HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.A.T. 22ND FILING, COMMUNITY HORTICULTURE CENTER PDP & FDP - 53-85AV / AZ - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - PLANNING OBJECTIVES�
L-J
Project Development Plan - Community giorticulture Center
Stateinent of Plannin� Objectives
11/9/00
1. Applicable City Plan Principles and Policies
a. LU=1.1: Compact urban growth.
The project is centrally located in Fort Collins, wittun an infill area, and contiguous
with existing vehiculaz, bicycle, and pedestrian traffie routes.
b. CAD-2.1: Functional, attractive; safe, and comfortable civic buildings and grounds.
As a civic facility, the Communiry Horticulture Center (CHC) will be located in a
central and highly visible location. The architectural quality of the building and
grounds will express permanence and importance. A primary objective for the design
— and the programming of the CHC will be to reflect and interpret our local heritage,
and through that create a sense of eommunity identity. The project will be adjacent
to the existing Spring Creek bike trail, and within easy walking distance of the Mason
Street Transit Corridor. The safery and comfort of our visitors will be strongly
addressed.
c. CAD-5.2; Education and awareness of our local heritage.
Throughout. our design and the development of our programming, we will be looking
for opportunities to, create a local "sense of place", and to educate our visitors about
Fort Collins hiswry, particularly related to hortieulture (for example, sour cherry
orchards and lilaes), agriculture (such as with inigation ditches), climate, and soils.
d. CAD-6.2: Cultural development and participation.
In addition to serving as a recreational and educational facility, the CHC will also
provide cultural services as a venue for art shows, small concerts, and other art-
related programs.
e. ENV-2: Protect environmental resources.
The foremost mission of the CHC will be to demonstrate sustainable horticulture,
including water-aonserving landscaping, backyard wildlife habitat, use of naxive
plants, "organic" gardening techniques, composting, and alternatives w fossil fuel
requiring maintenance practices.
f. ENV-4: Encouraging energy efficiency and use of renewable energy.
The CHC building will be a sta.te-of-the-art facility demonstrating the use of solaz
energy, energy effieiency and "green" constTuction. It will serve as a public
demonstration site with educational programming to extend its impact.
g. ENV-5.1: Protection and enhancement of ecosystems.
The restoration of 5 acres of the Spring Creek comdor will be a major element of our
site development. It will include extensive re-grading of the area to approximate a
� �
more naturalistic cross-section, wetlands will be added, and ttie entire area will be
replanted with appropriate native plants.
h. ENV-7.3:. Minimize flood damage.
The 5ite grading will result in the creation of an additional -- 20 acre fe�t of
stormwater detention along Spring Creek, a high priority of the city's Stormwater
Utiliry.
I. ENV-7.5: Flood educarion.
One element of our programming will be the interpretation of the Spring Creek 1997
flood, and associated education.
ENV-7.6: Educational programs on storrriwater quality..
The proposed development includes a boardwalk path along Spring Creek and over
the created wetlands, to serve as an outdoor laboratory for environmental �ucaiion.
k. NOL-1.3: Public opportunities for educational and recreational opportunities related
to natural features.
This project will create numerous opportunities to leam about and enjoy Spring
Creek.
1. NOL-3: Balancing opportunities for passive and active recreation within city's parks
and natural areas.
This project will provide the opportunity for both acfive (athletic and play activities in
the neighborhood park, and participatory gardening at the CHC) and passive
(strolling the grounds, relaxing on a bench, listening to a coneert, etc.) reereation.
m. GM-4.1: City commitment to providing capital facilities..
As one of the projects in the Building Community Choices eapital improvement plan,
the CHC will help meet the needs and desires of our growing community.
n. RD-5.2: Neighborhood parks in residential districts.
This project includes the development of a several acre neighborhood park, within
easy walking and biking distance of the residential areas to the west. It will have an
unprogrammed multi-use turf area, a picnic shelter, benches, and gardens.
o. ED-1: Appropriate development within an Employment District.
The CHC and neighborhood park represent an appropriate addition to this
Employment District, as it will provide recreational/educational/cultural
opportunities, it will have an attraetive appearance, and will be designed to encourage
bicycle, pedestrian, and transit aecess.
�
�' �
p. WC-1.1 and 1.2: Funcuons of water comdors and protection of natural resources.
This development will not only preserve, but it will enhance, the funetiorls of Spring
Creek for drainage (floodwater detention will be increased), recreation, habitat .
conservation, and wildlife movement.
q. WG2.1: Appropriate placement of recreational trails.
This development ineludes the re-routing of the Spring Creek bike trail along the
creek, in a manner�that minimizes habitat impact and maximizes human enjoyment.
r. WG2.3: Connections between water comdors, open lands; and trails.
The restoration of Spring Creek through our site will serve as a critical component of
the entire Spring Creek comdor, hopefully inspiring further restoration along its
length. The bike trail along the corridor and through our site provides a great
opportunity for people to experience the beauty of ttus area:
2. Description of proposed open space, buffering, landscaping, circulation, tr�nsition
areas, wetlands and natural areas on site and in the general vicinity of the project:
Ecologists assessing the Spring Creek aorridor through our site have determined that it
currently has little natural resource value in the way of native vegetation or wildlife. The
water course is lined with one large cottonwood, several non-native crack willows, and
about a dozen invasive Russian olives. The adjacent fields have been leveled right up to
the banks, for the purpose of flood irrigauon, and are vegeta.ted primarily with alfalfa,
weeds, and non-native grasses., This corridor does, however, have great potential for
restoration. In order to improve the natural resource value and to create much-needed
floodwater detention, our proposed grading includes extensive pulling back of the top
several feet of the existing banks (leaving the e�cisting channel and bottom 2 feet of
embankment as is) to create a more naturalistic two-year floodplain with meandering high
water channels and wetland areas within it.
The existing tre�s within the corridor will be preserved, ottier than the Russian olives and
the smaller crack willow (Salix fragilis). The corridor will be replanted extensively with
appropriate wetland, riparian, and upland native plants, including trees, shrubs, forbs,
sedges, rushes, and grasses. This azea of native planungs will be for the entire 100 feet
width of the CHC property on the north side of the creek. On the south side, the native
plantings will vary between 60 feet (for a portion of the neighborhood park area) and 200
feet (in the area of the Habitat Garden), with an average of over 100 feet. These
plantings will consist of native trees, shrubs, forbs, and unmowed grasses. A portion of
the south side of the corridor will be aceessible by an informal path and boardwalks for
the purpose of environmental education. Interpretive signage in this area will be kept to a
minimum. The restoration work will be done with the assistance of riparian naturalists
and restoration hydrologists. This area will be maintained with a naturalistic approach,
with an example being that the grasses will not be mowed. The bike trail will be located
3
� �
o�r �ie so�th side of Spring Creek with a meandering route that varies between 60 and 130
feet from the creek.
Section 3.4.1D of the Land Use Code deals with natural feature buffer zones, and
subsection (2) states that "no disturbance shall occur within any buffer zone....except as
provided in subsection (c)." Subseetion (c) states that "the decision maker may allow
disturbance or eonstruction activity wittun the buffer zone for the following limited
purposes: ", and goes on to list six situauons. We feel that our proposed development
meets the s�cond and fourth situations due to the environmental improvements to this
previously disturbed area and due to the creation of stormwater detention as a"utility
installation". The second arid fourth exceptions read as follows; "2. restoration of
previously disturbed or degraded areas or planned enhancement projects to benefit the
natural area or feature" and "4. utility installations when such actiyities and installations
cannot reasonably be located outside the buffer zone or other nearby areas of
development'°.
We ha:ve met with the Natural Resources staff on several occasions over the past 6
months, and haye received their tentative approval of this concept. The Natural
Resources staff has also tentatively deternuned that it will provide financial assistance to
this project, to be use� for the restoration of the Spring Cre�k corridor. We have also
given presentations to the natural areas committee of the Natural Resourees Advisory
Board and the full Natural Resources Advisory Board. The committee and the full board
were supportive of the proje�t as a whole, and with our proposed development along
Spring Creek, with the proviso that several specific concems be addressed. The proposed
development indicated in this Project Development Plan submittal does address those
concems.
3. Statement of proposed ownership and maantenance of public and private open sp�ce
areas:
The Community Horticulture Center and the neighborhood park will be owned and
maintained by the City of Fort Collins. No future change is foreseen in the ownership
and maintenance.
4. Estimate of number of employces:
The Community Horticulture Center will initially be staffed with four full-time, several
part=time employees, and possibly an intem. We will also rely heavily on the assistance
of volunteers for the operation and maintenanee of the faciliry and grounds. At any point.
in time, this could vary between n. o volunteers and 10 or 15 volunteers.
As additional gardens are built and more maintenance is required, the number of paid staff
will increase. When the proje�t is completed, we estimate that there would be ten full-
time and part-time sta.ff during the growing season,
4
� �
5. Description of rationale befl�ind the assumptions and choices made by the applicsaat:
The only design-related deeision that might not be self-evident, and that varies from what
might be expected by City staff or directed by City Plan, has to do with the location of
our parking lot, The parking lot was originally proposed to be in the southwestern corner
of our site due to our believing that, with the information we had at that time, that
location was the most cost=effective, the most practical in terms of site layout and flow,
ttie safest for traffic, the least impact to flood detention volumes, and the most consistent
with City Plan objectives; However, as described in #8 below, the Windtrail
neighborhood. to the west of our site was strongly opposed to that locafion, for several
reasons.
As a result of that vocal resistanee, we re-assessed our options for the parking lot location,
including a further contact with Eric Bracke, City traffic engineer. Beeause of the
circumstances, he stated that he would allow our parking lot access to be directly across
from the Natural Resources Research Center's north entrance, rather than the previously
stipulated 315 feet north of that entrance: This allowed us to avoid a very large a,tnount of
filling witllin the floodway, thereby eliminating a major disadvantage (and possible "fatal
flaw") of the previous design for this parking lot location. Allowing the parking lot
access at this point also eliminated other drawbacks previously identified with loeating the
parking lot along Centre Avenue; and even created some additional benefits, most nota.bly
allowing us to have a sta.ff parking lot and service access on the "back side" of our
building. This was a feature that was not possible with the parking lot as previously
considered.
In re-assessing the pros and cons of the two options and in wanting to meet the
neighborhood's request, we determined that the location alongside Centre Avenue was
best. Therefore, that is what we are now proposing, as seen in our attached plans. This
is in a more visible location than what might be preferred by City Plan. However, this
best meets the concems of the neighborhood, and has received their strong support (see
attached). It a1so, we feel, results in a better overall project for the community. The
view of the parking lot from Centre Avenue will be mitigated as much as possible with
screening from trees and shrubs.
6. Evidence of successful completion of the applicable criteria:
Not applicable
7. Narrative description of how contlicts between land uses or disturbances to wetlands
or natiaral areas are being avoided or mitigated:
The net effect of our project will be a greater arriount and irriproved quality of wildlife
habitat on our site, as compared with its current condition. However, before it can be
improved with a vast amount of replanting, we will have to do a considerable amount of
earthwork that will be intially disrupti�e. With all of this earthwork, we will need to
provide appropriate measures to protect Spring Creek, eertain trees, and any e�sting
E
� �
animal shelters/habitat that are deemed important, such as fox dens. Protective measures
will include: construction documents that clearly and explicitly state areas requiring
special care (with stiff penalties for violation); orange plastic fencing to piote�t trees to be
saved and any important animal habitat areas; silt fencing along the border of Spring
Creek; and close construction observation/supervision.
�. Narrative addres.sing each concern/issue raised at the neighborhood meetings:
During the course of our extensive public outreach, strong support was expressed for the
project as a whole and for having it located on the intended site. There was not a single
opinion expressed against the project itself or our location. During ttie five neighborhood
meetings and about a dozen phone conversations and E-mails, however, about 26 people
expressed some concern (ranging from mild to strong) about a particular aspect(s) of our
proposed development. The following narrative relates the nature of those concerns and
how we have addressed them.
One minor concern expressed by one individual had to do with the proposed location of
our compost bins. He was concemed that the compost would result in offensive odors
that could be sm�lled from his residence. This coneern was addressed by moving the
compost bin location about 100 feet further away (so that it is now at least 300 feet from
his property), in addition to assuring him that a well-tended compost bin produces very
little odor, certainly nothing that could be detected from that distance. We also
encouraged him to contaet us in the future if he was able to smell it, and convinced him
that we would then take further corrective actions.
Beyond that minor concern, all other concerns that were expressed boiled down to two
issues, one regarding the initially-proposed location of the parking lot and the second �
regarding our serving as a venue for concerts or wedding receprions. Between these two
issues the most concern, both in terms of number of people and strength of opposition,
was regarding the parking lot. The parking lot was originally proposed to be in the
southwest corner of our site due to our believing that location was the most eost-effective,
the most pracrieal in terms of site layout and flow, the safest for traffic, the least
inipactful to flood detention volumes, and the most eonsistent with City Plan objectives.
The specific concern(s) about the parking lot vaazied between people, but in all cases it was
some combination of: excessive noise, yisual unsightliness, annoying ligtiting, harmful traffic
e�aust, and safety risk for the neighborhood ehildren. They all expressed that the parking lot
should be locat� along Cerrtre Avenue, raiher than along our southwest corner. We felt that
many of their concerns were based at leasi somewhat on inaccurate assumptions (for e�mple,
we are not proposing that the parking 1ot lights be on after 10:00 p. m. ) and that we could
mitigate some of the issues (such as with a sound wall and trees for visual and sound buffer), but
our justifications and proposed mitigations were not adequate to satisfy theu concerns. We
therefore re-assessed our options, the result of which is now proposing that the parking lot
be loeated along Centre Avenue, as requested by the neighbors. They ane happy with this
decision (see attached letter), and we and the neighbors consider that issue resolved.
�
�
�
� �
The second issue of concern, as expressed by about 12 people, has to do with our
proposed use of our site as a venue for small concerts, wedding receptions, special events,
etc. .In order to provide a higlily-demanded service to the community, and to provide
some earned revenue for our faeility, we would like to be able to rent out our meering
room, the adjoining patio area, and the Great Lawn (see our Landscape Plan) for these
type of events. Associated with these events, there would be live music or amplifed
recorded music, and possibly the serving of alcohol. These people's specific concerns
related to these events were/are: (1) noise, (2) spillover parking in their neighborhood,
and (3) drunken behavior from alcohol served at the events.
The first order of addressing these concerns has been with clarification. Many of the
people expressing coneern have had an inaccura:te percegtion that we are proposing very
loud concerts with a thousand or more people, similar to the CSU Lagoon Concert Series.
In fact, we are envisioning much more subdued music and much smaller audiences,
comparable to the Lincoln Center's summer "Nooner" series with minimally amplified
music and about 300 people attending.
Controlling the number of people attending is a key issue, as that relates to both the noise
level and the risk of people nor finding convenient parking and resorting to looking for it
in the adjoining neighborhood. We can control the number of attendees in several ways,
including through strict limitations in our contracts with the groups that rent our facility,
through Iimiting the number of tickets sold, and through the fact that our site will be
se.cured with fencing and a single entrance. We will make sure ahead of time that there is
adequate parking for the maximum number attending, through a eombination of our
parking lot, the Natural Resources Research Center parking lot across the street (we are in
the process of obtaining a signed Memorandum of Understanding), and/or possibly the
vacant field to the south of Rolland Moore Drive, owned by CSURF. Any remaining risk
of people trying to park in the adjacent neighborhood should be eliminated by the faet that.
our parking lot location and entrance is now along Centre Avenue (rather than the
previously-proposed parking locarion and entrance that were closer to the neighborhood),
in addition to signage and parking enforcement, if needed.
We have recognized all along that the noise level of any event, whether from people or
music, is a eritical one. We also understand that the nearest homes are relarively close to
the Great Lawn, and that sound travels more readily in this creek basin, for geographic
and climatological neasons. To begin with, we re-oriented the gazebolbandstand so that
sound would be projected away from the residential neighborhoods to the west and
northwest; Since June we have been performing tests and gathering information on this
issue. We have sought the input of Rich Kopp, who enforces the eity's noise ordinance,
on several oceasions. We also hired Balloffet and Associates to perform a very detailed
scientific analysis of the eJcisting noise levels at the site. Their opinion is that, with
reasonable precautions, it will be possible to have amplified musie and other aativities on
7
�
��J
the Great Lawn, that meets both the desires of attendees and the city's noise ordinance
levels.
The rime of day and frequency of these events is also a key issue. We have informed the
neighbors that we do not intend to have any event last past 10: � p. m. , and in most cases
they would not go past dusk. Events would most likely be limited to Friday and
Saturdays during the summer.
The serving of alcohol is quite cominon for social events at botanie gardens. Alcoholic
drinks aie also pernussible for adults attending events at the Senior Center and the Lincoln
Center. Both facilities consider the option of serving alcohol to be essential for the rental
market that they serve, and they report negligible problems associated with it. We do not
want to short change our revenue-earning potential by limiting ourselves at the outset.
We also feel that we can adequately establish, eontrol arid enforce limitations on the
consumption of alcohol during events at our facility. Furthermore, if problems develop,
they can be resolved, as we do not need to view any particular policy as "written in
stone". That is particularly true for a public faeility that is held to a higher standard and
sub,ject to citizen oversight and review.
Thus far, we have not been able to alleviate all of the concerns of the neighbors related to
the holding of small concerts and other events. Our intent for the further resolution of
these issues-=the noise levels, time of day, frequency, number ofpeople attending, and the
serving of alcohol—is to continue researching and discussing them with the neighborhood.
When we are further along in our planning, for example, we would be happy to conduct
sound demoristrations for the neighbors so they will know wha.t, exactly, we are proposing �
in terms of noise level. We feel triat we do not have to have these programming issues
firmly resolved in order to obtain approval of this. project, given that none of these issues
impact our physical design. Even if we thought that we would never hold a concert on
the grounds, we would srill intend to have the Great Lawn and gazebo/bandshell, for the
benefit of other social events without amplified music. Furthermore, the consttuction of
the Great Lawn and gazebo/bandshell is not anticipated to be part of phase one, and will.
likely be several years into the future, pending private fundraising. We feel that there is
ample time to discuss these issues further, and a process set up for doing so, in parallel to
the construction of the project so that it is not held up.
9, Current and past names of the prnject, as submitted for conceptual revaews
This project has solely been referred to as the Commuriity Horticulture Center, throughout
its 14 year history of being envisioned and planned.
.�
�