade breaks between the walk and the traditional curb ramp area. At intersection corners, attempts to install actual curb ramps should be made before blended transition options are examined. It is important to note that blended transitions between pedestrian travel ways and vehicular travel ways can create difficulties for pedestrians by providing a large area where the corner and street are at the same elevation. This can make it much more difficult to detect the boundary between the sidewalk and the street for persons with vision disabilities. Similar to diagonal curb ramps, depressed corners can make it more difficult for motorists to determine in which direction a pedestrian intends to cross the street. Figure 4-16 illustrates a blended transition at an intersection corner.To delineate the boundary between the pedestrian area and the vehicular area, detectable warning mats shall be placed along the entire extent of the depressed area, as shown Figure 4-16. It is critical to ensure the detectable warning mats encompass the entire length of the area flush with the adjacent roadway so the boundary between the pedestrian area and vehicular area is clear to pedestrians with vision disabilities. Blended transitions may also be used at raised pedestrian street crossings or raised crosswalks. To provide a clear delineation between the pedestrian walkway and the crossing or crosswalk, the detectable warning mat shall extend across the entire width of the interface between the sidewalk and the raised crossing or crosswalk. Blended transitions may also be found at street crossings near major pedestrian generators such as sports arenas, transit hubs, convention centers, college or university campuses, or pedestrian-centric commercial areas. Blended transitions in these areas permit large volumes of pedestrians to cross roadways at a time. Similar to the raised crosswalk and intersection applications, truncated dome mats shall be placed along the full length of the transition area to delineate the boundary between pedestrian and vehicular facilities. 4.5.9.6 Curb CutsPedestrian curb cuts, or dropped curbs, eliminate the vertical curb face and may facilitate a pedestrian walking within the roadway to exit the roadway. Pedestrian curb cuts should be placed where the pedestrian route is intended to continue across a roadway, but where a receiving curb ramp and sidewalk do not currently exist. This can be at the roadway edge, at a median or Figure 4-16: Blended Transition Example Chapter 5. treatment Design | 55Page 254 Item 9. 56 | Chapter 5. treatment Design Curb Cuts pedestrian curb cuts, or dropped curbs, eliminate the vertical curb face and may facilitate a pedestrian walking within the roadway to exit the roadway. pedestrian curb cuts should be placed where the pedestrian route is intended to continue across a roadway, but where a receiving curb ramp and sidewalk do not currently exist. this can be at the roadway edge, at a median or roundabout splitter island, or anywhere a curb presents a vertical face that is not traversable by a mobility device. Figure 19 describes the required widths and slopes for a pedestrian curb cut. Ramps and Landings at times, sidewalks that are not adjacent to roadways may exceed a 5 percent longitudinal slope. Where this occurs, the pedestrian access route is treated like a ramp. per prOWag r407, the maximum running slope, horizontal run, and vertical rise are summarized in Table 6. it is advised to provide a ramp with the least possible running slope in order to accommodate the widest possible range of users. 2 https://www.larimer.org/sites/default/files/uploads/2021/701-901_0.pdf Landings should be clear of any obstructions, such as manholes, utility boxes, or valves, and ramps and landings should meet the surface requirements for pedestrian access routes as defined in LCUASS standard Drawings.2 if the pedestrian access route does not have sloped grading adjacent to the ramp and has a vertical drop of more than 6 inches, a railing is required to protect pedestrians from stepping off the edge of the ramp. Dimensions for the railing can be found in prOWag section r-409. Figure 19: pedestrian Curb Cuts table 6: impacts of sidewalk Cross slope On pedestrian stability 107 ODOT MULTIMODAL DESIGN GUIDE | CHAPTER 4: PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES ODOT MULTIMODAL DESIGN GUIDE | CHAPTER 4: PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES roundabout splitter island, or anywhere a curb presents a vertical face that is not traversable by a mobilPedestrian Curb Cuts. Figure 4-17 describes the required widths and slopes for a pedestrian curb cut. 4.5.9.7 Curb Ramp Design WaiverPROWAG recognizes that it is not always practicable to fully meet ADA dimensional requirements due to physical constraints, “Existing physical constraints include, but are not limited to, underlying terrain, right-of-way availability, underground structures, adjacent developed facilities, drainage, or presence of notable natural or historic features (R202.3.1)”. In cases where it is not possible to meet ADA requirements, the pedestrian facilities shall be designed and constructed to meet ADA requirements to the maximum extent practicable. Disproportionate cost to provide an accessible path of travel can also be a factor in a decision to deviate from ADA requirements. Disproportionate cost is defined to be “the additional cost of alterations to provide an accessible ‘path of travel’ to the altered area is disproportionate when it exceeds 20 percent of the cost of the alteration to the ‘primary function’ area.” (R202) Existing sidewalks where the maximum ramp slope is not feasible due to site constraints (e.g., utility poles or vaults, right-of-way limits) may be reduced as follows: 10:1 for maximum rise of 6 inches 8:1 for maximum rise of 3 inches 6:1 over a maximum run of 2 ft.-0 inches for historic areas where a flatter slope is not feasibleTo prevent chasing the grade indefinitely, the transition from existing sidewalk to the curb cut is not required to exceed 15 ft. in length. ODOT has developed a design waiver process to identify the circumstances preventing the ability to provide accessible facilities. Prior to the development of the waiver, the designer must consider alternatives to achieve accessibility (including those values stated above) and show that the accessible design cannot be achieved. The waiver form and directions for completing it can be found on ODOT’s ADA Resources website. Specific documentation requirements and retention practices are discussed in subsequent sections. Documentation RequirementsIn cases where it is not practicable to meet all ADA dimensional requirements, the constraints shall be documented in an ADA waiver form. Waiver forms should be created either in design or during construction at the time it becomes known that a constraint will preclude a pedestrian facility from meeting ADA requirements. In either case, during design or during construction, the District Design Engineer will be responsible for review and approval or denial of ADA waivers. Figure 4-17: Pedestrian Curb Cuts 86 ODOT MULTIMODAL DESIGN GUIDE | CHAPTER 4: PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Cross SlopeThe cross slope of a pedestrian facility is measured perpendicular to the direction of pedestrian travel. Cross slopes can influence the stability and ease of maneuvering for pedestrians using a mobility device. When the cross slope is steep, pedestrians must shift their body weight and use more energy to maneuver through a corridor. Figure 4-5 illustrates the effect of sidewalk cross slope on a pedestrian using a wheelchair. As a pedestrian leans his or her body to compensate for a steep cross slope, the pedestrian’s balance is impacted, causing instability and requiring more energy to make maneuvers, such as turning to align with a curb ramp. Cross slope requirements apply to all sidewalks and walkways, street crossings, and at-grade railroad crossings, as well as pedestrian overpasses and underpasses and similar structures. The cross slope must meet or be less than the compliant cross slope for the entire width of the pedestrian access route. A driveway crossing should maintain a level pedestrian zone (see ODOT L&D Manual Volume 1, Figure 803-3, for sidewalk design at drives). Where pedestrian street crossings are without yield or stop control conditions (no yield or stop sign), or at a traffic signal that is designed for a green phase (no red phase) and vehicles do not slow to navigate the intersection, pedestrian street crossings have different cross slope maximums. The following table provides maximum cross slope information within the pedestrian access route.Table 4-4: Summary of ADA Compliant Cross Slopes for Pedestrian Walkways Walkway Location Maximum Cross Slope Within Street Crossing Without Yield or Stop Control at Intersection 5 percent Mid-block Street Crossing Match grade of street All Other Pedestrian Walkways 1.56 percent Surface TreatmentsThe sidewalk surface treatment affects the overall accessibility and comfort of the facility. The requirement is that the surface shall be a reduced vibration zone which is stable, firm, and slip resistant. Concrete and asphalt are the most commonly used surfaces, though other materials such as stone, brick, or pavers may be considered. Figure 4-5: Impacts of Sidewalk Cross Slope On Pedestrian Stability Page 255 Item 9. 5.1.6 Bicycle Ramps Bike ramps are used to improve bicyclist safety or comfort, to shift the elevation of a bikeway to a different elevation (e.g., from street-level to sidewalk-level), or to change the bicycle facility type (e.g., from a conventional bike lane to side path). it is common to use bike ramps when approaching roundabouts, at interchange ramp crossings, or at high- conflict zones (such as heavy weaving areas or high turning volume intersections). in these situations, the bike ramp serves the purpose of allowing bicyclists to avoid sharing travel lanes with motorists. in some instances, it may be appropriate to provide a bike ramp that would be used by most bicyclists, but also provide an on-street option for highly Confident and somewhat Confident Bicyclists to allow them to ride in the shared lane environment. the other situation to use a bike ramp is approaching pedestrian conflict areas or raised crossings across a separated bike lane, where a change in elevation is desired to meet pedestrian accessibility guidelines, to slow bicyclists at conflicts, or to transition the bikeway elevation. in either situation, the overall facility geometry, the extent of construction or type of project, or the types of bikeways being connected can affect the alignment of the bike ramp. Figure 20 identifies two options for bike ramps that transition to a shared use path. Detail 1 is preferable to provide a bicyclist with a comfortable change in alignment and ensure grade breaks are parallel to the path of travel. Detail 2 should be used where there is insufficient space to provide the straight taper shown in Detail 1. Designers may encounter the following challenges with the design shown in Detail 2: •narrow bike ramp widths can force bicyclists to encroach on adjacent motorist travel lanes, pedestrian zones, or on-coming bicycle traffic on two-way facilities in order to access the ramp. •if grade breaks at the top and bottom of the bike ramp are not perpendicular to the bicyclist path of travel, bicyclists with more than two wheels (e.g., adult tricycles or bikes with trailers) can experience instability or overturning. in both situations, increasing the width of the bike ramp can help to address these issues. Figure 20: Bicycle ramp to shared Use path or sidewalk Chapter 5. treatment Design | 57Page 256 Item 9. 58 | Chapter 5. treatment Design 5.1.7 Mountable Truck Aprons While bicyclist and pedestrian safety is negatively impacted by wide crossings at roadway intersections, bicyclists and pedestrians are also at risk if the curb radius is too small. this can result in the rear wheels of a large vehicle tracking over queuing areas at the corner. maintenance problems are also caused when large vehicles regularly drive over street corners to make turns. mountable truck aprons are a solution that can reduce turning speeds for passenger vehicles while accommodating the off-tracking of larger vehicles where a larger corner radius is necessary (see Figure 21). mountable truck aprons are part of the traveled way and as such should be designed to discourage pedestrians or bicyclists from using them as a safe queuing area. Bicycle stop bars, detectable warning surfaces, traffic signal equipment, and other intersection features must be located behind the mountable surface area. the mountable surface should be visually distinct from the adjacent travel lane, sidewalk, and bike facility. the heights of mountable aprons and curbs should generally be no more than 3 in. above the travel lane to accommodate. Figure 21: mountable truck apron 5.1.8 Raised Crossings (Multiple Threat Crossing Solutions) raised crossings are an effective strategy for reducing crashes between motorists and bicyclists because they slow the turning speed of motor vehicles, increase visibility of vulnerable street users, and increase yielding behavior of motorists. raised crossings should be considered for crossings where motorists are required to yield the right of way to bicyclists when approaching the crossing or at a turn. however, raised crossings may not be appropriate across streets where posted speeds are over 30 mph. Designers should also consider the effects of raised crossings on drainage and pedestrian accessibility. examples where this treatment may be particularly beneficial include the following types of crossings: •Unsignalized collector and local street crossings with side paths or separated bike lanes along arterials •Crossings of driveways and alleys •Crossings of channelized right turn lanes and roundabouts •intersections where a large corner radius is required to accommodate large vehicles ≥6'15' preferable radius radius based on design vehicle prefoptional edge line 6'minlegend mountable truck apron note: green-Colored pavement is permitted for use with interim approval from FhWa. (see section 1.5) raised Crossing in Commercial District Page 257 Item 9. Figure 22: raised side street Crossing 5-48 ELEMENTS OF DESIGN AASHTO | GUIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF BICYCLE FACILITIES Figure 5-21: Raised Side Street Crossing Figure 5-22: Raised Driveway Crossing Note: Green-Colored pavement is permitted for use with Interim Approval from FHWA. (See Section 1.5) Note: Directional Indicators are an emerging treatment. See Section 7.5 for recommendations for implementation. note: Directional indicators are an emerging treatment. see section 7.5 for recommendations for implementation. Design Considerations raised crossings are similar to speed tables and should have the following design characteristics (see Figure22): •they should be elevated 3 to 6 in. above the normal street elevation. •motor vehicle approach ramps should have a 5 to 8 percent slope (relative to the street). Yield lines or speed hump markings should be used on uncontrolled motor vehicle approaches to indicate where motorists should yield to bicyclists and pedestrians. the surface materials, color, and texture of the shared use path, separated bike lane, and adjacent sidewalk, if applicable, should extend through the crossing, maintaining visual continuity to encourage motorists to yield at the crossing. Chapter 5. treatment Design | 59Page 258 Item 9. 60 | Chapter 5. treatment Design at bicycle crossings where two or more travel lanes approach from one direction, there is increased potential for a multiple-threat crash. a multiple threat can occur when motorists yield or stop too close to crossings of uncontrolled multilane approaches, placing pedestrians and bicyclists at risk by blocking other approaching motorists’ views of the crossing pedestrians or bicyclists. the stopped vehicle also blocks pedestrians’ and bicyclists’ views of vehicles approaching in the other lanes. multiple threat crashes often result in severe injuries or fatalities for pedestrians and bicyclists (see Figure 23). the provision of an advance stop line (or yield line) with “stop here For (or “Yield here to”) Bicyclists” (and pedestrians if needed) signs can reduce the crash risk by encouraging the first stopped vehicle to yield farther from the crossing which improves the sight line between the crossing person and approaching motorists in the adjacent lanes. solid lane line markings should be used to discourage motorists from changing lanes approaching the stop or yield line equivalent to the stopping sight distance for motorists. the stop or yield lines should be placed 20 feet (minimum) to 50 feet (maximum) in advance of the crossing. the minimum distance should only be used where vehicle approach speeds are 30 mph or less. as speeds increase, the distance the stop or yield lines are placed from the crossing should be increased to account for the higher motorist approach speed. the roadway geometry may also justify increasing the distance between the stop or yield line and the crossing to account for motorist sight lines. this treatment should be considered at all uncontrolled, or pedestrian hybrid beacon-controlled, mid-block, or intersection crossings where a multiple threat crash could occur. Figure 23: multiple threat Crash and treatment to address 5-50 ELEMENTS OF DESIGN AASHTO | GUIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF BICYCLE FACILITIES Figure 5-23: Multiple Threat Crash and Treatment to Address stopped vehicle bicycle travel path motorist travel path legend sight triangle stopped vehicle bicycle and pedestrian travel path motorist travel path potential conflict legend sight triangle stopped vehicle bicycle and pedestrian travel path motorist travel path potential conflict legend sight triangle 5.10.7. Bicycle Ramps Bicycle ramps can be used in locations where it may improve bicyclist safety or comfort to shift the elevation of a bikeway to a different elevation (e.g. from street- level to sidewalk-level) or change the bicycle facility type (e.g. from conventional bike lane to side path). Bike ramps are broadly recommended on the approaches to and departures from roundabouts (see Chapter 11), but there are other situations where bike ramps may be used before reaching a high-risk or constrained area. One situation to use bike ramps is before interchange ramp crossings or high-conflict zones (such as heavy weaving areas or high turning volume intersections). In these situations the bike ramp serves the purpose of allowing bicyclists to avoid sharing travel lanes with motorists. In some instances, it may be appropriate to provide a bike ramp option and an option for Highly Confident bicyclists to allow them to ride in the shared lane environment. The other situation to use bike ramps is approaching pedestrian conflict areas or raised crossings, where a change in elevation is desired to meet pedestrian accessibility guidelines, to slow bicyclists prior to conflicts, or to transition the bikeway elevation. In either situation, the overall facility geometry, the extent of construction or type of project, or the types of bikeways being connected can affect the alignment of the bike ramp. It is preferable to design these bike ramp transitions to connect directly in line to the existing bike lane, though conditions may require a more abrupt lateral shift (see Figure 5-24). If the bikeways connect directly in line with each other, the lateral shift should not exceed the shifting taper guidelines identified in Section 5.6.4.1. However, in constrained conditions, the more abrupt shift depicted in Figure 5-24 may be considered. These constrained bike ramps can present the following challenges: • Narrow bike ramp widths can force bicyclist to encroach on adjacent motorist travel lanes, pedestrian zones, or on-coming bicycle traffic on two-way facilities in order to navigate the ramp. • If grade breaks at the top and bottom of the bike ramp are not perpendicular to the bicyclist path of Page 259 Item 9. 5.1.9 Neighborhood Traffic Circles neighborhood traffic circles are primarily used at four-leg, two-lane local streets and are installed to reduce crash severity and slow traffic speeds. splitter islands are not required on approaches (unlike a modern roundabout), and the central island is typically raised with a mountable apron to prevent a straight-through movement of the typical design vehicle. the occasional control design vehicle should not be precluded from operating within the intersection with encroachment, if necessary, which may include going the “wrong way” to the left of the traffic circle to make a left turn. Landscaping may be planted with the center median if it does not need to be traversable. the local streets typically do not have marked centerlines. neighborhood traffic circles typically serve as intersections in primarily residential areas where daily motor vehicle volumes for all approaching legs of the intersection is less than 15,000 aDt, or as intersections along traffic-calmed neighborhood bikeways. Design Considerations the following design standards should be followed for neighborhood traffic circle intersections: •15’ of clearance should be provided from intersection corners to edge of traffic circle. this may include a mountable truck apron. •Use the largest traffic circle radius possible to encourage slow speeds. •mark crosswalks ahead of each approach/entrance to the traffic circle. Figure 24: planted neighborhood traffic Circle Chapter 5. treatment Design | 61Page 260 Item 9. 62 | Chapter 5. treatment Design Figure 25: schematic examples of mini-roundabouts and neighborhood traffic Circle Landscaped center island with mountable truck apron R1-1 (typ) YIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDSplitter channelization Traversable raised center island R1-2 (typ) Typical Neighborhood Traffic Circle with Stop Control (If Warranted) Typical Mini-Roundabout •traffic controls may be used in addition to the traffic circle. if used, mount “Yield” (r1-2) or “stop” (r1-1) control signs at motor vehicle approaches to the circle. •mount a r6-4 directional sign in the circle when possible. mount the r6-5p on the “stop” or “Yield” sign post if a sign can’t be mounted within the circle. Use corner curb extensions or splitter islands to channelize motor vehicles and further reduce speeds. •the aesthetic value of a traffic circle is an important part of its design. Well-designed traffic circles fit naturally into the neighborhood and can include landscaping, green street elements, or decorative pavement such as stamped concrete, pavers, etc. •traffic circles should be visible to street users with pavement marking, signing and reflectors used where appropriate. regulatory and/or warning signage should be provided to advise traffic to proceed counterclockwise around the circle. •Careful attention should be paid to the available lane widths and turning radius used with traffic circles to accommodate the design vehicles. •maintaining access to underground utilities must be considered Page 261 Item 9. 5.1.11 Roundabouts roundabouts are a popular design solution for intersections because they reduce delay for motorists and increase capacity through an intersection compared with a stop-controlled intersection, while also reducing travel speeds and the number of conflict points. While a confident bicyclist may be comfortable traversing a roundabout in a shared lane environment, many bicyclists will not feel comfortable navigating roundabouts with vehicular traffic, especially multilane roundabouts. Bike lanes are not to be located within the circulatory roadway of a roundabout per the mUtCD. For comfort and safety reasons, roundabouts may be designed to facilitate bicycle travel outside of the circular roadway on a separated bike lane or shared use path. although on-street bike lanes are to be terminated in advance of roundabouts, some bicyclists may choose to ride through the circulatory roadway as a vehicle rather than using a separated bikeway. shared lane markings may be used within the circulatory roadway of the roundabout to indicate the preferred bicyclist position in the center of the lane. Transitions to Separated Bikeways at Roundabouts accommodations should be provided to allow on-street bicyclists to move from the roadway to an adjacent separated bikeway before reaching a roundabout. the type of separated bikeway (i.e. separated bike lane or shared use path) is determined primarily by the anticipated volume of bicyclists and pedestrians. this transition from on-road to separated bikeway should be located a minimum of 100 feet from the edge of the roundabout circulatory roadway (see Figure 26 and Figure 27). if on- street bike lanes are present, they should be terminated in advance of the roundabout at the transition to the separated bikeway. as shown on Figure 26, if the elevation of the separated bikeway differs from the on-road facility, a bicycle ramp must be provided to transition between these facility types. an appropriate taper of the bike lane should be provided to narrow the entry width for the roundabout. the taper should end prior to the crosswalk at the roundabout, to achieve the shortest practical pedestrian crossing distance. the bike lane line should be dotted for 50 to 200 feet in advance of the taper to provide guidance to bicyclists who wish to travel the roundabout in the shared lane. Chapter 5. treatment Design | 63Page 262 Item 9. 64 | Chapter 5. treatment Design Figure 26: typical Layout of Bike Lane transitions to shared Use path at multilane roundabout with Bike ramps Page 263 Item 9. 11-24 BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN AT INTERCHANGES, ALTERNATIVE INTERSECTIONS, AND ROUNDABOUTS AASHTO | GUIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF BICYCLE FACILITIES • YIELD HERE TO (or STOP HERE FOR) BICYCLES (R1-5 alt. A), supplemented with yield lines (or stop bars) may be considered for bike crossings at roundabout exits to reinforce motorist yielding. Separated bike lanes at roundabouts operate based on the principle of mutual yielding (see Section 5.4). Additional signs or pavement markings may be appropriate to reinforce the bicyclist’s and motorist’s responsibility to yield (or stop). Figure 11-15: Typical Layout of Separated Bike Lanes at Roundabout W11-15 (typ)100'W16-7P(typ) 10' des minseparated bike lane bicycle lane sidewalk AASHTO: TDG ID#: File Name: Author: Checked By: Updated:9.22.2017 Sheila Borkar 11_19_Plan_SBL Roundabout.dwg 11-22 BICYCLE LANE AT A SINGLE LANE ROUNDABOUT Note: Green-Colored pavement is permitted for use with Interim Approval from FHWA. (See Section 1.5) 11.10.3. Shared Use Paths at Roundabouts Figure 27: typical Layout of separated Bike Lanes at roundabout Separated Bike Lanes at Roundabouts When separated bike lanes are provided on approaches to roundabouts, they may be continued around the intersection to maintain the continuity of the bikeway. When bike lanes are provided on approaches to roundabouts, and if it is desirable to maintain separation between bicyclists and pedestrians, the bike lanes may transition to separated bike lanes around the roundabout. separated bike lanes at roundabout crossings should provide the following features: •Yield control for motorists at the bicycle crossing •Channelizing islands or detectable surface materials to maintain separation between bicyclists and pedestrians throughout the crossings •“Bicycle/pedestrian Warning”signs (W11-15) at the bicycle and pedestrian crossings •roundabouts shall also be the preferred form of traffic control at any intersection that meets mUtCD warrants for the installation of all-way stop control Chapter 5. treatment Design | 65Page 264 Item 9. 66 | Chapter 5. treatment Design Shared Use Paths at Roundabouts When shared use paths are provided approaching a roundabout, they should be continuous around the circulating roadway. shared use path design at roundabouts is similar to separated bike lane design, and should include the following features: •minimum shared use path width of 10 feet •Widened curb ramps that match the shared use path width at crosswalks to facilitate pedestrians and bicyclists at the crossings •supplemental yield lines for crossings at roundabout exits to reinforce motorist yielding •“Bicycle/pedestrian Warning” signs (W11-15) at the shared use path crossings 3 https://www.larimer.org/sites/default/files/uploads/2021/appendix_i_-_roundabout_design_manual_0.pdf On-Street Bicycle Travel through Roundabouts the geometric features of a roundabout (e.g., entry and exit radii, entry and exit widths, splitter islands, circulatory roadway width, and inscribed circle diameter) can combine to maintain lower desired motor vehicle speeds around a roundabout. With typical on-street bicyclists traveling between 10 and 20 mph, roundabouts that are designed to maintain similar motor vehicle speeds can be comfortable for bicyclists. single-lane roundabouts are much simpler for bicyclists to navigate than multilane roundabouts because bicyclists will not need to change lanes approaching the circulatory roadway and they will experience fewer conflicts with merging motorists within the roundabout. Furthermore, limiting entry and exit legs to single-lane approaches and departures reduces bicyclist and pedestrian exposure to conflicts and eliminates multiple-threat risks. therefore, when designing and implementing roundabouts, designers should avoid implementing multilane roundabouts if existing traffic volumes do not necessitate their higher capacity. if traffic volumes indicate the need for a multilane roundabout, but this need is not likely for several years, the roundabout can be built as a single-lane roundabout and designed so that additional lanes may be opened in the future when and if traffic volumes increase. no leg of a roundabout should be designed with more travel lanes than is necessary to accommodate the traffic volumes. this design approach can significantly reduce complexity for all users, including bicyclists. more information can be found in appendix i, roundabout Design manual, of the LCUass standards.3 shared Use path at roundabout Page 265 Item 9. 5.2 Warning and Regulatory Traffic Control Devices the following section provides guidance for warning and regulatory traffic control devices, which can improve pedestrian and bicyclists’ safety and operation for all types of facilities. Ultimately, traffic controls are under the purview of the City traffic engineer. 5.2.1 Pedestrian Signal Phasing pedestrian signals are part of a system of traffic signals that control intersection operations for people walking and rolling. pedestrian signal phasing is intended to minimize exposure of people walking and rolling to motor vehicles, minimize delay for people waiting to cross the street, reduce noncompliant and unsafe crossing behavior, and provide accessibility benefits to people with disabilities. pedestrian phasing falls into three categories: concurrent, exclusive, or a hybrid of the two. as much as possible, consistent approaches to pedestrian phasing should be used across the city to help make the pedestrian network predictable and consistent. •Concurrent phasing refers to phasing schemes that allow people to walk across the street at the same time and in the same direction as motor vehicle traffic. Concurrent phasing minimizes delay for all users. •Exclusive phasing provides a separate phase for people walking and rolling that prohibits all motor vehicle movements while people walk across the street. exclusive phasing can provide safety benefits by eliminating conflicts with motor vehicles; however, it often creates longer delays for all modes and leads to less safe, non-compliant crossing behavior where right of way is unclear. •Hybrid phasing may be beneficial at complex intersections including those with skewed intersections, multiple lanes of traffic, and leading protected left-turn phases. hybrid pedestrian phasing uses concurrent phasing to minimize delay for people walking and rolling on those legs of the intersection where conflicts are minimal, while providing an exclusive phase for more challenging legs of the intersection. Design Considerations the following design considerations should be used when implementing pedestrian signal phasing at intersections: •a walking and rolling speed of 3.5 feet per second should be used to time all pedestrian phases and provide adequate time for people to cross the street. time signal phasing so that people walking and rolling have adequate time to cross both sides of a median- divided street during a single walk phase. •provide accessible pedestrian signals (aps) to assist people with disabilities. •Concurrent phasing: •Use concurrent phasing at all signalized intersections, except where a strong safety concern is noted due to high turning movement volumes (250 or more turning movements per hour). •Leading pedestrian intervals (Lpis) should be used where concurrent phasing is applied to give people walking and rolling across the street a head start before other street users are allowed to proceed. Lpis encourage people driving to yield to pedestrians while they are turning and improve visibility between all users. Consider ‘no turn on red’ restrictions at all locations where Lpis are implemented. •Where concurrent phasing is used, consider placing signals on automatic pedestrian recall (parallel to the coordinated direction of traffic), particularly in high pedestrian traffic areas, such as within commercial areas and within a 10-minute walk shed of bus routes or transit stations. •protected left-turn phases provide an exclusive phase for people driving to turn left and may be warranted if there is a pocket lane or center turn lane and high volumes of turning or opposing traffic on the street. in these cases, lagging left turns (left turn signal at the end of the ‘green’ phase) should be considered instead of leading left turns (left turn signal at the beginning of the ‘green’ phase) to preserve the ability to use Lpis with concurrent phasing. the lagging left turn phase should be provided for both directions of traffic to avoid conflicts between through movements and permissive left turns. geometry may limit the ability to run concurrent left turn phases. Chapter 5. treatment Design | 67Page 266 Item 9. 68 | Chapter 5. treatment Design •exclusive phasing: •Consider use of exclusive phasing where high concentrations of people walking and rolling are present or where at least 250 motor vehicles turn right (or left on one-way streets) per hour along any approach. •no turn on red restrictions should be considered at all locations where exclusive phasing is used. •ensure all pedestrian signal heads are correctly oriented to be visible to all users who are directed to follow the signal indications. •Countdowns are required for all newly installed/ replaced pedestrian signals and provide a pedestrian countdown in pedestrian signal heads to assist people with street crossings. Figure 28: pedestrian signal phasing schematics Exclusive Pedestrian Phase Leading Pedestrian Interval Concurrent Phasing 1 2 Page 267 Item 9. 5.2.2 No Turn on Red Restrictions “no turn on red” signs are used to restrict motor vehicles from turning right or left at signalized intersections, during the red indication. restricting this movement eliminates conflicts with bicycles and pedestrians crossing in front of motor vehicles making turns. “no turn on red” signs should be considered at signalized intersections with one or more of the following features or characteristics: •an exclusive pedestrian phase where motor vehicles are to remain stopped while pedestrian movements commence. •a leading pedestrian interval. •high volumes of pedestrian and turning motor vehicle conflicts. •poor sight distances and visibility. •geometry of the intersection may result in unexpected conflicts. •more than three crashes reported in a 12-month period between pedestrians and motor vehicles where turn-on- red is permitted. •Bicycle boxes. Design Considerations in order to implement “no turn on red” signs consistently, the following design considerations should be obeyed: •“no turn on red” signs can be provided at all times or by a dynamic sign that changes when pedestrians are present, by time of day, by a call made by an emergency vehicle, and/or at rail or light transit crossings. •“no turn on red” signs can also be used in conjunction with leading pedestrian intervals or bicycle signals that allow through movements when turning vehicular traffic is stopped. Chapter 5. treatment Design | 69Page 268 Item 9. 70 | Chapter 5. treatment Design 5.2.3 In-Street Yield to Pedestrian Signs in-street Yield to pedestrian signs are signs placed in the roadway at crosswalk locations to remind roadway users of the laws regarding the right of way at unsignalized mid-block locations and intersections. they also increase awareness and visibility of pedestrians crossing the roadway. they are often used in busy business districts; at school crossings and other locations with vulnerable populations such as seniors and families; or where high pedestrian volumes occur in unexpected locations. in-street signs can be used accordingly in conjunction with advanced warning signs and pedestrian crossing signs at crosswalks: •in-street Yield to pedestrian signs must only be used at unsignalized intersections. they are prohibited from use at signalized or all-way stop-controlled intersections. •in-street Yield to pedestrian signs work best on low- speed, two-lane roads. they are not recommended for roads with three or more lanes, or roads with high speeds or volumes where drivers are less likely to see them. Design Considerations the following design standards should be followed for in- street Yield to pedestrian signs: •in-street Yield to pedestrian signs should be placed in the roadway close to the crosswalk location on the center line or on a median island, but they should not obstruct the crosswalk. in-street signs should also be placed to avoid turning motor vehicles from knocking over the sign and should be designed to bend over and bounce back when struck. •Use mUtCD as additional guidance for sign design. •may be permanent or temporary. it may be preferable to remove them during winter for snow removal. if there are maintenance issues, alternative treatments should be considered. •require regular monitoring and should be replaced when damaged. Damaged signs send the message to pedestrians that a crossing is not safe. •are typically not used at yield-controlled intersections and should only be installed using engineering judgment. •may be used in combination with pedestrian warning signs. Warning signs should be placed on the right side of the road on the sidewalk or mounted on a mast arm above the crosswalk. Figure 29: in-street Yield to pedestrian signs Page 269 Item 9. 5.2.4 Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossings Uncontrolled pedestrian crossings can be found in every neighborhood in Fort Collins and are an important part of the pedestrian network. the 2011 Fort Collins Pedestrian Plan provides detailed information for planners and engineers about uncontrolled crosswalks as well as how to determine the appropriate treatment to ensure safety and efficient movement of all users of the transportation system. this section serves as a supplement to these guidelines, and is supported by the City of Fort Collins pedestrian Crossing policy. Uncontrolled crossings are typically found at intersections of lower-volume roads that do not require signalization. several factors are used to determine whether to mark a crossing: •Crosswalks should be considered at all signalized intersections and at all-way stop controlled intersections with centerline striping on one or both approaches and should follow guidance in the City of Fort Collins pedestrian plan and the pedestrian Crossing policy. •at uncontrolled locations, crosswalks may be installed when they meet one or more of the following criteria: •Where demand requirements of 20 pedestrians/ hour, applying conversion factor of 1.33 for vulnerable populations, and where the location meets sight distance requirements (aashtO’s a policy on geometric Design for highways and streets) or sight distance obstructions can be removed, •Where a location meets mUtCD’s pedestrian signal warrant or application guidance for a pedestrian hybrid beacon, a marked crosswalk and pedestrian hybrid beacon may be installed, •Where pedestrian delay of LOs D or worse exist, and/or •at locations directly serving a school, hospital, senior center, recreation center, library, commercial district, or park. Design Considerations the Fort Collins pedestrian plan and the pedestrian Crossing policy should be consulted for detail on crosswalk siting, pedestrian crossing types, and treatments. in addition, uncontrolled pedestrian crossings should be designed with the following in mind: •Crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections should have continental crosswalk markings. •install aDa-compliant curb ramps (or blended transitions for raised crosswalks) to connect to accessible routes when constructing new crosswalks. •provide yield lines and regulatory sign r1-5 in advance of uncontrolled multilane midblock crossings. Use W11- 2 signs for single-lane approaches. •restrict on-street motor vehicle parking at least 20’ in advance of the crossing to provide adequate sight distance. Depending on context, signage, paint, or curb extensions, or other strategies to daylight crosswalks may be appropriate. •Crosswalks should be as wide or wider than the connecting sidewalk. Crosswalk markings should be a minimum of 10’ in width. •Where a protected bike lane crosses a crosswalk, yield markings on the bike lane approach can emphasize that people biking or using dockless micromobility devices must yield to pedestrians within the crosswalk. this most commonly occurs at midblock crossings, protected intersections, and transit island stops. •streetlights should be located to front-light crosswalks, with the light source situated in advance of the crosswalk in the direction of motor vehicle travel. For wider intersections, it may be necessary to place light poles on all four corners of each intersection to adequately light a crosswalk. see Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, “Chapter 15: street Lighting” for details. •Use special paving or brick to match local context in historic districts. include white striping on both sides of the special pavers or materials. Chapter 5. treatment Design | 71Page 270 Item 9. 72 | Chapter 5. treatment Design 5.3 Pavement Markings pavement markings are used to convey messages to roadway users about what part of the roadway to use, where to pass, and what is ahead. the following sections detail various types of pavement markings and how they should be used for pedestrians and bicycles in intersections. 5.3.1 Lane Lines Lane lines divide a roadway into sections for either the same or various modes. solid white lane lines indicate that modes should remain in their respective areas, whereas broken lane lines can be used to show areas where modes may need to merge, either due to space or turning needs. Broken lane lines should consist of 3-ft line segments and 9-ft gaps. they may be used to separate same direction bicyclists (or other user) travel on two-way bicycle lanes and shared use paths. Dotted lane lines should consist of 2-ft line segments and 2- to 6-ft gaps. Dotted lane lines may be used to identify where motor vehicles should merge or cross bicycle lanes on approaches to intersections, or to extend bicycle lanes through intersections. Lane line markings should not be broken for minor driveways. pavement markings Delineating Where Bicyclists should ride Page 271 Item 9. Figure 30: example of hardened Centerline applications with Flexible Delineators on the Departure roadway and a pedestrian Crossing island on the receiving roadway 5.3.2 Hardened Centerlines hardened centerlines consists of a painted center line supplemented by flexible delineators, rubber curb, in- street Crossing signs (section 5.2.3), or a combination of these treatments. these treatments have been found to reduce left turn speeds of motorists and also keeps motorists from crossing the double yellow lines when making turning movements, reducing the effective turning radius of this maneuver. the dimensions of a hardened centerline will depend on the intersection geometry and vehicle turning radius. hardened centerlines should be considered where higher-speed left turns occur concurrent with pedestrian and/or bicyclist movements, as they have been found to reduce the speed of left turning motorists by reducing the effective turning radius. hardened centerlines can be appropriate on both the departure roadway and the receiving roadway to control the left turning motorist path of travel. see Figure 30 and Figure 31. Chapter 5. treatment Design | 73Page 272 Item 9. 74 | Chapter 5. treatment Design Figure 31: example of a hardened Centerline hardened centerlines are especially useful at intersections with instances of crashes involving people walking or rolling and left-turning motor vehicles, or with high volumes of people walking, rolling, and biking crossing the street; and/or intersections where motor vehicles are frequently turning across double yellow lines at high speeds. Design Considerations the following design considerations should be use of hardened centerlines: •Designs can include any combination of plastic curbing, rubber speed bumps, and flex posts, depending on turning radii, lane width, and needs to accommodate large motor vehicle turning movements. •Where space allows, install rubber speed bump “nose” extending into the intersection. •On roadways where trucks and emergency vehicles frequently make turning movements, consider using mountable curbs to allow larger motor vehicles to make turns while slowing smaller motor vehicles. •Can be used in conjunction with turn wedges and at protected intersections. hardened centerlines Page 273 Item 9. 5.3.3 Shared Use Path and Pedestrian Crosswalks Where bicyclist crossings of an intersection occur with pedestrians on a shared use path, crossings should be delineated with crosswalk markings. high visibility (diagonal or ladder style) marked crosswalks are recommended at uncontrolled intersections between paths and roadways. they delineate the crossing location and can help alert roadway users to the potential conflict ahead. On roadways with low traffic volumes and speeds where sight distances are adequate, the marked crosswalk should be sufficient to accommodate pedestrians effectively. additional crossing improvements are recommended at locations where motorists are uncontrolled and where the speed limit exceeds 40 mph and either: •the roadway has four or more lanes of travel without a raised refuge median and an aDt of 12,000 vehicles/day or greater; or •the roadway has four or more lanes of travel with a raised refuge median (either existing or planned) and an aDt of 15,000 vehicles/day or greater. Design Considerations Locations where shared use paths intersect one another should follow similar design considerations for shared use path–roadway intersections, including: •On a roadway approach to a shared use path crossing, placement of an intersection or advance traffic control warning sign should be at (or close to) the distance recommended for the approach speed in table 2C-4 of the MUTCD. the assembly consists of a W11-15 or a W11-1 accompanied by a W16-7p (downward arrow) plaque mounted below the warning sign. this sign assembly should not be installed at the crossing if the roadway traffic is yield-, stop-, or signal-controlled. the W16-8p (shared use path name) plaque may be mounted on the sign assembly (below the W11-15 or W11-1 sign) to notify approaching roadway users of the name of the shared use path being crossed. •at shared use path crossings that experience frequent conflicts between motorists and path users, or on multilane roadways where a sign on the right-hand side of the roadway may not be visible to all travel lanes, an additional shared use path crossing warning sign assembly should be installed on the opposite side of the road, or on the refuge median, if present. •the Combined Bicycle-pedestrian Warning sign (W11- 15) or Bicycle Warning sign (W11-1) may be placed on the roadway in advance of a shared use path crossing. again, this warning sign should not be used in advance of locations where the roadway is stop-, yield-, or signal-controlled. advance warning sign assemblies may be supplemented with a W16-9p (aheaD) plaque located below the W11-15p sign. •the use of z-gates, bollards, or other physical obstructions within the shared use path to slow bicyclists or to force bicyclists to dismount is not appropriate approaching intersections. these treatments present a crash hazard for bicyclists and can create situations where bicyclists are forced to queue into intersections increasing their exposure to collisions with motorists while other users navigate through the obstructed area.shared Use path Crossing at intersection Chapter 5. treatment Design | 75Page 274 Item 9. 76 | Chapter 5. treatment Design 5.3.4 Bicycle Crossings a bicycle crossing is any location where the bicycle enters a roadway from a dedicated bikeway within the traveled way, or a shared use path or separated bike lane outside the travel way. Bikeway crossings of roads can be broadly categorized as mid-block, intersection, or grade- separated. some crossings may include characteristics of both midblock and intersection crossing types. Where a bicycle lane crosses an intersection separate from a crosswalk, bicycle lane markings may be extended through the intersection to delineate the bicycle crossing) and raise awareness of the presence of bicyclists. Bike lane crossings are desirable to: •delineate a preferred path for people bicycling through the intersection, especially a crossing of a wide or complex intersection, •improve the legibility of the bike lane to roadway users, and •encourage motorist yielding behavior, where motorists must merge or turn across the path of a bicyclist. Design Considerations For bike lanes and separated bike lane crossings at intersections, a dotted white edge line should be used to delineate the bicycle lane extension through the intersection. the dotted lines should be 2 feet in length with 6 feet gaps located on the edge of the bike lane. the width of the edge lines may vary from a minimum of 4 inches up to 2 feet the width of the crossing should match the width of the bike lane. Crossing visibility can be enhanced with green-colored pavement (or markings) and a bicycle lane symbol. the green-colored pavement should generally match the pattern of the dotted edge lines but may be solid where additional emphasis of the crossing is desired (see Figure 32). Bicycle crossings are typically parallel to pedestrian crossings. Bicycle crossings can be located directly adjacent to the pedestrian crossing (i.e., no separation between the bike crossing and pedestrian crossing). at locations where the bicycle crossing is less than 1 feet from the pedestrian crossing, the dotted edge line nearest the pedestrian crossing should not be used. Where marked bicycle crossings are parallel to and located within 4 feet of a marked pedestrian crosswalk at intersections, green-colored pavement should be used to enhance the conspicuity of the bicycle crossing and to differentiate it from the pedestrian crosswalks. Bicycle Crossing parallel to a Crosswalk Figure 32: Bicycle Crossing pavement markings 207 ODOT MULTIMODAL DESIGN GUIDE | CHAPTER 6: ON-ROAD BICYCLE FACILITIES ODOT MULTIMODAL DESIGN GUIDE | CHAPTER 6: ON-ROAD BICYCLE FACILITIES Table 6-10: Bicycle Crossing and Intersection Markings Selection Guidelines Intersection Type Condition Separated Bicycle Lane Conventional/Buff ered Bike Lane Bicycle Boluevard Signalized Turn Confl ict No Markings No Turn Confl ict No Markings Bikeway Corridor Turns Left Unsignalized High Turning Volume No Markings* All other conditions No Markings Bikeway Corridor Turns Left No Markings *Additional treatment may be needed Bicycle crossings may also be supplemented with green-colored pavement. If used, the green-colored pavement should align with the dotted extension line pattern of the dotted edge lines. If the green-colored bike crossings are proposed parallel to pedestrian crosswalks comprised of wide longitudinal lines (i.e., high visibility crosswalks) the dotted extension lines and green-colored pavement should align with the crosswalk markings. See Figure 6-26. This placement will reduce pavement marking clutter and ensure that the green-colored markings are spaced to avoid motorist wheel paths and improve the longevity of the markings. At locations where the bicycle crossing is less than 1 ft. from the pedestrian crossing, the dotted extension line nearest the pedestrian crossing can be removed, allowing the edge of the crosswalk to serve as the edge of the bicycle crossing. Page 275 Item 9. Figure 33: Bicycle Crossing pavement markings ELEMENTS OF DESIGN 5-63 GUIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF BICYCLE FACILITIES | AASHTO Figure 5-36: Bicycle Crossing Pavement Markings Note: Green-Colored pavement is permitted for use with Interim Approval from FHWA. (See Section 1.5)bike lanewidth6"bike lanewidth 24" 24" 24"72" max24" min24"12"-60"12"-24"two-way bicycle crossing 1’ min offset no offset 6” white dashed line crosswalk optional green dashed or solid optional bicycle symbol match width of bike lane 1 4 5 6 4 3 5 6 2 7 7 one-way bicycle crossing with 1’ min offset from crosswalk one-way bicycle crossing with no offset from crosswalk 1 2 3 3 4 5 6 7 5 5 Chapter 5. treatment Design | 77Page 276 Item 9. 78 | Chapter 5. treatment Design 5.3.5 Bicycle Boxes a bicycle box is a designated area on the approach to a signalized intersection consisting of an advanced stop line and bicycle symbols. Bike boxes should be primarily considered to mitigate conflicts between through bicyclists and right-turning motorists and to reduce conflicts between motorists and bicyclists at the beginning of the green signal phase. Bike boxes should generally not be installed across more than one through travel lane. Bike boxes are limited to signalized intersections and should not be used in other locations. Bike boxes may be used with an authorized request for interim approval per FhWa interim approval ia-18.4 the bike box has the following benefits: •improves motorist visibility of bicyclists at intersections by placing the bicycle in front of stopped motorists, reducing conflicts which may occur on at the onset of green. •provides an advance queuing area to store larger numbers of bicyclists, allowing bicyclists to cross in larger groups across the intersection to increase traffic capacity at signalized intersections with higher volumes of bicyclists. •reduces bicyclist encroachment into crosswalks during the red signal phase. in limited situations, bike boxes may be used to facilitate left turns for bicycles when there is an unusually heavy left turn volume, such as near the entrance to a popular shared use path. research has shown that bicyclists’ use of bike boxes to make left turns is limited in practice. the preferred treatment for left-hand turns is the two-stage bicycle turn box (see Section 5.3.6). 4 https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia18/index.htm Design Considerations at least one bicycle symbol should be placed in the box to indicate it is for bicycle use. Bike boxes should be a minimum of 10 feet in depth and may be larger depending on anticipated bicyclist volumes. the bike box should connect directly to the approaching bike lane. at least 50 feet of bike lane should be provided on the approach to a bike box so bicyclists will not need to ride between lanes to enter the box. the approaching bike lane, and the bike box, may be colored green (see Figure 33). the stop bar for motorists should be moved back to coincide with the beginning of the bike box. the sign “stop here on red” (r10-6 or r10-6a), aligned with the motorist stop bar, should be installed to indicate the correct stopping location for motorists, with an “except Bicycles” (r3-7bp) word legend plaque. the sign “stop here on red” (r10-6 or r10-6a) should not be used in locations with a separate turn lane where motorists are stopping in two different locations. Where a bike box is provided across multiple lanes of an approach (e.g., a location with one through lane and a left turn only lane), countdown pedestrian signals should be provided for the crosswalk across the approach where the bike box is located to inform bicyclists whether there is adequate time remaining to cross to an adjacent lane before the onset of the green signal phase for that approach. turns on red should be prohibited on the approach where a bike box is placed in front of traffic that has potential to turn on red, using a “no turn on red” sign (r10-11 series). at intersections where a high number of collisions occur between through bicyclists and turning vehicles, alternative treatments should be considered such as a protected intersection (section 4.7), leading or exclusive bicycle signal phases (section 5.6), separate lanes for through and turning traffic, or a combination of these and other treatments. Page 277 Item 9. ELEMENTS OF DESIGN 5-65 GUIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF BICYCLE FACILITIES | AASHTO Figure 5-37: Bicycle Box Configuration Across One Lane of Through Traffic R3-7R R4-450'min10'minminimum of one bicycle symbol required The stop bar for motorists should be moved back to coincide with the beginning of the bike box. The sign STOP HERE ON RED (R10-6 or R10-6A), aligned with the motorist stop bar, should be installed to indicate the correct stopping location for motorists, with an EXCEPT BICYCLES (R3-7bP) word legend plaque. The sign STOP HERE ON RED (R10-6 or R10-6A) should not be used in locations with a separate turn lane where motorists are stopping in two different locations. Figure 34: Bicycle Box Configuration across One Lane of through traffic Chapter 5. treatment Design | 79Page 278 Item 9. 80 | Chapter 5. treatment Design Figure 35: Bicycle Box Configuration across multiple Lanes of traffic R10-6a R3-7bP R10-11a 50'min10'minapproach bike lane required (green colored pavement optional) required at locations without right turn lane advanced stop line Page 279 Item 9. 5.3.6 Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Box two-stage bicycle turn boxes may be used for left or right turns, and its use is preferred for making turns instead of a bike box, particularly on higher-volume or multi-lane roads. a two-stage bike turn box may be used at signalized intersections per FhWa interim approval ia- 20.12.5 the use of a two-stage turn box at an unsignalized intersection is not an approved use of this treatment and would require an experimental approval from FhWa. Design Considerations two-stage turn boxes should be installed where a bikeway intersects with another designated bikeway or where it would connect to a major destination, such as a school, community center, grocery store, etc. When designing a buffered or separated bike lane, designers should plan on installing two-stage turn boxes at most intersections to discourage merging with traffic to make a left turn before reaching intersections. When designing a conventional bike lane, if the volume or speed of the adjacent roadway is more than 6,000 aDt or 30 mph, designers should consider installing two-stage turn boxes at intersections. 5 https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia20/index.htm a two-stage bike turn box: •must be located outside of the path of through and turning traffic •should be located adjacent to the direct path of bicyclist travel •should be located downstream of the crosswalk and downstream of the stop line •should be located in an area clearly visible to motorists and adequately illuminated •must include a bicycle symbol, preferably oriented in the direction in which the bicyclists enter the box, along with an arrow showing the direction of the turn •may include green-colored pavement or pavement markings to enhance the conspicuity of the box. a “no turn on red” (r10-11) sign must be installed where a two-stage bike turn box is not located outside the path of right-turning traffic to prevent motorists from entering the bicycle queuing area. the placement must also consider left-turning traffic that may otherwise overlap with the two-stage bike turn box. passive detection of bicycles in the two-stage bike turn box must be provided if detection is required to actuate a traffic signal. two-stage bicycle turn box dimensions vary based on the street operating conditions, the presence or absence of a parking lane, traffic volumes and speeds, and available street space. the queuing area should be a minimum of 6.5 feet deep measured in the longitudinal direction of bicycles sitting in the box. the box must be outlined with solid white lines. two-stage Bicycle turn Box Chapter 5. treatment Design | 81Page 280 Item 9. 82 | Chapter 5. treatment Design Figure 36: two-stage Bike turn Box pavement markings 209 ODOT MULTIMODAL DESIGN GUIDE | CHAPTER 6: ON-ROAD BICYCLE FACILITIES ODOT MULTIMODAL DESIGN GUIDE | CHAPTER 6: ON-ROAD BICYCLE FACILITIES Figure 6-27: Two-Stage Bike Turn Box Pavement Markings Note: Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Boxes are permitted for use with Interim Approval from FHWA. (See Section 1.2.2) Note: Green-Colored pavement is permitted for use with Interim Approval from FHWA. (See Section 1.2.2) Note: Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Boxes are permitted for use with Interim Approval from FHWA. (See Section 1.2.2) Note: Green-Colored pavement is permitted for use with Interim Approval from FHWA. (See Section 1.2.2) Figure 6-28: Two-Stage Left Turn Box Placement 209 ODOT MULTIMODAL DESIGN GUIDE | CHAPTER 6: ON-ROAD BICYCLE FACILITIES ODOT MULTIMODAL DESIGN GUIDE | CHAPTER 6: ON-ROAD BICYCLE FACILITIES Figure 6-27: Two-Stage Bike Turn Box Pavement Markings Note: Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Boxes are permitted for use with Interim Approval from FHWA. (See Section 1.2.2) Note: Green-Colored pavement is permitted for use with Interim Approval from FHWA. (See Section 1.2.2) Note: Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Boxes are permitted for use with Interim Approval from FHWA. (See Section 1.2.2) Note: Green-Colored pavement is permitted for use with Interim Approval from FHWA. (See Section 1.2.2) Figure 6-28: Two-Stage Left Turn Box Placement Page 281 Item 9. 5.3.7 Green-Colored Pavement Bicycle crossings may also be supplemented with green- colored pavement to supplement other bikeway pavement markings. green-colored pavement communicates to road users where portions of the roadway have been designated for exclusive or preferential use by bicyclists, and enhances the conspicuity of a bicycle lane, bicycle lane extension, bicycle crossing, bicycle box, or two-stage bicycle turn box at or through an intersection. Design Considerations if used, the green-colored pavement should align with the dotted extension line pattern of the dotted edge lines. if the green-colored bike crossings are proposed parallel to pedestrian crosswalks comprised of wide longitudinal lines (i.e., high visibility crosswalks) the dotted extension lines and green-colored pavement should align with the crosswalk markings. see Figure 37. this placement will reduce pavement marking clutter and ensure that the green-colored markings are spaced to avoid motorist wheel paths and improve the longevity of the markings. green-colored pavement is an optional treatment that may be used with an authorized request for interim approval per FhWa interim approval. the use of green-colored pavement should be applied consistently throughout a bicycle network and can be used to improve the legibility of a bikeway network. the use of green-colored pavement to supplement other bicycle facility pavement markings such as a shared lane marking requires experimental approval from FhWa. if green-colored pavement is not used throughout a bikeway network, it is recommended that it be used to guide bicyclists through transition areas between bikeway types and bikeway crossings to improve the legibility of the route. green-Colored pavement Used in Combination with a Crossing Diverter Chapter 5. treatment Design | 83Page 282 Item 9. 84 | Chapter 5. treatment Design Figure 37: typical Bike Lane pavement markings with green-Colored markings Page 283 Item 9. 5.3.8 Crosswalks Crosswalk markings are a basic tool for directing pedestrians across the street and alerting motorists and bicyclists to crossing pedestrians. engineering judgement should be used to determine when to mark a crosswalk. marked crosswalks and other safety treatments should be prioritized at locations where pedestrians are vulnerable to conflicts with vehicles due to: •high pedestrian and vehicle volumes, typical in town centers, at major bus stops, or near universities •Vulnerable populations such as children, senior citizens, people with disabilities, or hospital areas •roadway conditions that make it difficult for pedestrians to cross, such as wide crossing distances, high traffic speeds, and/or complex intersection geometry in some instances, crosswalk markings should be used in conjunction with other markings, signs, and warning beacons or signals. marked crosswalks are especially recommended for all crossings of shared use paths at roadways. at congested crossings, the shared use path can be widened on the approach to provide a separate bicycle crossing and pedestrian crosswalks to reduce conflicts and allow faster moving bicyclists to bypass pedestrians, increasing the person crossing-capacity of the crossing. there are two types of standard crosswalks markings: •Standard (transverse) crosswalk markings. a standard crosswalk consists of two transverse (parallel) lines, each a minimum of 6 inches in width. •High-visibility (longitudinal) crosswalk markings. a high visibility crosswalk consists of longitudinal lines striped parallel to the direction of travel. the longitudinal lines may be used alone or in addition to the transverse lines, thus creating a ladder-style crossing. in general, longitudinal markings are more visible to drivers and can be detected 50 to 100 percent further away than crosswalks with transverse lines. however, the increased visibility may not translate into increased driver yielding rates. Longitudinal crossings are commonly used as a safety countermeasure to alert drivers to unexpected pedestrian crossings or particularly vulnerable pedestrian users (such as school zones or transit stops). the longitudinal bar crosswalk should be used at intersections where: 1. at least one approach has a speed limit of 35 mph or higher 2. there are substantial numbers of pedestrians that cross without any other traffic control device 3. physical conditions are such that added visibility of the crosswalk is desired 4. a pedestrian crosswalk might not be expected. it should be noted that if crosswalks are repeatedly remarked with diagonal or longitudinal markings, they may eventually constitute surface irregularities that could inhibit those using walkers or cause vibrations for those in wheelchairs. Design Considerations marked crosswalks are used to advise pedestrians where to cross the street and to send the message to motorists that they are in, or approaching, an area where people are crossing the street. the design of the crosswalk should be easily understandable, be clearly visible, and incorporate realistic crossing opportunities for all pedestrians. the following design standards should be followed across all crosswalk marking types: •Crosswalk widths should be determined based on pedestrian volumes, pedestrian cohort, and width of approaching sidewalks. •marked crosswalk minimum width is 6 feet but should desirably be at least as wide as the sidewalks they connect. •the recommended width for marked crosswalks is 10 feet, which allows for easier, bidirectional pedestrian travel and makes the marked crosswalk more visible. •Crosswalks need to be placed so they encompass the entire curb ramp, excluding flares. at least 4 feet of clear space should be provided within the width of the crosswalk at the base of the curb ramp for the full width of the curb ramp. •Crosswalk lines should extend the full length of the crossing. all crosswalk markings must be white, per the mUtCD. Chapter 5. treatment Design | 85Page 284 Item 9. 86 | Chapter 5. treatment Design there are several crosswalk marking options available. Common markings include bar pairs, continental, and ladder markings, and transverse markings. Bar pairs and continental markings are longitudinal and ladder markings are a mix of longitudinal and transverse. the unique design features of each alternative are: Transverse Crosswalks—transverse crosswalk line markings consist of solid lines not less than 6 incheswide, nor greater than 2 feet wide. there must be 6 feet clear between transverse crosswalk lines. Longitudinal Crosswalks—Lines for longitudinal or diagonal crosswalks should be located outside of wheel paths to delay the fading of the paint and avoid frequent maintenance. Line spacing for diagonal and longitudinal markings should not exceed 2.5 times the line width. Where diagonal or longitudinal lines are used to mark a crosswalk, the transverse crosswalk lines may be omitted. if used, like on ladder crossings, longitudinal lines should be 1 to 2 feet wide and spaced 1 to 5 feet apart. at any marked crosswalk, curb ramps and other sloped areas should be wholly contained within the crosswalk markings. the crosswalk lines should extend the full length of the crossing. Longitudinal markings require more pavement marking material than transverse markings, and as a result have higher installation costs. staggered spacing on longitudinal markings to avoid vehicle wheel paths can, however, reduce maintenance costs. Colored and Textured Crosswalk—sometimes used to improve aesthetics, but do not replace the need for white markings that are easier to see at night and when the surface is wet to designate a crosswalk. Where colored and/or textured crosswalk treatments are used, they should not degrade the contrast of the white crosswalk markings, nor should they be designed such that they could be mistaken by road users as a traffic control application. additionally, colored and textured crosswalk treatments should be designed with material that is smooth, nonslip, and visible. textured crosswalk design treatments should not be used if there is a possibility the treatment may shift and/or settle or induce a high degree of vibration in wheelchair caster or drive wheels. if a textured crosswalk treatment is used, a 5 feet wide untextured surface should be maintained in the center of the crosswalk that connects the curb ramps on each end of the crossing. recessed pavement markings, which enhance marking durability, may also be used. requirements for use of colored pavements are presented in mUtCD section 3g. guidance on the interpretation of the mUtCD requirements has been provided by FhWa. Raised Crosswalks—Where raised crosswalks are used, detectable truncated dome warnings are needed at the curb lines, and pavement markings are required on the roadway approach slopes. Crosswalk on a residential street Page 285 Item 9. Considerations when determining placement of crosswalk markings include the following: •Access—assume that pedestrians want and need safe access to all destinations accessible to motorists, as well as to destinations not accessible to motorists such as trails and parks. •Generators and Destinations— pedestrians will cross streets following natural “desire lines” from generators to destinations (i.e. schools, parks, shopping, residential neighborhoods) and will not typically go out of their way to cross the street at another location, unless that location provides a safer crossing opportunity and is reasonably close by. a marked street crossing should be available near most transit stops. •Controlled and Uncontrolled Intersections—all intersections that have signals, stop signs, or yield signs to facilitate motor vehicle crossings should also be designed to accommodate pedestrians with marked crosswalks. pedestrians need safe access at many uncontrolled locations as well. see section 5.2.4 Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossings for more information. •Frequency—pedestrians should be able to cross streets at regular intervals and consideration should be given to facilitating crossings at key high-use locations. Unlike motor vehicles, pedestrians cannot be expected to go more than half a block out of their way to take advantage of a controlled intersection. •Snow Clearing—Locations with frequent snow accumulation tend to have periods when crosswalk markings are either totally or partially obscured, making it difficult for both motorists and pedestrians to see marked crosswalks. marked crosswalks in such locations should be supplemented with pedestrian signing for greater year-round visibility. •Special Paving or Brick Crosswalks —these crosswalks often existing in historic districts, downtown areas, or main streets. include white striping on both sides of the special pavers or materials. near schools, crosswalks aid in establishing routes and crossings to and from school for children. On established routes to a school, crosswalks should be marked and signed at all crossings where any of the following conditions are found: •there are substantial conflicts between motorists and pedestrians (and bicyclists). •Children are encouraged to cross between intersections. •Children would not otherwise recognize the proper place to cross. •motorists (or bicyclists) may not expect children to cross. Figure 38: examples of Crosswalks markings NCHRP 15-45 Proposed Update of the AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities Revised Final Report October 31, 2017 - Appendix A: Proposed Guide Text 3-75 Figure 3-32. Examples of Crosswalks Markings [adapted from (24)] [NOTE TO REVIEWERS: In response to a review comment, the label “Standard” in this drawing has been changed to “Transverse.” The top drawing shows the original figure; the bottom drawing shows the revised version.] Durable crosswalk marking materials are preferable to paint at some locations because they last longer and may be more cost-effective. Colored and textured crosswalk design treatments are sometimes used to improve aesthetics. Colored and marked pavement is permissible within a crosswalk, but it does not replace the need for white markings to designate a crosswalk (24). Where colored and/or textured crosswalk treatments are used, they should not degrade the contrast of the white crosswalk markings, nor should they be designed such that they could be mistaken by road users as a traffic control application. Any color other than white will be more difficult to see at night and when the surface is wet. Consequently, the use of colored crosswalk treatments without the minimum white markings is not recommended at uncontrolled crosswalks. Requirements for use of colored pavements are presented in MUTCD Section 3G (24). Guidance on the interpretation of the MUTCD requirements has been provided by FHWA (19). Additionally, colored and textured crosswalk treatments should be designed with material that is smooth, nonslip, and visible. Textured crosswalk design treatments should not be used if there is a possibility the treatment may shift and/or settle or induce a high degree of vibration in wheelchair caster or drive wheels. If a textured crosswalk treatment is used, a 5 ft (1.5 m) wide untextured (i.e., smooth) surface should be maintained in the center of the crosswalk that connects the curb ramps on each end of the crossing (see Figure 3-33). It is desirable to place manholes or utility access lids outside crosswalks. If not properly installed or maintained, they Chapter 5. treatment Design | 87Page 286 Item 9. 88 | Chapter 5. treatment Design 5.3.9 Stop Bar and Yield Markings stop and yield lines may be used to indicate the point at which a bicyclist or motorist should yield in compliance with a stop bar, yield sign, a Yield here to pedestrian (r1-5 or r1-5a) sign or a or Bicycle Yield to peds (r9-6) sign. an advance stop or yield line can greatly reduce the likelihood of a multiple-threat crash, which occurs when a motorist stopped in one lane blocks the view of a second motorist. advanced yield lines should be considered for any uncontrolled multi-lane crosswalk. Design Considerations advance yield markings should be placed 20 to 50 feet in advance of a marked crosswalk to indicate where the vehicles are required to stop or yield and shall be paired with a Yield here to pedestrians (r1-5) sign. Where a protected bike lane crosses a crosswalk, yield markings on the bike lane approach can emphasize that people biking or using mobility vehicles must yield to pedestrians within the crosswalk. at stop- or signal-controlled legs of an intersection, stop lines are solid white lines, 1-2 feet (0.3- 0.6 m) wide, extending across all approach lanes. stop lines shall be placed a minimum of 4 feet (1.2 m) in advance of, and parallel to, the nearest crosswalk line. greater setbacks can help reduce multiple-threat crashes since the motorist’s view of pedestrians within the crosswalk is less likely to be screened by vehicles in the adjacent lanes. however, stop lines should not be set too far back on the approach as to negatively affect the capacity of the intersection or the sight lines of the drivers (e.g., intersection sight distance). stop lines set too far back will also have the potential to be ignored by drivers. at crosswalks in uncontrolled locations on multilane roads, setbacks of 20 to 50 feet (6.1 to 15 m) are desirable for yield or stop lines to provide adequate sight distance between pedestrians and vehicles. at such locations, “Yield here to (or stop here For) pedestrians” signing must be used. also, parking should be prohibited in the area between the yield or stop line and the crosswalk. the mUtCD allows staggered stop lines and staggered yield markings for different lanes. For instance, setting the right-turn lane stop line forward of adjacent lanes can increase pedestrian visibility to right-turn-on-red drivers. it is desirable to set the stop line of the left-turn lane farther back than the stop line of the through lanes. When used at signalized intersections, advanced stop lines can reduce pedestrians’ conflicts with motorists in the crosswalk. Yield markings are used instead of stop lines where signs, signals, or local laws require motorists to yield instead of stop. Yield markings consist of a row of solid white isosceles triangles pointing toward approaching vehicles. in the absence of a marked crosswalk, a stop line or yield marking should be placed at the desired stopping or yielding point not less than 4 feet (1.2 m) in advance of an unmarked crosswalk. Design Considerations the following design considerations should be followed when implementing stop bars or yield markings: •at controlled intersections, provide a stop bar in advance of the crossing and consider signal timing guidance in the pedestrian signal phasing section at signalized intersections. Consider location of vehicle stop bars based on design vehicle turning envelope. •Use and design of stop and yield lines is described in Chapters 3B and 9C of the mUtCD. For shared use paths, stop or yield lines may be placed across the entire width of the path even though the shared use path is typically two-way. •in some cases, drivers may be unable to see children, wheelchair users, or other pedestrians in the crosswalk. Locating the stop line in advance of the crosswalk by 10 feet (3.0 m) or more may be considered where there are large numbers of trucks or pedestrians at an intersection. these greater setbacks may benefit from a supplemental sign, such as “Yield here to pedestrians” or the in- street sign “stop (or Yield) here For pedestrians Within Crosswalk” depending upon the selected design vehicle and traffic laws for a particular state. advanced Yield marking places in advance of Crosswalk Page 287 Item 9. 5.4 Signals, Beacons, and Signs 5.4.1Introduction traffic signals manage traffic flow by separating and allocating time to specific movements. they can reduce conflicts between motor vehicles, transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. the decision to install a pedestrian hybrid Beacon (phB) or a traffic signal involves a holistic evaluation of numerous factors at the study location and requires the use of engineering judgment to apply and evaluate the mUtCD and the Colorado supplement to the Federal manual on Uniform traffic Control Devices warrant criteria. the design guidance in this chapter covers how to design pedestrian hybrid beacons and traffic signals, including traffic signal heads, signal phasing, signal timing, signing, markings, and pedestrian/bicycle detection. it also includes ways to reduce delay and manage or eliminate conflicts between vulnerable users and motor vehicles. the design guidance provided in this chapter also supplements intersection design guidance provided in other chapters. this design guidance should be used in conjunction with the mUtCD. 5.4.2 Evaluation of a Traffic Control Signal or Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon traffic signals may be installed to facilitate roadway crossings by pedestrians and bicyclists. it may be necessary to consider pedestrian signal or pedestrian hybrid beacon (phB) installation at crossing locations where one or more of the following conditions occur: •Where one or more mUtCD traffic signal warrants or phB guidelines are met; •sight distance is restricted, based on prevailing motor vehicle speeds; •motor vehicle approach speeds exceed 30 mph; •there are four or more through lanes of major street traffic; •there are insufficient crossing opportunities (including crossings of two through lanes) within about a quarter of a mile from the location in question. traffic control signal installation should be limited to locations where less restrictive traffic control devices do not provide adequate crossing opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists. even at locations where a traffic control signal is warranted, other treatments such as traffic calming, roundabouts, active beacons, or phBs should be considered before determining a full traffic signal is appropriate. a traffic signal can increase delays, motorized traffic volumes on minor street approaches, and some types of crashes. phBs intended specifically for bicycle use can also introduce challenges for bicyclists’ timing (see section 5.6.2.). 5.4.3 MUTCD Traffic Control Signal Warrants the mUtCD (Chapter 4C: traFFiC COntrOL signaLs neeDs stUDies) provides list of nine traffic control signal warrants to help determine whether a new signal should be installed. many of the warrants are primarily focused on vehicular traffic flow. there are separate guidelines (not warrants) for phB installation. some flexibility is allowed in applying warrants to determine if a traffic control signal or phB is needed at a bicycle crossing. For example, since bicyclists may operate as vehicles or pedestrians at street crossings, they may be counted as either for a traffic signal or phB warrant analysis. Designers have the flexibility to estimate future demand in the absence of a signal or phB if existing conditions limit vulnerable user crossing opportunities. in some cases, people may not be crossing a street in sufficient numbers to satisfy a warrant because there are not adequate gaps in traffic or they do not feel comfortable doing so – thus they avoid the crossing altogether. For these locations, it may be more appropriate to use an estimated crossing demand for warrant analysis that assumes better crossing protection, as experience shows once a street can be crossed more safely, people will generally cross in greater numbers compared to prior conditions. Designers may consider estimating pedestrian and bicycle volumes as part of developing signal warrant methodology. in these cases, the designer shall coordinate with the appropriate CDOt representative to identify forecasting assumptions. projecting volumes is an important consideration where bicycle boulevards and shared use paths are installed and are consistent with the mUtCD. in these situations, there is an implied understanding that a higher level of care has been taken to ensure bicyclists and pedestrians can safely navigate these routes, as families commonly use such facilities with children. For this reason, agencies Chapter 5. treatment Design | 89Page 288 Item 9. 90 | Chapter 5. treatment Design and designers should evaluate a proposed facility using the appropriate signal warrants and, if necessary, for a reasonably anticipated volume of peak hour crossings. the following warrants have the greatest applicability for evaluating the need to install a traffic control signal to assist pedestrians and bicyclists in crossing a street: •Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume – may be considered at locations where pedestrians experience excessive delay attempting to cross a high-volume street. Bicyclists should be considered with pedestrians in this analysis. the criterion for Warrant 4 (pedestrian Volume) may be reduced by 50 percent if the 15th-percentile crossing speed of pedestrians is less than 3.5 ft per second. •Warrant 5, School Crossing – may be considered at locations where there is a desire for school children to cross and there are not adequate gaps for them to do so. •Warrant 7, Crash Experience – may be considered in locations where a threshold of crashes that a traffic control signal could correct has occurred during a 12-month or 3-year period. thresholds vary depending upon number of approach lanes, type of crash and context (i.e., urban or rural). •Warrant 8, Roadway Network – may be considered at locations to encourage concentration and organization of traffic flow on a roadway network. thresholds are based on existing volumes (that meet one or more of Warrants 1, 2, and 3) and an engineering study that projects five-year traffic volumes. Using this warrant assumes it is part of a major route that either serves as a principal roadway, includes a rural or suburban highway outside or near a city, or appears on an official plan in an urban areas traffic and transportation study. •Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Guidelines – a phB may be considered at locations that do not meet traffic control signal warrants or for locations where it might be undesirable to provide a traffic control signal. guidelines for the phB are included in the mUtCD (Chapter 4F: peDestrian hYBriD BeaCOns) and suggest that phB’s may be appropriate at locations where at least 20 people cross in a peak hour. see the mUtCD for specific thresholds for speeds, pedestrian volumes, and vehicular volumes. according to the mUtCD (section 4C.01), with the exception of locations where an engineering study uses Warrant 8 to justify signal installation, a traffic signal installed under projected conditions should have an engineering study performed within one year of energization to determine if it is still justified. if not, the signal should be either taken out of stop-and-go operation or removed. 5.5 Signal Design Guidance for Pedestrian Facilities pedestrian signal heads should be provided at all signalized intersections with sidewalks and curb ramps on the approaches and at all signalized intersections where pedestrian activity may be expected or anticipated based on land uses, transit stops, or other factors likely to generate pedestrian activity, regardless of the presence of sidewalks. 5.5.1 Pedestrian Signals the mUtCD (section 4e.03 application of pedestrian signal heads) defines the conditions under which pedestrian signals shall be provided. at all locations where signals are newly installed, replaced, or significantly modified and pedestrian signals are provided for street crossings, countdown pedestrian displays are required. pedestrian signals with countdown displays show the number of seconds remaining in the clearance interval and their use has been shown to reduce both pedestrian and vehicular crashes at signals1. accessible pedestrian signals (aps) are devices that communicate information about pedestrian signal timing in nonvisual formats and are integrated with pedestrian pushbuttons. all intersections where pedestrians are expected, regardless of whether the pedestrian phase is automatic or requires actuation, shall be accessible for people with disabilities. this often means that accessible pushbuttons are installed in locations with automatic pedestrian phases. aps installation is required by prOWag (r209.1) with any new traffic signal that has pedestrian signals or where there will be significant changes to an existing signal. aps guidelines include the following: •aps should be placed in consistent locations; •aps should be located as close as practical to the crosswalk line farthest from the center of the intersection and as close as practical to the curb ramp; Page 289 Item 9. •When installed at signals or phBs, aps pushbuttons must have both audible and vibrotactile components. Vibrotactile indications integrated into the pushbutton provides information to persons with hearing or visual disabilities; •aps pushbuttons shall have a locator tone that operates during the DOn’t WaLK and the FLashing DOn’t WaLK intervals only to assist those with low or no vision to find the correct device for a particular crossing; •aps pushbuttons shall have a tactile arrow that indicates the crossing direction activated by the pushbutton; •One post and pushbutton assembly should be provided for each crossing. ideally, pushbuttons on the same corner should be placed a minimum of 10 ft. from each other. this helps clarify which percussive locator tone is applicable to each button for the respective crossing. in constrained areas (e.g., limited building setbacks, unusual geometric conditions), should two aps assemblies be separated by less than 10 ft., an audible walk indication shall include speech pushbutton information and walk messages. these information messages tell pedestrians the name of the street they are crossing. Braille or raised lettering on the pushbutton housing may also provide street name information; •if an extended pushbutton press feature provides additional crossing time, then an r10-32p plaque shall be mounted adjacent to or integral with the aps pushbutton. For these locations, aps pushbuttons shall be marked with three braille dots forming an equilateral triangle in the center of the pushbutton; •if the pedestrian clearance time is sufficient only to cross from the curb or shoulder to a median to wait for the next cycle, then an additional aps pushbutton shall be provided in the median. some pushbutton housings include a map of the intersection in relief on the side of the housing that informs pedestrians about the number of lanes and islands they will have to cross. these should be provided at wide or complex intersections and when a two-stage crossing may be necessary. however, using a two- stage crossing where pedestrians are required to cross to a median and then to the other side of the street on separate signal phases should be discouraged where sufficient physical protection (e.g., concrete curbing, wide medians) is not included. When installed, two-stage pedestrian crossings should consider a “z”-median where pedestrians are required to traverse a short distance (10 ft. min. preferred) in a center island, facing on- coming traffic, prior to activating a second pushbutton. the center median distance may require adjustments to accommodate site specific conditions. aps audible messages and tone volumes should be adaptive to the surrounding ambient noise. aps units produce a louder signal message when motor vehicle and other noise at a given intersection is higher. automatic volume adjustment provides flexibility and allows aps units to adjust so they are not disturbing to neighbors at night or times of low traffic volume. this is also helpful to visually impaired pedestrians, as the aps does not drown out essential traffic sounds necessary for crossing. see section 4e.11 of the mUtCD for volume setting requirements and guidance. When aps and countdown pedestrian display improvements are made, all crossing associated with the system must be upgraded (see section X for aDa requirements, standards, guidelines). among the requirements provided in mUtCD, section 4e.04 size, Design, and illumination of pedestrian signal head indications, pedestrian signals should be placed in a conspicuous location, visible to pedestrians waiting to cross. see section X for additional information on the placement of pedestrian pushbuttons for accessibility. 5.5.2 Pedestrian Detection Pushbuttons Where pushbuttons are provided for detection, they shall be accessible. pushbutton placement must be within easy reach of a pedestrian (and bicyclist when applicable) and obvious to which crosswalk they are associated with. in addition to standards laid out in Chapter 4e.08 of the mUtCD, and section 5.5.1 of this guide, accessible requirements and best practices are as follows: •place pushbuttons so they are adjacent to curb ramp landing or similar surfaces. a level surface with a 1.56 percent cross slope (max.) in each direction shall be provided. •pushbuttons may be placed between 1.5 ft. and 6 ft. behind the face of curb or edge of pavement. in some cases, placement as far as 10 ft. is permissible. a distance of 6 ft. is preferable as it allows bicyclists and pedestrians pushing strollers to stop at the button Chapter 5. treatment Design | 91Page 290 Item 9. 92 | Chapter 5. treatment Design without the front end of their wheel(s) getting closer than 2 ft. from the face of curb or edge of road and provides greater physical separation from moving traffic. •When placing pushbuttons, consider expected users and their needs. Where bicyclists are expected, a slightly taller pole can provide a surface to hold while waiting for the right of way. Passive Detection passive detection devices are less common, but may be used to actuate or extend pedestrian signals in specific applications. Beacons can be outfitted with motion or break-beam sensors, though care is needed to ensure detection is for only those intending to cross. infrared crosswalk sensors can detect the presence of slow-moving pedestrians in crosswalks and extend the clearance time. passive detection may be used in lieu of or in addition to pedestrian pushbuttons, though careful consideration will be necessary in doing so. passive detection may be helpful in reducing intersection noise, though pedestrians with vision disabilities may not approach the crossing within the detection zone nor wait at the exact crossing area for activation to occur. they may also not know passive detection is present unless they are familiar with the intersection. in addition, passive detection systems need to be carefully calibrated and monitored to avoid or limit detecting something other than pedestrians. passive detection may be an option where compliant pushbutton placement is not feasible at a given intersection. such factors may include lack of right-of- way, limited building setbacks, or pushbutton placement that would limit or block pedestrian access. 5.5.3 Signal Timing and Reducing Pedestrian Delay Frequent crossings that accommodate walking speeds for people of all ages and abilities are key to creating a safe, accessible, and connected pedestrian network. signals are typically timed to prioritize the “major” street movements which may, under certain conditions, increase delay for pedestrians and bicyclists waiting to cross the major street. in addition, when pedestrians and bicyclists are faced with long delays, they may be more likely to ignore signals entirely and cross the road when they perceive an adequate gap in traffic. When this occurs, pedestrians will sometimes choose to cross away from intersections, potentially increasing crash risks. the following section describes best practices for reducing delay and providing accessible crossings to improve safety for all users. While there are many factors associated with signal timing as it relates to reducing pedestrian delay, corridor consideration should be a factor. streets in lower density, suburban settings, often do not have comparable pedestrian volumes relative to more dense, urban networks. however, these corridors may have transit operation, which may make road crossing decisions challenging without appropriate crossing opportunities. Signal Cycle Length in some instances, where pedestrians routinely experience long delays at signals, they may elect to cross away from the crosswalk at locations where conflicts are not controlled by a signal. therefore, strategies to reduce overall cycle length can be particularly important for pedestrian safety. Where pedestrians are expected regularly, cycle lengths greater than 60 to 90 seconds should often be discouraged. in addition to reducing cycle lengths, designers may also consider using half-cycle lengths, particularly during off-peak hours. adaptive signal control, where employed, should have limited variation in cycle length. Operations for adaptive signal control should be confined to suburban settings and event venues where traffic patterns can be highly variable. Designers should be aware that shortening signal cycle lengths can impact the amount of time that a pedestrian is provided in the pedestrian signal phase (see “pedestrian signal phase timing”, discussed later in this section). While long cycle lengths can increase pedestrian non-compliance, at wider intersections shorter cycle lengths may not be possible without implementing two-stage pedestrian crossings which could increase pedestrian delay compared to providing a longer cycle length. single stage crossings are preferable in most instances (see Chapter 5.3.6 for complex locations where two-stage crossings may be appropriate). Designers can also shorten crossing distances using curb extensions (see Chapter 5.1.2), eliminating the need for a longer pedestrian cycle length and potentially reducing the current cycle length. Page 291 Item 9. if a two-stage crossing is provided, designers shall provide a crossing island (see section 5.1.1) and provide a pushbutton within the crossing island. Pedestrian Signal Phase Timing pedestrian signals provide a WaLK phase (steady white walking man symbol) followed by a FLashing DOn’t WaLK clearance phase (flashing orange upraised hand symbol with integrated countdown timer). Details for programming the walk and clearance interval is provided in the mUtCD (section 4e.06). pedestrian signal timing shall meet the following requirements: •the duration of the WaLK indication should allow sufficient time for a pedestrian to react to the signal and enter the crosswalk. the mUtCD recommends a minimum walk interval of seven seconds, though it allows for a walk interval as low as four seconds in certain situations; •a clearance interval based on a maximum walking speed of 3.5 ft. per second from the face of curb or edge of shoulder to the point where they have cleared the farthest lane in the crosswalk; •Where a crossing has a higher proportion of slow- moving pedestrians, slower walking speeds of 3.0 ft. per second or lower may be programmed. a longer clearance interval can also be requested by pedestrians using a longer push on the pushbutton. •passive detection may also be considered, provided that the system can sense slower pedestrians and extend the clearance time. •the total WaLK + FLashing DOn’t WaLK phase (walk plus clearance interval) shall be long enough to allow a person with a walk speed of 3.5 ft./sec. to walk from the pushbutton to the point where they have cleared the farthest lane in the crosswalk. When a pushbutton is not present, the crossing distance should be 6 ft. wider than the width of the road; •in addition to the recommendations and guidance in the mUtCD, designers should consider a longer walk interval (e.g., sufficient for a pedestrian to react and walk to the center of the intersection) at locations where there are more than two travel lanes to be crossed or roadway posted speeds are higher than 30 mph. signal timing should strive to maximize the WaLK + FLashing DOn’t WaLK phase such that the total pedestrian time is equal to the total concurrent vehicle green and yellow timing (see Figure 39). providing a shorter WaLK phase is sometimes proposed to split the green phase between the pedestrian crossing and turning vehicles. this application is discouraged as it is an informal treatment that does not clearly convey the phasing intention; pedestrians may elect to cross anyway after observing that the concurrent through movement is still green. to address conflicts, designers should instead use one or a combination of treatments listed in section 5.3.4. it is typical practice is to terminate the FLashing DOn’t WaLK phase at the same time as the concurrent vehicular green indication. however, the mUtCD (section 4e.06) allows this interval to overlap with the concurrent vehicular yellow phase. see the mUtCD (section 4e.06) for further details. Figure 39: maximizing the WaLK interval Not Recommended Green WALK Ped Clearance Yellow Red Recommended Green WALK Ped Clearance Ped Clearance Yellow Red OR WALK Chapter 5. treatment Design | 93Page 292 Item 9. 94 | Chapter 5. treatment Design Pedestrian Recall and Actuation pedestrians should not always be required to push a button to call the pedestrian phase at locations with high pedestrian volumes. this is particularly important in downtown corridors or business districts where there tends to be significant pedestrian volume and relatively short cycle lengths. in such environments, fixed time operation with time-of-day phase plans often functions more efficiently compared to actuated or semi-actuated signal timing. Fixed time operation allows for signal controllers to call pedestrian phases each cycle. in a fixed time grid, pedestrian intervals are often the maximizing factor for phase length, as the time necessary to accommodate pedestrian movements exceeds the time needed for motor vehicles. Designers should follow the guidance in Figure 40 for providing pedestrian recall or actuation. this could be accomplished based on different signal timing plans at certain times of day or day of the week. signal timing plans, when updated, shall provide a sufficient walk phase for all crossings. if it is determined that the pedestrian phase should switch from actuated to recall based on the time of day, designers can minimize confusion by ensuring the pushbutton includes a confirmation light. When the signal operations have switched to pedestrian recall, the detection indicator can be programmed to illuminate by default. 5.5.4 Signal Phasing for Managing or Reducing Conflicts there are a variety of alternative signal phasing options for reducing or eliminating conflicts between motorist and pedestrians. Designers should consider both the operational and safety impacts of signal phasing changes at an intersection. Designers should also be aware that a phasing scenario may necessitate a separate motor vehicle turn lane and an additional signal phase, which may increase delay for some users, including pedestrians. Fully separated crossings may require longer cycle lengths, which may result in reduced user compliance with signal indications and increased potential for conflict. the following sections describe four major phasing scenarios, criteria, and considerations. Often, there may not be one solution, but a combination of treatments for specific periods or scenarios to address pedestrian safety. 5.5.5 Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) Leading pedestrian intervals (Lpis) or Leading through intervals (Ltis) may be used to give pedestrians a head start (typically a minimum of three seconds) when crossing the street. Lpis are a proven safety countermeasure to reduce vehicle-pedestrian crashes at intersections. implementation allows waiting pedestrians to enter the crosswalk where they become more visible to conflicting motorists. Both Lpis and Ltis accomplish the same goal through different strategies: •Leading pedestrian intervals - With traditional signal phasing, parallel pedestrian WaLK and motor-vehicle circular green indications start at the same time, immediately after the conclusion of the red clearance interval. With Lpis, the walk phase begins as usual and parallel motor vehicle circular green indications start after a brief period. Designers should provide aps units where Lpi’s are provided; without aps units, pedestrians with low or no vision may not be able to maximize the advantage of Lpis, as they otherwise use the noise of concurrent vehicles to determine when to begin walking. •Delayed turn or Leading through intervals -a delayed left (or right) turn or Lti provides a green signal to through movements while delaying permissive left Figure 40: recall versus actuated pedestrian phase for Coordinated-actuated arterials Page 293 Item 9. (or right) turns for a specific period. this delay time may vary based on site specific conditions, but (similar to an Lpi) is usually between three and six seconds. this option minimizes intersection capacity impacts while providing a partially protected pedestrian phase, allowing those on foot a head start in order to establish themselves in the intersection before turning movements are allowed after the protected left (or right) turn phase. When curb extensions or a protected intersection is provided, pedestrians can establish themselves in the crossing before vehicles due to the distance between the stop line and the edge of the curb where a pedestrian would wait. table 7 provides the equation for calculating the Lpi interval (rounded to the nearest second) found in Ohio DOt ’s signal Design reference packet (sDrp) (CDOt does not have an adopted formula for calculating Lpis). an approach meeting any one of the following criteria may be a good candidate for the installation of an Lpi: •reported crash history finds one or more crashes per year have occurred over the last three years between vehicles turning on green and pedestrians crossing the street on the associated crosswalk with the pedestrian WaLK signal; •a visibility issue exists between the driver’s view of pedestrians on the crosswalk due to obstructions or poor sight distance at an intersection approach that can be improved through an Lpi. Lpis by themselves don’t resolve sight distance limitations, as they don’t protect pedestrians who arrive at the end of the WaLK phase. physical measures to remove corner sight obstructions should be given primary consideration; •intersection observations reveal conflicts between crossing pedestrians and turning vehicles in which there is a risk of collision should their movements and speeds remain unchanged; •One of the two movement volumes (turning vehicle volume (a), or pedestrian volume (B), identified below) meet at least one of the thresholds identified in table 8 for a given warrant. When a protected left turn phase is provided, it should occur as a lag to prevent left turning vehicles from continuing to cross during the Lpi. Designers must avoid the “yellow trap”. table 7: Formula for Leading pedestrian interval (Lpi) Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) Formula LPI (sec.) = (W1 + W2) Sw Where: LPI = Leading pedestrian interval (sec.) W1 = Width of first lane of moving vehicles (ft.) W2 = Width of shoulder, bike lane, and/or parking lane (ft.) Sw = Walking speed (typically 3.5 ft./sec.) table 8: Lpi Volume Warrant thresholds Warrant Turning Vehicles Volume (A) Pedestrian Volume (B) Vehicle Peak Hour ≥130 per hour ≥25 per hour Pedestrian Peak Hour ≥100 per hour ≥50 per hour 4-Hour Vehicular and Ped Volume ≥105 per hour ≥30 per hour 8-Hour Vehicular and Ped Volume ≥100 per hour ≥25 per hour School Crossing ≥50 per hour Chapter 5. treatment Design | 95Page 294 Item 9. 96 | Chapter 5. treatment Design 5.5.6 Protected Pedestrian Phase and Turn Restrictions protected pedestrian phases or protected-only signal phasing for turn movements can significantly reduce conflicts between pedestrians and motorists. this process involves eliminating specific motor vehicle phases (e.g., left turns) that cross concurrent pedestrian phases. For example, if the permissive left turns (either green ball or flashing yellow arrow) that cross pedestrian phases is eliminated, there is no longer a turning conflict for the crossing during that phase. in these cases, pedestrian phases may occur before (lead) or after (lag) conflicting vehicular movements. turn restrictions or protected pedestrian phases may be considered when one or more of the following criteria are met: •there are high conflicting turning vehicles volumes. high turning volumes are defined as equal to or exceeding: •200 total right and left turning vehicles per hour; •50 left turning vehicles per hour when crossing one lane of through traffic; or •100 right turning vehicles per hour. •there is a high volume of total approaching traffic (greater than 2000 vehicles per hour for all approaches); •there are high pedestrian volumes (pedestrians are 30 percent of vehicle volumes or 300 pedestrians per hour); •Crash patterns at the study location or nearby locations with similar geometry support the use of separating motor vehicle and pedestrian phasing. typically, this encompasses three or more left-turn or right-turn collisions where pedestrians had the right of way over a three-year period; •the available sight distance is less than the minimum stopping sight distance •the intersection geometry is unusual (streets intersect at acute/obtuse angles or streets have significant curvature approaching the intersection), which may result in unexpected conflicts and/or visibility issues; •an intersection in close proximity to senior housing, elementary schools, recreational areas, playgrounds, and/or health facilities. protected pedestrian phases or protected-only turn phases may be implemented on a permanent basis, during specific hours, or “on-demand” when a pedestrian is present and activates the pushbutton. if only one movement or street meets the criteria above, consider a treatment to address those specific issues before implementing an intersection-wide approach (i.e., provide protected-only turns for the major roadway and allow for permissive turns on the minor roadway, if turning volumes are low on the minor roadway). Turn Restrictions permissive left turns may be prohibited on demand through programming a signal controller to display a red left arrow when a conflicting pedestrian movement is called. such programming may require staff time on the part of the jurisdiction where the signal is located in order to maintain signal flexibility and coordination. a (r10-11) sign may be used to prohibit right turn movements at all times, or a dynamic sign may be installed to limit turns at specific times or conditions. motorists turning right on red tend to focus on finding a gap in cross traffic. Driver attention in these situations tends to be on conflicting traffic approaching from their left, and not necessarily a pedestrian beginning to cross from the driver’s right. Drivers may also encroach into the crosswalk while waiting for a gap in traffic, effectively blocking the crosswalk. right turn on red restrictions may be used to reduce these conflicts, though such signs may not be effective if sight distance is not limited by geometry or other roadway features (landscaping, business signs, etc.) without significant enforcement efforts. Where left turns on red are legal on one-way streets, such restrictions may be appropriate for similar reasons. right turn on red restrictions increase the number of turns on green, which tend to be higher speed maneuvers, particularly at intersections with larger curb radii. Consequently, such restrictions may not always improve pedestrian safety and shouldn’t be used as a default treatment without an engineering study. 5.5.7 Concurrent Pedestrian Phase with Permissive Vehicle Turns at most signals, the indication for pedestrians is displayed concurrent with the green indication for parallel through vehicular movements. Concurrent timing often allows vehicles to turn left or right across the crosswalk during the phases with change interval countdown indication (pedestrian clearance interval), provided the motorists yield to pedestrians. to mitigate conflicts and improve motorist yielding, designers may consider the following treatments: Page 295 Item 9. •regulatory signs, such as the r10-15a series “tUrning VehiCLes YieLD tO [peDestrians]” (see section X); •Flashing Yellow arrows (see below); •geometric treatments to reduce vehicle speeds and increase sight distances such as raised pedestrian crossings and curb extensions (see Chapters X). Flashing Yellow Arrows Flashing yellow arrows (FYas) may be used for left or right turning motor vehicles to emphasize that drivers may proceed after yielding to oncoming traffic and/ or pedestrians in a crosswalk. FYas allow flexibility in providing permissive turns while warning drivers of potential conflicts. 5.5.8 Exclusive Pedestrian Phases an exclusive pedestrian phase (epp), sometimes referred to as a “Barnes Dance” or a “ped scramble”, stops vehicular traffic in all directions, allowing pedestrians to cross the intersection in all directions, including diagonally. this treatment can produce a safer operation over conventional phasing but delay for both pedestrians and motorists can be higher than conventional signal timing.2 most often, a protected pedestrian phase, specific turn restrictions, or Lpis are more appropriate solutions. an epp may be preferred over a protected pedestrian crossing for the following scenarios: •a combination of the criteria listed in section 5 is met and 15 percent of pedestrians desire to cross diagonally; •During special events that occupy a substantial portion of the public right-of-way (e.g., street fairs, parades); •the start and end of school days for major school crossings; •intersections where certain motor vehicle turning movements are either not permitted or not in conflict with designated pedestrian crossings. signs may be attached to signal poles or pedestrian pushbuttons to inform people that the intersection has an epp and they may cross diagonally; to inform where an epp must be actuated by a person waiting to cross; or to deter crossing against the pedestrian signal concurrently with vehicle traffic. signals that include epp should time pedestrian phases to accommodate the longest possible crossing. if a diagonal crossing is employed, designers may need to consider how a person with a visual disability would know that they could cross diagonally. such determinations need to be carefully considered along with pushbutton placement and pedestrian ramp design for accessibility. pavement markings should be designed in accordance with the mUtCD (Figure 3B-20). 5.6 Signal Design Guidance for Bicycle Facilities this section’s design guidance covers traffic signal head options for controlling bicycles, signal phasing, signal timing, and detection. the decision to install a traffic signal or pedestrian hybrid beacon (phB) involves a holistic evaluation of numerous factors at the study location and requires an evaluation of mUtCD warrant criteria in addition to the use of engineering judgment. additional details on this process can be found in section 5.8 . the design guidance provided in this chapter supplements intersection design guidance provided in other chapters. 5.6.1 Indication Options a vehicular signal head controls a bicyclist traveling in a shared lane or adjacent bicycle lane. Where it is necessary or desirable to control a bicycle separately from a motor vehicle, a bicycle may be controlled by a traffic signal designated for bicycle use only, or by a pedestrian signal head. traffic signal indications for a bicyclist along a corridor should be as uniform as possible. Standard Traffic Signal Face for Motor Vehicles and Bicycles standard signal control is appropriate to control both motor vehicles and bicyclists riding for both shared lanes and adjacent bicycle lanes. supplemental signage may be appropriate to instruct bicyclists to follow motor vehicle signal control in cases where applicability is ambiguous. Chapter 5. treatment Design | 97Page 296 Item 9. 98 | Chapter 5. treatment Design Pedestrian Signal Heads Using pedestrian signals to control bicyclist movements is generally discouraged except on shared use paths, but may also be appropriate for: •separated bikeways traveling in the same direction as the closest motor vehicle travel lane and the pedestrian signal is well oriented for bicyclists to see, •locations where an Lpi is provided and allowing bicyclists to follow the pedestrian signal means they are provided a protected time to cross without turning vehicles, and •projects with insufficient funding to provide separate bicycle signals, such a quick-build (rapid implementation) projects or those implemented as part of a resurfacing project where signal work is not part of the project scope. Where a bicycle is required to follow the pedestrian signal, a “[BiCYCLe] Use peD signaL” (r9-5) sign shall be posted and the pedestrian signal must be readily visible and discernable to bicyclists. Where a bicycle may follow the pedestrian signal but can also follow the standard traffic signal (such as locations where the Lpi provides a protected phase), a “BiCYCLe maY Use peD signaL” sign should be considered. Where bicyclists are required to follow a pedestrian signal, they are only legally allowed to enter the crosswalk during the WaLK phase. research has found low bicyclist compliance rates at locations where bicyclists are directed to follow pedestrian signals.3 most bicyclists continue to enter crosswalks on the FLashing DOn’t WaLK phase, as it is timed for a pedestrian who moves much more slowly than a bicyclist. additionally, at locations where the WaLK indication is only four to seven seconds, bicyclists who comply with the signal are likely to experience more delay than bicyclists who enter during the FLashing DOn’t WaLK phase. Caution should be exercised when requiring bicyclist to use pedestrian signals, particularly at locations with long crossings or unique signal timing. Standard Traffic Signals Designated for Bicycle Use Only a separate standard traffic signal may provide a separate signal exclusively for bicyclist use. When used, a “[BiCYCLe] signaL” (r10-10b) sign shall be installed immediately adjacent to the signal. a bicycle signal is typically used in the following situations: •Where the bikeway is a one-way or two-way separated bike lane; •Where bicyclists’ position in the bikeway does not allow them to see motor vehicle or pedestrian signals that may otherwise be able to control their movement, and; •Where intersection complexity is such that signals may be helpful, as determined by engineering judgment. 5.6.2 Bicyclist Detection at locations with active warning devices, pedestrian hybrid beacons, or traffic signals, there are various techniques that can be used to actively or passively detect bicyclists. semi- or fully-actuated signals should passively detect bicycles for phases with “no recall” (i.e., to call the signal and extend the side street green) or “min recall” (i.e., to extend the green on the main street). if a signalized intersection approach cannot accommodate passive detection, a curb-side pushbutton for active detection should be provided. Detection Technology passive detection equipment does not always reliably detect bicyclists. Bicycle detector installations should be tested under a variety of lighting and weather scenarios to confirm effectiveness. Below is a list of detectors commonly used to detect bicyclists at traffic signals as well as considerations for each type: BiCYCLe signaL FaCes WithOUt COnCUrrent VehiCLe tUrns (interim apprOVaL) Bicycle signals may use a [BiCYCLe] symbol face when used in compliance with FhWa’s interim approval (ia)-16. there are many benefits to using bicycle signal faces and research indicates that bicycle signals increase compliance with the traffic control and reduce bicycle crashes. Under ia-16, [BiCYCLe] faces may only be used where “bicycles moving on a green or yellow signal indication in a bicycle [symbol] signal face are not in conflict with any simultaneous motor vehicle movement at the signalized location, including right (or left) turns on red.” the interim approval also prohibits the use of bicycle signal faces at pedestrian hybrid beacons. situations where bicyclists follow pedestrian signals or where a standard traffic signal head is designated for bicycle use are not restricted by the provisions of the interim approval for bicycle signal faces. Page 297 Item 9. •radar Detection system – some radar detection can distinguish between user types. Detection systems that are not able to do so should be either replaced or supplemented if signal operations require a distinction between bicyclists and motor vehicles. •inductive Loop Detection - Quadrupole inductive loops, type Q and type D, are two options for loop detector configurations for bicycles. powerhead loops provide better bicycle detection at stop lines while quadrupole loops are typically used for dilemma zones to extend green phases. they can be used to detect bicycles on shared use paths and bike lanes, as well as in travel lanes on roadways. •type Q loops can best detect bicyclists when they are above the loop wire. •type D loops have a magnetic field everywhere within the loop and thus are better for detecting bicycles within the entire loop area. type D is also particularly effective at rejecting vehicles in the adjacent travel lane, allowing the use of a higher sensitivity setting on the detector amplifier. •Video Detection system - Video detectors may have challenges detecting vehicles, including bicycles, due to poor streetlighting. Video detection can also be problematic when the sun is low in the sky, which can cause glare and potentially skip phases. this may also be the case during inclement weather (e.g., heavy rain, fog, or snow), though it can be somewhat mitigated by ensuring detection zones are appropriately illuminated. •infrared Detection – Bicyclists can be detected through fog, snow, and other environmental constraints that impair video detection. Bicycle pushbuttons may be used to supplement passive detection. pushbuttons may also be used where it is desirable for a bicyclist to be detected, but not a motorist (e.g., a bicycle boulevard crossing an arterial with a pedestrian hybrid beacon or a toucan crossing). Where used, pushbuttons should be reachable by bicyclists and be accompanied by explanatory signage. Location passive bicycle detection should: •be located in the expected path of bicyclists; •extend across most of the bicycle lane or shared roadway lane width; •be adjacent to a curb or other type of footrest, when present. Detection should also be included in bicycle boxes and two- stage turn queue boxes. in bicycle boxes, detection should be provided both in front of general purpose lanes and bicycle lanes. in two-stage turn queue boxes, the detection zone should include the full area of the marked queue box. Both bicycle boxes and two-stage turn queue boxes have interim approval from FhWa (see section ). When used, bicycle pushbuttons should be placed within a reasonable reach from a bike lane or shared use path. they should allow bicyclists to actuate them without dismounting while satisfying lateral offset requirements from the aashtO roadside Design guide. this can be accomplished by placing bicycle pushbuttons a maximum of 18” from the face of curb, which is an exception to the bikeway shy distance recommendations provided in section 5.5.2. if there are concerns about a motor vehicle striking the pushbutton pole, bollards may be installed to protect the equipment with the understanding that this could be a hazard to turning motor vehicles. alternatively, bike ramps should be provided so that a bicyclist can access a sidewalk or separated bike lane to actuate a pushbutton. pushbuttons intended both for pedestrians and bicyclists should be located and operated in accordance with accessibility guidelines. section 5.5.2 provides guidance on the location of pushbuttons when they are on a sidewalk or shared use path. Where bicycle pushbuttons are installed, they do not have to meet accessibility guidelines or mUtCD requirements for placement. in locations where pedestrians and bicyclists have parallel crossings and pushbuttons are used to activate a warning device or other active traffic control device, pushbuttons for pedestrians and bicyclists may be placed on the same pole or separate poles. While there is a recommended minimum spacing of 10 ft. between two pedestrian pushbuttons on the same intersection corner, separate pushbuttons for bicyclists and pedestrians do not have a minimum separation recommendation. pushbutton placement 6 ft. behind the curb is preferable to allow bicyclists and pedestrians pushing strollers to stop at the pushbutton without the front end of their wheel(s) getting closer than 2 ft. from the face of curb or edge of road. Signs and Markings When installed, a bicycle detection marking should indicate to bicyclists where they should position themselves to be detected. mUtCD section 9C.05 includes bicycle detector pavement markings that can be used. the pavement marking can also be supplemented with a BiCYCLe signaL actuation sign (r10-22). this marking and sign can be used with any type of bicycle detection. Chapter 5. treatment Design | 99Page 298 Item 9. 100 | Chapter 5. treatment Design 5.6.3 Signal Design Considerations the mUtCD establishes requirements for the size, arrangement, number, visibility, and positioning of vehicle traffic signals at an intersection. Bicycle signal locations are guided by similar principles and FhWa’s interim approval (ia)-16. the following guidance is intended to supplement the mUtCD. in general, designers should minimize the number of mast arms and/or pedestal poles by combining equipment where possible. this minimizes the number of fixed objects that can be damaged or cause injury and reduces clutter. Size and Layout of Displays all signal indications in a bicycle signal face shall be the same size, including those that display arrows and those that display bicycle symbols. the primary bicycle signal head for the bicycle movement shall use an 8 inch or 12 inch diameter lenses. When the primary bicycle signal face is located on the far-side, a 12 inch diameter bicycle signal shall be used if it is located more than 120 ft. from the stop line. Bicycle signal faces with 4 inch diameter lenses may only be used as a supplemental, near-side signal. near-side bicycle signal faces may alternatively be 8 inches in diameter. the smaller size allows it to be mounted at a lower height, improving visibility to approaching bicyclists. Number of Displays the mUtCD and the Colorado signs, signals, and high- mast Lights inventory & inspection manual4 prescribe the use of two signal faces for a primary motor vehicle movement. as bicycles are rarely the primary movement, the use of one bicycle signal face is generally sufficient. a supplemental near-side signal should be considered in the following situations: •Locations with protected bicycle phases, as bicycle crash risk is increased if the bicycle signal fails; •per FhWa’s interim approval (ia)-16, if the signal head is located more than 80 ft. beyond the bicycle stop line (a supplemental near-side signal head shall be provided when the signal head is more than 120 ft. from the bicycle stop line); •intersections that require diagonal or unusual bicycle movement through the intersection. an additional benefit of a second bicycle signal display is that it provides an added safety feature in case one of the displays malfunctions. Visibility at least one signal face should be visible a minimum of 120 ft. before the stop line based on stopping sight distance for a bicycle traveling 15 mph on a flat grade. this distance should be increased where higher bicycle speeds are expected, such as on downhill grades. Where bicyclists do not have a continuous view of the signal for the minimum sight distance, a W3-3 sign “signaL aheaD” should be installed. Bicycle signals should be installed such that visibility is maximized for bicyclists and minimized for adjacent, conflicting motor vehicle movements. Visibility-limiting lenses may be appropriate so long as bicyclists can still see the indication, though such equipment may not effectively shield adjacent travel lanes. as such, other methods to distinguish bicycle signals may be necessary. these may include lower or pole mounted placement, use of smaller signal heads than those controlling motor vehicle traffic (e.g., 8 inch vs. 12 inch), and/or different color signal backplates and/or equipment housing. Legend use or supplemental word messages on backplates is prohibited. Where existing vehicle traffic signal heads are anticipated to be the sole source of guidance for bicyclists, designers shall check that they are located within the cone of vision measured from the bicycle stop line, as described in the mUtCD. if bicyclists are required to follow optically programmed or shielded vehicle signals, the signals shall be visible to approaching bicyclists. if the vehicle signal faces fall outside the cone of vision, supplementary vehicular or bicycle signals should be provided. Placement the primary bicycle signal head should be mounted in a lateral position that reduces the potential for pedestrians, landscaping, or other signal equipment to block the view of the signal for approaching bicyclists. the recommended distance from the edge of the bikeway is 5 ft. or less. if possible, mounting bicycle signal heads overhead is preferred. if bicycle heads are side-mounted, they should be installed on the same side (i.e., left or right) of the bikeway along an entire corridor. Page 299 Item 9. the spacing between bicycle signal heads and motor vehicle signal heads should be maximized. Bicycle signal heads should not be placed between two motor vehicle signal heads with the same signal face as another motor vehicle signal head. Bicycle signal heads should have a minimum separation of 3 ft., either vertically or horizontally, from other signal heads to reduce the potential for confusion. signals are located in close proximity, it may be desirable to consider one or more of the following strategies to reduce potential for confusion: •provide optical programming or shielding on both signal faces; •mount the bike signal face at a lower height then the vehicular traffic signal faces; •Use 8 inch signal heads for far-side signals. 8 inch signal heads should only be considered if other signal heads are 12 inches in diameter for the same direction of travel. a BiCYCLe signaL sign (r10-10b) shall be placed adjacent to all bicycle signal faces. Mounting height When newly erecting a pole for adding a bicycle signal or adding a bicycle signal to an existing pole, the following applies: •if a bicycle signal head is mounted on a mast arm, the bottom of the housing shall be between 15 and 25.6 ft. above the pavement; •the bottom of the signal housing of an 8 inch or 12 inch bicycle signal face that is not located over a roadway shall be a minimum of 10 ft. and maximum of 19 ft. above the sidewalk or ground. Where supplemental signing is installed below the bicycle signal face, the minimum mounting height to the bottom of the supplemental sign should be 10 ft.; •if a 4 inch bicycle signal face is used as a near-side supplemental signal, the bottom of the signal housing should be between 4 and 8 ft. above the ground. When feasible, mounting bicycle signal heads at a different height than adjacent vehicle signal heads can reduce confusion. Considerations for placement with pedestrian signal equipment Designers must determine if a pedestrian crossing of the separated bike lane should be controlled or uncontrolled at intersections with a separated bike lane and a street buffer that is 6 ft. or wider. When floating transit stops are present along a separated bike lane at a signalized intersection, the platform will serve as a pedestrian crossing island; as such, a second pushbutton must be placed in the buffer (see Chapter X for floating bus stops). the following discusses uncontrolled and controlled crossing considerations: •Controlled crossings – Can be used where it is desirable to ensure bicyclists are stopped prior to the pedestrian crossing (see Option 2 and 3 in Figure 41). in these cases, the separated bike lane movement across the pedestrian crossing is signal controlled. the pedestrian clearance interval should be based on a crossing distance beginning/ending at the sidewalk, which will increase the signal cycle length and delay for all users. additionally, the benefits of the forward queuing area to reduce bicyclist conflicts with turning traffic are diminished. if the street buffer is greater than 6 ft., an additional pushbutton may need to be placed in the median to meet pedestrian accessibility guidelines, such as where a floating transit stop is present (see Option 2 in Figure 41). •Uncontrolled crossings – Can be used where it is desirable to prioritize a shorter pedestrian crossing distance and maintain the ability to allow bicyclist to wait in the forward queueing area of a protected intersection (see Option 1 in Figure 41). in this option, the separated bike lane movement across the pedestrian crossing is uncontrolled and the pedestrian clearance interval is based on a crossing distance beginning/ending at the median (i.e., street buffer). When the buffer is less than 6 ft. wide at an intersection with a separated bike lane, the pedestrian pushbutton should not be placed in the buffer area. in these cases, pushbutton placement should follow the layout shown for Option 3. in all scenarios, designers should ensure all proposed pedestrian ramps, pushbuttons, and signals meet current accessibility guidance, see mUtCD section 4e of this guide for additional details. Chapter 5. treatment Design | 101Page 300 Item 9. 102 | Chapter 5. treatment Design 5.6.4 Signal Timing and Reducing Bicycle Delay existing signals are usually timed for prevailing motor vehicle speeds. Designers should evaluate minimum clearance intervals based on bicyclists’ operating characteristics and make adjustments that provide the safest design for all users. signal cycle length and signal coordination can also impact bicyclist delay, which may lead to traffic control device non-compliance. Designers should balance traffic operations and consider delay and safety impacts to all users. a bicyclist design speed of 8 mph and acceleration of 2.5 ft/s2, which is a typical speed and acceleration profile of a slow-moving adult bicyclist, is recommended for minimum green signal timing. a bicyclist design speed of 15 mph is recommended for red clearance interval signal timing. the designer should adjust the design speed and acceleration values as appropriate at locations where the typical bicyclist may be slower or faster moving, such as on downhill or uphill grades. Signal Cycle Length signal cycle length can have a significant impact on pedestrian and bicyclist travel. signal cycle lengths of 60 to 90 seconds are common in urban areas, as they allow frequent street crossings and can encourage more efficient street network use. in suburban areas where vehicle traffic is often consolidated on a relatively small number of arterial and collector streets, signal cycle lengths are typically longer compared to denser, urban corridors that may have a number of one-way facilities. Cycle lengths are generally between 90 and 150 seconds, Figure 41: accessible pedestrian pushbutton Locations with separated Bike Lane Page 301 Item 9. though some intersections run longer cycle lengths during peak travel periods. at intersections with a longer signal cycle length, users approaching from a minor street can experience significant delays. this can result in reduced signal compliance for bicyclists where gaps are present, when bicyclists are unaware that they have been detected, or if they have not been detected at the intersection. Consideration should be given to providing shorter signal cycle lengths when feasible, or operating in “free” or fully actuated mode during off-peak periods so that the signal switches to the side street phase more quickly to minimize delays to side street users including bicyclists. however, signal cycle length reductions must not come at the cost of adequate pedestrian crossing intervals (see section 5.5.3 ). in some cases, the signal cycle length at an intersection is determined based on adjacent intersections that are part of a coordinated system described later in this section. Bicycle Minimum Green When an approach receives a green indication, a bicyclist waiting at the stop line needs enough time to perceive, react, accelerate, and establish themselves in the intersection before the beginning of the yellow signal indication. the recommended minimum green time for a bicyclist is long enough for a bicyclist to travel at least halfway across the intersection so that a bicyclist is visible to conflicting traffic and has established themselves in the intersection before the signal turns yellow. Where bicyclists and motorists follow the same signal, the minimum green at an intersection should be based on the bicycle minimum green. Different minimum green time for bicyclists and motor vehicles may be established under the following scenarios: (a) the traffic controller has the capability to set bicycle minimum green parameter; (B) separate detection or detection that can differentiate bicycles from motor vehicles is implemented. When bicycle signals (either a standard traffic signal face designated for bicycle use or a bicycle signal face) are used for exclusive bicycle phases, the bicycle minimum green should be used. table 9 defines the bicycle minimum green time based on the distance from the stop line. at a minimum it is recommended “d” be defined as the distance from the stop line to the middle of the intersection. however, designers may choose a higher value of “d” up to the full width of the intersection. a larger “d” will enable a bicyclist to get farther through the intersection before the green indication ends, potentially improving bicyclist comfort when crossing the intersection. table 9: Bicycle minimum green time equation Bicycle Minimum Green Time Equation Gmin = t + _______ Where: Gmin =bicycle minimum green time (s) v =attained bicycle crossing speed (assumed 8 mph) t =perception reaction time (generally 1.5 s) a =bicycle acceleration (assumed 2.5 ft/s2) d =distance from stop bar to middle of the intersection (ft) L =typical length of a bicycle (6 ft) d+L1.47v1.47v2a + table 10: total phase Length, minimum green Total Phase Length and Minimum Green Gmin + Y + Rclear ≥ t + +.......... Where: Gmin =time required to attain crossing speed (s) Y =yellow change interval (s) Rclear =all-red (s) w =intersection width (ft) L =bicycle length (assumed 6 ft) v =bicycle travel speed (assumed 8 mph) a =bicycle acceleration (2.5 ft/s2) t =perception reaction time (assumed 1.5 s) 1.47 v2a W+L1.47v Chapter 5. treatment Design | 103Page 302 Item 9. 104 | Chapter 5. treatment Design a minimum green time based on a bicyclist traveling halfway across the intersection will typically result in a phase length long enough for a bicyclist to fully clear the intersection before the conflicting approach receives the green indication. however, at some wider crossings, the total phase time may not be sufficient. Designers should also verify that the total phase time is greater than the total time for a bicyclist starting from a stop to cross the intersection (see table 10). Designers should increase the minimum green time until the total phase time is greater than or equal to the total time for a bicyclist to cross the intersection. note that the assumed bicycle travel speed for both minimum green time and total phase length is 8 mph. however, a higher speed may be considered for the red clearance interval, since slow moving bicyclists are not likely to enter the intersection at the end of the yellow change interval. see the discussion of “red Clearance interval” below. Yellow Change Interval the mUtCD, section 4D.26 states that a vehicle yellow change interval should be a minimum of three seconds, which provides sufficient reaction time for a bicyclist traveling at up to 15 mph to stop before entering the intersection. When a bicycle signal (either standard traffic signal face designated for bicycle use or a bicycle signal face) are used exclusively for bicycle phases, the minimum yellow change interval of three seconds should be used. When bicyclists and motor vehicles follow the same signal, the yellow change interval for a motor vehicle should be used, as motor vehicles will likely be traveling at higher speeds and need additional time to react. Red Clearance Interval the red clearance interval allows for a roadway user that legally entered the intersection at the end of the yellow change interval additional time to complete their movement prior to crossing movements receiving a green indication. Designers should determine where a bicyclist would be positioned if they entered the intersection at the end of the yellow interval. For shorter red clearance intervals, the bicyclist may not be visible to motorist stopped on the conflicting approach waiting for a green indication. in these instances, designers should lengthen the red clearance interval so that a bicyclist will have established themselves in the intersection or traveled beyond the conflict point with a conflicting approach (see Figure 42). as previously mentioned in the “Bicycle minimum green” section, a higher design speed may be considered for the red clearance interval when taking bicycles into account. if a bicyclist determines not to stop during the yellow change interval, they are likely accelerating to clear the intersection. in this case, a higher design speed of 15 mph may be considered for the red clearance interval. such a calculation is not likely to significantly change the overall interval if rounded to the nearest second, but it may reduce the red clearance from two seconds to one second, allowing that time to be applied elsewhere in the cycle length. When bicyclists on the major street intend to use a two- stage bicycle turn box place in line with the lanes of the minor street approach, the designer should consider extending the red clearance interval because the bicyclist must slow to access the bicycle turn box. if the subsequent phase includes side street through traffic, a longer red clearance may be necessary to accommodate bicycle traffic entering the box. however, if the subsequent phase does not include side street through traffic (e.g., lagging left turn on the major approach), a longer red clearance would not be necessary. Bicycle Green Extension in locations where bicycle volumes are heavy during a particular time of day, additional green time may be needed. in these cases, the approach may include a detector at the stop line or in advance of the stop line to extend the green interval in order to allow bicycle traffic to move through the intersection. the length of the extension should be determined by the speed of bicyclists, the detector distance from the stop line, and the amount of extension time that can be provided. Once the phase has begun, each bicyclist will extend the green time for each bicycle detected up to the maximum green. Page 303 Item 9. Signal Coordination Considerations Corridors with coordinated signals are often timed to progress motor vehicles at speeds which are significantly faster than typical bicycle travel. Consequently, in these cases, most bicyclists will not gain progression benefits. Cycle length is usually selected based on the needs of the largest or most congested intersection. these signal cycle lengths are sometimes longer than optimal for smaller or less busy intersections and can result in higher delays for users on side streets. these side streets are often more comfortable for bicyclists, assuming they provide reasonable network connectivity and comfort for bicycles. significant intersection delays degrade the value of these corridors and can result in reduced signal compliance when traffic gaps are available. this can be a significant barrier at bicycle boulevard crossings or shared use paths where there may be an expectation of a higher level of service for bicycle travel. to offset these challenges, on streets that are designed to accommodate bicyclists, designers should consider the following: •Half signal cycle lengths or a shorter corridor-wide signal cycle length during lower volume and off-peak periods. On coordinated corridors with semi-actuated signalized intersections (i.e., detection on the side street), signals could operate in “free,” or uncoordinated mode, to reduce delays on the side streets. Designers should consider signal spacing, traffic volumes, and delay for all users when evaluating whether to run a signal in “free” or uncoordinated operation. in signal Figure 42: Bicycle position During red Clearance Chapter 5. treatment Design | 105Page 304 Item 9. 106 | Chapter 5. treatment Design networks with fixed time operation and lower cycle lengths (90 seconds or less), it may be preferred to maintain coordination. •Progression speeds closer to bicycle operating speeds to support and encourage bicycle traffic on the coordinated corridor. these are referred to as “green Wave” progressions for bicycles. they allow bicyclists to operate at a consistent speed, reduce stopping, and improve compliance. Common green wave progression speeds are between 12 and 15 mph. this speed can vary depending on corridor geometry and geography (e.g., grade, sight distance). a “green Wave” encourages slower travel speeds for motor vehicles, which improves safety for all roadway users. Where a “green Wave” is provided, signaLs set FOr XX mph (i1-1) signs may be posted to advise road users of the recommended speed. “green Wave” progression would be most appropriate on bikeway corridors (e.g., bicycle boulevards) with reasonable volumes of bicycle activity. Lowering progression speeds could needlessly increase delay for motor vehicles and transit passengers, so the installation of “green wave” progression should consider the effects on all travel modes. in some instances, bicycles may be traveling in the opposite direction of signal progression. For example, there may be counterflow movement of a two-way separated bike lane or side path. there may also be a designated bike lane traveling the opposite direction of motor vehicle traffic on a one-way street. these scenarios should be designed with signal progression similar to a conventional two-way street. 5.6.5 Signal Phasing for Managing or Reducing Conflicts traffic signal phasing is an essential tool for managing and reducing conflicts at intersections. signal phasing should be considered in conjunction with intersection design treatments described. although eliminating conflicts between bicyclists and motorists provides the greatest safety benefit, signal phasing should balance delay to all users, signal cycle length, and the risk of conflicts. Designers should assess the number of right and left-turning motorists across bikeways during the peak hour to identify when a protected or partially protected bicycle phase may be considered. table 11 identifies thresholds for when a protected phase or leading bicycle interval for a separated bike lane or side path may be appropriate to improve safety at an intersection. it may also be appropriate to reduce the threshold volumes on higher speed roads. in addition, designers shall consider providing separate signal phases for the following situations: •Locations with multiple left or right turn lanes; •Where sight obstructions limit bicycle visibility; •at locations where bicycle volumes and/or parallel pedestrian volumes are high and turning motorists are unable to find appropriate gaps; •at locations where more than 5 percent of the turning traffic volume is heavy vehicles; •Locations where motorists may turn across the bikeway at speeds over 30 mph or on roads with posted speeds of 35 mph or greater. table 11: hourly turning traffic thresholds for time-separated Bicycle movements Page 305 Item 9. protected phases and turning restrictions may be implemented on a permanent basis, through actuation, or during specific hours. if only one approach meets the criteria above, consider a treatment to address that approach before considering an intersection-wide treatment (e.g., evaluate a protected only left-turn phase if only the left turning volume threshold is exceeded but not the right turning volume threshold). Where table 11 or the list of criteria indicates that one or more vehicular turning movements should be phase separated from bicyclists, but a separated phase is not feasible or desirable, designers should consider a leading bicycle interval and/or a flashing yellow arrow. additional treatments are discussed in section 5.5. Conventional, buffered, and raised bike lanes will follow either traffic signals or pedestrian signals, as directed. Where right turn only lanes are present (see section 5.3) a conventional or buffered bicycle lane cannot be placed to the right of the turn lane. if a bicycle lane must be placed to the right of a right turn lane for safety and to accommodate the design user (i.e., high volume of vehicles crossing the bicycle lane to turn right), designers shall convert the bicycle lane to a raised bike lane or separated bike lane and follow the principles set forward in this section. phase separation is required for a raised bicycle lane located to the right of a right turn lane (see section 5.3). Phasing Schemes Designers may incorporate a bicycle signal phase at a signalized intersection to reduce potential conflicts between bicyclists and motor vehicles. Designers should consider both the operational and safety impacts of signal phasing changes at an intersection. Designers should be aware that a phasing scenario may necessitate a separate motor vehicle turn lane and an additional phase, which may increase delay for some users, including bicyclists. Fully separated movements may require longer signal cycle lengths, which may result in reduced user compliance with signal indications and therefore increase potential for conflict. however, the need to protect bicyclists from turning conflicts should be considered a higher priority over reducing bicyclist delay. many of the signal phasing options described in section 5.5 for pedestrians can also be adapted to eliminate or manage conflicts between bicyclists and motorists. this section describes four schemes of bicycle signal phasing that employs some of the techniques discussed in section 5.6. there are numerous phasing options available to designers, and not all options are possible depending on the type of bikeway provided at the intersection (e.g., conventional bike lane, raised bike lane, separated bike lane). these schemes are intended to provide examples of some of the options available. Exclusive Bicycle Phase this phasing scheme represents a fully separated bicycle movement. all motorized vehicle movements, including conflicting vehicle turns across the bikeway, are restricted during the exclusive bicycle phase. exclusive turn lanes for the conflicting vehicle turns are not required since all vehicle movements are stopped. some pedestrian movements may be allowed during the exclusive bike phase. if bicyclists move independently of pedestrians, this phasing requires the use of a standard traffic signal face designated for bicycle use or a bicycle signal face consistent with FhWa’s interim approval (ia)-16 that is separate from the motor vehicle signal. alternatively, bicyclists may be directed to follow pedestrian signals during a shared, protected bicycle and pedestrian phase. in this case, a [BiCYCLe] Use peD signaL sign (r9-5) should be installed. r9-5 sign installation should only be considered for use on shared use paths, raised bike lanes, or separated bike lanes. right (or Left) turn on red shall be prohibited during the protected bicycle phase. Depending on the signal phasing, a blank out or static nO tUrn On reD (r10-11) sign shall be provided. Where a pedestrian-only phase is provided, a text-based BiCYCLe maY Use peD signaL sign may be used to allow bicyclists to use the pedestrian-only phase. Depending on right and left turn volumes, the exclusive bike phasing scheme is more likely to have an impact on motor vehicle operations. to accommodate queues or an increase in signal cycle, consider extending turn lane storage lengths, if feasible. Chapter 5. treatment Design | 107Page 306 Item 9. 108 | Chapter 5. treatment Design Concurrent Protected Bicycle Phase this phasing scheme also represents a protected-only bicycle movement. the bicycle phase runs concurrently with parallel through motor vehicle phases, but conflicting turns across the bikeway are restricted. right and left- turn movements across the bikeway operate under a protected-only phase. exclusive turn lanes for conflicting vehicle turns will be necessary. in this phasing scheme, a bicycle shall be controlled by a bicycle signal head separate from the vehicle signal. right (or left) turns on red shall be prohibited during the protected bicycle phase. Depending on the signal phasing, a blank out or static nO tUrn On reD (r10-11) sign shall be provided. Depending on left and right turning volumes, this phasing scheme may have an impact on motor vehicle operations, especially for the turning movements across the bikeway. turn lane storage lengths may need to be extended to accommodate queues; reducing split times for other phases or increasing signal cycle length may also be necessary. this phasing scheme can be effective for bikeways along streets with high through movement volumes and low turning volumes. Leading Bicycle Interval at locations where bicycle volumes and/or motor vehicle turning volumes are lower than the threshold shown in table 11, or at locations where a bicycle protected phase is not feasible, there may be benefits to providing a leading bicycle interval (LBi) or leading through interval (Lti). For Lti, designers should refer to section 5.6.5. this phasing scheme represents a partially separated bicycle movement. Leading intervals are typically between three and eight seconds long and occur in advance of the green indication for turning motor vehicles. For pedestrians, if a protected intersection is used and bicyclists are allowed to queue in front of the crosswalk, the leading interval may be reduced as bicyclists will be positioned ahead of adjacent motor vehicle lanes and, by design, will be able to establish themselves in the intersection sooner with a short leading interval. Because it only requires a few seconds, a leading bicycle interval may have only a minor impact on motor vehicle operations and, in general, does not require a longer signal cycle length. however, on higher travel corridors, the designer may wish to perform a microsimulation of the proposed phase plan prior to implementation to estimate the difference in travel time between scenarios. an LBi allows a bicyclist to enter the conflict area prior to a turning motorist, improving their visibility as they cross the intersection. in some cases, an LBi may allow bicyclists to clear the conflict point before motor vehicles enter the intersection. a parallel Lpi may also be considered where there is a parallel pedestrian crossing. When a protected left turn phase is provided, it should occur as a lagging phase to prevent left turning vehicles continuing to cross during the LBi. Designers should also avoid the “Yellow trap” when providing a lagging turn phase. in this phasing scheme, a bicycle must be controlled by a signal head that is separate from the motor vehicle signal. any of the signal indication options from section 5 may be used to control bicyclist movements for an Lpi except for the bicycle signal face (per ia-16). right (or left) turns on red shall be prohibited during the LBi under this scenario. at locations where additional motor vehicle capacity is desired or there are concerns about compliance with a static sign, the use of a blank out nO tUrn On reD (r10- 11) sign may be considered. LBis only assist bicycles waiting at the stop line at the beginning of the green interval. they do not provide any protection to bicyclists who arrive after the LBi has ended. Because an LBi includes permissive turns while bicyclists may proceed through, designers should provide signing or signal indications to communicate that mutual yielding (see section 5.6.5) conditions will apply. Designers can also consider regulatory signs, such as the r10-15 series tUrning VehiCLes YieLD tO BiCYCLists (anD peDestrians), and warning signs stating WatCh FOr tUrning VehiCLes. section 4D of the mUtCD provides additional signal information using protected and permissive signal design for right and left turns. Concurrent Bicycle Phase with Permissive Vehicle Turns this phasing option represents a common scenario at most intersections where bicyclists in a shared lane or bike lane are not provided any exclusive time in the intersection. in this case, bicyclists are crossing the intersection concurrent with parallel through motor vehicles, and motorists may make permissive turns that cross their path if separate right turn lanes are not provided. this phasing scheme has the lowest impact on motor vehicle operations but may not adequately address turning motorist/through bicyclist conflicts. any of the signal indication options from section 5 may Page 307 Item 9. be used to control bicyclist movements with concurrent bicycle phases except for the bicycle signal face (per ia- 16). Designers should apply the following treatments as appropriate: •Flashing Yellow arrows (see section 5.5.7); •regulatory signs, such as the r10-15 series tUrning VehiCLes YieLD tO BiCYCLists (anD peDestrians); •Warning signs for bicyclists to WatCh FOr tUrning VehiCLes; •an offset bicycle crossing to create space for yielding; •geometric treatments to reduce vehicle speeds and increase sight distances (see Chapters 5.1). 5.7 Toucan Crossings with Traffic Signals a toucan crossing, originating from the phrase ‘two can cross,’ is a traffic signal complemented by a geometric design treatment that restricts some motor vehicle movements while providing a signalized bicycle and pedestrian crossing. the pedestrian crossings may be located in their traditional location, from corner-to- corner, or may be consolidated to one crossing of the roadway adjacent to the bicycle crossing (see Figure 45). a consolidated crossing may reduce conflicts with motorists, but it requires pedestrians to cross away from their traditional line of travel and require a larger central island size to accommodate them while maintaining separation from bicyclists. this design stops motor vehicle traffic on the major street during the entirety of the bicyclist and pedestrian crossing. these intersections restrict through and left turn motor vehicle movements from the side street, creating a protected crossing for bicyclists. motorists are permitted to make a right turn movement from the side street, thus removing it from signal control. this design may be considered for major arterial crossings where it is not desirable to provide a phB or a full traffic signal. a typical application for a toucan crossing is where a bicycle boulevard crosses an arterial street. toucan crossings may also be used at t-intersections. 5.7.1 Geometric Design Features and Signal Equipment Placement Considerations there are several key features of this type of crossing (see Figure 45): •minor street center medians for bicyclist separation from motor vehicles and space for bicycle signal placement; •raised median or raised bike lane to create a queueing area for bicycles; •pedestrian crosswalks on all legs or consolidated to one crossing of the major street; •Channelization island to restrict motorist through and left turns from minor street; •pedestrian signals for pedestrians crossing motor vehicle movements; •pedestrian signals for pedestrians crossing signalized bike lanes (if a two-stage crossing is provided); •Bicycle signals for bicycles crossing the major street. Figure 44: signal phasing scheme with LBi and FYa Chapter 5. treatment Design | 109Page 308 Item 9. 110 | Chapter 5. treatment Design Figure 45: toucan Crossing example Note: Green-Colored pavement is permitted for use with Interim Approval from FHWA. (See Section 1.2.2) Note: Bicycle Signal Faces are permitted for use (with protected-only phases) with Interim Approval from FHWA. (See Section 1.2.2) Page 309 Item 9. parking restrictions on the minor street may be necessary within 75 ft. to 100 ft. from the intersection to accommodate motorist shifting tapers and space for the bicycle queuing area and pedestrian crossing island. in addition, median noses of channelization islands should be plowable. Due to the center of the roadway alignment for the bicycle movement, green-colored pavement may be used to delineate the bicycle lane and crossings. Where pedestrians cross from corner-to-corner, the pedestrian pushbuttons are needed for crossings from all four corners and actuation for bicyclists would be separate. Where pedestrians crossing to the center of the intersection and cross parallel to the bicycle crossing, all pedestrian and bicycle pushbutton equipment is located within the raised islands and the number of pedestrian pushbuttons is reduced. 5.7.2 Toucan Crossing Signal Timing Considerations a toucan crossing’s signal timing should accommodate both pedestrian and bicycle crossings and their unique operating characteristics. since the pedestrian crossing and bicycle crossings are separated, there is flexibility in how the signalized crossing is timed: •When a bicyclist is detected, the bicycle signal should be activated, and the total phase length should be based on the signal timing guidance in section 5.5.3; •When a pedestrian is detected, the pedestrian signal should be activated and the total phase length (WaLK and FLashing DOn’t WaLK) should be based on pedestrian clearance times in the mUtCD. the bicycle signal should also be activated with the pedestrian phase since the bicycle signal phase length is less than the pedestrian phase length and there are no conflicts between the two phases in this timing plan; •Designers have the option of activating the pedestrian signal when a bicyclist is detected to reduce potential pedestrian delay. this is a particularly important consideration if the pedestrian crossing is moved to the center of the intersection. Designers should consider the impact of the signal activation in a coordinated signal system. the guidance in section 5.8 for phBs in coordinated signal systems will also apply to toucan signals. 5.8 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons a pedestrian hybrid Beacon (phB) is a type of traffic beacon that facilitates a roadway crossing by stopping major street traffic with a red indication. phBs are similar to pedestrian signals and are used in variety of applications to improve crossing safety and reduce crossing delay for pedestrians and bicyclists. these devices may be used in a variety of contexts (urban, suburban, and rural). the decision to provide a phB at either an intersection or a mid-block crossing is discussed in the mUtCD (section 4F.03 Operation of pedestrian hybrid Beacons). 5.8.1 General Design Considerations in addition to the standards specified in the mUtCD (sections 4F), the following design considerations may be applicable: •pedestrian signals shall be provided in accordance with section 5 ; •pedestrian pushbuttons shall be provided in accordance with section 5 ; •When phBs are installed for bicycle use, refer to guidance in section 5 ; •parking and other sight obstructions should be prohibited for at least 100 ft. in advance of and at least 20 ft. beyond the marked crosswalk, or site accommodations should be made through curb extensions or other techniques to provide adequate sight distance; •a W11-2 (peDestrian), s1-1 (sChOOL), or W11-15 (traiL) crossing warning sign should be provided on the mast arm overhead or to the right with a diagonal downward arrow (W16-7p) plaque; •a similar sign to those listed in the previous bullet point with an “aheaD” plaque (W16-9p) may be installed in advance of a phB; •Warning beacons may be installed in advance of phBs, though if installed, they should only activate when the phB is not in “dark” mode; •an r10-23 (CrOssWaLK, stOp On reD) sign, mounted overhead on the phB mast arm, shall be included for each major street approach at a phB. Chapter 5. treatment Design | 111Page 310 Item 9. 112 | Chapter 5. treatment Design 5.8.2 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Timing & Reducing Delay Designers should follow the pedestrian signal phase timing guidance in section 5.3.3 for phBs. Designers may consider inserting a steady red clearance interval before the walk interval begins. at locations where both bicyclist and pedestrians use phBs, the crossing interval should be timed based on pedestrian crossings design parameters and speeds. pedestrian signal timings will most likely provide sufficient time for a bicyclist to clear the entire intersection. see section 5.4.3 for additional design guidance for signal timing for bicyclists. to minimize delay for both pedestrians and bicyclists and increase compliance, a phB should operate in isolation from other intersections (i.e., in “free operation”), if possible. the maximum length of the “dark until activated” period after activation of the pushbutton should be as short as feasible (i.e., less than 30 seconds). if a phB is installed within a coordinated system, the designer may choose to run the timing plan in coordination. While not always desirable from a non-motorist user perspective, coordination may be necessary if a phB is installed near the intersection of two major streets (less than 750 ft.). to mitigate potential pedestrian and bicycle non-compliance, the designer may consider using a half cycle length to reduce pedestrian and bicycle delay. 5.8.3 Considerations for Bicycle Traffic When installed, phBs should be located to respond to bicyclist desire lines with respect to crossing major roadways. Bicyclists should not be expected to significantly detour from their direct travel path to reach an intersection or mid-block location with a phB, as this can create additional delay for bicyclists and may encourage unwanted crossing behaviors. pedestrian hybrid beacons intended for bicyclist use should provide clear and unambiguous messages to bicyclists, and beacon actuation should be accessible to bicyclists. Where phBs are provided, side street motor vehicle traffic is stop sign controlled, pedestrian traffic is pedestrian signal controlled, and bicycle traffic may be controlled by either of the following: •stop sign – bicyclists cross as motorists at intersections; •pedestrian signal – bicyclists are directed to cross as a pedestrian. at such intersections, bicyclists have the choice to use the stop sign if there are adequate gaps in traffic on the major road. if there are not adequate gaps or if a bicyclist would be more comfortable using the pedestrian signal, they can activate the phB and wait for the WaLK indication. the following discussion provides contextual considerations for each crossing strategy (see section 5.4.2 for detection guidance). Stop Sign Control after stopping at the intersection and finding an adequate gap in traffic, the bicyclist may cross the street. this option minimizes bicyclist crossing delays during periods where there are sufficient gaps in major street traffic. During periods of higher traffic volume, bicyclists may exhibit unwanted crossing behavior if gaps in traffic are inadequate and it is not clear how to activate the phB. For this reason, bicyclists should be given the option of using the pedestrian signal control. the phB should be designed to clearly communicate how a bicyclist can activate the beacon, as described below. Pedestrian Signal Control a bicyclist should be provided with one or more of the following options to activate the beacon: •Curbside pushbutton (this pushbutton is in addition to the pedestrian pushbutton located at or near the top back of the pedestrian ramp); •Opportunity to exit the roadway to access the pedestrian pushbutton via a curb ramp to the sidewalk; •passive detection in the location where bicyclists are likely to operate. the BiKes Use peD signaL sign (mUtCD r9-5) should be mounted adjacent to the pedestrian signal heads. if passive detection is used at an intersection, the detection should be designed to discern between a bicycle and motor vehicle, or a bicycle lane or separated bike lane should be provided so a motorist does not activate the phB. see section 5.4.2 for additional design guidance on bicycle detection. Page 311 Item 9. pedestrians and bicyclists are not legally allowed to start crossing during FLashing DOn’t WaLK. if a bicyclist perceives that they can clear the intersection, they might enter crosswalks during this phase. During FLashing DOn’t WaLK at a phB, motor vehicles typically have an alternating “wig-wag” red indication and can proceed through the intersection if it is clear. given the higher speed of a bicyclist compared to a pedestrian, it may be difficult for a motorist to see the bicyclist. at locations with higher volumes of bicyclists. it may be desirable to consider a full traffic signal. at a phB, designers may consider creating a separated bicycle lane approaching an intersection and cross bicyclists parallel to the crosswalk. to minimize conflicts with merging or turning motorists near the intersection, it is recommended the bicyclists be channelized into a separated bicycle lane 50 ft. to 100 ft. in advance of the intersection (see Figure 48). 5.9 Warning Beacons Warning Beacons are yellow flashing lights that supplement warning signs, or in some cases regulatory signs, to provide advance notification of a confined space (such as a bridge or tunnel) or shared use path crossing where bicyclists may be present. Yellow Beacons used as warning devices shall not be installed without an appropriate warning or regulatory sign. see the mUtCD (section 4L.03) for additional details. 5.9.1 Active Warning Beacons active Warning Beacons are actuated yellow flashing lights that supplement warning signs to provide advance notification of a specific roadway feature (tunnel entrance, pedestrian crossing, etc.). Beacons may be activated either passively (e.g., video detection, radar detection, by time of day) or actively by using a pushbutton. One example of this application is a bridge with limited sight distance and lacking bicycle specific infrastructure. in this scenario designers may consider a custom legend warning sign “BiKes On BriDge When FLashing” with a beacon timed to flash long enough for a bicyclist to traverse the facility. similar applications may be appropriate to warn motorists of unexpected or less visible pedestrians or bicyclists on facilities such as in tunnels or on roads with significant horizontal or vertical curvature. When used at uncontrolled crossings, active warning beacons are most effective along streets with three or fewer travel lanes and posted speed limits at or below 35 mph. research has found yielding rates of 45% can be achieved at locations with these characteristics.5 For the design of active Warning Beacons, designers should reference the following: •Flashing Beacons – mUtCD (section 4L) •Warning signage – mUtCD (section 2C) •Detection – sections 5.3.2 and 5.4.2 Figure 47: active Warning Beacon example Chapter 5. treatment Design | 113Page 312 Item 9. 114 | Chapter 5. treatment Design Figure 48: pedestrian hybrid Beacon at high Volume major road Note: Green-Colored pavement is permitted for use with Interim Approval from FHWA. (See Section 1.2.2) Note: Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Boxes are permitted for use with Interim Approval from FHWA. (See Section 1.2.2) Page 313 Item 9. Flashing beacons may be used in a number of different applications for bicycles and pedestrians. however, use of passive, continuously flashing beacons is not recommended, as indiscriminate use can degrade their effectiveness and affect the usefulness of other flasher locations. 5.9.2 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (Interim Approval) rectangular rapid Flashing Beacons (rrFBs) are user- actuated, high-intensity yellow LeDs that flash in a rapidly repeating sequence. Like active Warning Beacons, rrFBs may supplement crossing warning signs. however, rrFBs, installed at appropriate locations, can achieve high driver yielding rates. research has shown that rrFBs can achieve motorist yielding rates between 80 and 100 percent both during the day and during periods of darkness when installed under appropriate conditions.6 While rrFBs have been used on roadways with posted speeds 45 mph and above and on roads with more than four travel lanes, caution should be used in these applications as driver yielding percentages may be lower compared to lower speed and volume scenarios. rrFBs may also be beneficial at multi-lane roundabout exits where motorist yielding compliance may be poor and gaps are infrequent during peak hours. rrFBs may be used per FhWa interim approval 21 (ia-21). the general crossing design and standards of an rrFB will be the same as for a crossing without an rrFB (see mUtCD section 2C for crossing sign types, sizes, and placement). in addition, the following design considerations apply to rrFB installation: •When used, rrFBs shall supplement post-mounted W11-2 (peDestrian), s1-1 (sChOOL), or W11-15 (traiL) crossing warning signs with a downward diagonal arrow (W16-7p) plaque, or an overhead- mounted W11-2, s1-1, or W11-15 crossing warning sign, located at or immediately adjacent to an uncontrolled marked crosswalk. the rrFB shall be installed on the same support as the associated crossing warning sign and plaque. •For any approach where rrFBs are used to supplement post-mounted signs, a minimum of two (2) W11-2, s1-1, or W11-15 crossing warning signs (each with an rrFB unit and a W16-7p plaque) shall be installed at the crosswalk, one on the right-hand side of the roadway and one on the left-hand side of the roadway. On a divided highway, the left-hand side assembly should be installed on or within the median, if practical, rather than on the far left-hand side of the highway. Careful consideration needs to be given to rrFB installation with especially wide medians (20 ft. or greater) where prevailing speeds are 45 mph or greater. •except for crosswalks across the approach to, or egress from, a roundabout, an rrFB shall not be used for crosswalks across approaches controlled by YieLD signs, stOp signs, traffic control signals, or pedestrian hybrid beacons. •rrFBs shall be pedestrian or bicycle actuated. pushbuttons are the most common method, though passive detection methods such as motion or break- beam sensors may be appropriate in locations where they will not erroneously activate for those not wishing to cross the street. see sections 5 and 5 for design guidance on pedestrian and bicycle detection, respectively. •the rrFB unit associated with a post-mounted sign and plaque may be located between and immediately adjacent to the bottom of the crossing warning sign and the top of the supplemental plaque or within 12 inches above the crossing warning sign. if the rrFB unit is supplementing an overhead-mounted sign, the rrFB unit shall be mounted directly below the bottom of the sign. •rrFB timing shall be based on the procedures provided in the mUtCD (section 4e.06) for pedestrian clearance timing. •When considering additional enhancements, such as crossing islands or additional signage, the following should be considered: •it is preferable to erect crosswalk signage on the far-side of crosswalks less than 20 ft. in width. this placement helps ensure that sightlines between pedestrians and motorists are not obstructed. •Where sight distance approaching the crosswalk where rrFBs are installed is less than deemed necessary by the engineer, an additional rrFB may be installed on that approach in advance of the crosswalk. this rrFB would supplement a W11- 2 (pedestrian), s1-1 (school), or W11-15 (trail) crossing warning sign with an aheaD (W16-9p) or distance (W16-2p or W16-2ap) plaque. if an additional rrFB is installed in advance of the crosswalk, it shall supplement, not replace, the rrFBs located at the crosswalk. Chapter 5. treatment Design | 115Page 314 Item 9. 116 | Chapter 5. treatment Design •if a speech pushbutton information message is used in conjunction with an rrFB: a locator tone shall be provided, the audible information device shall not use vibrotactile indications or percussive indications, and the message should say, “Yellow lights are flashing.” the message should be spoken twice. •On four or six lane streets, rrFBs produce higher driver yielding rates when mounted in the median (or overhead) as well as on the right edge of the roadway in combination with advanced stop or yield lines. •rrFBs may be solar powered and communicate with other assemblies via radio. this may eliminate the need for a power supply and/or conduit between the units, though the designer needs to ensure proper overhead lighting is present at the crossing. •Unless rrFBs are specifically designed as warning devices for bicycle use, flashing operation should be timed for pedestrians. the flashing operation following each actuation should be based on the mUtCD procedures for timing of pedestrian clearance times for pedestrian signals. When installed for both pedestrians and bicyclists, doing so will provide sufficient time for bicyclists to clear the roadway. 5.9.3 Signal and Beacon Summary the prior portions of section 5 provide specific detail and guidance for a variety of pedestrian and bicycle signals and beacons that could and should be used at intersections. the following table is a summary of some of the key guidance that can be used by practitioners to decide why and when they should use specific beacon and signal types. Traffic Control Signal Warning Beacon Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)Toucan Crossing Placement Roadway intersections or other cross-traffic locations In combination with warning signs: in advance of shared- use crossings, confined spaces Midblock locations where there is non-vehicular cross traffic In combination with a traffic signal at the traditional crosswalk location, from corner-to-corner, or as one consolidated crossing Application Traffic control signals should be installed at locations where less restrictive traffic control devices do not provide adequate crossing opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists. Typical applications of Warning Beacons include providing warning or supplemental warning to regulatory signs, obstructions, or crossings PHB installation is relevant at intersecionts where it is undesirable or unwarranted to install a traffic control signal, but vehicle speeds, sight distance, number of traffic lanes, or a lack of crossing opportunities dictates the need for a traffic control device to protect non- vehicular cross traffic This design may be considered for major arterial crossings where it is not desirable to provide a PHB or a full traffic signal. Typical applications for a Toucan crossing include where a bicycle boulevard crosses an arterial street or at T-intersections. Legal See MUTCD Chapter 4C for Warrants See MUTCD Section 4L.03 for Guidance See MUTCD Chapter 4F for Guidelines (Figure 4F-1 and 4F-2) The guidance for PHBs in coordinated signal systems will also apply to Toucan signals Additional Considerations A traffic signal can increase delays, motorized traffic volumes on minor street approaches, and some types of crashes. May be activated passively (detection) or actively (pushbutton) Semi- or fullyactuated signals should passively detect bicycles for phases with “no recall” or “min recall”. If a signalized intersection approach cannot accommodate passive detection, a curb-side pushbutton for active detection should be provided. This design stops motor vehicle traffic on the major street during the entirety of the bicyclist and pedestrian crossing. Image Page 315 Item 9. Endnotes 1 FHWA Tech Brief – “Safety Evaluation of Pedestrian Countdown Signals”, FHWA Publication No. FHWA-HRT-19-046. 2 AASHTO Pedestrian Guide 2004, p. 103. 3 Thompson, Samson Ray Riley, “Bicyclist Compliance at Signalized Intersections” (2015). Portland State University, Dissertations and Theses. Paper 2222 4 https://www.codot.gov/library/bridge/bridge-manuals/2019-09-24_sshml_master_-_submitted.pdf 5 Fitzpatrick, K., S. Turner, M. Brewer, P. Carlson, B. Ullman, N. Trout, E. S. Park, J. Whitacre, N. Lalani, and D. Lord. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 562: Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings. NCHRP, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2006. 6 Shurbutt, J. and R. Van Houten. Effects of Yellow Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons on Yielding at Multilane Uncontrolled Crosswalk. FHWA- HRT-10-043. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, 2010. Chapter 5. treatment Design | 117Page 316 Item 9. Page 317 Item 9. Chapter 6. MaintenanCe | 119 Chapter 6. Maintenance Page 318 Item 9. 120 | Chapter 6. MaintenanCe 6. Maintenance While the previous chapters of the Guidelines include elements of intersection design in Fort Collins, this chapter covers the process of getting street projects implemented. partner agencies, private developers, and consultants are involved in the design and construction of streets (including intersections) but the City of Fort Collins has the primary responsibility for guiding and permitting design, and maintaining the streets and facilities on which intersections are located. thus, the City of Fort Collins requires coordinated rules and regulations across multiple departments that are aligned with the strategies outlined in this and previously created standards and regulations for intersection development. references in this document are relevant at the time of publication.the City will evaluate and consider updating associated rules and regulations over time based on the best practices guidance provided in this document. rationale for not incorporating best practice guidance should be documented. 6.1 Project Types projects can vary in size and scope from major corridor improvements to small maintenance projects. Often, projects can be phased to deliver quick, low-cost improvements in the short term while waiting for funding and/or leveraging opportunities for major capital projects to make improvements more permanent. the following provides an overview of the types of projects that may impact intersections in For Collins. •Major intersection and corridor improvements are the largest, most complicated, and most costly type of street project. these are often planned many years in advance and may rely on multiple funding sources such as state or federal funds. •the Community Capital Improvements Program (CIP) was initiated in 2015 after voters passed a 10-year quarter-cent tax renewal dedicated to community improvements. this program funds all sorts of roadway projects, including intersection projects such as crosswalk enhancements, aDa updates, new sidewalks, new cycle tracks, medians and resting areas, or even a combination of these elements. • •Private developments do not always change the public right-of-way. however, projects that have an increased impact on the public right-of-way (such as when the new building would generate more trips than the previous structure) may require developers to perform a traffic study and make improvements to mitigate project impacts and bring the street, and therefore often the adjacent intersection, up to current standards. •Retrofit projects are generally smaller in scale and address a specific issue at intersections. these projects must be designed around significant constraints to keep costs manageable while bringing streets up to current right-of-way standards. •Maintenance projects are limited in their ability to significantly change the geometry of an intersection but can reallocate space through activities like restriping. repaving projects also provide opportunities to stripe curb extensions that narrow turning radii, narrow travel lanes to recommended widths to control vehicle speeds, and stripe reverse angled parking to narrow a roadway. the City can also use a OneBuild approach to combine multiple projects into one bigger project to maximize economies of scale and minimize construction impacts. Striping and paving projects should involve coordination among appropriate City staff to ensure that these opportunities are not missed. Bicycle infrastructure impacts from projects Page 319 Item 9. Chapter 6. MaintenanCe | 121 6.2 Organizational Responsibilities intersection design projects in Fort Collins are informed by the constraints and opportunities of working in a city with a mix of historic and modern construction, multiple jurisdictions and agencies, and a commitment to meaningful community and stakeholder engagement. this section outlines departmental responsibilities related to planning, design, construction, management, and maintenance of intersections. 6.2.1 City of Fort Collins Department Responsibilities Many departments within the City of Fort Collins play a role related to design, function, and use of intersections. these departments are committed to the success of the Guide and will take the following implementation steps: •evaluate current standards, rules, and regulations to determine where conflicts and/or gaps with the intersection Design Guide exist •revise and/or create new standards, rules, and regulations where necessary to align with the Guidelines •Coordinate updates between departments to promote consistency and minimize conflicting direction •Work together with partners such as transfort and CDOt to encourage consistency and alignment with the intersection Design Guide the following sections outline internal departments within the City of Fort Collins and describe their roles in maintaining intersections in Fort Collins. Traffic Operations traffic Operations is responsible for all traffic related needs within the City. examples of these needs include signal systems, signs and pavement markings, traffic engineering such as speed limits, other studies, work area traffic control, safety, and pedestrian and bike innovations. the department provides support to residents who want to make community streets safer by managing the neighborhood traffic Mitigation program that works to lower speeds on local streets by employing education, engineering, and enforcement solutions. Streets Department the City of Fort Collins Streets Department maintains a street network with 557 centerline miles. Services include street maintenance and paving, street sweeping, snow removal, and mowing. in addition, this department operates a recycling/crushing facility that processes and recycles concrete and asphalt for re-use on public and private projects. Intersection Maintenance Responsibilities: Concrete Work (curb, gutter, and sidewalk) aDa accommodations Snow Clearing Lighting (pedestrian lighting) Street Sweeping resurfacing Intersection Maintenance Responsibilities: Signal equipment pavement Markings Signage Page 320 Item 9. 122 | Chapter 6. MaintenanCe Parks Department the parks Department is the City agency responsible for functions involving parks, outdoor amenities, memorials, trails, and outdoor facility rentals and reservations. they also follow an integrated pest Management (ipM) strategy and control pest levels in Fort Collins to prevent damage to both property and the environment. Divisions of the department include parks, Cemeteries, Forestry and Golf. Light and Power Fort Collins Light & power is a part of the City Utilities Department and provides reliable electric service to Fort Collins homes and businesses. Fort Collins Utilities receives its power supply from platte river power authority, which is a wholesale electricity provider for the cities of Fort Collins, Longmont, Loveland, and estes park. Transfort transfort is responsible for operating and maintaining bus services, stops, and stations. transfort is also responsible for snow clearing of bus stops. 6.2.2 City Partner Responsibilities in addition to internal departments, the City of Fort Collins partners with the following agencies to maintain intersections throughout the city: •Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is responsible for operating and maintaining many state and US highway •Platte River Power Authority is responsible for operating and maintaining electric services used by the Fort Collins Utilities Department 6.3 Maintenance Responsibilities a strong systemic commitment to maintenance will ensure the longevity, dependability, and quality of intersections in Fort Collins. this section outlines maintenance considerations for seasonal maintenance, vegetation maintenance, maintenance of street amenities, and provision of temporary access during construction. For new construction projects or retrofits, the following best practices should be followed to ensure City operational staff are adequately prepared to maintain new components of the public right of way. •Begin developing maintenance plans during the planning and design stages of projects and coordinate with City departments and other stakeholders responsible for enforcing and carrying out maintenance practices •Where necessary, prepare and execute maintenance agreements for elements of the public realm—such as parklets, planters, bus shelters, traffic signals—to ensure longevity and consistent quality •Consider materials, maintenance vehicle availability, resources for upkeep, and equipment needs for snow removal, sweeping, vegetation care, and general clean- up as design decisions are made to ensure feasibility of proper maintenance •Carefully plan for seasonal maintenance requirements to ensure year-round accessibility and safety within the public realm Intersection Maintenance Responsibilities: Lighting (primary contact for maintenance) Intersection Maintenance Responsibilities: Landscaping (some arterial intersections) Lighting (in parks and on trails) Intersection Maintenance Responsibilities: transit stops & shelters transit operations & performance data Page 321 Item 9. Chapter 6. MaintenanCe | 123 the following sections detail considerations and best practices for specific pieces and parts of intersections. 6.3.1 Signal, Signing, and Pavement Markings Signing and pavement markings along roadways approaching and crossing intersections should be maintained to be clear and legible in order for intersections to function safely and comfortably. Similarly, traffic signals, including bicyclist and pedestrian signals and beacons, shall be inspected a minimum of one time annually to ensure reliable function, and identify signals and equipment to be replaced before failure. Facilities should be inspected per this guidance and repaired or replaced when necessary. 6.3.2 Street Buffer Treatments and Sidewalk Buffer Amenities Vertical objects, such as street buffer treatments and sidewalk buffer amenities, may be struck by motor vehicles when they are making turns at intersections. Maintenance and operation crews should plan on replacing vertical objects placed in the buffer zone, refreshing pavement markings, and trimming any adjacent vegetation at intersection corners on a regular basis. if vertical objects are struck with significant regularity, adjustments to the design should be considered. Other elements along walkways and bikeways that might be situated at or near intersections, such as lighting, benches, trash receptacles, etc., should also be inspected on a regular basis to ensure they are in good working condition, and when appropriate these elements should be repaired and/or replaced. 6.3.3 Pavement Maintenance as pavement section thickness decreases, the susceptibility to cracking, settlement, and root uplift increases. eventually all streets, pedestrian facilities, and bicycle facilities must be reconstructed, but with proper maintenance techniques, reconstruction can be delayed up to 40 years. to extend the life of the pavement and maintain a smooth rideable surface in intersections, a regular maintenance schedule should be created and followed for concrete paving. 6.3.4 Snow and Ice Maintenance Successful seasonal maintenance programs require knowledgeable staff and crews, proper equipment, and consistent procedures and preventative strategies. to achieve successful seasonal maintenance for bikeways, walkways, and streets that will result in benefits to Fort Collins intersections, the City should: •Develop proactive maintenance strategies including regular facility inspection, repair, replacement, and clear record-keeping to ensure seasonal maintenance practices are manageable and efficient •Develop strategic assessment, prioritization, and maintenance plans to care for all elements of the public realm, including sidewalks, roadways, catch basins, vegetation, signage, traffic signals, lighting, trash and recycling bins, street furniture, and pavement markings adequate snow and ice clearance is critical to maintaining accessible trails and roadways throughout the year. except in snow emergencies or unusually heavy snowfall, Fort Collins should keep intersections including sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and roadways free of snow and ice. it is vital that Fort Collins develop a communication plan to regularly remind property owners that they are responsible for clearing snow and ice from adjacent sidewalks within 24 hours of snow event. refer to the City of Fort Collins’ Snow routes Map for established prioritization strategies. Prioritization a balanced snow clearance prioritization strategy ensures that essential services—such as emergency access—are provided while also tending to the needs of the most vulnerable users of our streets. people walking and rolling through intersections—especially those with physical disabilities—require clear sidewalks, crossings, curb ramps, and transit stops in order to travel. people riding bicycles or using other mobility options are more sensitive to snowfall than people driving due to smaller, thinner wheels and the need to maintain balance on their vehicles. Fort Collins must establish a map of priority routes where emergency and multimodal access are most critical. Page 322 Item 9. 124 | Chapter 6. MaintenanCe Clearances and Equipment the following criteriafor clearances is necessary to consider during intersection design to ensure snow clearing equipment can reach intersections and surrounding facilities: •Maintain a minimum clear width of 4 feet per direction on protected bike lanes and procure special snow plowing equipment for bike lanes narrower than 8 feet •On paved trails provide a minimum clear path of 8 feet •Maintain a minimum clear width of 3 feet per direction on sidewalks and pedestrian paths •procure snow throwers to push snow farther off paths than possible with snowplows, if needed •Consider procuring specialized equipment that can be outfitted with other attachments such as brooms, plow blades, snow throwers, and loaders the south side of east-west streets in Fort Collins (such as Mulberry St.) get minimal sun and are, therefore, difficult to keep clear of snow and ice. Section 5.3.4 Bicycle Crossings discusses the benefits and downsides of installing two-way protected bicycle lanes on the north side of east-west streets where facilities are easier to maintain seasonally. if the City determines that developing new two-way cycle tracks are the best option, consideration must be taken to ensure snow and ice clearing equipment can fit the width of the bicycle lane. refer to the bulleted list above for clearance and equipment standards when designing a new two-way facility. Snow Storage Buffers and landscape areas should be used for snow storage while ensuring that adjacent pedestrian paths remain clear. in addition, snow storage height and placement should not impede sight lines or block curb ramps at intersections and roadway crossings. Fort Collins should also consider the impacts of melting snow and resulting drainage at intersections as part of snow storage planning. Ice Control Treatments ice control, such as salt and salt brine, can reduce slippery conditions, but can also be damaging on the environment, drainage, and pavement at intersections and the surrounding facilities. environmentally friendly options for maintenance should be considered during design. Mini-plow Use in Separated Bike Lane Page 323 Item 9. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 324 Item 9. 126 | Page 325 Item 9. Chapter 7. appendix | 127 Chapter 7. Appendix Source: Alta Planning + Design Page 326 Item 9. 128 | Chapter 7. appendix 7. Appendix 7.1 Additional Resources the following resources and literature were reviewed during the development of this guide and can provide further information and guidance for designing safe and comfortable intersections in Fort Collins. 2021 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (forthcoming) 2021 AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan 2019 Fort Collins Traffic Safety Summary 2019 Fort Collins Transit Master Plan 2014 Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan 2011 Fort Collins Pedestrian Plan Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards Page 327 Item 9. APPENDIX B: EXISTING CONDITIONS SUMMARY Page 328 Item 9. 129 FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx B: ExISTINg CONDITIONS SuMMARy FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT Introduction To establish an understanding of existing conditions for bicycling and walking in Fort Collins, the planning process includes an analysis of the City’s demographics, travel characteristics, land use, planning and policy context, existing transportation networks, and roadway safety. Fort Collins Today Fort Collins prides itself in taking action to address the needs of the community and strives to ensure that everyone can thrive. The Fort Collins Active Modes Plan (AMP) seeks to center active transportation planning around community needs. Analyzing demographics, travel characteristics, and land use is critical to identifying opportunities and challenges, establishing goals, and centering recommendations for walking and bicycling in Fort Collins. Population and Households Fort Collins has experienced significant population growth over the last four decades. Since 1990, Fort Collins’ population has nearly doubled from 88,000 to 166,000 residents (Table 1), with another 70,000 residents expected d by 2040 (City Plan Trends and Forces Report, 2018). A mix of manufacturing businesses, the presence of Colorado State University (CSU), and a burgeoning high-tech sector have contributed to this population growth. Fort Collins’ population skews young compared to Larimer County and the State of Colorado, despite having a lower concentration of families and residents under the age of 18 (Table 2). CSU’s resident student population of 28,446 students account for approximately 18 percent the City’s population (ACS 2019 5-Year Estimates, Table B14004) and the neighborhoods around CSU are the densest in the city. While fewer households identify as family households in Fort Collins than in 2010, the City’s growing Hispanic/Latino population indicates a shift in the racial and ethnic makeup of family households. While Hispanic/Latino’s account for ~12% of the City’s total population (Table 3), they account for over 20% of residents under the age of 18. The high concentration of college students in Fort Collins also skews income lower and poverty higher compared with Larimer County and State of Colorado (Table 4). However, when excluding college students living off-campus from poverty calculations, the poverty rate is estimated to be 10 percent, on par with County and State averages (City Plan Trends and Forces Report, 2018). Household income growth in Fort Collins has stagnated since 2000 when adjusted for inflation, and disparities exist along racial and ethnic lines. Nonwhite households, on average, earn between one-fifth to two-thirds the incomes of white households. Existing dynamics in the rental housing market further compound income stagnation and disparities. Between 2005 and 2017, Fort Collins’ residential rental costs increased by 78 percent (Fort Collins’ Rental Market Study, Corona Insights/City of Fort Collins, 2019), despite incomes remaining stagnant. Households experiencing rising housing costs are further burdened by transportation costs, especially lower-income households and families. Public investments in connected, comfortable, and safe facilities and amenities for active modes provide an affordable transportation option for residents to access schools, jobs, social activities, and recreation. The racial disparities in income and poverty are also reflected geographically, The Health Equity Index (Image 1), a tool developed by the Larimer County Department of Health and Environment (LCDHE) to identify potentially vulnerable areas of the community, illustrates this spatial disparity. Generally, the Health Equity Index shows that more vulnerable or disadvantaged populations are clustered along the edges of the city and north of the Poudre River, while less vulnerable populations are clustered near Downtown and within priority growth areas. With vulnerable populations spatially disconnected from activity centers, the AMP should recommend building safe active mode linkages to transit, recreation, shopping, health services, schools, and jobs. Page 329 Item 9. 130 FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx B: ExISTINg CONDITIONS SuMMARy The analysis of Fort Collins’ population and households reveals the following trends to be considered by the AMP: • Building a transportation network that accommodates future growth using existing roadways • Balancing the needs of the student population, family households, and non-family households alike • Preserving and expanding affordable transportation options amidst income stagnation and rising cost of living • Applying special attention to the needs of the City’s growing Hispanic/Latino population Year Population 10-Year Growth Rate 2019 165,609 17.9% 2010 143,986 21.4% 2000 118,652 35.2% 1990 87,758 34.8% Table 1: Fort Collins Population Growth 1990 - 2019 (US Census; ACS, 2019 5-Year Estimates) Age Fort Collins Larimer County Colorado Under 18 16.3% 19.3% 21.8% 18 - 24 22.1% 13.9% 9.2% Over 65 11.6% 16.2% 14.7% Median Age 30.6 36.4 37.1 Table 2: Fort Collins, CO Age Demographics Compared to Larimer County and Colorado. (ACS, 2019 5-Year Estimates) Race and Hispanic Origin Fort Collins Larimer County Colorado White alone 79.9% 82.1% 67.7% Black or African American alone 1.6% 1.2% 4.6% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 1.0% 1.1% 1.6% Asian alone 3.5% 2.4% 3.5% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% Two or More Races 4.0% 2.7% 3.1% Hispanic or Latino 11.6% 11.9% 21.8% Table 3: Fort Collins, CO Race and Hispanic Origin Compared to Larimer County and Colorado. Source: US Census Bureau (2019 5- Year Estimates) Page 330 Item 9. 131 FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx B: ExISTINg CONDITIONS SuMMARy Median Household Income $65,866 $71,881 $72,331 Per capita Income $34,482 $37,363 $38,226 Persons in Poverty 16.3% 10.3% 9.3% Table 4: Fort Collins, CO Income and Poverty Compared to Larimer County and Colorado. Source: US Census Bureau (2019 5-Year Estimates) Page 331 Item 9. 132 FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx B: ExISTINg CONDITIONS SuMMARy Image 1: Health Equity Index for Fort Collins, 2016. Source: LCDHE Page 332 Item 9. 133 FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx B: ExISTINg CONDITIONS SuMMARy Travel Characteristics Commute Modes Fort Collins’ residents are nearly five times as likely to bike to work or school (“Commute Trips”) than the rest of the Colorado (Table 5). A higher bicycle commute share in Fort Collins is a testament to the City’s bicycling culture. Stakeholders across Fort Collins—residents, businesses, City leaders—all recognize the economic, environmental, and social benefits of bicycling, and how building a low-stress bicycle network is critical to achieving larger citywide goals. Investments in infrastructure supporting safe and comfortable mobility for active modes contributes significantly to decisions regarding mode of travel. However, since the adoption of Fort Collins’ 2014 Bicycle Plan, bicycle commuting has stagnated (ACS 5-year estimates, 2014; ACS 5-year estimates, 2019). Understanding this stagnation requires further investigation, and may be explained by changes in demographics, the housing market, and commute patterns. Means of Transportation to Work Fort Collins Colorado (Statewide) Walk 4.2% 2.8% Bike 5.4% 1.1% Motor Vehicle 79.1% 83.7% Public Transit 2.3% 3.0% Table 5: Fort Collins, CO Means of Travel to Work Compared to Colorado. Source: US Census Bureau (2019 5-Year Estimates) Non-Commute Trips However, commute trips only tell part of the story. Across the state of Colorado, commute trips (i.e. trips between home and place of work in either direction) account for just 14% of all trips (NHTS, 2017). Means of Transportation for Commute Trips vs All Trips, State of Colorado % of Commuting Trips (2017) % of All Trips (2017) Walk 3.0% 11.7% Bike 1.2% 2.6% Motor Vehicle 91.1% 84.3% Public Transit 3.5% 1.5% Table 6: State of Colorado Means of Travel for Commute Trips vs All Trips. Source: National Household Travel Survey (2017) and US Census Bureau (2017 5-Year Estimates, Commute Trips exclude 8.5% who work from home) Additionally, commute trips are generally longer distances than other types of trips that people take. To unlock walking and bicycling for more people and more trips, the City of Fort Collins may focus its efforts on shifting short trips—specifically those less than 15 minutes by any travel mode—to active transportation. For instance, errands and shopping trips, social or recreational trips, medical appointments , and other activities may be within a comfortable walking or bicycling distance if the infrastructure provides comfortable and low-stress conditions. Due to the sample size of the National Household Travel Survey—a large diary-based study conducted every eight years—this report uses the State of Colorado to understand travel patterns for all trips. When looking statewide—which includes both urban and rural contexts— nearly 12% of all trips are pedestrian trips, and 2.6% are by bike, compared with 3% and 1% of commute trips done by walking or biking (Table 6). Statewide data indicates that the percentage of trips done by biking increases for shopping activities and Page 333 Item 9. 134 FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx B: ExISTINg CONDITIONS SuMMARy the percentage of trips done by walking increases for social/recreational activities (Table 7). Moreover, as the distance of trips decreases, the likelihood of walking and biking increases (Table 8). National Household Travel Survey data at the state-level indicates that trips done by walking and biking are more likely for non-commute trips and for short-range trips. Activating greater use of active modes for those trip types and short distances can be enabled through investments in infrastructure that is safe and comfortable for people walking and biking. Means of Transportation by Trip Purpose Work Shopping Social/ Recreational Other* % of all Person Trips 14% 19% 14% 53% % of all Walking Trips 8% 11% 33% 47% % of all Bicycling Trips 12% 26% 10% 52% % of all Motor Vehicle Trips 14% 21% 12% 54% % of all Public Transit Trips 21% 9% 19% 50% Table 7: State of Colorado Means of Travel by Trip Type. Source: National Household Travel Survey (2017) and US Census Bureau (2019 5-Year Estimates) Means of Transportation by Distance Walk Bike Motor Vehicle Public Transit % of all Person Trips 12% 3% 84% 1.5% % of Trips < 0.5 miles 61% 4% 35% 0.0% % of Trips < 2.5 miles 25% 5% 69% 0.8% % of Trips < 3.5 miles 21% 4% 74% 1.2% % of Trips ≥ 3.5 miles 0.3% 0.4% 97% 1.7% Table 8: State of Colorado Means of Travel by Distance. Source: National Household Travel Survey (2017) Land Use & Urban Form Fort Collins has a relatively dense grid of streets in Old Town and the surrounding neighborhoods. However, the street network in most of the city is curvilinear and not well connected, and the land uses have been developed at a suburban scale. Nearly sixty percent of land area within Fort Collins city limits is single-family residential (29%) and open space (30%). Non-residential land uses, such as industrial, employment, and commercial districts, are concentrated along College Avenue, E Harmony Road, the Poudre River, and Interstate 25 (Figure 1). The suburban nature of much of Fort Collins is reflected in many of the current transportation issues and policies, impacting how well the bicycle facilities function. Page 334 Item 9. 135 FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx B: ExISTINg CONDITIONS SuMMARy However, as the city’s population grows and diversifies, the city’s land use and urban landscape is becoming denser and more diverse. The City Plan (2019) identifies the following five priority place types for infill and redevelopment over the next 10-20 years: • Mixed-Neighborhoods • Neighborhood Mixed Use • Suburban Mixed-Use • Urban Mixed Use • Mixed-Employment The City Plan provides mobility considerations for each of the place types, including traffic circulation, active transportation infrastructure and amenities, and transit access. The AMP will be critical to achieving the envisioned character for each of the five place types and gracefully managing higher densities in Fort Collins by linking transportation planning with land use decisions. These place types and the accompanying considerations will inform project recommendations and priorities. Page 335 Item 9. 136 FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx B: ExISTINg CONDITIONS SuMMARy Page 336 Item 9. 137 FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx B: ExISTINg CONDITIONS SuMMARy Plan and Policy Review The State, Region, and City have adopted numerous plans that have helped create and support the current bicycling environment. The section that follows discusses existing plan recommendations that will inform the 2021 AMP. Regional and Statewide Planning Context The North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO), which includes the City of Fort Collins, is currently updating their shared vision for improved bicycle and pedestrian transportation within and between communities. The adoption of this Plan will be monitored for regional projects and programs identified within Fort Collins by the Regional Active Transportation Plan. According to the Plan’s webpage, the Regional ATP will include the following: • A consolidated summary of the existing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, data, and design standards throughout the region • Segment by segment analysis of each Regional Non-Motorized Corridor, including important local connections and critical gaps, and major barriers and opportunities for completion • Best practices and policy recommendations for emerging micro-mobility solutions (electric bikes, scooters, and skateboards, etc.) • Updated tools, analysis, and guidance supporting local and regional planning and funding efforts The Colorado Department of Transportation’s (CODOT) Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, updated in 2015, outlines an approach to deciding which bicycle and pedestrian projects to fund based on the following goals: • Enhance safety • Increase bicycling and walking activity • Expand recreational opportunities and enhance quality of life • Improve public health Appendix B: State of Bicycling in Fort Collins Aug. 2014 • Improve the environment, air quality, and fossil fuel dependence • Provide transportation equity • Maximize transportation investments • Improve statewide and regional economy The Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan focuses on what CODOT has jurisdiction over and therefore, does not make specific recommendations for facilities or programs in Fort Collins. Triple Bottom Line To promote sustainability, the City’s Triple Bottom Line policy seeks to institutionalize environmental sustainability and social equity, along with economic health, in evaluating proposed policies, infrastructure investments, and development projects. This means that projects are evaluated based on their social, economic, and environmental impacts rather than profit-making alone. The 2014 Bicycle Master Plan identified the triple bottom line for bicycling. Economically, a bicycle-friendly community attracts residents and businesses, supports tourism, and is a low-cost investment. Environmentally, bicycling can reduce single-vehicle occupancy trips and greenhouse gas emissions, along with having a relatively low construction footprint. Socially, bicycling provides an affordable transportation option, improves personal health, and increases quality of life for communities. Equity Indicators In 2019, Fort Collins initiated a process to identify equity indicators that inform critical decisions about the allocation of resources and policy development. The equity indicators reveal disparities using 114 measures across 10 domains, including transportation. One of the indicators evaluating active transportation equity is Reported Ease of Biking. The 2021 Equity Indicators Report reveals that Fort Collins residents find it easy to travel by bicycle, giving the City a rating of 81 out of 100. However, residents of color reported that it was somewhat more difficult to travel by bicycle than their white counterparts. This disparity indicates that the Page 337 Item 9. 138 FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx B: ExISTINg CONDITIONS SuMMARy AMP should apply special attention to improving the comfort, safety, and connectivity of bicycli ng in Fort Collins’ non-white neighborhoods and for the City’s non-white population. Building on Previous Efforts This AMP builds off the vision and recommendations from the 2014 Bicycle Master Plan, which identified a connected network of low-stress bicycle facilities. The 2011 Pedestrian Plan devises a methodology for determining Pedestrian Level of Service, Crosswalk Identification Policy, and Pedestrian Priority Areas. The infrastructure and programming recommendations from these efforts will be integrated and expanded upon as part of the AMP process. Page 338 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx B: ExISTINg CONDITIONS SuMMARy 139 Plan Description Active Transportation Related Goals Relevant Policy/Project Recommendations Fort Collins City Plan (2019) City Plan is the comprehensive plan for the City of Fort Collins. It articulates the community’s vision and core values, and establishes the overall policy foundation that will be used by the City of Fort Collins organization Outcome Area 2: Culture & Recreation Outcome Area 5: Safe Community Outcome Area 6: Transportation Policy CR 2.2 – Interconnected System Policy SC 4.1 – Active Transportation Fort Collins Strategic Plan (2020) The 2020 Strategic Plan outlines key objectives and strategies that link City Plan and the City’s organizational priorities. Goal 2: Multimodal Transportation & Public Transit Goal 4: Environmental Sustainability Goal 5: Community Vibrancy . 2.2 Address critical park, recreation equipment and trail lifecycle and maintenance needs and continue the planned buildout of the system. 2.5 Ensure safety and welfare in City parks, natural areas, trails, and cultural and recreation facilities for visitors and employees. 6.1 Improve safety for people using all modes of travel 6.3 Ensure equitable access to and expansion of all sustainable modes of travel, with emphasis on growing transit ridership. Page 339 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx B: ExISTINg CONDITIONS SuMMARy 140 Transportation Master Plan (2019) The Transportation Master Plan (TMP) articulates a vision and core values for growth and policies. The TMP focuses on Transportation Infrastructure, Mobility and Travel Choices, Health and Equity, Innovation, Safety, and Sustainability and Resiliency. Goal 2: Build and maintain high-quality infrastructure that supports all modes of travel. Goal 6: Support Bicycling as a safe, affordable, efficient, convenient travel option for all ages and abilities by building a connected network of facilities. Goal 7: Support walking as a safe, easy, and convenient travel option for all ages and abilities by building a connected network of sidewalks, paths and trails. Goal 9: Utilize the transportation system to support a healthy and equitable community. Goal 10: Support and enhance safety for all modes » Developing a neighborhood greenway program in connection with the low-stress bike routes » Continuing the protected bike lane pilot program with new project locations » Developing best practice policies for bikeway maintenance » Sidewalk and ramp improvements to meet ADA standards » Proposed pedestrian priority project list consisting of items identified by citizens through a pedestrian survey, public comments and remaining Capital Improvement Program projects from 2004 » Pedestrian projects as identified in the most recent CIP. » Expanding the bicycle wayfinding system with walking routes and distances to make the program more relevant to pedestrians as well » Launching a pedestrian safety outreach campaign that is tailored to specific audiences and behaviors » Identifying and improving pedestrian crossings of arterials » Conducting targeted yielding and speed enforcement operations; use a data-driven approach and crash analyses to inform the best locations to conduct these targeted efforts, including school crossing guard placement » Performing regular evaluations of safety improvements by performing an evaluation before and after a pedestrian project is implemented. Page 340 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx B: ExISTINg CONDITIONS SuMMARy 141 Transit Master Plan (2019) The Fort Collins Transit Master Plan provides a vision, guidance, and strategic actions to improve and expand transit-service in Fort Collins between now and 2040. This Plan serves as a resource to City staff, the public and the development community on how transit- service may expand and what transit in Fort Collins will look such as in 2040. None. Policy 5.8: Connect Transit to Other Modes Our Climate Future Plan (2021) The OCF comprehensive plan to simultaneously address climate, energy and waste goals while improving our community’s equity and resilience. OCF articulates an unwavering commitment to mitigating and adapting to climate change with a people-first systems- approach. Goal 1: Reduce 2030 Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 80% below 2005 baseline levels CTC 1: Continue to build bicycle facilities as identified in the Bicycle Master Plan CTC 2: Create mobility hubs to support convenient transportation connection options CTC 4: Provide travel trainings program Wayfinding Plan (2015) The Fort Collins Wayfinding Plan provides a summary of sign design and guidelines for sign placement. Goal #2: Program system of routes that builds on the Low Stress Bicycle Route network identified in the 2014 Bicycle Master Plan and seamlessly connects to the multi-use trail network None. Table 9: Related Plans Page 341 Item 9. 142 FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx B: ExISTINg CONDITIONS SuMMARy Existing Multimodal Network Functional Classification Functional Roadway Classifications distinguish roads based on their level of mobility and access. Highways and Arterials function around mobility, serving a high volume of vehicles traveling at high speeds while Collectors and Local Streets provide access to destinations, carrying a lower volume of vehicles traveling at lower speeds (Figure 1). On high-volume, high-speed roadways, the AMP will consider bicycle facilities providing physical separation from vehicles to improve safety and mobility. On low -volume, low-speed roadways, the AMP will consider strategic infrastructure investments to impro ve comfort and ease of access for people biking and walking. Page 342 Item 9. 143 FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx B: ExISTINg CONDITIONS SuMMARy Figure 1: Functional Roadway Classifications. Source: City of Fort Collins Page 343 Item 9. 144 FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx B: ExISTINg CONDITIONS SuMMARy Sidewalks While most of Fort Collins has sidewalk coverage (Figure 2), there are pockets of missing and inadequate sidewalks across the City. According to the City Plan, there are 221 miles of missing sidewalk in the City and 217 miles of sidewalks that are not ADA compliant. Page 344 Item 9. 145 FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx B: ExISTINg CONDITIONS SuMMARy Figure 2: Sidewalk Coverage. Source: City of Fort Collins Page 345 Item 9. 146 FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx B: ExISTINg CONDITIONS SuMMARy Bikeways The 2014 Bicycle Master Plan introduced the 2020 Low-Stress Bicycle Network, The Low-Stress Bicycle Network feature “High-Comfort” bicycle facilities (figure 3)—bikeways with a dedicated path for people on bikes to travel along on a street that provides a buffer of protection between them and passing traffic. “High-Comfort” bikeways minimize conflict between bikers and vehicles, encouraging the “Interested but Concerned” bicycle commuters. “Interested but Concerned” bicyclists have a desire to bike more but are concerned about their safety on existing facilities. Fort Collins’ success designing for this population group contributes the higher share of bicycle commuters in the City relative to other places. Figure 4 shows Fort Collins boasts over 266 miles of on-street facilities, including 148 miles of “High Comfort” facilities and 121 miles of “Low Comfort” facilities (City Plan, 2019). In addition to on-street facilities, Fort Collins is home to 97 miles of off-street paved trails. Figures 5, 6, and 7 illustrate the progress made on constructing both the short-term and long-term visions of the 2020 Low-Stress Bicycle Network. The AMP will update the existing Low-Stress Network and consider strategies to improve project delivery ability and capacity. Page 346 Item 9. 147 FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx B: ExISTINg CONDITIONS SuMMARy Figure 3: High and Low Comfort Bicycle Facilities. Source: City of Fort Collins Page 347 Item 9. 148 FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx B: ExISTINg CONDITIONS SuMMARy Figure 4: Existing Bicycle Network. Source: City of Fort Collins Page 348 Item 9. 149 FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx B: ExISTINg CONDITIONS SuMMARy Figure 5: Implemented Short-Term Recommendations from the 2014 Bicycle Plan. Source: City of Fort Collins Page 349 Item 9. 150 FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx B: ExISTINg CONDITIONS SuMMARy Figure 6: Implemented Long-Term Recommendations from the 2014 Bicycle Plan. Source: City of Fort Collins Page 350 Item 9. 151 FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx B: ExISTINg CONDITIONS SuMMARy Figure 7: Existing High-Comfort Bikeways that differ from the 2014 Bicycle Plan recommendations. Source: City of Fort Collins Page 351 Item 9. 152 FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx B: ExISTINg CONDITIONS SuMMARy Transit Fort Collins is served by Bus Rapid Transit, High Frequency routes, several Local Routes, and a Regional line (Figure 8). Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, Fort Collins had seen transit ridership increase from 2.5 million annual riders in 2014 to 4.4 million riders in 2018. Recent ridership growth can be attributed in part to the implementation of the highly successful MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line along the Mason Street corridor in 2014 and strategic investments in services catered to Colo rado State University students and staff (Transit Master Plan, 2019). Public comments received during the Transit Master Plan planning process indicated a desire among residents to expand the BRT to additional corridors. However, improving access and safety for active modes along arterial roadways will be critical to expanding the BRT system. Public transit and active transportation are complimentary; people who commute by biking or walking are more likely to use transit for a part of their trip. Page 352 Item 9. 153 FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx B: ExISTINg CONDITIONS SuMMARy Figure 8: Bus Transit Routes. Source: City of Fort Collins Page 353 Item 9. 154 FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx B: ExISTINg CONDITIONS SuMMARy Safety Analysis In 2016, Fort Collins became the first public local entity to join the Colorado Department of Transportation (CODOT) Moving Towards Zero Deaths initiative. This commitment signifies Fort Collins’ vision for providing a safe and efficient transportation system for people using all modes of travel. Between 2015 and 2020, there were 18,422 total crashes in Fort Collins, including 817 (4.4%) involving people walking and biking (CODOT, 2021). Of the 18,422 crashes, 171 resulted in a fatality or serious injury collision (CODOT, 2021). Fatal and Serious Injury Collisions (KSIs) occurred at or near intersections, and along high-volume, high- speed roadways (Figure 7). Despite only accounting for 4% of total collisions, people walking and biking account for one-third of KSI collisions. Combined, this data indicates the high-risk of death or serious injury people walking and biking face when traveling along arterial roadways. Hot spot locations for bicycle and pedestrian collisions include the northern part of the City (North of Drake Avenue) and Arterial Roadways such as College Avenue, Mulberry Avenue, and Prospect Road (Figure 8). Two-thirds of collisions involving people walking and biking occur during mid-day and evening peak commutes (12 pm – 7 pm) and between April and October. Primary collision factors include failure of vehicles to yield at crosswalks, high vehicle speeds, vehicles making right -turns on red-lights, and inconsistency between facility placement of traveler desire lines. This data indicates that the collision risk is greater for people walking and biking where and when there are more vehicles on roadways. Based on this data, the AMP will focus on opportunities to reduce conflicts between modes traveling at different rates of speed and mass through facility recommendation and traffic calming measures. Page 354 Item 9. 155 FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx B: ExISTINg CONDITIONS SuMMARy Figure 7: KSI Collisions. Source: City of Fort Collins Page 355 Item 9. 156 FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx B: ExISTINg CONDITIONS SuMMARy Figure 8: Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes. Source: City of Fort Collins Page 356 Item 9. APPENDIX C: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY Page 357 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 158 Community Engagement Summary 2021-2022 Page 358 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 159 Engagement Overview Visioning Questionnaire 22 workshops 33 pop-up events 22 3399 responses online Active OOcctt.. 22 002211 2 Community Surveys Online and Print 11,,66 8800 online survey submissions Active NNoovv.. 22 00 2211 aanndd FFeebb .. 2200 2222 2 Mapping Exercises 1166++virtual & in person focus groups 22,,662200 people engaged Active NNoovv.. 22002211 aanndd FFeebb.. 22002222 21 3 Page 359 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 160 Who has provided feedback? STAKEHOLDER REPRESENTATIVES / ORGANIZATIONS Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) FC Core Staff: FC Moves, Engineering, Traffic Operations, Parks Planning & Development, CSU Other FC Staff & Agencies: Streets, City Planning, Parks, Economic Health, Community Development & Neighborhood Services, Environmental Services, Police Services, Natural Areas, Transfort, Parking Services, Utilities, DDA, CDOT, Larimer County, PSD, North Front Range MPO Community Advisory Committee (CAC) BIPOC Alliance, NCIPA, Fuerza Latina, person who has experienced homelessness, Overland MTB Association, Bike Fort Collins, Youth Advisory Board, CSU CBAC, Partnership for Age- Friendly Communities, NoCo Splash, NoCo Equality, DARTAC Focus Groups Educational Institutions, Health Organizations, Business Organizations, Bike Organizations, Pedestrian Organizations, Accessibility/Disability Community Internal (City) City Council, Transportation Board, Bicycle Advisory Committee, other interested Boards & Commissions Page 360 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 161 3 Community Survey #1 1 Page 361 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 162 Demographic Information Overview of Survey Responses and Respondents Gender, Race, and Ethnicity Age, City Council District, and Disability Status Income Page 362 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 163 Responses Overview 294 Total Spanish Responses 264 Completed 30 Partially Completed 477 Total English Responses 375 Completed 102 Partially Completed 90% Live in Fort Collins 33% Work in Fort Collins 9% Go to School in Fort Collins 4% Visit Fort Collins Often 3% Other Page 363 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 164 Female Male Non-Binary Transgender Other/Declined to Specify 59%36%1%<1%4% White American Indian/Alask a Native Two or More Races Asian Black or African American Declined to Specify 77%5%4%1%1%11% 37% Hispanic 36% Non-Hispanic 27% Declined to Specify EEtthh nniicciittyy Gender of Respondents Race of Respondents Survey Demographics Page 364 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 165 3% 13% 29% 25% 14% 10% 5% 1% 14% 20% 17% 4% 9% 5% 6% 25% 79% Does not have a disability 5% Declined to specify 16% Has a disability Living with a Disability Page 365 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 166 11% 10% 14% 9% 6% 5% 7% 12% 5% 5% 17% 0%5%10%15%20% Less than $10,000 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to 24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,000 $150,000 to $199,999 $200,000 or more Decline to specify Annual Income of Respondents 14% Earn $15,000-$24,9999 annually Majority of Respondents Declined to Specify Page 366 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 167 Trip Frequency and Patterns Frequency of Mode Use COVID-19 Impacts on Transportation Patterns Page 367 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 168 How Often Respondents Use Various Modes of Transportation %% ooff RReess ppoonnsseess Daily/almost every day Once or twice a week At least once a month Less than once a month Never Total Responses Walk 330 158 68 61 101 728 45%22%9%8%14% Bike 150 138 107 89 243 727 21%19%15%12%33% Electric Bike 18 31 13 25 606 693 3%4%2%4%87% Electric Scooter 7 8 19 31 625 689 1%1%3%4%91% Bus / Transit 34 39 53 123 446 695 5%6%8%18%64% Drive (carpool) 173 144 66 69 248 700 25%21%9%10%35% Drive (alone) 417 159 38 23 90 727 57%22%5%3%12% Rideshare (e.g. Uber, Lyft) 5 15 45 156 470 691 1%2%7%23%68% Telecommute / Work from Home 138 69 32 35 425 699 20%10%5%5%61% <10% 10% -19% 20% -29% 30% -39% 40% -59% 60% -80% >80% Page 368 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 169 50% No change 4% Other 24% I walk or bike more than I used to 8% I walk or bike less often than I used to 14% I walk or bike about the same amount, but at different times of the day and/or for different reasons than I used to 740 Total Responses 740 out of 771 total survey respondents answered this question. How has the COVID-19 pandemic changed travel patterns? Page 369 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 170 The next set of questions were specific to walking and bicycling: 21% Chose to answer questions ONLY about bicycling 142 Total Responses 43% Chose to answer questions about BOTH walking and bicycling 299 Total Responses 36% Chose to answer questions ONLY about walking 252 Total Responses 78 respondents skipped these questions entirely Page 370 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 171 Walking Responses Why Respondents Walk Frequency and Purpose of Walking Top Challenges for Walking in Fort Collins Top Priorities to Improve the Pedestrian Experience Page 371 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 172 Why do survey respondents choose to walk? 14% Destination over journey. I mostly walk to get from one place to the next. 7% I walk because I don’t have many other options for travel. 12% Not applicable, I rarely walk. 67% Journey over destination. I mostly walk for fun or exercise 472 Total Responses Page 372 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 173 How often do respondents walk for the following purposes? %% oo ff RReessppoonnsseess Daily/almost every day Once or twice a week At least once a month Less than once a month Never Total Responses To get to work or school 71 48 20 52 298 489 15%10%4%11%61% For fun or exercise (e.g. walking my dog) 231 139 53 47 27 497 46%28%11%9%5% To visit friends/social/entertainment 62 110 100 91 127 490 13%22%20%19%26% To shop or run errands 42 93 79 69 213 496 8%19%16%14%43% To get to or from public transit 31 23 48 67 318 487 6%5%10%14%65% To get to or from personal vehicle 64 37 19 15 121 256 25%14%7%6%47% Other 23 13 4 8 91 139 17%9%3%6%65% <10% 10% -19% 20% -29% 30% -39% 40% -59% 60% -80% >80% Page 373 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 174 Challenges that Prevent Respondents from Walking (respondents selected top 3 answers) 22% 22% 11% 11% 11% 11% 9% 34% 21% 8% 4% 20% 13% 2% 8% 0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40% Gaps or disconnects in the existing sidewalk network Intersection crossings do not feel safe Crossing times are not long enough Traffic signals take too long Poor sidewalk conditions Sidewalks are too narrow Difficult or not enough connections to transit The places I need to go are too far to walk I do not feel safe walking along high trafficked roads/streets I do not know where the safest routes are in Fort Collins I do not feel safe because of crime Weather Nothing –I walk as much as I want Nothing –I am not interested in walking Other MMoosstt ccoommmmoonn rreessppoonnssee:: 34% said they don’t walk because the places they need to go are too far to walk. Page 374 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 175 Priorities Respondents Want the City to Focus on to Improve the Pedestrian Experience in Fort Collins (respondents selected top 3 answers) 29% 23% 17% 28% 21% 15% 14% 21% 13% 7% 15% 18% 7% 0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35% Sidewalk connectivity Increasing sidewalk widths Improving existing sidewalk conditions Improving intersections and/or crossings Longer crossing times at signalized intersections Creating better connections to transit Slowing down adjacent vehicular traffic Implement more traffic-calming measures Expanding pedestrian safety education Providing more encouragement programs Providing more trees / shade Installing more pedestrian-scaled lighting Other Top Priorities: 1.Sidewalk Connectivity (29%) 2.Improving Intersections and/or crossings (28%) 3.Increasing sidewalk widths (23%) Page 375 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 176 Walking Responses Summary 75% Want to walk more than they currently do Top Challenges for Walking in Fort Collins 34%Places I want to go are too far away 22%Gaps or disconnects in the existing sidewalk network 22%Intersections and crossings don't feel safe 21%Weather 12%I don't know where the safest routes are Top Priorities for Improvement Sidewalk Connectivity Improving intersections and crossings Increasing sidewalk widths 1 2 3 67% Mostly walk for fun or exercise 46% Walk for fun or exercise daily or almost every day Page 376 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 177 Bicycling Responses Bicycling Level of Comfort Frequency and Purpose of Bicycling Top Challenges for Bicycling in Fort Collins Top Priorities to Improve the Bicycling Experience Page 377 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 178 Bicycling Habits and Comfort Level of Respondents 24% "I'm strong and fearless" I’ll ride anywhere and am comfortable sharing the lane with traffic on busy streets. 46% “I'm enthused and confident” I prefer to ride in dedicated bike facilities or lower traffic streets. 21% “I'm interested in bicycling, but concerned” I will only ride on streets with very low-traffic streets or where I am completely separated from traffic. 9% Not applicable, I do not ride a bicycle. 344 Total Responses Page 378 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 179 Daily/almost every day Once or twice a week At least once a month Less than once a month Never Total Responses To get to work or school 68 56 37 47 170 378 18%15%10%12%45% For fun or exercise 91 139 67 45 43 385 24%36%17%12%11% To visit friends/social/entertainment 33 101 88 76 82 380 9%27%23%20%22% To shop or run errands 29 90 65 71 125 380 8%24%17%19%33% To get to or from public transit 13 7 18 45 282 365 4%2%5%12%77% %% oo ff RReessppoonnsseess <10% 10% -19% 20% -29% 30% -39% 40% -59% 60% -80% >80% How often do respondents bike for the following purposes? Page 379 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 180 20% 24% 13% 22% 13% 5% 22% 32% 5% 2% 2% 4% 18% 11% 2% 10% 0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35% Gaps or disconnects in the existing sidewalk network Intersection crossings do not feel safe Poor street pavement conditions/debris Bike lanes are too narrow Traffic signals do not detect me or take too long Difficult or not enough connections to transit The places I need to go are too far to bike I do not feel safe bicycling in mixed traffic I do not know where the safest routes are in Fort Collins I do not feel safe because of crime I don’t own or can’t afford a bike Lack of bike parking Weather Nothing –I bike as much as I want Nothing –I am not interested in biking Other Challenges that Prevent Respondents from Bicycling (respondents selected top 3 answers) MMoosstt ccoommmmoonn rree ssppoonnssee:: 32% said they do not feel safe bicycling in mixed traffic. Page 380 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 181 46% 17% 23% 39% 27% 14% 14% 11% 9% 8% 5% 3% 6% 5% 9% 0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50% Expanding the bicycle network Improving existing bikeways Improving intersections and/or crossings More protected bike lanes More underpasses or overpasses Slowing down adjacent vehicular traffic Implement more traffic-calming measures Improving street maintenance Increasing bicycle signage Expanding bicycle safety education Installing more bicycle parking Providing more encouragement programs Providing more “end-of-trip” facilities (ex: showers, lockers) Expanding the e-bike / e-scooter program Other Priorities Respondents Want the City to Focus on to Improve the Bicycling Experience in Fort Collins (respondents selected top 3 answers) Top Priorities: 1.Expanding the Bicycle Network (48%) 2.More protected bike lanes (39%) 3.More underpasses or overpasses (27%) Page 381 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 182 Bicycling Responses Summary 76% Participants want to bike more than they currently do Top Priorities for Improvement Expanding bicycle network More protected bike lanes More underpasses/overpasses 1 2 3 Top Challenges for Bicycling in Fort Collins 32%Don't feel safe bicycling in mixed-traffic 24%Intersections and crossings don't feel safe 22%Bike lanes are too narrow 22%Destinations are too far to bike 20% Gaps or disconnects in the existing bicycle network 46% Identify as “enthused and confident” bike riders Respondent's bike most frequently for fun and exercise or to visit friends, for social purposes, and to get to entertainment Page 382 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 183 Questions for Respondents with K-12 Students Walking and Bicycling to School Top Challenges for Students in Fort Collins Page 383 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 184 Walking and Bicycling to School 47% of students ddoo walk, bike, or use other active modes of transportation to get to school 53% of students ddoo nnoott walk, bike, or use other active modes of transportation to get to school Respondents with a K-12 Student Do you have a K-12 Student? 41% of respondents hhaavvee a K-12 Student 2288 00 TT oottaa ll RR eess pp oonnsseess 59% of respondents ddoo nnoott hhaavvee a K-12 Student 440088 TT oottaall RReessppoonnsseess Page 384 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 185 Top Challenges that Prevent Students from Walking, Bicycling, and Using Other Active Modes to Get to School (respondents selected all that apply) 17% 13% 20% 62% 15% 6% 15% 33% 2% 3% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70% Gaps or disconnects in the existing sidewalk or bicycle network Sidewalk or bike lanes are too narrow Intersection crossings do not feel safe Their school is too far to walk or bike to I do not feel safe letting them walk or bike because of crime I do not know where the safest routes are They have too much stuff to carry They take the bus instead They are homeschooled Not interested MMoosstt ccoommmmoonn rree ssppoonnssee:: 62% said their school is too far to walk or bike to. Page 385 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 186 Commuting Trends Commuting Travel Distance Employer and School Programs to Promote Active Modes Page 386 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 187 Distance Respondents Travel to Get to Work or School < 0.5 miles 0.6 to 1 mile 1 -1.5 miles 1.6 to 2 miles 2 to 3 miles 3 to 4 miles 4 to 5 miles More than 5 miles 14% 8% 10% 9% 9% 10% 9% 31% travel 0.6 to 1 mile Commuting Distance Most respondents indicated that their commutes are more than 5 miles. The second most common commute distance amongst respondents is less than 0.5 miles. Page 387 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 188 Awareness of Employer and School Programs 36% of respondents are aware that their employers or schools have programs that support or encourage walking and bicycling commuting. 13% do not know if programs are offered 45% 84% 16% 11% 19% 31% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Offers showers and locker facilities on-site or at a nearby health club Offers secure bicycle storage for me to park my bike Offers subsidies or discounts on bike equipment and services Offers pre-tax benefits that help cover a portion Other I don’t know The 75 respondents who are aware of these programs identified the ways in which their employers and schools support and encourage walking and bicycle commuting: Page 388 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 189 English vs Spanish Responses Page 389 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 190 English and Spanish Responses: Key Differences Top Walking Challenges Gaps or disconnects in the existing sidewalk network I do not know where the safest routes are in Fort Collins Top Priorities for Improvement Sidewalk connectivity Longer crossing times at signalized intersections Top Bicycling Challenges Intersection crossings do not feel safe The places I need to go are too far to bike Top Priorities for Improvement More underpasses or overpasses Increasing bicycle signage and expanding bicycle education 71% ESSpanish respondents are more likely to drive (alone) daily/almost every day to reach their destinations. 49% EN English respondents are more likely to walk or bike daily/almost every day to reach their destinations 24% / 4% ES 59% / 31% EN walk/bike ENGLISH SPANISH ENGLISH SPANISH Page 390 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 191 3 Online Map #1 2 Page 391 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 192 Online Map #1 Recap Concerns Where do people not feel safe walking/bicycling/scooting/skating? Where is there a disconnect in the sidewalk/bicycle network? Destinations What types of destinations do people currently walk/bike/scoot/skate to or would want to if improved? Open response comment 1 2 3 Page 392 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 193 Who participated? Active Modes Plan Mapping Events 1,376 Total submissions 879 Total contributors 846 Contributors 1,215 Submissions Public Online Map November 6th –November 30th 8 Contributors 45 Submissions Focus Group* November 3rd 22 Contributors 99 Submissions TAC Meeting November 3rd 3 Contributors 17 Submissions CAC Meeting November 3rd Note: Subsequent focus group feedback was incorporated directly into the public online map Page 393 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 194 Mapping Results Overview Public Mapping (All Pins) Page 394 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 195 Mapping Results Overview CAC Mapping (All Pins)TAC Mapping (All Pins) Page 395 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 196 Top Bicycling Concerns 28% I do not feel safe bicycling here 16% There is a gap or disconnect in the bicycle network here 21% Other Bike parking Dangerous intersections Lack of signage on trails Short cyclist lights Uneven pavement Poor connections to neighborhoods and trails Knowledge of routes Places where bicycling is most difficult: Northwest Fort Collins East/Northeast Fort Collins Central Fort Collins 924 Bicycling Related Pins What is the concern related to? Page 396 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 197 1.Fort Collins City Park 2.Walmart Supercenter near South Lemay 3.North College Ave and E Mountain Ave 4.Lincoln Middle School 5.King Soopers near North College Ave 1 2 4 3 5 Top Bicycling Destinations 5 3 21 4 Page 397 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 198 Top Walking Concerns 24% I do not feel safe walking here 12% There is a gap or disconnect in the sidewalk network here 11% Other Missing crosswalks Unsafe and confusing crossings Barriers in sidewalks (scooters) Accessible parking for wheelchair users Sidewalks that turn into unpaved paths Lack of lighting Places where walking is most difficult: 329 Walking Related Pins What is the concern related to? North Fort Collins Northeast Fort Collins Central/South Fort Collins Page 398 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 199 1.North College Ave and E Mountain Ave 2.Area around King Soopers near North College Ave 3.Fort Collins City Park 4.Area around Poudre High School 5.Area around Walmart Supercenter near South Lemay 1 2 4 3 5 Top Walking Destinations 2 4 3 1 5 Page 399 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 200 8% I do not feel safe skating/scootering here 6% There is a gap or disconnect in the sidewalk/ bicycle network here 16% Other Knowledge of routes Gravel paths that are difficult to skate on Placement of available bikeshares/micromobility Places where skating/scootering is most difficult: 104 Skating/Scootering Related Pins WWhhaa tt ii ss tthhee ccoonncceerrnn rree llaatteedd tt oo?? Top Skating/Scootering Concerns Northwest Fort Collins North Fort Collins South Fort Collins Page 400 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 201 1.Edora Park 2.Foothills Shopping Mall 3.King Soopers near North College Ave 1.North College Ave and E Mountain Ave 1.Fort Collins City Park 1 2 4 3 5 Top Skating/Scootering Destinations 4 1 2 3 5 Page 401 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 202 3 Survey and Online Map #2 3 Page 402 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 203 Survey and Online Map #2 Recap Goals of Mapping Exercise and Survey Survey Questions We Asked What strategies would have the biggest impact on achieving the vision for active modes in Fort Collins? About the participant: What is your city council district, age, race, gender, income range, and bicycling comfort level? Better understand what strategies and factors best meet the community’s priorities for improving active modes in Fort Collins. Explore how to better expand the Fort Collins bicycle network. Determine additional necessary improvements we have not identified that are important to the community. Demographics Strategies Prioritization What factors are most important to consider when prioritizing new active modes projects? Page 403 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 204 Responses Overview 1,741 People Engaged Source Number of People Engaged Number of Relevant Submissions Middle School Focus Groups 291 176 Community Connector Surveys 273 269 Online Survey 909 909 Pop-Up Events 80 75 Online map Entries 188 1198 1,429 Submissions Additional Data Included in Analysis AMP Pop-Ups Survey data Transportation Capitol Projects Prioritization Study (TCPPS) data City of Fort Collins Service Request data CDOT Region 4 Bike/Ped Study Page 404 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 205 Prioritizing active modes projects, programs, and funding Updating land use policies to support active modes Aligning standards with active mode goals Expanding and creating community programs that support active modes Engaging communities authentically around active modes Strategy #1 Strategy #2 Strategy #3 Strategy #4 Strategy #5 Network Connectivity Access Safety and Comfort Health and Equity Priority #2 Priority #3 Priority #1 Priority #4 Which two strategies are most important in achieving the vision for active modes in Fort Collins? When prioritizing new active modes projects, how important are the following factors? (1 = not as important to 4 = most important) Weighted Ranking Survey Results Page 405 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 206 Mapping Results Participants… Left feedback on proposed spot improvements and recommended bicycle facilities. Commented on whether they support or disagree with the recommended improvements. Were invited to provide ideas for additional recommendations. Page 406 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx C: COMMuNITy ENgAgEMENT SuMMARy 207 Skating/Scootering College Ave Drake Rd E Laurel St E Prospect Rd Harmony Rd Horsetooth Rd Mulberry St N Timberline Rd Overland Tr Riverside Ave Streets with the Most Bicycling-Related Comments Online Map Key Takeaways Centre Ave City Park Ave College Ave Drake Rd Harmony Rd Mason Tr Mulberry St Prospect Rd S Taft Hill Rd Willox Ln Streets with the Most Pedestrian-Related Comments Intersections with the Most Crossing-Related Comments Conifer St and N College Ave S Overland Tr and W Mulberry St S Overland Trail and W Lake St S Howes St and W Laurel St E Vine Dr andJerome St S Shields St and W Prospect Rd Sheely Dr and W Prospect Rd 1 2 3 Page 407 Item 9. APPENDIX D: CSU CORRIDOR CONCEPTS Page 408 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx D: CSu CORRIDOR CONCEPTS 209 Complete Street Design Concepts August 2022 Page 409 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx D: CSu CORRIDOR CONCEPTS 210 Spot Treatments B A C D E Add flexible delineators to bike lane on west leg of W Plum St at S Shields St intersection, 50 ft in advance of bike box, to prevent right turning trac from encroaching. Add flexible delineators to bike lane on east leg of W Plum St at S Shields St intersection, on through-trac side, to prevent late cut-over by right-turning trac. Remove Plum Street stop signs at parking lot entrances. Add curb cut at Aggie Trail on the south side of W Plum St to match curb cut on north side. F Build a raised intersection at Meridian Ave and retain existing stop signs. Refer to Meridian Street for additional design details. Reconfigure diagonal trail north of Moby Pool to circumscribe area where pool building will be expanded. CSU Corridor Concepts W Plum St Scale is approximate; not suitable for construction. 0 2,000 ft1,000 S Shields St to CSU Transit Center Convert existing buered bike lane to a sidewalk-level separated bike lane. Retain current sidewalk, bike lane, and travel lane measurements. Cross Section (Looking East) A BAB C E FD Spot Treatments W Plum Street Dedicated Corridor Width: 56’ Travel Lane 11.5’ Separated Bike Lane 5.5’6’ Sidewalk 10’ SidewalkTravel Lane 11.5’1.5’ Buer 1.5’ Tactile Delineator 5.5’1.5’1.5’ Separated Bike Lane BuerTactile Delineator 1 Complete Street Design Concepts | Colorado State University Cross Section (Looking East) W Plum St Page 410 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx D: CSu CORRIDOR CONCEPTS 211 Cross Sections (Looking East) Spot Treatments A G W Pitkin St S Shields St to Closure East of Meridian Ave Meridian Ave to Newton Memorial Newton Memorial to S College Ave Build a sidewalk-level separated bike lane, separated from vehicle trac by a furnishing zone with planters and benches. Add intermittent concrete in the furnishing zone to allow for access to the curb and accomodate drop-os. Build a center-running median with one-way bikeways and pedestrian walkways on edges, all at street grade. Build a separated bike lane while maintaining existing curbline. 8’10’7’10’ Sidewalk SidewalkTwo-Way Bikeway Dedicated Corridor Width: 44’ One-Way Bikeway Dedicated Corridor Width: 55’ Travel Lane 10.5’ Bike Lane 7’ Sidewalk 7’ Bike Lane Sidewalk 8’ Travel Lane 2.5’10.5’2.5’ Buer with Flexible Delineators 7’ Buer with Flexible Delineators Meridian AveD At the S Shields Intersection east of the median, paint the existing left-turn lane directing bicyclists onto the o-street trail green to resemble a two-stage bicycle turn box. Add a speed hump adjacent to Summit Hall to mitigate vehicle speeding. Throughout the corridor a crossing or trac calming treatment should be placed roughly every 500 feet to attenuate opportunities to speed. Improve signage for pick-up and drop-o. Build a roundabout at Meridian Village just east of the Stadium. Close east leg of intersection to vehicles, and move Braiden Hall parking entrance to new Meridian Street. B A D E Build high visibillity decorative crosswalks at the entrance to Meridian Ave and install curb ramps north of the Stadium to provide accessible pedestrian crossing. Ramp the existing separated bike lane on the south side of W Pitkin onto a 4 ft wide sidewalk extension to facilitate bicyclists turning left onto Campus Loop Trail. F Remove marked crosswalks across portion closed to cars. This is funded to become a bicycle and pedestrian roundabout and crossing. G 7’ One-Way Bikeway C Dedicated Corridor Width: 62’ Travel Lane 10.5’ Bike Lane 6.5’8’ Sidewalk 1’ Tactile Buer for Visually Impaired 5’ Furnishing Zone 10.5’5’6.5’ Bike Lane Sidewalk 1’8’ Travel Lane Furnishing Zone Tactile Buer for Visually Impaired W. Pitkin Street C Install a transit boarding island at the Horn bus stop adjacent to Canvas Stadium parking entrance. Relocate the crosswalk from Aspen Hall to match the trail crossing and improve visbility by having pedestrians cross in front of the bus stop (rather than behind). H E F Meridian AveMeridian AveH Libbie Coy WayS Mason StMeridian AveW Pitkin St W Pitkin St Scale is approximate; not suitable for construction. 0 2,000 ft1,000 2 Complete Street Design Concepts | Colorado State University W Pitkin St Cross Sections Hughes Way to W Plum St (Looking East) Page 411 Item 9. 212 FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx D: CSu CORRIDOR CONCEPTS A B Proposed Sidewalk or On-Street Pedestrian Walkway (No sidewalk on east side of street until adjacent parking lot is removed) Cross Section Hughes Way to W Plum St (Looking North) Add a two=way separated bike lane and a sidewalk to the east side of Meridian Ave. Meridian Ave Spot Treatments A B C Build a raised intersection at Meridian Ave and retain existing stop signs. Contruct a refuge island between the bikeway and transit lanes on Meridian to create an aperture for buses and discourage cars from entering. 12’6’ Sidewalk Two-Way Bike Lane 5’ BuerTravel Lane 11.5’10’ SidewalkTravel Lane 11.5’ Dedicated Corridor Width: 52’ ONLYBUSONLYBUSConstruct trac circle to direct trac that accomodates bus bike facilities, including two-way bikeway proposed on the east side of Meridian Ave. Build pedestrian gateway at the entrance to Meridian Ave and install curb ramps north of the Stadium to provide accessible pedestrian crossing across Pitkin. D C D Transit Movements at Plum & Meridian Construct trac circle to direct trac that accomodates bus and bike facilities, including two-way bikeway proposed on the east side of Meridian Ave. 0 500 ft250 Scale is approximate; not suitable for construction. W Plum St Meridian AveMeridian AveW Laurel St Hughes Way W Pitkin St W Lake St 3 Complete Street Design Concepts | Colorado State University Meridian Ave Cross Section Hughes Way to W Plum St (Looking North) Page 412 Item 9. 213 FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx D: CSu CORRIDOR CONCEPTS 15’6’8’ Sidewalk Sidewalk Dedicated Corridor Width: 44’ Travel Lane Travel Lane 15’ W Lake St to W Pitkin St Move sharrows to the middle of the lane. Add 6 ft sidewalk to the east side of Libbie Coy Way with future development. 11’6’8’ Sidewalk Dedicated Corridor Width: 40’ Parking / Access Lane Travel Lane 3’6’6’ SidewalkBike LaneBuer (4’ at junctions) W Pitkin St to University Blvd Add raised islands to buer at intersections Cross Section (Looking North) A B 0 500 ft250 Scale is approximate; not suitable for construction. Libbie Coy Way Spot Treatments A Add mountable raised islands with flexible delineators at W Pitkin St to emphasize one-way restriction and mitigate wrong-way turns onto Libbie Coy Way.S Mason StW Pitkin St University Ave W A St Edison DrLibbie Coy WayB Install vertical delineators at A Street to discourage wrong-way turns onto Libbie Coy Way and reinforce contraflow bicycle lane. 4 Complete Street Design Concepts | Colorado State University Libbie Coy Way Cross Sections (Looking North) Page 413 Item 9. 214 FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx D: CSu CORRIDOR CONCEPTS Spot Treatments A 15’7’ Sidewalk Dedicated Corridor Width: 60’ Landscaped Buer 18’ Travelway 20’ Perpendicular Parking Various options presented for parking solutions: 1) Back-in angled parking on the east side of S Mason St with no designated bikeway. Because of the width of the roadway, parallel parking is recommended to be permitted on the west side of Mason St. CSU Corridor Concepts S Mason St 15’7’ Sidewalk Dedicated Corridor Width: 60’ Landscaped Buer 8’8’ Travel Lane 22’ Parallel Parking Parallel Parking Reconfigure angled parking to back-in angled parking along east side of Mason St. At intersection with University Ave, extend curb (optionally with paint-and-post treatment) to narrow crossing distance to less than 15 feet; design curb radius to accommodate bus left turn. Move crosswalk and stop bar on Mason forward to mitigate sightline issue. Add green conflict markings across driveways from University Ave to W Laurel St. At the west railroad crossing tunnel exit, eliminate the three easternmost parking spaces and stripe a walkway through the parking lot to the trail that connects to Oval Dr. Remove the stairs that cross over the railroad tracks as well as the crosswalk leading to them. At the Old Main Dr intersection, extend the southeast curb and straigten the northeast curb line to widen the curb ramp onto the crosswalk. Remove north- and southbound stop signs. B C D E Add green conflict markings across on Pitkin St to guide bicycles through the rail and busway crossings.F 2) Parallel Parking is formalized on both sides of Mason St. Cross Section Alternatives University Ave to W Pitkin St (Looking North) S Mason St Old Main Dr S Mason StW Pitkin St University Ave W Laurel St W A St Edison DrLibbie Coy Way0 500 ft250 Scale is approximate; not suitable for construction. E C B A F D 5 Complete Street Design Concepts | Colorado State UniversityS Mason St Cross Section Alternatives University Ave to W Pitkin St (Looking North) Page 414 Item 9. 215 FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx D: CSu CORRIDOR CONCEPTS Spot Treatments Dedicated Corridor Width: 26’ 2’ Edge Line Travel Lane 11’2’ Edge Line 11’ Travel Lane B A C Add speed limit signs across corridor every 0.25 - 0.5 miles. See for location suggestions. Build bus bulb outs and landing pads at all Foothill Shuttle bus stops. See for existing bus stop locations Implement access control by closing redundant driveways to improve corridor safety. See for driveway closure suggestions 2’ Edge Line 11’ Travel Lane 12’8’ Bus Pull-Out Sidewalk D Build raised crosswalk to support future parking lot. D Scale is approximate; not suitable for construction. 0 1,000 ft500 Cross Sections (Looking West) S Overland to end of Rampart Rd Add centerline and edge lines Bus Stop Locations Add 12 ft bus pull-out and 8 - 10 ft sidewalk Rampart Road Rampart Rd S Overland TrA A 5’ x 8’ Landing Area 9’ x 6’Shelter 5’ x 8’ Landing Area9’ x 6’ShelterB B B C C C 6 Complete Street Design Concepts | Colorado State UniversityRampart Road Cross Sections (Looking West) Page 415 Item 9. APPENDIX E: PRIORITIZATION SCORING Page 416 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx E: PRIORITIzATION SCORINg 217 Pedestrian 7 Drake Timberline Signal Operations Spot 5 5 5 5 3 3 44 2 2 2 2 8 52 High 1 Lemay Geometric Redesign Spot Shields Signal Operations Spot Shields Casa Grande Signal Operations Spot Pedestrian 46 Harmony Mason Signal Operations Spot 5 5 5 5 1 4 44 2 2 2 2 8 52 High 2 Boardwalk Signal Operations Spot Lemay Signal Operations Spot Starflower Geometric Redesign Spot Pedestrian 1 College Ave Willow Signal Operations Spot 5 5 5 5 1 4 44 2 2 1 2 7 51 High 3 Laporte Signal Operations Spot Mountain Signal Operations Spot Olive Signal Operations Spot Magnolia Signal Operations Spot Pedestrian 4 Mulberry St College Signal Operations Spot 5 5 5 5 1 4 44 1 2 2 2 7 51 High 4 Mason Signal Operations Spot Loomis Geometric Redesign Spot Shields Signal Operations Spot Taft Hill Signal Operations Spot Whitcomb / Canyon Geometric Redesign Spot Pedestrian 11 Willow Jefferson High-Visibility Crosswalk Spot 5 5 5 5 1 5 46 0 1 2 0 3 49 High 5 Lincoln Beacon / RRFB Spot Pedestrian 29 Taft Hill Prospect Signal Operations Spot 5 4 4 5 1 4 40 2 2 2 2 8 48 High 6 Valley Forge Geometric Redesign Spot Pedestrian 3 College Ave Monroe Signal Operations Spot 5 5 4 5 1 4 42 2 2 1 1 6 48 High 7 Rutgers Geometric Redesign Spot Additional details from Chapter 7: Implementing the Vision Page 417 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx E: PRIORITIzATION SCORINg 218 Columbia Geometric Redesign Spot Pedestrian 9 Shields Plum Geometric Redesign Spot 5 5 5 5 1 4 44 0 1 2 1 4 48 High 8 Elizabeth Shields Geometric Redesign Spot Taft Hill Geometric Redesign Spot Constitution Geometric Redesign Spot Bicycle 61 Taft Hill Rd Glenmoor Signals Spot 4 5 5 5 2 5 45 0 0 2 0 2 47 High 9 Pedestrian 2 College Ave Laurel Signal Operations Spot 5 4 5 5 1 5 44 0 1 1 1 3 47 High 10 Prospect Geometric Redesign Spot Mason Trail Geometric Redesign Spot Pedestrian 10 Mason Mountain Signal Operations Spot 3 4 5 5 1 4 38 2 2 1 2 7 45 High 11 Olive Signal Operations Spot Bicycle 51 W Prospect Rd Sheely Dr Signals Spot 5 3 4 5 1 5 40 0 1 1 2 5 45 High 12 Bicycle 33 E Magnolia St Remington St Signs & Markings Spot 3 5 5 5 1 4 40 2 1 1 0 4 44 High 13 Pedestrian 5 Mulberry St Stover Beacon / RRFB Spot 4 4 5 5 1 4 40 0 1 2 1 4 44 High 14 Remington Median Refuge / Diverter Spot Peterson New Crossing Spot Bicycle 30 Mountain Ave, Lincoln Ave N Howes St - Willow St Buffered Bike Lane, Separated Bike Lane 0.5 4 1 5 5 5 4 38 2 1 2 1 6 44 High 15 Pedestrian 31 Harmony Corbett Geometric Redesign Spot 2 4 4 5 4 4 37 2 2 2 1 7 44 High 16 Timberline Signal Operations Spot Bicycle 52 W Lake St S Shields St - S Mason St Separated Bike Lane 1.2 5 3 5 5 0 4 39 2 2 1 0 5 44 High 17 Bicycle 50 E Vine Dr Jerome St Signals Spot 5 5 3 5 1 5 42 0 0 1 0 2 44 High 18 Pedestrian 22 Lemay Ave Prospect Signal Operations Spot 4 3 4 5 1 4 36 2 2 2 1 7 43 High 19 Stuart Signal Operations Spot Page 418 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx E: PRIORITIzATION SCORINg 219 Bicycle 39 S Shields St W Mulberry St - Davidson Dr Separated Bike Lane 1.6 3 3 4 5 5 4 38 1 1 2 1 5 43 High 20 Bicycle 32 Magnolia St S Sherwood St - Whedbee St Bike Boulevard 0.8 4 3 5 5 0 4 37 2 1 1 1 5 42 High 21 Bicycle 41 S Shields St W Lake St Two-way sidepath Spot 2 3 5 5 1 4 34 2 2 2 2 8 42 High 22 Pedestrian 21 Lemay Ave Mulberry Geometric Redesign Spot 39 0 1 1 1 3 42 High 23 Bicycle 2 E Elizabeth St S College Ave Intersection redesign Spot 4 4 5 5 2 2 37 0 2 2 0 4 41 High 24 Bicycle 7 S Taft Hill Rd W Elizabeth St - W Horsetooth Rd Separated Bike Lane 2.5 2 4 3 5 5 3 34 2 2 2 1 7 41 High 25 Bicycle 52 City Park Ave W Mulberry St Signals Spot 4 5 3 0 1 5 35 0 2 1 2 6 41 High 26 Bicycle 6 S Taft Hill Rd Laporte Ave - W Elizabeth St Separated Bike Lane 1.1 2 3 4 5 5 3 34 2 2 2 0 6 40 High 27 Bicycle 12 Birch St S Shields St Signs & Markings Spot 3 2 5 5 1 4 34 2 1 1 2 6 40 High 28 Bicycle 28 Jefferson St N College Ave - E Mountain Ave Separated Bike Lane 0.5 5 1 5 5 0 4 35 2 1 1 1 5 40 High 29 Pedestrian 40 Shields Stuart Geometric Redesign Spot 4 4 3 5 1 4 36 0 1 2 1 4 40 High 30 Pedestrian 15 Mason Maple Geometric Redesign Spot 3 5 4 5 1 4 38 0 1 1 0 2 40 High 31 Bicycle 35 Birch St, Crestmore Pl, Skyline Dr Orchard Pl - City Park Ave Bike Boulevard 1.4 4 2 5 0 0 5 32 2 2 2 1 7 39 High 32 Bicycle 36 Glenmoor Dr, W Plum St S Taft Hill Rd - Skyline Dr Bike Boulevard 1.1 5 1 5 0 0 5 32 2 2 2 1 7 39 High 33 Bicycle 50 Springfield Dr Castlerock Dr - S Shields St Bike Boulevard 0.6 4 4 4 0 0 4 32 2 2 2 1 7 39 High 34 Bicycle 12 S Shields St W Mountain Ave - W Mulberry St Separated Bike Lane 2.2 5 3 4 0 5 1 31 2 1 2 2 7 38 High 35 Pedestrian 67 Horsetooth Platte Median Refuge / Diverter Spot 5 5 1 0 1 5 33 1 1 2 2 6 39 High 36 Auntie Stone Median Refuge / Diverter Spot Page 419 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx E: PRIORITIzATION SCORINg 220 Bicycle 47 Castlerock Dr, Lake St, Skyline Dr, Clearview Ave S Taft Hill Rd - W Elizabeth St Bike Boulevard 3.5 5 3 5 0 0 4 34 2 2 1 0 5 39 High 38 Bicycle 58 Gillette Dr Phemister Rd - W Drake Rd Separated Bike Lane 3.0 4 3 5 0 0 5 34 2 1 2 0 5 39 High 39 Bicycle 76 E Horsetooth Rd S Lemay Ave - Ziegler Rd Separated Bike Lane 0.7 2 5 2 5 5 3 34 2 1 2 0 5 39 High 40 Bicycle 11 Conifer St N College Ave Intersection redesign Spot 3 2 2 5 5 5 34 2 2 1 0 5 39 High 41 Bicycle 57 Centre Ave S Shields St - Phemister Rd Separated Bike Lane 1.0 4 2 4 5 0 5 35 2 1 0 1 4 39 High 42 Bicycle 40 S Shields St Davidson Dr - Hilldale Dr Separated Bike Lane 0.1 2 4 3 5 5 2 32 2 1 2 1 6 38 High 43 Bicycle 11 Laporte Ave Fishback Ave - N Washington Ave Bike Lane 1.7 5 3 4 0 5 2 33 2 1 2 0 5 38 High 44 Bicycle 104 Boardwalk Dr JFK - Harmony Buffered Bike Lane 0.3 4 3 3 0 5 4 33 2 1 2 0 5 38 High 45 Pedestrian 72 Riverside Ave Prospect Rd Geometric Redesign Spot 33 1 0 2 2 5 38 High 46 Bicycle 64 Drake Rd S Taft Hill Rd - Tulane Dr Separated Bike Lane 0.3 3 2 4 5 5 3 34 0 0 1 2 3 37 High 47 Bicycle 74 W Horsetooth Rd Richmond Dr - S Mason St Sidepath (both sides) 0.8 3 2 4 5 5 3 34 0 0 2 1 3 37 High 48 Bicycle 51 W Pitkin St S Shields St - S College Ave Separated Bike Lane 0.7 5 2 5 5 0 2 33 0 0 2 1 4 37 High 49 Pedestrian 13 Magnolia Sherwood Geometric Redesign Spot 4 3 5 0 1 4 33 0 1 1 1 3 36 High 50 Loomis Geometric Redesign Spot Meldrum Geometric Redesign Spot Washington High-Visibility Crosswalk Spot Pedestrian 12 Olive Remington Geometric Redesign Spot 2 3 5 5 1 4 34 0 1 1 0 2 36 High 54 Mathews Geometric Redesign Spot Page 420 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx E: PRIORITIzATION SCORINg 221 Bicycle 40 N Roosevelt Ave Laporte Ave Signals Spot 5 2 4 0 2 3 30 2 1 2 0 5 35 High 56 Pedestrian 60 Ziegler Saber Cat Beacon / RRFB Spot 5 5 1 0 1 3 29 1 2 2 1 6 35 High 57 Bicycle 44 Centre Ave W Lake St Intersection redesign Spot 3 4 5 0 1 5 35 0 0 0 0 0 35 High 58 Bicycle 59 Booth Rd Tietz Dr - Bay Rd Sidepath (one side) 0.5 5 1 5 0 0 5 32 2 0 1 0 3 35 High 59 Bicycle 62 S Lemay Ave E Stuart St - E Horsetooth Rd Sidepath (both sides) 0.2 1 4 3 5 5 3 32 0 0 2 1 3 35 High 60 Bicycle 62 Spring Creek Trail Taft Hill Rd New connection Spot 5 5 4 0 0 2 32 1 0 1 1 3 35 High 61 Pedestrian 30 Taft Hill Lake New Crossing Spot 3 3 3 5 1 4 32 0 0 1 1 2 34 High 62 Bicycle 7 E Horsetooth Rd Kingsley Dr Signals Spot 5 1 4 0 3 2 27 0 2 1 2 6 33 High 63 Bicycle 1 E Prospect St Stover St Two-way sidepath Spot 4 4 1 0 1 4 27 2 1 1 2 6 33 High 64 Bicycle 48 S Howes St W Laurel St Signs & Markings Spot 4 3 5 0 1 2 29 2 1 1 0 4 33 High 65 Bicycle 39 S College Ave Rutgers Ave New connection Spot 5 5 2 0 0 4 32 1 0 0 0 1 33 High 66 Bicycle 26 W Stuart St S Taft Hill Rd (Project #1) Two-way sidepath Spot 5 2 1 0 2 4 26 2 1 0 2 5 31 High 67 Bicycle 34 Riverside Ave E Mulberry St Intersection redesign Spot 4 5 0 0 5 3 29 0 1 1 0 2 31 High 68 Bicycle 46 Jackson Ave W Mulberry St Two-way sidepath Spot 4 4 2 0 1 1 23 2 1 1 2 6 29 High 69 Pedestrian 48 Cinquefoil Kechter Median Refuge / Diverter Spot 5 4 0 0 1 1 21 0 2 1 1 4 25 High 70 Bicycle 20 S Timberline Rd E Lincoln Ave Intersection redesign Spot 2 1 2 0 1 5 21 0 2 0 0 2 23 High 71 Pedestrian 25 Frey Laporte Geometric Redesign Spot 1 2 3 5 2 1 21 0 1 1 0 2 23 High 72 Pedestrian 75 Mason Trail Prospect Rd Beacon / RRFB Spot 1 2 1 0 2 4 18 1 0 1 0 3 21 High 73 Pedestrian 34 Timberline Horsetooth Geometric Redesign Spot 2 1 3 0 1 2 17 0 1 2 0 3 20 High 74 Bicycle 8 E Horsetooth Rd Caribou Dr Signals Spot 3 0 3 0 2 2 18 0 0 1 0 2 20 High 75 Bicycle 24 Timberline Rd Annabel Ave - E Prospect Rd Separated Bike Lane 1.8 3 4 1 0 5 5 31 2 1 2 1 6 37 Mediu m 76 Bicycle 65 E Drake Rd Tulane Dr - Rigden Pkwy Sidepath (both sides) 0.5 2 4 3 5 5 3 34 1 0 1 0 2 36 Mediu m 77 Page 421 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx E: PRIORITIzATION SCORINg 222 Bicycle 75 E Horsetooth Rd Mitchell Dr - S Lemay Ave Sidepath (both sides) 0.3 2 3 3 5 5 4 34 0 0 2 0 2 36 Mediu m 78 Bicycle 46 Clearview Ave Ponderosa Dr - Skyline Dr Bike Boulevard 1.0 5 2 4 0 0 4 30 2 2 2 0 6 36 Mediu m 79 Bicycle 48 W Lake St S Overland Tr - S Taft Hill Rd Bike Boulevard 1.1 4 3 4 0 0 4 30 2 2 2 0 6 36 Mediu m 80 Bicycle 69 Worthington Ave W Drake Rd - W Swallow Rd Bike Boulevard 1.6 4 4 4 0 0 3 30 2 2 2 0 6 36 Mediu m 81 Pedestrian 19 3rd Lincoln Beacon / RRFB Spot 3 4 2 0 2 5 30 2 2 2 0 6 36 Mediu m 82 Pedestrian 20 Riverside Lemay Geometric Redesign Spot 4 5 3 0 1 3 31 0 1 2 2 5 36 Mediu m 83 Bicycle 67 Water Blossom Ln, Willow Fern Way W Drake Rd - Marshwood Dr Bike Boulevard 1.0 5 1 5 0 0 3 28 2 2 2 1 7 35 Mediu m 84 Bicycle 56 Rolland Moore Dr, Phemister Rd S Shields St - Bay Rd Separated Bike Lane, Bike Lane 1.7 4 2 4 0 0 5 30 2 1 2 0 5 35 Mediu m 85 Bicycle 85 Harmony Rd S Taft Hill Rd - S Lemay Ave Separated Bike Lane 2.6 1 4 2 5 5 3 30 1 1 2 1 5 35 Mediu m 86 Bicycle 29 Linden St Walnut St - Jefferson St Bike Route 1.0 5 1 5 0 0 4 30 2 2 1 0 5 35 Mediu m 87 Bicycle 80 John F Kennedy Pkwy, E Troutman Pkwy E Horsetooth Rd - E Harmony Rd Separated Bike Lane, Buffered Bike Lane 1.2 3 3 3 0 0 4 26 2 2 2 2 8 34 Mediu m 88 Bicycle 66 E Drake Rd, Ziegler Rd Rigden Pkwy - William Neal Pkwy Separated Bike Lane 1.4 3 4 1 0 5 3 27 2 2 2 1 7 34 Mediu m 89 Bicycle 38 Laurel St S Shields St - S Howes St Separated Bike Lane, Buffered Bike Lane 0.2 3 3 5 0 0 3 28 2 1 2 1 6 34 Mediu m 90 Bicycle 42 Pennock Pl all Bike Boulevard 1.4 5 1 5 0 0 3 28 2 2 2 0 6 34 Mediu m 91 Pedestrian 65 Center Phemister Beacon / RRFB Spot 1 2 3 5 1 5 28 0 2 2 2 6 34 Mediu m 92 Bicycle 99 Howes St W Mountain Ave - W Laurel St Buffered Bike Lane 0.5 5 2 5 0 0 3 30 2 2 0 0 4 34 Mediu m 93 Bicycle 14 Mcmurry Ave E Harmony Rd Intersection redesign Spot 2 5 2 5 5 1 30 0 1 1 2 4 34 Mediu m 94 Page 422 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx E: PRIORITIzATION SCORINg 223 Bicycle 60 East Spring Creek Trail Lemay Ave Two-way sidepath Spot 4 5 3 0 0 3 30 2 1 1 0 4 34 Mediu m 95 Bicycle 54 E Suniga Rd Jerome St Signs & Markings Spot 5 1 3 0 5 4 31 2 0 1 0 3 34 Mediu m 96 Bicycle 2 N Shields St W Willox Ln - W Mountain Ave Separated Bike Lane 0.9 3 3 2 0 5 3 27 2 2 2 0 6 33 Mediu m 97 Bicycle 26 S Timberline Rd Vermont Dr - Battlecreek Dr Separated Bike Lane 2.0 2 4 2 0 5 3 27 2 1 2 1 6 33 Mediu m 98 Bicycle 63 W Drake Rd S Overland Tr - S Taft Hill Rd Separated Bike Lane 1.1 3 4 1 0 5 3 27 2 1 2 1 6 33 Mediu m 99 Bicycle 27 Skyline Dr W Prospect Rd Signals Spot 2 5 2 0 2 4 28 0 1 1 2 5 33 Mediu m 100 Pedestrian 16 College Myrtle Geometric Redesign Spot 2 3 4 5 1 3 30 0 1 1 1 3 33 Mediu m 101 Pedestrian 43 College Willox Signal Operations Spot 1 2 4 5 1 5 30 0 2 1 0 3 33 Mediu m 102 Bicycle 25 S Timberline Rd E Prospect Rd - Vermont Dr Separated Bike Lane 0.4 3 3 1 0 5 3 25 2 2 2 1 7 32 Mediu m 103 Bicycle 10 West St, Maple St N Roosevelt Ave - N Shields St Bike Boulevard 0.5 4 3 4 0 0 2 26 2 2 2 0 6 32 Mediu m 104 Bicycle 21 Redwood St, Linden St Conifer St - Linden Center Dr Buffered Bike Lane 0.8 4 2 3 0 0 4 26 2 2 2 0 6 32 Mediu m 105 Bicycle 60 Purdue Rd, Tulane Dr, Mathews St, Rutgers Ave S College Ave - E Swallow Rd Bike Boulevard 0.6 3 2 4 0 0 4 26 2 2 2 0 6 32 Mediu m 106 Pedestrian 55 Redwood Conifer High-Visibility Crosswalk Spot 4 2 3 0 1 4 27 1 2 2 0 5 32 Mediu m 107 Suniga High-Visibility Crosswalk Spot Bicycle 37 W Elizabeth St S Overland Tr - CSU Transit Center Separated Bike Lane 6.8 3 3 4 0 0 4 28 1 1 2 0 4 32 Mediu m 109 Bicycle 28 Heatheridge Rd W Prospect Rd Signals Spot 2 3 4 5 1 2 28 0 0 1 2 4 32 Mediu m 110 Page 423 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx E: PRIORITIzATION SCORINg 224 Pedestrian 14 Sherwood Cherry High-Visibility Crosswalk Spot 3 4 4 5 1 1 30 0 1 1 0 2 32 Mediu m 111 Maple Geometric Redesign Spot Bicycle 58 Willox Ln Blue Spruce Signals Spot 2 4 4 0 1 5 31 0 0 1 0 1 32 Mediu m 113 Pedestrian 41 Timberline Mulberry Geometric Redesign Spot 3 3 2 0 5 5 31 0 1 0 0 1 32 Mediu m 114 Bicycle 44 S Lemay Ave Riverside Ave - E Stuart St Separated Bike Lane 1.6 3 1 3 0 5 3 25 2 1 2 1 6 31 Mediu m 115 Bicycle 45 E Elizabeth St S College Ave - S Lemay Ave Buffered Bike Lane, Bike Lane 1.9 4 2 4 0 0 3 26 2 1 2 0 5 31 Mediu m 116 Bicycle 98 Loomis Ave Laporte Ave - W Mulberry St Buffered Bike Lane 0.6 4 2 5 0 0 2 26 2 2 1 0 5 31 Mediu m 117 Pedestrian 61 Timberline International New Crossing Spot 3 2 2 0 2 5 26 1 0 2 2 5 31 Mediu m 118 Sykes Beacon / RRFB Spot Pedestrian 56 Willox Bramblebush Beacon / RRFB Spot 4 3 0 0 5 4 27 2 1 1 0 4 31 Mediu m 120 Bicycle 43 Phemister Rd Mason Trail New connection Spot 3 4 2 0 0 5 28 1 1 1 0 3 31 Mediu m 121 Bicycle 103 E Lincoln Ave Lemay - Timberline Separated Bike Lane 0.9 2 5 3 0 0 5 30 0 1 0 0 1 31 Mediu m 122 Bicycle 27 N Loomis Ave Cherry St - Laporte Ave Bike Boulevard 1.0 5 1 5 0 0 1 24 2 2 2 0 6 30 Mediu m 123 Bicycle 34 Ponderosa Dr, Fuqua Dr, Clearview Ave W Mulberry St - W Prospect Rd Bike Boulevard 0.6 3 2 2 0 0 5 24 2 2 2 0 6 30 Mediu m 124 Bicycle 49 Underhill Dr, Skyline Dr Springfield Dr - Westbridge Dr Bike Boulevard 1.4 5 1 3 0 0 3 24 2 2 2 0 6 30 Mediu m 125 Bicycle 53 Emigh St, McHugh St, Welch St E Elizabeth St - E Prospect Rd Bike Boulevard 1.0 4 2 3 0 0 3 24 2 2 2 0 6 30 Mediu m 126 Bicycle 61 Brookwood Dr, Rollingwood Ln, Silverwood Dr, Oxborough Ln E Stuart St - Centennial Rd Bike Boulevard 3.1 2 5 2 0 0 3 24 2 2 2 0 6 30 Mediu m 127 Page 424 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx E: PRIORITIzATION SCORINg 225 Bicycle 89 S Lemay Ave E Harmony Rd - Carpenter Rd Separated Bike Lane 1.1 2 4 1 0 5 3 25 1 1 2 1 5 30 Mediu m 128 Bicycle 49 S College Ave W/E Swallow Rd Signs & Markings Spot 2 2 4 0 1 4 25 2 2 1 0 5 30 Mediu m 129 Bicycle 41 Meridian Ave W Plum St - Hughes Way Separated Bike Lane 2.5 5 1 5 0 0 2 26 2 0 2 0 4 30 Mediu m 130 Pedestrian 53 JFK Monroe Geometric Redesign Spot 2 3 4 0 0 4 26 0 1 2 1 4 30 Mediu m 131 Pedestrian 74 Troutman Pkwy Boardwalk Geometric Redesign Spot 2 2 2 5 1 4 26 1 0 2 1 4 30 Mediu m 132 Bicycle 73 W Horsetooth Rd Horsetooth Ct - Richmond Dr Sidepath (both sides) 3.6 3 2 2 5 5 2 28 0 0 2 0 2 30 Mediu m 133 Bicycle 20 Conifer St N College Ave - N Lemay Ave Buffered Bike Lane 0.4 2 4 2 0 0 4 24 2 1 2 0 5 29 Mediu m 134 Bicycle 18 Turnberry Rd Country Club Rd - Mountain Vista Dr Separated Bike Lane 0.9 1 5 0 0 5 4 25 2 0 2 0 4 29 Mediu m 135 Pedestrian 63 Lake West of Whitcomb Beacon / RRFB Spot 2 1 4 0 1 5 25 1 1 2 0 4 29 Mediu m 136 Pedestrian 66 Prospect Whedbee New Crossing Spot 3 3 2 0 1 4 25 0 0 2 2 4 29 Mediu m 137 Bicycle 23 E Vine Dr Linden St - I-25 Sidepath (one side) 0.1 1 5 1 0 5 4 27 0 0 2 0 2 29 Mediu m 138 Bicycle 83 S Lemay Ave E Horsetooth Rd - E Harmony Rd Sidepath (both sides) 3.0 4 4 1 0 5 2 27 0 0 2 0 2 29 Mediu m 139 Pedestrian 44 College Palmer Beacon / RRFB Spot 4 3 4 0 1 2 27 0 1 1 0 2 29 Mediu m 140 Pedestrian 44 Saturn Beacon / RRFB Spot 4 3 4 0 1 2 27 0 1 1 0 2 29 Mediu m 141 Bicycle 45 Red St Canal Crossing New connection Spot 4 2 3 0 0 5 28 1 0 0 0 1 29 Mediu m 142 Bicycle 56 Horsetooth Seneca Signals Spot 3 3 1 5 1 2 24 2 0 1 1 4 28 Mediu m 143 Pedestrian 69 Mason Boardwalk High-Visibility Crosswalk Spot 3 2 1 0 2 5 24 2 0 0 2 4 28 Mediu m 144 Bicycle 81 W County Road 38E Red Fox Rd - S Taft Hill Rd Sidepath (both sides) 0.4 2 4 1 0 5 3 25 1 0 2 0 3 28 Mediu m 145 Page 425 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx E: PRIORITIzATION SCORINg 226 Bicycle 97 Overland Trail W Vine Dr - W Drake Rd Separated Bike Lane 0.3 1 5 2 0 5 2 25 0 1 1 1 3 28 Mediu m 146 Pedestrian 71 JFK Pkwy Pavilion New Crossing Spot 1 2 3 0 1 5 23 0 0 2 2 4 27 Mediu m 147 Pedestrian 45 College Fossil Creek Geometric Redesign Spot 4 4 2 0 1 2 25 0 1 1 0 2 27 Mediu m 148 Bicycle 64 Willox Ln Lemay Ave Intersection redesign Spot 5 2 0 0 4 4 26 0 0 1 0 1 27 Mediu m 149 Pedestrian 62 Shields Laurel Beacon / RRFB Spot 2 2 4 0 1 2 21 0 1 2 2 5 26 Mediu m 150 Pedestrian 6 Shields Laporte Geometric Redesign Spot 2 2 3 0 1 1 17 2 2 2 2 8 25 Mediu m 151 Pedestrian 33 Timberline Vermont Geometric Redesign Spot 3 4 0 0 1 2 19 2 2 2 0 6 25 Mediu m 152 Pedestrian 52 Harmony Silvergate Beacon / RRFB Spot 2 2 1 0 5 3 21 2 2 0 0 4 25 Mediu m 153 Pedestrian 59 Laporte Impala High-Visibility Crosswalk Spot 1 1 1 5 2 3 19 2 2 1 0 5 24 Mediu m 154 Pedestrian 42 Airpark Lincoln New Crossing Spot 0 1 3 0 2 5 20 0 0 1 0 1 21 Mediu m 155 Pedestrian 27 Overland Trail Mulberry Beacon / RRFB Spot 3 1 1 0 4 1 16 0 1 2 1 4 20 Mediu m 156 Rampart New Crossing Spot Pedestrian 35 Miles House Drake New Crossing Spot 1 1 0 0 5 1 11 2 2 1 1 6 17 Mediu m 158 Pedestrian 49 Lemay Brittany New Crossing Spot 4 2 0 0 1 2 17 0 0 1 1 2 19 Mediu m 159 Trilby Beacon / RRFB Spot Bicycle 90 Southridge Greens Blvd S Lemay Ave - Center Greens Blvd Bike Route 0.6 2 3 0 0 0 3 16 2 2 2 1 7 23 Low 161 Bicycle 94 Nassau Way S Lemay Ave - Barbuda Dr Bike Boulevard 3.0 4 1 0 0 0 2 14 2 2 2 1 7 21 Low 162 Bicycle 17 Turnberry Rd, Richards Lake Rd Serramonte Dr - Country Club Rd Separated Bike Lane 0.8 1 5 0 0 5 3 23 2 2 2 0 6 29 Low 163 Bicycle 9 Lyons St, Roosevelt Ave, Cherry St, Maple St W Vine Dr - W Oak St Bike Boulevard 0.6 3 3 3 0 0 2 22 2 2 2 0 6 28 Low 164 Bicycle 14 W Magnolia St, Jackson Ave W Mulberry St - S Shields St Buffered Bike Lane, Bike Boulevard 2.3 5 1 4 0 0 1 22 2 2 2 0 6 28 Low 165 Page 426 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx E: PRIORITIzATION SCORINg 227 Bicycle 72 Red Mountain Dr, Fieldston Dr, Kingsley Dr, Creekstone Dr Pinecone Cir - E Horsetooth Rd Bike Boulevard 1.2 3 4 2 0 0 2 22 2 2 2 0 6 28 Low 166 Bicycle 42 S Overland Trail W Lake St Two-way sidepath Spot 1 2 3 0 1 4 21 0 2 1 2 6 27 Low 167 Bicycle 88 Fossil Blvd, Cameron Dr, Conejos Rd W Fairway Ln - S College Ave Bike Boulevard 1.3 4 1 3 0 0 2 20 2 2 2 0 6 26 Low 168 Bicycle 77 Ziegler Rd Percheron Dr - Rock Park Dr Separated Bike Lane, Sidepath (one side), Bike Lane 0.3 2 2 1 0 5 2 19 1 1 2 2 6 25 Low 169 Bicycle 5 W Vine Dr N Overland Tr - Lancer Dr Separated Bike Lane 0.4 1 5 2 0 0 1 18 2 2 2 0 6 24 Low 170 Bicycle 43 Riverside Ave S Lemay Ave - E Prospect Rd Separated Bike Lane 0.8 3 1 2 0 0 3 18 2 1 2 1 6 24 Low 171 Bicycle 55 Midpoint Dr Prospect Park Way - Sharp Point Dr Bike Lane 0.3 4 1 3 0 0 1 18 2 1 2 1 6 24 Low 172 Pedestrian 26 Impala Mulberry Geometric Redesign Spot 1 4 0 0 1 3 17 2 2 1 1 6 23 Low 173 Bicycle 68 Claremont Dr, Hull St, Hanover Dr W Drake Rd - W Swallow Rd Bike Boulevard 5.4 4 1 1 0 0 2 16 2 2 2 0 6 22 Low 174 Pedestrian 70 Kechter Old Mill Beacon / RRFB Spot 1 0 0 0 3 3 11 1 2 2 1 6 17 Low 175 Pedestrian 57 Taft Hill Bronson Beacon / RRFB Spot 3 3 2 0 1 3 23 0 1 2 2 5 28 Low 176 Imperial Beacon / RRFB Spot Brixton Beacon / RRFB Spot Bicycle 22 William Neal Pkwy Ziegler Rd Intersection redesign Spot 2 4 0 0 5 3 23 0 2 1 2 5 28 Low 179 Bicycle 31 W Mulberry St S Overland Tr - Tyler St Separated Bike Lane 0.1 2 3 0 0 5 4 23 2 0 2 1 5 28 Low 180 Bicycle 86 E Harmony Rd, CR 38 S Lemay Ave - Weitzel St Separated Bike Lane, Sidepath (both sides) 2.2 1 5 1 0 5 2 23 1 1 2 1 5 28 Low 181 Pedestrian 50 Cunningham Richmond High-Visibility Crosswalk Spot 1 2 3 0 1 3 19 2 2 1 0 5 24 Low 182 Page 427 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx E: PRIORITIzATION SCORINg 228 Pedestrian 64 Lake Stover Median Refuge / Diverter Spot 2 1 1 0 1 3 15 1 2 1 1 5 20 Low 183 Bicycle 59 Lemay Ave Ticonderoga Signs & Markings Spot 2 1 0 0 1 1 9 2 2 0 1 5 14 Low 184 Bicycle 24 Hampshire Rd W Prospect Rd Two-way sidepath Spot 3 3 1 0 1 4 23 2 1 1 0 4 27 Low 185 Bicycle 4 N Taft Hill Rd Stonecrest Dr - Laporte Ave Separated Bike Lane 0.7 1 5 2 0 5 1 23 2 0 2 0 4 27 Low 186 Pedestrian 73 Washington Ave Mulberry New Crossing Spot 3 1 1 0 2 5 22 0 0 2 2 4 26 Low 187 Bicycle 13 Sheldon Dr W Oak St - W Mulberry St Bike Boulevard 1.0 5 1 4 0 0 1 22 2 0 2 0 4 26 Low 188 Bicycle 57 Vine East of Timberline Signs & Markings Spot 5 0 0 0 1 5 21 2 2 0 0 4 25 Low 189 Pedestrian 68 Sharp Point March Beacon / RRFB Spot 4 3 2 0 1 1 21 2 1 1 0 4 25 Low 190 Bicycle 70 Moss Creek Dr, Colony Dr, Tradition Dr W Swallow Rd - W Troutman Pkwy Bike Boulevard 0.6 2 3 2 0 0 3 20 2 2 0 0 4 24 Low 191 Bicycle 79 Troutman Pkwy (planned extension) Seneca St - S Shields St Bike Lane 0.4 5 1 2 0 0 2 20 2 0 2 0 4 24 Low 192 Bicycle 87 Fossil Blvd, Fairway Ln, Palmer Dr Fossil Blvd - Hogan Dr Bike Boulevard 2.9 3 2 2 0 0 3 20 2 2 0 0 4 24 Low 193 Bicycle 95 Kechter Rd, CR 36 Timberline Rd - CR 5 Separated Bike Lane 0.6 1 2 0 5 5 2 20 1 1 2 0 4 24 Low 194 Bicycle 78 Westfield Dr, Capitol Dr W Horsetooth Rd - Seneca St Bike Boulevard 2.9 3 2 1 0 0 3 18 2 2 0 0 4 22 Low 195 Bicycle 82 Harbor Walk Dr, Breakwater Dr, Ticonderoga Dr, McMurry Ave Boardwalk Dr - Monte Carlo Dr Bike Boulevard 0.8 2 4 1 0 0 2 18 2 2 0 0 4 22 Low 196 Bicycle 96 Laporte Ave City Line - N Overland Tr Buffered Bike Lane 4.2 1 5 2 0 0 1 18 2 2 0 0 4 22 Low 197 Bicycle 32 Kecther Tilden Two-way sidepath Spot 4 0 0 0 2 3 16 2 2 0 0 4 20 Low 198 Bicycle 71 Vermont Dr Eastbrook Dr - S Timberline Rd Bike Boulevard 7.1 5 1 0 0 0 2 16 2 2 0 0 4 20 Low 199 Page 428 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx E: PRIORITIzATION SCORINg 229 Bicycle 84 Paddington Rd, Sunstone Dr, Sunstone Way Caribou Dr - Ziegler Rd Bike Boulevard 1.0 3 1 0 0 0 4 16 2 2 0 0 4 20 Low 200 Bicycle 91 W Skyway Dr, Constellatio n Dr W Trilby Rd - S College Ave Bike Boulevard 0.7 1 4 1 0 0 2 16 2 2 0 0 4 20 Low 201 Pedestrian 32 Ziegler Harmony Geometric Redesign Spot 1 1 2 0 5 1 15 0 1 2 1 4 19 Low 202 Bicycle 13 Ziegler Paddington Signals Spot 2 1 0 0 5 1 13 0 2 1 0 4 17 Low 203 Pedestrian 37 Creekwood Dr north of Kirkwood High-Visibility Crosswalk Spot 2 1 0 0 0 3 12 2 2 0 0 4 16 Low 204 Bicycle 5 Lemay Nassau Signals Spot 1 1 0 0 2 2 10 0 1 0 2 4 14 Low 205 Pedestrian 54 Vine Irish Beacon / RRFB Spot 1 1 1 0 1 1 9 2 1 0 1 4 13 Low 206 Bicycle 25 W Stuart St S Taft Hill Rd (Project #2) Signals Spot 4 4 1 0 2 2 24 0 0 0 2 3 27 Low 207 Bicycle 47 Overland Laporte Signs & Markings Spot 4 0 3 0 1 3 21 2 1 0 0 3 24 Low 208 Pedestrian 17 Grant Mountain Geometric Redesign Spot 2 1 3 5 1 1 20 0 1 1 1 3 23 Low 209 Bicycle 3 N Shields St US 287 - W Willox Ln Buffered Bike Lane 2.1 1 5 0 0 0 4 20 1 0 2 0 3 23 Low 210 Bicycle 54 Prospect Rd Mason Trail - Sharp Point Dr Sidepath (one side) 0.5 2 2 3 0 0 3 20 0 0 2 1 3 23 Low 211 Bicycle 53 Suniga Blue Spruce Signs & Markings Spot 2 1 0 0 5 4 19 2 1 0 0 3 22 Low 212 Bicycle 6 Trilby Avondale Signals Spot 3 3 0 0 2 2 18 0 1 1 0 3 21 Low 213 Bicycle 8 S Taft Hill Rd W Horsetooth Rd - W Trilby Rd Sidepath (one side), Separated Bike Lane 1.0 1 5 1 0 0 2 18 0 0 2 1 3 21 Low 214 Bicycle 100 Lemay Ave Country Club Rd - Lowell Ln Sidepath (one side) 0.1 1 4 0 0 0 4 18 0 0 2 1 3 21 Low 215 Bicycle 9 Dunbar Capitol Two-way sidepath Spot 3 1 1 0 1 2 15 2 0 1 0 3 18 Low 216 Bicycle 67 Prospect Rd Welch Signals Spot 1 4 1 0 1 5 23 0 0 2 0 2 25 Low 217 Bicycle 93 Trilby Rd Taft Hill Rd - Timberline Rd Sidepath (one side & both sides) 1.5 1 5 1 0 5 2 23 0 0 2 0 2 25 Low 218 Page 429 Item 9. FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx E: PRIORITIzATION SCORINg 230 Bicycle 30 Skyline Dr Clearview New connection Spot 3 2 2 0 0 4 22 1 1 0 0 2 24 Low 219 Bicycle 1 N College Ave, Bristlecone Dr, Blue Spruce Dr Terry Lake Rd - Willow St Sidepath (both sides), Buffered Bicycle Lanes 0.9 1 2 3 0 0 5 22 0 0 2 0 2 24 Low 220 Pedestrian 47 Wheaton Harmony New Crossing Spot 1 3 1 5 3 1 20 0 0 1 1 2 22 Low 221 Bicycle 19 Mountain Vista Dr, Richards Lake Rd Turnberry Rd - I-25 Sidepath (both sides) 0.8 1 5 0 0 0 3 18 0 0 2 0 2 20 Low 222 Bicycle 92 Zephyr Rd (Planned) Red Willow Dr - S Timberline Rd Bike Lane 1.9 2 5 0 0 0 2 18 2 0 0 0 2 20 Low 223 Bicycle 4 Horsetooth Lemay Two-way sidepath Spot 1 3 1 0 0 3 16 2 0 0 0 2 18 Low 224 Bicycle 10 Power Trail Nancy Gray New connection Spot 3 2 0 0 0 3 16 1 1 0 0 2 18 Low 225 Pedestrian 24 Lancer Vine Geometric Redesign Spot 1 1 1 0 1 1 9 0 1 1 0 2 11 Low 226 Bicycle 18 Ziegler Lady Moon Signs & Markings Spot 1 1 0 0 1 1 7 2 0 0 0 2 9 Low 227 Bicycle 33 E Mulberry St S Lemay Ave - I-25 Sidepath (both sides) 3.7 1 5 1 0 0 5 24 0 0 0 1 1 25 Low 228 Pedestrian 51 Wabash Benthaven Geometric Redesign Spot 4 4 0 0 1 2 21 0 1 0 0 1 22 Low 229 Bicycle 65 Canal Access Road Trail Head / Waterglen neighborhoods New connection Spot 5 1 0 0 0 4 20 1 0 0 0 1 21 Low 230 Bicycle 15 Power Trail Caribou Dr New connection Spot 1 3 0 0 0 5 18 1 0 0 0 1 19 Low 231 Bicycle 37 Power Trail Keenland New connection Spot 5 1 0 0 0 2 16 1 0 0 0 1 17 Low 232 Bicycle 66 Southridge Greens Blvd Trilby Rd Intersection redesign Spot 1 4 0 0 2 2 16 0 0 0 1 1 17 Low 233 Bicycle 63 Fossil Creek Trail County Road 38-E New connection Spot 2 3 0 0 2 1 14 1 0 0 0 1 15 Low 234 Bicycle 16 Country Club Rd, Terry Lake Rd N College Ave - Turnberry Rd Sidepath (one side) 0.7 1 5 1 0 0 3 20 0 0 0 0 0 20 Low 235 Page 430 Item 9. APPENDIX F: OPINIONS OF PROBABLE COST Page 431 Item 9. 232 FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx F: OPINIONS OF Pedestrian Projects Signal Operations $ 3,000 Geometric Redesign $ 150,000 Beacon / RRFB $ 600,000 Median Refuge / Diverter $ 116,830 High-Visibility Crosswalk $ 17,550 New Crossing $ 585,000 Bicycle Spot Projects Intersection redesign $ 585,000 Signals $ 600,000 Signs & Markings $ 3,000 Two-way sidepath $ 29,000 New connection $ 320,000 Below are the facility unit opinions of probable cost use for calculation in Chapter 7: Implementing the Vision. Opinions of probable cost were developed by identifying major pay items and establishing rough quantities to determine a rough order of magnitude cost. Additional pay items have been assigned approximate lump sum prices based on a percentage of the anticipated construction cost. Planning- level cost opinions include a contingency to cover items that are undefined or are typically unknown early in the planning phase of a project. Unit costs are based on 2022 dollars and were assigned based on historical cost data from City of Fort Collins and Colorado Department of Transportation. Cost opinions do not include easement and right-of-way acquisition; permitting or inspection; engineering, surveying, geotechnical investigation, environmental documentation, special site remediation, escalation, or the cost for ongoing maintenance. A cost range has been assigned to certain general categories such as utility relocations; however, these costs can vary widely depending on the exact details and nature of the work. The overall cost opinions are intended to be general and used only for planning purposes. Toole Design Group, LLC makes no guarantees or warranties regarding the cost estimate herein. Construction costs will vary based on the ultimate project scope, actual site conditions and constraints, schedule, and economic conditions at the time of construction. Page 432 Item 9. 233 FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx F: OPINIONS OF Bicycle Network Projects Bike Route Add Wayfinding $ 7,000 Bike Route Design Refinement $ 68,000 Bike Boulevard Add Wayfinding $ 7,000 Bike Boulevard Design Refinement $ 68,000 Bike Lane Traffic Calming $ 30,000 Bike Lane Lane Diet $ 42,000 Bike Lane 1 Side Parking Removal $ 83,000 Bike Lane 2 Side Parking Removal $ 83,000 Bike Lane Construct New $ 1,821,000 Buffered Bike Lane Add Wayfinding $ 7,000 Buffered Bike Lane Lane Diet $ 61,000 Buffered Bike Lane Road Diet $ 94,000 Buffered Bike Lane 1 Side Parking Removal $ 94,000 Buffered Bike Lane Design Refinement $ 570,000 Buffered Bike Lane Widen Roadway $ 570,000 Buffered Bike Lane Construct New $ 570,000 Separated Bike Lane Add Separator $ 250,000 Separated Bike Lane Lane Diet $ 250,000 Separated Bike Lane Road Diet $ 302,000 Separated Bike Lane 1 Side Parking Removal $ 302,000 Separated Bike Lane Adjust Median $ 526,000 Separated Bike Lane Adjust Curb LIne $ 526,000 Separated Bike Lane Design Refinement $ 738,000 Separated Bike Lane Widen Roadway $ 738,000 Separated Bike Lane Construct New $ 2,497,000 Sidepath 1 Side Construct New $ 1,268,000 Sidepath 2 Sides Construct New $ 2,536,000 Additional details from Chapter 7: Implementing the Vision Page 433 Item 9. APPENDIX H: MULTIMODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS Page 434 Item 9. 235 FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx H: MuLTIMODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS MEMORANDUM September 7, 2022 To: Cortney Geary, City of Fort Collins From: Sagar Onta and Trung Vo Project: Fort Collins Actives Modes Plan MMLOS Draft Revisions and Next Steps As part of Task 7 of the Fort Collins Active Modes Plan (AMP), Toole Design provided recommendations for how the City of Fort Collins can update their Multimodal Transportation Level of Service (MMLOS) Manual. This memo summarizes the current MMLOS procedure and short-term, mid-term, and long-term steps for the City to update the MMLOS procedure. Current Procedure Any development proposal in Fort Collins must follow the latest version of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). Chapter 4 of the document specifically lays out the procedure to prepare a Transportation Impact Study (TIS) for developments within the Larimer County. Furthermore, Appendix H of LCUASS defines the requirements specific to development in Fort Collins. One of the outcomes of the procedure is for the developers to pay a Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF) to mitigate the impact of their development. Toole Design reviewed Appendix H of LCUASS and offered recommendations to make it more effective. These comments are in pdf form and are attached to this memo. Toole Design met with City staff to discuss and identify the following key challenges of the current MMLOS procedure: • Lack of clear steps and authority to require developments to either implement multimodal improvements or contribute to planned multimodal improvements in/and around the development. • Lack of coordination between the improvements implemented by the development and the previously planned or approved projects and planning initiatives conducted by the City or other entities. Draft Recommendation To address these challenges, Toole Design generated ideas to improve the procedure, shown Figure 1. Page 435 Item 9. 236 FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx H: MuLTIMODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS MMLOS Draft Revisions and Next Steps 2 Figure 1. Draft MMLOS Procedure Recommendation Page 436 Item 9. 237 FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx H: MuLTIMODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS MMLOS Draft Revisions and Next Steps 3 The draft MMLOS procedure accomplishes the following: • Maintains the three existing types of TIS outlined in LCUASS based on the size of the proposed development: Full TIS, Intermediate TIS, and Transportation Memorandum. • Clearly defines the study area by establishing sphere of influence for bicycle and pedestrian modes. • Requires the developer to list the approved multimodal projects in the site’s vicinity to assist City staff in making decisions. • Recommends a new PLOS and BLOS analysis method as outlined below. Draft MMLOS Analysis Update One of the challenges of the existing MMLOS procedure is the inability to dictate physical multimodal improvements on the ground. The existing procedure aims to provide connections to bicycle and pedestrian destinations in the vicinity of the proposed development,. However, in practice, the procedure is not able to identify streets that need multimodal improvements. The procedure outlined below aims to rectify the deficiency and provide a comprehensive MMLOS analysis method. During the Initial Scoping Meeting: • Identify street segments and intersections within the sphere of influence to analyze. • Discuss the scope of work, which should include: o Identifying previously approved projects impacting study streets and intersections (see Figure 1), o Collecting screenline daily traffic volumes on study street segments and peak hour turning movement counts at study intersections, o Gathering 5-year crash data for the study street segments and intersections, and o Identifying existing deficiencies in bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure, when compared against the bike and pedestrian standards, using Bicycle and Pedestrian LOS, as described below. Bicycle LOS Analysis: • Refer to the Active Modes Plan to determine the preferred bicycle facility for the study street segments. • Identify the curb-to-curb and ROW widths for the study segments. • Identify constraints to implement preferred bicycle facility for the study street segments • Develop a cost estimate to mitigate the impacts within the bicycle sphere of influence. • Develop bicycle trip generation for the development based on the approved Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan. • Use the TDM plan to determine the percent of vehicular trip generation anticipated to be converted to bicycle trips. See Table 1 below. • Determine bike trip distribution using availability of bicycle infrastructure, level of traffic stress, and location of key destinations such as schools, retail hubs, and employment centers. • Assign bike trips to the bike network within the sphere of influence. • For each bike network segment, conduct bicycle level of service analysis using following methods. o Determine the existing peak hour bike volume for each bike network segment within the sphere of influence. Page 437 Item 9. 238 FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx H: MuLTIMODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS MMLOS Draft Revisions and Next Steps 4 o Calculate existing bike lane volume-to-capacity ratio using Desired Bike Flow rate in Table 2 below. o Estimate bike trip assignment on the segment, using the above method. o Calculate the proposed bike lane volume-to-capacity ratio. o Calculate the bike impact proportion by calculating the difference between existing and proposed bike lane capacity. See Table 3 below. Pedestrian LOS Analysis • Assess the existing pedestrian condition on study roadways within the sphere of influence. This includes: o Presence or lack of sidewalk o Quality of sidewalk o Location of or lack of safe pedestrian crossings using Fort Collins Crossing Standards • Determine minimum LOS based on Figure 5 of the LOS Manual. • Determine actual LOS based on existing conditions. • Determine proposed LOS based on proposed improvements on the study roadway. • Determine total cost of improvements for the proposed improvement. • Determine project proportional cost based on following process: o Calculate the percentage of the total cost that is anticipated to be paid by private developments. o Identify undeveloped parcels within sphere of influence of the project. o Estimate the development potential of undeveloped parcels using existing zoning. o Project proportional cost = average of proposed development size for each type of development / development potential of undeveloped parcels for the type of development Table 1. Bicycle Trip Generation Criteria, Peak Hour Bicycle Trip – Draft Proposal Infrastructure Criteria No approved TDM Plan With <5 TDM points With >5 TDM points There are no existing bicycle facilities connecting to the development 2% of vehicular trips 3% of vehicular trips 5% of vehicular trips There are existing but deficient bicycle facilities (do not meet AMP standard), without key destinations within sphere of influence 4% of vehicular trips 6% of vehicular trips 8% of vehicular trips There are existing but deficient bike facilities and key destinations within sphere of influence 6% of vehicular trips 8% of vehicular trips 12% of vehicular trips There are existing bicycle facilities 8% of vehicular trips 12% of vehicular trips 18% of vehicular trips Page 438 Item 9. 239 FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx H: MuLTIMODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS MMLOS Draft Revisions and Next Steps 5 Table 2. Bicycle Desired Flow Rate Bike Lane Width (ft) Peak Hour Directional Volume One-way PBL 5.5 - 8.5 150 8.5 - 10 750 Two-way PBL 9 - 12 150 12 - 16 350 Table 3. Bike Impact Fee Calculation Example – Draft Proposal Desired Bike Flow Rate / hr 150 From Draft AASHTO Bike Guide Table 7.3 and 7.4 Existing Bike Volume / hr 130 From counts Threshold for bike fee contribution 80% Determine by local jurisdiction Existing Bike Lane Capacity Ratio 0.87 Site Gen Bike Trip 25 From bike trip generation table Total Bike Volume 155 Proposed Bike Lane Capacity Ratio 1.03 Bike Impact Proportion 17% Difference between existing and proposed ratio Cost of Bike Improvement $ 2,500,000 Random example Length of project 5 mile Cost / mile $ 500,000 Segment in bike influence area 0.5 mile Total cost in influence area $ 250,000 Bike Impact Fee $ 41,666.67 Page 439 Item 9. 240 FORT COLLINS ACTIVE MODES PLAN | APPENDIx H: MuLTIMODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS MMLOS Draft Revisions and Next Steps 6 Next Steps Toole Design presented the above draft revisions to City staff on July 26, 2022. The meeting illustrated that a wholesale effort to update the City’s MMLOS procedure would require effort beyond the contract of the Active Modes Plan. The City of Fort Collins can take the steps below to advance this effort. Short-Term Steps 1. Update TCEP procedure / guidance to allow the use of the funds collected for specific multimodal project within the sphere of influence of the proposed development. Mid-Term Steps 1. Finalize the proposed MMLOS procedure recommendation (Figure 1), including the proposed BLOS, PLOS, and Bike Impact Fee calculation procedure. 2. Resolve how this new process will align with existing TIS guidelines. Long-Term Steps 1. Update the TIS guidelines to focus on person trips rather than vehicular trips. This will require substantial effort and coordination with various departments. Attachment A: Comments on Appendix H Fort Collins Multimodal Transportation Level-of-Service Manual Page 440 Item 9. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 2 December 20, 2022 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council STAFF Anissa Hollingshead, City Clerk Carrie Daggett, City Attorney SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 150, 2022, Amending Ordinance No. 084, 2022 to Amend the Effective Date of the 2022 Council District-Precinct Map. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item amends Ordinance No. 084, 2022, Amending the City of Fort Collins District-Precinct Map, adopted on second reading on July 19, 2022, in order to move forward clarification and amendment of the District-Precinct Map in order to eliminate confusion and practical impacts and inconsistencies in Councilmember districts. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Ordinance originally adopted, attached for reference, stated the newly-adopted District-Precinct Map would be in effective for determining eligibility for City Council offices for the 2023 regular election and for determining eligibility of any interim appointments for Council vacancies. This approach, while consistent with historical practice, has raised significant confusion and some practical difficulties in determining Councilmember roles and responsibilities. This is exacerbated by the change in term lengths approved in the November 2022 Special Election which will extend current terms of several Councilmembers and the Mayor from April 2023 until the newly effective swearing in date of the second Tuesday in January of 2024. In light of these issues, staff has prepared information for Council to consider about alternatives to address these concerns. The option recommended by the Election Code Committee is the adoption of a new ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 084 and set an earlier date for the new District-Precinct Map and Council districts to go into effect, making the Map and related changes effective as of the effective date of Ordinance No. 084, 10 days following its passage on July 19, 2022. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS NA BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Page 441 Item 10. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 2 The Council’s Election Code Committee considered this topic at their December 5, 2022, meeting. The committee unanimously recommended adoption of an ordinance amending the original adoption of the amended district-precinct map to set the effective date as of the original effective date of Ordinance No. 084, 2022. An excerpt of the draft minutes of that ECC meeting are included as an attachment to this item. PUBLIC OUTREACH Notice of the proposed amendment to Ordinance No. 084, 2022 was published in the Coloradoan on Sunday, December 4, 2022, and again on Sunday, December 11, 2022, following the same notification provisions required for initial adoption of an amended district-precinct map in a redistricting process. ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance for Consideration 2. Ordinance Exhibit A – District-Precinct Map 3. Ordinance No. 084, 2022 as Adopted 4. Notice of Amendment to Redistricting-Precinct Ordinance 5. Draft Minutes for Election Code Committee Meeting of December 5, 2022 Page 442 Item 10. -1- ORDINANCE NO. 150, 2022 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE DISTRICT-PRECINCT MAP ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE NO. 084, 2022 WHEREAS, Article II, Section 1 of the City Charter requires that the City be divided into six contiguous, reasonably compact City Council districts, each of which shall consist of contiguous, undivided general election precincts, and, to the extent reasonably possible, an equal number of inhabitants; and WHEREAS, pursuant to City Charter, redistricting must be completed not less than 180 days before the next regular election; and WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code Section 7-87(b), not more than 18 months after the official decennial publication of the United States Census concerning the population of Fort Collins, the City Clerk must recommend to the City Council any district boundary changes necessary to ensure that, to the extent reasonably possible, there is no more than a ten-percent (10%) deviation between the most populous and the least populous City Council districts; and WHEREAS, in light of the legal precedents and guidance related to determining voter districts, communities of interest and impacts to ethnic and racial populations are also taken into account in redistricting decisions; and WHEREAS, due to significant changes to the Larimer County general election precincts, upon which the Council District map must be based, earlier in 2022 staff completed a review of the adjustments required to existing districts to incorporate those changes, seeking to minimize the deviation between the most and least populous City Council districts based on the population data available this year from the 2020 Census; and WHEREAS, on July 5 and July 19, staff presented for Council consideration on first and second reading Ordinance No. 084, 2022, adopting a new district-precinct map to reflect the foregoing and based on review and discussion by the Election Code Committee; and WHEREAS, since adoption of Ordinance No. 084, there has been significant confusion and inconsistency in the implementation of the new districts; and WHEREAS, in order to eliminate any related confusion, dispute or practical difficulties, this Ordinance sets a clear date for implementation of the new districts as of the effective date of Ordinance No. 084, which is July 29, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk caused the publication of notices of this Ordinance clarifying the effective date of the adopted district boundary amendments to be made as provided in City Code Section 7-87; and WHEREAS, the Council district-precinct map adopted in Ordinance No. 084 and made effective with that Ordinance is attached as Exhibit “A.” Page 443 Item 10. -2- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the district-precinct map dated July 5, 2022, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, adopted by Ordinance No. 084, 2022, is hereb y made effective for all intents and purposes, retroactively to the effective date of Ordinance No. 084, 2022, which is July 29, 2022. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 20th day of December, A.D. 2022, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of January, A.D. 2023. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 17th day of January, A.D. 2023. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Page 444 Item 10. S COLLEGE AVE W HORSETOOTH RD W MULBERRY ST S SHIELDS STLAPORTE AVE S TIMBERLINE RDS LEMAY AVESTRAUSSCABIN RDZIEGLERRDRIV E R S ID E AV E S OVERLAND TRLW DRAKE RD E PROSPECTRD W WILLOX LN S TAFT HILL RDW VINE DRCOUNTRYCLUB RD E V INE DR RICHARDS LAKE RD W MOUNTAIN AVE E W I LLOXLN E TRILBY RD W PROSPECT RD E COUNTY ROAD 38 E MULBERRY ST JE F F ERSONSTEDOUGLAS RD COUNTY ROAD 54G N LEMAY AVEN COLLEGE AVEWCOUNTYROAD 38EECOUNTYROAD50MOUNTAIN V I S T A D R NTIMBERLINERDTERRYLAKERDG R E G O R Y R D KECHTER RDN SHIELDS STS COUNTY ROAD 5E HORSETOOTH RD STATE HIGHWAY 392 W HARMONYRDW DOUGLAS RDN U S H I G HW A Y 2 8 7 NOVERLANDTRLE COUNTY ROAD 36 MAIN STW TRILBY RD E DRAKE RD E L I NC O L N A VE S COUNTY ROAD 13CARPENTER RD E COUNTY ROAD 52 S COUNTY ROAD 11S SUMM I T V I E W D R S US HIGHWAY 287N COUNTY ROAD 17E COUNTY ROAD 48 N COUNTY ROAD 5NTAFTHILLRDS COUNTY ROAD 19S COUNTY ROAD 9E COUNTY ROAD 54 N COUNTY ROAD 9E HARMONY RD District 2 District 5 District 4 District 6 District 1 District 3 407 400 690 355 490 390 368 369 301 603 606 600 601 602 205 693 103 206 343 306 300 104 309 311 329 336 335 328 330 334 326348 349 337 338 314327 315 352 351 353 354 331 332 333 356 357 350 347 365 364 360 345 342 346 340 321 341 322 211 209 210 325 317 316324 366 358 359 367 307 310 313 312 308 323 339 362 344 363 361 303 320 319 318 305 304 302 Exhibit A Printed: June 08, 2022 Redistricting Option 3 District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 County Precinct Council Member Locations 1 28302 28675 101.3%1.3%2 28302 28504 100.7%0. 7% 3 28302 27343 96.6%-3. 4% Page 445 Item 10. Page 446 Item 10. Page 447 Item 10. S COLLEGE AVE W HORSETOOTH RD W MULBERRY ST S SHIELDS STLAPORTE AVE S TIMBERLINE RDS LEMAY AVESTRAUSSCABIN RDZIEGLERRDRIV E R S ID E AV E S OVERLAND TRLW DRAKE RD E PROSPECTRD W WILLOX LN S TAFT HILL RDW VINE DRCOUNTRYCLUB RD E V INE DR RICHARDS LAKE RD W MOUNTAIN AVE E W I LLOXLN E TRILBY RD W PROSPECT RD E COUNTY ROAD 38 E MULBERRY ST JE F F ERSONSTEDOUGLAS RD COUNTY ROAD 54G N LEMAY AVEN COLLEGE AVEWCOUNTYROAD 38EECOUNTYROAD50MOUNTAIN V I S T A D R NTIMBERLINERDTERRYLAKERDG R E G O R Y R D KECHTER RDN SHIELDS STS COUNTY ROAD 5E HORSETOOTH RD STATE HIGHWAY 392 W HARMONYRDW DOUGLAS RDN U S H I G HW A Y 2 8 7 NOVERLANDTRLE COUNTY ROAD 36 MAIN STW TRILBY RD E DRAKE RD E L I NC O L N A VE S COUNTY ROAD 13CARPENTER RD E COUNTY ROAD 52 S COUNTY ROAD 11S SUMM I T V I E W D R S US HIGHWAY 287N COUNTY ROAD 17E COUNTY ROAD 48 N COUNTY ROAD 5NTAFTHILLRDS COUNTY ROAD 19S COUNTY ROAD 9E COUNTY ROAD 54 N COUNTY ROAD 9E HARMONY RD District 2 District 5 District 4 District 6 District 1 District 3 407 400 690 355 490 390 368 369 301 603 606 600 601 602 205 693 103 206 343 306 300 104 309 311 329 336 335 328 330 334 326348 349 337 338 314327 315 352 351 353 354 331 332 333 356 357 350 347 365 364 360 345 342 346 340 321 341 322 211 209 210 325 317 316324 366 358 359 367 307 310 313 312 308 323 339 362 344 363 361 303 320 319 318 305 304 302 Exhibit A Printed: June 08, 2022 Redistricting Option 3 District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 County Precinct Council Member Locations 1 28302 28675 101.3%1.3%2 28302 28504 100.7%0. 7% 3 28302 27343 96.6%-3. 4% Page 448 Item 10. Publish Sunday, December 4, 2022 and Sunday, December 11, 2022 NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 084, 2022 WHICH ADOPTED AN AMENDED DISTRICT-PRECINCT MAP Pursuant to the City Code and Charter, the Fort Collins City Council will consider an Ordinance on December 20, 2022 to amend Ordinance No. 084, 2022, which Ordinance amended the District-Precinct map to adjust the Council District boundaries (and made adjustments to precinct boundaries to match current County precinct boundaries). The purpose of considering an amendment to Ordinance No. 084, 2022 is to clarify the effective date of the new District-Precinct map. Interested individuals are invited to comment on the proposed boundary change options at the December 20, 2022 City Council meeting, which begins at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 LaPorte Avenue. Any registered elector desiring to protest the proposed redistricting may file a written protest setting forth with particularity the grounds of protest. The notice of protest must be submitted to the City Clerk’s Office, 300 LaPorte Avenue, P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522, no later than noon on Monday, December 19, 2022. Complete agenda materials for this item on the December 20 Council meeting agenda, as well as meeting participation options, will be available online at www.fcgov.com/agendas after 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 15, 2022. Page 449 Item 10. 12/5/2022 – Minutes Page 1 Minutes Election Code Committee Meeting – EXCERPT OF ITEM 2 December 05, 2022 – 12:00 PM CIC Conference Room, City Hall, 300 Laporte Ave and via Zoom at https://fcgov.zoom.us/j/93910757534 Remote Participation Available A) Call Meeting to Order Chair Tricia Canonico called the meeting to order ay 12:06 p.m. B) Roll Call PRESENT: Chair Tricia Canoncio Councilmember Kelly Ohlson Mayor Jeni Arndt STAFF PRESENT: Anissa Hollingshead, City Clerk Rita Knoll, Chief Deputy City Clerk Tammi Pusheck, Privacy and Records Manager Carrie Daggett, City Attorney Ryan Malarky, Assistant City Attorney Rupa Venkatesh, Assistant City Manager 2. Consideration and Action on Recommendation to Amend the Effective Date of the 2022 Council District-Precinct Map. This item moves forward the clarification and amendment of the District-Precinct Map in order to eliminate confusion and practical impacts and inconsistencies in Councilmember districts. City Attorney Carrie Daggett provided an overview of this topic, noting a lack of clarity on when new districts are in effect. A significant issue associated with this is the lack of availabiity of historical data relating to prior district and precinct boundaries. This means the City would not be able to get voter data from Larimer County out of the State voter database SCORE which showed data Councilmember Ohlson asked for clarification on how there was not shared understanding among staff and Council on the effective date. Attorney Daggett and Chief Deputy City Clerk Knoll both answered, providing information regarding some differences in the general understandings of different parties working in the redistricting process. Previously, it has not been an issue primarily because of the timing of April elections that are now moving to November, increasing the window of current Council terms and lengthening the time before the new districts would’ve been effective the way the original ordinance was written. In addition, the nature of the precinct changes the County made that make up each district were much more significant than in prior years, compounding challenges with data access in a way that has not been seen before. Page 450 Item 10. 12/5/2022 – Minutes Page 2 There was consensus to bring a clarifying ordinance forward making the effective date of the new districts retroactively effective as of July 29, 2022, the date the original redistricting ordinance was effective. Mayor Arndt moved, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to recommend to the full Council to adopt an ordinance enacting an effective date for redistricting that aligns with the effective date of the original redistricting ordinance. The motion carried 3-0. Councilmember Ohlson offered additional comments to clarify this action is just to clean things up to ensure the redistricting is in effect as intended and is not making any changes. Page 451 Item 10. City Council Agenda – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 3 December 20, 2022 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council STAFF Ellen Martin, Visual Arts Administrator, Cultural Services Jennifer (JC) Ward, Senior Planner, Neighborhood Services Ted Hewitt, Legal SUBJECT Resolution 2022-140 Approving Expenditures from the Art in Public Places Reserve Account in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund to Commission an Artist to Create an Art Project for the Vine and Lemay Project Pursuant to the Art in Public Places Program and Approving the Art Project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve expenditures from the Art in Public Places (APP) Reserve Account to commission an artist to create art for the Vine & Lemay Project and to approve the art project. The expenditures of $160,000 will be for design, engineering, materials, signage, fabrication, delivery, installation, and contingency for Joshua Wiener of Flowcus to create the art for the overpass at Vine & Lemay. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Section 23-303 of the Code, which was added in 1995, established the Art in Public Places (APP) Reserve Account, and designated it for use in acquiring or leasing works of art, maintenance, repair or display of works of art, and administrative expenses related to the APP Program, in accordance with the APP Guidelines adopted by the Council in Ordinance No. 20, 1995. In 2012, City Council permanently adopted the APP Program, and reenacted City Code Chapter 23, Article IX, with certain modifications. This project was on the City Council consent calendar in January of 2022. With input from City Council, APP along with assistance from Neighborhood Services has completed the Tres Colonias neighborhood outreach and community engagement for this project. The team also introduced the upcoming Vine & Lemay Neighborhood Gateway project site at the corner of 9th Street and Lemay Ave. The details are listed in the Public Outreach section. With neighborhood input, the artist has modified the design to move one of the sculptures closer to the Via Lopez/San Cristo/Andersonville neighborhood. APP artist Joshua Wiener was selected through an RFQ process. Joshua Wiener worked with the Vine & Lemay Project team to develop art concepts that accentuate the new overpass and the views it creates of the surrounding landscape. The design includes ten three-dimensional free-standing sculptures placed along the overpass road. The sculptures range in height from 5’ to 8’, with the largest sculpture spanning a length of 33’. The artist will also create the four sculptural rings, one each to be placed on the columns at each end of the bridge. The design creates motifs of swirls and rings that extend from the bridge Page 452 Item 11. City Council Agenda – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 3 fencing to the columns and continue into the sculptures in the landscape and on the approaches to the overpass. The swirls and rings in the artworks are intended to give a sense of motion to the surrounding mountains and sky. Some of the sculptural rings will be placed so they appear under the horizon, seeming to roll through the distant landscape. Other rings will be elevated above the horizon, creating a bold presence against the vast Colorado sky. The rings will also serve as apertures to focus the visitor ’s attention on specific views. The sculptures are a combination of aluminum and steel. The swirls will be raw steel that will rust, so they will feel like a raised strip of earth. The rings will be sand blasted then painted with a durable product with high UV protection, making them easy to maintain. These artworks were reviewed and recommended by the Project Team and recommended for City Council approval by the APP Board at the Board’s December 15, 2021, regular meeting. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS The funds for this item have been appropriated in the APP Reserve Account in the Cultural Services Fund. The APP program also has available appropriated maintenance funds for the long-term care of the subject artwork and the rest of the APP art collection. The Vine & Lemay art budget is $160,000 to be used for design, engineering, materials, signage, fabrication, delivery, installation, and contingency for these artworks. BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The design concept and budget for the art project was reviewed and recommended for City Council approval by the APP Board at the December 15, 2021, regular board meeting. PUBLIC OUTREACH Art in Public Places Vine & Lemay Overpass & upcoming Vine & Lemay Gateway Projects Community Outreach events Art in Public Places collaborated with Neighborhood Services on Tres Colonias neighborhood outreach and community engagement. Overall, the community responded positively to the overpass art design and were excited for the upcoming Vine & Lemay Neighborhood Gateway project. The outreach events included:  Art in Public Places and Neighborhood Services placed invitations on all the doors of residents of the Tres Colonias neighborhoods to promote an open house outreach event. o Event was held at Sugar Beet Park on June 4. There was poor attendance at this event, but the activities designed to elicit neighborhood feedback were repurposed into pop-up activities.  Neighborhood Services spoke to neighbors in door to door canvasing of the Tres Colonias neighborhoods to discuss the art projects and had an almost 85% response rate from the nearby Via Lopez/San Cristo/Andersonville neighborhood.  Neighborhood Services hosted pop-up events to get input on the APP Projects at: o Legacy Church o New Belgium Brewing Company (×2) o Alta Vista Park o Museo de las Tres Colonias remudding event Page 453 Item 11. City Council Agenda – City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 3 o Neighborhood Services is planning a storytelling event in collaboration with Historic Preservation for the Vine & Lemay Neighborhood Gateway Project with the Via Lopez/San Cristo/Andersonville neighborhood. o Additional feedback from outreach conducted by FC Moves related to neighborhood Asphalt Art projects was incorporated into the engagement summary for APP projects.  Created website – www.fcgov.com/vine-and-lemay-art o Used to share and gather information for both APP art projects. o Information on both projects, images of the proposed overpass art, additional information, and survey. o Will be updated to share information on both projects.  An overview of the information from these outreach events. o We heard from neighborhood residents that they are more interested in the upcoming APP Vine & Lemay Neighborhood Gateway art project and are not as connected to the overpass site, as their lives are more focused within the neighborhoods and travel does not take them on the overpass very often. o The overpass has separated the Via Lopez/San Cristo/Andersonville neighborhood from commercial and residential development on the east side, which the neighborhood really liked, feeling like it made the neighborhood cozier and quieter (since the traffic and pedestrians are now funneled to the overpass, Suniga, or Lemay). o Neighbors were excited about the idea of some type of connection (like shared materials, similar themes, common design element) between the overpass and gateway projects. Neighbors expressed this through statements like “the art projects should complement each other”. o The Vine-Lemay overpass art received positive feedback from residents who described the design components as: unique, innovative, and interesting. Residents felt the design was distinct from existing APP projects in both concept and materials. APP continues to work with Neighborhood Services on the second project, the Vine & Lemay Neighborhood Gateway project. During this outreach community members were asked if they would be interested in serving on a committee. A lot of interest was received from the neighborhood on this project. APP will promote a call for artists for the Vine & Lemay Neighborhood Gateway project early in 2023. The selected artist will meet with the community Project Team to develop the concept for art. Depending on the materials and the time for fabrication, we would like to install the art in 2023. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution for Consideration 2. Written Description and Images of Proposed Artwork (PDF) 3. Art in Public Places Board Minutes, December 15, 2021 (PDF) Page 454 Item 11. -1- RESOLUTION 2022-140 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROVING EXPENDITURES FROM THE ART IN PUBLIC PLACES RESERVE ACCOUNT IN THE CULTURAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES FUND TO COMMISSION AN ARTIST TO CREATE AN ART PROJECT FOR THE VINE AND LEMAY PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE ART IN PUBLIC PLACES PROGRAM AND APPROVING THE ART PROJECT WHEREAS, the City has largely completed the Lemay Avenue bridge over Vine Drive (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 23-303 and 23-304 of the City Code, one percent of funds appropriated for the Project was set aside in the Art in Public Places Reserve Account in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for use in the acquisition and installation of works of art in accordance with the Art in Public Places Guidelines adopted by the City Council in Ordinance No. 047, 1998 (the “Guidelines”); and WHEREAS, Artist Joshua Wiener was selected from a Request for Qualifications process to develop art for the Lemay Avenue bridge (the “Art Project”); and WHEREAS, the Art Project includes three-dimensional sculptures made of aluminum and steel; and WHEREAS, the Art in Public Places Board (the “Board”) approved the design concept for the Art Project and recommended City Council approval at the Board’s December 15, 2021, regular meeting; and WHEREAS, City staff have completed neighborhood outreach and engagement relating to the Art Project and received favorable feedback; and WHEREAS, the funds for the Art Project have been appropriated in the Art in Public Places Reserve Account in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund; and WHEREAS, the estimated cost to complete the Art Project, including design, engineering, materials, signage, fabrication, delivery, installation, and contingency is $1 60,000; and WHEREAS, $160,000 of the funds for the Art Project is available in the Art in Public Places Reserve Account in the Cultural Services and Facilities fund; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 23-308 requires that the Board’s recommendation concerning the use of funds for the Art Project be presented for City Council review and approval as the cost of the Art Project exceeds $30,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Page 455 Item 11. -2- Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals above. Section 2. That the City Council hereby approves of the Art Project described herein for inclusion in the Vine & Lemay Project, the conceptual design for which was reviewed and approved by the Art in Public Places Board on December 15, 2021, and the use of previously appropriated funds in an amount not to exceed ONE HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($160,000) from the Art in Public Places Reserve Account in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for the Art Project. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 20th day of December, A.D. 2022. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Page 456 Item 11. Vine & Lemay Project Moving by Joshua Wiener Aerial view and location of site. A rendering of one of four ring sculptures that are placed in the landscape. These sculptures are 5’ and 8’ tall. The Lemay Avenue realignment and intersection improvements project constructed a new road and intersection slightly east of the previous Vine and Lemay intersection. This project included the new overpass over the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railway and Vine Drive. The project team worked with Art in Public Places artist Joshua Wiener to create artwork to accentuate the new overpass and views. The design includes ten free -standing sculptures that are located throughout the site. Page 457 Item 11. The design of swirls and rings extend from the bridge pedestrian fence panels and continue, in three-dimensional sculptures, into the landscape and on the approaches to the overpass. The artist will also create the four sculptural rings to be placed on each of the four columns at the ends of the bridge. The artwork is meant to be playful and move the eye through the site and surrounding landscape. The swirls and rings of the artworks are intended to add a sense of motion. Some of the sculptural rings will be placed so they appear under the horizon, seeming to roll through the distant landscape. Other rings will be elevated above the horizon, creating a bold presence against the vast Colorado sky. The rings will also serve as apertures to focus the visitors attention on specific views. The sculptures are a combination of aluminum and steel. The swirls will be raw steel that will rust, so they will feel like a raised strip of earth. The rings will be sand-blasted then painted with a durable product with high UV protection, making them easy to maintain. Renderings of sculptural ring sculptures on bridge end columns. There will be a total of 4 sculptures on the bridge columns, one on each columns at the ends of the bridge. Rendering of a three-dimensional sculpture near bridge. Page 458 Item 11. A rendering of one of the large freestanding sculptural elements placed in the landscape, near the bridge. It is labeled as “Composition 1b” on the map below. Map showing placement of the 10 freestanding sculptures. The second large freestanding sculpture has been relocated from the original plan to the start of the approach to the overpass, near the neighborhood. It is labeled as “Composition 1” on the map above. (Revised location) Page 459 Item 11. Art in Public Places REGULAR MEETING December 15, 2021, 3:30 pm Online 1 2 /15 /202 1 – MINUTES Page 1 1. CALL TO ORDER 3:33 pm 2. ROLL CALL • Board Members Present –Miriam Chase Sabrina Davies, Gwen Hatchette, Carol Ann Hixon, Kirsten Savage, Michael Short, and Sara Wade • Board Members Absent – None • Staff Members Present – Ellen Martin, Liz Good, and Tim Sellers • Cultural Resources Board Liaison – None present • Guests – Joshua Weiner 3. AGENDA REVIEW 4. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 5. APROVAL OF MINUTES – November 17, 2021 Ms. Hixon moved they be approved. Ms. Hatchette seconded. Unanimously approved. 6. BUSINESS, PRESENTATION, OR DISCUSSION: A) VINE DR. & LEMAY AVE. DESIGN REVIEW Tim Sellers, Civil Engineer with the Engineering Department, and artist Joshua Weiner were in attendance to share the project. If approved, Ms. Martin will take the Board’s recommendation to City Council. Tim Sellers gave overview of the project that has been a City goal since the 1980s. Joshua Weiner shared about the artwork. Taking advantage of the new views of the landscape afforded by the overpass, sculptural swirls and rings play with the horizon creating a playful sense of movement. The swirl and ring motifs will be 2D on the overpass bridge fence and continue on the approaches to the overpass as ten 3D sculptures in the landscape. Freestanding rings will appear to roll through the landscape or float in the sky depending on their placement within the horizon and are intended to focus visitors’ attention on different vistas. The artwork on the bridge fence is funded by the capital project. There were questions about the possibility of lighting the artwork. Ms. Martin shared in addition to the City’s Dark Sky limitations, there was feedback from the neighborhood to limit ambient light from the overpass. Mr. Wiener said that the locations of the sculptures were chosen near streetlights to take advantage of the light. Ms. Hixon moved to accept the project as described in the design. Mr. Short seconded Unanimously approved Page 460 Item 11. Art in Public Places REGULAR MEETING 1 2 /15 /20 2 1 – MINUTES Page 2 B) ANNUAL REPORT DISCUSSION Ms. Martin presented the draft of the Board. There was no additional feedback from the Board. Ms. Wade moved to approve the Annual Report. Ms. Chase seconded Unanimously approved C) YEAR IN REVIEW PRESENTATION Ms. Martin presented the projects completed in 2021. Ms. Savage shared she is impressed with how the art community has developed in the 20 years she has been in Fort Collins. 7. STAFF REPORT Ms. Martin shared highlights with the APP Board including recently posted calls. The report will be emailed to the Board. 8. OTHER BUSINESS A) BOARD MEMBER FAREWELL Staff and continuing Board Members said goodbye to Carol Ann Hixon, Kirsten Savage, Michael Short, and Sara Wade. There were compliments all around for the members who are leaving. They will be missed. Ms. Savage offered to help orient the next appointed board members if needed. 9. ADJOURNMENT 4:24 pm Respectfully submitted, Liz Good Page 461 Item 11. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 2 December 20, 2022 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council STAFF Kelley Vodden, Director Compensation, Benefits, Wellness Ryan Malarky, Legal SUBJECT Resolution 2022-141 Authorizing the Mayor to Execute City-Sponsored 457(b) and Police 401(a) Restated Adoption Agreements. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item concerns an administrative requirement to restate adoption agreements and related documents for City-sponsored 457(b) and Police 401(a) plans. Restatement of the City 457(b) and Police 401(a) adoption agreements is required in order to bring into alignment the internal procedural operation of each Plan with the governing documents controlling the plan. Restating the plans is an administrative action and will have no financial impact on the City or on benefits provided to participating employees. The City’s deadline to restate its plan documents is December 31, 2022. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION In addition to rearranging provisions to be more intuitive and minor updates to the provisions, there are four major updates detailed below: 1. City-sponsored 457(b) Plan: a. Addition of the 6-month waiting period for Police & Dispatchers to receive their Employer Match contribution. The 6-month waiting period has been in practice since before Nationwide assumed the role of Plan Administrator, but that waiting period was not including in the adoption agreement executed at the time of the transition. 2. Police 401(a) Plan: a. Include the Employer Contribution requirements as outlined in the current and prior Collective Bargaining Agreement. b. Remove Director of Police Information Systems role, as newly hired employee’s contract falls under the control of the Unclassified Management and Classified Employees’ 401(a) Plan agreement. Page 462 Item 12. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 2 c. Removal of Police Technical Project Manager role, which no longer exists as a role within Fort Collins Police Services. Note, all adoption agreements will be attached to the Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution for Consideration 2. Resolution Exhibit A - City 457 AAA 3. Resolution Exhibit B - First Amendment to the Fort Collins 457(b) Plan 4. Resolution Exhibit C - City Police 401(a) AAA Page 463 Item 12. RESOLUTION 2022-141 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE CITY-SPONSORED 401(a) AND 457(b) AMENDED AND RESTATED ADOPTION AGREEMENTS AND FIRST AMENDMENT TO 457(b) PLAN WHEREAS, with Resolution 2020-077, the City of Fort Collins (the “City”) previously established a qualified 401(a) money purchase plan and 457(b) deferred compensation plan for eligible City employees, including City service area and unit directors and employees appointed by the City Council, Police employees in the collective bargaining unit , and classified and unclassified management employees; and WHEREAS, effective June 1, 2020, the City entered into an administrative services agreement with Nationwide Retirement Solutions, Inc., along with its affiliates and subsidiaries (collectively “Nationwide”) to provide administrative, recordkeeping and custodial services for its City-sponsored retirement plans; and WHEREAS, with Resolution 2020-077 and Nationwide assistance, the City established, among other plans, the City of Fort Collins 401(a) Police Plan (“401(a) Police Plan”) and the City of Fort Collins 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plan (“457(b) Plan”); and WHEREAS, since original approval, the City Council has approved changes to the plans; and WHEREAS, when established during the transition to Nationwide, the 457(b) Plan omitted the six-month waiting period from date of hire for police and dispatch employees to receive the employer match, which had been in effect prior to the transition and has continued to be followed; and WHEREAS, City staff has recommended approval and authorization to execute an amended and restated adoption agreement for the 457(b) Plan prepared by Nationwide to include the six-month waiting period and a First Amendment to the 457(b) Plan to make clear that the waiting period provision is effective retroactively to September 18, 2020, when the City originally adopted the 457(b) Plan; and WHEREAS, in 2022, certain changes to the status of positions within Fort Collins Police Services warrant changes to the 401(a) Police Plan, including: (1) removal of the Director of Police Information Systems role, because the employee’s contract falls under the control of the Unclassified and Classified Management Employee’s Plan; and (2) removal of the Police Technical Project Manager role, because the position no longer exists within Fort Collins Police Services; and WHEREAS, these changes to the 401(a) Police Plan need to be made within this calendar year to be effective January 1, 2023; and WHEREAS, City staff has recommended approval and authorization to execute an Page 464 Item 12. amended and restated adoption agreement for the 401(a) Police Plan prepared by Nationwide; and WHEREAS, the Council desires to authorize the Mayor to execute the adoption agreements for the 401(a) Police Plan and the 457(b) Plan and the First Amendment for the 457(b) Plan in the forms shown on Exhibit “A”. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED 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 hereby authorizes the Mayor to execute on behalf of the city the adoption agreements and First Amendment, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, and incorporated herein by this reference. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 20th day of December, A.D. 2022. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Page 465 Item 12. Eligible 457 Plan © 2020 1 ADOPTION AGREEMENT FOR ELIGIBLE GOVERNMENTAL 457 PLAN The undersigned Employer, by executing this Adoption Agreement, establishes an Eligible 457 Plan ("Plan"). The Employer, subj ect to the Employer's Adoption Agreement elections, adopts fully the Plan provisions. This Adoption Agreement, the basic plan document and any attached Appendices, amendments, or agreements permitted or referenced therein, constitute the Employer's entire plan document. All "Election" references within this Adoption Agreement or the basic plan document are Adoption Agreement Elections. All "Article" or "Section" references are basic plan document references. Numbers in parentheses which follow election numbers are basic plan document references. Where an Adoption Agreement election calls for the Employer to supply text, the Employer may lengthen any space or line, or create additional tiers. When Employer-supplied text uses terms substantially similar to existing printed options, all clarifications and caveats applicable to the printed options apply to the Employer-supplied text unless the context requires otherwise. The Employer makes the following elections granted under the corresponding provisions of the basic plan document. 1. EMPLOYER (1.11). Name: City of Fort Collins Address: 300 LaPorte Avenue Street Fort Collins Colorado 80521 City State Zip Telephone: (970) 221-6535 Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN): 84-6000587 2. PLAN NAME. Name: City of Fort Collins 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plan 3. PLAN YEAR (1.25). Plan Year means the 12 consecutive month period (except for a short Plan Year) ending every (Choose one of a. or b. and choose c. if applicable): [Note: Complete any applicable blanks under Election c. with a specific date, e.g., "June 30" OR "the last day of February" OR "the first Tuesday in January." In the case of a Short Plan Year or a Short Limitation Year, include the year, e.g., "May 1, 2013."] a. [X] December 31. b. [ ] Plan Year: ending: . c. [ ] Short Plan Year: commencing: and ending: . 4. EFFECTIVE DATE (1.08). The Employer's adoption of the Plan is a (Choose one of a. or b. Complete c. if new plan OR complete c. and d. if an amendment and restatement. Choose e. if applicable): a. [ ] New Plan. b. [X] Restated Plan. The Plan is a substitution and amendment of an existing 457 plan. Initial Effective Date of Plan c. [X] January 1, 1995 (enter month day, year; hereinafter called the "Effective Date" unless 4d is entered below) Restatement Effective Date (If this is an amendment and restatement, enter effective date of the restatement.) d. [X] January 1, 2022 (enter month day, year) Special Effective Dates: (optional) e. [ ] Describe: . 5. CONTRIBUTION TYPES. (If this is a frozen Plan (i.e., all contributions have ceased), choose a. only): Frozen Plan a. [ ] Contributions cease. All Contributions have ceased or will cease (Plan is frozen). 1. Effective date of freeze: [Note: Effective date is optional unless this is the amendment or restatement to freeze the Plan.] Page 466 Item 12. Eligible 457 Plan © 2020 2 Contributions. The Employer and/or Participants, in accordance with the Plan terms, make the following Contribution Types to th e Plan (Choose one or more of b. through d. if applicable): b. [X] Pre-Tax Elective Deferrals. The dollar or percentage amount by which each Participant has elected to reduce his/her Compensation, as provided in the Participant's Salary Reduction Agreement (Choose one or more as applicable.): And will Matching Contributions be made with respect to Elective Deferrals? 1. [X] Yes. See Question 16. 2. [ ] No. And will Roth Elective Deferrals be made? 3. [X] Yes. [Note: The Employer may not limit Deferrals to Roth Deferrals only.] 4. [ ] No. c. [ ] Nonelective Contributions. See Question 17. d. [X] Rollover Contributions. See Question 30. 6. EXCLUDED EMPLOYEES (1.10). The following Employees are Excluded Employees and are not eligible to participate in the Plan (Choose one of a. or b.): a. [ ] No exclusions. All Employees are eligible to participate. b. [X] Exclusions. The following Employees are Excluded Employees (Choose one or more of 1. through 4.): 1. [ ] Part-time Employees. The Plan defines part-time Employees as Employees who normally work less than hours per week. 2. [ ] Hourly-paid Employees. 3. [ ] Leased Employees. The Plan excludes Leased Employees. 4. [X] Specify: See Exhibit 2 . 7. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR (1.16). The Plan (Choose one of a., b. or c.): a. [ ] Participate. Permits Independent Contractors to participate in the Plan. b. [X] Not Participate. Does not permit Independent Contractors to participate in the Plan. c. [ ] Specified Independent Contractors. Permits the following specified Independent Contractors to participate: . [Note: If the Employer elects to permit any or all Independent Contractors to participate in the Plan, the term Employee as us ed in the Plan includes such participating Independent Contractors.] 8. COMPENSATION (1.05). Subject to the following elections, Compensation for purposes of allocation of Deferral Contributions means: Base Definition (Choose one of a., b., c. or d.): a. [ ] Wages, tips and other compensation on Form W-2. b. [ ] Code §3401(a) wages (wages for withholding purposes). c. [ ] 415 safe harbor compensation. d. [X] Alternative (general) 415 Compensation. [Note: The Plan provides that the base definition of Compensation includes amounts that are not included in income due to Code §§401(k), 125,132(f)(4), 403(b), SEP, 414(h)(2), & 457. Compensation for an Independent Contractor means the amounts the Employer pays to the Independent Contractor for services, except as the Employer otherwise specifies below.] Modifications to Compensation definition. The Employer elects to modify the Compensation definition as follows (Choose one of e. or f.): e. [X] No modifications. The Plan makes no modifications to the definition. f. [ ] Modifications (Choose one or more of 1. through 5.): 1. [ ] Fringe benefits. The Plan excludes all reimbursements or other expense allowances, fringe benefits (cash and noncash), moving expenses, deferred compensation and welfare benefits. 2. [ ] Elective Contributions. [1.05(E)] The Plan excludes a Participant's Elective Contributions. Page 467 Item 12. Eligible 457 Plan © 2020 3 3. [ ] Bonuses. The Plan excludes bonuses. 4. [ ] Overtime. The Plan excludes overtime. 5. [ ] Specify: . Compensation taken into account. For the Plan Year in which an Employee first becomes a Participant, the Plan Administrator will determine the allocation of matching and nonelective contributions by taking into account (Choose one of g. or h.): g. [X] Plan Year. The Employee's Compensation for the entire Plan Year. (N/A if no matching or nonelective contributions) h. [ ] Compensation while a Participant. The Employee's Compensation only for the portion of the Plan Year in which the Employee actually is a Participant. (N/A if no matching or nonelective contributions) 9. POST-SEVERANCE COMPENSATION (1.05(F)). Compensation includes the following types of Post-Severance Compensation paid within any applicable time period as may be required (Choose one of a. or b.): a. [ ] None. The Plan does not take into account Post-Severance Compensation as to any Contribution Type except as required under the basic plan document. b. [X] Adjustments. The following Compensation adjustments apply (Choose one or more): 1. [X] Regular Pay. Post-Severance Compensation will include Regular Pay and it will apply to all Contribution Types. 2. [X] Leave-Cashouts. Post-Severance Compensation will include Leave Cashouts and it will apply to all Contribution Types. 3. [ ] Nonqualified Deferred Compensation. Post-Severance Compensation will include Deferred Compensation and it will apply to all Contribution Types. 4. [X] Salary Continuation for Disabled Participants. Post-Severance Compensation will include Salary Continuation for Disabled Participants and it will apply to all Contribution Types. 5. [ ] Differential Wage Payments. Post-Severance Compensation will include Differential Wage Payments (military continuation payments) and it will apply to all Contribution Types. 6. [ ] Describe alternative Post-Severance Compensation definition, limit by Contribution Type, or limit by Participant group: . 10. NORMAL RETIREMENT AGE (1.20). A Participant attains Normal Retirement Age under the Plan (Choose one of a. or b.): a. [ ] Plan designation. [Plan Section 3.05(B)] When the Participant attains age . [Note: The age may not exceed age 70 1/2. The age may not be less than age 65, or, if earlier, the age at which a Participant may retire and receive benefits under the Employer's pension plan, if any.] b. [X] Participant designation. [Plan Section 3.05(B) and (B)(1)] When the Participant attains the age the Participant designates, which may not be earlier than age 65 and may not be later than age 70 1/2 . [Note: The age may not exceed age 70 1/2.] Special Provisions for Police or Fire Department Employees (Choose c. and/or d. as applicable): c. [X] Police department employees. [Plan Section 3.05(B)(3)] (Choose 1. or 2.): 1. [ ] Plan designation. [Plan Section 3.05(B)] When the Participant attains age . [Note: The age may not exceed age 70 1/2 and may not be less than age 40.] 2. [X] Participant designation. [Plan Section 3.05(B) and (B)(1)] When the Participant attains the age the Participant designates, which may not be earlier than age 40 (no earlier than age 40) and may not be later than age 70 1/2 . [Note: The age may not exceed age 70 1/2.] d. [X] Fire department employees. [Plan Section 3.05(B)(3)] (Choose 1. or 2.): 1. [ ] Plan designation. [Plan Section 3.05(B)] When the Participant attains age . [Note: The age may not exceed age 70 1/2 and may not be less than age 40.] 2. [X] Participant designation. [Plan Section 3.05(B) and (B)(1)] When the Participant attains the age the Participant designates, which may not be earlier than age 40 (no earlier than age 40) and may not be later than age 70 1/2 . [Note: The age may not exceed age 70 1/2.] 11. ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS (2.01). (Choose one of a. or b.): a. [X] No eligibility conditions. The Employee is eligible to participate in the Plan as of his/her first day of employment with the employer. b. [ ] Eligibility conditions. To become a Participant in the Plan, an Eligible Employee must satisfy the following eligibility conditions (Choose one or more of 1., 2. or 3.): 1. [ ] Age. Attainment of age . Page 468 Item 12. Eligible 457 Plan © 2020 4 2. [ ] Service. Service requirement (Choose one of a. or b.): a. [ ] Year of Service. One year of Continuous Service. b. [ ] Months of Service. month(s) of Continuous Service. 3. [ ] Specify: . 12. PLAN ENTRY DATE (1.24). "Plan Entry Date" means the Effective Date and (Choose one of a. through d.): a. [ ] Monthly. The first day of the month coinciding with or next following the Employee's satisfac tion of the Plan's eligibility conditions, if any. b. [ ] Annual. The first day of the Plan Year coinciding with or next following the Employee's satisfaction of the Plan's eligibility conditions, if any. c. [X] Date of hire. The Employee's employment commencement date with the Employer. d. [ ] Specify: . 13. SALARY REDUCTION CONTRIBUTIONS (1.30). A Participant's Salary Reduction Contributions under Election 5b. are subject to the following limitation(s) in addition to those imposed by the Code (Choose one of a. or b.): a. [X] No limitations. b. [ ] Limitations. (Choose one or more of 1., 2. or 3.): 1. [ ] Maximum deferral amount. A Participant's Salary Reductions may not exceed: (specify dollar amount or percentage of Compensation). 2. [ ] Minimum deferral amount. A Participant's Salary Reductions may not be less than: (specify dollar amount or percentage of Compensation). 3. [ ] Specify: . [Note: Any limitation the Employer elects in b.1. through b.3. will apply on a payroll basis unless the Employer otherwise specifies in b.3.] Special NRA Catch-Up Contributions (3.05). The Plan (Choose one of c. or d.): c. [X] Permits. Participants may make NRA catch-up contributions. AND, Special NRA Catch-Up Contributions (Choose one of 1. or 2.): (N/A if no matching contributions) 1. [X] will be taken into account in applying any matching contribution under the Plan. 2. [ ] will not be taken into account in applying any matching contribution under the Plan. d. [ ] Does not permit. Participants may not make NRA catch-up contributions. Age 50 Catch-Up Contributions (3.06). The Plan (Choose one of e. or f.): e. [X] Permits. Participants may make age 50 catch-up contributions. AND, Age 50 Catch-Up Contributions (Choose one of 1. or 2.): (N/A if no matching contributions) 1. [X] will be taken into account in applying any matching contribution under the Plan. 2. [ ] will not be taken into account in applying any matching contribution under the Plan. f. [ ] Does not permit. Participants may not make age 50 catch-up contributions. 14. SICK, VACATION AND BACK PAY (3.02(A)). The Plan (Choose one of a. or b.): a. [X] Permits. Participants may make Salary Reduction Contributions from accumulated sick pay, from accumulated vacation pay or from back pay. b. [ ] Does Not Permit. Participants may not make Salary Reduction Contributions from accumulated sick pay, from accumulated vacation pay or from back pay. 15. AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT (3.02(B)). Does the Plan provide for automatic enrollment (Choose one of the following) [Note: if Eligible Automatic Contribution Arrangement (EACA), select 15c and complete Questions 31 & 32]: a. [X] Does not apply. Does not apply the Plan's automatic enrollment provisions. Page 469 Item 12. Eligible 457 Plan © 2020 5 b. [ ] Applies. Applies the Plan's automatic enrollment provisions. The Employer as a Pre-Tax Elective Deferral will withhold % from each Participant's Compensation unless the Participant elects a different percentage (including zero) under his/her Salary Reduction Agreement. The automatic election will apply to (Choose one of 1. through 3.): 1. [ ] All Participants. All Participants who as of are not making Pre-Tax Elective Deferrals at least equal to the automatic amount. 2. [ ] New Participants. Each Employee whose Plan Entry Date is on or following: . 3. [ ] Describe Application of Automatic Deferrals: . c. [ ] EACA. The Plan will provide an Eligible Automatic Contribution Arrangement (EACA). Complete Questions 31 & 32. 16. MATCHING CONTRIBUTIONS (3.03). The Employer Matching Contributions under Election 5.b.1. are made as follows (Choose one or more of a. through d.): a. [X] Fixed formula. An amount equal to 100% of each Participant's Salary Reduction Contributions. b. [ ] Discretionary formula. An amount (or additional amount) equal to a matching percentage the Employer from time to time may deem advisable of each Participant's Salary Reduction Contributions. c. [ ] Tiered formula. The Employer will make matching contributions equal to a uniform percentage of each tier of each Participant's Salary Reduction Contributions, determined as follows: NOTE: Fill in only percentages or dollar amounts, but not both. If percentages are used, each tier represents the amount of the Participant's applicable contributions that equals the specified percentage of the Participant's Compensation (add additional tiers if necessary): Tiers of Contributions Matching Percentage (indicate $ or %) First % Next % Next % Next % d. [ ] Specify: . Time Period for Matching Contributions. The Employer will determine its Matching Contribution based on Salary Reduction Contributions made during each (Choose one of e. through h.): e. [ ] Plan Year. f. [ ] Plan Year quarter. g. [X] Payroll period. h. [ ] Specify: . Salary Reduction Contributions Taken into Account. In determining a Participant's Salary Reduction Contributions taken into account for the above-specified time period under the Matching Contribution formula, the following limitations apply (Choose one of i. through l.): i. [ ] All Salary Reduction Contributions. The Plan Administrator will take into account all Salary Reduction Contributions. j. [ ] Specific limitation. The Plan Administrator will disregard Salary Reduction Contributions exceeding % of the Participant's Compensation. k. [ ] Discretionary. The Plan Administrator will take into account the Salary Reduction Contributions as a percentage of the Participant's Compensation as the Employer determines. l. [X] Specify: See Exhibit 2 . Allocation Conditions. To receive an allocation of Matching Contributions, a Participant must satisfy the following allocation condition(s) (Choose one of m. or n.): m. [ ] No allocation conditions. n. [X] Conditions. The following allocation conditions apply to Matching Contributions (Choose one or more of 1. through 4.): 1. [ ] Service condition. The Participant must complete the following number of months of Continuous Service during the Plan Year: . Page 470 Item 12. Eligible 457 Plan © 2020 6 2. [ ] Employment condition. The Participant must be employed by the Employer on the last day of the Plan Year. 3. [ ] Limited Severance Exception. Any condition specified in 1. or 2. does not apply if the Participant incurs a Severance from Employment during the Plan Year on account of death, disability or attainment of Normal Retirement Age in the current Plan Year or in a prior Plan Year. 4. [X] Specify: Police and Dispatchers will become eligible to receive the Employer Match in 16.a beginning with the pay period commencing after the 6 month anniversary of their date of hire. . 17. NONELECTIVE CONTRIBUTIONS (1.19). The Nonelective Contributions under Election 5.c. are made as follows: (Choose one): a. [ ] Discretionary - Pro-Rata. An amount the Employer in its sole discretion may determine. b. [ ] Fixed - Pro Rata. % of Compensation. c. [ ] Other. A Nonelective Contribution may be made as follows: . Allocation Conditions. (3.08). To receive an allocation of Nonelective Contributions, a Participant must satisfy the following allocation condition(s) (Choose one of d. or e.): d. [ ] No allocation conditions. e. [ ] Conditions. The following allocation conditions apply to Nonelective Contributions (Choose one or more of 1. through 4.): 1. [ ] Service condition. The Participant must complete the following number of months of Continuous Service during the Plan Year: . 2. [ ] Employment condition. The Participant must be employed by the Employer on the last day of the Plan Year. 3. [ ] Limited Severance Exception. Any condition specified in 1. or 2. does not apply if the Participant incurs a Severance from Employment during the Plan Year on account of death, disability or attainment of Normal Retirement Age in the current Plan Year or in a prior Plan Year. 4. [ ] Specify: . 18. TIME AND METHOD OF PAYMENT OF ACCOUNT (4.02). The Plan will distribute to a Participant who incurs a Severance from Employment his/her Vested Account as follows: Timing. The Plan, in the absence of a permissible Participant election to commence payment later, will pay the Participant's Account (Choose one of a. through e.): a. [ ] Specified Date. days after the Participant's Severance from Employment. b. [X] Immediate. As soon as administratively practicable following the Participant's Severance from Employment. c. [ ] Designated Plan Year. As soon as administratively practicable in the Plan Year beginning after the Participant's Severance from Employment. d. [ ] Normal Retirement Age. As soon as administratively practicable after the close of the Plan Year in which the Participant attains Normal Retirement Age. e. [ ] Specify: . Method. The Plan, in the absence of a permissible Participant election, will distribute the Participant's Account under one of the following method(s) of distribution (Choose one or more of f. through j. as applicable): f. [X] Lump sum. A single payment. g. [X] Installments. Multiple payments made as follows: may not be less than $100 . h. [ ] Installments for required minimum distributions only. Annual payments, as necessary under Plan Section 4.03. i. [X] Annuity distribution option(s): Annuity Purchase . j. [ ] Specify: . Participant Election. [Plan Sections 4.02(A) and (B)] The Plan (Choose one of k., l. or m.): k. [X] Permits. Permits a Participant, with Plan Administrator approval of the election, to elect to postpone distribution beyond the time the Employer has elected in a. through e. and also to elect the method of distribution (including a method not describ ed in f. through j. above). l. [ ] Does not permit. Does not permit a Participant to elect the timing and method of Account distribution. m. [ ] Specify: . Page 471 Item 12. Eligible 457 Plan © 2020 7 Mandatory Distributions. Notwithstanding any other distribution election, following Severance from Employment (Choose n. or o.): n. [X] No Mandatory Distributions. The Plan will not make a Mandatory Distribution. o. [ ] Mandatory Distribution. If the Participant's Vested Account is not in excess of $5,000 (unless a different amount selected below) as of the date of distribution, the Plan will make a Mandatory Distribution following Severance from Employment. 1. [ ] Mandatory Distribution. If the Participant's Vested Account is not in excess of $ as of the date of distribution, the Plan will make a Mandatory Distribution following Severance from Employment. Rollovers in determination of $5,000 threshold. Unless otherwise elected below, amounts attributable to rollover contributions (if any) will be included in determining the $5,000 threshold for timing of distributions, form of distributions or consent rules. p. [ ] Exclude rollovers (rollover contributions will be excluded in determining the $5,000 threshold) NOTE: Regardless of the above election, if the Participant consent threshold is $1,000 or less, then the Administrator must include amounts attributable to rollovers for such purpose. In such case, an election to exclude rollovers above will apply for purpo ses of the timing and form of distributions. 19. BENEFICIARY DISTRIBUTION ELECTIONS. Distributions following a Participant's death will be made as follows (Choose one of a. through d.): a. [ ] Immediate. As soon as practical following the Participant's death. b. [ ] Next Calendar Year. At such time as the Beneficiary may elect, but in any event on or before the last day of the calendar year which next follows the calendar year of the Participant's death. (N/A if participant is restricted) c. [X] As Beneficiary elects. At such time as the Beneficiary may elect, consistent with Section 4.03. (N/A if participant is restricted) d. [ ] Describe: . [Note: The Employer under Election 19d. may describe an alternative distribution timing or afford the Beneficiary an election which is narrower than that permitted under Election 19c., or include special provisions related to certain beneficiaries, (e.g., a surviving spouse). However, any election under Election 19d. must require distribution to commence no later than the Section 4.03 required date.] 20. DISTRIBUTIONS PRIOR TO SEVERANCE FROM EMPLOYMENT (4.05). A Participant prior to Severance from Employment may elect to receive a distribution of his/her Vested Account under the following distribution options (Choose one of a. or b.): a. [ ] None. A Participant may not receive a distribution prior to Severance from Employment. b. [X] Distributions. Prior to Severance from Employment are permitted as follows (Choose one or more of 1. through 4.): 1. [X] Unforeseeable emergency. A Participant may elect a distribution from his/her Account in accordance with Plan Section 4.05(A) (for the Participant, spouse, dependents or beneficiaries) 2. [X] De minimis exception. [Plan Section 4.05(B)] If the Participant: (i) has an Account that does not exceed $5,000; (ii) has not made or received an allocation of any Deferral Contributions under the Plan during the two -year period ending on the date of distribution; and (iii) has not received a prior Plan distribution under this de minimis exception, then (Choose one of a., b. or c.): a. [ ] Participant election. The Participant may elect to receive all or any portion of his/her Account. b. [ ] Mandatory distribution. The Plan Administrator will distribute the Participant's entire Account. c. [X] Hybrid. The Plan Administrator will distribute a Participant's Account that does not exceed $ 1,000 and the Participant may elect to receive all or any portion of his/her Account that exceeds $ 1,000 but that does not exceed $5,000. 3. [X] Age 70 1/2. A Participant who attains age 70 1/2 prior to Severance from Employment may elect distribution of any or all of his/her Account. 4. [ ] Specify: . [Note: An Employer need not permit any in-service distributions. Any election must comply with the distribution restrictions of Code Section 457(d).] 21. QDRO (4.06). The QDRO provisions (Choose one of a., b. or c.): a. [X] Apply. b. [ ] Do not apply. c. [ ] Specify: . Page 472 Item 12. Eligible 457 Plan © 2020 8 22. ALLOCATION OF EARNINGS (5.07(B)). The Plan allocates Earnings using the following method (Choose one or more of a. through f.): a. [X] Daily. See Section 5.07(B)(4)(a). b. [ ] Balance forward. See Section 5.07(B)(4)(b). c. [ ] Balance forward with adjustment. See Section 5.07(B)(4)(c). Allocate pursuant to the balance forward method, except treat as part of the relevant Account at the beginning of the Valuation Period % of the contributions made during the following Valuation Period: . d. [ ] Weighted average. See Section 5.07(B)(4)(d). If not a monthly weighting period, the weighting period is . e. [ ] Directed Account method. See Section 5.07(B)(4)(e). f. [ ] Describe Earnings allocation method: . [Note: The Employer under Election 22f. may describe Earnings allocation methods from the elections available under Election 22 and/or a combination thereof as to any: (i) Participant group (e.g., Daily applies to Division A Employees OR to Employees hired aft er "x" date. Balance forward applies to Division B Employees OR to Employees hired on/before "x" date.); (ii) Contribution Type (e.g., Daily applies as to Discretionary Nonelective Contribution Accounts. Participant-Directed Account applies to Fixed Nonelective Contribution Accounts); (iii) investment type, investment vendor or Account type (e.g., Balance forward applies to investments placed with vendor A and Participant-Directed Account applies to investments placed with vendor B OR Daily applies to Participant-Directed Accounts and balance forward applies to pooled Accounts).] 23. HEART ACT PROVISIONS (1.31(C)(3)/3.13). The Employer elects to (Choose one of a. or b. and c. or d.): Continued Benefit Accruals. a. [ ] Not apply the benefit accrual provisions of Section 3.13. b. [X] Apply the benefit accrual provisions of Section 3.13. Distributions for deemed severance of employment (1.31(C)(3)) c. [X] The Plan does NOT permit distributions for deemed severance of employment. d. [ ] The Plan permits distributions for deemed severance of employment. 24. VESTING/SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF FORFEITURE (5.11). A Participant's Deferral Contributions are [Note: If a Participant incurs a Severance from Employment before the specified events or conditions, the Plan will forfeit the Participant's non -vested Account. Caution: if a Deferral is subject to vesting schedule or other substantial risk of forfeiture, it does not count as a deferral for purposes o f the annual deferral limit until the year it is fully vested.] (Choose all that apply of a. through d.): a. [X] 100% Vested/No Risk of Forfeiture. Immediately Vested without regard to additional Service and no Substantial Risk of Forfeiture. The following contributions are 100% Vested: 1. [X] All Contributions. (skip to 25.) 2. [ ] Only the following contributions. (select all that apply): a. [ ] Salary Reduction Contributions. b. [ ] Nonelective Contributions. c. [ ] Matching Contributions. b. [ ] Forfeiture under Vesting Schedule. Vested according to the following: Contributions affected. The following contributions are subject to the vesting schedule (Choose one or more of 1., 2. or 3.): 1. [ ] Salary Reduction Contributions. 2. [ ] Nonelective Contributions. 3. [ ] Matching Contributions. 4. [ ] Vesting Schedule. Years of Service Vested Percentage % % % % % Page 473 Item 12. Eligible 457 Plan © 2020 9 For vesting purposes, a "Year of Service" means: 5. . [Note: It is extremely rare to apply a vesting schedule to Salary Reduction Contributions.] c. [ ] Substantial Risk of Forfeiture. Vested only when no longer subject to the following Substantial Risk of Forfeiture as follows: Contributions affected. The following contributions are subject to the substantial risk of forfeiture under c. (Choose one or more of 1., 2. or 3.): 1. [ ] Salary Reduction Contributions. 2. [ ] Nonelective Contributions. 3. [ ] Matching Contributions. Risk Provisions: Vested only when no longer subject to the following Substantial Risk of Forfeiture as follows (Choose one of 4. or 5.): 4. [ ] The Participant must remain employed by the Employer until , unless earlier Severance from Employment occurs on account of death or disability, as the Plan Administrator shall establish. 5. [ ] Specify: . Additional Provisions (Choose d. if applicable) d. [ ] Specify: . FORFEITURE ALLOCATION. [Plan Sections 5.11(A) and 5.14] The Plan Administrator will allocate any Plan forfeitures as selected below. The Employer has the option to use forfeitures to pay plan expenses first and then allocate the remaining forfeitures in accordance with the selections below: (Choose one of the following): e. [ ] Additional Contributions. As the following contribution type (Choose one of 1. or 2.): 1. [ ] Nonelective. As an additional Nonelective Contribution. 2. [ ] Matching. As an additional Matching Contribution. f. [ ] Reduce Fixed Contributions. To reduce the following fixed contribution (Choose one of 1. or 2.): 1. [ ] Nonelective. To reduce the Employer's fixed Nonelective Contribution. 2. [ ] Matching. To reduce the Employer's fixed Matching Contribution. g. [ ] Specify: . 25. TRUST PROVISIONS. The following provisions apply to Article VIII of the Plan (Choose as applicable; leave blank if not applicable): a. [ ] Modifications. The Employer modifies the Article VIII Trust provisions as follows: . The remaining Article VIII provisions apply. b. [X] Substitution. The Employer replaces the Trust with the Trust Agreement attached to the Plan. 26. CUSTODIAL ACCOUNT/ANNUITY CONTRACT (8.16). The Employer will hold all or part of the Deferred Compensation in one or more custodial accounts or annuity contracts which satisfy the requirements of Code §457(g) (Choose a. or b., c. if applicable): a. [ ] Custodial account(s). b. [ ] Annuity contract(s). c. [ ] Specify: . [Note: The Employer under c. may wish to identify the custodial accounts or annuity contracts or to designate a portion of the Deferred Compensation to be held in such vehicles versus held in the Trust.] 27. VALUATION. In addition to the last day of the Plan Year, the Trustee (or Plan Administrator as applicable) must value the Trust Fund (or Accounts) on the following Valuation Date(s) (Choose one of a. or b.): a. [ ] No additional Valuation Dates. b. [X] Additional Valuation Dates. (Choose one or more of 1., 2. or 3.): 1. [X] Daily Valuation Dates. Each business day of the Plan Year on which Plan assets for which there is an established market are valued and the Trustee or Employer is conducting business. 2. [ ] Last day of a specified period. The last day of each of the Plan Year. Page 474 Item 12. Eligible 457 Plan © 2020 10 3. [ ] Specified Valuation Dates: . [Note: The Employer under Election 26b.3. may describe Valuation Dates from the elections available under Election 26b. and/or a combination thereof as to any: (i) Participant group (e.g., No additional Valuation Dates apply to Division A Employees OR to Employees hired after "x" date. Daily Valuation Dates apply to Division B Employees OR to Employees hired on/before "x" date.); (ii) Contribution Type (e.g., No additional Valuation Dates apply as to Discretionary Nonelective Contribution Accounts. The last day of each P lan Year quarter applies to Fixed Nonelective Contribution Accounts); (iii) investment type, investment vendor or Account type (e.g., No additional Valuation Dates apply to investments placed with vendor A and Daily Valuation Dates apply to investments placed with vendor B OR Daily Valuation Dates apply to Participant-Directed Accounts and no additional Valuation Dates apply to pooled Accounts).] 28. TRUSTEE (Select all that apply; leave blank if not applicable.): a. [ ] Individual Trustee(s) who serve as Trustee(s) over assets not subject to control by a corporate Trustee. (Add additional Trustees as necessary.) Name(s) Title(s) Address and Telephone number (Choose one of 1. or 2.): 1. [ ] Use Employer address and telephone number. 2. [ ] Use address and telephone number below: Address: Street City State Zip Telephone: b. [X] Corporate Trustee Name: Nationwide Trust Company Address: 10 West Nationwide Blvd. Street Columbus Ohio 43215 City State Zip Telephone: (614) 435-5633 AND, the Corporate Trustee shall serve as: c. [X] a Directed (nondiscretionary) Trustee over all Plan assets except for the following: d. [ ] a Discretionary Trustee over all Plan assets except for the following: 29. PLAN LOANS (5.02(A)). The Plan permits or does not permit Participant Loans (Choose one of a. or b.): a. [X] Does not permit. b. [ ] Permitted pursuant to the Loan Policy. 30. ROLLOVER CONTRIBUTIONS (3.09). The Rollover Contributions under Election 5.d. are made as follows: Who may roll over (Choose one of a. or b.): a. [X] Participants only. b. [ ] Eligible Employees or Participants. Page 475 Item 12. Eligible 457 Plan © 2020 11 Sources/Types. The Plan will accept a Rollover Contribution (Choose one of c. or d.): c. [X] All. From any Eligible Retirement Plan and as to all Contribution Types eligible to be rolled into this Plan. d. [ ] Limited. Only from the following types of Eligible Retirement Plans and/or as to the following Contribution Types: . Distribution of Rollover Contributions (Choose one of e., f. or g.): e. [X] Distribution without restrictions. May elect distribution of his/her Rollover Contributions Account in accordance with Plan Section 4.05(C) at any time. f. [ ] No distribution. May not elect to receive distribution of his/her Rollover Contributions Account until the Plan has a distributable event under Plan Section 4.01. g. [ ] Specify: 31. EACA Automatic Deferral Provisions (3.14). Participants subject to the Automatic Deferral Provisions. The Automatic Deferral Provisions apply to Employees who become Participants after the Effective Date of the EACA (except as provided in d. below). Employees who became Participants prior t o such Effective Date are subject to the following (a. – d. are optional): a. [ ] All Participants. All Participants, regardless of any prior Salary Reduction Agreement, unless and until a Participant makes an Affirmative Election after the Effective Date of the EACA. b. [ ] Election of at least Automatic Deferral amount. All Participants, except those who, on the Effective Date of the EACA, are deferring an amount which is at least equal to the Automatic Deferral Percentage. c. [ ] No existing Salary Reduction Agreement. All Participants, except those who have in effect a Salary Reduction Agreement on the effective date of the EACA regardless of the Salary Reduction Contribution amount under the Agreement. d. [ ] Describe: . Automatic Deferral Percentage. Unless a Participant makes an Affirmative Election, the Employer will withhold the following Automatic Deferral Percentage (select e. or f.): e. [ ] Constant. The Employer will withhold % of Compensation each payroll period. Escalation of deferral percentage (select one or leave blank if not applicable) 1. [ ] Scheduled increases. This initial percentage will increase by % of Compensation per year up to a maximum of of Compensation. 2. [ ] Other (described Automatic Deferral Percentage): Automatic Deferral Optional Elections f. [ ] Optional elections (select all that apply or leave blank if not applicable) Suspended Salary Reduction Contributions. If a Participant's Salary Reduction Contributions are suspended pursuant to a provision of the Plan (e.g., distribution due to military leave covered by the HEART Act), then a Participant's Affirmative Election will expire on the date the period of suspension begins unless otherwise elected below. 1. [ ] A Participant's Affirmative Election will resume after the suspension period. Special Effective Date. Provisions will be effective as of the earlier of the Effective Date of the EACA provisions unless otherwise specified below. 2. [ ] Special Effective Date: 32. In-Plan Roth Rollover Contributions. a. [X] Yes, allowed. Effective Date (enter date) 1. [X] In-Plan Roth Rollover Effective Date: January 1, 2013 33. In-Plan Roth Rollover Transfers. a. [X] Yes, allowed. Effective Date (enter date) 1. [X] In-Plan Roth Rollover Transfers Effective Date: January 1, 2013 Page 476 Item 12. Eligible 457 Plan © 2020 12 This Plan is executed on the date(s) specified below: Use of Adoption Agreement. Failure to complete properly the elections in this Adoption Agreement may result in disqualification of the Employer's Plan. The Employer only may use this Adoption Agreement only in conjunction with the corresponding basic plan document. Separate Trust Agreement. An executed copy of the trust agreement must be attached to this Plan. The responsibilities, rights and powers of the Trustee shall be those specified in the trust agreement. The signature of the Trustee appears on the separate trust agreement. EMPLOYER: City of Fort Collins By: DATE SIGNED Page 477 Item 12. EXHIBIT B FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS 457(B) DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins (“Plan Sponsor”) selected Nationwide Retirement Solutions (“NRS”) to be the recordkeeper of the City of Fort Collins 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plan (“Plan”); WHEREAS, the Plan Sponsor originally adopted NRS’s Eligible Governmental 457 Plan document effective September 18, 2020; WHEREAS, the Plan Sponsor restated the Plan effective October 1, 2021; WHEREAS, the Plan Sponsor and NRS has determined that Section 16.n. of the Adoption Agreement does not properly reflect the eligibility requirement Police and Dispatchers to receive Employer Match; WHEREAS, Section 16.n.4. needs to be clarified to reflect that Police and Dispatchers have always been required to wait 6 months from their hire date before they can receive Employer Match; NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan Sponsor is executing this amendment to clarify that Police and Dispatchers must complete an initial 6 month waiting period to receive Employer Match. Section 16.n.4. is amended effective September 18, 2020, to clarify to read as follows: 4. [x] Specify: Police and Dispatchers will become eligible to receive the Employer Match in 16.a. beginning with the pay period commencing after the 6 month anniversary of their date of hire. IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS, the Plan is hereby confirmed. The foregoing First Amendment to the City of Fort Collins 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plan is executed on this ____ day of ______________, 202_. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS By: ____________________ [Name] Page 478 Item 12. Non-Standardized Governmental 401(a) © 2020 Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. or its suppliers 1 ADOPTION AGREEMENT FOR NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. NON-STANDARDIZED GOVERNMENTAL 401(a) PRE-APPROVED PLAN CAUTION: Failure to properly fill out this Adoption Agreement may result in disqualification of the Plan. EMPLOYER INFORMATION (An amendment to the Adoption Agreement is not needed solely to reflect a change in this Employer Information Section.) 1. EMPLOYER'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NUMBER, TIN AND FISCAL YEAR Name: City of Fort Collins Address: 300 LaPorte Avenue Street Fort Collins Colorado 80521 City State Zip Telephone: (970) 221-6535 Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN): 84-6000587 Employer's Fiscal Year ends: December 31 2. TYPE OF GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY. This Plan may only be adopted a state or local governmental entity, or agency thereof, including an Indian tribal government and may not be adopted by any other entity, including a federal government and any agency or instrumentality thereof. a. [ ] State government or state agency b. [ ] County or county agency c. [X] Municipality or municipal agency d. [ ] Indian tribal government (see Note below) NOTE: An Indian tribal government may only adopt this Plan if such entity is defined under Code §7701(a)(40), is a subdivision of an Indian tribal government as determined in accordance with Code §7871(d), or is an agency or instrumentality of either, and all of the Participants under this Plan employed by such entity substantially perform services as an Employee in essential governmental functions and not in the performance of commercial activities (whether or not an essential government function). 3. PARTICIPATING EMPLOYERS (Plan Section 1.39). Will any other Employers adopt this Plan as Participating Employers? a. [X] No b. [ ] Yes MULTIPLE EMPLOYER PLAN (Plan Article XI). Will any Employers who are not Affiliated Employers adopt this Plan as part of a multiple employer plan (MEP) arrangement? c. [X] No d. [ ] Yes (Complete a Participation Agreement for each Participating Employer.) PLAN INFORMATION (An amendment to the Adoption Agreement is not needed solely to reflect a change in the information in Question 9.) 4. PLAN NAME: City of Fort Collins Police Plan 5. PLAN STATUS a. [ ] New Plan b. [X] Amendment and restatement of existing Plan CYCLE 3 RESTATEMENT (leave blank if not applicable) 1.[X] This is an amendment and restatement to bring a plan into compliance with the legislative and regulatory changes set forth in IRS Notice 2017-37 (i.e., the 6-year pre-approved plan restatement cycle). 6. EFFECTIVE DATE (Plan Section 1.16) (complete a. if new plan; complete a. AND b. if an amendment and restatement) Initial Effective Date of Plan (except for restatements, cannot be earlier than the first day of the current Plan Year) a. January 1, 2007 (enter month day, year) (hereinafter called the "Effective Date" unless 6.b. is entered below) EXHIBIT C Page 479 Item 12. Non-Standardized Governmental 401(a) © 2020 Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. or its suppliers 2 Restatement Effective Date. If this is an amendment and restatement, the effective date of the restatement (hereinafter called the "Effective Date") is: b. January 1, 2022 (enter month day, year; NOTE: The restatement date may not be prior to the first day of the current Plan Year. Plan contains appropriate retroactive effective dates with respect to provisions for appropriat e laws.) 7. PLAN YEAR (Plan Section 1.43) means, except as otherwise provided in d. below: a. [X] the calendar year b. [ ] the twelve-month period ending on (e.g., June 30th) SHORT PLAN YEAR (Plan Section 1.47). This is a Short Plan Year (if the effective date of participation is based on a Plan Year, then coordinate with Question 14): c. [X] N/A d. [ ] beginning on (enter month day, year; e.g., July 1, 2020) and ending on (enter month day, year). 8. VALUATION DATE (Plan Section 1.53) means: a. [X] every day that the Trustee (or Insurer), any transfer agent appointed by the Trustee (or Insurer) or the Employer, and any stock exchange used by such agent are open for business (daily valuation) b. [ ] the last day of each Plan Year c. [ ] the last day of each Plan Year quarter d. [ ] other (specify day or days): (must be at least once each Plan Year) NOTE: The Plan always permits interim valuations. 9. ADMINISTRATOR'S NAME, ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER (If none is named, the Employer will be the Administrator (Plan Section 1.2).) a. [X] Employer (use Employer address and telephone number) b. [ ] The Committee appointed by the Employer (use Employer address and telephone number) c. [ ] Other: Name: Address: Street City State Zip Telephone: 10. TYPE OF PLAN (select one) a. [ ] Profit Sharing Plan. b [X] Money Purchase Pension Plan. 11. CONTRIBUTION TYPES The selections made below must correspond with the selections made under the Contributions and Allocations Section of this Adoption Agreement. FROZEN PLAN OR CONTRIBUTIONS HAVE BEEN SUSPENDED (Plan Section 4.1(c)) (optional) a. [ ] This is a frozen Plan (i.e., all contributions cease) (if this is a temporary suspension, select a.2): 1. [ ] All contributions ceased as of, or prior to, the effective date of this amendment and restatement and the prior Plan provisions are not reflected in this Adoption Agreement (may enter effective date at 3. below and/or select prior contributions at g. - j. (optional), skip questions 12-18 and 22-30) 2. [ ] All contributions ceased or were suspended and the prior Plan provisions are reflected in this Adoption Agreement (must enter effective date at 3. below and select contributions at b. - f.) Effective date 3. [ ] as of (effective date is optional unless a.2. has been selected above or this is the amendment or restatement to freeze the Plan). CURRENT CONTRIBUTIONS The Plan permits the following contributions (select one or more): b. [X] Employer contributions other than matching (Questions 24-25) 1. [ ] This Plan qualifies as a Social Security Replacement Plan (Question 24.e. must be selected) c. [ ] Employer matching contributions (Questions 26-28) d. [X] Mandatory Employee contributions (Question 30) EXHIBIT B Page 480 Item 12. Non-Standardized Governmental 401(a) © 2020 Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. or its suppliers 3 e. [X] After-tax voluntary Employee contributions f. [X] Rollover contributions (Question 36) PRIOR CONTRIBUTIONS The Plan used to permit, but no longer does, the following contributions (choose all that apply, if any): g. [ ] Employer matching contributions h. [ ] Employer contributions other than matching contributions i. [ ] Rollover contributions j. [ ] After-tax voluntary Employee contributions ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS 12. ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES (Plan Section 1.17) means all Employees (including Leased Employees) EXCEPT those Employees who are excluded below or elsewhere in the Plan: (select a. or b.) a. [ ] No excluded Employees. There are no additional excluded Employees under the Plan (skip to Question 13). b. [X] Exclusions. The following Employees are not Eligible Employees for Plan purposes (select one or more): 1. [ ] Union Employees (as defined in Plan Section 1.17) 2. [ ] Nonresident aliens (as defined in Plan Section 1.17) 3. [ ] Leased Employees (Plan Section 1.29) 4. [ ] Part-time Employees. A part-time Employee is an Employee whose regularly scheduled service is less than Hours of Service in the relevant eligibility computation period (as defined in Plan Section 1.55). 5. [ ] Temporary Employees. A temporary Employee is an Employee who is categorized as a temporary Employee on the Employer’s payroll records. 6. [ ] Seasonal Employees. A seasonal Employee is an Employee who is categorized as a seasonal Employee on the Employer’s payroll records. 7. [X] Other: An Eligible Employee for Plan Purposes shall mean any person employed in the following Eligible Groups: Sworn Police Officer (excluding Chief of Police), Dispatcher, Dispatcher Supervisor and Dispatch Manager (must be definitely determinable under Regulation §1.401-1(b). Exclusions may be employment title specific but may not be by individual name) NOTE: If option 4. - 6. (part-time, temporary and/or seasonal exclusions) is selected, when any such excluded Employee actually completes 1 Year of Service, then such Employee will no longer be part of this excluded class. For this purpose, the Hours of Service method will be used for the 1 Year of Service override regardless of any contrary selection at Question 16. 13. CONDITIONS OF ELIGIBILITY (Plan Section 3.1) a. [X] No age and service required. No age and service required for all Contribution Types (skip to Question 14). b. [ ] Eligibility. An Eligible Employee will be eligible to participate in the Plan upon satisfaction of the following (complete c. and d., select e. and f. if applicable): Eligibility Requirements c. [ ] Age Requirement 1. [ ] No age requirement 2. [ ] Age 20 1/2 3. [ ] Age 21 4. [ ] Age (may not exceed 26) d. [ ] Service Requirement 1. [ ] No service requirement 2. [ ] (not to exceed 60) months of service (elapsed time) 3. [ ] 1 Year of Service 4. [ ] (not to exceed 5) Years of Service 5. [ ] consecutive month period from the Eligible Employee's employment commencement date and during which at least Hours of Service are completed. 6. [ ] consecutive months of employment. 7. [ ] Other: (e.g., date on which 1,000 Hours of Service is completed within the computation period) (must satisfy the Notes below) NOTE: If c.4. or d.7. is selected, the condition must be an age or service requirement that is definitely determinable and may not exceed age 26 and may not exceed 5 Years of Service. NOTE: Year of Service means Period of Service if the elapsed time method is chosen. Waiver of conditions. The service and/or age requirements specified above will be waived in accordance with the following (leave blank if there are no waivers of conditions): e. [ ] If employed on the following requirements, and the entry date requirement, will be waived. The waiver applies to any Eligible Employee unless 3. selected below. Such Employees will enter the Plan as of such date (select 1. and/or 2. AND 3. if applicable): 1. [ ] service requirement (may let part-time Eligible Employees into the Plan) EXHIBIT B Page 481 Item 12. Non-Standardized Governmental 401(a) © 2020 Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. or its suppliers 4 2. [ ] age requirement 3. [ ] waiver is for: Amendment or restatement to change eligibility requirements f. [ ] This amendment or restatement (or a prior amendment and restatement) modified the eligibility requirements and the prior eligibility conditions continue to apply to the Eligible Employees specified below. If this option is NOT selected, then all Eligible Employees must satisfy the eligibility conditions set forth above. 1. [ ] The eligibility conditions above only apply to Eligible Employees who were not Participants as of the effective date of the modification. 2. [ ] The eligibility conditions above only apply to individuals who were hired on or after the effective date of the modification. 14. EFFECTIVE DATE OF PARTICIPATION (ENTRY DATE) (Plan Section 3.2) An Eligible Employee who has satisfied the eligibility requirements will become a Participant in the Plan as of the: a. [ ] date such requirements are met b. [ ] first day of the month coinciding with or next following the date on which such requirements are met c. [ ] first day of the Plan Year quarter coinciding with or next following the date on which such requirements are met d. [ ] earlier of the first day of the Plan Year or the first day of the seventh month of the Plan Year coinciding with or next following the date on which such requirements are met e. [ ] first day of the Plan Year coinciding with or next following the date on which such requirements are met f. [ ] first day of the Plan Year in which such requirements are met g. [ ] first day of the Plan Year in which such requirements are met, if such requirements are met in the first 6 months of the Plan Year, or as of the first day of the next succeeding Plan Year if such requirements are met in the last 6 months of the Plan Year. h. [X] other: First payroll after meeting Eligibility (must be definitely determinable) SERVICE 15. RECOGNITION OF SERVICE WITH OTHER EMPLOYERS (Plan Sections 1.40 and 1.55) a. [X] No service with other employers is recognized except as otherwise required by law (e.g., the Plan already provides for the recognition of service with Employers who have adopted this Plan as well as service with Affiliated Employers and predecessor Employers who maintained this Plan; skip to Question 16). b. [ ] Service with the designated employers is recognized as follows (select c. – e. and one or more of columns 1. - 3.; chose other options as applicable) (if more than 3 employers, attach an addendum to the Adoption Agreement or complete option h. under Section B of Appendix A): 1. 2. 3. Contribution Other Employer Eligibility Vesting Allocation c. [ ] Employer name: [ ] [ ] [ ] d. [ ] Employer name: [ ] [ ] [ ] e. [ ] Employer name: [ ] [ ] [ ] Limitations f. [ ] The following provisions or limitations apply with respect to the [ ] [ ] [ ] recognition of prior service: (e.g., credit service with X only on/following 1/1/19) g. [ ] The following provisions or limitations apply with respect to the recognition of service with other employers: (e.g., credit service with X only on/following 1/1/19 or credit all service with entities the Employer acquires after 12/31/18) NOTE: If the other Employer(s) maintained this qualified Plan, then Years (and/or Periods) of Service with such Employer(s) must be recognized pursuant to Plan Sections 1.40 and 1.55 regardless of any selections above. 16. SERVICE CREDITING METHOD (Plan Sections 1.40 and 1.55) NOTE: If any Plan provision is based on a Year of Service, then the provisions set forth in the definition of Year of Service in Plan Section 1.55 will apply, including the following defaults, except as otherwise elected below: 1. A Year of Service means completion of at least 1,000 Hours of Service during the applicable computation period. 2. Hours of Service (Plan Section 1.24) will be based on actual Hours of Service except that for Employees for whom records of actual Hours of Service are not maintained or available (e.g., salaried Employees), the monthly equivalency will be used. EXHIBIT B Page 482 Item 12. Non-Standardized Governmental 401(a) © 2020 Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. or its suppliers 5 3. For eligibility purposes, the computation period will be as defined in Plan Section 1.55 (i.e., shift to the Plan Year if the eligibility condition is one (1) Year of Service or less). 4. For vesting, allocation, and distribution purposes, the computation period will be the Plan Year. 5. Upon an Employee's rehire, all prior service with the Employer is taken into account for all purposes. a. [X] Elapsed time method. (Period of Service applies instead of Year of Service) Instead of Hours of Service, elapsed time will be used for: 1. [X] all purposes (skip to Question 17) 2. [ ] the following purposes (select one or more): a. [ ] eligibility to participate b. [ ] vesting c. [ ] allocations, distributions and contributions b. [ ] Alternative definitions for the Hours of Service method. Instead of the defaults, the following alternatives will apply for the Hours of Service method (select one or more): 1. [ ] Eligibility computation period. Instead of shifting to the Plan Year, the eligibility computation period after the initial eligibility computation period will be based on each anniversary of the date the Employee first completes an Hour of Service 2. [ ] Vesting computation period. Instead of the Plan Year, the vesting computation period will be the date an Employee first performs an Hour of Service and each anniversary thereof. 3. [ ] Equivalency method. Instead of using actual Hours of Service, an equivalency method will be used to determine Hours of Service for: a. [ ] all purposes b. [ ] the following purposes (select one or more): 1. [ ] eligibility to participate 2. [ ] vesting 3. [ ] allocations, distribution and contributions Such method will apply to: c. [ ] all Employees d. [ ] Employees for whom records of actual Hours of Service are not maintained or available (e.g., salaried Employees) e. [ ] other: (e.g., per-diem Employees only) Hours of Service will be determined on the basis of: f. [ ] days worked (10 hours per day) g. [ ] weeks worked (45 hours per week) h. [ ] semi-monthly payroll periods worked (95 hours per semi-monthly pay period) i. [ ] months worked (190 hours per month) j. [ ] bi-weekly payroll periods worked (90 hours per bi-weekly pay period) k. [ ] other: (e.g., option f. is used for per-diem Employees and option g. is used for on-call Employees). 4. [ ] Number of Hours of Service required. Instead of 1,000 Hours of Service, Year of Service means the applicable computation period during which an Employee has completed at least (not to exceed 1,000) Hours of Service for: a. [ ] all purposes b. [ ] the following purposes (select one or more): 1. [ ] eligibility to participate 2. [ ] vesting 3. [ ] allocations, distributions and contributions c. [ ] Alternative for counting all prior service. Instead of the default which recognizes all prior service for rehired Employees, the Plan will not recognize prior service and rehired Employee are treated as new hires for the following purposes: (select one) 1. [ ] all purposes 2. [ ] the following purposes (select one or more): a. [ ] eligibility to participate b. [ ] vesting c. [ ] sharing in allocations or contributions EXHIBIT B Page 483 Item 12. Non-Standardized Governmental 401(a) © 2020 Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. or its suppliers 6 d. [ ] Other service crediting provisions: (must be definitely determinable; e.g., for vesting a Year of Service is based on 1,000 Hours of Service but for eligibility a Year of Service is based on 900 Hours of Service.) NOTE: Must not list more than 1,000 hours in this Section. This servicing credit provision will be used for: 1. [ ] All purposes 2. [ ] The following purposes (select one or more): a. [ ] eligibility to participate b. [ ] vesting c. [ ] allocations, distributions and contributions VESTING 17. VESTING OF PARTICIPANT'S INTEREST – EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS (Plan Section 6.4(b)) a. [ ] N/A (no Employer contributions; skip to Question 19) b. [X] The vesting provisions selected below apply. Section B of Appendix A can be used to specify any exceptions to the provisions below. NOTE: The Plan provides that contributions for converted sick leave and/or vacation leave are fully Vested. Vesting for Employer contributions other than matching contributions c. [ ] N/A (no Employer contributions (other than matching contributions); skip to f.) d. [ ] 100% vesting. Participants are 100% Vested in Employer contributions (other than matching contributions) upon entering Plan. e. [X] The following vesting schedule, based on a Participant's Years of Service (or Periods of Service if the elapsed time method is selected), applies to Employer contributions (other than matching contributions): 1. [ ] 6 Year Graded: 0-1 year-0%; 2 years-20%; 3 years-40%; 4 years-60%; 5 years-80%; 6 years-100% 2. [ ] 4 Year Graded: 1 year-25%; 2 years-50%; 3 years-75%; 4 years-100% 3. [ ] 5 Year Graded: 1 year-20%; 2 years-40%; 3 years-60%; 4 years-80%; 5 years-100% 4. [X] Cliff: 100% vesting after three (3) (not to exceed 15) years 5. [ ] Other graded vesting schedule (must provide for full vesting no later than 15 years of service; add additional lines as necessary) Years (or Periods) of Service Percentage % % % % % % % % % % Vesting for Employer matching contributions f. [X] N/A (no Employer matching contributions) g. [ ] The schedule above will also apply to Employer matching contributions. h. [ ] 100% vesting. Participants are 100% Vested in Employer matching contributions upon entering Plan. i. [ ] The following vesting schedule, based on a Participant's Years of Service (or Periods of Service if the elapsed time method is selected), applies to Employer matching contributions: 1. [ ] 6 Year Graded: 0-1 year-0%; 2 years-20%; 3 years-40%; 4 years-60%; 5 years-80%; 6 years-100% 2. [ ] 4 Year Graded: 1 year-25%; 2 years-50%; 3 years-75%; 4 years-100% 3. [ ] 5 Year Graded: 1 year-20%; 2 years-40%; 3 years-60%; 4 years-80%; 5 years-100% 4. [ ] Cliff: 100% vesting after (not to exceed 15) years 5. [ ] Other graded vesting schedule (must provide for full vesting no later than 15 years of service; add additional lines as necessary) EXHIBIT B Page 484 Item 12. Non-Standardized Governmental 401(a) © 2020 Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. or its suppliers 7 Years (or Periods) of Service Percentage % % % % % % % % % % NOTE: If any Part-time/Seasonal/Temporary Employees who are not covered under Social Security are participating in this Plan as a Social Security Replacement Plan, any contributions used to satisfy the minimum contribution requirements of Question 24.e. will be 100% vested. 18. VESTING OPTIONS Excluded vesting service. The following Years of Service will be disregarded for vesting purposes (select all that apply; leave blank if none apply): a. [ ] Service prior to the initial Effective Date of the Plan or a predecessor plan (as defined in Regulations §1.411(a)-5(b)(3)) b. [ ] Service prior to the computation period in which an Employee has attained age . c. [ ] Service during a period for which an Employee did not make mandatory Employee contributions. Vesting for death, Total And Permanent Disability and Early/Normal Retirement. Regardless of the vesting schedule, a Participant will become fully Vested upon (select all that apply; leave blank if none apply): d. [X] Death e. [X] Total and Permanent Disability f. [ ] Early Retirement Date g. [X] Normal Retirement Age RETIREMENT AGES 19. NORMAL RETIREMENT AGE ("NRA") (Plan Section 1.33) means: This Question 19 and Question 20 may be skipped if the Plan does not base any benefits, distributions or other features on Normal Retirement Age. a. [X] Specific age. The date a Participant attains age 55 b. [ ] Age/participation. The later of the date a Participant attains age or the anniversary of the first day of the Plan Year in which participation in the Plan commenced c. [ ] Other: (must be definitely determinable) NOTE: If this is a Money Purchase Pension Plan and in-service distributions at Normal Retirement Age are permitted, then the Normal Retirement Age cannot be less than age 62, or age 50 if substantially all Participants are qualified public safety employees (as defined in Code §72(t)(1)). The "substantially all" requirement for qualified public safety employees will no longer be a requirement as of the effective date of the final regulations once they are issued & effective. If an age less than 62 is inserted (unless the age 50 safe harbor is applicable for a qualified public safety employee), no reliance will be afforded on the Opinion Letter issued to the Plan that such age is reasonably representative of the typical retirement age for the industry in which the Participants works. Effective for Employees hired during Plan Years beginning on or after the later of (1) January 1, 2015, or (2) the close of the first legislative session of the legislative body with the authority to amend the plan that begins on or after the date that is three (3) months after the final regulations are published in the Federal Register, an NRA of less than age 62 must comply with the final regulations under §401(a). Qualified public safety employees. Normal Retirement Age for public safety employees (as defined in Code §72(t)(1)) (leave blank if not applicable) d. [X] Age 55 (may not be less than 50 for a Money Purchase Pension Plan or 40 for a Profit Sharing Plan) 20. NORMAL RETIREMENT DATE (Plan Section 1.34) means, with respect to any Participant, the: a. [X] date on which the Participant attains "NRA" b. [ ] first day of the month coinciding with or next following the Participant's "NRA" c. [ ] first day of the month nearest the Participant's "NRA" d. [ ] Anniversary Date coinciding with or next following the Participant's "NRA" e. [ ] Anniversary Date nearest the Participant's "NRA" f. [ ] Other: (e.g., first day of the month following the Participant's "NRA"). EXHIBIT B Page 485 Item 12. Non-Standardized Governmental 401(a) © 2020 Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. or its suppliers 8 21. EARLY RETIREMENT DATE (Plan Section 1.15) a. [X] N/A (no early retirement provision provided) b. [ ] Early Retirement Date means the: 1. [ ] date on which a Participant satisfies the early retirement requirements 2. [ ] first day of the month coinciding with or next following the date on which a Participant satisfies the early retirement requirements 3. [ ] Anniversary Date coinciding with or next following the date on which a Participant satisfies the early retirement requirements Early retirement requirements 4. [ ] Participant attains age AND, completes.... (leave blank if not applicable) a. [ ] at least Years (or Periods) of Service for vesting purposes b. [ ] at least Years (or Periods) of Service for eligibility purposes c. [ ] Early Retirement Date means: (must be definitely determinable) COMPENSATION 22. COMPENSATION with respect to any Participant is defined as follows (Plan Sections 1.10 and 1.23). Base definition a. [X] Wages, tips and other compensation on Form W-2 b. [ ] Code §3401(a) wages (wages for withholding purposes) c. [ ] 415 safe harbor compensation NOTE: Plan Section 1.10(c) provides that the base definition of Compensation includes deferrals that are not included in income due to Code §§401(k), 125, 132(f)(4), 403(b), 402(h)(1)(B)(SEP), 414(h)(2), & 457. Determination period. Compensation will be based on the following "determination period" (this will also be the Limitation Year unless otherwise elected at option f. under Section B of Appendix A): d. [X] the Plan Year e. [ ] the Fiscal Year coinciding with or ending within the Plan Year f. [ ] the calendar year coinciding with or ending within the Plan Year Adjustments to Compensation (for Plan Section 1.10). Compensation will be adjusted by: g. [ ] No adjustments (skip to Question 23. below) h. [X] Adjustments. Compensation will be adjusted by (select all that apply): 1. [ ] excluding salary reductions (401(k), 125, 132(f)(4), 403(b), SEP, 414(h)(2) pickup, & 457) 2. [ ] excluding reimbursements or other expense allowances, fringe benefits (cash or non-cash), moving expenses, deferred compensation (other than deferrals specified in 1. above) and welfare benefits. 3. [ ] excluding Compensation paid during the "determination period" while not a Participant in the Plan. 4. [X] excluding Military Differential Pay 5. [X] excluding overtime 6. [X] excluding bonuses 7. [ ] other: (e.g., describe Compensation from the elections available above or a combination thereof as to a Participant group (e.g., no exclusions as to Division A Employees and exclude bonuses as to Division B Employees); and/or describe another exclusion (e.g., exclude shift differential pay)). 23. POST-SEVERANCE COMPENSATION (415 REGULATIONS) 415 Compensation (post-severance compensation adjustments) (select all that apply at a.; leave blank if none apply) NOTE: Unless otherwise elected under a. below, the following defaults apply: 415 Compensation will include (to the extent provided in Plan Section 1.23), post-severance regular pay, leave cash-outs and payments from nonqualified unfunded deferred compensation plans. a. [X] The defaults listed above apply except for the following (select one or more): 1. [ ] Leave cash-outs will be excluded 2. [X] Nonqualified unfunded deferred compensation will be excluded 3. [X] Disability continuation payments will be included for all Participants and the salary continuation will continue for the following fixed or determinable period: 12 months 4. [ ] Other: (must be definitely determinable) Plan Compensation (post-severance compensation adjustments) b. [ ] Defaults apply. Compensation will include (to the extent provided in Plan Section 1.10 and to the extent such amounts would be included in Compensation if paid prior to severance of employment) post-severance regular pay, leave cash-outs, and payments from nonqualified unfunded deferred compensation plans. (skip to Question 24) c. [ ] Exclude all post-severance compensation. Exclude all post-severance compensation for allocation purposes. d. [X] Post-severance adjustments. The defaults listed at b. apply except for the following (select one or more): 1. [ ] Exclude all post-severance compensation EXHIBIT B Page 486 Item 12. Non-Standardized Governmental 401(a) © 2020 Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. or its suppliers 9 2. [ ] Regular pay will be excluded 3. [ ] Leave cash-outs will be excluded 4. [X] Nonqualified unfunded deferred compensation will be excluded 5. [ ] Military Differential Pay will be included 6. [ ] Disability continuation payments will be included for all Participants and the salary continuation will continue for the following fixed or determinable period: e. [ ] Other: (must be definitely determinable) CONTRIBUTIONS AND ALLOCATIONS 24. EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS (OTHER THAN MATCHING CONTRIBUTIONS) (Plan Section 4.1(b)(3)) (skip to Question 26 if Employer contributions are NOT selected at Question 11.b.) CONTRIBUTION FORMULA (select one or more of the following contribution formulas:) a. [ ] Discretionary contribution (no groups). (may not be elected if this Plan is a Money Purchase Pension Plan) The Employer may make a discretionary contribution, to be determined by the Employer. Any such contribution will be allocated to each Participant eligible to share in allocations in the same ratio as each Participant's Compensation bears to the total of such Compensation of all Participants. b. [ ] Discretionary contribution (Grouping method). (may not be elected if this Plan is a Money Purchase Pension Plan) The Employer may designate a discretionary contribution to be made on behalf of each Participant group selected below (only select 1. or 2.). The groups must be clearly defined in a manner that will not violate the definite predetermined allocation formula requirement of Regulation §1.401-1(b)(1)(ii). The Employer must notify the Trustee in writing of the amount of the Employer Contribution being given to each group. 1. [ ] Each Participant constitutes a separate classification. 2. [ ] Participants will be divided into the following classifications with the allocation methods indicated under each classification. Definition of classifications. Define each classification and specify the method of allocating the contribution among members of each classification. Classifications specified below must be clearly defined in a manner that will not violate the definitely determinable allocation requirement of Regulation §1.401-1(b)(1)(ii). Classification A will consist of The allocation method will be: [ ] pro rata based on Compensation [ ] equal dollar amounts (per capita) Classification B will consist of The allocation method will be: [ ] pro rata based on Compensation [ ] equal dollar amounts (per capita) Classification C will consist of The allocation method will be: [ ] pro rata based on Compensation [ ] equal dollar amounts (per capita) Classification D will consist of The allocation method will be: [ ] pro rata based on Compensation [ ] equal dollar amounts (per capita) Additional Classifications: (specify the classifications and which of the above allocation methods (pro rata or per capita) will be used for each classification). NOTE: If more than four (4) classifications, the additional classifications and allocation methods may be attached as an addendum to the Adoption Agreement or may be entered under Additional Classifications above. Determination of applicable group. If a Participant shifts from one classification to another during a Plan Year, then unless selected below, the Participant is in a classification based on the Participant's status as of the last day of the Plan Year, or if earlier, the date of termination of employment. If selected below, the Administrator will apportion the Participant's allocation during a Plan Year based on the following: a. [ ] Beginning of Plan Year. The classification will be based on the Participant's status as of the beginning of the Plan Year. b. [ ] Months in each classification. Pro rata based on the number of months the Participant spent in each classification. c. [ ] Days in each classification. Pro rata based on the number of days the Participant spent in each classification. d. [ ] One classification only. The Employer will direct the Administrator to place the Participant in only one classification for the entire Plan Year during which the shift occurs. c. [X] Fixed contribution equal to (only select one): 1. [ ] % of each Participant's Compensation for each: a. [ ] Plan Year b. [ ] calendar quarter c. [ ] month EXHIBIT B Page 487 Item 12. Non-Standardized Governmental 401(a) © 2020 Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. or its suppliers 10 d. [ ] pay period e. [ ] week 2. [ ] $ per Participant. 3. [ ] $ per Hour of Service worked while an Eligible Employee a. [ ] up to hours (leave blank if no limit) 4. [X] other: See Addendum 1 (the formula described must satisfy the definitely determinable requirement under Regulation §1.401-1(b)) NOTE: Under Question 24.c.4., the Employer may only describe the allocation of Nonelective Contributions from the elections available under Question 24.c of this Adoption Agreement and/or a combination thereof as to a Participant group (e.g., a monthly contribution applies to Group A). d. [ ] Sick leave/vacation leave conversion. The Employer will contribute an amount equal to an Employee's current hourly rate of pay multiplied by the Participant's number of unused accumulated sick leave and/or vacation days (as selected below). Only unpaid sick and vacation leave for which the Employee has no right to receive in cash may be included. In no event will the Employer's contribution for the Plan Year exceed the maximum contribution permitted under Code §415(c). The following may be converted under the Plan: (select one or both): 1. [ ] Sick leave 2. [ ] Vacation leave Eligible Employees. Only the following Participants shall receive the Employer contribution for sick leave and/or vacation leave (select 3. and/or 4; leave blank if no limitations provided, however, that this Plan may not be used to only provide benefits for terminated Employees) 3. [ ] Former Employees. All Employees terminating service with the Employer during the Plan Year and who have satisfied the eligibility requirements based on the terms of the Employer's accumulated benefits plans checked below (select all that apply; leave blank if no exclusions): a. [ ] The Former Employee must be at least age (e.g., 55) b. [ ] The value of the sick and/or vacation leave must be at least $ (e.g., $2,000) c. [ ] A contribution will only be made if the total hours is over (e.g., 10) hours d. [ ] A contribution will not be made for hours in excess of (e.g., 40) hours 4. [ ] Active Employees. Active Employees who have not terminated service during the Plan Year and who meet the following requirements (select all that apply; leave blank if no exclusions): a. [ ] The Employee must be at least age (e.g., 55) b. [ ] The value of the sick and/or vacation leave must be at least $ (e.g., $2,000) c. [ ] A contribution will only be made if the total hours is over (e.g., 10) hours d. [ ] A contribution will not be made for hours in excess of (e.g., 40) hours e. [ ] Social Security Replacement Plan. Except as provided below, the Employer will contribute an amount equal to 7.5% of each eligible Participant's Compensation for the entire Plan Year, reduced by mandatory Employee contributions that are picked-up under Code §414(h) and Employer contributions to this Plan actually contributed to the Participant's Account during such Plan Year. (may only be selected if Question 11.b.1. has also been selected) AND, only the following Employees will NOT be eligible for the Social Security Replacement Plan contribution: (select all that apply) 1. [ ] Part-time Employees who are not otherwise covered by another qualifying public retirement system as defined for purposes of Regulation §31.3121(b)(7)-2. A part-time Employee is an Employee whose regularly scheduled service is less than Hours of Service in the relevant eligibility computation period (as defined in Plan Section 1.55). 2. [ ] Seasonal Employees who are not otherwise covered by another qualifying public retirement system as defined for purposes of Regulation §31.3121(b)(7)-2. A seasonal Employee is an Employee who is categorized as a seasonal Employee on the Employer’s payroll records. 3. [ ] Temporary Employees who are not otherwise covered by another qualifying public retirement system as defined for purposes of Regulation §31.3121(b)(7)-2. A temporary Employee is an Employee who is categorized as a temporary Employee on the Employer’s payroll records. 4. [ ] Employees in elective positions (filled by an election, which may be by legislative body, board or committee, or by a jurisdiction’s qualified electorate) 5. [ ] Other: (any other group of Employees that is definitely determinable and not eligible for the Social Security Replacement Plan contribution). The minimum contribution of 7.5% stated above will be satisfied by: a. [ ] the Employee only (specify the contribution at the mandatory Employee contributions Question 30) b. [ ] the Employer only c. [ ] both the Employee and the Employer. The Employee shall contribute the amount specified in Question 30 for mandatory Employee contributions) and the Employer shall contribute % of each eligible Participant's Compensation. EXHIBIT B Page 488 Item 12. Non-Standardized Governmental 401(a) © 2020 Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. or its suppliers 11 NOTE: If a. or c. above is selected, then the mandatory Employee contribution must be picked-up by the Employer at Question 30. Also, if b. or c. above is selected, then the allocation conditions in Question 25 below do not apply to the Employer contribution made pursuant to this provision. f. [ ] Other: (the formula described must satisfy the definitely determinable requirement under Regulation §1.401-1(b) and if this is a Money Purchase Pension, it must not be a discretionary contribution formula). NOTE: Under Question 24.f., the Employer may only describe the allocation of Nonelective Contributions from the elections available under Question 24 and/or a combination thereof as to a Participant group or contribution type (e.g., pro rata allocation applies to Group A; contributions to other Employees will be allocated in accordance with the classifications allocation provisions of Plan Section 4.3 with each Participant constituting a separate classification). 25. ALLOCATION CONDITIONS (Plan Section 4.3). If 24.a., b., c., or f. is selected above, indicate requirements to share in allocations of Employer contributions (select a. OR b. and all that apply at c. - e.) a. [X] No conditions. All Participants share in the allocations regardless of service completed during the Plan Year or employment status on the last day of the Plan Year (skip to Question 26). b. [ ] Allocation conditions apply (select one of 1. - 5. AND one of 6. - 9. below) Conditions for Participants NOT employed on the last day of the Plan Year 1. [ ] A Participant must complete at least (not to exceed 500) Hours of Service if the actual hours/equivalency method is selected (or at least (not to exceed 3) months of service if the elapsed time method is selected). 2. [ ] A Participant must complete a Year of Service (or Period of Service if the elapsed time method is selected). 3. [ ] Participants will NOT share in the allocations, regardless of service. 4. [ ] Participants will share in the allocations, regardless of service. 5. [ ] Other: (must be definitely determinable and not subject to Employer discretion) Conditions for Participants employed on the last day of the Plan Year 6. [ ] No service requirement. 7. [ ] A Participant must complete a Year of Service (or Period of Service if the elapsed time method is selected). 8. [ ] A Participant must complete at least Hours of Service during the Plan Year. 9. [ ] Other: (must be definitely determinable and not subject to Employer discretion) Waiver of conditions for Participants NOT employed on the last day of the Plan Year. If b.1., 2., 3., or 5. above is selected, Participants who are not employed on the last day of the Plan Year in which one of the following events occur will be eligible to share in the allocations regardless of the above conditions (select all that apply; leave blank if none apply): c. [ ] Death d. [ ] Total and Permanent Disability e. [ ] Termination of employment on or after Normal Retirement Age 1. [ ] or Early Retirement Date 26. EMPLOYER MATCHING CONTRIBUTIONS (Plan Section 4.1(b)(2) and Plan Section 4.12). (skip to Question 29 if matching contributions are NOT selected at Question 11.c.) The Employer will (or may with respect to any discretionary contribution) make the following matching contributions: A. Employee contributions taken into account. For purposes of applying the matching contribution provisions below, the following amounts are being matched (hereafter referred to as "matched Employee contributions" (select one or more): a. [ ] Elective deferrals to a 457 plan. Enter Plan name(s): b. [ ] Elective deferrals to a 403(b) plan. Enter Plan name(s): c. [ ] Voluntary Employee Contributions d. [ ] Other: (specify amounts that are matched under this Plan and are provided for within this Adoption Agreement) B. Matching Formula. (select one) e. [ ] Fixed - uniform rate/amount. The Employer will make matching contributions equal to % (e.g., 50) of the Participant's "matched Employee contributions" 1. [ ] that do not exceed % of a Participant's Compensation (leave blank if no limit) Additional matching contribution (choose 2. if applicable): 2. [ ] plus an additional matching contribution of a discretionary percentage determined by the Employer, a. [ ] but not to exceed % of Compensation. Such contribution is subject to the Instructions and Notice requirement of Section 4.12. EXHIBIT B Page 489 Item 12. Non-Standardized Governmental 401(a) © 2020 Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. or its suppliers 12 f. [ ] Fixed - tiered. The Employer will make matching contributions equal to a uniform percentage of each tier of each Participant's "matched Employee contributions", determined as follows: NOTE: Fill in only percentages or dollar amounts, but not both. If percentages are used, each tier represents the amount of the Participant's applicable contributions that equals the specified percentage of the Participant's Compensation (add additional tiers if necessary): Tiers of Contributions Matching Percentage (indicate $ or %) First % Next % Next % Next % g. [ ] Fixed - Years of Service. The Employer will make matching contributions equal to a uniform percentage of each Participant's "matched Employee contributions" based on the Participant's Years of Service (or Periods of Service if the elapsed time method is selected), determined as follows (add additional tiers if necessary): Years (or Periods) of Service Matching Percentage % % % For purposes of the above matching contribution formula, a Year (or Period) of Service means a Year (or Period) of Service for: 1. [ ] vesting purposes 2. [ ] eligibility purposes h. [ ] Flexible Discretionary Match. (may not be elected if this Plan is a Money Purchase Pension Plan) "Flexible Discretionary Match" means a Matching Contribution which the Employer in its sole discretion elects to make to the Plan. Except as specified below, the Employer retains discretion over the formula or formulas for allocating the Flexible Discretionary Match, including the Discretionary Matching Contribution rate or amount, the limit(s) on Elective Deferrals or Employee Contributions subject to match, the per Participant match allocation limit(s), the Participants or categories of Participants who will receive the allocation, and the time period applicable to any matching formula(s) (collectively, the "Flexible Discretionary Matching Formula"), except as the Employer otherwise elects in its Adoption Agreement. Such contributions will be subject to the Instructions and Notice requirement of Section 4.12, reproduced below, unless the Employer elects to use a "Rigid Discretionary Match" in Election 26.B.h.1. below. The discretionary matching contribution under this Question 26.B.h. is a "Flexible Discretionary Match" unless the Employer elects to use a "Rigid Discretionary Match." (Choose 1. if applicable.) 1. [ ] Rigid Discretionary Match. A "Rigid Discretionary Match" means a Matching Contribution which the Employer in its sole discretion elects to make to the Plan. Such discretion will only pertain to the amount of the annual contribution. The Employer must select the allocation method for this Contribution by selecting among those Adoption Agreement options which confer no Employer Discretion regarding the allocation of such discretionary amount, for example, the limit(s) on Elective Deferrals or Employee Contributions subject to match, the per Participant match allocation limit(s), the Participants who will receive the allocation, and the time period applicable to any matching formula(s). This "Rigid Discretionary Match" is not subject to the Instructions and Notice requirement of Section 4.12. Section 4.12 provides: INSTRUCTIONS TO ADMINISTRATOR AND NOTIFICATION TO PARTICIPANTS. For Plan Years beginning after the end of the Plan Year in which this document is first adopted, if a "Flexible Discretionary Match" contribution formula applies (i.e., a formula that provides an Employer with discretion regarding how to allocate a matching contribution to Participants) and the Employer makes a "Flexible Discretionary Match" to the Plan, the Employer must provide the Plan Administrator or Trustee written instructions describing (1) how the "Flexible Discretionary Match" formula will be allocated to Participants (e.g., a uniform percentage of Elective Deferrals or a flat dollar amount), (2) the computation period(s) to which the "Flexible Discretionary Match" formula applies, and (3) if applicable, a description of each business location or business classification subject to separate "Flexible Discretionary Match" allocation formulas. Such instructions must be provided no later than the date on which the "Flexible Discretionary Match" is made to the Plan. A summary of these instructions must be communicated to Participants who receive an allocation of the "Flexible Discretionary Match" no later than 60 days following the date on which the last "Flexible Discretionary Match" contribution is made to the Plan for the Plan Year. i. [ ] Discretionary - tiered. (may not be elected if this Plan is a Money Purchase Pension Plan) The Employer may make matching contributions equal to a discretionary percentage of a Participant's "matched Employee contributions," to be determined by the Employer, of each tier, to be determined by the Employer. Such discretion will only pertain to the EXHIBIT B Page 490 Item 12. Non-Standardized Governmental 401(a) © 2020 Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. or its suppliers 13 amount of the contribution. The tiers may be based on the rate of a Participant's "matched Employee contributions" or Years of Service. Such contribution is subject to the Instructions and Notice requirement of Section 4.12. NOTE: Fill in only percentages or dollar amounts, but not both. If percentages are used, each tier represents the amount of the Participant's applicable contributions that equals the specified percentage of the Participant's Compensation (add additional tiers if necessary): Tiers of Contributions Matching Percentage (indicate $ or %) First % Next % Next % Next % j. [ ] Other: (the formula described must satisfy the definitely determinable requirement under Regulation §1.401-1(b) and if this is a Money Purchase Pension Plan, it must not be a discretionary contribution formula. NOTE: Under Question 26.B.j., the Employer may only describe the allocation of Matching Contributions from the elections available under Question 26 and/or a combination thereof as to a Participant group or contribution type (e.g., fixed – uniform rate applies to Group A; contributions to other Employees will be allocated as a tiered contribution.) 27. MATCHING CONTRIBUTION PROVISIONS A. Maximum matching contribution. The total matching contribution made on behalf of any Participant for any Plan Year will not exceed: a. [ ] N/A (no Plan specific limit on the amount of matching contribution) b. [ ] $ . c. [ ] % of Compensation. B. Period of determination. Any matching contribution other than a "Flexible Discretionary Match" will be applied on the following basis (and "matched Employee contributions" and any Compensation or dollar limitation used in determining the matching contribution will be based on the applicable period. Skip if the only Matching Contribution is a Flexible Discretionary Match.): d. [ ] the Plan Year (potential annual true-up required) e. [ ] each payroll period (no true-up) f. [ ] each month (potential monthly true-up required) g. [ ] each Plan Year quarter (potential quarterly true-up required) h. [ ] each payroll unit (e.g., hour) (no true-up) i. [ ] Other (specify): The time period described must be definitely determinable under Treas. Reg. §1.401-1(b). This line may be used to apply different options to different matching contributions (e.g., Discretionary matching contributions will be allocated on a Plan Year period while fixed matching contributions will be allocated on each payroll period.) Such contribution period is subject to the Instructions and Notice requirement of Section 4.12. 28. ALLOCATION CONDITIONS (Plan Section 4.3) Select a. OR b. and all that apply of c. - h. a. [ ] No conditions. All Participants share in the allocations regardless of service completed during the Plan Year or employment status on the last day of the Plan Year (skip to Question 29). b. [ ] Allocation conditions apply (select one of 1. - 5. AND one of 6. - 9. below) Conditions for Participants NOT employed on the last day of the Plan Year. 1. [ ] A Participant must complete more than Hours of Service (or months of service if the elapsed time method is selected). 2. [ ] A Participant must complete a Year of Service (or Period of Service if the elapsed time method is selected). 3. [ ] Participants will NOT share in the allocations, regardless of service. 4. [ ] Participants will share in the allocations, regardless of service. 5. [ ] Other: (must be definitely determinable) Conditions for Participants employed on the last day of the Plan Year 6. [ ] No service requirement. 7. [ ] A Participant must complete a Year of Service (or Period of Service if the elapsed time method is selected). 8. [ ] A Participant must complete at least Hours of Service during the Plan Year. 9. [ ] Other: (must be definitely determinable and not subject to Employer discretion) Waiver of conditions for Participants NOT employed on the last day of the Plan Year. If b.1., 2., 3., or 5. is selected, Participants who are not employed on the last day of the Plan Year in which one of the following events occur will be eligible to share in the allocations regardless of the above conditions (select all that apply; leave blank if none apply): c. [ ] Death d. [ ] Total and Permanent Disability e. [ ] Termination of employment on or after Normal Retirement Age 1. [ ] or Early Retirement Date EXHIBIT B Page 491 Item 12. Non-Standardized Governmental 401(a) © 2020 Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. or its suppliers 14 Conditions based on period other than Plan Year. The allocation conditions above will be applied based on the Plan Year unless otherwise selected below. If selected, the above provisions will be applied by substituting the term Plan Year with th e specified period (e.g., if Plan Year quarter is selected below and the allocation condition is 250 Hours of Service per quarter, enter 250 hours (not 1000) at b.8. above). f. [ ] The Plan Year quarter. g. [ ] Payroll period. h. [ ] Other: (must be definitely determinable and not subject to Employer discretion and may not be longer than a twelve month period). 29. FORFEITURES (Plan Sections 1.21 and 4.3(e)) Timing of Forfeitures. Except as provided in Plan Section 1.21, a Forfeiture will occur : a. [ ] N/A (may only be selected if all contributions are fully Vested (default provisions at Plan Section 4.3(e) apply)) b. [X] As of the earlier of (1) the last day of the Plan Year in which the former Participant incurs five (5) consecutive 1-Year Breaks in Service, or (2) the distribution of the entire Vested portion of the Participant's Account. c. [ ] As of the last day of the Plan Year in which the former Participant incurs five (5) consecutive 1-Year Breaks in Service. d. [ ] As soon as reasonably practical after the date the Participant severs employment. Use of Forfeitures. (skip if this is NOT a Money Purchase Pension Plan; for Profit Sharing Plans, Forfeitures are disposed of in accordance with Employer direction that is consistent with Section 4.3(e)). Forfeitures will be (select one): e. [ ] added to the Employer contribution and allocated in the same manner f. [X] used to reduce any Employer contribution g. [ ] allocated to all Participants eligible to share in the allocations of Employer contributions or Forfeitures in the same proportion that each Participant's Compensation for the Plan Year bears to the Compensation of all Participants for such year h. [ ] other: (describe the treatment of Forfeitures in a manner that is definitely determinable and that is not subject to Employer discretion) 30. MANDATORY EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS (Plan Section 4.8) (skip if mandatory Employee contributions NOT selected at Question 11.d.) Type of mandatory Employee Contribution. The mandatory Employee contribution is being made in accordance with the following: (select one) a. [X] The mandatory Employee contribution is a condition of employment. b. [ ] The Employee must make, on or before first being eligible to participate under any Plan of the Employer, an irrevocable election to contribute the mandatory Employee contribution to the Plan. No Eligible Employee will become a Participant unless the Employee makes such an irrevocable election. Amount of mandatory Employee Contribution (select one) c. [X] An Eligible Employee must contribute to the Plan 8.5 % (not to exceed 25%) of Compensation. d. [ ] An Eligible Employee must, prior to his or her first Entry Date, make a one-time irrevocable election to contribute to the Plan from % (not less than 1%) to % (not to exceed 25%) of Compensation. Conditions of Mandatory Employee Contributions e. [ ] Additional provisions and conditions: (must be definitely determinable; e.g., Only full-time Employees must make mandatory Employee contributions) Employer pick-up contribution. The mandatory Employee contribution is "picked-up" by the Employer under Code §414(h)(2) unless elected below. (select if applicable) f. [ ] The mandatory Employee contribution is not "picked-up" by the Employer. DISTRIBUTIONS 31. FORM OF DISTRIBUTIONS (Plan Sections 6.5 and 6.6) Distributions under the Plan may be made in (select all that apply; must select at least one): a. [X] lump-sums b. [X] substantially equal installments c. [ ] partial withdrawals, provided the minimum withdrawal is $ (leave blank if no minimum) d. [ ] partial withdrawals or installments are only permitted for Participants or Beneficiaries who must receive required minimum distributions under Code §401(a)(9) except for the following (leave blank if no exceptions): 1. [ ] Only Participants (and not Beneficiaries) may elect partial withdrawals or installments 2. [ ] Other: (e.g., partial is not permitted for death benefits. Must be definitely determinable and not subject to Employer discretion.) e. [ ] annuity: (describe the form of annuity or annuities) EXHIBIT B Page 492 Item 12. Non-Standardized Governmental 401(a) © 2020 Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. or its suppliers 15 f. [X] other: Any other sequence as requested by the Participant (must be definitely determinable and not subject to Employer discretion) NOTE: Regardless of the above, a Participant is not required to request a withdrawal of his or her total Account for an in-service distribution, a hardship distribution, or a distribution from the Participant's Rollover Account. Cash or property. Distributions may be made in: g. [ ] cash only, except for (select all that apply; leave blank if none apply): 1. [ ] insurance Contracts 2. [ ] annuity Contracts 3. [ ] Participant loans 4. [ ] all investments in an open brokerage window or similar arrangement h. [X] cash or property, except that the following limitation(s) apply: (leave blank if there are no limitations on property distributions): 1. [X] Tax-free distributions of up to $3,000 for the direct payment of qualifying insurance premiums for eligible retired public safety officers are available under the Plan (must be definitely determinable and not subject to Employer discretion) Joint and Survivor Annuity provisions. (Plan Sections 6.5(e) and 6.6(e) (select one) The Joint and Survivor Annuity provisions do not apply to the Plan unless selected below (choose if applicable) i. [ ] Joint and Survivor Annuity applicable as normal form of distribution. The Joint and Survivor annuity rules set forth in Plan Sections 6.5(e) and 6.5(f) apply to all Participants (if selected, then annuities are a form of distribution under the Plan even if e. above is not selected) j. [ ] Joint and Survivor Annuity rules apply based on Participant election. Plan Section 6.5(f) will apply and the joint and survivor rules of Code §§401(a)(11) and 417 (as set forth in Plan Sections 6.5(e) and 6.6(e) will apply only if an annuity form of distribution is selected by a Participant. AND, if i. or j. is selected above, the one-year marriage rule does not apply unless selected below (choose if applicable). 1. [ ] The one-year marriage rule applies. Spousal consent requirements. Spousal consent is not required for any Plan provisions (except as otherwise elected in i. above for the joint and survivor annuity rules) unless selected below (choose if applicable) k. [ ] Required for all distributions. A Spouse must consent to all distributions (other than required minimum distributions). l. [ ] Beneficiary designations. A married Participant's Spouse will be the Beneficiary of the entire death benefit unless the Spouse consents to an alternate Beneficiary. AND, if k. or l. is selected, the one-year marriage rule does not apply unless selected below (choose if applicable). 1. [ ] The one-year marriage rule applies. 32. CONDITIONS FOR DISTRIBUTIONS UPON SEVERANCE OF EMPLOYMENT. Distributions upon severance of employment pursuant to Plan Section 6.4(a) will not be made unless the following conditions have been satisfied: A. Accounts in excess of $5,000 a. [X] Distributions may be made as soon as administratively feasible following severance of employment. b. [ ] Distributions may be made as soon as administratively feasible after the last day of the Plan Year coincident with or next following severance of employment. c. [ ] Distributions may be made as soon as administratively feasible after the last day of the Plan Year quarter coincident with or next following severance of employment. d. [ ] Distributions may be made as soon as administratively feasible after the Valuation Date coincident with or next following severance of employment. e. [ ] Distributions may be made as soon as administratively feasible after months have elapsed following severance of employment. f. [ ] No distributions may be made until a Participant has reached Early or Normal Retirement Date. g. [ ] Other: (must be objective conditions which are ascertainable and may not exceed the limits of Code §401(a)(14) as set forth in Plan Section 6.7) B. Accounts of $5,000 or less h. [X] Same as above i. [ ] Distributions may be made as soon as administratively feasible following severance of employment. j. [ ] Distributions may be made as soon as administratively feasible after the last day of the Plan Year coincident with or next following severance of employment. k. [ ] Other: (must be objective conditions which are ascertainable and may not exceed the limits of Code §401(a)(14) as set forth in Plan Section 6.7) C. Timing after initial distributable event. If a distribution is not made in accordance with the above provisions upon the occurrence of the distributable event, then a Participant may elect a subsequent distribution at any time after the time the amount EXHIBIT B Page 493 Item 12. Non-Standardized Governmental 401(a) © 2020 Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. or its suppliers 16 was first distributable (assuming the amount is still distributable), unless otherwise selected below (may not be selected with 32.f. and 32.h.): l. [ ] Other: (e.g., a subsequent distribution request may only be made in accordance with l. above (i.e., the last day of another Plan Year); must be objective conditions which are ascertainable and may not exceed the limits of Code §401(a)(14) as set forth in Plan Section 6.7) D. Participant consent (i.e., involuntary cash-outs). Should Vested Account balances less than a certain dollar threshold be automatically distributed without Participant consent (mandatory distributions)? NOTE: The Plan provides that distributions of amounts of $5,000 or less are only paid as lump-sums. m. [ ] No, Participant consent is required for all distributions. n. [X] Yes, Participant consent is required only if the distribution is over: 1. [ ] $5,000 2. [X] $1,000 3. [ ] $ (less than $1,000) NOTE: If 2. or 3. is selected, rollovers will be included in determining the threshold for Participant consent. Automatic IRA rollover. With respect to mandatory distributions of amounts that are $1,000 or less, if a Participan t makes no election, the amount will be distributed as a lump-sum unless selected below. 4. [ ] If a Participant makes no election, then the amount will be automatically rolled over to an IRA provided the amount is at least $ (e.g., $200). E. Rollovers in determination of $5,000 threshold. Unless otherwise elected below, amounts attributable to rollover contributions (if any) will be included in determining the $5,000 threshold for timing of distributions, form of distributions, or consent rules. o. [ ] Exclude rollovers (rollover contributions will be excluded in determining the $5,000 threshold) NOTE: Regardless of the above election, if the Participant consent threshold is $1,000 or less, then the Administrator must include amounts attributable to rollovers for such purpose. In such case, an election to exclude rollovers above will apply for purposes of the timing and form of distributions. 33. DISTRIBUTIONS UPON DEATH (Plan Section 6.8(b)(2)) Distributions upon the death of a Participant prior to the "required beginning date" will: a. [X] be made pursuant to the election of the Participant or "designated Beneficiary" b. [ ] begin within 1 year of death for a "designated Beneficiary" and be payable over the life (or over a period not exceeding the "life expectancy") of such Beneficiary, except that if the "designated Beneficiary" is the Participant's Spouse, begin prior to December 31st of the year in which the Participant would have attained age 70 1/2 c. [ ] be made within 5 (or if lesser ) years of death for all Beneficiaries d. [ ] be made within 5 (or if lesser ) years of death for all Beneficiaries, except that if the "designated Beneficiary" is the Participant's Spouse, begin prior to December 31st of the year in which the Participant would have attained age 70 1/2 and be payable over the life (or over a period not exceeding the "life expectancy") of such "surviving Spouse" NOTE: The elections above must be coordinated with the Form of distributions (e.g., if the Plan only permits lump-sum distributions, then options a., b. and d. would not be applicable). 34. OTHER PERMITTED DISTRIBUTIONS (select all that apply; leave blank if none apply) A. IN-SERVICE DISTRIBUTIONS (Plan Section 6.11) In-service distributions will NOT be allowed (except as otherwise permitted under the Plan without regard to this provision) unless selected below (if applicable, answer a. - e.; leave blank if not applicable): a. [X] In-service distributions may be made to a Participant who has not separated from service provided the following has been satisfied (select one or more) (options 2. - 5. may only be selected with Profit Sharing Plans): 1. [X] Age. The Participant has reached: (select one) a. [ ] Normal Retirement Age b. [ ] age 62 c. [ ] age 59 1/2 (may not be selected if a Money Purchase Pension Plan) d. [X] age 70 1/2 (may not be less than age 62 for Money Purchase Pension Plans) 2. [ ] the Participant has been a Participant in the Plan for at least years (may not be less than five (5)) 3. [ ] the amounts being distributed have accumulated in the Plan for at least 2 years 4. [ ] other: (must satisfy the definitely determinable requirement under Regulations §401-1(b); may not be subject to Employer discretion; and must be limited to a combination of items a.1. – a.3. or a Participant's disability).) More than one condition. If more than one condition is selected above, then a Participant only needs to satisfy one of the conditions, unless selected below: 5. [ ] A Participant must satisfy each condition NOTE: Distributions from a Transfer Account attributable to a Money Purchase Pension Plan are not permitted prior to age 62. EXHIBIT B Page 494 Item 12. Non-Standardized Governmental 401(a) © 2020 Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. or its suppliers 17 Account restrictions. In-service distributions are permitted from the following Participant Accounts: b. [ ] all Accounts c. [ ] only from the following Accounts (select one or more): 1. [ ] Account attributable to Employer matching contributions 2. [ ] Account attributable to Employer contributions other than matching contributions 3. [ ] Rollover Account 4. [ ] Transfer Account Permitted from the following assets attributable to (select one or both): a. [ ] non-pension assets b. [ ] pension assets (e.g., from a Money Purchase Pension Plan) 5. [ ] Mandatory Employee Contribution Account 6. [ ] Other: (specify Account(s) and conditions in a manner that satisfies the definitely determinable requirement under Regulation §1.401-1(b) and is not subject to Employer discretion) Limitations. The following limitations apply to in-service distributions: d. [X] N/A (no additional limitations) e. [ ] Additional limitations (select one or more): 1. [ ] The minimum amount of a distribution is $ . 2. [ ] No more than distribution(s) may be made to a Participant during a Plan Year. 3. [ ] Distributions may only be made from Accounts which are fully Vested. 4. [ ] In-service distributions may be made subject to the following provisions: (must satisfy the definitely determinable requirement under Regulation §1.401-1(b) and not be subject to Employer discretion). B. HARDSHIP DISTRIBUTIONS (Plan Sections 6.12) (may not be selected if this is a Money Purchase Pension Plan) Hardship distributions will NOT be allowed (except as otherwise permitted under the Plan without regard to this provision) unless selected below (leave blank if not applicable): f. [ ] Hardship distributions are permitted from the following Participant Accounts: 1. [ ] all Accounts 2. [ ] only from the following Accounts (select one or more): a. [ ] Account attributable to Employer matching contributions b. [ ] Account attributable to Employer contributions other than matching contributions c. [ ] Rollover Account (if not available at any time under Question 36) d. [ ] Transfer Account (other than amounts attributable to a money purchase pension plan) e. [ ] Mandatory Employee Contribution Account f. [ ] Other: (specify Account(s) and conditions in a manner that is definitely determinable and not subject to Employer discretion) NOTE: Hardship distributions are NOT permitted from a Transfer Account attributable to pension assets (e.g., from a Money Purchase Pension Plan). Additional limitations. The following limitations apply to hardship distributions: 3. [ ] N/A (no additional limitations) 4. [ ] Additional limitations (select one or more): a. [ ] The minimum amount of a distribution is $ . b. [ ] No more than distribution(s) may be made to a Participant during a Plan Year. c. [ ] Distributions may only be made from Accounts which are fully Vested. d. [ ] A Participant does not include a Former Employee at the time of the hardship distribution. e. [ ] Hardship distributions may be made subject to the following provisions: (must satisfy the definitely determinable requirement under Regulation §1.401-1(b) and not be subject to Employer discretion). Beneficiary Hardship. Hardship distributions for Beneficiary expenses are NOT allowed unless otherwise selected below. 5. [ ] Hardship distributions for expenses of Beneficiaries are allowed Special effective date (may be left blank if effective date is same as the Plan or Restatement Effective Date; select a. and, if applicable, b.) a. [ ] effective as of b. [ ] eliminated effective as of . EXHIBIT B Page 495 Item 12. Non-Standardized Governmental 401(a) © 2020 Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. or its suppliers 18 MISCELLANEOUS 35. LOANS TO PARTICIPANTS (Plan Section 7.4) a. [ ] New loans are NOT permitted. b. [X] New loans are permitted. NOTE: Regardless of whether new loans are permitted, if the Plan permits rollovers and/or plan-to-plan transfers, then the Administrator may, in a uniform manner, accept rollovers and/or plan-to-plan transfers of loans into this Plan. 36. ROLLOVERS (Plan Section 4.6) (skip if rollover contributions are NOT selected at 11.f.) Eligibility. Rollovers may be accepted from all Participants who are Employees as well as the following (select all that apply; leave blank if not applicable): a. [X] Any Eligible Employee, even prior to meeting eligibility conditions to be a Participant b. [ ] Participants who are Former Employees Distributions. When may distributions be made from a Participant's Rollover Account? c. [X] At any time d. [ ] Only when the Participant is otherwise entitled to any distribution under the Plan 37. HEART ACT (Plan Section 4.11) (select one or more) a. [ ] HEART ACT Continued benefit accruals. Continued benefit accruals will apply b. [ ] Distributions for deemed severance of employment. The Plan permits distributions for deemed severance of employment. EXHIBIT B Page 496 Item 12. Non-Standardized Governmental 401(a) © 2020 Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. or its suppliers 19 Reliance on Provider Opinion Letter. The Provider has obtained from the IRS an Opinion Letter specifying the form of this document satisfies Code §401 as of the date of the Opinion Letter. An adopting Employer may rely on the Provider’s IRS Opinion Letter only to the extent provided in Rev. Proc. 2017-41 or subsequent guidance. The Employer may not rely on the Opinion Letter in certain other circumstances or with respect to certain qualification requirements, which are specified in the Opinion Letter and in Rev. Proc. 2017-41 or subsequent guidance. In order to have reliance in such circumstances or with respect to such qualification requirements, the Employer must apply for a determination letter to Employee Plans Determinations of the IRS. An Employer who has ever maintained or who later adopts an individual medical account, as defined in Code §415(l)(2)) in addition to this Plan may not rely on the opinion letter issued by the Internal Revenue Service with respect to the requirements of Code§415. This Adoption Agreement may be used only in conjunction with the basic Plan document #03. This Adoption Agreement and the basic Plan document will together be known as Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. Non-Standardized Governmental 401(a) Pre-Approved Plan #001. The adoption of this Plan, its qualification by the IRS, and the related tax consequences are the responsibility of the Employer and its independent tax and legal advisors. Execution for Page Substitution Amendment Only. If this paragraph is completed, this Execution Page documents an amendment to Adoption Agreement Election(s) effective , by substitute Adoption Agreement page number(s) . The Employer should retain all Adoption Agreement Execution Pages and amended pages. (Note: The Effective Date may be retroactive or may be prospective.) The Provider, Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. will notify the Employer of any amendment to this Pre-approved Plan or of any abandonment or discontinuance by the Provider of its maintenance of this Pre-approved Plan. In addition, this Plan is provided to the Employer either in connection with investment in a product or pursuant to a contract or other arrangement for products and/or services. Upon cessation of such investment in a product or cessation of such contract or arrangement, as applicable, the Employer is no longer considered to be an adopter of this Plan and Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. no longer has any obligations to the Employer that relate to the adoption of this Plan. For inquiries regarding the adoption of the Pre-approved Plan, the Provider's intended meaning of any Plan provisions or the effect of the Opinion Letter issued to the Provider, please contact the Provider or the Provider’s representative. Provider Name: Nationwide Retirement Solutions Address: P.O. Box 182797 Columbus Ohio 43218 Telephone Number: (877) 496-1630 Email address (optional): The Employer, by executing below, hereby adopts this Plan (add additional signature lines as needed). NOTE: If more than one Plan type is adopted, the Plan Provider must provide multiple plan documents for Employer signature. EMPLOYER: City of Fort Collins By: DATE SIGNED EXHIBIT B Page 497 Item 12. APPENDIX A SPECIAL EFFECTIVE DATES AND OTHER PERMITTED ELECTIONS A. Special effective dates (leave blank if not applicable): a. [ ] Special effective date(s): . For periods prior to the specified special effective date(s), the Plan terms in effect prior to its restatement under this Adoption Agreement will control for purposes of the designated provisions. A special effective date may not result in the delay of a Plan provision beyond the permissible effective date under any applicable law. (The Employer has reliance on the IRS Opinion Letter only if the features described in the preceding sentence constitute protected benefits within the meaning of Code Section 411(d)(6) and the regulations thereunder, and only if such features are permissible in a "Cycle 3" preapproved plan, i.e., the features are not specifically prohibited by Revenue Procedure 2017-41 (or any superseding guidance) B. Other permitted elections (the following elections are optional): a. [ ] No other permitted elections The following elections apply (select one or more): b. [ ] Deemed 125 compensation (Plan Section 1.23). Deemed 125 compensation will be included in Compensation and 415 Compensation. c. [X] Break-in-Service Rules. The following Break-in-Service rules apply to the Plan.(select 1. or 2.) 1. [ ] Reemployed after five (5) 1-Year Breaks in Service ("rule of parity" provisions) (Plan Section 3.5(e)). The "rule of parity" provisions in Plan Section 3.5(d) will apply for (select one or both): a. [ ] eligibility purposes b. [ ] vesting purposes 2. [X] Break-in-Service rules for rehired Employees. The following Break-in-Service rules set forth in Plan Sections 3.2 and 3.5 apply: (select one or both) a. [X] all Break-in-Service rules set forth in such Sections. b. [ ] only the following: (specify which provisions apply to the Plan) d. [X] Beneficiary if no beneficiary elected by Participant (Plan Section 6.2(f)). In the event no valid designation of Beneficiary exists, then in lieu of the order set forth in Plan Section 6.2(f), the following order of priority will be used: 1.) Surviving Spouse 2.) Participant's Estate. ?Beneficiary? means the person (or entity) to whom all or a portion of a deceased Participant's interest in the Plan is payable, subject to the restrictions of Sections 6.2 and 6.6. Upon death, the Participant?s surviving spouse is the Beneficiary unless he or she consents to the Participant?s naming another Beneficiary. (specify an order of beneficiaries; e.g., children per stirpes, parents, and then step-children). e. [ ] Joint and Survivor Annuity/Pre-Retirement Survivor Annuity. If the Plan applies the Joint and Survivor Annuity rules, then the normal form of annuity will be a joint and 50% survivor annuity (i.e., if 31.i. or 31.j. is selected) and the Pre-Retirement Survivor Annuity will be equal to 50% of a Participant's interest in the Plan unless selected below (select 1. and/or 2.) 1. [ ] Normal form of annuity. Instead of a joint and 50% survivor annuity, the normal form of the qualified Joint and Survivor Annuity will be: (select one) a. [ ] joint and 100% survivor annuity b. [ ] joint and 75% survivor annuity c. [ ] joint and 66 2/3% survivor annuity 2. [ ] Pre-Retirement Survivor Annuity. The Pre-Retirement Survivor Annuity (minimum Spouse's death benefit) will be equal to 50% of a Participant's interest in the Plan unless a different percentage is selected below: (select one) a. [ ] 100% of a Participant's interest in the Plan. b. [ ] % (may not be less than 50%) of a Participant's interest in the Plan. f. [ ] Limitation Year (Plan Section 1.30). The Limitation Year for Code §415 purposes will be (must be a consecutive twelve month period) instead of the "determination period" for Compensation. g. [ ] 415 Limits when 2 defined contribution plans are maintained (Plan Section 4.4). If any Participant is covered under another qualified defined contribution plan maintained by the Employer or an Affiliated Employer, or if the Employer or an Affiliated Employer maintains a welfare benefit fund, as defined in Code §419(e), or an individual medical account, as defined in Code §415(l)(2), under which amounts are treated as "annual additions" with respect to any Participant in this Plan, then the provisions of Plan Section 4.4(b) will apply unless otherwise specified below: 1. [ ] Specify, in a manner that precludes Employer discretion, the method under which the plans will limit total "annual additions" to the "maximum permissible amount" and will properly reduce any "excess amounts": . h. [ ] Recognition of Service with other employers (Plan Sections 1.40 and 1.55). Service with the following employers (in addition to those specified at Question 15) will be recognized as follows (select one or more): EXHIBIT B Page 498 Item 12. Contribution Eligibility Vesting Allocation 1. [ ] Employer name: a. [ ] b. [ ] c. [ ] 2. [ ] Employer name: a. [ ] b. [ ] c. [ ] 3. [ ] Employer name: a. [ ] b. [ ] c. [ ] 4. [ ] Employer name: a. [ ] b. [ ] c. [ ] 5. [ ] Employer name: a. [ ] b. [ ] c. [ ] 6. [ ] Employer name: a. [ ] b. [ ] c. [ ] Limitations 7. [ ] The following provisions or limitations apply with respect to the a. [ ] b. [ ] c. [ ] recognition of prior service: (e.g., credit service with X only on/following 1/1/19) i. [ ] Other vesting provisions. The following vesting provisions apply to the Plan (select one or more): 1. [ ] Special vesting provisions. The following special provisions apply to the vesting provisions of the Plan: (must be definitely determinable and satisfy the parameters set forth at Question 17) 2. [ ] Pre-amendment vesting schedule. (Plan Section 6.4(b)). If the vesting schedule has been amended and a different vesting schedule other than the schedule at Question 17 applies to any Participants, then the following provisions apply (must select one of a. – d.): Applicable Participants. The vesting schedules in Question 17 only apply to: a. [ ] Participants who are Employees as of (enter date). b. [ ] Participants in the Plan who have an Hour of Service on or after (enter date). c. [ ] Participants (even if not an Employee) in the Plan on or after (enter date). d. [ ] Other: (e.g., Participants in division A. Must be definitely determinable.) j. [ ] Minimum distribution transitional rules (Plan Section 6.8(e)(5)) NOTE: This Section does not apply to (1) a new Plan, (2) an amendment or restatement of an existing Plan that never contained the provisions of Code §401(a)(9) as in effect prior to the amendments made by the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 (SBJPA), or (3) a Plan where the transition rules below do not affect any current Participants. The "required beginning date" for a Participant is: 1. [ ] April 1st of the calendar year following the year in which the Participant attains age 70 1/2. (pre-SBJPA rules continue to apply) 2. [ ] April 1st of the calendar year following the later of the year in which the Participant attains age 70 1/2 or retires (the post-SBJPA rules), with the following exceptions (select one or both; leave blank if both applied effective as of January 1, 1996): a. [ ] A Participant who was already receiving required minimum distributions under the pre-SBJPA rules as of (may not be earlier than January 1, 1996) was allowed to stop receiving distributions and have them recommence in accordance with the post-SBJPA rules. Upon the recommencement of distributions, if the Plan permits annuities as a form of distribution then the following apply: 1. [ ] N/A (annuity distributions are not permitted) 2. [ ] Upon the recommencement of distributions, the original Annuity Starting Date will be retained. 3. [ ] Upon the recommencement of distributions, a new Annuity Starting Date is created. b. [ ] A Participant who had not begun receiving required minimum distributions as of (may not be earlier than January 1, 1996) may elect to defer commencement of distributions until retirement. The option to defer the commencement of distributions (i.e., to elect to receive in-service distributions upon attainment of age 70 1/2) applies to all such Participants unless selected below: 1. [ ] The in-service distribution option was eliminated with respect to Participants who attained age 70 1/2 in or after the calendar year that began after the later of (1) December 31, 1998, or (2) the adoption date of the restatement to bring the Plan into compliance with the SBJPA. k. [ ] Other spousal provisions (select one or more) 1. [ ] Definition of Spouse. The term Spouse includes a spouse under federal law as well as the following: . EXHIBIT B Page 499 Item 12. 2. [ ] Automatic revocation of spousal designation (Plan Section 6.2(g)). The automatic revocation of a spousal Beneficiary designation in the case of divorce does not apply. 3. [ ] Timing of QDRO payment. A distribution to an Alternate Payee shall not be permitted prior to the time a Participant would be entitled to a distribution. l. [ ] Applicable law. Instead of using the applicable laws set forth in Plan Section 9.4(a), the Plan will be governed by the laws of: m. [X] Total and Permanent Disability. Instead of the definition at Plan Section 1.50, Total and Permanent Disability means: A physical or mental impairment which is of such permanence and degree that, as determined by the Employer, a participant is unable because of such impairment to perform any substantial gainful activity for which he/she is suited by virtue of his/her experience, training, or education and that has lasted, or can be expected to last, for a continuous period of not less than twelve (12) months, or can be expected to result in death. The permanence and degree of such impairment shall be supported by medical evidence. If the Employer maintains a long-term disability plan, the definition of Total and Permanent Disability shall be the same as the definition of disability in the long-term disability plan (must be definitely determinable). n. [ ] Inclusion of Reclassified Employees (Plan Section 1.17(a)). The Employer does not exclude Reclassified Employees subject to the following provisions: (leave blank if not applicable): o. [ ] Claims procedures (Plan Section 2.10). The claims procedures forth in Plan Section 2.10(a) – (b) apply unless otherwise elected below or unless the Administrator has operationally adopted alternative procedures. 1. [ ] The claims procedures set forth in Plan Section 2.10(c) – (g) apply instead of Plan Section 2.10(a). 2. [ ] The claims procedures set forth in Plan Section 2.10(c)-(g) apply as follows: (specify which provisions apply and/or modified) p. [ ] Age 62 In-Service Distributions For Transferred Money Purchase Assets (Plan Section 6.11) In-service distributions will be allowed for Participants at age 62. (applies only for Transfer Accounts from a Money Purchase Pension Plan) (skip this question if the Plan is a Money Purchase Pension Plan or if in-service distributions are already permitted for Transferred Accounts at Question 34) Limitations. The following limitations apply to these in-service distributions: 1. [ ] The Plan already provides for in-service distributions and the restrictions set forth in the Plan (e.g., minimum amount of distributions or frequency of distributions) are applicable to in-service distributions at age 62. 2. [ ] N/A (no limitations) 3. [ ] The following elections apply to in-service distributions at age 62 (select one or more): a. [ ] The minimum amount of a distribution is $ (may not exceed $1,000). b. [ ] No more than distribution(s) may be made to a Participant during a Plan Year. c. [ ] Distributions may only be made from Accounts which are fully Vested. d. [ ] In-service distributions may be made subject to the following provisions: (must be definitely determinable and not subject to discretion). q. [ ] QLACs. (Plan Section 6.8(e)(4) A Participant may elect a QLAC (as defined in Plan Section 6.8(e)(4)) or any alternative form of annuity permitted pursuant to a QLAC in which the Participant’s Account has been invested. EXHIBIT B Page 500 Item 12. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES The following are optional administrative provisions. The Administrator may implement procedures that override any elections in this Section without a formal Plan amendment. In addition, modifications to these procedures will not affect an Employer's reliance on the Plan. A. Loan Limitations. (complete only if loans to Participants are permitted; leave blank if none apply) a. [X] Limitations (select one or more): 1. [X] Loans will be treated as Participant directed investments. 2. [ ] Loans will only be made for hardship or financial necessity as specified below (select a. or b.) a. [ ] hardship reasons specified in Plan Section 6.12 b. [ ] financial necessity (as defined in the loan program). 3. [X] The minimum loan will be $ 1,000 . 4. [X] A Participant may only have one (1) (e.g., one (1)) loan(s) outstanding at any time. 5. [ ] All outstanding loan balances will become due and payable in their entirety upon the occurrence of a distributable event (other than satisfaction of the conditions for an in-service distribution (including a hardship distribution), if applicable). 6. [ ] The home loan term will be years. (if not selected, the Administrator establishes the term for repayment of a home loan) 7. [ ] Account restrictions. Loans will only be permitted from the following Participant Accounts (select all that apply or leave blank if no limitations apply): a. [ ] Account(s) attributable to Employer matching contributions b. [ ] Account attributable to Employer contributions other than matching contributions c. [ ] Rollover Account d. [ ] Transfer Account e. [ ] Other: AND, if loans are restricted to certain accounts, the limitations of Code §72(p) will be applied: f. [ ] by determining the limits by only considering the restricted accounts. g. [ ] by determining the limits taking into account a Participant's entire interest in the Plan. Additional Loan Provisions (select all that apply; leave blank if none apply) b. [X] Loan payments. Loans are repaid by (if left blank, then payroll deduction applies unless Participant is not subject to payroll (e.g., partner who only has a draw)): 1. [ ] payroll deduction 2. [X] ACH (Automated Clearing House) 3. [ ] check a. [ ] Only for prepayment c. [X] Interest rate. Loans will be granted at the following interest rate (if left blank, then 3. below applies): 1. [X] .5 percentage points over the prime interest rate 2. [ ] % 3. [ ] the Administrator establishes the rate at the time the loan is made d. [X] Refinancing. Loan refinancing is allowed. B. Life Insurance. (Plan Section 7.5) a. [X] Life insurance may not be purchased. b. [ ] Life insurance may be purchased... 1. [ ] at the option of the Administrator 2. [ ] at the option of the Participant Limitations 3. [ ] N/A (no limitations) 4. [ ] The purchase of initial or additional life insurance will be subject to the following limitations (select one or more): a. [ ] Each initial Contract will have a minimum face amount of $ . b. [ ] Each additional Contract will have a minimum face amount of $ . c. [ ] The Participant has completed Years (or Periods) of Service. d. [ ] The Participant has completed Years (or Periods) of Service while a Participant in the Plan. e. [ ] The Participant is under age on the Contract issue date. f. [ ] The maximum amount of all Contracts on behalf of a Participant may not exceed $ . g. [ ] The maximum face amount of any life insurance Contract will be $ . C. Plan Expenses. Will the Plan assess against an individual Participant's Account certain Plan expenses that are incurred by, or are attributable to, a particular Participant based on use of a particular Plan service? a. [ ] No b. [X] Yes EXHIBIT B Page 501 Item 12. Use of Forfeitures Forfeitures of Employer contributions other than matching contributions will be: c. [ ] added to the Employer contribution and allocated in the same manner d. [ ] used to reduce any Employer contribution e. [ ] allocated to all Participants eligible to share in the allocations of Employer contributions or Forfeitures in the same proportion that each Participant's Compensation for the Plan Year bears to the Compensation of all Participants for such year f. [ ] other: (describe the treatment of Forfeitures in a manner that is definitely determinable and not subject to Employer discretion) Forfeitures of Employer matching contributions will be: g. [ ] N/A. Same as above or no Employer matching contributions. h. [ ] used to reduce the Employer matching contribution. i. [ ] used to reduce any Employer contribution. j. [ ] other: (describe the treatment of Forfeitures in a manner that is definitely determinable and not subject to Employer discretion) D. Directed investments a. [ ] Participant directed investments are NOT permitted. b. [X] Participant directed investments are permitted from the following Participant Accounts: 1. [X] all Accounts 2. [ ] only from the following Accounts (select one or more): a. [ ] Account attributable to Employer contributions b. [ ] Rollover Account c. [ ] Transfer Account d. [ ] Other: (specify Account(s) and conditions in a manner that is definitely determinable and not subject to Employer discretion) E. Rollover Limitations. Will the Plan accept rollover contributions and/or direct rollovers from the sources specified below? a. [ ] No, Administrator determines in operation which sources will be accepted. b. [X] Yes Rollover sources. Indicate the sources of rollovers that will be accepted (select one or more) 1. [X] Direct Rollovers. The Plan will accept a direct rollover of an eligible rollover distribution from (select one or more): a. [ ] a qualified plan described in Code §401(a) (including a 401(k) plan, profit sharing plan, defined benefit plan, stock bonus plan and money purchase plan), excluding after-tax employee contributions b. [X] a qualified plan described in Code §401(a) (including a 401(k) plan, profit sharing plan, defined benefit plan, stock bonus plan and money purchase plan), including after-tax employee contributions c. [ ] a plan described in Code §403(a) (an annuity plan), excluding after-tax employee contributions d. [X] a plan described in Code §403(a) (an annuity plan), including after-tax employee contributions e. [ ] a plan described in Code §403(b) (a tax-sheltered annuity), excluding after-tax employee contributions f. [X] a plan described in Code §403(b) (a tax-sheltered annuity), including after-tax employee contributions g. [X] a plan described in Code §457(b) (eligible deferred compensation plan) Direct Rollovers of Participant Loan. The Plan will NOT accept a direct rollover of a Participant loan from another plan unless selected below (leave blank if default applies) h. [ ] The Plan will accept a direct rollover of a Participant loan i. [ ] The Plan will only accept a direct rollover of a Participant loan only in the following situation(s): (e.g., only from Participants who were employees of an acquired organization). 2. [X] Participant Rollover Contributions from Other Plans (i.e., not via a direct plan-to-plan transfer). The Plan will accept a contribution of an eligible rollover distribution (select one or more): a. [X] a qualified plan described in Code §401(a) (including a 401(k) plan, profit sharing plan, defined benefit plan, stock bonus plan and money purchase plan) b. [X] a plan described in Code §403(a) (an annuity plan) c. [X] a plan described in Code §403(b) (a tax-sheltered annuity) d. [X] a governmental plan described in Code §457(b) (eligible deferred compensation plan) 3. [X] Participant Rollover Contributions from IRAs: The Plan will accept a rollover contribution of the portion of a distribution from a traditional IRA that is eligible to be rolled over and would otherwise be includible in gross income. Rollovers from Roth IRAs or a Coverdell Education Savings Account (formerly known as an Education IRA) are not permitted because they are not traditional IRAs. A rollover from a SIMPLE IRA is allowed if the amounts are rolled over after the individual has been in the SIMPLE IRA for at least two years. F. Trustee(s) or Insurer(s). Information regarding Trustee(s)/Insurer(s) (required for the Summary Plan Description and, if requested, the Trust Agreement) (Note: Select a. if not using provided trust. MUST select b and following questions as applicable): a. [ ] Do not produce the trust agreement b. [X] Complete the following UNLESS not selecting supporting forms: EXHIBIT B Page 502 Item 12. Trustee/Insurer (select a. OR one or more of d. - e.) c. [ ] Insurer. This Plan is funded exclusively with Contracts (select one or more of 1. - 4) Name of Insurer(s) 1. [ ] 2. [ ] 3. [ ] Use Employer address/telephone number/email 4. [ ] Use following address/telephone number/email a. Street: b. City: c. State: d. Zip: e. Telephone: f. Email: d. [ ] Individual Trustee(s) e. [X] Corporate Trustee Name of Trust f. Specify name of Trust (required for FIS trust): City of Fort Collins Police Plan Individual Trustees (if d. selected above, complete g. – j.) Directed/Discretionary Trustees. The individual Trustee(s) executing this Adoption Agreement are (select g. or h.) g. [ ] Select for each individual Trustee (skip to next question) h. [ ] The following selections apply to all individual Trustee(s) (select 1. - 4. as applicable) 1. [ ] A discretionary Trustee over all plan assets (may not be selected with 2. - 4.) 2. [ ] A nondiscretionary (directed) Trustee over all plan assets (may not be selected with 1., 3. or 4.) 3. [ ] The individual Trustee(s) will serve as a discretionary Trustee over the following assets: (may not be selected with 1. or 2.) 4. [ ] The individual Trustee(s) will serve as a nondiscretionary (directed) Trustee over the following assets: (may not be selected with 1. or 2.) Individual Trustee(s) (complete if d. selected above) i. [ ] Individual Trustee(s) are (select one or more of a. - j.; enter address at j. below) a. Name Title/Email: 1. Title 2. Email (optional) Trustee is: (complete if g. selected above; select 3. – 6. as applicable) 3. [ ] Discretionary Trustee over all plan assets (may not be selected with 4. – 6.) 4. [ ] A discretionary Trustee over the following plan assets: (may not be select with 3. or 5.) 5. [ ] Nondiscretionary Trustee over all plan assets (may not be selected with 3., 4. or 6.) 6. [ ] A nondiscretionary (directed) Trustee or Custodian over the following plan assets (may not be selected with 3. or 5.) b. Name Title/Email: 1. Title 2. Email (optional) Trustee is: (complete if g. selected above; select 3. – 6. as applicable) 3. [ ] Discretionary Trustee over all plan assets (may not be selected with 4. – 6.) 4. [ ] A discretionary Trustee over the following plan assets: (may not be select with 3. or 5.) 5. [ ] Nondiscretionary Trustee over all plan assets (may not be selected with 3., 4. or 6.) 6. [ ] A nondiscretionary (directed) Trustee or Custodian over the following plan assets (may not be selected with 3. or 5.) c. Name Title/Email: 1. Title 2. Email (optional) Trustee is: (complete if g. selected above; select 3. – 6. as applicable) 3. [ ] Discretionary Trustee over all plan assets (may not be selected with 4. – 6.) 4. [ ] A discretionary Trustee over the following plan assets: (may not be select with 3. or 5.) 5. [ ] Nondiscretionary Trustee over all plan assets (may not be selected with 3., 4. or 6.) 6. [ ] A nondiscretionary (directed) Trustee or Custodian over the following plan assets (may not be selected with 3. or 5.) EXHIBIT B Page 503 Item 12. d. Name Title/Email: 1. Title 2. Email (optional) Trustee is: (complete if g. selected above; select 3. – 6. as applicable) 3. [ ] Discretionary Trustee over all plan assets (may not be selected with 4. or 6.) 4. [ ] A discretionary Trustee over the following plan assets: (may not be selected with 3. or 5.) 5. [ ] Nondiscretionary Trustee over all plan assets (may not be selected with 3., 4. or 6.) 6. [ ] A nondiscretionary (directed) Trustee or Custodian over the following plan assets (may not be selected with 3. or 5.) e. Name Title/Email: 1. Title 2. Email (optional) Trustee is: (complete if g. selected above; select 3. – 6. as applicable) 3. [ ] Discretionary Trustee over all plan assets (may not be selected with 4. or 6.) 4. [ ] A discretionary Trustee over the following plan assets: (may not be selected with 3. or 5.) 5. [ ] Nondiscretionary Trustee over all plan assets (may not be selected with 3., 4. or 6.) 6. [ ] A nondiscretionary (directed) Trustee or Custodian over the following plan assets (may not be selected with 3. or 5.) f. Name Title/Email: 1. Title 2. Email (optional) Trustee is: (complete if g. selected above; select 3. – 6. as applicable) 3. [ ] Discretionary Trustee over all plan assets (may not be selected with 4. or 6.) 4. [ ] A discretionary Trustee over the following plan assets: (may not be selected with 3. or 5.) 5. [ ] Nondiscretionary Trustee over all plan assets (may not be selected with 3., 4. or 6.) 6. [ ] A nondiscretionary (directed) Trustee or Custodian over the following plan assets (may not be selected with 3. or 5.) g. Name Title/Email: 1. Title 2. Email (optional) Trustee is: (complete if g. selected above; select 3. – 6. as applicable) 3. [ ] Discretionary Trustee over all plan assets (may not be selected with 4. or 6.) 4. [ ] A discretionary Trustee over the following plan assets: (may not be selected with 3. or 5.) 5. [ ] Nondiscretionary Trustee over all plan assets (may not be selected with 3., 4. or 6.) 6. [ ] A nondiscretionary (directed) Trustee or Custodian over the following plan assets (may not be selected with 3. or 5.) h. Name Title/Email: 1. Title 2. Email (optional) Trustee is: (complete if g. selected above; select 3. – 6. as applicable) 3. [ ] Discretionary Trustee over all plan assets (may not be selected with 4. or 6.) 4. [ ] A discretionary Trustee over the following plan assets: (may not be selected with 3. or 5.) 5. [ ] Nondiscretionary Trustee over all plan assets (may not be selected with 3., 4. or 6.) 6. [ ] A nondiscretionary (directed) Trustee or Custodian over the following plan assets (may not be selected with 3. or 5.) i. Name Title/Email: 1. Title 2. Email (optional) Trustee is: (complete if g. selected above; select 3. – 6. as applicable) 3. [ ] Discretionary Trustee over all plan assets (may not be selected with 4. or 6.) 4. [ ] A discretionary Trustee over the following plan assets: (may not be selected with 3. or 5.) 5. [ ] Nondiscretionary Trustee over all plan assets (may not be selected with 3., 4. or 6.) 6. [ ] A nondiscretionary (directed) Trustee or Custodian over the following plan assets (may not be selected with 3. or 5.) EXHIBIT B Page 504 Item 12. j. Name Title/Email: 1. Title 2. Email (optional) Trustee is: (complete if g. selected above; select 3. – 6. as applicable) 3. [ ] Discretionary Trustee over all plan assets (may not be selected with 4. or 6.) 4. [ ] A discretionary Trustee over the following plan assets: (may not be selected with 3. or 5.) 5. [ ] Nondiscretionary Trustee over all plan assets (may not be selected with 3., 4. or 6.) 6. [ ] A nondiscretionary (directed) Trustee or Custodian over the following plan assets (may not be selected with 3. or 5.) j. [ ] Individual Trustee Address (complete if d. selected above) 1. [ ] Use Employer address/telephone number/email 2. [ ] Use following address/telephone number/email a. Street: b. City: c. State: d. Zip: e. Telephone: f. Email: Corporate Trustee Name/Type/Address (complete if e. selected above) k. [X] Name Nationwide Trust Company, FSB Address/telephone number/email 1. [ ] Use Employer address/telephone number/email 2. [X] Use following address/telephone number/email a. Street: 10 West Nationwide Blvd. b. City: Columbus c. State: Ohio d. Zip: 43215 e. Telephone: (614) 435-5633 f. Email: Directed/Discretionary. The Corporate Trustee is (select 3. - 6. as applicable) 3. [ ] A discretionary Trustee over all plan assets (may not be selected with 4. – 6.) 4. [X] A nondiscretionary (directed) Trustee over all plan assets (may not be selected with 3., 5. or 6.) 5. [ ] A discretionary Trustee over the following plan assets over the following assets: (may not be selected with 3. – 4.) 6. [ ] A nondiscretionary (directed) Trustee over the following plan assets (may not be selected with 3. – 4.) Signee (optional): 7. [ ] Name of person signing on behalf of the corporate Trustee 8. [ ] Email address of person signing on behalf of the corporate Trustee Special Trustee for collection of contributions. The Employer appoints the following Special Trustee with the responsibility to collect delinquent contributions (optional) l. [X] Name Blaine Dunn Title: 1. Accounting Director Address/telephone number/email 2. [ ] Use Employer address/telephone number/email 3. [X] Use following address/telephone number/email a. Street: 215 N Mason St b. City: Fort Collins c. State: Colorado d. Zip: 80524 e. Telephone: 970-221-6784 f. Email: bdunn@fcgov.com Custodian(s) Name/Address . The Custodian(s) are (optional) m. [ ] Name(s) Address/telephone number/email 1. [ ] Use Employer address/telephone number/email EXHIBIT B Page 505 Item 12. 2. [ ] Use following address/telephone number/email a. Street: b. City: c. State: d. Zip: e. Telephone: f. Email: Investment in common, collective or pooled trust funds. The nondiscretionary Trustee, as directed or the discretionary Trustee acting without direction (and in addition to the discretionary Trustee's authority to invest in its own funds), may invest in any of the following trust funds: (optional) n. [ ] (Specify the names of one or more trust funds in which the Plan can invest) Choice of law o. [X] This trust will be governed by the laws of the state of: 1. [ ] State in which the Employer's principal office is located 2. [X] State in which the corporate trustee or insurer is located 3. [ ] Other EXHIBIT B Page 506 Item 12. City of Fort Collins Police Plan Addendum 1 Nationwide-Sponsored Cycle 3 Governmental The following provisions are incorporated into Question 24 of the Adoption Agreement Section 24.c.4: Employer Contributions (other than matching contributions)- The Employer will make the following contributions Year(s) % Of Compensation 2019 10% 2020 10.5% 2021-2024 11% EXHIBIT B Page 507 Item 12. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 3 December 20, 2022 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council STAFF Ryan Mounce, City Planner Brad Yatabe, Legal SUBJECT Resolution 2022-142 Adopting the 2022 Update to the Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to adopt the annual update of the Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins. The Three-Mile Plan is a reference document of plans and policies coordinating the general location, character, utilities, infrastructure, and land uses for areas of potential annexation within three miles of the municipal boundary. An annual update of the Three-Mile Plan is required by Colorado Revised Statutes and highlights applicable plans and policies adopted or amended by City Council over the preceding year. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION In 1987 the Colorado Legislature modified annexation laws to limit municipal annexations to no more than three miles in a single direction in a given year. A requirement was later added that each municipality shall prepare and adopt a “Three-Mile Plan” to coordinate the provision of services, infrastructure, utilities, and land uses for areas of potential annexation near municipal boundaries. Specifically, Section 31-12-105 of the Colorado Revised Statues requires the City to complete a plan as follows: Prior to completion of any annexation within the three-mile area, the municipality shall have in place a plan for that area that generally describes the proposed location, character, and extent of streets, subways, bridges, waterways, waterfronts, parkways, playgrounds, squares, parks, aviation fields, other public ways, grounds, open spaces, public utilities, and terminals for water, light, sanitation, transportation, and power to be provided by the municipality and the proposed land uses for the area. Such plan shall be updated at least once annually. The City’s original Three-Mile Plan was adopted by Council in 1998 and has been revised annually pursuant to State Statutes. The Fort Collins Three-Mile Plan functions as a reference document, highlighting adopted plans and policies describing the general location, character, utilities, infrastructure, and land uses within and beyond the municipal boundary. Page 508 Item 13. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 3 This Three-Mile Plan describes relevant and applicable plans and policies for each of the items listed in the statute in four categories: Transportation-related items:  Streets  Subways  Bridges  Parkways  Aviation Fields  Terminals for Transportation Parks, Natural Areas and Open Lands-related items:  Waterways  Waterfronts  Playgrounds  Squares  Parks  Grounds  Open Spaces Utilities and related items:  Public Utilities  Terminals for Water, Light, Sanitation, and Power Provided by the Municipality Proposed Land Uses:  Inside Growth Management Area  Outside Growth Management Area This update represents a recurring action to ensure compliance with State requirements. There have been relatively few changes to the plans and policies referenced in the Three-Mile Plan since the last update in 2021. Specifically, the 2022 update highlights in bold the following plans and policies which have been adopted or amended over the preceding year:  2022 Strategic Plan  Greywater Ordinance  Resilient Recovery Plan Several plans or policies that warrant inclusion in the Three-Mile Plan are nearing implementation or are between first and second readings. The following items will be captured in the 2023 Three-Mile Plan update if they become fully implemented and/or adopted by Council:  1041 Regulations (Land Use Code / Land Development Code)  Active Modes Plan  Land Development Code  Oil & Gas Regulations (Land Use Code / Land Development Code) CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS There are no direct financial impacts associated with adoption of the Plan. BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Page 509 Item 13. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 3 The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended City Council adopt the 2022 Three-Mile Plan update on the Commission’s consent agenda at their November 17, 2022, hearing. PUBLIC OUTREACH No public outreach was conducted for this item; the plans and policies referenced by the Three-Mile Plan completed individual outreach efforts. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution for Consideration 2. Resolution Exhibit A-Three-Mile Plan Page 510 Item 13. -1- RESOLUTION 2022-142 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADOPTING THE 2022 UPDATE TO THE THREE-MILE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WHEREAS, Colorado law provides at Colorado Revised Statutes Section 31-12-105, that each municipality annexing land in the State must prepare and annually update a plan for the geographic area within three miles in any direction from the municipality’s boundaries (the “Three-Mile Plan”); and WHEREAS, the Three-Mile Plan must generally describe the proposed location, character, and extent of streets, subways, bridges, waterways, waterfronts, parkways, playgrounds, squares, parks, aviation fields, other public ways, grounds, open spaces, public utilities and terminals for water, light, sanitation, transportation and power to be provided by the municipality, and the proposed land uses for the area; and WHEREAS, the City’s original Three-Mile Plan was adopted in 1998, and has been annually updated since that time; and WHEREAS, the City Council most recently adopted an updated Three-Mile Plan in December 2021, with the adoption of Resolution 2021-112; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, at its November 17, 2022, meeting unanimously recommended as part of its consent agenda that City Council approve the 2022 Three-Mile Plan; and WHEREAS, City staff has prepared and presented to the City Council a proposed 2022 update of the Three-Mile Plan for the City, which the City Council has determined is in the best interests of the City of Fort Collins and should be approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the updated Three-Mile Plan for the City, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby approved and adopted. Page 511 Item 13. -2- Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 20th day December A.D. 2022. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Page 512 Item 13. EXHIBIT A Page 513 Item 13. City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2022 Update Page 2 Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ 2 I. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 3 What is the Purpose of the Three-Mile Plan? ........................................................... 3 What Does the Three-Mile Plan Describe? .............................................................. 3 II. Elements of the Three-Mile Plan .............................................................................. 5 Transportation-related Items .................................................................................... 5 Parks, Natural Areas, and Open Lands-related Items .............................................. 6 Utilities and Related Items ....................................................................................... 8 Proposed Land Uses ................................................................................................ 9 ATTACHMENT A: Three-Mile Plan Boundary .............................................................. 11 ATTACHMENT B: Significant Waterways and Waterfronts within the Three-Mile Plan Boundary ....................................................................................................................... 12 ATTACHMENT C: Airports within the Three-Mile Plan Boundary ................................ 13 ATTACHMENT D: Land Uses within the Three-Mile Plan Boundary……………………14 EXHIBIT A Page 514 Item 13. City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2022 Update Page 3 I. Introduction What is the Purpose of the Three-Mile Plan? The Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins is a reference document of approved plans and policies describing infrastructure, land use planning, and provision of services for areas of potential annexation. The Plan is required per Colorado Revised Statues Section 31-12-105 and is updated annually to reflect new or revised plans and policies. The Three-Mile Plan describes the general location, character, utilities, and infrastructure for areas within three miles of the municipal boundary. The Three-Mile Plan takes a much broader approach to the annexation and development of land than a specific annexation impact report and ensures proposed annexations are consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan and other annexation and land development policies. Section 31-12-105 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires municipalities to complete a plan within three miles in any direction of the municipal boundary as follows: Prior to the completion of any annexation within the three-mile area, the municipality shall have in place a plan for that area that generally describes the proposed location, character, and extent of streets, subways, bridges, waterways, waterfronts, parkways, playgrounds, squares, parks, aviation fields, other public ways, grounds, open spaces, public utilities, and terminals for water, light, sanitation, transportation, and power to be provided by the municipality and the proposed land uses for the area. Updates to the Three-Mile Plan are routine and occur on an annual basis. The 2022 update highlights changes to approved plans, policies, and other applicable documents which have occurred since the prior Three-Mile Plan was adopted in 2021. What Does the Three-Mile Plan Describe? This Three-Mile Plan references and illustrates adopted plans, policies, maps, and other documents adopted by the City which generally describe the location, character, and extent of land uses, transportation facilities, and infrastructure required by State Statutes listed above. These documents are organized into four categories, as follows: Transportation-related Items:  Streets  Subways  Bridges  Parkways  Aviation Fields  Other Public Ways  Terminals for Transportation EXHIBIT A Page 515 Item 13. City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2022 Update Page 4 Parks, Natural Areas and Open Lands-related Items:  Waterways  Waterfronts  Playgrounds  Squares  Parks  Grounds  Open Spaces Utilities and Related Items:  Public Utilities  Terminals for Water, Light, Sanitation, and Power Provided by the Municipality Proposed Land Uses:  Inside Growth Management Area (GMA)  Outside Growth Management Area (GMA) In addition to adopted plans and policies adopted by the City, the Three-Mile Plan may also reference other plans and policies adopted by neighboring jurisdictions or organizations that provide contextual guidance as they overlap with Fort Collins’ Three- Mile Plan study area. 2022 Three-Mile Plan Updates There have been relatively few updates to existing plans or newly-adopted plans within the three-mile study area over the past year. Section II highlights updated or newly- adopted documents from the preceding year in bold text. EXHIBIT A Page 516 Item 13. City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2022 Update Page 5 II. Elements of the Three-Mile Plan Transportation-related Items 1. Streets:  2022 Strategic Plan  Airport Master Plan  Capital Improvement Plan  City Plan  City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan  City of Fort Collins Street Standards  City of Fort Collins Bicycle Safety Education Plan  Colorado State University Parking and Transportation Master Plan  Downtown Parking Plan  Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan  Harmony Road ETC Master Plan  Harmony Road Access Control Plan  I-25/392 Interchange Improvement Plan  Larimer County Transportation Master Plan  Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards  Mason Corridor Master Plan  North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan  North College and Highway 14 Access Control Plan  Northern Colorado Regional Planning Study  Northern Colorado Regional Communities I-25 Corridor Plan  Our Climate Future  South College Access Control Plan  Fort Collins Streetscape Design Standards  Resilient Recovery Plan  Subarea Plans o CDOT US392 Environmental Overview Study o CDOT North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement o CDOT US287 Environmental Overview Study o Downtown Plan o Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program Summary Report o Downtown Strategic Plan o East Mulberry Corridor Plan o East Side Neighborhood Plan o Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan o Harmony Corridor Plan o I-25 Subarea Plan o Lincoln Corridor Plan o Midtown in Motion o Mountain Vista Subarea Plan o North College Corridor Plan o Northside Neighborhood Plan o Northwest Subarea Plan o Old Town Neighborhoods Plan o Prospect Road Streetscape Program EXHIBIT A Page 517 Item 13. City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2022 Update Page 6 o South College Corridor Plan o State Highway 392 Access Control Plan o West Central Neighborhoods Plan  Transfort Strategic Operating Plan  Transit Plan: Fort Collins, Loveland, and Larimer County (1996-2002)  Transit Oriented Development Parking Study  West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan 2. Subways: None 3. Bridges:  Master Street Plan  North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan 4. Parkways:  Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards 5. Aviation Fields:  Airport Master Plan  The attached map entitled “Airports within the Three-Mile Area Plan Boundary” locates all airports within the plan area 6. Other Public Ways: None 7. Terminals for Public Transportation:  Mason Corridor Master Plan Parks, Natural Areas, and Open Lands-related Items 1. Waterways:  Cache La Poudre River Landscape Opportunities Study  Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program  Poudre River Downtown Master Plan  Stormwater Master Plan and Floodplain Regulations  Watershed Approach to Stormwater Quality  The attached map entitled “Significant Waterways and Waterfronts within the Three-Mile Area Plan Boundary” locates all significant waterways within the plan area 2. Waterfronts:  The attached map entitled “Significant Waterways and Waterfronts within the Three-Mile Area Plan Boundary” locates all significant waterways within the plan area 3. Playgrounds, Squares, Parks:  2022 Strategic Plan  City Plan  Larimer County Comprehensive Parks Master Plan EXHIBIT A Page 518 Item 13. City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2022 Update Page 7  Parks and Recreation Master Plan  Poudre School District Master Plan  Resilient Recovery Plan  Subarea Plans o Campus West Community Commercial District Planning Study Report o CDOT US392 Environmental Overview Study o CDOT North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement o CDOT US287 Environmental Overview Study o College & Drake Urban Renewal Plan o Downtown Plan o Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program Summary Report o Downtown Strategic Plan o East Mulberry Corridor Plan o East Side Neighborhood Plan o Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan o Harmony Corridor Plan o I-25 Subarea Plan o Lincoln Corridor Plan o Midtown in Motion o Montava PUD Master Plan & Montava PUD Overlay o Mountain Vista Subarea Plan o North College Corridor Plan o Northside Neighborhood Plan o Northwest Subarea Plan o Old Town Neighborhoods Plan o Prospect Road Streetscape Program o South College Corridor Plan o State Highway 392 Access Control Plan o West Central Neighborhoods Plan  Thompson School District Master Plan  Trails Master Plan 4. Grounds, Open Spaces:  Bobcat Ridge Natural Area Management Plan – outside Growth Management Area (GMA)  Cache La Poudre River Natural Areas Management Plan  City Plan  City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Program Land Conservation and Stewardship Master Plan  Colorado State University (CSU) Master Plan  Foothills Natural Areas Management Plan  Fossil Creek Natural Areas Management Plan  Fossil Creek Reservoir Regional Open Space Management Plan  Larimer County Open Lands Master Plan  Larimer County Comprehensive Parks Master Plan  Northern Colorado Regional Planning Study  Natural Areas Master Plan  Our Climate Future  Parks and Recreation Master Plan EXHIBIT A Page 519 Item 13. City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2022 Update Page 8  Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland  Regional Community Separator Study  Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Management Plan – outside GMA  Wellington Community Separator Study  Windsor Community Separator Study Utilities and Related Items 1. Public Utilities:  208 Plan  2007 East Larimer County Water District (ELCO) Master Plan Update  2022 Strategic Plan  Boxelder Sanitation District Wastewater Utility Plan  City Plan  Drinking Water Quality Policy  Fort Collins Communitywide 100% Renewable Electricity Goal  Fort Collins-Loveland Water District Master Plan  Fort Collins Metropolitan District Policy  Fort Collins Water Supply and Demand Management Policy  Fort Collins Water Supply Shortage Response Plan  Fort Collins Wastewater Master Plan Update  Fort Collins Revised Water Treatment Facility Master Plan  Fort Collins Utilities Energy Policy 2016 Update  Fort Collins Utilities Water and Wastewater Design Criteria Manual  Greywater Ordinance  Our Climate Future  Resilient Recovery Plan  South Fort Collins Sanitation District Master Plan for Wastewater Collection and Treatment  Stormwater Criteria Manual  Stormwater Master Plan and Floodplain Management  Water Conservation Plan  Water Efficiency Plan 2. Terminals for Water, Light, Sanitation, Transportation, and Power Provided by the Municipality:  208 Plan  City Plan  City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan  City of Fort Collins Electric Long Range Plan  Drinking Water Quality Policy  Fort Collins Communitywide 100% Renewable Electricity Goal  Fort Collins-Loveland Water District Master Plan  Fort Collins Water Supply and Demand Management Policy  Fort Collins Water Supply Shortage Response Plan  Fort Collins Wastewater Master Plan Update  Fort Collins Revised Water Treatment Facility Master Plan  Fort Collins Utilities Energy Policy 2016 Update EXHIBIT A Page 520 Item 13. City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2022 Update Page 9  Fort Collins Utilities Water and Wastewater Design Criteria Manual  South Fort Collins Sanitation district Master Plan for Wastewater Collection and Treatment  Stormwater Criteria Manual  Stormwater Master Plan and Floodplain Management  Water Conservation Plan  Water Efficiency Plan Proposed Land Uses 1. Land Uses Defined within the Growth Management Area (GMA):  2022 Strategic Plan  City Plan  Fort Collins Housing Strategic Plan  Fort Collins and Larimer County Intergovernmental Agreement  Fort Collins Metropolitan District Policy  Fort Collins and Windsor Intergovernmental Agreement  Fort Collins and Timnath Intergovernmental Agreement Eighth Amendment  Colorado State University (CSU) Master Plan  City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements (Town of Timnath, South Fort Collins/Loveland Water District)  Resilient Recovery Plan  Subarea Plans o Campus West Community Commercial District Planning Study Report o CDOT US392 Environmental Overview Study o CDOT North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement o CDOT US287 Environmental Overview Study o College & Drake Urban renewal Plan o Downtown Plan o Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program Summary Report o Downtown Strategic Plan o East Mulberry Corridor Plan o East Side Neighborhood Plan o Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan o Harmony Corridor Plan o Harmony Road ETC Master Plan o I-25 Subarea Plan o Midtown Plan o Montava PUD Master Plan & Montava PUD Overlay o Mountain Vista Subarea Plan o North College Corridor Plan o Northside Neighborhood Plan o Northwest Subarea Plan o Old Town Neighborhoods Plan o Prospect Road Streetscape Program o South College Corridor Plan o State Highway 392 Access Control Plan o West Central Neighborhoods Plan  Wireless Telecommunications Master Plan EXHIBIT A Page 521 Item 13. City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2022 Update Page 10 2. Land Uses Outside the GMA:  A Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland  City of Loveland Three-Mile Area Plan  Fort Collins-Windsor Intergovernmental Agreement for Development of the Interstate 25 / State Highway 392 Interchange  LaPorte Area Plan  Larimer County Comprehensive Plan  Larimer County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan  Loveland Comprehensive Master Plan  Loveland Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan  Northern Colorado Community Separator Study  Northern Colorado Regional Communities I-25 Corridor Plan  Town of Windsor Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code  Town of Timnath Comprehensive Plan  Town of Wellington Comprehensive Master Plan EXHIBIT A Page 522 Item 13. City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2022 Update Page 11 ATTACHMENT A: Three-Mile Plan Boundary EXHIBIT A Page 523 Item 13. City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2022 Update Page 12 ATTACHMENT B: Significant Waterways and Waterbodies within the Three-Mile Plan Boundary EXHIBIT A Page 524 Item 13. City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2022 Update Page 13 ATTACHMENT C: Airports within the Three-Mile Plan Boundary EXHIBIT A Page 525 Item 13. City of Fort Collins – Three-Mile Plan 2022 Update Page 14 ATTACHMENT D: Land Uses within the Three-Mile Plan Boundary EXHIBIT A Page 526 Item 13. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 2 December 20, 2022 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council STAFF Anissa N. Hollingshead, City Clerk Carrie M. Daggett, Legal SUBJECT Resolution 2022-144 Superseding and Replacing Resolution 2022-119 Making Appointments to the Natural Resources Advisory Board. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to amend the appointment made to Seat E on Resolution 2022-119 to list Lisa Andrews as the appointed member on the Natural Resources Advisory Board. This matches the initial determinations made for appointments by the Council liaison and the decisions communicated to applicants at that time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION This Resolution corrects Resolution 2022-119 adopted November 15, 2022, appointing 4 individuals to fill vacancies left from previous board and commission members. Throughout the appointment process following interviews with City Council, the same four individuals have been recommended for appointment. In the original action taken by Council on November 15, the AIS also accurately captured these appointments however an error in the resolution resulted in the transposition of the name of someone being appointed to another board. The individuals being appointed were originally notified of the correct appointments and have been made aware of this follow up action and the reason for it. Following are the correct slate of appointees to the Natural Resources Advisory Board: Natural Resources Advisory Board Appointments Term Effective Date Expiration of Term Kelly Stewart (Seat A) January 1, 2023 12/31/2026 Lisa Andrews (Seat E) January 1, 2023 12/31/2024 Matt Zoccali (Seat G) January 1, 2023 12/31/2024 Bryan David (Seat I) January 1, 2023 12/31/2023 Page 527 Item 14. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 2 CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS None. BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION None. PUBLIC OUTREACH Public outreach to seek applicants for the Natural Resources Advisory Board included paid advertising in print publications, media releases for earned coverage in local media sources, and social media promotion of opportunities. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution for Consideration 2. Applications Page 528 Item 14. RESOLUTION 2022-144 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS SUPERSEDING AND REPLACING RESOLUTION 2022-119 MAKING APPOINTMENTS TO THE NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD WHEREAS, the Natural Resources Advisory Board has vacancies due to the expiration of terms of certain members; and WHEREAS, Councilmembers interviewed candidates for these appointments on October 24, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to make appointments to fill these vacancies on the Natural Resources Advisory Board; and WHEREAS, Resolution 2022-119 was adopted on November 15, 2022, to make appointments to this Board and inadvertently included a transposed name for the person being appointed to Seat E; and WHEREAS, all communication with applicants and other materials presented as part of the item before the Council for consideration at the time of that Resolution’s adoption indicated the correct name being recommended for appointment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the following named persons are hereby appointed to fill the open vacancies on the Natural Resources Advisory Board with a term to begin and expire as noted below next to each appointee’s name: Natural Resources Advisory Board Appointments Term Effective Date Expiration of Term Kelly Stewart (Seat A) January 1, 2023 December 31, 2026 Lisa Andrews (Seat E) January 1, 2023 December 31, 2024 Matt Zoccali (Seat G) January 1, 2023 December 31, 2024 Bryan David (Seat I) January 1, 2023 December 31 2023 Page 529 Item 14. Section 3. That this Resolution supersedes and replaces Resolution 2022-119, which upon adoption of this Resolution shall be null and void and of no further effect. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 20th day of December, A.D. 2022. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ________________________ City Clerk Page 530 Item 14. Page 531 Item 14. Lisa Ann Andrews M.Ed. NREMT-Intermediate # I 7012895 Current Certifications in: IV therapy, CPR, ACLS, AMLS, PALS Intermediate level of fluency in Spanish Fort Collins, CO 80524 Work Experience: EMT/Medical Assistant at UC Health Urgent Care, Northern CO 12/2020 to present Provide patient assessment, care, administer medications, and maintain medical records for medical and trauma emergencies in the urgent care clinic. Work with providers to determine needs, patient procedures and medications as directed. Phlebotomist for San Miguel County Covid-19 antibody testing 3/2020 to 4/2020 EMT-Intermediate with Telluride EMS 11/2013 to 4/2020 Provide patient assessment, care and transport in response to 911 calls for medical and trauma emergencies. Work with Paramedic to determine needs, provide pre- hospital care and transport of patients. Many transports of 60+ miles to Montrose Memorial Hospital and to St. Mary’s Hospital in Grand Junction. EMT-Basic with Telluride EMS 05/2011 to 11/2013 Medical Assistant: Uncompahgre Medical Center, Norwood, CO 11/2013 to 04/2015 Duties include rooming patients, assessment and recording of V/S, interviewing patients re C/C, blood lab collection, procedures such as ear irrigation, O2 certification, suture removal, wound cleaning and dressing, IV start and fluid management, administration of immunizations, prescription refills, in-house labs (UA, I-STAT, WBC, INR, etc), recording patient data in electronic records. Left this position in order to live and study in Spain for 14 months. Page 532 Item 14. Mental Health/Substance Abuse Counselor: The Center for Mental Health, Montrose, CO 1/2012 to 4/2013 Provided individual mental health counseling and substance abuse relapse prevention services to inmates at San Miguel County Jail through a jail-based behavioral services grant program. Extensive electronic record keeping and charting. Guidance Counselor: Telluride Middle/High School 8/1998 to 6/2009 Worked closely with students in grades 7-12 in academic planning, motivation, career awareness, conflict resolution, goal setting and post-HS planning. Met regularly with parents in a variety of capacities to assist with parenting issues, student performance, student lifestyle choices, school behavior challenges, and substance abuse intervention and treatment options. Coordinated substance abuse prevention programs for grades 7-12. Direct delivery of content to parents and students as well as recruitment and oversight of guest speaker programs, including extensive work with Boston-based Freedom from Chemical Dependency (FCD). Education: Bowdoin College, Brunswick, Maine BA Biology Antioch University, Keene, New Hampshire M.Ed. Counseling, emphasis in Child Development Licensed Professional Counselor, State of Colorado, #1378 Teacher Certification: Professional Special Services License, Secondary Counselor Certified Addictions Counselor Level II, State of Colorado, #4651 (I let this expire in fall of 2013 after 20+ years) National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians—Intermediate, November 2013 References: Emil Sante Chief Paramedic: Telluride Emergency Medical Services San Miguel County Coroner Sharon Broady Office Manager, Telluride High School Becki Chiles, RN Formerly lead MA at Uncompahgre Medical Center Letter of recommendation on file Page 533 Item 14. 92/817((5 $33/,&$7,21   $0 %U\DQ 'DYLG   $0 $SSOLFDQW ,QIRUPDWLRQ $GGUHVV3KRQH )RUW &ROOLQV &2  0 $SSOLFDWLRQ15$%  1DWXUDO 5HVRXUFHV $GYLVRU\ %RDUG %LUWKGD\*HQGHU(GXFDWLRQ /HYHO0DOH 0DVWHUV GHJUHH ©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age 534 Item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age 535 Item 14. BRYAN G. DAVID Experienced self-starter in water asset valuation, impact investing, and clean water technology development. Committed to solving the world’s most pressing challenges with an entrepreneurial mindset. EXPERIENCE WESTWATER RESEARCH, LLC – Associate | Fort Collins, CO June 2021 – Present • Manage client acquisition for, and product development of, financial instruments to hedge against operational water supply price risk using the Nasdaq-listed NQH20 California water market index • Lead water rights valuation and due diligence transaction services, including water asset monetization, in sectors including agricultural production, environmental flows, and municipal development BLUE ACCESS, LLC – Associate | New York, NY June 2020 – April 2021 • Managed deal sourcing and due diligence of growth-stage capital to increase equitable access to clean water technology development in underserved Tribal Nations & communities in SE U.S. • Created launch strategy for Blue Commons LLC, the nation’s first “blue bank,” a revolving fund facility that provides innovative financing structures to address gaps in water conservation, ecosystem health, and infrastructure resiliency WESTWATER RESEARCH, LLC – Summer Associate | Phoenix, AZ Summer 2019 • Analyzed data of sector growth and trends of $450M+ environmental water market in Western US • Constructed 3 pro forma models of impact investment opportunities in water and agricultural products NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL –Finance Fellow | Washington, DC Summer 2018 • Analyzed use and trend of Pay for Success financing structures for municipal infrastructure development • Published 2 reports on market growth and industry trends of sustainable development project finance LAND TRUST ALLIANCE – Advocacy & Outreach Manager | Washington, DC 2016-2017 Public Policy Associate, Government Relations Specialist 2012-2016 • Directed LTA Farm Bill policy strategy to secure $1B+ in annual conservation program funding • Directed Congressional outreach to pass tax incentive legislation to conserve 3M+ acres of land CONGRESSMAN MIKE THOMPSON (D-CA) – Intern | Washington, DC 2011-2012 • Attended Congressional hearings, wrote policy memos and answered constituent mail EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, Kenan-Flagler Business School – Chapel Hill, NC 2020 Master of Business Administration, Sustainable Enterprise Concentration • National semi-finalist, MBA Impact Investing Network & Training (MIINT) 2018-19 DUKE UNIVERSITY, The Nicholas School of the Environment – Durham, NC 2020 Master of Environmental Management, Water Resources Management, GPA 3.70 • Master Thesis: Environmental Water Markets: Growth, Trends & Outlook BROWN UNIVERSITY – Providence, RI 2011 Bachelor of Arts, History & Environmental Studies, GPA 3.60 • Studied abroad: University of Otago – Dunedin, New Zealand ADDITIONAL • Proficient in Salesforce, JMP; Learning Python; Advanced Excel training (TTS); Intermediate Spanish • Awarded rank of Eagle Scout; Member, Colorado Mountain Club • Hobbies & interests: Cycling, backcountry skiing, fly-fishing, photography Page 536 Item 14. 92/817((5 $33/,&$7,21   $0 .HOO\ 6WHZDUW   $0 $SSOLFDQW ,QIRUPDWLRQ $GGUHVV3KRQH )RUW &ROOLQV &2  0 $SSOLFDWLRQ15$%  1DWXUDO 5HVRXUFHV $GYLVRU\ %RDUG %LUWKGD\*HQGHU(GXFDWLRQ /HYHO)HPDOH %DFKHORUV GHJUHH ©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age 537 Item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age 538 Item 14. 92/817((5 $33/,&$7,21   $0 0DWWKHZ =RFFDOL   $0 $SSOLFDQW ,QIRUPDWLRQ $GGUHVV3KRQH )RUW &ROOLQV &2  0 $SSOLFDWLRQ15$%  1DWXUDO 5HVRXUFHV $GYLVRU\ %RDUG %LUWKGD\*HQGHU(GXFDWLRQ /HYHO0DOH %DFKHORUV GHJUHH ©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age 539 Item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age 540 Item 14. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 2 December 20, 2022 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council STAFF Anissa N. Hollingshead, City Clerk Carrie M. Daggett, Legal SUBJECT Resolution 2022-145 Making an Appointment to the Art in Public Places Board EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to fill a vacancy on the Art in Public Places Board created by the resignation of Miriam Chase. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION This Resolution appoints one individual to fill a vacancy left by the resignation of an Art in Public Places Board member. This appointment will begin and expire as noted next to the recommended name shown below and in the individual resolution. Art in Public Places Board Appointments Term Effective Date Expiration of Term Renee Sherman (Seat B) January 1, 2023 12/31/2026 CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS None. BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION None. PUBLIC OUTREACH Public outreach to seek applicants for the Art in Public Places Board included paid advertising in print publications, media releases for earned coverage in local media sources, and social media promotion of opportunities. ATTACHMENTS Page 541 Item 15. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 2 1. Resolution for Consideration 2. Application Page 542 Item 15. 92/817((5 $33/,&$7,21   30 5HQHH 6KHUPDQ   30 $SSOLFDQW ,QIRUPDWLRQ $GGUHVV3KRQH )RUW &ROOLQV &2  0 $SSOLFDWLRQ$33  $UW LQ 3XEOLF 3ODFHV %RDUG %LUWKGD\*HQGHU(GXFDWLRQ /HYHO)HPDOH %DFKHORUV GHJUHH ©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age 543 Item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age 544 Item 15.  RI Page 545 Item 15. RESOLUTION 2022-145 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING AN APPOINTMENT TO THE ART IN PUBLIC PLACES BOARD WHEREAS, the Art in Public Places Board has a vacancy due to the resignation of Miriam Chase; and WHEREAS, Councilmembers interviewed candidates for these appointments on October 28, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to make an appointment to fill the vacancy on the Art in Public Places Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the following named person is hereby appointed to fill the open vacancy on the Art in Public Places Board with a term to begin and expire as noted below next to the appointee’s name. Art in Public Places Board Appointments Term Effective Date Expiration of Term Renee Sherman (Seat B) January 1, 2023 12/31/2026 Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 20th day of December, A.D. 2022. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ________________________ City Clerk Page 546 Item 15. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 3 December 20, 2022 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council STAFF Paul Sizemore, Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services Noah Beals, Development Review Manager Anissa Hollingshead, City Clerk Brad Yatabe, Legal SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 143, 2022, Amending Section 2-73 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Allow City Commissions to Conduct Quasi-Judicial Hearings Using Remote Technology. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted as amended on First Reading on December 6, 2022, amends provisions of Article III of Chapter 2 of the City Code to permit boards and commissions considering quasi- judicial matters to incorporate participation by remote technology into proceedings. The proposed amendment would enable the presiding officer of the board or commission, upon consultation with the staff liaison, to allow remote participation by members of the public and parties-in- interest. As it was presented at First Reading, the Ordinance would have also allowed remote participation and voting by commission members. Council removed the provision allowing participation and voting by commission members at First Reading, and this change is reflected in the revised ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION During the declared COVID-19 local emergency the City made use of remote technology to allow participation in public meetings by members of the public, parties-in-interest, board and commission members, and staff. Typically, this occurred in the form of hybrid meetings where some parties were present in-person and others participated remotely. When the emergency declaration was lifted in October of 2022, boards and commissions were required to align their operations with the provisions in Article III of Chapter 2 of the City Code. Currently, Chapter 2 permits boards and commissions that are not considering quasi-judicial items to use remote technology for participation. However, quasi-judicial proceedings require in-person attendance by all commission members, all members of the public, and all parties-in-interest. The City has six commissions that consider quasi-judicial items. These are: the Building Review Commission, Historic Preservation Commission, Human Relations Commission, Land Use Review Page 547 Item 16. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 3 Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission, and Water Commission. Some of these bodies consider quasi-judicial items at every meeting, while others only hear them occasionally. Beginning in October 2022, commissions ended remote participation for quasi-judicial items. Since this time, staff has heard from members of the public, applicants, and commission members that there were many positive aspects of remote participation that should be preserved. This proposed ordinance addresses remote participation by two types of participants in quasi-judicial proceedings. Staff has noted positive outcomes from remote participation by each participant type: 1. Members of the public. Staff observes that remote participation has opened opportunities for members of the public to provide comment who otherwise would not or could not participate due to other obligations, lack of convenience, or simply the time required to participate in an in -person proceeding. 2. Parties-in-interest (applicant teams). Staff observes that it is more likely that specialist professionals who worked on the project will be available for commission questions if they can participate remotely. For some commissions, this has also made it easier to get projects scheduled for hearings because coordinating attendance by applicant teams is less complicated. The proposed ordinance modifies the Code to allow remote participation by the public and parties-in- interest in a manner similar to the COVID-19 emergency declaration. The presiding officer of the commission, upon consultation with the staff liaison, may determine that the meeting will be conducted in whole or in part with the use of remote technology. When remote participation is authorized by a commission, an applicant will be informed about the intention to hold the proceeding using remote technology. If this is not acceptable to the applicant, they may elect to delay the meeting until the applicant and staff can be present in-person. If, during the conduct of a hearing using remote technology, the presiding officer determines that the technology is not functioning adequately to meet all conditions outlined in the code, the commission must continue the hearing to make other arrangements. At First Reading the Ordinance also included provisions that would have allowed remote participation and voting by commission members. Council decided to advance the Ordinance allowing participation by the public and parties-in-interest, but removed provisions allowing participation and voting by commission members. The Ordinance has been revised to reflect this change, and to clarify that while commission members are not permitted to participate or vote on quasi-judicial items remotely, commission members are permitted to review recorded materials and subsequently participate in a vote. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS Staff does not anticipate a financial impact to the City because the technology and staff expertise to implement these measures already exist. BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The following Commissions made recommendations regarding the proposed ordinance to allow remote participation by commissions considering quasi-judicial matters:  The Building Review Commission recommended approval at their November 17, 2022, meeting.  The Historic Preservation Commission recommended approval, with encouragement that commission members attend in-person whenever possible, at their November 16, 2022, meeting.  The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of remote participation for the public and parties-in-interest and took no position on remote participation by commission members, at their November 17, 2022, meeting. Page 548 Item 16. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 3 Staff liaisons for the Land Use Review Commission, Water Commission, and Human Relations Commission have been consulted regarding the proposal; however, these commissions have not made formal recommendations on this topic. PUBLIC OUTREACH Since the switch to all in-person participation in October, members of the public who have contacted staff seeking the ability to participate in hearings remotely have been informed about this proposal. No proactive public outreach was conducted. ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance for Consideration Page 549 Item 16. ORDINANCE NO. 143, 2022 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING SECTION 2-73 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO ALLOW CITY COMMISSIONS TO CONDUCT QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARINGS USING REMOTE TECHNOLOGY WHEREAS, on March 13, 2020, the City Manager proclaimed a local emergency in response to the COVID pandemic; and WHEREAS, during the COVID local emergency, City Council adopted Ordinance 079, 2020, which authorized, among other things, City commissions to hear quasi-judicial matters using remote technology to hold meetings that were partially or completely attended remotely by the commission members, the public, the applicant, and City staff; and WHEREAS, in order to hold a partially or completely remote meeting to hear a quasi-judicial matter, commissions were required to ensure that the remote technology and procedure ensured due process rights were honored and that the public could effectively observe and participate; and WHEREAS, remote participation not only allowed people to safeguard themselves and others from COVID, but made observing and participating in quasi-judicial hearings more convenient for commissioners, parties-in-interest, City staff, and the public; and WHEREAS, the increased convenience of the ability to attend and participate remotely made meetings more easily accessible to the public; and WHEREAS, commission quasi-judicial hearings held remotely during the COVID local emergency demonstrated the effectiveness of remote technology, when properly managed, in ensuring due process and effective public observation and participation; and WHEREAS, in October 2022, the COVID local emergency was declared over and the Ordinance 079, 2020, authorization for commissions to hear quasi-judicial matters partially or completely remotely ended; and WHEREAS, upon the COVID local emergency ending, Section 2-73 of the City Code went into effect requiring commission members, parties-in-interest, and the public to attend quasi-judicial hearings in-person; and WHEREAS, in order to restore the benefits described in this Ordinance of allowing commissions to hold quasi-judicial hearings remotely, Section 2-73 of the City Code shall be amended to allow commissions to hold quasi-judicial hearings using remote technology, provided the commission members attend meetings in person in order to participate and vote on quasi-judicial matters; and Page 550 Item 16. WHEREAS, allowing commissions to hold quasi-judicial hearings remotely is in the best interests of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That Section 2-73 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 2-73. Remote meetings. (a) For meetings where quasi-judicial or non-quasi-judicial matters, or both, are to be considered, the presiding officer of any City board or commission, after consultation with the staff liaison for such board or commission, may determine that such board or commission will conduct any regular meeting or special meeting in whole or in part by remote technology. However, members of a commission must be present in person to participate in and vote on any quasi-judicial matters before the commission. A meeting may be held in whole or in part by remote technology only if any meeting room and remote technology for remote participation to provides reasonably available participation, to the extent participation is permitted for the matters under consideration, by members of the board or commission, the public, parties-in-interest, and City staff. The in person requirement for a commissioner shall not prevent a commissioner who has missed a work session or other meeting related to a quasi-judicial matter not yet decided from reviewing a recording of the missed meeting and materials provided for such meeting in order to subsequently participate in and vote on the matter. (b) Any applicant seeking a quasi-judicial decision from a quasi-judicial commission shall be notified in writing or by email of the intention to conduct a quasi -judicial proceeding in whole or in part using remote technology at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting where the quasi-judicial proceeding will occur, and such notification shall be placed into the record of the quasi-judicial proceeding. Upon the applicant’s request at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the commencement of such proceeding, the proceeding shall be delayed until such time as the applicant and City staff can be present in person for the proceeding. Any such request to delay the hearing shall not affect the ability of the public to participate using remote technology to the extent public participation is permitted. Any applicant proceeding with and participating in a quasi-judicial proceeding conducted using remote technology shall be deemed to have consented to such method of conducting the quasi-judicial proceeding. (c) The chairperson of any committee of any City board or commission, after consultation with the chairperson and staff liaison of such board or commission, may determine that such committee will conduct any committee meeting in whole or in part by remote technology if the meeting room is equipped for remote participation to provide Page 551 Item 16. reasonably available participation by members of the committee and observation by the public. (d) Participation by a City board or commission member, or a member of a committee thereof, in a meeting conducted by remote technology shall constitute presence and actual attendance for purpose of establishing a quorum, provided the following conditions are met: (1) All members of the board or commission participating in the meeting can see and hear one another or, if circumstances preclude an arrangement that would allow visual communication, hear one another; (2) All members of the board or commission participating in the meeting can see, hear or read all discussion, comment and testimony in a manner designed to provide maximum information sharing and, to the extent applicable, participation; (3) Members of the public have equivalent access to all discussion, comment and testimony, and to all votes and other dialogue, in a manner designed to provide maximum information sharing and participation; (4) All votes must be conducted by roll call; and (5) All other meeting-related requirements must be met, including advance notice with an explanation of how members of the board or commission and the public may participate and stating the right of the public to monitor the meeting, as well as the recording and preparation of meeting minutes. (e) To the extent applicable, boards and commissions shall allow time for citizen participation in remote meetings; however, they shall not use the chat features in remote meetings to conduct public business or take citizen comment. (f) If during any meeting of a board or commission or a committee thereof the presiding officer determines that the remote technology in use is not functioning sufficiently to meet the conditions above during any particular item or meeting, the board or commission must continue such item or meeting to allow for improved technologies or other arrangements. Page 552 Item 16. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading and ordered published this 6th day of December, A.D. 2022, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of December, A.D. 2022. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 20th day of December, A.D. 2022. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Page 553 Item 16. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 7 December 20, 2022 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council STAFF Kirk Longstein, Senior Environmental Planner Rebecca Everette, Planning Manager Brad Yatabe, Legal SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2022, Amending the Land Development Code to Regulate Oil and Gas Facilities and Pipelines. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to update the Land Development Code to regulate new oil and gas facilities and pipelines within City limits. These regulations include zoning standards, setbacks, development standards and a process for development review. Per new authority granted through Senate Bill 19-181, these local regulations exceed Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) requirements related to surface oil and gas activities and are designed to ensure the protection of public health, safety, welfare, the environment, and wildlife resources. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adoption of Ordinance on first reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION In April 2018, with the adoption of Senate Bill 19-181 (SB-19-181), the City gained new authority to regulate the siting and surface impacts of oil and gas operations. Beginning with a City Council Work Session held on September 16, 2019, Councilmembers directed staff to begin exploring policy questions that would inform development of local regulations. At the same time, the State began a comprehensive overhaul of oil and gas regulations, effectively changing the regulatory landscape that sets the floor for local regulations. Most recently, at the October 25, 2022 Work Session, Council provided Policy direction to adopt zoning and setback standards to restrict new development. By necessity, adoption of these standards also requires:  Defining oil and gas facilities as a use  Defining the setback and zoning standards  Outlining the review process that would be used for oil and gas wells and associated facilities Originally, a proposed adoption schedule to adopt new code related to zoning and setbacks was scheduled for December 6, 2022; this was delayed to December 20, 2022, based on public comments from several interested stakeholders requesting more time to review and understand the code language. The proposed code is included in Attachment 1, and some discussion regarding elements of code is included here. Setback and Zoning Standards Page 554 Item 17. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 7 The key elements of the proposed code are zoning and setback standards, which on their own are highly restrictive for new oil and gas development. These restrictions include:  Restricting new oil and gas facilities and redevelopment of existing facilities to only the Industrial Zone District  Requiring a 2,000-foot setback from all buildings designed as Occupiable Space, including residential, commercial, institutional, industrial, and other uses  Requiring a 2,000-foot setback from areas where people may congregate outdoors, such as parks, trails and natural areas  Applying Natural Habitat Buffering Standards when a proposed oil and gas development is within 2,000 feet of a natural habitat feature As previously presented at Council Work Sessions, these restrictions would restrict additional surface operations related to new oil and gas wells, leaving less than 1% of surface area within City limits available for development (Attachment 2). Key Elements of the New Code In the event that a new oil and gas facility or pipeline can meet the zoning and setback requirements, the proposed code also includes specific development standards and procedural requirements for new oil and gas operations. The new LDC sections dedicated to oil and gas include the following:  Procedural requirements that differ from other development projects (alternative location analysis and approval of site location prior to a formal application submittal)  Procedural steps for neighborhood meetings, hearings, and notification  Siting regulations (zoning, setbacks)  Design standards (landscaping, visual mitigation, fencing, pipelines)  Prohibitions on certain equipment  Reclamation requirements (restoration, testing, monitoring) Additionally, some code sections are amended to include oil and gas references and all existing code sections apply, such as lighting, transportation, electric, stormwater and tree protection requirements. Prior to any new oil and gas development, an operator would still require surface use and down-hole permits from the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC), in addition to Fort Collins’ local requirements. The required state-level approvals would include an additional series of plans and requirements including assessments of impacts, financial assurances, an air quality monitoring plan and other requirements. Prior to an oil and gas development seeking a permit from the COGCC, an operator must submit a conceptual review and hold a neighborhood meeting adjacent the proposed development. The proposed Code updates aim to regulate surface activities and are not intended to be redundant with COGCC rules which are heavily focused on “down-hole” activities. As an example: The proposed Fort Collins oil and gas regulations specifies local assurances through a Development Agreement - 6.3.3 (C)(3)(f) “Maintenance guarantee” two-year maintenance guarantee and five-year repair guarantee covering all errors or omissions in the design and/or construction from surface related construction. For an operator to demonstrate its capacity to perform all of its obligations under the COGCC Rules, Rule 700 includes financial assurances for operators, including, a CASH Bond or Surety Bond for a number of operational related activities. Public Feedback on Code Language To date, public outreach has focused on high level policy questions and objectives related to eliminating or mitigating impacts from development. The bulk of outreach occurred prior to 2021 (as summarized in Attachment 5), and efforts since then have focused on development of code language within a constantly changing State regulatory environment. On November 8, 2022, Version 1 of draft code language was Page 555 Item 17. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 7 published on the City’s oil and gas website (www.fcgov.com/oilandgas/), and provided by request to the following stakeholders:  Planning and Zoning Commission  Air Quality Advisory Board  Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA)  American Petroleum Institute (API) While policy direction for oil and gas regulations have been under discussion for more than three years, this did not include the actual publication of draft code for review. A list of key questions that have been raised, along with summaries and responses, are listed in the attachments. To respond to the public input on the draft code, several proposed modifications are included in the ordinance proposed for Council consideration (revised since public draft was released), as summarized in Attachment 4. Can the zoning or setback standards be modified? As written, setback standards (2000’) are not subject to a modification of standards, which means these cannot be reduced. Without the option for a modification of standards (e.g., to reduce the 2000-ft buffer), the only remaining options for flexibility in siting a new facility is the Addition of Permitted Uses (APU):  Addition of Permitted Uses. The purpose of the Addition of Permitted Use process is to allow for the 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. This process is available to oil and gas facilities pursuant to Division 6.9.1 of the Land Development Code. Under this process, 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. Section 6.9.1(C)(1) outlines eight specific criteria that must be met by the applicant in order for the proposed use to be approved. Additionally, because oil and gas developments are subject to Planning and Zoning Commission approval (Type 2 process), an additional three criteria must be met for the Addition of Permitted Use to be approved. What about Annexations? Per the terms of the Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County regarding cooperation on Annexation, Growth Management and Related issues, the County will not accept certain development applications for a property which has any contiguity to the City limits unless the City has the opportunity to determine whether to require annexation. In the case of a petition for annexation, oil and gas developments would follow the procedures set forth by Division 6.10 of the Land Development Code in addition to the proposed oil and gas zoning, setback, and development regulations. What is the public involvement process for a new oil and gas development proposal? For new wells, the proposed code requires a Type 2 Planning & Zoning Commission review process as outlined in Article 6 of the Land Development Code. Pipelines were originally proposed with a Basic Development Review process (in version 1 of the published draft code) but have also been now updated to a Type 2 Planning & Zoning Commission review process. This type of process includes the following requirements for public notification and involvement during the review process:  Notice requirements: proposed regulations require mailed notifications for all owners and occupants with in a 1-mile radius of the proposed site. Notice also includes a 12 square foot yellow sign at the development site to ensure local residents are aware of the proposal.  Neighborhood meetings: one neighborhood meeting is required as a part of a Type 2 development review and includes presentations by both the project applicant and City staff Page 556 Item 17. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 4 of 7 reviewing the project. Some proposals may benefit from a second meeting after making revisions to receive feedback on plan changes prior to hearing.  Planning and Zoning Commission hearing: The Planning and Zoning commission is the final decision maker on all approved site plans. The Planning and Zoning Commission hearing includes an oral public comment period.  Appeals: All decisions by the Planning and Zoning Commission can be appealed to City Council. Where are pipelines allowed? Pipelines (sometimes called flowlines) are primarily used to transport oil, gas, and produced water from a production site (e.g., a well) to a storage facility. Location requirements for pipelines include:  50-150-foot setback from buildings  150-foot setback from surface water  Operator's emergency response plan addressing gathering line spills and ruptures The original proposed draft (v1) included pipelines as a permitted use in all zone districts. This was intended to discourage truck traffic and storage on-site and would have required specific approvals from each property owner and requirements to align with existing easements where possible. In v2 (proposed for Council consideration), the zones where pipelines would be permitted have been updated as follows, in response to public feedback and a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission:  Permitted Use: Commercial; Employment and Industrial; Downtown; Overlay Zone districts. o D, CC, CCN, CCR, CG, CS, NC, CL, HC, E, I  Not a Permitted Use: Mixed-Use; Residential; Public Open Lands Zone Districts. o POL, RC HMN, LMN, MH, MMN, NCL, NCM, NCB, RL, UE, RF, and RUL How are Natural Habitats Protected? Oil and gas development have the potential of impacting wildlife and natural habitats by increased exposure to risk from collisions with infrastructure and risk of entrapment or exposure to toxic chemicals in trenches, open pits, and storage ponds. The COGCC Rule 1201 outlines the State’s requirements for a wildlife plan including High Priority Habitats subject to this Rule 1202. State rules for oil and gas operations include:  500 foot No Surface Occupancy (NSO) buffers for all aquatic High Priority Habitat (HPH) streams identified by Colorado Parks and Wildlife, including designated cutthroat trout habitat, Gold Medal streams, sportfish management waters, and native species conservation.  Spill prevention measures within 1000’ of aquatic high priority habitats  Big Game protections including a Wildlife Mitigation Plans when drilling in migration corridors, including plans to minimize impact on wildlife and habitat and plans to offset adverse impacts through mitigation projects or fees. In many cases, the Colorado Parks and Wildlife high priority habitat buffer overlaps with the City Natural Habitat Features highlighted by Section 5.6.1 of the Land Development Code. The current Land Development Code standards apply to any development with 500’ of a natural habitat feature. In the proposed Oil and Gas regulations additions to the Code, the standards of section 5.6.1 apply when the proposed oil and gas development is within 2,000 feet of a natural habitat feature. If the oil and gas development causes any disturbance within the buffer zone, the applicant is required to undertake mitigation measures to restore any damaged or lost natural resource either on-site or off-site. Any such mitigation or restoration shall be at least equal in ecological value to the loss suffered by the community because of the disturbance and shall be based on such mitigation and restoration plans that have been approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Why do these regulations not include all of the elements from Larimer County regulations or other communities? Page 557 Item 17. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 5 of 7 Fort Collins is in a different position than many other communities, as the city currently contains only 10 active wells, with only three currently producing, and no storage facilities within City limits. Full authority of SB19-181 would include the ability to regulate ongoing operations, which would also require new elements of the City’s compliance programs and local enforcement resources. As discussed at the October 25, 2022, work session, the City is instead working jointly with Larimer County to ensure regulation, monitoring and inspection elements of new State regulations are enforced. These efforts include:  Leak Detection. Odors and leaks are a primary concern at oil and gas operations and are already prohibited per COGCC standards. Resources for enforcement of these requirements are the limitation. Related to this, the City is purchasing an Optical Gas Imaging (OGI) camera to support leak detections at existing facilities, and the camera will be used per a new Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Larimer County. Larimer County is an authorized designee of the State to investigate any oil and gas concerns within City limits.  Plugging and Abandonment of Wells. The City and County are working jointly on an application to the COGCC to consider plugging and abandonment of low and non-producing wells in the Fort Collins Field. This is new authority granted by the State and may ultimately reduce or eliminate existing operations within City limits. Staff will report back to Council regarding outcomes of COGCC decisions when available, currently expected in Q1 of 2023. While the plugging and abandonment of wells is desirable and will be encouraged, proposed code updates do require a Basic Development Review process for plugging and abandonment to ensure that reclamation meets locally relevant reclamation standards.  Financial Assurances. As of April 30, 2022, COGCC has new Financial Assurance requirements designed to ensure that every operator of every well is financially capable of fulling obligations to properly remediate and reclaim all active wells. The City did participate and provide comment during these rulemakings and is currently working with Larimer County to review and ensure adequacy of the Financial Assurances Plan required of the sole operator within city limits. If it is determined inadequate (e.g., does not cover all possible remediation and reclamation requirements), the City can request a Hearing with COGCC to strengthen requirements. PLUGGING AND ABANDONMENT OF WELLS If an Oil and Gas well-produced and has reached the end of its lifecycle, COGCC has a standard for plugging the well with cement, cutting the well’s pipe 5 feet below the surface, and requiring the operator to reclaim the surface. The proposed regulations requires that an operator submit a basic development review application so that the City may apply regulations to the surface activities associated with plugging and abandoning wells. Furthermore, the City’s Sustainability Services Department is pursuing the plugging and abandoning of wells through new COGCC rulemaking. Rather than a Type 2 development review application, the regulations include a basic development review application process in order to provide a process-incentive to reclaiming oil and gas wells. Abandoned wells in Fort Collins vary significantly in age, with some wells abandoned as far back as the 1920s and others abandoned within the last decade. As such, the amount and precision of information about these wells (e.g., exact locations or details about how they were plugged) in an important element for requiring a basic development review process. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS There are no financial impacts related to adopting oil and gas regulations. Costs related to processing development applications, administering permits, and conducting inspections would be recovered through fees. BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Air Quality Advisory Board (AQAB) – a motion was not introduced and a memo to Council will be voted on during the December 12, 2022 meeting. November 14, 2022 regular meeting minutes will be adopted during the December 12, 2022 meeting. Page 558 Item 17. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 6 of 7 Planning and Zoning Commission - The motion to approve the draft regulations carried 6-1 vote with the following recommended changes: 1. Remove oil and gas pipelines as an allowed use within public open lands and residential zone districts; including, HMN, LMN, MH, MMN, RL, UE, RF, and RUL 2. Oil and Gas developments (new pipelines, oil and gas facilities) would be subject to a Planning and Zoning Commission Review (Type 2). Plugging and abandoning remains Basic Development Review PUBLIC OUTREACH Starting in 2019, staff conducted a series of public engagement tactics. Many of those tactics and themes are detailed in Attachment 4. To help understand siting preferences and big-picture concerns about oil and gas development in Fort Collins, staff engaged in numerous meetings and conversations with various City of Fort Collins Departments, City Boards, industry representatives, and environmental and neighborhood groups. Input was gathered through the following outreach activities:  Direct mailing to property owners within 2000 feet of existing active oil and gas wells, with information on the project, public open houses, City’s website, and CDPHE’s health study (500 letters mailed)  Interactive presentation at a Super Board Meeting held in February 2020 (over 50 attended with 14 boards represented)  Online questionnaire to collect feedback on concerns and thoughts, as advertised through direct mailing, social media, news release, and Nextdoor website (163 completed responses)  Two interactive public open houses with Larimer County, CDPHE and operator in attendance to answer questions  Presentations to the Planning & Zoning Board, Natural Resources Advisory Board, Land Conservation and Stewardship Board, and Air Quality Advisory Board work sessions  Presentations to City departments  Individual phone calls and emails to discuss questions and concerns as needed In addition to broad community outreach, staff also consulted with the following targeted groups:  Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission  Colorado Oil and Gas Association  Prospect Energy (local oil and gas operator)  Country Club Reserve land owner  Local Government Roundtable: a group of 14 local jurisdictions. Attended biweekly meetings to discuss COGCC rulemakings and local regulations under consideration  Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment staff  Larimer County staff Since the October 25, 2022 City Council work session, representatives of the following organizations has specifically asked to review the draft Ordinance language. Other than the public comments provided during the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing (ATTACHMENT 6), no additional outreach to these organizations has been coordinated.  Colorado Oil and Gas Association  American Petroleum Institute  Larimer Alliance ATTACHMENTS Page 559 Item 17. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 7 of 7 1. Ordinance for Consideration 2. Regulatory Scenario Map 3. COGCC Rules & Fort Collins Oil and Gas Regulation comparisons 4. 2020 & 2021 Stakeholder Feedback 5. Fall 2022 Stakeholder Feedback theme 6. Planning and Zoning Commission Regular meeting minutes Page 560 Item 17. ORDINANCE NO. 151, 2022 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REGULATE OIL AND GAS FACILITIES AND PIPELINES WHEREAS, several active oil wells are located in the northern part of the City; and WHEREAS, several active oil wells are located within the City’s Growth Management Area in unincorporated Larimer County; and WHEREAS, there is potential for additional oil gas activity within the City and within the City’s Growth Management Area; and WHEREAS, in 2019, the State of Colorado enacted Senate Bill 19-181 which, among other things, expanded the City’s ability to regulate the location and siting of oil and gas facilities and oil and gas locations and the surface impacts of oil and gas operations; and WHEREAS, the City and the Colorado Oil and Gas Conversation Commission have co-equal, independent authority to regulate the location and siting and surface impact of oil and gas activities; and WHEREAS, the City’s oil and gas regulations regarding the location and siting and surface impacts may be more protective or stricter than state requirements; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance 114, 2022, adopted on second reading on November 1, 2022, the Land Development Code was adopted to replace the Land Use Code; and WHEREAS, the effective date of the Land Development Code set forth in Ordinance 144, 2022, is January 1, 2023; and WHEREAS, the adoption as part of the Land Development Code of oil and gas regulations that anticipate, avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse impacts to existing, planned, and future land uses is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, and the environment and wildlife resources and is in the best interests of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That Section 2.5.3 of the Land Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Page 561 Item 17. SECTION 2.5.3 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (I) . . . (B) Land Use Standards. (1) Prohibited Uses. The following uses are specifically prohibited in the Industrial District: . . . (b) All establishments falling within Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Major Group No. 29, Petroleum Refining and Related Industries, as identified in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual (OMB 1987). This prohibition shall not be interpreted to include oil and gas facilities or pipelines as defined in this Code and addressed in Division 5.17. . . . (f) All establishments falling within Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Major Group No. 4925, Mixed, Manufactured, or Liquefied Petroleum Gas Products and/or Distribution, as identified in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual (OMB 1987). This prohibition shall not be interpreted to include oil and gas facilities or pipelines as defined in this Code and addressed in Division 5.17. . . . Section 3. That Article 4 of the Land Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Article 4: Oil and Gas Changes That “Oil and Gas Facilities” shall be added to the Table of Primary Uses set forth in Land Development Code Division 4.2 as an Industrial Use in the Industrial District subject to Type 2 review. That “Oil and Gas Pipelines” shall be added to the Table of Primary Uses set forth in Land Development Code Division 4.2 as an Industrial Use in all zone districts except the following: POL, RC HMN, LMN, MH, MMN, NCL, NCM, NCB, RL, UE, RF, and RUL. “Oil and Gas Pipelines” are subject to Type 2 review. Section 4. That a new Division 5.17 is hereby added to the Land Development Code and reads in its entirety as follows: Page 562 Item 17. DIVISION 5.17 OIL AND GAS FACILITIES AND PIPELINES 5.17.1 PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY (A) Purpose. This Division is intended to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, and the environment and wildlife resources by regulating oil and gas development to anticipate, avoid, minimize and mitigate adverse impacts to existing, planned, and future land uses. (B) Applicability. This Division applies to siting and reclamation of all oil and gas facilities and oil and gas pipelines within City boundaries over which the City has regulatory authority pursuant to law, except for oil and gas facilities and oil and gas pipelines subject to a valid operator agreement between the City and the operator effective prior to [Insert Effective Date] in which case the operator agreement shall govern the applicable oil and gas facilities and oil and gas pipelines. All persons must obtain approval from the City in accordance with the standards in this Division and all applicable Land Development Code requirements prior to constructing and operating any new oil and gas facility or oil and gas pipeline or enlarging or expanding any oil and gas facility or oil and gas pipeline lawfully existing prior to [Insert Effective Date]. Any terms used in this Division that are not defined within the Land Development Code shall be defined by the COGCC as set forth in the Code of Colorado Regulations. The terms applicant and operator are used interchangeably at times in this Division. Where, in any specific case, the requirements of any other provision within the Land Development Code or Code of the City of Fort Collins or any applicable federal or state laws or regulations of any state or federal agency are in conflict with this Division, the more restrictive or stringent requirement shall be imposed. 5.17.2 EXISTING OIL AND GAS FACILITIES AND PIPELINES Application to Existing Oil and Gas Facilities and Pipelines. Oil and gas facilities and oil and gas pipelines that were lawfully established prior to [Insert Effective Date], referred herein as lawful nonconforming oil and gas facilities and pipelines, are considered nonconforming uses that may continue to operate pursuant to either a valid operator agreement governing such oil and gas facilities or oil and gas pipelines between the City and the operator in effect prior to [Insert Effective Date], or absent such an operator agreement, pursuant to Land Development Code Division 6.16 as modified in this Section. The following provisions apply to lawful nonconforming oil and gas facilities and pipelines not subject to an operator agreement: (A) Section 6.16.3 regarding abandonment of use. Page 563 Item 17. (B) Section 6.16.4 regarding reconstruction does not apply to lawful nonconforming oil and gas facilities and pipelines. Reconstruction of such an oil and gas facility or pipeline or facility or pipeline taken by governmental acquisition or damaged by fire or other accidental cause or natural catastrophe is not allowed. (C) Section 6.16.5 regarding enlargement of buildings and expansion of facilities, equipment or structures does not apply to lawful nonconforming oil and gas facilities and pipelines. Enlargement and expansion of any such facility or pipeline requires such facility or pipeline to be brought into conformance with the Land Development Code. (1) Enlargement or expansion includes, but is not limited to, any permanent physical change to a lawful nonconforming oil and gas facility or pipeline not required by law that increases operating capacity, harmful air emissions, traffic, noise, risk of spills, or will adversely impact public health, safety, welfare, the environment or wildlife resources. Use of a drilling rig or hydraulic fracturing equipment to deepen or recomplete an existing well into a new geologic formation is considered expansion. (2) Maintenance activities, the replacement of existing equipment with substantially similar equipment in like and kind, installation of emission control equipment, and the addition of equipment to fulfill mandated regulatory requirements are not considered enlargement or expansion. 5.17.3 Oil and Gas Project Development Plan Review Procedures In order for a new oil and gas facility to be constructed and operated, or a lawful nonconforming oil and gas facility to be enlarged or expanded, the applicant must receive approval of a project development plan, final plan, and building permit pursuant to the Land Development Code. In order for enlargement or expansion of a lawful nonconforming oil and gas facility to occur, unless an operator agreement as described in above Section 5.17.2 provides otherwise, such facility must be brought into conformance with the Land Development Code and receive approval of a project development plan, final plan, and building permit pursuant to the Land Development Code prior to enlargement or expansion and continued operation. With regards to oil and gas pipelines, flowlines are subject to review as part of the project development plan for any new oil and gas facility to which the flowlines are associated or through a major amendment if additional flowlines are added subsequent to project development plan approval. Crude oil transfer lines, gathering lines and transmission lines are subject to project development plan review and subsequent changes through a major amendment. In order for enlargement or expansion of a lawful nonconforming oil and gas pipeline to occur, unless an operator agreement as described in above Section 5.17.2 provides otherwise, such pipeline must be brought into conformance with the Land Development Code and receive approval of a project development plan, final plan, and Page 564 Item 17. building and other required permits pursuant to the Land Development Code prior to enlargement or expansion and continued operation. Specific development standards regarding oil and gas facilities are set forth in Section 5.17.4, and specific development standards regarding oil and gas pipelines are set forth in Section 5.17.5. The Project Development Plan Review Procedures set forth in Section 6.6.2 are modified as follows: (A) Step 1 (Conceptual Review): Mandatory. In addition to the Concept Plan Submittal requirements pursuant to Section 6.3.1(A)(3), the applicant for a new oil and gas facility or oil and gas pipeline shall provide an alternative location analysis and preliminary site analysis as described below. The Director may waive or modify any information required for the alternative location and preliminary site analysis if, given the facts and circumstances of a proposed oil and gas facility or pipeline, a particular requirement would either be irrelevant, immaterial, redundant or otherwise unnecessary to evaluate the proposed project. Prior to the required neighborhood meeting referenced in (B) below, the City will review all proposed locations for the oil and gas facility or oil and gas pipeline to determine which locations, if any, meet Land Development Code requirements and will prepare a report summarizing its findings with respect to the proposed locations. If the City requests a site visit of any of the locations under consideration, the operator is responsible for securing permission or coordinating with the landowner(s) to conduct the site visit. Prior to selecting the location for the proposed oil and gas facility or oil and gas pipeline, the operator shall consult with the City regarding the proposed locations and the City’s report regarding such locations. (1) Alternative Location Analysis. The alternative location analysis must include, at a minimum, the following: (a) For oil and gas facilities: (I) A map depicting the following elements within three (3) miles of the proposed surface location. (This requirement is limited to one (1) mile for a proposed single vertical or directional well): (i) All mineral rights held or controlled by the applicant; and (ii) The location of all features listed in the "Preliminary Site Analysis." (II) The alternative location analysis shall evaluate a minimum of three potential locations that can reasonably access the mineral resources within the proposed drilling and spacing unit(s), including the following information for each site: Page 565 Item 17. (i) General narrative description of each location; (ii) Any location restrictions that the site does not satisfy; (iii) Any existing surface use agreements or other documentation regarding legal property rights; (iv) Off-site impacts that may be associated with each site; (v) Proposed truck traffic routes and access roads for each location; and (vi) Any information pertinent to the applicable review criteria that will assist the Director in evaluating the locations. (b) For oil and gas pipelines, the alternative location analysis shall evaluate a minimum of three potential alignments for the pipeline, including the following information for each alignment: (I) General narrative description of each alignment; (II) Any location restrictions that the alignment does not satisfy; (III) Any existing surface use agreements or other documentation regarding legal property rights; (IV) Off-site impacts that may be associated with each alignment; and (V) Any information pertinent to the applicable review criteria that will assist the Director in evaluating the locations. (2) Preliminary Site Analysis. The Preliminary Site Analysis shall include maps with the following information: (a) Provide an ecological characterization study if the development site contains or is within two thousand (2,000) feet of a natural habitat or feature as defined in Section 5.6.1. (b) All drilling and spacing units proposed by the applicant within one (1) mile of the City's boundaries; and Page 566 Item 17. (c) All features defined below that are wholly or partially within one (1) mile of the proposed oil and gas facility: (I) Any existing or future building approved as occupiable space, as defined in the City’s Building Code; (II) City parks or City property intended to be used for City parks; (III) City maintained trails and trailheads or City property intended to be used for City trails and trailheads; (IV) Outdoor venues, playgrounds, permanent sports fields, amphitheaters, or other similar places of outdoor assembly; (V) City natural areas; (VI) Existing and approved oil and gas facilities and pipelines; (VII) Areas within the FEMA 100-Year Floodplain boundary; (VIII) The centerline of all USGS perennial and intermittent streams and the map will indicate which surface water features are downgradient; (IX) Active reservoirs and public and private water supply wells of public record; (X) Natural habitats and features as defined in Land Development Code Section 5.6.1 within one (1) mile of the proposed oil and gas facility; (XI) High priority habitat as defined by the COGCC; and (XII) Disproportionately impacted communities, as defined by the COGCC. (B) Step 2 (Neighborhood Meeting): Mandatory. After a proposed location has been selected for the oil and gas facility or oil and gas pipeline, a neighborhood meeting must be held. Written notice of the neighborhood meeting must be mailed to the owners of record and occupants of all real property within one (1) mile (exclusive of public rights-of-way, public facilities, parks or public open space) of the property line of the parcel of land upon which the development is planned. (C) Step 3 (Development Application Submittal): All items or documents required for project development plans as described in the development application Page 567 Item 17. submittal master list for oil and gas facilities and oil and gas pipelines shall be submitted. The Director may waive or modify the foregoing submittal requirements if, given the facts and circumstances of the specific application, a particular requirement would either be irrelevant, immaterial, redundant or otherwise unnecessary for the full and complete review of the application. The complete project development plan application must be submitted and accepted by the City as complete prior to the applicant submitting any required Form 2 or 2A to the COGCC. Should the applicant submit any required Form 2 or 2A to the COGCC prior to submitting its complete project development plan application to the City, the applicant must withdraw the Form 2 or 2A and refrain from resubmitting until a complete project development plan application has been submitted and accepted by the City as complete. 5.17.4 Oil and Gas Facility Development Standards The following requirements apply to oil and gas facilities in addition to other applicable Land Development Code requirements. (A) Location Restrictions for New Oil and Gas Facilities or Enlarged or Expanded Existing Oil and Gas Facilities. (1) Allowed Zone Districts. Oil and gas facilities may only be located on property located within: (a) The Industrial (I) zone district; (b) A zone district to which oil and gas facility is added as an allowed use for a particular parcel pursuant to Division 6.9, Addition of Permitted Uses; or (c) A Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay in which oil and gas facilities are an allowed use. A development application for an oil and gas facility may not be submitted until oil and gas facility is an allowed use for the proposed location. (2) Setbacks. Setbacks for new oil and gas facilities and enlarged or expanded existing oil and gas facilities cannot be modified pursuant to Division 6.8, Modification of Standards. Setbacks are measured as the shortest distance from the edge of the working pad surface. (a) No working pad surface shall be located within two thousand (2,000) feet from the following: Page 568 Item 17. (I) The nearest wall of any existing or platted building approved or to be approved as occupiable space as defined under the City’s Building Code; (II) The property boundary line of any property containing a City park or City property intended to be used for a City park; (III) The easement or parcel boundary of City maintained recreation trails and trailheads or City property intended to be used for City maintained trails and trailheads; (IV) The edge of outdoor venues, playgrounds, permanent sports fields, amphitheaters, or other similar places of outdoor assembly; or (V) The property boundary line of any property containing a City natural area. (b) No working pad surface shall be located within one thousand (1,000) feet from the following: (I) Public water supply surface intakes or public water supply wells; (II) Ditches that transport water used by, or to augment, a public water supply system; or (III) Conservation easements. (3) Buffer zones surrounding natural habitats and features. Oil and gas facilities shall protect natural habitats and features specified in Section 5.6.1 through buffer zones. Buffer zones set forth in the Buffer Zone Table for Fort Collins Natural Habitats and Features in Section 5.6.1(E) are measured from the shortest distance from the working pad surface to the top of bank, and are modified as follows: (a) All features under the Stream Corridors category: 1,000 feet (b) Wetlands greater than 1/3 acre: 1,000 feet (c) Lakes or reservoirs: 1,000 feet (d) Naturalized storm drainage channels/detention ponds: 1,000 feet (e) Naturalized irrigation ponds: 1,000 feet Page 569 Item 17. (f) Buffer zones for natural habitats and features not listed above will conform to the buffer distances specified in Section 5.6.1 or 1,000 feet, whichever is greater. (B) Prohibited Oil and Gas Facilities. The following facilities are prohibited within the City: (1) Injection wells for disposal of oil and gas exploration and production wastes; (2) Gas storage wells; (3) Disposal pits; (4) Commercial disposal facilities; (5) Centralized exploration and production waste management facilities; (6) Subsurface disposal facilities; and (7) Glycol dehydrators and desiccant gas processing dehydrators. (8) Onsite oil storage greater than thirty (30) feet in height. (C) Landscaping. Land Development Code Section 5.10.1 applies in addition to the following requirements: (1) The requirements of Section 5.10.1, Landscaping and Tree Protection, apply within designated setbacks as defined in Section 5.17.4(A)(2) above to meet the Landscaping and Tree Protection general standard set forth in Land Development Code Section 5.10.1(C). (2) No landscaping will be placed within a twenty-five (25) foot buffer around any tank or other structure containing flammable or combustible materials. (D) Environmental Protection. Land Development Code Section 5.6.1, Natural Habitats and Features, applies in addition to the requirement for an Ecological Characterization Study if the development site contains or is within two thousand (2,000) feet of a natural habitat or feature. (E) Artificial Lift. Artificial lift may not be accomplished through the use of traditional pump jacks and an alternative artificial lift system must be used that is both less visible and has fewer auditory impacts than a traditional pump jack. Alternatives such as gas lift, linear rod pumps, or hydraulic pumping unit must be used instead of traditional pumpjacks and are to be as low profile as practicable with a maximum height of thirty (30) feet. Page 570 Item 17. (F) Fencing Plan. The requirements in this Subsection (F) apply to oil and gas facilities in substitution of the requirements set forth in Land Development Code Section 4.3.5(C), Fences and Walls. A fencing plan must be submitted as part of the application for a project development plan and such plan must demonstrate how the oil and gas facility will comply with the following requirements: (1) All pumps, wellheads and production facilities must be fenced to prevent unauthorized access and fencing must: (a) Completely surround such facilities; (b) Be no less than six (6) feet in height; (c) Be noncombustible and allow for adequate ventilation; (d) May not consist of solid masonry walls; and (e) Must be visually compatible with surrounding land uses. (2) Each fence enclosure must be equipped with at least one gate. Each gate must meet the following requirements: (a) Gates shall be provided with a combination catch and locking attachment device for a padlock and shall be kept locked except when being used to access the oil and gas location; and (b) Gates must provide adequate access for emergency responders and the operator must provide Poudre Fire Authority with a "Knox Padlock" or "Knox Box with a key" to allow emergency access to the oil and gas location. 5.17.5 OIL AND GAS PIPELINES Oil and Gas Pipelines. To the maximum extent feasible, oil and gas pipelines must be utilized for the transport of oil, gas, and produced water within and from any oil and gas location except that temporary tanks may be utilized during drilling, flowback, workover, completion, hydraulic fracturing and maintenance operations. All oil and gas pipelines needed to transport oil, gas, and produced water within and from any oil and gas location must be constructed prior to the production phase of such oil and gas facility. Oil and gas pipelines must meet the following requirements in order to be approved: (A) Oil and gas pipelines shall be located underground except to the extent above ground connections to surface oil and gas facilities are necessary. Page 571 Item 17. (B) Oil and gas pipelines shall be sited a minimum of 50 feet away from residential and non-residential buildings. This distance shall be measured from the nearest edge of the oil and gas pipeline. Increased setbacks of up to 150 feet may be required for public safety on a case-by-case basis in consideration of the size, pressure, and type of oil and gas pipeline being proposed. (C) Oil and gas pipelines that pass within 150 feet of residential or non -residential building or the high-water mark of any surface water body shall incorporate leak detection, secondary containment, or other mitigation, as appropriate. (D) To the maximum extent feasible, oil and gas pipelines shall be aligned with established roads in order to minimize surface impacts and reduce natural habitat fragmentation and disturbance. (E) To the maximum extent feasible, operators shall share existing oil and gas pipeline easements and consolidate new corridors for oil and gas pipeline easements to minimize surface impacts. (F) The legal description of the location of all new oil and gas pipelines must be recorded on the respective property with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder within thirty (30) days of completion of construction. (G) Coordinates of all oil and gas pipelines shall be provided in a format suitable for input into the City's GIS system depicting the locations and type of above and below ground facilities. (H) Operators shall use boring technology when crossing streams, rivers, irrigation ditches or wetlands with a pipeline to minimize negative impacts to the channel, bank, and riparian areas, except that open cuts may be used across irrigation ditches if the affected ditch company approves the technique. (I) Special conditions of approval for all gathering lines and transmission lines: (1) Operator must make available to the city upon request all records submitted to PHMSA or the PUC including those related to inspections, pressure testing, pipeline accidents and other safety events. (2) Operator shall comply with Fort Collins right-of-way permit and easement processes for all gathering lines installed in Fort Collins owned property or rights-of-way. 5.17.6 Plugging and Abandonment of Wells and Pipelines and Decommissioning of Oil and Gas Facilities (A) The plugging and abandonment of a well, abandonment of an oil and gas pipeline, and the decommissioning of any oil and gas facility are subject to basic Page 572 Item 17. development review. City review and approval of an application to plug and abandon a well, abandon an oil and gas pipeline or decommission and oil and gas facility is intended to be in addition to any required COGCC review and approval. The following documents and information shall be provided as part of the basic development review application: (1) Coordinates of the well proposed to be plugged and abandoned or pipeline to be abandoned. (2) A removal plan for flowlines and wastewater pipelines associated with any well proposed to be plugged and abandoned to the extent such lines will not serve a well that has not been plugged and abandoned. (3) A sampling and monitoring plan associated with any well proposed to be plugged and abandoned. Site investigation, sampling, and monitoring shall be conducted to demonstrate that the well has been properly abandoned and that soil, air and water quality have not been adversely impacted by oil and gas facilities or other sources of contamination. Such sampling and monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified environmental engineering or consulting firm with experience in oil and gas investigations. Director approval that the sampling and monitoring plan contains the information required pursuant to this Subsection (3) is required prior to sampling occurring and such plan shall include, but is not limited to, the following: (a) Site survey, historical research, and/or physical locating techniques to determine exact location and extent of oil and gas facilities. (b) Documentation of plugging activities, abandonment and any subsequent inspections. (c) Soil sampling, including soil gas testing. (d) Groundwater sampling, if deemed necessary. (e) Installation of permanent groundwater wells for future site investigations, if deemed necessary. (f) A minimum of five (5) years of annual soil gas and groundwater monitoring at the well location. (g) Upon completion of the site investigation and sampling, not including the ongoing monitoring, the consultant must provide a written report verifying that the soil and groundwater samples meet applicable Environmental Protection Agency and State residential regulations and that a reclaimed site would not pose a greater health or safety risk for future residents or users of the site. Otherwise, the Page 573 Item 17. decision maker may require that the following actions be completed by a qualified professional before development may occur, including but not limited to: (I) Remediation of environmental contamination to background levels. (II) Well repair or re-plugging of a previously abandoned well. (4) A final reclamation plan for the associated oil and gas location. The final reclamation plan must demonstrate how the following reclamation requirements will be satisfied: (a) All oil and gas related improvements and equipment must be removed from the oil and gas location, including flowlines, gathering lines, and oil and gas pipelines of any kind unless such improvements or equipment are needed to serve a well that has not been plugged and abandoned. (b) Upon written request, the Director may approve in writing the abandonment in place of any oil and gas pipeline. The Director may approve abandonment in place only if removal would cause greater adverse impacts to public health, safety, welfare, or the environment than allowing the oil and gas pipeline to remain. If an oil and gas pipeline is abandoned in place, a tracer will be placed in any nonmetal line. Any oil and gas pipeline approved to be abandoned in place must comply with all COGCC rules and the location of the abandoned oil and gas pipeline must be recorded with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder on the corresponding property. (c) The oil and gas location must be reclaimed and revegetated to the satisfaction of the City and in consultation with the landowner, the oil and gas location and all access roads associated with the oil and gas location proposed to be reclaimed within three (3) years after seeding, or as directed by the landowner in a surface use agreement. (B) Prior to commencing plugging and abandonment of a well, the applicant must provide the City with evidence of COGCC approval of the request to plug and abandon. (C) After plugging and abandonment is completed, the operator must: (1) Provide the City with evidence of COGCC approval of the completed plugging and abandonment. Page 574 Item 17. (2) Provide evidence that the location of the plugged and abandoned well has been recorded with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder on the corresponding property. (3) Permanently mark by a brass plaque set in concrete, similar to a permanent bench mark, to monument the plugged and abandoned well’s existence and location. Such plaque shall contain the information required by the COGCC to properly identify the well. (D) Reclamation. Within six (6) months after plugging and abandoning a well, abandoning an oil and gas pipeline, or decommissioning an oil and gas facility, reclamation of the associated oil and gas location must be completed pursuant to the approved final reclamation plan unless the Director grants additional time to complete reclamation in consideration of the complexity of the reclamation and conditions that may delay reclamation such as the season and weather. The operator must notify the City upon commencement of reclamation and upon completion. Section 5. That Section 6.3.3 of the Land Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 6.3.3 STEP 3: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION SUBMITTAL . . . (C) Development Application Contents. . . . (2) Submittal Requirement. Each development application shall be submitted to the Director and shall include the items on the Comprehensive list that are identified as submittal requirements for that development application. The Director may waive items on the Comprehensive list that are not applicable due to the particular conditions and circumstances of that development proposal. At the time of application submittal, all applicants must agree in writing to pay the costs for third-party consultants the City retains to adequately review the application as described in Land Development Code Section 6.3.3(D)(3). . . . (D) Development Review Fees and Costs for Specialized Consultants. . . . (3) Specialized Consultants. In the Director’s discretion, the City may retain the services of third-party consultants with specialized knowledge that the Page 575 Item 17. City requires to adequately evaluate an application, the costs of which must be paid by the applicant with such payment agreed to in writing at the time of application submittal. Prior to retaining any consultant, the Director must inform the applicant of the intent to retain such consultant and the estimated costs. The applicant must pay to the City the estimated costs prior to the City retaining the consultant. Within sixty (60) days of completion of the consultant’s work, the applicant must pay to the City the actual cost of the consultant’s services in excess of the estimate, or the City must refund any portion of the estimate in excess of the actual cost. Section 6. That Section 6.3.4 of the Land Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 6.3.4  STEP 4: REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS (A) Determination of Sufficiency. After receipt of the development application, the Director shall determine whether the application is complete and ready for review. Some development applications may involve complex technical issues that require review and input that is outside the expertise of City staff. If such a situation arises, the Director may procure the services of third-party consultants to review and consult with the City regarding the relevant subject matter and require the applicant to pay the costs for such third-party consultants as described in Section 6.6.3(D)(3). Upon review by the Director and any necessary third-party consultants, the Director will determine whether the application is complete. The determination of sufficiency shall not be based upon the perceived merits of the development proposal. . . . Section 7. That Section 6.3.6 of the Land Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 6.3.6  STEP 6: NOTICE . . . (D) Supplemental Notice Requirements. The following table indicates the required notice radius for a mailed notice and posted sign size for development applications.   Development Project Minimum Notice Radius  Sign Size  . . .    . . .   . . .   Oil and gas facilities and oil and gas pipelines One (1) mile to owners of record and occupants of 12 square feet Page 576 Item 17. real property (exclusive of property rights- of-way, public facilities, parks or public open space); plus, with respect to neighborhood meetings, publication of a notice not less than seven (7) days prior to the meeting in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. Plugging and abandonment of wells and pipelines and decommissioning of oil and gas facilities One (1) mile to owners of record and occupants of real property (exclusive of property rights- of-way, public facilities, parks or public open space of the oil and gas facility, well, or pipeline. 12 square feet . . . Section 8. That Section 6.4.1 of the Land Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 6.4.1 PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY The purpose of the basic development review (“BDR”) is to establish an internal administrative process for approval of a site specific development plan where the decision maker is the Director. There is no public hearing and the basic development review process shall be deemed final upon issuance of a decision by the Director. The basic development review shall be the review process for: Page 577 Item 17. . . . (F) Plugging and Abandonment and Decommissioning of Wells and Pipelines (Division 5.17) provided such Plugging and Abandonment and Decommissioning is not part of a development application subject to a development review process other than BDR. Section 9. That Section 6.26.3 of the Land Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 6.26.3 INSPECTION The City Manager is hereby empowered to cause any building, other structure or tract of land to be inspected and examined and to order in writing the remedying of any condition found to exist therein or thereat in violation of any provision of this Land Development Code. aAfter any such order has been served, no work shall proceed on any building, other structure or tract of land covered by such order, except to correct such violation or comply with the order. With regards to inspections of oil and gas facilities, the operator of any oil and gas facility or oil and gas pipeline that has been inspected shall pay to the City the costs for such inspection within sixty (60) days of receiving an invoice for the cost of the inspection. Inspections of oil and gas facilities and oil and gas pipelines may be conducted by City staff or non-City inspectors authorized by the City to conduct such inspections. Section 10. That Section 7.2.2 of the Land Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows: ARTICLE 7 RULES OF MEASUREMENT AND DEFINITIONS 7.2.2 DEFINITIONS. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Code, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section: . . . COGCC shall mean the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. . . . Flowback shall mean the process of allowing fluids and entrained solids to flow from a well following stimulation, either in preparation for a subsequent phase of treatment or in preparation for cleanup and placing the Well into production. The term flowback also means the Fluids and entrained solids that emerge from a Well during the flowback process. Flowline shall mean a segment of pipe transferring oil, gas, or condensate between a wellhead and processing equipment to the load point or point of delivery to a U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration or Page 578 Item 17. Colorado Public Utilities Commission regulated gathering line or a segment of pipe transferring produced water between a wellhead and the point of disposal discharge or loading. This definition of flowline does not include gathering line. . . . Gathering line shall mean a gathering pipeline or system as defined by the Colorado Utilities Commission, Regulation No. 4, 4 C.C.R. 723-4901, Part 4, (4 C.C.R. 723-4901) or a pipeline regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration pursuant to 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.2 or 192.8. 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.2 or 192.8 and 4 C.C.R. 723-4901 in existence as of the date of this regulation and does not include later amendments. . . . High occupancy building unit shall mean any building type listed in the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission definition of a High Occupancy Building Unit set forth in the Code of Colorado Regulations. High occupancy building unit shall mean: (a) Any public or private school, nursing facility as defined in § 25.5-4- 103(14), C.R.S., hospital, life care institution as defined in § 12-13-101, C.R.S., or correctional facility as defined in § 17-1-102(1.7), C.R.S., provided the facility or institution regularly serves 50 or more persons; (b) An operating Child Care Center as defined in § 26-6-102(5), C.R.S.; or (c) A multiunit dwelling with four or more units . . . Oil and gas facility shall mean equipment or improvements used or installed at an oil and gas location for the exploration, production, withdrawal, gathering, treatment, or processing of oil or natural gas. This term shall include equipment or improvements associated with active, inactive, temporarily abandoned, and plugged and abandoned wells. equipment or improvements used or installed at an oil and gas location for the exploration, production, withdrawal, treatment, or processing of crude oil, condensate, exploration, development, and production waste, or gas. Oil and gas location shall mean: the area where an operator has disturbed or intends to disturb the land surface in order to locate an oil and gas facility. (A) the area where the operator of an oil and gas facility has disturbed the land surface in order to locate an oil and gas facility or conduct oil and gas operations, or both; or (B) the area where the operator of an oil and gas facility intends to disturb the land surface in order to locate an oil and gas facility or conduct oil and gas operations, or both, and such facility or Page 579 Item 17. operations have received all required permits prior to submission of a residential development plan for the construction of dwellings or high occupancy building within one-thousand feet of the permitted oil and gas facility or operations, even if disturbance of the land surface to locate the oil and gas facility or conduct operations has yet to occur on the site. Oil and gas pipeline shall mean a flowline, crude oil transfer line, gathering line, as such terms are defined by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, and transmission lines. Operator as used in Division 5.17 shall mean any person who exercises the right to operate and control an oil and gas facility or oil and gas pipeline. . . . Plugging and abandonment shall mean the cementing of a well, the removal of its associated production facilities, the abandonment of its flowline(s), and the remediation and reclamation of the wellsite. . . . Reclamation shall mean the process of returning or restoring the surface of disturbed land to its condition prior to development. . . . School facility shall mean any discrete facility or area, whether indoor or outdoor, associated with a public or private school, that students use commonly as part of their curriculum or extracurricular activities. A school facility is either adjacent to or owned by the school or school governing body, and the school or school governing body has the legal right to use the school facility at its discretion. The definition includes future school facility as defined by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. . . . Working pad surface shall mean the portion of an oil and gas location that has an improved surface upon which oil and gas facilities are placed. . . . Introduced, considered favorably on first reading and ordered published this 20th day of December, A.D. 2022, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of January, A.D. 2023. Mayor ATTEST: Page 580 Item 17. City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 17th day of January, A.D. 2023. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Page 581 Item 17. !"`$!!!! I³S College AveS Timberline RdEMulberry S t S Shields StN Shields StCarpenter Rd W Willox Ln SLemay AveN College AveNHighway1S Taft Hill RdW Elizabeth St S Overland TrlW Horsetooth Rd W Harmony Rd W Mulberry St E Harmony Rd N GarfieldAveW C o u n t y Road 5 4 G E T r i l byRd E Prospect RdN Overland TrlZiegler RdLaporte Ave W Drake Rd E Lincoln Av e N Timberline RdRiv ersid e A veE Horsetooth Rd W Vine Dr E Douglas RdW Douglas Rd N Taft HillRdLindenmeier RdKechter Rd Country C l u b Rd SCente nnia l DrE Willox L n Turnberry RdEVineDr W Prospect Rd WCountyRoad38EMountain Vista Dr E Drake Rd Richards Lake R dTerryLakeRd W Trilby Rd Gr e g o r y R d Highway 392 N CountyRoad 11EStraussCabin RdN BoydLake Ave Rist C a n yonRd N CountyRoad 9S CountyRoad 9Giddings RdPotential Drilling Areas using Current COGCC Setbacks within City and GMA Available Drilling Areas Fort Collins Oil Field (source: COGCC) City Limits Growth Management Area (GMA) Unincorporated areas within GMA CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any user of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Excluded Areas: - 1000 ft outside of high occupancy buildings - 500 ft outside other buildings - 200 ft from roads and railroads - water bodies - 100-year floodplain Date Created: January 31, 2020 01234 Miles Page 582 Item 17. !"`$!!!! I³S College AveS Timberline RdEMulberry S t S Shields StN Shields StCarpenter Rd W Willox Ln SLemay AveN College AveNHighway1S Taft Hill RdW Elizabeth St S Overland TrlW Horsetooth Rd W Harmony Rd W Mulberry St E Harmony Rd N GarfieldAveW C o u n t y Road 5 4 G E T r i l byRd E Prospect RdN Overland TrlZiegler RdLaporte Ave W Drake Rd E Lincoln Av e N Timberline RdRiv ersid e A veE Horsetooth Rd W Vine Dr E Douglas RdW Douglas Rd N Taft HillRdLindenmeier RdKechter Rd Country C l u b Rd SCente nnia l DrE Willox L n Turnberry RdEVineDr W Prospect Rd WCountyRoad38EMountain Vista Dr E Drake Rd Richards Lake R dTerryLakeRd W Trilby Rd Gr e g o r y R d Highway 392 N CountyRoad 11EStraussCabin RdN BoydLake Ave Rist C a n yonRd N CountyRoad 9S CountyRoad 9Giddings RdAbsence of Potential Drilling Areas within Industrial Zones using 2000 ft Building Setbacks within City and GMA City Zoning - Industrial Fort Collins Oil Field (source: COGCC) City Limits Growth Management Area (GMA) Unincorporated areas within GMA CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any user of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Excluded Areas: - 2000 ft outside of buildings - 200 ft from roads and railroads - water bodies - 100-year floodplain Date Created: February 3, 2020 01234 Miles Page 583 Item 17. Parameters COGCC Rules Fort Collins Version‐One (November 8, 2022) Fort Collins Version‐Two (December 20, 2022) Zoning Districts N/A Oil and Gas Facilities ‐ Industrial Zone Oil and Gas Pipeline ‐ All Zones Oil and Gas Facilities ‐ Industrial Zone Oil and Gas Pipeline ‐ Commercial; Employment  and Industrial; Downtown; Overlay Zone  2,000' from existing Residential 2,000' from High Occupancy Building Units Public Meeting 1 informational meeting &  Commissioner Hearing 1 neighborhood meeting 1 neighborhood meetings & Planning and Zoning Hearing Surface Owners Property Owners Property Owners and Occupants 2,000' radius 1‐mile radius facilities and pipelines 2,000‐feet Plugging and Abandoning 1‐mile radius  Variance Variance process for siting within setbacks  available through COGCC Rule 502 not allowed for setback not allowed for setback Alternative Site Analysis required for public comment period Rule 304 Alternative and primary site analysis prior to 1st  neighborhood meeting; includes facilities only Alternative and primary site analysis prior to 1st  neighborhood meeting; includes facilities and  pipelines Noise mitigation plan Max 80dB(a) adjacent to residential use No Inspection Fees Fee schedule in place $100,000 financial assurance Tanks not required  No prohibition ‐ emphasis on tankless facility  design by allowing pipelines within all zone types  (pipeline utilization) Prohibited ‐ Onsite oil storage greater than 30  feet in height Prohibited Facilities ‐ (1)Injection wells for disposal of oil and gas  exploration and production wastes; (2)Gas  storage wells; (3)Disposal pits; (4)Commercial disposal facilities; (5)Centralized  exploration and production waste management  facilities;(6) Subsurface disposal facilities; and  (7)Glycol dehydrators and desiccant gas  processing dehydrators.   (1)Injection wells for disposal of oil and gas  exploration and production wastes; (2)Gas  storage wells; (3)Disposal pits; (4)Commercial disposal facilities; (5)Centralized  exploration and production waste management  facilities;(6) Subsurface disposal facilities; and  (7)Glycol dehydrators and desiccant gas  processing dehydrators.   Landscaping n/a Tree protection standards; and no landscaping  within 25' Tree protection standards; and no landscaping  within 25' Fencing Security fencing and wildlife protection  measures Rule 600 Fencing Plan required Fencing Plan required  Rule 1200 ‐ Wildlife Plan Ecological Characterization Study  within 1‐mile of site Ecological Characterization Study  within 1‐mile of site 500' buffer from CPW High Priority Habitat  Spill prevention measures within 1,000’ of  aquatic high priority habitats  Financial Assurance Rule 700 Assurity Bonds “Maintenance guarantee” two‐year maintenance  guarantee and five‐year repair guarantee covering  all errors or omissions  “Maintenance guarantee” two‐year maintenance  guarantee and five‐year repair guarantee  covering all errors or omissions  Transportation n/a Access, Circulation and Parking standards:  Transportation Impact Study Access, Circulation and Parking standards:  Transportation Impact Study Gathering Lines and  Transmission lines Public Utilities, Department of  Transportation, COGCC Regulation n/a Special conditions for approval Fort Collins Oil and Gas Regulations Max 55dB(a) adjacent to residential use Max 80dB(a) adjacent to Industrial use Max 55dB(a) adjacent to residential use Max 80dB(a) adjacent to Industrial useNoise  1,000' Natural Habitat Buffers  1,000' Natural Habitat Buffers Public Notice Setbacks Inspection Natural Resources 2,000' from property boundaries 2,000' from occupied buildings Inspection fee required Inspection fee required  Page 584 Item 17. ATTACHMENT 2 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY TABLE Group/Event Feedback Public Public Open Houses 03/2/2020, 3/2/2020 Online Questionnaire • No development in Natural Areas • No development in City limits • Biggest concerns: Climate Change, Air Quality Boards and Commissions Natural Resources Advisory Board 11/20/2019 • Supportive of aggressive timeline, and potentially a moratorium on new development • New regulations should prioritize environmental and economic safeguards so as to protect the health and welfare of current and future residents of Fort Collins SuperBoard Meeting (all Boards) 2/24/2020 • No development in Natural Areas • No development in City limits • Biggest concerns: Climate Change, Air Quality Land Conservation and Stewardship Board 8/12/2020 • Interested in protecting Natural Areas through buffering of property boundaries • Concerned over protecting Soapstone NA • Drafting a memo to City Council Planning and Zoning Board Work Session 8/14/2020 • Air quality (regional) is the biggest concern • Operational standards need to minimize impacts • Should limit development in Natural Areas • New regulation should consider potential future advances in technology that may make previously inaccessible mineral resources available Air Quality Advisory Board 12/21/2020 • Supported 2000’ setbacks, at minimum • Do not support exceptions to setback distances • Supportive of industrial zoning as tool to regulate surface locations • Concerned about potential development in GMA and in City owned natural areas. Industry/Other Chamber of Commerce 10/9/2020 • Interested in revenue projections and economic impacts of new regulations COGA and API • Supportive of reasonable local regulations • Concerned about regulations that effectively appear to ban additional development Current Operator • No interest in new well locations • Potential concerns about new regulations that inhibit operations at existing wells Page 585 Item 17. Item Stakeholder Feedback/Concerns How has Staff addressed feedback/concerns? General Comment Proposed regulations do not exercise the full authority granted through SB-181. Current prosed regulations codify Council direction to use zoning and setback standards to limit potential future oil and gas development. Regulations proposed do address development review processes for approvals, but do not address operational standards for active wells, or provide updates to reverse setback standards. Staff also received Council direction at 10/25 Work Session to update reverse setback standards. These updates are expected to be considered in early 2023. Draft Code Language (v1) Public outreach and Council discussions to date only included policy questions and Council feedback. The translation to actual proposed code language was not published until 11/8/2022. Concern is that this does not allow enough time for meaningful public feedback on code language before first reading, originally scheduled for 12/6/2022. The first reading was originally scheduled for 12/7/2022 and rescheduled to 12/20/2022, in part to accommodate the request from stakeholders to send feedback directly to Council. Revised Draft Code Language (TBD) Staff has already proposed some revisions to draft code in response to concerns, and these were presented and discussed at a 11/17/22 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. These revisions to code are not currently slated to be published for textual review and consideration until after first reading on 12/20/2022. Concern is that this will not allow enough time for meaningful feedback on code revisions if a 2nd reading proceeds as anticipated on 1/3/2023. Version 2 of the draft regulations address stakeholder feedback received between October and December 2022. Introducing Oil and Gas Facilities as a Defined Use Concern was raised about adding oil and gas facilities proposed to be included as a defined use. In order to regulate oil and gas facilities, the use and a process for approvals has been defined in the code language. Zoning and Setback Requirements As discussed in previous Council Work Sessions, Zoning and Setbacks are the primary tools proposed to limit the potential for new development. With current zoning, these requirements preclude additional development. Concern was raised about possibility of Additional Permitted Use (APU) and annexation to potentially allow surface use for development if a new oil and gas formation The proposed code language excludes the use of “Modification of Standards” for setback requirements. Page 586Item 17. Item Stakeholder Feedback/Concerns How has Staff addressed feedback/concerns? Pipelines Per draft language, there was a concern that Oil & Gas pipelines were included as an allowed use in all zoning districts. Pipelines are used to transfer oil, gas or produced water between a wellhead and processing equipment to a load point or point of delivery. To the maximum extent feasible, oil and gas pipelines are preferred over transport by vehicles. The P&Z Commission has recommended a modification that restricts oil and gas pipelines would not be allowed within public open lands or residential zone districts, including, mixed use neighborhoods and residential zoning. Development Review Process Concern was raised about the amount of Director discretion proposed in Development Review Process. Based on stakeholder feedback, proposed updates will subject Oil and gas developments, including pipelines, to a Planning and Zoning Commission Review (Type 2). This removes staff discretion to waive certain requirements and makes the P&Z Commission the final decision maker. Financial Assurances The code fails to address Financial Assurance guarantees. In April 2022, the COGCC adopted new financial assurance requirements, including bond requirements to ensure appropriate plugging and abandonment, increased bonds for low producing wells, and the ability for local governments to request wells to be plugged that are no longer used or useful. City and County are exploring new authority to request wells be plugged and abandoned that are no longer used or useful. Plugging and Abandonment The P&A of wells, the abandonment of pipelines, and the decommissioning of any O&G facility the plugging and abandonment of O&G facilities are subject to only a Basic Development Review (BDR). The Proposed Code seeks to incentivize plugging and abandonment of wells by reducing the administrative burden to a Basic Development review as opposed to a type 2 planning and zoning review. Page 587Item 17. David Katz, Chair City Council Chambers Ted Shepard, Vice Chair City Hall West Michelle Haefele 300 Laporte Avenue Per Hogestad Fort Collins, Colorado Adam Sass Jeff Schneider Cablecast on FCTV, Channel 14 on Connexion & Julie Stackhouse Channels 14 & 881 on Comcast The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing November 17, 2022 Chair Katz called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Haefele, Hogestad, Katz, Sass, Schneider, Shepard, Stackhouse Absent: None Staff Present: Everette, Yatabe, Sizemore, Myler, Schumann, Mapes, Geary, Dinger, Axmacher, Claypool, Vonkoepping, Hahn, Mounce, Lorson, Lindsey, Kleer, Longstein, and Manno ************Excerpt from approved minutes 10. Oil and Gas Land Development Code Regulations Project Description: This is a request for a recommendation to City Council regarding proposed Land Development Code amendments to regulate the zoning, siting, and design of new oil and gas facilities. The code amendments address regulatory gaps and opportunities that were created with the adoption of Colorado Senate Bill 19-181. Recommendation: Approval Staff Presentation Kirk Longstein, Senior Environmental Planner, commented on the focus areas of oil and gas regulation work: new oil and gas facilities, operational standards, and reverse setbacks, and stated this presentation will focus on new oil and gas facilities. He discussed the state and local roles in regulation and stated this draft Code language aims at regulating surface activities as it is outside of the local purview to regulate in-hole operations. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Page 588 Item 17. Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2022 Page 2 of 4 Longstein discussed the October Council work session during which general support was provided for restricting new oil and gas wells to industrial zone districts and continuing to align with Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) minimum setbacks of 2,000 feet from occupied buildings, trails, and natural areas. He noted the original proposed Code regulations would have added oil and gas facilities as an allowed use to industrial zone districts and add oil and gas pipelines as an allowed use to all zone districts. He commented on feedback received that pipelines should not be allowed on public lands or in residential areas; therefore, staff’s current recommendation is to remove oil and gas pipelines as an allowed use within public open lands and residential zone types, including mixed-use neighborhoods. He discussed the proposed setback regulations for new oil and gas facilities, which would be 2,000 feet from residential buildings and 1,000 feet from wetlands, water, ditches, conservation easements. For new oil and gas pipelines, a 50- to 100-foot setback from buildings and a 150-foot setback from surface water features are being proposed. He also noted there are quite a few buffering requirements related to wildlife at the state level. Longstein noted the intent of the draft language is to make new oil and gas facilities and pipelines fall under Planning and Zoning Commission review with a quicker basic development review process being used for plugging and abandoning existing wells. He noted this was based on public stakeholder feedback related to public notices and input opportunities being minimal and inadequate. Longstein stated the draft also includes some prohibitive oil and gas facilities, including injection wells, some gas storage wells, and disposal pits. He also commented on included development standards related to landscaping, fencing, artificial lifts, and environmental protection and discussed the regulations and requirements related to plugging and abandoning wells. Longstein commented on the ways in which the draft Code addresses financial security in the development agreement language. He also noted all existing development standards within the Land Development Code will apply when a PDP is submitted for oil and gas facilities. He stated the staff recommendation is for support of the draft oil and gas Code regulations including updates to the table of primary uses. Member Haefele asked if the City could add financial security requirements with bonding specifically for City resources. Longstein replied that could be a possible inclusion and it would likely be similar to the existing development agreement language. Rebecca Everette, Planning Manager, noted financial securities are required for public infrastructure, natural habitat buffer zone restoration, and landscaping. She requested clarification as to what other financial securities would be desired. Member Haefele asked if the state financial securities would cancel any the City would require. Everette replied the state has multiple financial securities, including some that give the state the ability to reclaim a well and plug it if an operator goes out of business and abandons a well without plugging it. Member Haefele asked about landscaping for fire safety. Longstein replied there is a buffe distance between the facilities and where landscaping would be allowed. Member Haefele asked if there are requirements for landscaping to mitigate the impacts of the screening. Longstein replied in the negative and stated the fencing requirement is not specific to screening or aesthetics. Chair Katz asked if other parts of the Code would cover mitigating impacts of screening. Everette replied in the affirmative noting there are requirements related to operational compatibility. Member Haefele asked if the City is required to add oil and gas facilities as an allowed use in the industrial zone. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe replied he would recommend an executive session to discuss those types of legal issues. Member Schneider stated the use must be added to comply with SB181 and the ultimate effect of the regulations will be a prohibition on drilling new wells in Fort Collins, though that cannot be explicitly stated. Page 589 Item 17. Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2022 Page 3 of 4 Member Stackhouse stated the proposed regulations do not prohibit oil and gas development, nor is the City attempting to do that; however, the conditions under which oil and gas development can occur are going to be extremely narrow. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe stated, prior to SB181, the City’s ability to regulate the surface impacts of oil and gas facilities was severely limited, and post-SB181, the City acquired much greater authority. He stated the COGCC has the ability to regulate surface impacts if the City does not adopt regulations. Everette noted the intent in Council directing staff to develop these Code standards was to address what Council perceived as a regulatory gap and to ensure there are strong regulations that reflect the will of Council and the community to ensure that gap no longer exists. Member Haefele asked if the recommendation as written includes allowing pipelines in all zones. Everette replied it was not feasible to make the Code draft changes related to not allowing pipelines in public open lands and residential zones; however, staff is recommending that amendment and it is possible that language could be changed in the draft that goes before Council. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Ed Behan, Larimer Alliance for Health, Safety, and the Environment, expressed concern about the proposed language, specifically related to proposed setbacks that apply to structures rather than property lines, notification requirements only for owners of record, and the application only of basic development review to the siting of pipelines. He requested the Commission not recommend the regulations for adoption without additional time for study by relevant stakeholders and public input. Tim Gosar requested the Commission seriously consider the process by which these draft regulations are being rolled out and presented to the public and whether there has been meaningful opportunity for the public to read, understand, and engage on the matter. He specifically citied concerns related to setbacks and financial assurance. He requested the regulations be held in abeyance until staff can prepare a more complete and comprehensive set of regulations that truly protect public health, safety, and the environment. Longstein stated the proposed setbacks include a variety of stipulations, including distance to property lines for parks, playgrounds, and outdoor venues. He acknowledged there was a great deal of input related to allowing additional time for consideration of the draft language; therefore, the item has been pushed to the December 20th Council meeting. He noted some of the pipeline concerns have been addressed by limiting the zones in which they would be allowed. Additionally, oil and gas development does not have eminent domain authority. Everette noted the public engagement process for these Code updates primarily happened in 2019 and several work sessions with Council have occurred over the last two years. She also noted all Code standards that apply in a type 2 Planning and Zoning Commission process also apply in a Basic Development Review process and any requested modifications are subject to the same review criteria. Regarding notifications only going to property owners of record, Everette noted that is the standard practice within the current development review process. She stated a pilot was done a couple years ago sending mailings to tenants and it was found there is no reliable database upon which to rely and many expensive mailing errors occurred. Longstein stated the City of Fort Collins was recently awarded an EPA grant through Environmental Services and purchased an infrared camera in partnership with Larimer County to address ongoing leak detection and reporting. He stated this draft language does not relate to ongoing operational inspections. Member Haefele asked if there are going to be additional regulations developed by another City department for operational issues, such as requiring air quality monitoring. Longstein replied the staff recommendation is to partner with Larimer County, regional partners, and the operator for ongoing monitoring. Everette noted there would be a reliance on Larimer County’s operational standards and inspectors given the low number of wells within the city limits. Vice Chair Shepard asked if these standards generally match the County’s. Longstein replied he could not speak to that specifically. Page 590 Item 17. Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2022 Page 4 of 4 Chair Katz asked if annexation would be triggered by an oil and gas development in the GMA that is adjacent on three sides by city limits. Everette replied certain types of development applications trigger review for annexation; therefore, it would depend on how Larimer County classifies oil and gas facilities. Member Sass noted monitoring of abandoned wells is required for five years and asked where that information goes. Longstein replied the City would collect the information and that would be a condition of the development agreement. Everette noted Environmental Planning staff would review the reports which would be prepared by an industry professional. Member Sass asked how the City is financially protected for those five years of monitoring should an issue be detected. Everette replied the first course of action would be coordination with the COGCC and there would be mechanisms at the state level to address replugging a well. Commission Questions / Deliberation Member Haefele stated pipelines are not utilities and should not be treated as such. She expressed concern the draft regulations are not yet adequate to fully take advantage of the control the City has been given with SB181. Vice Chair Shepard requested input as to why oil and gas facilities would be allowed as an addition of permitted use (APU). Everette replied some of the criteria for an APU are conformity with the basic premise of the underlying zone district and ensuring more impact than a permitted use does not occur. She stated those would be high bars to meet for an oil and gas facility. Member Haefele stated there is no reason to open up the possibility of allowing oil and gas facilities as an APU and she recommended striking that clause all together. She also suggested changing the setbacks from building wall to property boundary for all properties. Vice Chair Shepard asked if other Code provisions could be invoked to increase setbacks. Everette replied there are few properties that are big enough to accommodate a 2,000-foot buffer without touching a property line. She noted the property line setback is included for schools, playgrounds, and recreational fields. Member Haefele expressed concern that even though these situations are unlikely, it is inappropriate to be as amenable as possible with the regulations. Member Schneider noted the Commission is not the final decision maker and Council, as elected officials, will make a decision based on input from the community. Member Stackhouse stated she is comfortable moving forward. Vice Chair Shepard made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of the proposed Land Development Code changes with regard to new oil and gas facilities including the changes mentioned by staff. Member Schneider seconded the motion. Chair Katz noted voting against this motion is actually voting for less regulation. Member Haefele stated voting against the motion is voting against this specific package of regulations. The motion carried 6-1 with Haefele dissenting. Page 591 Item 17. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 2 December 20, 2022 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council STAFF Rachael Johnson, Senior Equity Specialist Claudia Menendez, Equity Officer SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2022, Amending the Definition of Discrimination in City Code Chapter 13 to Prohibit Discrimination on the Bases of Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Gender Expression. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Ordinance modifies anti-discrimination language in City Code Chapter 13, Article II, to prohibit discrimination on the bases of “sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.” Absent this new language, our residents in these classes feel unprotected from discrimination, resulting in not including “all” in our growing community. The amendment advances the City of Fort Collins’ vision to be a safe and welcoming community for all. STAFF RECOMMENDATION HRC is a partner to the Equity & Inclusion Office. We have been working together to advance equity for all identities in the Fort Collins community and inclusive language is a necessary part of this process. This change will signal to community members the City’s level of commitment to equity and inclusion and will further the City’s efforts to keep and build trust in the community. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The State of Colorado has already modified its discrimination language to include these protected classes. On May 19, 2021, Governor Polis signed into law HB21-1108, the Gender Identity Expression Anti-Discrimination Act, that amended the current definition of sexual orientation with adding gender identity and gender expression into 48 areas of state law that prohibit discrimination against members of a protected class. HRC submitted a letter of recommendation to Council on December 1, 2022. During Other Business at the December 6, 2022, Council several Councilmembers requested that staff bring forward this item for their consideration. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS Financial impacts are unknown at this time. BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Page 592 Item 18. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 2 The HRC respectfully requests that the City's Municipal Code, Chapter 13, Article II, be amended to include "sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression," which would not only match the State's non- discrimination language but, more importantly, protect these significant members of our community from acts of discrimination. Therefore, the proposed new protected class language would read: “...race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or ma rital status....” Their recommendation to Council is included as an attachment. PUBLIC OUTREACH There has been a high level of engagement with the Human Relations Commission on this topic. ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance for Consideration 2. Human Relations Commission Memorandum to Council Page 593 Item 18. -1- ORDINANCE NO. 152, 2022 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE DEFINTION OF DISCRIMINATION IN CITY CODE CHAPTER 13 TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASES OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY AND GENDER EXPRESSION WHEREAS, Chapter 13 of the City Code prohibits discrimination on the bases of race, color, religion, national origin, sex or marital status; and WHEREAS, the Human Relations Commission of the City of Fort Collins issued a memo to City Council recommending that the language of Chapter 13 be amended to also prohibit discrimination on the bases of sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression; and WHEREAS, on May 19, 2021, Governor Polis signed House Bill 21-1108, which added the terms “gender expression” and “gender identity” to numerous state statutes prohibiting discrimination against members of a protected class; and WHEREAS, under Other Business at the Council meeting on December 6, 2022, several Councilmembers requested that City staff bring forward an ordinance amending City Code Chapter 13 as described for Council consideration; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that amending the City Code as proposed in this Ordinance is in the best interests of the City and is necessary for the health, safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That Chapter 13 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL Sec. 13-16. – Definitions. Discriminate and discriminate against, discriminatory reason or reason of discrimination shall mean under the given circumstances, a person makes a limitation or specification as to another because of the latter person's race, color, religion, national origin, sex , sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or marital status or because of the race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or marital status of the other person's friends or associates. The term discriminatory reason or reason of discrimination may be used to Page 594 Item 18. -2- have the following sense or meaning and at the same time save repeated use of the term based upon or because of the race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or marital status of the other person, or because of the race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or marital status of such other person's friends or associates. The foregoing terms will include the phrase age between forty (40) and seventy (70) when used in the area of employment under § 13-17. The foregoing shall include discrimination against a disabled individual, as defined herein, when used in the areas of housing under § 13-18, employment under § 13-17 and public accommodations under § 13-19 of the Code. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading and ordered published this 20th day of December, A.D. 2022, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of January, A.D. 2023. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 17th day of January, A.D. 2023. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Page 595 Item 18. Mayor City Hall 300 LaPorte Ave. PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.416.2154 970.224.6107 - fax fcgov.com December 1, 2022 Human Relations Commission c/o Rachael Johnson, Staff Liaison PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Chair Jaeger and Board Members: On behalf of City Council, thank you for providing us with the November 30, 2022 memorandum regarding “Request for Modification of Anti-Discrimination Language in Municipal Code, Chapter 13, Article II” wherein you summarized the Board’s recommendation to include sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression in the discrimination language to match the State of Colorado’s language and protect community members from acts of discrimination. Thank you for the expertise and perspectives that you bring to the Board and share with City Council. Best Regards, Jeni Arndt Mayor /sek cc: City Council Members Kelly DiMartino, City Manager Page 596 Item 18. DATE: November 30, 2022 TO: Mayor Jeni Arndt City Councilmembers CC: Sarah Kane Claudia Menendez Rachael Johnson FROM: The Human Relations Commission RE: Request for Modification of Anti-Discrimination Language in Municipal Code, Chapter 13, Article II To advance the City of Fort Collins' vision to be a safe and welcoming community for all, the Human Relations Commission (HRC) recommends that City Council modify its current discrimination language in the City's Municipal Code, Chapter 13, Article II, to include "sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression." Absent this new language, our residents in these classes feel unprotected from discrimination, resulting in not including "all" in our growing community. The State of Colorado has already modified its discrimination language to include these protected classes. In fact, on May 19, 2021, Governor Polis signed into law HB21-1108, the Gender Identity Expression Anti-Discrimination Act, that amended the current definition of sexual orientation with adding gender identity and gender expression into 48 areas of state law that prohibit discrimination against members of a protected class. As an example of one of these 48 areas of State of Colorado law that has been modified, below is the language describing discriminatory practices in places of public accommodation: "It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, Page 597 Item 18. privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual’s patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, national origin, or ancestry." In the Fort Collins Municipal Code, Chapter 13, Article II, Section 13, the following definition of discrimination appears: "Discriminate and discriminate against, discriminatory reason or reason of discrimination shall mean under the given circumstances, a person makes a limitation or specification as to another because of the latter person's race, color, religion, national origin, sex or marital status or because of the race, color, religion, national origin, sex or marital status of the other person's friends or associates. The term discriminatory reason or reason of discrimination may be used to have the following sense or meaning and at the same time save repeated use of the term based upon or because of the race, color, religion, national origin, sex or marital status of the other person, or because of the race, color, religion, national origin, sex or marital status of such other person's friends or associates. The foregoing terms will include the phrase age between forty (40) and seventy (70) when used in the area of employment under § 13-17. The foregoing shall include discrimination against a disabled individual, as defined herein, when used in the areas of housing under § 13-18, employment under § 13-17 and public accommodations under § 13-19 of the Code." The HRC respectfully requests that the City's Municipal Code, Chapter 13, Article II, be amended to include "sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression," which would not only match the State's non-discrimination language but, more importantly, protect these significant members of our community from acts of discrimination. Therefore, the proposed new protected class language would read: “...race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or marital status....” We appreciate City Council's consideration of the HRC's request. Please let us know if more information is required. Page 598 Item 18. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 3 December 20, 2022 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council STAFF Carrie M. Daggett, City Attorney SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 153, 2022, Amending Section 2-569 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Update and Clarify the Process for Review of Ethics Complaints. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance updates the Code provisions describing the ethics complaint process and establishing a new process for screening and investigation of complaints alleging ethics violations by councilmembers. The Ethics Review Board met in November 2021, January 2022, May 2022, and October to discuss options for improvements to the ethics complaint screening and review process. The Ethics Review Board recommended the changes in the Ordinance for adoption. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Ethics Review Board’s discussion has particularly focused on a proposal to retain one or more attorneys with ethics expertise to complete the initial screening of ethics complaints against Councilmembers and determine whether investigation of the complaint is warranted. If so, a retained attorney would also be responsible for investigating and making a recommendation to the Review Board for a final determination as to whether an ethics violation had occurred. The Ordinance adds to the Code a more extensive explanation of the considerations for screening of ethics complaints. The Ordinance also includes several other edits required to incorporate these changes as well as to increase readability of this Section. To inform the Review Board’s discussion, staff researched examples of ethics review processes in Colorado and in some other jurisdictions to identify ways that outside attorneys are used in the screening or complaint review. There is significant variation from city to city and no clear pattern in this respect. More detailed information related to this was provided for the Review Board’s meeting on January 31, 2022, and May 5, 2022, meetings are available at the following links, respectively: https://records.fcgov.com/CouncilCorr/DocView.aspx?id=15423379&dbid=0&repo=FortCollins https://records.fcgov.com/CouncilCorr/DocView.aspx?id=15452432&dbid=0&repo=FortCollins . Page 599 Item 19. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 3 Under the Code now, the Review Board reviews (screens) all complaints to evaluate and determine by majority vote whether to formally investigate the complaint based on the following: 1. Whether the allegations in the complaint, if true, would constitute a violation of state or local ethical rules; 2. The reliability and sufficiency of any facts asserted in support of the allegations; and 3. Any other facts or circumstances the Board may consider relevant. Under the current process, if the Review Board determines that a complaint does not warrant investigation, the Review Board then directs staff to send written notice to the complainant of that determination and the reasoning behind it. A copy of that notice is also sent to the subject of the complaint and the City Council, and the matter is closed. If the complaint is not screened out, the Review Board then proceeds with an investigation and hearing about the allegations in the complaint. The process elements considered in formulating a recommended new process, with proposed approaches based on the Review Board’s discussion recommendations, include: 1. What parts of the process would the Review Board (or the Council) retain in connection with a complaint against a Councilmember? a. the decision whether to take action to admonish a violator or take other action; b. the final decision as to whether a violation occurred (Council on the recommendation of the Review Board); c. the application of the Charter and Code to determine of whether a violation occurred (with a recommendation from the fact finder/investigator); d. not the investigation and finding of facts related to the accusations; e. not the initial screening of a complaint for whether it merits investigation. 2. If an outside resource will be used, what type of expert or resource would be preferred? The Review Board recommended using an outside attorney with expertise in ethics matters to carry out the screening step. 3. For parts of the process that will be carried out by others, should there be a standing appointment, a pool of appointees to be drawn upon, or an ad hoc appointment? The Review Board preferred having outside resources in place to be called upon as needed. 4. Would there be special considerations in making the appointment, such as whether the person is local, for example. It may be beneficial to use outside counsel from outside the community to reduce the potential for existing relationships or involvement. 5. Who would select or appoint the outside resources? The Review Board recommended the City Attorney select and make arrangements for the outside counsel for a screening process (after consultation with the Review Board and update information provided to the Council). 6. Would the use of outside resources apply to all ethics complaints (including those about board and commission members as well as Councilmembers)? The Review Board preferred limiting the special screening to only complaints against Councilmembers, since those raised the original question about impartiality. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS Page 600 Item 19. City Council Agenda Item Summary – City of Fort Collins Page 3 of 3 There will be financial impacts resulting from the cost of retaining outside ethics counsel to screen and investigate ethics complaints against City councilmembers if such complaints are filed. The costs and when they would arise are difficult to predict and, depending on the extent of the work required, it may be absorbed within the City Attorney’s Office budget. BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The Ethics Review Board reviewed and discussed the Code changes set out in the Ordinance and recommended approval of them at its October 12, 2022, meeting. PUBLIC OUTREACH N/A ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance for Consideration 2. Ethics Review Board minutes for 10-12-2022 Page 601 Item 19. ORDINANCE NO. 153, 2022 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING SECTION 2-569 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO UPDATE AND CLARIFY THE PROCESS FOR REVIEW OF ETHICS COMPLAINTS WHEREAS, City Code Section 2-569 establishes an Ethics Review Board comprised of three Councilmembers and an alternate, to consider ethics-related inquiries and complaints; and WHEREAS, Section 2-569(d) addresses the processes for review of ethics inquiries and complaints; and WHEREAS, in recent years questions have been raised as to how the screening and investigation of complaints, particularly complaints against Councilmembers, are best structured and carried out; and WHEREAS, the Ethics Review Board met in November 2021, January 2022, May 2022 and October 2022 to consider the complaint process and options for modifying it to provide an efficient, objective review of complaints; and WHEREAS, based on those discussions, the Ethics Review Board voted unanimously on October 12, 2022, to recommend the amendments to City Code Section 2- 569 set out in this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, in addition to establishing a new screening and investigation process for complaints against Councilmembers, the amendments reorganize and clarify the processes and requirements and provide additional considerations to guide the screening of ethics complaints; and WHEREAS, the Council finds these changes to advance the public’s interest in effective and fair consideration of ethical action by Council and boards and commissions, and desires to adopt and implement the new procedures for ethics complaints, if any, received after first reading of this Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That Section 2-569(d) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 2-569. Board of ethics. Page 602 Item 19. . . . (d) Inquiries and Ccomplaints and inquiries shall be submitted to the Review Board only according to the following procedures: (1) City Council inquiries. Any Councilmember may present directly to the Review Board any inquiry regarding the application of ethical rules of conduct under state statute or the Charter or Code to any actual or hypothetical situation of a Councilmember or board and commission member. a. In performing its review and investigation of any inquiry submitted in accordance with this Subsection (d)(1), the Review Board shall afford all affected board and commission members an opportunity to present their interpretations of the facts at issue and of the applicable provisions of law before rendering its advisory opinion and recommendation. b. It is not necessary for the Review Board to conduct a full public hearing and take public comment on an inquiry, although the Review Board may do so if it determines public input will assist the Board in its consideration of the inquiry. c. The Review Board may also request such additional materials or information from City staff or members of the public which it considers reasonably necessary or helpful to its deliberations. d. After consideration of an inquiry, the Review Board shall forthwith issue an advisory opinion and recommendation to the City Council, which shall immediately thereafter be filed with the City Clerk and be available for public inspection. Said advisory opinion and recommendation shall be submitted to City Council at a regular City Council meeting, at which time the City Council shall determine whether to adopt the same as a final ethics opinion of the Council. e. Any whose conduct or circumstance is the subject of the opinion shall refrain from participating in any deliberations of the City Council regarding the opinion. (12) Complaints. a. Any person who believes that a Councilmember or board andor commission member has violated any provision of state law or the Charter or Code pertaining to ethical conduct may file a complaint with the City Clerk, who shall immediately notify the chairperson of the Review Board, the Councilmembers or board and or commission members named in the Page 603 Item 19. complaint, and the City Council and the City Attorney. Each complaint shall name only one officer as its subject. b. The City Attorney shall periodically seek proposals and select and retain, after consultation with the Review Board, one or more qualified attorneys to review complaints filed against Councilmembers under this subsection (2) and determine whether the complaint warrants investigation in light of the applicable screening criteria and commonly known and documented facts and circumstances. Such review attorneys shall also function as investigators to develop the facts relevant to a complaint under investigation and interpret and apply the applicable state and local ethics provisions and based on that investigation and evaluation, make a recommendation to the Review Board (or alternate Review Board, if applicable) of such findings and determinations as may be appropriate in response to the complaint. c. For a complaint against a board or commission member: i. The City Clerk complaint shall be promptly scheduled the complaint for consideration by the Review Board as soon as reasonably practicable. The Review Board will meet and consider the complaint withinNomore than thirty (30) working days after the date of filing of the complaint. , the Review Board shall meet and consider the complaint. In the event extenuating circumstances arise in the scheduling and preparation for such meeting, the time for meeting shall be extended by fourteen (14) calendar days the Review Board shall meet to consider the complaint as soon as reasonably practicable. ii. The City Clerk shall provide written notice of the scheduled meeting for initial review of the complaint to All Councilmembers orthe board andor commission members named in the complaint, as well as the complainant, the chair of the board or commission of the which the subject of the complaint is a member, and the City Council, shall be given written notice of such meeting at least three (3) working days prior to the meeting. A notice of the complaint, including the identity of the complainant shall be posted along with the meeting notice. iii.b. Upon receipt of any such complaint, the Review Board shall, after consultation with the City Attorney, decide by majority vote whether to formally investigate the complaint. In making such determination, the Review Board shall consider the following: (1) whether the allegations in the complaint, if true, would constitute a violation of state or local ethical rules; (2) the reliability and sufficiency of any facts asserted in support of the allegations; and Page 604 Item 19. (3) any other facts or circumstances that the Review Board may consider relevant. screening criteria set out in this subsection (d)(2)f below. If the Review Board determines that the complaint does not warrant investigation, the Review Board shall send written notice to the complainant of its determination and the reasoning behind that determination, and shall provide a copy of such notice, together with a copy of the complaint, to all Councilmembers orthe board or commission members named in the complaint, as well as the chair of the board or commission of the which the subject of the complaint is a member, and the City Council. iv. If a complaint proceeds to investigation after the initial review, in performing its review and investigation of any complaint or inquiry submitted in accordance with Subsection (d)(2)c hereof, the Review Board shall afford all affected board and commission members an opportunity to present their interpretations of the facts at issue and of the applicable provisions of law before rendering its opinion and recommendation. v. Prior to reaching a decision on the merits of a complaint, the Review Board shall provide the complainant an opportunity to present facts and argument in support of the complaint, however, it is not necessary for the Review Board to conduct a full public hearing and take public input on a complaint. vi. The Review Board may also request such additional materials or information from City staff or members of the public which it considers reasonably necessary or helpful to its deliberations. In addition, the Review Board shall have the power to compel by subpoena the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of such documents as the Review Board may consider necessary to its investigation. vii. After investigation, the Review Board shall forthwith issue an opinion and recommendation to the City Council, which shall immediately thereafter be filed with the City Clerk and be available for public inspection. Said opinion and recommendation shall be submitted to City Council at a regular City Council meeting, at which time the City Council shall determine whether to adopt the same as a final ethics opinion of the Council. d. For a complaint against a Councilmember: i. The City Clerk shall provide written notice of the complaint, including a copy of the complaint and brief explanation of the review process, to the Councilmember named in the complaint, as Page 605 Item 19. well as the complainant, within five (5) working days of receipt of the complaint. ii. The City Attorney shall forward the complaint to a review attorney retained as described above in subsection (d)(2)b for review of the complaint. No more than thirty (30) working days after the date of filing of the complaint, subject to extenuating circumstances making delay reasonably necessary, the review attorney shall evaluate the complaint to determine whether it is sufficient and warrants investigation pursuant to the screening criteria set out in subsection (d)(2)f below. The review attorney shall promptly provide to the City Clerk and City Attorney for distribution to the Review Board a written determination of whether the complaint warrants further investigation, including a brief explanation of the decision. iii. The City Clerk shall send written notice to the complainant of the review attorney’s determination and the reasoning behind that determination, and shall provide a copy of such notice, together with a copy of the complaint, to the Councilmember named in the complaint, as well as the City Council and City Attorney. iv. If the review attorney has determined that the complaint does not warrant investigation, no further action will be taken on the complaint. If the review attorney has determined that the complaint warrants investigation, the City Attorney will arrange for investigation by the review attorney who completed the initial review or another retained review attorney, depending on availability and other related circumstances and considerations. v. If a complaint proceeds to investigation after the initial review, in their review and investigation of any complaint, the investigating attorney shall interview the complainant and all affected or interested Councilmembers to learn their interpretations of the facts at issue and of the applicable provisions of law, may interview such other persons as the investigating attorney reasonably believes may have relevant or useful information pertinent to the investigation, and may request such additional materials or information from City staff or members of the public that the investigating attorney considers reasonably necessary or helpful to the investigation or determination. In addition, the investigating attorney shall have the power as vested in the Review Board to compel by subpoena the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of such documents as the investigating attorney may consider necessary to the investigation. Page 606 Item 19. vi. Upon completion of the investigation the reviewing attorney shall interpret and apply the applicable state and local ethics provisions and, based on that investigation and evaluation, make a recommendation to the Review Board (or alternate Review Board, if applicable) of such findings and determinations as may be appropriate in response to the complaint. vii. The City Clerk shall schedule the investigating attorney’s determination and recommendations on a complaint for consideration by the Review Board within thirty (30) working days after receipt, or, as soon as reasonably practicable. The Review Board shall meet to consider the determination and recommendations and render a formal Review Board opinion based upon the determination and in light of the recommendations, but shall not be bound to follow the recommendation made. viii. The City Clerk shall provide written notice of the scheduled meeting for consideration of the investigating attorney’s determination and recommendations on a complaint to the complainant, the Councilmember named in the complaint, and the City Council and City Attorney, at least three (3) working days prior to the meeting. The complaint and investigation attorney’s determination and recommendations shall be provided with such notice and shall be available with the agenda for the meeting. ix. Prior to reaching a final decision on the merits of a complaint, the Review Board shall provide the complainant an opportunity to present facts and argument in support of the complaint, and the subject of the complaint an opportunity to present facts and argument related to the complaint. However, it is not necessary for the Review Board to conduct a full public hearing and take public input on a complaint. x. After investigation, the Review Board shall forthwith issue an opinion and recommendation to the City Council, which shall immediately thereafter be filed with the City Clerk and be available for public inspection. Said opinion and recommendation shall be submitted to City Council at a regular City Council meeting, at which time the City Council shall determine whether to adopt the same as a final ethics opinion of the Council. xi. Any Councilmember whose conduct or circumstance is the subject of the opinion shall refrain from participating in any deliberations of the City Council regarding the opinion. e. Alternate Review Procedures. Page 607 Item 19. i. In the event that a multiple complaints are is filed with the City Clerk under the provisions of this Subsection whichthat alleges a related violation on the part of two (2) or more members of the Review Board (including the alternate) and are subject to investigation and a decision by the Review Board, such complaints shall not be referredconsidered byto the regular Review Board for review but shall instead upon a determination that the complaints warrant investigation, shall be submitted to an alternate Review Board consisting of all remaining Councilmembers who are not named in the complaints. ii. In the event related complaints are filed naming; provided however, that if five (5) or more Councilmembers and upon review it is determined that an investigation of complaints naming five (5) or more Councilmembers is warrantedare named in the complaint, the alternate Review Board shall also include as many members of City boards and or commissions as are necessary to constitute a seven-member board. Said Board and or commission members shall be selected at random by the City Clerk within ten (10) working days of the date upon which the determination that further investigation is warranted is received bycomplaint is filed with the City Clerk. Any board and or commission members selected by the City Clerk who elects not to serve on the alternate Review Board shall immediately so notify the City Clerk, who shall thereafter select as many additional board and commission members as are necessary to constitute the seven-member alternate Review Board. The procedures utilized by the alternate Review Board for reviewing and investigating the complaint and rendering an advisory opinion and recommendation shall be as provided in the applicable Ssubsections (b) and (e) of this Section, except that: (i) the opinion and recommendation of such Board shall be final and shall not be submitted to the City Council for review or adoption by the City Council unless at least three (3) Councilmembers remain available to consider and take action on the opinion and recommendation; and (ii) the City Council and City staff shall, upon request by the alternate Review Board, make available to such Board all information in the possession of the city that is relevant to the Board's investigation, including, without limitation, tape recordings of any relevant executive sessions, unless the release of said information is prohibited by state or federal law; and, in reviewing and discussing such information, the Board shall abide by any local, state or federal confidentiality requirements that might limit or prohibit the release of such information to third parties. Page 608 Item 19. f. Screening criteria. The determination as to whether a complaint merits investigation and further action shall be made on the basis of one or more of the following considerations: i. The City Council has no jurisdiction over the individual(s) alleged to have violated the relevant ethics provision; ii. The alleged violation, even if true, would not constitute a violation of the relevant ethics provisions; iii. The allegations of the complaint were previously asserted in another complaint that is already being considered or was resolved by the Review Board and/or City Council; iv. The alleged violation, even if true, is minor in nature and fails to justify the use of public resources to investigate or prosecute; v. The allegations of the complaint involve actions or events that occurred more than one (1) year prior to the date of the filing of the complaint and, due to the passage of time and the likely unavailability of evidence, witnesses, and witnesses' recollections, investigation and prosecution of the complaint will not justify the use of public resources, except that complaints based on conduct resulting in a criminal conviction (regardless of the type of plea entered) or entry into a plea agreement subject to a deferred prosecution, deferred judgment, or deferred sentencing agreement may be referred to an appropriate enforcement agency; vi. The complaint is, on its face, frivolous, groundless, or brought for purposes of harassment; vii. The alleged violation is unlikely to be proven by the required standard of preponderance of the evidence due to the evidence consisting of conflicting oral testimony and unverifiable statements; viii. The person who is the subject of the complaint has admitted wrongdoing and made or committed to make sufficient redress or remedy satisfactory to Review Board or City Council; ix. The matter has become or will become moot because the person who is the subject of the complaint is no longer a city official or will no longer be a city official prior to the conclusion of any consideration or investigation of the allegations in the complaint; Page 609 Item 19. x. The person who is the subject of the complaint previously obtained an advisory opinion under this code of ethics that identified the conduct as not being in violation of the code of ethics; or xi. The City Council has elected to refer the complaint to another agency with jurisdiction of the allegations of the complaint and such referral will better serve the public interest (e.g., law enforcement, district attorney, state or federal attorney general; or department of justice). (2) City Council inquiries. Any Councilmember may present directly to the Review Board any inquiry regarding the application of ethical rules of conduct under state statute or the Charter or Code to any actual or hypothetical situation of a Councilmember or board and commission member. Section 3. That Section 2-569(e) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby deleted: Sec. 2-569. Board of ethics. . . . (e) In performing its review and investigation of any complaint or inquiry submitted in accordance with Subsection (d) hereof, the Review Board shall afford all affected Councilmembers or board and commission members an opportunity to present their interpretations of the facts at issue and of the applicable provisions of law before rendering its opinion and recommendation. The Review Board may also request such additional materials or information from City staff or members of the public which it considers reasonably necessary or helpful to its deliberations. In addition, in the case of a complaint, the Review Board shall have the power to compel by subpoena the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of such documents as the Review Board may consider necessary to its investigation. After investigation, the Review Board shall forthwith issue an advisory opinion and recommendation to the City Council, which shall immediately thereafter be filed with the City Clerk and be available for public inspection. Said opinion and recommendation shall be submitted to city Council at a regular City Council meeting, at which time the City Council shall determine whether to adopt the same. Any whose conduct or circumstance is the subject of the opinion shall refrain from participating in any deliberations of the City Council regarding the opinion. Section 4. That Section 2-569(f) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby renumbered as Section 2-569(e) and amended as follows: Sec. 2-569. Board of ethics. . . . Page 610 Item 19. (fe) The City Attorney shall provide legal advice to the Review Board and shall prepare and execute all advisory opinions and recommendations of the rReview bBoard. Section 5. That Section 2-569(f) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby renumbered as Section 2-569(g): Sec. 2-569. Board of ethics. . . . (fg) Compliance with the applicable provisions of the Charter and Code and the provisions of state law, as well as decisions regarding the existence or nonexistence of conflicts of interest and the appropriate actions to be taken in relation thereto, shall be the responsibility of each individual Councilmember or board and commission member, except as provided in Subparagraph 2-568(c)(1)(g). An opinion adopted by the City Council under Subsection (e) of this Section shall constitute an affirmative defense to any civil or criminal action or any other sanction against a Councilmember or board or commission member acting in reliance thereon. Section 6. That the processes and standards enacted in this Ordinance shall be applied to any complaints filed subsequent to adoption of the Ordinance on first reading. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading and ordered published this 20th day of December, A.D. 2022, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of January, A.D. 2023. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 17th day of January, A.D. 2023. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Page 611 Item 19. Ethics Review Board Meeting Minutes October 12, 2022, Meeting Via Zoom Ethics Review Board members in attendance: Mayor Jeni Arndt, Councilmembers Julie Pignataro, Councilmember Susan Gutowsky. Staff in attendance: Carrie Daggett, City Attorney; Briana McCarten, Paralegal Other Attendees: Kevin Jones, Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce A meeting of the City Council Ethics Review Board (the “Board”) was held on Wednesday, October 12, 2022, at 3:00 p.m. Board chair Gutowsky called the meeting to order at 3:02 pm. The Board reviewed the Agenda which contained the following items: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Review and approval of the May 2, 2022, Minutes of the Ethics Review Board 4. Consideration of draft proposals for ethics complaint screening and investigation process and possible recommendation to Council. 5. Review of materials previously provided regarding conflicts of interest related to employment relationships and discussion of next steps on this issue, if any. 6. Other Business 7. Adjournment Paralegal Briana McCarten took roll call for the Board. All members were in attendance. Councilmember Pignataro made a motion to approve the May 2, 2022, Minutes. Mayor Arndt seconded the motion. The Minutes were approved by unanimous vote. Next, Item 4 was up – consideration of draft proposals for ethics complaint screening and investigation process and possible recommendation to Council. City Attorney Daggett presented draft revisions to City Code Section 2-569 regarding the screening process for complaints against Councilmember(s) and using an outside expert for the process. Draft revisions have only been made to sections about complaints made against councilmembers; processes relating to complaints against boards and commission members remain as is. Some longer paragraphs have simply been broken out into pieces to make them easier to read. Subsection (d)(1) addresses inquiries against Councilmembers and part (2) addresses complaints. The provisions call for arrangement in advance to have one or more screening attorneys selected in case a complaint is filed. The proposed change to subsection (d)(2)(d) provides that once a complaint comes in and notice has gone out, the City Attorney then provides the complaint to one of the screening attorneys for screening the complaint and making a determination as to whether the complaint warrants further investigation. Page 612 Item 19. Ethics Review Board Meeting Minutes October 12, 2022, Meeting Via Zoom Councilmember Pignataro commented that the draft revisions look fine and asked if City Attorney Daggett would like to point out any specific proposed revisions. City Attorney Daggett presented draft revisions that provide for a time limit within which the screening attorney must make a determination. Ms. Daggett went on to explain that under the draft revisions, if the screening attorney decides that a complaint warrants an investigation, the City Attorney will arrange for the investigation. Presumably, the screening attorney would also oversee the investigation, but in the event that attorney is unable to do it, the City Attorney will assign a different attorney to complete the investigation. Councilmember Pignataro asked about the proposed time constraints. City Attorney Daggett stated that the 30-day time limit by which to do the screening has not changed from the previous version. Councilmember Pignataro asked about the 14-day enlargement of time for the Board to meet and render an opinion on the screening attorney’s determination proposed under subsection (d)(2)(d)(vii) and suggested that leaving the time frame open might be more practical. City Attorney Daggett said that she will change the language to eliminate the 14-day extension of time and instead reflect that the meeting must happen as soon as is reasonably practicable. Councilmember Pignataro asked about a time limit for the investigation. City Attorney Daggett clarified that the draft revisions do not provide such a time limit and allow for the investigation to take as long as is needed given the variation in circumstances that may arise. Ms. Daggett stated that when the City Attorney’s Office engages outside counsel for any issue, she usually considers the attorney’s ability to see to the issue timely. Councilmember Pignataro asked about subsection (d)(2)€’s alternate review procedures for when a complaint is filed against five or more Councilmembers. City Attorney Daggett clarified that the process will remain the same except for that final review by the alternate Board, which is based on outside counsel’s recommendation. Ms. Daggett further clarified that it is the City’s practice to split complaints against multiple councilmembers and/or that involve multiple distinct issues out in a way that makes the most sense, and that optional language specifying that requirement can be retained in the final draft. Councilmember Gutowsky stepped away briefly. City Attorney Daggett then moved on to address proposed changes to the screening criteria in subsection (d)(2)(f). Ms. Daggett consulted with other jurisdictions’ screening criteria and suggested that the screening process will be more effective if the criteria are more specific and cover more possible reasons a complaint may not need to move forward. City Attorney Daggett pointed out that under the current Code, because the Board is responsible for the screening step and because any Board meeting is public, historically the meeting at which Page 613 Item 19. Ethics Review Board Meeting Minutes October 12, 2022, Meeting Via Zoom the Board would screen a complaint would often turn into something resembling a hearing. Having the screening go to an attorney will prevent that from happening. Councilmember Gutowsky appreciated that the proposed changes will save a lot of time. City Attorney Daggett pointed out that if most complaints get screened out, the Board won’t have to be very involved with councilmember complaints. Councilmember Gutowsky asked if the proposed revisions apply to all boards and commissions or only City Council. City Attorney Daggett confirmed that the process for boards and commissions remains the same. Ms. Daggett went on to suggest that if, after it has been implemented for a period of time, City Council likes the new process they could have it apply to all boards and commissions. Right now, if the Board determines that further investigation of a complaint is not warranted, the Board sends a letter to the complainant and subject to that effect. If the Board determines that further investigation is warranted, then the Board holds a hearing, considers evidence, and determines if a violation has occurred. The City Attorney then drafts a formal opinion. Once the Board signs off on the opinion, they will bring it to City Council for adoption by resolution. City Council typically adopts the Board’s opinions. Councilmember Gutowsky asked about how often investigations of ethics complaints are warranted. Ms. Gutowsky declined City Attorney Daggett’s offer to gather data. There was discussion about how there are stretches of time when there are very few complaints and stretches when there are a lot of complaints. Mayor Arndt asked if the proposed revisions to Section 2-569 were ready to be taken to City Council. City Attorney Daggett will put the proposed revisions into ordinance form for the City Council to consider adopting as an amendment to the City Code. The Board can recommend that City Council adopt the changes. City Attorney Daggett asked if further discussion with Council, at a work session, for example, would be helpful. Board members indicated that additional processing would not be necessary. City Attorney Daggett and Mayor Arndt agreed that this should be slated for a discussion item. City Attorney Daggett will work with the City Manager to propose a time to add this to a Council meeting agenda. City Attorney Daggett addressed a proposed revision providing that each complaint name only one officer as its subject and suggested that alternatively the Code could allow for including two officers together in one complaint if the allegations are identical. Mayor Arndt stated that each complaint should only focus on one officer because facts will never be completely identical. Page 614 Item 19. Ethics Review Board Meeting Minutes October 12, 2022, Meeting Via Zoom By unanimous consent, the ERB recommended bringing the proposed revisions to Section 2-569 to City Council for adoption. City Attorney Daggett brought up the cost of outside counsel for screening and investigating complaints and indicated it may not be necessary at the outset to set up a budgeted amount for that expense, given that it’s unknown if it will be needed and what the cost would be, although it would likely be somewhere in the five-figure range. Mayor Arndt stated that City Council has a budget line for these kinds of expenses already and that any charges can come from there. The Board then moved on to Item number 5 – review of materials previously provided regarding conflicts of interest related to employment relationships and discussion of next steps on this issue, if any. City Attorney Daggett explained the Board’s previous interest in revising the standards in the Charter to define conflicts of interest arising from the interests of a Councilmember’s employer. Councilmember Gutowsky stated that because any past conflict of interest issues related to a Councilmember’s employment have been resolved through consultation and the existing processes, there is no need to look at revisions to the Charter at this time. Councilmember Pignataro agreed and stated that every councilmember has their own responsibility and takes their own risk with respect to conflicts of interest. All members of the Board expressed the view that employment-related conflicts of interest are not a concern requiring further action at this time and that they are comfortable leaving the Charter provisions as is. City Attorney Daggett will remain aware of the issue and bring it up in the future if it appears it may be beneficial to discuss it further. Councilmember Gutowsky asked when the Board should meet next. It was agreed the Board will continue to meet as needed. There are no other pending matters so no additional meetings will be scheduled unless something new for consideration arises. Meeting adjourned at 3:45 pm Page 615 Item 19. December 20, 2022 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council STAFF Paul Sizemore, Director, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Maren Bzdek, Manager, Historic Preservation Services Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Aaron Guin, Legal SUBJECT Appeal of the Historic Preservation Commission’s Decision Finding 825 North College Avenue Eligible for Landmark Designation. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this quasi-judicial item is to consider an appeal of the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission (“HPC”) on October 19, 2022, determining that a portion of the property at 825 North College Avenue (historically, the M-K Service Station/North College Standard Service, is eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark. Appellant, GARA, LLC, the owner of the property, raises two issues on appeal: First, Appellant argues that the HPC considered evidence relevant to its findings that was grossly misleading. More specifically, Appellant alleges that the HPC was prejudiced by City staff’s “overuse and emphasis of the history of the property, which caused a lack of proper consideration as to whether the Quick Lube Building retains sufficient integrity today to qualify as an historic structure.” Second, Appellant argues that the HPC failed to properly interpret and apply provisions of the City Code Section 14-22, which establishes standards for determining the eligibility of structures for designation as landmarks or landmark districts. Specifically, Appellant alleges that the HPC failed to properly determine whether the service station located on the property retained the significance and integrity required for Landmark designation under the Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION N/A BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION SUMMARY OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION HEARING The purpose of the HPC hearing was to evaluate three buildings/structures located at 825 and 829 North College Avenue to determine their eligibility for designation as Fort Collins Landmarks according to the requirements contained in City Code Section 14-22. Staff issued an official determination on Landmark eligibility to the property owner on September 7, 2022, in response to a development Page 616 Item 20. application submitted by a developer. As background, properties associated with potential development applications that contain buildings that are at least 50 years old are subject to Landmark eligibility evaluation as an application pre-submittal requirement, as outlined in Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(C). Based on the historic survey form prepared by a historian on City staff, the September 7 Official Determination found that all three buildings/structures on the property met the eligibility requirements for significance and integrity. Staff’s findings are included in the Historic Survey Form for 825 North College Avenue, and are based on the following information:  The filling station and service garage represented one of the first commercial businesses in Fort Collins to extend north of the Poudre River, paving the way for the area to become a more developed commercial strip by 1970.  Mike Kraxberger’s construction of the detached service station in 1935 was a significant local representation of the shift from the house-with-canopy or cottage-type gas stations of the early automobile era into a shift to year-round service stations for a broader spectrum of vehicles.  Standard Oil later acquired the property and began leasing it in 1960 after a significant renovation of the station that brought it to its current condition. However, by 1969, much of the College Avenue frontage from the Poudre River north to the Route 1/Terry Lake Road intersection was built up with a mix of industrial and commercial businesses, including motels, shops, and other businesses. Upon further research, the M-K Service Station remains significant as one of the earliest commercial enterprises in Fort Collins to be established in this area of town.  The Kraxberger family, specifically Jane and Leitha, appear to possess significance to the community in relation to social history, although Mike Kraxberger may possess some significance with more research into Fort Collins’ early coal and gasoline industries. Jane Kraxberger’s contributions to local education and fine arts during the 1920s and 1930s, specifically theater and women’s fashion, appear to be influential and significant to the cultural history of early-twentieth century Fort Collins, at the time that she was living in the house at 829 N. College.  After Mike and Jane divorced and Mike remarried to Leitha Johnson, Leitha’s contributions to the community in social organizations like the American War Mothers appear significant. Leitha served as the founding president of the Cache la Poudre chapter, organized in 1944. She also served as the president of the Colorado chapter in the late 1940s and later chaplain for the national organization. The American War Mothers was a national organization chartered by Congress during the First World War by parents with children serving in the Armed Forces to both support active troops and wounded veterans.  Staff would agree with the CDOT recommendation under Criterion C (City Standard 3 for Design/Construction) in the area of Architecture, that the property remains a significant representative of the Oblong Box service station property type in north Fort Collins. While the original Mission Revival features have been lost, the building still represents a significant example of a Modern-styled station in this property type following the 1960 rehabilitation. Fueling and service stations of this type began adopting more streamlined, Modern features indicative of the International style, which often meant stripping away decorative features and focusing on simple geometry. While there are several Oblong Box service stations surviving throughout Fort Collins, this station remains one of the earliest, and the earliest in its localized context. The property owner, GARA, LLC, appealed staff’s Official Determination of eligibility of the three buildings/structures to the HPC on September 14, 2022. The HPC’s sole consideration was a de novo evaluation of the buildings/structures’ eligibility for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark. While the implications of the results of that evaluation include how the existing buildings would be treated as historic resources under the Land Use Code, the HPC did not consider or review the proposed development application for the properties, and the members did not discuss how the Land Use Code or approved modifications of standards might be applied to the Page 617 Item 20. properties. The HPC’s evaluation was governed by City Code Section 14-22, which establishes that a property or district must possess Significance under at least one of four criteria (events, persons/groups, design/construction, or information potential) and also must possess Integrity, i.e. the ability to convey any established significance through existing, related physical characteristics. Integrity is evaluated based on seven aspects as noted in the City Code: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association; however, all seven aspects are not required “as long as the overall sense of past time and place is evident.” The HPC considered the property’s intensive-level historic survey document that was the basis for staff’s determination of eligibility, as well as additional information from staff regarding the property’s history, current condition, and discussion of professional methodology that is commonly used to evaluate historic properties in Fort Collins and for the National Register of Historic Places. Included in staff’s report and Official Determination was the Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form completed by a historian for the Colorado Department of Transportation in January 2010. On a vote of 9-0, the HPC determined that the residence and accessory garage located on the property did not qualify as historic resources, finding that they lack the level of significance and integrity required under the Code. On a vote of 6-3, however, the HPC determined that the service station at 825 North College Avenue meets the requirements for eligibility for Landmark designation under both standards for Significance and Integrity. Specifically, the HPC found the service station satisfied the standards for significance under “Events/Trends” for its association with important commercial and transportation history north of the Poudre River, and for “Design/Construction” as a “classic example of the utterly unornate oblong box style of garage architecture.” The HPC also found that the service station satisfied the Integrity standard sufficient to support both aspects of significance. CLAIMS ON APPEAL Appellant timely filed a Notice of Appeal seeking reversal of the HPC’s determination as to eligibility for the service station. Appellant asserts two claims: First, Appellant alleges that the HPC conducted an unfair hearing by considering relevant evidence that was grossly misleading. In making this argument, Appellant asserts that City staff overly relied upon (and the HPC considered) the Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form completed by a historian for the Colorado Department of Transportation in January 2010. A ppellant argues that the historical context of the service station was lost after renovations to the service station when Standard Oil acquired the property in 1960. Second, Appellant alleges that the HPC failed to properly interpret and apply City Code Section 14-22. More specifically, Appellant contends that the service station lacks sufficient Integrity to convey its Significance as required under Section 14-22. In its Notice of Appeal, Appellant argues that the prior development, including widening of North College Avenue, has so altered the property that what remains today is a Quick Lube on a major roadway surrounded by commercial development. When one views the Quick Lube Building today, the ‘overall sense of past time’ is no longer ‘evident.’ As such, by definition, the integrity required by Sec.14-22(b) for the Quick Lube Building to be a historical resource is no longer present, just as the residence and garage have ceased to be historical resources. Page 618 Item 20. In resolving the issues on appeal, Council must first consider the Appellant’s claim of unfair hearing. If Council finds that an unfair hearing was held, then it must remand the matter back to the HPC, and should not analyze the Appellant’s argument regarding interpretation or application of Section 14-22 of the City Code. If Council determines that Appellant was afforded a fair hearing, however, then it should consider the second argument made by Appellant concerning the HPC’s interpretation and application of standards under Section 14-22 of the City Code. BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION On a vote of 9-0, the HPC determined that the residence and accessory garage did not qualify as historic resources, finding that neither building/structure retained the level of significance or integrity required under Section 14-22. On a vote of 6-3, however, the HPC determined that the service station located at 825 North College Avenue (formerly the main service station for M-K Service Station/North College Standard Service) satisfies the requirements for eligibility for Landmark designation under both Standards 1 for Events/Trends for its association with important commercial and transportation history north of the Poudre River, and under Standard 3, Design/Construction, as a “classic example of the utterly unornate 13 oblong box style of garage architecture.” (The motion that was voted on and approved by the HPC is contained in the verbatim transcript on pages 23, 8-14). The HPC passed the motion finding the Service Station at 825 North College Eligible for Landmark designation under the Standards in Sec. 14-22 based on the following three findings of fact: 1. Under Standard 1 “…it embodies an important evolution in commerce and transportation in Fort Collins as businesses began to move north of the Poudre River, in part enabled by the growing use of motorized transportation;” 2. Under Standard 3 “…the architecture is a classic example of the utterly unornate oblong box style of garage architecture;” 3. That the service station has “integrity to support both aspects of significance.” Note: A verbatim transcript of the HPC’s hearing, along with a link to the FCTV recording on this item, is part of the record provided to Council for this appeal. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS The determination that a property is eligible as a City Landmark generally has no financial impact on the City, as formal designation typically is required to access public incentives for historic properties. Designation as a Fort Collins Landmark qualifies property owners to apply for certain financial incentives funded by the City, including a 0% interest revolving loan program and Design Assistance mini-grant program. PUBLIC OUTREACH N/A ATTACHMENTS Page 619 Item 20. 1. Attachment 1 – Notices and Mailing List 2. Attachment 2 – Notice of Appeal 3. Attachment 3 – Staff Report to Historic Preservation Commission 4. Attachment 4 – Staff Presentation to Historic Preservation Commission 5. Attachment 5 – Applicant Presentation to the Historic Preservation Commission 6. Attachment 6 – Link to Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Video 7. Attachment 7 – Historic Preservation Commission Determination of Landmark Eligibility 8. Attachment 8 – Verbatim Transcript 9. Attachment 9 – New Evidence Submitted by the Appellant 10. Staff Presentation Page 620 Item 20. Public Hearing Notice Site Visit Notice Mailing List Page 621 Item 20. CityClerkCityof300LaporteAvenueP0Box580FortCoLLins/__flt%!taaiII._IIIII_IIIIIIItbt__%,16295-faxPUBLICHEARINGNOTICEAppealoftheLandmarkPreservationCommissionDecisionregardingtheLandmarkEligibilityDeterminationoftheQuickLubeBuildinglocatedat825NorthCollegeAvenueTheFortCollinsCityCouncilwillholdapublichearingontheenclosedappeal.AppealHearingDate:December20,2022Time:6:00pm(orassoonthereafterasthemattermaycomeonforhearing)Location:CouncilChambers.CityHall,300LaPorteAvenue.FortCollins.COAgendaMaterials:Availableafter3pm,December15,2022,intheCityClerk’sofficeandatfcgov.com/acendas.WhyamIreceivingthisnotice?CityCoderequiresthataNoticeofHearingbeprovidedtoParties-in-Interest,whichmeansyouaretheapplicantoftheprojectbeingappealed,haveapossessoryorproprietaryinterestinthepropertyatissue,receivedaCitymailednoticeofthehearingthatresultedinthedecisionbeingappealed,submittedwrittencommentstoCitystafffordeliverytothedecisionmakerpriortothehearingresultinginthedecisionbeingappealed,oraddressedthedecisionmakeratthehearingthatresultedinthedecisionbeingappealed.FurtherinformationisavailableintheAppealguidelinesonlineatfcgov.com/appeals.TheNoticeofAppealandanyattachments,anynewevidencethathasbeensubmittedandpresentationsfortheAppealHearingcanbefoundatfcgov.com/appeals.Ifyouhavequestionsregardingtheappealprocess,pleasecontacttheCityClerk’sOffice(970.221.6515).Forquestionsregardingtheprojectitself,pleasecontactPaulSizemore,CommunityDevelopmentandNeighborhoodServicesInterimDeputyDirector(psizemorefcgov.comor970.2246140).TheCityofFortCollinswillmakereasonableaccommodationsforaccesstocityservices,programs,andactivitiesandwillmakespecialcommunicationarrangementsforpersonswithdisabilitiesPleasecallthecityClerk’sOfficeat970.2216515(V/TDD:Dial711forRelayColorado)forassistance,Apeticián,íaCiudaddoFortCollinsproporcionarãserviciosdeaccesoaidiomasparapersonasquenodominanelidiomainglés,oayudasyserviciosauxiliarespampersonascondiscapacidad,paraquepuedanaccederalosservicios,programasyactividadesdeIaCiudad,Paraasistencia,Ilameal221-6515(V17’DD:Marque711paraRelayColorado).Porfavorproporcione48horasdoavisoproviocuandoseaAnissaHollingshead,CityClerkNoticeMailed:November23,2022Cc:CityAttorneyCommunityDevelopmentandNeighborhoodServicesLandmarkPreservationCommissionPleaseseeothersideforSiteVisitNoticeRevised9/8/2020Page 622Item 20. CityClerkCitof300LaPorleAvenuePCBox580FortDoLLIflS:::::CO80522/__Vv\&j=iII_._IIII__•tmtt_._%9702216295-faxNOTICEOFSITEINSPECTIONAnappealoftheLandmarkPreservationCommissiondecisionofOctober19,2022regardingtheLandmarkEligibilityDeterminationoftheQuickLubeBuildingat825NorthCollegeAvenuewillbeheardbytheFortCollinsCityCouncilonDecember20,2022.PursuanttoSection2-53oftheCityCode,membersoftheCityCouncilwillbeinspectingthesiteoftheproposedprojectonDecember19,2022at2:30pm.NoticeisherebygiventhatthissiteinspectionconstitutesameetingoftheCityCouncilthatisopentothepublic,includingtheappellantsandallparties-in-interest.Thegatheringpointforthesitevisitwillbe825NorthCollegeAvenue,FortCollins,Colorado.ThepurposeofthesiteinspectionisfortheCityCounciltoviewthesiteandtoaskrelatedquestionsofCitystafftoassistCouncilinascertainingsiteconditions.Therewillbenoopportunityduringthesiteinspectionfortheapplicant,appellants,ormembersofthepublictospeak,askquestions,respondtoquestions,orotherwiseprovideinputorinformation,eitherorallyorinwriting.Otherthanabriefstaffoverviewandstaffresponsestoquestions,alldiscussionandfollowupquestionsorcommentswillbedeferredtothehearingonthesubjectappealtobeheldonDecember20,2022.AnyCouncilmemberwhoinspectsthesite,whetheratthedateandtimeabove,orindependentlyshall,atthehearingontheappeal,stateontherecordanyobservationstheymadeorconversationstheyhadatthesitewhichtheybelievemayberelevanttotheirdeterminationoftheappeal.Ifyouhaveanyquestionsorrequirefurtherinformation,pleasefeeletocontacttheCityClerk’sOfficeat970221.6515.AnissaHollingshead,CityClerkNoticeMailed:November23,2022Cc:CityAttorneyCommunityDevelopmentandNeighborhoodServicesPage 623Item 20. Name Address City, State, Zip Grem Armstrong (GARA, LLC) PO Box 7383 Loveland, CO  80537 John Mayea 1322 Miramont Dr. Fort Collins, CO  80524 Page 624 Item 20. Notice of Appeal Filed by Timothy L. Goddard, Attorney for GARA, LLC November 1, 2022 Page 625 Item 20. Page 626Item 20. Page 627Item 20. Page 628Item 20. Page 629Item 20. Staff Report (with attachments) Presented to the Historic Preservation Commission October 19, 2022 Page 630 Item 20. Agenda Item 8 Item 8, Page 1 STAFF REPORT October 19, 2022 Historic Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 825 N. COLLEGE: APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY STAFF Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the appeal of the determination for the commercial property at 825 North College Avenue as an “historic resource” under Land Use Code 3.4.7. On September 7, 2022, in fulfillment of a pre-submittal requirement for a development review application, staff determined that the property meets the requirements to be considered an “historic resource” under the City’s Land Use code based on evidence and conclusions presented by an independent historic survey contractor in an intensive-level survey form. When undergoing development review, historic resources (properties that meet the City’s standards to qualify as a City Landmark) are subject to the project approval requirements in Fort Collins Land Use Code Section 3.4.7. Staff decisions may be appealed to the Historic Preservation Commission. APPELLANT: Grem Armstrong, GARA LLC (Property Owner) HPC’S ROLE: Section 14-23 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code establishes that “any determination made by staff regarding eligibility may be appealed to the Commission by the applicant, any resident of the City, or owner of property in the City.” In this hearing, the Commission shall consider an appeal of the determination of eligibility for 825 N. College Avenue, based on the provided evidence from the initial determination (Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory 1403 form) and any new evidence presented at the hearing. The Commission must use the standards for determining the eligibility of sites, structures, objects, and districts for designation as Fort Collins landmarks in Section 14-22 of the municipal code to make its own determination. Final decisions of the Commission shall be subject to the right of appeal to the Fort Collins City Council (Section 14-9). BACKGROUND The three buildings now addressed as 825 North College Avenue were built over the course of the 1920s and 1930s by Henry Michael “Mike” Kraxberer and his spouse, Jane. Historically, the filling & service station was addressed at 825, having replaced a residence formerly on that site. The residence that survives, built in 1931, was historically addressed at 829 N. College. The construction history is as follows: - 1925 – filling station at 829 N. College constructed Page 631 Item 20. Agenda Item 8 Item 8, Page 2 - 1931 – residence (Building B; 829 N. College) constructed; 825 N College used to be a residence as well, presumably constructed around the same time. (corrected from 1922 via Coloradoan article from July 12, 1931). - 1933 – improvements made to service station, likely meaning the construction of Building C (the spare garage, without the rear addition) - 1937 –Building A, the main service station, is constructed. When first built, it has Mission Revival styling, including a curved, centered pediment on the façade and pilasters with decorative caps at the corners. The house at 825 N. College was demolished to construct this building. o Based on city directory records from 1938, house at 825 was demolished in this year and the new service station built. - 1950 – primary service station opens for business as a Standard Oil Station - 1956 (circa) – by this year, the large addition onto the garage (Building C) was added. - 1959 – North College Annexation, including this area, added to city limits - 1960 – Building addition and Remodel on main garage (Building A) (City building permit); included replacement of gas pumps (Coloradoan, 1960) o From photographs, this includes removal of the Mission Revival detailing on the building, addition of a garage opening, replacement of the swinging doors with overhead track doors, and addition of some window openings, bringing the building into its current Oblong Box form. While the city directories did not include this section of North College Avenue, which was not annexed until 1959, until 1933, newspaper records confirm that the Kraxbergers built and began operating the first filling station here starting in 1925. The business history confirmed between 1933 (the first year this area was included in city directories) and the present is as follows: - 1933 – M-K Service Station - 1934-1950 – M-K Coal & Oil Co. o In 1938, the Coal & Oil Co. is re-addressed to 825; - 1951 – Bond’s Service Station - 1952 – Sans Roy Oil Company - 1954 – 1959 – North College Standard Service o 1954 also lists Gordon’s Truck Line based out of here (that may have been the impetus for the garage expansion on Building C) - 1956 also lists Gordon’s Water Service based here - 1957 – Brandenburg Water Service; Colorado Milk Transport, Inc. (North College Standard is not listed this year) - 1960 – Brandenberg Water Service (property was also for lease by Standard Oil by this year, likely operating as a franchise). - 1962-1968 – Pennock Standard Service - 1969 – Gene’s Standard Service (owned by Eugene Vaughn and managed by Donald Vaughn) - 1970 – vacant - 1971 – Long’s Standard Service - 1972-1980 – North College Service Station (Amoco franchisee) - 1980-2002 – Professional Car Care Center - 2002-present – Pennzoil Quick Lube The first historic survey of the property was completed in January 2010 by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) as part of the planning for the redevelopment of North College Avenue, which was partially funded with federal monies. That required review of the project’s effects on historic resources under the National Historic Preservation Act (defined as any property that qualifies for the National Register of Historic Places). The 2010 survey form found the property eligible under National Register Criteria A and C for association with broad patterns of history, and for architectural significance. Under Criterion A, the CDOT historian noted the property was particularly reflective of the development of automobile-oriented commerce along North College Avenue in the mid- twentieth century and included the residence at 829 N. College (part of this property) in that assessment. Under Criterion C, the CDOT historian found the property significant for its 1960 remodel as an intact example of the oblong-box gas station property type, what became the standard for filling & service stations by the end of the 1960s. Research for this 2010 survey appears to have been based primarily on easily accessible sources, and did not include in-depth research in city directories, building permit records, or historic newspapers. Page 632 Item 20. Agenda Item 8 Item 8, Page 3 Following a conceptual development review meeting on August 18, staff conducted additional research to augment, refine, and qualify the CDOT research from 2010 for the purposes of Land Use Code 3.4.7, specifically to determine the accuracy of the research and analysis, and determine if the property met the City’s definition of an “historic resource” and was subject to the responsibilities for development outlined in that code section. Those findings are Attachment 1 to this staff report. Staff concluded the following regarding the property: - The property, specifically the service station and accessory garage, is significant under Standard 1 (Events/Trends) for its reflection of a long-standing service station along North College Avenue. - The property, specifically the former 829 N. College residence, is significant under Standard 2 (Persons/Groups) in the area of Social History for association with both Jane (Crist) Kraxberger and Leitha (Johnson) Kraxberger. Both were spouses of Mike Kraxberger at different times. Jane was an influential local thespian and women’s fashion professional, and Leitha was influential in veteran’s care and affairs, including being a local, state, and national officer in the American War Mothers organization. - The property, specifically the service station, is significant under Standard 3 (Design/Construction) as an early example of the Oblong Box service station in north Fort Collins, a design that would become standard throughout the area and the nation. - That an appropriate period of significance for the property based on the findings above is 1925-1969, corresponding with the major period of operation of the service station until North College was largely built out into the commercial corridor it reflects today. - That the property retains integrity to the period of significance. According to available records, the service station appears to have changed little since the 1960 renovation, as has the house and accessory garage, being good reflections of how the property appeared in 1969. Summary of Events The following timeline elaborates the review process thus far that has led to the appeal. August 18, 2022 – Conceptual Review: The property in question is part of a proposed redevelopment of this a property for a new carwash facility. At the conceptual review hearing with City staff on August 18, Preservation staff informed the developer of the 2010 findings and identified the need for an updated historic survey for the property since demolition of the existing buildings was proposed. Due to the existing survey, staff elected to waive the historic survey fee and complete the survey update. September 7, 2022 – Survey Completed and Transmitted: On September 7, after City staff was able to complete additional research in city directories, permit records, and newspapers, staff transmitted the results of the survey both to the developer’s representative (Luke Seeber, Baseline Engineering Corporation) and to the owner of record (Grem Armstrong, representing GARA LLC). Based on the research completed and available records, staff found the 825 N. College property qualified as an historic resource under LUC 3.4.7, having met three of the significance standards defined in Sec. 14-22 of Municipal Code, and having sufficient historic integrity related to the applicable significance standards, determining the property as Eligible under those Landmark standards, based on association with Commerce, Social History, and Architecture. September 14, 2022 – Appeal Received – On September 14, 2022, staff received an appeal of the finding issued on September 7 from the owner of that property, Grem Armstrong of GARA, LLC. With the approval of the appellant, staff scheduled the hearing for the next available HPC agenda, October 19. RELEVANT CODES AND PROCESSES FOR HISTORIC REVIEW Land Use Code Sec. 3.4.7 (C) C. Determination of Eligibility for Designation as Fort Collins Landmark. The review of proposed development pursuant to this Section may require the determination of the eligibility of buildings, sites, structures, and objects located both on the development site and in the Page 633 Item 20. Agenda Item 8 Item 8, Page 4 area of adjacency for designation as Fort Collins landmarks. The determination of eligibility for designation as a Fort Collins landmark shall be made pursuant to the standards and procedures set forth in Sections 14-22 and 14-23 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code except as varied in below Subsections (C)(1) and (2). (1) Buildings, Sites, Structure, and Objects on a Development Site. If any buildings, sites, structures, or objects on a development site are fifty (50) years of age or older and lack an official determination of eligibility for Fort Collins landmark designation made within the last five (5) years, the applicant must request an official eligibility determination for each such building, site, structure, or object pursuant to Sections 14-22 and 14-23 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. A current intensive-level Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Form is required for each building, site, structure, and object and the applicant is responsible for reimbursing the City for the cost of having such a property survey generated by a third-party expert selected by the City. (2) Buildings, Sites, Structures, and Objects Within the Area of Adjacency. If any buildings, sites, structures, or objects outside of a development site but within the area of adjacency are fifty (50) years of age or older and lack an official determination of eligibility for Fort Collins landmark designation established within the last five (5) years, the applicant must request a non-binding determination of eligibility for each such building, site, structure, or object pursuant to Sections 14-22 and 14-23 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. Notwithstanding Sections 14-22 and 14-23, any such eligibility determination shall not be appealable pursuant to Section 14-23 and shall not be valid for any purpose other than the evaluation of the proposed development pursuant to this Section. A current architectural-level property survey is required for each building, site, structure, and object and the applicant is responsible for reimbursing the City for the cost of having such a property survey generated by a third-party expert selected by the City. The Director, in consultation with historic preservation staff, may waive the required eligibility determination for any building, site, structure, or object if the Director determines that such eligibility determination would be unnecessarily duplicative of information provided by existing historic resources or would not provide relevant information. Relevant Municipal Code Referenced in LUC 3.4.7 Staff note: The measurement of whether a property meets the definition of an historic resource under 3.4.7 is based upon if it meets the standards for Landmark eligibility established in Municipal Code 14-22. The process for appealing a staff finding on eligibility is established in 14-23, including for cases where that finding was issued in response to a development application (this case) as opposed to a request for Landmark designation. Sec. 14-22. - Standards for determining the eligibility of sites, structures, objects and districts for designation as landmarks or landmark districts. A determination of eligibility for landmark designation typically applies to the entire lot, lots, or area of property upon which the landmark is located and may include structures, objects, or landscape features not eligible for landmark designation located on such lot, lots, or area of property. In order for a district to be eligible for landmark district designation, at least fifty (50) percent of the properties contained within the proposed landmark district must qualify as contributing to the district. Resources eligible for landmark designation or eligible to contribute to a landmark district must possess both significance and integrity as follows: (a) Significance is the importance of a site, structure, object, or district to the history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture of our community, State or Nation. Significance is achieved through meeting one (1) or more of four (4) standards recognized by the U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service. These standards define how resources are significant for their association with events or persons, in design or construction, or for their information potential. The criteria for determining significance are as follows: (1) Events. Resources may be determined to be significant if they are associated with events that have made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the community, State or Nation. A resource can be associated with either, or both, of two (2) types of events: Page 634 Item 20. Agenda Item 8 Item 8, Page 5 a. A specific event marking an important moment in Fort Collins prehistory or history; and/or b. A pattern of events or a historic trend that made a recognizable contribution to the development of the community, State or Nation. (2) Persons/Groups. Resources may be determined to be significant if they are associated with the lives of persons or groups of persons recognizable in the history of the community, State or Nation whose specific contributions to that history can be identified and documented. (3) Design/Construction. Resources may be determined to be significant if they embody the identifiable characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; represent the work of a craftsman or architect whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality; possess high artistic values or design concepts; or are part of a recognizable and distinguishable group of resources. This standard applies to such disciplines as formal and vernacular architecture, landscape architecture, engineering and artwork, by either an individual or a group. A resource can be significant not only for the way it was originally constructed or crafted, but also for the way it was adapted at a later period, or for the way it illustrates changing tastes, attitudes, and/or uses over a period of time. Examples are residential buildings which represent the socioeconomic classes within a community, but which frequently are vernacular in nature and do not have high artistic values. (4) Information potential. Resources may be determined to be significant if they have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (b) Integrity is the ability of a site, structure, object, or district to be able to convey its significance. The integrity of a resource is based on the degree to which it retains all or some of seven (7) aspects or qualities established by the U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. All seven (7) qualities do not need to be present for a site, structure, object, or district to be eligible as long as the overall sense of past time and place is evident. The criteria for determining integrity are as follows: (1) Location is the place where the resource was constructed or the place where the historic or prehistoric event occurred. (2) Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan space, structure and style of a resource. (3) Setting is the physical environment of a resource. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a resource was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place in which the resource played its historic or prehistoric role. It involves how, not just where, the resource is situated and its relationship to the surrounding features and open space. (4) Materials are the physical elements that form a resource. (5) Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure or site. (6) Feeling is a resource's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the resource's historic or prehistoric character. (7) Association is the direct link between an important event or person and a historic or prehistoric resource. A resource retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a resource's historic or prehistoric character. (Ord. No. 034, 2019 , § 2, 3-5-19) Sec. 14-23. - Process for determining the eligibility of sites, structures, objects and districts for designation as Fort Collins landmarks or landmark districts. (a) Application. [Omitted – this code section applies to applications for formal Landmark designation, and not to determinations of eligibility for development review purposes under Land Use Code 3.4.7]. (b) Appeal of determination. Any determination made by staff regarding eligibility may be appealed to the Commission by the applicant, any resident of the City, or owner of property in the City. Such appeal shall be set forth in writing and filed with the Director within fourteen (14) days of the date of the staff's Page 635 Item 20. Agenda Item 8 Item 8, Page 6 determination. The appeal shall include an intensive-level Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Form for each resource that is subject to appeal, prepared by an expert in historic preservation acceptable to the Director and the appellant, with the completion cost of such intensive-level survey to be paid by the appellant. Such survey need not be filed with the appeal but must be filed at least fourteen (14) days prior to the hearing of the appeal. The Director shall schedule a date for hearing the appeal before the Commission as expeditiously as possible. Not less than fourteen (14) days prior to the date of the hearing, the Director shall: (1) Provide the appellant and any owner of any resource at issue with written notice of the date, time and place of the hearing of the appeal by first class mail; (2) Publish notice of the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the City; and (3) Cause a sign readable from a public point of access to be posted on or near the property containing the resource under review stating how additional information may be obtained. (Ord. No. 034, 2019 , § 2, 3-5-19) ELIGIBILITY SUMMARY From the memorandum issued by City staff on September 7, 2022 with findings for 825 N. College Avenue, Preservation staff found the property Eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark and subject to the provisions for historic resources in Land Use Code 3.4.7. Staff made that finding based on staff’s own research and the information documented in the 2010 historic survey form completed by CDOT. Those findings are attached to this staff report and are summarized here: - Significance under Standard 1, Events/Trends in the area of Commerce for association with the early development of North College Avenue as a commercial corridor. This significance is limited to the main service station and associated service garage. - Significance under Standard 2, Persons/Groups in the area of Social History for the artistic and cultural contributions of Jane Kraxberger and philanthropic/social organization contributions of Leitha Kraxberger. This significance is limited to the residence on the property. - Significance under Standard 3, Design/Construction in the area of Architecture for the main service station as an early and locally significant reflection of the mid-20th century Oblong Box-type service station. This significance is limited to the main service station building. PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY As of October 5, no public comments have been received. Staff will continue to report information about public comments received prior to the July 20 hearing to both the HPC and to the appellant and update this staff report as necessary. SAMPLE MOTIONS Eligible – Qualifies as an Historic Resource (Full Property) If the Commission determines that the property meets the Fort Collins Landmark criteria and qualifies as an historic resource in compliance with Sections 14-22 & 14-23 of the Municipal Code, it may propose a motion based on the following: “I move that the Historic Preservation Commission find the property at 825 North College Avenue meets the eligibility standards outlined in Section 14-22 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, and is an historic resource for the purposes of project review under Land Use Code 3.4.7, based on the following findings of fact: [insert findings of significance] and [insert findings of integrity]. Eligible – Qualifies as an Historic Resource (Only certain resources) If the Commission determines that only certain resources on the property meet the Fort Collins Landmark criteria and qualify as historic resources in compliance with Sections 14-22 & 14-23 of the Municipal Code, it may propose a motion based on the following: “I move that the Historic Preservation Commission find the [specify to which resources the finding of Page 636 Item 20. Agenda Item 8 Item 8, Page 7 Eligible would apply] located on the property at 825 North College Avenue meet the eligibility standards outlined in Section 14-22 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, and are historic resources for the purposes of project review under Land Use Code 3.4.7, based on the following findings of fact: [insert findings of significance] and [insert findings of integrity]. Not Eligible If the Commission finds that a property, including all resources on the parcel, does not meet the Fort Collins Landmark criteria and does not qualify as an historic resource in compliance with Sections 14-22 & 14-23 of the Municipal Code, it may propose a motion based on the following: “I move that the Historic Preservation Commission find 825 North College Avenue does not meet the eligibility standards outlined in Section 14-22 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, and are not historic resources for the purposes of project review under Land Use Code 3.4.7, based on the following findings of fact [insert findings based on lack of significance and/or integrity].” Note: The Commission may propose other wording for the motion based on its evaluation. ATTACHMENTS 1. 825 N. College, Staff Finding of Eligibility completed September 7, 2022 (includes CDOT 2010 survey) 2. September 14, 2022 Appeal Email from Property Owner 3. Staff Presentation Page 637 Item 20. Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.4250 preservation@fcgov.com fcgov.com/historicpreservation Historic Preservation Services OFFICIAL DETERMINATION: FORT COLLINS LANDMARK ELIGIBILITY Resource Number: B3195 (City); 5LR.12231 (State) Historic Building Name: M-K Service Station; M-K Coal & Oil Co.; North College Standard Service Current Name: Quick Lube Property Address: 825 N. College Ave Determination: ELIGIBLE Issued: September 7, 2022 Expiration: September 7, 2027 GARA, LLC P.O. Box 7383 Loveland, CO 80537-0383 Dear Property Owner: This letter provides you with confirmation that your property has been evaluated for Fort Collins landmark eligibility, following the requirements in Chapter 14, Article II of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, and has been found eligible for landmark designation. Staff utilized an intensive-level Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Form completed for the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) in 2010, as well as augmenting research and an updated conditions assessment, as the basis for an evaluation of a property’s historic and/or architectural significance and its integrity, both of which are required for Landmark eligibility as per Article II, Section 14-22. The 2010 finding by CDOT was that the property, specifically the main service station building and the residence on the property, were eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (Building C, the secondary garage, was not given a clear determination). Staff has made the following findings regarding the information and evaluation of significance, integrity, and landmark eligibility provided by the consultant in the attached form. Significance In 2010, Robert Autobee of the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) determined this property, specifically the service station building fronting onto College Avenue and the reconverted residence at the northwest corner of the lot, as significant to local history under National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Criterion A in the area of Commerce as a notable reflection of the post-1945 expansion of Fort Collins’ commercial corridor north along College Avenue. CDOT further determined that the main building was eligible under NRHP Criterion C in the area of Architecture as a uniquely representative and comparatively well-preserved example of an oblong box gas station along the corridor. While detractions were noted on all three buildings on the property, CDOT determined that at the time (2010), both Buildings A (the main service station) and B (the reconverted house, formerly 829 N. College Ave) retained sufficient integrity to convey their importance to this area of Fort Collins. The form ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Page 638 Item 20. - 2 - is silent as to whether the c.1950 garage/warehouse building (Building C) contributed to this historical significance, but based on its context as what appears to be a secondary garage to the primary service station, it would be an accessory historic structure and appears to have sufficient integrity to convey that relationship. Based on City staff research, the importance of this facility as an early fuel and service station, for both automobiles and household fuel (mostly coal) under the Kraxberger ownership is clear, especially in the context of Fort Collins expanding in the 1920s and beginning to develop north of the Poudre River. Although by 1933, Fort Collins already had twenty-four filling stations in town (the first year the directory includes businesses near town but outside city limits), it appears all of the urban stations were south of the Poudre River. Many of those stations have since been demolished. When Mike Kraxberger began operating the shop and filling station at 829 N. College, it was the first north of the river, supplying the small Riverside Park neighborhood, the farms to the north, and being the first filling station for anyone traveling on the highways from Laramie or Cheyenne in Wyoming. The operation proved significant enough that the Union Pacific Railroad constructed a dedicated spur off the Union Pacific Railroad to supply the Kraxberger station with both coal and oil. Beyond being an important filling station, the Kraxberger family, specifically Mike and his first and second wives, Jane (Crist) and Leitha (Johnson), were heavily involved in the local community. M-K Filling Station at 829 N. College Ave, prior to construction of the new station in 1937 (Building A). It is not clear (advertisement, Coloradoan, September 27, 1936). ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Page 639 Item 20. - 3 - Image of the M-K Service Station after completion and opening, showing the Mission Revival style detailing (advertisement for the new service station’s opening, Coloradoan, August 20, 1937). 1937 Aerial image of the 700-800 Blocks of North College Avenue, w/ 825 & 829 N. College properties outlined in red. The primary service station is clearly visible at the southeast corner of the site (City of Fort Collins GIS). ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Page 640 Item 20. - 4 - Advertisement in Coloradoan, May 3, 1942. The property as an Amoco Service Station on April 21, 1977, following modifications made for Standard Oil leasing in 1960 (Fort Collins Museum of Discovery). ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Page 641 Item 20. - 5 - Staff would add the following information to the record that was either unclear, fragmented, or not included in the 2009 survey form: Historical Background Notes - The 829 N. College property, now Building B of 825, appears to have been the home and business of Henry Michael “Mike” and Jane Kraxberger between approximately 1931 when they built the house and 1948. Henry Michael (listed as either in city directories, depending on year) was married to Jane, a local school teacher. Prior to 1933, the couple lived at various addresses in town, but moved to the 829 N. College address by 1933. o Henry Michael was born in Nebraska about 1895. o Jane was born Jane Belle Crist in Missouri in about 1900. o Henry Michael and Jane married in Denver on May 24, 1920. - It appears that Henry Michael (noted as simply M. Kraxberger, 905 West Oak Street in a March 15, 1925 Coloradoan article) secured a permit to operate a gasoline tank wagon. - On March 23, 1925, the Coloradoan reported that M. Kraxberger had been refused a permit to build a filling station at Oak Street & Washington Avenues. - By September of 1925, the filling station at 829 North College was in operation, being referenced in a Coloradoan article that month as part of the new industrial district emerging around the Union Pacific Railway spur in that area, built, in part, to supply gasoline to the Kraxberger station. - Jane was regular involved in stage and music performances around town during the 1920s. She was also appointed a Colorado delegate to the American Vocational Association, an organization supporting trade work since the 1910s (today, the Association for Career and Technical Education, or ACTE). She was elected President of the Larimer County Education Association on September 2, 1933. She was also an accomplished golfer, winning several local charity and fundraising events at the Country Club. - By the early 1930s, M.K. Service Station was advertising as a Pennsylvania Oil distributor only (now Pennzoil). The station regularly advertised that it only sold Colorado-mined coal for household/business heating. - Jane operated a women’s clothing shop out of 138 W. Mountain Ave from 1935 to her divorce from Mike in 1941 when she moved to Boise, ID. During that time, she was highly influential in local fashion, including sponsoring shows and student events at Colorado Agricultural College. Her shop was one of only four women’s clothing shops in Fort Collins listed in the 1936 city directory (and only six in the county, including Estes Park). - Leitha Kraxberger’s activities in the American War Mothers organization during the 1940s and 1950s are well-documented in the Coloradoan, an organization in which Leitha eventually rose to a national leadership position. She was the founding president of this veteran support network (chartered by Congress in 1917) for the Cache la Poudre chapter. Construction & Development History • 1892 – Riverside Park Subdivision platted • 1925 – filling station at 829 N. College constructed • 1931 – residence (Building B; 829 N. College) constructed; 825 N College used to be a residence as well, presumably constructed around the same time. (corrected from 1922 via Coloradoan article from July 12, 1931). • 1933 – improvements made to service station, likely meaning the construction of Building C (the spare garage, without the rear addition) • 1937 –Building A, the main service station, is constructed. When first built, it has Mission Revival styling, including a curved, centered pediment on the façade and pilasters with decorative caps at the corners. The house at 825 N. College was demolished to construct this building. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Page 642 Item 20. - 6 - o Based on city directory records from 1938, house at 825 was demolished in this year and the new service station built. • 1950 – primary service station opens for business as a Standard Oil Station • 1956 (circa) – by this year, the large addition onto the garage (Building C) was added. • 1959 – North College Annexation, including this area, added to city limits • 1960 – Building addition and Remodel on main garage (Building A) (City building permit); included replacement of gas pumps (Coloradoan, 1960) o From photographs, this includes removal of the Mission Revival detailing on the building, addition of a garage opening, replacement of the swinging doors with overhead track doors, and addition of some window openings, bringing the building into its current Oblong Box form. Business History (confirmed to 1972) – Main Building (A) and Garage (C) • 1933 – M-K Service Station • 1934-1950 – M-K Coal & Oil Co. o In 1938, the Coal & Oil Co. is re-addressed to 825; • 1951 – Bond’s Service Station • 1952 – Sans Roy Oil Company • 1954 – 1959 – North College Standard Service o 1954 also lists Gordon’s Truck Line based out of here (that may have been the impetus for the garage expansion on Building C) o 1956 also lists Gordon’s Water Service based here o 1957 – Brandenburg Water Service; Colorado Milk Transport, Inc. (North College Standard is not listed this year) • 1960 – Brandenberg Water Service (property was also for lease by Standard Oil by this year, likely operating as a franchise). • 1962-1968 – Pennock Standard Service • 1969 – Gene’s Standard Service (owned by Eugene Vaughn and managed by Donald Vaughn) • 1970 – vacant • 1971 – Long’s Standard Service • 1972-1980 – North College Service Station (Amoco franchisee) • 1980-2002 – Professional Car Care Center • 2002-present – Pennzoil Quick Lube Occupant History to 1972 – Residence (Building B; 829 N. College Ave) - Not available prior to 1933 ( this section of Fort Collins was outside city limits until 1959 and not included in the Fort Collins City Directory series until 1933) - 1933-1948 – H. Michael & Jane B. Kraxberger listed as running the M&K Service Station, with their residence and business at 829 N. College Ave. o The 825 N. College address is listed as a residence for a Mrs. Elizabeth Peterson 1933-1934. 825 is listed as vacant by 1936. o Jane Kraxberger ran a women’s apparel shop out of 136 W. Mountain Avenue for much of their time living at this address. o Some time between 1948-1950, the H. Michael and Jane appear to have sold the property and moved out of Fort Collins. - 1952 – H.G. Gordon & J.P. Schlund o Harvey G. Gordon was the owner of Brick’s Plumbing & Heating at 179 N College; lived with wife Laveta N. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Page 643 Item 20. - 7 - o John P. & Maxine Schlund; John was a truck driver for Standard Oil (local wholesale was 799 N. College w/ corporate/franchised service stations at 602 S. College & 505 Riverside). - 1954-1957 – John & Maxine Schlund live in the primary house; by 1956, John is listed as a partner in Gordon’s Water Service at 825. o 1954 - Robert W. & Bernice Walters in 829 ½; Robert is a driver and salesman for Standard Oil o 1956-1959 – Mrs. Laura M. Gray in 829 ½; - 1960-1966 – Burlyn & Nellie Richardson; Burlyn is a cement worker at Don Ward, a trucking company at 1295 N. College Ave; Nellie is an employee at Rest Home (possibly Rest Haven Boarding Home at 412 S. Howes) o 1964-1966 – Verlin D. & Carolyn Pennock in 829 ½; Verlin was a partner with Ivan Pennock running Pennock Standard Service at 825; Carolyn was a credit manager at Sears & Roebuck at 169 N. College Ave. - 1968-1970 – Helen Brunmeier in 829; o 1969 – Shirley Ann Gunther in 829 ½; Shirley Ann was the manager at the General Finance Loan Co. at 261 S. College Ave. - 1971 – No information - 1972 – Bill Cluster in 829; Staff Conclusion Staff agrees with CDOT’s conclusions regarding the property’s significance under Criterion A for the National Register of Historic Places, subsequently considering the property significant under City Standard 1 (Events/Trends) in the area of Commerce. The filling station and service garage represented one of the first commercial businesses in Fort Collins to extend north of the Poudre River, paving the way for the area to become a more developed commercial strip by 1970. When opened in 1925, the first service station (now demolished) was one of the only commercial enterprises in the area. Kraxberger’s construction of the detached service station in 1935 was a significant local representation of the shift from the house-with-canopy or cottage-type gas stations of the early automobile era into a shift to year-round service stations for a broader spectrum of vehicles. By 1950, when Mike Kraxberger sold the station, that remained true. Standard Oil later acquired the property and began leasing it in 1960 after a significant renovation of the station that brought it to its current condition. However, by 1969, much of the College Avenue frontage from the Poudre River north to the Route 1/Terry Lake Road intersection was built up with a mix of industrial and commercial businesses, including motels, shops, and other businesses. Upon further research, the M-K Service Station remains significant as one of the earliest commercial enterprises in Fort Collins to be established in this area of town. Staff would add that the Kraxberger family, specifically Jane and Leitha, appear to possess significance to the community in relation to social history, although Mike Kraxberger may possess some significance with more research into Fort Collins’ early coal and gasoline industries. Jane Kraxberger’s contributions to local education and fine arts during the 1920s and 1930s, specifically theater and women’s fashion, appear to be influential and significant to the cultural history of early-twentieth century Fort Collins, at the time that she was living in the house at 829 N. College. After Mike and Jane divorced and Mike remarried to Leitha Johnson, Leitha’s contributions to the community in social organizations like the American War Mothers appear significant. Leitha served as the founding president of the Cache la Poudre chapter, organized in 1944. She also served as the president of the Colorado chapter in the late 1940s and later chaplain for the national organization. The American War Mothers was a national organization chartered by Congress during the First World War by parents with children serving in the Armed Forces to both support active troops and wounded veterans. Based on the contributions of Jane (Crist) Kraxberger and Leitha (Johnson) Kraxberger, staff would consider the dwelling at 829 N. College significant under Standard 2 (Persons/Groups) in the area of Social History. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Page 644 Item 20. - 8 - Upon further review, staff would agree with the CDOT recommendation under Criterion C (City Standard 3 for Design/Construction) in the area of Architecture, that the property remains a significant representative of the Oblong Box service station property type in north Fort Collins. While the original Mission Revival features have been lost, the building still represents a significant example of a Modern- styled station in this property type following the 1960 rehabilitation. Fueling and service stations of this type began adopting more streamlined, Modern features indicative of the International style, which often meant stripping away decorative features and focusing on simple geometry. While there are several Oblong Box service stations surviving throughout Fort Collins, this station remains one of the earliest, and the earliest in its localized context. Based on this research, staff would recommend a period of significance of 1925-1969, spanning both the period of operation by the Kraxbergers, as well as the continuing operation of the filling station as one of the first commercial enterprises north of the river. The closing date of 1969 is selected based on aerial imagery from that year that shows the College Avenue corridor north of the Poudre River mostly built out to Terry Lake following the commercial expansion trend begun by Kraxberger in the 1920s. Integrity CDOT’s 2010 recommendation regarding historic integrity (a property’s ability to still represent and convey its important story/stories) was that the main service station and house retained sufficient historic integrity, but that the accessory garage (Building C) was questionable due to reroofing with metal. Staff would modify that assessment considering the three areas of significance (Commerce, Social History, and Architecture) that appear to apply to the property, as well as research in permit records and historic aerial imagery. Based on that, the existing structures appear to retain strong integrity to the period of significance (1925-1969), with the exception of the loss of the former Cottage-style filling station prior to 1999 (based on Google Earth imagery; exact date unknown). The main service station (Building A) appears generally unaltered since the 1960 renovations. The Kraxberger Residence (Building B) has had some modifications to adapt it into a duplex, but generally appears to represent the Shingle-style architecture as constructed by the Kraxbergers. The accessory garage (Building C), built in c.1933 and expanded in c.1956 has relatively minor alterations, mainly the replacement of the roof and garage doors, but otherwise appears intact enough to contribute to the M-K Service Station as an historic property. Statement of Eligibility: Based on the historical research and analysis, staff finds the property at 825 North College Avenue, the former M-K Service Station and Kraxberger Residence, including the accessory garage (Building C), as Eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark under Standards 1, 2, and 3, in the areas of Commerce, Social History, and Architecture. Per Article II, Section 14-23 of the code, any determination made by staff regarding eligibility may be appealed to the Commission by the applicant, any resident of the City, or owner of property in the City. Such appeal shall be set forth in writing and filed with the Director within fourteen (14) days of the date of the staff's determination. If you have any questions regarding this determination, or if I may be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. I may be reached at jbertolini@fcgov.com, or 970-416-4250. Sincerely, Jim Bertolini Senior Historic Preservation Planner ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Page 645 Item 20. - 9 - Attachments: - 2022, August 30, Site photos - Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 1403, dated January 7, 2010. - Select clippings from the Fort Collins Coloradoan (see following pages). ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Page 646 Item 20. - 10 - ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Page 647 Item 20. - 11 - Left: Coloradoan, September 28, 1925, p1; Right: Coloradoan, July 12, 1931, p12 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Page 648 Item 20. - 12 - Bio on Mrs. Jane Kraxberger, Coloradoan, August 6, 1936, p3. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Page 649 Item 20. - 13 - Advertisement for M-K Coal and Oil, Coloradoan, September 27, 1936 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Page 650 Item 20. - 14 - Advertisement, Coloradoan, August 20, 1937, p3. Permits issued, including remodel of 825 N. College, Coloradoan, April 10, 1960, p2. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Page 651 Item 20. 825 N College Ave 5LR12231 COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Architectural Inventory Form Page 1 of 6 Official Eligibility Determination OAHP1403 (OAHP use only) Rev. 9/98 Date ___________ Initials _________ ___ Determined Eligible – National Register ___ Determined Not Eligible – National Register ___ Determined Eligible – State Register ___ Determine Not Eligible – State Register ___ Need Data ___ Contributes to eligible National Register District ___ Noncontributing to eligible National Register District I. IDENTIFICATION 1. Resource number: 5LR12231 Parcel number(s): 97024-24-011 2. Temporary resource number: N/A Schedule P8277648 3. County: Larimer 4. City: Fort Collins 5. Historic Building Name: North College Standard Service Station 6. Current Building Name: Roy’s Quick Lube 7. Building Address: 825 N College Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80524 8. Owner Name and Address: GARA, LLC, P.O. BOX 270114, Fort Collins, CO 80527 44. National Register eligibility field assessment: Eligible under Criteria A and C Local landmark eligibility field assessment: N/A Aug. 2009 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Page 652 Item 20. 825 N College Ave, Fort Collins, CO 5LR12231 Architectural Inventory Form Page 2 of 6 II. GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 9. P.M.: 6th Township: 7N Range: 69W SE ¼ of NE ¼ of SE ¼ of SE ¼ Section 2 10. UTM reference (Datum: NAD24) Zone: 13 11. USGS quad name: Fort Collins Year: 1960, Rev 1984 Map scale: 7.5' 12. Lot(s): N/A Addition: N/A Year of addition: N/A 13. Boundary description and justification: Legal Boundary. Metes and bounds: Describe: N/A III. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION 14. Building plan (footprint, shape): According to the Larimer County Assessor, the site consists of three buildings: (A): Service Garage/Roy’s Quick Lube, (B): Converted House and (C): Storage Garage. During the last half of the 20th century, the County recognized the Service Garage (825 N. College Avenue) and the Converted House as separate addresses (829 N. College Avenue) with the Storage Garage serving as a out-building for the house. In 2002, the current owner – GARA LLC – purchased all three structures. The County currently gives the 825 address for all three properties. (A): Rectangular, (B): Irregular, and (C): Rectangular. 15. Dimensions in feet: (A): 30’ x 48’; (B): 31’ x 56’, and (C): 24’ x 56’ 16. Number of stories: (A): Single, (B): Two, and (C): Single story. 17. Primary external wall material(s): (A): Metal, (B): Horizontal Wood Siding and (C): Concrete/Horizontal Wood Siding. 18. Roof configuration: (A): Flat, (B and C): Gabled. 19. Primary external roof material: (A): Metal, (B) Composition Shingle, (C): Asphalt Shingle and Metal. Other roof materials: N/A 20. Special features: Approximately 20 feet east of the Building A, the site has kept two concrete islands where the original gas pumps stood. The site has also retained the original station’s sign. The sign stands approximately 12 feet above the ground. 21. General architectural description: Building A: The one-story, rectangular oblong box gas station is relatively unchanged since its construction in 1950. The eastern elevation features two bays near the elevation’s northeast corner and the elevation’s approximate center. A clear glass door located approximately five feet from approximate center is the main entry into the building from North College Avenue. A rectangular picture window is located to the south of the door and extends to the southeastern corner. There is another rectangular picture window of similar dimensions at the building’s southeastern corner on the southern elevation. Approximately five feet from that window is a metal door with a glass pane above the doorknob. The western elevation features three multi-paned fenestrations. Metal bars cover these openings. The foundation is concrete. 22. Architectural style: (A): Gas Station, (B): Late 19th and Early 20th Century Revivals, and (C): No Style 493493 mE 4494261 mN ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Page 653 Item 20. 825 N College Ave, Fort Collins, CO 5LR12231 Architectural Inventory Form Page 3 of 6 Building type: (A): Oblong Box, (B): Irregular, and (C): Rectangular. 23. Landscape or special setting features: The owner planted tall grass in the abandoned concrete gas pump islands to the east of the gas station. The land separating the Building B and C is hard-packed dirt. Deciduous trees grow along the northern edge of Building B. 24. Associated buildings, features or objects: 1: January 2010 Residence (Building B) This two story, irregular-shaped house features a front-gable roof with composition shingles. In the 1930s, this structure was a gas station owned by Michael Kraxberger. City directories first indicate the building was unoccupied in 1970. The house’s western and eastern elevations feature additions. The eastern elevation features a composite door entry near the building’s northeast corner. This addition displays a metal roof similar in design to the roof covering the extension on Building C. The original building features wood frame, multi-pane windows on each elevation. Both elevations’ display metal frame 1/1 windows. The western elevation entry is a composite door/metal screen door combination and faces south. Gram Armstrong of Fort Collins stated in February 2010 that he owns this property as a rental. 2: January 2010 Former residence and garage (Building C) The Larimer County Assessor gives a date of 1950 for this building, but interviews with previous owners indicate that the building was standing as early as 1943. The exterior of the original structure is stucco. The eastern and northern elevations feature a pair of multi-pane windows. A metal roof has replaced the original clipped-hip covering. There is no information of the original roofing material or when the original material was replaced. Attached to the original structure’s western elevation is a three-bay garage. This addition features a gable roof and a horizontal wood siding exterior. There is no date for the construction of this addition. IV. ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY 25. Date of construction: Estimate: Actual: (A): 1950 (B): 1922 (C): 1950 Source of information: Larimer County, Colorado, Assessor Property Information, Real Estate Property Records Database; City directories and Assessor Cards at the Fort Collins Local History Center, Fort Collins, CO. 26. Architect: Unknown Source of information: N/A ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Page 654 Item 20. 825 N College Ave, Fort Collins, CO 5LR12231 Architectural Inventory Form Page 4 of 6 27. Builder: Unknown Source of information: N/A 28. Original owner: (A): Standard Oil Company, (B): Unknown and (C): Unknown. Source of information: 1922-1950 City Directory for Fort Collins, Ft. Collins Local History Center 29. Construction history: Larimer County Assessor’s records state this service station was completed in 1950. Building B was constructed in 1922 with Building C completed in 1950. From the 1920s to the 1950s, Building B (829 North College Avenue) was the offices of the M-K Coal and Oil Company. By 1948, the structure was converted to a private residence. By the 1990s, the County Assessor listed all three structures at the 825 North College Avenue address. Both Buildings B and C have undergone extensive alterations and additions, but there appears to have been no alternations to the exterior of Building A (Roy’s Quick Lube). It is likely that at some point after 1980, the then current owner removed the gas pumps. The original Standard Oil sign on the northern most island appears to have been cut down to a smaller height. 30. Original location:  Moved: Date of move(s): V. HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS 31. Original use(s): (A and B): Commerce/Trade/Gas Station and (C): Garage 32. Intermediate use(s): (A): Commerce/Trade/Gas Station, (B): Domestic-Residence and (C): Garage 33. Current use(s): (A): Commerce/Trade/Specialty Store, (B): Domestic-Residence and (C): Garage 34. Site type(s): Commercial Style/Automobile 35. Historical background: The property at 825 North College opened for business as a Standard Oil station in 1950. By 1956, the name had changed to reflect the station’s location – North College Standard Service. By 1970, the station was vacant, but returned as the North College Service Station in 1972 under the ownership of Robert W. Walters. By 1980, Standard no longer franchised at this location as the Professional Car Care Center occupied this address. Mr. Walters sold the property to the GARA group in May 2002 and GARA remains the current owners. This area along North College Avenue and U.S. 287 saw a growth of auto related businesses at the turn of the twentieth century. In the 1930s, the city limits were extended from the 300 block to the 900 block with a number of auto businesses and early auto or motor courts along North College Avenue. The Colorado Department of Highways built the concrete, I-beam structure in 1930. The Department upgraded and widened North College in 1955. 5LR12231 reflects the post-war growth along North College Avenue related to greater numbers of automobile owners and tourists. Restaurants, motor lodges, auto businesses, and oil distributers opened. The Avenue appeared robust until the 1960s, when Fort Collins experienced another wave of growth south of downtown. North College’s major auto sales centers moved south with the suburban growth. The old sales centers became used car sales center and mobile home sales. Today the area around 825 North College is in a state of decline punctuated with vacant businesses and small business operators. 36. Sources of information: City Directories (1938-2005), Atlases and Assessor Cards of Fort Collins available at the Ft. Collins Local History Center; Larimer County Assessor Property Information available online; “North College Avenue Historical Research,” by Carol Tunner for the Fort Collins Planning Department, December 1993; “The History of Larimer County, Colorado,” Andrew Morris, editor (Fort Collins: Curtis Media Corp., 1985) and interview with Gram Armstrong, owner of 825 North College, February 2, 2010. VI. SIGNIFICANCE 37. Local landmark designation: Yes No  Date of designation: ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Page 655 Item 20. 825 N College Ave, Fort Collins, CO 5LR12231 Architectural Inventory Form Page 5 of 6 Designating authority: 38. Applicable National Register criteria:  A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history; B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;  C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguished entity whose components may lack individual distinction; D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual). Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria. 39. Area(s) of significance: Transportation/Road-Related 40. Period of significance: 1950-2010 41. Level of significance: National: State:  Local:  42. Statement of significance: This oblong-box gas stations shows no alternations or wear for a commercial structure 60 years old. It represents an era when the automobile directed the economic development of the northern neighborhoods surrounding downtown Fort Collins. This gas station over its existence has retained an association with automobile-related commerce. This structure is eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A for its role in the mid-20th century car culture that developed along North College Avenue in Fort Collins and under Criterion C as an excellent example of an oblong-box gas station. The reconverted house (Building B) has an association with the local oil and gas industry and also contributes to the overall historic significance of this property. Building C has been a garage during its existence. The structure has undergone alterations (notably metal replacing wood shingles) that detract from its physical integrity. 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: There appears to have been no alterations to the physical integrity of the gas station. An eight-foot high wooden fence extending behind the gas station has been added within the past 30 years, but the building conveys enough setting, feeling and historic association for eligibility to the National Register. Previous owners built additions on to Buildings B and C. These structures have both lost their original setting, feeling and historic integrity. VII. NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT 44. National Register eligibility field assessment: Eligible under Criteria A and C. Local landmark eligibility field assessment: Eligible 45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes No  Discuss: There is no evidence that this resource is located in a potential historic district. The North College Avenue corridor has lost many of the early-to-mid century buildings has been impacted by razing of early commercial buildings and modern development. If there is National Register district potential, is this building: Contributing  Noncontributing N/A: 46. If the building is in existing National Register district, is it: Contributing Noncontributing N/A:  RECORDING INFORMATION 47. Photograph number(s): Digital DSCO.4933; DSCO.4904; DSCO4912- DSCO4914; DSCO4918; DSCO CDs filed at: City of Fort Collins ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Page 656 Item 20. 825 N College Ave, Fort Collins, CO 5LR12231 Architectural Inventory Form Page 6 of 6 4920 and Electronic Images 138, 202, 204-205. 48. Report title: North College Avenue Streetscape Improvements, Project CHS#55514/CDOT AQC M455-079 49. Date(s): 1/07/10 50. Recorder(s): Robert Autobee 51. Organization: Colorado Department of Transportation-Region 4 970.350-2204 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Page 657 Item 20. 825 N College Ave, Fort Collins, CO 5LR12231 Architectural Inventory Form Page 7 of 6 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Page 658 Item 20. 825 North College Avenue North College Avenue Streetscape Improvements, Project CHS#55514/CDOT AQC M455-079 Site No. 5LR12232 6th P.M., T7N, R69W, SE ¼ of NE ¼ of SE ¼ of SE ¼ of Section 2 Fort Collins (1960, rev. 1984), 7.5’ USGS topo map Larimer County UTM reference A. Zone 1 3; 4 9 3 4 9 3 mE 4 4 9 4 2 6 1 mN 5LR12232 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Page 659 Item 20. Resource No. 5LR12231 Property Name/Address: 825 North College Avenue N N NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE Roy’s Quick Lube 825 North College Avenue/Building A Building B (formerly 829 North College Avenue Alpine Street Building C/Storage Garage Fence ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Page 660 Item 20. 1 Jim Bertolini From:Grem Armstrong <gremarmstrongrealty@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 14, 2022 5:40 PM To:Jim Bertolini Cc:Luke Seeber; Todd Sullivan; Clark Mapes Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: 825 N College Avenue - Historic Survey complete We would like to appeal the decision of eligibility for 825 and 829 North College. As stated, we only have 14 days. Who is the Director that is referenced in the second to last paragraph in your letter? Grem and Robin Armstrong On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 5:25 PM Jim Bertolini <jbertolini@fcgov.com> wrote: Luke, Attached please find the results of the historic survey for the property at 825 N. College Avenue, completing the requirements in Land Use Code 3.4.7(C) to identify historic resources on a proposed development site. I’ve copied Mr. Armstrong, the property owner, as well for his information – thank you for providing his contact information for a faster transmittal. Based on the Colorado Department of Transportation historic survey form from 2009, as well as additional research completed by City staff, staff’s finding is that the property, including all three existing structures, is Eligible as a City Landmark. We did make some additional findings and modifications based on the more in-depth research we were able to complete. These are documented in the attached memorandum for your information. The finding added a new historic significance in the area of Social History (Standard 2, Persons/Groups), and determined the garage to be contributing as well as the service station and residence. Please note the following:  Under Land Use Code 3.4.7(D), historic resources on the development site are expected to be incorporated into a development plan and treated according to the City’s adopted historic preservation standards to the maximum extent feasible. Deviation from those Standards can be approved through a Modification of Standards request under Land Use Code 2.8, if grounds can be established. While Historic Preservation (either staff or the Commission) are not the decision-makers for the development proposal, a recommendation from Historic Preservation is required for the decision hearing.  Per Article II, Section 14-23 of the code, any determination made by staff regarding eligibility may be appealed to the [Historic Preservation] Commission by the applicant, any resident of the City, or owner of property in the City. Such appeal shall be set forth in writing and filed with the Director within fourteen (14) days of the date of the staff's determination. Page 661 Item 20. 2 If you or Mr. Armstrong have further questions regarding this finding, please don’t hesitate to contact me. Thanks! JIM BERTOLINI Senior Historic Preservation Planner Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue 970-416-4250 office jbertolini@fcgov.com Visit our website! “The City of Fort Collins is an organization that supports equity for all, leading with race. We acknowledge the role of local government in helping create systems of oppression and racism and are committed to dismantling those same systems in pursuit of racial justice. Learn more.” -- Grem Armstrong Armstrong Realty, LLC (970) 388-7888 Page 662 Item 20. Staff Presentation to the Historic Preservation Commission October 19, 2022 Page 663 Item 20. 825 North College Avenue: Appeal of Determination of Eligibility October 19, 2022 Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Page 664 Item 20. 2Vicinity Map 825 N. College Page 665 Item 20. 3Aerial Map Page 666 Item 20. 4Role of HPC •De Novo hearing –HPC provides a new decision •Consider evidence regarding significance and integrity of the building addressed as 825 N College Avenue •Standards under Municipal Code 14, Article II (Sec. 14-22) •Provide a determination of eligibility as an “historic resource” for the purposes of Land Use Code 3.4.7. •Final decisions of the Commission shall be subject to the right of appeal to the Fort Collins City Council (Sec. 14-9) Page 667 Item 20. 5Current Review Timeline •August 18, 2022 –Conceptual Review •Staff identifies need for updated historic survey to developer •September 7, 2022 –Survey Completed and Transmitted •Staff transmits findings for property (Eligible/is an historic resource) to both developer and owner •September 14, 2022 –Appeal Received •Property owner, Grem Armstrong/GARA, LLC, files appeal of historic resource finding Page 668 Item 20. 6Code Process -3.4.7 -(B) Requires identification of historic resources on/near development site -(C) Determination of Eligibility -(D) Treatment of Historic Resources Land Use Code (Development)Municipal Code -Eligibility Chapter 14, Article II -14-22 –Standards for eligibility -14-23(b) –Process for appealing a staff decision If found Eligible Page 669 Item 20. 2 Requirements for Historic Resource Eligibility 7 Significance •1. Events/Trends •2. Persons/Groups •3. Design/Construction •4. Information Potential Historic Integrity (7 Aspects) •Design •Materials •Workmanship •Location •Setting •Feeling •AssociationPage 670 Item 20. 1802 North College Avenue: Significance –Summary 1 –Events/Trends –Service Station & Garage 2-Persons/Groups -Residence 3-Architecture –Service Station •Commerce -Long-standing business on North College Ave (1925-1969) •Social History –Contributions of Jane Kraxberger to local art and fashion; Leitha Kraxbergerto veterans’ welfare in American War Mothers organization. •Architecture –Service station as a mid-20th century Oblong Box-type station Page 671 Item 20. 1802 North College Avenue: Significance –Standard 1 1 –Events/Trends •Commerce -Long-standing and early business on North College Ave (1925-1969) •Service Station (1960 form) & Garage (accessory structure) •Note evolution of building in relation to integrity Page 672 Item 20. 1802 North College Avenue: Significance –Standard 2 2-Persons/Groups •Social History –Contributions of Jane Kraxberger to local art and fashion; Leitha Kraxbergerto veterans’ welfare in American War Mothers organization. •Residence only •Based on additional information from owner, integrity seems questionablePage 673 Item 20. 1802 North College Avenue: Significance –Standard 3 3-Architecture •Architecture –Service station as a mid-20th century Oblong Box-type station •Service Station only •Exterior material is CMU with metal paneling (stucco on rear) Oblong Box -Defined as a property type by History Colorado -https://www.historycolorad o.org/oblong-box-gas- station -Minimalist design -Rectangular plan -Flat roof -Corner office -Two service bays 1420 N. College – comparison property Page 674 Item 20. 825 North College Avenue: History •1925 -1st service station constructed •1931 -Kraxberger residence built •1933 –accessory garage built (east portion) •1937 –1st service station demolished; 2nd service station built •1956 –accessory garage addition (west wing) •1960 –service station remodeled Top Left: 825 N. College, 1936, Coloradoan Top Right: 825 N. College, 1937, Coloradoan Bottom: 1977 Page 675 Item 20. Kraxbergers –825 & 829 N College Page 676 Item 20. Setting & Context 800 Block of N. College -N. College Ave. & Alpine St. Most infill in 1960s- 1970s 14 Top: 825 N. College, 1937 Bottom: 825 N College, 2019 Page 677 Item 20. 15Responses to HPC Work Session ?’s •Standard 2 evaluations; Is there a direct association with the house and is that important? •Loose connection with Jane Kraxberger; more direct connection with Leitha Kraxberger •City Landmark Standard 2 interpretation –typically allow residence of person while doing important work to qualify, regardless of whether they did that work at home or not •Integrity still matters •Clarify 2010 CDOT finding vs. current finding •CDOT 2010 Survey –Service Station and Residence NRHP-eligible; Garage not historic (integrity) •HPS 2022 Survey –All 3 eligible; Oblong Box under 1 and 3 w/ garage as accessory; Residence under Standard 2 •Provide some context on Oblong Box -what is it, what are the typical features, etc.? •See above •3 different buildings and 3 different types of significance; clarify or provide graphic •See above •Info about material on the service station; porcelain •Primarily concrete block with metal paneling on front and stucco on rear. •Add some comparison on Shingle style architecture •While significance may be there, integrity appears significantly disrupted.Page 678 Item 20. 16Public Comments •1 received by phone, today (10/19) at 4pm •John Mayea –resident of north Fort Collins •Opposed to Eligible finding •Concern about surprise when development applications come forward •Concern about inconsistency with finding from several years ago for gas station at 949 E. Prospect Page 679 Item 20. 17Role of HPC •De Novo hearing –HPC provides a new decision •Consider evidence regarding significance and integrity of the building addressed as 825 N College Avenue •Standards under Municipal Code 14, Article II (Sec. 14-22) •Provide a determination of eligibility as an “historic resource” for the purposes of Land Use Code 3.4.7. •Final decisions of the Commission shall be subject to the right of appeal to the Fort Collins City Council (Sec. 14-9) Page 680 Item 20. Appeal: 825 North College Avenue Historic Resource Finding for Development Review October 19, 2022 Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Page 681 Item 20. Applicant Presentation to Historic Preservation Commission October 19, 2022 Page 682 Item 20. House Front Yard Page 683 Item 20. House, north Page 684 Item 20. House, back door Page 685 Item 20. House & Apartment (SW corner) Page 686 Item 20. Apartment Page 687 Item 20. Apartment - 2 Page 688 Item 20. Both units, north side Page 689 Item 20. Alley view Page 690 Item 20. Garage Page 691 Item 20. Garage - 2 Page 692 Item 20. Garage - 3 Page 693 Item 20. Garage & apartment Page 694 Item 20. Rear of Service Station Page 695 Item 20. Page 696 Item 20. Link to Video Historic Preservation Commission October 19, 2022 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9w ADveljWE Page 697 Item 20. Determination of Landmark Eligibility Issued by Historic Preservation Commission October 19, 2022 Page 698 Item 20. C\tyof Fort Collins ~=-----..... .........___ Historic Preservation Services Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Av enue P .O. Box 580 Fort Coll ins , CO 80522.0580 970.416.4250 preservatlon@fcqov.com , fcgov, co mlh lstorlcprese,vot1on OFFICIAL DETERMINATION: FORT COLLINS LANDMARK ELIGIBILITY Resource Number : B3195 (City); SLR, l223 l (State) . Historic Building Name : M-K Service Station ; M-K Coal & Oil Co .; North College Standard Scrv,ce Current Name : Quick Lube Property Address : 825 N. College Ave Determination: ELIGIBLE Service Station Eligible Garage & Residence non-contributing Issued by the Historic Preservation Commis s ion : October 19 , 2022 Expiration : October 19 , 2027 GARA. LLC P.O. Box 7383 Loveland. CO 8053 7-0383 Dear Property Owner: This letter provides you with the record of decision for the I listoric Preservation Commission regarding your properly at 825 N . College Avenue . AfLer your appeal of the September 7 staff finding of the property as eligible , received on September 14 , this property has been evaluated for Fo1t Collins landmark eligibility, following the requirements in Chapter 14 , Article II of the Fon Collins Municipal Code, and has been found eligible for landmark designation . The l listoric Preservation Commission (I I PC) relied on the infonnation submitted and pn.:scntcd in its hearing on October 19, 2022 , and a City staff-produced memorandum from September 7 with findings on eligibility. The HPC used this information as the basis for an evaluation of a property's historic and/or architectural significance and its integrity , both of which arc required for Landmark eligibility as per Article II, Section 14-22 . The Ilistoric Preservation Commission made the following findings has made the following findings regarding the information and evaluation of significance, integrity , and landmark eligibility provided by the consultant in the attached fonn . Determination of Eligibility The HPC found that the service station on the property met lhe City's Landmark significance standards in Sec ._ 14-22,_ specifically Standards 1, Events/'( rends , and Standard 3, Design/Constrnction, finding that the service station: -Embodies important commercial evolution in north Port Collins in the twentieth century; and Is a classic example of the utterly unomatc Oblong Box style of architecture; and -Has historic integrity to support both aspects of this signi licance . Page 699 Item 20. Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.4250 preservation@fcgov.com fcgov.com/historicpreservation Historic Preservation Services OFFICIAL DETERMINATION: FORT COLLINS LANDMARK ELIGIBILITY Resource Number: B3195 (City); 5LR.12231 (State) Historic Building Name: M-K Service Station; M-K Coal & Oil Co.; North College Standard Service Current Name: Quick Lube Property Address: 825 N. College Ave Determination: ELIGIBLE Issued: September 7, 2022 Expiration: September 7, 2027 GARA, LLC P.O. Box 7383 Loveland, CO 80537-0383 Dear Property Owner: This letter provides you with confirmation that your property has been evaluated for Fort Collins landmark eligibility, following the requirements in Chapter 14, Article II of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, and has been found eligible for landmark designation. Staff utilized an intensive-level Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Form completed for the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) in 2010, as well as augmenting research and an updated conditions assessment, as the basis for an evaluation of a property’s historic and/or architectural significance and its integrity, both of which are required for Landmark eligibility as per Article II, Section 14-22. The 2010 finding by CDOT was that the property, specifically the main service station building and the residence on the property, were eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (Building C, the secondary garage, was not given a clear determination). Staff has made the following findings regarding the information and evaluation of significance, integrity, and landmark eligibility provided by the consultant in the attached form. Significance In 2010, Robert Autobee of the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) determined this property, specifically the service station building fronting onto College Avenue and the reconverted residence at the northwest corner of the lot, as significant to local history under National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Criterion A in the area of Commerce as a notable reflection of the post-1945 expansion of Fort Collins’ commercial corridor north along College Avenue. CDOT further determined that the main building was eligible under NRHP Criterion C in the area of Architecture as a uniquely representative and comparatively well-preserved example of an oblong box gas station along the corridor. While detractions were noted on all three buildings on the property, CDOT determined that at the time (2010), both Buildings A (the main service station) and B (the reconverted house, formerly 829 N. College Ave) retained sufficient integrity to convey their importance to this area of Fort Collins. The form Attachment 1 - Staff Findings of Eligibility 9-7-2022 Page 701 Item 20. -2 - is silent as to whether the c.1950 garage/warehouse building (Building C) contributed to this historical significance, but based on its context as what appears to be a secondary garage to the primary service station, it would be an accessory historic structure and appears to have sufficient integrity to convey that relationship. Based on City staff research, the importance of this facility as an early fuel and service station, for both automobiles and household fuel (mostly coal) under the Kraxberger ownership is clear, especially in the context of Fort Collins expanding in the 1920s and beginning to develop north of the Poudre River. Although by 1933, Fort Collins already had twenty-four filling stations in town (the first year the directory includes businesses near town but outside city limits), it appears all of the urban stations were south of the Poudre River. Many of those stations have since been demolished. When Mike Kraxberger began operating the shop and filling station at 829 N. College, it was the first north of the river, supplying the small Riverside Park neighborhood, the farms to the north, and being the first filling station for anyone traveling on the highways from Laramie or Cheyenne in Wyoming. The operation proved significant enough that the Union Pacific Railroad constructed a dedicated spur off the Union Pacific Railroad to supply the Kraxberger station with both coal and oil. Beyond being an important filling station, the Kraxberger family, specifically Mike and his first and second wives, Jane (Crist) and Leitha (Johnson), were heavily involved in the local community. M-K Filling Station at 829 N. College Ave, prior to construction of the new station in 1937 (Building A). It is not clear (advertisement, Coloradoan, September 27, 1936). Page 702 Item 20. - 3 - Image of the M-K Service Station after completion and opening, showing the Mission Revival style detailing (advertisement for the new service station’s opening, Coloradoan, August 20, 1937). 1937 Aerial image of the 700-800 Blocks of North College Avenue, w/ 825 & 829 N. College properties outlined in red. The primary service station is clearly visible at the southeast corner of the site (City of Fort Collins GIS). Page 703 Item 20. -4 - Advertisement in Coloradoan, May 3, 1942. The property as an Amoco Service Station on April 21, 1977, following modifications made for Standard Oil leasing in 1960 (Fort Collins Museum of Discovery). Page 704 Item 20. -5 - Staff would add the following information to the record that was either unclear, fragmented, or not included in the 2009 survey form: Historical Background Notes - The 829 N. College property, now Building B of 825, appears to have been the home and business of Henry Michael “Mike” and Jane Kraxberger between approximately 1931 when they built the house and 1948. Henry Michael (listed as either in city directories, depending on year) was married to Jane, a local school teacher. Prior to 1933, the couple lived at various addresses in town, but moved to the 829 N. College address by 1933. o Henry Michael was born in Nebraska about 1895. o Jane was born Jane Belle Crist in Missouri in about 1900. o Henry Michael and Jane married in Denver on May 24, 1920. -It appears that Henry Michael (noted as simply M. Kraxberger, 905 West Oak Street in a March 15, 1925 Coloradoan article) secured a permit to operate a gasoline tank wagon. -On March 23, 1925, the Coloradoan reported that M. Kraxberger had been refused a permit to build a filling station at Oak Street & Washington Avenues. - By September of 1925, the filling station at 829 North College was in operation, being referenced in a Coloradoan article that month as part of the new industrial district emerging around the Union Pacific Railway spur in that area, built, in part, to supply gasoline to the Kraxberger station. -Jane was regular involved in stage and music performances around town during the 1920s. She was also appointed a Colorado delegate to the American Vocational Association, an organization supporting trade work since the 1910s (today, the Association for Career and Technical Education, or ACTE). She was elected President of the Larimer County Education Association on September 2, 1933. She was also an accomplished golfer, winning several local charity and fundraising events at the Country Club. - By the early 1930s, M.K. Service Station was advertising as a Pennsylvania Oil distributor only (now Pennzoil). The station regularly advertised that it only sold Colorado-mined coal for household/business heating. -Jane operated a women’s clothing shop out of 138 W. Mountain Ave from 1935 to her divorce from Mike in 1941 when she moved to Boise, ID. During that time, she was highly influential in local fashion, including sponsoring shows and student events at Colorado Agricultural College. Her shop was one of only four women’s clothing shops in Fort Collins listed in the 1936 city directory (and only six in the county, including Estes Park). - Leitha Kraxberger’s activities in the American War Mothers organization during the 1940s and 1950s are well-documented in the Coloradoan, an organization in which Leitha eventually rose to a national leadership position. She was the founding president of this veteran support network (chartered by Congress in 1917) for the Cache la Poudre chapter. Construction & Development History •1892 – Riverside Park Subdivision platted •1925 – filling station at 829 N. College constructed •1931 – residence (Building B; 829 N. College) constructed; 825 N College used to be a residence as well, presumably constructed around the same time. (corrected from 1922 via Coloradoan article from July 12, 1931). •1933 – improvements made to service station, likely meaning the construction of Building C (the spare garage, without the rear addition) •1937 –Building A, the main service station, is constructed. When first built, it has Mission Revival styling, including a curved, centered pediment on the façade and pilasters with decorative caps at the corners. The house at 825 N. College was demolished to construct this building. Page 705 Item 20. -6 - o Based on city directory records from 1938, house at 825 was demolished in this year and the new service station built. •1950 – primary service station opens for business as a Standard Oil Station •1956 (circa) – by this year, the large addition onto the garage (Building C) was added. •1959 – North College Annexation, including this area, added to city limits •1960 – Building addition and Remodel on main garage (Building A) (City building permit); included replacement of gas pumps (Coloradoan, 1960) o From photographs, this includes removal of the Mission Revival detailing on the building, addition of a garage opening, replacement of the swinging doors with overhead track doors, and addition of some window openings, bringing the building into its current Oblong Box form. Business History (confirmed to 1972) – Main Building (A) and Garage (C) •1933 – M-K Service Station •1934-1950 – M-K Coal & Oil Co. o In 1938, the Coal & Oil Co. is re-addressed to 825; •1951 – Bond’s Service Station •1952 – Sans Roy Oil Company •1954 – 1959 – North College Standard Service o 1954 also lists Gordon’s Truck Line based out of here (that may have been the impetus for the garage expansion on Building C) o 1956 also lists Gordon’s Water Service based here o 1957 – Brandenburg Water Service; Colorado Milk Transport, Inc. (North College Standard is not listed this year) •1960 – Brandenberg Water Service (property was also for lease by Standard Oil by this year, likely operating as a franchise). •1962-1968 – Pennock Standard Service •1969 – Gene’s Standard Service (owned by Eugene Vaughn and managed by Donald Vaughn) •1970 – vacant •1971 – Long’s Standard Service •1972-1980 – North College Service Station (Amoco franchisee) •1980-2002 – Professional Car Care Center •2002-present – Pennzoil Quick Lube Occupant History to 1972 – Residence (Building B; 829 N. College Ave) - Not available prior to 1933 ( this section of Fort Collins was outside city limits until 1959 and not included in the Fort Collins City Directory series until 1933) - 1933-1948 – H. Michael & Jane B. Kraxberger listed as running the M&K Service Station, with their residence and business at 829 N. College Ave. o The 825 N. College address is listed as a residence for a Mrs. Elizabeth Peterson 1933-1934. 825 is listed as vacant by 1936. o Jane Kraxberger ran a women’s apparel shop out of 136 W. Mountain Avenue for much of their time living at this address. o Some time between 1948-1950, the H. Michael and Jane appear to have sold the property and moved out of Fort Collins. - 1952 – H.G. Gordon & J.P. Schlund o Harvey G. Gordon was the owner of Brick’s Plumbing & Heating at 179 N College; lived with wife Laveta N. Page 706 Item 20. - 7 - o John P. & Maxine Schlund; John was a truck driver for Standard Oil (local wholesale was 799 N. College w/ corporate/franchised service stations at 602 S. College & 505 Riverside). - 1954-1957 – John & Maxine Schlund live in the primary house; by 1956, John is listed as a partner in Gordon’s Water Service at 825. o 1954 - Robert W. & Bernice Walters in 829 ½; Robert is a driver and salesman for Standard Oil o 1956-1959 – Mrs. Laura M. Gray in 829 ½; - 1960-1966 – Burlyn & Nellie Richardson; Burlyn is a cement worker at Don Ward, a trucking company at 1295 N. College Ave; Nellie is an employee at Rest Home (possibly Rest Haven Boarding Home at 412 S. Howes) o 1964-1966 – Verlin D. & Carolyn Pennock in 829 ½; Verlin was a partner with Ivan Pennock running Pennock Standard Service at 825; Carolyn was a credit manager at Sears & Roebuck at 169 N. College Ave. - 1968-1970 – Helen Brunmeier in 829; o 1969 – Shirley Ann Gunther in 829 ½; Shirley Ann was the manager at the General Finance Loan Co. at 261 S. College Ave. - 1971 – No information - 1972 – Bill Cluster in 829; Staff Conclusion Staff agrees with CDOT’s conclusions regarding the property’s significance under Criterion A for the National Register of Historic Places, subsequently considering the property significant under City Standard 1 (Events/Trends) in the area of Commerce. The filling station and service garage represented one of the first commercial businesses in Fort Collins to extend north of the Poudre River, paving the way for the area to become a more developed commercial strip by 1970. When opened in 1925, the first service station (now demolished) was one of the only commercial enterprises in the area. Kraxberger’s construction of the detached service station in 1935 was a significant local representation of the shift from the house-with-canopy or cottage-type gas stations of the early automobile era into a shift to year-round service stations for a broader spectrum of vehicles. By 1950, when Mike Kraxberger sold the station, that remained true. Standard Oil later acquired the property and began leasing it in 1960 after a significant renovation of the station that brought it to its current condition. However, by 1969, much of the College Avenue frontage from the Poudre River north to the Route 1/Terry Lake Road intersection was built up with a mix of industrial and commercial businesses, including motels, shops, and other businesses. Upon further research, the M-K Service Station remains significant as one of the earliest commercial enterprises in Fort Collins to be established in this area of town. Staff would add that the Kraxberger family, specifically Jane and Leitha, appear to possess significance to the community in relation to social history, although Mike Kraxberger may possess some significance with more research into Fort Collins’ early coal and gasoline industries. Jane Kraxberger’s contributions to local education and fine arts during the 1920s and 1930s, specifically theater and women’s fashion, appear to be influential and significant to the cultural history of early-twentieth century Fort Collins, at the time that she was living in the house at 829 N. College. After Mike and Jane divorced and Mike remarried to Leitha Johnson, Leitha’s contributions to the community in social organizations like the American War Mothers appear significant. Leitha served as the founding president of the Cache la Poudre chapter, organized in 1944. She also served as the president of the Colorado chapter in the late 1940s and later chaplain for the national organization. The American War Mothers was a national organization chartered by Congress during the First World War by parents with children serving in the Armed Forces to both support active troops and wounded veterans. Based on the contributions of Jane (Crist) Kraxberger and Leitha (Johnson) Kraxberger, staff would consider the dwelling at 829 N. College significant under Standard 2 (Persons/Groups) in the area of Social History. Page 707 Item 20. -8 - Upon further review, staff would agree with the CDOT recommendation under Criterion C (City Standard 3 for Design/Construction) in the area of Architecture, that the property remains a significant representative of the Oblong Box service station property type in north Fort Collins. While the original Mission Revival features have been lost, the building still represents a significant example of a Modern- styled station in this property type following the 1960 rehabilitation. Fueling and service stations of this type began adopting more streamlined, Modern features indicative of the International style, which often meant stripping away decorative features and focusing on simple geometry. While there are several Oblong Box service stations surviving throughout Fort Collins, this station remains one of the earliest, and the earliest in its localized context. Based on this research, staff would recommend a period of significance of 1925-1969, spanning both the period of operation by the Kraxbergers, as well as the continuing operation of the filling station as one of the first commercial enterprises north of the river. The closing date of 1969 is selected based on aerial imagery from that year that shows the College Avenue corridor north of the Poudre River mostly built out to Terry Lake following the commercial expansion trend begun by Kraxberger in the 1920s. Integrity CDOT’s 2010 recommendation regarding historic integrity (a property’s ability to still represent and convey its important story/stories) was that the main service station and house retained sufficient historic integrity, but that the accessory garage (Building C) was questionable due to reroofing with metal. Staff would modify that assessment considering the three areas of significance (Commerce, Social History, and Architecture) that appear to apply to the property, as well as research in permit records and historic aerial imagery. Based on that, the existing structures appear to retain strong integrity to the period of significance (1925-1969), with the exception of the loss of the former Cottage-style filling station prior to 1999 (based on Google Earth imagery; exact date unknown). The main service station (Building A) appears generally unaltered since the 1960 renovations. The Kraxberger Residence (Building B) has had some modifications to adapt it into a duplex, but generally appears to represent the Shingle-style architecture as constructed by the Kraxbergers. The accessory garage (Building C), built in c.1933 and expanded in c.1956 has relatively minor alterations, mainly the replacement of the roof and garage doors, but otherwise appears intact enough to contribute to the M-K Service Station as an historic property. Statement of Eligibility: Based on the historical research and analysis, staff finds the property at 825 North College Avenue, the former M-K Service Station and Kraxberger Residence, including the accessory garage (Building C), as Eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark under Standards 1, 2, and 3, in the areas of Commerce, Social History, and Architecture. Per Article II, Section 14-23 of the code, any determination made by staff regarding eligibility may be appealed to the Commission by the applicant, any resident of the City, or owner of property in the City. Such appeal shall be set forth in writing and filed with the Director within fourteen (14) days of the date of the staff's determination. If you have any questions regarding this determination, or if I may be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. I may be reached at jbertolini@fcgov.com, or 970-416-4250. Sincerely, Jim Bertolini Senior Historic Preservation Planner Page 708 Item 20. -9 - Attachments: -2022, August 30, Site photos -Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 1403, dated January 7, 2010. -Select clippings from the Fort Collins Coloradoan (see following pages). Page 709 Item 20. - 10 - Page 710 Item 20. - 11 - Left: Coloradoan, September 28, 1925, p1; Right: Coloradoan, July 12, 1931, p12 Page 711 Item 20. - 12 - Bio on Mrs. Jane Kraxberger, Coloradoan, August 6, 1936, p3. Page 712 Item 20. -13 - Advertisement for M-K Coal and Oil, Coloradoan, September 27, 1936 Page 713 Item 20. -14 - Advertisement, Coloradoan, August 20, 1937, p3. Permits issued, including remodel of 825 N. College, Coloradoan, April 10, 1960, p2. Page 714 Item 20. 825 N College Ave 5LR12231 COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Architectural Inventory Form Page 1 of 6 Official Eligibility Determination OAHP1403 (OAHP use only) Rev. 9/98 Date ___________ Initials _________ ___ Determined Eligible – National Register ___ Determined Not Eligible – National Register ___ Determined Eligible – State Register ___ Determine Not Eligible – State Register ___ Need Data ___ Contributes to eligible National Register District ___ Noncontributing to eligible National Register District I. IDENTIFICATION 1. Resource number: 5LR12231 Parcel number(s): 97024-24-011 2. Temporary resource number: N/A Schedule P8277648 3. County: Larimer 4. City: Fort Collins 5. Historic Building Name: North College Standard Service Station 6. Current Building Name: Roy’s Quick Lube 7. Building Address: 825 N College Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80524 8. Owner Name and Address: GARA, LLC, P.O. BOX 270114, Fort Collins, CO 80527 44. National Register eligibility field assessment: Eligible under Criteria A and C Local landmark eligibility field assessment: N/A Aug. 2009 Page 715 Item 20. 825 N College Ave, Fort Collins, CO 5LR12231 Architectural Inventory Form Page 2 of 6 II. GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 9. P.M.: 6th Township: 7N Range: 69W SE ¼ of NE ¼ of SE ¼ of SE ¼ Section 2 10. UTM reference (Datum: NAD24) Zone: 13 11. USGS quad name: Fort Collins Year: 1960, Rev 1984 Map scale: 7.5' 12. Lot(s): N/A Addition: N/A Year of addition: N/A 13. Boundary description and justification: Legal Boundary. Metes and bounds: Describe: N/A III. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION 14. Building plan (footprint, shape): According to the Larimer County Assessor, the site consists of three buildings: (A): Service Garage/Roy’s Quick Lube, (B): Converted House and (C): Storage Garage. During the last half of the 20th century, the County recognized the Service Garage (825 N. College Avenue) and the Converted House as separate addresses (829 N. College Avenue) with the Storage Garage serving as a out-building for the house. In 2002, the current owner – GARA LLC – purchased all three structures. The County currently gives the 825 address for all three properties. (A): Rectangular, (B): Irregular, and (C): Rectangular. 15. Dimensions in feet: (A): 30’ x 48’; (B): 31’ x 56’, and (C): 24’ x 56’ 16. Number of stories: (A): Single, (B): Two, and (C): Single story. 17. Primary external wall material(s): (A): Metal, (B): Horizontal Wood Siding and (C): Concrete/Horizontal Wood Siding. 18. Roof configuration: (A): Flat, (B and C): Gabled. 19. Primary external roof material: (A): Metal, (B) Composition Shingle, (C): Asphalt Shingle and Metal. Other roof materials: N/A 20. Special features: Approximately 20 feet east of the Building A, the site has kept two concrete islands where the original gas pumps stood. The site has also retained the original station’s sign. The sign stands approximately 12 feet above the ground. 21. General architectural description: Building A: The one-story, rectangular oblong box gas station is relatively unchanged since its construction in 1950. The eastern elevation features two bays near the elevation’s northeast corner and the elevation’s approximate center. A clear glass door located approximately five feet from approximate center is the main entry into the building from North College Avenue. A rectangular picture window is located to the south of the door and extends to the southeastern corner. There is another rectangular picture window of similar dimensions at the building’s southeastern corner on the southern elevation. Approximately five feet from that window is a metal door with a glass pane above the doorknob. The western elevation features three multi-paned fenestrations. Metal bars cover these openings. The foundation is concrete. 22. Architectural style: (A): Gas Station, (B): Late 19th and Early 20th Century Revivals, and (C): No Style 493493 mE 4494261 mN Page 716 Item 20. 825 N College Ave, Fort Collins, CO 5LR12231 Architectural Inventory Form Page 3 of 6 Building type: (A): Oblong Box, (B): Irregular, and (C): Rectangular. 23. Landscape or special setting features: The owner planted tall grass in the abandoned concrete gas pump islands to the east of the gas station. The land separating the Building B and C is hard-packed dirt. Deciduous trees grow along the northern edge of Building B. 24. Associated buildings, features or objects: 1: January 2010 Residence (Building B) This two story, irregular-shaped house features a front-gable roof with composition shingles. In the 1930s, this structure was a gas station owned by Michael Kraxberger. City directories first indicate the building was unoccupied in 1970. The house’s western and eastern elevations feature additions. The eastern elevation features a composite door entry near the building’s northeast corner. This addition displays a metal roof similar in design to the roof covering the extension on Building C. The original building features wood frame, multi-pane windows on each elevation. Both elevations’ display metal frame 1/1 windows. The western elevation entry is a composite door/metal screen door combination and faces south. Gram Armstrong of Fort Collins stated in February 2010 that he owns this property as a rental. 2: January 2010 Former residence and garage (Building C) The Larimer County Assessor gives a date of 1950 for this building, but interviews with previous owners indicate that the building was standing as early as 1943. The exterior of the original structure is stucco. The eastern and northern elevations feature a pair of multi-pane windows. A metal roof has replaced the original clipped-hip covering. There is no information of the original roofing material or when the original material was replaced. Attached to the original structure’s western elevation is a three-bay garage. This addition features a gable roof and a horizontal wood siding exterior. There is no date for the construction of this addition. IV. ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY 25. Date of construction: Estimate: Actual: (A): 1950 (B): 1922 (C): 1950 Source of information: Larimer County, Colorado, Assessor Property Information, Real Estate Property Records Database; City directories and Assessor Cards at the Fort Collins Local History Center, Fort Collins, CO. 26. Architect: Unknown Source of information: N/A Page 717 Item 20. 825 N College Ave, Fort Collins, CO 5LR12231 Architectural Inventory Form Page 4 of 6 27.Builder:Unknown Source of information: N/A 28.Original owner:(A): Standard Oil Company, (B): Unknown and (C): Unknown. Source of information: 1922-1950 City Directory for Fort Collins, Ft. Collins Local History Center 29.Construction history: Larimer County Assessor’s records state this service station was completed in 1950. Building B was constructed in 1922 with Building C completed in 1950. From the 1920s to the 1950s, Building B (829 North College Avenue) was the offices of the M-K Coal and Oil Company. By 1948, the structure was converted to a private residence. By the 1990s, the County Assessor listed all three structures at the 825 North College Avenue address. Both Buildings B and C have undergone extensive alterations and additions, but there appears to have been no alternations to the exterior of Building A (Roy’s Quick Lube). It is likely that at some point after 1980, the then current owner removed the gas pumps. The original Standard Oil sign on the northern most island appears to have been cut down to a smaller height. 30.Original location: Moved: Date of move(s): V.HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS 31.Original use(s):(A and B): Commerce/Trade/Gas Station and (C): Garage 32.Intermediate use(s):(A): Commerce/Trade/Gas Station, (B): Domestic-Residence and (C): Garage 33.Current use(s):(A): Commerce/Trade/Specialty Store, (B): Domestic-Residence and (C): Garage 34.Site type(s):Commercial Style/Automobile 35.Historical background: The property at 825 North College opened for business as a Standard Oil station in 1950. By 1956, the name had changed to reflect the station’s location – North College Standard Service. By 1970, the station was vacant, but returned as the North College Service Station in 1972 under the ownership of Robert W. Walters. By 1980, Standard no longer franchised at this location as the Professional Car Care Center occupied this address. Mr. Walters sold the property to the GARA group in May 2002 and GARA remains the current owners. This area along North College Avenue and U.S. 287 saw a growth of auto related businesses at the turn of the twentieth century. In the 1930s, the city limits were extended from the 300 block to the 900 block with a number of auto businesses and early auto or motor courts along North College Avenue. The Colorado Department of Highways built the concrete, I-beam structure in 1930. The Department upgraded and widened North College in 1955. 5LR12231 reflects the post-war growth along North College Avenue related to greater numbers of automobile owners and tourists. Restaurants, motor lodges, auto businesses, and oil distributers opened. The Avenue appeared robust until the 1960s, when Fort Collins experienced another wave of growth south of downtown. North College’s major auto sales centers moved south with the suburban growth. The old sales centers became used car sales center and mobile home sales. Today the area around 825 North College is in a state of decline punctuated with vacant businesses and small business operators. 36.Sources of information: City Directories (1938-2005), Atlases and Assessor Cards of Fort Collins available at the Ft. Collins Local History Center; Larimer County Assessor Property Information available online; “North College Avenue Historical Research,” by Carol Tunner for the Fort Collins Planning Department, December 1993; “The History of Larimer County, Colorado,” Andrew Morris, editor (Fort Collins: Curtis Media Corp., 1985) and interview with Gram Armstrong, owner of 825 North College, February 2, 2010. VI.SIGNIFICANCE 37. Local landmark designation:Yes No  Date of designation: Page 718 Item 20. 825 N College Ave, Fort Collins, CO 5LR12231 Architectural Inventory Form Page 5 of 6 Designating authority: 38. Applicable National Register criteria:  A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history; B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;  C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguished entity whose components may lack individual distinction; D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual). Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria. 39. Area(s) of significance: Transportation/Road-Related 40. Period of significance: 1950-2010 41. Level of significance: National: State:  Local:  42. Statement of significance: This oblong-box gas stations shows no alternations or wear for a commercial structure 60 years old. It represents an era when the automobile directed the economic development of the northern neighborhoods surrounding downtown Fort Collins. This gas station over its existence has retained an association with automobile-related commerce. This structure is eligible to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A for its role in the mid-20th century car culture that developed along North College Avenue in Fort Collins and under Criterion C as an excellent example of an oblong-box gas station. The reconverted house (Building B) has an association with the local oil and gas industry and also contributes to the overall historic significance of this property. Building C has been a garage during its existence. The structure has undergone alterations (notably metal replacing wood shingles) that detract from its physical integrity. 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: There appears to have been no alterations to the physical integrity of the gas station. An eight-foot high wooden fence extending behind the gas station has been added within the past 30 years, but the building conveys enough setting, feeling and historic association for eligibility to the National Register. Previous owners built additions on to Buildings B and C. These structures have both lost their original setting, feeling and historic integrity. VII. NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT 44. National Register eligibility field assessment: Eligible under Criteria A and C. Local landmark eligibility field assessment: Eligible 45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes No  Discuss: There is no evidence that this resource is located in a potential historic district. The North College Avenue corridor has lost many of the early-to-mid century buildings has been impacted by razing of early commercial buildings and modern development. If there is National Register district potential, is this building: Contributing  Noncontributing N/A: 46. If the building is in existing National Register district, is it: Contributing Noncontributing N/A:  RECORDING INFORMATION 47. Photograph number(s): Digital DSCO.4933; DSCO.4904; DSCO4912- DSCO4914; DSCO4918; DSCO CDs filed at: City of Fort Collins Page 719 Item 20. 825 N College Ave, Fort Collins, CO 5LR12231 Architectural Inventory Form Page 6 of 6 4920 and Electronic Images 138, 202, 204-205. 48. Report title: North College Avenue Streetscape Improvements, Project CHS#55514/CDOT AQC M455-079 49. Date(s): 1/07/10 50. Recorder(s): Robert Autobee 51. Organization: Colorado Department of Transportation-Region 4 970.350-2204 Page 720 Item 20. 825 N College Ave, Fort Collins, CO 5LR12231 Architectural Inventory Form Page 7 of 6 Page 721 Item 20. 825 North College Avenue North College Avenue Streetscape Improvements, Project CHS#55514/CDOT AQC M455-079 Site No. 5LR12232 6th P.M., T7N, R69W, SE ¼ of NE ¼ of SE ¼ of SE ¼ of Section 2 Fort Collins (1960, rev. 1984), 7.5’ USGS topo map Larimer County UTM reference A. Zone 1 3; 4 9 3 4 9 3 mE 4 4 9 4 2 6 1 mN 5LR12232 Page 722 Item 20. Resource No. 5LR12231 Property Name/Address: 825 North College Avenue N N NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE Roy’s Quick Lube 825 North College Avenue/Building A Building B (formerly 829 North College Avenue Alpine Street Building C/Storage Garage Fence Page 723 Item 20. House Front YardAttachment 2 - Photos presented by owner at HPCPage 724 Item 20. House, north Page 725 Item 20. House, back door Page 726 Item 20. House & Apartment (SW corner) Page 727 Item 20. Apartment Page 728 Item 20. Apartment - 2 Page 729 Item 20. Both units, north side Page 730 Item 20. Alley view Page 731 Item 20. Garage Page 732 Item 20. Garage - 2 Page 733 Item 20. Garage - 3 Page 734 Item 20. Garage & apartment Page 735 Item 20. Rear of Service Station Page 736 Item 20. Page 737 Item 20. Verbatim Transcript Historic Preservation Commission Meeting October 19, 2022 Page 738 Item 20. 1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION CITY OF FORT COLLINS Held OCTOBER 19, 2022 300 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado In the Matter of: 825 NORTH COLLEGE – APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY Meeting Time: 5:30 PM, October 19, 2022 Board Members Present: Staff Members Present: Kurt Knierim, Chair Claire Havelda Jim Rose, Vice Chair Jim Bertolini Walter Dunn Maren Bzdek Anne Nelsen Yani Jones Meg Dunn Melissa Matsunaka Eric Guenther Margo Carlock Jenna Edwards Bonnie Gibson Page 739 Item 20. 2 CHAIR KURT KNIERIM: That takes us to item number six, 825 North College. This is an 1 appeal of a determination of eligibility. And we will begin with public comment…no? 2 MS. CLAIRE HAVELDA: I’m sorry, Mr. Chair…it’s not that you are incorrect; we have a 3 procedural matter to clear up before we even get started. 4 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you. 5 MS. HAVELDA: Is Mr…the appellant, Mr. Armstrong here? Mr. Armstrong, would you mind 6 coming down to the podium; I need to ask you a question on the record. Mr. Armstrong, the City made a 7 mistake in part of its procedure, and I want to be very transparent about that and give you an option of 8 what you can do this evening. So, under our City Municipal Code 14-23, we have requirements of what 9 we have to do before this matter is brought before the Commission. The City met all of those 10 requirements under 14-23(B)(1) and (B)(3); where we made a mistake was not publishing notice of this 11 hearing in a newspaper of regional circulation. So, you have two options, you can tell us, I want to put 12 this matter on hold and come back at the next Commission meeting, and City, you need to go publish that, 13 or you can say, I’d like to proceed with this matter as scheduled today and I waive any objection to the 14 City missing that procedural item. It’s completely up to you. 15 MR. GREM ARMSTRONG: We’ll proceed. 16 MS. HAVELDA: So, you understand you’re waiving any…you will not be allowed to argue later 17 that this hearing was unfair because it wasn’t published… 18 MR. ARMSTRONG: Correct. 19 MS. HAVELDA: Thank you. 20 MR. ARMSTRONG: My name is Grem Armstrong, and… 21 MS. HAVELDA: I’m so sorry, I totally made this an odd procedural matter…I’m going to let the 22 Chair take it back over and then he will tell you when it’s time to talk, but I wanted to make sure we 23 cleared that up before we even got started. Thank you, I appreciate it. 24 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you. Alright, that takes us to 825 North College and this appeal of the 25 determination for eligibility, and we will begin with any public comment on this. Seeing none, we will 26 move on to a staff presentation. 27 MR. JIM BERTOLINI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic 28 Preservation Planner. This is an appeal of a staff finding determining that the property at 825 North 29 College was eligible under the City’s landmark criteria and qualified as an historic resource for 30 development review. Just to provide a little bit of grounding in location, this is the property here fronting 31 on the west side of College Avenue; it’s on the southwest corner of Alpine and College, just north of the 32 Poudre River and Lake Canal. This is a little bit closer of a…kind of a site plan for the property showing 33 three distinct resources. One is a service station, shown here, kind of on the southeast corner of the 34 property. Along the north end is a residence, and then near the southwest corner is a garage that’s 35 considered accessory to this service station. Then shown in white is an approximation of the parcel 36 boundary for this property. The role of the Historic Preservation Commission here…this is a de novo 37 hearing, so you are providing a new decision regarding whether this property qualifies under the City’s 38 landmark criteria. Your role is to consider evidence regarding significance and integrity of the buildings 39 addressed at 825 North College Avenue. The standards referenced in that are in Municipal Code 14, 40 Article 2. And then your task is to provide a determination of eligibility, whether or not this property 41 Page 740 Item 20. 3 qualifies as an historic resource. The purpose for this is development review; there is a development 1 proposal for this property which required determination of whether it qualified as an historic resource or 2 not. Your decision tonight will be subject to the right of appeal to City Council. 3 Just a little bit about the review timeline here…there’s three major steps so, as is common when 4 development review…what kicked off the historic survey of this property was the receipt of a 5 development proposal. This was a conceptual review received by the City with the review completed on 6 August 18th. At that time, preservation staff noted that we did not have an updated historic survey for this 7 property, and completed that survey. That survey was ordered on behalf of the developer who is not the 8 same as the property owner who is the appellant this evening. The survey findings were issued to the 9 developer and the property owner on September 7th, finding that the property was eligible, and I’ll go over 10 the standards that staff believed it was eligible under a little bit later in the presentation. And then within 11 the two-week period allowed for appeals, the property owner, Mr. Armstrong, appealed that finding, 12 bringing you to tonight's hearing. 13 And just a reminder on process, since this is initiated in the Land Use Code, specifically 3.4.7 14 which covers the preservation of historic resources on development sites, but in determining eligibility, 15 we use the same measurement as we would for a landmark nomination, those standards for eligibility and 16 historic integrity that are outlined in Municipal Code 14, Article 2. Based on your decision this evening, 17 if you find that the property is eligible, then we move back into 3.4.7 and work with the development 18 applicant on preserving any historic resources identified tonight as part of that, or potentially a 19 modification of standards. And if you find that the property is not eligible, then that concludes the 20 process and the development can proceed. 21 So, just as a reminder on eligibility as an historic resource, this is a two-step process and a linear 22 process. It starts with historic significance under the four standards that I have outlined on the left side of 23 this slide. And then historic integrity under seven aspects that specifically relate to the reasons the 24 property is found important. So, this is just a summary of why staff considered the property eligible 25 under three separate standards in Article 2, those standards being one for events and trends, and this 26 pertains to the service station and garage and their historic significance, standard two for persons and 27 groups, and that deals with both Jane and Letha Kraxberger and is…pertains specifically to the residence 28 on the property only, and then standard three for architecture, and that specifically relates to the service 29 station on the front of the property. So, I know there were some questions in the work session about 30 which standards apply to which resources, and so that hopefully clarifies since there is some complexity 31 there. And I’ll go through each individual standard. 32 So, specific to events and trends, staff found the property significant as an early and longstanding 33 business on North College Avenue, initially established about 1925 by the Kraxberger family, and then 34 carries through to 1969, that post-dates the Kraxberger period of operation, but corresponds to the general 35 period when North College had kind of been fully built out, during the mid-20th century. This pertains to 36 the service station which was…a service station was originally built in 1925, that was later demolished. 37 The building that’s there now was first constructed in 1937 but heavily remodeled in 1960, and so the 38 picture you’ll see here was…relates to the 1960 appearance of the building and includes the garage as an 39 accessory structure. And one thing that the Commission would…that staff suggests the Commission 40 consider here is just the evolution of the building in relation to the concept of historic integrity and how 41 well it is or is not reflecting that commercial development story. 42 The second standard that staff found was under persons and groups, and this specifically relates to 43 two separate spouses of Mike Kraxberger. So the service station was operated by Mike Kraxberger as M 44 Page 741 Item 20. 4 and K Colon Oil and under various company names under the M and K moniker. At two separate times, 1 he had spouses that made what staff found to be significant contributions to local history. Letha 2 Kraxberger, or I should say, Jane Kraxberger, as first wife of Mike, as a significant contributor to local art 3 and fashion in the early 20th century, and then Letha Kraxberger, in particular, her philanthropic 4 contribution, specifically as a local, state, and national leader in the American War Mothers organization, 5 which is a veteran’s welfare organization. This significance, staff would recommend this applies only to 6 the residence, and the property owner did provide some additional information that he will present, and 7 based on that, staff does have some concern that the historic integrity may not be there for this standard. 8 And, lastly, standard three for architecture; this specifically pertains to the service station itself. 9 This was largely based on a 2010 historic survey that was completed by the Colorado Department of 10 Transportation under a review process they were required to go through for the National Historic 11 Preservation Act. That survey form determined that this service station was potentially eligible for the 12 National Register under architecture as an example…an early example of the oblong box type of gas 13 stations, which, in the late ‘50’s and early ‘60’s would have been fairly new. This became very standard 14 for service stations across the country. This significance would pertain to the service station only. In 15 terms of how this relates to an oblong box, what exactly is that? It is this modern style service station that 16 has become fairly ubiquitous. Minimalist design, fairly rectangular floorplan and elevation presenting to 17 the street, usually has a flat roof, it’s defined by having a corner office and usually two service bays. So 18 this became a fairly standard footprint and design, although styles, architectural styles, might vary, this 19 one not really having an architectural style. As is common with architectural significance, we do try to 20 compare things within a similar context, and so we have identified a similar service station constructed in 21 1959 just prior to the redevelopment of the 825 North College property. So, we consider the 1420 North 22 College a good comparison property. There are other oblong box service stations along the College 23 Avenue corridor, most of those postdate these two service stations. There was a question from the work 24 session about what the exterior material of the current service station is, and it is…it’s concrete block 25 building. The front and the two sides has metal paneling over top and then there’s stucco on the rear. 26 This is just a little bit of site history related to this property. Again, the first service station, which 27 is no longer present, shown here. This was built in approximately 1925 as the first M and K Colon Oil 28 service station. In about 1931, that’s when the residence that remains on the site was constructed…1933, 29 that accessory garage was built, just the east portion, this was expanded later in 1956. And in 1937, the 30 first version of the existing service station was built; that’s shown here in the upper right. As you can see, 31 this was styled as a mission revival style building with the single service bay on the north end. In 1960, it 32 was remodeled into what you see today, and this is a 1977 County Assessor photograph showing that 33 property similar to its current condition. 34 This is just showing some of the individuals that are associated with this. Mike Kraxberger in the 35 middle, this is showing the property in the 1930’s along with some of his staff, and then showing both 36 Jane Kraxberger here with one of the advertisements for her shop, which was on West Mountain Avenue, 37 and then an image of Letha Kraxberger shortly after she married Mike as his second spouse. 38 I did add in an arial photograph, so again, the photo here on the bottom right you’ve already seen; 39 this is the site photograph from a previous slide. Did provide a 1937 arial photograph here showing that 40 the residence was already present, the service station…this would have been just after the new service 41 station was constructed, and it appears that that earlier 1925 service station remained for some time. 42 When it was demolished, we’re not sure. And then also showing the eastern portion of that accessory 43 garage. 44 Page 742 Item 20. 5 I do have some responses to work session questions here. There was a question about standard 1 two evaluations pertaining to persons and groups and whether or not there is a direct association with the 2 house, and whether or not that’s important. And based on the findings that are in the historic survey form 3 in your packet, there is a loose connection between Jane Kraxberger’s operation of…kind of contributing 4 to local culture and fashion in the early 20th century, but most of that work was conducted outside the 5 house. The more direct connection with the house specifically is with Letha Kraxberger who did hold 6 some meetings for the American War Mothers in the house. Did want to clarify as well that our 7 interpretation typically of standard two for City landmark designation typically allows for designation of 8 the residence of a person who was important and did their important work elsewhere. We do frequently 9 allow for their private residence to qualify as well assuming it has historic integrity to the period when 10 that important person lived there. So, integrity is a critical component of that. 11 There was a question about the 2010 CDOT finding versus the current finding. The CDOT 12 finding was much more constrained…it considered the service station eligible under National Register 13 criterion C for architecture, did not consider the garage historic based on altered integrity, and then did 14 make mention that the historic…that the residence was a historic property, a contributing property to the 15 service station, although the reasons for that connection other than a general mention of the Kraxberger 16 family was not well established in the survey form, and so that was one of the things that staff revisted 17 when we issued our findings this year. Our finding was that all three resources were eligible under the 18 standards that we’ve already covered. 19 Again, provided some context already about the oblong box property type, which is recognized 20 by History Colorado as a property type in a roadside architecture. And again, clarified kind of the 21 different types of significance and which properties they relate to, at least in staff’s finding. Clarified the 22 exterior materials. And there was a question to provide some comparison on shingle-style architecture 23 since we typically do ask for that, and this is…the residence is considered a shingle-style. While 24 significance might be there, since I’m not aware of any other shingle-style residences in this part of north 25 Fort Collins, the integrity appears significantly disrupted, and I think that will be more clear with the 26 appellant’s presentation. So, staff would not recommend this as a significant property for that reason. 27 I do want to note for the record, we have not received any written public comments, but I did 28 receive a verbal public comment over the phone from a Mr. John Meya who is a resident of north Fort 29 Collins…he is opposed to the eligible finding. He did express some general concern about development 30 applications on the North College corridor and the timing of when these findings typically come to light 31 with a development application or when a property sale is pending. And also concerned about some 32 inconsistency with findings related to other service stations…specifically mentioned the property at 949 33 East Prospect, that’s the southwest corner of Lemay and Prospect. That did have an intensive survey 34 completed and was determined not eligible, and so demolition will be allowed as part of that development 35 application. 36 So, again, just a reminder that this is a de novo hearing…you’re providing a new decision to 37 replace the staff finding considering the evidence as it relates to the significance of the property or any 38 specific resources on the property, and then ensuring that they also have historic integrity to convey that 39 significance. And then your task is to provide a new determination of eligibility for this. That concludes 40 the staff presentation; I’ll be available for questions. With that, I believe Mr. Armstrong has a 41 presentation. I have slides from him that I will run for him while he’s at the podium. 42 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you, Jim, let’s move on to the appellant presentation. Thank you. 43 And do state your name if you would please, and sign in. 44 Page 743 Item 20. 6 MR. ARMSTRONG: My name is Grem Armstrong, this is my wife, Robin. Thank you. We 1 came before this Council [sic] in 2005 when the City was desperate to have anything done with North 2 College, and way before the King Soopers was built, and we built the Human Bean on North College, at 3 821 North College. This property is directly adjacent to the north. This property, while now I have a 4 little bit of push back about whether or not it can be demolished…the City and the State had no problems 5 pulling the tanks years ago and vacated Alpine Street, so Alpine Street is…which in one of his pictures is 6 gravel, it’s an eyesore, it’s a problem for the whole neighborhood. And this development that we are 7 proposing would pave that, that’s part of the development. So, we had a gentleman approach us that 8 wants to raze all the buildings, and this is the first that we heard about that we wouldn’t be able to do that. 9 I do have a few questions…when, so in 2010, Robert Autobee of CDOT determined that this 10 property was historic. What are his qualifications that allows CDOT to get involved with the City of Fort 11 Collins preservation? 12 MR. BERTOLINI: I’ll note I’m not specifically familiar with Mr. Autobee since I’m not working 13 for CDOT any more, but they do regularly employ historians that would have a Master’s or better in 14 history or related historic preservation field. The main reason that CDOT provided a historic survey form 15 was because there was federal funding being utilized for the redevelopment of the North College Avenue 16 highway, and as part of that, CDOT has responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act to 17 account for their effects on any historic resources, in this case…in that case defined as anything eligible 18 for the National Register of Historic Places, as part of their project…so that’s a responsibility that applies 19 to them and they typically provide a historic survey form to document those findings. Those are intended 20 to affect the decisions and project design that CDOT was creating for the highway. In our case, it was 21 available secondary literature that we used to develop our findings that are required under the City’s Land 22 Use Code, if that answers your question. 23 MR. ARMSTRONG: Okay, thank you. So, this first picture shows you the residence directly 24 north of the gas station in question. And, if you look at the very front of this…let me back up and say that 25 Jim asked me to take some pictures inside the fence because he wasn’t able to get anything that was 26 inside the fence of the property. This little tiny A-frame pitched roof addition in the front was most likely 27 the original property. Since then, there’s been three to four other additions added on to this…this is a 28 hodge-podge mess. I mean, we just had testimony from an architect that’s doing a great job on 29 Remington…he wasn’t here…this is a mess inside and it’s a mess outside. So, this little piece might have 30 been the first building that everybody is referring to…since then it’s been added on to here, and then if 31 you flip over to 829 to the house and apartment…well, this is another good picture of the front, but keep 32 going…pass that one too, pass that one…this is an addition, again, on the back of the house…completely 33 different siding, 1960’s asbestos siding. By the way, except for that little piece, all the rest of the house 34 has new windows. One of the inconsistencies in the gentleman that did the report in 2010 is that he said 35 that the…he was saying that the garage does not qualify because of the metal roof. And yet, back in 36 2010, everything that you see here had the same metal roof. The metal roof’s been on there for, I don’t 37 know, twenty, twenty-five years. So, the house doesn’t…is supposed to be considered historical with the 38 metal roof on it, but the garage has a metal roof and yet they say that the garage is not supposed to be 39 considered historical. So, we just need some direction. 40 We’re trying to raze this whole corner, pave Alpine, put a nice tenant in there that would be 41 paying sales tax to the City rather than a blighted area. Go ahead and flip through the photos Jim, and 42 we’ll let you get an idea of…keep going…of how this looks. It’s…we have a constant problem with 43 homeless here as you’ll probably see in the next picture, with the bikes sitting around, but we’re doing the 44 best we can with this…you can see the Human Bean in the background. This is basically just a project 45 Page 744 Item 20. 7 that we thought we were going to move forward with to help us with our retirement, and we were going to 1 come before you guys and propose that we do something else to beautify North College in addition to 2 what we already did back in 2005. As far as the house and that little apartment go, there’s no logic to the 3 inside floorplan. All the windows have been resized and replaced…you’ll be able to see, like there, if you 4 go back where you just were a couple Jim? Right there, you can see that the windows have been resized 5 and replaced. The stucco is something that wouldn’t have been prior to the 1970’s I don’t believe, the 6 metal roofs. There’s no clear indication on this building when it was built or what it was used for. 7 There’s some hypotheses, but there’s no clear indication, and therefore, I think that that disqualifies that 8 one by itself. But, the 829, the other house with all of the massive…you know, the crazy additions where 9 it’s just like a labyrinth when you want inside of it…it’s not…I wouldn’t call it historical in integrity 10 walking around through it even if I wanted to for some reason come before the panel and compel you to 11 make it historical. If I told you that…if I came up with something, it would be a lie. 12 The developer is willing to, and has talked about potentially putting in some marble stands or 13 some structure similar to like you see at Lake Tahoe where there’s a stand and then some photos…a photo 14 in marble and some history about who lived there and what happened…they did propose that, that was an 15 option that they’d be willing to do. But, with what they want to do on this property, they will not be able 16 to do it if any of these buildings stay intact. Initially, we were told that maybe just the front gas station 17 was going to be designated historical, and then later we were told, no, also the house. Even if it was just 18 the gas station, they spent a lot of money with their architect redrawing everything, trying to figure out 19 how to incorporate that initial original gas station into their development plan and they didn’t have 20 enough room to do it. So, our request is that we be allowed to move forward with our development and 21 that we can satisfy the City by honoring these people from the 1920’s and 1930’s in another way on the 22 property designating and touting what they have done. I mean, it talks a lot about the history of what H. 23 Michael did over time, and we’re sitting there at home looking at it going, well, we’ve done all this…the 24 Human Bean wasn’t the first thing we did for Fort Collins, and yet…and I don’t want my name on a 25 plaque, but I sure don’t think that my house should stand where I live just because I did all those tasks. 26 So, our request is that we’re able to move forward and do this development. 27 And, I might say…it’s hard for us, for somebody that’s about to retire to even be faced with this 28 because I’m looking at a house we own on South College, built in 1920, still has all the old antique lights 29 and everything on the inside of it, and nobody wants that to be historical because the City is taking that 30 whole corner from us, eminent domain, and expanding Trilby. So, when it’s that way, it’s okay if it’s not 31 historical. That house isn’t going to be historical because you guys have already, you know, Carrie 32 Allison is already trying to get the land from us…I mean, she will, she’s working on it. So, then it’s 33 okay. As long as you guys need it, no problem, but if we come to you with an idea and a proposal and a 34 developer comes forward with something that’s going to give you a tax base, then all of a sudden this crap 35 hole that I own…I mean it’s horrible…I don’t mean to, you know…you should see the foundation. I 36 don’t mean to knock it down, but it’s just, you know, it is what it is. It was built a long time ago, and it 37 was built in 1922, and then again in 1937, and then again in 1950-something, and nobody knows when 38 they put the back apartment on that has asbestos shingles on it, nobody even knows when that was built. 39 It was probably not…it was probably done under the radar, we don’t know. Nobody knows when it 40 became an apartment. And, we have no clear indication of when the garage came into existence or what 41 it was used for. So, our proposal is based on the fact that the history isn’t that clear…is that we be able to 42 move forward and do what we want to do. And, Mr. Sunday might…do you have anything to say for me? 43 Okay…professor of history from CSU…okay, alright, so that’s all I have. 44 Page 745 Item 20. 8 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you very much. Alright, that takes us to discussion, and if you have 1 questions for Jim or our appellant, let’s begin there with any clarifying questions. 2 MEMBER ERIC GUENTHER: Jim, just a clarifying question relative to the CDOT 3 determination in 2010. Was that completed by a commission or by an individual? 4 MR. BERTOLINI: Yes, that would have been completed by an individual that met the federal 5 standards for a preservation-related field. And I might add, those findings would have been concurred 6 with by similarly qualified professionals at the state Historic Preservation office…that’s a regular part of 7 those federal project reviews. 8 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you, Jim. Other questions before we get started with our discussion? 9 MEMBER ANNE NELSEN: I have one. You mentioned, Jim, in your presentation about 10 questioning the integrity of the home. Is that based on the photographs that the appellant showed us 11 tonight? Just a clearer picture of the house and its architectural progression? 12 MR. BERTOLINI: Yes, that’s correct. And I will also add that while arial photography and some 13 permit records allow us a little bit better picture of the service station itself, yes, the specific building 14 history of the house and garage is not well documented and so we’re making inferences as best we can 15 based on the records available. 16 MEMBER MEG DUNN: So, I have a question about the CDOT report again. So, they said that 17 the house and the service station could be nationally recognized? Is that correct? Or just the service 18 station? 19 MR. BERTOLINI: Correct. So, the CDOT finding from 2010 was that the service station and 20 residence were both potentially eligible for the National Register. I will note that the argument for 21 significance was much clearer for the service station, but was not well supported for the residence itself. 22 MEMBER M. DUNN: Okay, and then another question. I was just wondering about other 23 service stations like this that have been landmarked. So, I was hoping for something added to the report 24 today, but we didn’t get that. So, I just did a quick search…the ones I found are all on Route 66 which 25 makes a lot of sense because that fits with Route 66. But I think it would be helpful if we had…I don’t 26 know if maybe staff could find something, but if there’s some sense of here is an oblong box in such and 27 such a place…hopefully not on Route 66 because we need to have a better sense of that…that was 28 designated, especially if it was nationally, that really gives us a better sense of where the federal level of 29 looking at these properties is…what they’re thinking. I think just to have some examples like that. So, I 30 don’t know if it’s possible to find something like that right now, but… 31 MEMBER JIM ROSE: Mr. Chairman…Meg, there is an article published by History Colorado on 32 the oblong box as a service station, and it gives some very good information about their evolution in 33 terms of influence by the international style, the use of porcelain enamel panels, which this has some of 34 that on it. So, it isn’t all inclusive, but it’s a pretty good article, and it’s fairly contemporary, talking 35 specifically about service stations as the oblong box and the significance as an architectural element, so 36 you might want to look at that one. 37 MEMBER M. DUNN: I couldn’t tell…I did see that…I couldn’t tell if the examples they showed 38 are ones that have been landmarked because having Colorado say this is significant versus having the 39 Parks Service, or whoever figures out the national level, say it’s significant. I mean, if they’re saying, 40 here’s an example, it’s on the register, wow, now we really get…that’s the federal standard of this is what 41 Page 746 Item 20. 9 this oblong box is significant for, or something. I don’t know, just something that’s made it past that bar 1 is what I’m looking for. 2 MEMBER ROSE: But it would seem to me, the CDOT review is for Section 106, is that correct? 3 MR. BERTOLINI: That’s correct. 4 MEMBER ROSE: That’s a fairly strict criteria, and it doesn’t just involve a single individual 5 putting forward their opinion, because it has to pass muster with others. And so, I think the statement that 6 it is eligible, that it meets the criteria of the National Historic Preservation Act sets the bar pretty high. 7 And so…and I agree with you, I don’t know where we are with other landmarked structures that might 8 serve as some kind of indicator for us in this particular one, but my particular interest is with the oblong 9 box service station because I think that’s the one that really stands out to me. The others are another 10 debate, but I think the mere fact that in 2010, that met criteria…criterion C for the National Historic 11 Preservation Act, I think says a lot about the importance of that as a building. The rest are more 12 speculative. 13 MEMBER GUENTHER: I have two questions, one to follow-up on Jim’s comment…Jim 14 Bertolini, why are we required to do a package deal here? Why can’t we look at each of these structures 15 individually? 16 MR. BERTOLINI: To clarify, you can. You’re…as part of a de novo hearing, you are providing 17 a new finding, and if you find that some but not all, or none, or the resources qualify, that’s part of your 18 potential outcome. 19 MEMBER GUENTHER: Okay, thank you. And Mr. Armstrong, a question for you…did you 20 own this property, and it’s probably in the material here, but did you own the property in 2010? 21 MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes. 22 MEMBER GUENTHER: And did you an opportunity to meet with CDOT and to share your 23 point of view at that time? 24 MR. ARMSTRONG: We knew nothing about this designation until in July or August when we 25 finished with the conceptual review for the developer. Nothing…nobody every told me that this 26 was…had…yeah. 27 MEMBER GUENTHER: So a recommendation is made unilaterally by one person from CDOT, 28 approved by other people from CDOT, and the owner of the property was not aware of that determination 29 and never had an opportunity to comment on that finding. 30 MR. ARMSTRONG: Correct, that is correct. I knew nothing about it. And if I could just say, 31 Jim, the oblong box is not porcelain or enamel in this case, it’s metal…in this case, just so you know. 32 You were talking about that, they’re all porcelain or enamel, and this one is neither. 33 MEMBER ROSE: It’s just painted metal? 34 MR. ARMSTRONG: Correct. 35 MEMBER ROSE: Okay. The reason I bring that up is that’s part of the article that I mentioned to 36 you, Meg. And that was in the 1960’s and a very new innovation for particularly franchise service 37 stations. And that material was developed because it resists acid and a lot of the caustic things that are 38 used in the consequence of service stations. So, whether or not this has one, it has that appearance, but I 39 Page 747 Item 20. 10 think more importantly, the overall configuration of it gives you the idea that this is very much true to its 1 period of construction, which would have been when these sorts of facilities were franchised by major oil 2 companies. 3 MEMBER M. DUNN: So, I just want to clarify something Eric said. So, the CDOT report was 4 written by a preservation historian who was trained in that who works for CDOT; he’s not a 5 transportation person, he’s a historian person but he works for CDOT. And then when it was looked over 6 by other people, they weren’t other CDOT people, they were with History Colorado, correct? Our local 7 preservation…our state preservation office. 8 MR. BERTOLINI: That’s correct. Under the National Historic Preservation Act, that’s the 9 typical process, is that a qualified historian working for the agency in question, CDOT in this case, 10 completes the survey form…sometimes they contract that out to a third-party historian. And then it has to 11 be concurred with…the finding has to be concurred with by the state historic preservation office which 12 also employs qualified historians. 13 MEMBER M. DUNN: So, it’s the folks that oversee historic preservation statewide who signed 14 off on the document? 15 MEMBER GUENTHER: And that’s still the process that’s in place today? 16 MR. BERTOLINI: Specifically for what are called federal undertakings…those are projects that 17 are using federal funding, federal permits, or are direct actions by federal agencies. That is the process 18 for those agencies…being responsible for historic resources in their project areas. So, the responsibility is 19 not on any private owners unless they are using those federal funds or federal permits; the responsibility 20 for project changes is on the agency doing the project, or funding or permitting the project. 21 MEMBER GUENTHER: So there’s not even a provision to notify the property owner that there’s 22 been a designation or determination made relative to that property that could have some future effect on 23 the value or the marketability of that…project? 24 MR. BERTOLINI: So, specifically for the National Register, I’m not familiar with what CDOT’s 25 internal policies are for notifying the public. I know they have kind of a project accountability like all 26 public agencies, but I can’t speak to their specific policies. What I can say is that the National Register is 27 an honorary list…its regulatory role is imposed on federal agencies, their actions to either permit or fund 28 projects or do projects themselves. We use that information to support our Land Use Code, but we are 29 not beholden to the findings of CDOT. In effect, the 2010 CDOT finding we used as kind of a secondary 30 piece of literature to support the process we require in our City Code and based on our City standards. 31 Does that answer your question? 32 MEMBER GUENTHER: It does, although I find the CDOT process to be extraordinarily flawed, 33 frankly, if at a minimum, the property owner doesn’t have an opportunity, or isn’t at a minimum informed 34 that there’s some action being taken that affects their property. 35 MEMBER JENNA EDWARDS: Jim, can you clarify the process a little bit? So, you used the 36 CDOT report as kind of auxiliary material, right? You still…the staff still conducted a review of the sites 37 and gave your own finding, right? 38 MR. BERTOLINI: That’s correct. 39 MEMBER EDWARDS: Okay, thank you. 40 Page 748 Item 20. 11 MEMBER BONNIE EDWARDS: Jim, quick question. Can you clarify for everybody here the 1 difference between eligible, recommended eligible, and listed? 2 MR. BERTOLINI: Certainly. For the development review process, a property that is found 3 eligible is…it’s still offered some protection under the Land Use Code. The responsibility of the 4 developer is to incorporate eligible resources into their project, so it’s really project driven what the 5 outcome is. However, one of the potential outcomes for eligible resources is still demolition if the 6 developer makes a successful request for a modification of standards…that’s typically something that will 7 still come through this Preservation Commission to approve. That’s an option that’s not available for 8 designated City landmarks, those are protected, and while we do have a variance process for certain 9 alterations, demolition is typically not on the list of things that can be approved for designated City 10 landmarks. So, that’s really the main difference between the development review code and 3.4.7 and the 11 protections offered for designated resources is that demolition is still possible for landmark eligible 12 resources. 13 MEMBER MARGO CARLOCK: Jim, one quick point of clarification? I believe you said 14 that…I’m restating this…but I believe you said that the CDOT report is a resource but we are not bound 15 by it. 16 MR. BERTOLINI: That’s correct. 17 MEMBER M. DUNN: And I just want to point out for the record…for all of these projects, we 18 don’t like these kinds of surprises any more than property owners do, and the best way to avoid these kind 19 of surprises is for City Council to give us a budget item that would help us to get these surveys done in 20 advance so that property owners are notified well before they even consider selling their property to 21 anyone else, and then everyone knows from the get go, and all of that information would be on our 22 website online so developers and prospective buyers would be able to look up that information in advance 23 and know exactly what to expect for the property they are buying. But, because we don’t have that 24 funding, we have to rely on this ad hoc system where the development request is what triggers the review, 25 and that’s why there are surprises. So, there is a way to stop having surprises, but it’s going to take 26 funding. And until we get enough funding and enough staff to get out there, especially with the lack of 27 surveys we’ve been doing for so long, we are behind. We need to just catch up and then keep working on 28 these new properties coming online as possibly in that historic era. And then we won’t have these 29 surprises anymore; that’s the key to change this situation. So, in the meantime, we’re stuck with this, you 30 know, jack-in-the-box pop up and surprise you scenario where we have to deal with things as they come 31 up, which is unfortunate. It’s no fun for anyone. 32 MEMBER NELSEN: I have a potential red herring clarification question, so I apologize. But, 33 Jim Rose, you mentioned Section 106 and I am not familiar with what Section 106 is, in case that comes 34 up later in the conversation, could we have that clarified now? 35 MR. BERTOLINI: Certainly. So that’s…while technically the citation is outdated since there’s 36 been a renumbering in the U.S. Code. Section 106 refers to Section 106 of the National Historic 37 Preservation Act, and that requires federal agencies to account for their effects on historic resources for 38 their undertakings. That’s a fairly broad definition, including anything they fund, permit, or do 39 themselves on their land, or as a direct action, but does require a fairly comprehensive cultural resource 40 review for projects that have a federal connection of some kind, and most CDOT projects involve some 41 degree of federal funding from the Federal Highway Administration. 42 Page 749 Item 20. 12 MEMBER ROSE: And just one thing I might add, if that determination of the eligibility of those 1 projects and being register-eligible had then affected the process of the Federal Highway Administration 2 finding any work on North College that would have affected those properties, that would have required 3 mitigation because those being eligible, and impact on those eligible properties would have to be 4 mitigated. So that means they would have had to develop means by which somehow they could satisfy 5 the letter of the law in the Historic Preservation Act to do their best to preserve the property. Now 6 sometimes what that would mean is it would allow the project to continue, and if let’s say they were 7 going to widen North College to six lanes, and all that property was going to be in the way, the mitigation 8 might be…documentation and recording of all the structures simply to preserve the historic existence of 9 those structures, but they wouldn’t have been saved. As it turns out, I think, there wasn’t any mitigation 10 necessary because there wasn’t any effect, and so, in that case then, there’s no negative effect. And as a 11 consequence then, they still remain eligible, but there isn’t any requirement for CDOT to do anything 12 more. 13 MEMBER NELSEN: And then also…thank you both…thank you to the two Jim’s. there’s also a 14 article, or excuse me, an article that was mentioned and referenced from History Colorado…I’ve also 15 looked at that. Jim, that was linked in your presentation, I think? Not in our packet, but in tonight’s 16 presentation. So, just so that we’re all on the same page about the information that we have, would you 17 mind pulling that up again? Maybe those of us with laptops or iPads could look at it, or…I don’t know 18 how we handle this sort of information, which I think is potentially useful to our conversation, but 19 everyone may not have had the chance to review. 20 MR. BERTOLINI: Certainly, the short answer I’ll give you is that staff did include what we 21 considered relevant material from that article in the survey form that we issued on September 7th. As far 22 as introducing the full article itself into the record, I’ll have to refer to the City Attorney as to whether we 23 can do that since this is an appeal. 24 MS. HAVELDA: I love when you promote me to City Attorney. So, just a couple clarifying 25 questions…the link to the article was in the staff report which was part of the packet that was published, 26 correct? 27 MR. BERTOLINI: No, that was a later addition to the staff presentation. It’s not in the published 28 packet that’s posted online. 29 MS. HAVELDA: Then I think the best thing to do, if you would like to look at that, would be to 30 adjourn this to the next hearing time so that our applicant has time to review that and provide any rebuttal 31 that they would like to, or they can waive that, or you all can simply not rely on it beyond what 32 Commission member Rose, or Nelsen, or our staff, have told you about so far. 33 MR. ARMSTRONG: I will not agree to waive that. It wasn’t in the packet; I haven’t seen it 34 either. It should be excluded. 35 MS. HAVELDA: So, the portions of it that were in the packet and referenced in the staff report, 36 just to be clear, are fair for you to rely upon. The remainder I would ask that you not consider in your 37 decision-making process. 38 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you for the clarification. Alright, let’s get on then to the three issues 39 that we need to chat about and make determination of significance and integrity. The first for the station 40 only is for events and trends, and I’d like to hear some discussions around that. Do we have…does this 41 Page 750 Item 20. 13 fit events and trends for 3.4.7? And I would remind everyone that 3.4.7 covers design, materials, 1 workmanship, location, setting, feeling, and association. 2 MEMBER GUENTHER: Mr. Chairman, can you clarify, are we going to address those issues for 3 each individual structure, or are we…? 4 CHAIR KNIERIM: So this one, as Jim talked about, was for the station only for events and 5 trends. The persons and groups, number two, is for the residence only, and then number three, the 6 architecture, is for the station only, is the way I understand it. Is that correct? 7 MEMBER M. DUNN: I think events was the service station and the garage. 8 CHAIR KNIERIM: And the garage, thank you. I amend that. 9 MEMBER M. DUNN: I think I struggle more with the significance of the garage towards events. 10 I think the service station makes a lot more sense…it’s a…I mean, it has a name, the style has a name, 11 whereas the storage, used to be a house maybe, thing in the back doesn’t…it’s kind of a vernacular 12 hodgepodge storage building style. I just don’t know that it fits the level of significance for events. 13 MEMBER GUENTHER: I agree. 14 MEMBER M. DUNN: And I suppose, in terms of events, the event is…it’s our community 15 moving across the river, which is kind of a big deal because across the river is kind of like across the 16 tracks in some sense, and yet here’s a business moving that way. So, that’s significant, and I totally get 17 that the service station fits into that because that’s the actual center of commerce that we’re talking about. 18 Storage in the back doesn’t seem to fit into that, you know…I don’t know, it just doesn’t seem to rise to a 19 level of significance to me in terms of moving north, or change in automobile use, or any of that…it’s 20 storage. Or, I mean, unless it was a garage where they worked on cars, but it doesn’t…it’s got the three 21 bays, but it still doesn’t seem as significant as the service center to me. 22 CHAIR KNIERIM: I would agree with that. I mean looking at when…if we look at, like, the 23 historical trajectory of the 1920’s into the 1950’s with the rise of the automobile and the growth of the 24 city and that sort of thing…you know, by the time that we get to the 1950’s, we’re a whopping fourteen 25 thousand residents and all that, you know. I think that’s much more significant than the storage shed. 26 MEMBER M. DUNN: Well, it’s bigger than a shed, but… 27 CHAIR KNIERIM: So, let’s keep that in mind and keep moving forward. 28 MEMBER M. DUNN: Mr. Chair, I’d kind of like to hear what other folks think on that. Only a 29 couple of us spoke up. 30 MEMBER NELSEN: I was nodding my head, which doesn’t get recorded in the minutes, so I 31 apologize. I’m not sure that I have much to add. I was sort of frantically flipping through the packet one 32 more time to make sure that, Meg, you came up with sort of a guess about, oh, it might have been used for 33 this…the garage that is. But I don’t think we’ve seen evidence that shows that that’s the case in that 34 case…it doesn't seem like that building, meaning the garage slash, what are we calling it? The storage 35 shed…is significant for events or trends. 36 MEMBER EDWARDS: I agree. 37 CHAIR KNIERIM: Other Commissioners? Thoughts? 38 Page 751 Item 20. 14 MEMBER CARLOCK: Well, I’m not so sure that I agree with the events and trends, even on the 1 gas station, to be honest with you. But definitely the garage I think is just…it’s not something that…and 2 the CDOT report didn’t include it in the beginning so, I think that one’s an easy one to set aside. I’m 3 more concerned about the garage…the service station and the house, so I’ll wait, hold my comments until 4 we get to those. 5 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you. Let’s move on to number two… 6 MEMBER M. DUNN: Walter has something to say. 7 MEMBER WALTER DUNN: It’s not very important. I was just going to agree with what Margo 8 was saying. In my mind, the garage I’ve kind of just put aside as not significant in this kind of 9 discussion, so I would go with the service station in the events and trends as being more important. 10 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you. 11 MEMBER NELSEN: So, sorry to keep this going…Margo, you mentioned that you don’t think 12 the service station is significant for events and trends. Are we coming back to that? We are…okay, I 13 apologize for not following the… 14 CHAIR KNIERIM: Yes…no worries…my students can’t follow me either. 15 MEMBER NELSEN: I won’t comment on that…only as a reflection of my abilities, not of yours. 16 CHAIR KNIERIM: Alright, let’s…I’d like to get everything on the table and then we’ll make 17 some final decisions. For persons and groups, that’s the residence only as I understand it, and that refers 18 to the three people of significance in the residence. Let’s chat about that and then we’ll circle back 19 around to the architecture of the station and then look at this whole issue as a whole. 20 MEMBER GUENTHER: Mr. Chairman, I know we have some latitude when it comes to whether 21 or not events took place on site or in this specific home; however, I discount that a little bit in this 22 situation. I don’t feel that the events and trends were sufficiently established to warrant historic 23 designation, and part of that is due not only to the fact that the events didn’t occur on site, but that they 24 don’t necessarily represent the history of Fort Collins in my estimation. They may be important aspects 25 in fashion history, or World War II history, in a different context, but I don’t think that they 26 represent…what these two women, what they accomplished…don’t represent the history of Fort Collins. 27 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you. 28 MEMBER CARLOCK: I would also say that the house, the way it exists now, or shall we say 29 the…conglomeration of structures…I doubt if it has any resemblance to what the house looked like when 30 the event actually took place. It seems to me like the historical significance has been totally blown on that 31 structure. 32 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you. 33 MEMBER M. DUNN: Well, I want to start with the architecture of the house, even though we’re 34 not looking at that as significance, but I’m deeply concerned by the number of shingle houses we’re 35 losing in Fort Collins. We didn’t have many to begin with, and we’re losing them quickly. However, I 36 don’t think that this house has a level of significance for that even to be considered, and it wasn’t even 37 recommended. So, I just wanted to make that statement, that if this house is demolished, it’s yet one 38 more shingle house we’re losing, which I just find a little sad. And it’s a loss of our history. 39 Page 752 Item 20. 15 As far as for people, I have no problem with events happening elsewhere because, especially 1 when a woman goes home, she does a lot of her work there anyway. But, I don’t see that their…and I 2 believe what they did is a very important part of Fort Collins history in terms of women’s history overall, 3 I think all women’s contributions are an important part of our local history. I just don’t know that these 4 two women, in particular, did anything…I don’t know…I’m not convinced. I don’t feel like we’ve had a 5 solid enough argument presented to us that what these two women did was, I don’t know, in any way 6 really pivotal, or substantial enough to landmark this house. And that’s…there are some women’s history 7 stories for Fort Collins, even in terms of fashion and design, and…or I think of Liz Case when I just think 8 of…in terms of getting involved in social issues and community issues, and wow, that’s a perfect 9 example right there of a person who’s life made a really significant difference in our community, and you 10 know, if she did all her work sitting on her back dog house, I’d say let’s landmark that dog house because 11 she, I know right away, was a really, really critical, important part of our history. I’m not convinced of 12 that for these two women. Not to say that…I think it’s great that we had local merchants that were 13 women, and we had many of them, and this is some great examples of that, and that were really involved. 14 I just don’t know that they rise above the level of the average shop owner, I guess is what I’m saying. 15 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you. 16 MEMBER M. DUNN: Sorry about the rambles. 17 MEMBER NELSEN: No, thank you for putting into words what I’ve been feeling in my gut, to 18 be honest. I’m not sure that I could put it more clearly than you, but I also haven’t seen evidence, to be 19 honest, that these two individuals are so important in our local history that we should save the house that 20 they lived in. And I also share the trepidation about the integrity of the home. I’m not sure that it’s intact 21 enough to make it worth the effort. 22 MEMBER ROSE: It just seems to me that if we’re really just talking about significance, I think I 23 can give you a pass on that in terms of the importance of these individuals and whether or not their 24 association is vital, but I think it’s going to fail miserably in terms of integrity. And so, you know, it has 25 to meet both of those, and in order to satisfy the significance aspect, you know, we can debate that and 26 determine the relative importance of the individuals. I think the integrity aspect that we’ll discuss 27 subsequently I think is the place where I have the most concern. 28 CHAIR KNIERIM: Alright, yeah, let’s move on to that. I think we’ve talked a bit about the 29 integrity of the residence. Is there any more discussion around that? Really what we’re focusing on for 30 this one is the impact of the two women, and I would agree, I like the word, Meg, that you used: pivotal. 31 I don’t…you know, they did important things, but were they pivotal to the history of Fort Collins, and I 32 don’t know that it rises to that standard. 33 MEMBER CARLOCK: Mr. Chair, another consideration is that I suspect if we just…if that 34 building stood the way it is now, no one driving by is going to know anything about either of the Mrs. 35 Kraxberger’s, but the suggestion of putting up some kind of a plaque or to describe the importance that 36 they held, or the significance that they held, say that there was some significance…I think that that’s a 37 far…there’s going to be a whole heck of a lot more people in Fort Collins who are going to know who 38 those two ladies were from that than just driving by a dilapidated, cobbled together structure. 39 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you. 40 MEMBER ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I guess I would say, of the sort of seven aspects that we would 41 look at, the only one that I can say really, maybe, is there may be a couple location and setting. But I 42 Page 753 Item 20. 16 think to determine the design and how that might have originally appeared versus the…what Mr. 1 Armstrong showed us in terms of this obvious hodgepodge of ad hoc additions. I think it really calls into 2 question the change of materials, the workmanship, and the overall feeling. I don’t think the feeling is the 3 same now as it would have been when it was originally constructed as a residence. So, I think there’s any 4 number of these aspects that kind of fall short, and so that’s where I just don’t think it meets the integrity 5 component. 6 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you. Let’s move on and put the architecture of the station on the 7 table, and then we can begin making…narrowing some decisions and call for a motion. This is for 8 architecture, and again, we’re looking at significance and integrity of the station under the architecture, 9 specifically the oblong. 10 MEMBER CARLOCK: Mr. Chair, I have a comment. I think that if we were…let me move this 11 closer…I think if we were looking at the original 1937 structure, I’d have maybe a different though and 12 feeling about this, because to me, that’s a fairly unique style. And what they did in the ’60 was what 13 happened so much in the ‘60’s with urban renewal, where things with…that I would consider had historic 14 character were torn down or severely modified and redone into something that was, I guess, popular at the 15 time. But, this…the revision to the Aamco station, in order to get there, they had to severely modify and 16 change the original building. So, even if we consider the oblong box structure as a significant 17 architectural style, I don’t think this fits that because of the modifications. I think the building was so 18 revised and revamped in order to fit into that mold, that it is not an original example of that style of 19 architecture. 20 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you. 21 MEMBER M. DUNN: I would have to say I completely disagree with that. If we look at the 22 Northern Hotel, it’s landmarked because of it’s art deco features, which is a substantial modification from 23 the Victorian four-story it was before that, which was a modification from the Victorian three-story it was 24 before that, which was a substantial modification of the two-story, actually first it was a little triangle…it 25 was the big triangle, before that it was a little triangle, before that it was just a rectangular brick box, 26 before that it was a wooden hotel, before that it was in a totally different location, and yet it’s landmarked, 27 and it’s a beloved site. And so, the building changing over time means we’re not going to landmark it for 28 what it was in the beginning, but we would landmark it for what it ended up in the end. And that’s what 29 we’re looking at here is, it’s an oblong box now, and that’s…it was historically turned into that, so that’s 30 what we would be looking at. We’re not looking at what it was before that, although I think this would be 31 a less difficult discussion if it was that earlier version, because it was cute, and an oblong box is an oblong 32 box. So, I can’t say it’s the most beautiful form of architecture, but boy does it typify our thinking in 33 terms of architecture at that time, and we are still in that era. Just look at all the new boxes going up 34 everywhere. So, in that sense, I would say this fits to a T what the oblong box is. It’s got the little office 35 in the corner, it’s got the little garage doors on the opposite side, I mean, it’s classic. If you dropped me 36 in the middle of nowhere and you stuck that in front of me, I would immediately know it was a service 37 station; it is that clear to me what it is based on its architecture. That’s the era when it’s telling you, this 38 is for a car, bring your car by, I mean it screams that to me, and so, I think, in terms of architecture, this 39 is…it fits. It is exactly what the description of this type of architecture is. The question for me is, how 40 does Fort Collins view that in terms of significance? I personally am not thrilled with oblong boxes; 41 they’re not pretty, they’re not Victorian little, you know, gingerbreaded buildings, and yet it still tells our 42 story of who we are as a people, and the fact that we were willing to tear down really those beautiful, 43 pretty, gingerbready buildings in order to build these, that says something about us as a people. So, in 44 terms of that, I think that’s where the significance would lie. 45 Page 754 Item 20. 17 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you, Meg. 1 MEMBER GUENTHER: Mr. Chairman, I absolutely agree with what Margo said, and I tried…I 2 visited this site today and looked at all three structures, and came back and looked at the photographs of 3 the original 1925, I believe, and 1937 building. The 1937 building is essentially the gas station that my 4 grandfather owned in eastern Nebraska and that my mother grew up working in. So, yeah, there’s a 5 nostalgic feeling for those structures. However, when I see the current iteration, you know, in the 6 photographs and as I visited it today, I just don’t see an architectural statement that resonates. The oblong 7 may be important; it reminds me a bit, frankly, in this case, of a visit that I took to Bratislava shortly after 8 the wall came down and the Soviet Union dissolved, and it’s just very functional architecture. Not to 9 suggest that there’s not room for function in architecture, but I think these buildings in certain cases, and 10 probably in this case, were designed to be inexpensive, to put up quickly, and to be purely functional 11 without any real resonating or enduring design that suggests that they should be protected at the same 12 level as some other buildings. I recognize that statement will create a lot of controversy among the 13 people sitting at this table, but I don’t see that it has the architectural significance to retain it, and in 14 looking in aggregate at those three buildings on the site, listening to the current owner’s point of view, I 15 have to agree: it’s a blighted site, it’s deteriorated, it hasn’t been well-maintained, and in addition to 16 looking at the past, I feel compelled to look to the future. So, what’s the future of this site in the next 17 twenty-five, or fifty, or seventy-five years? I don’t feel that it will be improved; I feel that it will 18 probably stay the same. There won’t be another buyer who comes in and wants to purchase it. We know 19 the current owner’s point of view on it, so what legacy do we leave for future generations with respect to 20 this whole three structure property if we vote not to move forward with the proposal…or with the owner’s 21 proposal? 22 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you. 23 MEMBER ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I guess I would…and I concur with Meg, although I guess I 24 would add, I don’t think there’s any particular need to concern ourselves with anything that happened 25 before 1950. I mean, the other stations that were on this site are of no relevance because this structure, 26 this station, is relevant and eligible because it was constructed in 1950, and it is constructed and was 27 altered in the 1960’s, and it fits exactly, prototypically, the style of that era, and that’s exactly what we’re 28 trying to demonstrate; that’s the story we’re trying to tell. That’s why it’s important to Fort Collins, 29 because Fort Collins was part of that movement. It was all across the country. I mean, Standard Oil 30 franchised hundreds of these stations and they all look just like this. So, I think it’s important for Fort 31 Collins’ component of that story to be told, and this building tells that story. It doesn't matter what was 32 there before, it’s simply this began and is eligible because it’s seventy-two years old. 33 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you. 34 MEMBER M. DUNN: I just want to point out that the Linden Hotel was so dilapidated that it had 35 six inches deep of pigeon poop on the second and third story, and the back wall fell out when they started 36 rehabilitating it, and yet they continued to rehabilitate it, and just a portion of the second story recently 37 sold for over two million dollars. So, the fact that something is dilapidated now doesn’t mean we have 38 any sense of what is going to happen to it in the future. 39 MEMBER GUENTHER: Meg, I agree with that, and I appreciate the historic significance of all 40 of these properties. But, for every example you give like that, and I don’t have a specific one, we can 41 look around the community and find another half dozen examples of places that haven’t been renovated 42 and haven’t been maintained. So, that’s a great example of one that has, but I bet if we got in the car and 43 Page 755 Item 20. 18 took a drive just around North College, we could find, like a said, for every one example of something 1 that has been cared for and renovated, a half dozen that haven’t been, and probably won’t be, sadly. 2 MEMBER M. DUNN: I’m just saying that that’s not a reason that we use for designating or not 3 designating, and that even important buildings…if a building is important, even if it’s dilapidated, we 4 have in the past landmarked them, and it’s just that the dilapidation is not a reason not to landmark 5 something; that’s not one of our criteria we use. If the dilapidation has somehow affected the integrity, 6 then that would be part of the issue. But, just something falling apart and not being maintained, well, 7 perhaps if it’s landmarked then they’ll start taking advantage of the tax credits and the other incentives 8 that help rehabilitate. But the dilapidation itself is just not part of our criteria. 9 CHAIR KNIERIM: I appreciate the conversation, and as I’ve been looking at all of this, I come 10 down on the side of story, and I’m kind of with Meg and Jim with this, that this does tell a story, and it’s a 11 very prototypical example of the story of these gas stations and of the development of Fort Collins and 12 the larger United States in the 1960’s and that sort of thing. So, I come down leaning toward eligibility 13 for the gas station. The garage, the house, I’m okay with not doing that with, but the station I’m leaning 14 toward looking at eligibility. That’s where I am. 15 MEMBER M. DUNN: I think part of what we need to be thinking about as a community, not just 16 the Commission, is what is our story and when does the story end. And I think when it comes to historic 17 preservation, we often think that that story ended around right before World War II, and the rest of the 18 story, well, that’s just when I grew up, that’s not really part of our story. You know, it’s so close to us, 19 we don’t think about the value of preserving that history, and yet for our kids, our growing up is ancient 20 history, and that’s the history that we kind of want them to understand and know so that when they’re 21 looking back on the overall history of Fort Collins, they understand it better and they have the artifacts to 22 get it. And, cars and the change that that made to Fort Collins is incredibly significant, and it really is part 23 of the story that, especially as we become a more bike-friendly, pedestrian-friendly city, that car time 24 period is an important part of our history. And, as we are redoing our streets and improving, basically 25 kind of going back to the way people used to build where you could walk places and bike places…we 26 want to remember that there was that time period where we went car crazy, and we shot south mostly, and 27 the fact that we shot north is kind of particularly interesting because most of our growth has been to the 28 south, and yet…I mean if you drive up North College, it’s almost all car businesses. So, there’s 29 something to that…there’s something to that story, there’s something about who we have been as a 30 people in terms of using our cars. The very fact that teenagers for fun would get in their car and drive for 31 hours on a Friday night…that’s a story my kids would not understand; they can’t even imagine growing 32 up that way. That’s the kind of story we need to make sure somehow we’re saving tangible artifacts so 33 that someday, they look back and go, really, you did that? Do you have proof? Yeah, well here’s, that’s 34 the A&W we stopped at, there’s the center parking we would park at, and I mean, those are the things we 35 need to help tell that story. And for us, it’s not that important of a story, it’s just kind of the how things 36 have been, but for our kids, that’s an important part of their history. 37 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thoughts from other Commissioners? At this point, I would maybe 38 recommend if there’s no more discussion, and I would love to hear more discussion, that perhaps we put a 39 motion on the table. I’d like to take a short recess at eight o’clock, maybe just a ten-minute recess to 40 stretch our legs a little bit, but maybe we could get a motion on the table. There will be no discussion 41 during the recess, but just to move this forward. If there’s more…and then once we have the motion on 42 the table, then there will be discussion around the motion. But, certainly just a reminder, we don’t need to 43 have a unanimous decision. 44 Page 756 Item 20. 19 MS. HAVELDA: Mr. Chair, if I might make a suggestion because I feel like this is going to be a 1 little bit tricky with the motions. If someone would like to make a motion, and I’m not suggesting that 2 they do or they don’t, but if someone would like to put a motion on the table regarding the eligibility of 3 the home and the garage as one unit, and perhaps separate out the station, because that is what I’m 4 sensing will have more of a discussion on the motion. That might be the most efficient way to handle this 5 matter. 6 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you. 7 MEMBER GUENTHER: So, point of clarification, so that would be two separate motions, or 8 everything contained in one motion? 9 MS. HAVELDA: I think the easiest way to do it would be two separate motions. 10 MEMBER GUENTHER: Thanks. 11 CHAIR KNIERIM: Because it seems we have some level of consensus around the house and the 12 garage, so let’s perhaps make a motion there, and then recess, and then dig into the station some more. 13 So, I would entertain a motion for…well, any motion, but perhaps taking the advice of counsel. 14 MEMBER M. DUNN: I’m willing to give it a stab, but I might need a little help near the end with 15 the findings of fact. I move that the Historic Preservation Commission find the residential house and the 16 accessory garage located at 825 North College Avenue do not meet the eligibility standards outlined in 17 Section 14-22 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, and are not historic resources for the purpose of 18 project review under Land Use Code 3.4.7 based on the following findings of fact: that they lack the level 19 of significance and integrity that we would expect to see. 20 MS. HAVELDA: I think that’s sufficient, Meg. 21 MEMBER M. DUNN: Okay, thank you. 22 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you, Meg. 23 MEMBER ROSE: Second. 24 CHAIR KNIERIM: And a second from Jim Rose. So, this is a motion to say that the residence 25 and the accessory garage at 825 North College do not meet the standards of significance and integrity in 26 14-22 and 3.4.7. This was put forward by Meg and seconded by Jim Rose. Is there discussion on this 27 motion? Hearing none, let’s call for a roll call vote on this motion. 28 MS. MELISSA MATSUNAKA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Eric Guenther? 29 MEMBER GUENTHER: Yes. 30 MS. MATSUNAKA: Anne Nelsen? 31 MEMBER NELSEN: Yes. 32 MS. MATSUNAKA: Walter Dunn? 33 MEMBER W. DUNN: Yes. 34 MS. MATSUNAKA: Jenna Edwards? 35 MEMBER EDWARDS: Yes. 36 Page 757 Item 20. 20 MS. MATSUNAKA: Meg Dunn? 1 MEMBER M. DUNN: Yes. 2 MS. MATSUNAKA: Jim Rose? 3 MEMBER ROSE: Yes. 4 MS. MATSUNAKA: Bonnie Gibson? 5 MEMBER BONNIE GIBSON: Yes. 6 MS. MATSUNAKA: Margo Carlock? 7 MEMBER CARLOCK: Yes. 8 MS. MATSUNAKA: Kurt Knierim? 9 CHAIR KNIERIM: Yes. 10 MS. MATSUNAKA: Mr. Chair, the ayes have it, the motion carries. 11 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you. At this point, it is nearing eight o’clock and I would call for a 12 ten- minute recess and then we will come back and finish discussion agenda item number six. It is now 13 eight o’clock; let’s adjourn back here at eight ten P.M. 14 (**Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) 15 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you. Roll call please? 16 MS. MATSUNAKA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Margo Carlock? 17 MEMBER CARLOCK: Here. 18 MS. MATSUNAKA: Meg Dunn? 19 MEMBER M. DUNN: Here. 20 MS. MATSUNAKA: Walter Dunn? 21 MEMBER W. DUNN: Here. 22 MS. MATSUNAKA: Jenna Edwards? 23 MEMBER EDWARDS: Here. 24 MS. MATSUNAKA: Bonnie Gibson? 25 MEMBER GIBSON: Here. 26 MS. MATSUNAKA: Eric Guenther? 27 MEMBER GUENTHER: Here. 28 MS. MATSUNAKA: Anne Nelsen? 29 MEMBER NELSEN: Here. 30 MS. MATSUNAKA: Jim Rose? 31 Page 758 Item 20. 21 MEMBER ROSE: Here. 1 MS. MATSUNAKA: Kurt Knierim? 2 CHAIR KNIERIM: Here. 3 MS. MATSUNAKA: Mr. Chair, you have all nine present. 4 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you. Alright, let’s resume our discussion around the gas station, and 5 we are talking about its significance and integrity around events and trends and architecture, and I’d like 6 to hear more comment about that, and then we will consider a motion. 7 MEMBER ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I guess from the aspect of events and trends, and I think Meg 8 mentioned this earlier, I think there’s a commercial aspect to this kind of a facility that weaves itself into 9 the history by virtue of the development and evolution of commerce in Fort Collins and the whole, kind 10 of, progress that was made in terms of improvement of highways and transportation, and all of those 11 elements, that I think this is a part and piece of that. And I think it’s a part that’s particular to Fort Collins 12 because, as has been documented in the background material, it’s the first station really north of the river. 13 And I think that says something about how Fort Collins was evolving in the era of transportation and 14 growth. And so, as a consequence, I think, from an integrity standpoint, we can talk about all kinds of 15 other things, but from a significance standpoint, I think it does meet the criteria that suggest it has to have 16 contributed in some way to our understanding of how things were developing and that history we’re 17 talking about. I would also agree, I don’t think it’s the most significant component in terms of making it 18 eligible, I think by far the architecture has, to me, unquestionably a very significant aspect, but I think 19 because of its association with the growth and development of Fort Collins, I think it meets that criteria, 20 so I would suggest that it is eligible from that standpoint. 21 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you. 22 MEMBER GUENTHER: I clearly struggle with this one. I think probably nobody at the table 23 has a better appreciation for how the automobile revolutionized American transportation than me having 24 worked for Ford Motor Company and the Ford family for thirty-one years. I’m actually just looking back 25 at some old Henry Ford advertising from the ‘20’s when they talked about making places that were 26 previously inaccessible to people now accessible, whether that’s the mountains and the valleys, or north 27 of the river here in Fort Collins. You know, I liken it to some of my experience with helping Ford 28 develop dealerships over time, and we traditionally, in that capacity, and again, we all speak from 29 experience, try to find enhancements or improvements for facilities, and so a little bit of my point of view 30 is informed by that experience. I just really struggle with this particular oblong box being a very 31 important architectural style. I’m not an architect, but to me, as I mentioned earlier, it seems like a lot of 32 these buildings were developed with a dispensable mindset. The builders, the owners wanted to put them 33 up cheaply so that they could get the fastest possible return on their investment. They didn’t put the 34 buildings up with any concern for the architecture or the beauty, they wanted to make them functional so 35 they could make money, and that’s the sad reality of it. So, when I look at a very functional space like 36 this, I tend to see just that, something that doesn’t really make a statement; it’s very nondescript. I have a 37 hard time seeing how it really tells a story, or connects south Fort Collins to north Fort Collins, or really 38 defines the history of our community. To me, it’s a very generic structure. 39 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you. 40 MEMBER CARLOCK: Mr. Chair, I think addressing the events and trends part, I am absolutely 41 in agreement that the introduction of the automobile and the mobility that it gave to citizens and people to 42 Page 759 Item 20. 22 be able to travel, the importance that it played in the development of society, I think all of that is a very 1 legitimate. To me, if we were looking at the original structures, that was more around the time when that 2 trend happened. I think by the ‘60’s, that was a well-established pattern of life, and I don’t see that as a 3 significant as an event and trend at that point, particularly considering what it might become now, or if we 4 do uphold eligibility, it will just end up staying the same, staying there, there won’t be an ability to 5 redevelop that area. I just don’t see it as meeting the significance required to obviate the interests of the 6 owner. 7 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you. Counsel? 8 MS. HAVELDA: Mr. Chair, if I might, I think all the comments are well taken, I just want to 9 remind the Commission that in this forum, the policy regarding what happens with the future 10 development is not relevant to your consideration. So, when you are deciding…when you are articulating 11 reasons for that decision, I would just caution against having that as part of your rationale. 12 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you. 13 MEMBER CARLOCK: My apologies. 14 MEMBER GUENTHER: Can I ask just a question about that? And I probably should know this, 15 but is that stated somewhere, Claire? Because I have a hard time really separating decisions that we 16 make…generally a decision that we make, you have to consider implications for the future as difficult as 17 that may be. But, is that stated somewhere? 18 MS. HAVELDA: So, what I would say is that what is stated is the Code provisions that you are 19 allowed to rely upon and use as the criteria for your decision. That the legislative body of City Council 20 did not see fit to put future considerations of development within the purview of the Historic Preservation 21 Society [sic] is certainly something that this Commission could address with Council, but at this time, it’s 22 not within the purview. And so, what we see is that this Commission has…it’s strict purview is historic 23 preservation, but when or if this were to go and be appealed before City Council, City Council has the 24 ability to take into account other policy considerations because that is within their purview. I completely 25 understand the frustration…I think Council themselves have been…recently expressed some frustration 26 that this Commission is so limited in what they consider, but as the Code stands now, that is the 27 parameters of your consideration. 28 MR. ARMSTRONG: Mr. Chairman, can I make a comment? 29 CHAIR KNIERIM: Certainly. 30 MR. ARMSTRONG: I understand the City Attorney’s position, but I want to bring up to the 31 council that none of this would have happened if we hadn’t have made a development request. And so, 32 while the historic preservation wants to keep everything separate, we get blindsided by it when we 33 submit…we pay money for a conceptual review, we lay out a lot of work to other people that are drawing 34 everything up, and then we find...and so, I understand what she is saying, but it doesn’t make any sense at 35 all because by us not developing this, we wouldn’t be here tonight. And this also includes a vacant, 36 blighted lot behind the property with a bunch of foundations that was in the arial photos earlier. So, 37 future development does matter because that’s why we…that’s why you brought me here today…because 38 I asked for future development. 39 MS. HAVELDA: And Mr. Armstrong, you’re pointing out exactly the frustration with the Code 40 that I believe chair member [sic] Dunn had pointed out. What I would suggest, sir, is that you make 41 Page 760 Item 20. 23 public comment at City Council meetings, because that is how City Council will precipitate the change to 1 the Code. 2 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you. That being said, is there other discussion around this, or would 3 someone like to push forward a motion on the station only? And then we can have more discussion 4 around that before a vote. 5 MEMBER M. DUNN: I can make an attempt. 6 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you. 7 MEMBER M. DUNN: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission find the service station 8 at 825 North College Avenue meets the eligibility standards outlined in Section 14-22 of the Fort Collins 9 Municipal Code, and is an historic resource for the purposes of project review under Land Use Code 10 3.4.7, based on the fact that it embodies an important evolution in commerce and transportation in Fort 11 Collins as businesses began to move north of the Poudre River, in part enabled by the growing use of 12 motorized transportation, and on the fact that the architecture is a classic example of the utterly unornate 13 oblong box style of garage architecture. 14 MS. HAVELDA: Commission member Dunn, may I make a clarification? The second point you 15 made, was that a point that speaks to the integrity? The first point surely spoke to the significance, but I 16 just want to make sure we also have a factual basis for integrity. 17 MEMBER M. DUNN: So, my first point spoke to events, the second spoke to architecture. I 18 didn’t even include integrity. So, and finding that it had integrity to support both aspects of significance. 19 MS. HAVELDA: Thank you. 20 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you. Is there a second? 21 MEMBER ROSE: I second. 22 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you. Alright, the motion has been put forward by Commissioner 23 Dunn and seconded by Commissioner Rose that the service station at 825 North Fort Collins [sic] meets 24 the standards for eligibility under 3.4.7 for significance and integrity. Is there discussion on the motion? 25 MEMBER M. DUNN: I just want to point out that I added the ‘utterly unornate’ on purpose 26 because, as we move to post World War II architecture, we will more often start to see forms of 27 architecture, such as Brutalist, that people don’t necessarily take to. We don’t want to run up and hug it; 28 it’s not pretty, it’s not quaint, it’s not…it’s not something we’re drawn to. It’s really…I mean that’s part 29 of the international style is boxes and glass and things that we’re very used to now, but we don’t 30 necessarily feel like we get attached to, and yet, it still tells our story, and that’s what historic preservation 31 is about, is not saving the pretty things, but saving the important things that tell our story. 32 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you. Other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, let’s have a roll 33 call vote on the motion on the table regarding the service station at 825 North College Avenue. 34 MS. MATSUNAKA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Eric Guenther? 35 MEMBER GUENTHER: Nay. 36 MS. MATSUNAKA: Anne Nelsen? 37 MEMBER NELSEN: Yes. 38 Page 761 Item 20. 24 MS. MATSUNAKA: Walter Dunn? 1 MEMBER W. DUNN: Yes. 2 MS. MATSUNAKA: Jenna Edwards? 3 MEMBER EDWARDS: No. 4 MS. MATSUNAKA: Meg Dunn? 5 MEMBER M. DUNN: Yes. 6 MS. MATSUNAKA: Jim Rose? 7 MEMBER ROSE: Yes. 8 MS. MATSUNAKA: Bonnie Gibson? 9 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes. 10 MS. MATSUNAKA: Margo Carlock? 11 MEMBER CARLOCK: No. 12 MS. MATSUNAKA: Kurt Knierim? 13 CHAIR KNIERIM: Yes. 14 MS. MATSUNAKA: Mr. Chair, six yes, three no, the motion passes. 15 CHAIR KNIERIM: Thank you. And with that, that concludes number six with the appeal of the 16 determination of eligibility at 825 North College. 17 Page 762 Item 20. New Evidence Submitted by the Appellant Page 763 Item 20. 11/9/2022  To Whom It May Concern:  I have some thoughts on the structure at 825 North College Avenue.  I do not think the so‐called “0blong  Block Structure” fits into the original intent of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.  It is a very  generic cement/cinder block building, not a unique historic structure!  The ordinance was intended to  recognize, and promote the preservation of, buildings like the Avery House on Mountain Avenue or the  original U.S. Post Office on the Oak Street Plaza, as two of many other examples.  Additionally, buildings  like this North College one are too common to be designated landmarks.  I offer these opinions as a local historian who advised the LPC in the nineteen seventies as their research  historian. I have worked in historic preservation, continuously, since that time.  I have written three  books on historic preservation in Fort Collins “Historic Fort Collins” (c‐2014), “Fort Collins First  Waterworks” (c‐2004) and Fort Collins at 150 (c‐2014), did presentations on the subject, and produced  two DVDs on this subject.  Wayne C. Sundberg  Fort Collins Historian    Page 764 Item 20. Page 765Item 20. Page 766Item 20. Page 767Item 20. Page 768Item 20. Page 769Item 20. Page 770Item 20. Page 771Item 20. Page 772Item 20. Page 773Item 20. Page 774Item 20. Page 775Item 20. Page 776Item 20. Page 777Item 20. Page 778Item 20. Page 779Item 20. Page 780Item 20. Page 781Item 20. Page 782Item 20. Page 783Item 20. Page 784Item 20. Page 785Item 20. Page 786Item 20. Appeal of 825 North College Avenue City Landmark Eligibility for Development Review December 20, 2022 Paul Sizemore, Director, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Services Manager Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation PlannerPage 787 Item 20. 2Vicinity Map 825 N. College Page 788 Item 20. 3Aerial Photo Page 789 Item 20. 4Timeline •August 18, 2022 –Conceptual Review •Staff identifies need for updated historic survey to developer •September 7, 2022 –Survey Completed and Transmitted •Staff transmits findings for property (Eligible/is an historic resource) to both developer and owner •Used 2010 CDOT historic survey as reference for current determination •September 14, 2022 –Appeal Received •Property owner, Grem Armstrong/GARA, LLC, files appeal of historic resource finding •October 19, 2022 –HPC Determination •Determined House & Garage Not Eligible •Determined Service Station building Eligible •Eligible under Standards 1, Events/Trends & 3, Design/Construction; passed 6-3 •Owner Appeal to Council: November 1, 2022Page 790 Item 20. 5Role of Council 1.Determine if allegations made by the appellant have merit 2.Based on determination: •Uphold HPC determination of eligibility; •Overturn HPC determination of eligibility; or •Modify HPC determination of eligibility Page 791 Item 20. 6Code Process -3.4.7 -(B) Requires identification of historic resources on/near development site -(C) Determination of Eligibility -(D) Treatment of Historic Resources Land Use Code (Development)Municipal Code -Eligibility Chapter 14, Article II -14-22 –Standards for eligibility -14-23(b) –Process for appealing a staff decision If found Eligible Page 792 Item 20. 825 North College Avenue: Significance 1 –Events/Trends 3-Design/Construction •Long-standing business on North College Ave (1937-1969) •Important period of commercial development north of the Poudre River •Classic example of oblong box style garage/service station architecturePage 793 Item 20. 825 North College Avenue: History •1925 –first filling station •1931 –residence built •1933 –garage built (east wing) •1937 –new (current) service station built •1960 –service station remodeled to current form Top: M-K Service Station, Coloradoan, August 20, 1937. Bottom: The on April 21, 1977, following modifications made for Standard Oil leasing in 1960 (Fort Collins Museum of Discovery). Page 794 Item 20. 9HPC Decision Summary •HPC Determination: •House and Garage (Accessory) –Not Eligible •Main Service Station –Eligible under Standards 1, Events/Trends & 3, Design/Construction •passed 6-3 •Public comments at hearing: •None •1 comment against finding of Eligible received by phone prior to meeting •Key findings: 1.House and Accessory Garage are Not Eligible 2.Service Station is Eligible 1.Significant under Standard 1 (Events/Trends) for association with expansion of Fort Collins commerce north of the Poudre River along College Avenue. 2.Significant under Standard 3 (Design/Construction) as a classic example of the oblong box style of garage/service station architecture; 3.Retains sufficient integrity to support both aspects of historic significance. Page 795 Item 20. 10Potential Outcomes Redevelopment •Decision-maker: Planning & Zoning Commission •Adaptive Reuse (same or other permitted use; required if landmark-eligible or for FC Landmarks) •Demolition •If not landmark eligible; •If eligible, based on acceptable modification of standards proposal Recognition of Historic Resources •Building preservation •May include landmark designation initiated by 3+ city residents, HPC by resolution, or a member of City Council in writing •Signage or other interpretative storytelling tools •Additional documentation of building and its history Page 796 Item 20. 11Allegations •Considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading because: •HPC prejudiced by “Staff’s overuse and emphasis of the history of the property,” causing a lack of proper consideration of sufficient historic integrity. •Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Municipal Code, Land Use Code, and Charter because: •The evidence does not show sufficient historic integrity to the historic period. •HPC focused on historic use of a building that no longer exists, rather than the integrity of the current building. Page 797 Item 20. 12Role of Council 1.Determine if allegations made by the appellant have merit 2.Based on determination: •Uphold HPC determination of eligibility; •Overturn HPC determination of eligibility; or •Modify HPC determination of eligibility Page 798 Item 20.