No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 11/06/2024City of Fort Collins Page 1 of 2 City Council Special Meeting Agenda November 6, 2024 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 Melanie Potyondy, 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 Comcast Carrie Daggett Kelly DiMartino Delynn Coldiron City Attorney City Manager City Clerk SPECIAL MEETING WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2024 at 6:00 PM Durante esta reunión se dispone de interpretación en español. Please note this meeting was called by Council on October 15, 2024 for the sole purpose of hearing an appeal and public participation is not permitted. Parties-of-interest that wish to speak either for or against the appeal must coordinate with the appellant or applicant. Tenga en cuenta que esta reunión fue convocada el 15 de octubre por el Consejo con el único propósito de escuchar una apelación un appeal y no se permite la apelación y la participación del público. Partes interesadas que deseen hablar a favor o en contra del recurso deberá coordinarse con el recurrente o el solicitante. A) CALL MEETING TO ORDER B) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C) ROLL CALL D) CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN THE CALL OF SPECIAL MEETING 1. Fort Collins Rescue Mission Development Plan Appeals. The purpose of this quasi-judicial item is to consider two appeals of the Planning and Zoning Commission decision from August 28, 2024, approving the Fort Collins Rescue Mission Preliminary/Final Development Plan #FDP230022. On September 6, 2024, Appellant Troy W. Jones filed a Notice of Appeal (the “Jones Appeal”); and on September 11, 2024, Appellants Rebeca Mendoza and Debbie Bradberry filed another Notice of Appeal (the “Mendoza Appeal”). The Jones Appeal alleges that the Planning and Zoning Commission failed to properly interpret and apply the following sections of the Land Use Code: • Section 1.2.4 “Applicability” in conjunction with Section 3.5.1 on Building and Project Compatibility, Subsection (A) “Purpose” and Subsection (J) “Operational/Physical Compatibility Standards” together with the definition of “compatibility” from Section 5.1.2. 1 City of Fort Collins Page 2 of 2 The Mendoza Appeal alleges that the Planning and Zoning Commission failed to: • conduct a fair hearing in that the Commission considered evidence relevant to its findings that was substantially false or grossly misleading; and • properly interpret and apply the following sections of the Land Use Code: - 1.2.4 “Applicability” in conjunction with Section 3.2.2 on Access, Circulation, and Parking, Subsection (K) “Parking Requirements,” in conjunction with Section 3.4.1 “Environmental Impact” and Section 3.5.1(J) “Operational/Physical Compatibility Standards, and Section 4.22(B) “Service Commercial District Permitted Uses”. The allegation explanations in both appeals largely center around two ideas: 1) men experiencing homelessness who come to the area because of the shelter will increase social and behavioral problems in the area when they are not at the shelter; and 2) the idea that the facility may expand its number of beds in the future beyond the stated maximum capacity of 250 beds. E) ADJOURNMENT 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 48 hours advance notice when possible. A petición, 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 48 horas de aviso previo cuando sea posible. 2 1 November 6, 2024 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Council STAFF Kim Meyer, Interim Director, Community Development and Neighborhood Services SUBJECT Fort Collins Rescue Mission Development Plan Appeals. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this quasi-judicial item is to consider two appeals of the Planning and Zoning Commission decision from August 28, 2024, approving the Fort Collins Rescue Mission Preliminary/Final Development Plan #FDP230022. On September 6, 2024, Appellant Troy W. Jones filed a Notice of Appeal (the “Jones Appeal”); and on September 11, 2024, Appellants Rebeca Mendoza and Debbie Bradberry filed another Notice of Appeal (the “Mendoza Appeal”). The Jones Appeal alleges that the Planning and Zoning Commission failed to properly interpret and apply the following sections of the Land Use Code: • Section 1.2.4 “Applicability” in conjunction with Section 3.5.1 on Building and Project Compatibility, Subsection (A) “Purpose” and Subsection (J) “Operational/Physical Compatibility Standards” together with the definition of “compatibility” from Section 5.1.2. The Mendoza Appeal alleges that the Planning and Zoning Commission failed to: • conduct a fair hearing in that the Commission considered evidence relevant to its findings that was substantially false or grossly misleading; and • properly interpret and apply the following sections of the Land Use Code: - 1.2.4 “Applicability” in conjunction with Section 3.2.2 on Access, Circulation, and Parking, Subsection (K) “Parking Requirements,” in conjunction with Section 3.4.1 “Environmental Impact” and Section 3.5.1(J) “Operational/Physical Compatibility Standards, and Section 4.22(B) “Service Commercial District Permitted Uses”. The allegation explanations in both appeals largely center around two ideas: 1) men experiencing homelessness who come to the area because of the shelter will increase social and behavioral problems in the area when they are not at the shelter; and 2) the idea that the facility may expand its number of beds in the future beyond the stated maximum capacity of 250 beds. 3 Section D, Item 1. 2 APPEAL ALLEGATION DESCRIPTIONS Mendoza Appeal: Fair Hearing Issue The Mendoza Appeal alleges a failure to conduct a fair hearing in that the Commission considered evidence relevant to its findings that was substantially false or grossly misleading. Fair hearing allegations are usually addressed first in an appeal, because according to City Code Section 2-56(b)(1) Council must remand the matter for rehearing if Council finds that the appellant was denied a fair hearing. However, the description attached to the Mendoza Appeal does not identify any evidence that is “substantially false” or “grossly misleading.” Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of the Land Use Code Land Use Code Section 3.2.2(K) – Inadequate Parking and Flawed Parking Study The Land Use Code contains requirements for the number of parking spaces in a development plan. The requirements are listed for certain uses, and the homeless shelter use is not listed with a specified number required. In such a case, an applicant can propose “Alternative Compliance” to find an appropriate number based on a parking study (in the P&Z Packet, noted below). The applicants use the alternative compliance provision to determine the number of spaces in the plan. The Mendoza Appeal asserts that the parking study used to justify the number of parking spaces was based on inadequate comparisons leading to inadequate parking and thus the Planning and Zoning Commission failed to ensure that parking meets the standards in the code Section. It notes that the maximum number of beds discussed during the plan review process increased from 200 to 250 and suggests that there is potential for expansion to 500 beds. It also suggests considering the parking requirement for multi-family dwellings as the basis for a different approach, which would result in a much higher need for guest parking than what is provided. The Mendoza Appeal states an additional concern about an existing issue of illegal car camping because a portion of the unhoused population lives in vehicles, which could be exacerbated by the facility having inadequate parking provisions. The Mendoza Appellants refer to a California Homelessness Study. The California Homelessness Study is not provided and is not part of the record on appeal. Parties are not permitted to offer new evidence on appeal issues regarding interpretation and application of the Land Use Code. Pertinent evidence from the record includes: Transcript Pg. 12, lines 34-41 Applicant presentation about Alternative Compliance based on a Parking Study. P&Z Packet Attachments 7 and 8 Parking Study and Alternative Compliance Request. Transcript Pg. 45, Lines 19-26 Applicant comment that the increase from 200-250 beds is not likely to increase traffic because people using the beds are not likely to bring vehicles and would not be allowed to park on site. Transcript Pg. 24, lines 14-16 Applicant comment that the parking lot is not safe for homeless people living in vehicles. Transcript Pg. 45, lines 31-35 Applicant statement that there will absolutely not be expansion to more than 250 beds. 4 Section D, Item 1. 3 Land Use Code Section 3.5.1 (J) – Operational and Physical Compatibility The Mendoza Appeal asserts that there is potential for expansion beyond 250 beds, and that the building can accommodate 500 beds, which exacerbates general concerns about potential impacts. It alleges that the Commission failed to properly interpret and apply this LUC Section by not imposing conditions on approval to mitigate operational incompatibilities or cap the number of beds. The Mendoza Appeal also notes concerns that relate to the 24/7 aspect of the operation and the Mendoza Appellants suggest that there will be noise, light pollution, disturbances, smoking, congregating, delivery vehicles, trash collection, and other operations at all hours. The Mendoza Appeal asserts that the wood fence along part of the property is insufficient to control such nuisances; and notes that the surrounding neighborhood includes residential areas and businesses with limited hours of operation. Pertinent evidence from the record includes: Staff Report Pp 11-13 Staff evaluation of compatibility under Section 3.5.1. Transcript Pg. 15, lines 6-39 Staff presentation discussing compatibility standards for the facility itself, as opposed to assertions of potential behavior of guests. Transcript Pg. 45, Lines 31-35 Applicant statement that there will absolutely not be expansion to more than 250 beds. Transcript Pg. 10, lines 41-45; Pg. 11 lines 1-7 Applicant explanation about hours of operation Land Use Code Section 4.22(B) – Permitted Uses in the Commercial - North College (CCN) Zone District The Mendoza Appeal notes that the original plan for 200 beds increased to 250 beds during the review process, and suggests that the facility could expand to accommodate overflow from Denver. It states that the Planning and Zoning Commission failed to impose a cap on the number of beds or address potential for overflow use, which could lead to unauthorized expansion. It is unclear to staff how these ideas relate to the permitted use list cited in the Mendoza Appeal. Pertinent evidence from the record includes: Transcript Pg. 45, Lines 31-35 Applicant statement that there will absolutely not be expansion to more than 250 beds. Land Use Code Section 3.5.1(C) – Incompatibility of Height, Mass, Scale, and Bulk The building comprises one- and two-story sections, and CCN zoning permits up to three stories. The standard allows for new buildings to be larger than adjacent buildings if articulated and subdivided into massing that is proportional to the mass and scale of other adjacent structures. The Mendoza Appeal contends that the 41,644 sq. ft. building dwarfs nearby mobile homes and small businesses in the surrounding area. This appeal states that the Planning and Zoning Commission should 5 Section D, Item 1. 4 have imposed restrictions to reduce the scale and bulk of the facility to align better with existing residential character. Pertinent evidence from the record includes numerous assertions and explanations: Transcript Pg. 13, lines 26-37 Applicant explanation of scale and character of the building. Transcript Pg. 46, lines 8-13 Applicant explanation of scale and character of the building. Staff Report Pg. 12, lines 8-13 Staff findings on architectural character and the eclectic context. Staff Presentation Slides 9-10 Illustrations of the building design. Transcript Pg. 51, lines 25-40 Commission member noting the extent of buffer space around the plan. Transcript Pg. 12, line 9 Applicant noting that the building is set back 89 feet from the closest (north) property line. Land Use Code Section 3.4.1 – Environmental Impact The Mendoza Appeal alleges that the Commission failed to adequately consider the environmental impacts of the facility’s increase in bed capacity during the process. It notes that when the number of beds increased from 200 to 250 during the review process, the impacts of traffic, waste production, and strain on local infrastructure were not reassessed. The Mendoza Appeal Notice also repeats the suggestion that the facility could expand to 500 beds, which would leave the surrounding neighborhood vulnerable to increased air and noise pollution, overburdened water and sewer systems, and other environmental stresses. Section 3.4.1 does not address those issues; it addresses natural habitats and features, and no such issues are associated with this development plan because this shelter plan follows a previously approved Mason Street Infrastructure Plan that created the site where the shelter is proposed, including mitigation and restoration measures under this Section. The proposed shelter development plan does not affect the approved measures. Pertinent evidence from the record includes: Transcript Pg. 45, Lines 31-35 Applicant statement that there will absolutely not be expansion to more than 250 beds. Jones Appeal: Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of the Land Use Code Land Use Code Sections 1.2.4 – Applicability and 3.5.1 (A) and (J) – Operational and Physical Compatibility The Jones Appeal quotes the overall Applicability section of the Land Use Code to state that the LUC applies to all development of land within the municipal boundaries, and all provisions of the Code apply to land use decisions, even purpose statements. 6 Section D, Item 1. 5 The Jones Appeal cites the Purpose statement of this Section, 3.5.1(A), “to ensure that the physical and operational characteristics of proposed buildings and uses are compatible with the context” and then cites a selected part of the definition of Compatibility in Section 5.1.2 which mentions “characteristics of different uses or activities or design which allow them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony.” It notes that Section 3.5.1(J) allows the decision maker to impose conditions upon a development plan. It asserts that the compatibility standards do indeed apply to “potential social and behavioral impacts to the neighborhood”, and that it is certain that at least a small percentage of the population served by the facility will cause social and behavioral impacts to the neighborhood, such as a homeless man being turned away because he is drunk or high and then going to wander the neighborhood. The Jones Appeal asserts that the intensity of use is too much based on the number of beds. It suggests that perhaps there are conditions that should be imposed such as limiting the number of beds to a much lower number; funding extra security patrols; and other conditions that neighbors may suggest at the appeal hearing. Pertinent evidence from the record includes salient examples listed below. These examples are listed in a general order of significance as they relate to the appeal descriptions, with some grouped by similar topics: Transcript Pg 49, Lines 4-23 Staff comment about not using the Purpose statement for findings of compliance, but rather using the standards under the Purpose. Staff Report Pp 11-13 Staff evaluation of compatibility under Section 3.5.1. Staff Presentation Slides 14 and 15 Complete code text of 3.5.1(J) and definition of compatibility. Transcript Pg. 15, lines 6-39 Staff presentation discussing compatibility standards for the facility itself, as opposed to assertions of potential behavior of guests. Transcript Pg. 17, lines 1-25; p 21, Lines 7-17 City attorney statements about basing compatibility on assertions of potential offenses to be committed by people who are not on site, or on potential economic impacts on other property. Transcript Pg. 46, Lines 1-4 Applicant statement about presumptions that guests will engage in criminal behavior. Transcript Pg. 6, Lines 34-43; Pg. 7, Lines 1-5 Applicant statement about compatibility based on zoning and the built environment as opposed to potential offenses by guests. Transcript Pg. 7, Lines 31-35 Applicant statement about number of beds All Explanations in Conjunction Together – Community Member Comments Note that the record includes sixteen pages in the transcript with comments from community members, some of which relate to the topics in the allegation descriptions: Transcript Pgs. 28-44 Various comments spanning a whole range of observations about existing problems in the area and expectations about the 7 Section D, Item 1. 6 shelter, from ideas that it will exacerbate problems of disruptive and criminal behavior to ideas that it will alleviate problems. ATTACHMENTS 1. Appeal Overview 2. Notice of Appeal 3. Hearing Notice and Mailing List 4. Staff Report Planning and Zoning Commission with Attachments 5. Applicant Presentation to Planning and Zoning Commission 6. Public Comment + Submitted Documents to Planning and Zoning Commission 7. Link to Video of Hearing 8. Verbatim Transcript 9. Staff Presentation to Council 8 Section D, Item 1. 1 6 de noviembre de 2024 Concejo Municipal PERSONAL ASUNTO Apelaciones del Plan de desarrollo de Fort Collins Rescue Mission. El propósito de este tema cuasijudicial es considerar dos apelaciones de la decisión de la Comisión de Planificación y Zonificación del 28 de agosto de 2024, que aprueba el Plan de desarrollo preliminar/final FDP230022. a sección 5.1.2. No llevó a cabo una audiencia imparcial, ya que la Comisión consideró pruebas pertinentes a sus No interpretó ni aplicó de forma adecuada las siguientes secciones del Código de Uso del Suelo: - estacionamiento", en conjunto con la sección 3.4.1 la idea de que los hombres sin hogar que lleguen a la zona en busca de refugio provocarán más 9 Section D, Item 1. 2 DESCRIPCIÓN DE LAS ACUSACIONES DE LAS APELACIONES Apelación de Mendoza: Asunto de la audiencia imparcial En la Apelación de Mendoza, se alega que no se llevó a cabo una audiencia imparcial porque la Comisión consideró pruebas pertinentes para sus hallazgos que eran sustancialmente falsas o muy engañosas. Las acusaciones que se refieren a las audiencias imparciales por lo general se abordan primero en una apelación porque, según la sección 2-56(b)(1) del Código de la Ciudad, el Concejo debe remitir el asunto para una nueva audiencia si este determina que al apelante se le negó una audiencia imparcial. Sin embargo, la descripción adjunta a la Apelación de Mendoza no identifica ninguna prueba que sea "sustancialmente falsa" o "muy engañosa". No se interpretaron ni aplicaron de manera adecuada las disposiciones pertinentes del Código de Uso del Suelo Sección 3.2.2(K) del Código de Uso del Suelo: Estudio de estacionamiento inadecuado y estacionamiento defectuoso El Código de Uso del Suelo contiene requisitos para la cantidad de espacios de estacionamiento en un plan de desarrollo. Los requisitos se enumeran para ciertos usos, pero el uso como refugio para personas sin hogar no figura con un número específico requerido. En tal caso, el solicitante puede proponer un "Cumplimiento alternativo" para encontrar un número apropiado según un estudio de estacionamiento (en el Paquete de Planeamiento y Zonificación [P&Z], que se detalla a continuación). Los solicitantes utilizan la disposición de cumplimiento alternativo para determinar el número de espacios en el plan. La Apelación de Mendoza afirma que el estudio de estacionamiento utilizado para justificar el número de espacios de estacionamiento se basó en comparaciones inadecuadas que llevaron a un estacionamiento inadecuado y, por lo tanto, la Comisión de Planificación y Zonificación no se aseguró de que el estacionamiento cumpliera con los estándares de la sección del Código. Se observa que el número máximo de camas que se abordó durante el proceso de revisión del plan aumentó de 200 a 250 y sugiere que existe potencial para ampliarlo a 500 camas. También sugiere considerar el requisito de estacionamiento para viviendas multifamiliares como base para un enfoque diferente, lo que produciría una necesidad mucho mayor de estacionamiento para huéspedes de lo que se proporciona. La Apelación de Mendoza plantea una preocupación adicional sobre un problema existente de acampada ilegal de vehículos debido a que una parte de la población sin hogar vive en vehículos, lo que podría agravarse por el hecho de que la instalación no cuenta con suficientes disposiciones de estacionamiento. Los Apelantes de la Apelación de Mendoza hacen referencia a un estudio sobre personas sin hogar en California. Dicho estudio no se proporciona ni forma parte del expediente de la apelación. Las partes no están autorizadas a ofrecer nuevas pruebas sobre los asuntos de la apelación relativos a la interpretación y la aplicación del Código de Uso del Suelo. Entre las pruebas pertinentes del expediente se incluyen las siguientes: basado en un estudio de estacionamiento. P&Z 10 Section D, Item 1. 3 que las personas que usan las camas traigan vehículos y no se les permitiría estacionar en el lugar. Transcripción Pág. 24, líneas 14-16 El solicitante comentó que el estacionamiento no es seguro para las personas sin hogar que viven en vehículos. Transcripción Pág. 45, líneas 31-35 Declaración del solicitante de que no habrá en ningún caso una ampliación mayor a 250 camas. Sección 3.5.1 (J) del Código de Uso del Suelo: Compatibilidad física y operativa La Apelación de Mendoza afirma que existe potencial para una ampliación mayor a 250 camas y que el edificio puede albergar 500 camas, lo que agrava las preocupaciones generales sobre los posibles impactos. Se alega que la Comisión no interpretó ni aplicó de forma adecuada esta sección del LUC al no imponer condiciones a la aprobación para mitigar las incompatibilidades operativas o limitar el número de camas. La Apelación de Mendoza también señala preocupaciones relacionadas con el aspecto del funcionamiento de este centro las 24 horas del día, los 7 días de la semana. Además, los Apelantes de Mendoza sugieren que habrá ruido, contaminación lumínica, disturbios, personas que fuman y se reúnen, vehículos de reparto, recolección de basura y otras operaciones a todas horas. La Apelación de Mendoza afirma que la cerca de madera a lo largo de parte de la propiedad es insuficiente para controlar tales molestias y señala que el vecindario circundante incluye áreas residenciales y negocios con horarios de funcionamiento limitados. Entre las pruebas pertinentes del expediente se incluyen las siguientes: estándares de compatibilidad para la instalación en sí, en contraposición a las afirmaciones sobre el comportamiento ampliación mayor a 250 camas. 45; pág. 11, líneas 1- Sección 4.22(B) del Código de Uso de Suelo: Usos permitidos en el distrito zonal comercial de North College (CCN) La Apelación de Mendoza señala que el plan original de 200 camas aumentó a 250 durante el proceso de revisión y sugiere que la instalación podría ampliarse para dar cabida al exceso de personas provenientes de Denver. Afirma que la Comisión de Planificación y Zonificación no impuso un límite al número de camas ni abordó el potencial uso adicional, lo que podría conducir a una expansión no autorizada. No queda claro para el personal cómo se relacionan estas ideas con la lista de usos permitidos citada en la Apelación de Mendoza. 11 Section D, Item 1. 4 Entre las pruebas pertinentes del expediente se incluyen las siguientes: ampliación mayor a 250 camas. Sección 3.5.1(C) del Código de Uso del Suelo: Incompatibilidad de altura, masa, escala y volumen El edificio consta de secciones de uno y dos pisos, y la zonificación del CCN permite hasta tres pisos. La norma permite que los edificios nuevos sean más grandes que los adyacentes si se articulan y subdividen en distribuciones de masas proporcionales a la masa y la escala de otras estructuras adyacentes. La Apelación de Mendoza sostiene que el edificio de 41,644 pies cuadrados empequeñece las casas rodantes y las pequeñas empresas cercanas en los alrededores. Esta apelación establece que la Comisión de Planificación y Zonificación debería haber impuesto restricciones para reducir la escala y el volumen de la instalación para alinearla mejor con el carácter residencial existente. Las pruebas pertinentes del expediente incluyen numerosas afirmaciones y explicaciones: edificio. personal contexto ecléctico. del personal extensión del espacio de amortiguación alrededor del plan. Sección 3.4.1 del Código de Uso del Suelo: Impacto ambiental La Apelación de Mendoza alega que la Comisión no consideró de forma adecuada los impactos ambientales del aumento de la capacidad de camas de la instalación durante el proceso. Se observa que cuando el número de camas aumentó de 200 a 250 durante el proceso de revisión, no se volvieron a evaluar los impactos del tráfico, la producción de residuos y la presión sobre la infraestructura local. El Aviso de apelación de Mendoza también repite la sugerencia de que la instalación podría ampliarse a 500 camas, lo que dejaría al vecindario circundante vulnerable a una mayor contaminación del aire y del ruido, sistemas de agua y alcantarillado sobrecargados y otras tensiones ambientales. La sección 3.4.1 no aborda esas cuestiones; aborda los hábitats y las características naturales. Dichas cuestiones no están asociadas con este plan de desarrollo porque este plan para el refugio sigue al Plan de Infraestructura de Mason Street que se aprobó anteriormente, el cual creó el sitio donde se propone el refugio, incluidas las medidas de mitigación y restauración en virtud de esta sección. El plan de desarrollo del refugio propuesto no afecta las medidas aprobadas. 12 Section D, Item 1. 5 Entre las pruebas pertinentes del expediente se incluyen las siguientes: una ampliación mayor a 250 camas. Apelación de Jones: No se interpretaron ni aplicaron de manera adecuada las disposiciones pertinentes del Código de Uso del Suelo Sección 1.2.4: Aplicabilidad y sección 3.5.1 (A) y (J): Compatibilidad física y operativa del Código de Uso del Suelo La Apelación de Jones cita en general la sección Aplicabilidad del Código de Uso del Suelo para afirmar que el LUC se aplica a todo desarrollo del suelo dentro de los límites municipales y todas las disposiciones del Código se aplican a las decisiones sobre el uso del suelo, incluso las declaraciones de propósito. La Apelación de Jones cita la declaración de propósito de esta sección, la 3.5.1(A), "para garantizar que las características físicas y operativas de los edificios y los usos propuestos sean compatibles con el contexto". Luego, cita una parte seleccionada de la definición de compatibilidad en la sección 5.1.2 que menciona "características de los diferentes usos, actividades o diseños que permiten ubicarlos cerca de cada uno o adyacentes en armonía". Se observa que la sección 3.5.1(J) permite al responsable de la toma de decisiones imponer condiciones a un plan de desarrollo. Afirma que las normas de compatibilidad efectivamente se aplican a "posibles impactos sociales y del comportamiento en el vecindario" y que es seguro que al menos un pequeño porcentaje de la población a la que presta servicio la instalación causará impactos sociales y del comportamiento en el vecindario, por ejemplo, si se rechaza a un hombre sin hogar porque está borracho o drogado, luego saldrá a deambular por el vecindario. La Apelación de Jones afirma que la intensidad del uso es excesiva en relación con el número de camas. Sugiere que tal vez haya condiciones que se deberían imponer, como limitar el número de camas a un número mucho menor, financiar patrullas de seguridad adicionales y otras condiciones que los vecinos puedan sugerir en la audiencia de apelación. Las pruebas pertinentes del expediente incluyen ejemplos destacados que se enumeran a continuación. Estos ejemplos se enumeran en un orden general de importancia en relación con las descripciones de las apelaciones y algunos están agrupados por temas similares: propósito para determinar el cumplimiento, sino utilizar los 13 Section D, Item 1. 6 contraposición a las afirmaciones sobre el comportamiento potencial de los huéspedes. Transcripción pág. 21, líneas 7-17 compatibilidad en afirmaciones sobre posibles delitos que podrían cometer personas que no están en el sitio o en pág. 7, líneas 1-5 compatibilidad se basa en la zonificación y el entorno construido frente a posibles delitos por parte de los Todas las explicaciones en conjunto: Comentarios de integrantes de la comunidad Tenga en cuenta que el expediente incluye dieciséis páginas en la transcripción con comentarios de integrantes de la comunidad, algunos de los cuales se relacionan con los temas en las descripciones de las acusaciones: observaciones sobre los problemas existentes en el área y las expectativas sobre el refugio, desde ideas de que agravará los problemas de comportamiento disruptivo y delictivo hasta ideas de que aliviará los problemas. DOCUMENTOS ADJUNTOS 1. Aviso de apelación en inglés y español 2. Transcripción literal 3. Paquete del personal para la Comisión de Planificación y Zonificación 4. Presentación del personal para la Comisión de Planificación y Zonificación 5. Presentación del solicitante para la Comisión de Planificación y Zonificación 6. Otros documentos 7. Lista de comentaristas escritos y hoja de registro 14 Section D, Item 1. Appeal Overview 15 Section D, Item 1. City Council Appeal Process Overview Rescue Mission Appeal • City Code appeals procedure (Sections 2-46 to 2-56) governs appeals to the Council. • Two appeals have been filed, one on September 6, 2024, and one on September 11, 2024, to challenge the August 28, 2024, decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve the Fort Collins Rescue Mission FDP #230022. • Because the appeals pertain to the same decision and the issues overlap, they will be consolidated into a single appeal hearing. • Under this appeal process, the City Council’s role is not to make a new decision. The Council’s role is to review the decision made by the Commission and evaluate whether the appellants’ arguments are persuasive that the Commission did not conduct a fair hearing and did not properly apply the specified provisions of the Land Use Code in its decision. • Because of this limited review, sometimes called “review on the record,” the City Code requires the Council to review this matter based on the factual record of the decision of the Commission and arguments presented in the appeal hearing. • While the parties may make arguments based on the evidence in the record, no new evidence may be considered, except: 1. The appellants and opponents to the appeal may submit new evidence in very limited circumstances under the process and deadlines in the City Code. 2. Councilmembers may:  Provide new evidence through observations from any individual site visit and from the organized site visit if there is one; and  Ask questions of staff and parties-in-interest during the hearing and receive evidence in response to those questions. • The Council will review and consider the decision appealed, the evidence that was presented to the Commission before the decision, the verbatim transcript of the Commission’s hearing, and the arguments, responses and discussion in the appeal hearing. • The subject matter of the appeal hearing and decision is limited to only the issues identified in the notices of appeal. • The appellants or party(ies) opposing the appeal, may submit presentation materials presenting their arguments (but not additional new evidence) for the appeal hearing no later than noon on the day of the hearing. 16 Section D, Item 1. 2 • The presentation materials are then posted on the City Clerk’s appeal page, with notice given to the appellants. If the submitting party also wants those materials to be distributed to Council, they must provide 20 hard copies for distribution in advance of the hearing. • Only parties-in-interest are allowed to participate in the appeal hearing and only at the specified time. • Parties-in-interest include: 1. The appellant(s); 2. The applicant; 3. Any party with a proprietary or possessory interest in the land that is the subject of the application; 4. Any person to whom the City mailed notice of the Commission hearing; 5. Any person or organization that provided written comments prior to or at the Commission hearing; or 6. Any person or organization that appeared before the Commission at that hearing. • At the beginning of the appeal hearing, staff will make a presentation giving an overview of the issues on appeal. • If there are procedural issues to be addressed, the presiding officer (Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem) will consider and determine them prior to the parties’ presentations. • The presiding officer will ask any members of Council who visited the site for this appeal hearing to provide a summary of what they observed. • The presiding officer will specify the amount of time for presentation by the Appellant for each appeal and the time for presentation by those opposing each appeal, and time for rebuttals if needed. This is usually 20 minutes for each “side” and 10 minutes for rebuttal by each, but sometimes is set for a shorter or longer time depending on the circumstances. • At the conclusion of the presentations and any follow up questions from Council, the Council will review the evidence included in the record, the arguments and discussion from the hearing, and then will act by motion to address the issues raised in the Notices of Appeal. • A resolution documenting the Council’s findings and decision will be presented to the Council for approval no later than the Council’s next regular meeting after completion of the appeal hearing. 17 Section D, Item 1. Notice(s) of Appeal Filed by 1. Troy W. Jones 2. Rebeca Mendoza 18 Section D, Item 1. NOTICE OF APPEAL FOR CITY CLERK’S USE ONLY: Action Being Appealed:Approval of Fort Collins Rescue Mission FDP#230022 DATE FILED: Date of Action:08/28/2024 DecIsion Maker Planning &Zoning Commission INITIALS: AppellantlAppellant Representative (if more than one appellant): Name:Troy W.Jones Land Planner,Architect Phone #:(970)416-7431 Address:108 Rutgers Avenue,Fort Collins Email:troy@architex.com I For each allegation marked below,attach a separate summary of the facts contained in the record which support the allegation of no more than two pages,Times New Roman 12-point font.Please restate allegation at top of first page of each summary. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL The Decision Maker committed one (1)or more of the following errors (check all that apply): Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Code,the Land Use Code,and Charter. List relevant Code and/or Charter provision(s)here,by specific Section and subsectionl subparagraph: LUC 1.2.4 “Applicability”in conjunction with LUC 3.5.1 “Building and Project Compatibility”subsection (A) “Purpose”in conjunction with LUC 3.5.1(J)“Operational/Physical Compatibility Standards”together with the definition of “compatibility”from 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code.(see attached appeal description) Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that: (a)The Board,Commission,or other Decision Maker exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code or Charter.[New evidence not allowed] (b)The Board,Commission or other Decision Maker substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure.[New evidence not allowed] (c)The Board,Commission or other Decision Maker considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading.[New evidence allowed] D (d)The Board,Commission or other Decision Maker improperly failed to receive all relevant evidence offeredbytheappellant.lNew evidence allowed] El (e)The Board,Commission or other Decision Maker was biased against the appellant by reason of a conflictofinterestorotherclosebusiness,personal or social relationship that interfered with the Decision Maker’s independence of judgment.[New evidence allowed] NEW EVIDENCE All new evidence the appellant wishes Council to consider at the hearing on the appeal must be submitted to the City Clerk within seven (7)calendar days after the deadline for filing a Notice of Appeal and must be clearly marked as new evidence.No new evidence will be received at the hearing in support of these allegations unless it is submitted to the City Clerk by the deadline (7 days after the deadline to file appeal) or offered in response to questions posed by Councilmembers at the hearing. Form updated 4/22/2020 19 Section D, Item 1. APPELLANTS Parties-in-interest have the right to file an appeal. party-in-interest is a person who,or organization which,has standing to appeal the final decision of a board, commission or other decision maker.Such standing to appeal is limited to the following: •The applicant. •Anyone who owns or occupies the property which was the subject of the decision made by the board, commission or other decision maker. •Anyone who received the mailed notice of,or spoke at,the hearing of the board,commission or other decision maker. •Anyone who provided written comments to the appropriate City staff for delivery to the board,commission or other decisio aker prior to or at the hearing on the mailer that is being appealed. •A City Coun Imember. Signature;Date; 09/06/2024 Name:Email: Troy W.Jones troy~architex.com Address:Phone It: 108 Rutgers Avenue (970)416-7431 Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest; I provided both written comments to city staff for delivery to the board,and I provided testimony at the hearing via zoom. Signature;Date: Name;Email: Address:Phone #: Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest; Signature:Date: Name:Email: Address:Phone U: Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: ATtACH ADDITIONAL SIGNATURE SHEETS AS NECESSARY Form updated 4/22/2020 20 Section D, Item 1. Attached description for Appeal to P&Z Commission Approval of Fort Collins Rescue Mission (tile#FDP 230022) 9/6/2024 Code not property interpreted/appLied: LUC 1.2.4 “AppLicability”in conjunction with LUC 3.5.1 “Building and Project CompatibiLity”subsection (A)“Purpose”in conjunction with LUC 3.5.1(i) “Operational/Physical Compatibility Standards”together with the definition of “compatibility”from 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code. Background for Anpeal: •Per 1.2.4 of the LUC,“The provisions of this Code shaft apply to any and aLl development of land within the municipal boundaries of the City,unless expressly and specifically exempted or provided otherwise in this Code.” •Per the plain text within LUC 3.5.1(A)as well as the plain text within 3.5.1(J),the concept of “compatibiLity”is required to be “ensured”in the appLication of the code.An excerpt of the plain text within the LUC in 3.5.1(A)states,“ensjjrethat the physical and opexatianal characteristics of proposed buiLdings and uses are compatible with considered within the context of the surrounding area.”The plain text in 3.5.1(J)includes,“to~nsjsm that the n~w deveLopment be compatibLe with existing neighborhoods and uses,”and thus this code language requires the decision maker to “ensure”this “compatibiLity.”The allowance of “conditions”within 3.5.1(3)is simply the tool provided to the decision maker by the code to accomplish the requirement of ensuring compatibility.Note that the P&Z Commission chose not to use this tool afforded to them by this code section. •An excerpt of the plain text in the definition of “compatibiLity”in 5.1.2 states,“the c133xacteristic~of different uses or activities or design which aLlow them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony.” •Read together,3.5.1(A),3.5.1 (J),and the definition of compatibiLity in 5.1.2 require that compatibility (as defined)be ensured.The P&Z Commission failed to ensure compatibility, and thus failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant provisions of the Land Use Code in their approvaL. Description of Logic for the Appeal: The plain text of the code is clear where the P&Z commission did not apply certain applicable provisions of the code when determining that the proposed FDP was “compatible”within its context.It is clear that all.provisions of the code apply to Land use decisions,even purpose statements.The P&Z commission chose to ignore the code Language that requires that the decision maker must ensure that that a proposed development,including the operational characteristics of said proposed development,be “compatible.”in accordance with the code’s own definition of compatibility,which includes the need that the characteristics of different uses must be in tharmony”with one another. 21 Section D, Item 1. The Land Use Code doesn’t define “harmony,”but Webster’s dictionary defines “harmony” as: o a :pleasing arrangement of parts:cnngate.nQe o b :agreement,acQoxd o c :internal calm:tranquility In other words,if compatibility is required (which it is),then the proposed project must be able to exist in harmony with existing adjacent neighborhoods (which it doesn’t as proposed).If it can’t achieve harmony,it can’t achieve compatibility,and if it can’t achieve compatibility,it doesn’t satisfy the code.And if it doesn’t satisfythe code,the decision maker’s charge is to not approve it. This proposal is not compatible with the neighborhood!!!The code Is clear about that!!! This section of code requires that “operational characteristics of proposed uses”(not just buildings,not just the “built environment”)must be “compatible.”The proposed homeless shelter simply does not meet the code requirements of compatibility because the operational characteristics of the proposed facility are way too intense to be in harmony with its surroundings. Although the use of “homeless shelter”is allowed per zoning,the code is clear that its operational characteristics must aLso be “compatible.”This development application simply does not qualify as “compatible,”per the specifics in the Land Use Code on what constitutes compatibility. Let’s dig into this a little bit.On the one hand,the operational characteristics of providing nightly accommodations for say 5 individual homeless males can probably be made to be compatible in most locations that allowfor homeless shelters.The impacts can most likely be mitigated when there’s only 5,and in that quantity,“harmony”within the context of most neighborhoods could probably be achieved.That’s the low extreme.Let’s consider however the high extreme.The operational characteristics of providing nightly accommodations for say,1000 individual homeless males in a single location,can most certainly not be made to be compatible,quite possibLy anywhere;especially not in Fort Collins;especially not according to the way the Fort Collins Land Use code codifies “compatibility.”The impacts would be simply unmanageable to achieve harmony between these adjacent activities (as codified in the language of the code).This appeaL contends that the intensity proposed in this application is simply too much for this location,within the context of the neighborhood. The applicant is voluntarily causing this impact to exceed compatibility.According to City staff, there’s already 89 beds for single adult males at the Rescue Mission’s current location,and another 70 overflow beds avaiLabLe for this population on cold winter nights at an off-site overflow location.It’s our understanding that the Rescue Mission’s intent is to close-down those two other locations and not only consolidate them into one single location,but to also expand the capacity substantialLy,but at this new location.The problem is that the new proposed location Is within a third of a mile of at least 510 households (Hickory VilLage and 1601 North College communities),and over 100 smalL businesses (up and down Hickory Street and College Avenue),and a school and daycare (La Familia located a few hundred feet from this site). City staff may suggest that the compatibility requirements apply to just buildings,but that’s not true!The code is also clear on this point.The compatibility requirements in the code [3.5.1 of the LUC]clearly state that they apply to both building compatibility and “project compatibility.” While the proposed building itself (the architecture)is compatible in this case,the complete 22 Section D, Item 1. proposed project itself (the intensity of this use in this location)certainty is not compatible.The “compatibility”provisions of code CERTAINLY DO INDEED AND CLEARLY apply to potential social and behavioral impacts that will be imposed upon the surrounding neighborhood (i.e.the project’s context)as a result of a development proposal.Why else would the title of this section include the phrase “project compatibility?” Even though the land use of “homeless shelter”is an allowed use in this zone district,clearly being an allowed use doesn’t ensure compatibility (i.e.characteristics of different uses that aLlow them to be located near each other in harmony)by default.When we asked city staff about what happens when a single adult homeless man attempts to check into a bed in this facility,but is turned away because he is drunk or high,and then goes to wander the neighborhood,the answer was that the police wilt deal with that.That doesn’t sound Like different uses located near each other in harmony.It’s clear that not every one of the population served by this facility will cause social and behavioral impacts to the neighborhood,but it’s certain that at least a small percentage will.The more beds available for this population at this location,the more times that small percentage will turn into an incident,and this a risk that wilt continue every day,every evening, every night into the future.If “calling the police”is the answer,how is that “compatible?”That doesn’t sound Like ensuring “harmony!”It’s simply common sense (backed by code requirements)that 250 nightly beds for homeless single men SHOULD NOT be congregated into one Location,NOT with all the associated impacts,is clearly NOT compatible when considered in the context of the surrounding area! This appeal Is not discounting there isa need for this population to be served,and that we as a community should serve this population.This appeal does not have an answer to this problem,but the answer certainly isn’t to push this burden entirely onto this one neighborhood!The code simply doesn’t allow that. Perhaps there are conditions that the decision maker is obligated to impose to ensure compatibility in conjunction with 3.5.1 (J)of the LUC,such as; •Limiting the quantity of overnight beds at this facility to a much lower number,perhaps 41; •Requiringfunding of ongoing security patrols (whether funding extra police services or extra private security)throughout the neighborhood to ensure safety of the nearby residents and business owner; •Other conditions that nearby residential neighbors and nearby business owners may suggest at the appeal hearing. Th kyou foryo consideration in this matter. Tr y .Jo es,La d Planner,Architect App Ila t 23 Section D, Item 1. NOTICE OF APPEAL FORCITY CLERK’S Action Being Appealed:Approval of Fort Collins Rescue Mission FDP#230022 USE ONLY DATE FILED ljt t Iz~ Date of Action:08/28/2024 Decision Maker:Planning &Zoning Commission INITIALS AppellantfAppellant Representative (if more than one appellant): Name:Rebe6a Mendoza Phone #:(970)308-9275 Address:400 Hickory St #55 Email:rebe.mendo14~gmail.com Fort Collins1 CO,80524 INSTRUCTIONS For each allegation marked below,attach a separate summary of the facts contained in the record which support the allegation of no more than two pages,Times New Roman 12-point font.Please restate allegation at top of first page of each summary. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL The Decision Maker committed one (1)or more of the following errors (check all that apply): Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Code,the Land Use Code,and Charter. List relevant Code and!or Charter provision(s)here,by specific Section and subsectioni subparagraph: LUC 1.2.4 “Applicability”in conjunction with LUC 3.2.2 “Access,Circulation,and Parking”subsection (K)“Parking Requirements”in conjunction with LUC 3.4.1 “Environmental Impact”together with LUC 3.5.1(J)“Operational/Physical Compatibility Standards”and the failure to impose necessary conditions on bed capacity as guided by the standards of LUC 4.22(B)“Service Commercial Districts Permitted Uses”(see attached appeal description) Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that: D (a)The Board,Commission,or other Decision Maker exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained intheCodeorCharter.[New evidence not allowed] D (b)The Board,Commission or other Decision Maker substantially ignored its previously established rules ofprocedure.[New evidence not allowed] (c)The Board,Commission or other Decision Maker considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading.[New evidence allowed] D (d)The Board,Commission or other Decision Maker improperly failed to receive all relevant evidence offeredbytheappellant.[New evidence allowed] D (e)The Board,Commission or other Decision Maker was biased against the appellant by reason of a conflictofinterestorotherclosebusiness,personal or social relationship that interfered with the Decision Maker’s independence of judgment.[New evidence allowed] NEW EVIDENCE All new evidence the appellant wishes Council to consider at the hearing on the appeal must be submitted to the City Clerk within seven (7)calendar days after the deadline for filing a Notice of Appeal and must be clearly marked as new evidence.No new evidence will be received at the hearing in support of these allegations unless it is submitted to the City Clerk by the deadline (7 days after the deadline to file appeal) or offered in response to questions posed by Councilmembers at the hearing. Form updated 4/22/2020 24 Section D, Item 1. Parties-in-interest have the right to file an appeal. APPELLANTS party-in-interest is a person who,or organization which,has standing to appeal the final decision of a board, commission or other decision maker.Such standing to appeal is limited to the following: •The applicant. •Anyone who owns or occupies the property which was the subject of the decision made by the board, commission or other decision maker. •Anyone who received the mailed notice of,or spoke at,the hearing of the board,commission or other decision maker. Anyone who provided written comments to the appropriate City staff for delivery to the board,commission or other decision maker prior to or at the hearing on the matter that is being appealed. •A City Councilmember. I -. c~ -~ ~~44,Date:09/11/2024 C—Name: Debbie Bradberry Email:dkirkbradberry~gmaiI.com Address:Phone #1601 N.College Ave.,Lot 349Fort Collins,CC,80524 (706)714-8100 Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: I received mailed notice and provided testimony at the hearing. Signature:Date: Name:Email: Address:Phone #: Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: ATfACH ADDITIONAL SIGNATURE SHEETS AS NECESSARY Date:Signature: 09/11/2024 Name:46endo~rebe.mendol 4~gmail.comEmail: Address:Phone N: 400 Hickory St #55,Fort Collins,CO,80524 (970)308-9275 Describe how you qualify as a party-in-interest: I received mailed notice and provided testimony at the hearing Form updated 4/2212020 25 Section D, Item 1. Attached description for Appeal to P&Z Commission Approval of Fort Collins Rescue Mission (file#FOP 230022) Code not properly interpreted/applied: LUC 1.2.4 “Applicability”in conjunction with LUC 3.2.2 “Access,Circulation,and Parking” subsection (K)“Parking Requirements”in conjunction with LUC 3.4.1 “Environmental Impact” together with LUC 3.5.1(J)“Operational/Physical Compatibility Standards”and the failure to impose necessary conditions on bed capacity as guided by the standards of LUC 4.22(B) “Service Commercial Districts Permitted Uses.” Grounds for Appeal: This appeal is submitted on the grounds that the Planning and Zoning (P&Z)Commission’s approval of the Fort Collins Rescue Mission project (File#FDP 230022)failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code (LUC)regarding parking, operational compatibility,physical compatibility,environmental impact,and the potential for overflow use,thereby compromising the project’s harmony and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. 1.LUC 3.2.2(K)—Inadequate Parking &Flawed Parking Study Allegation:The P&Z Commission failed to ensure that the proposed parking provisions meet the requirements of LUC 3.2.2(K),leading to inadequate parking for the proposed 24 7 facility.The parking study provided was based on inadequate comparisons,lacking data on similar facilities or actual vehicle usage by guests at the Fort Collins Rescue Mission or Denver Rescue Mission. Argument: •The parking study used to justi~the number of parking spaces does not adequately reflect the reality of the proposed use.The facility was originally planned for 200 beds but later expanded to 250 beds,weeks before the hearing without notice to residents and without reassessing the parking needs.Additionally,initial discussions by the Homeless Advisory Committee convened by the City of Fort Collins considered a facility with a capacity of 500 beds,which could still be realized in the future (Coloradoan,2021).The current proposal for fewer parking spaces is therefore insufficient to meet the potential demand,especially given the existing issue of illegal car camping in the area. •The Fort Collins Rescue Mission Preliminary Design Review dated 10 12 22 for the review hearing on 11 2 22 stated repeatedly that some guests of the Rescue Mission would have vehicles and planned for 52 parking spaces to accommodate staff volunteers, 26 Section D, Item 1. and guest vehicles based on 200 beds.The review included the following site data for parking:25 spaces for staft 8 for volunteers,and 19 for guests,totaling 52 spaces. However,at the 8 28 24 Planning and Zoning Commission hearing,Cassie Slade of Fox Tuft le Transportation Group stated that People using the beds are not likely going to have a vehicle..,there will not be an increase in vehicular traffic with 50 additional beds.” This statement contradicts the earlier planning documents and does not align with the expectations set during the initial design review. •In the 8/9/24 Planning and Zoning Commission Work Session,it was further stated that ..staff doesn’t have a particular basis for a number other than what the parking study says,’indicating a lack of a well-founded approach to determining the appropriate number of parking spaces for the facility. •Multifamily dwellings require 1.5 parking spaces per number of bedrooms in the dwelling unit.Under U 2 Occupancy regulations in place at the time this project entered into the Development Review process,a 1-bedroom apartment would allow 3 adult unrelated residents,making the 1 .5 parking spaces required at a rate of .5 the number of residents.For this facility with 250 beds,the analogous number of parking spaces would be 125 for vehicles for guests.Although alternative compliance is allowable under the Code,the calculations of the number of parking spaces for this development should be much higher than approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission for a 24 7 live-in shelter and based on data of usage in 24 7 shelters in Colorado,not on assumptions based on the current location,which has no guest parking. •According to the California Statewide Study of People Experiencing Homelessness (CASPEH),a significant portion of the unsheltered homeless population lives in vehicles, often parking in residential neighborhoods due to the lack of designated facilities.This is already an issue in Fort Collins and could be exacerbated by a facility of this size without adequate parking provisions (Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative,2023) Citations: •Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative.(2023).Cal(fornia Statewide Study qf People Experiencing Homelessness.University of California San Francisco.Retrieved from httys:/homelessness.ucsf.edu/resources reports/toward-new understandin~-califorma-stat ewide-studv-people-experiencinp •Coloradoan.(April 13,2021).Fort Collins homelessness committee narrows down site options for new 24 shelter.Retrieved from hugs:www.coloradpan com/story news/2021 04 12 fprt-collins-homeless-shelter-oanel narrows s’te options-4 7186620002 27 Section D, Item 1. Attached description for Appeal to P&Z Commission Approval of Fort Collins Rescue Mission (file#FDP 230022) 2.LUC 3.5.1(J)—Operational Incompatibility with Neighborhood Allegation:The P&Z Commission failed to properly interpret and apply LUC 3.5.1(J)by not imposing necessary conditions to mitigate operational incompatibilities.The 24 7 operation of this facility is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood,which includes four high-density residential areas and businesses with limited hours of operation. Argument: •The Fort Collins Rescue Mission was initially proposed for 200 beds but later increased to 250 beds.Initial recommendations from the Homeless Advisory Committee convened by the City of Fort Collins indicated a preference for a facility with a capacity closer to 500 beds.Despite this significant potential for expansion,the P&Z Commission did not impose any conditions to cap the bed count or mitigate the corresponding increase in operational intensity (Coloradoan,2021). •Unlike other services in the area,such as the Food Bank,this facility will operate 24 7, leading to increased noise,light pollution,and other disturbances at all hours,which are not adequately mitigated by the proposed 6-foot privacy fence.The potential for this facility to expand to a capacity of 500 beds further exacerbates these concerns,as the increased number of residents would likely result in greater operational impact.The proposed shelter size of 45,000 square feet was the initial proposed size for a 500-bed facility during the work of the Homeless Advisory Committee convened by the City of Fort Collins.Although the Fort Collins Rescue Mission decreased the number of beds to 200 during the conceptual review phase,it increased it to 250 in its final submission to the City and is not held to 250 as the final maximum capacity for this facility.This is a concern given that this large building is capable of accommodating 500 beds. •The facility’s operations will involve significant outdoor activities,including smoking and congregating,which will produce ongoing noise and odors that are not compatible with the residential character of the surrounding neighborhoods.The lack of imposed conditions on the number of beds or on screening for noise,odors,or other nuisance means that these disturbances could become even more pronounced if the facility expands as initially recommended by the Homeless Advisory Committee convened by the City of Fort Collins.The proposal includes only a wooden fence in some areas of the property,which is insufficient to control the nuisances. •The use of delivery vehicles,trash collection,and other operational necessities at all hours further exacerbates the incompatibility of this development with the existing community.The P&Z Commission’s decision to approve the project without limiting the bed capacity ignores the likely increase in operational demands,which will further strain the neighborhood’s infrastructure and disrupt the quality of life for residents. 28 Section D, Item 1. Attached description for Appeal to P&Z Commission Approval of Fort Collins Rescue Mission (file#FDP 230022) Citation: •Coloracloan.(April 13,2021).Fort Collins homelessness committee narrows down site options for new 24 7 shelter.Retrieved from hugs:www.co oradoan.com story news 2021 04 12 fort-collins-hpmeless-shelter-oanel narrows-site-ootions-4 7186620002 29 Section D, Item 1. Attached description for Appeal to P&Z Commission Approval of Fort Collins Rescue Mission (file#FDP 230022) 3.LUC 3.5.1(C)—Incompatibility of Height,Mass,Scale,and Bulk Allegation:The P&Z Commission did not properly interpret and apply LUC 3.5.1(C)regarding the physical compatibility of the proposed building’s height,mass,scale,and bulk with the surrounding neighborhood Argument: •The proposed 41,644-square-foot facility dwarfs the one-story mobile homes and small businesses that characterize the surrounding area.This discrepancy in scale disrupts the visual and physical harmony of the neighborhood. •The photos included by the applicant to demonstrate compatibility with the neighborhood were of buildings that are not in the immediate surrounding area.These photos were selectively chosen to strengthen their argument,but they do not accurately represent the actual surrounding area.The real neighborhood consists primarily of smaller,one-story structures,making the proposed facility starkly out of place.Photos of the surrounding area provided below clearly illustrate this discrepancy. •The Planning and Zoning Commission should have imposed restrictions on the bed capacity or required design modifications to reduce the scale and bulk of the facility to align better with the existing residential character. •The preservation zoning in the surrounding mobile home parks ensures that these neighborhoods are unlikely to change in the future,making the incompatibility of this large facility even more pronounced and permanent. 30 Section D, Item 1. Attached description for Appeal to P&Z Commission Approval of Fort Collins Rescue Mission (flle#FDP 230022) 4.LUC 4.22(8)—Potential for Overflow Use from Denver Rescue Mission Allegation:The P&Z Commission failed to impose conditions that would prevent this site from being used as an overflow shelter for the Denver Rescue Mission,which could lead to increased strain on local resources and exacerbate the impact on the surrounding community. Argument: •The Fort Collins Rescue Mission was originally proposed with a capacity of 200 beds, later increased to 250 beds.However,initial feedback from the Homeless Advisory Committee convened by the City of Fort Collins considered the need for a facility with up to 500 beds,which raises significant concerns about the potential for this site to be used as an overflow shelter.The P&Z Commission’s failure to impose a cap on the number of beds leaves open the possibility that this facility could expand its capacity in the future,leading to even greater demand on local resources (Coloradoan,2021). •LUC 4.22(B)states that any use authorized pursuant to a site-specific development plan must comply with all use and density requirements and conditions outlined in that plan. By not imposing specific conditions on the maximum number of beds or addressing the potential for overflow use,the P&Z Commission failed to ensure that the development would adhere to the intended use and density requirements.This oversight could lead to an unauthorized expansion in capacity,further intensi~ing the operational and environmental impacts on the community. •Given that the Fort Collins Rescue Mission is operated by the same organization as the Denver Rescue Mission,there is a real risk that this facility could be used to accommodate overflow from Denver.This would increase the intensity of use beyond what was originally presented,placing additional strain on local infrastructure and services,and further aggravating the environmental and operational impacts on the surrounding community. Citation: •Coloradoan.(April 13,2021).Fort Collins homelessness committee narrows down site options for new 24 7 shelter.Retrieved from hugs:www.coloradoan.com/story news/202 1 04 12 fort-collins-homeless-shelter-panel narrows-site-ogtions-4 7186620002 31 Section D, Item 1. Attached description for Appeal to P&Z Commission Approval of Fort Collins Rescue Mission (file#FDP 230022) 5.LUC 3.4.1 -Environmental Impact Allegation:The P&Z Commission failed to adequately consider the environmental impacts associated with the facility’s increasing bed capacity,as required by LUC 3.4.1.Originally proposed for 200 beds,the project was later expanded to 250 beds.Despite initial feedback from the Homeless Advisory Committee convened by the City of Fort Collins indicating the need for a facility with up to 500 beds,the P&Z Commission did not impose any conditions to cap the number of beds,thereby failing to mitigate the potential environmental impact. Argument: •The Fort Collins Rescue Mission project’s bed capacity has been a point of contention throughout its planning.Initially proposed at 200 beds,the capacity was later increased to 250 beds.This shift was not accompanied by a corresponding reassessment of the environmental impacts,including traffic,waste production,and strain on local infrastructure. •According to the Coloradoan,the Homeless Advisory Committee convened by the City of Fort Collins tasked with evaluating the shelter’s needs had discussions that leaned towards a facility capable of housing 500 people.The smaller options,including those with 300 beds,were not widely supported,suggesting that the facility could eventually expand to accommodate more people (Coloradoan,2021).This possibility raises significant concerns about the long-term environmental impact of the project. •The Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC 3.4.1)requires that developments include strategies to avoid or mitigate adverse environmental impacts on natural habitats and features.The P&Z Commission’s failure to impose any conditions on the bed capacity ignores this requirement,leaving the surrounding neighborhood vulnerable to increased air and noise pollution,overburdened water and sewer systems,and other environmental stresses. •The lack of conditions regarding the number of beds also heightens the risk of the facility being used as an overflow shelter,further exacerbating its environmental footprint.As the Coloradoan reported,discussions around the shelter size have considered much larger capacities,which would only amplif3’these concerns. Citation: •Coloradoan.(April 13,2021).Fort Collins homelessness committee narrows down site op/ions for new 24 7 shelter.Retrieved from https:www.coloradoan.com/storv news/2021 04 12 fort-collins-homeless shelter-panel narrows site options-4 7186620002 32 Section D, Item 1. Attached description for Appeal to P&Z Commission Approval of Fort Collins Rescue Mission (file#FDP 230022) Conclusion: This appeal seeks to rectify the Planning and Zoning Commission’s failure to properly interpret and apply the relevant sections of the Planning and Zoning Code,particularly regarding parking adequacy,operational compatibility,physical compatibility,environmental impact,and the potential for regional overflow use.The proposed development,as approved,does not meet the standards of harmony and compatibility required by the Land Use Code and will significantly and negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood and local environment. We respectfully request that the P&Z Commission reconsider their approval of the Fort Collins Rescue Mission project and impose necessary conditions to ensure that the development aligns with the character and needs of the existing community. Photos of Surrounding Area A)East of Property 0 B)Northeast of Property C 33 Section D, Item 1. Attached description for Appeal to P&Z Commission Approval of Fort Collins Rescue Mission (flle#FDP 230022) C)South of Property .tCd.l.rn CDhD,ado 9 D)Southeast of Property ,l(~’ I 34 Section D, Item 1. MI-WEATHER EMERGENCY ACCESS DRIVE NATURAL I4ABITAT BUFFER ZONE —— —~1~ w DzUi UiCD LU -J -J0 4 C-, z o r •,C Co ___ma NOR Ill)~I ~i~git FCRM SITE PLAN 10/12/2022 419 Canyon Ave..Suite 2~ Far?Cnlltns,Cnlaradn ROS?? ap—_ (‘I —‘I i — c OUTDOOR AJIENTIY PRIVACY &SECURITY FENCE PAVILION I HIBOON COURT MAIN -, e NORTH WING 1~IIPThllhIlIL k novtt çr 24 TOP OF Bfl1K AA4ENI1Y -4a 4 4 -n BUILDING FLOOR AREA Office:3280 ON-SITE DETENTION Shelter: Other: TOTAL: ———a I - FORT COLLINS 91.I I E RESCUE MISSION - 34982 5242 —43,000 sf, PARKING Staff (Isp/person):25 Volunteers (Isp/person):8 Guest (1 sp,/1 0 guests):19 TOTAL:52 spaces C U’IDSCAPE t CF1IIECTUIE.L;-:IIJ ph-mIll (3 97022$.58?8 ripleydesiqninr.com 35 Section D, Item 1. Public Hearing Notice Mailing List Mailed: October 16, 2024 36 Section D, Item 1. Revised 9/8/2020 City Clerk 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6515 970.221-6295 - fax fcgov.com/cityclerk PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Appeal of the August 28, 2024 Planning & Zoning Commission Decision regarding Approval of FDP #230022 Fort Collins Rescue Mission The Fort Collins City Council will hold a public hearing on the enclosed appeal. Appeal Hearing Date Time Location: Agenda Materials at fcgov.com/agendas. Why am I receiving this notice? City Code requires that a Notice of Hearing be provided to Parties-in-Interest, which means you are the applicant of the project being appealed, have a possessory or proprietary interest in the property at issue, received a City mailed notice of the hearing that resulted in the decision being appealed, submitted written comments to City staff for delivery to the decision maker prior to the hearing resulting in the decision being appealed, or addressed the decision maker at the hearing that resulted in the decision being appealed. The Notice of Appeal and any attachments, any new evidence that has been submitted and presentations for the Appeal Hearing can be found at fcgov.com/appeals. If you have questions regarding the appeal process, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 970.221.6515. For questions regarding the project itself, please contact Kim Meyer, Interim Community Development and Neighborhood Services at kimeyer@fcgov.com or 970.416.8089. 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 the City Clerk’s Office at 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance. A petición, 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 221-6515 (V/TDD: Marque 711 para Relay Colorado). Por favor proporcione 48 horas de aviso previo cuando sea posible. Delynn Coldiron, City Clerk Enc: Appeal Process Overview cc: City Attorney Community Development and Neighborhood Services Administrative Hearing Officer 37 Section D, Item 1. 113 Hickory Fort Collins Llc 4700 Marketplace Dr Johnstown, Co 80534 115 Hickory Llc 2775 Iris Ave Boulder, Co 80304 1209 N College Llc 109 S Sherwood St Fort Collins, Co 80521 1298 North College Llc 912 9th Ave Greeley, Co 80631 1314 Red Cedar Circle Llc 1314 Red Cedar Cir Fort Collins, Co 80524 325 Hickory Street Llc 1401 Riverside Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 A C F V I Homes Llc 400 Hickory St Fort Collins, Co 80524 Acevedo Ma Auxilio Acevedo Hugo 400 Hickory St Lot 33 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Alcaraz Pulido Martin Rodriquez Paul 400 Hickory St Lot 194 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Alferez-Trejo Jorge 1601 N College Ave Lot 94 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Allemond Lance 1601 N College Ave Lot 88 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Allen Ann Robin Morris Angela F 1601 N College Ave Lot 1 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Altamirano Claudia Sanchez 400 Hickory St Lot 161 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Alvarez Angel Servando Gonzalez 400 Hickory St Lot 183 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Alvarez Bernardino Flores Olivia 400 Hickory St Lot 181 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Alvarez Britro Yolanda/Mera Garcia Dora 400 Hickory St Lot 167 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Alvarez Daniel 400 Hickory St Lot 20 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Amick Kenneth R Po Box 1299 Laporte, Co 80535 Andress Dale A/Carrie L 1601 N College Ave Lot 256 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Ark Defense Llc 331 Hickory St Unit 110 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Armstrong Randall Dean Moore Charlotte Mae 1601 N College Ave Lot 76a Fort Collins, Co 80524 Autozone Inc Po Box 2198 Dept 8700 Memphis, Tn 38101 Avendano Candelaria A Yuri M Perez 400 Hickory St Lot 160 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Baesa Edgar Anarbol Contreras 400 Hickory St Lot 143 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Bailey Debra 1601 N College Ave Lot 25 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Baker Patti 1601 N College Ave Lot 9 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Baray B Terecita 400 Hickory St Lot 93 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Barbara Yant 1601 N College Ave Lot 331 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Bartzen Juliette Adele 1601 N College Ave Lot 16 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Barwood Holdings Limited Llc 220 E Mulberry St Fort Collins, Co 80524 38 Section D, Item 1. Bates Sharilee Kathryn 1601 N College Ave Lot 3 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Bean Dell H 1601 N College Ave Lot 219 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Beard Brian R 1601 N College Ave Lot 216 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Beck Robert R 1601 N College Ave Lot 347 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Beck Waldemar R 1601 N College Ave Lot 109 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Belving Louis 1206 Alameda St Fort Collins, Co 80521 Bicycle Cooperative Of Fort Collins Inc 331 N College Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 Bill Fulbright Trust Fulbright William W 400 Hickory St Lot 145 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Binkley David 1601 N College Ave Lot 92 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Blackman David 1601 N College Ave Lot 341 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Blakeslee Theodore W 1601 N College Ave Lot 263 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Bojorquez Victoria 400 Hickory St Lot 182 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Bordoni Margaret Madeline 1601 N College Ave Lot 144 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Borrego Ernie Darling Ramona 400 Hickory St Lot 147 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Borth Terry L/Ronald F Sr 400 Hickory St Lot 83 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Boyer Carol 1601 N College Ave Lot 110 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Boyer Dennis/Alma 1601 N College Ave Lot 34 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Brackin Kenneth Tully Jr 1601 N College Ave Lot 53 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Bradberry Deborah K 1601 N College Ave Lot 349 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Brauch Richard L 624 W Douglas Rd Fort Collins, Co 80524 Bross Deborah A 1601 N College Ave Lot 68 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Browell Heidi 400 Hickory St Lot 121 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Brower Dana Claude 1601 N College Ave Lot 116 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Brown Craig David 1601 N College Ave Lot 319 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Brown Gerald Alvin 1601 N College Ave Lot 355 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Brownfield B L 1601 N College Ave Lot 254 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Buckendorf Earl Duane 1601 N College Ave Lot 365 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Buckner Rj Vrian/Yolanda 3701 County Road 11 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Bunn Dianne 1601 N College Ave Lot 258 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Burgess Patricia 1601 N College Ave Lot 76b Fort Collins, Co 80524 39 Section D, Item 1. Burnett Monte L, Burnett Mike 1601 N College Ave Lot 354 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Byrd Tonisha, Gates Christine J 1601 N College Ave Lot 329 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Cahill Kelly 1601 N College Ave Lot 218 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Calderas Amilcar Lopez Lorena Elizabeth Delgado 400 Hickory St Lot 134 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Carachure Silvino Ruiz Eloisa 400 Hickory St Lot 198 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Carbajal Almanza Marco Antonio 400 Hickory St Lot 91 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Carbajal Seferino 400 Hickory St Lot 14 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Carlson Virginia E 1601 N College Ave Lot 240 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Carreon Marta 400 Hickory St Lot 94 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Carricaburu Robert 1601 N College Ave Lot 293 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Carrillo Marisela Perez Perez A Santiago 400 Hickory St Lot 92 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Casey Daniel 1601 N College Ave Lot 11 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Chavez Jorge Luis Cruz 400 Hickory St Lot 113 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Chavez Renee Chavez Sandra Po Box 270554 Fort Collins, Co 80527 Chavez Reyna 400 Hickory St Lot 38 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Chavez Rickie 1601 N College Ave Lot 99 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Chavira Maria Consuelo 400 Hickory St Lot 195 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Cheney Richard 1601 N College Ave Lot 126 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Chino Ignacia Patricio 400 Hickory St Lot 132 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Choate Kevin J 1601 N College Ave Lot 100 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Christi Matthew 1601 N College Ave Lot 317 Fort Collins, Co 80524 City Of Fort Collins Po Box 580 Fort Collins, Co 80522 Clayton James/Sheila 1601 N College Ave Lot 294 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Cobb Richard T/Cobb Teresa C Cobb-Jones Bobbi Jo 400 Hickory St Lot 57 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Cobblestone Denver Propco Llc 8900 E Bahia Dr Scottsdale, Az 85260 Collier Sharon 1601 N College Ave Lot 10 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Collings Robert Collings Kristi D 1601 N College Ave Lot 275 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Colvin Catherine 1601 N College Ave Lot 226 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Connell Elizabeth A Po Box 1634 Fort Collins, Co 80522 Contreras Angeles Lopez Becerra Acencion 400 Hickory St Lot 178 Fort Collins, Co 80524 40 Section D, Item 1. Cordova Marty/Jessica 1601 N College Ave Lot 358 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Corona Cesar 400 Hickory St Lot 142 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Cortez Esther 1601 N College Ave Lot 225 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Cowan Keith 3240 Iris Ct Wheat Ridge, Co 80033 Cowan Keith Or Current Resident 400 Hickory St Lot 68 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Craig Danny, Craig Marilyn 1601 N College Ave Lot 342 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Crone Martha Ann 1601 N College Ave Lot 324 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Crossland Richard Alan 1601 N College Ave Lot 39 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Cruz Samatha 400 Hickory St Lot 35 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Cruz Santiago Sergio Serrano Luis 400 Hickory St Lot 1 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Cruz Theresa 400 Hickory St Lot 34 Fort Collins, Co 80524 C-Three Llc 3500 S Timberline Rd Fort Collins, Co 80525 Culbert Jodean 1601 N College Ave Lot 38 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Culbert Peggy Lynn 1601 N College Ave Lot 220 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Culling Randal W 1601 N College Ave Lot 340 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Curry Lydia June/Robert James 1601 N College Ave Lot 66 Fort Collins, Co 80524 D And S Motels Inc 1405 N College Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 D3 Properties Llc 5102 Daylight Ct Fort Collins, Co 80528 Dab Fort Collins Llc Po Box 115 Fort Collins, Co 80522 Dale Gary W Laws Doris D 1601 N College Ave Lot 301 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Daubert Janet L Kellemeyer John A 1601 N College Ave Lot 266 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Davies Kimberly L Kemper Darryl R 1601 N College Ave Lot 271 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Davis James Valdez Cruz 5110 Hogan Ct Fort Collins, Co 80528 De La Luz-Rebollo Jorge 400 Hickory St Lot 150 Fort Collins, Co 80524 De Reza Jesus Manuel Puente 400 Hickory St Lot 76 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Debora Juan M Yepez De Debora Maria Dolores 400 Hickory St Lot 123 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Def Enterprises Llc 309 N 42nd Ave Greeley, Co 80634 Delgado Luis Jose 1601 N College Ave Lot 113 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Delrefugio Flores Maria 400 Hickory St Lot 116 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Demattei Rene S 1601 N College Ave Lot 128 Fort Collins, Co 80524 41 Section D, Item 1. Desersa Leon Gale 1601 N College Ave Lot 90 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Desersa Leon Gale/Kelly Anne 1601 N College Ave Lot 310 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Dester James L 1601 N College Ave Lot 77 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Devlin Alicia Lynn 1601 N College Ave Lot 91 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Devora Yepez Ramona Manuela A 400 Hickory St Lot 176 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Diaz Consuelo 400 Hickory St Lot 163 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Diller Cindy Diller David G 1601 N College Ave Lot 47 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Diosdada Zapata Angel 400 Hickory St Lot 48 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Dlug Dianna L 1601 N College Ave Lot 303 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Downing Terry E 400 Hickory St Lot 75 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Doyle Terry 1601 N College Ave Lot 279 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Dugan Lachelle R 1601 N College Ave Lot 212 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Dunhill Tommy 1601 N College Ave Lot 78 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Earney Josie Earney Donald L 400 Hickory St Lot 174 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Eichman Charles M 1601 N College Ave Lot 241 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Elliott Kristine L Elliott Lisa L 1601 N College Ave Lot 123 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Elliott Kristine L Elliott Lisa L 1601 N College Ave Lot 45 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Engel Jerry R Engel Roger D 2609 16th Ave Greeley, Co 80631 Escajeda Julio Cesar Munoz Garay Olga Leticia Escajeda 400 Hickory St Lot 3 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Escamilla Jeronimo Salgado Karina Gamboa 400 Hickory St Lot 124 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Eubank Thurza 1601 N College Ave Lot 351 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Family Center The/La Familia 309 Hickory St 4 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Family Center The/La Familia 309 Hickory St 5 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Farmer Susan K Brown Cheryl L 400 Hickory St Lot 11 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Faustino-Camacho Jose Luis Quezada Joaquin 400 Hickory St Lot 65 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Feit Donald 1601 N College Ave Lot 57 Fort Collins, Co 80524 First National Bank 1620 Dodge St Stop 3120 Omaha, Ne 68197 Fisher Ralph 1601 N College Ave Lot 27 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Fitzpatrick Nickie C 1601 N College Ave Lot 8 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Flores Luis Alberto 400 Hickory St Lot 100 Fort Collins, Co 80524 42 Section D, Item 1. Frank Julie L 1601 N College Ave Lot 261 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Frank Keith/Vicki Selway Loretta 106 Elk Valley Rd Red Feather Lakes, Co 80545 Frasco Roger D Voltz Toni 1601 N College Ave Lot 228 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Fraser Frederick R Fraser Teresa A 1601 N College Ave Lot 55 Fort Collins, Co 80524 French Theresa French Michael 1601 N College Ave Lot 106 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Friesen Stanley J Sr/Gale M Revocable Trust 8119 White Owl Ct Windsor, Co 80550 Fulford William D 1601 N College Ave Lot 230 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Gallegos Jose M Becerra Mapaula 400 Hickory St Lot 42 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Gallegos Velma Valdez Andrew J 400 Hickory St Lot 72 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Garcia Alvarez Maria Guadalupe 3288 Ambush Dr Wellington, Co 80549 Garcia Daniel Almaraz Alma Alicia 400 Hickory St Lot 192 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Garcia Jesus Rodriguez Yeni 400 Hickory St Lot 15 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Garcia Sanchez Josue/Garcia Alicia 1601 N College Ave Lot 149 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Garrison David N 1601 N College Ave Lot 356 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Garza Madelena Garza Raul C 400 Hickory St Lot 96 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Gaytan Romelia 400 Hickory St Lot 188 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Geiss Jessie Koebnick Daniel 400 Hickory St Lot 78 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Gerhardt Jack Hause Pauline 1601 N College Ave Lot 93 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Giddens James A 1642 Birmingham Dr Fort Collins, Co 80526 Giffin Amy/Lee 2654 E 131st Pl Thornton, Co 80241 Gill Elvia 1601 N College Ave Lot 265 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Giron Tony Jr 112 E Lincoln Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 Glass Michael A 1601 N College Ave Lot 257 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Glebeco Llc 309 Hickory St Unit 1 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Glebeco Llc 309 Hickory St Unit 2 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Globok Llc 928 N Lincoln Ave Loveland, Co 80537 Goad Terry W 1420 N College Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 Gomora Robert J Sr Gomora Geraldine 1601 N College Ave Lot 112 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Gondini Russell 1601 N College Ave Lot 285 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Gonzalez Cruz Felipe 400 Hickory St Lot 120 Fort Collins, Co 80524 43 Section D, Item 1. Gonzalez Ebil Arturo Luna 400 Hickory St Lot 135 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Gonzalez Leticia Julian Julian Ciro Damian Perez 400 Hickory St Lot 109 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Gonzalez Teresa Rosales Maria 400 Hickory St Lot 146 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Gonzlaez Orozco Yesenia Ibeth Munoz-Granados Oscar 400 Hickory St Lot 199 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Goodrich Deborah L 1601 N College Ave Lot 200 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Gorbas Paul 1601 N College Ave Lot 204 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Gorman Thomas F Gorman Rochelle J 1601 N College Ave Lot 338 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Grado Sara L 400 Hickory St Lot St 137 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Granados Erick Benjamin Garcia 415 Harrow St Severance, Co 80550 Gratitude Llc Po Box 270695 Fort Collins, Co 80527 Grauberger Adriana Jean 1601 N College Ave Lot 236 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Graves Frank 1601 N College Ave Lot 142 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Gray Kathleen Marie 1601 N College Ave Lot 321 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Griebel Lynn 1601 N College Ave Lot 299 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Grover Debora/Randy 1601 N College Ave Lot 221 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Guevara Gloria Chavez 400 Hickory St Lot 114 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Gulden Jamison David 1601 N College Ave Lot 114 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Gulle Laura E 1601 N College Ave Lot 359 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Gurule Minarca J Breit Shawna 400 Hickory St Lot 190 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Gutierrez Jesus R Santiesteban Flores Roberto 400 Hickory St Lot 130 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Gutierrez Rosa Cisneros Rito 400 Hickory St Lot 82 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Haines Brandon Kuhrt 1295 N College Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 Hanley Tracy Sue 424 7th St Greeley, Co 80631 Hanson William A/Meriam P 430 Hemlock St Fort Collins, Co 80524 Harlin Carolyn S Harlin Rudolph B 1601 N College Ave Lot 269 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Harmon Susan A 1601 N College Ave Lot 296 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Harper Mary Kathleen 1601 N College Ave Lot 273 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Harris Veta I Near Gary W 400 Hickory St Lot 203 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Harvey Charles 1601 N College Ave Lot 145 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Harvey Charles R 1601 N College Ave Lot 117 Fort Collins, Co 80524 44 Section D, Item 1. Hauck Richard Arthur/Robin Elizabeth 1601 N College Ave Lot 42 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Health Services District Of Northern Larimer County 120 Bristlecone Dr Fort Collins, Co 80524 Heath Mark E / Susan J 1601 N College Ave Lot 328 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Helmut June C 400 Hickory St Lot 162 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Henderson Gloria J 1601 N College Ave Lot 348 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Henke Shea Henke Heather 400 Hickory St Lot 106 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Henthorn Frank Ii 1601 N College Ave Lot 46 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Hernandez Maria Elbia G Miguel Angel Oliva 400 Hickory St Lot 102 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Hernandez Mariana Hernandez Marco A 1706 Birmingham Dr Fort Collins, Co 80526 Hernandez Marisela Hernandez Aldo A 400 Hickory St Lot 112 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Hernandez Ortiz Jose Rivero Lopez Maria Del Refugi O 400 Hickory St Lot 101 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Hernandez Rojas Jose Luis 400 Hickory St Lot 177 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Hernandez Rosa Elizabeth Dominguez 400 Hickory St Lot 64 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Herrera Ivette Torres Marisela 400 Hickory St Lot 157 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Hickman Russell Scott 1601 N College Ave Lot 12 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Hickory 309 Llc 262 E Mountain Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 Hickory 337 Llc 145 N College Ave Ste F Fort Collins, Co 80524 Hickory Village Colorado Llc 51 W Center St Ste 600 Orem, Ut 84057 Hickory Warehouse Development Inc 700 N College Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 Hickory Warehouse Development Inc Po Box 1443 Fort Collins, Co 80522 Hilpert David J 1601 N College Ave Lot 131 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Hines Sharon 1601 N College Ave Lot 330 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Hoag Commercial Rentals Llc 5856 Crooked Stick Dr Windsor, Co 80550 Holmer Connie R 1601 N College Ave Lot 208 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Horizon Property Management Inc Po Box 341 Laporte, Co 80535 Howe Brian M 1601 N College Ave Lot 232 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Hoyt John R 3600 Terry Lake Rd Fort Collins, Co 80524 Hugg Tamara 1601 N College Ave Lot 247 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Huner Samuel 1601 N College Ave Lot 334 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Hunter Jackline 1601 N College Ave Lot 278 Fort Collins, Co 80524 45 Section D, Item 1. Hutchins Max R/Bonnie A Hobson Ronnie 1601 N College Ave Lot 97 Fort Collins, Co 80524 International Church Of The Foursquare Gospel 1201 N College Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 Iron Goat Llc Po Box 369 Bellvue, Co 80512 J Garcia Inc 2903 Crusader St Fort Collins, Co 80524 Jaquez Kevin, Jaquez Jose 400 Hickory St Lot 44 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Jauken Doug 1601 N College Ave Lot 326 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Jimenez Analisa 400 Hickory St Lot 88 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Jog Llc 4629 N Overland Trl Laporte, Co 80535 Johnson James P 215 W Magnolia St Ste 200 Fort Collins, Co 80521 Johnson Larry A/Janice H 1601 N College Ave Lot 215 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Johnston Lynette Kay 1601 N College Ave Lot 37 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Jones Allen E Jones Evelyn S 1601 N College Ave Lot 115 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Jones Beverly K/Brad A 1601 N College Ave Lot 210 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Jones Chandra 8945 Raging Bull Ln Wellington, Co 80549 Jones Elizabeth J 1601 N College Ave Lot 327 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Jones Mark Thomas Jones Lori Anne 1601 N College Ave Lot 315 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Jones Roxanna Jones Tod R/Jones Nicholas 1601 N College Ave Lot 346 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Kaltenberger James W 1601 N College Ave Lot 274 Fort Collins, Co 80524 The Kamandy Fahima Trust 1710 Linden Way Fort Collins, Co 80524 Karen Morak LLC Happy Home Rentals Llc (2127) 4914 N County Road 3 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Keefe Kevin Patrick 1601 N College Ave Lot 248 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Kenna Wendy 1601 N College Ave Lot 211 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Kern Peggy Jo 1601 N College Ave Lot 270 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Kinard Susan M 1601 N College Ave Lot 280 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Koss Patricia Taber Richard Jr 1601 N College Ave Lot 333 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Kutchar Jimmy Dean Kutchar Patricia Ann 1601 N College Ave Lot 152 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Larsen D And M Family Llp 2700 Bevan Cir Fort Collins, Co 80524 Larson Bradley Ray 1601 N College Ave Lot 201 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Lasch Kathy D 1601 N College Ave Lot 43 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Lauer Carolyn 400 Hickory St Lot 172 Fort Collins, Co 80524 46 Section D, Item 1. Lavelle Judith 1601 N College Ave Lot 83 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Lee-5 Llc 1908 Mohawk St Fort Collins, Co 80525 Livinghouse Kenneth Lee 1601 N College Ave Lot 345 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Llamas George 1601 N College Ave Lot 82 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Lloyds Holdings Llc 808 E Elizabeth St Fort Collins, Co 80524 Lomeli Jose Antonio Ruiz Ruiz Anthony B 400 Hickory St Lot 9 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Lopez Adriana 400 Hickory St Lot 153 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Lopez Lisa 400 Hickory St Lot 41 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Lopez Lorena K 400 Hickory St Lot 164 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Lopez Luis Jose Castillo Isabel 400 Hickory St Lot 89 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Lopez Rita 400 Hickory St Lot 4 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Lopez Sonia Leos Alfonoso 400 Hickory St Lot 104 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Lucas Clint J/Stacey R 400 Hemlock St Fort Collins, Co 80524 Lucas Keturah M 400 Hickory St Lot 202 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Lucero Maria E 400 Hickory St Lot 138 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Lugo Alcaraz Gregorio Holguin Chavira Concepcion 400 Hickory St Lot 99 Fort Collins, Co 80524 M2y Holdings Llc 1401 Main St Longmont, Co 80501 Madrid Nelda/Juan M 400 Hickory St Lot 70 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Maes Joseph Anthony 400 Hickory St Lot 19 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Maes Tracy Joe 400 Hickory St Lot 54 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Maestry George/Anthony 4009 Cherry Hills Dr Fort Collins, Co 80524 Major Mindy Lee 1601 N College Ave Lot 138 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Maldonado Lupe/Ofelia 400 Hickory St Lot 204 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Maldonado Marcus E Maldonado Irlanda G Acevedo 400 Hickory St Lot 107 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Mantovani Cindy Mantovani Eileen J 1601 N College Ave Lot 277 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Manzanares Nick 1601 N College Ave Lot 74 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Mario Lopez 400 Hickory St Lot 122 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Marks Ronald L Marks Marjorie A 1601 N College Ave Lot 291 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Markuson Janis Louise 1601 N College Ave Lot 95 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Marquez Armando Jr 400 Hickory St Lot 98 Fort Collins, Co 80524 47 Section D, Item 1. Marquez Guadalupe O 400 Hickory St Lot 29 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Martin Forest R/Marie C 1601 N College Ave Lot 147 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Martin Robin Po Box 112 Fort Collins, Co 80522 Martinez Andazola Bertha Rita 400 Hickory St Lot 87 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Martinez Ivan J/Noel 400 Hickory St Lot 60 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Martinez Jessica Chay Son Pedro 400 Hickory St Lot 69 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Martinez Polly Ann Maratinez Jimmy 1601 N College Ave Lot 18 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Martinez Rosa E Contreras Jose Luis 400 Hickory St Lot 141 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Maryott Jan 1601 N College Ave Lot 302 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Matteson Louise P 1601 N College Ave Lot 223 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Mavrick Lucinda 1601 N College Ave Lot 29 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Mcafee Neva 1601 N College Ave Lot 298 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Mccaffrey Sean Michael Kaderka Alexandra Elizabeth 400 Hickory St Lot 97 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Mccarver Robert 1601 N College Ave Lot 118 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Mccolloum Lance R Maryott Jan M 1601 N College Ave Lot 297 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Mccoy Connie 1601 N College Ave Lot 251 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Mcculloch Douglas K 1601 N College Ave Lot 73 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Mcculloch Michaelene 1601 N College Ave Lot 202 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Mcfarland Sharon E 1601 N College Ave Lot 119 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Mcgarvey Lorri Jean 1601 N College Ave Lot 325 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Mcgraw Rebecca Ann 1601 N College Ave Lot 17 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Mcintyre Ross Edwin Mcintyre Beverly Rose 1601 N College Ave Lot 44 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Mckee James 1601 N College Ave Lot 264 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Mckenrick Matthew 400 Hickory St Lot 111 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Mckune James Mckune Lisa 400 Hickory St Lot 201 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Mcnutt Patricia Kisner Sheila 1601 N College Ave Lot 272 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Mcrae James M Pettus Karen 1601 N College Ave Lot 249 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Meddles Victoria 1601 N College Ave Lot 283 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Medina Angelica M Gallegos Erika 400 Hickory St Lot 151 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Medina Cliff 1601 N College Ave Lot 111 Fort Collins, Co 80524 48 Section D, Item 1. Mejia Rosenda 1601 N College Ave Lot 52 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Menjares Thomas Menjares Beatrice 400 Hickory St Lot 18 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Michele Catherine 1601 N College Ave Lot 125 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Milan Randolph S/Debra A 1402 Catalpa Ct Fort Collins, Co 80521 Miller Deeann/David 1601 N College Ave Lot 50 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Mills Boyd 2601 S Lemay Ave Unit 7-102 Fort Collins, Co 80525 Ml Maher Family Ventures Llc 4516 Inlet Ct Fort Collins, Co 80526 Montoya Miriam G Quiroz 401 N Timberline Rd Lot 188 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Moore Carol G 1601 N College Ave Lot 312 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Morales Armida Hernandez Olmos Alejandro Quinones 400 Hickory St Lot 159 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Mordini Deniele 1601 N College Ave Lot 246 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Moreng Commercial Llc 327 E County Road 60 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Moreno Angeliqua 400 Hickory St Lot 58 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Moreno Kinglsey/Felipa N 400 Hickory St Lot 67 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Mosman Jacqueline 1601 N College Ave Lot 238 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Muillo Jorge Teran Vega M Zulema 400 Hickory St Lot 133 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Munguia Eva 400 Hickory St Lot 117 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Munkres David W 1601 N College Ave Lot 323 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Munoz Mariano E 400 Hickory St Lot 155 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Munoz Marquez Jesus Marquez Jesus Munoz 400 Hickory St Lot 140 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Murtishaw Jerri J/Donald Leslie 1601 N College Ave Lot 151 Fort Collins, Co 80524 N College 1311 Llc 262 E Mountain Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 Nass Stephen L 1601 N College Ave Lot 316 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Ncfs Llc 300 Hickory St Fort Collins, Co 80524 Nelson Donna M Po Box 1353 Wellington, Co 80549 Nelson Hollis Jane 1601 N College Ave Lot 295 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Newton Steven J 400 Hickory St Lot 47 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Nordstrom Barbara 1601 N College Ave Lot 360 Fort Collins, Co 80524 North C33 Trust Trustee Yejee Hoffman Po Box 31 Windsor, Co 80550 North College Community Llc 1601 N College Ave Office Fort Collins, Co 80524 49 Section D, Item 1. North College Llc 1601 N College Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 North College Llc 30262 Crown Valley Pkwy #B457 Laguna Niguel, Ca 92677 North College Llc Or Current Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 48 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Northside Foco Llc 1600 Brentford Ln Fort Collins, Co 80525 Nowakowski Stephen Nowakowski Henry 1601 N College Ave Lot 245 Fort Collins, Co 80524 O L Entup Llc Po Box 1428 Fort Collins, Co 80522 Occupant 1601 N College Ave Lot 255 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Ochoa-Chacon Ruben Ochoa Ruben 400 Hickory St Lot 8 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Olivas Chavira Jose Luis Olivas Luisa Nallely 400 Hickory St Lot 119 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Olivas Gloria Olivas Sergio E 400 Hickory St Lot 165 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Olson Linnea 1601 N College Ave Lot 320 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Opm Holdings Llc 3641 Stagecoach Rd Longmont, Co 80504 Oqueli Balbino 1601 N College Ave Lot 72 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Ordaz Jose 400 Hickory St Lot 2 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Ornelas Barbara 400 Hickory St Lot 144 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Orta Luis Daniel Caro Grado-Wilson Anna L 400 Hickory St Lot 73 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Ortiz Luisana Isaac Jesus 400 Hickory St Lot 129 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Ortiz Roberto 400 Hickory St Lot 10 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Ovalle Ana Maria 400 Hickory St Lot 39 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Overby Charles Graham Ii 1601 N College Ave Lot 227 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Owl Canyon Properties Llc 525 W County Road 70 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Padgett Debra Denise 400 Hickory St Lot 46 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Padgett Starla J Padgett John R 400 Hickory St Lot 179 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Paez Dailet Marissa Flores 400 Hickory St Lot 131 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Paez Lesly Hernandez Paez Erika 400 Hickory St Lot 169 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Panella Deborah Kaye Ruiz Rose Marie 1601 N College Ave Lot 70 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Parga Aleman Juan Abraham Martinex Banuelos Erika 400 Hickory St Lot 80 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Parmelee Helen L 1601 N College Ave Lot 80 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Payne Paula Clifton Terry 1601 N College Ave Lot 107 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Perez Angelica Nevarez Yasmin 400 Hickory St Lot 126 Fort Collins, Co 80524 50 Section D, Item 1. Perez Araceli/Juan 400 Hickory St Lot 197 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Perez Bianey 400 Hickory St Lot 110 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Perez Corona Misdrain Perez Corona Cersar 400 Hickory St Lot 32 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Perez Daniel A 400 Hickory St Lot 149 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Perez Garcia Lucio Rivera Marisa S Mera 400 Hickory St Lot 166 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Perez Raul Vargas Obispo Juana 1601 N College Ave Lot 287 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Peters Marie 1601 N College Ave Lot 229 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Petri Robert 1601 N College Ave Lot 313 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Pettit Colleen 1601 N College Ave Lot 69 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Piazza Marianne 1601 N College Ave Lot 239 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Pittman Kenna 1601 N College Ave Lot 127 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Pletcher Daniel Iii 1601 N College Ave Lot 276 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Plock Walden E Jr 1601 N College Ave Lot 209 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Pointer Bonnie Lou 1601 N College Ave Lot 22 Fort Collins, Co 80526 Policicchio Tony John 1601 N College Ave Lot 63 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Ponce Cruz Velia Ruiz 400 Hickory St Lot 185 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Poudre Valley Health Care Inc 2315 E Harmony Rd Ste 200 Fort Collins, Co 80528 Prado Vanessa C 400 Hickory St Lot 118 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Preston Susan K 1601 N College Ave Lot 231 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Pws Properties Llc Po Box 448 Fort Collins, Co 80522 Qr Inc Po Box 2112 Fort Collins, Co 80522 Quam Roger K 1601 N College Ave Lot 102 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Quezada Barderrama Monica J Quezada Natalie 400 Hickory St Lot 6 Fort Collins, Co 80524 R And S Holdings Llc 1235 N College Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 Ramirez Benigno 1601 N College Ave Lot 308 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Ramirez Nancy A 400 Hickory St Lot 186 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Randolph Scot F 1601 N College Ave Lot 60 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Rascon Hermila Rangel Galaz Miguel Arellano 400 Hickory St Lot 31 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Red Cedar Circle Llc 4731 Westridge Dr Fort Collins, Co 80526 Reed Dayne A 1601 N College Ave Lot 353 Fort Collins, Co 80524 51 Section D, Item 1. Renley Dennis D 1601 N College Ave Lot 233 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Renteria Veronica 400 Hickory St Lot 43 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1101 N College Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1108 N College Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1110 N College Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1113 N College Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 113 Hickory St Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 114 Bristlecone Dr Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 115 Hickory St Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1180 N College Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 120 Hemlock St Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1200 N College Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1203 N College Ave Thru Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1203 Red Cedar Cir Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1209 N College Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1217 N College Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1220 N College Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1224 Red Cedar Cir Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1225 Red Cedar Cir Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1237 Red Cedar Cir Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 126 Hemlock St Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1261 Red Cedar Cir Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1298 N College Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1303 N College Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1303 N College Ave Unit 1 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1303 N College Ave Unit 11 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1303 N College Ave Unit 12 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1303 N College Ave Unit 14 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1303 N College Ave Unit 15 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1303 N College Ave Unit 16 Fort Collins, Co 80524 52 Section D, Item 1. Resident / Residente 1303 N College Ave Unit 17 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1303 N College Ave Unit 18 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1303 N College Ave Unit 19 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1303 N College Ave Unit 2 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1303 N College Ave Unit 22 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1303 N College Ave Unit 25 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1303 N College Ave Unit 28 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1303 N College Ave Unit 3 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1303 N College Ave Unit 30 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1303 N College Ave Unit 31 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1303 N College Ave Unit 32 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1303 N College Ave Unit 33 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1303 N College Ave Unit 36 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1303 N College Ave Unit 37 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1303 N College Ave Unit 38 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1303 N College Ave Unit 4 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1303 N College Ave Unit 7 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1303 N College Ave Unit 8 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1303 Red Cedar Cir Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1304 N College Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1307 N College Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1311 N College Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1314 N College Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1319 N College Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1324 N College Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1331 Red Cedar Cir 2 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1331 Red Cedar Cir 3 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1331 Red Cedar Cir 4 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1331 Red Cedar Cir 5 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1331 Red Cedar Dr 1 Fort Collins, Co 80524 53 Section D, Item 1. Resident / Residente 1401 N College Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1405 N College Ave 1 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1405 N College Ave 2 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1405 N College Ave 3 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1405 N College Ave 4 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1405 N College Ave 5 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1405 N College Ave 6 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1405 N College Ave 7 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1405 N College Ave 8 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1405 N College Ave 9 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1415 N College Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1422 N College Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1475 N College Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1500 N College Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1501 N College Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1505 N College Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1506 N College Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1512 N College Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1513 N College Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1600 N College Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1600 N College Ave 37 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 1 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 10 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 100 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 101 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 102 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 103 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 104 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 105 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 106 Fort Collins, Co 80524 54 Section D, Item 1. Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 107 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 109 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 11 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 110 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 111 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 112 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 113 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 114 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 115 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 116 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 117 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 118 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 119 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 12 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 120 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 121 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 122 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 123 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 124 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 125 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 126 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 127 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 128 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 130 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 131 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 132 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 133 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 134 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 135 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 136 Fort Collins, Co 80524 55 Section D, Item 1. Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 137 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 138 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 139 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 14 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 140 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 141 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 142 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 143 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 144 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 145 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 146 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 147 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 148 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 149 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 15 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 150 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 151 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 152 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 16 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 17 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 18 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 19 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 20 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 200 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 201 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 202 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 203 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 204 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 205 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 206 Fort Collins, Co 80524 56 Section D, Item 1. Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 208 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 209 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 21 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 210 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 211 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 212 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 213 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 214 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 215 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 216 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 217 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 218 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 219 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 22 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 220 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 221 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 222 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 223 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave Unit 224 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 225 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 226 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 227 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 228 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 229 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 23 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 230 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 231 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 232 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 233 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 234 Fort Collins, Co 80524 57 Section D, Item 1. Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 235 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 236 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 237 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 238 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 239 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 24 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 240 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 241 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 242 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 243 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 244 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 245 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 246 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 247 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 248 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 249 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 25 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 250 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 251 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 252 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 253 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 254 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 255 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 256 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 257 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 258 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 259 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 26 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 260 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 261 Fort Collins, Co 80524 58 Section D, Item 1. Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 262 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 263 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 264 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 265 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 266 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 267 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 267a Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 267b Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 268 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 269 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 27 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 270 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 271 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 272 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 273 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 273a Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 274 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 275 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 276 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 277 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 278 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 279 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 28 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 280 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 281 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 282 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 283 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 284 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 285 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 286 Fort Collins, Co 80524 59 Section D, Item 1. Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 287 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 288 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 289 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 29 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 290 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 291 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 292 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 293 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 294 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 295 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 296 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 297 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 298 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 299 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 3 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 30 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 300 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 301 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 302 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 303 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 304 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 305 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 306 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 307 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 308 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 309 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 31 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 310 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 311 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 312 Fort Collins, Co 80524 60 Section D, Item 1. Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 313 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 314 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 315 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 316 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 317 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 318 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 319 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 32 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 320 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 321 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 322 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 323 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 324 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 325 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 326 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 327 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 328 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 329 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 33 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 330 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 331 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 332 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 333 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 334 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 335 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 336 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 337 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 338 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 339 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 34 Fort Collins, Co 80524 61 Section D, Item 1. Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 340 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 341 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 342 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 343 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 344 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 345 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 346 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 347 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 348 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 349 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 35 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 351 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 352 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 353 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 354 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 355 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 356 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 357 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 358 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 359 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 36 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 360 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 361 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 362 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 363 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 364 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 365 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 366 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 38 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 39 Fort Collins, Co 80524 62 Section D, Item 1. Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 4 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 41 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 42 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 43 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 44 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 45 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 46 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 47 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 48 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 49 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 50 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 51 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 52 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 53 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 54 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 55 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 56 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 57 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 58 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 59 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 6 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 60 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 61 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 64 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 65 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 66 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 67 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 68 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 69 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 7 Fort Collins, Co 80524 63 Section D, Item 1. Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 70 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 71 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 72 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 73 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 74 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 76a Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 76b Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 77 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 78 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 79 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 8 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 80 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 81 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 82 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 83 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 84 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 85 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 86 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 87 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 88 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 89 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 9 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 90 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 91 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 92 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 93 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 94 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 95 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 96 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 97 Fort Collins, Co 80524 64 Section D, Item 1. Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 98 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1601 N College Ave 99 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 1606 N College Ave Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 200 Hickory St Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 202 Bristlecone Dr Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 216 Hemlock St Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 280 Hickory St Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 309 Hickory St 1 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 309 Hickory St 2 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 309 Hickory St 3 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 315 Hickory St Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 315 Hickory St 1 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 315 Hickory St 2 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 315 Hickory St 3 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 315 Hickory St 4 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 315 Hickory St 5 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 315 Hickory St 6 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 315 Hickory St 7 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 321 Hickory St 110 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 321 Hickory St 130 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 325 Hickory St 110 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 331 Hickory St 110 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 331 Hickory St 120 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 331 Hickory St 130 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 337 Hickory St Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 1 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 10 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 100 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 101 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 102 Fort Collins, Co 80524 65 Section D, Item 1. Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 103 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 104 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 105 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 106 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 107 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 108 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 109 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 11 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 110 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 111 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 112 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 113 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 114 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 115 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 116 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 117 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 118 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 119 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 12 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 120 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 121 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 122 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 123 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 124 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 125 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 126 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 127 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 128 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 129 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 13 Fort Collins, Co 80524 66 Section D, Item 1. Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 130 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 131 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 132 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 133 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 134 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 135 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 136 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 137 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 138 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 139 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 14 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 140 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 141 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 142 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 143 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 144 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 145 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 146 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 147 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 148 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 149 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 15 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 150 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 151 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 152 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 153 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 154 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 155 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 156 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 157 Fort Collins, Co 80524 67 Section D, Item 1. Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 158 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 159 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 16 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 160 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 161 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 162 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 163 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 164 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 165 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 166 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 167 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 168 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 169 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 17 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 170 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 171 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 172 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 173 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 174 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 175 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 176 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 177 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 178 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 179 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 18 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 180 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 181 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 182 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 183 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 184 Fort Collins, Co 80524 68 Section D, Item 1. Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 185 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 186 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 187 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 188 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 189 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 19 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 190 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 191 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 192 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 193 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 194 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 195 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 196 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 197 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 198 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 199 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 2 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 20 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 200 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 201 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 202 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 203 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 204 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 21 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 22 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 23 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 24 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 25 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 26 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 27 Fort Collins, Co 80524 69 Section D, Item 1. Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 28 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 29 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 3 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 30 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 31 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 32 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 33 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 34 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 35 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 36 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 37 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 38 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 39 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 4 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 40 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 41 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 42 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 43 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 44 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 45 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 46 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 47 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 48 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 49 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 5 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 50 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 51 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 52 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 53 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 54 Fort Collins, Co 80524 70 Section D, Item 1. Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 55 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 56 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 57 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 58 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 59 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 6 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 60 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 61 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 62 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 63 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 64 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 65 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 66 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 67 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 68 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 69 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 7 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 70 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 71 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 72 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 73 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 74 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 75 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 76 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 77 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 78 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 79 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 8 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 80 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 81 Fort Collins, Co 80524 71 Section D, Item 1. Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 82 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 83 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 84 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 85 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 86 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 87 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 88 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 89 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 9 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 90 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 91 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 92 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 93 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 94 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 95 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 96 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 97 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 98 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 400 Hickory St 99 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Resident / Residente 401 Hickory St Fort Collins, Co 80524 Reyes Gabriela Quintero 400 Hickory St Lot 196 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Reyes Gregorio Antonio Sanchez 400 Hickory St Lot 17 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Reyna Jesus Isaac 400 Hickory St Lot 170 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Reynolds Special Llc 1633 Kit St Severance, Co 80550 Rhljbl Llc 3715 Copper Spring Dr Fort Collins, Co 80528 Ribota Catalina White Andrew J 400 Hickory St Lot 13 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Rice Bruce 1601 N College Ave Lot 284 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Rice Jerome C 1601 N College Ave Lot 290 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Rice Wilma Jean 1601 N College Ave Lot 282 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Richardson Henrietta A 1601 N College Ave Lot 81 Fort Collins, Co 80524 72 Section D, Item 1. Richey Addie Killerman Catrine 301 Ridgewood Ct Fort Collins, Co 80524 Ricketson James H 1601 N College Ave Lot 104 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Riggs Lois J Riggs Daniel B 1601 N College Ave Lot 235 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Rivas Norma V 400 Hickory St Lot 52 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Roberts Jerry A Garrison Earl R 1601 N College Ave Lot 281 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Rodriguez Christy L Rodriguez Mike P 400 Hickory St Lot 139 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Rodriguez Escamilla Gamaliel 400 Hickory St Lot 56 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Rodriguez Mirna Cano R Maria Martha 400 Hickory St Lot 49 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Rodriguez Tarin Martina Ibanez Trejo Noe Israel 400 Hickory St Lot 81 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Rojas Edith Hernandez Silvestre Bello Po Box 1221 Fort Collins, Co 80522 Romero Alicia Lopez 400 Hickory St Lot 37 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Romero Annie Marie 1601 N College Ave Lot 224 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Rosenfelder Patti R 1601 N College Ave Lot 307 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Rostad Kenneth O 3630 Terryridge Rd Fort Collins, Co 80524 Rua Mary 1601 N College Ave Lot 262 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Ruiz Carlos A Jr 1601 N College Ave Lot 54 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Rupp Julie A 1601 N College Ave Lot 41 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Rush Family Llc 5095 Mcintyre St Golden, Co 80403 Sadd Michele M 1601 N College Ave Lot 234 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Sage Darold 1601 N College Ave Lot 65 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Salvation Army Po Box 2369 Denver, Co 80201 Sandoval Salvador Harold 400 Hickory St Lot 136 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Santos Selina Marie Rodriguez Castillo Victor Manuel 400 Hickory St Lot 53 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Sapien Juan Carlos 400 Hickory St Lot 90 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Satterfield Craig 1601 N College Ave Lot 88 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Saucedo-Zurich Kathy 1601 N College Ave Lot 306 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Schaefer Carl M 1601 N College Ave Lot 64 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Schmidt Loretta Dee Suarez Rachel 1601 N College Ave Lot 305 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Schrader Propane Co Po Box 448 Fort Collins, Co 80522 Serrano Yaricza 712 Sitka St Fort Collins, Co 80524 73 Section D, Item 1. Shah Azhar Mehdi 1601 N College Ave Lot 366 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Shannon Jennifer 400 Hickory St Lot 125 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Sheaman Gloria Jean 1601 N College Ave Lot 243 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Shields Sandra 1601 N College Ave Lot 222 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Shine Jody 1601 N College Ave Lot 352 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Sholar Diane 1601 N College Ave Lot 98 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Simonton Kendall R 1601 N College Ave Lot 253 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Skoglund Pennelope 1601 N College Ave Lot 206 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Smilie Dennis 1232 Red Cedar Cir Fort Collins, Co 80524 Smith Barbara D 400 Hickory St Lot 148 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Smith Hawell Daniel Lucero Donna Kay 1601 N College Ave Lot 79 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Smith Sara L Smith Carmen T Herrera 1601 N College Ave Lot 121 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Smole Sherry Cooley Randy 400 Hickory St Lot 45 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Smythe John M 1601 N College Ave Lot 364 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Snook Patricia A 1601 N College Ave Lot 304 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Solomon Alberta R 1601 N College Ave Lot 150 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Sortais Birthe L Collings Kristi D 1601 N College Ave Lot 214 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Staats Robert Bryant Ii 1919 Edinburgh St Rawlins, Wy 82301 Stackhouse John Oakley Barbara 1601 N College Ave Lot 260 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Starke William Dillon Charles R Po Box 1102 Laporte, Co 80535 Staton Mark Staton Susan 1601 N College Ave Lot 30 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Stevens Shelli 1601 N College Ave Lot 363 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Stevens Wendy J 1601 N College Ave Lot 318 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Stewart Isabelle Marion 1601 N College Ave Lot 335 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Stewart Roma K 1601 N College Ave Lot 288 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Stice Cheryl A 1601 N College Ave Lot 27 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Stokes Chris Allen 1601 N College Ave Lot 122 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Stout Bobby G Stout Patricia L 400 Hickory St Lot 27 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Stultz Johnnie Kent/Rosalie 1601 N College Ave Lot 267 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Sussex John Daubert Lois 1601 N College Ave Lot 143 Fort Collins, Co 80524 74 Section D, Item 1. Switzer Constance A 1601 N College Ave Lot 344 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Teager Rex A 1601 N College Ave Lot 242 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Teegarden Franklin 1601 N College Ave Lot 213 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Teich Allen Teich Mary Lou 2659 W 45th St Loveland, Co 80538 Thielen Robert A Po Box 664 Laporte, Co 80535 Thompson Kathleen M 1601 N College Ave Lot 203 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Thompson Properties Llc Po Box 1167 Laporte, Co 80535 Tilray Fort Collins Llc 655 Madison Ave Ste 1900 New York, Ny 10065 Toledo Rebeca Mendoza 400 Hickory St Lot 55 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Tomlinson Phillip F Jr Tomlinson Susan 1601 N College Ave Lot 101 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Tongate Lewanda Lee 1601 N College Ave Lot 7 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Torok Geraldine L 1601 N College Ave Lot 4 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Torres Vanessa Soto Victor 400 Hickory St Lot 115 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Torrez Carmen 1601 N College Ave Lot 6 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Trejo Alonso Rios Diana 400 Hickory St Lot 105 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Trent David W Grenemyer Allyne A 1601 N College Ave Lot 314 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Troudt William Lee 1601 N College Ave Lot 105 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Trudeau Amy E 1601 N College Ave Lot 336 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Tupica Amy 400 Hickory St Lot 21 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Union Colony Bank 1620 Dodge St Stop 3120 Omaha, Ne 68197 Union Pacific Railroad Co 1400 Douglas St Stop 1640 Omaha, Ne 68179 United States Of America Bureau Of Land Management 1313 Sherman St Denver, Co 80203 Valdez Fermin Jr 1601 N College Ave Lot 87 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Valdez Lily 1601 N College Ave Lot 14 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Valdez Mary A/Andrew D 1601 N College Ave Lot 361 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Valencia Ruiz Angel R 400 Hickory St Lot 5 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Vaquera Ruben Venegas Silvina 400 Hickory St Lot 168 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Vargas Rosa Martinez 400 Hickory St Lot 62 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Vega Laura Lisa Chavez Martin Adrian Saldivar 400 Hickory St Lot 95 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Venegas Mayra Gonzalez Hugo 400 Hickory St Lot 171 Fort Collins, Co 80524 75 Section D, Item 1. Venegas Miranda Rodolfo 400 Hickory St Lot 128 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Venzor Brissa 400 Hickory St Lot 154 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Venzor Socorro 400 Hickory St Lot 108 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Venzor Sonia 400 Hickory St Lot 103 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Vergara Mercedes 400 Hickory St Lot 187 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Villalobos Eva Perez Silverio Nicholas 400 Hickory St Lot 86 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Walker Valerie C 1601 N College Ave Lot 339 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Wander Llc 6400 Sw 107th St Pinecrest, Fl 33156 Wankier Lance Wingate Susan 3107 Serrano Dr Carlsbad, Ca 92009 Wares Cynthia Ann Wares Jennifer Rae 1601 N College Ave Lot 337 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Weaver John Craig/Monica 1601 N College Ave Lot 140 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Webb Dee 1601 N College Ave Lot 67 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Weis Michael Lee 1601 N College Ave Lot 137 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Wennersten Darlene 400 Hickory St Lot 7 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Werth Lunette K 1601 N College Ave Lot 244 Fort Collins, Co 80524 West Donna 1601 N College Ave Lot 259 Fort Collins, Co 80524 West Rodney I/Sharon L Davis Patricia A 1601 N College Ave Lot 19 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Weymouth Sandra Morgan 400 Hickory St Lot 25 Fort Collins, Co 80524 White Dale Albert 1601 N College Ave Lot 273a Fort Collins, Co 80524 Whitzel Constance K/Brad William 1601 N College Ave Lot 309 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Williams Lori D Warren Pamela G 1601 N College Ave Lot 332 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Wilson Daniel/Peggy 2828 Wakonda Dr Fort Collins, Co 80521 Wilson Rodney A 544 N Hollywood St Fort Collins, Co 80521 Wilson Sarah 508 Sunrise Dr Lyons, Co 80540 Winslow Angelee C 400 Hickory St Lot 16 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Wirfs Valerie 1601 N College Ave Lot 36 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Wise Brian 1601 N College Ave Lot 24 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Wood Jr Wilbur Arthur 1601 N College Ave Lot 32 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Wood Ronald G/Jennifer L/Willard E 122 Hibdon Ct Fort Collins, Co 80524 Worrell Richard 1601 N College Ave Lot 250 Fort Collins, Co 80524 76 Section D, Item 1. Wray Mark Douglas 1601 N College Ave Lot 322 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Wurst Pamela C 1601 N College Ave Lot 61 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Young William Kent 1601 N College Ave Lot 311 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Zamora Chad 400 Hickory St Lot 156 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Zamora Fuentes Monica Avalos A Juan Daniel 400 Hickory St Lot 184 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Zamora Fuentes Monica Zamora Maria 400 Hickory St Lot 63 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Zarco Richard Dumas Richelle/Christopher 1601 N College Ave Lot 300 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Zender Jacqueline D Zender Douglas 1601 N College Ave Lot 141 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Zephyr Fort Collins Lp 8100 E Union Ave Unit 1104 Denver, Co 80237 Zervos Claudia 1601 N College Ave Lot 289 Fort Collins, Co 80524 Zfh Llc 3501 Bayshore Rd Fort Collins, Co 80524 Zuniga Jose Luis 400 Hickory St Lot 61 Fort Collins, Co 80524 77 Section D, Item 1. Staff Report (with attachment s) Presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission on August 28, 2024 78 Section D, Item 1. Development Review Staff Report Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com August 28, 2024 Fort Collins Rescue Mission Development Plan #FDP230022 Summary of Request This is a proposed combined Project Development Plan/Final Development Plan for development of a homeless shelter. Zoning Map Land Use Code This project was submitted and reviewed under the pre -May 2025 Land Use Code. Next Steps If this development plan is approved, then final plan documents can be signed and recorded per typical Final Development Plan procedure. Applicants would then be able to proceed with permits for construction. Location Hibdon Court and the existing access drive north of Hickory Street, one block west of North College Avenue. Parcel #’s 9702100918 and 9702100007. Property Owner Denver Rescue Mission Seth Forwood 316 Jefferson Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Applicant/Representative Klara Rossouw Ripley Design Inc. 419 Canyon Avenue Ste. 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 Staff Clark Mapes, City Planner Contents 1. Project Introduction ..................................... 2 2. Comprehensive Plan ................................... 5 3. Land Use Code Article 1 ............................. 7 4. Land Use Code Article 2 ............................. 7 5. Land Use Code Article 3 – General Development Standards ..................................... 8 6. Land Use Code Article 4 ........................... 14 7. Findings of Fact/Conclusion ...................... 14 8. Recommendation ...................................... 14 9. Attachments .............................................. 15 Staff Recommendation Approval of the combined PDP/FDP. Willox Ln. N. C o l l e g e Av e . Hickory St. SITE MH Zone Bristlecone Dr. CS Zone Hibdon Ct. 79 Section D, Item 1. Administrative Hearing - Agenda Item 1 Fort Collins Rescue Mission #FDP230022 August 28, 2024 | Page 2 of 15 Back to Top 1. Project Introduction A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Combined PDP/FDP. The combined FDP aspect of this development plan reflects the fact that the applicants have worked out plan details to the degree that there is no benefit to a separate subsequent application for an FDP. If this PDP/FDP is approved, staff will then continue to process the Final Plan per typical FDP procedure, including proceedings to execute a Development Agreement, obtain signatures and file the plans. The applicants’ narrative describes the purpose, need and intent, and design considerations of the plan (attached). The Site. The site is situated along an access drive that will become a new segment of North Mason Street, at the end of Hibdon Court, north of Hickory Street on the west side of North College Avenue. Exst. Access Drive Hickory St. N. C o l l e g e A v e . Hibdon Ct. SITE 80 Section D, Item 1. Administrative Hearing - Agenda Item 1 Fort Collins Rescue Mission #FDP230022 August 28, 2024 | Page 3 of 15 Back to Top Prior Infrastructure Plan. The site is Lot 2 of the Mason Street Infrastructure development plan which was approved June 24, 2024. That plan reconfigured two existing land parcels to form 3 buildable lots and street right-of-way for the new segment of North Mason Street which provides public street access and utilities to the site. The image below shows that general reconfiguration. The infrastructure plan designed all required infrastructure for drainage and stormwater detention, water, sewer, and electric utilities to serve development in the area. The final signatures and recording of documentation for that plan is in progress at the time of this writing. The infrastructure plan fulfills community planning direction from the past 30 years. The plan includes 5 main components. The plan creates three lots 13 acres Plat Proposed Shelter Development Plan. The shelter for individuals experiencing homelessness would operate 24/7 with a day-use area and an overnight shelter. The proposed plan includes up to 250 beds, a kitchen and dining area for guests, large outdoor amenity courtyard area, laundry facilities, and administrative offices for staff and volunteers. 35 parking spaces and 40 bike parking spaces are provided, based on parking analysis by the applicants. Hibdon Ct. To N. College EXST. PRIVATE PARCEL EXST. CITY STORMWATER PARCEL 100’ BUFFER AROUND DRY CREEK 81 Section D, Item 1. Administrative Hearing - Agenda Item 1 Fort Collins Rescue Mission #FDP230022 August 28, 2024 | Page 4 of 15 Back to Top Main components in the plan include: • A 2-story, ~ 42,000 sq. ft. building with extensive massing and roof form variation. • Outdoor courtyard amenity spaces formed by the building, fencing, and a belt of trees. 82 Section D, Item 1. Administrative Hearing - Agenda Item 1 Fort Collins Rescue Mission #FDP230022 August 28, 2024 | Page 5 of 15 Back to Top Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: North South East West Zoning Service Commercial (CS) Service Commercial (CS) Service Commercial (CS) CS and Manufactured Housing (MH) Land Use Two houses, auto repair with outdoor storage, Montclair mobile homes with outdoor storage Hickory Pond regional stormwater detention pond, industrial operations (steel supply) Vacant Lot 3 of the Mason St. Infrastructure Plan, Stonecrest mobile homes Hickory Pond regional stormwater detention pond, Mobile Home Park west of the pond B. OVERVIEW OF MAIN ISSUES IN STAFF’S REVIEW The previously approved Mason Street Infrastructure Plan resolved all major land development issues. There have been no notable issues with staff’s review of this development plan – the review has mainly involved details of utility spacings and other minor adjustments. However, there has been, and continues to be community opposition to the homeless shelter use on the site; and opponents have specifically cited the Land Use Code Building and Project Compatibility Section because the Purpose statement of the Section is “to ensure that the physical and operational characteristics of proposed buildings and uses are compatible when considered within the context of the surrounding area.” The contention involves the behavior and activity of people when they are not on the shelter premises. The Land Use Code is the basis of staff’s review of the development plan, and staff has considered the Compatibility Section in light of the contention. After consideration, staff’s evaluation of the Compatibility Section later in this report addresses the built environment, but does not address potential implications for social and behavioral issues. 2. Planning Background & Comprehensive Plan A. ANNEXATION & ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT The land was annexed as part of the 1959 North College Annex. The North College corridor area was divided up and developed on the outskirts of the city, across the river and train tracks, on floodplain land, partly with ad hoc private water and sewer systems, throughout much of the 20th century both before and after annexing into the City. Parcels along the highway developed as a commercial strip of highway-oriented buildings, with full-movement vehicle access to every parcel and no defined street edge improvements or coordinated drainage system. Original development included little to no attention to rear areas behind the highway frontage in terms of infrastructure or integrated City development. The corridor served early automobile tourist traffic with motels and auto courts; and also served and continues to serve as a lower-rent business incubator area and lower-income housing area with several mobile home parks. B. COMMUNITY PLANNING In the 1990s, the community began to show interest in comprehensive planning to better integrate the North College corridor with the rest of the city south of the river. The first North College Corridor Plan was adopted in 1995 and updated in 2006. Retrofitting an extension of Mason Street west of North College Avenue, including utilities that would go into the right-of-way, has been a basic part of all planning for the evolving corridor. 83 Section D, Item 1. Administrative Hearing - Agenda Item 1 Fort Collins Rescue Mission #FDP230022 August 28, 2024 | Page 6 of 15 Back to Top Relatedly, planning for flood improvements and retrofitting a drainage system into the corridor has been a significant continuous effort since the early 2000s and continuing today and into the future. Extensive City planning and investment has led to dozens of incremental improvements in the corridor totaling many tens of millions of dollars’ worth of public projects including a 2016 North College Improvements capital project that built the existing access drive across the property as a related part of streetscape improvements on North College Avenue. C. CITY PLAN (2019) The City’s comprehensive plan, called City Plan, was developed with the participation of thousands of community members and articulates the community’s vision and core values. It establishes the overall policy foundation for changes and choices with high-level policy direction for growth and transportation issues throughout the City. Development plans are governed by t he Land Use Code and not City Plan, but the Land Use Code’s stated purpose, subsection 1.2.2(a), is to ensure that growth and development is consistent with City Plan and its adopted components – which for this project includes the North College Corridor Plan. City Plan includes Principle LV-8 on p. 45 which is pertinent: “Develop an equitable, comprehensive, coordinated and efficient system of health and human services that is accessible to all residents in need of assistance”. This is followed by Policies LIV 8.3, 8.5, and 8.6 which pertain specifically to homelessness. They call for partnering, funding, and collaborating with service providers and siting facilities with careful consideration of transportation implications emphasizing public transit. D. NORTH COLLEGE CORRIDOR PLAN (2006) The North College Corridor Plan is an adopted element of City Plan with much more specific, pertinent policy direction tailored to the circumstances of the area. It describes the need to evolve more complete infrastructure starting with the street network and associated utilities, particularly in areas behind the highway frontage, including the subject site. The recently approved Mason Street Infrastructure development plan is directly consistent with the corridor plan in this regard. That development plan created this Lot 2 with the intention to accommodate the proposed shelter. The corridor plan’s overall vision and goals encourage continued evolution of the area with reinvestment and new investment, redevelopment and new development, both public and private, to address problems and deficiencies and give the area a more positive character. The corridor plan describes the issue of strong long-standing concerns about social service uses: “Negative Effects of Concentrating Social Service and Tax-Exempt Uses in the Corridor The corridor’s concentrations of social services and tax-exempt non-profit uses have raised extensive concern and discussion. Concerns focus around negative effects on the business climate, economic activity, and property tax increment financing revenues. The negative behavior of some of the clients of these social service agencies has been bothersome for businesses, and requires special police services within the corridor. As with vehicle-related uses discussed above, these tax-exempt uses have exhibited a self-reinforcing tendency to concentrate in the corridor. There is opposition within the corridor to further concentration, based on a belief that the areas already has its “fair share” of such uses; and that any further concentration will be detrimental. This opposition is coupled with a desire for a shift toward uses more beneficial to business synergy and economic health of the corridor, including a growing property tax base. However, no good mechanism or idea has been identified to prevent the location of additional agencies or facilities within the corridor.” 84 Section D, Item 1. Administrative Hearing - Agenda Item 1 Fort Collins Rescue Mission #FDP230022 August 28, 2024 | Page 7 of 15 Back to Top The corridor plan discusses a vision for architecture, with contemporary semi-industrial character as a preferred approach. It mentions avoiding pre-designed generic character; juxtaposed forms including significant, functional roof forms; exposed structural elements; and materials and colors to emphasize the massing and forms. E. HOMELESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORTS In the 2019-2021 time frame, the City Manager twice convened a committee to explore all considerations and develop recommendations for expanding emergency shelter capacity in the city. The committee ’s charter was to in support of the community’s goals for homelessness to be rare, short-lived, and non-recurring. Community goals are also found in City Plan as noted above, and also in Housing Strategic Plans for the City. The attached Report 2.0 is the final result. 3. Land Use Code Article 1 A. PURPOSE OF THE LAND USE CODE (SECTION 1.2.2) Land Use Code Section 1.2.2 lists a wide range of over-arching, high-level objectives (i.e., “reducing energy consumption and demand”) that are further developed and implemented in Articles 1 through 7 of the Land Use Code to ensure that proposed development meets the overall purpose to “improve and protect the public health, safety, and welfare” of the community. The requirements, standards, and definitions contained in Articles 1 through 7 of the Land Use Code have been crafted to fulfill and implement the stated purpose of this Code in § 1.2.2. By satisfying the purposes statements, and meeting the applicable specific requirements, standards, and definitions set forth in Articles 1 through 7, this project demonstrates consistency with Land Use Code § 1.2.2 (B) through (O) to the extent (B) through (O) are applicable to this project. As they may apply to the subject property and proposed project, the following sections of this report describe design elements of the proposed development plan that provide evidence of and the degree to which compliance would be achieved relative to the specific and enumerated standards within the Land Use Code. 4. Land Use Code Article 2 A. DIVISION 2.2 – DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Staff Analysis Staff Findings 2.2.1-2.2.8 Procedural Steps These subsections outline the required steps for processing development applications. Pertinent steps have been: Preliminary Design Review A Preliminary Design Review meeting for the original shelter concept was held on November 2, 2022. First Application Submittal: November 1, 2023. Neighborhood Meetings: March 2, 2023 and June 14, 2023. Notice (Posted, Written and Published) • Posted Notice: Sign posted February 9, 2023, Sign #730. • Written Hearing Notice: August 13, 2024, 1183 addresses mailed. • Published Hearing Notice: August 1, 2024. Complies 85 Section D, Item 1. Administrative Hearing - Agenda Item 1 Fort Collins Rescue Mission #FDP230022 August 28, 2024 | Page 8 of 15 Back to Top 5. Land Use Code Article 3 – General Development Standards A. DIVISION 3.2 - SITE PLANNING AND DESIGN STANDARDS Applicable Code Standards Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 3.2.1 Landscaping and Tree Protection 3.2.1(D) – Tree Planting Standards 3.2.1(D)(1)(c) – Full Tree Stocking 3.2.1(E) – Landscape Standards The standards of this section require development plans to demonstrate a comprehensive approach to landscaping that enhances the appearance and function of development including streetscapes, walkways, buildings and their outdoor spaces, and parking lots. Standards require water-efficient techniques in landscaping and a water budget based on a ‘hydrozone’ plan. • The plan provides extensive and complete irrigated landscaping with these main components: - Extensive tree plantings around the building, its outdoor courtyard spaces, and parking lots. Note that street trees are a key part of the standards, and those are provided in the approved Mason Street Infrastructure development plan. - Mulched planting beds around the building and its outdoor courtyard spaces with extensive plantings of shrubs, ornamental grasses and perennials . - Specialized seed mixes for stormwater ‘rain garden’ filtration features, and for peripheral upland areas. - Some small turfgrass lawn areas along the sidewalk in front of the building. - Varied patio paving in a highly detailed rear courtyard with shade structures and outdoor furnishings indicated. - 6-foot metal fencing and 6-foot wood privacy fencing around the rear courtyard and along the north boundary. - A hydrozone plan based on water efficiency design principles described in this Section. Complies 3.2.1(J) – Irrigation This Section requires automatic irrigation of landscape plantings, with plans to be approved prior to construction. • The plan set includes an Irrigation Plan. Complies 3.2.2 – Access, Circulation and Parking – General Standard This standard requires that development projects accommodate the movement of vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and transit throughout the project and to and from surrounding areas safely and conveniently and contribute to the attractiveness of the neighborhood. • In compliance, the plan provides convenient parking, a front drop-off area with an inset curb, and generous walkway access around the site. Complies 3.2.2(C)(4) – Bicycle Parking Space Requirements This subsection requires bike parking for a list of uses. For uses that are not specifically listed, the requirement is the number for the most similar use listed. Staff finds that the only listed use with any notable similarity is Group Homes, which is the one use listed with “no requirement.” The only basis staff and the applicants found for a number of bike rack spaces was conversation with the shelter staff. Complies 86 Section D, Item 1. Administrative Hearing - Agenda Item 1 Fort Collins Rescue Mission #FDP230022 August 28, 2024 | Page 9 of 15 Back to Top • Shelter staff recommend 40 bike parking spaces for the shelter which has an expected maximum occupancy of 250 beds plus the employees. The plan provides 40 spaces on convenient fixed racks in front of the building. Section 3.2.2(K)(3) – Number of Parking Spaces, Alternative Compliance Similar to bike parking requirements, requirements for vehicle parking are shown for a list of uses. For uses not listed, the requirement is the number for the most similar use listed. There is no clearly similar use listed, so the applicants did not use the list to determine the parking supply needed to meet demand. Also, the applicants find no comparable trip generation category within the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. As an alternative to the numbers in the list, this subsection allows ‘Alternative Compliance’ to be based on a parking impact study. Rather than try to justify a “most similar use”, the applicants used this provision to determine the parking supply needed to meet demand. It used data from the Denver Rescue Mission shelter. This includes detailed information on staffing, operational needs, and anticipated number of people served on a daily basis for the new shelter. To approve an alternative plan, the decision maker must first find that the proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purposes of this Section equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standards of this Section. In reviewing the request, the decision maker must take into account the employees occupying the building, expected customers or clients, availability of nearby on-street parking (if any), availability of shared parking with adjacent land uses (if any), trip reduction programs (if any), or any other factors unique to the applicant's development request. The decision maker shall not approve the alternative parking plan unless it: 1. does not detract from continuity, connectivity and convenient proximity for pedestrians between or among existing or future uses in the vicinity, 2. minimizes the visual and aesthetic impact along the public street by placing parking lots to the rear or along the side of buildings, to the maximum extent feasible, 3. minimizes the visual and aesthetic impact on the surrounding neighborhood, 4. creates no physical impact on any facilities serving alternative modes of transportation, 5. creates no detrimental impact on natural areas or features, 6. maintains handicap parking ratios. • The plan proposes 35 spaces. • A parking study is attached. It explains the operational data expected for the shelter, which primarily involves employees in 3 shifts, and then also interns and volunteers. It concludes that the 35 spaces represent a higher parking ratio than the Denver shelter. Complies via Alternative Compliance 3.2.4 – Site Lighting This Section sets limits for exterior lighting using technical parameters. Limits include 1) photometric parameters for light on the ground measured in footcandles, within the site and off-site as spillover; 2) technical ratings for Backlight, Uplight and Glare (BUG); and 3) a total light budget for the site measured in lumens . • A thorough lighting plan provides architectural exterior lighting on the building, and pole-mounted area lights in landscape areas around the building and rear courtyard, all consistent with the purposes of the standards and all within limits. Complies 87 Section D, Item 1. Administrative Hearing - Agenda Item 1 Fort Collins Rescue Mission #FDP230022 August 28, 2024 | Page 10 of 15 Back to Top Section 3.2.5 – Trash and Recycling Enclosures This Section requires the provision of areas, compatible with surrounding land uses, for the collection, separation, storage, loading and pickup of trash, waste cooking oil, compostable and recyclable materials. • The plan incorporates a generous architectural enclosure for these functions. Complies B. DIVISION 3.3 - ENGINEERING STANDARDS Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 3.3.1(C) – Public Sites, Reservations and Dedications This standard requires an applicant to dedicate rights-of-way for public streets, and all easements needed to serve the area being developed. • The approved Mason Street Infrastructure development plan includes a subdivision plat that provides the right-of-way and easements needed for this Rescue Mission development plan. Complies via approved Mason Street Infrastructure plan Section 3.3.2 Development Improvements This Section requires engineering improvements to be designed and constructed according to the city’s various design criteria and standards, and to be approved by the City Engineer prior to construction. This Section also requires a Development Agreement between the applicant and the City in conjunction with signing and recording the FDP with the County Clerk and Recorder. • The utility plan set meets all pertinent criteria and standards for drainage and utility services. • A Development Agreement will be signed and recorded in conjunction with signature of the FDP. Complies 3.3.5 Engineering Design Standards This Section requires projects to comply with requirements and specifications for the following services as certified by the appropriate agency: • water supply • sanitary sewer • mass transit • fire protection • flood hazard areas • telephone • walks/bikeways • irrigation companies • electricity • natural gas • storm drainage • cable television • streets/pedestrians • broadband/fiber optic The plan complies for all of these services that are pertinent to the shelter project. Complies 88 Section D, Item 1. Administrative Hearing - Agenda Item 1 Fort Collins Rescue Mission #FDP230022 August 28, 2024 | Page 11 of 15 Back to Top C. DIVISION 3.4 - ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL AREA, RECREATIONAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 3.4.1 – Natural Habitats This Section applies when development is proposed within 500 feet of an identified natural habitat or feature. In this case, a remnant of Dry Creek that runs across the property is considered a Natural Habitat Feature in the code. An Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) was done for the site as part of the approved Mason Street Infrastructure plan. That development plan meets the requirements for restoration and mitigation measures associated with the feature and the removal of the portion on the shelter site. • The proposed shelter plan does not affect the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone that was approved in the prior infrastructure plan. Complies D. DIVISION 3.5 – BUILDINGS Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 3.5.1 – Building and Project Compatibility Subsection 3.5.1(A) is the Purpose statement “to ensure that the physical and operational characteristics of proposed buildings and uses are compatible when considered within the context of the surrounding area.” Standards mostly address the character of buildings and any other physical-visual components in a plan, and then also address operational impacts such as hours of operation with lighting or noise-related impacts. Subsections (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G) all involve architecture. The General Standard states that “in areas where the existing architectural character is not definitively established or is not consistent with the purposes of this Code, the architecture of Complies N. C o l l e g e A v e . Hibdon Ct. Dry Creek Remnant SITE 89 Section D, Item 1. Administrative Hearing - Agenda Item 1 Fort Collins Rescue Mission #FDP230022 August 28, 2024 | Page 12 of 15 Back to Top Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings new development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area.” (H) also addresses visual character, but in a general way, for situations where compatibility needs to be achieved with buffer yards and passive open space separating the land uses with “significantly different visual character”. (I) addresses outdoor storage, loading operations, and trash collection. (J) is “Operational/physical compatibility” standards. This subsection states: Conditions may be imposed upon the approval of development applications to ensure that new development will be compatible with existing neighborhoods and uses. Such conditions may include, but need not be limited to, restrictions on or requirements for: (1) hours of operation and deliveries; (2) location on a site of activities that generate potential adverse impacts on adjacent uses such as noise and glare; (3) placement of trash receptacles; (4) location of loading and delivery zones; (5) light intensity and hours of full illumination; (6) placement and illumination of outdoor vending machines; (7) location and number of off -street parking spaces. • Staff does not find any existing defining architectural character consistent with the purposes of the Land Use Code . Rather, the context is eclectic service commercial in character. • The closest existing buildings include t wo abutting large-lot residential properties, aging mobile homes and nearby service commercial and industrial properties. On the abutting residential properties the closest directly facing improvements are driveways and large garages . • Staff finds that the plan represents an enhanced standard of architecture and quality of all aspects of the plan in the context of the area. Defining characteristics include: - Low-slope pitched roof forms which provides a degree of residential character to help relate to abutting properties on the north that have existing houses. - Building massing is highly modulated and articulated. - Quality exterior finish materials including cementitious siding in board -and- batten and lap patterns, brick, and glu-lam wood members. The siding further lends a degree of residential character. 90 Section D, Item 1. Administrative Hearing - Agenda Item 1 Fort Collins Rescue Mission #FDP230022 August 28, 2024 | Page 13 of 15 Back to Top Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings Northeast corner of the building Staff finds no other activities on the site that generate any additional impacts such as noise, glare, loading, deliveries, trash dumpsters, or similar types of impacts. E. DIVISION 3.6 - TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Several Sections in this Division have requirements for streets and easements. The street and easements needed for development of this lot were approved in the Mason Street Infrastructure development plan. Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 3.6.4 – Transportation Level of Service Requirements This Section contains requirements for the transportation needs of proposed development to be safely accommodated by the existing transportation system, or that appropriate mitigation of impacts will be provided by the development to meet adopted Level of Service (LOS) standards. • A Traffic Impact Study was reviewed and accepted by staff. It concluded that the project trips have little to no impact on the operations of the study intersections as compared to the background scenario. The existing roadways and intersections within the study area can accommodate the trips associated with the proposed Fort Collins Rescue Mission. • There are no mitigation measures needed to support the vehicular traffic. • It recommends that multi‐modal connectivity be provided along the project frontage to support the patrons that are likely to arrive/depart via walking, biking, or using transit. This is provided in the approved Mason Street infrastructure plan. • Although the City’s Master Street Plan identifies this segment of Mason Street as a Collector roadway, the volumes associated with the site are well below the capacity threshold for a local street. Unless significant development occurs (or is anticipated to occur), Mason Street could functionally operate as a local street. No operational concerns related to levels of service were identified, and the previous conclusions and approval pertain to this plan for the street. • The 98-page study is attached. Complies 91 Section D, Item 1. Administrative Hearing - Agenda Item 1 Fort Collins Rescue Mission #FDP230022 August 28, 2024 | Page 14 of 15 Back to Top Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 3.6.6 – Emergency Access This Section requires access for emergency vehicles and services. • The project has been reviewed by Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) and meets the needs and requirements of PFA regulations. Complies 6. Land Use Code Article 4 The site is zoned C-S, Service Commercial, Division 4.22, which permits the homeless shelter use. The zoning is for high traffic commercial corridors where a very wide range of uses is encouraged with a transition from commercial operations on a highway, arterial street or rail spur, to less intensive use areas or residential neighborhoods. Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Complies 4.2 (D) Maximum Building Height The only development standard in the zone district is a height limit of 3 stories and the proposed building is 1 and 2 stories. Complies 7. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the request for the Fort Collins Rescue Mission Project Development Plan/Final Development Plan #FDP230022, staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: 1. By demonstrating compliance with the specific standards, requirements, and definitions of Articles 1 through 5 of the Land Use Code through the submittal materials for the Project Development Plan /Final Development Plan, this project satisfies and aligns with the purpose of the Land Use Code stated in Section 1.2.2(A) through (O). Specifically, the project satisfies Section 1.2.2(A) because it is consistent with City Plan and the North College Corridor Plan. 2. The plan complies with the applicable procedural and administrative requirements of Article 2 of the Land Use Code. 3. The plan complies with the applicable standards in Article 3 of the Land Use Code. 4. The use is a Permitted Use in the Service Commercial zone district standard in Article 4 of the Land Use Code, for building height. The homeless shelter project comprises a permitted use. 8. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Fort College Rescue Mission Project Development Plan/Final Development Plan #FDP2300 22, based on the Findings of Fact and supporting explanations found in the staff report. 92 Section D, Item 1. Administrative Hearing - Agenda Item 1 Fort Collins Rescue Mission #FDP230022 August 28, 2024 | Page 15 of 15 Back to Top 9. Attachments 1. Applicant Narrative 2. Architecture 3. Site Plan 4. Landscape Plan 5. Lighting Plan 6. Utility Plan 7. Parking Alternative Compliance Request 8. Parking Study 9. Drainage Report 10. Traffic Study 11. Neighborhood Meeting Video Link 12. 2021 Housing Strategic Plan 13. 2015-2019 Affordable Housing Strategic Plan 14. Homeless Advisory Committee Report 2.0 15. Homeless Advisory Committee Report (1) 16. Trauma Informed Design Framework 17. Trauma Informed Design Report 18. North College Corridor Plan Excerpts 19. Soils Report 20. Public Comment Letters 21. Staff Presentation 93 Section D, Item 1. Informe del personal de la revisión del desarrollo Servicios de planificación Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com 28 de agosto de 2024 Plan de desarrollo de Fort Collins Rescue Mission n.º FDP230022 Resumen de la solicitud Esta es una propuesta combinada del Plan de desarrollo del proyecto/Plan de desarrollo final para el desarrollo de un refugio para personas sin hogar. Mapa de zonificación Código de Uso del Suelo Este proyecto fue presentado y revisado en virtud del Código de Uso del Suelo anterior a mayo de 2025. Próximos pasos Si se aprueba este plan de desarrollo, entonces los documentos del plan final se pueden firmar y registrar según el procedimiento típico del Plan de Desarrollo Final. Los solicitantes podrían así proceder a obtener los permisos para la construcción. Ubicación Hibdon Court y el acceso existente al norte de Hickory Street, una cuadra al oeste de North College Avenue. Parcelas números 9702100918 y 9702100007. Propietario Denver Rescue Mission Seth Forwood 316 Jefferson Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Solicitante/representante Klara Rossouw Ripley Design Inc. 419 Canyon Avenue Ste. 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 Personal Clark Mapes, urbanista Contenidos 1. Introducción del proyecto ................................ 2. Antecedentes de planificación y plan integral 3. Artículo 1 del Código de Uso del Suelo 4. Artículo 2 del Código de Uso del Suelo 5. Artículo 3 del Código de Uso del Suelo: Estándares generales de desarrollo 6. Artículo 4 del Código de Uso del Suelo 7. Determinaciones de hecho/Conclusión 8. Recomendación ................................ 9. Documentos adjuntos ................................ Recomendación del personal Aprobación del PDP/FDP combinado. Willox Ln. N. Coll ege Ave . Hickory St. SITIO MH Zone Bristlecone Dr. CS Zone Hibdon Ct. 94 Section D, Item 1. Audiencia administrativa - Punto 1 de la agenda Fort Collins Rescue Mission #FDP230022 28 de agosto de 2024 | Página 2 de 15 Volver arriba 1. Introducción del proyecto A. DESCRIPCIÓN DEL PROYECTO PDP/FDP combinado. El aspecto del Plan de desarrollo final (FDP) combinado de este plan de desarrollo refleja el hecho de que los solicitantes han elaborado los detalles del plan hasta tal punto que no resulta beneficioso presentar una solicitud posterior por separado para un FDP. Si se aprueba este PDP/FDP, el personal continuará procesando el procedimiento típico del FDP del plan final, incluidos los procedimientos para llevar a cabo un Acuerdo de desarrollo, obtener las firmas y registrar el plano. La narrativa de los solicitantes explica el propósito, la necesidad y la intención, así como las consideraciones de diseño del plan (adjunto). El sitio. El sitio está situado a lo largo de un acceso que se convertirá en un nuevo segmento de North Mason Street, al final de Hibdon Court, al norte de Hickory Street en el lado oeste de North College Avenue. Acceso existente Hickory St. N. College Ave. Hibdon Ct. SITIO Remanent e 95 Section D, Item 1. Audiencia administrativa - Punto 1 de la agenda Fort Collins Rescue Mission #FDP230022 28 de agosto de 2024 | Página 3 de 15 Volver arriba Plan de infraestructura previo. El sitio es el Lote 2 del plan de desarrollo de infraestructura de Mason Street que fue aprobado el 24 de junio de 2024. Ese plan reconfiguró dos parcelas de tierra existentes para formar 3 lotes y el derecho de paso de la calle para el nuevo segmento de North Mason Street que brinda acceso público a la calle y servicios públicos al sitio. La imagen de abajo muestra esa reconfiguración general. En el plan de infraestructura se diseñó toda la infraestructura necesaria para el drenaje y la retención de aguas pluviales, agua, alcantarillado y servicios eléctricos para brindar servicios al desarrollo en el área. Las firmas finales y el registro de la documentación para dicho plan están en proceso al momento de escribir el presente documento. El plan de infraestructura cumple con la dirección de planificación comunitaria de los últimos 30 años. El plan incluye cinco componentes principales. El plan crea tres lotes 13 acres Plano Plan de desarrollo de un refugio propuesto. El refugio para personas sin hogar funcionaría las 24 horas del día, los 7 días de la semana, con un área de uso diurno y un refugio para pasar la noche. El plan propuesto incluye hasta 250 camas, una cocina y un comedor para los huéspedes, un amplio patio con servicios al aire libre, instalaciones para lavandería y oficinas administrativas para el personal y los voluntarios. Hibdon Ct. A N. College Nort h Mas on St. Hasta a m PARCELA PRIVADA EXIST. PARCELA DE AGUAS PLUVIALES EXIST. DE LA CIUDAD BARRERA DE 100' ALREDEDOR DE DRY CREEK Creek Dr Remanente 96 Section D, Item 1. Audiencia administrativa - Punto 1 de la agenda Fort Collins Rescue Mission #FDP230022 28 de agosto de 2024 | Página 4 de 15 Volver arriba Se proporcionan 35 espacios de estacionamiento y 40 espacios de estacionamiento para bicicletas, según el análisis de estacionamiento realizado por los solicitantes. Los componentes principales del plan incluyen los siguientes: • Un edificio de 2 pisos y 40,612 pies cuadrados con amplia variación en la masa y forma del techo. • Espacios de esparcimiento del patio al aire libre formados por el edificio, la cerca y un cinturón de árboles. 97 Section D, Item 1. Audiencia administrativa - Punto 1 de la agenda Fort Collins Rescue Mission #FDP230022 28 de agosto de 2024 | Página 5 de 15 Volver arriba Zonificación y uso del suelo circundante: Norte Sur Este Oeste Zonificación Servicio comercial (CS) Servicio comercial (CS) Servicio comercial (CS) CS y viviendas prefabricadas (MH) Uso del suelo Dos casas, taller de reparación de automóviles con almacenamiento al aire libre, casas rodantes Montclair con almacenamiento al aire libre Estanque de retención de aguas pluviales regional de Hickory Pond, operaciones industriales (suministro de acero) Lote vacante 3 del plan de infraestructura de Mason St., casas rodantes Stonecrest Estanque de retención de aguas pluviales regional de Hickory Pond, parque de casas rodantes al oeste del estanque B. DESCRIPCIÓN GENERAL DE LOS PRINCIPALES PROBLEMAS DE LA EVALUACIÓN DEL PERSONAL El Plan de infraestructura de Mason Street previamente aprobado resolvió todos los problemas principales de desarrollo del suelo. El personal no observado problemas notables con la revisión de este plan de desarrollo: la revisión se centró principalmente en detalles sobre los espacios de servicios públicos y otros ajustes menores. Sin embargo, ha habido y sigue habiendo una importante oposición de la comunidad al uso del refugio para personas sin hogar en el sitio durante el proceso de revisión. La oposición ha expresado los problemas existentes asociados con la falta de vivienda en el área del corredor de North College en general y también específicamente en el contexto del área adyacente. El debate ha resaltado la concentración de servicios sociales en el corredor de North College como causa de este tipo de problemas y la oposición se basa en la idea de que el refugio atraerá más actividad no deseada y delictiva a la zona. El debate público con el personal incluyó una disputa de que el plan no cumple con la sección 3.5.1 del Código de Uso del Suelo sobre Compatibilidad de construcción y proyectos, bajo la División de estándares de construcción del código, porque la declaración del propósito de la sección es "garantizar que las características físicas y operativas de las construcciones y usos propuestos sean compatibles cuando se los considera dentro del contexto del área circundante". La disputa involucra el comportamiento y la actividad de las personas cuando no están en las instalaciones del refugio. El Código de Uso del Suelo es la base de la revisión del plan de desarrollo por parte del personal, y el mismo ha considerado la sección de Compatibilidad a la luz de las afirmaciones. Después de considerarlo, la evaluación del personal sobre la sección de Compatibilidad que aparece más adelante en este informe aborda el entorno construido, pero el código no aborda ningún posible problema social y de comportamiento. 2. Antecedentes de planificación y plan integral A. ANEXIÓN Y DESARROLLO ORIGINAL El terreno fue anexado como parte del Anexo North College de 1959. El área del corredor de North College se dividió y se desarrolló en las afueras de la ciudad, al otro lado del río y las vías del tren, en terrenos inundables, y los propietarios construyeron sistemas privados de agua y alcantarillado durante gran parte del siglo XX, tanto antes como después de la anexión a la ciudad. Las parcelas a lo largo de la autopista se desarrollaron como una franja comercial de edificios orientados hacia la autopista, con acceso vehicular de pleno movimiento a cada parcela y sin mejoras definidas en los bordes de las calles ni un sistema de drenaje coordinado. El desarrollo ad hoc original incluía poca o nada de atención a las áreas traseras detrás del frente de la autopista en términos de infraestructura o desarrollo integrado de la Ciudad. 98 Section D, Item 1. Audiencia administrativa - Punto 1 de la agenda Fort Collins Rescue Mission #FDP230022 28 de agosto de 2024 | Página 6 de 15 Volver arriba El corredor sirvió para el tráfico turístico de automóviles con moteles y áreas de servicios para automóviles. También sirvió como área incubadora de negocios de alquileres más bajos y área de viviendas para personas de bajos ingresos con varios parques de casas rodantes. B. PLANIFICACIÓN COMUNITARIA En la década de 1990, la comunidad comenzó a mostrar interés en una planificación integral para integrar mejor el corredor de North College con el resto de la ciudad al sur del río. El primer Plan del corredor de North College se adoptó en 1995 y se actualizó en 2006. La modernización de una extensión de Mason Street al oeste de North College Avenue, incluidos los servicios públicos que pasarían por el derecho de paso, ha sido una parte básica de toda la planificación para la evolución del corredor. De manera similar, la planificación de mejoras para prevenir inundaciones y modernizar un sistema de drenaje en el corredor ha sido un esfuerzo continuo e importante desde principios de los 2000 y continúa hoy y en el futuro. La extensa planificación e inversión de la Ciudad ha dado lugar a docenas de mejoras progresivas en el corredor por un total de muchas decenas de millones de dólares, incluido un proyecto de infraestructura de mejoras de North College de 2016, donde se construyó el acceso existente a través de la propiedad como parte relacionada de las mejoras del paisaje urbano en North College Avenue. C. PLAN DE LA CIUDAD (2019) El plan integral de la Ciudad, llamado Plan de la Ciudad, se desarrolló con la participación de miles de integrantes de la comunidad, y expresa la visión y los valores fundamentales de la comunidad; también establece la base política general para proporcionar una dirección política de alto nivel con el fin de lograr de una visión comunitaria compartida de crecimiento y transporte en toda la Ciudad. Los planes de desarrollo se rigen por el Código de Uso del Suelo y no por el Plan de la Ciudad, pero la declaración de propósito del Código, subsección 1.2.2(a), es garantizar que el crecimiento y el desarrollo sean consistentes con el Plan de la Ciudad y sus componentes adoptados, que para este proyecto incluye el Plan del corredor de North College. El Plan de la Ciudad incluye el principio LV-8 en la pág. 45 que es pertinente: "Desarrollar un sistema de salud y servicios humanos equitativo, integral, coordinado y eficiente que sea accesible a todos los habitantes que necesiten asistencia". A esto le siguen las políticas LIV 8.3, 8.5 y 8.6 que se refieren específicamente a las personas sin hogar. Piden asociarse, financiar y colaborar con los proveedores de servicios y las instalaciones de ubicación, teniendo en cuenta cuidadosamente las implicaciones del transporte, haciendo hincapié en el transporte público. D. PLAN DEL CORREDOR DE NORTH COLLEGE (2006) El Plan del corredor de North College es un elemento adoptado del Plan de la Ciudad con una dirección política mucho más específica y pertinente adaptada a las circunstancias del área. Describe la necesidad de desarrollar una infraestructura más completa comenzando por la red de calles y los servicios públicos asociados, particularmente en las áreas detrás del frente de la autopista, incluido el sitio en cuestión. El plan de desarrollo de infraestructura de Mason Street recientemente aprobado es directamente coherente con el plan del corredor en este sentido. Ese plan de desarrollo creó este Lote 2 con la intención de albergar el refugio propuesto. La visión general y los objetivos del plan del corredor fomentan la evolución continua del área con reinversión y nuevas inversiones, reurbanización y nuevos desarrollos, tanto públicos como privados, para abordar los problemas y las deficiencias, así como para darle al área un carácter más positivo. 99 Section D, Item 1. Audiencia administrativa - Punto 1 de la agenda Fort Collins Rescue Mission #FDP230022 28 de agosto de 2024 | Página 7 de 15 Volver arriba El plan del corredor describe el problema de las grandes preocupaciones desde hace tiempo sobre los usos de los servicios sociales, como el refugio propuesto: "Efectos negativos de la concentración de servicios sociales y usos exentos de impuestos en el corredor La concentración de servicios sociales y usos sin fines de lucro exentos de impuestos en el corredor ha suscitado gran preocupación y debate. Las preocupaciones se centran en los efectos negativos sobre el entorno empresarial, la actividad económica y los ingresos por la financiación del aumento impositivo a la propiedad. El comportamiento negativo de algunos de los clientes de estas agencias de servicios sociales ha sido molesto para las empresas y requiere servicios policiales especiales dentro del corredor. Al igual que con los usos relacionados con los vehículos analizados anteriormente, estos usos exentos de impuestos han mostrado una tendencia autorreforzada a concentrarse en el corredor. Existe oposición dentro del corredor a una mayor concentración, basada en la creencia de que las áreas ya tienen su "cuota justa" de dichos usos, y que cualquier concentración adicional será perjudicial. Esta oposición va acompañada de un deseo de cambio hacia usos más beneficiosos para la sinergia empresarial y la salud económica del corredor, incluida una creciente base de impuestos a la propiedad. Sin embargo, no se ha identificado ningún mecanismo o idea adecuada para evitar la ubicación de agencias o instalaciones adicionales dentro del corredor". El plan del corredor propone una visión de la arquitectura, con un carácter semiindustrial contemporáneo como enfoque preferido. Se menciona que se debe evitar un carácter genérico prediseñado; formas yuxtapuestas que incluyan formas de techo significativas y funcionales; elementos estructurales expuestos; así como materiales y colores para enfatizar la distribución de masas y las formas. 3. Artículo 1 del Código de Uso del Suelo A. PROPÓSITO DEL CÓDIGO DE USO DEL SUELO (SECCIÓN 1.2.2) La sección 1.2.2 del Código de Uso del Suelo enumera una amplia gama de objetivos generales y de alto nivel (es decir, "reducir el consumo y la demanda de energía") que se desarrollan e implementan en los artículos 1 a 7 del Código de Uso del Suelo para garantizar que el desarrollo propuesto cumpla con el propósito general de "mejorar y proteger la salud, la seguridad y el bienestar públicos" de la comunidad. Los requisitos, estándares y definiciones que figuran en los artículos 1 a 7 del Código de Uso del Suelo han sido elaborados para cumplir e implementar el propósito establecido de este Código en la sección 1.2.2. Al satisfacer las declaraciones de propósitos y cumplir con los requisitos, estándares y definiciones específicos aplicables establecidos en los artículos 1 a 7, este proyecto demuestra coherencia con el Código de Uso del Suelo, sección 1.2.2 (B) a (O) en la medida en que (B) a (O) sean aplicables a este proyecto. En la medida en que puedan aplicarse a la propiedad en cuestión y al proyecto propuesto, las siguientes secciones de este informe describen los elementos de diseño del plan de desarrollo propuesto que brindan evidencia del cumplimiento y el grado en que el cumplimiento se lograría en relación con los estándares específicos y enumerados dentro del Código de Uso del Suelo. 4. Artículo 2 del Código de Uso del Suelo A. DIVISIÓN 2.2: PROCEDIMIENTOS DE REVISIÓN DEL DESARROLLO Estándar del código aplicable Resumen de los requisitos del código y análisis del personal Conclusiones del personal 2.2.1-2.2.8 Estas subsecciones describen los pasos necesarios para procesar solicitudes de Cumple 100 Section D, Item 1. Audiencia administrativa - Punto 1 de la agenda Fort Collins Rescue Mission #FDP230022 28 de agosto de 2024 | Página 8 de 15 Volver arriba Pasos del procedimiento desarrollo. Las medidas pertinentes han sido las siguientes: Revisión preliminar del diseño El 2 de noviembre de 2022 se llevó a cabo una reunión de revisión preliminar del diseño del concepto del refugio original. Presentación de la primera solicitud: 1 de noviembre de 2023. Reuniones vecinales: 2 de marzo de 2023 y 14 de junio de 2023. Aviso (colocado, escrito y publicado) • Aviso colocado: cartel colocado el 9 de febrero de 2023, cartel n.° 730. • Aviso de audiencia por escrito: 13 de agosto de 2024, 1183 correos enviados. • Aviso de audiencia publicado: 1 de agosto de 2024. 5. Artículo 3 del Código de Uso del Suelo: Estándares generales de desarrollo A. DIVISIÓN 3.2: ESTÁNDARES DE DISEÑO Y PLANIFICACIÓN DEL SITIO Estándares del código aplicables Resumen de los requisitos del código y análisis Conclusiones del personal 3.2.1 Paisajismo y protección de árboles 3.2.1(D) – Estándares de plantación de árboles 3.2.1(D)(1)(c) – Plantación completa de árboles 3.2.1(E) – Estándares de paisaje Los estándares de esta sección requieren que los planes de desarrollo demuestren un enfoque integral del paisajismo que mejore la apariencia y la función del desarrollo, incluidos los paisajes urbanos, las aceras, los edificios y sus espacios al aire libre, así como los estacionamientos. Los estándares exigen técnicas de uso eficiente del agua en el paisajismo y un presupuesto hídrico basado en un plan de "hidrozona". • El plan prevé un amplio y completo diseño paisajístico irrigado con estos componentes principales: - Amplias plantaciones de árboles alrededor del edificio, espacios de patio al aire libre y estacionamientos. Tenga en cuenta que los árboles de la calle son una parte clave de los estándares y se proporcionan en el plan de desarrollo de infraestructura de Mason Street aprobado. - Canteros cubiertos con mantillo alrededor del edificio y sus espacios de patio al aire libre con extensas plantaciones de arbustos, pastos ornamentales y plantas perennes. - Mezclas de semillas especializadas con características de filtración de aguas pluviales tipo "jardines de lluvia" y para áreas periféricas de tierras altas. - Algunas pequeñas zonas de césped a lo largo de la acera frente al edificio. - Pavimento de patio variado que incluye una pequeña zona de césped artificial en un patio trasero muy detallado con estructuras de sombra y muebles de exterior indicados. - Cerca de metal de 6 pies y cerca de madera de 6 pies para privacidad alrededor del patio trasero y a lo largo del límite norte. - Un plan de hidrozona basado en los principios de diseño de eficiencia hídrica descritos en esta sección. Cumple 3.2.1(J) – Riego Esta sección requiere el riego automático de las plantaciones paisajísticas y los planos deben ser aprobados antes de la construcción. • El conjunto de planos incluye un Plan de riego. Cumple 3.2.2 – Acceso, circulación y estacionamiento: estándar general Este estándar requiere que los proyectos de desarrollo permitan el movimiento de vehículos, bicicletas, peatones y tránsito en todo el proyecto, así como la circulación hacia y desde las áreas circundantes de manera segura y conveniente, y que contribuyan al atractivo del vecindario. Cumple 101 Section D, Item 1. Audiencia administrativa - Punto 1 de la agenda Fort Collins Rescue Mission #FDP230022 28 de agosto de 2024 | Página 9 de 15 Volver arriba • descenso al frente con un cordón añadido y un generoso acceso peatonal alrededor del sitio. 3.2.2(C)(4) – Requisitos de espacio para estacionamiento de bicicletas Esta subsección requiere estacionamiento de bicicletas para una lista de usos. Para los usos que no están mencionados específicamente, el requisito es el número correspondiente al uso más similar. El personal considera que el único uso mencionado con alguna similitud notable es el de hogares grupales, que es el único uso que figura como "sin requisito". La única base que el personal y los solicitantes encontraron para una serie de espacios para estacionamiento de bicicletas fue la conversación con el personal del refugio. • El personal del refugio recomienda 40 espacios de estacionamiento para bicicletas para el refugio que tiene una ocupación máxima esperada de 250 camas más los empleados. El plan prevé 40 espacios en cómodas portabicicletas fijas frente al edificio. Cumple Sección 3.2.2(K)(3) – Número de espacios de estacionamiento, cumplimiento alternativo De manera similar a los requisitos de estacionamiento de bicicletas, se muestra una lista de usos de los requisitos para el estacionamiento de vehículos. Para los usos que no estén mencionados, el requisito es el número correspondiente al uso más similar. No existe un uso claramente similar mencionado, por lo que los solicitantes no utilizaron la lista para determinar la oferta de estacionamiento necesaria para satisfacer la demanda. Además, los solicitantes no encuentran ninguna categoría de generación de viajes comparable dentro del Manual de generación de viajes del Instituto de Ingenieros de Transporte (ITE). Como alternativa a los números de la lista, esta subsección permite que el "Cumplimiento alternativo" se base en un estudio de impacto del estacionamiento. En lugar de intentar justificar un "uso más similar", los solicitantes utilizaron esta disposición para determinar la oferta de estacionamiento necesaria para satisfacer la demanda. Se utilizaron datos del refugio Denver Rescue Mission. Esto incluye información detallada sobre la dotación de personal, las necesidades operativas y el número previsto de personas a las que se brinda servicio diariamente en el nuevo refugio. Para aprobar un plan alternativo, el encargado de tomar decisiones primero debe determinar que el plan alternativo propuesto cumple con los propósitos de esta sección igual o mejor que un plan que cumpla con los estándares de esta sección. Al revisar la solicitud, el encargado de tomar decisiones debe tener en cuenta los empleados que ocupan el edificio, los usuarios o clientes esperados, la disponibilidad de estacionamiento cercano en la calle (si lo hubiera), la disponibilidad de estacionamiento compartido con usos de terrenos adyacentes (si lo hubiera), los programas de reducción de viajes (si los hubiera) o cualquier otro factor único de la solicitud de desarrollo del solicitante. El encargado de tomar decisiones no aprobará el plan de estacionamiento alternativo a menos que: 1. no quite la continuidad, la conectividad y la proximidad conveniente para los peatones entre usos existentes o futuros en las inmediaciones; 2. minimice el impacto visual y estético a lo largo de la vía pública ubicando los estacionamientos en la parte trasera o a los costados de los edificios, en la medida de lo posible; 3. minimice el impacto visual y estético en el vecindario circundante; 4. no genere ningún impacto físico en ninguna instalación que brinde servicios a modos alternativos de transporte; 5. no genere ningún impacto perjudicial sobre áreas o elementos naturales; 6. mantenga las proporciones de estacionamiento para discapacitados. • El plan propone 35 espacios. • Se adjunta estudio de estacionamiento. Se explican los datos operativos previstos Cumple mediante cumplimiento alternativo 102 Section D, Item 1. Audiencia administrativa - Punto 1 de la agenda Fort Collins Rescue Mission #FDP230022 28 de agosto de 2024 | Página 10 de 15 Volver arriba tasa de estacionamiento más alta que el refugio de Denver. 3.2.4 – Iluminación del sitio Esta sección establece límites para la iluminación exterior utilizando parámetros técnicos. Los límites incluyen 1) parámetros fotométricos para la luz en el suelo medidos en pies- candela, dentro y fuera del sitio como efecto indirecto; 2) clasificaciones técnicas para luz de fondo, luz ascendente y deslumbramiento (BUG); y 3) un presupuesto de luz total para el sitio medido en lúmenes. • Un plan de iluminación exhaustivo proporciona iluminación exterior arquitectónica en el edificio y luces de área montadas en postes en áreas de paisajes alrededor del edificio y el patio trasero, todo compatible con los propósitos de los estándares y dentro de los límites. Cumple Sección 3.2.5 – Recintos para basura y reciclaje Esta sección requiere la provisión de áreas, compatibles con los usos del suelo circundante, para la recolección, separación, almacenamiento, carga y recogida de basura, aceite de cocina usado, materiales compostables y reciclables. • El plan incorpora un generoso recinto arquitectónico para estas funciones. Cumple B. DIVISIÓN 3.3: ESTÁNDARES DE INGENIERÍA Estándar del código aplicable Resumen de los requisitos del código y análisis Conclusiones del personal 3.3.1(C) – Sitios públicos, reservas y dedicatorias Este estándar requiere que el solicitante dedique derechos de paso a las calles públicas y todas las servidumbres necesarias para brindar servicios al área que se está desarrollando. • El plan de desarrollo de infraestructura de Mason Street aprobado incluye un plano de subdivisión que proporciona el derecho de paso y las servidumbres necesarias para este plan de desarrollo de Rescue Mission. Cumple mediante el plan de infraestructura de Mason Street aprobado Sección 3.3.2 Mejoras en el desarrollo Esta sección requiere que las mejoras de ingeniería se diseñen y construyan de acuerdo con los diversos criterios y estándares de diseño de la ciudad, y que sean aprobadas por el ingeniero de la Ciudad antes de la construcción. Esta sección también requiere un Acuerdo de desarrollo entre el solicitante y la Ciudad junto con la firma y registro del FDP con el secretario y oficial del registro del condado. • El conjunto de planos de servicios públicos cumple con todos los criterios y estándares pertinentes para los servicios de drenaje y servicios públicos. • Se firmará y registrará un Acuerdo de desarrollo junto con la firma del FDP. Cumple 3.3.5 Estándares de diseño de ingeniería Esta sección requiere que los proyectos cumplan con los requisitos y las especificaciones para los siguientes servicios certificados por la agencia correspondiente: • suministro de agua • drenaje sanitario • tránsito masivo • protección contra incendios • zonas con riesgo de inundaciones • teléfono • sendas peatonales y ciclovías Cumple 103 Section D, Item 1. Audiencia administrativa - Punto 1 de la agenda Fort Collins Rescue Mission #FDP230022 28 de agosto de 2024 | Página 11 de 15 Volver arriba • electricidad • gas natural • drenaje pluvial • televisión por cable • calles/cruces peatonales • banda ancha/fibra óptica El plan cumple con todos estos servicios que son pertinentes para el proyecto del refugio. C. DIVISIÓN 3.4: ESTÁNDARES DE PROTECCIÓN DEL MEDIO AMBIENTE, ÁREAS NATURALES, RECURSOS RECREATIVOS Y CULTURALES Estándar del código aplicable Resumen de los requisitos del código y análisis Conclusiones del personal 3.4.1 – Hábitats naturales Esta sección se aplica cuando se propone un desarrollo dentro de los 500 pies de un hábitat o característica natural identificada. En este caso, un remanente de Dry Creek que atraviesa la propiedad se considera una característica de hábitat natural en el código. Se realizó un estudio de caracterización ecológica (ECS) para el sitio como parte del plan de infraestructura de Mason Street aprobado. • La nivelación en ese plan de infraestructura elimina la parte del canal y su vegetación que atraviesa el sitio del refugio. Ese plan cumple con los requisitos de las medidas de restauración y mitigación asociadas con la característica y la eliminación de la parte del sitio del refugio. Cumple D. DIVISIÓN 3.5: EDIFICIOS Estándar del código aplicable Resumen de los requisitos del código y análisis Conclusiones del personal N. College Ave. Hibdon Ct. Creek SITIO 104 Section D, Item 1. Audiencia administrativa - Punto 1 de la agenda Fort Collins Rescue Mission #FDP230022 28 de agosto de 2024 | Página 12 de 15 Volver arriba Estándar del código aplicable Resumen de los requisitos del código y análisis Conclusiones del personal 3.5.1 – Compatibilidad entre edificios y proyectos La subsección 3.5.1(A) es la declaración del propósito "para garantizar que las características físicas y operativas de los edificios y usos propuestos sean compatibles cuando se consideren dentro del contexto del área circundante". Los estándares abordan principalmente el carácter de los edificios y cualquier otro componente físico-visual en un plan, y luego también abordan los impactos operativos, como las horas de funcionamiento con iluminación o los impactos relacionados con el ruido. Las subsecciones (B), (C), (D), (E), (F) y (G) tratan todas de arquitectura. El estándar general establece que "en áreas donde el carácter arquitectónico existente no está definitivamente establecido o no es consistente con los propósitos de este Código, la arquitectura del nuevo proyecto deberá establecer un estándar mejorado de calidad para futuros proyectos o reurbanizaciones en el área". La subsección (H) también aborda el carácter visual, pero de manera general, para situaciones en las que es necesario lograr compatibilidad con patios de barreras y espacios abiertos pasivos que separan los usos del suelo con "carácter visual significativamente diferente". La subsección (I) aborda el almacenamiento, las operaciones de carga y la recolección de basura al aire libre. La subsección (J) son estándares de "compatibilidad operativa/física". Esta subsección establece lo siguiente: Se pueden imponer condiciones a la aprobación de solicitudes de desarrollo para garantizar que el nuevo proyecto sea compatible con los vecindarios y usos existentes. Estas condiciones pueden incluir, entre otras, restricciones o requisitos para: (1) horario de atención y entregas; (2) ubicación en un sitio de actividades que generen posibles impactos adversos sobre usos adyacentes, tales como ruido y deslumbramiento; (3) colocación de recipientes para basura; (4) ubicación de las zonas de carga y entrega; (5) intensidad de la luz y horas de iluminación plena; (6) colocación e iluminación de máquinas expendedoras al aire libre; (7) ubicación y número de espacios de estacionamiento fuera de la calle. • El personal no encuentra ningún carácter arquitectónico definitorio existente que sea coherente con los propósitos del Código de Uso del Suelo. Más bien, el contexto es de carácter comercial variado. • Los edificios existentes más cercanos incluyen dos propiedades residenciales contiguas de lotes grandes, casas rodantes antiguas y propiedades de servicios comerciales e industriales cercanas. En las propiedades residenciales adyacentes, las mejoras más cercanas que dan directamente son los caminos de entrada y los garajes grandes. • El personal considera que el plan representa un estándar mejorado de arquitectura y calidad de todos los aspectos del plan en el contexto del área. Las características definitorias incluyen: - Formas de techos inclinados de baja pendiente que brindan un grado de carácter residencial para ayudar a relacionarse con las propiedades adyacentes al norte que tienen casas existentes. - La masa del edificio está altamente modulada y articulada. Cumple 105 Section D, Item 1. Audiencia administrativa - Punto 1 de la agenda Fort Collins Rescue Mission #FDP230022 28 de agosto de 2024 | Página 13 de 15 Volver arriba Estándar del código aplicable Resumen de los requisitos del código y análisis Conclusiones del personal cemento en patrones de tablas y listones, así como traslapados, ladrillos y elementos de madera laminada engomada. El revestimiento aporta además un cierto grado de carácter residencial. Esquina noreste del edificio El personal no encuentra otras actividades en el sitio que generen impactos adicionales como E. DIVISIÓN 3.6: TRANSPORTE Y CIRCULACIÓN Varias secciones de esta división tienen requisitos para calles y servidumbres. La calle y las servidumbres necesarias para el desarrollo de este lote fueron aprobadas en el plan de desarrollo de infraestructura de Mason Street. Estándar del código aplicable Resumen de los requisitos del código y análisis Conclusiones del personal 3.6.4 – Requisitos del nivel de servicio de transporte Esta sección contiene requisitos para que el sistema de transporte existente adapte las necesidades de transporte del desarrollo propuesto de manera segura o que el proyecto de desarrollo proporcione una mitigación adecuada de los impactos para cumplir con los estándares del nivel de servicio (LOS) adoptados. • El personal revisó y aceptó un estudio de impacto de tránsito. Se concluyó que los viajes del proyecto tienen poco o ningún impacto en las operaciones de las intersecciones del estudio en comparación con el escenario de fondo. Las carreteras e intersecciones existentes dentro del área de estudio pueden acomodar los viajes asociados con la propuesta de Fort Collins Rescue Mission. • No existen medidas de mitigación necesarias para apoyar el tránsito vehicular. • Se recomienda que se proporcione conectividad multimodal a lo largo del frente del proyecto para apoyar a los usuarios que es probable que lleguen o salgan caminando, en bicicleta o mediante el transporte público. Esto está previsto en el plan de infraestructura aprobado de Mason Street. • Si bien el Plan Maestro de Calles de la Ciudad identifica este segmento de Mason Street como una vía colectora, los volúmenes asociados con el sitio están muy por debajo del umbral de capacidad para una calle local. A menos que ocurra un desarrollo significativo (o se anticipe que ocurra), Mason Street podría funcionar como una calle local. No se identificaron preocupaciones operativas relacionadas con los Cumple 106 Section D, Item 1. Audiencia administrativa - Punto 1 de la agenda Fort Collins Rescue Mission #FDP230022 28 de agosto de 2024 | Página 14 de 15 Volver arriba Estándar del código aplicable Resumen de los requisitos del código y análisis Conclusiones del personal plan para la calle. • Se adjunta el estudio de 98 páginas. 3.6.6 – Acceso de emergencia Esta sección requiere acceso para vehículos y servicios de emergencia. • El proyecto ha sido revisado por la Autoridad de Bomberos de Poudre (PFA) y cumple con las necesidades y requisitos de sus regulaciones. Cumple 6. Artículo 4 del Código de Uso del Suelo El sitio está zonificado como C-S, servicio comercial, División 4.22, lo que permite el uso como refugio para personas sin hogar. La zonificación es para corredores comerciales de alto tránsito donde se fomenta una amplia gama de usos con una transición desde operaciones comerciales en una autopista, calle arterial o desvío ferroviario a áreas de uso menos intensivo o vecindarios residenciales. Estándar del código aplicable Resumen de los requisitos del código y análisis 4.2 (D) Altura máxima del edificio El único estándar de desarrollo en el distrito zonal es un límite de altura de 3 pisos y el edificio propuesto es de 1 y 2 pisos. 7. Determinaciones de hecho/Conclusión Al evaluar la solicitud del Plan de desarrollo del proyecto/Plan de desarrollo final de Fort Collins Rescue Mission n.° FDP230022, el personal realiza las siguientes determinaciones de hecho y conclusiones: 1. Al demostrar el cumplimiento de los estándares, requisitos y definiciones específicos de los artículos 1 al 5 del Código de Uso del Suelo a través de los materiales de presentación para el Plan de desarrollo del proyecto/Plan de desarrollo final, este proyecto satisface y se alinea con el propósito del Código de Uso del Suelo establecido en la sección 1.2.2(A) a (O). Específicamente, el proyecto cumple con la sección 1.2.2(A) porque es consistente con el Plan de la Ciudad y el Plan del corredor de North College. 2. El plan cumple con los requisitos procesales y administrativos aplicables del artículo 2 del Código de Uso del Suelo. 3. El plan cumple con los estándares aplicables del artículo 3 del Código de Uso del Suelo. 4. El uso es un uso permitido en el estándar del distrito de la zona de servicios comerciales en el artículo 4 del Código de Uso del Suelo, en cuanto a la altura de los edificios. El proyecto de refugio para personas sin hogar comprende un uso permitido. 8. Recomendación El personal recomienda que la Comisión de Planificación y Zonificación apruebe el Plan de desarrollo del proyecto/Plan de desarrollo final de Fort Collins Rescue Mission n.° FDP230022, basándose en las determinaciones de hecho y las explicaciones de respaldo que se encuentran en el informe del personal. 107 Section D, Item 1. Audiencia administrativa - Punto 1 de la agenda Fort Collins Rescue Mission #FDP230022 28 de agosto de 2024 | Página 15 de 15 Volver arriba 9. Documentos adjuntos 1. Narrativa del solicitante 2. Arquitectura 3. Plan del sitio 4. Plan de paisaje 5. Plan de iluminación 6. Plan de servicios públicos 7. Solicitud de cumplimiento con el estacionamiento alternativo 8. Estudio de estacionamiento 9. Informe de drenaje 10. Estudio del tránsito 11. Enlace al video de la reunión vecinal 12. Plan estratégico de viviendas de 2021 13. Plan estratégico de vivienda asequible 2015-2019 14. Informe del Comité Asesor para Personas sin Hogar 2.0 15. Informe del Comité Asesor para Personas sin Hogar (1) 16. Marco de diseño basado en traumas 17. Informe de diseño basado en traumas 18. Extractos del Plan del corredor de North College 19. Presentación del personal 108 Section D, Item 1. 83 ' ' )' Z/#:3 ZZ/#:3 ZZ/#:3 ZZ/#:3 Z )' 5() ' : : : )' )')' )' : ' : ' : ': ' : ': ' : ' )' )' /2%%< :$7(5(175< :(6767$,5 )5((=(5 ,17$.( /2%%<55 .,7&+(1 '5<6725$*( 6725$*( -$1 92/55 :$/.,1',1,1* )/(;',1,1* 0(1 6:20(1 6 ,792/2)),&( 92/672 23(12)),&( &21) 67 $ ) )  % 5 ( $ . 5(&(32)),&( &+$3(/2)),&( 2)),&(67$))55 (/(& &2816(/&2816(/ 55 55 67$))&255,'25 67 $ ) )  / $ 8 1 ' 5 < 72,/(76+2:(550 &20021$5($ %('%8*5220 ($6767$,555 23(167$,5 (/(& -$1(/(972:(/6725$*( 2)),&( 55 '25007*'250'250 &,5&8/$7,21 '250'250'250 &,5&8/$7,21 .,7&+(12)),&( 67$))2)),&( 5( & ( 3 7 , 2 1 6725 672 5(63,7( '250 '250 &,5&8/$7,21 ,7 2)),&( 2)),&( 72,/(76+2:(55220/*0((7,1*5220 ($6767$,5 0(&+(/(& '25007* 55 '250 &,5&8/$7,21 *8 ( 6 7  / $ 8 1 ' 5 < 55%$*6725$*(-$1 2)),&(,7 23(167$,5 (/(9 67$,56 '250 '250 0(&+$1,&$/0(==$1,1( 672 '250'250 '250'250 5(63,7( (17,7/(0(17 '5$:,1*6 127)25 &216758&7,21 &DQ\RQ$YH6XLWH)RUW&ROOLQV&2SKRQH_ID[_ZZZULSOH\GHVLJQLQFFRP '5$:,1*180%(5 ,668(' 352-(&71R '5$:1%< 5(9,(:('%< 6($/ 35(3$5('%< 1R '(6&5,37,21 '$7( 5(9,6,216 1R '(6&5,37,21 '$7( 25,*,1$/6,=(; (1*,1((5 $5&+,7(&7 1257+(51(1*,1((5,1*%ODLQH0DWKLVHQ 1+RZHV6W6XLWH )RUW&ROOLQV&2S 6+23:25.6$5&+,7(&785( &KDG+ROW]LQJHU :WK$YH 'HQYHU&2 S 5,3/(<'(6,*1,1& .ODUD5RVVRXZ &DQ\RQ$YH6XLWH )RUW&ROOLQV&2 S 3/$11(5/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&7 2:1(5 )257&2//,165(6&8(0,66,21 -HIIHUVRQ6W )RUW&ROOLQV&2 S 3'368%0,77$/ )257&2//,16 5(6&8(0,66,21 )257&2//,16&2 $X W R G H V N  ' R F V          ' H Q Y H U  5 H V F X H  0 L V V L R Q  ) W  & R O O L Q V        ' H QY H U  5 H V F X H  0 L V V L R Q  ) W  & R O O L Q V B 5    U Y W                  3 0 $XWKRU 3'368%0,77$/ 29(5$//)/2253/$1 $ $SSURYHU     3'329(5$//)/2253/$1 /9/   3'329(5$//)/2253/$1 /9/  3'3)'35281' 109 Section D, Item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ection D, Item 1. 83 $ $ $ $  $  $ $ $  $ $  '250 '$< /2%%< /(9(/   '$<723/$7(   &(0(17,7,286/$36,',1*5811,1*%21'%5,&.&(0(17,7,286%2$5'$1'%$77(16,',1*$63+$/7&20326,7(6+,1*/(522),1*6<67(0 6($/(':22'251$0(17$7,21 /(9(/   '$<723/$7(   /(9(/   '$<723/$7(         /(9(/   /(9(/   %($5,1*($9(6   /$36,',1* %2$5'$1'%$77(16,',1* /(9(/   /(9(/   /(9(/   %($5,1*($9(6   5811,1*%21'%5,&. %2$5'$1'%$77(1 $63+$/725&20326,7(522) 528*+)$&(5811,1*%21'%5,&. 62/',(5&2856(%5,&. 528*+)$&(5811,1*%21'%5,&. %5,&.6,// %5,&./('*( (17,7/(0(17 '5$:,1*6 127)25 &216758&7,21 &DQ\RQ$YH6XLWH)RUW&ROOLQV&2SKRQH_ID[_ZZZULSOH\GHVLJQLQFFRP '5$:,1*180%(5 ,668(' 352-(&71R '5$:1%< 5(9,(:('%< 6($/ 35(3$5('%< 1R '(6&5,37,21 '$7( 5(9,6,216 1R '(6&5,37,21 '$7( 25,*,1$/6,=(; (1*,1((5 $5&+,7(&7 1257+(51(1*,1((5,1*%ODLQH0DWKLVHQ 1+RZHV6W6XLWH )RUW&ROOLQV&2S 6+23:25.6$5&+,7(&785( &KDG+ROW]LQJHU :WK$YH 'HQYHU&2 S 5,3/(<'(6,*1,1& .ODUD5RVVRXZ &DQ\RQ$YH6XLWH )RUW&ROOLQV&2 S 3/$11(5/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&7 2:1(5 )257&2//,165(6&8(0,66,21 -HIIHUVRQ6W )RUW&ROOLQV&2 S 3'368%0,77$/ )257&2//,16 5(6&8(0,66,21 )257&2//,16&2 $X W R G H V N  ' R F V          ' H Q Y H U  5 H V F X H  0 L V V L R Q  ) W  & R O O L Q V        ' H QY H U  5 H V F X H  0 L V V L R Q  ) W  & R O O L Q V B 5    U Y W                  3 0 6/6 3'368%0,77$/ (;7(5,25(/(9$7,216 $ 5,   .(<3/$1   3'36%/'*($67(/(9   3'36%/'*6287+(/(9   3'36%/'*:(67(/(9   3'31%/'*&2857<$5':(67(/(9   3'3/2%%<($67(/(9   3'31%/'*6287+(/(9( ([WHULRU0DWHULDO6FKHGXOH 0DWHULDO 6ZDWFK 0DWHULDO %ORQG%ULFN :KLWH&HPHQWLWLRXV)LEHU%RDUGDQG%DWWHQ6LGLQJ *UH\/DS6LGLQJ :KLWH/DS6LGLQJ )ULWWHGRU6FUHHQ3ULQWHG*OD]LQJ 732522),1*0(0%5$1( $VSKDOW&RPSRVLWH6KLQJOH 6HDOHG'RXJODV)LU*OXODP 6RODUEDQ&OHDU 6SDQGUHO*OD]LQJ  3'3)'35281'  111 Section D, Item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ection D, Item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ection D, Item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ection D, Item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ection D, Item 1. DRAWING NUMBER: ISSUED PROJECT No.: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: SEAL: PREPARED BY: No. DESCRIPTION DATE REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE ORIGINAL SIZE 24X36 ENGINEER ARCHITECT NORTHERN ENGINEERING Blaine Mathisen 301 N. Howes St., Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.221.4158 SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE Chad Holtzinger 301 W 45th Ave. Denver, CO 80216 p. 303.433.4094 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521phone 970.224.5828 | fax 970.225.6657 | www.ripleydesigninc.com RIPLEY DESIGN INC. Klara Rossouw 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.224.5828 PLANNER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OWNER FORT COLLINS RESCUE MISSION, INC 6100 Smith Road Denver, CO 80216 COVER FDP SUBMITTAL FORT COLLINS RESCUE MISSION 04 FOR HEARING 04-10-2024 03-27-2024PDP/FDP ROUND 303 02-14-2024PDP/FDP ROUND 202 11-01-2023PDP ROUND 101 FORT COLLINS, CO KR HJ/LO R22-030 C OWNER (SIGNED)Date THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. NOTARY PUBLIC ADDRESS THIS DAY MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: AS . (PRINT NAME) THE UNDERSIGNED DOES/DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I/WE ARE THE LAWFUL OWNERS OF THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED ON THIS SITE PLAN AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I/WE ACCEPT THE CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS SET FORTH ON SAID SITE PLAN. OWNER'S CERTIFICATE Director Signature PLANNING CERTIFICATE APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO ON THIS DAY _____________________. SITE PLAN NOTES 1. THE PROJECT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINAL PLANS. AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANS MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY CHANGES TO THE PLANS. 2. REFER TO FINAL UTILITY PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION FOR STORM DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, UTILITY MAINS AND SERVICES, PROPOSED TOPOGRAPHY, STREET IMPROVEMENTS. 3. REFER TO THE SUBDIVISION PLAT AND UTILITY PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS, AREAS AND DIMENSIONS OF ALL EASEMENTS, LOTS, TRACTS, STREETS, WALKS AND OTHER SURVEY INFORMATION. 4. ALL ROOFTOP AND GROUND MOUNTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT MUST BE SCREENED FROM VIEW FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY AND PUBLIC STREETS. IN CASES WHERE BUILDING PARAPETS DO NOT ACCOMPLISH SUFFICIENT SCREENING, THEN FREE-STANDING SCREEN WALLS MATCHING THE PREDOMINANT COLOR OF THE BUILDING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED. OTHER MINOR EQUIPMENT SUCH AS CONDUIT, METERS AND PLUMBING VENTS SHALL BE SCREENED OR PAINTED TO MATCH SURROUNDING BUILDING SURFACES. 5. ALL CONSTRUCTION WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN MUST BE COMPLETED IN ONE PHASE UNLESS A PHASING PLAN IS SHOWN WITH THESE PLANS. 6. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE TO 3.2.2(k)(2) 7. ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING PROVIDED SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOOT-CANDLE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 3.2.4 OF THE LAND USE CODE AND SHALL USE A CONCEALED, FULLY SHIELDED LIGHT SOURCE WITH SHARP CUT-OFF CAPABILITY SO AS TO MINIMIZE UP-LIGHT, SPILL LIGHT, GLARE AND UNNECESSARY DIFFUSION. 8. SIGNAGE AND ADDRESSING ARE NOT PERMITTED WITH THIS PLANNING DOCUMENT AND MUST BE APPROVED BY SEPARATE CITY PERMIT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. SIGNS MUST COMPLY WITH CITY SIGN CODE UNLESS A SPECIFIC VARIANCE IS GRANTED BY THE CITY. 9. FIRE HYDRANTS MUST MEET OR EXCEED POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY STANDARDS. ALL BUILDINGS MUST PROVIDE AN APPROVED FIRE EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM. 10. ALL BIKE RACKS PROVIDED MUST BE PERMANENTLY ANCHORED. 11. ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS MUST CONFORM TO CITY STANDARDS. ACCESSIBLE RAMPS MUST BE PROVIDED AT ALL STREET AND DRIVE INTERSECTIONS AND AT ALL DESIGNATED ACCESSABLE PARKING SPACES. ACCESSABLE PARKING SPACES MUST SLOPE NO MORE THAN 1:48 IN ANY DIRECTION. ALL ACCESSIBLE ROUTES MUST SLOPE NO MORE THAN 1:20 IN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL AND WITH NO MORE THAN 1:48 CROSS SLOPE. 12.COMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS AND LANDSCAPING WITHIN RIGHT OF WAYS, STREET MEDIANS, AND TRAFFIC CIRCLES ADJACENT TO COMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS ARE REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED BY A PROPERTY OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION. THE PROPERTY OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SNOW REMOVAL ON ALL ADJACENT STREET SIDEWALKS AND SIDEWALKS IN COMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS. AND, IF APPLICABLE: 13.PRIVATE CONDITIONS, COVENANTS, AND RESTRICTIONS (CC&R'S), OR ANY OTHER PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IMPOSED ON LANDOWNERS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT, MAY NOT BE CREATED OR ENFORCED HAVING THE EFFECT OF PROHIBITING OR LIMITING THE INSTALLATION OF XERISCAPE LANDSCAPING, SOLAR/PHOTO-VOLTAIC COLLECTORS (IF MOUNTED FLUSH UPON ANY ESTABLISHED ROOF LINE), CLOTHES LINES (IF LOCATED IN BACK YARDS), ODORCONTROLLED COMPOST BINS, OR WHICH HAVE THE EFFECT OF REQUIRING THAT A PORTION OF ANY INDIVIDUAL LOT BE PLANTED IN TURF GRASS. 14. ANY DAMAGED CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK EXISTING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, AS WELL AS STREETS, SIDEWALKS, CURBS AND GUTTERS, DESTROYED, DAMAGED OR REMOVED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT, SHALL BE REPLACED OR RESTORED TO CITY OF FORT COLLINS STANDARDS AT THE DEVELOPER'S EXPENSE PRIOR TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLETED IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 15.FIRE LANE MARKING: A FIRE LANE MARKING PLAN MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE FIRE OFFICIAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. WHERE REQUIRED BY THE FIRE CODE OFFICIAL, APPROVED SIGNS OR OTHER APPROVED NOTICES THAT INCLUDE THE WORDS NO PARKING FIRE LANE SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS TO IDENTIFY SUCH ROADS OR PROHIBIT THE OBSTRUCTION THEREOF. THE MEANS BY WHICH FIRE LANES ARE DESIGNATED SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CLEAN AND Revised November 12, 2015 3 LEGIBLE CONDITION AT ALL TIMES AD BE REPLACED OR REPAIRED WHEN NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE VISIBILITY. 16.PREMISE IDENTIFICATION: AN ADDRESSING PLAN IS REQUIRED TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY AND POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. UNLESS THE PRIVATE DRIVE IS NAMED, MONUMENT SIGNAGE MAY BE REQUIRED TO ALLOW WAY-FINDING. ALL BUILDINGS SHALL HAVE ADDRESS NUMBERS, BUILDING NUMBERS OR APPROVED BUILDING IDENTIFICATION PLACED IN A POSITION THAT IS PLAINLY LEGIBLE, VISIBLE FROM THE STREET OR ROAD FRONTING THE PROPERTY, AND POSTED WITH A MINIMUM OF EIGHT-INCH NUMERALS ON A CONTRASTING BACKGROUND. WHERE ACCESS IS BY MEANS OF A PRIVATE ROAD AND THE BUILDING CANNOT BE VIEWED FROM THE PUBLIC WAY, A MONUMENT, POLE OR OTHER SIGN OR MEANS SHALL BE USED TO IDENTIFY THE STRUCTURE. FORT COLLINS RESCUE MISSION FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN NORTH VICINITY MAP SCALE: NTS PROJECT PARKING PROVIDED *REQUIRED LONG-TERM PARKING STALLS 32 N/A HANDICAP 3 1 TOTAL 35 1 BICYCLE PARKING PROVIDED REQUIRED * BICYCLE SPACES 40 N/A FLOOR AREA RATIO LOT 1, BLOCK 1 BUILDING AREA (SF)41,644 LOT AREA (SF)120789 FLOOR AREA RATIO (LOT 1, BLOCK 1)0.34 GROSS GROSS AREA 131,631 SF (3.02 AC) EXISTING ZONING SERVICE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C-S) NET NET AREA 131,631 SF (3.02 AC) DENSITY AREA COVERAGE NET AREA (SF)% BUILDING COVERAGE 30,332 22.98 DRIVES AND PARKING 18,150 13.75 OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPE 62,378 47.25 HARDSCAPE (WALKS & PLAZAS)20,227 15.32 *ACTIVE RECREATIONAL USE 924 0.70 TOTAL NET COVERAGE 132,011.00 SF (3.03 AC)100.00 BUILDING HEIGHT MAXIMUM HEIGHT STORIES PROPOSED BUILDING (2-STORY): 33' - 4" (1-STORY): 24' - 9 12 "1 & 2 LAND USE CHART LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 2, MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. HICKORY ST. MASON ST. WILLOX LN * PARKING STUDY AND ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE FOR PARKING IS INCLUDED IN THIS PROPOSAL. HIBDON COURT RAILROAD SITE Sheet List Table Sheet Number Sheet Title C COVER L1 OVERALL SITE PLAN L2 SITE PLAN ENLARGEMENT 1 L3 SITE PLAN ENLARGEMENT 2 L4 SITE DETAILS L5 LANDSCAPE NOTES & DETAILS L6 LANDSCAPE NOTES & DETAILS L7 OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN L8 LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENT 1 L9 LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENT 2 L10 HYDROZONE MAP A.3.00 OVERALL FLOOR PLAN A.4.00 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A.4.01 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A.4.20 3D PERSPECTIVES A.4.21 3D PERSPECTIVES A.5.00 BUILDING SECTIONS A.9.00 DETAILS P SITE PHOTOMETRIC P1 SITE LIGHTING DETAILS P2 SITE LIGHTING DETAILS BY ** **28 BICYCLE PARKING SPACES (70%) ARE COVERED 116 Section D, Item 1. UDUD EE ELEC M VAU LTELEC CAB LE ELEC CTV C X X CTVCTVCTVCTV OHU OHU OHU X X XXXXXXX CTV CTV CTVCTVCTVCTV G G G G G G G G G S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S W W W W W W 6 10 9 3 7 6 10 9 3 7RAIN GARDEN HICKORY REGIONAL DETENTION POND PROPOSED BUILDING ~ 30,332 SQFT, 2 STORIESOUTDOOR AMENITY OUTDOOR AMENITY LOT 1 LOT 3 LOT 2 WANKIER LANCE, 1401 N. COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, CO WOOD RONALD G/ JENNIFER L/ WILLARD E, 122 HIBDON COURT FORT COLLINS, CO THOMPSON PROPERTIES LLC 1319 N, COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, CO GRATITUDE LLC 1303 N. COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS. CO 60'-0" DRAINAGEEASEMENT 10'-0" ACCESS EASEMENT 38'-3" DRAINAGE EASEMENT HIBDON COURT 30' STORMWATEREASEMENT 24'-0"EMERGENCY ACCESS ESMT G E W FO X UD W G SS E FS FS # LEGEND = STREET LIGHT = EXISTING GAS LINE = EXISTING ELECTRIC LINE = EXISTING WATER LINE = EXISTING FIBER OPTIC LINE = EXISTING FENCE = PROJECT/PROPERTY BOUNDARY = LOT LINE = STORMWATER UTILITY = WATER UTILITY = GAS UTILITY = SANITARY SEWER UTILITY = ELECTRIC UTILITY = UNDER DRAIN = SETBACK = RIGHT OF WAY = EXISTING STORMWATER UTILITY = FIRE SERVICE LINE = PARKING STALL COUNT = EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY = PROPOSED GRADING = MATCH LINE = TRANSFORMER = EXISTING SIGN = FIRE HYDRANT = 6' PRIVACY FENCE = 6' METAL FENCE = NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE CRUSHER FINES ARTIFICIAL TURF EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN BOULDERS (.5 - 1.5 TONS) STEEL EDGER = BIKE RACK, TYP = CAROUSEL TABLE, TYP. = DINING TABLE, STOOLS, & DINING CHAIRS, TYP = SHADE STRUCTURE, TYP. = TRASH & RECYCLE RECEPTACLES, TYP = ROCKING CHAIR, TYP = ADIRONCACK CHAIR, TYP = CAFE TABLE & CHAIRS, TYP. = TREE STUMP STOOL, TYP = INTEGRAL COLORED CONCRETE, DAVIS COLOR TBD = STANDARD GRAY CONCRETE, MEDIUM BROOM FINISH *UTILITIES ARE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY DRAWING NUMBER: ISSUED PROJECT No.: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: SEAL: PREPARED BY: No. DESCRIPTION DATE REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE ORIGINAL SIZE 24X36 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521phone 970.224.5828 | fax 970.225.6657 | www.ripleydesigninc.com RIPLEY DESIGN INC. Klara Rossouw 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.224.5828 ENGINEER ARCHITECT PLANNER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT NORTHERN ENGINEERING Andy Reese 301 N. Howes St., Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.221.4158 OWNER DENVER RESCUE MISSION 6100 Smith Road Denver, CO 80216 p. 303.297.1815 SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE Chad Holtzinger 301 W 45th Ave. Denver, CO 80216 p. 303.433.4094 OVERALL SITE PLAN FDP SUBMITTAL FORT COLLINS RESCUE MISSION 03-27-2024PDP/FDP ROUND 303 02-14-2024PDP/FDP ROUND 202 11-01-2023PDP ROUND 101 FORT COLLINS, CO KR HJ/LO R22-030 L1 NORTH 0 20 40 80 SCALE: 1"=40'-0" SHEET L2 SHEET L3 THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE SHALL NOT BE DISTURBED BY ANY GRADING, CONSTRUCTION OR MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES EXCEPT AS APPROVED BY THE CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER. 117 Section D, Item 1. UDUDUDUD C X X X X X XXXX G G G G G SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S W W 7 8" W 8" W 12" SS 12" SS 12" SS EE W F 7 9'-0" 9'-0"9'-0" 6'-0" WALK 5'-0" WALK 5'-0" WALK 26'-6" 5'-0" WALK 78'-1" 80'-0" 46'-3" 20'-0" EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT 9'-0" UTILITY EASEMENT 8'-0" TREE LAWN OVERNIGHT SHELTER COURTYARDOVERNIGHT SHELTER COURTYARD RAIN GARDEN PROPERTY BOUNDARY STAFF COURTYARD LOT 2 PROPERTY BOUNDARY STAFF COURTYARD LOT 2 PROPOSED BUILDING ~ 30,332 SQFT, 2 STORIES WOOD RONALD G/ JENNIFER L/ WILLARD E, 122 HIBDON COURT FORT COLLINS, CO 6'-0" WALK 30' STORMWATER EASEMENT 38'-3" DRAINAGE EASEMENT 6'-0" PUBLIC SIDEWALK 12'-0" STREETLIGHT, TYP. TRANSFORMER, TYP. WATER METER, RE: CIVIL STREETLIGHT, TYP. CONCRETE WEIR, RE CIVIL PROPOSED FENCE TO ALIGN AND TIE INTO EXISTING RAMP, RE:CIVIL SIGNAGE, RE: CIVIL ELECTRIC VAULT, TYP. RAMP, RE: CIVIL G E W FO X UD W G SS E FS FS # LEGEND = STREET LIGHT = EXISTING GAS LINE = EXISTING ELECTRIC LINE = EXISTING WATER LINE = EXISTING FIBER OPTIC LINE = EXISTING FENCE = PROJECT/PROPERTY BOUNDARY = LOT LINE = STORMWATER UTILITY = WATER UTILITY = GAS UTILITY = SANITARY SEWER UTILITY = ELECTRIC UTILITY = UNDER DRAIN = SETBACK = RIGHT OF WAY = EXISTING STORMWATER UTILITY = FIRE SERVICE LINE = PARKING STALL COUNT = EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY = PROPOSED GRADING = MATCH LINE = TRANSFORMER = EXISTING SIGN = FIRE HYDRANT = 6' PRIVACY FENCE = 6' METAL FENCE = NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE CRUSHER FINES ARTIFICIAL TURF EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN BOULDERS (.5 - 1.5 TONS) STEEL EDGER B = BIKE RACK, TYP = CAROUSEL TABLE, TYP. = DINING TABLE, STOOLS, & DINING CHAIRS, TYP = SHADE STRUCTURE, TYP. = TRASH & RECYCLE RECEPTACLES, TYP = ROCKING CHAIR, TYP = ADIRONCACK CHAIR, TYP = CAFE TABLE & CHAIRS, TYP. = TREE STUMP STOOL, TYP = INTEGRAL COLORED CONCRETE, DAVIS COLOR TBD = STANDARD GRAY CONCRETE, MEDIUM BROOM FINISH *UTILITIES ARE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY EL ECXG S S SS 6 10 9 3 7 S I UDUDUD WF 6 10 9 3 7 RAIN GARDEN RAIN GARDEN PROPOSED BUILDING ~30,332 SQFT,2 STORIESOUTDOORAMENITY OUTDOOR AMENITY LOT 2 WOOD RONALD G/JENNIFER L/ WILLARD E, 122 HIBDON COURTFORT COLLINS, CO 60'-0"DRAINAGEEASEMENT 10'-0" ACCESS EASEMENT 38'-3" DRAINAGEEASEMENT LOT 2 30' STORMWATEREASEMENT 24'-0"EMERGENCYACCESS ESMT DRAWING NUMBER: ISSUED PROJECT No.: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: SEAL: PREPARED BY: No. DESCRIPTION DATE REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE ORIGINAL SIZE 24X36 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521phone 970.224.5828 | fax 970.225.6657 | www.ripleydesigninc.com RIPLEY DESIGN INC. Klara Rossouw 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.224.5828 ENGINEER ARCHITECT PLANNER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT NORTHERN ENGINEERING Andy Reese 301 N. Howes St., Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.221.4158 OWNER DENVER RESCUE MISSION 6100 Smith Road Denver, CO 80216 p. 303.297.1815 SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE Chad Holtzinger 301 W 45th Ave. Denver, CO 80216 p. 303.433.4094 SITE PLAN ENLARGEMENT 1 FDP SUBMITTAL FORT COLLINS RESCUE MISSION 04 FOR HEARING 04-10-2024 03-27-2024PDP/FDP ROUND 303 02-14-2024PDP/FDP ROUND 202 11-01-2023PDP ROUND 101 FORT COLLINS, CO KR HJ/LO R22-030 L2 NORTH 0 10 20 40 SCALE: 1"=20'-0" KEY MAP SHEET L2 SHEET L3 118 Section D, Item 1. 3 - SOC G G E UD C XX 6 10 9 3 S I UDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUD UD UD UD EE 60'-0" DRAINAGE EASEMENT DAY-USE AREA COURTYARD 6 10 9 3 8'-0" 9'-5" 6'-0" WALK 6'-0" WALK 10'-3" 9'-0" TYP. 5'-0" WALK 5'-0" WALK 6'-0" PUBLIC SIDEWALK 5'-0" WALK 100'-4" 24'-0" EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT 10'-0" ACCESS EASEMENT 17'-0" TYP. 6'-0" PUBLIC SIDEWALK29'-2" 9'-0" UTILITY EASEMENT HICKORY REGIONAL DETENTION POND DAY-USE AREA COURTYARD STREETLIGHT, TYP. STREETLIGHT, TYP. CONCRETE WEIR, RE: CIVIL GENERATOR, RE:ARCH TRASH AND RECYCLING ENCLOSURES, RE: ARCH RAMP, RE:CIVIL, TYP.RAMP, RE:CIVIL, TYP. 8'-0" TREE LAWN TRANSFORMER, RE:CIVIL MONUMENT SIGN 8'-0" 84'-7" BIKE FIXIT STATION BIKE RACKS, TYP. BIKE SHELTER, TYP. EGRESS GATE TO BE EQUIPPED WITH KNOX GATE KEY 6' PRIVACY FENCE RETAINING WALL G E W FO X UD W G SS E FS FS # LEGEND = STREET LIGHT = EXISTING GAS LINE = EXISTING ELECTRIC LINE = EXISTING WATER LINE = EXISTING FIBER OPTIC LINE = EXISTING FENCE = PROJECT/PROPERTY BOUNDARY = LOT LINE = STORMWATER UTILITY = WATER UTILITY = GAS UTILITY = SANITARY SEWER UTILITY = ELECTRIC UTILITY = UNDER DRAIN = SETBACK = RIGHT OF WAY = EXISTING STORMWATER UTILITY = FIRE SERVICE LINE = PARKING STALL COUNT = EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY = PROPOSED GRADING = MATCH LINE = TRANSFORMER = EXISTING SIGN = FIRE HYDRANT = 6' PRIVACY FENCE = 6' METAL FENCE = NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE CRUSHER FINES ARTIFICIAL TURF EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN BOULDERS (.5 - 1.5 TONS) STEEL EDGER B = BIKE RACK, TYP = CAROUSEL TABLE, TYP. = DINING TABLE, STOOLS, & DINING CHAIRS, TYP = SHADE STRUCTURE, TYP. = TRASH & RECYCLE RECEPTACLES, TYP = ROCKING CHAIR, TYP = ADIRONCACK CHAIR, TYP = CAFE TABLE & CHAIRS, TYP. = TREE STUMP STOOL, TYP = INTEGRAL COLORED CONCRETE, DAVIS COLOR TBD = STANDARD GRAY CONCRETE, MEDIUM BROOM FINISH *UTILITIES ARE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY EL ECXG S S SS 6 10 9 3 7 S I UDUDUD WF 6 10 9 3 7 RAIN GARDEN RAIN GARDEN PROPOSED BUILDING ~30,332 SQFT,2 STORIESOUTDOORAMENITY OUTDOOR AMENITY LOT 2 WOOD RONALD G/JENNIFER L/ WILLARD E, 122 HIBDON COURTFORT COLLINS, CO 60'-0"DRAINAGEEASEMENT 10'-0" ACCESS EASEMENT 38'-3" DRAINAGEEASEMENT 30' STORMWATEREASEMENT 24'-0"EMERGENCYACCESS ESMT DRAWING NUMBER: ISSUED PROJECT No.: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: SEAL: PREPARED BY: No. DESCRIPTION DATE REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE ORIGINAL SIZE 24X36 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521phone 970.224.5828 | fax 970.225.6657 | www.ripleydesigninc.com RIPLEY DESIGN INC. Klara Rossouw 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.224.5828 ENGINEER ARCHITECT PLANNER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT NORTHERN ENGINEERING Andy Reese 301 N. Howes St., Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.221.4158 OWNER DENVER RESCUE MISSION 6100 Smith Road Denver, CO 80216 p. 303.297.1815 SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE Chad Holtzinger 301 W 45th Ave. Denver, CO 80216 p. 303.433.4094 SITE PLAN ENLARGEMENT 2 FDP SUBMITTAL FORT COLLINS RESCUE MISSION 04 FOR HEARING 04-10-2024 03-27-2024PDP/FDP ROUND 303 02-14-2024PDP/FDP ROUND 202 11-01-2023PDP ROUND 101 FORT COLLINS, CO KR HJ/LO R22-030 L3 NORTH 0 10 20 40 SCALE: 1"=20'-0" KEY MAP SHEET L2 SHEET L3 119 Section D, Item 1. DRAWING NUMBER: ISSUED PROJECT No.: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: SEAL: PREPARED BY: No. DESCRIPTION DATE REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE ORIGINAL SIZE 24X36 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521phone 970.224.5828 | fax 970.225.6657 | www.ripleydesigninc.com ENGINEER ARCHITECT NORTHERN ENGINEERING Andy Reese 301 N. Howes St., Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.221.4158 SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE Chad Holtzinger 301 W 45th Ave. Denver, CO 80216 p. 303.433.4094 RIPLEY DESIGN INC. Klara Rossouw 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.224.5828 PLANNER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OWNER FORT COLLINS RESCUE MISSION 316 Jefferson St. Fort Collins, CO 80524 p. 970.224.4302 SITE DETAILS FDP SUBMITTAL FORT COLLINS RESCUE MISSION 04 FOR HEARING 04-10-2024 03-27-2024PDP/FDP ROUND 303 02-14-2024PDP/FDP ROUND 202 11-01-2023PDP ROUND 101 FORT COLLINS, CO KR HJ/LO R22-030 L4 BIKE RACK MODEL: ANOVA TANDEM BIKE RACK POWDER COAT FINISH, COLOR TBD. IN-GROUND MOUNT EACH LOOP RACK CAN ACCOMODATE TWO BIKES, ONE ON EITHER SIDE. LOOP RACK 3/4" = 1'-0" BIKE RACK FOOTING IN CRUSHER FINES 1'-0" 12" X 36" CONCRETE FOOTING - (2) PER BIKE RACK 2" 4" SEE PLAN FOR LAYOUT TOP SURFACE OF CRUSHER FINES BIKE RACK WALK OR CONCRETE HEADER - SEE PLAN NOTE: CONFIRM FOOTING WITH MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS. 45 NOTE: 1. EGRESS AND PANIC HARDWARE TO BE COORDINATED WITH ARCHITECT 2. SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS 6'-0" 2" NOM. 3'-0", TYP. METAL FENCE 3/4" = 1'-0" 3'-0", TYP 6'-0" 2" NOM. 8' O.C., TYP. 4", TYP. 1'-0" TYP. 4", TYP. EGRESS HARDWARE PER ARCHITECT 4", TYP. 1'-0", TYP. MESH PER MANUFACTURER RE: STRUCTURAL FOR FOOTER DESIGN RE: STRUCTURAL FOR FOOTER DESIGN OP-FO3-361 6'-0" 8' TYP. CEDAR FENCE 3/4" = 1'-0" FRONT ELEVATION 3'-6", TYP. 1'-6", TYP. (2) 2x4" CEDAR RAIL SECURED TO POST WITH METAL HANGERS (2) 2x4" CEDAR RAIL SECURED TO POST WITH METAL HANGERS 6X6" CEDAR POSTS 2x6" CEDAR BOARD NOTES: 1. ALL WOOD TO BE NO.1 GRADE CEDAR AND FREE OF EXCESSIVE CHIPS, CRACKS, WARPS OR KNOTS 2. ALL FASTENERS TO BE HOT DIP GALVANIZED. 3. ALL WOOD TO BE COATED WITH TWO COATS OF SOLID STAIN, COLOR TO BE APPROVED BY OWNER'S REP. 4. SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS. 6", TYP. 614", TYP. 4" MAX. 1X6" CEDAR PICKETS, TYP. 1" CHAMFERED EDGE (2) 2x4" CEDAR RAIL SECURED TO POST WITH METAL HANGERS 2x6" CAP 2x4" TOP RAIL 78" REVEAL FROM POST FACE TO RAIL 6X6" POST 2X4" MID RAIL 2X4" BOTTOM RAIL 1X6" PICKETS SIDE ELEVATION 3'-0" RE: STRUCTURAL FOR FOOTER DESIGN RE: STRUCTURAL FOR FOOTER DESIGN 3 OP-FO3-37 BIKE SHELTER N.T.S. NOTE: SCHEMATIC DESIGN OF BIKE SHELTER, BIKE RACKS SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY 2 OP-FO3-39 120 Section D, Item 1. *TYPE (PROPOSED & EXISTING TO REMAIN)COUNT Acer Negundo 'Sensation'9 Acer saccharum 'Bailsta'2 Aesculus glabra 'Jn Select'3 Catalpa speciosa 'Heartland'8 Populus x acuminata 6 Salix amygdaloides 6 Juniperus scopulorum 6 Malus x 'Royal Raindrops'4 Prunus americana 5 Prunus virginiana 'Yellow Bird'8 Syringa reticulata 3 TOTAL TREES 60 *CITY OF FORT COLLINS CODE SECTION 3.2.1(D)3 MINIMUM SPECIES DIVERSITY DRAWING NUMBER: ISSUED PROJECT No.: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: SEAL: PREPARED BY: No. DESCRIPTION DATE REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE ORIGINAL SIZE 24X36 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521phone 970.224.5828 | fax 970.225.6657 | www.ripleydesigninc.com ENGINEER ARCHITECT NORTHERN ENGINEERING Andy Reese 301 N. Howes St., Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.221.4158 SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE Chad Holtzinger 301 W 45th Ave. Denver, CO 80216 p. 303.433.4094 RIPLEY DESIGN INC. Klara Rossouw 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.224.5828 PLANNER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OWNER FORT COLLINS RESCUE MISSION 316 Jefferson St. Fort Collins, CO 80524 p. 970.224.4302 LANDSCAPE NOTES & DETAILS FDP SUBMITTAL FORT COLLINS RESCUE MISSION 04 FOR HEARING 04-10-2024 03-27-2024PDP/FDP ROUND 303 02-14-2024PDP/FDP ROUND 202 11-01-2023PDP ROUND 101 FORT COLLINS, CO KR HJ/LO R22-030 L5 1.PLANT QUALITY: ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE A-GRADE OR NO. 1 GRADE - FREE OF ANY DEFECTS, OF NORMAL HEALTH, HEIGHT, LEAF DENSITY AND SPREAD APPROPRIATE TO THE SPECIES AS DEFINED BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN (AAN) STANDARDS. ALL TREES SHALL BE BALL AND BURLAP OR EQUIVALENT. 2.IRRIGATION: ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS WITHIN THE SITE INCLUDING TURF, SHRUB BEDS AND TREE AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM. THE IRRIGATION PLAN MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WATER UTILITIES DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. ALL TURF AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC POP-UP IRRIGATION SYSTEM. ALL SHRUB BEDS AND TREES, INCLUDING IN NATIVE SEED AREAS, SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC DRIP (TRICKLE) IRRIGATION SYSTEM, OR WITH AN ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE APPROVED BY THE CITY WITH THE IRRIGATION PLANS. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO MEET THE WATER REQUIREMENTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL PLANT MATERIAL. 3.TOPSOIL: TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE, TOPSOIL THAT IS REMOVED DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHALL BE CONSERVED FOR LATER USE ON AREAS REQUIRING REVEGETATION AND LANDSCAPING. 4.SOIL AMENDMENTS: SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED AND DOCUMENTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY CODE SECTION 12-132. THE SOIL IN ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS, INCLUDING PARKWAYS AND MEDIANS, SHALL BE THOROUGHLY LOOSENED TO A DEPTH OF NOT LESS THAN EIGHT(8) INCHES AND SOIL AMENDMENT SHALL BE THOROUGHLY INCORPORATED INTO THE SOIL OF ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS TO A DEPTH OF AT LEAST SIX(6) INCHES BY TILLING, DISCING OR OTHER SUITABLE METHOD, AT A RATE OF AT LEAST THREE (3) CUBIC YARDS OF SOIL AMENDMENT PER ONE THOUSAND (1,000) SQUARE FEET OF LANDSCAPE AREA. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, A WRITTEN CERTIFICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY THAT ALL PLANTED AREAS, OR AREAS TO BE PLANTED, HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY LOOSENED AND THE SOIL AMENDED, CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SECTION 12-132. 5.INSTALLATION AND GUARANTEE: ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO SOUND HORTICULTURAL PRACTICES IN A MANNER DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE QUICK ESTABLISHMENT AND HEALTHY GROWTH. ALL LANDSCAPING FOR EACH PHASE MUST BE EITHER INSTALLED OR THE INSTALLATION MUST BE SECURED WITH AN IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT, PERFORMANCE BOND, OR ESCROW ACCOUNT FOR 125% OF THE VALUATION OF THE MATERIALS AND LABOR PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR ANY BUILDING IN SUCH PHASE. 6.MAINTENANCE: TREES AND VEGETATION, IRRIGATION SYSTEMS, FENCES, WALLS AND OTHER LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS WITH THESE FINAL PLANS SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS ELEMENTS OF THE PROJECT IN THE SAME MANNER AS PARKING, BUILDING MATERIALS AND OTHER SITE DETAILS. THE APPLICANT, LANDOWNER OR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST SHALL BE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REGULAR MAINTENANCE OF ALL LANDSCAPING ELEMENTS IN GOOD CONDITION. ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE MAINTAINED FREE FROM DISEASE, PESTS, WEEDS AND LITTER, AND ALL LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES SUCH AS FENCES AND WALLS SHALL BE REPAIRED AND REPLACED PERIODICALLY TO MAINTAIN A STRUCTURALLY SOUND CONDITION. 7.REPLACEMENT: ANY LANDSCAPE ELEMENT THAT DIES, OR IS OTHERWISE REMOVED, SHALL BE PROMPTLY REPLACED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THESE PLANS. 8. THE FOLLOWING SEPARATIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED BETWEEN TREES/SHRUBS AND UTILITIES: 40 FEET BETWEEN CANOPY TREES AND STREET LIGHTS 15 FEET BETWEEN ORNAMENTAL TREES AND STREETLIGHTS 10 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND PUBLIC WATER, SANITARY AND STORM SEWER MAIN LINES 6 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND PUBLIC WATER, SANITARY AND STORM SEWER SERVICE LINES. 4 FEET BETWEEN SHRUBS AND PUBLIC WATER AND SANITARY AND STORM SEWER LINES 4 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND GAS LINES 9. ALL STREET TREES SHALL BE PLACED A MINIMUM EIGHT (8) FEET AWAY FROM THE EDGES OF DRIVEWAYS AND ALLEYS PER LUC 3.2.1(D)(2)(a). 10. PLACEMENT OF ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SIGHT DISTANCE CRITERIA AS SPECIFIED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS. NO STRUCTURES OR LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS GREATER THAN 24" SHALL BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE OR EASEMENTS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DECIDUOUS TREES PROVIDED THAT THE LOWEST BRANCH IS AT LEAST 6' FROM GRADE. ANY FENCES WITHIN THE SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE OR EASEMENT MUST BE NOT MORE THAN 42" IN HEIGHT AND OF AN OPEN DESIGN. 11. THE DEVELOPER SHALL ENSURE THAT THE FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN IS COORDINATED WITH ALL OTHER FINAL PLAN ELEMENTS SO THAT THE PROPOSED GRADING, STORM DRAINAGE, AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENTS DO NOT CONFLICT WITH NOR PRECLUDE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS ON THIS PLAN. 12. MINOR CHANGES IN SPECIES AND PLANT LOCATIONS MAY BE MADE DURING CONSTRUCTION -- AS REQUIRED BY SITE CONDITIONS OR PLANT AVAILABILITY. OVERALL QUANTITY, QUALITY, AND DESIGN CONCEPT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED PLANS. IN THE EVENT OF CONFLICT WITH THE QUANTITIES INCLUDED IN THE PLANT LIST, SPECIES AND QUANTITIES ILLUSTRATED SHALL BE PROVIDED. ALL CHANGES OF PLANT SPECIES AND LOCATION MUST HAVE WRITTEN APPROVAL BY THE CITY PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 13. ALL PLANTING BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF THREE INCHES. 14. IRRIGATED TURF SHALL BE TEXAS BLUEGRASS/KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS HYBRID VORTEXT BY KORBY SOD LLC OR APPROVED EQUAL. 15. EDGING BETWEEN GRASS AND SHRUB BEDS SHALL BE 18" X 4" ROLLED TOP STEEL SET LEVEL WITH TOP OF SOD OR APPROVED EQUAL. 16. THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE SHALL NOT BE DISTURBED BY ANY GRADING, CONSTRUCTION OR MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES EXCEPT AS APPROVED BY THE CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER. 17. THE DEVELOPER, OR ITS SUCCESSOR(S) IN INTEREST, SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ONGOING IRRIGATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE LANDSCAPING LOCATED WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHTOFWAY ALONG THE PORTION OF N MASON ST THAT ABUTS THE PROPERTY AS SHOWN ON THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENTS. THIS OBLIGATION MAY BE ASSIGNED TO A HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION DULY CONSTITUTED PURSUANT TO COLORADO STATE LAW, HOWEVER, SHOULD SUCH HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION BE DISSOLVED, THE OBLIGATION SHALL BECOME THAT OF THE DEVELOPER OR ITS SUCCESSOR(S) IN INTEREST. GENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES TREE PROTECTION NOTES TREE DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT (INCHES) AUGER DISTANCE FROM FACE OF TREE (FEET) 0-2 1 3-4 2 5-9 5 10-14 10 15-19 12 OVER 19 15 1. ALL EXISTING TREES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND WITHIN ANY NATURAL AREA BUFFER ZONES SHALL REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED UNLESS NOTED ON THESE PLANS FOR REMOVAL. 2. WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED EXISTING TREE, THERE SHALL BE NO CUT OR FILL OVER A FOUR-INCH DEPTH UNLESS A QUALIFIED ARBORIST OR FORESTER HAS EVALUATED AND APPROVED THE DISTURBANCE. 3. ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREES SHALL BE PRUNED TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FORESTRY STANDARDS. TREE PRUNING AND REMOVAL SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A BUSINESS THAT HOLDS A CURRENT CITY OF FORT COLLINS ARBORIST LICENSE WHERE REQUIRED BY CODE. 4. PRIOR TO AND DURING CONSTRUCTION, BARRIERS SHALL BE ERECTED AROUND ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREES WITH SUCH BARRIERS TO BE OF ORANGE FENCING A MINIMUM OF FOUR (4) FEET IN HEIGHT, SECURED WITH METAL T-POSTS, NO CLOSER THAN SIX (6) FEET FROM THE TRUNK OR ONE-HALF (½) OF THE DRIP LINE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. THERE SHALL BE NO STORAGE OR MOVEMENT OF EQUIPMENT, MATERIAL, DEBRIS OR FILL WITHIN THE FENCED TREE PROTECTION ZONE. 5. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANT SHALL PREVENT THE CLEANING OF EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL OR THE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF WASTE MATERIAL SUCH AS PAINTS, OILS, SOLVENTS, ASPHALT, CONCRETE, MOTOR OIL OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL HARMFUL TO THE LIFE OF A TREE WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED TREE OR GROUP OF TREES. 6. NO DAMAGING ATTACHMENT, WIRES, SIGNS OR PERMITS MAY BE FASTENED TO ANY PROTECTED TREE. 7. LARGE PROPERTY AREAS CONTAINING PROTECTED TREES AND SEPARATED FROM CONSTRUCTION OR LAND CLEARING AREAS, ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND UTILITY EASEMENTS MAY BE "RIBBONED OFF," RATHER THAN ERECTING PROTECTIVE FENCING AROUND EACH TREE AS REQUIRED IN SUBSECTION (G)(3) ABOVE. THIS MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY PLACING METAL T-POST STAKES A MAXIMUM OF FIFTY (50) FEET APART AND TYING RIBBON OR ROPE FROM STAKE-TO-STAKE ALONG THE OUTSIDE PERIMETERS OF SUCH AREAS BEING CLEARED. 8. THE INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES, IRRIGATION LINES OR ANY UNDERGROUND FIXTURE REQUIRING EXCAVATION DEEPER THAN SIX (6) INCHES SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY BORING UNDER THE ROOT SYSTEM OF PROTECTED EXISTING TREES AT A MINIMUM DEPTH OF TWENTY-FOUR (24) INCHES. THE AUGER DISTANCE IS ESTABLISHED FROM THE FACE OF THE TREE (OUTER BARK) AND IS SCALED FROM TREE DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT AS DESCRIBED IN THE CHART BELOW: 9. NO TREES SHALL BE REMOVED DURING THE SONGBIRD NESTING SEASON (FEBRUARY 1 TO JULY 31) WITHOUT FIRST HAVING A PROFESSIONAL ECOLOGIST OR WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST COMPLETE A NESTING SURVEY 57 DAYS BEFORE TREE REMOVAL OR TRIMMING TO IDENTIFY ANY ACTIVE NESTS EXISTING ON THE PROJECT SITE. THE SURVEY SHALL BE SENT TO THE CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER. IF ACTIVE NESTS ARE FOUND, THE CITY WILL COORDINATE WITH RELEVANT STATE AND FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES TO DETERMINE WHETHER ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON TREE REMOVAL AND CONSTRUCTION APPLY. TREE SPECIES DIVERSITY PER CITY OF FORT COLLINS 3.2.1(D)3 PROPOSED PLAN MUST HAVE A SPECIES DIVERSITY OF (10-19 TREES > 50%, 20-39 TREES > 33%, 40-59 TREES > 25%, 60+ TREES > 15%). OF THE 65 TOTAL TREES SURVEYED AND PROPOSED ON SITE, NO SPECIES MAY HAVE MORE THAN 10 QUANTITY. NOTES: SET SO THAT TOP OF ROOT 1-2" HIGHER THAN FINISHED GRADE MARK NORTH SIDE OF TREE IN NURSERY AND ROTATE TREE TO FACE NORTH AT THE SITE WHENEVER POSSIBLE 2 STRAND 12 GAUGE GAL. WIRE (TWIST TO TIGHTEN) & GROMMETED NYLON STRAPS THREE (3) TWO INCH LODGE POLE STAKES DRIVEN (MIN. 24") FIRMLY INTO UNDISTURBED SOIL OUTSIDE OF PLANTING HOLE BEFORE BACKFILLING STAKE ABOVE FIRST BRANCHES OR AS NECESSARY FOR FIRM SUPPORT REMOVE ALL WIRE, TWINE BURLAP, MESH AND CONTAINERS FROM ENTIRE ROOT BALL AND TRUNK PLAN VIEW - THREE STAKES 3 X BALL DIA. TREE PLANTING DETAIL - WOOD POSTS SCALE: NTS SCARIFY SIDES OF HOLE LEAVING 1:1 SLOPE ROUND TOPPED SOIL BERM 4" HIGH X 8" WIDE ABOVE ROOT BALL SURFACE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AROUND THE ROOT BALL. BERM SHALL BEGIN AT ROOT BALL PERIPHERY. (OMIT IN TURF AREAS) BACKFILL WITH BLEND OF EXISTING SOIL AND A MAXIMUM 20% (BY VOL.) ORGANIC MATERIAL PLACE FIRMLY BUT DON'T TAMP OR COMPACT AROUND ROOT BALL. WATER WATER THOROUGHLY TO SETTLE AND REMOVE AIR POCKETS. PRIOR TOMULCHING, LIGHTLY TAMP SOIL AROUND THE ROOT BALL IN 6" LIFTS TO BRACE TREE. DO NOT OVER COMPACT. WHEN THE PLANTING HOLE HAS BEEN BACKFILLED, POUR WATER AROUND THE ROOT BALL TO SETTLE THE SOIL. 4" DEEP MULCH RING PLACED A MINIMUM OF 6' IN DIAMETER. 1" MULCH OVER ROOT BALL. DO NOT PLACE MULCH IN CONTACT WITH TREE TRUNK BOTTOM OF ROOT BALL RESTS ON EXISTING OR RECOMPACTED SOIL L-PL2-PLA-021 STAKING NOTES: STAKE TREES PER FOLLOWING SCHEDULE, THEN REMOVE AT END OF FIRST GROWING SEASON AS FOLLOWS: 1 1/2" CALIPER SIZE - MIN. 1 STAKE ON SIDE OF PREVAILING WIND. (GENERALLY N.W. SIDE) 1 1/2" - 3" CALIPER SIZE - MIN. 2 STAKES - ONE ON N.W. SIDE, ONE ON S.W. SIDE 3" CALIPER SIZE AND LARGER - 3 STAKES PER DIAGRAM WIRE OR CABLE SHALL BE MIN. 12 GAUGE, TIGHTEN ONLY ENOUGH TO KEEP FROM SLIPPING. ALLOW FOR SOME TRUNK MOVEMENT. NYLON STRAPS SHALL BE LONG ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE 1 1/2" OF GROWTH AND BUFFER ALL BRANCHES FROM WIRE GUYING PLAN PLANT SO THAT TOP OF ROOT BALL IS 2" HIGHER THAN FINISHED GRADE GROMMETED NYLON STRAPS GALVANIZED WIRE TWIST TO TIGHTEN THREE (3) TWO INCH LODGE POLE STAKES DRIVEN (MIN. 24") FIRMLY INTO UNDISTURBED SOIL OUTSIDE ROOTBALL. SCARIFY SIDES OF PLANTING HOLE LEAVING 1:1 SLOPE PRUNING NOTES: DO NOT HEAVILY PRUNE THE TREE AT PLANTING. PRUNE ONLY CROSSOVER LIMBS, CO-DOMINANT LEADERS AND BROKEN BRANCHES. SOME INTERIOR TWIGS AND LATERAL BRANCHES MAY BE PRUNED. HOWEVER, DO NOT REMOVE THE TERMINAL BUDS OF BRANCHES THAT EXTEND TO THE EDGE OF THE CROWN 3 X BALL DIA. 4" DEEP MULCH RING PLACED A MINIMUM OF 6' IN DIAMETER. DO NOT PLACE MULCH IN CONTACT WITH TREE TRUNK CONIFER TREE PLANTING DETAIL - WOOD POSTS SCALE: NTS BACKFILL WITH BLEND OF EXISTING SOIL AND A MAXIMUM 20% (BY VOL.) ORGANIC MATERIAL TAMP SOIL AROUND ROOT BALL W/ FOOT PRESSURE SO THAT IT DOESN'T SHIFT. WATER THOROUGHLY TO SETTLE AND REMOVE AIR POCKETS. PRIOR TO MULCHING, LIGHTLY TAMP SOIL AROUND THE ROOT BALL IN 6" LIFTS TO BRACE TREE. DO NOT OVER COMPACT. WHEN THE PLANTING HOLE HAS BEEN BACKFILLED, POUR WATER AROUND THE ROOT BALL TO SETTLE THE SOIL. ROUND-TOPPED SOIL BERM 4" HIGH X 8" WIDE ABOVE ROOT BALL SURFACE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AROUND THE ROOT BALL. BERM SHALL BEGIN AT ROOT BALL PERIPHERY. (OMIT IN TURF AREAS) REMOVE ALL WIRE, TWINE BURLAP, MESH AND CONTAINERS FROM ENTIRE ROOT BALL AND TRUNK L-PL2-PLA-162 PRUNING NOTES: DO NOT HEAVILY PRUNE SHRUB AT PLANTING. PRUNE ONLY DEAD OR BROKEN BRANCHES. IF FORM IS COMPROMISED BY PRUNING, REPLACE SHRUB PLACEMENT NOTES: SET SHRUB PLUMB. SPACE PLANTS, AND PLACE FOR BEST EFFECT SET TOP OF ROOTBALL 1-2" HIGHER THAN ADJACENT GRADE SCARIFY SIDES AND USE 1:1 SLOPE 4" DEEP MULCH RING 3' IN DIA. PLACE ON GEOTEXTILE WEED BARRIER. 1" OF MULCH ON TOP OF ROOT BALL REMOVE CONTAINER (INCLUDING FIBER CONTAINERS), BASKETS, WIRE, ETC. FROM THE ROOT BALL. BREAK UP ENCIRCLING ROOTS WITH SHARP KNIFE OR SPADE. SPLIT BOTTOM OF ROOT BALL. PLACE ON UNDISTURBED SOIL TO PREVENT SETTLEMENT. PRIOR TO MULCHING, LIGHTLY TAMP SOIL AROUND THE ROOT BALL IN 6" LIFTS TO BRACE SHRUB. DONOT OVER COMPACT. WHEN THE PLANTING HOLE HAS BEEN BACKFILLED, POUR WATER AROUND THE ROOT BALL TO SETTLE THE SOIL. BACKFILL WITH BLEND OF EXISTING SOIL AND A MAX. 20% (BY VOL.) ORGANIC MATERIAL. WATER THOROUGHLY TO SETTLE AND REMOVE AIR POCKETS 2 X BALL DIA. 4" HIGH WATER SAUCER SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL SCALE: NTS3 L-PL2-PLA-14 STREET TREE NOTES 1. A PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY TREES OR SHRUBS AS NOTED ON THIS PLAN ARE PLANTED, PRUNED OR REMOVED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS INCLUDES ZONES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND CURB, MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THIS PERMIT SHALL APPROVE THE LOCATION AND SPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURE TO OBTAIN THIS PERMIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS CODE SUBJECT TO CITATION (SECTION 27-31) AND MAY ALSO RESULT IN REPLACING OR RELOCATING TREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 2. CONTACT THE CITY FORESTER TO INSPECT ALL STREET TREE PLANTINGS AT THE COMPLETION OF EACH PHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. ALL MUST BE INSTALLED AS SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. APPROVAL OF STREET TREE PLANTING IS REQUIRED BEFORE FINAL APPROVAL OF EACH PHASE. 3. STREET LANDSCAPING, INCLUDING STREET TREES, SHALL BE SELECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL CITY CODES AND POLICIES. ALL TREE PRUNING AND REMOVAL WORKS SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A CITY OF FORT COLLINS LICENSED ARBORS WHERE REQUIRED BY CODE.STREET TREES SHALL BE SUPPLIED AND PLANTED BY THE DEVELOPER USING A QUALIFIED LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. 4. THE DEVELOPER SHALL REPLACE DEAD OR DYING STREET TREES AFTER PLANTING UNTIL FINAL MAINTENANCE INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FORESTRY DIVISION. ALL STREET TREES IN THE PROJECT MUST BE ESTABLISHED, WITH AN APPROVED SPECIES AND OF ACCEPTABLE CONDITION PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE. 5. SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY FORESTER -- STREET TREE LOCATIONS MAY BE ADJUSTED TO ACCOMMODATE DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS, UTILITY SEPARATIONS BETWEEN TREES, STREET SIGNS AND STREET LIGHTS. STREET TREES TO BE CENTERED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LOT TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE. QUANTITIES SHOWN ON PLAN MUST BE INSTALLED UNLESS A REDUCTION IS APPROVED BY THE CITY TO MEET SEPARATION STANDARDS. DRYLAND NATIVE SEED SPECIES SEEDED RATE LBS./ACRE (DRILLED) PLAINS COREOPSIS/COREOPSIS TINCTORIA 0.17 WHITE PRAIRIE CLOVER/DALEA CANDIDA 0.65 PURPLE PRAIRIE CLOVER/DALEA PURPUREA 0.81 INDIAN BLANKETFLOWER/GAILLARDIA ARISTATA 1.85 MEXICAN HAT/RATIBIDA COLUMNIFERA 0.20 INDIAN RICEGRASS/ACHNATHERUM HYMENOIDES 1.13 SIDEOATS GRAMA/BOUTELOUA CURTIPENDULA 1.15 BUFFALOGRASS/BOUTELOUA DACTYLOIDES 3.27 BLUE GRAMA/BOUTELOUA GRACILIS 0.25 INLAND SALTGRASS/DISTICHLIS STRICTA 0.35 BOTTLEBRUSH SQUIRRELTAIL/ELYMUS ELYMOIDES 0.95 STREAMBANK WHEATGRASS/ELYMUS LANCEOLATUS SSP LANCEOLATUS 1.36 PRAIRIE JUNEGRASS/KOELERIA MACRANTHA 0.08 WESTERN WHEATGRASS/PASCOPYRUM SMITHII 1.61 LITTLE BLUESTEM/SCHIZACHYRIUM SCOPARIUM 0.70 TOTAL LBS/ACRE 14.53 DRYLAND SEED MIX 1. THE TIME OF YEAR SEEDING IS TO OCCUR SHOULD BE OCTOBER THROUGH EARLY MAY. 2. PREPARE SOIL AS NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE FOR NATIVE SEED MIX SPECIES THROUGH AERATION AND ADDITION OF AMENDMENTS, THEN SEED IN TWO DIRECTIONS TO DISTRIBUTE SEED EVENLY OVER ENTIRE AREA. DRILL SEED ALL INDICATED AREAS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER COMPLETION OF GRADING OPERATIONS. 3. IF CHANGES ARE TO BE MADE TO SEED MIX BASED ON SITE CONDITIONS THEN APPROVAL MUST BE PROVIDED BY CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER 4. APPROPRIATE NATIVE SEEDING EQUIPMENT WILL BE USED (STANDARD TURF SEEDING EQUIPMENT OR AGRICULTURE EQUIPMENT SHALL NOT BE USED). 5. DRILL SEED APPLICATION RECOMMENDED PER SPECIFIED APPLICATION RATE TO NO MORE THAN 12" DEPTH (OR APPROPRIATE DEPTH FOR SELECTED SPECIES). FOR BROADCAST SEEDING INSTEAD OF DRILL SEEDING METHOD DOUBLE SPECIFIED APPLICATION RATE. REFER TO NATIVE SEED MIX TABLE FOR SPECIES, PERCENTAGES AND APPLICATION RATES. 6. PREPARE WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN TO ENSURE THAT WEEDS ARE PROPERLY MANAGED BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER SEEDING ACTIVITIES. 7. AFTER SEEDING THE AREA SHALL BE COVERED WITH CRIMPED STRAW, JUTE MESH, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE METHODS. PLASTIC-BASED EROSION CONTROL MATERIALS (I.E., PLASTIC-WELDED BLANKETS) SHALL NOT BE USED WITHOUT EXPRESS PERMISSION FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER AS THESE MATERIALS HAVE PROVEN TO CAUSE WILDLIFE ENTRAPMENT ISSUES. 8. WHERE NEEDED, TEMPORARY IRRIGATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED UNTIL SEED IS ESTABLISHED. IF IRRIGATION IS USED, THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM FOR SEEDED AREAS SHALL BE FULLY OPERATIONAL AT THE TIME OF SEEDING AND SHALL ENSURE 100% HEAD-TO-HEAD COVERAGE OVER ALL SEEDED AREAS. ALL METHODS AND REQUIREMENTS IN THE APPROVED IRRIGATION PLAN SHALL BE FOLLOWED. 9. CONTRACTOR SHALL MONITOR SEEDED AREA FOR PROPER IRRIGATION, EROSION CONTROL, GERMINATION AN RE-SEEDING AS NEEDED TO ESTABLISH COVER. 10. THE APPROVED SEED MIX AREA IS INTENDED TO BE MAINTAINED IN A NATURAL LIKE LANDSCAPE AESTHETIC. IF AND WHEN MOWING OCCURS IN NATIVE GRASS SEED MIX AREAS DO NOT MOW LOWER THAN 6 TO 8 INCHES IN HEIGHT TO AVOID INHIBITING NATIVE PLANT GROWTH. 11. NATIVE SEED AREA WILL BE CONSIDERED ESTABLISHED WHEN SEVENTY PERCENT (70%) VEGETATIVE COVER IS REACHED WITH NO LARGER THAN ONE FOOT SQUARE BARE SPOTS AND/OR UNTIL DEEMED ESTABLISHED BY CITY PLANNING SERVICES AND EROSION CONTROL. 12. THE DEVELOPER AND/OR LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ADEQUATE SEEDLING COVERAGE AND GROWTH AT THE TIME OF FINAL STABILIZATION, AS DEFINED BY STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES. IF FINAL STABILIZATION IS NOT ACHIEVED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AGENCY, THE DEVELOPER AND/OR LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ADDITIONAL CORRECTIVE MEASURES TO SATISFY FINAL VEGETATIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR CLOSEOUT. NATIVE SEED MIX NOTES RAINGARDEN SEED MIX SPECIES SEEDED RATE LBS./ACRE (DRILLED) WILDFLOWERS BLANKET FLOWER / GAILLARDIA ARISTATA 1.20 ROCKY MOUNTAIN / PENSTEMON STRICTUS 0.50 PURPLE PRAIRIE CLOVER / DALEA PURPUREA 1.00 MEXICAN HAT / RATIBIDA COLUMNIFERA 0.10 WESTERN YARROW / ACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM 0.02 STEMLESS EVENING PRIMROSE / OENOTHERA CAESPITOSA 2.00 BLUE FLAX / LINUM LEWISII 1.2000 TANSYLEAF ASTER / MACHAERANTHERA TANACETIFOLIA 1.0000 GRASSES SAND DROPSEED / SPOROBOLUS AIROIDES 0.04 BLUE GRAMA / BOUTELOUA GRACILIS 0.50 CANADA WILDRYE / ELYMUS CANADENSIS 2.00 SWITCHGRASS / PANICUM VIRGATUM 0.50 BOTTLEBRUSH SQUIRRELTAIL 1.00 YELLOW INDIANGRASS / SORGHASTRUM NUTANS 2.00 SAND BLUESTEM / ANDROPOGON HALLII 1.20 TOTAL FOR MIX (LBS/PLS/ACRE)14.26 RAINGARDEN SEED MIX HYDROZONE AREA (SF)WATER NEEDED (GALLONS/SF) ANNUAL WATER USE (GALLONS) HIGH 4235 18 76,230.00 MODERATE 12809 14 179,326.00 LOW 0 8 0.00 VERY LOW 37426 3 112278.00 TOTAL 54,470 6.7530 367,834 ANNUAL WATER USE NOT TO EXCEED 15 GAL./SF. AVERAGE OVER THE SITE WATER USE TABLE 121 Section D, Item 1. SYMBOL CODE QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT CAL CANOPY TREES ASB 2 ACER SACCHARUM 'BAILSTA' / FALL FIESTA® SUGAR MAPLE B & B 2"CAL AGJ 3 AESCULUS GLABRA 'JN SELECT' / EARLY GLOW™ OHIO BUCKEYE B & B 2"CAL CSH 8 CATALPA SPECIOSA 'HEARTLAND' / HEARTLAND® WESTERN CATALPA B & B 2"CAL CO 3 CELTIS OCCIDENTALIS / COMMON HACKBERRY B & B 2"CAL PAC 7 POPULUS X ACUMINATA / LANCELEAF COTTONWOOD B & B 2"CAL SAM 11 SALIX AMYGDALOIDES / PEACH LEAF WILLOW B & B 2"CAL EVERGREEN TREES JSC 6 JUNIPERUS SCOPULORUM / ROCKY MOUNTAIN JUNIPER B & B 6` HT ORNAMENTAL TREES MRR 4 MALUS X 'ROYAL RAINDROPS' / ROYAL RAINDROPS CRABAPPLE B & B 2"CAL PAM 5 PRUNUS AMERICANA / AMERICAN PLUM B & B 2"CAL PVI 8 PRUNUS VIRGINIANA 'YELLOW BIRD' / YELLOW BIRD CHOKECHERRY B & B 2"CAL SRE 2 SYRINGA RETICULATA / JAPANESE TREE LILAC B & B 2"CAL SYMBOL CODE QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME PLANT SCHEDULE DRAWING NUMBER: ISSUED PROJECT No.: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: SEAL: PREPARED BY: No. DESCRIPTION DATE REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE ORIGINAL SIZE 24X36 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521phone 970.224.5828 | fax 970.225.6657 | www.ripleydesigninc.com ENGINEER ARCHITECT NORTHERN ENGINEERING Andy Reese 301 N. Howes St., Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.221.4158 SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE Chad Holtzinger 301 W 45th Ave. Denver, CO 80216 p. 303.433.4094 RIPLEY DESIGN INC. Klara Rossouw 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.224.5828 PLANNER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OWNER FORT COLLINS RESCUE MISSION 316 Jefferson St. Fort Collins, CO 80524 p. 970.224.4302 LANDSCAPE NOTES & DETAILS FDP SUBMITTAL FORT COLLINS RESCUE MISSION 04 FOR HEARING 04-10-2024 03-27-2024PDP/FDP ROUND 303 02-14-2024PDP/FDP ROUND 202 11-01-2023PDP ROUND 101 FORT COLLINS, CO KR HJ/LO R22-030 L6 122 Section D, Item 1. 8" W S E E E E E E E E E E E I UDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUD UD UD 8" W 12" SS EEEEEE W F ELEC M VAU LTELEC CAB LE ELEC CTV X CTVCTVCTVCTV OHU OHU OHU X X XXXXXXXX CTV CTVCTV CTVGG G G G G G G S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S W W W W W W SSS G UDUD E A B B B BA B BB B B B 6 10 9 3 7RAIN GARDEN HICKORY REGIONAL DETENTION POND PROPOSED BUILDING ~ 30,332 SQFT, 2 STORIESOUTDOOR AMENITY OUTDOOR AMENITY LOT 1 LOT 3 LOT 2 WANKIER LANCE, 1401 N. COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, CO WOOD RONALD G/ JENNIFER L/ WILLARD E, 122 HIBDON COURT FORT COLLINS, CO THOMPSON PROPERTIES LLC 1319 N, COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, CO GRATITUDE LLC 1303 N. COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS. CO 60'-0"DRAINAGE EASEMENT 10'-0" ACCESS EASEMENT 38'-3" DRAINAGE EASEMENT HIBDON COURT 30' STORMWATEREASEMENT 24'-0"EMERGENCY ACCESS ESMT FO FO G G SD SD SS SS T T UE UE W W FIBER OPTIC UTILITY GAS UTILITY STORM DRAIN UTILITY SANITARY SEWER UTILITY TELEPHONE UTILITY UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC UTILITY WATER LINE UTILITY PROPERTY BOUNDARY SYMBOL DESCRIPTION VAULTELEC T ELEC EXISITING TREES TO REMAIN STREET LIGHT FIRE HYDRANT BOULDERS STEEL EDGER TRANSFORMER ELECTRIC BOX ELECTRIC VAULT TELEPHONE PEDESTAL EXISTING SIGN INLET GRATE GAS METER OPEN FENCE PROPOSED PRIVACY FENCE LANDSCAPE WALL, TYP LEGEND MATCHLINE B NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE IRRIGATED TURF NATIVE SEED RAIN GARDEN SEED EXISTING TREES BY OTHERS CHIPPED GRANITE WOOD MULCH *UTILITIES SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY DRAWING NUMBER: ISSUED PROJECT No.: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: SEAL: PREPARED BY: No. DESCRIPTION DATE REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE ORIGINAL SIZE 24X36 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521phone 970.224.5828 | fax 970.225.6657 | www.ripleydesigninc.com RIPLEY DESIGN INC. Klara Rossouw 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.224.5828 ENGINEER ARCHITECT PLANNER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT NORTHERN ENGINEERING Andy Reese 301 N. Howes St., Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.221.4158 OWNER DENVER RESCUE MISSION 6100 Smith Road Denver, CO 80216 p. 303.297.1815 SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE Chad Holtzinger 301 W 45th Ave. Denver, CO 80216 p. 303.433.4094 OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN FDP SUBMITTAL FORT COLLINS RESCUE MISSION 04 FOR HEARING 04-10-2024 03-27-2024PDP/FDP ROUND 303 02-14-2024PDP/FDP ROUND 202 11-01-2023PDP ROUND 101 FORT COLLINS, CO KR HJ/LO R22-030 L7 NORTH 0 20 40 80 SCALE: 1"=40'-0" A PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY TREES OR SHRUBS AS NOTED ON THIS PLAN ARE PLANTED, PRUNED OR REMOVED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS INCLUDES ZONES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND CURB, MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THIS PERMIT SHALL APPROVE THE LOCATION AND SPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURE TO OBTAIN THIS PERMIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS CODE SUBJECT TO CITATION (SECTION 27-31) AND MAY ALSO RESULT IN REPLACING OR RELOCATING TREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE SHALL NOT BE DISTURBED BY ANY GRADING, CONSTRUCTION OR MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES EXCEPT AS APPROVED BY THE CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER. 123 Section D, Item 1. 8" W 8" W 12" SS 12" SS 12" SS EEE TF W F ELEC CTV X X X X X X X X X G G G G S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S W W UDUDUDUD B B 1 - CSH 1 - ASB 2 - PAC 1 - PAC 4 - CSH 5 - PVI 22 - SS 2 - RN 3 - CB 5 - HB 5 - HB 16 - MV 5 - HB 5 - MV 5 - MV 5 - CN 10 - PB 5 - RAR 5 - RK 3 - AP 3 - AP 5 - CN 12 - CSE 4 - SM 8 - SM 5 - HB 10 - BB 6 - HB 12 - PB 5 - MU 5 - RF 11 - SN 8 - CA 3 - CB 2 - CN - 1 - HB 2 - RK 5 - RK 17 - PB15 - SS 2 - SM 21 - BB 3 - RRV 2 - RRV 8 - HB 2 - JSC 1 - JSC 5 - AM 4 - AM 4 - SV 2 - AP 2 - SV 2 - MRR 2 - SAM 12 - AS 6 - CA MASON STREET PUBLIC R.O.W. LANDSCAPE BY OTHERS 20'-0" EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT OVERNIGHT SHELTER COURTYARDOVERNIGHT SHELTER COURTYARD RAIN GARDEN PROPERTY BOUNDARY STAFF COURTYARD LOT 2 PROPERTY BOUNDARY STAFF COURTYARD LOT 2 PROPOSED BUILDING ~ 30,332 SQFT, 2 STORIES WOOD RONALD G/ JENNIFER L/ WILLARD E, 122 HIBDON COURT FORT COLLINS, CO 30' STORMWATER EASEMENT 38'-3" DRAINAGE EASEMENT S I UDUD E TF W F ELEC SSS S SSS B C C A BC BA B B C BCA BCA B B B BB B BB BBBBBB BBB B B 6 10 9 3 7RAIN GARDEN PROPOSEDBUILDING ~30,332 SQFT ,2 STORIESOUTDOORAMENITY OUTDOORAMENITY LOT 2 WOOD RONALD G/JENNIFER L/ WILLARD E,122 HIBDON COURTFORT COLLINS, CO 60'-0"DRAINAGEEASEMENT 10'-0" ACCESS EASEMENT 38'-3" DRAINAGEEASEMENT 30' STORMWATEREASEMENT 24'-0"EMERGENCYACCESS ESMT FO FO G G SD SD SS SS T T UE UE W W FIBER OPTIC UTILITY GAS UTILITY STORM DRAIN UTILITY SANITARY SEWER UTILITY TELEPHONE UTILITY UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC UTILITY WATER LINE UTILITY PROPERTY BOUNDARY SYMBOL DESCRIPTION VAULTELEC T ELEC EXISITING TREES TO REMAIN STREET LIGHT FIRE HYDRANT BOULDERS STEEL EDGER TRANSFORMER ELECTRIC BOX ELECTRIC VAULT TELEPHONE PEDESTAL EXISTING SIGN INLET GRATE GAS METER OPEN FENCE PROPOSED PRIVACY FENCE LANDSCAPE WALL, TYP LEGEND MATCHLINE B NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE IRRIGATED TURF NATIVE SEED RAIN GARDEN SEED EXISTING TREES BY OTHERS CHIPPED GRANITE WOOD MULCH *UTILITIES SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY CODE QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME CANOPY TREES CO 3 COMMON HACKBERRY / CELTIS OCCIDENTALIS AGJ 3 EARLY GLOW™ OHIO BUCKEYE / AESCULUS GLABRA 'JN SELECT' ASB 2 FALL FIESTA® SUGAR MAPLE / ACER SACCHARUM 'BAILSTA' CSH 8 HEARTLAND® WESTERN CATALPA / CATALPA SPECIOSA 'HEARTLAND' PAC 7 LANCELEAF COTTONWOOD / POPULUS X ACUMINATA SAM 11 PEACH LEAF WILLOW / SALIX AMYGDALOIDES EVERGREEN TREES JSC 6 ROCKY MOUNTAIN JUNIPER / JUNIPERUS SCOPULORUM PLANT SCHEDULE ORNAMENTAL TREES PAM 5 AMERICAN PLUM / PRUNUS AMERICANA SRE 2 JAPANESE TREE LILAC / SYRINGA RETICULATA MRR 4 ROYAL RAINDROPS CRABAPPLE / MALUS X 'ROYAL RAINDROPS' PVI 8 YELLOW BIRD CHOKECHERRY / PRUNUS VIRGINIANA 'YELLOW BIRD' SHRUBS CB 12 BLUE MIST BLUEBEARD / CARYOPTERIS X CLANDONENSIS 'BLUE MIST' HB 35 BOBO® PANICLE HYDRANGEA / HYDRANGEA PANICULATA 'ILVOBO' CN 17 DWARF BLUE RABBITBRUSH / CHRYSOTHAMNUS NAUSEOSUS NAUSEOSUS SM 17 DWARF KOREAN LILAC / SYRINGA MEYERI 'PALIBIN' RF 10 FLOWER CARPET® RED GROUNDCOVER ROSE / ROSA X 'NOARE' RAR 11 FRAGRANT SUMAC / RHUS AROMATICA RAU 8 GOLDEN CURRANT / RIBES AUREUM CSE 19 ISANTI REDOSIER DOGWOOD / CORNUS SERICEA `ISANTI` RN 10 NEARLY WILD FLORIBUNDA ROSE / ROSA X 'NEARLY WILD' AP 23 PANCHITO MANZANITA / ARCTOSTAPHYLOS X COLORADENSIS 'PANCHITO' PBE 13 PAWNEE BUTTES SAND CHERRY / PRUNUS BESSEYI `P011S` TM RRV 5 RUBY VOODOO ROSE / ROSA X 'RUBY VOODOO' RK 21 SUNNY KNOCK OUT® YELLOW ROSE / ROSA X 'RADSUNNY' ORNAMENTAL GRASSES BB 55 BLONDE AMBITION GRASS / BOUTELOUA GRACILIS `BLONDE AMBITION` PB 69 BURGUNDY BUNNY DWARF FOUNTAIN GRASS / PENNISETUM ALOPECUROIDE CA 23 FEATHER REED GRASS / CALAMAGROSTIS X ACUTIFLORA SN 20 INDIAN GRASS / SORGHASTRUM NUTANS SS 136 STANDING OVATION LITTLE BLUESTEM / SCHIZACHYRIUM SCOPARIUM 'STAN MU 49 UNDAUNTED® RUBY MUHLY / MUHLENBERGIA REVERCHONII 'PUND01S' MV 26 VARIEGATED EULALIA GRASS / MISCANTHUS SINENSIS `VARIEGATUS` AGW 29 WINDWALKER® BIG BLUESTEM / ANDROPOGON GERARDII 'PWIN01S' DRAWING NUMBER: ISSUED PROJECT No.: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: SEAL: PREPARED BY: No. DESCRIPTION DATE REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE ORIGINAL SIZE 24X36 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521phone 970.224.5828 | fax 970.225.6657 | www.ripleydesigninc.com RIPLEY DESIGN INC. Klara Rossouw 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.224.5828 ENGINEER ARCHITECT PLANNER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT NORTHERN ENGINEERING Andy Reese 301 N. Howes St., Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.221.4158 OWNER DENVER RESCUE MISSION 6100 Smith Road Denver, CO 80216 p. 303.297.1815 SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE Chad Holtzinger 301 W 45th Ave. Denver, CO 80216 p. 303.433.4094 LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENT 1 FDP SUBMITTAL FORT COLLINS RESCUE MISSION 04 FOR HEARING 04-10-2024 03-27-2024PDP/FDP ROUND 303 02-14-2024PDP/FDP ROUND 202 11-01-2023PDP ROUND 101 FORT COLLINS, CO KR HJ/LO R22-030 L8 NORTH 0 10 20 40 SCALE: 1"=20'-0" KEY MAP SHEET L8 SHEET L9 A PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY TREES OR SHRUBS AS NOTED ON THIS PLAN ARE PLANTED, PRUNED OR REMOVED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS INCLUDES ZONES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND CURB, MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THIS PERMIT SHALL APPROVE THE LOCATION AND SPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURE TO OBTAIN THIS PERMIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS CODE SUBJECT TO CITATION (SECTION 27-31) AND MAY ALSO RESULT IN REPLACING OR RELOCATING TREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 124 Section D, Item 1. S GI UDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUD EE XX S SS G G EE E UD UD C 5 - PAM 3 - JSC 3 - PVI 3 - CSH 1 - ASB 3 - SAM 1 - SRE 3 - PAC 2 - MRR B 21 - SS 34 - SS 22 - MU 8 - RAU 3 - SM 4 - CIN 9 - AM 10 - SV 5 - PB 5 - EP 2 - AP 5 - PB 5 - PB 1 - AP 3 - PBE 6 - RAR 23 - SS 3 - PBE 7 - PBE 5 - EP 4 - MU 1 - HB 2 - RK 3 - RN 9 - SN 12 - BB 6 - CB 15 - PB 6 - RK 5 - AP3 - RF 5 - CIN 2 - RF 7 - CSE3 - RK 3 - CIN 8 - MU 5 - CN 5 - RN 3 - AGJ 10 - MU 10 - CA 9 - AM 7 - AP 11 - AM 3 - CIN 2 - CO 1 - CO3 - SAM 3 - SAM 1 - SRE 1 - PAC 11 - AGW 18 - AGW 21 - SS 11 - CIN 6 - BB 6 - BB 8 - PB 3 - EP 60'-0" DRAINAGE EASEMENT 24'-0" EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT MASON STREET PUBLIC R.O.W. LANDSCAPE BY OTHERS S I UDUD E TF W F ELEC SSS S SSS B C C A BC BA B B C BCA BCA B B B BB B BB BBBBBB BBB B B MASON STREET PUBLICR.O.W. LANDSCAPE BYOTHERS 6 10 9 3 7RAIN GARDEN PROPOSEDBUILDING ~30,332 SQFT ,2 STORIESOUTDOORAMENITY OUTDOORAMENITY LOT 2 WOOD RONALD G/JENNIFER L/ WILLARD E,122 HIBDON COURTFORT COLLINS, CO 60'-0"DRAINAGEEASEMENT 10'-0" ACCESS EASEMENT 38'-3" DRAINAGEEASEMENT LO T 2 30' STORMWATEREASEMENT 24'-0"EMERGENCYACCESS ESMT MASON STREET PUBLICR.O.W. LANDSCAPE BYOTHERS CODE QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME CANOPY TREES CO 3 COMMON HACKBERRY / CELTIS OCCIDENTALIS AGJ 3 EARLY GLOW™ OHIO BUCKEYE / AESCULUS GLABRA 'JN SELECT' ASB 2 FALL FIESTA® SUGAR MAPLE / ACER SACCHARUM 'BAILSTA' CSH 8 HEARTLAND® WESTERN CATALPA / CATALPA SPECIOSA 'HEARTLAND' PAC 7 LANCELEAF COTTONWOOD / POPULUS X ACUMINATA SAM 11 PEACH LEAF WILLOW / SALIX AMYGDALOIDES EVERGREEN TREES JSC 6 ROCKY MOUNTAIN JUNIPER / JUNIPERUS SCOPULORUM PLANT SCHEDULE ORNAMENTAL TREES PAM 5 AMERICAN PLUM / PRUNUS AMERICANA SRE 2 JAPANESE TREE LILAC / SYRINGA RETICULATA MRR 4 ROYAL RAINDROPS CRABAPPLE / MALUS X 'ROYAL RAINDROPS' PVI 8 YELLOW BIRD CHOKECHERRY / PRUNUS VIRGINIANA 'YELLOW BIRD' SHRUBS CB 12 BLUE MIST BLUEBEARD / CARYOPTERIS X CLANDONENSIS 'BLUE MIST' HB 35 BOBO® PANICLE HYDRANGEA / HYDRANGEA PANICULATA 'ILVOBO' CN 17 DWARF BLUE RABBITBRUSH / CHRYSOTHAMNUS NAUSEOSUS NAUSEOSUS SM 17 DWARF KOREAN LILAC / SYRINGA MEYERI 'PALIBIN' RF 10 FLOWER CARPET® RED GROUNDCOVER ROSE / ROSA X 'NOARE' RAR 11 FRAGRANT SUMAC / RHUS AROMATICA RAU 8 GOLDEN CURRANT / RIBES AUREUM CSE 19 ISANTI REDOSIER DOGWOOD / CORNUS SERICEA `ISANTI` RN 10 NEARLY WILD FLORIBUNDA ROSE / ROSA X 'NEARLY WILD' AP 23 PANCHITO MANZANITA / ARCTOSTAPHYLOS X COLORADENSIS 'PANCHITO' PBE 13 PAWNEE BUTTES SAND CHERRY / PRUNUS BESSEYI `P011S` TM RRV 5 RUBY VOODOO ROSE / ROSA X 'RUBY VOODOO' RK 21 SUNNY KNOCK OUT® YELLOW ROSE / ROSA X 'RADSUNNY' ORNAMENTAL GRASSES BB 55 BLONDE AMBITION GRASS / BOUTELOUA GRACILIS `BLONDE AMBITION` PB 69 BURGUNDY BUNNY DWARF FOUNTAIN GRASS / PENNISETUM ALOPECUROIDE CA 23 FEATHER REED GRASS / CALAMAGROSTIS X ACUTIFLORA SN 20 INDIAN GRASS / SORGHASTRUM NUTANS SS 136 STANDING OVATION LITTLE BLUESTEM / SCHIZACHYRIUM SCOPARIUM 'STAN MU 49 UNDAUNTED® RUBY MUHLY / MUHLENBERGIA REVERCHONII 'PUND01S' MV 26 VARIEGATED EULALIA GRASS / MISCANTHUS SINENSIS `VARIEGATUS` AGW 29 WINDWALKER® BIG BLUESTEM / ANDROPOGON GERARDII 'PWIN01S' FO FO G G SD SD SS SS T T UE UE W W FIBER OPTIC UTILITY GAS UTILITY STORM DRAIN UTILITY SANITARY SEWER UTILITY TELEPHONE UTILITY UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC UTILITY WATER LINE UTILITY PROPERTY BOUNDARY SYMBOL DESCRIPTION VAULTELEC T ELEC EXISITING TREES TO REMAIN STREET LIGHT FIRE HYDRANT BOULDERS STEEL EDGER TRANSFORMER ELECTRIC BOX ELECTRIC VAULT TELEPHONE PEDESTAL EXISTING SIGN INLET GRATE GAS METER OPEN FENCE PROPOSED PRIVACY FENCE LANDSCAPE WALL, TYP LEGEND MATCHLINE B NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE IRRIGATED TURF NATIVE SEED RAIN GARDEN SEED EXISTING TREES BY OTHERS CHIPPED GRANITE WOOD MULCH *UTILITIES SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY DRAWING NUMBER: ISSUED PROJECT No.: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: SEAL: PREPARED BY: No. DESCRIPTION DATE REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE ORIGINAL SIZE 24X36 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521phone 970.224.5828 | fax 970.225.6657 | www.ripleydesigninc.com RIPLEY DESIGN INC. Klara Rossouw 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.224.5828 ENGINEER ARCHITECT PLANNER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT NORTHERN ENGINEERING Andy Reese 301 N. Howes St., Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.221.4158 OWNER DENVER RESCUE MISSION 6100 Smith Road Denver, CO 80216 p. 303.297.1815 SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE Chad Holtzinger 301 W 45th Ave. Denver, CO 80216 p. 303.433.4094 LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENT 2 FDP SUBMITTAL FORT COLLINS RESCUE MISSION 04 FOR HEARING 04-10-2024 03-27-2024PDP/FDP ROUND 303 02-14-2024PDP/FDP ROUND 202 11-01-2023PDP ROUND 101 FORT COLLINS, CO KR HJ/LO R22-030 L9 NORTH 0 10 20 40 SCALE: 1"=20'-0" KEY MAP SHEET L8 SHEET L9 A PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY TREES OR SHRUBS AS NOTED ON THIS PLAN ARE PLANTED, PRUNED OR REMOVED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS INCLUDES ZONES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND CURB, MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THIS PERMIT SHALL APPROVE THE LOCATION AND SPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURE TO OBTAIN THIS PERMIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS CODE SUBJECT TO CITATION (SECTION 27-31) AND MAY ALSO RESULT IN REPLACING OR RELOCATING TREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 125 Section D, Item 1. ELEC M VAU LTELEC CAB LE ELEC CTV X CTVCTVCTVCTV OHU OHU OHU X X XXXXXXXX CTV CTVCTV CTVGG G G G G G G S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S W W W W W W A B B B BA B BB B B B FO FO G G SD SD SS SS T T UE UE W W FIBER OPTIC UTILITY GAS UTILITY STORM DRAIN UTILITY SANITARY SEWER UTILITY TELEPHONE UTILITY UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC UTILITY WATER LINE UTILITY PROPERTY BOUNDARY SYMBOL DESCRIPTION VAULTELEC T ELEC EXISITING TREES TO REMAIN STREET LIGHT FIRE HYDRANT BOULDERS STEEL EDGER TRANSFORMER ELECTRIC BOX ELECTRIC VAULT TELEPHONE PEDESTAL EXISTING SIGN INLET GRATE GAS METER OPEN FENCE PROPOSED PRIVACY FENCE LANDSCAPE WALL, TYP LEGEND MATCHLINE B NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE IRRIGATED TURF NATIVE SEED RAIN GARDEN SEED EXISTING TREES BY OTHERS CHIPPED GRANITE WOOD MULCH *UTILITIES SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY 10 LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT SYMBOL DESCRIPTION QTY HYDROZONE - HIGH (TURF)4,235 SF HYDROZONE - LOW (NATIVE SEED) 37,426 SF HYDROZONE - MEDIUM (SHRUB BEDS) 12,809 SF DRAWING NUMBER: ISSUED PROJECT No.: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: SEAL: PREPARED BY: No. DESCRIPTION DATE REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE ORIGINAL SIZE 24X36 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521phone 970.224.5828 | fax 970.225.6657 | www.ripleydesigninc.com RIPLEY DESIGN INC. Klara Rossouw 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.224.5828 ENGINEER ARCHITECT PLANNER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT NORTHERN ENGINEERING Andy Reese 301 N. Howes St., Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.221.4158 OWNER DENVER RESCUE MISSION 6100 Smith Road Denver, CO 80216 p. 303.297.1815 SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE Chad Holtzinger 301 W 45th Ave. Denver, CO 80216 p. 303.433.4094 HYDROZONE MAP FDP SUBMITTAL FORT COLLINS RESCUE MISSION 04 FOR HEARING 04-10-2024 03-27-2024PDP/FDP ROUND 303 02-14-2024PDP/FDP ROUND 202 11-01-2023PDP ROUND 101 FORT COLLINS, CO KR HJ/LO R22-030 L10 NORTH 0 20 40 80 SCALE: 1"=40'-0" A PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY TREES OR SHRUBS AS NOTED ON THIS PLAN ARE PLANTED, PRUNED OR REMOVED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS INCLUDES ZONES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND CURB, MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THIS PERMIT SHALL APPROVE THE LOCATION AND SPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURE TO OBTAIN THIS PERMIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS CODE SUBJECT TO CITATION (SECTION 27-31) AND MAY ALSO RESULT IN REPLACING OR RELOCATING TREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE SHALL NOT BE DISTURBED BY ANY GRADING, CONSTRUCTION OR MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES EXCEPT AS APPROVED BY THE CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER. 126 Section D, Item 1. 1" = 30'-0"1 SITE LIGHTING PLAN N WALL PACK LIGHT; TYP. EXT SURFACE MOUNT LED COLUMN SCONCE; CONDUIT FROM ABOVE EXT. PENDANT LIGHT SITE LIGHTING TURNSTILE EXT. SURFACE MOUNT LEDILLUMINATED SIGNAGE SE5 SE5 SE5 SE5 SE5 SE5 SE5 SE5 SE5 SE5 SE5 SE5 SE5 SE5 SE5 SE3 (TYP. OF 11) SE1 SE1 SE1 SE1 SE1 SE1 SE1 SE1 SE1 SE1 SE1 SE1 SE1 SE1 SE1 SE1 SE1SE2SE2SE2SE2 SE2 SE2 SE2 SE2 SE4 SE4 SE4 SE4 SE4 SE4SE4 SE4 SE4 SE4SE4 SE4 SE4 SE4 SE4 SE4 SE3 (TYP. OF 4) SE4 SE2 SE2 SE2 SE2 SE2 SE2 SE2 SE2 SE2 SE2 SE4 SE2 SE2 SE2 SE2 SE2 SE4 SE2 SE2 SE2 SE2 SE4SE1SE1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.6 1.2 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.4 5.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 6.9 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 2.8 6.3 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 2.4 1.6 1.8 1.4 1.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.5 2.3 0.6 0.0 2.1 8.0 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.5 3.2 3.9 5.0 5.4 3.4 4.9 0.2 2.9 6.6 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 4.1 1.8 2.0 2.8 3.8 4.1 1.1 0.1 2.6 7.9 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 8.0 0.1 1.9 5.7 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 7.0 0.0 0.2 1.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.2 5.7 2.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.6 3.4 1.8 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 4.0 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 2.6 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 2.4 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 5.1 2.6 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 1.7 3.3 4.9 2.8 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.0 4.5 2.1 0.0 3.6 5.8 3.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.3 1.0 1.3 1.0 0.4 0.9 1.6 2.2 4.5 5.8 6.6 3.2 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 1.5 3.7 2.6 4.0 1.7 0.7 0.3 1.3 1.8 1.0 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.0 2.2 1.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 8.0 2.2 1.6 1.5 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.9 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.3 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.8 2.0 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 2.8 3.7 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.7 1.9 2.8 1.9 2.7 1.7 2.3 0.6 0.7 1.4 1.8 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.0 1.0 1.3 PROPERTY LINE 1234567 11 16 8EVR 18EVR 19EVR 23EVC 22EVC 24EVC 25EVC 9EV 10EV 12 13 14 15 17EVR 20EVR 21EVC 26EVC2728293031 32 33 34 35 DS DS DS DS DSDS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS TF ELEC PDP SUBMITTAL FORT COLLINS RESCUE MISSION FORT COLLINS, CO DRAWING NUMBER: ISSUED PROJECT No.: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: SEAL: PREPARED BY: No. DESCRIPTION DATE REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE ORIGINAL SIZE 24X36 ENGINEER ARCHITECT NORTHERN ENGINEERING Blaine Mathisen 301 N. Howes St., Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.221.4158 SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE Chad Holtzinger 301 W 45th Ave. Denver, CO 80216 p. 303.433.4094 RIPLEY DESIGN INC.Klara Rossouw 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.224.5828 PLANNER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OWNER FORT COLLINS RESCUE MISSION 316 Jefferson St. Fort Collins, CO 80524 p. 970.224.4302 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521phone 970.224.5828 | fax 970.225.6657 |www.ripleydesigninc.com RWC PDP/FDP ROUND 2 SITE PHOTOMETRIC P MV 22027 2/14/2024 Statistics Description Symbol Avg Max Min Max/Min Avg/Min Calc Zone #1 0.3 fc 8.0 fc 0.0 fc N/A N/A GENERAL NOTES 1. ANY PROPOSED LIGHT FIXTURES INSTALLED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, ADJACENT TO THE PUBLIC ROW, SHALL BE ORIENTED IN SUCH A MANNER OR LIMITED IN LUMEN OUTPUT TO PREVENT GLARE PROBLEMS AND SHALL NOT EXCEED NATIONAL I.E.S. LIGHTING STANDARDS FOR DISABILITY GLARE. 2. ALL PROVIDED EXTERIOR FIXTURES SHALL BE FULL CUT-OFF TYPE FIXTURES TO COMPLY WITH SEC. 10.7.4.2.A.1. 3. EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURES SHALL BE DIMMED AS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH BUILDING DEPARTMENT 8 FOOT CANDLE MAX AND 2 FOOT CANDLE AT THE ZONE LOT LINE REQUIREMENTS. 127 Section D, Item 1. PDP SUBMITTAL FORT COLLINS RESCUE MISSION FORT COLLINS, CO DRAWING NUMBER: ISSUED PROJECT No.: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: SEAL: PREPARED BY: No. DESCRIPTION DATE REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE ORIGINAL SIZE 24X36 ENGINEER ARCHITECT NORTHERN ENGINEERING Blaine Mathisen 301 N. Howes St., Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.221.4158 SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE Chad Holtzinger 301 W 45th Ave. Denver, CO 80216 p. 303.433.4094 RIPLEY DESIGN INC.Klara Rossouw 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.224.5828 PLANNER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OWNER FORT COLLINS RESCUE MISSION 316 Jefferson St. Fort Collins, CO 80524 p. 970.224.4302 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521phone 970.224.5828 | fax 970.225.6657 |www.ripleydesigninc.com RWC SITE LIGHITNG DETAILS P1 MV 22027 SINGLE OR DOUBLE HEAD LUMINAIRE GROUNDING STUD WITH #8 CU GROUNDING WIRE TO REBAR 1 SE5 PARKING POLE BASE DETAIL NO SCALE 8'-0" 2'-6" 24" #3 TIES 3" FROM TOP TOP OF FINISH GRADE. CONDUIT RISER, QUANTITY AS REQ'D. #3 HORIZ. BARS @ 12" O.C. 8#7, or 6#8 VERT BARS 1 #10 STRANDED TO LIGHTING FIXTURE 4" X 8" HANDHOLE IN LINE FUSE HOLDER 17'-6" BASE DEPTH SHALL BE FIELD VERIFIED WITH STRUCTURAL/CIVIL ENGINEER BASE ON ONSITE SOIL CONDITIONS AND FIXTURE ASSEMBLY EPA RATING. 3 FIXTURE TYPE SE2 NO SCALE2FIXTURE TYPE SE1 NO SCALE 4 FIXTURE TYPE SE3 NO SCALE 5 FIXTURE TYPE SE4 NO SCALE 6 FIXTURE TYPE SE5 NO SCALE FIXTURE SCHEDULE Symbol Label Quantity Manufacturer Catalog Number Description Mounting Height Kelvin Number Lamps Wattage BUG Rating Lumens Total Lumens For Site SE1 BOCK LIGHTING 518-LVEV1-3000-41S-CTNRY-1 FLUSH MOUNT 10'-0" AFG LED 3000K 1 12 B1-U0-G1 3000 57,000 SE2 BOCK LIGHTING 518-LVEV1-3000-41S-GNX-1084-13IN GOOSENECK 10'-0" AFG LED 3000K 1 12 B1-U0-G1 3000 81,000 SE3 FC OUTDOOR LIGHTING FCW8050-120V-3000K-3600-BRZ DOWNLIGHT 10'-0" AFG LED 3000K 1 36 N/A 3200 48,000 SE4 COOPER LIGHTING GALLEON GWS-SA1A-730-1-T1-BZ-HSS WALLPACK 10'-0" AFG LED 3000K 1 20 B1-U0-G1 2380 47,600 SE5 COOPER LIGHTING GALLEON GLEON-SA1A-730-1-T1-MA-BZ POLE MOUNTED AREA LIGHT OPTICS POLE MOUNT 20'-0" AFG LED 3000K 1 20 B1-U0-G1 2380 35,700 PDP/FDP ROUND 2 2/14/2024 Total lumens for all site fixtures 269,300 Total Hardscape Square Footage 120,788 Total Allowed Lumens For Site (Hardscape Area Method)301,970 Site Complies With Hardscape Area Method YES 128 Section D, Item 1. PDP SUBMITTAL FORT COLLINS RESCUE MISSION FORT COLLINS, CO DRAWING NUMBER: ISSUED PROJECT No.: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: SEAL: PREPARED BY: No. DESCRIPTION DATE REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE ORIGINAL SIZE 24X36 ENGINEER ARCHITECT NORTHERN ENGINEERING Blaine Mathisen 301 N. Howes St., Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.221.4158 SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE Chad Holtzinger 301 W 45th Ave. Denver, CO 80216 p. 303.433.4094 RIPLEY DESIGN INC.Klara Rossouw 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.224.5828 PLANNER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OWNER FORT COLLINS RESCUE MISSION 316 Jefferson St. Fort Collins, CO 80524 p. 970.224.4302 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521phone 970.224.5828 | fax 970.225.6657 |www.ripleydesigninc.com RWC SITE LIGHITNG DETAILS P2 MV 22027 FIXTURE TYPE SE1 FIXTURE TYPE SE2 FIXTURE TYPE SE3 FIXTURE TYPE SE4 FIXTURE TYPE SE5 PDP/FDP ROUND 2 2/14/2024 129 Section D, Item 1. N. C O L L E G E A V E N U E HICKORY STREET CONIFER STREET UN I O N P A C I F I C R . R . N. C O L L E G E A V E N U E HICKORY STREET CONIFER STREET UN I O N P A C I F I C R . R . CS1 1 MARCH 2024 CONTACT INFORMATION PROJECT TEAM: VICINITY MAPNORTH FORT COLLINS RESCUE MISSION PROJECT TEAM: SHEET INDEX FINAL UTILITY PLANS Th e s e d r a w i n g s a r e in s t r u m e n t s o f s e r v i c e pr o v i d e d b y N o r t h e r n En g i n e e r i n g S e r v i c e s , I n c . an d a r e n o t t o b e u s e d f o r an y t y p e o f c o n s t r u c t i o n un l e s s s i g n e d a n d s e a l e d by a P r o f e s s i o n a l En g i n e e r i n t h e e m p l o y o f No r t h e r n E n g i n e e r i n g Se r v i c e s , I n c . NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO PROJECT LOCATION Klara Rossouw Ripley Design, Inc. 419 Canyon Avenue #200 Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 (970) 224-5828 Denver Rescue Mission Josh Geppelt 6100 Smith Road Denver, CO 80216 (303)291-4691 Northern Engineering Services, Inc. Blaine Mathisen, PE 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100 Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 (970) 221-4158 CTL Thompson, Inc. Erin Beach, PE, PG 4396 Greenfield Drive Windsor, Colorado 80550 (970) 545-3908 Northern Engineering Services, Inc. Bob Tessely, PLS 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100 Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 (970) 221-4158 EHTRON RN EHTRON RN PROJECT LOCATION 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521phone 970.224.5828 | fax 970.225.6657 | www.ripleydesigninc.com Original Field Survery: Northern Engineering Project No. 1473-002 Date: April 2019 Additional Field Survey: Northern Engineering Project No. 1971-001 Date: October, 2022 BENCHMARK: #1-10 Elevation=4987.25 NAVD88 Northwest corner of College Ave. and Willox Lane on the southwest corner of a Storm Inlet. BENCHMARK: #1-00 Elevation=4968.74 NAVD88 On a catch basin at the southeast corner of Vine Dr. and College Ave. Please Note: This plan set is using NAVD88 for a vertical datum. Surrounding developments have used NGVD29 unadjusted datum (prior city of Fort Collins datum) for their vertical datums. if NGVD29 unadjusted datum (prior city of Fort Collins datum) is required for any purpose, the following equation should be used: NGVD29 unadjusted datum (prior city of Fort Collins datum) = NAVD88 - 3.17' Basis of Bearings The East line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 2 Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M. as bearing South 00° 38' 02" West (assumed). PROJECT BENCHMARKS: FIELD SURVEY BY: CTL Thompson, Inc Geotechnical Investigation Hibdon/Mason 24/7 Shelter SWC Hibdon Court and Mason Street Fort Collins, Colorado Project No. FC10,520.000-125-R1 Date: October 25, 2022 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION BY: CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES. CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO R City of Fort Collins, CO UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPROVED: CITY ENGINEER,APPROVED SHEETS DATE APPROVED: WATER & WASTEWATER UTILITY,APPROVED SHEETS DATE APPROVED: STORMWATER UTILITY,APPROVED SHEETS DATE APPROVED: PARK PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT,APPROVED SHEETS DATE APPROVED: TRAFFIC OPERATIONS,APPROVED SHEETS DATE APPROVED: ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER,APPROVED SHEETS DATE I hereby affirm that these final construction plans were prepared under my direct supervision, in accordance with all applicable City of Fort Collins and State of Colorado standards and statutes, respectively; and that I am fully responsible for the accuracy of all design. revisions, and record conditions that I have noted on these plans. These plans have been reviewed by the City of Fort Collins for concept only. The review does not imply responsibility by the reviewing department, the City of Fort Collins Engineer, or the City of Fort Collins for accuracy and correctness of the calculations. Furthermore, the review does not imply that quantities of items on the plans are the final quantities required. The review shall not be construed for any reason as acceptance of financial responsibility by the City of Fort Collins for additional quantities of items shown that may be required during the construction phase. DISCLAIMER STATEMENT: CERTIFICATION STATEMENT: SHEET INDEX 1 CS1 COVER SHEET 2 CS2 GENERAL & CONSTRUCTION NOTES 3 CS3 EROSION CONTROL NOTES SITE SHEETS 4 EX1 EXISTING CONDITIONS & DEMOLITION PLAN 5 HC1 HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLAN GRADING SHEETS 6 OG1 OVERALL GRADING PLAN 7 - 10 G1 - G4 DETAILED GRADING PLAN UTILITY SHEETS 11 U1 UTILITY PLAN STORM DRAIN SHEETS 12 ST1 STORM DRAIN A PLAN & PROFILE 13 ST2 STORM A & A7 PLAN & PROFILE 14 ST3 STORM DRAIN B & C PLAN & PROFILE 15 ST4 COURTYARD DRAIN PLAN 16 ST5 STORM DRAIN R1, R2, & R3 STORM DRAIN PLAN DETAIL SHEETS 17 D1 UTILITY DETAILS 18 - 21 D2 - D5 DRAINAGE DETAILS 22 D6 SITE DETAILS EROSION CONTROL SHEETS 23 EC1 EROSION CONTROL PLAN 24 EC2 EROSION CONTROL DETAILS DRAINAGE SHEETS 25 DR1 DRAINAGE EXHIBIT UTILITY CONTACT LIST: * UTILITY COMPANY * This list is provided as a courtesy reference only. Northern Engineering Services assumes no responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this list. In no way shall this list relinquish the Contractor's responsibility for locating all utilities prior to commencing any construction activity. Please contact the Utility Notification Center of Colorado (UNCC) at 811 for additional information. PHONE NUMBER GAS-----------------Xcel Energy----------------------------- Cory Thelen (970) 225-7843 ELECTRIC-------- City of Fort Collins Light & Power-- Rob Irish (970) 224-6167 CABLE------------- Comcast---------------------------------- Marcus Petty (720) 275-0572 TELECOM-------- Lumen------------------------------------- Brady Craddock (970) 342-3431 WATER------------ City of Fort Collins Utilities----------- Heidi Hansen (970) 221-6854 WASTEWATER--City of Fort Collins Utilities----------- Heidi Hansen (970) 221-6854 STORMWATER- City of Fort Collins Utilities----------- Heidi Hansen (970) 221-6854 130 Section D, Item 1. CS2 2 Th e s e d r a w i n g s a r e in s t r u m e n t s o f s e r v i c e pr o v i d e d b y N o r t h e r n En g i n e e r i n g S e r v i c e s , I n c . an d a r e n o t t o b e u s e d f o r an y t y p e o f c o n s t r u c t i o n un l e s s s i g n e d a n d s e a l e d by a P r o f e s s i o n a l En g i n e e r i n t h e e m p l o y o f No r t h e r n E n g i n e e r i n g Se r v i c e s , I n c . NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N ADDRESS POSTING & WAYFINDING New and existing buildings shall be provided with approved address identification. The address identification shall be legible and placed in a position that is visible from the street or road fronting the property. Address identification characters shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall not be spelled out. The address numerals for any commercial or industrial buildings shall be placed at a height to be clearly visible from the street. They shall be a minimum of 8 inches in height unless distance from the street or other factors dictate larger numbers. Refer to table 505.1.3 of the 2018 ifc as amended. The address numbers for one_ and two_family dwellings shall be a minimum of 4” in height with a minimum ½” stroke and shall be posted on a contrasting background. If bronze or brass numerals are used, they shall only be posted on a black background for visibility. Monument signs may be used in lieu of address numerals on the building as approved by the fire code official. Buildings, either individually or part of a multi_ building complex, that have emergency access lanes on sides other than on the addressed street side, shall have the address numbers and street name on each side that fronts the fire lane. GENERAL NOTES 1. All materials, workmanship, and construction of public improvements shall meet or exceed the standards and specifications set forth in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards and applicable state and federal regulations. Where there is conflict between these plans and the specifications, or any applicable standards, the most restrictive standard shall apply. All work shall be inspected and approved by the City of Fort Collins. 2. All references to any published standards shall refer to the latest revision of said standard, unless specifically stated otherwise. 3. These public improvement construction plans shall be valid for a period of three years from the date of approval by the City of Fort Collins Engineer. Use of these plans after the expiration date will require a new review and approval process by the City of Fort Collins prior to commencement of any work shown in these plans. 4. The engineer who has prepared these plans, by execution and/or seal hereof, does hereby affirm responsibility to the City of Fort Collins, as beneficiary of said engineer's work, for any errors and omissions contained in these plans, and approval of these plans by the City of Fort Collins Engineer shall not relieve the engineer who has prepared these plans of all such responsibility. Further, to the extent permitted by law, the engineer hereby agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the City of Fort Collins, and its officers and employees, from and against all liabilities, claims, and demands which may arise from any errors and omissions contained in these plans. 5. All sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and water line construction, as well as power and other "dry" utility installations, shall conform to the City of Fort Collins standards and specifications current at the date of approval of the plans by the City of Fort Collins Engineer. 6. The type, size, location and number of all known underground utilities are approximate when shown on the drawings. It shall be the responsibility of the Developer to verify the existence and location of all underground utilities along the route of the work before commencing new construction. The Developer shall be responsible for unknown underground utilities. 7. The Developer shall contact the Utility Notification Center of Colorado (UNCC) at 1-800-922-1987, at least 2 working days prior to beginning excavation or grading, to have all registered utility locations marked. Other unregistered utility entities (i.e. ditch / irrigation company) are to be located by contacting the respective representative. Utility service laterals are also to be located prior to beginning excavation or grading. It shall be the responsibility of the Developer to relocate all existing utilities that conflict with the proposed improvements shown on these plans. 8. The Developer shall be responsible for protecting all utilities during construction and for coordinating with the appropriate utility company for any utility crossings required. 9. If a conflict exists between existing and proposed utilities and/or a design modification is required, the Developer shall coordinate with the engineer to modify the design. Design modification(s) must be approved by the City of Fort Collins prior to beginning construction. 10. The Developer shall coordinate and cooperate with the City of Fort Collins, and all utility companies involved, to assure that the work is accomplished in a timely fashion and with a minimum disruption of service. The Developer shall be responsible for contacting, in advance, all parties affected by any disruption of any utility service as well as the utility companies. 11. No work may commence within any public storm water, sanitary sewer or potable water system until the Developer notifies the utility provider. Notification shall be a minimum of 2 working days prior to commencement of any work. At the discretion of the water utility provider, a pre-construction meeting may be required prior to commencement of any work. 12. The Developer shall sequence installation of utilities in such a manner as to minimize potential utility conflicts. In general, storm sewer and sanitary sewer should be constructed prior to installation of the water lines and dry utilities. 13. The minimum cover over water lines is 4.5 feet and the maximum cover is 5.5 feet unless otherwise noted in the plans and approved by the Water Utility. 14. A State Construction Dewatering Wastewater Discharge Permit is required if dewatering is required in order to install utilities or if water is discharged into a storm sewer, channel, irrigation ditch or any waters of the United States. 15. The Developer shall comply with all terms and conditions of the Colorado Permit for Storm Water Discharge (Contact Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division, (303) 692-3590), the Storm Water Management Plan, and the Erosion Control Plan. 16. The City of Fort Collins shall not be responsible for the maintenance of storm drainage facilities located on private property. Maintenance of onsite drainage facilities shall be the responsibility of the property owner(s). 17. Certification of grading and drainage facilities must be completed by a registered engineer and submitted to the Stormwater Utility Department at least two weeks prior to Stormwater Utility Department acceptance, or otherwise in accordance with the Development Agreement. 18. The City of Fort Collins shall not be responsible for any damages or injuries sustained in this Development as a result of groundwater seepage, whether resulting from groundwater flooding, structural damage or other damage unless such damage or injuries are sustained as a result of the City of Fort Collins failure to properly maintain its water, wastewater, and/or storm drainage facilities in the development. 19. All recommendations of the Final Drainage Report, dated February 14, 2024 by Northern Engineering Services, Inc., shall be followed and implemented. 20. Temporary erosion control during construction shall be provided as shown on the Erosion Control Plan. All erosion control measures shall be maintained in good repair by the Developer, until such time as the entire disturbed areas is stabilized with hard surface or landscaping. 21. The Developer shall be responsible for insuring that no mud or debris shall be tracked onto the existing public street system. Mud and debris must be removed within 24 hours by an appropriate mechanical method (i.e. machine broom sweep, light duty front-end loader, etc.) or as approved by the the City of Fort Collins street inspector. 22. No work may commence within any improved or unimproved public Right-of-Way until a Right-of-Way Permit or Development Construction Permit is obtained, if applicable. 23. The Developer shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary permits for all applicable agencies prior to commencement of construction. The Developer shall notify the the City of Fort Collins Inspector (Fort Collins - 221-6605) and the City of Fort Collins Erosion Control Inspector (Fort Collins - 221-6700) at least 2 working days prior to the start of any earth disturbing activity, or construction on any and all public improvements. If the City of Fort Collins Engineer is not available after proper notice of construction activity has been provided, the Developer may commence work in the Engineer's absence. However, the City of Fort Collins reserves the right not to accept the improvement if subsequent testing reveals an improper installation. 24.The Developer shall be responsible for obtaining soils tests within the Public Right-of-Way after right of way grading and all utility trench work is complete and prior to the placement of curb, gutter, sidewalk and pavement. If the final soils/pavement design report does not correspond with the results of the original geotechnical report, the Developer shall be responsible for a re-design of the subject pavement section or, the Developer may use the City of Fort Collins' default pavement thickness section(s). Regardless of the option used, all final soils/pavement design reports shall be prepared by a licensed Professional Engineer. The final report shall be submitted to the Inspector a minimum of 10 working days prior to placement of base and asphalt. Placement of curb, gutter, sidewalk, base and asphalt shall not occur until the City of Fort Collins Engineer approves the final report. 25. The contractor shall hire a licensed engineer or land surveyor to survey the constructed elevations of the street subgrade and the gutter flowline at all intersections, inlets, and other locations requested by the the City of Fort Collins inspector. The engineer or surveyor must certify in a letter to the City of Fort Collins that these elevations conform to the approved plans and specifications. Any deviations shall be noted in the letter and then resolved with the City of Fort Collins before installation of base course or asphalt will be allowed on the streets. 26. All utility installations within or across the roadbed of new residential roads must be completed prior to the final stages of road construction. For the purposes of these standards, any work except c/g above the subgrade is considered final stage work. All service lines must be stubbed to the property lines and marked so as to reduce the excavation necessary for building connections. 27. Portions of Larimer County are within overlay districts. The Larimer County Flood Plain Resolution should be referred to for additional criteria for roads within these districts. 28. All road construction in areas designated as Wild Fire Hazard Areas shall be done in accordance with the construction criteria as established in the Wild Fire Hazard Area Mitigation Regulations in force at the time of final plat approval. 29. Prior to the commencement of any construction, the contractor shall contact the Local Entity Forester to schedule a site inspection for any tree removal requiring a permit. 30. The Developer shall be responsible for all aspects of safety including, but not limited to, excavation, trenching, shoring, traffic control, and security. Refer to OSHA Publication 2226, Excavating and Trenching. 31. The Developer shall submit a Construction Traffic Control Plan, in accordance with MUTCD, to the appropriate Right-of-Way authority. (The the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado), for approval, prior to any construction activities within, or affecting, the Right-of-Way. The Developer shall be responsible for providing any and all traffic control devices as may be required by the construction activities. 32. Prior to the commencement of any construction that will affect traffic signs of any type, the contractor shall contact the City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations Department, who will temporarily remove or relocate the sign at no cost to the contractor, however, if the contractor moves the traffic sign then the contractor will be charged for the labor, materials and equipment to reinstall the sign as needed. 33. The Developer is responsible for all costs for the initial installation of traffic signing and striping for the Development related to the Development's local street operations. In addition, the Developer is responsible for all costs for traffic signing and striping related to directing traffic access to and from the Development. 34. There shall be no site construction activities on Saturdays, unless specifically approved by the City of Fort Collins Engineer, and no site construction activities on Sundays or holidays, unless there is prior written approval by the City of Fort Collins. 35. The Developer is responsible for providing all labor and materials necessary for the completion of the intended improvements, shown on these drawings, or designated to be provided, installed, or constructed, unless specifically noted otherwise. 36. Dimensions for layout and construction are not to be scaled from any drawing. If pertinent dimensions are not shown, contact the Designer for clarification, and annotate the dimension on the as-built record drawings. 37. The Developer shall have, onsite at all times, one (1) signed copy of the approved plans, one (1) copy of the appropriate standards and specifications, and a copy of any permits and extension agreements needed for the job. 38. If, during the construction process, conditions are encountered which could indicate a situation that is not identified in the plans or specifications, the Developer shall contact the Designer and the City of Fort Collins Engineer immediately. 39. The Developer shall be responsible for recording as-built information on a set of record drawings kept on the construction site, and available to the the City of Fort Collins Inspector at all times. Upon completion of the work, the contractor(s) shall submit record drawings to the City of Fort Collins Engineer. 40. The Designer shall provide, in this location on the plan, the location and description of the nearest survey benchmarks (2) for the project as well as the basis of bearings. The information shall be as follows: PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88 CITY OF FORT COLLINS BENCHMARK 1-10 NORTHWEST CORNER OF COLLEGE AVE. AND WILLOX LANE ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF A STORM INLET. ELEVATION: 4987.25 CITY OF FORT COLLINS BENCHMARK 1-00 ON A CATCH BASIN AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF VINE DR. AND COLLEGE AVE. ELEVATION: 4968.74 PLEASE NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL DATUM. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) FOR THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS. IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) = NAVD88 - 3.17' BASIS OF BEARINGS THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2 TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. AS BEARING SOUTH 00° 38' 02" WEST (ASSUMED). 41. All stationing is based on centerline of roadways unless otherwise noted. 42. Damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk existing prior to construction, as well as existing fences, trees, streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, landscaping, structures, and improvements destroyed, damaged or removed due to construction of this project, shall be replaced or restored in like kind at the Developer's expense, unless otherwise indicated on these plans, prior to the acceptance of completed improvements and/or prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. 43. When an existing asphalt street must be cut, the street must be restored to a condition equal to or better than its original condition. The existing street condition shall be documented by the City of Fort Collins Construction Inspector before any cuts are made. Patching shall be done in accordance with the City of Fort Collins Street Repair Standards. The finished patch shall blend in smoothly into the existing surface. All large patches shall be paved with an asphalt lay-down machine. In streets where more than one cut is made, an overlay of the entire street width, including the patched area, may be required. The determination of need for a complete overlay shall be made by the City of Fort Collins Engineer and/or the City of Fort Collins Inspector at the time the cuts are made. 44. Upon completion of construction, the site shall be cleaned and restored to a condition equal to, or better than, that which existed before construction, or to the grades and condition as required by these plans. 45. Standard Handicap ramps are to be constructed at all curb returns and at all "T" intersections. 46. After acceptance by the City of Fort Collins, public improvements depicted in these plans shall be guaranteed to be free from material and workmanship defects for a minimum period of two years from the date of acceptance. 47. The City of Fort Collins shall not be responsible for the maintenance of roadway and appurtenant improvements, including storm drainage structures and pipes, for the following private streets: N.A. 48. Proposed Variances are listed as follows: N/A CONSTRUCTION NOTES A. Grading and Erosion Control Notes 1. The erosion control inspector must be notified at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to any construction on this site. 2. There shall be no earth-disturbing activity outside the limits designated on the accepted plans. 3. All required perimeter silt and construction fencing shall be installed prior to any land disturbing activity (stockpiling, stripping, grading, etc). All other required erosion control measures shall be installed at the appropriate time in the construction sequence as indicated in the approved project schedule, construction plans, and erosion control report. 4. At all times during construction, the Developer shall be responsible for preventing and controlling on-site erosion including keeping the property sufficiently watered so as to minimize wind blown sediment. The Developer shall also be responsible for installing and maintaining all erosion control facilities shown herein. 5. Pre-disturbance vegetation shall be protected and retained wherever possible. Removal or disturbance of existing vegetation shall be limited to the area(s) required for immediate construction operations, and for the shortest practical period of time. 6. All soils exposed during land disturbing activity (stripping, grading, utility installations, stockpiling, filling, etc.) shall be kept in a roughened condition by ripping or disking along land contours until mulch, vegetation, or other permanent erosion control BMPs are installed. No soils in areas outside project street rights-of-way shall remain exposed by land disturbing activity for more than fourteen (14) days before required temporary or permanent erosion control (e.g. seed/mulch, landscaping, etc.) is installed, unless otherwise approved by the City/County. 7. In order to minimize erosion potential, all temporary (structural) erosion control measures shall: a. Be inspected at a minimum of once every two (2) weeks and after each significant storm event and repaired or reconstructed as necessary in order to ensure the continued performance of their intended function. b. Remain in place until such time as all the surrounding disturbed areas are sufficiently stabilized as determined by the erosion control inspector. c. Be removed after the site has been sufficiently stabilized as determined by the erosion control inspector. 8. When temporary erosion control measures are removed, the Developer shall be responsible for the clean up and removal of all sediment and debris from all drainage infrastructure and other public facilities. 9. The contractor shall immediately clean up any construction materials inadvertently deposited on existing streets, sidewalks, or other public rights of way, and make sure streets and walkways are cleaned at the end of each working day. 10. All retained sediments, particularly those on paved roadway surfaces, shall be removed and disposed of in a manner and location so as not to cause their release into any waters of the United States. 11. No soil stockpile shall exceed ten (10) feet in height. All soil stockpiles shall be protected from sediment transport by surface roughening, watering, and perimeter silt fencing. Any soil stockpile remaining after thirty (30) days shall be seeded and mulched. 12. The stormwater volume capacity of detention ponds will be restored and storm sewer lines will be cleaned upon completion of the project and before turning the maintenance over to the City or Homeowners Association (HOA). 13. City Ordinance and Colorado Discharge Permit System (CDPS) requirements make it unlawful to discharge or allow the discharge of any pollutant or contaminated water from construction sites. Pollutants include, but are not limited to discarded building materials, concrete truck washout, chemicals, oil and gas products, litter, and sanitary waste. The developer shall at all times take whatever measures are necessary to assure the proper containment and disposal of pollutants on the site in accordance with any and all applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 14. A designated area shall be provided on site for concrete truck chute washout. The area shall be constructed so as to contain washout material and located at least fifty (50) feet away from any waterway during construction. Upon completion of construction activities the concrete washout material will be removed and properly disposed of prior to the area being restored. 16. Conditions in the field may warrant erosion control measures in addition to what is shown on these plans. The Developer shall implement whatever measures are determined necessary, as directed by the City. 17. A Vehicle Tracking Control Pad shall be installed whenever it is necessary for construction equipment including but not limited to personal vehicles exiting existing roadways. No earthen materials, i.e., stone, dirt, etc., shall be placed in the curb & gutter or roadway as a ramp to access temporary stockpile(s), staging area(s), construction material(s), concrete washout area(s) and/or building site(s). B. Street Improvement Notes 1. All street construction is subject to the General Notes on the cover sheet of these plans as well as the Street Improvements Notes listed here. 2. A paving section design, signed and stamped by a Colorado licensed Engineer, must be submitted to the City of Fort Collins Engineer for approval, prior to any street construction activity, (full depth asphalt sections are not permitted at a depth greater than 8 inches of asphalt). The job mix shall be submitted for approval prior to placement of any asphalt. 3. Where proposed paving adjoins existing asphalt, the existing asphalt shall be saw cut, a minimum distance of 12 inches from the existing edge, to create a clean construction joint. The Developer shall be required to remove existing pavement to a distance where a clean construction joint can be made. Wheel cuts shall not be allowed unless approved by the City of Fort Collins Engineer in Fort Collins. 4. Street subgrades shall be scarified the top 12 inches and re-compacted prior to subbase installation. No base material shall be laid until the subgrade has been inspected and approved by the City of Fort Collins Engineer. 5. Ft. Collins only. Valve boxes and manholes are to be brought up to grade at the time of pavement placement or overlay. Valve box adjusting rings are not allowed. 6. When an existing asphalt street must be cut, the street must be restored to a condition equal to or better than its original condition. The existing street condition shall be documented by the Inspector before any cuts are made. Cutting and patching shall be done in conformance with Chapter 25, Reconstruction and Repair. The finished patch shall blend smoothly into the existing surface. The determination of need for a complete overlay shall be made by the City of Fort Collins Engineer. All overlay work shall be coordinated with adjacent landowners such that future projects do not cut the new asphalt overlay work. 7. All traffic control devices shall be in conformance with these plans or as otherwise specified in M.U.T.C.D. (including Colorado supplement) and as per the Right-of-Way Work Permit traffic control plan. 8. The Developer is required to perform a gutter water flow test in the presence of the City of Fort Collins Inspector and prior to installation of asphalt. Gutters that hold more than 1/4 inch deep or 5 feet longitudinally, of water, shall be completely removed and reconstructed to drain properly. 9. Prior to placement of H.B.P. or concrete within the street and after moisture/density tests have been taken on the subgrade material (when a full depth section is proposed) or on the subgrade and base material (when a composite section is proposed), a mechanical "proof roll" will be required. The entire subgrade and/or base material shall be rolled with a heavily loaded vehicle having a total GVW of not less than 50,000 lbs. and a single axle weight of at least 18,000 lbs. with pneumatic tires inflated to not less that 90 p.s.i.g. "Proof roll" vehicles shall not travel at speeds greater than 3 m.p.h. Any portion of the subgrade or base material which exhibits excessive pumping or deformation, as determined by the City of Fort Collins Engineer, shall be reworked, replaced or otherwise modified to form a smooth, non-yielding surface. The City of Fort Collins Engineer shall be notified at least 24 hours prior to the "proof roll." All "proof rolls" shall be preformed in the presence of an Inspector. 10. All public sidewalk, driveways, and ramps, existing or proposed, adjacent or within the site, need to meet ADA standards. If they currently do not, they will need to be reconstructed so that they do meet current ADA standards as a part of this project. 11. Any damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk existing prior to construction, as well as streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, destroyed, damaged or removed due to construction of this project, shall be replaced or restored to city of Fort Collins standards at the developer's expense prior to the acceptance of completed improvements and/or prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. C. Traffic Signing and Pavement Marking Construction Notes 1. All signage and marking is subject to the General Notes on the cover sheet of these plans, as well as the Traffic Signing and Marking Construction Notes listed here. 2. All symbols, including arrows, ONLYS, crosswalks, stop bars, etc. shall be pre-formed thermo-plastic. 3. All signage shall be per the City of Fort Collins Standards and these plans or as otherwise specified in MUTCD. 4. All lane lines for asphalt pavement shall receive two coats of latex paint with glass beads. 5. All lane lines for concrete pavement should be epoxy paint. 6. Prior to permanent installation of traffic striping, symbols, and signs their placement shall be approved by the City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineer. The developer shall place temporary tabs, tape or flags depicting alignment and location. Contact City of Fort COllins Traffic Operations at 970-221-6630 for field review. 7. Pre-formed thermo-plastic applications shall be as specified in these Plans and/or these Standards. 8. Epoxy applications shall be applied as specified in CDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. 9. All surfaces shall be thoroughly cleaned prior to installation of striping or markings. 10. All sign posts shall utilize break-away assemblies and fasteners per the Standards. 11. A field inspection of location and installation of all signs shall be performed by the City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineer. All discrepancies identified during the field inspection must be corrected before the 2-year warranty period will begin. 12. The Developer installing signs shall be responsible for locating and protecting all underground utilities. 13. Special care shall be taken in sign location to ensure an unobstructed view of each sign. 14. Signage and striping has been determined by information available at the time of review. Prior to initiation of the warranty period,the City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineer reserves the right to require additional signage and/or striping if the City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineer determines that an unforeseen condition warrants such signage according to the MUTCD or the CDOT M and S Standards. All signage and striping shall fall under the requirements of the 2-year warranty period for new construction (except fair wear on traffic markings). 15. Sleeves for sign posts shall be required for use in islands/medians. Refer to Chapter 14, Traffic Control Devices, for additional detail. 16. Contractor is responsible for removing all anchors, posts, signs and/or delineators in Construction area. Contractor may keep the signs, or call the City Traffic Division to have them removed. 17. No “Reset” anchors, posts, signs, and/or delineators will be accepted. 18. All anchors, posts, signs, and/or delineators shall be new and be consistent with the LCUASS criteria. D. Storm Drainage Notes 1. The City of Fort Collins shall not be responsible for the maintenance of storm drainage facilities located on private property. Maintenance of onsite drainage facilities shall be the responsibility of the property owner(s). 2. All recommendations of the Final Drainage Report, dated February 14, 2024 by Northern Engineering Services, Inc., shall be followed and implemented. 3. Certification of grading and drainage facilities must be completed by a registered engineer and submitted to the Stormwater Utility Department at least two weeks prior to Stormwater Utility Department acceptance, or otherwise in accordance with the Development Agreement. 4. See City of Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual – Appendix F Construction Control Measures Standard Notes and Standard Erosion Control Notes. E. Utility Notes 1. All waterline and sanitary sewer construction shall conform to the City of Fort Collins Utility standards and specifications current to date of construction. 2. The minimum cover over water lines is 4.5 feet and the maximum cover is 5.5 feet unless otherwise noted in the plans and approved by the water utility. 3. Water mains shall be poly-wrapped D.I.P, or PVC with tracer wire. 4. HDPE pipe may be used for 1-1/2 and 2 inch water services. The pipe shall meet the standards of AWWA 901, NSF Standard 61 and ASTM. The HDPE pipe shall be SDR 9 having a pressure rating of 200 psi. Stiffeners shall be used at all fittings and connections. 131 Section D, Item 1. CS3 3 Th e s e d r a w i n g s a r e in s t r u m e n t s o f s e r v i c e pr o v i d e d b y N o r t h e r n En g i n e e r i n g S e r v i c e s , I n c . an d a r e n o t t o b e u s e d f o r an y t y p e o f c o n s t r u c t i o n un l e s s s i g n e d a n d s e a l e d by a P r o f e s s i o n a l En g i n e e r i n t h e e m p l o y o f No r t h e r n E n g i n e e r i n g Se r v i c e s , I n c . NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES. CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO R F. INFILL AND REDEVELOPMENT NOTE A. Despite everyone's best efforts, it is impossible to fully display subsurface information prior to excavation. This is especially true in areas of infill and redevelopment. Unknown subsurface conditions can have cost and schedule implications. Prior to finalizing contract terms, it is strongly recommended that the Owner and General Contractor have a candid discussion to formulate a strategy for dealing with such circumstances when they arise. The process and procures should be in place prior to excavation. Allowances and contingencies can address the cost implications, but additional measures are required to deal with scheduling and factors impacting sequence of work. The Architect, Engineer(s), and Construction Surveyor should be made aware of the protocol for dealing with such unknown subsurface conditions prior to starting work. G. STANDARD EROSION CONTROL NOTES (CITY OF FORT COLLINS) General Erosion Control Requirements These notes are a summary for the legal requirements, that are set forth in the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (FCSCM), and that any conflict is resolved by the more stringent requirement controlling. 1. The Property Owner, Owner’s Representative, Developer, Design Engineer, General Contractor, Sub-contractors, or similar title for the developing entity (here after referred to as the Developer) has provided these Erosion Control Materials in accordance with Erosion Control Criteria set forth in the Manual as an attempt to identify erosion, sediment, and other potential pollutant sources associated with these Construction Activities and preventing those pollutants from leaving the project site as an illicit discharge. Full City requirements and are outlined and clarified in the Manual under Chapter 4: Construction Control Measures and should be used to identify and define what is needed on a project. 2. The Developer shall make themselves thoroughly familiar with the provisions and the content of the specifications laid out in the Manual, the Development Agreement, the Erosion Control Materials compiled for this project, and the following notes as all these materials are applicable to this project. 3. The Developer shall implement and maintain Control Measures for all potential pollutants from the start of land disturbing activities until final stabilization of the construction site. 4. The City Erosion Control Inspector shall be notified at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the desired start of any construction activities on this site to allow adequate time for on-site confirmation (initial inspection which can take up to two business days after receiving the request) that the site is in fact protected from sediment and pollutants discharges off site. Please contact erosion@fcgov.com early to schedule those Initial Erosion Control Inspections well in advance so that demolition, clearing, grubbing, tree removal, and scraping may begin without delay. Failure to receive an on-site confirmation before construction activities commence is an automatic “Notice of Violation” and can result in further enforcement actions. 5. The Developer shall proactively provide all appropriate Control Measures to prevent damage to adjacent downstream and leeward properties. This includes but is not limited to: trees, shrubs, lawns, walks, pavements, roadways, structures, creeks, wetlands, streams, rivers, and utilities that are not designed for removal, relocation, or replacement in the course of construction. 6. At all times the Developer shall be responsible to ensure adequate Control Measures are designed, selected, installed, maintain, repaired, replaced, and ultimately removed in order to prevent and control erosion suspension, sediment transportation, and pollutant discharge as a result of construction activities associated with this project. 7. All applicable Control Measures based upon the sequencing and/or phasing of the project shall be installed prior to those construction activities commencing. 8. As dynamic conditions (due to the nature, timing, sequence, and phasing of construction) in the field may warrant Control Measures in addition, or different, to what is shown on these plans, the Developer shall at all times be responsible to implement the Control Measures that are most effective with the current state and progress of construction. The Developer shall implement whatever measures are determined necessary, and/or as directed by the City Erosion Control Inspector. The Developer shall insure that all Erosion Control Plans (Maps) or SWMP documents are updated to reflect the current site conditions, with updates being initialed and dated. These site inspections and site condition updates shall be made available upon request by the City. 9. All listings, provisions, materials, procedures, activities, site work and the like articulated in this or other written site-specific documents (Including but not limited to the erosion control reports, development agreements, landscape, and drainage materials) shall meet or exceed the most restrictive language for City, County, State, and Federal regulations with regards to erosion, sediment, pollutant, and other pollution source Control Measures. The Developer shall be responsible to comply with all of these aforementioned laws and regulations. 10. The Developer shall ensure that all appropriate permits (CDPS General Permit Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity, Dewatering, Clean Water Act, Army Corps of Engineers’ 404 Wetlands Mitigation Permit, etc.) have been attained prior to the relevant activity has begun. These permits or copies shall be made available upon request by the City. 11. The Developer shall furnish all conveniences and assistances to aid the Erosion Control Inspectors of materials, workmanship, records, and self-inspections, etc. of the Control Measures involved in the construction activities. 12. The Developer shall request clarification of all apparent site construction issues that may arise due to inconsistencies in construction plans for the site or site conditions around the selected Control Measures by contacting the Erosion Control Inspector. The Erosion Control Inspector will not be responsible for any explanations, interpretations, or supplementary data provided by others. 13. All Control Measures shall be installed in accordance with the Manual. 14. The City reserves the right to require additional Control Measures as site conditions warrant, to the extent authorized by relevant legal authority. 15. As with any construction standards, occasions may arise where the minimum erosion control standards are either inappropriate or cannot be justified. In these cases, a variance to these standards may be applied for pursuant to the terms, conditions, and procedures of the Manual. 16. Inspection. The contractor shall inspect site pollutant sources and implement Control Measures at a minimum of once every two weeks during construction and within 24 hours following a precipitation event. Documentation of each inspection shall be recorded and retained by the contractor. 17. All temporary Control Measures shall be cleaned, repaired, or reconstructed as necessary in order to assure continual performance of their intended function. All retained sediments, particularly those on paved roadway surfaces, shall be removed and disposed of in a manner and location so as not to cause their release into any drainage way. 18. Any Control Measure may be substituted for another standard Control Measure so long as that Control Measure is equal to, or of greater protection than the original Control Measure that was to be used in that location. (ex. silt fence, for wattles, or for compact berms) Wattle alone on commercial construction sites have shown to be an ineffective substitute for silt fence or compact berms unless it is accompanied by a construction fence to prevent vehicle traffic. 19. Any implementation or replacement of existing Control Measures for a non-standard control, or alternative Control Measure, shall require the review and acceptance by the City erosion control staff before the measure will be allowed to be used on this project. These Control Measures’ details shall be submitted, reviewed and accepted to be in accordance with the Erosion Control Criteria based upon the functionality and effectiveness in accordance with sound engineering and hydrological practices Land disturbance, Stockpiles, and Storage of Soils 20. There shall be no earth-disturbing activity outside the limits designated on the accepted plans. Off road staging areas or stockpiles must be preapproved by the City. Disturbances beyond these limits will be restored to original condition. 21. Pre-disturbance vegetation shall be identified, protected, and retained wherever possible. Removal or disturbance of existing vegetation shall be limited to the area required for immediate construction operations, and for the shortest practical period of time. This should include sequencing and phasing construction activities in a way so that the soil is not exposed for long periods of time by schedule or limit grading to small areas. This should also include when practical advancing the schedule on stabilization activities such that landscaping takes place shortly if not immediately after grading has occurred. Vegetation efforts shall start as soon as possible to return the site to a stabilized condition. Sensitive areas should avoid clearing and grading activities as much possible. 22. All exposed soils or disturbed areas are considered a potential pollutant and shall have Control Measures implemented on the site to prevent materials from leaving the site. 23. All soils exposed during land disturbing activity (stripping, grading, utility installations, stockpiling, filling, etc.) shall be kept in a roughened condition at all times by equipment tracking, scarifying or disking the surface on a contour with a 2 to 4 inch minimum variation in soil surface until mulch, vegetation, and/or other permanent erosion control is installed. 24. No soil stockpile shall exceed ten (10) feet in height. All soil stockpiles shall be protected from sediment transport through the use of surface roughening, watering, and down gradient perimeter controls. All soil stockpiles shall be protected from sediment transport by wind in accordance with Municipal Code §12-150. All stockpiles shall be flattened to meet grade or removed from site as soon as practical, and no later than the completion of construction activities or abandonment of the project. All off-site stockpile storage locations in City limits shall have a stockpile permit from the City Engineering Department prior to using the area to store material. If frequent access from hardscape to the stockpile is needed a structural tracking Control Measure shall be implemented. 25. All required Control Measures shall be installed prior to any land disturbing activity (stockpiling, stripping, grading, etc.). All of the required erosion Control Measures must be installed at the appropriate time in the construction sequence as indicated in the approved project schedule, construction plans, and erosion control report. 26. All inlets, curb-cuts, culverts, and other storm sewer infrastructure which could be potentially impacted by construction activities shall be protected with Control Measures. Material accumulated from this Control Measure shall be promptly removed and in cases where the protection has failed, the pipes shall be thoroughly cleaned out. 27. All streams, stream corridors, buffers, woodlands, wetlands, or other sensitive areas shall be protected from impact by any construction activity through the use of Control Measures. 28. All exposed dirt shall have perimeter control. Any perimeter controls that drain off or has the ability to be tracked onto the nearby hardscape shall have some form of effective sediment control as the, or as part of the, perimeter control. 29. All exposed slopes should be protected. All exposed steep slopes (Steeper than 3:1 H:V) shall be protected from erosion and sediment transport through use of Control Measures. 30. No soils shall remain exposed by land disturbing activity for more than thirty (30) days after activity has ceased before required temporary seeding or permanent erosion control (e.g. seed/mulch, landscaping, etc.) is installed. This is not just limited to projects that are abandoned; this includes any project that is temporarily halted and no immediate activity is to resume within the next thirty (30) days, unless otherwise approved by the City Erosion Control Inspector. During a season when seeding does not produce vegetative cover, another temporary erosion control shall be implemented with or until temporary seeding or permanent erosion control can be performed. 31. All individual lots shall have effective sediment controls located on the street side and any down gradient side. Typically most lots drain to the front yet on those cases where houses are along a pond or drainage swale have the lot drain in a different direction than the street, those individual lots will need protection on that down gradient side to prevent sediment from leaving the lot. See the Individual Lot Details for further clarification. Vehicle Tracking 32. At all points where vehicles exit or leave the exposed dirt area on to a hardscape or semi hardscape (concrete, asphalt, road base, etc.) shall have installed at least one structural tracking Control Measure to prevent vehicle tracking. All areas not protected by an adequate perimeter control shall be considered a point where vehicles exit the site. Access points should be limited to as few entrances as possible (All perimeter areas shall be protected from tracking activities). 33. In all areas that the structural tracking Control Measures fail to prevent vehicle tracking, collection and proper disposal of that material is required. All inlets located near access points and affected by tracking activities shall be prevented from the introduction of sediment into the drainage system. 34. City Municipal Code §20-62, among other things, prohibits the tracking, dropping, or depositing of soils or any other material onto city streets by or from any source. City Municipal Code, §26-498, among other things, prohibits the discharge of pollutants on public or private property if there is a significant potential for migration of such pollutant. Therefore, all tracked or deposited materials (intentional or inadvertent) are not permitted to remain on the street or gutter and shall be removed and legally disposed of by the Developer in a timely and immediate manner. Dirt ramps installed in the curb-lines are not exempt to these sections of code and shall not be permitted in the street right of way (public or private). 35. If repeated deposit of material occurs on a site, additional structural tracking controls may be required of the Developer by the City Erosion Control Inspector. Loading and Unloading Operations 36. The Developer shall apply Control Measure to limit traffic (site worker or public) impacts and proactively locate material delivered to the site in close proximity to the work area or immediately incorporated in the construction to limit operational impacts to disturbed areas, vehicle tracking, and sediment deposition that could impact water quality. Outdoor Storage or Construction Site Materials, Building Materials, Fertilizers, and Chemicals 37. Any materials of a non-polluting nature (steel, rock, brick, lumber, etc.) shall be inspected for any residue coming off the material during routine inspection and will generally be located where practical at least fifty (50) feet from any permanent or interim drainage ways. 38. Any high environmental impact pollutant materials that have a high likelihood to result in discharge when in contact with stormwater (lubricants, fuels, paints, solvents, detergents, fertilizers, chemical sprays, bags of cement mix, etc.) should not be kept on site where practical. When not practical, they should be stored inside (vehicle, trailer, connex, building, etc.) and out of contact with stormwater or stormwater runoff. Where not available, they shall be stored outside in a raised (high spots or on pallets), covered (plastic or tarped), and sealed (leak proof container) in secondary containment location. The secondary containment or other Control Measure shall be adequately sized, located, where practical, at least fifty (50) feet from any permanent or interim stormwater structures or drainage ways and shall be monitored as part of the routine inspections. Vehicle and equipment maintenance and fueling 39. Parking, refueling, and maintenance of vehicles and equipment should be limited in one area of the site to minimize possible spills and fuel storage areas. This area shall be located, where practical, at least fifty (50) feet from any permanent or interim stormwater structures or drainage ways and shall be monitored as part of the routine inspections. All areas shall keep spill kits and supplies close. Significant Dust or Particulate generating Process 40. The property must be actively preventing the emission of fugitive dust at all times during construction and vegetation activities. All land disturbing activities that result in fugitive dust shall be in accordance with Municipal Code §12-150 to reduce the impacts to adjacent properties and community health. All required practices shall be implemented and additional ones shall be followed. These practices include watering the sites and discontinuing construction activities until the wind subsides as determined by any City Inspectors. Concrete truck / equipment washing, including the concrete truck chute and associated fixtures and equipment 41. All concrete and equipment washing shall use structural Control Measures appropriate to the volume of wash and frequency of use. These Control Measures shall be located, where practical, at least fifty (50) feet from any permanent or interim stormwater structures or drainage ways and shall be monitored as part of the routine inspections. These areas shall be clearly identified and protected from any wash from leaving the Control Measure. If frequent access from hardscape to the Control Measure is to occur, a structural tracking Control Measure shall be implemented. These Control Measures shall be frequently cleaned out. 42. The Developer is responsible for ensuring washing activity is taking place at the appropriate Control Measure and site workers are not washing or dumping wash water on to the dirt or other uncontrolled locations. Dedicated Asphalt and concrete batch plants 43. Dedicated asphalt and concrete batch plants are not acceptable on construction sites within the City of Fort Collins without an expressed written request and plan to reduce pollutants associated with that type of activity and approval by the City of Fort Collins specifically the Erosion Control Inspector. The Developer shall inform the erosion control inspection staff of any dedicated asphalt, or concrete batch plants that is to be used on site. Concrete Saw Cutting Materials 44. Saw cutting material shall be in accordance with Municipal Code §12-150 for air emissions and all water applications to the saw cutting shall prevent material from leaving the immediate site and collected. These cutting locations, once dried, shall be swept and scraped of all material and shall have proper and legal disposal. Waste Materials Storage and Sanitary Facilities 45. Trash, debris, material salvage, and/or recycling areas shall be, where practical, at least fifty (50) feet from any permanent or interim stormwater structures or drainage ways and shall be monitored as part of the routine inspections. These facilities should be located out of the wind and covered as able. Where not able to cover, locating said areas on the side of other structures to reduce exposure to winds, and follow maximum loading guidelines as marked on the container. The Developer is required to practice good housekeeping to keep the construction site free of litter, construction debris, and leaking containers. 46. Sanitary facilities shall be prevented from tipping through the use of anchoring to the ground or lashing to a stabilized structure. These facilities shall also be located as far as practical from an inlet, curb cut, drainage swale or other drainage conveyances to prevent material transport from leaving the local area. This consists of the facility being located, where practical, at least fifty (50) feet from any permanent or interim drainage ways. Other Site Operations and Potential Spill Areas 47. Spills: For those minor spills that; are less than the State’s reportable quantity for spills, stay within the permitted area, and in no way threaten any stormwater conveyance, notify the City of Fort Collins Utilities by email at erosion@fcgov.com or phone (970) 817-4770. For any significant, major, or hazardous spills, notify the City of Fort Collins Utilities by phone only after Emergency Response (911) has been notified and is on route, County Health Department (LCDHE) has been notified through Larimer County Sheriff Dispatch (970) 416-1985, and the State Spill Hotline Incident Reporting have been contacted 1-877-518-5608. Written documentation shall be provided to the City within 5 days of the event. All spills shall be cleaned up immediately. 48. Selection of “plastic welded” erosion control blankets shall not be used in areas that wildlife, such as snakes, are likely to be located as these have proven to cause entrapment issues. Final stabilization and project completion 49. Any stormwater facilities used as a temporary Control Measure will be restored and storm sewer lines will be cleaned upon completion of the project and before turning the maintenance over to the Owner, Homeowners Association (HOA), or other party responsible for long term maintenance of those facility. 50. All final stabilization specifications shall be done in accordance with the Manual, Chapter 4: Construction Control Measures. 51. All disturbed areas designed to be vegetated shall be amended, seeded & mulched, or landscaped as specified in the landscape plans and per City of Fort Collins standards within 14 working days of final grading. 52. Soil in all vegetated (landscaped or seeded) areas, including parkways and medians shall comply with all requirements set forth in Sections 12-130 through 12-132 of the City Municipal Code, as well as Section 3.8.21 for the City Land Use Code. 53. All seeding shall refer to landscaping plans or the Erosion Control Plans for species mixture and application rates and depths requirements. 54. All seed shall be drilled where practical to a depth based upon the seed type. Broadcast seeding shall be applied at double the rate as prescribed for drill seeding and shall be lightly hand raked after application. Hydroseeding may be substituted for drill seeding on slopes steeper than 3(H):1(V) or on other areas not practical to drill seed and crimp and mulch. All hydroseeding must be conducted as two separate processes of seeding and tackification. 55. All seeded areas must be mulched within twenty-four (24) after planting. All mulch shall be mechanically crimped and or adequately applied tackifier. The use of crimped mulch or tackifier may require multiple re-applications if not properly installed or have weathered or degraded before vegetation has been established. Areas of embankments having slopes greater than or equal to 3H:1V shall be stabilized with an erosion mat or approved equal to ensure seed will be able to germinate on the steep slopes. During a season when seeding doesnot produce vegetative cover, another temporary erosion control shall be implemented along with, or until, temporary seeding or permanent erosion control can be performed. 56. The Developer shall warranty and maintain all vegetative measures for two growing seasons after installation or until seventy percent (70%) vegetative cover has been established, whichever is longer and meets all the Criteria outlined in the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual Chapter 4: Construction Control Measures. 57. The Developer shall maintain, monitor, repair, and replace any and all applicable Control Measures until final stabilization has been obtained. All Control Measures must remain until such time as all upstream contributing pollutant sources have been vegetated or removed from the site. When any Control Measure is removed, the Developer shall be responsible for the cleanup and removal of all sediment and debris from that Control Measure. At the point at which the site has been deemed stabilized and verified by City Erosion Control Inspector, all temporary Control Measures can then be fully removed. All measures shall be removed within 30 days after final stabilization is achieved. 58. The responsible party shall maintain and keep current all payments or related forms of security for the Erosion Control Escrow until 1) stabilization has been reached and 2) all Control Measures and/or BMPs have sediment materials collected and the Control Measure removed from the site. At that time the site will be considered completed and any remaining Erosion Control Escrow shall be returned to the appropriate parties. 132 Section D, Item 1. CTV CTV CTV CTV CTV CTV OHU OHU OHU OHU CTV X X X XXXXXXXX C G G G G G G G G G SS SS SS SS SS SS Y S E E XX X X X X W W W W W W W W W SSSSSS SS SS SS W W S 8" W S E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G I UDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD 12 " S S 12 " S S 12 " S S 12 " S S 12 " S S 12 " S S 12 " S S 12" S S 12" S S 12" S S 12" S S 12" S S 12" S S 12" S S 12" S S 12" S S 12" S S 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 12" SS 12" SS EEEEEEEE EE TF SC EV W F N M A S O N S T R E E T WANKIER LANCE EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT PLANNED NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE SEE NOTE 6 LOT LINE HICKORY REGIONAL DETENTION POND LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 PLANNED 42'' FL-FL PLANNED FIRE HYDRANT SEE NOTE 6 PLANNED 3/4" IRRIGATION METER PIT PLANNED 2" WATER METER VAULT SEE NOTE 6 PLANNED 3 PHASE ELECTRIC BOX (CITY OF FORT COLLINS) SEE NOTE 6 PLANNED 6" PVC FIRE SERVICE SEE NOTE 6 PLANNED 24" HP STORM SEE NOTE 6 PLANNED 6" PVC SANITARY SERVICE SEE NOTE 6 HIBDON COURT PLANNED 4' SIDEWALK CHASE AND CURB CUT SEE NOTE 6 PLANNED 2' CONCRETE PAN 206-LF TO BE REMOVED PLANNED 50'' FL-FL PLANNED GRASS LINED SWALE TO BE REMOVED SEE NOTE 6 PLANNED 12" SANITARY SEWER SEE NOTE 6 PLANNED 8" WATER LINE SEE NOTE 6 EXISTING 8" WATER LINE EXISTING SANITARY SEWER PLANNED 5' SIDEWALK 10' UTILITY EASEMENT BK1658 PG746 10' UTILITY EASEMENT PER MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PLAT EXISTING 12" STORM DRAIN PLANNED 3 PHASE ELECTRIC BOX (CITY OF FORT COLLINS) SEE NOTE 6 PLANNED GAS LINE SEE NOTE 6 PLANNED ELECTRIC LINE SEE NOTE 6 GRATITUDE LLC 1303 N. COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, CO PLANNED 24" HDPE STORM SEE NOTE 6 72-LF TO REMAIN PLANNED TURF REINFORCEMENT MAT SEE NOTE 6 PLANNED TURF REINFORCEMENT MAT SEE NOTE 6 PLANNED DRAINAGE EASEMENT SEE NOTE 6 PLANNED CONNECTION VAULT (CITY OF FORT COLLINS) SEE NOTE 6 TRACT A PLANNED STREET LIGHT AND TRANSFORMER (CITY OF FORT COLLINS) SEE NOTE 6 PLANNED STREET LIGHT AND TRANSFORMER (CITY OF FORT COLLINS) SEE NOTE 6 PLANNED STREET LIGHT AND TRANSFORMER (CITY OF FORT COLLINS) SEE NOTE 6 3' POWER LINE EASEMENT TO CITY OF FORT COLLINS BK 1475 PG 941 TO BE VACATED BY SEPARATE DOCUMENT 45' ROW BK 1743 PG 632 PLANNED 71' ROW 60' DRAINAGE EASEMENT PER MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PLAT 20' EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT PER MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PLAT 10' UTILITY EASEMENT PER MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PLAT 9' UTILITY EASEMENT PER MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PLAT 30' STORMWATER & UTILITY EASEMENT PER MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PLAT 24' EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT PER MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PLAT PLANNED 4" SANITARY SERVICE SEE NOTE 6 /////// PLANNED 24" HDPE STORM SEE NOTE 6 12-LF & NYLOPLAST BASIN TO BE REMOVED PLANNED STREET LIGHT AND TRANSFORMER (CITY OF FORT COLLINS) SEE NOTE 6 PLANNED 6' CONCRETE SIDEWALK 7.5-LF TO BE REMOVED 6" CURB 3-LF TO BE REMOVED EX1 4 NORTH ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = ft. Feet03030 30 60 90 CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES. CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO R EXISTING ELECTRIC E LEGEND: G T EXISTING STORM SEWER EXISTING TELEPHONE EXISTING GAS EXISTING IRRIGATION BOX EXISTING GAS METER EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL EXISTING TREES (TO REMAIN) NOTES: EXISTING SANITARY SEWER SS EXISTING WATER W EXISTING FENCE X EXISTING WATER METER EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING ELECTRIC VAULT PROJECT BOUNDARY EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR VAULT ELEC CONTROL IRR EXISTING TREES (TO BE REMOVED) EXISTING CABLE CTV EXISTING FIBER OPTIC FO 1. THE SIZE, TYPE AND LOCATION OF ALL KNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE APPROXIMATE WHEN SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY THE EXISTENCE OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IN THE AREA OF THE WORK. BEFORE COMMENCING NEW CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL UNKNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING DEMOLITION, REMOVAL, REPLACEMENT, AND DISPOSAL OF ALL FACILITIES AND MATERIAL. 3. CONTRACTOR IS ENCOURAGED TO PERFORM DEMOLITION IN A MANNER THAT MAXIMIZES SALVAGE, RE-USE, AND RECYCLING OF MATERIALS. THIS INCLUDES APPROPRIATE SORTING AND STORING. IN PARTICULAR, DEMOLISHED CONCRETE, ASPHALT, AND BASE COURSE SHOULD BE RECYCLED IF POSSIBLE. 4. ALL SYMBOLS ARE ONLY GRAPHICALLY REPRESENTED AND ARE NOT TO SCALE. 5. CONTACT THE PROJECT SURVEYOR FOR ANY INQUIRIES RELATED TO THE EXISTING SITE SURVEY. 6. ALL IMPROVEMENTS LABELED "PLANNED" ARE PART OF THE MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT. DESIGN DETAILS FOR THESE IMPROVEMENTS CAN BE FOUND IN THE MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE UTILITY PLANS. 7. LIMITS OF STREET CUT ARE APPROXIMATE. FINAL LIMITS ARE TO BE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD BY THE CITY ENGINEERING INSPECTOR. ALL REPAIRS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY STREET REPAIR STANDARDS. 8. REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR TREE PROTECTION AND MITIGATION. EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY OHE EXISTING ASPHALT/CONCRETE (TO BE REMOVED) FIELD SURVEY BY: SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION BY: Original Field Survey: Northern Engineering Project No. 1473-002 Date: April 2019 Additional Field Survey: Northern Engineering Project No. 1971-001 Date: October, 2022 CTL Thompson, Inc Geotechnical Investigation Hibdon/Mason 24/7 Shelter SWC Hibdon Court and Mason Street Fort Collins, Colorado Project No. FC10,520.000-125-R1 Date: November 20, 2023 Th e s e d r a w i n g s a r e in s t r u m e n t s o f s e r v i c e pr o v i d e d b y N o r t h e r n En g i n e e r i n g S e r v i c e s , I n c . an d a r e n o t t o b e u s e d f o r an y t y p e o f c o n s t r u c t i o n un l e s s s i g n e d a n d s e a l e d by a P r o f e s s i o n a l En g i n e e r i n t h e e m p l o y o f No r t h e r n E n g i n e e r i n g Se r v i c e s , I n c . NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N KEYMAP MAS O N S T . HIBDON CT. TREE PROTECTION NOTES: 1. ALL EXISTING TREES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND WITHIN ANY NATURAL AREA BUFFER ZONES SHALL REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED UNLESS NOTED ON THESE PLANS FOR REMOVAL. 2. WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED EXISTING TREE, THERE SHALL BE NO CUT OR FILL OVER A FOUR-INCH DEPTH UNLESS A QUALIFIED ARBORIST OR FORESTER HAS EVALUATED AND APPROVED THE DISTURBANCE. 3. ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREES SHALL BE PRUNED TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FORESTRY STANDARDS. TREE PRUNING AND REMOVAL SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A BUSINESS THAT HOLDS A CURRENT CITY OF FORT COLLINS ARBORIST LICENSE WHERE REQUIRED BY CODE. 4. PRIOR TO AND DURING CONSTRUCTION, BARRIERS SHALL BE ERECTED AROUND ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREES WITH SUCH BARRIERS TO BE OF ORANGE FENCING A MINIMUM OF FOUR (4) FEET IN HEIGHT, SECURED WITH METAL T-POSTS, NO CLOSER THAN SIX (6) FEET FROM THE TRUNK OR ONE-HALF (½) OF THE DRIP LINE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. THERE SHALL BE NO STORAGE OR MOVEMENT OF EQUIPMENT, MATERIAL, DEBRIS OR FILL WITHIN THE FENCED TREE PROTECTION ZONE. 5. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANT SHALL PREVENT THE CLEANING OF EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL OR THE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF WASTE MATERIAL SUCH AS PAINTS, OILS, SOLVENTS, ASPHALT, CONCRETE, MOTOR OIL OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL HARMFUL TO THE LIFE OF A TREE WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED TREE OR GROUP OF TREES. 6. NO DAMAGING ATTACHMENT, WIRES, SIGNS OR PERMITS MAY BE FASTENED TO ANY PROTECTED TREE. 7. LARGE PROPERTY AREAS CONTAINING PROTECTED TREES AND SEPARATED FROM CONSTRUCTION OR LAND CLEARING AREAS, ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND UTILITY EASEMENTS MAY BE "RIBBONED OFF," RATHER THAN ERECTING PROTECTIVE FENCING AROUND EACH TREE AS REQUIRED IN SUBSECTION (G)(3) ABOVE. THIS MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY PLACING METAL T-POST STAKES A MAXIMUM OF FIFTY (50) FEET APART AND TYING RIBBON OR ROPE FROM STAKE-TO-STAKE ALONG THE OUTSIDE PERIMETERS OF SUCH AREAS BEING CLEARED. 8. THE INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES, IRRIGATION LINES OR ANY UNDERGROUND FIXTURE REQUIRING EXCAVATION DEEPER THAN SIX (6) INCHES SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY BORING UNDER THE ROOT SYSTEM OF PROTECTED EXISTING TREES AT A MINIMUM DEPTH OF TWENTY-FOUR (24) INCHES. THE AUGER DISTANCE IS ESTABLISHED FROM THE FACE OF THE TREE (OUTER BARK) AND IS SCALED FROM TREE DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT AS DESCRIBED IN THE CHART BELOW: 9. ALL TREE REMOVAL SHOWN SHALL BE COMPLETED OUTSIDE OF THE SONGBIRD NESTING SEASON (FEB 1 - JULY 31) OR CONDUCT A SURVEY OF TREES ENSURING NO ACTIVE NESTS IN THE AREA. 133 Section D, Item 1. CT V X X X X X X X G G G G G G XX X X SS SS SS SS SS EV UD UD SC TF UD UD UD UD GE N UD N MAS O N S T R E E T HI B D O N C O U R T DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS LOT 2 LOT 3 PLANNED 42'' FL-FL PLANNED 50'' FL-FL HICKORY REGIONAL DETENTION POND LOT 1 RAIN GARDEN 1 PLANNED 71' ROW 60' DRAINAGE EASEMENT PER MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PLAT RAIN GARDEN 2 6' S I D E W A L K EX. 6' S I D E W A L K 58' FL-FL 41' FL-FL 17' FL-FL 20' FL-FL 24' DRIVE AISLE 24' DRIVE AISLE 17'9'EX. 6' SIDEWALK 4' WALK w/ 6" RIBBON CURB 6' S I D E W A L K 20' DRIVE AISLE 17' 9' 20' FL-FL 20' EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT PER MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PLAT 8' 8' 9' 17' 10' UTILITY EASEMENT PER MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PLAT 6' S I D E W A L K ±38' DRAINAGE EASEMENT PER MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PLAT 9' UTILIT Y E A S E M E N T 9' UT I L I T Y E A S E M E N T 30' STORMWATER & UTILITY EASEMENT PER MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PLAT R5' R5' R3' R3' R3' R3' R25' R45' 3 2 LOT LINE PLANNED 4' SIDEWALK CHASE AND CURB CUT SEE NOTE 6 2 2 2 LANDSCAPING WALL (SEE LANDSCAPING PLANS) 2 2 1 1 2 2 22 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 CONCRETE RUNDOWN AND FOREBAY 1-1 CONCRETE RUNDOWN AND FOREBAY 1-2 CONCRETE RUNDOWN AND FOREBAY 2-1 4' CURB CUT 4' CURB CUT FENCE (SEE LANDSCAPING PLANS) CONCRETE EMERGENCY SPILLWAY CONCRETE EMERGENCY SPILLWAY A A 6" RIBBON CURB LANDSCAPING WALL (SEE LANDSCAPING PLANS) AREA INLET (TYP.) AREA INLET (TYP.) T T 1 T1 T B B D C GATE (SEE LANDSCAPING PLANS) GATE (SEE LANDSCAPING PLANS) AREA INLET (TYP.) PLANNED "15 MINUTE PARKING" SIGN SEE NOTE 6 PLANNED "NO PARKING" SIGN SEE NOTE 16 B B 5' WALK 5' WALK 5' WALK 5' WALK D D P P 2 2 CONCRETE FOREBAY 2-2 CONCRETE FOREBAY 2-3 GATE (SEE LANDSCAPING PLANS) RAILINGS (SEE LANDSCAPING PLANS) PLANNED "15 MINUTE PARKING" SIGN SEE NOTE 6 RAILINGS (SEE LANDSCAPING PLANS) MONUMENT SIGN (SEE ARCH. PLANS) CONCRETE FOREBAY 1-3 CONCRETE FOREBAY 1-4 R25' R25' 5' CRUSHER FINES WALK WITH 6" RIBBON CURB AREA INLET (TYP.) 6' SIDEWALK AREA INLET (TYP.) TRASH ENCLOSURES (SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS) SHADE STRUCTURE COLUMNS, TYP. (SEE LANDSCAPING PLANS) 1' SIDEWALK CHASE SEE DETAIL 206 SHT 19 1' SIDEWALK CHASE & CHANNEL SEE DETAIL 205 SHEET 19 10' RETAINING WALL SEE LANDSCAPING PLANS B T 4' WALK w/ 6 " R I B B O N C U R B 4' WAL K w / 6 " R I B B O N C U R B 8'33.6' CONCRETE RETAINING WALL HC1 5 NORTH ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = ft. Feet02020 20 40 60 CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES. CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO R Th e s e d r a w i n g s a r e in s t r u m e n t s o f s e r v i c e pr o v i d e d b y N o r t h e r n En g i n e e r i n g S e r v i c e s , I n c . an d a r e n o t t o b e u s e d f o r an y t y p e o f c o n s t r u c t i o n un l e s s s i g n e d a n d s e a l e d by a P r o f e s s i o n a l En g i n e e r i n t h e e m p l o y o f No r t h e r n E n g i n e e r i n g Se r v i c e s , I n c . NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N KEYMAP MAS O N S T . HIBDON CT. 1 2 3 T 30" VERTICAL INFLOW CURB & GUTTER 18" VERTICAL INFLOW CURB & GUTTER CURB & GUTTER TRANSITION 1. CURVES AND LINES ARE MEASURED AT FLOWLINE, CENTERLINE OR EDGE OF WALK. 2. ATTACHED WALK WIDTHS ARE FROM FLOW LINE. 3. SIGN PLACEMENT SHALL BE PER THE LATEST EDITION OF MUTCD REGARDLESS OF PLAN LOCATION. 4. ANY DAMAGED CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK EXISTING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, AS WELL AS STREETS, SIDEWALKS, CURBS AND GUTTERS, DESTROYED, DAMAGED OR REMOVED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT, SHALL BE REPLACED OR RESTORED TO CITY OF FORT COLLINS STANDARDS AT THE DEVELOPER'S EXPENSE PRIOR TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLETED IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 5. ALL PUBLIC CONCRETE PAVING SHALL BE 6" THICK. 6. ALL IMPROVEMENTS LABELED "PLANNED" ARE PART OF THE MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT. DESIGN DETAILS FOR THESE IMPROVEMENTS CAN BE FOUND IN THE MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE UTILITY PLANS. 7. REFER TO SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLANS (BY OTHERS) FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO DECORATIVE PAVING, HARDSCAPES, AND OTHER SITE AMENITIES. 8. REFER TO THE PLAT FOR LOT AREAS, TRACT SIZES, EASEMENTS, LOT DIMENSIONS, UTILITY EASEMENTS, OTHER EASEMENTS, AND OTHER SURVEY INFORMATION. 9. PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE PER CITY OF FORT COLLINS STANDARDS AND PROJECT SPECIFICATION MANUAL. 10. HEAVY DUTY PAVING WITHIN THE EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENTS SHALL BE CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING 80,000 LBS. SEE DETAIL ON SHEET 22 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 18" VERTICAL OUTFALL CURB & GUTTER EASEMENTS NOTES: PROPOSED INFLOW CURB & GUTTER PROPERTY BOUNDARY EXISTING LOT LINE / / / / / / / /PROPOSED EDGE OF PAVEMENT PROPOSED OUTFALL CURB & GUTTER X' CONCRETE PAN LEGEND: PROPOSED LOT LINE EXISTING ROW PROPOSED ROW LIGHT DUTY PAVING CONCRETE FLATWORK B CONCRETE PAVING X A P0TS C HEAVY DUTY PAVING SITE SIGN LEGEND ARTIFICIAL TURF CRUSHER FINES (ADA ACCEPTABLE MATERIAL) 430" VERTICAL OUTFALL CURB & GUTTER P D PARALLEL ACCESS RAMP DIRECTIONAL ACCESS RAMP NO OUTLET P0TS D PROPOSED DOWNSPOUT DS 134 Section D, Item 1. DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS UD UD SC TF UD UD UD UD GE N UD X X X X X X X X G G G G G XX SS SS SS SS SS U EV N MASO N S T R E E T LOT 2 LOT 3 PLANNED 42'' FL-FL HI B D O N C O U R T PLANNED 50'' FL-FL HICKORY REGIONAL DETENTION POND LOT 1 PLANNED 71' ROW 60' DRAINAGE EASEMENT PER MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PLAT RAIN GARDEN 2 PLANNED 4' SIDEWALK CHASE AND CURB CUT SEE NOTE 6 CONCRETE RUNDOWN AND FOREBAY CONCRETE RUNDOWN AND FOREBAY CONCRETE RUNDOWN AND FOREBAY 4' CURB CUT 4' CURB CUT CONCRETE EMERGENCY SPILLWAY CONCRETE EMERGENCY SPILLWAY TRASH ENCLOSURE (SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS) EX. 6' S I D E W A L K EX. 6' SIDEWALK 24' EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT PER MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PLAT 4' WALK w/ 6 " R I B B O N C U R B 30' STORMWATER & UTILITY EASEMENT PER MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PLAT LANDSCAPING WALL (SEE LANDSCAPING PLANS) 9' UTILITY E A S E M E N T 3 - 5"/11" RISERS 4 - 6.5"/11" RISERS RAIN GARDEN 1 RAILING (TYP.) SEE LANDSCAPING PLANS DRAINAGE EASEMENT PER MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PLAT STORM DRAIN LINE A SEE SHEET ST1 STORM DRAIN LINE B SEE SHEET ST3 STORM DRAIN LINE C SEE SHEET ST3 COURTYARD DRAINS SEE SHEET ST4 STORM DRAIN LINE R1 SEE SHEET ST5 STORM DRAIN LINE R2 SEE SHEET ST5 STORM DRAIN LINE R3 SEE SHEET ST5 4' WAL K w / 6 " R I B B O N C U R B 4' WALK w/ 6" RIBBON CURB 6' SIDEWALK 6' S I D E W A L K 6' S I D E W A L K OG1 6 CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES. CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO R NORTH ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = ft. Feet02020 20 40 60 Th e s e d r a w i n g s a r e in s t r u m e n t s o f s e r v i c e pr o v i d e d b y N o r t h e r n En g i n e e r i n g S e r v i c e s , I n c . an d a r e n o t t o b e u s e d f o r an y t y p e o f c o n s t r u c t i o n un l e s s s i g n e d a n d s e a l e d by a P r o f e s s i o n a l En g i n e e r i n t h e e m p l o y o f No r t h e r n E n g i n e e r i n g Se r v i c e s , I n c . NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N PROPOSED CONTOUR EXISTING STORM SEWER PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED SWALE EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION PROPOSED SLOPES 1. THE SIZE, TYPE AND LOCATION OF ALL KNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE APPROXIMATE WHEN SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY THE EXISTENCE OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IN THE AREA OF THE WORK. BEFORE COMMENCING NEW CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FOR ALL UNKNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. 2. REFER TO THE PLAT FOR LOT AREAS, TRACT SIZES, EASEMENTS, LOT DIMENSIONS, UTILITY EASEMENTS, OTHER EASEMENTS, AND OTHER SURVEY INFORMATION. 3. ALL PROJECT DATA IS ON VERTICAL DATUM; NAVD 88. SEE COVER SHEET FOR BENCHMARK REFERENCES. 4. ALL CURB SPOTS SHOWN ARE FLOWLINE ELEVATIONS. ALL OTHER SPOTS ARE FINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONS. 5. THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE SHALL NOT BE DISTURBED BY ANY GRADING, CONSTRUCTION OR MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES AS APPROVED BY THE CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER. 6. ALL IMPROVEMENTS LABELED "PLANNED" ARE PART OF THE MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT. DESIGN DETAILS FOR THESE IMPROVEMENTS CAN BE FOUND IN THE MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE UTILITY PLANS. 7. FOREBAYS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ON COMPACTED SOIL AND NOT RAIN GARDEN MEDIA. SEE DETAIL 400 SHEET 20 FOR MORE INFORMATION. NOTES: PROPOSED STORM INLET 2.0% (47.45) EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION EXISTING LOT LINE PROPOSED CONCRETE CROSS PAN (TYP.) 33.43 EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY PROPOSED LOT LINE PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY LEGEND: PROPOSED GRADE BREAK PROPOSED UNDERDRAIN PROPOSED DOWNSPOUT DS UD KEYMAP MAS O N S T . HIBDON CT. 135 Section D, Item 1. CT V G G G G G G G G G SS Y S SS SS SS SS SS SS SS 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W E E E E E E E EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G 12" SS 12" SS 12" SS 12" SS 12" SS 12" SS 12" SS 12" SS 12" SS 12" SS 12" SS 12" SS 12" SS 12" SS 12" SS 12" SS 12" SS 12" SS 12" SS 12" SS 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W8" W8" W8" W8" W8" W8" W8" W8" W8" W8" W8" W8" W8" W8" W8" W 12 " S S 12 " S S 12 " S S 12 " S S 12 " S S 12 " S S 12 " S S E E E E E E E E E E E E TF E E E E E E E E 12" SS W F DS DS DS LOT 2 LOT 3 PLANNED 42'' FL-FL HI B D O N C O U R T PLANNED 71' ROW FFE=84.50 6" RIBBON CURB EX. 6' SIDEWALK 4' WALK w/ 6" RIBBON CURB 9' UTILITY E A S E M E N T FFE=84.50 N MASON STREET 6' W A L K 6" HDPE PIPE CONNECTION FROM DOWNSPOUT TO SIDEWALK CHASE 1' SIDEWALK CHASE SEE DETAIL 206 SHT 19 1' SIDEWALK CHASE & CHANNEL SEE DETAIL 205 SHEET 19 BEGIN CONCRETE RETAINING WALL N:137732.81 E:194210.27 BIKE RACKS (TYP.) EN RET 4' WALK w/ 6 " RIBBON CUR B 3 2 1 G1 7 CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES. CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO R NORTH ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = ft. Feet01010 10 20 30 Th e s e d r a w i n g s a r e in s t r u m e n t s o f s e r v i c e pr o v i d e d b y N o r t h e r n En g i n e e r i n g S e r v i c e s , I n c . an d a r e n o t t o b e u s e d f o r an y t y p e o f c o n s t r u c t i o n un l e s s s i g n e d a n d s e a l e d by a P r o f e s s i o n a l En g i n e e r i n t h e e m p l o y o f No r t h e r n E n g i n e e r i n g Se r v i c e s , I n c . NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N PROPOSED CONTOUR EXISTING STORM SEWER PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED SWALE EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION PROPOSED SLOPES 1. THE SIZE, TYPE AND LOCATION OF ALL KNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE APPROXIMATE WHEN SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY THE EXISTENCE OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IN THE AREA OF THE WORK. BEFORE COMMENCING NEW CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FOR ALL UNKNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. 2. REFER TO THE PLAT FOR LOT AREAS, TRACT SIZES, EASEMENTS, LOT DIMENSIONS, UTILITY EASEMENTS, OTHER EASEMENTS, AND OTHER SURVEY INFORMATION. 3. ALL PROJECT DATA IS ON VERTICAL DATUM; NAVD 88. SEE COVER SHEET FOR BENCHMARK REFERENCES. 4. ALL CURB SPOTS SHOWN ARE FLOWLINE ELEVATIONS. ALL OTHER SPOTS ARE FINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONS. 5. THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE SHALL NOT BE DISTURBED BY ANY GRADING, CONSTRUCTION OR MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES AS APPROVED BY THE CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER. 6. ALL IMPROVEMENTS LABELED "PLANNED" ARE PART OF THE MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT. DESIGN DETAILS FOR THESE IMPROVEMENTS CAN BE FOUND IN THE MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE UTILITY PLANS. 7. FOREBAYS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ON COMPACTED SOIL AND NOT RAIN GARDEN MEDIA. SEE DETAIL 400 SHEET 20 FOR MORE INFORMATION. NOTES: PROPOSED STORM INLET 2.0% (47.45) EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION EXISTING LOT LINE PROPOSED CONCRETE CROSS PAN (TYP.) 33.43 EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY PROPOSED LOT LINE PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY LEGEND: PROPOSED GRADE BREAK PROPOSED UNDERDRAIN PROPOSED DOWNSPOUT DS UD KEYMAP MAS O N S T . HIBDON CT. G2 G3 G3 DOWNSPOUT LEGEND 1 2PROVIDE CONCRETE CHANNEL FROM DOWNSPOUT TO CHASE. PROVIDE 1/2" EXPANSION JOINT AT BUILDING FACE 3 PIPE CONNECTION TO STORM DRAIN (SEE SHEET 20) PROVIDE PIPED DOWNSPOUT CONNECTION TO CHASE 4STORM CONNECTION TO BUILDING (SEE M/E/P PLANS) 5TYPICAL DOWNSPOUT (SEE ARCH. PLANS) 1. COORDINATE DOWNSPOUT LOCATIONS AND ELEVATION WITH ARCHITECTURE PLANS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 136 Section D, Item 1. CT V X X X X S E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G I 12" SS 12" SS 12" SS 12" SS 12" SS 12" SS 12" SS 12" SS 12" SS 12" S S 12" S S 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" E E E E E E E E EV E E DS DS DS DS UD UD UD UD UD SC E E TF EEGE N N MASO N S T R E E T PLANNED 50'' FL-FL 60' DRAINAGE EASEMENT PER MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PLAT PLANNED 4' SIDEWALK CHASE AND CURB CUT SEE NOTE 6 CONCRETE RUNDOWN AND FOREBAY 1-1 SEE DETAIL SHEET 21 4' CURB CUT CONCRETE EMERGENCY SPILLWAY 6" RIBBON CURB EX. 6' S I D E W A L K 5' WAL K LANDSCAPING WALL (SEE LANDSCAPING PLANS) 3 - 5"/11" RISERS 4 - 6.5"/11" RISERS RAILING (TYP.) SEE LANDSCAPING PLANS FFE=84.50 LOT 2 STORM DRAIN LINE A SEE SHEET ST1 STORM DRAIN LINE R3 SEE SHEET ST5 STORM DRAIN LINE B SEE SHEET ST3 6" RIBBON CURB RAILING (TYP.) SEE LANDSCAPING PLANS RAILING (TYP.) SEE LANDSCAPING PLANS LOT 1 MONUMENT SIGN (SEE ARCH. PLANS) RAIN GARDEN 1 REQ VOL. 1,405 CUFT PROVIDED VOL. 1,870 CUFT PROVIDED FLAT AREA = 1,442 SQFT CONCRETE FOREBAY 1-3 SEE DETAIL SHEET 21 CONCRETE FOREBAY 1-4 SEE DETAIL SHEET 21 CONCRETE RUNDOWN AND FOREBAY 1-2 SEE DETAIL SHEET 21 END CONCRETE RETAINING WALL N:137699.57 E:194217.94 TRASH ENCLOSURE (SEE LANDSCAPING PLANS) TRASH ENCLOSURE (SEE LANDSCAPING PLANS) 6" CURB LK w/ 6" N CURB 4' WALK w/ 6 " RIBBON CUR B BIKE RACKS (TYP.) 4 1 1 1 5 RETAINING WALL SEE LANDSCAPING PLANS G2 8 CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES. CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO R NORTH ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = ft. Feet01010 10 20 30 Th e s e d r a w i n g s a r e in s t r u m e n t s o f s e r v i c e pr o v i d e d b y N o r t h e r n En g i n e e r i n g S e r v i c e s , I n c . an d a r e n o t t o b e u s e d f o r an y t y p e o f c o n s t r u c t i o n un l e s s s i g n e d a n d s e a l e d by a P r o f e s s i o n a l En g i n e e r i n t h e e m p l o y o f No r t h e r n E n g i n e e r i n g Se r v i c e s , I n c . NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N PROPOSED CONTOUR EXISTING STORM SEWER PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED SWALE EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION PROPOSED SLOPES 1. THE SIZE, TYPE AND LOCATION OF ALL KNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE APPROXIMATE WHEN SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY THE EXISTENCE OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IN THE AREA OF THE WORK. BEFORE COMMENCING NEW CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FOR ALL UNKNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. 2. REFER TO THE PLAT FOR LOT AREAS, TRACT SIZES, EASEMENTS, LOT DIMENSIONS, UTILITY EASEMENTS, OTHER EASEMENTS, AND OTHER SURVEY INFORMATION. 3. ALL PROJECT DATA IS ON VERTICAL DATUM; NAVD 88. SEE COVER SHEET FOR BENCHMARK REFERENCES. 4. ALL CURB SPOTS SHOWN ARE FLOWLINE ELEVATIONS. ALL OTHER SPOTS ARE FINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONS. 5. THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE SHALL NOT BE DISTURBED BY ANY GRADING, CONSTRUCTION OR MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES AS APPROVED BY THE CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER. 6. ALL IMPROVEMENTS LABELED "PLANNED" ARE PART OF THE MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT. DESIGN DETAILS FOR THESE IMPROVEMENTS CAN BE FOUND IN THE MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE UTILITY PLANS. 7. FOREBAYS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ON COMPACTED SOIL AND NOT RAIN GARDEN MEDIA. SEE DETAIL 400 SHEET 20 FOR MORE INFORMATION. NOTES: PROPOSED STORM INLET 2.0% (47.45) EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION EXISTING LOT LINE PROPOSED CONCRETE CROSS PAN (TYP.) 33.43 EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY PROPOSED LOT LINE PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY LEGEND: PROPOSED GRADE BREAK PROPOSED UNDERDRAIN PROPOSED DOWNSPOUT DS UD KEYMAP MAS O N S T . HIBDON CT.G3 G1 G4 DOWNSPOUT LEGEND 1 2PROVIDE CONCRETE CHANNEL FROM DOWNSPOUT TO CHASE. PROVIDE 1/2" EXPANSION JOINT AT BUILDING FACE 3 PIPE CONNECTION TO STORM DRAIN (SEE SHEET 20) PROVIDE PIPED DOWNSPOUT CONNECTION TO CHASE 4STORM CONNECTION TO BUILDING (SEE M/E/P PLANS) 5TYPICAL DOWNSPOUT (SEE ARCH. PLANS) 1. COORDINATE DOWNSPOUT LOCATIONS AND ELEVATION WITH ARCHITECTURE PLANS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 137 Section D, Item 1. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X SS SS SS SS SS SS SS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD FFE=84.50 FFE=84.50 CONCRETE RUNDOWN AND FOREBAY 2-1 SEE DETAIL SHEET 21 4' CURB CUT CONCRETE EMERGENCY SPILLWAY 30' STORMWATER & UTILITY EASEMENT PER MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PLAT DRAINAGE EASEMENT PER MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PLAT LOT 2 STORM DRAIN LINE A SEE SHEET ST1 STORM DRAIN LINE C SEE SHEET ST3 STORM DRAIN LINE R2 SEE SHEET 16 STORM DRAIN LINE R1 SEE SHEET ST5 COURTYARD DRAINS SEE SHEET ST4 RAIN GARDEN 2 REQ VOL. 682 CUFT PROVIDED VOL. 915 CUFT PROVIDED FLAT AREA = 1,532 SQFT CONCRETE FOREBAY 2-2 SEE DETAIL SHEET 21 CONCRETE FOREBAY 2-3 SEE DETAIL SHEET 21 FENCE (SEE LANDSCAPING PLANS) LANDSCAPING WALL (SEE LANDSCAPING PLANS) PLANNED NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE SHADE STRUCTURE COLUMNS, TYP. (SEE LANDSCAPING PLANS) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 G3 9 CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES. CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO R NORTH ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = ft. Feet01010 10 20 30 Th e s e d r a w i n g s a r e in s t r u m e n t s o f s e r v i c e pr o v i d e d b y N o r t h e r n En g i n e e r i n g S e r v i c e s , I n c . an d a r e n o t t o b e u s e d f o r an y t y p e o f c o n s t r u c t i o n un l e s s s i g n e d a n d s e a l e d by a P r o f e s s i o n a l En g i n e e r i n t h e e m p l o y o f No r t h e r n E n g i n e e r i n g Se r v i c e s , I n c . NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N PROPOSED CONTOUR EXISTING STORM SEWER PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED SWALE EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION PROPOSED SLOPES 1. THE SIZE, TYPE AND LOCATION OF ALL KNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE APPROXIMATE WHEN SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY THE EXISTENCE OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IN THE AREA OF THE WORK. BEFORE COMMENCING NEW CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FOR ALL UNKNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. 2. REFER TO THE PLAT FOR LOT AREAS, TRACT SIZES, EASEMENTS, LOT DIMENSIONS, UTILITY EASEMENTS, OTHER EASEMENTS, AND OTHER SURVEY INFORMATION. 3. ALL PROJECT DATA IS ON VERTICAL DATUM; NAVD 88. SEE COVER SHEET FOR BENCHMARK REFERENCES. 4. ALL CURB SPOTS SHOWN ARE FLOWLINE ELEVATIONS. ALL OTHER SPOTS ARE FINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONS. 5. THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE SHALL NOT BE DISTURBED BY ANY GRADING, CONSTRUCTION OR MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES AS APPROVED BY THE CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER. 6. ALL IMPROVEMENTS LABELED "PLANNED" ARE PART OF THE MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT. DESIGN DETAILS FOR THESE IMPROVEMENTS CAN BE FOUND IN THE MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE UTILITY PLANS. 7. FOREBAYS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ON COMPACTED SOIL AND NOT RAIN GARDEN MEDIA. SEE DETAIL 400 SHEET 20 FOR MORE INFORMATION. NOTES: PROPOSED STORM INLET 2.0% (47.45) EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION EXISTING LOT LINE PROPOSED CONCRETE CROSS PAN (TYP.) 33.43 EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY PROPOSED LOT LINE PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY LEGEND: PROPOSED GRADE BREAK PROPOSED UNDERDRAIN PROPOSED DOWNSPOUT DS UD KEYMAP MAS O N S T . HIBDON CT. G1 G4 G3 138 Section D, Item 1. DS DS UDUD HICKORY REGIONAL DETENTION POND LOT 1 24' EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT PER MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PLAT FFE=84.50 LOT 2 STORM DRAIN LINE A SEE SHEET ST1 COURTYARD DRAINS SEE SHEET ST4 FENCE (SEE LANDSCAPING PLANS) PLANNED NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE LANDSCAPING WALL (SEE LANDSCAPING PLANS) 1 1 G4 10 CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES. CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO R NORTH ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = ft. Feet01010 10 20 30 Th e s e d r a w i n g s a r e in s t r u m e n t s o f s e r v i c e pr o v i d e d b y N o r t h e r n En g i n e e r i n g S e r v i c e s , I n c . an d a r e n o t t o b e u s e d f o r an y t y p e o f c o n s t r u c t i o n un l e s s s i g n e d a n d s e a l e d by a P r o f e s s i o n a l En g i n e e r i n t h e e m p l o y o f No r t h e r n E n g i n e e r i n g Se r v i c e s , I n c . NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N PROPOSED CONTOUR EXISTING STORM SEWER PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED SWALE EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION PROPOSED SLOPES 1. THE SIZE, TYPE AND LOCATION OF ALL KNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE APPROXIMATE WHEN SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY THE EXISTENCE OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IN THE AREA OF THE WORK. BEFORE COMMENCING NEW CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FOR ALL UNKNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. 2. REFER TO THE PLAT FOR LOT AREAS, TRACT SIZES, EASEMENTS, LOT DIMENSIONS, UTILITY EASEMENTS, OTHER EASEMENTS, AND OTHER SURVEY INFORMATION. 3. ALL PROJECT DATA IS ON VERTICAL DATUM; NAVD 88. SEE COVER SHEET FOR BENCHMARK REFERENCES. 4. ALL CURB SPOTS SHOWN ARE FLOWLINE ELEVATIONS. ALL OTHER SPOTS ARE FINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONS. 5. THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE SHALL NOT BE DISTURBED BY ANY GRADING, CONSTRUCTION OR MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES AS APPROVED BY THE CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER. 6. ALL IMPROVEMENTS LABELED "PLANNED" ARE PART OF THE MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT. DESIGN DETAILS FOR THESE IMPROVEMENTS CAN BE FOUND IN THE MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE UTILITY PLANS. 7. FOREBAYS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ON COMPACTED SOIL AND NOT RAIN GARDEN MEDIA. SEE DETAIL 400 SHEET 20 FOR MORE INFORMATION. NOTES: PROPOSED STORM INLET 2.0% (47.45) EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION EXISTING LOT LINE PROPOSED CONCRETE CROSS PAN (TYP.) 33.43 EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY PROPOSED LOT LINE PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY LEGEND: PROPOSED GRADE BREAK PROPOSED UNDERDRAIN PROPOSED DOWNSPOUT DS UD KEYMAP MAS O N S T . HIBDON CT. G3 G2 G3 DOWNSPOUT LEGEND 1 2PROVIDE CONCRETE CHANNEL FROM DOWNSPOUT TO CHASE. PROVIDE 1/2" EXPANSION JOINT AT BUILDING FACE 3 PIPE CONNECTION TO STORM DRAIN (SEE SHEET 20) PROVIDE PIPED DOWNSPOUT CONNECTION TO CHASE 4STORM CONNECTION TO BUILDING (SEE M/E/P PLANS) 5TYPICAL DOWNSPOUT (SEE ARCH. PLANS) 1. COORDINATE DOWNSPOUT LOCATIONS AND ELEVATION WITH ARCHITECTURE PLANS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 139 Section D, Item 1. DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS FDC SSS UD SC TF EM E G G GM UDUDUD GEN E E CTV CTV CTV CTV CTV CTV OHU OHU OHU OHU CTV X X X XXXXXXXX C G G G G G G G G G SS SS SS SS SS SS Y S E E XX X X X X W W W W W W W W W SSSSSS SS SS SS W W S 8" W S E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G I UDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD 12 " S S 12 " S S 12 " S S 12 " S S 12 " S S 12 " S S 12 " S S 12" S S 12" S S 12" S S 12" S S 12" S S 12" S S 12" S S 12" S S 12" S S 12" S S 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 12" SS 12" SS EEEEEEEE EE TF SC EV W F N M A S O N S T R E E T WANKIER LANCE 1401 N. COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, CO WOOD RONALD G/ JENNIFER L/ WILLARD E 122 HIBDON COURT FORT COLLINS, CO THOMPSON PROPERTIES LLC 1319 N. COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, CO EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT PLANNED NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE SEE NOTE 6 45' ROW BK 1743 PG 632 LOT LINE HICKORY REGIONAL DETENTION POND LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 PLANNED 71' ROW PLANNED 42'' FL-FL 60' DRAINAGE EASEMENT PER MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PLAT PLANNED 3/4" IRRIGATION METER PIT PLANNED 2" WATER METER VAULT (SEE NOTE 6) WATER METER TO BE INSTALLED PLANNED 3 PHASE ELECTRIC BOX (CITY OF FORT COLLINS) SEE NOTE 6 PLANNED 6" PVC FIRE SERVICE SEE NOTE 6 PLANNED 15" HDPE STORM SEE NOTE 6 PLANNED 6" PVC SANITARY SERVICE SEE NOTE 6 HIBDON COURT PLANNED 4' SIDEWALK CHASE AND CURB CUT SEE NOTE 6 PLANNED 50'' FL-FL 20' EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT PER MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PLAT RAIN GARDEN 2 RAIN GARDEN 1 TRASH ENCLOSURE TRANSFORMER AND SWITCH CABINET PLANNED 3 PHASE ELECTRIC BOX (CITY OF FORT COLLINS) SEE NOTE 6 GAS METER CONNECTION TO BE COORDINATED WITH UTILITY PROVIDER 10' UTILITY EASEMENT PER MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PLAT AREA INLET (TYP.) AREA INLET (TYP.) UNDERDRAIN FOR ARTIFICIAL TURF PLANNED GAS LINE SEE NOTE 6 PLANNED ELECTRIC LINE SEE NOTE 6 9' U T I L I T Y E A S E M E N T 9' U T I L I T Y E A S E M E N T STORM DRAIN A SEE SHEET 12 24' EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT PER MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PLAT PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER SERVICE SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET DRAINAGE EASEMENT PER MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PLAT GENERATOR MONUMENT SIGN (SEE ARCH. PLANS) STORM DRAIN B SEE SHEET 14 STORM DRAIN R3 SEE SHEET 16 PLANNED STREET LIGHT AND TRANSFORMER (CITY OF FORT COLLINS) SEE NOTE 6 30' STORMWATER & UTILITY EASEMENT PER MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PLAT STORM DRAIN A SEE SHEET 13 STORM DRAIN A7 SEE SHEET 13 COURTYARD DRAINS SEE SHEET 15 UNDERDRAIN FOR ARTIFICIAL TURF STORM DRAIN R2 SEE SHEET 16 STORM DRAIN R1 SEE SHEET 16 PLANNED CONNECTION VAULT (CITY OF FORT COLLINS) SEE NOTE 6 STORM DRAIN C SEE SHEET 14 PLANNED SANITARY SERVICE SEE NOTE 6 PLANNED 24" HDPE STORM SEE NOTE 6 PLANNED FIRE HYDRANT SEE NOTE 6 DS DS DS SSS SC TF EM E E G G G G GEN E E E S E E E E E E E EG G G G G G G G G 12" S S 12" S S 12" S S 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W EV 45° WYE A3-3 w/ CLEANOUT INV. IN=4973.28 (W) INV. OUT=4973.28 (NE) FG=4981.31 N: 137568.91 E: 194209.98 45° WYE A3-4 w/ CLEANOUT INV. IN=4973.77 (NW) INV. OUT=4973.77 (E) FG=4981.21 N: 137571.10 E: 194185.26 45° WYE A3-5 w/ CLEANOUT INV. IN=4974.46 (N) INV. OUT=4974.46 (SE) FG=4981.36 N: 137597.29 E: 194163.33 GI CONNECTION A3-6.2 INV. IN=4975.27 (N) INV. OUT=4975.27 (S) FG=4976.22 N: 137632.91 E: 194175.94 GI CONNECTION A3-6.3 INV. IN=4975.27 (N) INV. OUT=4975.27 (S) FG=4976.22 N: 137643.86 E: 194176.94 45° WYE A3-6.1 INV. IN=4975.11 (N) INV. OUT=4975.11 (SW) FG=4975.65 N: 137624.94 E: 194175.22 45° WYE A3-6 INV. IN=4974.84 (N) INV. IN=4974.84 (NE) INV. OUT=4974.84 (S) FG=4975.43 N: 137616.42 E: 194165.01 SS STUB A3-7 INV. OUT=4975.86 (S) FG=4976.41 N: 137667.47 E: 194169.46 SS STUB A3-6.4 INV. OUT=4975.73 (S) FG=4976.27 N: 137666.64 E: 194178.93 SS STUB A4-1 INV. IN=4972.75 (SW) INV. OUT=4972.75 (NE) FG=4973.29 N: 137590.56 E: 194257.57 24.82 LF 6" PVC @ 2.00% 34.16 LF 6" PVC @ 2.00% 19.21 LF 6" PVC @ 2.00% 51.24 LF 6" PVC @ 2.00% 13.29 LF 6" PVC @ 2.00% 8.00 LF 6" PVC @ 2.00% 22.86 LF 4" PVC @ 2.00% 52.28 L F 6 " P V C @ 1 . 0 0 % PLANNED 6" PVC SANITARY SERVICE SEE NOTE 6 N M A S O N S T R E E T GREASE INTERCEPTOR SEE DETAIL SHEET 17 STORM DRAIN LINE R3 SEE SHEET 16 5' FL - SEWER 9.5' U1 11 NORTH ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = ft. Feet03030 30 60 90 CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES. CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO R NOTES: 1. THE SIZE, TYPE AND LOCATION OF ALL KNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE APPROXIMATE WHEN SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY THE EXISTENCE OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IN THE AREA OF THE WORK. BEFORE COMMENCING NEW CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL UNKNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. 2. ALL WATER CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PER THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS STANDARDS, LATEST EDITION. 3. ALL SEWER CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PER THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS STANDARDS SANITARY SEWER DESIGN TECHNICAL CRITERIA MANUAL, LATEST EDITION. 4. MAINTAIN 10' HORIZONTAL AND 18" VERTICAL MINIMUM SEPARATION BETWEEN ALL SANITARY SEWER MAINS, WATER MAINS & SERVICES. 5. REFER TO THE PLAT FOR LOT AREAS, TRACT SIZES, EASEMENTS, LOT DIMENSIONS, UTILITY EASEMENTS, OTHER EASEMENTS, AND OTHER SURVEY INFORMATION. 6. ALL IMPROVEMENTS LABELED "PLANNED" ARE PART OF THE MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT. DESIGN DETAILS FOR THESE IMPROVEMENTS CAN BE FOUND IN THE MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE UTILITY PLANS. 7. ALL MANHOLE RIM ELEVATIONS (EXISTING & PROPOSED) ARE TO BE ADJUSTED TO 14" BELOW FINISHED GRADE. IF NECESSARY, CONE SECTIONS SHALL BE ROTATED TO PREVENT LIDS BEING LOCATED WITHIN VEHICLE OR BICYCLE WHEEL PATHS. 8. THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE SHALL NOT BE DISTURBED BY ANY GRADING, CONSTRUCTION OR MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES EXCEPT AS APPROVED BY THE CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER. EXISTING LOT LINE EASEMENT LINE SPROPOSED SEWER SERVICE WPROPOSED WATER SERVICE EXISTING WATER MAIN PROPOSED WATER MAIN PROPOSED STORM SEWER LEGEND: G T EXISTING STORM SEWER EXISTING TELEPHONE EXISTING GAS EXISTING SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED STORM INLET PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT PROPERTY BOUNDARY EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL PROPOSED STREET LIGHT W SS PROPOSED LOT LINE PROPOSED ROW EXISTING ROW EXISTING CABLE CTV G UDPROPOSED UNDERDRAIN PROPOSED DOWNSPOUT DS PROPOSED GENERATOR PROPOSED CONNECTION VAULT PROPOSED TRANSFORMER EV T PROPOSED SWITCH CABINET SC Th e s e d r a w i n g s a r e in s t r u m e n t s o f s e r v i c e pr o v i d e d b y N o r t h e r n En g i n e e r i n g S e r v i c e s , I n c . an d a r e n o t t o b e u s e d f o r an y t y p e o f c o n s t r u c t i o n un l e s s s i g n e d a n d s e a l e d by a P r o f e s s i o n a l En g i n e e r i n t h e e m p l o y o f No r t h e r n E n g i n e e r i n g Se r v i c e s , I n c . NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N KEYMAP MAS O N S T . HIBDON CT. 140 Section D, Item 1. DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS S SS UD UD SC TF EM E E G G G G GE N UD E EE S E E E E E E E EG G G G G G G G G I UD UD 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" W 8" EV FES A1 STA 10+00.02 N: 137491.82 E: 194219.80 110.03 L F 1 8 " H D P E @ 0 . 3 5 % BASIN A2 STA 11+10.05 N: 137523.83 E: 194114.53 95.87 LF 18" H D P E @ 0 . 5 0 % 18X12 TEE A3 STA 12+05.92 N: 137604.90 E: 194063.36 39.18 LF 18 " H D P E @ 0 . 5 0 % 44.15 LF 18 " H D P E @ 0 . 5 0 % 18X8 TEE A4 STA 12+45.10 N: 137638.03 E: 194042.45 35.80 LF 18" HDPE @ 0.50% BASIN A6 STA 13+04.99 N: 137688.68 E: 194010.48 LOT 2 60' DRAINAGE EASEMENT PER MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PLAT RAIN GARDEN 1 24' EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT PER MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PLAT SANITARY SEWER SEE SHEET 11 18X8 TEE A5 STA 12+89.25 N: 137675.37 E: 194018.88 15.74 LF 18" HDPE @ 0.50% STORM DRAIN A7 SEE SHEET 12 COURTYARD DRAIN PLAN SEE SHEET ST518X12 TEE A7 STA 13+40.79 N: 137723.90 E: 194004.06 4970 4975 4980 4985 4990 4995 4970 4975 4980 4985 4990 4995 9+7510+0011+0012+0013+0013+75 BA S I N A 6 ST A 1 3 + 0 4 . 9 9 RI M 4 9 8 3 . 1 ± IN V . I N 4 9 7 9 . 5 2 ( N ) IN V . O U T 4 9 7 9 . 5 2 ( S E ) 18 X 8 T E E A 4 ST A 1 2 + 4 5 . 1 0 IN V . 4 9 7 9 . 2 3 ( N W ) IN V . 4 9 7 9 . 2 3 ( N E ) IN V . 4 9 7 9 . 2 3 ( S E ) 18 X 1 2 T E E A 3 ST A 1 2 + 0 5 . 9 2 IN V . 4 9 7 9 . 0 3 ( N W ) IN V . 4 9 7 9 . 0 3 ( N E ) IN V . 4 9 7 9 . 0 3 ( S E ) BA S I N A 2 ST A 1 1 + 1 0 . 0 5 RI M 4 9 8 2 . 5 ± IN V . I N 4 9 7 8 . 5 5 ( N W ) IN V . O U T 4 9 7 8 . 5 5 ( E ) FE S A 1 ST A 1 0 + 0 0 . 0 2 IN V . 4 9 7 8 . 1 7 ( W ) 110.03 LF 18" HDPE @ 0.35% 95.87 LF 18" HDPE @ 0.50% 39.18 LF 18" HDPE @ 0.50%44.15 LF 18" HDPE @ 0.50%35.80 LF 18" HDPE @ 0.50% EXISTING GROUND @ PIPE CENTERLINE PROPOSED GROUND @ PIPE CENTERLINE 15.74 LF 18" HDPE @ 0.50% 18 X 1 2 T E E A 7 ST A 1 3 + 4 0 . 7 9 IN V . 4 9 7 9 . 7 0 ( N ) IN V . 4 9 7 9 . 7 0 ( E ) IN V . 4 9 7 9 . 7 0 ( S ) 100-YR HGL 18 X 8 T E E A 5 ST A 1 2 + 8 9 . 2 5 IN V . 4 9 7 9 . 4 5 ( N W ) IN V . 4 9 7 9 . 4 5 ( N E ) IN V . 4 9 7 9 . 4 5 ( S E ) Th e s e d r a w i n g s a r e in s t r u m e n t s o f s e r v i c e pr o v i d e d b y N o r t h e r n En g i n e e r i n g S e r v i c e s , I n c . an d a r e n o t t o b e u s e d f o r an y t y p e o f c o n s t r u c t i o n un l e s s s i g n e d a n d s e a l e d by a P r o f e s s i o n a l En g i n e e r i n t h e e m p l o y o f No r t h e r n E n g i n e e r i n g Se r v i c e s , I n c . NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N EXISTING WATER MAIN PROPOSED WATER MAIN PROPOSED STORM SEWER LEGEND: NOTES: W EXISTING SANITARY SEWER SS PROPOSED STORM INLET PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT PROPOSED LOT LINE PROJECT BOUNDARY EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING STORM SEWER EASEMENT LINE 1. THE SIZE, TYPE AND LOCATION OF ALL KNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE APPROXIMATE WHEN SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY THE EXISTENCE OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IN THE AREA OF THE WORK. BEFORE COMMENCING NEW CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL UNKNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. 2. MAINTAIN 10' HORIZONTAL AND 18" VERTICAL MINIMUM SEPARATION BETWEEN ALL STORM DRAINS, SANITARY SEWER MAINS, WATER MAINS, AND SERVICES. 3. PIPE LENGTHS ARE CALCULATED FROM THE CENTER OF MANHOLES AND STRUCTURES. SPECIFIED LENGTH OF PIPE INCLUDES THE LAYING LENGTH OF FLARED END SECTIONS. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL SHALL CONFIRM THAT MANHOLE DIAMETERS ARE SUFFICIENT FOR THEIR PROPOSED METHODS OF INSTALLATION (i.e., WITHIN PRE-CASTER'S TOLERANCES, ETC.). PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY INLET SCHEDULE: INLET SCHEDULE Inlet/Basin ID Inlet Size Grate Type Inlet A9 18" Nyloplast Basin 18" Dome Inlet A14 15" Nyloplast Basin 15" Dome Inlet A3-1 12" Nyloplast Basin 12" Dome Inlet A3-2 12" Nyloplast Basin 12" Dome Inlet A10-1 8" Nyloplast Basin 8" Dome Inlet A7-3 12" Nyloplast Basin 12" Dome Inlet A10-2 8" Nyloplast Basin 8" Dome Inlet A7-4.1 8" Nyloplast Basin 8" Dome Inlet A7-2.1 8" Nyloplast Basin 8" Dome Inlet A7-1.1 8" Nyloplast Basin 8" Dome Inlet B2 Type C Inlet Per Detail Inlet C3 Modified Outlet Structure Per Detail UDPROPOSED UNDERDRAIN PROPOSED DOWNSPOUT DS KEYMAP MAS O N S T . HIBDON CT. NORTH ( IN FEET ) 0 1 INCH = 20 FEET 20 20 40 60 ST1 12 CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES. CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO R PROFILE SCALE: STORM DRAIN A 12 ST A MA T C H L I N E SE E S H E E T 13 + 7 5 ST 2 PRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINED 141 Section D, Item 1. DS DS DS DS DS UD 50.23 LF 18" HDPE @ 0.50% BASIN A8 STA 13+91.02 N: 137773.32 E: 193995.05 21.50 LF 18" HDPE @ 0.50% INLET A9 STA 14+12.52 N: 137788.97 E: 194009.78 31.8 9 L F 1 5 " H D P E @ 0 . 5 0 % 8.37 LF 15" HDPE @ 0.50% 15X8 TEE A10 STA 14+44.41 N: 137788.83 E: 194041.68 15X8 TEE A11 STA 14+52.79 N: 137788.80 E: 194050.05 14.02 LF 15" HDPE @ 0.50% 15X4 TEE A12 STA 14+66.80 N: 137788.74 E: 194064.07 5.56 LF 15" HDPE @ 0.50% INLET A14 STA 14+80.19 N: 137788.68 E: 194077.45 29.50 LF 8" HDPE @ 5.00% RD A15 STA 15+09.69 N: 137812.39 E: 194095.00 COURTYARD DRAINS SEE SHEET 15 15X8 TEE A13 STA 14+72.36 N: 137788.71 E: 194069.62 7.83 LF 15" HDPE @ 0.50% 4970 4975 4980 4985 4990 4995 4970 4975 4980 4985 4990 4995 13+7514+0015+0015+50 50.23 LF 18" HDPE @ 0.50% 21.50 LF 18" HDPE @ 0.50% IN L E T A 9 ST A 1 4 + 1 2 . 5 2 FL . E L 4 9 8 3 . 1 ± IN V . I N 4 9 8 0 . 0 7 ( E ) IN V . O U T 4 9 8 0 . 0 7 ( S W ) 31.89 LF 15" HDPE @ 0.50% 15 X 8 T E E A 1 1 ST A 1 4 + 5 2 . 7 9 IN V . 4 9 8 0 . 2 7 ( S ) IN V . 4 9 8 0 . 2 7 ( E ) IN V . 4 9 8 0 . 2 7 ( W ) 8.37 LF 15" HDPE @ 0.50% 15 X 8 T E E A 1 0 ST A 1 4 + 4 4 . 4 1 IN V . 4 9 8 0 . 2 3 ( E ) IN V . 4 9 8 0 . 2 3 ( S ) IN V . 4 9 8 0 . 2 3 ( W ) 5.56 LF 15" HDPE @ 0.50% 14.02 LF 15" HDPE @ 0.50% 15 X 4 T E E A 1 2 ST A 1 4 + 6 6 . 8 0 IN V . 4 9 8 0 . 3 4 ( E ) IN V . 4 9 8 0 . 3 4 ( N ) IN V . 4 9 8 0 . 3 4 ( W ) IN L E T A 1 4 ST A 1 4 + 8 0 . 1 9 FL . E L 4 9 8 3 . 3 ± IN V . I N 4 9 8 0 . 4 1 ( N E ) IN V . O U T 4 9 8 0 . 4 1 ( W ) 29.50 LF 8" HDPE @ 5.00% RD A 1 5 ST A 1 5 + 0 9 . 6 9 RI M 4 9 8 2 . 5 ± IN V . O U T 4 9 8 1 . 8 8 ( S W ) BA S I N A 8 ST A 1 3 + 9 1 . 0 2 RI M 4 9 8 3 . 3 ± IN V . I N 4 9 7 9 . 9 6 ( N E ) IN V . O U T 4 9 7 9 . 9 6 ( S ) EXISTING GROUND @ PIPE CENTERLINE PROPOSED GROUND @ PIPE CENTERLINE 100-YR HGL 15 X 8 T E E A 1 3 ST A 1 4 + 7 2 . 3 6 IN V . 4 9 8 0 . 3 7 ( E ) IN V . 4 9 8 0 . 3 7 ( N ) IN V . 4 9 8 0 . 3 7 ( W ) 4970 4975 4980 4985 4990 4995 4970 4975 4980 4985 4990 4995 9+50 10+00 11+00 18 X 1 2 T E E A 7 ST A 9 + 9 7 . 5 8 RI M 4 9 8 1 . 2 ± IN V . I N 4 9 7 9 . 7 0 ( N ) IN V . I N 4 9 7 9 . 7 0 ( E ) IN V . O U T 4 9 7 9 . 7 0 ( S ) 13.03 LF 12" HDPE @ 1.63% 12 X 8 T E E A 7 - 1 ST A 1 0 + 1 0 . 6 1 RI M 4 9 8 1 . 0 ± IN V . I N 4 9 7 9 . 9 1 ( S ) IN V . I N 4 9 7 9 . 9 1 ( E ) IN V . O U T 4 9 7 9 . 9 1 ( W ) 4.07 LF 12" HDPE @ 2.00% 12 X 8 T E E A 7 - 2 ST A 1 0 + 1 4 . 6 8 RI M 4 9 8 1 . 2 ± IN V . I N 4 9 7 9 . 9 9 ( N ) IN V . I N 4 9 7 9 . 9 9 ( E ) IN V . O U T 4 9 7 9 . 9 9 ( W ) 7.42 LF 12" HDPE @ 2.00% IN L E T A 7 - 3 ST A 1 0 + 2 2 . 1 0 FL . E L 4 9 8 3 . 3 ± IN V . I N 4 9 8 0 . 1 4 ( E ) IN V . O U T 4 9 8 0 . 1 4 ( W ) 10.89 LF 8" HDPE @ 2.00% 8X 8 T E E A 7 - 4 ST A 1 0 + 3 2 . 9 9 RI M 4 9 8 1 . 5 ± IN V . I N 4 9 8 0 . 3 6 ( N ) IN V . I N 4 9 8 0 . 3 6 ( E ) IN V . O U T 4 9 8 0 . 3 6 ( W ) RD A 7 - 6 ST A 1 0 + 3 8 . 9 3 RI M 4 9 8 1 . 2 ± IN V . O U T 4 9 8 0 . 4 8 ( W ) 3.00 LF 8" HDPE @ 2.00% EXISTING GROUND @ PIPE CENTERLINE PROPOSED GROUND @ PIPE CENTERLINE 100-YR HGL 8X 8 T E E A 7 - 5 ST A 1 0 + 3 5 . 9 9 RI M 4 9 8 1 . 2 ± IN V . I N 4 9 8 0 . 4 2 ( E ) IN V . I N 4 9 8 0 . 4 2 ( S ) IN V . O U T 4 9 8 0 . 4 2 ( W ) 2.94 LF 8" HDPE @ 2.00% DS DS DS DS DS DS UD 18X12 TEE A7 STA 9+97.58 N: 137723.90 E: 194004.06 13.03 LF 12" HDPE @ 1.63% 4.07 LF 12" HDPE @ 2.00% 12X8 TEE A7-1 STA 10+10.61 N: 137726.23 E: 194016.88 12X8 TEE A7-2 STA 10+14.68 N: 137726.96 E: 194020.88 7.42 LF 12" HDPE @ 2.00% INLET A7-3 STA 10+22.10 N: 137728.30 E: 194028.18 10.89 LF 8" HDPE @ 2.00% 8X8 TEE A7-4 STA 10+32.99 N: 137728.12 E: 194039.06 3.00 LF 8" HDPE @ 2.00% 8X8 TEE A7-5 STA 10+35.99 N: 137728.07 E: 194042.06 2.94 LF 8" HDPE @ 2.00% RD A7-6 STA 10+38.93 N: 137728.04 E: 194045.00 COURTYARD DRAINS SEE SHEET 15 Th e s e d r a w i n g s a r e in s t r u m e n t s o f s e r v i c e pr o v i d e d b y N o r t h e r n En g i n e e r i n g S e r v i c e s , I n c . an d a r e n o t t o b e u s e d f o r an y t y p e o f c o n s t r u c t i o n un l e s s s i g n e d a n d s e a l e d by a P r o f e s s i o n a l En g i n e e r i n t h e e m p l o y o f No r t h e r n E n g i n e e r i n g Se r v i c e s , I n c . NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N EXISTING WATER MAIN PROPOSED WATER MAIN PROPOSED STORM SEWER LEGEND: NOTES: W EXISTING SANITARY SEWER SS PROPOSED STORM INLET PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT PROPOSED LOT LINE PROJECT BOUNDARY EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING STORM SEWER EASEMENT LINE 1. THE SIZE, TYPE AND LOCATION OF ALL KNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE APPROXIMATE WHEN SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY THE EXISTENCE OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IN THE AREA OF THE WORK. BEFORE COMMENCING NEW CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL UNKNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. 2. MAINTAIN 10' HORIZONTAL AND 18" VERTICAL MINIMUM SEPARATION BETWEEN ALL STORM DRAINS, SANITARY SEWER MAINS, WATER MAINS, AND SERVICES. 3. PIPE LENGTHS ARE CALCULATED FROM THE CENTER OF MANHOLES AND STRUCTURES. SPECIFIED LENGTH OF PIPE INCLUDES THE LAYING LENGTH OF FLARED END SECTIONS. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL SHALL CONFIRM THAT MANHOLE DIAMETERS ARE SUFFICIENT FOR THEIR PROPOSED METHODS OF INSTALLATION (i.e., WITHIN PRE-CASTER'S TOLERANCES, ETC.). PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY INLET SCHEDULE: INLET SCHEDULE Inlet/Basin ID Inlet Size Grate Type Inlet A9 18" Nyloplast Basin 18" Dome Inlet A14 15" Nyloplast Basin 15" Dome Inlet A3-1 12" Nyloplast Basin 12" Dome Inlet A3-2 12" Nyloplast Basin 12" Dome Inlet A10-1 8" Nyloplast Basin 8" Dome Inlet A7-3 12" Nyloplast Basin 12" Dome Inlet A10-2 8" Nyloplast Basin 8" Dome Inlet A7-4.1 8" Nyloplast Basin 8" Dome Inlet A7-2.1 8" Nyloplast Basin 8" Dome Inlet A7-1.1 8" Nyloplast Basin 8" Dome Inlet B2 Type C Inlet Per Detail Inlet C3 Modified Outlet Structure Per Detail UDPROPOSED UNDERDRAIN PROPOSED DOWNSPOUT DS KEYMAP MAS O N S T . HIBDON CT. NORTH ( IN FEET ) 0 1 INCH = 20 FEET 20 20 40 60 ST2 13 CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES. CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO R PROFILE SCALE: STORM DRAIN A PROFILE SCALE: STORM DRAIN A7 13 NORTH ST A MA T C H L I N E SE E S H E E T 13 + 7 5 ST 1 PRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINEDPRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINED 142 Section D, Item 1. UD UD G G G I UD UD UD UD 42.25 LF 24" HDPE @ 1 . 1 8 % FES B1 STA 10+00.00 N: 137474.62 E: 194296.1760' DRAINAGE EASEMENT PER MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PLAT PLANNED 3/4" IRRIGATION METER PIT RAIN GARDEN 1 INLET B2 STA 10+42.25 N: 137507.46 E: 194269.58 STORM DRAIN A SEE SHEET 12 STORM DRAIN R3 SEE SHEET 16 LOT 2 LOT 1 HICKORY REGIONAL DETENTION PONDLOT LINE FORBAY 1-2 SEE DETAIL SHEET 21 FORBAY 1-3 SEE DETAIL SHEET 21 FORBAY 1-1 SEE DETAIL SHEET 21 FORBAY 1-4 SEE DETAIL SHEET 21 STCO B4 STA 10+92.91 N: 137491.16 E: 194230.75 40.97 LF 4" SLOTTED HDPE @ 0.20% 9.70 LF 4" HDPE @ 0.20% 4X4 TEE B3 STA 10+51.94 N: 137515.29 E: 194263.86 16.51 LF 4" SLOTTED HDPE @ 0.20% STCO B3-1 INV. OUT=4975.77 (SW) FG=4978.00 4965 4970 4975 4980 4985 4990 4965 4970 4975 4980 4985 4990 9+5010+0011+0011+50 42.25 LF 24" HDPE @ 1.18% FE S B 1 ST A 1 0 + 0 0 . 0 0 IN V . 4 9 7 5 . 2 2 ( N W ) EXISTING GROUND @ PIPE CENTERLINE PROPOSED GROUND @ PIPE CENTERLINE IN L E T B 2 ST A 1 0 + 4 2 . 2 5 RI M 4 9 7 9 . 0 ± IN V . I N 4 9 7 5 . 7 2 ( N W ) IN V . O U T 4 9 7 5 . 7 2 ( S E ) 100-YR HGL ST C O B 4 ST A 1 0 + 9 2 . 9 1 RI M 4 9 7 8 . 0 ± IN V . O U T 4 9 7 5 . 8 2 ( N E ) 40.97 LF 4" SLOTTED HDPE @ 0.20% 4X 4 T E E B 3 ST A 1 0 + 5 1 . 9 4 IN V . 4 9 7 5 . 7 4 ( N E ) IN V . 4 9 7 5 . 7 4 ( S W ) IN V . 4 9 7 5 . 7 4 ( S E ) 9.70 LF 4" HDPE @ 0.20% 4965 4970 4975 4980 4985 4990 4965 4970 4975 4980 4985 4990 9+75 10+00 11+00 12+00 12+25 ST C O C 6 ST A 1 1 + 9 7 . 9 9 RI M 4 9 7 8 . 2 ± IN V . O U T 4 9 7 6 . 0 0 ( W ) ST C O C 5 w / 9 0 ° B E N D ST A 1 1 + 0 8 . 2 4 RI M 4 9 7 8 . 2 ± IN V . I N 4 9 7 5 . 8 2 ( E ) IN V . O U T 4 9 7 5 . 8 2 ( N ) IN L E T C 3 ST A 1 1 + 0 0 . 2 6 IN V . 4 9 7 6 . 8 6 ( S ) IN V . 4 9 7 6 . 8 6 ( N ) FE S C 1 ST A 1 0 + 0 0 . 0 0 RI M 4 9 7 8 . 5 ± IN V . I N 4 9 7 6 . 3 6 ( E ) 5.98 LF 4" HDPE @ -0.20% 89.75 LF 4" SLOTTED HDPE @ 0.20% 24.90 LF 24" HDPE @ 0.50% BA S I N C 2 ST A 1 0 + 7 5 . 3 6 RI M 4 9 8 1 . 6 ± IN V . I N 4 9 7 6 . 7 4 ( S ) IN V . O U T 4 9 7 6 . 7 4 ( W ) UP T U R N E D E L B O W C 4 ST A 1 1 + 0 2 . 2 6 IN V . 4 9 7 5 . 8 3 ( S ) IN V . 4 9 7 6 . 8 7 ( N ) 2.00 LF 4" HDPE @ 0.50% EXISTING GROUND @ PIPE CENTERLINE PROPOSED GROUND @ PIPE CENTERLINE 100-YR HGL 75.36 LF 24" HDPE @ 0.50% UDUDUDUD DS DS X X X X X X X X X SS SS SS UD FES C1 STA 10+00.00 N: 137958.43 E: 193915.22 STCO C5 w/90° BEND STA 11+08.24 N: 137924.72 E: 193990.58 5.98 LF 4" HDPE @ -0.20% 89.75 LF 4" SLOTTED HDPE @ 0.20% STCO C6 STA 11+97.99 N: 137924.43 E: 194080.33 WANKIER LANCE 1401 N. COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, CO RAIN GARDEN 2 DRAINAGE EASEMENT PER MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PLAT 24.90 LF 24" HDPE @ 0.50% BASIN C2 STA 10+75.36 N: 137957.60 E: 193990.58 LOT 1 HICKORY REGIONAL DETENTION POND LOT 2 LOT LINE FORBAY 2-1 SEE DETAIL SHEET 21 FORBAY 2-3 SEE DETAIL SHEET 21FORBAY 2-2 SEE DETAIL SHEET 21 EX. 75.36 LF 24" HDPE @ 0.50% STORM DRAIN R1 SEE SHEET 16 STORM DRAIN R2 SEE SHEET 16 30' STORMWATER & UTILITY EASEMENT PER MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PLAT INLET C3 STA 11+00.26 N: 137932.70 E: 193990.58 PLANNED 24" HDPE STORM PER MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT Th e s e d r a w i n g s a r e in s t r u m e n t s o f s e r v i c e pr o v i d e d b y N o r t h e r n En g i n e e r i n g S e r v i c e s , I n c . an d a r e n o t t o b e u s e d f o r an y t y p e o f c o n s t r u c t i o n un l e s s s i g n e d a n d s e a l e d by a P r o f e s s i o n a l En g i n e e r i n t h e e m p l o y o f No r t h e r n E n g i n e e r i n g Se r v i c e s , I n c . NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N NORTH ( IN FEET ) 0 1 INCH = 20 FEET 20 20 40 60 ST3 14 CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES. CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO R PROFILE SCALE: STORM DRAIN B KEYMAP MAS O N S T . HIBDON CT. EXISTING WATER MAIN PROPOSED WATER MAIN PROPOSED STORM SEWER LEGEND: NOTES: W EXISTING SANITARY SEWER SS PROPOSED STORM INLET PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT PROPOSED LOT LINE PROJECT BOUNDARY EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING STORM SEWER EASEMENT LINE 1. THE SIZE, TYPE AND LOCATION OF ALL KNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE APPROXIMATE WHEN SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY THE EXISTENCE OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IN THE AREA OF THE WORK. BEFORE COMMENCING NEW CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL UNKNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. 2. MAINTAIN 10' HORIZONTAL AND 18" VERTICAL MINIMUM SEPARATION BETWEEN ALL STORM DRAINS, SANITARY SEWER MAINS, WATER MAINS, AND SERVICES. 3. PIPE LENGTHS ARE CALCULATED FROM THE CENTER OF MANHOLES AND STRUCTURES. SPECIFIED LENGTH OF PIPE INCLUDES THE LAYING LENGTH OF FLARED END SECTIONS. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL SHALL CONFIRM THAT MANHOLE DIAMETERS ARE SUFFICIENT FOR THEIR PROPOSED METHODS OF INSTALLATION (i.e., WITHIN PRE-CASTER'S TOLERANCES, ETC.). PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY INLET SCHEDULE: INLET SCHEDULE Inlet/Basin ID Inlet Size Grate Type Inlet A9 18" Nyloplast Basin 18" Dome Inlet A14 15" Nyloplast Basin 15" Dome Inlet A3-1 12" Nyloplast Basin 12" Dome Inlet A3-2 12" Nyloplast Basin 12" Dome Inlet A10-1 8" Nyloplast Basin 8" Dome Inlet A7-3 12" Nyloplast Basin 12" Dome Inlet A10-2 8" Nyloplast Basin 8" Dome Inlet A7-4.1 8" Nyloplast Basin 8" Dome Inlet A7-2.1 8" Nyloplast Basin 8" Dome Inlet A7-1.1 8" Nyloplast Basin 8" Dome Inlet B2 Type C Inlet Per Detail Inlet C3 Modified Outlet Structure Per Detail UDPROPOSED UNDERDRAIN PROPOSED DOWNSPOUT DS STORM DRAIN C PROFILE SCALE: NORTH LEFT RIGHT PRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINEDPRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINED 143 Section D, Item 1. DS DS DS DS DS DS DS G G GGG G UD UDUD LOT 2 LANDSCAPING WALL (SEE LANDSCAPING PLANS) 15X8 TEE A10 INV. IN=4980.23 (E) INV. IN=4980.23 (S) INV. OUT=4980.23 (W) FG=4981.68 N:137788.83 E:194041.68 8.41 LF 8" HDPE @ 2.00% INLET A10-1 INV. IN=4980.40 (S) INV. OUT=4980.40 (N) FG=4983.25 N:137780.42 E:194041.64 6.88 LF 8" HDPE @ 2.00% INLET A10-2 INV. OUT=4980.54 (N) FG=4983.52 N:137773.55 E:194041.6115X8 TEE A11 INV. IN=4980.27 (S) INV. IN=4980.27 (E) INV. OUT=4980.27 (W) FG=4981.72 N:137788.80 E:194050.05 6.25 LF 8" HDPE @ 2.00% RD A11-1 INV. OUT=4980.40 (N) FG=4981.17 N:137782.54 E:194050.02 15X4 TEE A12 INV. IN=4980.34 (E) INV. IN=4980.34 (N) INV. OUT=4980.34 (W) FG=4981.72 N:137788.74 E:194064.07 16.19 LF 4" SLOTTED HDPE @ 0.20% CO A12-1 INV. OUT=4980.37 (S) FG=4984.08 N:137804.93 E:194064.14 INLET A7-4.1 INV. OUT=4980.46 (S) FG=4983.52 N:137733.32 E:194039.15 5.20 LF 8" HDPE @ 2.00% 8X8 TEE A7-4 INV. IN=4980.36 (N) INV. IN=4980.36 (E) INV. OUT=4980.36 (W) FG=4981.53 N:137728.12 E:194039.06 INLET A7-2.1 INV. OUT=4980.19 (S) FG=4983.30 N:137736.71 E:194019.10 9.91 LF 8" HDPE @ 2.00% 12X8 TEE A7-2 INV. IN=4979.99 (N) INV. IN=4979.99 (E) INV. OUT=4979.99 (W) FG=4981.16 N:137726.96 E:194020.88 12X8 TEE A7-1 INV. IN=4979.91 (S) INV. IN=4979.91 (E) INV. OUT=4979.91 (W) FG=4981.02 N:137726.23 E:194016.88 8.29 LF 8" HDPE @ 2.00% INLET A7-1.1 INV. OUT=4980.08 (N) FG=4983.12 N:137718.08 E:194018.36 34. 0 6 L F 8 " H D P E @ 2 . 0 0 % RD A5-1 INV. OUT=4980.13 (SW) FG=4984.05 N:137693.55 E:194047.69 18X8 TEE A5 INV. IN=4979.45 (NW) INV. IN=4979.45 (NE) INV. OUT=4979.45 (SE) FG=4981.20 N:137675.37 E:194018.88 18X8 TEE A4 INV. IN=4979.23 (NW) INV. IN=4979.23 (NE) INV. OUT=4979.23 (SE) FG=4980.98 N:137638.03 E:194042.45 41. 3 4 L F 8 " H D P E @ 2 . 0 0 % RD A4-1 INV. OUT=4980.06 (SW) FG=4984.22 N:137660.10 E:194077.40 18X12 TEE A3 INV. IN=4979.03 (NW) INV. IN=4979.03 (NE) INV. OUT=4979.03 (SE) FG=4980.79 N:137604.90 E:194063.36 29. 1 6 L F 1 2 " H D P E @ 2 . 0 0 % INLET A3-1 INV. IN=4979.61 (NE) INV. OUT=4979.61 (SW) FG=4983.09 N:137620.47 E:194088.02 56.9 1 L F 1 2 " H D P E @ 2 . 0 0 % INLET A3-2 INV. IN=4980.75 (E) INV. IN=4980.75 (N) INV. OUT=4980.75 (SW) FG=4983.45 N:137652.29 E:194135.21 8.96 LF 8" HDPE @ 2.00% RD A3-3 INV. OUT=4980.93 (W) FG=4983.77 N:137654.28 E:194143.94 FFE=84.50 8X8 TEE A7-5 INV. IN=4980.42 (E) INV. IN=4980.42 (S) INV. OUT=4980.42 (W) FG=4981.19 N:137728.07 E:194042.06 24.41 LF 4" SLOTTED HDPE @ 0.20% CO A7-5.1 INV. OUT=4980.47 (N) FG=4983.81 N:137703.67 E:194041.67 STORM DRAIN A SEE SHEET 12 STORM DRAIN A7 SEE SHEET 13 STORM DRAIN A SEE SHEET 13 6' CONCRETE WALK 6' CO N C R E T E W A L K 6' C O N C R E T E W A L K 10.78 LF 3" HDPE @ 2.00% BLDG CONNECTION A3-2.1 INV. OUT=4980.97 (S) 15X8 TEE A13 INV. IN=4980.37 (E) INV. IN=4980.37 (N) INV. OUT=4980.37 (W) FG=4981.82 N:137788.71 E:194069.62 10.56 LF 8" HDPE @ 2.00% RD A13-1 INV. OUT=4980.58 (S) FG=4984.01 N:137799.27 E:194069.67 ST4 15 CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES. CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO R NORTH ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = ft. Feet01010 10 20 30 Th e s e d r a w i n g s a r e in s t r u m e n t s o f s e r v i c e pr o v i d e d b y N o r t h e r n En g i n e e r i n g S e r v i c e s , I n c . an d a r e n o t t o b e u s e d f o r an y t y p e o f c o n s t r u c t i o n un l e s s s i g n e d a n d s e a l e d by a P r o f e s s i o n a l En g i n e e r i n t h e e m p l o y o f No r t h e r n E n g i n e e r i n g Se r v i c e s , I n c . NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N KEYMAP MAS O N S T . HIBDON CT. EXISTING WATER MAIN PROPOSED WATER MAIN PROPOSED STORM SEWER LEGEND: NOTES: W EXISTING SANITARY SEWER SS PROPOSED STORM INLET PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT PROPOSED LOT LINE PROJECT BOUNDARY EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING STORM SEWER EASEMENT LINE 1. THE SIZE, TYPE AND LOCATION OF ALL KNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE APPROXIMATE WHEN SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY THE EXISTENCE OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IN THE AREA OF THE WORK. BEFORE COMMENCING NEW CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL UNKNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. 2. MAINTAIN 10' HORIZONTAL AND 18" VERTICAL MINIMUM SEPARATION BETWEEN ALL STORM DRAINS, SANITARY SEWER MAINS, WATER MAINS, AND SERVICES. 3. PIPE LENGTHS ARE CALCULATED FROM THE CENTER OF MANHOLES AND STRUCTURES. SPECIFIED LENGTH OF PIPE INCLUDES THE LAYING LENGTH OF FLARED END SECTIONS. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL SHALL CONFIRM THAT MANHOLE DIAMETERS ARE SUFFICIENT FOR THEIR PROPOSED METHODS OF INSTALLATION (i.e., WITHIN PRE-CASTER'S TOLERANCES, ETC.). PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY INLET SCHEDULE: INLET SCHEDULE Inlet/Basin ID Inlet Size Grate Type Inlet A9 18" Nyloplast Basin 18" Dome Inlet A14 15" Nyloplast Basin 15" Dome Inlet A3-1 12" Nyloplast Basin 12" Dome Inlet A3-2 12" Nyloplast Basin 12" Dome Inlet A10-1 8" Nyloplast Basin 8" Dome Inlet A7-3 12" Nyloplast Basin 12" Dome Inlet A10-2 8" Nyloplast Basin 8" Dome Inlet A7-4.1 8" Nyloplast Basin 8" Dome Inlet A7-2.1 8" Nyloplast Basin 8" Dome Inlet A7-1.1 8" Nyloplast Basin 8" Dome Inlet B2 Type C Inlet Per Detail Inlet C3 Modified Outlet Structure Per Detail UDPROPOSED UNDERDRAIN PROPOSED DOWNSPOUT DS 144 Section D, Item 1. DS DS DS DS UDUDUDUDUD HEADWALL R2-1 INV. IN=4978.33 (SE) FG=4978.77 N:137913.25 E:194086.15 27. 2 7 L F 8" H D P E @ 0 . 5 0 % 45° WYE R2-2 w/ CO INV. IN=4978.47 (SE) INV. IN=4978.47 (S) INV. OUT=4978.47 (NW) FG=4979.07 N:137890.35 E:194100.95 20 . 8 1 L F 8" H D P E @ 2 . 0 0 % 15. 9 6 L F 8" H D P E @ 0 . 5 0 % 45° WYE R2-3 w/ CO INV. IN=4978.55 (SE) INV. IN=4978.55 (S) INV. OUT=4978.55 (NW) FG=4979.15 N:137876.95 E:194109.61 20 . 3 9 L F 8" H D P E @ 2 . 0 0 % 8.2 6 L F 8" H D P E @ 0 . 5 0 % RD R2-3 INV. OUT=4978.59 (NW) FG=4983.12 N:137870.01 E:194114.09 RD R2-3.1 INV. OUT=4978.95 (N) FG=4983.81 N:137857.01 E:194105.32 RD R2-2.1 INV. OUT=4978.88 (N) FG=4983.12 N:137870.01 E:194096.57 HEADWALL R1-1 INV. IN=4978.33 (S) FG=4976.20 N:137916.12 E:194050.65 21 . 7 3 L F 8" H D P E @ 1 . 2 6 % RD R1-2 INV. OUT=4978.60 (N) FG=4981.37 N:137894.39 E:194050.66 RAIN GARDEN 2 DS DS DS D UD SC E E TF EM E E E E EEGEN E E E E E E E EV E E N M A S O N S T R E E T PLANNED 50'' FL-FL TRASH ENCLOSURE (SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS) EX . 6 ' S I D E W A L K 5' C R U S H E R F I N E W A L K 10' UTILITY EASEMENT PER MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PLAT 9' U T I L I T Y E A S E M E N T 6' CON C R E T E W A L K 16 3 . 7 7 L F 8 " H D P E @ 1 . 0 0 % HEADWALL R3-1 INV. IN=4978.17 (N) N:137524.21 E:194255.86 90° BEND w/CO R3-3 INV. IN=4980.13 (W) INV. OUT=4980.13 (S) FG=4983.62 N:137714.99 E:194211.82 11.94 LF 8" HDPE @ 1.00% RD R3-4 INV. OUT=4980.25 (E) FG=4983.81 N:137712.30 E:194200.19 RAIN GARDEN 1 SANITARY SEWER CROSSING INV. ELEV = 4972.9 SANITARY SEWER SEE SHEET 11 32 . 0 2 L F 8 " H D P E @ 1 . 0 0 % 11.93 LF 8" HDPE @ 1.00% TEE R3-2 INV. IN=4979.81 (N) INV. IN=4979.81 (W) INV. OUT=4979.81 (S) FG=4980.59 N:137683.79 E:194219.02RD R3-2.1 INV. OUT=4979.93 (E) FG=4983.98 N:137681.10 E:194207.40 MONUMENT SIGN (SEE ARCH. PLANS) ST5 16 CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES. CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO R NORTH ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = ft. Feet01010 10 20 30 Th e s e d r a w i n g s a r e in s t r u m e n t s o f s e r v i c e pr o v i d e d b y N o r t h e r n En g i n e e r i n g S e r v i c e s , I n c . an d a r e n o t t o b e u s e d f o r an y t y p e o f c o n s t r u c t i o n un l e s s s i g n e d a n d s e a l e d by a P r o f e s s i o n a l En g i n e e r i n t h e e m p l o y o f No r t h e r n E n g i n e e r i n g Se r v i c e s , I n c . NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N KEYMAP MAS O N S T . HIBDON CT. 1 STORM DRAIN R1 & R2 2 STORM DRAIN R3 EXISTING WATER MAIN PROPOSED WATER MAIN PROPOSED STORM SEWER LEGEND: NOTES: W EXISTING SANITARY SEWER SS PROPOSED STORM INLET PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT PROPOSED LOT LINE PROJECT BOUNDARY EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING STORM SEWER EASEMENT LINE 1. THE SIZE, TYPE AND LOCATION OF ALL KNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE APPROXIMATE WHEN SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY THE EXISTENCE OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IN THE AREA OF THE WORK. BEFORE COMMENCING NEW CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL UNKNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. 2. MAINTAIN 10' HORIZONTAL AND 18" VERTICAL MINIMUM SEPARATION BETWEEN ALL STORM DRAINS, SANITARY SEWER MAINS, WATER MAINS, AND SERVICES. 3. PIPE LENGTHS ARE CALCULATED FROM THE CENTER OF MANHOLES AND STRUCTURES. SPECIFIED LENGTH OF PIPE INCLUDES THE LAYING LENGTH OF FLARED END SECTIONS. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL SHALL CONFIRM THAT MANHOLE DIAMETERS ARE SUFFICIENT FOR THEIR PROPOSED METHODS OF INSTALLATION (i.e., WITHIN PRE-CASTER'S TOLERANCES, ETC.). PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY INLET SCHEDULE: INLET SCHEDULE Inlet/Basin ID Inlet Size Grate Type Inlet A9 18" Nyloplast Basin 18" Dome Inlet A14 15" Nyloplast Basin 15" Dome Inlet A3-1 12" Nyloplast Basin 12" Dome Inlet A3-2 12" Nyloplast Basin 12" Dome Inlet A10-1 8" Nyloplast Basin 8" Dome Inlet A7-3 12" Nyloplast Basin 12" Dome Inlet A10-2 8" Nyloplast Basin 8" Dome Inlet A7-4.1 8" Nyloplast Basin 8" Dome Inlet A7-2.1 8" Nyloplast Basin 8" Dome Inlet A7-1.1 8" Nyloplast Basin 8" Dome Inlet B2 Type C Inlet Per Detail Inlet C3 Modified Outlet Structure Per Detail UDPROPOSED UNDERDRAIN PROPOSED DOWNSPOUT DS 145 Section D, Item 1. D1 17 Th e s e d r a w i n g s a r e in s t r u m e n t s o f s e r v i c e pr o v i d e d b y N o r t h e r n En g i n e e r i n g S e r v i c e s , I n c . an d a r e n o t t o b e u s e d f o r an y t y p e o f c o n s t r u c t i o n un l e s s s i g n e d a n d s e a l e d by a P r o f e s s i o n a l En g i n e e r i n t h e e m p l o y o f No r t h e r n E n g i n e e r i n g Se r v i c e s , I n c . NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N COMPACTED GRANULAR MATERIAL CONFORMING TO CDDH #67 LOWER LIMIT OF TRENCH WALL SLOPING INITIAL LIFT * 12 IN. MIN. PIPE O.D. 4 IN. MIN. TRENCH WIDTH AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 02221 COMPACTED GRANULAR MATERIAL CONFORMING TO CDDH #67 * BEDDING REQUIRMENTS WW-1 GREASE INTERCEPTOR WW-10 FLOW DIRECTION TRAFFIC RATED CLEANOUT WW-15 PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION CONFIRM SIZE (1,000 GAL.) WITH MEP PLANS. CIVIL HAS COORDINATED AS OF 02/2024 APPROVED: DRAWN BY:DETAILS CONSTRUCTION DATE REVISED:DETAILWATER STANDARD SETTING FOR 1-1/2" AND 2" WATER METERS (PLAN VIEW) 5/20/2022 SAA W-16B APPROVED: DRAWN BY:DETAILS CONSTRUCTION DATE REVISED: DETAILWATER STANDARD SETTING FOR 1-1/2" AND 2" WATER METERS 4/20/2022 SAA W-16A 146 Section D, Item 1. D2 18 Th e s e d r a w i n g s a r e in s t r u m e n t s o f s e r v i c e pr o v i d e d b y N o r t h e r n En g i n e e r i n g S e r v i c e s , I n c . an d a r e n o t t o b e u s e d f o r an y t y p e o f c o n s t r u c t i o n un l e s s s i g n e d a n d s e a l e d by a P r o f e s s i o n a l En g i n e e r i n t h e e m p l o y o f No r t h e r n E n g i n e e r i n g Se r v i c e s , I n c . NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N FLUSH/RIBBON CURB 18" INFLOW 18" OUTFALL PRIVATE CURB & GUTTER203 REFER TO SHEET 5 FOR LOCATIONS OF SPECIFIC CURB TYPE. 204 CURB OPENING DETAIL 58" GALV. STEEL PLATE 3"x2"x38" GALV. ANGLE SEE DETAIL 1 58" GALV. STEELPLATE 38" BRASS SCREW 18" O.C.WITH COUNTERSINKHEAD FLUSH WITH PLATE 206 COMBINED SIDEWALK CHASE DETAIL "A" PLAN VIEW 200 STORMWATER BEDDING DETAIL 201 STORMWATER BEDDING DETAIL 202 CONCRETE PAN DETAIL 205 SIDEWALK CHASE DETAIL CRUSHER FINES 0.5'0.5'1' 2' 6" RIBBON CURB 6" RIBBON CURB 6" HDPE STORM 6" HDPE STORM 6' CONCRETE SIDEWALK CRUSHER FINES FOR SIDEWALK CHASE EXTENSION SOUTH OF CRUSHER FINES SIDEWALK SEE FORT COLLINS DETAIL D-10B FOR SIDEWALK CHASE EXTENSION SOUTH OF CRUSHER FINES SIDEWALK SEE FORT COLLINS DETAIL D-10B CONCRETE CHANNEL DETAIL207 FG 0.5' X' 0.5' #4@6" O.C. #4L@12" O.C. 3"CL R . #4@12" O.C. #4L@12" O.C. 147 Section D, Item 1. AA SECTION A-A PLAN 1 GENERAL NOTES SECTION B-B B B INLET C3 ELEVATIONS D3 19 Th e s e d r a w i n g s a r e in s t r u m e n t s o f s e r v i c e pr o v i d e d b y N o r t h e r n En g i n e e r i n g S e r v i c e s , I n c . an d a r e n o t t o b e u s e d f o r an y t y p e o f c o n s t r u c t i o n un l e s s s i g n e d a n d s e a l e d by a P r o f e s s i o n a l En g i n e e r i n t h e e m p l o y o f No r t h e r n E n g i n e e r i n g Se r v i c e s , I n c . NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N 302 INLET SCHEDULE INLET SCHEDULE Inlet/Basin ID Inlet Size Grate Type Inlet A9 18" Nyloplast Basin 18" Dome Inlet A14 15" Nyloplast Basin 15" Dome Inlet A3-1 12" Nyloplast Basin 12" Dome Inlet A3-2 12" Nyloplast Basin 12" Dome Inlet A10-1 8" Nyloplast Basin 8" Dome Inlet A7-3 12" Nyloplast Basin 12" Dome Inlet A10-2 8" Nyloplast Basin 8" Dome Inlet A7-4.1 8" Nyloplast Basin 8" Dome Inlet A7-2.1 8" Nyloplast Basin 8" Dome Inlet A7-1.1 8" Nyloplast Basin 8" Dome Inlet B2 Type C Inlet Per Detail Inlet C3 Modified Outlet Structure Per DetailREV E7001-110-298DWG NO.1 OF 1SHEET1:40SCALEDWG SIZE A 3130 VERONA AVE BUFORD, GA 30518 PHN (770) 932-2443 FAX (770) 932-2490 www.nyloplast-us.com DRAIN BASIN WITH SOLID COVER QUICK SPEC INSTALLATION DETAIL TITLE PROJECT NO./NAME MATERIAL DATE REVISED BY 09-14-07DATE EBCDRAWN BY 06-12-18 NMH (5) ADAPTER ANGLES VARIABLE 0° - 360° ACCORDING TO PLANS 8" - 36" 8" MIN THICKNESS GUIDELINE (3) VARIABLE SUMP DEPTH ACCORDING TO PLANS (6" MIN. ON 8" - 24", 10" MIN. ON 30" & 12" MIN. ON 36" BASED ON MANUFACTURING REQ.) 4" MIN ON 8" - 24" 6" MIN ON 30" & 36" MINIMUM PIPE BURIAL DEPTH PER PIPE MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDATION (MIN. MANUFACTURING REQ. SAME AS MIN. SUMP) (3) VARIABLE INVERT HEIGHTS AVAILABLE (ACCORDING TO PLANS/TAKE OFF) THE BACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL BE CRUSHED STONE OR OTHER GRANULAR MATERIAL MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF CLASS I, CLASS II, OR CLASS III MATERIAL AS DEFINED IN ASTM D2321. BEDDING & BACKFILL FOR SURFACE DRAINAGE INLETS SHALL BE PLACED & COMPACTED UNIFORMLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D2321. (4) VARIOUS TYPES OF INLET & OUTLET ADAPTERS AVAILABLE: 4" - 36" FOR CORRUGATED HDPE (ADS N-12/HANCOR DUAL WALL, ADS/HANCOR SINGLE WALL), N-12 HP, PVC SEWER (EX: SDR 35), PVC DWV (EX: SCH 40), PVC C900/C905, CORRUGATED & RIBBED PVC WATERTIGHT JOINT (CORRUGATED HDPE SHOWN) NYLOPLAST DRAIN BASIN WITH SOLID COVER (6, 7) TRAFFIC LOADS: CONCRETE SLAB DIMENSIONS ARE FOR GUIDELINE PURPOSES ONLY. ACTUAL CONCRETE SLAB MUST BE DESIGNED TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION LOCAL SOIL CONDITIONS, TRAFFIC LOADING, & OTHER APPLICABLE DESIGN FACTORS. SEE DRAWING NO. 7001-110-111 FOR NON TRAFFIC INSTALLATION. (1, 2) INTEGRATED DUCTILE IRON FRAME & COVER TO MATCH BASIN O.D. THIS PRINT DISCLOSES SUBJECT MATTER IN WHICH NYLOPLAST HAS PROPRIETARY RIGHTS. THE RECEIPT OR POSSESSION OF THIS PRINT DOES NOT CONFER, TRANSFER, OR LICENSE THE USE OF THE DESIGN OR TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN HEREIN REPRODUCTION OF THIS PRINT OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN, OR MANUFACTURE OF ANY ARTICLE HEREFROM, FOR THE DISCLOSURE TO OTHERS IS FORBIDDEN, EXCEPT BY SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM NYLOPLAST. ® ©2013 NYLOPLAST 1 - 8" - 30" SOLID COVERS SHALL BE DUCTILE IRON PER ASTM A536 GRADE 70-50-05. 2 - 12" - 30" FRAMES SHALL BE DUCTILE IRON PER ASTM A536 GRADE 70-50-05. 8" & 10" SOLID COVERS FIT DIRECTLY ONTO DRAIN BASINS WITH THE USE OF A PVC BODY TOP. SEE DRAWING NO. 7001-110-045. 3 - DRAIN BASIN TO BE CUSTOM MANUFACTURED ACCORDING TO PLAN DETAILS. RISERS ARE NEEDED FOR BASINS OVER 84" DUE TO SHIPPING RESTRICTIONS. SEE DRAWING NO. 7001-110-065. 4 - DRAINAGE CONNECTION STUB JOINT TIGHTNESS SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM D3212 FOR CORRUGATED HDPE (ADS N-12/HANCOR DUAL WALL), N-12 HP, & PVC SEWER (4" - 36"). 5 - ADAPTERS CAN BE MOUNTED ON ANY ANGLE 0° TO 360°. TO DETERMINE MINIMUM ANGLE BETWEEN ADAPTERS SEE DRAWING NO. 7001-110-012. 6 - 12" - 30" SOLID COVERS SHALL MEET H-20 LOAD RATING. 7 - 8" & 10" SOLID COVERS ARE RATED FOR LIGHT DUTY APPLICATIONS ONLY; NO CONCRETE COLLAR NEEDED FOR LIGHT DUTY RATING. 18" MIN WIDTH GUIDELINE 300 NYLOPLAST BASIN WITH SOLID GRATE REV E7001-110-397DWG NO.1 OF 1SHEET1:40SCALEDWG SIZE A 3130 VERONA AVE BUFORD, GA 30518 PHN (770) 932-2443 FAX (770) 932-2490 www.nyloplast-us.com DRAIN BASIN WITH DOME GRATE QUICK SPEC INSTALLATION DETAIL TITLE PROJECT NO./NAME MATERIAL DATE REVISED BY 03-25-10DATE EBCDRAWN BY 06-12-18 NMH 8" - 36" (3) VARIABLE SUMP DEPTH ACCORDING TO PLANS (6" MIN. ON 8" - 24", 10" MIN. ON 30" & 12" MIN. ON 36" BASED ON MANUFACTURING REQ.) 4" MIN ON 8" - 24" 6" MIN ON 30" & 36" MINIMUM PIPE BURIAL DEPTH PER PIPE MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDATION (MIN. MANUFACTURING REQ. SAME AS MIN. SUMP) (3) VARIABLE INVERT HEIGHTS AVAILABLE (ACCORDING TO PLANS/TAKE OFF) THE BACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL BE CRUSHED STONE OR OTHER GRANULAR MATERIAL MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF CLASS I, CLASS II, OR CLASS III MATERIAL AS DEFINED IN ASTM D2321. BEDDING & BACKFILL FOR SURFACE DRAINAGE INLETS SHALL BE PLACED & COMPACTED UNIFORMLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D2321. WATERTIGHT JOINT (CORRUGATED HDPE SHOWN) NYLOPLAST DRAIN BASIN WITH DOME GRATE 1 - 8" - 30" DOME GRATES SHALL BE DUCTILE IRON PER ASTM A536 GRADE 70-50-05. 2 - 8" & 10" DOME GRATES FIT ONTO THE DRAIN BASINS WITH THE USE OF A PVC BODY TOP. SEE DRAWING NO. 7001-110-045. 3 - DRAIN BASIN TO BE CUSTOM MANUFACTURED ACCORDING TO PLAN DETAILS. RISERS ARE NEEDED FOR BASINS OVER 84" DUE TO SHIPPING RESTRICTIONS. SEE DRAWING NO. 7001-110-065. 4 - DRAINAGE CONNECTION STUB JOINT TIGHTNESS SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM D3212 FOR CORRUGATED HDPE (ADS N-12/HANCOR DUAL WALL), N-12 HP, & PVC SEWER (4" - 36"). 5 - ADAPTERS CAN BE MOUNTED ON ANY ANGLE 0° TO 360°. TO DETERMINE MINIMUM ANGLE BETWEEN ADAPTERS SEE DRAWING NO. 7001-110-012. 6 - 8" - 30" DOME GRATES HAVE NO LOAD RATING. (1, 2) INTEGRATED DUCTILE IRON GRATE TO MATCH BASIN O.D. THIS PRINT DISCLOSES SUBJECT MATTER IN WHICH NYLOPLAST HAS PROPRIETARY RIGHTS. THE RECEIPT OR POSSESSION OF THIS PRINT DOES NOT CONFER, TRANSFER, OR LICENSE THE USE OF THE DESIGN OR TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN HEREIN REPRODUCTION OF THIS PRINT OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN, OR MANUFACTURE OF ANY ARTICLE HEREFROM, FOR THE DISCLOSURE TO OTHERS IS FORBIDDEN, EXCEPT BY SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM NYLOPLAST. ® ©2013 NYLOPLAST (4) VARIOUS TYPES OF INLET & OUTLET ADAPTERS AVAILABLE: 4" - 36" FOR CORRUGATED HDPE (ADS N-12/HANCOR DUAL WALL, ADS/HANCOR SINGLE WALL), N-12 HP, PVC SEWER (EX: SDR 35), PVC DWV (EX: SCH 40), PVC C900/C905, CORRUGATED & RIBBED PVC (5) ADAPTER ANGLES VARIABLE 0° - 360° ACCORDING TO PLANS 301 NYLOPLAST BASIN WITH DOME GRATE I: \ S t m W t r \ C r i t e r i a M a n u a l \ D 4 6 . d w g 4/ 7 / 1 1 303 MODIFIED OUTLET STRUCTURE (INLET C3) 148 Section D, Item 1. A A SECTION A-A PLAN VIEW DIRECTION OF FLOW L W 6.0" DIRECTION OF FLOW 6.0" TYP. 12.0" 6.0" 6.0" 6.0" 6.0" 6.0" CONCRETE RUN DOWN AND FOREBAY ARE PRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINED 2" NOTCH FLOWLINE OF NOTCH FINISH GROUND OF RAIN GARDEN UPSTREAM CONCRETE RUNDOWN UPSTREAM CONCRETE RUN DOWN BIO RETENTION SAND MEDIA HALF INCH EXPANSION JOINT TO BE INSTALLED BETWEEN CONCRETE RUNDOWN & FOREBAY PROPOSED NATIVE MATERIAL SUBBASE CONCRETE FOREBAY CONCRETE FOREBAY 3.0" 2" A A SECTION A-A PLAN VIEW DIRECTION OF FLOW PROPOSED NATIVE MATERIAL SUBBASE FLOWLINE OF NOTCH FINISH GROUND L W 6.0" INVERT OF PIPE (SEE STORM DRAIN PLAN AND PROFILES) DIRECTION OF FLOW 6.0" TYP. 2" NOTCH 3.0" 2"X6" NOTCH 12"UPSTREAM LANDSCAPING FLUSH WITH TOP OF COLLAR UPSTREAM LANDSCAPING TO BE FLUSH WITH TOP OF FOREBAY AND CONCRETE COLLAR 2" CONCRETE COLLAR (SEE DETAIL) BIO RETENTION SAND MEDIA CONCRETE COLLAR (SEE DETAIL) DIRECTION OF FLOW (4:1 MAX) A A SECTION A-A PLAN VIEW (FOR STORM SEWERS I, K, & M) DIRECTION OF FLOW PROPOSED NATIVE MATERIAL SUBBASE FLOWLINE OF NOTCH FINISH GROUND 8' 8' 6.0" INVERT OF PIPE (SEE STORM DRAIN PLAN AND PROFILES) DIRECTION OF FLOW 6.0" TYP. 2" NOTCH 3.0" 2"X6" NOTCH 12" UPSTREAM FLARED END SECTION FLUSH WITH BOTTOM OF FORBAY 2" BIO RETENTION SAND MEDIA DIRECTION OF FLOW (4:1 MAX) UPSTREAM LANDSCAPING TO BE FLUSH WITH TOP OF FOREBAY AND TRANSITION AT A 4:1 TO TOP OF THE FLARED END SECTION D4 20 Th e s e d r a w i n g s a r e in s t r u m e n t s o f s e r v i c e pr o v i d e d b y N o r t h e r n En g i n e e r i n g S e r v i c e s , I n c . an d a r e n o t t o b e u s e d f o r an y t y p e o f c o n s t r u c t i o n un l e s s s i g n e d a n d s e a l e d by a P r o f e s s i o n a l En g i n e e r i n t h e e m p l o y o f No r t h e r n E n g i n e e r i n g Se r v i c e s , I n c . NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N FINISHED GRADE NYLOPLAST CLEANOUT END CAP ADJUST GRADE TO FINISH GRADE ELEVATION INJECTION MOLDED WT TEE INSERT INJECTION MOLDED, GASKETED SPIGOT BY BELL REDUCER INJECTION MOLDED WT TEE HDPE PIPE (TYP) GASKETED CONNECTION INJECTION MOLDED WT 90° BEND DOWNSPOUT ADAPTER INSERTED IN RISER PIPE BUILDING FACE COORDINATE WITH STRUCTURAL TO AVOID FOOTING CONFLICTS TYPICAL ROOF LEADER CONNECTION NOTE: CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL ROOF DRAIN AND DOWN SPOUT CONNECTIONS WITH ARCHITECT. 401 400 FOREBAY DETAILS &ŽƌĞďĂLJ/ ^ƚŽƌŵŽŶǀĞLJĂŶĐĞ/ ĞƉƚŚ;ŝŶͿ >ĞŐŶƚŚ;ĨƚͿ tŝĚƚŚ;ĨƚͿ &ŽƌĞďĂLJϭͲϭ ƵƌďƵƚϮ ;^ŽƵƚŚWĂƌŬŝŶŐ>ŽƚͿ ϭϮ Ϯ ϰ &ŽƌĞďĂLJϭͲϮ ƵƌďƵƚϯ ;EDĂƐŽŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚͿ ϭϮ Ϯ ϰ &ŽƌĞďĂLJϭͲϯ ^ƚŽƌŵϭϮ Ϯ ϱ &ŽƌĞďĂLJϭͲϰ ^ƚŽƌŵZϯ ϭϮ Ϯ Ϯ &ŽƌĞďĂLJϮͲϭ ƵƌďƵƚϭ ;EŽƌƚŚWĂƌŬŝŶŐ>ŽƚͿ ϭϮ Ϯ ϰ &ŽƌĞďĂLJϮͲϮ ^ƚŽƌŵZϭ ϭϮ Ϯ Ϯ &ŽƌĞďĂLJϮͲϯ ^ƚŽƌŵZϮ ϭϮ Ϯ Ϯ FOREBAY 1-1, 1-2, AND 2-1 FOREBAY 1-4, 2-2, AND 2-3 FOREBAY 1-3 4" 4" R2" 4" 4"R2" 6" OUTLET PIPE FRONT VIEW SIDE VIEW CONCRETE COLLAR402 149 Section D, Item 1. D5 21 Th e s e d r a w i n g s a r e in s t r u m e n t s o f s e r v i c e pr o v i d e d b y N o r t h e r n En g i n e e r i n g S e r v i c e s , I n c . an d a r e n o t t o b e u s e d f o r an y t y p e o f c o n s t r u c t i o n un l e s s s i g n e d a n d s e a l e d by a P r o f e s s i o n a l En g i n e e r i n t h e e m p l o y o f No r t h e r n E n g i n e e r i n g Se r v i c e s , I n c . NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N 2' TOP OF WEIR 2'WLW 2-#5 BARS 1 4 (SEE NOTE) 8" MINIMUM THICKNESS 2-#5 BARS3" C L R 3" C L R NOTE: TRENCH FOR WEIR OUTLET STRUCTURE USING NATIVE GROUND AS FORM WORK. CONSTRUCT WEIR 8" MINIMUM THICKNESS. UPON COMPLETION OF TRENCHING, PLACE TEMPERATURE STEEL AND CONCRETE IMMEDIATELY. FORM TOP 4". TOP OF BERM/EMBANKMENT 30" MIN. OVERFLOW WEIR SCHEDULE401 H tĞŝƌ^ƵŵŵĂƌLJ ZĂŝŶ'ĂƌĚĞŶ/>;&dͿ ,;&dͿ t;&dͿ ϭ ϭϱ ϭ ϰ Ϯ ϭϬ ϭ ϰ PART 1 - GENERAL A.Bioretention Sand Media (BSM) shall be uniformly mixed, uncompacted, free of stones, stumps, roots, or other similar objects larger than two inches. No other materials or substances shall be mixed or dumped within the bioretention area that may be harmful to plant growth or prove a hindrance to the facility's function and maintenance. B.BSM shall be free of plant or seed material of non-native, invasive species, or weeds. C.Fully mixed BSM shall be tested prior to installation and meet the following criteria: 1. P-Index of less than 30 2. pH of 5.5-6.5. Should pH fall outside of the acceptable range, it may be modified with lime (to raise) or iron sulfate plus sulfur (to lower). The lime or iron sulfate must be mixed uniformly into the BSM prior to use in the bioretention facility. 3. Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) greater than 10 4. Phosphorous (Phosphate, P2O5) not to exceed 69 ppm 5. BSM that fails to meet the minimum requirements shall be replaced at the Contractor's expense. D.BSM shall be delivered fully mixed in a drum mixer. Onsite mixing of piles will not be allowed. Mixing of the BSM to a homogeneous consistency shall be done to the satisfaction of the Owner. PART 2 - SOIL MATERIALS A.Sand 1. BSM shall consist of 60-70% sand by volume meeting ASTM C-33. B. Shredded Paper 1. BSM shall consist of 5-10% shredded paper by volume. 2. Shredded paper shall be loosely packed, approximate bulk density of 50-100 lbs/CY. 3. Shredded paper shall consist of loose leaf paper, not shredded phone books, and shall be thoroughly and mechanically mixed to prevent clumping. C.Topsoil 1. BSM shall consist of 5-10% topsoil by volume. 2. Topsoil shall be classified as sandy loam, loamy sand, or loam per USDA textural triangle with less than 5% clay material. 3. Onsite, native material shall not be used as topsoil. 4. Textural analysis shall be performed on topsoil, preferably at its source, prior to including topsoil in the mix. Topsoil shall be free of subsoil, debris, weeds, foreign matter, and any other material deleterious to plant health. 5. Topsoil shall have a pH range of 5.5 to 7.5 and moisture content between 25-55%. 6. Contractor shall certify that topsoil meets these specifications. D.Leaf Compost 1. BSM shall consist of 10-20% leaf compost by volume. 2. Leaf compost shall consist of Class 1 organic leaf compost consisting of aged leaf mulch resulting from biological degradation and transformation of plant-derived materials under controlled conditions designed to promote aerobic decomposition. 3. The material shall be well composted, free of viable weed seeds and contain material of a generally humus nature capable of sustaining growth of vegetation, with no materials toxic to plant growth. 4. Compost shall be provided by a local US Composting Council Seal of Testing Assurance (STA) member. A copy of the provider's most recent independent STA test report shall be submitted to and approved by the Owner prior to delivery of BSM to the project site. 5. Compost material shall also meet the following criteria: a. 100 percent of the material shall pass through a 1/2 inch screen b. PH of the material shall be between 6.0 and 8.4 c. Moisture content shall be between 35 and 50 percent d. Maturity greater than 80 percent (maturity indicator expressed as percentage of germination/vigor, 80+/80+) e. Maturity indicator expressed as Carbon to Nitrogen ration < 12 f. Maturity indicator expressed as AmmoniaN/NitrateN Ratio <4 g. Minimum organic matter shall be 40 percent dry weight basis h. Soluble salt content shall be no greater than 5500 parts per million or 0-5 mmhos/cm i. Phosphorus content shall be no greater than 325 parts per million j. Heavy metals (trace) shall not exceed 0.5 parts per million k. Chemical contaminants: meet or exceed US EPA Class A standard, 40 CFR 503.13, Tables 1 & 3 levels l. Pathogens: meet or exceed US EPA Class A standard, 40 CFR 503.32(a) levels PART 3 - EXECUTION A.General 1. Refer to project specifications for excavation requirements. B.Placement Method 1. BSM material shall be spread evenly in horizontal layers. 2. Thickness of loose material in each layer shall not exceed 9-inches. 3. Compaction of BSM material is not required. CLEANOUT403 BIORETENTION SAND MEDIA404 APPROVED: DRAWN BY:DETAILS CONSTRUCTION DATE REVISED: DETAILSTORMWATER BIORETENTION JUNE 2023 SAA D-53 402 TYPICAL BIORETENTION DETAIL APPROVED: DRAWN BY:DETAILS CONSTRUCTION DATE REVISED:DETAILSTORMWATER BIORETENTION - UPTURNED ELBOW OUTFALL D-53AJUNE 2023 SAA UPTURNED ELBOW DETAIL (RAIN GARDEN 2)403 150 Section D, Item 1. D6 22 Th e s e d r a w i n g s a r e in s t r u m e n t s o f s e r v i c e pr o v i d e d b y N o r t h e r n En g i n e e r i n g S e r v i c e s , I n c . an d a r e n o t t o b e u s e d f o r an y t y p e o f c o n s t r u c t i o n un l e s s s i g n e d a n d s e a l e d by a P r o f e s s i o n a l En g i n e e r i n t h e e m p l o y o f No r t h e r n E n g i n e e r i n g Se r v i c e s , I n c . NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N NOTES: 1. THE SIGN PLATE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 12"X18" WITH A THICKNESS OF .080 ALUMINUM CONSTRUCTION. 2. THE SIGN FACE SHALL HAVE A WHITE REFLECTIVE BACKGROUND WITH A RED LEGEND. USE THE STANDARD 3M SCOTCHLITE SIGN FACE NUMBER R7-32 OR EQUIVALENT, WITH RED LETTERING AS SHOWN ABOVE. 3. ARROWS MAY BE NEEDED (LEFT, RIGHT OR DOUBLE), TO DESIGNATE BEGIN AND END OF NO PARKING AREA. NO PARKING STANDARD FIRE LANE SIGN DETAIL UNIVERSAL FIRE LANE SIGN DETAIL 18" 2" 1 1/2" 12"12" BACKGROUND "P" RED WHITE BLACK LEGEND, CIRCLE DIAGONAL, BORDER, "ARROW", "FIRE LANE" (FORT COLLINS ONLY) Transition back of walk (typ.)Wood float finish thru ramp Retaining Curb (Optional) 12 " (m a x . ) (m i n . ) T NOTES: 1. T = Concrete thickness, 6" minimum for entire ramp area. 2. 1:50 Max unless a landing behind ramp (then ramp can be 1:12 with 1:20 on the detectable warning). 3. See CONST. DWG. 1606(a) and 1607 for Fort Collins. 4. Detectable Warning to extend the full width of the ramp. Material to be approved by Local Engineer. 5. 0" Curb height, See Section A-A. 6. Standard Curb and Gutter Section , See Standard Drawing 701. Detectable Warning On a radius hold 6" at the corners of the truncated dome warning. 2" Retaining Curb (Optional) * Curb to match slope of sidewalk, Ramp length not to exceed 15'-0" See Note 6 See Note 5 See Note 5 See Note 6 Detectable Warning, See Note 4 Detectable Warning, See Note 4 Retaining Curb (Optional) to retain ground behind the walk, if needed 500 PAVING SECTIONS (PRIVATE AREAS OUTSIDE ROW) NOTES: 1. ALL SITE GRADING, SUBGRADE PREPARATION AND PAVING SHALL FOLLOW THE GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THE REPORT BY CTL THOMPSON., TITLED "GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER SWC HIBDON COURT AND MASON STREET FORT COLLINS, COLORADO" (CTL PROJECT NUMBER:FC10,520.000-125-R1), DATED NOVEMBER 20, 2023. 2. NOTE THAT THESE PAVING SECTIONS ARE TO BE USED ONLY FOR AREAS OUTSIDE OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. PAVING SECTIONS WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WILL BE REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO BE PER AN APPROVED PAVEMENT DESIGN REPORT. 3. SEE CDOT STANDARD M-412-1 FOR TYPICAL CONCRETE PAVING JOINT LAYOUT. 4. CONCRETE PARKING LOT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACI 330R-08. 5. ALL AREAS DEDICATED AS EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENTS SHALL BE CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING 80,000 POUNDS. PAVEMENT SECTION 6" PCC 6" APPROVED SUBGRADE 5" HOT MIX ASPHALT HEAVY DUTY 8" APPROVED SUBGRADE 4" HOT MIX ASPHALT PAVEMENT SECTION LIGHT DUTY 6" PCC 151 Section D, Item 1. FDC UD EM GM UDUDUD DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS X X X XXXXXXXX E E XX X X SSSSSS SS SS SS S UDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD EV X X X XXXXXXXX E E XX X X SSSSSS SS SS SS S N M A S O N S T R E E T HIBDON COURT INTERIM HICKORY REGIONAL DETENTION POND LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT LINE CURB CUT AND SIDEWALK CHASE EXISTING 24" STORM CULVERT TOTAL LENGTH OF SILT FENCE =1433 LF 71' ROW 71' ROW 42'' FL-FL 42'' FL-FL LOD LOD LODLODLOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LO D LOD SF SF SF SF SF SFSFSF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF 5,000 SQ. FT STABILIZED STAGING AREA CONCRETE FOREBAY CONCRETE FOREBAY LO D LO D LLO D LOLOLLLO DOD F NNDD SCOURSTOP (PER MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PACKAGE) 655 SQ. FT. TMAX EROSION CONTROL BLANKET GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE LLO D LLLLOD LOLOLOLOLLLO D SFSSSFSFSSFSF EC1 23 NORTH ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = ft. Feet03030 30 60 90 Th e s e d r a w i n g s a r e in s t r u m e n t s o f s e r v i c e pr o v i d e d b y N o r t h e r n En g i n e e r i n g S e r v i c e s , I n c . an d a r e n o t t o b e u s e d f o r an y t y p e o f c o n s t r u c t i o n un l e s s s i g n e d a n d s e a l e d b y a P r o f e s s i o n a l E n g i n e e r i n th e e m p l o y o f N o r t h e r n En g i n e e r i n g S e r v i c e s , I n c . NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES. CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO R TABLE OF CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE AND BMP APPLICATION Project: FORT COLLINS RESCUE MISSION CONSTRUCTION PHASE MOBILIZATION DEMOLITION GRADING BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS) STRUCTURAL "INSTALLATION" Silt Fence Barriers * Flow Barriers (Wattles) * Inlet Filter Bags * Vegetative Temporary Seeding Planting Mulching / Sealant Permanent Seeding Planting Sod Installation Rolled Products : Netting / Blankets / Mats Contour Furrows (Ripping / Disking) Rock Bags * UTILITIES INSTALLATION FLAT WORK INSTALLATION LANDSCAPE DEMOBILIZATION Vehicle Tracking Pad * * All Temporary BMPs to be Removed once Construction is Complete Any prior inlets that could use protecting Any prior inlets that could use protecting Anytime the site will sit dormant longer than 30 Days Anytime the site will sit dormant longer than 30 Days Anytime the site will sit dormant longer than 30 Days Riprap KEYMAP HIBDON CT. MAS O N S T . HICKORY ST. PROPOSED CONTOUR PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED SWALE EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER PROPERTY BOUNDARY SILT FENCE ROCK SOCK 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY STABILIZE ALL DISTURBED SLOPES BY CRIMP MULCHING OR SIMILAR METHODS. 2. SWMP ADMINISTRATOR: Contact ________________________________ Company ________________________________ Address ________________________________ Phone________________________________ 3. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE VEHICLE TRACKING CONTROL FOR CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA IF ACCESS IS OFF PAVEMENT. 4. REFER TO THE FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT, DATED FEBRUARY 14, 2024 BY NORTHERN ENGINEERING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 5. REFER TO LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR FINAL VEGETATIVE STABILIZATION IN PLANTING AREAS. 6. THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE SHALL NOT BE DISTURBED BY ANY GRADING, CONSTRUCTION OR MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES EXCEPT AS APPROVED BY THE CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER. 7. ALL PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY BMP'S ASSOCIATED WITH THE INTERIM HICKORY REGIONAL POND SHALL BE INSTALLED PER THE "MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE" EROSION CONTROL PLAN. GENERAL NOTES: WATTLE DIKE CONCRETE WASH AREA TMAX EROSION CONTROL LEGEND: BALE OUTLET PROTECTION INLET PROTECTION VEHICLE TRACKING CONTROL PAD SF SEED AND MULCH (SEE NOTE 5) >h>d/KE^,Zd dKd>/^dhZWZK:dZ Ϯ͘ϳϳ Z^ dKd>ΗKE^/dΗZK&/^dhZE Ϯ͘ϳϳ Z^ dKd>ΗK&&^/dΗZK&/^dhZE Ϭ Z^ dKd>^dKZ'ͬ^d'/E'ZϬ͘ϭϭ Z^ dKd>,h>ZK^Z Eͬ KE^dZhd/KEs,/>dZ&&/ZEͬ ^d͘WZEdK&WZK:dZyWK^ ϭϬϬй ^d͘WZEds'dd/sKsZ ϭϬϬй E^/dz y/^d/E'^K/>dzW  WWZKy͘'ZKhEtdZWd, ϴ͘ϬͲϵ͘ϱ &d EhDZK&W,^^tͬWZK:d Eͬ dKd>sK>hDK&/DWKZd;нͿͬyWKZd;ͲͿDdZ/>^Ϭ h͘z͘ dKd>ZK&^dK<W/>/E'K&&/>>KZKZZKtZ^K&&^/d Ϭ ^Y͘&d ^dW^d^>KW ϰ͗ϭ ,͗s /^dE&ZKDZ/WZ/EZKZ^E^/d/sZ Ϭ &d CALCULATION CHART: EC1 152 Section D, Item 1. EC2 24 Th e s e d r a w i n g s a r e in s t r u m e n t s o f s e r v i c e pr o v i d e d b y N o r t h e r n En g i n e e r i n g S e r v i c e s , I n c . an d a r e n o t t o b e u s e d f o r an y t y p e o f c o n s t r u c t i o n un l e s s s i g n e d a n d s e a l e d b y a P r o f e s s i o n a l E n g i n e e r i n th e e m p l o y o f N o r t h e r n En g i n e e r i n g S e r v i c e s , I n c . NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N ROCK SOCK SECTION ROCK SOCK PLAN ROCK SOCK JOINTING GRADATION TABLE SIEVE SIZE MASS PERCENT PASSING SQUARE MESH SIEVES NO. 4 2" 100 1-1/2" 90-100 1" 20-55 3/4" 0-15 3/8" 0-5 MATCHES SPECIFICATIONS FOR NO. 4 COARSE AGGREGATE FOR CONCRETE PER AASHTO M43. ALL ROCK SHALL BE FRACTURED FACE, ALL SIDES RS 001 CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA 002 ROCK SOCK 003 VEHICLE TRACKING PAD 004 SILT FENCE SF 005 CURB INLET PROTECTION IP POSTS PREASSEMBLED SILT FENCE POSTS SHALL OVERLAP AT JOINTS SO THAT NO GAPS EXIST IN SILT FENCE. NOTE: THICKNESS OF GEOTEXTILE HAS BEEN EXAGGERATED.POST SHALL BE JOINED AS SHOWN, THEN ROTATED 180° IN DIRECTION SHOWN AND DRIVEN INTO THE GROUND. SILT FENCE JOINTS DRIVE POSTS VERTICALLY INTO THE GROUND TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 18". EXCAVATE A TRENCH APPROXIMATELY 4" WIDE AND 4" DEEP ALONG THE LINE OF POSTS AND UPSLOPE FROM THE BARRIER. ANCHOR TRENCH SHALL BE EXCAVATED BY HAND, WITH TRENCHER, OR WITH SILT FENCE INSTALLATION MACHINE. NO ROAD GRADERS, BACKHOES, ETC. SHALL BE USED. NOT LESS THAN THE BOTTOM 1' OF THE SILT FENCE FABRIC SHALL BE BURIED IN THE TRENCH. THE TRENCH SHALL BE COMPACTED BY HAND, WITH "JUMPING JACK" OR BY WHEEL ROLLING. COMPACTION SHALL BE SUCH THAT THE SILT FENCE RESISTS BEING PULLED OUT OF ANCHOR TRENCH BY HAND. SILT FENCE INDICATED IN THE PLANS SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES. USE WOOD POSTS OR OTHER MATERIAL AS ACCEPTED BY THE CITY. INSTALLATION NOTES: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT SILT FENCE EVERY TWO WEEKS AND AFTER SIGNIFICANT STORM EVENTS AND MAKE REPAIRS OR CLEAN OUT UPSTREAM SEDIMENT AS NECESSARY. SEDIMENT ACCUMULATED UPSTREAM OF SILT FENCE SHALL BE REMOVED WHEN THE UPSTREAM SEDIMENT REACHES A DEPTH OF 6". SILT FENCE SHALL BE REMOVED WHEN THE UPSTREAM DISTURBED AREA IS STABILIZED AND GRASS COVER IS ACCEPTED BY THE CITY. IF ANY DISTURBED AREA EXISTS AFTER REMOVAL, IT SHALL BE SEEDED AND MULCHED OR OTHERWISE STABILIZED IN A MANNER ACCEPTED BY THE CITY. MAINTENANCE NOTES: 1. 2. 3. 4" MIN. 4" MIN. 1 12" x 1 12" WOODEN FENCE POSTS SF 008 BOP BALE OUTLET PROTECTION FLOW 3'-4' ADJACENT ROLLS SHALL TIGHTLY ABUT W1 NOTES: INSTALLATION: WHEN INSTALLING RUNNING LENGTHS OF WATTLES, BUTT THE SECOND WATTLE TIGHTLY AGAINST THE FIRST, DO NOT OVERLAP THE ENDS. STAKE THE WATTLES AT EACH END AND FOUR FOOT ON CENTER. FOR EXAMPLE: A 25 FOOT WATTLE USES 6 STAKES A 20 FOOT WATTLE USES 5 STAKES A 12 FOOT WATTLE USES 4 STAKES STAKES SHOULD BE DRIVEN THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THE WATTLE. LEAVING 2 - 3 INCHES OF THE STAKE PROTRUDING ABOVE THE WATTLE. A HEAVY SEDIMENT LOAD WILL TEND TO PICK THE WATTLE UP AND COULD PULL IT OFF THE STAKES IF THEY ARE DRIVEN DOWN TOO LOW. IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO MAKE A HOLE IN THE WATTLE WITH A PICK END OF YOUR MADDOX IN ORDER TO GET THE STAKE THROUGH THE STRAW. WHEN STRAW WATTLES ARE USED FOR FLAT GROUND APPLICATIONS, DRIVE THE STAKES STRAIGHT DOWN; WHEN INSTALLING WATTLES ON SLOPES, DRIVE THE STAKES PERPENDICULAR TO THE SLOPE. DRIVE THE FIRST END STAKE OF THE SECOND WATTLE AT AN ANGLE TOWARD THE FIRST WATTLE IN ORDER TO HELP ABUT THEM TIGHTLY TOGETHER. IF YOU HAVE DIFFICULTY DRIVING THE STAKE INTO EXTREMELY HARD OR ROCKY SLOPES, A PILOT BAR MAY BE NEEDED TO BEGIN THE STAKE HOLE. 1"x 1" WOOD STAKES 18"-24" WATTLE "A"WATTLE "B" 1'2' TYP. 1'1' W2 NOTES: INSTALLATION: STAKES SHOULD BE DRIVEN ACROSS FROM EACH OTHER AND ON EACH SIDE OF THE WATTLE. LEAVING 4"-6" OF STAKE PROTRUDING ABOVE THE WATTLE. BAILING WIRE OR NYLON ROPE SHOULD BE TIED TO THE STAKES ACROSS THE WATTLE. STAKES SHOULD THEN BE DRIVEN UNTIL THE BAILING WIRE OR NYLON ROPE IS SUFFICIENTLY SNUG TO THE WATTLE. WHEN INSTALLING RUNNING LENGTHS OF WATTLES, TO PREVENT SHIFTING, BUTT THE SECOND WATTLE TIGHTLY AGAINST THE FIRST. DO NOT OVERLAP THE ENDS. STAKES SHOULD BE DRIVEN 1 FT. FROM END, ACROSS FROM AND ON EACH SIDE OF WATTLE LEAVING 4"-6" OF STAKE PROTRUDING ABOVE THE WATTLE. BAILING WIRE OR NYLON ROPE SHOULD BE TIED TO STAKES IN AN HOUR GLASS FORMATION (FRONT TO BACK OF WATTLE "A", ACROSS TO FRONT OF WATTLE "B", ACROSS TO BACK AND BACK TO FRONT OF WATTLE "A"). STAKES SHOULD THEN BE DRIVEN IN UNTIL BAILING WIRE OR NYLON ROPE IS SUFFICIENTLY SNUG TO THE WATTLE. W1 & W2 INSTALLATION NOTES: 1. THE LOCATION AND LENGTH OF WATTLE IS DEPENDENT ON THE CONDITIONS OF EACH SITE. 2. WATTLES SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES. 3. WATTLES SHALL CONSIST OF STRAW, COMPOST, EXCELSIOR, OR COCONUT FIBER. 4. NOT FOR USE IN CONCENTRATED FLOW AREAS. 5. THE WATTLES SHALL BE TRENCHED INTO THE GROUND A MINIMUM OF TWO (2) INCHES. 6. WATTLES SHALL BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS. 7. ON SLOPES, WATTLES SHOULD BE INSTALLED ON CONTOUR WITH A SLIGHT DOWNWARD ANGLE AT THE END OF THE ROW IN ORDER TO PREVENT PONDING AT THE MID SECTION. 8. RUNNING LENGTHS OF WATTLES SHOULD BE ABUTTED FIRMLY TO ENSURE NO LEAKAGE AT THE ABUTMENTS. 9. SPACING - DOWNSLOPE: VERTICAL SPACING FOR SLOPE INSTALLATIONS SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY SITE CONDITIONS. SLOPE GRADIENT AND SOIL TYPE ARE THE MAIN FACTORS. A GOOD RULE OF THUMB IS: 1:1 SLOPES = 10 FEET APART 2:1 SLOPES = 20 FEET APART 3:1 SLOPES = 30 FEET APART 4:1 SLOPES = 40 FEET APART, ETC. HOWEVER, ADJUSTMENTS MAY HAVE TO BE MADE FOR THE SOIL TYPE: FOR SOFT, LOAMY SOILS - ADJUST THE ROWS CLOSER TOGETHER; FOR HARD, ROCKY SOILS - ADJUST THE ROWS FURTHER APART. A SECONDARY WATTLE PLACED BEHIND THE ABUTMENT OF TWO WATTLES IS ENCOURAGED ON STEEP SLOPES OR WHERE JOINTS HAVE FAILED IN THE PAST. 10. STAKING: THE CITY RECOMMENDS USING WOOD STAKES TO SECURE THE WATTLES. 1/2" TO 5/8" REBAR IS ALSO ACCEPTABLE. BE SURE TO USE A STAKE THAT IS LONG ENOUGH TO PROTRUDE SEVERAL INCHES ABOVE THE WATTLE: 18" IS A GOOD LENGTH FOR HARD, ROCKY SOIL. FOR SOFT LOAMY SOIL USE A 24" STAKE. 4"-6" ABOVE WATTLE AFTER BAILING WIRE OR NYLON ROPE IS ATTACHED. STAKES NEED TO BE TAMPED UNTIL WIRE/ROPE IS SNUG WITH WATTLE. 1"x 1" WOOD STAKES 18"-24" ENDS OF ADJACENT WATTLESSHALL BE TIGHTLY ABUTTEDTO PREVENT SEDIMENT BYPASS W2 NOTE: ONLY WATTLES MADE WITH COCONUT FIBERS SHALL BE USED WHEN INSTALLATION COMES IN CONTACT WITH A WATER BODY. 007 STRAW WATTLE Drawing Not To Scale 1. Prepare soil before installing rolled erosion control products (RECPs), including any necessary application of lime, fertilizer, and seed. 2. Begin at the top of the slope by anchoring the RECPs in a 6"(15cm) deep X 6"(15cm) wide trench with approximately 12" (30cm) of RECPs extended beyond the up-slope portion of the trench. Anchor the RECPs with a row of staples/stakes approximately 12" (30cm) apart in the bottom of the trench. Backfill and compact the trench after stapling. Apply seed to the compacted soil and fold the remaining 12"(30cm) portion of RECPs back over the seed and compacted soil. Secure RECPs over compacted soil with a row of staples/stakes spaced approximately 12"(30cm) apart across the width of the RECPs. 3. Roll the RECPs (A) down or (B) horizontally across the slope. RECPs will unroll with appropriate side against the soil surface. All RECPs must be securely fastened to soil surface by placing staples/stakes in appropriate locations as shown in the staple pattern guide. 4. The edges of parallel RECPs must be stapled with approximately 2" - 5" (5-12.5cm) overlap depending on the RECPs type. 5. Consecutive RECPs spliced down the slope must be end over end (Shingle style) with an approximate 3"(7.5cm) overlap. Staple through overlapped area, approximately 12"(30cm) apart across entire RECPs width. Drawn on: 3-16-11 Disclaimer: The information presented herein is general design information only. For specific applications, consult an independent professional for further design guidance. 2"-5" (5-12.5cm) 3B 4 2 5 1 3A 12"(30cm) 6" (15cm) 6" (15cm) *NOTE: In loose soil conditions, the use of staple or stake lengths greater than 6"(15cm) may be necessary to properly secure the RECP's. 3"(7.5cm) 5401 St. Wendel - Cynthiana Rd. Poseyville, IN 47633 PH: 800-722-2040 www.nagreen.com 006 TMAX EROSION BLANKET 153 Section D, Item 1. DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS CTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTV OHU OHU OHU OHU CTV X X X XXXXXXXX C G G G G G G G G G SS SS SS SS SS SS Y S E E XX X X X X W W W W W W W W W SSSSSS SS SS SS W W S S UDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD EV UD SC TF G G UDUDUD GEN 10' UTILITY EASEMENT BK 1658 PG 746 45' ROW BK 1743 PG 632 10' UTILITY EASEMENT BK 1572 PG 322 N M A S O N S T R E E T a1 HIBDON COURT 45' ROW BK 1743 PG 632 10' UTILITY EASEMENT 30' STORMWATER & UTILITY EASEMENT WANKIER LANCE 1401 N. COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, CO WOOD RONALD G/ JENNIFER L/ WILLARD E 122 HIBDON COURT FORT COLLINS, CO THOMPSON PROPERTIES LLC 1319 N. COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, CO a2 a3 b3 b2 b1 60' DRAINAGE EASEMENT EMERGENCY SPILLWAY EMERGENCY SPILLWAY 4' CURB CUT AND SIDEWALK CHASE STORM DRAIN (TYP.) HICKORY REGIONAL DETENTION POND LOT 1 LOT 3 LOT 2 RAIN GARDEN 2 REQ VOL. 682 CUFT PROVIDED VOL. 915 CUFT PROVIDED FLAT AREA = 1,532 SQFT RAIN GARDEN 1 REQ VOL. 1,405 CUFT PROVIDED VOL. 1,870 CUFT PROVIDED FLAT AREA = 1,442 SQFT 0.09 ac. R1 0.09 ac. R3 0.11 ac. R5 0.27 ac. B1 0.36 ac. A2 0.32 ac. A1 0.37 ac. A3 0.11 ac. A4 0.04 ac. A5 0.35 ac. C1 0.03 ac. B4 0.19 ac. B2 0.04 ac. A6 0.06 ac. A7 0.24 ac. B30.02 ac. R2 0.17 ac. R40.02 ac. R12 0.04 ac. R6 0.02 ac. R7 0.03 ac. R8 0.10 ac. R10 0.07 ac. R9 0.04 ac. R11 b1 r1 r3 r2 b4 r5 r4 c1 r10 r11 r9 r8 r7 a5 a6 r6 a7 r12 1' CURB CUT AND SIDEWALK CHASE 1' CURB CUT AND SIDEWALK CHASE CONCRETE RUNDOWN AND FOREBAY 1-1 SEE DETAIL SHEET 21 CONCRETE FOREBAY 1-3 SEE DETAIL SHEET 21 CONCRETE FOREBAY 1-4 SEE DETAIL SHEET 21 CONCRETE RUNDOWN AND FOREBAY 1-2 SEE DETAIL SHEET 21 CONCRETE RUNDOWN AND FOREBAY 2-1 SEE DETAIL SHEET 21 CONCRETE FOREBAY 2-2 SEE DETAIL SHEET 21 CONCRETE FOREBAY 2-3 SEE DETAIL SHEET 21 DR1 25 NORTH ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = ft. Feet03030 30 60 90 CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES. CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO R Th e s e d r a w i n g s a r e in s t r u m e n t s o f s e r v i c e pr o v i d e d b y N o r t h e r n En g i n e e r i n g S e r v i c e s , I n c . an d a r e n o t t o b e u s e d f o r an y t y p e o f c o n s t r u c t i o n un l e s s s i g n e d a n d s e a l e d by a P r o f e s s i o n a l En g i n e e r i n t h e e m p l o y o f No r t h e r n E n g i n e e r i n g Se r v i c e s , I n c . NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION KEYMAP MAS O N S T . HIBDON CT. PROPOSED CONTOUR PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED SWALE EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROPOSED INLET A DESIGN POINT FLOW ARROW DRAINAGE BASIN LABEL DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY PROPOSED SWALE SECTION 11 NOTES: 1. REFER TO THE FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT, DATED FEBRUARY 14, 2024 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 2. REFER TO THE MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE DRAINAGE REPORT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. A LEGEND: EMERGENCY OVERFLOW PATH C2 C100 Q2 (cfs) Q100 (cfs) 154 Section D, Item 1. Fort Collins Rescue Mission November 1st, 2023 Alternative Compliance Request 3.2.2.(K)(2) Non-Residential Parking Requirements Nonresidential uses shall provide a minimum number of parking spaces, and will be limited to a maximum number of parking spaces as defined by the standards defined below. (d)For uses that are not specifically listed in subsections 3.2.2(K)(1) or (2), the number of parking spaces permitted shall be the number permitted for the most similar use listed. Reason for the Request Parking requirements for the proposed use of homeless shelter are not defined in the Land Use Code. Section 3.2.2.(K)(3) outlines the procedure for establishing an alternative parking ratio based on use for institutional land uses. We have provided a Parking Analysis completed by Fox Tuttle Transportation Group to evaluate ‘the future parking needs for the planned Fort Collins Rescue Mission overnight shelter facility’. The report calculates that at peak demand ‘there will be up to 49 employees, interns, and volunteers on site. Applying the City requirement of two (2) parking spaces for every three (3) employees equates to 33 required parking spaces.’ The Fort Collins Rescue Mission project is proposing 35 spaces, therefore the report concludes that the project will be adequately parked. Justifications 3.2.2(K)(3)(b) Review Criteria. To approve an alternative plan, the decision maker must first find that the proposed alterative plan accomplishes the purposes of this Section equally well or better than would a plan that complies with the standards of this Section. The general purpose of the standard is to ”…ensure that the parking and circulation aspects of all developments are well designed with regard to safety, efficiency and convenience for vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and transit, both within the development and to and from surrounding areas.” The proposed alternative plan will accomplish the purposes of the code equally well or better than a standard plan because we are accurately identifying the parking needs for the proposed use. Since the code does not define a minimum or maximum for the proposed use of homeless shelter trying to apply a standard for some other use could result in unsuitable requirements and under or over-parking of the site. Part of what makes this project unique is the guests who will be staying at the shelter.. ‘It is likely that the clientele of the Fort Collins Rescue Mission will not be operating 155 Section D, Item 1. Fort Collins Rescue Mission Alternative Compliance Request – Vehicle Parking ratios 10/25/2023 Page 2 of 2 vehicles and thus will not require off -street parking at the project site.’ Therefore, the parking demand is mostly based on the employees and volunteers who visit the site. The parking analysis uses data from the Denver Rescue Mission , a similar project in size and scope, to calculate parking demand. The new shelter will be owned and operated by the same company, which is the Fort Collins branch of the Rescue Mission.. In reviewing a request for an alternative number of parking spaces, the decision maker must consider whether the proposed plan: 1. does not detract from continuity, connectivity and convenient proximity for pedestrians between or among existing or future uses in the vicinity, •Pedestrian connectivity will function the same as it would with a standard code compliant plan. 2. minimizes the visual and aesthetic impact along the public street by placing parking lots to the rear or along the side of buildings, to the maximum extent feasible, •Parking is proposed to be to either side of the building , to the north and south, set back from the street, with the main building entrance fronting on Mason street. 3. minimizes the visual and aesthetic impact on the surrounding neighborhood, •By limiting parking to only what is needed, visual and aesthetic impact is minimized. 4.creates no physical impact on any facilities serving alternative modes of transportation, The proposed plan will not impact the R.O.W. or the activated streetscape differently than a standard plan would.5. creates no detrimental impact on natural areas or features, The proposed parking plan will be within the property boundary and will comply with all other related codes, including screening , and lighting restrictions to natural areas.6. maintains handicap parking ratios, and •This project meets all handicap parking requirements, with one accessible space in the north parking lot, and two in the south parking lot. 7. for projects located in D, L -M-N, M-M-N and C-C zone districts, conforms with the established street and alley block patterns, and places parking lots across the side or to the rear of buildings. •Not applicable as this project is located in the C -S zone district. 156 Section D, Item 1. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To: Joshua Geppelt, Vice President of Programs, Denver Rescue Mission From: Caleb Feaver, PE, Fox Tuttle Transportation Group Date: October 23, 2023 Subject: Fort Collins Rescue Mission Parking Analysis INTRODUCTION The Fox Tuttle Transportation Group evaluated the future parking needs for the planned Fort Collins Rescue Mission overnight shelter facility. The project site is located on vacant land north of Hickory Street and west of Mason Street, in the City of Fort Collins, Colorado as shown in Figure 1.The project proposes to construct a homeless shelter and supporting office space with 35 on- site (off-street) parking spaces. This parking analysis provides an evaluation, conclusions, and recommendation for the amount of parking needed to accommodate the Fort Collins Rescue Mission project. City of Fort Collins Parking Requirements The City of Fort Collins’ Land Use Code does not list parking requirements for land use similar to the project. However, in Section 3.2.2(K)(3), the Land Use Code describes the procedure for determining a parking ratio based on a Parking Figure 1. Project Location Map 157 Section D, Item 1. Impact Study or similar study. This analysis is intended to serve as the required Parking Impact Study. Project Data The project team anticipates that the Fort Collins Rescue Mission will have up to 34 on-site employees and up to 22 interns or volunteers. The employees, interns and volunteers will operate on three (3) separate shifts, with some overlap between each shift. It is anticipated that the shift overlap will experience the highest parking demand since there will be up to 49 employees, interns, and volunteers on site. Given the nature of the project, it is believed to be unlikely that project clientele will require on-site parking. Denver Rescue Mission Data Employee and parking data was provided by the project team for a Denver Rescue Mission site in Denver, Colorado. The Denver location has a larger team of employees and volunteers than the Fort Collins location is anticipated to have. Scaled for differences in services provided, the Denver location has approximately 44 people on their support team. While the Denver site provides 55 off-street parking spaces, a point-in-time data collection showed that at the time of peak parking demand, only 27 spaces were utilized. At this time, it was calculated that 0.61 spaces were needed per every one (1) employee. If this rate were applied to the proposed Fort Collins Rescue Mission, then there would be a parking demand of 30 spaces. Proposed Parking Supply The Fort Collins Rescue Mission project is proposing to provide 35 off-street parking spaces for use at the shelter. This equates to approximately 0.80 parking spaces per employee, more than the demand observed at the Denver location. Conclusion The Fort Collins Rescue Mission project is proposing to construct an overnight shelter site north of Hickory Street and west of Mason Street in the City of Fort Collins. The project proposes to provide 35 off-street parking spaces. It was calculated that the Fort Collins Rescue Mission would have a parking demand of 30 spaces. This study concludes that the proposed parking plan will be sufficient to meet peak parking demand at the Fort Collins Rescue Mission project site. 158 Section D, Item 1. Fox Tuttle staff hopes that the evaluations, conclusions, and recommendations provided in this parking analysis are helpful for the Denver Rescue Mission project team in determining the adequacy of the proposed parking supply and for the City of Fort Collins staff for review of the project. We look forward to continuing our work with Denver Rescue Mission and the project team. Sincerely, Caleb Feaver, PE Senior Transportation Engineer FOX TUTTLE TRANSPORTATION GROUP, LLC 159 Section D, Item 1. 160 Section D, Item 1. 161 Section D, Item 1. 162 Section D, Item 1. 163 Section D, Item 1. 164 Section D, Item 1. 165 Section D, Item 1. 166 Section D, Item 1. 167 Section D, Item 1. 168 Section D, Item 1. 169 Section D, Item 1. 170 Section D, Item 1. 171 Section D, Item 1. 172 Section D, Item 1. 173 Section D, Item 1. 174 Section D, Item 1. FORT COLLINS STORMWATER CRITERIA MANUAL Hydrology Standards (Ch. 5) 3.0 Rational Method 3.4 Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves for Rational Method Page 8 Table 3.4-1. IDF Table for Rational Method Duration (min) 2-year (in/hr) 10-year (in/hr) 100-year (in/hr) Duration (min) 2-year (in/hr) 10-year (in/hr) 100-year (in/hr) 5 2.85 4.87 9.95 39 1.09 1.86 3.8 6 2.67 4.56 9.31 40 1.07 1.83 3.74 9 2.30 3.93 8.03 43 1.02 1.74 3.56 10 2.21 3.78 7.72 44 1.01 1.72 3.51 11 2.13 3.63 7.42 45 0.99 1.69 3.46 12 2.05 3.50 7.16 46 0.98 1.67 3.41 13 1.98 3.39 6.92 47 0.96 1.64 3.36 14 1.92 3.29 6.71 48 0.95 1.62 3.31 15 1.87 3.19 6.52 49 0.94 1.6 3.27 16 1.81 3.08 6.30 50 0.92 1.58 3.23 17 1.75 2.99 6.10 51 0.91 1.56 3.18 18 1.70 2.90 5.92 52 0.9 1.54 3.14 19 1.65 2.82 5.75 53 0.89 1.52 3.10 20 1.61 2.74 5.60 54 0.88 1.50 3.07 21 1.56 2.67 5.46 55 0.87 1.48 3.03 22 1.53 2.61 5.32 56 0.86 1.47 2.99 25 1.43 2.44 4.98 59 0.83 1.42 2.89 26 1.4 2.39 4.87 60 0.82 1.4 2.86 27 1.37 2.34 4.78 65 0.78 1.32 2.71 28 1.34 2.29 4.69 70 0.73 1.25 2.59 29 1.32 2.25 4.60 75 0.70 1.19 2.48 30 1.30 2.21 4.52 80 0.66 1.14 2.38 31 1.27 2.16 4.42 85 0.64 1.09 2.29 32 1.24 2.12 4.33 90 0.61 1.05 2.21 33 1.22 2.08 4.24 95 0.58 1.01 2.13 34 1.19 2.04 4.16 100 0.56 0.97 2.06 35 1.17 2.00 4.08 105 0.54 0.94 2.00 36 1.15 1.96 4.01 110 0.52 0.91 1.94 37 1.16 1.93 3.93 115 0.51 0.88 1.88 175 Section D, Item 1. FORT COLLINS STORMWATER CRITERIA MANUAL Hydrology Standards (Ch. 5) 3.0 Rational Method 3.4 Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves for Rational Method Page 9 Figure 3.4-1. Rainfall IDF Curve – Fort Collins 176 Section D, Item 1. 177 Section D, Item 1. 178 Section D, Item 1. 179 Section D, Item 1. 180 Section D, Item 1. 181 Section D, Item 1. 182 Section D, Item 1. 183 Section D, Item 1. 184 Section D, Item 1. 185 Section D, Item 1. 186 Section D, Item 1. 187 Section D, Item 1. 188 Section D, Item 1. 189 Section D, Item 1. (866) 888-8479 / (770) 932--2490 © Nyloplast Inlet Capacity Charts June 2012 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 Ca p a c i t y ( c f s ) Head (ft) Nyloplast 8" Dome Grate Inlet Capacity Chart 190 Section D, Item 1. (866) 888-8479 / (770) 932--2490 © Nyloplast Inlet Capacity Charts June 2012 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 Ca p a c i t y ( c f s ) Head (ft) Nyloplast 12" Dome Grate Inlet Capacity Chart 191 Section D, Item 1. (866) 888-8479 / (770) 932--2490 © Nyloplast Inlet Capacity Charts June 2012 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 Ca p a c i t y ( c f s ) Head (ft) Nyloplast 15" Dome Grate Inlet Capacity Chart 192 Section D, Item 1. (866) 888-8479 / (770) 932--2490 © Nyloplast Inlet Capacity Charts June 2012 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 Ca p a c i t y ( c f s ) Head (ft) Nyloplast 18" Dome Grate Inlet Capacity Chart 193 Section D, Item 1. 194 Section D, Item 1. 195 Section D, Item 1. 196 Section D, Item 1. 197 Section D, Item 1. 198 Section D, Item 1. 199 Section D, Item 1. 200 Section D, Item 1. 201 Section D, Item 1. 202 Section D, Item 1. 203 Section D, Item 1. 204 Section D, Item 1. 205 Section D, Item 1. 206 Section D, Item 1. 207 Section D, Item 1. 208 Section D, Item 1. 209 Section D, Item 1. 210 Section D, Item 1. 211 Section D, Item 1. 212 Section D, Item 1. 213 Section D, Item 1. 214 Section D, Item 1. 215 Section D, Item 1. 216 Section D, Item 1. 217 Section D, Item 1. 218 Section D, Item 1. 219 Section D, Item 1. 220 Section D, Item 1. 221 Section D, Item 1. 222 Section D, Item 1. 223 Section D, Item 1. 224 Section D, Item 1. 225 Section D, Item 1. 226 Section D, Item 1. 227 Section D, Item 1. 228 Section D, Item 1. 229 Section D, Item 1. 230 Section D, Item 1. 231 Section D, Item 1. 232 Section D, Item 1. 233 Section D, Item 1. 234 Section D, Item 1. 4609 E Boonville-New Harmony Rd Evansville, IN 47725 866-540-9810 12/7/21 Technical Bulletin: Comparison of TRM Design Life Estimates In the process of design, a relative frame of reference for the estimation of design life for Turf Reinforcement Mats (TRMs) and High Performance TRMS (HPTRMs) is often desired. To that end, this document has been developed to provide context and recommendations for a series of Western Excelsior and North American Green materials. Specifically, the longevity of a TRM in the field is a function of factors that are intrinsic to the material and many factors that are site specific. TRMs are typically constructed of any variety of filaments that may be bonded, woven or bound to create a cohesive matrix that is formed into a rolled product. The base synthetic product (ie polyester, nylon or polypropylene), chemical additives and dimensions can all, among other factors, influence the longevity of the material. Once installed in the field, degradation is a function of: Exposure to ultra-violet (UV) radiation (sunlight) Moisture Mechanical Loading Temperature Exposure to chemicals and/or pollution Definition of acceptable performance (i.e. tensile strength, coverage, etc.) Further, exposure to UV radiation naturally varies by: Location Facing Direction (North, East, West, South) Elevation Inclination (slope angle) Coverage by soil, debris, foliage, vegetation or other shade Based on these factors, any material will degrade at different rates, depending on the field-specific situation. Even within a given project, the direction and inclination of one area compared to another may reduce the lifespan by fifty percent. Thus, it is important to realize that, absent a detailed, site-specific analysis, any design life estimate should be considered an estimate for informational purposes. With this background, general guidance for North American Green (NAG) and Western Excelsior (WEC) produced TRMs are provided for consideration in product selection: S200, SC250, C350 Up to ten years (synthetic portion) PP5-8, PP5-10, PP5-12, P300 Up to ten years P550 Up to fifteen years PP5-Pro, TMax 3k Up to fifty years PP5-Xtreme, TMax Up to seventy-five years These estimates may or may not be reasonable for any specific condition or location and represent a maximum duration where it would be reasonable to expect acceptable performance. This estimation is exclusive of fastener performance. Consult Western Green or NAG directly for more specific recommendations. 235 Section D, Item 1. 236 Section D, Item 1. 237 Section D, Item 1. 238 Section D, Item 1. 239 Section D, Item 1. 240 Section D, Item 1. 241 Section D, Item 1. 242 Section D, Item 1. 243 Section D, Item 1. 244 Section D, Item 1. 245 Section D, Item 1. 246 Section D, Item 1. 247 Section D, Item 1. 248 Section D, Item 1. 249 Section D, Item 1. 250 Section D, Item 1. 251 Section D, Item 1. 252 Section D, Item 1. 253 Section D, Item 1. 254 Section D, Item 1. 255 Section D, Item 1. 256 Section D, Item 1. 257 Section D, Item 1. 258 Section D, Item 1. 259 Section D, Item 1. 260 Section D, Item 1. 261 Section D, Item 1. Previous Submittal Dates: Dec. 21, 2022 & Oct. 25, 2023  Updated Date: March 20, 2024 Submitted To: Denver Rescue Mission 6100 Smith Road Denver, CO 80216 Submitted By: Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC 1580 Logan Street, 6th Floor Denver, CO 80203 Fort Collins Rescue Mission Traffic Impact Study 262 Section D, Item 1. Fort Collins Rescue Mission Traffic Impact Study (FT #22099)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 2 March 20, 2024  TABLE OF CONTENTS  1.0  Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 4  2.0  Project Description .................................................................................................................. 5  3.0  Study Considerations ............................................................................................................... 5  3.1  Data Collection .................................................................................................................... 5  3.2  Evaluation Methodology ..................................................................................................... 6  3.3  Level of Service Definitions ................................................................................................. 6  4.0  Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................. 7  4.1  Roadways ............................................................................................................................ 7  4.2  Intersections ....................................................................................................................... 8  4.3  Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ......................................................................................... 8  4.4  Transit ................................................................................................................................. 9  4.5  Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis ............................................................................... 9  5.0  Future Traffic Conditions ....................................................................................................... 10  5.1  Annual Growth Factor and Future Volume Methodology ................................................ 10  5.2  Future Roadway Assumptions .......................................................................................... 10  5.2  Year 2025 Background Intersection Capacity Analysis ..................................................... 10  6.0  Proposed Fort Collins Rescue Mission Traffic ......................................................................... 11  6.1  Trip Generation ................................................................................................................. 11  6.2  Trip Distribution and Assignment ..................................................................................... 13  7.0  Future Traffic Conditions with site development ................................................................... 13  7.1  Year 2025 Background + Project Intersection Capacity Analysis ...................................... 13  8.0  Future Multi‐Modal Trips and Facilities .................................................................................. 13  9.0  Multi‐Modal Level‐of‐Service ................................................................................................. 15  10.0  Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 18  263 Section D, Item 1. Fort Collins Rescue Mission Traffic Impact Study (FT #22099)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 3 March 20, 2024  LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary  .............................................................. 20  Table 2 – Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queue Summary  ....................................................................... 21 Table 3 – Trip Generation Summary ................................................................................................ 12    LIST OF FIGURES  Figure 1 – Vicinity Map and Existing Access ............................................................................................... 22  Figure 2 – Site Plan ...................................................................................................................................... 23  Figure 3 – Year 2022 Existing Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................ 24  Figure 4 – Year 2025 Background Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................... 25  Figure 5 – Trip Distribution ......................................................................................................................... 26  Figure 6 – Site‐Generated Trip Volumes ..................................................................................................... 27  Figure 7 – Year 2025 Background + Site‐Generated Traffic Volumes ......................................................... 28    APPENDIX  Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions Form  Level of Service Definitions  Existing Traffic Data  Intersection Capacity Worksheets  264 Section D, Item 1. Fort Collins Rescue Mission Traffic Impact Study (FT #22099)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 4 March 20, 2024      FORT COLLINS RESCUE MISSION  TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY    1.0 INTRODUCTION  The Fox Tuttle Transportation Group prepared this traffic impact study for the Denver Rescue Mission,  which is proposing a new Fort Collins Mission campus located in the northern part of the city. The project  proposes to construct a new shelter which will include a day‐use area and an overnight shelter area.  The  current proposal is aimed at serving and aiding men that are currently experiencing homelessness.  The  project is located in the southwest corner of Mason Street and Hibdon Court.  Relative to North College  Avenue, also known as US Highway 287, the project site is approximately one block west of the major  arterial that travels through the city. Figure 1 includes a vicinity map for the proposed project.  The purpose of this study is to assist in identifying potential traffic impacts within the study area as a result  of this project. The traffic study addresses existing and short‐term (Year 2025) peak hour intersection  conditions in the study area with and without the project generated traffic.  The information contained in  this study is anticipated to be used by City of Fort Collins staff to identify any intersection or roadway  deficiencies and potential improvements for the short‐term future conditions. This study focused on the  weekday AM and PM peak hours which are typically the highest traffic volumes for the adjacent roadway  network.   The traffic impact study is consistent with the requirements of the City of Fort Collins’ standards set forth  in Chapter 4 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (revised 2021). A copy of the approved  Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions Form is attached in the Appendix for reference.   265 Section D, Item 1. Fort Collins Rescue Mission Traffic Impact Study (FT #22099)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 5 March 20, 2024  2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION  The Fort Collins Rescue Mission Project proposes to construct a new 43,000 square foot building along  the  west  side  of  Mason  Street  between  Hibdon  Court  and  the  existing  property  to  the  south.  It  is  understood that there will be up to 200 beds for people experiencing homelessness and the shelter will  also  include  restrooms,  showers,  living  and  dining  areas,  library,  meeting  rooms,  kitchen,  donation  storage,  laundry  rooms,  business  offices,  and  outdoor  space.  The  facility  also  plans  to  include  administrative offices for staff and volunteers.  It is understood the shelter will be opened 24 hours per  day, seven (7) days a week to provide services to those in need.  Currently, the site is vacant and the adjacent land uses include a couple single‐family residents, mobile  home park, lodging, small retail, and light industrial. The new Denver Rescue Mission location is in close  proximity to services across College Avenue including the Food Bank of Larimer County, Larimer County  Department of Human Services, and the Murphy Center for Hope.  Access to the site is planned via two new full‐movement, side‐street stop‐controlled access points on  Mason Street. The north access will become the west leg to the existing intersection of Mason Street at  Hibdon Court. The south access on Mason Street is proposed to be approximately 650 feet south of  Hibdon Court.  Figure 2 includes a conceptual site plan and access for the project.  3.0 STUDY CONSIDERATIONS  3.1  Data Collection   Intersection turning movement volumes were collected by Idax Data Solutions in early December 2022 at  four (4) existing intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Daily (24‐hour) traffic volumes  were gathered on Hibdon Court east of Mason Street and on Mason Street south of Hibdon Court. Historic  daily volumes and future forecasts along College Avenue (US 287) within the vicinity of the project site  were gathered from the CDOT’s Transportation Data Management System (TDMS).  The existing traffic volumes are illustrated on Figure 3. The existing intersection geometry and traffic  control are also shown on this figure. Count data sheets are provided in the Appendix.      266 Section D, Item 1. Fort Collins Rescue Mission Traffic Impact Study (FT #22099)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 6 March 20, 2024  3.2  Evaluation Methodology  The traffic operations analysis addressed the unsignalized intersection operations using the procedures  and methodologies set forth by the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 1.  Existing Peak Hour Factor (PHF)  were applied to the intersections for the existing and short‐term scenarios. Study intersections were  evaluated using Synchro (v11) software.   3.3  Level of Service Definitions   A level of service analysis was conducted to determine the existing and future performance of the study  intersections and to determine the most appropriate traffic control device and need for auxiliary lanes.    To measure and describe the operational status of the study intersections, transportation engineers and  planners commonly use a grading system referred to as “Level of Service” (LOS) that is defined by the  HCM.  LOS characterizes the operational conditions of an intersection’s traffic flow, ranging from LOS A  (indicating very good, free flow operations) and LOS F (indicating congested and sometimes oversaturated  conditions).  These grades represent the perspective of drivers and are an indication of the comfort and  convenience associated with traveling through the intersections. The intersection LOS is represented as a  delay in seconds per vehicle for the intersection as a whole and for each turning movement.  A more  detailed  discussion  of  the  LOS  methodology  is  contained  in  the  Appendix for reference.    The  Fort  Collins  standards  within  the  Larimer  County  Urban  Area  Street  Standards (LUCASS)  consider  LOS  A  through D to be good for the overall  intersection operations with LOS E or  better as acceptable in peak hours. For  individual movements, LOS E and F may  be  acceptable  for  left‐turns  or  minor  streets. Specific standards are provided  in Table 4‐2 in LUCASS and as shown to  the right.     1  Highway  Capacity  Manual,  Highway Research  Board  Special  Report  209,  Transportation  Research  Board,  National  Research Council, 6th Edition (2016).    267 Section D, Item 1. Fort Collins Rescue Mission Traffic Impact Study (FT #22099)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 7 March 20, 2024  4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS  4.1  Roadways  The study area boundaries are based on the amount of traffic to be generated by the project and potential  impact to the existing roadway network.  The study area was defined in coordination with the City of Fort  Collins staff and is outlined in the Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions Form (located in the  Appendix). The primary public roadways that serve the project site are discussed in the following text and  illustrated on Figure 3.  North College Avenue (US 287) is a four‐lane arterial that provides north‐south connectivity  through  the  entirety  of  Fort  Collins  and  connects  to  several  communities  within  Northern  Colorado and Southern Wyoming.  This section of North College Avenue is part of an interstate  commerce  truck  route  and  is  subject  to  access  management  documents  developed  by  the  Colorado  Department  of  Transportation,  Larimer  County,  and  the City  of  Fort  Collins.    The  roadway provides two (2) through lanes in each direction, on‐street bike lanes, a landscaped  parkway, and 8‐foot sidewalks.  Access control is provided via a raised, landscaped median.  The  posted speed limit is 40 mph within the vicinity of the project site. North College Avenue currently  serves approximately 25,100 vpd north of Hibdon Court (Year 2021, CDOT). North College Avenue  will provide the primary north/south access for the proposed Fort Collins Rescue Mission.   Hickory Street is a collector street that travels west of North College and provides access to the  Hickory Village neighborhood, light industrial businesses, and recreational areas. .  .  At North  College Avenue, Hickory Street is the western leg of an offset intersection with Conifer Street.  In  its current configuration, Hickory Street provides a single through lane per direction, on‐street  parking,  and  attached  sidewalks.    Near  the  Mason  Street  intersection,  this  roadway  has  an  approximately 56‐foot‐wide paved section.  The posted speed limit is 25 mph.  Although Hickory  Street currently terminates at South Gold Park, the City’s Master Street Plan shows Hickory Street  extending west to Shield Street.    Mason Street is a local roadway with a paved 22‐foot section, within the study area, that provides  rear‐lot access to several properties fronting North College Avenue.  This portion of Mason Street  is approximately 0.3‐mile in length starting north of Hickory Street and does not connect to  Midtown.  The roadway is located within a permanent public access easement and provides a  single travel lane per each direction.  Currently, there is no curb and gutter nor sidewalk.  There  is no posted speed limit, but assumed to be 25 miles per hour, a typical speed for local streets.   Mason Street currently serves approximately 140 vpd south of Hibdon Court (Year 2022, Count).  Per  the  City  of  Fort  Collins’ Master  Street  Plan  and  comments  provided  by  City  staff in  the  Preliminary Development Review Document, Mason Street is classified as a “Collector – With  268 Section D, Item 1. Fort Collins Rescue Mission Traffic Impact Study (FT #22099)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 8 March 20, 2024  Parking”.   This street classification includes one (1) travel lane per direction, on‐street bicycle  lanes, on‐street parking, a landscaped parkway, and 5‐foot sidewalks.      Hibdon Court is a local street that connects Mason Street and North College Avenue.  Starting at  North College Avenue and extending west approximately 300’, Hibdon Court is a 36‐foot‐wide  roadway  with  curb  and  gutter  and accommodates  a  single  travel  lane  in  each  direction.   Pedestrian connectivity is provided via a 5‐foot attached sidewalk on the south side of the road.   Continuing west to Mason Street, Hibdon Court transitions to a 22‐foot‐wide roadway with no  curb and gutter nor sidewalks.  There are no designated on‐street bicycle lanes.  There is no  posted speed limit, however, it is assumed to be 25 miles per hour, a typical speed for local streets.    Hibdon Court currently serves approximately 260 vpd east of Mason Street (Year 2022, Count).  4.2  Intersections  The study area includes four intersections that are listed below with the current traffic control and were  analyzed for existing and future background year traffic operations:  1. Mason Street at Hibdon Court (side‐street stop‐controlled)  2. North College Avenue at Hibdon Court (side‐street stop‐controlled)  3. Mason Street at Hickory Street (side‐street stop‐controlled)   4. North College Avenue at Hickory Street (signalized)  The existing lane configuration at each of the study locations is illustrated on Figure 3.    4.3  Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities  The City of Fort Collins adheres to the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LUCASS) and the  roadway cross sections defined therein.  All of the study roadways are identified as “complete streets”  and are anticipated to provide amenities promoting and encouraging multimodal activity while balancing  with the vehicular needs.    North College Avenue provides on‐street bicycle lanes and 8‐foot sidewalk on both sides of the roadway.   These improvements extend along North College Avenue, connecting Old Town Fort Collins to the city  limits at Highway 1.  These facilities serve as the multimodal backbone for North Fort Collins and provide  access to various commercial, residential, recreational, and community services.  Hickory Street also  provides defined multimodal connectivity though on‐street bicycle lanes and variable width, attached  sidewalks.  269 Section D, Item 1. Fort Collins Rescue Mission Traffic Impact Study (FT #22099)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 9 March 20, 2024  There is currently a 5‐foot sidewalk on Hibdon Court on the south side for approximately 300 feet west of  North College Avenue.  The remaining segment of Hibdon Court does not have sidewalks.  As is typical on  local streets, on‐street bike lanes are not striped; however, bicyclists are permitted to ride with traffic.    In its current configuration, Mason Street does not have dedicated multimodal improvements.    4.4  Transit   The  City  of  Fort  Collins  has  a  dedicated  transit  service,  Transfort,  that  serves  the  community.    Transfort’s primary hub is the Downtown Transit  Center (DTC), located on the east side of Mason  Street between Maple Street and Laporte Avenue.   For a fee, community members can access various  destinations throughout Fort Collins from the DTC.   Two  routes,  #8  and  #81,  serve  Northern  Fort  Collins and the project area  Routes #8 and #81 utilize the same loop, but travel  in opposite directions. Both routes utilize the same  transit  stops,  including  stops  located  on  the  far  sides  of  the  Hibdon  Court  intersection  which  is  anticipated to be useful for future patrons of the  Fort Collins Rescue Mission.  4.5  Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis  The existing volumes, lane configuration, and traffic control are illustrated on Figure 3. The results of the  LOS calculations for the study intersections are summarized in Table 1. The 95th percentile queues are  summarized in Table 2. The intersection level of service worksheets and queue reports are attached in  the Appendix.  All study intersections are currently operating at LOS A in the AM and PM peak hours,  with all approaches operating at LOS D or better. The 95th percentile queues were calculated to be  maintained within the existing storage lengths at all of the study intersections.    270 Section D, Item 1. Fort Collins Rescue Mission Traffic Impact Study (FT #22099)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 10 March 20, 2024  5.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS  5.1  Annual Growth Factor and Future Volume Methodology  In order to forecast the future peak hour traffic volumes, background traffic growth assumptions were  based on the Colorado Department of Transportation’s (CDOT) 20‐year factors, and discussed with City of  Fort Collins staff. Based on the CDOT forecasts on North College Avenue, it was assumed there will be an  annual growth rate of 1.0% within the study area. Using these assumptions, the Year 2025 background  traffic was estimated and summarized on Figure 4.     5.2  Future Roadway Assumptions  It was assumed that the study roadways will remain the same as existing in the near‐term future. Although  Mason Street is defined as a Collector roadway in the future per the City’s Master Street Plan, the Year  2025  background  analysis  assumed  the  existing  lane  configuration  and  traffic  control  at  the  study  intersections due to the low volumes. The currently proposed changes to the City’s Land Use Code, Mason  Street may be downgraded to a local street. The traffic analysis assumed that Mason Street would include  one travel lane per direction, which will be the case regardless of the roadway classification (local or  collector).   5.2  Year 2025 Background Intersection Capacity Analysis  The  study  area  intersections  were  evaluated  to  determine  baseline  operations  for  the  Year  2025  background scenario and to identify any capacity constraints associated with background traffic. The  background volumes, lane configuration, and traffic control are illustrated on Figure 4.    The level of service criteria discussed previously was applied to the study area intersections to determine  the  impacts  with  the  short‐term  background  volumes.  The  results  of  the  LOS  calculations  for  the  intersections are summarized in Table 1. The intersection level of service worksheets and queue reports  are attached in the Appendix.    The study intersections were shown to operate similarly to the existing conditions with LOS A overall in  the AM and PM peak hours in Year 2025 Background.  Similarly, looking at individual approach legs, all  approaches operate at LOS D or better.  The 95th percentile queues for 2025 Background traffic also  remain essentially unchanged as identified in Table 2 and continue to be maintained within the existing  storage lengths.     271 Section D, Item 1. Fort Collins Rescue Mission Traffic Impact Study (FT #22099)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 11 March 20, 2024  6.0 PROPOSED FORT COLLINS RESCUE MISSION TRAFFIC  6.1  Trip Generation  With no  comparable  trip  generation category within Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip  Generation Manual, local data from a comparable shelter was gathered and utilized to estimate the  number  of  vehicular  trips  associated  with  the  proposed  Fort  Collins  Rescue  Mission.  Denver  Rescue  Mission provided detailed information on the staffing, operational needs, and anticipated number of  people served on a daily basis for the new shelter. The new shelter will be opened 24 hours per day, seven  (7) days a week, year‐round. The summary of future operations is listed below:    Employees – 34 people daily  o Three (3) staffing shifts:    Daytime Shift (8:30 am to 4:30 pm): 16 employees   Swing Shift (2:00 pm to 10:30 pm): 11 employees   Overnight shift (10:00 pm to 8:30 am): 7 employees    o Majority of staff drives to the facility.    o Once on site, staff cannot leave the site.    o Based  on  the  peak  commuting  hours,  the  Daytime  Shift  and  the  Overnight  Shift  will  contribute to the AM and PM peak hour trips.   Interns/Volunteers – 27 people daily    o Similar work shifts to employees.   Daytime Shift (8:30 am to 4:30 pm): 2 interns, 12 volunteers   Swing Shift (2:00 pm to 10:30 pm): 0 interns, 13 volunteers   Overnight shift (10:00 pm to 8:30 am): 0 interns, 0 volunteers  o Majority arriving to the site via driving a vehicle.    o Once on site, interns and volunteers cannot leave the site.     Visitors – 10 people daily  o This is community members who visit the site but are not users of the facility.    o Typically arrive during the Daytime shift and not within the AM or PM peak hours.    o Majority of visitors arrive by vehicle.   272 Section D, Item 1. Fort Collins Rescue Mission Traffic Impact Study (FT #22099)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 12 March 20, 2024   Deliveries – 2 per day    o These deliveries support the facility’s operational needs with supplies and donations.    o Typically arrive during the Daytime shift but not within the AM or PM peak hours.    o All deliveries arrive by vehicle.    Partner Organization Visitors – up to 5 vehicles per day  o These are people visiting the site to provide services for patrons.    o Typically arrive during the Daytime shift but not within the AM or PM peak hours.    o All Partner Organization Visitors arrive by vehicle.   Patrons (Users of the Facility) – typically 100 per day and 40 per night  o These are the people who are served by the shelter as they are currently experiencing  homelessness.   o Typically arrive by walking, biking, or transit.  It is rare a patron arrives by vehicle.   o Patrons arrive and depart at any time during the day or night, typically before and after a  meal. Some stay for a short period of time while others remain for days.     The trip generation estimates are summarized in Table 3. It is estimated that the facility will generate  156 new trips per day, with 35 trips occurring in the AM peak hour and 26 trips occurring in the PM peak  hour.    Table 3. Trip Generation Summary  Users of Facility Quantity Unit Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Employees 34 People 68 34 34 23 16 7 16 0 16 Volunteers/Interns 27 People 54 27 27 12 8 4 10 10 0 Visitors* 10 People 20 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 Deliveries* 2 Veh. 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Partner Organization  Visitors*5 Veh. 10 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Patrons * 100 People 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 156 78 78 35 24 11 26 10 16 Source: Data from Denver Rescue Mission facilities of similar size and operations, as well as expected operations for new facilitie * Trips not included as they do not occur during the Peak Hours Average Daily  Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour  Trips 273 Section D, Item 1. Fort Collins Rescue Mission Traffic Impact Study (FT #22099)  Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 13 March 20, 2024  6.2  Trip Distribution and Assignment  The estimated trip volumes presented in Table 3 were distributed onto the study area roadway network  based on existing traffic characteristics of the area, existing and future land uses, and the relationship of  this project to the greater Fort Collins community.  Based on information provided by Denver Rescue  Mission, it was assumed that 25% of vehicular traffic will come from North College Avenue and the  remaining 75% will come from South College Avenue. The trip distribution through the study intersections  is shown on Figure 5.    The projected site traffic was assigned to the study area roadway network and proposed accesses for the  weekday AM and PM peak hour periods.  The site generated volumes are shown on Figure 6.  7.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH SITE DEVELOPMENT   This section projects the future traffic conditions with the completion of the proposed Fort Collins Rescue  Mission project.     7.1  Year 2025 Background + Project Intersection Capacity Analysis  The Fort Collins Rescue Mission is anticipated to be constructed and in use in Year 2025.  The site‐ generated volumes were added to the projected Year 2025 background volumes and are illustrated on  Figure 7. The results of the LOS calculations for the intersections are summarized on Table 1. The 95th  percentile queues are summarized in Table 2. The intersection level of service worksheets and queue  reports are attached in the Appendix.   The project trips have little to no impact on the operations of the study intersections as compared to  the background scenario. All intersections continue to operate at a LOS A overall in the AM and PM Peak  hours.  The 95th percentile queues were calculated to be maintained within the existing storage lengths  at all of the study intersections.  8.0 FUTURE MULTI‐MODAL TRIPS AND FACILITIES  In discussions with the Denver Rescue Mission, it is anticipated that all users of the shelter will be arriving  and departing to/from the site by walking, biking, or using transit. It is likely they will utilize the existing  multi‐modal facilities through Fort Collins.  The proposed northern shelter will add 200 beds for men  currently experiencing homelessness and the numbers of patrons at one time can vary greatly by time of  day, day of week, weather, or season of the year.  It is challenging to calculate the number of multi‐modal  trips and the pattern at which they would occur. However, it is anticipated that the sidewalks, bike lanes,  trails, and bus routes connected to the study area will have an increase in people utilizing them.    274 Section D, Item 1. Fort Collins Rescue Mission Traffic Impact Study (FT #22099)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 14 March 20, 2024  The City of Fort Collins endorses “complete streets” for all roadway classifications, which are streets that  serve both vehicular and multi‐modal traffic.  With Hibdon Court being defined as a local street and Mason  Street being currently defined as a collector level street, both streets will be able to accommodate and  provide multimodal use. Hibdon Court will need the south sidewalk to be continued to Mason Street.  Mason Street will need a sidewalk on at least one side of the roadway to connect to existing sidewalks;  however, there are portions of Mason Street that are adjacent to other property owners that are not  currently developing. If the Hibdon Court sidewalk is completed, then at a minimum people who walk,  bike, or use transit can easily connect between North College Avenue and the proposed shelter.    It is our understanding that the City’s Municipal Code obligates the owner of a parcel to construct local  street improvements adjacent to the parcel’s frontage at the time of development.  With the new Fort  Collins Rescue Mission project, Mason Street will likely need to be upgraded along the property frontage.  The City’s Master Street Plan currently would require Mason Street to be constructed as a collector,  however, this traffic study indicates the projected volumes can be accommodated with a local street  cross‐section.   LCUASS does not provide functional parameters for Fort Collins but includes parameters for Loveland,  which were used for comparison purposes. The standards state that “Major Collectors” are intended to  serve between 3,000 and 7,000 vpd. Existing counts on Mason Street, south of Hibdon Court, indicated  there are approximately 140 vpd. With background growth and the proposed project, the daily vehicle  volume  was  calculated  to  increase  to  215  vpd. The  estimated  future  volumes  on  Mason  Street  are  significantly lower than the collector volume threshold; therefore, the city may consider changing the  roadway classification to “local” for this segment of Mason Street.  To reach the bottom of the collector  volume range, other properties on Mason Street would have to redevelop and generate to traffic. For  informational purposes, this would be a minimum of 300 single‐family detached homes or 420 multi‐ family units (market‐rate) or 42,000 square feet of commercial retail.   The property in the southeast corner of Hibdon Court and Mason Street is owned by the Denver Rescue  Mission but will remain vacant until future expansion is needed, or other services or opportunities arise.  The current project does not have frontage along Hibdon Court. It is understood that the extent of  improvements to Hibdon Court will be clarified as the project continues through the Development Review  process.    275 Section D, Item 1. Fort Collins Rescue Mission Traffic Impact Study (FT #22099)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 15 March 20, 2024  9.0 MULTI‐MODAL LEVEL‐OF‐SERVICE  The pedestrian LOS is based on five (5) criteria: directness, continuity, street crossings, visual interest and  amenity,  and  security  as  outlined  in  the Fort  Collins  Pedestrian  Plan2.  The  City’s  plan  describes  the  categories as follows:   Directness is the measurement of walking trip length and how well the environment provides  direct pedestrian connections to destinations such as transit stops, schools, parks, commercial  areas, or activity areas.    Continuity is the measurement of the completeness of the sidewalk system by looking at the  physical consistency, type of sidewalk, and visual connection from block to block. This category  also evaluates if the pedestrian facility meets the current design standards.   Street Crossings is the evaluation of safe crossings that encourages people to walk. There are  four (4) street crossing types that are based on traffic control and roadway classification (minor  or major). Street crossing LOS is based on pedestrian exposure and design elements that increase  awareness  of  pedestrian  presence,  including  number  of  lanes,  crosswalk  markings,  signal  indication, lighting level, pedestrian signal indication, pedestrian character, sight distance, and  corner ramps.    Visual Interest and Amenity considers the attractiveness and features of the pedestrian system  and compatibility with local architecture.   Security is  the  evaluation  of  a  pedestrian’s  perspective  of  security  with  visual  sight  lines,  separation from vehicles, and lighting level.  Each of the areas was evaluated for the study area and the LOS for each is discussed on the following  pages.  DIRECTNESS – LOS B  The directness LOS is based on six (6) destinations anticipated to be visited by patrons of the proposed  project. Only one (1) of the listed destinations is within the recommended 0.25‐mile radius, which is the  southbound bus stop on College Road. The remaining destinations are within 0.7‐miles in actual walking  distance. Table 5 contains the actual walking distance, minimum distance, comparison ratios, and LOS for  2 Fort Collins Pedestrian Plan, https://www.fcgov.com/fcmoves/files/ped‐plan.pdf?1592323966, 2011.  276 Section D, Item 1. Fort Collins Rescue Mission Traffic Impact Study (FT #22099)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 16 March 20, 2024  each destination as measured from the intersection of Mason Street and Hibdon Court. The LOS letter  grade was determined from information provided in Table P.1 of the Fort Collins Pedestrian Plan.  Table 5. Directness Level‐of‐Service    Destination Actual Distance Minimum Distance Ratio LOS  Bus Stop ‐ Northbound College Road 1,797 ft. (0.45 mi) 1,236 ft. (0.23 mi) 1.45 C  Bus Stop ‐ Southbound College Road 1,203 ft. (0.23 mi) 1,203 ft. (0.23 mi) 1.00 A  Grocery ‐ King Soopers 3,247 ft. (0.61 mi) 3,376 ft. (0.64 mi) 0.96 A  Food Bank of Larimer County 3,700 ft. (0.70 mi) 2,407 ft. (0.46 mi) 1.54 C  Larimer County Department of Human  Services 3,371 ft. (0.64 mi) 2,208 ft. (0.42 mi) 1.53 C  Murphy Center for Hope 3,329 ft. (0.63 mi) 2,821 ft. (0.53 mi) 1.18 A  Average 2,775 ft. (0.53 mi) 2,209 ft. (0.42 mi) 1.26 B    CONTINUITY – LOS D  In the study area, there are quality sidewalks on some of the streets. Unfortunately, neither of the  adjacent streets, Mason Street and Hibdon Court, have sidewalks currently. Per the City standards, LOS D  reflects areas where sidewalks are not provided on both sides of the street or there are breaches in the  system. Therefore, the continuity of the study area is considered LOS D.  STREET CROSSINGS (SIGNALIZED) – LOS C  There are two (2) signalized intersections in the study area: North College Road at Hickory Court/Conifer  Street and North College Road at Willox Lane. Both intersections include curb ramps, colored crosswalks,  pedestrian push buttons and signals, pedestrian and roadway level lighting, and good sight distance.    At  both  intersections,  crossing  North  College  Road  requires  pedestrians  to  walk  across  six  (6)  lanes  including  a  wide  median  and  directional  bike  lanes.  Therefore, both  signalized  intersections  were  determined to be LOS C for street crossings due to the number of lanes.   VISUAL INTEREST AND AMENITY – LOS D  Although some of the neighboring streets could be classified as a LOS B others are classified as LOS D. The  lowest level of service was selected for this category.    277 Section D, Item 1. Fort Collins Rescue Mission Traffic Impact Study (FT #22099)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 17 March 20, 2024  North College Road within the study area is classified as LOS B due to generous sidewalks, landscaping,  street furniture, and lighting.  Hickory Street is classified as LOS C since the sidewalks are functional but  there is little to no visual interest or amenities. Mason Street and Hibdon Court are classified as LOS D  since there are limited or no pedestrian facilities. These adjacent roadways have no visual interest for  amenities for pedestrians and there is a lack of comfort.   SECURITY ‐ LOS E  The streets adjacent to the project side, Mason Street and Hibdon Court, have a low level of pedestrian  security. The majority of these streets do not have sidewalks which does not create separation between  pedestrians and vehicles. There is minimal lighting and large recreational vehicles were observed to be  parked along the limited portions of sidewalk along Hibdon Court. Additionally, Mason Street contains  breaches in pedestrian visibility due to horizontal curvature and fencing. SUMMARY  In summary, the existing pedestrian facilities meet some of the minimum LOS by category while others  are not met, as shown on Table 6.   Table 6. Pedestrian Level‐of‐Service Summary     Directness Continuity Street Crossing Visual Interest  and Amenity Security  Minimum LOS  Threshold C C C C C  Existing Facilities B D C D E  Met? Yes No Yes No No    The Rescue Mission is part of the North College 1311 ODP, which plans to construct multimodal facilities  adjacent  to  the  project  site,  which  is  anticipated  to  improve  the  pedestrian  LOS. As Hibdon  Court’s  continuity, visual interest, and security improve with the site completion, it will provide a direct pedestrian  route to North College Road. It should be noted that Mason Street will not meet the minimum LOS  thresholds  until  properties  south  of  the  project  properties  are  redeveloped  to  include  upgraded  multimodal facilities.    278 Section D, Item 1. Fort Collins Rescue Mission Traffic Impact Study (FT #22099)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 18 March 20, 2024  10.0 CONCLUSION  The Fort Collins Rescue Mission proposes to construct a new 24/7 shelter to provide people experiencing  homelessness with basic needs and resources to enter permanent housing and self‐sufficiency.  It is  understood that there will be 200 beds and the shelter will also include restrooms, showers, living and  dining areas, library, meeting rooms, kitchen, donation storage, laundry rooms, business offices, and  outdoor space. The facility also plans to include administrative offices for staff and volunteers. Access to  the site is planned via two full movement, side‐street stop‐controlled intersections on Mason Street.  Vehicular traffic volumes associated with the Fort Collins Rescue Mission have been developed through  in‐depth  conversations  with  Denver  Rescue  Mission  staff  to  account  for  anticipated  staff,  interns,  volunteers, visitors, and operational services at full build out.  These volumes have been analyzed for the  existing and short‐term (Year 2025, anticipated construction year) scenarios.  The project is anticipated  to generate approximately 156 trips daily, 35 AM peak hour, and 26 PM peak hour trips at buildout during  the weekday.      In summary, the existing roadways and intersections within the study area can accommodate the trips  associated with the proposed Fort Collins Rescue Mission. There are no mitigation measures needed to  support the vehicular traffic. It is recommended that multi‐modal connectivity be provided along the  project frontage to support the patrons that are likely to arrive/depart via walking, biking, or using transit.   Although  the  City’s Master  Street  Plan  identifies  Mason  Street  as  a  collector  roadway,  the  volumes  associated  with  the  site  are  well  below  the  capacity  threshold for  a  local  street.    Unless  significant  development occurs (or is anticipated to occur), Mason Street could functionally operate as a local street.      279 Section D, Item 1. Fort Collins Rescue Mission Traffic Impact Study (FT #22099)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 19 March 20, 2024    Tables and Figures:   Table 1 – Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary  Table 2 – Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queue Summary  Table 3 –Trip Generation Summary [IN REPORT] Figure 1 – Vicinity Map and Existing Access  Figure 2 – Site Plan  Figure 3 – Year 2022 Existing Traffic Volumes  Figure 4 – Year 2025 Background Traffic Volumes  Figure 5 – Trip Distribution  Figure 6 – Site‐Generated Trip Volumes  Figure 7 – Year 2025 Background + Site‐Generated Traffic Volumes   280 Section D, Item 1. FT# 22099 Fort Collins Rescue Mission Traffic Impact Study 12/20/22 Table 1 ‐ Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary Intersection and AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Critical Movements/Approaches Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS STOP SIGN CONTROL 1. Mason Street & Hibdon  Court 4 A 5 A 4 A 5 A 8 A 6 A Eastbound Left+Through+Right 9 A 9 A Westbound Left+Right 10 A 9 A 10 A 9 A Westbound Left+Through+Right 10 A 9 A Northbound Through+Right 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A Northbound Left+Through+Right 7 A 7 A Southbound Left+Through 0 A 7 A 0 A 7 A Southbound Left+Through+Right 0 A 7 A 2. North College Avenue &  Hibdon Court 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 1 A 1 A Eastbound Left+Through+Right 25 22 26 D 23 30 D 29 D Northbound Left 11 B 10 B 11 A 10 B 12 B 10 B Northbound Through 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A Southbound Through+Right 0 A 11 B 0 A 11 B 0 A 11 B 3. Mason Street & Hickory  Street 0 A 1 A 0 A 1 A 0 A 1 A Eastbound Left+Through 8 A 8 A 8 A 8 A 8 A 8 A Westbound Through+Right 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A Southbound Left+Right 11 B 11 B 11 B 11 B 11 B 11 B 5. Mason Street & South  Access Project Intersection Project Intersection 3 A 3 A Eastbound Left+Right 9 A 9 A Northbound Left+Through 7 A 7 A Southbound Through+Right 0 A 0 A SIGNAL CONTROL 4. North College Avenue &  Hickory Street 6 A 8 A 7 A 8 A 7 A 8 A Eastbound Left 33 45 D 33 45 D 33 45 D Eastbound Right 43 D 54 D 43 D 54 D 42 D 54 D Northbound Left 7 A 7 A 8 A 7 A 9 A 7 A Northbound Through 3 A 4 A 3 A 4 A 3 A 4 A Southbound Through 4 A 4 A 4 A 4 A 4 A 4 A Southbound Right 3 A 3 A 3 A 3 A 3 A 3 A Note:  Delay represented in average seconds per vehicle. Existing Year 2025 Background Year 2025 Background + Projec 281 Section D, Item 1. FT# 22099 Fort Collins Rescue Mission Traffic Impact Study 12/20/22 AM PM AM PM AM PM 1. Mason Street & Hibdon Court Eastbound Left+Through+Right ‐0' 0' Westbound Left+Right ‐ 0' 3' 0' 3' Westbound Left+Through+Right ‐5'3' Northbound Through+Right ‐ 0' 0' 0' 0' Northbound Left+Through+Right ‐3' 0' Southbound Left+Through ‐ 0' 0' 0' 0' Southbound Left+Through+Right ‐0'0' 2. North College Avenue &  Hibdon Court Eastbound Left+Through+Right ‐ 8' 8' 8' 10' 13'18' Northbound Left 95' 3' 3' 3' 3' 3' 3' Northbound Through ‐ 0' 0' 0' 0'0' 0' Southbound Through+Right ‐ 0' 0' 0' 0'0' 0' 3. Mason Street & Hickory  Street Eastbound Left+Through ‐ 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' Westbound Through+Right ‐ 0' 0'0' 0' 0' 0' Southbound Left+Right ‐ 0' 3' 0' 3'3'5' 4. North College Avenue &  Hickory Street Eastbound Left ‐ 29' 81' 30' 82' 32' 84' Eastbound Right 100' 39' 35' 44' 35' 47' 35' Northbound Left 125' 53' 57' 56' 60' 67' 63' Northbound Through ‐ 91' 188' 94' 196' 95' 197' Southbound Through ‐ 153' 140' 158' 145' 160' 146' Southbound Right 95' 12' 12' 13' 12' 13' 12' 5. Mason Street & South Access Eastbound Left+Right ‐0' 0' Northbound Left+Through ‐0' 0' Southbound Through+Right ‐0'0' Stop‐Control Stop‐Control Stop‐Control Existing  Storage Table 2 - Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queues Intersections and Lane Groups Year 2022 Existing Year 2025  Background Year 2025 with  Project Stop‐Control Stop‐Control Stop‐Control Stop‐Control Stop‐Control Project Intersection Project Intersection Stop‐Control Stop‐Control Signalized Signalized Signalized 282 Section D, Item 1. PROJECT SITE NO R T H C O L L E G E A V E . FORT COLLINS MIDTOWNCOLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY Original ScaleProject #Date Drawn by Figure # T r a n s p o r o puG rnoiatt FOX TUTTLE VICINITY MAP FORT COLLINS RESCUE MISSION TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 22099 NTS 12/14/22 JKL 1 283 Section D, Item 1. HIBDON CT. HICKORY ST. MA S O N S T . NO R T H C O L L E G E A V E . additional project property Original ScaleProject #Date Drawn by Figure # T r a n s p o r o puG rnoiatt FOX TUTTLE CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN FORT COLLINS RESCUE MISSION TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 22099 NTS 12/14/2022 JKL 2 New Full Movement Access; Side-street stop controlled New Full Movement Access; Side-street stop controlled 284 Section D, Item 1. M A S O N STREET & H I B D O N COURT N O R T H COLLEGE AVE & H I C K ORY STREET M A S O N STREET & H I C K O R Y S T REET N O RT H COLLEGE AVE & H I B D O N COURT HIBDON CT. HICKORY ST. NO R T H C O L L E G E A V E . MA S O N S T . Original ScaleProject #Date Drawn by Figure # T r a n s p o r o puG rnoiatt FOX TUTTLE YEAR 2022 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES FORT COLLINS RESCUE MISSION TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 22099 NTS 12/14/2022 JKL 3 285 Section D, Item 1. HIBDON CT. HICKORY ST. M A S O N STREET & H I B D O N COURT N O R T H COLLEGE AVE & H I C K ORY STREET M A S O N STREET & H I C K O R Y S T REET N O RT H COLLEGE AVE & H I B D O N COURT NO R T H C O L L E G E A V E . MA S O N S T . Original ScaleProject #Date Drawn by Figure # T r a n s p o r o puG rnoiatt FOX TUTTLE YEAR 2025 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES FORT COLLINS RESCUE MISSION TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 22099 NTS 12/14/2022 JKL 4 286 Section D, Item 1. 25% To/From North via North College Ave. 75% To/From South via North College Ave. HIBDON CT. HICKORY ST. M A S O N STREET & H I B D O N COURT N O R T H COLLEGE AVE & H I C K ORY STREET M A S O N STREET & H I C K O R Y S T REET N O RT H COLLEGE AVE & H I B D O N COURT NO R T H C O L L E G E A V E . MASON S T R E E T & SOUTH ACCESS MA S O N S T . PROJECT SITE Original ScaleProject #Date Drawn by Figure # T r a n s p o r o puG rnoiatt FOX TUTTLE SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION FORT COLLINS RESCUE MISSION TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 22099 NTS 12/19/22 JKL 5 287 Section D, Item 1. HIBDON CT. HICKORY ST. M A S O N STREET & H I B D O N COURT N O R T H COLLEGE AVE & H I C K ORY STREET M A S O N STREET & H I C K O R Y S T REET N O RT H COLLEGE AVE & H I B D O N COURT NO R T H C O L L E G E A V E . MASON S T R E E T & SOUTH ACCESS MA S O N S T . PROJECT SITE Original ScaleProject #Date Drawn by Figure # T r a n s p o r o puG rnoiatt FOX TUTTLE SITE-GENERATED TRIP VOLUMES DENVER RESCUE MISSION TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY - FORT COLLINS, CO 22099 NTS 12/20/22 CRS 6 288 Section D, Item 1. HIBDON CT. HICKORY ST. M A S O N STREET & H I B D O N COURT N O R T H COLLEGE AVE & H I C K ORY STREET M A S O N STREET & H I C K O R Y S T REET N O RT H COLLEGE AVE & H I B D O N COURT NO R T H C O L L E G E A V E . MASON S T R E E T & SOUTH ACCESS MA S O N S T . PROJECT SITE Original ScaleProject #Date Drawn by Figure # T r a n s p o r o puG rnoiatt FOX TUTTLE SITE-GENERATED TRIP VOLUMES FORT COLLINS RESCUE MISSION TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 22099 NTS 12/20/22 CRS 7 289 Section D, Item 1. HIBDON CT. HICKORY ST. M A S O N STREET & H I B D O N COURT N O R T H COLLEGE AVE & H I C K ORY STREET M A S O N STREET & H I C K O R Y S T REET N O RT H COLLEGE AVE & H I B D O N COURT NO R T H C O L L E G E A V E . MASON S T R E E T & SOUTH ACCESS MA S O N S T . PROJECT SITE Original ScaleProject #Date Drawn by Figure # T r a n s p o r o puG rnoiatt FOX TUTTLE YEAR 2025 BACKGROUND + SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FORT COLLINS RESCUE MISSION TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 22099 NTS 12/20/2022 CRS 8 290 Section D, Item 1. Fort Collins Rescue Mission Traffic Impact Study (FT #22099)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC March 20, 2024      Appendix:    Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions Form  Level of Service Definitions  Existing Traffic Data  Intersection Capacity Worksheets             291 Section D, Item 1. Fort Collins Rescue Mission Traffic Impact Study (FT #22099)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC March 20, 2024            Transportation Impact Study   Base Assumptions Form    292 Section D, Item 1. Chapter 4 – Attachments Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards – Repealed and Reenacted August 1, 2021 Page 4-35 Adopted by Larimer County, City of Loveland, City of Fort Collins Attachment A Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions Project Information Project Name Project Location TIS Assumptions Type of Study Full: Intermediate: MTIS: Memo: Study Area Boundaries North: South: East: West: Study Years Short Range: Long Range: Future Traffic Growth Rate Study Intersections 1. All access drives 5. 2. 6. 3. 7. 4. 8. Time Period for Study AM: 7:00-9:00 PM: 4:00-6:00 Sat Noon: Trip Generation Rates Trip Adjustment Factors Passby: Captive Market: Overall Trip Distribution SEE ATTACHED SKETCH Mode Split Assumptions Design Vehicle Information Committed Roadway Improvements Other Traffic Studies Areas Requiring Special Study Date: Traffic Engineer: Local Entity Engineer: 293 Section D, Item 1. Chapter 4 – Attachments Page 4-36 Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards – Repealed and Reenacted August 1, 2021 Adopted by Larimer County, City of Loveland, City of Fort Collins Attachment B Transportation Impact Study Pedestrian Analysis Worksheet DESTINATION Or i g i n ( p r o j e c t l a n d u s e ) Rec. Res. Inst. Ofc/Bus. Com. Ind. Other (Specify) Recreation 1) Residential Institution (school, church, civic) Office/Business Commercial Industrial Other (specify) INSTRUCTIONS: Identify the pedestrian destinations within 1320’ (1.5 miles for schools) of the project boundary in the spaces above. The pedestrian Level of Service for the facility/corridor linking these destinations to the project site will be based on the directness, continuity, types of street crossings, walkway surface condition, visual interest/amenity, and security of the selected route(s).  12 Dwelling units or more. 294 Section D, Item 1. Transportation Impact Study Pedestrian Analysis Worksheet Recreation Residential Inst. Ofc/Bus. Com. Ind. Other Recreation Residential Institution Office/Business Commercial Industrial Other (Fort Collins Rescue Mission Hickory Trail, Soft Gold Park, Salyer Natural Area North College Mobile Home Park, Revive, Hickory Village, Stonecrest Mobile Home Park, single family home adjacent to site. Food Bank for Larimer County* Various auto oriented repair services Various Businesses off North College, JAX, banks, the Lyric, touches Country Club Corners Development** Rocky Mountain Recycling, Valley Steel and Wire, Several North College Hotels fall within the 1320' radius. *Other services, including Larimer County Services off Willox, the Murphy Center, Homeward Alliance, the Health District Family Dental Clinic, WIC, and Salud are near the site but outside the 1320' radius. ** North College Marketplace near the development but outside the 1320' radius. 295 Section D, Item 1. 296 Section D, Item 1. 297 Section D, Item 1. FT #22099 Fort Collins Rescue Mission Traffic Impact Study 12/19/2022 Users of Facility Unit Rate Total In Out Rate Total In Out Rate Total In Out Employees (16 total) People 1.00 68 34 34 23 16 7 16 0 16 Volunteers/Interns (10 Total)People 1.00 44 22 22 10 10 0 10 0 10 Visitors* People 1.00 20 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 Deliveries* People 1.00 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Partner Organization Visitors*People 1.00 10 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Patrons * People 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total New Trips 146 73 73 33 26 7 26 0 26 Source: Data from Denver Rescue Mission facilities of similar siz and operations. * Trips not included as they do not occur during the Peak Hours Table 3 - Trip Generation Summary Non-Auto Factor Average Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips 22099 Volumes - Trip Gen 298 Section D, Item 1. 25% To/From North via North College Ave. 75% To/From South via North College Ave. M A S ON STREET & SOU T H E R N A CCESS N O R T H COLLEGE AVE & H I C K ORY STREET M A S O N STREET & H I C K O R Y S T REET HIBDON CT. NO R T H C O L L E G E A V E . HICKORY ST. N O RT H COLLEGE AVE & H I B D O N COURT MA S O N S T . PROJECT SITE M A S O N STREET & H I B D O N C OURT Original ScaleProject #Date Drawn by Figure # T r a n s p o r o puG rnoiatt FOX TUTTLE SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION FORT COLLINS RESCUE MISSION TRAFFIC ANALYSIS STUDY - FORT COLLINS, CO 22099 NTS 12/19/22 JKL 6 299 Section D, Item 1. Fort Collins Rescue Mission Traffic Impact Study (FT #22099)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC March 20, 2024      Level of Service   Definitions  300 Section D, Item 1. LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS In rating roadway and intersection operating conditions with existing or future traffic volumes, “Levels of Service” (LOS) A through F are used, with LOS A indicating very good operation and LOS F indicating poor operation. Levels of service at signalized and unsignalized intersections are closely associated with vehicle delays experienced in seconds per vehicle. More complete level of service definitions and delay data for signal and stop sign controlled intersections are contained in the following table for reference. Level of Service Rating Delay in seconds per vehicle (a) Definition Signalized Unsignalized A 0.0 to 10.0 0.0 to 10.0 Low vehicular traffic volumes; primarily free flow operations. Density is low and vehicles can freely maneuver within the traffic stream. Drivers are able to maintain their desired speeds with little or no delay. B 10.1 to 20.0 10.1 to 15.0 Stable vehicular traffic volume flow with potential for some restriction of operating speeds due to traffic conditions. Vehicle maneuvering is only slightly restricted. The stopped delays are not bothersome and drivers are not subject to appreciable tension. C 20.1 to 35.0 15.1 to 25.0 Stable traffic operations, however the ability for vehicles to maneuver is more restricted by the increase in traffic volumes. Relatively satisfactory operating speeds prevail, but adverse signal coordination or longer vehicle queues cause delays along the corridor. D 35.1 to 55.0 25.1 to 35.0 Approaching unstable vehicular traffic flow where small increases in volume could cause substantial delays. Most drivers are restricted in ability to maneuver and selection of travel speeds due to congestion. Driver comfort and convenience are low, but tolerable. E 55.1 to 80.0 35.1 to 50.0 Traffic operations characterized by significant approach delays and average travel speeds of one-half to one-third the free flow speed. Vehicular flow is unstable and there is potential for stoppages of brief duration. High signal density, extensive vehicle queuing, or corridor signal progression/timing are the typical causes of vehicle delays at signalized corridors. F > 80.0 > 50.0 Forced vehicular traffic flow and operations with high approach delays at critical intersections. Vehicle speeds are reduced substantially, and stoppages may occur for short or long periods of time because of downstream congestion. (a) Delay ranges based on Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition, 2016) criteria. 301 Section D, Item 1. Fort Collins Rescue Mission Traffic Impact Study (FT #22099)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC March 20, 2024       Existing   Traffic Data        302 Section D, Item 1. www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00002000 0 0 Peak Hr 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 2 3 0 5 0 0Count Total 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 00030308:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 AM 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 --0%HV%----- 0 0 7:15 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 West North South 7:00 AM 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0002000 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total 0%----50%100%-- Peak Hour All 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0000000 0 4 0 HV 0 0 0 0 0 Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 2000000000000 0 0 0 0 4 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0020000 0 0 0 0 3 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0000000 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0010000 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start n/a Hibdon Ct Mason St Mason St 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT SB -- TOTAL 50.0%0.50 TH RTUTLTTHRTUTLT WB 100.0%0.25 NB 0.0%0.25 Peak Hour: 7:30 AM 8:30 AM HV %:PHF EB -- Date: 12/07/2022 Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AMN Mason St Hibdon Ct Hibdon Ct Ma s o n S t Ma s o n S t 4TEV: 0.5PHF: 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 1 0 11 22 0 0 0 00 0 2 0 0 0 0 Garrett Strang 720-646-1008 garrett.strang@idax.com 303 Section D, Item 1. www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 0 2 0000000Peak Hour 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 5 0Count Total 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3030003 0 0 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TH RT LT TH RT 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 Westbound Northbound Southbound LT TH RT LT TH RT LT 2 0 Interval Start n/a Hibdon Ct Mason St Mason St 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastbound 0 0 0 0 0 0020000 0 0 0 3 0 Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2000000000000 0 0 0 0 2 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0020000 0 0 0 0 1 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0010000 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TH RT 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UT LT TH RT UT LT Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start n/a Hibdon Ct Mason St Mason St 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound Garrett Strang 720-646-1008 garrett.strang@idax.com 304 Section D, Item 1. www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00113000 0 0 Peak Hr 0 2 0 1 3 0 1 1 1 1 3 0 0Count Total 0 2 0 1 3 0 0 0 00000005:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 ---HV%----- 0 0 4:15 PM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 West North South 4:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 0 3 40012060 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total 0%-0%25%-9%0%-33% Peak Hour All 0 0 0 10 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 1 0 3 0020000 0 32 0 HV 0 0 0 0 0 Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 4 7 0 45 0 3 13100000010100 0 1 0 3 19 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 27 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0000200 0 0 0 2 29 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 32 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 0060000 2 2 0 11 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 7 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0030300 0 1 0 5 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start n/a Hibdon Ct Mason St Mason St 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT SB 14.3%0.44 TOTAL 9.4%0.73 TH RTUTLTTHRTUTLT WB 11.1%0.75 NB 0.0%0.58 Peak Hour: 4:00 PM 5:00 PM HV %:PHF EB -- Date: 12/07/2022 Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PMN Mason St Hibdon Ct Hibdon Ct Ma s o n S t Ma s o n S t 32TEV: 0.73PHF: 4 3 7 6 0 6 12 18 10 0 70 716 0 1 0 01 0 1 0 0 0 0 Garrett Strang 720-646-1008 garrett.strang@idax.com 305 Section D, Item 1. www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 0 3 0001001Peak Hour 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 0Count Total 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0000000 0 1 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TH RT LT TH RT 4:00 PM 0 0 0 1 Westbound Northbound Southbound LT TH RT LT TH RT LT 3 0 Interval Start n/a Hibdon Ct Mason St Mason St 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastbound 0 0 0 0 1 0000200 0 1 0 3 0 Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 0 0 0 0 1 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000100 0 1 0 2 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 TH RT 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UT LT TH RT UT LT Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start n/a Hibdon Ct Mason St Mason St 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound Garrett Strang 720-646-1008 garrett.strang@idax.com 306 Section D, Item 1. www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 2 3 1 0 1 2 4 7 20 40000040 1 0 Peak Hour 3 0 48 66 117 0 0 0 1 2 3 5 14Count Total 5 0 102 119 226 0 4 1 00010128:45 AM 0 0 10 20 30 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 8:30 AM 2 0 14 14 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 8:15 AM 1 0 16 18 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 8:00 AM 0 0 8 21 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 7:30 AM 1 0 13 12 26 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 3 0 15 26 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 7:45 AM 1 0 11 15 27 0 0 0 0%9%9%HV%-25%0%29%- 0 0 7:15 AM 0 0 19 4 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 West North South 7:00 AM 0 0 11 0 11 514 0 0 0 866700003 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total ---7%33%8%--- Peak Hour All 0 4 1 1 4 16 963 0 1 0 0 63 3 117 00001470 9 1,415 0 HV 0 1 0 2 0 Count Total 0 8 2 10 0 1 0 0 1,567 19 2,592 0 346 1,3081390101964010102 0 188 2 316 1,384 8:45 AM 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 120 0 0 353 1,415 8:30 AM 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 139 0 0 0 205 3000002 0 160 1 293 1,352 8:15 AM 0 0 1 3 0 1 5 123 0 0 422 1,284 8:00 AM 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 140 0 0 0 271 2000024 0 230 3 347 0 7:45 AM 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 112 0 0 290 0 7:30 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 104 0 0 0 182 1000001 0 135 3 225 0 7:15 AM 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 86 0 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UT LT TH RT UT LT Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start Hibdon Ct Driveway College Ave College Ave 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT Date: 12/07/2022 Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM SB 7.5%0.80 TOTAL 8.3%0.84 TH RT WB -- NB 9.1%0.90 Peak Hour: 7:30 AM 8:30 AM HV %:PHF EB 25.0%0.75 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 N College Ave Hibdon Ct Driveway Co l l e g e A v e Hibdon Ct Co l l e g e A v e 1,415TEV: 0.84PHF: 9 86 6 0 87 5 51 8 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 51 411 52 8 87 6 3 7 1 4 12 20 0 Garrett Strang 720-646-1008 garrett.strang@idax.com 307 Section D, Item 1. www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 00 0 THLT 00000000 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 THLT 0000000 3 02010 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 0Count Total 0 110010000 0 0 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 8:30 AM 0000000 0 2 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8:00 AM 0000 0 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 20002007:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:00 AM RT 117 0 Interval Start Hibdon Ct Driveway College Ave College Ave 15-min Total Rolling One Hour 47 0 0 0 63 3000001 RTTHLT RTTHLTRT 0 115 4 226 0 Peak Hour 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 100 0 0Count Total 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 30 12410000200000000 0 14 0 30 121 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 13 0 0 35 117 8:30 AM 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 16 2000001 0 21 0 29 105 8:15 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 8 0 0 27 102 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 14 1000000 0 12 0 26 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 13 0 0 23 0 7:30 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 3 1000000 0 15 0 26 0 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 TH RT 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UT LT TH RT UT LT Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start Hibdon Ct Driveway College Ave College Ave 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound Garrett Strang 720-646-1008 garrett.strang@idax.com 308 Section D, Item 1. www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 9 2 4 2 3 2 3 8 33 110224470 1 4 Peak Hour 0 0 38 42 80 0 0 0 2 2 4 7 21Count Total 0 0 82 81 163 0 4 0 40000005:45 PM 0 0 2 5 7 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 13 10 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 7 11 18 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 2 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 4 6 10 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 13 11 24 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 13 35 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 4:45 PM 0 0 7 14 21 1 1 2 0%4%4%HV%-0%-0%- 1 0 4:15 PM 0 0 14 11 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 West North South 4:00 PM 0 0 22 0 25 1,054 0 2 1 8281000012 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total -0%0%5%0%4%--0% Peak Hour All 0 5 0 1 7 43 2,034 1 2 0 0 42 0 80 00001370 15 1,943 0 HV 0 0 0 0 0 Count Total 0 11 0 22 0 0 0 1 1,586 27 3,735 0 383 1,8042061001653000002 0 200 4 475 1,915 5:45 PM 0 2 0 4 0 1 5 261 0 0 470 1,934 5:30 PM 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 263 0 0 0 196 2000024 0 197 2 476 1,943 5:15 PM 0 1 0 2 0 0 8 267 0 0 494 1,931 5:00 PM 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 259 0 2 0 221 3000102 1 211 4 494 0 4:45 PM 0 2 0 4 0 0 7 266 0 0 479 0 4:30 PM 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 262 0 0 0 199 6000028 0 197 3 464 0 4:15 PM 0 2 0 0 0 2 7 250 0 04:00 PM 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 UT LT TH RT UT LT Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start Hibdon Ct Driveway College Ave College Ave 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT Date: 12/07/2022 Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM SB 5.0%0.94 TOTAL 4.1%0.98 TH RT WB 0.0%0.25 NB 3.5%0.98 Peak Hour: 4:15 PM 5:15 PM HV %:PHF EB 0.0%0.63 0 0 0 0 1 1 020 0 0 0 0 0 7 4 N College Ave Hibdon Ct Driveway Co l l e g e A v e Hibdon Ct Co l l e g e A v e 1,943TEV: 0.98PHF: 15 82 8 1 84 6 1, 0 6 2 2 1 0 0 1 10 0 1, 0 5 4 25 1, 0 8 1 84 0 2 10 0 5 15 40 0 Garrett Strang 720-646-1008 garrett.strang@idax.com 309 Section D, Item 1. www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 00 0 THLT 00000000 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 THLT 4011002 4 00020 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 1 1Count Total 0 100000000 0 2 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 3 5:30 PM 0000000 1 4 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5:00 PM 1001 1 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 10000014:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 PM RT 80 0 Interval Start Hibdon Ct Driveway College Ave College Ave 15-min Total Rolling One Hour 37 0 0 0 42 0000001 RTTHLT RTTHLTRT 0 81 0 163 0 Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 80 0 0Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 58200050000000 0 10 0 23 72 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 18 73 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 11 0000000 0 6 0 10 80 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 21 105 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 14 0000000 0 11 0 24 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 25 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 11 0000001 0 13 0 35 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 21 0 0 TH RT 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UT LT TH RT UT LT Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start Hibdon Ct Driveway College Ave College Ave 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound Garrett Strang 720-646-1008 garrett.strang@idax.com 310 Section D, Item 1. www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 6 30000003 6 0 Peak Hr 4 5 0 3 12 0 0 1 0 2 7 0 0Count Total 9 7 0 4 20 4 0 1 04000408:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:30 AM 3 2 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 8:15 AM 1 2 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 8:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 7:30 AM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 7:45 AM 0 1 0 0 1 2 2 0 ---HV%-0%3%-- 1 0 7:15 AM 2 1 0 1 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 West North South 7:00 AM 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 000012710 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total --20%-100%4%-3%100% Peak Hour All 0 1 136 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 12 0410000 2 272 0 HV 0 0 4 0 0 Count Total 0 1 238 0 1 0 211 6 0 3 461 0 50 2520000001023000 1 0 0 78 272 8:45 AM 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 254 8:30 AM 0 0 53 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 20024000 2 0 0 66 240 8:15 AM 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 209 8:00 AM 0 0 24 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 2 0 00039100 0 0 0 60 0 7:45 AM 0 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 7:30 AM 0 0 33 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 1 0 10020000 0 0 0 35 0 7:15 AM 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:00 AM 0 0 21 0 0 0 14 Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start Hickory St Hickory St N/A Mason St 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT SB 42.9%0.88 TOTAL 4.4%0.87 TH RTUTLTTHRTUTLT WB 3.9%0.80 NB -- Peak Hour: 7:45 AM 8:45 AM HV %:PHF EB 2.9%0.65 Date: 12/07/2022 Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 N Mason St Hickory St Hickory St Ma s o n S t Hickory St 272TEV: 0.87PHF: 2 5 7 2 0 1 127 128 141 0 136 1137 129 0 Garrett Strang 720-646-1008 garrett.strang@idax.com 311 Section D, Item 1. www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 0 0 0000000Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 0Count Total 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 4000004 0 0 8:45 AM 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 TH RT LT TH RT 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 Westbound Northbound Southbound LT TH RT LT TH RT LT 12 0 Interval Start Hickory St Hickory St N/A Mason St 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastbound 0 0 0 1 0 2004100 1 0 3 20 0 Peak Hour 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0Count Total 0 0 9 0 0 0 6 0 11000000000000 0 0 0 5 12 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 8 8:30 AM 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2002000 1 0 0 1 7 8:15 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000100 0 0 0 1 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 7:30 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1001000 0 0 0 3 0 7:15 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TH RT 7:00 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 UT LT TH RT UT LT Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start Hickory St Hickory St N/A Mason St 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound Garrett Strang 720-646-1008 garrett.strang@idax.com 312 Section D, Item 1. www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 0 2 1 1 1 0 7 2 14 31025101 3 1 Peak Hr 3 3 0 0 6 3 0 1 0 2 9 10 0Count Total 5 3 0 2 10 6 0 0 00100125:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 1 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 5:15 PM 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 4:30 PM 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 4 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 4:45 PM 1 1 0 0 2 1 3 0 ---HV%-0%2%-0% 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 West North South 4:00 PM 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0010142100 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total --0%-0%2%-2%0% Peak Hour All 0 1 167 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0300000 2 334 0 HV 0 0 3 0 0 Count Total 0 3 272 0 1 0 294 19 0 6 613 0 62 2810001010037100 2 0 0 55 310 5:45 PM 0 0 22 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 85 334 5:30 PM 0 0 19 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 1 0 01039000 3 0 0 79 321 5:15 PM 0 0 44 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 91 332 5:00 PM 0 0 45 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 2 0 20038600 5 0 0 79 0 4:45 PM 0 0 43 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 72 0 4:30 PM 0 1 35 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 4 0 20040200 1 0 1 90 0 4:15 PM 0 0 24 0 3 0 0 0 0 04:00 PM 0 2 40 0 0 0 43 Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start Hickory St Hickory St N/A Mason St 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT SB 0.0%0.65 TOTAL 1.8%0.92 TH RTUTLTTHRTUTLT WB 2.0%0.87 NB -- Peak Hour: 4:30 PM 5:30 PM HV %:PHF EB 1.8%0.93 Date: 12/07/2022 Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 2 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 N Mason St Hickory St Hickory St Ma s o n S t Hickory St 334TEV: 0.92PHF: 2 11 13 11 0 10 142 153 179 1 167 1168 144 0 Garrett Strang 720-646-1008 garrett.strang@idax.com 313 Section D, Item 1. www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 2 5 0000000Peak Hour 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 9 0Count Total 1 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 4000001 2 4 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 5:30 PM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 4:45 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 4:30 PM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TH RT LT TH RT 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 Westbound Northbound Southbound LT TH RT LT TH RT LT 6 0 Interval Start Hickory St Hickory St N/A Mason St 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastbound 0 0 0 0 0 0003000 1 0 1 10 0 Peak Hour 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Count Total 0 0 5 0 0 0 3 0 2000000000000 0 0 0 0 4 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0001000 0 0 0 0 4 5:15 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0001000 0 0 0 2 0 4:45 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 1 0 1 4 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TH RT 4:00 PM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 UT LT TH RT UT LT Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start Hickory St Hickory St N/A Mason St 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound Garrett Strang 720-646-1008 garrett.strang@idax.com 314 Section D, Item 1. www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 0 2 0 0 1 5 4 4 16 60000222 2 0 Peak Hr 3 0 52 62 117 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 10Count Total 10 0 107 117 234 1 4 0 01000108:45 AM 0 0 8 21 29 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 8:30 AM 3 0 18 17 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 8:15 AM 1 0 18 17 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 8:00 AM 1 0 7 20 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 1 0 14 11 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 14 28 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 7:45 AM 0 0 13 14 27 0 0 0 0%2%10%HV%-0%-3%- 0 0 7:15 AM 2 0 17 3 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 West North South 7:00 AM 2 0 12 0 85 512 0 0 0 8099100001 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total ---8%0%7%--- Peak Hour All 0 25 0 0 2 141 940 0 0 0 0 62 0 117 00002500 50 1,573 0 HV 0 0 0 3 0 Count Total 0 53 0 186 0 0 0 0 1,468 88 2,878 0 370 1,467138000179130000012 0 183 8 384 1,563 8:45 AM 0 6 0 22 0 1 21 117 0 0 384 1,573 8:30 AM 0 15 0 39 0 0 0 136 0 0 0 197 70000015 0 143 17 329 1,505 8:15 AM 0 6 0 23 0 0 22 122 0 0 466 1,411 8:00 AM 0 6 0 19 0 0 0 138 0 0 0 254 130000132 0 215 13 394 0 7:45 AM 0 8 0 20 0 0 16 116 0 0 316 0 7:30 AM 0 5 0 29 0 0 0 98 0 0 0 172 100000015 0 125 7 235 0 7:15 AM 0 4 0 17 0 0 8 75 0 07:00 AM 0 3 0 17 0 0 0 Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start Hickory St N/A College Ave College Ave 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT SB 7.2%0.80 TOTAL 7.4%0.84 TH RTUTLTTHRTUTLT WB -- NB 8.7%0.87 Peak Hour: 7:30 AM 8:30 AM HV %:PHF EB 2.6%0.85 Date: 12/07/2022 Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 00 2 0 2 2 N College Ave Hickory St Co l l e g e A v e Co l l e g e A v e Hickory St 1,573TEV: 0.84PHF: 50 80 9 85 9 53 7 0 51 285 59 8 90 1 1 91 25116 135 0 Garrett Strang 720-646-1008 garrett.strang@idax.com 315 Section D, Item 1. www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 0 0 0000000Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0Count Total 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1000001 0 0 8:45 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TH RT LT TH RT 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 Westbound Northbound Southbound LT TH RT LT TH RT LT 117 0 Interval Start Hickory St N/A College Ave College Ave 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastbound 50 0 0 0 62 0000002 0 116 1 234 0 Peak Hour 0 0 0 3 0 0 6 101 0 0Count Total 0 2 0 8 0 0 0 29 1318000210000000 0 17 0 38 129 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 15 0 0 36 117 8:30 AM 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 17 0000002 0 20 0 28 103 8:15 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 7 0 0 27 103 8:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 14 0000000 0 11 0 26 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 22 0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 3 0000001 0 13 1 28 0 7:15 AM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 12 0 0 TH RT 7:00 AM 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 UT LT TH RT UT LT Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start Hickory St N/A College Ave College Ave 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound Garrett Strang 720-646-1008 garrett.strang@idax.com 316 Section D, Item 1. www.idaxdata.com to to Two-Hour Count Summaries Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Total 6 3 4 1 8 3 2 0 27 140011590 4 0 Peak Hr 5 0 58 49 112 0 0 0 0 1 1 8 15Count Total 6 0 87 80 173 0 0 0 00000005:45 PM 0 0 2 5 7 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 13 11 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 5:15 PM 1 0 9 8 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 5 7 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4:30 PM 1 0 12 13 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 13 38 0 EB WB NB SB Total East 4:45 PM 1 0 9 13 23 1 1 3 0%3%5%HV%-2%-4%- 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 15 10 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 West North South 4:00 PM 3 0 22 0 114 1,048 0 2 0 7919700003 0 Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total -0%-6%0%5%--- Peak Hour All 0 66 0 0 9 224 2,008 0 3 0 0 49 0 112 00003550 54 2,175 0 HV 0 1 0 4 0 Count Total 0 113 0 198 0 0 0 0 1,524 103 4,182 0 441 2,00721700016190000130 0 193 15 503 2,125 5:45 PM 0 4 0 19 0 1 23 245 0 0 540 2,171 5:30 PM 0 14 0 12 0 0 0 246 0 0 0 198 140000230 0 181 11 523 2,158 5:15 PM 0 17 0 33 0 2 27 252 0 1 559 2,175 5:00 PM 0 12 0 37 0 0 0 247 0 0 0 220 100000229 0 201 15 549 0 4:45 PM 0 20 0 31 0 0 25 269 0 0 527 0 4:30 PM 0 14 0 25 0 0 0 266 0 0 0 188 130000027 0 182 16 540 0 4:15 PM 0 20 0 13 0 1 33 266 0 24:00 PM 0 12 0 28 0 0 0 Rolling One HourEastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound UT LT TH RT Interval Start Hickory St N/A College Ave College Ave 15-min TotalUTLTTHRT SB 5.8%0.92 TOTAL 5.1%0.97 TH RTUTLTTHRTUTLT WB -- NB 5.0%0.97 Peak Hour: 4:00 PM 5:00 PM HV %:PHF EB 3.1%0.80 Date: 12/07/2022 Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 0 0 0 1 00 0 0 9 5 N College Ave Hickory St Co l l e g e A v e Co l l e g e A v e Hickory St 2,175TEV: 0.97PHF: 54 79 1 84 7 1, 1 1 6 2 1, 0 4 8 11 4 1, 1 6 5 89 1 3 97 66163 168 0 Garrett Strang 720-646-1008 garrett.strang@idax.com 317 Section D, Item 1. www.idaxdata.com Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any. 0 1 0000001Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TH RT LT TH RT 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 Westbound Northbound Southbound LT TH RT LT TH RT LT 112 0 Interval Start Hickory St N/A College Ave College Ave 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastbound 55 0 0 0 49 0000003 0 79 1 173 0 Peak Hour 0 1 0 4 0 0 5 82 0 0Count Total 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 7 61200050000000 0 11 0 24 77 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12 0 0 18 79 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 7 1000001 0 7 0 12 86 5:15 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 23 112 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 13 0000001 0 13 0 26 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 11 0 0 25 0 4:30 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 10 0000001 0 13 0 38 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 TH RT 4:00 PM 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 UT LT TH RT UT LT Northbound Southbound UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT Interval Start Hickory St N/A College Ave College Ave 15-min Total Rolling One HourEastboundWestbound Garrett Strang 720-646-1008 garrett.strang@idax.com 318 Section D, Item 1. Fort Collins Rescue Mission Traffic Impact Study (FT #22099)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC March 20, 2024      Intersection Capacity Worksheets:  2022 Existing   319 Section D, Item 1. HCM 6th TWSC 1: Mason St & Hibdon Ct 12/21/2022 2022 Existing - AM Peak Hour Denver Rescue Mission - Fort Collins Traffic Impact Study Synchro 11 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.4 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 0 1 1 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 2 0 1 1 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 25 25 25 25 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 100 100 0 0 2 2 Mvmt Flow 8 0 4 4 0 0 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 7 6 0 0 8 0 Stage 1 6 - - - - - Stage 2 1 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.4 7.2 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 4.4 4.2 - - 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 810 850 - - 1612 - Stage 1 812 - - - - - Stage 2 817 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 810 850 - - 1612 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 810 - - - - - Stage 1 812 - - - - - Stage 2 817 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.5 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h)- - 810 1612 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.01 - - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 9.5 0 - HCM Lane LOS - - A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 - 320 Section D, Item 1. HCM 6th TWSC 2: North College Ave & Hibdon Ct 12/21/2022 2022 Existing - AM Peak Hour Denver Rescue Mission - Fort Collins Traffic Impact Study Synchro 11 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 1 7 0 0 0 14 514 0 0 866 9 Future Vol, veh/h 4 1 7 0 0 0 14 514 0 0 866 9 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length -- - - - - 97 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 75 75 75 25 25 25 90 90 90 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 25 25 25 0 0 0 9 9 9 8 8 8 Mvmt Flow 5 1 9 0 0 0 16 571 0 0 1083 11 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1411 1696 551 1098 0 - - - 0 Stage 1 1093 1093 -- - - - - - Stage 2 318 603 -- - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.3 7 7.4 4.28 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.3 6 -- - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.3 6 -- - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.75 4.25 3.55 2.29 - - - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 105 72 423 592 - 0 0 - - Stage 1 237 244 -- - 0 0 - - Stage 2 646 433 -- - 0 0 - - Platoon blocked, %-- - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 101 0 421 590 - - - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 101 0 -- - - - - - Stage 1 230 0 -- - - - - - Stage 2 643 0 -- - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 25 0.3 0 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)590 - 196 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.026 - 0.082 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 11.3 - 25 - - HCM Lane LOS B - D - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.3 - - 321 Section D, Item 1. HCM 6th TWSC 3: Hickory St & Mason St 12/21/2022 2022 Existing - AM Peak Hour Denver Rescue Mission - Fort Collins Traffic Impact Study Synchro 11 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 136 127 1 5 2 Future Vol, veh/h 1 136 127 1 5 2 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 3 0 0 3 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 65 65 80 80 88 88 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 4 4 43 43 Mvmt Flow 2 209 159 1 6 2 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 163 0 - 0 376 163 Stage 1 - - - - 163 - Stage 2 - - - - 213 - Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.83 6.63 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.83 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.83 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.887 3.687 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1410 - - - 552 785 Stage 1 - - - - 776 - Stage 2 - - - - 734 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1406 - - - 548 783 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 548 - Stage 1 - - - - 772 - Stage 2 - - - - 732 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 11.1 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)1406 - - - 599 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - - - 0.013 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 0 - - 11.1 HCM Lane LOS A A - - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0 322 Section D, Item 1. Timings 4: North College Ave & Hickory St 12/21/2022 2022 Existing - AM Peak Hour Denver Rescue Mission - Fort Collins Traffic Impact Study Synchro 11 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group Page 4 Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph)25 91 86 512 809 50 Future Volume (vph)25 91 86 512 809 50 Turn Type Prot Perm Perm NA NA Perm Protected Phases 4 6 2 Permitted Phases 4 6 2 Detector Phase 4 4 6 6 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s)25.5 25.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 Total Split (s)30.0 30.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 Total Split (%)37.5% 37.5% 62.5% 62.5% 62.5% 62.5% Yellow Time (s)3.5 3.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 All-Red Time (s)2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 0.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 Total Lost Time (s)4.5 5.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None C-Max C-Max C-Max C-Max Act Effct Green (s)10.8 9.8 62.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.12 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.39 0.27 0.23 0.39 0.05 Control Delay 29.0 13.2 7.5 4.2 5.1 2.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 29.0 13.2 7.5 4.2 5.1 2.0 LOS C B A A A A Approach Delay 16.6 4.7 4.9 Approach LOS B A A Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 80 Actuated Cycle Length: 80 Offset: 47 (59%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT and 6:NBTL, Start of Red Natural Cycle: 60 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.39 Intersection Signal Delay: 5.7 Intersection LOS: A Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.1%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 4: North College Ave & Hickory St 323 Section D, Item 1. Queues 4: North College Ave & Hickory St 12/21/2022 2022 Existing - AM Peak Hour Denver Rescue Mission - Fort Collins Traffic Impact Study Synchro 11 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group Page 5 Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 29 107 99 589 1011 63 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.39 0.27 0.23 0.39 0.05 Control Delay 29.0 13.2 7.5 4.2 5.1 2.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 29.0 13.2 7.5 4.2 5.1 2.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 14 8 11 34 68 1 Queue Length 95th (ft) 29 39 53 91 153 12 Internal Link Dist (ft) 250 150 860 Turn Bay Length (ft)98 125 95 Base Capacity (vph) 558 543 369 2565 2613 1152 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.05 0.20 0.27 0.23 0.39 0.05 Intersection Summary 324 Section D, Item 1. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 4: North College Ave & Hickory St 12/21/2022 2022 Existing - AM Peak Hour Denver Rescue Mission - Fort Collins Traffic Impact Study Synchro 11 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group Page 6 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 25 91 86 512 809 50 Future Volume (veh/h) 25 91 86 512 809 50 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1767 1767 1796 1796 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 29 107 99 589 1011 62 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.80 0.80 Percent Heavy Veh, %3 3 9 9 7 7 Cap, veh/h 183 143 416 2547 2590 1154 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.09 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 1572 497 3445 3503 1520 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 29 107 99 589 1011 62 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1572 497 1678 1706 1520 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.2 5.3 6.8 4.1 8.1 0.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.2 5.3 14.9 4.1 8.1 0.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 183 143 416 2547 2590 1154 V/C Ratio(X) 0.16 0.75 0.24 0.23 0.39 0.05 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 563 482 416 2547 2590 1154 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.7 35.5 5.9 2.8 3.3 2.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 7.5 1.3 0.2 0.4 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 2.3 0.7 0.8 1.6 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.1 43.0 7.2 3.0 3.7 2.5 LnGrp LOS C D A A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 136 688 1073 Approach Delay, s/veh 40.9 3.6 3.7 Approach LOS D A A Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 67.2 12.8 67.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 7.5 5.5 7.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 42.5 24.5 42.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.1 7.3 16.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.8 0.4 3.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 6.3 HCM 6th LOS A 325 Section D, Item 1. HCM 6th TWSC 1: Mason St & Hibdon Ct 12/21/2022 2022 Existing - PM Peak Hour Denver Rescue Mission - Fort Collins Traffic Impact Study Synchro 11 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 6 0 7 3 4 Future Vol, veh/h 12 6 0 7 3 4 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 75 75 58 58 44 44 Heavy Vehicles, % 11 11 0 0 14 14 Mvmt Flow 16 8 0 12 7 9 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 29 6 0 0 12 0 Stage 1 6 - - - - - Stage 2 23 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.51 6.31 - - 4.24 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.51 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.51 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.599 3.399 - - 2.326 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 963 1051 - - 1532 - Stage 1 994 - - - - - Stage 2 977 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 958 1051 - - 1532 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 958 - - - - - Stage 1 994 - - - - - Stage 2 972 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.7 0 3.2 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h)- - 987 1532 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.024 0.004 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 8.7 7.4 0 HCM Lane LOS - - A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 - 326 Section D, Item 1. HCM 6th TWSC 2: North College Ave & Hibdon Ct 12/21/2022 2022 Existing - PM Peak Hour Denver Rescue Mission - Fort Collins Traffic Impact Study Synchro 11 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 0 10 0 0 1 27 1054 0 3 828 15 Future Vol, veh/h 5 0 10 0 0 1 27 1054 0 3 828 15 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 4 4 0 7 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length -- - - - - 97 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 63 63 63 25 25 25 98 98 98 94 94 94 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 5 5 5 Mvmt Flow 8 0 16 0 0 4 28 1076 0 3 881 16 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1496 2038 456 904 0 - 1080 0 0 Stage 1 902 902 -- - - - - - Stage 2 594 1136 -- - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.8 6.5 6.9 4.18 - - 4.2 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.8 5.5 -- - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.8 5.5 -- - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 2.24 - - 2.25 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 116 57 557 736 - 0 624 - - Stage 1 361 359 -- - 0 - - - Stage 2 520 279 -- - 0 - - - Platoon blocked, %-- - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 109 0 553 731 - - 624 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 109 0 -- - - - - - Stage 1 345 0 -- - - - - - Stage 2 511 0 -- - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 22 0.3 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)731 - 235 624 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.038 - 0.101 0.005 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 10.1 - 22 10.8 - - HCM Lane LOS B - C B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.3 0 - - 327 Section D, Item 1. HCM 6th TWSC 3: Hickory St & Mason St 12/21/2022 2022 Existing - PM Peak Hour Denver Rescue Mission - Fort Collins Traffic Impact Study Synchro 11 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 167 142 10 11 2 Future Vol, veh/h 1 167 142 10 11 2 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 0 0 1 1 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 87 87 65 65 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 0 0 Mvmt Flow 1 180 163 11 17 3 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 175 0 - 0 353 170 Stage 1 - - - - 170 - Stage 2 - - - - 183 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.4 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1401 - - - 649 879 Stage 1 - - - - 865 - Stage 2 - - - - 853 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1400 - - - 647 878 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 647 - Stage 1 - - - - 863 - Stage 2 - - - - 852 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 10.5 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)1400 - - - 674 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - - - 0.03 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 0 - - 10.5 HCM Lane LOS A A - - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1 328 Section D, Item 1. Timings 4: North College Ave & Hickory St 12/21/2022 2022 Existing - PM Peak Hour Denver Rescue Mission - Fort Collins Traffic Impact Study Synchro 11 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group Page 4 Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph)66 97 117 1048 791 54 Future Volume (vph)66 97 117 1048 791 54 Turn Type Prot Perm Perm NA NA Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Detector Phase 4 4 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s)25.5 25.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 Total Split (s)31.0 31.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 Total Split (%)29.5% 29.5% 70.5% 70.5% 70.5% 70.5% Yellow Time (s)3.5 3.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 All-Red Time (s)2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 0.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 Total Lost Time (s)4.5 5.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None C-Max C-Max C-Max C-Max Act Effct Green (s)12.6 11.6 81.4 81.4 81.4 81.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.11 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 v/c Ratio 0.40 0.43 0.27 0.41 0.33 0.05 Control Delay 46.7 12.2 6.0 4.9 4.4 1.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 46.7 12.2 6.0 4.9 4.4 1.3 LOS D B A A A A Approach Delay 26.2 5.0 4.2 Approach LOS C A A Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 105 Actuated Cycle Length: 105 Offset: 64 (61%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 60 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.43 Intersection Signal Delay: 6.5 Intersection LOS: A Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.6%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 4: North College Ave & Hickory St 329 Section D, Item 1. Queues 4: North College Ave & Hickory St 12/21/2022 2022 Existing - PM Peak Hour Denver Rescue Mission - Fort Collins Traffic Impact Study Synchro 11 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group Page 5 Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 83 121 121 1080 860 59 v/c Ratio 0.40 0.43 0.27 0.41 0.33 0.05 Control Delay 46.7 12.2 6.0 4.9 4.4 1.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 46.7 12.2 6.0 4.9 4.4 1.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 53 0 17 94 68 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 81 35 57 188 140 12 Internal Link Dist (ft) 250 150 860 Turn Bay Length (ft)98 125 95 Base Capacity (vph) 442 472 449 2665 2640 1138 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.19 0.26 0.27 0.41 0.33 0.05 Intersection Summary 330 Section D, Item 1. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 4: North College Ave & Hickory St 12/21/2022 2022 Existing - PM Peak Hour Denver Rescue Mission - Fort Collins Traffic Impact Study Synchro 11 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group Page 6 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 66 97 117 1048 791 54 Future Volume (veh/h) 66 97 117 1048 791 54 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1826 1826 1811 1811 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 82 121 121 1080 860 59 Peak Hour Factor 0.80 0.80 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %3 3 5 5 6 6 Cap, veh/h 192 156 493 2729 2707 1200 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.10 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 1572 593 3561 3532 1526 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 82 121 121 1080 860 59 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1572 593 1735 1721 1526 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.6 7.9 7.7 10.1 7.5 0.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.6 7.9 15.1 10.1 7.5 0.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 192 156 493 2729 2707 1200 V/C Ratio(X) 0.43 0.78 0.25 0.40 0.32 0.05 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 446 382 493 2729 2707 1200 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 43.7 46.2 5.3 3.5 3.2 2.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.5 8.0 1.2 0.4 0.3 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.1 3.4 0.9 2.4 1.8 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.2 54.2 6.5 3.9 3.5 2.6 LnGrp LOS D D A A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 203 1201 919 Approach Delay, s/veh 50.6 4.2 3.4 Approach LOS D A A Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 89.1 15.9 89.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 7.5 5.5 7.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 66.5 25.5 66.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.1 9.9 9.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 6.8 0.6 4.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 7.9 HCM 6th LOS A 331 Section D, Item 1. Fort Collins Rescue Mission Traffic Impact Study (FT #22099)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC March 20, 2024      Intersection Capacity Worksheets:  Year 2025 Background  332 Section D, Item 1. HCM 6th TWSC 1: Mason St & Hibdon Ct 12/21/2022 2025 Background - AM Peak Hour Denver Rescue Mission - Fort Collins Traffic Impact Study Synchro 11 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.4 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 0 1 1 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 2 0 1 1 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 25 25 25 25 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 100 100 0 0 2 2 Mvmt Flow 8 0 4 4 0 0 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 7 6 0 0 8 0 Stage 1 6 - - - - - Stage 2 1 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.4 7.2 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 4.4 4.2 - - 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 810 850 - - 1612 - Stage 1 812 - - - - - Stage 2 817 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 810 850 - - 1612 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 810 - - - - - Stage 1 812 - - - - - Stage 2 817 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.5 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h)- - 810 1612 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.01 - - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 9.5 0 - HCM Lane LOS - - A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 - 333 Section D, Item 1. HCM 6th TWSC 2: North College Ave & Hibdon Ct 12/21/2022 2025 Background - AM Peak Hour Denver Rescue Mission - Fort Collins Traffic Impact Study Synchro 11 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 1 7 0 0 0 14 530 0 0 890 9 Future Vol, veh/h 4 1 7 0 0 0 14 530 0 0 890 9 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length -- - - - - 97 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 75 75 75 25 25 25 90 90 90 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 25 25 25 0 0 0 9 9 9 8 8 8 Mvmt Flow 5 1 9 0 0 0 16 589 0 0 1113 11 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1450 1744 566 1128 0 - - - 0 Stage 1 1123 1123 -- - - - - - Stage 2 327 621 -- - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.3 7 7.4 4.28 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.3 6 -- - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.3 6 -- - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.75 4.25 3.55 2.29 - - - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 98 67 413 576 - 0 0 - - Stage 1 228 235 -- - 0 0 - - Stage 2 639 425 -- - 0 0 - - Platoon blocked, %-- - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 94 0 411 574 - - - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 94 0 -- - - - - - Stage 1 221 0 -- - - - - - Stage 2 636 0 -- - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 26.3 0.3 0 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)574 - 185 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.027 - 0.086 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 11.4 - 26.3 - - HCM Lane LOS B - D - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.3 - - 334 Section D, Item 1. HCM 6th TWSC 3: Hickory St & Mason St 12/21/2022 2025 Background - AM Peak Hour Denver Rescue Mission - Fort Collins Traffic Impact Study Synchro 11 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 140 131 1 5 2 Future Vol, veh/h 1 140 131 1 5 2 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 3 0 0 3 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 65 65 80 80 88 88 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 4 4 43 43 Mvmt Flow 2 215 164 1 6 2 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 168 0 - 0 387 168 Stage 1 - - - - 168 - Stage 2 - - - - 219 - Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.83 6.63 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.83 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.83 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.887 3.687 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1404 - - - 544 780 Stage 1 - - - - 771 - Stage 2 - - - - 729 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1400 - - - 540 778 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 540 - Stage 1 - - - - 767 - Stage 2 - - - - 727 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 11.2 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)1400 - - - 592 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - - - 0.013 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 0 - - 11.2 HCM Lane LOS A A - - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0 335 Section D, Item 1. Timings 4: North College Ave & Hickory St 12/21/2022 2025 Background - AM Peak Hour Denver Rescue Mission - Fort Collins Traffic Impact Study Synchro 11 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group Page 4 Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph)26 94 89 528 834 52 Future Volume (vph)26 94 89 528 834 52 Turn Type Prot Perm Perm NA NA Perm Protected Phases 4 6 2 Permitted Phases 4 6 2 Detector Phase 4 4 6 6 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s)25.5 25.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 Total Split (s)30.0 30.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 Total Split (%)37.5% 37.5% 62.5% 62.5% 62.5% 62.5% Yellow Time (s)3.5 3.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 All-Red Time (s)2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 0.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 Total Lost Time (s)4.5 5.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None C-Max C-Max C-Max C-Max Act Effct Green (s)11.0 10.0 61.8 61.8 61.8 61.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.12 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.41 0.29 0.24 0.40 0.06 Control Delay 29.0 15.3 8.0 4.3 5.2 2.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 29.0 15.3 8.0 4.3 5.2 2.1 LOS C B A A A A Approach Delay 18.3 4.8 5.1 Approach LOS B A A Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 80 Actuated Cycle Length: 80 Offset: 47 (59%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT and 6:NBTL, Start of Red Natural Cycle: 60 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.41 Intersection Signal Delay: 5.9 Intersection LOS: A Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.8%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 4: North College Ave & Hickory St 336 Section D, Item 1. Queues 4: North College Ave & Hickory St 12/21/2022 2025 Background - AM Peak Hour Denver Rescue Mission - Fort Collins Traffic Impact Study Synchro 11 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group Page 5 Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 31 111 102 607 1043 65 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.41 0.29 0.24 0.40 0.06 Control Delay 29.0 15.3 8.0 4.3 5.2 2.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 29.0 15.3 8.0 4.3 5.2 2.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 15 13 12 35 72 1 Queue Length 95th (ft) 30 44 56 94 158 13 Internal Link Dist (ft) 250 150 860 Turn Bay Length (ft)98 125 95 Base Capacity (vph) 558 538 354 2560 2608 1150 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.06 0.21 0.29 0.24 0.40 0.06 Intersection Summary 337 Section D, Item 1. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 4: North College Ave & Hickory St 12/21/2022 2025 Background - AM Peak Hour Denver Rescue Mission - Fort Collins Traffic Impact Study Synchro 11 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group Page 6 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 26 94 89 528 834 52 Future Volume (veh/h) 26 94 89 528 834 52 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1767 1767 1796 1796 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 31 111 102 607 1042 65 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.80 0.80 Percent Heavy Veh, %3 3 9 9 7 7 Cap, veh/h 189 148 402 2537 2579 1149 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.09 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 1572 481 3445 3503 1520 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 31 111 102 607 1042 65 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1572 481 1678 1706 1520 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.3 5.5 7.6 4.3 8.6 0.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.3 5.5 16.2 4.3 8.6 0.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 189 148 402 2537 2579 1149 V/C Ratio(X) 0.16 0.75 0.25 0.24 0.40 0.06 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 563 482 402 2537 2579 1149 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.5 35.3 6.3 2.9 3.4 2.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 7.4 1.5 0.2 0.5 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.6 2.4 0.8 0.8 1.7 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.9 42.7 7.8 3.1 3.9 2.6 LnGrp LOS C D A A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 142 709 1107 Approach Delay, s/veh 40.5 3.8 3.8 Approach LOS D A A Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 67.0 13.0 67.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 7.5 5.5 7.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 42.5 24.5 42.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.6 7.5 18.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.0 0.4 3.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 6.5 HCM 6th LOS A 338 Section D, Item 1. HCM 6th TWSC 1: Mason St & Hibdon Ct 12/21/2022 2025 Background - PM Peak Hour Denver Rescue Mission - Fort Collins Traffic Impact Study Synchro 11 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 6 0 7 3 4 Future Vol, veh/h 12 6 0 7 3 4 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 75 75 58 58 44 44 Heavy Vehicles, % 11 11 0 0 14 14 Mvmt Flow 16 8 0 12 7 9 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 29 6 0 0 12 0 Stage 1 6 - - - - - Stage 2 23 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.51 6.31 - - 4.24 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.51 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.51 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.599 3.399 - - 2.326 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 963 1051 - - 1532 - Stage 1 994 - - - - - Stage 2 977 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 958 1051 - - 1532 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 958 - - - - - Stage 1 994 - - - - - Stage 2 972 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.7 0 3.2 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h)- - 987 1532 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.024 0.004 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 8.7 7.4 0 HCM Lane LOS - - A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 - 339 Section D, Item 1. HCM 6th TWSC 2: North College Ave & Hibdon Ct 12/21/2022 2025 Background - PM Peak Hour Denver Rescue Mission - Fort Collins Traffic Impact Study Synchro 11 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 0 10 0 0 1 28 1086 0 3 853 15 Future Vol, veh/h 5 0 10 0 0 1 28 1086 0 3 853 15 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 4 4 0 7 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length -- - - - - 97 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 63 63 63 25 25 25 98 98 98 94 94 94 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 5 5 5 Mvmt Flow 8 0 16 0 0 4 29 1108 0 3 907 16 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1540 2098 469 930 0 - 1112 0 0 Stage 1 928 928 -- - - - - - Stage 2 612 1170 -- - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.8 6.5 6.9 4.18 - - 4.2 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.8 5.5 -- - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.8 5.5 -- - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 2.24 - - 2.25 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 108 53 546 719 - 0 607 - - Stage 1 350 349 -- - 0 - - - Stage 2 509 269 -- - 0 - - - Platoon blocked, %-- - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 101 0 542 714 - - 607 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 101 0 -- - - - - - Stage 1 333 0 -- - - - - - Stage 2 500 0 -- - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 23.2 0.3 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)714 - 221 607 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.04 - 0.108 0.005 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 10.3 - 23.2 11 - - HCM Lane LOS B - C B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.4 0 - - 340 Section D, Item 1. HCM 6th TWSC 3: Hickory St & Mason St 12/21/2022 2025 Background - PM Peak Hour Denver Rescue Mission - Fort Collins Traffic Impact Study Synchro 11 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 172 146 10 11 2 Future Vol, veh/h 1 172 146 10 11 2 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 0 0 1 1 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 87 87 65 65 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 0 0 Mvmt Flow 1 185 168 11 17 3 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 180 0 - 0 363 175 Stage 1 - - - - 175 - Stage 2 - - - - 188 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.4 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1396 - - - 640 874 Stage 1 - - - - 860 - Stage 2 - - - - 849 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1395 - - - 638 873 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 638 - Stage 1 - - - - 858 - Stage 2 - - - - 848 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 10.6 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)1395 - - - 666 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - - - 0.03 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 0 - - 10.6 HCM Lane LOS A A - - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1 341 Section D, Item 1. Timings 4: North College Ave & Hickory St 12/21/2022 2025 Background - PM Peak Hour Denver Rescue Mission - Fort Collins Traffic Impact Study Synchro 11 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group Page 4 Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph)68 100 121 1080 815 56 Future Volume (vph)68 100 121 1080 815 56 Turn Type Prot Perm Perm NA NA Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Detector Phase 4 4 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s)25.5 25.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 Total Split (s)31.0 31.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 Total Split (%)29.5% 29.5% 70.5% 70.5% 70.5% 70.5% Yellow Time (s)3.5 3.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 All-Red Time (s)2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 0.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 Total Lost Time (s)4.5 5.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None C-Max C-Max C-Max C-Max Act Effct Green (s)12.7 11.7 81.3 81.3 81.3 81.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.11 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 v/c Ratio 0.40 0.44 0.29 0.42 0.34 0.05 Control Delay 46.9 12.1 6.3 5.0 4.5 1.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 46.9 12.1 6.3 5.0 4.5 1.3 LOS D B A A A A Approach Delay 26.1 5.1 4.3 Approach LOS C A A Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 105 Actuated Cycle Length: 105 Offset: 64 (61%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 60 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.44 Intersection Signal Delay: 6.6 Intersection LOS: A Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.3%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 4: North College Ave & Hickory St 342 Section D, Item 1. Queues 4: North College Ave & Hickory St 12/21/2022 2025 Background - PM Peak Hour Denver Rescue Mission - Fort Collins Traffic Impact Study Synchro 11 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group Page 5 Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 85 125 125 1113 886 61 v/c Ratio 0.40 0.44 0.29 0.42 0.34 0.05 Control Delay 46.9 12.1 6.3 5.0 4.5 1.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 46.9 12.1 6.3 5.0 4.5 1.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 54 0 18 98 71 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 82 35 60 196 145 12 Internal Link Dist (ft) 250 150 860 Turn Bay Length (ft)98 125 95 Base Capacity (vph) 442 475 436 2663 2638 1138 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.19 0.26 0.29 0.42 0.34 0.05 Intersection Summary 343 Section D, Item 1. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 4: North College Ave & Hickory St 12/21/2022 2025 Background - PM Peak Hour Denver Rescue Mission - Fort Collins Traffic Impact Study Synchro 11 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group Page 6 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 68 100 121 1080 815 56 Future Volume (veh/h) 68 100 121 1080 815 56 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1826 1826 1811 1811 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 85 125 125 1113 886 61 Peak Hour Factor 0.80 0.80 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %3 3 5 5 6 6 Cap, veh/h 197 160 478 2720 2697 1196 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.10 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 1572 578 3561 3532 1526 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 85 125 125 1113 886 61 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1572 578 1735 1721 1526 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.7 8.1 8.4 10.7 7.9 0.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.7 8.1 16.3 10.7 7.9 0.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 197 160 478 2720 2697 1196 V/C Ratio(X) 0.43 0.78 0.26 0.41 0.33 0.05 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 446 382 478 2720 2697 1196 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 43.6 46.0 5.7 3.6 3.3 2.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.5 8.0 1.3 0.5 0.3 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.2 3.6 1.0 2.6 1.9 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.1 54.0 7.0 4.1 3.6 2.6 LnGrp LOS D D A A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 210 1238 947 Approach Delay, s/veh 50.4 4.4 3.6 Approach LOS D A A Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 88.8 16.2 88.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 7.5 5.5 7.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 66.5 25.5 66.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 18.3 10.1 9.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 7.1 0.6 4.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 8.1 HCM 6th LOS A 344 Section D, Item 1. Fort Collins Rescue Mission Traffic Impact Study (FT #22099)      Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC March 20, 2024      Intersection Capacity Worksheets:  Year 2025 Background+  Project       345 Section D, Item 1. HCM 6th TWSC 1: Mason St & Northern Access 12/21/2022 2025 Back & Site - AM Peak Hour Denver Rescue Mission - Fort Collins Traffic Impact Study Synchro 11 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 7.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 4 4 5 8 0 8 1 2 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 4 4 5 8 0 8 1 2 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length -- - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 25 25 25 25 25 25 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 4 4 20 32 0 32 4 8 0 0 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 89 77 1 77 73 8 1 0 0 12 0 0 Stage 1 1 1 - 72 72 - - - - - - - Stage 2 88 76 - 5 1 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 896 813 1084 912 817 1074 1622 - - 1607 - - Stage 1 1022 895 - 938 835 - - - - - - - Stage 2 920 832 - 1017 895 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 856 797 1084 891 801 1074 1622 - - 1607 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 856 797 - 891 801 - - - - - - - Stage 1 1002 895 - 919 818 - - - - - - - Stage 2 866 815 - 1008 895 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9 9.6 5.3 0 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1622 - - 919 833 1607 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.02 - - 0.009 0.062 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 - 9 9.6 0 - - HCM Lane LOS A A - A A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 0.2 0 - - 346 Section D, Item 1. HCM 6th TWSC 2: North College Ave & Private Drive 12/21/2022 2025 Back & Site - AM Peak Hour Denver Rescue Mission - Fort Collins Traffic Impact Study Synchro 11 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 1 11 0 0 0 20 532 0 0 893 14 Future Vol, veh/h 5 1 11 0 0 0 20 532 0 0 893 14 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length -- - - - - 97 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 75 75 75 92 92 92 90 90 90 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 10 10 10 0 0 0 9 9 9 8 8 8 Mvmt Flow 7 1 15 0 0 0 22 591 0 0 1116 18 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1469 1764 571 1194 1773 296 1138 0 - - - 0 Stage 1 1129 1129 - 635 635 - - - - - - - Stage 2 340 635 - 559 1138 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.7 6.7 7.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.28 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.7 5.7 - 6.5 5.5 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.7 5.7 - 6.5 5.5 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.6 4.1 3.4 3.5 4 3.3 2.29 - - - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 82 76 444 145 84 706 571 - 0 0 - - Stage 1 204 261 - 438 476 - - - 0 0 - - Stage 2 627 451 - 486 279 - - - 0 0 - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 79 73 442 134 80 706 569 - - - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 79 73 - 134 80 - - - - - - - Stage 1 195 260 - 421 457 - - - - - - - Stage 2 603 433 - 467 278 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 29.9 0 0.4 0 HCM LOS D A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1WBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)569 - 167 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.039 - 0.136 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 11.6 - 29.9 0 - - HCM Lane LOS B - D A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.5 - - - 347 Section D, Item 1. HCM 6th TWSC 3: Hickory St & Mason St 12/21/2022 2025 Back & Site - AM Peak Hour Denver Rescue Mission - Fort Collins Traffic Impact Study Synchro 11 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.4 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 140 131 14 11 2 Future Vol, veh/h 1 140 131 14 11 2 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 3 0 0 3 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 65 65 80 80 88 88 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 4 4 10 10 Mvmt Flow 2 215 164 18 13 2 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 185 0 - 0 395 176 Stage 1 - - - - 176 - Stage 2 - - - - 219 - Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.5 6.3 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.59 3.39 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1384 - - - 595 847 Stage 1 - - - - 836 - Stage 2 - - - - 799 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1380 - - - 590 845 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 590 - Stage 1 - - - - 832 - Stage 2 - - - - 797 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 11 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)1380 - - - 619 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - - - 0.024 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 0 - - 11 HCM Lane LOS A A - - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1 348 Section D, Item 1. Timings 4: Hickory St & North College Ave 12/21/2022 2025 Back & Site - AM Peak Hour Denver Rescue Mission - Fort Collins Traffic Impact Study Synchro 11 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group Page 4 Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph)28 98 101 534 838 53 Future Volume (vph)28 98 101 534 838 53 Turn Type Prot Perm Perm NA NA Perm Protected Phases 4 6 2 Permitted Phases 4 6 2 Detector Phase 4 4 6 6 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s)25.5 25.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 Total Split (s)30.0 30.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 Total Split (%)37.5% 37.5% 62.5% 62.5% 62.5% 62.5% Yellow Time (s)3.5 3.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 All-Red Time (s)2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 0.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 Total Lost Time (s)4.5 5.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None Max Max C-Max C-Max Act Effct Green (s)11.0 10.0 61.8 61.8 61.8 61.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.12 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.43 0.33 0.24 0.40 0.06 Control Delay 29.1 16.1 8.9 4.3 5.3 2.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 29.1 16.1 8.9 4.3 5.3 2.1 LOS C B A A A A Approach Delay 19.0 5.1 5.1 Approach LOS B A A Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 80 Actuated Cycle Length: 80 Offset: 47 (59%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT, Start of Red Natural Cycle: 60 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.43 Intersection Signal Delay: 6.1 Intersection LOS: A Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.9%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 4: Hickory St & North College Ave 349 Section D, Item 1. Queues 4: Hickory St & North College Ave 12/21/2022 2025 Back & Site - AM Peak Hour Denver Rescue Mission - Fort Collins Traffic Impact Study Synchro 11 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group Page 5 Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 115 116 614 1048 66 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.43 0.33 0.24 0.40 0.06 Control Delay 29.1 16.1 8.9 4.3 5.3 2.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 29.1 16.1 8.9 4.3 5.3 2.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 15 15 14 36 73 1 Queue Length 95th (ft) 32 47 67 95 160 13 Internal Link Dist (ft) 250 150 860 Turn Bay Length (ft)98 95 Base Capacity (vph) 558 537 351 2557 2604 1149 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.06 0.21 0.33 0.24 0.40 0.06 Intersection Summary 350 Section D, Item 1. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 4: Hickory St & North College Ave 12/21/2022 2025 Back & Site - AM Peak Hour Denver Rescue Mission - Fort Collins Traffic Impact Study Synchro 11 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group Page 6 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 28 98 101 534 838 53 Future Volume (veh/h) 28 98 101 534 838 53 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1767 1767 1796 1796 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 33 115 116 614 1048 66 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.80 0.80 Percent Heavy Veh, %3 3 9 9 7 7 Cap, veh/h 194 153 397 2527 2569 1144 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.10 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 1572 478 3445 3503 1520 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 33 115 116 614 1048 66 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1572 478 1678 1706 1520 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.4 5.7 9.2 4.4 8.8 0.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.4 5.7 17.9 4.4 8.8 0.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 194 153 397 2527 2569 1144 V/C Ratio(X) 0.17 0.75 0.29 0.24 0.41 0.06 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 563 482 397 2527 2569 1144 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.3 35.2 6.7 3.0 3.5 2.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 7.2 1.9 0.2 0.5 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.6 2.5 1.0 1.1 1.8 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.7 42.4 8.6 3.2 4.0 2.7 LnGrp LOS C D A A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 148 730 1114 Approach Delay, s/veh 40.2 4.1 3.9 Approach LOS D A A Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 66.7 13.3 66.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 7.5 5.5 7.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 42.5 24.5 42.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.8 7.7 19.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.0 0.4 4.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 6.7 HCM 6th LOS A 351 Section D, Item 1. HCM 6th TWSC 5: Mason St & Southern Access 12/21/2022 2025 Back & Site - AM Peak Hour Denver Rescue Mission - Fort Collins Traffic Impact Study Synchro 11 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group Page 7 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.7 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 2 5 8 4 3 Future Vol, veh/h 1 2 5 8 4 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 2 5 9 4 3 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 25 6 7 0 - 0 Stage 1 6 - - - - - Stage 2 19 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 991 1077 1614 - - - Stage 1 1017 - - - - - Stage 2 1004 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 988 1077 1614 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 988 - - - - - Stage 1 1014 - - - - - Stage 2 1004 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.5 2.8 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1614 - 1046 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - 0.003 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.2 0 8.5 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - - 352 Section D, Item 1. HCM 6th TWSC 1: Mason St & Northern Access 12/21/2022 2025 Back & Site - PM Peak Hour Denver Rescue Mission - Fort Collins Traffic Impact Study Synchro 11 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 6 6 13 4 6 4 0 9 3 4 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 6 6 13 4 6 4 0 9 3 4 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length -- - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 75 75 75 58 58 58 44 44 44 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 11 11 11 2 2 2 10 10 10 Mvmt Flow 0 7 7 17 5 8 7 0 16 7 9 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 52 53 9 52 45 8 9 0 0 16 0 0 Stage 1 23 23 - 22 22 - - - - - - - Stage 2 29 30 - 30 23 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.21 6.61 6.31 4.12 - - 4.2 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.21 5.61 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.21 5.61 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.599 4.099 3.399 2.218 - - 2.29 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 947 838 1073 925 830 1048 1611 - - 1551 - - Stage 1 995 876 - 974 859 - - - - - - - Stage 2 988 870 - 964 858 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 929 830 1073 907 823 1048 1611 - - 1551 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 929 830 - 907 823 - - - - - - - Stage 1 991 872 - 970 856 - - - - - - - Stage 2 970 867 - 946 854 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.9 9 2.2 3.1 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1611 - - 936 923 1551 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 - - 0.014 0.033 0.004 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.2 0 - 8.9 9 7.3 0 - HCM Lane LOS A A -A A A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 0.1 0 - - 353 Section D, Item 1. HCM 6th TWSC 2: North College Ave & Private Drive 12/21/2022 2025 Back & Site - PM Peak Hour Denver Rescue Mission - Fort Collins Traffic Impact Study Synchro 11 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group Page 2 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 0 16 0 0 1 31 1088 0 3 854 17 Future Vol, veh/h 7 0 16 0 0 1 31 1088 0 3 854 17 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 4 4 0 7 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length -- - - - - 97 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 63 63 63 25 25 25 98 98 98 94 94 94 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 5 5 5 Mvmt Flow 11 0 25 0 0 4 32 1110 0 3 909 18 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1550 2109 471 1639 2118 559 934 0 - 1114 0 0 Stage 1 931 931 - 1178 1178 - - - - - - - Stage 2 619 1178 - 461 940 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.18 - - 4.2 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.5 5.5 - 6.5 5.5 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.5 5.5 - 6.5 5.5 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 2.24 - - 2.25 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 79 52 545 68 51 478 716 - 0 606 - - Stage 1 291 348 - 206 267 - - - 0 - - - Stage 2 448 267 - 555 345 - - - 0 - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 75 49 541 62 48 476 711 - - 604 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 75 49 - 62 48 - - - - - - - Stage 1 276 342 - 196 254 - - - - - - - Stage 2 424 254 - 524 339 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 28.9 12.6 0.3 0 HCM LOS D B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)711 - 187 476 604 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.044 - 0.195 0.008 0.005 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 10.3 - 28.9 12.6 11 - - HCM Lane LOS B - D B B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.7 0 0 - - 354 Section D, Item 1. HCM 6th TWSC 3: Hickory St & Mason St 12/21/2022 2025 Back & Site - PM Peak Hour Denver Rescue Mission - Fort Collins Traffic Impact Study Synchro 11 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 172 146 15 19 2 Future Vol, veh/h 1 172 146 15 19 2 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 0 0 1 1 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 87 87 65 65 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 185 168 17 29 3 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 186 0 - 0 366 178 Stage 1 - - - - 178 - Stage 2 - - - - 188 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1388 - - - 634 865 Stage 1 - - - - 853 - Stage 2 - - - - 844 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1387 - - - 632 864 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 632 - Stage 1 - - - - 851 - Stage 2 - - - - 843 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 10.8 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)1387 - - - 649 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - - - 0.05 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 0 - - 10.8 HCM Lane LOS A A - - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.2 355 Section D, Item 1. Timings 4: Hickory St & North College Ave 12/21/2022 2025 Back & Site - PM Peak Hour Denver Rescue Mission - Fort Collins Traffic Impact Study Synchro 11 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group Page 4 Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph)70 106 125 1083 821 57 Future Volume (vph)70 106 125 1083 821 57 Turn Type Prot Perm Perm NA NA Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Detector Phase 4 4 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s)25.5 25.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 Total Split (s)31.0 31.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 Total Split (%)29.5% 29.5% 70.5% 70.5% 70.5% 70.5% Yellow Time (s)3.5 3.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 All-Red Time (s)2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 0.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 Total Lost Time (s)4.5 5.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None C-Max C-Max C-Max C-Max Act Effct Green (s)12.8 11.8 81.2 81.2 81.2 81.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.11 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 v/c Ratio 0.42 0.45 0.30 0.42 0.34 0.05 Control Delay 47.1 12.0 6.5 5.0 4.5 1.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 47.1 12.0 6.5 5.0 4.5 1.3 LOS D B A A A A Approach Delay 26.0 5.2 4.3 Approach LOS C A A Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 105 Actuated Cycle Length: 105 Offset: 64 (61%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 60 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.45 Intersection Signal Delay: 6.7 Intersection LOS: A Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.4%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 4: Hickory St & North College Ave 356 Section D, Item 1. Queues 4: Hickory St & North College Ave 12/21/2022 2025 Back & Site - PM Peak Hour Denver Rescue Mission - Fort Collins Traffic Impact Study Synchro 11 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group Page 5 Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 88 133 129 1116 892 62 v/c Ratio 0.42 0.45 0.30 0.42 0.34 0.05 Control Delay 47.1 12.0 6.5 5.0 4.5 1.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 47.1 12.0 6.5 5.0 4.5 1.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 56 0 19 100 73 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 84 35 63 197 146 12 Internal Link Dist (ft) 250 150 860 Turn Bay Length (ft)98 95 Base Capacity (vph) 442 481 434 2660 2635 1137 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.20 0.28 0.30 0.42 0.34 0.05 Intersection Summary 357 Section D, Item 1. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 4: Hickory St & North College Ave 12/21/2022 2025 Back & Site - PM Peak Hour Denver Rescue Mission - Fort Collins Traffic Impact Study Synchro 11 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group Page 6 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 70 106 125 1083 821 57 Future Volume (veh/h) 70 106 125 1083 821 57 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1826 1826 1811 1811 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 88 132 129 1116 892 62 Peak Hour Factor 0.80 0.80 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %3 3 5 5 6 6 Cap, veh/h 205 167 471 2704 2682 1189 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.11 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 1572 574 3561 3532 1526 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 88 132 129 1116 892 62 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1572 574 1735 1721 1526 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.9 8.6 9.1 11.0 8.1 1.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.9 8.6 17.2 11.0 8.1 1.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 205 167 471 2704 2682 1189 V/C Ratio(X) 0.43 0.79 0.27 0.41 0.33 0.05 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 446 382 471 2704 2682 1189 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 43.2 45.8 6.0 3.8 3.5 2.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.4 8.0 1.4 0.5 0.3 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.2 3.7 1.2 3.1 2.0 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.6 53.8 7.4 4.2 3.8 2.7 LnGrp LOS D D A A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 220 1245 954 Approach Delay, s/veh 50.1 4.6 3.7 Approach LOS D A A Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 88.3 16.7 88.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 7.5 5.5 7.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 66.5 25.5 66.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 19.2 10.6 10.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 7.7 0.6 4.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 8.4 HCM 6th LOS A 358 Section D, Item 1. HCM 6th TWSC 5: Mason St & Southern Access 12/21/2022 2025 Back & Site - PM Peak Hour Denver Rescue Mission - Fort Collins Traffic Impact Study Synchro 11 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group Page 7 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.6 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 2 1 4 6 1 Future Vol, veh/h 2 2 1 4 6 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 2 2 1 4 7 1 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 14 8 8 0 - 0 Stage 1 8 - - - - - Stage 2 6 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1005 1074 1612 - - - Stage 1 1015 - - - - - Stage 2 1017 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1004 1074 1612 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 1004 - - - - - Stage 1 1014 - - - - - Stage 2 1017 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.5 1.4 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1612 - 1038 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - 0.004 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.2 0 8.5 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - - 359 Section D, Item 1. Rescue Mission Neighborhood Meeting Neighborhood Meeting Summary (3/2/2023) Neighborhood Meeting Date: March 2nd, 2023. City Staff – Attendees: Applicant Contact: Fort Collins Rescue Mission Project Information Presented: •Information on shelter characteristics. •Types of support offered for individuals needing help. •Northern wing will be dorms and Southern for food and activities. Both sections will have outdoor access to the gated western wing. •Clarification to questions or concerns. Project Overview •New 24/7 homeless shelter •Approximately 200 beds •1 to 2 stories •Parking proposed North and South •On site stormwater management Questions/Comments and Answers (answers provided by the applicant group unless otherwise noted). •Will the rescue mission stay where they are at? We are not planning on operating two sites. The plan is to sell the current location and move all operations to the new site. •I am concerned with the compatibility. This project doesn’t seem to come near those metrics, it goes against compatibility based on the history of what we are dealing with now. How can you assure the residents near this new facility will be safe? It is a use that is allowed in this area, and there are lots of community partners that will be keeping the area safe regarding police services. Community Development and Neighborhood Services Planning Services 281 North College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview 360 Section D, Item 1. •I am concerned for community safety. •How can avoid negative impacts of having two hundred people coming and going? We will maintain the shelter in such a way to provide safety, and we will collaborate with Fort Collins PD which are trained and will have a specific team to address these issues. We do have this issue now, having the men at this facility and offering the services that can be utilized may not solve the entire issue but will help. Since the homeless will be with us at our facility versus being on the streets. •What are rescue missions’ policies about who is allowed in the shelter? It would be the same population we are experiencing right now which are on the streets due to the current facilities pitfalls on spacing. There are no background checks, and that is because during the winters being in a shelter can be a life or death circumstance. •What will we do if current trends continue with homeless population increasing? If we cannot expand our facility, we will not be able to help as many people that need shelter. In the coming winter, it is likely some will lose their lives because the current shelter cannot meet population demands. •Is there a projected timeline for the shelter being built and what are the cost estimates? The goal timeline is to break ground by the end of the year to have it open. Winter of 2024 is the goal to have it up and running. The current estimates are being calculated so there is not an answer for that right now. Denver rescue mission is solely based on donations, so that in conjunction with city and county funding will be the main funds for this project. •The letter sent said there would be 24/7 watch but I am skeptical that it will help with the homeless. Police also say their hands are tied when it comes to the homeless so how can we negate this? The best example we have in practice is our location. The way we can keep the sidewalks cleared is by having staff around the facility about the options the homeless have. The relationships built will be able to provide a secure environment. •What impact does having more space have on the community and facility? First priority is to serve homeless single men as they are the most vulnerable. Having more space will allow us to do so. •How high is the fence? There is not a defined height yet. •What other types of services might be available? Our hope is to have a day center area with offices and meeting spaces for providers to come into the shelter to help with housing services here. Sometimes having a couple blocks to a house and housing service can create a barrier for having access to stable permanent housing. •When the unhoused enter private property and leave litter or cause damage, why is it the cities response to make the homeowner responsible for cleaning? If there are things happening out of your control, we would like to have one on one conversations on how we can mitigate that problem. •Can you share a percentage of people that are seeking shelter and percent that have shelter now? It looks like we have about 500 conically homeless individuals in this area but that is subject to changing. Depending on the season, those numbers are up or down. •How do we get the homeless from a point of that to being self-sufficient? What is the timeline for something like that on average? Given diversity we see in the shelters, it can vary. This can be depending on the situations homeless find themselves, such as if they have been homeless for long periods of time or short. 361 Section D, Item 1. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS VIDEO LINKS First Meeting 3.2.2023 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cI5EAjWu6Zg&list=PL7cZylpMlgCKqkcNsNCKAEevDf1P6r- Xk&index=22 Second Meeting 6.14.2023 6.14.2023 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhOCx9A20tw ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 11 362 Section D, Item 1. H O U S I N G S T R A T E G I C P L A N PLAN DOCUMENT INCLUDED IN FULL FOR THE RECORD. COVER SHEET AND APPLICABLE PAGES ARE EXTRACTED AND ATTACHED TO THIS DOCUMENT FOR QUICK REFERENCE. https://www.fcgov.com/housing/ files/20-22913-housing- strategic-plan-no- appendices.pdf 363 Section D, Item 1. H O U S I N G S T R A T E G I C P L A N | 2 0 2 1 6 Housing affordability has been a priority for Fort Collins for decades, and as highlighted in City Plan, is a key element of community livability. As our community continues to grow, we know that many people are struggling to afford stable, healthy housing in Fort Collins. Nearly 60% of our renters and 20% of our homeowners are cost-burdened. Furthermore, our BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) and low-income households are disproportionately impacted—these community members are experiencing lower homeownership rates, lower income levels, and higher rates of poverty. We also know our current level of investment in the housing system is not enough to meet the goal City Council established in 2015 of having 10% affordable housing stock. To begin addressing these challenges, City Council established Affordable and Achievable Strategies for Housing Affordability as a Council Priority in 2019. In the summer of 2020, amidst the COVID pandemic, we kicked off a seven-month planning process that expands our housing efforts to all income levels. The result of this effort is a plan that includes 26 strategies designed to overcome the greatest challenges we face in housing affordability in Fort Collins. Implementing these strategies will address high priority outcomes such as increasing the overall housing supply and diversity, preserving the affordable housing we have, increasing housing stability, and advancing toward more equitable outcomes. We developed this plan in alignment with the City’s 2020 Strategic Plan, which includes an objective to center our work in equity for all, leading with race, so that policy decisions reduce inequities in the community and improve outcomes for those who are directly impacted by housing challenges. This commitment was bolstered by over 600 community members, numerous Boards and Commissions, the Council Ad Hoc Housing Committee, and our Home2Health Partners who engaged with and shaped this plan. With these priority strategies identified, we now begin the hard work of implementation. Here in Fort Collins, we are deeply committed to turning plans into action, and 10 quick-impact strategies are included within this plan so we can take direct action together in the next year. Achieving this community vision will require challenging conversations and innovative changes. We believe if any place in the country can do this vital, neighborly work, it is Fort Collins. We look forward to joining you all in doing our part so that everyone has healthy, stable housing they can afford. Sincerely, Mayor Wade Troxell Darin Atteberry, City Manager 364 Section D, Item 1. H O U S I N G S T R A T E G I C P L A N | 2 0 2 1 11 Vision: What Does the Plan Aim to Achieve? The plan’s vision that “Everyone has healthy, stable housing they can afford” includes four components: •Everyone: Challenges Fort Collins to assess who does and does not have healthy, stable, or affordable housing today and design strategies to ensure a person’s identity or identities is not a predictor of whether they, or our community, achieve this vision. •Healthy Housing: Addresses physical and mental well-being inside and outside of the home. •Stable Housing: Recognizes housing is the most important platform for pursuing all other life goals (known as “Housing First”), and that a secure place to live is a fundamental requirement for quality of life and well-being. •Afford(able) Housing: Ensures an adequate supply so community members do not spend more than 30% of their incomes on housing. Greatest Challenges: What Do We Need to Overcome to Achieve the Vision? To answer “what is the problem we’re trying to solve” and “what are our greatest challenges to achieving the vision,” staff compiled an Existing Conditions Assessment based on existing data and community feedback to summarize the current state of housing in Fort Collins. Seven greatest challenges were identified: 1.Price escalation impacts everyone and disproportionately impacts BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) and low-income households. 2.There aren’t enough affordable places available for people to rent or purchase, or what is available and affordable isn’t the kind of housing people need. 3.The City does have some tools to encourage affordable housing, but the current amount of funding and incentives for affordable housing are not enough to meet our goals. 4.Job growth continues to outpace housing growth. 5.Housing is expensive to build, and the cost of building new housing will likely continue to increase over time. 6.It is difficult to predict the lasting effects of COVID-19 and the impacts of the pandemic. 7.Housing policies have not consistently addressed housing stability and healthy housing, especially for people who rent. Strategies: How will We Overcome the Greatest Challenges? The 26 strategies included in this plan are designed to take the first steps to overcome the greatest challenges outlined above. As represented in the graphic below, the strategies are designed to achieve multiple outcomes: •Increase housing supply and affordability (12 strategies): Examples include removing barriers to accessory dwelling units (or ADUs), updating the City’s Land Use Code, and creating a new dedicated revenue stream. •Increase housing diversity and choice (12 strategies): Examples include recalibrating existing incentives, exploring innovative housing development opportunities, and removing barriers to allowed densities via the Land Use Code. 365 Section D, Item 1. 2015-2019 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN PLAN DOCUMENT INCLUDED IN FULL FOR THE RECORD. COVER SHEET AND APPLICABLE PAGES ARE EXTRACTED AND ATTACHED TO THIS DOCUMENT FOR QUICK REFERENCE. https://www.fcgov.com/sustainability/ pdf/AHSPFinal.pdf 366 Section D, Item 1. 42 2015-2019 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN 4.3. Increase Housing and Associated Supportive Services for People with Special Needs The third strategy is to increase housing and associated supportive services for people with special needs. This broad category includes those who are homeless, seniors, persons with disabilities, and victims of domestic violence. These groups generally require housing units tailored to specific needs not typically or adequately addressed by market-driven development. Many times a network of support services is needed to keep these populations stable and independent. Housing these populations often involve the use of Housing Choice Voucher Program vouchers as monthly rental subsidies. 4.3.1. Justification The following illustrates some of the special needs, but does not indicate priority. People who are homeless. A point-in-time study conducted by the Homeward 2020 project in January 2015 found 301 homeless people in Fort Collins (Figure 17). The number of homeless people in Fort Collins has been steadily increasing since 2013. An increasing number of Fort Collins’ homeless population is also going unsheltered, which has a profound impact on the community at large. FIGURE 17: NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS Source: Homeward 2020, 2015 Fort Collins Point-in-Time Count Fort Collins also has more individuals experiencing chronic homelessness (Figure 18). Chronic homelessness is where an individual or family experiences homelessness for more than a year or has at least four periods of homelessness in the past three years. The chronically homeless tend to require more services to stay housed, as they are more likely to 367 Section D, Item 1. 2015-2019 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN 43 have mental health, substance abuse or other issues that keep them out of housing. With the rise of chronically homeless in Fort Collins, it is important to facilitate the development of housing and supportive services for this population. FIGURE 18: TOTAL NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS/HOUSEHOLDS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS Source: Homeward 2020, 2015 Fort Collins Point-in-Time Count Similarly, the City commissioned 2014 Fort Collins Social Sustainability Gaps Analysis (GAPS) also identified 1,021 homeless children in the Poudre School District. This is an increase of 213 students when compared to the 2009 AHSP. Students in unstable housing conditions tend to underperform in school, which can have a life-long impact on their employability and earning potential. Underperforming students also have an impact on standardized test scores, which can ultimately affect the funding and services the school can provide. This ripple effect creates a negative feedback loop that creates a cycle of poverty that has long-term impacts on the socioeconomic composition of the community. To combat homelessness, the City has partnered with Homeward 2020 on a plan to make homelessness in Fort Collins rare, short lived and non-recurring. The policy recommendations from this plan will feed into this larger plan to reduce homelessness2. Persons with disabilities. This population includes persons with various physical and mental challenges who more often suffer the negative effects of high housing costs. That problem can be even more acute for households needing accessible features in their dwelling. Fort Collins is home to thousands of individuals with disabilities (Table 10). 2 Visit homeward2020.org for more information on this planning initiative 368 Section D, Item 1. Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report December 2020 - May 2021 Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 1 of 22 Table of Contents Charter 2 Committee Members 2 Process and Meetings 3 Limitations of this Committee 5 Results 6 Shelter Needs 6 General Impacts and Recommended Mitigations 8 Location Consideration Priority 10 Order of Consideration Overall 10 Order of Consideration using Ranked Choice Voting 10 Order of Consideration using Percentage of Represented Groups 11 Location Details in Descending Priority Consideration Order 12 North Fort Collins - 1311 North College Avenue 12 North Fort Collins - Vine and Redwood - Larimer County site 14 Mulberry Corridor - from Lemay to Timberline 15 Renovate existing shelter(s) 16 Midtown 17 South Fort Collins - near Larimer County Behavioral Health Center site 17 Next Steps 18 Appendix 19 Group Norms 19 Results from the Committee Survey 19 Additional information referenced earlier in the report 21 369 Section D, Item 1. DRAFT Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 2 of 22 Charter In November 2019, the Fort Collins City Manager convened a temporary Homelessness Advisory Committee (HAC) of diverse members representing business owners, service providers, members of the faith community, healthcare professionals, and community members (with and without lived experience of homelessness) to develop recommendations and considerations for expanding emergency shelter capacity within Fort Collins. The committee began this work in support of our community’s goal to make homelessness rare, short-lived, and non-recurring. Meetings were open to the public to observe and were often well attended. The HAC was formed in response to systemic pressures in the community and specifically after a site search for potential new shelter space and co-located services in 2019. Concerns were raised by some community members after a site in north Fort Collins was secured as an option. City Manager Atteberry then decided to pause the exploration process and zoom out for additional dialogue. In continuation of the effort begun in November 2019, this second Advisory Committee to the City Manager was formed a year later to consider key questions and offer recommendations regarding the potential development of permanent homeless shelter in Fort Collins, including lessons learned from running a 24/7 COVID-19 shelter at the Northside Aztlan Community Center with greater distancing requirements. The role of committee members was to advise the City Manager on key considerations from varying perspectives, and to represent community interests to identify opportunities and concerns related to the following key questions: 1. What amenities and services should be co-located with a 24/7 shelter? 2. Where can a new 24/7 homeless shelter be located? What trade-offs will exist? 3. How can impacts be addressed and mitigated? What type of engagement is needed? 4. What funding considerations are recommended? The recommendations and considerations from this committee, while commissioned by the City Manager, are intended to provide guidance to community leaders and providers as they make decisions on how best to support our community and all its residents. Committee Members Brian Ferrans – Health District of Northern Larimer County Cheryl Zimlich – Bohemian Foundation David Rout – Homeward Alliance Dean Hoag – North Fort Collins Business Association Desiree Anthony – Fort Collins Rescue Mission Gloria Kat – The Family Center Joe Domko - Catholic Charities Julie Brewen – Housing Catalyst Laura Walker – Larimer County Matt Robenalt – Downtown Development Authority Seth Forwood – Fort Collins Rescue Mission 370 Section D, Item 1. DRAFT Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 3 of 22 These 11 members collectively bring the following perspectives to this committee: The first two options are “Have family or lived experience with homelessness, mental illness, and/or addiction” and “Service provider to people experiencing homelessness”, and the last two options were self-identified by individuals, using Other. Process and Meetings The committee first met remotely in December 2020, establishing ground rules and drafted the overall flow of addressing the questions in the charter. Each meeting was 90 minutes, with people honestly sharing perspectives and asking questions of each other and supporting City staff members. To accommodate all the work needed, the committee added an additional meeting to the original six, and requested and received Spanish translation support for observers for the last few meetings. The committee addressed each question in turn - following are summaries of the process and responses: 1. What amenities and services should be co-located with a 24/7 shelter? Much of the committee’s time invested here was understanding what amenities and services should be co-located with a 24/7 shelter. The service and shelter providers met and assembled a draft of needed amenities within a range of solutions from what would meet immediate needs, to the next tier of service, to what would be most ideal. Providers used current experience and brought in information from other service providers in Denver to ensure they had the best information possible. They also identified what would not be acceptable in a shelter to meet the needs of people experiencing homelessness within our community. The committee debated, challenged, and added to the provider information to create a detailed spreadsheet. In support of the committee, City staff worked with Vaught Frye Larson Aronson Architects to create a “Building Program” - or rough outline of space requirements for each function - at different levels of designed occupancy. This spreadsheet helped the committee consider the building and site needs that could impact where a shelter could be located. Note: the committee requested larger numbers of occupancy be explored to understand future potential impact and in an effort to provide decision- makers with information to ensure a site could function effectively into the future. 371 Section D, Item 1. DRAFT Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 4 of 22 2. Where can a new 24/7 homeless shelter be located? What trade-offs will exist? The committee requested a map of where shelters could be located. The following shows all zones which permit homeless shelters (in pink), walkable ¼ mile radius circles around bus stops (in darker gray), and biking lanes and trails (in blue, purple, and green): Using the map and focusing on the overlapping requirements listed above, four locations were initially chosen - North Fort Collins (1311 North College), Mulberry Corridor, Midtown, and South Fort Collins adjacent to the future Behavioral Health Center. Another option considered was Renovate Existing Shelters. As the committee’s work progressed, they added a potential location of the North Fort Collins site at Vine and Redwood, restricted Mulberry Corridor to the area between Lemay and Timberline to keep closer to services and reduce transient problems, and removed the South Fort Collins location adjacent to upcoming Behavioral Health Center due to nonavailability of services and amenities. 3. How can impacts be addressed and mitigated? What type of engagement is needed? The committee discussed these for each location, and in general, sharing and debating best practices and successful strategies from other communities. These potential impacts and opportunities to both the surrounding community and people experiencing homelessness - along with mitigation and engagement strategies, financial/resource considerations, and timeline considerations - are detailed in this spreadsheet. Additionally, the spreadsheet also includes some information from Staff to augment what the committee put together. 372 Section D, Item 1. DRAFT Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 5 of 22 4. What funding considerations are recommended? While the committee had questions around funding - for example, who would fund what for how long - the lack of specifics around exact shelter location, building design, and resulting operations prevented detailed results. Cost of acquisition, development, and operations will vary depending on the exact location, and the committee could not effectively develop estimat es for the costs involved. Instead, the committee chose to flag the types of costs that might be higher or lower depending on the final site chosen. Further exploration of how the shelter would be funded through acquisition, development, and operation, as well as what organization(s) will be responsible for that funding, will be vital to make the best decisions for our community. Limitations of this Committee Locations considered for a permanent shelter varied from a specific plot of land to currently occupied sites to general areas in Fort Collins where zoning allows construction and operation of a shelter and where transportation and other services are available. This affected the ability of this committee to be able to fully compare options. Specific site selection - unless already acquired - will be difficult because of the unique nature of a shelter, and that speculation around a project like this can itself impact pricing and availability of sites before they are acquired. Another limitation that followed the issue above is that the committee did not have specific neighborhood and business representation on the Mulberry Corridor, North Fort Collins Redwood & Vine, or Midtown locations. If either area is chosen, a successful process will require bringing those perspectives into the process as soon as practical. Available time and the need for remote work during the pandemic limited the depth of some conversations and exploration of all the issues involved. Despite best efforts, we did not explore every concern and consideration or how to mitigate potential impacts as fully as will be needed in the next phases of outreach and engagement. 373 Section D, Item 1. DRAFT Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 6 of 22 Results Shelter Needs The committee identified the needs of our population of people experiencing homelessness, and the amenities and services in a range from minimal requirements to ideal. These include: -A 24/7 shelter is needed primarily for men -To fill current and near future population, 200 beds and flexible space for 50 - 100 additional beds is needed (bunks are acceptable) -Assuming women and families with children would continue to be served by Catholic Charities -Key amenities -Services must be delivered with a trauma-informed care lens rooted in dignity -Able to accommodate inclement weather days without people being dispersed through the community -Located on transportation routes - must be bikeable and walkable, with access for those differently abled -Medical / Behavioral Health Support on-site -Commercial kitchen and dedicated eating area -Showers and laundry -Multi-use space with a greater or equal footprint to the overnight sleeping area -Adequate parking for staff, guests, and fleet vehicles - including space for bike racks / storage For comparison, the current shelter system - under COVID-19 spacing - provides emergency overnight mats and beds to men, women, and families. The Fort Collins Rescue Mission shelters men and has capacity for 80 overnight and 60 during the day. Catholic Charities shelters up to 54 women per night and two families. The Murphy Center provides daytime services including appointments with resource and housing navigators, laundry, mail, employment services, and other critical support services. Currently, meals are provided at the Rescue Mission and Catholic Charities to those staying with them overnight. In 2019 - under pre-COVID-19 spacing - an average of 129 men (142 November - April and 116 May - October) and 50 women were sheltered overnight. The best representation of current emergency needs in our community comes from the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Northside Aztlan Community Center (NACC) was repurposed into a 24/7 emergency shelter from March - June 2020 and the Food Bank warehouse on Blue Spruce was utilized from November 2020 - April 2021 as an emergency overnight shelter for men. 374 Section D, Item 1. DRAFT Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 7 of 22 - The NACC served a total of 272 unduplicated men and 268 unduplicated women, and the maximum sheltered overnight at one time was 114. Blue Spruce served a total of 511 unduplicated men, with an average of 118 served each night, and the maximum sheltered at one time was 151. - From November 2020 - April 2021, women and families were sheltered at Catholic Charities, where 54 overflow mats were available and an average of 26 served each night. - Emergency shelter capacity outside COVID-19 response efforts typically require people to be turned away due to space limitations, which was not necessary when these larger shelters were open. Alongside these emergency shelter services, there are longer-term shelter options for women fleeing domestic violence at Crossroads Safehouse, and for four (soon to be 11) families experiencing homelessness through the Family Housing Network. Catholic Charities offers program beds for nine men, six women, eight veterans and four families, and Harvest Farm (operated by the Rescue Mission) offers a long-term program for men seeking to exit substance abuse and homelessness. More detail on amenities and services surfaced by the committee is available in this spreadsheet. Overall Hopes for a New 24/7 Shelter Following are edited excerpts from the survey results that reflect individual and shared perspectives discussed during the committee’s time together (full results are in the Appendix below): A 24/7 model can truly engage more people, establish a true community of sojourning, build resiliency, and connect folks with more resources, ultimately resulting in more people working their way out of homelessness. A 24/7 shelter would significantly improve our opportunity to achieve our community goal of making homelessness rare, short-lived and non-recurring. If operated correctly, the shelter would be a centerpiece of our efforts to help people escape homelessness. Giving people experiencing homelessness a place to go and resources will positively impact our community. Expanding and deepening shelters' role in the continuum of care for unhoused individuals leads to housing individuals and getting them the mental, physical, and behavioral health they need to be whole. When people exit shelter into housing they also can become productive members of our community and give back. I hope to have the ability to outreach, resource, counsel, and empower those experiencing homelessness, hopelessness, marginalization and oppression. With a safe place for people to be (found) during the day, I'll be able to facilitate MORE successful transitions into housing, at a quicker rate. I hope that our community can see human spirits instead of dirty faces, unique stories instead of preconceptions, warriors instead of junkies, compassion instead of condemnation, and love instead of disgust. My hope is that the 24/7 shelter will serve as a vital, life-saving first stop in an integrated system, connecting participants with a full spectrum of services, resources, and housing opportunities. The shelter should have a focus on community and relationship building, with messaging that participants are full-fledged citizens, endowed with the same rights, opportunities, privileges, and responsibilities as any Fort Collins resident. 375 Section D, Item 1. DRAFT Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 8 of 22 Related to our community and current impacts, I see a 24/7 shelter/day center providing a welcoming place for those experiencing homelessness to have their needs met, eliminating the need to find public restrooms, alternative welcoming places to gather etc. Lessen the shuffle of persons experiencing homelessness between daytime and overnight service facilities, and minimize the number of persons dwelling on the streets when hours of service are NOT available in either daytime or overnight facilities. Leveraging the 24/7 opportunity to connect people with the specific services they require to begin the journey out of homelessness. A 24/7 model creates an opportunity to provide transitional housing options that are severely limited in Fort Collins. A 24/7 shelter/day center eliminates the large check in and leaving process that now occurs with the shelters due to their hours and other operational needs. Currently everyone essentially arrives and leaves at one time - a 24/7 model could be more of a continuous in and out process, especially as jobs are accessed during the day etc. There would be a place to store some belongings as well while they were working or getting services etc. Because service providers and relationships would be in more continuous and in closer contact with those experiencing homelessness it increases the likelihood of problem solving quicker to find housing and stabilize. Shelter is not a substitute for housing. Creating a shelter resource that helps connect the homelessness community rather than keeps it fragmented by offering a space with enough beds to shelter the majority of folks that also houses staffing from multiple service agencies so that individuals can access resources quickly and often. The easier it is for people to stay connected to community resources and humane shelter, the faster people will be able to get on the path to exiting homelessness. General Impacts and Recommended Mitigations These issues are likely to affect any site chosen, and are listed here with recommendations from the committee on potential mitigations: Nearby neighborhoods and businesses feel burdened by the presence of a shelter Success will require building strong relationships through early, open, and continued engagement with neighbors and business owners with deep listening and as much transparency as possible. Recent communications from concerned community members reinforce this recommendation of data- informed conversations with as many community members connected to the potential site of a shelter before, during, and long after the shelter is open and operating. The committee recommended a “Yes, and…” approach to honestly validate the needs of the neighbors and business owners, then bring in the needs of the greater community and of people experiencing homelessness. Also bringing and qualifying data will be important for effective communication and increased understanding. To support surrounding community members, it’s important to meet people where they are. For example, having Spanish translation available when needed can ensure effective communication and understanding around emotionally-charged conversations. 376 Section D, Item 1. DRAFT Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 9 of 22 Some people experiencing homelessness affect nearby neighborhoo ds and businesses with disruptive behavior The committee discussed the need to raise behavioral challenges to the shelter providers to have disruptive behaviors addressed - without having to trigger police intervention. A Good Neighbor policy that brings service providers and residents together has been successful in Boulder in addressing disruptive behavior, and could be adapted here in Fort Collins. Additionally, having adequate day shelter space with nearby services could significantly reduce people “hanging around” businesses and neighborhoods. The Fort Collins Rescue Mission’s recent shift to a 24/7 shelter model has gotten positive feedback from surrounding businesses, although the shift did reduce the number of people able to be served. Attracting more people experiencing homelessness to our community - “If you build it, they will come” The committee discussed the possibility of a residence requirement that could help ensure serving residents first and discourage people from outside Northern Colorado coming to get support. Also, the Mulberry Corridor option was focused away from I-25 to reduce the attractiveness of a shelter to transient populations. During on-site visits to shelters in other areas, some committee members were told by those providers that this was an effective practice. Our local providers shared that, while a residency requirement is a good idea in concept, it is very difficult to do in practice. Most clients currently being served are from Northern Colorado, and data show travelers are not currently coming to access services, as evidenced by recent data from the Murphy Center: -72% from Fort Collins (66%) or Loveland (6%) -7% from Weld County -6% from Denver -2% from Boulder -7% other City in Colorado -6% Out of State While stories were shared of other cities’ challenges, more concrete data - along with effective strategies from other municipalities that have been employed successfully - will be helpful to minimize this potential problem. A shelter will not move people out of homelessness and could become more de facto housing The committee wrestled with the fact that emergency shelter is only one portion of the continuum of care supporting people moving out of homelessness. Having it in place will not reduce the need for government and service providers to accelerate the expansion of other services to make affordable and supportive, transitional housing available. [Prioritizing shelter needs in gaps and times to meet current demand.] 377 Section D, Item 1. DRAFT Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 10 of 22 More options and support to help people become homed are vital to ensure the intention of a temporary shelter does not turn into more de facto housing for people experiencing homelessness. Funding for acquisition, construction, and operation of a shelter will be significant Funding will need to come from a partnership of many sources - public and private. The approaches to secure capital funding versus ongoing operations and maintenance funding will likely require different approaches. Location Consideration Priority Following are results of the locations under consideration, overall by total numbers of committee members, using a ranked choice voting method, and by percentage of represented groups. Order of Consideration Overall These collective results reflect survey results where each member put the location options in priority order: Order of Consideration using Ranked Choice Voting Alternatively, the results below reflect the same data using a ranked choice voting method. In the first round, no location got over 50% of the vote, so the sites with only 1 vote each were eliminated and those members who had voted for those locations had their next highest (non-eliminated) vote counted: North Fort Collins - 1311 N College North Fort Collins - Vine and Redwood East Mulberry (Lemay to Timberline) Midtown Expand/replace existing shelter(s) Round 1 “vote” 5 3 1 1 1 Round 2 “vote” 7 4 378 Section D, Item 1. DRAFT Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 11 of 22 Order of Consideration using Percentage of Represented Groups These results again reflect the same data, yet show the percentage of each group which voted for each location. Since the committee had both significant numbers of service providers, business/non-profit leaders, and community leaders, these results attempt to create more parity between the different groups represented. The first graph shows first choices, and the second graph shows first + second choices. 379 Section D, Item 1. DRAFT Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 12 of 22 Location Details in Descending Priority Consideration Order The following information is generated from worksessions and the survey, and is listed below with site specific Opportunities/Hopes, Impacts/Fears, Financial and Resource Needs / Timeline, and Potential Mitigations as surfaced by Committee Members. In some cases, individual perspectives conflict with each other and will need further exploration and clarification when a site is selected moving forward. Many of these items can also be seen on this spreadsheet on Impacts & Opportunities by Location. North Fort Collins - 1311 North College Avenue Opportunities / Hopes -Land already purchased and available; adequate size for shelter needs -Transportation is accessible, near bike paths, on bus route - time required for transportation between facilities/services is a major drain on people experiencing homelessness -Population is more likely to access robust, established services in the area familiar with; good coordination with existing/complementary services -Adequate space to provide for needed operations, added community amenities and to create buffers between activities. Adequate space makes phasing easier. -Collaboration between services streamlined and issues mitigated to result in improved health and movement into stable housing -Ability to add other community amenities to the build out -North Fort Collins is most demographically diverse and more likely to reach populations currently underserved -A shelter could be a cultural and economic driver; opportunity for growth in commerce and perspective Impacts / Fears -Detrimental to the safety of surrounding neighborhoods, businesses, and school -Behaviors or cultural perceptions will not change with the presence of shelter in north part of town -Different underserved groups may not be able to co-exist, evidenced by experience of study group at the Murphy Center with positive narratives and good intentions yet families - especially Spanish- speaking) feel unsafe there -Does not align with the North College Community Investment Plan adopted by the City; the north part of our city has been left out of development plans -To honor our homeless population they should be placed next to a supported community instead of a community that has been segregated and excluded from government benefits and live in poverty -Our homeless mainly formed with veterans, that come with PTSD, substance use, mental health and stress would be placed next to a community that has struggled accessing services too and also come with trauma -Homeless shelter will be a new addition - we should respect who got there first -The North College community is already overwhelmed by different social issues: 1.- Hickory MHP is for sale and residents are trying to become owners through a Resident Owned Community program. If this is not achieved there is a high risk for many of the residents to lose their homes if the buyer decides to increase the rent. The buyer is known for increasing rents and violating residents' rights. 380 Section D, Item 1. DRAFT Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 13 of 22 2.- Poudre Valley Mobile Home park just sent a letter of intent to sell the park. We are talking about 500 homes that could potentially face the same issues. 3.- Businesses and residents continue to see the effects of homelessness in this part of town, with many issues that have not been collectively solved. Guests trespassing into mobile home communities, guests roaming around inside mobile home parks where children are present, etc. 4.- Poor planning around the development of this part of town (Marijuana dispensaries next to an ice cream place, next to a bar, next to a bowling alley). 5.- North College residents have expressed their desire to have a cultural center representative of their cultural heritage. This needs to be acknowledged -It places too many services in one area of the community, Devalue surrounding properties.Very costly to do all of the improvements, No infrastructure and no stormwater system in place currently, Not large enough to accommodate all of the improvements and the shelter, Also major opposition in the area. -That the backlash from residents might further stigmatize those experiencing homelessness and any issues which may already occur without the facility would accumulate to reflect the unhoused community as a whole. -I acknowledge their fears, and I am not in their shoes. -I don't think you could overcome all of the concerns. Financial and Resource Needs / Timeline -Need infrastructure for buildings -Development process estimated to take 12 months Potential Mitigations -Effective day shelter will reduce “hanging around” community with place to go; allows providers and people experiencing homelessness to be connected -Advocacy and working with adjacent communities and dealing with their own challenges/issues -Need a representative sample of the population/residents of the North corridor to provide input; I hope this location is not chosen without the input and appropriate engagement of the North College residents -Relationship building, open mindedness, education. -Be able to reflect the healing and health that is invested into the community through statistics and stories of lives restored. -Create a strategic and thorough campaign to engage the neighborhood, address stigma, and broaden the perspectives on those experiencing homelessness; Engage the community in a vision of what community amenities could be included that are desired. -Great operators of the shelter/day services and a welcoming space for people experiencing homelessness so they feel a sense of belonging. 381 Section D, Item 1. DRAFT Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 14 of 22 North Fort Collins - Vine and Redwood - Larimer County site Option added by Committee at 9 April meeting. Overall many similar opportunities and concerns as the North College site in the North Fort Collins area Opportunities / Hopes -Good location to the services in the area (close to resources between Catholic Charities and Murphy Center), less impact to the surrounding neighborhoods -On a bus route, simplifies transportation -A chance for the City and County to partner / work together on this site. -Adequate space for operations and amenities -Potentially Less impact if shelter is here vs North College - less community mitigation and messaging needed* -Not adjacent to residential neighborhoods* -Ability to add other community amenities to the build out *Following a Coloradoan article, Old Town North HOA members communicated to the committee through an email-writing campaign that they have significant fears and concerns if this site were used Impacts / Fears -Increased number of homeless guests -A few years out having access to the property. Need to mitigate flood plain issues. -May be less of an issue to 1311 North College - not sure how the community will react differently Financial and Resource Needs / Timeline -Will be at least 30 months for County Fleet to fully exit the site via staged moving to their new site become available, and future use of the site will remain undetermined most of that timeframe -Not designated or donated like 1311 North College property -Depending on Utilities Director review for compliance with floodplain regulations, could involve very expensive stormwater remediation or may not be a significant challenge Potential Mitigations -Location closer to existing services [than 1311 North College] -Any site will take several years to get through the process anyway -Engage the community in visioning what desired community amenities could be included -Great operators and a welcoming space for people experiencing homelessness so they feel a sense of belonging in our community 382 Section D, Item 1. DRAFT Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 15 of 22 Mulberry Corridor - from Lemay to Timberline Opportunities / Hopes - A project in this area could be an income and development generator / driver for the entire corridor - Area does not have as much effect on the surroundings - Opportunity to define a culture and environment for service delivery, opening up potential for a campus design - Transportation services may be free flowing; on a bus route - Close to motels folks experiencing homelessness frequent; and there is already significant police presence - Any expansion of shelter that keeps people safe and alive is a value to our community - Could offer the opportunity for more services to expand as complementary offerings with more available real estate on that corridor Impacts / Fears - Could become seen as a shelter-off-the-highway - Seems like an industrial area - It will become a ghetto - There are two mobile home communities (Air Park and Parklane). I hope it is not too close to these locations - Pushes people experiencing homelessness further out of the city and away from resources; not close to most utilized resources for this population - This is not a realistic option for homeless services. It is disconnected from the (entire) community and most existing resources. Particularly in a 24/7 model, people would be isolated and in a vacuum. They would access other services less frequently (because of time/distance), and therefore escape homelessness less quickly and less often. Perhaps hyperbolic, but it would almost certainly cause providers, people experiencing homelessness and advocates to question the overall purpose of the project: is it to relocate people experiencing homelessness or to empower people to escape homelessness? - The difficulties of coordinating services and the logistics for guests to access services may mean that we have people in our community who do not get the physical, mental, and behavioral resources they need which translates to a less safe community on the whole and a growing rather than a shrinking unhoused community in our city Financial and Resource Needs / Timeline - Might be a while before site is within city limits / developing property adjacent to City would trigger annexation - May be less expensive to develop prior to municipal annexation - Need to acquire - Not currently in City Limits, may not be for several years. Would this create a delay in the project? - Would develop per County regulations if property is in the County 383 Section D, Item 1. DRAFT Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 16 of 22 Potential Mitigations - Look at a location that will cause less impact. - Could be an area that could accommodate a shelter with little impact to its surroundings. - I am concerned that this is under consideration. - I believe significantly more money and a significantly larger facility will be needed to bring agencies into shelters rather than located nearby. - Great operators and a welcoming space for people experiencing homelessness so they feel a sense of belonging in our community. Renovate existing shelter(s) Could include Murphy Center, Catholic Charities, and Fort Collins Rescue Mission Opportunities / Hopes - Moderate expansion could bring a positive change to service providers. - Less impact on the surroundings. Less need to address neighbor concerns than a brand new location. - Close to services, Smooth transition. - Any increase in shelter and resources is a benefit to our community. - Better coordination, resourcing, staffing. More sophisticated tracking/analyzing needs and numbers. - They are known locations which is a comfort to users and with existing public and private “neighbors” already - Transportation issues are solved - Issue of land procurement and zoning already solved - Established identities and association with services Impacts / Fears - Short-term and long-term impact assessment. Is it really going to mitigate many of the current struggles for guests and service providers? To what percentage will their capacity be increased? - If expand in Old Town, impact to businesses there could be similar or greater to current North Fort Collins - Having enough land and space for a larger facility; Limited space for expansion based on the numbers we have been talking about; The current footprints at these locations are limiting, thus making it hard to expand and costly to bring things up to code. - Fort Collins Rescue Mission looking to expand to get more beds, getting info on building and fire codes - looking very difficult - Similar to Midtown. - May not have enough good infrastructure in existing locations to build what’s really needed. - Doesn't solve the issue as not enough room to gain the required capacity and accommodate other operational spaces desired Financial and Resource Needs / Timeline - Primarily lack of available space and higher cost of remodeling / renovation - Could reduce availability of shelter while renovating shelters 384 Section D, Item 1. DRAFT Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 17 of 22 Potential Mitigations - Maybe a small change could have a better outcome. Ongoing issues could be kept under control while collectively thinking of better and more effective interventions. - Designing a shelter that would work in the space available. - Similar to Midtown. - Not a mutually exclusive option; one shelter could be refurbished while another is relocated Midtown Opportunities / Hopes - This location could balance the weight of the many services already located on the North. Our homeless guests deserve a top notch location so they can be safe and thriving and have that sense of belonging and not feeling displaced. - Less impact to neighborhoods, On a bus route, could revitalize existing area. - Similar to East Mulberry Impacts / Fears - Not close to services, Impact on surrounding businesses. - Midtown is far-removed from other services/resources - there are almost no other services. It would create efficiency gaps in our homelessness response system and the overall effort to quickly move people out of homelessness. Inconvenient and inaccessible in context of day-to-day activities among people experiencing homelessness - Similar to East Mulberry with the additional FEAR similar to North College of increased stigmatization combining with the more difficult access to services. - Complicated politics would delay/obstruct progress of this initiative Financial and Resource Needs / Timeline - Similar to East Mulberry, more money and space to bring resources and services into shelter. Potential Mitigations - Collocated services and amenities need to be well designed for a centralized location. - Could improve an existing property. - I believe Midtown is only a feasible option if at least some other services relocate to Midtown (such as the Murphy Center) and/or with a fixed, seven days per week bus from the shelter to other parts of the community. This does not seem like the most efficient option. - Great operators and a welcoming space for people experiencing homelessness so they feel a sense of belonging in our community. South Fort Collins - near Larimer County Behavioral Health Center site Option eliminated by the Committee as nonviable during 9 April meeting 385 Section D, Item 1. DRAFT Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 18 of 22 Next Steps The committee provided ideas for continued effort, supporting final siting of a 24/7 shelter and beyond: - Clarify the City’s role and who will make the “final decision” / how it will be made / what it will be. This could be part of the Communications and Outreach plan listed below. Communicating the City’s role as convener and supporter of this potential community resource, along with information about how a decision to build a shelter would be made by service providers and property owners, could help improve understanding and summon support. These roles include: 1) obligatory required role relative to quasi-judicial oversight of application for a shelter from owner/applicants 2) regulatory enforcement role - police, violation of laws, activities that may take place 3) Enhancement role - not required, but beneficial - City’s ongoing funding of Outreach Fort Collins is an example and 4) bonus - areas that have not yet been identified in ways that fit a broader community need. - Convene businesses, faith communities, neighborhoods, service providers, and county and city stakeholders interested in driving toward solutions. Building a team of willing partners can surface possibilities for resources and provide support for overcoming obstacles and challenges. - Create and implement communications and outreach plan/strategy moving forward. Community efforts succeed when there is a direct and personal connection with everyone affected by the project: homed residents, residents experiencing homelessness, businesses, and organizations. A coordinated communications and outreach plan can ensure two-way communication so the community needs for a shelter can be clearly articulated and concerns and potential problems can be addressed. - Conduct a visioning process or master site planning to achieve the outcomes desired and identify mitigating solutions where possible. Getting people affected by the project involved in the visioning and site planning process can help create better solutions and shared ownership of the results. Could start with Building Program document and consider further analysis to understand the appropriate size and ability to flex to meet changing needs. - Continue to work on the other pieces in the system that support people to be housed. Emergency shelter is only one portion of the Continuum of Care. For example, ensuring services are available in or near the shelter to support people moving out of homelessness, and having sufficient affordable housing for people to move into, will be needed to make homelessness rare, brief, and nonrecurring. Much like how the HAC completed a matrix of services that would be necessary in a 24/7 shelter, we could complete a matrix of existing and needed services for people experiencing homelessness across the community 386 Section D, Item 1. DRAFT Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 19 of 22 Appendix Group Norms - Speak from personal experience - Lead with inquiry and curiosity - Value diverse perspectives - Get comfortable with discomfort - Acknowledge the difference between intent and impact - Use the buffet rule (firsts before seconds) - Speak directly and honestly Results from the Committee Survey Overall hopes for what a new 24/7 shelter could do My hope is that the 24/7 shelter will serve as a vital, life -saving first stop in an integrated system, connecting participants with a full spectrum of services, resources, and housing opportunities. The shelter should have a focus on community and relationship building, with messaging that participants are full-fledged citizens, endowed with the same rights, opportunities, privileges, and responsibilities as any Fort Collins resident. Lessen the shuffle of persons experiencing homelessness between daytime and overnight service facilities, and minimize the number of persons dwelling on the streets when hours of service are NOT available in either daytime or overnight facilities. Leveraging the 24/7 opportunity to connect people with the specifi c services they require to begin the journey out of homelessness. 24/7 model creates opportunity to provide transitional housing options that are severely limited in Fort Collins. A homeless shelter should offer protection and safety to homeless individual s. It should be a place that offers comprehensive support for those with the desire to move out of homelessness. Provide assistance to the homeless population to help them to get back into society and be a positive part of the community. I believe that a 24/7 shelter would significantly improve our opportunity to achieve this community goal (making homelessness rare, short-lived and non-recurring). A 24/7 shelter would provide stability/reliability to people experiencing homelessness and regular access to services--both at the shelter and at connected community resources, such as the Murphy Center. If operated correctly, the shelter would be a centerpiece of our efforts to help people escape homelessness. Giving people experiencing homelessness a place to go and resources will positively impact our community. Expanding and deepening shelters' role in the continuum of care for unhoused individuals leads to housing individuals and getting them the mental, physical, and behavioral health they need to be whole. When people exit shelter into housing they also can become productive members of our community and give back. I hope to have the ability to Outreach, Resource, Counsel, and Empower those experiencing homelessness, hopelessness, marginalization and oppression. With a safe place for people to be (found) during the day, I'll be able to facilitate MORE successful transitions into housing, at a quicker rate. 387 Section D, Item 1. DRAFT Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 20 of 22 I hope that our community can see human spirits instead of dirty faces, unique stories instead of preconceptions, warriors instead of junkies, compassion instead of condemnation, and love instead of disgust. Eliminate people sleeping/living in unsafe conditions, although I am still not clear on the numbers/volume of the need for the physical building shelter. Increase capacity for overnight shelter as well as offer or comprehensive daytime and prevention services. Because service providers and relationships would be in more continuous and in closer contact with those experiencing homelessness it increases the likelihood of problem solving quicker to find housing and stabilize. Shelter is not a substitute for housing. Related to our community and current impacts, I see a 24/7 shelter/day center providing a welcoming place for those experiencing homelessness to have their needs met, eliminating the need to find public restrooms, alternative welcoming places to gather etc. A 24/7 shelter/day center eliminates the large check in and leaving process that now occurs with the shelters due to their hours and other operational needs. Currently everyone essentially arrives and leaves at one time, with a 24/7 model, I envision this being more of a continuous in and out process, especially as jobs are accessed during the day etc. There would be a place to store some belongings as well while they were working or getting services etc. Creating a shelter resource that helps connect the homelessness community rather than keeps it fragmented by offering a space with enough beds to shelter the majority of folks that also houses staffing from multiple service agencies so that individuals can access resources quickly and often. The easier it is for people to stay connected to community resources and humane shelter, the faster people will be able to get on the path to exiting homelessness. Overall fears for what a new 24/7 shelter could do My fears for a 24/7 model is that it would be the on e and only major investment by the larger community and, once established, people experiencing homelessness would be "out of sight, out of mind" and thus any robust investment in a spectrum of rapid/transitional/affordable/permanent supportive housing oppor tunities would be ignored or forgotten. 24/7 facilities without an exit strategy are a disaster. I also fear that if we make homeless too "easy", we will simply attract more people experiencing homelessness. I cannot ignore the realities of progressive municipalities currently being overwhelmed by the growing need and numbers of people experiencing homelessness. The irony is that the communities which try to do the most about the need, typically end up with the greatest increase in the need. How will that be addressed? I have yet to hear any meaningful dialog around this issue. The enigma of shelters as a "build-it-they-will-come" situation will further manifest in additional substantive examples of other communities taking advantage of Fort Collins' generosity, and if NOT mitigated by intentional and pragmatic shelter policies and local regulatory oversight the neighborhood where the new 24/7 shelter is located will become overwhelmed with unmanaged and negative impacts. Our community is already impacted by homelessness (on top of other ongoing social and economic crises). City and County governments really need to make affordable and transitional housing a priority and guarantee that sheltered individuals can really obtain barrier-free assistance to move out of homelessness. My fear with a new homeless shelter of that capacity (500 right?) is that it could potentially increase the number of homeless on the streets and it will not solve already existing issues. Government and service providers need to ask ours elves if we already have the infrastructure and built capacity to support the social, economic and health related needs that this project will generate. 388 Section D, Item 1. DRAFT Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 21 of 22 I can't see it completely helping the transient population out of homelessness. Shelters are a crucial part of a housing-first system, but must be operated according to a housing-first philosophy. It is important that a 24/7 shelter is equipped to provide shelter and basic -needs assistance, but also that the shelter/surrounding community resources are equipped to effectively utilize that resource and move people out of homelessness. A new 24/7 shelter will not solve homelessness on its own, so the accompanying services/expansions to other services must be a part of the conversation. A 24/7 shelter must also be inclusive. What steps will be taken to ensure that everyone can access overnight shelter, including further-marginalized subpopulations, such as the LGBTQ+ community, people of color, youth, etc.? I believe a strategic and intentional policy for prioriti zing those experiencing homelessness in our community is imperative. I don't fear; because the resources, services and, frankly, the acknowledgement and validation that these struggling souls will experience.... will manifest positive impacts on the whole community and inspire compassion, understanding, and perspective. Under-resourced services/staffing More infrastructure in Fort Collins may increase PEH traffic to the city. I don't have any fears of developing a newer and more humane space for the existing community members experiencing homelessness. Regardless of how well we do at making homelessness rare, short -lived, and non- recurring we will always have individuals needing emergency shelter and as a community we should want to provide that in a space that is clean, accessible, adequately sized, and designed for the population utilizing the space. We shouldn't not improve our community's resources knowing it will benefit in dividuals simply because we are afraid that others from outside our community might come and use those services. Other comments about the process, your involvement, and results Very interesting reflections and great facilitation process. I feel we have come up with what is needed for a shelter. The hard part is where to place it. I would like to see on our recommendation, stating the pro's and con's of each location and letting the City Manager and Council decide where to put it. We have two locations that are known and two more locations that don't have a specific property. It is hard to give a complete objective opinion unless you have all of the properties selected. We have areas in general for the locations. Thank you to everyone for your work on this project, and to the City for bringing this diverse group of voices to the table. I was hoping to have firmer recommendations that would rally local stakeholders and lead our community toward action as a result of this committee. Perhaps we may still accompl ish this. No matter the decision or results, I am committed to being engaged with my community until a concrete recommendation with next steps and tangible results is developed. I am especially interested in bridging business, faith communities, governments, and service providers to develop that plan, fund it and implement it once developed. Additional information referenced earlier in the report Amenities and Services Needed in an Effective Shelter 389 Section D, Item 1. DRAFT Homelessness Advisory Committee 2.0 Recommendations and Considerations Report Approved by the Committee 21 May 2021 Page 22 of 22 Exploratory Building Program information Impacts and Opportunities by Location 390 Section D, Item 1. Recommendations and Considerations for Homeless Shelters in Fort Collins - 9/14/20 Final Executive Summary In November 2019, the Fort Collins City Manager convened an Advisory Committee of diverse members representing service providers and community members with and without lived experience with homelessness to explore and surface recommendations and considerations around expanding emergency shelter capability within Fort Collins. The committee began this work in support of our community’s goals of making homelessness rare, short-lived, and non-recurring. The committee learned about the current situation facing community members experiencing homelessness through reviewing data, panel discussions with providers and responders, conversations with each other, and visiting current shelters. They surfaced current gaps in services for different populations and trends in data. Despite being interrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, most committee members continued participating after a multi-month break in active meetings to assemble this report. The committee recommends a 24/7 shelter model to serve basic needs, built for current and future capacity and uses, fully accessible for the population(s) served, and able to assess the needs of the whole person. The committee differed on structure, oversight, and amount of services, and how population(s) would be best served - including how much medical, trauma-informed services, and outdoor space use would be ideal. Considering a campus or co-located model, the committee recommends: achieving clarity around who is being served; shared governance model, roles, responsibilities, and non-duplication of services amongst providers; ensuring basic services can be provided; and locating shelter near public transportation. The committee agrees serving multiple populations safely may be challenging. Opportunities of co-location include efficiency in service delivery and helping the community understand the real need for services. Points of difference and tradeoffs around a campus or co-located model include: whether to locate services on a large campus or throughout the community, cost increases with enhanced services, unduly burdening one part of our community versus spreading our shelters, and inclusion of permanent supportive housing with the shelter. Concerns of a campus model include increased cost for a larger parcel of land, increased cost for security and safety for those accessing services and the surrounding areas, and risks of undesirable or illegal activity. Criteria for site feasibility include recommendations to ensure: services needed by the population(s) served are available through co-location or are nearby; not overburdening any part of our community; understanding of affordability and needed infrastructure now and into the future; and early and effective engagement with potential neighbors. Considerations include design of the facility for mental health and wellness, efforts to combat isolation and foster positive connection with the broader community. Strategies to address and mitigate challenges focused on several concerns, namely, how to: prevent restricting poverty to one part of town; resource upfront and ongoing costs of new shelter; both safe shelter and more affordable housing are needed yet are seen as competing for resources; dealing with the current pandemic and what comes next; and how to continue community and neighborhood dialogue. Unresolved questions are listed at the end of this report for future reference and use in this process. 391 Section D, Item 1. Recommendations and Considerations for Homeless Shelters in Fort Collins - 9/14/20 Final Introduction - Committee Process Like other cities in the United States, Fort Collins is a place where individuals and families experience homelessness. Our community has adopted the goal of making homelessness rare, short-lived, and non- recurring. Yet our existing shelter facilities are strained by the extent of the need. The City Manager convened an Advisory Committee in the fall of 2019 to “enhance the overall community engagement process with in-depth, joint exploration and recommendations regarding the potential development of...homeless service options in Fort Collins.” Members’ roles were to “Advise City Manager on key considerations and varying perspectives” and “Represent community interests to identify opportunities and concerns related to concepts and potential sites, if applicable.” Meetings topics included awareness and understanding of the homeless challenge and gaps, effective response models, concerns and opportunities around a campus model, mitigation strategies, siting criteria, potential locations, and recommendation and mitigation strategies. While the original charter indicated “affordable housing” would be covered, the committee quickly honed in on emergency shelter as its primary focus within the housing continuum. Members of the committee visited current shelters to understand current conditions and needs first hand. The diverse group of committee members selected included service providers, business owners, faith-based groups, nonprofits, housing and health specialists, and those with lived experience. In an effort to include more perspectives, the committee voted to add three additional perspectives to include regional shelter leaders and County representatives. The group’s work took place in two phases: 1. Awareness and Understanding of Current Situation. From November 2019 to February 2020, the committee learned about response models, current community situations, and gaps in current services from community members and service providers. The COVID-19 public health crisis caused the group to pause for four months. 2. Developing Specific Recommendations and Considerations. The group reconvened virtually starting in June 2020, drawing upon lessons learned from the COVID-19 response setting up and operating a 24/7 emergency shelter at Northside Aztlan Community Center. Between June and September the committee began developing specific recommendations and considerations, based on previous dialogue and new learnings. Awareness and Understanding of Current Situation The first half of the committee’s work focused on building an understanding of current conditions, learning about different response models, hearing directly from affected community members, and identifying gaps 392 Section D, Item 1. Recommendations and Considerations for Homeless Shelters in Fort Collins - 9/14/20 Final throughout the system of services and facilities for people experiencing homelessness. Service providers in Fort Collins use the Housing First Model and operate with the philosophy that providing services is more effective if people get housing first. While adopted by the City and required by the State of Colorado and HUD for emergency shelter funding access, not all Committee members agree with this approach. Lack of livable wage, affordable housing, high child care costs, and unreliable transportation influence the ability to maintain housing. Abuse, trauma, chemical dependency and crises significantly compound to create the need for complex, individualized plans for recovery. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbates these challenges. There is a difference in need and response for those chronically homeless and the short-lived situations. Stereotypes and stigma often focus public perception to a single male experiencing homelessness. Yet lived experiences are diverse and categories of labeling overlap. Fort Collins currently lacks the differentiation of shelter options for different populations and the committee recognizes unique needs for the following groups: non-family couples, families with school-aged children, unaccompanied youth, disabled people/seniors/those with ADA needs, sober/in-recovery, those coming out of jail, LGBTQIA+, and people with pets. *This data is of people experiencing homelessness of 6 months or longer, and only those who utilized services. Graphic produced by Housing First Initiative - homeward2020.org According to our service providers, individual case-management and affordable housing help people self- 393 Section D, Item 1. Recommendations and Considerations for Homeless Shelters in Fort Collins - 9/14/20 Final resolve. As of February 24, 2020, individuals and families experiencing homelessness could seek services at The Murphy Center, Fort Collins Rescue Mission, Catholic Charities, Crossroads Safehouse, and Family Housing Network. On average, these sites serve 275 individuals at a time: 220 bed + 4 family rooms + niche sites. Both the Fort Collins Rescue Mission and Catholic Charities shelters are over capacity and regularly overflow with mats on the floor in multi-purpose rooms. The committee learned in our community, shelters are de facto housing for about 300 - 400 people at any given time. Service providers agree existing space and shelter are inadequate for our community’s current and anticipated needs. Panel presentations from nonprofit and county service providers, Fort Collins police, and business owners helped the group identify gaps in these areas: ● Services ● Locations ● Populations Not Well-Served ● Space Needs Additionally, members of the business community feel responsibility for caring for people experiencing homelessness is falling disproportionately on one segment of the community. These members expressed continued frustration at unsafe and threatening activities like loitering, exposure to needles, and trash in the areas near existing shelters. The unexpected COVID-19 pandemic and resulting rapid, collaborative response to the crisis helped providers realize benefits of a 24/7 shelter model. In three months of emergency services, the Murphy Center served 20% more people than they planned to serve in a whole year. Currently (August 2020), requests for rent assistance continue to increase, and with the moratorium on evictions coming to an end in September 2020, service providers anticipate an increased need for emergency shelter and rehousing assistance for individuals and families. Specific Recommendations and Considerations These are in four sections, roughly corresponding to the charter of this committee: ● Effective Response and Priority Services ● Opportunities and Tradeoffs of a Campus / Co-located Model ● Determining Criteria for Site Feasibility (and Considering Potential Locations) ● Strategies to Address and Mitigate Challenges Additionally, the committee felt it important to include a section on Unresolved Questions where further exploration could benefit the overall approach to emergency shelter. 394 Section D, Item 1. Recommendations and Considerations for Homeless Shelters in Fort Collins - 9/14/20 Final Effective Response and Priority Services Each section of this report covers Recommendations / Areas of Agreement where the committee recommends actions and/or is in agreement about factors and conditions which should influence City decisions when supporting the community’s emergency shelters. This section covers responses and services supporting the different populations of people experiencing homelessness in our community. Recommendations / Areas of Agreement The committee identified the following gaps regarding effective response - space capacity for day shelter, fluctuation of demand, access to transportation, and accessibility of site. The committee understands the complexity of effective response and agrees on the following: ●A 24/7 model is needed and possible as demonstrated by a successful, collaborative COVID-19 response by our current service providers. ●Effective shelter provides basic needs including showers and laundry, toiletry supplies, meals, lockers and locations to store belongings. ●To meet the needs of today and tomorrow, build in future capacity with a forward focus on scale, size, and flexible use space. This includes not only adequate space for basics, but also flexible convertible space to respond to on-going and changing needs. ●The facility must be built to be accessible to different kinds of people and their needs (non-family couples, families with school-aged children, unaccompanied youth, disabled people/seniors/those with ADA needs, sober/in-recovery, those coming out of jail, LGBTQIA+, and people with pets) so that retrofitting is not necessary later and therefore more expensive. ●The more robust the services provided the higher the costs will be. ●Staff running this facility must be highly trained and be kind, friendly and accepting. ●To monitor performance and deliver the right services to shelter users, utilize a collaborative system for robust data collection across providers. ●Provide assistance and guidance to accessing options for housing (Permanent Supportive Housing, Bridge or other) and housing navigation. Members of the business community also recommend including “For Sale” options - not just rentals. ●The ability for full assessment of the needs of the whole person - medical, mental health, food, community support, etc. was another agreed upon priority to occur within this facility. Coordinated Assessment and Housing Placement System (process that matches housing resources with people who need them) and VI-SPDAT (assessment that helps with this process) were mentioned, and more detail and expertise is required to get the full scope of how tools could be implemented. 395 Section D, Item 1. Recommendations and Considerations for Homeless Shelters in Fort Collins - 9/14/20 Final Considerations / Points of Difference Committee conversations and learnings lead to the following considerations around effective response and priority services: ● Many in the committee are still unclear regarding structure, oversight, and what service organizations should operate out of the chosen response and therefore what range of services are offered. Solutions differ depending on the chosen demographic group and scope of project. Each choice brings different considerations for funding and structure. ● The committee was not clear, nor agreed, how much housing, navigation, case management or mental health support should be offered on-site. Some support exists for an approach of providing as many co- located services as possible, while others support providing basic needs in-facility and emphasize the need for a location in close proximity to other resources. ● Trauma-informed care was highlighted as a central guiding principle by a large majority of committee members, though with variation about how in-depth the practice should be implemented. Specifying exactly how trauma-informed practices are utilized for architecture/structural issues, staff training, and daily operations will require more detail, thought, and expertise. ● Some believe full scale medical care is not realistic, while others believe pop-up medical services are a viable and necessary option. Some members advocate for a preventative healthcare model for cost avoidance down the road. However, mental health providers are concerned about the inclusion of actual medical services at this site. The complexity and regulations around opening such a site could be time prohibitive. ● The use and function of outdoor space is another area of disagreement with some desiring several levels of architectural space for different levels of engagement in shelter (i.e. an enclosed outdoor area for camping or outside courtyard) and others supporting a traditional indoor shelter space only. Opportunities and Tradeoffs of a Campus / Co- located Model This section covers the potential opportunities and tradeoffs around a co-located or campus model with multiple services available in a single location. Recommendations / Areas of Agreement The committee identified the following gaps around co-location - economy of scale, transportation access, and avoiding concentration of poverty. The committee understands the complexity of a campus / co-located model and agrees on the following opportunities: 396 Section D, Item 1. Recommendations and Considerations for Homeless Shelters in Fort Collins - 9/14/20 Final ●A co-located model can provide efficiency in service delivery, staffing, building operations expense, and avoids duplication of services. ●Nearly unanimous agreement of the importance of a shared governance model well-defined before construction begins. With clarity of roles and responsibilities around intentional structure, providers hope to create and embed a culture of shared best practices and resources. ●Service providers must work together to avoid duplication of services. The COVID-19 response proves this is possible. ●Many on the committee expressed they do not support simply relocating community shelter without securing both 1) adequate facility accommodations for basic needs services (beds, showers, meals, storage, case conferencing, etc.), and 2) full staffing ratios for intake, assessments, data collection, diversions, coordination and case management (best practices). There was little enthusiasm to simply move to a new location without clear commitment for adequate resourcing of a strong model. ●Difficult to meet the needs of different groups to be served - men, families, veterans, etc. Questions remain if a large campus can accommodate both behavior-based and breathalyzer-enforced models. Several committee members recommended drawing upon learnings from other communities, such as Boulder where joint services are provided. ●Having the shelter located near public transportation was agreed by most. ●The community should understand the real need for services, the cost of not doing something, and the overall benefit for the entire community - which will require a good marketing campaign to discuss the need for services. Neighborhood buy-in will be difficult. Considerations / Points of Difference The committee identified the following differences and tradeoffs of a campus model: ●Some members desire a clear definition of the services that need to be co-located and why before any project begins. ●Members differ whether to locate all services on a large campus or throughout the community. Some members favor adding capacity to serve people experiencing homelessness at mainstream community services sites rather than a ‘service rich’ model at a shelter facility. These members believe this is key to solving a community problem with a community solution (rather than overburdening any single location in the community). ●Services costs may increase in an enhanced shelter model, yet these can reduce costs to other systems such as criminal justice, hospitals, 911, police and crisis response. ●Concerns of a campus model include: a larger piece of land could cost more; increased cost for security and safety for those accessing services and the surrounding areas; and risks of undesirable or illegal activity. 397 Section D, Item 1. Recommendations and Considerations for Homeless Shelters in Fort Collins - 9/14/20 Final ● Inclusion of permanent supportive housing - Some say this model has worked in other parts of the country. Others believe supportive housing located away from emergency shelter provides better outcomes for the clients served. Determining Criteria for Site Feasibility (and Considering Potential Locations) Due to the differing perspectives on co-location, specific sites were not reviewed. Instead, the committee identified overall criteria for site feasibility, and noted the following gaps regarding site locations: north versus southeast, serving regional/Greeley/Denver/Boulder residents, land availability, and zoning and planning requirements. Recommendations / Areas of Agreement The committee understands the complexity of site feasibility and agrees upon the following: ● If “form follows function” then co-location of services must be addressed before the site is selected. In addition, the population(s) to be served by the shelter must be determined before identifying the appropriate site. ● If the final design is for little or no co-location of services, then the facility needs to be located nearby other essential services for people experiencing homelessness and not isolated in one corner of the community. ● Location must not over-burden any part of our community already experiencing a high degree of poverty. ● Understanding affordability, ensuring proper infrastructure, determining how many square feet are wanted/needed, as well as incorporating a certain degree of flexibility, will be useful in order to address needs as they evolve in the future. We must consider future changes in the community 10-20 years out, not only in terms of capacity, but also changes that may occur in the vicinity. ● It will be critical to engage with potential neighbors in advance so they can participate in planning conversations, provide their inputs, and ensure they can positively interface with the facility as their neighbor. While industrial locations tend to generate less controversy, they are difficult to locate in Fort Collins. Considerations / Points of Difference Committee conversations and learnings lead to the following considerations around site feasibility: 398 Section D, Item 1. Recommendations and Considerations for Homeless Shelters in Fort Collins - 9/14/20 Final ● Some members noted our mental health and wellness are affected by our physical space, so we must be mindful of the design of the facility so healthy recreation, pets, and different kinds of helpful therapies might be included. ● Some members picture the facility used for activities that attract other community members to help diminish isolation people experiencing homelessness often feel. For example, the facility could host classes, club or group meetings, concerts or social gatherings, and incorporate opportunities for employment, skills development, entrepreneurship and the creation of small businesses. ● Some members want to ensure sites serve people experiencing homelessness fully to prevent panhandling and other undesirable behaviors. Strategies to Address and Mitigate Challenges This section covers concerns and challenges along with ideas of how those might be addressed and mitigated. Concern: Restricting poverty to one part of town ● Utilizing walkability factors and our public transportation system wisely, we can prevent restricting poverty to just one part of town and expecting one neighborhood to bear Fort Collins’ total responsibility to address homelessness, rather than the whole community sharing the responsibility of caring. Concern: Resourcing upfront and ongoing costs of new shelter ● Resource limits need to be recognized. Better outcomes might be achieved when focusing comprehensive services on a smaller population than spreading limited resources over a larger population, such as serving only local residents. This approach has been adopted in other communities. ● Contributions from philanthropy, business, private and faith-based sources could be realized if the shelter model concept can demonstrate benefits to the community and funders’ varied interests. ● A financial model should include both upfront acquisition and development costs, as well as ongoing operating and maintenance costs. ● Concern about this effort impacting the on-going challenge of our service providers to fundraise every year for their services and the importance of sustainable funding. ● Other communities, such as Denver, use a Social Impact Bond program to help fund services. Concern: Both safe shelter and more affordable housing are needed yet are seen as competing for resources ● Investments in emergency shelter should not take away or supplant investments in affordable housing solutions. 399 Section D, Item 1. Recommendations and Considerations for Homeless Shelters in Fort Collins - 9/14/20 Final ● Rigorous collaboration between housing and shelter providers can create smooth transitions between shelter and housing. Concern: Continuing to use shelter beds for de facto housing ● Rental assistance is an immediate solution. Employed persons could benefit from rental assistance so they can exit shelter, and may come at the same cost, or less, as delivering emergency shelter services. The cost of utilizing emergency shelter beds as de facto housing for non-emergencies could be transferred to rental assistance subsidies. ● Considerations to reduce emergency shelter bed use, and therefore need for shelter bed resources, include low cost ‘pay to stay’ housing for low wage workers, seasonal workers and travelers currently utilizing shelter as de facto housing and cheap accommodation. Concern: Dealing with the ongoing and/or next pandemic ● The crisis highlighted and affirmed there is not enough capacity in current shelter facilities to accommodate need, especially with necessary health and safety distancing protocols. ● Familiarity of relationships helped homelessness and health service providers come together quickly. ● Planning for any new facility needs to consider how to rapidly move people out of congregate shelter spaces and avoid crowding and accumulation in shelter. ● Increased staffing and cleaning is needed to prevent spread and reduce viral loads. ● The ongoing pandemic will likely increase homelessness due to declining economic situations – how to proactively address and provide services and help people navigate. Concern: How to continue community and neighborhood dialogue ● Some mitigation: Camping ordinance can be applied without legal challenges when there are sufficient shelter beds 400 Section D, Item 1. Recommendations and Considerations for Homeless Shelters in Fort Collins - 9/14/20 Final Unresolved Questions The committee raised these questions during the creation of these recommendations and considerations, and the answers may inform some of the next steps in the process of enhancing emergency shelter in our community. ● Who will own the shelter - a not-for-profit, City and/or County owned, or a combination? ● What structure, oversight, and service organizations should operate out of the chosen emergency shelter response and therefore what range of services are offered? ● How much housing, navigation, case management or mental health support should be offered on-site at an emergency shelter? How much will the County’s new behavioral health campus provide support for our community and vulnerable populations? ● How much will trauma-informed practices be utilized and influence the design and operation of an emergency shelter? ● If we build it, will they come? (Did Northside Aztlan Community Center COVID-19 shelter clients come from mostly Fort Collins, or from Weld County, Loveland, Longmont, and Boulder?) ● To what extent must shelter users be Fort Collins residents? How will this be verified (noted as very difficult yet done elsewhere)? ● Will regional interests develop necessary permanent housing or only Fort Collins? Will our community bear the brunt of a regional housing development issue? ● Does inclusion of permanent supportive housing with a shelter or does locating supportive housing away from emergency shelter provide better outcomes for the clients served? ● How much can our community include ownership housing in the mix of affordable housing offered to create wealth and break the cycle of dependence? ● Do the costs of services increase in an enhanced shelter model, or do these offset cost reductions to other systems such as criminal justice, hospitals, 911, police and crisis response? ● Can a large campus accommodate populations under both behavior-based and breathalyzer-enforced models? Several committee members recommended drawing upon learnings from other communities, such as Boulder where joint services are provided. ● Would a centralized service center respond better and be more cost- and resource-efficient, especially in a pandemic? ● Would better outcomes be achieved by focusing comprehensive services on a smaller population than spreading limited resources over a larger population - e.g. Fort Collins residents only? 401 Section D, Item 1. 402 Section D, Item 1. Thank you to our many community and industry partners, particularly the residents, participants, and staff in housing and shelter settings who continue to share their experiences and expert input with our team. We also thank our visionary funders who make this research possible: Kaiser Permanente, Sozosei Foundation, Colorado Housing and Finance Authority, Energy Outreach Colorado, Gary Community Ventures, and the members of the Housing and Homelessness Funders Collaborative. We are grateful for the thought partnership and generosity of leaders in this space: Dr. Sam Grabowska, Manifolding Labs; Julianna Stuart, POAH (Preservation of Affordable Housing); Zoe LeBeau and Katie Symons, BeauxSimone Consulting; Jill Pable and Yelena McClane, Department of Interior Architecture & Design, Florida State University; Raul Almazar, SAMHSA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration); JoAnn Toney, WellPower; Saba Mwine, Homelessness Policy Research Institute, University of Southern California; College of Architecture and Planning, University of Colorado Denver; Environmental Design, University of Colorado Boulder; Colorado Housing and Finance Authority; AIA Colorado; Colorado Health Foundation; Housing Colorado; Colorado Division of Housing; Enterprise Community Partners; The Corporation for Supportive Housing; Urban Land Institute; David Baker Architects; Stewards of Affordable Housing for the Future; and the Trauma-Informed Design Society. Center for Housing and Homelessness Research, University of Denver Shopworks Architecture Group14 Engineering Shopworks Architecture Bryn Mawr College Shopworks Architecture Graphic Design: Barefoot Public Relations Photography: Matthew Staver Photography 403 Section D, Item 1. At the start of our TID exploration, only a small number of architects, designers, and trauma experts had published on TID. Dr. Jill Pable, founder of Design Resources for Homelessness (designresourcesforhomelessness.org), was one between trauma and the built environment through the lens of the experience of homelessness (Pable trauma-informed care), which has guided our work: Trauma-informed design encompasses adaptations in the designed built environment that support a strengths-based framework that is grounded in an understanding of and responsiveness to the impact of trauma, that emphasizes physical, psychological, and emotional safety for both providers and survivors, and that creates opportunities for survivors to rebuild a sense of control and empowerment.” (Hopper et al., 2010, p. 133; J. Pable, personal communication, October 7, 2019) In 2017, Shopworks Architecture was invited to attend a trauma-informed care training delivered by experts from Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, at The Delores Project Shelter and Apartments at Arroyo Village. SAMHSA is a national expert on trauma and offers extensive training and resources on trauma and trauma-informed approaches to care. Shopworks architects and designers were children that suggested the built environment had a role to play in the health and healing of future occupants. Awareness of trauma-informed care set the Shopworks team on a path of inquiry toward “trauma-informed design” (TID). Now, after seven years of TID research and practice, interviews with 2000 end users, and discussions with stakeholders and collaborators around the world, our team has developed a TID conceptual framework for the creation of secure, connected, healthful physical spaces. Further, our team has committed design of calming and restorative environments. The opening of Sanderson Apartments in Colorado— supportive housing communities—in 2017 expanded our team’s understanding of TID. WellPower (formerly the Mental Health Center of Denver) and Davis Partnership Architects thoughtfully designed the 60-unit building to support individuals and couples transitioning from being unhoused into housing. The opportunity to learn about TID from Dr. Pable, WellPower, and other leaders in this space has proven invaluable given our team’s focus on experiences in shelter and supportive housing. Shopworks Architecture was then joined by Group14 Engineering and the Center for Housing and Homelessness Research at the University of understanding of the topic. Our research team gathered input from end users—individuals living in affordable housing, navigating the shelter system, and working in these spaces—which led to the creation and ongoing testing of our TID Framework, which we expand on in this paper. 404 Section D, Item 1. KNOW Healing, Dignity, and Joy. Extensive research has since informed key aspects of the TID process, which are As we’ve continued our work, we have come to embrace the nuanced and variable nature of TID. Trauma regulation are similarly individualized, as people have distinct needs and desires. Thus, with our TID buildings, sweeping generalizations that create narrow design conventions for all people. Rather, our TID Framework establishes a holistic approach to design that considers a range of experiences and evolving needs that can be addressed through the built environment. Critical to TID is direct input from end users whose experiences of space establish the priorities and values that guide the design. This requires a process of intentional inquiry and the participation of individuals often overlooked and disconnected from the design development process. That being said, there are a few absolutes we stand behind, which bear mention: 1. Trauma is ubiquitous. Most of us have or will experience trauma in our lifetime. 2. The negative impacts of trauma can be and decision-making power have a responsibility to carefully consider the built environment’s impact on all of us and commit to doing no harm. To understand what healing, dignity, and joy mean to individuals, we must bring curiosity to our work and resist the assumption that we experience the world and the built environment in the same way as those for whom we are designing. We must listen deeply to residents, staff, end users, and occupants of these spaces—as they are the true experts of their experience of the built environment. Using great empathy, respect and the TID Framework as a guide, our goal is to understand how end users experience safety, comfort, connection, and choice in the built environment and prioritize their input and guidance in the design of future spaces. Our aim is to not simply create spaces for people, but to co-create intentional environments where individuals and communities can heal, connect, and thrive. We invite you to join us in this work. 405 Section D, Item 1. Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s, SAMHSA’s, three E’s: “Individual trauma results from an event, series of events, or set of circumstances that is experienced by an individual as physically or emotionally harmful or life threatening and that has lasting adverse effects on the individual’s functioning and mental, physical, social, emotional, or spiritual well-being.” (SAMHSA, Trauma and Justice Strategic Initiative, 2012, p.2) Research demonstrates that most individuals have experienced some type of traumatic event at least once in their lives. While the exact number everyone about trauma exposure; U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2023), research estimates that around 70% of Americans report trauma exposure (National Council for Behavioral Health, n.d.). This number can vary considerably by individual characteristics (e.g., unhoused individuals), with some populations reporting higher rates of trauma exposure (SAMHSA, TIP 57). Trauma is a nearly universal experience for people with mental health and substance use disorders, those living in poverty (Collins et al., 2010), those who have experienced violence (SAMHSA, 2014), and those who have experienced homelessness (Hopper et al., 2010)— the very people likely to be served by shelters, supportive housing, and affordable housing. Not everyone who experiences a traumatic event will experience adverse consequences as a result. Rather, adverse consequences stem from an individual’s bodily response to the event. One’s bodily response depends on previous experiences, intersectional identities, cultural circumstances, and physical environments, among other factors. While there is a substantial amount of research on how trauma affects the brain and body, at the most basic level trauma is the activation of our stress response systems in which responses (Van der Kolk, 2014). Trauma can lead to an overactive amygdala (responsible for activating our stress response system) and a less responsive prefrontal cortex (responsible for calming our stress response system; Van der Kolk, 2014). It can also limit an individual’s ability to engage the prefrontal cortex and access executive functioning skills, such as concentration, organization, emotional regulation, and self-control (van der Kolk, 2014). Individuals who have been deeply impacted by a traumatic experience or have had severe and/or persistent traumatic experiences can be easily activated into hyperarousal response resulting in a constant state of tension, suspicion, and panic. This can make it pleasures. Alternatively, bodies can become stuck in a freeze or faint response, in which individuals collapse or disengage from their environment altogether (Van der Kolk, 2014). There is an additional stress response, fawning, which is not commonly included in the stress response model but has recently garnered attention. Fawning is a response marked by extreme people- pleasing behaviors and prioritizing the needs of others to one’s own detriment (Walker, 2013). 406 Section D, Item 1. SO U R C E : L E V I T T ( 2 0 0 9 ) www.developingchild.harvard.edu Responding to trauma requires healing the body and the brain while increasing a sense of safety. To heal, people need to become cognizant of their physical sensations and the way that their bodies interact with the world around them (van der Kolk, 2014). Survivors of trauma need to develop a sense of safety not only in their body, but in their surrounding environment as well. This sense of safety can grow by fostering a sense of control and power within the survivor and cultivating a secure living situation (Herman, 2015). Studies also demonstrate that it can be easier to facilitate recovery in youth, due to greater neuroplasticity (that is, the brain’s ability to change and adapt). Healing from trauma requires more than a collection of therapeutic interventions – it is dependent upon the entire environment surrounding individuals. As such, While these effects of trauma can be observed in individuals even decades after the traumatic event(s), children with experiences of trauma can see the greatest long-term effects. The experience of trauma in childhood can lead to increased risk for severe mental and physical health impairments across the lifespan (McDonnell & Valentino, 2016; Treat et al., 2019). According to the Center on the Developing Child at Harvard few years of life. This is a developmental period when the brain is uniquely vulnerable to new experiences. Research suggests that exposure to childhood trauma increases the risk of a multitude of deleterious consequences, including suicide (Felitti et al., 1998), depression (Kounou et al., 2013), behavioral disturbance (Iwaniec et al., 2006), poor overall health (Felitti et al., 1998), and an impairment in relationships (Cicchetti & Toth, 2005; Hughes & Cossar, 2016). Thus, individuals who experience severe and/or persistent trauma in childhood, which interrupt and impair critical stages of brain development, are more likely to experience deep and lasting impacts that carry into adulthood. 407 Section D, Item 1. Realizing the prevalence of trauma and potential paths for recovery; Responding by putting this knowledge into practices, procedures, and policies; and Actively resisting re-traumatization of clients and staff (SAMHSA, Trauma and Justice Strategic Initiative, 2012). Recognizing the signs and symptoms of trauma and how trauma affects all individuals involved with the program, organization, or system, including its own workforce; TID is directly informed by trauma-informed care (TIC), a strength-based framework, grounded in the understanding of and responsiveness to the impact of trauma (Hopper et al., 2010). TIC employs a human- centered approach to supporting those navigating services like shelters and supportive housing. TIC is a recognized, evidence-based practice that acknowledges that the trauma people have experienced impacts Further, the practice of TIC is grounded in a set of six key principles (SAMHSA, Trauma and Justice Strategic Initiative, 2012). Guided by these six principles of TIC, we explored TID by asking residents and staff in affordable housing about their experience of safety, connection, and choice. The data collected during Ensuring emotional and physical safety as served. Transparency in organizational operations and decisions with the goal to build and maintain trust. Mutual self-help and peer relationships as key tools for establishing safety and hope, enhancing collaboration, building trust, and promoting recovery and healing. Demonstrating that healing happens in relationships and in the meaningful sharing of power and decision-making. Fostering empowerment for staff and clients alike with an awareness of power differentials. Actively moving past cultural biases and stereotypes to offer gender and culturally responsive services that recognize and address historical trauma. Given limited empirical research on TID, our research team explored adjacent bodies of literature to inform how and other forms of life—and neuro-informed design became key foundations for understanding the biological into how our surroundings and our interaction with those surroundings can be a source of harm or healing. Studies demonstrate that harmful housing—such as housing without access to nature or drab and dreary buildings that feel institutional—leads to maladaptive behaviors, reduced quality of life, decreased social functioning, increased stress and depressive others (Rollings and Bollo, 2021). Conversely, hundreds of studies have demonstrated that restorative and healing spaces—such as those with and multi-sensory engagement—promote myriad (Sternberg, 2001). Healing spaces are known to support overall health by lowering blood pressure, strengthening immune functioning, improving mood, reducing stress, increasing sociability, and improving cognitive performance (Browning and Ryan, 2020). conducted by Dr. Ming Kuo from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign who found that residents in Chicago Public Housing who had view of a small grassy courtyard instead of paved streetscapes reported less mental fatigue, greater attentional functioning, reduced incidents of domestic violence and aggression, lowered drug and crime rates, and increased trust among neighbors and feelings of community (Kuo, 2001). The children living in the units facing these courtyards also demonstrated better overall concentration and self-regulation at home and at school (Kuo, 2001). 408 Section D, Item 1. KNOW The data we’ve collected over the last few years has all solution. It’s not possible to create a TID checklist that meets the distinct needs of diverse individuals in unique buildings and communities. This conceptual framework was designed to identify high-level constructs that broadly inform the TID decision-making process and highlight that TID requires an intentional approach to achieve meaningful application on projects. Safety and the three C’s live within a larger container describing the TID context. The extent to which these principles are experienced is not only dependent upon the BUILDING itself but also the nature and quality of onsite SERVICES and PROPERTY MANAGEMENT. As such, a trauma-informed approach to both service delivery and property management serves as critical partners to promoting the experience of TID. EXTERNAL FACTORS which include the historical, ecological, and cultural context of the physical and temporal location and responsive lens that recognizes the interconnectedness of these factors on the health and well-being of residents and staff. The TID Framework is then held and guided by an ongoing process we refer to as KNOW–LEARN–COMMIT, which describes the role and responsibility of designer professionals and other decision-makers in the development process. Drawing from our understanding of TIC and design practices in supportive housing, our research team set out to learn from residents, staff, and other community members about their experiences of safety, connection, choice, and general comfort in shelter and housing settings. This exercise established a foundational practice of TID – listening to those with lived experience and creating pathways for their input to directly inform future design decisions. moving through a TID process. Our research team continues to test and iterate on our TID Framework and broader understanding of TID, which has led to an updated version of the framework that accounts for our evolving insights: We begin with a high-level summary of the TID Framework. The proceeding sections further expand upon each portion of the framework. At the heart of the framework lie the core principles of TID: SAFETY and the three C’s— COMFORT, CONNECTION, and CHOICE. 409 Section D, Item 1. When we talk about safety, we are talking about safety that is both actual and elements addressing safety speak directly to our physical well-being as well as the security of our space and belongings. This element of the conceptual framework also refers to our psychological safety, peace of mind, and ability to ground ourselves in the present. This was a key lesson in our early TID research. We often hear that spaces without direct visual access are not as readily utilized or comfortable for residents. For example, when designing amenity spaces, it is important to consider actual and perceived safety issues that may arise including 410 Section D, Item 1. In building design, Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) captures many of the conditions that support personal and collective comfort, including visual, auditory, and kinesthetic experiences impacted by ventilation and air design. Drawing from research on biophilic design, our experience of natural elements in the built environment such as daylight colors, organic patterns, dynamic engagement, sensory cues, clear sightlines, and nested layers plays a 2009). The presence of these elements is evolutionarily linked to an instinctive draw to signals of security, sustenance, and thriving (Falk & Balling, 2010). This includes beautiful artwork, residents as clear symbols of intention, value, and respect. 411 Section D, Item 1. Connection is important for many reasons. It describes residents connecting with 1) themselves, mind and body; 2) other residents; 3) staff and service providers; 4) the surrounding neighborhood; and 5) the building itself. Residents connect intimately with those inside their apartments such as family members and friends, pets, plants, and belongings connect directly or indirectly with their neighbors through smells, sounds, trash, laundry, and interactions in the corridors or at the elevator. Shelves outside apartment doors allow residents to passively introduce themselves to their neighbors by displaying personal items. Residents connect with staff in designated staff areas but more often via casual interactions throughout the building. Residents also connect with those in the surrounding neighborhood while grilling in the backyard, relaxing on the front porch, parking, smoking, and via exterior design depicting visual representations of cultural and historic touchpoints and other identity anchors held by the community. 412 Section D, Item 1. Choice describes the ability to personalize the experience of an environment. areas allow occupants to choose natural light or near darkness – a critical consideration for those with migraines or ocular conditions. comfortable degree of interaction. With TID, we are mindful of hotspots where It is important to provide multiple pathways and exit routes through a space, offering opportunities for occupants to connect with or strategically avoid one another, to say, “I’m not ready for that interaction right now.” How do we design in a way that supports those who want to be in the center of the action as well as those who are feeling things out, easing into a new setting, or coming back into their bodies from a dissociative state. How are we creating opportunities for gentle interactions at the margins? 413 Section D, Item 1. Trauma-informed service delivery and spaces are intended to be responsive to diverse and evolving end user need, including external factors that may shift how buildings are utilized and the nature of human interactions within those environments. For buildings to meet the needs of residents and staff, trauma- informed buildings must work alongside a trauma-informed service approach and trauma-informed property management to fully support restorative, healing experiences in housing. the histories of the place and identities of the people being served by the building, whether the identities of the end user are represented by the decision-makers, and the relationship that decision-makers have with their own trauma and the beliefs, biases, and preferences that impact the work as a result. ongoing learning centering the voice and expertise of those with lived experience, ensuring that the design process is carried out in partnership with those who are most impacted, listening and believing, actively incorporating what you have learned into the design, and advocating for TID as an equitable, humane practice because everyone deserves safety, comfort, connection, and choice. seeking input from those with experience navigating the spaces you are designing, not only listening to the stories of end users but believing them, unlearning things that are found to be unhelpful or inaccurate, and deepening self-awareness and personal identity work. TID operates within, and is impacted by, a larger context that cannot be overlooked. While buildings can be designed in an intentional, trauma- informed manner, other factors will necessarily impact how those spaces are experienced by residents, staff, visitors, and the surrounding community. In in setting the terms and tone of the community— deciding how spaces are used and by whom. For example, an outdoor area designed for pets will be impacted by policies outlining animal ownership in the building. The services and operations of a building play a major role in the nature and quality of space utilization. For example, a computer lab can be designed for residents; however, dedicated training and workshops have the potential to elevate access and the overall experience of the resource. Other external factors, such as a global pandemic or the historic racism of redlining and comparable must also be acknowledged as having direct and indirect impacts on the building experience. The TID Framework is held and guided by an ongoing process we refer to as role, experiences, and beliefs. To us, KNOW–LEARN–COMMIT acknowledges the 414 Section D, Item 1. Browning, B. & Ryan, C. (2020). Nature Inside: A Biophilic Design Guide. Portland Place London: RIBA Publishing. Center on the Developing Child (2023). Brain architecture. Harvard University. https://developingchild.harvard.edu/science/key-concepts/ brain-architecture/ Cicchetti, D., & Toth, S. L. (2005). Child maltreatment. Annual Review of ClinicalPsychology, 1, 409–438. De Bellis, M. D., & Zisk, A. (2014). The biological effects of childhood trauma. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 23(2), 185–222. Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., Koss, M. P., & Marks, J. S. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14, 245–258. Herman, J. (2015). Trauma and recovery: The aftermath of violence-from domestic abuse to political terror. Basic Books. Hopper, E. K., Bassuk, E. L., & Olivet, J. (2010). Shelter from the storm: Trauma-informed care in homelessness services settings. The Open Health Services and Policy Journal, 3, 80–100. Hughes, M., & Cossar, J. (2016). The relationships between maternal and childhood emotional abuse/neglect and parenting outcomes: A systematic review. Child Abuse Review, 25, 31–45. Iwaniec, D., Larkin, E., & Higgins, S. (2006). Research review: Risk and resilience in cases of emotional abuse. Child and Family Social Work, 11, 758–766. Kounou, K. B., Bui, E., Dassa, K. S., Hinton, D., Fischer, L., Djassoa, G., … Schmitt, L. (2013). Childhood trauma, personality disorders symptoms and current major depressive disorder in Togo. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 48, 1095–1103. Kuo, F. E. (2001). Coping with Poverty: Impacts of Environment and Attention in the Inner City. Environment and Behavior, 33(1), 5–34. Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2001). Aggression and Violence in the Inner City: Effects of Environment via Mental Fatigue. Environment and Behavior, 33(4), 543–571. McDonnell, C. G., & Valentino, K. (2016). Intergenerational effects of childhood trauma: Evaluating pathways among maternal ACEs, perinatal depressive symptoms, and infant outcomes. Child Maltreatment, 21(4), 317–326. National Council for Behavioral Health (n.d.). How to manage trauma. Retrieved April 14, 2023, from https://www.thenationalcouncil.org/ wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Trauma-infographic.df Pable, J., McLane, Y., & Trujillo, L. (2021). Homelessness and the built environment: Designing for Unhoused Persons. Taylor & Francis. Pallasmaa, J. (2012). The eyes of the skin (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. Rollings, K. A., & Bollo, C. S. (2021). Permanent Supportive Housing Design Characteristics Associated with the Mental Health of Formerly Homeless Adults in the U.S. and Canada: An Integrative Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(18), 9588. SAMHSA (n.d.). TIP 57: Trauma-informed care in behavioral health services. Retrieved April 14, 2023, from http://store.samhsa.gov/ product/TIP-57-Trauma-Informed-Care-in-Behavioral-Health-Services/SMA14-4816. Singer, D. (2020, January 22). Using trauma-informed design, buildings become tools for recovery. Collective Colorado. https://collective. coloradotrust.org/stories/using-trauma-informed-design-buildings-become-tools-for-recovery/ Sternberg, E. (2009). Healing Spaces: The Science of Place and Well-Being. Harvard University Press. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Trauma and Justice Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (n.d.). PTSD: National Center for PTSD. Retrieved April 14, 2023, from https://www.ptsd.va.gov/ understand/common/common_adults.asp Van der Kolk, B. (2014). The body keeps the score: Mind, brain and body in the transformation of trauma. Penguin. Walker, Pete. (2013). Complex PTSD: From surviving to thriving. Azure Coyote Publishing. Ultimately, TID requires time and care to connect with end users and deeply understand their individual responses to spaces. Using the TID Framework as a guide, the design team’s goal is to elevate the human experience by prioritizing safety, comfort, connection, and choice throughout the design. In doing so, TID professionals can create spaces where individuals and communities are able to attend to their physical, mental, emotional, and social health. Our hope is that this TID Framework provides a helpful guide for those designing spaces to develop greater awareness and empathy around how the built environment can play a central role in promoting healing, resilience, and joy. As a part of committing to this work, we invite you to explore our other resources which include step-by-step guidance on designing with rather than for individuals and communities. We are excited to collaborate with committed partners across the globe in this work and welcome new voices that expand the conversation. This paper provides an overview of our four-phase Trauma-Informed Design Process, summarizing the goals and activities at each phase. Two case studies are included to illustrate how the four phases were implemented on housing developments with unique attributes. Additionally, this paper outlines key learnings resulting from the process on each project. This step-by-step manual guides housing development teams through the 4-Phase additional resource materials for each phase. Detailed questions are provided to support teams carrying out pre- and post-occupancy assessments in housing. A four-part training series intended to educate Housing Development Teams (architects, biophilia, and our Trauma-Informed Design Framework. The series walks participants through our four-phase TID Process and lessons learned on Shopwork’s buildings. approach, developed by our colleagues at POAH (Preservation of Affordable Housing). This pamphlet focuses on ways to design a building to help regulate the body and support therapeutic approaches. It offers a primer on the body-space-trauma relationship, outlines organizing principles for trauma-informed architecture, provides examples of built work, and showcases narratives that inform amenities that residents and staff may need. 415 Section D, Item 1. 416 Section D, Item 1. Submitted to and in partnership with: Prepared by: Fort Collins Rescue Mission Trauma-Informed Design Assessment August 2022 417 Section D, Item 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In partnership with Shopworks Architecture, the Fort Collins Rescue Mission is designing a new overnight shelter for men and day center. In July 2022, Shopworks Architecture initiated a trauma-informed design assessment of this project, interviewing guests and staff of the Fort Collins Rescue Mission as well as other local service providers and individuals served to understand the community’s experience and needs. In total, the research team interviewed 96 members of the Fort Collins community, including 42 persons served and 54 service providers. Additionally, in April 2022, Shopworks Architecture and the Center for Housing & Homelessness Research at the University of Denver carried out a TID assessment of the Denver Rescue Mission, conducting interviews with 42 guests and staff. A summary of the findings from that assessment are included at the end of this report, and the full report is available by reaching out to Shopworks. Findings from the Denver Rescue Mission report have significance for the design of the Fort Collins Rescue Mission, while understanding that the cities themselves are distinct. A deep commitment held by guests and staff to the mission of the Rescue Mission was at the heart of the feedback heard by the research team. This is an organization that cares deeply about the work they are doing and supports members of their community with life-saving services. Additionally, everyone is appreciative that the Rescue Mission has continued to “make do” with what was available and presented to them. Amidst a global pandemic, staff and guests alike understand and appreciate that the Rescue Mission responded to the call to provide responsive shelter and wrap-around services in the currently constrained physical setting as well as the temporarily shelter site. That said, there is deep enthusiasm for the plan to build a new shelter and day center from the ground up that will allow staff to have the space they need to do their work and offer programs to guests and for there to be more space that will mitigate many of their current issues. Members of the community are excited about the possibilities of programming and offerings in the new shelter/day center. There are many questions about what precisely Fort Collins Rescue Mission is planning on offering and deep hopes for dedicated services, like a comprehensive onsite healthcare center. There are also questions about how the day center will integrate with existing programs, such as those currently offered at The Murphy Center. Despite these questions, the community is not concerned about duplication of services for the envisioned day center. In fact, more services are needed, and concentrated services at the Rescue Mission could free up other service providers to attend to other underserved groups (women, LGBTQ+ individuals, youth, families, precariously housed, etc). We encourage further conversations and close engagement with partner service providers to strategically position this new project within the existing network of service provision. The research team also heard from members of the community voicing significant concerns about the project, particularly neighbors of the selected site who have been historically underserved and overlooked by the city. Many of those individuals who participated in this research expressed feelings of anger and disappointment. They expressed a strong desire for 418 Section D, Item 1. increased safety measures and greater communication from the City and Rescue Mission (offered in Spanish). Participants shared that they are open to education about homelessness in the event that those conversations are conducting in the spirit of both communities hearing and learning from each other. This report provides a detailed account of findings from the research. A high-level summary of the highlights can be reviewed below: OVERALL FEEDBACK • Increased safety measures were requested by staff, guests, and neighbors at the new site. Think about cameras, lighting, fencing, and open sightlines, in particular. • Accessibility in all spaces is critical. Consider the likelihood that many guests will have health needs, including oxygen, wheelchairs, etc. • Entranceways are important to ensure individuals feel welcome and that check-in is easy for guests and visitors alike. Consider separate entrances for different programming needs (ex. reserve beds, overflow beds, day center, health clinic). Design with thought around check-in procedures (bag checks, as an example) and the importance of this space being designed to create a calm and welcoming atmosphere. • Some shared that it would be incredibly helpful if the Rescue Mission could expand the city’s severe weather services (both daytime and overnight shelter). • Staff are currently making do with very limited space. However, in the new development, they would like suitable private office space; shared workstations; small, medium, and large meeting rooms; a dedicated breakroom; storage; dedicated donation space; and facilities/maintenance workshop and storage. • The kitchen and dining room will serve a significant number of people. Think through food storage, preparation, and dining procedures and how the space can accommodate guests, staff, and volunteers. • Rescue Mission staff and guests are desperate to have their chapel back, as it is core to the organization’s identity and community support model. • Be mindful of parking needs for guests, staff, and volunteers. FORT COLLINS RESCUE MISSION SHELTER • Design sleeping spaces that can attend to the different needs of guests. For example, dorms for varying levels of substance use and recovery, individuals working (possibly non-traditional shifts), transgender and nonbinary individuals who may not feel safe or comfortable in congregate dorms, those who are sick/quarantined/have specific medical needs, etc. • Ensure that dorms offer suitable storage to guests, especially providing options that are secure for sensitive personal belongings. Each bed should offer access to an outlet, suitable storage, and a reading light if possible. Avoid bunk beds if at all possible. • Consider the storage needs of overflow guests and the potential of storage at check-in. 419 Section D, Item 1. • Guests appreciate smaller “neighborhoods” – that is, clusters of beds where they can develop community with one another. This must be balanced with open sightlines throughout the dorm for staff to manage safety concerns. • More common areas (indoor and outdoor) were requested, including spaces that attend to different needs (ex. designated smoking areas separate from seating for those why may be bothered by smoke). FORT COLLINS RESCUE MISSION DAY CENTER • The unhoused community needs dedicated daytime space both for doing – that is, seeking resources and connecting with service providers - and being – that is, resting and recentering in a safe and comfortable setting. • Work with fellow service providers to identify the specific needs this building will meet and to carefully consider what spaces are required based on those findings. • The day center should include adequate space for external service providers as well as guests who may need to reserve a room for a private meeting (ex. telehealth, GED testing, service provider meeting, etc). • The community wants and needs a comprehensive healthcare center onsite. Co-location of shelter and healthcare is a best practice, and the model has been successfully tested with Fort Collins’ temporary COVID shelter. • Consider short-term storage for day center guests wanting to move through the space without their belongings as well as longer-term storage for all guests. • Design for animals, including onsite spaces where pets can relieve themselves and kennels where animals can be stored if needed. Following the Executive Summary, this report is organized into the following sections: • The Introduction outlines the basic tenets of trauma-informed care and trauma- informed design, which establish the basis of our research approach. • The Findings section summarizes input from conversations with 96 members of the Fort Collins community, organized according to envisioned spaces in the new Rescue Mission building. • Design Recommendations are offered for current and future spaces based on input from guests and staff of the Rescue Mission as well as other local service providers and individuals served. • High-level Findings from the Denver Rescue Mission report are included, and our team encourages all members of the design team to read the full report from April 2022. • Finally, the Conclusion wraps up the report. 420 Section D, Item 1. INTRODUCTION TRAUMA-INFORMED DESIGN Trauma-Informed Care Trauma-Informed Care (TIC) is a critical practice to walk alongside those navigating services, including shelters and supportive housing. This is an evidenced-based practice that acknowledges that the trauma people have experienced impacts the way they interact with others and deeply influences the paths individuals can and should take toward healing and resiliency. SAMHSA (the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration) defines the “Six Key Principles of a trauma- informed approach”1 as follows: 1. Safety 2. Trustworthiness and Transparency 3. Peer Support 4. Collaboration and Mutuality 5. Empowerment, Voice, and Choice 6. Cultural, Historical, and Gender Issues What Does This Mean for the Building Design? While there is deep evidenced-based research on TIC, there is not clear guidance on how TIC should inform the spaces within which trauma-informed programs are offered. For that reason, Shopworks Architecture, CHHR, and Group14 Engineering joined together in 2019 to explore what aspects of the built environment help individuals build relationships, feel safe and empowered, heal, and thrive. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected from residents and staff of residential buildings designed with an intentional trauma- informed lens. Data were analyzed and interrogated by this interdisciplinary research team, and the findings of that research are summarized in Figure 1. 1 From: https://ncsacw.samhsa.gov/userfiles/files/SAMHSA_Trauma.pdf Figure 1 | Trauma-Informed Design Framework 421 Section D, Item 1. Starting in the center, we discovered the “3 C’s of Designing for Health and Healing.” These are questions that are critical to buildings having TID at the heart of design decision-making: • Is this helping to create choice for guests? Is this allowing all guests to have agency in their environment? • Will this help create community? Are the spaces set up to encourage relationships between guests and between guests and staff? Building trusting relationships is one of the key ways that individuals heal from trauma. • Lastly, are we making decisions that lead to comfort for the users (both guests and staff)? We must pay attention to the quality and variety of materials, sensory experiences of light, sound, and smell, and bringing in elements of nature and artwork that calm the senses or spark joy. Next, we talk about the core values that must be central to all developments: • Dignity, hope, and self-esteem – celebrating each individual’s inherent worth, emphasizing strengths, and maximizing potential. • Empowerment and personal control – encouraging individual agency, welcoming self- expression, and offering choices for guests. • Safety, security, and privacy – guests’ perceived safety is as important as actual safety. This requires prioritizing clear wayfinding and sightlines, minimizing negative triggers, and offering vantages of both prospect and refuge. • Peace of mind – cultivating a comfortable, calm ambience that supports relaxation, self- soothing, stress management, and coping through design details, such as lighting, sound mitigation, natural elements, and access to nature. • Community and connection – creating spaces that encourage camaraderie and friendships among guests as well as staff and foster an environment where guests can build trusting relationships. • Joy, beauty, and meaning – honoring culture, place, and identity by providing places that spark imagination, nurture hope, and foster aspiration. Lastly, no building exists in a vacuum. It is crucial for the development and design team to seek to understand the cultural and environmental context within which a building will be situated. It is important to ensure that a building will be viewed as an asset to the entire community and that it honors the lived experiences and identities of those who will move throughout it. Spaces carry meaning with them. If a space is meant to be a place where healing occurs and guests and staff alike can lean into their own resiliency, it is critical that the design of the building be done in a way that complements the values of those who will inhabit it. 422 Section D, Item 1. FINDINGS OVERVIEW In partnership with Shopworks Architecture, the Fort Collins Rescue Mission is designing a new overnight shelter for men and day center. A key part of this work is ensuring that lessons are learned from current Rescue Mission guests and service providers as well as the broader network of clients and service providers in Fort Collins. This report details findings from discussions (both 1-on-1 interviews and focus groups) with 96 members of the Fort Collins community. Participants included 42 guests and clients as well as 54 staff representing both the Rescue Mission and other local homeless service providers. Interviews were conducted in both English and Spanish, in person and remotely. Over the course of our team’s four years of research on trauma-informed design, we have conducted interviews with over 950 individuals to develop our understanding of this concept, specifically as it pertains to supportive housing and shelter spaces. The questions asked in these interviews have been designed to focus on how the environment can be a tool to promote health and healing, working alongside staff and programs at the Fort Collins Rescue Mission to support restoration and thriving. Interview data were analyzed and organized into the following five categories for ease of review: 1. Emergency Shelter 2. Day Center 3. Guest Common Spaces 4. Administrative Spaces 5. General Considerations De-identified direct quotes from local service providers and individuals served in Fort Collins are highlighted below in orange. EMERGENCY SHELTER Shelter beds are in high demand in Fort Collins. As the only emergency shelter in town serving men, the Rescue Mission’s 80 reserve beds and 26 overflow mats (serving a total of 106 guests) were described as “always full.” Currently, the reserve beds are divided across four dorms with 14 to 30 bunked beds each. Overflow mats are set up in the dining room following dinner service and must be cleared before breakfast the next morning, which presents a hectic turnaround for both guests and staff. Guests interviewed for this report described staying at the Rescue Mission anywhere from a few months to on and off over the last 10 years. 423 Section D, Item 1. Emergency shelter services in Fort Collins are shared by the Rescue Mission, serving men, and Catholic Charities, serving women and children. The city does not currently offer dedicated emergency shelter for youth, couples, or respite care. There is also no clear service approach for the local LGBTQ+ community. As such, service providers reflect that LGBTQ+ individuals, particularly those who identify as transgender and nonbinary, report that neither of the available emergency shelters feel like safe or viable options for overnight or general service provision. Additionally, service providers identified a need to support individuals experiencing housing insecurity and those who have recently moved into housing. Guests reported inadequate storage for their belongings. Guests in reserve beds are given a small locker alongside half of the under-bed floor space for their items. A section of small lockers just off the dining room are reserved for overflow guests. These spaces were repeatedly described as insufficient for the volume of belongings each guest possessed. Many of the reserve bed guests described having to offload items that did not fit, including duffle bags and hiking backpacks, camping supplies, clothing, and personal items. One guest described the regular cycle of clearing out off-season clothes, only to have to re-acquire them a few months later. Other guests described using their vehicles for additional storage, particularly for important items, which felt marginally safer in their car but were then blocks away given restricted parking in the Rescue Mission lot and limited public parking nearby. Guests requested secure small-scale storage near their beds for important items, like money, ID cards, paperwork, and even toiletries. They described needing a secure space where they can store personal items during the day and when they slept – somewhere with a lock that could not be cut and clear camera coverage. One guest describing bringing those items into bed with them, noting “It’s not fun sleeping on a wallet.” Guests also expressed a desire for drawers and space to hang their clothes if possible. One person noted the challenge of storing clean clothing separate from their dirty laundry. Longer-term storage was raised as a substantial need among guests, particularly those newly displaced from their homes as well as those admitted into the hospital or incarcerated. Of note, several participants mentioned the aging of the unhoused community and a trend toward sudden eviction from housing, resulting in people moving with several personal belongings. A number of challenges were identified about the dorms; however, guests consistently reported gratitude and the ability to make do. All of the dorms are tight with limited space around the beds for storage (as noted above) or personal space. There is often nowhere near the beds to store a wheelchair, making a guest’s transfer from their chair into bed especially difficult. Guests requested outlets immediately next to their beds for charging phones, external battery packs, tablets, computers, and other devices. Many of the dorms see constant walk- through traffic as both guests and staff make their way to and from bathrooms, laundry machines, office spaces, and the various exits. This through traffic can be a major source of conflict with people bumping into one another and each other’s beds and regular reports of theft. Staff and guests described incidents in which one guest would threaten another. Without an alternate route to avoid an altercation, guests would find themselves cornered into conflict and subsequent removal from the shelter. Other guests reported having weapons pulled on them in the dorms, which were missed by limited camera coverage and poor visibility 424 Section D, Item 1. throughout the space. Other nighttime disruptions raised by guests include a nearby train that sounds off at night and motion sensor lights that pour through poorly covered windows. Bunk beds were described by guests and staff as adequate and realistic but also less than ideal. Some guests described the familiarity and relative comfort of bunk beds in relation to a shared experience of incarceration. However, bunk beds were also described as less than ideal, causing people to feel like “sardines in a can” and forcing an additional layer of intimacy with bunkmates. One staff member recalled the social distancing setup in Fort Collin’s temporary COVID shelter (which has since been closed), describing the respite provided by the rectangle of space around an unbunked bed and saying, “This is dignity.” Interestingly, Catholic Charities described the challenge of filling top bunks, given the physical limitations and disabilities of guests. One service provider speculated that the unhoused population is presenting as older and with more physical challenges, making bunk beds increasingly inaccessible for individuals seeking shelter. Generally, staff and guests seemed to agree that avoiding bunk beds would be ideal. However, they also shared an appreciation for the need to increase shelter capacity and serve as many people as possible. Aspects of the size and layout of the existing dorms have fostered a sense of community among guests at the Rescue Mission. Many Rescue Mission guests described the 14-30-person capacity of the existing dorms as a manageable and relatively comfortable setup. Given the asymmetrical layout of the dorms, the beds often created smaller clusters within the room. These smaller cohorts have the potential to become support networks or pain points, depending on the chemistry of the group. Several guests noted an appreciation for and closeness to their immediate dormmates. One guest motioned to the bunks near his bed, saying “Wherever we go next, we just want to stay together!” Staff acknowledged the tension between overseeing too many beds in one room and too many individual rooms. Rescue Mission staff explained that 75-100 beds in a single room could be manageable provided that the space was open with clear sightlines. Staff and guests largely support the creation of separate dorms and amenity spaces to meet the diverse needs of guests. Staff and guests described the presenting needs and objectives of reserve bed guests being generally different than guests of the overflow program. Rescue Mission guests described clear apprehension around sharing personal space with overflow guests, as illustrated by one guest who noted the conern that “they’ll steal anything just to get high.” As such and as noted above, it is important for those programs to have separate sleeping areas, bathrooms, and dedicated amenity spaces. Within the reserve bed program, separate dorm spaces were suggested for those representing different levels of substance use and recovery, individuals who are working (possibly non-traditional shifts), individuals with heightened health needs and related equipment, and individuals who do not get along and need to be separated. As one service provider noted about working guests who desire an earlier lights-out time, “mixing would be disruptive to the community.” Smaller rooms were also requested for transgender and nonbinary guests who do not feel safe in the dorms, individuals with presenting health issues or in quarantine, couples (should that be a service provided by the Rescue Mission), and escalated guests. One staff member identified the utility of a smaller 425 Section D, Item 1. removed dorm room with easy access to the front entrance, which could serve guests transported in the middle of the night by police (particularly during the winter) and guests with emergency medical issues awaiting care. It is important to note that some service providers in the community described potential benefits around creating more integrated programs in which longer-term and shorter-term emergency shelter guests share spaces and in doing so enjoy opportunities to learn from, encourage, and inspire one another. The current setup for overflow shelter, which shares space with the dining room, creates a hectic daily sequence for staff and guests at the Rescue Mission. Immediately following dinner service, the tables and chairs are stowed away, the floor is swept and mopped, and the overflow mats are brought out. By 8:00 am, the mats are put away and the tables and chairs are brought back out for the day. This daily ritual is grueling and labor intensive. Furthermore, there two bathrooms in the overflow space are also used by reserve bed guests in the closest dorm, which can result in long wait times. The microwave also lives in the dining room, forcing reserve bed guests to pass through the overflow space. For numerous reasons, staff and guests identified pass-through traffic in the overflow space and the mixing of reserve and overflow program guests as problematic. As such, both staff and guests vehemently requested that overflow beds not share space with the dining area and that reserve bed guests and overflow guests have spaces that are distinct and separate from one another. Other considerations for the overflow space include a way to manage necessary pass-through traffic between mats (which can promote conflict and reports of theft) and sufficient outlets for widespread device charging (sporadically located near mats if possible). As one guest noted, “It’s not good to leave in morning without a charged phone.” The storage of belongings for overflow guests was also discussed in detail. The location of the lockers along a wall adjacent to the sleeping area was described as ideal for easy access through the night. However, staff also discussed the potential of a separate entrance for overflow guests where the majority of their belongings would be stored, and one bag would be allowed into the sleeping area. One staff expressed a belief that this would support increased safety and sanitation. DAY CENTER This research raised questions in the community about the role that the envisioned Rescue Mission day center would play in relation to the city’s broader network of service provision and, specifically, the day center services provided by the Murphy Center. Service providers and clients wanted to understand the objective of the envisioned Rescue Mission day center, the gaps that the day center would seek to fill in the existing service provision landscape, and who the Rescue Mission envisioned as the intended audience for day center services. Ultimately, service providers concluded that there is enough need in Fort Collins for broad- based services for the unhoused and precariously housed community that any new offerings would relieve pressure on the overall system. Staff members at the Murphy Center described being overwhelmed by the number of people seeking services and at times being unable to offer resource navigation to all interested individuals. One staff member noted, “There is no duplicate service [the Rescue Mission] could offer that I would feel like ‘yeah, that’s already being handled in the community.’” 426 Section D, Item 1. Several service providers agreed that, should the envisioned Rescue Mission day center focus on serving the wrap-around needs of their reserve bed and overflow shelter guests (largely unhoused men), it could free up other service providers to respond to the needs of underserved groups in the community, including women, families, youth, those who identify as LGBTQ+, and those who are precariously housed. The Murphy Center noted that they were certainly not serving everyone and could be a place that was difficult, in terms of safety and comfort, for women and LGBTQ+ guests in particular. Furthermore, service providers and clients were clear that the Rescue Mission was not a place where they would like to see families with minor children being directly served, particularly as dedicated resources are available in the community for this group. Rather, clear referral channels with transportation services are needed so that families with children can be immediately connected to appropriate services. It is important to note that service providers shared a view on an unrestricted, no-wrong-door approach of service provision, in which individuals could seek services wherever they felt most comfortable. For example, guests of the Rescue Mission would not have to seek services at the onsite day center; rather, it was expected that some may choose to seek services elsewhere. A network of service provision that offers different types of spaces for different presenting needs and preferences was described as responsive and ideal. Severe weather, during both cold winter and hot summer months, is a key consideration for emergency shelter providers. Now that the Rescue Mission is open 24/7, in response to the pandemic, they do not have the capacity to provide extended daytime shelter services to overflow guests. The Murphy Center does currently extend daytime hours during severe hot and cold weather. However, additional severe weather shelter, both during the day and overnight, is needed in Fort Collins. The potential of the envisioned Rescue Mission day center to expand the community’s severe weather response (both during the day and overnight) was noted as a significant potential contribution. The unhoused community needs a dedicated daytime space both for doing – that is, seeking resources and connecting with service providers - as well as being – that is, resting and recentering in a safe and comfortable setting. Furthermore, participants reported a desire for the envisioned day center to feature a series of more intimate, smaller spaces, rather than one large chaotic open area. Individual areas were described as representing a spectrum of needs from more active spaces (such as exercise room/track, art room/workshop, and barbershop/salon) to more calm spaces (such as a library, computer lab, and napping room). Sleep was identified as a major unmet need for the unhoused community, emphasizing this challenge among those actively using substances and in recovery from substance use in particular. Service providers highlighted the need for dedicated quiet space where guests could rest during the day in a safe, dignified manner – rather than falling asleep on the floor of a large room where people step over them as they move through the building. Empowerment was also identified as an aim or outcome of the space, with service providers imagining spaces where people could do their own laundry, prepare their own food, access supplies as needed, and broadly exercise choice. Several challenges were raised in discussions of self-service laundry and kitchens, highlighting the need to think through the design of these spaces in conjunction with service provision and operations. 427 Section D, Item 1. 11 Service providers and guests identified several offerings that would be helpful in the envisioned day center. These supports include the following: •Meals (breakfast, lunch, dinner) as well as to-go food options •Public showers and hygiene items •Laundry and clothing •Mail services •Case management •Employment services, including resume support and a job board •ID replacement •Computers, printers, and technology support •Phones in a semi-private setting •Onsite Human Services and benefits assistance •Disability resources •Legal and justice system services, including offices for parole, probation, and public defenders as well as an ad hoc courtroom •Library services with available books •Housing navigation •Abundant outlets and phone charging stations that carefully consider seating and security for owners •Short-term bag check for guests seeking services that day •Longer-term large-scale storage •Art room or workshop for creative activities •Kitchen for food preparation as well as kitchenette for guest use (including microwave and coffee bar) •Vending machines (offering beverages, snacks, hygiene, and medical supplies) •Napping room (with dedicated beds and dimmable lights) •Barbershop/salon (as one guest noted, “When you’re homeless, you don’t have a chance to be pampered.”) •Safe zones for women, transgender, and nonbinary guests only •Dedicated space for support groups, recovery groups (such as AA and NA), spiritual activities, life skills classes (on topics such as budgeting, banking, taxes, debt management, job searches, resume creation, self-defense, CPR, first aid, GED, drivers’ education), and other trainings and events •Dedicated de-escalation and mindfulness spaces •Open offices that can be used by other external service providers as well as guests needing space for private meetings, such as telehealth and GED testing •Dedicated pet space, including indoor pet relief stations and kennels where guests can secure animals during the day •Intentional outdoor space with adequate shaded seating, dedicated smoking areas, outdoor toilets, hammocks, secure bike parking, and gardens •Adequate parking for staff, volunteers, and guests 428 Section D, Item 1. • Access to major bus lines and a walkable location as well as shuttle services providing direct transport to key partner locations (as transportation has been identified as a major service barrier) • Mental health services • Substance use, recovery, and harm reduction supports • Comprehensive healthcare services Many service providers have identified this development as a critical opportunity to co-locate healthcare services onsite, or even a full healthcare clinic, given the large-scale purpose-built day center envisioned for this building and the plan to increase the overall shelter capacity. Emphasizing the need for onsite healthcare services, one service provider stressed, “If they don’t do healthcare in this space, I’d say we missed it again. It’s a best practice to embed these services in spaces where people seek safety and shelter…The community would be remiss if we didn’t do it this time when we have the opportunity to build something from ground up.” Another service provider urged, “If you’re going to build it, build something to sufficiently meet the need - high quality, respectful care for a population that so desperately needs it…Every other day of the week they get scraps. What would it look like if we did it the right way and dedicated space to their health?” The healthcare needs of the city’s unhoused community are not being met by a longshot. The local healthcare system is currently bogged down by massive patient backlogs and waitlists numbering into the 100s. As such, individuals are using emergency rooms to stabilize immediate presenting needs. However, service providers explain that people are being discharged into conditions where they are unable to recover, exacerbating and prolonging the initial issue. Furthermore, transportation was identified as another major barrier to accessing healthcare services, given Fort Collin’s limited transit system. For these reasons, service providers strongly recommended that the Rescue Mission consider co-locating healthcare services alongside shelter and other basic supports, such as hygiene, food, and case management. They noted the importance of continuity of care where treatment can be managed and maintained in a consistent manner. Services providers noted that the city’s large- scale temporary COVID shelter demonstrated several benefits associated with co-locating shelter and healthcare services and the potential of community partners to work together to provide this coordinated service. If this is to be replicated in the new Rescue Mission, service providers stressed the importance of healthcare services being low barrier, easy to access, and highly visible. Providers suggested multiple entrances that would encourage internal access for shelter guests while welcoming non-shelter guests through an external entrance. Service providers strongly recommended a comprehensive healthcare center that could manage a variety of patient needs. Key offerings suggested for this potential healthcare space are as follows: basic wound care; diabetes care; vaccinations; behavioral health services, which provide mental health services in conjunction with medical care; dedicated showers and footbaths for patients to use before exams and staff to use after exams; substance use referral and treatment; classes on CPR and first aid; Naloxone for treating overdoses; occupational and physical therapy, with attention to diabetes and lost limbs; and dental care services. Medication storage and management was also raised as a critical medical service, given that medications are often stolen on the streets. Providers raised the potential of UC Health and the Health District to be involved in the planning and operations of this space and supported exploration 429 Section D, Item 1. of these partnerships. Additionally, Medicaid dollars were identified as a potential funding stream. Finally, if a healthcare center is not possible at this stage, service providers suggested the inclusion of a generic multipurpose space that can be developed into a dedicated center at a later date. There were many recommendations that the shelter and day center support a dedicated focus around serving individuals with high medical needs. This includes designing with oxygen users in mind – that is, sleeping areas for guests using and storing oxygen tanks as well as a place for individuals to store empty tanks for pick-up and delivery. Accessibility is critical to ensure that all individuals are able to walk or roll into and around the space. GUEST COMMON SPACES Many of the spaces in the new building are envisioned to be interconnected. This section describes common areas that may be used by shelter guest only, such as living space and laundry, as well as areas for both shelter guests and guests of the day shelter, including a dining room, chapel, outdoor space, and bathrooms. The current Rescue Mission offers limited amenity space for guests who desire additional supportive spaces to engage in both active and calming activities. The dining room is open during the day, and some guests described spending time there playing cards with others and hanging out. However, this space is not available during late night and early morning hours when overflow guests are present. Guests reported needing a late-night space where they can take a minute to decompress after a late work shift or for those who struggle to sleep at night, particularly those with a history of trauma and night terrors. Guests also described frustrations around the current laundry setup in which each dorm more or less has its own washer and dryer that are constantly in use. As such, they requested a large, dedicated laundry space with more machines to accommodate all reserve bed guests. They also raised a question about overflow guests being able to do their laundry onsite. A small courtyard provides another amenity space where guests can smoke, play chess (which is currently very popular), and connect with one another. Guests described the courtyard as needing more seating, more shade, and designated smoking areas, as the current setup is difficult for those who cannot be around smoke. Additionally, some noted that older guests as well as those with health issues are struggling with the heat and air quality (both outdoors and indoors) and desperately need accessible, comfortable spaces where they can rest and recreate. Given the lack of amenity space, many guests spend time on their beds, which some noted did not support their mental health. At the start of the pandemic, the chapel was converted into an additional dorm. Guests and staff noted this as a major loss for the Rescue Mission and an important place of solace and comfort for guests of the shelter program. As one person noted, “It’s important that everybody has a quiet space.” Additionally, the chapel facilitates a broader social network that has the potential to support guests when they leave the shelter. Guests expressed the desire for additional amenity space in the new building, including smaller living rooms adjacent to the individual dorms; a large recreation room with a television and games (like darts, ping pong, pool, chess, and card tables); a community room for groups and meetings; a workout room 430 Section D, Item 1. (with equipment, not hand weights, for safety reasons) and track around the property; and expanded outdoor space with “shade shade shade,” enclosed bike racks (which feel safer inside the courtyard), picnic tables, grills, a basketball court and other outdoor games (like cornhole, horseshoes, and bocci ball), green space (like grass, flowers, and a garden), and a small water feature. Staff expressed concerns about these types of spaces making the Rescue Mission “too comfortable” for guests and challenges managing appropriate television content. As for an outdoor space, staff stressed the need to secure the outdoor perimeter to limit drug trafficking. The existing kitchen and dining room setup presents endless challenges for staff and volunteers attempting to serve daily meals to over 100 individuals. Currently, the kitchen serves three meals – breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Prior to COVID, a single meal service moved people through a buffet line. Staff describes this resulting in a chaotic dining room scene. Now the kitchen is pre-plating meals and can serve 2-3 rounds of 20 guests each. Staff report that this system is much more efficient and easier to manage. The current kitchen is cramped, inadequately equipped, and directly along the path from the staff back offices to the rest of the building, which can be unsafe and chaotic. The kitchen team has requested consideration of the following features in a new space: at least 2 stoves with a 30 foot hood; a large walk-in freezer and pantry with several shelves; a mop sink, prep sink, 3-compartment sink, and 2 handwashing sinks (so 5-7 drains total); FRP panels on all the walls; a dedicated bathroom for kitchen staff; a dedicated office with 1-2 desks and a window directly into the kitchen space; a finished concrete floor (instead of grout which collects dirt); and air conditioning. The kitchen currently has external storage for large paper products and other items, which may still be helpful; however, a closer and temperature-controlled location is preferred. In terms of the dining room, guests requested 24/7 access to a microwave (especially for those working a non- traditional schedule and needing to eat when they return to the shelter), a toaster, real utensils (instead of plastic), the ability to enjoy a cold beverage (via refrigerator access, ice machines, or vending machines), and a menu for dietary restrictions (such as a low-sugar diabetic diet). Additional and improved bathroom space is needed across the property. Guests expressed the need for more toilets and showers throughout and shower doors instead of curtains, though staff have explicitly asked that shower doors be unlockable (with a master key) in the event of a medical emergency. Guests also suggested accessibility features in all shower units, given that many current guests could benefit from grab bars, benches, hoses, and non-slip surfaces. An oversized shower unit is essential for wheelchair accessibility and must provide ample space for individuals to roll their chair and belongings into the shower, close the door behind them, move from their chair onto the bench, and potentially do so with a second person assisting them in this space. Furthermore, bathrooms across the property need to be gender inclusive and consider a diversity of identities and safety and comfort levels. Guests expressed an appreciation for bathrooms near the dorms; however, bathrooms in the dorms and immediately near individual beds is not desirable given light, noise, and traffic. Additionally, the overflow shelter has two individual bathrooms, which guests described as constantly occupied, often for substance use. This should be considered in the design of the new building. 431 Section D, Item 1. ADMINISTRATIVE SPACES The Rescue Mission staff is clearly dedicated to the organization’s mission and guests and continues to make do with the available resources and spatial constraints. When asked about their day-to-day work, one staff member said “duct tape and pray” with a laugh. They described an active, ever-changing environment that requires them to remain vigilant and responsive to whatever may arise. Staff reported feeling mostly safe in the space but welcomed greater security measures, including comprehensive interior and exterior camera coverage, better lighting in and around the property, and a more secure entryway with a locked vestibule, controlled door access, and dedicated de-escalation space for relocating heightened guests away from the front desk and flow of traffic. Staff described the front entrance being intentionally discrete and avoiding a line-up or gathering of guests out front. The maintenance team described ongoing challenges of maintaining the space in anticipation of one day moving into a new building. Constant plumbing, electrical, and roofing issues are made more difficult without a dedicated workshop or adequate workspace to access supplies and tools as needed. Furthermore, staff do not have a dedicated space to take a break from the nonstop demands of the job. They described a staff-only space separate from guests and visitors where they can enjoy their lunch without being asked to serve someone. Other wish list items included a staff fridge and kitchenette to heat their meals, a beverage station, tables for eating or meeting, additional comfortable seating, windows to “look off into the distance” with a view of something green, and restrictions on the room becoming overflow storage space. Rescue Mission staff need significantly more dedicated space for private individual offices, shared workstations, and meeting space. Staff spaces are currently serving all of these roles in a way that compromises privacy, efficiency, and peace of mind. Private offices are needed for the Director of the Fort Collins Rescue Mission and case managers meeting with guests. Case managers have also raised the potential of dedicated smoking areas adjacent to case management offices, given the tendency of resulting discussions to be stress inducing. Staff specifically requested offices with sightlines into the guest dorms, with guests requesting additional security in these areas as well. Dedicated and separate office space has been requested for kitchen staff (adjacent to the kitchen) and the facilities team (adjacent to a storage/workshop space) as well. Additional shared workstations are needed for other staff members, floating Rescue Mission leadership who occasionally work onsite, and volunteers. A large conference room is also needed for regular all-staff meetings and trainings. In sum, staff areas would ideally include the following: a large administrative area with individual and shared office and meeting space, a front desk, additional staff offices adjacent to guest dorms, and separate office space for kitchen and facilities staff. The administrative area should consider the following features: a central communication and volunteer check-in station, staff mailboxes and package storage, adequate storage for office supplies, and a dedicated staff bathroom. Limited storage presents an ongoing challenge for staff at the Rescue Mission. Staff offices are overrun with supplies that have overwhelmed limited shelf and drawer space. Delivered packages are stacked in piles without a clear home. A small donation table is regularly inundated with bags that spill into walkways and common areas, particularly during the 432 Section D, Item 1. holidays and spring-cleaning season. The server closet doubles as storage for cleaning supplies, which staff described as undesirable and toxic given the high temperature of the room. Staff laundry machines are inconveniently located in one of the dorms adjacent to the bathroom, resulting in uncomfortable exchanges. Furthermore, four external sheds at the edge of the parking lot provide overflow storage for kitchen goods, toiletries, bedding, clothing, and maintenance supplies. For many of the contents, exposure to extreme heat and cold is not ideal. Thus, dedicated, built-in, lockable storage is needed throughout the building. Additionally, donations require a separate drop-off, processing, storage, and distribution area. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS Additional safety and accessibility measures across the property were requested by Rescue Mission staff and guests. This included greater interior and exterior camera coverage in all spaces except the bathrooms, improved interior and exterior lighting (emphasizing spaces around the perimeter of the building and parking lot), attention to visibility and sightlines in all spaces across the property, and attention to wayfinding and signage across the property. As one staff noted, “Cameras need to hit every spot.” Some guests also requested 24/7 onsite security walking the property and positioned at a dedicated station. Accessibility was also broadly raised by participants of this research who highlighted the need to acknowledge the health and mobility needs of the unhoused community when designing sleeping areas (ex. access to outlets; oxygen use; space for wheelchairs; access to bunk beds), bathrooms (ex. grab bars, benches, and hoses in showers; space for wheelchairs and assistance, slip-resistant flooring), and amenity spaces (ex. wide hallways and pathways through dorms and dining areas, smooth flooring and entryways, designated smoking areas). Bathrooms must be gender inclusive and attend to diverse safety and comfort needs. Finally, signage should account for different literacy levels and spoken languages. The envisioned entry sequence of the new building must be carefully considered in the design. Currently, the front desk is used to check in both reserve bed and overflow guests. This space is tight and can bottleneck easily, particularly in the event of an incident at the front door. Staff and guests have discussed distinct spaces and potentially separate entrances in the new building for guests of the reserve bed and overflow shelter programs. Guests suggested a system in which reserve bed guests are issued ID cards that can be scanned quickly at the front desk or even used as key cards to enter a locked front door. Rescue Mission staff and service providers also raised the potential protocol of checking bags at the front entrance and storing the bags of overflow guests overnight. Service providers noted that bag checking protocols require a few semi-private stations at the front desk to efficiently process large flows of traffic. The storage of bags for overflow guests would also require the design of secure storage space (i.e., lockers) at the front entrance. Additionally, the envisioned day center must be considered in the entry sequence. As noted above, staff would like to see vestibules, controlled door access, and de-escalation spaces integrated into the design of the new building’s entryways. 433 Section D, Item 1. The existing parking lot is too small to meet the needs of staff, volunteers, and guests. Guests are not allowed to park in the lot. With expensive 2-hour parking surrounding the current Rescue Mission, guests must park blocks away, which can be particularly difficult given mobility and health issues coupled with inclement weather. Assessing the current parking demand, several staff estimate that 40-50 spaces are needed (20-25 staff and volunteers plus another 10-20 guest vehicles). Furthermore, the Rescue Mission operates a few vehicles, including large vans and trucks. Staff requested separate parking areas for staff and guests. Additionally, related to the future parking lot, staff suggested a dedicated donation drop-off station, a small loading zone (with double-door access into the building) for the facilities team to move large equipment, and space for parking large trucks (such as a mobile library or food truck). Residents of the Hickory Village neighborhood, the site envisioned for the relocation of the new Rescue Mission, voiced significant concerns about the development. The primary concern centers around safety and fears about the new Rescue Mission inviting increased traffic and crime into the area. Families expressed heightened fear for the safety of their children. Residents cited this dynamic playing out in a local park where large numbers of unhoused individuals now gather following their displacement from a different part of town. As such, participants requested strict security measures at the new Rescue Mission, including 24/7 dedicated security staff (possibly in partnership with the city’s police department to provide increased coverage in the area), sufficient exterior camera coverage, sufficient exterior lighting (which was described as already limited in this part of town), a surrounding fence, and organizational policies limiting loitering around the building. Participants representing the neighborhood noted a history of neglect experienced by residents who have long requested resources and development in this part of town. They described inadequate communication with the neighborhood about the project and insufficient efforts to hear from members of the existing community within which the new Rescue Mission would be situated. Participants suggested that some type of impact report be conducted and published about the impact of the new Rescue Mission on the surrounding neighborhood (in terms of safety and other indicators). Given the large Spanish-speaking population in this area, efforts (or lack thereof) to communicate information in Spanish are essential. Some participants expressed deep appreciation for efforts to address the needs of the local unhoused population. However, this did not detract from the coexisting experience of the current community feeling overlooked and underserved in the face of major investments to serve another underserved group. One service provider described the future building communicating the following message: “Look, this is where all the money in this community is going.” Another service provider further articulated concerns about this disconnect: “I would be really pissed off and really upset to see a building that looks so much nicer than the rest of the community. Is it going to say, ‘Look, we have so much power here!’?” Finally, efforts to educate the surrounding neighborhood about the issue and experience of homelessness were encouraged by both local residents and services providers. However, it was emphasized that this must be a two-way discussion in which both parties attempt to hear and learn from one another. When asked about additional resources that could be useful in the neighborhood, participants described a multiuse, multicultural, community-led hub that offers recreation and event space for all. Other suggestions included affordable housing, childcare, 434 Section D, Item 1. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Several design recommendations are described in detail in the above “Findings” section, as they reflect input directly delivered by participants during the data collection process. This section may not cover all details described above. However, those elements should also be taken into consideration in the design of the new Rescue Mission. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS • Clear sightlines should be the aim for all indoor and outdoor spaces, including basements, stairwells, entryways, and parking. As noted by a guest of the Rescue Mission, “There’s not one straight line in whole place,” making it difficult to monitor all spaces. Cameras should be strategically positioned to eliminate blind spots across the property. If possible, ensure outdoor areas can be monitored from a front desk or staff area. • Entryways are critical spaces that set the tone for new guests, staff, and visitors. They also provide essential security functions. Seek opportunities for the front entrance(s) to be low barrier with a design that makes it clear to someone approaching for the first time what they are walking into. A vestibule is recommended for high-traffic areas like the shelter and day center, providing staff an opportunity to check in with guests before admitting them into the building. Controlled and remote door access is important for staff. Key cards or fobs could provide easy access for staff and approved guests to bypass vestibule access. Visibility and clear sightlines, using windows and cameras, are critical for safely monitoring entryways and building access. Carefully consider the design implications of bag check and bag storage policies upon entry. • All spaces should support wayfinding through clear, accessible signage (i.e., large print, strategic placement, color contrasting). Allowing guests to know where they are going without having to ask people supports feelings of empowerment and calm. Additionally, distinctive colors can be used on particular floors, in dedicated wings, or on doors to help ground guests in disoriented or dissociative states. • Soundproofing must be prioritized to ensure privacy and confidentiality in office and meeting spaces as well as noise regulation in sleeping areas, bathrooms, and communal areas. • Natural, biophilic elements should be incorporated in all spaces, including organic building materials and furniture, windows with intentional views of nature, plants, and imagery. Avoid institutional materials, particularly in amenity spaces (ex. fluorescent lights, ceiling tiles, cinder blocks, concrete, and stainless steel). • Adjustable lighting is recommended for every room, including staff offices and amenity spaces, to support various visibility and light sensitivity needs. Natural lighting supports circadian rhythm regulation and connection to nature; however, blackout shades are then critically important (particularly in sleeping quarters) to ensure darkness can be achieved when desired. • Accessibility in every space must be considered. This includes elevator access, front door access, extra wide hallways, unobstructed and nonslip flooring (i.e., no rugs), grab 435 Section D, Item 1. bars and nonslip mats in bathrooms, benches and hoses in showers, and adequate clearance around corners and through entryways for individuals using mobility devices. Furniture must be able to accommodate assistive devices and size diversity, including tables that can be raised for wheelchairs and chairs without arms. • Bathrooms can be hotspots in shelters. Ensure that occupants have enough space to utilize them without feeling as though they are on top of one other. Bathrooms must be gender inclusive and varied to consider diverse safety and comfort needs. • Ample storage space and organizational supports are always needed among staff and guests in all spaces. Consider multifunctional furniture, such as beds with built-in drawers and shelving to maximize storage space. • Secure and ideally covered parking should be considered to meet the year-round accessibly and security needs of staff and guests, giving careful consideration to those with physical and mobility impairments as well as local weather conditions. • A dedicated heat treatment room is needed to address large-scale bedbug management. • An intercom system can be helpful in large buildings for making important announcements. At very least, an intercom system is needed for the day center to make relevant daily announcements. • Consider the location of a rear loading zone for kitchen and general building supplies as well as discrete passageway for emergency medical services. • Furniture throughout the building must be commercial grade and able to withstand extreme use. • Water fountains with water bottle filling stations should be readily available for guests, staff, volunteers, and visitors. • A sufficient number of outlets will be critical throughout the building, particularly in any spaces serving guests (including the dorms, day center, indoor and outdoor amenity spaces, and staff offices). • Consider decorative elements that resonate with occupants of the space, such as artwork created by guests, photographs of local historic sites, and accessible natural imagery. For example, one service provider described a setting decorated with elite mountainscapes and questioned whether shelter guests would connect to settings that representing a degree of exclusivity and inaccessibility. • Mop closets are needed in every building and on every floor to support ongoing maintenance of the space, given high occupant volumes and extreme use. 436 Section D, Item 1. EMERGENCY SHELTER • In dorms, there is always a push and pull between safety and privacy for guests. See if there are ways to create smaller rooms throughout the dorms with cubicle walls that allow staff walking around to see all guests in the shelter but allow guests to feel like they aren’t looking out onto 100 other people. • In the dorms, built-in storage and shelves should be considered for management of clutter and personal items, including a lockable compartment for valuable items. Ideally, each guest would have access to a locker with a programmable code. It must provide suitable storage space for an individual’s belongings, including wallets, IDs, important paperwork, electronic devices, and toiletries (as was raised in the research). • Avoid bunkbeds if at all possible. Denver Rescue Mission reflected to us that when they shifted from bunk beds to traditional beds, they saw a significant reduction in escalations among shelter guests. Ideally, each bed would have 1) personal storage, 2) outlets for electronic devices and essential medical equipment, and 3) a reading light. • Create dedicated overflow space with mats and lockers, ideally space that does not require setup and breakdown each day and does not impact other programs seeking to take place. • All sleeping areas need two points of entry/exit and multiple pathways for managing traffic. • A few individual dorm rooms (with either 1 or 2 beds) can serve multiple functions, including providing specific space for transgender or nonbinary guests who do not feel safe in congregate dorm settings, individuals with presenting health issues or in quarantine, couples (should that be a service provided by the Rescue Mission), and escalated guests. Rooms with easy access to the front entrance may be useful for guests transported in the middle of the night by police or guests with emergency medical issues awaiting emergency medical services. Given the potential use of these rooms to address illness warranting quarantine, they should be equipped with separate bathrooms and appropriate ventilation systems. 437 Section D, Item 1. DAY CENTER Numerous spaces were suggested for the day center and are outlined in detail above. Some of these spaces are highlighted in greater detail here. • Design several small common areas versus one large milieu space, which is likely to be chaotic, noisy, and triggering for guests. • It could be helpful to design the day center with offices adjacent to common areas, with sightlines into shared spaces. This establishes a low barrier, accessible environment and fosters organic interactions between service providers and guests as they are all moving through the space. Additionally, by sprinkling service providers throughout the space, it creates an environment where staff with different skills and competencies can be responsive should a situation arise anywhere in the center. • It is important to consider noise levels and traffic immediately outside of service provider offices, depending on the layout and capacity of the adjacent common space. Mental health service providers at one site described deliberately scheduling appointments in the afternoon when the space is quieter and less stressful. Service providers at another site offer wellness services in a section of the building intentionally designated as a calm space in recognition of guest safety and comfort needs. • Ample external service provider spaces (suggestions ranged from 5 to 15) are envisioned for the day center as well as open offices for guests to reserve for telehealth or other private meetings. These spaces should include a range of comfortable seating, outlets, surfaces for writing and electronic devices, and space for guests’ belongings. • A larger meeting space is needed for groups, workshops, trainings, and classes held onsite. These rooms should be equipped with projectors and screens, comfortable and inclusive seating, and tables that can be easily moved around to accommodate different meeting formats. • A comprehensive primary healthcare center purpose-built for this site would ideally have 3-4 exam rooms around an open bullpen where the medical team can easily pop in and out from room to room. The 4 exams rooms would allow 2 to be dedicated to medical care and behavioral health services, 1 for labs, and 1 for ancillary services (which may include podiatry, occupational health, dental, and psychiatry). Ideally, the healthcare center would also have dedicated bathrooms with showers and footbaths for guests and staff, ample storage, a de-escalation room nearby, and discrete access to an exit should emergency medical services be needed. • It is critical that the day center be as welcoming, accessible, and low-barrier as possible. Therefore, large interior and exterior windows will be important for reserve bed and overflow guests staying at the Rescue Mission as well as external visitors to see inside and get a feel for the space before entering. • Lockable cabinets and drawers are needed throughout the space. External service providers will want to keep supplies and materials onsite, provided that they can securely store those items. • Designate an area for sleeping at all times of the day for those not in the shelter. This could be quiet, low-light section of the day center or a dedicated napping room. 438 Section D, Item 1. • Consider an active space for exercise, stretching, and general movement for both guests and staff. It was suggested that such a space feature equipment versus free weights, which could be used as weapons. Additionally, an onsite track would allow for movement and could be designed with interesting features (alternate paths, movement patterns, textures underfoot, sensory features, movement instructions). This space could also be used, as other shelters have, for group meditation or morning quiet. • Provide a small 24/7 kitchenette where guests can access a microwave, beverage bar, and potentially other supplies. • Provide short-term storage for day use (while people are attending to various needs) as well as longer-term larger-scale storage. • Create spaces for pet care, including areas where animals can relieve themselves and kennels where animals can be kept when guests are utilizing services, if needed. • Guests and staff requested vending machines. Consider affordable snacks and beverages as well as hygiene and medical items (a common practice in public health). GUEST COMMON SPACES • A kitchen serving the volume of guests envisioned for the new Rescue Mission would contain at least 2 stoves with a 30 foot hood space; a large walk-in freezer and pantry with several shelves; a mop sink, prep sink, 3-compartment sink, and 2 handwashing sinks (so 5-7 drains total); FRP panels on all the walls; a dedicated bathroom for kitchen staff; a dedicated office with 1-2 desks and a window directly into the kitchen space; a finished concrete floor (instead of grout which collects dirt); and air conditioning. • Staff have requested that the dining room seat no more than 100 guests at a time as a matter of staff coverage and crowd control. Also, design the dining room as a potential space for emergency severe weather shelter. • Design smaller living rooms adjacent to the dorms with computers and workstations, bookshelves, comfortable seating, card tables, and televisions that can be used not only for leisure purposes but also during groups, workshops, and trainings. • A large communal laundry room is needed for each floor of dorms. • Outdoor spaces need to consider a diverse range of guest needs, including designated smoking areas; ample shade and coverage from the elements; comfortable, inclusive seating options (including a hammock); surfaces for writing; several outlets; space for intimate, contemplative activities like chess and dominoes; more active outlets like basketball and horseshoes; a semi-private seating where 1-on-1 meetings can occur; and greenery, including trees, sections of grass, and a community garden. • Create outdoor spaces with clear sightlines to staff spaces to support a sense of safety and security across the property. Furthermore, outdoor areas should be securely fenced in for safety and privacy. However, chain-link fences can exude a cold, institution feel. Consider fencing made of natural materials which employ decorate design elements. • It is important that guests have 24/7 access to outdoors spaces, particularly for those attempting to regulate with fresh air, movement, and smoking. • Design bike storage inside the courtyard with a direct but still secure access point. Indoor space for bike maintenance would also be helpful. 439 Section D, Item 1. ADMINISTRATIVE SPACES • All office and meeting spaces should attend to soundproofing, visibility, and natural lighting whenever possible. • Flexibility is a priority for office spaces. There are a variety of staff and volunteer roles at the Rescue Mission. Access to private and/or shared workspace as well as meeting space must be available as needed. • Create a few informal meeting rooms that can accommodate anywhere from 2 to 6 people that staff can use as needed to meet privately with guests, one other, other service providers, or to have a quiet place to respond to work demands. • In addition to individual offices or workstations, ensure there is a large conference room or classroom that can fit the entire staff for meetings, trainings, and other gatherings. This room should be outfitted with a projector and comfortable seating. • It is important that staff have their own breakroom to ensure their vicarious trauma is tended to. This needs to be a space where staff can decompress, take breaks, store and heat meals. This can also be a place for staff and volunteers to securely store their belongings. • The facilities team needs a secure, ground-level storage space and workshop for large equipment, such as table saws and floor burnishers. Ideally, this space would be directly accessible through an exterior garage door or in close proximity to a small loading zone with double-door access. An adjacent office space is needed for 1-2 staff desks and secure storage of smaller equipment, such as diagnostic and hand tools. These would be highly secure spaces, given the tools and equipment stored within. However, mop closets stationed across the property would need to be designed for regular public access, given that guests are doing chores on a daily basis. • Dedicated areas are needed for high-volume donation drop-offs, processing, storage, and distribution. Ideally, a centrally located room near staff offices would provide ample space and built-in organizational capacity for processing, storing, and distributing hygiene, clothing, and other items. Staff have requested that this room be designed with some type of window or half door for managing distribution. It would also be convenient if guests had a private area to try on clothes as needed. 440 Section D, Item 1. DENVER RESCUE MISSION TID OVERVIEW In April 2022, Shopworks Architecture and the Center for Housing and Homelessness Research at the University of Denver interviewed guests and staff at Denver Rescue Mission to inform the permanent supportive housing and shelter designs for the renovation of the Volunteers of America family motels in Denver. In total, the research team interviewed 42 Denver Rescue Mission community members, including 21 guests and 21 staff that represent Denver Rescue Mission’s various locations. Recognizing significant differences between Fort Collins and Denver, there were still relevant findings from the Denver Rescue Mission that may inform planning for the Fort Collins Rescue Mission shelter and day center. Below are themes highlighted by guests and staff throughout the Denver Rescue Mission TID assessment process: • Across the board, guests were eager to share their gratitude for the organization and the services provided to meet their needs. Staff overwhelmingly shared their appreciation and satisfaction for the work they do at Denver Rescue Mission and the population they serve. • Entrances pose several safety concerns for both staff and guests at both locations. Adding vestibules, covered waiting areas, and strategic check-in systems should be considered for all locations to mitigate conflict and unwanted interactions. • Limited community spaces prompt existing common-use areas, such as the cafeteria and courtyard, to be vulnerable to conflict or escalated interactions. Adding more communal and decompression spaces for guests to utilize while occupying the shelters could mitigate the concentration of individuals and resulting tensions. • Outside spaces, such as the courtyard and smoking area, provide common areas where people organically gather. Due to the concentration of use in these spaces, the outdoor area should be able to comfortably accommodate non-smokers as well as provide coverage from the elements, adequate and comfortable seating, heaters (when needed), and recreational activities for meeting socialization and decompression needs. • The number of guests per dorm should be carefully considered to address the safety and comfort needs of both staff and guests. De-bunking and de-densifying spaces, capping how many guests can occupy an area, will support sightlines and help mitigate conflict. • Accessibility needs to be at the forefront of every space throughout the building. Dorms, bathrooms, outdoor spaces, entrances, hallways, and elevators need to accommodate the mobility and general access needs of guests and staff. Adequate outlet access as well as accessible surfaces and storage space are needed across the shelter for individuals using oxygen, which is common among this population. • The surrounding neighborhood of both the Downtown and 48th Ave Shelter locations pose barriers for guests. At the downtown location, guests and staff feel unsafe in the neighborhood within which it is located. At the 48th Ave Shelter location, isolation from other supportive services coupled with poor access to transportation is posing barriers for guests to meet their needs. 441 Section D, Item 1. • Guests and staff expressed the desire for varied spaces in the building, including places where people can socialize and connection with others as well as separate locations for decompression and productive individual activities. A library would provide a place to read, concentrate, and take care of business, such as filling out job applications or completing necessary benefits documentation. Recreational space to socialize, hang out, stay busy and entertained was also identified as a need. Without designated spaces to gather and connect with others, many interactions are happening in the dorms, which poses issues for guests trying to sleep or feeling unwell. Conversations take place at guest services, contributing to more traffic and unwanted congestion in this area. Conversations also happen in transit, which, while organic and welcomed, can limit the ability to dive deeply into topics or facilitate a private, trauma- informed environment for sensitive conversations. It can be helpful to design small ad hoc sitting areas throughout the building where people can pause for semi-private discussions en route to their destination. • Staff offices need to prioritize visibility, safety, and privacy. Most offices lack adequate sightlines to the rest of the building and/or offer little to no privacy. Since specific areas in the building, such as the front entrance and guest services, require a constant staff presence, staff need to be able to settle into those spaces with sightlines to high traffic areas as well as conduct private conversations with guests and other staff as needed. • Given the high volume of guests being served at both locations and dorms accommodating many guests at once, proper air ventilation and personal space need to be prioritized in communal spaces to maintain the public health needs of the guests. • The warehouse appearance of both buildings, with concrete floors and walls, can create an institutional feeling. The warehouse layout can intensify noise and echos through the space, often triggering guests and making it difficult for staff to concentrate on specific tasks or tune into important conversations. CONCLUSION The research team heard strong anticipation for this space, which the community recognizes as meeting a deep need in the community. There are also many questions throughout the community about who the intended guests are for the space, what services will be offered, and how this will integrate with other services currently available for unhoused individuals. One of the biggest concerns about the forthcoming shelter and day center relates to transportation and access and what that means for partnerships with other existing service providers. There is consensus across the Fort Collins unhoused service community (including guests and staff) that a variety of offerings within this space will be immensely beneficial. The medical community strongly advocated for the Rescue Mission to carefully consider including a space that will allow for primary physical and mental healthcare, as existing resources cannot meet the need, which is hurting the unhoused community in myriad ways and posing significant costs to the city due to a lack of preventative care. This is an exciting and intensely anticipated project that will have a significant impact on Fort Collins. Our team hopes that this report will support further defining the vision and goals for the space. 442 Section D, Item 1. Page 1 of 6 MINIMAL RISK. PAINLESS PROCESS. BEAUTIFUL SPACES. o: 970.224.5828 | w: ripleydesigninc.com RIPLEY DESIGN, INC. | 419 Canyon Avenue, Suite 200 | Fort Collins, CO 80521 November 1st, 2023 North College Corridor Plan Analysis Adopted 2007 Purpose of this plan: “Is to catalyze ongoing improvements to remove constraints and foster desirable development and redevelopment. This plan promotes development activity that strengthens relationships – such as North College Avenue to the areas behind its frontage; the corridor to Downtown; new housing to the mixed commercial/industrial setting; and development and activity to the natural environs of the river, canal corridors, and other outdoor spaces such as future drainage ways.” (PAGE iii) Existing Character: “Existing development in the corridor already has a compact scale and character, with small parcels, close driveway spacings, and opportunistic parking layouts squeezed into areas smaller than what current standards would require in terms of dimensions, setbacks from the highway, landscaped edges, and pedestrian circulation.” (PAGE 8) “In the corridor, it appears extraordinarily difficult to make significant progress toward the needed street network and other infrastructure by responding to single-lot development proposals. Many parcels have a size or access situation that makes further re/development very difficult or impossible.” (PAGE 16) Framework Plan: Shows this site as Commercial North College (C-N). “The vision and goals for continued evolution of the corridor pertain mainly to the two mixed commercial areas”, with the Commercial North College being one of them shown on the map on page 52. “In the C-N and C-C-N areas in particular, the vision and goals reflect a desire to improve the area with reinvestment and new investment, redevelopment and new development, both public and private, to address problems and deficiencies and give the area a more positive character." (PAGE 53). The framework plan clearly explains that this parcel was meant to be redeveloped with positive character and address deficiencies in the area. 443 Section D, Item 1. Page 2 of 6 MINIMAL RISK. PAINLESS PROCESS. BEAUTIFUL SPACES. o: 970.224.5828 | w: ripleydesigninc.com RIPLEY DESIGN, INC. | 419 Canyon Avenue, Suite 200 | Fort Collins, CO 80521 Vision: The Fort Collins Rescue Mission complies with the Land Use and the overall vision for the North College Corridor evolving in a manner that leads to: • More efficient use of land • Higher values • More complete public infrastructure • More economic activity • While keeping the strong sense of civic ownership that led to this plan. The vision of the plan states that “each project helps set the stage for further investment in real estate development and improvement projects in an evolutionary process. Where collaboration among multiple owners and City departments is necessary for changes to occur and be positive, it will be an increasing attribute.” (PAGE 30) • The Fort Collins Rescue Mission project has involved collaboration among many stakeholders, including multiple City Review Departments to ensure a safe and compatible design, and in turn will be an overall positive impact on the community to help house folks in need and give them a place to be 24 hours of the day. Within the walls of one building on site, the project 444 Section D, Item 1. Page 3 of 6 MINIMAL RISK. PAINLESS PROCESS. BEAUTIFUL SPACES. o: 970.224.5828 | w: ripleydesigninc.com RIPLEY DESIGN, INC. | 419 Canyon Avenue, Suite 200 | Fort Collins, CO 80521 plans to house over 200 people and provide access to much needed services and resources. This is an efficient use of land in the corridor, while also keeping a strong sense of civic ownership in ensuring our community members have a safe, warm place to stay near the resources they need. Close coordination with the Mason Street Infrastructure Project has also occurred and will be on-going as the proposal progresses. • Goals, Policies & Strategies: “Many of the goals can only be realized with collaboration among multiple different parties, as is noted in a column listing of parties that must collaborate on each goal, included with explanations of individual goals.” (PAGE 41) • The Fort Collins Rescue Mission aligns with the goals set forth in this plan by enhancing the site and corridor through design, infrastructure, and with “collaboration and mutual understanding among multiple owners and City Departments.” (PAGE 42) Listed below are the goals and strategies to which the Fort Collins Rescue Mission aligns: More Complete Street Network: “This goal is inseparable from Access Management goals for North College Itself. It will be realized incrementally over the long term.” (PAGE 44) • Goal STN 1 - Evolve a more complete pattern of streets, drives, and alleyways forming interconnected blocks of development, serviced by public access and utilities, behind highway frontage. o STN 1.1 - Multiple objectives. In addition to access control, new infrastructure will be developed in a manner that facilitates redevelopment. • Goal STN 2 - Adapt the pattern and details of new streets to fit circumstances and facilitate development projects consistent with the vision and goals. o STN 2.1 - Collaborative Approach. City staff will collaborate with owners and developers on desirable projects which achieve vision and goals, invoking the flexibility built into city-wide street standards, as needed to foster the kinds of places that achieve the vision and goals. ▪ This project provides a community housing need that requires collaboration among stakeholders. The site is adding housing to the mix of uses that already exist in the North College Corridor. With a mix of housing and businesses, it achieves the vision of developing the corridor with a more complete street and sidewalk network. Collaboration is necessary to make it work and a mix of uses allows housing developments to help support nearby retail and in turn, retail can then support housing developments. 445 Section D, Item 1. Page 4 of 6 MINIMAL RISK. PAINLESS PROCESS. BEAUTIFUL SPACES. o: 970.224.5828 | w: ripleydesigninc.com RIPLEY DESIGN, INC. | 419 Canyon Avenue, Suite 200 | Fort Collins, CO 80521 o STN 2.2 – Other infrastructure. Utility corridors, easements, channels, and detention basins will be integrated with the network for multiple purposes (e.g. recreation, personal mobility, image and identity.) ▪ The Fort Collins Rescue Mission project will provide an updated streetscape by enhancing the landscaping along Mason Street with a mix of trees, shrubs and grasses, and pedestrian oriented plaza space, thus creating a better pedestrian experience through mobility, aesthetics and safety. Community Appearance and Design: “This goal is needed to make the most of the very special (re)development opportunity which the corridor presents, based on its location near the heart of Fort Collins; maximize lasting value from infrastructure investments, by creating interesting places w ith a comfortable neighborhood feel; and offer a distinct city counterpoint to standardized suburban development.” (PAGE 46) • Goal CAD 2 - Build up a distinct image and city character in evolving places along the corridor. o CAD 2.1 - Architecture will be the primary, most visible means of achieving the goal. City Plan already calls for architecture to respond to local context; here in the corridor, the City will seek ways to foster a distinct architectural character reflecting the v ision and unique qualities in evolving places. ▪ The design of the Fort Collins Rescue Mission aligns well with the existing surrounding buildings, but also has its own distinct character to provide a cohesive look for the corridor and reflect the unique project and building. The building is compatible with two directly adjacent properties by incorporating similar roof pitches, blending softer color palettes to blend into the adjacent neighborhood, and using patterns in the siding to mimic the surrounding building patterns. Another example of a surrounding building nearby is The Lyric Cinema (located south-east). This building has an industrial feel with corrugated metal, a slanted roof, modern features and also a welcoming outdoor space, creating a unique place where people want to be. See below for photos: 446 Section D, Item 1. Page 5 of 6 MINIMAL RISK. PAINLESS PROCESS. BEAUTIFUL SPACES. o: 970.224.5828 | w: ripleydesigninc.com RIPLEY DESIGN, INC. | 419 Canyon Avenue, Suite 200 | Fort Collins, CO 80521 As shown in the below photo, the proposed Fort Collins Rescue Mission building echoes the industrial look and feel of The Lyric Cinema adjacent properties, but also keeps distinct architectural features with wood beams and a variety of roof lines and windows. o CAD 2.2 - Character will be contemporary semi-industrial, combined with familiar, traditional Old Town and Hispanic-derived character. Durable, simple, authentic materials and design will be prevalent. Architectural design featuring exposed structural elements, brick instead of concrete block, corrugated or ribbed metal instead of artificial stucco, and a palette of colors rather than beige, will create urban places that complement Downtown and offer a distinct alternative to standardized suburban development. ▪ The building for the Fort Collins Rescue Mission has a semi-industrial character with classic touches. As mentioned in the previous section, it accomplishes this in blending styles and scales of the adjacent neighborhood and takes cues from other uniquely “North College” characteristics. Land Uses and Activity: “Multi-story buildings help make the most of the close-in opportunity offered by the corridor and infrastructure investments in it; create more synergy; create more significant architecture; and create a stronger sense of place” (PAGE 48) 447 Section D, Item 1. Page 6 of 6 MINIMAL RISK. PAINLESS PROCESS. BEAUTIFUL SPACES. o: 970.224.5828 | w: ripleydesigninc.com RIPLEY DESIGN, INC. | 419 Canyon Avenue, Suite 200 | Fort Collins, CO 80521 • Goal LU 1 - Strengthen market underpinnings and economic activity. o LU 1.1 - Synergy. Zoning, City actions, URA, and business association efforts will assist “high multiplier” uses that bring people and economic activity, and add synergy with surrounding properties. Examples include 1) dwellings, 2) stable living-wage jobs, 3) retail sales and 4) attractions. ▪ This project will provide housing for people in the community on a site that is close to services in the North College Corridor and the downtown area. The close proximity to various services, transit and businesses allows for those living there to have the best chances of success. • Goal LU 2 - Support and complement the Downtown core. o LU 2.1 - Complementary Uses. Development in the North College corridor will support Downtown with jobs and housing bringing residents and workers; will add different attractions ‘across the river’ for people who come Downtown, as Jax Outdoor does at the time of this plan; will improve the attractiveness of Fort Collins for travelers and visitors, ideally with a new or refurbished hotel; and will accommodate expansion of Downtown arts uses, especially with supporting custom small industry and workshop space. ▪ The Fort Collins Rescue Mission will provide more than 200 beds to serve the community. This site being in the North College Corridor allows residents to have easy access to resources and jobs that are available in the corridor as well as Downtown. • Goal LU 3 - Maximize multiple story buildings. o LU 3.1- The City and URA will encourage multi-story buildings, and additional height in one-story buildings, in development projects. ▪ The proposed Rescue Mission building is two stories with architectural features that create a unique variety of elevations on each side. The varied massing between the first and second stories of the building help make the scale compatible with the surrounding neighborhood context. 448 Section D, Item 1. CTL|Thompson, Inc. Denver, Fort Collins, Colorado Springs, Glenwood Springs, Pueblo, Summit County Colorado Cheyenne,Wyoming and Bozeman,Montana HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER SWC HIBDON COURT AND MASON STREET FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Prepared for: DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE 301 West 45th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80216 Attention: Chad Holtzinger Project No. FC10,520.000-125-R1 October 25, 2022 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 449 Section D, Item 1. Table of Contents DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC10,520.000-125-R1 SCOPE...................................................................................................................................... 1 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ 1 SITE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................... 2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION................................................................................................. 3 INVESTIGATION ....................................................................................................................... 4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................... 5 Natural Soil............................................................................................................................. 5 Bedrock.................................................................................................................................. 5 Groundwater........................................................................................................................... 5 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS.............................................................................................................. 6 Seismicity............................................................................................................................... 7 SITE PREPARATION ................................................................................................................ 7 Sub-Excavation ...................................................................................................................... 7 Excavation.............................................................................................................................. 8 Fill and Backfill ....................................................................................................................... 9 Stabilization............................................................................................................................ 9 Dewatering ............................................................................................................................10 Utilities...................................................................................................................................10 FOUNDATIONS........................................................................................................................11 FLOOR SYSTEMS ...................................................................................................................12 Structurally Supported Floors ................................................................................................14 Exterior Flatwork....................................................................................................................15 LATERAL LOADS.....................................................................................................................15 POND CONSTRUCTION..........................................................................................................16 PAVEMENTS............................................................................................................................17 SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE............................................................................19 CONCRETE..............................................................................................................................21 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS ........................................................................................22 GEOTECHNICAL RISK ............................................................................................................23 LIMITATIONS ...........................................................................................................................24 450 Section D, Item 1. Table of Contents, Continued DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC10,520.000-125-R1 FIG. 1 LOCATIONS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS ON GOOGLE IMAGE FIG. 1B LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS ON PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FIG. 2 GROUNDWATER DEPTH AND ELEVATION APPENDIX A SUMMARY LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST RESULTS AND TABLE B-I APPENDIX C FLEXIBLE AND RIGID PAVEMENT MATERIALS, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES 451 Section D, Item 1. DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE 1 of 24 HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC10,520.000-125-R1 SCOPE This report presents the results of our Geotechnical Investigation of the Hibdon/Mason 24/7 Shelter planned at the southwest corner of Hibdon Court and Ma- son Street in Ft. Collins, Colorado (Fig. 1). The purpose of our investigation was to eval- uate the subsurface conditions to provide geotechnical design and construction criteria for the project. The scope was described in the Service Agreement (DN 22-0318) dated July 6, 2022. Evaluation of the property for the possible presence of potentially hazard- ous materials (Environmental Site Assessment) was not included in our scope. This report was prepared from data developed during field exploration and recon- naissance, field and laboratory testing, engineering analysis of field and laboratory data, and our experience. It includes our opinions and recommendations for design criteria and construction details for foundations, floor systems, pavements, slabs-on-grade, lat- eral earth loads, and drainage precautions. Other types of construction may require re- vision of this report and the recommended design criteria. A summary of our conclu- sions and recommendations follows. Detailed design criteria are presented within the report. SUMMARY 1. Strata found in our exploratory borings consisted of about 6 to 11 feet of sandy clay over 10 to 14 feet of clayey, silty, gravelly sand and underlain by claystone bedrock. Claystone bedrock was encountered in four borings at depths of 18 to 22 feet. The clay is expansive. 2. Groundwater was encountered during drilling in all the borings at depths of 8 to 11 feet. When the test holes were checked after drilling on August 31, 2022, water was measured in five borings at depths of 8 to 9.5 feet or ap- proximate elevations 4970.5 4973 at depths of 4.5 to 8 feet. Our experience suggests groundwater may be present near depths where caving occurred. Depending on grading plans, groundwater could be encountered during utility installation. Excavations that extend near groundwater levels may necessitate stabilization and temporary construction dewatering. Groundwater may fluctuate seasonally and rise or develop in response to development, precipitation, landscape irrigation and changes in land-use. 452 Section D, Item 1. DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE 2 of 24 HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC10,520.000-125-R1 3. The presence of expansive soil constitutes a geologic hazard. There is risk that slabs-on-grade and foundations may experience heave or settle- ment and damage. We believe the recommendations presented in this re- port will help to control risk of damage; they will not eliminate that risk. Slabs-on-grade and, in some instances, foundations may be damaged by soil movements. 4. We judge footing foundations can be used with calculated movement of about 1-inch or less provided they are constructed on well-compacted fill, as discussed in Sub-Excavation. Existing soils may be re-used as new fill provided debris, vegetation/organics, contaminated soils (if any) and other deleterious materials are removed. Design and construction criteria are pre- sented in the report. 5.The expansive clay presents risk of damaging movement to pavement systems. We recommend sub-excavating 3 feet below pavement areas to improve pavement performance. Parking areas will need a minimum of 6 inches of concrete or full depth asphalt, while access drives will need a minimum of 6 inches of concrete or 7 inches of full depth asphalt. Compo- site section alternatives are also presented in our report. Further design and criteria are presented in the report. 6. Surface drainage should be designed, constructed, and maintained to pro- vide rapid removal of runoff away from the buildings and off pavements and flatwork. Water should not be allowed to pond adjacent to the build- ings or on pavements or flatwork. 7. The design and construction criteria for foundations and floor system alter- natives in this report were compiled with the expectation that all other rec- ommendations presented related to surface drainage, landscaping irriga- tion, backfill compaction, etc. will be incorporated into the project and that the owner or property manager will maintain the structures, use prudent irrigation practices and maintain surface drainage. It is critical that all rec- ommendations in this report are followed. SITE CONDITIONS The Hibdon/Mason 24/7 Shelter Site is located at the southwest corner of Hibdon Court and Mason Street in Ft. Collins, Colorado (Fig. 1 and Photo 1). The site is cur- rently vacant land adjoined by some commercial and manufacturing buildings to the south, single-family residential homes to the west, Mason Street to the east, and addi- tional vacant land with single-family residences to the north. According to the Larimer 453 Section D, Item 1. DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE 3 of 24 HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC10,520.000-125-R1 County Assessor, the site is part of a larger parcel. The proposed development is a land acreage of 7.5 and 5.2 acres, respectively, according to the assessor. Mason Street was developed between 2014 and 2016, bisecting one of the parcels. Cache la Poudre River is less than ½-mile south of the site, Terry Lake and Long Pond are about ¾-mile northeast, Larimer and Weld Canal is ½-mile north, and Lindenmeier Lake is 1 ¼ miles east of the site. Dry Creek cuts through the site. Photo 1 Google Earth©Aerial Site Photo, June 2021 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION A conceptual site plan provided to CTL by Shopworks Architecture indicates de- velopment will consist of two structures with office and living/community space, paved parking, and possible plaza areas. We anticipate the structures will be three to four sto- ries with no below-grade areas. 454 Section D, Item 1. DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE 4 of 24 HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC10,520.000-125-R1 We understand this project is still in the conceptual phase. Construction and grading plans are not available at this time. The current site layout differs from the plan used to lay out our borings and we recommend additional drilling once site plans are more finalized to confirm recommendations presented in this report remain appropriate. INVESTIGATION We investigated subsurface conditions on August 18, 2022 by drilling and sam- pling nine exploratory borings at the approximate location shown on Fig. 1. Prior to drill- ing, we contacted the Utility Notification Center of Colorado and local sewer and water districts to identify locations of buried utilities. Boring location and elevations are approx- imate and were determined using a Leica GS18 GPS unit referencing the North Ameri- can Datum of 1983 (NAD83). The borings were drilled using 4-inch diameter, continu- ous-flight, solid-stem auger and truck-mounted CME-45 drill rig. We obtained samples at approximate 2 to 10-foot intervals using 2.5-inch diameter (O.D.) modified California barrel samplers driven by blows of an automatic 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. Our field representative was present to observe drilling operations, log the strata en- countered, and obtain samples. Graphical log of the boring, including results of field penetration resistance tests and a portion of laboratory test data are presented in Ap- pendix A. Samples were returned to our laboratory where they were examined and testing was assigned. Laboratory tests included moisture content, dry density, particle-size analysis (percent silt and clay-sized particles passing the No. 200 sieve), gradation, At- terberg limits, swell-consolidation, standard Proctor, unconfined compressive strength, and water-soluble sulfate concentration. Swell-consolidation tests were performed by wetting the samples under approximate overburden pressures (the pressure exerted by overlying soils). Results of laboratory tests are presented in Appendix B and summa- rized in Table B-I. 455 Section D, Item 1. DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE 5 of 24 HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC10,520.000-125-R1 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Strata found in our exploratory borings consisted of about 6 to 11 feet of sandy clay over 10 to 14 feet of clayey, silty, gravelly sand underlain by claystone bedrock. Claystone bedrock was encountered in four borings at depths of 18 to 22 feet. Some of the pertinent engineering characteristics of the soil and bedrock are described in the fol- lowing paragraphs. Natural Soil Natural soils consisted of about 6 to 11 feet of sandy clay over 10 to 14 feet of clayey, silty, gravelly sand. The clay was medium stiff to very stiff and the sand was me- dium dense to very dense based on field penetration resistance tests. One clay sample did not swell, and three samples swelled 1.7 to 3.1 percent when wetted. The low to moderate swelling samples were encountered in the upper five feet of the borings. Four samples of sandy clay contained 73 to 91 percent fines (passing the No. 200 sieve) and one exhibited moderate plasticity with a liquid limit of 44. Four sand samples contained 3 to 7 percent fines. We judge the sand to be non-expansive. Bedrock Claystone bedrock was encountered at depths of 18 to 22 feet below existing grade or approximate elevations of 4958 to 4960 feet. The bedrock was very hard. Groundwater Groundwater was encountered during drilling in all the borings at depths of 8 to 11 feet. When the test holes were checked after drilling on August 31, 2022, water was measured in five borings at depths of 8 to 9.5 feet or approximate elevations 4970.5 4973 . The remaining borings had caved at depths of 4.5 to 8 feet. Our experience sug- gests groundwater may be present near depths where caving occurred. Depending on 456 Section D, Item 1. DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE 6 of 24 HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC10,520.000-125-R1 grading plans, groundwater could be encountered during utility installation. Excavations that extend near groundwater levels may necessitate stabilization and temporary con- struction dewatering. Groundwater may fluctuate seasonally and rise or develop in re- sponse to development, precipitation, landscape irrigation and changes in land-use. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Colorado is a challenging location to practice geotechnical engineering. The cli- mate is relatively dry and the near-surface soils are typically dry and comparatively stiff. These soils and related sedimentary bedrock formations react to changes in mois- ture conditions. Some of the soils swell as they increase in moisture and are referred to as expansive soils. Other soils can compress significantly upon wetting and are identi- fied as compressible soils. Much of the land available for development east of the Front Range is underlain by expansive clay or claystone bedrock near the surface. The soils that exhibit compressible behavior are more likely west of the Continental Divide; how- ever, both types of soils occur throughout the state. Covering the ground with buildings, pavements, flatwork, etc., coupled with land- scape irrigation and changing drainage patterns, leads to an increase in subsurface moisture conditions. As a result, some soil movement due to heave or settlement is in- evitable. It is critical that precautions are taken to increase the chances that the founda- tions and slabs-on-grade will perform satisfactorily. Engineered design of grading, foun- dations, slabs-on-grade, and drainage can mitigate, but not eliminate, the effects of ex- pansive and compressible soils. After construction, property managers must assume re- sponsibility for maintaining the structure and use appropriate practices regarding drain- age and landscaping. Expansive soil is present at this site which constitutes a geologic hazard. There is risk that ground heave or settlement will damage slabs-on-grade and foundations. The risks can be mitigated, but not eliminated, by careful design, construction, and maintenance procedures. Expansive soil should be removed and replaced as discussed 457 Section D, Item 1. DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE 7 of 24 HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC10,520.000-125-R1 in Sub-Excavation. We believe the recommendations in this report will help reduce risk of foundation and/or slab damage; they will not eliminate that risk. Slabs-on-grade and, in some instances, foundations may be affected. Maintenance will be required to reduce risk. Seismicity The soil and bedrock are not expected to respond unusually to seismic activity. According to the 2021 International Building Code (IBC, Standard Penetration Re- sistance method), and based upon the results of our investigation, we judge the site classifies as Site Class C. SITE PREPARATION We believe there are no geotechnical constraints at this site that preclude devel- opment. The following discussion presents our opinions and recommendations for site development. Sub-Excavation Expansive clay was encountered in the upper 5 feet of our exploratory borings. Expansive soils present risk of damaging heave for foundations, slabs-on-grade, and pavements, and are not recommended in its current condition to support new construc- tion. We estimate total potential ground heave at the existing ground surface of 1.2 to 2.5 inches considering a 20-foot depth of wetting. Proposed grades and finished floor elevations are not known at this time. We believe sub-excavation to a depth of 5 feet below lowest foundation element will be necessary to mitigate expansive clay and allow use of shallow foundations and slab-on-grade floors for the structure. This recommen- dation should be re-evaluated once the site plan is finalized and additional drilling is per- formed. 458 Section D, Item 1. DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE 8 of 24 HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC10,520.000-125-R1 The bottom of sub-excavated areas should extend laterally at least 5 feet beyond the outside edge of footing. Sub-excavation should provide more uniform support condi- tions for footings and slab-on-grade floors and reduce potential differential movements. The extent and depth of removal should be surveyed. Special attention should be paid to compaction in the corners along the edges of excavation, as large equipment cannot easily access these areas. We recommend sub-excavation fill below buildings be mois- ture conditioned between 1 and 4 percent above optimum moisture content and com- pacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density. Our representa- tive should be present full time to observe and test compaction of sub-excavation fill during placement. Excavation We believe the soils penetrated by our exploratory borings can be excavated with typical heavy-duty equipment. We recommend the owner and the contractor become fa- miliar with applicable local, state and federal safety regulations, including the current Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Excavation and Trench Safety Standards. We anticipate the sand will classify as Type C soils, which require maximum side slope inclinations of 1½:1 (horizontal:vertical) for temporary excavations in dry con- ditions. The clay will likely classify as Type B soils, which require maximum slope incli- nations of 1:1 (horizontal:vertical) for temporary excavations in dry conditions, respec- tively. Excavations will require flatter slopes below groundwater and where seepage is tered in the excavations and refer to OSHA standards to determine appropriate slopes. Stockpiles of soils and equipment should not be placed within a horizontal distance equal to one-half the excavation depth, from the edge of the excavation. A professional engineer should design excavations deeper than 20 feet, if any. 459 Section D, Item 1. DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE 9 of 24 HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC10,520.000-125-R1 Fill and Backfill The on-site soil is generally suitable for reuse as new fill, provided debris, organ- ics/vegetation and other deleterious materials are substantially removed. We expect the fill will require screening to properly remove debris. Soil particles larger than 3 inches in diameter should not be used for fill unless broken down. If imported fill is necessary for general site grading purposes, it should ideally consist of soil having a maximum parti- cle size of 2 inches, between 25 and 50 percent passing a No. 200 sieve, a liquid limit less than 30, and a plasticity index less than 15. Potential fill materials should be sub- mitted to our office for approval prior to importing to the site. Prior to fill placement, debris, organics/vegetation and deleterious materials should be substantially removed from areas to receive fill. The surface to be filled should be scarified to a depth of at least 8 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted to the criteria below. Subsequent fill should be placed in thin (8 inches or less) loose lifts, moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content for sand and between 1 and 4 percent above optimum for clay, and compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698). Our experience indicates fill and backfill can settle, even if properly compacted to the criteria provided above. Factors that influence the amount of settlement are depth of fill, soil type, degree of compaction, and time. The length of time for the compression to occur can be a few weeks to several years. The degree of compression of the recom- mended fill under its own weight will likely be 1 percent of the fill depth. Any improve- ments placed over backfill should be designed to accommodate movement. Stabilization Soft, wet soils in excavations should be removed or stabilized, if encountered. Soft excavation bottoms can likely be stabilized by crowding crushed rock into the soils until firm. Acceptable rock materials include, but are not limited to, No. 2 and No. 57 460 Section D, Item 1. DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE 10 of 24 HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC10,520.000-125-R1 rock. Crushed rock on a layer of geosynthetic grid or woven fabric can also be used, which should reduce the amount of aggregate needed to stabilize the subgrade. Typi- cally, a biaxially woven fabric such as Mirafi 600x (or equal) or geogrid (such as Tensar BX1100 or equal) topped with 8 to 12 inches of 1 to 5-inch crushed rock will provide a stable working surface. Dewatering Groundwater may be encountered in utility excavations. Temporary construction dewatering systems may be required to properly install deep utilities (if any) in areas of shallow groundwater. We believe dewatering for excavations which penetrate less than 3 to 5 below the groundwater surface may be accomplished using conventional sump and pump methods in utility trenches. We recommend the sump pits be at least 3 feet deeper than the bottom of the deepest excavation. Deeper excavations may require more elaborate dewatering (such as well points). The City of Fort Collins, Larimer County and/or the Colorado Department of Pub- lic Health and Environment may require dewatering permits. Our experience indicates periodic environmental testing is usually required with these permits, with reporting. Per- mitting requirements may also influence the construction schedule. Utilities Water, storm sewer and sanitary sewer lines are often constructed beneath slabs and pavements. Compaction of utility trench backfill can have a significant effect on the life and serviceability of floor slabs, pavements and exterior flatwork. We recommend utility trench backfill be placed and compacted as outlined above. Our experience indi- cates use of self-propelled compactors results in more reliable performance compared to fill compacted by an attachment on a backhoe or trackhoe. The upper portion of the trenches should be widened to allow the use of a self-propelled compactor. During con- 461 Section D, Item 1. DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE 11 of 24 HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC10,520.000-125-R1 struction, careful attention should be paid to compaction at curblines and around man- holes and water valves. The placement and compaction of utility trench backfill should be observed and tested by our firm. If soft or loose soils are encountered, removal and replacement with compacted fill or stabilization by crowding 1.5 to 3-inch nominal sized crushed rock or recycled con- crete until the base of excavation does not deform more than 1-inch when compactive effort is applied may be necessary. Special attention should be paid to backfill placed adjacent to manholes as we have observed conditions where settlement in excess of 1 percent has occurred after completion of construction. Flowable fill may be considered at critical utility crossings where it would be difficult to achieve adequate compaction. Fill should be moisture-conditioned and compacted to the specifications outlined in Fill and Backfill. The placement and compaction of utility trench backfill should be observed and tested by a representative of our firm during construction. FOUNDATIONS Our investigation indicates expansive clay is present at the anticipated founda- tion levels. The expansive clay should be mitigated as discussed in Sub-Excavation. Provided sub-excavation is performed as recommended, we believe footing foundations are appropriate for the structure. We estimate 1-inch or less of movement is possible af- ter sub-excavation. Design criteria for footing foundations developed from analysis of field and laboratory data and our experience are presented below. 1. Footings should be constructed on new, moisture conditioned and well- compacted fill as discussed in Sub-Excavation, or firm, natural sandy soils. Soils loosened during foundation excavation or in the forming pro- cess should be removed and replaced with new well-compacted fill prior to placing concrete. 2. Footings should be designed for a maximum allowable soil pressure of 2,500 psf with a minimum deadload of 800 psf. This may be increased by 1/3 to allow for short term loading 462 Section D, Item 1. DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE 12 of 24 HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC10,520.000-125-R1 3. A coefficient of friction can be used to resist lateral translation between concrete foundation elements and fill taken as 0.35. 4. Equivalent fluid densities for at-rest pressure and passive resistance pre- sented in the LATERAL LOADS portion of this report can be used in the design of spread footings. 5. Footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches. Foundations for iso- lated columns should have minimum dimensions of 20 inches by 20 inches. Larger sizes may be required depending upon the loads and struc- tural system used. 6. Foundation walls and grade beams should be well-reinforced. We recom- mend reinforcement sufficient to span an unsupported distance of at least 10 feet, where applicable. Reinforcement should be designed by the struc- tural engineer. 7. The completed foundation excavations should be observed by a repre- sentative of our firm to confirm subsurface conditions are as anticipated. 8. Excessive wetting of foundation soils during and after construction can cause heave or softening and consolidation of foundation soils and result in footing movements. Proper surface drainage around the buildings is critical to control wetting. FLOOR SYSTEMS We anticipate the main floor levels of the buildings will have several uses, such as common areas, living space, lobbies, and mechanical/storage areas. Provided sub- excavation is performed, slab-on-grade floors can be used with anticipated potential movements on the order of 1-inch. If sensitive floor finishes will be used or movement cannot be tolerated, we recommend use of a structurally supported floor system. Slabs-on-grade are suitable, provided the potential movement and risk of distress are acceptable to the owner. Where conventional slabs-on-grade are used, we recom- mend the following design and construction criteria. These recommendations will not prevent movement. Rather, they tend to reduce damage if movement occurs. 463 Section D, Item 1. DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE 13 of 24 HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC10,520.000-125-R1 1. Slabs should be placed directly on the natural sand or properly moisture conditioned, well-compacted fill. The 2018 International Building Code (IBC) requires a vapor retarder be placed between the base course or subgrade soils and the concrete slab-on-grade floor. The merits of installa- tion of a vapor retarder below floor slabs depend on the sensitivity of floor coverings and building use to moisture. A properly installed vapor retarder (10 mil minimum) is more beneficial below concrete slab-on-grade floors where floor coverings, painted floor surfaces or products stored on the floor will be sensitive to moisture. The vapor retarder is most effective when concrete is placed directly on top of it, rather than placing a sand or gravel leveling course between the vapor retarder and the floor slab. The placement of concrete on the vapor retarder may increase the risk of shrinkage cracking and curling. Use of concrete with reduced shrinkage characteristics including minimized water content, maximized coarse ag- gregate content, and reasonably low slump will reduce the risk of shrink- age cracking and curling. Considerations and recommendations for the in- stallation of vapor retarders below concrete slabs are outlined in Section 5.2.3.2 of the 2015 report of American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee - 2. Slab-bearing partition walls should be designed and constructed to allow at least 2 inches of slab movement. If the slip joint is provided at the top of partitions, the connection between slab-supported partitions and founda- tion-supported walls should be detailed to allow differential movement. The property owner/manager should monitor partition voiding and other connections, and re-establish the gap when it closes to less than ½-inch. 3. Plumbing and utilities that pass through the slab should be isolated from the slabs and constructed with flexible couplings. Utilities, as well as elec- trical and mechanical equipment should be constructed with sufficient flex- ibility to allow for movement. 4. A modulus of subgrade reaction of 100 pci can be sued for the on-site soils, or similar new fill. This may be increased by 1/3 to allow for short term loading. 5. HVAC systems supported by the slabs (if any) should be provided with flexible connections capable of withstanding at least 2 inches of move- ment. 6. Exterior flatwork and sidewalks should be separated from the structure. These slabs should be detailed to function as independent units. Move- ment of these slabs should not be transmitted to the foundations. 464 Section D, Item 1. DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE 14 of 24 HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC10,520.000-125-R1 7. The American Concrete Institute (ACI) recommends frequent control joints be provided in slabs to reduce problems associated with shrinkage crack- ing and curling. To reduce curling, the concrete mix should have a high aggregate content and a low slump. If desired, a shrinkage compensating admixture could be added to the concrete to reduce the risk of shrinkage cracking. We can perform a mix design or assist the design team in select- ing a pre-existing mix. Structurally Supported Floors To our knowledge, there are no soil treatments combined with slab-on-grade floors that will result in the same reduction in risk of floor movement (relative to the risk inherent for a floor slab placed directly on the natural soils), as would be provided by a structural floor. If floor movement cannot be tolerated, then a structurally supported floor should be used. A structural floor is supported by the foundation system. Design and construction issues associated with structural floors include ventilation and lateral loads. Where structurally supported floors are installed over a crawl space, the required air space de- pends on the materials used to construct the floor and the potential expansion of the un- derlying soils. Building codes require a clear space of 18 inches between exposed earth and untreated wood floor components. For non-organic floor systems, we recommend a minimum clear space of 8 inches. This minimum clear space should be maintained be- tween any point on the underside of the floor system (including beams and floor drain traps) and the soils. A slab-on-void system may also be considered. Void form should be chosen to break down quickly after the slab is placed. A sand or gravel leveling base below the void form should not be used. We recommend against the use of wax or plastic-coated boxes unless provisions are made to allow water vapor to penetrate the boxes, resulting in softening. 465 Section D, Item 1. DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE 15 of 24 HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC10,520.000-125-R1 Where structurally supported floors are used, utility connections including water, gas, air duct, and exhaust stack connections to floor supported appliances should be capable of absorbing some deflection of the floor. Plumbing that passes through the floor should ideally be hung from the underside of the structural floor and not lain on the bottom of the excavation. It is prudent to maintain the minimum clear space below all plumbing lines; this configuration may not be achievable for some parts of the installa- tion. Control of humidity in crawl spaces is important for indoor air quality and perfor- mance of wood floor systems. We believe the best current practices to control humidity involve the use of a vapor retarder or vapor barrier (10 mil) placed on the soils below accessible subfloor areas. The vapor retarder/barrier should be sealed at joints and at- tached to concrete foundation elements. Exterior Flatwork We recommend exterior flatwork and sidewalks around the building be isolated to reduce the risk of transferring slab movement to the structure. One alternative would be to construct the inner edges of the flatwork on haunches or steel angles bolted to the foundation walls and detailing the connections such that movement will cause less dis- tress to the building, rather than tying the slabs directly into the building foundations. Construction on haunches or steel angles and reinforcing the sidewalks and other exte- rior flatwork will reduce the potential for differential settlement and better allow them to span across foundation wall backfill. Frequent control joints should be provided to re- duce problems associated with shrinkage. Panels that are approximately square per- form better than rectangular areas. LATERAL LOADS Foundation walls and grade beams should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures. The amount of pressure on a wall is a function of the wall height, type of 466 Section D, Item 1. DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE 16 of 24 HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC10,520.000-125-R1 backfill, drainage conditions, slope of the backfill surface, and the allowable rotation of the wall. The building foundation walls will be essentially rigid and unable to rotate to mobilize the strength of the backfill soils. Therefore, they should be designed for an "at rest" earth pre resist sliding and overturning. Passive resistance requires movement to generate re- sistance. We have tabulated equivalent fluid density values for on-site soil used as backfill in lateral earth pressure restraint design below. These values assume that backfill will be moisture-conditioned and compacted as described previously. The values do not in- clude allowances for surcharge loads such as adjacent foundations, sloping backfill, ve- hicle traffic, or hydrostatic pressure. LATERAL EQUIVALENT FLUID DENSITIES LOAD CONDITION CLAY Active Equivalent Fluid Density (pcf)50 At Rest Equivalent Fluid Density (pcf)65 Passive Equivalent Fluid Density (pcf)*300* *Assumes backfill will not be removed. POND CONSTRUCTION We encountered 6 to 9 feet of sandy clay underlain by clean to slightly silty sand in the detention pond borings. Groundwater was encountered at depths of 8 to 11 feet (Elev. 4968.5 to 4973.5) at the time of drilling. During the delayed water checks the pond borings had caved at depths of 4.5 to 7.5 feet. Our experience suggests ground- 467 Section D, Item 1. DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE 17 of 24 HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC10,520.000-125-R1 water may be present near depths where caving occurred. The CDPHE will likely not al- low the mixing of storm water and groundwater. This should be taken into consideration when planning the location and depth of proposed detention ponds. Permeability of the on-site clay is considered to be negligible, and we estimate permeability rates on the order of 10 to 50 inches per hour for the on-site sand. We rec- ommend inlet/outlet pipes be bedded in a relatively impervious material such as clay or flow fill to reduce piping and soil erosion along the sides. Cutoff walls can be installed or a cradle may be constructed of concrete or flow fill that can support the pipe. Hand com- paction of embankment fill soils may be required around the pipes to reduce potential seepage between the outside of the pipes and fill. PAVEMENTS The project will include automobile parking and access drives. We assume all paved areas will be private. The performance of a pavement structure is dependent upon the characteristics of the subgrade soil, traffic loading and frequency, climatic con- ditions, drainage and pavement materials. As part of our investigation for this project, we drilled three borings in the proposed area of automobile parking and access drives based on the initial site plan. We considered Larimer County Urban Area Street Stand- ards (LCUASS, repealed and reenacted April 1, 2007) in combination with laboratory data and our experience to develop pavement design criteria. Subgrade soils generally classified as A-6 according to AASHTO criteria. Remolded Unconfined Compressive Strength testing was conducted on two composite samples of soils from our pavement borings. For our pavement design, we have tabu- lated a modulus of subgrade reaction of 14,561 psi considering lab test results. Samples obtained in our pavement borings swelled 1.8 to 6.6 percent. We rec- ommend sub-excavation to a depth of 3 to 5 feet below bottom of pavement section to 468 Section D, Item 1. DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE 18 of 24 HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC10,520.000-125-R1 improve pavement performance. Subgrade should be proof-rolled with a loaded, tan- dem-axle dump truck to disclose soft/loose areas. These areas should be reworked and compacted. Subgrade areas that pass proof-roll should be stable enough to pave. We are assuming flexible hot mix asphalt (HMA) pavement is planned for the parking lots. Rigid portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement should be considered for trash enclosure areas and where the pavement will be subjected to frequent turning of heavy vehicles. Pavement section alternatives are provided below. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED MINIMUM PAVEMENT ALTERNATIVES Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) + Aggregate Base (ABC)Full Depth Asphalt Portland Cement Con- crete (PCC)* Parking Areas 4" HMA + 8" ABC 6" PCC Access Drives 5" HMA + 6" ABC 7 6"PCC Trash Enclosures --6" PCC Our experience indicates problems with asphalt pavements can occur where heavy trucks drive into loading and unloading zones and turn at low speeds. In areas of concentrated loading and turning movements by heavy trucks, such as at entrances and trash collection areas, we recommend a 6-inch or thicker Portland cement concrete pad be constructed at loading docks and dumpster locations, or other areas where trucks will stop or turn. The concrete pads should be of sufficient size to accommodate truck turning, trash pickup and delivery/loading areas. A section of 7 inches can be used if ex- tra durability is desired. The design of a pavement system is as much a function of paving materials as supporting characteristics of the subgrade. All soils that will support pavements should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted prior to paving. The quality of each construction material is reflected by the strength coefficient used in the calculations. If the pavement system is constructed of inferior material, then the life and serviceability of the pavement will be substantially reduced. Materials and placement methods should conform to the requirements of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. All 469 Section D, Item 1. DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE 19 of 24 HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC10,520.000-125-R1 materials planned for construction should be tested to confirm their compliance with pro- ject specifications. Control joints should separate concrete pavements into panels as recommended by ACI. No de-icing salts should be used on paving concrete for at least one year after placement. Routine maintenance, such as sealing and repair of cracks and overlays at 5 to 7-year intervals, are necessary to achieve long-term performance of an asphalt sys- tem. We recommend application of a rejuvenating sealant such as fog seal after the first year. Deferring maintenance usually results in accelerated deterioration of pavements leading to higher future maintenance costs. A primary cause of early pavement deterioration is water infiltration into the pave- ment system. The addition of moisture usually results in softening of the subgrade and eventual failure of the pavement. We recommend drainage be designed for rapid re- moval of surface runoff. Curb and gutter should be backfilled and the backfill compacted to reduce ponding adjacent to the pavements. Final grading of the subgrade should be carefully controlled so that design cross-slope is maintained and low spots in the sub- grade which could trap water are eliminated. Seals should be provided between curb and pavement and at all joints to reduce moisture infiltration. Landscaped areas and de- tention ponds in pavements should be avoided. Recommended material properties and construction criteria for pavements are provided in Appendix C. These criteria were developed from analysis of the field and la- boratory data and our experience. If the materials cannot meet these recommendations, then the pavement design should be re-evaluated based upon available materials. SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE Water from irrigation frequently flows through relatively permeable backfill placed adjacent to buildings and collects on the surface of less permeable soils occurring at the 470 Section D, Item 1. DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE 20 of 24 HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC10,520.000-125-R1 bottom of excavations. This process can cause wet or moist below-grade conditions af- ter construction. There are no below-grade areas planned at this time with exception to the elevator/stairwell core pit, if planned. These areas would merit use of a drain. Alter- natively, they can be designed and constructed to be water tight. Buoyancy effects should be considered. Our experience indicates moist conditions can develop in crawl spaces (if con- structed), resulting in isolated instances of damp soils, musty smells, and, in rare cases, standing water. Crawl spaces should be well ventilated, depending on the use of a va- por retarder/barrier and the floor material selected. Performance of foundations, pavements and flatwork is influenced by the mois- ture conditions existing within the foundation or subgrade soils. The risk of wetting the foundation and floor subgrade soils can be reduced by carefully planned and main- tained surface grades and drainage. Excessive wetting before, during and/or after con- struction may cause movement of foundations and slabs-on-grade. We recommend the following precautions be observed during construction and maintained at all times after construction is completed. 1. Wetting or drying of open foundation, utility and earthwork excavations should be avoided. 2. Positive drainage should be provided away from the improvements. Paved surfaces should be sloped to drain away from the additions. A minimum slope of 1 percent is suggested. More slope is desirable. Concrete curbs ow points in the curb should be consid- ered to promote proper drainage. 3. Backfill around foundations should be moistened and compacted accord- ing to criteria presented in Fill and Backfill. Areas behind curb and gutter should be backfilled and well compacted to reduce ponding of surface wa- ter. Seals should be provided between the curb and pavement to reduce infiltration. 4. Landscaping should be carefully designed to minimize irrigation. Plants used close to foundation walls should be limited to those with low moisture 471 Section D, Item 1. DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE 21 of 24 HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC10,520.000-125-R1 requirements. Irrigation should be limited to the minimum amount suffi- cient to maintain vegetation. Application of more water will increase likeli- hood of slab and foundation movements and associated damage. Land- scaped areas should be adequately sloped to direct flow away from the improvements. Use of area drains can assist draining areas that cannot be provided with adequate slope. 5. Impervious plastic membranes should not be used to cover the ground surface immediately surrounding foundations. These membranes tend to trap moisture and prevent normal evaporation from occurring. Geotextile fabrics can be used to control weed growth and allow evaporation. 6. Roof drains should be directed away from the additions and discharge be- yond backfill zones or into appropriate storm sewer or detention area. Downspout extensions and splash blocks should be provided at all dis- charge points. Roof drains can also be connected to buried, solid pipe out- lets. Roof drains should not be directed below slab-on-grade floors. Roof drain outlets should be maintained. CONCRETE Concrete in contact with soil can be subject to sulfate attack. We measured wa- ter-soluble sulfate concentrations of 0.20 to 0.80 percent in three samples, with an aver- age of 0.55 percent. As indicated in our tests and ACI 318-19, the sulfate exposure class is Severe or S2. SULFATE EXPOSURE CLASSES PER ACI 318-19 Exposure Classes Water-Soluble Sulfate (SO4) in Soil A (%) Not Applicable S0 < 0.10 Moderate S1 0.10 to 0.20 Severe S2 0.20 to 2.00 Very Severe S3 > 2.00 A) Percent sulfate by mass in soil determined by ASTM C1580 For this level of sulfate concentration, ACI 318-19 Code Requirements indicates there are special cement type requirements for sulfate resistance as indicated in the ta- ble below. 472 Section D, Item 1. DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE 22 of 24 HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC10,520.000-125-R1 CONCRETE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR SULFATE EXPOSURE PER ACI 318-19 Exposure Class Maximum Water/ Cement Ratio Minimum Compressive Strength (psi) Cementitious Material Types A Calcium Chloride Admixtures ASTM C150/ C150M ASTM C595/ C595M ASTM C1157/ C1157M S0 N/A 2500 No Type Restrictions No Type Restrictions No Type Restrictions No Restrictions S1 0.50 4000 IIB Type with (MS) Designation MS No Re- strictions S2 0.45 4500 V B Type with (HS) Designation HS Not Permitted S3 Option 1 0.45 4500 Slag Cement C Type with (HS) Designation plus Pozzolan or Slag Cement C HS + Pozzolan or Slag Cement C Not Permitted S3 Option 2 0.4 5000 V D Type with (HS) Designation HS Not Permitted A) Alternate combinations of cementitious materials shall be permitted when tested for sulfate resistance meet- ing the criteria in section 26.4.2.2(c). B) Other available types of cement such as Type III or Type I are permitted in Exposure Classes S1 or S2 if the C3A contents are less than 8 or 5 percent, respectively. C) The amount of the specific source of pozzolan or slag to be used shall not be less than the amount that has been determined by service record to improve sulfate resistance when used in concrete containing Type V cement. Alternatively, the amount of the specific source of the pozzolan or slab to be used shall not be less than the amount tested in accordance with ASTM C1012 and meeting the criteria in section 26.4.2.2(c) of ACI 318. D) If Type V cement is used as the sole cementitious material, the optional sulfate resistance requirement of 0.040 percent maximum expansion in ASTM C150 shall be specified. Superficial damage may occur to the exposed surfaces of highly permeable con- crete, even though sulfate levels are relatively low. To control this risk and to resist freeze-thaw deterioration, the water-to-cementitious materials ratio should not exceed 0.50 for concrete in contact with soils that are likely to stay moist due to surface drain- age or high-water tables. Concrete should have a total air content of 6 percent ± 1.5 percent. We advocate damp-proofing of all foundation walls and grade beams in contact with the subsoils. CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Shopworks Architecture and your design team for the purpose of providing geotechnical design and construction 473 Section D, Item 1. DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE 23 of 24 HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC10,520.000-125-R1 criteria for the proposed project. The information, conclusions, and recommendations presented herein are based upon consideration of many factors including, but not lim- ited to, the type of structures proposed, the geologic setting, and the subsurface condi- tions encountered. The conclusions and recommendations contained in the report are not valid for use by others. Standards of practice evolve in geotechnical engineering. The recommendations provided are appropriate for about three years. If the project is not constructed within about three years, we should be contacted to determine if we should update this report. We recommend that CTL | Thompson, Inc. provide construction observation ser- vices to allow us the opportunity to verify whether soil conditions are consistent with those found during this investigation. If others perform these observations, they must accept responsibility to judge whether the recommendations in this report remain appro- priate. GEOTECHNICAL RISK The concept of risk is an important aspect with any geotechnical evaluation pri- marily because the methods used to develop geotechnical recommendations do not comprise an exact science. We never have complete knowledge of subsurface condi- tions. Our analysis must be tempered with engineering judgment and experience. Therefore, the recommendations presented in any geotechnical evaluation should not be considered risk-free. Our recommendations represent our judgment of those measures that are necessary to increase the chances that the structures will perform satisfactorily. It is critical that all recommendations in this report are followed during con- struction. Owners or property managers must assume responsibility for maintaining the structures and use appropriate practices regarding drainage and landscaping. Improve- ments after construction should be completed in accordance with recommendations provided in this report and may require additional soil investigation and consultation. 474 Section D, Item 1. DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE 24 of 24 HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC10,520.000-125-R1 LIMITATIONS Our borings were spaced to obtain a reasonably accurate picture of subsurface conditions at this site. The boring is a representative of conditions encountered only at the location drilled. Subsurface variations not indicated by the boring are possible. We believe this investigation was conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily used by geotechnical engineers practicing under similar con- ditions. No warranty, express or implied, is made. If we can be of further service in dis- cussing the contents of this report, or in the analysis of the influence of the subsurface conditions on the design of the addition or any other aspect of the proposed construc- tion, please call. CTL |THOMPSON, INC. Abhinav Jakilati Staff Engineer Reviewed by: Erin Beach, P.E., P.G. Geotechnical Project Manager Via e-mail:chad@shopworksarc.com rieko@shopworksarc.com 475 Section D, Item 1. 476 Section D, Item 1. 477 Section D, Item 1. 478 Section D, Item 1. DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC10,520.000-125-R1 APPENDIX A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 479 Section D, Item 1. 480 Section D, Item 1. 481 Section D, Item 1. 482 Section D, Item 1. DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC10,520.000-125-R1 APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS AND TABLE B-I 483 Section D, Item 1. 484 Section D, Item 1. 485 Section D, Item 1. 486 Section D, Item 1. 487 Section D, Item 1. 488 Section D, Item 1. 489 Section D, Item 1. 490 Section D, Item 1. 491 Section D, Item 1. 492 Section D, Item 1. DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC10,520.000-125-R1 APPENDIX C FLEXIBLE AND RIGID PAVEMENT MATERIALS, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES 493 Section D, Item 1. DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE C-1 HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC10,520.000-125-R1 MATERIAL GUIDELINES FOR FLEXIBLE AND RIGID PAVEMENTS Aggregate Base Course (ABC) 1. A Class 5 or 6 Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) specified ag- gregate base course should be used. A recycled concrete alternative which meets the Class 5 or 6 designation is also acceptable. 2. Aggregate base course should have a minimum Hveem stabilometer value of 78. Aggregate base course or recycled concrete material must be moisture stable. The change in R-value from 300 psi to 100 psi exudation pressure should be 12 points or less. 3. Aggregate base course or recycled concrete should be laid in thin lifts not to exceed 6 inches, moisture treated to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum modified Proctor dry density (ASTM D 1557, AASHTO T 180). The material should be placed without segregation. 4. Placement and compaction of aggregate base course or recycled concrete should be observed and tested by a representative of our firm. Placement should not commence until the underlying subgrade is properly prepared and tested. Hot-Mix Asphalt (HMA) 1. HMA should be composed of a mixture of aggregate, filler, hydrated lime and asphalt cement. Mixes shall be designed with 1 percent lime. Some mixes may require polymer modified asphalt cement, or make use of up to 20 per- cent reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP). A project mix design is recom- mended and periodic checks on the project site should be made to verify com- pliance with specifications. 2. HMA should be relatively impermeable to moisture and should be designed with crushed aggregates that have a minimum of 80 percent of the aggregate retained on the No. 4 sieve with two mechanically fractured faces. 3. Gradations that approach the maximum density line (within 5 percent between the No. 4 and 50 sieves) should be avoided. A gradation with a nominal maxi- mum size of 1 or 2 inches developed on the fine side of the maximum density line should be used. 4. Total void content, voids in the mineral aggregate (VMA) and voids filled should be considered in the selection of the optimum asphalt cement content. The optimum asphalt content should be selected at a total air void content of about 4 percent. The mixture should have a minimum VMA of 14 percent and between 65 percent and 80 percent of voids filled. 5. Asphalt cement should be PG 58-28 for local streets and PG 64-22 for collec- tors and arterials. 494 Section D, Item 1. DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE C-2 HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC10,520.000-125-R1 6. Hydrated lime should be added at the rate of 1 percent by dry weight of the aggregate and should be included in the amount passing the No. 200 sieve. Hydrated lime for aggregate pretreatment should conform to the requirements of ASTM C 207, Type N. 7. Paving should only be performed when subgrade temperatures are above 40°F and air temperature is at least 40°F and rising. 8. HMA should not be placed at a temperature lower than 245°F for mixes con- taining PG 58-28 and PG 64-22 asphalt, and 290°F for mixes containing poly- mer modified asphalt. The breakdown compaction should be completed be- fore the mixture temperature drops 20°F. 9. The maximum compacted lift should be 3 inches and joints should be stag- gered. No joints should be placed within wheel paths. 10. HMA should be compacted to between 92 and 96 percent of Maximum Theo- retical Density. The surface shall be sealed with a finish roller before the mix cools to 185°F. 11. Placement and compaction of HMA should be observed and tested by a rep- resentative of our firm. Placement should not commence until the subgrade is properly prepared, tested and proof-rolled. Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) 1. Portland cement concrete should meet CDOT Class P concrete and have a minimum compressive strength of 4,500 psi at 28 days and a minimum modu- lus of rupture (flexural strength) of 600 psi. A job mix design is recommended and periodic checks on the job site should be made to verify compliance with specifications. 2. 150. Portland cement should conform to ASTM C 150. 3. Portland cement concrete should not be placed when the subgrade or air tem- perature is below 40oF. 4. Free water should not be finished into the concrete surface. Atomizing nozzle pressure sprayers for applying finishing compounds are recommended when- ever the concrete surface becomes difficult to finish. 5. Curing of the portland cement concrete should be accomplished by the use of a curing compound. The curing compound should be applied in accordance with manufacturer recommendations. 6. Curing procedures should be implemented, as necessary, to protect the pave- ment against moisture loss, rapid temperature change, freezing, and mechani- cal injury. 495 Section D, Item 1. DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE C-3 HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC10,520.000-125-R1 7. Construction joints, including longitudinal joints and transverse joints, should be formed during construction or sawed after the concrete has begun to set, but prior to uncontrolled cracking. 8. All joints should be properly sealed using a rod back-up and approved epoxy sealant. 9. Traffic should not be allowed on the pavement until it has properly cured and achieved at least 80 percent of the design strength, with saw joints already cut. 10. Placement of portland cement concrete should be observed and tested by a representative of our firm. Placement should not commence until the subgrade is properly prepared and tested. 496 Section D, Item 1. DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE C-4 HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC10,520.000-125-R1 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES Experience has shown that construction methods can significantly affect the life and serviceability of a pavement system. A site-specific mix design is recommended and periodic checks during the project should be made to verify compliance with specifications. We rec- ommend the proposed pavement be constructed in the following manner: 1. The subgrade should be stripped of organic matter, scarified, moisture condi- tioned and compacted. Subgrade soils should be moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum modified Proctor dry density (ASTM D 1557). 2. Utility trenches and all subsequently placed fill should be moisture condi- tioned, compacted, and tested prior to paving. As a minimum, fill should be compacted to 95 percent of maximum standard Proctor dry density. 3. After final subgrade elevation has been reached and the subgrade com- pacted, the resulting subgrade should be checked for uniformity and all soft or yielding materials should be replaced prior to paving. Concrete should not be placed on soft, spongy, frozen, or otherwise unsuitable subgrade. 4. If areas of soft or wet subgrade are encountered, the material should be sub- excavated and replaced with properly compacted structural backfill. Where ex- tensively soft, yielding subgrade is encountered, we recommend the excava- tion be inspected by a representative of our office. 5. Aggregate base course should be laid in thin, loose lifts no more than 6 inches, moisture treated to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 95 percent of modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). 6. Asphaltic concrete should be hot plant-mixed material compacted to between 92 and 96 percent of maximum Theoretical density. The temperature at laydown time should be at least 245 F. The surface shall be sealed with a fin- ish roller prior to the mix cooling to 185 F. 7. The maximum compacted lift should be 3 inches and joints should be stag- gered. No joints should be within wheel paths. 8. Paving should only be performed when subgrade temperatures are above 40 F and air temperature is at least 40 F and rising. 9. Subgrade preparation and placement and compaction of all pavement mate- rial should be observed and tested. Compaction criteria should be met prior to the placement of the next paving lift. The additional requirements of the Lar- imer County Urban Area Street Standards should apply. 497 Section D, Item 1. DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE C-5 HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC10,520.000-125-R1 RIGID PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES Rigid pavement sections are not as sensitive to subgrade support characteristics as flexible pavement. Due to the strength of the concrete, wheel loads from traffic are distributed over a large area and the resulting subgrade stresses are relatively low. The critical factors affecting the performance of a rigid pavement are the strength and quality of the concrete, and the uniformity of the subgrade. We recommend subgrade preparation and construction of the rigid pavement section be completed in accordance with the following recommenda- tions: 1. The subgrade should be stripped of organic matter, scarified, moisture condi- tioned and compacted. Subgrade soils should be moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum modified Proctor dry density (ASTM D 1557). 2. After final subgrade elevation has been reached and the subgrade com- pacted, the resulting subgrade should be checked for uniformity and all soft or yielding materials should be replaced prior to paving. Concrete should not be placed on soft, spongy, frozen, or otherwise unsuitable subgrade. 3. The subgrade should be kept moist prior to paving. 4. Curing procedures should protect the concrete against moisture loss, rapid temperature change, freezing, and mechanical injury for at least 3 days after placement. Traffic should not be allowed on the pavement for at least one week. 5. Curing of the portland cement concrete should be accomplished by use of a curing compound in accordance with manufacturer recommendations. 6. Construction joints, including longitudinal joints and transverse joints, should be formed during construction or should be sawed shortly after the concrete has begun to set, but prior to uncontrolled cracking. All joints should be sealed. 7. Construction control and inspection should be performed during the subgrade preparation and paving procedures. Concrete should be carefully monitored for quality control. The additional requirements of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards should apply. The design sections are based upon 10-year and 20-year periods. Experience in the Denver area indicates virtually no maintenance or overlays are necessary for a 20-year de- sign period. We believe some maintenance and sealing of concrete joints will help pavement performance by helping to keep surface moisture from wetting and softening or heaving sub- grade. To avoid problems associated with scaling and to continue the strength gain, we rec- ommend deicing salts not be used for the first year after placement. 498 Section D, Item 1. DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE C-6 HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC10,520.000-125-R1 MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES FOR FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS A primary cause for deterioration of pavements is oxidative aging resulting in brittle pavements. Tire loads from traffic are necessary to "work" or knead the asphalt concrete to keep it flexible and rejuvenated. Preventive maintenance treatments will typically preserve the original or existing pavement by providing a protective seal or rejuvenating the asphalt binder to extend pavement life. Annual Preventive Maintenance Visual pavement evaluations should be performed each year. Reports documenting the progress of distress should be kept current to pro- vide information on effective times to apply preventive maintenance treat- ments. Crack sealing should be performed annually as new cracks appear. 3 to 5-Year Preventive Maintenance The owner should budget for a preventive treatment (e.g. chip seal, fog seal, slurry seal) at approximate intervals of 3 to 5 years to reduce oxidative embrit- tlement problems. 5 to 10-Year Corrective Maintenance Corrective maintenance (e.g. full-depth patching, milling and overlay) may be necessary, as dictated by the pavement condition, to correct rutting, cracking and structurally failed areas. 499 Section D, Item 1. DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE C-7 HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC10,520.000-125-R1 MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES FOR RIGID PAVEMENTS High traffic volumes create pavement rutting and smooth, polished surfaces. Preven- tive maintenance treatments will typically preserve the original or existing pavement by providing a protective seal and improving skid resistance through a new wearing course. Annual Preventive Maintenance Visual pavement evaluations should be performed each spring or fall. Reports documenting the progress of distress should be kept current to pro- vide information of effective times to apply preventive maintenance. Crack sealing should be performed annually as new cracks appear. 4 to 8 Year Preventive Maintenance The owner should budget for a preventive treatment at approximate intervals of 4 to 8 years to reduce joint deterioration. Typical preventive maintenance for rigid pavements includes patching, crack sealing and joint cleaning and sealing. Where joint sealants are missing or distressed, resealing is mandatory. 15 to 20 Year Corrective Maintenance Corrective maintenance for rigid pavements includes patching and slab re- placement to correct subgrade failures, edge damage and material failure. Asphalt concrete overlays may be required at 15 to 20 year intervals to im- prove the structural capacity of the pavement. 500 Section D, Item 1. August 27, 2024 Dear Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission Members: For more than fifty years, Housing Catalyst has been building community in Northern Colorado. As the City’s designated Public Housing Authority, we address the growing need for affordable homes through innovative, sustainable, community-focused solutions—developing and managing residential properties, administering housing assistance, and coordinating community programs and services. As a member of the Northern Colorado Continuum of Care (CoC), we recognize the critical role homelessness prevention plays in creating a thriving community and region. Housing Catalyst is also a mission-driven real estate developer. We own, manage, or have been instrumental in the creation of more than 1,600 local residences. We administer rental assistance to more than 1,500 local families each year, moving people out of homelessness, stabilizing families, and improving lives. Each year, Housing Catalyst serves thousands of community members, including seniors, individuals with disabilities, and children. The proposed Fort Collins Rescue Mission project will provide a critical, 24/7 shelter option for up to 250 people experiencing homelessness in our community. The building’s emphasis on trauma-informed design is a respectful design approach that has proven to be successful across the industry, including within the Housing Catalyst portfolio. The City of Fort Collins has supported efforts to make homelessness rare, brief, and nonrecurring for many years. The City’s more recent adopted policies continue this work, including the City Plan (2019) and the Housing Strategic Plan (2021). These documents specifically encourage projects that support housing stability and support the development of a coordinated system for social health that should be accessible to all who need assistance. The current capacity of the City’s homeless shelters is insufficient to meet community needs, necessitating a new, expanded shelter facility. Housing Catalyst agrees with City staff’s analysis of the proposed project and we encourage the Planning and Zoning Commission to rely on Land Use Code requirements as the basis for consideration of the project. A homeless shelter is a permitted use in the Service Commercial (CS) Zone. Because the use is permitted, and because the Code is primarily a regulatory document to guide the development of the built environment, Housing Catalyst respectfully requests that the Commission’s evaluation of the project align with the purpose and intent of the Land Use Code. 501 Section D, Item 1. We recognize that there is significant opposition to this project. Many concerns to date have been related to the future operation of the shelter and the potential behavior of the shelter’s guests. The operation of the shelter once it is built is absolutely an important consideration for Rescue Mission as the operator. However, the Code does not address nor permit the consideration of potential, future, individual behavior as part of the entitlement process. Housing Catalyst appreciates the opportunity to provide comments regarding this proposed project. Sincerely, Julie J. Brewen CEO 502 Section D, Item 1. 503 Section D, Item 1. From:kang dongjoon To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] Fort Collins rescue mission shelter project hearing Date:Tuesday, August 27, 2024 3:13:09 PM To whom it may concern, I hope this message finds you well. My name is Soonmi, and I am the owner of Montclair motel, located at 1405 N College Ave. I am writing to express my concerns regarding the city's proposed approval of homeless shelter directly adjacent to my property. While I fully support the city's efforts to address homelessness and provide necessary resources for those in need, I am deeply concerned about the potential impact this shelter could have on my business, as well as the surrounding neighborhood. Key Concerns: 1. Impact on business and property valve : The proximity of the shelter to my motel could significantly affect my business by reducing property value and discouraging guests from staying at my establishment. The perception of safety and comfort is paramount for my guests, and I fear that having a homeless shelter next door could negatively influence their decision to stay. 2. Safety and Security : I am also concerned about the potential safety risks for both my guests, myself, and employee. An increase in foot traffic, loitering,or other disturbances could create an environment that is less secure, which may lead to a decrease in bookings and an unsafe atmosphere for myself and staffs. 3. Neighborhood impact: The shelter could contribute to increase noise levels, disturbances, and potential cleanliness issues in the area, This could lead to decline in the overall appeal of the neighborhood, further impacting local business and residents. Request for Consideration: I kindly request that the city consider alternative locations for the shelter that would not negatively impact local business and neighborhood. I also urge the city to engage in a dialogue with local business owners to discuss these concerns and explore potential solutions that can meet the needs of all parties involved. Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns. I would appreciate to participate in a public hearing to discuss this matter through an email. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Soonmi Lee Owner, Montclair Motel 970-218-7222 504 Section D, Item 1. From:David Garner To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] Fort Collins Rescue Mission, PDR220013 Date:Monday, March 6, 2023 4:56:03 PM Hello, Please see my below comment on the Fort Collins Rescue Mission, PDR220013. The “Building Standards” section of the LUC that has a subsection on “Building and Project Compatibility” which states, “the development plan shall create opportunities for interactions among neighbors without sacrificing privacy or security.” [LUC 5.15.1(D)]. The homeless shelter project proposal mentioned nothing (besides a fence and larger lobby to reduce loitering) that addresses the compatibility standard regarding “sacrificing privacy or security”. Increasing the traffic flow of already at-risk population into close proximity is sacrificing security. This is such a risky and sensitive project that I would expect planning and zoning to require more submittals from the applicant to specifically address security. If the applicant is truly expressing intent on mitigating security concerns, I would expect more wayfinding improvements, additional lighting requirements for the pedestrian and surrounding access points, a call box, statements regarding not allowing camping, sharps container installations, trash receptacles on the sidewalks…… Please be vigilant in requiring more commitments and design elements that address community concerns rather than owner occupant amenities. We need a solution to the homeless problem, but please do not fast track this project without spending much more time addressing the security implications of this project. Additionally, there is a study conducted by the national association of realtors that is averaging a drop of 12.7% in property values for parcels withing 500 feet of homeless shelters. That doesn’t feel very good either. Regards, David Garner MBA Fb2 dgarner@fb2online.com 970.846.4113 505 Section D, Item 1. From:Sean Dougherty To:Development Review Comments Cc:Greg Woods; Greg Woods Subject:[EXTERNAL] Homeless Campus on North College comments. Date:Tuesday, August 27, 2024 1:47:21 AM Unfortunately, I cannot find a link to submit my comments elsewhere, so I will ask that you please forward these comments to the Planning & Zoning Committee. I strongly request that you deny this application on North College. This campus does not fall anywhere close to being compatible with the surrounding properties. I understand that there are other services in the region, but that is no reason to saddle the already struggling businesses on North College with more people who disregard others' property and will not patronize these businesses. We, as a city, spent over $10 million a few years ago to update and upgrade the roadway, to bring North College into the 21st Century and give these businesses a chance to thrive, and they're beginning to do this, adding this campus will be a huge step backwards. As a former owner of North College Discount Liquors (now Poudre Liquors) I saw first hand what some of the "travellers" (those who hoard the services, but have no desire to get off the streets) do, from defecating on our front steps, to stealing our merchandise, to congregating on our property drinking alcohol (risking our liquor license). This does not help business at all. After spending over 13 years on the Larimer County Planning Commission, I understand that your first and foremost role is to find if the use of a property is compatible with the surrounding area, and I cannot see any way that this use is compatible. Please deny this application. Thank you. Sean Dougherty Excuse my brevity, responding on my phone. Thanks! Sean 506 Section D, Item 1. August 27, 2024 City of Fort Collins Planning & Zoning Commission smanno@fcgov.com Subject: Support for the Proposed Fort Collins Rescue Mission Shelter Dear Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission, I am writing to express my personal support for the proposed Fort Collins Rescue Mission Shelter located at 1311 North College. As a resident of Fort Collins who lives in District 1, I experience North College on a daily basis and believe strongly that this project will benefit not only those experiencing homelessness but the business community as well. Building a new shelter will allow us, as a community, to provide 24/7 shelter and a safe place for members of our community as they transition to stable housing and regain independence. While programming is not the purview of the Commission, the essential services and access to programs that will be provided in this facility are key to the success of our community. The proposed Fort Collins Rescue Mission Shelter is a permitted use in the Service Commercial (CS) zone district. The design team has put in significant effort to ensure that the project is not just a shelter, but a seamless part of our community, highly compatible with the surrounding area. The business community is divided on their support for this project and the Fort Collins Area Chamber does not have a position on this specific project. Still, as a champion for business, I personally see the opportunity that the Fort Collins Rescue Mission Shelter offers to our entire community, and I urge the Planning & Zoning Commission to approve the proposed Fort Collins Rescue Mission Shelter. Sincerely, Ann Hutchison, CAE 507 Section D, Item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`aT]WXbSTUVSWXYZ[X\\T]^_XY` c`deXWf 508 Section D, Item 1.                ! " # $  % &'  ( ' ) * +  ,"   )          " '   -   " "- "    -    % .+ ' / '  " -% $"  '( 01#&0   234526789:7;;3<=>78?@3<67A234526789:7;;3<=>78? B?CD76D 509 Section D, Item 1. To: Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission From: Judy Wrought, member Together Colorado Larimer County judywrought@comcast.net 970-402-5662 In anticipation of your action to be taken on August 28, 2024 regarding a day and night shelter in north Fort Collins, I write in support of a facility that will provided a safe place for rest and renewal and a place where transforming support can be given for treatment of alcohol addiction, drug abuse, job training, post traumatic stress disorder and other life threating, life denying activities. Without such a facility, the helping services we provide only maintain life is a limited way. Please listen to the testimonies of those who have suffered addiction and other challenges, those who received caring and rehabbing services and have been restored to the fullness of life. Please provide those services by affirming, supporting and funding the proposed facility. 510 Section D, Item 1. 511 Section D, Item 1. 512 Section D, Item 1. 513 Section D, Item 1. 514 Section D, Item 1. 515 Section D, Item 1. 516 Section D, Item 1. 517 Section D, Item 1. 518 Section D, Item 1. 519 Section D, Item 1. 520 Section D, Item 1. 521 Section D, Item 1. 522 Section D, Item 1. 523 Section D, Item 1. 524 Section D, Item 1. 525 Section D, Item 1. 526 Section D, Item 1. 527 Section D, Item 1. 528 Section D, Item 1. 529 Section D, Item 1. 530 Section D, Item 1. 531 Section D, Item 1. 532 Section D, Item 1. Maria 80524 9704139447 FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter Your answers will be shared with the City of Fort Collins City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission.  Name Zip code Phone Number 8/27/24, 1:44 PM FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1JRLM-AGX4VXU9NxMGVTCyCuobQOvET5NHMaS8nUyK74/edit#response=ACYDBNhpao251dosAcDyg6YHthHwjEQhbOYeYEQm42AIAB2EJOTyMnZVxxj42kHv9j…1/33 533 Section D, Item 1. Respected Elected Officials Opposition Letter I oppose the construction of the shelter in North College due to signicant concerns related to social justice, equity, incompatibility with land use code, transparency, and the exclusion of those directly affected. Specically: Imbalanced Committee Representation: The site selection committees were dominated by service providers, with little input from affected neighborhoods, leading to recommendations that don’t reect community concerns. Pre-Determined Site Selection: The Bohemian Foundation site was likely pre-selected before public engagement began, raising doubts about the fairness of the process. Disregard for Social Impact: The North College area, already vulnerable due to high poverty and immigrant populations, was selected without a thorough social impact assessment, potentially worsening existing inequalities. Exclusionary Engagement and Legal Risks: The engagement process excluded non-English-speaking residents and discouraged communication with Councilmembers, raising potential legal claims related to civil rights violations. Irregularities and Lack of Transparency: The decision-making process was not transparent, with powerful entities inuencing outcomes, raising concerns about its integrity. Unaddressed Community Concerns: Despite calls for a more inclusive process, the concerns of the North College community have been largely ignored. In relation to more specic compatibility issues related to Land Use Code, I oppose because… Inadequate Parking: The proposed parking is insucient, with a awed parking study and no clear enforcement plan for car and RV camping. Incompatibility with Neighborhood: The 24/7 operations and large facility are out of scale with the neighborhood, which consists of smaller homes and businesses. The shelter could overwhelm the area. Zoning and Safety Concerns: The preservation zoning around mobile home parks makes the area incompatible with the shelter’s size. Residents, particularly in Hickory Village, fear contacting the police due to immigration status and discrimination concerns, leading to underreporting of issues. Pedestrian Safety: There’s no crosswalk near the site, forcing people to cross a busy highway, increasing the risk of accidents. Overow Shelter Risk: There is a concern that the building could be used as an overow shelter for Denver’s homeless, which is not permitted under current zoning. Thank you. 8/27/24, 1:44 PM FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1JRLM-AGX4VXU9NxMGVTCyCuobQOvET5NHMaS8nUyK74/edit#response=ACYDBNhpao251dosAcDyg6YHthHwjEQhbOYeYEQm42AIAB2EJOTyMnZVxxj42kHv9j…2/33 534 Section D, Item 1. Yes No Personal Testimony I oppose on any shelter being build or next to any park or neighborhood. Reason for that is their are children around and for the children safety as well as honest working tax paying residents. The safety of my family and community is at risk when those shelters are near. This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google. Do you wish to add a personal testimony? Personal Testimony  Forms 8/27/24, 1:44 PM FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1JRLM-AGX4VXU9NxMGVTCyCuobQOvET5NHMaS8nUyK74/edit#response=ACYDBNhpao251dosAcDyg6YHthHwjEQhbOYeYEQm42AIAB2EJOTyMnZVxxj42kHv9j…3/33 535 Section D, Item 1. Elizabeth 80524 9708033297 FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter Your answers will be shared with the City of Fort Collins City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission.  Name Zip code Phone Number 8/27/24, 1:44 PM FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1JRLM-AGX4VXU9NxMGVTCyCuobQOvET5NHMaS8nUyK74/edit#response=ACYDBNhpao251dosAcDyg6YHthHwjEQhbOYeYEQm42AIAB2EJOTyMnZVxxj42kHv9j…4/33 536 Section D, Item 1. Respected Elected Officials Opposition Letter I oppose the construction of the shelter in North College due to signicant concerns related to social justice, equity, incompatibility with land use code, transparency, and the exclusion of those directly affected. Specically: Imbalanced Committee Representation: The site selection committees were dominated by service providers, with little input from affected neighborhoods, leading to recommendations that don’t reect community concerns. Pre-Determined Site Selection: The Bohemian Foundation site was likely pre-selected before public engagement began, raising doubts about the fairness of the process. Disregard for Social Impact: The North College area, already vulnerable due to high poverty and immigrant populations, was selected without a thorough social impact assessment, potentially worsening existing inequalities. Exclusionary Engagement and Legal Risks: The engagement process excluded non-English-speaking residents and discouraged communication with Councilmembers, raising potential legal claims related to civil rights violations. Irregularities and Lack of Transparency: The decision-making process was not transparent, with powerful entities inuencing outcomes, raising concerns about its integrity. Unaddressed Community Concerns: Despite calls for a more inclusive process, the concerns of the North College community have been largely ignored. In relation to more specic compatibility issues related to Land Use Code, I oppose because… Inadequate Parking: The proposed parking is insucient, with a awed parking study and no clear enforcement plan for car and RV camping. Incompatibility with Neighborhood: The 24/7 operations and large facility are out of scale with the neighborhood, which consists of smaller homes and businesses. The shelter could overwhelm the area. Zoning and Safety Concerns: The preservation zoning around mobile home parks makes the area incompatible with the shelter’s size. Residents, particularly in Hickory Village, fear contacting the police due to immigration status and discrimination concerns, leading to underreporting of issues. Pedestrian Safety: There’s no crosswalk near the site, forcing people to cross a busy highway, increasing the risk of accidents. Overow Shelter Risk: There is a concern that the building could be used as an overow shelter for Denver’s homeless, which is not permitted under current zoning. Thank you. 8/27/24, 1:44 PM FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1JRLM-AGX4VXU9NxMGVTCyCuobQOvET5NHMaS8nUyK74/edit#response=ACYDBNhpao251dosAcDyg6YHthHwjEQhbOYeYEQm42AIAB2EJOTyMnZVxxj42kHv9j…5/33 537 Section D, Item 1. Yes No Personal Testimony This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google. Do you wish to add a personal testimony? Personal Testimony  Forms 8/27/24, 1:44 PM FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1JRLM-AGX4VXU9NxMGVTCyCuobQOvET5NHMaS8nUyK74/edit#response=ACYDBNhpao251dosAcDyg6YHthHwjEQhbOYeYEQm42AIAB2EJOTyMnZVxxj42kHv9j…6/33 538 Section D, Item 1. Rene 80524 9709884201 FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter Your answers will be shared with the City of Fort Collins City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission.  Name Zip code Phone Number 8/27/24, 1:44 PM FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1JRLM-AGX4VXU9NxMGVTCyCuobQOvET5NHMaS8nUyK74/edit#response=ACYDBNhpao251dosAcDyg6YHthHwjEQhbOYeYEQm42AIAB2EJOTyMnZVxxj42kHv9j…7/33 539 Section D, Item 1. Respected Elected Officials Opposition Letter I oppose the construction of the shelter in North College due to signicant concerns related to social justice, equity, incompatibility with land use code, transparency, and the exclusion of those directly affected. Specically: Imbalanced Committee Representation: The site selection committees were dominated by service providers, with little input from affected neighborhoods, leading to recommendations that don’t reect community concerns. Pre-Determined Site Selection: The Bohemian Foundation site was likely pre-selected before public engagement began, raising doubts about the fairness of the process. Disregard for Social Impact: The North College area, already vulnerable due to high poverty and immigrant populations, was selected without a thorough social impact assessment, potentially worsening existing inequalities. Exclusionary Engagement and Legal Risks: The engagement process excluded non-English-speaking residents and discouraged communication with Councilmembers, raising potential legal claims related to civil rights violations. Irregularities and Lack of Transparency: The decision-making process was not transparent, with powerful entities inuencing outcomes, raising concerns about its integrity. Unaddressed Community Concerns: Despite calls for a more inclusive process, the concerns of the North College community have been largely ignored. In relation to more specic compatibility issues related to Land Use Code, I oppose because… Inadequate Parking: The proposed parking is insucient, with a awed parking study and no clear enforcement plan for car and RV camping. Incompatibility with Neighborhood: The 24/7 operations and large facility are out of scale with the neighborhood, which consists of smaller homes and businesses. The shelter could overwhelm the area. Zoning and Safety Concerns: The preservation zoning around mobile home parks makes the area incompatible with the shelter’s size. Residents, particularly in Hickory Village, fear contacting the police due to immigration status and discrimination concerns, leading to underreporting of issues. Pedestrian Safety: There’s no crosswalk near the site, forcing people to cross a busy highway, increasing the risk of accidents. Overow Shelter Risk: There is a concern that the building could be used as an overow shelter for Denver’s homeless, which is not permitted under current zoning. Thank you. 8/27/24, 1:44 PM FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1JRLM-AGX4VXU9NxMGVTCyCuobQOvET5NHMaS8nUyK74/edit#response=ACYDBNhpao251dosAcDyg6YHthHwjEQhbOYeYEQm42AIAB2EJOTyMnZVxxj42kHv9j…8/33 540 Section D, Item 1. Yes No Personal Testimony This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google. Do you wish to add a personal testimony? Personal Testimony  Forms 8/27/24, 1:44 PM FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1JRLM-AGX4VXU9NxMGVTCyCuobQOvET5NHMaS8nUyK74/edit#response=ACYDBNhpao251dosAcDyg6YHthHwjEQhbOYeYEQm42AIAB2EJOTyMnZVxxj42kHv9j…9/33 541 Section D, Item 1. Damuel 80524 9707877727 FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter Your answers will be shared with the City of Fort Collins City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission.  Name Zip code Phone Number 8/27/24, 1:44 PM FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1JRLM-AGX4VXU9NxMGVTCyCuobQOvET5NHMaS8nUyK74/edit#response=ACYDBNhpao251dosAcDyg6YHthHwjEQhbOYeYEQm42AIAB2EJOTyMnZVxxj42kHv…10/33 542 Section D, Item 1. Respected Elected Officials Opposition Letter I oppose the construction of the shelter in North College due to signicant concerns related to social justice, equity, incompatibility with land use code, transparency, and the exclusion of those directly affected. Specically: Imbalanced Committee Representation: The site selection committees were dominated by service providers, with little input from affected neighborhoods, leading to recommendations that don’t reect community concerns. Pre-Determined Site Selection: The Bohemian Foundation site was likely pre-selected before public engagement began, raising doubts about the fairness of the process. Disregard for Social Impact: The North College area, already vulnerable due to high poverty and immigrant populations, was selected without a thorough social impact assessment, potentially worsening existing inequalities. Exclusionary Engagement and Legal Risks: The engagement process excluded non-English-speaking residents and discouraged communication with Councilmembers, raising potential legal claims related to civil rights violations. Irregularities and Lack of Transparency: The decision-making process was not transparent, with powerful entities inuencing outcomes, raising concerns about its integrity. Unaddressed Community Concerns: Despite calls for a more inclusive process, the concerns of the North College community have been largely ignored. In relation to more specic compatibility issues related to Land Use Code, I oppose because… Inadequate Parking: The proposed parking is insucient, with a awed parking study and no clear enforcement plan for car and RV camping. Incompatibility with Neighborhood: The 24/7 operations and large facility are out of scale with the neighborhood, which consists of smaller homes and businesses. The shelter could overwhelm the area. Zoning and Safety Concerns: The preservation zoning around mobile home parks makes the area incompatible with the shelter’s size. Residents, particularly in Hickory Village, fear contacting the police due to immigration status and discrimination concerns, leading to underreporting of issues. Pedestrian Safety: There’s no crosswalk near the site, forcing people to cross a busy highway, increasing the risk of accidents. Overow Shelter Risk: There is a concern that the building could be used as an overow shelter for Denver’s homeless, which is not permitted under current zoning. Thank you. 8/27/24, 1:44 PM FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1JRLM-AGX4VXU9NxMGVTCyCuobQOvET5NHMaS8nUyK74/edit#response=ACYDBNhpao251dosAcDyg6YHthHwjEQhbOYeYEQm42AIAB2EJOTyMnZVxxj42kHv…11/33 543 Section D, Item 1. Yes No Personal Testimony This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google. Do you wish to add a personal testimony? Personal Testimony  Forms 8/27/24, 1:44 PM FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1JRLM-AGX4VXU9NxMGVTCyCuobQOvET5NHMaS8nUyK74/edit#response=ACYDBNhpao251dosAcDyg6YHthHwjEQhbOYeYEQm42AIAB2EJOTyMnZVxxj42kHv…12/33 544 Section D, Item 1. Oliver 80524 9703338421 FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter Your answers will be shared with the City of Fort Collins City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission.  Name Zip code Phone Number 8/27/24, 1:44 PM FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1JRLM-AGX4VXU9NxMGVTCyCuobQOvET5NHMaS8nUyK74/edit#response=ACYDBNhpao251dosAcDyg6YHthHwjEQhbOYeYEQm42AIAB2EJOTyMnZVxxj42kHv…13/33 545 Section D, Item 1. Respected Elected Officials Opposition Letter I oppose the construction of the shelter in North College due to signicant concerns related to social justice, equity, incompatibility with land use code, transparency, and the exclusion of those directly affected. Specically: Imbalanced Committee Representation: The site selection committees were dominated by service providers, with little input from affected neighborhoods, leading to recommendations that don’t reect community concerns. Pre-Determined Site Selection: The Bohemian Foundation site was likely pre-selected before public engagement began, raising doubts about the fairness of the process. Disregard for Social Impact: The North College area, already vulnerable due to high poverty and immigrant populations, was selected without a thorough social impact assessment, potentially worsening existing inequalities. Exclusionary Engagement and Legal Risks: The engagement process excluded non-English-speaking residents and discouraged communication with Councilmembers, raising potential legal claims related to civil rights violations. Irregularities and Lack of Transparency: The decision-making process was not transparent, with powerful entities inuencing outcomes, raising concerns about its integrity. Unaddressed Community Concerns: Despite calls for a more inclusive process, the concerns of the North College community have been largely ignored. In relation to more specic compatibility issues related to Land Use Code, I oppose because… Inadequate Parking: The proposed parking is insucient, with a awed parking study and no clear enforcement plan for car and RV camping. Incompatibility with Neighborhood: The 24/7 operations and large facility are out of scale with the neighborhood, which consists of smaller homes and businesses. The shelter could overwhelm the area. Zoning and Safety Concerns: The preservation zoning around mobile home parks makes the area incompatible with the shelter’s size. Residents, particularly in Hickory Village, fear contacting the police due to immigration status and discrimination concerns, leading to underreporting of issues. Pedestrian Safety: There’s no crosswalk near the site, forcing people to cross a busy highway, increasing the risk of accidents. Overow Shelter Risk: There is a concern that the building could be used as an overow shelter for Denver’s homeless, which is not permitted under current zoning. Thank you. 8/27/24, 1:44 PM FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1JRLM-AGX4VXU9NxMGVTCyCuobQOvET5NHMaS8nUyK74/edit#response=ACYDBNhpao251dosAcDyg6YHthHwjEQhbOYeYEQm42AIAB2EJOTyMnZVxxj42kHv…14/33 546 Section D, Item 1. Yes No Personal Testimony This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google. Do you wish to add a personal testimony? Personal Testimony  Forms 8/27/24, 1:44 PM FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1JRLM-AGX4VXU9NxMGVTCyCuobQOvET5NHMaS8nUyK74/edit#response=ACYDBNhpao251dosAcDyg6YHthHwjEQhbOYeYEQm42AIAB2EJOTyMnZVxxj42kHv…15/33 547 Section D, Item 1. Leonardo 80524 9708803117 FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter Your answers will be shared with the City of Fort Collins City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission.  Name Zip code Phone Number 8/27/24, 1:44 PM FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1JRLM-AGX4VXU9NxMGVTCyCuobQOvET5NHMaS8nUyK74/edit#response=ACYDBNhpao251dosAcDyg6YHthHwjEQhbOYeYEQm42AIAB2EJOTyMnZVxxj42kHv…16/33 548 Section D, Item 1. Respected Elected Officials Opposition Letter I oppose the construction of the shelter in North College due to signicant concerns related to social justice, equity, incompatibility with land use code, transparency, and the exclusion of those directly affected. Specically: Imbalanced Committee Representation: The site selection committees were dominated by service providers, with little input from affected neighborhoods, leading to recommendations that don’t reect community concerns. Pre-Determined Site Selection: The Bohemian Foundation site was likely pre-selected before public engagement began, raising doubts about the fairness of the process. Disregard for Social Impact: The North College area, already vulnerable due to high poverty and immigrant populations, was selected without a thorough social impact assessment, potentially worsening existing inequalities. Exclusionary Engagement and Legal Risks: The engagement process excluded non-English-speaking residents and discouraged communication with Councilmembers, raising potential legal claims related to civil rights violations. Irregularities and Lack of Transparency: The decision-making process was not transparent, with powerful entities inuencing outcomes, raising concerns about its integrity. Unaddressed Community Concerns: Despite calls for a more inclusive process, the concerns of the North College community have been largely ignored. In relation to more specic compatibility issues related to Land Use Code, I oppose because… Inadequate Parking: The proposed parking is insucient, with a awed parking study and no clear enforcement plan for car and RV camping. Incompatibility with Neighborhood: The 24/7 operations and large facility are out of scale with the neighborhood, which consists of smaller homes and businesses. The shelter could overwhelm the area. Zoning and Safety Concerns: The preservation zoning around mobile home parks makes the area incompatible with the shelter’s size. Residents, particularly in Hickory Village, fear contacting the police due to immigration status and discrimination concerns, leading to underreporting of issues. Pedestrian Safety: There’s no crosswalk near the site, forcing people to cross a busy highway, increasing the risk of accidents. Overow Shelter Risk: There is a concern that the building could be used as an overow shelter for Denver’s homeless, which is not permitted under current zoning. Thank you. 8/27/24, 1:44 PM FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1JRLM-AGX4VXU9NxMGVTCyCuobQOvET5NHMaS8nUyK74/edit#response=ACYDBNhpao251dosAcDyg6YHthHwjEQhbOYeYEQm42AIAB2EJOTyMnZVxxj42kHv…17/33 549 Section D, Item 1. Yes No Personal Testimony This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google. Do you wish to add a personal testimony? Personal Testimony  Forms 8/27/24, 1:44 PM FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1JRLM-AGX4VXU9NxMGVTCyCuobQOvET5NHMaS8nUyK74/edit#response=ACYDBNhpao251dosAcDyg6YHthHwjEQhbOYeYEQm42AIAB2EJOTyMnZVxxj42kHv…18/33 550 Section D, Item 1. Rosie Wendel 80521 9702221475 FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter Your answers will be shared with the City of Fort Collins City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission.  Name Zip code Phone Number 8/27/24, 1:44 PM FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1JRLM-AGX4VXU9NxMGVTCyCuobQOvET5NHMaS8nUyK74/edit#response=ACYDBNhpao251dosAcDyg6YHthHwjEQhbOYeYEQm42AIAB2EJOTyMnZVxxj42kHv…19/33 551 Section D, Item 1. Respected Elected Officials Opposition Letter I oppose the construction of the shelter in North College due to signicant concerns related to social justice, equity, incompatibility with land use code, transparency, and the exclusion of those directly affected. Specically: Imbalanced Committee Representation: The site selection committees were dominated by service providers, with little input from affected neighborhoods, leading to recommendations that don’t reect community concerns. Pre-Determined Site Selection: The Bohemian Foundation site was likely pre-selected before public engagement began, raising doubts about the fairness of the process. Disregard for Social Impact: The North College area, already vulnerable due to high poverty and immigrant populations, was selected without a thorough social impact assessment, potentially worsening existing inequalities. Exclusionary Engagement and Legal Risks: The engagement process excluded non-English-speaking residents and discouraged communication with Councilmembers, raising potential legal claims related to civil rights violations. Irregularities and Lack of Transparency: The decision-making process was not transparent, with powerful entities inuencing outcomes, raising concerns about its integrity. Unaddressed Community Concerns: Despite calls for a more inclusive process, the concerns of the North College community have been largely ignored. In relation to more specic compatibility issues related to Land Use Code, I oppose because… Inadequate Parking: The proposed parking is insucient, with a awed parking study and no clear enforcement plan for car and RV camping. Incompatibility with Neighborhood: The 24/7 operations and large facility are out of scale with the neighborhood, which consists of smaller homes and businesses. The shelter could overwhelm the area. Zoning and Safety Concerns: The preservation zoning around mobile home parks makes the area incompatible with the shelter’s size. Residents, particularly in Hickory Village, fear contacting the police due to immigration status and discrimination concerns, leading to underreporting of issues. Pedestrian Safety: There’s no crosswalk near the site, forcing people to cross a busy highway, increasing the risk of accidents. Overow Shelter Risk: There is a concern that the building could be used as an overow shelter for Denver’s homeless, which is not permitted under current zoning. Thank you. 8/27/24, 1:44 PM FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1JRLM-AGX4VXU9NxMGVTCyCuobQOvET5NHMaS8nUyK74/edit#response=ACYDBNhpao251dosAcDyg6YHthHwjEQhbOYeYEQm42AIAB2EJOTyMnZVxxj42kHv…20/33 552 Section D, Item 1. Yes No Personal Testimony This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google. Do you wish to add a personal testimony? Personal Testimony  Forms 8/27/24, 1:44 PM FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1JRLM-AGX4VXU9NxMGVTCyCuobQOvET5NHMaS8nUyK74/edit#response=ACYDBNhpao251dosAcDyg6YHthHwjEQhbOYeYEQm42AIAB2EJOTyMnZVxxj42kHv…21/33 553 Section D, Item 1. Rosa 80524 9705452161 FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter Your answers will be shared with the City of Fort Collins City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission.  Name Zip code Phone Number 8/27/24, 1:44 PM FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1JRLM-AGX4VXU9NxMGVTCyCuobQOvET5NHMaS8nUyK74/edit#response=ACYDBNhpao251dosAcDyg6YHthHwjEQhbOYeYEQm42AIAB2EJOTyMnZVxxj42kHv…22/33 554 Section D, Item 1. Respected Elected Officials Opposition Letter I oppose the construction of the shelter in North College due to signicant concerns related to social justice, equity, incompatibility with land use code, transparency, and the exclusion of those directly affected. Specically: Imbalanced Committee Representation: The site selection committees were dominated by service providers, with little input from affected neighborhoods, leading to recommendations that don’t reect community concerns. Pre-Determined Site Selection: The Bohemian Foundation site was likely pre-selected before public engagement began, raising doubts about the fairness of the process. Disregard for Social Impact: The North College area, already vulnerable due to high poverty and immigrant populations, was selected without a thorough social impact assessment, potentially worsening existing inequalities. Exclusionary Engagement and Legal Risks: The engagement process excluded non-English-speaking residents and discouraged communication with Councilmembers, raising potential legal claims related to civil rights violations. Irregularities and Lack of Transparency: The decision-making process was not transparent, with powerful entities inuencing outcomes, raising concerns about its integrity. Unaddressed Community Concerns: Despite calls for a more inclusive process, the concerns of the North College community have been largely ignored. In relation to more specic compatibility issues related to Land Use Code, I oppose because… Inadequate Parking: The proposed parking is insucient, with a awed parking study and no clear enforcement plan for car and RV camping. Incompatibility with Neighborhood: The 24/7 operations and large facility are out of scale with the neighborhood, which consists of smaller homes and businesses. The shelter could overwhelm the area. Zoning and Safety Concerns: The preservation zoning around mobile home parks makes the area incompatible with the shelter’s size. Residents, particularly in Hickory Village, fear contacting the police due to immigration status and discrimination concerns, leading to underreporting of issues. Pedestrian Safety: There’s no crosswalk near the site, forcing people to cross a busy highway, increasing the risk of accidents. Overow Shelter Risk: There is a concern that the building could be used as an overow shelter for Denver’s homeless, which is not permitted under current zoning. Thank you. 8/27/24, 1:44 PM FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1JRLM-AGX4VXU9NxMGVTCyCuobQOvET5NHMaS8nUyK74/edit#response=ACYDBNhpao251dosAcDyg6YHthHwjEQhbOYeYEQm42AIAB2EJOTyMnZVxxj42kHv…23/33 555 Section D, Item 1. Yes No Personal Testimony This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google. Do you wish to add a personal testimony? Personal Testimony  Forms 8/27/24, 1:44 PM FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1JRLM-AGX4VXU9NxMGVTCyCuobQOvET5NHMaS8nUyK74/edit#response=ACYDBNhpao251dosAcDyg6YHthHwjEQhbOYeYEQm42AIAB2EJOTyMnZVxxj42kHv…24/33 556 Section D, Item 1. Diana Rios 80524 9702135769 FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter Your answers will be shared with the City of Fort Collins City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission.  Name Zip code Phone Number 8/27/24, 1:44 PM FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1JRLM-AGX4VXU9NxMGVTCyCuobQOvET5NHMaS8nUyK74/edit#response=ACYDBNhpao251dosAcDyg6YHthHwjEQhbOYeYEQm42AIAB2EJOTyMnZVxxj42kHv…25/33 557 Section D, Item 1. Respected Elected Officials Opposition Letter I oppose the construction of the shelter in North College due to signicant concerns related to social justice, equity, incompatibility with land use code, transparency, and the exclusion of those directly affected. Specically: Imbalanced Committee Representation: The site selection committees were dominated by service providers, with little input from affected neighborhoods, leading to recommendations that don’t reect community concerns. Pre-Determined Site Selection: The Bohemian Foundation site was likely pre-selected before public engagement began, raising doubts about the fairness of the process. Disregard for Social Impact: The North College area, already vulnerable due to high poverty and immigrant populations, was selected without a thorough social impact assessment, potentially worsening existing inequalities. Exclusionary Engagement and Legal Risks: The engagement process excluded non-English-speaking residents and discouraged communication with Councilmembers, raising potential legal claims related to civil rights violations. Irregularities and Lack of Transparency: The decision-making process was not transparent, with powerful entities inuencing outcomes, raising concerns about its integrity. Unaddressed Community Concerns: Despite calls for a more inclusive process, the concerns of the North College community have been largely ignored. In relation to more specic compatibility issues related to Land Use Code, I oppose because… Inadequate Parking: The proposed parking is insucient, with a awed parking study and no clear enforcement plan for car and RV camping. Incompatibility with Neighborhood: The 24/7 operations and large facility are out of scale with the neighborhood, which consists of smaller homes and businesses. The shelter could overwhelm the area. Zoning and Safety Concerns: The preservation zoning around mobile home parks makes the area incompatible with the shelter’s size. Residents, particularly in Hickory Village, fear contacting the police due to immigration status and discrimination concerns, leading to underreporting of issues. Pedestrian Safety: There’s no crosswalk near the site, forcing people to cross a busy highway, increasing the risk of accidents. Overow Shelter Risk: There is a concern that the building could be used as an overow shelter for Denver’s homeless, which is not permitted under current zoning. Thank you. 8/27/24, 1:44 PM FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1JRLM-AGX4VXU9NxMGVTCyCuobQOvET5NHMaS8nUyK74/edit#response=ACYDBNhpao251dosAcDyg6YHthHwjEQhbOYeYEQm42AIAB2EJOTyMnZVxxj42kHv…26/33 558 Section D, Item 1. Yes No Personal Testimony I've walked in on people getting high in the bathroom. Some of them have also yelled out horrible cuss words in front of young children and are often intoxicated in public. I do not feel safe around them and I do not feel my family would be safe around them either. This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google. Do you wish to add a personal testimony? Personal Testimony  Forms 8/27/24, 1:44 PM FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1JRLM-AGX4VXU9NxMGVTCyCuobQOvET5NHMaS8nUyK74/edit#response=ACYDBNhpao251dosAcDyg6YHthHwjEQhbOYeYEQm42AIAB2EJOTyMnZVxxj42kHv…27/33 559 Section D, Item 1. Silvia Angélica Soto 80524 9702130024 FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter Your answers will be shared with the City of Fort Collins City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission.  Name Zip code Phone Number 8/27/24, 1:44 PM FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1JRLM-AGX4VXU9NxMGVTCyCuobQOvET5NHMaS8nUyK74/edit#response=ACYDBNhpao251dosAcDyg6YHthHwjEQhbOYeYEQm42AIAB2EJOTyMnZVxxj42kHv…28/33 560 Section D, Item 1. Respected Elected Officials Opposition Letter I oppose the construction of the shelter in North College due to signicant concerns related to social justice, equity, incompatibility with land use code, transparency, and the exclusion of those directly affected. Specically: Imbalanced Committee Representation: The site selection committees were dominated by service providers, with little input from affected neighborhoods, leading to recommendations that don’t reect community concerns. Pre-Determined Site Selection: The Bohemian Foundation site was likely pre-selected before public engagement began, raising doubts about the fairness of the process. Disregard for Social Impact: The North College area, already vulnerable due to high poverty and immigrant populations, was selected without a thorough social impact assessment, potentially worsening existing inequalities. Exclusionary Engagement and Legal Risks: The engagement process excluded non-English-speaking residents and discouraged communication with Councilmembers, raising potential legal claims related to civil rights violations. Irregularities and Lack of Transparency: The decision-making process was not transparent, with powerful entities inuencing outcomes, raising concerns about its integrity. Unaddressed Community Concerns: Despite calls for a more inclusive process, the concerns of the North College community have been largely ignored. In relation to more specic compatibility issues related to Land Use Code, I oppose because… Inadequate Parking: The proposed parking is insucient, with a awed parking study and no clear enforcement plan for car and RV camping. Incompatibility with Neighborhood: The 24/7 operations and large facility are out of scale with the neighborhood, which consists of smaller homes and businesses. The shelter could overwhelm the area. Zoning and Safety Concerns: The preservation zoning around mobile home parks makes the area incompatible with the shelter’s size. Residents, particularly in Hickory Village, fear contacting the police due to immigration status and discrimination concerns, leading to underreporting of issues. Pedestrian Safety: There’s no crosswalk near the site, forcing people to cross a busy highway, increasing the risk of accidents. Overow Shelter Risk: There is a concern that the building could be used as an overow shelter for Denver’s homeless, which is not permitted under current zoning. Thank you. 8/27/24, 1:44 PM FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1JRLM-AGX4VXU9NxMGVTCyCuobQOvET5NHMaS8nUyK74/edit#response=ACYDBNhpao251dosAcDyg6YHthHwjEQhbOYeYEQm42AIAB2EJOTyMnZVxxj42kHv…29/33 561 Section D, Item 1. Yes No Personal Testimony Primeramente Gracias por la oportunidad de dar mi opinión! Mi testimonio es el siguiente: En varias ocasiones mi familia y yo hemos estado expuestos a situaciones desagradables con algunas personas sin hogar y por esa razón estoy en CONTRA de que el refugio se construya precisamente al lado de este parkeadero de casas móbiles. Si bien admiro profundamente la iniciativa de crear este tipo de proyectos; es urgente encontrar solución a estos problemas sociales, pero creo firmemente que se solucionará el problema de vivienda para ellos y a nosotros como comunidad se nos seguirá ignorando como hasta ahora. Como mencioné anteriormente es Admirable la labor de construir ese refugio pero les suplico por favor y por el bien de mi familia y de todas las familias de esta y otras comunidades cercanas que consideren construirlo en otra área donde haya menos vulnerabilidad; ya que como se nos ha informado hay otra opción que pueden considerar primero. This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google. Do you wish to add a personal testimony? Personal Testimony  Forms 8/27/24, 1:44 PM FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1JRLM-AGX4VXU9NxMGVTCyCuobQOvET5NHMaS8nUyK74/edit#response=ACYDBNhpao251dosAcDyg6YHthHwjEQhbOYeYEQm42AIAB2EJOTyMnZVxxj42kHv…30/33 562 Section D, Item 1. Catherine Colvin 80524 9702314633 FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter Your answers will be shared with the City of Fort Collins City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission.  Name Zip code Phone Number 8/27/24, 1:44 PM FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1JRLM-AGX4VXU9NxMGVTCyCuobQOvET5NHMaS8nUyK74/edit#response=ACYDBNhpao251dosAcDyg6YHthHwjEQhbOYeYEQm42AIAB2EJOTyMnZVxxj42kHv…31/33 563 Section D, Item 1. Respected Elected Officials Opposition Letter I oppose the construction of the shelter in North College due to signicant concerns related to social justice, equity, incompatibility with land use code, transparency, and the exclusion of those directly affected. Specically: Imbalanced Committee Representation: The site selection committees were dominated by service providers, with little input from affected neighborhoods, leading to recommendations that don’t reect community concerns. Pre-Determined Site Selection: The Bohemian Foundation site was likely pre-selected before public engagement began, raising doubts about the fairness of the process. Disregard for Social Impact: The North College area, already vulnerable due to high poverty and immigrant populations, was selected without a thorough social impact assessment, potentially worsening existing inequalities. Exclusionary Engagement and Legal Risks: The engagement process excluded non-English-speaking residents and discouraged communication with Councilmembers, raising potential legal claims related to civil rights violations. Irregularities and Lack of Transparency: The decision-making process was not transparent, with powerful entities inuencing outcomes, raising concerns about its integrity. Unaddressed Community Concerns: Despite calls for a more inclusive process, the concerns of the North College community have been largely ignored. In relation to more specic compatibility issues related to Land Use Code, I oppose because… Inadequate Parking: The proposed parking is insucient, with a awed parking study and no clear enforcement plan for car and RV camping. Incompatibility with Neighborhood: The 24/7 operations and large facility are out of scale with the neighborhood, which consists of smaller homes and businesses. The shelter could overwhelm the area. Zoning and Safety Concerns: The preservation zoning around mobile home parks makes the area incompatible with the shelter’s size. Residents, particularly in Hickory Village, fear contacting the police due to immigration status and discrimination concerns, leading to underreporting of issues. Pedestrian Safety: There’s no crosswalk near the site, forcing people to cross a busy highway, increasing the risk of accidents. Overow Shelter Risk: There is a concern that the building could be used as an overow shelter for Denver’s homeless, which is not permitted under current zoning. Thank you. 8/27/24, 1:44 PM FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1JRLM-AGX4VXU9NxMGVTCyCuobQOvET5NHMaS8nUyK74/edit#response=ACYDBNhpao251dosAcDyg6YHthHwjEQhbOYeYEQm42AIAB2EJOTyMnZVxxj42kHv…32/33 564 Section D, Item 1. Yes No Personal Testimony This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google. Do you wish to add a personal testimony? Personal Testimony  Forms 8/27/24, 1:44 PM FCRM Shelter in North College Opposition Letter https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1JRLM-AGX4VXU9NxMGVTCyCuobQOvET5NHMaS8nUyK74/edit#response=ACYDBNhpao251dosAcDyg6YHthHwjEQhbOYeYEQm42AIAB2EJOTyMnZVxxj42kHv…33/33 565 Section D, Item 1. Fort Collins Rescue Mission Homeless Shelter Concerns with regard to residential neighbors 122 Hibdon (Wood Family), 1401 N. College (Wankier Family) Dear Gentlepersons, The Wood and Wankier families are direct north neighbors to the FC Homeless Shelter project. We will be sharing a fence. We respectfully request direct contact/meeting with the planners, developers, and architects working on this project. In the design and reports, it states under the heading “How is your proposal compatible with the surrounding area? “The buildings are clustered towards Mason Street, away from the western property line. While this is in part to create space for the Natural Habitat Buffer area and the City regional detention facility, this also offers a large buffer between the proposed facility and the existing neighborhood immediately to the west.” There is NO mention of our homes and the ensuing impact on us. The westerly mobile home neighbors are 480’ away, while we will share a fence and are 50’ away. While we believe in the right of everyone to have dignified and safe space to live, we are asking for that same consideration to our families. The Wood family has raised three generations of their family at this property. The Wankier family had acquired the 1401 N College property 5 years ago, and as noted by the address, was an original farm that occupied the site from North College and extended to the west border, much like the 1311 N College property lies. Also a residence, it is also used seasonally for a small business to divert usable household goods from the landfill, donating and organizing household items to individuals and families in need in the community. (Partnerships include CSU dorm move out program, Homeward Alliance, Neighbor To Neighbor, Feruza Latina, FC Homeless Shelter, Mason Place, Sproutin’ Up, Volunteers of America, as well as many more). The following are our concerns, while the statements in red are our strong requests/demands as part of the design. 1) Structural design directly impacting our properties: • Shared E-W fence needs to be reinforced, made higher to 8’. • Request line of trees on Shelter side (south side E-W fence) to ensure privacy. 566 Section D, Item 1. • Request second story/window exposure be redesigned so second story dorm windows are not overlooking our properties for privacy for both the shelter and the family residents. • Where does our mailbox get relocated? Trash pickup is on Mason for 1401. • Retention pond and flood risk mitigation for Wood/Wankier homes. Please enumerate that for us. • Light and noise disturbance. • Wildlife disturbance. 2) Safety concerns: • Drug use, loitering, members waiting outside for intake, or choosing not to stay but utilizing area to camp. • Foot and car traffic (signage and marketing) be considered with regard to our safety/privacy so that 24/7 entrance does not lead Shelter guests to come on to our property looking for entrance. • Request design/financial responsibility of locking gate with pin pad for Wood/Wankier property at Mason entrance to our driveway/homes. • Request 24/7 contact number for immediate response if Shelter guests, or those not entering into shelter, are trespassing onto our properties. • What is our recourse for Vandalism, Theft, break-ins or trespassing? • Loitering: what is protocol for staying in the shelter? Do they leave during the day, to return at night? PLEASE direct use from south end from Hickory to discourage inadvertent or intentional entrance to our properties. • For 1401: What is design to prevent Shelter guests from accessing westernmost portion of Shelter property, with possible entrance to back pasture of 1401? • Transients: those not interested in staying overnight, but congregate in area • In a University of Pennsylvania study, it found: “Results. The presence of a shelter appears to cause property crime to increase by 56% within 100m of that shelter, with thefts from vehicles, other thefts, and vandalism driving the increase.” 567 Section D, Item 1. Journal Of Experimental Criminology. The final authenticated version is available online at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292- 017-9320-4 • Coloradoan OCTOBER 24, 2022 Regarding the crime around shelter: Several board members from Global Village Museum of Arts and Culture, located near last year's shelter site, asked for increased security this year, citing problems last winter with trash, human waste, loitering and vandalism from shelter guests. "Nobody wants people to be homeless in the winter and suffer," said Martha Denney, a board member and co-founder of the Global Village Museum. "However, we feel there have to be some stricter guidelines ... we had one person who was extremely violent and frightening to the staff in the museum. It was a matter of great concern." “Because it was there last year, and it does have impacts on neighbors and nearby businesses ... if we move it around the city a little bit more, it kind of spreads that impact out a little bit,” said Brittany Depew, the city’s homeless response and solutions lead specialist. OUR FAMILIES WILL TAKE ON AN UNFAIR BURDEN IN THE COMMUNTY when the need for providing safe and dignified housing should be shouldered by many. • Use of Shelter cameras should not be intrusive to our privacy at any time. • How are registered sex offenders being handled with proximity to young children living in mobile homes across the street from Shelter? 3) Value to property • NYC Independent Budget Office: A residence situated within 500 feet of a congregate shelter for adults sold for an estimated 7.1 percent less than a similar residence sold at a comparable time located 500 feet to 1,000 feet from a shelter for adults. • There is an incalculable loss of value for our properties due to the placement adjacent to our homes. Although the design fits in the future growth of the area, it is still currently a relatively undisturbed area with copious wildlife, quiet and tranquility. Increased car and foot traffic, noise, lighting, and the stigma of living close to a shelter directly impacts our families regardless of the humane intent and design for safety and security of the residents. Please, at least, recognize this as part of our perspective. 568 Section D, Item 1. Because of our proximity to open space, we have a long history for the basis of our concerns. These are some of the incidents from the past two summers alone: a SWAT team searching for a person who had brutally assaulted his girlfriend; a naked man was found in the woods with binoculars trained on the 55+ mobile homes; a woman was found sleeping on our property out of sight on the pasture; many people seeking privacy in the woods for illicit activity; needles and other drug paraphernalia are frequently found at our property entrances and in the fields; cars drive down our private driveways and refuse to leave because their belief is that is a city road; encampments exist throughout the summer, starting at Hickory and proceeding along Mason and up Hibdon. While the shelter is a solution to many of these issues, the possibility remains that these type of incidents many continue or increase despite the best efforts to provide members a safe place inside. There is an irreducible number of people that may not choose to avail themselves to the many trauma-informed services the shelter provides. It is the nature of trauma that some people are not ready to enter shelters but do choose to congregate near where warmth and shelter are offered. These are the times we are concerned about, and we ask that you regard these as both real and immediate to our families. We reached out to Emily Francis, our district City Councilperson, on September 23, 2022, with our concerns, and have also had contact with Brittany Depew. We wanted to voice our concerns early, so that they could be part of the design. We were always reassured that there would be neighborhood involvement. Both families attended the March 2nd meeting, and although Susan spoke by Zoom, this has not led to any further or better communication with the project designers. We appreciate the large endeavor, but do not want to be lost as part of the larger commentary from the community. WE ARE YOUR DIRECT NEIGHBORS, and respectfully ask for your attention to our concerns and requests. With regard, Ron and Jen Wood Lance Wankier and Susan Wingate 569 Section D, Item 1. From:Sharlene Manno To:Development Review Comments Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Fort Collins Rescue Mission Proposed Shelter Date:Tuesday, August 27, 2024 11:14:08 AM Shar Manno Administration Services Manager Community Development & Neighborhood Services 970.221.6767 smanno@fcgov.com From: Karen H. <fromie10@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 9:52 AM To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fort Collins Rescue Mission Proposed Shelter I wish to express my support for the proposed Fort Collins Rescue Mission shelter. I have volunteered in the kitchen at the current shelter and can attest to the need for more space. The mission does great work and has great impact. A 24/7 shelter that can accomodate more men and more programs is a win for both the homeless community and community of Fort Collins. Thank you, Karen Hertel 425 Garfield St. Fort Collins, CO 80524 570 Section D, Item 1. From:Development Review Coordinators To:Development Review Comments Cc:Clark Mapes Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Homeless shelter. Date:Wednesday, June 14, 2023 12:02:49 PM From: Lee Deleon <leedeleon78@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2023 11:32 AM To: Development Review Coordinators <DRCoord@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Homeless shelter. Hi, I keep listening and watching all the things being said about the shelter. I've read that barrier will be put in place for Hickory Park to the west. My question is what is being put in place for Stonecrest Park 500 feet to the East. The park is already struggling with homeless folks and encampers that don't have a problem using drugs or alcohol and leaving needles, trash human waste all over the place. We have to run people off almost daily that sleep on property, and use the park as a cut through to College Ave. The crime is horrible now and some have had people in they're yards, or vehicles. Now I'm not talking about the masses, but those that chose to use so they can't go into the shelter. I've been told by a FCPO to call and report Camps and such on the non emergent line. It's not worth doing because other officers don't do anything. People pay to live in the park. They work hard for their family's and the things they have. This park and their residence feel overlooked and not cared about, and will have to pay the price of more issues then before when so many will come to that location. Who is looking out for the folks at Stonecrest? The people who pay taxes so the homeless have assistance. 571 Section D, Item 1. From:Sharlene Manno To:Development Review Comments Subject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Fort Collins homeless shelter Date:Monday, August 26, 2024 8:02:25 PM Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device Get Outlook for Android From: haide Lefebvre <haide.lefebvre@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 5:36:08 PM To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fort Collins homeless shelter Hello, I would like to voice my support for this project of building a 24/7 homeless shelter here in town. So many homeless people are homeless because it is so hard to get through all of the paperwork to get help as well as other problems. With the right resources available these folks can be helped and it is only the right thing to do. Most everyone appreciates help when they are having a hard time. Even navigating our health care system is hard. I found that out trying to get help for my daughter who has a TBI and Autism. She sure could not have done that herself. Any help we can give these folks that can lead to more permanent housing, jobs and healthcare is a good thing. Thank you, Haide Lefebvre 572 Section D, Item 1. 573 Section D, Item 1. 574 Section D, Item 1. 575 Section D, Item 1. 576 Section D, Item 1. 577 Section D, Item 1. 578 Section D, Item 1. 579 Section D, Item 1. 580 Section D, Item 1. 581 Section D, Item 1. 582 Section D, Item 1. 583 Section D, Item 1. 584 Section D, Item 1. 585 Section D, Item 1. 586 Section D, Item 1. 587 Section D, Item 1. 588 Section D, Item 1. 589 Section D, Item 1. 590 Section D, Item 1. 591 Section D, Item 1. 592 Section D, Item 1. 593 Section D, Item 1. 594 Section D, Item 1. 595 Section D, Item 1. 596 Section D, Item 1. 597 Section D, Item 1. 598 Section D, Item 1. 599 Section D, Item 1. 600 Section D, Item 1. 601 Section D, Item 1. 602 Section D, Item 1. 603 Section D, Item 1. 604 Section D, Item 1. 605 Section D, Item 1. 606 Section D, Item 1. 607 Section D, Item 1. 608 Section D, Item 1. 609 Section D, Item 1. 610 Section D, Item 1. 611 Section D, Item 1. 612 Section D, Item 1. 613 Section D, Item 1. 614 Section D, Item 1. 615 Section D, Item 1. 616 Section D, Item 1. 617 Section D, Item 1. 618 Section D, Item 1. 619 Section D, Item 1. 620 Section D, Item 1. 621 Section D, Item 1. 622 Section D, Item 1. 623 Section D, Item 1. 624 Section D, Item 1. 625 Section D, Item 1. 626 Section D, Item 1. 627 Section D, Item 1. 628 Section D, Item 1. 629 Section D, Item 1. 630 Section D, Item 1. 631 Section D, Item 1. 632 Section D, Item 1. 633 Section D, Item 1. 634 Section D, Item 1. 635 Section D, Item 1. 636 Section D, Item 1. 637 Section D, Item 1. 638 Section D, Item 1. 639 Section D, Item 1. 640 Section D, Item 1. 641 Section D, Item 1. 642 Section D, Item 1. 643 Section D, Item 1. 644 Section D, Item 1. 645 Section D, Item 1. 646 Section D, Item 1. 647 Section D, Item 1. 648 Section D, Item 1. 649 Section D, Item 1. 650 Section D, Item 1. 651 Section D, Item 1. 652 Section D, Item 1. 653 Section D, Item 1. 654 Section D, Item 1. 655 Section D, Item 1. 656 Section D, Item 1. 657 Section D, Item 1. 658 Section D, Item 1. 659 Section D, Item 1. 660 Section D, Item 1. 661 Section D, Item 1. 662 Section D, Item 1. 663 Section D, Item 1. 664 Section D, Item 1. 665 Section D, Item 1. 666 Section D, Item 1. 667 Section D, Item 1. 668 Section D, Item 1. 669 Section D, Item 1. 670 Section D, Item 1. From:Clark Mapes To:Charles Meserlian Cc:Melissa Matsunaka Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL] Homeless shelter letters Date:Tuesday, August 27, 2024 4:13:56 PM Yes, the Commission will have this in their package of information and it does serve as standing to appeal.Melissa, please add this! From: Charles Meserlian <ftctrucks@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 4:10 PM To: Clark Mapes <CMAPES@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Homeless shelter letters Clark. Attached is the concerns I have regarding this proposal that we need to bring up to the P&Z committee tomorrow. Hoping to get there by 7. Please let me know if this is sufficient to have a standing to file an appeal should this get approved Thanks Charlie Meserlian 671 Section D, Item 1. Sent from my iPhone 672 Section D, Item 1. From:Dave Lund To:Development Review Comments Cc:Josh Stone; Clark Mapes Subject:[EXTERNAL] Question for Wednesday"s meeting Date:Monday, August 26, 2024 4:56:37 PM Attachments:Rescue Mission Notice off College and Hickory.pdf Em, Good evening! My name is Dave Lund. I'm contacting you on behalf of the mobile home park at 1303 N College. CC'ed on this email is Josh Stone, our PM for the site and Clark Mapes since he signed the letter and is familiar with my concerns. I can't attend Wednesday's meeting so I was wondering if you could ask 2 questions for me: 1. While great effort was made to protect the MHP/neighborhoods to the West, little concern was put towards our residents who are very concerned and in the direct path that many of the future residents of the homeless shelter will use. What guarantees can you grant that individuals using the shelter will not cross through 1303 N College? I'm sure the development plan includes a footpath/pedestrian path/plan via Hibdon Drive to North College yet the quickest path is one that cuts through 1303 N College esp when individuals are coming from the south. When surveyed, the number one concern of my residents is the negative effect of residents of the homeless shelter once they are offsite. 2. Will the developer assist in building a fence on the west boundary of 1303 to prevent foot traffic from going through 1303? Overall, I can be an advocate for the center as long as it does not impact my residents quality of life. In the words of one of my residents, she realizes she is a low income individual yet does not want the negative effects of transient homeless individuals to affect a place that she's called home for 20+ years. Thank you for your time and consideration. Dave Lund 970-420-3021 673 Section D, Item 1. From:Jon Geller To:Development Review Comments; Jeni Arndt; Susan Gutowsky Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: Proposed Fort Collins Men"s Homeless Shelter Date:Thursday, August 22, 2024 2:07:31 PM Hello Em, Thanks for responding to my email. I believe there still could be an option to require that the shelter be pet-friendly, I am copying Jeni Arndt and Susan Gutowsky, who I have worked with before, in hopes of finding out if the city can request updates to the design. Approximately 15-20% of unhoused people in the United States have pets, and this is true in Ft. Collins as well. By denying pets access, (except service dogs, which are few and far between,) we would be, in effect, denying access to housing to 15-20% of unhoused men in Ft. Collins. I am sure this is not compliant with the goals of setting up the shelter. One option is to expand the scope of pets allowed to include Emotional Support Animals (ESA's). Currently the medical team that is part of SDC is able to provide this service, as could anyone at Summitstone. When I met with the design team at Murphy Center, they indicated that retrofitting the shelter to allow pets could happen in the future. Now is the time to make these changes. Retrofitting will be much more expensive. Thanks for considering, Jon On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 9:27 AM Development Review Comments <devreviewcomments@fcgov.com> wrote: Good morning Jon, Thank you very much for your comment on the Rescue Mission shelter proposal. I will save it to be included in the packet which the Planning and Zoning Commisison will see before the hearing on August 28. I will also forward it to the Rescue Mission staff. The City will likely not be able to require that the shelter be open to pets, but perhaps the Rescue Mission will be interested in your offer to support that kind of service. Is it okay if I pass along your contact information to them? Before this job, I worked at NoCo Humane, so this issue is near and dear to my heart as well. Thank you for offering these services for the Murphy Center! Respectfully, Em Myler Neighborhood Development Liaison From: Jon Geller <jongeller6@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2024 3:33 PM To: Development Review Comments <devreviewcomments@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposed Fort Collins Men's Homeless Shelter 674 Section D, Item 1. Hello, This is Dr. Jon Geller, Founder of The Street Dog Coalition. We work on a weekly basis with unhoused pet owners at the Murphy Center, and other Northern Colorado locations. I know that the new proposed homeless shelter is being designed and built by Rescue Mission, but at a preliminary meeting with the design team they indicated the shelter would not be 'pet-friendly'. Based on the number of unhoused men that have pets, and the importance of these pets in their lives, I strongly recommend that the city require a design update that allows for pets to stay at the proposed shelter with their owners. It would be difficult and costly to retrofit this change at a later time. The Street Dog Coalition would potentially be able to provide intake, screening and basic preventive veterinary care as needed. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Jon Geller -- Jon Geller, DVM, (CSU '95), ABVP Diplomate emeritus, MPH (UMN '24) Cell 970 219-1959 Founder, The Street Dog Coalition Faculty, Colorado School of Public Health Distinguished Fellow, National Academy of Practice thestreetdogcoalition.org -- Jon Geller, DVM, (CSU '95), ABVP Diplomate emeritus, MPH (UMN '24) Cell 970 219-1959 Founder, The Street Dog Coalition Faculty, Colorado School of Public Health Distinguished Fellow, National Academy of Practice thestreetdogcoalition.org 675 Section D, Item 1. From:HickoryVillageRes To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] Research Supporting Concerns About Compatibility of Proposed Homeless Shelter Date:Tuesday, August 27, 2024 2:05:48 PM Dear Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Good evening, we are writing to express our deep concerns regarding the proposed homeless shelter site in the North College area, particularly in relation to issues of compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and the broader social impact. The North College Community has repeatedly requested that City staff and representatives from the Fort Collins Rescue Mission conduct a comprehensive Social Impact Assessment to better understand the potential implications of this project on one of the most historically marginalized parts of our town. Unfortunately, we were informed that there was never a commitment to conduct such an assessment, and representatives from the Fort Collins Rescue Mission even stated that they were unfamiliar with what a Social Impact Assessment entails. As a result, we took it upon ourselves to explore existing research on the impact of shelters on surrounding communities, with findings that raise significant concerns about the compatibility of the proposed site. Several studies highlight the risks associated with concentrating social services, particularly in low-income areas. For example, research by MacDonald et al. underscores how housing developments that concentrate poor residents, particularly in areas with inadequate public safety investments, can lead to increased crime and neighborhood decline. This is particularly relevant to the North College area, where the proposed shelter could exacerbate existing social vulnerabilities rather than contribute to community stability. Moreover, research by Faraji et al. found that the presence of emergency winter homeless shelters led to a significant increase in property crime within close proximity to the shelters. This finding is alarming, especially when considering the high-density, 676 Section D, Item 1. location. Placing a large-scale shelter in this area risks amplifying crime rates and further straining an already vulnerable community. The studies also emphasize the importance of considering neighborhood-specific conditions before deciding on shelter locations. For instance, Ee and Zhang's research highlights how placing a shelter in a low-income area can exacerbate existing social and structural challenges, worsening crime rates and community safety. This directly ties into our concerns around compatibility, as the North College area, with its unique socio-economic profile, may not be well-suited for such a development without significant mitigation strategies in place. Furthermore, the exclusion of Spanish-speaking community members from meaningful participation in the engagement process has compounded these concerns. The lack of inclusive outreach and communication effectively silenced a significant portion of the neighborhood’s residents, many of whom are already marginalized. This exclusion is not only incompatible with the City’s commitment to equity but also undermines the legitimacy of the decision-making process itself. Given the findings from our community’s research and the glaring issues of compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, we urge the Planning and Zoning Commission to reconsider the proposed shelter location. It is crucial that any development in the North College area aligns with the community’s needs, safeguards its residents, and contributes to the overall well-being of the neighborhoods rather than exacerbating existing challenges. Thank you for your time and consideration of these concerns. We hope that the Commission will take these points into serious account as you deliberate on this important matter. Below is more information on the research mentioned: MacDonald, J. Community Design and Crime: The Impact of Housing and the Built Environment. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/681558 Concentration of Poverty: The research highlights that housing developments 677 Section D, Item 1. that concentrate poor residents, particularly in areas with inadequate investment in maintenance and public safety, can increase crime. This indicates a potential negative impact on the surrounding neighborhoods when such developments are poorly managed or overly concentrated. Design and Maintenance: Poor design and lack of maintenance in low-income housing can lead to neglect, blight, and increased crime, further affecting the surrounding areas Faraji, SL., Ridgeway, G. & Wu, Y. Effect of emergency winter homeless shelters on property crime. J Exp Criminol 14, 129–140 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-017-9320-4 The study evaluates the impact of emergency winter homeless shelters on property crime in Vancouver, Canada. The findings indicate that the presence of shelters led to a 56% increase in property crime within 100 meters of the shelters, particularly thefts from vehicles, other thefts, and vandalism. However, there was also a 34% decrease in commercial break-ins near the shelters. The effects were most significant within 400 meters of the shelters and dissipated beyond that range. Markowitz, F. E. (2006). Psychiatric Hospital Capacity, Homelessness, and Crime and Arrest Rates. First published: 07 February 2006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2006.00042.x The study suggests that when public psychiatric services, like hospitals, are reduced, it can lead to an increase in homelessness, which in turn may elevate crime rates in surrounding areas, particularly low-income neighborhoods. This is because individuals who might otherwise receive inpatient care end up on the streets, where their presence and behavior can increase pressures on local law enforcement and contribute to social disorder. The lack of adequate services, including shelters, can thus negatively impact both homeless individuals and the communities they are placed in Ee, M., & Zhang, Y. (Year). Homelessness and Crime in Neighborhoods. Criminology, Volume 70, Issue 8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287221140835 The study emphasizes that homelessness can lead to increased crime, but this impact varies across different neighborhoods. Placing a shelter in a low-income area could exacerbate existing social and structural challenges, potentially worsening crime rates and community safety issues. Instead, it's crucial to assess the specific conditions of each neighborhood before deciding on shelter locations. Tailoring solutions to the unique needs of each area, rather than applying a blanket approach, would be more effective in addressing both homelessness and related crime Galster, G., Pettit, K., Santiago, A., & Tatian, P. (2016). The Impact of Supportive Housing on Neighborhood Crime Rates. Journal of Urban Affairs, Pages 289-315. Published online: 02 December 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9906.00128 The study observed that large supportive housing facilities with 53 or more residents in Denver were associated with increased crime within a 500-foot radius. This was likely due to the facility's presence attracting potential criminals and weakening neighborhood social cohesion, rather than the residents themselves causing the crime. This suggests that placing a large shelter in a low-income area could exacerbate existing challenges, potentially making the area less safe 678 Section D, Item 1. Jones, M. E. (Year). Homeless Encampments on Railroad Property and Their Effect on Crime Rates: A Multiple Methods Analysis. Saint John's University, Jamaica, New York. The study discusses the significant increase in crime within a 500-meter perimeter around homeless encampments, particularly property crimes such as motor vehicle theft. It highlights that these encampments, often located near transportation routes or transitional urban spaces, contribute to higher crime rates due to their position at urban "edges," where different land uses converge. This finding suggests that placing shelters or encampments near low-income areas could exacerbate crime, making it important to carefully consider location and urban design in shelter placement decisions Yoo, Y., & Wheeler, A. P. (2019). Using Risk Terrain Modeling to Predict Homeless-Related Crime in Los Angeles, California. Applied Geography. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2019.102039 The study suggests that homeless individuals are highly vulnerable to crime and that traditional policing may not effectively address these risks. Placing a shelter in a low- income area could exacerbate the challenges both for the homeless and the community by increasing victimization risks. Effective strategies should focus on reducing crime risks in targeted areas rather than relying solely on enforcement. This highlights the need for careful consideration of shelter locations to avoid further straining already vulnerable neighborhoods Bartelt, D., Eyrich-Garg, K. M., & Lockwood, B. (2017). The Relationships Between Community Context and Entry into a Homeless Shelter System. Journal of Urban Affairs, 39(5), 675–690. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2016.1271616 The study highlights that neighborhoods with high crime rates, poverty, and vacant housing are more likely to have residents entering the homeless shelter system. It raises questions about the placement of shelters in such areas, suggesting that these locations might be chosen due to their socio-economic and racial profiles, or because of other institutional uses like drug treatment centers. This could lead to further social and spatial exclusion of homeless individuals, potentially exacerbating the challenges faced by both the homeless and the surrounding community. Haberman, C. P., Groff, E. R., & Taylor, R. B. (2011). The Variable Impacts of Public Housing Community Proximity on Nearby Street Robberies. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Volume 50, Issue 2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427811426335 The study discusses how proximity to public housing and nearby facilities like homeless shelters can impact robbery rates. It finds that when facilities such as shelters are located close to public housing, street robbery rates tend to increase. This suggests that placing shelters in or near low-income areas with public housing could exacerbate crime, particularly robberies. The findings highlight the need for strategic urban planning to avoid clustering such facilities too close together, as this can create hotspots for crime, negatively affecting both residents and the surrounding community. Sincerely, Hickory Village Resident Association 679 Section D, Item 1. 680 Section D, Item 1. From:Sharlene Manno To:Development Review Comments Subject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] In Support of the Proposed Fort Collins Rescue Mission Shelter Date:Tuesday, August 27, 2024 12:53:08 PM Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device Get Outlook for Android From: MARY KOLTZE <mcklky@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 12:47:54 PM To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] In Support of the Proposed Fort Collins Rescue Mission Shelter I am writing to express my support for the proposed Fort Collins Rescue Mission Shelter located at 1311 North College. Homelessness is a pressing issue that is affecting people in Fort Collins. Building a shelter which includes shelter and all the supportive services necessary to help get the homeless on their feet and an independent track is essential in addressing this issue. I urge the Planning & Zoning Commission to approve the proposed Fort Collins Rescue Mission Shelter. By doing so, you will be taking a significant step toward addressing homelessness in our community and demonstrating our collective commitment to supporting those in need. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Mary Koltze 2721 McKenzie Drive Loveland, CO. 80537 681 Section D, Item 1. From:Sharlene Manno To:Development Review Comments Subject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Please support the Fort Collins Rescue Mission development Date:Tuesday, August 27, 2024 6:48:47 AM Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device Get Outlook for Android From: danny feig-sandoval <dfeigsandoval@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 10:10:25 PM To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please support the Fort Collins Rescue Mission development To All Members of the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission, Thank you for your service and all you do to make Fort Collins such a great city in which to live. Currently, Fort Collins, like most cities and towns around the country, faces a homeless crisis with very few long term solutions. Fortunately, we have an opportunity to create a long term solution to address a large portion of our unhoused community. The Homeless Advisory Committee has come up with an excellent concept for the development of the property at 1311 N. College Ave. to create a campus like atmosphere that will not only house 250 men, but will provide some of the many services needed to hopefully move them in the direction of living productive lives. I understand there is some opposition to this concept, but if this project is well managed, I believe it will set an example for our city, state, and country as a way to address homelessness. I understand that the request being put before you meets all the zoning and building code requirements. Therefore I hope you will support the zoning request that was approved by the Homeless Advisory Committee as well as the city staff that will allow for this project to move forward. Thank you for your attention to this request. Danny Feig-Sandoval 806 W. Magnolia St. Fort Collins, Co. 80521 404-791-8497 dfeigsandoval@gmail.com 682 Section D, Item 1. From:Sharlene Manno To:Development Review Comments Subject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Re: Personal Letter of Support: FC Rescue Mission Date:Tuesday, August 27, 2024 6:26:11 PM Attachments:Outlook-ljuxcvrd.png Outlook-ljuxcvrd.png Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device Get Outlook for Android From: JOE ROWAN <joerowan63@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 2:23:28 PM To: Ann Hutchison <ahutchison@fcchamber.org> Cc: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com>; Seth Forwood - Community Contact <sforwood@denrescue.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Personal Letter of Support: FC Rescue Mission Sorry we didn't get to chat this morning. What else do I need to do earn your trust as a content provider? Hard to not feel insulted by recurring delays. On Tue, Aug 27, 2024, 08:51 Ann Hutchison <ahutchison@fcchamber.org> wrote: Attached for consideration at the 08-28-24 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. ********************** Ann Hutchison, CAE President & CEO Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce ahutchison@fcchamber.org o: (970) 482-3746 m: (970) 218-2268 web: www.FortCollinsChamber.com Facebook I Twitter I LinkedIn 683 Section D, Item 1. From:Sharlene Manno To:Development Review Comments Subject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Rescue Mission Date:Tuesday, August 27, 2024 6:25:45 PM Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device Get Outlook for Android From: rebekah knight <rjkbaughman@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 5:24:23 PM To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Rescue Mission Hello, I am writing in support of the zoning for the shelter for the unhoused. Thank you for your consideration. R. Knight-Baughman, Ph.D. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone 684 Section D, Item 1. 685 Section D, Item 1. 686 Section D, Item 1. 687 Section D, Item 1. 688 Section D, Item 1. From:Clark Mapes To:David Garner; Development Review Comments Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL] Overall Development Plan (ODP) and street design for North Mason St. Date:Friday, May 12, 2023 10:58:31 AM Just to answer your questions, that is exactly and precisely what the Infrastructure plan will resolve. I do know that the drainage system on the west side is indeed intended to serve the whole west side now and into the future Clark Mapes City of Fort Collins Planning 970-221-6225 -----Original Message----- From: David Garner <dgarner@fb2online.com> Sent: Friday, May 12, 2023 10:05 AM To: Development Review Comments <devreviewcomments@fcgov.com>; Clark Mapes <CMAPES@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Overall Development Plan (ODP) and street design for North Mason St. Hi Clark and Em, You were right, there still is an outfall from the retention pond. It is hard to see based on the huge cotton wood and the elm growing on top of the pipe. Would you forward these pictures and questions to the appropriate city processes and the applicant? 1. Will the applicant be addressing clearing the outfall of the existing retention pond when they plan to increase the retention pond size? 2. Will the new retention pond be city owned property or transfer to the applicant during this process? 3. Will the new retention pond be expanded enough to allow it to be used for development in the other undeveloped lots near the subject property? If so, how is this documented so future developers can use this new resource as they plan? (I'm asking this because their seemed to be confusion on who built the existing retention pond.) This could be a great benefit to the city's adjacent land bank parcel and other potential projects surrounding the lots. 4. Will the storm drainage from the curb and gutter on the east side of the ODP drain into the pond or connect to the North College Storm drain? 5. Currently, the access road is not plowed by the city. Will the city be plowing this section of mason in the future? The current practice to store some of the snow from the access road on the corner of hibdon and the Mason access road. Best of luck! Thanks, Dave David Garner MBA Fb2 dgarner@fb2online.com 970.846.4113 689 Section D, Item 1. From:Em Myler To:JC Ward; Development Review Comments Cc:Marcy Yoder Subject:Re: Rescue Mission Dev Rev Comments Date:Tuesday, March 7, 2023 9:34:53 AM Attachments:image001.png Thank you JC, I will send these comments to the applicants and save them for P&Z From: JC Ward <jcward@fcgov.com> Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 10:10 PM To: Em Myler <emyler@fcgov.com>; Development Review Comments <devreviewcomments@fcgov.com> Cc: Marcy Yoder <MYoder@fcgov.com> Subject: Rescue Mission Dev Rev Comments Hi Em, I had a few people speak with me after the Rescue Mission neighborhood meeting who we did not get to during the Q&A. These were the comments that members of the public and residents of the area mobile home parks wanted included in the comments on the project to the decision-makers: The current design with the outdoor camping needs a building to separate the camping area from the view of Hickory Village Mobile Home Park. Right now, the residents of Hickory Village would only have their chain link fence and a fence the shelter installs separating them from shelter guests who camp. There are concerns that with the camping area being tucked behind the shelter’s buildings, guests might be problematic and would not have frequent enough security patrols. The request is a shift of the buildings/site plan so the areas that face residential neighborhoods have a visual barrier between “tent city” camping areas and the existing neighborhoods. Some neighbors requested a fence around the shelter (particularly the parts of the shelter that do not face College Ave. and face the more residential areas) 8 feet or greater and something more sturdy than chain link. Mobile Home Park residents with close proximity to the shelter are interested in getting funding for mitigation efforts, like repairing or upgrading the existing chain link fencing around their neighborhoods for security purposes. They did not say the developer or Rescue Mission should be responsible for paying for this, but asked that if the City approves this location, that someone provide some money to solve problems that come up because of the shelter’s guests and other people experiencing homelessness that might be attracted to the area because of the new facility. Thank you, JC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JC Ward Pronouns: she/her/hers 690 Section D, Item 1. Senior City Planner - Neighborhoods Neighborhood Services 970-224-6047 office JCWard@fcgov.com www.fcgov.com/neighborhoodservices/ 691 Section D, Item 1. PH: (970) 494-4200 FX: (844) 270-1824 4856 INNOVATION DR. FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 SUMMITSTONEHEALTH.ORG June 25, 2024 Dear Planning and Zoning Commission: SummitStone Health Partners, Larimer County’s largest behavioral health provider, supports the building of a day and overnight shelter at 1311 North College Ave for our community members who are experiencing homelessness. This resource will provide a much-needed location where these community members will more easily access food, shelter, and other essential resources that will ultimately allow them to gain housing. Its proximity to other services allows for a community team approach to care which will not only help participants have easier access but will also leverage services for successful outcomes. The Rescue Mission has a history of being responsive to and has the experience to mitigate any community concerns. Please approve this needed shelter. Sincerely, Michael G. Allen, MBA, LCSW, CAS Chief Executive Officer SummitStone Health Partners DocuSign Envelope ID: 8E01DCCA-0B56-4845-BFB8-DB9C0E373D43 692 Section D, Item 1. Christine Cerbana 345 Riva Ridge Dr., A-203 Fort Collins, CO 80526 ccerbana@gmail.com (970) 227-5602 Aug. 27, 2024 Dear Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission, Subject: Support for the Proposed Fort Collins Rescue Mission Shelter I am writing to express my support as a resident of Fort Collins and as a member of Together Colorado Larimer County for the proposed Fort Collins Rescue Mission Shelter located at 1311 North College. Together Colorado is a nonpartisan, multiracial, and multifaith community organization. We value, uplift and protect the humanity and human dignity of every person, no matter the color of their skin, where they come from, or what they believe in. Our statewide organization comprises hundreds of faith leaders, congregations, and institutions across the state. Homelessness is a pressing issue we care deeply about which is affecting people in Fort Collins. Building a new shelter can help address the immediate needs of individuals experiencing homelessness. This support can be pivotal in helping people transition to stable housing and regain independence. I believe that this project will contribute positively to our city by: • Creating a designated location for 24/7 shelter while nudging people into housing or treatment, serves to make the city hospitable to all residents. But it also reduces harm and puts unhoused individuals on a path to a better life. • Addressing an existing and important need by providing 24/7 shelter and a safe place for homeless people, thus reducing the number of unhoused people sleeping in public spaces. • Providing essential services and programs including job training as a comprehensive resource center designed to help individuals achieve stability and move towards a situation where homelessness is rare, short-lived, and non-recurring. • Locating the shelter near other services and resources. • is a permitted use in the Service Commercial (CS) zone district. • complies with all applicable code criteria and aligns with the vision of the Housing Strategic Plan, as well as the principles in the City’s comprehensive plan. I urge the Planning & Zoning Commission to approve the proposed Fort Collins Rescue Mission Shelter. By doing so, you will be taking a significant step toward addressing homelessness in our community and demonstrating our collective commitment to supporting those in need. We can create a more compassionate and inclusive society for all, together. 693 Section D, Item 1. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Christine Cerbana 694 Section D, Item 1. From:Sharlene Manno To:Development Review Comments; Melissa Matsunaka Subject:FW: support for rescue mission"s planned shelter - public comment Date:Wednesday, August 21, 2024 4:47:35 PM Attachments:image002.png Shar Manno Administration Services Manager Community Development & Neighborhood Services 970.221.6767 smanno@fcgov.com From: Birnbaum, Bernard <Bernard.Birnbaum@uchealth.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2024 4:09 PM To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] support for rescue mission's planned shelter - public comment Dear Planning and Zoning Committee: As a local Family Physician who provides care to the unhoused community, public health specialist and medical educator, I am writing to express my strongest support for Fort Collins Rescue Mission Shelter located at 1311 North College. This shelter will provide essential safety and care for our unhoused population and will offer services that are currently in terribly short supply. Lack of shelter increases emergency department visits and ambulance transports, police calls, and most importantly injury. Lack of shelter ensures bad outcomes for those on the street. Lack of a day shelter ensures that our unhoused population has to spend their time seeking safety and places to escape the elements in the community setting rather than having time to seek the medical or mental health treatment that they often need. People fending for themselves on the street cannot seek work, vocational rehab, or connection with others. They cannot leave their belongings and expect to still have them when they return. The location of the shelter on North College will place this vulnerable population in proximity to other city and county services that meet their needs and allow them to more successfully seek employment and permanent housing opportunity. For the most vulnerable it will enable a place to interact with care management teams that have clearly been shown to increase the likelihood of finding housing and healthcare. I have reviewed the plans submitted by the Fort Collins Rescue Mission. They are proposing a facility that will be ascetically pleasing. It will honor the lives of the clients they hope to serve and the neighborhood in which they’ll be located. Moreover, it is a large enough facility to meet the needs of the population that is currently forced to make do outside. There will be improved nutrition services, space for people to safely rest during the day, and place to store gear and belongings. I’m sure you will have complaints from local neighbors. Review of the plans reveals that the Rescue Mission planners have taken this into account and designed a building to minimize impact. Our community needs this. Please approve the project and allow it to move forward! 695 Section D, Item 1. Bernie Bernard Birnbaum, MD (He/Him) Associate Residency Director, Fort Collins Family Medicine Residency Program Assistant Clinical Professor of Family Medicine, CU School of Medicine Board Member, Larimer County Department of Health and Environment 1025 Pennock Place Fort Collins, CO 80524 O 970-495-8800 F 970-495-8820 Bernard.birnbaum@uchealth.org uchealth.org 696 Section D, Item 1. From:Sharlene Manno To:Development Review Comments Subject:FW: 24/7 shelter Date:Monday, August 26, 2024 10:00:38 AM Shar Manno Administration Services Manager Community Development & Neighborhood Services 970.221.6767 smanno@fcgov.com From: Van Buren,Mary <Mary.VanBuren@ColoState.EDU> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 9:19 AM To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] 24/7 shelter Dear Zoning Commission, I am writing in support of the 24/7 shelter proposed by the Fort Collins Rescue Mission. We desperately need a facility like this to provide services for our unhoused population which is currently underserved despite the best efforts of local NGOs. Since I moved here in 1990 our unhoused population has grown, and the facilities needed to care for them have not kept pace. People complain about unsheltered individuals being in public spaces and then complain about a facility being constructed in their neighborhood. Just where are people supposed to go? NIMBYism is universal and understandable. However, everybody’s needs should be met by the community, not just those who already have a place to live, Sincerely, Mary Van Buren 605 Peterson St. Fort Collins, CO 80524 697 Section D, Item 1. From:Sharlene Manno To:Development Review Comments Subject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Rescue Mission’s new homeless shelter Date:Sunday, August 25, 2024 4:29:15 PM Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device Get Outlook for Android From: Ann Corran <anncorran@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2024 5:15:01 PM To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Rescue Mission’s new homeless shelter Hello, We would like to voice our support for the proposed new Fort Collins Rescue Mission’s homeless shelter in North Fort Collins. We can all benefit from a 24/7 shelter to keep our streets safe and to give men a path to employment and housing. Thank you for your time and consideration to this important matter. Kind regards, Ann and Peter Corran 1121 Akin Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80521 698 Section D, Item 1. From:Sharlene Manno To:Development Review Comments Subject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Support for the Proposed Fort Collins Rescue Mission Shelter Date:Tuesday, August 27, 2024 9:17:57 PM Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device Get Outlook for Android From: Terry <mstnolan@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 9:16:48 PM To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Support for the Proposed Fort Collins Rescue Mission Shelter Dear Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission, I am writing to express my heartfelt support for the proposed Rescue Mission Shelter at 1311 North College. This thoughtful, community-enhancing proposal is our opportunity to take action around the values we profess. I am a resident of Fort Collins, and I believe this particular project benefits both our city and its members who have nowhere to go. It is situated near other services necessary for vulnerable members of our community to transition to independence, placed where such a purpose is clearly allowed, and employs thoughtful design elements such as architecture compatible with the surroundings, adequate parking, and outdoor gathering space away from the street. It includes landscaping and lot placement that provides privacy and a buffer between the shelter and surrounding neighborhoods. Its details serve to enhance the area while providing much needed space for people otherwise sleeping in public spaces. Please approve this exceptional opportunity for our community that reflects the commitment to support those in need. This is the time, this is the plan, this is the place. Sincerely, Terry Nolan 2118 Sandbur Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80525 699 Section D, Item 1. 700 Section D, Item 1. From:Sharlene Manno To:Development Review Comments Subject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Yes to the Rescue Mission Date:Tuesday, August 27, 2024 6:48:34 AM Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device Get Outlook for Android From: Lori Feig-Sandoval <lfeigsandoval@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 10:23:15 PM To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Yes to the Rescue Mission Dear Planning & Zoning Commission Members, Please vote to approve the construction of the 24/7 shelter proposed at 1311 N College for the people in our community who need our support as they experience homelessness, hopelessness, rejection, and perhaps even resentment towards those in positions to help them but who refuse to do so. The application by the Rescue Mission meets all of the zoning and building code criteria, has an excellent building design with many aesthetic improvements to the area, and has an excellent track record of moving men into housing from homelessness. Please ask yourselves why would we not go forward with it? This is Fort Collins' chance to do our absolute best to show compassion for our fellow citizens, and live the City's talk of equity and inclusion for all. More importantly it's the best way to give the least of us a path towards work and towards thriving lives. This in turn will benefit our businesses. Some business owners say that homeless people congregate and deter business at their storefronts; so... let's keep them from congregating on the street. Let's welcome them into a shelter where they receive services, and that way, it's a win win for them and for businesses. We desperately need this shelter; the Rescue Mission at the corner of Jefferson and Linden Street is beyond crowded, and in the first six months of 2023 had more than 1200 turn-aways; it simply isn't big enough and there's not enough room there to sufficiently expand. The proposed North College site will have the necessary capacity to help these people become contributing Fort Collins residents. Please make sure we capitalize on the gift of this land, and on the momentum and support we have from the community at large. Please be a light for these fellow citizens, and see how it will illuminate our city and our future. Thank you for all your work, and for your time in reading this. 701 Section D, Item 1. Lori Feig-Sandoval 970 568-8481, landline 404 583-3196, cell 702 Section D, Item 1. From:Sharlene Manno To:Development Review Comments Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Support for the Fort Collins Rescue Mission Expansion Date:Thursday, August 22, 2024 12:33:33 PM Shar Manno Administration Services Manager Community Development & Neighborhood Services 970.221.6767 smanno@fcgov.com From: Dr. Lefty Rogers <dr.lefty.rogers@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 12:26 PM To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Support for the Fort Collins Rescue Mission Expansion I will not be able to attend the City Council meeting when you discuss the expansion to the Fort Collins Rescue mission, but I want to express my full support for this project! I am truly excited at the prospect of expanding the mission to provide badly needed resources. The folks there, along with the Homeward Alliance, do amazing work with limited resources. The very least we can do is lend our support. Best, Mark Rogers Fort Collins 703 Section D, Item 1. 704 Section D, Item 1. 705 Section D, Item 1. From:Jon Geller To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] Proposed Fort Collins Men"s Homeless Shelter Date:Tuesday, August 20, 2024 3:35:21 PM Hello, This is Dr. Jon Geller, Founder of The Street Dog Coalition. We work on a weekly basis with unhoused pet owners at the Murphy Center, and other Northern Colorado locations. I know that the new proposed homeless shelter is being designed and built by Rescue Mission, but at a preliminary meeting with the design team they indicated the shelter would not be 'pet-friendly'. Based on the number of unhoused men that have pets, and the importance of these pets in their lives, I strongly recommend that the city require a design update that allows for pets to stay at the proposed shelter with their owners. It would be difficult and costly to retrofit this change at a later time. The Street Dog Coalition would potentially be able to provide intake, screening and basic preventive veterinary care as needed. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Jon Geller -- Jon Geller, DVM, (CSU '95), ABVP Diplomate emeritus, MPH (UMN '24) Cell 970 219-1959 Founder, The Street Dog Coalition Faculty, Colorado School of Public Health Distinguished Fellow, National Academy of Practice thestreetdogcoalition.org 706 Section D, Item 1. 3 QUICK THINGS TO CONSIDER ABOUT THE PROPOSED HOMELESS SHELTER 707 Section D, Item 1. CONSIDERATION # 1 3.5.1(A) refers to “OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS” needing to be “COMPATIBLE” (which is a defined term in the LUC) 2 708 Section D, Item 1. 41-BEDS VS. 200-BEDS VS. 250-BEDS ALL HAVE VERY DIFFERENT “OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS” 709 Section D, Item 1. CONSIDERATION #2 Pages 20 of the North College Corridor Plan The section is titled “NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF CONCENTRATING SOCIAL SERVICE AND TAX-EXEMPT USES IN THE CORRIDOR.” Please read this, and the entire context of the chapter this section is within! 4 710 Section D, Item 1. CONSIDERATION #3 THE STATE GRANT APPLICATION FOR THIS PROJECT STATED “200-BEDS,” NOT 250-BEDS 711 Section D, Item 1. STATE HOUSING BOARD AGENDA August 22, 2023 1:00 p.m. Call to Order Anthea Martin 1:00 p.m. Introduction Andrew Paredes 1:10 p.m. Nellie Stagg Project #Application Review Presenters Wayne McClary Aaron Miripol Pammela Gibson Shannon Meyer Natalie Wowk Seth Forwood Wayne McClary Melissa Green Demetra English James Ginsburg Olivia Cook Elyse Ackerman- Casselberry Reasonable accommodation provided upon request for persons with disabilities. If you are a person with a disability and require an accommodation, please notify Laura Caine at laura.caine@state.co.us by August 17, 2023. The Department of Local Affairs TDD/TTY Number is 303.864.7758. Recordings of the meetings are available at https://cdola.colorado.gov/state-housing-board. They are unaltered from the meetings as held. A copy of the Board votes are in the transcripts attached to the event. cc: Rick M. Garcia Alison George State Housing Board Members OFHS 712 Section D, Item 1. MEMORANDUM To:Members of the State Housing Board From:Kristin Toombs, Director, Office of Homeless Initiatives; Nellie Stagg, Transformational Homelessness Response Manager, Office of Homeless Initiatives CC:Alison George, Director, Division of Housing; Andy Phelps, Governor’s Office Date:August 4, 2023 Re: Transformational Homelessness Response Grant Program NOFA Final Set of Awards Overview: This memo regarding the Transformational Homelessness Response Grant Program Notice of Funding Availability (Homelessness Response NOFA), requests approval of the DOH Staff Review & Recommendations for the second and final set of awards from the NOFA. Background: The Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA), through its Division of Housing (DOH) Office of Housing Finance and Sustainability (OHFS) and Office of Homeless Initiatives (OHI), created two separate but related programs, both of which were created by Colorado House Bill 2022 1304 (HB22-1304) ($138,000,000) and Colorado House Bill 2022 1377 (HB22-1377) ($105,000,000): (1) the Transformational Affordable Housing, Homeownership, and Workforce Housing Grant Program (TAHG) and (2) the Transformational Homelessness Response Grant Program. The aim of the Transformational Homelessness Response Grant Program NOFA is to create a future where homelessness is rare and brief when it occurs, and no one gets left behind. The NOFA achieves this aim by advancing and implementing proven solutions and program models that reduce homelessness in a holistic and sustainable way. Any project and all activities proposed within a project must have the primary aim of preventing or ending participants’ homelessness as efficiently and effectively as possible. Requested funding for eligible activities in the NOFA should be for costs that are not funded or reimbursable by Medicaid, other insurance, or other funding sources, as applicable for activities that are eligible under other potential funding sources, to ensure that these funds have as large of a transformational effect as possible on Colorado’s homeless response system. Finally, each applicant must also demonstrate how the funds will be fully expended by December 31, 2026. Eligible uses for NOFA funds include: (a) Program Models and Activities: Street Outreach; Emergency Shelter; Transitional Housing; Bridge Housing; Eviction and Homelessness Prevention; Rapid Re-Housing; and/or Supportive Housing (b) Systems Improvement Activities: Data Collection, Management, Analysis, and System Integration; Coordination; and/or Resource Utilization Acceleration Application Reviews: The NOFA has two rounds of applications, with the first round of applications due on February 15, 2023 and the second round of applications due on June 15, 2023. Some of the projects also requested funds through the TAHG NOFA. DOH received 77 applications requesting over $212M for the first round, and the State Housing Board has previously approved $33,075,614 for the first round of funding on May 9, 2023; with an additional $180,000 addendum on July 25th, 2023. 713 Section D, Item 1. DOH received an additional 32 applications requesting over $49M for the second round of funding, and considered these proposals alongside the deferred round one THR applications and remaining 15 homelessness focused TAHG applications requesting over $100M in funds. In total there were $304M in funding requests considered for this second and final round of THR grant awards. Applications were evaluated in following ways: 1) Scoring:Each application was scored by two reviewers based on the criteria noted in the NOFA: Program Design informed through Lived Expertise; Services Capacity and Experience; Services Standards; Safety and Security Planning; Outcomes; Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS); Commitment to Quality; Housing-Focused; Transformational; Greatest Impact and Intended Targeted Population(s); Proof of Concept; Collaborative; Sustainability; Local Match; Transportation/Connectivity; and Low Barrier to Entry. 2) Activity and Timing Accuracy:Each application was reviewed to confirm eligibility and accuracy to the requested activity. For example, if an application included a request for Bridge Housing, the review team reviewed to confirm it was aligned with Bridge Housing model, per DOH’s Program Model Comparison. 3) Reasonableness:Application budgets were reviewed for reasonableness in amounts and types of expenses and recommendations were adjusted accordingly. 4) Geographic Distribution / Duplication:Applications were reviewed to ensure geographic distribution across the state as much as possible and reduce duplication where possible. 5) Requests to Both NOFAs:For applications that requested funds from both Transformational NOFAs, funding recommendations were made in partnership between OHI and OHFS, considering alignment with both the programmatic priorities as well as financial viability. 6) Prevention Requests:OHI staff reviewed the over $75M in funding for Eviction/Homelessness Prevention (EHP) and Rapid Re-housing (RRH) requests. In conjunction with a Subject Matter Expert, staff prioritized funding applications seeking to provide services that future Prop 123 funded grant programs may not be able to cover such as Rapid Re-housing and EHP for populations potentially not covered such as individuals without a court summons. To maximize the impact and accessibility of these resources to Coloradans throughout the state, priority was given to projects that served statewide, or larger regional focus areas instead of to a specific municipality or county. DOH Staff Recommendation: DOH staff recommends SHB’s approval of the Review Team’s funding recommendations to the following 26 applications, for a total of $64,354,458.51: 714 Section D, Item 1. 715 Section D, Item 1. 716 Section D, Item 1. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS 717 Section D, Item 1. Project Name: DOH Application # Applicant: Housing Development Specialist: Asset Manager: Jamie Barnett-Whaley Underwriter: DeNina Washington Developer: Urban Land Conservancy Contact For Applicant Name:Organization: Title:Email: Overview Denver 3270 W Colfax Ave, Denver , CO 80204 Rental New Construction Type of Housing: 718 Section D, Item 1. Population Served: Family # Stories in tallest building 7 # Elevators 2 Energy Efficiency Program/Certification National Green Building Standard (NGBS) Affordable units created/preserved: 102 $5,000,000.00 Staff Recommended Funding Amount: Proposed Funding Source: Proposed Funding Activities: 719 Section D, Item 1. Project Description Urban Land Conservancy (ULC) is requesting $5,000,000 for new construction of the Irving at Mile High Vista (the Irving), a proposed 102 apartment development with studios to three bedroom units at 20-80% AMI. Urban Land Conservancy has been working in the West Colfax community for 15 years and the Irving will be the last parcel at Mile High Vista to be developed within a zone lot that includes Rodolfo "Corky" Gonzales Library and the Avondale Apartments. ULC has been instrumental in the success of the development of the Library and Avondale Apartments. Nearly a quarter of the units (25) will be restricted at or below 30% AMI. The building floor plan is an "L" that efficiently utilizes the parcel configuration to maximize parking and number of units. The building will be seven stories with a concrete podium including approximately 32 covered parking spaces and an additional two uncovered parking spaces. The main entry will be from Colfax Ave and with additional entry from the resident parking area. The ground floor will include leasing offices, a flexible community room and a large bike storage area. Above the podium, there will be six levels of residential floors using a double-loaded corridor configuration serviced by two elevators and two stairs. In order to encourage residents to use the stairs, promoting wellness, the stairs will be bright, colorful and filled with natural light. Shared laundry rooms will be located on alternating residential floors. Both stairs and the elevators will extend to the roof to a 1200 square foot roof terrace with views spanning Pikes Peak, the Front Range, and downtown. The roof amenity will include outdoor seating and shading structures. The Irving apartments will be designed utilizing universal design so that people with disabilities can easily maneuver through the homes. Each home will have electric appliances including electric ranges with exhaust ducted to the outdoors. The units will be heated and cooled via wall PTAC units with heat pump heating. The common spaces will be heated and cooled with a combination of electric unit heaters at the base and two split heat pumps located at level 3 and 7. Domestic hot water systems will be provided by a central air source heat pump system located at the rooftop. This building will be all electric with the exception of a diesel generator that will be utilized for emergency power as required by life safety for the fire pump, elevators, and emergency egress lighting. The site is adjacent to the Rudolfo “Corky” Gonzales Library, which has significant resources available for the residents including a digital arts and media studio, computer lab, meeting rooms and an Idea Lab with sewing/ quilting machines, embroidery machine & digitization software, 3D printer, a wide variety of tools (power, hand and jewelry). The Irving is across the street from Cheltenham Elementary School, Girls Inc and the Boys & Girls Club all serving children from ages 5-18. The #16 bus stop is less than a block away and two light rail stops on the West line are less than a ½ mile away. Paco Sanchez Park, a community park 1.5 blocks southwest of the development, has a children’s playground, a skate park, picnic areas and other amenities. The Rude Park and Recreation Center is 0.3 miles to the southeast and has ball fields, children's play equipment, trails, picnic areas and a creek while the recreation center has a gymnasium, exercise room, indoor swimming pool, and multi- purpose room. The nearby Lakewood Gulch that connects to the extensive Denver bike trail system. 720 Section D, Item 1. Unit Mix Unit Type 2 14 3 2 21 0 3 1 0 4 1 23 3 2 29 1 13 2 1 17 2 25 3 1 31 6 78 12 6 102 Visitable units: 102 Accessible units: 6 Accessible units - sensory impairment: 6 Affordability Period HUD Affordability Period (Years): 0 Additional DOH Affordability Period (Years): 30 Project Budget DOH HDG request $4,080,000 Wells Fargo Permanent Loan $9,150,000 Committed 4% LIHTC Proceeds $18,615,233 Committed State Tax Credit Proceeds $4,740,000 Committed City of Denver non-federal loan $4,080,000 Pending Capital Magnet Fund - IDF loan $652,000 Pending Energy Efficiency Grant $100,000 Committed Solar Tax Credit $22,596 Committed Energy Tax Credit $44,000 Committed Deferred Development Fee $1,754,197 Committed Total: $43,238,026 Site Improvements $708,648 Construction $31,981,444 Professional Fees $1,557,890 Construction Finance $2,677,994 Permanent Finance & Syndication $582,250 721 Section D, Item 1. Soft Costs $837,300 Developer Fee/Profit $4,227,500 Reserves $665,000 Total: $43,238,026 DOH Eligible Activity(ies): Construction Costs Matching Funds Liability Incurred ($): $4,080,000 Matching Funds Provided ($): $27,435,233 Source(s) of Local Match: LIHTC Proceeds $23,533,233 City of Denver $4,080,000 Project Assessment Management Capacity 1. Urban Land Conservancy is the developer. The President and & CEO, Aaron Miripol has been with ULC since 2007. To date ULC has invested in 47 properties, including over 3,000 permanently affordable homes, totaling $177 million and leveraging over $1.2 billion in development. 2. Sarah Batt is the consultant. She has been a consultant since 2006. Sarah has managed all aspects of affordable housing development for multiple clients in the Metro Denver area. This includes all aspects of due diligence necessary for closing acquisition/rehab and new construction projects. 3. The property manager, Syringa Property Management, Inc. has provided rent‐up services to over thirty new construction Low Income Housing Tax Credit properties. 4. Pinkard Construction will be the general contractor. Pinkard has constructed more than 78 affordable housing projects across the Colorado Front Range. 5. Studio Completiva, the architect, has experience with planning and design of mixed-use, multi-residential projects, including market-rate, mixed income, affordable, and senior housing. Previous DOH funding received by the Applicant, Sponsor, or Developer: 32784 ULC - AHIF $10,000,000 31721 ULC Johnson and Wales Acquisition - HDG $2,500,000 Public/Private Commitment 1. Wells Fargo has provided an LOI for the permanent loan dated 5/30/2023 with a loan amount of $9,150,000, interest rate of 5.75%, loan term 18 years, and the amortization is 40 years. Chase Bank has provided LOI for the permanent loan dated 6/28/2023 with a loan amount of $9,150,000, interest rate of 5.43%, loan term 17 years, and the amortization is 40 years. 2. Wells Fargo has provided an LOI dated 5/23/2023 for 4% LIHTC Equity totaling $19,831,403 ($0.90 per credit); CO State Tax Credit Equity of $4,259,148 ($0.71 per credit); and Solar Tax Credits totaling $21,596. US Bank has provided an LOI dated 7/20/2023 for 4% LIHTC Equity totaling $19,180,838 ($0.87 per credit); CO State Tax Credit Equity of $4,739,052 ($0.79 per credit); and Solar Tax Credits TBD at $0.87 per credit. 3. The City of Denver has provided a letter of support for the project dated 7/21/2022, indicating the project is eligible to apply for a loan up to $15,000 per unit to a maximum of $2,225,000 with any request 722 Section D, Item 1. exceeding these limits considered on a case-by-case basis. DOH staff conversations with Denver indicate they are likely to award $4,080,000. 4. Denver’s office of Climate Action, Sustainability & Resiliency has awarded $100,000 to enable the transition to the all-electric design. 5. The developer is deferring $1,754,197 of developer fee. Project-Based Voucher Details: Type Source Number Status None Market Demand Prior & Associates provided a market study dated 6/21/2022: 1. The existing 20%, 30%, 50%, 60% and 80% AMI units in the PMA provide shelter for 9.0% of the PMA’s income- and size-qualified renters. 2. Completion of the subject and all other LIHTC projects in the development pipeline will increase the PMA’s required LIHTC capture rate to 12.0%, including 0.3% at 20% AMI, 5.2% at 30% AMI, 20.1% at 50% AMI, 23.3% at 60% AMI and 2.8% at 80% AMI. 3. The surveyed income-restricted units were 1.9% vacant, all LIHTC projects had high historical occupancy rates. 4. The subject’s proposed rents are at 90% or the maximums, are attainable and at least 6% lower than the weighted average Class B market-rate effective rents, providing a very good value. Project Metrics Total Development Cost per Sq. Ft. $400.75 Up to $470 Hard Cost per Sq. Ft. $308.03 Up to $320 Soft Cost per Sq. Ft. $99.39 Up to $110 Land Cost per Sq. Ft. $0.00 Up to $40 Total Development Cost per Unit $405,925 Up to $470,000 Hard Cost per Unit $320,491 Up to $320,000 Soft Cost per Unit $103,411 Up to $110,000 Land Cost per Unit $0.00 Up to $40,000 Developer Fee as % of total costs: 10.18% 12%-15% DOH Subsidy per Unit: $40,000 Urban: Up to $40,000 Rural: Up to $50,000 723 Section D, Item 1. Rental Metrics Annual Operating Expense per Unit $6,739 Up to $7,000 Replacement Reserve per Unit $300 $300 ($250 for seniors) Debt Coverage Ratio 1.15 1.15 - 1.30, not to exceed lender/investor requirement Operating Reserve (months of expenses + debt) 5.9 4-6 month debt & operating costs, per lender or investor requirement Deferred Developer Fee (%) 44.9% Deferred Developer Fee projected payback Year (of TC Partnership) 14 Variances from DOH Ranges None Funding Recommendation Staff Recommendation: Funding Amount: $4,080,000 Source: HDG Type of Award: Cash Flow Loan Conditions to Funding: - Availability of HDG funds. - All other funding sources have been committed. - A minimum of 20% of the developer fee must be used as a project source (the “deferred developer fee”). If prior to the tax credit partnership closing, the deferred developer fee falls below this amount, DOH reserves the right to reduce its award. - The HDG loan shall be a cash flow loan. - Receipt of documentation verifying final tax credit pricing for federal and state tax credits. DOH award may be modified if there is tax credit equity in excess of that identified in the DOH application. - Documentation of site plan approval. 724 Section D, Item 1. Housing Development & Preservation Application Income + Expenses Project Name:Irving at Mile High Date:08/14/2023 Applicant:Urban Land Conservancy Spreadsheet Version:07/25/2023 County:Denver STABILIZED FIRST YEAR INCOME EXPENSES Type of Unit (Bd/Bath) Income Level (% AMI) # of units Unit Size (Sq. Ft.) Monthly Rent Total Annual Rent Max Rent Administrative Expenses 0 Bed 1 Bath 20% 1 468 380 4,560 $380 Management Fee 80,536 5.50% 0 Bed 1 Bath 30% 1 468 597 6,948 $597 Salaries 92,000 1.50 # FTE 0 Bed 1 Bath 50% 1 468 1,032 12,384 $1,032 Benefits 0 0 Bed 1 Bath 60% 1 468 1,249 14,988 $1,249 Legal 12,500 0 Bed 1 Bath 80% 2 468 1,510 36,240 $1,684 Accounting 15,000 1 Bed 1 Bath 20% 2 636 386 9,264 $386 Advertising 10,000 1 Bed 1 Bath 30% 15 636 619 111,420 $619 Office Supplies 5,000 1 Bed 1 Bath 50% 23 636 1,084 299,184 $1,084 Telephone 10,000 1 Bed 1 Bath 60% 13 636 1,317 205,452 $1,317 Audit 0 1 Bed 1 Bath 80% 25 636 1,597 479,100 $1,783 Leased Equipment 0 2 Bed 2 Bath 20% 1 891 454 5,448 $454 contingency) 20,600 2 Bed 2 Bath 30% 3 891 733 26,388 $733 Other (specify) 0 2 Bed 2 Bath 50% 3 891 1,292 46,512 $1,292 Total Administrative $245,636 2 Bed 2 Bath 60% 2 891 1,571 37,704 $1,571 Operating Expenses 2 Bed 2 Bath 80% 3 891 1,907 68,652 $2,130 Fuel (Heat/Water)10,000 PUPM Utilities: 3 Bed 2 Bath 20% 1 1,040 516 6,192 $516 Electricity 10,000 $40.85 3 Bed 2 Bath 30% 1 1,040 839 10,068 $839 Water 15,000 3 Bed 2 Bath 50% 2 1,040 1,484 35,616 $1,484 Sewer 15,000 3 Bed 2 Bath 60% 1 1,040 1,807 21,684 $1,807 Gas 0 3 Bed 2 Bath 80% 1 1,040 2,195 26,340 $2,453 Trash Removal 10,000 Security 0 8.17$ Cable 0 Resident Transportation 0 Wifi 0 Other (specify) 0 Other (specify) 0 Total Operating $60,000 Maintenance Expenses Maintenance Supplies 17,500 Maint. Salaries 67,000 Repairs 20,000 Maint. Contracts 18,000 Total units: 102 Total Rent Income $1,464,144 Extermination 12,000 Total rental sq ft: 69,348 Grounds 12,800 Avg. Affordability (% AMI): 55.4% Parking Income Snow Removal 7,000 Units at or Below 60% AMI: 71 Laundry Income 10,000 Elevator 12,000 Vending, Application, Late Fees Other (specify)19,500 Total Income 1,474,144 Other (specify)0 Vac. Rate 7.00%Less Vacancy -103,190 Total Maintenance $185,800 Effective Gross Income 1,370,954 Other Expenses Real Estate Taxes 0 DEBT SERVICE Payment in Lieu of Taxes 0 1st Mortgage (592,693)Property Insurance 102,000 2nd Mortgage 0 Replacement Reserve 30,600 unit avg.= 300 3rd Mortgage 0 Other (specify)63,300 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE (592,693)Total Other $195,900 Break Even Point 93.37%Poss D/S @ 1.15 DCR $594,450 TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENSES $687,336 (Ann. Exp. w/out RR)656,736 Project Debt Coverage Ratio 1.15 NET OPERATING INCOME $683,618 P.U.P.A. Expenses*$6,739 Exp Ratio Utilities *P.U.P.A = Per Unit Per Annum Expenses 50.1% Tenant Paid Utilities:Owner Paid Utilities: Utility Allowances: 0 Bed*$54 1 Bed*$79 2 Bed*$104 3 Bed*$129 4 Bed*$0 PUPM Parking & Laundry: Gas Electrcity Cable Water Sewer Trash 33214 Irving at Mile High Vista Spreadsheet 2023-08-01 Page 1 of Inc & Exp 725 Section D, Item 1. Housing Development & Preservation Application Operating Proforma Project Name:Irving at Mile High Date:08/14/2023 Applicant:Urban Land Conservancy Spreadsheet Version:07/25/2023 YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10 Rent Income (increasing by 2%)2%$1,464,144 $1,493,427 $1,523,295 $1,553,761 $1,584,837 $1,616,533 $1,648,864 $1,681,841 $1,715,478 $1,749,788 Other Income (increasing by 2%)2%$10,000 $10,200 $10,404 $10,612 $10,824 $11,041 $11,262 $11,487 $11,717 $11,951 Less Vacancy 7% ($103,190) ($105,254) ($107,359) ($109,506) ($111,696) ($113,930) ($116,209) ($118,533) ($120,904) ($123,322) Eff. Gross Income $1,370,954 $1,398,373 $1,426,340 $1,454,867 $1,483,965 $1,513,644 $1,543,917 $1,574,795 $1,606,291 $1,638,417 Total Annual Expenses (increasing by 3.00%)3%($687,336) ($707,956) ($729,195) ($751,071) ($773,603) ($796,811) ($820,715) ($845,337) ($870,697) ($896,818) NET OPERATING INCOME $683,618 $690,417 $697,146 $703,797 $710,362 $716,833 $723,202 $729,459 $735,594 $741,599 Total Debt Service ($592,693) ($592,693) ($592,693) ($592,693) ($592,693) ($592,693) ($592,693) ($592,693) ($592,693) ($592,693) Other Annual Payments (Ground Lease, PSH, etc)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Cash flow Available $90,925 $97,724 $104,452 $111,103 $117,669 $124,140 $130,508 $136,765 $142,901 $148,906 Debt Coverage Ratio 1.15 1.16 1.18 1.19 1.20 1.21 1.22 1.23 1.24 1.25 Projected Payments from Cash flow Asset Management Fees (escalating at 3%) 3% $6,000 $6,180 $6,365 $6,556 $6,753 $6,956 $7,164 $7,379 $7,601 $7,829 Deferred Developer Fees $84,925 $91,544 $98,087 $104,547 $110,916 $117,184 $123,344 $129,386 $135,300 $141,077 Payment from DOH CF Loan $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Payment from Cash Flow Loan #2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Payment from Cash Flow Loan #3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Available Cash after Payments $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 YEAR 11 YEAR 12 YEAR 13 YEAR 14 YEAR 15 YEAR 16 YEAR 17 Rent Income (increasing by 2.00%) 2% $1,784,783 $1,820,479 $1,856,889 $1,894,026 $1,931,907 $1,970,545 $2,009,956 Yrs. 1-10 Yrs. 11-15 Total Other Income (increasing by 2.00%) 2% $12,190 $12,434 $12,682 $12,936 $13,195 $13,459 $13,728 $1,136,310 $617,887 $1,754,197 Less Vacancy 7% ($125,788) ($128,304) ($130,870) ($133,487) ($136,157) ($138,880) ($141,658) Eff. Gross Income $1,671,185 $1,704,609 $1,738,701 $1,773,475 $1,808,945 $1,845,123 $1,882,026 $4,080,000 Total Annual Expenses - inc. by 3% ($923,722) ($951,434) ($979,977) ($1,009,376) ($1,039,657) ($1,070,847) ($1,102,973) Yrs. 1-10 Yrs. 11-17 Total 25.00% NET OPERATING INCOME $747,463 $753,175 $758,724 $764,099 $769,287 $774,276 $779,053 $0 $85,205 $85,205 25.00%Selected Total Debt Service ($592,693) ($592,693) ($592,693) ($592,693) ($592,693) ($592,693) ($592,693) Other Annual Payments (Ground Lease, PSH, etc)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Cash flow Available $154,770 $160,482 $166,031 $171,406 $176,594 $181,583 $186,360 $4,080,000 Debt Coverage Ratio 1.26 1.27 1.28 1.29 1.30 1.31 1.31 Yrs. 1-10 Yrs. 11-17 Total 25.00% $0 $85,205 $85,205 25.00%Selected Projected Payments from Cash flow Asset Management Fees (escalating at 3%)$8,063 $8,305 $8,555 $8,811 $9,076 $9,348 $9,628 Deferred Developer Fees $146,706 $152,176 $157,476 $161,528 $0 $0 $176,732 $0 Payment from DOH CF Loan $0 $0 $0 $267 $41,880 $43,059 $0 Yrs. 1-10 Yrs. 11-17 Total 0.00% Payment from Cash Flow Loan #2 $0 $0 $0 $267 $41,880 $43,059 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%Selected Payment from Cash Flow Loan #3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Available Cash after Payments $0 $0 $0 $533 $83,759 $86,118 $0 Link to Amortization Schedule Deferred Developer Fee Totals DOH CF Loan Cash Flow Loan #2 Cash Flow Loan #3 33214 Irving at Mile High Vista Spreadsheet 2023-08-01 Page 2 of DOH Proforma 726 Section D, Item 1. TAHG PROJECT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS 727 Section D, Item 1. Project Name: Response Domestic Abuse Center DOH Application #33225 Applicant: Response Underwriter: Pamela Gibson Asset Manager: Kelly Whitcombe Developer: Response Contact For Applicant Name:Shannon Meyer Organization: Response Title: Executive Director Email: shannon@responsehelps.org Overview Pitkin County 325 Cody Lane, Basalt, CO 81621 Shelter New Construction Type of Housing: Other: Domestic Abuse Shelter with individual efficiency units Population Served: # Stories in tallest building # Elevators Energy Efficiency Program/Certification Affordable units/beds created/preserved: $4,000,000.00 $4,000,000.00 HB22-1377 Construction Costs 728 Section D, Item 1. Project Description Response will build a domestic abuse center in Basalt that will serve as the first shelter for residents living in the upper Roaring Fork Valley, as well as provide an office for delivery of services to abuse victims. The shelter will have 24 beds and house up to nine adult survivors and fifteen children at a time for up to three months. There will be five family efficiency units with beds for a survivor and three children, and two rooms with two beds each to serve one or two adults, depending upon the need for extra capacity. Each room will have its own bathroom and kitchenette, and access to a communal kitchen and living area. The office will have client meeting rooms, staff offices, a conference room, and a food/clothing pantry. Response anticipates housing 40-50 survivors and serving 200 clients from the center each year. Currently, the average length of a shelter stay is 1.6 months. There is no maximum length of stay while shelter staff works with clients to secure more permanent housing. Due to its nature as an emergency shelter, residents will not be paying rent nor income-qualifying for housing. Emergency shelters serve a crucial need for survivors fleeing abusive homes, particularly survivors with minimal resources. Fear of losing safe and affordable housing is one of the top reasons that victims do not leave their abuser. Domestic abuse is also one of the leading causes of homelessness in women and children. Having a safe and secure place to go can make all the difference for whether a survivor will have the courage to leave or not – especially if they have children. Survivors seeking a more permanent home to live in, rent, or buy face additional challenges given the low inventory and high cost of attainable homes in the Upper Roaring Fork Valley. In 2022, Response had to turn away 15 survivors due to lack of availability for shelter units. The development budget amounts to approximately $7,500,000 including land acquisition. Aside from their application to the Division of Housing for $4,000,000 in Transformational Affordable Housing Grant funds, Response is making up the balance of the gap with $3,646,750 in grants from foundations, private funds, and local municipalities. The center will be a two-story (approximately 8,050 square foot) building. Of this square footage, 5,050 will be utilized for the shelter (entry area, business center, seven efficiency rooms, a common room, and communal kitchen). One elevator will provide access to all the facilities on both floors for all residents. The office will encompass 2,200 square feet on the first floor. The 800 square foot carport will have an 800 square foot "caretaker” unit above it to serve as a residence for a Response staff person who will supervise the shelter. Alternatively, it could be used as additional shelter space for clients, dependent upon future needs. The center will be built using wood framed construction that utilizes prefabricated elements such as pre-cut studs and trusses to reduce material waste, speed up construction, and increase energy efficiency. Construction will meet or exceed all local building and sustainability codes and regulations. Although the project is not required to meet energy efficiency standards, Response plans to build to Zero Energy Ready Home standards and to have photovoltaic panels on the building's roof. The site is located within the 100-year flood plain, and therefore a portion of the structure will be set on piers to mitigate any potential flood impacts to downstream properties. Currently, Response spends about $70,000 per year to rent three apartments that are used to provide emergency shelter housing for survivors. Response will no longer be using this model once the shelter is built; instead, these dollars will go towards shelter operations. Response has been fundraising for operational dollars and has received a recommendation from the Office of Homeless Initiatives for $700,000 in Transitional Housing and Rapid Re- Housing dollars. 729 Section D, Item 1. Response’s profit v. loss budget and actual statements show positive net income year after year: 2019 ($117,861), 2020 ($192,789), 2021 ($443,369), and 2022 ($2,333,269). TAHG Project Thresholds and Requirements Applicant The applicant is Response. The applicant has an IRS Determination form documenting 501.c.3. status as a non- profit; therefore, they are an eligible applicant. Proposed Project or Program Use The application is for gap funds for Construction, which is an eligible use of TAHG funds. Timeline Per the TAHG NOFA, the project or program must execute a contract/grant agreement by December 31, 2024 and that the project or program will be completed and funds expended by December 31, 2026. The project is estimated to begin construction October 1, 2023. The project estimates construction to be complete by October 1, 2024. Energy Efficiency Per the TAHG NOFA, Pitkin County is designated as “Rural Resort.” New Construction projects with 20 units or more must provide evidence they receive green building certification. Exempt from TAHG NOFA energy efficiency requirements, as a shelter. Accessibility Requirements Emergency shelters, assisted with federal funding, would be subject to Section 504 as a "facility"; they would also be subject to ADA accessibility. Geographic Classification and Maximum AMI Limits Pitkin County is designated as “Rural Resort”, per the TAHG NOFA. The maximum AMI for rental projects in Rural Resort designated counties is 170% AMI. This project proposes all units as shelter beds. Therefore, this standard is met. Mixed Use Per the TAHG NOFA, at least 50% of a project must be designated as residential use. Response proposes one residential structure with some community and office space within the structure. The residential use is more than 50% of the total structure. Therefore, this standard is met. Leveraged Funds Per the TAHG NOFA, a minimum of 25% of total project sources must come from the applicant or another third party. Response proposes $3,485,105 (46.5% of total development costs) in third party funding. Therefore, this standard is met. TAHG Priorities Transformational Response’s domestic abuse center and shelter will fundamentally change the landscape of housing for survivors in the Roaring Fork Valley. There are currently very few options for survivors who are unhoused or at risk of homelessness because of their victimization. The closest domestic violence shelter to the proposed Response site is Advocate Safehouse Project’s four room/eight bed shelter in Glenwood Springs, which is 24 miles from Response’s Basalt location. Bright Future Foundation operates a shelter in Gypsum for Eagle County residents (49 miles away) and Hilltop Family Resource Center operates a shelter in Grand Junction for Mesa County residents (110 miles 730 Section D, Item 1. away). At this time, Response has to turn away between 15-20 survivors a year because of lack of available short term housing. This shelter would allow them to house people that would previously have been without a viable housing option. Response’s shelter will use the clustered site model, a trauma-informed approach to housing survivors. Each survivor/family will have their own space with a bathroom and kitchenette if they desire privacy. It will also have a communal kitchen, living space, and play space to foster communal healing among residents. The shelter will be ‘public facing’ rather than the confidential ‘safe house’ model that has been common in the past. Most domestic violence agencies that are building new facilities are using the public facing model today. It is nearly impossible to maintain a confidential shelter in the age of tracking devices. It is particularly difficult in small communities like the Roaring Fork Valley. Instead, it is actually safer to have a shelter that is known to the community so that neighbors and law enforcement can help keep residents safe through their awareness of the shelter. Perpetrators of abuse are much more likely to try to approach their former partner in a place that is known to them – kids’ school, grocery store, victim’s place of work – than a public shelter where they do not know what kind of security and personnel are in place. The building has been designed with security in mind. There will only be two exterior doors to the shelter, one of which is to the secure children’s play yard. Exterior doors, including the office door, will be controlled with keypad entry systems and monitored with cameras accessible to Response staff through a phone app. There will also be a secure gated parking area for four client vehicles under the carport. There will be additional cameras around the property for surveillance. There will also be panic buttons in the office and main shelter spaces that connect with local law enforcement. Inclusivity, Diversity, Equity, and Accessibility Response’s shelter will be trauma-informed and will promote inclusivity, diversity, equity and accessibility. We will strive for a warm, welcoming, inclusive atmosphere throughout the design and decoration process. The shelter will be open to all genders, gender identities and sexual orientations. Because of the clustered shelter model, individual rooms and bathrooms will provide privacy for all shelter residents. All of Response’s services are offered in English and Spanish and the shelter will be no exception. An elevator will allow survivors with mobility issues access to all public spaces within the building. Response is dedicated to utilizing the national Accessible, Culturally Responsive Trauma-Informed (ACRTI) model for serving survivors of domestic and sexual abuse. This approach is grounded in domestic and sexual violence advocacy; incorporates an understanding of trauma and its effects; creates accessible environments for healing; recognizes the centrality of culture; attends to the well-being of staff, organizations, and communities; and is committed to social justice and human rights. The core principles of ACRTI work - physical and emotional safety, hope and resilience, relationship and connection, and a survivor-defined approach - provide a foundation for creating services that are welcoming and inclusive, attuned to the range of people’s experiences, and relevant to the people and communities we serve (National Center on Domestic Violence, Trauma and Mental Health). Response is also committed to the Housing First philosophy of housing survivors at risk of homelessness because of their victimization. This approach focuses on getting survivors of domestic violence into safe and stable housing as quickly as possible and then providing the necessary support as they rebuild their lives. Key components of the housing first approach include survivor-driven, trauma-informed, mobile advocacy and flexible financial assistance. Unit Mix The property's use will be restricted as emergency shelter, with maximum occupancy of 24 shelter beds. 731 Section D, Item 1. Affordability Period Treasury Affordability Period (Years): 20 Additional DOH Affordability Period (Years): 10 Project Budget DOH TAHG Grant $4,000,000.00 Pending Diane and Bruce Halle Fndn Grant $2,300,000.00 Committed Capital Campaign (grants and $755,105.00 Committed Total Acquisition Costs $1,200,000.00 Site Improvements $471,042.00 Construction $5,207,787.00 Professional Fees $386,576.00 Construction Finance $35,000.00 Permanent Finance & Syndication $0.00 Soft Costs $184,700.00 Developer Fee / Profit $0.00 Reserves $0.00 $7,485,105.00 DOH Eligible Activity(ies): Construction Costs 732 Section D, Item 1. Project Assessment Management Capacity Pros 1. Response works with their communities to end domestic and sexual abuse and to support survivors in achieving safety and empowerment. They have been in business for 40 years, since 1983, offering emergency housing for survivors in three master-leased apartments and one single family home, a 24-hour helpline and crisis intervention, court accompaniment and legal advocacy, health and medical accompaniment, immigration assistance for survivors, and community and school-based education programs. The organization is overseen by a Board of Directors. 2. 2757 design is an architecture, design, and build studio based in Carbondale that has been in existence since 2015. Their team has more than 35 years of experience in the field. For custom projects, such as the shelter, they help identify and select contractors or potential prefab sources. They started in the Roaring Fork Valley and expanded to other mountain towns. They are also experienced in school district employee housing, workforce housing, and multifamily housing. 3. Chris Bendon of BendonAdams is the planning consultant on the project team. Along with their two planners, the firm has 50 years of experience in city planning, historic preservation, strategic thinking, and community engagement. Prior to co-founding BendonAdams, Chris spent 11 years as the City of Aspen’s Community Development Director. 4. Don Carpenter with Project Resource Company, LLC will provide construction management services. PRC has been consulting on development projects in the Roaring Fork Valley since 2010. Collectively, their members have more than 50 years of experience in the development and construction industries. Concerns None. Previous DOH funding received by the Applicant, Sponsor, or Developer: None. Public/Private Commitment Pros 1. Diane and Bruce Halle Foundation, a charity based in Scottsdale, Arizona, has donated $2,300,000 to the project. 2. A capital campaign received grants and donations in the amount of $755,105. 3. The Town of Snowmass, Town of Aspen, and Pitkin County have committed $430,000 in the form of Tobacco Tax Funds, county general fees, and other sources of local funds. Concerns None. 733 Section D, Item 1. Project-Based Voucher Details: Type Source Number Status None. Market Demand This needs assessment for the Upper Roaring Fork Valley Domestic and Abuse Shelter was prepared by Response and contains the following market information: Pros 1. Response serves survivors of domestic violence and sexual abuse, stalking and sexual harassment that live in, work in, or visit western Eagle and Pitkin County. 2. Over the lifespan of the program, Response has provided housing assistance to 190 survivors and 150 children. Each year, the program has grown as they have added more resources and as demand has increased. In 2021, the program provided housing assistance to 53 clients and 42 children and in 2022, they provided assistance to 77 clients and 62 children. 3. In 2021, Response received 312 calls to their 24-hour crisis helpline, with 285 calls in 2022. 4. In 2022, Response had to turn away 15 survivors due to lack of availability for emergency housing . 5. Emergency shelter serves a crucial need for survivors fleeing abusive homes, particularly survivors with minimal resources. Fear of losing safe and affordable housing is one of the top reasons that a victim does not leave their abuser. Domestic abuse is also one of the leading causes of homelessness in women and children. Having a safe and secure place to go can make all the difference for whether a survivor will have the courage to leave or not, especially if they have children. 6. Survivors seeking a more permanent home to live in, rent, or buy face additional challenges given the low inventory of attainable homes in the Upper Roaring Fork Valley. According to the Greater Roaring Fork Regional Housing Study prepared on April 1, 2019, the region has a 2,100-unit shortfall in housing for households at or below 60% of the Area Median Income (AMI). Basalt currently has a 1,000 unit shortfall (for households under 80% AMI) which is projected to widen to approximately 1,600 at 120% AMI or below. The Aspen to Snowmass area currently has a 3,000 unit shortfall, which is projected to increase to 3,400 by 2027. As expected in such a high-priced market, the shortfall is spread across the entire affordability spectrum (except for above 160% AMI, which contains an excess of 1,000 units). Collectively, the area has a 4,000-unit shortfall for households under 160% AMI, and by 2027, that shortfall is projected to increase to 5,200 units. 7. Through a partnership with local law enforcement agencies called Advocate Initiated Referral, or “AIR”, law enforcement passes along a domestic violence or sexual abuse victim’s contact information to Response for follow up. They received 90 law enforcement referrals in 2022 and 95 in 2021. Survivors are also referred to Response from partner agencies, medical providers, employers, or by self-referral. 8. The closest domestic violence shelter is run by Advocate Safehouse Project and is in Glenwood Springs, 24 miles from Response’s Basalt location (which could result in 7 hours of driving time should roads be blocked by fallen trucks or snow). This shelter has four bedrooms with a total of eight beds. Beyond the Glenwood shelter, Bright Future Foundation operates a shelter in Gypsum for Eagle County residents (49 miles away from 734 Section D, Item 1. Basalt) and Hilltop Family Resource Center operates a shelter in Grand Junction for Mesa County residents (110 miles away). Concerns None. Project Metrics Total Development Cost per Sq. Ft. $926.23 Up to $465 Hard Cost per Sq. Ft. $705.44 Up to $320 Soft Cost per Sq. Ft. $75.31 Up to $110 Land Cost per Sq. Ft. $149.07 Up to $40 Total Development Cost per Bed $310,674.00 Up to $465,000 Hard Cost per Bed $236,678.00 Up to $350,000 Soft Cost per Bed $25,262.00 Up to $110,000 Land Cost per Bed $50,000.00 Up to $40,000 Developer Fee as % of total costs: 0.00 % 12%-15% DOH Subsidy per Bed: $166,667.00 Urban: Up to $40,000 Rural: Up to $50,000 DOH funds in the project 53.4 % Rental Metrics Annual Operating Expense per Bed $12,091.00 Up to $7,000 Replacement Reserve per Bed $0.00 $300 ($250 for seniors) Debt Coverage Ratio N/A 1.15 - 1.30, not to exceed Operating Reserve (months of N/A 4-6 month debt & operating costs, per Deferred Developer Fee projected N/A 735 Section D, Item 1. Variances from DOH Ranges Total development cost per sq. ft. at $929 is almost double the top of the range of $465, with hard costs of $706 at more than twice the range max of $320. Small room sizes contribute to this higher cost. Land cost per bed at $50,000 is $10,000 over the $40,000 max. Land cost per sq. ft. at $149 is 3.5 times greater than the $40 max. These costs reflect the high cost of land in Pitkin County. Per Unit (Bed) Per Annum expenses (PUPA) is $12,091, which is approximately 70% higher than the $7,000 max. This would be attributed to the expected turnover of each unit four times per year, serving closer to 96 units, which brings down the PUPA to approximately $3,000. Strengths 1. Response has been in business for 40 years. 2. Response has requested Rapid Re-Housing and Emergency Shelter dollars from the Office of Homeless Initiatives (OHI). 3. The Needs Assessment shows a great demand for this type of shelter serving the greater Basalt area. There are only two shelters within an hour’s drive of Basalt: one in Glenwood Springs and one in Gypsum. A survivor that is able to remain in their community can maintain attachments to existing support systems, employment, and children’s schools. One complicating factor in the mountains is the probability that the most direct routes could be inaccessible due to traffic accidents, which could turn a half-hour drive into a seven-hour journey. 4. The need for secure emergency housing and services is increasing through partnerships with local law enforcement agencies. 5. The construction of a shelter increases efficiency of resources as previously homes for survivors were scattered around the valley. Annual rental costs of approx. $70,000 per year paid by the shelter to homeowners and motels will be directed toward shelter operations. 6. Sources include funds raised from local governments, individuals, private foundations, and the Response organization. 7. Response has secured a loan of up to $1,173,000 to cover any unforeseen budget shortfalls due to timing. 8. Response is raising money from public and private sources for the $800,000 operating budget. The capital campaign brings in an influx of donors, who are likely to become annual donors. 9. This application represents a one-time funding proposal to the state and contributes to the overall well- being and professional and recreational needs of the local workforce and population. 10. The shelter is located on a bus line. Weaknesses None. Notes 1. Response paid $1,200,000 for land, which is over the appraised value of $1,020,000. They are not requesting any funding from DOH for land acquisition. Funding Recommendation 736 Section D, Item 1. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends full funding of a Transformational Affordable Housing Grant of $4,000,000.00. Funding Amount: $4,000,000.00 Source: HB22-1377 Type of Award: Grant Conditions to Funding: ● Availability of TAHG funds. ● All other funding sources have been committed. 737 Section D, Item 1. Project Name: Fort Collins Rescue Mission Shelter DOH Application #33238 Applicant: Denver Rescue Mission Underwriter: Natalie Wowk Asset Manager: Kelly Whitcombe Developer: Denver Rescue Mission Contact For Applicant Name: Brad Meuli Organization: Denver Rescue Mission Title: President/CEO Email: bmeuli@denrescue.org Overview Larimer Hibdon Court, Fort Collins, CO 80524-2835 Shelter New Construction Other New-Construction Homeless Shelter Homeless Individuals 2 3 National Green Building Standard (NGBS) 200 $10,000,000.00 $4,500,000.00 HB22-1304 Construction Costs 738 Section D, Item 1. Project Description The Denver Rescue Mission (RM) is requesting $10,000,000 for the construction of the Fort Collins Rescue Mission in Fort Collins. This project will construct a new, trauma-informed facility for individuals experiencing homelessness. The ground-up 24/7 shelter will contain a day-use area and an overnight shelter. The Denver Rescue Mission has partnered with Shopworks, a national leader in trauma-informed design and research. The current proposal includes 200 beds, a kitchen and dining area for guests, a large outdoor greenspace and amenities, laundry facilities, and administrative offices for staff and volunteers. The property is currently zoned as Service Commercial, and no change to the zoning is proposed. The building itself is separated into two wings, one in the north and the other to the south, around a vestibule entry area. The southern wing will function as a day-use area with a cafeteria, administrative offices, and designated areas for volunteers and storage. The day-use area will serve single adult men in a congregate setting, a program model that was selected by the Fort Collins Homelessness Advisory Committee. The northern wing will house the overnight shelter. Both north and south wings are slab on grade construction with fully sprinklered, partial 2-story with elevator access provided. The Bohemian Foundation owns the property. Just south of this Bohemian-owned parcel, on the West side of Mason Street, there is a City of Fort Collins owned parcel earmarked for a future storm water retention project. Bohemian Foundation and City of Fort Collins are actively pursuing a partial land swap which will result in Bohemian acquiring the full frontage on the West side of Mason Street, from Hibdon to the North and the Valley Steel and Wire property to the South. This land swap will allow the city’s planned retention pond to act as a natural buffer between the shelter and an existing neighborhood to the West. Once the land swap is finalized, Bohemian will lease it to RM for the construction of and operation of the Building at no cost to RM. The term of the Lease will be 99 years. TAHG Project Thresholds and Requirements Applicant The applicant is Denver Rescue Mission. The applicant has an IRS Determination form documenting 501.c.3. status as a non-profit; therefore, they are an eligible applicant. Proposed Project or Program Use The application is for gap funds of shelter construction, which is an eligible use of TAHG funds. Timeline Per the TAHG NOFA, the project or program must execute a contract/grant agreement by December 31, 2024 and that the project or program will be completed and funds expended by December 31, 2026. The project is estimated to begin construction in the first quarter of 2024, with a construction period of approximately nine months. Energy Efficiency Per the TAHG NOFA, Larimer County is designated as “Urban”. New construction projects in “Urban” counties with 20 units or more must provide evidence projects receive green building certification through one of the following: 2020 Enterprise Green Communities (EGC), Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design LEED v.4.1 (LEED), National Green Building Standards NGBS ICC-700-2020 (NGBS), or Zero Energy Ready Homes standard (US DOE). Per RM, “The team will pursue National Green Building Standards, items include energy efficient mechanical equipment, water sensitive plumbing fixture, high performance fenestrations and enhanced insulation for envelope. The building will be Electrification ready. We will also perform whole Building Air Barrier Verification and Testing to ensure building envelope performance.” This standard is met. 739 Section D, Item 1. Accessibility Requirements The building public areas such as the day-use area with a cafeteria, administrative offices, overnight shelter, and restrooms will be fully accessible per International Building Code (IBC) and ICC A117.1 Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities (ANSI). Emergency shelters, assisted with federal funding, would be subject to Section 504 as a "facility;" they'd also be subject to ADA accessibility. The applicant confirmed that the architect plan accounts for Section 504 and ADA accessibility and does meet these requirements. This standard is met. Geographic Classification and Maximum AMI Limits This is a homelessness response project. Therefore, this standard is met. Mixed Use Per the TAHG NOFA, at least 50% of a project must be designated as residential use. RM proposes two residential structures with some community space exclusively for residents. The residential use is more than 50% of the total structure. Therefore, this standard is met. Leveraged Funds Per the TAHG NOFA, a minimum of 25% of total project sources must come from the applicant or another third party. This project proposes over $23M (70% of total development costs) in third party funding. Therefore, this standard is met. TAHG Priorities Transformational “The Denver Rescue Mission helps restore the lives of people experiencing homelessness and addiction through emergency services, rehabilitation, transitional programs, and community outreach, changing their lives for the long term. This project will be truly transformational as it addresses the need for additional shelter beds in the City of Fort Collins as well as providing support services for guests. This facility will incorporate trauma- informed design that will provide a holistic approach to homelessness, helping people assess the root cause of homelessness. This new construction shelter will address the regional demand for 24/7 low barrier shelter and be the first step on the Housing First spectrum. By removing the barrier to accessing safe sheltering, this project would ensure more people are service connected, enrolled into Coordinated Entry, and provided necessary housing navigation services. It will not only provide life-saving resources but is also designed to streamline unhoused neighbors into permanent, stable Housing.” Inclusivity, Diversity, Equity, and Accessibility “The Denver Rescue Mission (DRM) is developing a low barrier shelter to foster assistance that minimizes bias and recognizes and addresses systemic inequities, which, if unaddressed, create disadvantage for certain individuals or groups. The Denver Rescue Mission provides services to everyone in the community seeking help and does not turn anyone away. It is the goal of the DRM to provide accessible, inclusive, and equitable access to shelter and services, while embracing the diversity of its guests.” Unit Mix The property's use will be restricted as emergency shelter, with maximum occupancy of 200 shelter beds. Affordability Period Treasury Affordability Period (Years): 20 Additional DOH Affordability Period (Years): 10 740 Section D, Item 1. Project Budget City of Fort Collins ARPA-SLFRF $1,000,000.00 Committed Acquisition Costs $0.00 Site Improvements $2,594,474.00 Construction $18,748,339.00 Professional Fees $1,374,900.00 Construction Finance $632,520.00 Permanent Finance & Syndication $50,000.00 Soft Costs $746,060.00 Developer Fee/Profit $767,500.00 Total:$24,913,793.00 DOH Eligible Activity(ies): Construction Costs 741 Section D, Item 1. Project Assessment Management Capacity Pro 1. The Rescue Mission is the oldest Evangelical full-service Christian charity serving the poor and needy in the Rocky Mountain West, having been established in 1892. The Rescue Mission has a budget of over $35,000,000 and 340 employees. 2. RM is working with architecture firm Shopworks, who is well versed in trauma-informed design. 3. JHL Constructors will be the general contractor. 4. Anser Advisory is acting as consultant. Concern DRM has various historical and current monitoring findings including but not limited to: failure to properly document and calculate income and assets, and using incorrect rent amounts. Previous DOH funding received by the Applicant, Sponsor, or Developer: 05-042 The Crossing: $5,006,196 HOME funds awarded April 15, 2005 Public/Private Commitment Pro 1. The City of Fort Collins is considering a $1M contribution to this project. 2. Larimer County is considering a $1.5M contribution to this project. 3. The Bohemian Foundation is providing $5M in the form of a forgivable loan. 4. The Bohemian Foundation is providing up to $2M in the form of a grant for site improvements. 5. RM is contributing approximately $620,000 in proceeds from the sale of 316 Jefferson St. Concern None. Market Demand According to the 2022 Northern Colorado Continuum of Care Point in Time & Housing Inventory Count, ● 284 people were experiencing sheltered homelessness and 84 were unsheltered, for a total of 368 people experiencing homelessness on the night of January 25, 2022 in Fort Collins. “Fort Collins counted the largest overall number of people experiencing homelessness and had the highest percentage of sheltered people. This is most likely due to the larger number of emergency shelter programs that operate in the city compared to the other two cities (pg.7).” ● There were a total of 283 unsheltered people counted in Northern Colorado (Fort Collins, Greeley, and Loveland). 742 Section D, Item 1. Project Metrics Total Development Cost per Sq. Ft. $495.64 Up to $540 Hard Cost per Sq. Ft. $424.60 Up to $350 Soft Cost per Sq. Ft. $71.04 Up to $150 Land Cost per Sq. Ft. $0.00 Up to $40 Developer Fee as % of total costs: 2.28 % 12%-15% DOH funds in the project 18.1 % Variances from DOH Ranges Exceeds the DOH ranges established for Permanent Supportive Housing on Hard Costs per sq ft. DOH does not have formal assessment ranges for shelters. Strengths and Weaknesses This project addresses two TAHG NOFA priorities: 1. Leverage capital and operating subsidies from various public and private sources. 2. Represent a one-time funding proposal to the state with minimal or no multi-year financial obligations and contribute to the overall well-being and professional and recreational needs of the local workforce and population. Funding Recommendation Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends partial funding of a Transformational Affordable Housing Grant of up to $4,500,000.00. Funding Amount: $4,500,000.00 Source: HB22-1304 Type of Award: Grant Conditions to Funding: - Availability of TAHG funds. - All other funding sources have been committed. 743 Section D, Item 1. Project Name: Ready to Work Englewood DOH Application #33258 Applicant: Bridge House Housing Development Specialist: McClary Asset Manager: Kelly Whitcombe Andrew Kaczka Developer: Bridge House Contact For Applicant Name: Melissa Green Organization: Bridge House Title: CEO Email: melissa@bhrtw.org Overview Arapahoe 4675 South Windermere St, Englewood, CO 80110 Transitional Housing Rehabilitation Other Transitional Housing - Dormitory Chronically Homeless Individuals 2 0 National Green Building Standard (NGBS) 50 $3,000,000.00 744 Section D, Item 1. Staff Recommended Funding Amount: $3,000,000.00 Proposed Funding Source: HB22-1377 Proposed Funding Activities: Construction Costs, Site Improvements Project Description Bridge House is seeking a $3,000,000.00 grant for the Ready to Work Englewood (RTWE) Program. These HB22-1304 funds will be used to support site improvements and rehabilitation of the building being purchased by Bridge House. In August 2022, Bridge House purchased a vacant former light-industrial and commercial building at 4675 S. Windermere Street to be renovated into a 50-bed dormitory and program/training facility to extend the Ready to Work program already operating in similar size facilities in Boulder and Aurora. The plan is to complete the rehab and become operational by late 2023. This location has been vacant for more than six months and will primarily serve clients who are experiencing homelessness or are at risk of homelessness in the Tri-Cities area of Denver (Englewood, Sheridan and Littleton) and also serve individuals exiting the judicial system into homelessness. The targeted AMI for this population will be generally at or below 30% AMI. The program participants are income verified at intake. The Tri-Cities area currently has limited shelter and service options for adults experiencing homelessness. Arapahoe County and the Tri-Cities policy group have identified the opening of RTWE as a priority in this area. RTWE incorporates three main elements within each program: 1) Dormitory-style housing in their RTWE House. Room and board for each participant is based on 30% of the gross earned wage for each participant, up to a maximum of $250 in each 2-week period. This amount is calculated every 2 weeks by Bridge House as part of the payroll calculations. Participants are encouraged to open checking and savings accounts based on a portion of their earned wages after garnishments, fees, taxes, etc. Participants will work based upon their program plan which determines their availability and the availability of actual paid work. 2) Paid employment and job training opportunities in a Bridge House-owned social enterprise. 3) Case management support services, including addiction recovery and employment/housing counseling. RTWE will house and serve up to 50 trainees at any given time. Trainees graduate the program after they achieve full-time employment. The Bridge House model has successfully transitioned individuals between homelessness or incarceration into permanent housing since 2012 in Boulder and since 2018 in Aurora. RTWE will use congregate housing with each person having a living cubicle. The building will have 8 pods each containing 6-7 cubicles. Every cubicle will include a bed, night table, and a closet for storage. The program participants will share 3 bathrooms and eating areas. The facility will also have a primary kitchen area, capable of mass cooking and dining allowing for hot and cold service. Sobriety of participants is required, but participants that fail sobriety or relapse are not necessarily kicked out of the program. Program participants are required to sign a Participation Agreement for the Bridge House program. Bridge House has contacted agencies with similar programs throughout the country. These include: Doe Fund Ready Willing & Able (New York), RWA Philadelphia, Georgia Works (Atlanta and Hall County, GA), and Ready, Willing & Working (Washington, DC). In some, but not all, of the program models, program participants 745 Section D, Item 1. are charged a fee which is applied to business expenses related to program operations. In no case is such a fee characterized as rental, though it may be characterized as offsetting, for example, training expenses as contrasted with room and board operating expenses. There are a range of funding models and Bridge House has not found any examples of a funder substantially pushing back on a program model on account of a fee structure. The Office of Homeless Initiatives (OHI) will provide a total of $600,000 to fund two separate years for operations of transitional housing through the Transformational Homelessness Response Grant NOFA (HB22- 1377). The total amount of OHI operations funding will be $1,200,000. The Conditional Use permit for the facility in a light-industrial zone has been approved and renovation designs are nearing completion. The existing building will be substantially stripped of its interior structures and finishes and renovated to a modern living and training facility. The construction is slab-on-grade. The renovation will be completed in conformance with the Englewood adoption of the International Building Code and the National Green Building Standard. The all-electric and solar-ready building is designed for a twenty-year useful life, and all building mechanical systems will be replaced or upgraded. Among the upgrades to the building will be a full suite of alarm systems and the installation of sprinklers. TAHG Project Thresholds and Requirements Applicant The applicant is Bridge House-RTW Englewood (RTWE). The applicant has an IRS Determination form documenting 501.c.3. status as a non-profit; therefore, they are an eligible applicant. Proposed Project or Program Use The application is for gap funds for Rehabilitation and Site Improvements, which are eligible uses of TAHG funds. Timeline Per the TAHG NOFA, the project or program must execute a contract/grant agreement by December 31, 2024 and that the project or program will be completed and funds expended by December 31, 2026. The project is estimated to begin construction on 09/01/2023. The project estimates construction to be complete by 09/01/2024. Energy Efficiency Per the TAHG NOFA, Arapahoe County is designated as “Urban”. Rehabilitation projects in “Urban” counties with 20 beds or more must provide evidence projects receive green building certification through one of the following: 2020 Enterprise Green Communities (EGC), Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design LEED v.4.1 (LEED), National Green Building Standards NGBS ICC-700-2020 (NGBS), or Zero Energy Ready Homes standard (US DOE). The Bridge House RTW Project will not be new construction. However, the renovation will be completed in conformance with the Englewood adoption of the International Building Code and the National Green Building Standard. We are designing for a twenty-year useful life, and all building mechanical systems will be replaced or upgraded. Bridge House building plans are being developed consistent with the following applicable codes and standards: 746 Section D, Item 1. ● 2018 International Building Code “IBC” ● 2018 International Fire Code “IFC” ● 2018 International Energy Conservation Code “IECC” ● 2020 National Electrical Code “NEC” (NFPA 70) ● ANSI/TIA/EIA-607, TIA grounding and bonding standard for commercial buildings. ● ICC/ANSI A117.1 Accessibility / 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design. ● Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) Guidelines and Publications including the Lighting Handbook 10th Edition. In order to obtain a desirable energy efficient design, the selection and layout of lighting fixtures throughout the facility will minimize excess wattage by utilizing proper lamp selections, light levels, and control strategies. In general, LED sources will be utilized for all fixtures to minimize the overall lighting watt/sf load as well as reducing maintenance costs. It is the intent of this design that no HID, Linear Fluorescent, Compact Fluorescent, or Incandescent sources will be used, only LED. The lighting control systems will be designed to meet the code requirements of the 2018 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). This lighting control system shall provide lighting power reduction in accordance with the requirements for Automatic Time Switch Control, Light Reduction Controls, and Daylight Zone Controls. The requirements of 2018 IECC shall only be applied to new construction areas only; all existing systems and controls shall remain. 50% of all parking spaces will be provided with Level 2 pre-wired (EV Capable) electric vehicle charging infrastructure. These will be 208 volt, 1-phase, 40 amp circuit breakers for each EV parking space. We will utilize dual-charging stations wherever possible and the requirement will include 40A/2P spare circuit breakers, 2#8, 1#10G, ¾”C to a junction box at the parking spaces. This is expected to include (1) parking space adjacent to the Bridge House building, and the other (6) at the remote parking lot. Accessibility Requirements Per the TAHG NOFA, all new construction and substantial rehabilitation of rental projects containing 5 or more beds, a minimum of ten percent (10%) or a minimum of two (2) of the beds (whichever is greater) must be made handicap accessible to persons with mobility disabilities or adaptable according to the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) and at least an additional four percent (4%) of the beds or a minimum of two (2) of the beds (whichever is greater) in such a project shall be accessible for persons with hearing or vision impairments, and to the maximum extent feasible, these beds are to be evenly distributed throughout the project site and be of similar range of sizes when compared to other beds. Bridge House RTW proposes 5 beds (10 %) accessible to those with mobility impairments and 2 (4 %) accessible to those with sensory impairments. The building will be renovated to accommodate accessibility for clients who have mobility disabilities and those who have hearing or vision impairments. The renovated building will accommodate 50 persons. Therefore, 5 beds will accommodate clients who have mobility impairments and 2 will accommodate those who are hearing and vision impaired. Bathrooms and other shared spaces – e.g. lounge, dining areas and laundry facilities – will be built to Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards. A small portion of the building has a second floor, which is accessible by stair and which will contain dormitory spaces which are duplicated on the main floor, where all of the accessible-designed spaces are located. This standard for accessibility requirements has been met. 747 Section D, Item 1. Geographic Classification and Maximum AMI Limits Arapahoe County is designated “Urban”, per the TAHG NOFA. The maximum AMI for rental projects in Urban designated counties is 80% AMI. This project proposes all beds at 30% AMI or available to individuals at risk of or experiencing homelessness. Therefore, this standard is met. Mixed Use Per the TAHG NOFA, at least 50% of a project must be designated as residential use. Bridge House – RTW proposes one residential structure with some community space within the structure. The residential use is more than 50% of the total structure. Therefore, this standard is met. Leveraged Funds Per the TAHG NOFA, a minimum of 25% of total project sources must come from the applicant or another third party. This project proposes $4,295,000 (58.9% of total development costs) in third party funding. Therefore, this standard is met. TAHG Priorities Transformational Ready to Work’s theory of change is that when adults experiencing homelessness who have the capacity to work and the desire to resolve their homelessness participate in the RTW program, they will then be able to re-enter the mainstream workforce, obtain permanent housing, and break the cycle of criminal recidivism, addiction, and any other barriers that have inhibited them from reaching self-sufficiency. The core of Ready to Work is employment in Bridge House’s two social enterprises. Ready to Work’s methodology can be compared to a 3-legged stool. Each individual “leg” of the program stool represents a strong foundation for self-sufficiency: work, housing, and supportive services. Combined, the stability and comprehensive access to income, safe housing and support is a life changing structure. In Metro Denver, workforce development and homeless service agencies offer pieces of RTW that can be compared to one leg of the Ready to Work stool, such as housing or employment. RTW offers a balanced and effective program by offering all three elements within the same program, which ensures a comprehensive, cost-effective, and lasting intervention for the individual and the broader community. According to the 2022 MDHI Point in Time Survey, homelessness in Arapahoe County has doubled in the last 2 years. Available shelter beds in Arapahoe County, particularly for single adults, are inadequate to serve the total number of clients. Unsanctioned encampments continue to be built across the city, but are subject to abatements and clean-ups. COVID continues to exacerbate the problem as individuals have limited places to seek assistance, shelter, or employment. Unemployment rates in Arapahoe County reached a record high of 12% in March 2020. Bridge House will provide immediate access to safe and COVID-free shelter in the RTW Englewood development. RTW offers a cost-effective solution to homelessness and unemployment. The total community cost for an adult experiencing homelessness can average well above $50,000 annually through use of hospitals, jails, and emergency services. However, the total one-time cost for each RTW participant is approximately $43,000, approximately 50% of which goes to support the wages and work of trainees that are earned through social enterprise. After graduating, participants have more independence and are less likely to require additional community resources. 748 Section D, Item 1. Bridge House estimates that each RTW graduate offers the economy a net gain per year of $37,000 to the community through rent, taxes, and other economic impacts as a contributing member of society. Since the inception of RTW, over 400 participants have successfully graduated the program with permanent housing and employment and have learned skills to live independently. Approximately 80% of Bridge House graduates are still housed and employed 12 months post-graduation. For every year these graduates stay housed and employed, the community saves $50,000 and gains $37,000 at a minimum. Inclusivity, Diversity, Equity, and Accessibility People of color, people with histories of incarceration, and people unable to find employment or housing due to resulting societal barriers of unequal access based on race or class represent the majority of participants in RTW programs. Bridge House will serve their residents by providing program resources and the opportunity to learn from their experiences to affect greater change. Many clients are in situations that are direct causes of historical, systemic and societal barriers resulting in the inability to find employment and housing, which ultimately has led to homelessness. Adults experiencing homelessness who come to Bridge House also frequently lack access to healthcare and the resources to find adequate services. Many struggle with addiction or mental illness. RTWE will help provide the stability and access to healthcare services necessary for residents to become healthier individuals and to successfully integrate back into their community. Bridge House is mindful of the sources of referrals and applicants to ensure that services are available for clients of all ethnicities, races, genders, and sexual orientation. Bridge House has recently added 8 new members to the Board of Directors, 6 of whom are female and 5 are persons of color. The Bridge House CEO is a female person of color which also signals organizational commitment to IDEA. Over 75% of RTW staff and case managers have lived experiences with homelessness, addiction or incarceration. Most of the associated social enterprise supervisors have lived experiences with homelessness or are RTW program graduates. Bridge House informally tracks lived experiences with addiction, mental illness, and incarceration. Although not documented, they estimate that approximately 60% of Bridge House staff have lived experience with addiction, incarceration, or mental illness. For Bridge House clients: ● LGBTQ: 7% identify as LGBTQ, and 65% of them are persons of color ● Education Level: Only 35% of clients have a high school diploma or GED or above (a 5% decrease from 2020) ● Length of homelessness: 46% have been homeless for less than 1 year (an 11% increase from 2020) ● History of drug or alcohol addiction: 85%+ have substance abuse issues (a 6% increase from 2020) The intersectionality of the factors above lead to even more obstacles in health equity or racial justice. In addition to racial diversity, Bridge House trainees and staff have varied religious views, sexual orientations, and gender identities, and many have lived experience with homelessness, incarceration, addiction, and disabilities. An increased appreciation of resident similarities and differences will ultimately create better teamwork among the staff and maintain a respectful workplace and environment in the RTW locations. Unit Mix 749 Section D, Item 1. Unit Type Beds 1-BR 2-BR 3-BR 4-BR Total Income Limit TAHG-Assisted 21 0 0 0 0 21 Experiencing Homelessness or at risk of Other Affordable 29 0 0 0 0 29 30% AMI or Experiencing Homelessness or at risk of 50 0 0 0 0 Visitable : Treasury Affordability Period (Years): 20 Additional DOH Affordability Period (Years): 10 Project Budget DOH TAHG Grant $3,000,000.00 Pending ARPA Passthrough Grant - City of $850,000.00 Committed ARPA Passthrough Grant - Town $250,000.00 Committed ARPA Passthrough Grant - $1,000,000.00 Committed ARPA Passthrough Grant - City of $500,000.00 Committed Federal Omnibus Grant - (Congressman Crow) (from $1,500,000.00 Committed 750 Section D, Item 1. Owner Equity – Rehab $50,000 Committed Total: $7,295,000.00 Acquisition Costs $2,658,692.00 Site Improvements $282,440.00 Construction $3,713,868.00 Professional Fees $290,000.00 Construction Finance $60,000.00 Soft Costs $145,000.00 Developer Fee / Profit $0.00 Reserves $145,000.00 Total:$7,295,000.00 DOH Eligible Activity(ies): Construction Costs, Site Improvements Project Assessment Management Capacity Pro: 1. The organization now known as Bridge House was started in 1997 as a day shelter for individuals experiencing homelessness in Boulder. In 2004, the organization began operating a kitchen in partnership with a church in Boulder. In 2011, the name was changed to Bridge House. The group launched its resource center and Ready to Work program the following year. 2. Bridge House provides services, employment opportunities and housing to people experiencing homelessness in Boulder. The organization served 1,800 unduplicated clients in 2016 through case management, services, shelter, housing, and referrals. 3. The Ready to Work program provides a pathway to self-sufficiency through paid work and services, including case management in a transitional housing, congregate living setting. In-house management provides 24/7 staffing and oversees operations, cleaning, security, supervision of daily living-facility chores by program participants, and other daily-living details of the Ready to Work facility. The positions are paid living wages with benefits meeting or exceeding local standards and often include program graduates who have a long-term plan to make a career in social services or similar professions. 4. Since 2012, Bridge House has quadrupled the size of its organization and completed construction projects in Boulder and Aurora. The 44-bed Boulder project and the 50-bed Aurora project both serve the same population and provide the same services as the proposed Englewood project. 751 Section D, Item 1. 5. The Boulder Ready to Work project has been operational since August 2015. Bridge House raised $4.5 million for this project ($2 million from public sources and $2.5 million from private foundations and donors. So far, 77% of trainees have successfully transitioned to independent housing and mainstream employment. The project received an Eagle Award in 2016 for innovation in housing. 6. Bridge House has owned and managed the properties in Boulder and Aurora since their inception. Bridge House conducts extensive fundraising to support continued operations at all of the properties while offering rents that are less than 30% of the program participants’ monthly income. 7. Bridge House offers extensive supportive services to its residents (trainees). The trainees meet with dedicated case managers and participate in life-skills training, such as financial management and addiction recovery, to remove barriers to mainstream employment and housing. Trainees partake in many treatment groups without having to leave the RTW House. This allows them to build trust with case managers and support their fellow trainees in the treatment group. Case managers with requisite degrees and certifications, and oftentimes lived experience, lead evidence-based treatment groups using cognitive behavioral therapy practices, which are fundamental to the success of trainees. These clinical groups include Relapse Prevention, Early Recovery Skills, Seeking Safety, and Parents on a Mission. Additional community support groups available to trainees include Recovery in Christ, Life Ring, Alcoholics/Narcotics Anonymous, Mindfulness, and Life Skills. Con: None. Previous DOH funding received by the Applicant, Sponsor, or Developer: 14-079 HDG Ready to Work Boulder - 2015 18-028 HDG Ready to Work Aurora - 2018 Public/Private Commitment Pro: 1. In support of this project, RTWE has received ARPA passthrough grants from the following nearby counties and municipalities: a. City of Englewood: $850,000 b. Town of Sheridan: $250,000 c. Arapahoe County: $1,000,000 d. City of Littleton: $500,000 2. As part of the FY2023 Federal Omnibus Spending Package, RTWE has received $1,500,000 from Congressman Jason Crow’s office in support of the Ready To Work program. 3. Bridge House is committing $145,000 of owner equity to set up operating reserves for RTWE. 4. Bridge House has allocated an additional $50,000 in owner equity for the rehab of the building. 5. The Bridge House Ready To Work model includes finding outside employment for its residents who are charged no more than $250 biweekly for room and board. Based on the Boulder and Aurora programs currently in place, room and board will not exceed 35% of each resident’s gross monthly income. 6. The DOH Office of Homeless Initiatives (OHI) has approved a total allocation of $1,287,337 (spread over two years) of HB22-1377 funding to support the case management and supportive services for RTWE. These figures are listed in the Services Contribution tab of the DOH spreadsheet. 7. Since 2015, annual fundraising for Bridge House has averaged more than $400,000 per year. Funding sources include a balance of public donations, philanthropic grants, and government grant contracts. 752 Section D, Item 1. Cons: 1. As the project is grant based, and dependent on additional grants and donations for ongoing expenses, market conditions may/will affect the ongoing viability of the subject property. Bridge House has consistently demonstrated the ability to fund its operations through local and federal grants, as well as exceptional fundraising each year since its 2012 inception. Project Based Vouchers: None. Market Demand 1. According to the 2022 MDHI Point in Time Survey, homelessness in Arapahoe County has doubled in the last 2 years. Available shelter beds in Arapahoe County, particularly for single adults, are inadequate to serve the total number of clients. Unsanctioned encampments continue to be built across the city, but are subject to abatements and clean-ups. 2. Consequences associated with the pandemic continue to exacerbate the problem as individuals have limited places to seek assistance, shelter or employment. Unemployment rates in Arapahoe County reached a record high of 12% in March 2020. The RTW program will provide immediate access to a safe and COVID-free congregate facility in RTW Englewood House. 3. Referrals for housing opportunities with RTWE will be made through social enterprise organizations in Arapahoe County, Sheridan, and Englewood, as well as through the judicial system and local shelters. 4. The capacity of the Boulder and Aurora RTW facilities are 44 and 50, respectively. Since 2105, 400 individuals have graduated from the RTW transitional program. Project Metrics 753 Section D, Item 1. Metric Project Data Range Total Development Cost per Sq. Ft. $540.37 Up to $470 Hard Cost per Sq. Ft. $492.96 Up to $320 Soft Cost per Sq. Ft. $47.41 Up to $110 Land Cost per Sq. Ft. $0.00 Up to $40 Total Development Cost per Bed $145,900.00 Up to $470,000 Hard Cost per Bed $133,100.00 Up to $320,000 Soft Cost per Bed $12,800.00 Up to $110,000 Land Cost per Bed $0.00 Up to $40,000 Developer Fee as % of total costs: 0.0% 12%-15% DOH Subsidy per Bed: $60,000.00 Urban: Up to $25,000 Rural: Up to $35,000 DOH funds in the project 41.1 % Rental Metrics Annual Operating Expense per Unit $8,412.00 Up to $7,500 Replacement Reserve per Unit $300.00 $300 ($250 for seniors) Debt Coverage Ratio 0.00 1.15 - 1.30, not to exceed Operating Reserve (months of 4.1 4-6 month debt & operating costs, per Deferred Developer Fee projected 0 Variances from DOH Ranges 754 Section D, Item 1. 1. The cost per square foot ($540.37) and hard cost per square foot (492.96) both exceed the DOH limits of $470 and $320. This is primarily due to the acquisition cost of the building of $2.658 million and the smaller than average unit sizes associated with congregate living. 2. There is no developer fee for this project. The development is being managed in-house by the non-profit organization with strict cost controls. 3. The lower than average tenant room and board charges increase the need for sustained fundraising by Bridge House. Historically, the organization has maintained adequate fundraising for operating its developments. Strengths and Weaknesses Strengths: 1. Bridge House has successfully developed, owned, and operated a 44-bed project in Boulder and a 50-bed project in Aurora that use the same supportive employment program model that will be used in Englewood. 2. The organization has demonstrated a strong commitment to transitioning individuals from homelessness and from the judicial system into steady employment and permanent housing. 3. Approximately 33% of the trainees have entered the RTW program through the judicial system with recidivism rates that are much better than averages for transitional housing programs. 4. The project is leveraging existing housing stock to create housing opportunities for persons exiting homelessness or the judicial system to homelessness. 5. The Bridge House supportive employment model sets up residents for increasing the probability of long- term stability and the ability to transition into permanent housing. 6. Bridge House has developed long term relationships with many local governments, shelters, mental health centers, service providers, and housing authorities in the Denver Metro Area, which have led to sustained community and financial support since 1997. 7. Bridge House has also developed long-term relationships to create sanitation and outdoor work social enterprises. Social enterprises also serve as a source of funding for the services provided by Bridge House. Weaknesses: 1. Long-term operations are dependent on a large amount of annual fundraising. However, Bridge House has demonstrated the capacity for significant fundraising since 1997. Funding Recommendation 755 Section D, Item 1. Staff Recommendation: Full funding of an HB22-1377 grant of $3,000,000. Funding Amount: $3,000,000 Source: HB22-1377 Type of Award: Grant Conditions to Funding: - Availability of TAHG funds. - All other funding sources have been committed. 756 Section D, Item 1. Housing Development & Preservation Application Income + Expenses Project Name:Bridge House Ready to Work Englewood Date:08/10/2023 Applicant:Bridge House Spreadsheet Version:08/02/2023 County:Arapahoe STABILIZED FIRST YEAR INCOME EXPENSES Type of Unit (Bd/Bath) Income Level (% AMI) # of units Unit Size (Sq. Ft.) Monthly Room & Board Total Annual Room & Board Max Rent Administrative Expenses 0 Bed 1 Bath 30% 50 200 $500 $300,000 #NAME? Management Fee $0 0.00% 0 #NAME? Salaries $200,000 7.00 # FTE 0 #NAME? Benefits $40,000 0 #NAME? Legal $500 0 #NAME? Accounting $1,500 0 #NAME? Advertising $0 0 #NAME? Office Supplies $2,000 0 #NAME? Telephone $4,000 0 #NAME? Audit $1,000 0 #NAME? Leased Equipment 0 #NAME?contingency) 0 #NAME?Other (specify) 0 #NAME?Total Administrative $249,000 0 #NAME?Operating Expenses 0 #NAME? Fuel (Heat/Water)$50,000 PUPM Utilities: 0 #NAME? Electricity $20,000 $133.33 0 #NAME? Water $10,000 0 #NAME? Sewer $0 0 #NAME?Gas $0 0 #NAME? Trash Removal $6,000 0 #NAME? Security $3,000 0 #NAME? Cable $6,000 0 #NAME? Resident Transportation $7,000 0 #NAME? Wifi $1,000 0 #NAME?Other (specify) 0 #NAME?Other (specify) 0 #NAME?Total Operating $103,000 0 #NAME?Maintenance Expenses 0 #NAME? Maintenance Supplies $12,500 0 #NAME?Maint. Salaries $15,000 0 #NAME?Repairs $5,000 0 #NAME?Maint. Contracts $1,000 Total units: 50 Total Rent Income $300,000 Extermination $0 Total rental sq ft: 10,000 Grounds $100 Avg. Affordability (% AMI): 30.0%Parking Income $0 Snow Removal $0 Units at or Below 60% AMI: 50 Laundry Income $0 Elevator $0 Other(Fundraising)$250,000 Other (specify) Total Income $550,000 Other (specify) Vac. Rate 7.00%Less Vacancy -$38,500 Total Maintenance $33,600 Effective Gross Income $511,500 Other Expenses Real Estate Taxes $0 DEBT SERVICE Payment in Lieu of Taxes $0 1st Mortgage $0 Property Insurance $20,000 2nd Mortgage $0 Replacement Reserve $15,000 unit avg.= 300 3rd Mortgage $0 Other (specify) TOTAL DEBT SERVICE $0 Total Other $35,000 Break Even Point 82.23%Poss D/S @ 1.15 DCR $79,043 TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENSES $420,600 (Ann. Exp. w/out RR)405,600 Project Debt Coverage Ratio #DIV/0!NET OPERATING INCOME $90,900 P.U.P.A. Expenses* $8,412 Exp Ratio Utilities *P.U.P.A = Per Unit Per Annum Expenses 82.2% Tenant Paid Utilities:Owner Paid Utilities: Utility Allowances: 0 Bed* 1 Bed* 2 Bed* 3 Bed* 4 Bed* None Gas Electric Water Sewer Trash 33258 Bridge House TAHG Spreadsheet 08-02-2023 Page 1 of Inc & Exp 757 Section D, Item 1. Housing Development & Preservation Application Operating Proforma Project Name:Bridge House Ready to Work Englewood Date:08/10/2023 Applicant:Bridge House Spreadsheet Version:08/02/2023 YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10 Rent Income (increasing by 2%)2%$300,000 $306,000 $312,120 $318,362 $324,730 $331,224 $337,849 $344,606 $351,498 $358,528 Other Income (increasing by 2%)2%$250,000 $255,000 $260,100 $265,302 $270,608 $276,020 $281,541 $287,171 $292,915 $298,773 Less Vacancy 7% ($38,500) ($39,270) ($40,055) ($40,857) ($41,674) ($42,507) ($43,357) ($44,224) ($45,109) ($46,011) Eff. Gross Income $511,500 $521,730 $532,165 $542,808 $553,664 $564,737 $576,032 $587,553 $599,304 $611,290 Total Annual Expenses (increasing by 3.00%)3%($420,600) ($433,218) ($446,215) ($459,601) ($473,389) ($487,591) ($502,218) ($517,285) ($532,803) ($548,788) NET OPERATING INCOME $90,900 $88,512 $85,950 $83,207 $80,275 $77,147 $73,814 $70,268 $66,500 $62,502 Total Debt Service $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other Annual Payments (Ground Lease, PSH, etc)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Cash flow Available $90,900 $88,512 $85,950 $83,207 $80,275 $77,147 $73,814 $70,268 $66,500 $62,502 Debt Coverage Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Projected Payments from Cash flow Asset Management Fees (escalating at 3%) 3% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Deferred Developer Fees $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Payment from DOH CF Loan $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Payment from Cash Flow Loan #2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Payment from Cash Flow Loan #3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Available Cash after Payments $90,900 $88,512 $85,950 $83,207 $80,275 $77,147 $73,814 $70,268 $66,500 $62,502 YEAR 11 YEAR 12 YEAR 13 YEAR 14 YEAR 15 YEAR 16 YEAR 17 Rent Income (increasing by 2.00%) 2% $365,698 $373,012 $380,473 $388,082 $395,844 $403,761 $411,836 Yrs. 1-10 Yrs. 11-15 Total Other Income (increasing by 2.00%) 2% $304,749 $310,844 $317,060 $323,402 $329,870 $336,467 $343,196 $0 $0 $0 Less Vacancy 7% ($46,931) ($47,870) ($48,827) ($49,804) ($50,800) ($51,816) ($52,852) Eff. Gross Income $623,516 $635,986 $648,706 $661,680 $674,913 $688,412 $702,180 Total Annual Expenses - inc. by 3% ($565,251) ($582,209) ($599,675) ($617,665) ($636,195) ($655,281) ($674,940) Yrs. 1-10 Yrs. 11-17 Total #DIV/0! NET OPERATING INCOME $58,264 $53,777 $49,031 $44,015 $38,718 $33,131 $27,240 $0 $0 $0 Selected Total Debt Service $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other Annual Payments (Ground Lease, PSH, etc)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Cash flow Available $58,264 $53,777 $49,031 $44,015 $38,718 $33,131 $27,240 Debt Coverage Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yrs. 1-10 Yrs. 11-17 Total #DIV/0! $0 $0 Selected Projected Payments from Cash flow Asset Management Fees (escalating at 3%)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Deferred Developer Fees $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Payment from DOH CF Loan $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Yrs. 1-10 Yrs. 11-17 Total #DIV/0! Payment from Cash Flow Loan #2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%Selected Payment from Cash Flow Loan #3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Available Cash after Payments $58,264 $53,777 $49,031 $44,015 $38,718 $33,131 $27,240 Deferred Developer Fee Totals DOH CF Loan Cash Flow Loan #2 Cash Flow Loan #3 33258 Bridge House TAHG Spreadsheet 08-02-2023 Page 2 of DOH Proforma 758 Section D, Item 1. Activity Expenditures Total Being Requested Description (Review Instrictions in "Overview" Tab) Wage, Fringe, and Personnel $568,921.73 wages/fringe for program director (1 FTE), case managers (5 FTE), other support staff (3.5 FTE total) plus 10% of overhead Other Services Costs $84,260.00 includes program supplies, food cost, trainee transportation, incentives, aftercare and housing support plus 10% of overhead Wage, Fringe, and Personnel $436,941.43 wage/fringe for Manager of Housing Operations (1 FTE), Manager of Kitchen Operations (1 FTE), House Managers (5.325 FTE), Facility Mgmr (.75 FTE) plus 10% of overhead Other Operations Costs $197,214.12 includes insurance, utilities, repairs/maintenance, equipment, building and office supplies, parking/mileage, IT expenses plus 10% of overhead Grant Activities $0.00 Wage, Fringe, and Personnel $672,958.86 wages/fringe for Director of Outdoor Operations (.15 FTE), Manager of Outdoor Operations (1 FTE), Outdoor Supervisors (4 FTE) and trainee wages/fringe plus 10% of overhead Other Educational, Vocational, & Work-Based Costs $50,884.02 includes work supplies and vehicle expense (gas, maintenance, insurance) plus 10% of overhead Wage, Fringe, and Personnel $0.00 Other Recovery Care Costs $0.00 TOTAL TRANSITIONAL HOUSING REQUEST:$2,011,180.16 Match Activity Expenditures Total Being Provided Description (Review Instrictions in "Overview" Tab) Social Enterprise - Earned Revenue $0.00 revenue earned through supplemental sanitation and outdoor work Enter match activity $0.00 Enter match activity $0.00 TOTAL TRANSITIONAL HOUSING MATCH:$0.00 TOTAL TRANSITIONAL HOUSING PROGRAM:$2 011 180.16 TRANSITIONAL HOUSING (MATCH) TRANSITIONAL HOUSING (DOH REQUEST) Supportive Services Operations Educational, Vocational, and Work-Based Learning Recovery Care and Related Residential Programs 33258 Bridge House TAHG Services Budget 05‐04‐2023 Page 1 of 1 Transitional Housing 759 Section D, Item 1. Housing Development & Preservation - Projected Funding & Reserves for Supportive Services Project Name: Date: Applicant: Spreadsheet Version: Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Totals $ 2,011,180 $ 2,071,515 $ 2,133,660 $2,197,670 $2,263,600 $2,331,508 $2,401,453 $2,473,497 $2,547,702 $2,624,133 $2,702,857 $ 2,783,943 $ 2,867,461 $ 2,953,485 $ 3,042,090 37,405,754$ 50 40,224 41,430 42,673 43,953 45,272 46,630 48,029 49,470 50,954 52,483 54,057 55,679 57,349 59,070 60,842 Forecast of Sources Name of Funder Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Totals Developers Fee made available through PSH boost)$0 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -$ DOH THRG - HB22-1377 $ 1,287,337 1,287,337$ Social Enterprise Funds $ 703,913 $ 725,030 $ 746,781 $ 769,185 $ 792,260 $ 816,028 $ 840,509 $ 865,724 $ 891,696 $ 918,447 $ 946,000 $ 974,380 $ 1,003,611 $ 1,033,720 $ 1,064,732 13,092,014$ Additional Fundraising $ 200,000 $ 1,400,000 $ 1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $ 1,800,000 $ 1,800,000 $ 1,800,000 $ 1,800,000 22,300,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Sum of Services Sources $ 2,191,250 $ 2,125,030 $ 2,246,781 $2,269,185 $2,292,260 $2,316,028 $2,340,509 $2,365,724 $2,391,696 $2,418,447 $2,446,000 $ 2,774,380 $ 2,803,611 $ 2,833,720 $ 2,864,732 36,679,353$ Services Contribution Needed from Cash Flow After Pmts $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 15,480 $ 60,944 $ 107,773 $ 156,006 $ 205,686 $ 256,857 $ 9,563 $ 63,850 $ 119,765 $ 177,358 1,173,282$ Available Cash Flow after Pmts $90,900 $88,512 $85,950 $83,207 $80,275 $77,147 $73,814 $70,268 $66,500 $62,502 $58,264 $53,777 $49,031 $44,015 $38,718 1,022,880$ Surplus/Deficit by Year 270,970$ 142,027$ 199,071$ 154,722$ 108,935$ 61,667$ 12,870$ (37,505)$ (89,506)$ (143,184)$ (198,593)$ 44,214$ (14,819)$ (75,750)$ (138,640)$ 296,479$ Net Cash Services Reserve -$ 270,970$ 412,997$ 612,068$ 766,790$ 875,725$ 937,392$ 950,261$ 912,756$ 823,250$ 680,067$ 481,474$ 525,688$ 510,869$ 435,118$ 296,479$ -$ (Trust Fund + CF Contribution)4.5% 4.3% 4.0% 3.8% 3.5% 3.3% 3.1% 2.8% 2.6% 2.4% 2.2% 1.9% 1.7% 1.5% 1.3% -$ Annual inflation factor of _3__% applied to Years 2- 5 Englewood 08/10/2023 Bridge House 08/02/2023 Forecast of Expenses (Year 1 Taken from Budget) 33258 Bridge House TAHG Spreadsheet 08-02-2023 Page 1 of 1 Services Contributions 760 Section D, Item 1. Project Name: Mountain View Flats DOH Application #33276 Applicant: RecoveryWorks Housing Development Specialist: Demetra English Asset Manager: Kelly Whitcombe Underwriter: Elisa Blakeney Developer: RecoveryWorks Contact For Applicant Name: James Ginsburg Organization: RecoveryWorks Title: Executive Director Email: jginsburg@recoveryworkstoday.org Overview Jefferson 14825 West Colfax, Lakewood, CO 80401 Other – Bridge Housing Acquisition & Rehabilitation Other Motel Chronically Homeless Individuals, Justice-Involved 2 0 Enterprise Green Communities 32 $4,000,000.00 $4,000,000.00 761 Section D, Item 1. Proposed Funding Source: HB22-1377 Proposed Funding Activities: Acquisition Costs & Rehabilitation Project Description RecoveryWorks, a nonprofit, is formally requesting a TAHG Grant of $4,000,000 to assist with the acquisition and non-substantial rehabilitation of Mountain View Flats Motel, located at 14825 West Colfax, Lakewood, CO 80401. Mountain View Flats will be acquired as an existing motel in Lakewood, and 32 units will be turned into Bridge Housing in Jefferson County. One (1) unit will be used for an onsite manager. This project requires minor updates, to include painting, filling in an existing swimming pool, concrete repairs, an update to the community room, and fencing to enhance security. The acquisition cost is $3.5 million. RecoveryWorks will be the owner and lead service provider and offer services using a trauma informed, low-barrier, and client-choice model. The motel has been maintained and will allow this project to immediately transition to Bridge Housing occupancy with the potential for future conversion to PSH and/or mixed affordable housing use. The project will target adults who have complex barriers to housing stability and need a bridge to end homelessness as quickly as possible. Services at Mountain View Flats will be provided under the Housing First model, using Harm Reduction and Trauma Informed Care-approaches, with the staffing structure and model centered on lived expertise of homelessness, trauma, and behavioral-health care. The staff to guest ratio will be no less than 1:15 and will include a robust peer program that complements the case management and housing staff. Guests matched with a housing opportunity will have the choice to enter the Bridge housing community without arbitrary limits on length of stay. Sobriety, accepting services, or participating in programming will not be requirements for entry or to stay in housing. The .98 acre site is a functioning motel built in 1964. The building has concrete joists and has been maintained. One area has 3 stories and one area is a single level with easy access to those with mobility challenges. Stairs are the only access to the upper levels. There is no elevator in this building. The rooms are SROs, studios, and one 1- Bedroom. There are updated furnishings in all of the units, including beds, night stands, small tables and chairs, mini-refrigerators, televisions, microwaves, bedding and towels. There is ample at-grade parking, multiple existing common areas and a large community space with a large community kitchen. The motel is located close to shopping and bus routes and is within walking distance to parks. The location is at the entrance to the foothills supporting recreational activities for guests. TAHG Project Thresholds and Requirements Applicant The applicant is RecoveryWorks. The applicant has an IRS Determination form documenting 501.c.3.status as a non-profit; therefore, they are an eligible applicant. Proposed Project or Program Use 762 Section D, Item 1. The application is for gap funds of Acquisition Costs, which is an eligible use of TAHG funds. Timeline Per the TAHG NOFA, the project or program must execute a contract/grant agreement by December 31, 2024 and that the project or program will be completed and funds expended by December 31, 2026. The project is estimated to begin rehabilitation on September 1, 2023. The project estimates rehabilitation to be complete by 2024. Energy Efficiency Per the TAHG NOFA, Jefferson County is designated as “Urban”. Acquisition projects in “Urban” counties with 20 units or more must provide evidence projects receive green building certification through one of the following: 2020 Enterprise Green Communities (EGC), Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design LEED v.4.1 (LEED), National Green Building Standards NGBS ICC-700-2020 (NGBS), or Zero Energy Ready Homes standard (US DOE). Mountain View Flats will pursue Enterprise Green Communities certification. This standard is met. Accessibility Requirements Per the TAHG NOFA, all new construction and substantial rehabilitation of rental projects containing 5 or more units, a minimum of ten percent (10%) or a minimum of two (2) of the units (whichever is greater) must be made handicap accessible to persons with mobility disabilities or adaptable according to the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) and at least an additional four percent (4%) of the units or a minimum of two (2) of the units (whichever is greater) in such a project shall be accessible for persons with hearing or vision impairments, and to the maximum extent feasible, these units are to be evenly distributed throughout the project site and be of similar range of sizes when compared to other units. Mountain View Flats is an acquisition for Bridge Housing and light rehabilitation; therefore, they are exempt from this standard. Geographic Classification and Maximum AMI Limits Jefferson County is designated “Urban”, per the TAHG NOFA. The maximum AMI for rental projects in Urban designated counties is 80% AMI. This project proposes all units at 30% AMI. Therefore, this standard is met. Mixed Use Per the TAHG NOFA, at least 50% of a project must be designated as residential use. Mountain View Flats proposes one residential structure with some community space within the structure. The residential use is more than 50% of the total structure. Therefore, this standard is met. Leveraged Funds Per the TAHG NOFA, a minimum of 25% of total project sources must come from the applicant or another third party. This project proposes $1,350,000.00 (25% of total development costs) in third party funding. Therefore, this standard is met. TAHG Priorities Applicant’s Response: Transformational This project will be the first 100% Bridge Housing project open this year in the City of Lakewood and will be a centerpiece of the transformational rehousing infrastructure being formulated in collaboration with local community 763 Section D, Item 1. providers, Lakewood, and Jefferson County. The acquisition and repurposing of the Mt. View Inn will allow 33 chronically homeless and homeless and disabled persons from unsheltered homelessness to immediately move into Bridge Housing in an existing motel. Given that Lakewood has the largest concentration of unsheltered, unhoused persons - especially those "sleeping rough" along the West Colfax corridor - this critical resource will provide immediate relief to emergency services, business concerns, and, most importantly, begin to transform the lives of some of our most vulnerable neighbors. Jefferson County is so engaged in this project as a key component of its Strategic Action Plan that it has committed $1,000,000 as a local match to the CDOH funds. This project will also act as a first in for the county, paving the way for the Jefferson Center and Family Tree PSH projects, which will be open in approximately 1-2 years respectively. Inclusivity, Diversity, Equity, and Accessibility Racial justice is the systematic fair treatment of people of all races, resulting in equitable opportunities and outcomes for all. Diversity is the representation of all our varied identities and differences, including race, ethnicity, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, tribe, socio-economic status, and thinking and communication styles. Equity is to seek to ensure fair treatment, equality of opportunity, and fairness in access to information and resources for everyone. Equity is necessarily built on respecting the inherent dignity of the human person. Inclusion must build a culture of belonging by actively engaging and inviting the contribution and participation of all persons. Every person’s voice and perspective adds value and must move to create balance in the face of power differences. It’s important that no one person should be called on to represent an entire community. Our first requirement as a service organization is to look honestly within our own inherent bias, privilege and propensity toward exclusion of “the other.” Until we are conscious of that, we cannot begin to change, grow and challenge others. RecoveryWorks has done this by engaging and hiring staff from a variety of racial and cultural backgrounds and seeking feedback both from those within our “group” and from those who appear different from us. This includes utilizing a third party to facilitate client focus groups to better understand how to improve engagement and services to all persons. Additionally, as the ED, I have sought out articles, books and workshops in the areas of diversity, systemic racism, economic injustice, etc. As a staff, we are looking at the "white supremacy culture" document by Tema Okun to better understand how some/many of these damaging characteristics unconsciously show up in our organizational culture and day to day work and operation. These include dualistic thinking, perfectionism, defensiveness, quantity over quality, paternalism, power hoarding, fear of open conflict, individualism, and more. RecoveryWorks' staff, which includes 40% BIPOC, reflects the cultural backgrounds of our guests through lived experience of homelessness, substance misuse, and mental illness. Staff reflects the racial identity of guests served with 25% of leadership identifying as African American. RecoveryWorks is committed to IDEA through active recruitment of diverse staff and board members, in addition to engaging our guests in creating a just, equitable, diverse, and inclusive environment. Unit Mix 764 Section D, Item 1. Unit Type SRO 0-BR 1-BR 2-BR 3-BR 4-BR Total Income Other Affordable 30% AMI Employee Unit Total Visitable units: 2 Accessible units: N/A Accessible units - sensory impairment: N/A Affordability Period Treasury Affordability Period (Years): 20 Additional DOH Affordability Period (Years): 10 Project Budget DOH Grant / Loan $4,000,000.00 Pending Jefferson County HOME ARP $1,000,000.00 Committed City of Lakewood Community Acquisition Costs $3,500,000.00 Construction - Non-substantial Rehabilitation 765 Section D, Item 1. Developer Fee / Profit $700,000.00 Reserves $145,312.00 Total: $5,350,000.00 DOH Eligible Activity(ies): Acquisition Costs and Rehabilitation Project Assessment Management Capacity Pros: 1. RecoveryWorks, 501(c)3 non-profit, will be the 100% owner/developer and lead service provider on the project. While RecoveryWorks has not developed or owned real estate, the development team, including the Director of RecoveryWorks, has over 70 years of collective experience with developing/owning and managing supportive housing, shelter, affordable, and bridge housing. James Ginsburg was a Program Director at Colorado Coalition for the Homeless and has been involved in Housing First and developing and running programming in supportive, Bridge and transitional housing for 25 years. 2. Shopworks Architecture was formed in 2012 by Chad Holtzinger. Shopworks focuses on affordable and permanent supportive housing primarily supported by Low Income Housing Tax Credits. Shopworks has completed over forty (40) affordable housing project designs in Colorado, in addition to direct experience designing shelters. 3. Beauxsimone Consulting LLC, the Development Consultants on the project, have collectively been involved in developing over 100 homeless housing and services projects across the country. In Colorado, over 1,280 units of supportive housing have been developed since 2014. Previous projects include St. Francis Apartments at Cathedral Square, Denver - Arroyo Village, Denver - Providence at the Heights in Aurora and Greenway Flats in Colorado Springs, to name just a few. Their resume lists 26 Colorado projects. 4. Resurrection Construction LLC was founded in 2007 and is a family-owned business that provides General Contracting and includes all phases of construction, including remodeling and rehabilitation. Crosswind Hope and Restoration Center in Aurora, Colorado is a recently-completed project. 5. Rocky Mountain Communities (RMC) will be the property management company. RMC currently does property management on 1,403 units, including 80 housing units across the state that serve formerly homeless families and individuals. They also manage a shelter as part of the award-winning Arroyo Village. This team is extremely strong and has evidence-based experience developing, managing and providing services in programs serving homeless populations across the state. Concerns: None Previous DOH funding received by the Applicant, Sponsor, or Developer: 766 Section D, Item 1. None Public/Private Commitment Pros: 1. Jefferson County has committed $1,000,000.00 in a HOME ARP Grant (LOI dated 1-31-2023). 2. The City of Lakewood has committed $100,000.00 in a Community Development Block Grant (LOI dated 3-14-2023). 3. The Recovery Foundation has awarded a Grant for $250,000.00 (LOI dated 3-21-2023). Project-Based Voucher Details: None Type Source Number Status Market Demand Pros: Bridge Housing leverages access to housing and supportive services that foster participant choice and empower program participants to quickly exit homelessness or institutional settings to permanent housing. This approach is often essential for those who have complex barriers to housing stability, those who may not have lived in independent housing in the recent past, and/or those who have been unsuccessful in utilizing previous housing resources. Data research provided by Point in Time 2022 and Point in Time Homelessness Dashboard 2017-2022: ● Homelessness for total persons increased by 11% (from 444 in 2020 to 493 people). ● Chronic Homelessness increased by 30% (from 154 to 200). ● First-Time Homelessness increased 257% (from 66 to 235). ● Older Adults Homelessness: Over 55 increased by 75% (from 76 to 133) and Over 65 increased by 73% (from 15 to 26). ● Disproportionately more BIPOC are experiencing homelessness. ● Mental Health concern - increased by 29% (from 146 to 188). ● Substance Use concern - increased by 19% (123 to 146). Summary of Unmet Needs in Jefferson County: In order to meet the current permanent supportive and bridge housing needs of unsheltered, chronically homeless households in Jefferson County, a minimum of 150-200 permanent units are needed immediately. In order to meet future demands, 60 additional permanent units are needed annually, in addition to the typical turnover that happens each year. ● Additional Units Needed to Address Chronic Homelessness Immediately = 150-200 ● Annually Thereafter = 60 767 Section D, Item 1. ● Increase in Chronically Homeless from 2020 to 2022 = 30% ● Increase in Older Adult Homeless from 2020 to 2022 = 75% over 55 and 73% over 65 ● Increase in First-Time Homeless from 2020 to 2022 = 275% Concerns: None Project Metrics DOH Subsidy per Unit: $125,000.00 DOH funds in the project 74.8 % Rental Metrics Annual Operating Expense per Unit $8,207.00 Up to $8,000 Replacement Reserve per Unit $300.00 $300 ($250 for seniors) Operating Reserve (months of 6 4-6 month debt & operating costs, per Variances from DOH Ranges 1. The Per Unit Per Annum Expense of $8,207 exceeds the DOH range of $8,000 because Bridge Housing has higher operating costs with extended service hours and higher maintenance costs. Strengths and Weaknesses Strengths: 1. The RecoveryWorks management team has extensive experience managing shelter, supportive, affordable, and bridge housing. The project will serve people involved in the justice system and those who are chronically homeless. 2. Increases the supply of urban Bridge Housing by 32 3. Represents a one-time funding proposal to the state with no multi-year financial obligations 4. Serves the most vulnerable populations in need of Bridge Housing at 30% AMI 5. The acquisition will minimize cost fluctuations and supply immediate access to housing. 768 Section D, Item 1. 6. The project is supported by a Jefferson County grant. 7. Provides needed housing units as demonstrated in the Point in Time Study Weaknesses: None. Funding Recommendation Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends full funding of a Transformational Affordable Housing Grant of up to $4,000,000.00 Funding Amount: $4,000,000.00 Source: HB22-1377 Type of Award: Grant Conditions to Funding: - Availability of TAHG funds - All other funding sources have been fully committed - Proof of Flood Insurance - Review and approval of a Phase II ESA and materials and maintenance plan 769 Section D, Item 1. Housing Development & Preservation Application Spreadsheet Development Costs Project Name:Mountain View Flats (TAHG) Date:8/14/2023 Applicant:RecoveryWorks New! Checklist Spreadsheet Version:8/14/2023 County:Jefferson Development Budget Total Cost Cost/Unit Cost/Sq Ft Rentable Square Footage 10,100 ACQUISITION COSTS Non Living Square Footage 1,169 Land $851,760 25,811 75.58 Total Project Square Feet 11,269 Existing Structures*$2,648,240 80,250 235.00 Number of Units 33 SUBTOTAL $3,500,000 106,061 310.59 SITE IMPROVEMENTS*% of Non-living SF 10.4% On-Site Infrastructure $0 0 0.00 Off-Site Infrastructure $0 0 0.00 Demolition $0 0 0.00 SUBTOTAL $0 0 0.00 CONSTRUCTION* New Construction 0 0.00 Rehabilitation $435,000 13,182 38.60 General Requirements $50,000 1,515 4.44 Contractor Overhead & Profit $62,250 1,886 5.52 Contractor Construction Contingency $50,000 1,515 4.44 8.20%% of construction Owner Hard Cost Contingency $50,000 1,515 4.44 8.20%% of construction FF&E $62,138 1,883 5.51 Building Permit Fees $6,000 182 0.53 Broadband $100,000 3,030 8.87 Builders Risk $6,000 182 0.53 SUBTOTAL $821,388 24,891 72.89 PROFESSIONAL FEES Architect Fees $10,000 303 0.89 Engineering Fees 0 0.00 Real Estate Attorney Fees $5,000 152 0.44 Surveys $5,000 152 0.44 Green Planning and Design Fees 0 0.00 Construction Management Fees $40,000 1,212 3.55 Construction Accounting 0 0.00 Other (Specify)0 0.00 SUBTOTAL $60,000 1,818 5.32 CONSTRUCTION FINANCE Construction Insurance (H&L, Builder's Risk)0 0.00 Construction Performance & Payment Bonds 0 0.00 Construction Loan Orig. Fee 0 0.00 Construction Interest 0 0.00 Construction Lender Legal Fees 0 0.00 Title and Recording 0.00 Taxes During Construction 0 0.00 Insp. Fees (3rd party/Bank)0 0.00 Power/Telecom Fees 0 0.00 0 0.00 SUBTOTAL $0 0 0.00 PERMANENT FINANCE AND SYNDICATION Loan Fees & Expenses $0 0 0.00 Legal Fees 0 0.00 Title and Recording 0 0.00 Bond Cost of Issuance $0 0 0.00 Organization Costs $0 0 0.00 Tax Opinion $0 0 0.00 Syndication Legal Fees $0 0 0.00 Other (Specify)$0 0 0.00 SUBTOTAL $0 0 0.00 SOFT COSTS Tap Fees (Water/Sewer)$0 0 0.00 Impact Fees $0 0 0.00 Appraisals $5,800 176 0.51 Market Study $0 0 0.00 $12,000 364 1.06 Other Studies (traffic, wetlands, etc.)$0 0 0.00 Geotechnical/Soils Testing $0 0 0.00 Material Testing $0 0 0.00 Capital Needs Assessment $0 0 0.00 Temporary Relocation 0 0.00 Permanent Relocation $100,000 3,030 8.87 Tax Credit Fees $0 0 0.00 Marketing $0 0 0.00 Cost Certification $0 0 0.00 $0 0 0.00 Soft Cost Contingency 0 0.00 0% Legal Fees, Title and Recording $5,500 167 0.49 SUBTOTAL $123,300 3,736 10.94 DEVELOPER FEE / PROFIT Developer's Fee $350,000 10,606 31.06 PSH Developer Fee Boost 0 0.00 350,000 3rd Party Development Mgt / Owner's Rep 0 0.00 1,004,688 Consultants (PSH)$350,000 10,606 31.06 34.8% Other (Specify)0 0.00 SUBTOTAL (i.e. - maximum developer fee)$700,000 21,212 62.12 34.84% RESERVES Operating Reserve $135,412 4,103 12.02 6.0 Months of expenses & debt Debt Service Reserve 0 0.00 0.0 Months of debt Lease-up Reserve 0 0.00 Replacement Reserve $9,900 300 0.88 Other (Specify)0 0.00 SUBTOTAL $145,312 4,403 12.89 TOTAL DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES $5,350,000 $162,121 $474.75 per unit per SF Hard Costs $105,140 $72.89 64.9% Soft Costs $31,170 $326.28 19.2% Land Costs $25,811 $75.58 15.9% *costs included in hard cost evaluation. % of Total (less Dev. Fee, Res., & Acq) 770 Section D, Item 1. #N/A 8/10/2023 RecoveryWorks 8/10/2023 Jefferson Type of Unit (Bd/Bath) Income Level (% AMI) # of units Unit Size (Sq. Ft.) Monthly Rent Total Annual Rent Max Rent Management Fee 9.42% Based on the annual income Salaries # FTE Benefits Legal Accounting Advertising Office Supplies Telephone Audit Leased Equipment These are based on actual utilitie costs for this building Fuel (Heat/Water)PUPM Utilities: Electricity $116.29 Water Sewer Gas Trash Removal Security Cable Resident Transportation Wifi Maintenance Supplies Maint. Salaries Repairs Maint. Contracts Total units: 33 Total Rent Income $0 Extermination Total rental sq ft: 10,100 Grounds Avg. Affordability (% AMI): 0.0%Bridge Housing Subsidy Snow Removal Units at or Below 60% AMI: 32 Fundraising Elevator Vending, Application, Late Fees Total Income 345,033 Less Vacancy -17,252 327,781 Real Estate Taxes Payment in Lieu of Taxes 1st Mortgage 0 Property Insurance 2nd Mortgage 0 Replacement Reserve unit avg.= 300 3rd Mortgage 0 0 Break Even Point 82.62%Poss D/S @ 1.15 DCR $49,527 *P.U.P.A = Per Unit Per Annum Expenses Our PUPA is slightly higher than the DOH 7,000 because this is a smaller project so much of our fixed costs are spread around a smaller number of units and becuase it's Bridge Housing we anticipate more PM time and slightly higher maintenance costs. 0 Bed* 1 Bed* 2 Bed* 3 Bed* 4 Bed* Mountain View Flats (TAHG) Vac. Rate We will approach MetroWest to be a limited partner to recieve property tax exempt Housing Development & Preservation Application Income + Expenses Project Name: Date: Applicant: Spreadsheet Version: County: STABILIZED FIRST YEAR INCOME EXPENSES $56,956 Utilities 0 Bed 1 Bath (SRO) Bridge Housing 22 300 $0 $32,500 0 Bed 1 Bath Bridge Housing 9 300 $0 $52,500 0.75 1 Bed 1 Bath Bridge Housing 1 400 $0 $13,125 1 Bed 1 Bath Employee 1 400 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $0 $200 $1,200 $500 $150 $0 Other (specify) $0 $0 $12,000 $7,200 $14,850 $12,000 $3,000 $6,000 $0 $0 $4,200 Other (specify) Other (specify) 0 0 0 $20,000 0 $30,000 0 $5,000 0 $5,000 $3,000 $3,000 345,033 $500 $0 0 Other (specify) $0 Other (specify) $0 $0 $33,000 $9,900 Other (CHFA Issuer Fee) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other (Misc expenses; 5.00% (Ann. Exp. w/out RR)260,925 Exp Ratio 82.6% #DIV/0! 0 Owner will pay all utilities 771 Section D, Item 1. #N/A Mountain View Flats (TAHG) 8/10/2023 RecoveryWorks 8/10/2023 Housing Development & Preservation Application Operating Proforma Project Name: Date: Applicant: Spreadsheet Version: YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10 YEAR 11 YEAR 12 YEAR 13 YEAR 14 YEAR 15 YEAR 16 YEAR 17 Rent Income (increasing by 2%) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other Income (increasing by 2%) $345,033 $351,934 $358,972 $366,152 $373,475 $380,944 $388,563 $396,334 $404,261 $412,346 Less Vacancy 5% ($17,252) ($17,597) ($17,949) ($18,308) ($18,674) ($19,047) ($19,428) ($19,817) ($20,213) ($20,617) Eff. Gross Income $327,781 $334,337 $341,024 $347,844 $354,801 $361,897 $369,135 $376,518 $384,048 $391,729 Total Annual Expenses (increasing by 3.00%) ($270,825) ($278,950) ($287,318) ($295,938) ($304,816) ($313,960) ($323,379) ($333,081) ($343,073) ($353,365) NET OPERATING INCOME $56,956 $55,387 $53,705 $51,906 $49,985 $47,937 $45,756 $43,437 $40,975 $38,364 Total Debt Service $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other Annual Payments (Ground Lease, PSH, etc) Cash flow Available $56,956 $55,387 $53,705 $51,906 $49,985 $47,937 $45,756 $43,437 $40,975 $38,364 Debt Coverage Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Available Cash after Payments $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,633 $43,437 $40,975 $38,364 Rent Income (increasing by 2.00%)2%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Yrs. 1-10 Yrs. 11-15 Total Other Income (increasing by 2.00%)2% $420,593 $429,005 $437,585 $446,337 $455,264 $464,369 $473,656 $350,000 $0 $350,000 Less Vacancy 5% ($21,030) ($21,450) ($21,879) ($22,317) ($22,763) ($23,218) ($23,683) Eff. Gross Income $399,564 $407,555 $415,706 $424,020 $432,501 $441,151 $449,974 Total Annual Expenses - inc. by 3% ($363,966) ($374,885) ($386,132) ($397,716) ($409,647) ($421,937) ($434,595) Yrs. 1-10 Yrs. 11-17 Total #DIV/0! NET OPERATING INCOME $35,597 $32,670 $29,574 $26,304 $22,853 $19,214 $15,379 $0 $0 $0 Total Debt Service $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other Annual Payments (Ground Lease, PSH, etc) Cash flow Available $35,597 $32,670 $29,574 $26,304 $22,853 $19,214 $15,379 Debt Coverage Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yrs. 1-10 Yrs. 11-17 Total #DIV/0! $0 $0 Asset Management Fees (escalating at 3%) Payment from Developer Fee Applied to Services $0 Payment from DOH CF Loan Yrs. 1-10 Yrs. 11-17 Total #DIV/0! Payment from Cash Flow Loan #2 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Payment from Cash Flow Loan #3 Available Cash after Payments $35,597 $32,670 $29,574 $26,304 $22,853 $19,214 $15,379 2% 2% 3% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Asset Management Fees (escalating at 3%)3%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Payment from Developer Fee Applied to Services $56,956 $55,387 $53,705 $51,906 $49,985 $47,937 $34,123 $0 $0 $0 Payment from DOH CF Loan $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Payment from Cash Flow Loan #2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Payment from Cash Flow Loan #3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Projected Payments from Cash flow Developer Fee Applied to Services DOH CF Loan Cash Flow Loan #2 Projected Payments from Cash flow Cash Flow Loan #3 772 Section D, Item 1. Housing Development & Preservation - Projected Funding & Reserves for Supportive Services Project Name: Date: Applicant: Spreadsheet Version: Forecast of Expenses (Year 1 Taken from Budget) Forecast of Sources Mountain View Flats (TAHG) 8/10/2023 RecoveryWorks 8/10/2023 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Totals Annual inflation factor of _3__% applied to Years 2-5 $ 359,547 $ 370,333 $ 381,443 $ 392,886 $ 404,673 $ 416,813 $ 429,317 $ 442,197 $ 455,463 $ 469,127 $ 483,201 $ 497,697 $ 512,628 $ 528,007 $ 6,492,407 10,578 13,317 13,716 14,128 14,551 14,988 15,438 15,901 16,378 16,869 17,375 17,896 18,433 18,986 19,556 Name of Funder Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Totals DOH-OHI THRG $689,000 $ 229,667 $ 229,667 $ 229,667 $ 689,000 Supportive Services, CM and Housing $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $ 525,000 Medicaid Behavioral Health Care-Jeffco $ 29,325 $ 29,325 $ 29,325 $ 29,325 $ 29,325 $ 29,325 $ 29,325 $ 29,325 $ 29,325 $ 29,325 $ 29,325 $ 29,325 $ 29,325 $ 29,325 $ 29,325 $ 439,875 Primary Health Care -Stride Community $ 33,773 $ 33,773 $ 33,773 $ 33,773 $ 33,773 $ 33,773 $ 33,773 $ 33,773 $ 33,773 $ 33,773 $ 33,773 $ 33,773 $ 33,773 $ 33,773 $ 33,773 $ 506,595 RW Supportive Services $ 68,000 $ 68,000 $ 68,000 $ 68,000 $ 68,000 $ 68,000 $ 68,000 $ 68,000 $ 68,000 $ 68,000 $ 68,000 $ 68,000 $ 68,000 $ 68,000 $ 68,000 $ 1,020,000 Law Enforcement and Diversion (LEAD)$ 180,000 $ 180,000 $ 180,000 $ 180,000 $ 180,000 $ 180,000 $ 180,000 $ 180,000 $ 180,000 $ 180,000 $ 180,000 $ 180,000 $ 180,000 $ 180,000 $ 180,000 $ 2,700,000 Developer Fee Applied to Services $56,956 $55,387 $53,705 $51,906 $49,985 $47,937 $34,123 $ 350,000 Fundraising $ 75,000 $77,250 $79,568 $81,955 $84,414 $86,946 $89,554 $92,241 $95,008 $97,858 $100,794 $103,818 $ 1,064,406 Expected Yr 4 DOH TSS $154,000 $ -   Expected DOH PSH Vouchers for 32 units $ -   $ -   $ -   Sum of Services Sources $ 632,721 $ 631,152 $ 629,470 $ 473,004 $ 473,333 $ 473,603 $ 462,176 $ 430,512 $ 433,044 $ 435,652 $ 438,339 $ 441,106 $ 443,956 $ 446,892 $ 449,916 $ 7,294,876 Services Contribution Needed from Cash Flow After Pmts $- $- $- $- $- $- $- $- $ 9,153 $ 19,811 $ 30,788 $ 42,095 $ 53,741 $ 65,736 $ 78,091 $ 299,415 Available Cash Flow after Pmts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,633 $43,437 $40,975 $38,364 $35,597 $32,670 $29,574 $26,304 $22,853 $ 281,409 Surplus/Deficit by Year $ 283,646 $ 271,605 $ 259,137 $ 91,561 $ 80,447 $ 68,930 $ 56,996 $ 44,632 $ 31,822 $ 18,553 $ 4,809 $ (9,425) $ (24,167) $ (39,432) $ (55,238) $ 1,083,878 Net Cash Services Reserve $- $ 283,646 $ 555,251 $ 814,388 $ 905,949 $ 986,396 $ 1,055,326 $ 1,112,322 $ 1,156,954 $ 1,188,776 $ 1,207,329 $ 1,212,139 $ 1,202,713 $ 1,178,547 $ 1,139,115 $ 1,083,878 $ -   Cash Flow % of Services Budget (Trust Fund + CF Contribution)51.6%50.1% 48.6% 47.2% 45.8% 44.5% 46.0% 52.0% 50.0% 47.9% 46.0%44.0%42.1%40.2%38.4% $ -   $ 349,075 773 Section D, Item 1. Project Name: Delta Day and Emergency Shelter DOH Application #33335 Applicant: City of Delta Underwriter: Olivia Cook Asset Manager: Kelly Whitcombe Developer: Contact For Applicant Name: Kevin Carlson Organization: City of Delta Title: Mayor Email: kevin@cityofdelta.net Overview Delta 540 West 4th Street, Delta, CO 81416 Shelter Acquisition + Rehabilitation Other Emergency Shelter, Daytime warming and cooling Chronically Homeless Individuals 2 0 N/A N/A $1,252,400.00 $1,252,400.00 HB22-1377 Acquisition Costs / Site Improvements 774 Section D, Item 1. Project Description The City of Delta is requesting $1,252,400.00 in TAHG funds to support the acquisition and rehabilitation of a building within City limits to create a year-round warming and cooling station to serve the community's unhoused population. During summer months, the City will also operate an emergency overnight shelter for unhoused individuals. It is estimated the overnight shelter will include approximately 50 cots for people to utilize. This will be complementary to the existing cold shelter in Delta, Abraham Connection. The Abraham Connection is owned by a non-profit organization and is operated by volunteers between November and April each year. The building was previously used as the space for a work release program but that program has not been operated at this space in quite some time. Because of its previous use, the building is currently laid out in a way that lends itself to a space for emergency shelter which will help to reduce redevelopment cost. Acquisition of this property will not displace any residential or commercial occupant as the space is currently vacant. The property is currently owned by Delta County. The City is under contract to purchase the property from the County. Acquisition costs are based on the appraised value of $390,000.00. The scope of rehabilitation is relatively minimal with the necessary renovations including new flooring, which includes asbestos abatement, updated restroom and shower facilities, the development of a gender neutral restroom, and accessibility updates. The exterior of the building is siding, vinyl double-pane windows, gutters, and downspouts, all commensurate with the age of the building. Limited renovations are required to the exterior for functionality as an emergency shelter. In its current condition, the interior of the building can be described as similar to an open concept commercial space. There are two floors that total 7,208 sq. ft. which contain a reception area/conference room, commercial kitchen, a private office, holding room, 1 full bath, two half baths, and a large locker room style bathroom. There is no basement and all public utilities are available and in use. Renovation required will be asbestos and lead remediation; deep cleaning of entire facility; reconfiguration of the ground floor restroom to provide privacy and safety for users; the roughing out and completion of two gender neutral ground floor restroom and secured private rooms; the installation of multiple washer and dryer hookups; ADA improvements for accessibility; and reconfiguration of the upstairs restroom. During day hours the space will function as a warming and cooling station for anyone who would like to use it. There will be a single point of entry that will be staffed to help ensure safety and knowledge of who is in the building. There will be open space in which anyone can rest while cooling down or warming up, and there will not be a limit on time of use. It is our intent to provide access to the kitchen and food, however specific details are not yet finalized. We intend to redevelop the current holding room into a calming room to provide space in which individuals can working with their case manager or have a conversation in private. This area will be monitored by staff to ensure it is not monopolized arbitrarily. The conference room space will function as a resource center in conjunction with the City of Delta Crisis Prevention Unit and its case managers. In the evening during summer months (May through October) the City will also operate an emergency shelter for individuals in this space. Shelter space will be set up in dormitory style with males on the first floor and females on the second level. The two gender neutral and ADA spaces will be accessible on the ground floor to provide safe emergency shelter for anyone in need. The facility will be staffed the entire time it is in operation. The property to be purchased and redeveloped is located at 540 W 4th Street Delta, CO 81416. Community amenities are located within the following proximities of this site: City Market 0.8 mile, Recreation Center 0.9 mile, Delta Public Library 0.7 mile, Human Services 0.5 mile, City Hall (Crisis Prevention Unit) 0.8 mile, and River Valley Family Health 1.1 miles , and the Abraham Connection 0.4 mile. 775 Section D, Item 1. TAHG Project Thresholds and Requirements Applicant The applicant is the City of Delta. The applicant is a local government entity, therefore, they are an eligible applicant. Proposed Project or Program Use The application is for gap funds of acquisition and rehabilitation of a day and overnight congregate shelter, which is an eligible use of TAHG funds. Timeline Per the TAHG NOFA, the project or program must execute a contract/grant agreement by December 31, 2024 and that the project or program will be completed and funds expended by December 31, 2026. The project is estimated to begin construction upon receipt of TAHG funds through contract execution with DOH. The City will close on the acquisition upon an executed contract and begin cleaning the site immediately. The City anticipates a construction start date of January 1, 2024, an end of construction date of July 1, 2024, and an opening date of July 1, 2024. Energy Efficiency Per the TAHG NOFA, Delta County is designated as “Rural”. Acquisition and rehabilitation projects in “Rural” counties are not required to meet energy efficiency standards. Accessibility Requirements Emergency shelters, assisted with federal funding, are subject to Section 504 as a "facility;" and are also subject to ADA accessibility. The Delta Shelter will include accessibility requirements into the scope of renovations. The scope of work for renovations includes updating the structure with accessible space and restrooms. This standard is met. Geographic Classification and Maximum AMI Limits This is a homelessness response project. Therefore, this standard is met. Mixed Use Per the TAHG NOFA, at least 50% of a project must be designated as residential use. The Delta Shelter proposes one building with community space within the structure. More than 50% of the building includes space for optional cots as needed during the months of mid-April through October when the shelter operates as an overnight facility. Therefore, this standard is met. Leveraged Funds Per the TAHG NOFA, a minimum of 25% of total project sources must come from the applicant or another third party. This project proposes $457,466.00 (27% of total development costs) in third party funding. Therefore, this standard is met. TAHG Priorities Transformational Delta has been served by the Abraham Connection homeless shelter for many years providing emergency shelter from November through mid-April every year. Due to recent trends with our unhoused population we have identified the need for a year-round shelter. Delta has a year-round population of 25-30 individuals experiencing chronic homelessness with a connection to the community, Delta's core group. These are individuals that utilized 776 Section D, Item 1. the City sanctioned homeless camp prior to the opening of the shelter for the 2022-2023 season and the camp's closure in November 2022. In addition, with the assistance of the Abraham Connection we have identified that at any given time Delta has an additional population of 20-25 individuals experiencing homelessness that generally seem to be more transient in nature. There is a lot of movement within this group, but there tend to be a mix of 20- 25 more transient individuals in Delta in addition to the core group. The shelter to be established through this application is transformational because it will create access to a safe place to rest year-round in Delta that will complement and expand upon the great work Abraham Connection is doing and will continue to do. In addition to overnight shelter during summer months, the space to be created through this funding request will create a year- round safe place to rest during the day. Currently in Delta, there is not a place for individuals experiencing homelessness to warm up or cool down during extreme weather. This project will provide that safe place to rest during the day time. Inclusivity, Diversity, Equity, and Accessibility The two separate rooms to be constructed on the bottom floor will be gender neutral shelter space. This will be separate, safe space for anyone that is unable to access the second floor or for anyone that feels unsafe because of their gender, sexuality, or accessibility challenges. There will also be a gender neutral shower and restroom to provide safe space for any individual in need of such accommodations. The shelter and safe space created through this application will not deny access to services or shelter on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identify, disability, familial status, sexual orientation, income level, housing status, or beliefs. Unit Mix The property's use will be restricted as emergency shelter, with maximum occupancy of 50 shelter beds. Affordability Period Treasury Affordability Period (Years): 20 Additional DOH Affordability Period (Years): 10 Project Budget City of Delta Cash Contribution $377,466.00 Committed Waived Building Permit Fee $10,000.00 Committed CDPHE Grant $70,000.00 Pending DOH - TAGH Grant $1,252,400.00 Pending Total:$1,709,866.00 Acquisition Costs $390,000.00 Site Improvement $48,825.00 Construction $1,189,044.00 Construction Finance $11,997.00 777 Section D, Item 1. Soft Costs $70,000.00 Total: $1,709,866.00 DOH Eligible Activity(ies): Acquisition Costs & Site Improvements Project Assessment Management Capacity Pro: 1. The City of Delta will manage the rehabilitation, provide services when operational, and retain ownership of this facility. Rehabilitation will be managed by the Delta City Manager and City Engineer who have 20+ years of experience managing capital projects. At the time of this application, the City has not retained a firm that will complete the redevelopment. All estimates, assessments, and drawings used in this application have been completed without charge. If successful with this application, the City of Delta will retain design and construction services after the execution of the grant agreement. Without grant funding, the City of Delta will not be able to move forward with this project. For these reasons, the project team has not been finalized at this time and cannot be included in this application. The City of Delta will retain ownership of this property. 2. Construction activities will be completed by a firm that will be selected through the City procurement process. The initial cost estimate was provided by Stryker Construction. 3. An architect and design firm will be selected through the City procurement process. Spring Board Studio provided an initial schematic design. 4. The Delta Assistant to the City Manager will manage staff responsible for operating and programming the shelter (using funding requested through an application to the Transformational Homelessness Response Grant Program). At the time of this application, Meganne Robinson serves as the Assistant to the City Manager. Ms. Robinson has a Master's of Public Administration and has extensive experience with grant writing and project implementation. This is her first shelter project. Concern: 1. This is the City's first shelter project. The City is developing a separate PSH project where they are working with Zoe LeBeaux of BeauxSimone Consulting, a firm specializing in assisting communities develop and manage high- quality supportive housing. The City did not identify a consultant for this project. Previous DOH funding received by the Applicant, Sponsor, or Developer: N/A 778 Section D, Item 1. Public/Private Commitment Pro: 1. In a letter dated February 26, 2023, the City of Delta has committed $377,466.00 in funds for the project from the City wide capital improvements fund. The contribution is slated to go toward the $390,000 of acquisition costs. 2. The City of Delta has committed to waiving building permit review fees. 3. The City plans to submit a grant application for $70,000 of asbestos remediation and abatement costs from the CDPHE. Grant applications for these funds opened in July 2023. Concern: 1. The outcome of the CDPHE grant award will not be known until later in 2023. Market Demand Pro: 1. A preliminary housing needs analysis was produced for Delta County on March 8, 2021. The report references data from Housing Resources of Western Colorado (HRWC) stating that as of October 2020, "there were 230 homeless individuals in Delta County. Of the total count, 212 (92%) were over the age of 18. The count does not categorize the number of homeless households. Twenty-seven (27), or 12%, of the county’s homeless were over the age of 60" (HNA page 10). The data shows the need for shelter space in the City. The City of Delta does not currently have a shelter for unhoused individuals. 2. Per anecdotal evidence by City of Delta staff, the extreme temperatures in Delta County in both winter and summer have caused increased safety concerns. The City's Police Department and Paramedic staff currently respond to calls of individuals experiencing severe dehydration, sunburn, and harmful exposure to weather elements. The shelter would create a safe indoor space where people are not exposed to the outdoors and are able to access resources. Concern: None. Project Metrics Total Development Cost per Sq. Ft. $237.22 Up to $470 Hard Cost per Sq. Ft. $171.74 Up to $320 Soft Cost per Sq. Ft. $65.48 Up to $110 DOH funds in the project 73.00 % Variances from DOH Ranges While the requested amount of funds for this application is in range, it is not typical that projects are competitive with limited sources in their capital stack. However, DOH recognizes the challenges rural communities face in 779 Section D, Item 1. applying for additional funds due to capacity issues, taking on debt due to being an entity of local government, and accessing additional funds in a resource-constrained community. Therefore, DOH finds that the City of Delta requires additional assistance to take the lead on acquiring, rehabilitating, and opening a shelter that is needed in the community. Strengths and Weaknesses Strengths: 1. The City of Delta recognized a need for sheltering unhoused individuals in the community and is working hard to fulfill that need. The space they identified requires minimal renovations to the space in order to serve as an operational day shelter and part-time overnight shelter. Therefore, acquisition and rehabilitation costs are relatively low. 2. The City utilized their ARPA funds to create the Crisis Prevention Unit and street outreach programs, in addition to developing the best way to respond to Delta’s need for a shelter. The project is also receiving Transformational Homelessness Response Grant (THRG) funds through OHI to assist with operations and capacity building over the course of the next three years. OHI’s technical assistance will also help the City develop a system for utilizing philanthropic donations to fund the long-term operations of the shelter. Additionally, future funding from Proposition 123 may be available to assist with the operations of the shelter. 3. The City of Delta’s newly formed Crisis Prevention Unit will be located on-site. Staff is trained to provide case management services and will be available to assist in the shelter operations. Weaknesses: 1. The capital stack for the project is not fully committed. Additionally, the operational side of the project does not appear to have adequate funding based on the applicant’s plan to subsidize shelter operations with donations and volunteer time. As a result, committed funding sources are required prior to contract execution with DOH. Additionally, OHI will provide technical assistance over the first three years of operations. 2. This is the City of Delta’s first time developing and operating a shelter. City staff has not identified previous experience with this type of activity, nor has a consultant been identified. However, it’s possible that the consultant assisting the City with their PSH project could expand their contract to assist with this project as well. OHI will provide technical assistance to help alleviate this concern. Future Proposition 123 funds may also be available to assist with the long-term operations of the shelter. 3. A general contractor and design team have not been identified as a competitive bidding process is required. Therefore, cost estimates are general estimates since it’s not confirmed that the company providing cost estimates will be the company selected to complete the work. However, costs are anticipated to remain relatively low due to the City hiring firms to value-engineer the project. Funding Recommendation Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends full funding of an HB22-1377 Transformational Affordable Housing Grant of up to $1,252,400. Funding Amount: $1,252,400 Source: HB22-1377 Type of Award: Grant 780 Section D, Item 1. Conditions to Funding: - Retainage of a design and construction firm to design and construct the rehabilitation. Updated cost estimates and an updated budget spreadsheet showing any updated project sources must also be submitted prior to an executed contract with DOH. - Retainage of an architect firm is required. Updated cost estimates and an updated budget spreadsheet showing any updated project sources must also be submitted prior to an executed contract with DOH. Final architectural drawings must be submitted and found satisfactory by DOH staff. - Resumes must be submitted and found satisfactory to meet DOH requirements for any entity, organization, or individual brought onto the Delta Shelter project. - All other funding sources have been committed. 781 Section D, Item 1. 782 Section D, Item 1. 783 Section D, Item 1. Paula Stearns 1431 Shortleaf Street FC 80524 pstearnsrn@aol.com 303-669-4878 August 25, 2024 Dear Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission Subject: Strong Support for the Proposed Fort Collins Rescue Mission shelter to be located at 1311 North College. I live about a mile east of the property and frequent local businesses and have heard some of their concerns. I strongly feel that this shelter will in fact alleviate many of their concerns by broadly addressing the challenges faced by people who need to find a place to sleep every single night. This carefully designed shelter will address many of the issues these unhoused people face while supporting them as they transition to stable housing. I know that business members care and this project will help them be even better stewards of the north College corridor. And I hear them, but I also hear all the stories of those who are hurting and feeling hopeless because of unhoused and day to day life survival issues. The city and many concerned residents carefully reviewed sites around the city a few years ago and for many reasons, including cost effectiveness, proximity to transportation and other services, this site was finally chosen. The city and Fort Collins Rescue Mission have listened closely to resident concerns and crafted adjustments. Such a building and program will actually make the area safer because people will have a place to go and not have to stay in alleys, riverfronts and makeshift shelters. The building is carefully designed to be respectful of individuals and their multiple issues but with careful regard for safety. It is also respectful of the neighbors – extra landscaping, many 24/7 lighting and camera features, fencing and barrier walls and round the clock security staff. This building will enhance the neighborhood through its overall appearance and all the amenities the city has and will have to provide in terms of improved utilities, drainage, landscaping and street improvements. I have been a board member of Homeward Alliance, which operates the Murphy Center and a volunteer there over the years. This north College homeless support community has worked together to improve the lives of unhoused people and move them on the path to not only survive but thrive. I have met many people who are struggling, often for years, to find a way forward. Consistent rest, safety, and meeting basic needs are as important to them as to all of us. I strongly endorse Fort Collins Rescue Mission and their determination to provide the best, safest shelter that can be built – but also the services and commitment to improving the area and the lives of people. I have carefully watched how they have improved the area around their current shelter at Linden and Riverside by implementing a 24/7 program, and working with the neighboring businesses there. I am deeply grateful that we have an organization in our community that has solidly assisted people for years, has worked toward improving situations for the community and people and is one of the premier organizations in what they do. I am so excited to see this building become one of the best supports our city will have to offer through a true community/city/nonprofit partnership. The city staff have been involved through all the years of searching, planning, facilitating community conversations and pushing the process to high standards of community safety, and assistance for those who are unhoused. This project makes very good use of an area of the city toward which growth will continue to happen. The review process has been thorough and future 784 Section D, Item 1. minded and respectful for all parties. I encourage the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve this shelter project now and allow Fort Collins Rescue Mission to proceed with building and continue to raise funds for this very well thought out and integral support that will improve lives for many in our Fort Collins community. With Deepest Respect and Concern Paula Stearns 785 Section D, Item 1. Fort Collins Rescue Mission August 28, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HEARING 2Ubicación / Location I don’t consider the existing roadway north of Hickory as a permanent facility. It was intended to provide rear parcel access since we planned to construct medians on North College. To me, its “temporary” status was solidified because we only acquired a permanent easement to construct the improvements. We did this to facilitate vacation in case parcels were compiled and a better alignment was determined. The above being said, I feel its current alignment could serve as a long term solution, but the roadway would need to be rebuilt to meet standards. I Hickory St. 1 2 786 Section D, Item 1. 3Ubicación / Location Hickory St. N. C o l l e g e A v e . Hibdon Ct. Zonificación/ Zoning LMN Hickory St. N. C o l l e g e CS Zone Willox Ln. SITIO/ SITE Bristlecone Dr. I Hibdon Ct. 3 4 787 Section D, Item 1. Applicant Presentation 6Overall Development Plan (ODP) 6 To N. College St . EXST. PRIVATE PARCEL EXST. CITY STORMWATER PARCEL Hibdon Ct. 5 6 788 Section D, Item 1. 7Mason Street Infrastructure Plan 8Proposed Shelter – Front Views 7 8 789 Section D, Item 1. 9Proposed Shelter – Rear Views 10Plan 9 10 790 Section D, Item 1. 11 No Notable Issues in Staff’s Review o Landscaping o Building and its Courtyard Spaces o Parking and Bike Parking – Alternative Compliance o Lighting o Trash and Recycling o Drainage, Engineering and Utilities Main Issues – Staff Review of the Development Plan 12Major Issue – Opposition Compatibility shall mean the characteristics of different uses or activities or design which allow them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony. Some elements affecting compatibility include height, scale, mass and bulk of structures. Other characteristics include pedestrian or vehicular traffic, circulation, access and parking impacts. Other important characteristics that affect compatibility are landscaping, lighting, noise, odor and architecture. Compatibility does not mean "the same as." Rather, compatibility refers to the sensitivity of development proposals in maintaining the character of existing development. 11 12 791 Section D, Item 1. 13 Division 3.5 Building Standards 3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility (A): Purpose – “ ensure that the physical and operational characteristics of proposed buildings and uses are compatible when considered within the context of the surrounding area. They should be read in conjunction with the more specific building standards contained in this Division 3.5 ” (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), and (H): architecture and visual character (I) and (J) mention outdoor storage, loading operations, trash collection, hours of operation and deliveries, and adverse impacts on adjacent uses such as noise and glare Major Issue – Opposition 14Staff Recommendation Approval of the Fort Collins Rescue Mission #FDP230022 13 14 792 Section D, Item 1. 16North College Avenue Corridor Plan (2006) 15 16 793 Section D, Item 1. 17North College Avenue Corridor Plan (2006) “ Negative Effects of Concentrating Social Service and Tax-Exempt Uses in the Corridor The corridor’s concentrations of social services and tax-exempt non-profit uses have raised extensive concern and discussion. Concerns focus around negative effects on the business climate, economic activity, and property tax increment financing revenues. The negative behavior of some of the clients of these social service agencies has been bothersome for businesses, and requires special police services within the corridor. As with vehicle-related uses discussed above, these tax-exempt uses have exhibited a self-reinforcing tendency to concentrate in the corridor.There is opposition within the corridor to further concentration, based on a belief that the areas already has its “fair share” of such uses; and that any further concentration will be detrimental. This opposition is coupled with a desire for a shift toward uses more beneficial to business synergy and economic health of the corridor, including a growing property tax base. However, no good mechanism or idea has been identified to prevent the location of additional agencies or facilities within the corridor. ” 18City Plan Principle LV-8: “Develop an equitable, comprehensive, coordinated and efficient system of health and human services that is accessible to all residents in need of assistance”. Policies LIV 8.3, 8.5, and 8.6: specific to homelessness -- partnering, funding, and collaborating with service providers; siting facilities with careful consideration of transportation implications emphasizing public transit. 17 18 794 Section D, Item 1. 20Homeless Advisory Committees 1 & 2 BACKGROUND COMMUNITY DISCUSSION, 2019-2021 Two special committee processes convened by the City Manager 2nd report explored in detail: What aspects and services should be included, and NOT included in a shelter A building program for those aspects and services Possible locations – zoning, bus stops, bike lanes Possible mitigation of impacts to surrounding community, and to the homeless population Funding and responsibilities Results, Hopes, Fears, Impacts, Potential Mitigations for each possible location Continued efforts Summary of Overall Hopes, Overall Fears 19 20 795 Section D, Item 1. Applicant Presentation to Planning and Zoning Commission (August 28, 2024) 796 Section D, Item 1. FORT COLLINS RESCUE MISSION PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 28TH , 2024 797 Section D, Item 1. Claire Havelda, Nina Sawaya Seth Forwood, Joshua Geppelt Klara Rossouw Reiko Ishiwata, Samuel Severns Andy Reese Blaine Mathisen Cassie Slade 798 Section D, Item 1. PRESENTATION ROADMAP/AGENDA Introduction Overview and Background o Timeline Community Need o Continuum of Care o Funding for Project Operations and Management o Homelessness Services Advisory Committee (HSAC) Top priorities Site Selection Process Neighborhood Outreach Technical Aspects of the Project o Site Plan & Elevations o Approval Criteria o Comprehensive Plans Trauma Informed Design Conclusion 799 Section D, Item 1. 800 Section D, Item 1. Preliminary Design Review We are Here Neighborhood Meeting Combined PDP/FDP Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Finalize Development Review Application Development Construction Permit Building Permit TIMELINE 10/12/2022 3/2/20236/14/2023 8/25/2024 801 Section D, Item 1. 802 Section D, Item 1. 803 Section D, Item 1. HOMELESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE •Need for an overnight shelter identified by the •Advisory Committee Members: Alma Vigo-Morales; Fernando Leyva; Ben Mozer; Brian Ferrans; Cheryl Zimlich; David Rout; Dean Hoag; Desiree Anthony; Jeff Swoboda; Johnny Square; Joshua Geppelt; Julie Brewen; Kristen Psaki; Laura Walker; Lily Adams; Luke McFetridge; Luke Robenalt; Michael Sinnett; Nick Verni-Lau; Yvonne Myers; Holly Le Masurier. https://www.fcgov.com/homelessnesscommittee/ 804 Section D, Item 1. KEY PRIORITIES Identified need for 24/7 male shelter as top priority Up to 250 Beds Services delivered in trauma informed care lens Located on transportation routes Medical and behavioral health support on site Commercial kitchen and dedicated eating area Showers and laundry Multi-use space with a greater or equal footprint to overnight sleeping area. Adequate parking for staff, guests, and fleet vehicles, bicycles, storage 805 Section D, Item 1. 806 Section D, Item 1. Zoning where shelters are a permitted use 807 Section D, Item 1. SITE SELECTION PROCESS 808 Section D, Item 1. NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH Two (2) Formal Neighborhood Meetings March 2nd, 2023 June 14th, 2023 Several focuses meetings with neighbors, business owners, and community partners 18 total meetings were held 809 Section D, Item 1. NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH 10/18/21 – Met with Gloria Kat, ED of La Familia to discuss concerns from the people she serves at Hickory Village, the Spanish-speaking population and other neighbors. 6/21/22 – Walked property with neighbors Dave Gardner and John to discuss the new shelter project and its impacts on their property. 11/4/22 – Meeting with Gloria Kat discussing Hispanic community engagement 12/20/22 – Meeting with neighbor David Gardner to discuss concerns of trash and loiterers as well as potential partnerships with his farming project just north and volunteering opportunities. 2/23/23 – DDA, Murphy Center, City staff, and Outreach Fort Collins discussing expectations for new shelter and neighborhoods. 3/1/23 – Stopped by Scrimshaw Tattoo and spoke with Ishmael about our project. 3/2/23 – Official required Neighborhood Meeting for P&Z process. 4/4/23 – Met with Susan Wingate, Ron and Jennifer Wood, direct neighbors to the property. 5/14/23 – Worked with City to host a second Neighborhood meeting primarily in Spanish at Lee Martinez park to discuss the project. Many Hickory Village residents were present. 810 Section D, Item 1. NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH 7/7/23 – Lunch with Dan Larsen (NFCBA board member) to discuss the project and hear concerns. 8/15/23 - Met with Hickory Village to listen to their concerns about PEH causing issues in their neighborhood. 9/30/23 – Met with Hickory Village and other Mobile Home residents and representatives 12/18/23 – Follow up meeting with North Neighbors (Susan Wingate, Ron and Jennifer Wood) to discuss design changes and further address concerns. 2/8/24 – Met with Brandon, the owner of Big Deal Tire and Wheels, to introduce myself and hear his concerns. 4/9/24 – Met with Dan Larsen (NFCBA board member) to continue to discuss the project and other partners in the construction world. 4/15/24 – Met with Dan Larsen at his office to see and discuss Mason St. expansion and his property as well as surrounding properties. 5/8/24 - 55+ Community & Debbie Bradbury . Meeting was held at Old Town Library 7/26/24 - Follow up meeting with Hickory Village representatives Mi Voz to continue to discuss shelter in North Fort Collins 811 Section D, Item 1. Fort Collins Rescue Mission’s shelter services fill an essential role in the greater housing system. rendering of new shelter dorm PREVENTION DIVERSION SHELTER HOUSE RETAIN SUSTAIN 812 Section D, Item 1. MANAGEMENT & OPERATIONS Fort Collins Rescue Mission has a great reputation in our existing neighborhood, and we are known for proactively partnering with neighbors, elected officials and public safety officials to immediately address known concerns. Fort Collins Rescue Mission is staffed 24/7 by individuals who are specifically trained to support the needs of those experiencing homelessness, even on their worst days. Our intent to is keep people on-site, and to minimize interaction with public safety. As good neighbors, Fort Collins Rescue Mission prides itself in maintaining clean properties, free of loitering and associated negative activity. Additionally, FCRM supports neighbor’s efforts to do the same. By providing safe indoor options for those experiencing homelessness to be 24/7, our intent is to decrease negative impacts on the community. 813 Section D, Item 1. 814 Section D, Item 1. VICINITY MAP SERVICES/GROCERY 815 Section D, Item 1. SITE CHARACTERISTICS Between Hibdon Court & Hickory Street, fronts Mason Street Currently undeveloped Future Hickory Regional Detention Pond located to the West/South Provide significant buffer Dry Creek Natural Feature 816 Section D, Item 1. SITE PLAN 250 Bed Capacity 1 and 2 stories Enhanced Mason Street Pedestrian Experience Centrally located intake area Donation drop-off and storage area 89’ Setback from neighbors to the North 817 Section D, Item 1. SITE PLAN Parking is distributed between the north and south (35 total) Loading dock, Trash & Recycling accommodated on the south side of building 40 Bicycle Spaces located along Mason Native and Low maintenance Landscaping Native seed around permitter of property to blend into the NHBZ on the adjacent lot 6’ privacy fence on North Property Line 818 Section D, Item 1. SITE PLAN 3 outdoor courtyards 1. Dormitory/Overnight use area 2. Staff Courtyard 3. Day-use Courtyard Secure access from inside building only 819 Section D, Item 1. DEMONSTRATED COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS *OLD LAND USE CODE APPLIES 820 Section D, Item 1. DIVISION 3.2 SITE PLANNING AND DESIGN STANDARDS The following code sections apply and are met: 3.1.1: Applicability 3.1.2: Relation to Zone District Standards (Article 4) 3.2.1: Landscaping and Tree Protection 3.2.2: Access, Circulation and Parking 3.2.3: Solar Access, Orientation, Shading 3.2.4: Exterior Site Lighting 3.2.5: Trash and Recycling Enclosures 821 Section D, Item 1. DIVISION 3.2 SITE PLANNING AND DESIGN STANDARDS 3.2.2(C)(4) Bicycle Parking Space Requirements •40 spaces are provided on site in a managed and secure location close to the building entrance •28 spaces are covered (70%) •Based on current operations at Denver and Fort Collins Facilities 822 Section D, Item 1. DIVISION 3.2 SITE PLANNING AND DESIGN STANDARDS ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE REQUEST 3.2.2.(K)(2) Non-Residential Parking Requirements Nonresidential uses shall provide a minimum number of parking spaces, and will be limited to a maximum number of parking spaces as defined by the standards defined below. (d)For uses that are not specifically listed in subsections 3.2.2(K)(1) or (2), the number of parking spaces permitted shall be the number permitted for the most similar use listed. 823 Section D, Item 1. DIVISION 3.2 SITE PLANNING AND DESIGN STANDARDS ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE REQUEST •Based on: •34 on-site employees •22 interns/volunteers •3 separate shifts •Highest demand will be 49 employees •Clientele to arrive on foot •Denver ratio of 0.61 spaces at peak utilization 824 Section D, Item 1. DIVISION 3.3 ENGINEERING STANDARDS The following code sections apply and are met: 3.3.1: Plat and Development Plan Standards 3.3.2: Development Improvements 3.3.3: Water Hazards 3.3.4: Hazards 3.3.5: Engineering Design Standards 825 Section D, Item 1. DIVISION 3.3 ENGINEERING STANDARDS •All easements and ROW are dedicated as part of the Mason Street Infrastructure Plat. •Mason Street will be constructed per Mason Street Infrastructure FDP 826 Section D, Item 1. DIVISION 3.3 ENGINEERING STANDARDS •Detention is captured in Hickory Regional Detention Pond •Low Impact Development (LID) is provided in the form of two rain gardens •All required services and utilities for the FCRM project are provided in this document set 827 Section D, Item 1. DIVISION 3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL AREA, RECREATIONAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS The following code section comply and are met: 3.4.1: Natural Habitats and Features 3.4.3: Water Quality 3.4.4: Noise and Vibration 3.4.5: Hazardous Materials 3.4.6: Glare or Heat 3.4.7: Historic and Cultural Resources 3.4.8: Parks and Trails 3.4.9: Health Risks 828 Section D, Item 1. DIVISION 3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL AREA, RECREATIONAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS Graphic not part of THIS FDP. Shown for reference only. FO R T C O L L I N S RE S C U E M I S S I O N SI T E 829 Section D, Item 1. DIVISION 3.5 BUILDING STANDARDS The following code section comply and are met: 3.5.1: Building and Project Compatibility 3.5.3: Mixed-Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings 830 Section D, Item 1. DIVISION 3.5 BUILDING STANDARDS “the architecture of new development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area. Compatibility shall be achieved through techniques such as the repetition of roof lines, the use of similar proportions in building mass and outdoor spaces, similar relationships to the street, similar window and door patterns and/or the use of building materials that have color shades and textures similar to those existing in the immediate area of the proposed infill development. Brick and stone masonry shall be considered compatible with wood framing and other materials. Architectural compatibility (including, without limitation, building height) shall be derived from the neighboring context.” LUC 3.5.2 (B) 831 Section D, Item 1. 1 – 321 Hickory Street 2 – 280 Hickory Street 3 – The Lyric 1 2 3 832 Section D, Item 1. ARCHITECTURE 833 Section D, Item 1. ARCHITECTURE 89’ 834 Section D, Item 1. DIVISION 3.5 BUILDING STANDARDS “Mixed-use and nonresidential buildings shall provide significant architectural interest and shall not have a single, large, dominant building mass. The street level shall be designed to comport with a pedestrian scale in order to establish attractive street fronts and walkways. Walkways shall be designed principally for the purpose of accommodating pedestrians and pedestrian connections while secondarily accommodating vehicular movement.Buildings shall be designed with predominant materials, elements, features, color range and activity areas tailored specifically to the site and its context.” LUC3.5.2 (B) 835 Section D, Item 1. DIVISION 3.5 BUILDING STANDARDS 836 Section D, Item 1. DIVISION 3.6 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION The following code section comply and are met: 3.6.1: Master Street plan 3.6.2 Streets, Streetscapes, Alleys and Easements 3.6.3: Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards 3.6.4: Transportation Level of Service Requirements 3.6.6: Emergency Access 837 Section D, Item 1. DEMONSTRATED COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS 838 Section D, Item 1. CITY PLAN 2019 City Plan & Housing Strategic Plan “Principles, policies and strategies contained in City Plan—together with the Structure Plan—are used to guide future growth and development and day-to-day decision-making within the City of Fort Collins organization.” 839 Section D, Item 1. CITY PLAN 2019 City Plan & Housing Strategic Plan Principal LIV 3.6 Context Sensitive Development Principal LIV 4: Enhanced neighborhood livability. Principal LIC 5.1 Housing Options Principal LIV – Specialized Housing Needs Principal LIV -6b. Expedited Development Approval.  Principal LIV 7. Promote a more inclusive and equitable community that encourages and supports diversity. Principal LIV 7.1 Acceptance, Inclusion and Respect Principal LIV 8.5 Facility Siting and Access Principal LIV 8.6 Homelessness Principal SC 1.1 - Neighborhood Relations Principal SC 1.2 - Public Safety through Design 840 Section D, Item 1. "Keep it funky, fix the junky" 841 Section D, Item 1. CHAPTER 3 GOALS 1.The Highway itself – N College Avenue / SH14 / US287 2. 3.Connections to Downtown 4. 5. 6. 7. 842 Section D, Item 1. STN 1.1 – Multiple Objectives STN 2.2 - On-Street Parking STN 2.3 – Other Infrastructure CAD 1.1 – Design Influences CAD 2.1 - Architecture CAD 2.2 - Character LU1.1 – Synergy LU 3 – Multi-Story Buildings FAD 2.1 – Seek Leverage Opportunities COM 2.2 – Local Character COM 3.1 – Owner Financial Participation 843 Section D, Item 1. CITY PLAN 2019 City Plan & Housing Strategic Plan HSP: 4.3.1: “An increasing number of Fort Collins’ homeless population is going unsheltered, which has a profound impact on the community.” HSP: P. 42-43. Fort Collins also has more individuals experiencing chronic homelessness (Figure 18). . HSP’s stated vision is that “Everyone has healthy, stable housing they can afford.” The term “everyone” is of critical importance here. It does not denote that the goal is to make housing affordable only to a select few in our community, but rather everyone, which includes those experiencing homelessness. The priorities and strategies outlines in the plan, provide : Promote Inclusivity, housing diversity, and affordability as community values : Implement the 2020 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Action Steps : Refine local affordable housing goal 844 Section D, Item 1. 845 Section D, Item 1. TRAUMA- INFORMED DESIGN FRAMEWORK 846 Section D, Item 1. We sought input from the local providers serving unhoused individuals. 847 Section D, Item 1. TRAUMA INFORMED DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Entrance creates a calm and welcoming experience Increased safety measures Visibility is supported throughout all spaces indoor and outdoor 848 Section D, Item 1. TRAUMA INFORMED DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS All materials are durable Sunlight is maximized in common areas Outdoor areas encourage respite and provide space to be outdoors in a managed setting All spaces support flexible use Expanded capacity for severe weather sheltering services 849 Section D, Item 1. SECURITY Pole Mounted Security Camera Exit Only Security Fence Building Mounted Security camera 850 Section D, Item 1. 851 Section D, Item 1. “Everyone has healthy, stable housing they can afford.” Housing Strategic Plan 852 Section D, Item 1. 853 Section D, Item 1. Correspondence and Public Comment Provided to Planning and Zoning Commission (on or before August 28, 2024) 854 Section D, Item 1. Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date: 8.28.24 Document Log Any written comments or documents received after the agenda packet was published are listed here. Unless otherwise stated, these documents are included in the online “Supplemental Documents” for this meeting. DISCUSSION AGENDA: 2. Fort Collins Rescue Mission • Citizen emails/letters: o Supplemental Document (photo) from Public Comment GENERAL CITIZEN EMAILS/LETTERS: • NONE EXHIBITS RECEIVED DURING HEARING: N/A N/A N/A 855 Section D, Item 1. 856 Section D, Item 1. Names Mailing Address, if known Email Address Phone In Person or Written Julie J. Brewen 1715 W. Mountain Ave., Fort Collins, CO 80521 970-221-0821 Written Soomi Lee djkang711@yahoo.com 970-218-7222 Written David Garner dgarner@fb2online.com 970-846-4113 Written Sean Dougherty sean@hawaiianshirtguy.com Written Ann Hutchison 225 S. Meldrum St, Fort Collins, CO 80521 970-482-3746 Written YIMBY Fort Collins info@yimbyfortcollins.com Written Judy Wrought judywrought@comcast.net 970-402-5662 Written Maria 80524 970-413-9447 Written Elizabeth 80524 970-803-3297 Written Rene 80524 970-988-4201 Written Damuel 80524 970-787-7727 Written Oliver 80524 970-333-8421 Written Leonardo 80524 970-880-3117 Written Rosie Wendel 80521 970-221-1475 Written Rosa 80524 970-545-2161 Written Diana Rios 80524 970-213-5769 Written Silvia Angelica Soto 80524 970-213-0024 Written Catherine Colvin 80524 970-231-4633 Written Ron & Jen Wood Written Lance Wankier Written Susan Wingate Written Karen Hertel 425 Garfield St., Fort Collins, CO 80524 fromie10@gmail.com Written Lee Deleon leedeleon78@gmail.com Written Haide Lefebvre haide.lefebvre@gmail.com Written Fernando Leyva 80524 970-308-4778 Written Horacio Lavel 80524 720-333-3515 Written Letuu Deto Ordg 80524 970-631-0896 Written Eva Mungvia 80524 970-599-5465 Written Vanessa Leyva 80524 970-443-6130 Written Angelica Violet 80524 970-481-0013 Written Analso Trejo 80524 970-657-1839 Written Dailet Flores 80524 970-213-1072 Written Juan A. Lopez 80524 970-372-7682 Written Kevin Grado 80524 970-825-6729 Written Sara Grado 80524 970-308-6972 Written Fabiola Lopez 80524 970-539-6099 Written Edgar Contreras 80524 970-413-2514 Written William Fulbright 80524 970-484-8204 Written Juan Alcaruz 80524 970-599-4725 Written Benjamin L.80524 970-988-1541 Written Adriana O.R.80524 970-689-9506 Written Maria Chevira 80524 970-689-5379 Written Javier Solis 80524 970-786-4196 Written Mariesela Torres 80524 970-786-8391 Written Isala Roboles 80524 970-388-8207 Written Ramiro Trejo 80524 970-691-3542 Written Joe Herrera 80524 970-498-0262 Written Jennifer Trejo 80524 970-413-4009 Written Claudia Sanchez 80524 970-556-3520 Written Hugo Ruiz 80524 970-581-0772 Written 857 Section D, Item 1. Frankee 80524 720-603-5278 Written Margarita Mendez 80524 970-617-7857 Written Jolge Chavila 80524 970-659-1139 Written Gamaliel R.80524 970-412-3238 Written Dora Mera 80524 970-488-9721 Written Julio Munoz 80524 970-310-9646 Written Lucia Carnero 80524 970-443-4628 Written Benjamin Luna 80524 970-430-2835 Written Jason Rivas 80524 970-786-9908 Written Victor Rodriguez 80524 970-415-2403 Written Luis Flores 80524 970-310-4243 Written Jose Rojas 80524 970-988-5687 Written Alejandro Almos 80524 970-786-1137 Written Navz Escamilla 80524 970-501-8233 Written Roberto Orte 80524 970-829-2321 Written Alejandro Altz 80524 970-449-3243 Written Jorge Chavina 80524 970-689-1137 Written Govanni Chavina 80524 970-988-5001 Written Jose Luis Alvarez 80524 970-227-2830 Written George Espinoza 80524 720-350-6906 Written William Granados 80524 970-550-7673 Written Victor Martinez 80524 970-694-7446 Written Kellie Julian 80524 970-723-1323 Written Daissy Sienna 80524 970-213-3086 Written Jorge Castruita 970-619-9860 Written Olivia Balderrama 970-775-0688 Written Elias Madred 970-775-3591 Written Jesus Rigos Perex 80524 970-8155062 Written Sandy Maldonado 80524 970-623-8160 Written Rosa Dominguez 80524 970-786-1172 Written Jackelin Munoz B 80524 970-443-9664 Written Ernesto Patricio Reyes 80524 970-481-8238 Written Ignacia Patriun 80524 970-342-7018 Written Olivio delos Angeles 80524 970-815-5296 Written Teresa Ramirez 80524 303-618-7613 Written Gabriel Sanchez 80524 970-213-9311 Written Rita Lopez 80524 970-459-0700 Written Miriam Garcia 80524 970-481-0116 Written Santiago 80524 970-829-9062 Written Luis Gargia Martinez 80524 713-128-9441 Written Kathryn Green 80524 970-227-2806 Written Paul Hernandez 80524 970-689-2931 Written Char Hogo Acevera 80524 970-599-3444 Written Sitaly Carbajl 80524 970-690-7806 Written Maday T.A.80524 970-889-0572 Written Olivia 80524 970-480-2425 Written Loreu Lara 80524 970-988-0657 Written Junio Orozco 80524 970-691-3113 Written Norma Rivas 80524 970-308-9350 Written Miguel Avellaro 80524 970-567-3664 Written Jose Zuniga 80524 970-305-6244 Written 858 Section D, Item 1. Maria D Zuinga 80524 970-307-6244 Written Jose Luis Zuniga 80524 970-617-4845 Written Maximeno Sanchez Vicente 80524 970-617-7068 Written Jose Rodriguez 80524 970-690-7652 Written Virginia Cruz 80524 970-599-6645 Written Kevin Serrano 80524 970-308-5307 Written Fatima Fuentes 80524 720-569-0349 Written Maria Fuentes 80524 970-310-8019 Written Maria Zamora 80524 720-518-3868 Written Esmeralda Fuentes 80524 970-698-5108 Written Cleia Morales 80524 970-689-4599 Written Lourdes Zamora 80524 575-997-6421 Written Jose Ordaz 80524 970-793-0241 Written Jenny 80524 970-217-3247 Written Nancy Maes 80524 970-482-7052 Written Joseph Maes 80524 970-482-7052 Written Margie Maes 80524 720-989-8234 Written Rosa Gutierrez 80524 970-402-1913 Written Charlie Meserlian ftctrucks@yahoo.com Written Dave Lund dave@nobleventure.com 970-420-3021 Written Jon Geller jongeller6@gmail.com 970-219-1959 Written Hickory Village Resident Association hickoryvillageres@gmail.com Written Mary Koltze 2721 McKenzie Drive, Loveland, CO 80527 mcklky@comcast.net Written Dan Fieg-Sandoval 806 W. Magnolia St., Fort Collins, CO 80521 dfeigsandoval@gmail.com 404-791-8497 Written Joe Rowarn joerowan63@gmail.com Written Ann Hutchison ahutchison@fcchamber.org 970-482-3746 Written Rebekah Knight rjkbaughman@yahoo.com Written Julie Merlino 2842 Edinburgh Ct., Fort Collins, CO 80525 jamer64@msn.com 970-412-0129 Written Liberty Common Schools Board of Directors Written Summit Stone Health Partners 4856 Innovation Dr., Fort Collins, CO 80525 970-494-4200 Written Christine Cerbana 345 Riva Ridge Dr., A-203, Fort Collins, CO 80526 ccerbana@gmail.com 970-227-5602 Written Bernard Birnbaum 1025 Pennock Place, Fort Collins, CO 80524 bernard.birnbaum@uchealth.org 970-495-8800 Written Mary Van Buren 605 Peterson St., Fort Collins, CO 80524 mary.vanburen@colostate.edu Written Ann Corran 1121 Akin Ave., Fort Collins, CO 80521 anncorran@gmail.com Written Terry Nolan 2118 Sandbur Dr., Fort Collins, CO 80525 mstnolan@gmail.com Written Lori Feig-Sandoval 806 W. Magnolia St., Fort Collins, CO 80521 lfeigsandoval@gmail.com 970-568-8481 Written Mark Rogers dr.lefty.rogers@gmail.com Written Bob Pawlikowski 307 Bowline Ct., Fort Collins, CO 80525 bobpawlikowski@gmail.com 970-590-4507 Written Paula Sterns 1431 Shortleaf Street, Fort Collins, CO 80524 pstearnsrn@aol.com 303-669-4878 Written + In Person 859 Section D, Item 1. 860 Section D, Item 1. 861 Section D, Item 1. 862 Section D, Item 1. Link to Video (Planning and Zoning Commission, August 28, 2024) https://youtu.be/4gpAxVMz_80 863 Section D, Item 1. Verbatim Transcript (Planning and Zoning Commission Held August 28, 2024) 864 Section D, Item 1. CITY OF FORT COLLINS Planning and Zoning Commission Held August 28, 2024 Council Chambers, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado In the Matter of: Fort Collins Rescue Mission Meeting Time: 6:00 PM, August 28, 2024 Board Members Present: Staff Members Present: Julie Stackhouse, Chair Brad Yatabe David Katz Clay Frickey Russell Connelly Clark Mapes Shirley Peel Melissa Matsunaka Ted Shepard Em Myler York Leo Escalante Jeff Swoboda Annie Hill 865 Section D, Item 1. 2 CHAIR JULIE STACKHOUSE: Good evening everyone, and welcome to tonight’s special 1 meeting of the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission. My name is Julie Stackhouse, and I am 2 Chair of the Commission. May I have a roll call please for tonight? 3 MELISSA MATSUNAKA: Connelly? 4 COMMISSIONER RUSSELL CONNELLY: Present. 5 MELISSA MATSUNAKA: Katz? 6 COMMISSIONER DAVID KATZ: Here. 7 MELISSA MATSUNAKA: Peel? 8 COMMISSIONER SHIRLEY PEEL: Here. 9 MELISSA MATSUNAKA: Shepard? 10 COMMISSIONER TED SHEPARD: Here. 11 MELISSA MATSUNAKA: York? 12 COMMISSIONER YORK: Present. 13 MELISSA MATSUNAKA: Stackhouse? 14 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Here. Alright, before we get started tonight, and this is really 15 important, so I do ask for everyone’s full attention. I do want to briefly explain the role of the Planning 16 and Zoning Commission, and what you as the audience can expect tonight. First, the Commission is 17 made up of citizens that volunteer our time. In other words, we do not get paid. We are appointed by the 18 City Council, and we are here because we are…we care as much about Fort Collins as all of you do here 19 tonight. 20 Now, before each Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, City Council…or, excuse me, City 21 staff provides us with a comprehensive packet of information about the proposal we’re hearing, and you 22 have access to that same information. Now, I realize that for the meeting tonight, the packet is long; it’s 23 roughly eight hundred pages, and each member of this Commission realizes there about three hundred 24 pages of public comments. We want you to know that those are part of the packet, and they were 25 reviewed by us. But, we’re here tonight to also listen to…to gain information about the project, but also 26 to listen to your testimony and the information it provides to us. We will, of course, listen carefully to all 27 the input that is provided either here live tonight, or by our virtual listeners. But, I want to be sure one 28 thing is clear, and that is, what we are required to do as members of the Planning and Zoning 29 Commission. Our requirement is that we answer a question of, does the project comply with the Fort 30 Collins Land Use Code? If, in our judgment, the proposal complies, then we must approve it, or 31 potentially approve it with conditions if we believe conditions are appropriate. If, in our judgment, it does 32 not comply with the Fort Collins Land Use Code, then we will deny it. 33 But, as I stated previously, we will listen to all public comments, but importantly, we will be able 34 to act only on those comments that pertain to a Land Use Code standard. Finally, tonight’s session is a 35 legal hearing. my role is to moderate for standards of civility and fairness to be sure that everyone who 36 wishes to speak is heard. We have taken the additional step tonight of ensuring that individuals in our 37 community who are Spanish speaking have the opportunity to understand this hearing as well, and for that 38 reason, I’m going to make a request of everyone who will be commenting tonight in Spanish, or for those 39 866 Section D, Item 1. 3 that…well, commenting at all tonight…and for those on the Commission, please remember that Spanish 1 translation, while its simultaneous for our comments, does take more time than if we were just all 2 listening in English. So, please be sure that the comments you make are as succinct as possible, and 3 where possible, please be sure that the pace is consistent with the ability to interpret. And I really 4 appreciate your support on that. So, with that, I’m just going to turn it over for a moment to Clay Frickey 5 to introduce our session. 6 CLAY FRICKEY: Thanks, Chair Stackhouse. We have one item this evening, and that is for the 7 project development plan proposal for the Fort Collins Rescue Mission. 8 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Okay, thank you. At this point in our meeting, we have a session 9 called citizen participation. Now, this is an opportunity for you to comment on any item that is not on 10 tonight’s agenda. The agenda item will have its own separate comment period a bit later. So, with that, if 11 you wish to comment on something that is not on the agenda, would you please come forward to the 12 podium and sign in, or if you are on Zoom, please raise your hand so that we know you wish to comment 13 on something that is not on tonight’s agenda. Let me look in the room…does anyone in the room want to 14 comment on something not on tonight's agenda? I see one hand; you can please move to the podium. 15 And while you’re doing that, are there any comments…hands raised virtually? 16 MELISSA MATSUNAKA: No, Chair Stackhouse. 17 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Okay, thank you. So, we have one comment tonight on a matter that is 18 not on the agenda. As soon as you sign in, please state your name and address, and then begin your 19 comment. 20 MICHELE PULLARO: My name is Michele Pullaro, 2202 Dolan Street, Fort Collins, Colorado; 21 however, my business is at 162 South College Avenue on the corner of Oak and College. This may 22 pertain to your agenda item, but it is something that is not…it might be a roundabout way. But, I have 23 asked for the zoning and permit structure of the corner of my store at Oak and College, because homeless 24 and transient people live there for weeks. We have two hour parking so that customers have to move their 25 cars within two hours so that other customers could come in, or they get ticketed. But, these individuals 26 are allowed to eat, sleep, have intercourse in my entryway…what are…why is that allowed, why are they 27 allowed to do this? Why are our paying citizens asked to only be there two hours when these individuals 28 are there for weeks and weeks and weeks? So, Planning and Zoning, I’ve reached out to you before to 29 ask this question. I was told to contact the Police. Believe me, they get at least one call a day from me. 30 So, that’s my comment. 31 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you very much. Is there any comment we want to make on that, 32 Clay, or do we want to refer that to staff? 33 CLAY FRICKEY: I think my only comment is that the Police would be the appropriate authority 34 to contact for those sorts of issues. 35 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you. Alright, anything else online? 36 MELISSA MATSUNAKA: No. 37 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you. We’ll now turn to…we do not have a Consent Agenda 38 tonight, so we will turn to our Discussion Agenda. And I’ll walk through, now, how we’ll proceed 39 tonight. 40 867 Section D, Item 1. 4 We’ll begin by City staff providing an overview of the proposal, and then the applicant for this 1 proposal will make its presentation. In light of the proposal we have at hand, the Planning and Zoning 2 Commission has agreed to allow forty-five minutes for this presentation. When that presentation is 3 complete, we will then return to City staff to provide additional analysis. After that, we’ll turn it to the 4 Planning and Zoning Commission, and we’ll focus our time on clarifying questions. In other words, we 5 will not deliberate the merits of the proposal, we will ask for items that we either did not understand or 6 feel we need to know. After clarifying questions, we will open up the floor to public comment. In 7 general, we do allow three minutes per person…and I will cover this again when we get to that section of 8 the meeting. However, in the interest of fairness, we will extend the three minutes to allow for 9 translation. So, for those that might be commenting in Spanish, where we need to understand it in 10 English, we will allow sufficient time for that translation, up to six minutes. We will not extend this time 11 for comments in English. 12 I have not been informed of any situations where a group of individuals wants to combine their 13 time, so we will expect tonight that all comments will be made as individuals. Once public comment is 14 closed, then we will ask the staff and the applicant to address the comments. And the final step then is to 15 bring the proposal back to the Commission for discussion and deliberation. There my be some final 16 clarifying questions, but for the most part you’ll be hearing about our assessment of consistency with the 17 Land Use Code. 18 And finally, one last comment, I have asked Em Myler, who’s in the back of the room…she is 19 our Public Engagement Coordinator…and I have asked her to advise me if at any point the ability to 20 translate is not keeping pace with the discussion, so that we can adjust accordingly. And finally, as an 21 additional reminder to members of the Commission, again, because we want to be sure that our translation 22 is done with ease, please be sure to keep our comments as concise and focused as we can during this 23 session tonight. So, thank you very much for all that. 24 So, with this, we’ll turn first to the agenda item, and as we routinely do, I ask each Commission 25 member if there are any conflicts of interest that need to be disclosed. We have no conflicts of interest 26 reported at this meeting. I’ll also see if there’s any new information that has been submitted since the 27 time of the package that we received today? 28 MELISSA MATSUNAKA: No, Chair Stackhouse. 29 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you very much. Alright, Clark, I’m going to turn it over to you 30 then for the staff presentation. 31 CLARK MAPES: Alright, good evening, Commissioners Clark Mapes, City Planner. This is 32 going to be really brief, I’m just mainly saying hello here. I’ve got an image that shows you the location. 33 I know that for sure, by the time we get even started on the applicant’s presentation, you’re going to be 34 familiar with this location. And I also believe that everyone, or almost everyone, in the room is probably 35 very familiar with it. But, it’s located here where a little extension of North Mason Street runs north-36 south behind the highway frontage in the North College Corridor, and where that intersects with the little 37 one-block street known as Hibdon Court. Here’s a little closer view of that site. It is well within the 38 Service Commercial zone. This slide shows the abbreviations of zoning districts, LMN, Low-Density 39 Mixed-Use Neighborhood, CS is the Service Commercial zone district; it’s got a long planning history 40 that results in the zone district listing a wide range of land uses, including homeless shelters as a 41 permitted use. And that’s all I’m going to say because I know the applicants are going to explain their 42 plan in detail. Thanks. 43 868 Section D, Item 1. 5 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you, Clark. So we will next turn this to the applicants for their 1 presentation, and again, we will allow forty-five minutes. 2 CLAIRE HAVELDA: Good evening Madam Chair and members of the Commission; my name is 3 Claire Havelda, I’m with the law firm of Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber, and Schreck. Myself, along with 4 Nina Sawaya are legal counsel for the Fort Collins Rescue Mission. And before we get the clock started, 5 I would just like to do a little bit of housekeeping if I might. We would ask that the slides that we show 6 during our presentation, and the video, be entered into the record at the end of our presentation. 7 So, the Fort Collins Rescue Mission is a local non-profit that has served the most vulnerable in 8 our community by providing food, shelter, and housing since 2012. As the Fort Collins housing crisis 9 continues, it has exacerbated the ever-increasing vulnerability of those experiencing homelessness in our 10 community. Tonight, we are here to discuss the shelter project application, which is a critical step 11 towards addressing this community need. On our slide…we will have a slide that shows the entirety of 12 the applicant team, and they will all be available to answer your questions when we get to that portion of 13 the hearing this evening. But, to let you know who will speaking, from the Fort Collins Rescue Mission, 14 we will have Seth Forwood, from Ripley Designs we will have Klara Rossouw, and from Shopworks, we 15 will have Reico Ishiwada and Samuel Severance. 16 The next slide will give you a roadmap to our presentation, so it will be helpful for you to 17 understand the progression of this presentation. We will start with an overview and background, we will 18 move to the community need and the operations and management, which I know that the Planning 19 Commission had quite a few questions about at the work session. We will then talk about the site 20 selection process, the extensive neighborhood outreach, and then the technical aspects of our presentation 21 will be covered by Klara. We will then…I know that compatibility was a big topic of conversation and 22 concern for the Planning Commission, so our engineers and planners from Shopworks will walk you 23 through how the trauma-informed design protocol for this project speaks directly to the compatibility with 24 the area, and then I will do a brief conclusion. 25 So, to orientate you a little bit on our next slide, we’ll show you where we are in the process. 26 This project was born of the need identified by the City’s Homeless Services Advisory Committee for a 27 24/7 men’s shelter. We will refer to that Committee throughout this presentation as the HAC. We had a 28 preliminary design review, there was extensive community outreach; I think there were seventeen 29 meetings in all, two formal community meetings, one which was done with full translation into Spanish 30 so that we could both hear from and inform our neighbors about this process. This is a combined 31 PDP/FDP which staff has found have met the criteria, and I believe they informed you at the work 32 session, they recommended approval of. And so, we are here before you tonight, obviously, at the 33 Planning Commission hearing stage. 34 We are very aware that there are strong emotions surrounding this project, both for and against. 35 But, what we don’t think is that everyone has had firsthand experience with who the Fort Collins Rescue 36 Mission is and what it is that they do. So, rather than me standing up here and trying to explain that in 37 many, many words, we have put together this day in the life video for you that we would like to play at 38 this time. 39 (Secretary’s Note: A narrated video was played at this point in the meeting.) 40 VIDEO AUDIO: They want to be seen and not ignored, not pushed away, not avoided. Everyone 41 wants to be seen and known. 42 869 Section D, Item 1. 6 They don’t have anything to give them hope or get them out of the streets, and the shelter does 1 give life, and it does bring people out of those situations and back into society. 2 You know, I always used to take housing for granted. Homelessness was a concept I barely gave 3 any thought to whatsoever. If you’re out there and you’ve got a roof over your heads, and you realize that 4 you’re walking next to somebody that doesn’t, you will realize that there’s a person there, and they’ve got 5 a story, they’ve got a history. 6 You know, I’m proof, I’m working proof that there is hope for us to help our guys get, you know, 7 back out of it, that’s something that I’m going to be part of. The thing that you want when you are 8 homeless is a bed. That is, you know, just a blessing with any of our guests that come to the shelter. 9 I can’t imagine what these guests, and what these guys that I care about, where they would be 10 without this, and I just want to do my part. It fills my heart every day that I’m here. 11 Going from our old building to the new building, people will be able to relax, refocus, get rest, 12 get sleep, get the help that they need, and, yeah, you can’t beat that. 13 The Mission has done a lot for me, and I always owe them a debt of gratitude for giving me a safe 14 place where I can start to put good things back into my life. That wouldn’t have been possible without 15 the hard work these people do here. 16 CLAIRE HAVELDA: So, at present, in our community, we have more people living on the 17 fringes…okay, I’m not sure what that was, but I’m going to pretend like it didn’t happen. 18 At present, we have more people living on the fringes of our community in fight or flight than we 19 currently have facilities to take care of. Many of the people experiencing homelessness in our community 20 are trauma survivors, and many live with mental and physical disabilities that are recognized and 21 protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act. You will hear, undoubtedly, from those who oppose 22 this shelter, the narrative of, if you build it, they will come. And I’m here to tell you that is a false 23 narrative with no data to support it. The data that has been put forth, and that I anticipate will be put 24 forth, is inapplicable to a community of our size; it is largely based on data from Skid Row in Los 25 Angeles, from inner-city Philadelphia, from Vancouver, and I think there was one study from Denver 26 from 1992 to 1995. If you have questions about that, I would be happy to answer later. 27 The reality is, we have a housing crisis in Fort Collins, and part of that housing crisis spectrum is 28 homelessness. The need is here, and the need is now. There are not enough shelter beds or safe places to 29 be during the day for our community members, and therefore they are occupying streets and in front of 30 businesses. The whole point of this shelter is to give people experiencing homelessness a place to go day 31 and night so that they can stop being in survival mode and begin to reintegrate into our community. This 32 is the only thing that is going to stop the upward trajectory of homelessness in our community. 33 I do want to spend a little bit of time talking about zoning, because that was an important piece, 34 obviously, of your decision and also your work session conversations. I want to reiterate that this Service 35 Commercial district where the proposed shelter is to go is…a homeless shelter in the Commercial Service 36 is a use as of right. What that means is when the City adopted this zoning structure, by definition a 37 homeless shelter was compatible in this area. There are very few of these locations in this city. And it 38 was explained by Mr. Yatabe at the Planning Commission’s work session, compatibility, historically, by 39 the Planning Commission has referenced the built environment. So, your height, your massing, your 40 scale, your aesthetics. Later, as I mentioned, Shopworks will explain the incredibly thoughtful approach 41 to compatibility that this project has taken with its trauma-informed design for the shelter. In response to 42 870 Section D, Item 1. 7 the compatibility conversation, I think City staff at the work session had perhaps the best example: you 1 wouldn’t deny Target the right to build a new store in a zone where that store was a use as of right simply 2 because people might shoplift. And by the same token, you cannot come up with a new definition of 3 compatibility that the Commission doesn’t apply to other projects simply based on the fact that the people 4 that will utilize the shelter are experiencing homelessness, many of whom are in a protected class, and 5 many of whom themselves are immigrants and non-native English speakers. To do so is frankly a legal 6 position that I would not choose to defend. 7 Because we meet all of your Land Use Code criteria, as will be explained in our presentation, all 8 of the relevant policy document objectives, and we provide services that are desperately needed in this 9 community, we will ask that you approve, as you would any other, this project based on the language of 10 your Code and policy documents. So, with that, I’m going to ask Seth to come forward and talk about the 11 history of this project. 12 SETH FORWOOD: As Claire mentioned, the Homelessness Advisory Committee, the HAC, 13 released two reports, they had to different iterations, HAC 1.0 and HAC 2.0, and there are reports on the 14 City’s website summarizing both of those meetings and committees. This committee was compromised 15 of homelessness and social service providers, people with lived experience in homelessness, but also 16 Board members of the North Fort Collins Business Association, community members at-large, and 17 representatives from La Familia. It was not a homogeneous group, but a representative of the community 18 of Fort Collins and its diverse interests, whether that be economic stability, compassionate community, or 19 practical neighborhood concerns. Fort Collins Rescue Mission was represented by Josh Gapelt in its 20 initial phase, HAC 1.0, and then I joined on the HAC 2.0. And then as you can see on this slide, we have 21 the members listed out for both of those iterations. 22 The HAC listed as their top priority, 24/7 men’s sheltering. They did this because, from my 23 perspective, just last year, in the months from January through October of 2023, one thousand two 24 hundred times we had men show up at our door who we had to turn away from shelter. These were not 25 unique individuals…over one thousand two hundred unique individuals, this is simply one thousand two 26 hundred times that men came to seek shelter because they had no where else to go, and every bed was 27 filled, every mat on our floor was filled, and we simply did not have the space to welcome them in. It is 28 exactly this dilemma that led to the formation of the HAC and its conclusions that shelter capacity for 29 men was the highest priority in Fort Collins homelessness. 30 Originally, the HAC discussed expanding shelter capacity to three hundred beds with a fifty-four 31 thousand square foot building for the building program that fit everything. And yet, Fort Collins Rescue 32 Mission advised that shelter at that scale was not advantageous either to the community or to our guests. 33 Given our experience in Denver with larger-scale shelters, we opted for a more trauma-informed program 34 with a housing focus. This resulted in a recommendation for a two hundred and fifty bed shelter. 35 Currently, we have eighty-nine bed spaces at our location on Linden and Jefferson; some of those are 36 bunk beds and some of those are mats on the floor of our cafeteria. And so, every night after dinner, we 37 move all of our tables out of the way, and we lay down mats so that we can fit more men into our 38 building. 39 Every winter for the last five winters, we’ve also extended our shelter capacity with an auxiliary 40 winter overflow shelter, and we’ve had many different locations where we’re always trying to find the 41 best place to fit that winter shelter, but just last winter we expanded that by seventy beds so that…and 42 thank god we’ve never turned away somebody in the wintertime when its negative eighteen degree 43 windchill; we’ve always been able to welcome them in, but we have a very inefficient way to do that 44 871 Section D, Item 1. 8 because we have to staff two separate locations. One location is not a shelter for six months of the year; 1 it's a conference room and storage room, and its very cramped, not very well suited for even a winter 2 overflow shelter. 3 The HAC also recommended that services be delivered in a trauma-informed care lens. They 4 recommended that services are located on transportation routes, that they must be bike-able and walkable 5 to provide access for guests with different abilities and mobilities. They recommended that medical and 6 behavioral health support be located on site, that there would be a commercial kitchen and a dedicated 7 eating area to serve those with no other source of food, that it would provide laundry and showers, that 8 there would be a multi-use space with a greater or equal footprint to overnight sleeping area that could be 9 used as a day area, also something that Fort Collins has never had in its history. And then finally, they 10 recommended that there would be adequate parking for staff guests and fleet vehicles, including space for 11 bike racks and storage. 12 This proposed shelter meets all of these objectives and more. The Shopworks team will discuss 13 in a little bit more detail later, but before we get there, I want to walk through the site selection that was 14 the content of the HAC 2.0. These priorities in mind, the HAC began researching possible sites. As you 15 can see from this slide, the pink shaded areas are those that are zoned with a use by right for shelter. As 16 you can see also, this drastically limits the areas available to build a shelter; mostly along the College 17 corridor, with some more rural northeastern sites. There are only so many locations that are zoned for 18 shelter. As well, there are very few locations on the market that would be considered available for rent or 19 renovation to use as a shelter. I know because every winter we do a city-wide search for a place where 20 we can have a better set up for winter overflow shelter, and we’ve done that in many locations…I’ll 21 mention something of that later. There are even fewer that had the interior design to match the kinds of 22 amenities that the HAC recommended, and fewer still that were located along public transportation, 23 which is so essential because many of our shelter guests are trying to obtain employment or keep their 24 employment. And for them to exit homelessness, having public transportation that gets them to and from 25 their jobs is crucial. Not even to speak of the amenities that you and I take full advantage of across town 26 that our shelter guests may need, like medical care, mental health care, shopping. I want to mention also 27 that the Redwood and Vine site was discussed during the HAC 2.0 site selection, and yet it was never 28 available; it is still used by Larimer County as a fleet operations and it’s not available now, to my 29 knowledge, and if you want to address this with our County Commissioners, you will receive the answer 30 that it will not be available for a homeless shelter. 31 Balancing all these requirements in the layered map that you saw before, 1311 North College was 32 the site with the most votes from the HAC, and that’s what this slide represents. That bar in blue are the 33 votes for thirteen [sic] North College as the first choice by the HAC. After these priorities that the HAC 34 selected, and the site selection decisions were made by this diverse group, only then did Fort Collins 35 Rescue Mission step up and say, after these findings were solidified, that we were going to step up to the 36 plate and address this issue in our community by developing 1311 North College as a homelessness 37 resolution building. 38 Having agreed to develop this site that the HAC selected, we next turned to engaging the 39 community around that site. Fort Collins Rescue Mission conducted extensive neighborhood outreach to 40 understand and address the community concerns. This included two City facilitated neighborhood 41 meetings. The one required neighborhood meeting that we held we noticed there was a conspicuous lack 42 of Spanish-speaking neighbors present, and so we opted for a second voluntary neighborhood meeting 43 hosted by the City staff at Lee Martinez Park with full translation services offered, and much of the 44 872 Section D, Item 1. 9 meeting was conducted in Spanish. And we did see a greater number of our Spanish-speaking neighbors 1 attend that, and we listened to their concerns. 2 We met twice with the neighbors that are directly adjacent on the northern edge of our property; 3 there are two houses that are there. We met with them first to show them some rough drafts of our plans 4 and to get some feedback on how that interacted with their yards and their windows and the sight lines, 5 and we got their feedback, and then we came back and worked with Shopworks on weaving that feedback 6 into our architectural plans. We met with them again to show them that feedback, and to get additional 7 thoughts from them, and we’re very grateful for their collaboration with us so that we can meet their 8 needs and show that their voices matter in how we designed this building that will be right up against 9 their property. 10 We hosted and attended many other meetings with neighbors, the City, and business owners, and 11 community partners. I personally have attended the North Fort Collins Business Association monthly 12 meetings on a regular basis since 2020 so that I could hear their feedback, I could hear their concerns, and 13 understand their perspectives. The full list of community engagement meetings with businesses, 14 neighbors, and individuals, and the date on which that meeting happened is listed in our slides. We have 15 two slides that show that…it’s hard to read because, in all, there were eighteen total meetings with 16 neighbors…sometimes that was stopping in and talking to a business owner that is close by, swapping 17 contact information and sharing what the project was about and hearing how that might impact them. 18 Some of those were larger meetings with whole groups of people. But those are listed there. The LUC 19 requires one community meeting, one actual neighborhood meeting, and Fort Collins Rescue Mission 20 went above and beyond that because we care what our neighbors think, and we want to collaborate with 21 them so that our shelter is not only a shelter that provides care and lifesaving services for people 22 experiencing homelessness, but is also a community asset. 23 I also want to add that Fort Collins Rescue Mission services are in line with a spectrum of 24 services that are offered to resolve homelessness in Fort Collins. As you can see in this slide, we have 25 shelter as one of many different ways to combat homelessness. Fort Collins Rescue Mission, and 26 certainly myself, don’t feel like it is our job alone to fix homelessness, and we’re not going to solve 27 homelessness alone, but rather affordable housing, prevention, retaining housing, rapid resolution of 28 homelessness, are all important factors, and we want to play our part among that spectrum of services. 29 Finally, I want to speak to how we have utilized the concerns and connections with our neighbors 30 to influence and impact the operation of our shelter. I know some in our community would like to look at 31 other municipalities that have expanded shelter to such a degree as we are proposing tonight as a kind of 32 looking glass into the future of how this project will work out. And yet, to do that, I want to be careful 33 that we are looking at all the nuances of shelter and homelessness services. For instance, we would have 34 to look at another municipality and how that shelter operates. Is it a high barrier shelter that actually 35 excludes many of the people who are seeking shelter and experiencing homelessness with high criteria for 36 entry? Or on the opposite side, is it a shelter that maybe thumbs its nose at the local laws and has a safe 37 injection site, or allows illegal drug use on site? We would have to look at how that shelter collaborates 38 with other services, or even what other homelessness services are offered in that municipality. We would 39 have to look at the police force in that town and how that town engages homelessness. We would have to 40 look at how that shelter collaborates with the police force. There are so many different factors that really 41 contribute to a shelter being successful that the mind begins to reel when we’re trying to compare 42 different municipalities and different shelters. And so, I propose that if you want to know how this 43 shelter will look and feel in the community around 1311 North College, you have nowhere else to look 44 than on the corner of Linden and Jefferson where we operate currently. 45 873 Section D, Item 1. 10 Fort Collins Rescue Mission, just to be clear, is a low-barrier shelter, and that means we open the 1 door wide to welcome as many people seeking shelter as we can fit into our building, and we have very 2 low requirements for them to get into our building, and that means we even accept those who may be 3 under the influence of drugs and alcohol. But, let me also be clear, we do not allow for our guests to have 4 drugs or alcohol inside of our building, or for that to be used inside of our building. We accept anyone 5 who identifies as a male to enter our shelter. We are a faith-based organization, and yet we don’t have 6 any mandated religious requirements. We live out our faith through the radical hospitality of welcoming 7 anyone and everyone into our facility. We live out our faith by training our staff with rigorous ways of 8 deescalating; we train them in mental health, first aid, we train them in motivational interfering and 9 trauma-informed care so that they are able to handle the issues that begin on the streets but end up in our 10 shelters, and we can deescalate our guests so that it’s a safe environment for everybody. We also 11 collaborate heavily with the local Fort Collins Police Department; we find that a very valuable 12 partnership, and we’re not antagonistic whatsoever to working with law enforcement so that our streets 13 are safe, and our shelter is safe. 14 The shelter operation you see now in the middle of our town just north of downtown square is 15 forged through twelve years of operation, and it’s combining, also, our experiments. In the middle of 16 COVID, we operated a combined shelter in the Northside Atzlan Center…Community Center. We also 17 operated a hundred and fifty bed socially distanced shelter in the back half of the Food Bank on Blue 18 Spruce for a winter. All of these experiences help us shape our shelter operations. And most importantly, 19 we have forged our shelter operations through hours and hours of discussions and meetings with our 20 neighbors and with the adjacent businesses. If you have been in Fort Collins for more than five years, 21 you remember that we used to have lean-tos and pop-up tents, and people along the sidewalks of our 22 building, sometimes all the way around our building. During my time overseeing shelter operations, we 23 have had only one time where we were contacted by the City’s Code Compliance team to address an 24 issue, and we resolved that fully. 25 Even so, it was during the pandemic, and yet after the stay at home order was lifted, that we 26 began to be…we were contacted by City staff and our local businesses: Union Bar and Grill, Ginger and 27 Baker, Mawson Lumber, those businesses that are closest to us, and the Confluence homes just north of 28 us, and we met with those business owners, Outreach Fort Collins, and the Police Services, with City 29 staff, in the hope that we could find a way to operate shelter in such a way as to serve those desperate to 30 find a caring place to eat, stay, and begin the process of resolving homelessness, and not be a detriment to 31 the businesses that are just trying to get their legs underneath them again after COVID had wiped them 32 out. Twenty-four seven shelter was the answer. Instead of welcoming guests around the dinner hour with 33 long lines outside of our building along the sidewalks and guests waiting all day to get into our facility, or 34 in the mornings after the night’s sleep, releasing all of our guests at seven AM to go out into the 35 community, 24/7 shelter means that guests have a reserved bed inside of our shelter that they can access 36 all throughout the day. We also, in our conversations with our neighbors and partners, we partnered with 37 Homeward Alliance so that shelter guests and people experiencing homelessness can check in at their 38 resource center and they can sign up for a bed on a shared document with their staff, and then they can 39 come over from Murphy Center in ones and twos to access an overnight bed. 40 But this does not mean…24/7 shelter doesn’t mean that guests are showing up at two AM 41 regularly. We have a 9:45 curfew, and almost all of our guests are inside really eager to sleep and rest 42 after their days. Sometimes we have partnerships with the Sheriff’s Department or the Police 43 Department, or EMS, or the…our local hospital’s emergency departments, and they will drop off guests 44 sometimes overnight in all hours of the night, but they’re escorted by those professionals, and we 45 874 Section D, Item 1. 11 communicate with them so that there’s an easy drop off there. Twenty-four, seven shelter simply means 1 that many of our guests do not have to think about where they sleep the following night. They can begin 2 to focus on taking the steps toward their own permanent, stable housing. They can begin to shower and 3 rest and be ready for a job interview the coming day. Though it is a much more expensive way to operate 4 shelter, because it requires much more staff, we have found that being able to invite our unhoused 5 neighbors inside of our building throughout the day is a pressure valve release for the surrounding 6 community, and we can keep our sidewalks and property lines clear and inviting for our neighbors. 7 Importantly, 24/7 shelter also provides much greater dignity in the form of rest, showers, and storage for 8 the belongings of our guests. In 2021, after only a handful of months after going to a 24/7 model of 9 sheltering, we found that upwards of sixty of our guests obtained employment. Some obtained 10 employment directly across the street with the business owners that we were meeting in order to make 11 this change. 12 If you need any further evidence of the success of our operation, from July of last year through to 13 June of this year; this is our fiscal year, twelve months of operation, we had seventy-five 14 percent…seventy-five guests who were in shelter, exit shelter to go into more stable housing. Ultimately, 15 we have found that when we listen to our neighbors, and they are willing to collaborate with us in the 16 work that we do, the operation of our shelter is improved to both serve our guests experiencing 17 homelessness, and serve our neighbors and our businesses. We have proven that this is possible, this win-18 win scenario is possible with willing neighbors, open minds, and an iterative, continuous improvement 19 process on the shelter’s part. All of this we have already begun with the neighbors around 1311 North 20 College through our community engagement, and we do continue to do that. We have set up a boiler 21 plate good neighbor agreement and we’ve already been in discussion with some of these neighbors to 22 begin to get their feedback on that good neighbor agreement and forge a working relationship with them 23 as we have forged a working relationship with our current neighbors. And we believe this process…with 24 this process, shelter can be a community asset in Fort Collins. At this time, I’d like to hand it over to 25 Klara from Ripley Design to discuss the more technical aspects of the project and how it meets the City’s 26 relevant criteria. 27 KLARA ROSSOUW: There we go…good evening, everyone, thank you, Seth. The team has 28 given a pretty thorough overview of the vision of the Rescue Mission and how we got to where we are 29 today. But, for the next few minutes, I will be covering the technical aspects of the project. So, really, 30 for you, Commissioners, this is going to be what you make your decision on. 31 To ground us, I’d like to point out a few things about the physical location. Clark had a nice map 32 up earlier as well, but I just wanted to point out a few key characteristics of the site. So, it faces Mason 33 Street, it’s one block west of College Avenue, and it’s tucked between Hibdon Court and Hickory Street . 34 There are several bus stops within biking and walking distance…those are the black dots along College 35 Avenue there. And then the services and groceries within the area are noted in green. Another notable 36 feature of the site is that the future Hickory regional pond will exist to the west and to the south of the site 37 providing a pretty significant buffer to the community to the west. The site is currently undeveloped, and 38 then Dry Creek natural…there’s Dry Creek natural feature just to the west off of our property, but 39 becomes kind of a celebrated design feature in the site plan. 40 As we already mentioned, the Fort Collins Rescue Mission proposes to house a maximum of two 41 hundred and fifty beds. The building is divided into two wings, an overnight dorm area in the north and a 42 day use area to the south. The building itself is a combination of one- and two-story, so the dorm area is 43 two stories, and then the day use area is a single story. The intake area, or the front entrance, is centrally 44 located on the site, and this is designed to quickly process guests and allow movement through the 45 875 Section D, Item 1. 12 building. The pedestrian experience along Mason Street is enhanced; you have a detached parkway, 1 street trees, native plantings, really creating a pleasant pedestrian experience as you walk in front of the 2 building, or up to the main entrance. There is a donation drop-off zone and storage on the southern side 3 of the building as well, and then in the event of emergencies, the building will be able to accommodate 4 those events as needed. 5 Overall, the building will be built with future needs in mind, as well as medical isolation outside 6 of a hospital. The design seeks to respond to a post-pandemic reality and relieve pressure on other service 7 providers at other organizations in the community as a whole. I also at this point wanted to just note that 8 there is that eighty-nine-foot setback from the neighbors on the north. Parking is distributed between the 9 north and south sides of the site; you have seven proposed on the north, and then the remaining twenty-10 eight on the south side. In addition to that, we are providing forty bicycle parking spaces along Mason 11 Street, and I’ll take a little bit of a deeper dive into that here in a minute. 12 Generally speaking, the landscape is low maintenance and of low water use, and that we have 13 selected a native seed that will be installed around the perimeter of the site and really kind of tie into the 14 pond that’s to the west. We are also adding a six-foot privacy fence along the north property line, and the 15 intent there is to provide additional security for the neighbors. And then I also wanted to note that we 16 have a six-foot security fence enclosing the courtyards on the west side of the building. There are three 17 outdoor courtyards, and they’re kind of divided into uses. So, the first one, labeled one here on your 18 screen, that’s for the dormitory and overnight use area, the middle is the staff courtyard for use by staff 19 only to find some respite during the day, and then the largest courtyard on the southwest corner is for the 20 day use area. Again, I wanted to note that these are securely enclosed with the six-foot fence and only 21 accessible from inside the building. 22 At this point, I wanted to drill down on the general development standards within the Land Use 23 Code and really kind of highlight how we’re meeting the Code. I did want to take a moment to note that 24 this is the old Land Use Code, not the new one. So, on the slide you have all the Code sections from 25 division 3.2 that apply and are met. I won’t go into all of them, but did want to spend a little bit of time 26 on 3.2.2, access, circulation, and parking. Bicycle parking is an important amenity for the guests of the 27 Fort Collins Rescue Mission, and per the Land Use Code, a shelter is not a use that’s specifically defined 28 there. And so, what we ended up doing was looking at existing facilities, and we determined, along with 29 staff, that forty spaces would be adequate at this time. Twenty-eight of those will be covered, and so I 30 have a little graphic in there that kind of shows you that covered structure. It’s simple in design, but also 31 allows clear sight lines, which is really important for the operations. Twenty-eight spaces of the forty is 32 about seventy percent covered. 33 Parking is also something that was closely looked at by our team. Again, a shelter is not a use 34 that’s listed in the parking chart, and so in order to understand the number of spaces the Rescue Mission 35 would need to provide, a parking alternative compliance was prepared in addition to a parking study. The 36 parking study prepared by Fox Tuttle Traffic Engineers evaluated the Denver Rescue Mission and found 37 that a ratio of 0.61 was adequate, and so…that was actually during the peak utilization. And so, given the 38 number of employees, interns, and volunteers that the Fort Collins Rescue Mission is anticipating, a total 39 of thirty-five vehicular parking spaces are proposed with this PDP, so that puts a ratio at about 0.8 spaces 40 per employee. I did also want to note that typically guests arrive by foot and not by car. 41 All engineering standards of division 3.3 are met. I did want to point out a few things for you all. 42 Easements and right-of-way have already been dedicated as part of the Mason Street…or are being 43 dedicated as part of the Mason Street Infrastructure plat, and Mason Street will also be constructed per the 44 876 Section D, Item 1. 13 Mason Street Infrastructure PDP. Detention is captured in the Hickory regional detention pond and low-1 impact development, or LID, is provided in the form of two rain gardens highlighted on the graphic here 2 in red. All utilities and services for Rescue Mission are provided in this document set. And again, all of 3 division 3.3 is being met. 4 And I wanted to talk a little bit more about the Dry Creek buffer. So, on your screen here, this is 5 a graphic that’s…so, the graphic on your screen, it is not part of this FDP, it’s part of the Mason Street 6 Infrastructure project, but I wanted to point out that that buffer area does exist off site to the west. 7 Sorry, I’m just waiting for my slides to catch up…make sure you all have the right information. 8 There we go. Alright, I’m going to be spending a little bit more time on division 3.5, that’s where we’re 9 really going to talk about the building, and then project compatibility as it relates to the architecture. 10 From a compatibility standpoint, it was determined that there is no existing architectural character, and so, 11 the architecture of new development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects in this 12 area. Architectural compatibility shall be derived from neighboring context. We’ve put together a little 13 slide here that just kind of shows architecture, new architecture, in the area. Very elegant and sort of 14 simple, and really fits within the North College corridor character. And, based on that, you can kind of 15 see the Fort Collins Rescue Mission architecture is kind of aligned with the neighboring context, and also 16 presents an elegant and elevated design. You have interesting and varying building footprint that lends 17 itself to breaking up mass and creating more visual interest. What does that mean? One minute, two 18 minutes? 19 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: So, how many minutes do we have left? 20 MELISSA MATSUNAKA: That was time. 21 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: How much more time would you need to finish up? 22 KLARA ROSSOUW: Five minutes. 23 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Okay, but no more than five minutes please. 24 KLARA ROSSOUW: Appreciate that, thank you. 25 Alright, picking up where I left off. Noting the architecture, and I just want to make sure we’re 26 clear that it meets the intent of the compatibility in the Code. So, you have repeating window patterns, 27 repeating wood ornamentation, you have varying materials such as brick as well that helps ground the 28 building, and overall, the materiality ties really well into the eclectic nature of the North College corridor. 29 I already mentioned the buffer, but the buffer came about because it was part of discussions with 30 neighbors, so we moved the building back from the property line, and we adjusted the windows on the 31 façade so you don’t have neighbors peeking down…or I should say guests, or folks, with sight lines down 32 into the neighboring property. And I won’t read this, but I want to note that buildings shall be 33 designed…and this is per Land Use Code 3.5.2(b)…buildings shall be designed with predominant 34 materials, elements, features, color range, and activity areas tailored specifically to the site context, also at 35 a pedestrian scale. So, I think we meet that pretty well. It’s a welcoming space, it feels pleasant to walk 36 there, it feels safe. We’re also happy to go into all of those in more detail. 37 And in conclusion, I wanted to note conformance with City Plan, North College Corridor Plan, 38 and the Housing Strategic Plan. Happy to go into detail there, but wanted to note that the City Plan 39 presents a vision, and the North College Corridor Plan and the Housing Strategic Plan provides sort of a 40 tool kit by which that can be met. And we believe we comply with all three of those. 41 877 Section D, Item 1. 14 CLAIRE HAVELDA: So we will cut it short. I will simply note that in your packet in our slides 1 is a more detailed analysis of how we meet City Code, Housing Strategic Plan, North College Corridor 2 Plan, Land Use Code, and all of that. So, that is in your record. I’m sad that we didn’t get time to have 3 Shopworks speak about the trauma-informed design; however, if you have questions, they have lots of 4 information. 5 And, to be respectful of time, I will just leave you with two thoughts. One, the Housing Strategic 6 Plan’s stated vision is that everyone have healthy, stable housing that they can afford, and everyone 7 includes people experiencing homelessness. We have an incredible opportunity here to really address the 8 homelessness epidemic in our community, and this project meets all of the Code and all of the criteria. 9 So, I leave you with this: if you decide that this project doesn’t meet your written standards and your 10 policy documents, I don’t know what project ever could. So, thank you for your time. We ask for your 11 approval of this project, and that we simply be allowed to respond to concerns of the community at an 12 appropriate time. Thank you. 13 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you, and we can assure you that Commission members have 14 obviously reviewed what’s been in the packet, and I know you will be adding more information, so thank 15 you for that. So, I think we’re now going to turn it over to Clark and City staff to provide City staff’s 16 analysis. 17 CLARK MAPES: Okay, let’s pick it back up…see what I think is still worth mentioning after 18 that pretty thorough presentation. The slide is not advancing. Well, see what I can do without the slides. 19 We’re just running a little slow here I guess. 20 So, the applicants mentioned that there was a prior infrastructure plan approved in June, I 21 believe…no, approved in May, and upheld…approved in June. And that was preceded by an overall 22 development plan for the infrastructure…this doesn’t really matter, this is all background now, those 23 things are all approved. But there was…this just shows you the parameters for the original layout of the 24 sites, the properties creating three lots that you see here, and also the infrastructure, which now will 25 support this shelter and is all already approved. This is a graphic from the infrastructure plan. You see 26 there’s not much on there because this just illustrates earth work that’s been done, pipes that are under the 27 ground, electric lines under the ground, and then the property being restored. That was all approved in 28 the prior approved infrastructure plans which create this site here on lot two. And here you can also see 29 the buffer than the applicants mentioned on the west…on the left side…lot one is that stormwater 30 detention pond which separates the shelter site by a pretty good distance from the abutting mobile home 31 park to the west. Those infrastructure plans set the stage for this plan to be submitted. I think the 32 applicants covered everything that I would say. 33 This plan was submitted last November, and has…with a complete plan submittal and all 34 appropriate fees, and has been proceeding through the development process. They gave a pretty good 35 look at the building; here’s a couple different looks at the building. And the main thing I guess I can say 36 about staff’s review of this, is there were no notable issues with the plan more so than most other plans. 37 Talking about the development plan itself, landscaping, all the things you see here. The one thing on this 38 list that got some discussion back and forth was the parking and the bike parking, again, because the Land 39 Use Code, as the applicants mentioned, lists requirements for parking in a chart of land uses, and 40 homeless shelter is not on the chart. So, the applicants went the route of the alternative compliance and 41 doing their own parking study to justify the parking numbers. 42 Now, while staff says there were no significant issues in staff’s review of the development plan, 43 per se, the homeless shelter use has been a major issue of community opposition all throughout the 44 878 Section D, Item 1. 15 process. A lot of that discussion is that the developer should have selected a different location. But, 1 staff’s job has been to review the plan that was submitted and paid its fees. And of course, as we’ve 2 mentioned, the review evaluates whether the plan meets the standards in the Land Use Code. 3 The public discussion has included a contention, that I think you’ll hear tonight, that the plan does 4 not comply with the building and project compatibility standards; that’s a section in the Land Use Code, 5 3.5.1, that actually comes under the Building Standards Division, that’s the title of the division for 6 compatibility. But, the purpose statement in that section says that it’s to ensure that the physical and 7 operational characteristics of the proposed buildings and uses are compatible when considered in the 8 context of the surrounding area. And staff has considered the contention that the use and the behavior of 9 some people in the area, even currently, are not compatible. But, staff just has not been able to find that 10 the behavior of people who are not on the property isn’t covered in the compatibility section. But, I think 11 that’s going to be the main topic for you this evening. 12 Staff considered whether there’s anything about the particular context here that necessarily makes 13 the use incompatible as compared to other locations. And, criminal behavior is not compatible anywhere, 14 but as far as this plan for this development, staff didn’t find anything about the particular context that 15 makes this incompatible with that context. 16 This slide has been showing you the actual Code language…well, the purpose statement of the 17 Code, and then notes that there are seven subsections; those all cover architecture and visual character. 18 Two subsections are a little more open-ended, mentioning operational characteristics…those are the 19 subsections; it’s not worth going through each one, but this is mostly architecture. To the extent that one 20 of the subsections, one of the standards, deals with operational characteristics, which is the main issue 21 that we’ve heard from the community that is not compatible, this is that section. And lists some examples 22 of operational issues. You can read them there: hours of operation, location of activities that generate 23 noise and glare, trash receptacles, loading, delivery zones, light intensity, et cetera, parking. These are 24 aspects of the development that happen on the site. And again, so staff just was not able to find that, 25 under these operational standards, that the behavior that we have heard about on the part of people who 26 are not on the site…well, there’s no shelter there now…but, anyway…that we hear all of that, certainly a 27 lot of that is true, but we just were not able to find that that falls under the compatibility section. 28 One other aspect of compatibility in the Code is there is a definition, this is that definition. It also 29 emphasizes physical aspects of development. You read the first sentence there, it talks about uses being 30 able to be located near each other in harmony, and the word harmony has generated a whole lot of 31 conversation with the community. But, to further explain that first sentence, some elements affecting 32 compatibility include: height, scale, mass, bulk of structures, pedestrian, vehicle traffic, circulation, 33 access, parking, landscaping, lighting, noise, odor, and architecture. So, those are the compatibility 34 standards in the Code. And the question that I think you are going to be struggling with here is whether 35 the compatibility section there covers disruptive and criminal behavior in areas that are not on the site, or 36 throughout the corridor. They’re happening now, they may continue to happen. But, I think that’s going 37 to be the main issue for you this evening. And, after reviewing all of the Code compliance, staff 38 recommends approval with no conditions. 39 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you, Clark. The next step on our agenda will be to turn the 40 dialogue to Commission members for clarifying questions. Before we do that, Em, are we still speaking 41 at the right pace for translation? Good, thank you, thank you for that. 42 879 Section D, Item 1. 16 Okay, well with that, I will turn to Commission members, and why don’t we perhaps see who 1 wants to start, but we’ll be sure everyone has a chance to speak, and also, again, please make your 2 questions as concise as possible. Commissioner Shepard? 3 COMMISSIONER SHEPARD: Thank you, Madam Chair. Clarification question for Clark…the 4 slide that you had quite recently, the infrastructure slides…my question is, will Mason Street be fully 5 improved all the way south to Hickory, or does it terminate…will the improvements terminate before 6 getting to Hickory? 7 CLARK MAPES: That approved plan shows the construction of Mason Street as a street to the 8 property line, and then a transition to the existing twenty-four foot asphalt drive that’s there now; 9 however, the infrastructure plan also shows acquisition of right-of-way for a future connection of the 10 remainder of the little stretch to get clear down to Hickory at any time that, probably the City, decides that 11 it wants to do a capital project there, or if one of the adjacent properties does redevelop, then that would 12 be built. But, the plan includes acquisition of the right-of-way. 13 COMMISSIONER SHEPARD: Thank you. 14 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Commissioner Katz? 15 COMMISSIONER KATZ: Two questions, first one is for the applicants. Seth, you mentioned 16 that you do not allow drug and alcohol use in the shelter. How do you enforce that? 17 SETH FORWOOD: Well, we’re very clear on the rules when people enter the shelter, for one. 18 We have lots of conversation about what behavior is expected when people enter our shelter, and so that’s 19 well known through many different interactions. If we find somebody with drugs and alcohol, we ask 20 them to surrender that to staff. And, if they do that, and they seem like they’re going to be a safe member 21 of the community still, we allow them to stay. But, if they don’t, or if we find that on repeated offenses, 22 we have to have a certain limit in order to protect the other guests in the shelter, and then sometimes we 23 have to ask them to leave. 24 COMMISSIONER KATZ: Does that ever get escalated? 25 SETH FORWOOD: Yes, it can. 26 COMMISSIONER KATZ: And I know you can’t control that. 27 SETH FORWOOD: Sure, and that’s where our partnership with Fort Collins Police Services is so 28 important. 29 COMMISSIONER KATZ: Thank you, Seth. Next question is for Clark and/or Brad. Clark, you 30 have framed…you’ve anticipated some of the public comments here from what we’ve seen, framed 31 around this compatibility standard. You mentioned behavior. But, you kind of limited it down to that one 32 standard in 3.5. Is it correct to look at 1.7.1, which is the compatibility and the relationship with the City 33 Code to give both our community members more latitude to address those…those nuisances or things that 34 are mentioned in City Code, and potentially our Commission to deliberate upon? Does that make sense? 35 It does say that the Code of the City may be used as applicable to support the implementation of the Land 36 Use Code. So, the way I interpret that is that there’s more latitude beyond just the compatibility standard. 37 BRAD YATABE: So, and let me clarify…when you’re talking about nuisance in the City Code, 38 can you clarify what types of issues? 39 880 Section D, Item 1. 17 COMMISSIONER KATZ: I’m referring to some of the public comments that we’ve all read, 1 some of those things that have been addressed there. Whether its…well, noise, harassment, public safety. 2 BRAD YATABE: So, to be clear, I think that you have to discern that the City 3 Code…enforcement of the City Code is separate than the Land Use Code, just in terms of the zoning 4 powers really are applicable to the Land Use Code. The more general police powers are applicable 5 through the different types of potential violations under City Code. I do want to clarify that, in terms of 6 the zoning scheme, the uses that are allowed in a particular zone are presumed to be compatible. What 7 the code is discussing, for example, in 3.5.1, really has to do with the operational characteristics of those 8 particular uses. So, as a base line, I think you presume those are compatible and are allowed. It is really 9 how those uses are implemented that the operational standards come into play, for example. The 10 examples given I think talk about hours, talks about noise, talks about issues along those lines. Does that 11 answer your question? 12 COMMISSIONER KATZ: I understand on the compatibility standard, but I’m saying, 13 anticipating what we’re going to hear from public comment that maybe, you know, discussing offenses 14 that are in Muni Code, you know, there’s that bridge that’s in Land Use Code that allows us to reference 15 that. Do we…can you confirm, we can or do not have that latitude under our deliberation? We may hear 16 things about offenses against public safety, or against public peace. The way I’m reading this Code, 17 which we’ve not discussed… 18 BRAD YATABE: Right, well, I guess I would need to understand more specifically…are you 19 saying that just because there’s a potential offense, that you are asking whether you can impose some type 20 of restriction? 21 COMMISSIONER KATZ: Yes. 22 BRAD YATABE: I think that is a pretty tenuous relationship between a potential offense and 23 necessarily the Land Use Code and the use that we’re looking at. I think if we get down to more specific 24 examples, I could answer that better. 25 COMMISSIONER KATZ: Okay. Thank you. 26 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Commissioner Peel? 27 COMMISSIONER PEEL: Thank you. My first question, I think, should be addressed to 28 Klara…is that how you say your name? Or Klara? Okay. So, the lighting. It’s really hard to see the 29 pictures in the packet, but it seems to me at the entrance, the drop-off, where the windows go from the 30 ground to the ceiling. Is that correct? Am I asking the right person? Okay. So, my point is, there were 31 some issues with the mental health center…they have the same kind of entryway, and the lighting there 32 was very disruptive to the surrounding areas. So, I’m just interested…could you give me an overview of 33 like the…like how bright that’s going to be? The timing…like is it going to be on all night? Because it 34 was extremely disruptive to the neighborhood. 35 KLARA ROSSOUW: What I can say to that, and I think you’re asking the right way…I 36 acknowledge that concern. So, a lighting plan was submitted with this application, and it was deemed, 37 you know, within Code. We are limiting…I want to say two things…we are limiting the amount of light 38 spillage into the buffer area on the west side. I know your question is specifically about the entrance, but 39 I’d like for, Sam, if you want to talk about sort of the lighting… 40 881 Section D, Item 1. 18 COMMISSIONER PEEL: So, basically, are you going to have a big chandelier in the foyer like 1 the mental health center. 2 KLARA ROSSOUW: No…Sam’s going to be the one to answer that. 3 SAM SEVERANCE: Hi, I’m Sam Severance with Shopworks Architecture; I’m part of the 4 Shopworks team of architects that has designed the building. So, to answer your question, we have 5 submitted a compliant photometric drawing to show that the light will fall off at the property lines. We 6 are still concerned about adequate lighting levels for safety of the guests that will be entering that 7 potentially after dark in wintertime, things like that. But, we believe that the lighting is also not so bright 8 as to be disruptive. We have also considered that the entry to the building is tucked back into a nook of 9 the building as to also help collect some of that lighting and prevent it spilling out in alternate directions 10 that may be directed at neighboring properties. Does that help? 11 COMMISSIONER PEEL: It does help. I know the Larimer County Mental Health also submitted 12 a lighting plan and was approved, and it was still obnoxious, so that was my concern. So, my 13 next…thank you. My next question is probably for Brad. The…I know I asked this at the work session, 14 but I want to hear the answer again. So, does the…or maybe this is a question for Clay…when…in every 15 development review, do you always assess compatibility based on the physical structure and not on the 16 social and economic compatibility. And the key word there is always, right? 17 CLAY FRICKEY: To answer your question, Commissioner Peel, I think Clark gave a really good 18 overview of what the compatibility section of the Land Use Code considers and does not consider. So, I 19 think Clark’s interpretation for this particular project is consistent with the way that we review other 20 projects where we are mainly focused on the physical characteristics of the property, and that’s really the 21 main focus of the compatibility section of the Land Use Code. 22 COMMISSIONER PEEL: And so, has there ever been an instance…I’m going to put you on the 23 spot…do you know, is there an instance where you’ve ever gone outside of that and considered the 24 economic and social impacts? 25 CLAY FRICKEY: I mean, I can’t think of any. I mean, the projects I’m thinking of specifically 26 that are the most analogous, are permanent supportive housing projects. So those are projects that are 27 designed as entry-level homes for people trying to get out of homelessness, and a lot of the community 28 conversation about those projects has been similar to this one. And we took the same sort of approach in 29 applying the compatibility standards to those projects as well, where these same sorts of issues came up. 30 COMMISSIONER PEEL: Okay. And then, this question really is for Brad. I know they said 31 that…the applicant stated that they were in compliance…maybe that’s a strong word…in agreement with 32 the North College Corridor Plan. And so, how much weight…so, are we just talking about just what the 33 Land Use Code says, or are we saying it has to be compatible with the North College Corridor Plan? 34 Because I know in the Sanctuary on the Green ruling by the judge, he upheld that they did not follow the 35 corridor plan, if I’m remembering that correctly. 36 CLAY FRICKEY: So, just to interject there a little bit…what the court order said is that the 37 hearing officer needed to make findings of fact related to compliance and consistency with the Northwest 38 Subarea Plan for the Sanctuary on the Green decision. The judge did not make a ruling as to whether or 39 not the plan was consistent with the Northwest Subarea Plan, so that’s a subtle difference. But, what the 40 judge was saying was that there was nothing in the hearing officer’s decision that made a finding of fact 41 related to compliance with the Northwest Subarea Plan. So, I think really what staff has to do is we have 42 882 Section D, Item 1. 19 to analyze whether or not these plans are consistent with any applicable subarea plans. And it looks like 1 Clark is prepared to talk about consistency with the North College Corridor Plan. 2 CLARK MAPES: And, before I do that, talk about whether or not it is consistent with this plan, 3 compliance is the wrong concept with these…City Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, City Plan, and the 4 subarea plans which are related components of the Comprehensive Plan. We don’t review development 5 plans for compliance with specific statements in there, it’s more policy direction used to inform our 6 evaluation and interpretation of standards. And with that, I’m going to ask Brad to see if that sounds like 7 I said it the right way. 8 BRAD YATABE: Yeah, I would…I think I would qualify Clark’s statement and be a little bit 9 firmer in my understanding of the Sanctuary on the Green order, which is what we’ve been complying 10 with since that is the court’s order we think is generally applicable under the Land Use Code, is that 11 adopted subarea plans do need to be complied with. I think the past view is that they’ve been much more 12 aspirational in nature with the Land Use Code more specifically carrying that out. I think I would give 13 primacy to the Land Use Code, but I do think they need to demonstrate compliance with those subarea 14 plans based on the Sanctuary on the Green order. 15 COMMISSIONER PEEL: Okay. So, with that answer, I’m going to go back to the applicant 16 and…so, in the packet, you stated that it did comply. Am I using the right word? Did you say that in the 17 packet, that it complies with the North Corridor Plan [sic]? Okay. And it says, facilitates redevelopment, 18 strengthen market independence and economic activity, and support and compliment downtown core. 19 Can you…I’m especially interested in the strengthen market independence and economic activity. How 20 is the shelter going to do that? 21 KLARA ROSSOUW: Do you mind if I share my screen? If I may, I’m going to show a slide just 22 to kind of guide that. Let’s hope I share the right one. Here it is. I think it would be…in order to answer 23 your question, I wanted to just kind of point to the goals that are outlined in the North College Corridor 24 Plan. There are seven goals, and we believe we comply with five of those, and so I’ll get to your 25 financing question here in a minute, but it’s things like more complete street network, or community 26 appearance and design, and then land uses and activity. You know, we’re a two-story building, so we’re 27 kind of maximizing the use of that land. We’re paying attention to the characteristics of the surrounding 28 neighborhood, and we’re incorporating that into our building architecture. As a byproduct of the Fort 29 Collins Rescue Mission, we have the Mason Street Infrastructure package that’s now come online, so that 30 lends itself to a more complete street network. 31 The financing administration is a little bit more…it’s not so simple. The way it’s framed in the 32 North College Corridor Plan is that it…I’m so sorry…here we go…the financing and 33 administration…administrative…that solves priority infrastructure and deficiencies, we drew a similarity, 34 or we weaved in that the land assemblage and the land swap that was sort of a byproduct of the Fort 35 Collins Rescue Mission achieves that goal. The thing with the North College Corridor Plan, or North 36 College corridor, is that, it’s just a mismatch of different properties, different lot sizes, 37 challenging…infrastructure challenges, and combining lots and collaborating with the City on that, and 38 then collaborating with partners in the community, is able to solve some of those infrastructure 39 deficiencies. 40 COMMISSIONER PEEL: Just in that area where the… 41 KLARA ROSSOUW: Correct…yes, yes. I mean, it would be sort of in the immediate 42 surroundings there. Claire, do you want to add anything to that specifically? 43 883 Section D, Item 1. 20 CLAIRE HAVELDA: Thank you for the question, Commissioner Peel. I think Klara and our 1 slides demonstrate all the different ways we took a long, hard look at that North College Corridor Plan. I 2 will just remind the Commission that it is a mixed-use area, so it is not only…it is not only uses that 3 would generate sales tax, for instance, that are allowed in this area. So, I think perhaps our case is a little 4 weaker that we’re generating economic revenue, but that is not in and of itself make us non-compliant 5 with the North College Corridor Plan. We far exceed compliance if you look at it in a balance. Does that 6 help? 7 COMMISSIONER PEEL: Yes, that’s very helpful actually. So, Clay, can I go back to you? This 8 is my last question I promise…for right now. So, if…because I looked at the North College Corridor 9 Plan, and I read the Ripley Design analysis of this, and it did get stuck on the financial part, because I 10 think one of the points was, if there’s a concentration of non-profits in that area, does it affect the 11 financial base there, basically…like URA plans, tax base, et cetera. 12 CLAY FRICKEY: I think, Commissioner Peel, I think it’s really difficult to assess how 13 concentration of a certain type of business or use could impact the tax base. So, I think generally 14 speaking, staff tends to not utilize that as part of our analysis. There’s a really similar argument for 15 concentration of affordable housing as well, and we’ve heard that repeatedly. And so, generally speaking, 16 staff doesn’t consider that type of thinking in our analysis for compliance with subarea plans or other 17 plans, because it’s very difficult to say with certainty that it is this one factor that is influencing property 18 values. 19 CLARK MAPES: Clay, I’ve got something up on the screen here. This is an excerpt from the 20 2006 North College Corridor Plan. And first of all, again, that corridor plan covers a whole range of 21 different topics, you know for improving the community appearance and design, but also financing and 22 administration kinds of things. So, no development project plan can comply with all of the things in a 23 subarea plan, and a lot of the language in there is not even compliance language, that we should come up 24 with design standards for buildings, you know, things like that. But, this was specifically put into the 25 plan…battery is running low…you might want to plug in your PC; I think it is plugged in. Anyway, you 26 can read that, and really skip to the last sentence there. This issue of concentration was discussed back 27 then, and however, no good mechanism or idea has been identified to prevent the location of additional 28 agencies or facilities within the North College corridor. This wasn’t just about homeless shelter, this was 29 about all of the social services, and in fact, what we’ve been hearing more recently is that some of the 30 motels in the area are almost overlapping with providing social services for homeless people and things 31 like that. But, anyway, it was addressed…this is specific language out of that plan that goes straight to 32 the concentration idea. It is an issue I guess, but it’s one of those intractable ones that no solution was 33 found. 34 COMMISSIONER PEEL: Thank you. 35 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Anything else, Commissioner Peel? 36 BRAD YATABE: Madam Chair, if I can add just a little bit? So, I do want to note that subarea 37 plans and other policy plans, as Clark noted, they are not drafted in the same manner as the Land Use 38 Code standards, for example, which are…well, there are some standards that have some more subjective 39 nature to it as far as compatibility, some standards are drafted with absolute clarity in terms of a metric. 40 But the plans generally are drafted with a lot of aspirational language, so I think they’re subject to quite a 41 bit more interpretation in terms of what you view as compliance with those. I just want to note that…it is 42 not…the difference between reading a plan which has quite a bit of aspiration and vision for the future 43 884 Section D, Item 1. 21 and a mix of language, is that it does…it is maybe not as congruent as you would hope, or as you would 1 compare to a more hopefully unified body like the Land Use Code. 2 So, I just want to put that out there as you digest that, that I think your ability to interpret that is a 3 little more broad with the policy plans. And again, prior to the Sanctuary on the Green order, we really 4 held the view that those were more aspirational, and those were…the particular visions were to be more 5 precisely carried out by Land Use Code standards. 6 The other thing I did want to also note, you had asked about social and economic compatibility, 7 and I do…in a legal sense, we have never…I’ve advised consistently that the economic impact of one 8 particular development on an adjoining property…someone doesn’t like the use, they think it’s going to 9 bring the property value down, that is something I’ve advised is not under the consideration for the 10 Commission, and that’s not really a consideration under the Land Use Code. I think the other issue that 11 you mentioned about social compatibility…I’d be very careful about that. Social can be a very loaded 12 term and it can mean a lot of different things. But again, going back to Commissioner Katz’ question, I 13 think, you know, it’s a fairly tenuous relationship between the behaviors of people who are off of the site. 14 And I’ll also point out, there are mechanisms under the City Code, for example, to address nuisance 15 behaviors. So, there are additional considerations made under the Code as a whole, outside of the Land 16 Use Code, to address these issues. 17 COMMISSIONER PEEL: That’s very helpful, because what I’m trying to clarify here is, I think 18 there’s always been confusion around the subarea plans, and exactly how far they have to be followed, so 19 I needed clarification about that. And then, just the…it’s helpful to me to know how narrow the Planning 20 and Zoning Commission…what their purview is. And so, I’m trying to find those boundaries there, is 21 why I’m asking these questions. 22 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you. 23 CLARK MAPES: Can I say one more thing about the background of, have we always used the 24 subarea plans in a certain way? Before this ruling by a judge on that project, the way that we thought 25 about City Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, and the subarea plans, was that they explain the public purpose 26 behind standards in the Land Use Code. An easy example is the garage door standards in the Land Use 27 Code; you’ve got to have your garage door recessed four feet from the front of the…you know…it sounds 28 kind of funny if you just took that…why are you telling me where to put my garage door? But, the 29 Comprehensive Plan explains the street as public space, and what the public space is like. It’s not that a 30 development plan would comply with this Comprehensive Plan explanation about the quality of public 31 space for people and pedestrians, it explains the purpose in case you ever have to look to where standards 32 in the Land Use Code come from. This ruling I guess kind of changed things, but for decades, it was kind 33 of more the way I’m describing it. 34 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Before I move on, are there any other questions about the North 35 College Corridor Plan? 36 CLAIRE HAVELDA: I don’t mean to interrupt, but if it would be helpful, Commissioner Peel, 37 we can give you two minutes on the trauma-informed design that helps discuss the social compatibility 38 with the North College Corridor Plan. It’s completely up to you…I don’t mean… 39 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: I think we’d like to get to that, but why don’t we continue with our 40 questions and we’ll be sure to cover that. Thank you very much. Okay, let’s move on then, 41 Commissioner York. 42 885 Section D, Item 1. 22 COMMISSIONER YORK: Sure, I have a couple of questions for the applicant, hopefully they 1 will be quick. On…you have the food service in there for meals. When I was looking at the drawings, I 2 was trying to figure out where is the loading dock, or how are they expecting receiving and all of that to 3 happen? And how does that play in with the parking lot? 4 KLARA ROSSOUW: Let’s see, this one…so, the question being the location of the loading dock 5 and how that interacts with the parking. So, the loading dock is right in that notch in the site plan. 6 COMMISSIONER YORK: Okay, so it’s right to the east of the courtyard three? 7 KLARA ROSSOUW: Correct, to the east of courtyard three… 8 COMMISSIONER YORK: …to the south of that? 9 KLARA ROSSOUW: …and the parking is to the south, yes. So if you’re utilizing the loading 10 dock, you would go through the parking lot and then back into that loading dock. I will say we did run 11 some…like some turn radiuses and made sure that any kind of box truck or delivery vehicles would be 12 able to make those turns. 13 COMMISSIONER YORK: Okay, thank you on that part. My next question has to do with the 14 six-foot security fences. You mentioned those being around the courtyards and also on the north edge of 15 the property. I probably missed it in the plan…what are those made out of? 16 KLARA ROSSOUW: That’s a good question, and I can show you. So, there are two different 17 styles of fences. The six-foot privacy fence that I had mentioned earlier is along this property line to the 18 north, there. It’s kind of set right on the property line. And then I mentioned security fences. The 19 security fence is going to be made of two different types of materials, so on the westernmost edge, right 20 along there to that second orange dot, that’s going to be a six-foot metal fence. And the idea there is that 21 for folks who are in the courtyard, they kind of have those views to the natural feature to the west. 22 But then, continuing south and wrapping up to the loading dock, that’s all going to be a six-foot 23 opaque wooden fence, so you’re screened from views to the street both in and out. 24 COMMISSIONER YORK: Okay. And so, with the one on the north, what is that going to be 25 made out of? 26 KLARA ROSSOUW: I’m so sorry; I said six feet…it’s a wood cedar fence. 27 COMMISSIONER YORK: It’s wood cedar fence, okay. So that will help with, some with noise, 28 and also with the visual between the properties, and then the same on the…but on the west side, it will be 29 open, but I think there’s enough distance there…okay, so the opaqueness won’t matter. Cool. Then the 30 other question I had was on the bike racks, bicycle parking. Seeing more an more people on electric 31 bikes, and more bicycling, which is what we’re promoting in the city for transportation. If you have two 32 hundred guests, and you know, up to forty employees there at any time, if the bike parking needs get to be 33 greater, how is that going to be accommodated in the site plan? 34 KLARA ROSSOUW: That’s a really good question. Yeah, so, you know, at this time, we sort of 35 determined that forty spaces would be adequate. But, if the need were to arise, and it sort of became a 36 management issue, maybe it becomes a little bit of an eyesore or something like that, and there’s need for 37 more racks, I think that’s something we’re willing to…the Rescue Mission is willing to explore. We 38 would work with staff; there would probably be an administrative amendment process for that, but we 39 would work with staff to find a location on site that made sense. 40 886 Section D, Item 1. 23 CLARK MAPES: Can you easily find the site plan? Because I thought about this in reviewing 1 the plan, and there is an additional lawn area…since you’re sharing, if you can easily find…just to the 2 south of the existing racks, there’s a lawn area with no other particular function, and I see that as, if this 3 happens, because I wondered the same thing, as a location where it would be physically possible without, 4 it looks like, without too much trouble. 5 KLARA ROSSOUW: There’s definitely room for it. One thing to consider would be, you know, 6 we’d want it to be in a secure location that has good eyes on it too. 7 COMMISSIONER YORK: Right. I just saw that, and to me, that was…it seemed like a low 8 number. You know, I understand where the numbers came from and all of that, but seeing where we’re 9 progressing with the City’s bike plan and all, that I think we need to look at making sure that we’re not 10 limiting developments going forward. 11 And then the other question I had was on the bus routes, because you had the slide on how far it 12 was to each of the bus stops. And one of the things I thought was interesting is that the crosswalk…the 13 controlled crosswalk intersections to get to the northbound bus routes are, you know, add considerably to 14 the distance to those bus routes that were shown on the east side of 287. I was wondering if you had the 15 distance of how far somebody would actually have to go to safely get to a northbound bus route as 16 opposed to just the southbound. 17 CLARK MAPES: Distances, no, but that is just a fundamental issue with the whole North 18 College highway corridor. There are not that many crossings of the highway…it’s been discussed by 19 staff over the years. But, some of that is going to be a pretty good distance, like half a mile or something. 20 I don’t know exactly in this case, but it’s an issue all up and down the corridor with quarter- to half-mile 21 between crossings. 22 COMMISSIONER YORK: Okay, thank you. That’s all I have for right now. 23 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: If I may, Commissioner members, if we can, again, focus our questions 24 with respect to this proposal, I’d really appreciate that. Were there other questions? Commissioner 25 Shepard? 26 COMMISSIONER SHEPARD: Quick clarifications for Sam, architect. And while you’re going 27 to the microphone, I found that your trauma-informed design information was helpful. I hadn’t been 28 aware of that niche of architecture. I’m assuming that, with panic hardware, that there will be cameras 29 monitored by a twenty-four-hour front staff person? Okay. Because you have to have panic hardware for 30 exiting. 31 SAM SEVERANCE: That is correct, there will be panic hardware on all of the exits, although we 32 are controlling ingress, as in entry into the building, through the central lobby. All of the exits will have 33 panic hardware. 34 COMMISSIONER SHEPARD: And cameras? 35 SAM SEVERANCE: We do…we are planning cameras on site. There are more than seventy 36 planned on site covering the inside and the outside of the building. 37 COMMISSIONER SHEPARD: Did you say seventy? 38 SAM SEVERANCE: Seven zero, yes sir. 39 887 Section D, Item 1. 24 COMMISSIONER SHEPARD: Thank you. My next question has to do with getting to York’s 1 first question about operational characteristics. Have you thought about a pull-out on Mason Street for 2 paratransit, vans, perhaps ambulance, perhaps police response? Is there something on Mason Street that 3 would get operational vehicles out of the through lane? 4 KLARA ROSSOUW: I can answer that, Ted. We do have a…what we’re calling a drop-off 5 zone, and it’s along the Mason Street frontage on the southbound lane. It’s essentially a place where 6 emergency vehicles or folks dropping donations off…it’s kind of an all-purpose pull-out to get out of 7 traffic. 8 COMMISSIONER SHEPARD: Thank you. 9 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you. Commissioner Peel? 10 COMMISSIONER PEEL: I think this is a question for Seth. I know there’s some people 11 experiencing homelessness that live…they live in their cars. Would they be allowed to park in the 12 parking lot? 13 SETH FORWOOD: So our parking lot will be designated simply for staff, volunteers, and people 14 utilizing the building. So, it will not be a safe parking program for people who are homeless living in 15 their cars. 16 COMMISSIONER PEEL: Okay, thank you. 17 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Seth, while you’re up…or, could you stay up, please? Sorry about that. 18 Just to be a little bit more context, the last data I saw suggested there were about maybe five hundred and 19 sixty homeless individuals in Fort Collins. Is that about right? 20 SETH FORWOOD: Yeah, the point in time count that the Continuum of Care does every 21 year…I’m not exactly sure of the exact number, but it’s around that number. 22 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Okay, and what is your guesstimate about how many would be men? 23 SETH FORWOOD: I really can’t say. I could say the majority is men. 24 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: That’s close enough. So, and again, I want to clarify, the shelter in 25 which you’re currently located will be closed, is that correct? 26 SETH FORWOOD: Yes; we’ll divest of that whole property, and the sale of that will go to our 27 capital stack. 28 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: And if the shelter is approved, will you continue to…or do you see the 29 need to operate an overflow shelter in the winter, or would this shelter meet that need? 30 SETH FORWOOD: We do not…I hope to god we don’t operate an overflow shelter with this 31 new building in place. 32 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Okay, thank you. With the permission of the Commission. I 33 believe…I think we have someone from Police Services unit, and I would be very interested in any 34 comments Police Services have to offer with respect to issues that have been experienced with shelters in 35 the past, and how those have been dealt with for the safety of citizens. 36 JEFF SWOBODA: Good evening, Commissioners, I’m Jeff Swoboda, the Police Chief. I’m 37 joined by Adam McCambridge, our Assistant Chief of our Special Operations, and Annie Hill is our 38 888 Section D, Item 1. 25 Sergeant over our Homeless Outreach and Proactive Engagement team. So, I heard the question, but 1 maybe I would just ask, rather than just general comments, is there something you would like us to hit on, 2 specifically with what we’ve experienced with the current situation? 3 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: The context that we will be looking at tonight is a shelter of roughly 4 two hundred and fifty individuals…we’ll be looking, of course, for compliance with the Land Use Code. 5 But, in the comments we’ve seen to date, there’s been many concerns raised with respect to safety. So, I 6 would be interested in how Police Services has dealt with safety issues with the existing shelter, and how 7 it would continue those services with the new shelter. 8 JEFF SWOBODA: Yeah, I’ll start and then maybe have Sergeant Hill talk a little bit more about 9 the current situation. But, I could just tell you, as we are looking at this shelter and our response…you 10 know, the Police Department is equipped to show up and handle any type of call in the entire city. We’re 11 a very well-equipped organization; we hire amazing individuals who are great problem solvers. So, any 12 issue that comes up, we’ll be able to address. 13 How things are working right now, in any area of town, when something comes up, we get out 14 and we problem solve, we look at the data, we identify who are our stakeholders, how do we address this 15 issue so we’re solving the problem rather than just constantly arresting people or writing tickets, although 16 of course we do that. So, it’s…with kind of a very broad perspective on this. It’s…any issue that comes 17 up, we’re equipped to handle. But, how it’s happening right now…Annie, if you would like to talk a little 18 bit about calls for service maybe that we see at the current shelter? 19 ANNIE HILL: Sure. So, at the current shelter… 20 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: I’m not sure your mic is on. 21 ANNIE HILL: At the current shelter, when something is reported, the staff are forthcoming with 22 information; we do have a really good relationship with them. They are reporting criminal activity on or 23 around the property. And, like Seth had said earlier, we do have a great working relationship with them. 24 We don’t constantly have to patrol the area as it stands right now, but we do respond to the calls as they 25 come. 26 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Let me see if I can frame this question properly…are issues with a 27 shelter the same or different than issues with homelessness that may be occurring in other areas of the city 28 where there is not a shelter? 29 ANNIE HILL: I mean, that’s hard to say…not particularly. Some of the more frequent calls that 30 we do go on in other parts of the city would be trespassing…so, I guess if we were responding to the 31 shelter, and they were asking somebody to leave, that person was refusing to leave, then we would come 32 respond to have that person removed from the property. The issues are fairly similar across the whole 33 city that are happening at the shelter in regards to people experiencing homelessness. 34 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you. With Police Services here, do any other Commission 35 members have questions? Commissioner Peel? 36 COMMISSIONER PEEL: So I’ve had the opportunity to ride along with the HOPE team, and 37 they’re doing a great job. Can you explain what remedies you have for helping when people are 38 trespassing, or maying acting in an unsafe manner, or…so, like what is the process? Do you just remove 39 them, do you ticket them, do you take them somewhere? 40 889 Section D, Item 1. 26 ANNIE HILL: Sure, if somebody is being trespass or asked to leave the Rescue Mission, the 1 officers are all CIT certified, they deescalate the individual before they leave the property, so we don’t 2 just send somebody who’s super escalated back into the community, because we know that’s going to 3 generate future contacts. So, if somebody is being trespassed, we would work with the staff to figure out 4 what are the limitations of that, how long is that trespass going to last, and we also try to deescalate that 5 individual…even if its writing a ticket, we’re still going to work with them to figure out what their plan 6 would be for that evening, and talk about, you know, boundaries out in the community as well. 7 COMMISSIONER PEEL: I’m sorry, I haven’t been keeping up with this, but, can you talk about 8 what kind of success you think you’re having in the North College corridor? 9 ANNIE HILL: I feel like we’ve made a huge impact in the North College corridor with 10 addressing the illegal camping. We have worked really closely with Outreach Fort Collins to respond to 11 individuals experiencing homelessness and getting people resourced, getting to know our people, the 12 unhoused population in the North College corridor, and working with those service providers. I think 13 building the relationships amongst all the population as well as the service providers has been key, and 14 over the last year and a half, that’s been a focus, as well as the partnerships with the North Fort Collins 15 Business Association, and businesses throughout the whole city. 16 COMMISSIONER PEEL: Thank you. 17 COMMISSIONER CONNELLY: Given that this new shelter is going to be significantly larger 18 than the current one, if its built, do you have any plans in place to deal with whatever issues you might 19 have with the current shelter on a larger scale? 20 JEFF SWOBODA: Well, as this continues to progress, we’re working with Seth and his team to 21 see…we’re watching here tonight to see what the concerns are. We’ve already been out in the 22 neighborhood at multiple meetings with the community, and as I said earlier, we’re prepared to respond to 23 any calls for service and address the issues and solve the problems. You know, I think everyone in the 24 room knows, the Police Department is not going to be the one to solve homelessness. So, what we can 25 do, and we do very well, is work to address the issues that are occurring, whether its behavior issues that 26 we can address, also working with our amazing partners throughout the community to get people the 27 services that they need. 28 But, you know, we’ve talked before, we have…it really depends on who the person operating the 29 business is. We have bars in town that we have zero issues with; we have bars in town where maybe 30 management isn’t as proactive as they should be, and we have issues there. I think the same could be said 31 for homeless shelters, for any type of business that’s occurring. It’s how much of a relationship do we 32 have, and how proactive are the management of that business, how proactive are they with us? So, the 33 plans are to continue to work with management if this goes through, and if and when that opens up, we’ll 34 be prepared to respond to any call for service and address the issues. And, knowing that the Police 35 Department’s ability to address the issues is very short-lived. A ticket, an arrest, something like that, a 36 ride somewhere, that is not something that’s going to be a problem solved by any means…it’s solved for 37 a few hours, if that. 38 COMMISSIONER CONNELLY: And sort of in a similar vein, do you have a ballpark estimate 39 as to how many calls for service you get from the current shelter in any given month? 40 890 Section D, Item 1. 27 JEFF SWOBODA: I don’t have that in front of me…do you have that…we could get that to you. 1 I do not have the call volume in front of me right now. Annie, can you talk, just maybe anecdotally, how 2 often are we out at the current shelter? 3 ANNIE HILL: Well, right now, the hours are throughout the nighttime hours. I feel like, I guess I 4 could say maybe once or twice a week that we’re getting a call there, but that’s me going off the cuff 5 based on my experience when I was working night shift previously. 6 COMMISSIONER CONNELLY: Understood, that answers my question pretty well. 7 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Commissioner Katz? 8 COMMISSIONER KATZ: A portion of the guests at the current shelter, and anticipate at the new 9 shelter, are of the transient culture. Based on your guys’ career experience, or data that you have, do you 10 see a larger shelter attracting more of that transient culture to our community? 11 JEFF SWOBODA: Yeah, I’ll start with it, and then maybe I’ll have Assistant Chief 12 McCambridge add to it. You know, we’re not the experts in this space. You know, we’ve heard that 13 before, that if you build it, they will come type of thing. I can’t say that that will happen or won't happen. 14 I’ve heard from others that the main utilizers of a shelter like this will be people from our town. And it 15 goes hand in hand, I think, a lot with what is the acceptable behavior that the police department allows, or 16 the community allows. And so, I think in talking with Seth in the past, that those cities that offer a lot of 17 services many times will see more people, but there will also be a discussion amongst people who utilize 18 the services that, if the police won’t tolerate the behavior and will address problems, even at very low 19 levels, that that word also gets out. So, there might be more people, but if more people are following the 20 rules, it’s not going to rely more on the police department. I’ll probably just leave it at that. 21 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Chief, one last question if I might. You referenced the relationship 22 with Rescue Mission as being important. How would you characterize your relationship with Fort Collins 23 Rescue Mission? 24 ADAM MCCAMBRIDGE: Thank you, Commissioner, I’ll take a stab at that one. We have a 25 great relationship with the Rescue Mission, with their staff, with Seth. We communicate regularly about 26 all the issues. If we’re having an ongoing issue, I mean Seth is a phone call away; he’s very receptive, 27 their staff is very receptive to our concerns or our issues if we have them, and vice versa. 28 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you. Any other questions for Police Services? Okay, thank you. 29 We do have a business owner over here I think that may want to talk with you later about some issues 30 she’s experiencing, but we’ll leave that at that. 31 Thank you. Okay, let’s do one last round of clarifying questions if there are any? None here, 32 none here, none here. Okay. Well, we’ll close the clarifying questions. It is eight o’clock; I want to turn 33 to Commission members…we are about to commence public comment. Would you like to take a break 34 before that, or should we move on? Break? The informal vote says a break. We will take just a ten 35 minute break, and then we’ll reconvene for public comment. 36 (**Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) 37 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Alright, it is 8:13 PM, and we’ll reconvene this meeting of the Fort 38 Collins Planning and Zoning Commission. This is the point in the meeting where we invite public 39 participation. The way that we plan to do this tonight is to first ask for comments from individuals who 40 891 Section D, Item 1. 28 will be providing comments in Spanish so we can work through our translation first, and then we will take 1 comments from those who speak English. 2 So, with that, I’d like to first ask, in the room, are there any individuals who will be providing 3 comments in Spanish? Would you please raise your hands so I can see? 4 CLAY FRICKEY: And, Chair Stackhouse, can I go grab some people out in the lobby that I 5 know want to comment? 6 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Yes, you may. So, while we’re doing that, I’m going to turn and see if, 7 on Zoom, there are any individuals who wish to make comments in Spanish. 8 MELISSA MATSUNAKA: There are zero online attendees with their hands raised. 9 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: There are zero with their hands raised? 10 MELISSA MATSUNAKA: Correct. 11 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you. Alright, we’ll let everybody come back into the room. 12 And, just as a quick reminder, we will start our public comment period, and I did ask for a show of hands 13 for those in the room here, in City Hall, are there any individuals who will be commenting in Spanish? 14 Would you please raise your hand if you will be commenting in Spanish? I see one hand, I see two, three, 15 four. Alright, if you could please proceed down to the podiums, you can use both podiums. We’ll be 16 sure that if you are not signed in, that you are able to sign in, and as soon as the first person is ready, we 17 will begin comment. 18 We will ask the individual commenting…thank you for the translator for joining us…the 19 individual commenting will provide their comment, they will allow the translator to translate periodically, 20 and then we will continue that for a total of up to six minutes because we are doubling the time. 21 Normally, the comment period would be three minutes. Is that clear? Okay. Very good, signed in? 22 Okay, alright, you may begin. 23 ADELA GONZALES (VIA TRANSLATION): Good evening, Commissioners, my name is Adela 24 Gonzales, I live in zip code 80524. The proposed shelter with its forty-four hundred square foot, two-25 story design is vastly out of scale with the surrounding one-story mobile home parks and small businesses 26 nearby. This mismatch in scale not only disrupts the neighborhood’s character, but also imposes 27 operational challenges, such as increased noise from twenty-four hour a day operations, and constant 28 traffic, which are incompatible with the quieter residential nature of the area. Moreover, the traffic study 29 conducted for this project was based on an initial proposal of two hundred beds; however, the number has 30 since increased to two hundred and fifty beds with the potential for even more, rendering the study 31 inaccurate. Additionally, the study fails to account for car camping, a common activity among people 32 experiencing homelessness, further heightening concerns about the impact on local traffic and safety. 33 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you. Please come down, thank you. 34 MAITAY MARCHA (VIA TRANSLATION): Good evening, Commissioners, my name is Maitay 35 Marcha. The proximity of the proposed shelter to existing service providers is often cited as a benefit, but 36 in reality, this clustering or concentration of services in a single area is incompatible with the need to 37 spread resources more evenly throughout the city. This approach could lead to increased social strain and 38 behavioral issues in the North College area. 39 892 Section D, Item 1. 29 Additionally, it’s worth noting that the traffic study conducted was based on an initial proposal 1 for two hundred beds, which has since increased to two-fifty, with the site capable of accommodating 2 even more. The site also fails to consider car camping, a common activity among people experiencing 3 homelessness. This renders the traffic study inadequate, potentially underestimating the true impact on 4 local safety and traffic. 5 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you. 6 ANNA (NO LAST NAME GIVEN) (VIA TRANSLATION): Good afternoon, Commissioners, my 7 name is Anna, I live in zip code 80524. Research shows that concentrating poverty, especially in areas 8 lacking adequate investment, can lead to increased crime and social disorder. The decision to place a 9 large shelter on North College in a low-income neighborhood risks worsening crime rates and further 10 marginalizing the community. This contradicts the City’s stated goals of preserving and uplifting these 11 neighborhoods. 12 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you. 13 REBECCA MENDOZA (VIA TRANSLATION): Good evening, Councilmembers, my name 14 Rebecca Mendoza, I live in 80524. Studies show…or the studies that were shown talk about the negative 15 impacts of shelters, but they don’t include studies that were done in cities of a similar size to Fort Collins. 16 The Rescue Mission, if it had really done its job and taken it seriously during this project, would have 17 done its own studies. Nonetheless, they didn’t do anything until they saw the studies that we provided to 18 them. If they really cared, they would have shown their own results. But tell me, Commissioners, did 19 they share anything with you? The meeting that was carried out in Spanish was not organized because 20 Seth noticed a lack of participation from our Spanish-speaking community, but rather it was carried out 21 because we complained, and we demanded that the City organize one. Seth didn’t take that initiative. If 22 he was really interested in public participation from our community, he would have documented details 23 such as the number of people who attended and the topics discussed. Nothing of the sort occurred, and all 24 that Seth has presented is simply a fabrication of those details. Seth also omitted all of the comments 25 made by people from the North College community who oppose the project and were there that day: 26 business owners, members of the community, and others. They ignored those of us who live and work in 27 this area, and they didn’t even consult homeless people, their own clients, about whether or not they 28 would be in agreement with this shelter being located in one of the poorest parts of the city. This focus 29 not only ignored the community, but it also contradicts the City’s values of participation, transparency, 30 equity, and inclusion. 31 Another lie is that Seth said the Redwood and Vine site was not available. We have quotes from 32 Commissioners, including Commissioner Kefalas, telling us that they were never asked about their 33 opinion. I ask you, Commissioners, use common sense. Who really benefits by putting two of the most 34 vulnerable groups of people in Fort Collins, people without homes and people who are low-income, one 35 aside another. The video that Seth showed might seem moving, but I ask you Commissioners, have any 36 of you walked through the streets of Hickory? Have you experienced what it is to live in a marginalized 37 community as immigrants? The arguments that were presented ignore the realities of those who live here 38 and minimize the social impacts and safety impacts that this project would bring to an area that already 39 has so many challenges. Commissioners, you have the ability to stop this project and make sure that it’s 40 carried out in an adequate and fair way. Use the Land Use Code because it has evident limitations, use 41 this opportunity to improve it. Help us to demand that a social impact study be done and that the decision 42 about the location about the location of the shelter be based on those results. Also, lastly…one more 43 893 Section D, Item 1. 30 opportunity to take, for example, the way that our community has been repressed and left out of this 1 conversation. Even the presentation that was shown here was only shown in English, and not in Spanish. 2 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you. 3 ADIANA QUINTERO (VIA TRANSLATION): Good evening, Commissioners, my name is 4 Adiana Quintero. This process leading to the selection of the North College site was made by 5 exclusionary practices, such as inadequate notices to Spanish for key meetings, which effectively silenced 6 the voices of non-English speaking residents. This exclusion has deepened mistrust and resentment 7 within the community, particularly among those who already feel marginalized and disenfranchised. 8 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you. Did we want to translate the earlier comment too? Oh, I 9 see, thank you. My Spanish just really needs a lot of work, so thank you. Okay, anyone else in the room? 10 In Spanish? No one, okay. Anyone on Zoom, one more call. 11 MELISSA MATSUNAKA: No, Chair Stackhouse. 12 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Okay, thank you very much. So, we will now turn to comments in 13 English. For those that wish to comment, we do have two podiums, so you are welcome to line up behind 14 each podium. I think we’ll start with comments in the room tonight, and then when that’s done, we’ll 15 turn to comments on Zoom. And I believe there is a sign-in sheet, so you can sign in as you’re waiting. 16 Are you ready? We’ll start on the left side then, please introduce yourself. 17 DAVID ROUT: Good evening, my name is David Rout, Fort Collins resident and the Executive 18 Director of Homeward Alliance, which among other activities, operates the Murphy Center for Hope, a 19 Fort Collins hub of resources for people who are homeless. I am here to express my support for Fort 20 Collins Rescue Mission’s proposed shelter project. At the Murphy Center, we see every day, and 21 particularly in the winter months, the struggle to locate shelter capacity for all those who need it. We 22 have known for years that the Rescue Mission’s existing site, and satellite site in the winter, are 23 undersized relative to need, and also not designed in a way that is conducive to producing outcomes. 24 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Can I just…could we please have quiet in the rest of the room while he 25 is commenting? Okay, thank you. Go ahead please. 26 DAVID ROUT: We know the facilities are undersized relative to need, and also not designed in a 27 way that is conducive to producing outcomes, which is helping people escape the nightmare of 28 homelessness. And when it comes to overnight shelters, the stakes really couldn’t be higher. We are 29 talking about the survival of people who are homeless. So, on behalf of Homeward Alliance, and as a 30 former member of both the City Manager’s committees that considered this project and its potential 31 location, I believe that this proposed site will transform our community’s homelessness response system. 32 Combined with the recent addition of a medical clinic at the Murphy Center, the Matthews House planned 33 youth shelter in Loveland, recent and potential resource and shelter center expansions in Loveland, a new 34 supportive housing project in Loveland, and more, this facility would join an evolving and ever more 35 responsive system that is helping hundreds of people escape homelessness every year. 36 I am not unsympathetic to the concerns of the surrounding community, and I believe that the 37 Rescue Mission’s plan, as you just heard, demonstrate that they too take these concerns very seriously. 38 That is reflected in the design of the building, the location on the property, their plan for operations and 39 security, and equally importantly, having watched the Rescue Mission engage in work with the businesses 40 and residents that surround their existing site, a location that is dramatically less equipped to mitigate 41 issues in the surrounding neighborhood, I know that the Rescue Mission will do what it takes to be the 42 894 Section D, Item 1. 31 best neighbor possible, both in terms of how they operate the facility and the ways in which they engage 1 with the community. 2 But, above all, it is also my firm belief that the Rescue Mission’s proposed shelter is at least part 3 of the answer to some of the safety concerns that have been written to you in the previous months. People 4 need a place to go, and when it comes to people who are homeless, many of whom have experienced 5 unthinkable trauma, that place needs to be intentionally designed, well operated, and full of opportunity, 6 and ideally, 24/7. The Murphy Center and the other facilities I mentioned are a part of the answer, but 7 this proposed facility fills what is perhaps the biggest gap, as you heard loud and clear from Rescue 8 Mission tonight, the lack of overnight shelter for individual males. 9 These decisions are never easy, that is why it has taken years to get to tonight. We wanted to get 10 it right, and I believe that we have. Thank you. 11 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you. Alright, we’ll go to this podium please. Could you 12 introduce yourself? 13 DEBBIE BRADBERRY: Good evening, I’m Debbie Bradberry; I’m a resident of 1601 North 14 College Avenue, the fifty-five plus community. I am also a member of the Senior Advisory Board, but I 15 am here this evening for myself and for my residents who are watching on TV tonight. 16 We’re scared, okay? It came up, the word potential. Potential, looking it up means something 17 that could possibly happen in the future. It’s happening now. 18 A few years ago, just before I moved into the community, someone had befriended one of our 19 residents, then promptly went into their home, murdered them, and tried to set them on fire. You can get 20 more information on this in the Coloradoan newspaper. About a year ago, we had someone entering the 21 community…we are a gated community…and they were putting a code in and someone comes up and 22 starts beating on their car. Obviously, that scares them to death, you don’t know what’s going to happen 23 next. Just last month, just a few doors down from me, we had a couple that moved in with their dog while 24 a veteran was in a medical facility. So, all of his belongings were still in the house. They cut up his 25 uniform and stole his medals…I’m sorry…stole his medals and his ribbons. I also found out that while 26 my house, before I moved into it, that was vacant for a while, they had broken in there and were living in 27 my house. 28 This isn’t potentially going to happen, it is happening, and it’s happening right now. We’re 29 scared to go out after dark, we can’t leave our windows open this time of year when the weather is nice in 30 the evenings; we’re afraid to. I mean, I just approached one of our other residents and said, please let’s 31 make sure that we pull into the subdivision together, because we don’t want it happening again. 32 I am not against the shelter; the shelter needs to happen. I’ve even talked to Paula and to Seth 33 and told them I’ll be happy to be there to serve Thanksgiving dinner. But, it does not need to be at our 34 back door. When you see those pictures, you see my house. This is just too much. We have vulnerable 35 seniors in our community, and just on the other side next to us, we have…well, I’m part of…, but we 36 have the Hickory Community, and they have a lot of children. We do not need this in this close to 37 vulnerable seniors, and to this many children. Find another location; I’m all for it, it needs to happen. It 38 just does not need to happen in our neighborhood. Thank you very much for your time. 39 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you, Debbie. We’ll go over to here please. 40 895 Section D, Item 1. 32 ALLISON HADE: Thank you, good evening. My name is Allison Hade, I live in midtown Fort 1 Collins. I also work for the City of Loveland in what would be the equivalent of the Social Sustainability 2 Department. In 2022, the Loveland City Council enacted an encampment ban, and in doing so charged 3 me personally with setting up a 24/7 shelter. I’d never had the experience of doing any of that work, so I 4 immediately reached out to community partners, that included the Rescue Mission. And what I learned 5 from them is that they lead with their hearts, and they lead with their faith. And I know that, with them, 6 the words serving the least among us, aren’t just words from the book of Matthew that they read on a 7 Sunday, it’s the work they do and the walk they walk. 8 So, they embraced the dilemma that I was under to…and helped me with any sort of set up that I 9 would need. They gave me personal documents, and did the best they could to help me, hold my hand. 10 What I’ve learned from that is the downfall of having an inadequate facility. Loveland has long had 11 inadequate facilities, and we still do. The result of that is that people camp. So, at the end of March of 12 2020, we were sheltering maybe up to ten people, and our service provider quit sheltering because of the 13 fear of COVID. So, we allowed camping. 14 There is some research around, if you build it, they will come. And, as Claire said, it’s just not 15 true. But, what we know to be true is if you don’t build it, they will come. Loveland is a perfect example 16 of that. We had hundreds of people from around the state come to camp in Loveland because they could. 17 This shelter, the current shelter, is inadequate, as has been stated, both in turning people away…I know 18 that because they come to Loveland, where we will shelter them if we have room with the additional 19 money that the City of Fort Collins has had to pay year after year to serve for overflow. So, this facility 20 will fix that as David described. 21 What I also know to be true in the neighborhood, because I see people as I’m driving to work, 22 come out of their camps up and down College. It is not necessarily one particular part of Fort Collins, it’s 23 all of College. And what I know to be true is if this shelter isn’t there, that neighborhood will continue to 24 have the same problems they’re having. With the shelter there, there’s the possibility of all of the seventy 25 cameras, of more eyes on the neighborhood, and creating a greater police presence. So, thank you. 26 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you, Allison. Go ahead please. 27 PATRICIA ALVAREZ HARRELL: Hello, my name is Patricia Alvarez Harrell. I am the current 28 director of Alianza NORCO; we serve the immigrant community here in Fort Collins, northern Colorado. 29 So, I wanted to give some historical context. I had the privilege of meeting with a lot of the residents at 30 Hickory Village, which I can comfortably say, ninety percent are Spanish speaking, majority immigrant 31 population. And to actually be amongst them with dealing with the current problems that they have 32 where their children cannot go to the park, Soft Gold Park, they can’t walk up and down the street safely 33 to go to the grocery store. 34 As we know, the families in the community…not just Hickory, but also North College…are low 35 income. Like I’d mentioned, in Hickory, they’re an immigrant community, in North College, they’re 36 seniors and disabled, so they’re already a very vulnerable population. So, when Seth brought up that 37 dealing with the most vulnerable, that’s debatable, because we also have a childcare…which is across the 38 street from where the proposed project. 39 So, as it is right now, although there has been a heavier presence of the police, thankfully to the 40 communication that Hickory Village, the Chief, and the officers have been having. They’ve been trying 41 to build those connections and work on the relationship. So, that has been happening within the last year 42 or so. 43 896 Section D, Item 1. 33 But, the only reason that I would say that…actually, let me go back. Seth brought up that there’s 1 been extensive outreach. I’m going to call that out as a blatant lie, because although this project was 2 proposed for years, I’ve heard 2014, 2017, 2018, it wasn’t until this past year, year and a couple months, 3 that the Hickory Village residents and North College residents were actively talked to by the Rescue 4 Mission. And that wasn’t initiated by them, it was initiated because the residents noticed that there 5 wasn’t Spanish speaking material sent out to their community. They were not invited to these community 6 meetings, and then when it was held, it was in English, and that was highlighted. And the only reason 7 that it was held in Spanish is because it was brought up to the Mayor’s attention and she asked for an 8 additional meeting. The meeting that was held at Lee Martinez was very exclusionary despite the 9 language that was shared, because the people were told, this is done, it’s not going to happen. There was 10 tons false information that was handed out that day. 11 In the end, it was the residents themselves that had to find out about this process, about public 12 comment, about the Commission, and how it works. They had to dig that up. There was a lot of things 13 that they thought, and by they, I say whoever was behind this project, that they thought they could pass it 14 under because this community doesn’t speak Spanish [sic], they’re immigrants, some of them have mixed 15 status. And I truly, honestly see this as intentional on behalf of whoever wanted to push this thinking that 16 these residents that are here were not going to say something. This is happening because they’re saying 17 something. Thank you. 18 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you, Patricia. We’ll go to this side please. 19 JOE ROWAN: Good evening, Madam Commissioner, members of the Board, my name is Joe 20 Rowan, live in Fort Collins, worked in downtown for the last twenty some years. But, my professional 21 career spent…roughly twenty-five years in community development finance, specifically working with 22 organizations that develop housing that serves very low-income, including homeless shelters and 23 domestic abuse facilities. 24 And I can tell you that one of the keys to success to these projects that I’ve seen over the years is 25 where you have a very strong operator that is committed to making sure that the use of the facility is 26 compatible, as best they can, with the surrounding community, and where they actually do take their 27 responsibilities very seriously, for not just what’s happening inside the building, but around the building. 28 And what we’ve seen over the years, is that, again, a lot of the same concerns you’re hearing tonight are 29 alleviated by the fact that you have a strong operator that is maintaining order around their building, the 30 perimeters. Because the troublemakers don’t want to be around that; they’re not going to be around a 31 facility with seventy cameras, they’re not going to be around a facility that has a direct link to the police 32 department to address any concerns…those start to diminish. And so, what you actually see is you start 33 to create a little bit of a bubble around these facilities, simply because they are so well operated. And 34 again, this is communicated among the transient community; they communicate with each other 35 frequently, and quickly. 36 And so, what it really comes down to, when you look at what was presented to you tonight, you 37 have a project that is absolutely in compliance with your Land Use Code, North College Plan. The real 38 question is compatibility. And so, when we look at that, consider that any parcel in this community, 39 you’re going to hear the same concern. Tell me one parcel in this community where you would have a 40 neighborhood that would embrace the idea of it. And so, you really can’t base your decision upon 41 speculative behavior, because certainly any business in town, or any development in town, could be used 42 for illegal purposes. You can’t take that into consideration, you can’t foretell what’s going to happen. 43 You simply have to go by what is in your Code, and you can’t change the rules because of the nature of 44 897 Section D, Item 1. 34 the request. You really have to go by what is accepted. Now, if this highlights maybe some 1 shortcomings in our Land Use Code, that needs to be addressed going forward, but it can’t be applied 2 retroactively. And so, with that, I would say there’s really very little that you’ve heard tonight and in 3 your packets that would suggest that this doesn’t meet exact to the Code: the Land Use Code and the 4 North College Plan. So, I ask for your endorsement tonight. Thank you. 5 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you very much. We’ll turn to this side please. 6 NINA RUBIN: Nina Rubin with the Fort Collins Area Interfaith Council. I have been working in 7 Fort Collins in collaboration and consultation with most all of our non-profits at some point over the last 8 forty-five years and have been working in human services as well. I take very seriously the concerns of 9 the residents of those parks, and I know they’re living in fear. But, I also know that’s not because of the 10 Rescue Mission. I’ve worked with the Rescue Mission; I’m one of those people who sent people there in 11 the middle of the night, and my impression is, if you have a neighbor who is there 24/7 with staff that’s 12 trained in trauma-informed care, and staff that is able to deescalate, and staff that has the police on speed 13 dial at all times, that’s a good neighbor. 14 The concerns that the neighborhood has are realistic, and they’re happening, but they’re 15 happening without the Rescue Mission. I suggest that having the Rescue Mission there actually has the 16 potential to assist the neighborhood in monitoring what’s going on and getting more attention to what 17 their concerns are, not less. 18 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you very much. We’ll go to this side please. 19 JARED STALLONES: Thank you, my name is Jared Stallones, I live in 80524. And I want to 20 start by saying that my neighbors and I support and appreciate the work that the Rescue Mission does. 21 We consider it an asset to Fort Collins and to the clients they serve. Those clients are our neighbors, and 22 we should help our neighbors when they are in need, and we believe that. In fact, we hope the Rescue 23 Mission ultimately is so successful that it works itself out of business; I think that’s all of our hope. 24 However, the talk around this project for months has been compatibility, context, and I want to 25 quote a little bit from the City staff report that was in your packet tonight. The purpose statement of the 26 building and project compatibility section is to, quote, ensure that the physical and operational 27 characteristics of proposed buildings and uses are compatible when considered within the context of the 28 surrounding area. The staff has focused, rightfully so, because this is their job, on minutely looking at the 29 Code and dealing with it in the most mechanical ways that they can. Because they have to leave the 30 decision of ultimate interpretation up to you, the Commissioners, that’s your job. 31 The…we believe that the staff errs in interpreting project compatibility solely in terms of the built 32 environment. It’s not possible to assess compatibility with the context of the surrounding area without 33 considering the impact of social and behavioral issues. In fact, that is the operational function of the 34 Rescue Mission, dealing with social and behavioral issues, so, we can’t divorce those two things. The 35 impact of social and behavioral issues is precisely why we restrict certain operations in certain areas 36 across the country; it’s why we don’t allow certain businesses to operate in the proximity of schools or 37 churches, it’s why we don’t allow some types of businesses in parts of town, or in the city at all. 38 The North College community already experiences the impact of social and behavioral issues 39 from the concentration of social services in the area, and we bear the brunt of this for the entire city. And 40 as the applicant said, that’s not solely our job. I was surprised in fact to find that this has been a concern 41 for the City since 2006. This is the wrong location for this type of facility simply put. It’s impossible to 42 898 Section D, Item 1. 35 mitigate the impact of social and behavioral issues related to the applicants’ operation in the same way 1 that we could alter drainage channels or parking spaces. It’s simply irreconcilably incompatible with the 2 North College community. So, we urge the Commission to deny the application. Thank you. 3 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you very much. We’ll go to this side please. 4 DON BUTLER: I’m Don Butler, I’m at Cottonwood Plaza, 1415 North College, for over fifty 5 years. Nobody wants it in their backyard, but it’s okay to put it in lower income area in the city. Thanks 6 for hearing about what we have to say. Please keep an open mind and do what’s best for our area. Safety 7 is the big concern for these kids. Right now, they have to be with their kids, or they cannot go out and 8 play for safety. They love their kids, and what’s it going to be like when they bring in another two 9 hundred and fifty more homeless people. North Fort Collins is the low-income area in the city; don’t 10 dump it in our area and hurt the hard-working citizens of this area. 11 This has been a stacked deck from the get-go. We have been working with the City for thirty 12 years to make it a lot better. We started out with Coats and Boots and Project Smile to help the poor kids. 13 I have spent eighteen years as the director of Coats and Boots. Now, the City is paying us back for our 14 hard work…I don’t think the City Council really cares. They helped to get the land where they want to 15 build this homeless shelter thinking we wouldn’t care; they could just slip it in on us. They didn’t even 16 give Hickory Village a heads up about the building until they got it bought, and then…I’m going to skip 17 down here, I don’t have much time left. 18 They need to set up a new group to find the right place. I talked to a few of the people that was 19 on that committee; they tell me it was a stacked deck, planned deal, before they build it in north Fort 20 Collins…or when they planned it to be built in north Fort Collins. I think they should start over and do it 21 right. I would like to say that the low-income citizens of Hickory Village deserve a lot better. We have 22 worked hard to get the north Fort Collins to be like the rest of the city. I ask god for you to do the right 23 thing, and we should support a homeless shelter in the right area. And, I think nobody in their right mind 24 would put a homeless shelter with two hundred kids across the fence and think they can live with 25 themselves. That’s not the way I was raised, and I really care about these people because we’re the 26 forgotten part of the whole city, it always has been. I’ve been out there so many years that I’ve seen 27 everything, and you can’t believe what we put up with right now. And when they get here, the homeless 28 shelter, they’re all going to be along the street just like they are at the Denver Mission. And so, I suggest 29 that you start over and do this right… 30 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you very much. We’ll go to this side please. 31 SAMANTHA STEGNER: I’m Samantha Stegner, I’m here today as a resident, so everybody is 32 clear on that. I just want to address that, yes, I do feel that we need a shelter. I’ve also explained, too, 33 that I think sometimes some things in the south should be examined. For example, residents on my end of 34 town take twenty, thirty minutes to get to resources of any kind. So, something to think on. 35 I also feel like the amount of homeless individuals was incorrect when it was stated. I was 36 recently at a focus group for the homelessness, and somebody from PSD had said that there was about 37 fifteen hundred kids and families in PSD alone that are not accounted for that are homeless right now. 38 So, my question is, is why is this just a men’s shelter when we have such a bigger need. 39 There has been lack of what I feel has been community engagement from the start and mistakes 40 have been made, and even one of those public meetings was actually held by…leader. I don’t see how a 41 conversation with one person, or arranging meetings with residents that couldn’t make it when even 42 899 Section D, Item 1. 36 asking for time adjustments, was actually valid for a community meeting. I’m not comfortable with the 1 thoughts that this can expand past two hundred and fifty beds from what I just heard, I think. Maybe I 2 heard it incorrect…it could be used as overflow. 3 I just want to put out, too, that you know, the people being affected…there’s two hundred and 4 four lots at Hickory alone, twenty lots at Stonecrest, three hundred and twenty-one lots and North 5 College, which is a fifty-five and older community, and three hundred and forty-four lots at Poudre 6 Valley. If you add just lots, that’s a thousand people being affected; we know there’s more people in each 7 of those homes. Then you add in the rest of the community around them. Remember that there’s other 8 people being affected by this. We get tons of pages about bees, and birds, and everything else, but 9 where’s the human impact that needs to come into Planning and Zoning from the…on things. 10 We’re already fighting battles of our own in our mobile home communities. As you know, I 11 battle this daily in trying to get rights for the things that we need. As has been stated, it’s not their fault , 12 but it’s what we battle. From landlords that are absent, we need safe water, we need kids to stop playing 13 in raw sewage, and we can’t even have fences for our own safety. When I asked if they’d be willing to 14 put a fence up around Hickory for us, they told me they weren’t out to make billionaires more money. 15 We can’t even put them up on our own. We have predatory towing and so much more. As you know, we 16 have our own internal struggles going on in each of these communities, that not even the City and County 17 can step in to help us with. Please don’t add to it by this. Remember the trauma-informed…this trauma 18 is already causing trauma for our kids and families, and by bringing this in, you’re going to cause more. 19 Thank you guys very much for your time. 20 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you. Go ahead please. 21 LISA CUNNINGHAM: Hi, my name is Lisa Cunningham, I live in 80524. I’ve been a resident 22 of Fort Collins since 2008. I’m here in support of this application and hope you approve it. There’s 23 never a good location for a homeless shelter. I used to be an operations director for an agency that ran 24 homeless shelters in two small cities in California that were about sixty-five thousand in population. And 25 my experience with that is that people have a lot of fear around having a homeless shelter in their 26 neighborhood, a ton of opposition, a ton of fear about crime. And once the homeless shelters go into the 27 community, and you have a proven track record to operate a very well-run shelter, the opposition 28 disappears. And, in fact, these shelters often become a source of pride, actually, a nexus of community 29 pride that we are taking care of our vulnerable citizens, and it actually becomes an asset in these 30 neighborhoods. So, it’s a very common experience to have a lot of opposition before it’s in, and once it’s 31 in, assuming you have a well-run operation like the Fort Collins Rescue Mission has proven to be, the 32 opposition has gone away. That’s my experience. 33 I’d also like to point out, in this county, we have an incredible state-of-the-art gorgeous animal 34 shelter, if you’ve ever toured it. If you ever have been in our homeless shelters in town, they are run 35 down, they’re crowded, they’re very…they’re just operating on a shoestring. And I would like to think 36 that this community can stand up and take care of our human neighbors as well as we take care of our cats 37 and our dogs. Thank you. 38 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you very much. Alright, we’ll go to this side please. 39 PAULA STEARNS: Yes, I’m Paula Stearns, and I live in 80524. I actually live on the North 40 College area not too far east of the proposed shelter, so I frequent the businesses, I’m in there a lot. And 41 I’ve heard a lot of the concerns. 42 900 Section D, Item 1. 37 But I strongly feel that this shelter will in fact alleviate many of the concerns by broadly 1 addressing the challenges faced by people who need to find a place to sleep every single night. This 2 carefully designed shelter will address many of the issues these unhoused people face while supporting 3 them as they transition to stable housing, so it’s not just an overnight shelter, but there will be more 4 services and things involved with that, as well as working with other community organization close by. 5 And I know that business members care, and I think this project will help them be a better steward of the 6 North College corridor, because I think that if people don’t have to worry about where to sleep every 7 night, there will be…and they have a definite place that they can go to that will actually help alleviate 8 some of the challenges related to people sleeping in the riverways, alleys, and trespassing during the day, 9 because there will be some focused activities for them. 10 And the City…I know this process took a long time, but there was a lot of people involved. It 11 was right before COVID, then kind of during COVID, so I think it made it look more disjointed in terms 12 of looking at sites around the city. And in fact, this was the…really the only one that ended up really 13 being available. 14 It’s very respectfully designed to…for the individuals and their issues, and it’s going to be much 15 safer than…I think it’s actually going to be safer for the community as well. With all the amendments 16 they’ve made to the initial way they built it, and then I think adding more things, it’s going to be a very 17 safe place for the community. There’s going to be more lights, there’s going to be a lot more people 18 there, there’s going to be guards around 24/7, and so I think the community will actually feel a lot safer 19 rather than less safe once this is put in place. So, I strongly endorse the Fort Collins Rescue Mission, and 20 I think also the other thing that’s been pointed out but also is important, that they have a stellar record, 21 Fort Collins Rescue Mission, of doing work in this community, working with the businesses in the Fort 22 Collins downtown area, and I know they’ll do a very good job, and I know that they’re open to 23 conversation, and continued conversation, and that we as a community will hold them to that to continue 24 to make this the best it can be for our North College community where I live, actually, and work, and 25 play, and everything. Thank you very much. 26 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you, Paula. We’ll go to this side please. 27 CHUCK HUBBARD: My name is Chuck Hubbard, I am with Together Colorado Larimer 28 County, we are a faith-based organizing organization, and I also represent Our Saviour’s Lutheran Church 29 here in Fort Collins, with the Fort Collins Interfaith Council, and I urge your approval of this project. 30 I totally agree with the last two speakers. Leadership, leadership, leadership is so important, and 31 we have very sound leadership with regard to the Rescue Mission. And you heard, even tonight, from 32 police officers, that they have an excellent working relationship with the Rescue Mission. They are doing 33 excellent work right now. And it’s normal, just as you heard, for people to have fear around the 34 placement of a shelter, but some people aren’t overly intimidated. This is a picture taken from the corner 35 of the shelter, and if you look across Jefferson and Linden, Linden’s going this way, Jefferson this way, 36 you might be able to see a bridal shop. Now, think of that, a bridal shop. That bridal shop went in there 37 six years ago…excuse me, eight years ago. The Mission has been there twelve years; they would have 38 known that the Mission was going to be caddy-corner to themselves. This bridal shop has done excellent 39 business apparently. It was the best bridal shop in Fort Collins, 2021, 2022. I went in there and talked to 40 the attendant, and I asked, have you ever had any trouble with the people associated with the Mission? 41 She said, you know, I walk past that place every day, and nobody pays any attention to me. She almost 42 sounded disappointed, to be honest. 43 901 Section D, Item 1. 38 The Union Bar and Soda Fountain is directly across the street. Now, that’s a pretty exclusive 1 thing, fifteen dollars you might pay for a milkshake…it’s really, really good, but you’re going to pay. 2 And so, I talked to the manager, and he said, you know, I really appreciate what the leadership of the 3 Mission did just not too long ago; they changed the way they processed their clients, their guests. They 4 no longer are outside on the street as they are… 5 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: You have thirty seconds. 6 CHUCK HUBBARD: Oh, thirty seconds. They’re no longer outside on the street, you know, 7 where they could get into a scuffle, or an argument, or something like that. They now have a process 8 whereby people have to call in, and then there’s a lottery. The guests are now…they come right in 9 between five and seven o’clock. It shows sensitivity to the community. You have good leadership, and 10 you will have a fine shelter in the proposed location. Thank you. 11 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you, Chuck. 12 BRAD YATABE: Madam Chair, if…Mr. Hubbard, could you leave that photograph for the 13 record? 14 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you. 15 CHUCK HUBBARD: Yes, please. 16 BRAD YATABE: Thank you. 17 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you. Alright, we’ll go to my left side of the room, go ahead. 18 JASON SMITH: Jason Smith, also from the incredibly popular 80524 here tonight. As far as the 19 zoning aspect of it, and planning, and having experience in community development in the past, I think 20 Clay can attest to this, through that process, there’s no place for the term NIMBY. But, as far as the 21 actual planning, the fit in the community, from that standpoint, the building, it does fit the 22 northern…north Colorado access corridor. And the biggest reason is transportation, which Transfort, 23 nobody has mentioned, has also planned on making this a congruent project with their further plans. 24 As far as…so, you’re going to have that congruence, and he just had a picture of the current 25 shelter with zero buffered space. This provides ample buffered space for the surrounding community. 26 The other thing, too, is, with the talk of the 24/7, that’s a little misleading, because the current shelter 27 already has curfews in place, so it’s not like one of your bars or nightclubs where there are people in and 28 out all night. So, that’s not something that this shelter would have happening anywhere around there. 29 As far as diversity and inclusion, pretty much everybody that uses the shelter, they can speak 30 multiple languages…they would speak different languages, come from different places, so there’s no 31 exclusion based on that. So, I don’t know where other members of the community where homeless 32 people that they know stay, but pretty much everybody…this will be open for everybody there. 33 And then, really the most important thing is the beds. Did you hear about the beds? That’s a 34 steppingstone for most people to either continue with their job, if they’ve lost their housing to have a 35 place. When people apply for housing, they don’t get that housing the next day; they need a place to plan 36 for that. Other people get off the streets for different reasons, it helps them plan to maybe go into some 37 type of addiction help that they get, maybe they have spiritual needs, to go off on that aspect. But really, 38 it is to get people off the street, and day shelter, that’s the community visual impact. It gets all those 39 people off the street and gives them a place to go so they’re not just out there doing nothing. 40 902 Section D, Item 1. 39 And then a surprise, real quick, the gentleman in blue in the…from the opening…his name is 1 Eric; he actually used…I know him, personally…he actually stayed over there and now he has permanent 2 housing. And he wouldn’t have been able to do that if he didn’t have that bed to be able to make a 3 permanent transition. So, thanks everybody. 4 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you very much. Alright, we’ll go back to this side of the room. 5 STEFANIE BERGANINI: Good evening, Commissioners, thanks so much for all of your time 6 tonight and for the opportunity to speak. My name is Stefanie Berganini, and I’m a resident of district 7 one. I’m also a member of the Affordable Housing Board, and I am speaking tonight in that capacity. 8 The Affordable Housing Board supports this project, and voted at our most recent meeting to send 9 someone to speak on our behalf, and that’s me. 10 The Affordable Housing Board’s purview includes advising City Council on issues related to 11 housing and homelessness in our city, and it also includes providing education and outreach on those 12 topics to the public and to other Boards and Commissions. We know that Fort Collins is in a housing 13 crisis with a shortage of housing inventory, especially when it comes to affordable housing options. We 14 also know that we’re seeing increased income inequality and financial precarity for people at both 15 national and local levels. Homelessness is a result of those systemic factors, and something that we 16 should proactively be prepared for as a city and factor into our overall housing strategy. 17 We know that our existing shelter system is drastically insufficient to provide enough 18 space…excuse me…safe, overnight space for Fort Collins residents going through homelessness. We 19 also know that Fort Collins desperately needs a day shelter that is better equipped to provide meals, 20 bathroom and shower facilities, connections to services, and other essential needs. 21 The Affordable Housing Board supports this project because it provides three important things in 22 our housing system: critically needed overnight shelter capacity, safe accessible space for people to be so 23 that they aren’t forced to spend their days and nights in public spaces and neighborhoods, and third, 24 stabilization that helps people achieve housing and sustainability move back out of homelessness. The 25 Affordable Housing Board knows that an expanded home for the Rescue Mission is a critical part of 26 helping Fort Collins address is housing crisis, and something that our city desperately needs. Thank you. 27 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you very much. Alright, we’ll go back to this side of the room 28 please. 29 RONNIE CASIAS: Ronnie Casias, 80524. First of all, I just want to say that homelessness is just 30 an identity. Homelessness isn’t any different than you or me; it’s just an identity that people have 31 because they don’t have a place to sleep at night. As far as the Mission, I just want to say that I got hit by 32 a car about two years ago, and the State of Colorado put me on Social Security, but they only give me 33 nine hundred and fourteen dollars. I can’t afford to pay any more rent than that, so I’m at the Mission 34 myself, and I’m there because I want affordable housing because I can’t afford it. If I could afford it, I 35 would have a home just like you guys do. 36 What I’m trying to say is that, the Mission alone has changed my life; it’s given me dignity and 37 my self-respect back. I lost my ID and everything that I had. Through the homeless Mission, I have 38 gotten all my documents back. I spend most of my time in church. The people, as well, are so…they’re 39 strict and they’re hard, but they’re very loving and caring. We all need help…it can happen to any one of 40 us…anything could happen to us…we could be…you could be homeless too, and you will need that same 41 903 Section D, Item 1. 40 place to sleep. I’m just saying that we need the homeless shelter, we need it bad, because it does change 1 lives. Our mission statement for the homeless shelter is changing lives, so let’s change some lives. 2 I don’t know too much about the crime, and I don’t know too much about zoning and all this 3 other stuff, but I know that that Mission, the one that I’m in right now, today, changed my life for the 4 greater. And now I’m leading by example, and I’m changing other peoples’ lives. Just because of that 5 one place that let me sleep at night, for one night, they changed my life. Now I’ve been there for a few 6 months waiting for affordable housing. I can’t go anywhere to try to get affordable housing; I don’t have 7 the money. So, keep that Mission open, build another one, do whatever it takes, because they do change 8 lives. I’m living proof. Thank you very much. 9 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you very much. Alright, we’ll go back to this side, thank you. 10 DEWAYNE BARTON: Hello, Commissioners, I just wanted to say that the Fort Collins Rescue 11 Mission… 12 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Could you please introduce yourself? 13 DEWAYNE BARTON: Oh, I’m DeWayne Barton. I’m a resident at the Rescue Mission. And 14 because of them, I’m hopefully about back on my feet, and have my own place again, possibly with a 15 couple other people, because I’m also on Social Security disability, so I don’t have much money myself, 16 either. I’m a paranoid schizophrenic. And, case management, and all the stuff is really good. They are 17 strict, like Ronnie said, you know, you better do what you’re supposed to do, or you’re not going to have 18 that reserved bed, you know what I mean? And, so, I don’t have a lot to say, but I do want to say that the 19 Rescue Mission is a good thing and it’s not a bad thing. Thank you very much. 20 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you, DeWayne. Alright, we’ll go back to this side please. 21 CHARLIE MESSERLIAN: My name is Charlie Messerlian. I sent in an email. I was able to 22 make it here, so I wasn’t sure if I was going to. But, the purpose…I’m just going to ad lib this thing. The 23 purpose of this letter is to make the Planning and Zoning Commission aware of the complete 24 interpretation of Section 3.5.1 of the Code, which is about the compatibility end of things. Which is, you 25 know, we hear all these pretty words, and all these anecdotal stories, and so forth, but, it really…it should 26 mean nothing to you guys because your job is to interpret the Code, correct? 27 So, anyway, so Code dictates in clear and unequivocal wording that it is to ensure that the 28 physical and operational characteristics of the proposed buildings, and the uses, are compatible when 29 considered within the context of the surrounding area. And, contrary to the narrative being presented, this 30 is not limited to lighting and the noise of just that building…it should encompass the whole 31 neighborhood, not just the, you know, fifty-foot, or hundred-foot perimeter around the place, or whatever 32 they’re thinking. 33 Another part of your compatibility code is privacy considerations, which I quoted out of it, it 34 says, elements of the development plan shall be arranged to maximize the opportunity for privacy, and to 35 minimize infringement on the privacy of the adjoining land uses. And there’s no way to make that stretch 36 that you’re not infringing on the neighborhood, on these kids. These people are terrified, they want to 37 raise their kids in a decent way, have a decent life, and to pretend that you’re not infringing on it , is a hell 38 of a stretch as far as I’m concerned. 39 So, as far as that section goes, about the infringement, the answer we get when quizzed about this 40 infringement angle, is to call the police. If you don’t like it, if there’s a problem, you call the police. 41 904 Section D, Item 1. 41 Well, that’s not any kind of an answer. You know, and I know the police to a pretty good job about it, but 1 if this Rescue Mission wasn’t here, wasn’t going to be built here, there wouldn’t be…there’d be a lot less 2 opportunities that come up where you have to call the police. So, but, that answer doesn’t give anybody 3 any warm and fuzzy feelings, knowing what these…some of these homeless people are capable of. 4 I’ve lived it for thirty-five years on pretty much ground zero at the corner of College and Vine 5 selling trucks, and it’s a weekly occurrence. There’s always some kind of disruptive behavior. Last week 6 they threw a rock through a windshield, that’s three hundred dollars. A few months ago, they burned the 7 inside of a truck; it’s constant. So, anyway, further on in this letter, I go, this disaster…it never should 8 have…am I out of time? 9 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: You’re out of time, Charlie. Sorry, thank you. We do have your 10 documentation, thank you. 11 CHARLIE MESSERLIAN: Okay, because I’ve got more to say. 12 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Yes, next please. 13 SARAH MURPHY: Good evening, Commissioners, my name is Sarah Murphy. I appreciated 14 the thoughtful and thorough presentations today, and my comments are in support of approving the 15 shelter without undue delays. As a renewable energy project myself, I understand the care, due diligence, 16 community engagement, and myriad consideration that come with any development, especially ones with 17 strong social stigma. I’ve also volunteered with unhoused people and urge our community to view this as 18 an opportunity to help our fellow humans rather than rejecting any and all plans without feasible 19 alternative solutions. The problem of unhoused people in public spaces and our housing affordability 20 crisis will not cease if we are too paralyzed to act and keep saying, what if, what if, what if, and delaying, 21 and delaying, and delaying. 22 I urge you to support the proposal in front of you today, take reasonable concerns into 23 consideration, and accept that there will always be concerns that will not be appeased, but the Mission 24 will try. This shelter won’t solve everything but is a great step in the right direction. In this case, the 25 well-planned, practical solution in front of you is also the most compassionate, and I urge you to approve 26 it today. Thank you. 27 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you, Sarah. Alright, we’ll go back to this side. 28 LYLE SMITHGRAYBEAL: Hi there, Lyle Smithgraybeal is my name. Thank you to you 29 Commissioners for all the volunteering you’re doing this evening and so much. I actually represent the 30 Northern Colorado Continuum of Care, which is a forty-member organization that spans both Larimer 31 and Weld Counties. It’s co-managed by United Way of Weld County and Homeward Alliance, and I’m 32 actually an employee of United Way of Weld County. We work very closely with Fort Collins Rescue 33 Mission and all the other partners, including City of Fort Collins. Allison Hade actually is on the 34 governing board, she spoke earlier. She’s a Fort Collins resident. 35 And so, we are certainly in favor of this because it is a step towards ending homelessness for a 36 number of people. I think one of the numbers that Seth gave earlier that’s the most important, is that in 37 their last fiscal year, seventy-five people…they helped seventy-five people get back into housing. And 38 those are the people that they know that got back into housing. There’s many people that will use the 39 shelter for a few nights, and then they will go. Actually, we run an overnight shelter, United Way of 40 Weld County does, it’s called the Housing Navigation Center; it’s located in Greeley. And last year, we 41 had five hundred people stay overnight at the shelter during the cold weather season. Well, we only have 42 905 Section D, Item 1. 42 sixty beds in that shelter. So, we don’t have sixty people staying every night. What happens is that 1 people use the shelter for a few nights, they figure out what’s next, and then they go to what’s next. So, 2 there is an in and out of overnight shelter, but there are longer term cases that we work with, and we do 3 help them get back into housing. 4 Another experience that we’ve had, we’ve actually run that…the Housing Navigation Center…in 5 two neighborhoods, one in Evans, which is a mix of commercial, business, and residential, and the current 6 one is more business, more retail, and we also ran a third shelter, it was a 24/7 shelter, during COVID on 7 a former…is a…they do housing for older adults, but they had an empty apartment, and we ran a forty-8 unit apartment as a 24/7 shelter during COVID. And for all three of those experiences, the main thing 9 was to be a good neighbor, to talk with the businesses, to talk with the residents, to have a security 10 presence, and to be a good neighbor, to be very vigilant on that. And it does sound like Fort Collins 11 Rescue Mission is doing that. And so, for me, that’s all the more reason to be positive towards this 12 request and to approve it. 13 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you very much. Alright, back to the center. 14 SUE MCFADDIN: Hi, my name is Sue McFaddin and I live in north Fort Collins, and I think the 15 great thing about tonight is you heard how compassionate the whole community is about the homeless 16 shelter, and I really don’t think there’s any negative comments about Seth or the Rescue Mission. We all 17 believe that we need a homeless shelter. My only thing is the location of it is something that was pre-18 planned by Jeff Mihelich a long time ago, and it just really doesn’t work for north Fort Collins. I’m a 19 green developer; I’ve developed commercial properties and residential properties in north Fort Collins, 20 and I’ve served on Housing Catalyst for four years; I was the Vice Chair, and I’ve served on the 21 development committee, I’ve served on the Energy Board, I’ve served on the state’s utility board, I was 22 the principal investigator for homelessness for Jefferson County and for the Lowry redevelopment, like 23 three decades ago. So, I’ve been in homelessness for a long, long time. 24 But, what’s different is that when I was on Housing Catalyst board, we looked at permanent 25 supportive housing, and we built two really good facilities: Mason Place and Redtail Ponds. And the 26 criteria for our siting there was that it would be away from large populations. If you know where Redtail 27 Ponds is, it’s down below Woodlee’s Furniture on South College, and it was by transit, and it was a 28 perfect spot for permanent supportive housing. And the same thing with Mason Place, it’s up by 29 Safeway, but there’s not two hundred children living in these trailer parks. And the siting for this 30 homeless shelter was just not thought out the same way we thought about it when I was on Housing 31 Catalyst. 32 I also serve on the North Fort Collins Board. Even this morning, the Police Chief came in and 33 told us that they’ve shut down the Budget Motel because of all the fentanyl, and Jax comes in and says 34 that they’re about ready to shut their doors because of all the theft and looting up there. You’re building a 35 homeless shelter right in the middle of four trailer parks. It’s like, you know, you couldn’t pour any more 36 salt in the wound if you possibly tried to do it. There are so many other better places to build this, like on 37 Vine and Redwood, or up on Blue Spruce, but this was a predetermined thing many years ago by Jeff 38 Mihelich, and so we stuck with the site. But there’s so many better places to build this. And please, don’t 39 hurt these poor women that live in the trailer parks that just want to take care of their children. This is the 40 wrong site for it. Thank you. 41 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you, Sue. Is there anyone else here in the room? Looks like 42 we’re good. We’re going to turn now to anyone on Zoom. 43 906 Section D, Item 1. 43 MELISSA MATSUNAKA: Yes, we have a few. First up is Troy Jones, and Mr. Jones, I’m 1 going to allow you to talk in just a moment. Give me a chance…Mr. Jones provided a presentation to 2 staff that made it into your packet, and he would like me to share it. Just a moment. Mr. Jones, you may 3 begin when you’re ready. 4 TROY JONES: Hello, can you hear me? 5 MELISSA MATSUNAKA: Yes. 6 TROY JONES: Yes, I’d like to say a few things. We’ve heard a lot about that this neighborhood 7 has more than its fair share, and that kind of goes back to the whole subarea plan that was done in 2006, 8 and it really cautions that too much concentration of social services in this neighborhood is really 9 something that the plan started to caution against. 10 And so, really one of the main things that I’m trying to get at here is, the intensity of use is really 11 an operational characteristic that is fundamental to what we’ve been talking about tonight…3.5.1(a) of the 12 Land Use Code really has this test, and you’ve heard it from Clark, you’ve heard it from many of the 13 speakers, that you know, the definition of…or, not the definition, but the sentence, where is starts in 14 3.5.1(a), really is this test that says operational characteristics must be compatible within the surrounding 15 neighborhood and the surrounding area. Well, we heard from Seth that they started their thought 16 process…looking at the Denver Mission to say that three hundred beds was probably too much. And if 17 you look at the grant application that they had just last year, in August, they had asked for two hundred 18 beds. And so, tonight we’re hearing two hundred and fifty. It’s kind of been this moving target. But, I 19 guess my point is, the intensity of use…three hundred is obviously too much, even from Seth’s words. I 20 would say two hundred is too much. One of the main things is, you know, they’re closing the eighty-21 nine-bed facility that’s currently there. If they left that open, then they could reduce down that amount, 22 and if they didn’t close the overflow facility, they could reduce it even more. It’s just too much for one 23 neighborhood to expect two hundred and fifty beds, what they’re proposing, or even two hundred. 24 So, kind of in summary, I want to say, if you look at 3.5.1(j), that allows the Commission to 25 impose conditions on the approval to ensure compatibility. And, in ensuring compatibility…they give 26 seven examples in 3.5.1(j), but it says those seven examples may be considerations that you can 27 included…may be. And it doesn’t limit it to those seven physical restrictions. It gives you the 28 opportunity to say, what is an operational characteristic of this development, and the intensity of the use is 29 by all means an operational characteristic. And three hundred beds, they’ve already said is too many. 30 There’s a reasonable number that it’s got to be far less than the two fifty that they’re asking for. And my 31 suggestion is it’s forty-one, if you subtract the two hundred that they originally applied for minus the 32 eighty-nine, minus the seventy, and you get that number, and you’d still have the same number of beds, 33 but you’d spread it out throughout the community as opposed to just putting it in this one neighborhood. 34 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you very much…I guess you still have thirty seconds, my 35 apology. Go ahead. 36 TROY JONES: So, in summary, if you do the thought process of looking first at the subarea plan, 37 then reading 3.5.1(a), and then reading the definition of compatibility in article five of the Land Use 38 Code, and you compare that with 3.5.1(j), which gives you, as the Board, the opportunity to impose 39 conditions. I think the Code’s clear that you have the authority, and I would argue, the responsibility, to 40 limit this thing way less than the number they are asking for. 41 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you, Troy. Are there others? 42 907 Section D, Item 1. 44 MELISSA MATSUNAKA: Yes, next up is Patrick Gaebler followed by Peter Erickson. Mr. 1 Gaebler, you may begin when you are ready. 2 PATRICK GAEBLER: Hi, thanks everybody for your comments…very interesting for both 3 sides. I was just curious, how far do most of the people that are putting in the application live from the 4 proposed site, and do any of the Councilmembers live close to the proposed site? Just something that I 5 was curious about. 6 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: I don’t think that’s in the nature of a public comment. Would you mind 7 just commenting on your views on the proposal? 8 PATRICK GAEBLER: I understand that it’s a very complicated issue. I understand that all 9 members of the community are trying to be considered at the same time, and I understand that it’s hard to 10 take care of everybody at the same time. It just seems like if there’s another option available, and it 11 seems like there have been many options available, then why not do something that can make even more 12 people happy, and please more people of the community rather than marginalizing anybody in the 13 community. So, I would say it needs to be reviewed and start fresh, and I would ask that you do not 14 accept the proposal. 15 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you very much. 16 PATRICK GAEBLER: Thank you. 17 MELISSA MATSUNAKA: Mr. Gaebler, you may begin. 18 PATRICK GAEBLER: That was Mr. Gaebler who just finished. 19 MELISSA MATSUNAKA: Thanks. Mr. Erickson, you may begin. 20 PETER ERICKSON: My name is Peter Erickson; I’m also a resident of 80524, and I’m a 21 volunteer with YIMBY Fort Collins. We’ve heard a lot of concerns tonight about the haphazard way that 22 the City has approached our housing crisis. I share those concerns. We have a Land Use Code that still, 23 even after recent reforms, doesn’t do enough to address the root causes of homelessness, to address the 24 severe shortage of especially affordable housing in our community, or to meet the City’s goals in terms of 25 racial equity and social justice. And it doesn’t do enough to create housing in well-to-do Old Town 26 neighborhoods. There is a basic unfairness here that several speakers have pointed to, and they are 27 correct about that. 28 That being said, Fort Collins Rescue Mission is proposing not just an overnight homeless shelter, 29 but a 24/7 facility that will provide critical services such as medical and mental health care, precisely the 30 kinds of services that could help address the concerns of neighbors. It’s important for shelters to be 31 located near job opportunities and transit, as the Fort Collins Rescue Mission’s proposed location is. 32 Several speakers have said that they support the shelter, they just want it to be built somewhere else. At 33 some point, someone, somewhere, in some neighborhood, has to say, yes. I hope the Zoning and 34 Planning Commission [sic] will approve the proposal. Thank you. 35 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else? 36 MELISSA MATSUNAKA: No, that’ll do it. 37 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Okay. I’ll look again one more time in the room and see if there are 38 any hands? If not, we are going to close our public comment period tonight. I really would like to thank 39 908 Section D, Item 1. 45 everyone that spoke. I have to say some of these were the most thoughtful comments that I’ve heard in a 1 while, being a Commissioner, really focused at the Land Use Code, which is definitely where our focus 2 needs to be tonight. 3 I’d like to turn to staff and the applicant to address matters that were raised by various 4 commenters. If I might go back to my notes on this…perhaps we could start with…I think there were 5 concerns about noise, traffic, two-stories versus one-story, potential that this will be more than a two 6 hundred and fifty bed shelter…so those were some of the early ones. So I’ll turn, Clark, to you first to see 7 if there’s anything you want to address. 8 CLARK MAPES: Not really. I’m not aware of any noise issues associated with this, and the 9 traffic study comes from the infrastructure development plan, actually, the previously approved plan. 10 But, the conclusion of that traffic study was just simply that Mason, which is designated as a collector, 11 could actually function as a local street. There are no traffic…thinking of vehicle traffic…no vehicle 12 traffic issues related to this. So, that’s those two things. 13 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Is there anything the applicant wishes to address? 14 CLAIRE HAVELDA: Thank you, Madam Chair. I think I might start in a little bit of reverse 15 order. We have our traffic engineer here, so I would love to bring her up and have her address the 16 Commission directly. 17 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you. 18 CASSIE SLADE: I’m Cassie Slade with Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, and our office is at 19 1580 Logan Street in Denver. I do hear the concerns that the original traffic study had two hundred beds, 20 and the application now has two hundred and fifty beds. Understand that the way the traffic study was 21 done was we looked at all of the different people that will be coming to the building. The people that are 22 using the beds are not likely going to have a vehicle based on all of the data that we have from other 23 rescue missions and other shelters, they are not bringing in a vehicle and they are not allowed to park on 24 site as we heard earlier. And so, there will not be an increase in traffic, vehicular traffic, with fifty 25 additional beds. Therefore, the conclusions of the traffic study are still valid. 26 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you. 27 CLAIRE HAVELDA: In terms of the two hundred and fifty, would you mind rephrasing the 28 question for me? That is the maximum number, and that would do away with the need for the overflow 29 shelter. 30 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: I think a commenter implied that there may be more than two hundred 31 and fifty beds, or additions at some time in the future. 32 CLAIRE HAVELDA: Absolutely not. I want to be clear about that. And you would also be 33 removing two community service areas: the overflow shelter and the current Jefferson location and 34 trading it out with one. So, we’re not really increasing that exponentially. 35 I also…I do want to speak to compatibility if the Chair would allow me to do that. 36 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Go ahead. 37 CLAIRE HAVELDA: I have a few points, and then I do want to bring up our trauma-informed 38 design team. So, first I want to say that I appreciate the members of our Spanish speaking community 39 909 Section D, Item 1. 46 being here tonight; they are incredibly important voices. Having said that, the presumption that people 1 experiencing homelessness are criminals, or will engage in criminal behavior, flies in the face of equity 2 and inclusion. And I just want that to be clear. This us and them mentality is beneath all of us, and I 3 would ask us to elevate the conversation. 4 I would also note that there is no requirement for a compatibility study in your Code. That would 5 be holding this project to a higher standard than other projects. 6 I also want to note the definition of the Commercial Services area in that…forgive me, I’ve got 7 eight thousand pages of notes…it is a high-traffic commercial corridor, it is not a residential 8 neighborhood. So I just want to reorientate us to that. And then, I won’t read it, but I will point the 9 Commission to the North College Corridor Plan, pages thirty-three and pages thirty-six that talk about the 10 scale that is acceptable for a building in this area, and the idea that contemporary and semi-industrial 11 building styles and materials offer particular opportunities to build up a fitting character which relates to 12 the north downtown setting. That’s part of that Plan. 13 At this time, I would like to bring up Samuel Severance and Reico Ishiwada to talk about the 14 community engagement and interviews that were done when we initiated this trauma-informed design, 15 and how that trauma-informed design meets the compatibility requirements of the Code, and perhaps 16 addressed some of the concerns of the Commission, if we might. 17 SAM SEVERANCE: I’m Sam Severance, once again. I’ll be addressing kind of the community 18 outreach that we did initially that helped inform the trauma-informed design process that has 19 gone…started at the beginning of the project and ran all the way through design, and how that has iterated 20 the design process. I’ll then pass it off to Reico to go over kind of its application to the process, and how 21 that addresses compatibility. 22 So, Shopworks Architecture, as a company, has interviewed more than twenty-five hundred 23 individuals living and serving the unhoused and low-income community. They have informed us that this 24 process is not a one size fits all or checklist solution, but needs to be specifically tailored to the unique 25 needs of the community. In order to do that, what we do is community outreach through our trauma-26 informed design group, and they help inform the design process. That process started in July of 2022. 27 We interviewed guests and staff of the Fort Collins Rescue Mission, as well as ninety-six members of the 28 Fort Collins community, including multiple other service providers, those experiencing homelessness, 29 and neighbors as well. In addition, we were part of a research paper that was done in junction with the 30 University of Denver that interviewed forty-two additional guests and staff, and I believe that that has 31 been entered into the documents provided to you as well. So, we just wanted to raise the fact that we did 32 engage with the community, iterated with them to further inform the design. And now, I’ll pass it to 33 Reico to go over the contents. 34 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Before you go on, Clark, was the proper notice given to all residents of 35 neighborhood meetings? 36 CLARK MAPES: Yes. Code required? Yes. 37 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Was it given in Spanish? 38 CLARK MAPES: The first one was not in Spanish, so that’s right. I was thinking more of the 39 radius of operations. I don’t know…Clay, do you know if the Code requires Spanish for certain projects? 40 But, I mean, that was a failing I guess in the first neighborhood meeting notice that was fixed when…I 41 guess if the neighbors brought it up, good for the neighbors, and then there was another meeting held in 42 910 Section D, Item 1. 47 Spanish with the notice sent in Spanish. But, when I think of the Code requirements, I think of the 1 standard distance…the area of notification. 2 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Maybe I can reframe that. Was there an opportunity for individuals 3 who speak Spanish to attend a neighborhood meeting? Okay. And I want to be sure for everyone in the 4 audience, neighborhood meetings are opportunities to learn about a proposal and to offer feedback on it. 5 It is not a requirement that everything said at the neighborhood meeting be incorporated into a proposal, 6 but it is an opportunity to provide input. And I just want to be sure that we’re clear everyone had a 7 chance to provide input. 8 CLARK MAPES: Yeah, they’re open meetings. The only issue would be that…the only question 9 would be about the first one which was not sent in Spanish…the first time. 10 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: I’ll turn it back to the applicant. 11 SAM SEVERANCE: Yeah, I’d like to turn it over to Reico to discuss the compatibility issue. 12 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Well…go ahead, Shirley. 13 COMMISSIONER PEEL: So, when you say you did outreach…you did out reach to the 14 community, and this is different than neighborhood meetings…and did you consider doing outreach to the 15 people that lived in the area? 16 SAM SEVERANCE: Yes. 17 COMMISSIONER PEEL: You did? And you did do outreach and ask…the mobile home parks, 18 and…? 19 SAM SEVERANCE: I believe we did. I can also check with our trauma-informed design team. 20 COMMISSIONER PEEL: Okay, thank you. 21 SAM SEVERANCE: We also spoke with La Familia, an organization that is local to Fort Collins 22 that does some of this work as well. 23 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Is Em still in the room? 24 CLAY FRICKEY: I haven’t seen Em in a few minutes, but she might be coming back…there she 25 is. 26 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Okay. Em, since we are having a conversation now with City staff and 27 with the applicant, would you please clarify for us whether there was an opportunity for individuals 28 whose native language is Spanish to offer comment. 29 EM MYLER: Yes, at the second neighborhood meeting, which was not only bilingual, but 30 primarily Spanish. 31 COMMISSIONER PEEL: So did they ask for the meeting, or did City staff notice the oversight 32 and set up the meeting? 33 EM MYLER: I’m trying to remember back…and I believe that myself and my supervisor noticed 34 the lack of representation at the first meeting, as well as the fact that we did not get a letter out in Spanish 35 for the first meeting, and went ahead and scheduled a voluntary second neighborhood meeting which 36 would be in Spanish. 37 911 Section D, Item 1. 48 COMMISSIONER PEEL: So, you noticed on your own or because they brought it to your 1 attention? 2 EM MYLER: I don’t recall. 3 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Well, I just want to be sure there was an opportunity. I’m not sure it 4 will benefit us to say it was this postcard or this, but substantively, we want to be sure that our 5 notification process worked as intended and reached the constituents. It sounds like it may have been 6 lumpy, but ultimately all constituents were informed. Is that a fair statement? 7 EM MYLER: I think that’s a valid statement. I think we have created some equity standards 8 since the first neighborhood meeting that didn’t exist at the time when we scheduled that neighborhood 9 meeting. And compared to the standards that we have now…for example, any project where the 10 notification radius hits a mobile home park, we’ll automatically have interpretation and a Spanish letter. 11 It did not meet those internal standards, but there were no Code violations. 12 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Well, I think that’s a good practice going forward. Thank you. 13 Alright, you can go ahead and continue with your comments. We just needed to clear that up. 14 REICO ISHIWADA: My name is Reico Ishiwada; I’m with Shopworks Architecture and I’m an 15 architect. A 24/7 facility is crucial as it provides guests with a reserved bed, reducing stress and helping 16 them move beyond survival mode. Constant access to showers supports their transition out of 17 homelessness. In the first few months of switching to 24/7 operation, sixty men secured jobs, 18 contributing back to the community. As a benefit for the guests includes a place to store their belonging 19 during the day allowing them to attend medical appointments or set up a job interview. 20 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Could I just interrupt…I mean I want to be sure we don’t slip back into 21 a presentation, and we focus on the issue of compatibility. 22 REICO ISHIWADA: Sure. Let me speak about the entrance area, because the congestion of the 23 entrance was an issue. So, we made the lobby large enough to hold like thirty people at one time, so there 24 are no outside people waiting. So, that…compatibility issue. 25 Let me talk about security a little bit. Based on our community feedback, we have significantly 26 enhanced our security measures. This includes over seventy indoor/outdoor cameras that you heard from 27 a few people. We also have a six-foot fence around the facilities as you heard, which…compatible with 28 the neighborhood, to give privacy for both guests and the neighborhood surroundings. We also have a lot 29 of accessibility features within the building…guests with mobility needs. They include dorms and 30 accessibility bathrooms, lockers, laundry facilities. 31 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you, we appreciate that. Does the Commission have any other 32 points that you’d like the applicant or staff to follow up on? No? Okay, it is nearly ten o’clock. We need 33 to go into any final questions and then deliberation. To do that and be fresh, I’d like to take a ten-minute 34 break, and we will return at 10:02. 35 (**Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a brief recess at this point in the meeting and upon 36 reconvening, a portion of the audio was not available for approximately two minutes.) 37 SETH FORWOOD: …Police Services, and they may engage with somebody who may be 38 camping and say, hey, you can come into shelter, and then they escort that individual inside. 39 COMMISSIONER SHEPARD: Thank you. 40 912 Section D, Item 1. 49 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Any other questions on Commission…yes, York? 1 COMMISSIONER YORK: Clark, could you just go over the compatibility definition again so 2 that we have that fresh in our minds? 3 CLARK MAPES: The only main thing that I would add about that is that we’ve seen a lot of 4 commentary on the purpose statement of the section 3.5.1…that’s 3.5.1(a), which is to ensure that 5 physical and operational characteristics of proposed buildings and uses are compatible with considered 6 within the context of the surrounding area. So, that’s the purpose, that’s A, and then B through I are the 7 standards underneath the purpose of the section. And for what it’s worth, staff doesn’t typically, maybe 8 not ever, review a project for compliance with a purpose statement. Rather, we review a project for 9 compliance with the standards, you know, more specific standards about building height and scale, and 10 hours of operation and so on. Let me ask, Clay, do you…would you agree that we don’t really use the 11 purpose statements, or maybe not at all, for compliance? 12 CLAY FRICKEY: To try and be brief, our staff reports now have to have a statement with a 13 finding of fact related to consistency with the purpose statement per the Sanctuary on the Green ruling. 14 What Clark is talking about is really a lot of those purpose statements are codified by subsequent sections 15 of the Land Use Code. And that, if a project is able to comply with the more specific standards found 16 later in the Land Use Code, it is thus consistent with the purpose statement. So, that’s the way staff has 17 operated historically. 18 CLARK MAPES: Now I’m afraid I created some confusion. I’m not talking about the purpose 19 statement of the Land Use Code, 1.2.2, I’m talking about the purpose statement in 3.5.1 and every other 20 section. 21 CLAY FRICKEY: There we go…that’s correct…we look at the specific standards, not the 22 purpose statements. 23 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you for that. Any other questions? Alright, now we turn to that 24 important time of deliberation. So, I’ll turn to Commission members to see if anyone would start to offer 25 their thoughts with respect to this proposal and its alignment with the Land Use Code. Again, I’ll remind 26 the audience that is what we’re assessing tonight, is this proposal’s compliance with the Land Use Code. 27 We will not be assessing, could this, should this be a different location, that’s not the proposal presented 28 to us. So, we’re assessing the proposal at this location with the characteristics and features it has. So, 29 with that, I’ll turn to Commission members to see if anyone would wish to start. Go ahead. 30 COMMISSIONER CONNELLY: Lucky me, I guess I get to start. It seems to me like this 31 proposal was obviously designed with the Land Use Code in mind. It appears to be compliant with the 32 letter of the Code. I’m certainly sympathetic to the public safety concerns, and I share them, especially 33 considering what’s already in that area. But, I believe that it’s compliant with the Land Use Code, and I 34 don’t think it would be appropriate for me to hold this project to a different standard than other similarly 35 situated projects have been held to in the past. So, my intent is to support it. 36 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you very much. Commissioner York? 37 COMMISSIONER YORK: Sure. My intent is to support this proposal, and my main things I was 38 looking at were the areas that were alternative compliance, and I think that…such as with the bicycling 39 and the parking, and that…and while I think there may be need in the future to be more aggressive with 40 that, that this does meet the Code and the compliance standards that we have. And so, looking at it from 41 those points of view from the Land Use Code, I will be supporting it. 42 913 Section D, Item 1. 50 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you very much. Commissioner Shepard? 1 COMMISSIONER SHEPARD: One of the speakers I thought made a point that’s worth 2 repeating, in that no matter where we put this in the community, there will be opposition. I recall that 3 Redtail Ponds didn’t fly through, Mason Place didn’t fly through. There’s a supportive housing non-4 profit on East Harmony Road next to Fairway Estates, it went through about three neighborhood meetings 5 and had some significant opposition at the time of the public hearing. It’s operating now. 6 And another speaker made the point…I don’t know which speaker, but, that a lot of our 7 controversial projects that we’ve seen over the last couple of decades, they seem to settle in after a while 8 from an operational perspective, landscaping matures, the traffic evens out. And I recall lots of 9 controversy with group homes…different scale obviously, but once something is up and running…I recall 10 student-oriented multi-family apartments being vociferously opposed by the established single-family 11 detached neighbors, with lots of personal behavioral attacks that we’ve been advised not to address, and 12 you go by those apartment complexes now, and they’re pretty well run, the landscaping is maintained, the 13 parking doesn’t spill into the streets, and a lot of the fears that were raised at the time of the public 14 hearing never really manifested itself. We had one apartment complex I recall was so controversial, we 15 had plain clothes police officers at the neighborhood meetings. And thank you, police officers, for being 16 her tonight, and your input has been very important. But, that’s how controversial things are when they 17 first are proposed. 18 And there’s been a lot of conversation about scale…I think scale and compatibility are the big 19 issues here. And scale is evolving. When this community was fifty thousand people, the scale was 20 different. When the community was a hundred thousand, the scale evolved with the community. When 21 the city was a hundred and fifty thousand, the scale again evolves. But, think when Park Lane Towers 22 was built in the ‘60’s, and the two office towers, you know, at a hundred and sixty-eight feet…something 23 like that, Clark would know. Think of the scale then, surrounded by little houses on Meldrum Street. So, 24 scale is evolving. We have an issue of scale here, and the applicants have done a really good job with that 25 in terms of designing a building that’s architecturally compatible. Then I’ll speak a little bit later…I think 26 I’ll let some other folks chime in, but I have some things to say about landscape buffering and some of the 27 Land Use Code standards. 28 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Okay, thank you very much. 29 COMMISSIONER PEEL: First I want to say, I think Seth and his staff have done an amazing job 30 with their ministry to the homeless, or people experiencing homelessness in our city. I know that the 31 need for…there’s absolutely a need for a 24/7 shelter in our city. I am impressed with Ripley Design in 32 their trauma-informed design that they came up with; it’s absolutely beautiful. This is a hard vote for me 33 because I question, personally question, the wisdom of placing our most vulnerable population in the 34 midst of another vulnerable population. I believe if Fort Collins was serious about equity, they would 35 disperse this…the resources throughout the city. 36 However, as a Commission member, I have to stay within the purview of the Board, and…before 37 I do into that, I do want to say…this is a side note, but I’m a little disappointed that a good job of bringing 38 our Spanish speaking community along…I don’t think it was a good job. And it sounds like Em is on top 39 of it, and we’re going to do better, and I hope that we do do better. 40 So, as a Commission member, I had a lot of questions about the compatibility piece, and staff has 41 answered my questions very well about that, and it does seem that throughout the history of the Land Use 42 Code, they have just addressed the physical characteristics and not the social/economic impacts 43 914 Section D, Item 1. 51 surrounding it. So, I don’t think that we should depart from that. I think maybe the language in the Land 1 Use Code needs to be a little clearer on that, because there is a little bit of ambiguity. But, that’s a 2 discussion for another time. And so, because this project is, according to the Land Use Code and 3 according to past precedent, I think I have no choice but to support this. 4 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you very much. Commissioner Katz? 5 COMMISSIONER KATZ: This is…if my math is right, its probably my sixtieth and seventieth P 6 and Z hearing, and by far one of the most difficult ones to internally make a decision on. This is a tough 7 on for me personally. I think that there are…I think the design of the shelter is great and fantastic, I think 8 the operation is going to be ran well, but I do think there are ripple effects that go into our community, 9 kind of behind the…beyond the boundaries of this property. That is probably part of my concern. I 10 have…we can’t extrapolate data from anecdotal instances, but there is a transient population, a population 11 that does create nuisances and crimes, and then there was others like some of the people we heard today, 12 like Ryan [sic] and DeWayne. If we could bifurcate and just help those people who really need it, this 13 would be an easy one, but I do have fear that it’s going to attract unsavory characters. 14 I’ve been walking I McMurry Park and fear for my own safety because, you know, that transient 15 population has started to follow me and yell things. You know, I’ve found needles around our 16 community, and I just don’t want to attract more of that to the community that I care about. In the paper 17 this week, there was a shooting at the whitewater park. You know, they lived in a camper on one of the 18 streets, you know, we saw an article a couple months ago about a woman being assaulted by someone that 19 it called out as being a transient in Lee Martinez Park. So, you know, I understand we’re considering the 20 Land Use Code, but I think we have to, you know, think critically even above that for the safety of our 21 residents here. So, this is a very difficult one for me, and I’m still on the fence and undecided. 22 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you very much. Commissioner Shepard, did you have any final 23 comments? 24 COMMISSIONER SHEPARD: I’d like to speak to buffering. I’m looking at the aerial map, and 25 I’ve looked at the site plan, I’ve looked at the packet materials, I’m familiar with this area. I live over by 26 Martinez Park, I’ve been on the Hickory Trail, the Poudre Trail, and some of the open space areas up 27 there. Frequent visitor to The Lyric, Jax Surplus…they don’t call it Surplus anymore…and I enjoy seeing 28 the trucks for sale at Charlie Messerlian’s corner; I’ve always wanted a cement mixer. 29 But, it’s well buffered. There is a significant, what I would call a hedgerow of trees on the west 30 property line which buffers 1601, the 1955 [sic] age plus community, and it’s separated from Hickory 31 Village by the railroad tracks. There’s a nice stand of trees to the south and to the west, and those are 32 pretty significant existing buffers that, in most projects, would have to be planted at one-and-a-half-inch 33 caliper, two-inch caliper, and matured over ten to twenty years, but they’re mature now. So there’s a real 34 benefit of buffering there. And, I also took a look at what the buffering requirements are since we’re in 35 the old Land Use Code, we had the buffering from when an industrial use comes to a residential use, that 36 we have three buffer yard standards, A, B, and C, C being the most rigorous. And this project equals or 37 exceeds buffer yard C as if this were an industrial use, and that’s heavy industrial. A being light 38 industrial, C being heavy industrial. And so, I’m impressed by the buffering that’s already there and 39 doesn’t have to grow to mature, which I think lends to compliance with the compatibility standard. 40 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you very much. I’d like to offer a few comments if I might, and 41 then it sounds like we probably will be asking for a motion, so Commissioners can be thinking about that. 42 915 Section D, Item 1. 52 As I’ve listened tonight, I’ve heard a lot of discussion about homelessness and behavior of 1 individuals who are homeless, and I see it, I’m a frequent visitor to an individual in Hickory Village, so 2 I’ve seen the camping, and I do jog by the river, and I’ve seen tents in there before, but I’ve also seen a 3 fairly significant change in recent times, so I think that credit probably goes to Police Services for 4 reducing some of the issue, even though some of it does still remain. 5 The thing that I want to be sure we don’t confuse is the difference of homelessness and a 6 homeless shelter, because I do think they’re very different. Homelessness is largely unmanaged, it’s the 7 choice of an individual, where are they going to sleep tonight. A homeless shelter is a community for 8 individuals for which they can go do and be provided services, and to me, that’s important because I don’t 9 know how we get rid of the issue of homelessness unless we have homeless shelters that provide the level 10 of service needed to transition individuals to another level. So, I just wanted to offer that, because I do 11 distinguish the two. 12 And I would like to give credit to Police Services, first of all for being here tonight, I think that 13 speaks volumes in terms of your commitment to this issue and our city, but also for what we learned 14 about this particular shelter and its history with you, and that there’s a good relationship. I think if there 15 wasn’t a relationship, then this issue of compatibility would be really, really, really, really big for me 16 because I wouldn’t know what to expect. I think I know what to expect after hearing the testimony 17 tonight. I do think compatibility, as it’s written in the Land Use Code, and as presented to us tonight and 18 discussed, is pretty clear. It doesn’t address behavioral issues or social and economic impacts. Some 19 would say maybe it should be amened to do that, I don’t know, I think that’s speculative, but my 20 assessment tonight is that it does not address those things, so we have to go with the little reading of the 21 Land Use Code. And in doing that, I find everything to be supportive of approval of this proposal based 22 on my interpretation of the Land Use Code. So, I think I will stop there and ask Commission members if 23 anyone is willing to make a motion either in favor of or against this proposal. 24 COMMISSIONER KATZ: Before that, Julie, I just want to thank you for helping to clarify 25 between the homeless shelter and the homelessness. If this is approved or not, I don’t know if these 26 problems we have are going to get worse, but they may get better. I do want to state, for the record, I’m a 27 devout supporter of the North College business community, and I sympathize with them. But the one 28 public comment…that keeps sticking with me, it was commented by Joe R, who said, we can’t base a 29 decision on speculative behavior, and that’s one thing that I wrote down that I kept reading that’s kind of 30 driving me to potentially support this. So, thank you, Julie. 31 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Commissioner York? 32 COMMISSIONER YORK: I move the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve 33 the Fort Collins Rescue Mission combined project development plan, final development plan, 34 FDP230022, with the following conditions: that the final development plan will not be signed by the City 35 until all final development plan requirements are met as determined by the Director of Community 36 Development and Neighborhood Services. Furthermore, the following operational standards are imposed 37 on the project pursuant to the Land Use Code 3.5.1(j)…wait a minute…the Commission finds that in 38 consideration of the… 39 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Do you want to retract that sentence? 40 COMMISSIONER YORK: Yeah, I want to retract that sentence, sorry. 41 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you. 42 916 Section D, Item 1. 53 COMMISSIONER YORK: The Commission finds that in consideration of the conditions of 1 approval and the operational standards that the project complies with all the applicable Land Use Code 2 requirements. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented 3 during the work session and this hearing, and the Commission discussion on this item. Further, this 4 Commission hereby adopts the information and analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions regarding this 5 project contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing. 6 BRAD YATABE: If I could suggest, there were no operational standards imposed…I think if you 7 just retract the mention of that… 8 COMMISSIONER YORK: …should retract that part, sorry. Yes, I’ll retract that part. 9 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: So, just to restate, the motion is a motion of approval without 10 conditions and without the inclusion of the term ‘and operational standards,’ just so every Commission 11 member is clear. Do we have a second? 12 BRAD YATABE: I’m sorry, I would say there is one condition… 13 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Oh, excuse me, yes, with one condition. What I’d like to do for the 14 sake of the record, because this has gotten a little messy. Could you re-read the motion please? 15 COMMISSIONER YORK: Okay. I will attempt to do this. I move the Fort Collins Planning and 16 Zoning Commission approve the Fort Collins Rescue Mission combined project development plan, final 17 development plan, FDP… 18 EM MYLER: I’m so sorry, do you mind reading it a little bit slower, I think it’s important that we 19 get it interpreted in the right way. Thank you so much. 20 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you Em, we appreciate that. 21 COMMISSIONER YORK: Take three…it’s okay…we’ll get out of here yet. I move the Fort 22 Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Fort Collins Rescue Mission combined project 23 development plan, final development plan, FDP230022 with the following condition: that the final 24 development plan will not be signed by the City until all final development plan requirements are met as 25 determined by the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services. The Commission 26 finds in consideration of the… 27 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Just a little slower please. 28 COMMISSIONER YORK: The Commission finds in consideration of the conditions of 29 approved…and operational standards that the project complies with all Land Use Code requirements. 30 This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work 31 session and this hearing, and the Commission discussion on this item. Further, this Commission hereby 32 adopts the information and analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions regarding this project contained in 33 the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing. 34 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Point of clarification, Commissioner York…there were no standards 35 stated, so if you would like to clarify the paragraph that starts with ‘the Commission finds.’ 36 COMMISSIONER YORK: Yeah, I was thinking, the following condition…yeah…so, we, I did 37 not state any standards, correct. 38 917 Section D, Item 1. 54 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Are we clear on this? I really want to be sure this is clearly stated for 1 the record, and I do hate to put you through this one more time, but it’s important; it’s important to 2 everybody. So, if you would…and again, we would not be including that ‘and operational standards’ 3 language in yellow. 4 COMMISSIONER YORK: Okay. I move the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission 5 approve the Fort Collins Rescue Mission combined project development plan, final development plan, 6 FDP230022 with the following condition: that the final development plan will not be signed by the City 7 until all final development plan requirements are met as determined by the Director of Community 8 Development and Neighborhood Services. The Commission finds in consideration of the condition of 9 approval that the project complies with all Land Use Code requirements. This decision is based upon the 10 agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing, and 11 the Commission discussion on this item. Further, this Commission hereby adopts the information and 12 analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions regarding this project contained in the staff report included in 13 the agenda materials for this hearing. 14 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Third time was magic, thank you. May I have a second please? 15 COMMISSIONER CONNELLY: Second. 16 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Thank you very much. May we have a roll call please? 17 MELISSA MATSUNAKA: Shepard? 18 COMMISSIONER SHEPARD: Yes. 19 MELISSA MATSUNAKA: Katz? 20 COMMISSIONER KATZ: Yes. 21 MELISSA MATSUNAKA: Peel? 22 COMMISSIONER PEEL: Yes. 23 MELISSA MATSUNAKA: Connelly? 24 COMMISSIONER CONNELLY: Yes. 25 MELISSA MATSUNAKA: York? 26 COMMISSIONER YORK: Yes. 27 MELISSA MATSUNAKA: Stackhouse? 28 CHAIR STACKHOUSE: Yes. And with that, the approval of the proposal has occurred I guess. 29 So, thank you all, again, for being with us tonight. Thank you for your contributions, they were 30 immensely appreciated. We appreciate the involvement of the community, and we look forward to 31 operation of a shelter that’s consistent with our high expectations. So, we’ll look forward to seeing a 32 service to the community that we need, and look forward to seeing it done well. Thank you. 33 918 Section D, Item 1. New Evidence Submitted by Appellants Subject to City Council Determination of Admissibility 919 Section D, Item 1. APPEAL OF FORT COLLINS RESCUE MISSION P&Z COMMISSION APPROVAL (ffle#FDP 230022) Appellants:Rebeca Mendoza and Debbie Bradberry Submitted 9 18 24 Issues Compatibility LUC 3.5.1: •Hours of operation:Curfew: 8/28 P&Z hearing:At 1:08 in the hearing City Staff member Mr.Mapes discussed the issue of compatibility and aspects of opposition to the project that focus on possible off-site behavioral issues.Under operational issues,3.5.1 (J)(1)hours of operation and deliveries on the slide presented,Mr.Mapes said (these)“are aspects that happen on the site...staffjust was not able to find that under these operational standards that the behavior we have heard about on the part of the people who are not on the site...but we are not able to find that that falls under the compatibility section.” Do other businesses in the immediate area operate until 9:45 p.m.,which is the curfew time mentioned twice by Mr.Forwood in the hearing? 8 9 24 P&Z work session:2:20-2:22:City Attorney Yatabe noted that “We have precedent of limiting hours of operation for land uses next to residential.” •Comments by P&Z Chair Ms.Stackhouse at 8/28 hearing:At 4:00:30 in hearing,regarding police have a good relationship with Fort Collins Rescue Mission:“I think if there wasn’t a relationship,then this issue of compatibility would be really,really,really big for me because I wouldn’t know what to expect.I think I know what to expect after hearing the testimony tonight.”This appears to be taking into account social and behavioral issues when making a decision,which is the opposite of what’s being broadcast about the P&Z Commission having to make decisions of compatibility based on physical and operational issues.Ms.Stackhouse also follows up saying that LUC is clear on compatibility,it doesn’t address behavioral or social issues. Number of beds: Increase of 25°o in population from initial application and neighborhood meetings:Would this require additional review for some aspects of the project? •The PDR dated October 12,2022 from FCRM listed planning for “up to 200 beds.” •Neighborhood meeting notices sent out for March 2023 and June 2023 meetings listed 200 beds.” •9 12 23 Coloradoan article:“The preliminary review application flied with the city calls for up to 200,but Forwood said it is Fort Collins Rescue Mission’s intention to build a 1 920 Section D, Item 1. facility with space for up to 250 beds.”htt s://www.coloradoan.comlsto /mone /real estate/2023/09/1 2/fort-collins-rescue-mission-raises-7m-for-new-247-homeless- shelter/70778485007/ •Yet the November 2023 Project Design Narrative listed “over 200 beds.”At this point, with Mr.Forwood’s statement to the Coloradoan two months earlier,shouldn’t it have been clearly reported to the City in the Project Design Narrative that the plan included space for up to 250 beds,not just over 200 beds?“Over 200 beds”appears disingenuous when actual intent was up to 250.This 25°o increase over initial plans of “up to 200 beds”and”200 beds”provided to residents in neighborhood meetings should be revisited and reviewed for potential impacts. •P&Z Hearing notice of 8 24 states the number of beds was listed as “up to 250.” Parking,additional comments: P&Z hearing 8 28 24:1:50 in video recording:Commissioner Peel question about homeless who live in their cars,are they allowed to park in the parking lot?Mr.Forwood:“Our parking lot will be designated simply for staff volunteers and people utilizing the building,so there will not be a safe parking program for people who are homeless living in their cars.”Again,the October 2022 PDR included guest parking,with 19 spaces being designated for guests when the bed count was for 200 individuals.We are not referencing parking for people who live in their cars but for parking in general for guests. 921 Section D, Item 1. 1Appeal Hearing Overview •Council will review the Planning & Zoning Commission decision of August 28, 2024. •Review is based on the record before the Planning & Zoning Commission (rather than new evidence) and the arguments and responses presented at the appeal hearing. •Only issues raised in the Notices of Appeal may be considered. •The presiding officer (Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem) will resolve procedural issues and set the time for each “side” in each appeal to present and rebut arguments. •The Council will vote by motion at the end of the hearing. •A Resolution will be presented at the next Council meeting to finalize outcome. 922 Section D, Item 1. 2Parties-in-Interest •Only parties-in-interest are allowed to participate in the appeal hearing, and only at the specified time. •Presiding officer will ask all those participating to identify themselves early in the hearing. •The Appellants will each control the time for speaking in support of their appeal. •Parties-in-interest include: •The appellant(s); •The applicant; •Any party with a proprietary or possessory interest in the land that is the subject of the application; •Any person to whom the City mailed notice of the Hearing Officer hearing; •Any person or organization that provided written comments prior to or at the Hearing Officer hearing; or •Any person or organization that appeared before the Hearing Officer at that hearing.923 Section D, Item 1. 3Hearing Sequence 1.Process Overview (City Attorney) and Staff Explanation of Appeal 2.Disclosure of Any Conflicts and Site Visit Observations 3.Identification of Participating Parties and Spokespersons 4.Allocation of Time for Party Presentations and Rebuttals 5.Consideration of Procedural Issues, Including New Evidence Objections 6.Appellant Presentation 7.Opposer Presentation 8.Appellant Rebuttal 9.Opposer Rebuttal 10.Council Questions of Staff or Parties 11.Council Discussion 12.Council Motions on Fair Hearing and Interpretation Issues 924 Section D, Item 1. Kim Meyer, Interim Director Community Development & Neighborhood Services Fort Collins Rescue Mission Development Plan Appeals 11-6-2024 925 Section D, Item 1. Zonificación/ Zoning LMN Hickory St. N. C o l l e g e CS Zone Willox Ln. SITE Bristlecone Dr. I Hibdon Ct. 926 Section D, Item 1. 6Location I don’t consider the existing roadway north of Hickory as a permanent facility.It was intended to provide rear parcel access since we planned to construct medians on North College.To me, its “temporary” status was solidified because we only acquired a permanent easement to construct the improvements.We did this to facilitate vacation in case parcels were compiled and a better alignment was determined. The above being said, I feel its current alignment could serve as a long term solution, but the roadway would need to be rebuilt to meet standards. I Hickory St.927 Section D, Item 1. 7Overall Development Plan (ODP) 7 To N. College St . EXST. PRIVATE PARCEL EXST. CITY STORMWATER PARCEL Hibdon Ct. LOT 3 FUTURE DEVELOMPENT LOT 1 CITY-OWNED STORMWATER DETENTION LOT 2 - SITE 928 Section D, Item 1. 8Mason Street Infrastructure Plan (PROPOSED SHELTER SITE) 929 Section D, Item 1. 9Site Plan 930 Section D, Item 1. 10Proposed Shelter –Front Views 931 Section D, Item 1. 11Proposed Shelter –Rear Views 932 Section D, Item 1. 12Mendoza Appeal Mendoza Appeal: Alleges that the P&Z Commission committed the following errors: •Failure to conduct a fair hearing –the Commission considered evidence relevant to its findings that was substantially false or grossly misleading. •Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code: •Section 1.2.4 “Applicability,” in conjunction with •Subsection 3.2.2(K) “Parking Requirements,” in conjunction with •Section 3.4.1 “Environmental Impact” •Section 3.5.1(J) “Operational/Physical Compatibility Standards” •Subsection 4.22(B) Permitted Uses 933 Section D, Item 1. 13Jones Appeal Jones Appeal: Alleges that the P&Z Commission committed the following error: Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code, cited as: •Section 1.2.4 “Applicability,” in conjunction with •Section 3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility, (A) “Purpose” and (J) “Operational/Physical Compatibility Standards”, together with Section 5.1.2 providing the definition of “compatibility” 934 Section D, Item 1. 14Appeals Explanations The explanations provided by the Appellants largely center around two ideas: 1)Men who come to the area because of the shelter will increase social and behavioral problems in the area when they are not at the shelter;and 2)The facility may expand the number of beds in the future beyond the stated maximum capacity of 250 beds,which further increases concerns about disturbances. 935 Section D, Item 1. MENDOZA APPEAL 936 Section D, Item 1. Regarding allegation that P&Z Commission committed the error of: Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that the Commission considered evidence relevant to its findings that was substantially false or grossly misleading Appellants did not identify any such evidence in the description attached to the appeal. Fair Hearing Allegation -Mendoza 937 Section D, Item 1. 17 Section 3.2.2(K)–Inadequate Parking and Flawed Parking Study •35 spaces provided -based on a Parking Study submitted by the applicant. •Appeal asserts: •bed capacity increased from 200 to 250 during review process. •the study was based on inadequate comparisons and does not account for:parking by guests,potential future expansion,for people who live in their vehicles •thereby leading to inadequate parking. •It suggests considering the parking requirement for multi-family dwellings as the basis,which would result in a much higher parking count. ‘Improper Interpretation’ Descriptions -Mendoza 938 Section D, Item 1. 18 Section 3.2.2(K)–Inadequate Parking and Flawed Parking Study •Applicants explained the Parking Study,based largely on their Denver Rescue Mission. •Applicants asserted that the increase from 200 to 250 beds is not likely to increase traffic because people using the beds are not likely to bring vehicles and would not be allowed to park on site. •The Request for Alternative Compliance and the parking study were in the P&Z packet and are included materials for this appeal. Pertinent Evidence from the Hearing Record -Mendoza 939 Section D, Item 1. 19 Section 3.5.1 (J)–Operational and Physical Compatibility •The appeal asserts potential for expansion and that the building could accommodate 500 beds,exacerbating concerns about potential impacts. •It states concerns that 24/7 operation will increase issues such as:noise, light pollution,disturbances,smoking,congregating,delivery vehicles,trash collection,and other operations at all hours; •notes existing development in the area has limited hours of operation. •It states that P&Z failed to properly interpret and apply this Section by not imposing conditions on approval to mitigate operational incompatibilities or cap the number of beds. ‘Improper Interpretation’ Descriptions -Mendoza 940 Section D, Item 1. 20 Section 3.5.1 (J)–Operational and Physical Compatibility •Staff report and presentation discuss compatibility standards for the site and facility,as opposed to ideas about potential behavior of guests. •Development Plan meets Land Use Code standards •Land Use Code does not address potential behaviors – •The appeal references potential issues that would be more relevant to, and enforced under,nuisance ordinances and other codes enforced by Police Department or Code Compliance. Pertinent Evidence from the Hearing Record -Mendoza 941 Section D, Item 1. 21 Section 4.22(B)–Permitted Uses in Commercial-North College Zone District •Appeal asserts P&Z Commission failed to impose specific conditions to cap the number of beds which could lead to unauthorized expansion. ‘Improper Interpretation’ Descriptions -Mendoza 942 Section D, Item 1. 22 Section 4.22(B)–Permitted Uses in the Commercial-North College Zone District •Notice of Appeal does not describe how the concern over un- imposed conditions relates to the permitted use list. •Applicants stated that there will “absolutely not”be more than 250 beds. ‘Improper Interpretation’ Descriptions -Mendoza 943 Section D, Item 1. 23 Section 3.5.1(C)–Incompatibility of Height,Mass,Scale,and Bulk •​Asserts that the 41,644 sq.ft.building dwarfs nearby mobile homes and small businesses in the surrounding area. •P&Z Commission should have imposed restrictions to reduce the scale and bulk to align better with existing residential development. •This LUC provision was not listed on the Notice of Appeal. ‘Improper Interpretation’ Descriptions -Mendoza 944 Section D, Item 1. 24 Section 3.5.1(C)–Incompatibility of Height,Mass,Scale,and Bulk •Applicant explained the scale and character of the building,which has one-and two-story elements. •CCN zoning permits up to three stories. •The standard allows new buildings to be larger than adjacent buildings, with articulation and proportional massing. •The staff report explains staff’s findings under this standard,noting the massing and articulation. Pertinent Evidence from the Hearing Record 945 Section D, Item 1. 25 Land Use Code Section 3.4.1 –Environmental Impact •​​P&Z Commission failed to adequately consider environmental impacts of the facility’s increase in bed capacity during the process. •When beds increased from 200 to 250,the impacts of traffic,waste production,and strain on local infrastructure were not reassessed. •Appeal repeats the suggestion that the facility could expand to 500 beds, leaving the surrounding neighborhood vulnerable to increased:air and noise pollution,overburdened water and sewer systems,and other environmental stresses. ‘Improper Interpretation’ Descriptions -Mendoza 946 Section D, Item 1. 26Pertinent Evidence from the Hearing Record Land Use Code Section 3.4.1 –Environmental Impact •​Section 3.4.1 does not address those noted issues;it addresses natural habitats and features. •The applicants stated that there will not be more than 250 beds. 947 Section D, Item 1. JONES APPEAL 948 Section D, Item 1. 28 Section 3.5.1 (A)and (J)–Operational and Physical Compatibility •The appeal cites the LUC’s Purpose statement,including “to ensure that the physical and operational characteristics of proposed buildings and uses are compatible with the context”; •Then cites a part of the definition of “Compatibility”in Section 5.1.2 which mentions “characteristics of different uses or activities or design which allow them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony.“ •It asserts that the compatibility standards apply to “potential social and behavioral impacts on the neighborhood”,and that it’s certain that some of the population served by the facility will cause social and behavioral impacts to the neighborhood,such as homeless men being turned away because they are drunk or high and then going to wander the neighborhood. •It asserts that the intensity of use is too much based on number of beds and perhaps there are conditions that should be imposed. ‘Improper Interpretation’ Descriptions -Jones 949 Section D, Item 1. 29 Section 3.5.1 (A)and (J)–Operational and Physical Compatibility •The Purpose statements in each code Section are not used for compliance findings –rather,the code standards that follow are utilized for implementation. •The definition of Compatibility is explanatory –not a standard. •Staff presented complete code text for 3.5.1(J)and definition of compatibility. •Staff and applicants explained that compatibility is based on standards for development and operation of the facility itself,and not on presumptions about the potential behavior of people. Pertinent Evidence from the Hearing Record -Jones 950 Section D, Item 1. 30Location Hickory St. N. C o l l e g e A v e . Hibdon Ct. 951 Section D, Item 1. 952 Section D, Item 1. 32Plan 953 Section D, Item 1.