The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04/01/2021 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - Regular MeetingPlanning and Zoning Board Page 1 April 1, 2021 Michelle Haefele, Chair Virtual Hearing Ted Shepard, Vice Chair Zoom Webinar Jeff Hansen Per Hogestad David Katz Jeff Schneider Cablecast on FCTV, Channel 14 on Connexion & William Whitley Channels 14 & 881 on Comcast The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing April 1, 2021 6:00 PM Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Agenda Participation for this remote Planning and Zoning Board meeting will be available online or by phone. No one will be allowed to attend in person. Public Participation (Online): Individuals who wish to address the Planning & Zoning Board via remote public participation can do so through Zoom at https://zoom.us/j/97031314373. Individuals participating in the Zoom session should also watch the meeting through that site. The meeting will be available to join beginning at 5:45 p.m. on April 1, 2021. Participants should try to sign in prior to 6:00 p.m. if possible. For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time. Staff will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Board. In order to participate: Use a laptop, computer, or internet-enabled smartphone. (Using earphones with a microphone will greatly improve your audio). You need to have access to the internet. Keep yourself on muted status. If you have any technical difficulties during the hearing, please email smanno@fcgov.com. Public Participation (Phone): If you do not have access to the internet, you can call into the hearing via phone. Please dial: 253-215-8782 or 346-248-7799, with Webinar ID: 970 3131 4373. (Continued on next page) Packet pg. 1 Planning and Zoning Board Page 2 April 1, 2021 • ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Individuals may comment on items not specifically scheduled on the hearing agenda, as follows: • Those who wish to speak are asked to state their name and general address before speaking. • The presiding officer will determine and announce the length of time allowed for each speaker. • Each speaker should state their name and address and keep their comments to the allotted time. • Any written materials should be provided to the Secretary for record-keeping purposes. • A timer will beep once and the time light will turn to yellow to indicate that 30 seconds of speaking time remain and will beep again and turn red when a speaker’s time to speak has ended. • CONSENT AGENDA The Consent Agenda is intended to allow the Planning and Zoning Board to quickly resolve items that are non-controversial. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request that an item on this agenda be “pulled” for consideration within the Discussion Agenda, which will provide a full presentation of the item being considered. Items remaining on the Consent Agenda will be approved by the Planning and Zoning Board with one vote. The Consent Agenda generally consists of Board Minutes for approval, items with no perceived controversy, and routine administrative actions. The meeting will be available beginning at 5:45 p.m. Please call in to the meeting prior to 6:00 p.m., if possible. For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time – phone participants will need to hit *9 to do this. Staff will be moderating the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Committee. Once you join the meeting: keep yourself on muted status. If you have any technical difficulties during the hearing, please email smanno@fcgov.com. Documents to Share: If residents wish to share a document or presentation, City Staff needs to receive those materials via email by 24 hours before the meeting. Please email any documents to smanno@fcgov.com. Individuals uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform or unable to participate by phone are encouraged to participate by emailing general public comments you may have to smanno@fcgov.com . Staff will ensure the Board or Commission receives your comments. If you have specific comments on any of the discussion items scheduled, please make that clear in the subject line of the email and send 24 hours prior to the meeting. As required by City Council Ordinance 079, 2020, a determination has been made by the chair after consultation with the City staff liaison that conducting the hearing using remote technology would be prudent. Packet pg. 2 Planning and Zoning Board Page 3 April 1, 2021 1. Draft Minutes for the P&Z March Hearing The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes of the March 11, 2021, Planning and Zoning Board hearing. 2. Gil Boyer Annexation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for the 100% voluntary annexation of a 9,800 square foot property containing a single-family residence located at 241 N Taft Hill Road. The annexation site is located approximately 425 feet northwest of the intersection of Laporte Avenue and N Taft Hill Road, cater-corner to 7-Eleven. APPLICANT: Gary Van Dorren 2224 Sunleaf Ct Fort Collins, CO 80525 STAFF ASSIGNED: Kai Kleer, City Planner • DISCUSSION AGENDA 3. Apex-Haven Apartments PDP PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Project Development Plan (PDP) to develop a three-story multi-family building, adaptive re-use of two existing homes, and replat of Parcels 9714321001 and 9714321002 into a single lot. The project is located within the High-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (H-M-N) zone district and requires a (Type 2) review. APPLICANT: Shelley LaMastra Russell + Mills Studios 506 S College Ave Fort Collins, CO 80524 STAFF ASSIGNED: Pete Wray, Senior City Planner 4. Residential Metro District Evaluation Process PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to amend the City of Fort Collins Metropolitan (Metro) District policy by adopting a Residential Metro District Evaluation system. APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 STAFF ASSIGNED: Cameron Gloss, Long-Range Planning Manager • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Packet pg. 3 Agenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY April 1, 2021 Planning and Zoning Board STAFF Shar Manno, Customer and Administrative Manager SUBJECT MINUTES OF THE MARCH 11, 2021 P&Z HEARING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is the consideration and approval of the draft minutes of the March 11, 2021 Planning & Zoning Board hearing. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft March 11, 2021 P&Z Minutes Packet pg. 4 Michelle Haefele, Chair Virtual Hearing Ted Shepard, Vice Chair City Council Chambers Jeff Hansen 300 Laporte Avenue Per Hogestad Fort Collins, Colorado David Katz Jeff Schneider Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 on Connexion & William Whitley Channels 14 & 881 on Comcast The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing March 11, 2021 Chair Haefele called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Haefele, Hansen, Hogestad, Katz, Schneider, Shepard, Whitley Absent: None Staff Present: Everette, Sizemore, Yatabe, Stephens, Claypool, Vonkoepping, Betley, Smith, Hahn, Wray, Smith, Mapes, Saha, Virata and Manno Chair Hefele provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. She described the following procedures: •While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration, citizen input is valued and appreciated. •The Board is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Board once for each item. •Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with city Land Use Code. •Should a citizen wish to address the Board on items other than what is on the agenda, time will be allowed for that as well. •This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak can be heard. Agenda Review CDNS Interim Director Sizemore reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas, stating that all items will be heard as originally advertised. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes DRAFTPacket pg. 5 Planning & Zoning Board March 11, 2021 Page 2 of 10 Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: None noted. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from January 21, 2021, P&Z Hearing 2. Draft Minutes from February 18, 2021, P&Z Hearing 3. East Parks District Maintenance Facility MJA and APU Public Input on Consent Agenda: None noted Chair Haefele did a final review of the items that are on consent and reiterated that those items will not have a separate presentation unless pulled from the consent agenda. Member Whitley made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Consent agenda which consists of the Draft Minutes of the P&Z January 21st hearing, the Draft Minutes from the February 18th hearing, and the East Parks District Maintenance Facility MJA and APU 200003. This approval is based on the agenda materials and information presented during the work session, this hearing and discussion. It also includes information, analysis, finding of fact and conclusion found in the staff report, including the agenda materials of the hearing that are adopted by this board. Member Katz seconded the motion. Vote: 7:0. Discussion Agenda: 4. Guardian Self-Storage Project Description: This is a request for a Project Development Plan (PDP) to develop a four-story 119,300 sq. ft. enclosed mini-storage facility of 2.2 acres. The project is located within the General Commercial (C-G) zone district and requires a Type 2 review. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Manno reported that the following citizen emails, letters, and voicemails were received: o Email from Ben Thurston on behalf of Bruce Odette, Owner of Carpet Exchange, voicing opposition to the project due to several impacts on the property at 5000 S College Ave. o Email from Jamie Alexander voicing some concerns about the height and color of the buildings for the project. o Letter from John Dubler at Good Shepard Chapel expressing concern about the project as it will be casting shadow on their parking lot and the ice issues this will create in the winter. o Email from Karen Rose voicing opposition to the project on behalf of Fossil Creek Meadows neighborhood with six listed points of reason. o Voicemail from Jamie Alexander reiterating her concerns of the height and color of the buildings for the project. o Voicemail from Sandra Holt expressing opposition to the project because of the large size of the building and issues with drainage. Board Disclosures: Member Schneider disclosed that he knows the owner of Carpet Exchange and that he did a project for Karen Rose in that neighborhood. He does not feel that there is an issue and that he can be unbiased in decision making. DRAFTPacket pg. 6 Planning & Zoning Board March 11, 2021 Page 3 of 10 Member Hogestad disclosed that he has a casual acquaintance that lives in the neighborhood. He does not feel this will cause any reason to vote one way or the other. Vice Chair Shepard disclosed that he has a casual acquaintance that lives in the area and he does not feel it will cause any bias on his part in evaluating the project. Chair Haefele disclosed that she has acquaintances in the neighborhood and believes she can be unbiased. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Wray gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this project. Ken Merritt with JR Planners and Engineers, Kevin Cohen, development partner with Guardian Storage and Jeff Michelson of Desmone Architects also provided a presentation to the board. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Ben Thurston, AICP, Planning Director of Baseline Engineering in Golden. He is representing Bruce Odette, owner of Carpet Exchange. On Mr. Odette’s behalf, Ben is speaking in opposition of the proposed PDP. He feels there are flaws and it goes against the South College Corridor Plan and the Land Use Code. Karen, resident of Fossil Creek. The Board signed off on the easement for the pipeline and it was against comments made by the HOA’s attorney. She does not feel the covenants were followed. She is also concerned with the seepage from flooding and access to homes. She objects to the large swaths of blue. Jesse Solomon, resident of Fossil Creek. He is concerned with the water issues. He feels there is ground water that will need to be addressed. Martin Scott, resident of Fossil Creek. He is concerned with the blue banding of the building and is asking that it not go around the East side of the building. He is also concerned with the security lighting at night and increased commercial traffic. Bruce Odette, President of Carpet Exchange, and owner of the commercial shopping center. He opposes this PDP because it does not conform to the South College Corridor Plan or the Fort Collins Land Use Code. He feels it will result in negative impacts to his property and business. Rich Stave, resident of Fossil Creek. Planning commentary and the word Eclectic. This word should be used for the entire College corridor. He feels this is a denigration overall to define certain locations within the corridor. Issues he has with the project are, what exactly does landscape planning mean regarding the trees? Is the bule on the building doors or panels associated with the building and branding? And where is the starting elevation of the building? Another issue he has is the setbacks, it cuts back to the closest so far. Shannon, resident of Fossil Creek. He has issues with the easement and will be contacting an attorney. With the stormwater, many businesses have left due to mismanagement of the stormwater by the City. He feels that no one wants to help the residents with the water issues. Another issue is the 100-year floodplain. Staff Response Civil Engineer Simpson responded specifically in relation to the site. This site has been designed to meet the City of Fort Collins standards for onsite water quality and conveyance of the water to Fossil Creek. The easement: this property drains to the South East corner and has an existing 45” elliptical culvert that conveys stormwater from this property to Fossil Creek Parkway. This culvert was designed 30 years ago. The current applicant has updated the hydraulidations flow rates and the capacity of the culvert to show that is now appears to be undersized. They are proposing in combination with their approach on this development to upsize this culvert to include a second complete barrel all of the way across and underneath Fossil Creek Parkway to Fossil Creek. This will effectively double the capacity of stormwater that can be conveyed from this site to Fossil Creek. The culvert when, it crosses under Fossil Creek Parkway, then proceeds to Fossil Creek, this piece of property is owned by the Fossil Creek DRAFTPacket pg. 7 Planning & Zoning Board March 11, 2021 Page 4 of 10 Meadows HOA. They have obtained a permanent drainage easement and temporary construction easement from the Fossil Creek HOA Board which was recorded on December 1, 2020 with Larimer County. This is for the construction of an additional stormwater pipe. City Attorney Yatabe responded that he has seen the recorded document, because something is recorded, does not necessarily mean that it has been executed with the proper authorization. He does not know the background on the covenants, or the process the HOA Board went through. At the PDP level, what is required is a letter of intent showing that an easement is in the works or something that at final plan would need to be executed at that time. This is an issue at final plan for staff to deal with. The Fossil Ridge Drive bridge over Fossil Creek. Fossil Creek is a regulated floodplain, and the regulated floodplain overtops this road. The current crossing is a 5-year or a 10-year crossing that is on the City’s CIP plan for improvements to become a much larger crossing. This development is proposing to do a beat-the-peak. This is where they do not provide an on-site stormwater detention from major stormwater flows, by doing a watershed analysis, insert the development and show that there are no adverse impacts downstream, and do a 100-year flow rate. By doing this they do not have to do retention. The City does not see that this site creates any additional issues to the existing crossing at Fossil Ridge Drive. Planner Wray commented that staff’s recommendation is to remove the blue banding and have a more compatible pallet of colors. This responds to citizen concerns. It is up to the Board if they agree or want to change the condition of approval. Member Schneider, there is not a percentage, surface area or anything else in the Land Use Code that says you can or cannot do xx colors or bright colors, this is where the gray areas come in. What is the appropriate balance? Planner Wray stated that this comment is correct, it does not give a perimeter and is subjective. Member Schneider; is there a standard or normalcy of a percentage? Planner Wray responded that staff reviews each project individually given the context. In this context, while the blue color might not be as much of a concern for existing commercial development, it is more that we have heard from the neighborhood concerns of what they will be looking at and having it more blend in. This is the reason for the condition. Member Schneider, I am trying to understand if you are trying to tie into the blue banding on the North? Can the blue band not go to the East? This condition would remove the blue banding on all facades of the building except for the two sign areas and the doors. Member Schneider asked if there was a way to modify the security lighting plan? Planner Wray responded that shifting of the streetlight will be looked at. Staff will also look at the lighting levels attached to the building and parking lot area. Member Schneider asked if the applicants are willing to comply with the newly adopted lighting code standards even though this project would not have to because of when it was applied for? Mr. Cohen is familiar with the lighting section for the current Land Use Code and that is what it was designed to. He feels it is difficult to say whether they would approve the new lighting code. Mr. Merritt responded that if they could work with the department to move the streetlight to a new location this would not be an issue. He has not had an opportunity to analyze how the new standards would change the lighting levels on this site. What is important to recognize is one of things that the company sells is safety for their clients, the ability to come to a site and feel safe and secure. Site lighting is part of that requirement for providing safety both for the clients and their possessions kept within the building. Mr. Merritt commented that they worked very closely with the HOA and with the designated stormwater individuals. They met onsite two separate occasions and worked with them closely with the development of the easements. Whether or not the HOA went through the proper procedures, this is something where legal determination has to be made. The easements were acquired, signed, and recorded with the County. The recording was completed in advance as we felt that this project hinged entirely on the ability to acquire these easements so that the pipe size could be increased to the creek. Member Katz asked, under what criteria are you asking for the condition on the blue strip? And based on a comment by Ben Thurston, his opinion about storage along College Ave. not complying with the South College Sub Area Plan, please provide clarification. Planner Wray responded that the blue banding is not considered an earth tone pallet and felt that it is also was not an accent color for the doors. There are not any set criteria for this, and we were responding to continued public input on compatibility of the building colors overall. As for the South Corridor College Ave. Plan, staff is aware of all of the policies in the plan and that staff is consistent with the direction of the plan. That policy speaks to limiting less intense uses along the corridor and staff looks at how the plan is implemented. The plan relies on the general commercial zone district standards and TOD, the overlay to implement the South College Plan. This building in use satisfies the requirements of the code with the modification DRAFTPacket pg. 8 Planning & Zoning Board March 11, 2021 Page 5 of 10 and the findings determined that this location is not conducive to more intense mixed -use buildings brought to the street, ground level to support a high level of pedestrian activity and an active street front. This is why staff is supporting this modification to the code requirement. It has been identified that there is a need to fix the code. Planning Manager Everette responded to the color and the banding. The code section being referenced is section 3.10.5 Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zones Standards. In this section there is a subsection that deals with materials and colors that states “predominate or field colors for facade shall be low reflectants, subtle, neutral or earth tone colors. The use of high-intensity colors, black or fluorescent colors shall be prohibited”. Member Katz asked Planner Wray if the use strictly violates the Sub-Area Plan. Planner Wray responded that he did not believe so. There is no storage access on the College frontage. Staff feels it is consistent with the policy direction and the code provisions for what happens at the ground level on the College frontage. Member Hansen asked if the landscape trees were included in the shading study, specifically on the east side of the building, limiting solar access to those lots? Is this considered in the code at all? Planner Wray responded that shading of trees is part of that. The applicant does have an updated shading analysis and diagram. A couple of different things were looked at on the east side such as, tree mitigation and screening. This can be looked at during final plan review. Another concern is how this project is going to affect the surface water and not being able to regulate. Mr. Simpson responded that the City touches the ground water, underneath stormwater facilities, within right-of-way and basement foundations. Mr. Merritt responded that the plan in place will offer benefit over time. The underdrain system will also lower the ground water and provide protection for the utilities and roadway. Mr. Merritt responded to the tree shading. He commented that tree shade does not factor into the shade and shadow analysis. Properties within the TOD district is not subject to the shade and shadow requirements. Chair Hafele aske how does the code address a case where the property is in the TOD, therefore not required to perform a shade study, where the property will likely have an impact on adjacent properties that are not in the TOD? Planner Wray responded that the intent of the shading exemption is that City Plan encourages taller buildings within the TOD overlay in closer proximity to each other and the impacts of shading as not considered with the encouragement of taller buildings. Impacts of adjacent buildings is exempt. Member Hansen asked if the stormwater was a regional entry point for Fossil Creek and how much area is contributing to this? Mr. Cohen responded that there are 57 acres that drain to this site. This area has not been well studied over the last 30 years. The analysis completed is a thorough analysis. Member Hansen asked how close this building is to College Ave.? Planner Wray responded that the building and tree placement satisfies the site distance. Vice Chair Shepard asked for process clarification when building a street regarding the settling of groundwater. Mr. Merritt responded that a geotechnical survey was completed for the site. They are confident that everything meets standards. Vice Chair Shepard commented on the future return lane for westbound Fossil Creek Parkway, would it not be a good idea to plant shrubs in the interim? This would not be that severe to remove shrubs when the right turn lane is put in. Mr. Merritt responded that the trees have been placed so that they are in their ultimate condition when the new turn lane is put in. A preliminary design has been submitted representing this. Vice Chair Shepard commented on the term “eclectic”. This may be an accurate description but should not be used as a justification for compatibility or for judging an architectural standard. Member Hogestad asked how old the South Corridor Plan is? Has there been any projects built in that length of time? Planner Wray responded that it was adopted in 2009 and yes. Member Hogestad questioned whether the buildings that are there now do not meet or is viable according to the corridor plan. Planner Wray commented that there are several things that come into play with the existing development. Much of this development was done through the County and there is a large mix, however; there are no mixed-use buildings supporting an active street front on the College frontage. There is retail that was created after the South College Corridor Plan was adopted. Member Hogestad feels that it is odd to make modifications to the plan that go against what the intent of the plan is. Planner Wray responded that staff’s findings are that there is significant hardship for locating ground floor and other uses for this site. Member Hogestad would like to know a bit about the parking, how is the parking need being accommodated? Mr. Cohen responded that the conference room is to be used by tenants of the property and staff only and does not change the overall traffic patterns of the property. Vice Chair Hogestad does not agree that is the case. Mr. Merritt responded that there is no standard in the City for maximum or minimum parking for a self- storage facility. The first analysis was based on use type. The amount of parking was established using a 900 sq. ft. office space. Then looked at the number of employees, 1 full-time and 1 -part-time. Then an analysis was DRAFTPacket pg. 9 Planning & Zoning Board March 11, 2021 Page 6 of 10 completed of other self-storage facilities in Ft. Collins and surrounding area. They each had between 5 to 8 parking spaces. The number of spaces for this project are felt to be adequate. Tenants, when they come, do not use the parking spaces, they are driving to the overhead doors or they are going to the service drive area, unloading, or loading. The parking spaces are primarily for those individuals that are not yet tenants or trying to buy packing and moving supplies. Member Hogestad questioned 3.10.5 articulation of the building, and how this is done. Planner Wray responded that in looking at the site plan, the building is articulated. The wall planes are stepped back or indented on the east side. On the east, south and west sides, the wall planes are fairly articulated. On the north facade, it is articulated on the east side and the building materials are wrapped around from College Ave. approximately 20 ft. on the north west corner. The rest of the facade is long and on the back side of the building facing a private alley. The wall planes are articulated by change materials and building color related to the entrance and storage door areas. There is not horizontal wall plane articulation other than the materials in between the wall plane color variation and colors. Mr. Merrett commented that the architect went through great effort to articulate the building where the building was visible from the public right-of-way. The articulation that occurs along the entire south facade is plainly visible from Fossil Creek Blvd. The articulation that occurs on the east is visible from Steed as you approach from the north and from the south. The north wall uses articulation from the standpoint of material is completely blocked by southbound traffic heading down College Ave. It is blocked by the building to the north. Member Hogestad commented on the south side, having big expanses of material that only changes in material and not in articulation. He also wanted to know about what the height of the base of the building on the west elevation. Mr. Merritt responded that 34’ and a few inches. The base is 11’ from the ground plane to the finished floor of what would be the 3rd level of the building. The windows occur on the 3rd and 4th level of the building. The windows are floor to 9’ up. Floor to floor height is 10’8”. Board Questions / Deliberation Member Hansen asked what the building height was going to be and is there a difference between how the Land Use Code is interpreting and how the building code is interpreting and what is allowable? Planner Wray responded that the building department concluded that the building did not meet the definition for a basement. This is a four- story on the south elevation with transition to three-story on the west and north. Member Hansen asked if condition number two was still necessary. Engineer Virata responded that he has had conversations with Xcel Energy and reached out to them to understand their position on the retaining wall. They are comfortable with the project proceeding, however, there has not been any finalization with respect to where the utility line would be relocated. It was felt that the best approach was to put a condition of approval on the project given it had not been worked out prior to. Ken Merritt responded that they intend on relocating the gas line to get it further away from the proposed retaining wall. He believes that it will still end up in the easement which currently exists. This will be determined at time of final. Vice Chair Shepard asked whether the large deciduous tree along College Ave. will be preserved or removed. Planner Wray responded that the existing cottonwood tree will be removed. This is based on the condition of the tree and for dividing new storm drainage and sidewalk. Vice Chair Shepard requested verification that there will be no trash enclosure. Planner Wray responded that is correct. The storage customers are not allowed to leave anything onsite. Two small contains will be there for the offices. These are recessed loading and unloading areas that penetrate the building and there are no doors. There are sliding doors for pedestrians. Member Katz asked about the condition with the gas line easement. What happens if this is improved with condition but then they do not have to vacate, or Xcel does not play nice? How is the development left for FDP with this condition looming? Engineer Virata commented that typically you can not pull a building permit for a structure if it is in an easement. There is a little bit of a concern in a scenario where there would not be a vacation of an easement necessary. This is why the thought is there must be a vacation of at lest a partial easement based upon the fact that the wall is currently in an existing easement. Member Katz asked who solely regulates the discharged into Fossil Creek both from a capacity standard and from an environmental standard. Mr. Smith responded that stormwater reviews and approves of all drainage discharge into the creek, Utilities and Flood Plane Master Planning Departments oversee the flow rates of Fossil Creek. From an environmental standpoint it is probably between water quality standards with Utilities, and we do hold the MS 4 DRAFTPacket pg. 10 Planning & Zoning Board March 11, 2021 Page 7 of 10 permit as a City. Member Katz commented that the MS 4 authorizes the City to make the decision. Mr. Smith responded, yes. Vice Chair Shepard thanked the City Attorney for his response. We as a Board cannot comment on the legalities. Member Schneider mentioned the blue color and other citizen comments had not been responded to and wanted to make sure that all was covered before the Board went into questions and deliberation. Member Hansen’s main concern is allowing the self-storage as primary use on the main level. He feels this is not the intent of the South Corridor Plan. He likes the building, but this is not doing anything to mitigate the loss of activity that this use is providing at the site. A more appropriate modification might be storage on the main floor and then retail on the floor above it. Member Katz’s main concern was the modification. This is a challenging site, and the applicant was solving many of the issues. He feels they are doing the town a favor with this project. Member Hogestad agrees that the whole modification betrays the whole plan. He feels that we are a bit premature to pull the covers over this plan. It is a betrayal to the planners that worked hard to start to look at this and hope for a result better than a huge storage building that is out of context. It does not have the architectural features that the other neighboring properties have. Member Schneider commented that the lot is atrocious, and he is shocked that someone is willing to come forward and do something on this property. All that has been developed in the area, there has not been a lot of new projects that have come into play in this area. The signal has been in place for over 11 years. He does agree that the architectural style and colors are not his preference, his preference is that they do not have the blue banding to the east and minimize any lighting that they can to avoid impact to the neighbors. 4-stories are allowed. He agrees with the modification, especially for this sight. Member Hansen is not opposed to approving a modification because we are just starting to see development happen here. He would hate to set a precedent for future development to happen. Regarding the comments about architecture, the plan was written looking into the future decades. Matching architecture there is not a concern. He likes the blue color as it has been done tastefully and the appropriate amount, especially with the diagonal component. Without this accent feature, the interest of the building would be diminished. He is happy with the articulation in the wall plane, but this is not reflected at the roof level at all. This is the one thing he would like to see. Member Hogestad addressed the blue band. If the blue band is part of branding or corporate identity, the entirety of it should be considered a sign. If this is the case than it should respond to the sign code, the allotment, etc. As for the architecture, we do need to be visionary. Better buildings may come along, this is not one of them. This is enhanced architectural design; this definition is to set a standard for other buildings in this area. This certainly is not setting a standard to match. The architecture is a storage building, nothing more. He does not see this as enhanced architecture by any means. Vice Chair Shepard commented on the size of the building, it is big. He feels the market got ahead of us, we should have seen this coming, and we did not. There is a disconnect between the South Corridor Plan and what is being proposed and this is on us, this is our problem. The code and the plan need to be brought together. This is a struggle. Member Hansen echoed what Vice Chair Shepard stated. It is in Section 4 and could be leaned on. The modification is in Article 3, the overall Land Use Enclosed Mini-Storage is a permitted use in Article 4. What in Article 4 is not being complied with or needs a modification, he thought it was Article 3? Member Hansen responded that he was just echoing. Vice Chair Shepard is prepared to add some conditions to make sure the modification is mitigated. Chair Haefele is concerned that there is a plan that is aspirational for this part of the City and that thus far we are not seeing those uses show up in this place. She does not feel that a storage place is an enhancement, but at the same time, this passive use may be less impact on the neighborhood. Vice Chair Shepard responded that he is sympathetic. His thought on the modifications, it might be good to combine 3.10.2(A) and 3.10.4 and then in light of the conversation of the blue doors and banding and the standard 3.5.3(E), eliminate all the bule doors. All the blue comes off the building, lighting should be reduced, and add more or as much landscaping. Chair Haefele agrees. DRAFTPacket pg. 11 Planning & Zoning Board March 11, 2021 Page 8 of 10 Chair Haefele wanted to know that when there is a streetlight on a public street, who places the lights? Planner Wray responded that it is a public street and that the lighting is at certain spacing, the applicants proposed the lighting plan to meet City standards. The other streetlights can be looked at and potentially shifted to reduce lighting on the east side. This might help with some of the trees in the parkway due to underground utilities. Member Hansen commented that it would be a mistake to remove all of the blue from the building, it is not an offensive color and the elements add to the facade. Member Schneider asked about the blue and if it would impact the sign area or would the blue be part of the sign code. He is concerned with “no blue, period”. Would this affect the sign aspect? Vice Chair Shepard responded that part of the definition of a sign means that anything that conveys a recognizable meaning, identity or distinction or color that attracts or is designed to attract attention to the facility or in any way is used as a means of identification, advertisement, or announcement. There is evidence and testimony from Mr. Cohen that it is branding. All of the banding may be permitted by sign allowance. The issue is that it is a prototype and if it is not going to be a prototype and there is going to be blue on the building, then it needs to be designed and banded and rearranged in the pattern in such a way that does not look like any other facility in the chain. Otherwise, it does not meet 3.5.3(E). Member Schneider asked if the Board should be dictating colors, doors, and fenestrations of that nature? Attorney Yatabe commented that his understanding that Zoning has regulated color in some situations as signage, he is not involved in this area. A better way to address this is to allow under the signage allowance. Member Schneider asked how this was handled regarding the color of fenestrations, door, windows, etc.? Attorney Yatabe was unable to answer. Member Whitley does not feel the color of the blue fits and it is certainly not an earth tone. Accents are acceptable, but not the huge amount on this structure. Member Katz echoed Member Hansen. Without some accent this will look like a giant massing. He has no issues with the blue at its scale at this moment. He does not support the condition as it currently stands, and he does not support the suggestion to remove all the blue especially from the doors. Chair Hafele does agree that the bule should be minimized. Member Katz does not feel the Board should be dictating what color they paint. Chair Haefele asked if the Land Use Code restricted the use of a prototype as a branded building? Vice Chair Shepard responded yes, in 3.5.3(E). Member Hansen has an issue with making a decision about the blue based on section 3.5.1(F). He does not feel the Board has grounds to limit the blue and stay in compliance with the code section. Vice Chair Shepard added a new aspect to the modifications. He would like to add in that there should be as much landscaping, in a dense fashion, where possible. Member Schneider would like to have added “to the maximum extent feasible”. Member Hansen made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve Modification of Standard to Section 3.10.4(C) regarding the alignment of the parking and the street frontage. This approval is based on the agenda materials, the information presented in the work session and this hearing and the Board discussion on this item with the finding that it is not detrimental to the public good and that it is compliant with the standard would reduce physical hard ship, based on the irregular shape of the site, slopping, topography, existing wetlands, and utility easements. Member Katz seconded. Member Hansen commented that this building has street frontage on three sides, so it would be hard to locate the parking so that it was not between the building and the street and it is a minimum amount of parking. Vice Chair Shepard supports the motion and asked the best time to talk about the prototype design and dense landscaping. Vote: 7:0. Vice Chair Shepard asked Attorney Yatabe to talk through 3.5.3(E) because failure to comply would cause the project to be denied. The way forward could be to propose a condition of approval before getting to the modification of 3.10.2(A). This way it will not be complicated. The suggestion is to add a condition of approval that DRAFTPacket pg. 12 Planning & Zoning Board March 11, 2021 Page 9 of 10 if it is not met then the plan fails to comply. The condition would be that at the time of submittal for final plan, the final plan demonstrates compliance with 3.5.3(E) by eliminating the blue accent banding except for the blue background behind the letters, but all accent banding would be prototypical and not in compliance with 3.5.3(E), therefore, in order to be in compliance, needs to be deleted from all elevations. Attorney Yatabe asked if in terms of the signage which is generally dealt with after the approval, there is a review of sign permitting. Generally speaking, to the extent that they want signage, this would fall under a sign allowance. This may not be within the Boards purview. Vice Chair Shepard commented that although it may be allowed as signage through the allowance, by placing that signage allowance in such a manner, causes the building to become a prototype, and causes the building to fail to comply with 3.5.3(E). They would be taking signage allowance and massaging it and manipulating it in such a way as to be such a detriment to the architecture, it would be such a detriment to building and project compatibility that it fails other standards in Article 3. Signage should not be a license to make a building unattractive in such a way to have our community lose its distinctiveness. Attorney Yatabe commented that he would need to take a recess to talk with staff about this issue. He feels that the sign review after the fact is more outside the Boards purview. Vice Chair Shepard commented he is trying to expand on Planner Wray’s condition. Attorney Yatabe understands this and asks Planner Wray to chime in as to if he considered the issue of the sign allowance and how it was analyzed. Planner Wray responded that he did not. He was responding to his determination that the blue banding was not neutral or subtle and infringed on compatibility over the overall project appearance. Chair Haefele agrees with Ted in that there should be site specific design rather than prototype design and does fall within the purview of this Board. Member Schneider commented that he has no issues with eliminating the blue banding but respectfully disagrees in that this should be part of the sign code. He would be upset if the City were to tell him how to brand or not brand. What supersedes? Vice Chair Shepard made a distinction. If you are at the intersection of three public streets and you get a generous amount of sign code, that should not be carte blanch permission to dominate your building elevations with colors that reflect the brand. For instance, the McDonalds at Horsetooth and Timberline; it has a lot of street frontage, it probably does not use all of its signage allowance, but if it did, we would not allow the street facing elevations to be painted red and yellow. This crosses a line into architecture. Member Hansen commented that the prototyping regarding the architecture, this site has required this building to be a specific shape. This has deviated from their typical prototype. He likes the fact that that there is a blue band and agrees with Member Schneider in that eliminating the blue banding would be appropriate, but, unless you want to change the sign code that limits how much signage you can have because you are fortunate enough to have fronting on three streets, the Board should not be limiting how much of the blue they put on the building. Member Hafele supports the suggested condition of approval perhaps replacing or underpinning the elimination of the blue banding. Member Hansen agrees with changing the wording of the condition to change the reference. Member Hogestad commented that much of the banding traces portion of the building becoming architecture and not signage. Much of it is architecture and a little bit of it is signage. Vice Chair Shepard made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve the Modification of Standard, Section 3.10.2(A) regarding first floor storage. This is based on the staff report, the agenda materials, the information presented during the work session, this hearing, the Board discussion on this modification, and the relevant findings of fact as it relates to the modification for this standard. This is based on the modification being found to being not detrimental and that this is also due to 2.8.2(H)(3) due to the exceptional physical conditions of the site typography. Member Katz seconded. Member Hogestad commented that he will not be supporting the motion as it does not further the intent of the South College Corridor Plan and does not support the public good. Member Hansen would like to see the South Corridor Plan built out to its intent; this site has a lot of constraints especially with three different street frontages being so close. The topography would make it difficult for basements for a higher occupancy use. Reluctantly he is in support of the motion. Vote: 4:3. Vice Chair Shepard made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve the Guardian Self-Storage PDP190020 based on the findings of fact, the staff report, the work session discussion, the discussion here tonight amongst the Board, the applicant, staff, and the public input. This is subject to the following condition, and that at the time of submittal for final plan, the color of the bule banding that is showing on the PDP be changed to neutral or earth tone, not blue and a color that does not convey for recognizable meaning, identity, distinction, or color that attracts or is designed to attract attention to the facility or in any way is used as a means of identification, advertisement, or announcement. The purpose of adding this condition is to achieve compliance with Section 3.5.3(E) and the second condition of approval would be as staff recommends regarding obtaining the proper easement from Xcel Energy regarding the gas line easement prior to recording final plan. Member Whitley seconded. Vice Chair DRAFTPacket pg. 13 Planning & Zoning Board March 11, 2021 Page 10 of 10 Shepard agrees that work needs to be done to get the South Corridor Plan to get it into alignment with Article 4. Member Hogestad will not be supporting this motion since it does not meet the intent of the South College Corridor Plan. Member Katz acknowledged that this is a very challenging site and does not agree with the conditions and wants to see the project move forward. Member Schneider has reservations with the first condition, he feels the sign code is appropriate for this. This may impact the sign code. He cannot support the condition. Member Hansen agrees with both Schneider and Katz in that he is in favor of the project as a whole and does not like the condition about eliminating the building colors. He does want it to be in compliance. He will be supporting the motion, but hope he sees the much of the blue come back as part of the sign permit. Chair Hafele commented that the first condition makes the project less unpalatable, she is disinclined to approve the PDP because of the complete disregard for a plan to activate South College. The first condition of approval has been improved with the inclusion of a specific code that more clearly justifies the condition. Member Katz acknowledged that this does not activate the South College Plan, it actually supports other active development. This project supports really active development. Member Hansen stated that he does not want this to be setting a precedence for future development that disregards the intent of the South College Corridor Plan. He feels this is an exception due to the site. Member Hogestad appreciates Member Katz’s comments. He does not see how this absolutely sterile and dead project could possibly promote further development that would be conducive to a more active street. Vote: 4:3. 5. Apex-Haven Apartments PDP – This item has been continued to the April 1, 2021 hearing. The owner wanted to move forward with this item, on this evening. Member Schneider made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning continue this meeting after a 10-minute break, for item The Apex-Haven Apartments PDP210002. Member Hansen seconded. Discussion was had regarding this motion and if it was appropriate. Vice Chair Shepard supported the motion. Member Hogestad wondered how rational the discussion would be at this hour. Vote: 3:4. Member Katz made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board continue the Apex-Haven Apartments PDP210002 to date certain of April 1, 2021. Member Whitley seconded. Member Schneider feels this is bad public policy to have. This item should be heard. Member Katz does not feel good about this but knows that his decision making, and attention span is wanning. The best outcome for the City and citizens is to do this fresh. Member Whitley agrees with Member Katz. Member Hansen disagrees with the precedent it sets for setting expectations and not meeting them for applicants and citizens, this is not the right way to run City business. Member Hogestad supports the motion. He feels this decision should be made earlier in the evening. Chair Haefele agrees with Member Hogestad. The Board needs to figure out a way to avoid this from happening, it is unreasonable for the Board as volunteers to stay up until the next day. She will be supporting the motion. Vote: 4:3. For more complete details on this hearing, please view our video recording located here: https://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php?search=PLANNING%20ZONING Other Business None noted Adjournment Chair Haefele moved to adjourn the P&Z Board hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 11:28 pm. Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Manno. Minutes approved by a vote of the Board on: ____________. Paul Sizemore, Interim CDNS Director Michelle Haefele, Chair DRAFTPacket pg. 14 Development Review Staff Report Agenda Item 2 Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com Planning & Zoning Board Hearing: April 1, 2021 Gil Boyer Annexation and Zoning (ANX200002) Summary of Request This is a request for the 100% voluntary annexation of a 9,800 square foot property containing a single-family residence located at 241 N Taft Hill Road (parcel #9709104024). The annexation site is located approximately 425 feet northwest of the intersection of Laporte Avenue and N Taft Hill Road, cater-corner to 7-Eleven. The requested zoning for this annexation is Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N). Zoning Map Next Steps The Planning and Zoning Board’s zoning recommendation and any comments related to the annexation will be forwarded to City Council for their consideration. Site Location The site is located at 241 N Taft Hill Road, 425 feet northwest of the intersection of Laporte Avenue and N Taft Hill Road. Proposed Zoning Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) zone district. Property Owner Gil Boyer 241 N Taft Hill Road Fort Collins, CO 80521 Applicant/Representative Gary Van Doren 2224 Sunleaf Court Fort Collins, CO 80525 Staff Kai Kleer, City Planner p. (970) 416.4284 e. kkleer@fcgov.com Contents 1. Project Introduction .................................... 2 2. Public Outreach ......................................... 3 3. Article 2 – Applicable Standards ................ 4 4. Findings of Fact/Conclusion ...................... 4 5. Recommendation ....................................... 4 6. Attachments ............................................... 4 Staff Recommendation Approval N Taft Hill Road Laporte Ave LMN POL Site Packet pg. 15 P&Z Agenda Item 2 ANX200002 | Gil Boyer Annexation Thursday, April 1, 2021 | Page 2 of 4 Back to Top 1. Project Description A. BACKGROUND According to the policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County, contained in the amended (2006) Intergovernmental Agreements – Growth Management Area (IGA), the City will agree to consider for annexation property in the GMA when such property is eligible for annexation in accordance with State law. According to the IGA, as amended: “It is the City’s intent to annex properties within the GMA as expeditiously as possible consistent with the terms of this Agreement. Except as provided in Section 8(B). the City agrees to consider the annexation of any parcel or parcels of land located within the GMA which are eligible for voluntary annexation pursuant to provisions to Title 31, Article 12 Colorado Revised Statutes.” The surrounding zoning and existing land uses are as follows: North South East West Zoning Low Density Mixed-Use (L-M-N) Larimer County FA – Farming Larimer County FA – Farming Low Density Mixed- Use (L-M-N) Land Use Undeveloped land (Sanctuary on the Green, proposed residential project) Existing single-family detached dwelling Undeveloped land Undeveloped land (Sanctuary on the Green, proposed residential project) The parcel gains the necessary one-sixth contiguity to city limits from three common boundaries with the Sanctuary on the Green Annexation (2018) which provides a total contiguous boundary of 66.67%. The subject annexation complies with the requirements of the Intergovernmental Agreement – Growth Management Area and is eligible for annexation. One of the stated intents of the IGA is to have urban development occur within the City to minimize the provision of urban level services by the County. This is a 100% voluntary annexation. Annexation of the parcel would not create an enclave. On March 16, 2021, City Council passed a Resolution which accepted the annexation petition and established that the petition is in compliance with State statutes. B. ZONING The property is currently zoned FA Farming as assigned by Larimer County. The proposed zoning for the Gil Boyer Annexation is Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN). The LMN district is intended to be a setting for a predominance of low-density housing, while the main purpose of the district is to, “meet a wide range of needs of everyday living in neighborhoods that include a variety of housing choices, that invite walking to gathering places, services and conveniences, and that are fully integrated into the larger community by the pattern of streets, blocks, and other linkages.” 1. City Plan (2019) The Structure Plan Map in City Plan provides a framework for the ultimate buildout of Fort Collins. It focuses on the physical form and development pattern of the community, illustrating areas where new greenfield development, infill, and redevelopment are likely to occur, as well as the types of land uses and intensities to encourage. The Structure Plan: • Guides future growth and reinvestment and serves as official Land Use Plan for the City; • Informs planning for infrastructure and services; • Fosters coordinated land use and transportation decisions within the city and region; and • Helps implement principles and policies. Packet pg. 16 P&Z Agenda Item 2 ANX200002 | Gil Boyer Annexation Thursday, April 1, 2021 | Page 3 of 4 Back to Top One of the most significant changes to the 2019 City Plan from the 2011 version is the use of “place types” on the Structure Plan Map to describe future development character rather than specific land use districts. “Place type” descriptions provide a set of visual and narrative criteria to describe the look, feel, and general character of a part of the community. Thirteen place types, describing three types of neighborhoods, eight districts, and two open lands categories, are depicted on the Structure Plan. The place type that is designated for this site is Suburban Neighborhood and is generally described as follows: “Density. Between 2 and 5 principal dwelling units per acre Principal Land Use. Single-family detached homes Supporting Land Use. Parks and recreational facilities, schools, places of worship, accessory dwelling units in some locations (where permitted by underlying zoning) Key Characteristics/Considerations. Comprised of predominantly single-family detached homes” The requested zoning aligns with both the City’s Structure Plan Map designation and key characteristics described by the Suburban Neighborhood place type. 2. Northwest Subarea Plan (2006) The subject parcel is contained within the Northwest Subarea Plan boundary, adopted in 2006 and covering 4.3 square miles in the general area between Mulberry Street, Overland Trail, County Road 50 and Shields Street. The Plan was jointly adopted by the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County. The Plan states the following about the Low-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone district: “Where it Applies. The Framework Plan designates the area generally east of Sunset Street and south of Vine Drive as Low Density Mixed-Use Residential. Some lands are currently in city limits and have City zoning; others are in unincorporated Larimer County and would be zoned by the City if and when they are annexed (i.e., when development is proposed). The intent is to ensure that future development is compatible with the integrity and density of existing neighborhoods, as determined by location and infill parcel size. Future development density may be up to 8 units per acre overall (or up to 12 units per acre for affordable housing). The permitted density depends on each specific location as described in the sections below. (p. 15) “The designation of Low Density Mixed-Use Residential in this area is consistent with the current Structure Plan and existing neighborhoods and provides a transition between adjacent Old Town neighborhoods in the city and lower density subdivisions to the west. New neighborhoods should entail creative master planning to lead to visually attractive, pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods that have nearby services, parks, and other amenities.” (p. 15) According to the Northwest Subarea Plan Framework Map and Figure 9 – Recommended Locations for RL and LMN Zone District in the Low Density Mixed-Use Residential Area (p. 17), the subject parcel should be placed into the Low-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone district. The proposed zoning of LMN complies with the Subarea Plan. 3. Sign District Staff finds that the Residential Neighborhood Sign District is most appropriate for this property. The Sign Districts are established for the purpose of regulating signs for non-residential uses in areas of the community where the predominant character of the neighborhood is residential. 2. Public Outreach Packet pg. 17 P&Z Agenda Item 2 ANX200002 | Gil Boyer Annexation Thursday, April 1, 2021 | Page 4 of 4 Back to Top A. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING The City of Fort Collins Land Use Code and the Colorado Revised Statutes do not stipulate that a neighborhood meeting be held in conjunction with a voluntary annexation. Therefore, a neighborhood meeting was not held. No public comment has been received to date. 3. Article 2 – Applicable Standards 1. First Submittal (ANX200002) Submittal Date: December 11, 2020. 2. Notice (Posted, Written and Published) Posted Notice (ANX200002): December 16, 2020 (Sign #590) Written notice: March 23, 2021, 43 letters sent. Published Notice: March 21, 2021, Confirmation #0004653935 4. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the request for the Gil Boyer Annexation, ANX200002, staff makes the following findings of fact: 1. The property meets the State law eligibility requirements to qualify for a voluntary annexation to the City of Fort Collins. 2. The requested placement into the Low-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) zone district is consistent with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan Map and the Northwest Subarea Plan Framework Plan Map. 3. The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement - Growth Management Area. 4. On March 16, 2021, the City Council adopted a resolution to accept the annexation petition and determine that the petition complies with State law. The resolution initiates the annexation process for the property by establishing the date, time, and place when a public hearing would be held regarding the readings of the Ordinances annexing and zoning the area. 5. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend City Council approval of the Gil Boyer Annexation and zoning, ANX200002, and that the property be placed in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. 6. Attachments 1. Vicinity & Zoning Map 2. Annexation Petition 3. Ownership Report 4. Annexation Map 5. Northwest Subarea Plan – Framework Plan Map 6. City Plan - Structure Plan Map Packet pg. 18 GRANDVIEW CEMETERY POL LMN GIL BOYER ANNEXATION VICNITY & ZONING MAP ± LAPORTE AVE N TAFT HILL RDPENNSYLVANIA STSITE Packet pg. 19 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 20 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 21 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 22 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 23 H~ Heritage . I '-Title company TITLE DEPARTMENT-DELIVERY TRANS MITT AL 8055 E Tufts Ave, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80237 M.lring T121W1Crio .. Pe'*'AAI A Commonwealtti ,. warm•~Anr'I' (303) 476-5800 Fax: OWNERSHIP AND ENCUMBRANCE REPORT Date: August 31, 2020 Effective Date: August 26, 2020 0 & E Order Number: H0615591 Schedule No.: Vesting: Vesting Deed Info.: Property Address: Legal Description: R0147524 Gilbert G. Boyer Warranty Deed 11/2/1970 Book 1445 Page 455 and Death Certificate for Loretta J. Boyer 12/6/2017 (copy not available online) 241 North Taft Hill Road, Fort Collins, CO 80521 See Warranty Deed recorded November 2, 1970 in Book 1445 at Page 455, Excepting that portion contained in Deed of Dedication recorded May 31, 2006 at Reception No. 20060040423. Encumbrances: None NOTE: This information is for your sole use and benefit and is furnished as an accommodation. The information has been taken from our tract indices, without reference to, or examination of, instruments which purport to affect the real property. The information is neither guaranteed nor certified, and is not an Abstract of Title, Opinion of Title, nor a Guarantee of Title, and our liability is limited to the amount of the fees. oande ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 24 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 27 9,028 1,504.7 FCMaps This map is a user generated static output from the City of Fort Collins FCMaps Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable.City of Fort Collins - GIS 1,143.0 1: WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Feet1,143.00571.50 Notes Gil Boyer Annexation Legend 6,859 Street Names Growth Management Area City Limits Community Separator Adjacent Planning Area Structure Plan Adjacent Planning Area Campus District Community Separator Downtown District Industrial District Mixed Employment District Mixed Neighborhood Neighborhood Mixed Use District Parks and Natural/Protected Lands R&D/Flex District Rural Neighborhood Single Family Neighborhood Suburban Mixed Use District Urban Mixed Use District Site ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 28 Development Review Staff Report Agenda Item 3 Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com Planning and Zoning Board Hearing: April 1, 2021 Apex-Haven Apartments, PDP210002 Summary of Request This is a request for a Project Development Plan (PDP) to develop a three-story multi-family building, adaptive re-use of two existing homes, and replat of Parcels 9714321001 and 9714321002 into a single lot. The project is located within the High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (H-M-N) zone district and requires a (Type 2) review. Zoning Map (ctrl + click map to follow link) Next Steps If approved by the decision maker, the applicant will be eligible to submit a Final Development Plan. Subsequent rounds of review will be required to finalize site engineering and corrections to the plan before the applicant can apply for site and building permits. Site Location The Site is located at 730 and 808 W Prospect Road in Fort Collins. Zoning High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (H-M-N) zone district. Property Owner CSU Research Foundation (CSURF) Rick Callan Maximo Development Christian & Robin Bachelet 601 Howes Street, Ste. 410 Fort Collins, CO 80521 Applicant/Representative Shelley LaMastra Russell + Mills Studios 506 S College Ave Fort Collins, CO 80524 Staff Pete Wray, Senior City Planner Contents 1. Project Introduction .................................... 2 2. Comprehensive Plan ................................. 3 3. Public Outreach ......................................... 4 4. Land Use Code Article 2 – Applicable Standards .......................................................... 4 5. Land Use Code Article 3 – Applicable Standards .......................................................... 6 6. Land Use Code Article 4 – Applicable Standards: ....................................................... 15 7. Findings of Fact/Conclusion .................... 16 8. Recommendation ..................................... 16 Staff Recommendation Approval of Project Development Plan Packet pg. 29 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 3 PDP210002 | Apex-Haven Apts. Thursday, April 1, 2021 | Page 2 of 16 Back to Top 1. Project Introduction A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION • This is a request for a Project Development Plan (PDP) to develop a project that combines a three-story multi-family building, adaptive re-use of the two existing homes, and the existing Apex Apartments into a single project. • The existing Apex Apartments at 808 W Prospect Road has 61 studio and 1-bedroom units. The existing parking lot contains 87 vehicular parking spaces, and 67 bike parking spaces. There are no proposed changes to the existing Apex Apartments. This request will integrate the two sites through a replat. • The site at 730 W Prospect Road (Haven site) consists of two existing single-family residential homes; one has been landmarked as an historic property, and the other is eligible for historic designation. The proposed three-story multi-family Building 1 includes 48 studio and 1-bedroom units. Building 2 (existing residence) includes a 2-bedroom unit and 3-bedroom unit. Building 3 (existing residence) includes two 1-bedroom units. The Haven site proposes 8 vehicular parking spaces, and 73 bike parking spaces located in breezeways and outside plaza areas. • The existing Apex Apartments (808 W Prospect, Parcel 9714321001, platted as The Slab) lot and the lot to the east (730 W Prospect, Parcel 9714321002) will be re-platted as a single lot of 2.6 acres. • Access to the site is provided from West Prospect Road to the south, with two driveway entrances and pedestrian walkways. • The P.D.P. is within the Transit-Oriented Development Overlay Zone and the West Central Area Plan area. • The project is located within the High-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (H-M-N) zone district and is subject to Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2) review. B. SITE CHARACTERISTICS 1. Development Status/Background • In 2007, under new ownership by the CSU Research Foundation, Observatory Park Subdivision re- platted the Frazier Subdivision to combine the Apex (Slab) lot at 808 West Prospect Road with the lot at 730 West Prospect Road. • The Slab property (Apex), PDP#150016 was approved on November 12, 2015. • The Apex-Haven PDP190017 went to the Planning and Zoning Board hearing on May 21, 2020. A request for Modification of Standard was denied by the board, and the applicant withdrew the application prior to a final decision on the PDP by the board. The Applicant withdrew the project and resubmitted the project, with revisions, as PDP210002 after a required 6-month delay. 2. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use North South East West Zoning High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (H-M-N) Residential Low Density (R-L) High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (H-M-N) High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (H-M-N) Land Use Existing Apartments and Existing Fraternity House Existing Single Family Detached Dwelling Units Existing Single Family Detached Dwelling Units The Standard, Multi- Family Dwelling Units Packet pg. 30 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 3 PDP210002 | Apex-Haven Apts. Thursday, April 1, 2021 | Page 3 of 16 Back to Top C. OVERVIEW OF MAIN CONSIDERATIONS • Primary considerations of the plan have been the degree of building and project compatibility for Building 1 on the Haven site and the extent of landscape buffer between this three-story building and existing homes to the east. The existing single-family homes to the east are also zoned H-M-N, consistent with the West Central Area Plan, vision for future higher density multi-family housing. Since the Hearing in May 2020, this PDP has moved the building further west so the landscape buffer between the east façade of the building and property line is 25 feet. This change has removed the need for a request for Modification of Standard to the residential buffer yard standard. • The main site planning issues that were addressed as part of the previous PDP process and prior to this hearing have been building placement on the site; adaptive re-use of existing two homes; amenity space configuration; access between both lots; existing tree mitigation, and pedestrian circulation to public streets. 2. Comprehensive Plan A. WEST CENTRAL AREA PLAN (2015) The West Central Area Plan (W.C.A.P.) was adopted in March of 2015 and reaffirmed the validity of the existing geography and development parameters of the H-M-N zone. This is the area south of the C.S.U. campus bounded by West Prospect Road, Shields Street, Lake Street and Whitcomb Street. Regarding the H-M-N zone, the W.C.A.P. states: “Given the numerous parcels that comprise this area, new development will likely occur through multiple small or medium scale projects. Sensitivity to historic structures will require careful design solutions and collaboration with the Landmark Preservation Commission.” “This area is expected to build out in accordance with the existing zoning, with residential density at a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre. While five-story buildings are allowed, the height, mass and scale of buildings will be critically evaluated to achieve compatibility with adjacent development and to positively impact the neighborhood and community. The allowable density and proximity to campus create opportunities for mixed-use buildings and campus-related uses as well.” “Land Use Policy 1.9 - Neighborhood Character: The height, mass and scale of new development in the High-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (HMN) zone district…should be compatible with adjacent development and sensitive to the context of the area.” “Land Use Policy 1.10 - Emphasize and respect the existing heritage and character of neighborhoods through a collaborative design process that allows for neighborhood dialogue. The neighborhoods are generally characterized by Craftsman, Prairie and Mid-Century Modern architectural styles (and their various derivations). These styles are well-accepted and should serve as a starting point for achieving neighborhood compatibility.” Staff finds that the Apex-Haven Apartments Property P.D.P. fulfills the vision of the Plan in the following manner: • The P.D.P. demonstrates sensitivity to the historic houses on site, while exceeding the minimum required density of 20 dwelling units per acre. The building is three stories, not five, to achieve compatibility with respect to adjacent properties. • The building is influenced by the Craftsman style and the height, mass and scale are mitigated by a variety of architectural elements and details. • This project serves as a transition in density, height, and intensity between The Standard apartments to the west and single-family homes to the east. Packet pg. 31 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 3 PDP210002 | Apex-Haven Apts. Thursday, April 1, 2021 | Page 4 of 16 Back to Top • The placement of multi-family housing at the south edge of campus will promote alternative modes of transportation to and from the main campus. The H-M-N zoning was established to implement the Subarea Plan. 3. Public Outreach A. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING Pursuant to Section 2.2.2 – Step 2: Neighborhood Meetings, a neighborhood meeting is required for Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2) projects. Two neighborhood meetings were held for this project on August 26, 2019, and February 24, 2020. Both neighborhood meetings occurred prior to the previous Planning and Zoning Board Hearing in May 2020. Staff determined a new neighborhood meeting was not needed because the project being processed as a resubmittal of the previous application, not a new Project Development Plan. B. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Any communication received between the public notice period and hearing will be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Board to be considered when deciding on the project. Staff prepared a summary of comments from the two neighborhood meetings attached to this report. The following key comments are highlighted below:  Concern related to the compatibility of proposed multi-family building with existing single-family homes to the east, including building design, noise, privacy, lighting and transition and buffer.  Impacts of construction with existing homes in area including noise, dust, traffic.  Required parking for both sites.  Impacts of storm drainage in area.  Traffic and access to site from West Prospect Road. 4. Land Use Code Article 2 – Applicable Standards A. BACKGROUND This project was originally submitted on October 30, 2019 (PDP190017). The project required three rounds of staff review, following the initial plan submittal. Because the project was withdrawn by the applicant at the May 2020 hearing, the applicant was required to wait 6 months before resubmitting revisions to the project. The project was processed as a resubmittal after the requirement for a 6-month waiting period had been satisfied. A new project number has been entered into the City’s Accela permitting database primarily to distinguish between the PDP190017 (original) and PDP210002 (revised) information, but both project numbers are considered part of the same PDP process for the City’s review. Project Development Plan Procedural Overview: 1. Conceptual Review - PDR190005 A preliminary design review meeting was held on June 26, 2019. 2. First Submittal - PDP190017 The first submittal of this project was completed on October 30, 2019. Packet pg. 32 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 3 PDP210002 | Apex-Haven Apts. Thursday, April 1, 2021 | Page 5 of 16 Back to Top Information from PDP190017, including the previous Planning & Zoning Board Hearing packet and recording from the hearing are included in the record for this item. The May 21, 2020 Hearing Packet is available here: https://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=convert&vid=46&docid=3455282&dt=AGENDA&board=PLANNING+AND+ ZONING+BOARD&docdate=MAY-21-2020 . The recording from the May 21, 2020 P&Z Hearing is available here: https://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php?search=PLANNING%20ZONING 3. Resubmittal – PDP210002 Following a required 6-month waiting period from May 21, 2020, the project was resubmitted on January 22, 2021. This resubmittal was a continuation of the initial PDP process, rather than a new PDP. However, a separate project number was created to delineate between the previous Planning & Zoning Board hearing item and the current Planning & Zoning Board hearing item. Prior to the resubmittal, a determination was made by the Director that this was the appropriate procedure for processing revisions to this development plan, rather than re-starting the PDP process entirely. 4. Neighborhood Meeting Applicable pursuant to 2.2.2 – Step 2: Neighborhood Meetings. Two neighborhood meetings were held on August 26, 2029, and February 24, 2020. Staff determined a new neighborhood meeting was not needed because the project being processed as a resubmittal of the previous application, not a new Project Development Plan. 5. Notice (Posted, Written and Published) Posted Notice: July 22, 2019, December 6, 2019, and January 25, 2021, Sign # 506 Written Hearing Notice: February 25, 2021, 113 addresses mailed (See Map Below for Notice Area). Published Coloradoan Hearing Notice: Sunday, February 28, 2021, Confirmation #0004622333. Published Coloradoan Hearing Notice: Sunday, March 21, 2021, Conformation #0004653935. Packet pg. 33 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 3 PDP210002 | Apex-Haven Apts. Thursday, April 1, 2021 | Page 6 of 16 Back to Top 5. Land Use Code Article 3 – Applicable Standards A. DIVISION 3.2 - SITE PLANNING AND DESIGN STANDARDS Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 3.2.1 – Landscaping and Tree Protection This Code Section requires a fully developed landscape plan that addresses relationship of landscaping to the circulation system and parking, the building, abutting properties, and users of the site in a manner appropriate to the neighborhood context. Full tree stocking should be provided in all landscape areas within fifty (50) feet of any building or structure along all high use or high visibility sides of any building or structure, in accordance with the spacing standards outlined in this section. This standard is met through a combination of existing and proposed trees on-site and along the street right-of-way parkway planting strips. The plan provides the following main landscape planting components: • 42 trees consisting of deciduous and coniferous species, distributed within the site parking areas, trees in building foundation planting, and streetscape. • Mulched planting beds with ornamental grasses, coniferous and deciduous shrubs, and perennials. • 4 existing trees protected, 13 existing trees removed, with 17 mitigation trees provided. Complies 3.2.1 (D) (2) – Street Trees Wherever the sidewalk is separated from the street by a parkway, canopy shade trees must be planted at thirty-foot to forty-foot spacing (averaged along the entire front and sides of the block face) in the center of all such parkway areas. Such street trees shall be placed at least eight (8) feet away from the edges of driveways and alleys. • The plan provides 6 existing street parkway trees on the Apex site, and 1 tree on the Haven site along the West Prospect Road frontage (30’ – 40’ spacing). Complies 3.2.1(D)(3) Minimum Species Diversity The intent of this standard is to avoid extensive monocultures and prevent uniform insect and disease susceptibility on a development site, based on the number of trees on the site. • The plan provides 12 tree species, and none exceed 30% of the 42-total number of new trees. Complies 3.2.1(D)(4) Tree Species and Minimum Sizes This standard requires minimum tree and shrub sizes included in the landscape plan. The minimum sizes are: Canopy shade tree - 2” caliper Evergreen tree – 8’ height Ornamental tree – 1.5” caliper Shrubs – 5 gal. • All minimum required tree and shrub sizes are met. Complies Packet pg. 34 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 3 PDP210002 | Apex-Haven Apts. Thursday, April 1, 2021 | Page 7 of 16 Back to Top 3.2.1(E)(4) (5) - Parking Lot Landscaping The Haven parking lot is located to rear of the existing two homes and is generally obscured from view from Prospect Road. The existing Apex parking lot is located behind the building. • The existing parking lot on the Apex site is fully landscaped. Since the parking lot contains less than 100 spaces, 6% of the area of the lot must be dedicated to landscaping in the form of islands and along the entrance drive. • The landscape plan on the Haven site includes a total of 8 trees in the parking area. In addition to street trees along streets, this subsection also requires that parking lots be screened from the street and from the parking lot perimeter abutting lots. The screening needs to include a wall, fence, planter, earthen berm, plant material or a combination of such elements, each of which shall have a minimum height of thirty (30) inches. • The plan provides continuous plant material coverage along the parking setback that fronts the street, with continuous shrub and tree planting areas. • The parking lot behind the two existing homes that abuts the lots to the east includes a combination of continuous screen planting and 6’ cedar fence. Complies 3.2.1(F) – Tree Mitigation This standard requires that developments provide on-site mitigation in the form of a defined number of replacement trees if existing significant trees are removed. The number of mitigation trees is determined by City Forestry staff based off existing tree species, breast diameter, and health/condition. The development currently complies with the inventory and mitigation requirements outlined by the standards. In summary, the Tree Preservation and Mitigation Plan demonstrates the following: • Thirteen trees removed and 13.5 mitigation trees required, with 17 mitigation trees provided. Complies 3.2.2 – Access, Circulation and Parking This Code Section requires secure, convenient, efficient parking and circulation improvements that add to the attractiveness of the development. • The plan provides on-site walkways, curb-cuts, sidewalk ramps, emergency access, and a clearly delineated parking lot layout in compliance with standards. Complies 3.2.2(C)(4)(b) – Bicycle Parking Space Requirements Bike parking is required based on one space per the number of bedrooms per unit (60% enclosed/40% fixed racks). The minimum required total is 118 spaces (71 enclosed/47 fixed). • The existing Apex Plan provides 67 bicycle spaces (61 enclosed, 6 fixed racks). • The Haven Plan provides 69 bicycle spaces (25 enclosed, 44 fixed racks). • Both Plans provides a total of 136 bike parking spaces, exceeding the minimum requirement. Complies 3.2.2(K)(2) – Residential Parking Requirements Residential uses must provide a minimum number of parking spaces based on the number of bedrooms per unit. This project is within the TOD overlay area, which offers a reduced parking requirement. The required minimum parking within the TOD is 86 spaces for both sites, based on 113 units and 118 bedrooms. • The original approved Apex project with 61 units in the TOD overlay required a minimum 46 spaces (61 x .75/bedroom). The plan provided 87 spaces, with 41 extra spaces. • The Haven site requires a minimum 41 spaces (48 x .75) (2 x 1) 1 x 1.25) and provides 8 spaces, with 33 spaces on Apex site. • The Apex and Haven combined Plans require a minimum of 86 spaces, and provides 92 spaces, including 48 standard spaces, 39 compact spaces, and 5 handi-cap accessible spaces. • 4 spaces will be by permit only spaces on the Haven portion for buildings 2 and 3. Two spaces will be designated for deliveries only, and one space as turn in/back out area. Complies Packet pg. 35 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 3 PDP210002 | Apex-Haven Apts. Thursday, April 1, 2021 | Page 8 of 16 Back to Top 3.2.3 - Solar Access, Orientation and Shading Impacts of shading on adjacent lots not applicable for projects in the TOD overlay district. NA 3.2.4 – Site Lighting This code section requires a lighting plan with full cut-off, down-directional fixtures, minimum and maximum light levels, and limits on light spillover off the site. • The plan includes lighting fixtures attached to the building, site areas, and within the parking lot. The photometric plan demonstrates compliance with minimum and maximum lighting levels. All proposed lighting is fully shielded and down- directional, meeting color temperature requirements of 3,000K or less for both sites. Complies 3.2.5 – Trash and Recycling Enclosures All multi-family developments must provide adequately sized, conveniently located and easily accessible facilities for the waste disposal and recycling needs of the development. • The Haven Plan provides a centrally located enclosure to contain dumpsters and bins, adequately sized for the residential buildings and number of units. The three buildings provide easy access from the entrances to the enclosure. The dual metal gate includes a larger hauler door and a separate person door. The enclosure design includes durable wall materials, interior metal wall protection strip, bollards, and concrete pad. The enclosure materials and colors complement the building materials used. • The Apex site provides a trash and recycling enclosure in the rear of the existing parking lot with easy access for the trash hauler. The Apex enclosure complies with latest design standards. 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 the applicant dedicate rights-of-way for public streets, drainage easements and utility easements as needed to serve the area being developed. In cases where any part of an existing street is abutting or within the property being developed, the applicant must dedicate such additional rights-of-way as may be necessary to increase such rights-of-way to the minimum width required by Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards and the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. • The plat for both lots will be updated to include a single lot for Apex and Haven sites. • The project will dedicate both onsite and offsite easements prior to final plan approval. Complies 3.3.2 – Development Improvements Approval of final plat by the City Engineer is completed at Final Development Plan. NA 3.3.3 – Water Hazards NA NA 3.3.4 - Hazards NA NA Packet pg. 36 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 3 PDP210002 | Apex-Haven Apts. Thursday, April 1, 2021 | Page 9 of 16 Back to Top 3.3.5 – Engineering Design NA NA C. DIVISION 3.4 – ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL AREA, RECREATIONAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDSGINEERING STANDARDS Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 3.4.1 – Natural Habitats and Features NA NA 3.4.2 – Air Quality NA NA 3.4.3 – Water Quality The Project is designed so that precipitation runoff flowing from the site is treated in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Stormwater Criteria Manual. Complies 3.4.4 – Noise & Vibration NA NA 3.4.5 – Hazardous Materials NA NA 3.4.6 – Glare and Heat NA NA Packet pg. 37 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 3 PDP210002 | Apex-Haven Apts. Thursday, April 1, 2021 | Page 10 of 16 Back to Top 3.4.7 – Historic and Cultural Resources This proposed project includes the adaptive reuse of Building 3, which is a designated local historical landmark 1-story house at 720 W. Prospect; and Building 2, which is a historically eligible 2-story house at 730 W. Prospect, to convert them into two duplex apartment units. As provided for in Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(F), in its consideration of the approval of plans for properties containing or adjacent to designated, eligible or potentially eligible sites, structure, objects or districts, the Decision Maker shall receive, and consider in making its decision, a written recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission. A conceptual review meeting with the Landmark Preservation meeting was held on April 17, 2019. At its February 19, 2020 Regular Meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission conducted a review of this development project. The Landmark Preservation Commission adopted the following motion on a vote of 6-0: That the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of The Apex-Haven Apartments, finding it is in compliance with the standards contained in Land Use Code section 3.4.7 for the following reasons: • The project meets the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties • The project design reflects massing, building materials, and façade details that are compatible with the historic context, creates a visual relationship between the historic architecture and the new construction, and meets the requirements outlined in Table 1 of Section 3.4.7. • The proposed design protects the visibility of nearby historic resources. • Historic Preservation staff has reviewed the project in its current, revised form and has determined that additional consultation with the LPC is not required, because the design changes to Building 1 remain in compliance with the requirements of Section 3.4.7(E), Table 1. Complies 3.4.8 – Parks and Trails NA NA 3.4.9 – Health Risks NA NA Packet pg. 38 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 3 PDP210002 | Apex-Haven Apts. Thursday, April 1, 2021 | Page 11 of 16 Back to Top D. 3.5 – BUILDING STANDARDS Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 3.5.1– Building Project and Compatibility (B)(C)(E)(F) (G) These subsections require new developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas to be compatible, when considered within the context of the surrounding area, by using a design that is complementary. They should be read in conjunction with the more specific building standards contained in the zone district standards contained in Article 4. • This proposed project includes the adaptive reuse of Building 3, which is a designated local historical landmark 1-story house; and Building 2, which is a historically eligible 2-story house. • The architectural design of Building 1 has been developed to relate to the surrounding context including the use of 1- and 2-story massing, and roof elements with simple gable and shed roof forms that complement the existing 1- and 2-story Buildings 2 and 3. The overall use of massing, step backs and roof forms have been used to create a transition from the existing 1- and 2-story single family residences to the east and southeast, as well as the historic 1-1/2 story Buildings 2 and 3, to the larger 5-story apartment buildings and parking structure directly to the west and northwest of this site, along with the 120’ tall Canvas Stadium to the north. Use of stucco, brick and lap siding materials are being proposed, with a stronger emphasis of stucco at the south wing and south elevation, to respond to the existing stucco clad Buildings 2 and 3. • The building one mass is smaller and the height lower than the zone district standards allow, and smaller than the five-story multifamily building to the west (The Standard and Stadium Apts.). This building acts as a transition from the more intense larger development to the west and existing neighborhood to the east, which demonstrates sensitivity to adjacent properties as well as properties that are eligible for historic designation. The proposed building 1 is 46.8 feet in height, requiring a light and shadow analysis for buildings over 40 feet. See Section 3.2.3 for TOD exception. • The shadow analysis for the Haven site and Building 1 does not show a substantial adverse impact on the adjacent lots to the east. The shadows portrayed at winter solstice do not preclude the functional use of solar energy technology, create glare such as reflecting sunlight or artificial lighting at night, contribute to the accumulation of snow and ice during the winter on adjacent property and shade windows or gardens for more than three (3) months of the year. Complies 3.5.2 – Residential Building Standards See Multi-family design standards in Section 3.8.30. NA 3.5.3 – Mixed – Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings NA NA Packet pg. 39 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 3 PDP210002 | Apex-Haven Apts. Thursday, April 1, 2021 | Page 12 of 16 Back to Top 3.5.4 – Large Retail Establishments NA NA 3.5.5 – Convenience Shopping Center NA Na E. 3.6 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 3.6.1 – Master Street Plan This criterion requires the P.D.P. to conform to the Master Street Plan. The following streets, and their classification, are included on the Master Street Plan: • West Prospect Road - four lane arterial The P.D.P. shows Prospect Road consistent with the adopted West Central Area Plan and improvements (including a 10 ft wide ped/bike detached facility) that are aligned with what has been done on adjacent properties. The P.D.P. demonstrates overall compliance with Master Street Plan and provides safe and convenient access. Complies 3.6.2 (K) – Streets, Streetscapes, Alleys and Easements The streetscape parkway design along the West Prospect Road frontage needs to conform with the Larimer County Urban Area Street standards. • The Plan provides two controlled drive access points from West Prospect Road for both the Apex and Haven sites, a detached 10-foot sidewalk with ADA accessible sidewalk ramps. • The parkway landscape strip includes irrigated turf grass and street trees located at 40’ spacing. Complies 3.6.3 – Street Pattern and Connectivity NA NA 3.6.4 – Transportation Level of Service Requirements This standard requires that the transportation needs of a proposed development can be safely accommodated by the existing transportation system, or including appropriate mitigation of impacts, for all travel modes. • Traffic Operations and Engineering Departments have reviewed the plan’s Transportation Impact Study (TIS) and follow up memo that addressed a revised parking location. • The proposal has nominal impact on the adjacent roadway system, and access type and location have been designed to meet City standards. Internal connectivity is provided. The proposed sidewalk/trail along Prospect supports the adopted West Central Area Plan. Additional bike/pedestrian connections are provided to the west and north. • Regarding transportation, the proposal complies with Section 3.6.4 as well as Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards and the City of Fort Collins Multi- Modal Transportation Level of Service Manual. Complies 3.6.5 – Bus Stop Design NA NA Packet pg. 40 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 3 PDP210002 | Apex-Haven Apts. Thursday, April 1, 2021 | Page 13 of 16 Back to Top 3.6.6 – Emergency Access This Section is intended to ensure that emergency vehicles can gain access to, and maneuver within, the project so that emergency personnel can provide fire protection and emergency services without delays. • The Apex plan includes a 26’ and 30’ on-site emergency access. • The Haven plan provides a 26’ and 16’ on-site emergency access. • The proposed plan includes an extension to the existing 16’ emergency access drive that connects to Lake Street to the north. Complies F. 3.7 COMPACT URBAN GROWTH Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 3.7.1 - General NA NA 3.7.2 - Contiguity NA NA 3.7.3 – Adequate Public Facilities The purpose of the adequate public facilities (APF) management system is to establish an ongoing mechanism which ensures that public facilities and services needed to support development are available concurrently with the impacts of such development. This section requires that any approval of a development be conditioned on the provision of all services necessary to serve the new development. This includes transportation, water, wastewater, storm drainage, fire and emergency services, electrical power and any other public facilities and services as required. • The project is located within the City of Fort Collins Water and Sanitation Districts, Fort Collins Light and Power, Poudre Fire Authority and Fort Collins Stormwater Districts. Each entity has commented on the project and has found that the existing infrastructure can serve the proposed project. The Apex Apartment project completed all public infrastructure prior to this PDP. Complies Packet pg. 41 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 3 PDP210002 | Apex-Haven Apts. Thursday, April 1, 2021 | Page 14 of 16 Back to Top G. 3.8 SUPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 3.8.30 – Multi-Family Dwelling Development Standards (C) - Access to a central feature or gathering place. • The existing Apex site includes two patio gathering spaces with gazebo and seating areas. • The Haven site includes a central atrium plaza gathering area and small pocket park. The two existing homes include front patio seating areas. (F) - Yards Along Single- and Two-Family Residential Development. Buffer yards shall be provided along the property line of abutting existing single- and two-family dwellings. Minimum depth shall be twenty-five (25) feet. • The proposed Building 1 includes a 25’ landscape buffer yard between the east façade and property line to the east. Complies Complies H. 3.10 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) OVERLAY ZONE The purpose of this Section is to modify the underlying zone districts south of Prospect Road to encourage land uses, densities and design that enhance and support transit stations along the Mason Corridor. These provisions allow for a mix of goods and services within convenient walking distance of transit stations; encourage the creation of stable and attractive residential and commercial environments within the TOD Overlay Zone south of Prospect Road; and provide for a desirable transition to the surrounding existing neighborhoods. Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 3.10.1 – Applicability The TOD standards apply to applications for development within the boundary of the TOD Overlay Zone, south of Prospect Road, except for the parking standards, and design of parking structures. • This project is located north of West Prospect Road. • See Section 3.2.2 (K) above for parking requirements. NA Packet pg. 42 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 3 PDP210002 | Apex-Haven Apts. Thursday, April 1, 2021 | Page 15 of 16 Back to Top 6. Land Use Code Article 4 – Applicable Standards: A. DIVISION 4.10 – HIGH DENSITY MIXED-USE NEIGHBORHOOD (H-M-N) ZONING DISTRICT The High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District is intended to be a setting for higher density multi-family housing and group quarter residential uses (dormitories, fraternities, sororities, etc.) closely associated with, and near the Colorado State University Main Campus, provided that such areas have been given this designation in accordance with an adopted subarea plan. Multistory buildings (greater than one [1] story and up to five [5] stories) are encouraged to promote efficient utilization of the land and the use of alternative modes of travel. Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 4.10(B)(2) _ Permitted Uses The proposed uses include multi-family dwellings and single-family detached dwellings. Multi-family dwellings of more than 50 dwellings units are permitted uses subject to Type 2 review. The two existing single-family dwellings on site were a permitted use for this property pursuant to the zone district regulations in effect for such parcel on June 10, 1999; and which physically existed upon such parcel on June 10, 1999; provided, however, that such existing uses shall constitute a permitted use only on such parcel of property. Complies 4.10(D)(E) – Land Use Standards The minimum overall average residential density is twenty dwelling units per net acre. There is no maximum density limit. • The net density is 46.56 dwelling units per net acre of land. The maximum building height permitted within this district is five-stories. • The proposed multi-family Building 1 is three-stories. Building walls over thirty-five (35) feet in height shall be set back an additional one (1) foot beyond the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or fraction thereof of wall or building that exceeds thirty-five (35) feet in height at the setback line. • The Building 1 north elevation at the 8’ setback line includes a wall height of 35 feet in compliance with this standard. • The proposed architectural design of Building 1 has been developed to relate to the surrounding context including the use of 1- and 2-story massing and roof elements with simple gable and shed roof forms that complement the existing 1- and 2-story Buildings 2 and 3. The overall use of massing, step backs and roof forms have been used to create a transition from the existing 1- and 2-story single family residences to the east and south east, as well as the historic 1-1/2 story Buildings 2 and 3, to the larger 5-story apartment buildings and parking structure directly to the west and northwest of this site. The building is designed to form outdoor spaces including balconies, patios, and courtyards. Parking for Buildings 2 and 3 are located to the sides and rear, with no parking between these two buildings and the street. Parking for Building 1 is located behind the existing Apex building. Complies Packet pg. 43 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 3 PDP210002 | Apex-Haven Apts. Thursday, April 1, 2021 | Page 16 of 16 Back to Top 7. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the request for the Apex-Haven Apartments Project Development Plan, PDP210002, staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The Project Development Plan complies with the policy direction of the West Central Area Plan. B. The Project Development Plan complies with process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration. C. The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.10, High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (H-M-N) of Article 4. D. The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 – General Development Standards. 8. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Apex-Haven Apartments Project Development Plan, PDP210002 based on staff report information and the aforementioned Findings of Fact. ATTACHMENTS: 1 Vicinity Map 2 Applicant Project Narrative 3 Remote Hearing Request 4 Planning Set 5 Plat 6 LPC Findings of Fact 7 Neighborhood Meeting Summary (8-26-2019) 8 Neighborhood Meeting Summary (2-24-2020) 9 Neighborhood Meeting Summary (3-24-2021) 10 Communication from Jim Swanstrom 11 Communication from Sue White 12 Applicant Presentation 13 Staff Presentation 9. Links The documents available at the following link provide additional information regarding the development proposal under review and are incorporated by reference into the hearing record for this item: Project file documents WebLink: http://records.fcgov.com/WebLink Once opened, select Planning and Development Project Number Search to enter project number to access the following files 1 Utility Plan 2 Drainage Report 3 Traffic Memo 4 Supp Traffic Memo 5 PFA Turning Exhibits Packet pg. 44 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 45 Project Narrative APEX-HAVEN APARTMENTS NTS Haven Haven Apartments (1)Apartments (1) (2)(2) CSU STADIUMCSU STADIUM LAKE STREETLAKE STREET W. PROSPECT ROADW. PROSPECT ROAD PROSPECT LANEPROSPECT LANEEAE AND MULTI-MODAL EAE AND MULTI-MODAL CONNECTIONCONNECTION The StandardThe Standard The StandardThe Standard Existing Existing APEXAPEX PROJECT LOCATION (3)(3) ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 46 Project Narrative APEX-HAVEN APARTMENTS PROJECT GOAL: The design intent of Apex-Haven Apartments development is to provide student oriented housing near the university within the High Density Mixed Use (HMN) zone district. The existing Apex Apartments (808 W Prospect, Parcel 9714321001, plated as The Slab) lot and the lot to the east (730 W Prospect, Parcel 9714321002) will be replatted as a single lot with this new submittal. The development will have a smaller scale residential feel by adaptively re-using the existing single-family homes as well as by providing a more residential landscape character (i.e. cottage garden) with shrub beds and lawns along Prospect Road. The new 3-story multi-family building is sited behind the existing single-family homes in order to minimize the visual impact of the building. In addition to this, it is designed to be much smaller in scale than many of the recently constructed buildings along Prospect in order to emphasize the historic character of the lot. The building steps down as it extend closer to the existing historic home. BACKGROUND: The Existing Apex Apartments has 61 studio and 1 bedroom units. The existing parking lot contains 87 vehicular parking spaces. There are a total of 67 bike parking spaces located within the basement of the building as well as outside in the plaza areas. A 10’ east-west multi-modal path was installed along Prospect Road, as well as an 8’ north-south multi-modal path that connects all the way to Lake Street. A detention pond was also installed in the SW portion of the 730 W Prospect lot that facilitates drainage from the Apex lot and building. The site at 730 W Prospect consists of two existing single-family residential homes, one has been landmarked and the other is eligible for the designation. Approximately half of the frontage of the lot contains the 10’ multi-modal path that was installed with the development of the Apex, this will be extended along the remaining lot frontage of Prospect. In addition to the sidewalk, a detention pond and surrounding landscaping as well as portions of the multi-modal path the extends to the north were also installed as a connection from Prospect to Lake Street. With this proposal all of this will now be re-platted as one lot with the Apex Apartments (The Slab Property). 1. PROJECT TITLE: Apex-Haven Apartments (previously submitted as Haven Apartments) 2. MEETING DATES: Preliminary Development Plan Meeting: June 26, 2019 Neighborhood Meeting: August 5, 2019 Second Neighborhood Meeting: February 24, 2020 (meeting was not required by City, applicant chose to hold additional meeting) Planning and Zoning: May 21, 2020. Project was withdrawn at the meeting. The required six (6) month wait period has been met for resubmittal. 3. GENERAL INFORMATION: Project Location: 808 and 730 W Prospect Road, on north side between Shields Street and S Whitcomb Street. Size: 114,570 sf / 2.63 ac Existing zoning: High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (HMN) Proposed zoning: High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (HMN) Number of off street parking spaces provided: 94 Number of building stories proposed: Three Maximum building height of new building: 46’-8” 4. PROPOSED OWNERS: CSU Research Foundation Contact: Rick Callan 601 S Howes St #410 Fort Collins, CO 80521 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 47 Project Narrative APEX-HAVEN APARTMENTS Maximo Development Group LLC Contact: Christian and Robin Bachelet 970-566-2948 christianbachelet@icloud.com rbachelet@mac.com Applicant: Russell + Mills Studios Contact: Shelley LaMastra 506 S College Ave, Unit A Fort Collins, CO 80524 970-484-8855 slamastra@russellmillsstudios.com 5. EXISTING OWNERS: CSU Research Foundation Contact: Rick Callan 601 S Howes St #410 Fort Collins, CO 80521 6. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS: Vehicular traffic accesses Apex-Haven Apartments off of W. Prospect Road. Pedestrian and bicycle traffic utilizes the existing north- south multi-modal path between the Haven and Apex Apartments that connects from Prospect to Lake Street. A continuation of the east-west 10’ multi-modal walk along W Prospect is added to the property frontage. Improvements to public ROW curb to meet LCUASS with detached sidewalks and tree lawn are proposed with the project. A traffic memo has been provided with the submittal per the direction of City staff. 7. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING A neighborhood meeting was held on August 5, 2019 at the Plymouth Congregational Church building at 916 W Prospect Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80526. Several neighbors attended the meeting. Discussion were primarily centered on the neighbors to the east and their concerns. The submittal has addressed their concerns of noise and visual disturbance with a row of evergreen trees along the east side of the property adjacent to the neighbors existing home. These trees will be part of the mitigation tree requirements and will be planted at 8’ height instead of the required 6’ for a more immediate impact. Light disturbances are handled as per code with no light spillage and shown on the plans as such. Smoking will be not be permitted within the plaza area in order to mitigate concerns of air pollution since they do not have an AC unit for cooling in the summer. This requirement could be removed once the property redevelops into high density as projected with the current zoning. A second neighborhood meeting was held on February 24, 2020. Discussion again centered on neighbors to the east. Previous concerns for gathering area disturbances were no longer the case with the gathering plaza having been moved to the north to be internal to the new multi-family building as a courtyard area. Concerns were raised over detention pond that was located in the previous gathering area and possible flooding into basement of the 714 home. Please see stormwater text that addresses that concern for both neighbors as well as the existing landmark home. The neighbor at 638 W Prospect wanted the 25’ landscape buffer to be adhered to. He incorrectly stated that all of the boundary trees had been removed that were shown on the plan. Field photos, included in the modification request, the following morning on the 25th confirm that all trees are still on the site. Please see attached modification request for further information on this. 8. SITE DESIGN Apex-Haven Apartments is located on a unique property near Colorado State University. The lot has two existing residential homes, one of which has received landmark designation. The homes are located centrally on the lot, with one toward the east and one to the west side of the lot. In addition to these homes a detention area was constructed on the SW corner of the property to serve both the existing Apex multi-family to the west as well as the Haven Apartment. The site design seeks to create a more residential ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 48 Project Narrative APEX-HAVEN APARTMENTS character by matching vehicular access patterns with the existing Apex parking lot functioning as the main lot and a smaller lot near the historic homes that will be permitted for those residents. The landscape aims to create a ‘front-yard’ residential or cottage garden character to anchor the existing structures in a low-water use landscape. The new 3-story multi-family building is located at the rear of the lot to minimize visual impact and allow existing structures and landscape to reduce its overall scale. A 25’ landscape buffer has been incorporated into the east side yard setback due to concerns on the neighbors and Planning and Zoming board members. Vehicular traffic will enter the site from west bound Prospect Ave (arterial) and exit west bound as well with a pork chop island directing traffic flow. Poudre Fire Authority will be able to utilize an emergency access easement through the parking lot that will also connect to the existing emergency access easement that runs through Apex’s parking lot and then to the north to connect to Lake Street. Ambulances and trash trucks will be able to pull into the existing Apex parking lot and exit out to the west through Apex’s parking lot. Trash trucks will be able to pull partially in on the EAe drive to service the trash enclosure located NW of building 2 on the Haven side. The 16’ wide pass through area between Apex and Haven is signed for no vehicular traffic other than emergency vehicles. Surface parking is utilized with the existing Apex lot and new smaller Haven lot. 94 total spaces are provided. Pedestrian traffic is accommodated with the continuation of the 10’ multi-modal sidewalk along Prospect Road. Pedestrian and bike traffic will be able to use the 16’ pass through between buildings 1 and 2 to connect to CSU campus via Lake Street. An accessible route into the site has been provided via the existing 10’ multi-modal path and the new east-west sidewalk to the south of building 2. Landscaping will use a variety of low water and native species as well as more ornamental/flowering shrubs that are more typically found within residential landscapes. Turf lawn areas with be provided along the entrance drive and in front of the historic home (building 3). A row of densely planted evergreens with 8’ planting heights will be located to the east of the historic home along the property boundary to help mitigate noise and visual disturbances for the existing neighbor to the east. 9. DISTURBANCES No existing wetlands, natural habitat areas are being disturbed with this project. 10. TRANSITION TECHNIQUES The project seeks to transition to both the surrounding neighborhood as well as the existing residential homes on the lot and neighboring lot by its architectural character as well as the 25’ landscape buffer and plantings along the east property. 11. ARCHITECTURE This proposed project includes the adaptive reuse of Building 3, which is a designated local historical landmark 1-story house at 720 W. Prospect; and Building 2, which is a historically eligible 2-story house at 730 W. Prospect, to convert them into two duplex apartment units. The existing exterior of these two buildings will be rehabilitated per Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, with only minimal changes being proposed on the north and east elevations of Building 2 to allow for a new resident entry. These proposed changes were approved by the Landmark Preservation Commission at the February 19, 2020 LPC Meeting. The proposed new 3-story, 48-unit apartment Building 1 is located behind the two historic houses, adjacent to the north side of the property, and will consist of (29) studio units, (17) 1-bedroom units and (2) 2-bedroom units. The massing of this building has been broken up into two wings connected by a central, 1-story common area element with an adjacent south-facing plaza space. This building configuration provides for an appearance of two smaller buildings with its overall massing, and also allows for views through the building when looking north from Prospect Road, over the 1-story common area connector. Both the west end of the west wing and south end of the east wing incorporates building step backs down to 2-stories in order to reduce the scale and relate to the 1- and 1-1/2-story historic houses and existing house to the southeast – this is adjacent to Building 3. Entrances to the apartment units are accessed from five interior stairs that are located along each of the building’s two wings on the west and south elevations., along with a single exterior stair located on the south end of the east wing. These stair entry points include expansive glazing and one-story roof entry elements to better define the entries and provide views for the residents looking both into and out of the stairways. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 49 Project Narrative APEX-HAVEN APARTMENTS The architectural design of Building 1 has been developed to relate to the surrounding context including the use of 1- and 2-story massing, and roof elements with simple gable and shed roof forms that complement the existing 1- and 2-story Buildings 2 and 3 and the existing Apex apartment building, including a series of low profile, shed roof dormers at the mezzanine level of the centrally located 3rd level units located at the west wing. The overall use of massing, step backs and roof forms have been used to create a transition from the existing 1- and 2-story single family residences to the east and south east, as well as the historic 1-1/2 story Buildings 2 and 3, to the larger 5-story apartment buildings and parking structure directly to the west and northwest of this site, along with the 120’ tall Canvas Stadium to the north. Use of stucco, brick and lap siding materials are being proposed, with a stronger emphasis of stucco at the south wing and south elevation, to respond to the existing stucco clad Buildings 2 and 3. The punched window fenestration has been designed to relate to the surrounding historic house and context with their sizing, and proportions. The proposed Building 1 design was also approved by the Landmark Preservation Commission at the February 19, 2020 LPC Meeting. Subsequent building design changes made to Building 1 to reduce the overall building footprint and allow for an increased east yard setback of 25’ were also review of City Historic Preservation Staff and approved on November 11, 2020. Based on this, it was determined that the project did not need to go back to the Landmark Preservation Commission for another design review since the changes did not constitute a change in compliance with the basic code requirements, and the execution of the design is equal to or better than the original version regarding Land Use Code 3.4.7. LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION CONCEPTUAL REVIEW COMMENTS AND RESPONSES A conceptual review meeting with the Landmark Preservation meeting was held on April 17, 2019. The project was presented and the following are some of the key comments that were heard from the Board included our responses. •While the LPC appreciated the step backs at the west and south elevations, they did want to see additional use of gable roof elements on the south side of proposed apartment building to relate more to the historic homes onsite and neighboring single-family properties. The elevations of Building 1 have been since updated to provide more gable roof and dormer elements on the west, south and southeast elevations to reflect this comment. •The LPC requested additional space to be provided between the proposed Building 1 apartment building and the historic Bldg. 3 and also preferred to see landscaping between these building instead of the hammerhead turn around that was presented. The design has since been updated which included reducing the overall area of Building 1 approximately 5% and reducing the length of the south wing 12’ in length and increasing the space from 20’ to 32’ between Building 1 and Building 3 and increase the distance from 22’ to 25’ between the north side of Building 2 and Building 1. Furthermore, the revised design also includes a high quality, south facing plaza and landscaped gathering space by being able to eliminate the hammerhead turnaround. •The LPC discuss options of height and massing of Building and was curious if a full 4-story design without the L-shaped south wing was considered. Further discussion between the Board members indicated a majority of them felt that a mostly 3-story building as presented with the L-shaped south wing that stepped down to 2-stories was preferred from an overall massing and articulation standpoint. •The south elevation of Building 1 included a parapet at the third level roof along the south elevation with the intent of Building 1 of serving as more of a “background building” to Building 2 and 3. The 2-story step backs at the west and south wings utilized shed roof elements to make the transitions from the main 3-story portion of the building. The Board members stated that they felt the parapet element did not speak to Building 2 and 3 and suggested mimicking the plain, sloped roof form of Building 2. The building elevations of Building 1 have been redesigned to address this comment with utilizing more gable roof forms that mimic Building 2 on the west, south and east elevations. •A Board member commented that the covered parking/garage entrance for Building 1 and the lower level of the south elevation looked a bit industrial and suggest making it look more residential. The current proposed design has addressed this comment with the use of a shed roof canopy with corbel support brackets on either side of the opening for support. This garage entry element has also been incorporated into the overall façade design and includes a gable roof form at the third level to create a stronger overall design element. An additional LPC meeting was held on February 19, 2020. The LPC Commission gave the recommendation for approval of the new redesigned project for Planning and Zoning. 12. PHASING SCHEDULE No phasing is proposed with this development. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 50 Project Narrative APEX-HAVEN APARTMENTS COMPLIANCE WITH THE WEST CENTRAL AREA PLAN (WCAP) POLICIES AND GUIDELINES Neighborhood Character – Principals to guide new development in the West Central area: •Design of new development must be sensitive to the general context and overall character of the neighborhood, influenced by local attributes, and demonstrate cohesiveness with adjacent properties. Out-of-scale development in relationship to existing development will be discouraged. Proposed Building 1 has been carefully designed with massing, form, fenestration and proportion to relate to the historically eligible Building 2 and historic Building 3 while creating a transition to the larger 4 and 5-story apartment projects to the northwest. The Building 1 step backs also helps transition to the neighboring single-family residence to the east of the property. •Compatibility can be achieved through careful site planning so that mass and scale are mitigated and located away from existing houses. Careful use of open space, yards and building setbacks, within an urban context, will help with density transitions. Proposed Building 1 was intentionally sited to deal specifically to this principal by placing it behind Buildings 2 and 3, thus maintaining the open space around the primary sides of these historic resources as well as keeping the existing streetscape character along Prospect that currently exists. •Building entrances should be oriented toward public streets. Building entrances for Buildings 2 and 3 are to remain and currently address the public street. The proposed Building 1 has been placed to the back of the site in order to maintain and respect the historic significance of Buildings 2 and 3 while still providing a visible and prominent location for its entry at southwest corner of the south elevation. •Height should be stepped back and buildings set back so that taller buildings do not loom over the street and shadowing of private property is minimized. The proposed Building 1 has significant step backs on both the west and southeast wings that bring the scale down to 2-stories from 3 stories. The Building has also been placed on the north end of the site to mitigate the impact if it overall scale to the eligible and historic Buildings 2 and 3 and neighboring single-family residence fronting Prospect Road to the east. •Parking lots should be located to the side and rear of buildings. The proposed smaller parking is behind and to the side of the existing, and contextually significant Buildings 2 and 3 in order to maintain and preserve the open space along the Prospect street scape. The bulk of the parking will be in the back behind the existing Apex building. •Building forms are expected to be responsive to the individual context of the site. The building forms of Building 3 have been specifically designed to compliment the existing Buildings 2 and 3 onsite which include massing modularity, proportions and roof forms. •Each site will relate to the street by a plaza, courtyard, entry feature or other ground floor amenities that enliven pedestrian interest and enhance the public streetscape. The existing historic streetscape will be maintained with this project and include new plaza, landscaping and other exterior features that enhance both the street scape as well as multiple areas around Buildings 2 and 3. •Additions and renovations to all properties are encouraged to be toward the side and rear and follow the Secretary of Interior Standards for the preservation of historic properties. No additions are being proposed for Buildings 2 and 3 and all exterior improvements to these buildings will be done per the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation and will be reviewed by Historic Preservation Staff and the LPC for approval. •Figure 7. Potential Redevelopment Scenarios in the HMN Zone (Policy 1.9) The High-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (HMN) zone is generally located between Prospect Road and the CSU main campus. The HMN zone is comprised primarily of small lots varying in size, which could potentially be consolidated to successfully accommodate new development. The examples below illustrate a variety of lot consolidation scenarios addressing access, parking, setback and design strategies to assist with breaking up the overall mass of structures. Providing larger south facing courtyards and/or upper story setbacks will help avoid a monotonous “wall” along the street and create a perception of a series of smaller structures to improve compatibility. There are several houses in that are potentially eligible for local landmark designation. Designers of new buildings will need to pay close attention to architectural details in order to comply with both Chapter 14 of the City Code (Landmark Preservation) and Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code (Historic and Cultural Resources). Informal consultation with the Landmark Preservation Commission is encouraged in order to find design solutions that are beneficial to all parties. We have previously attended a Conceptual Design review meeting with the LPC on April 17, 2019 and will work with ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 51 Project Narrative APEX-HAVEN APARTMENTS Historic Preservation Staff and LPC with future submittals as needed to receive a certificate of appropriateness and ultimately a recommendation to Planning & Zoning Board. Recommendation for approval was given on February 19, 2020. •Figure 9. Design Guidelines for Multi-Family Redevelopment & Infill (Policies 1.9, 1.10, 1.11) Multi-family redevelopment and infill should emphasize compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods and relate to a dominant residential character. The guidelines emphasize means of articulation or modulation to reduce large, monotonous masses and feel more residential in scale. In addition, consistent yet varied rooflines, front porches, human-scale detail (such as brackets/corbels and consistent fenestration patterns) are encouraged. Commercial type multi-family structures lacking these elements are discouraged. The west, south and east elevations of Building 3 uses residential roof forms, modules of massing and scale, window fenestration and other details that are complimentary of the both Building 2 and 3 as well as the neighboring single-family properties to the east of the site. UTILITIES The site utilizes existing infrastructure in the area to provide services for the project. Water for domestic and fire use, sanitary sewer, storm drainage and electric services is provided by the City of Fort Collins. Natural gas is provided by Xcel Energy. Phone and Internet is provided by CenturyLink and/or Comcast. LIGHTING All lighting will meet City of Fort Collins requirements. A photometric plan has been submitted. STORMWATER: The site will provide stormwater detention and water quality treatment onsite prior to releasing it offsite. Per communications with City personnel, after detention and water quality treatment, stormwater will be released to the existing street grade at Prospect Avenue. Additionally, the site will meet Low Impact Development standards through the use of bioretention and underground detention. A new detention pond, designated Pond C in the Construction Documents, is being proposed between Building 1 and 3 to address drainage requirements for this development. Pond C will provide detention for the contributing drainage basin. As water quality for the contributing drainage basin is being provided downstream, Pond C will not provide any water quality detention. Therefore, smaller storm events (i.e. water quality events) will be allowed to pass through the pond without any significant storage in the pond. During the 100-year event, the pond is designed to detain the entirety of the storm event, with a maximum depth of 30-inches, and release the detained volume slowly over a period of no more than 120-hours per State of Colorado requirements. To reduce the risk of stormwater infiltrating from the pond and into the adjacent basement of Building 3 and/or neighboring properties, the pond will be lined with a minimum of a 30-mil PVC liner outside of the wall limits (Refer to the Wall Detail). Additionally, to further protect Building 3, a foundation drain with sump pump located in the basement of the building will be provided. For emergency situations (e.g. the outlet structure becomes clogged or for storm events larger than the 100-year event) the pond is designed to control where stormwater will spill from the detention pond. This is accomplished through an emergency overflow structure which is designed to be located at the southeast corner of the pond wall. Water discharged from the emergency overflow will be directed via an onsite drainage swale from the overflow location to the eastern property line south of Building 3 and south of the existing residence east of the site. Once at the property line, water will be conveyed along the property line to West Prospect Road. As stated, the pond is only designed to release water over the emergency spillway during emergency situations. Additionally, the City of Fort Collins will require regular maintenance of the pond system through the Standard Operating Procedures attached to the Development Agreement for the property, limiting the probability of an emergency situation due to pond failure. TRASH AND RECYCLING SERVICE: Trash and recycling services will enter the site off of Prospect Road at the Apex entrance. The existing enclosure will continue to be servied as it has historically with the exception of bins changing from 3CY to 4CY. The new enclosure will require the truck to pull slighting down the east-west portion of teh EAE drive (with public access easement in place) to empty the 4CY bins in that enclosure. The truck will then back out into the Apex lot to exit back onto Prospect. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 52 Project Narrative APEX-HAVEN APARTMENTS LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION (LPC): Refer to Section 11 Architecture Section for comments related to architecture. The site plan and landscape plan are designed to provide a more residential feel in the front of the two existing single-family homes on the property. A patio space with room for a patio furnishings is provided. A wide planting area in front of the patio and home provides a rich palette of plants including blooming shrubs, ornamental grasses and perennials. Lawn areas in front of the landmark designated home and along the front entry drive are implemented as requested by the LPC. Since the first LPC meeting, the space between the historic landmark structure and proposed building has been increased with additional planting and gathering areas, per comments received. Recommendation for approval was granted at the February 19, 2020 meeting. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 53 Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 N. College Ave Fort Collins, CO 80524 970.221.6689 fcgov.com/DevelopmentReview VIRTUAL PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST February 18, 2021 Shelley Lamastra Russell + Mills Studios 506 S College Ave, Unit A Fort Collins, CO 80524 Dear Shelley: You are receiving this letter because you have an item required to be heard by the Planning & Zoning Board, the Landmark Preservation Commission, an Administrative Hearing Officer, the Building Review Board, or City Council. Council previously adopted an ordinance allowing for quasi-judicial decision items to be heard using remote technology, which applies to various planning, development, building and historic preservation topics. As an applicant of a Development Review project seeking a quasi-judicial decision from City Council, a City board or commission, or an administrative hearing officer, under the City Code or the City’s Land Use Code, we are required to notify you in writing of the intention to conduct a Quasi-Judicial Hearing using Remote Technology. You are entitled to request that the Quasi-Judicial Hearing be delayed until such time as the Hearing can be conducted in person. Please sign below acknowledging the receipt of this notice. Please also answer YES or NO by the statement pertaining to how you prefer your quasi-judicial decision item to be heard. I request that my quasi-judicial decision item be heard using remote technology and not be delayed until a time when hearings are conducted in person. Project: Apex - Haven Apartments, PDP210002_________________________ Name: _Shelley Lamastra __________________________________________ Signature: _______________________________________________________ Sincerely, Brandy Bethurem Harras bbethuremharras@fcgov.com X Yes ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 54 GENERAL LAND USE DATAEXISTING ZONINGHMN (HIGH DENSITY MIXED-USE NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT)EXISTING PARCEL SIZE114,616 SF (2.63 AC)EXISTING LAND USETWO EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURES AND ONE EXISTING MULTI-FAMILY STRUCTURE (APEX)PROPOSED LAND USEMULTI-FAMILY AND ADAPTIVE REUSE OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TOMULTI-FAMILYPROPOSED PROJECT LAND USE DATAPROPERTY LIMIT IMPROVEMENTSSITE AREA (AC)SITE AREA (SF)%TOTAL*BUILDING 1 0.26 11,385 10BUILDING 2 0.04 1,765 2BUILDING 3 0.02 962 1PARKING AND DRIVEWAY 0.114,7304LANDSCAPE AREA (turf, shrub beds, detention seeding)0.4519,80517CONCRETE WALKS (includes EAE portion)0.187,9507CRUSHER FINES PAVEMENT0.016801ARTIFICIAL TURF0.016461*remaining area is existingRIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTSDRIVEWAY 0.03 1,320LANDSCAPE AREA (TURF)0.031,220CONCRETE WALKS0.031,335EXISTING PROJECT LAND USE DATAEXISTING SITE CONDITIONSSITE AREA (AC)SITE AREA (SF)%TOTALAPEX BUILDING .3515,66514PARKING AND DRIVEWAY.6428,01125LANDSCAPE AREA (turf, shrub beds, seed).3113,44812CONCRETE WALKS.083,5433CRUSHER FINES PAVEMENT.0041801BUILDING DATA: PROPOSEDMAXIMUM PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT46'-8" (3 STORIES)NAMESTATUSAREA(GROSS)FARUSEBUILDING 1NEW 32,102 SF0.24MULTI-FAMILYSTUDIO UNIT:291-BEDROOM LOFT UNIT: 172-BEDROOM UNIT:2TOTAL UNITS: 48BUILDING 2 EXISTING 2,449 SF 0.02 MULTI-FAMILY2-BEDROOM UNIT: 13-BEDROOM UNIT:1TOTAL UNITS: 2BUILDING 3 EXISTING 962 SF 0.008 MULTI-FAMILY1-BEDROOM UNIT: 2DENSITY CALCULATIONSGROSS DENSITYTOTAL DWELLING UNITS = 113TOTAL GROSS ACREAGE = 2.63GROSS DENSITY = 42.9 DU/ACNET DENSITYTOTAL DWELLING UNITS = 113TOTAL NET ACREAGE = 2.63 AC - 0.16 AC (GATHERING AREAS & BIKEWAY)= 2.47 ACNET DENSITY = 46.56 DU/ACBUILDING DATA: EXISTING APEXMAXIMUM PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT48' (3 STORIES)STUDIO UNIT: 331-BEDROOM UNIT:28TOTAL UNITS: 61TOTAL EXISTING/PROPOSED UNITS:113TOTAL EXISTING/PROPOSED BEDROOMS: 118VEHICLE PARKINGREQUIRED RESIDENT VEHICLE PARKING WITHIN TOD:1-BEDROOM OR LESS UNIT = .75 SPACE/UNIT.75 x 109 UNITS = 81.752-BEDROOM UNIT = 1 SPACE/UNIT1 x 3 UNIT = 33-BEDROOM UNIT = 1.25 SPACE/UNIT1.25 x 1 UNIT = 1.25TOTAL REQUIRED SPACES = 86 SPACESPROVIDED RESIDENT VEHICLE PARKING:STANDARD/OVERHANG PARKING48 COMPACT PARKING 39 (40%)HANDI-CAP PARKING 5TOTAL PROVIDED SPACES =92 SPACES**THE FOUR (4) RESIDENT SPACES IN THE EAST LOT SHALL BE BY PERMIT ONLYDELIVERY/RIDE SHARE VEHICLE PARKING:TWO (2) DELIVERY/RIDE SHARE ONLY SPACES ARE SIGNED/IDENTIFIED IN THE EAST LOT ASWELL AS ONE (1) TURN IN/BACK OUT AREABIKE PARKINGREQUIRED BIKE PARKING:1 SPACE/BEDROOM (60% ENCLOSED / 40% FIXED)1 x 118 BEDROOMS = 118 (71 ENCLOSED/47 FIXED)PROVIDED BIKE PARKING:ENCLOSED BIKE PARKING - APEX61 (IN BASEMENT STORAGE UNITS)ENCLOSED BIKE PARKING - HAVEN25 (IN BREEZEWAYS & MAIL/BIKE ROOM)TOTAL = 86 SPACES (63%)FIXED BIKE PARKING - APEX6FIXED BIKE PARKING - HAVEN44TOTAL =50 SPACES (37%)TOTAL BIKE PARKING SPACES136N O R T HCONTEXT MAPSHEET INDEXLS001 COVER SHEETLS101 SITE PLANLS501 SITE DETAILSLS502 SITE DETAILSLS503 SITE DETAILSLI101 LIGHTING PLANTR101 TREE PROTECTION PLANLP100 LANDSCAPE NOTES& SCHEDULEPLANNING SET:APEX-HAVEN APARTMENTSZONING MAPApex-HavenApartmentsSheetSheet NameChecked By:Drawn By:Date:CRSL02.16.2021APEX-HAVEN APARTMENTSPRELIMINARYDEVELOPMENTPLANLS001COVER SHEETApex-HavenApartmentsLEGAL DESCRIPTIONBEING A REPLAT OF LOTS 1 AND 2, OBSERVATORY PARK SUBDIVISION, LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OFSECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS,COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADOLP101 LANDSCAPE PLANLP501 LANDSCAPE DETAILSA-01 BUILDING 1 ELEVATIONS - PLANNINGA-02 BUILDING 1 ELEVATIONS - PLANNINGA-03 FIRE ACCESS LOCATIONSA-04 3D VIEWSA-05 BUILDING 2 ELEVATIONS - PLANNINGA-06 BUILDING 3 ELEVATIONS - PLANNINGA-07 SHADOW ANALYSISA-08 SITE SECTIONSITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 55 UPDNUPUPUPUPUPRISERH YDWSE GEXISTING 10' MULTI-MODALPATHTYP.LIGHT,BOLLARDLL101CR.O.W.20'-0" LOTLINEOFFSET20'-0"20'-0"LIGHT, TYPWALL MOUNTEDLL101BEXISTING LIGHT POLE3,000K/FULL CUT-OFF, TYP.REFER TO APPROVEDLIGHTING PLANTYP.POLE LIGHTLL101ATYP.POLE LIGHTLL101ABUILDING 2BUILDING 3BUILDING 1EXISTING APEXAPARTMENTSPROSPECT ROAD20'-0" LOTLINEOFFSETEXISTING LIGHT POLE3,000K/FULL CUT-OFF, TYP.REFER TO APPROVEDLIGHTING PLANEXISTING LIGHT POLE3,000K/FULL CUT-OFF, TYP.REFER TO APPROVEDLIGHTING PLANEXISTING LIGHT POLE3,000K/FULL CUT-OFF, TYP.REFER TO APPROVEDLIGHTING PLANEXISTING LIGHT POLE3,000K/FULL CUT-OFF, TYP.REFER TO APPROVEDLIGHTING PLANABC010'20'20'40'N O R T HSheetSheet NameChecked By:Drawn By:Date:CRSL02.16.2021APEX-HAVEN APARTMENTSPRELIMINARYDEVELOPMENTPLANLI101LIGHTING PLANITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 56 UPDNUPUPUPUPUPRISERHYDWSE GDELIVERYRIDE SHAREPARKINGONLY PERMIT1PERMIT2PERMIT3WEST PROSPECT ROADEXISTING APEXMULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGEXISTINGDETENTIONPONDEXISTING 10'MULTI-MODAL PATHBUILDING 1(MULTI-FAMILY)BUILDING 2(EXISTINGHOME)BUILDING 3(EXISTING HISTORICDESIGNATED HOME)PAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPA(44 FIXED)BIKE RACKLS501GMETAL FENCELS502CWALLSEATWALLLS501J34PATIO TABLELS501HPRIVACY FENCELS502BMETAL FENCELS502CR.O.W.PORCH WITH FURNISHINGSBY RESIDENTTURFARTIFICIALLS501EPAPAEXISTING MULTI-MODALWALKPAPATIO WITHFURNISHINGSBY RESIDENTEXISTINGRESIDENTIALHOME (714 WPROSPECT)EXISTINGGARAGE(2) 4CY BINSENCLOSURETRASHLS502EEXISTING PATIOAREA AND TABLESPAPAPAPAPAEXISTINGPATIO AREAEXISTINGPERGOLADETENTION PONDPAPAPANEW TRANSFORMEREXISTING TRANSFORMEREXISTING TREE LAWN AND TREES8COMPACT9COMPACT1414610COMPACT8COMPACT99DOGPOCKETPARKEX. TRASH(4) 4 CY binsEXISTING PARKINGLOTEXISTING FIXEDBIKE PARKING (6)FIREHYDRANT26'-0"EMERGENCYACCESSEASEMENT34'-11"8'-512"16'-0"EMERGENCY ACCESS& PUBLIC ACCESSEASEMENT15'-0"5'-0"10'-0"R25'-0"6'-0"2'-412"R51'-0"6'-0"4'-7"85'-8"10'-0"7'-0"22'-312"5'-2"8'-812"17'-0"R11'-6"R14'-0"R32'-6"R7'-6"R25'-0"30'-0" EMERGENCYACCESS, PUBLICACCESS, UTILITYAND DRAINAGEEASEMENT30'-0" EMERGENCY ACCESS,NON-VEHICULAR PUBLICACCESS, UTILITY ANDDRAINAGE EASEMENTR30'-0"14'-0"12'-0"R25'-0"R20'-0"'Emergency and trashvehicles only' SIGN5'-0"BOLLARDDRIVE OVERLS501FRELOCATED LIGHT FORDRIVEWAY WIDENINGDRIVEWAY WIDENINGEXISTING 16'-0"EMERGENCY & PEDESTRIANACCESS CONNECTIONTO LAKE STREETEXISTINGDETENTIONPOND114'-0"to 638 W PROSPECTRESIDENTIAL HOME22'-1012"EXISTINGGARAGE/SHEDEXISTINGGARAGE/SHEDBENCH, TRASH CAN AND DOGWASTE STATION, BY OWNERCIVIL FOR MORE INFO)WALL (REFER TODETENTION BLOCKLS502ADETENTION BLOCK WALL,SALVAGE AND RETAIN EXISTINGBLOCK WALL FOR REUSEPERMIT4DELIVERYRIDE SHAREPARKINGONLY'No parking | Turnaround' SIGN5'-0"9'-0"3-POINT TURNAROUND AREA4'-0"12'-0"5'-1112"'Vehicles stop & yield topedestrians and cyclists' SIGN'Vehicles stop & yield topedestrians and cyclists'EAST FACING SIGN' |'Do Not Enter' WESTFACING SIGN'Caution | slow Vehicles crossing'NORTH FACING SIGN'Emergency vehicles only' SOUTHFACING SIGN'Caution | slow Vehiclecross traffic' SIGN16'-0"(PEDESTRIAN ZONE)'Emergency, delivery& ride share vehiclesonly' SIGNS(VEHICLE ZONE)ONE WAY'Vehicles stop & yield to pedestrians andcyclists' EAST FACING SIGN'Do Not Enter' WEST FACING SIGNONE WAYTooled delineation edgeTooled delineation edge25'-0"25'-512"8'-7"26'-0"R10'-0"R10'-0"R25'-0"20'-0"4'-0"PA8'-4"8'-10"26'-4"9'-0"8'-8"(5)BIKES(5)BIKES(10)BIKES(5)BIKESMAIL/BIKEROOM6" CONCRETE, SAWCUT JOINTSSTD. GRAY6" CONCRETE, SAWCUT JOINTSCOLOREDCRUSHED LIMESTONEPAVEMENTARTIFICIAL TURFEXPANSION JOINTPROPERTY LINERIGHT-OF-WAYEASEMENTCONCRETE EDGERROLLED TOP EDGER6' PRIVACY FENCEMETAL FENCEBIKE RACKPATIO TABLEWALL MOUNT, BOLLARD, POLELIGHTRELOCATED LIGHT POLESITE LEGEND: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 THEBUILDING 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. 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.7. 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.8. FIRE HYDRANTS MUST MEET OR EXCEED POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY STANDARDS. ALL BUILDINGS MUST PROVIDE AN APPROVED FIRE EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM.9. ALL BIKE RACKS PROVIDED MUST BE PERMANENTLY ANCHORED.10. ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS MUST CONFORM TO CITY STANDARDS. ACCESSIBLE RAMPS MUST BE PROVIDED AT ALL STREET AND DRIVE INTERSECTIONS AND AT ALL DESIGNATED ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES. ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES MUST SLOPE NO MORE THAN 1:48 IN ANY DIRECTION. ALL ACCESSIBLE ROUTES MUSTSLOPE NO MORE THAN 1:20 IN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL AND WITH NO MORE THAN 1:48 CROSS SLOPE.11. 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 OWNER OF THE COMMON AREA. THE PROPERTY OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SNOW REMOVAL ON ALL ADJACENTSTREET SIDEWALKS AND SIDEWALKS IN COMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS.12. DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF ALL PARKWAY/TREE LAWN AND MEDIAN AREAS IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS. UNLESS OTHERWISE AGREED TO BY THE CITY WITH THE FINAL PLANS, ALL ONGOING MAINTENANCE OF SUCH AREAS IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER/DEVELOPER.13. THE PROPERTY OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SNOW REMOVAL ON ALL STREET SIDEWALKS ADJACENT TO EACH UNIT/APARTMENT BUILDING.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'SEXPENSE 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 LANESHALL 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 LEGIBLE CONDITION AT ALL TIMES AD BE REPLACED OR REPAIRED WHEN NECESSARY TO PROVIDEADEQUATE 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 BUILDINGSSHALL 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 SIX INCH NUMERALS ON A CONTRASTING BACKGROUND. WHERE ACCESS IS BYMEANS 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.0 10'20'20'40'N O R T HSheetSheet NameChecked By:Drawn By:Date:CRSL02.16.2021APEX-HAVEN APARTMENTSPRELIMINARYDEVELOPMENTPLANLS101SITE PLANITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 57 SCALE:PATIO TABLENTSDT-FURN-TABLE-PATIOMANUFACTURER: VICTOR STANLEYMODEL: ANTHRO SITES COLLECTION - A-364COLOR: BRONZESEAT MATERIAL: STEEL, 2 SEATSMOUNTING: SURFACE MOUNT PER MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONSREFER TO SPECS LS501SITE DETAILSSheetSheet NameChecked By:Drawn By:Date:CRSL02.16.2021APEX-HAVEN APARTMENTSPRELIMINARYDEVELOPMENTPLANITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 58 2"x4" CEDAR FENCECAP2"x6" CEDAR RAIL2"x6" CEDAR RAIL6" CEDAR PICKET4"x6" CEDAR POST1" CHAMFER TO ALLPOSTSCONCRETE FOOTINGF.G.LS502SITE DETAILSSheetSheet NameChecked By:Drawn By:Date:CRSL02.16.2021APEX-HAVEN APARTMENTSPRELIMINARYDEVELOPMENTPLANITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 59 LS503SITE DETAILSSheetSheet NameChecked By:Drawn By:Date:CRSL02.16.2021APEX-HAVEN APARTMENTSPRELIMINARYDEVELOPMENTPLANITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 60 UPDNUPUPUPUPUPRISERHYDWSE GDELIVERYRIDESHARE PARKINGONLY PERMIT1PERMIT2PERMIT3PERMIT4DELIVERYRIDESHARE PARKINGONLY 3-POINT TURNAROUND AREAONE WAYONE WAY 1239756810NO DISTURBANCE TOTREES WEST OFEXISTING BIKE PATH: ALLTREES TO REMAIN11121314151617NO DISTURBANCETO TREES WESTOF EXISTING BIKEPATH: ALL TREESTO REMAIN4ALL EXISTING TREES AND LANDSCAPINGON APEX APARTMENTS TO REMAIN ANDBE PROTECTEDEXISTING APEX APARTMENTSLANDSCAPING TO REMAINWEST PROSPECT ROADEXISTING APEXMULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGEXISTINGDETENTIONPONDEXISTING 10'MULTI-MODAL PATHBUILDING 1(MULTI-FAMILY)BUILDING 2(EXISTINGHOME)BUILDING 3(EXISTING HISTORICDESIGNATED HOME)R.O.W.EXISTING MULTI-MODALWALKEXISTINGGARAGEEXISTING PATIOAREA AND TABLESEXISTINGPATIO AREAEXISTINGPERGOLADETENTION PONDNEW TRANSFORMEREXISTINGTRANSFORMEREXISTING TREE LAWN AND TREESDOGPOCKETPARKEX. TRASH(4) 4 CY binsEXISTING PARKINGLOTEXISTING FIXEDBIKE PARKING (6)FDCEXISTING 16'-0"EMERGENCY & PEDESTRIANACCESS CONNECTIONTO LAKE STREETEXISTINGDETENTIONPONDEXISTINGGARAGE/SHEDEXISTINGGARAGE/SHEDEXISTINGRESIDENTIALHOME (714 WPROSPECT)RETAINING WALL (REFER TOCIVIL PLANS FOR MOREINFORMATION). DO NOT OVEREXCAVATE NEAR DRIP LINE OFTREES. CUT AND PULL AWAYFROM TREE, NOT TOWARDTREE.RETAINING WALL (REFERTO CIVIL PLANS FORMORE INFORMATION). DONOT OVER EXCAVATENEAR DRIP LINE OFTREES. CUT AND PULLAWAY FROM TREE, NOTTOWARD TREE.181920TREE PROTECTION FENCINGTO BE INSTALLED PRIOR TOAND DURING CONSTRUCTION9'-0"BUILDING FOUNDATION. DO NOTOVER EXCAVATE NEAR DRIPLINE OF TREE #19. CUT ANDPULL AWAY FROM TREE, NOTTOWARD TREE.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 UNLESSNOTED ON THESE PLANS FOR REMOVAL.2. WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED EXISTING TREE, THERE SHALL BE NO CUT OR FILL OVER A FOUR-INCH DEPTH UNLESS A QUALIFIED ARBORIST ORFORESTER HAS EVALUATED AND APPROVED THE DISTURBANCE.3. ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREES SHALL BE PRUNED TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FORESTRY STANDARDS. TREE PRUNING AND REMOVAL SHALL BEPERFORMED BY A BUSINESS THAT HOLDS A CURRENT CITY OF FORT COLLINS ARBORIST LICENSE WHERE REQUIRED BY CODE.4. PRIOR TO AND DURING CONSTRUCTION, BARRIERS SHALL BE ERECTED AROUND ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREES WITH SUCH BARRIERS TO BE OF ORANGEFENCING A MINIMUM OF FOUR (4) FEET IN HEIGHT, SECURED WITH METAL T-POSTS, NO CLOSER THAN SIX (6) FEET FROM THE TRUNK OR ONE-HALF (½) OF THEDRIP LINE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. THERE SHALL BE NO STORAGE OR MOVEMENT OF EQUIPMENT, MATERIAL, DEBRIS OR FILL WITHIN THE FENCED TREEPROTECTION ZONE.5. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANT SHALL PREVENT THE CLEANING OF EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL OR THE STORAGE ANDDISPOSAL OF WASTE MATERIAL SUCH AS PAINTS, OILS, SOLVENTS, ASPHALT, CONCRETE, MOTOR OIL OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL HARMFUL TO THE LIFE OF ATREE WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED TREE OR GROUP OF TREES.6. NO DAMAGING ATTACHMENT, WIRES, SIGNS OR PERMITS MAY BE FASTENED TO ANY PROTECTED TREE.7. LARGE PROPERTY AREAS CONTAINING PROTECTED TREES AND SEPARATED FROM CONSTRUCTION OR LAND CLEARING AREAS, ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY ANDUTILITY EASEMENTS MAY BE "RIBBONED OFF," RATHER THAN ERECTING PROTECTIVE FENCING AROUND EACH TREE AS REQUIRED IN SUBSECTION (G)(3)ABOVE. THIS MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY PLACING METAL T-POST STAKES A MAXIMUM OF FIFTY (50) FEET APART AND TYING RIBBON OR ROPE FROMSTAKE-TO-STAKE ALONG THE OUTSIDE 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 BEACCOMPLISHED BY BORING UNDER THE ROOT SYSTEM OF PROTECTED EXISTING TREES AT A MINIMUM DEPTH OF TWENTY-FOUR (24) INCHES. THE AUGERDISTANCE IS ESTABLISHED FROM THE FACE OF THE TREE (OUTER BARK) AND IS SCALED FROM TREE DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT AS DESCRIBED IN THECHART BELOW:TREE DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT (INCHES)AUGER DISTANCE FROM FACE OF TREE (FEET)0-2 13-4 25-9 510-14 1015-19 12Over 19 159. NO TREES SHALL BE REMOVED DURING THE SONGBIRD NESTING SEASON (FEBRUARY 1 TO JULY 31) WITHOUT FIRST HAVING A PROFESSIONAL ECOLOGISTOR WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST COMPLETE A NESTING SURVEY TO IDENTIFY ANY ACTIVE NESTS EXISTING ON THE PROJECT SITE. THE SURVEY SHALL BE SENT TOTHE CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER. IF ACTIVE NESTS ARE FOUND, THE CITY WILL COORDINATE WITH RELEVANT STATE AND FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVESTO DETERMINE WHETHER ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON TREE REMOVAL AND CONSTRUCTION APPLY.TREE MITIGATION CHARTTREESPECIESDIAMETERCONDITIONACTIONMITI. TREES REQ'DNOTES1 COTTONWOOD29" (FOUR STEMS 4-6") FAIR - REMOVE2.52 COTTONWOOD30" (10 SUCKERS 2-6") POOR + REMOVE23 MULTI-STEM (7) BOXELDER 2-5"FAIR REMOVE04 SPRUCE22"FAIR PROTECT2.5TO BE TREATED FOR IPS BEETLES5 SPRUCE33"FAIR REMOVE1IPS BEETLE INFESTATION6 SPRUCE25"FAIR PROTECT3.5*TO BE TREATED FOR IPS BEETLES7 SPRUCE23"FAIR - REMOVE1IPS BEETLE INFESTATION8 SPRUCE28.5"FAIR - REMOVE1IPS BEETLE INFESTATION9 SPRUCE30"FAIR - REMOVE1IPS BEETLE INFESTATION10 PLUM4"DEAD REMOVE011 SIBERIAN ELM38"FAIR - REMOVE3.512 NORWAY MAPLEMULTI-STEM 4-7"FAIR - REMOVE1.513 SIBERIAN ELM24"DEAD REMOVE0CONFIRM IF ON PROPERTY14 SIBERIAN ELM5"FAIR - REMOVE0CONFIRM IF ON PROPERTY15 BLUE SPRUCE5"FAIR - PROTECT116 HONEYLOCUST18"FAIR - PROTECT217 SIBERIAN ELM(5) STEM 4-5"POOR REMOVE0TOTAL MITIGATION TREES REQUIRED: 13.5TOTAL MITIGATION TREES PROVIDED: 17* IF TREATMENT IS NOT EFFECTIVE THEN TREE SHALL HAVE 1 MITIGATION TREE REQUIRED.TREE MITIGATION LEGEND:PROTECT EXISTING TREEREMOVE EXISTING TREECRITICAL ROOT ZONE ANDINTERIOR CRITICAL ROOT ZONETREE PROTECTION FENCINGOFFSITE TREESTREESPECIESDIAMETER18 OAK13"19 OAK36"20 SIBERIAN ELM18"010'20'20'40'N O R T HSheetSheet NameChecked By:Drawn By:Date:CRSL03.25.2021APEX-HAVEN APARTMENTSPRELIMINARYDEVELOPMENTPLANTR101TREE PROTECTIONAND REMOVAL PLANITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 61 WATER BUDGET CHART*HYDROZONEAREA(S.F.)WATER NEED (GAL./S.F.)ANNUAL WATER USE (GAL.)HIGH 0 SF 18 GAL./SF 0 GAL.MODERATE 10,320 SF 10 GAL./SF 103,200 GAL.LOW 10,485 SF3 GAL./SF31,455 GAL.TOTAL WATER USE = 134,655 GAL.TOTAL NEW LANDSCAPE AREA = 19,805 SFGALLONS PER S.F. = 6.8 GAL./SF*BREAKDOWN OF NEW LANDSCAPE AREAS:MODERATE = TURF + HALF OF SHRUB BEDSLOW = SEED AREAS + HALF OF SHRUB BEDA PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY TREES OR SHRUBS AS NOTED ONTHIS PLAN ARE PLANTED, PRUNED OR REMOVED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS INCLUDES ZONESBETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND CURB, MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THIS PERMIT SHALL APPROVETHE LOCATION AND SPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURE TO OBTAIN THIS PERMIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE CITYOF FORT COLLINS CODE SUBJECT TO CITATION (SECTION 27-31) AND MAY ALSO RESULT IN REPLACING ORRELOCATING TREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.GENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES: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 AMERICANASSOCIATION 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 THECITY 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 IRRIGATIONSYSTEM SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO MEET THE WATER REQUIREMENTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL PLANT MATERIAL. IRRIGATION SYSTEMS TO BE TURNED OVER TO THE CITY PARKS DEPARTMENT FOR MAINTENANCE MUST BE APPROVED BY THEPARKS MANAGER AND MEET PARKS IRRIGATION STANDARDS. DESIGN REVIEW SHALL OCCUR DURING UTILITIES DEPARTMENT IRRIGATION REVIEW PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONAND INSPECTION BY PARKS SHALL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS.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 THOROUGHLYLOOSENED 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 OROTHER 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, AWRITTEN 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 INSECTION 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. ALLLANDSCAPING 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 THEMATERIALS 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 INGOOD 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 TOMAINTAIN 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 LIGHTS15 FEET BETWEEN ORNAMENTAL TREES AND STREETLIGHTS10 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND PUBLIC WATER, SANITARY AND STORM SEWER MAIN LINES6 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND PUBLIC WATER, SANITARY AND STORM SEWER SERVICE LINES.4 FEET BETWEEN SHRUBS AND PUBLIC WATER AND SANITARY AND STORM SEWER LINES4 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND GAS LINES9. 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 ALLOWEDWITHIN 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 OREASEMENT MUST BE NOT MORE THAN 42" IN HEIGHT AND OF AN OPEN DESIGN.11. 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 NORPRECLUDE 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 CONSISTENTWITH 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 HAVEWRITTEN APPROVAL BY THE CITY PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.13. ALL PLANTING BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF THREE INCHES.14. ALL TREES ADJACENT TO EAE SHALL MAINTAIN A LIMB HEIGHT OF 14'-0" FOR EMERGENCY TRUCK CLEARANCE.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 SIDEWALKAND 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 TOCITATION (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 TREEPLANTING 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 LICENSEDARBORS 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 PROJECTMUST 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 TREESTO 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.NATIVE SEED MIX NOTES:1. 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.2. IF CHANGES ARE TO BE MADE TO SEED MIX BASED ON SITE CONDITIONS THEN APPROVAL MUST BE PROVIDED BY CITY ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER.3. APPROPRIATE NATIVE SEEDING EQUIPMENT WILL BE USED (STANDARD TURF SEEDING EQUIPMENT OR AGRICULTURE EQUIPMENT SHALL NOT BE USED).4. DRILL SEED APPLICATION RECOMMENDED PER SPECIFIED APPLICATION RATE TO NO MORE THAN 1/2 INCH DEPTH. FOR BROADCAST SEEDING INSTEAD OF DRILL SEEDING METHOD DOUBLE SPECIFIED APPLICATION RATE. REFER TONATIVE SEED MIX TABLE FOR SPECIES, PERCENTAGES AND APPLICATION RATES.5. TREAT NATIVE SEED MIX AREA PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF SEED WITH APPROPRIATE HERBICIDE TO PROACTIVELY MITIGATE HERBACEOUS WEED SPECIES GROWTH DURING ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD THEN AFTER APPROPRIATE TIMEPERIOD APPLY NATIVE SEED AS CALLED FOR ON APPROVED PLANS.6. AFTER SEEDING THE AREA SHALL BE COVERED WITH CRIMPED STRAW OR OTHER APPROPRIATE METHODS AND PROVIDED TEMPORARY IRRIGATION UNTIL SEED IS ESTABLISHED.7. CONTRACTOR SHALL MONITOR SEEDED AREA FOR PROPER IRRIGATION, EROSION CONTROL, GERMINATION AND RESEEDING AS NEEDED TO ESTABLISH COVER.8. 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 TOAVOID INHIBITING NATIVE PLANT GROWTH.9. NATIVE SEED AREA WILL BE CONSIDERED ESTABLISHED WHEN SEVENTY PERCENT TOTAL COVER IS REACHED WITH NO LARGER THAN ONE FOOT SQUARE BARE SPOTS AND/OR UNTIL DEEMED ESTABLISHED BY CITY PLANNINGSERVICES.SOIL AMENDMENT:1. SOD AREAS: 4 C.Y. PER 1,000 S.F. OF COMPOST TILLED INTO 4" OF EXISTING SOIL. APPLY DIAMONIUM PHOSPHATE (18-46-0) AT ONE HUNDRED (100) POUNDS NITROGEN PER ACRE.SHRUB AND PLANTING BEDS - 4" OF COMPOST TILLED INTO 6" OF EXISTING SOIL.2. ACCEPTABLE PRODUCT: CLASS I COMPOST. COMPOSTED MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST OF AGED ORGANIC MATTER, FREE OF WEED OR OTHER NOXIOUS PLANT SEEDS, LUMPS, STONES, OR OTHER FOREIGN CONTAMINANTS HARMFUL TOPLANT LIFE, AND HAVING THE FOLLOWING CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON A NUTRIENT TEST PERFORMED NO LONGER THAN 3 MONTHS PRIOR TO ITS INCORPORATION INTO THE PROJECT:A. ORGANIC MATTER: 25% MINIMUM.B. SALT CONTENT: 5.0 MMHOS/CM MAXIMUMC. PH: 7.5 MAXIMUM.D. CARBON TO NITROGEN RATIO OF 10:1 TO 20:1DETENTION BASIN SEED MIX(Drill rate: 14.54 lbs/ac, Broadcast rate: 29.08 lbs/ac)COMMON NAMESCIENTIFIC NAMEPLS/ACPLAINS COREOPSIS COREOPSIS TINCTORIA 0.17WHITE PRAIRIE CLOVER DALEA CANDIDA 0.65PURPLE PRAIRIE CLOVERDALEA PURPUREA0.81INDIAN BLANKETFLOWERGAILLARDIA ARISTATA1.85MEXICAN HATRATIBIDA COLUMNIFERA0.2FRINGED SAGEARTEMESIA FRIGIDA0.47INDIAN RICEGRASSACHNATHERUM HYMENOIDES 1.13LANDSCAPE SCHEDULEQUANTITYSYMBOLBOTANIC NAMECOMMON NAMESIZE HEIGHTSPREADDECIDUOUS TREES3 ACER NEGUNDO 'SENSATION' SENSATION BOXELDER 2" CAL./B&B 40-50' 30-40'2 GINKGO BILOBA GINKGO 2" CAL./B&B 25-50' 25-35'3 ULMUS DAVIDIANA VAR. DISCOVERY ELM 2" CAL./B&B 30-40' 30-40'JAPONICA 'DISCOVERY'4QUERCUS BUCKLEYITEXAS RED OAK2" CAL./B&B 60-75' 50-60'ORNAMENTAL TREES4 ACER TATARICUM 'HOT WINGS'HOT WINGS TATARIAN MAPLE 2" CAL. 15-20' 12-15'(MITIGATION TREE)1KOELREUTERIA PANICULATAGOLDEN RAINTREE1.5" CAL. 25-30' 25-30'(MITIGATION TREE)9PRUNUS CERASIFERACRIMSON POINT PLUM1.5" CAL. 20-30' 8-10''CIPRIOZAM'EVERGREEN TREES3 PICEA ABIES 'CUPRESSINA' COLUMNAR NORWAY SPRUCE 8' HT. 20-30' 7'(MITIGATION TREE)3 PICEA PUNGENSCOLORADO BLUE SPRUCE 8' HT. 80-100' 25-30'(MITIGATION TREE)4PICEA PUNGENS 'BABY BLUE EYES' BABY BLUE EYES SPRUCE 8' HT. 15-20' 8-12'(MITIGATION TREE)3PINUS EDULISPINYON PINE6' HT. 12-20' 12-15'3PINUS NIGRAAUSTRIAN PINE8' HT. 50-60' 20-40'(MITIGATION TREE)TOTAL TREES = 42, MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE OF ONE SPECIES ALLOWED = 25% OR 10 TREESDECIDUOUS SHRUBS7 AMELANCHIER ALNIFOLIASTANDING OVATION 1.5" CAL. 12-15' 3-4''OBELISK'SERVICEBERRY4AMORPHA NANADWARF LEADPLANT5 GAL. 2-4'2-4'14BUDDLEIA 'MISS MOLLY'MISS MOLLY BUTTERFLY BUSH 5 GAL. 5'5'5CHRYSOTHAMNUS NAUSEOSUSDWARF RABBITBRUSH5 GAL. 2'2-3'14CORNUS SERICEA 'ISANTI'ISANTI DOGWOOD5 GAL. 4-5'4-7'14CORNUS STOLONIFERA 'FARROW' ARCTIC FIRE DOGWOOD5 GAL. 3-4'3-4'4COTONEASTER APICULATUSCRANBERRY COTONEASTER 5 GAL. 2-3'3-6'8LONICERA INVOLUCRATATWINBERRY HONEYSUCKLE 5 GAL. 6-8'6-8'17PRUNUS BESSEYIPAWNEE BUTTES WESTERN 5 GAL. 1-2'5-6''PAWNEE BUTTES'SAND CHERRY10RHAMNUS FRANGULACOLUMNAR BUCKTHORN5 GAL. 8-12' 3-4'8RHUS AROMATICA 'GRO-LOW'GRO-LOW SUMAC5 GAL. 2-3'6-8'4SALIX IRRORATABLUESTEM WILLOW5 GAL. 8-10' 12-15'20SPIREA X BUMALDA GOLDFLAME SPIREA5 GAL. 3-4'4-5''GOLDFLAMEEVERGREEN SHRUBS6 PICEA PUNGENS 'GLOBOSA'DWARF GLOBE SPRUCE5 GAL. 3-5'3-6'ORNAMENTAL GRASSES13 CALAMAGROSTIS X ACUTIFLORAKARL FOERSTER FEATHER 1 GAL. 4-5'1-2' 'KARL FOERSTER' REED GRASS13ERIANTHUS RAVENNAEHARDY PAMPAS GRASS1 GAL. 7-12'4-5'29HELICTOTRICHON SEMPERVIRENS BLUE OAT GRASS1 GAL. 20-24" 2-4'42MISCANTHUS SINENISMAIDEN GRASS1 GAL. 5-6'5-6' 'GRACILLIMUS'66MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS REGAL MIST PINK MUHLY GRASS 1 GAL. 24-30" 24-30" 'LENCA'67PENNISETUM ALOPECUROIDES DWARF FOUNTAIN GRASS1 GAL. 2-3'2-3'PERENNIALSAPO ACHILLEA X 'POMEGRANATE'TUTTI FRUTTI YARROW1 GAL. 18"-24" 18-24"ABFAGASTACHE 'BLUE FORTUNE'BLUE FORTUNE HYSSOP1 GAL. 18"18"ARAAGASTACHE RUPESTRISLICORICE MINT1 GAL. 18"18"EPUECHINACEA PURPUREAPURPLE CONEFLOWER1 GAL. 24-48" 18-24"10HESPERALOE PARVIFLORARED YUCCA1 GAL. 3-4'2-3'VMIVINCA MINORPERIWINKLE1 GAL. 3-6"18-24"14YUCCA GLAUCASOAPWEED1 GAL. 4' 4'LANDSCAPE LEGEND:ORGANIC MULCHTYPE: SHREDDED CEDARDEPTH: 3"COBBLE MULCHCOLOR AND SIZE TO MATCHEXISTING APEX COBBLEIRRIGATED SOD(3 TYPE BLUEGRASS HYBRIDBLEND W/ 20% TEXASBLUEGRASS)DETENTION BASIN SEED MIX(REFER TO SCHEDULE)ROLLED TOP EDGEREXISTING SHRUBS ANDGRASSESCOMMON NAMESCIENTIFIC NAMEPLS/ACSIDEOATS GRAMA BOUTELOUA CURTIPENDULA 1.15BUFFALOGRASS BOUTELOUA DACTYLOIDES 3.27BLUE GRAMABOUTELOUA GRACILIS0.25INLAND SALTGRASSDISTICHLIS STRICTA0.35BOTTLEBRUSH SQUIRRELTAIL ELYMUS ELYMOIDES0.95STREAMBANK WHEATGRASS ELYMUS LANCEOLATUS SSP. 1.36PRAIRIE JUNEGRASSKOELERIA MACRANTHA0.08WESTERN WHEATGRASSPASCOPYRUM SMITHII1.61LITTLE BLUESTEMSCHIZACHYRIUM SCOPARIUM 0.7SheetSheet NameChecked By:Drawn By:Date:CRSL02.16.2021APEX-HAVEN APARTMENTSPRELIMINARYDEVELOPMENTPLANLP100LANDSCAPE NOTES& SCHEDULEITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 62 UPDNUPUPUPUPUPRISERHYDWSE GDELIVERYRIDE SHARE PARKINGONLY PERMIT1PERMIT2PERMIT3PERMIT4DELIVERYRIDE SHARE PARKINGONLY 3-POINT TURNAROUND AREAONE WAYONE WAY4'-0"13'-3"18'-0"6'-7"11'-3"11'-11"10'-6"TYP.6'-7"4'-0"TYP.TURF LAWN TO MATCH EXISTINGEDGE OF TURFEXISTING PLANTINGS TOREMAIN BETWEENSIDEWALK AND FENCE12'-2"8'-8"9'-9"6'-10"12'-2"4'-0"TYP.EXISTING APEX APARTMENTSLANDSCAPING TO REMAINWEST PROSPECT ROADEXISTING APEXMULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGEXISTINGDETENTIONPONDEXISTING 10'MULTI-MODAL PATHBUILDING 1(MULTI-FAMILY)BUILDING 2(EXISTINGHOME)BUILDING 3(EXISTING HISTORICDESIGNATED HOME)R.O.W.EXISTING MULTI-MODALWALKEXISTINGGARAGEEXISTING PATIOAREA AND TABLESEXISTINGPATIO AREAEXISTINGPERGOLADETENTION PONDNEW TRANSFORMEREXISTINGTRANSFORMEREXISTING TREE LAWN AND TREESDOGPOCKETPARKEX. TRASH(4) 4 CY binsEXISTING PARKINGLOTEXISTING FIXEDBIKE PARKING (6)FDCEXISTING 16'-0"EMERGENCY & PEDESTRIANACCESS CONNECTIONTO LAKE STREETEXISTINGDETENTIONPONDEXISTINGGARAGE/SHEDEXISTINGGARAGE/SHEDRETAINING WALL (REFERTO CIVIL PLANS FORMORE INFORMATION). DONOT OVER EXCAVATENEAR DRIP LINE OFTREES. CUT AND PULLAWAY FROM TREE, NOTTOWARD TREE.RETAINING WALL (REFER TO CIVILPLANS FOR MORE INFORMATION). DONOT OVER EXCAVATE DO NOTEXCAVATE BEYOND EDGE OF EXISTINGRETAINING WALL. CUT AND PULL AWAYFROM TREE, NOT TOWARD TREE.EXISTINGRESIDENTIALHOME (714 WPROSPECT)26'-0"EMERGENCYACCESSEASEMENT30'-0" EMERGENCYACCESS, PUBLICACCESS, UTILITYAND DRAINAGEEASEMENT8'-2"7'-5"8'-0"typ.4'-0"TYP.6'-5"LANDSCAPE LEGEND:ORGANIC MULCHTYPE: SHREDDED CEDARDEPTH: 3"COBBLE MULCHCOLOR AND SIZE TO MATCHEXISTING APEX COBBLE MULCHIRRIGATED SOD(3 TYPE BLUEGRASS HYBRIDBLEND W/ 20% TEXASBLUEGRASS)DETENTION BASIN SEED MIX(REFER TO SCHEDULE)ROLLED TOP EDGEREXISTING SHRUBS ANDGRASSESSENSATION BOXELDERDISCOVERY ELMGINKOTEXAS RED OAKHOT WINGS TATARIAN MAPLEGOLDEN RAINTREECRIMSON POINT PLUMCOLUMNAR NORWAY SPRUCECOLORADO BLUE SPRUCEBABY BLUE EYES SPRUCEPINYON PINEAUSTRIAN PINESTANDING OVATIONSERVICEBERRYDWARF LEADPLANTMISS MOLLY BUTTERFLY BUSHDWARF RABBITBRUSHISANTI DOGWOODARCTIC FIRE DOGWOODCRANBERRY COTONEASTERTWINBERRY HONEYSUCKLEPAWNEE BUTTES WESTERNSAND CHERRYCOLUMNAR BUCKTHORNGRO LOW SUMACBLUESTEM WILLOWGOLDFLAME SPIREADWARF GLOBE SPRUCEKARL FOERSTER FEATHERREED GRASSBLUE OAT GRASSMAIDEN GRASSREGAL MIST PINK MUHLY GRASSDWARF FOUNTAIN GRASSREFER TO LP100 FORCOMPLETE PLANT SCHEDULETUTTI FRUTTI YARROWBLUE FORTUNE HYSSOPLICORICE MINTPURPLE CONEFLOWERPERIWINKLERED YUCCASOAPWEEDEXISTING APEX LANDSCAPE TOREMAIN0 10'20'20'40'N O R T HSheetSheet NameChecked By:Drawn By:Date:CRSL03.25.2021APEX-HAVEN APARTMENTSPRELIMINARYDEVELOPMENTPLANLP101LANDSCAPE PLANITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 63 AECBFDSheetSheet NameChecked By:Drawn By:Date:CRSL02.16.2021APEX-HAVEN APARTMENTSPRELIMINARYDEVELOPMENTPLANLP501LANDSCAPE DETAILSITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 64 ^dhK^z^dDͲ^tϮϴϰϬ,DDZ^/>sZZ/<sEZEhdD'Ͳ^DKKd,>W^//E'Ͳ^tϮϴϰϵt^d,^dZ'Zz^W,>d^,/E'>^ͲZ/&dtKK&^/͕dZ/DͲ^tϳϲϱϯ^/>sZWK/Eds/Ez>t/EKt^EKKZ^ϮϲΖͲϰΗϲΗϭϮΗϲΗϭϮΗϲΗϭϮΗϭϴΖͲϲΗϭϴΗd>>Z^^EhDZ>^ϮϴΖͲϮΗϲΗϭϮΗϲΗϭϮΗϲΗϭϮΗϲΗϭϮΗϲΗϭϮΗϲΗϭϮΗϮϴΖͲϰΗϰϰΖͲϱΗϮϴΖͲϰΗϮϵΖͲϭΗϮϵΖͲϵϭͬϮΗ>/E/E/d^DE/E&>KKZ>sd/KEZ>/E/E/d^>sd/KEK&&/ZWZdDEds,/>^^^dhK^z^dDͲ^tϮϴϰϬ,DDZ^/>sZZ/<sEZEhdD'Ͳ^DKKd,>W^//E'Ͳ^tϮϴϰϵt^d,^dZ'Zz^W,>d^,/E'>^ͲZ/&dtKK&^/͕dZ/DͲ^tϳϲϱϯ^/>sZWK/Eds/Ez>t/EKt^EKKZ^ϲΗϭϮΗϭϵΖͲϭϭΗϲΗϭϮΗϮϴΖͲϰΗϰϰΖͲϱΗϯΗϭϮΗϲΗϭϮΗϲΗϭϮΗϲΗϭϮΗϲΗϭϮΗ^dhK^z^dDͲ^tϮϴϰϬ,DDZ^/>sZZ/<sEZEhdD'Ͳ^DKKd,>W^//E'Ͳ^tϮϴϰϵt^d,^dZ'Zz^W,>d^,/E'>^ͲZ/&dtKK&^/͕dZ/DͲ^tϳϲϱϯ^/>sZWK/Eds/Ez>t/EKt^EKKZ^ϲΗϭϮΗϲΗϭϮΗϭϬΖͲϳΗϰϮΖͲϭϭΗϯΗϭϮΗϯΗϭϮΗϲΗϭϮΗDdZ/>>'E>W^//E'&/ZDEd^tϮϴϰϵͲt^d,^dZ'Zz^dhK^tϮϴϰϬͲ,DDZ^/>sZdZ/D&/ZDEd^tϳϲϱϯͲ^/>sZWK/EdZ/<^hDD/dZ/<KDWEzEhdD'Ͳ^DKKd,ZKK&/E'^W,>d^,/E'>^dd'ZzEKd͗>>yWK^>dZ/>͕W>hD/E'͕ED,E/>Yh/WDEdEDdZ^ZdK^ZEKZKd,Zt/^W/EddKDd,d,h/>/E'ϬϭͬϮΗϭΗϮΗWZK:ddZtEϳϭϮt,>Z^tz^h/d͕ͲϭϬϬ&KZdK>>/E^͕KϴϬϱϮϱ;ϵϳϬͿϮϮϯͲϭϴϮϬǁǁǁ͘ĂůŵϮƐ͘ĐŽŵWZ/Ed&/>ED͗ΞĂůŵϮƐϮϬϮϭEKd&KZKE^dZhd/KEϮͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϭϭ͗ϭϮ͗ϱϮWDϬϬϬϬͲWƌŽũĞĐƚͲ^͘ƌǀƚh/>/E'ϭ>sd/KE^ͲW>EE/E'ϭϵϭϲ:tͬ/^ϬϮͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϭͲϬϭDy/DKs>KWDEd'ZKhW&KZdK>>/E^͕K,sEWZdDEd^Ͳ h/>/E'ϭ^>͗ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗͲϬϭϭh/>/E'ϭͲ ^Khd,>sd/KE^>͗ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗͲϬϭϮϮh/>/E'ϭͲ t^d>sd/KE^>͗ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗͲϬϭϯϯh/>/E'ϭͲ ^dW>>sd/KEEK /^^hdITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 65 ^dhK^z^dDͲ^tϮϴϰϬ,DDZ^/>sZZ/<sEZEhdD'Ͳ^DKKd,>W^//E'Ͳ^tϮϴϰϵt^d,^dZ'Zz^W,>d^,/E'>^ͲZ/&dtKK&^/͕dZ/DͲ^tϳϲϱϯ^/>sZWK/Eds/Ez>t/EKt^EKKZ^ϯϱΖͲϬΗϮϴΖͲϰΗϰϰΖͲϱΗ^dhK^z^dDͲ^tϮϴϰϬ,DDZ^/>sZZ/<sEZEhdD'Ͳ^DKKd,>W^//E'Ͳ^tϮϴϰϵt^d,^dZ'Zz^W,>d^,/E'>^ͲZ/&dtKK&^/͕dZ/DͲ^tϳϲϱϯ^/>sZWK/Eds/Ez>t/EKt^EKKZ^ϲΗϭϮΗϲΗϭϮΗϲΗϭϮΗϰΗϭϮΗϭϮΖͲϭϬΗϮϭΖͲϭϭΗϮϳΖͲϭϭΗDys,/',ddEKZd,^/K&h/>/E'ϯϱΖͲϬΗϰϲΖͲϴΗϰϰΖͲϲΗWZKWZdz>/EцϮϱΖͲϱΗ^dhK^z^dDͲ^tϮϴϰϬ,DDZ^/>sZZ/<sEZEhdD'Ͳ^DKKd,>W^//E'Ͳ^tϮϴϰϵt^d,^dZ'Zz^W,>d^,/E'>^ͲZ/&dtKK&^/͕dZ/DͲ^tϳϲϱϯ^/>sZWK/Eds/Ez>t/EKt^EKKZ^DdZ/>>'E>W^//E'&/ZDEd^tϮϴϰϵͲt^d,^dZ'Zz^dhK^tϮϴϰϬͲ,DDZ^/>sZdZ/D&/ZDEd^tϳϲϱϯͲ^/>sZWK/EdZ/<^hDD/dZ/<KDWEzEhdD'Ͳ^DKKd,ZKK&/E'^W,>d^,/E'>^dd'ZzEKd͗>>yWK^>dZ/>͕W>hD/E'͕ED,E/>Yh/WDEdEDdZ^ZdK^ZEKZKd,Zt/^W/EddKDd,d,h/>/E'ϬϭͬϮΗϭΗ ϮΗWZK:ddZtEϳϭϮt,>Z^tz^h/d͕ͲϭϬϬ&KZdK>>/E^͕KϴϬϱϮϱ;ϵϳϬͿϮϮϯͲϭϴϮϬǁǁǁ͘ĂůŵϮƐ͘ĐŽŵWZ/Ed&/>ED͗ΞĂůŵϮƐϮϬϮϭEKd&KZKE^dZhd/KEϮͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϭϭ͗ϭϯ͗ϯϱWDϬϬϬϬͲWƌŽũĞĐƚͲ^͘ƌǀƚh/>/E'ϭ>sd/KE^ͲW>EE/E'ϭϵϭϲ:tͬ/^ϬϮͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϭͲϬϮDy/DKs>KWDEd'ZKhW&KZdK>>/E^͕K,sEWZdDEd^Ͳ h/>/E'ϭ^>͗ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗͲϬϮϭh/>/E'ϭͲ ^d>sd/KE^>͗ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗͲϬϮϮh/>/E'ϭͲ EKZd,>sd/KE^>͗ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗͲϬϮϰh/>/E'ϭͲ t^dW>>sd/KEEK /^^hdITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 66 ϮϵΖͲϭϭΗϮϵΖͲϮΗϭϵΖͲϲΗϮϭΖͲϭϭΗϮϵΖͲϭϭΗϮϵΖͲϭϬΗsZ/^DyцϮϮΖͲϯΗyΖͲzΗ&/Z>Z^^>Kd/KEs,/',dd^^>Kd/KEϭϭΖͲϳΗ>Z^^<zs,/',d>^^d,EϯϬΖϬϭͬϮΗϭΗ ϮΗϱϰϯϮϭWZK:ddZtEϳϭϮt,>Z^tz^h/d͕ͲϭϬϬ&KZdK>>/E^͕KϴϬϱϮϱ;ϵϳϬͿϮϮϯͲϭϴϮϬǁǁǁ͘ĂůŵϮƐ͘ĐŽŵWZ/Ed&/>ED͗ΞĂůŵϮƐϮϬϮϭEKd&KZKE^dZhd/KEϮͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϭϭ͗ϭϯ͗ϯϵWDϬϬϬϬͲWƌŽũĞĐƚͲ^͘ƌǀƚ&/Z^^>Kd/KE^ϭϵϭϲƵƚŚŽƌϬϮͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϭͲϬϯDy/DKs>KWDEd'ZKhW&KZdK>>/E^͕K,sEWZdDEd^Ͳ h/>/E'ϭ^>͗EϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗ&/Z>Z^^>Kd/KEy,//dEK /^^hdITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 67 ϬϭͬϮΗϭΗ ϮΗWZK:ddZtEϳϭϮt,>Z^tz^h/d͕ͲϭϬϬ&KZdK>>/E^͕KϴϬϱϮϱ;ϵϳϬͿϮϮϯͲϭϴϮϬǁǁǁ͘ĂůŵϮƐ͘ĐŽŵWZ/Ed&/>ED͗ΞĂůŵϮƐϮϬϮϭEKd&KZKE^dZhd/KEϮͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϭϭ͗ϭϯ͗ϰϬWDϬϬϬϬͲWƌŽũĞĐƚͲ^͘ƌǀƚϯs/t^ϭϵϭϲ:tͬ/^ϬϮͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϭͲϬϰDy/DKs>KWDEd'ZKhW&KZdK>>/E^͕K,sEWZdDEd^Ͳ h/>/E'ϭEK /^^hdITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 68 ϭϰΖͲϲΗϮϱΖͲϭϬΗϮϱΖͲϭϬΗDdZ/>>'E^dhKW/Ed^tϮϴϰϬͲ,DDZ^/>sZ,/^dKZ/ydZ/KZK>KZdZ/DW/Ed&/ZDEd^tϳϲϱϯͲ^/>sZWK/Ed,/^dKZ/ydZ/KZK>KZZKK&/E'^W,>d^,/E'>^^dd'ZzϬϭͬϮΗϭΗϮΗWZK:ddZtEϳϭϮt,>Z^tz^h/d͕ͲϭϬϬ&KZdK>>/E^͕KϴϬϱϮϱ;ϵϳϬͿϮϮϯͲϭϴϮϬǁǁǁ͘ĂůŵϮƐ͘ĐŽŵWZ/Ed&/>ED͗ΞĂůŵϮƐϮϬϮϭEKd&KZKE^dZhd/KEϮͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϭϭϭ͗ϯϭ͗ϱϵDϬϬϬϬͲWƌŽũĞĐƚͲ^͘ƌǀƚh/>/E'Ϯ>sd/KE^ͲW>EE/E'ϭϵϭϲ͘Ϯ:tϬϮͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϭͲϬϱDy/DKs>KWDEd'ZKhW&KZdK>>/E^͕K,sEWZdDEd^Ͳ h/>/E'Ϯ^>͗ϯͬϭϲΗсϭΖͲϬΗͲϬϱϭh/>/E'ϮͲ ^d>sd/KE^>͗ϯͬϭϲΗсϭΖͲϬΗͲϬϱϮh/>/E'ϮͲ ^Khd,>sd/KE^>͗ϯͬϭϲΗсϭΖͲϬΗͲϬϱϯh/>/E'ϮͲ t^d>sd/KE^>͗ϯͬϭϲΗсϭΖͲϬΗͲϬϱϰh/>/E'ϮͲ EKZd,>sd/KEy/^d/E'tKK^/E'>,hE'^^,t/EKt^dKZD/EEZ,/>/ddt/d,Ett/EKt'>/E'EW/Ed&/E/^,y/^d/E'Z/<,/DEzdKZKE^dZhdΘZͲWK/Edt/d,WWZKsD^KEZzE>z^/^ͲWZKs/EtW&>^,/E'dKDd,y/^d͘Z/<K>KZy/^d/E'tKK&^/dKZ,/>/dd^ZYh/ZEWZWZ&KZEtW/Ed&/E/^,/E^d>>Et,/',ͲWZK&/>Z,/ddhZ>^W,>d^,/E'>ZKK&/E'y/^d/E'^dhK&/E/^,dKZD/EEZ/sEtKDWd/>>^dKDZ/W/Ed&/E/^,y/^d/E'tKK&^/dKZ,/>/dd^ZYh/ZEWZWZ&KZEtW/Ed&/E/^,EtKEZd^dKKW͕^dW^͕E^d>,EZ/>EttKKZ/>E^d/>KKZt/d,,>&>/ddKZW>y/^d/E't/EKt^EtKWZ>tKK^DEd'Z^^t/EKt^dK/E^d>>dy/^d/E'tKKt/EKt>Kd/KE^EKd͗>>yWK^>dZ/>͕W>hD/E'͕ED,E/>Yh/WDEdEDdZ^ZdK^ZEKZKd,Zt/^W/EddKDd,d,h/>/E'͘y/^d/E'tKK^^,t/EKt^dKZD/EEZ,/>/ddt/d,Ett/EKt'>/E'EW/Ed&/E/^,y/^d/E'Z/<,/DEzdKZKE^dZhdΘZͲWK/Edt/d,WWZKsD^KEZzE>z^/^ͲWZKs/EtW&>^,/E'dKDd,y/^d͘Z/<K>KZ/E^d>>Et,/',ͲWZK&/>Z,/ddhZ>^W,>d^,/E'>ZKK&/E'y/^d/E'^dhK&/E/^,dKZD/EEZ/sEtKDWd/>>^dKDZ/W/Ed&/E/^,y/^d/E'KE/d/KE^Ͳ^Khd,y/^d/E'KE/d/KE^Ͳt^dy/^d/E'KE/d/KE^ͲEKZd,y/^d/E'KE/d/KE^Ͳ^dEKEͲKZ/'/E>KKZ͕KE͘^dKKWΘ^dW^dKZDKsͲ/E&/>>t>>tͬEt^dhKdKDd,y/^d͘ϴΗd>>Z^^EhDZ>^EK /^^hdITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 69 ϳϭͬϮΗϭϮΗϳϭͬϮΗϭϮΗϭϵΖͲϮΗϭϰΖͲϰΗϳϭͬϮΗϭϮΗϭϱΖͲϰΗϭϵΖͲϮΗDdZ/>>'E^dhKW/Ed^tϮϴϰϬͲt^d,^dZ'Zz,/^dKZ/ydZ/KZK>KZdZ/D͕&^/W/Ed^tϳϲϱϯͲ^/>sZWK/Ed,/^dKZ/ydZ/KZK>KZZKK&/E'^W,>d^,/E'>^^dd'ZzϬϭͬϮΗϭΗϮΗWZK:ddZtEϳϭϮt,>Z^tz^h/d͕ͲϭϬϬ&KZdK>>/E^͕KϴϬϱϮϱ;ϵϳϬͿϮϮϯͲϭϴϮϬǁǁǁ͘ĂůŵϮƐ͘ĐŽŵWZ/Ed&/>ED͗ΞĂůŵϮƐϮϬϮϭEKd&KZKE^dZhd/KEϮͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϭϭϭ͗ϯϱ͗ϮϱDϬϬϬϬͲWƌŽũĞĐƚͲ^͘ƌǀƚh/>/E'ϯ>sd/KE^ͲW>EE/E'ϭϵϭϲ͘ϯ:tϬϮͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϭͲϬϲDy/DKs>KWDEd'ZKhW&KZdK>>/E^͕K,sEWZdDEd^Ͳ h/>/E'ϯ^>͗ϭͬϰΗсϭΖͲϬΗͲϬϲϭh/>/E'ϯͲ ^d>sd/KE^>͗ϭͬϰΗсϭΖͲϬΗͲϬϲϮh/>/E'ϯͲ ^Khd,>sd/KE^>͗ϭͬϰΗсϭΖͲϬΗͲϬϲϯh/>/E'ϯͲ t^d>sd/KE^>͗ϭͬϰΗсϭΖͲϬΗͲϬϲϰh/>/E'ϯͲ EKZd,>sd/KEy/^d/E'tKK^/E'>,hE'^^,t/EKt^dKZD/EEZ,/>/ddt/d,Ett/EKt'>/E'EW/Ed&/E/^,y/^d/E'Z/<,/DEztͬ^dhK&/E/^,dKZD/EͲWZKs/EtW&>^,/E'dKDd,y/^d͘^dhK>KZy/^d/E'tKK&^/dKZ,/>/ddEWZWZ&KZEtW/Ed&/E/^,/E^d>>Et,/',ͲWZK&/>Z,/ddhZ>^W,>d^,/E'>ZKK&/E'y/^d/E'^dhK&/E/^,dKZD/EEZ/sEtKDWd/>>^dKDZ/W/Ed&/E/^,y/^d/E'tKK&^/dKZ,/>/ddEWZWZ&KZEtW/Ed&/E/^,y/^d/E'tKK^/E'>,hE'^^,t/EKt^dKZD/EEZ,/>/ddt/d,Ett/EKt'>/E'EW/Ed&/E/^,y/^d/E'Z/<,/DEztͬ^dhK&/E/^,dKZD/EͲWZKs/EtW&>^,/E'dKDd,y/^d͘^dhK>KZ/E^d>>Et,/',ͲWZK&/>Z,/ddhZ>^W,>d^,/E'>ZKK&/E'y/^d/E'^dhK&/E/^,dKZD/EEZ/sEtKDWd/>>^dKDZ/W/Ed&/E/^,EKd͗>>yWK^>dZ/>͕W>hD/E'͕ED,E/>Yh/WDEdEDdZ^ZdK^ZEKZKd,Zt/^W/EddKDd,d,h/>/E'͘y/^d/E'KE/d/KE^Ͳ^Khd,y/^d/E'KE/d/KE^Ͳt^dy/^d/E'KE/d/KE^ͲEKZd,y/^d/E'KE/d/KE^Ͳ^dϴΗd>>Z^^EhDZ>^EK /^^hdITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 70 ;y/^d/E',Kh^Ϳ;y/^d/E',Kh^Ϳ;y/^d/E',Kh^Ϳ;y/^d/E',Kh^Ϳ;y/^d/E',Kh^Ϳ;y/^d/E',Kh^Ϳ;y/^d/E',Kh^Ϳ;y/^d/E',Kh^Ϳ;y/^d/E',Kh^Ϳ;y/^d/E',Kh^Ϳ;y/^d/E',Kh^Ϳ;y/^d/E',Kh^ͿϬϭͬϮΗϭΗϮΗWZK:ddZtEϳϭϮt,>Z^tz^h/d͕ͲϭϬϬ&KZdK>>/E^͕KϴϬϱϮϱ;ϵϳϬͿϮϮϯͲϭϴϮϬǁǁǁ͘ĂůŵϮƐ͘ĐŽŵWZ/Ed&/>ED͗ΞĂůŵϮƐϮϬϮϭEKd&KZKE^dZhd/KEϮͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϭϭϭ͗Ϯϯ͗ϬϴDϭϳϯϬͲ ^hZ&ϳϮϬ^,KtE>z^/^ϭϵϭϲ͘ϭƵƚŚŽƌϬϮͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϭͲϬϳDy/DKs>KWDEd'ZKhW&KZdK>>/E^͕K,sEWZdDEd^^>͗EϭΗсϱϬΖͲϬΗ^,KtE>z^/^Ͳ ^WZ/E'ͬhdhDEYh/EKyͲ ϵD^>͗EϭΗсϱϬΖͲϬΗ^,KtE>z^/^Ͳ ^WZ/E'ͬhdhDEYh/EKyͲ ϭϮWD^>͗EϭΗсϱϬΖͲϬΗ^,KtE>z^/^Ͳ ^WZ/E'ͬhdhDEYh/EKyͲ ϯWD^>͗EϭΗсϱϬΖͲϬΗ^,KtE>z^/^Ͳ t/EdZ^K>^d/Ͳ ϭϮWD^>͗EϭΗсϱϬΖͲϬΗ^,KtE>z^/^Ͳ t/EdZ^K>^d/Ͳ ϯWD^>͗EϭΗсϱϬΖͲϬΗ^,KtE>z^/^Ͳ t/EdZ^K>^d/Ͳ ϵDWyWdZDEd^,sEWZdDEd^Ͳh/>/E'ϭh/>/E'Ϯh/>/E'ϯϳϭϰt͘WZK^WdZKϲϰϬt͘WZK^WdZKϲϯϴt͘WZK^WdZK'Z''Z'WyWdZDEd^,sEWZdDEd^Ͳh/>/E'ϭh/>/E'Ϯh/>/E'ϯϳϭϰt͘WZK^WdZKϲϰϬt͘WZK^WdZKϲϯϴt͘WZK^WdZK'Z''Z'WyWdZDEd^,sEWZdDEd^Ͳh/>/E'ϭh/>/E'Ϯh/>/E'ϯϳϭϰt͘WZK^WdZKϲϰϬt͘WZK^WdZKϲϯϴt͘WZK^WdZK'Z''Z'WyWdZDEd^,sEWZdDEd^Ͳh/>/E'ϭh/>/E'Ϯh/>/E'ϯϳϭϰt͘WZK^WdZKϲϰϬt͘WZK^WdZKϲϯϴt͘WZK^WdZK'Z''Z'WyWdZDEd^,sEWZdDEd^Ͳh/>/E'ϭh/>/E'Ϯh/>/E'ϯϳϭϰt͘WZK^WdZKϲϰϬt͘WZK^WdZKϲϯϴt͘WZK^WdZK'Z''Z'WyWdZDEd^,sEWZdDEd^Ͳh/>/E'ϭh/>/E'Ϯh/>/E'ϯϳϭϰt͘WZK^WdZKϲϰϬt͘WZK^WdZKϲϯϴt͘WZK^WdZK'Z''Z'EK /^^hdITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 71 ϲϴΖͲϲΗy/^d/E',Kh^Ͳϲϯϴt͘WZK^Wd;Ϯ^dKZzͿEtDh>d/Ͳ&D/>z,sEWZdDEd^ϭͲϯͲ^dKZzy/^d/E'KE^dZhd/KEWyWZdDEd^ϯͲ^dKZzy/^d/E'KE^dZhd/KEd,^dEZ;h/>/E'ͿϱͲ^dKZzWWZKy͘WZKWZdz>/EцϭϭϰΖͲϬΗ^hEs^^d/hD;zKEͿy/^d/E'KE^dZhd/KE;zKEͿd,^dEZ;h/>/E'ͿϱͲ^dKZzϮͲϬϴy/^d/E',Kh^Ͳ,sEWZdDEd^h/>/E'Ϯy/^d/E',Kh^Ͳ,sEWZdDEd^h/>/E'ϯ46' - 7"45' - 5"y/^d/E',Kh^Ͳϳϭϰt͘WZK^Wd;ϭ^dKZzͿϰϱΖͲϱΗy/^d/E',Kh^ͲϲϰϬt͘WZK^Wd;Ϯ^dKZzͿ68' - 6" THE STANDARD APARTMENTS45' - 5" APEX/HAVEN APARTMENTS± 20' - 4" EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES68' - 6"45' - 5"20' - 4"ϭͲϬϴWZK^WdZK><^dZd^hEs^^d/hDW/dW,/&ZdZE/dz&KZtKDEd,^dEZWZdDEd^;zKEͿh/>/E'd,^dEZWZdDEd^;zKEͿh/>/E',sEWZdDEd^y/^d/E',Kh^Ͳϲϯϴt͘WZK^WdZK;Ϯ^dKZzͿ68' - 6"± 120' - 0"y/^d/E''Z';ϳϭϰt͘WZK^WdZKͿWyWZdDEd^;zKEͿ43' - 9"ϭͲϬϵϭͲϬϴϭͲϬϴϮͲϬϴϮͲϬϴy/^d/E'Ͳd,^dEZWZdDEd^Ͳh/>/E';ϱ^dKZzͿy/^d/E'Ͳ^d/hDWZdDEd^;ϱ^dKZzͿy/^d/E'Ͳd,^dEZWZdDEd^Ͳh/>/E';ϱ^dKZzͿy/^d/E',Kh^Ͳϲϯϴt͘WZK^WdZK;Ϯ^dKZzͿy/^d/E',Kh^Ͳϳϭϰt͘WZK^WdZK;ϭ^dKZzͿy/^d/E',Kh^Ͳ,sEWZdDEd^Ͳh/>/E'ϯ;ϭͲϭͬϮ^dKZzͿy/^d/E',Kh^Ͳ,sEWZdDEd^Ͳh/>/E'Ϯ;Ϯ^dKZzͿ,sEWZdDEd^Ͳh/>/E'ϭ;ϯ^dKZzͿy/^d/E'ͲW/dW,/&ZdZE/dz&KZtKDE;ϮͲϭͬϮ^dKZzͿy/^d/E'ͲK>KZK&ZD,Kh^;ϮͲ^dKZzͿy/^d/E'ͲK>KZK^ddhE/sZ^/dzEs^^d/hDy/^d/E'ͲWyWZdDEd^;ϯͲϰ^dKZzͿy/^d/E'dd,'Z'y/^d/E'Ͳd,^dEZWZdDEd^WZ</E''Z';h/>/E'Ϳy/^d/E''Z'y/^d/E',Kh^ͲϲϰϬt͘WZK^WdZK;Ϯ^dKZzͿϭͲϬϵϭͲϬϵϬϭͬϮΗϭΗ ϮΗWZK:ddZtEϳϭϮt,>Z^tz^h/d͕ͲϭϬϬ&KZdK>>/E^͕KϴϬϱϮϱ;ϵϳϬͿϮϮϯͲϭϴϮϬǁǁǁ͘ĂůŵϮƐ͘ĐŽŵWZ/Ed&/>ED͗ΞĂůŵϮƐϮϬϮϭEKd&KZKE^dZhd/KEϮͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϭϭϭ͗Ϯϯ͗ϱϳDϭϳϯϬͲ ^hZ&ϳϮϬ^/d^d/KE^ϭϵϭϲ͘ϭƵƚŚŽƌϬϮͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϭͲϬϴDy/DKs>KWDEd'ZKhW&KZdK>>/E^͕K,sEWZdDEd^^>͗ϭΗсϰϬΖͲϬΗͲϬϴϭ^d/KEhdͲ ^dͬt^ddWZK^Wd>KK</E'EKZd,^>͗ϭΗсϰϬΖͲϬΗͲϬϴϮ^d/KEhdͲ EKZd,ͬ^Khd,d^dK&WZKWZdz^>͗EϭΗсϭϬϬΖͲϬΗKEdydh>^/dW>EEK /^^hdITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 72 APEX-HAVEN APARTMENTSBEING A REPLAT OF LOTS 1 AND 2, THE SLAB PROPERTY, LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADOSURVEYOR'S STATEMENTI, CHAD R. WASHBURN, A COLORADO LICENSED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR, DO HEREBY STATETHAT THIS SUBDIVISION PLAT WAS PREPARED FROM AN ACTUAL SURVEY UNDER MY PERSONALSUPERVISION, THAT THE MONUMENTATION AS INDICATED HEREON WERE FOUND OR SET AS SHOWN,AND THAT THE FORGOING PLAT IS AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION THEREOF, ALL THIS TO THEBEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION AND BELIEF.CHAD R. WASHBURN, PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORCOLORADO PLS 37963FOR AND ON BEHALF OFWASHBURN LAND SURVEYING, LLC.DESCRIPTION:LOT 1 & 2, THE SLAB PROPERTY, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER,STATE OF COLORADO.TITLE COMMITMENT NOTES:FOR ALL INFORMATION REGARDING EASEMENTS, RIGHT-OF-WAY OR TITLE OFRECORD, WASHBURN LAND SURVEYING, LLC RELIED UPON THE PLAT OF 'THE SLABPROPERTY' NO OTHER RESEARCH WAS PREPARED.GENERAL NOTES:1. DEFINITION: CERTIFY, CERTIFICATION - A PROFESSIONAL'S OPINION BASEDON HIS OR HER OBSERVATION OF CONDITIONS, KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATIONAND BELIEFS. IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE PROFESSIONAL'SCERTIFICATION OF A CONDITION'S EXISTENCE RELIEVES NO OTHER PARTYOF ANY RESPONSIBILITY OR OBLIGATION HE OR SHE HAS ACCEPTED BYCONTRACT OR CUSTOM.2. PER C.R.S. 18-04-508, ANY PERSON WHO KNOWINGLY REMOVES, ALTERS ORDEFACES ANY PUBLIC LAND SURVEY MONUMENT OR LAND MONUMENT ORACCESSORY, COMMITS A CLASS TWO (2) MISDEMEANOR.3. ALL REFERENCES HEREON TO BOOKS, PAGES, MAPS AND RECEPTIONNUMBERS ARE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS FILED IN THE RECORDS OF LARIMERCOUNTY, COLORADO.4. EASEMENTS AND PUBLIC DOCUMENTS SHOWN OR NOTED HEREON WEREEXAMINED AS TO LOCATION AND PURPOSE AND WERE NOT EXAMINED ASTO RESERVATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, CONDITIONS, OBLIGATIONS, TERMS, ORAS TO THE RIGHT TO GRANT THE SAME.5. THE BASIS OF BEARINGS IS THE EAST LINE OF LOT 2, THE SLAB PROPERTY.BEING MONUMENTED ON THE NORTH END A #4 REBAR WITH NO CAP AND ONTHE SOUTH END BY A #4 REBAR WITH YELLOW PLASTIC CAP MARKED PLS14823.6. THE LAST FIELD INSPECTION OF THIS SITE WAS ON OCTOBER 27, 2019.7. PER C.R.S. 38-51-106, "ALL LINEAL UNITS DEPICTED ON THIS LAND SURVEYPLAT ARE U.S. SURVEY FEET. ONE METER EQUALS 39.37/12 U.S. SURVEYFEET, EXACTLY ACCORDING TO THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDSAND TECHNOLOGY."8. ALL EASEMENTS WITH LOTS 1 & 2, THE SLAB PROPERTY, CREATED BY THEPLAT OF THE SLAB PROPERTY ARE HEREBY VACATED.9. THERE SHALL BE NO PRIVATE CONDITIONS, COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONSTHAT PROHIBIT OR LIMIT THE INSTALLATION OF RESOURCE CONSERVINGEQUIPMENT OR LANDSCAPING THAT ARE ALLOWED BY SECTIONS 12-120 -12-122 OF THE CITY CODE.10. EASEMENT RECORDED UNDER RECEPTION NO. 20070042816 IS BETWEENCOLORADO FARMHOUSE ASSOCIATION AND JEFFREY J. EVANS AND MAY ASSUCH NOT BE A PUBLIC EASEMENT4025 Automation Way, Suite C4Fort Collins, CO 80525970-232-9645www.WashburnSurveying.comSheet 1 of 2 Project #: 2017-009 Date: February 12, 2021 Scale: 1"=N/A Drawn: CDBSheet 1 of 2 Project #: 2017-009 Date: NOTICEACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEYWITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANYDEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION.MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE:The Owner hereby warrants and guarantees to the City, for a period of two (2) years from thedate of completion and first acceptance by the City of the improvements warranted hereunder,the full and complete maintenance and repair of the improvements to be constructed inconnection with the Development which is the subject of this Plat. This warranty andguarantee is made in accordance with the City Land Use Code and/or the Transitional LandUse Regulations, as applicable. This guarantee applies to the streets and all otherappurtenant structures and amenities lying within the rights-of-way, Easements and otherpublic properties, including, without limitation, all curbing, sidewalks, bike paths, drainagepipes, culverts, catch basins, drainage ditches and landscaping. Any maintenance and/orrepair required on utilities shall be coordinated with the owning utility company or department.The Owner shall maintain said improvements in a manner that will assure compliance on aconsistent basis with all construction standards, safety requirements and environmentalprotection requirements of the City. The Owner shall also correct and repair, or cause to becorrected and repaired, all damages to said improvements resulting from development-relatedor building-related activities. In the event the Owner fails to correct any damages within thirty(30) days after written notice thereof, then said damages may be corrected by the City and allcosts and charges billed to and paid by the Owner. The City shall also have any otherremedies available to it as authorized by law. Any damages which occurred prior to the end ofsaid two (2) year period and which are unrepaired at the termination of said period shallremain the responsibility of the Owner.REPAIR GUARANTEE:In consideration of the approval of this final Plat and other valuable consideration, the Ownerdoes hereby agree to hold the City harmless for a five (5) year period, commencing upon thedate of completion and first acceptance by the City of the improvements to be constructed inconnection with the development which is the subject of this Plat, from any and all claims,damages, or demands arising on account of the design and construction of publicimprovements of the property shown herein; and the Owner furthermore commits to makenecessary repairs to said public improvements, to include, without limitation, the roads,streets, fills, embankments, ditches, cross pans, sub-drains, culverts, walls and bridges withinthe right-of-way, Easements and other public properties, resulting from failures caused bydesign and/or construction defects. This agreement to hold the City harmless includes defectsin materials and workmanship, as well as defects caused by or consisting of settling trenches,fills or excavations. Further, the Owner warrants that he/she owns fee simple title to theproperty shown hereon and agrees that the City shall not be liable to the Owner or his/hersuccessors in interest during the warranty period, for any claim of damages resulting fromnegligence in exercising engineering techniques and due caution in the construction of crossdrains, drives, structures or buildings, the changing of courses of streams and rivers, floodingfrom natural creeks and rivers, and any other matter whatsoever on private property. Any andall monetary liability occurring under this paragraph shall be the liability of the Owner. I furtherwarrant that I have the right to convey said land according to this Plat.Notice of Other Documents:All persons take notice that the Owner has executed certain documents pertaining to thisDevelopment which create certain rights and obligations of the Development, the Ownerand/or subsequent Owners of all or portions of the Development site, many of whichobligations constitute promises and covenants that, along with the obligations under this Plat,run with the land. The said documents may also be amended from time to time and mayinclude, without limitation, the Development Agreement, Site And Landscape Covenants,Final Site Plan, Final Landscape Plan, and Architectural Elevations, which documents are onfile in the office of the clerk of the City and should be closely examined by all personsinterested in purchasing any portion of the Development site.STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP AND SUBDIVISION:Know all persons by these presents, that the undersigned, being owner(s) of the following described land:LOTS 1 & 2, THE SLAB PROPERTY, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OFCOLORADO.. . . (which above described tract contains 2.631 acres, more or less)for themselves and their successors in interest (collectively,“Owner”) have caused the above described land to besurveyed and subdivided into lots, tracts and streets as shown on this Plat to be known as APEX/HAVENPROPERTY (the "Development"), subject to all easements and rights-of-way now of record or existing or indicatedon this Plat. The rights and obligations of the Plat shall run with the land.CERTIFICATE OF DEDICATION:The Owner does hereby dedicate and convey to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado (hereafter “City”), for public use,forever, a permanent right-of-way for street purposes and the “Easements” as laid out and designated on this Plat;provided, however, that (1) acceptance by the City of this dedication of Easements does not impose upon the Citya duty to maintain the Easements so dedicated, and (2) acceptance by the City of this dedication of streets doesnot impose upon the City a duty to maintain streets so dedicated until such time as the provisions of theMaintenance Guarantee have been fully satisfied. The streets dedicated on this Plat are the fee property of theCity as provided in Section 31-23-107 C.R.S. The City’s rights under the Easements include the right to install,operate, access, maintain, repair, reconstruct, remove and replace within the Easements public improvementsconsistent with the intended purpose of the Easements; the right to install, maintain and use gates in any fencesthat cross the Easements; the right to mark the location of the Easements with suitable markers; and the right topermit other public utilities to exercise these same rights. Owner reserves the right to use the Easements forpurposes that do not interfere with the full enjoyment of the rights hereby granted. The City is responsible formaintenance of its own improvements and for repairing any damage caused by its activities in the Easements, butby acceptance of this dedication, the City does not accept the duty of maintenance of the Easements, or ofimprovements in the Easements that are not owned by the City. Owner will maintain the surface of the Easementsin a sanitary condition in compliance with any applicable weed, nuisance or other legal requirementsATTORNEY'S CERTIFICATION:I hereby certify that this Subdivision Plat has been duly executed as required pursuant to Section2.2.3(C)(3)(a) through (e) inclusive of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins and that all personssigning this Subdivision Plat on behalf of a corporation or other entity are duly authorized signatoriesunder the laws of the State of Colorado. This Certification is based upon the records of the Clerk andRecorder of Larimer County, Colorado as of the date of execution of the Plat and other informationdiscovered by me through reasonable inquiry and is limited as authorized by Section 2.2.3(C)(3)(f) ofthe Land Use Code.Attorney:__________________________________Address:__________________________________ __________________________________Registration No.:______________APPROVED AS TO FORM, CITY ENGINEER:By the City Engineer of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado this______ day of____________A.D.,______.City EngineerPLANNING APPROVAL:By the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services of the City of Fort Collins,Colorado this______ day of____________A.D.,______. Director of Community Development and Neighborhood ServicesOWNER:COLORADO STATE RESEARCH FOUNDATION, A COLORADO NONPROFITCORPORATIONBY: __________________________________STATE OF COLORADO ))SSCOUNTY OF LARIMER )THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS ______ DAYOF _____________________, 2____, BY _________________________AS _______________________________________.WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEALMY COMMISSION EXPIRES __________________________________________________________________________NOTARY PUBLICALL RESPONSIBILITIES AND COSTS OF OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND RECONSTRUCTIONOF THE PRIVATE STREETS AND/OR DRIVES LOCATED ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT ISTHE SUBJECT OF THIS PLAT SHALL BE BORNE BY THE OWNERS OF SAID PROPERTY, EITHERINDIVIDUALLY, OR COLLECTIVELY, THROUGH A PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, IFAPPLICABLE. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS SHALL HAVE NO OBLIGATION OF OPERATION,MAINTENANCE OR RECONSTRUCTION OF SUCH PRIVATE STREETS AND/OR DRIVES NORSHALL THE CITY HAVE ANY OBLIGATION TO ACCEPT SUCH STREETS AND/OR DRIVES ASPUBLIC STREETS OR DRIVES.NOTICEENGINEER:UNITED CIVIL GROUP1501 ACADEMY COURT, SUITE 203, FORT COLLINS, CO 80524(970) 530-4044APPLICANT:RUSSELL MILLS506 STH COLLEGE AVE, UNIT A, FORT COLLINS, CO 80524(970) 484-8855OWNER:COLORADO STATE RESEARCH FOUNDATION2537 RESEARCH BLVD. SUITE 200, FORT COLLINS, CO 80526VICINITY MAPScale: 1"≈1000'ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 73 LINE TABLELINE #L1L2L3L4L5L6L7L8L9BEARINGS43°11'36"ES89°22'14"EN22°30'00"WS22°30'00"ES00°37'46"WN89°22'14"WN50°38'59"WN06°35'34"WN00°37'58"EDISTANCE9.32'17.68'9.76'9.16'17.44'33.47'12.62'6.97'0.48'CURVE TABLECURVE #C1C2C3C4C5C6C7C8C9C10C11C12C13C14C15C16C17C18C19C20C21C22C23C24LENGTH31.43'40.92'15.88'14.28'39.27'23.18'6.37'9.27'2.88'14.81'63.41'22.30'15.71'3.80'28.74'40.06'12.85'1.65'21.06'13.20'39.28'26.93'16.15'19.05'RADIUS20.00'55.00'10.00'55.00'25.00'25.00'20.00'10.00'55.00'55.00'46.00'30.00'10.00'10.00'14.00'16.00'11.00'11.00'51.00'25.00'24.98'51.00'25.00'30.00'DELTA90°01'46"42°37'44"90°56'27"14°52'29"90°00'00"53°07'48"18°15'05"53°05'12"2°59'45"15°25'40"78°58'50"42°35'27"89°59'46"21°46'11"117°36'58"143°26'47"66°54'33"8°36'09"23°39'36"30°15'10"90°04'40"30°15'10"37°00'42"36°23'23"CHORDS45°36'53"WS69°18'54"WN44°31'26"WN08°04'15"EN45°37'46"ES64°03'52"WS80°14'42"ES64°05'10"WN67°48'28"EN58°35'45"EN03°42'02"EN21°53'43"EN44°22'21"WS22°56'25"WS24°58'58"EN00°25'40"EN37°50'28"WS08°41'16"EN18°25'22"WN15°07'35"WS45°00'00"ES15°07'35"ES11°44'49"EN17°35'41"WDISTANCE28.29'39.98'14.26'14.24'35.36'22.36'6.34'8.94'2.88'14.77'58.51'21.79'14.14'3.78'23.95'30.39'12.13'1.65'20.91'13.05'35.36'26.62'15.87'18.73'LEGENDFOUND REBAR AS NOTEDSET NO. 4 REBAR WITH PLASTIC CAP STAMPED'WLS PLS 37963'HIGH DENSITY MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICTLINE-TYPESBOUNDARY LINEEASEMENT LINERIGHT OF WAYRIGHT OF WAY CENTERLINES89°44'37"E 227.90'S0°23'59"W 228.68'WEST PROSPECT ROAD(81' PUBLIC ROW)ACCESS TOWEST LAKE STREETBASIS OF BEARINGSN0°37'46"E 238.26'S89°23'23"E 262.50'S0°37'46"W11.15'S89°22'14"E 491.32'PROSPECT CT(50' PUBLIC ROW)21.00'21.00'22.61'24.00'36.94'S70°47'46"E14.63'S89°57'57"E63.42'5.01'9.99'S0°36'00"W 105.25'N0°36'00"E 155.26'N89°22'14"W 170.94'N89°22'14"W 214.97'N89°22'14"W17.53'N0°37'46"E 10.00'S89°22'14"E 35.79'15.79'8.00'N89°22'14"W30.00'11.20'27.28'32.22'27.91'11.58'N0°37'46"E 46.94'S0°37'46"W 47.13'30.00'N90°00'00"W 98.18'N0°00'00"E 83.29'N90°00'00"E 47.18'S0°00'00"E 16.00'S0°00'00"E 42.29'S30°15'1 0" E 3 7.84' N30°15' 1 0" W 4 0.36'N89°22'14"W 49.58'N25°01'47"W8.49'N90°00'00"E 26.20'S06°12'33"W21.81'S31°1 1'57" E 6 2.2 9'N31°11'57"W 79.58'N00°37'32"E11.77'N00°36'00"E19.68'S0°37'46"W 125.03'13.58'N0°37'58"E 32.93'S0°37'58"W 31.00'N90°00'00"W 42.17'N90°00'00"E 29.52'N74°17'26"E 53.61'S74°17'26"W 29.76'N0°00'00"E 15.36'N90°00'00"W 3.23'N61°09'29"E 13.76'N90°00'00"E 13.83'S0°00'00"E 22.00'S89°22'14"E 58.39'S83°47'27"E7.52'165.95'C1C2C3C4C5C6C7C8C9C10C11C12C13C14C15C16 C17C18N82°48'25"E35.61'N89°22'14"W48.47'L1L2L3 L4 L5L6L7L8C19 C20 C21C22 C23 75.01'28.00'C24 L950.01'APEX-HAVEN APARTMENTSBEING A REPLAT OF LOTS 1 AND 2, THE SLAB PROPERTY, LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO4025 Automation Way, Suite C4Fort Collins, CO 80525970-232-9645www.WashburnSurveying.comSheet 2 of 2 Project #: 2017-009 Date: February 12, 2021 Scale: 1"=20' Drawn: CDBSheet 2 of 2 Project #: 2017-009 Date:NOTICEACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEYWITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANYDEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION.SURVEYOR'S STATEMENTI, CHAD R. WASHBURN, A COLORADO LICENSED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR, DO HEREBYSTATE THAT THIS SUBDIVISION PLAT WAS PREPARED FROM AN ACTUAL SURVEY UNDER MYPERSONAL SUPERVISION, THAT THE MONUMENTATION AS INDICATED HEREON WERE FOUNDOR SET AS SHOWN, AND THAT THE FORGOING PLAT IS AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATIONTHEREOF, ALL THIS TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION AND BELIEF.CHAD R. WASHBURN, PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORCOLORADO PLS 37963FOR AND ON BEHALF OFWASHBURN LAND SURVEYING, LLC.ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 74 MEMORANDUM DATE: April 30, 2020 TO: Planning and Zoning Board TH: Tom Leeson, Director of Community Development & Neighborhood Services Pete Wray, Senior City Planner FR: Maren Bzdek, Senior Historic Preservation Planner RE: Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Findings of Fact and Conclusions Pertaining to Apex-Haven Apartments As provided for in Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(F), in its consideration of the approval of plans for properties containing or adjacent to designated, eligible or potentially eligible sites, structure, objects or districts, the Decision Maker shall receive, and consider in making its decision, a written recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission. This memorandum contains the Landmark Preservation Commission’s Findings of Fact and its motion for this project. At its February 19, 2020 Regular Meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission conducted a review of this development project. The Landmark Preservation Commission adopted the following motion on a vote of 6-0: That the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of The Apex- Haven Apartments, finding it is in compliance with the standards contained in Land Use Code section 3.4.7 for the following reasons: •The project meets the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties •The project design reflects massing, building materials, and façade details that are compatible with the historic context, creates a visual relationship between the historic architecture and the new construction, and meets the requirements outlined in Table 1 of Section 3.4.7. •The proposed design protects the visibility of nearby historic resources. Based on the authority provided in Chapter 14, Article IV of the Municipal Code, The Landmark Preservation Commission also conducted a Design Review of the proposed rehabilitation work on the designated landmark known as the Emma Brown/Susan Winter House, and provided approval for that work on a vote of 6-0 based on the following motion: That the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for alterations to the Emma Brown/Susan Winter House at 720 West Prospect as presented, finding that the proposed work meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, understanding that the applicant may keep the existing vinyl windows that are currently in place, that they investigate the cause of the stucco damage and minimize the potential for future stucco damage after the proposed repair is complete, that they rehabilitate the existing hopper windows that are currently in the basement, and that more appropriate wood sash windows replace the existing vinyl windows when they fail. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Planning, Development & Transportation Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com Packet pg. 75 Haven Apartments – Project Development Plan Neighborhood Meeting Summary (8-26-19) Overview City Staff: Pete Wray, Senior City Planner and Project Planner Sylvia Tatman-Burruss, Development Review Liaison Martina Wilkinson, Sr. Manager, Traffic Engineering Dave Betley, Manager, Civil Engineering Spencer Smith, Civil Engineer II Shawna VanZee, Associate Planner Applicant: Shelly Lamastra - Russell Mills Studios Ian Shuff - ALM2s Sam Eliason - United Civil Group Christian Bachelet - Maximo Development Neighborhood Meeting Date: Monday August 26, 2019 Proposed Project Review Process Purpose of meeting is to share conceptual plans at an early stage in process and gather feedback from neighbors for inclusion in record. The proposed project and an application have not been submitted to the City A project development plan submittal will start a formal review by staff, with each round of review comprising three weeks Staff will determine when the project is ready for hearing Type 2 review and hearing, with the Planning and Zoning Board as acting decision maker. Residents who receive this meeting notice will also receive a letter for the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Applicant Presentation The project has completed the conceptual review stage and a PDP application has not been submitted to the City The project includes a request to build a four story 54-unit multi-family building, and remodel two existing single-family homes to be converted into two-family dwellings on the same lot. 43 parking spaces will be provided Primary access to the site is from W. Prospect Road Zoning is High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (HMN) District 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 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 76 Questions/Comments and Answers Question: Concerned with the arbor area that it will become a smoking area. Applicant: No smoking will be allowed in this area and there will be a management company on site managing this type of behavior. We can also consider a separate designated smoking area. Question: Is any fencing going to happen along the boundary area along the east? Applicant: There is a fence currently and we will want to make sure we keep that fence or a similar fence but also keep as many trees as possible. We can extend the fence the full length of the property and possibly add some evergreen screen planting along this edge Question: Concerned about privacy with the apartments looking into their home next door to the east. Applicant: We are trying to fit as much program into the site but trying to respect the context. The step down in the architecture was done to be sensitive to design of nearby structures. Question: Is it a sure thing that they can use the Apex bike parking? Applicant: Yes, because it will be the same management company. Question: I am concerned about lights shining onto my property. Will that walk have a lot of light and people along the east side? Applicant: We will submit a lighting plan per the City Code which will ensure that lights are fully shielded and will not allow spill over. We will have the minimum amount of light needed and it will all be required to be down directional. Question: Is there a timeline of when this project will be done? We have been living with a lot of construction. Applicant: Spring of 2021 would be the goal of completion. Construction would start next summer at the earliest. Question: Have we looked at the saturation of the market? Applicant: The driver is the location and the student population expected to grow as is the community as a whole and we are trying to put students closer to campus. We have not found a lack of demand in this area. Question: Traffic is my concern. The idea of a right turn in and a right turn out is nice in theory but less in reality. How can someone go east? It is so difficult on Prospect. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 77 Martina Wilkinson: The Prospect Corridor intent… We want to restrict that turning option because we want to prevent rear end crashes. The west central area plan outlines a central median eventually which will prevent that makeshift turning pattern. There are times when we see lots of U-turns, which we can look at if it is an issue. Unless they can put in a center turn lane, we cannot let them put in anything other than this right in, right out option. Question: Since they share parking with Apex can they use their entrance? Applicant: From a traffic perspective we would support that. Question: What did LPC say about this project? Was there a lot of comments related to building scale? Applicant: The front home was approved as a historically designated property through previous projects. They wanted the craftsman elements integrated. After their comments, we added more space between the historic building and the front of the larger building. They appreciated that the larger building was three story in a lot of areas. We are proposing use Portland stucco, not EFUS to maintain character of existing homes. Question: Are you anticipating any modifications to the standards for this project? Because it is telling as to if the program really works in the space. Applicant: No, the only one that might be considered is a setback. Question: Does the stormwater work on this site? If the lawn all becomes detention, then it can’t be used for recreation by the tenants. Applicant: We are planning on using some of the existing detention pond. We may need underground detention. We will likely use pavers. But it is a challenge of the site. We are providing several locations for tenants to gather on site. Question: Where is the snow going to go? Applicant: The snow will follow the same snow paths as the stormwater. We will try to keep any snow or rain from crossing from our property to the neighbor’s property. Question: There is a well on this site. Applicant: Good to know. Question: Will you investigate designating that second historic home on the property. Applicant: CSURF is the property owner. We will be adding a door on the back of the house for the second unit but trying to preserve character as much as we can. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 78 Question: Can you put a right had turn lane in? Martina Wilkinson: We have standards for the volume, as they review their traffic, they will do a study to determine if that is needed, but we always try to find the right balance. Question: Can you put in more mature trees? Applicant: We are required to put in mitigation trees, so we will put the more mature trees along the edge of the property that borders the single-family residence next door. Question: Can you add a left-hand turn arrow at intersection of Shields/Prospect signal? Martina: When we add an arrow it adds time, which means someone gets less time somewhere else, which can cause more rear end crashed because more people are stopping. However, they are not impacting that particular turn movement, so it would not be considered with this project. Question: Will there be a fire/emergency access easement? Applicant: Yes, it will be in the center and will be platted with the lot. Question: Will there be broadband? Applicant: Yes, broadband services will be coordinated with development. Pete Wray: Next steps – the comments will be part of the public record with the Planning and Zoning Board who is the decision maker. From this meeting the applicant will continue to work on their plan and submit for a project development plan. Staff then review rounds for hearing to ensure it is in compliance with the LUC. If you got notice for this meeting you will get notice for this hearing which could be late fall or next year depending on how the project works out. We encourage you to attend the hearing and participate. If the board approves the project, the applicant goes back and refines the plans and then they start final plans and then record. After that point they can apply for building permits. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 79 Apex - Haven Apartments – Project Development Plan Neighborhood Meeting Summary (02-24-20) Overview City Staff: Pete Wray, Senior City Planner and Project Planner Steve Gilchrist, Traffic Engineering Dave Betley, Manager, Civil Engineering Will Lindsey, Associate Planner Applicant: Shelly Lamastra - Russell Mills Studios Ian Shuff - ALM2s Sam Eliason - United Civil Group Christian Bachelet - Maximo Development Neighborhood Meeting Date: Monday February 24, 2020–– Proposed Project Review Process Purpose of meeting is to share conceptual plans at an early stage in process and gather feedback from neighbors for inclusion in record. Staff is anticipating a new project submittal due to the extensive changes made to the original site plan. The proposed project and an application have not been submitted to the City A project development plan submittal will start a formal review by staff, with each round of review comprising three weeks Staff will determine when the project is ready for hearing Type 2 review and hearing, with the Planning and Zoning Board as acting decision maker. Residents who receive this meeting notice will also receive a letter for the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Applicant Presentation Detention and emergency access easement at Apex was constructed on Haven site. Majority of infrastructure is shared between the two sites. New distribution of parking allowed the team to reduce the proposed 4 story building down to 3 stories. Some proposed on-site parking spaces will be reserved for repurposed homes that are being converted to multi-family. Past concern over the gathering areas in previous iteration of project has been addressed by moving the gathering area further to the north of the subject site. 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 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet pg. 80 Existing detention area at front of property will remain the same. Proposing a fenced dog pocket park to the east side of the Haven site. Two trash and recycling enclosures provided. Fixed bicycle parking provided in the breezeways of the building. Removal of structured parking and reduction of units from 54 to 50 allowed architect to reduce the overall footprint and massing of the structure. Brick proposed for Haven is the same that is used at Apex site to help with compatibility between the two projects. Brick, stucco, and lap siding building materials to tie into the historic structures and the palette used on a lot of other campus buildings. Questions/Comments and Answers Note: An adjacent property owner commented that some of the trees on the eastern property line are no longer there. Question: Where does the detention area drain? o Answer: Water will be piped to flow out to the southwest. Question: Can we reduce the building height to 2 stories? I own the property directly to the east, and I’m concerned about the height and ability of residents to look in my backyard. o Answer: The height has already been reduced to relate to the historic buildings on the property. Question: Is the current setback on the east property line conforming? o Answer: it has been modified from the required 25 feet due to the building design and screening being proposed. What is the setback from the property line? o Answer: Varies from 10-14 feet from the property line. Note: Two adjacent property owners have indicated a desire that the 25 foot setback from their properties be maintained. Staff will be reviewing the project against the HMN standards for height and density to ensure the project is compatible with surroundings (Pete Wray) Detention area is adjacent to my property, if it overflows it will overflow and flood my property. This is intended to serve as a transitional project between the five story developments down to the single-family (Ian Shuff) Question: Why didn’t the project team respond to our suggestion to not allow parking on the site? o Answer: Only 9 parking spaces are provided on the site for the converted historic structures. If you don’t have a parking permit for those structures you will have to park at the Apex site. No cross vehicular traffic will be possible. Question: Are you going to try to prevent people from parking on the site during football game days? Do you think you’ll do permitted parking for both properties? o The parking will need to be more securely managed. Parking permits for residents will be in place. Question: How deep do detention ponds need to be? o Answer: Somewhere between 24-30 inches deep. Question: Will the detention be sloping or will it have a steep drop-off? Concerned about if the deer come back will they get hurt? o Answer: The detention areas will slope downward, and there will be a 24 inch retaining wall to secure the edge of the pond. Question: Why did you add a sidewalk on the north side of the project? o Answer: We anticipate a lot of students accessing the site on the north side of the building since there will be entry on the north of the building. Question: Have both houses been deemed historical? ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet pg. 81 o Answer: They are both eligible for historic designation. Question: Can you move a historic building? o Answer: Sometimes it is feasible to do so, but these two building were deemed to have a historic relationship to one another so keeping them both on the site and intact is important. Question: Is Apex student housing full? o Answer: It is almost at capacity. Comment: This is a very desirable location for student housing because students don’t have to cross an arterial street to get to campus. Comment: Median for Prospect doesn’t help current residents. It will just restrict our ability to turn left to get over to College Avenue. Question: Are both sites owned by CSU? What happens if ownership changes? o Answer: They are owned by the CSU Research Foundation, and have partnered with the developer on a long-term ground lease. Saw this as an opportunity to build a product that is more fitting with the areas rather than a 4-5 story project. Question: Is there any way to add additional blocks or do something to prevent the detention pond from overflowing? o Answer: The detention ponds are designed to drain towards Prospect in the case of rain fall. Question: Can adjacent properties drain onto the site? o Answer: Legally, sites are not supposed to drain onto adjacent property. Question: What is the height of the trees on the east property line? o Answer: We are planting 8 foot tall trees, they will grow to be 20-25 feet tall? ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet pg. 82 Apex-Haven Apartments – Project Development Plan Update Meeting Summary (3-24-21) Overview City Staff: Pete Wray, Senior City Planner and Project Planner Alyssa Stephens, Development Review Liaison Applicant: Shelley LaMastra, Russell Mills Studios Ian Shuff, alm2s Architects Christian and Robin Bachelet, Maximo Development Update Meeting Date: Wednesday March 24, 2021 Applicant Presentation/ Proposed Project Overview The plan has evolved since the initial conceptual design to include six iterations based on comments and recommendations by staff and public as follows: - March 2019 Conceptual Review (Haven site only) - May 2019 PDR (combined Apex/Haven sites) - October 2019 PDP Submittal - February 2020 Neighborhood Meeting - May 2020 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - January 2021 PDP Submittal Key changes to plan since the Hearing last May: - 25’ landscape buffer added between Building 1 and east property line, modification request removed. -Bldg. 1 (2 less units, reduction in footprint, overall height reduced, 3rd level lofts added, and open stairways enclosed) - one parking space eliminated 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 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet pg. 83 Neighborhood Meeting Notes – Haven Apartments Page 2 Questions/Comments and Answers Question: What is the timeframe for the project? Answer: if the project is approved the Final Development Plan review should take approximately 3- months including 9-10 months construction period. The anticipated opening targeted for Fall, 2022. Q: What is the extent of the proposed new wood fence along east property line and materials? Has surveying located the property line and how this relates to existing fence line? A: The new 6’ wood fence extends from the NE corner of property south to end/align with front of Building 3. Surveying will locate property line. The existing fence may be near or possibly on both sides of property boundary but they will confirm. Q: Concerns with impacts to existing 100-year old Oak tree on adjacent east property (714 Prospect) and if grading will damage this tree? A: All grading will be done on site and required to meet existing grades at the property line. Q: Are the proposed trees along east edge deciduous or evergreen? A: The five proposed trees located east of Bldg. 1 are all evergreen trees (1 Austrian Pine/3 CO Blue Spruce/ 1 Existing Blue Spruce/ 4 Columnar Norway Spruce) Q: Concerns of impacts to existing trees off-site and how far away from the fence will these new evergreen trees be planted? A: This row of trees is planted at mid-point between the fence and Bldg. 1 (11-13’ from property line). The root ball planting put hole for each tree is about 3 ½ feet in diameter. Q: Concerns about impacts with existing 100 year old Oak tree, smaller oak, Honey Locust tree east lot by this development. A: The Applicant can check with Forestry staff and set up a meeting to assess these existing trees to determine critical root zone for protection. Q: The existing trees just east of project at 638 Prospect have been removed, but one tree remains at or close to property line. Will the new fence work around these trees? Will the project work around the existing power pole? A: The Applicant will coordinate status of power pole and timing of removal if determined that it is not in service. The fence will need to work around existing trees near boundary. Q: The existing Spruce on site at NW corner is not very tall for being there for several years, why is that and does that reflect rate of growth for proposed new trees along east edge? A: The tree may not have had irrigation. This tree and all new trees will be irrigated and expected to grow at normal rates. Q: Will runoff from the proposed detention pond between Building 1 and 3 spillover into my lot at 714 Prospect? A: City standards do not allow any drainage to extend off-site. The proposed grading plan shows proposed grades to meet existing grade at east property line, with any on site drainage directed away from this edge and within proposed detention ponds and off-site system to Prospect. Detention pond leaking concerns were previously addressed with neighbor. It is much closer to historic home and City staff has reviewed detailing and approved. Q: Are there any utilities between Bldg. 1 and east boundary? Again, concerns of impacts to existing trees with grading. The owner at 638 and 714 Prospect are requesting a clause be added to development ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet pg. 84 Neighborhood Meeting Notes – Haven Apartments Page 3 agreement that if any existing trees die due to this project, the developer will remove and or replace these impacted trees. A: There is an existing utility easement along property line but no utilities in this area. The only other items besides landscape are the building roof drains along building. The Applicant will coordinate with Forestry staff to assess the critical root zone for the existing trees to mitigate and avoid impacts, but since these trees are off-site the long-term health and management is by the adjacent owners. Q: Concerns with impacts from construction including noise, dust, water use, traffic on adjacent neighbors. A: The construction period is about 9-months and any impacts will be mitigated based on required construction standards. Q: is this project solely for students and does project provide enough parking to tenants? A: The Apex and Haven buildings are for rent and being next to CSU it is anticipated these will be mostly students. The Haven parking spaces are permitted for those tenants in Building 2 and 3, including rideshare spaces. The existing Apex parking lot provides the required parking for the remaining tenants in Apex building and Building 1. Parking will be monitored to ensure parking not associated with Apex- Haven tenants are towed. Staff closed the public comments for the meeting and noted next steps in process including providing a summary of this meeting for the record, and Hearing on April1. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet pg. 85 1 Katharine Claypool From:Katharine Claypool Sent:Thursday, April 1, 2021 9:44 AM To:Katharine Claypool Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Apex-Haven apartment PDP210002 Attachments:Picture A.JPG; picture B.JPG; Picture C 638 fence to haven.jpg; picture D.JPG Categories:P&Z From: Jim Swanstrom <j.swanstrom@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 4:07 PM To: 'devreviewcomments@fcgov.com'; Pete Wray <PWRAY@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Apex‐Haven apartment PDP210002 Hello Ms Stephens I would like this email and the attachments to be handed out to the board. I will be wanting to address the board Thursday evening please have these pictures available while I am speaking I have been traveling and have not had time to rewrite the comments from the proposed last meeting that was rescheduled to April 1st. Therefore I am basically resubmitting my comments with some changes from the previously schedule meeting. I still need to review other information I saw. Hello, my name is Jim I have been the owner of 638 W Prospect for going on 25 years and one of my sons will be the future owner. I point this out because I am not interested in selling. Maybe my children or grandchildren will be. It is an unusual “L” shaped lot. The lot wraps behind 640 and 714 to have a common property line with the Apex Haven property. As stated in the last meeting I was against the rezone of this area into High density, but understand it is in place. I understand the proposed massive apartment buildings have finally come into code compliance by moving the building back the required 25 feet. But doesn’t the 25 feet mean the whole new structure including the roof overhang? It looks like the 25 feet is currently to the building wall. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 86 2 Also, since the current fence is well over 25 years old and current Colorado law would imply that the existing fence of that age is the property line. I have been maintaining and caring for the ground on my side of the fence for all the time I have owned the property. I am the person that replaced a couple panels that looks newer in the pictures. See picture C Please I also am concerned about the very mature trees existing on my property and 714 that are right up against the property lines. For some reason these trees do not seem to appear on the Tree protection plan on file I saw. (Picture A and B please). Why wouldn’t it be required or at the least the sign of a good neighbor to note such trees so they can be property planed and cared for? These trees are reaching over the property line maybe 20 feet so I assume there roots are doing the same. I have no issue with an arborist properly trimming and cleaning the trees but am very concerned with possible damage or complete death. I would request that provisions be added that no work can take place within the drip line of these trees and no change in the grade. Furthermore, if said trees should die within three years of the completion of this project the owner of the new development at that time be completely responsible for the remove of the dead trees and stumps and replacement. I would also like to see a masonry fence between my property and this project. I would also like to strongly disagree with a quote contributed to me in the project Narrative item 7 second paragraph! In that meeting there was a claim that bushes and trees on my property and others owners property provided sufficient screening between the proposed new project and the single family house to the east. While I totally disagree with that motion, especially during the winter. My statement was it was wrong for this development to not be providing their own screening as I intended to remove all the brush and trees on my property and this was done almost a year ago now. Are they still showing? Picture 4 I never said “all of the boundary trees that were shown had been removed” while at that meeting!! I said they could be removed as they are on someone else’s property. I really question why this very bad quote was made!!! There was even a proposal to plant new tree on my property at that meeting. Use your own property! That is the purpose of the twenty five foot set back! Thank you Jim Swanstrom ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 87 Image AITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 88 Image BITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 89 Image CITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 90 Image DITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 91 1 Katharine Claypool From:Katharine Claypool Sent:Thursday, April 1, 2021 9:44 AM To:Katharine Claypool Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] RE: Apex Haven Apartments - Offsite Trees Attachments:638 fence looking north.jpg; 638 fence to haven.jpg; deer by 4 wheeler.jpg; deer on haven property.jpg Categories:P&Z From: Jim Swanstrom <j.swanstrom@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 4:23 PM To: 'Shelley Lamastra' <slamastra@russellmillsstudios.com>; 'Diane.Zach@colostate.edu' <Diane.Zach@ColoState.EDU>; ddoc@colostate.edu Cc: Pete Wray <PWRAY@fcgov.com>; Brandy Bethurem Harras <BBethuremHarras@fcgov.com>; Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com>; 'Robin Bachelet' <rbachelet@mac.com>; 'Christian Bachelet' <christianbachelet@icloud.com>; Nils Saha <nsaha@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Apex Haven Apartments ‐ Offsite Trees Thank you for finally addressing the tree issues. I feel good neighbors would have not planned to kill the neighbor’s property line trees from the very beginning!! I brought this up as an issue in the first meeting I attended. Sorry for missing the first meeting but my Dad had been in a car accident on Sunday and died on Thursday and I didn’t feel like going to a Monday night meeting. I believe you will remember I was against the setback being reduced from the second you mentioned it. I was one of the people that pushed to have that setback added to the code. Please note Diana’s large oak and my tree would have had their roots severally damaged if the building were constructed in the locations as previously proposed. Both trees would have probably been killed. I would still like to have a noted added that if any of these trees died with in three years of the CO for this project that this project handle the cost to remove and replace. In reference to the tree on my property I believe it is labeled tree 20. I don’t really care about the old telephone pole just thought it would clean up the view for some future tenants. I thought about removing that tree when I removed the other tree but it will provide some screening for Diana’s back yard especially during the summer. Maybe I define blown over differently from you as you can see from the attached pictures just taken the fence does have some damage from tree limbs, and wind but in general is standing up and not down. In the looking north photo that is my tree on the right with the pole. The deer in the area are hard on it too but I won’t need to worry about that if this project is built. I’ve spent a fair amount of time and money repairing the fence and am the person that installed the newer sections that can be seen in the photo. I wouldn’t mind getting the newer fence material back in the future. This topic reminds me of an issue I brought up in my last written comments. Property line I understand over a period of time the fence becomes the property line and therefore shouldnt the 25 set back be measured from the existing fence and not the property line? The survey while hard to view appears to show the existing fence west of the property line Thank you Jim Swanstrom ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 11 Packet pg. 92 2 From: Shelley Lamastra [mailto:slamastra@russellmillsstudios.com] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 1:13 PM To: j.swanstrom@comcast.net; Diane.Zach@colostate.edu; ddoc@colostate.edu Cc: Pete Wray; Brandy Bethurem Harras; Rebecca Everette; Robin Bachelet; Christian Bachelet; Nils Saha Subject: Apex Haven Apartments - Offsite Trees Hi Jim and Diane, Thank you for joining us for the Update Meeting on March 24th. After your feedback on the concern for the trees within your property limits we have responded in the following ways: On March 25th I went out on site and measured the locations and sizes of the existing three trees of concern. I met with Diane and we spoke about her two oaks. We have updated the plans in the following ways: o The 3 offsite trees have been added to the Tree Protection Plan for information only as they are offsite. Their Critical Root Zone and Interior Critical Root zones have been added to the plans. No determination has been made on the current health or status of these trees. o Tree protection fencing has been added to the plans in order to keep construction vehicles off of their Interior Critical Root Zones. o A note has been added to the plans that excavation should be pulling away from tree. The edge of excavation line for the foundation is shown in blue for tree #19. o Clarification on fill has been provided for Trees 19 and 20 that have Interior Critical Root Zones crossing the property line, the max amount of fill from existing grade for these two trees is 3”, below to 4” allowed by COFC Forestry specifications. o Landscape plans have been updated to show that offsite trees root zones. New plantings are outside of the Interior Critical Root Zones. We do want to point out that since these are offsite trees the developers are not required mitigation or protection under the Land Use Code. The owners have chosen, however, to show all of the above protection measures on the plans, which would be the same measures required for protecting these trees if they were onsite, in order to be good neighbors and create a plan that addresses your concerns. Jim, the utility pole that you mentioned is on the east side of the fence so we do not plan on interfering with that pole. Your tree does appear to be holding up a portion of the fence that has blown over. With the new fence there should no longer be a conflict with that tree and fence. Please take come time to review and feel free to reach out if you have any other questions or comments. Thank you, Shelley Lamastra, RLA Senior Landscape Architect ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 11 Packet pg. 93 638 Fence Looking North ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 11 Packet pg. 94 638 Fence to HavenITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 11Packet pg. 95 Deer By 4-Wheeler ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 11 Packet pg. 96 Deer on Haven Property ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 11 Packet pg. 97 1 Katharine Claypool From:Alyssa Stephens Sent:Wednesday, March 31, 2021 1:12 PM To:Katharine Claypool Subject:FW: Order of photos Alyssa Stephens MA Neighborhood Development Liaison City of Fort Collins Neighborhood Services Submit a public comment| Track Development Proposals From: White,Sue <Sue.White@ColoState.EDU> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 12:44 PM To: Alyssa Stephens <astephens@fcgov.com>; White,Sue <Sue.White@ColoState.EDU> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Order of photos Alyssa, I tryed to send this with 4 more photos and it wouldnt send so im going to send them individually. If you would please put the photos i have sent along with the ones in this email in this order I would appreciate it. I would like to have these photos available while I am speaking during the meeting. 1)20190705‐143602 2)20210330‐144351 3)20210330‐140629 4)20210329‐191816 5)20210329‐104733 6)20170726‐163012 7)20170726‐163049 8)20210331‐112653 9)20210329‐154224 10)20170726‐162836 11)20170726‐162842 Please include these comments with my photos for the board. 1) Photo of the large, old, oak tree today, in winter. 2) Photo of the large, old, oak tree in the summer. 3) A large, old tree is not as tolerant as young trees, so the Tree Protection Zone should be adjusted out to provide additional protection. 4) Many states and even the City of Denver use 1.5 feet per inch instead of the 1 foot per inch that the City of Fort Collins uses in the Critical Root Zone calculation. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 12 Packet pg. 98 2 5) The Critical Root Calculation for our large, old, oak tree should be 36" diameter times 1.5 feet per inch equaling a Critical Root Zone of 54 feet. 6) This picture shows heavy equipment parked next to unprotected trees during the Apex construction. 7) The large spruce tree in the front yard near the new detention pond for the Apex project. 8) That large spruce tree died, along with 2 orhers in the front yard, and were recently removed. 9) Construction vehicles parked without concern for neighbors or trees. 10) The well in the back yard was protected, but a constuction vehicle still fell in it! 11) The tree in the backyard being saved. Thank you Sue White Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 12 Packet pg. 99 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 12 Packet pg. 100 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 12 Packet pg. 101 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 102 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 103 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 12Packet pg. 104 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 12 Packet pg. 105 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 12 Packet pg. 106 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 12 Packet pg. 107 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 12 Packet pg. 108 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 12 Packet pg. 109 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 12 Packet pg. 110 Apex Haven ApartmentsPlanning and Zoning MeetingITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 111 *10’ sidewalk10’ sidewalk10’ sidewalk continued10’ sidewalk continuedLAKE STREETLAKE STREETW PROSPECT ROADW PROSPECT ROADHavenHavenBldg 2Bldg 3Existing ApexExisting ApexExisting parking lotExisting historically eligible home (building 2) and detentionExisting Apex Apartments PlazaExisting 10’ walk on Prospect RoadExisting 8’ multi-modal to campusExisting Apex ApartmentsExisting historic home (building 3)Context Aerial Context Aerial EnlargementExisting emergency access & pedestrian and bike connection to Lake StreetExisting emergency access & pedestrian and bike connection to Lake StreetCONTEXT AND EXISTING SITE PHOTOSSlide #2ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 112 EXISTING SITE AERIAL PHOTOSView west to Apex parking lot and multi-modal sidewalk from proposed building 3 View north from Prospect RoadView to northwest parking garage and multi-modal sidewalk from proposed building 3 View to east from Stadium ApartmentsThe Standard Parking GarageThe Standard Parking GarageThe Standard Parking GarageThe Standard Parking GarageThe StandardCSU StadiumCSU StadiumProspect RoadHavenHavenMulti-modal WalkMulti-modal WalkApex parkingApex parkingApex parkingApexApexApexExisting eligible homeSlide #3ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 113 Vacant parcel in the HMN zone along Prospect Rd.Vacant 20-acre area near Prospect Road and Shields Street23WEST CENTRAL AREA PLAN Land Use & Neighborhood CharacterAreas of Stability, Enhancement & Development The West Central area has been divided into four general ElassiƒEations based on the level of develoROent or redeveloROent that is eZReEted in sReEiƒE areas • Areas of VLJQĻFDQWQHZGHYHORSPHQW or redevelopment• Areas of some new development or redevelopment• Areas requiring neighborhood enhancements• Areas of stabilityThese areas are described below and are further detailed in Figure 6. 6LJQLͤFDQW1HZ'HYHORSPHQWRU5HGHYHORSPHQW5igniƒcant new development or redevelopment is anticipated on key vacant or under-utilized parcels, potentially resulting in change of use or intensity. 5peciƒc areas identiƒed for potentially signiƒcant new development or redevelopment include: • The *igh &ensity /iZed-7se 0eighborhood */0 District (North of Prospect Road between Shields Street and Whitcomb Street)• Vacant 20-acre parcel south of Prospect Road and east of Shields Street• Various vacant or under-utilized parcels throughout the area, primarily along Shields Street, Prospect Road, and other arterial streets High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (HMN) DistrictThis area is the only location where the High Density /iZed-7se Neighborhood (H/N) zoning occurs within the city, which was created as a result of the 1999 West Central Neighborhoods Plan. This district represents an edge condition and provides a transition between the Sheely neighborhood and the CS7 /ain Campus. )iven the numerous parcels that comprise this area, new development will likely occur through multiple small- or medium-scale projects. Sensitivity to historic structures will require careful design solutions and collaboration with the Landmark Preservation Commission.This area is expected to build out in accordance with the existing zoning, with residential density at a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre. While ƒve-story buildings are allowed, the height, mass, and scale of buildings will be critically evaluated to achieve compatibility with adjacent development and to positively impact the neighborhood and community. The allowable density and proximity to campus create opportunities for mixed-use buildings and campus-related uses, as well.Vacant 20-Acre Parcel South of Prospect Road and East of Shields Street This site is the largest undeveloped tract in the West Central area and includes two zone districts, Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Medium Density Mixed-7se Neighborhood (MMN). The NC zone is approximately ten acres in size and acts as the core of the parcel, with exposure along Shields Street. This area is expected to develop in an urbanized commercial manner. Opportunities exist for dwelling units above commercial space. The MMN zone surrounds the commercial core and is intended to offer a variety of housing options, as well as a land use transition for the Sheely neighborhood to the east. There is potential for a well-designed cohesive development that creatively addresses both the market potential and neighborhood desires for the site.Various Vacant or Under-Utilized ParcelsThese parcels are scattered throughout the plan area and are generally under market pressure to redevelop in a manner greater than would otherwise be allowed by the current parameters of the Low Density Residential (RL) or Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) zone districts. Such redevelopment will be carefully evaluated so that new uses protect neighborhood character, are well-designed, and mitigate trafƒc and other external impacts. Collaboration with surrounding neighbors is expected to result in land uses that are appropriate with a design that is sensitive to the surrounding context.LU32WEST CENTRAL AREA PLAN 4 LotsLarge front setback from main roadConsolidate driveway accessSouth facing courtyardsEstablish east-west bike/ped connectionsMain Road2 LotsSingle building fronting streetLarge front setback from main roadArticulation of building facadeFifth story setbackEstablish east-west bike/ped connectionsMain Road6 LotsPromote north-south bike/ped connectionsSouthern facing courtyardsEncourage parking behind buildings and shared between lots Encourage access from minor collector roadMain RoadParkingMinor Collector8 LotsSouthern facing courtyardsConsolidate driveway accessParking drive on property line connects to other lotsEncourage parking behind buildings and shared between lotsMain RoadFigure 7. Potential Redevelopment Scenarios in the HMN Zone (Policy 1.9)The High Density Mixed-7se Neighborhood (HMN) zone is generally located between Prospect Road and the CS7 main campus. The HMN zone is comprised primarily of small lots varying in size, which could potentially be consolidated to successfully accommodate new development. The examples below illustrate a variety of lot consolidation scenarios addressing access, parking, setback and design strategies to assist with breaking up the overall mass of structures. Providing larger south facing courtyards and/or upper story setbacks will help avoid a monotonous “wall” along the street and create a perception of a series of smaller structures to improve compatibility.There are several houses in that are potentially eligible for local landmark designation. Designers of new buildings will need to pay close attention to architectural details in order to comply with both Chapter 14 of the City Code (Landmark Preservation) and Section .4. of the Land 7se Code (Historic and Cultural Resources). +nformal consultation with the Landmark Preservation Commission is encouraged in order to ƒnd design solutions that are beneƒcial to all parties.medium-scale projects. Sensitivity to historic structures will require careful design solutions and collaboration with the Landmark Preservation Commission.This area is expected to build out in accordance with the existing zoning, with residential density at a minimumof 20 dwelling units per acre. While ƒve-story buildingsare allowed, the height, mass, and scale of buildings will be critically evaluated to achieve compatibility with adjacent development and to positively impact theneighborhood and community. The allowable densityand proximity to campus create opportunities for mixed-use buildings and campus-related uses, as well.Providing larger south facing courtyards and/or upper story setbacks will help avoid a monotonous “wall” along the street and create a perception of a series of smaller structures to improve compatibility.There are several houses in that are potentially eligible for local landmark designation. Designers of new buildings will need to pay close attention to architectural details in order to comply with both Chapter 14 of the City Code (Landmark Preservation) and Section .4. of the Land 7se Code (Historic and Cultural Resources). +nformal consultation with the Landmark Preservation Commission is encouraged in order to ƒnd design solutions that are beneƒcial to allparties.Slide #4WEST CENTRAL AREA PLANITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 114 March 2019: Conceptual PlanOctober 2019: PDP SubmittalFebruary 2020: Neighborhood Meeting #2 PlanMay 2020: Planning and Zoning MeetingMay 2019: PDR Plan and Neighborhood Meeting #1 PlanChanges made from Staff Comments:Turn around area no longer incorporated with gathering areaMulti-Family Building pulled north to increase space between historic homeCombined with Apex Site: Same owner on two sitesReduced traffic/parking - no podiumBuilding altered to remove podium parking and reduce traffic into siteFootprint reducedBuilding reduced from 4-stories to 3-storiesGathering area moved to interior of siteDetention reconfigured to protect and retain evergreen tree along ProspectConnection to west altered to allow for emergency as well as delivery, ride share to exit through Apex lotParking lot contains no guest parking, only permitted resident spacesChanges made from Neighbor feedback:Additional screening for gathering areaDetention area expanded to accommodate stormwater requirementsyNeighborhood Meeting #1 Neighborhood Meeting #2 Slide #5SITE PLAN EVOLUTIONITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 115 Existing emergency access & pedestrian and bike connection to Lake StreetExisting detentionExisting detentionDetentionFenced dog pocket parkTrashEx. TrashRight-in / right-outRight-in / right-outBuilding 3:Existing houseBuilding 2:Existing houseExistingApex ApartmentsLAND USE INFORMATIONLEGENDGENERALZone District: HMN (high Density, Mixed Use neighborhoodLot size: 2.63 acresHAVEN BUILDINGSBuilding 1 (3-stories): 48 units Max. height: 46’-8’ (3 stories) Studio Unit: 26 1 Bedroom Loft: 17 2 Bedroom Unit: 2Building 2 (2-stories): 2 units 2 bedroom: 1 3 bedroom: 1Building 3 (1-story): 2 units 1 bedroom: 2APEX BUILDINGExisting Building: 61 units Max. height: 48’ (3 stories) Studio: 33 1 bedroom: 28REQUIRED PARKING (TOD) 1 bedroom or less: (0.75 x 109 = 81.75 spaces) 2 bedroom: (1 x 3 = 3 space) 3 bedroom: (1.25 x 1 = 1.25 space) Total required = 86 spacesPROVIDED PARKINGResidential Parking Standard Parking: 48 Compact Parking: 39 (40%) ADA Parking: 5 Total Parking: 92 spacesAdditional Parking Delivery/Ride Share: 2 spacesREQUIRED BIKE PARKING 1 per bedroom (60% enclosed, ƂZGF PROVIDED BIKE PARKING Apex Enclosed: 61 (basement) Apex Fixed: 6 Haven Enclosed: 25 (breezeways) Haven Fixed: 44 Total: 136 (86, 50)Property lineExisting treesProposed canopy treeProposed ornamental treeBuilding 1:Multi-Family Building44 bikes6 bikesExisting gathering areaExisting gathering areaGathering areaExisting multi-modal walkLawnEvergreen tree screeningEvergreen tree screeningCottage landscaping YKVJƃQYGTKPIshrubs, perennials and ornamental grasses7 Parking Spaces(2 delivery, 4 permit,1 ADA)Shared Parking lot for Apex and Haven ApartmentsPFA BollardExisting 8’ multi-modal path16’ EAE & Pedestrian Connection20’25’ Landscape buffer10’26’ 17’15’ 7’ 5’9’WEST PROSPECT ROADPrevious P&Z PlanSlide #6SITE PLAN0 15 3060’ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 116 Existing Gathering PlazaShade Structure(3) Picnic TablesSeatwallsInterior Gathering SpacesGymMedia Room - TV, couches & wet barBusiness center - Office spacesSki/Snowboard/Bike Tuning RoomCovered Front PorchPatio furniturePorch SwingPedestrian PlazaBistro TablesSeatwallsNew Patio AreaPatio furnitureDog ParkArtificial TurfFencedBenchClean up Bags and TrashExisting Gathering Plaza(2) Picnic Tables1234567Slide #7GATHERING AREAS AND AMENITIESITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 117 UPDNUPUPUPUPUPRISER9E DELIVERY RIDE SHARE PARKING ONLY PERMIT1PERMIT2PERMIT3PERMIT4DELIVERY RIDE SHARE PARKING ONLY 3-POINT TURNAROUND AREAONE WAYONE WAYDELIVERY RIDE SHARE PARKING ONLY DELIVERYDDDD RIDE SHARE PARKINGPPP ONLY 99ONE WAYE YYNEONE WAYWAWAOWCONNECTION FEATURES:• Pedestrian zone: 4’ wide walk and intersection colored concrete with increased score pattern that connects the parking lot to the front of the multi-family building. • Vehicle zone: 12’ wide standard gray concrete. This would be one-way (west) only for delivery and ride share vehicles (see turning template). 'OGTIGPE[XGJKENGUJCXGVYQYC[VTCHƂECNNCNQPIthe drive. • Trash trucks would enter from the Apex lot to access the trash enclosure with a front load truck (see turning template) and back out into Apex lot for exiting. Currently it is not proposed to widen the drive in this zone as the delivery, ride share vehicles trying to exit in this area could wait for the VTCUJVTWEMVQƂPKUJDGHQTGRTQEGGFKPIVQVJGYGUVsimilar to how an alley functions.• 6” vertical curb along the south side of the multi-family building at adjacent to the transformers CPFRKEPKEDKMGCTGCDWKNFKPIVQFGƂPGFTKXGCPFprotect site features.• Collapsible bollard has been added to the path heading north to Lake Street to ensure that vehicles do not attempt to use this as an exit point since there will now be an vehicles on the path.• Additional signage has been added at both the east and west points of the drive as well as at the intersection to caution drivers/pedestrians and E[ENKUVUQHEQPƃKEVU• One-way pavement markings• Tooled edge delineation at ends of vehicle lanes• Building one pulled back an additional 1’-6” for more planting bed depth along south faceLEGENDExisting Multi-modal pathway connection from Prospect to LakePedestrian zone: colored concrete, heavily scoredVehicle Zone: Standard gray concreteSigned delivery/ride share spacesSigned/striped off 3-point turn around around spaceSignage6” Vertical curbResident vehicle path (no access to Apex parking area from Haven parking area - permitted only spaces)Trash truck vehicle path (pull in / back out)Emergency, delivery, ride share vehicle pathExisting Parking lotSlide #8CIRCULATIONITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 118 Existing Spruce tree to remainAustrian Pine (Pinus Nigra) Planted height: 8’Mature height: 50-60’ Mature spread: 20-40’New 6’ cedar fenceColumnar Norway Spruce(Picea abies ‘cupressina’) Planted height: 8’Mature height: 20-30’ Mature spread: 7’Columnar Norway Spruce(Picea abies ‘cupressina’) Planted height: 8’Mature height: 20-30’ Mature spread: 7’Trees shown at 50-60% MaturityColorado Blue Spruce(Picea pungens) Planted height: 8’Mature height: 80-100’ Mature spread: 25-30’44’-5”Slide #9BUILDING 1 EAST 25’ LANDSCAPE BUFFERITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 119 UPDNUPUPUPUPRISERDELIVERY RIDE SHARE PARKING ONLY DELIVERY RIDE SHARE PARKING ONLY 3-POINT TURNAROUND AREA97568101314151617BUILDING 3(EXISTING HISTORICDESIGNATED HOME)EXISTINGGARAGEDETENTION PONDFDCEXISTINGGARAGE/SHEDEXISTINGGARAGE/SHEDEXISTINGRESIDENTIALHOME (714 WPROSPECT)RETAINING WALL (REFER TOCIVIL PLANS FOR MOREINFORMATION). DO NOT OVEREXCAVATE NEAR DRIP LINE OFTREES. CUT AND PULL AWAYFROM TREE, NOT TOWARDTREE.181920TREE PROTECTION FENCINGTO BE INSTALLED PRIOR TOAND DURING CONSTRUCTION9'-0"BUILDING FOUNDATION. DO NOTOVER EXCAVATE NEAR DRIPLINE OF TREE #19. CUT ANDPULL AWAY FROM TREE, NOTTOWARD TREE.OFFSITE TREESTREESPECIESDIAMETER18 OAK13"19 OAK36"20 SIBERIAN ELM18"3.2.1 - Landscaping and Tree Protection (G) Figure 21818199BUIOVER LINE OF TPULL AWAYAWATOWARD TRTOWABUILR EF TAYAR2020222021111/CZƂNNq/CZƂNNqEdge of excavation for foundationSlide #10OFFSITE TREESITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 120 UPDNUPUP=DELIVERYRIDESHAREPARKINGONLY PERMIT1PERMIT2PERMIT3PERMIT4DELIVERYRIDESHAREPARKINGONLY3-POINT TURNAROUND AREA6'-7"11'-3"11'-11"12'-2"8'-8"9'-9"6'-10"4'-0"TYP.EXISTINGDETENTIONPONDBUILDING 2(EXISTINGHOME)BUILDIN(EXISTINDESIGNDETEDOGPOCKETPARKFDC26'-0"EMERGENCYACCESSEASEMENT4'-0"TYP.6'-5"UPDNUPUP=DELIVERY RIDE SHARE PARKINGONLY PERMIT1PERMIT2PERMIT3PERMIT4DELIVERY RIDE SHARE PARKINGONLY 3-POINT TURNAROUND AREA3975684EXISTINGDETENTIONPONDBUILDING 2(EXISTINGHOME)BUILDIN(EXISTINDESIGNDETEDOGPOCKETPARKFDC44'-0"0TYP.TY4'--5"5"0"0"6'-5"6'-5Tree photos from City of Fort Collins Forester February 11, 2021February 9, 2021 Staff Comments: Comment Number: 1 2/9/2021: FOR HEARING:Based on Forestry’s inspection on February 9, it appears thatHQWTQHVJGƂXGURTWEGVTGGUQPVJGGCUVUKFGQHVJGFGVGPVKQPRQPFJCXGsigns and symptoms of Ips beetles. These are bark beetles that commonly impact spruce trees, among other species, causing rapid decline in tree condition over a relatively short period of time. In addition to the top down pattern of dieback observed on these trees, Forestry staff noted bark beetle exit holes on the trunk, needle drop and presence of sawdust at the base –all indicative of ips beetle infestation. We suspect that the trees may have been especially susceptible to ips this year, given the lack of irrigation and dry conditions this winter. Ips beetles will spread to nearby healthy trees, if trees are left unmanaged, with beetles dispersing in early spring. Given the signs and symptoms on these trees and the risk of spread, Forestry is asking for the following: 1. All four infested trees will need to be removed. Under the city’s municipal code, Forestry typically requires the removal of infested trees from a property within 14 days. The trees must be removed by a licensed arborist (https://www.fcgov.com/forestry/arborists). Given that this property is under development, please note the following: • 5KPEGVJGUGVTGGUYKNNPGGFVQDGTGOQXGFRTKQTVQƂPCNCRRTQXCNRNGCUGRTQXKFGCYTKVVGPRNCPRTKQTVQJGCTKPIFQEWOGPVKPIVJGreasons for removal (please refer to above). • Written plan submitted on February 16, 2021.• A songbird nesting survey needs to be submitted and approved by Environmental Planning. Please see comment from Environmental Planning for coordination with the city on this survey.• %1(%EQORNGVGFUQPIDKTFUWTXG[CPFGOCKNGFVQEQPƂTOVTGGUEQWNFDGTGOQXGFQP(GDTWCT[• No mitigation is required, given that these trees are considered infested and dying. However, each tree should be replaced. A landscape escrow is required for the 1:1 replacement. • 1:1 replacement shown on plans with 3 evergreen and 1 canopy tree in same locations, outside of utility easement.• No grubbing is permitted. 1:1 replacement trees: (1) Ginko, (1) Austrian pine, (2) Pinyon PinesExisting Trees removedSlide #11INFESTED PROSPECT SPRUCE TREE STANDITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 121 UPDNUPUPUPUPUPRISER=9TYP.LIGHT,BOLLARDLL101C20'-0"LIGHT, TYPWALL MOUNTEDLL101BTYP.POLE LIGHTLL101ATYP.POLE LIGHTLL101ABUILDING 2BUILDING 3BUILDING 1UPUPUPUPUPUPRISERLIGHT, TYPLIGHT TYPPLLIGHT TYPLIGHT TYPLLIGHT, TYPPPPPLIGHT, TYPLIGHT, TYPLIGHT, TYPWALL MOUNTEDLLNWWWWWALL MOUNTEDWALL MOUNTEDWALL MOUNTEDLL101LL101LL101LL101LL101LL101LL101LL101LL101LL101LL101LL101BBBBBBBBBBTYP.TYPTYP.POLE LIGHTTTTTPOLE LIGHTPOLE LIGHTPOLE LIGHTLL101LL101LL101LL101LL101LL101LL101LL101LL101LL101LL101LL101LL101AAAAAAAAAAAAABUILDING 1DING 1TYP.TTTTYP.TYP.TYP.LIGHT,LLIGHT,LIGHT,LL101LL101LL101LL101LL101LL101LL101LL101LL101LL101LL101BOLLARDBOLLARDBOLLARDBOLLARDCCCCCCCCCCCCBUILDING 2DING 2UPUPDNDNTYP.TTYP.TTYP.POLE LIGHTPPOOPPOLE LIGHTPOLE LIGHTPOLE LIGHTLL101LL101LL101LL101LL101LL101LL101LL101LL101AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABUILDING 3DING 3• No balconies with associated lighting on north or east side of building• All lighting is 3,000 kelvin and full cut-offSlide #12LIGHTING PLANITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 122 ZONE DISTRICT STANDARDS - ARTICLE 4 H-M-NNOT APPLICABLEAPPLICABLEMEETSEXCEEDSEXPLANATION4.10(B)(3) - PERMITTED USES IN THE H-M-N DISTRICTX(3)(A)(2) RESIDENTIAL USE: MULTI-FAMILY WITH 50 DWELLING UNITS OF MORE4.10(D)(1) - DENSITYXMINIMUM DENSITY: 20 DU/AC, PROVIDED: GROSS 42.9 DU/AC4.10(D)(2)(A) - MAXIMUM HEIGHT 5 STORIESXMAXIMUM THREE (3) STORY BUILDING4.10(D)(2)(B) - SETBACK FOR BUILDING WALLS OVER 35’XMAXIMUM WALL HEIGHT IS BELOW 35’4.10(D)(2)(C) - SETBACKS 15’ ARTERIAL STREET, 9’ NON-ARTERIAL, 5’ SIDE PROPERTY, 8’ REAR PROPERTY.XXARTERIAL STREET: 34’-11” (BLDG 3)SIDE PROPERTY: 25’-0” (BLDG 1)REAR PROPERTY: 8’-0”4.10(D)(2)(E)(1)(A) - DOORWAYS FACING STREETSXALL BUILDINGS HAVE DOORS FACING STREET4.10(D)(2)(E)(1)(B) - RELATIONSHIP OF DOORWAYS TO NON-ARTERIAL STREETSX4.10(D)(2)(E)(1)(C) - FRONT YARDS XPORCHES, PATIOS AND COURTYARDS4.10(D)(2)(E)(1)(D) - ROOF FORM XALL BUILDINGS HAVE SLOPED ROOFS4.10(D)(2)(E)(1)(E) - FACADE VARIATIONS XPROJECTIONS, RECESSES, COVERED DOORWAYS4.10(E)(1)(F) - OUTDOOR ACTIVITYXPATIOS, PORCHES, COURTYARDS, DOG POCKET PARK, PLAZAS4.10(D)(2)(E)(2)(A) - STREET SIDEWALKS XUPGRADED SIDEWALK ALONG PROSPECT ROAD TO 10’4.10(D)(2)(E)(2)(B) - PARKING LOTS XEXISTING LOT IN REAR YARD OF APEX, NEW PARKING IN REAR YARD Slide #13LAND USE CODE CRITERIAITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 123 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - ARTICLE 3NOT APPLICABLEAPPLICABLEMEETSEXCEEDSEXPLANATION3.2.1(A) – (L) - LANDSCAPING AND TREE PROTECTION STANDARDSXSEE STAFF REPORT, LANDSCAPE AND TREE PROTECTION PLANS3.2.2(C)(1)(A) - SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS XSPECIAL PAVING, RAISED SURFACES, PAVEMENT MARKINGS, SIGNAGE TRAFFIC CALMING, LANDSCAPING3.2.2(C)(4) - BICYCLE FACILITIES X118 SPACES ARE REQUIRED, 136 ARE PROVIDED3.2.2(K)(1)(A)(1) - VEHICLE PARKING IN TODX86 SPACES ARE REQUIRED AND 92 SPACES ARE PROVIDED FOR RESIDENTS WITH AN ADDITIONAL 2 SPACES FOR RIDE SHARE/DELIVERY3.2.4(C) - LIGHTING LEVELS X3.2.5(C) - TRASH AND RECYCLING ENCLOSURESX3.8.30(F)(1) - SIDE YARDS ALONG SINGLE FAMILYX3.10.3(A) - BUILDING ORIENTATION X ENTRANCES FACE STREET3.10.3(C) - OUTDOOR SPACES XCOURTYARD AND DOG POCKET PARK, GRILLING AND OUTDOOR SEATING AREAS. PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY LINKS ALL AREAS.Slide #14LAND USE CODE CRITERIAITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 124 ^dhK^z^dDͲ^tϮϴϰϬ,DDZ^/>sZZ/<sEZEhdD'Ͳ^DKKd,>W^//E'Ͳ^tϮϴϰϵt^d,^dZ'Zz^W,>d^,/E'>^ͲZ/&dtKK&^/͕dZ/DͲ^tϳϲϱϯ^/>sZWK/Eds/Ez>t/EKt^EKKZ^ϮϲΖͲϰΗϲΗϭϮΗϲΗϭϮΗϲΗϭϮΗϭϴΖͲϲΗϭϴΗd>>Z^^EhDZ>^ϮϴΖͲϮΗϲΗϭϮΗϲΗϭϮΗϲΗϭϮΗϲΗϭϮΗϲΗϭϮΗϲΗϭϮΗϮϴΖͲϰΗϰϰΖͲϱΗϮϴΖͲϰΗϮϵΖͲϭΗϮϵΖͲϵϭͬϮΗ>/E/E/d^DE/E&>KKZ>sd/KEZ>/E/E/d^>sd/KEK&&/ZWZdDEds,/>^^^dhK^z^dDͲ^tϮϴϰϬ,DDZ^/>sZZ/<sEZEhdD'Ͳ^DKKd,>W^//E'Ͳ^tϮϴϰϵt^d,^dZ'Zz^W,>d^,/E'>^ͲZ/&dtKK&^/͕dZ/DͲ^tϳϲϱϯ^/>sZWK/Eds/Ez>t/EKt^EKKZ^ϲΗϭϮΗϭϵΖͲϭϭΗϲΗϭϮΗϮϴΖͲϰΗϰϰΖͲϱΗϯΗϭϮΗϲΗϭϮΗϲΗϭϮΗϲΗϭϮΗϲΗϭϮΗ^dhK^z^dDͲ^tϮϴϰϬ,DDZ^/>sZZ/<sEZEhdD'Ͳ^DKKd,>W^//E'Ͳ^tϮϴϰϵt^d,^dZ'Zz^W,>d^,/E'>^ͲZ/&dtKK&^/͕dZ/DͲ^tϳϲϱϯ^/>sZWK/Eds/Ez>t/EKt^EKKZ^ϲΗϭϮΗϲΗϭϮΗϭϬΖͲϳΗϰϮΖͲϭϭΗϯΗϭϮΗϯΗϭϮΗϲΗϭϮΗDdZ/>>'E>W^//E'&/ZDEd^tϮϴϰϵͲt^d,^dZ'Zz^dhK^tϮϴϰϬͲ,DDZ^/>sZdZ/D&/ZDEd^tϳϲϱϯͲ^/>sZWK/EdZ/<^hDD/dZ/<KDWEzEhdD'Ͳ^DKKd,ZKK&/E'^W,>d^,/E'>^dd'ZzEKd͗>>yWK^>dZ/>͕W>hD/E'͕ED,E/>Yh/WDEdEDdZ^ZdK^ZEKZKd,Zt/^W/EddKDd,d,h/>/E'ϬϭͬϮϭΗϮΗ^>͗ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗͲϬϭϭh/>/E'ϭͲ ^Khd,>sd/KE^>͗ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗͲϬϭϮϮh/>/E'ϭͲ t^d>sd/KE^>͗ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗͲϬϭϯϯh/>/E'ϭͲ ^dW>>sd/KESlide #15BUILDING 1ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 125 ^dhK^z^dDͲ^tϮϴϰϬ,DDZ^/>sZZ/<sEZEhdD'Ͳ^DKKd,>W^//E'Ͳ^tϮϴϰϵt^d,^dZ'Zz^W,>d^,/E'>^ͲZ/&dtKK&^/͕dZ/DͲ^tϳϲϱϯ^/>sZWK/Eds/Ez>t/EKt^EKKZ^ϯϱΖͲϬΗϮϴΖͲϰΗϰϰΖͲϱΗ^dhK^z^dDͲ^tϮϴϰϬ,DDZ^/>sZZ/<sEZEhdD'Ͳ^DKKd,>W^//E'Ͳ^tϮϴϰϵt^d,^dZ'Zz^W,>d^,/E'>^ͲZ/&dtKK&^/͕dZ/DͲ^tϳϲϱϯ^/>sZWK/Eds/Ez>t/EKt^EKKZ^ϲΗϭϮΗϲΗϭϮΗϲΗϭϮΗϰΗϭϮΗϭϮΖͲϭϬΗϮϭΖͲϭϭΗϮϳΖͲϭϭΗDys,/',ddEKZd,^/K&h/>/E'ϯϱΖͲϬΗϰϲΖͲϴΗϰϰΖͲϲΗWZKWZdz>/EцϮϱΖͲϱΗ^dhK^z^dDͲ^tϮϴϰϬ,DDZ^/>sZZ/<sEZEhdD'Ͳ^DKKd,>W^//E'Ͳ^tϮϴϰϵt^d,^dZ'Zz^W,>d^,/E'>^ͲZ/&dtKK&^/͕dZ/DͲ^tϳϲϱϯ^/>sZWK/Eds/Ez>t/EKt^EKKZ^DdZ/>>'E>W^//E'&/ZDEd^tϮϴϰϵͲt^d,^dZ'Zz^dhK^tϮϴϰϬͲ,DDZ^/>sZdZ/D&/ZDEd^tϳϲϱϯͲ^/>sZWK/EdZ/<^hDD/dZ/<KDWEzEhdD'Ͳ^DKKd,ZKK&/E'^W,>d^,/E'>^dd'ZzEKd͗>>yWK^>dZ/>͕W>hD/E'͕ED,E/>Yh/WDEdEDdZ^ZdK^ZEKZKd,Zt/^W/EddKDd,d,h/>/E'^>͗ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗͲϬϮϭh/>/E'ϭͲ ^d>sd/KE^>͗ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗͲϬϮϮh/>/E'ϭͲ EKZd,>sd/KE^>͗ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗͲϬϮϰh/>/E'ϭͲ t^dW>>sd/KESlide #16BUILDING 1ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 126 ϮϵΖͲϭϭΗϮϵΖͲϮΗϭϵΖͲϲΗϮϭΖͲϭϭΗϮϵΖͲϭϭΗϮϵΖͲϭϬΗsZ/^DyцϮϮΖͲϯΗyΖͲzΗ&/Z>Z^^>Kd/KEs,/',dd^^>Kd/KEϭϭΖͲϳΗ>Z^^<zs,/',d>^^d,EϯϬΖ^>͗EϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗ&/Z>Z^^>Kd/KEy,//dSlide #17BUILDING 1: FIRE ACCESSITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 127 Slide #18BUILDING 1 DESIGN UDPATESITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 128 Slide #19BUILDING 1 DESIGN UDPATESITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 129 Slide #20BUILDING 1 DESIGN UDPATESITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 130 Slide #21BUILDING 1 DESIGN UDPATESITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 131 Slide #22BUILDING 1 DESIGN UDPATESITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 132 Slide #23BUILDING 1 DESIGN UDPATESITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 133 Slide #24LPC REVIEW OF BUILDING 1ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 134 ϭϰΖͲϲΗϮϱΖͲϭϬΗϮϱΖͲϭϬΗDdZ/>>'E^dhKW/Ed^tϮϴϰϬͲ,DDZ^/>sZ,/^dKZ/ydZ/KZK>KZdZ/DW/Ed&/ZDEd^tϳϲϱϯͲ^/>sZWK/Ed,/^dKZ/ydZ/KZK>KZZKK&/E'^W,>d^,/E'>^^dd'Zz^>͗ϯͬϭϲΗсϭΖͲϬΗͲϬϱϭh/>/E'ϮͲ ^d>sd/KE^>͗ϯͬϭϲΗсϭΖͲϬΗͲϬϱϮh/>/E'ϮͲ ^Khd,>sd/KE^>͗ϯͬϭϲΗсϭΖͲϬΗͲϬϱϯh/>/E'ϮͲ t^d>sd/KE^>͗ϯͬϭϲΗсϭΖͲϬΗͲϬϱϰh/>/E'ϮͲ EKZd,>sd/KEy/^d/E'tKK^/E'>,hE'^^,t/EKt^dKZD/EEZ,/>/ddt/d,Ett/EKt'>/E'EW/Ed&/E/^,y/^d/E'Z/<,/DEzdKZKE^dZhdΘZͲWK/Edt/d,WWZKsD^KEZzE>z^/^ͲWZKs/EtW&>^,/E'dKDd,y/^d͘Z/<K>KZy/^d/E'tKK&^/dKZ,/>/dd^ZYh/ZEWZWZ&KZEtW/Ed&/E/^,/E^d>>Et,/',ͲWZK&/>Z,/ddhZ>^W,>d^,/E'>ZKK&/E'y/^d/E'^dhK&/E/^,dKZD/EEZ/sEtKDWd/>>^dKDZ/W/Ed&/E/^,y/^d/E'tKK&^/dKZ,/>/dd^ZYh/ZEWZWZ&KZEtW/Ed&/E/^,EtKEZd^dKKW͕^dW^͕E^d>,EZ/>EttKKZ/>E^d/>KKZt/d,,>&>/ddKZW>y/^d/E't/EKt^EtKWZ>tKK^DEd'Z^^t/EKt^dK/E^d>>dy/^d/E'tKKt/EKt>Kd/KE^EKd͗>>yWK^>dZ/>͕W>hD/E'͕ED,E/>Yh/WDEdEDdZ^ZdK^ZEKZKd,Zt/^W/EddKDd,d,h/>/E'͘y/^d/E'tKK^^,t/EKt^dKZD/EEZ,/>/ddt/d,Ett/EKt'>/E'EW/Ed&/E/^,y/^d/E'Z/<,/DEzdKZKE^dZhdΘZͲWK/Edt/d,WWZKsD^KEZzE>z^/^ͲWZKs/EtW&>^,/E'dKDd,y/^d͘Z/<K>KZ/E^d>>Et,/',ͲWZK&/>Z,/ddhZ>^W,>d^,/E'>ZKK&/E'y/^d/E'^dhK&/E/^,dKZD/EEZ/sEtKDWd/>>^dKDZ/W/Ed&/E/^,y/^d/E'KE/d/KE^Ͳ^Khd,y/^d/E'KE/d/KE^Ͳt^dy/^d/E'KE/d/KE^ͲEKZd,y/^d/E'KE/d/KE^Ͳ^dEKEͲKZ/'/E>KKZ͕KE͘^dKKWΘ^dW^dKZDKsͲ/E&/>>t>>tͬEt^dhKdKDd,y/^d͘ϴΗd>>Z^^EhDZ>^Slide #25BUILDING 2ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 135 ϳϭͬϮΗϭϮΗϳϭͬϮΗϭϮΗϭϵΖͲϮΗϭϰΖͲϰΗϳϭͬϮΗϭϮΗϭϱΖͲϰΗϭϵΖͲϮΗDdZ/>>'E^dhKW/Ed^tϮϴϰϬͲt^d,^dZ'Zz,/^dKZ/ydZ/KZK>KZdZ/D͕&^/W/Ed^tϳϲϱϯͲ^/>sZWK/Ed,/^dKZ/ydZ/KZK>KZZKK&/E'^W,>d^,/E'>^^dd'Zz^>͗ϭͬϰΗсϭΖͲϬΗͲϬϲϭh/>/E'ϯͲ ^d>sd/KE^>͗ϭͬϰΗсϭΖͲϬΗͲϬϲϮh/>/E'ϯͲ ^Khd,>sd/KE^>͗ϭͬϰΗсϭΖͲϬΗͲϬϲϯh/>/E'ϯͲ t^d>sd/KE^>͗ϭͬϰΗсϭΖͲϬΗͲϬϲϰh/>/E'ϯͲ EKZd,>sd/KEy/^d/E'tKK^/E'>,hE'^^,t/EKt^dKZD/EEZ,/>/ddt/d,Ett/EKt'>/E'EW/Ed&/E/^,y/^d/E'Z/<,/DEztͬ^dhK&/E/^,dKZD/EͲWZKs/EtW&>^,/E'dKDd,y/^d͘^dhK>KZy/^d/E'tKK&^/dKZ,/>/ddEWZWZ&KZEtW/Ed&/E/^,/E^d>>Et,/',ͲWZK&/>Z,/ddhZ>^W,>d^,/E'>ZKK&/E'y/^d/E'^dhK&/E/^,dKZD/EEZ/sEtKDWd/>>^dKDZ/W/Ed&/E/^,y/^d/E'tKK&^/dKZ,/>/ddEWZWZ&KZEtW/Ed&/E/^,y/^d/E'tKK^/E'>,hE'^^,t/EKt^dKZD/EEZ,/>/ddt/d,Ett/EKt'>/E'EW/Ed&/E/^,y/^d/E'Z/<,/DEztͬ^dhK&/E/^,dKZD/EͲWZKs/EtW&>^,/E'dKDd,y/^d͘^dhK>KZ/E^d>>Et,/',ͲWZK&/>Z,/ddhZ>^W,>d^,/E'>ZKK&/E'y/^d/E'^dhK&/E/^,dKZD/EEZ/sEtKDWd/>>^dKDZ/W/Ed&/E/^,EKd͗>>yWK^>dZ/>͕W>hD/E'͕ED,E/>Yh/WDEdEDdZ^ZdK^ZEKZKd,Zt/^W/EddKDd,d,h/>/E'͘y/^d/E'KE/d/KE^Ͳ^Khd,y/^d/E'KE/d/KE^Ͳt^dy/^d/E'KE/d/KE^ͲEKZd,y/^d/E'KE/d/KE^Ͳ^dϴΗd>>Z^^EhDZ>^Slide #26BUILDING 3: HISTORIC DESIGNATIONITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 136 ϲϴΖͲϲΗy/^d/E',Kh^Ͳϲϯϴt͘WZK^Wd;Ϯ^dKZzͿEtDh>d/Ͳ&D/>z,sEWZdDEd^ϭͲϯͲ^dKZzy/^d/E'KE^dZhd/KEWyWZdDEd^ϯͲ^dKZzy/^d/E'KE^dZhd/KEd,^dEZ;h/>/E'ͿϱͲ^dKZzWWZKy͘WZKWZdz>/EцϭϭϰΖͲϬΗ^hEs^^d/hD;zKEͿy/^d/E'KE^dZhd/KE;zKEͿd,^dEZ;h/>/E'ͿϱͲ^dKZzϮͲϬϴy/^d/E',Kh^Ͳ,sEWZdDEd^h/>/E'Ϯy/^d/E',Kh^Ͳ,sEWZdDEd^h/>/E'ϯ46' - 7"45' - 5"y/^d/E',Kh^Ͳϳϭϰt͘WZK^Wd;ϭ^dKZzͿϰϱΖͲϱΗy/^d/E',Kh^ͲϲϰϬt͘WZK^Wd;Ϯ^dKZzͿ68' - 6" THE STANDARD APARTMENTS45' - 5" APEX/HAVEN APARTMENTS± 20' - 4" EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES68' - 6"45' - 5"20' - 4"ϭͲϬϴWZK^WdZK><^dZd^hEs^^d/hDW/dW,/&ZdZE/dz&KZtKDEd,^dEZWZdDEd^;zKEͿh/>/E'd,^dEZWZdDEd^;zKEͿh/>/E',sEWZdDEd^y/^d/E',Kh^Ͳϲϯϴt͘WZK^WdZK;Ϯ^dKZzͿ68' - 6"± 120' - 0"y/^d/E''Z';ϳϭϰt͘WZK^WdZKͿWyWZdDEd^;zKEͿ43' - 9"ϭͲϬϵϭͲϬϴϭͲϬϴϮͲϬϴϮͲϬϴy/^d/E'Ͳd,^dEZWZdDEd^Ͳh/>/E';ϱ^dKZzͿy/^d/E'Ͳ^d/hDWZdDEd^;ϱ^dKZzͿy/^d/E'Ͳd,^dEZWZdDEd^Ͳh/>/E';ϱ^dKZzͿy/^d/E',Kh^Ͳϲϯϴt͘WZK^WdZK;Ϯ^dKZzͿy/^d/E',Kh^Ͳϳϭϰt͘WZK^WdZK;ϭ^dKZzͿy/^d/E',Kh^Ͳ,sEWZdDEd^Ͳh/>/E'ϯ;ϭͲϭͬϮ^dKZzͿy/^d/E',Kh^Ͳ,sEWZdDEd^Ͳh/>/E'Ϯ;Ϯ^dKZzͿ,sEWZdDEd^Ͳh/>/E'ϭ;ϯ^dKZzͿy/^d/E'ͲW/dW,/&ZdZE/dz&KZtKDE;ϮͲϭͬϮ^dKZzͿy/^d/E'ͲK>KZK&ZD,Kh^;ϮͲ^dKZzͿy/^d/E'ͲK>KZK^ddhE/sZ^/dzEs^^d/hDy/^d/E'ͲWyWZdDEd^;ϯͲϰ^dKZzͿy/^d/E'dd,'Z'y/^d/E'Ͳd,^dEZWZdDEd^WZ</E''Z';h/>/E'Ϳy/^d/E''Z'y/^d/E',Kh^ͲϲϰϬt͘WZK^WdZK;Ϯ^dKZzͿϭͲϬϵϭͲϬϵ^>͗ϭΗсϰϬΖͲϬΗͲϬϴϭ^d/KEhdͲ ^dͬt^ddWZK^Wd>KK</E'EKZd,^>͗ϭΗсϰϬΖͲϬΗͲϬϴϮ^d/KEhdͲ EKZd,ͬ^Khd,d^dK&WZKWZdz^>͗EϭΗсϭϬϬΖͲϬΗKEdydh>^/dW>Ey/^d/E'Ͳ^d/hDWZdDEd^;ϱ^dKZzͿy/^d/E'Ͳd,^dEZWZdDEd^Ͳh/>/E';ϱ^dKZzͿy/^d/E'Ͳd,^dEZWZdDEd^Ͳh/>/E';ϱ^dKZzͿy/^d/E'Ͳd,^dEZWZdDEd^WZ</E''Z';h/>/E'Ϳy/^d/E'ͲWyWZdDEd^;ϯͲϰ^dKZzͿSlide #27CONTEXTUAL SITE SECTIONSITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 137 ϮͲϬϴϮͲϬϴEXISTING APEX APARTMENTS - 46' - 7"HAVEN APARTMENTS BUILDING 1 - ± 45' - 4"&EBUILDING 2 - ± 25' - 9"BUILDING 3 - ± 16' - 0"y/^d/E',sEWZdDEd^h/>/E'Ϯ;,/EͿy/^d/E',sEWZdDEd^h/>/E'ϯ;,/EͿVIEW 1y/^d/E',Kh^Ͳϳϭϰt͘WZK^WdZK;ϭ^dKZzͿy/^d/E'dd,'Z'y/^d/E',Kh^Ͳϲϯϴt͘WZK^WdZK;Ϯ^dKZzͿWWZKy/DdWZKWZdz>/EцϭϭϰΖͲϬΗy/^d/E'Ͳd,^dEZWZdDEd^h/>/E';zKEͿϰϲΖͲϳΗϮϮΖͲϯΗ^>͗ϭΗсϮϬΖͲϬΗͲϬϵϭE>Z'^/d^d/KEs/tϭͲZEZs/t&ZKD>K^^dWK/EdK&,Kh^Ͳϲϯϴt͘WZK^Wds/tϮͲ>KK</E't^d&ZKD^dK&ϲϯϴt͘WZK^WdSlide #283D SITE VIEWS - SECTIONSITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 138 ;y/^d/E',Kh^Ϳ;y/^d/E',Kh^Ϳ;y/^d/E',Kh^Ϳ;y/^d/E',Kh^Ϳ;y/^d/E',Kh^Ϳ;y/^d/E',Kh^Ϳ;y/^d/E',Kh^Ϳ;y/^d/E',Kh^Ϳ;y/^d/E',Kh^Ϳ;y/^d/E',Kh^Ϳ;y/^d/E',Kh^Ϳ;y/^d/E',Kh^Ϳ^>͗EϭΗсϱϬΖͲϬΗ^,KtE>z^/^Ͳ ^WZ/E'ͬhdhDEYh/EKyͲ ϵD^>͗EϭΗсϱϬΖͲϬΗ^,KtE>z^/^Ͳ ^WZ/E'ͬhdhDEYh/EKyͲ ϭϮWD^>͗EϭΗсϱϬΖͲϬΗ^,KtE>z^/^Ͳ ^WZ/E'ͬhdhDEYh/EKyͲ ϯWD^>͗EϭΗсϱϬΖͲϬΗ^,KtE>z^/^Ͳ t/EdZ^K>^d/Ͳ ϭϮWD^>͗EϭΗсϱϬΖͲϬΗ^,KtE>z^/^Ͳ t/EdZ^K>^d/Ͳ ϯWD^>͗EϭΗсϱϬΖͲϬΗ^,KtE>z^/^Ͳ t/EdZ^K>^d/Ͳ ϵDWyWdZDEd^,sEWZdDEd^Ͳh/>/E'ϭh/>/E'Ϯh/>/E'ϯϳϭϰt͘WZK^WdZKϲϰϬt͘WZK^WdZKϲϯϴt͘WZK^WdZK'Z''Z'WyWdZDEd^,sEWZdDEd^Ͳh/>/E'ϭh/>/E'Ϯh/>/E'ϯϳϭϰt͘WZK^WdZKϲϰϬt͘WZK^WdZKϲϯϴt͘WZK^WdZK'Z''Z'WyWdZDEd^,sEWZdDEd^Ͳh/>/E'ϭh/>/E'Ϯh/>/E'ϯϳϭϰt͘WZK^WdZKϲϰϬt͘WZK^WdZKϲϯϴt͘WZK^WdZK'Z''Z'WyWdZDEd^,sEWZdDEd^Ͳh/>/E'ϭh/>/E'Ϯh/>/E'ϯϳϭϰt͘WZK^WdZKϲϰϬt͘WZK^WdZKϲϯϴt͘WZK^WdZK'Z''Z'WyWdZDEd^,sEWZdDEd^Ͳh/>/E'ϭh/>/E'Ϯh/>/E'ϯϳϭϰt͘WZK^WdZKϲϰϬt͘WZK^WdZKϲϯϴt͘WZK^WdZK'Z''Z'WyWdZDEd^,sEWZdDEd^Ͳh/>/E'ϭh/>/E'Ϯh/>/E'ϯϳϭϰt͘WZK^WdZKϲϰϬt͘WZK^WdZKϲϯϴt͘WZK^WdZK'Z''Z'Slide #29SHADOW ANALYSISITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 139 Slide #303D SITE VIEWSITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 140 Apex Haven ApartmentsPlanning and Zoning MeetingThank YouITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 141 UPPROPERTY CORNERN:123835.74E:191314.26BUILDING CORNERN:123929.31E:191288.5710' SIDEWALK14'12'2' CURB CHANNEL2' SIDEWALK CHASE5' UTILITY &DRAINAGE EASEMENT26' FL-FL2' CURBCHANNEL6' CONCRETEWALKLANDSCAPE WALL(SEE GRADING &LANDSCAPE PLANS)DRAINAGEEASEMENT6" VERTICALCURBCURBADASIDEWALKRAMPSPROPOSED RETAINING WALLALKDRAINAGEEASEMENTFLUSH CURB51' ROW2' SIDEWALK CHASE5' SIDEWALKCONNECT TOEXISTING SIDEWALK15' UTILITY& DRAINAGEEASEMENT7' ACCESSEASEMENTPAVEMENT PATCHLANDSCAPE PLANS)4.5' SIDEWALK6' SIDEWALK6' SIDEWALKRESIDENCE(BUILDING 2)EXISTINGRESIDENCE(BUILDING 3)WEST PROSPECT ROAD(RIGHT-OF-WAY VARIES)BIORETENTIONPONDDOGPOCKETPARKPROPOSEDDETENTIONPOND6" CURB HEADPROPOSED 3'CONCRETE PANEXISTINGRESIDENCERECONSTRUCT EXISTING CURBADA RAMPDRAINAGE SWALEDETENTION POND WALLSWITH IMPERMEABLE LINER(SEE DETAIL-THIS SHEET)EMERGENCY OVERFLOWGRATED PLATEOVER CURBCHANNELTYPE 3 BARRICADE2'1'2'1'MAXIIIMO DEVELOPMENT GROUPU19031APEX-HAVEN APARTMENTSC2.0011HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLAN020'40'SCALE: 1" = 20'10'PREPARED FOR:DATE SUBMITTED:PRELIMINARYPLANSNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONCHECKED BY:CHECKED BY:CHECKED BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED:CHECKED BY:OTHERWISE NOTED.3. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO AND COORDINATE WITH THEAPPROVED LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR ALL LANDSCAPE ANDSITE FEATURES SUCH AS BIKE RACKS, TRASH RECEPTACLES,LANDSCAPE WALL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS, COLORED ANDSCORED CONCRETE, LANDSCAPE ROCK AND MULCH, ETC.4. CONCRETE SIDEWALKS SHALL BE 6-INCH MINIMUM THICKNESSUNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.5. LIMITS OF STREET CUT AS REQUIRED FOR UTILITYCONSTRUCTION ARE TO BE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD BY THECITY ENGINEERING INSPECTOR. ALL REPAIRS TO BE INACCORDANCE WITH CITY STREET REPAIR STANDARDS.6. CURB AND GUTTER ALONG WEST PROSPECT TO BERECONSTRUCTED SHALL BE RECONSTRUCTED USING THEEXISTING CURB SECTION INCLUDING EDGE OF PAVEMENTLOCATION, DEPTH OF GUTTER AND HEIGHT OF CURB.7. REFER TO SHEET C2.01 FOR PAVEMENT, SIGNING & STRIPINGPLAN.5DETENTION POND C LANDSCAPE WALL DETAILNOT TO SCALEEXPOSED WALL HEIGHT(VARIES, 30" MAX.)FINISHED GRADE(SEE GRADING PLAN)COMPACTED SUBGRADELANDSCAPE WALL(SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS)POND OUTLET PIPEW/ ORIFICE PLATEMIN. 30-MIL PVC LINERWALL DRAIN TO BECONNECTED DOWNSTREAMOF POND OUTLET STRUCTUREITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13Packet pg. 142 1 April 1, 2021 Apex-Haven Apartments PDP Pete Wray, Senior City Planner, AICP 2 Area Context Site W Prospect StShields St1 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 14 Packet pg. 143 2 Area Context 3 SITE Area Context 4 ApexThe Standard Apex The Standard Stadium Apts. 3 4 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 14 Packet pg. 144 3 Area Context 5 Apex Building The Standard Garage/Building Emergency Access to Lake St. 6 Apex-Haven Apartments PDP – Overall Plan Rosen Dr Replat of Apex and Haven Parcels into a single lot Proposed: three-story multi-family building, adaptive re-use of the two existing homes Three-story multi-family Building 1 includes 48 units. Buildings 2 and 3 include two units each 92 vehicular parking spaces and 140 bicycle spaces 25’ landscape setback between Bldg. 1 – east boundary 2.6-acre site in High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods H-M-N zone Wetland/Buffer Area 5 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 14 Packet pg. 145 4 Site Context 7 SITE Key Changes with Resubmittal: • Bldg. 1 (2 less units) • New 25’ landscape buffer • Removal of 4 Spruce Trees • Arbor removed in patio area • One less parking space West Central Area Plan (2015) • PDP demonstrates sensitivity to the historic houses on site. • Exceeds minimum required density of 20 dwelling units per acre • Building is three stories, not five, to achieve compatibility • Promotes alternative modes of transportation to and from the main campus • The designation in the Area Plan is consistent with current zoning. 8 SiteSite 7 8 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 14 Packet pg. 146 5 Apex-Haven Apartments PDP 9 Zoning: High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (H-M-N) MMN Section 4.10 - HMN Zoning Single-family dwellings (two existing homes), multi-family dwellings (more than 50 dwelling units) - permitted uses, subject to Type II Review Minimum density 20 dwelling units per net acre (net density 46.56) Maximum Building Height – 5-Stories, Proposed Bldg. 1 (3-stories, with 2- story stepdown) Building wall height below 35’ not requiring additional setback Building design incorporates surrounding residential context Parking located to side and rear of street fronting buildings 10 9 10 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 14 Packet pg. 147 6 11 Haven Site - Tree Removal 12 4 Spruce Trees recently removed with two remaining Existing grove of Spruce Trees 11 12 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 14 Packet pg. 148 7 13 Article Three - General Development Standards Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) – Parking: 87 total minimum required based on 113 units/118 bedrooms in TOD Overlay District Plan provides 92 spaces (Apex 84 spaces/Haven 8 spaces) Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(b) – Bicycle Parking Minimum 118 spaces required – Plan provides 136 spaces (50 fixed/86 enclosed) 14 13 14 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 14 Packet pg. 149 8 15 Apex Site-Parking: 46 Min. Req. (TOD) Provided 87 spaces 41 extra spaces Haven Site-Parking: 41 Min. Req. (TOD) Provided 8 spaces 33 spaces used on Apex site 92 Total Parking Spaces Article Three - General Development Standards Section 3.4.7 – Historic and Cultural Resources: Project includes the adaptive reuse of Building 3, which is a designated local historical landmark 1-story house; and Building 2, which is a historically eligible 2-story house LPC recommend to the Decision Maker approval of PDP with findings: - Project meets the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties - Project design reflects massing, building materials, and façade details that are compatible with the historic context - The proposed design protects the visibility of nearby historic resources - Additional LPC review not required for revised Building 1 design -16 15 16 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 14 Packet pg. 150 9 17 18 17 18 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 14 Packet pg. 151 10 Article Three - General Development Standards Section 3.5.1(B-G) – Building and Project Compatibility: Project includes the adaptive reuse of Building 3, which is a designated local historical landmark 1-story house; and Building 2, which is a historically eligible 2-story house Architectural design of Building 1 has been developed to relate to the surrounding context Creates a transition from the existing adjacent development to west and homes to east 19 20 Context to East 19 20 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 14 Packet pg. 152 11 21 Project Transition Context 22 21 22 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 14 Packet pg. 153 12 23 24 23 24 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 14 Packet pg. 154 13 714 West Prospect Road 25 Rear/Side View Front View House 720 W Prospect 26 638 West Prospect Road Front View (2.5-3-stories)Rear View House 25 26 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 14 Packet pg. 155 14 27 Construction access to the site will be from Prospect. The contractor will not be allowed to stage within the public ROW. Construction not allowed on Saturdays, Sundays or holidays, without approval by City. Typically, allowed hours of construction are between 7 AM and 6 PM. Contractor will have to submit a Traffic Control Plan prior to work. With minimal ROW work, there may be need to close the westbound lane for a short time to construct the splitter island. 28 Construction Access Staging 27 28 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 14 Packet pg. 156 15 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Apex-Haven Apartments Project Development Plan, PDP210002 based on staff report information and the aforementioned Findings of Fact. 29 Resource Slides 30 29 30 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 14 Packet pg. 157 16 Site Plan 31 SITE 32 31 32 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 14 Packet pg. 158 17 33 Resubmittal Review Process 34 SITE This project was originally submitted on October 30, 2019 (PDP190017). Project was withdrawn by the applicant at the May 21, 2020 Hearing. Applicant was required to wait 6 months before resubmitting revisions to the project. Project processed as a resubmittal after the requirement for a 6-month waiting period New project number has been entered into the City’s Accela permitting database primarily to distinguish between the PDP190017 (original) and PDP210002 (revised) information. Both project numbers are considered part of the same PDP process for the City’s review. 33 34 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 14 Packet pg. 159 Planning Staff Report Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com Planning and Zoning Board: April 1, 2021 Residential Metro District Evaluation System Summary of Request This is a request to amend the City of Fort Collins Metropolitan (Metro) District policy by adopting a Residential Metro District Evaluation System. Next Steps The Planning and Zoning Board’s recommendation will be forwarded to City Council for its consideration on April 20, 2021. Area City-wide Applicant City of Fort Collins PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80523 Staff Cameron Gloss, Long-Range Planning Manager p. (970) 224-6174 e. cgloss@fcgov.com Contents 1. Project Introduction .................................... 2 2. Public Outreach ......................................... 8 3. Conclusion ................................................. 8 4. Recommendation ....................................... 9 5. Attachments ............................................... 9 Staff Recommendation Approval Packet pg. 160 Planning and Zoning Board Residential Metro District Evaluation System Thursday April 1, 2021 | Page 2 of 9 Back to Top 1. Project Introduction A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The purpose of this item is to review and consider an evaluation system for Residential Metropolitan (Metro) District Service Plans and make a recommendation to City Council on the proposed system through amendments to the Metro District Policy. Staff proposes a performance points system, including a menu of options, with respect to Housing Attainability, Energy and Water Efficiency and Neighborhood Livability attributes for each residential Metro District. The proposed system is intended to provide metrics that further define ‘extraordinary public benefits’ as found in the current policy. B. BACKGROUND Applicability On June 16th, the City Council approved a six-month moratorium on new metro district applications and directed staff to develop possible changes to the Metro District policy that addresses issues raised by Council and citizens, and that fulfill established City goals. The moratorium recently expired (January 31, 2020), and applies to the consideration of new Service Plans, but not to the amendment of Metropolitan District Service Plans previously approved by Council or to the consideration of agreements with the City as contemplated in the Service Plans. The proposed evaluation system would apply solely to new residential or mixed-use development, and not commercial or industrial projects. Policy Context and Direction In 2018, the City adopted a policy for reviewing proposed service plans for Title 32 Metropolitan District Service Plans by Resolution 2018-079. The Policy was intended to aid residential development, addressing escalating infrastructure costs and to make sure that Fort Collins can compete with development in adjacent communities that allow residential Metro Districts. At the time, City Council adopted a policy that established criteria, guidelines, and processes to be followed by City Council and City staff in considering Metro District applications. The current Policy generally supports the formation of a Metro District where it will deliver ‘extraordinary public benefits’ that align with the goals and objectives of the City. These aspirational goals are embodied in several adopted long-range plans, including City Plan (Comprehensive Plan), Climate Action Plan, Transit and Transportation Master Plans, Housing Plan, Arts and Culture Master Plan, and others covering multiple City and community programs. Since ‘extraordinary public benefits’ are difficult to define, one of the primary objectives in creating a residential Metro District evaluation system is to develop metrics that capture those community benefits in a clear, measurable and predictable way. On February 18, 2021, the Planning and Zoning Board considered a previous version of the proposed Residential Metro District Evaluation System where the majority of members expressed concern over specific metrics and provided the overall perspective that additional refinements were necessary. C. PROPOSED EVALUATION SYSTEM Packet pg. 161 Planning and Zoning Board Residential Metro District Evaluation System Thursday April 1, 2021 | Page 3 of 9 Back to Top Evaluation System Options During the last year, City staff has engaged with key stakeholders to identify options and opportunities for reviewing Metro District Service Plans. The process involved the evaluation of multiple options for addressing concerns expressed about the impact of Metro District through a clear, predictable system providing guidance to Council, developers, and staff. Four options were considered: 1) Minimum Requirements-Developers need to meet defined minimum requirements to get a Service Plan approved 2) Scorecard - develop a ranking system for each outcome area (e.g., Good/Better/Best) 3) Points System - a menu of options/benefits developed for each outcome area 4) Performance-Guided - specific key metrics identified and all actions measured against these metrics Ultimately, a ‘points system’ was determined to be the most appropriate approach to pursue. The primary components of the system are: • Each option within an outcome is assigned a point value. • Minimum points are required in each outcome area so that the community’s most pressing needs are met. • Point values can change based on priorities and needs. A hybrid to the points system was also considered that included a combination of required and optional elements. Under this hybrid, certain individual measures were mandatory while others were optional. The proposed system retained points assigned to the optional elements, with a requisite overall total score. Having required elements was ultimately determined to lack the flexibility required to address the unique qualities of both individual development sites and development programs. Under the proposed evaluation system concept, all Residential Metro Districts would need to address attributes of the development within three outcome areas: Affordable and Attainable Housing, Energy and Water Efficiency, and Neighborhood Livability. All of the elements satisfying the evaluation system are intended to exceed standards described in the City’s adopted Land Use Code, Energy Code, and other related provisions of the City Code. Essentially, the performance requirements are intended to bridge the gap between existing codes and the more aspirational aspects of City policy plans. A minimum number of points must be provided in each of the outcome areas, as follows: • Affordable & Attainable Housing =/> 5 points • Energy Conservation and Renewables =/>10 points • Indoor Water Conservation =/>3 points • Outdoor Water Conservation =/> 7 points • Neighborhood Livability =/>5 points Points have been weighted based on efficacy, community priority and relative ease of implementation. Particular focus was placed upon Metro District impacts on the residential consumer, who pays District property taxes in addition to other taxes, fees, and monthly utility bills. The resulting system is designed to help reduce costs to District residents primarily through savings from reduced energy and water consumption, and to help address the community’s increasing need for additional affordable housing options. The system is intended to provide both predictability and flexibility for residential Metro District applicants as well as the community. A range of performance options within each of the outcome areas gives developers the opportunity to choose those attributes that best match the unique character of the site and development program while providing exceptional community benefits. Packet pg. 162 Planning and Zoning Board Residential Metro District Evaluation System Thursday April 1, 2021 | Page 4 of 9 Back to Top Affordable and Attainable Housing With housing affordability a growing community need and a major focus of the Housing Strategic Plan, it is expected that residential Metro Districts will help play a role in advancing the City’s expressed housing policy direction. The City set a goal in 2015 to have 10% of its housing stock be deed restricted and affordable (to households making <80% AMI) by 2040. Affordable housing makes up only 5% of the City’s housing stock so substantial progress needs to be made in addressing the community’s housing needs. Under the proposed points system, developers may choose from a mix of housing options pertaining to units that promote “housing supply, diversity and choice” and “affordable rental housing” to satisfy the required five points in this outcome area. Energy and Water Conservation The building sector is Fort Collins’ top energy consumer and contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Efficiency measures are generally the lowest cost resource available, compared to traditional or renewable supply-side choices. For new construction, building right the first-time locks in energy savings and can offer benefits for decades. This is of particular benefit to residents within a Metro District since energy cost savings help to offset additional property taxes associated with the District’s construction and on-going operation. Evaluation points have been assigned within the categories of Enhanced Energy Performance, Energy Components and Renewable Technologies (see table on the following two pages). Given concerns expressed by the Planning and Zoning Board and members of the development community at the February 18th hearing, staff retained the assistance of an Arizona-based third-party home builder, Mandalay Homes, to evaluate the proposed metrics and suggest a recalibration of the energy conservation points. Mandalay Homes was chosen to conduct the analysis given its reputation as one the nation’s top green builders and that it operates outside of the Fort Collins market. The revised structure provides 33% fewer required energy compliance points (10 versus 15) and a greater number of points assigned to certain individual conservation points. From the staff’s perspective, the resulting system provides considerable energy-saving measures that align with the City’s direction provided in the Energy Policy and Our Climate Future, and that are still practical given the range of homebuilders found in Northern Colorado. Packet pg. 163 Planning and Zoning Board Residential Metro District Evaluation System Thursday April 1, 2021 | Page 5 of 9 Back to Top Packet pg. 164 Planning and Zoning Board Residential Metro District Evaluation System Thursday April 1, 2021 | Page 6 of 9 Back to Top Similarly, points for water conserving measures, both for indoor and outdoor water use, have been included as a key part of the evaluation system. Since many of the anticipated residential Metro Districts will be served by water providers other than the City of Fort Collins, the evaluation system was created to be consistent with the operational needs of all water providers serving Fort Collins’ residents. Neighborhood Livability City Plan encourages creativity in the design and construction of new neighborhoods that: • Provides a unifying and interconnected framework of streets, sidewalks, walkway spines and other public spaces; • Expands housing options, including higher density and mixed-use buildings; Packet pg. 165 Planning and Zoning Board Residential Metro District Evaluation System Thursday April 1, 2021 | Page 7 of 9 Back to Top • Offers opportunities to age in place; • Improves access to services and amenities; and • Incorporates unique site conditions. While many aspects of these neighborhood-building principles are embodied in the Land Use Code, qualities that make a neighborhood truly extraordinary are not always included within development plans. So, the Neighborhood Livability points are intended to promote additional improvements that elevate the quality of what gets built and improve livability for District residents and, in some cases, provide benefits to the larger community. Topic areas include transportation, neighborhood amenities, the natural environment and health, culture, and education. Packet pg. 166 Planning and Zoning Board Residential Metro District Evaluation System Thursday April 1, 2021 | Page 8 of 9 Back to Top 2. Public Outreach A. FOCUS GROUP MEETINGS A series of four Focus Group workshops were held over the past 13 months that enlisted assistance from local interests in housing affordability and resource conservation, as well as members of the development community experienced in Metro District formation and management. Three of the meetings were facilitated by members of the Institute for the Built Environment at Colorado State University. Contributions also were made by subject matter experts from the City’s Sustainability Services, Utilities, and Planning and Development groups. B. PUBLIC COMMENTS: A series of comments were collected during the course of the Focus Group discussion that can be summarized under the following major topics. The Focus Group came to informed consent on the overall approach to using a points system, although individual members expressed some reservations about the amount of burden placed on the development community to satisfy the standards, particularly with respect to the attainable housing and energy conservation provisions. Financial Viability  If the evaluation system is too expensive for either the landowner or developer, sufficient housing will not be built, and the community’s 10% goal will not be either.  Data about the borrowing capacity of non-metro district financed projects obtaining financing in the 17-18% range may not be accurate. If a development does not need a metro district, there is no reason to do one. They are usually around $80,000 to $100,000 to get approved, hard to get approved, difficult to operate and increase the price of homes being sold vs development without a metro district.  Roadways, sewer lines, water lines, parks, trails, public open space, underpasses, are items typically associated with metro district qualifying items. If that is the assumption, then the evaluation system may be operating outside the purview of the Districts.  Enactment of the system will ultimately drive the price of land down for the property owner and the price of homes up for the end user, the home buyer. Equity  Metro districts are not necessarily a big windfall to developers. Large-scale ‘public’ builders probably will not go through the evaluation system as they already have access to capital, but other private developers do not have the access and it helps level the playing-field between local builders or those with a vision and the large public builders. If it becomes too difficult, you will only see the large national builders in the future.  Projects of scale require builders who can produce certain volumes and have sufficient capital access; most of those builders may not build to the proposed standards. Flexibility  It is going to be difficult to find the right balance between being aggressive with City policy priorities and finding what developers/owners/buyers want.  With some projects it may be more appropriate to target affordable housing, while for others it may make sense to target energy and water goals. Practical Application  The bar may be set too high for the proposed energy conservation points. There may not be enough builders familiar or competent with all these regulations currently.  Evaluating projects that are not legally entitled and constructed may be inappropriate to base the evaluation system on. It is easy to promise exceptionally high standards, but hard to deliver once you do. Packet pg. 167 Planning and Zoning Board Residential Metro District Evaluation System Thursday April 1, 2021 | Page 9 of 9 Back to Top 3. Conclusion Staff finds that the proposed Residential Metro District Evaluation System would: • Provide an incentive for new residential development to provide exceptional community benefits. • Advance the City’s adopted goals for affordable and attainable housing, and reduced energy and water consumption. • Reduce the financial burden on Metro District residents through lower energy and water bills. 4. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend City Council approval of an amendment to the Metro District Policy by adopting a Residential Metro District Evaluation System. 5. Attachments 1. Presentation Packet pg. 168 1 Planning and Zoning Board April 1, 2021 Residential Metro Districts Evaluation System Cameron Gloss CG1 Feb 18th Planning and Zoning Board Discussion Summary • Some members questioned the cost recovery provided by public benefits. • Interested in adding Innovation categories for greater flexibility • Some questioned whether goals should be tied to Metro Districts or required City-wide • One member concerned about water requirements impacting fire flows. • Details need more vetting 1 2 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 169 2 Biggest Challenges: What We Heard Additional Developer Cost vs. Consumer Cost Savings Raising the Metro District standards so high will discourage smaller developers Challenging to achieve both housing, and energy and water conservation objectives at the same time 3 Appropriate Parameters How do we define parameters for residential Metro Districts in a way that addresses known issues? • Transparency for buyers • Cost burden to residents • Fairness & community benefit • Process and governance 4 3 4 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 170 3 Balancing Objectives 5 Residential Evaluation System Components Extraordinary Community Benefits Housing Energy & Water ConservationNeighborhood Livability 6 5 6 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 171 4 Weighting of Outcome Areas 7 Water Conservation Housing Energy Conservation Neighborhood Livability Focus on Reducing Cost Burden to Residents Community Benefits from Efficiency 8 Energy & water efficiency puts money back into community members pockets$468 estimated annual utility savings per household + Non-Energy Benefits (health, safety, comfort) could account for an addtl $500 Source: DOE ZER Home savings & Cost Estimates Summary – Newport Partners – 2015 Source: ACEEE – Non-Energy Benefits (NEBs) from Energy Star local example: modeling for ZER showed homeowner monthly savings of $54 Source: Economics of Energy Performance – Revive Properties – Fort Collins Green Building Lecture Series -2019Incremental cost compared to a code baseline (2009)2.5% 5% 7.5% Climate Zone 5 (FTC) Source: RMI – The Economics of Zero Energy Homes -2018 $ increase to build ZER energy savings over 12 yrs anticipated energy savings/ 30 yr mortgage “It does cost more, but pays huge return on investment for homeowners, community, utilities, and our nation.” ~ Sam Rashkin ‐DOE Chief Architect and Zero Energy Ready homes program lead 7 8 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 172 5 Third Party Audit – Mandalay Homes 9 Over 1,000 ZERH homes constructed 13-time HUD Housing Innovation Winner Energy Conservation -10 Points Passive House = common in Europe; focuses on passive (non-mechanical) heating/ cooling/ tightness HERS= Home Energy Rating System – US industry standard for calculating energy performance 10 9 10 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 173 6 11 Water Conservation – (3 Indoor/7 Outdoor) 12 11 12 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 174 7 Neighborhood Livability – 5 points. 13 Transportation Neighborhood Amenities Natural Environment Health, Culture & Education Off-site Trail Connection 1 pt. Access to Essential Neighborhood Services 1 – 3 pts. Access to Parks & Open Spaces 2 pts. Universal Design 1-2 pts. Bike & Walk friendly street design 1 pt. Vertical Mixed-Use Buildings 2 pts. Enhanced Habitat 1 pt. 0.5% for Arts & Culture 1 pt. Level 3 EV Public Charging Stations 1 pt. Community Gathering Spaces 1 pt. Expansion of Adjacent Natural Habitat 1pt. Sustained Educational Programing 1 pt. Trail Connection to a School 1 pt. Community Workspace 1 pt. Innovative Natural Resource Protection 1 pt. Excellence in Community Engagement 1 pt. Transportation Innovation 1 pt. Common Areas Food Production 1 pt. Health, Culture & Education Innovation 1 pt. Innovative Neighborhood Amenities 1 pt. Residential Metro District Approval Process 14 Step 1 • City Council Pre-Application “Conceptual Review” Step 2 •Public Benefits Agreement •Development Agreement Step 3 •Building Permit Review to ensure compliance with evaluation system Step 4 •Certificate of Occupancy provided only when criteria are met. 13 14 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 175 8 15 Backup Slides City of Fort Collins Metro District Policy The Policy establishes the criteria, guidelines and processes followed by City Council and City staff in considering service plans for the organization of metropolitan districts The Policy encourages the formation of a District that delivers extraordinary public benefits that align with the goals and objectives of the City The approval of a District Service Plan is at the discretion of City Council 16 15 16 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 176 9 Why Metro Districts? • Public infrastructure can be financed over time • Public infrastructure can be financed at tax-exempt interest rates • Property owners can deduct taxes paid to the district on their federal income tax returns • New infrastructure is funded by those who will benefit (Constituents within the District) and not all City residents • Permanent operation and maintenance of certain public improvements that are not dedicated to the City 17 18 Mill Levy Cap 50 Mills Maximum O&M Levy Cap 10 Mills Regional Improvements Levy Cap 5 Mills (in addition to the 50 Mills limit) Basic Infrastructure To enable public benefit Eminent Domain Prohibited Debt Limitation 100% of Capacity Minimum Debt Authorization $7 million Debt Term Limit 40 years unless Council decides otherwise Citizen Control As early as possible Multiple Districts Projected over an extended period Dissolution Districts shall have no more than three years from approval of the Service Plan to secure City Council approval by resolution Commercial/ Residential Ratio N/A City of Fort Collins Metro District Policy 17 18 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 177 10 Require Extraordinary Community Benefit Recognizing that current code does not necessarily result in developments that meet our community aspirations, how might Metro Districts help realize the kind of residential development that we desire as a community as defined by adopted City policies? Relevant Plans Include: • City Plan • Climate Action Plan • Housing Plan (update in progress) • Water Efficiency Plan • Energy Policy • Others 19 20 Total Cost of Ownership Mortgage Taxes and Fees: County Property Tax Metro District Property Tax Homeowner’s Association Fees Insurance Utilities: Water, Wastewater, Stormwater, Electricity, Natural Gas Internet & Cable TV Solid Waste/Recycling 19 20 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 178 11 Evaluations Systems Considered 1. Minimum Requirements Pros: Clarity and Predictability of outcomes; Consistency across projects Cons: Pressure to approve a service plan that just meets minimum requirements; Lacks flexibility 2. Scorecard, including a ranking for each outcome area (e.g.-Good/Better/Best) ;no minimums Pros: Clarity of evaluation for Council and developer; Flexibility for site conditions; Adaptable to priorities Cons: Not all outcomes delivered 3. Points System Pros: Adaptable to changing standards, Easily maintained; change menu as priorities change Cons: Potentially less flexible, not all outcomes are delivered 4. Performance Guided –specify metrics and the actions against the metrics Pros: clear and measurable impact, tied to priority outcomes, flexible Cons: Detailed, technical evaluation needed, can be hard to quantify 21 Housing – 5 Points Required 1. Housing Supply, Diversity and Choice A. 10% Affordable Home Ownership at 80% - 120% AMI 4 pts/5 pts, if all housing meets ZER standard. B. Limit Unit Size 20% of single-family homes 2/3 pts if 3 size breakpoints are selected OR all housing meets ZER standard. C. Accessory Dwelling Units 2 pt. 2. Affordable Rental Housing A. 10% Affordable Rental Housing <60% AMI 2 pts B. 10% Affordable Rental Housing <60% AMI which does not utilize competitive funding sources or that otherwise demonstrates that it contributes net new affordable units 3 pts 22 21 22 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 179 12 23 Housing Data / Comparisons Local Data: Colorado average housing unit size – 2,162 sf (2 nd highest in US) Colorado average lot size – 8,076 sf (6 th smallest in US) Fort Collins median unit size – 2,269 sf Median of 3 bed / 2.5 baths Persons per household – 2.56 (Colorado) , 2.46 (Fort Collins), 2.52 (National) Benefits of Limiting House Size Addresses our growing needs in the ‘Missing Middle’ • Townhouse • Duplex Unit • Pocket Neighborhoods Conventions of Appraisal and Lending Institutions -value based on square footage 24 23 24 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 180 13 Accessory Dwelling Units Provides Another Affordable Housing Option: -Smaller sq. ft. results in lower rents -Rental income can offset ownership costs of primary unit -Can reduce caregiver costs/facilitates aging in place 25 The Cost of Conservation • Costs for Zero Energy Ready housing using a baseline 2009 IECC energy code will add less than a 1.5% increase to a unit in Fort Collins. (RMI) • Energy conserving measures are “one-time” and at the time of construction. • Staff estimates a simple payback under 12 years for a new $400k home. There is currently a requirement for an enhanced building envelope (increased insulation) in the 2018 Code if all electric. Plans are to further revise within the 2021 Code as to not ‘discourage’ efficient electrification. 26 25 26 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 181 14 Disclosure Improvements Add disclosure in title work for all properties within the District, including information on: • Maximum number of mills that can be levied. • Maximum property tax that can be collected based avg assessed value • Chart comparing property taxes in the district to taxes outside the District • Contact information for the District Board of Directors 27 28 Housing Affordability Along the Income Spectrum AMI 0% Below 80% AMI is City’s Definition of Affordable Housing 80% $69.7K/yr 200%100% $87.2K/yr 120% $105K/yr $415K Market Housing $320KPurchase Price Goal is defined by AHSP (188-228 units/year) Fewer attainable options are available to Middle Income Earners Goal is harder to define & City influence may be outweighed by market forces 27 28 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 182 NOTESPointsA. 10% Affordable Home Ownership at 80 ‐120% AMI10% deed restricted, for‐sale, single family units at 80 ‐120% AMI*Point multiplier: If all housing units meet DOE Zero Energy Ready (ZER) standard, 1 additional point received4/5*B. Limit Unit Size for 20% single family homes A combination of Attached or detached, single family units based on at least 2 of the following breakpoints:5% less than 800 SF 5% between 800 to 1,100 SF 5% between 1,100 to 1,300 SF5% between 1,300 to 1,600 SF 5% between 1,600 and 2,200 SF **Option for Point multiplier: If 3 of the following breakpoints are selected, 1 additional point OR If all housing units meet DOE Zero Energy Ready (ZER) standard, 1 additional point received2/3** FORT COLLINS RESIDENTIAL METRO DISTRICTS EVALUATION POINTS SYSTEM ‐ DRAFT 3/18/21Housing = /> 5 points Energy Conservation and Renewables =/> 10 points Indoor Water Conservation =/> 3 points Outdoor Water Conservation =/> 7 points Neighborhood Livability = /> 5 points 1. Housing Supply, Diversity, and Choice HOUSINGPacket pg. 183