Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/21/2022 - Planning and Zoning Commission - SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS - Regular Meeting1 Yani Jones From:Amber Franzel <amberfranzel@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, April 14, 2022 10:38 AM To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] The Enclave comments/documents Attachments:Letter to P&Z board (1).docx; PLANNING_AND_ZONING_BOARD_MINUTES_SEP-20-2018.pdf Good morning, My name is Amber Franzel and I live in the Meadows at Redwood neighborhood, which will be adjacent to The Enclave, and Northfield subdivisions. I received this email address from Yani Jones with Neighborhood Services as a way of adding documents and comments to the development proposal. I'll also be at the meeting next Thursday to make a public comment, but was encouraged to submit things prior so they could be read ahead of time. I'm attaching two documents: one is a letter sent from our HOA to the Planning and Zoning Board in 2018 when the proposed development was called the Retreat. It details our concerns with the connection on Lupine between our two neighborhoods and the concerns that come from that. These concerns remain the same with The Enclave proposal. I've also attached the P&Z minutes from the 2018 hearing about this. Our neighborhood had worked closely with the developer and designer to come up with a mutually beneficial solution that the P&Z board applauded as a model of how citizens, developers and city government could work together. I hope to have a similar dialogue and connection this time around as well. Thank you, Amber Franzel 625 Yarrow Circle ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 1 Packet pg. 1 Planning and Zoning Board City of Fort Collins C/O Ted Shepard Senior Planner 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 June 26, 2018 Re: The Retreat student housing and street connectivity Dear Planning and Zoning Board members, We, the Meadows at Redwood HOA, are writing to express continued concern over the proposal to connect Lupine Drive to the new student development, The Retreat, being constructed soon. We want to thank you for the city’s commitment to hearing our concerns, through the pair of neighborhood meetings held. We have worked closely with Landmark Properties and Ripley Designs to discuss alternative ways to meet the connectivity requirements required by city code, and they have been more than willing to come up with creative solutions. Recently, Landmark Properties purchased a small parcel of land to make it possible for The Retreat to be connected directly to Conifer, which seems to be able to handle the increased traffic more effectively than our small neighborhood streets, namely Lupine and Mullein. We as an HOA fully support this amendment. They have also made changes to their overall plan to be “good neighbors”: providing landscape buffers, creating trails systems and commercial businesses that can be used by our neighborhood, sharing the natural area to the south of the property, and planning to build privacy fences. We value their work and the time they have spent making this new property work for everyone in the area. However, increased traffic and citizen safety on Lupine are still worrisome despite being made aware that Mullein would not be a through street. Our neighborhood streets are undersized and even at the current amount of traffic, passage through the area can be tricky. Currently, our neighborhood is closely connected, and in the spirit of the Northside Neighborhood Plan, we maintain our own unique culture and connection with each other. Our kids ride around the cul-de-sacs without fear, we host pot lucks together, we shovel snow for our neighbors, and parents walk to the bus stop together each morning and afternoon. We enjoy a sense of community that is not felt in many other local neighborhoods and we hope to keep it that way if at all possible. We thank you for your decision to close Mullein to through traffic, but we feel that extending Lupine would directly threaten our culture and sense of safety. That being said, we understand the issue of code compliance in terms of needing to connect neighborhoods. We as a community are not seeking to stop the development but would like to work with the city and developer to make the impact of this project the lowest it can be. We are asking that Lupine Drive be connected only for pedestrian, bike and emergency access only, especially in light of the amended connection proposed at Conifer. This would still promote connectivity, thanks to a trail system set up along the perimeter of The Retreat, but would discourage Lupine being the main point of connection with Redwood and those wishing to travel north. Given the size of our streets, the increased traffic this connection would bring, and the desire to maintain our neighborhood connection and ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 1 Packet pg. 2 community feel, we hope this is something you will advocate for during this part of the development process. Thanks for your consideration and your representation of the citizens of Fort Collins. Sincerely, Meadows at Redwood HOA ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 1 Packet pg. 3 Jeff Schneider, Chair City Council Chambers Jeff Hansen, Vice Chair City Hall West Jennifer Carpenter 300 Laporte Avenue Michael Hobbs Fort Collins, Colorado Christine Pardee Ruth Rollins Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 & William Whitley Channel 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 September 20, 2018 Chair Schneider called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Hansen, Hobbs, Pardee, Rollins, Schneider and Whitley Absent: None Staff Present: Everette, Kleer, Frickey, Holland, Wray, Yatabe, Tatman-Burruss, Sullivan, Betley, Scheidenhelm, Olson, Lambrecht, Blochowiak, Van Zee and Gerber Chair Schneider provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. He 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 Development Review Manager Everette reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas, stating that all items will be heard as originally advertised. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 1 Packet pg. 4 Planning & Zoning Board September 20, 2018 Page 2 of 11 Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: Barbara Denny, 420 Sunset St., representing the 200 + members of the Sanctuary Field Neighborhood Network. They are in support of the LNM zoning and want to make sure that the development conforms to the Northwest Suburbia Plan and that it preserves the character of the existing neighborhood. Chair Schneider asked Mrs. Denny if she was wanting to pull the item from consent. Mrs. Denny responded no. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from August 16, 2018, P&Z Hearing 2. Boardwalk Crossing, Final Development Plan Extension of Vested Rights, FDP130003 3. Sanctuary on the Green Annexation and Zoning, ANX180004 – Pulled from consent 4. The Updated Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual 5. Hughes Stadium Annexation & Zoning, ANX180003 – Pulled from consent Public Input on Consent Agenda: Item pulled – 3. Sanctuary on the Green Annexation and Zoning, ANX180004 Item pulled – 5. Hughes Stadium Annexation & Zoning, ANX180003 Chair Schneider 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 Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Consent agenda consisting of the draft minutes from the August 16, 2018 Planning and Zoning hearing, the Boardwalk Crossing, Final Development Plan Extension of Vested Rights, FDP 130003, and The Updated Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. Member Pardee seconded the motion. Vote: 7:0. Discussion Agenda: 6. 200 East Swallow Road Request for Professional Office as an Addition of Permitted Use, #APU180001 Project Description: This is a request to allow a Professional Office as a legal land use within the existing house at 200 East Swallow Road. The request is to use 100% of the house for a Professional Office versus the 50% which is allowed under the Home Occupation License. Professional Office is defined as: “an office for professionals such as physicians, dentists, lawyers, architects, engineers, artists, musicians, designers, teachers, accountants or others who through training are qualified to perform services of a professional nature and where no storage or sale of merchandise exists.” The house is 2,782 square feet and located on a lot that is 9,821 square feet and part of Thunderbird Estates. The request for a Professional Office at 200 E. Swallow Road will be considered as an Addition of Permitted Use in conjunction with a Minor Amendment. This is not a request to rezone the property to a higher classification of zone district where Professional Office is a use by right. Instead, as an Addition of Permitted Use, the underlying zoning would remain Low Density Residential (R-L) but only Professional Office would be added as an allowable land use, and no other uses, over and above the permitted uses in the R-L. Currently, 50% of the house is being used as a Home Occupation. The applicant has held the two required neighborhood information meetings. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Gerber reported that there were no citizen emails or letters received for this item. Staff and Applicant Presentations ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 1 Packet pg. 5 Planning & Zoning Board September 20, 2018 Page 3 of 11 Planner Frickey gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this project. Susan Brabson, owner of 200 East Swallow Rd. provided a verbal presentation to the board regarding the details of the addition of permitted use request. Mrs. Brabson gave a detailed description of the surrounding area and stated her beliefs as to why this APU should be approved. Member Hansen enquired if the examples that were shown during presentation were at the 50% maximum for home occupations or if some of them were fully used as businesses. Planner Frickey replied that he believed it was mixed. Public Input (3 minutes per person) None noted Staff Response None noted Board Questions / Deliberation Member Hansen feels it is appropriate to have a business located here. Member Hansen made a motion that the Fort Collins planning and zoning board approve the 200 East Swallow Road Request for Professional office, APU180001 with the six conditions as listed in the staff report. This recommendation and conditions are based on the agenda materials, information and materials presented in the work session, and this hearing and the board discussion on this item with the following findings: That this APU complies with all the typical land use requirements as stated in the staff report prepared for this hearing and contained in the agenda materials. The information analysis, findings of fact and conclusions contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing are adopted by this board. Chair Schneider requested an amendment be made to reflect that this is a motion for recommendation that Council approve this APU. Member Hansen accepted the amendment. Member Hobbs seconded. Member Whitley asked for clarification on the APU number. Member Chair confirmed the number. Chair Schneider feels this is a good use of the property. Vote: 7:0. 7. The Retreat at Fort Collins, PDP180002 Project Description: This is a request to develop the parcel that is east of Redwood Street, north of Suniga Road (as it would be extended east of Redwood Street to Lemay Avenue) and south of Conifer Street. The Lake Canal forms the southeastern boundary. The request is for a combination of housing types that would be managed as a unified, student-oriented development. The predominant housing type is multi-family. There would be 190 dwelling units divided among 46 buildings plus a clubhouse and parking garage. Leasing would be rent-by-the-bedroom and there would be 739 bedrooms. A 1,500-square foot area within the clubhouse would be leased to a commercial tenant(s). The plan includes a total 747 parking spaces, 262 of which would be located within the three-story parking garage. This proposal is located in the Low-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone district. The site is 30.17 acres. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Gerber reported that there were two emails/letters received from citizens as well as documentation updates on additional items. • Scott Metz supports the alternative compliance plan submitted by Ripley Design, and feels that the language surrounding the future vehicular connection at Lupine Drive is intentionally vague. ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 1 Packet pg. 6 Planning & Zoning Board September 20, 2018 Page 4 of 11 • Kelly Evans with Neighbor to Neighbor provided a letter of support explaining their agency’s partnership with the developer. • Updated Staff report (replaced in online packet) • Revised Pages 2 & 3 of applicant site plan (replaced in online packet) • Additional Applicant documents: o Approved jurisdictional determination o White Paper o Letter of Intent for Easement o LNM Memo from Lucia Liley (added to supplemental docs online) • Letter from Lucia Liley Disclosures by Board Member Member Carpenter disclosed that her husband and herself are under contract for a townhouse that is in Old Town North which is to the South and West of the item being discussed. She does not feel that there is bias present and can continue. Staff and Applicant Presentations Development Review Manager Everette (covering for Planner Shepard) gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this project. Linda Ripley of Ripley Design, Inc. along with Andrew Costas of Landmark Properties, provided a verbal/visual presentation giving full details of the project and business model to the Board. She believes this project complies with all codes and will incorporate all stated conditions. Mrs. Ripley feels that condition C is unfair to the neighborhood and leaves them vulnerable to have this happen to them over again. Member Rollins asked if anyone from transportation was going to be present. Development Review Manager Everette responded yes, Joe Olson Member Hobbs asked if Landmark Properties owned and operated Landmark Apartments or any other apartment complexes in Ft. Collins. Mr. Costas responded that they do not currently own or operate any apartment projects in Ft. Collins, however, they are currently under construction here. The Standard of Ft. Collins. Member Hansen received clarification regarding off-street parking and if the parking calculation included public street parking. Development Review Manager Everette explained how parking calculations were run when a subdivision is new as opposed to infill. When new, on-street parking is used for the parking count. Member Pardee received clarification from the applicant as to there being one parking space per bedroom. Member Hansen inquired about condition B, landscaping enhancements on the western edge and what the enhancements entailed. Development Review Manager Everette explained the denser screening; increasing the plant material. Member Carpenter questioned how this condition would be enforced. Development Review Manager Everette responded that this condition was left open ended so that discussion could take place between staff and the applicant, but that the intent was to increase the quantity of plant material. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Scott Metz, 1013 Mullein Dr., read his previously submitted statement. Charles Clark, 1401 Lindenwood Dr., concerned with increased traffic and extra occupancy parking concerns. Amber Franzel, 625 Yarrow Circle, concerned with increased traffic and is concerned with loosing the culture and feel of the community. The HOA fully support the alternative plan as Landmark Properties and Ripley Designs have submitted, however they do not support the language and condition C which is vague and leaving the current community vulnerable to having this be a continuous fight. ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 1 Packet pg. 7 Planning & Zoning Board September 20, 2018 Page 5 of 11 Trinity Oberndorf, 3416 Killarney Ct., Thanked Landmark Properties and Ripley Design for working with the neighborhood. She is in support of this project if the connections at Mullein and Lupine are pedestrian, bike and emergency access only. Dennis Harmon, 642 Spurge Circle, feels that the developer has gone a long way to make this project work as neighbors and it is appreciated. He is concerned with the Lupine connection and would like the project approved without the condition. Tony Wagner, 631 Lupine Dr., concerned with traffic and parking overflow. He would not like to see Lupine go through. Staff Response Mrs. Ripley addressed the 50’ buffer along the drainage ditch on the North of the property. There will not be a 50’ buffer along the entirety of the North edge. Development Review Manager Everette responded to the Lupine connection. Staff has found the criteria for the alternative compliance request have been met and without a connection to Lupine the project does meet the standards of the code. The condition of approval suggested highlights the portion of the street that runs up against Lupine would be designed for emergency access and designed as a street without a connection being made, it would be blocked off. There could be a time in the future when both neighborhoods agree to open the connection. Chair Schneider questioned who gets to make the final determination if the street gets opened as there is no definition in the condition for the future. Development Review Manager Everette agreed that the language is open- ended. It states interested parties which would be taken to mean residents in both neighborhoods, property owners, the City, etc. It would be brought back to the Planning and Zoning Board for a decision to be made. Attorney Yatabe commented that a note on the site plan should be added for notice purpose so that individuals understand that it is a possibility that it could occur. As a legal matter it is not more than a notification of the possibility and normally the decision rests with the City as to where connections are going to go through. Development Review Manager Everette addressed the extra occupancy units concern. The inclusion of the extra occupancy units does not put the project out of compliance. Development Review Manager Everette deferred to Traffic Engineer Joe Olson regarding the S curve along Conifer St. and potential additional hazard. Mr. Olson stated that the review comes at the final development review to ensure that there is adequate site distance and easements as required. Member Hobbs questioned if Poudre Fire Authority or another authority were requiring that there is the emergency access or if the other points of egress were enough; Development Review Manager Everette responded that Poudre Fire Authority has been extensively involved in the review of the application at every stage. Chair Schneider asked to see any conceptual review notes from Poudre Fire Authority. Member Hobbs enquired about the street being completed and a gate added to close it off, if this was the vision. Mrs. Ripley responded yes, that is exactly the condition, the street is there to allow emergency access to the street with key or code. Member Hansen feels that typically emergency access’ do not have the appearance of a street, just a gate in the middle. Development Review Manager Everette offered clarification; it can go both directions and be designed as a completed street. Member Rollins spoke of trip generation rates asking Mr. Olsen where the studies were done. Mr. Olsen responded that they were done around the City. What was found was it was random, the closer to the campus the units were, did not mean the less vehicular trip generation there would be. Member Hobbs wanted to know from the application if there would be 24/7 on-site management. Mr. Costas stated that there would be management on-site during business hours and after hours there would be available the use of a hotline. Member Rollins asked how many shuttles would be available and what their capacities would be. Mr. Costas replied, one bus would be available, possibly a 20-person bus with limited hours. ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 1 Packet pg. 8 Planning & Zoning Board September 20, 2018 Page 6 of 11 Member Carpenter wanted more information on the paid parking. Mr. Costas responded that in the covered parking they are reserving the option to charge for the spaces. The number of spaces would be less than 25% of the parking. If this was taken out, they still exceed the code minimum for parking. Member Whitley asked if they would consider more electric charging stations. Mr. Costas responded that they could add more and wanted to know how many, and that they could commit to two (2) stations. Member Rollins asked how many visitor parking spaces were available. Mr. Costas responded that visitor parking was accounted for in the variance of those students that do not have a car to park. No visitor parking added. Residents will be issued parking stickers, no assigned parking. Member Hobbs asked how many parking spaces were available on the street. Mrs. Ripley shared that there were 205 spaces. Chair Schneider commented that public parking was for up to 48 hours, private drives and streets can be regulated by the site. Member Pardee enquired about bike spaces and if there were covered spaces, how they could be locked or secured. Mrs. Ripley commented that part of the 60% covered bike parking were in the parking garage where they can be locked. All spaces provide adequate locking ability, but they are not in structures that can be locked. Laura with Ripley Design stated there will be 306 bike parking spaces in the parking garage and 3 bike shelters that hold 48 bikes distributed throughout the site. Chair Schneider circled back to if an answer was discovered regarding Poudre Fire Authority conceptual review comments. Development Review Manager Everette responded that there were comments regarding perimeter access around all buildings and concerns that in the original proposal that there were buildings that had more than 150’ required to provide the perimeter access. It is unknown if this specifically relates to Lupine, however, the roadway/parking lot South of building 7A provided the necessary perimeter access to those buildings. Member Hansen wanted to know if the connection of Lupine is not continuous how it affects the overall street network in the area. Development Review Manager Everette does not have status of nearby parcels and whether Lupine could connect West to College and that Lupine to Lemay do not show a connection. Board Questions / Deliberation Member Hobbs would like to see the street stubbed into a hammerhead or turnaround so that the neighborhood will not have to continue to fight the street turning into a thoroughfare, and to clean up the open-endedness. Member Whitley will support if the bicycle and pedestrian traffic are addressed separately. Member Hansen gave thoughts on what the intent might be if there were just a gate. Member Carpenter agrees and would like to see something more attractive and not street like. Chair Schneider recommended changing the verbiage of condition C within the motion. Attorney Yatabe agreed. The applicant team also agrees. Member Rollins pointed out that the connection at Lupine is a parking lot. The current design is not such that it is a roadway in the future. The design almost eliminates this. Member Carpenter does not see the need for condition C, that it can be done in the future. Chair Schneider is concerned with removing condition C as it will also remove the multi-model access between the two. Development Review Manager Everette confirmed the plans and that condition C would not need to be kept. Member Rollins does not feel the trip generation that was used for the project is applicable with the number of units that are 4-5 bedroom. She does not feel or is convinced it supports high occupancy units, or if the S curve works. Another concern is with 700+ students and only one shuttle. Matt, City of Fort Collins commented that the sight distance on both side of the S curve is fantastic. Mr. Olson stated that the trip generation was based on beds, not units. Chair Schneider wanted confirmation that City Staff approved or agreed to the traffic study that was provided and that staff looked at the S curve. Mr. Olson confirmed. Member Carpenter asked if the applicant would be open to adding more busses. Mr. Costas replied they will not be adding any more busses. Chair Schneider added this is an amenity, not a required service. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve The Retreat at Fort Collins, PDP180002 including conditions A, B, and D as specified in the staff report pg. 28 and to add condition E that states that the access between the Retreat and the existing streets of Lupine and Moline be restricted to fire lane, bike and pedestrian access only instead of a street-like connectivity. This approval is based upon the agenda materials and information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing and the board discussion on this item with the following findings; that the PDP ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 1 Packet pg. 9 Planning & Zoning Board September 20, 2018 Page 7 of 11 complies with the applicable land use code requirements as stated in the staff report prepared for this hearing and contained in the agenda materials. Member Rollins seconded. Member Carpenter appreciates the cooperation between the neighborhood and development team. Member Rollins agreed. Member Schneider also appreciated the collaboration and additional parking. Vote: 7:0. 8. Willow Street Residences, Project Development Plan, PDP180006 Project Description: This is a request to construct a 5-story multi-family residential building on 2 acres located southwest of the intersection of Willow Street and Pine Street (223 Willow Street). A total of 197 dwelling units are proposed. A total of 59 parking spaces are provided. The project is located within the (R-D-R) River Downtown Redevelopment Zone District and the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) overlay zone. A modification request is included with the PDP to LUC Section 3.2.2(L) to reduce the parking lot drive aisle width for two parking stalls. Alternative compliance is requested to satisfy the parking lot interior landscape standards described in Section 3.2.1(E)(5) and building foundation landscape standards in Section 3.2.1(E)(2)(d). Recommendation: Approval Secretary Gerber reported that there were no citizen emails or letters received and that the staff report was updated and replaced in the online packet. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Holland gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this project. Matt Puma of CA Ventures and Eduardo Illanes of OZ Architecture provided a verbal/visual presentation to the Board. Member Pardee questioned the single parking space. Chair Schneider responded that one space was all that was needed unless they completed a modification. They could pull that parking space out and still meet parking requirements without a modification request. Member Hobbs asked for a description regarding the administration of parking and if parking permits will be available. Mr. Puma reiterated that they are meeting the minimum code. Based on experience from a previous project, they are comfortable with the parking on this project. Parking is decoupled, no car, no parking fee. There will be reserved, a portion unreserved and guest parking. There should not be more cars than parking available. Future parking term limits on Willow Street will be 2-hour parking. Member Carpenter questioned if they might consider cargo cars. Mr. Puma responded sure, if there is a demand. Member Hansen mentioned bike parking is at code minimum and would like to know if they would add more if needed. Mr. Puma yielded to the design team, however; he believes they could if needed. Member Carpenter opened conversation regarding alternative compliance on the landscaping and if the planters meet the requirement. Planner Holland stated the code, 5 feet deep at least 50% of the building wall face, and that effectively the planter pots are along 100% of the building face. Public Input (3 minutes per person) None noted Staff Response None noted ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 1 Packet pg. 10 Planning & Zoning Board September 20, 2018 Page 8 of 11 Board Questions / Deliberation Member Carpenter asked Attorney Yatabe about alternative compliance and modifications being standard to equal to or better than. Attorney Yatabe responded that typically it is equal to or better than to a plan that complies with the standard. Member Hansen commented that the standard for foundation plantings did not have a downtown urban environment in mind when it was written and there are no exceptions in the code to allow for that reality of building in a downtown setting. He feels that what they are proposing is a great solution for an urban setting. Member Carpenter would like to have this discussed at a work session and if this needs to be changed in the downtown setting. Member Hobbs is concerned about tenants not having places to park. Street side parking is tough, and this project could make it worse. Member Hansen likes the interaction of the setback mass with the ground plane, the only concern is that with this feature, it will be confusing as it looks like this is where the front of the building is. He is not recommending any changes, just a comment to bring awareness. Member Carpenter likes the architecture but is still having issues with the small planters. This is not an issue that would make her vote against the project, but she would like to see a rework to soften the look. She also has parking concerns. Member Whitley feels they have done a great job. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve the modification of standard to land use code section 3.2.2(l) in regard to parking stall dimensions in relation to one parking stall on this project and that this approval is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing, and the board discussion on this item with the following findings; that the modification complies with all applicable land use code requirements as stated in the staff report prepared for this hearing and contained in the agenda materials. Member Whitley seconded. Vote: 6:0. Member Hansen made a motion that the Fort Collins planning and Zoning Board approve the PDP 180006 and this approval is based upon the agenda materials, the information presented during the work session and this hearing, and the board discussion on this item with the following findings; this PDP complies with all applicable land use code requirements as stated in the staff report prepared for this hearing and contained in the agenda materials. Member Pardee seconded. Chair Schneider feels this is a well-designed project. Vote 6:0 3. Sanctuary on the Green Annexation and Zoning, ANX180004 – Pulled from Consent Project Description: This is a request to annex and zone 16.98 acres located generally at the northwest corner of N. Taft Hill Road and LaPorte Avenue and addressed as 325 N. Taft Hill Road. This is a 100% voluntary annexation. The parcel is now vacant with the house recently demolished. In accordance with the City Plan’s Structure Plan Map and the Northwest Subarea Plan, the requested zoning for this annexation is L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. The New Mercer Canal forms the western boundary. Recommendation: Approval to Council Member Hansen recused himself from this item Staff and Applicant Presentations Board decided they did not need a presentation on this item. Public Input (3 minutes per person) ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 1 Packet pg. 11 Planning & Zoning Board September 20, 2018 Page 9 of 11 E. Frank, 242 N. Sunset St., requested time to have documents pulled up and presented to the board. He does not feel that this annexation is not in full compliance with State law. Mr. Frank is not for or against this annexation, he wants to get it out there that there is potential for public health hazards due to asbestos. He would like to have lab results publicized. Chair Schneider asked Mr. Frank what asbestos had to do with the annexation. Mr. Frank responded that if there was willingness to annex land contaminated by asbestos and 30 years from now someone comes down with asbestoses, they have no recourse. Staff Response Planner Kleer responded to potential asbestos and other site contaminations. The annexation would not be affected by contamination on the site. Stephanie Hansen of Ripley Design explained that they could provide documentation of asbestos abatement to Mr. Frank. Mrs. Hansen also confirmed that environmental studies will take place as this project moves forward. Board Questions / Deliberation Member Hobbs asked Mrs. Hansen if prior to any development or permit that there is an environmental assessment completed. Mrs. Hansen responded absolutely, and that they have already contracted with an outside consultant to do the environmental characterization study and they will be doing those environmental studies as the project moves forward. Chair Schneider commented that PFA also does their own testing before burning; this part of protocol. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board send a recommendation of approval to City Council for the Sanctuary on the Green Annexation and Zoning, ANX180004. This recommendation is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and the board discussion and citizen participation on this item that we have heard tonight, along with the residential neighborhood code sign district requirement. Member Carpenter seconded. Vote 5:0 5. Hughes Stadium Annexation & Zoning, ANX 180003 – Pulled from Consent Project Description: This is a request to annex and zone 164.55 acres of land generally located at the northwest corner of Dixon Canyon Road and Overland Trail. The annexation area is owned by Colorado State University and is the former location of Hughes Stadium. The requested zoning for the property is Transition (T), which is intended for properties for which there are no specific and immediate plans for development. The surrounding properties are a mixture of recreational, residential and commercial land uses. Recommendation: Approval to Council Staff and Applicant Presentations Board did not require a presentation on this item. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Rex Miller, owner of 40-acres directly North of the site, addressed the board with comments he would like to have forwarded to Council. If the site is brought in as a T transition, the City makes the commitment, however, the State does not. If the State retains its ownership they are not required to adhere to the zoning, they do not have to submit plans for review, there are no City inspections conducted and they do not pay property tax. He would like to see an intergovernmental agreement with the State ensuring they will not do “what they want” and that they will pay property taxes. He feels that it would be a mistake if there were not a commitment made. ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 1 Packet pg. 12 Planning & Zoning Board September 20, 2018 Page 10 of 11 James Miller, 3000 Ross Dr., questioned the notification process and would like to be more involved. He was not notified of any previous meetings. He would like to know what is planned for the site and is concerned about what he just learned from the previous speaker. Staff Response Planner Kleer deferred to Attorney Yatabe regarding the potential annexation, zoning T District and this project potentially being leased by the property owner and going under a site plan advisory review, which would not be subject to our City regulations or permitting. Chair Schneider explained that if CSU owns the property they would go through a SPAR process with any future development. The transition is a generic transition zoning, if a change was wanted, they would have to come back to the Board for another discussion and more public comment to change the zoning. A couple questions raised were, would CSU be willing to enter an IGA like the on-campus stadium? And, if it is owned by CSU do they just have to do a SPAR? Response to both questions; If CSU did sell the property off to an individual company or developer, then that developer would go through all the same regulations as any other development project. Attorney Yatabe responded that was correct and that there has been no development proposal submitted at this time. There is some fact specific analysis to be done once a proposal comes in as to how the review would be done. Generally, public facilities under State statute are generally come under a much more curtailed review, this is something that we have adopted in Land Use Code under the site plan advisory review. Chair Schneider followed up that this is outside of our growth management area and not in the City limits at this time. This is the beginning of the process for an intergovernmental agreement with Larimer County to potentially annex or bring this portion of land into the City limits. Fred Haberecht, CSU Planner of Facilities, spoke to the current completion of the demolition contracts. Soil and seeding will take place by October 15, 2018, the remaining crushed aggregate will be removed by December 2018. Regarding a SPAR, this is not the central intent. We need to better understand from the City what that means. Member Hansen commented that they can do what they wish within their own current guidelines and State guidelines. Chair Schneider commented that this is why this is a voluntary annexation, that this is to start the communication for this to go. Rick Calhan, CSURF Real Estate, the County has already stated that they do not have any objections to this being annexed into the GMA after the fact, once they go through a bigger process. We believe we are beyond the County’s approval. The University wants to divest themselves from this land. Developers understand that if they want to develop on this site, it will be under the direction of the City and will need to follow through with the T transitional zoning and take it through the review process. The intent of CSU is to sell the property and then the concern about SPARS and anything else in the future goes away and it becomes a normal development. Board Questions / Deliberation Member Hansen feels as though is a good annexation for the City. Member Schneider agrees. Deliberation Member Hansen feels that the move to annex this site gives the City and the residents in the area more input on what happens to the property in the future. He feels this is in the best interest of the City. Chair Schneider agrees. Member Whitley made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board send a recommendation of approval to City Council for the Hughes Stadium Annexation & Zoning, ANX180003 this recommendation is based on the agenda material, information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing and the board discussion on this item. Member Carpenter seconded. Planner Kleer offered clarifying response regarding the IGA between the County and The City. The procedure under 8F of the IGA it is at the City’s discretion that we can annex outside of the GMA with notification to the County 35 days prior to first hearing. This annexation creates two (2) enclaves; to the North and to the East. Vote: 6:0. ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 1 Packet pg. 13 ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 1Packet pg. 14 1 Yani Jones From:Kyle Dickey <kdickey@newbelgium.com> Sent:Thursday, April 14, 2022 4:30 PM To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] Enclave at Redwood Project Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Good afternoon. I was reaching out regarding the Enclave at Redwood Project PDP210004. I live at 643 Spurge Circle in the Meadows at Redwood. The proposed project currently as is utilizing Mullein and Lupine would have very harmful effect on our neighborhood, especially with regard to traffic. I am respectfully asking that this go under review, and the alternate plan that would not utilize these neighborhood roads be mandated. I look forward to your response. Thank you for your time, and have a great rest of the day! Kyle Dickey Kyle Dickey Brewery Direct Services New Belgium Brewing Co 970-420-4957 ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 2 Packet pg. 15 From:Libby Nelson To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] Project concerns Date:Monday, April 18, 2022 4:34:22 PM To whom it may concern, I am writing to express my concern for the Enclave at Redwood project PDP21004. My concerns revolve around the possibility of Lupine Drive and Mullein Drive allowing access to this proposed community. The proposal indicates that the project is for 242 multi family dwelling units and appears that the only access will be off of Redwood, which I believe will significantly increase traffic (likely by a factor greater than 10) on Lupine primary and also Mullein. I believe this will be a detriment to the community and people surrounding Lupine and Mullein and exceed the capacity of those roads. I respectfully request that the Planning and Zoning Commission denial the proposal until the developer can provide more reasonable access points for its proposed tenants. Thank you, Libby Nelson ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 3 Packet pg. 16 From:Haley Ford To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] The Enclave at Redwood Date:Wednesday, April 20, 2022 9:59:59 AM Hello, I live in the Meadows neighborhood off of Redwood. Many of us still have concerns about the increased traffic, the traffic pattern (stop signs only on Redwood), and associated noise due to the extension of Suniga to the overpass. And now, we are potentially facing at least one cul-de-sac (Lupine) in our small neighborhood being opened up to traffic to at least one proposed new development and possibly two. The roads in the Meadows are not designed to handle a significant increase in traffic flow. Residents appropriately park their vehicles on the road, which works with the current limited traffic flow into/out of the Meadows. The roads are too narrow to handle more traffic from a larger development. Other viable options for traffic flow (such as onto Conifer have previously been considered), and, now with the extension of Suniga, there are more options for entrance and egress that do not negatively impact the Meadows. Residents have previously expressed their opinion of not wanting this connection to Redwood via Lupine, and those concerns were heard by the city. The view of many of the residents in the Meadows on Lupine being opened up has not changed. Additionally, from publicly available plans on the city's website, it looks like there is some form of roadway (unclear from plans whether it will open to Redwood as an entrance/egress) that will be quite close to houses on the south side of the Meadows near Mullein. If this will be an active roadway, it is even closer to the existing houses and will create more traffic/noise/pollution, thus further decreasing quality of life. What kind of buffer, if any, is the developer planning to have between the existing houses and the new development? The primary concern, as outlined above, is increased traffic flow in a small neighborhood. I looked all over Fort Collins for a house to purchase, and I settled on the one I purchased in the Meadows because of it being a quiet, enclosed neighborhood with some nearby open space. Increased traffic in this neighborhood will decrease quality of life while increasing risk to residents from more vehicular traffic. I encourage the city to find alternate roadways for the new development that leaves the Meadows intact. Sincerely, Haley Ford ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 4 Packet pg. 17 From:jimandsuzanne87@basicisp.net To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] Thursday meeting Date:Wednesday, April 20, 2022 4:32:57 PM To Whom It May Concern: My name is Suzanne O'Donnell. I live at 625 Spurge Circle, Fort Collins, CO. I will not be able to attend the meeting Thursday night, but I did want to provide my input. This is RE: the extension of Lupine Drive and possibly Mullein Drive in our neighborhood. The Enclave development will literally be in my backyard. The Enclave will have access to the newly built street Suniga. The previous developer, Landmark was willing to buy land from N2N and have a road built off of Conifer. Four years later that same land is deemed "Wetlands". Really? Convenient? You may be looking at Lupine on a piece of paper and think that there is room for more vehicles. When the homeowners have their cars and trucks parked on both sides of the street, there is barely enough room for one vehicle to drive down the middle. Our streets are very narrow. Think about how you like it in your neighborhood. The extension is just not necessary. We are a small neighborhood. More traffic is a safety issue also. We have young children and pets that will be affected. Also, with more traffic and noise our quality of life with be diminished. We deserve a safe place to live more than the Enclave think that they need access to our neighborhood. Thank you. ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 5 Packet pg. 18 From:c p To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] Enclave at Redwood Project PDP210004 Date:Wednesday, April 20, 2022 12:17:34 AM In reference to Enclave at Redwood Project PDP210004, I would like to oppose the connections of Lupine and/or Mullein Drive as a point of automobile ingress/egress to the development. I believe omitting these connections will still allow for adequate ingress/egress to the development while maintaining the peace of the Meadows at Redwoods subdivision as it currently is. Additionally, Lupine and Mullein Drive as they exist today are too narrow to accommodate a full two-lane flow of traffic and would pose a danger to residents and their property (particularly vehicles parked on the street) who live on Lupine or Mullein and to children who play in the area. Thank you for your consideration, Casey Pore 637 Spurge Circle ITEM 3, CORRESPODNECE 6 Packet pg. 19 From:Scott To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] Fwd: Citizen Comments for P&Z Board Public Hearing for PDP#210004 Date:Wednesday, April 20, 2022 5:40:22 PM Attachments:The Enclave at Redwood - 2020-07-15 - meeting notes.pdf The Enclave development-2020_0618_ConceptualReview.pdf PZ BOARD_MINUTES from 2018-09-20 regarding the Retreat connection.pdf Please see the correct attachments for the email sent below. apologies for the mistake. Respectfully, Scott ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Scott <sdm1981@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 5:35 PM Subject: Citizen Comments for P&Z Board Public Hearing for PDP#210004 To: <devreviewcomments@fcgov.com> Cc: Meadows Redwood <meadowsatredwood@gmail.com> Please accept the following submission of citizen comments that I intend to read at the public hearing on April 21, 2022 regarding The Enclave Development (PDP#210004) and Vehicular Traffic Connection at Lupine Drive through the Meadows at Redwood Neighborhood. As a resident homeowner in the Meadows at Redwood neighborhood I would like to briefly explain my opposition to the vehicular connection of Lupine Drive to the new street named Collamer Drive running East through the Enclave Development and into the Northfield Development. This connection does not meet the intent of the connectivity language in the land use code and presents a clear and dangerous detriment to the 36 homeowners living in the Meadows at Redwood Subdivision. Currently, our neighborhood is closely knit, and in the spirit of the Northside Neighborhood Plan, we maintain our own unique culture and connection with each other. Our kids can ride around and play openly in our 2 cul-de-sacs safely, we host pot lucks together, we shovel snow for our neighbors, and parents walk to the bus stop together each afternoon. We enjoy a sense of community that is not felt in many other local neighborhoods and we hope to keep it that way if at all possible. We feel that extending Lupine Drive into these 2 adjacent massive developments will directly threaten this culture and safety. We understand the issue of code compliance in terms of needing to connect neighborhoods. We as a community are not seeking to stop the development but would like to work with the city and developer to reduce the impact to our little community. We are simply asking that Lupine Drive not be connected to the proposed Collamer Drive for full vehicular traffic and instead be connected for emergency access only. This would still promote connectivity for bikes and pedestrians, thanks to trail systems in both new developments, but discourage Lupine being a cut through between 4 massive developments of rental units. Full vehicular access at the Lupine connection would result in our little 36 home community being put right in the middle of 2 massive developments with 1000’s of rental beds to the West and 2 new ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 7 Packet pg. 20 massive developments with 1000’s more rental beds to the East. None of these 4 adjacent complexes contains single family detached housing like our community does. In addition, Lupine Drive would be the only means to travel North out of the 2 developments to the East resulting in huge increase in cut through traffic on our very narrow street. There have been other recent projects in the area that were successful in doing this kind of an emergency access connection (Horsetooth Village being one of them). In 2018 another developer was interested in this parcel and they worked with our HOA, as the development process intended, to develop a plan to provide access to the north of the site onto Conifer Street leaving the connection at Lupine for pedestrian, bike and emergency vehicle access only. We worked together with Ripley and that Developer on the Alternative Compliance Request which was enthusiastically approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on September 20, 2018. This alternative compliance plan was developed with exceptional coordination between the developer, designer, and the Meadows at Redwood HOA. I commended that development team for their efforts to work with us to mitigate the threat posed to our neighborhood by this vehicular connection and the planning and zoning board in turn commended our group in whole as a model for how communities can work to draft mutually agreeable outcomes with developers as stated in the attached public record minutes from that meeting. A review of the current plans as submitted and included in the P&Z meeting agenda for 4/21/22 now show a full vehicular connection of Lupine Drive to the new proposed Collamer Drive which does not serve to benefit anyone, least of all the residents of our small community. Further adding to the frustration is the process and timeline for this PDP. The Retreat was in 2018 and we were given time to work with all parties prior to the P&Z meeting however this time the initial Neighborhood Meeting was held on 7/29/20, at which time the drawings available to our HOA (attached with the minutes from that meeting) clearly showed this connection as “emergency access easement only (no thru traffic)”. I must now wonder if this was deliberately intended to pacify our HOA and minimize further investigation by us. Despite the fact that the drawings showed our desired emergency vehicular connection only, we expressed our concern as noted in the attached official minutes, which clearly state in the highlighted sections, that further follow up would be provided for input from our HOA, but nothing further came of it until just last week when we got notice of this P&Z meeting with an agenda that now includes drawings showing this full connection of Lupine to Collamer. 21 months have gone by with no follow up from the city or the developer, during which time our residents have tried to do our due diligence and periodically checked FCGov.com only to see that nothing had been apparently happening as far as we were able to ascertain, leading all of us to believe that this PDP must have been benched much like the previous PDP was 2 years prior. In short we were blatantly misled by the Neighborhood meeting in July of 2020 which not only clearly showed only an emergency vehicular connection but also provided false reassurance of further follow up regarding this very subject. The lack of promised information or solicitation for input of any kind from anyone from the time of that neighborhood meeting to present has robbed us of valuable time we could have spent working with all parties much like we did in 2018. The process has failed us in this instance. ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 7 Packet pg. 21 I understand the intent of the connectivity initiative in the land use code and I’m also aware that Lupine Drive meets the technical requirements to be considered for full vehicular traffic access to the new developments but the reality is that with parking on both sides the street Lupine is not only barely passable but also presents nearly a blind corner when turning East or West from Mullein Drive. The bottom line is that this is a potential vehicular connection between 2 drastically different neighborhood types and residences. Given the limitations of the other access points to this development and apparent lack of full movement capability at the other entrance to this site, a connection at Lupine Drive would most definitely result in a "cut through" access for tenants living at this development and the far larger Northfield Development directly to the East. The city master plan has specific provisions (T4.3) to minimize and prevent Cut Through Traffic and also explicitly states that streets should be designed to minimize "through traffic" in neighborhoods (T13.2), which is exactly what we will have here if a full vehicular connection is allowed. I fully support connection for Bicycles, pedestrians and emergency service vehicles between these neighborhoods but must protest a full vehicular connection and want to reiterate my disappointment with this process over the last 2 years. We worked hard to gain approval of a better plan in 2018 and demand that we be allowed the same opportunity this time around. We look forward to working together moving forward to develop an amicable solution in the best interests of all parties much the same way as we did in 2018. Thank you, Scott Metz 1013 Mullein Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80524 ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 7 Packet pg. 22 Jeff Schneider, Chair City Council Chambers Jeff Hansen, Vice Chair City Hall West Jennifer Carpenter 300 Laporte Avenue Michael Hobbs Fort Collins, Colorado Christine Pardee Ruth Rollins Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 & William Whitley Channel 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 September 20, 2018 Chair Schneider called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Hansen, Hobbs, Pardee, Rollins, Schneider and Whitley Absent: None Staff Present: Everette, Kleer, Frickey, Holland, Wray, Yatabe, Tatman-Burruss, Sullivan, Betley, Scheidenhelm, Olson, Lambrecht, Blochowiak, Van Zee and Gerber Chair Schneider provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. He 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 Development Review Manager Everette reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas, stating that all items will be heard as originally advertised. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 7 Packet pg. 23 Planning & Zoning Board September 20, 2018 Page 2 of 11 Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: Barbara Denny, 420 Sunset St., representing the 200 + members of the Sanctuary Field Neighborhood Network. They are in support of the LNM zoning and want to make sure that the development conforms to the Northwest Suburbia Plan and that it preserves the character of the existing neighborhood. Chair Schneider asked Mrs. Denny if she was wanting to pull the item from consent. Mrs. Denny responded no. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from August 16, 2018, P&Z Hearing 2. Boardwalk Crossing, Final Development Plan Extension of Vested Rights, FDP130003 3. Sanctuary on the Green Annexation and Zoning, ANX180004 – Pulled from consent 4. The Updated Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual 5. Hughes Stadium Annexation & Zoning, ANX180003 – Pulled from consent Public Input on Consent Agenda: Item pulled – 3. Sanctuary on the Green Annexation and Zoning, ANX180004 Item pulled – 5. Hughes Stadium Annexation & Zoning, ANX180003 Chair Schneider 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 Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Consent agenda consisting of the draft minutes from the August 16, 2018 Planning and Zoning hearing, the Boardwalk Crossing, Final Development Plan Extension of Vested Rights, FDP 130003, and The Updated Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. Member Pardee seconded the motion. Vote: 7:0. Discussion Agenda: 6. 200 East Swallow Road Request for Professional Office as an Addition of Permitted Use, #APU180001 Project Description: This is a request to allow a Professional Office as a legal land use within the existing house at 200 East Swallow Road. The request is to use 100% of the house for a Professional Office versus the 50% which is allowed under the Home Occupation License. Professional Office is defined as: “an office for professionals such as physicians, dentists, lawyers, architects, engineers, artists, musicians, designers, teachers, accountants or others who through training are qualified to perform services of a professional nature and where no storage or sale of merchandise exists.” The house is 2,782 square feet and located on a lot that is 9,821 square feet and part of Thunderbird Estates. The request for a Professional Office at 200 E. Swallow Road will be considered as an Addition of Permitted Use in conjunction with a Minor Amendment. This is not a request to rezone the property to a higher classification of zone district where Professional Office is a use by right. Instead, as an Addition of Permitted Use, the underlying zoning would remain Low Density Residential (R-L) but only Professional Office would be added as an allowable land use, and no other uses, over and above the permitted uses in the R-L. Currently, 50% of the house is being used as a Home Occupation. The applicant has held the two required neighborhood information meetings. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Gerber reported that there were no citizen emails or letters received for this item. Staff and Applicant Presentations ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 7 Packet pg. 24 Planning & Zoning Board September 20, 2018 Page 3 of 11 Planner Frickey gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this project. Susan Brabson, owner of 200 East Swallow Rd. provided a verbal presentation to the board regarding the details of the addition of permitted use request. Mrs. Brabson gave a detailed description of the surrounding area and stated her beliefs as to why this APU should be approved. Member Hansen enquired if the examples that were shown during presentation were at the 50% maximum for home occupations or if some of them were fully used as businesses. Planner Frickey replied that he believed it was mixed. Public Input (3 minutes per person) None noted Staff Response None noted Board Questions / Deliberation Member Hansen feels it is appropriate to have a business located here. Member Hansen made a motion that the Fort Collins planning and zoning board approve the 200 East Swallow Road Request for Professional office, APU180001 with the six conditions as listed in the staff report. This recommendation and conditions are based on the agenda materials, information and materials presented in the work session, and this hearing and the board discussion on this item with the following findings: That this APU complies with all the typical land use requirements as stated in the staff report prepared for this hearing and contained in the agenda materials. The information analysis, findings of fact and conclusions contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing are adopted by this board. Chair Schneider requested an amendment be made to reflect that this is a motion for recommendation that Council approve this APU. Member Hansen accepted the amendment. Member Hobbs seconded. Member Whitley asked for clarification on the APU number. Member Chair confirmed the number. Chair Schneider feels this is a good use of the property. Vote: 7:0. 7. The Retreat at Fort Collins, PDP180002 Project Description: This is a request to develop the parcel that is east of Redwood Street, north of Suniga Road (as it would be extended east of Redwood Street to Lemay Avenue) and south of Conifer Street. The Lake Canal forms the southeastern boundary. The request is for a combination of housing types that would be managed as a unified, student-oriented development. The predominant housing type is multi-family. There would be 190 dwelling units divided among 46 buildings plus a clubhouse and parking garage. Leasing would be rent-by-the-bedroom and there would be 739 bedrooms. A 1,500-square foot area within the clubhouse would be leased to a commercial tenant(s). The plan includes a total 747 parking spaces, 262 of which would be located within the three-story parking garage. This proposal is located in the Low-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone district. The site is 30.17 acres. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Gerber reported that there were two emails/letters received from citizens as well as documentation updates on additional items. • Scott Metz supports the alternative compliance plan submitted by Ripley Design, and feels that the language surrounding the future vehicular connection at Lupine Drive is intentionally vague. ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 7 Packet pg. 25 Planning & Zoning Board September 20, 2018 Page 4 of 11 • Kelly Evans with Neighbor to Neighbor provided a letter of support explaining their agency’s partnership with the developer. • Updated Staff report (replaced in online packet) • Revised Pages 2 & 3 of applicant site plan (replaced in online packet) • Additional Applicant documents: o Approved jurisdictional determination o White Paper o Letter of Intent for Easement o LNM Memo from Lucia Liley (added to supplemental docs online) • Letter from Lucia Liley Disclosures by Board Member Member Carpenter disclosed that her husband and herself are under contract for a townhouse that is in Old Town North which is to the South and West of the item being discussed. She does not feel that there is bias present and can continue. Staff and Applicant Presentations Development Review Manager Everette (covering for Planner Shepard) gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this project. Linda Ripley of Ripley Design, Inc. along with Andrew Costas of Landmark Properties, provided a verbal/visual presentation giving full details of the project and business model to the Board. She believes this project complies with all codes and will incorporate all stated conditions. Mrs. Ripley feels that condition C is unfair to the neighborhood and leaves them vulnerable to have this happen to them over again. Member Rollins asked if anyone from transportation was going to be present. Development Review Manager Everette responded yes, Joe Olson Member Hobbs asked if Landmark Properties owned and operated Landmark Apartments or any other apartment complexes in Ft. Collins. Mr. Costas responded that they do not currently own or operate any apartment projects in Ft. Collins, however, they are currently under construction here. The Standard of Ft. Collins. Member Hansen received clarification regarding off-street parking and if the parking calculation included public street parking. Development Review Manager Everette explained how parking calculations were run when a subdivision is new as opposed to infill. When new, on-street parking is used for the parking count. Member Pardee received clarification from the applicant as to there being one parking space per bedroom. Member Hansen inquired about condition B, landscaping enhancements on the western edge and what the enhancements entailed. Development Review Manager Everette explained the denser screening; increasing the plant material. Member Carpenter questioned how this condition would be enforced. Development Review Manager Everette responded that this condition was left open ended so that discussion could take place between staff and the applicant, but that the intent was to increase the quantity of plant material. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Scott Metz, 1013 Mullein Dr., read his previously submitted statement. Charles Clark, 1401 Lindenwood Dr., concerned with increased traffic and extra occupancy parking concerns. Amber Franzel, 625 Yarrow Circle, concerned with increased traffic and is concerned with loosing the culture and feel of the community. The HOA fully support the alternative plan as Landmark Properties and Ripley Designs have submitted, however they do not support the language and condition C which is vague and leaving the current community vulnerable to having this be a continuous fight. ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 7 Packet pg. 26 Planning & Zoning Board September 20, 2018 Page 5 of 11 Trinity Oberndorf, 3416 Killarney Ct., Thanked Landmark Properties and Ripley Design for working with the neighborhood. She is in support of this project if the connections at Mullein and Lupine are pedestrian, bike and emergency access only. Dennis Harmon, 642 Spurge Circle, feels that the developer has gone a long way to make this project work as neighbors and it is appreciated. He is concerned with the Lupine connection and would like the project approved without the condition. Tony Wagner, 631 Lupine Dr., concerned with traffic and parking overflow. He would not like to see Lupine go through. Staff Response Mrs. Ripley addressed the 50’ buffer along the drainage ditch on the North of the property. There will not be a 50’ buffer along the entirety of the North edge. Development Review Manager Everette responded to the Lupine connection. Staff has found the criteria for the alternative compliance request have been met and without a connection to Lupine the project does meet the standards of the code. The condition of approval suggested highlights the portion of the street that runs up against Lupine would be designed for emergency access and designed as a street without a connection being made, it would be blocked off. There could be a time in the future when both neighborhoods agree to open the connection. Chair Schneider questioned who gets to make the final determination if the street gets opened as there is no definition in the condition for the future. Development Review Manager Everette agreed that the language is open- ended. It states interested parties which would be taken to mean residents in both neighborhoods, property owners, the City, etc. It would be brought back to the Planning and Zoning Board for a decision to be made. Attorney Yatabe commented that a note on the site plan should be added for notice purpose so that individuals understand that it is a possibility that it could occur. As a legal matter it is not more than a notification of the possibility and normally the decision rests with the City as to where connections are going to go through. Development Review Manager Everette addressed the extra occupancy units concern. The inclusion of the extra occupancy units does not put the project out of compliance. Development Review Manager Everette deferred to Traffic Engineer Joe Olson regarding the S curve along Conifer St. and potential additional hazard. Mr. Olson stated that the review comes at the final development review to ensure that there is adequate site distance and easements as required. Member Hobbs questioned if Poudre Fire Authority or another authority were requiring that there is the emergency access or if the other points of egress were enough; Development Review Manager Everette responded that Poudre Fire Authority has been extensively involved in the review of the application at every stage. Chair Schneider asked to see any conceptual review notes from Poudre Fire Authority. Member Hobbs enquired about the street being completed and a gate added to close it off, if this was the vision. Mrs. Ripley responded yes, that is exactly the condition, the street is there to allow emergency access to the street with key or code. Member Hansen feels that typically emergency access’ do not have the appearance of a street, just a gate in the middle. Development Review Manager Everette offered clarification; it can go both directions and be designed as a completed street. Member Rollins spoke of trip generation rates asking Mr. Olsen where the studies were done. Mr. Olsen responded that they were done around the City. What was found was it was random, the closer to the campus the units were, did not mean the less vehicular trip generation there would be. Member Hobbs wanted to know from the application if there would be 24/7 on-site management. Mr. Costas stated that there would be management on-site during business hours and after hours there would be available the use of a hotline. Member Rollins asked how many shuttles would be available and what their capacities would be. Mr. Costas replied, one bus would be available, possibly a 20-person bus with limited hours. ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 7 Packet pg. 27 Planning & Zoning Board September 20, 2018 Page 6 of 11 Member Carpenter wanted more information on the paid parking. Mr. Costas responded that in the covered parking they are reserving the option to charge for the spaces. The number of spaces would be less than 25% of the parking. If this was taken out, they still exceed the code minimum for parking. Member Whitley asked if they would consider more electric charging stations. Mr. Costas responded that they could add more and wanted to know how many, and that they could commit to two (2) stations. Member Rollins asked how many visitor parking spaces were available. Mr. Costas responded that visitor parking was accounted for in the variance of those students that do not have a car to park. No visitor parking added. Residents will be issued parking stickers, no assigned parking. Member Hobbs asked how many parking spaces were available on the street. Mrs. Ripley shared that there were 205 spaces. Chair Schneider commented that public parking was for up to 48 hours, private drives and streets can be regulated by the site. Member Pardee enquired about bike spaces and if there were covered spaces, how they could be locked or secured. Mrs. Ripley commented that part of the 60% covered bike parking were in the parking garage where they can be locked. All spaces provide adequate locking ability, but they are not in structures that can be locked. Laura with Ripley Design stated there will be 306 bike parking spaces in the parking garage and 3 bike shelters that hold 48 bikes distributed throughout the site. Chair Schneider circled back to if an answer was discovered regarding Poudre Fire Authority conceptual review comments. Development Review Manager Everette responded that there were comments regarding perimeter access around all buildings and concerns that in the original proposal that there were buildings that had more than 150’ required to provide the perimeter access. It is unknown if this specifically relates to Lupine, however, the roadway/parking lot South of building 7A provided the necessary perimeter access to those buildings. Member Hansen wanted to know if the connection of Lupine is not continuous how it affects the overall street network in the area. Development Review Manager Everette does not have status of nearby parcels and whether Lupine could connect West to College and that Lupine to Lemay do not show a connection. Board Questions / Deliberation Member Hobbs would like to see the street stubbed into a hammerhead or turnaround so that the neighborhood will not have to continue to fight the street turning into a thoroughfare, and to clean up the open-endedness. Member Whitley will support if the bicycle and pedestrian traffic are addressed separately. Member Hansen gave thoughts on what the intent might be if there were just a gate. Member Carpenter agrees and would like to see something more attractive and not street like. Chair Schneider recommended changing the verbiage of condition C within the motion. Attorney Yatabe agreed. The applicant team also agrees. Member Rollins pointed out that the connection at Lupine is a parking lot. The current design is not such that it is a roadway in the future. The design almost eliminates this. Member Carpenter does not see the need for condition C, that it can be done in the future. Chair Schneider is concerned with removing condition C as it will also remove the multi-model access between the two. Development Review Manager Everette confirmed the plans and that condition C would not need to be kept. Member Rollins does not feel the trip generation that was used for the project is applicable with the number of units that are 4-5 bedroom. She does not feel or is convinced it supports high occupancy units, or if the S curve works. Another concern is with 700+ students and only one shuttle. Matt, City of Fort Collins commented that the sight distance on both side of the S curve is fantastic. Mr. Olson stated that the trip generation was based on beds, not units. Chair Schneider wanted confirmation that City Staff approved or agreed to the traffic study that was provided and that staff looked at the S curve. Mr. Olson confirmed. Member Carpenter asked if the applicant would be open to adding more busses. Mr. Costas replied they will not be adding any more busses. Chair Schneider added this is an amenity, not a required service. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve The Retreat at Fort Collins, PDP180002 including conditions A, B, and D as specified in the staff report pg. 28 and to add condition E that states that the access between the Retreat and the existing streets of Lupine and Moline be restricted to fire lane, bike and pedestrian access only instead of a street-like connectivity. This approval is based upon the agenda materials and information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing and the board discussion on this item with the following findings; that the PDP ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 7 Packet pg. 28 Planning & Zoning Board September 20, 2018 Page 7 of 11 complies with the applicable land use code requirements as stated in the staff report prepared for this hearing and contained in the agenda materials. Member Rollins seconded. Member Carpenter appreciates the cooperation between the neighborhood and development team. Member Rollins agreed. Member Schneider also appreciated the collaboration and additional parking. Vote: 7:0. 8. Willow Street Residences, Project Development Plan, PDP180006 Project Description: This is a request to construct a 5-story multi-family residential building on 2 acres located southwest of the intersection of Willow Street and Pine Street (223 Willow Street). A total of 197 dwelling units are proposed. A total of 59 parking spaces are provided. The project is located within the (R-D-R) River Downtown Redevelopment Zone District and the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) overlay zone. A modification request is included with the PDP to LUC Section 3.2.2(L) to reduce the parking lot drive aisle width for two parking stalls. Alternative compliance is requested to satisfy the parking lot interior landscape standards described in Section 3.2.1(E)(5) and building foundation landscape standards in Section 3.2.1(E)(2)(d). Recommendation: Approval Secretary Gerber reported that there were no citizen emails or letters received and that the staff report was updated and replaced in the online packet. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Holland gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this project. Matt Puma of CA Ventures and Eduardo Illanes of OZ Architecture provided a verbal/visual presentation to the Board. Member Pardee questioned the single parking space. Chair Schneider responded that one space was all that was needed unless they completed a modification. They could pull that parking space out and still meet parking requirements without a modification request. Member Hobbs asked for a description regarding the administration of parking and if parking permits will be available. Mr. Puma reiterated that they are meeting the minimum code. Based on experience from a previous project, they are comfortable with the parking on this project. Parking is decoupled, no car, no parking fee. There will be reserved, a portion unreserved and guest parking. There should not be more cars than parking available. Future parking term limits on Willow Street will be 2-hour parking. Member Carpenter questioned if they might consider cargo cars. Mr. Puma responded sure, if there is a demand. Member Hansen mentioned bike parking is at code minimum and would like to know if they would add more if needed. Mr. Puma yielded to the design team, however; he believes they could if needed. Member Carpenter opened conversation regarding alternative compliance on the landscaping and if the planters meet the requirement. Planner Holland stated the code, 5 feet deep at least 50% of the building wall face, and that effectively the planter pots are along 100% of the building face. Public Input (3 minutes per person) None noted Staff Response None noted ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 7 Packet pg. 29 Planning & Zoning Board September 20, 2018 Page 8 of 11 Board Questions / Deliberation Member Carpenter asked Attorney Yatabe about alternative compliance and modifications being standard to equal to or better than. Attorney Yatabe responded that typically it is equal to or better than to a plan that complies with the standard. Member Hansen commented that the standard for foundation plantings did not have a downtown urban environment in mind when it was written and there are no exceptions in the code to allow for that reality of building in a downtown setting. He feels that what they are proposing is a great solution for an urban setting. Member Carpenter would like to have this discussed at a work session and if this needs to be changed in the downtown setting. Member Hobbs is concerned about tenants not having places to park. Street side parking is tough, and this project could make it worse. Member Hansen likes the interaction of the setback mass with the ground plane, the only concern is that with this feature, it will be confusing as it looks like this is where the front of the building is. He is not recommending any changes, just a comment to bring awareness. Member Carpenter likes the architecture but is still having issues with the small planters. This is not an issue that would make her vote against the project, but she would like to see a rework to soften the look. She also has parking concerns. Member Whitley feels they have done a great job. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve the modification of standard to land use code section 3.2.2(l) in regard to parking stall dimensions in relation to one parking stall on this project and that this approval is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing, and the board discussion on this item with the following findings; that the modification complies with all applicable land use code requirements as stated in the staff report prepared for this hearing and contained in the agenda materials. Member Whitley seconded. Vote: 6:0. Member Hansen made a motion that the Fort Collins planning and Zoning Board approve the PDP 180006 and this approval is based upon the agenda materials, the information presented during the work session and this hearing, and the board discussion on this item with the following findings; this PDP complies with all applicable land use code requirements as stated in the staff report prepared for this hearing and contained in the agenda materials. Member Pardee seconded. Chair Schneider feels this is a well-designed project. Vote 6:0 3. Sanctuary on the Green Annexation and Zoning, ANX180004 – Pulled from Consent Project Description: This is a request to annex and zone 16.98 acres located generally at the northwest corner of N. Taft Hill Road and LaPorte Avenue and addressed as 325 N. Taft Hill Road. This is a 100% voluntary annexation. The parcel is now vacant with the house recently demolished. In accordance with the City Plan’s Structure Plan Map and the Northwest Subarea Plan, the requested zoning for this annexation is L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. The New Mercer Canal forms the western boundary. Recommendation: Approval to Council Member Hansen recused himself from this item Staff and Applicant Presentations Board decided they did not need a presentation on this item. Public Input (3 minutes per person) ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 7 Packet pg. 30 Planning & Zoning Board September 20, 2018 Page 9 of 11 E. Frank, 242 N. Sunset St., requested time to have documents pulled up and presented to the board. He does not feel that this annexation is not in full compliance with State law. Mr. Frank is not for or against this annexation, he wants to get it out there that there is potential for public health hazards due to asbestos. He would like to have lab results publicized. Chair Schneider asked Mr. Frank what asbestos had to do with the annexation. Mr. Frank responded that if there was willingness to annex land contaminated by asbestos and 30 years from now someone comes down with asbestoses, they have no recourse. Staff Response Planner Kleer responded to potential asbestos and other site contaminations. The annexation would not be affected by contamination on the site. Stephanie Hansen of Ripley Design explained that they could provide documentation of asbestos abatement to Mr. Frank. Mrs. Hansen also confirmed that environmental studies will take place as this project moves forward. Board Questions / Deliberation Member Hobbs asked Mrs. Hansen if prior to any development or permit that there is an environmental assessment completed. Mrs. Hansen responded absolutely, and that they have already contracted with an outside consultant to do the environmental characterization study and they will be doing those environmental studies as the project moves forward. Chair Schneider commented that PFA also does their own testing before burning; this part of protocol. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board send a recommendation of approval to City Council for the Sanctuary on the Green Annexation and Zoning, ANX180004. This recommendation is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and the board discussion and citizen participation on this item that we have heard tonight, along with the residential neighborhood code sign district requirement. Member Carpenter seconded. Vote 5:0 5. Hughes Stadium Annexation & Zoning, ANX 180003 – Pulled from Consent Project Description: This is a request to annex and zone 164.55 acres of land generally located at the northwest corner of Dixon Canyon Road and Overland Trail. The annexation area is owned by Colorado State University and is the former location of Hughes Stadium. The requested zoning for the property is Transition (T), which is intended for properties for which there are no specific and immediate plans for development. The surrounding properties are a mixture of recreational, residential and commercial land uses. Recommendation: Approval to Council Staff and Applicant Presentations Board did not require a presentation on this item. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Rex Miller, owner of 40-acres directly North of the site, addressed the board with comments he would like to have forwarded to Council. If the site is brought in as a T transition, the City makes the commitment, however, the State does not. If the State retains its ownership they are not required to adhere to the zoning, they do not have to submit plans for review, there are no City inspections conducted and they do not pay property tax. He would like to see an intergovernmental agreement with the State ensuring they will not do “what they want” and that they will pay property taxes. He feels that it would be a mistake if there were not a commitment made. ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 7 Packet pg. 31 Planning & Zoning Board September 20, 2018 Page 10 of 11 James Miller, 3000 Ross Dr., questioned the notification process and would like to be more involved. He was not notified of any previous meetings. He would like to know what is planned for the site and is concerned about what he just learned from the previous speaker. Staff Response Planner Kleer deferred to Attorney Yatabe regarding the potential annexation, zoning T District and this project potentially being leased by the property owner and going under a site plan advisory review, which would not be subject to our City regulations or permitting. Chair Schneider explained that if CSU owns the property they would go through a SPAR process with any future development. The transition is a generic transition zoning, if a change was wanted, they would have to come back to the Board for another discussion and more public comment to change the zoning. A couple questions raised were, would CSU be willing to enter an IGA like the on-campus stadium? And, if it is owned by CSU do they just have to do a SPAR? Response to both questions; If CSU did sell the property off to an individual company or developer, then that developer would go through all the same regulations as any other development project. Attorney Yatabe responded that was correct and that there has been no development proposal submitted at this time. There is some fact specific analysis to be done once a proposal comes in as to how the review would be done. Generally, public facilities under State statute are generally come under a much more curtailed review, this is something that we have adopted in Land Use Code under the site plan advisory review. Chair Schneider followed up that this is outside of our growth management area and not in the City limits at this time. This is the beginning of the process for an intergovernmental agreement with Larimer County to potentially annex or bring this portion of land into the City limits. Fred Haberecht, CSU Planner of Facilities, spoke to the current completion of the demolition contracts. Soil and seeding will take place by October 15, 2018, the remaining crushed aggregate will be removed by December 2018. Regarding a SPAR, this is not the central intent. We need to better understand from the City what that means. Member Hansen commented that they can do what they wish within their own current guidelines and State guidelines. Chair Schneider commented that this is why this is a voluntary annexation, that this is to start the communication for this to go. Rick Calhan, CSURF Real Estate, the County has already stated that they do not have any objections to this being annexed into the GMA after the fact, once they go through a bigger process. We believe we are beyond the County’s approval. The University wants to divest themselves from this land. Developers understand that if they want to develop on this site, it will be under the direction of the City and will need to follow through with the T transitional zoning and take it through the review process. The intent of CSU is to sell the property and then the concern about SPARS and anything else in the future goes away and it becomes a normal development. Board Questions / Deliberation Member Hansen feels as though is a good annexation for the City. Member Schneider agrees. Deliberation Member Hansen feels that the move to annex this site gives the City and the residents in the area more input on what happens to the property in the future. He feels this is in the best interest of the City. Chair Schneider agrees. Member Whitley made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board send a recommendation of approval to City Council for the Hughes Stadium Annexation & Zoning, ANX180003 this recommendation is based on the agenda material, information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing and the board discussion on this item. Member Carpenter seconded. Planner Kleer offered clarifying response regarding the IGA between the County and The City. The procedure under 8F of the IGA it is at the City’s discretion that we can annex outside of the GMA with notification to the County 35 days prior to first hearing. This annexation creates two (2) enclaves; to the North and to the East. Vote: 6:0. ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 7 Packet pg. 32 ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 7Packet pg. 33        Meetings hosted via Zoom Web Conferencing    "  -XQH !#$ % !#$ &This is a request to develop approximately 28 acres into a mixed residential use project located east of Redwood Street and north of Suniga Road (parcel # 9701400004, 9701411001, 9701400001). Future access will be taken via a new public street off Redwood Street to the west. The proposal includes approximately 200-220 dwelling units (mixture of single-family attached/detached and two-family attached townhomes). The proposal also includes 437 parking spaces (some on-street) to meet the minimum requirement of 344 spaces. The project is located in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) zone district and is subject to an Administrative (Type 1) review. Stephanie Hansen970-498-2977stephanie@ripleydesigninc.com5HGZRRG6W 6XQLJD5G6LQJOH)DPLO\ 7RZQKRPH'HYHORSPHQW&'5Planner: 3HWH:UD\ Engineer: 6SHQFHU6PLWK DRC: 7RGG6XOOLYDQPlanner: &ODUN0DSHV Engineer: 0DUF9LUDWD DRC:7HQDH%HDQH This is a request to demolish a single-family detached dwelling and develop a multi-family structure at 520 S Meldrum Street (parcel # 9714107015). Proposed access to the site will be from Remington Street to the west and W Mulberry Street to the north. The proposal includes 4 dwelling units and 4 parking spaces. The property is within the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) zone district and is subject to an Administrative (Type 1) review. Michael Kalichak720-608-9006mkalicak@novydevelopment.com60HOGUXP6W0XOWL)DPLO\&'5ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 7Packet pg. 34 ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 7 Packet pg. 35 ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 7Packet pg. 36 CONCEPTUAL REVIEW: APPLICATION Community Development & Neighborhood Services – 281 N College Ave – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Development Review Guide – STEP 2 of 8 General Information All proposed development projects begin with Conceptual Review. Anyone with a development idea can schedule a Conceptual Review meeting to get feedback on prospective development ideas. At this stage, the development idea does not need to be finalized or professionally presented. However, a sketch plan and this application must be submitted to City Staff prior to the Conceptual Review meeting. The more information you are able to provide, the better feedback you are likely to get from the meeting. Please be aware that any information submitted may be considered a public record, available for review by anyone who requests it, including the media.7KHDSSOLFDQWDFNQRZOHGJHVWKDWWKH\DUHDFWLQJZLWK WKHRZQHU VFRQVHQW Conceptual Reviews are scheduled on three 7KXUVGD\mornings per month on a “first come, first served” basisDQGDUHD IUHHVHUYLFH. One 45 meeting is allocated per applicant and only three conceptual reviews are done each 7KXUVGD\morning. $FRPSOHWHGDSSOLFDWLRQPXVWEHVXEPLWWHGWRUHVHUYHD&RQFHSWXDO5HYLHZWLPHVORWComplete applications and sketch plans must be submitted to City Staff RQ7KXUVGD\QRODWHUWKDQHQGRIGD\WZRZHHNVSULRUWRWKHPHHWLQJGDWH. Application materials must be e-mailed to currentplanning@fcgov.com. If you do not have access to e-mail, other accommodations can be made upon request. At Conceptual Review, you will meet with Staff from a number of City departments, such as Community Development and Neighborhood Services (Zoning, Current Planning, and Development Review Engineering), Light and Power, Stormwater, Water/Waste Water, Advance Planning (Long Range Planning and Transportation Planning) and Poudre Fire Authority. Comments are offered by staff to assist you in preparing the detailed components of the project application. There is no approval or denial of development proposals associated with Conceptual Review. At the meeting you will be presented with a letter from staff, summarizing comments on your proposal. *BOLDED ITEMS ARE REQUIRED* *The more info provided, the more detailed your comments from staff will be.* Contact Name(s) and Role(s)(Please identify whether Consultant or Owner, etc) _______________BBBBBBB_________ ______________________________________________________________________________________BBBBBBBBBB Business Name (if applicable) ___________________________BBBBBBBBBB___________________________________ Your Mailing Address ____________________________________________BBBBBBBBBB_________________________ Phone Number ______________________Email Address _________________BBBBBBBBBB______________________ Site Address or Description (parcel # if no address) ___________BBBBBBBBB_________________________________ _____________________________________________________________BBBBBBBBB__________________________ Description of Proposal (attach additional sheets if necessary) _____________BBBBBBBBB_______________________ __________________________________________________________________BBBBBBBBB_____________________ ___________________________________________________________________BBBBBBBBB____________________ Proposed Use ______________________________Existing Use _____BBBBBBBBB____________________________ Total Building Square Footage ___________ S.F. Number of Stories ______ Lot Dimensions _______BBBBBBBBB______ Age of any Existing Structures _____________________________________________________BBBBBBBBB________ Info available on Larimer County’s Website:http://www.co.larimer.co.us/assessor/query/search.cfm If any structures are 50+ years old, good quality, color photos of all sides of the structure are required for conceptual. Is your property in a Flood Plain?Ƒ Yes Ƒ No If yes, then at what risk is it? _______________BBBBBBBBBB____ Info available on FC Maps:http://gisweb.fcgov.com/redirect/default.aspx?layerTheme=Floodplains. Increase in Impervious Area __________________________________________________________ S.F. (Approximate amount of additional building, pavement, or etc. that will cover existing bare ground to be added to the site) Suggested items for the Sketch Plan: Property location and boundaries, surrounding land uses, proposed use(s), existing and proposed improvements (buildings, landscaping, parking/drive areas, water treatment/detention, drainage), existing natural features (water bodies, wetlands, large trees, wildlife, canals, irrigation ditches), utility line locations (if known), photographs (helpful but not required). Things to consider when making a proposal: How does the site drain now? Will it change? If so, what will change? Stephanie Hansen - Consultant Ripley Design, Inc. 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 970-498-2977 stephanie@ripleydesigninc.com Northeast corner of Suniga and Redwood formerly known as The Retreat Single-family development. See narrative Single family Vacant tbd tbd tbd 100-yr to be determinted ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 7 Packet pg. 37  ODQGSODQQLQJODQGVFDSHDUFKLWHFWXUHXUEDQGHVLJQHQWLWOHPHQW 7KLQNLQJRXWVLGHRIWKHER[IRURYHUWZRGHFDGHV &DQ\RQ$YH6XLWH)RUW&ROOLQV&2WHOID[ ZZZULSOH\GHVLJQLQFFRP  DĂLJϮϳƚŚ͕ϮϬϮϬ  ŝƚLJŽĨ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚEĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ϮϴϭEŽƌƚŚŽůůĞŐĞǀĞŶƵĞ &ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ͕KϴϬϱϮϮ   Z͗ZĞĚǁŽŽĚZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂůZĞǀŝĞǁ  ĂĐŬŐƌŽƵŶĚ dŚŝƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚŝƐŽŶƚŚĞƐĂŵĞƐŝƚĞĂƐĂĨŽƌŵĞƌƉƌŽũĞĐƚĐĂůůĞĚdŚĞZĞƚƌĞĂƚĂƚ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐWW͘dŚĂƚƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŵƵůƚŝͲĨĂŵŝůLJĨŽƌƐƚƵĚĞŶƚŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƉƵƌƉŽƐĞƐ͘dŚŝƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚŵŽǀĞƐŝŶĂŶĞǁĚŝƌĞĐƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ ƉƵƌƉŽƐĞŽĨƐŝŶŐůĞͲĨĂŵŝůLJŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŝŶĨŽƵƌĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƚLJƉĞŽƉƚŝŽŶƐ͘dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůĨŽĐƵƐĞƐŽŶƚŚĞ ƉĂƌĐĞůƚŽƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚŽĨ^ƵŶŝŐĂ;ĂƉƉƌŽdžŝŵĂƚĞůLJϮϴĂĐƌĞƐŽĨůĂŶĚͿ͘dŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŝƐƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚĞĚďLJ ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƚŽƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚ͕>ĂŬĞĂŶĂů͕ƚŚĞ>ĂƌŝŵĞƌŽƵŶƚLJ&ůĞĞƚDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚƐŝƚĞƚŽƚŚĞ ƐŽƵƚŚ͕ĂŶĚKůĚdŽǁŶEŽƌƚŚ͕ZĞĚǁŽŽĚDĞĂĚŽǁƐ͕ƐƉĞŶ,ĞŝŐŚƚƐƚŽƚŚĞǁĞƐƚ͘dŚĞƐŝƚĞǁĂƐŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůůLJ ƉůĂƚƚĞĚĂƐƉĂƌƚŽĨZĞĚǁŽŽĚsŝůůĂŐĞ͘  WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚhƐĞ Z,ŽƌƚŽŶŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐŝŶŐƚŽďƵŝůĚďĞƚǁĞĞŶϮϬϬʹϮϮϬƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůƵŶŝƚƐĨŽƌƐĂůĞĂŶĚƌĞŶƚ͘dŚĞƐŝƚĞŝƐnjŽŶĞĚ >DEĂŶĚƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĚĞŶƐŝƚLJǁŝůůďĞďĞůŽǁƚŚĞϵhͬŵĂdžŝŵƵŵĚĞŶƐŝƚLJĂůůŽǁĞĚŝŶƚŚĞnjŽŶĞĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͘ dŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚǁŝůůŝŶĐůƵĚĞĂǀĂƌŝĞƚLJŽĨďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƚLJƉĞƐŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƐŝŶŐůĞͲĨĂŵŝůLJĚĞƚĂĐŚĞĚ͕ƚǁŽĨĂŵŝůLJ͕ƚǁŽͲ ĨĂŵŝůLJĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚ͕ĂŶĚƐŝŶŐůĞĨĂŵŝůLJĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚǁŝƚŚĚŝǀĞƌƐĞĨĂĕĂĚĞƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚƐ͘dŚĞƐŝŶŐůĞͲĨĂŵŝůLJĚĞƚĂĐŚĞĚ ƵŶŝƚƐĂŶĚƐŽŵĞŽĨƚŚĞƚǁŽͲĨĂŵŝůLJƵŶŝƚƐĂƌĞĂƉƌŽĚƵĐƚƚLJƉĞĐĂůůĞĚĂĐĂƐŝƚĂ͘dŚĞĚǁĞůůŝŶŐŝƐƐŵĂůůĞƌƚŚĂŶ ƚLJƉŝĐĂůŚŽƵƐĞƐĂŶĚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚŝŶĐůƵĚĞĂŐĂƌĂŐĞ͘ůůĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐĂƌĞŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚƚŽďĞƐŽůĚŽƌƌĞŶƚĞĚĂƐĂ ǁŚŽůĞƵŶŝƚĂŶĚŶŽƚƉĞƌďĞĚƌŽŽŵ͘ƉŽĐŬĞƚƉĂƌŬŝƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞĐĞŶƚĞƌŽĨƚŚĞƉĂƌĐĞůĂŶĚĂĨƵƚƵƌĞ ƌĞŐŝŽŶĂůƚƌĂŝůǁŝůůďĞĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƚĞĚĨŽƌĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞ>ĂŬĞĂŶĂů͘dŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚǁŝůůƵƐĞƚŚĞĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚ ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚĐĞŶƚĞƌůŽĐĂƚĞĚŝŶEŽƌƚŚĨŝĞůĚƚŽĨƵůĨŝůƚŚŽƐĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ͘  džŝƐƚŝŶŐŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐĂŶĚƵƐĞƐ dŚĞƐŝƚĞŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJǀĂĐĂŶƚ͘  ^ŝƚĞĐŝƌĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶ dŚĞƐŝƚĞƉůĂŶƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐĂƐLJƐƚĞŵŽĨƉƵďůŝĐƐƚƌĞĞƚƐĂƐǁĞůůĂƐƐƚƌĞĞƚͲůŝŬĞƉƌŝǀĂƚĞĚƌŝǀĞƐ͘ůŽŶŐŽŶĞŽĨƚŚĞ ƉƌŝǀĂƚĞĚƌŝǀĞƐƚŚĞƌĞŝƐϵϬͲĚĞŐƌĞĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐĨĂĐŝŶŐƚŚĞĐĞŶƚƌĂůƉĂƌŬĂƌĞĂĂŶĚƚŚĞĐĂƐŝƚĂƐƚŽƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚ͘dŚĞ ĐĂƐŝƚĂƐǁŝůůƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŽŶͲƐƚƌĞĞƚƉĂƌŬŝŶŐďĞĐĂƵƐĞƚŚĞLJĚŽŶŽƚŚĂǀĞĚƌŝǀĞǁĂLJƐŽƌŐĂƌĂŐĞƐ͘dŚĞƐĞƵŶŝƚƐĂƌĞĨŽƌ ƌĞŶƚĂŶĚĂƌĞůŽĐĂƚĞĚŽŶƚŚĞƐĂŵĞůĂƌŐĞůŽƚǁŝƚŚŽƵƚŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJůŝŶĞƐƐĞƉĂƌĂƚŝŶŐƚŚĞƵŶŝƚƐ͘dŚĞLJ ĂĐƚĂƐĚĞƚĂĐŚĞĚĐŽŶĚŽŵŝŶŝƵŵƐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ,KƚĂŬŝŶŐĐĂƌĞŽĨĂůůĐŽŵŵŽŶĂƌĞĂƐ͘dŚĞƌĞĂƌĞƚǁŽŽĨĨͲƐƚƌĞĞƚ ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐĂƌĞĂƐƐĞƌǀŝŶŐƐŽŵĞŽĨƚŚĞƐĞƵŶŝƚƐ͘dŚĞƐŝŶŐůĞĨĂŵŝůLJĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚƵŶŝƚƐĂŶĚƐŽŵĞŽĨƚŚĞƚǁŽͲĨĂŵŝůLJ ŚŽŵĞƐĂƌĞĂůůĞLJůŽĂĚĞĚĂŶĚŚĂǀĞϭϵ͛ůŽŶŐĚƌŝǀĞǁĂLJƐĂŶĚŐĂƌĂŐĞƐ͘^ƚƌĞĞƚĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŽŶƐĂƌĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƚŽ ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 7 Packet pg. 38   7KLQNLQJRXWVLGHRIWKHER[IRURYHUWZRGHFDGHV &DQ\RQ$YH6XLWH)RUW&ROOLQV&2WHOID[ ZZZULSOH\GHVLJQLQFFRP ZĞĚǁŽŽĚ͕^ƵŶŝŐĂ͕ĂŶĚƚǁŽĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŽŶƐƚŽƚŚĞĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚEŽƌƚŚĨŝĞůĚƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘ŶĞŵĞƌŐĞŶĐLJĂĐĐĞƐƐ͕ŝĨ ŶĞĞĚĞĚ͕ŝƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚĂƚ>ƵƉŝŶĞƌŝǀĞ͘dŚŝƐŝƐŶŽƚŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚƚŽďĞĂƚŚƌŽƵŐŚͲƐƚƌĞĞƚ͘   ^ŝƚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĂŶĚĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞ dŚĞƐŝƚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶƌĞƐƉŽŶĚƐƚŽƚŚĞƵŶŝƋƵĞƐŚĂƉĞďLJƉůĂĐŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐĂůŽŶŐĂůŽŽƉƌŽĂĚǁŚŝĐŚŝƐƚŚĞŶ ƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚĞĚďLJŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘dŚŝƐŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞĐƌĞĂƚĞƐĂďƵĨĨĞƌƚŽƚŚĞĚŝƚĐŚĂŶĚƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐ ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐ͘ĐĞŶƚƌĂůƉĂƌŬƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐƵƐĂďůĞƌĞĐƌĞĂƚŝŽŶƐƉĂĐĞĂƐǁĞůůĂƐĂŶĂƌĞĂĨŽƌĚĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶ͘ dŚĞƌĞĂƌĞƚǁŽŐƌĞĞŶĐŽƵƌƚƐǁŚĞƌĞŚŽŵĞƐĨĂĐĞŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞƌĂƚŚĞƌƚŚĂŶƌŽĂĚƐ͘dŚĞƐĞǁŝůůďĞĂŵŝŶŝŵƵŵ ŽĨϯϬ͛ǁŝĚĞǁŚĞŶĂŵĂũŽƌǁĂůŬǁĂLJƐƉŝŶĞŝƐŶĞĞĚĞĚ͘  dŚĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞƵƚŝůŝnjĞƐĂǀĂƌŝĞƚLJŽĨƐƚLJůĞƐĐŽŵŵŽŶƚŽŽůŽƌĂĚŽ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐZĂŶĐŚ͕&ĂƌŵŚŽƵƐĞĂŶĚ ƌĂĨƚƐŵĂŶƐƚLJůĞƐ͘ZĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐĨŽƌĂƉƉƌŽǀĂůŝŶƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨ&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐƐƵĐŚĂƐŵĂƐŽŶƌLJƉĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞƐĞƚĐ͘ ǁŝůůďĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚĂƐŶĞĞĚĞĚĨŽƌĂƉƉƌŽǀĂůƐ;ŝĨĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞͿ͘  ŽŵƉĂƚŝďŝůŝƚLJ dŚĞůĂŶĚƚŽƚŚĞǁĞƐƚŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJƐŝŶŐůĞͲĨĂŵŝůLJŚŽŵĞƐ͕ƚŽƚŚĞĞĂƐƚŝƐǀĂĐĂŶƚ͕ĂŶĚƚŽƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚŝƐŵƵůƚŝͲ ĨĂŵŝůLJŚŽŵĞƐ͘dŚŝƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐŝŶŐƐĞǀĞƌĂůŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƚLJƉĞƐŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚĨŽƌĨĂŵŝůŝĞƐǁŚŝĐŚŝƐĐŽŵƉĂƚŝďůĞ ǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐ͘^ƚŝůů͕ĂŶϴϬĨŽŽƚƚŽϵϬͲĨŽŽƚďƵĨĨĞƌŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞ ǁĞƐƚĞƌŶĞĚŐĞŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƚŽƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐƐŝŶŐůĞͲĨĂŵŝůLJŚŽŵĞƐ͘KƵƌŐŽĂůŝƐƚŽŵŝŶŝŵŝnjĞƚŚĞ ŝŵƉĂĐƚŽŶƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐƌĞƐŝĚĞŶĐĞƐďLJŶŽƚƵƐŝŶŐ>ƵƉŝŶĞƌŝǀĞĂƐĂƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƐƚƌĞĞƚ͘  ^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌĚĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶ͕ĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐĚƌĂŝŶĂŐĞƉĂƚƚĞƌƐĂŶĚƚƌĞĂƚŝŶŐƌƵŶͲŽĨĨ dŚĞŽǀĞƌĂůůƐŝƚĞĚƌĂŝŶƐŝŶĂŶĞĂƐƚĞƌůLJĚŝƌĞĐƚŝŽŶ͘dŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐŝŶŐƚǁŽƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ ĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͗ŽŶĞůŽĐĂƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞŵŝĚĚůĞŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐŝƚĞ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚůŽĐĂƚĞĚƐŽƵƚŚŽĨƚŚĞƉůĂŶŶĞĚ ůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶŽĨ^ƵŶŝŐĂƌŝǀĞ͘tŚŝůĞƚŚĞůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƐŽƵƚŚĞƌŶƉŽŶĚƐĞĞŵƐƚŽůĞŶĚŝƚƐĞůĨƚŽƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌ ĚĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶĂŶĚŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͕ŝƚŝƐĂĐŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞĚƚŚĂƚƚŚŝƐůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶĐŽƵůĚďĞĚŝĨĨŝĐƵůƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐ ƵƚŝůŝƚŝĞƐ;ϯǁĂƚĞƌŵĂŝŶƐĂŶĚƚŚĞEKŽƵƚĨĂůůͿůŽĐĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞƵůƚŝŵĂƚĞƌŝŐŚƚͲŽĨͲǁĂLJĨŽƌ^ƵŶŝŐĂƌŝǀĞ͘ ŽƚŚƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐǁŝůůďĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚĞdžƚĞŶĚĞĚĚĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚ ǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚLJĂŶĚǁŝůůŽƵƚĨĂůůŝŶƚŽƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐEKŽƵƚĨĂůůĂƚĂƌĂƚĞƉƌĞƐĐƌŝďĞĚďLJƚŚĞŝƚLJ͘dŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ǁŝůůĂůƐŽďĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚƚŽƐĂƚŝƐĨLJƚŚĞŝƚLJ͛Ɛ>/ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ͘ŶŽƉƚŝŵĂůůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌ>/ŝƐǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞϱϬ͛ >ĂŬĞĂŶĂůƐĞƚďĂĐŬ͘ŝƚLJƚŽĐŽŶĨŝƌŵƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƉƌĞǀŝŽƵƐůLJĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚĚƌĂŝŶĂŐĞƉĂƚƚĞƌŶƐĨƌŽŵZĞĚǁŽŽĚ sŝůůĂŐĞW͘h͕͘͘WŚĂƐĞ/͕ĐĂŶďĞŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĞĚĂŶĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƌĞŝƐŶŽĚĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶĞŶĐƵŵďƌĂŶĐĞĨŽƌŽĨĨͲƐŝƚĞĨůŽǁƐ ŽŶƚŚĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͘  /ŵƉĂĐƚƐƚŽŶĂƚƵƌĂůĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐ dŚĞŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶĚŝƚĐŚĂŶĚǁĞƚůĂŶĚĂƌĞĂƐĂƌĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽŚĂǀĞŶĂƚƵƌĂůŚĂďŝƚĂƚďƵĨĨĞƌnjŽŶĞƐ͘dŚĞƐĞǁŝůůďĞ ŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĞĚŽƌŵŽĚŝĨŝĞĚĂƐƐƵŐŐĞƐƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞĞĐŽůŽŐŝĐĂůĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŝnjĂƚŝŽŶƐƚƵĚLJ;^Ϳ͘dŚĞ^ƚŚĂƚ ǁĂƐĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚŝŶϮϬϭϴƐƚĂƚĞĚƚŚĂƚĂĨĞǁŝŶĂĐƚŝǀĞƉƌĂŝƌŝĞĚŽŐŚŽůĞƐǁĞƌĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐďƵƚŶŽǁŝůĚůŝĨĞǁĂƐ ŽďƐĞƌǀĞĚŽŶƐŝƚĞ͘sĞŐĞƚĂƚŝŽŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞĚŽĨƚLJƉŝĐĂůŵŝdžĞĚͲŐƌĂƐƐƉƌĂŝƌŝĞ͕ƐĞǀĞƌĂůŽƚƚŽŶǁŽŽĚƐĂŶĚƚŚĞ ŶŽdžŝŽƵƐǁĞĞĚZƵƐƐŝĂŶKůŝǀĞ͘ĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůůLJ͕ŶŽŚĂďŝƚĂƚĨŽƌƐĞŶƐŝƚŝǀĞŽƌƐƉĞĐŝĂůůLJǀĂůƵĞĚƐƉĞĐŝĞƐǁĂƐĨŽƵŶĚ͘  &ŝƌĞƐƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌƐ dŚĞƐŝŶŐůĞĨĂŵŝůLJĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚƵŶŝƚƐǁŝůůďĞƐƉƌŝŶŬůĞƌĞĚŝŶĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐŽĨƚŚĞŝƚLJ&Žƌƚ ŽůůŝŶƐĂŶĚƚŚĞĐŽĚĞƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞŝŶƉůĂĐĞĂŶĚĞŶĨŽƌĐĞĚ;ŝĨĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞͿ͘  hŶƵƐƵĂůĨĂĐƚŽƌƐƚŚĂƚŵĂLJƌĞƐƚƌŝĐƚƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĂů ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 7 Packet pg. 39   7KLQNLQJRXWVLGHRIWKHER[IRURYHUWZRGHFDGHV &DQ\RQ$YH6XLWH)RUW&ROOLQV&2WHOID[ ZZZULSOH\GHVLJQLQFFRP ^ƚƌĞĞƚĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝǀŝƚLJŝƐƚŚĞŵŽƐƚƵŶƵƐƵĂůĨĂĐƚŽƌ͘dŚĞĂůŝŐŶŵĞŶƚŽĨ^ƵŶŝŐĂŚĂƐĐƵƚŽĨĨĂƐŵĂůůƐĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚŝƐ ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJƚŽƚŚĞƐŽƵƚŚ͘/ŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶƐƉĂĐŝŶŐĐƌŝƚĞƌŝĂůĞĂǀĞƐŝƚĂůŵŽƐƚƵŶĚĞǀĞůŽƉĂďůĞ͘dŚĞƌĞĂƌĞŶŽƚĂŶLJ ƐƚƌĞĞƚƐƚƵďƐƚŽƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚ͘dŚĞĞĂƐƚĞƌŶĞĚŐĞŽĨƚŚĞƐŝƚĞŝƐĂŶŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶĚŝƚĐŚĂŶĚƚŚĞƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐǁŚŽůŝǀĞƚŽ ƚŚĞǁĞƐƚǁŽƵůĚƉƌĞĨĞƌŶŽƚƚŽŚĂǀĞĂŶLJƐƚƌĞĞƚĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ͘  WƌĞǀŝŽƵƐůLJƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ dŚĞZĞƚƌĞĂƚǁĂƐƉƌĞǀŝŽƵƐůLJƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚďLJĂĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚĞĚƉĂƌƚLJǁŝƚŚƚŚĞŝŶƚĞŶƚŽĨƐƚƵĚĞŶƚŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ͘ dŚŝƐŝƐƚŚĞĨŝƌƐƚĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚďLJ͘Z͘,ŽƌƚŽŶ͘  YƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌ^ƚĂĨĨ ϭ͘^ƚƌĞĞƚƐƚŚĂƚǁĞƌĞƉůĂƚƚĞĚĂƐƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞZĞĚǁŽŽĚsŝůůĂŐĞ^ƵďĚŝǀŝƐŝŽŶǁŝůůŶĞĞĚƚŽďĞǀĂĐĂƚĞĚ͘ ĂŶƚŚŝƐƉƌŽĐĞƐƐƐƚĂƌƚƐŽŽŶĞƌĂŶĚƌƵŶĐŽŶĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJǁŝƚŚƚŚŝƐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͍ Ϯ͘tŝůůƚŚĞŐƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌŽƵƚĨĂůůďĞĂůůŽǁĞĚƚŽŐŽŝŶƚŽƚŚĞEKĂƐŶĞŐŽƚŝĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚƐƚĂĨĨ ƉƌĞǀŝŽƵƐůLJ͍ ϯ͘/ƐƚŚĞĐŝƚLJƐƚŝůůĐŽŵĨŽƌƚĂďůĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞůŝĨƚƐƚĂƚŝŽŶƉƌŽĐĞĞĚŝŶŐĂƐƉƌĞǀŝŽƵƐůLJƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ ZĞƚƌĞĂƚWW͍ ϰ͘tŚĂƚW&;ĂĚĞƋƵĂƚĞWƵďůŝĐĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐͿǁŝůůŶĞĞĚƚŽďĞŵŝƚŝŐĂƚĞĚĨŽƌǁŝƚŚƚŚĞsŝŶĞĂŶĚ>ĞŵĂLJ ŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐŵŽǀŝŶŐĂŚĞĂĚ͍ ϱ͘Ŷ^ĨŽƌƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJǁĂƐƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚŝŶϮϬϭϴ͕ǁŽƵůĚƚŚŝƐƐƚŝůůďĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚǀĂůŝĚ͍ ϲ͘tŝůůĂũƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶĂůĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶŶĞĞĚƚŽďĞŵĂĚĞŽŶƚŚĞǁĞƚůĂŶĚƐ͍ ϳ͘tŝůůƐƚĂĨĨƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĂŵŽĚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌŽŶͲƐƚƌĞĞƚƉĂƌŬŝŶŐĨŽƌƚŚĞƐŝŶŐůĞͲĨĂŵŝůLJĚĞƚĂĐŚĞĚŚŽŵĞƐŝŶ ƉůĂĐĞŽĨƉĂƌŬŝŶŐŽŶŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůůŽƚƐ͍ ϴ͘tŚĂƚƉƌŽĐĞƐƐŝƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĨŽƌƚĞƌŵŝŶĂƚŝŶŐ^ŝƚĞĂŶĚ>ĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞŽǀĞŶĂŶƚƐĨŽƌƚŚĞZĞĚǁŽŽĚsŝůůĂŐĞ WŚĂƐĞ//Wh͍         ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 7 Packet pg. 40 The Enclave at Redwood – Project Development Plan Neighborhood Meeting Summary (7-29-20) Overview City Staff: Pete Wray, Senior City Planner and Project Planner Alyssa Stevens, Development Review Liaison Martina Wilkinson, Sr. Manager, Traffic Engineering Spencer Smith, Civil Engineer II Scott Benton, Environmental Planner Applicant: Stephanie Hansen and Russ Lee, Ripley Design, Inc. Matt and Joe Delich, Delich and Assoc. Mark Fields and Jessica Harris, D R Horton Neighborhood Meeting Date: Wednesday July 29, 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.  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 1 review and hearing, with an administrative hearing officer 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.  This project is on the same site as a former project called The Retreat at Fort Collins PDP.  The project includes a request to develop approximately 28 acres into a residential project, including approximately 200-220 dwelling units for sale and rent.  437 parking spaces are provided.  The project is in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) zone district and is subject to an Administrative (Type 1) review. 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, CORRESPONDENCE 7 Packet pg. 41 Neighborhood Meeting Notes – Enclave at Redwood Page 2  The residential density is within the range of 4 – 9 dwelling units per acre.  Four different housing types are included (mixture of single-family attached/detached and two-family attached townhomes). The proposed casitas represent a smaller home design for rent (without garage) on common lot.  The concept plan is not showing a street connection to Conifer Street or Lupine Street. Questions/Comments and Answers Comment: Residents of Redwood Meadows neighborhood prefer to not have Lupine Drive, or Mullein Drive connect through to this project. Applicant: The proposed concept does not show these street connections and prefers to keep it that way. City Staff: The City has connectivity requirements in its land use code, and generally supports interconnectivity between neighborhoods. Lupine Drive and Mullein Drive were built with the intent that they would connect into the eventual neighborhood to its east – that is why they were built without a cul-de-sac. When the previous proposal was being reviewed, there was significant concern about the difference in land use (between single family dwellings and student apartment housing), and how the potential additional traffic on Lupine would be very different than what was originally intended. That is why that proposal ended up with a bike / ped / emergency access only along Lupine. With the new proposal, the City will review the land use type, access locations, impact to the neighborhood etc. to determine what type of connection is most appropriate for both Lupine and Mullein Drives. So the answer to your question is that we don’t yet know what the connections will be with this proposal – Once an official submittal has been made, we’ll review access options with the applicant, take input from the neighborhood, and determine what type of access would best meet the Land Use Code. Comment/Question: How will this project provide connections to future regional trail? Applicant: The plan includes internal sidewalks and paths to connect to the planned trail that is aligned with the existing Josh Ames ditch on east border of property. This project will include the portion of the future regional trail on site, with stub-outs to the future trail off-site. Question? What is the distance for west edge of this project to Redwood Meadows? Applicant: The plan shows an approximate 60’-90’ landscape buffer between the neighborhood and this project. Question? What is the purpose of the alleys behind proposed townhomes and duplex buildings? Applicant: The private alleys provide vehicular access to the garages in rear of these buildings, and as a result, allow for building entrances that face street to be more pedestrian oriented. ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 7 Packet pg. 42 Neighborhood Meeting Notes – Enclave at Redwood Page 3 Question? Is this project including affordable housing? Applicant: No, the project is providing for sale and rent units that are market rate, but more reflective of attainable housing, with the different housing types. The casitas single-family units will provide a lower price point since they are a smaller size without garages. Question: Will there be an HOA? Applicant: Yes, the HOA will maintain all common areas of the project. Question: Will this project be gated? City Staff: No, the City dies not allow gated communities. Question? Is there plans for a roundabout at Redwood/Suniga, and Conifer? Staff: No, since Suniga Road is a 4-land arterial, a roundabout would warrant duel lanes and conditions at that intersection are challenging for that type of intersection. The intersection at Conifer is more suitable for a roundabout with less traffic and potential smaller design. This project will include a traffic study to assess off-site impacts and potential improvements for these intersections. Redwood is a good option for a bike route again since there is less traffic. Question? What is the timing for construction of this project? Applicant: We anticipate 6-9 months for development review, and potential construction beginning fall 2021. Question: How will this project gain access? Applicant: Primary access is provided from Suniga and Redwood at this point. Question: How will this project impact traffic in the area and is a connection to Vine or Conifer needed? Staff: The traffic study will assess the impacts of the proposed project and include recommendations for any infrastructure improvements surrounding site. Street connections to Vine Drive are established at the intersections of Redwood and new realignment of Lemay with grade-separated overpass of Railroad tracts. Staff will assess if a street connection is needed to Conifer. Staff: Next steps – the neighborhood meeting comments will be part of the public record with the Hearing Officer 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 will review the submittal to ensure if it complies with the LUC and then if it is ready for hearing. 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 hearing officer 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, CORRESPONDENCE 7 Packet pg. 43