The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06/16/2022 - Planning and Zoning Commission - AGENDA - Regular MeetingPlanning and Zoning Commission Page 1 June 16, 2022 Upon request, the City of Fort Collins will provide language access services for individuals who have limited English proficiency, or auxiliary aids and services for individuals with disabilities, to access City services, programs and activities. Contact 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance. Please provide 48 hours advance notice when possible. A solicitud, la Ciudad de Fort Collins proporcionará servicios de acceso a idiomas para personas que no dominan el idioma inglés, o ayudas y servicios auxiliares para personas con discapacidad, para que puedan acceder a los servicios, programas y actividades de la Ciudad. Para asistencia, llame al 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Marque 711 para Relay Colorado). Por favor proporcione 48 horas de aviso previo cuando sea posible. Regular Hearing June 16, 2022 6:00 PM David Katz, Chair City Council Chambers - City Hall West Ted Shepard, Vice Chair 300 Laporte Avenue Michelle Haefele Fort Collins, Colorado Per Hogestad Adam Sass Virtual (Zoom or Telephone) Jeff Schneider Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 on Connexion & Julie Stackhouse Channels 14 & 881 on Comcast Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing Agenda Participation for this hybrid Planning and Zoning Commission meeting will be available online, by phone, or in person. Public Participation (In Person): Individuals who wish to address the Planning & Zoning Commission in person may attend the meeting located in City Council Chambers at City Hall, 300 Laporte Ave. Public Participation (Online): Individuals who wish to address the Planning & Zoning Commission via remote public participation can do so through Zoom at https://fcgov.zoom.us/j/95596355249. Individuals participating in the Zoom session should also watch the meeting through that site. The meeting will be available to join beginning at 5:45 p.m. on June 16, 2022. Participants should try to sign in prior to 6:00 p.m. if possible. For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time. Staff will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Commission. In order to participate: Use a laptop, computer, or internet-enabled smartphone. (Using earphones with a microphone will greatly improve your audio). You need to have access to the internet. Keep yourself on muted status. If you have any technical difficulties during the hearing, please email smanno@fcgov.com. (Continued on next page) Packet pg. 1 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 2 June 16, 2022 ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW • PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Individuals may comment on items not specifically scheduled on the hearing agenda, as follows: • Those who wish to speak are asked to sign in at the podium if they are in person or use the raise hand function if they are on Zoom or on the phone. • The presiding officer will determine and announce the length of time allowed for each speaker. • Each speaker should state their name and address and keep their comments to the allotted time. • Any written materials should be provided to the Secretary for record-keeping purposes. • In person participates will hear a timer beep once and the time light will turn to yellow to indicate that 30 seconds of speaking time remains and will beep again and turn red when a speaker’s time to speak has ended. Phone and Zoom participants will be told verbally when their allotted time has ended. • CONSENT AGENDA The Consent Agenda is intended to allow the Planning and Zoning Commission to quickly resolve items that are non-controversial. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request that an item on this agenda be “pulled” for consideration within the Discussion Agenda, which will provide a full presentation of the item being considered. Items remaining on the Consent Agenda will be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission with one vote. The Consent Agenda generally consists of Commission Minutes for approval, items with no perceived controversy, and routine administrative actions. Public Participation (Phone): If you do not have access to the internet, you can call into the hearing via phone. Please dial: 253-215-8782 or 346-248-7799, with Webinar ID: 955 9635 5249. The meeting will be available beginning at 5:45 p.m. Please call in to the meeting prior to 6:00 p.m., if possible. For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time – phone participants will need to hit *9 to do this. Staff will be moderating the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Committee. Once you join the meeting: keep yourself on muted status. If you have any technical difficulties during the hearing, please email smanno@fcgov.com. Documents to Share: If residents wish to share a document or presentation, City Staff needs to receive those materials via email by 24 hours before the meeting. Please email any documents to smanno@fcgov.com. Individuals uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform or unable to participate by phone are encouraged to participate by emailing general public comments you may have to smanno@fcgov.com . Staff will ensure the Commission receives your comments. If you have specific comments on any of the discussion items scheduled, please make that clear in the subject line of the email and send 24 hours prior to the meeting. As required by City Council Ordinance 079, 2020, a determination has been made by the chair after consultation with the City staff liaison that conducting the hearing using remote technology would be prudent. Packet pg. 2 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 3 June 16, 2022 1. Draft Minutes for the P&Z April Regular Hearing The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes of the April 21, 2022, Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 2. Enclave at Redwood (continuance) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Project Development Plan to develop a 27.85-acre site formerly referred to as "The Retreat," generally located to the north of Suniga Drive and to the east of Redwood Drive. The proposal will include a replat of the site into one parcel and include 242 dwelling units with a mix of four, six, and eight-plex multi-family units, within a "For Rent" managed community property. A 1-acre park and clubhouse are in the center of the site, and regional trail connection will be located along the Lake Canal. The PDP includes a request for Modification of Standards for the building orientation and connecting walkway requirement. This property is within the Low-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) zone district. APPLICANT: Sam Coutts Ripley Designs, Inc. 419 Canyon Ave, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 STAFF ASSIGNED: Pete Wray, Senior City Planner • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Packet pg. 3 Agenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 16, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission STAFF Shar Manno, Customer and Administrative Manager SUBJECT MINUTES OF THE APRIL 21, 2022 P&Z HEARING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is the consideration and approval of the draft minutes of the April 21, 2022 Planning & Zoning Commission hearing. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft April 21, 2022 P&Z Minutes Packet pg. 4 David Katz, Chair Virtual Hearing Ted Shepard, Vice Chair City Council Chambers Michelle Haefele 300 Laporte Avenue Per Hogestad Fort Collins, Colorado Adam Sass Jeff Schneider Cablecast on FCTV, Channel 14 on Connexion & Julie Stackhouse Channels 14 & 881 on Comcast The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing April 21, 2022 Chair Katz called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Haefele, Hogestad, Katz, Sass, Schneider, Shepard, Stackhouse Absent: None Staff Present: Everette, Sizemore, Claypool, Yatabe, Jones, Axmacher, Vonkoepping, Wray, Mapes, Buckingham, Betley, Smith, Hahn, Benton, Simpson, Lambrecht, Wagner, Smith, and Manno Chair Katz provided background on the Commission’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. He described the role of the Commission, noting that members are volunteers appointed by City Council. The Commission members review the analysis by staff, the applicants’ presentations, and input from the public and make a determination regarding whether each proposal meets the Land Use Code. He noted that this is a legal hearing, and that he will moderate for civility and fairness. Agenda Review CDNS Director Sizemore reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas, stating that all items will be heard as originally advertised. Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: None noted. Consent Agenda: 1.Draft Minutes from February 17, 2022, P&Z Hearing – Pulled and continued until the May 19th Hearing 2.Bucking Horse Park Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes DRAFTPacket pg. 5 Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2022 Page 2 of 10 Public Input on Consent Agenda: None noted. Chair Katz did a final review of the items on consent and reiterated that those items will not have a separate presentation unless pulled from the consent agenda. The February minutes were pulled and continued until the May 19, 2022, hearing. Vice Chair Shepard made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Consent agenda for the April 21, 2022, Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. Member Haefele seconded the motion. Vote: 7:0 Member Stackhouse made a motion for continuance of the approval of the draft minutes of the February 11th, 2022, meeting until the next hearing, May 19th, 2022. Member Schneider seconded the motion. Vote: 7:0 Discussion Agenda: 3. Enclave at Redwood Project Description: This is a proposed Project Development Plan (PDP), #PDP210004, that includes a replat of the site into one parcel and development of 242 dwelling units with a mix of four, six, and eight-plex multi-family unit buildings. A one-acre park and clubhouse are planned for the center of the site, and a regional trail connection will be located along the Lake Canal. Primary access to this site will be from the west off of Redwood Street and from internal local streets from existing subdivisions to the west and east. The PDP includes two requests for Modification of Standards, one for the building orientation and connecting walkway, and the second for the size of project for determining number of housing types required. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Manno reported that 7 emails in total were received, all expressing concerns for traffic on Mullein Dr. and Lupine Dr. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Wray gave a brief verbal/ visual overview of this project. Nick Graham, DHI Communities, and Sam Coutts, Ripley Designs, Inc., also provided a brief verbal visual presentation. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Scott Metz, 1013 Mullein Dr: He read a statement that was submitted prior to the hearing. He is in opposition to the vehicular connection to Lupine Dr. to the new street, Collumer Dr. They would like to work with the city in the creation of an alternate connectivity plan. Tony Wagner, 631 Lupine Dr: He is in opposition to the current connectivity plan. Lupine will become more dangerous. Dennis Harmon, 642 Spurge Cir: He is concerned with the curb-to-curb width. He is in opposition to the connectivity plan. Joy Wintersteen, 1043 Mullein Dr: She is concerned with the increased traffic. Trinity Oberndorf, 1019 Mullein Dr., speaking on behalf of Amber Franzel, 625 Yarrow Dr: Trinity Oberndorf read a DRAFTPacket pg. 6 Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2022 Page 3 of 10 previously submitted letter from Amber Franzel. She also spoke for herself, commenting that she is glad that the city is looking at more housing. This city is not affordable to live in and the connectivity should be ped, bike and emergency, as this is what was previously approved under a former development plan that was not consummate. Aaron Oberndorf, 1019 Mullein Dr: He is concerned with the connectivity plan and compatibility with the neighborhood. Loren Maxey, 1101 Clark: He owns 624 Lupine St. and is concerned with the increase in traffic and headlights into the windows. The street is so narrow and cannot handle the increased traffic. Haley Ford, 631 Spurge Cir: She expressed concern about connectivity. Mark Laken, 642 Yarrow Cir: He had numerous questions for the applicant and staff. Staff Response Mr. Coutts responded to citizen input. The connection to Lupine has been studied with multiple revisions. Ripley Design was involved in the initial design in 2017. With the new developer and a neighborhood meeting, they took the feedback. They felt they had a good handle on what the concerns were and felt there was no need for another neighborhood meeting. The applicant now owns the land and they do not have the option to purchase land up to Conifer. This is why the connection has not been made. The bedroom count associated with the development, which is how the traffic is measured, is less than the previous proposal. They are open to pedestrian only if the Commission chooses. Mr. Coutts noted that the alleys next to the backyards will have a 25’ landscape buffer. This will simulate the traditional backyard to backyard. The intent with large buildings is to mitigate the appearance of towering buildings. Mr. Graham spoke to the maintenance of the community. The property manager will have a maintenance staff dedicated to the property. They do have some control over the noise, and this will be maintained. As for the senior community, this project has been well received in the past. Planner Wray provided context for why we are iterating to land use code requirements for street connectivity. There is a requirement that states public streets must be connected. In this case, the intent is to connect these public neighborhoods. The developer has not pursued the purchase of abutting land. Engineer, Sophie Buckingham responded by saying that Lupine Dr. is not a collector type street. It is a connector local section as it is a bit wider. Traffic Operations, Spencer Smith responded to total average daily traffic. It is anticipated that there will be 715 trips per day which is a more than double of current traffic count. Commission Questions / Deliberation Clarifying questions Member Sass requested further clarification on the tie-in to the west at Lupine Dr., how we connect, attached and detached sidewalks. Traffic Operations, Spencer Smith responded that the existing sidewalks are an attached older standard, and that the new street section that will connect to it will have a detached walk which is the current standard. The transition will be an angled transition. Staff will work with their engineer and consultants to play this out. Member Haefele asked for confirmation of the three housing types: 4-plex, 6-plex and 8-plex. Mr. Graham responded that she is correct, the two different stands of the housing types and then the building variation of the cottage, traditional and modern farmhouse. The cottage is always associated with the 4-plex, the traditional with the 6-plex and the modern farmhouse with the 8-plex. Vice Chair Shepard commented on the northwest sidewalk that will connect this project out to Conifer St. and whether it would terminate at Conifer St. and the definition of “coordinate”? Mr. Graham responded that they are building the connection to Conifer to Redwood St. DRAFTPacket pg. 7 Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2022 Page 4 of 10 Vice Chair Shepard asked if there was a fence along the north of the property. Mr. Graham and Planner Wray responded yes. Also, they indicated that there is a landscape strip and 6’ fence on the north side by the drive to the garages as well, On the west boundary of the project that abuts Road Meadows, there is a 25’ landscape buffer and a 6’ fence. Vice Chair Shepard asked where this sits in relation to the drainage channel. Mr. Graham responded there is an ally, a landscape buffer and that the fence is on the property line. Everything outside of the property line is where the slope begins. Vice Chair Shepard commented that there is a natural habitat buffer zone to the north of the fence. Mr. Graham commented that the fence is on the property line so the buffer zone would be south of the fence. The fence location can be played with. Vice Chair Shepard commented that he is trying to get a feel for how the project relates to the NHBZ along the north edge with the garages, ally and then the buffer. Mr. Graham responded that the shrub and tree area is the buffer. Currently the fence is on the property line, but it can be moved to the ally. There are variations before you get into the drainage area that is the native grass. Planner Benton responded that this fence is not a naturalized fence, but there are some sporadic wetlands along the bottom. This does not qualify to the level of primary corridor. This area is mowed and will continue to be. Further clarification will be provided. Vice Chair Shepard asked what the purpose of the fence was from a design standpoint. Mr. Graham responded it is to break up visual continuity and the natural area standard is to have a fence along the natural habitat buffer giving the delineation for maintenance. The applicant is ok if it is naturalized and providing that naturalization on the drainage channel to the north or not. Vice Chair Shepard asked if there will be a bus stop on Redwood. Traffic Operations representative, Spence Smith, responded that he does not believe that there would be one. There is not one required to be installed as part of the project. Vice Chair Shepard asked if private street AA would or would not be a public street. Mr. Graham responded that the street is private and the reason it is private is due to the corner geometry not meeting the public street requirement. There are special constraints. Vice Chair Shepard asked if it would be possible to consider a variance to the standard so the street could be public. Engineering representative, Sophie Buckingham responded that she is unaware of any discussion of a variance request, but that she believes there would be a request for a variance to the centerline radius going around the curves. The proposed radius shown is roughly 50’ whereas the requirement is 275’. A variance would not be supported. Vice Chair Shepard asked if the applicant was aware of the width difference in the travel lane and how it affects the parkway where the street trees go. Mr. Coutts responded that he is aware, and he is unsure of what drove that decision. Engineering representative, Sophie Buckingham, commented in terms of the parkway width, the project is using street design based on previous Larimer County urban area street standards in which there was a lower width required for the parkway. This is due to the review entered into our systems prior to the update in the standards. This is a private street and not technically held to a particular standard per Larimer County. Vice Chair Shepard asked about the 25’ setback and if it is also a drainage swale. Mr. Graham responded that there are two sections where there is some swalling. Vice Chair Shepheard asked if the NECO line preclude the placement of trees in certain locations. Will you be putting drainage onto your neighbors? Utilities representative, Matt Simpson, commented that on the western side, private ally D, this area drains easterly onto the site. They are providing some collection inlets at several locations on the western side to pick up offsite flows that come from the Meadows ad Redwood east onto the site. These will then collect into the NECO A2 line. The requirement is that the trees not be within 10’ to the storm line in the ally section. Member Stackhouse is not clear on the land that was previously owned by Neighbor to Neighbor as well as the safety concerns that were brought up. What are the concerns specifically? Mr. Graham responded that the concept was on the northwest corner had a local street connection previously that traveled northwest to the corner of Conifer as bent headed east. This was through a combination of city owned and purchased private land. We now have a different applicant, different developer, different plan. This option is not attainable for this application. They are open to a condition for Lupine. Vice Chair Shepard commented that Mr. Laken mentioned something about a right in/right out. Can someone provide a reference? Spencer Smith replied that he believes it is in reference to the city’s street connection to Redwood. DRAFTPacket pg. 8 Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2022 Page 5 of 10 Deliberation Member Hogestad asked how long the ridge was on the 8-plex. Mr. Heaton responded from 22’ wide times 8 feet which is 176’ feet of continuous ridge. Member Hogestad asked how much offset there was. Mr. Heaton responded that you would see some from the group level he supposes, roughly 1’ to 18”. Member Hogestad asked whether the articulation on the evaluation depends on the slight setback to the porch. Mr. Heaton responded that there is the shed roof at the porch, and it steps back further with the deck above. Member Schneider asked for clarification from Member Hogestad as to which product he was asking about. Member Hogestad responded that it was the 8-plex. Member Hogestad asked how far the porch set in from the exterior face of the building. Mr. Heaton responded that the entry wall is set back about 2’. The deck above goes back an additional 3-4’ and has a roof cover to protect it. Member Hogestad asked if the two schemes were predicated on paint. Mr. Heaton responded yes if one was speaking of only the 8-plex. Member Hogestad asked whether the general design, not colors or nuances, had been used elsewhere. Mr. Heaton noted that this is the first time these have been used. Vice Chair Shepard observed that there are three (3) housing types and two color schemes, the color schemes do not make this into 6 building designs, which does meet code, but does not give you 6 designs and the color schemes are at the minimum variety. Chair Katz started discussion on Modification 3.5.2(D)(1)(B). Vice Chair Shepard commented that it looked like the major walkway spine depended on connecting the building to the regional trail. Otherwise, building 7 has more than a 360-connection column. It is not the distance, but rather the off-site. He asked whether building 7depended on the off-site on the north field property in the form of the regional trail, or did it depend on a connection to Collumer. Mr. Graham responded that either one will work. Vice Chair Shepard is concerned with the qualitative aspect of this, and the definition of a walkway spine requires that it be tree lined, trees on both sides at least 5’ wide, landscaping on both sides within a 35’ space in the smallest dimension. Are all of these attributes provided for the buildings that are seeking this modification? Mr. Graham responded that they are. Vice Chair Shepard commented that at there are times that the design team will offer up some mitigation. Is there any mitigation? Me. Graham responded that there is no specific mitigation proposed. They are waiting to get to the FDP level to detail these spaces out. Planner Wray commented that staff feels it meets the major walkway spine definition. Chair Katz would not be surprised if this is addressed in the new land use code updates. Vice Chair Shepard is comfortable. Member Hogestad agrees it should be something more than a simple sidewalk. Member Haefele asked if the modification could be conditioned to require that the walkway spine that is proposed as alternative connecting to have general or specific enhancements. Member Schneider responded that they can but questioned whether the Commission needed to get at that level of design at this point. Attorney Yatabe responded that procedurally speaking, yes, the Land Use Code allows conditions on the modification; however, you need to look at the criteria for the granting of the modification. A condition would be nice if the condition is related to whether that criterion is met or not. If the Commission feels the condition needs to be imposed so that they can meet the standard for meeting the modification, that would be the basis. Member Stackhouse commented that in her assessment the standard complies with the modification as stated, but she does feel it Is appropriate to send a strong and loud message to the applicant that there is an expectation that appropriate amenities will be provided, and that city staff would follow up. Attorney Yatabe responded that the comments are considered when moving forward from PDP into final plan. Member Haefele feels that there is still an argument of equal to or better than. Vice Chair Shepard responded that the Commission could say that the modification request is not equal to or better than unless the Commission conditions it to include such amenities and then list them, or it could say in a public hearing that the applicant has committed verbally that they agree to look at this in the final proposal. He is comfortable with the dialogue and asked the design team, at the time of final plan, to provide pedestrian amenities to encourage gathering and pedestrian qualitative aspects such as but not limited to; seat walls, benches, closets, and the like in order to be equal to or better than a major walkway spine that did not exceed 350’. Chair Katz agrees. Member Hafele agrees. Member Stackhouse made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the requested modification of standard to land use code Section3.5.3(D)(1)(B) regarding orientation to a connecting walkway to allow the distance between 11 of the dwelling units entrances as described in the DRAFTPacket pg. 9 Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2022 Page 6 of 10 agenda materials to the street sidewalk to be greater than 350’. The Commission finds that the modification will not be detrimental to the public good and the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of Section 3.52(D)(1)(B) equally well or better than would a plan which complies with such standard by providing safe pedestrian oriented environment that is equal to or better than the required distance to the street sidewalk in consideration of the major walkway spine and an exceptional physical condition unique to the property existing would be in regular shape of the site that was not by the applicant in the strict application of the standards would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties and undue hardship. Furthermore, the modification does not set aside the modification of standards of 2.8(H)(2 or4) and the decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing, and the Commission on this item. Further this Commission hereby adopts the information and analysis, findings of fact and conclusions regarding this modification of standard contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing. Member Sass seconded. Vote: 7:0. Chair Katz started discussion on modification to the housing types Vice Chair Shepard recommended that the conversation, as he sees the issue, is linked to compliance of Section 3.8.30, particularly the clarifier terms. 4.5(D)(2)(A)(3) is the request for the modification to have 3 not 4 housing types, but it is linked in his perception of 3.8.30(F)(2-7), variation among repeated buildings which refers to three building designs. He feels overall there is a repetitive aspect to the project. There is a minimum of 3 building designs; however, the colors are not that different, and at this scale, the project has an attribute that speaks to being repetitive. Member Schneider asked how much of the 30.15 acres is in the LMN vs. the industrial zone, and should the Commission be looking at it as what is being built out vs. the overall property. Member Stackhouse commented that these are the questions she was trying to raise in the work session. She offered up that she has struggled with the different design types in developments, noting that even different design type can look the same from the roadway. She questioned how much the Commission can calibrate design types or whether this rest in the eye of the beholder. Chair Katz reverted to Member Schneider’s question as to how much is in the LMN. Because all the buildings are in LMN, but the entire project is 30.17, should the Commission be considering the entire site? This development is unique because there is a second zoning district. Planner Wray responded that in looking at the southern track, it is just under 3-acres, 2.7-acres, Staff and the applicants have confirmed that this is not intended to be a developable tract. The industrial zoning overlay is very small, less than an acre. The difference in the amount that is over 30- acres was less than an acre. The industrial piece was not factored in because it was so small. Chair Katz asked if he was correct in that his perception that we are interpreting the code as if the entire parcel was LMN? Planning Manager Everette responded with clarification: Compliance with that standard of the need for the modification for the housing type requirement was based on the acreage of the property that is in the LMN zone not the total acreage of the development site. Member Katz asked if the acreage of the LMN is till over 30-acres. Planning Manager Everette responded yes, it is over 30 acres and that is what triggers the housing type requirement. Planner Wray commented that the industrial overlap is less than 1-acre. Chair Katz commented that less than an acre, is important because we are talking about an absolute number. If we are looking at the LMN zoning only, then this modification is not needed. How is the code interpreted with overlaps? Planner Wray responded that as part of staff findings, they were looking at the area within the LMN, recognizing that the industrial piece was so small. It was less than an acre and the amount in the LMN that is over the 30-acres is also less than an acre. Planning Manager Everette responded with clarification: the gross acreage of the property is over 30 acres, but the LMN portion is under 30-acres. With that understanding, Chair Katz asked whether 3 or 4 housing types was needed. Planning Manager Everette responded that the staff assessed compliance because the portion of the site that is in industrial zoning is so negligible staff considered the overall gross area for the full development plan in assessing whether the requirement applied. Member Schneider asked if the LMN is under 30 acres, then why do we need the modification? Chair Katz responded that it is because of the gross acreage of the project. Member Schneider asked if this is something that should be looked at with the Land Use Code updates, because it is not fair to take the gross property coverage when it is different zone districts. He is not looking at this as a big issue because the LNM area is less than 30; however, he does not feel there is a need for the modification. Member Hafele commented that the need for the modification is because the entire property is just over and the justification for the modification is that the developable portion is less than 30. It technically requires the modification. Vice Chair DRAFTPacket pg. 10 Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2022 Page 7 of 10 Shepard commented that the purpose of the standard is to address repetitiveness and repetition. Vice Chair Shepard asked if the Commission was sure that the little triangle is zoned industrial? It used to be part of that same parcel until Sunega Road right-of-way was acquired. Planning Manager Everette confirmed the zoning. On the zoning map, that this parcel has two zone districts. Chair Katz is struggling with the compatibility of the different designs. Member Hogestad commented that the architecture at best is minimal. The modification calls for public good, in order for it not to be detrimental to public good, it must meet Section 1.2.2 paragraph J. Improve the design, quality and character of new development. Paragraph M states that the proposal must ensure that the development proposal is sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods. He does not feel the modification meets the public good component. The designs do not meet the intent of public good. Member Stackhouse noted that there are three large developments in this area, and she feels there was an attempt to blend those developments into this proposal. She feels the plans did bring together the architecture of the other developments. Chair Katz stated that he did not fundamentally have an issue with supporting the three housing types. However, there needs to be more articulation and detail and up the quality of what the city deserves. Vice Chair Shepard commented that one of the ways to accomplish this is through a condition of the modification. He would be willing to approve the modification as being equal to or better than, it is not nominal and inconsequential. If conditioning the modification, he would like to see on the cottage 4-plex model with entrances that face the street. He cannot support the modification without addressing repetitiveness. Member Hogestad commented on the 6-plex and that is suffers from the same repetitiveness and lack of articulation. The floor plans are almost identical. He cannot support this modification. Member Sass asked Member Hogestad how the Commission could satisfy his concern, noting that this is a 31-acre site. Vice Chair Shepard offered up another option” to approve the modification but then discuss conditioning compliance with 3.8.30. Chair Katz asked if he felt there was a path to getting something satisfactory while the Commission deliberates the PDP. Member Sass commented that that was his point. Member Schneider commented that he is unsure if the architecture is part of this modification request. On the overall PDP, this is a very fair conversation to have, putting a condition on the PDP based on the architectural design and style. He questioned, however, whether it was relevant to this modification for three versus four designs. Member Hogestad feels that it is because of the detriment to the public good as stated in Section 1.2.2. Member Sass agrees; however, this is not the modification before the Commission. Member Schneider commented that he does not feel that the architectural design for this modification is relevant. It is about the number of design elements, not the style. Vice Chair Shepard commented that the minimum requirement for a fourth housing type is that it be no less than 5% or your total. 5% of 40 is 2. The Commission could ask the applicant to provide a fourth housing type, and the Commission could proceed with approving this proposal without conditions and then dive into 3.5.1 and 3.8.30 for the specific issues surrounding architecture. Member Schneider commented that the intent is to build for the missing middle and that the more that is added to the architectural features and everything else, the more the cost goes up. There is a happy balance between the two. Adding a fourth type is adding another layer of cost. Chair Katz would like to move forward with one of Vice Chair Shepard’s recommendations and then dive into 3.5.1 and 3.8.30 at the PDP. Member Sass made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the requested modification of standard to land use code Section 4.5(D)(2)(A)(3) regarding mix of housing to allow three (3) housing types instead of four (4). The Commission finds that the modification will not be detrimental to the public good and the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards except in nominal and inconsequential ways when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan because of the size of the property being developed is just over the land use code acreage threshold of 30 acres, which requires four (4) instead of three (3) housing types, and allowing three (3) housing types in consideration of their proposed placement would not be discernable from a property that is just under 30-acres in that size that has three (3) housing types, and the plan will continue to advance the purpose of the land use code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Furthermore, the modification does not meet modification of standards 2.8.2(H)(1)(2) of (3). This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing, and the Commission on this item. Further this Commission hereby adopts the information and analysis, findings of fact and conclusions regarding this modification of standard contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing. Member Stackhouse seconded. Vote: 6:1. DRAFTPacket pg. 11 Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2022 Page 8 of 10 Vice Chair Shepard addressed an aspect of citizen input regarding section 3.6.3(F) and (H) and City Plan policies LIV 4.1 and 4.2 regarding the extension of Lupine. Clarification from staff is that the two streets are comparable in flow line to flow line width, and we know there is a difference between the attached walk and future detached walk and that will be done a s a transition. This is a tough site and oddly shaped, has stormwater issues, and when Sunega Road came through, it sliced off a triangle of the property. It there are a lot of challenges. He is persuaded by staff’s recommendation. Member Schneider commented that this is a completely different project from what the retreat was. He asked whether the Commission could get better clarification on why a road could not go out to Conifer as proposed 2018. Where is the disconnect on the conversation for that same ability to get out? Planning Manager Everette responded that it was an entirely developer-lead conversation at the Retreat involving negotiations with Neighbor to Neighbor. Staff was not supportive of not closing off the connection to Lupine in the case of that project and the developer in working with the neighborhood wanted to find a way to close that connection and pursue Conifer as an alternative. There are some physical challenges of that connection, and there are the property ownership challenges. Both of the City properties that cross the detention properties have not just stormwater channels but existing wetlands and would require bridges, wetland mitigation and other design challenges that would add to cost. Traffic Operations representative, Spencer Smith, commented that there are considerations that staff would need to assess, like the site distance evaluation of the connection location. It does not mean that a connection could not be made, but there would be considerations before anything could take place. Member Haefele agrees with Vice Chair Shepard in that budding off a street and then requiring a circulation pattern through the new neighborhood would ironically make it more of an enclave. It would also make an enclave out of the Redwood Meadows. This proposal now is a nice compromise, it is less dense, provides housing form families and keeps new neighborhoods from becoming enclaves. This will not be as devastating. Chair Katz agrees. Planner Wray commented that there is alternative compliance that needs to be decided on. Vice Chair Shepard offered to the Commission that with regard to the alternative compliance for not collecting Mulline, which does not have the cross section that Lupine does, it is rather close to Red Wood causing some navigation problems. The bike-ped connection appears to be well designed. He supports the alternative compliance to not collect Mulline as public street. Member Sass commented with his understanding that it would be too close, and they would need a modification. Traffic Operations representative, Spence Smith, responded that the offset from Red Wood is less than the City’s minimum standard for the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. It would require an Engineering variance. Vice Chair Shepard started the discussion on housing types and architecture. He emphasized 3.8.30(F)(2) such variation among buildings shall not consist of different combinations of the same building features. Member Sass commented that he would go a bit further into (F)(2). They need to very significantly, input size and shape, as they are next to each other. The 8-plexes are not together east, west, but the are north, south, those are not significantly different, they are the same footprint and shape, 50’ from each and a private ally. He agrees with Ted. Chair Katz warned of not redesigning the project; this is not the Commissions’ role. The Commission can ask for a continuance. Member Stackhouse asked if staff’s analysis indicated compliance with the provisions. Planner Wray responded that staff found that though at a minimum level they meet the standards. Member Sass and Member Hafele feel that there is not enough variation between buildings. Vice Chair Shepard addressed 3.8.30. At the time of submittal of the final plan, the plan must demonstrate that all of the dwelling units in the cottage building that front on either a private or public street, feature entrances that face such street. Further, with regard to the 6-plex and the 8-plex units, the traditional and the modern farmhouse, at the time of final plan, sheets A0.3 and A0.1, these sheets must demonstrate that these buildings be further articulated, that they show more sufficient contrast between each other and that the new materials being considered, not be limited to cultured stone, masonry, brick, real stone, etc., and that the entrances be more differentiated, and the roof colors be more varied. Planning Manager Everett responded that there is a lot of subjectivity still, while staff could take the intent of the Commission and apply that at the time of final plan, it would be hard for staff to meet what you are visualizing. Member Schneider made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission continue the Enclave at Redwood PDP210004 to the June 16, 2022, to allow for the design team to come back with enhanced architectural features that may be more appropriate to 3.8.30(F)(2). Vice Chair Shepard encourages the applicant to take a more creative approach to how you form the edge along the north. The answer he got to the fence in relation to the drainage channel in the natural area was unsatisfactory and a bit vague. He will be supporting the motion. Vice Chair Shepard seconded. Vote 7:0 DRAFTPacket pg. 12 Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2022 Page 9 of 10 4. NEWT 3 Pipeline SPAR Project Description: This is a request for a Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) of a proposed corridor alignment for a water pipeline project to be shared by two water districts. The NEWT 3 name of the project refers to North Weld County and East Larimer County Water Districts Transmission Pipeline Project, phase 3. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Manno reported that there were no citizen emails or letters received. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Mapes gave a brief verbal/visual overview of the project. Public Input (3 minutes per person) None noted. Staff Response None noted. Commission Questions / Deliberation Chair Katz commented that he is satisfied with the presentation. Member Sass asked when the application was received. Planner Mapes responded that the date was in the staff report. Member Katz asked if it was the inability to get the site development plan or when the application was due? If it gets denied, then it will just get approved by the water district, correct? The reality is making sure everyone is comfortable with the corridor. Member Schneider asked the applicant team for clarification; are you are going to stay within the confines of the corridor that you have presented? Mr. Rice responded affirmatively. Member Katz also asked whether the applicant would mitigate any disturbance to the property as it is today. Mr. Rice responded affirmatively. Mr. Rice offered that a survey is currently underway in areas of this corridor and so is coordination with private property owners as well as Montava. Member Schneider feels that if they stay within the corridor, it should be approved. Chair Katz is a supporter the project. This needs to happen. He is conflicted based on the staff report. Planning Manager Everett commented that her understanding of the SPAR section for the city is written for public buildings, not well suited to regulating pipeline development. This has been flagged. Member Stackhouse asked what other projects in the last few years had been approved whether they were expected to hold to the standard. Planning Manager Everett responded that there have been four (4) pipeline projects that have come through over the past couple of years. The Commission approved two and denied one, because the level of design was not sufficient to evaluate impacts. Vice Chair Shepard asked if this pipeline went through any natural areas. Planner Mapes responded no. Member Haefele commented that had the applicant submitted a more well-developed proposal, more well-developed analysis, staff might then recommend approval and that this recommendation of denial is based on insufficient analysis. Member Stackhouse will be supporting the staff recommendation. Member Katz is on the fence. Member Sass commented there is nothing that the Commission is involved with. Planning Manager Everette commented that this is not based on character, it is based on the extent criterion. Planner Kelly Smith commented that the level of detail was approximately 30 to 60% construction drawings and worked closely with staff and was a replacement. Int terms of NISP, this one 30% construction drawings and the applicant did not work with the city on the location. CSU was 60% construction drawings, and they did work with the city. DRAFTPacket pg. 13 Planning & Zoning Commission April 21, 2022 Page 10 of 10 Member Schneider made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the NEWT 3 Pipeline Site Plan Advisory Review SBA220001, finding that the submittal site development plan meets all applicable land use code requirements set forth in land use code Section2.16.2(H). This decision was based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing, and the Commission decision on this item. Vice Chair Shepard seconded. Chair Katz expressed acknowledgement. Vote: 5:2. For more complete details on this hearing, please view our video recording located here: https://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php?search=PLANNING%20ZONING Other Business Vice Chair Shepard commented that there is a loophole; 3.5.2(D)(3) requires townhomes and single family attached to have 150’ emergency access to the most interior unit, and 3.5.2(E)(3) 8’ back from alley setback. Because the Enclave came in as not single-family attached, they came in as some that had not been envisioned before in the land use code. Planning Manager Everette responded that this would be added to phase 2 of the land use code changes. Adjournment Chair Katz moved to adjourn the P&Z Commission hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 11:09 pm. Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Manno. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on: June 16, 2022. Paul Sizemore, CDNS Director David Katz, Chair DRAFTPacket pg. 14 Community Development & Neighborhood Services Planning & Development Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.221.6376 970.224.6111- fax MEMORANDUM Date: June 1, 2022 To: Chair Katz and Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission From: Pete Wray, Senior City Planner Re: Read Before Memo: Item #2, Enclave at Redwood Project Development Plan __________________________________________________________________ During the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing on Thursday, April 21st regarding the Enclave at Redwood Project Development Plan (PDP#210004), Commissioners raised concerns that the proposed multi-family building designs did not reflect enough variation. The Commission voted to continue the project to the June 16th Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing to allow the applicant time to respond to these concerns. Staff received revised building model designs on May 23rd from the applicant, which are included in the agenda packet materials for the record. In review of the revised architectural building designs, a summary of the proposed changes to the previous model designs are highlighted below. Staff has not amended the staff report or staff presentation included in the May hearing, as the overall staff findings and recommendation on the project have not changed. LUC Section 3.8.30 (F)(2) – Variation among Buildings This standard requires that for any development containing more than (5) five buildings (excluding clubhouses/leasing offices), there shall be at least three (3) distinctly different building designs. Building designs shall be considered similar unless they vary significantly in footprint size and shape. There shall be no similar buildings placed next to each other along a street, street-like private drive or major walkway spine. Building designs shall be further distinguished by including unique architectural elevations and unique entrance features within a coordinated overall theme of roof forms, massing proportions and other characteristics. Such variation among buildings shall not consist solely of different combinations of the same building features. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 15 Read Before Memo – Enclave at Redwood Page 2 Proposed Building Design Changes: 1. To respond to comments about insufficient variation in the buildings and concerns about adjacencies across streets or alleyways, the new plans include a change from one (1) elevation style per housing type to three (3) elevation styles per housing type, providing now nine (9) total unique elevation massings/footprints. Two (2) color/material schemes per elevation style have also been maintained. In total, there are now eighteen (18) total building variations on site as compared to the previous six (6). 2. To respond to comments about colors and materials looking too similar between the styles, the changes include: a. Roof colors now vary significantly per elevation style b. Colors palettes vary more significantly per elevation style and more color options have been added to the schemes per style c. ‘A’ style incorporates new material: smooth cement fiber panel as the primary façade material, 8” reveal lap siding as the secondary and ledgestone accent at entries and base (shingle siding removed) d. ‘B’ style utilizes 8” reveal lap siding as the primary material and new brick accent material at base and up to 2nd floor in some places (removed vertical siding that was too similar to C style) e. ‘C’ style utilizes now predominantly vertical board and batten (vertical siding), and 6” reveal lap siding is secondary 3. In response to the comment about elevation styles looking too similar, the changes incorporate further distinction between the three styles (A, B, and C), altering roof forms and pitch, gable end conditions, window arrangements, façade materials and colors, and porch sizes and features for each style and housing type. Specifically: Style A a. Changed to always have 6:12 side-side main gable roof with 3:12 pitch breaks and mono-pitch accent roofs (all front facing traditional gable ends were removed or changed to shed or mono-pitch roof forms) b. Porch structures are clad in ledgestone and utilize mono-pitch or shed roof c. 8-plex housing type carries mono-pitch roof form and vertical massing breaks up to 2nd floor to be different from 6-plex housing type d. Windows are grouped together to create glazing and fenestration in square shape patterns Style B a. Changed to always have 4:12 hip roofs with no gable ends. Pitch reduction altered the overall massing and height of the building. b. Hip roof form raised in specific ways to create larger massing, opportunities for additional cornice detailing and breaks in main ridge line. c. Porch structures utilize combination of siding wing walls differing by color and square posts d. Windows are arranged and appear in more traditional grouping and shape Style C a. 11:12 accent gable ends remain but additional larger massing gestures with this accent gable roof form have been incorporated to break up main ridge ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 16 Read Before Memo – Enclave at Redwood Page 3 line, 3:12 and 6:12 shed roofs, as well as 6:12 main side-side gable roofs remain. b. Porch structures vary in length along building and utilize 6x6 posts typical. c. Window arrangements and grouping are more modern in appearance General: a. Porch lengths now vary along the building lengths per elevation style and housing type to create interest and reduce monotony. b. 2-ft or higher breaks in the main ridge lines were incorporated into all elevation styles and housing types. c. Pairing of units and unit doors changed on all housing types to create varied footprint, massing, and porch form and design. 4. To respond to the comment about 4 plex entry doors not facing major streets or walkways, the 4-plex housing type now has all entry doors facing front toward streets or major walkway spines. Additional exhibits added to set: A0-2 Building design variation sheet shows previous proposed: (6) variations with one elevation style per housing type and two color schemes per elevation style vs. new proposed: (18) variations with three elevation styles per housing type and two color schemes per elevation style. Exhibits to demonstrate code compliance: A0-3 Building Entrances A0-4 Building Roofs A0-5 Building Facades and Walls A4-1 to A4-9 Building footprint, roof plan, and sections diagrams created for all nine (9) buildings/elevations to demonstrate how they provide for and/or differ significantly in: a. building façade relief along front and rear b. building footprint differences between housing type, elevation styles and porch sizes. c. building roof form and breaks As outlined in the staff report for the May Hearing, staff found the PDP complied with Section 3.8.30 (F). In review of the proposed new building designs and corresponding variation, staff finds the PDP now exceeds this standard. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 17 8A.28B.44A.18C.66B.38A.26C.56A.14B.46A.24C.54B.48C.54A.16C.64C.58A.28C.54B.36A.24C.64B.48C.68C.66B.36C.54C.66A.24A.14C.58B.48B.34A.26C.68B.46A.18C.66A.18B.34A.X 4-PLEX 'A' ELEVATION4B.X 4-PLEX 'B' ELEVATION6A.X6-PLEX 'A' ELEVATION6B.X8B.X 8-PLEX 'B' ELEVATION8C.X6-PLEX 'B' ELEVATION8-PLEX 'C' ELEVATIONBUILDING PLEX / ELEVATION / COLOR & MATERIAL SCHEME LEGEND18C.6BUILDING NUMBERBUILDING PLEXELEVATION STYLECOLOR/MATERIAL SCHEMEPER SITE PLOTTING123417161556789101312111819201422232125262427283331293230343536383937404C.X 4-PLEX 'C' ELEVATION6C.X 6-PLEX 'C' ELEVATION8A.X8-PLEX 'A' ELEVATION4A.1355353535353535AA4A.14A3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333BB4B.44B.4313131313131313131313131313131313131313131313131313232323232323232323232323232323232323232323232326CCCC8C.68C.63434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434346888C.68C.62292929292929292929292929292929292929292929292929B88B.38B.3303030303030303030303030303030303030303030303030C.6C101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010106C.56C.51313131313131313131313131313131313131313131313136A.16A.112122121212121212121212121212121212121212121212124B44B.44B.411111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111C666C.66C.6999999999999999999999999BBB8B.48B.48888888888888888888888888A6666A.16A.1777777777777777777777777BUILDING DESIGN VARIATIONSYMBOLBUILDING #NO. OFBUILDINGSBUILDING DIMENSIONSHOUSING TYPENO. OF UNITS/BUILDINGELEVATION STYLEHEIGHTUNIT FEATURESROOF FORM MATERIALSUNIQUE FEATURESS1: 3,22,33,38S2: 105 98'10" WIDE X 48'6" DEEP(f) 3-4 UnitMulti-Family Dwellings4A1-STORY, 23'1-BED, 1-CAR GARAGE24'-9" WIDE, 48'6" DEEP744 SQ. FT.6:12 SIDE-SIDE MAINGABLE, 3:12 PITCHBREAK & MONO-PITCHPRIMARY SMOOTH CEMENT FIBER PANELSECONDARY 8" REVEAL LAP SIDINGTERTIARY LEDGESTONE VENEERCEMENT FIBER PANEL WITH CHANNEL IS PRIMARY MATERIAL WITH LEDGESTONE ACCENTS AT ENTRY PORCH COLUMNS, AND SOME 8" REVEAL LAP SIDING. 3:12 MONO-PITCH AND SHED ROOF FORMSAT PORCH ROOFS WITH 6:12 PITCH AT PRIMARY ROOF, UNIQUE 'A' STYLE WINDOW FRAME AND SILL DETAIL. UNIQUE COLOR/MATERIAL SCHEMES 1 OR 2 PER SITE PLOTTING.S3: 24S4: 11,16,314"(f) 3-4 UnitMulti-Family Dwellings4B1-STORY, 19'"4:12 HIP ROOFPRIMARY 8" REVEAL HORIZONTAL LAP SIDINGSECONDARY BRICK VENEER8" REVEAL LAP SIDING IS PRIMARY MATERIAL WITH MASONRY ACCENT ALONG BASE OF 1ST FLOOR, 4:12 HIP ROOF FORM FEATURES TYPICAL WITH RAISED HEAL AND ENCLOSED EAVE AND EAVECORNICE TRIM AS ACCENT. PORCHES FEATURE LAP SIDING WING WALL AND WOOD PORCH POSTS . UNIQUE 'B' STYLE WINDOW FRAME AND HEADER DETAIL. UNIQUE COLOR/MATERIAL SCHEME 3 OR4 PER SITE PLOTTING.S5: 14,23,32S6: 28,395"(f) 3-4 UnitMulti-Family Dwellings4C1-STORY, 24'"11:12 ACCENT GABLES,3:12 & 6:12 SHED, &6:12 MAIN GABLEPRIMARY VERTICAL BOARD AND BATTEN,SECONDARY 6" REVEAL LAP SIDINGVERTICAL BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING IS PRIMARY MATERIAL WITH 6" REVEAL LAP SIDING SECONDARY MATERIAL, 11:12 PITCH GABLE ACCENT ROOF FORMS THAT INTERSECT 6:12 MAIN GABLE ROOF,PORCHES FEATURE 6X6 WOOD PORCH POSTS. UNIQUE 'C' STYLE 4" WINDOW FRAME TRIM SURROUND DETAIL. UNIQUE COLOR/MATERIAL SCHEME 5 OR 6 PER SITE PLOTTING.S1: 7,12,19S2: 15,27,376 131'8" WIDE X 48'6" DEEP(g) 5-7 UnitMulti-Family Dwellings6A2-STORY, 34'2-BED, 2-CAR GARAGE22' WIDE, 48'6" DEEP1,320 SQ. FT.6:12 SIDE-SIDE MAINGABLE, 3:12 PITCHBREAK & MONO-PITCHPRIMARY SMOOTH CEMENT FIBER PANELSECONDARY 8" REVEAL LAP SIDINGTERTIARY LEDGESTONE VENEERCEMENT FIBER PANEL WITH CHANNEL IS PRIMARY MATERIAL WITH LEDGESTONE ACCENTS AT ENTRY PORCH COLUMNS AND BASE OF BUILDING, AND SOME 8" REVEAL LAP SIDING. 3:12 MONO-PITCHAND SHED ROOF AT PORCH AND PITCH BREAK 2ND FLOOR ROOFS WITH 6:12 PITCH AT PRIMARY ROOF, UNIQUE 'A' STYLE WINDOW FRAME AND SILL DETAIL. UNIQUE COLOR/MATERIAL SCHEMES 1 OR 2PER SITE PLOTTING.S3: 5,362"(g) 5-7 UnitMulti-Family Dwellings6B2-STORY, 31'"4:12 HIP ROOFPRIMARY 8" REVEAL HORIZONTAL LAP SIDINGSECONDARY BRICK VENEER8" REVEAL LAP SIDING IS PRIMARY MATERIAL WITH MASONRY ACCENT ALONG BASE OF 1ST FLOOR AND UP TO 2ND FLOOR WINDOW SILL, 4:12 HIP ROOF FORM FEATURES TYPICAL WITH RAISED HEALAND ENCLOSED EAVE AND EAVE CORNICE TRIM AS ACCENT. PORCHES FEATURE LAP SIDING WING WALL AND WOOD PORCH POSTS . UNIQUE 'B' STYLE WINDOW FRAME AND HEADER DETAIL. UNIQUECOLOR/MATERIAL SCHEME 3 OR 4 PER SITE PLOTTING.S5: 13,40S6: 9,214"(g) 5-7 UnitMulti-Family Dwellings6C2-STORY, 35'"11:12 ACCENT GABLES,3:12 & 6:12 SHED, &6:12 MAIN GABLEPRIMARY VERTICAL BOARD AND BATTEN,SECONDARY 6" REVEAL LAP SIDINGVERTICAL BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING IS PRIMARY MATERIAL WITH 6" REVEAL LAP SIDING SECONDARY MATERIAL, 11:12 PITCH GABLE ACCENT ROOF FORMS THAT INTERSECT 6:12 MAIN GABLE ROOF,PORCHES FEATURE 6X6 WOOD PORCH POSTS. UNIQUE 'C' STYLE 4" WINDOW FRAME TRIM SURROUND DETAIL. UNIQUE COLOR/MATERIAL SCHEME 5 OR 6 PER SITE PLOTTING.S2: 1,6,263182'4" WIDE X 48'6" DEEP(h) Greater than 7 UnitMulti-Family Dwellings8A2-STORY, 34'2 & 3-BED, 2-CAR GAR.22'-25' WIDE, 48'6" DEEP1,320-1,562 SQ. FT.6:12 SIDE-SIDE MAINGABLE, 3:12 PITCHBREAK & MONO-PITCHPRIMARY SMOOTH CEMENT FIBER PANELSECONDARY 8" REVEAL LAP SIDINGTERTIARY LEDGESTONE VENEERCEMENT FIBER PANEL WITH CHANNEL IS PRIMARY MATERIAL WITH LEDGESTONE ACCENTS AT ENTRY PORCH COLUMNS AND BASE OF BUILDING, AND SOME 8" REVEAL LAP SIDING. 3:12 MONO-PITCHAND SHED ROOF AT PORCH AND PITCH BREAK 2ND FLOOR ROOFS WITH 6:12 PITCH AT PRIMARY ROOF, UNIQUE 'A' STYLE WINDOW FRAME AND SILL DETAIL. UNIQUE COLOR/MATERIAL SCHEMES 1 OR 2PER SITE PLOTTING.S3: 20,30S4: 2,8,355"(h) Greater than 7 UnitMulti-Family Dwellings8B2-STORY, 31'"4:12 HIP ROOFPRIMARY 8" REVEAL HORIZONTAL LAP SIDINGSECONDARY BRICK VENEER8" REVEAL LAP SIDING IS PRIMARY MATERIAL WITH MASONRY ACCENT ALONG BASE OF 1ST FLOOR AND UP TO 2ND FLOOR WINDOW SILL, 4:12 HIP ROOF FORM FEATURES TYPICAL WITH RAISED HEALAND ENCLOSED EAVE AND EAVE CORNICE TRIM AS ACCENT. PORCHES FEATURE LAP SIDING WING WALL AND WOOD PORCH POSTS . UNIQUE 'B' STYLE WINDOW FRAME AND HEADER DETAIL. UNIQUECOLOR/MATERIAL SCHEME 3 OR 4 PER SITE PLOTTING.S5: 17,25S6: 4,29,34,186"(h) Greater than 7 UnitMulti-Family Dwellings8C2-STORY, 35'"11:12 ACCENT GABLES,3:12 & 6:12 SHED, &6:12 MAIN GABLEPRIMARY VERTICAL BOARD AND BATTEN,SECONDARY 6" REVEAL LAP SIDINGVERTICAL BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING IS PRIMARY MATERIAL WITH 6" REVEAL LAP SIDING SECONDARY MATERIAL, 11:12 PITCH GABLE ACCENT ROOF FORMS THAT INTERSECT 6:12 MAIN GABLE ROOF,PORCHES FEATURE 6X6 WOOD PORCH POSTS. UNIQUE 'C' STYLE 4" WINDOW FRAME TRIM SURROUND DETAIL. UNIQUE COLOR/MATERIAL SCHEME 5 OR 6 PER SITE PLOTTING.4A.X4B.X6A.X6B.X8B.X8C.X4C.X6C.X8A.XA0-1BUILDING SITE VARIATIONArchitecture + Planning820 16th Street, Suite 500Denver, CO 80202303.825.6400ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNMAY 24, 2022FORT COLLINS, CO # 20210435ENCLAVE AT REDWOODDHI Communities9555 S Kingston CourtEnglewood, CO 80112LUC 3.8.30(B)(1-3) & (F)(2, 3, 7) VARIATIONS AMONGBUILDINGS/COLORS & MATERIALS(B)(1) A MINIMUM OF THREE (3) HOUSING TYPES(B)(2) LOT SIZES AND DIMENSIONS SHALL BE VARIED FORDIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES TO AVOID MONOTONOUSSTREETSCAPES(B)(3) SELECTED FROM LIST HOUSING TYPES: (f), (g), (h)(F)(2) VARIATION AMONG BUILDINGS:•THERE SHALL BE AT LEAST THREE (3) DISTINCTLY DIFFERENTBUILDING DESIGNS.•THERE SHALL BE NO SIMILAR BUILDINGS PLACED NEXT TOEACH OTHER ALONG A STREET, STREET-LIKE PRIVATE DRIVEOR MAJOR WALKWAY SPINE.•REQUIRED QUALITIES OF DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT BUILDINGDESIGNS:•SIGNIFICANT VARIATION IN FOOTPRINT SIZE AND SHAPE•UNIQUE ARHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS AND UNIQUE ENTRYFEATURES.•COORDINATED THEME OF ROOF FORMS AND MASSINGPROPORTIONS.(F)(3 & 7) VARIATION OF COLOR /COLORS AND MATERIALS•THREE (3) MINIMUM DISTINCT COLOR SCHEMES REQUIRED•NO MORE THAN TWO (2) SIMILARLY COLORED STRUCTURESPLACED NEXT TO EACH OTHER ALONG A STREET OR MAJORWALKWAY SPINE.•MUTED, EARTH TONE, NATURAL COLORS FOUND INSURROUNDING LANDSCAPE AND CONSISTENT WITH ADJACENTNEIGHBORHOOD•BRIGHT COLORS RESERVED FOR ACCENT AND FRONT DOORS•COLORS AND MATERIALS INTEGRATED WITH MASSING TOREDUCE SCALE OF BUILDING•CONTRASTING TRIM AND SHADES DISTINGUISHARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS•A MINIMUM OF THREE (3) HOUSING TYPES AND THREE (3)BUILDING VARIATIONS OF EACH HOUSING TYPE ARE DEPICTEDIN THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS / ELEVATIONS / SECTIONS.•SIX (6) DISTINCT COLOR/MATERIAL SCHEMES PROVIDED: TWO(2) PER ELEVATION STYLENOTE: EXACT LOCATIONS OF BUILDINGS AND COLOR/MATERIALSCHEMES MAY VARY AT TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT.ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 18 A0-2BUILDING DESIGN VARIATIONArchitecture + Planning820 16th Street, Suite 500Denver, CO 80202303.825.6400ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNMAY 24, 2022FORT COLLINS, CO # 20210435ENCLAVE AT REDWOODDHI Communities9555 S Kingston CourtEnglewood, CO 801120 8 1632Architecture + Planning820 16th Street, Suite 500Denver, CO 80202303.825.6400ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNMAY 24, 2022FORT COLLINS, CO # 20210435ENCLAVE AT REDWOODDHI Communities9555 S Kingston CourtEnglewood, CO 801126B.44A.28C.54A.16B.38C.6PREVIOUSNEW - PROPOSED4A.14A.24B.34B.44C.54C.66A.16A.26B.36B.46C.56C.68A.18A.28B.38B.48C.58C.61/16"=1'-0" SCALEITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 19 A0-3BUILDING ENTRANCESArchitecture + Planning820 16th Street, Suite 500Denver, CO 80202303.825.6400ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNMAY 24, 2022FORT COLLINS, CO # 20210435ENCLAVE AT REDWOODDHI Communities9555 S Kingston CourtEnglewood, CO 8011204812Architecture + Planning820 16th Street, Suite 500Denver, CO 80202303.825.6400ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNMAY 24, 2022FORT COLLINS, CO # 20210435ENCLAVE AT REDWOODDHI Communities9555 S Kingston CourtEnglewood, CO 801124A.2 ARCHITECTURAL ENTRY ELEMENTS4B.3 ARCHITECTURAL ENTRY ELEMENTS4C.6 ARCHITECTURAL ENTRY ELEMENTS6A.1 ARCHITECTURAL ENTRY ELEMENTS6B.4 ARCHITECTURAL ENTRY ELEMENTS6C.5 ARCHITECTURAL ENTRY ELEMENTS8A.2 ARCHITECTURAL ENTRY ELEMENTS8B.3 ARCHITECTURAL ENTRY ELEMENTS8C.6 ARCHITECTURAL ENTRY ELEMENTSLUC 3.8.30(F) DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS (4) ENTRANCES•ENTRANCES SHALL BE MADE CLEARLY VISIBLE FROM STREETS AND PUBLIC AREAS THROUGH USE OF ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS AND LANDSCAPING.1/4"=1'-0" SCALEITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 20 55'-8"23'-2 1/2"23'-2 1/2"31'-4"71'-4"31'-4"2'-0"67'-4"67'-4"3'-6"13'-6"22'-10"28'-6"36'-4"2'-3"6'-2"39'-4"9'-10"45'-9"21'-0"28'-2"6'-2"24'-6"6'-2"28'-2"21'-0"2'-2"22'-0"19'-4"4'-8"5'-5"6'-4"70'-2"22'-0"19'-4"4'-8"5'-5"6'-4"2'-2"2'-2"15'-0"56'-3"42'-0"56'-3"15'-0"3'-8"2'-0"2'-0"3'-8"13'-8"45'-7"66'-0"13'-8"45'-7"3'-2"1'-8"3'-2"1'-8"A0-4BUILDING ROOFSArchitecture + Planning820 16th Street, Suite 500Denver, CO 80202303.825.6400ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNMAY 24, 2022FORT COLLINS, CO # 20210435ENCLAVE AT REDWOODDHI Communities9555 S Kingston CourtEnglewood, CO 801120 8 1632Architecture + Planning820 16th Street, Suite 500Denver, CO 80202303.825.6400ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNMAY 24, 2022FORT COLLINS, CO # 20210435ENCLAVE AT REDWOODDHI Communities9555 S Kingston CourtEnglewood, CO 801124A.24B.34C.66A.16B.46C.58A.28B.38C.6LUC 3.8.30(F) DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS (5) ROOFS•ROOFS (SLOPED, FLAT OR CURVED) INCLUDE AT LEAST TWO (2) OF THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS:(a) PRIMARY ROOF LINE ARTICULATED THROUGH VARIATION OR TERRACING IN HEIGHT, DETAILING, AND/OR CHANGE IN MASSING(b) SECONDARY ROOFS TRANSITION OVER ENTRANCES, PORCHES, GARAGES, DORMERS, TOWERS OR OTHER ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTIONS(c) OFFSETS IN ROOF PLANES ARE A MINIMUM OF TWO (2) FEET IN THE VERTICAL PLANE.(e) ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT IS HIDDEN FROM VIEW BY EQUIPMENT SCREENS OF COMPATIBLE DESIGN AND MATERIALS (NO ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT PROPOSED)1/16"=1'-0" SCALEaaaaaacbbbbbbbbbbbbbcacaccbbbbbbbbcbbbbbbaaaaaaaaccccccccbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbabceITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 21 A0-5BUILDING FACADES AND WALLSArchitecture + Planning820 16th Street, Suite 500Denver, CO 80202303.825.6400ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNMAY 24, 2022FORT COLLINS, CO # 20210435ENCLAVE AT REDWOODDHI Communities9555 S Kingston CourtEnglewood, CO 801120 8 1632Architecture + Planning820 16th Street, Suite 500Denver, CO 80202303.825.6400ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNMAY 24, 2022FORT COLLINS, CO # 20210435ENCLAVE AT REDWOODDHI Communities9555 S Kingston CourtEnglewood, CO 801124A.24B.34C.66A.16B.46C.58A.28B.38C.6LUC 3.8.30(F) DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS (6) FACADES AND WALLS•EACH MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING SHALL BE ARTICULATED WITH:PROJECTIONS, RECESSES, COVERED DOORWAYS, BALCONIES, COVERED BOX OR BAY WINDOWS AND/OR OTHER SIMILAR FEATURES,DIVIDING LARGE FACADES AND WALLS INTO HUMAN-SCALED PROPORTIONS SIMILAR TO THE ADJACENT SINGLE- OR TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS, AND SHALL NOT HAVE UNDIFFERENTIATED ROOF PLANES.•BUILDING FACADES SHALL BE ARTICULATED WITH HORIZONTAL AND/OR VERTICAL ELEMENTS THAT BREAK UP BLANK WALLS OF FORTY (40) FEET OR LONGER.•FACADE ARTICULATION MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY OFFSETTING THE FLOOR PLAN, RECESSING OR PROJECTION OF DESIGN ELEMENTS, CHANGE IN MATERIALS AND/OR CHANGES IN CONTRASTINGCOLORS.NOTE:SEE BUILDING SECTION SHEETS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON FACADE ARTICULATION.1/16"=1'-0" SCALEaCOVERED DOORWAYBALCONYKEYaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaFOREGROUNDPORCH FACADEMIDDLE GROUND FACADEITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 22 +/-22'-6"9'-1"123123123126126126126FRONTBACKRIGHTLEFTArchitecture + Planning820 16th Street, Suite 500Denver, CO 80202303.825.6400ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNMAY 24, 2022FORT COLLINS, CO # 20210435ENCLAVE AT REDWOODDHI Communities9555 S Kingston CourtEnglewood, CO 80112048 16A1-14-PLEX A ELEVATION COLOR 11A23456789101B11PERSPECTIVEITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 23 +/-22'-6"9'-1"123123123126126126126FRONTBACKRIGHTLEFTArchitecture + Planning820 16th Street, Suite 500Denver, CO 80202303.825.6400ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNMAY 24, 2022FORT COLLINS, CO # 20210435ENCLAVE AT REDWOODDHI Communities9555 S Kingston CourtEnglewood, CO 80112048 16A1-24-PLEX A ELEVATION COLOR 21A23456789101B11PERSPECTIVEITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 24 +/-18'-6"9'-1"124124124124124124124124124124124124124124FRONTBACKRIGHTLEFTArchitecture + Planning820 16th Street, Suite 500Denver, CO 80202303.825.6400ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNMAY 24, 2022FORT COLLINS, CO # 20210435ENCLAVE AT REDWOODDHI Communities9555 S Kingston CourtEnglewood, CO 80112048 16A1-34-PLEX B ELEVATION COLOR 31A2345671B891011PERSPECTIVEITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 25 +/-18'-6"9'-1"124124124124124124124124124124124124124124FRONTBACKRIGHTLEFTArchitecture + Planning820 16th Street, Suite 500Denver, CO 80202303.825.6400ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNMAY 24, 2022FORT COLLINS, CO # 20210435ENCLAVE AT REDWOODDHI Communities9555 S Kingston CourtEnglewood, CO 80112048 16A1-44-PLEX B ELEVATION COLOR 41A2345671B891011PERSPECTIVEITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 26 +/-23'-6"9'-1"121112111211121112111211126126121112111211121112111211126126FRONTBACKRIGHTLEFTArchitecture + Planning820 16th Street, Suite 500Denver, CO 80202303.825.6400ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNMAY 24, 2022FORT COLLINS, CO # 20210435ENCLAVE AT REDWOODDHI Communities9555 S Kingston CourtEnglewood, CO 80112048 16A1-54-PLEX C ELEVATION COLOR 5SCHEME 51A2345678910111B12PERSPECTIVEITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 27 +/-23'-6"9'-1"121112111211121112111211126126121112111211121112111211126126FRONTBACKRIGHTLEFTArchitecture + Planning820 16th Street, Suite 500Denver, CO 80202303.825.6400ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNMAY 24, 2022FORT COLLINS, CO # 20210435ENCLAVE AT REDWOODDHI Communities9555 S Kingston CourtEnglewood, CO 80112048 16A1-64-PLEX C ELEVATION COLOR 6SCHEME 51A2345678910111B12PERSPECTIVEITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 28 +/-33'-0"9'-1"1231'-4"9'-1"123126123126123123123123123126126123123FRONTBACKRIGHTLEFTArchitecture + Planning820 16th Street, Suite 500Denver, CO 80202303.825.6400ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNMAY 24, 2022FORT COLLINS, CO # 20210435ENCLAVE AT REDWOODDHI Communities9555 S Kingston CourtEnglewood, CO 80112048 16A2-16-PLEX A ELEVATION COLOR 11A23456789101B11PERSPECTIVEITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 29 +/-33'-0"9'-1"1231'-4"9'-1"123126123126123123123123123126126123123FRONTBACKRIGHTLEFTArchitecture + Planning820 16th Street, Suite 500Denver, CO 80202303.825.6400ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNMAY 24, 2022FORT COLLINS, CO # 20210435ENCLAVE AT REDWOODDHI Communities9555 S Kingston CourtEnglewood, CO 80112048 16A2-26-PLEX A ELEVATION COLOR 21A23456789101B11PERSPECTIVEITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 30 +/-30'-0"9'-1"1241'-4"9'-1"124124124124124124124124124124124124124124124124124124124FRONTBACKRIGHTLEFTArchitecture + Planning820 16th Street, Suite 500Denver, CO 80202303.825.6400ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNMAY 24, 2022FORT COLLINS, CO # 20210435ENCLAVE AT REDWOODDHI Communities9555 S Kingston CourtEnglewood, CO 80112048 16A2-36-PLEX B ELEVATION COLOR 31A2345671B891011PERSPECTIVEITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 31 +/-30'-0"9'-1"1241'-4"9'-1"124124124124124124124124124124124124124124124124124124124FRONTBACKRIGHTLEFTArchitecture + Planning820 16th Street, Suite 500Denver, CO 80202303.825.6400ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNMAY 24, 2022FORT COLLINS, CO # 20210435ENCLAVE AT REDWOODDHI Communities9555 S Kingston CourtEnglewood, CO 80112048 16A2-46-PLEX B ELEVATION COLOR 41A2345671B891011PERSPECTIVEITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 32 +/-34'-0"9'-1"12111'-4"9'-1"121112111261231261231261211121112111211126123126126123FRONTBACKRIGHTLEFTArchitecture + Planning820 16th Street, Suite 500Denver, CO 80202303.825.6400ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNMAY 24, 2022FORT COLLINS, CO # 20210435ENCLAVE AT REDWOODDHI Communities9555 S Kingston CourtEnglewood, CO 80112048 16A2-56-PLEX C ELEVATION COLOR 51A2345678910111B12PERSPECTIVEITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 33 +/-34'-0"9'-1"12111'-4"9'-1"121112111261231261231261211121112111211126123126126123FRONTBACKRIGHTLEFTArchitecture + Planning820 16th Street, Suite 500Denver, CO 80202303.825.6400ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNMAY 24, 2022FORT COLLINS, CO # 20210435ENCLAVE AT REDWOODDHI Communities9555 S Kingston CourtEnglewood, CO 80112048 16A2-66-PLEX C ELEVATION COLOR 61A2345678910111B12PERSPECTIVEITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 34 +/-34'-0"9'-1"1'-4"9'-1"123123123123126123126123123126126FRONTBACKRIGHTLEFTArchitecture + Planning820 16th Street, Suite 500Denver, CO 80202303.825.6400ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNMAY 24, 2022FORT COLLINS, CO # 20210435ENCLAVE AT REDWOODDHI Communities9555 S Kingston CourtEnglewood, CO 80112048 16A3-18-PLEX A ELEVATION COLOR 11A23456789101B11PERSPECTIVEITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 35 +/-34'-0"9'-1"1'-4"9'-1"123123123123126123126123123126126FRONTBACKRIGHTLEFTArchitecture + Planning820 16th Street, Suite 500Denver, CO 80202303.825.6400ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNMAY 24, 2022FORT COLLINS, CO # 20210435ENCLAVE AT REDWOODDHI Communities9555 S Kingston CourtEnglewood, CO 80112048 16A3-28-PLEX A ELEVATION COLOR 21A23456789101B11PERSPECTIVEITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 36 +/-30'-0"9'-1"1'-4"9'-1"1241241241241211124124124124124124124124124124124124124124124124124FRONTBACKRIGHTLEFTArchitecture + Planning820 16th Street, Suite 500Denver, CO 80202303.825.6400ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNMAY 24, 2022FORT COLLINS, CO # 20210435ENCLAVE AT REDWOODDHI Communities9555 S Kingston CourtEnglewood, CO 80112048 16A3-38-PLEX B ELEVATION COLOR 31A2345671B891011PERSPECTIVEITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 37 +/-30'-0"9'-1"1'-4"9'-1"1241241241241211124124124124124124124124124124124124124124124124124FRONTBACKRIGHTLEFTArchitecture + Planning820 16th Street, Suite 500Denver, CO 80202303.825.6400ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNMAY 24, 2022FORT COLLINS, CO # 20210435ENCLAVE AT REDWOODDHI Communities9555 S Kingston CourtEnglewood, CO 80112048 16A3-48-PLEX B ELEVATION COLOR 41A2345671B891011PERSPECTIVEITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 38 +/-34'-0"9'-1"1'-4"9'-1"1211121112111211121112111211121112612312111211121112111211121112111211126123FRONTBACKRIGHTLEFTArchitecture + Planning820 16th Street, Suite 500Denver, CO 80202303.825.6400ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNMAY 24, 2022FORT COLLINS, CO # 20210435ENCLAVE AT REDWOODDHI Communities9555 S Kingston CourtEnglewood, CO 80112048 16A3-58-PLEX C ELEVATION COLOR 51A2345678910111B12PERSPECTIVEITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 39 +/-34'-0"9'-1"1'-4"9'-1"1211121112111211121112111211121112612312111211121112111211121112111211126123FRONTBACKRIGHTLEFTPERSPECTIVEArchitecture + Planning820 16th Street, Suite 500Denver, CO 80202303.825.6400ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNMAY 24, 2022FORT COLLINS, CO # 20210435ENCLAVE AT REDWOODDHI Communities9555 S Kingston CourtEnglewood, CO 80112048 16A3-68-PLEX C ELEVATION COLOR 61A2345678910111B12ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 40 20'-6"2'-0"1'-0"22'-6"9'-2"3'-6"22'-6"21'-0"1'-6"3'-9"22-69'-2"PRIMARY BED9'-0"clg.CLOSET9'-0"clg.BATH 19'-0"clg.GARAGE9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.GARAGE9'-0"clg.BATH 19'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.PRIMARY BED9'-0"clg.CLOSET9'-0"clg.CLOSET9'-0"clg.BATH 19'-0"clg.GARAGE9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.PRIMARY BED9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.CLOSET9'-0"clg.GARAGE9'-0"clg.BATH 19'-0"clg.PRIMARY BED9'-0"clg.MECH.MECH.MECH.MECH.3'-6"3'-6"3'-6"3'-6"9'-2"9'-2"15'-4"15'-1"15'-1"15'-4"99'-1"45'-0"Architecture + Planning820 16th Street, Suite 500Denver, CO 80202303.825.6400ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNMAY 24, 2022FORT COLLINS, CO # 20210435ENCLAVE AT REDWOODDHI Communities9555 S Kingston CourtEnglewood, CO 80112048 16A4-14-PLEX A ELEVATION SECTIONS2123321ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 41 12'-0"6'-6"1'-0"18'-6"9'-2"3'-6"14'-0"4'-6"3'-6"18'-6"18'-0"6"3'-9"18-69'-2"GARAGE9'-0"clg.GARAGE9'-0"clg.GARAGE9'-0"clg.GARAGE9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.PRIMARY BED9'-0"clg.PRIMARY BED9'-0"clg.PRIMARY BED9'-0"clg.CLOSET9'-0"clg.CLOSET9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.PRIMARY BED9'-0"clg.CLOSET9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.BATH 19'-0"clg.BATH 19'-0"clg.BATH 19'-0"clg.BATH 19'-0"clg.MECH.MECH.MECH.MECH.W/DW/DW/DW/DCLOSET9'-0"clg.3'-6"3'-6"3'-6"3'-6"9'-2"9'-2"15'-4"15'-1"15'-1"24'-10 3/4"99'-1"45'-0"Architecture + Planning820 16th Street, Suite 500Denver, CO 80202303.825.6400ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNMAY 24, 2022FORT COLLINS, CO # 20210435ENCLAVE AT REDWOODDHI Communities9555 S Kingston CourtEnglewood, CO 80112048 16A4-24-PLEX B ELEVATION SECTIONS2123321ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 42 22'-0"6'-6"1'-0"24'-0"9'-2"2'-0"21'-6"2'-6"24'-0"2'-6"2'-0"20'-0"3'-9"22 02'-0"1'-6"9'-2"1'-0"GARAGE9'-0"clg.GARAGE9'-0"clg.GARAGE9'-0"clg.GARAGE9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.PRIMARY BED9'-0"clg.PRIMARY BED9'-0"clg.PRIMARY BED9'-0"clg.PRIMARY BED9'-0"clg.CLOSET9'-0"clg.CLOSET9'-0"clg.CLOSET9'-0"clg.CLOSET9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.BATH 19'-0"clg.BATH 19'-0"clg.BATH 19'-0"clg.BATH 19'-0"clg.MECH.MECH.MECH.MECH.2'-6"3'-6"4'-6"3'-6"9'-2"9'-2"15'-4"14'-7 1/2"15'-6 1/2"15'-4"99'-1"45'-0"9'-2"10'-2"Architecture + Planning820 16th Street, Suite 500Denver, CO 80202303.825.6400ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNMAY 24, 2022FORT COLLINS, CO # 20210435ENCLAVE AT REDWOODDHI Communities9555 S Kingston CourtEnglewood, CO 80112048 16A4-34-PLEX C ELEVATION SECTIONS2123321ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 43 31'-0"33'-0"2'-0"6'-0"1'-0"4'-0"2'-6"6'-0"3'-6"2'-6"24'-6"31'-0"6'-6"33'-0"6'-0"1'-0"5'-0"2'-6"6'-0"KITCHEN9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.ENTRY9'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.ENTRY9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.ENTRY9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.ENTRY9'-0"clg.GARAGE9'-0"clg.GARAGE9'-0"clg.GARAGE9'-0"clg.GARAGE9'-0"clg.GARAGE9'-0"clg.T/DWATERGARAGE9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.ENTRY9'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.ENTRY9'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.6'-0"6'-0"6'-0"6'-0"6'-0"6'-0"2'-6"11'-0"10'-8 1/2"22'-8 1/2"22'-8 1/2"10'-8 1/2"11'-0"131'-11"45'-0"Architecture + Planning820 16th Street, Suite 500Denver, CO 80202303.825.6400ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNMAY 24, 2022FORT COLLINS, CO # 20210435ENCLAVE AT REDWOODDHI Communities9555 S Kingston CourtEnglewood, CO 80112048 16A4-46-PLEX A ELEVATION SECTIONS2123321ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 44 28'-0"2'-0"6'-0"1'-0"30'-0"6'-0"2'-6"4'-0"3'-6"26'-6"28'-6"1'-6"6'-0"1'-0"30'-0"6'-0"2'-6"4'-0"KITCHEN9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.ENTRY9'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.ENTRY9'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.ENTRY9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.ENTRY9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.MECH.MECH.?T/DWATERENTRY9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.ENTRY9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.GARAGE9'-0"clg.GARAGE9'-0"clg.GARAGE9'-0"clg.GARAGE9'-0"clg.GARAGE9'-0"clg.GARAGE9'-0"clg.6'-0"6'-0"6'-0"6'-0"6'-0"6'-0"2'-6"11'-0"10'-7 1/4"10'-7 1/4"10'-7 1/4"10'-7 1/4"11'-0"131'-11"45'-0"Architecture + Planning820 16th Street, Suite 500Denver, CO 80202303.825.6400ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNMAY 24, 2022FORT COLLINS, CO # 20210435ENCLAVE AT REDWOODDHI Communities9555 S Kingston CourtEnglewood, CO 80112048 16A4-56-PLEX B ELEVATION SECTIONS2123321ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 45 30'-6"3'-6"6'-0"1'-0"34'-0"4'-0"2'-6"6'-0"27'-0"3'-6"3'-6"30'-6"2'-6"30'-6"3'-6"1'-0"34'-0"1'-0"3'-6"KITCHEN9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.ENTRY9'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.ENTRY9'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.ENTRY9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.ENTRY9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.MECH.MECH.T/DWATERENTRY9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.ENTRY9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.GARAGE9'-0"clg.GARAGE9'-0"clg.GARAGE9'-0"clg.GARAGE9'-0"clg.GARAGE9'-0"clg.GARAGE9'-0"clg.6'-0"6'-0"6'-0"6'-0"6'-0"6'-0"2'-6"131'-11"45'-0"21'-9 3/4"10'-7 1/4"10'-2 1/4"10'-7 1/4"21'-6"10'-7 1/4"Architecture + Planning820 16th Street, Suite 500Denver, CO 80202303.825.6400ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNMAY 24, 2022FORT COLLINS, CO # 20210435ENCLAVE AT REDWOODDHI Communities9555 S Kingston CourtEnglewood, CO 80112048 16A4-66-PLEX C ELEVATION SECTIONS2123321ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 46 29'-0"3'-6"3'-6"1'-0"7'-6"32'-6"25'-0"7'-6"32'-6"4'-0"1'-0"3'-6"22'-0"7'-6"32'-6"6'-0"1'-0"4'-0"6'-0"2'-6"2'-3"30'-6"1'-0"6'-0"6'-0"7'-6"2'-6"ENTRY9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.GARAGE9'-0"clg.GARAGE9'-0"clg.GARAGE9'-0"clg.GARAGE9'-0"clg.GARAGE9'-0"clg.GARAGE9'-0"clg.GARAGE9'-0"clg.GARAGE9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.ENTRY9'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.WATERT/DWATERT/DMECH.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.ENTRY9'-0"clg.ENTRY9'-0"clg.ENTRY9'-0"clg.ENTRY9'-0"clg.ENTRY9'-0"clg.ENTRY9'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.MECH.6'-6"6'-0"3'-6"3'-0"6'-0"6'-0"6'-0"6'-0"6'-0"6'-0"2'-6"23'-7"10'-0 3/4"10'-0 3/4"10'-6"10'-6"10'-0 3/4"10'-0 3/4"23'-7"45'-6"182'-7"Architecture + Planning820 16th Street, Suite 500Denver, CO 80202303.825.6400ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNMAY 24, 2022FORT COLLINS, CO # 20210435ENCLAVE AT REDWOODDHI Communities9555 S Kingston CourtEnglewood, CO 80112048 16A4-78-PLEX A ELEVATION-SECTIONS212344321ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 47 27'-6"29'-0"3'-0"1'-0"1'-6"27'-6"20'-0"3'-0"1'-0"3'-6"29'-0"22'-0"1'-0"6'-0"6'-0"3'-0"4'-0"27'-0"20'-0"2'-0"4'-6"6'-0"6'-0"3'-0"1'-0"MECH.MECH.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.ENTRY9'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.ENTRY9'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.ENTRY9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.ENTRY9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.ENTRY9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.ENTRY9'-0"clg.ENTRY9'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.ENTRY9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.T/DWATERT/DWATERGARAGEGARAGEGARAGEGARAGEGARAGEGARAGEGARAGEGARAGE6'-6"6'-0"3'-0"6'-0"6'-0"6'-0"6'-0"6'-0"6'-0"2'-6"3'-6"12'-4"10'-0 3/4"10'-0 3/4"22'-5"22'-5"10'-0 3/4"10'-0 3/4"12'-4"45'-6"182'-7"Architecture + Planning820 16th Street, Suite 500Denver, CO 80202303.825.6400ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNMAY 24, 2022FORT COLLINS, CO # 20210435ENCLAVE AT REDWOODDHI Communities9555 S Kingston CourtEnglewood, CO 80112048 16A4-88-PLEX B ELEVATION- SECTIONS43211234ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 48 6'-6"1'-0"27'-6"33'-0"6'-6"365'-6"4'-0"1'-0"21'-0"30'-0"4-01'-0"6'-0"6'-0"30'-0"1'-0"6'-0"6'-0"30'-0"50MECH.MECH.ENTRY9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.ENTRY9'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.ENTRY9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.ENTRY9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.ENTRY9'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.ENTRY9'-0"clg.ENTRY9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.ENTRY9'-0"clg.LIVING ROOM9'-0"clg.KITCHEN9'-0"clg.BATH 39'-0"clg.T/DWATERT/DWATERGARAGEGARAGEGARAGEGARAGEGARAGEGARAGEGARAGEGARAGE6'-6"6'-0"3'-6"3'-0"6'-0"6'-0"6'-0"6'-0"6'-0"6'-0"2'-6"45'-6"182'-7"25'-4 1/2"10'-0 3/4"10'-0 3/4"10'-6"22'-4 1/4"10'-0 3/4"10'-0 3/4"25'-4 1/2"Architecture + Planning820 16th Street, Suite 500Denver, CO 80202303.825.6400ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNMAY 24, 2022FORT COLLINS, CO # 20210435ENCLAVE AT REDWOODDHI Communities9555 S Kingston CourtEnglewood, CO 80112048 16A4-98-PLEX C ELEVATION- SECTIONS12341234ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 49 A5-0COLOR AND MATERIAL VARIATIONArchitecture + Planning820 16th Street, Suite 500Denver, CO 80202303.825.6400ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNMAY 24, 2022FORT COLLINS, CO # 20210435ENCLAVE AT REDWOODDHI Communities9555 S Kingston CourtEnglewood, CO 80112LUC 3.8.30(F)(3) & (7) VARIATION OFCOLOR & COLORS AND MATERIALS•THREE (3) MINIMUM VARIATIONSREQUIREDSIX (6) DISTINCT SCHEMES PROVIDED:TWO (2) PER ELEVATION STYLE•MUTED, EARTH TONE, NATURALCOLORS FOUND IN SURROUNDINGLANDSCAPE AND CONSISTENT WITHADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD•BRIGHT COLORS RESERVED FORACCENT AND FRONT DOORS•COLORS AND MATERIALSINTEGRATED WITH MASSING TOREDUCE SCALE OF BUILDING•CONTRASTING TRIM AND SHADESDISTINGUISH ARCHITECTURALELEMENTSELEVATION STYLE CELEVATION STYLE BELEVATION STYLE AITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 50 +/-25'-6"12'-1"121112119'-1"121112111211121112312111211FRONTBACKRIGHTLEFTPERSPECTIVEArchitecture + Planning820 16th Street, Suite 500Denver, CO 80202303.825.6400ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNMAY 24, 2022FORT COLLINS, CO # 20210435ENCLAVE AT REDWOODDHI Communities9555 S Kingston CourtEnglewood, CO 80112048 16A6-1AMENITY CENTER ELEVATION1A2345678910111B12ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 51 +/-21'-0"9'-1"1211121112111211+/-14'-0"123FRONTBACKRIGHTLEFTPERSPECTIVEArchitecture + Planning820 16th Street, Suite 500Denver, CO 80202303.825.6400ktgy.comCONCEPTUAL DESIGNMAY 24, 2022FORT COLLINS, CO # 20210435ENCLAVE AT REDWOODDHI Communities9555 S Kingston CourtEnglewood, CO 80112048 16A6-2MAIL KIOSK, DOG WASH AND MAINTENANCE ELEVATION1A2345678910111B12BACKRIGHTLEFTPERSPECTIVEFRONTITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 52 Community Development & Neighborhood Services Planning & Development Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.221.6376 970.224.6111- fax MEMORANDUM Date: June 15, 2022 To: Chair Katz and Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission From: Spencer Smith, Traffic Operations Engineer Re: Read Before Memo: Item #2, Enclave at Redwood Project Development Plan __________________________________________________________________ Since the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing on Thursday, April 21st regarding the Enclave at Redwood Project Development Plan (PDP#210004), residents of the Meadows at Redwood neighborhood raised concerns that the Enclave at Redwood Traffic Impact Study (TIS) did not include potential future traffic volumes on Lupine Drive from the approved Northfield subdivision. The Northfield project is currently under construction and located directly east of the Enclave at Redwood. The Enclave at Redwood and Northfield projects will have public roadway connections at Steeley Drive and Collamer Drive. Traffic Operations staff requested that the Enclave at Redwood traffic engineer provide an addendum to the TIS that would provide an analysis of potential traffic contributions to Lupine Drive from Northfield. Staff received a traffic memorandum on June 13th, 2022, from the applicant, which is included in the agenda packet materials for the record. At the time that the Northfield TIS was approved, the previous plan for the Enclave at Redwood site (in the development review process under a different applicant as “The Retreat”) did not include a roadway connection to Lupine Drive. Therefore, all Northfield traffic that would travel north on Redwood Street was routed to Suniga Road rather than via Lupine Drive. The TIS for the Enclave at Redwood project did include the Northfield TIS in its analysis but was not updated to reflect the change in connectivity with the proposed connection to Lupine Drive. In review of the traffic memorandum, a summary of the findings is highlighted below. Staff has not amended the staff report or staff presentation included in the April hearing, as the overall staff findings and recommendation on the project have not changed. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 53 Read Before Memo – Enclave at Redwood Page 2 Traffic Volume Contribution from the Northfield Project: The approved Northfield TIS distributed 5% of the overall project traffic to Redwood Street. The traffic memorandum provided by the Enclave at Redwood traffic engineer routed the entire 5% (185 trips) through the Meadows at Redwood subdivision, via Lupine Drive, to the intersection of Redwood Street and Lupine Drive. The additional trips were then added to the intersection and the Level of Service (LOS) reanalyzed. The revised total traffic on Lupine (including existing, Enclave at Redwood and Northfield) is 915 trips. Analysis of the Redwood Street and Lupine Drive intersection shows that the intersection will still function at an acceptable LOS per the City’s standards. Staff considers this an acceptable conservative approach, since it would not be likely that all Northfield traffic travelling north on Redwood Street would use Lupine Drive. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 54 Rollins Consult LLC M E M O R A N D U M To: Spencer Smith, City of Fort Collins Sam Coutts – Ripley Design From: Ruth Rollins, PE Date: June 13, 2022 Subject: Enclave at Redwood – Inclusion of Northfield Traffic Redwood/Lupine Spencer, this memo documents the future 2040 traffic conditions on Lupine Drive at Redwood Street. The traffic projections for the Northfield project were based on information contained in the Northfield Transportation Impact Study, August 2018, prepared by Delich Associates. The residents of Northfield will have roadway connections to the proposed Enclave at Redwood. The daily and peak hour traffic from Northfield was added to the traffic projections previously documented in emails and the Traffic Impact Study Enclave at Redwood, August 17, 2021, by Rollins Consult. Figure 1 depicts the Northfield traffic and the Total 2040 traffic (with the Enclave at Redwood). As shown on the figure the Northfield traffic could result in an additional 185 daily trips on Lupine Drive. The total daily projected traffic on Lupine is estimated to be 915 trips. The desirable threshold on a Local Street is 1,000 vehicles per day. The intersection of Redwood Street at Lupine Drive was analyzed based on the future Total 2040 peak hour volumes depicted on Figure 1. The analysis worksheets are attached. As indicated in the analysis results, the peak hour operations for the intersection are expected to be a level of service (LOS) A or B which is within the City’s threshold of LOS D. Let me know if you require any additional information. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 55 REDWOOD/LUPINE WITH NORTHFIELD City of Fort Collins 2 Figure 1 – 2040 Projections ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 56 REDWOOD/LUPINE WITH NORTHFIELD City of Fort Collins 3 HCM 6Wh TWSC 2: RedZ.. d & LXSLQe 06/10/2022 Enclave at Redwood 5:00 pm 01/29/2021 2040 Total AM With Northfield Synchro 10 Light Report RR Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 0 11 21 1 26 5 115 10 13 132 10 Future Vol, veh/h 5 0 11 21 1 26 5 115 10 13 132 10 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, %- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 5 0 12 23 1 28 5 125 11 14 143 11 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 332 323 149 324 323 131 154 0 0 136 0 0 Stage 1 177 177 - 141 141 - - - - - - - Stage 2 155 146 - 183 182 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 621 595 898 629 595 919 1426 - - 1448 - - Stage 1 825 753 - 862 780 - - - - - - - Stage 2 847 776 - 819 749 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, %- -- - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 594 586 898 613 586 919 1426 - - 1448 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 594 586 - 613 586 - - - - - - - Stage 1 822 745 - 859 777 - - - - - - - Stage 2 817 773 - 799 741 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.8 10.2 0.3 0.6 HCM LOS A B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1426 - - 774 747 1448 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 - - 0.022 0.07 0.01 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 - 9.8 10.2 7.5 0 - HCM Lane LOS A A - A B A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 0.2 0 - - ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 57 REDWOOD/LUPINE WITH NORTHFIELD City of Fort Collins 4 HCM 6Wh TWSC 2: RedZ.. d & LXSLQe 06/10/2022 Enclave at Redwood 5:00 pm 01/29/2021 2040 Total PM With Northfield Synchro 10 Light Report RR Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 1 15 11 1 23 15 206 28 27 154 11 Future Vol, veh/h 10 1 15 11 1 23 15 206 28 27 154 11 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, %- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 11 1 16 12 1 25 16 224 30 29 167 12 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 515 517 173 511 508 239 179 0 0 254 0 0 Stage 1 231 231 - 271 271 - - - - - - - Stage 2 284 286 - 240 237 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 470 462 871 473 468 800 1397 - - 1311 - - Stage 1 772 713 - 735 685 - - - - - - - Stage 2 723 675 - 763 709 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, %- -- - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 441 444 871 450 450 800 1397 - - 1311 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 441 444 - 450 450 - - - - - - - Stage 1 762 695 - 725 676 - - - - - - - Stage 2 690 666 - 729 691 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11.1 11.1 0.5 1.1 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h)1397 - - 617 632 1311 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.012 - - 0.046 0.06 0.022 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 0 - 11.1 11.1 7.8 0 - HCM Lane LOS A A - B B A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 0.2 0.1 - - ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 58 TO: City of Fort Collins Planning and Development Department and Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Meadows at Redwood HOA RE: Meadows at Redwood HOA response to P&Z meeting for The Enclave on 4/21/2022: The Meadows at Redwood HOA has several items of concern regarding the Enclave development that was presented to the P&Z Board on 4/21/2022. Firstly, the Meadows at Redwood wants to be clear that the concerns we have are with the City Code and the public participation process. We understand and appreciate the effort that developers, City Staff, and the P&Z Board members make to find balance between often conflicting goals and interests. After the P&Z meeting for the Enclave, The Meadows at Redwood HOA members convened and generated a list of concerns that were left unasked and unanswered, as is the nature of the P&Z Meeting format. We are presenting those concerns below on behalf of the members of The Meadows at Redwood HOA for the City/Developer to address (if possible). It would also be appreciated if this letter can be shared with the P&Z members for them to be aware of our concerns. CONCERN #1: Unfortunately for the households in the Meadows at Redwood, the initial (and only) public presentation (held on 7/29/2020) for the Enclave was missing many critical details that were clarified during the P&Z hearing. For the HOA members, the P&Z meeting was the only place for us to interpret the changes and voice our concerns regarding a multitude of changed elements in the Enclave design. Our HOA members were forced into an uncomfortable situation to essentially vent our concerns to the P&Z Board. This did not feel fair to our neighborhood or to the P&Z Board members. Our HOA felt that a second public participation meeting could have circumvented the “vent” session that our HOA was forced to do at the P&Z Meeting. Also, and more concerning, this process essentially allows a public participation meeting to occur too early in the design. The Enclave development proposed at the P&Z meeting was significantly different than the plans that were presented to the public participation meeting. It feels disingenuous for the City and Developer to present an early concept plan to the public and present a significantly different plan to the P&Z Board for approval. CONCERN #2: Very broadly, the Meadows at Redwood HOA is confused how the Northside Neighborhood Plan is interpreted and implemented. Many of us, as homeowners, were active participants during the Northside Neighborhood plan development in the late 90’s. The HOA would like to meet with City Staff, to help us understand how developments like Northfield and the Enclave meet the intent of the Northside Neighborhood Plan. It feels to us that the character of existing neighborhoods does not match these proposed developments that are clearly moving forward and considered in compliance with the Northside Neighborhood Plan. The Northside Neighborhood plan is constantly cited by development proposals as encouraging a mix of housing types, but the only "single family" style homes in the build out of the plan are the existing old homes built in Andersonville, Redwood Meadows, and Alta Vista ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 59 neighborhoods. Why have these small neighborhoods become the poster child for mixed housing types that the plan was supposed to encourage? Allowing all additional development to be multi-family housing feel disingenuous to the Northside Neighborhood plan. The City’s interpretation and enforcement of these neighborhood plans do have a major impact on adjacent residents to new development. In our case, Lupine becomes a main access point for large apartment complexes, when the interior roads were initially envisioned to simply connect to future phases of The Meadows at Redwood single family home development. CONCERN #3.1: The Meadows at Redwood is very disappointed in the decisions and code requirements requiring the Enclave to connect to the Meadows at Redwood via Lupine. To echo the boards thoughts “change is hard” and we understand that. Our HOA has been very open and amiable to development proposals in our area, despite being completely confused by the intent of the Northside Neighborhood Plan. We understand that we have no negotiating power with how this area develops and that our neighborhood is subject to the process of the City’s codes and developers’ interests. The Meadows at Redwood HOA heard three important points regarding Lupine connection that were discussed at the P&Z meeting: - The City fully understands that connecting Lupine to the Enclave will clearly increase traffic on Lupine. - Based on neighborhood testimony, the City understands that the Meadows at Redwood HOA believes the additional traffic will be a significant reduction in the quality of life for residents in the Meadows at Redwood HOA. - The City believes that the reduced quality of life in the Meadows at Redwood HOA is minor compared to the increased quality of life for all Fort Collins residents by enforcing the interconnectivity requirement at this location. Unfortunately, the decision to require interconnectivity on Lupine is more than a simple “change is hard” type of issue. It isn’t a subtle thing when all of a sudden, your home is on a roadway that is a direct connection to several hundred households. To make it worse, the whole decision feels very arbitrary due to a code that the City is forced to enforce with no consideration to negative impacts to existing residents’ quality of life. This new connection does nothing to improve the Meadows at Redwood. It is also unclear if this connection actually helps any other community members. Again, our HOA has no negotiating power in this decision, but we do need to express our frustration that the City would expect our HOA to just accept this significant change to the character of our neighborhood without some due process that would include our neighborhood input. At the P&Z meeting, board members cited several examples where contentious connectivity was ultimately a non-issue. Can the City provide those examples to us for review? Are there examples of small (36-ish household) communities becoming connected to 400+ dwelling units and having the small subdivision as one of the primary access points? Are there examples of large rental communities connecting to single family home neighborhoods? ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 60 Also, typically with new developments, the multi-family units are built on the exterior perimeter of the development, concentrating traffic and noise to the perimeter of the neighborhood. These developments place the more desirable single-family units on the interior of the development. Our neighborhood is forced into the reverse situation, which is not a best practice for new developments and urban design concepts. The Northside Neighborhood Plan will feature single-family homes being on the outer perimeter of the neighborhood with the interior neighborhood featuring large multi-family buildings. CONCERN #3.2: Ultimately, The Meadows at Redwood HOA is not convinced that the Lupine connectivity is good for either of the neighborhoods or the City as a whole. How is the quality of life improved for The Enclave, Northfield, or Meadows at Redwood with this connection when a full movement at “Road C” provides the same connectivity to Redwood? In the big picture, how does this one connection point improve the quality of life for the general citizens of Fort Collins? The connection only seems to be necessary because the code requires it and there are incomplete existing roadways caused by the incomplete development of the Meadows at Redwood. There are several points we want to refine for the City and P&Z’s further consideration regarding the connectivity at Lupine: First point: The original Meadows at Redwood development was a multiphase project developed in the 80’s and built in the 90’s. What were the connectivity goals at the time of this development? The open-ended roadways at Lupine and Mullein were originally intended to connect future phases of the Meadows at Redwood single family homes. This is still evident on the GIS maps that shows undeveloped Phase 2 of Meadows at Redwood. If Meadows at Redwood Phase 1 was built as a singular development in the 80’s, it very well may have had culdesacs at Lupine and Mullein. Second Point: If Redwood Meadows was a multi-hundred household neighborhood with many access points to main roads, the City’s connectivity requirements would be less significant, as the P&Z Board pointed out and as is the case in other locations that had to deal with large adjacent developments. But, in the Meadows at Redwood HOA case, connecting a small 36 household development to two huge apartment complex developments does not seem like the same scenario. It feels overwhelming to our neighborhood. Third Point: There are many developments built after Meadows at Redwood that were not required to meet connectivity requirements on local streets. There are multiple neighborhoods that use cul-de-sacs when it is clear that these could have been points of local road neighborhood connectivity. Some examples: Willow Springs was not required to provide connectivity to the south future developments. Rossbourough was not required to connect to Casa Granda & Wagon Wheel. Greenstone was not required to connect to Stanton Creek. Fourth Point: Prior conversations about connectivity with the prior development, “The Retreat” went into great depth about why a connection to Lupine was necessary. Primarily that Lupine would be the only location that would allow full movements to Redwood. I n t h a t c a s e , t h e developer was very cooperative and found a creative alternate solution for us. Our HOA was very fortunate to work through this concern with the developer and the City Traffic Dept. Ultimately (and ironically), the Meadows neighborhood was very agreeable to the proposed student development. Fifth point: The proposed traffic generation of the Enclave is not that different than the Retreat ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 61 (despite being student housing). The big difference between the Enclave and the Retreat is that the Enclave development allows Road C to get a full movement at Redwood, whereas the Retreat required right in - right out at Road C. This traffic flow change for the Enclave reduces the traffic at Lupine, which is good for our HOA. However, the previous developer’s limited movement at Road C was a major reason the City was requiring connectivity at Lupine. Now, with full movement at Road C, the need for full movement access at Lupine/Redwood is no longer a strong argument for traffic flow for the Enclave. Sixth Point: The Meadows at Redwood HOA is still not convinced that a north connection to Conifer is unviable. We have reached out to Neighbor to Neighbor and confirmed that the parcel of land to make a connection to Redwood is still available for sale to this developer and we are trying to setup a meeting with the developer to review this option in more detail. Seventh Point: The Meadows at Redwood believes an attractive pedestrian and bicycle connection that would also allow emergency vehicle access to The Enclave from Lupine would be a very positive amenity for existing and proposed developments. It would also provide a better opportunity for the interconnected community that the City desires to build. A ped/bike access point would create less traffic within Meadows at Redwood and the Enclave, making both developments more family friendly. It would also allow neighbors to interact outside of their automobiles, where people tend to be gentler and more friendly. It would be more environmentally friendly, requiring less resources to build and maintain. It would also promote alternative, active modes of transportation that the City is focused on creating. Ultimately, the Meadows at Redwood HOA want a clearer understanding why the City is forcing Lupine connection for connectivity at the detriment of our small neighborhood when both The Enclave developer and the Meadows HOA would be comfortable removing this connection? The Meadows at Redwood appreciates the City’s goal to build stronger neighborhoods thru roadway interconnectivity. However, we are worried that blindly implementing these interconnectivity requirements can cause the reverse effect of creating animosity between neighbors. We hope that there is room in the code interpretation to allow City Staff and P&Z Board members space to use careful judgement in all interconnectivity considerations that occur with new development. The space for this judgement has big implications to the fate of existing small neighborhoods adjacent to large proposed developments. The Meadows at Redwood wholly appreciates the Enclaves’ effort to request a variance for the connectivity requirement at Mullein. Our HOA is still focused on pushing for a similar variance for connectivity at Lupine. OTHER CONCERNS: Unfortunately, there are also a lot of other questions that the HOA members had as we digested the Enclave development that was presented to the P&Z meeting. We will list them as points that would have been nice to see and discuss in a public meeting format, prior to the P&Z Meeting. If possible, the Meadows at Redwood would appreciate a response from the City to address these open-ended questions. - The public participation plan (7/29/2020) included single family homes. That home type was removed from the revised Enclave plan presented at the P&Z meeting. How does the removal of this home type improve the vision set forth in the Northside Neighborhood Plan? ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 62 - The alleyway access to the multifamily homes along the Meadows at Redwood HOA does not seem to fit the character of the Northside Neighborhood plan. Where are alley presented in the plan? What other neighborhoods in the plan area have alleys? - The alleyway setback changed from 75’ from property line at the public participation meeting (7/29/2020) to 25’ at the P&Z meeting material. This puts the alley significantly closer to existing Meadows HOA households’ backyards and bedroom windows. - What is the ADT on these private road alleys? Based on the info from the P&Z meeting, it seems like there will be about 250 trips per day in this alleyway, which is about equal to all of the current traffic that The Meadows at Redwood HOA currently generates. - Does the City have any code or maintenance requirements for private roads (alleys)? - Will garbage trucks use the alleys for trash collection? - Will each unit have its own trash can, or will there be centralized dumpsters?, If dumpsters, where are the dumpsters located? - Does The Enclave’s Traffic Study at Lupine include cut-thru traffic from Northfield Development? If not, can the City provide a combined ADT from both developments at Lupine? - What are the City requirements for fences between developments? Who owns and maintains the existing wood fences between The Meadows at Redwood and The Enclave? (currently, they are owned by adjacent Meadows at Redwood HOA households – our HOA does not maintain fences). Can the fences be removed? Will The Enclave install adjacent fences? - How is the regional bikeway along the ditch considered “regional” when it is only a few feet from several dwelling unit front door stoops? From the P&Z meeting materials, it looks like that section of trail is almost a private trail that serves a handful of homes that face it. Are there examples of similar regional bike trails that are so close to front entryway doors? - Will the irrigation ditch corridor actually act like a wildlife corridor since the front doors of dozens of units are just a few feet away from the irrigation ditch? - Can the City provide a detail that shows the buildout of the Northside Neighborhood Plan Area that shows all the new and existing development (streets, sidewalks, trails, buildings and parking areas)? It is really hard to envision what the completed plan will look like. IN CONCLUSION, Thank you for taking time to review these concerns. The Meadows at Redwood HOA requests that the City provide information to help us understand the outstanding questions we have regarding the Northside Neighborhood Plan, Lupine connectivity, and the other concerns that we listed. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 63 With the Planning and Zoning Commission request for a resubmittal by the Enclave developer, will there be a second P&Z hearing, and if so, are items voted on by the P&Z Commission on 4/21 considered settled and final, or do they get additional consideration by the P&Z Commission? We also request that the City provide us with information regarding any next steps our HOA can take to collaborate with the City/developer for alternatives to the Lupine connection. Again, Thanks You, Meadows at Redwood HOA 5/5/2022 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 64 Planning and Zoning Board City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 June 6, 2022 Re: The Enclave housing development and street connectivity concern Dear Planning and Zoning Board members, My name is Amber Franzel, and I am a homeowner in the Meadows at Redwood neighborhood West of the proposed Enclave development. I am writing to express continued concern over the proposal to connect Lupine Drive to the new development, The Enclave, being constructed soon. We want to thank you for the city’s commitment to hearing our concerns, during the last P&Z meeting held on April 21, 2022. I understand that the approval was pushed back to this week over architectural concerns, and that public comment will be accepted for the June 16th meeting. As such, I want to put our concerns on record and update you on our work with DHI Developers and Ripley Designs, which has occurred since the first meeting. During that collaborative meeting with members of the Meadows at Redwoods neighborhood, DHI and Ripley, we discussed their support of the alternative ways to meet the connectivity requirements in city code, and they have been more than willing to come up with creative solutions. The plan has changed from the previous developer, so we are aware that the connection to Conifer is no longer an option due to wetland considerations and a change to the size of the retention pond to the North. However, the suggestion for meeting connectivity requirements by using pedestrian, bike and emergency vehicle access is still supported by the neighborhood, the developer, and the designer. They are also willing to make 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. Increased traffic and citizen safety on Lupine Drive, if vehicular traffic were connected is still worrisome despite being made aware that Mullein would not be a through street. It seems, based on information shared from the City, that a traffic study has not been completed with information about trips from both The Enclave and Northfield, which is concerning. 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 potlucks 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 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. Since the neighborhood's creation in the early 80s, we knew there would eventually be ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 65 a connection, but the plans at that time were for our small, single-family neighborhood to be connected to other single-family neighborhoods. Surrounding us with giant apartment complexes and increasing the traffic through them, as well as a connection to the even larger Northfield neighborhood seems out of step with what Fort Collins is looking to accomplish with neighborhood connection. It won’t serve as a way for us to be more accessible to neighboring developments, it will be a thruway for traffic only. With the push from city leaders to provide more accessible walking trails, alternative transportation modalities and sustainable communities, this seems deliberately counter to that, encouraging new neighbors to use vehicles to get to Redwood. Let me be clear, we as a community are not seeking to stop the development; we know the need for new housing to relieve the pressure felt in the city. We’ve even commended the developer on the new idea (at least for Fort Collins) of a build-to-rent property. This is not us not “dealing with change,” as was suggested in the last P&Z meeting. We are simply asking that Lupine Drive be connected for pedestrian, bike, and emergency access only, especially with the added connection to Suniga Road, which was not an available option when we brought this to your attention in 2018. This would still promote connectivity, thanks to a trail system set up along the perimeter of The Enclave 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 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, Amber Franzel 625 Yarrow Circle amberfranzel@gmail.com ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 66 ENCLAVE AT REDWOODITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7Packet pg. 67 SUMMARY FROM APRIL HEARINGProject Development Plan and Alternative CompliancePresentation Reviewed Single family for rent conceptAccess and circulationParkingAlternative compliance request for Mullein DrivePedestrian networkBuilding frontage typesNatural Habitat BuffersDiscussionConnectivity standards and alternative compliance request Natural habitat buffers and fencingArchitectural standardsContinued for changes to architectureITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7Packet pg. 68 SUMMARY FROM APRIL HEARINGModification of Standards – 3.5.2(D)(1)(b)Relationship of Dwellings to StreetsApproved Modification of Standards – 4.5(D)(2)(a)3.Housing TypesApproved ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7Packet pg. 69 LUPINE DR. CONNECTIONCURRENT DESIGNITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7Packet pg. 70 LUPINE DR. CONNECTIONALTERNATE DESIGNITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7Packet pg. 71 LUPINE DR. CONNECTIONALTERNATE DESIGNITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7Packet pg. 72 NORTHERN SECTIONFENCEITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7Packet pg. 73 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7Packet pg. 74 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7Packet pg. 75 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7Packet pg. 76