Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 06/07/2016 - SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 074, 2016, MODIFYIAgenda Item 17 Item # 17 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 7, 2016 City Council STAFF Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 074, 2016, Modifying the April 7, 2016, Planning and Zoning Board Decision Approving the Major Amendment to The Centre For Advanced Technology 22nd Filing, Community Horticulture Center #MJA 150006 Pertaining To The Gardens On Spring Creek With Conditions. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 17, 2016, amends the Planning and Zoning Board decision regarding the Gardens on Spring Creek Master Plan Amendment. The final Council-adopted modification regarding Council review and possible revision to the limit on the number of events at the new facilities has been revised to clarify that Council approval of such an increase, if any, would be by resolution. Staff is also proposing alternative sound wall configurations for Council consideration. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading modified to approve sound walls consistent with Option B. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The amendments to the Planning and Zoning Board’s Decision approved on First Reading include: A. Clarification that the requirements set forth on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, are acceptable to the Council and shall constitute the conditions referred to in the Board Decision as the general standards related to time limitations, sound monitoring, and security and safety requirements. B. To direct staff to continue to reevaluate the reinstatement of sound mitigation walls and to allow for future approval of construction as a part of the Project upon approval of modifications of the City Project by the Council by resolution. C. That after one full year of operation of the constructed City Project, the Council may adjust the limit on the number of music concert events per year. Attached are two new alternative sound wall configurations -- Options B and C. Option B decreases the length of the 14-foot tall west wall by 90 feet, for a revised length of 150 feet. Option C eliminates this west wall. This west wall was originally proposed to be approximately 240 feet in length. This reduction is achieved by adjustments to the interior sound walls which are described in detail below. Also included in the attachments for reference is Option A, which shows the configuration of the five sound walls as proposed to Council on May 17, 2016 and at the Planning and Zoning Board’s continued hearing date on April 7, 2016. The initial sound level map is also attached for reference, which was presented at the initial Planning and Zoning Board hearing date on December 17, 2016. Agenda Item 17 Item # 17 Page 2 Noise levels from the Gardens on Spring Creek facility must be below the maximum decibel levels (dBA) measured at the property line of the complaining party: Low Density Residential District (R-L): 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. 55 dBA 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 50 dBA Employment District (E): 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. 70 dBA 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 65 dBA Below is a summary of the sound wall configurations proposed at previous hearings as well as two new proposed alternatives (Options B and C). Initial Sound Wall Configuration The initial configuration proposed included four interior sound walls and did not include the 14-foot high wall along the western property line. These four interior sound walls are located along the western edge of the Great Lawn/Stage area and include:  A 12-foot tall wall incorporated into the stage structure.  Three walls directly west of the Great Lawn with wall heights of 17 feet, 19 feet and 19.5 feet. This initial sound wall configuration was presented to the Planning and Zoning Board at the initial hearing on December 17, 2015. With this initial sound wall configuration, the project met the noise ordinance of 55 dBA maximum, at the property line of the Windtrail single-family lots located west of the Gardens, along the west side of the Windrail HOA tract. However, the wall configuration did not allow compliance with the noise ordinance at the Gardens Property line, which is along the east side of the Windtrail HOA tract. With this initial sound wall configuration presented on December 17, the Windtrail HOA tract was included in the sound transition, and portions of this HOA property exceeded the maximum permitted sound levels. After the December 17 hearing, staff recommended that sound enforcement be further restricted by measuring the maximum permitted sound levels at the Garden’s property line (not the receiving single-family lot lines further west of the Gardens property). This additional restriction recognized that the Windtrail HOA, as an entity representing the Windtrail residents, could file a complaint regarding noise in excess of 55 dBA within the Windtrail HOA property. “Option A” Sound Wall Configuration for the April 7 Planning and Zoning Board Continued Hearing and May 17 Council Presentation: After the initial Planning and Zoning Board hearing on December 17, 2015, the proposal was revised to include an additional sound wall, referred to as the “western sound wall”. This allowed the project to comply with the 55 dBA maximum at the Gardens west property line, thereby eliminating potential noise enforcement issues within the boundaries of the Windtrail HOA tract to the west. This configuration provided five sound walls:  A 12-foot tall wall incorporated into the stage structure.  Three walls directly west of the Great Lawn with wall heights of 17 feet, 19 feet and 19.5 feet.  One sound wall along the western property, 240 feet in length, fourteen feet high, stepping down to 10 feet on either end. Agenda Item 17 Item # 17 Page 3 Two Sound Wall Options Currently Proposed: Options B and C provide two new alternative sound wall configurations. Options B and C both allow compliance with the noise ordinance, 55 dBA maximum, at the Gardens property line. Option B decreases the 240-foot length of the 14-foot tall west wall by 90 feet, for a revised length of 150 feet. Option C eliminates the western wall entirely. These changes are achieved by adjustments to one of the interior sound walls located just west of the Great Lawn, as outlined below. “Option B” Sound Wall Alternative: This new alternative proposes a shorter western wall and includes five walls:  One 12-foot height wall incorporated into the stage structure.  Three walls directly west of the Great Lawn with wall heights unchanged at 17 feet and 19 feet, and with the third wall along the southwestern portion of the Great Lawn increased from 19.5 feet to 21 feet in height. This 21-foot high wall is also longer, and extends around the Great Lawn 10 feet farther to the southeast. This extension in wall height and length at the Great Lawn allows the western wall length to be reduced.  The fifth sound wall along the western property is reduced from 240 feet in length to 150 feet, with a height of 14 feet proposed. “Option C” Sound Wall Alternative: This second new alternative eliminates the western wall and expands the four interior walls:  One 12-foot height wall incorporated into the stage structure.  Three walls directly west of the Great Lawn with wall heights unchanged at 17 feet and 19 feet, and with the third wall along the southwestern portion of the Great Lawn increased from 19.5 feet to 22 feet in height (one foot taller than Option B). This 22-foot high wall is also longer than Option B, and extends around the Great Lawn 30 feet further to the southeast (20 feet farther than Option B).  Because the sound walls are extended farther around the Great Lawn with this Option, a fifth sound wall along the western property boundary is no longer needed with the Option C proposal. Regarding Options B and C, Gardens staff has expressed a preference for Option B. Gardens staff has explained that Option C will have significant impact and that views into the Gardens from the main bridge and the Visitor’s Center to the south will be of the expanded interior sound walls and limit views of the gardens and stage. The expanded Option C wall will restrict traffic flow and internal views between Gardens spaces, visually separating the Great Lawn from the themed gardens and minimizing the garden immersion experience. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, May 17, 2016 (w/o attachments) (PDF) 2. Sound Model Alternatives Memo (PDF) 3. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) Agenda Item 20 Item # 20 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY May 17, 2016 City Council STAFF Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager SUBJECT Alternate Review of the April 7, 2016, Planning and Zoning Board Decision Approving the Major Amendment to the Centre For Advanced Technology 22nd Filing, Community Horticulture Center #MJA 150006 Pertaining to the Gardens on Spring Creek and First Reading of Ordinance No. 074, 2016, Modifying the April 7, 2016, Planning and Zoning Board Decision Approving the Major Amendment to The Centre For Advanced Technology 22nd Filing, Community Horticulture Center #MJA 150006 Pertaining To The Gardens On Spring Creek With Conditions. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to review the April 7 Planning & Zoning Board decision regarding the Gardens on Spring Creek amended Master Plan, formally known as the Major Amendment to the Centre for Advanced Technology 22nd Filing, Community Horticulture Center. The Board approved the Gardens amended master plan on the condition that: (1) the general standards related to time limitations, sound monitoring, and security and safety requirements set forth in attachment 3 (to the Board packet) be included in the notes set forth on the site plan; and (2) that the 14 foot high western sound mitigation wall be removed from the project. Under Section 2.2.12 of the Land Use Code, the Planning & Zoning Board decision on this City project is not subject to appeal. Instead, Section 2.2.12(B) provides for an “Alternate Review” by Council as requested by a City Councilmember within the 14 days following the Board’s decision. The Alternate Review permits the Council to review the Board’s decision on the City’s amended master plan as an exercise of its legislative power over a City development project and, after conducting a hearing, to adopt an ordinance overturning or modifying the Board’s decision if Council so desires in its sole discretion. The Ordinance modifying the Board decision is included for Council’s use if desired. The Ordinance: 1. Does not offer the option of overturning the Board’s approval of the Gardens amended master plan (with conditions), since this would leave the City without an approved amended plan and necessitate a new application by the Gardens; 2. Clarifies the Board’s decision by clearly identifying the “general standards” to be included on the amended site plan (since the Board reference to standards on “attachment 3” of its materials may have resulted in some confusion); and 3. Includes a possible modification to the Board decision to re-instate the westernmost sound wall, since the Board’s approval removed this element of the City’s plan and this is the portion of the decision that generated much of the discussion at the Board’s hearing and has an impact on the Garden’s operational plan, and a placeholder for other possible modifications (in case any are desired). If Council wishes to include other modifications to the Board Decision, such changes can be added to the Ordinance by amendment. ATTACHMENT 1 Agenda Item 20 Item # 20 Page 2 If a motion to consider the Ordinance to modify fails for lack of a second or is postponed indefinitely, or if the Ordinance is voted down, then the Planning and Zoning April 7, 2016, decision will remain unmodified and in effect. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council conduct an Alternate Review of the Planning and Zoning Board decision. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The original master plan for the Gardens on Spring Creek was approved in 2001. At that time, the master plan included a number of future components, which are now planned in detail with the currently proposed Master Plan. Specifically, the amended components that are shown with these proposed plans include:  expanded garden areas;  a stage structure, sound walls, and attendance increase for music concerts;  a modified circulation and parking plan; and  site plan notes which update the operational and management standards for Gardens events, and include other standard City requirements (Attachment 3). The Gardens on Spring Creek (GSC) facility was approved by a Hearing Officer in 2001 as the Centre for Advanced Technology 22nd Filing Community Horticulture Center. The approved plan includes two primary uses - Community Facility and Neighborhood Park. The park designation applies to portions of the Plan along the Spring Creek Trail, known as Lilac Park. The approved 2001 plan includes all of the elements of the GSC facility that currently exist today, including the main facility building and greenhouse/conservatory, themed gardens, parking area, trail alignment and perimeter landscaping. The approved 2001 plan also includes several elements to be built with future phase construction, including additional themed gardens, a great lawn, gazebo and bandstand. In conjunction with the great lawn, gazebo and bandstand, the approved plan proposes a maximum of 350 people on-site for amplified music performances and other events. Because the amended plans propose to expand the scope of the amplified music performances to accommodate a maximum of 1,500 people, this change in scope triggered a Major Amendment review process. Compliance with Applicable Employment Standards: The project remains in compliance with all applicable Employment District standards with the following relevant comments provided: A. Section 4.27 - Permitted Uses While the current approval describes the Gardens on Spring Creek facility as a “Community Horticulture Center”, the designated permitted use per the Land Use Code (LUC) is community facility. This specific land use designation is listed in Section 4.27(B)(2)(b)(4) of the Employment District as a permitted use subject to Administrative Review with a Hearing Officer. However, effective July 21, 2015, under Ordinance No. 82, 2015, all projects in which the City is the applicant are reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board. The new review process is described in Division 2.17: City Projects. Development projects for which the City is the applicant shall be processed in the manner described in this Land Use Code, as applicable, but shall be subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Agenda Item 20 Item # 20 Page 3 Board in all instances, despite the fact that certain uses would otherwise have been subject to administrative review. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code - General Development Standards The project complies with all applicable General Development Standards with the following relevant comments provided: A. Division - 3.2, Site Planning and Design Standards The project plan, as amended, remains in compliance with the standards in this Division of the code, which includes Landscaping and Tree Protection, Access, Circulation and Parking, Solar Access, Orientation and Shading, Site Lighting, and Trash and Recycling Enclosures. The majority of the site elements that relate to these standards have already been constructed, including the on-site parking lot, main building/conservatory, street trees along Centre Avenue, alignment of the Spring Creek Trail, and perimeter plantings. 1) Section 3.2.4 - Site Lighting. A photometric plan is provided for the additional light fixtures that are included in the amended phases of the facility. The additional lighting provided incorporates down-directional and sharp cut-off fixtures. All lighting complies with the lighting levels and design standards of this section. 2) Section 3.2.2 - Access, Circulation and Parking. The amended plans comply with the minimum parking required by providing off-site parking for events as needed. The minimum parking required is based on the City’s standards for Alternative Compliance, and is based on the minimum parking required for the peak demand anticipated at a ticketed performance event, for a maximum of 1,500 people. Parking demand for a 1,500 person event is anticipated to arrive using the following travel modes:  150 visitors travel to events via bicycle  50 visitors travel to events via MAX  1300 visitors travel to events via car w/2 persons per vehicle average. This demand estimate requires total of 650 parking spaces. A total of 700 parking spaces are provided with the plans as follows:  65 vehicles will utilize the existing Gardens on Spring Creek on-site parking lot, of the 74 spaces available in this parking lot.  350 vehicles will utilize the NRRC facility parking lot located across Centre Avenue to the east.  285 vehicles will utilize the CSU Research Blvd parking Lot, which is located 1,800 feet (.34 miles) along Center Avenue to the south of the Gardens. The applicant’s alternative compliance narrative attached with this staff report provides more detail. Staff finds that the off-site parking arrangement provides an adequate solution within acceptable proximity to the facility to accommodate larger planned events. The operational standards provided with the site plan outline the need for traffic control and other measures that will be provided in conjunction with this off-site event parking. B. Division - 3.3 Engineering Standards Utility Plans are provided for the amended project which demonstrate compliance with all City requirements. Site grading and stormwater drainage design are the major focus of these plans. The proposed design and drainage analysis demonstrates that the project complies with the original design from the approved drainage and erosion control report for the project, dated January 31, 2003 and prepared by EDAW, Inc. Portions of the site are in the City floodplain and a Floodplain Use Permit is required, which must show that there will be no rise in the Base Flood Elevation on neighboring properties. Agenda Item 20 Item # 20 Page 4  An updated floodplain memo has been provided by the Garden’s consulting engineer. The floodplain memo and associated plans must be provided in final form and a Floodplain Use Permit issued prior to construction. A summary of the floodplain requirements outlined in the memo are as follows:  All development activities on all properties located within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulatory floodplain are subject to the requirements of Chapter 10 of the City Municipal Code. This includes the Gardens on Spring Creek property, which is in the FEMA regulatory 100-year floodplain for Spring Creek. As required by city code, the project’s engineer has provided City staff with a detailed floodplain analysis. The analysis must demonstrate that the Garden’s proposed improvements will not increase existing flood risk in the area. All new construction of structures as well as filling, excavation, or grading associated with the proposed site work in the floodplain are considered in the analysis. The analysis confirms that: The proposed improvements will not cause a rise in the FEMA Base Flood Elevation (BFE), will not change the boundaries of the FEMA floodplain boundaries, and will not reduce the required regulatory flood storage volume in the area. Compliance with these requirements is achieved through several measures:  All proposed earthwork is balanced so that any proposed raise in grade (fill) is offset by lowering the grade (cut) in other areas of the site. The floodplain model must also be updated to reflect the proposed improvements and show no increase in the Base Flood Elevation. The result of these analyses is called a “No-Rise Certification” which must be provided to the city along with the Floodplain Use Permit. The certification includes required volume calculations for all site elements, including temporary elements. The calculations also take into account proposed plant material.  All new accessory structures must be “flood vented” or elevated above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE), which is defined as 12 inches above the base flood elevation (BFE). The RFPE elevation is 4,999.42 feet. The term “flood vented” means that the proposed structures (such as the proposed pergolas), must not be fully enclosed. Examples of open structures in the FEMA floodplain can be found in City Parks such as Edora, Spring Creek, Lee Martinez, and Rolland Moore. These parks have open structures in the floodplain/floodway (such as picnic shelters) but not enclosed buildings. Enclosed structures at these parks, such as bathrooms, are outside of the regulatory FEMA floodplain. In addition to flood venting, all permanent features such as the garden’s pergolas must be permanently anchored.  Outdoor storage of materials that might float away is prohibited. All outdoor materials will be confined inside latched utility sheds behind the stage and within the Garden’s maintenance/service yard buildings, anchored and removed after each event, or will be elevated above regulatory flood levels.  The proposed finished elevation of the new stage deck (the lowest floor level of the structure) is 4999.50 feet, above the required flood protection elevation of 4999.42 feet.  The stage structure is elevated above the RFPE through earthwork and terracing with stone walls. Portions of the walls of the stage structure below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE) of 4999.42 feet are required to be permanently anchored and constructed of Class 4 and 5 flood resistant materials as defined in FEMA Technical Bulletin 2: Flood Damage-Resistant Materials Requirements and as required per Section 10-39 (5) of the Municipal Code. The stage structure meets these requirements by using a concrete pad on an elevated earthen berm, without any voids or enclosed spaces within the stage area, and by using permanently anchored stone walls surrounding the stage structure to achieve grade transition to the surrounding lawn seating area. C. Section 3.4.1 Natural Habitats and Features The project is located within 500 feet of a number of special features that require protection, including the Spring Creek and associated wetlands, the re-routed Sherwood Lateral ditch and associated wetlands, and a series of small wetlands on the eastern edge of the site. Based on the updated Ecological Characterization Agenda Item 20 Item # 20 Page 5 Study for the site and the requirements of Section 3.4.1(E), the following Natural Habitat Buffer Zones apply to this project, which have been delineated on the site and landscape plans:  Spring Creek Corridor and wetlands (100 feet)  Sherwood Lateral Ditch and wetlands (50 feet)  Two groups of wetlands on east side of property (50 feet for each wetland area) Section 3.4.1(E) limits the type of development activity that may occur within these buffer zones. As proposed, this project conflicts neither with the intended purpose nor the specific requirements for these buffer zones. While some disturbance will occur within the buffers (e.g., the addition of paths and walkways), these impacts will be adequately mitigated through the restoration of disturbed areas with additional plantings and habitat enhancements throughout the site. D. Municipal Code Chapter 20, Article II - Noise. Noise levels from the Gardens on Spring Creek Facility must be below the maximum decibel levels (dBA) at the following adjacent receiving land uses: Low Density Residential District (R-L): 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. 55 dBA 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 50 dBA Employment District (E): 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. 70 dBA 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 65 dBA An acoustical model was developed by the applicant’s consultant in conjunction with the design of the outdoor stage and great lawn seating area. In conjunction with the outdoor stage orientation, a series of sound walls are provided to absorb and diffuse sound from amplified music performances. The design recommends a series of four sound barrier walls, ranging in height between 14 and 19.5 feet above the stage level, with a new fifth sound wall located along the western boundary of the site. The proposal demonstrates that compliance with the maximum permissible noise levels at the receiving land uses can be achieved. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS City financial impacts were not reviewed with the project’s Major Amendment development review process. PUBLIC OUTREACH Prior to initial consideration by the Planning and Zoning Board, three neighborhood meetings were held for the proposed project on July 24, 2014; September 8, 2014; and February 8, 2016. The project was originally presented to the Planning and Zoning Board at its December 15, 2015 hearing. At the hearing, the Board continued this item, and directed staff to continue neighborhood outreach efforts.  On February 8, 2016, the City hosted an additional neighborhood meeting to discuss ways to address concerns from neighbors in relation to the Garden’s development proposal, specifically the increase in capacity of the music venue from 350 to 1500 people.  After the meeting, changes were made to the Operational Standards to further clarify the scope of the facility’s use and the management practices for all events. A detailed meeting summary letter was also mailed to all residents within the notification area summarizing the changes. Agenda Item 20 Item # 20 Page 6  An additional sound wall was added along the Gardens’ western property boundary to further mitigate noise impacts from music concerts as well as events which are already programmed.  A noise monitoring system for music concerts was also added, which includes a direct override control at the mixing console. The starting point of the conversation for the February 8, 2016 neighborhood meeting was the following list of concerns generated from previous neighborhood meetings:  Noise/Sound  Parking  Trespass/Loitering/Camping  Non-ticketed/Private Events  Port-a-Lets  Alcohol  Enforcement  Floodplain/Environmental Assessment  Other/Grove/Lilac Park Comments captured at the February 8, 2016 meeting:  More clarity on tangible mitigation for each subject item.  Preference for a distributed sound system. Concern with loitering/event crashing along Spring Creek Trail and Lilac Park area.  Sound transition and stage orientation unreasonably impacts areas to the SW, in particular 603 Gilgalad Way.  Overall effects of impacts -- in particular, sound levels, number of concert events per year, and the ticketed scope of the venue, seems out of place at this location. i.e., Too much program for the location.  Parking/enforcement for un-ticketed events.  Renters (like the symphony) can’t use the venue - counts against 8.  First, I love it. Yay! -Second… In case it hasn’t been addressed… is the local mobile network robust enough for the increased usage during events?  1500 capacity, negotiable?  Do 500 Capacity at Gardens + 1500 where there are TOILETS like the new SE area Park & not next to homes.  No alcohol, only family concerts to promote the love of nature + get families outdoors.  Do non-ticketed events get to have amplified music?  Noise citation- criminal (mandatory court appearance).  How will you stop the additional 1500 spectators from gathering outside the fence line for ticketed concerts  Automated sound control: have the sound level meter directly connected to the sound board. That way any exceedance would be automatically addressed, w/o needing human intervention. Through a polling exercise conducted at the meeting, noise, parking, enforcement, and trespassing issues were the top concerns of those attending. Based on comments and questions staff received at the meeting, mitigation techniques are incorporated into the Garden’s operations in two ways:  Addressed with the Site Plan Notes as General Standards which are included with the proposed amended Master Plan. Attachment 3 provides a full list of these noted standards that are included with the proposed plan.  Addressed by Gardens Staff as operating agreements to be finalized with neighbor input through the formation of a Neighborhood Committee. Attachment 2 provides a summary of neighborhood concerns Agenda Item 20 Item # 20 Page 7 and a matrix comparison of the noted standards that are included with the proposed plan (Attachment 3) and the additional standards that are not included with these plan notes, which are addressed separately by Gardens staff. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map (PDF) 2. Summary of Standards to Address Neighborhood Concerns (PDF) 3. Site Plan Notes (Operational Standards and other notes) (PDF) 4. Site Plan Color Rendering (PDF) 5. West Wall Photo Simulation (PDF) 6. Floodplain Exhibit (PDF) 7. Floodplain effective / ineffective flow exhibit (PDF) 8. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, April 7, 2016 (PDF) 9. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) russell+mills studios Landscape Architecture + Urban Design + Master Planning 141 s college ave, suite 104, fort collins, colorado 80524 p: 970.484.8855 www.russellmillsstudios.com 1 MEMORANDUM June 1, 2016 RE: Gardens on Spring Creek Sound Modeling Alternatives - Fort Collins, Colorado To: City of Fort Collins Council Members From: Gardens on Spring Creek/Russell + Mills Studios Two additional sound modeling alternatives (Option B and Option C attached) have been prepared following feedback from the 5.17.2016 Council Presentation utilizing different wall configurations in addition to the option presented at that date (Option A). Option B reduces the previously shown wall length of 240’ to 150’ while relocating it 5’ to the east and extends a 21’ interior wall an additional 10’ to the southeast. This is the Garden’s preferred option aside from option A. Option C extends a 22’ interior wall 30’ to the southeast which limits views to the Great Lawn from the entry, and negatively impacts the overall experience both for performances and daily visitors by creating an overwhelming interior barrier. In addition, the initial sound level map prepared for the first Planning and Zoning Board hearing is attached. This sound level map was prepared with the Municipal Code Sound Ordinance interpretation of a 55 dBA maximum measured from residential private property lines. Following the first Planning and Zoning Board hearing, it was determined by City Staff that the 55 dBA maximum should be measured from the HOA property line and/or Gardens on Spring Creek property line. This resulted in the need for the additional 14’ high, 240’ wall along the western property line of the Gardens on Spring Creek property as shown at the second Planning and Zoning Board hearing and the 5.17.2016 Council Presentation (Option A). The following exhibits are attached: Initial Sound Level Map - Presented at first Planning and Zoning Hearing • 55 dBA max. @ residential private property line • (4) Four Interior sound walls @ stage - 12’, 17’, 19’, and 19.5’ in height Option A Sound Level Map - Presented at second P&Z Hearing and 5/17 Council Presentation • 55 dBA max. @ HOA property line • 240’ long, 14’ high sound wall @ Gardens west property line • (4) Four interior sound walls @ stage - 12’, 17’, 19’. and 19.5’ in height Option B Sound Level Map (New) • 55 dBA max. @ HOA property line • 150’ long, 14’ high sound wall 5’ east of west Gardens property line. Note: this wall has been shifted 5’ to the east compared to what was shown in Option A. • Extend 21’ interior sound wall 10’ to southeast • (4) Four interior sound walls @ stage - 12’, 17’, 19’, and 21’ in height Option C Sound Level Map (New) • 55 dBA max. @ HOA property line • Raise 21’ height interior wall to 22’ height and extend this wall 30’ to the southeast. • (4) Four interior sound walls @ stage - 12’, 17’, 19’, and 22’ in height ATTACHMENT 2 INITIAL SOUND LEVEL MAP Initial Sound Level Map - Presented at first Planning and Zoning Hearing • 55 dBA max. @ residential private property line • (4) Four Interior sound walls @ stage - 12’, 17’, 19’, and 19.5’ in height 1 OPTION A (P&Z and Previous Council Presentation) Option A Sound Level Map - Presented at second P&Z Hearing and 5/17 Council Presentation • 55 dBA max. @ HOA property line • 240’ long, 14’ high sound wall @ Gardens west property line • (4) Four interior sound walls @ stage - 12’, 17’, 19’. and 19.5’ in height 2 OPTION B Option B Sound Level Map (New) • 55 dBA max. @ HOA property line • 150’ long, 14’ high sound wall 5’ east of west Gardens property line. Note: this wall has been shifted 5’ to the east compared to what was shown in Option A. • Extend 21’ interior sound wall 10’ to southeast • (4) Four interior sound walls @ stage - 12’, 17’, 19’, and 21’ in height 3 OPTION C Option C Sound Level Map (New) • 55 dBA max. @ HOA property line • Raise 21’ height interior wall to 22’ height and extend this wall 30’ to the southeast. • (4) Four interior sound walls @ stage - 12’, 17’, 19’, and 22’ in height 4 1 Staff Presentation Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager Gardens on Spring Creek June 7, 2016 ATTACHMENT 3 2 Initial Master Plan (December 17 Hearing) No Western Sound Wall Proposed 3 Initial Sound Level Map (December 17 Hearing) 55 dB Measurement line Windtrail HOA Property Areas > 55 Db (not in compliance) No Western Wall 4 Sound Measurement Boundaries Windtrail H.O.A. Gilgalad Property 115’ 30’ Property Line A. Noise Ordinance measured along this boundary for the second P&Z Hearing on April 7 and as presented to Council on May 17, 2016. Property Line B. Compliance with noise Ordinance was originally measured along this boundary, for the first P&Z Hearing on Dec. 17, 2015 5 West Sound Wall (Option A) Presented April 7, May 17 Sound Walls 17’,19’,19.5’ Height “Option A” Sound Wall 14’ Height; 240’ length 12’ Stage Wall 6 Sound Walls (Option A) Gardens Boundary Windtrail H.O.A. Property Gilgalad Added Sound Wall 14’ height Sound Walls Spring Creek Trail spur Stage/ Sound 115’ Wall 30’ Spring Creek Trail 7 Previous Model (Dec. 17, 2015) Option A Model (April 7, May 17) Sound Model Comparison > 55 dB Grey: 50 to 55 dB Windtrail Property 8 Sound Wall Options B and C Windtrail H.O.A. Gilgalad Property 115’ 30’ Shorten or eliminate western wall Raise and lengthen Southern Interior sound wall 9 Option A Sound Model Enlarged View West Boundary +/- 5 Dba below max. 10 Sound Level Map Option B Option B: • Extend southwest interior sound wall 10’ to southeast. Interior sound wall raised from 19.5’ to 21’ height. • 150’ long, 14’ high sound wall, 5’ east or Gardens western boundary. 11 Sound Level Map Option C Option C: • Extend southwest interior sound wall 30’ to southeast. Interior sound wall raised from 19.5’ to 22’ height (1’ taller than Opt. B). • Western wall is eliminated with this Option. 12 Staff Recommendation: Option B Windtrail H.O.A. Property Gilgalad 115’ 30’ Option C impacts: • Arrangement of Great Lawn seating area impacted; • Visitor views from south into Gardens impacted; • Restricted traffic flow, potential ingress/egress safety issues for music events; • Internal views between Garden spaces restricted, less immersive Garden experience. Gardens staff –preference for Option B: Extend wall 10’ and raise from 19.5’ to 21’ West wall shortened to 150’ -1- ORDINANCE NO. 074, 2016 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MODIFYING THE APRIL 7, 2016, PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD DECISION APPROVING THE MAJOR AMENDMENT TO THE CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 22 nd FILING, COMMUNITY HORTICULTURE CENTER #MJA 150006 PERTAINING TO THE GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK WITH CONDITIONS WHEREAS, the Centre for Advanced Technology 22 nd Filing, Community Horticulture Center (the “Major Amendment), informally known as the “Gardens on Spring Creek” or “Gardens”; and WHEREAS, the City is the owner of certain property known as the “Gardens on Spring Creek” (or “Gardens”) and the Applicant for the Major Amendment to the Centre for Advanced Technology 22nd Filing, Community Horticulture Center (the “Major Amendment); and WHEREAS, the Major Amendment reflects a proposed plan to complete development by the City of a number of future components outlined in the original master plan for the Gardens approved in 2001, including new and expanded garden areas, the “great lawn” area that includes a covered stage structure and improvements for outdoor performances (referred to herein as the “Performance Area”), modified circulation through the gardens and to the Spring Creek Trail, a bicycle parking area, garden and arbor structures in various gardens and operational and management standards for events in the Performance Area (collectively, the “Project”); and WHEREAS, in addition the stage and related improvements such as the sound system and mixing station, the Performance Area includes five sound mitigation walls - four in close proximity to the stage and a fifth sound mitigation wall fourteen feet high, stepping down to 10 feet on either end, with a length of approximately 240 feet in length along the west boundary of the Gardens (referred to herein as the “Western Sound Wall”) intended to mitigate the impact of sound from music and other performances on the neighborhood adjacent to the Gardens on the west; and WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on April 7, 2017, the City’s Planning and Zoning Board (the “Board”) considered the Project proposed by the Major Amendment, held a duly noticed public hearing, and considered citizen comment and input on the Project; and WHEREAS, after discussion, the Board voted unanimously to approve the Centre for Advanced Technology 22 nd Filing, Community Horticulture Center, #MJA 150006 on the condition that: (1) the general standards related to time limitations, sound monitoring, and security and safety requirements set forth in Attachment 3 to the Board packet be included in the Notes set forth in the Site Plan; and (2) that the Western Sound Wall be removed from the Project (the “Board’s Decision”); and WHEREAS, in July 2015, Council adopted Ordinance No. 082, 2015, which amended the Sections 2.17 and 2.2.12 of the Land Use Code to: (1) provide that all development projects for which the City is the applicant are subject to review by the Board; (2) eliminate appeals of -2- decisions under the Land Use Code pertaining to City development projects to City Council; and (3) permit the City Council to exercise its legislative power and in its sole discretion, to overturn or modify any decision regarding a City development project by adoption of an ordinance by majority vote (referred to as an “Alternate Review”); and WHEREAS, the Project is the first City development project to come forward since adoption of Ordinance No. 082, 2015; and WHEREAS, Councilmember Campana filed a written request for an Alternate Review of the Project within 14 days after the Board’s Decision as permitted under Section 2.2.12(b) of the Land Use Code; and WHEREAS, after a hearing to obtain public testimony, and receipt and consideration of any other public input (whether at or before the hearing), and evaluation of the Project considering factors in addition to or in substitution of the standards set forth in the Land Use Code, all in connection with the Alternate Review of the City Project, Council has determined to exercise its legislative power and in its sole discretion to modify the Board’s Decision as set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes any and all determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the City Council hereby modifies the Board Decision as follows: A. To clarify that the requirements set forth on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, are acceptable to the Council and shall constitute the conditions referred to in the Board Decision as the general standards related to time limitations, sound monitoring, and security and safety requirements. B. To direct staff to continue to reevaluate the reinstatement of sound mitigation walls and to allow for future approval of construction as a part of the Project upon approval of modifications of the City Project by the Council by resolution. C. That after one full year of operation of the constructed City Project, the Council may by resolution adjust the limit on the number of music concert events per year. Section 3. That the Board Decision continues in effect unmodified except as expressly set forth herein. -3- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of May, A.D. 2016, and to be presented for final passage on the 7th day of June, A.D. 2016. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 7th day of June, A.D. 2016. __________________________________ Mayor Pro Tem ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk 1 EXHIBIT A Notes included with the Gardens on Spring Creek Amended Plan (See sheet LS003 of the Site Plan) DRAFT 3-23-2016 THE FOLLOWING GENERAL OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT STANDARDS SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR ALL FUTURE GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK EVENTS. GENERAL EVENT STANDARDS: 1. ALL EVENTS, INCLUDING MUSIC CONCERT EVENTS OR GENERAL EVENTS SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE FORT COLLINS MUNICIPAL CODE NOISE STANDARDS OF CHAPTER 20, ARTICLE II: SOUND SHALL BE LIMITED TO 55 dB(A) FROM 7 A.M. TO 8:00 P.M. AND 50 dB(A) FROM 8:00 P.M. TO 7:00 A.M. AT THE GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK PROPERTY LINE ADJACENT TO THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-L) ZONE DISTRICT, AND SHALL BE LIMITED TO 70 dB(A) FROM 7 A.M. TO 8:00 P.M. AND 65 dB(A) FROM 8:00 P.M. TO 7:00 A.M. AT THE GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK PROPERTY LINE ADJACENT TO THE EMPLOYMENT (E) ZONE DISTRICT. 2. THERE SHALL BE A MAXIMUM OF (8) MUSIC CONCERT EVENTS PER YEAR WITH AN ATTENDANCE CAP OF 1,500 PERSONS. THE MAXIMUM ATTENDANCE SHALL BE MANAGED AND REGULATED THROUGH TICKET SALES. ALL MUSIC CONCERT EVENTS SHALL BE TICKETED. 3. THERE SHALL BE NO MULTI-DAY MUSIC CONCERT EVENTS SUCH AS MUSIC FESTIVALS. 4. A GENERAL EVENT SHALL BE DEFINED AS ANY EVENT WHICH USES ALL OR A PORTION OF THE GARDENS, OTHER THAN DAY-TO-DAY ATTENDANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF VIEWING THE GARDENS, IN WHICH ATTENDANCE IS ANTICIPATED TO BE MORE THAN 100 PERSONS FOR THE EVENT. GENERAL EVENTS INCLUDE: GARDEN OF LIGHTS TOUR, SCHOOL FIELD TRIPS, EDUCATION PROGRAMS AND TOURS, ARTICULTURE/SCULPTURE IN THE GARDEN, SPRING PLANT SALE, YOGA IN THE GARDENS, GARDEN A’FARE, NATURE’S HARVEST FEST, HALLOWEEN ENCHANTED GARDEN. ADDITIONAL EVENTS MAY BE CONSIDERED. THERE SHALL BE NO ATTENDANCE CAP FOR GENERAL EVENTS. SUCH EVENTS MAY PROVIDE AMPLIFIED MUSIC IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE MUNICIPAL CODE. 2 5. PRIVATE EVENTS SHALL BE ADDRESSED IN THE GARDEN’S OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT PLAN. PRIVATE EVENTS INCLUDE ALL PRIVATE RENTALS SUCH AS WEDDINGS, BIRTHDAYS, ETC. PRIVATE EVENTS SHALL NOT HAVE DJ’S AND ANY PROPOSED MUSIC MUST BE APPROVED BY GARDENS STAFF. ALL EVENTS SHALL FOLLOW STANDARDS AS DESCRIBED BELOW. TIME LIMITATION STANDARDS: 1. ALL MUSIC AND ANY ASSOCIATED SOUNDS GENERATED FROM ANY EVENT SHALL CONCLUDE NO LATER THAN 8PM. 2. EGRESS FOR ALL VISITORS DURING MUSIC CONCERT EVENTS SHALL BEGIN AT 8 P.M. AND CONCLUDE NO LATER THAN 9 P.M. NO PERFORMANCE RELATED SOUNDS SHALL BE GENERATED DURING THIS TIMEFRAME. 3. ALL EVENT OPERATIONS PERSONNEL SHALL EXIT THE GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK PREMISES NO LATER THAN 10 P.M. 4. ALL GENERAL EVENTS SHALL CONCLUDE BY 9 P.M. AND ALL PERSONNEL SHALL EXIT THE GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK PREMISES NO LATER THAN 10 P.M. 5. ALL PRIVATE EVENTS SHALL CONCLUDE BY 8 P.M. WITH EVERYONE OFF-SITE BY 9 P.M. SOUND MONITORING STANDARDS: 1. DURING ALL AMPLIFIED MUSIC CONCERT EVENTS, A PROFESSIONAL SOUND ENGINEER SHALL BE PRESENT ON SITE AND ACTIVELY MONITOR AND REGULATE SOUND LEVELS TO MEET THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MUNICIPAL CODE NOISE STANDARDS. SOUND MONITORING LOCATIONS WILL BE TIED TO CENTRAL OVERRIDE SYSTEM AT THE MIXING STATION. 2. FOR ALL OTHER EVENTS, GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK STAFF SHALL BE PRESENT ON SITE AND ACTIVELY MONITOR AND REGULATE SOUND LEVELS TO MEET THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MUNICIPAL CODE NOISE STANDARDS. 3. MORE SPECIFIC MONITORING OPERATIONS, MANAGEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT THAT MAY BE REQUIRED SHALL BE OUTLINED IN THE GSC OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT PLAN. 3 SECURITY AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS: 1. DESIGNATED SECURITY STAFF SHALL BE PRESENT AT THE GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK ENTRY POINTS AND PERIMETER OF THE PREMISES DURING ALL MUSIC CONCERT EVENTS. DESIGNATED SECURITY STAFF SHALL CONSIST OF EITHER GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK STAFF OR A PRIVATE SECURITY COMPANY CONTRACTED THROUGH THE GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK. 2. EGRESS LIGHTING CONSISTING OF LOW LIGHT LEVEL, FULL CUT-OFF PEDESTRIAN LEVEL LIGHTS SHALL BE USED TO FACILITATE EGRESS FROM ALL MUSIC CONCERT EVENTS. ALL EGRESS AND EVENT-RELATED LIGHTING SHALL BE TURNED OFF NO LATER THAN 10 P.M. 3. CROSSING ASSISTANTS SHALL BE PRESENT AT CENTRE AVENUE TO FACILITATE CROSSING FROM THE N.R.C.S. PARKING LOT DURING ALL MUSIC CONCERT EVENTS, UNLESS A SIGNALIZED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IS CONSTRUCTED AT THIS LOCATION IN THE FUTURE. ADDITIONAL GENERAL STANDARDS: 1. ANY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES SOLD DURING EVENTS SHALL REQUIRE A PROFESSIONAL CONCESSIONAIRE TO SERVE AND FOLLOW ALL ASSOCIATED REGULATIONS AND MONITORING AS REQUIRED WITH ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES AT OTHER COMMUNITY FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS. MORE SPECIFIC ALCOHOL OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE DEVELOPED WITH THE GSC OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT PLAN. 2. “NO PUBLIC ON-STREET PARKING” SHALL BE STRICTLY ENFORCED FOR GSC EVENTS AND DAY-TO-DAY GSC OPERATIONS ON CENTRE AVENUE AND ON STREETS IN THE WINDTRAIL AND SHEELY NEIGHBORHOODS. MORE SPECIFIC PARKING MANAGEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT PRACTICES SHALL BE OUTLINED IN THE GSC OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT PLAN. 3. OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS: ANTICIPATED MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING QUANTITIES FOR GARDENS USES ARE SHOWN ON THE LAND USE TABLE ON SHEET LS100. THE PARKING QUANTITIES SHOWN ON LS100 REPRESENT ANTICIPATED MINIMUMS, AND SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO MEET THE PARKING DEMANDS FOR EVENTS IF NEEDED. PARKING LOCATIONS ARE SHOWN ON SHEET LS002. AGREEMENTS FOR OFF-SITE PARKING LOCATIONS SHALL BE MAINTAINED AND SHALL BE ADJUSTED, IF NEEDED, TO MEET PARKING DEMANDS FOR ALL GARDENS EVENTS. 4 4. THE PROJECT IS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE ALL IMPROVEMENTS AND CONDUCT ALL OPERATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINAL PLANS. ANY MODIFICATIONS TO THESE PLANS SHALL REQUIRE A PLAN AMENDMENT TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED. 5. THE OPERATIONAL AND MANAGEMENT STANDARDS NOTED WITH THESE PLANS REPRESENT THE GENERAL STANDARDS FOR THE PROJECT. IN ADDITION TO THE GENERAL STANDARDS OUTLINED HERE, GSC SHALL DEVELOP A COMPREHENSIVE OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES POLICIES AND ACTIONS THAT WILL BE ADMINISTERED FOR ALL EVENTS AND COMMUNITY FACILITY ACTIVITIES. NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATIVES SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE DEVELOPMENT, IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT PLAN. THE OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT PLAN MAY BE PERIODICALLY AMENDED WITHOUT AMENDING THESE PLANS, PROVIDED THAT SUCH AMENDMENTS REMAIN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL STANDARDS OUTLINED WITH THIS FINAL PLAN. THE GSC OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT SHALL AT A MINIMUM ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING: a) CREATION AND ON-GOING ENGAGEMENT OF A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMITTEE. b) PARKING MANAGEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT. c) SOUND/NOISE MANAGEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT. d) MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR ALL OUTDOOR PRIVATE EVENTS, INCLUDING LIMITATIONS FOR MUSIC AND INSTRUMENT AMPLIFICATION AND VOCAL PERFORMANCES. e) ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDURES FOR EVENT IMPACTS THAT MAY OCCUR INCLUDING: LOITERING, DAY-CAMPING AND LITTERING. f) MANAGEMENT OF ALCOHOL SALES AT ALL EVENTS. g) THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEIGHBORHOOD HOTLINE FOR THE COORDINATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF GSC IMPACTS THAT MAY OCCUR. h) COORDINATION OF GSC EVENTS WITH NEIGHBORHOOD EVENTS. REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIC TO THIS PLAN APPROVAL: 1. USE AND OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENTS: THE DESIGNATED USE PER THE CITY LAND USE CODE FOR THE GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK IS A COMMUNITY FACILITY, WHICH IS DEFINED AS A PUBLICLY OWNED OR PUBLICLY LEASED FACILITY OR OFFICE BUILDING WHICH IS PRIMARILY INTENDED TO SERVE THE 5 RECREATIONAL, EDUCATIONAL, CULTURAL, ADMINISTRATIVE OR ENTERTAINMENT NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. SPECIFIC TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS COMMUNITY FACILITY, ALL PROPERTY ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PLAN SHALL REMAIN IN OWNERSHIP AND BE OPERATED DIRECTLY BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS. ANY REQUEST TO TRANSFER OWNERSHIP OR MANAGEMENT OF THE FACILITY TO AN ENTITY OTHER THAN THE CITY SHALL BE CONSIDERED A CHANGE OF USE REQUIRING A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO THESE PLANS WHICH MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED PRIOR TO ANY SUCH TRANSFER. 2. LILAC PARK: PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF THE SPRING CREEK TRAIL SHALL BE RESERVED FOR THE EXPANSION OF LILAC PARK AND SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED AS A SEPARATE AMENDMENT TO THESE PLANS. FLOODPLAIN NOTES: 1. PORTIONS OF THIS PROPERTY ARE LOCATED IN THE FEMA REGULATORY 100- YEAR FLOODPLAIN AND FLOODWAY FOR SPRING CREEK. 2. ALL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN MUST COMPLY WITH THE FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS OF CHAPTER 10 OF CITY OF FORT COLLINS MUNICIPAL CODE. 3. NON-STRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT (FENCES, DETENTION PONDS, HARD SURFACE PATHS, FILL, DRIVEWAYS, PARKING AREAS, VEGETATION, ETC.) IS ALLOWED WITHIN THE 100 YEAR FLOODWAY, PROVIDED THE DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT CAUSE A RISE IN THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION OR A CHANGE TO THE FLOODWAY OR FLOOD FRINGE BOUNDARIES. NON-STRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT IS NOT RESTRICTED IN THE FLOOD FRINGE. REFER TO THE PROJECT’S FLOODPLAIN USE PERMIT AND FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR FURTHER DETAILS AND RESTRICTIONS. 4. ALL STRUCTURES PROPOSED IN THE FLOODPLAIN SHALL BE PERMANENLTY ANCHORED AND SHALL MEET ALL CITY STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS. REFER TO THE PROJECT’S FLOODPLAIN USE PERMIT AND FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR STRUCTURE DETAILS, RESTRICTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS. NATURAL AREA BUFFER REQUIREMENTS: 1. STANDARDS FOR PROTECTION DURING CONSTRUCTION - THE DIRECTOR SHALL ESTABLISH A "LIMITS OF DEVELOPMENT" ("LOD") LINE(S) TO ESTABLISH 6 THE BOUNDARY OF THE PROJECT OUTSIDE OF WHICH NO LAND DISTURBANCE ACTIVITIES WILL OCCUR DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT. 2. ALL AREAS WITHIN THE SPRING CREEK, SHERWOOD LATERAL AND WETLAND AREA BUFFER ZONES SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A NATIVE LANDSCAPE. SEE SECTION 3.4.1 OF THE LAND USE CODE FOR ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN THE BUFFER ZONES. 3. CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE ORGANIZED AND TIMED TO MINIMIZE THE DISTURBANCE OF SENSITIVE SPECIES OCCUPYING OR USING ON-SITE AND ADJACENT NATURAL HABITATS OR FEATURES, INCLUDING THE SPRING CREEK CORRIDOR, SHERWOOD LATERAL DITCH AND WETLAND AREAS. 4. CONSTRUCTION OF BARRIER FENCING SHALL BE PROVIDED AT THE LIMITS OF THE DEVELOPMENT DURING CONSTRUCTION. STANDARD PLAN NOTES AND REQUIREMENTS: 1. REFER TO FINAL UTILITY PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION FOR STORM DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, UTILITY MAINS AND SERVICES, PROPOSED TOPOGRAPHY, STREET IMPROVEMENTS. 2. 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. 3. ALL CONSTRUCTION WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN MUST BE COMPLETED IN ONE PHASE UNLESS A PHASING PLAN IS SHOWN WITH THESE PLANS. 4. 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. 5. FIRE HYDRANTS MUST MEET OR EXCEED POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY STANDARDS. ALL BUILDINGS MUST PROVIDE AN APPROVED FIRE EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM. 6. ALL BIKE RACKS PROVIDED MUST BE PERMANENTLY ANCHORED. 7 7. 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. 8. 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. GENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES: 1. 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. 2. 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 8 3. THE FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL BE 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.