Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/21/2025 - Planning and Zoning Commission - AGENDA - Regular MeetingPLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING 08/21/2025 Agenda Council Chambers, 300 Laporte Avenue Zoom – See Link Below Participation for this Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Meeting will be in person at Council Chambers, City Hall, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521. You may also join online via Zoom, using this link: https://fcgov.zoom.us/j/97548330954 Online Public Participation: The meeting will be available to join beginning at 5:45 pm, August 21, 2025. Participants should try to sign in prior to the 6:00 pm meeting start time, if possible. For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time. Staff will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Board or Commission and watch the meeting through that site. 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. •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 kkidwell@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 devreviewcomments@fcgov.com . Staff will ensure the Commission receives your comments. If you have specific comments on of the email and send 24 hours prior to the meeting. Appeals: Appeals of decisions of this Commission must be filed with the City Clerk no more than 14 days following the hearing. You must have participated in the hearing via written or oral comments, and the issue on appeal must be included in the record of the hearing. www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/appeals.php 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. Packet Pg. 1 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING • CALL TO ORDER • ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW • PUBLIC PARTICIPATION • CONSENT 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 2025 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the June 25, 2025, meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. 2. MOOR ANNEXATION – ANX250001 DESCRIPTION: This is a request to annex and zone 3.368 acres of land generally located at parcel 9710200008. The annexation is subject to a series of hearings including a (Type 2) Review and public hearing by the Planning & Zoning Commission and recommendation to City Council. A specific project development plan proposal is not included with the annexation application. This project is related to Conceptual Review CDR240025, previously known as 2000 Laporte Avenue Annexation. STAFF: Arlo Schumann, Planner Adam Sass, Chair City Council Chambers - City Hall West Russell Connelly, Vice Chair 300 Laporte Avenue Kent Bruxvoort Fort Collins, Colorado Shirley Peel Ted Shepard Julie Stackhouse Packet Pg. 2 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING PROPERTY OWNER: RRT Investments LLC 6316 Jocelyn Hollow Rd. Nashville, TN 372053520 APPLICANT: TB Group 444 Mountain Avenue Berthoud, CO 80513 3. ACADEMY OF ARTS & KNOWLEDGE – SPA250003 DESCRIPTION: This is a Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) request to expand the existing school at 4800 Wheaton Drive (parcel #8606207901) to include 4,790 sq. ft. of the second floor. The school currently occupies the first floor of the building. Building renovations include the first-floor kitchen, second floor classroom buildout, bathrooms and outdoor play area. The site is located in the Harmony Corridor (HC) zone district and is subject to a Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) review and will go to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review. STAFF: Arlo Schumann, Planner PROPERTY OWNER: Aurora Charter School BC 4424 Innovation DR Fort Collins, CO 80523 APPLICANT: 4800 Wheaton Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80525 Packet Pg. 3 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING 4. ENCLAVE AT REDWOOD SUBDIVISION – FDP250007 DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a combination Major Amendment/Final Development Plan to replat Enclave at Redwood into fourteen (14) separate lots, and ten (10) tracts. There are no proposed changes to the Site, Landscape, Drainage, or Utility Plans approved with the Enclave at Redwood Final Development Plan. This is located in the Low Density Mixed Use Zone District and is subject to a Type 2, Planning & Zoning Commission review. STAFF: Clark Mapes, City Planner OWNER: Brian Bratcher, DR Horton 9555 Kingston Ct. Englewood, CO 80112 APPLICANT: Ripley Design, Inc. 236 Linden St. Ste. A Fort Collins, CO 80524 • DISCUSSION 5. PROSPECT RIDGE MULTIFAMILY – PDP230015 DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Project Development Plan to develop 228 multifamily residential units at the NE corner of the Prospect Rd and I-25 interchange. (parcel # 8715306001). The applicant proposes 228 multifamily dwelling units across six 4-story buildings. The plan includes 314 parking stalls and an amenity/clubhouse building at the NE corner of the site. Access would be primarily taken from a new local street and the future Carriage Pkwy to the east of the site. The site is directly east of Interstate 25 and directly north of E Mulberry St. The property is within the General Commercial District (C-G) zone district, and the project would be subject to a Planning & Zoning Commission (Type 2) Review. Packet Pg. 4 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING STAFF: Kai Kleer, Sr Planner PROPERTY OWNER: PNE Prospect Road Holdings LLC 900 Castleton Road Ste 118 Castle Rock, CO 80109 APPLICANT: Kimley-Horn & Associates 3801 Automation Way, Suite 210 Fort Collins, CO 80521 • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Packet Pg. 5 Agenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 Planning and Zoning Commission STAFF Krista Kidwell, Project Coordinator SUBJECT MINUTES OF THE JUNE 25, 2025 PZC HEARING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is the consideration and approval of the draft minutes of the June 25, 2025 Planning & Zoning Commission hearing. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Minutes of the June 25, 2025, Hearing Packet Pg. 6 6/25/25 – MINUTES Page 1 Planning & Zoning Commission REGULAR MEETING June 25, 2025 – 6:00 PM Council Chambers, City Hall 300 Laporte Ave Also via Zoom CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 PM ROLL CALL a. Board Members Present – Adam Sass (Chair), Russell Connelly (Vice Chair), York, Kent Bruxvoort, Shirley Peel, Julie Stackhouse b. Board Members Absent – Ted Shepard c.Staff Members Present – Frickey, Kidwell, Yatabe, Schumann, Redd, Kleer, Myler AGENDA REVIEW Clay Frickey, Planning Manager, provided a review of the agenda. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION None. CONSENT AGENDA 1.CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2025 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the April 17, 2025, meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. 2.ACCESSORY BUILDING – 5335 S COUNTY ROAD 7 – NA This is a request to construct an approximately 5,994 sq. ft. accessory building with a 1,695 sq. ft. covered patio located at 5335 S County Road 7 (parcel # 8604000026) and in the Urban Estate (UE) Zone District. Any accessory building greater than 2,500 sq. ft. STAFF: DRA F T ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 7 6/25/25 – MINUTES Page 2 PROPERTY OWNER: Motley Gordon W/Tonya S 6990 Ridgeline Dr Timnath, Co 80547-2218 APPLICANT: Rudkin Design Build 6420 Kimmer Ln., Fort Collins, CO 80524 3. CHERRY ST COTTAGES EXTENSION REQUEST - FDP180024 DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a one-year extension due to two primary reasons. First, the applicant has recently experienced a number of serious health issues, all of which require rehabilitation and recovery. Second, market conditions are currently impacted by increasing interest rates and economic uncertainty, especially for small builders. Marketing efforts continue for Cherry Street Cottages and the applicant has maintained ongoing engagement with a local STAFF: Arlo Schumann, Planner PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: Evan Gilmartin 2519 S Shields St. Fort Collins, CO 80525 Commissioner Bruxvoort made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Stackhouse, to approve the Consent Agenda. Yeas: Peel, Stackhouse, York, Bruxvoort, Connelly, and Sass. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. DISCUSSION AGENDA 4. PEDERSEN TOYOTA FILING ONE – MJA250001 DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Major Amendment to replat the two lots located at 4455 S College Ave and 170 Kensington Dr (parcels #9735445001 and 9735431001) into one and to expand the existing Pedersen Toyota dealership. The proposal includes adding approximately 24,630 sq. ft. to the existing 26,700 sq. ft. building. There are 307 vehicle parking spaces proposed to be utilized by customers, employees and inventory parking as well as 4 bike parking stalls. Access is proposed to remain off Kensington Dr. Both properties are located in the General Commercial (C-G) Zone District. This proposal is subject to a Type 2 Planning & Zoning DRA F T ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 8 6/25/25 – MINUTES Page 3 STAFF: Arlo Schumann, Planner PROPERTY OWNER: Pedersen Properties Ltd 4455 S College Ave Fort Collins, CO 80525 APPLICANT: Kimley-Horn 3325 South Timberline Road, Suite 130 Fort Collins, CO 80525 Staff Overview Arlo Schumann, Planner, outlined the proposal for a major amendment to the Pedersen Toyota dealership property at 4455 S. College Avenue, which is in the General Commercial (CG) zone district and transit- oriented development overlay district. He stated the proposal is to replat two existing lots into a single lot and expand the existing dealership. Applicant Presentation Ryder Riddick, Kimley-Horn, introduced the project team and provided an outline of the presentation. Ron Emery, Pedersen Toyota Vice President of Operations, commented on the importance of the community to Pedersen Toyota and discussed the non-profits supported by the business. He stated the new building will allow for quicker service to better support the community. Riddick discussed the original development of the Pedersen dealership and the business’ purchase of the neighboring storage facility lot which is now undeveloped and used for inventory parking. He outlined the proposed site plan for the expansion, which would add 24,144 square feet to the facility resulting in a total building area of 51,366 square feet. He stated the expansion would include an updated showroom and additional service bays. Riddick discussed the site drainage plan and noted the expansion does not propose any new access points to the property. He also noted there will be updated landscaping and a pedestrian push button at the intersection of Kensington and College. Riddick went on to show renderings of the proposed project. Staff Analysis Schumann discussed the history of the site, noting it was originally annexed in 1978. He showed the site plan and noted a portion of the existing building that faces College Avenue will be demolished for the expansion. He also showed renderings of the building elevations noting the project is in general compliance with the standards for commercial buildings of this type, including varying roof heights, changes in materials and colors, and articulation. Schumann stated staff has made the following findings of fact and conclusions in its review of this proposed project: the project meets the standards and definitions found in Land Use Code Articles 1-7, the plan complies with the applicable procedures and administrative requirements in Article 6, the plan complies with the relevant standards in Article 5, and the plan complies with the relevant standards in Section 2.3.4. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the major amendment. DRA F T ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 9 6/25/25 – MINUTES Page 4 Commission Questions Commissioner Bruxvoort stated the traffic impact study concluded there would be no significant impacts to the existing street network; however, with the building nearly doubling in size, he questioned that conclusion. Emily Felton, Kimley-Horn, replied that the traffic impact study looks at the timing of when traffic is introduced, and Pedersen Toyota would not introduce traffic at peak times. Public Comment None. Commission Discussion Commissioner Bruxvoort asked about the fence and whether it will remain. Schumann replied there is an existing chain link fence on the property that was meant to be temporary in nature, and it will be removed until construction begins. Chair Sass commended the applicant presentation and staff report. Vice Chair Connelly stated the project is very thoughtfully designed and he plans to support it. Commissioner York concurred. Commissioner York made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peel, that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Pedersen Toyota Major Amendment MJA250001 finding that the Major Amendment complies with all applicable Land Use Code requirements. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information presented during the work session and this hearing, and Commission discussion. The Commission adopts the information, analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions contained in the hearing staff report. Yeas: York, Stackhouse, Peel, Bruxvoort, Connelly, and Sass. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 5. PICKLEBALL VENTURES – FDP250001 DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Major Amendment and Final Development Plan for a pickleball facility at 4401 Innovation Dr (parcel #8731408019). The proposal includes renovating approximately 32,000 sq. ft. of the existing 60,000 sq. ft. building for pickleball use, with the remainder of the building remaining vacant for now. The facility will include 11 indoor and 6 outdoor courts, a grab & go food cafe, pro shop, lounge area, coffee bar and supporting offices and meeting rooms. There are 139 vehicle parking spaces, and 56 bike parking stalls proposed. Access is to remain off Innovation Dr. Located in the Harmony Corridor (HC) Zone District. This proposal is subject to a Type 2 Planning & Zoning STAFF: Redd, Specialist PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: Neil Bellefeuille and Michael Zervas Zero Zero Two 4401 Innovation Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 DRA F T ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 10 6/25/25 – MINUTES Page 5 Commissioner York disclosed that he used to work with the person who did the sound study; however, they no longer work together. Additionally, he disclosed he knows people who live across the park from the site, though he has no financial interest with them or the proposed project. Commissioner Bruxvoort disclosed he has had a previous working relationship with the project architect, though that will not impact his ability to remain neutral. Myler read a letter from Sheila Hockley that was received after the packet was finalized expressing concern about noise and impacts to her property value. She expressed opposition to the project. Staff Overview Redd, Specialist, stated the proposed project is located at 4401 Innovation Drive, near the Harmony and Timberline intersection. She outlined the surrounding property uses, including Golden Meadows Park, Colorado Early Colleges High School, and Kruse Elementary School. She stated the project is a major amendment/final development plan combination which proposes adaptive reuse of the site and allocates a bit over half of the existing building to an indoor pickleball facility with accessory outdoor courts. She stated the other portion of the building will be an industrial warehouse and noted there are two requested modifications of standard. Applicant Presentation Ken Merritt, JR Planners, Engineers, and Landscape Architects, and representative of Zero Zero Two, the property owners and applicants, discussed the site and surrounding properties. He noted access to the site is taken via Innovation Drive through the Colorado Early Colleges drive lane which has a public access easement. He stated there is a great deal of support for the proposed project among businesses in the Golden Meadows Business Park, particularly given the blighted condition of the property. Merritt showed photos of the property and discussed the pickleball facility, which will have 11 indoor courts, a lounge, coffee and juice bar, restrooms, and offices. The exterior of the building will house six courts and a plaza area. He noted the outdoor courts will be surrounded by 10-foot chain link fencing. Merritt discussed the acoustical analysis conducted and stated the facility falls well within the allowed decibel level; however, they will still be attaching some sound absorbing acoustical material to the chain link fencing. Additionally, there are several mature blue spruce trees along the northern edge of the property which will also provide an acoustic benefit. Merritt stated there will be a significant resurfacing and reconstruction of the parking lot which will provide for adequate emergency vehicle and trash hauling truck access. He noted the modifications of standard requests are to reduce the drive lane width from 24 feet to 23 feet in the parking lot and to reduce the eastern drive lane width from 24 feet to 20 feet. Additionally, there is a request for a reduction in the depth of parking spaces from 19 feet to 18 feet. Merritt stated there would be two entrances into the pickleball facility and new landscaping will be installed. He stated there are also improvements associated with the industrial warehouse use, including landscaping, the addition of some parking islands on the east side of the building, widening an existing concrete drive from 15 to 20 feet, and installing a wood screen fence along the eastern boundary. Additionally, Merritt noted the project will extend a pedestrian and bike trail from the Power Trail to the site and will provide a landscaped point of refuge and bike racks. Merritt stated this will be a phased project with the pickleball facility being constructed first, including the trail extension. Merritt noted there is an existing sensitive natural area on the park property, and as a result, the project is proposing the development of a 50-foot natural area habitat buffer which will include the maintenance and protection of the existing coniferous trees and the installation of native grass species and other plantings. DRA F T ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 11 6/25/25 – MINUTES Page 6 Merritt outlined the proposal for an underground LID water quality vault which will drain into the existing drainage swale on the Golden Meadows Park property. He noted that a letter of intent for a permanent access easement and temporary construction easement from the Parks Department was included in the packet. Merritt showed renderings of the elevations noting the building will essentially remain as is. Staff Analysis Redd noted the property is in the Harmony Corridor zone district which is guided by the Harmony Corridor Plan that calls for a mixed-use corridor with a strong employment base. She stated staff has deemed the proposed project to be consistent with the Plan, noting it revitalizes the property with a unique and community-centered adaptive reuse of the building along with site enhancements relative to the constraints of the site’s existing conditions. She noted that the zone district allows 25% secondary uses, and that standard is met with the pickleball secondary use. Redd commented on the main elements of the project and proposed site plan, including the Power Trail connection, vehicular and bicycle parking, natural habitat buffer zone, and other improvements to the site. She discussed the two requested modifications of standard, one to Section 5.9.1 which involves site access, circulation, and parking requirements which staff found would not be detrimental to the public good and satisfies the physical hardship criteria outlined in Article 6. The second modification is to Section 5.9.1(L) which involves parking stall dimensions. Staff found this modification would not be detrimental to the public good and satisfies the physical hardship and nominal and inconsequential criteria outlined in Article 6. She stated staff is recommending approval of the two requested modifications and the combined major amendment and final development plan. Commission Questions Commissioner York asked if the existing path on the north side of the site that connects to the park will be maintained or removed. Redd replied that it will be left as is, though not upgraded or improved. Commissioner Bruxvoort asked how emergency vehicles are meant to access the south and east sides of the building and asked if there is concern about emergency access given the request for a narrower drive aisle and shorter parking stalls and the fact that many people drive SUVs and large trucks. Merritt replied that adequate emergency vehicle access is provided through the parking lot around the outer perimeter. He noted PFA requires a 20-foot-wide aisle with wider turning radii. He commented on the site constraints and stated the turn access has been provided around the perimeter of the parking lot and an emergency access easement runs from the western property boundary to the eastern property boundary. Additionally, he noted there will be a no parking area that will allow for a hammerhead turn around space which PFA has approved, and the building will be fire sprinklered. Commissioner Stackhouse thanked the applicant for the noise study information. She asked if the traffic or noise associated with the industrial warehouse use would change any of the analysis. Merritt replied that the acoustical analysis was only done for the pickleball courts, and the industrial warehouse will need to comply with applicable noise decibel requirements. He noted the warehouse is a fairly small use, though there will be delivery trucks. Additionally, he stated that when a tenant is identified, there will likely be the need for at least a minor amendment to the plans, or perhaps a major amendment depending on the proposed use. Chair Sass asked if the area where the outdoor pickleball courts will be is part of the existing parking lot. Redd replied some of the space is parking lot and some is landscaping. Merritt replied one set of head-in parking spaces that face the west side of the building, and some existing landscape and paving area will be removed. DRA F T ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 12 6/25/25 – MINUTES Page 7 Chair Sass asked how the public will view the chain link fence. Redd replied that view would be considered from Innovation Drive, a couple hundred feet away. Commissioner York noted it will also be visible from the Power Trail as it goes through Golden Meadows Park. Chair Sass asked if appropriate mechanical equipment screening is in place. Redd replied in the affirmative. Chair Sass asked how the City handles permanent chain link fences from a zoning standpoint. Redd replied staff had previously assumed a modification would be required for the chain link fence; however, the Code allows the fencing because of its depth into the site. Clay Frickey, Planning Manager, noted chain link fencing is not permitted for screening purposes; however, it is permitted as a fencing type. Additionally, there will be sound dampening material on the fence. Chair Sass suggested the topic should be addressed as part of the commercial corridors and centers Land Use Code updates. Public Comment None. Commission Discussion Chair Sass requested input on the first modification request. Commissioner Stackhouse stated she does not have any concerns regarding the modification. Commissioner York concurred and stated the modification meets the intent of the Code given the physical constraints of the site. Commissioner Bruxvoort concurred. Commissioner Stackhouse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner York, that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the modification to the Land Use Code Subsections 5.9.1(C)(1), (C)(5)(a), and 5.9.1(D)(1), to not require a direct walkway connection from Innovation Drive to the site’s existing walkway and building entrances. The Commission finds that the modification would not be detrimental to the public good and the following modification criterion is met: by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, namely the existing on- and off-site configuration, the strict application of the named subsections of 5.9.1 would result in exceptional or undue applicant hardship, and such hardship is not caused by the applicant. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, information presented during the work session and this hearing, and Commission discussion. Yeas: Connelly, Bruxvoort, Stackhouse, Peel, York, and Sass. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Regarding the second modification to parking stall size and drive aisle requirements, Commissioner Bruxvoort noted PFA approved the proposal. Commissioner York stated these modifications are the only way to make the site work. Chair Sass concurred that the modification is not detrimental to the public good. DRA F T ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 13 6/25/25 – MINUTES Page 8 Vice Chair Connelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peel, that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the modification to the Land Use Code Section 5.9.1(L) to reduce the required 24-foot drive aisle width in the west lot to 23 feet and in the east lot to 20 feet and to reduce the parking stall width to 18 feet in both lots. The Commission finds that the modification would not be detrimental to the public good and the following modification criteria are met: by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, namely the existing on-site configuration, the strict application of Section 5.9.1(L) would result in exceptional or undue applicant hardship, and such hardship is not caused by the applicant, and the plan will not diverge from Section 5.9.1(L) except in a nominal and inconsequential way in consideration of the entire development plan and will continue to advance the purposes of Land Use Code Section 1.2.2. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, information presented during the work session and this hearing, and Commission discussion. Yeas: Connelly, Bruxvoort, Stackhouse, Peel, York, and Sass. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Brad Yatabe, City Attorney’s Office, stated he had recommended the Commission place a condition on an approval that the final plan needs to satisfy any subsequent City administrative review necessary to finalize it. Commissioner Stackhouse stated she sees nothing with the proposal that is inconsistent with the requirements of the Land Use Code. Additionally, she stated the opportunity to revitalize the building will be beneficial to the neighborhood. Commissioner York concurred that the unique characteristics of the building make reuse challenging and stated having a recreational use next to the park will be valuable. Additionally, he noted the building is next to a railroad track and noise associated with pickleball could not be as disruptive as a train horn. Chair Sass concurred this is a good reuse of the building and commended the applicant for being creative in doing so. Commissioner Peel made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Connelly, that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Pickleball Ventures Major Amendment and Final Development Plan FDP250001 with the condition that the final plans satisfy any subsequent City administrative review necessary to finalize the plan. The Commission finds in consideration of the approved modifications and conditions that the Major Amendment and Final Plan comply with all applicable Land Use Code requirements. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, information presented during the work session and this hearing, and Commission discussion. This Commission adopts the information, analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions contained in the hearing staff report. Yeas: Connelly, Bruxvoort, Stackhouse, Peel, York, and Sass. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 6. TOUCHMARK FORT COLLINS – PDP250001 DESCRIPTION: This is a request to develop a long-term care facility at 4710 Cinquefoil Ln (parcel # 8604000017). Touchmark is proposing a 4- story long-term care facility including assisted living, memory care, and independent living. Access can be taken from a private drive to the south. The site is approximately 0.10 mi south of E Harmony and 0.27 mi west of Strauss Cabin Rd. The property is located in Harmony Corridor District (H-C) zone district and the project is DRA F T ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 14 6/25/25 – MINUTES Page 9 STAFF: Kai Kleer, Sr Planner PROPERTY OWNER: Imago Enterprises Inc. 140 Palmer Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 APPLICANT: Touchmark 5150 SW Griffith Drive Beaverton, OR 97005 Staff Overview Kai Kleer, Senior Planner, outlined the proposal for a 246-unit, 355-bedroom long-term care facility in southeast Fort Collins. He stated that the project features a one- to four-story centrally located building that contains memory care, assisted living, and independent living units, as well as single-unit detached, and single-unit attached dwellings around the perimeter of the site. The property is located within the Harmony Corridor (HC) zone district and the Harmony Corridor Plan identifies institutional uses such as long-term care facilities as closely aligning with the employment vision for the corridor. Kleer provided the definition of long-term care facility in the Land Use Code and discussed the evaluation of connectivity in the overall development plan for the area. He also discussed some of the constraints of the site, including the Fossil Creek Reservoir inlet canal. He stated that even though street connectivity may be infeasible as contemplated in the ODP, the alternative mitigation strategy does make it possible to achieve some pedestrian connectivity to the regional trail and multi-modal connectivity to the property to the north. Kleer discussed the Plan’s compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and discussed the topics discussed at the neighborhood meeting, including where the entrance would be, traffic impacts, completion of the trail system within and beyond the property, and building heights. Applicant Presentation Sam Coutts, Ripley Design, stated Touchmark is a national company with 15 locations across the United States and Canada. He noted they develop, own, and operate all of their facilities and they place an emphasis on building community within their developments and encouraging active lifestyles. Additionally, he noted this facility will employ 100-150 individuals. Coutts provided additional information regarding the site plan noting the most intense use and largest building is centered on the site with independent one-story living units on the perimeter. He noted the site was designed to be very walkable and stated an interior private street connects Le Fever to Cinquefoil. He stated part of the program to address concerns about residents wandering is a well thought out fence, wall, and gate plan which does not break up connectivity. DRA F T ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 15 6/25/25 – MINUTES Page 10 Coutts showed some renderings of the main building and commented on the design strategies implemented to bring a human scale to the development and to have it fit in contextually with neighboring uses. He noted that the design guidelines will reference Fort Collins’ single-family detached and duplex building type standards for the independent one-story living units, though they will still be designed, built, owned, operated, and maintained by Touchmark. He also noted those will be designed during the construction of the main building. Coutts discussed some conditions of approval, including one adding a plaza, courtyard, patio or garden to allow for buildings to be oriented toward one another, and one related to trash collection for the villas. He noted Republic Services is comfortable with the proposed approach. Coutts noted the Lady Moon and Harmony intersection is currently failing even without this project, and there is no desire on the behalf of the City to add extra lanes or change signal timing. He discussed the alternative mitigation strategies that are part of the Larimer Count Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) used to address constraints that cannot necessarily be fixed. He noted the overall traffic demand for this type of use is lower given the average age of residents and shuttle service provided. Coutts outlined the modification requests related to gates noting gates are imperative to the safety of residents. He stated the gates will be open during the day and closed at night and are not detrimental to the public good. Additionally, he stated the plan meets the purpose of the Land Use Code equally well or better than a complying plan, addresses an important community need, and the modification requests are nominal and inconsequential. Staff Analysis Kleer noted one of the main points of conversation regarding the overall development was meeting street pattern and connectivity standards. He stated that generally, the project does a good job of extending Brookfield Drive through the site. He noted the main consideration for the Commission relates to the modification requests to have two gates on a public street and one on the private drive. Kleer discussed the traffic impact study which showed this project will add 7% more traffic during the AM peak hours and 2% during the PM peak hours. He outlined the proposed alternative mitigation strategy per LCUASS, which involves a gated soft path connection to the regional trail that is internal to the site. He noted the Commission ultimately has purview over the details of the strategy. Kleer stated staff have found the building orientation for the villas that face one another to be appropriate with a condition as described in the applicant presentation. Kleer stated trash and recycling collection remains a staff concern about the overall design of the project and a condition to address the concern is proposed. Kleer noted the proposed gate design directly aligns with the standards and guidelines in the Harmony Corridor Plan. He stated staff is recommending approval of the modifications of standard based on certain conditions the City’s Traffic Engineer would like to impose, including gates being open during peak travel times, which the applicant team has agreed to, emergency access via a fob, and that the gates would be removed if there is a change of use. Kleer noted the applicant has agreed to expand the limits of the natural habitat buffer zone to the east of the property. Kleer stated the project design is exactly what staff is seeking from a compatibility standpoint and all standards for architecture are met or exceeded. He noted the villas and cottages are considered an institutional primary use; however, they will be reviewed under the International Residential Building Code. Kleer stated staff is recommending conditional approval of the project and approval of the modifications to gate the street and drive. DRA F T ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 16 6/25/25 – MINUTES Page 11 Commission Questions Commissioner York asked if there is a concern that wayfinding applications will direct people to the gated street. Kleer replied the street is not meant to attract significant through traffic, though they could look into addressing the issue with wayfinding applications. Chair Sass asked about the process for a food delivery person, for example, pulling up to a closed gate. Ryan Benson, Touchmark, replied there is a 24/7 concierge at the front desk and there is a call box on the gates. Coutts noted Le Fever will be built out prior to the units being built. Commissioner Stackhouse asked if staff is proposing any conditions of approval for the PDP. Kleer replied there is a build to line condition to require a courtyard or plaza and a trash service condition. Members commented on the subdivision provisions, and it was noted that any future subdivision would result in a major amendment process. Commissioner York asked about the proposed bike racks. Coutts replied they have found new racks that will better accommodate E-bikes and trikes. Public Comment Jane Pelletier asked how the project will be accommodating emergency vehicles and visitor parking. Susan Sheridan noted a map incorrectly identified what is actually Morningside Village, an owner- occupied condo and townhome development. She requested assurance that Le Fever will be adequate in terms of width and providing parking and stated she would like the primary entrances to be those along Cinquefoil. She expressed concern there may be a portion of the building that is five stories in height. Applicant Response Coutts stated the project’s streets have at least the same width as a local street and the cross-sections have been reviewed and accepted by Poudre Fire Authority. He thanked Ms. Sheridan for the map correction and noted the site plan was changed to have primary access come from two points on Cinquefoil. Coutts noted the tallest portion of the building is four stories. In terms of visitor parking, Coutts stated the majority of the surface parking is off the primary access. Additionally, there is overflow parking on the east side of the property. Staff Response Kleer noted each cottage, and villa will have its own driveway and garage, and parking is also available on the internal streets. Additionally, he noted Le Fever will be built under current local street standards to provide for two-way traffic and parking. Commissioner Stackhouse requested staff provide information as to the role of Poudre Fire Authority in development review and information regarding the applicable building height standards. Kleer replied that the portion of the building that faces Le Fever is three stories, making it compatible with the buildings across the street. Additionally, Kleer noted PFA reviews all development applications that come through the PDP process, and they have strict requirements around aerial apparatus access. He noted any project would need to comply with all PFA standards and the project will need to submit for a separate permit through PFA at the time of building permit. Commissioner Stackhouse noted that the analysis of compatibility is complicated, but thorough, and in this case, the building height is compatible. DRA F T ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 17 6/25/25 – MINUTES Page 12 Commission Discussion Commissioner York stated he understands the need for the gated entrances and noted there are gates at other industrial campuses in the area. Chair Sass and Commissioner Stackhouse concurred. Commissioner York made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bruxvoort, that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the requested modifications to the Land Use Code Sections 5.4.6(L)(7) and 5.4.6(M)(6) to allow gating of the entryway of the private streets along both Le Fever Drive and Cinquefoil Lane, and the private drives along Cinquefoil Lane, as shown in the agenda materials. The Commission finds that the modifications would not be detrimental to the public good and the following modification criteria is met: the granting of the modifications will result in a substantial community benefit by facilitating senior housing in furtherance of City Plan Policy LIV 6.2 without impairing the Land Use Code’s intent and purpose, and the strict applications of subsections 5.4.6(L)(7) and (M)(6) would compromise resident safety and render the project practically infeasible in the mixed employment district. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, information presented during the work session and this hearing, and Commission discussion. This Commission adopts the information, analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions contained in the hearing staff report. Yeas: Connelly, Bruxvoort, Stackhouse, Peel, York, and Sass. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Stackhouse stated she is comfortable with the proposal being as consistent as it can be with the Land Use Code and noted there is a pressing need for senior housing in the city. Commissioner Bruxvoort concurred and stated the design is well thought out from a site plan and building perspective. He commended Touchmark for the thought put into the design. Commissioner York expressed support for the project and stated it is good use of the physically constrained parcel. He commended staff and the applicant for explaining the nuances related to connectivity. Chair Sass also commended the design team. Vice Chair Connelly stated the project fits in well with neighboring properties and is designed to be as compliant as possible with the Land Use Code. Vice Chair Connelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peel, that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Touchmark Project Development Plan PDP250001 with the conditions stated in the staff report. The Commission finds that in consideration of the conditions and approved modifications of standard, the project complies with all applicable Land Use Code requirements. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, information presented during the work session and this hearing, and Commission discussion. This Commission adopts the information, analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions contained in the hearing staff report. Yeas: Connelly, Bruxvoort, Stackhouse, Peel, York, and Sass. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. OTHER BUSINESS None. DRA F T ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 18 6/25/25 – MINUTES Page 13 ADJOURNMENT a. Chair Sass moved to adjourn the P&Z Commission hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 9:03 PM. Minutes respectfully submitted by Krista Kidwell Minutes approved by the Chair and a vote of the Board/Commission on 08/21/25 DRA F T ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 19 Development Review Staff Report Agenda Item 2 Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing: August 21, 2025 Moor Annexation (ANX250001) and Zoning Summary of Request This is a request for a recommendation to City Council for the annexation and zoning of 3.368 acres located northeast of the intersection of North Taft Hill Road and Laporte Avenue. The proposed zoning is Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (LMN), which is consistent with recent updates to the Structure Plan Map. The annexation and zoning require review and a recommendation to City Council by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. City Council previously approved the annexation initiating resolution at their July 15, 2025, meeting. Zoning Map Next Steps The Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to City Council for their consideration of the annexation and zoning ordinances. First Reading is anticipated on September 2, 2025. Site Location The site is located northeast of N Taft Hill Road and Laporte Avenue. Current Larimer County Zoning Rural Residential (RR2) Commercial Corridor (CC) Proposed Fort Collins Zoning Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (LMN) Property Owner RRT Investments LLC 6316 Jocelyn Hollow Rd. Nashville, TN 372053520 Applicant/Representative Cathy Mathis TB Group 444 Mountain Avenue Berthoud, CO 80513 Staff Arlo Schumann, City Planner aschumann@fcgov.com (970) 221-6599 Contents 1. Project Introduction ..................................... 2 2. Public Outreach .......................................... 5 3. Article 2 Applicable Standards ................... 5 5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion ....................... 6 6. Recommendation ....................................... 7 7. Attachments ................................................ 7 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the annexation and zoning, and that the property be included in the Residential Sign District and Lighting Context Area LC1. SITE Laporte Ave. N T a f t H i l l R d . Packet Pg. 20 P&Z Agenda Item 2 ANX250001 | Moor Annexation August 21, 2025 | Page 2 of 7 Back to Top 1. Project Introduction A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This is a request to annex and zone 3.368 acres located northeast of the intersection of North Taft Hill Road and Laporte Avenue. The site is currently vacant. 1. The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies and the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins managing the City’s Growth Management Area (GMA). 2. The area meets all criteria included in Colorado Revised Statues for voluntary annexation to the City of Fort Collins, achieving greater than 1/6 site perimeter contiguity with Fort Collins city limits. 3. The requested Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (LMN) zone district is in conformance with the policies and land use guidance found in the City Plan Structure Plan Map and the Northwest Subarea Plan. On July 15, 2025, City Council passed an initiation resolution accepting the annexation petition based on compliance with State law and initiating annexation proceedings. Prior to City Council consideration of the annexation and zoning ordinances, a public hearing and recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission is required. B. ANALYSIS The requested annexation creates a new enclave to its west and south. 1. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use North South East West Zoning Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN), Larimer County Rural Residential (RR2) Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN), Public Open Lands (POL), Commercial Corridor (CC) Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN), Larimer County Rural Residential (RR2) Low Density Mixed- Use Neighborhood (LMN) Land Use Single Unit Dwellings, Place of Worship, City Natural Areas Retail Businesses, Cemetery Single Unit Dwellings, City Natural Areas Single Unit Dwellings The Moor Annexation gains contiguity with City limits along its western edge fronting N Taft Hill Road with the Sanctuary On The Green Annexation (126-2018) and along its southern edge fronting Laporte Avenue with the Kennedy's West Laporte Annexation (70-1972). The annexation is approximately 3.368 acres in size. The annexation site has a total perimeter of 1,868.88 feet and a contiguous perimeter with City limits of 835.30 feet. The contiguous perimeter is 45% of the overall perimeter, exceeding the one-sixth (16%) required by State Statute. Structure Plan Map The Structure Plan Map found in City Plan provides the broadest land use and zoning policy guidance applicable to the site via Place Type designations. Place Types describe the general land-uses, densities, and transportation characteristics for an area to help guide potential zoning when properties are annexed into the City. The Structure Plan Map indicates opportunity for the ‘Suburban Neighborhood’ place type for the annexing site and surrounding properties to the east, west, and north. Packet Pg. 21 P&Z Agenda Item 2 ANX250001 | Moor Annexation August 21, 2025 | Page 3 of 7 Back to Top Structure Plan Map The land use characteristics of the Suburban Neighborhood Place Types include:  Principal Land Use Single-unit detached homes. Density: Between two and five principal dwelling units per acre.  Supporting Land Use Parks and recreational facilities, schools, places of worship, ADUs and other uses related to the principal uses. Place Types represent flexible guidance to inform zoning based on the history and surrounding context of a site within general zoning categories. This place type is categorized as one of the Neighborhoods Districts alongside Rural Neighborhoods, and Mixed Neighborhoods Designations. The Structure Plan future land use designations represent general citywide policy guidance. SITE Packet Pg. 22 P&Z Agenda Item 2 ANX250001 | Moor Annexation August 21, 2025 | Page 4 of 7 Back to Top Alignment with City Plan Principles and Policies: Principle LIV 1: Maintain a compact pattern of growth that is well served by public facilities and encourages the efficient use of land. This property is within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA). City Plan encourages managing growth by encouraging infill development within the GMA to promote a compact pattern of development. In addition to the guidance provided by the Structure Plan Map, City Plan also encourages the use of more specific guidance found in neighborhood and subarea plans. The site is also covered by the recently updated Northwest Subarea Plan, which also provides general land use and policy guidance for the area. Northwest Subarea Plan The Northwest Subarea Plan was adopted in 2006. The plan provides land use and policy guidance for the northwest quadrant of the city, including the subject property. The requested L-M-N zone is seen as consistent with this direction and compatible with other surrounding designations as depicted in the Framework Plan: Packet Pg. 23 P&Z Agenda Item 2 ANX250001 | Moor Annexation August 21, 2025 | Page 5 of 7 Back to Top Sign District Staff recommends that the property be placed within the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. The Sign Districts are established for the purpose of regulating signs for non-residential uses in areas of the community where the predominant character of the neighborhood is residential. Lighting Context Area On March 26, 2021, the City of Fort Collins adopted new exterior lighting standards and established Lighting Context Areas that correspond to the City’s zone districts. The Lighting Context Area identified by Table 5.12.1 of the City’s lighting code for the L-M-N zone district is LC1. As part of this item, staff recommends placement of the property into the LC1 Lighting Context Areas. LC1 - Low ambient lighting. The vision of human residents and users is adapted to low light levels. Lighting may be used for safety and convenience, but it is not necessarily uniform or continuous. Typical locations include low and medium density residential areas, commercial or industrial areas with limited nighttime activity, and the developed areas in parks and other natural settings. 2. Public Outreach A. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING A joint neighborhood meeting for the annexation and proposed development plan for the site was held on February 12, 2025. All other notification requirements as required by state and local law have been met. A majority of questions and concerns discussed at the meeting related to future development issues rather than the annexation. 3. Land Use Code Article 2 Applicable Standards A. PURPOSE The requested zoning for the entire property is Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (LMN) which is consistent with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan Map and the Northwest Subarea Plan. The Land Use Code describes the LMN District as follows: Purpose. The Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District is intended to be a setting for a variety of housing, providing diverse opportunities for single unit and accessory dwellings to attached units and small and medium-sized multi-unit structures. The District also encourages complementary commercial and institutional land uses and amenities that serve the everyday needs of a residential neighborhood. Parks and neighborhood centers are integrated into new and existing development and the broader community through the pattern of streets, blocks, and other linkages, providing an attractive and walkable focal point for services, open space, and recreation. B. LAND USE A project development plan has not been submitted although an Overall Development Plan is under review for the site. Future Project Development Plans and land uses will be subject to the list of permitted land uses in Section 2.2.1 – Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District. Packet Pg. 24 P&Z Agenda Item 2 ANX250001 | Moor Annexation August 21, 2025 | Page 6 of 7 Back to Top 4. Land Use Code Article 6 – Administration & Procedures - Applicable Standards A. BACKGROUND This project was submitted on April 30, 2025, for annexation and zoning. A specific Project Development Plan has not been submitted but will be required for future development. The project is in compliance with Land Use Code Section 6.10 Annexation requirements. B. ANNEXATION PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW 1. Conceptual Design Review A conceptual review meeting was held to discuss the annexation and associated development plan on April 18, 2024. 2. First Submittal (ANX250001) As previously mentioned, the first submittal of this project was completed on April 30, 2025. 3. Neighborhood Meeting A joint annexation and development plan neighborhood meeting was conducted on February 12, 2025. A meeting summary and link to the meeting recording is attached to this report. 4. Notice (Posted, Written and Published) Posted Notice (ANX250001): January 29, 2025 (Sign #820) Written Notice: August 6, 2025, 66 letters sent Published Hearing Notice: August 10, 2025, Coloradoan Confirmation #11560917 5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the request for the Moor Annexation, ANX250001, staff makes the following findings of fact: 1. The property meets the State law eligibility requirements to qualify for a voluntary annexation to the City of Fort Collins. 2. The requested placement into the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (LMN) zone district is consistent with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan Map and the Northwest Subarea Plan. 3. The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. 4. On July 15, 2025, City Council accepted the annexation petition and began annexation proceedings by approving a resolution determining the annexation petition is in compliance with State law. 5. The requested placement into the Residential Neighborhood Sign District as well as the LC1 Lighting Context Areas, is consistent with the City of Fort Collins sign and lighting standards as it relates to Low Density Mixed- Use Neighborhood zoning. Packet Pg. 25 P&Z Agenda Item 2 ANX250001 | Moor Annexation August 21, 2025 | Page 7 of 7 Back to Top 6. Recommendation Staff recommends forwarding a Recommendation for Approval to City Council for the annexation and the requested zoning of Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (LMN), consistent with the Structure Plan Map and the Northwest Subarea Plan. Staff recommends that the property be placed within the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. Staff recommends that the property be placed into the LC1 Lighting Context Area. 7. Attachments 1. Vicinity Map 2. Annexation Petition 3. Applicant Narrative 4. Annexation Map 5. Requested Zoning Map 6. February 12, 2025, Neighborhood Meeting Summary 7. Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 26 LAPORTE AVEPE N N S Y L V A N I A ST PE N N S Y L V A N I A S T S T A F T H I L L R D N T A F T H I L L R D Moor Annexation - ANX250001 LOCATION MAP ± SITE ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 27 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 28 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 29 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 30 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 31 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 32 April 30, 2025 City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins 80524 RE: Proposed Moor Annexation Dear Planning and Zoning Commission, Please find an application for the annexation of approximately 3.368 acres at the northeast corner of Taft Hill Road and Laporte Avenue. The property owners wish to annex to the City the property, which is currently located in unincorporated Larimer County, and to zone the entire property Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (“LMN”). The intent is to develop one or more multifamily structures to include +/- 72 affordable senior housing units. A Conceptual Review Meeting was held on April 19, 2024. Analysis of Annexation A.Landowner Consent Except in limited circumstances, an annexation may only be approved with the consent of the landowners of the property subject to the annexation, which can be demonstrated through a public election or through submittal of an annexation petition that is “signed by persons comprising more than fifty percent of the landowners in the area and owning more than fifty percent of the area, excluding public streets, and alleys and any land owned by the annexing municipality.” Colo. Const. Art. II, Section 30; C.R.S. § 31-12-104(1). Here, RRT Investments LLC, the property owner, has signed the petition for annexation attached to the application for Annexation. Therefore, this requirement is met. B. One-Sixth Contiguity Further, the subject property must meet a minimum contiguity requirement. More specifically, the City must find that “not less than one-sixth of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is contiguous with the annexing municipality.” C.R.S. § 31-12-104(1)(a). The County Property far exceeds the one-sixth contiguity requirement in the Act. The County Property is contiguous with the City along its southern and western borders. Therefore, the County Property satisfies the one-sixth contiguity requirement in the Act. C. Community of Interest The City must also find that “a community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the annexing municipality; that said area is urban or will be urbanized in the near future; and that said area is integrated with or is capable of being integrated with the annexing municipality.” C.R.S. § 31-12-104(1)(b). The fact that the subject property has satisfied the one-sixth contiguity requirement described above “shall be a basis for a finding of compliance with these requirements,” unless certain facts are demonstrated at a hearing prove at least two of the following three factors: (a) that the adult residents of the subject property will not use the services provided in the annexing municipality or work in the annexing municipality, (b) that the landowners intend to dedicate the subject property exclusively to agricultural use for at least the next ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 33 five years, and (c) that it would not be physically practicable to extend municipal services to the subject property. Id. In other words, if the subject property is sufficiently contiguous with the annexing municipality, it is assumed that they share a community of interest unless it can be proven that they are in fact incompatible. Here, because the County Property satisfies the one-sixth contiguity requirement, it can be concluded that the County Property satisfies the above-mentioned requirements regarding the existence of a community of interest between the County Property, on one hand, and the City, on the other hand. Additionally, the Property is not intended to be dedicated to agricultural uses and is intended to provide residences and services for adults who will use the services of and work in the City. As the Property is adjacent to existing development in the City, it is physically practicable to extend municipal services to the Property. Also, the Property is located within the growth management area indicated on the City’s Structure Plan. Therefore, a community of interest exists between the County Property and the City. Statement of Principles and Policies • Principle LIV 1: Maintain a compact pattern of growth that is well served by public facilities and encourages the efficient use of land. • Policy LIV 4.1: New Neighborhoods. Encourage creativity in the design and construction of new neighborhoods that: Provides a unifying and interconnected framework of streets, sidewalks, walkway spines and other public spaces; Expands housing options, including higher-density and mixed-use buildings; Offers opportunities to age in place; Improves access to services and amenities; and Incorporates unique site conditions. • Principle LIV 5: Create more opportunities for housing choices. • Policy LIV 5.1: To enhance community health and livability, encourage a variety of housing types and densities, including mixed-used developments that are well served by public transportation and close to employment centers, shopping, services and amenities. • Policy LIV 5.2: Supply of Attainable Housing. Encourage public and private sectors to maintain and develop a diverse range of housing options, including housing that is attainable (30% or less of monthly income) to residents earning the median income. Options could include ADUs, duplexes, townhomes, mobile homes, manufactured housing and other “missing middle” housing types. • Policy LIV 5.3: Land for Residential Development. Use density requirements to maximize the use of land for residential development to positively influence housing supply and expand housing choice. • Policy LIV 5.5: Integrate and Distribute Affordable Housing. Integrate the distribution of affordable housing as part of individual neighborhoods and the larger community. • Principle LIV 6: Improve access to housing that meets the needs of residents regardless of their race, ethnicity, income, age, ability or background. • Policy LIV 6.2: Plan for populations who have specialized housing needs. Integrate residential-care and treatment facilities, shelters, permanent supportive housing, group homes and senior housing throughout the GMA in areas that are well served by amenities and public transportation. We look forward to beginning this exciting new project with you. Please do not hesitate to contact me or our team at TB|Group with questions that may arise. Sincerely, TB|Group ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 34 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 35 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 36 Moor Annexation Neighborhood Meeting Notes February 12, 2025 These notes are a summary of the neighborhood meeting discussion and not a verbatim transcript. Most neighborhood meetings are recorded and posted on the City;s YouTube page: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7cZylpMlgCKqkcNsNCKAEevDf1P6r-Xk Attendees City Staff: Arlo Schumann, City Planner, aschumann@fcgov.com Em Myler, Neighborhood Development Liaison, emyler@fcgov.com Applicant Team: Cathy Mathis – TB Group Public: In-person - 5 Virtual - 2 Agenda 1.Purpose of the Meeting and Development Review Process – NDL and Planner Neighborhood Development Liaison Em Myler introduced the purpose of the meeting and how it fits into the process for prospective development in the City Notes. The City of Fort Collins knows that development can have a meaningful impact on neighbors who live, work and play nearby. Because of this, when someone wants to build something new in the city, we often require a neighborhood meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to give the public an opportunity to: •Learn about the project •Ask questions about the project •Share their feedback on the project Meeting discussion is intended to be considered by the development team as they decide whether and how to formulate an actual application for submittal to the City for review. The notes and recordings of neighborhood meetings are also provided to the decision maker at the end of the Development Review process. 2.Proposal Overview - Applicant The applicant presented their plans for the proposal. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 37 3. Questions (Q), Responses (R), and Comments (C) - Responses are by the applicant unless otherwise noted Q: Does the applicant own the land presently? A: No Q: Can annexation go forward without the applicant owning the land? A: (Schumann) The owner has to request the annexation, and they can have representatives bring it to the City. A: The owners have to be aware and approve of the annexation. Q: Do you know who currently owns the land? A: Yes Q: Where does he live? A: Out of state/ C: I love right next to this, so I have the most to lose or gain, but probably lose. This property has been quiet since I moved in in 1981. It was a landfill at some point, and then a few years past the gas station leaked a lot of gas. I don’t know where that went. There was also an equipment rental and lumber treatment site for a while. So it’s been used for various things. I think they capped the landfill with soil but under that you’ll probably find a lot of trash. Q: This are is getting more developed. What obligations do the developers have to improve the road and pedestrian infrastructure? A: (Gilchrist) there aren’t any improvements required for the annexation, but when they come to build they will need to improve the road that fronts their property. We will also be requiring a traffic impact study, and depending on the outcomes of that they may need to make improvements farther from their site to mitigate the impacts of the traffic they generate. Taft Hill and Laporte can become two- lane arterial roads with a turn lane, bike lanes and sidewalks. Q: Can someone explain the floodplain map of the property? What is the difference between the yellow and red parts? A: The area in red is considered “flood way” and the yellow is “flood fringe” which have different velocity and depth of flow. The whole area is the flood plain designated by the City. 4. Next Steps and Adjourn - NDL ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 38 From:Kirk Fieseler To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: 2000 Laporte Ave Preliminary Plans Date:Wednesday, February 5, 2025 7:45:03 PM Hi Em, Thank you for these plans and information, I wanted to have you look into this site's history as a landfill dump. It has been raised up several feet or yards, back in the sixties, I think . I have many worries and concerns for this development , increased traffic (especially off of Laporte), drainage issues, privacy intrusion, the height of the building, to start. From the looks of these plans the developer has tried to get the maximum use and profit of this site at the expense of the current neighbors of this property. I have no problem putting low income senior housing on this site , it just needs to be done on a smaller scale ( 2 story buildings would be a good start and eliminate the Laporte Ave access). I look forward to meeting you and the rest of the planning team , so we can get a plan that doesn't destroy this neighborhood that I have lived in for the past 44 years. Respectfully, Kirk Fieseler 1950 Laporte Ave Fort Collins CO 80521 On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 2:09 PM Development Review Comments <devreviewcomments@fcgov.com> wrote: Hi Kirk, Thanks for getting back to me! You can find a link to those plans here: https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/files/design-reviews/1712622891-10-15- Annexation-and-Multifamily-at-Laporte-Ave-Website.pdf?1712622890 These are from a meeting we had with the applicant in April 2024. It was essentially like a free consultation where anyone can come to us and ask us questions about the process to approve development. They brought these rudimentary ideas and we gave them some feedback. Just a few weeks ago, they came back to us and let us know they are ready to move ahead with the annexation of the property, so we scheduled the neighborhood meeting for February 12 at 6 pm at the Fort Collins Senior Center. After the neighborhood meeting, they will need to get approval to annex from the City Council. After they annex, we assume they would bring this plan back to us for review, though there may be some changes between now and then. Once this happens, the project would appear on this page: https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/proposals. I am here to help throughout this process, and you can send me questions or comments to this email any time! ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 39 Respectfully, Em Myler Neighborhood Development Liaison ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 40 300 Laporte Avenue 1950 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 Fort Collins, CO 80521 August 18, 2025 Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners- My name is Kirk Fieseler. I live at 1950 Laporte Avenue which borders the entire east property line of the Moor annexation. I am submitting these written comments for your consideration at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on August 21, 2025. This neighborhood is mainly composed of modest houses on larger lots with many people keeping animals (chickens, goats, and horses, etc.) I have lived here for 44 years and during that time I have enjoyed the quiet aspects of this semi-rural neighborhood. I am retired from Front Range Community College where I taught Urban Horticulture. I presently grow native trees and shrubs wholesale as a hobby business. During my 44 years living here I have planted and cared for many trees on my property, which I highly value. The building of a four story apartment complex with its extensive hardscape too close to these trees could damage and even eventually kill them. The Following are my thoughts on this planning and zoning subject: First, I highly oppose the zoning of this property as LMN and recommend it be zoned Urban Edg (UE) or Residential Low Density (RL) District to bring it in line with the city’s Northwest Subarea Plan. I hope the Planning and Zoning Comission is aware of how the current Conceptual Review plans (a 78,000 square foot, four-story building surrounded by a site encompassing parking lot) goes against the guidelines established by the Northwest Subarea Plan. Second, most of this site is in the flood plain. A larger apartment complex with its accompanying site filling parking lot will surely need to move a lot of ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 41 water somewhere. This area is already highly susceptible to flooding. Just look back to the Spring Creek Floods of 1997 where many of the houses were flooded around here. I personally had a foot of water in my basement and large areas of my gravel driveway washed away. Third, my quality of life would be diminished in the following ways: -Increased traffic (auto, bicycle, motorized bikes, skateboards, scooters, and foot) in front of my driveway. The way Laporte Avenue was redesigned last year already greatly slows my access, -More lights and noise from planned apartments, -The blocking of my views of the foothills. Presently from my property I can see Arthurs Rock, Grey Rock, and the “A” of my alma mater. -The potential exposure of some unknown hazard, due to this sites use as a landfill in past years. Fourth, if the property is to be developed for apartments, look to an apartment complex just east of me on Laporte, The Orchard Apartments, for the right way to do it. These two story apartment building fit nicely into our neighborhood. They have a pleasing, semi-rural look with attractive landscaping and house adults with one and two bedroom units. Also, this apartment complex just happens to have the largest Cottonwood tree in the state, as related to me from another tree lover. Lastly, I really appreciate the city requiring a 25’ natural habitat buffer along the east property line of the Moor annexation per City of Fort Collins LUC Section3.4.1 Thank you very much! Kirk Fieseler ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 42 330 N.Taft Hill Road Fort Collins, CO 80521 300 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 August 15, 2025 Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners, My name is Miranda Spindel and I own and live at the three-acre historic farm located at 330 N. Taft Hill Road, just to the north of this proposed annexation. I am submitting these written comments for your consideration at the Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing on August 21, 2025. Here are my comments on the proposed Moor Annexation: First, I understand that the three-acre property under consideration is part of the City’s Structure and Framework Plans, and has been previously designated as a property that would ultimately be annexed into the City as Low-density Mixed Use (LMN). Second, I also understand that this property lies within the Northwest Subarea Plan. As you are likely aware, a neighborhood group recently took the City to court over the Sanctuary on the Green development proposal which is across the street from this parcel. In the judge’s decision, it was clarified that the Northwest Subarea Plan (NSP) is regulatory and when the Land Use Code (LUC) and NSP conflict, the more stringent guidelines take precedence. I mention this now, because the Conceptual Review I have studied for this property is completely out of alignment with the Northwest Subarea Plan. Yet, I see no mention of the NSP in any comments from the City. During the process we went through for the Sanctuary on the Green, the Planning and Zoning Commission regretfully commented that the property should never have been approved for LMN and not doing so would have solved many of the subsequent issues with the proposal. I ask that you consider whether, in light of what is conceptually planned for this site and the ongoing neighborhood concerns, this property might not be better designated under Urban Edg (UE) or Residential Low Density (RL) District. There is language in the Northwest Subarea Plan that specifies that parcels will be zoned Residential Low if they are five acres or less in size and adjacent to an existing single-family neighborhood, which fits this parcel. If the decision is ultimately to annex into the LMN zoning, I hope the Planning and Zoning Commission is aware of how the current Conceptual Review plans conflict with the Northwest Subarea Plan and will remain true in decision-making to the more stringent plan. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 43 Here are just a few of those conflicts highlighted as examples: •The density is excessive for this area, which currently has a more rural and low- density character. Packing 72 units onto 3.368 acres results in over 21 units per acre. This is far beyond what most would reasonably consider “low density.” This is not compatible with adjacent land uses and would fundamentally alter the character of the surrounding area. •The Northwest Subarea Plan clearly calls for preserving rural qualities and ensuring that any new development complements the existing neighborhood fabric, which this will not. •The NSP states that house sizes should relate to lot sizes–so building does not dominate. A 78,000 square foot, four-story building ignores this principle. •There are no four-story buildings anywhere nearby (other than Ramblewood Apartments which pre-date the Northwest Subarea Plan and should not be used as a reference). The Northwest Subarea Plan calls for size of buildings to “relate to lot sizes and adjacent properties (e.g., 2 stories maximum, with 1 story preferred near edge of property or no more than 20% difference in height.) Lastly, I would like to comment on the actual development review process to engage citizens, which has consistently frustrated me and taken up a large amount of my time. Many neighbors are not aware of what is proposed conceptually because the development review website is so difficult to navigate. As a fairly experienced user of this site, and a tech savvy individual, I have encountered much difficulty. I contacted development review in May of 2025 because I was unable to locate the conceptual review. After a lot of back and forth, city staff agreed with me that it was actually not searchable in the proposals page by address and instead under a new name of Moor Annexation. The city staff were also unable to produce public records that I requested at that time. I reached out again when notice of this annexation hearing arrived last week and requested the same public records, which I could not locate anywhere on the City of Fort Collins public records website. After a lot of back and forth, the City agreed they were not currently posted for the public and corrected this at my request. Notification of the conceptual review/neighborhood meeting was sent to an 800-1000 foot radius from the property. That likely includes less than five neighbors. While I realize this notification radius is what is written in the land use code, this is inadequate to gather helpful citizen input. I was told by City staff that this will be the only neighborhood hearing for this development. If true citizen engagement is desired, a ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 44 neighborhood meeting should occur again once there is an actual plan presented, which will hopefully differ considerably from this conceptual review. Thank you for considering my comments. Sincerely, Miranda Spindel ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 45 From:Paula Harrison To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] Moor Annexation hearing comment for 8/21/2025 Date:Wednesday, August 20, 2025 4:14:46 PM Dear Planning and Zoning Committee Members, Q: Why was the Subarea Plan written? A: To preserve the character of this particular urban edge amidst a changing landscape. Q: How can we best serve the needs of the subarea community while responding to the needs of the general community? A: Fulfill the general needs (housing, affordable housing) while respecting and following the vision and mission of the Subarea Plan. Yes, this can be done. Annexation is not the answer! Annexation is a tool/method to skirt the intention laid out in the Subarea Plan. It is using the rules to break the rules and it is unethical. Is it possible to build affordable senior housing within the parameters of the Subarea Plan? That is the challenge that P&Z should be addressing! How can you help create affordable housing without destroying the character of the area where it is located?? Size matters, four stories is too high. Can you be leaders, rather than merely following a developer's vision? Sincerely, Paula Harrison N. Hollywood St. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 46 Moor Annexation & Zoning Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing – August 21, 2025 2Project Overview Moor Annexation Request for a recommendation to City Council for voluntary annexation and zoning of 3.368 acres located northeast of the intersection of North Taft Hill Road and Laporte Avenue. Annexation contiguous with municipal boundaries and meets State annexation requirements. Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (LMN) City Council Initiating Resolution – July 15, 2025 City Council First Reading – September 2, 2025 1 2 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 47 3Aerial Vicinity SITE Grandview Cemetary Puente Verde Natural Area Laporte Ave N T a f t H i l l R d 4Zoning Vicinity SITE Laporte Ave N T a f t H i l l R d (POL) (LMN) (OTA) (CL) (LMN) (LMN) (RR2) Larimer County (CC) Larimer County (RR2) Larimer County 3 4 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 48 5Site Context SE Corner (View NE) NW Corner (View SE) 6Structure Plan – Land Use Guidance 5 6 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 49 7Structure Plan Guidance Suburban Neighborhood Place Type Principal Land Use Single-unit detached homes. Density: Between two and five principal dwelling units per acre. Supporting Land Use Parks and recreational facilities, schools, places of worship, ADUs and other uses related to the principal uses. 8Northwest Subarea Plan Guidance 7 8 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 50 9Sign District Staff recommends inclusion in the Non-Residential Sign District. 10Lighting Context Area Staff recommends inclusion in Lighting Context Area LC1 LC1 - Low ambient lighting. The vision of human residents and users is adapted to low light levels. Lighting may be used for safety and convenience, but it is not necessarily uniform or continuous. Typical locations include low and medium density residential areas, commercial or industrial areas with limited nighttime activity, and the developed areas in parks and other natural settings. 9 10 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 51 11Findings of Fact 1.The property meets the State law eligibility requirements to qualify for a voluntary annexation to the City of Fort Collins. 2.The requested placement into the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (LMN) zone district is consistent with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan Map and the Northwest Subarea Plan. 3.The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. 4.On July 15, 2025, City Council accepted the annexation petition and began annexation proceedings by approving a resolution determining the annexation petition is in compliance with State law. 5.The requested placement into the Non-Residential Sign District, as well as the LC1 Lighting Context Area, is consistent with the City of Fort Collins sign and lighting standards as it relates to LMN zoning. 11 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 52 Development Review Staff Report Agenda Item 3 Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing: August 21, 2025 Prospect Plaza Redevelopment, Site Plan Advisory Review SPA250003 Summary of Request This is a request for a Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) to expand the existing school use in an existing office building into the second level of the building. The SPAR process allows the Planning and Zoning Commission to provide comments on the plan to the governing body of the charter school per State statutes. Zoning Map Next Steps If the Planning and Zoning Commission were to comment on the plan and was then not satisfied with the response to its comments by the governing body, the Commission could request a hearing before the State Board of Education. Site Location 4800 Wheaton Drive. Zoning Harmony Corridor District (HC) Property Owner Aurora Charter School BC 4424 Innovation DR Fort Collins, CO 80523 Applicant/Representative Academy of Arts and Knowledge 4800 Wheaton Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80525 Staff Arlo Schumann, City Planner aschumann@fcgov.com (970) 221-6599 Contents 1. Project Introduction ....................................... 2 2. Public Outreach ............................................ 3 3. Procedural Requirements – Land Use Code Article 2 ......................................................... 4 4. Staff Evaluation ............................................ 4 5. Staff Conclusions and Recommendation ..... 5 6. Attachments .................................................. 5 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Commission state support for the plan with no comments. Site RL HC Packet Pg. 53 P&Z Agenda Item #3 SPA250003 | Academy of Arts & Knowledge SPAR Thursday, August 21, 2025 | Page 2 of 5 Back to Top 1. Project Introduction A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION & STAFF REVIEW OVERVIEW Academy of Arts and Knowledge (AAK) currently occupies the first floor of the building (23,912 sf), and operates a preK-5th grade charter school on site. Starting in August of 2025, it will also occupy the second floor of the building to expand its enrollment. Interior renovations include remodeling of existing kitchen and bathrooms along with buildout of 10 classrooms on the 2nd level. Exterior site changes are limited to a minor addition to the existing play area on the back side of the building: adding a new swing set with a slide. The applicant's narrative, with additional detail, is attached. Because there are minimal exterior changes, the only issue in staff’s review has been the question of traffic operations for drop-off and pick-up. In Colorado, charter schools can be authorized either by school districts or the Charter School Institute. The key difference lies in the level of autonomy and the relationships with local districts. CSI-authorized charter schools operate independently of local districts but still have strong ties to the community. The City’s review of charter schools is governed by State statutes. The Land Use Code has special sections consistent with the statutes. The criteria for review are more general than other Land Use Code standards, and a degree of interpretation is necessary. Plans are reviewed based on the requirements as stated below. 1. State Requirements for City Review Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended (C.R.S.), govern the City’s review of public charter school development plans, in two specific Sections. These supersede the City’s typical development standards and procedures for development review. • Section 22-32-124, C.R.S. specifically governs charter school review with the following pertinent provisions: o the process of City review: “the Planning and Zoning Commission may review and comment on the plan to the Colorado Charter School Institute, but it must do so, if at all, within 30 days of a development plan submittal.” o The basis for City review: “the proposed site shall conform to the adopted plan of the community insofar as is feasible.” • Section 31-23-209, C.R.S. generally governs review of all public facilities with the following pertinent provision: o “no public building shall be constructed or authorized in a city until the location, character, and extent thereof has been submitted for approval by the [Planning and Zoning] commission.” Verbatim text from the statutes is attached. 2. Land Use Code Requirements The Land Use Code incorporates the statutory requirements above into Sections 6.2.3(F) and 6.11.2(Q) under the Site Plan Advisory Review Procedures (“SPAR”). Following are pertinent excerpts for convenient reference: Packet Pg. 54 P&Z Agenda Item #3 SPA250003 | Academy of Arts & Knowledge SPAR Thursday, August 21, 2025 | Page 3 of 5 Back to Top “6.2.3(F)(1) Site Plan Advisory Review. The Site Plan Advisory Review process requires the submittal and approval of a site development plan that describes the location, character, and extent of improvements to parcels owned or operated by public entities. In addition, with respect to public and charter schools, the review also has as its purpose, as far as is feasible, that the proposed school facility conforms to the City's Comprehensive Plan.” “6.11.2 Site Plan Advisory Review Procedures (Q) Standards: [LUC standards are] Not applicable, and in substitution thereof, an application for a Site Plan Advisory Review shall comply with the following criteria: 1) The site location for the proposed use shall be consistent with the land use designation described by the City Structure Plan Map, which is an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2) The site development plan shall conform to architectural, landscape and other design standards and guidelines adopted by the applicant's governing body. Absent adopted design standards and guidelines, the design character of the site development plan shall be consistent with the stated purpose of the respective land use designation as set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan. 3) The site development plan shall identify the level of functional and visual impacts to public rights-of-way, facilities and abutting private land caused by the development, including, but not limited to, streets, sidewalks, utilities, lighting, screening and noise, and shall mitigate such impacts to the extent reasonably feasible. B. SITE CHARACTERISTICS 1. Current Conditions The site is approximately 4.21-acres and contains an existing 2 story office building. The site is served by a single access point along Wheaton Dr. 2. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use North South East West Zoning Harmony Corridor District (HC) Harmony Corridor District (HC), Low Density Residential District (RL) Harmony Corridor District (HC), Low Density Residential District (RL) Harmony Corridor District (HC) Land Use Residential, Assisted Living Residential Residential Commercial Office and Clinics, Residential 2. Public Outreach A. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING A neighborhood meeting was determined to be unnecessary due to lack of significant impacts from the project. The 30-day time limit from submittal to hearing was an additional factor when the plan submittal was initially discussed. Packet Pg. 55 P&Z Agenda Item #3 SPA250003 | Academy of Arts & Knowledge SPAR Thursday, August 21, 2025 | Page 4 of 5 Back to Top B. PUBLIC COMMENT No other public comment has been received. Any communication received between the public notice and the hearing will be provided to the Commission for the hearing. 3. Procedural Requirements – Land Use Code Article 2 A. SITE PLAN ADVISORY REVIEW PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW 1. Conceptual Review A conceptual review meeting was determined to be unnecessary due to lack of significant impacts from the project. The 30-day time limit from submittal to hearing was an additional factor when the plan submittal was initially discussed. 2. Neighborhood Meeting A neighborhood meeting was determined to be unnecessary due to lack of significant impacts from the project. The 30-day time limit from submittal to hearing was an additional factor when the plan submittal was initially discussed. 3. Submittal The project development plans were deemed complete on July 25, 2025, and subsequently routed to all reviewing departments. Notice (Posted, Written and Published) Posted notice: July 30, 2025, Sign #903 Written notice: August 6, 2025, 470 letters sent. Published hearing notice: August 10, 2025, Coloradoan Confirmation #11560917 4. Staff Evaluation A. LOCATION Standard 1 – Location. The site is designated as the ‘Mixed Employment’ land use place type in City Plan, the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds that the location is appropriate for the charter school because the ‘Place Type’ description in City Plan envisions principal land uses as offices; R&D facilities; hospitals, clinics, nursing and personal-care facilities; vocational, business, or private schools and universities; and other similar uses. It envisions supporting uses including multi-family residential, childcare centers, athletic clubs, and other similar uses. (p. 103) In addition to having already be recommended for school use, staff finds the charter school to be similar enough to the mentioned uses, to be supportable. B. CHARACTER AND EXTENT - TRAFFIC The primary aspect of the plan that has involved staff comments and discussion with the applicants is the Traffic Operational Plan for drop-off and pick-up of students (attached). Explanation To identify the level of functional impacts to the public right of way, facilities, and abutting private land caused by the development, the Academy of Arts and Knowledge provided a Traffic Memo with Operational Plan which has been reviewed and accepted by the City. This memo focused on the morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up times where Packet Pg. 56 P&Z Agenda Item #3 SPA250003 | Academy of Arts & Knowledge SPAR Thursday, August 21, 2025 | Page 5 of 5 Back to Top the potential impacts would be the greatest and detailed how the school will mitigate these impacts to the extent reasonably feasible. In addition, the school has committed to a continued effort to monitor and adjust their operational plan to address any impacts that will be created with the expansion of this site. This ongoing effort will include continued communication and instruction to students and parents on the proper procedures to follow during these times. 5. Staff Conclusions and Recommendation In evaluating the proposed Academy of Arts and Knowledge Site Plan Advisory Review SPA250003, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission send a brief letter of support to the governing body of the charter school, to inform them that the Commission has no comments. The Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the location, character, and extent of the proposed development plan for Academy of Arts and Knowledge, City of Fort Collins Project #SPA250003, is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and will mitigate its functional impacts to the adjoining city street. 6. Attachments 1. Applicant Narrative 2. Project Plans 3. Traffic Study with Updates 4. Comment Letter (with applicant responses) 5. Excerpts from Colorado Revised Statues Pertinent to the Proposal 6. Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 57 Academy of Advanced Learning and Knowledge SPAR Narrave 07/25/2025 A contract for purchase of the property at 4800 Wheaton Avenue (the “Property”), has been entered into by Blueprint Colorado, a California public benefit corporation and has assigned its rights as purchaser to its wholly owned entity, Blueprint 4800 Wheaton LLC, a California limited liability company (“Blueprint”). Blueprint plans to remodel the interior of property for the benefit of and use by Northern Colorado Academy of Arts and Knowledge, d/b/a Academy of Arts and Knowledge (“AAK”), who will lease the Property and eventually purchase it. AAK operates a preK-5th grade charter school, and has occupied the first floor of the building (23,912 sf), and starting in August of 2025, it will also occupy the second floor of the building on the Property in order to expand its enrollment. Blueprint will be remodeling the kitchen on the first floor to include a new dishwasher, oven with ventless system, three compartment sink, grease interceptor, prep-sink, and a handwash sink. A wall and door will be added to close off the kitchen from the remainder of the school. The second floor renovations include the buildout of 10 classrooms, a professional development room, storage space, and a new hi-low drinking fountain. The existing multi-occupant restrooms will be remodeled to meet accessibility requirements. Finally, one of the unisex restrooms will be remodeled to meet accessibility requirements. The only exterior alterations planned are: this summer the school will use grant funds to install a a minor addition to the existing play area on the back side of the building: adding a new swing set with a slide, levelling the ground for its placement, and adding eight inches of soft ground cover under the swing set. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 58 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 59 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 60 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 61 SM ROCHA, LLC Traffic & Transportation Engineering Consultants 8700 Turnpike Drive, Suite 240 Westminster, Colorado 80031 (303) 458-9798 6 South Tejon Street, Suite 618 Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903 (719) 203-6639 www.smrocha.com July 25, 2025 Joy Griffin Blueprint 600 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 RE: Academy of Arts & Knowledge / Traffic Generation Analysis Fort Collins, Colorado Dear Joy, SM ROCHA, LLC is pleased to provide traffic generation information for the development entitled Academy of Arts & Knowledge. This development is located to the south and east of the intersection of Wheaton Drive with Oak Park Drive at 4800 Wheaton Drive in Fort Collins, Colorado. This information has been revised to address City Staff review comments dated July 7, 2025 regarding the need for additional discussion on student drop-off/pick-up queues and potential off-site improvements. The intent of this analysis is to present traffic volumes likely generated by the proposed development addition, provide a traffic volume comparison to the existing land use, and consider potential impacts to the adjacent roadway network. The following is a summary of analysis results. Site Description and Access Land for the development is currently occupied by the existing Academy of Arts & Knowledge school facility. The school occupies the first floor of an approximate 50,000 square foot, 2-story building, originally constructed as a corporate office center. The second floor is understood to be unoccupied. The site is surrounded by a mix of residential and commercial land uses. The proposed development is understood to entail the refurbishment of the second floor of the existing structure to allow the current school use to expand. This expansion is anticipated to allow for an increased student capacity of approximately 180 students, for an estimated total capacity of 423 students. It is noted that full capacity is not anticipated to be achieved for approximately four years. No other new construction is proposed. Existing access to the development is provided at the following location: one full-movement access onto Wheaton Drive (referred to as Site Access). General site and access locations are shown on Figure 1. Given that the proposed development does not proposed any new construction, only the re-use of the existing building, no site plan is currently available. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 62 De v e l o p m e n t Si t e E H a r m o n y R o a d S Lemay Avenue Whea t o n D r i v e Mcmurry Avenue Ke e n l a n d D r i v e Ju l y 2 0 2 5 AC A D E M Y O F A R T S & K N O W L E D G E Tr a f f i c G e n e r a t i o n A n a l y s i s SM R O C H A , L L C Tr a f f i c & T r a n s p o r t a t i o n E n g i n e e r i n g C o n s u l t a n t s Pa g e 2 Fi g u r e 1 SI T E L O C A T I O N No t t o S c a l e ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 63 Joy Griffin July 2025 Academy of Arts & Knowledge Page 3 25-032365 Vehicle Trip Generation Standard traffic generation characteristics compiled by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in their report entitled Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, were applied to the existing and proposed land uses in order to estimate the average daily traffic (ADT) and peak hour vehicle trips. A vehicle trip is defined as a one-way vehicle movement from point of origin to point of destination . Table 1 presents average trip generation rates for the existing and proposed development areas. Use of average trip generation rates presents a conservative analysis. ITE land use code 536 (Charter Elementary School) was used for analysis because of its best fit to the existing and proposed land use. Table 1 – Trip Generation Rates ITE 24 CODE LAND USE UNIT HOUR ENTER EXIT TOTAL ENTER EXIT TOTAL 536 Charter Elementary School 1.85 0.54 0.50 1.04 0.06 0.10 0.16 Key:STU = Number of Students. Note: All data and calculations above are subject to being rounded to nearest value. STU TRIP GENERATION RATES AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Table 2 summarizes the projected ADT and peak hour traffic volumes likely generated by the land use area proposed and provides comparison to traffic volume estimates for the existing land use. Table 2 – Trip Generation Summary ITE 24 CODE LAND USE SIZE HOUR ENTER EXIT TOTAL ENTER EXIT TOTAL Site Development - Existing 536 Charter Elementary School 243 STU 450 131 121 253 14 25 39 Existing Total:450 131 121 253 14 25 39 Site Development - Proposed Additional 536 Charter Elementary School 180 STU 333 97 90 187 10 19 29 Proposed Additional Total:333 97 90 187 10 19 29 Build-Out Total:783 229 211 440 24 44 68 Key:STU = Number of Students. Note: All data and calculations above are subject to being rounded to nearest value. PM PEAK HOURAM PEAK HOUR TOTAL TRIPS GENERATED As Table 2 shows, the proposed development addition has the potential to generate approximately 333 daily trips with 187 of those occurring during the morning peak hour and 29 during the afternoon peak hour. Compared to the existing land use, this represents a cumulative build-out site generation of approximately 783 daily trips with 440 of those occurring during the morning peak traffic hour and 68 during the afternoon peak traffic hour. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 64 Joy Griffin July 2025 Academy of Arts & Knowledge Page 4 25-032365 Adjustments to Trip Generation Rates A development of this type is not likely to attract trips from within area land uses nor pass -by or diverted link trips from the adjacent roadway system, therefore no trip reduction was taken in this analysis. Trip Generation Distribution and Assignment The overall directional distribution of site-generated traffic was determined based on the location of development site within the City, proposed and existing area land uses, allowed urning movements, and available roadway network. Site-generated traffic is anticipated to be distributed through the existing Site Access. Distribution along Wheaton Drive is general and assumed to be 50 percent to/from the north and 50 percent to/from the south. Traffic assignment is how the site-generated and distributed trips are expected to be loaded on the roadway network. Applying assumed trip distribution patterns to site-generated traffic provides the peak hour trip volume assignments for existing access. Table 3 below uses the total new trip generation volumes from Table 2 and denotes projected additional traffic volumes at the existing Site Access intersection due to the proposed expansion. Table 3 – Site Generated Trip Assignment DEVELOPMENT ACCESS TURNING MOVEMENTS Inbound Volume Outbound Volume Inbound Volume Outbound Volume Site Access / Wheaton Drive Westbound Left -45 -9 Westbound Right -45 -10 Northbound Right 49 -5 - Southbound Left 48 -5 - AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Development Impacts As Tables 2 and 3 show, there is an increase in peak hour traffic volumes anticipated for the proposed development addition. Dependent on existing through volumes and capacity along the Wheaton Drive corridor, these added volumes may be able to be accommodated without significantly impacting current intersection and roadway operations. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 65 Joy Griffin July 2025 Academy of Arts & Knowledge Page 5 25-032365 Student Drop-Off/Pick-Up Queue Length Analysis Pursuant to City review, additional assessment of vehicle queuing for student drop-off/pick-up was considered based on the anticipated trip generation. Pursuant to various urban/suburban sites surveyed, ITE’s Trip Generation Manual describes how Charter Elementary School land uses typically experience their greatest demand between the morning peak period of 7:15 AM to 8:15 AM and the afternoon peak period of 2:45 PM to 3:45 PM during typical weekdays. It is important to note that typical afternoon peak periods for adjacent street traffic occur from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM, outside of the Charter Elementary School peak period. Pursuant to ITE, the proposed Charter Elementary School land use experiences 453 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour of generation (7:15 AM to 8:15 AM) based on a student capacity of 423 students. Of the 453 trips anticipated, 53 percent enter the site or approximately 240 vehicles. Pursuant to information on anticipated school operations as provided by the school, it is understood that all pre-kindergarten parents must park to drop off their students and therefore are not expected to occupy the drop-off queue for any significant length of time. As such, assuming an even distribution of vehicles to the site by grade, the effective number of entering vehicles that may join the queue, as opposed to parking, is estimated at approximately 180 vehicles. Student drop-off is expected to occur within a 15-minute period from 8:00 AM to 8:15 AM, and it is expected that as many as 15 percent of the total inbound trips may arrive within the queue at one time. This would result in an anticipated peak queue length of approximately 27 vehicles. Assuming a typical vehicle length of 2 0 feet, this equates to a queue of approximately 540 feet. A site circulation plan and description of drop-off and pick-up procedures, prepared by Academy of Arts & Knowledge, is included for reference in Attachment A. Pursuant to the provided site circulation plan, an examination of the existing site reveals that the site provides pick-up/drop-off queue capacity of approximately 570 feet. Based on these considerations, it is anticipated that proposed student pick-up/drop-off queues are able to be accommodated on-site. As such, no significant negative impacts are anticipated due to student pick-up/drop-off queues, and it is not expected that adjacent roadways or intersections will be negatively impacted by the proposed school expansion. Additionally, should queuing occur exceeding that estimated for the site and the available capacity, it is noted that available on-site parking as well as adjacent on-street parking along Wheaton Drive may provide a suitable alternative to vehicle queuing. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 66 Joy Griffin July 2025 Academy of Arts & Knowledge Page 6 25-032365 07/25/2025 Conclusion This analysis assessed traffic generation for the Academy of Arts & Knowledge development, provided a traffic volume comparison to the existing land use, and considered potential impacts to the adjacent roadway network. It is our professional opinion that the proposed site-generated traffic resulting from the additional expansion may be accommodated by the existing roadway network, dependent on existing available capacity along the Wheaton Drive corridor. Additionally, it is expected that proposed student drop- off/pick-up queues are able to be accommodated on site and therefore no significant impacts to the adjacent roadway network are currently identified. We trust that our findings will assist in the planning and approval of the Academy of Arts & Knowledge development. Please contact us should further assistance be needed. Sincerely, SM ROCHA, LLC Traffic & Transportation Engineering Consultants Stephen Simon, PE Fred Lantz, PE Traffic Engineer | Project Manager Traffic Engineer ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 67 ATTACHMENT A Student Drop-Off/Pick-Up Procedures ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 68 AAK Families, Below are the drop off and pickup plans and directions and attached maps to help explain the process for each. Morning Drop Off Families will enter our parking lot from Wheaton and turn right, drive all of the way to the south end of the parking lot and turn left towards the building. Pull up in front of the building, remain in your vehicle, a staff member will open the car door and help your child out of the car. Continue straight ahead to the stop sign, turn left and exit the parking lot. The far north side of the parking lot heading west is one way. Do not enter the parking lot using the far left lane. Pre-K families will follow the same route until they reach the stop sign, at the stop sign turn right and park. You will meet the teacher at the side door under the stairs. Drop off will be from 8:00am-8:15am! ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 69 Afternoon Pick Up: Families will park and pick up their children from the classroom. To ensure the safety of all students, families must adhere to the following traffic pattern. Doors will open from 3:20pm-3:35pm. We will not be calling students out early from 3:00pm-3:20pm, this is extremely disruptive to the end of the school day. You will enter the parking lot from Wheaton Drive and immediately turn right into the parking lot. You may then choose to turn left and park in any of the available lanes. All parking lanes are one way towards AAK. Once you have entered the building and you have your child, an AAK staff member will be out front providing opportunities for groups to safely cross to get back to your car. Once in your car, you will exit the parking lot towards AAK, at the stop sign you will turn left and exit the parking lot. The north side of the parking lot heading west is one way. Pre-K families will follow this same pick up procedure! ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 70 ●You must have a permit to park for ANY length of time in a handicap parking spot. Violators will be ticketed. ●Afternoon pick up is not a time to have a conference with your child’s teacher. Please email them to schedule an appointment. A few reminders: AAK Families, Below are the drop off and pickup plans and directions and attached maps to help explain the process for each. Morning Drop Off Families will enter our parking lot from Wheaton and turn right, drive all of the way to the south end of the parking lot and turn left towards the building. Pull up in front of the building, remain in your vehicle, a staff member will open the car door and help your child out of the car. Continue straight ahead to the stop sign, turn left and exit the parking lot. The far north side of the parking lot heading west is one way. Do not enter the parking lot using the far left lane. Pre-K families will follow the same route until they reach the stop sign, at the stop sign turn right and park. You will meet the teacher at the side door under the stairs. Drop off will be from 8:00am-8:15am! ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 72 Afternoon Pick Up: Families will park and pick up their children from the classroom. To ensure the safety of all students, families must adhere to the following traffic pattern. Doors will open from 3:20pm-3:35pm. We will not be calling students out early from 3:00pm-3:20pm, this is extremely disruptive to the end of the school day. You will enter the parking lot from Wheaton Drive and immediately turn right into the parking lot. You may then choose to turn left and park in any of the available lanes. All parking lanes are one way towards AAK. Once you have entered the building and you have your child, an AAK staff member will be out front providing opportunities for groups to safely cross to get back to your car. Once in your car, you will exit the parking lot towards AAK, at the stop sign you will turn left and exit the parking lot. The north side of the parking lot heading west is one way. Pre-K families will follow this same pick up procedure! ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 73 ●You must have a permit to park for ANY length of time in a handicap parking spot. Violators will be ticketed. ●Afternoon pick up is not a time to have a conference with your child’s teacher. Please email them to schedule an appointment. A few reminders: ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 74 1 Telephone (720) 507 -5880 Cell 303-356-4896 The Law Offices of Carleen Clark, LLC Email: carleentclark@comcast.net August 5, 2025 VIA EMAIL mpomerleau@fcgov.com Marissa Pomerleau Development Review Coordinator Community Development City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522 Re: SPAR # SPA250003 Academy of Arts and Knowledge (“AAK or School” 4800 Wheaton Drive, Fort Collins (the “Property”) Please note, that the comment letter was erroneously addressed to Aurora Charter School BC, which is the record owner, that currently has the property under contract for sale, but us not the applicant. Set forth below are the responses of AAK to the comments of Fort Collins staff. Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6689 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview July 31, 2025 Aurora Charter School BC 4424 Innovation Dr Fort Collins, CO 80523 RE: Academy of Arts & Knowledge, SPA250003, Round Number 1 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of Academy of Arts & Knowledge. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through your Development Review Coordinator, Marissa Pomerleau via phone at (970) 416-8082 or via email at mpomerleau@fcgov.com. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 75 2 Comment Summary: Department: Development Review Coordinator Contact: Marissa Pomerleau mpomerleau@fcgov.com (970) 416-8082 Topic: General Comment Number: 1 07/29/2025: INFORMATION: I will be your primary point of contact throughout the development review and permitting process. If you have any questions, need additional meetings with the project reviewers, or need assistance throughout the process, please let me know and I can assist you and your team. Please include me in all email correspondence with other reviewers and keep me informed of any phone conversations. Thank you! Understood, Thank you. Comment Number: 2 07/29/2025: SUBMITTAL: As part of your resubmittal, a response to the comments provided in this letter and a response to plan markups is required. The final letter is provided to you in Microsoft Word format. Please use this letter to insert responses to each comment for your submittal, using a different font color. Please use the markups to insert responses to each comment on plans. Please do not flatten markup responses. Provide a detailed response for any comment asking a question or requiring an action. Any comment requesting a response or requiring action by you with a response of noted, acknowledged etc. will be considered not addressed. You will need to provide references to specific project plans, pages, reports, or explanations of why comments have not been addressed [when applicable]. Okay Comment Number: 3 07/29/2025: SUBMITTAL: Correct file naming is required as part of a complete submittal. Please follow the Electronic Submittal Requirements and File Naming Standards found here: https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/files/electronic -submittal-requiremen ts-and-file-naming-standards_v1_8-1-19.pdf?1703783275 File names should have the corresponding number, followed by the file type prefix, project information, and round number. For example: 1_SITE PLAN_Project Name_FDP_Rd1. A list of numbers and prefixes for each file can be found at the link above. Comment Number: 4 07/29/2025: SUBMITTAL: All plans should be saved as optimized/flattened PDFs to reduce file size and remove layers. Per the Electronic Submittal Requirements AutoCAD SHX attributes need to be removed from the PDF’s. AutoCAD turns drawing text into comments that appear in the PDF plan set, and these must be removed prior to submittal as they can cause issues with the PDF file. The default setting is "1" ("on") in AutoCAD. To change the setting and remove ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 76 3 this feature, type "EPDFSHX" (version 2016.1) or “PDFSHX (version 2017 and newer) in the command line and enter "0". Read this article at Autodesk.com for more on this topic: https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/autocad/troubleshooting/caas/sfdcarti cles/sfdcarticles/ Drawing-text-appears-as-Comments-in-a-PDF-created-by-AutoCAD.html Comment acknowledged. This has been done. Comment Number: 5 07/29/2025: NOTICE: A Development Review sign has been posted on the property. This sign will be posted through the final decision and appeal process. A request for the removal of signs will be made by your Development Review Coordinator at the appropriate time. Thank you. Comment Number: 6 07/29/2025: FOR HEARING: The proposed development project is subject to a Site Plan Advisory Review. The Planning & Zoning Commission will provide review comments at a public hearing. For the hearing, we will formally notify surrounding property owners within 800 – 1,000 feet (excluding public right of way and publicly owned open space). Okay Comment Number: 7 07/29/2025: FOR HEARING: The August Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing is scheduled for Thursday August 21, 2025. The hearing will take place at City Hall, in Council Chambers at 6:00pm. The July Planning & Zoning Commission work session is scheduled for Friday July 11th at 12:00PM. We will be introducing the project and getting an understanding of what the Planning & Zoning Commission wants to learn about for the hearing. You are welcome to listen in to the work session via zoom, but there will not be opportunities for participation. I will send more detailed information once the agenda is available . Thank you Department: Planning Services Contact: Arlo Schumann aschumann@fcgov.com 970-221-6599 Topic: General Comment Number: 1 07/29/2025: FOR FINAL PLAN: Thank you for the site plan. The site plan doesn't need the City's typical approvals signature block. We have removed the City signature block ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 77 4 Comment Number: 2 07/29/2025: FOR FINAL PLAN: The numbers for the bicycle racks provided are conflicting. The cover list 8 required and 8 provided but the notes on the site plan list 4 racks with 5 spaces each for a total of 20. Please clarify plans. This has been revised to make consistent Comment Number: 3 07/29/2025: FOR FINAL PLAN: I'm curious if you will be adding or retrofitting any exterior lights? This would include both site lighting a exterior building mounted lighting. Any new or retrofit lighting shall comply with the standards in Division 5.12 Exterior Site Lighting. Applicant is making no changes to exterior l ights at this time. Please revise note 6 to read: ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING PROVIDED SHALL COMPLY WITH DIVISION 5.12 OF THE LAND USE CODE Note 6 has been revised Please be advised that the placement of all N otes for the SPAR have been listed as requested; however, the School, as a public school, AAK is not necessarily required to comply with all such Notes or the Land Use Code Comment Number: 4 07/29/2025: FOR FINAL PLAN: Please include the square footage breakdown provided in the narrative on the plans. This should be broken down by level and it would be helpful to include a diagram show the area of the 2nd story being utilized by the school. A diagram of the 2nd floor has been provided and square footages have been broken down for each floor. Department: Historic Preservation Contact: Jim Bertolini jbertolini@fcgov.com 970-416-4250 Topic: General Comment Number: 1 07/29/2025: NO HISTORIC REVIEW REQUIRED: This proposal does not require historic review because there are no designated historic resources on the site and the nature of the project does not impact any historic resources that may lie on the development site or within 200 feet of the site. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Shawn Mellinger smellinger@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 07/28/2025: INFORMATION: Wheaton Dr is classified as a 2-lane collector per the Master Street Plan. Per LCUASS guidelines, this calls for a detached sidewalk with a 8.5 ft parkway as seen to the north and south of this property. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 78 5 Comment Number: 2 07/28/2025: INFORMATION: An emergency access easement may be needed for the single drive access. The School will be coordinating with local department of Fire and Life Safety, as is required by C.R.S. 22-32-124. Comment Number: 3 07/28/2025: FOR HEARING: All sidewalks and accesses adjacent to Wheaton Dr and the access should be up to meet all ADA standards. The School is not making any exterior development changes at this time. Should it do so, it will comply with applicable ADA requirements, Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Steve Gilchrist sgilchrist@fcgov.com 970-224-6175 Topic: General Comment Number: 1 07/28/2025: FOR HEARING: The traffic memo detailing the anticipated trip generation and functional impacts of the development on public rights of way including adjacent streets, sidewalks has been received. See subsequent comments regarding content. OKAY Comment Number: 2 07/28/2025: FOR HEARING: The traffic analysis evaluates the trip generation for AM peak but utilizes the PM peak of the adjacent street versus the true peak hour of the generator (the school.) If we were completing a full TIS we would consider this in terms of the Peak Hour Level of Service for our Transportation System, but in this case we are really focused on the school's peak hours of traffic/trips. Based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual this would show a PM peak of 306 total vehicles versus 68. How will the school accommodate this number of trips within the operational plan that details all vehicles parking and walking into the school, with only 218 parking spots? Comment acknowledged. As you are aware, no public school has all vehicle trips coming and parking in parking spots. Additionally, typically, for PreK or Kindergarten students, a majority of these vehicles will park and walk students in for drop-off; however, the vast majority of students exit vehicles at a designated point in front of the building to enter, and cars and then continue through the drop-off queueing route. Particularly during student drop-off/pick-up times, of the indicated 306 total trips visiting the site during the PM peak hour of generator, it is important to note that this number includes both entering and exiting trips (i.e. the same vehicle will enter, pick -up their student, and then leave, thus resulting in two trips within the hour, but only account for one vehicle on site). As such, actual vehicles that may park on site are not expected to exceed the available capacity and would likely be closer to 153 in number (or half the total number of trips). Staff monitor drop-off and pick-up trafficand assist students getting in and out of cars so they will not be stopping for lengthy periods. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 79 6 Finally, it is not anticipated that during drop-off and pick-up there will never be a time during drop-off or pick-up that all 218 spots will be occupied with the exception of special events during outer hours, such as back-to school nights or special student performances. Should there arise parking issues, or queueing problems, the School will work with the City and adjacent property owners to coordinate a resolution, including limited parking license, and revision of queuing plans, to take up more interior lanes for the same. Comment Number: 3 07/28/2025: FOR HEARING: The queuing analysis provided estimates a quarter (60) of the inbound trips (240) to be generated by the pre -kindergarten parents. If the number of students was evenly distribution by grade this would only be 34 entering vehicles for the pre-k level, since this is a pre-k though 5th grade school, or 7 different grade levels. Without verification of school level numbers this would likely result in the queuing to extend beyond the parking lot and onto Wheaton. In light of this analysis and the potential of more than 15% of the inbound trips arriving with the queue at on e time, the school will need to be prepared to offer ideas to mitigate these impacts. The estimate of 60 vehicles for the pre-k students is based on a division of the total number of students proposed (423/7). This calculation assumed that pre-k students are more likely to experience low vehicle occupancy (i.e. one child per vehicle), whereas other grades may experience additional occupancy, from multiple students, carpooling, or even other modes of transit to the site such as walking of cycling. However, consultation with the School indicates the pre-k student capacity is expected to be a maximum of 40 students based on licensing requirements and building capacity. Using the approach presented in the traffic letter, this change would result in an Increased queue of 600 feet in length. In order to accommodate this queue, and avoid potential for stacking into the adjacent roadway, additional queue storage on site may be possible by using parking drive aisles, or even temporarily implementing traffic control near the drop-off zone such at two queues can be form in parallel. It is expected that school staff would be present to help coordinate and enforce appropriate queuing behavior and so prevent impacts to the adjacent roadway. Comment Number: 4 07/29/2025: FOR HEARING: With the potential of this future expansion creating issues for the surrounding streets, a strong commitment from the school should be made to continue to coordinate and improve the efficiency and safety of their site during the morning and afternoon drop-off and pick-up. This ongoing effort will need to include continued communication and instruction to students and parents on the proper procedures during these times. The School is committed to coordinate with the City and adjacent owners to address traffic issues. This includes notifying parents every year prior to school starting of procedures, and monitoring the same. There have been no issues to date. However, should problems arise as the school grows, as noted previously additional queueing can be created, and if necessary, the School will pursue, adjacent parking licenses. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 80 7 Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Andrew Crecca acrecca@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 07/28/2025: INFORMATION: Based upon the submitted materials it has been determined that this project; will disturb less than 10,000 sq. ft., is not proposed to be in a sensitive area, has no steep slopes (greater than 3H:1V) within or adjacent to the project, and is not part of a larger common development that will or is under construction. Therefore, Erosion Control Material submittal is not needed. If this project substantially changes in size or design where the above criteria now apply, erosion control materials should be submitted. Although the project at this time requires no erosion control material submittal, the project still must be swept and maintained to prevent dirt, saw cuttings, concrete wash, trash & debris, landscape materials and other pollutants from the potential of leaving the site and entering the storm sewer at all times during the project in accordance with City Code §26-498. If complaints are received or site observation of the project seems not to prevent the pollutants from being discharged, The City may require the project to install erosion and sediment control measures. Nearby inlets that may be impacted by the pollutants, in particular dirt, should be protected as a good preventative practice and individual lots should be protected from material escaping onto the sidewalk through the use of straw wattles or silt fence. If at building permit issuance any issues arise, please email erosion@fcgov.com to help facilitate getting these permits signed off. Noted, thank you. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Kristie Raymond kraymond@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 07/29/2025: No comments. Department: Park Planning Contact: Missy Nelson mnelson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 07/29/2025: No comments from Parks O&M or Park Planning and Development, thank you. Department: PFA Contact: Marcus Glasgow marcus.glasgow@poudre-fire.org 970-416-2869 Topic: General Comment Number: 1 07/30/2025: FOR PERMIT PREMISE IDENTIFICATION: ADDRESS POSTING & WAYFINDING – IFC section 505.1.1 amendment Where possible, the naming of private drives is usually recommended to aid in ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 81 8 wayfinding. New and existing buildings shall be provided with approved address identification. The address identification shall be legible and placed in a position that is visible from the street or road fronting the property. Address identification characters shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall not be spelled out. The address numerals for any commercial or industrial buildings shall be placed at a height to be clearly visible from the street. They shall be a minimum of 8 inches in height unless distance from the street or other factors dictate larger numbers. Refer to Table 505.1.3 of the 2021 IFC as amended. The address numbers for one- and two-family dwellings shall be a minimum of 4” in height with a minimum ½” stroke and shall be posted on a contrasting background. If bronze or brass numerals are used, they shall only be posted on a black background for visibility. Monument signs may be used in lieu of address numerals on the building as approved by the fire code official. Buildings, either individually or part of a multi- building complex, that have emergency access lanes on sides other than on the addressed street side, shall have the address numbers and street name on each side that fronts the fire lane. Permits are being o btained through the state DFPC, School Construction. There are no new buildings being constructed that would need addressing. The School will ensure that numbering and signage complies with the above, in coordination with local Fire and Life Safety. Note 14 states 6 inch numerals and shall be corrected to state 8 inch. This Note has been changed. Comment Number: 2 07/30/2025: FOR PERMIT EMERGENCY RESPONDER RADIO COMMUNICATION - AMPLIFICATION SYSTEM TEST New and existing buildings require a fire department emergency communication system evaluation after the core/shell but prior to final build out. For the purposes of this section, fire walls shall not be used to define separate buildings. Where adequate radio coverage cannot be established within a building, public -safety radio amplification systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with criteria established by Poudre Fire Authority. The installation of required ERRC systems shall be reviewed and approved under a separate permit process through PFA. LOCAL EXCEPTION: PFA will waive the testing requirement and system installation in all buildings less than 10,000 sq. ft. and any Type V construction building less than 15,000 sq. ft. PFA policy P15 -510.1 The School will be permitting through the State DFPC School Construction Division, but it will coordinate with local Fire and Life Safety on this issue. Comment Number: 3 07/30/2025: PLAN REVIEW SUBMITTAL When you submit for your building permit though the City of Fort Collins please be advised Poudre Fire Authority is an additional and separate submittal. The link for Poudre Fire Authority’s plan review application can be found at https://www.poudre-fire.org/ online-services/contractors-plan-reviews-and-permits/new-building-plan-review-application. The School will be permitting through the State DFPC School Construction Division. It does understand it must separately coordinate with local Fire and Life Safety regarding the Property. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 82 9 Comment Number: 4 07/30/2025: INFORMATION – CODES AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS Poudre Fire Authority has adopted the 2024 International Fire Code (IFC). Development plans and building plan reviews shall be designed according to the adopted version of the fire code as amended. - Copies of our current local amendments can be found here: https://www.poudre-fire.org/programs-services/community-safety-services-fire- prevention/fire-code-adoption - Free versions of the IFC can be found here: https://codes.iccsafe.org The School will follow the codes adopted by the State DFPC in accordance with CRS 22-32-124. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County jcounty@fcgov.com 970-221-6588 Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 07/28/2025: FOR HEARING: Please add the Lot & Subdivision to the sub -title as shown. See markups. This has been done. Comment Number: 2 07/28/2025: FOR HEARING: Please change 2ND to SECOND in the label. See markups. This has been done. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 83 Colorado Revised Statutes – Excerpts Regarding City Review of Charter Schools 1 Statute Section Generally Regarding All Public Facilities 2016 Colorado Revised Statutes Title 31 - Government - Municipal Powers and Functions of Cities and Towns Article 23 - Planning and Zoning Part 2 - Planning Commission 31-23-209. Legal status of official plan When the commission has adopted the master plan of the municipality or of one or more major sections or districts thereof, no street, square, park or other public way, ground or open space, public building or structure, or publicly or privately owned public utility shall be constructed or authorized in the municipality or in such planned section and district until the location, character, and extent thereof has been submitted for approval by the commission. In case of disapproval, the commission shall communicate its reasons to the municipality's governing body, which has the power to overrule such disapproval by a recorded vote of not less than two -thirds of its entire membership. If the public way, ground space, building, structure, or utility is one the authorization or financing of which does not, under the law or charter provisions governing the same, fall within the province of the municipal governing body, the submission to the commission shall be by the governmental body having jurisdiction, and the planning commission's disapproval may be overruled by said governmental body by a vote of not less than two -thirds of its membership. The failure of the commission to act within sixty days from and after the date of official submission to it shall be deemed approval. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 84 Colorado Revised Statutes – Excerpts Regarding City Review of Charter Schools 2 Statute Section Specifically Regarding Charter Schools Colorado Revised Statutes Annotated Title 22. Education School Districts Article 32. School District Boards--Powers and Duties (Refs & Annos) 22-32-124. Building codes - zoning - planning - fees - rules - definitions (1) (a) Prior to the acquisition of land or any contracting for the purchase thereof, the board of education of the school district in which the land is located shall consult with and advise in writing the planning commission, or governing body if no planning commission exists, that has jurisdiction over the territory in which the site is proposed to be located in order that the proposed site shall conform to the adopted plan of the community insofar as is feasible. In addition, the board of education shall submit a site development plan for review and comment to the planning commission or governing body prior to construction of any structure or building. The planning commission or governing body may request a public hearing before the board of education relating to the proposed site location or site development plan. The board of education shall thereafter promptly schedule the hearing, publish at least one notice in advance of the hearing, and provide written notice of the hearing to the requesting planning commission or governing body. (b) Prior to the acquisition of land for school building sites or construction of any buildings thereon, the board of education of the school district in which the land is located also shall consult with the Colorado geological survey regarding potential swelling soil, mine subsidence, and other geologic hazards and to determine the geologic suitability of the site for its proposed use. (c) All buildings and structures shall be constructed in conformity with the building and fire codes adopted by the director of the division of fire prevention and control in the department of public safety, referred to in this section as the "division". (c.5) In constructing buildings and structures, a school district, district charter school, or institute charter school may consult the guidelines adopted by the public school capital construction assistance board pursuant to section 22-43.7-106 (2)(a). (d) Nothing in this subsection (1) shall be construed to limit the authority of a board of education to finally determine the location of the public schools of the school district and construct necessary buildings and structures. (1.5) (a) Prior to contracting for a facility, a charter school shall advise in writing the planning commission, or governing body if no planning commission exists, which has jurisdiction over the territory in which the site is proposed to be located. The relevant planning commission or governing body may request the charter school to submit a site ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 85 Colorado Revised Statutes – Excerpts Regarding City Review of Charter Schools 3 development plan for the proposed facility, but must issue such request, if any, within ten days after receiving the written advisement. If requested by the relevant planning commission or governing body, the charter school, acting on behalf of its sponsoring school board, shall submit such a site development plan. The relevant planning commission or governing body may review and comment on such plan to the governing body of the charter school, but must do so, if at all, within thirty days after receiving such plan. The relevant planning commission or governing body, if not satisfied with the response to such comments, may request a hearing before the board of education regarding such plan. Such hearing shall be held, if at all, within thirty days after the request of the relevant planning commission or governing body. The charter school then may proceed with its site development plan unless prohibited from doing so by school board resolution. (b) An institute charter school authorized pursuant to part 5 of article 30.5 of this title shall proceed pursuant to the provisions of this subsection (1.5). Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this subsection (1.5) to the contrary, the relevant planning commission or governing body may request a hearing before the state board of education. The institute charter school then may proceed with its site development plan unless prohibited from doing so by the state board of education. (2) (a) (I) (A) This subsection (2) shall apply to building or structure construction. Except as specified in subparagraph (II) of this paragraph (a), the division shall conduct the necessary plan reviews, issue building permits, cause the necessary inspections to be performed, perform final inspections, and issue certificates of occupancy to assure that a building or structure constructed pursuant to subsection (1) or (1.5) of this section has been constructed in conformity with the building and fire codes adopted by the director of the division and that the school district or charter school, whichever is appropriate, has complied with the provisions of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section. Pursuant to this sub- subparagraph (A), the division may contract with third-party inspectors that are certified in accordance with section 24-33.5-1213.5, C.R.S., to perform inspections. The affected board of education, state charter school institute, or charter school may hire and compensate third- party inspectors under contract with the division or hire and compensate other third-party inspectors that are certified in accordance with section 24-33.5-1213.5, C.R.S., to perform inspections. If the board of education, state charter school institute, or charter school is unable to obtain a third-party inspector and no building department has been prequalified, the division shall perform the required inspections. If a third-party inspector is used, the division shall require a sufficient number of third-party inspection reports to be submitted by the inspector to the division based upon the scope of the project to ensure quality inspections are performed. Except as specified in sub-subparagraph (B) of this subparagraph (I), the third-party inspector shall attest that inspections are complete and all violations are corrected before the board of education, state charter school institute, or charter school is issued a certificate of occupancy. Inspection records shall be retained by the third-party inspector for two years after the certificate of occupancy is issued. If the division finds that inspections are not completed satisfactorily, as determined by rule of the division, or that all violations are not corrected, the division shall take enforcement action against the appropriate board of education, state charter school institute, or charter school pursuant to section 24-33.5-1213, C.R.S. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 86 Colorado Revised Statutes – Excerpts Regarding City Review of Charter Schools 4 (B) If inspections are not completed and a building requires immediate occupancy, and if the board of education, state charter school institute, or charter school has passed the appropriate inspections that indicate there are no life safety issues, the division may issue a temporary certificate of occupancy. The temporary certificate of occupancy shall expire ninety days after the date of occupancy. If no renewal of the temporary certificate of occupancy is issued or a permanent certificate of occupancy is not issued, the building shall be vacated upon expiration of the temporary certificate. The division shall enforce this sub- subparagraph (B) pursuant to section 24-33.5-1213, C.R.S. (II) Pursuant to a memorandum of understanding between the appropriate building department and the division, the division may prequalify an appropriate building department to conduct the necessary plan reviews, issue building permits, conduct inspections, issue certificates of occupancy, and issue temporary certificates of occupancy pursuant to sub- subparagraph (B) of subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (a), to ensure that a building or structure constructed pursuant to subsection (1) or (1.5) of this section has been constructed in conformity with the building and fire codes adopted by the director of the division, and take enforcement action. Nothing in the memorandum of understanding shall be construed to allow the building department to take enforcement action other than in relation to the building and fire codes adopted by the division. An appropriate building department shall meet certification requirements established by the division pursuant to section 24-33.5-1213.5, C.R.S., prior to prequalification. An affected board of education, state charter school institute, or charter school may, at its own discretion, opt to use a prequalified building department that has entered into a memorandum of understanding with the division as the delegated authority. If a building department conducts an inspection, the building department shall retain the inspection records for two years after the final certificate of occupancy is issued. The fees charged by the building department shall cover actual, reasonable, and necessary costs. For purposes of this section, "appropriate building department" means the building department of a county, town, city, or city and county and includes a building department within a fire department. (III) The division shall cause copies of the building plans to be sent to the appropriate fire department for review of fire safety issues. The fire department shall review the building plans, determine whether the building or structure is in compliance with the fire code adopted by the director of the division, and respond to the division within twenty business days; except that the fire department may request an extension of this time from the director of the division on the basis of the complexity of the building plans. (IV) If the fire department declines to perform the plan review or any subsequent inspection, or if no certified fire inspector is available, the division shall perform the plan review or inspection. As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires, "certified fire inspector" has the same meaning as set forth in section 24-33.5-1202 (2.5), C.R.S. (V) If the building or structure is in conformity with the building and fire codes adopted by the director of the division, and if the appropriate fire department or the division certifies that the building or structure is in compliance with the fire code adopted by the director of the division, the division or the appropriate building department shall issue the necessary certificate of occupancy prior to use of the building or structure by the school district or by ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 87 Colorado Revised Statutes – Excerpts Regarding City Review of Charter Schools 5 the institute charter school. The division is authorized to charge a fee to cover the actual, reasonable, and necessary costs of the inspections of buildings and structures. The amount of the fee shall be determined by the director of the division by rule, on the basis of the direct cost of providing the service. (VI) If the division authorizes building code inspections by a third-party inspector pursuant to subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (a) or authorizes building code planreviews and inspections by an appropriate building department pursuant to subparagraph (II) of this paragraph (a), the plan reviews and inspections shall be in lieu of any plan reviews and inspections made by the division; except that this subsection (2) shall not be construed to relieve the division of the responsibility to ensure that the plan reviews and inspections are conducted if the third-party inspector or appropriate building department does not conduct the plan reviews and inspections. Nothing in this subsection (2) shall be construed to require a county, town, city, city and county, or fire department to conduct building code plan reviews and inspections. (b) (I) If the division conducts the necessary plan reviews and causes the necessary inspections to be performed to determine that a building or structure constructed pursuant to subsection (1) or (1.5) of this section has been constructed in conformity with the building and fire codes adopted by the director of the division, the division shall charge fees as established by rule of the director of the division. The fees shall cover the actual, reasonable, and necessary expenses of the division. The director of the division by rule or as otherwise provided by law may increase or reduce the amount of the fees as necessary to cover actual, reasonable, and necessary costs of the division. Any fees collected by the division pursuant to this paragraph (b) shall be transmitted to the state treasurer, who shall credit the same to the public school construction and inspection cash fund created in section 24-33.5-1207.7, C.R.S. (II) Any moneys remaining as of December 31, 2009, in the public safety inspection fund created pursuant to section 8-1-151, C.R.S., from fees collected by the division of oil and public safety in the department of labor and employment pursuant to this paragraph (b) as it existed prior to January 1, 2010, shall be transferred to the public school construction and inspection cash fund created in section 24-33.5-1207.7, C.R.S. (c) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2009, (HB 09-1151), ch. 230, p. 1045, Section 1, effective January 1, 2010.) (d) The inspecting entity shall cooperate with the affected board of education or the state charter school institute in carrying out the duties of this section. (e) If the inspecting entity and the board of education or the state charter school institute disagree on the interpretation of the codes or standards adopted by the division, the division shall set a date for a hearing as soon as practicable before the board of appeals in accordance with section 24-33.5-1213.7, C.R.S., and the rules adopted by the director of the division pursuant to article 4 of title 24, C.R.S. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 88 Colorado Revised Statutes – Excerpts Regarding City Review of Charter Schools 6 (f) The rules authorized by this subsection (2) shall be adopted in accordance with article 4 of title 24, C.R.S. (g) School buildings shall be maintained in accordance with the fire code adopted by the director of the division pursuant to section 24-33.5-1203.5, C.R.S. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 89 Academy of Arts and Knowledge SPAR SPA250003 Planning & Zoning Commission – August 21, 2025 2Overview • Existing charter occupies first floor • Repurpose a portion of the 2nd level for additional classrooms. • 218 parking lot spaces; one access driveway; street parking available • Primary issue: drop-off and pick-up traffic SITE 1 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 90 3Overview 4Statute Requirements • – C.R.S. 22-32-124 • “no public building shall be constructed or authorized in a city until the location, character, and extent thereof has been submitted for approval by the [Planning and Zoning] commission.” – C.R.S. 22-32-124 3 4 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 91 5Site Plan Advisory Review (‘SPAR’ in the Land Use Code) • describe location, character, and extent of improvements; • with respect to…schools, the review has as its purpose, as far as is feasible, that the proposed school facility conforms to the City’s Comprehensive Plan; • consistent with land use designation described by the City Structure Plan Map - 6.2.3(F) • consistent with the stated purpose of the respective land use designation as set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan; • identify the level of functional and visual impacts to public rights-of-way, facilities and abutting private land caused by the development, including, but not limited to, streets, sidewalks, utilities, lighting, screening and noise, and shall mitigate such impacts to the extent reasonably feasible. - 6.11.2(Q) 6Location - Comprehensive Plan 5 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 92 7Comprehensive Plan - Location 8Location - Comprehensive Plan 7 8 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 93 9Site Plan 10Staff Recommendation Support with No Comments 9 10 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 94 Development Review Staff Report Agenda Item 4 Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing: August 21, 2025 Enclave at Redwood Filing No. 2 Summary of Request This is a subdivision plat to divide the approved and recorded Enclave at Redwood apartment development plan into multiple lots for the applicant’s purposes of structuring sales to an end user, who will end up owning the whole Enclave development. Zero physical change to the recorded development plan is involved. This replat that only adds lot lines onto the plan. Zoning Map Next Steps If approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the plat will be signed and recorded into County records per typical FDP procedure. Site Location Within the northeast quadrant of the Redwood Street/Suniga Road intersection. Parcel #s 9701476001,9701475001, 9701474001. Zoning Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (LMN) Owner Representative Brian Bratcher, DR Horton 9555 Kingston Ct. Englewood, CO 80112 BBratcher@drhorton.com 303.748.1925 Applicant/Representative Tenae Beane Ripley Design, Inc. 236 Linden St. Ste. A Fort Collins, CO 80524 Staff Clark Mapes, City Planner p. (970) 221-6225 e. cmapes@fcgov.com Contents 1. Project Introduction ....................................... 2 2. Procedural Requirements – Land Use Code Article 2 ......................................................... 4 3. Staff Evaluation ............................................ 4 4. Staff Conclusions and Recommendation ..... 5 5. Attachments .................................................. 5 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Commission approve the combined Major Amendment/Final Development Plan. SITE Suniga Road Li n d e n m e i e r R d . (N L e m a y ) E Vine Dr LMN Zone MMN Zone I Zone CCN Zone Conifer St Packet Pg. 95 P&Z Agenda Item #4 MJA/FDP 250007 | Enclave at Redwood Subdivision Thursday, August 21, 2025 | Page 2 of 5 Back to Top 1. Project Introduction A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION & STAFF REVIEW OVERVIEW The Enclave at Redwood is an approved 30-acre neighborhood development with 238 apartment units. The development plan is already fully approved, permitted, and under construction. This proposed plat is a technical legal document with no effect on any aspects of the approved development plan other than the applicant’s flexibility to structure their sale to a potential end user as construction proceeds throughout the 14 lots that the plat defines. The end user will end up owning the whole complete development. Staff in multiple departments reviewed the plat and quickly recognized that there are no effects on any aspects of the approved development plan, such as setbacks or utility services. Thus, staff review consisted mainly of Surveying staff’s typical editing for conformance with State law and State board rules, and City platting and drafting protocols. Surveying staff review focuses on any representations of rights-of-way or easements, consistency in drafting and notes, and any language that would adversely affect the City. In this case, there are no such issues. It is very rare for a plat to factor into discussions or decisions on any development plans in the context of P&Z hearings, and it even more rare for P&Z to have a hearing on a plat by itself. Rather, plats are technical legal documentation that undergirds and implements approved development plans. The proposed replat subdivides the property into 14 lots and 10 tracts which would ultimately be owned by one entity. The plat comprises a cover page and the map drawing below: Packet Pg. 96 P&Z Agenda Item #4 MJA/FDP 250007 | Enclave at Redwood Subdivision Thursday, August 21, 2025 | Page 3 of 5 Back to Top B. ENCLAVE AT REDWOOD BACKGROUND In June 2022 the Enclave at Redwood Project Development Plan (PDP) was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission at their regular hearing, following a previous hearing in April that had been continued. In October 2022, the Final Development Plan (FDP), including a plat, was signed and recorded. In April 2023 a Major Amendment of the plan was approved by P&Z at their regular hearing, involving a specialized treatment of the connection to existing development on the west. The Final Development Plan is shown below. Packet Pg. 97 P&Z Agenda Item #4 MJA/FDP 250007 | Enclave at Redwood Subdivision Thursday, August 21, 2025 | Page 4 of 5 Back to Top 2. Procedural Steps – Land Use Code Article 6 1. Conceptual Review A conceptual review meeting was held on January 16, 2025. 2. Neighborhood Meeting A neighborhood meeting was determined to be unnecessary due to lack of any visible or physical effects of the replat. 3. Submittal The plat was submitted on May 14, 2025, and routed to all reviewing departments. 4. Notice (Posted, Written and Published) Posted notice: May 22, 2025, Sign #906 Written notice: August 7, 2025, 482 letters sent. Published hearing notice: August 10, 2025, Coloradoan Confirmation #11560917 3. Staff Evaluation – Land Use Code Articles 5 and 6 The code has few standards pertaining to plats, and plats are treated as being in conjunction with a complete development plan -- typically including a site plan, utility plan, and landscape plan. A. DIVISION 5.4 DEVELOPMENT INFRASTRUCTURE This Division requires a complete range of infrastructure to implement development plans, and by extension, City Plan. Two standards mention plats. Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings Subsection 5.4.2(A)(1) Approval of City Engineer This is one of the few standards that mentions plats, and it simply states that before a plat is signed, “the Director must be notified by the City Engineer that the required improvements have been designed according to the City's various design criteria and construction standards.” The Enclave at Redwood FDP already fulfills this basic standard. Complies Subsection 5.4.4(A)(3)(a) Plat General Requirements This is another of the few standards that mention plats, and it simply states that “All plats of a subdivision of land within the City shall be filed and recorded only after having been approved by the appropriate decision maker, with such approval evidenced in writing on the plat and signed by the City Clerk.before a plat is signed,” This simply states standard established practice. Complies Packet Pg. 98 P&Z Agenda Item #4 MJA/FDP 250007 | Enclave at Redwood Subdivision Thursday, August 21, 2025 | Page 5 of 5 Back to Top B. DIVISION 6.3 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings Subsection 6.3.3(C)(3) Execution of Plats/Deeds; Signature Requirements This subsection mentions plats in terms of submittal requirements. It lists the various forms of ownership interests that must sign plats or deeds, with notarization, along with the applicant’s attorney. It is only mentioned here as one of the few code standards that mentions plats. Complies Section 6.4.2 Minor Subdivisions The standard establishes a minor subdivision as a plat or replat that does not create more than one new lot. In such a case a replat is a Major Amendment processed according to the use it is associated with. Fits established practice 4. Staff Conclusions and Recommendation In evaluating the request for the Enclave at Redwood Subdivision Filing 2, #MJA/FDP250007, staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: • The plat complies with all applicable standards and requirements including plat standards in Article 5 of the Land Use Code, and procedural requirements in Article 6. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Enclave at Redwood Subdivision Filing 2, #MJA/FDP250007. 5. Attachments 1. Applicant Narrative 2. Plat Packet Pg. 99 MINIMAL RISK. PAINLESS PROCESS. BEAUTIFUL SPACES. o: 970.224.5828 | w: ripleydesigninc.com RIPLEY DESIGN, INC. | 236 Linden Street, Suite A | Fort Collins, CO 80524 Project Narrative | Enclave Subdivision Project Development Plan/Final Development Plan (Combined PDP/FDP) 05/14/2025 Past Meeting Dates: •Conceptual Review Meeting – 01/16/2025 •Neighborhood meeting – Waived (per Clay Frickey 3/21/2025) Applicant/Owner: DHIC – Enclave LLC Existing Owner: DHIC – Enclave LLC General Information/Context The project site is located at the northeast corner of E Suniga Rd. and Redwood St., on approximately 30.18 acres and currently consists of one lot on three parcels (9701475001, 9701476001, 9701474001). Access to the project site is taken from Redwood St to the west of the properties. The project is located in the Low-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Zone District. The land use and site design have already obtained approval through an approved Final Development Plan (FDP) called ‘Enclave at Redwood’ and the site is currently under construction. Proposed Project/Site Design This proposed project was originally approved for its land use and overall design, and is now undergoing a replat process to subdivide the property into 14 separate lots, and 10 tracts. This subdivision is intended to provide options for various purchase opportunities with a potential buyer of the site. The lots and tracts would ultimately be sold to one entity and there is no plan to sell individual lots to different owners. The only proposed changes are to the plat, with no proposed changes to the previously approved site/landscape plans, drainage plan, or utility plans. Within the submitted plat, there are a few new blanket drainage easements to support runoff for Lots 8, 9, and 11, which are proposed across Lots 10, 12, and 14. All other previously dedicated easements from the original plat are being preserved and accounted for. These proposed and existing easements continue to ensure functionality across the site and maintain compliance with the original approval. The new plat includes new lot lines, the removal of a City-owned tract located in the northwest corner of the property, as well as the creation of several tracts to address areas for drainage and public rights-of-way. Building setback requirements have been taken into consideration when creating the lot lines. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 100 MINIMAL RISK. PAINLESS PROCESS. BEAUTIFUL SPACES. o: 970.224.5828 | w: ripleydesigninc.com RIPLEY DESIGN, INC. | 236 Linden Street, Suite A | Fort Collins, CO 80524 Architectural Design There are no physical changes proposed on site for this subdivision, therefore there are no architectural elements being introduced, removed, or modified. This subdivision solely involves the creation of new lot lines and tracts, without any changes to the buildings and does not affect architecture. Stormwater, Utilities, and Grading There are no proposed modifications to the approved plans regarding stormwater management, utility infrastructure, or site grading; all of these elements will remain as previously approved. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 101 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 102 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 103 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 104 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 105 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 106 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 107 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 108 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 109 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 110 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 111 Enclave At Redwood Major Amendment Planning & Zoning Commission – August 21, 2025 2Overview • Replat to divide the Enclave Development into multiple lots • No change to the development, which is under construction • 30 acres, 238 apartment units • Final Development Plan completed October 2022 The Enclave Approved Development Plan Existing Development Northfield Development 1 2 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 112 3Plat • Technical Legal Document • Staff Review: o No Issues o Surveying Edits Only 4Plat Detail Sheet Example 3 4 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 113 5Major Amendment/Final Development Plan Terms: plat; subdivision plat; replat; minor subdivision; MJA; FDP A plat is processed according to the use with which it is associated Very rare for a subdivision plat to be submitted without being part of a development plan w/ a use In this case, the development plan is already approved, including a subdivision plat Few LUC standards which refer to the development plan meeting standards and approval 6Staff Recommendation Approve the Enclave at Redwood Filing No. 2 5 6 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 114 Development Review Staff Report Agenda Item 5 Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com Planning and Zoning Commission – August 21, 2025 Prospect Ridge Multifamily, PDP Summary of Request The Prospect Ridge Multifamily project is a request to construct six (6) multi-family buildings containing 226 units on Lot 1 of the Rudolph Farm Subdivision. The site requires no additional public infrastructure, which is currently being constructed as part of the approved Rudolph Farm Infrastructure Project. Zoning Map Next Steps If approved, the Planning and Zoning Commission’s approval is valid for a period of three years and the applicant would be eligible to submit for Final Development Plan review. Site Location Located directly adjacent to the I-25 northbound on-ramp and Prospect Road. Zoning General Commercial (CG) and I-25 Subarea Plan Property Owner PNE Prospect Road Holdings LLC 900 Castleton Road Ste 118 Castle Rock, CO 80109 Applicant/Representative Andy Reese Kimley-Horn & Associates 3801 Automation Way, Suite 210 Fort Collins, CO 80521 Staff Kai Kleer, Senior City Planner Contents 1. Project Introduction .................................... 2 2. Comprehensive Plan Compliance ............. 3 3. Public Outreach ......................................... 4 4. Article 2 – Applicable Standards ................ 5 5. Land Use Code Article 3 ............................ 6 6. Land Use Code Article 4 .......................... 24 7. Findings of Fact/Conclusion .................... 25 8. Recommendation ..................................... 25 9. Attachments ............................................. 25 10. Links ......................................................... 25 Staff Recommendation Approval SITE Timnath Middle-High School I Packet Pg. 115 Planning and Zoning Commission – Item 5 PDP230015 | Prospect Ridge Multifamily Thursday, August 21, 2025 | Page 2 of 25 Back to Top 1. Project Introduction A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project was submitted October 25, 2023, prior to the adoption of the May 2024 Land Use Code, therefore, is being evaluated under the Supplement 60 adopted May 25, 2022. • The project is located adjoining the northeast corner of the I-25 north-bound on-ramp and Prospect Road and proposes six multi-family buildings which contain a total of 226 units. • The residents will share a central amenity that includes a pool area and ground-floor gym/gathering space located in the building adjacent to the pool. • On-site vehicle parking consists of surface and garage parking with a combined total of 291 spaces. Although parking regulations exist under Supplement 60, since June 30, 2025, Colorado House Bill 24-1304 now limits Fort Collins from enforcing minimum parking requirements that apply to land use approval for multi-family residential development. • The area is part of the Rudolph Farm Metro District which was created for the purposes of improving the interchange and financing the construction of public infrastructure that was part of the Rudolph Farms Infrastructure Plan. • The site is located on Lot 1, a 6.8-acre lot that is part of the Rudolph Farms subdivision. • The property is zoned General Commercial (CG) and is within the I-25 Subarea/Activity Center, an overlay with certain, more specific standards that regulate building placement, landscaping, block patterns, screening, and fencing. B. KEY CONSIDERATIONS • One of the most challenging considerations of the plan was developing a layout that allowed fronts of buildings to orient toward an adjoining local street or Major Walkway Spine while also considering how best to mitigate significant impacts of I-25 and the Prospect Road overpass. • Traditional multi-family 7-acre block and building frontage standard. • ds were not able to be met due to the significant existing site constraints that consist of utility/ditch corridor to the north, I-25 to the west, and Prospect Road overpass to the south. Frontage standards were met for Prospect Ridge Road and the internal street-like drive. • Staff deeply considered the orientation of the buildings, considering perpendicular arrangements to Prospect Ridge Road but it was ultimately proposed by the applicant to arrange buildings to orient around the perimeter of the site with areas adjoining I-25 and Prospect Road being able to take advantage of additional buffer-yard area provided by the infrastructure project. • Ensuring that the architecture and site design featured the material quality, screening, and overall aesthetic envisioned within designated I-25 Activity Centers. 1. Development Status/Background The property has historically been used for dry-land farming. The subject property was annexed into the City of Fort Collins as part of the Galatia Annex in 1991. The original annexation and zoning of the property was part of Annexation Ordinance 131, 1990 and was approved by City Council on January 15, 1991. In 1996 an Overall Development Plan (ODP) was approved and later amended in 2021 and 2023. The ODP is intended to provide a general framework of streets, paths, drainage facilities, and natural habitat features for developments that are anticipated to build out over multiple phases and can be found attached to this report. Most recently in 2025, the Rudolph Farm Infrastructure Project was recorded, and a Development Construction Permit (DCP) has been issued, and construction has started to construct public and private infrastructure to serve the entire 13-lot subdivision. The site is part of the approved Rudolph Farm Metro District. More information can be found by visiting, https://www.fcgov.com/business/metro-districts. Packet Pg. 116 Planning and Zoning Commission – Item 5 PDP230015 | Prospect Ridge Multifamily Thursday, August 21, 2025 | Page 3 of 25 Back to Top 2. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use North South East West Zoning Industrial (I) and Urban Estate (UE) zone districts General Commercial General Commercial General Commercial Land Use Unimproved land Prospect Road overpass Unimproved commercial land 80’ landscape buffer and Interstate-25 2. Comprehensive Plan Compliance A. CITY PLAN (2019) The City’s comprehensive plan (2019 City Plan) was developed with the participation of thousands of community members and “articulates the community’s vision and core values, and establishes the overall policy foundation” to provide “high-level policy direction” towards achieving a shared community vision of growth and transportation throughout the City. A basic aspect of the vision pertinent to this project proposal is the unique character and sense of place in Fort Collins. The Land Use Code’s purpose statement, per Section 1.2.2(A), is to ensure that all growth and development that occurs is consistent with City Plan and its adopted components. This section describes the project’s consistency with City Plan, the I-25 Subarea Plan, and the Northern Colorado Regional Communities I-25 Corridor Plan in terms of the project’s specific alignment with and impact on progress towards the guiding vision and policies presented in such plans. B. I-25 SUBAREA PLAN (2003) & NORTHERN COLORADO REGIONAL COMMUNITIES I-25 CORRIDOR PLAN (2001) The I-25 Subarea Plan and the Northern Colorado Regional Communities I-25 Corridor Plan were developed concurrently, with overlapping boundaries along the I-25 corridor in Northern Colorado. While the regional plan, adopted by Fort Collins on November 20, 2001, focused broadly on design standards, transportation, and open lands policies from County Road 52 to south of Berthoud, the subarea plan provided a more detailed analysis of land use from County Road 52 (Richards Lake Road) to County Road 32 (Carpenter Road). The subarea plan builds on the regional plan, emphasizing specific zoning and development guidelines to maintain openness, concentrate development within Activity Centers, and prevent a commercial strip along I-25. Key features of the I-25 Subarea Plan include maintaining the existing Growth Management Area boundary, establishing two activity centers at the I-25/Mulberry Street and I-25/Prospect Road interchanges, and designating employment and industrial districts with strict design standards, such as setbacks and height limits to preserve view corridors. Residential development near I-25 is tightly regulated and limits low-density single-family homes from being within a quarter-mile of the highway to try and help mitigate noise impacts from the freeway. The plan also preserves open lands, such as the City’s Resource Recovery Farm, and promotes multi-modal transportation options, and provides block standards intended to promote multi-modal transportation system and to reduce reliance on I-25 for local trips. One major element of the subarea plan that has become out of date is the anticipated rail service to the area. During the development of the subarea plan it was assumed through the 1999 North Front Range Transportation Alternatives Feasibility Study that a number of regional improvements would take place which included the implementation of a commuter rail system. Although this element is out-of-date and the preferred alternative would now utilize existing rail lines that travel parallel to South College Avenue, the previously contemplated park and ride service is still envisioned for the I-25/Mulberry Activity Center. Additionally the trends of development continue to move toward I-25 as highlighted in City Plan in which the City, Timnath, and Windsor are focused on Packet Pg. 117 Planning and Zoning Commission – Item 5 PDP230015 | Prospect Ridge Multifamily Thursday, August 21, 2025 | Page 4 of 25 Back to Top establishing attractive gateways and attracting land uses that help repay the substantial community investment in interchange beautification. Regarding Prospect Ridge Multifamily, staff finds that the project is generally consistent with the plan’s vision and policies. The plan explicitly supports multi-family development in the I-25/Prospect Road Activity Center. Further the most important elements of design and buffering are addressed in a way that is consistent with the plan’s mandates through the previous establishment of an 80-foot landscaped buffer-yard and by proposing high-quality materials, such as brick, stucco, metal panel, and lap-board siding. Rooflines are also pitched providing the necessary residential character envisioned by the Activity Center design standards. The Plan provides the following Principle & Policy Guidance: • Policy I-25-LU-1.1 Subarea land use will focus on several activity centers surrounded by residential neighborhoods. Activity centers should be designed enabling new development to support efficient alternative modes of transportation. Activity centers should provide a mix of urban uses, including employment, commercial, and residential • Policy I-25-LU-3.3 Multi-family residential uses should locate in either activity centers to benefit and help support alternative modes of transportation, or within the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood area within 1/2-mile north and south of East Mulberry Street • Principle I-25-CAD-1: The subarea’s community entryways via I-25 should be designed to create a sense of place and a positive experience. • Policy I-25-T-1.1 The subarea’s transportation system will support the development of interconnected regional and local transit, bicycle connections, and an integrated pedestrian system. Overall, staff finds that the project aligns with all stated principle and policy objectives of the subarea plan. 3. Public Outreach A. WRITTEN, E-MAIL, PHONE, OR IN-PERSON PUBLIC COMMENT No additional public comments have been recieved since the neighborhood meeting. 4. Land Use Code Article 1 – General A. PURPOSE (§1.2.2) LUC § 1.2.2 lists a wide range of over-arching, high-level objectives (i.e., “reducing energy consumption and demand”) that are further developed and implemented in Articles 1 through 7 of the Land Use Code to ensure that proposed development meets the overall purpose to “improve and protect the public health, safety, and welfare” of the community. As they may apply to the subject property and proposed project, the following sections of this report describe design elements of the proposed development plan that provide evidence of and the degree to which compliance would be achieved relative to the specific and enumerated standards within the Land Use Code. The requirements, standards, and definitions contained in Articles 1 through 7 of the Land Use Code have been crafted to fulfill and implement the stated purpose of this Code in § 1.2.2. By meeting the applicable specific requirements, standards, and definitions set forth in Articles 1 through 7, this project demonstrates consistency with Land Use Code § 1.2.2 (B) through (O) to the extent (B) through (O) are applicable to this project. The consistency of this project with City Plan and its adopted elements as required in § 1.2.2(A) is discussed in Subsections D and E of the Project Introduction Section above. Packet Pg. 118 Planning and Zoning Commission – Item 5 PDP230015 | Prospect Ridge Multifamily Thursday, August 21, 2025 | Page 5 of 25 Back to Top 5. Land Use Code Article 2 – Applicable Standards A. DIVISION 2.2 – PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW 1. Neighborhood Meeting – October 12, 2023 A single member of the public attended the neighborhood meeting. No questions or concerns about the project were provided, however, public comment did include questions about the Rudolph Farm Infrastructure Plan. 2. First Submittal – PDP The first submittal of this project was completed on October 25, 2023 3. Notice (Posted, Written and Published) Posted Notice: Sign # 746 Published Hearing Notice: August 10, 2025, Coloradoan Confirmation #11560917 Packet Pg. 119 Planning and Zoning Commission – Item 5 PDP230015 | Prospect Ridge Multifamily Thursday, August 21, 2025 | Page 6 of 25 Back to Top 6. Land Use Code Article 3 A. DIVISION 3.2 – SITE PLANNING & DESIGN STANDARDS Standard Landscaping & Tree Protection Standard This section applies to all development within designated "limits of development" (LOD) and natural habitat buffer zones (per Section 3.4.1), with the purpose of requiring landscape and tree protection plans that create, diversify, and maintain significant canopy cover to maximize benefits like reduced erosion, improved stormwater and water management, better air quality, less glare and heat, enhanced aesthetics, and greater continuity between developments, while also using properly placed trees to provide screening, reduce conflicts between site elements, and strengthen the urban forest; accordingly, all developments must submit a landscape and tree protection plan (plus an irrigation plan if using City water) that extends existing outdoor space and vegetation patterns where feasible, serves practical functions (e.g., screening, privacy, microclimate control), improves the appearance of the development and area, protects significant trees and habitats, enhances pedestrian spaces, maps all landscape areas, details landscaping elements, and meets or exceeds this section’s standards. Staff Analysis The project includes a comprehensive landscape plan that complements the 80-foot landscape buffer yard established as part of the Rudolph Farm Infrastructure Project. As noted earlier in this report, a primary objective of the development plan was to mitigate the visual and auditory impacts created by the adjacent interstate. The infrastructure plan’s 80-foot buffer yard, depicted in the snapshot below, provides the primary means of impact mitigation. These images are intended to illustrate the extent of off-site landscaping for the Commission but is part of a separate already approved development plan. This buffer yard predominantly features evergreen trees, including piñon, bristlecone, ponderosa, and bosnian pine cultivars while incorporating canopy shade and ornamental species to ensure year-round visual interest. Large landscape beds flank both sides of the regional trail connection, enhancing visual appeal for motorists and the overall approach strengthens the community’s aesthetic identity. The on-site landscaping plan includes additional landscape beds and tree plantings along the site’s perimeter where feasible. Particular emphasis was placed on the northwest and southeast edges to screen the site from commercial users and provide enhanced protection from interstate visibility and noise. Street trees are incorporated in sufficient quantities within the parkways surrounding the site’s perimeter to further enhance the aesthetic and functional quality of the landscape. Interior and perimeter parking lot landscaping also helps provide additional shading and visual interest within the project to help mitigate and soften the relationship between the internal circulation system and building units/outdoor patios. Ground-floor garage spaces will feature landscape beds to help make areas within the site more pedestrian friendly to help mitigate the absence of front doors that face directly on the site’s front-facing orientation to the interstate. Overall, the Landscape Plan meets and, in some cases, exceeds compliance with the minimum required sizes, tree species percentages, and foundation plantings. Packet Pg. 120 Planning and Zoning Commission – Item 5 PDP230015 | Prospect Ridge Multifamily Thursday, August 21, 2025 | Page 7 of 25 Back to Top Section 3.2.2(B) - Access, Circulation and Parking - General Standard Standard The parking and circulation system within each development shall accommodate the movement of vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and transit, throughout the proposed development and to and from surrounding areas, safely and conveniently, and shall contribute to the attractiveness of the development. The on-site pedestrian system must provide adequate directness, continuity, street crossings, visible interest and security as defined by the standards in this Section. The on-site bicycle system must connect to the City's on-street bikeway network. Connections to the off-road trail system shall be made, to the extent reasonably feasible. Staff Analysis The onsite parking and circulation system safely accommodates the movement of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians through a comprehensive network of walkways and vehicle drives. Special attention was given to ensuring that non-street-facing units have multiple walkway connections from Prospect Ridge Drive through parking areas and around the site's perimeter, linking to each building's entryways. Additionally, the project includes two connection points to the regional trail, enhancing connectivity for future residents and visitors. Lot 1 Prospect Ridge Multifamily Packet Pg. 121 Planning and Zoning Commission – Item 5 PDP230015 | Prospect Ridge Multifamily Thursday, August 21, 2025 | Page 8 of 25 Back to Top regulating minimum parking requirements for multi-family projects in certain areas (Colorado General Assembly, 2024). Consequently, the parking minimums outlined in the Land Use Code Supplement 60 are no longer enforceable. Following the adoption of HB24-1304, the City of Fort Collins has eliminated multi-family parking minimums in all zoning districts. Therefore, city staff have determined that the parking minimums in Supplement 60 cannot be enforced. As a note, the project will provide 291 parking spaces which are distributed as follows: Section 3.2.2(C)(5) - Bicycle Facilities Summary of Standard Multi-family residential developments must provide bicycle facilities, including: (a) both Enclosed Bicycle Parking and Fixed Bicycle Racks to meet minimum requirements; (b) minimum parking spaces as specified in a table, with unlisted uses matching the closest listed use. Staff Analysis In the case of this development, the project provides the required minimum number of fixed spaces and enclosed spaces as seen in the table below. Fixed spaces can be seen distributed around main entrance points of each building, near on-site amenities, and within enclosed rooms and areas with overhangs. Section 3.2.2(C)(5) - Walkways Summary of Standard Walkways must be direct, continuous, and connect pedestrian origins to destinations like street sidewalks to building entries without obstruction from curbs, stairs, or parking layouts, with a minimum width of 6 feet and paved enhancements, flanking both sides of drive aisles to main entrances. Street crossings prioritize pedestrian safety and access where walkways cross driveways or roads, maintaining continuous pedestrian paving with distinct driveway breaks, clearly marked using treatments like striping, signs, lighting, and traffic calming measures. On-site pedestrian and bicycle systems connect directly to key destinations such as trails, parks, and transit stops within or adjacent to the development, linking to existing or planned off-site facilities for convenient travel, with additional walkways potentially required for safety and efficiency. Off-site pedestrian or bicycle facility improvements may be mandated to ensure safety, efficiency, and compliance with parking, transportation, and connectivity standards. A city-approved Transportation Impact Study following local guidelines is required to identify necessary facilities and ensure compliance with these standards. Staff Analysis As previously mentioned, the project provides multiple walkways into and around the site which lead to main areas of pedestrian interest for each building. Most buildings feature at least five entry points that lead to main hallways and stairwells for the overall building. Packet Pg. 122 Planning and Zoning Commission – Item 5 PDP230015 | Prospect Ridge Multifamily Thursday, August 21, 2025 | Page 9 of 25 Back to Top Section 3.2.4 - Site Lighting Summary of Standard Lighting standards aim to ensure safe, functional, and enjoyable outdoor lighting for proposed land developments while conserving energy, reducing light pollution, and protecting local ecosystems through the submission and approval of comprehensive lighting plans. It applies to all developments except certain residential lots, requiring adherence to specific design standards such as lumen calculations, safety considerations, architectural harmony, and restrictions on light trespass and color temperature. Staff Analysis The project incorporates a comprehensive lighting plan utilizing fully shielded, downward- directional fixtures with a color temperature of 3,000 K or less. Backlight, upplight, and glare ratings comply with project specifications. The plan proposes 20-foot, 45-foot, and 10-foot mounting heights strategically to balance functionality, safety, aesthetics, and environmental considerations. The 20-foot poles provide broad, uniform lighting for drive and parking areas, the single 45-foot pole to provide higher intensity lighting in a single area between Building 1 and Building 4 to help with nighttime visibility where potential conflicts could exist between building entries, a main drive into the parking area and several walkways, and the 10-foot wall-mounted lights ensure localized visibility between parking garages. Other lighting is proposed ender entryway canopies to highlight points of building egress. The project also considers and protects the natural habitat buffer zone along the northern edge of the property from light spill. Main amenity areas, including the dog park and pool, are equipped with adequate lighting that meets safety and building code requirements. Packet Pg. 123 Planning and Zoning Commission – Item 5 PDP230015 | Prospect Ridge Multifamily Thursday, August 21, 2025 | Page 10 of 25 Back to Top B. DIVISION 3.4 – ENVIRONMENTAL, NATURAL AREA, RECREATIONAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS Trash and Recycling Enclosures Summary of Standard New multi-family developments with common waste systems must provide adequately sized, accessible, and screened areas for collecting, storing, and managing trash and recyclable materials. It requires detailed development plans with labeled enclosures, equal access for recycling (at least 50% of trash capacity), pedestrian and hauler accessibility, durable construction, protective measures, and specific accommodations like service pads, j-hooks, and durable swinging doors. Staff Analysis All trash and recycling containers are fully enclosed and designed with the appropriate person doors. The enclosures are located in two locations, each within the north or south cluster of buildings, that appear to be easily accessible for service providers. Applicable Code Standard Environmental and Natural Area Standards This site is within 500 feet of a natural feature, Timnath Reservoir Inlet Canal, and Lake Canal which was evaluated and carved off as a Tract as part of the Rudolph Farm Infrastructure Project. The infrastructure plan provided the following: Identified a red-tailed hawk nest, three prairie dog colonies, Boxelder Creek, Lake Canal, and Timnath Reservoir Inlet Canal as natural resources within the site. The project was not required to meet LUC 3.4.1 (E) performance standards because it was met as part Rudolph Farm Infrastructure Project utilizing the following measures: • Development of a prairie dog mitigation plan that provides options for lethal and non-lethal removal. • Conducting a burrowing owl survey prior to construction of public infrastructure. • Provide an adaptive management plan, restoration plan, a weed management plan and a monitoring plan to accompany the mitigation summary exhibit attached to the landscaping plan. • Preservation of an existing tree that contains a red-tailed hawk. This tree was disturbed during construction activities and is being mitigated by the master developer. Packet Pg. 124 Planning and Zoning Commission – Item 5 PDP230015 | Prospect Ridge Multifamily Thursday, August 21, 2025 | Page 11 of 25 Back to Top C. DIVISION 3.5 – BUILDING STANDARDS • Development and identification of enhanced areas of NHBZ within the larger area of the Overall Development Plan. Staff Analysis Environmental planning has reviewed the proposed lighting plan to ensure no light spill would occur within the NHBZ and notes minor clean-up items related to plan notes that are recommended for Final Development Plan. Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Building and Project Compatibility Summary of Standards The purpose of this section is to ensure that new buildings and developments are physically and operationally compatible with their surrounding areas, in accordance with applicable building and zoning standards. New developments should complement the architectural character of existing areas through cohesive design elements, including rooflines, building proportions, street relationships, and material selections, such as brick and stone masonry. In areas lacking a defined architectural character, new projects should establish a high-quality standard to guide future development, drawing compatibility cues from the neighboring context, such as building height. Staff Analysis As the second project (the first residential project) within the Overall Development Plan area, this development establishes a high-quality standard consistent with the design requirements outlined in the I-25 Subarea Standards (LUC §3.9), which are discussed later in this report. The project features distinct building designs identified in the Elevation Plan set as Building A, B, C, and D. Three alternating building material and color schemes are applied fronting Prospect Ridge Road and the interstate to enhance visual variety. Building heights are limited to four stories, with end-unit step-downs incorporated to reduce the visual mass of structures in key areas visible from perimeter street systems. The material palette includes masonry veneer and stone treatment, asphalt shingles, stucco, lap board siding, standing seam metal roof, and board-and-batten siding, ensuring durability and aesthetic harmony with the area. Staff worked with the applicant to ensure that balconies along the building’s façade were designed and arranged in a way to be sheltered and partially inset into the building to help with privacy of each unit. Finally the color palette is muted, comprising of earth tone colors consistent with visual character standards of the community and corridor. 3.5.2(D) – Relationship of Dwellings to Streets and Parking Standard (1) Orientation to a Connecting Walkway. Every front facade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face the adjacent street to the extent reasonably feasible. Every front facade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face a connecting walkway with no primary entrance more than two hundred (200) feet from a street sidewalk and the address shall be posted to be visible from the intersection of the connecting walkway and public right of way. The following exceptions to this standard are permitted: (a) Up to one (1) single-family detached dwelling on an individual lot that has frontage on either a public or private street. (b) A primary entrance may be up to three hundred fifty (350) feet from a street Packet Pg. 125 Planning and Zoning Commission – Item 5 PDP230015 | Prospect Ridge Multifamily Thursday, August 21, 2025 | Page 12 of 25 Back to Top walkway that qualifies as a major walkway spine. (c) If a multi-family building has more than one (1) front facade, and if one (1) of the front facades faces and opens directly onto a street sidewalk, the primary entrances located on the other front facade(s) need not face a street sidewalk or connecting walkway. (2) Street-Facing Facades. Every building containing four (4) or more dwelling units shall have at least one (1) building entry or doorway facing any adjacent street that is smaller than a full arterial or has on-street parking. (3) At least one door providing direct access for emergency responders from the outside into each individual single family attached dwelling must be located within one hundred fifty (150) feet from the closest emergency access easement or designated fire lane as measured along paved walkways. Neither an exterior nor interior garage door shall satisfy this requirement. Relevant Definitions Connecting walkway shall mean (1) any street sidewalk, or (2) any walkway that directly connects a main entrance of a building to the street sidewalk without requiring pedestrians to walk across parking lots or driveways, around buildings or around parking lot outlines which are not aligned to a logical route. Major walkway spine shall mean a tree-lined connecting walkway that is at least five (5) feet wide, with landscaping along both sides, located in an outdoor space that is at least thirty-five (35) feet in its smallest dimension, with all parts of such outdoor space directly visible from a public street. Staff Analysis The project demonstrates that front facades with primary entrances are oriented toward Prospect Ridge Drive, a public street. Due to site constraints, including the I-25 corridor to the west and the northern utility/ditch corridor, four buildings (Buildings 2, 3, 4, and 5) utilize the Major Walkway Spine exception provided by the standard. These buildings feature primary entrances facing a tree-lined walkway spines, approximately 5 feet wide with landscaping on both sides, situated adjacent to either the 80’ I-25 landscape buffer or 50-foot Natural Habitat Buffer Zone. The area of the site adjoining the I-25 landscape buffer extend a Major Walkway Spine from the internal street/plaza space which permits walkway distances up to 350 feet from a street sidewalk. The longest measured distance estimated at approximately 275 feet. All buildings provide additional building entries for all street facing facades. Packet Pg. 126 Planning and Zoning Commission – Item 5 PDP230015 | Prospect Ridge Multifamily Thursday, August 21, 2025 | Page 13 of 25 Back to Top D. DIVISION 3.6 – TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION E. DIVISION 3.8 – SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Transportation Level of Service Requirements Summary of Standard The primary objective of these Level of Service standards are to ensure that a development’s transportation needs are met either by the existing system or through mitigation measures, demonstrating compliance with adopted Level of Service (LOS) standards for all transportation modes (vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle) as specified in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. Staff Analysis The traffic study provides an analysis of the proposed 226 unit project stating that this number of units was a reduction from the original estimation of 324 units anticipated within the Overall Development Plan traffic study. The current proposal is expected to generate 1,570 weekday daily trips, with 95 morning and 121 afternoon peak hour trips, compared to 2,154 daily trips in the original study, indicating a reduction of 584 daily trips. The development includes two full-movement accesses with stop controls on Prospect Ridge Drive, and the report concludes that the project complies with the original traffic impact study and integrates well with the existing and future roadway and regional trail networks. The memo does not offer any additional recommendations for mitigating the impacts of the development and affirms that the originally approved infrastructure will be adequate to meet the needs of the proposed development. Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Applicability The following standards apply to all multi-family developments that contain at least four dwelling units. to a Park, Central Feature or Gathering Place Summary of Standard At least 90% of dwellings in developments of 2 or more acres must be within 1,320 feet (¼ mile) of a neighborhood park, privately owned park, or central gathering place, measured along street frontage without crossing arterial streets. These areas must include public parks, recreation areas, or privately owned parks (minimum 5,000 sq. ft. for 5–10-acre projects; 10,000 sq. ft. for over 10 acres) with visible, secure, and accessible settings, featuring amenities like turf areas, paths, or pavilions. Rear facades may abut no more than 50% of the park’s perimeter, and facilities must be maintained by the city, developer, or property owners’ association, with storm drainage designs supporting recreational use. Staff Analysis The project’s site gross acres is approximately 14-acres, net is 6.8-acres (removes 80 buffer, 50-foot ditch buffer and 50’ Prospect Road setback area) in size which, based on standards, requires a 10,000 square foot neighborhood park, privately owned park, or a central feature or gather place that is located either within the project or within adjacent development. Packet Pg. 127 Planning and Zoning Commission – Item 5 PDP230015 | Prospect Ridge Multifamily Thursday, August 21, 2025 | Page 14 of 25 Back to Top 3.8.30(D) – Block Requirements Standard All development shall comply with the applicable standards set forth below, unless the decision maker determines that compliance with a specific element of the standard is infeasible due to unusual topographic features, existing development, safety factors or a natural area or feature: (1) Block Structure. Each multi-family project shall be developed as a series of complete blocks bounded by streets (public or private). (See Figures 16A through 16F below). Natural areas, irrigation ditches, high-voltage power lines, operating railroad tracks and other similar substantial physical features may form up to two (2) sides of a block. (2) Block Size. All blocks shall be limited to a maximum size of seven (7) acres. (3) Minimum Building Frontage. Forty (40) percent of each block side or fifty (50) percent of the block faces of the total block shall consist of either building frontage, plazas or other functional open space. Packet Pg. 128 Planning and Zoning Commission – Item 5 PDP230015 | Prospect Ridge Multifamily Thursday, August 21, 2025 | Page 15 of 25 Back to Top Staff Analysis As outlined in the introduction of the report, block requirements and related building orientation requirements were a primary consideration of the project. The site is constrained on three sides, making full compliance with the block structure standard infeasible. Constraints include an interstate to the west, a utility corridor to the north containing the Lake Canal, Greeley Water Line, and Timnath Reservoir Inlet Canal, and the Prospect Road overpass to the south. The project breaks down the Block Size using a private street and plaza which are used to divide the site into two development blocks which are depicted and labeled below. Staff and the applicant focused efforts on meeting building frontage requirements where feasible along Prospect Ridge Road and the internal street-like drive and plaza space. Under a prior section, staff provides further analysis of a related standard that regulates orientation to a Connecting Walkway and worked with the applicant to create a sidewalk relationship along the perimeter of the site where streets were infeasible. Packet Pg. 129 Planning and Zoning Commission – Item 5 PDP230015 | Prospect Ridge Multifamily Thursday, August 21, 2025 | Page 16 of 25 Back to Top 3.8.30(E) - Buildings Standard Minimum setback from the right-of-way along an arterial street shall be fifteen (15) feet and along a nonarterial street shall be nine (9) feet. (a) Exceptions to the setback standards are permitted if one (1) of the following is met: 1. Each unit side that faces the street has a porch and/or balcony that has a minimum depth of six (6) feet (as measured from the building facade to the far side posts, railings/spindles) and a minimum length of eight (8) feet. If more than one (1) side of a unit faces the street, then only one (1) side is required to comply. 2. An outdoor space such as a plaza, courtyard, patio or garden is located between a building and the sidewalk, provided that such space shall have landscaping, low walls, fencing or railings, a tree canopy and/or other similar site improvements along the sidewalk designed for pedestrian interest, comfort and visual continuity. 3. All ground units that face a street are ADA compliant units that have street-facing porches that are directly and individually accessed from the public sidewalk by a connecting walkway that is at least six (6) feet in width. 4. All ground units that face a street with a transit stop that fronts the building are affordable housing units, each having a street-facing stoop that directly accesses the public sidewalk by a connecting walkway. 5. A project is within an area in the Downtown that is designated in the Downtown Plan as allowing "main street storefront" buildings with zero or minimal setback. Staff Analysis The project provides the minimum required 15’ setback in all instances along Prospect Ridge Road and the internal street/drive. 3.8.30(F) – Design Standards for Multi-Family Dwellings Summary of Standard Variation Among Buildings. For developments with three to five buildings (excluding clubhouses/leasing offices), at least two distinctly different building designs are required; for developments with more than five buildings, at least three distinct designs are mandated. Similar buildings, defined by footprint size and shape, must not be adjacent along streets, street-like private drives, or major walkways. Designs must vary significantly through unique architectural elevations, entrance features, and a coordinated theme of roof forms and massing proportions, beyond mere rearrangement of identical building features. Staff Analysis The project provides at least three distinctly different building designs that vary significantly in footprint, shape, and size which are depicted below. Building A Building B Complies Packet Pg. 130 Planning and Zoning Commission – Item 5 PDP230015 | Prospect Ridge Multifamily Thursday, August 21, 2025 | Page 17 of 25 Back to Top Building C Building D Packet Pg. 131 Planning and Zoning Commission – Item 5 PDP230015 | Prospect Ridge Multifamily Thursday, August 21, 2025 | Page 18 of 25 Back to Top Footprint Shape & Size Standard – Variation of Color Multi-family buildings must use muted, earth-tone, or natural color palettes consistent with the surrounding landscape or adjacent neighborhood. Developments with 40 to 56 dwelling units require at least two distinct color schemes, while those with more than 56 units require at least three. No more than two similarly colored structures may be placed adjacent to each other along streets or major walkways, ensuring visual diversity across the development. Staff Analysis The project provides three color schemes depicted below. All colors are neutral, and no two color schemes are placed next to one another. Packet Pg. 132 Planning and Zoning Commission – Item 5 PDP230015 | Prospect Ridge Multifamily Thursday, August 21, 2025 | Page 19 of 25 Back to Top Standard – Entrances Building entrances must be clearly visible from streets and public areas, enhanced by architectural elements and landscaping. Staff Analysis The project incorporates multiple primary entrances along each building's perimeter. These entryways are distinguished by a combination of canopy overhangs, recessed wall articulations, material variations, and, in some instances, distinct roof forms above the entrances. Packet Pg. 133 Planning and Zoning Commission – Item 5 PDP230015 | Prospect Ridge Multifamily Thursday, August 21, 2025 | Page 20 of 25 Back to Top Standard – Roofs Roof designs may be sloped, flat, or curved but must incorporate at least two of the following: articulated primary roof lines with variations in height, detailing, or massing; secondary roofs over entrances, porches, garages, dormers, or towers; offsets in roof planes of at least two feet vertically; articulated flat roof parapet terminations with design details or material/color changes; or rooftop equipment screens using compatible materials to conceal equipment from view. Staff Analysis The project provides an articulated roof line consisting of a hipped roof design with several secondary roof elements that articulate over patios and entryways. In longest building, the roof line is stepped down at both the ends and center of the building. Several areas of the site provide step downs in roof height to further articulate the roof line and reduce the perceived scale of each respective building using this technique. Standard - Facades and Walls Multi-family building facades and walls must include projections, recesses, covered doorways, balconies, or bay windows to create human-scaled proportions similar to adjacent single- or two-family dwellings, avoiding repetitive, undifferentiated wall planes. Facades of 40 feet or longer require horizontal or vertical articulation through offset floor plans, projecting or recessed elements, material changes, or contrasting colors, with projections complying with setback requirements. Staff Analysis The project effectively incorporates human-scale proportions at the ground floor through overhanging roof elements, columns, differentiated wall planes, and high-quality materials. Additional ground-floor details include Juliet balconies, balconies, and window details such as sills, and lintels when masonry is used. Standard - Colors and Materials Nonmasonry materials must vary in color between structures to distinguish buildings and enhance visual individuality. Colors and materials should visually reduce building scale through contrasting trim, shades, or distinct architectural elements. Bright colors, if used, are limited to accents and trim, ensuring a cohesive and subdued aesthetic consistent with the development’s context. Staff Analysis The project incorporates a variety of colors and high-quality materials to enhance each building’s individuality, utilizing lap board siding, stucco, metal paneling, standard and storefront window systems, and board-and-batten cladding. These materials are thoughtfully integrated throughout the development to create a cohesive and compatible aesthetic, consistent with the I-25 standards. Packet Pg. 134 Planning and Zoning Commission – Item 5 PDP230015 | Prospect Ridge Multifamily Thursday, August 21, 2025 | Page 21 of 25 Back to Top F. DIVISION 3.9 - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE I-25 CORRIDOR The purpose of this Section is to provide standards to implement the model standards outlined in the "Development Standards for the I-25 Corridor" and the "Fort Collins I-25 Corridor Subarea Plan," in addition to the standards contained elsewhere in this Land Use Code. Applicable Code Standard Building Placement Standards Minimum setback of any building on a lot, tract or parcel of land adjoining the I-25 right-of-way shall be two hundred five (205) feet from the centerline of I-25. Staff Analysis The nearest building is setback approximately 300 feet from the centerline of I-25. 3.9.4(A) – Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping At least seventy-five (75) percent of the perimeter of all parking areas shall be screened from nearby streets, public rights-of-way, public open space and nearby uses by at least one (1) of the following methods: (1) A berm at least three (3) feet high with a maximum slope of 3:1 in combination with evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs; (2) A hedge at least three (3) feet high, consisting of a double row of shrubs readily capable of growing to form a hedge, planted three (3) feet on center in a triangular pattern; (3) A decorative fence or wall between three (3) and four (4) feet in height in combination with landscaping including, without limitation, evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs. Staff Analysis The parking areas of the site are well screened by the 80-foot buffer and additional landscaping along the northern portions of the site. Along the southernmost portion, the project proposes a decorative fence in combination with landscaping that’s provided within the 80-foot buffer and elements of the Prospect Road Streetscape to satisfy screening standards of this section. 3.9.6(A) – Block Pattern for Activity Centers To the maximum extent feasible, larger sites containing multiple buildings and uses shall be composed of a series of urban-scale blocks of development defined and formed by streets or drives that provide links to nearby streets along the perimeter of the site. The project carefully considered and developed two urban-scale blocks through the utilization of an internal street/drive and plaza space between buildings. In cases where streets are infeasible for areas of the site adjoining the 80-foot buffer and Lake Canal, the project provides a walkway system that creates a similar relationship to each building that a street sidewalk would. These walkways will lead to front entries of buildings and provide an alternative direct entry into the building. Packet Pg. 135 Planning and Zoning Commission – Item 5 PDP230015 | Prospect Ridge Multifamily Thursday, August 21, 2025 | Page 22 of 25 Back to Top 3.9.6(C) – Block Pattern for Activity Centers In addition to a network of streets and drives, blocks shall be connected by a system of parallel tree-lined sidewalks that adjoin the streets and drives combined with off-street connecting walkways so that there is a fully integrated and continuous pedestrian network. Staff Analysis As highlighted in the analysis of previous circulation standards, the project provides both a street sidewalk system and a series of internal walkways that combine to create a comprehensive approach to pedestrian circulation. This approach provides convenient and direct connections to main building entrances, the pool and gym, plaza, and dog park. Complies Packet Pg. 136 Planning and Zoning Commission – Item 5 PDP230015 | Prospect Ridge Multifamily Thursday, August 21, 2025 | Page 23 of 25 Back to Top 3.9.11 – Minimum Residential Density in Activity Centers Standard Minimum residential density in activity centers shall be twelve (12) dwelling units per gross acre. Staff Analysis The project provides 16.4 du/ac, in compliance with the minimum standards of this section. Packet Pg. 137 Planning and Zoning Commission – Item 5 PDP230015 | Prospect Ridge Multifamily Thursday, August 21, 2025 | Page 24 of 25 Back to Top 7. Land Use Code Article 4 A. DIVISION 4.21 – GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C-G) The General Commercial District is intended to be a setting for development, redevelopment and infill of a wide range of community and regional retail uses, offices and personal and business services. Secondarily, it can accommodate a wide range of other uses including creative forms of housing. While some General Commercial District areas may continue to meet the need for auto-related and other auto- oriented uses, it is the City's intent that the General Commercial District emphasize safe and convenient personal mobility in many forms, with planning and design that accommodates pedestrians. Applicable Code Standard Summary of Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 4.21(B) - Permitted Uses Standard Multi-family dwellings are a permitted use subject to a Type 2 level of review. Staff Analysis The project is a permitted land use subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Complies 4.21(D) – Land Use Standards Standard The maximum building height shall be four (4) stories. Staff Analysis The proposed building height is 4 stories. Complies 4.21(E)(2)( a) – Developm ent Standards Standard Pedestrian-oriented outdoor spaces shall be placed next to activity areas that generate the users (such as street corners, shops, stores, offices, day care and dwellings). Because liveliness created by the presence of people is the main key to the attractiveness of such spaces, to the maximum extent feasible, the development shall link outdoor spaces to and make them visible from streets and sidewalks. Sculpture, kiosks or shelters are encouraged to be prominently placed in outdoor spaces. Staff Analysis The project proposes pedestrian-oriented outdoor spaces are placed adjacent to dwelling units, linked to and visible from streets and sidewalks via pathways. The optional inclusion of sculptures, kiosks, or shelters remains possible but is not currently proposed. Complies 4.21(E)(2)( b) – Developm ent Standards Standard In multiple-building developments, outdoor spaces and landscaped areas shall be integral to an open space system in conjunction with streets and connections, and not merely residual areas left over after buildings and parking lots are sited. Staff Analysis Outdoor spaces and landscaped areas are arranged to be integral to the perimeter 80- foot buffer yard, Prospect Road Streetscape and Natural Habitat Buffer Zone. coordinated with streets and connections. The project provides for the strategic placement and connectivity of green spaces by orienting the dog park adjacent to the 80 ft buffer at the rear of the site, while providing plaza and gathering space intentionally arranged at the main street/drive connection into the site. Complies Packet Pg. 138 Planning and Zoning Commission – Item 5 PDP230015 | Prospect Ridge Multifamily Thursday, August 21, 2025 | Page 25 of 25 Back to Top 8. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the Prospect Ridge Multi-Family Project Development Plan, staff makes the following findings of fact: A. By demonstrating compliance with the specific standards, requirements, and definitions of Articles 1 through 7 of the Land Use Code through the submittal materials for the Project Development Plan, this project satisfies and aligns with the purpose of the Land Use Code stated in Section 1.2.2(A) through (O). Specifically, the project satisfies Section 1.2.2(A) because it is consistent with City Plan and its adopted elements. B. The PDP complies with the applicable procedural and administrative requirements of Article 2 of the Land Use Code. C. The PDP complies with pertinent standards located in Article 3 – General Development Standards D. The PDP complies with pertinent standards located in Article 4; Division 4.21 – General Commercial zone district. 9. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Prospect Ridge Multifamily Project Development Plan, PDP230015. 10. Attachments 1. Project Narrative 2. Site Plan 3. Landscape Plan 4. Utility Plan 5. Arch 6. Trash Enclosure 7. Lighting Plan 8. Public Comment 9. Staff Presentation 11. Links 1. Prospect & I-25 ODP https://records.fcgov.com/Engineering/DocView.aspx?id=15501923&dbid=0&repo=FortCollins 2. Drainage Report https://records.fcgov.com/PlanningDevelopment/DocView.aspx?id=21560442&dbid=0&repo=FortCollins 3. Traffic Study: https://records.fcgov.com/PlanningDevelopment/DocView.aspx?id=21560446&dbid=0&repo=FortCollins Packet Pg. 139 kimley-horn.com 3801 Automation Way, Suite 210, Fort Collins, CO 80525 970.968.6807 Project Narrative: Prospect Ridge Multifamily – Lot 1 (A) Project Title:Prospect Ridge Multifamily (B) Past Meeting Dates:Preliminary Development Review held on 2/24/2023. Neighborhood meeting to be held on 10/12/2023. (C) General Information:The Project is located south of Prospect Ridge Drive and north of Prospect Road, in the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. The Site is located on an approximately 6.80-acre parcel within Lot 1 of the overall Rudolph Farms subdivision, for which Final Development Plans are in the process of approval with the City of Fort Collins. The Project is anticipated to disturb a total of 6.84 acres (298,108 square feet). The parcel is zoned as General Commercial (CG) and the Project does not propose a zoning change. The Project will be for the use of a multi-family housing development that is approximately 228 units. The proposed improvements consist of six residential buildings, an office building, a pool, and associated infrastructure including site grading, utility service installation, parking and sidewalk improvements, and landscaping. (D) Proposed Owners:Pacific North Enterprises, LLC (E) Existing Owners:N/A (F) Transportation Improvements:Direct access to the Site will be provided north of the Site from Prospect Ridge Drive via two access drives. (G) Site Description:The Project Site is currently an undeveloped parcel with existing groundcover consisting of short grasses. a. The site design is intended to meet the operational requirements of a multi-family development by providing parking around the building frontage, vehicular and pedestrian circulation throughout the site, and visibility to Prospect Road. To meet the community character standard, the buildings are oriented towards Prospect Ridge Drive and Prospect Road without having parking area between the building and the street. b. The build-to line was designated with respect to the Prospect Road Streetscape specifications regarding the ROW along Prospect Ridge Drive. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 140 Page 2 kimley-horn.com 3801 Automation Way, Suite 210, Fort Collins, CO 80525 970.986.6807 c. An emergency access easement is proposed with this Project in accordance with the Poudre Fire Authority fire access standards. d. Utility easements are proposed over the public water main and sanitary sewer in accordance with ELCO Water District standards and Boxelder Sanitation District standards. e. Vehicular circulation is proposed to flow in from both of the two-way drive aisles entering the Site from Prospect Ridge Drive and continue along the two-way drive aisles internal to the Site along all building frontages. f. Pedestrian access is proposed from multiple sidewalk connection points on Prospect Ridge Drive and route to the building frontages and parking bays. The site will proposed to have connections to the community trail that runs along the west side of the site. g. Landscaping is proposed to conform with the ‘Interchange Style’ of the Prospect Road Streetscape Program. h. Building and amenity architecture is intended to meet Fort Collins Land Use Code requirements for Residential Buildings and to conform with the architecture that is planned throughout the Rudolph Farms Development. i. The Site is adjacent to a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (NHBZ) on the north side. While the site is not encumbered by this NHBZ, the proposed landscaping design has considered it and provides a transition to this area to minimize impact. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 141 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 142 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 143 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 144 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 145 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 146 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 147 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 148 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 149 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 150 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 151 TH I S D O C U M E N T , T O G E T H E R W I T H T H E C O N C E P T S A N D D E S I G N S P R E S E N T E D H E R E I N , A S A N I N S T R U M E N T O F S E R V I C E , I S I N T E N D E D O N L Y F O R T H E S P E C I F I C P U R P O S E A N D C L I E N T F O R W H I C H I T W A S P R E P A R E D . R E U S E O F A N D I M P R O P E R R E L I A N C E O N T H I S D O C U M E N T W I T H O U T W R I T T E N A U T H O R I Z A T I O N A N D A D A P T A T I O N B Y K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . S H A L L B E W I T H O U T L I A B I L I T Y T O K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . R Know what's below. Call before you dig. DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: NO . RE V I S I O N BY D A T E © 2 0 2 3 K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . 33 2 5 S . T I M B E R L I N E R O A D , S U I T E 1 3 0 FO R T C O L L I N S , C O L O R A D O 8 0 5 2 5 ( 9 7 0 ) 8 2 2 - 7 9 1 1 FOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. CONSTRUCTION \\ k i m l e y - h o r n \ M P _ N C O \ N C O _ C i v i l \ 1 9 6 3 9 5 0 0 3 _ P r o s p e c t R i d g e M u l t i f a m i l y \ C A D D \ P l a n S h e e t s \ C - C O V R . d w g PROJECT NO. SHEET 07/25/25 AGR MH HPC OF 16 196395003 PR O S P E C T R I D G E M U L T I F A M I L Y PR E L I M I N A R Y U T I L I T Y P L A N S LOT 1, RUDOLPH FARM SUBDIVISION, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. CONTAINING 296,275 SQUARE FEET OR 6.802 ACRES MORE OR LESS. THE BASIS OF BEARINGS IS THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15-T7N-R68W AS BEARING SOUTH 89° 38' 43'' EAST (ASSUMED BEARING) AND MONUMENTED AS SHOWN ON DRAWING WITH THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 15 BEING A 314" ALUMINUM CAP ON #6 REBAR, STAMPED LS 17483 AND THE CENTER QUARTER OF SECTION 15 BEING A 21 2" ALUMINUM CAP ON #6 REBAR, STAMPED PLS 7839 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ACCORDING TO FIRM PANEL 08069C1003G FOR LARIMER COUNTY, EFFECTIVE DATE 05/02/2012, THIS TRACT LIES WITHIN A FEMA DESIGNATED AREA OF MINIMAL FLOOD HAZARD (ZONE X). PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88 CITY OF FORT COLLINS BENCHMARK NO. 27-01 NORTHEAST CORNER OF C.R. 5 AND E. PROSPECT ROAD, ON THE END BLOCK OF A 15" DIAMETER STEEL PIPE. ELEVATION: 4,918.13 CITY OF FORT COLLINS BENCHMARK NO. 47-01 SOUTH SIDE OF PROSPECT ROAD WHERE IT INTERSECTS I-25, ON THE WEST END OF THE PARAPET WALL TO THE BRIDGE (B 16 AM) OVER I-25, ON A DEPT OF HIGHWAYS BRASS CAP. ELEVATION: 4,934.13 PLEASE NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL DATUM. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD 29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) FOR THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS. IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) = NAVD88 DATUM - 3.18'. VICINITY MAPN PROJECT CONTACTS SHEET INDEX SHEET NO.SHEET TITLE 1 COVER SHEET 2 GENERAL NOTES 3 - 4 EROSION CONTROL & EAST LARIMER COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NOTES 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS & DEMOLITION PLAN 6 OVERALL PAVING AND SIGNAGE PLAN 7 PAVING & SIGNAGE PLAN - NORTH 8 PAVING & SIGNAGE PLAN - SOUTH 9 OVERALL GRADING PLAN 10 GRADING PLAN - NORTH 11 GRADING PLAN - SOUTH 12 OVERALL UTILITY PLAN 13 UTILITY PLAN - NORTH 14 UTILITY PLAN - SOUTH 15 EROSION CONTROL PLAN 16 PROPOSED DRAINAGE PLAN BASIS OF BEARING DATA: BENCHMARK DATA: FLOODPLAIN NOTE: PACIFIC NORTH ENTERPRISES, LLC 900 CASTLETON DRIVE, SUITE 118 CASTLE ROCK, CO 80109 PHONE: (907) 299-6811 CONTACT: BRYAN BYLER DEVELOPER/APPLICANT: NEO STUDIO 3560 WALNUT ST, DENVER, CO 80205 PHONE: (303) 758-3800 CONTACT: JEREMY JOHNSON ELECTRICAL ENGINEER: KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 6200 SOUTH SYRACUSE WAY, SUITE 300 GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80111 PHONE: (720) 943-9962 CONTACT: JEFF PLANCK, P.E. TRAFFIC OPERATIONS: SURVEYOR: NEO STUDIO 3560 WALNUT ST, DENVER, CO 80205 PHONE: (303) 758-3800 CONTACT: MICHAEL NODA ARCHITECT: KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 3325 S. TIMBERLINE ROAD, SUITE 130 FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 PHONE: (970) 852-6858 CONTACT: ANDY REESE CIVIL ENGINEER: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 3801 AUTOMATION WAY, SUITE 210 FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 PHONE: (720) 636-8272 CONTACT: EMILY WILSON, P.L.A. EPS GROUP, INC. 301 N. HOWES STREET, SUITE 100 FORT COLLINS, CO 80521 PHONE: (970) 221-4158 CONTACT: ROBERT TESSELY PROJECT NO. 1124-005 DATE: JUNE 16, 2020 FIELD SURVEY BY: SCALE: 1" = 1000' THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FOR CONCEPT ONLY. THE REVIEW DOES NOT IMPLY RESPONSIBILITY BY THE REVIEWING DEPARTMENT, THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ENGINEER, OR THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FOR ACCURACY AND CORRECTNESS OF THE CALCULATIONS. FURTHERMORE, THE REVIEW DOES NOT IMPLY THAT QUANTITIES OF ITEMS ON THE PLANS ARE THE FINAL QUANTITIES REQUIRED. THE REVIEW SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED FOR ANY REASON AS ACCEPTANCE OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FOR ADDITIONAL QUANTITIES OF ITEMS SHOWN THAT MAY BE REQUIRED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE. I HEREBY AFFIRM THAT THESE FINAL CONSTRUCTION PLANS WERE PREPARED UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND STATE OF COLORADO STANDARDS AND STATUTES, RESPECTIVELY; AND THAT I AM FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY OF ALL DESIGN, REVISIONS, AND RECORD CONDITIONS THAT I HAVE NOTED ON THESE PLANS. DISCLAIMER STATEMENT CERTIFICATION STATEMENT 1 CO V E R S H E E T LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, LOT 1 OF RUDOLPH FARM SUBDIVISION CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLANS FOR PROSPECT RIDGE MULTIFAMILY EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LLC SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION REPORT PROSPECT/I-25 DEVELOPMENT EEC PROJECT NO. 1052027 DATE: APRIL 11, 2005 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT BY: EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LLC SUPPLEMENTAL PRELIMINARY SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION REPORT PROSPECT/I-25 DEVELOPMENT EEC PROJECT NO. 1222014 DATE: JUNE 03,2022 ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL REPORT BY: KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 6200 SOUTH SYRACUSE WAY, SUITE 300 DENVER, CO 80111 PHONE: (720) 464-1877 CONTACT: JEREMY FELDER JULY, 2025 PROSPECT MIDDLE/HIGH SCHOOL SUBDIVISION PROJECT SITE LOT 1 6.80 AC. IN T E R S T A T E 2 5 MULBERRY STREET CO U N T Y R O A D 5 PROSPECT ROAD PROS P E C T R I D G E D R . CARR I A G E P K W Y . VIXE N D R . ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 152 TH I S D O C U M E N T , T O G E T H E R W I T H T H E C O N C E P T S A N D D E S I G N S P R E S E N T E D H E R E I N , A S A N I N S T R U M E N T O F S E R V I C E , I S I N T E N D E D O N L Y F O R T H E S P E C I F I C P U R P O S E A N D C L I E N T F O R W H I C H I T W A S P R E P A R E D . R E U S E O F A N D I M P R O P E R R E L I A N C E O N T H I S D O C U M E N T W I T H O U T W R I T T E N A U T H O R I Z A T I O N A N D A D A P T A T I O N B Y K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . S H A L L B E W I T H O U T L I A B I L I T Y T O K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . R Know what's below. Call before you dig. DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: NO . RE V I S I O N BY D A T E © 2 0 2 3 K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . 33 2 5 S . T I M B E R L I N E R O A D , S U I T E 1 3 0 FO R T C O L L I N S , C O L O R A D O 8 0 5 2 5 ( 9 7 0 ) 8 2 2 - 7 9 1 1 FOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. CONSTRUCTION \\ k i m l e y - h o r n \ M P _ N C O \ N C O _ C i v i l \ 1 9 6 3 9 5 0 0 3 _ P r o s p e c t R i d g e M u l t i f a m i l y \ C A D D \ P l a n S h e e t s \ C - C O V R . d w g PROJECT NO. SHEET 07/25/25 AGR MH HPC OF 16 196395003 PR O S P E C T R I D G E M U L T I F A M I L Y PR E L I M I N A R Y U T I L I T Y P L A N S 2 GE N E R A L N O T E S CITY OF FORT COLLINS GENERAL NOTES 1. ALL MATERIALS, WORKMANSHIP, AND CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS SHALL MEET OR EXCEED THE STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS SET FORTH IN THE LARIMER COUNTY URBAN AREA STREET STANDARDS AND APPLICABLE STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS. WHERE THERE IS CONFLICT BETWEEN THESE PLANS AND THE SPECIFICATIONS, OR ANY APPLICABLE STANDARDS, THE MOST RESTRICTIVE STANDARD SHALL APPLY. ALL WORK SHALL BE INSPECTED AND APPROVED BY THE LOCAL ENTITY. 2. ALL REFERENCES TO ANY PUBLISHED STANDARDS SHALL REFER TO THE LATEST REVISION OF SAID STANDARD, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY STATED OTHERWISE. 3. THESE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION PLANS SHALL BE VALID FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF APPROVAL BY THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER. USE OF THESE PLANS AFTER THE EXPIRATION DATE WILL REQUIRE A NEW REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS BY THE LOCAL ENTITY PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK SHOWN IN THESE PLANS. 4. THE ENGINEER WHO HAS PREPARED THESE PLANS, BY EXECUTION AND/OR SEAL HEREOF, DOES HEREBY AFFIRM RESPONSIBILITY TO THE LOCAL ENTITY, AS BENEFICIARY OF SAID ENGINEER'S WORK, FOR ANY ERRORS AND OMISSIONS CONTAINED IN THESE PLANS, AND APPROVAL OF THESE PLANS BY THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER SHALL NOT RELIEVE THE ENGINEER WHO HAS PREPARED THESE PLANS OF ALL SUCH RESPONSIBILITY. FURTHER, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, THE ENGINEER HEREBY AGREES TO HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFY THE LOCAL ENTITY, AND ITS OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES, FROM AND AGAINST ALL LIABILITIES, CLAIMS, AND DEMANDS WHICH MAY ARISE FROM ANY ERRORS AND OMISSIONS CONTAINED IN THESE PLANS. 5. ALL SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER, AND WATER LINE CONSTRUCTION, AS WELL AS POWER AND OTHER “DRY” UTILITY INSTALLATIONS, SHALL CONFORM TO THE LOCAL ENTITY STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS CURRENT AT THE DATE OF APPROVAL OF THE PLANS BY THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER. 6. THE TYPE, SIZE, LOCATION AND NUMBER OF ALL KNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE APPROXIMATE WHEN SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPER TO VERIFY THE EXISTENCE AND LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ALONG THE ROUTE OF THE WORK BEFORE COMMENCING NEW CONSTRUCTION. THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR UNKNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO (UNCC) AT 1- 800-922-1987, AT LEAST 2 WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO BEGINNING EXCAVATION OR GRADING, TO HAVE ALL REGISTERED UTILITY LOCATIONS MARKED. OTHER UNREGISTERED UTILITY ENTITIES (I.E. DITCH /IRRIGATION COMPANY) ARE TO BE LOCATED BY CONTACTING THE RESPECTIVE REPRESENTATIVE. UTILITY SERVICE LATERALS ARE ALSO TO BE LOCATED PRIOR TO BEGINNING EXCAVATION OR GRADING. IT SHALL BE LARIMER COUNTY URBAN AREA STREET STANDARDS - REPEALED AND REENACTED AUGUST 1, 2021 ADOPTED BY LARIMER COUNTY, CITY OF LOVELAND, CITY OF FORT COLLINS PAGE E-1-FC/LAR-2 THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPER TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES THAT CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. 8. THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTING ALL UTILITIES DURING CONSTRUCTION AND FOR COORDINATING WITH THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANY FOR ANY UTILITY CROSSINGS REQUIRED. 9. IF A CONFLICT EXISTS BETWEEN EXISTING AND PROPOSED UTILITIES AND/OR A DESIGN MODIFICATION IS REQUIRED, THE DEVELOPER SHALL COORDINATE WITH THE ENGINEER TO MODIFY THE DESIGN. DESIGN MODIFICATION(S) MUST BE APPROVED BY THE LOCAL ENTITY PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION. 10. THE DEVELOPER SHALL COORDINATE AND COOPERATE WITH THE LOCAL ENTITY, AND ALL UTILITY COMPANIES INVOLVED, TO ASSURE THAT THE WORK IS ACCOMPLISHED IN A TIMELY FASHION AND WITH A MINIMUM DISRUPTION OF SERVICE. THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING, IN ADVANCE, ALL PARTIES AFFECTED BY ANY DISRUPTION OF ANY UTILITY SERVICE AS WELL AS THE UTILITY COMPANIES. 11. NO WORK MAY COMMENCE WITHIN ANY PUBLIC STORM WATER, SANITARY SEWER OR POTABLE WATER SYSTEM UNTIL THE CONTRACTOR NOTIFIES THE UTILITY PROVIDER. NOTIFICATION SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 2 WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK. AT THE DISCRETION OF THE WATER UTILITY PROVIDER, A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING MAY BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK. 12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SEQUENCE INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO MINIMIZE POTENTIAL UTILITY CONFLICTS. IN GENERAL, STORM SEWER AND SANITARY SEWER SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF THE WATER LINES AND DRY UTILITIES. 13. THE MINIMUM COVER OVER WATER LINES IS 4.5 FEET AND THE MAXIMUM COVER IS 5.5 FEET UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED IN THE PLANS AND APPROVED BY THE WATER UTILITY. 14. A STATE CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT IS REQUIRED IF DEWATERING IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO INSTALL UTILITIES OR WATER IS DISCHARGED INTO A STORM SEWER, CHANNEL, IRRIGATION DITCH OR ANY WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES. 15. THE DEVELOPER SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE COLORADO PERMIT FOR STORM WATER DISCHARGE (CONTACT COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION, (303) 692-3590), THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN, AND THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN. 16. THE LOCAL ENTITY SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES LOCATED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. MAINTENANCE OF ONSITE DRAINAGE FACILITIES SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROPERTY OWNER(S). 17. CERTIFICATION OF GRADING AND DRAINAGE FACILITIES MUST BE COMPLETED BY A REGISTERED ENGINEER AND SUBMITTED TO THE STORMWATER UTILITY DEPARTMENT AT LEAST TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO STORMWATER UTILITY DEPARTMENT ACCEPTANCE, OR OTHERWISE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. 18. THE LOCAL ENTITY SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGES OR INJURIES SUSTAINED IN THIS DEVELOPMENT AS A RESULT OF GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE, WHETHER RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER FLOODING, STRUCTURAL DAMAGE OR OTHER DAMAGE UNLESS SUCH DAMAGE OR INJURIES ARE SUSTAINED AS A RESULT OF THE LOCAL ENTITY FAILURE TO PROPERLY MAINTAIN ITS WATER, WASTEWATER, AND/OR STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES IN THE DEVELOPMENT. LARIMER COUNTY URBAN AREA STREET STANDARDS - REPEALED AND REENACTED AUGUST 1, 2021 ADOPTED BY LARIMER COUNTY, CITY OF LOVELAND, CITY OF FORT COLLINS PAGE E-1-FC/LAR-3 19. ALL RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT BY KIMLEY-HORN SHALL BE FOLLOWED AND IMPLEMENTED. 20. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PROVIDED AS SHOWN ON THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN. ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN GOOD REPAIR BY THE DEVELOPER, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE ENTIRE DISTURBED AREAS IS STABILIZED WITH HARD SURFACE OR LANDSCAPING. 21. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR INSURING THAT NO MUD OR DEBRIS SHALL BE TRACKED ONTO THE EXISTING PUBLIC STREET SYSTEM. MUD AND DEBRIS MUST BE REMOVED WITHIN 24 HOURS BY AN APPROPRIATE MECHANICAL METHOD (I.E. MACHINE BROOM SWEEP, LIGHT DUTY FRONT-END LOADER, ETC.) OR AS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL ENTITY STREET INSPECTOR. 22. NO WORK MAY COMMENCE WITHIN ANY IMPROVED OR UNIMPROVED PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY UNTIL A RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT OR DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT IS OBTAINED, IF APPLICABLE. 23. THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL NECESSARY PERMITS FOR ALL APPLICABLE AGENCIES PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION. THE DEVELOPER SHALL NOTIFY THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEERING INSPECTOR (FORT COLLINS - 221-6605) AND THE LOCAL ENTITY EROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR (FORT COLLINS - 221-6700) AT LEAST 2 WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY EARTH DISTURBING ACTIVITY, OR CONSTRUCTION ON ANY AND ALL PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. IF THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER IS NOT AVAILABLE AFTER PROPER NOTICE OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY HAS BEEN PROVIDED, THE DEVELOPER MAY COMMENCE WORK IN THE ENGINEER ABSENCE. HOWEVER, THE LOCAL ENTITY RESERVES THE RIGHT NOT TO ACCEPT THE IMPROVEMENT IF SUBSEQUENT TESTING REVEALS AN IMPROPER INSTALLATION. 24. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING SOILS TESTS WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF-WAY AFTER RIGHT OF WAY GRADING AND ALL UTILITY TRENCH WORK IS COMPLETE AND PRIOR TO THE PLACEMENT OF CURB, GUTTER, SIDEWALK AND PAVEMENT. IF THE FINAL SOILS/PAVEMENT DESIGN REPORT DOES NOT CORRESPOND WITH THE RESULTS OF THE ORIGINAL GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR A RE-DESIGN OF THE SUBJECT PAVEMENT SECTION OR, THE DEVELOPER MAY USE THE LOCAL ENTITY'S DEFAULT PAVEMENT THICKNESS SECTION(S). REGARDLESS OF THE OPTION USED, ALL FINAL SOILS/PAVEMENT DESIGN REPORTS SHALL BE PREPARED BY A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. THE FINAL REPORT SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE INSPECTOR A MINIMUM OF 10 WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF BASE AND ASPHALT. PLACEMENT OF CURB, GUTTER, SIDEWALK, BASE AND ASPHALT SHALL NOT OCCUR UNTIL THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER APPROVES THE FINAL REPORT. 25. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HIRE A LICENSED ENGINEER OR LAND SURVEYOR TO SURVEY THE CONSTRUCTED ELEVATIONS OF THE STREET SUBGRADE AND THE GUTTER FLOWLINE AT ALL INTERSECTIONS, INLETS, AND OTHER LOCATIONS REQUESTED BY THE LOCAL ENTITY INSPECTOR. THE ENGINEER OR SURVEYOR MUST CERTIFY IN A LETTER TO THE LOCAL ENTITY THAT THESE ELEVATIONS CONFORM TO THE APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. ANY DEVIATIONS SHALL BE NOTED IN THE LETTER AND THEN RESOLVED WITH THE LOCAL ENTITY BEFORE INSTALLATION OF BASE COURSE OR ASPHALT WILL BE ALLOWED ON THE STREETS. 26. ALL UTILITY INSTALLATIONS WITHIN OR ACROSS THE ROADBED OF NEW RESIDENTIAL ROADS MUST BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO THE FINAL STAGES OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THESE STANDARDS, ANY WORK EXCEPT C/G ABOVE THE SUBGRADE IS CONSIDERED FINAL STAGE WORK. ALL LARIMER COUNTY URBAN AREA STREET STANDARDS - REPEALED AND REENACTED AUGUST 1, 2021 ADOPTED BY LARIMER COUNTY, CITY OF LOVELAND, CITY OF FORT COLLINS PAGE E-1-FC/LAR-4 SERVICE LINES MUST BE STUBBED TO THE PROPERTY LINES AND MARKED SO AS TO REDUCE THE EXCAVATION NECESSARY FOR BUILDING CONNECTIONS. 27. PORTIONS OF LARIMER COUNTY ARE WITHIN OVERLAY DISTRICTS. THE LARIMER COUNTY FLOODPLAIN RESOLUTION SHOULD BE REFERRED TO FOR ADDITIONAL CRITERIA FOR ROADS WITHIN THESE DISTRICTS. 28. ALL ROAD CONSTRUCTION IN AREAS DESIGNATED AS WILD FIRE HAZARD AREAS SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA AS ESTABLISHED IN THE WILD FIRE HAZARD AREA MITIGATION REGULATIONS IN FORCE AT THE TIME OF FINAL PLAT APPROVAL. 29. PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE LOCAL ENTITY FORESTER TO SCHEDULE A SITE INSPECTION FOR ANY TREE REMOVAL REQUIRING A PERMIT. 30. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL ASPECTS OF SAFETY INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, EXCAVATION, TRENCHING, SHORING, TRAFFIC CONTROL, AND SECURITY. REFER TO OSHA PUBLICATION 2226, EXCAVATING AND TRENCHING. 31. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT A CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN, IN ACCORDANCE WITH MUTCD, TO THE APPROPRIATE RIGHT-OF-WAY AUTHORITY. (LOCAL ENTITY, COUNTY OR STATE), FOR APPROVAL, PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WITHIN, OR AFFECTING, THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING ANY AND ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. 32. PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY CONSTRUCTION THAT WILL AFFECT TRAFFIC SIGNS OF ANY TYPE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT LOCAL ENTITY TRAFFIC OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT, WHO WILL TEMPORARILY REMOVE OR RELOCATE THE SIGN AT NO COST TO THE CONTRACTOR; HOWEVER, IF THE CONTRACTOR MOVES THE TRAFFIC SIGN THEN THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE CHARGED FOR THE LABOR, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT TO REINSTALL THE SIGN AS NEEDED. 33. THE DEVELOPER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL COSTS FOR THE INITIAL INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNING AND STRIPING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT'S LOCAL STREET OPERATIONS. IN ADDITION, THE DEVELOPER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL COSTS FOR TRAFFIC SIGNING AND STRIPING RELATED TO DIRECTING TRAFFIC ACCESS TO AND FROM THE DEVELOPMENT. 34. THERE SHALL BE NO SITE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ON SATURDAYS, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY APPROVED BY THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER, AND NO SITE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ON SUNDAYS OR HOLIDAYS, UNLESS THERE IS PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL BY THE LOCAL ENTITY. 35. THE DEVELOPER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING ALL LABOR AND MATERIALS NECESSARY FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE INTENDED IMPROVEMENTS, SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS, OR DESIGNATED TO BE PROVIDED, INSTALLED, OR CONSTRUCTED, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY NOTED OTHERWISE. 36. DIMENSIONS FOR LAYOUT AND CONSTRUCTION ARE NOT TO BE SCALED FROM ANY DRAWING. IF PERTINENT DIMENSIONS ARE NOT SHOWN, CONTACT THE DESIGNER FOR CLARIFICATION, AND ANNOTATE THE DIMENSION ON THE AS-BUILT RECORD DRAWINGS. 37. THE DEVELOPER SHALL HAVE, ONSITE AT ALL TIMES, ONE (1) SIGNED COPY OF THE APPROVED PLANS, ONE (1) COPY OF THE APPROPRIATE STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND A COPY OF ANY PERMITS AND EXTENSION AGREEMENTS NEEDED FOR THE JOB. LARIMER COUNTY URBAN AREA STREET STANDARDS - REPEALED AND REENACTED AUGUST 1, 2021 ADOPTED BY LARIMER COUNTY, CITY OF LOVELAND, CITY OF FORT COLLINS PAGE E-1-FC/LAR-5 38. IF, DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS, CONDITIONS ARE ENCOUNTERED WHICH COULD INDICATE A SITUATION THAT IS NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS, THE DEVELOPER SHALL CONTACT THE DESIGNER AND THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY. 39. THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR RECORDING AS-BUILT INFORMATION ON A SET OF RECORD DRAWINGS KEPT ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, AND AVAILABLE TO THE LOCAL ENTITY'S INSPECTOR AT ALL TIMES. UPON COMPLETION OF THE WORK, THE CONTRACTOR(S) SHALL SUBMIT RECORD DRAWINGS TO THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER. 40. THE DESIGNER SHALL PROVIDE, IN THIS LOCATION ON THE PLAN, THE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE NEAREST SURVEY BENCHMARKS (2) FOR THE PROJECT AS WELL AS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS. THE INFORMATION SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88 CITY OF FORT COLLINS BENCHMARK NO. 27-01 NORTHEAST CORNER OF C.R. 5 AND E. PROSPECT ROAD, ON THE END BLOCK OF A 15" DIAMETER STEEL PIPE. ELEVATION: 4,918.13 CITY OF FORT COLLINS BENCHMARK NO. 47-01 SOUTH SIDE OF PROSPECT ROAD WHERE IT INTERSECTS I-25, ON THE WEST END OF THE PARAPET WALL TO THE BRIDGE (B 16 AM) OVER I-25, ON A DEPT OF HIGHWAYS BRASS CAP. ELEVATION: 4,934.13 PLEASE NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL DATUM. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD 29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) FOR THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS. IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) = NAVD88 DATUM - 3.18'. 41. ALL STATIONING IS BASED ON FLOWLINE OF ROADWAYS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 42. DAMAGED CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK EXISTING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, AS WELL AS EXISTING FENCES, TREES, STREETS, SIDEWALKS, CURBS AND GUTTERS, LANDSCAPING, STRUCTURES, AND IMPROVEMENTS DESTROYED, DAMAGED OR REMOVED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT, SHALL BE REPLACED OR RESTORED IN LIKE KIND AT THE DEVELOPER'S EXPENSE, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED ON THESE PLANS, PRIOR TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLETED IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 43. WHEN AN EXISTING ASPHALT STREET MUST BE CUT, THE STREET MUST BE RESTORED TO A CONDITION EQUAL TO OR BETTER THAN ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION. THE EXISTING STREET CONDITION SHALL BE DOCUMENTED BY THE LOCAL ENTITY CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR BEFORE ANY CUTS ARE MADE. PATCHING SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOCAL ENTITY STREET REPAIR STANDARDS. THE FINISHED PATCH SHALL BLEND IN SMOOTHLY INTO THE EXISTING SURFACE. ALL LARGE PATCHES SHALL BE PAVED WITH AN ASPHALT LAY-DOWN MACHINE. IN STREETS WHERE MORE THAN ONE CUT IS MADE, AN OVERLAY OF THE ENTIRE STREET WIDTH, INCLUDING THE PATCHED AREA, MAY BE REQUIRED. THE DETERMINATION OF NEED FOR A COMPLETE OVERLAY SHALL BE MADE BY THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER AND/OR THE LOCAL ENTITY INSPECTOR AT THE TIME THE CUTS ARE MADE. 44. UPON COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION, THE SITE SHALL BE CLEANED AND RESTORED TO A CONDITION EQUAL TO, OR BETTER THAN, THAT WHICH EXISTED BEFORE CONSTRUCTION, OR TO THE GRADES AND CONDITION AS REQUIRED BY THESE PLANS. 45. STANDARD HANDICAP RAMPS ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT ALL CURB RETURNS AND AT ALL “T” INTERSECTIONS. 46. AFTER ACCEPTANCE BY THE LOCAL ENTITY, PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS DEPICTED IN THESE PLANS SHALL BE GUARANTEED TO BE FREE FROM MATERIAL AND WORKMANSHIP DEFECTS FOR A MINIMUM PERIOD OF TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ACCEPTANCE. LARIMER COUNTY URBAN AREA STREET STANDARDS - REPEALED AND REENACTED AUGUST 1, 2021 ADOPTED BY LARIMER COUNTY, CITY OF LOVELAND, CITY OF FORT COLLINS PAGE E-1-FC/LAR-6 47. THE LOCAL ENTITY SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF ROADWAY AND APPURTENANT IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING STORM DRAINAGE STRUCTURES AND PIPES, FOR THE FOLLOWING PRIVATE STREETS: N/A. 48. APPROVED VARIANCES ARE LISTED AS FOLLOWS: N/A GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL NOTES 1. THE EROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR MUST BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST TWENTY-FOUR (24) HOURS PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THIS SITE. 2. THERE SHALL BE NO EARTH-DISTURBING ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE LIMITS DESIGNATED ON THE ACCEPTED PLANS. 3. ALL REQUIRED PERIMETER SILT AND CONSTRUCTION FENCING SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY (STOCKPILING, STRIPPING, GRADING, ETC). ALL OTHER REQUIRED EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME IN THE CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE AS INDICATED IN THE APPROVED PROJECT SCHEDULE, CONSTRUCTION PLANS, AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT. 4. AT ALL TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PREVENTING AND CONTROLLING ON-SITE EROSION INCLUDING KEEPING THE PROPERTY SUFFICIENTLY WATERED SO AS TO MINIMIZE WIND-BLOWN SEDIMENT. THE DEVELOPER SHALL ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLING AND MAINTAINING ALL EROSION CONTROL FACILITIES SHOWN HEREIN. 5. PRE-DISTURBANCE VEGETATION SHALL BE PROTECTED AND RETAINED WHEREVER POSSIBLE. REMOVAL OR DISTURBANCE OF EXISTING VEGETATION SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE AREA(S) REQUIRED FOR IMMEDIATE CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS, AND FOR THE SHORTEST PRACTICAL PERIOD OF TIME. 6. ALL SOILS EXPOSED DURING LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY (STRIPPING, GRADING, UTILITY INSTALLATIONS, STOCKPILING, FILLING, ETC.) SHALL BE KEPT IN A ROUGHENED CONDITION BY RIPPING OR DISKING ALONG LAND CONTOURS UNTIL MULCH, VEGETATION, OR OTHER PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL BMPS ARE INSTALLED. NO SOILS IN AREAS OUTSIDE PROJECT STREET RIGHTSOF-WAY SHALL REMAIN EXPOSED BY LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY FOR MORE THAN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS BEFORE REQUIRED TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL (E.G. SEED/MULCH, LANDSCAPING, ETC.) IS INSTALLED, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE CITY OF LOVELAND. 7. IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE EROSION POTENTIAL, ALL TEMPORARY (STRUCTURAL) EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL: A. BE INSPECTED AT A MINIMUM OF ONCE EVERY TWO (2) WEEKS AND AFTER EACH SIGNIFICANT STORM EVENT AND REPAIRED OR RECONSTRUCTED AS LARIMER COUNTY URBAN AREA STREET STANDARDS - REPEALED AND REENACTED AUGUST 1, 2021 PAGE E-2-2 ADOPTED BY LARIMER COUNTY, CITY OF LOVELAND, CITY OF FORT COLLINS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO ENSURE THE CONTINUED PERFORMANCE OF THEIR INTENDED FUNCTION. B. REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS ALL THE SURROUNDING DISTURBED AREAS ARE SUFFICIENTLY STABILIZED AS DETERMINED BY THE EROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR. C. BE REMOVED AFTER THE SITE HAS BEEN SUFFICIENTLY STABILIZED AS DETERMINED BY THE EROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR. 8. WHEN TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ARE REMOVED, THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CLEAN UP AND REMOVAL OF ALL SEDIMENT AND DEBRIS FROM ALL DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE AND OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES. 9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY CLEAN UP ANY CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS INADVERTENTLY DEPOSITED ON EXISTING STREETS, SIDEWALKS, OR OTHER PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY, AND MAKE SURE STREETS AND WALKWAYS ARE CLEANED AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY. 10. ALL RETAINED SEDIMENTS, PARTICULARLY THOSE ON PAVED ROADWAY SURFACES, SHALL BE REMOVED AND DISPOSED OF IN A MANNER AND LOCATION SO AS NOT TO CAUSE THEIR RELEASE INTO ANY WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES. 11. NO SOIL STOCKPILE SHALL EXCEED TEN (10) FEET IN HEIGHT. ALL SOIL STOCKPILES SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM SEDIMENT TRANSPORT BY SURFACE ROUGHENING, WATERING, AND PERIMETER SILT FENCING. ANY SOIL STOCKPILE REMAINING AFTER THIRTY (30) DAYS SHALL BE SEEDED AND MULCHED. 12. THE STORMWATER VOLUME CAPACITY OF DETENTION PONDS WILL BE RESTORED AND STORM SEWER LINES WILL BE CLEANED UPON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT AND BEFORE TURNING THE MAINTENANCE OVER TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS OR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION (HOA). 13. CITY ORDINANCE AND COLORADO DISCHARGE PERMIT SYSTEM (CDPS) REQUIREMENTS MAKE IT UNLAWFUL TO DISCHARGE OR ALLOW THE DISCHARGE OF ANY POLLUTANT OR CONTAMINATED WATER FROM CONSTRUCTION SITES. POLLUTANTS INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO DISCARDED BUILDING MATERIALS, CONCRETE TRUCK WASHOUT, CHEMICALS, OIL AND GAS PRODUCTS, LITTER, AND SANITARY WASTE. THE DEVELOPER SHALL AT ALL TIMES TAKE WHATEVER MEASURES ARE NECESSARY TO ASSURE THE PROPER CONTAINMENT AND DISPOSAL OF POLLUTANTS ON THE SITE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY AND ALL APPLICABLE LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS. 14. A DESIGNATED AREA SHALL BE PROVIDED ON SITE FOR CONCRETE TRUCK CHUTE WASHOUT. THE AREA SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED SO AS TO CONTAIN WASHOUT MATERIAL AND LOCATED AT LEAST FIFTY (50) FEET AWAY FROM ANY WATERWAY DURING CONSTRUCTION. UPON COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES THE CONCRETE WASHOUT MATERIAL WILL BE REMOVED AND PROPERLY DISPOSED OF PRIOR TO THE AREA BEING RESTORED. 15. TO ENSURE THAT SEDIMENT DOES NOT MOVE OFF OF INDIVIDUAL LOTS ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING SEDIMENT/EROSION CONTROL BMPS SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED LARIMER COUNTY URBAN AREA STREET STANDARDS - REPEALED AND REENACTED AUGUST 1, 2021 PAGE E-2-3 ADOPTED BY LARIMER COUNTY, CITY OF LOVELAND, CITY OF FORT COLLINS UNTIL THE LOTS ARE SUFFICIENTLY STABILIZED, AS DETERMINED BY THE EROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR, (LOVELAND GMA & CITY LIMITS ONLY). (A.) BELOW ALL GUTTER DOWNSPOUTS. (B.) OUT TO DRAINAGE SWALES. (C.) ALONG LOT PERIMETER. (D.) OTHER LOCATIONS, IF NEEDED. 16. CONDITIONS IN THE FIELD MAY WARRANT EROSION CONTROL MEASURES IN ADDITION TO WHAT IS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. THE DEVELOPER SHALL IMPLEMENT WHATEVER MEASURES ARE DETERMINED NECESSARY, AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS. 17. A VEHICLE TRACKING CONTROL PAD SHALL BE INSTALLED WHENEVER IT IS NECESSARY FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO PERSONAL VEHICLES EXITING EXISTING ROADWAYS. NO EARTHEN MATERIALS, I.E., STONE, DIRT, ETC., SHALL BE PLACED IN THE CURB & GUTTER OR ROADWAY AS A RAMP TO ACCESS TEMPORARY STOCKPILE(S), STAGING AREA(S), CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL(S), CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA(S) AND/OR BUILDING SITE(S). 18. CONSTRUCTION STAKING FOR IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN IN THESE PLANS SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A STATE OF COLORADO LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A SIGNED AND SEALED AS-BUILT SURVEY OF UTILITIES AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS IN PDF AND AUTOCAD FORMAT PRIOR TO FINAL CLOSEOUT OF THE PROJECT. STREET IMPROVEMENT NOTES 1. ALL STREET CONSTRUCTION IS SUBJECT TO THE GENERAL NOTES ON THE COVER SHEET OF THESE PLANS AS WELL AS THE STREET IMPROVEMENTS NOTES LISTED HERE. 2. A PAVING SECTION DESIGN, SIGNED AND STAMPED BY A COLORADO LICENSED ENGINEER, MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL, PRIOR TO ANY STREET CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, (FULL DEPTH ASPHALT SECTIONS ARE NOT PERMITTED AT A DEPTH GREATER THAN 8 INCHES OF ASPHALT). THE JOB MIX SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF ANY ASPHALT. 3. WHERE PROPOSED PAVING ADJOINS EXISTING ASPHALT, THE EXISTING ASPHALT SHALL BE SAW CUT, A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 12 INCHES FROM THE EXISTING EDGE, TO CREATE A CLEAN CONSTRUCTION JOINT. THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE REQUIRED TO REMOVE EXISTING PAVEMENT TO A DISTANCE WHERE A CLEAN CONSTRUCTION JOINT CAN BE MADE. WHEEL CUTS SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED UNLESS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER IN LOVELAND. 4. STREET SUBGRADES SHALL BE SCARIFIED THE TOP 12 INCHES AND RE-COMPACTED PRIOR TO SUBBASE INSTALLATION. NO BASE MATERIAL SHALL BE LAID UNTIL THE SUBGRADE HAS BEEN INSPECTED AND APPROVED BY THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER. 5. FT. COLLINS ONLY. VALVE BOXES AND MANHOLES ARE TO BE BROUGHT UP TO GRADE AT THE TIME OF PAVEMENT PLACEMENT OR OVERLAY. VALVE BOX ADJUSTING RINGS ARE NOT ALLOWED. LARIMER COUNTY URBAN AREA STREET STANDARDS - REPEALED AND REENACTED AUGUST 1, 2021 PAGE E-2-4 ADOPTED BY LARIMER COUNTY, CITY OF LOVELAND, CITY OF FORT COLLINS 6. WHEN AN EXISTING ASPHALT STREET MUST BE CUT, THE STREET MUST BE RESTORED TO A CONDITION EQUAL TO OR BETTER THAN ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION. THE EXISTING STREET CONDITION SHALL BE DOCUMENTED BY THE INSPECTOR BEFORE ANY CUTS ARE MADE. CUTTING AND PATCHING SHALL BE DONE IN CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 25, RECONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR. THE FINISHED PATCH SHALL BLEND SMOOTHLY INTO THE EXISTING SURFACE. THE DETERMINATION OF NEED FOR A COMPLETE OVERLAY SHALL BE MADE BY THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER. ALL OVERLAY WORK SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH ADJACENT LANDOWNERS SUCH THAT FUTURE PROJECTS DO NOT CUT THE NEW ASPHALT OVERLAY WORK. 7. ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THESE PLANS OR AS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED IN M.U.T.C.D. (INCLUDING COLORADO SUPPLEMENT) AND AS PER THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WORK PERMIT TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN. 8. THE DEVELOPER IS REQUIRED TO PERFORM A GUTTER WATER FLOW TEST IN THE PRESENCE OF THE LOCAL ENTITY INSPECTOR AND PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ASPHALT. GUTTERS THAT HOLD MORE THAN ¼ INCH DEEP OR 5 FEET LONGITUDINALLY, OF WATER, SHALL BE COMPLETELY REMOVED AND RECONSTRUCTED TO DRAIN PROPERLY. 9. PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF H.B.P. OR CONCRETE WITHIN THE STREET AND AFTER MOISTURE/DENSITY TESTS HAVE BEEN TAKEN ON THE SUBGRADE MATERIAL (WHEN A FULL DEPTH SECTION IS PROPOSED) OR ON THE SUBGRADE AND BASE MATERIAL (WHEN A COMPOSITE SECTION IS PROPOSED), A MECHANICAL "PROOF ROLL" WILL BE REQUIRED. THE ENTIRE SUBGRADE AND/OR BASE MATERIAL SHALL BE ROLLED WITH A HEAVILY LOADED VEHICLE HAVING A TOTAL GVW OF NOT LESS THAN 50,000 LBS. AND A SINGLE AXLE WEIGHT OF AT LEAST 18,000 LBS. WITH PNEUMATIC TIRES INFLATED TO NOT LESS THAT 90 P.S.I.G. “PROOF ROLL” VEHICLES SHALL NOT TRAVEL AT SPEEDS GREATER THAN 3 M.P.H. ANY PORTION OF THE SUBGRADE OR BASE MATERIAL WHICH EXHIBITS EXCESSIVE PUMPING OR DEFORMATION, AS DETERMINED BY THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER, SHALL BE REWORKED, REPLACED OR OTHERWISE MODIFIED TO FORM A SMOOTH, NON-YIELDING SURFACE. THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST 24 HOURS PRIOR TO THE “PROOF ROLL.” ALL “PROOF ROLLS” SHALL BE PREFORMED IN THE PRESENCE OF AN INSPECTOR. TRAFFIC SIGNING AND PAVEMENT MARKING CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1. ALL SIGNAGE AND MARKING IS SUBJECT TO THE GENERAL NOTES OF THESE PLANS, AS WELL AS THE TRAFFIC SIGNING AND MARKING CONSTRUCTION NOTES LISTED HERE. 2. ALL SYMBOLS, INCLUDING ARROWS, ONLYS, CROSSWALKS, STOP BARS, ETC. SHALL BE PRE-FORMED THERMO-PLASTIC. 3. ALL SIGNAGE SHALL BE PER LOCAL ENTITY STANDARDS AND THESE PLANS OR AS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED IN MUTCD. 4. ALL LANE LINES FOR ASPHALT PAVEMENT SHALL RECEIVE TWO COATS OF LATEX PAINT WITH GLASS BEADS. 5. ALL LANE LINES SHALL BE LATEX PAINT. 6. PRIOR TO PERMANENT INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC STRIPING AND SYMBOLS, THE DEVELOPER SHALL PLACE TEMPORARY TABS OR TAPE DEPICTING ALIGNMENT AND PLACEMENT OF THE SAME. THEIR PLACEMENT SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO PERMANENT INSTALLATION OF STRIPING AND SYMBOLS. 7. PRE-FORMED THERMO-PLASTIC APPLICATIONS SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED IN THESE PLANS AND/OR THESE STANDARDS. 8. LATEX PAINT APPLICATIONS SHALL BE APPLIED AS SPECIFIED IN CDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROAD AND BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION. 9. ALL SURFACES SHALL BE THOROUGHLY CLEANED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF STRIPING OR MARKINGS. 10. ALL SIGN POSTS SHALL UTILIZE BREAK-AWAY ASSEMBLIES AND FASTENERS PER THE STANDARDS. 11. A FIELD INSPECTION OF LOCATION AND INSTALLATION OF ALL SIGNS SHALL BE PERFORMED BY THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER. ALL DISCREPANCIES IDENTIFIED DURING THE FIELD INSPECTION MUST BE CORRECTED BEFORE THE 2-YEAR WARRANTY PERIOD WILL BEGIN. 12. THE DEVELOPER INSTALLING SIGNS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING AND PROTECTING ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. 13. SPECIAL CARE SHALL BE TAKEN IN SIGN LOCATION TO ENSURE AN UNOBSTRUCTED VIEW OF EACH SIGN. 14. SIGNAGE AND STRIPING HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY INFORMATION AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF REVIEW. PRIOR TO INITIATION OF THE WARRANTY PERIOD, THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE AND/OR STRIPING IF THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER DETERMINES THAT AN UNFORESEEN CONDITION WARRANTS SUCH SIGNAGE ACCORDING TO THE MUTCD OR THE CDOT M AND S STANDARDS. ALL SIGNAGE AND STRIPING SHALL FALL UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 2-YEAR WARRANTY PERIOD FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION (EXCEPT FAIR WEAR ON TRAFFIC MARKINGS). 15. SLEEVES FOR SIGN POSTS SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR USE IN ISLANDS/MEDIANS. REFER TO CHAPTER 14, TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, FOR ADDITIONAL DETAIL. 16. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVING ALL ANCHORS, POSTS, SIGNS AND/OR DELINEATORS IN CONSTRUCTION AREA. CONTRACTOR MAY KEEP THE SIGNS, OR CALL THE CITY TRAFFIC DIVISION TO HAVE THEM REMOVED. 17. NO “RESET” ANCHORS, POSTS, SIGNS, AND/OR DELINEATORS WILL BE ACCEPTED. 18. ALL ANCHORS, POSTS, SIGNS, AND/OR DELINEATORS SHALL BE NEW AND BE CONSISTENT WITH THE LCUASS CRITERIA. STORM DRAINAGE NOTES 1. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES LOCATED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. MAINTENANCE OF ONSITE DRAINAGE FACILITIES SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROPERTY OWNER(S). 2. ALL RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT BY KIMLEY-HORN SHALL BE FOLLOWED AND IMPLEMENTED. 3. PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, CERTIFICATION OF THE DRAINAGE FACILITIES, BY A REGISTERED ENGINEER, MUST BY SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY THE STORMWATER UTILITY DEPARTMENT. CERTIFICATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE STORMWATER UTILITY DEPARTMENT AT LEAST TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR SINGLE FAMILY UNITS. FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, CERTIFICATION SHALL BY SUBMITTED TO THE STORMWATER UTILITY DEPARTMENT AT LEAST TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS IN EXCESS OF THOSE ALLOWED PRIOR TO CERTIFICATION PER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. 4. SEE CITY OF FORT COLLINS STORMWATER CRITERIA MANUAL - APPENDIX F CONSTRUCTION CONTROL MEASURES STANDARD NOTES AND STANDARD EROSION CONTROL NOTES. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 153 ER O S I O N C O N T R O L & E A S T L A R I M E R C O U N T Y WA T E R D I S T R I C T N O T E S TH I S D O C U M E N T , T O G E T H E R W I T H T H E C O N C E P T S A N D D E S I G N S P R E S E N T E D H E R E I N , A S A N I N S T R U M E N T O F S E R V I C E , I S I N T E N D E D O N L Y F O R T H E S P E C I F I C P U R P O S E A N D C L I E N T F O R W H I C H I T W A S P R E P A R E D . R E U S E O F A N D I M P R O P E R R E L I A N C E O N T H I S D O C U M E N T W I T H O U T W R I T T E N A U T H O R I Z A T I O N A N D A D A P T A T I O N B Y K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . S H A L L B E W I T H O U T L I A B I L I T Y T O K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . R Know what's below. Call before you dig. DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: NO . RE V I S I O N BY D A T E © 2 0 2 3 K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . 33 2 5 S . T I M B E R L I N E R O A D , S U I T E 1 3 0 FO R T C O L L I N S , C O L O R A D O 8 0 5 2 5 ( 9 7 0 ) 8 2 2 - 7 9 1 1 FOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. CONSTRUCTION \\ k i m l e y - h o r n \ M P _ N C O \ N C O _ C i v i l \ 1 9 6 3 9 5 0 0 3 _ P r o s p e c t R i d g e M u l t i f a m i l y \ C A D D \ P l a n S h e e t s \ C - C O V R . d w g PROJECT NO. SHEET 07/25/25 AGR MH HPC OF 16 196395003 PR O S P E C T R I D G E M U L T I F A M I L Y PR E L I M I N A R Y U T I L I T Y P L A N S 3 GENERAL NOTES FOR CONSTRUCTION VERSION: 12/2/2021 THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS CONDENSED FROM THE CURRENT "STANDARD CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS FOR WATER MAINS" (SPECIFICATION) AS ADOPTED BY THE EAST LARIMER COUNTY WATER DISTRICT ('ELCO' OR 'DISTRICT') AND IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS SUCH. IN THE EVENT OF ANY CONFLICT THE FULL DISTRICT SPECIFICATION DOCUMENT SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THESE GENERAL NOTES. 1.STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS: CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PER THE DISTRICT SPECIFICATIONS IN EFFECT AT THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. MATERIAL OR EQUIPMENT SHALL BE MANUFACTURED PER THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF APPLICABLE INDUSTRY STANDARDS. 2.LOCATES: CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE FIELD LOCATES OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY CONSTRUCTION AND AS REQUIRED NOTIFY ALL AFFECTED UTILITY COMPANIES PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION. COST OF REPAIRS TO ANY UTILITY DAMAGED DURING DISTRICT WATERLINE INSTALLATION SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. 3.DAMAGE TO PROPERTY: CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTINUOUSLY MAINTAIN ADEQUATE PROTECTION FROM DAMAGE OF ALL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROPERTY THROUGH WHICH THE WORK IS DONE AND SHALL BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH DAMAGE TO ANY AND ALL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROPERTY. 4.SAFETY: CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH ANY AND ALL REQUIREMENTS AND REGULATIONS AS SET FORTH BY ANY LOCAL, CITY, COUNTY, STATE OR FEDERAL AGENCY HAVING APPLICABLE AUTHORITY. 5.LANDSCAPING ADJACENT TO DISTRICT WATERLINES: NO LANDSCAPING (BUSHES, SHRUBS, TREES OR OTHER PLANTINGS) THAT HAS A MATURE HEIGHT OF OVER 3 FEET (3-FT) SHALL BE PLACED WITHIN TEN FEET (10-FT) OF ANY DISTRICT WATERLINE OR APPURTENANCE (DISTRIBUTION MAIN, SERVICE LINE, FIRE HYDRANT, METER, ETC.). BUSHES OR SHRUBS WITH A MATURE HEIGHT OF LESS THAN 3-FT SHALL BE PLACED A MINIMUM 5-FT FROM ANY DISTRICT WATER LINE, SERVICE LINE OR APPURTENANCE. THE DISTRICT SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMOVE ANY LANDSCAPING THAT VIOLATES THIS STANDARD, AT ANY TIME SUCH LANDSCAPING IS DISCOVERED, AND SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO REPLACE THE REMOVED LANDSCAPING. 6.DESIGN APPROVAL AND CONSTRUCTION START: NO CONSTRUCTION SHALL BEGIN WITHOUT PRIOR DESIGN ACCEPTANCE FROM ELCO. DISTRICT SHALL BE NOTIFIED 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF STARTING CONSTRUCTION OR TESTING TO ALLOW FOR SCHEDULING. 7.PERMITS: CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL PERMITS WHICH MAY BE REQUIRED. FOR ANY PERMITTING WHERE THE DISTRICT MUST APPLY FOR A PERMIT THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE, COVER THE COST AND SCHEDULE THE PERMIT ACQUISITION WITH THE DISTRICT. 8.CHANGES DURING CONSTRUCTION: NO VERBAL AUTHORIZATION FOR FIELD REVISION SHALL BE GIVEN. ALL REQUESTS FOR SUCH FIELD REVISION SHALL BE MADE IN WRITING WITH THE PROPOSED CHANGE INDICATED ON A COPY OF THE SIGNED DESIGN DRAWINGS. ANY FIELD REVISION APPROVED AND INSTALLED SHALL ALSO BE ACCURATELY DOCUMENTED ON THE AS-BUILT DRAWINGS. 9.MATERIALS OF CONSTRUCTION: A. PIPE: ALL WATER LINE PIPING SHALL BE POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (PVC), DR 18 (PRESSURE CLASS 235 PSI) AND MANUFACTURED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AWWA STANDARD C900-16, B. "POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (PVC) PRESSURE PIPE AND FABRICATED FITTING, 4-INCH THROUGH 60-INCH, ", OR MOST RECENT VERSION. C. TRACER WIRE: ALL WATER PIPING SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH A TWELVE (12) GAUGE SOLID COPPER WIRE, PLASTIC COATED, SIX HUNDRED (600) VOLTS, TAPED TO TOP OF PIPE AND SURFACED AT EACH HYDRANT INTO A TRACER WIRE BOX. D. PIPE JOINTS: PIPE JOINTS SHALL BE MADE USING AN INTEGRAL BELL WITH AN ELASTOMERIC GASKET PUSH-ON TYPE JOINT OR USING MACHINED COUPLINGS OF A SLEEVE TYPE WITH RUBBER RING GASKETS AND MACHINED PIPE ENDS TO FORM A PUSH-ON TYPE JOINT. E. MATERIALS AND INSTALLATION: ALL MATERIALS INSTALLED SHALL BE NEW AND FREE OF MANUFACTURER DEFECTS OR DAMAGE. F. PIPE FITTINGS: ALL FITTINGS SHALL BE DUCTILE IRON MECHANICAL JOINT AND MANUFACTURED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AWWA STANDARD C153, 250 PSI RATING. FITTINGS SHALL BE FURNISHED WITH FUSION BONDED EPOXY EXTERIOR COATING AND INTERIOR LINING. ALL FITTING CONNECTIONS TO VALVES, FIRE HYDRANTS OR OTHER MJ TYPE CONNECTIONS SHALL USE FOSTER ADAPTOR TYPE CONNECTORS. G. GATE VALVES: GATE VALVES SHALL CONFORM TO AWWA STANDARD C509 WITH MECHANICAL JOINT, 2" OPEN LEFT OPERATING NUT AND RESILIENT SEAT. H. BUTTERFLY VALVES: BUTTERFLY VALVES SHALL BE USED FOR ALL VALVES 12-INCHES AND LARGER AND CONFORM TO AWWA STANDARD C504 WITH MECHANICAL JOINT, 2" OPEN LEFT OPERATING NUT WITH RESILIENT SEAT. I. FIRE HYDRANTS: HYDRANTS SHALL CONFORM TO AWWA STANDARD C502, 1" SQUARE OPEN-RIGHT OPERATING NUT WITH EPOXY COATED SHOE. J. PIPE, VALVE AND FITTING WRAP: ALL DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS, VALVES, FIRE HYDRANT SHOES AND PLUGS SHALL BE POLY-WRAPPED WITH 8-MIL THICK POLYETHYLENE PLASTIC WRAP, DOUBLE LAYERED, AND ENDS SECURELY TAPED PRIOR TO BACKFILL. ALL FITTING BOLTS SHALL BE FLUOROPOLYMER COATED ('BLUE BOLT' TYPE) WITH ZINC CAPS INSTALLED. 10.BEDDING: ALL PIPE SHALL BE BEDDED IN 3/4" WASHED ROCK UNIFORMLY GRADED AND COMPACTED. TRENCH SHALL BE EXCAVATED TO A DEPTH BELOW ESTABLISHED GRADE EQUAL TO 1/4 OF PIPE DIAMETER (MIN. 4"). 1-1/2" UNIFORMLY GRADED WASHED ROCK SHALL BE USED FOR STABILIZATION WHERE NEEDED. BEDDING MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED AND COMPACTED UNDER AND AROUND SIDES OF THE PIPE PER THE PIPE MANUFACTURER'S INSTALLATION RECOMMENDATIONS. 11.BACKFILL: BACKFILL OF ACCEPTABLE MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED IN 'LIFTS' OF UNIFORM HORIZONTAL LAYERS NOT TO EXCEED 6-INCHES OF COMPACTED DEPTH PER LIFT. MINIMUM 18" OF COMPACTED BACKFILL ABOVE PIPE MUST BE IN PLACE BEFORE ROLLING MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TYPE COMPACTION IS TO BE USED. BACKFILL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 95% OF OPTIMUM DENSITY IN ROADWAY AREAS OR PER ROAD AUTHORITY'S REQUIREMENTS, AND 90% IN FIELDS OR NON-ROAD LOCATIONS. BACKFILL COMPACTION TESTING FREQUENCY SHALL BE AT LEAST ONE TEST PER 100-LINEAL FEET OF PIPELINE LENGTH AND AT VARYING DEPTHS AND LOCATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPLICABLE ROAD AUTHORITY OR BEGINNING 1.5-FEET ABOVE TOP OF PIPE AND AT 1-FOOT INCREMENTS TO GRADE. 12.JOINT RESTRAINT: ALL FITTINGS, TEES, PLUGS AND FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH FOSTER ADAPTOR TYPE AND/OR OTHER MECHANICAL JOINT RESTRAINT IN ACCORDANCE WITH DISTRICT SPECIFICATIONS OR AS REQUIRED PER ENGINEER'S DESIGN. THRUST BLOCKS SHALL BE USED ONLY AS REQUIRED PER FIELD CONDITIONS AND AS APPROVED OR DIRECTED BY THE DISTRICT FIELD INSPECTOR. 13.CONCRETE: ALL CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING THRUST BLOCKS, SHALL BE COMPLETED UTILIZING TYPE 5 OR EQUAL CEMENT ONLY. 14.ASPHALT REPLACEMENT: FOR ASPHALT PAVEMENT THAT IS CUT AND HAS BEEN IN PLACE LESS THAN TWO YEARS (ACCORDING TO CITY OR COUNTY ENGINEER'S RECORD), THE CUT SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 20 FEET IN WIDTH AND WILL BE REPLACED TO THE SPECIFIED DEPTH BY A PAVING MACHINE. 15.PIPE COVER: PIPE COVER OF 4-1/2 TO 5-1/2 FEET OVER TOP OF PIPE SHALL BE MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE WATERLINE AND SERVICE LINE INSTALLATION, PARTICULARLY IN AREAS OF NEW GRADING AND DRAINAGE SWALES. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE COVER SHALL BE 6 FEET, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY APPROVED BY THE DISTRICT. 16.CONNECTION TO EXISTING SYSTEM: ALL CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING WATERLINES SHALL BE COMPLETED AT THE DEVELOPER'S EXPENSE. 17.INSPECTION: THE DISTRICT SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN AN INSPECTOR WHO SHALL INSPECT, CHECK AND VERIFY THAT ANY AND ALL WORK, INCLUDING ALL MATERIALS TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE WORK, EXCAVATION, BEDDING, BACKFILL, TESTING AND ALL CONSTRUCTION METHODS AND PRACTICES OF THE INSTALLED FACILITIES IS EQUAL TO OR BETTER THAN MINIMUM CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS AS SET FORTH IN THE DISTRICT'S SPECIFICATIONS. 18.TESTING: ALL LINES SHALL BE PRESSURE TESTED, CHLORINATED AND FLUSHED BY THE CONTRACTOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH DISTRICT SPECIFICATIONS AND UNDER THE DISTRICT'S SUPERVISION. UPON PASSING CHLORINATION TESTING, BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING WILL BE COMPLETED BY A STATE CERTIFIED WATER QUALITY CONTROL LABORATORY. COPIES OF ALL PASSING TEST RESULTS, INCLUDING SOILS COMPACTION IN THE AREA OF WATER MAIN CONSTRUCTION, SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE DISTRICT. 19.PRELIMINARY ACCEPTANCE: PRELIMINARY ACCEPTANCE SHALL BE ISSUED TO THE OWNER WHEN ALL PROJECT WORK IS COMPLETE, TESTED AND OPERATIONAL SUCH THAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS READY TO BE ACCEPTED BY THE DISTRICT. DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY ACCEPTANCE INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO BACTERIOLOGICAL TEST REPORT, FLUSHING REPORT, HYDROTEST REPORT, COMPACTION TESTING REPORTS WITH MAP OF TEST LOCATIONS, STATEMENT OF WATER LINE INSTALLATION COSTS, AS-BUILT DRAWINGS AND RECORD DRAWINGS. FOLLOWING RECEIPT, REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE BY THE DISTRICT OF THESE AND OTHER DOCUMENTS AS MAY BE REQUIRED PER PROJECT SPECIFICS, THE DISTRICT WILL ISSUE PRELIMINARY ACCEPTANCE. 20.PROJECT AS-BUILT AND RECORD DRAWING REQUIREMENTS: A. AS-BUILT DRAWINGS ARE COMPILED AND MAINTAINED DURING CONSTRUCTION BY THE CONTRACTOR AND IDENTIFY, IN RED INK, ON-SITE CHANGES TO THE ORIGINAL DESIGN. AS-BUILT DRAWINGS SHALL BE DELIVERED TO THE DISTRICT (ELECTRONICALLY IN PDF FORMAT OR OTHERWISE AS REQUESTED BY THE DISTRICT) FOR ACCEPTANCE AND TO THE PROJECT'S DESIGN ENGINEER FOR CREATION OF RECORD DRAWINGS. B. RECORD DRAWINGS ARE PREPARED BY THE PROJECT'S DESIGN ENGINEER AND SHALL ACCURATELY REFLECT ANY CHANGE MADE IN THE FIELD WHICH VARIES FROM THE ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PLANS, AS NOTED IN THE AS-BUILT DRAWINGS, INCLUDING AT A MINIMUM, FIELD DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS, HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LOCATIONS OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND APPURTENANCES. THE CONTRACTOR'S SURVEYOR SHALL SURVEY IN ALL FITTINGS, VALVES, WATER SERVICE CURB STOPS AND OTHER APPURTENANCES SO AS TO ACCURATELY DOCUMENT AND CREATE A FINAL SET OF RECORD DRAWINGS WITH WATER LINE, FITTING AND APPURTENANCE LOCATIONS THAT ACCURATELY REPRESENTS THE FINAL, INSTALLED INFRASTRUCTURE. THE RECORD DRAWINGS SHALL BE REVIEWED AND ACCEPTED BY THE DISTRICT PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROJECT. RECORD DRAWINGS ARE TO BE DELIVERED TO THE DISTRICT IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT AS ADOBE (PDF), AUTOCAD AND ARCVIEW SHAPE FILES (RELEASE VERSION TO BE CONFIRMED WITH DISTRICT AT TIME OF SUBMITTAL). 21.WARRANTY: THE OWNER/DEVELOPER SHALL WARRANT ALL WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE WATERLINE INSTALLATION INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE MATERIALS, INSTALLATION WORKMANSHIP AND SURFACE RESTORATION FOR A PERIOD OF TWO (2) YEARS FROM DATE OF PRELIMINARY ACCEPTANCE. DURING THIS WARRANTY PERIOD THE OWNER/DEVELOPER SHALL REPAIR ANY DEFECTS IN THE WORK AND MAINTAIN THE WORK AREA. AT THE CLOSE OF THE TWO-YEAR WARRANTY PERIOD AND UPON SATISFACTORY CORRECTION OF ANY DEFICIENCIES NOTED, THE DISTRICT SHALL ACCEPT THE CONSTRUCTED LINES AND APPURTENANCES AS THE SOLE PROPERTY AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DISTRICT. BOXELDER GENERAL NOTES: 1. EXISTING UTILITY LOCATES: IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE FIELD LOCATES OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO NOTIFY ALL AFFECTED UTILITY COMPANIES PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION. IN THE EVENT OF DAMAGE TO ANY EXISTING UTILITY, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE OWNER OF THE UTILITY INVOLVED AND UNLESS AUTHORIZED IN WRITING BY THE OWNER OF THE SUBJECT UTILITY, SHALL NOT ATTEMPT TO MAKE REPAIRS. THE COST OF REPAIRS SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. 2. DISTRICT OWNED EASEMENT PICTURES: CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE SEQUENTIAL DIGITAL PICTURES SPACED AT NO MORE THAN 300 FEET DETAILING CONDITIONS OF THE OFF-SITE BOXELDER OWNED EASEMENT CONDITIONS AND ANY STRUCTURES THAT COULD BE AFFECTED, TO THE DISTRICT AND THE PROPERTY OWNER PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY OFF-SITE WORK. THESE PICTURES SHALL INCLUDE ALL EXISTING FENCE, DITCHES, DITCH STRUCTURES, OUT BUILDINGS, WATER TROUGHS, TREES AND ALL OTHER LANDSCAPING. PICTURES ARE TO BE PLACED AT NO MORE THAN FOUR (4) PICTURES ON A 11X8 SHEET OF PHOTO PAPER INSERTED INTO TRANSPARENT SLEEVES AND DELIVERED WITH THE DRAWINGS OF RECORD IN A THREE (3) RING BINDER. 3. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY: CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTINUOUSLY MAINTAIN ADEQUATE PROTECTION FROM DAMAGE OF ALL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROPERTY THROUGH WHICH THE WORK IS DONE. 4. SAFETY: ALL SEWER MAIN INSTALLATION WITHIN THE DISTRICT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO CURRENT (OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEATH ASSOCIATION (OSHA) AND THE COLORADO SAFETY ASSOCIATION, (CSA) SAFETY REQUIREMENTS. CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO COMPLY WITH ANY AND ALL REQUIREMENTS AND REGULATIONS AS SET FORTH BY CITY, COUNTY, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES HAVING APPLICABLE AUTHORITY. 5. START OF CONSTRUCTION: NO CONSTRUCTION SHALL BEGIN WITHOUT PRIOR DESIGN REVIEW OF THE DISTRICT. THE DISTRICT SHALL BE NOTIFIED 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF STARTING CONSTRUCTION OR TESTING TO ALLOW FOR SCHEDULING. 6. ROAD EXCAVATION PERMITS: IN EVENT THAT STATE, COUNTY OR CITY ROAD EXCAVATION PERMIT(S) ARE REQUIRED, THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL ROAD PERMITS WHICH MAY BE REQUIRED. 7. OTHER PERMITS: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL PERMITS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION. 8. REVISIONS: NO VERBAL AUTHORIZATION FOR FIELD REVISION SHALL BE GIVEN. ALL REQUESTS FOR FIELD REVISION SHALL BE MADE IN WRITING ACCOMPANIED BY PROPOSED CHANGE INDICATED ON COPY OF THE APPROVED DESIGN DRAWINGS. ANY FIELD REVISION APPROVED AND INSTALLED SHALL ALSO BE ACCURATELY DOCUMENTED ON THE DRAWINGS OF RECORD. 9. MATERIALS: PLASTIC PIPE -ALL GRAVITY SANITARY SEWER PIPING SHALL BE POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (PVC) UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE APPROVED DRAWINGS. PIPE 15” AND SMALLER SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM D3034, TYPE PSM, AND SDR 35. PIPE 18” AND LARGER SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM F679. ALL FITTINGS SHALL BE (PVC) UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 10. PIPE COVER: A MINIMUM COVER OF 3-1/2 FEET OF COVER SHALL BE MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE SEWER LINE AND SERVICE LINE INSTALLATION. 11. BEDDING: ALL SEWER MAIN INSTALLATION SHALL INCLUDE BEDDING. BEDDING SHALL BE ¾” WASHED ROCK UNIFORMLY GRADED AND COMPACTED. REFER TO FORCE MAIN DESGIN FOR FORCE MAIN BEDDING REQUIREMENTS. TRENCH SHALL BE EXCAVATED TO A DEPTH BELOW ESTABLISHED GRADE EQUAL TO ¼ OF PIPE DIAMETER (MIN. 4”). BELL DEPRESSIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL JOINTS. IN EVENT THAT UNSTABLE TRENCH CONDITIONS ARE ENCOUNTERED AT PIPELINE GRADE 1-1/2” UNIFORMLY GRADED WASHED ROCK SHALL BE USED FOR STABILIZATION. BEDDING MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED AND COMPACTED UNDER AND AROUND SIDES OF THE PIPE. PLACE BEDDING IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO PROVIDE SOLID, UNIFORM BEARING SURFACE FOR FULL LENGTH OF BARREL. MINIMUM 30” INITIAL LIFT ABOVE PIPE BEFORE OTHER THAN HAND COMPACTION EQUIPMENT IS TO BE USED. NOTE MAXIMUM TRENCH WIDTH DETAIL. 12. BACKFILL: BACKFILLING OF TRENCH SHALL BE PERFORMED AS SOON AS PRACTICAL, SUBSEQUENT TO INSPECTION AND APPROVAL. BACKFILLING OF ACCEPTABLE MATERIAL SHALL NOT BE PLACED IN LIFTS OF GREATER THAN ONE (1) FOOT. BACKFILL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 95% OF OPTIMUM DENSITY IN ROADWAY AND RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND 90% IN ALL OFF-SITE EASEMENT AREAS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. COMPACTION TESTING OF BEDDING AND BACK FILL SHALL BE AT LEAST FIVE TESTS PER 1,000 FEET AND AT VARYING DEPTHS AND LOCATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPLICABLE AUTHORITY OR AS REQUIRED IN PROJECT SPECIFIC SPECIFICATIONS. 13. CONCRETE: ALL CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE COMPLETED UTILIZING 3,000 PSI AT TWENTY-EIGHT (28) DAYS OR EQUAL CONCRETE. 14. PAVEMENT OR OTHER REPAIRS: IN EVENT THAT ASPHALT OR CONCRETE PAVEMENT, SIDEWALKS, STORM SEWERS, WATERLINE OR ANY OTHER PUBLIC OR PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY IS DAMAGED OR REQUIRES RECONSTRUCTION DUE TO THE WORK, REPAIRS OR REPLACEMENT WILL BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPROPRIATE GOVERNING AUTHORITY. PRIVATE PROPERTY WILL BE RETURNED TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION OR AS CLOSE TO ORIGINAL CONDITION AS REASONABLY POSSIBLE, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS. 15. SERVICE TAPS ON EXISTING LINES: ALL TAPS MADE ON EXISTING LINES SHALL BE COMPLETED AT DEVELOPER'S EXPENSE BY DISTRICT PERSONNEL OR THE DISTRICT'S AUTHORIZED CONTRACTOR WITH NO EXCEPTION. 16. INSPECTION: CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO DISTRICT STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS OR PROJECT SPECIFIC SPECIFICATIONS AT ALL TIMES. THE DISTRICT SHALL INSPECT THE CONSTRUCTION AS NECESSARY AND SHALL OBSERVE ALL LINE TESTING. THE DISTRICT SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ASCERTAIN THAT ALL CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES IS EQUAL TO OR BETTER THAN MINIMUM CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS AS SET FORTH IN. 17. TESTING: ALL LINES SHALL BE PRESSURE TESTED AND FLUSHED BY THE CONTRACTOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH DISTRICT STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND UNDER THE DISTRICT'S SUPERVISION. UPON PASSING, COPIES OF ALL PASSING TEST RESULTS INCLUDING SOILS COMPACTION IN THE AREA OF SEWER MAIN CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE DISTRICT. 18. ACCEPTANCE: UPON COMPLETION OF ALL UTILITY CONSTRUCTION (SEWER AND OTHER) AND FULFILLMENT OF ALL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS, PRELIMINARY ACCEPTANCE OF NEW SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS WILL OCCUR IN ACCORDANCE WITH DISTRICT'S ACCEPTANCE PROCEDURE. 19. WARRANTY: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL WARRANT THE MATERIALS, INSTALLATION, WORKMANSHIP AND SURFACE RESTORATION FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS FROM DATE OF PRELIMINARY ACCEPTANCE. DURING THIS WARRANTY PERIOD THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROMPTLY REPAIR ANY DEFECTS IN THE WORK AND MAINTAIN THE WORK AREA. AT THE CLOSE OF THE TWO-YEAR WARRANTY PERIOD THE DISTRICT WILL MAKE A FIELD INSPECTION. UPON SATISFACTORY CORRECTION OF ANY DEFICIENCIES NOTED THE DISTRICT WOULD MAKE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE LINES AND WORK. THE LINES AND THE APPURTENANCES SHALL THEN BECOME THE SOLE PROPERTY AND RESPONSIBILITY OF BOXELDER SANITATION DISTRICT. 20. DRAWINGS OF RECORD AND TOTAL COSTS: WITHIN 90 DAYS OF PRELIMINARY ACCEPTANCE OF THE NEW FACILITIES, THE DISTRICT SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH ACCEPTABLE DRAWINGS OF RECORD OF THE COMPLETE SYSTEM CONSISTING OF TWO SETS OF FILL SIZE REPRODUCED PRINTS, TWO SETS OF ½-SIZE REPRODUCED PRINTS, ONE SET OF 6 MIL DOUBLE MATTED REPRODUCIBLE MYLARS AND ONE COMPLETE DIGITAL FILE EQUIVALENT (SOFTWARE AND VERSION TO BE CONFIRMED AT TIME OF DELIVERY). WRITTEN CONFIRMATION OF THE TOTAL COST OF ALL SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS SHALL ALSO BE SUBMITTED WITH THE DRAWINGS OF RECORD. UNKNOWN SUBSURFACE PROTOCOLS 1. THESE PLANS DISPLAY SUBSURFACE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY OTHERS. REASONABLE EFFORTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO VERIFY THIS INFORMATION AND ACCOUNT FOR IT IN THE ENGINEERING DESIGN, HOWEVER IT IS POSSIBLE, IF NOT LIKELY, THAT UNKNOWN SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS WILL BE ENCOUNTERED DURING CONSTRUCTION. THESE CONDITIONS MAY HAVE COST AND SCHEDULE IMPLICATIONS TO THE PROJECT. PRIOR TO FINALIZING CONTRACT TERMS, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE OWNER AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR FORMULATE A STRATEGY FOR DEALING WITH THESE SITUATIONS SHOULD THEY ARISE. THE ARCHITECT, ENGINEER(S) AND CONSTRUCTION SURVEYOR SHALL BE MADE AWARE OF ANY PROTOCOLS PUT IN PLACE BY THE OWNER AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO STARTING CONSTRUCTION. THESE NOTES ARE A SUMMARY FOR THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS, THAT ARE SET FORTH IN THE FORT COLLINS STORMWATER CRITERIA MANUAL (FCSCM), AND THAT ANY CONFLICT IS RESOLVED BY THE MORE STRINGENT REQUIREMENT CONTROLLING. 1. THE PROPERTY OWNER, OWNER’S REPRESENTATIVE, DEVELOPER, DESIGN ENGINEER, GENERAL CONTRACTOR, SUB-CONTRACTORS, OR SIMILAR TITLE FOR THE DEVELOPING ENTITY (HERE AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE DEVELOPER) HAS PROVIDED THESE EROSION CONTROL MATERIALS IN ACCORDANCE WITH EROSION CONTROL CRITERIA SET FORTH IN THE MANUAL AS AN ATTEMPT TO IDENTIFY EROSION, SEDIMENT, AND OTHER POTENTIAL POLLUTANT SOURCES ASSOCIATED WITH THESE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND PREVENTING THOSE POLLUTANTS FROM LEAVING THE PROJECT SITE AS AN ILLICIT DISCHARGE. FULL CITY REQUIREMENTS AND ARE OUTLINED AND CLARIFIED IN THE MANUAL UNDER CHAPTER 4: CONSTRUCTION CONTROL MEASURES AND SHOULD BE USED TO IDENTIFY AND DEFINE WHAT IS NEEDED ON A PROJECT. 2. THE DEVELOPER SHALL MAKE THEMSELVES THOROUGHLY FAMILIAR WITH THE PROVISIONS AND THE CONTENT OF THE SPECIFICATIONS LAID OUT IN THE MANUAL, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THE EROSION CONTROL MATERIALS COMPILED FOR THIS PROJECT, AND THE FOLLOWING NOTES AS ALL THESE MATERIALS ARE APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT. 3. THE DEVELOPER SHALL IMPLEMENT AND MAINTAIN CONTROL MEASURES FOR ALL POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS FROM THE START OF LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES UNTIL FINAL STABILIZATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. 4. THE CITY EROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR SHALL BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST TWENTY-FOUR (24) HOURS PRIOR TO THE DESIRED START OF ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ON THIS SITE TO ALLOW ADEQUATE TIME FOR ON-SITE CONFIRMATION (INITIAL INSPECTION WHICH CAN TAKE UP TO TWO BUSINESS DAYS AFTER RECEIVING THE REQUEST) THAT THE SITE IS IN FACT PROTECTED FROM SEDIMENT AND POLLUTANTS DISCHARGES OFF SITE. PLEASE CONTACT EROSION@FCGOV.COM EARLY TO SCHEDULE THOSE INITIAL EROSION CONTROL INSPECTIONS WELL IN ADVANCE SO THAT DEMOLITION, CLEARING, GRUBBING, TREE REMOVAL, AND SCRAPING MAY BEGIN WITHOUT DELAY. FAILURE TO RECEIVE AN ON-SITE CONFIRMATION BEFORE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES COMMENCE IS AN AUTOMATIC “NOTICE OF VIOLATION” AND CAN RESULT IN FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS. 5. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROACTIVELY PROVIDE ALL APPROPRIATE CONTROL MEASURES TO PREVENT DAMAGE TO ADJACENT DOWNSTREAM AND LEEWARD PROPERTIES. THIS INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO: TREES, SHRUBS, LAWNS, WALKS, PAVEMENTS, ROADWAYS, STRUCTURES, CREEKS, WETLANDS, STREAMS, RIVERS, AND UTILITIES THAT ARE NOT DESIGNED FOR REMOVAL, RELOCATION, OR REPLACEMENT IN THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION. 6. AT ALL TIMES THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO ENSURE ADEQUATE CONTROL MEASURES ARE DESIGNED, SELECTED, INSTALLED, MAINTAIN, REPAIRED, REPLACED, AND ULTIMATELY REMOVED IN ORDER TO PREVENT AND CONTROL EROSION SUSPENSION, SEDIMENT TRANSPORTATION, AND POLLUTANT DISCHARGE AS A RESULT OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT. 7. ALL APPLICABLE CONTROL MEASURES BASED UPON THE SEQUENCING AND/OR PHASING OF THE PROJECT SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO THOSE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES COMMENCING. 8. AS DYNAMIC CONDITIONS (DUE TO THE NATURE, TIMING, SEQUENCE, AND PHASING OF CONSTRUCTION) IN THE FIELD MAY WARRANT CONTROL MEASURES IN ADDITION, OR DIFFERENT, TO WHAT IS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS, THE DEVELOPER SHALL AT ALL TIMES BE RESPONSIBLE TO IMPLEMENT THE CONTROL MEASURES THAT ARE MOST EFFECTIVE WITH THE CURRENT STATE AND PROGRESS OF CONSTRUCTION. THE DEVELOPER SHALL IMPLEMENT WHATEVER MEASURES ARE DETERMINED NECESSARY, AND/OR AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY EROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR. THE DEVELOPER SHALL INSURE THAT ALL EROSION CONTROL PLANS (MAPS) OR SWMP DOCUMENTS ARE UPDATED TO REFLECT THE CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS, WITH UPDATES BEING INITIALED AND DATED. THESE SITE INSPECTIONS AND SITE CONDITION UPDATES SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST BY THE CITY. 9. ALL LISTINGS, PROVISIONS, MATERIALS, PROCEDURES, ACTIVITIES, SITE WORK AND THE LIKE ARTICULATED IN THIS OR OTHER WRITTEN SITE-SPECIFIC DOCUMENTS (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE EROSION CONTROL REPORTS, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS, LANDSCAPE, AND DRAINAGE MATERIALS) SHALL MEET OR EXCEED THE MOST RESTRICTIVE LANGUAGE FOR CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS WITH REGARDS TO EROSION, SEDIMENT, POLLUTANT, AND OTHER POLLUTION SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES. THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO COMPLY WITH ALL OF THESE AFOREMENTIONED LAWS AND REGULATIONS. 10. THE DEVELOPER SHALL ENSURE THAT ALL APPROPRIATE PERMITS (CDPS GENERAL PERMIT STORMWATER DISCHARGES ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, DEWATERING, CLEAN WATER ACT, ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS’ 404 WETLANDS MITIGATION PERMIT, ETC.) HAVE BEEN ATTAINED PRIOR TO THE RELEVANT ACTIVITY HAS BEGUN. THESE PERMITS OR COPIES SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST BY THE CITY. 11. THE DEVELOPER SHALL FURNISH ALL CONVENIENCES AND ASSISTANCES TO AID THE EROSION CONTROL INSPECTORS OF MATERIALS, WORKMANSHIP, RECORDS, AND SELF-INSPECTIONS, ETC. OF THE CONTROL MEASURES INVOLVED IN THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. 12. THE DEVELOPER SHALL REQUEST CLARIFICATION OF ALL APPARENT SITE CONSTRUCTION ISSUES THAT MAY ARISE DUE TO INCONSISTENCIES IN CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR THE SITE OR SITE CONDITIONS AROUND THE SELECTED CONTROL MEASURES BY CONTACTING THE EROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR. THE EROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY EXPLANATIONS, INTERPRETATIONS, OR SUPPLEMENTARY DATA PROVIDED BY OTHERS. 13. ALL CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUAL. 14. THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL CONTROL MEASURES AS SITE CONDITIONS WARRANT, TO THE EXTENT AUTHORIZED BY RELEVANT LEGAL AUTHORITY. 15. AS WITH ANY CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS, OCCASIONS MAY ARISE WHERE THE MINIMUM EROSION CONTROL STANDARDS ARE EITHER INAPPROPRIATE OR CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED. IN THESE CASES, A VARIANCE TO THESE STANDARDS MAY BE APPLIED FOR PURSUANT TO THE TERMS, CONDITIONS, AND PROCEDURES OF THE MANUAL. 16. INSPECTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT SITE POLLUTANT SOURCES AND IMPLEMENT CONTROL MEASURES AT A MINIMUM OF ONCE EVERY TWO WEEKS DURING CONSTRUCTION AND WITHIN 24 HOURS FOLLOWING A PRECIPITATION EVENT. DOCUMENTATION OF EACH INSPECTION SHALL BE RECORDED AND RETAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR. 17. ALL TEMPORARY CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE CLEANED, REPAIRED, OR RECONSTRUCTED AS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO ASSURE CONTINUAL PERFORMANCE OF THEIR INTENDED FUNCTION. ALL RETAINED SEDIMENTS, PARTICULARLY THOSE ON PAVED ROADWAY SURFACES, SHALL BE REMOVED AND DISPOSED OF IN A MANNER AND LOCATION SO AS NOT TO CAUSE THEIR RELEASE INTO ANY DRAINAGE WAY. 18. ANY CONTROL MEASURE MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR ANOTHER STANDARD CONTROL MEASURE SO LONG AS THAT CONTROL MEASURE IS EQUAL TO, OR OF GREATER PROTECTION THAN THE ORIGINAL CONTROL MEASURE THAT WAS TO BE USED IN THAT LOCATION. (EX. SILT FENCE, FOR WATTLES, OR FOR COMPACT BERMS) WATTLE ALONE ON COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION SITES HAVE SHOWN TO BE AN INEFFECTIVE SUBSTITUTE FOR SILT FENCE OR COMPACT BERMS UNLESS IT IS ACCOMPANIED BY A CONSTRUCTION FENCE TO PREVENT VEHICLE TRAFFIC. 19. ANY IMPLEMENTATION OR REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING CONTROL MEASURES FOR A NON-STANDARD CONTROL, OR ALTERNATIVE CONTROL MEASURE, SHALL REQUIRE THE REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY EROSION CONTROL STAFF BEFORE THE MEASURE WILL BE ALLOWED TO BE USED ON THIS PROJECT. THESE CONTROL MEASURES’ DETAILS SHALL BE SUBMITTED, REVIEWED AND ACCEPTED TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EROSION CONTROL CRITERIA BASED UPON THE FUNCTIONALITY AND EFFECTIVENESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SOUND ENGINEERING AND HYDROLOGICAL PRACTICES LAND DISTURBANCE, STOCKPILES, AND STORAGE OF SOILS 20. THERE SHALL BE NO EARTH-DISTURBING ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE LIMITS DESIGNATED ON THE ACCEPTED PLANS. OFF ROAD STAGING AREAS OR STOCKPILES MUST BE PREAPPROVED BY THE CITY. DISTURBANCES BEYOND THESE LIMITS WILL BE RESTORED TO ORIGINAL CONDITION. 21. PRE-DISTURBANCE VEGETATION SHALL BE IDENTIFIED, PROTECTED, AND RETAINED WHEREVER POSSIBLE. REMOVAL OR DISTURBANCE OF EXISTING VEGETATION SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE AREA REQUIRED FOR IMMEDIATE CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS, AND FOR THE SHORTEST PRACTICAL PERIOD OF TIME. THIS SHOULD INCLUDE SEQUENCING AND PHASING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES IN A WAY SO THAT THE SOIL IS NOT EXPOSED FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME BY SCHEDULE OR LIMIT GRADING TO SMALL AREAS. THIS SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE WHEN PRACTICAL ADVANCING THE SCHEDULE ON STABILIZATION ACTIVITIES SUCH THAT LANDSCAPING TAKES PLACE SHORTLY IF NOT IMMEDIATELY AFTER GRADING HAS OCCURRED. VEGETATION EFFORTS SHALL START AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO RETURN THE SITE TO A STABILIZED CONDITION. SENSITIVE AREAS SHOULD AVOID CLEARING AND GRADING ACTIVITIES AS MUCH POSSIBLE. 22. ALL EXPOSED SOILS OR DISTURBED AREAS ARE CONSIDERED A POTENTIAL POLLUTANT AND SHALL HAVE CONTROL MEASURES IMPLEMENTED ON THE SITE TO PREVENT MATERIALS FROM LEAVING THE SITE. 23. ALL SOILS EXPOSED DURING LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY (STRIPPING, GRADING, UTILITY INSTALLATIONS, STOCKPILING, FILLING, ETC.) SHALL BE KEPT IN A ROUGHENED CONDITION AT ALL TIMES BY EQUIPMENT TRACKING, SCARIFYING OR DISKING THE SURFACE ON A CONTOUR WITH A 2 TO 4 INCH MINIMUM VARIATION IN SOIL SURFACE UNTIL MULCH, VEGETATION, AND/OR OTHER PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL IS INSTALLED. 24. NO SOIL STOCKPILE SHALL EXCEED TEN (10) FEET IN HEIGHT. ALL SOIL STOCKPILES SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM SEDIMENT TRANSPORT THROUGH THE USE OF SURFACE ROUGHENING, WATERING, AND DOWN GRADIENT PERIMETER CONTROLS. ALL SOIL STOCKPILES SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM SEDIMENT TRANSPORT BY WIND IN ACCORDANCE WITH MUNICIPAL CODE §12-150. ALL STOCKPILES SHALL BE FLATTENED TO MEET GRADE OR REMOVED FROM SITE AS SOON AS PRACTICAL, AND NO LATER THAN THE COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES OR ABANDONMENT OF THE PROJECT. ALL OFF-SITE STOCKPILE STORAGE LOCATIONS IN CITY LIMITS SHALL HAVE A STOCKPILE PERMIT FROM THE CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO USING THE AREA TO STORE MATERIAL. IF FREQUENT ACCESS FROM HARDSCAPE TO THE STOCKPILE IS NEEDED A STRUCTURAL TRACKING CONTROL MEASURE SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED. 25. ALL REQUIRED CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY (STOCKPILING, STRIPPING, GRADING, ETC.). ALL OF THE REQUIRED EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MUST BE INSTALLED AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME IN THE CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE AS INDICATED IN THE APPROVED PROJECT SCHEDULE, CONSTRUCTION PLANS, AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT. 26. ALL INLETS, CURB-CUTS, CULVERTS, AND OTHER STORM SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE WHICH COULD BE POTENTIALLY IMPACTED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE PROTECTED WITH CONTROL MEASURES. MATERIAL ACCUMULATED FROM THIS CONTROL MEASURE SHALL BE PROMPTLY REMOVED AND IN CASES WHERE THE PROTECTION HAS FAILED, THE PIPES SHALL BE THOROUGHLY CLEANED OUT. 27. ALL STREAMS, STREAM CORRIDORS, BUFFERS, WOODLANDS, WETLANDS, OR OTHER SENSITIVE AREAS SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM IMPACT BY ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY THROUGH THE USE OF CONTROL MEASURES. 28. ALL EXPOSED DIRT SHALL HAVE PERIMETER CONTROL. ANY PERIMETER CONTROLS THAT DRAIN OFF OR HAS THE ABILITY TO BE TRACKED ONTO THE NEARBY HARDSCAPE SHALL HAVE SOME FORM OF EFFECTIVE SEDIMENT CONTROL AS THE, OR AS PART OF THE, PERIMETER CONTROL. 29. ALL EXPOSED SLOPES SHOULD BE PROTECTED. ALL EXPOSED STEEP SLOPES (STEEPER THAN 3:1 H:V) SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM EROSION AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT THROUGH USE OF CONTROL MEASURES. 30. NO SOILS SHALL REMAIN EXPOSED BY LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY FOR MORE THAN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER ACTIVITY HAS CEASED BEFORE REQUIRED TEMPORARY SEEDING OR PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL (E.G. SEED/MULCH, LANDSCAPING, ETC.) IS INSTALLED. THIS IS NOT JUST LIMITED TO PROJECTS THAT ARE ABANDONED; THIS INCLUDES ANY PROJECT THAT IS TEMPORARILY HALTED AND NO IMMEDIATE ACTIVITY IS TO RESUME WITHIN THE NEXT THIRTY (30) DAYS, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE CITY EROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR. DURING A SEASON WHEN SEEDING DOES NOT PRODUCE VEGETATIVE COVER, ANOTHER TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED WITH OR UNTIL TEMPORARY SEEDING OR PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL CAN BE PERFORMED. 31. ALL INDIVIDUAL LOTS SHALL HAVE EFFECTIVE SEDIMENT CONTROLS LOCATED ON THE STREET SIDE AND ANY DOWN GRADIENT SIDE. TYPICALLY MOST LOTS DRAIN TO THE FRONT YET ON THOSE CASES WHERE HOUSES ARE ALONG A POND OR DRAINAGE SWALE HAVE THE LOT DRAIN IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION THAN THE STREET, THOSE INDIVIDUAL LOTS WILL NEED PROTECTION ON THAT DOWN GRADIENT SIDE TO PREVENT SEDIMENT FROM LEAVING THE LOT. SEE THE INDIVIDUAL LOT DETAILS FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION. VEHICLE TRACKING 32. AT ALL POINTS WHERE VEHICLES EXIT OR LEAVE THE EXPOSED DIRT AREA ON TO A HARDSCAPE OR SEMI HARDSCAPE (CONCRETE, ASPHALT, ROAD BASE, ETC.) SHALL HAVE INSTALLED AT LEAST ONE STRUCTURAL TRACKING CONTROL MEASURE TO PREVENT VEHICLE TRACKING. ALL AREAS NOT PROTECTED BY AN ADEQUATE PERIMETER CONTROL SHALL BE CONSIDERED A POINT WHERE VEHICLES EXIT THE SITE. ACCESS POINTS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO AS FEW ENTRANCES AS POSSIBLE (ALL PERIMETER AREAS SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM TRACKING ACTIVITIES). 33. IN ALL AREAS THAT THE STRUCTURAL TRACKING CONTROL MEASURES FAIL TO PREVENT VEHICLE TRACKING, COLLECTION AND PROPER DISPOSAL OF THAT MATERIAL IS REQUIRED. ALL INLETS LOCATED NEAR ACCESS POINTS AND AFFECTED BY TRACKING ACTIVITIES SHALL BE PREVENTED FROM THE INTRODUCTION OF SEDIMENT INTO THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM. 34. CITY MUNICIPAL CODE §20-62, AMONG OTHER THINGS, PROHIBITS THE TRACKING, DROPPING, OR DEPOSITING OF SOILS OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL ONTO CITY STREETS BY OR FROM ANY SOURCE. CITY MUNICIPAL CODE, §26-498, AMONG OTHER THINGS, PROHIBITS THE DISCHARGE OF POLLUTANTS ON PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY IF THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL FOR MIGRATION OF SUCH POLLUTANT. THEREFORE, ALL TRACKED OR DEPOSITED MATERIALS (INTENTIONAL OR INADVERTENT) ARE NOT PERMITTED TO REMAIN ON THE STREET OR GUTTER AND SHALL BE REMOVED AND LEGALLY DISPOSED OF BY THE DEVELOPER IN A TIMELY AND IMMEDIATE MANNER. DIRT RAMPS INSTALLED IN THE CURB-LINES ARE NOT EXEMPT TO THESE SECTIONS OF CODE AND SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED IN THE STREET RIGHT OF WAY (PUBLIC OR PRIVATE). 35. IF REPEATED DEPOSIT OF MATERIAL OCCURS ON A SITE, ADDITIONAL STRUCTURAL TRACKING CONTROLS MAY BE REQUIRED OF THE DEVELOPER BY THE CITY EROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR. LOADING AND UNLOADING OPERATIONS 36. THE DEVELOPER SHALL APPLY CONTROL MEASURE TO LIMIT TRAFFIC (SITE WORKER OR PUBLIC) IMPACTS AND PROACTIVELY LOCATE MATERIAL DELIVERED TO THE SITE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE WORK AREA OR IMMEDIATELY INCORPORATED IN THE CONSTRUCTION TO LIMIT OPERATIONAL IMPACTS TO DISTURBED AREAS, VEHICLE TRACKING, AND SEDIMENT DEPOSITION THAT COULD IMPACT WATER QUALITY. OUTDOOR STORAGE OR CONSTRUCTION SITE MATERIALS, BUILDING MATERIALS, FERTILIZERS, AND CHEMICALS 37. ANY MATERIALS OF A NON-POLLUTING NATURE (STEEL, ROCK, BRICK, LUMBER, ETC.) SHALL BE INSPECTED FOR ANY RESIDUE COMING OFF THE MATERIAL DURING ROUTINE INSPECTION AND WILL GENERALLY BE LOCATED WHERE PRACTICAL AT LEAST FIFTY (50) FEET FROM ANY PERMANENT OR INTERIM DRAINAGE WAYS. 38. ANY HIGH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT POLLUTANT MATERIALS THAT HAVE A HIGH LIKELIHOOD TO RESULT IN DISCHARGE WHEN IN CONTACT WITH STORMWATER (LUBRICANTS, FUELS, PAINTS, SOLVENTS, DETERGENTS, FERTILIZERS, CHEMICAL SPRAYS, BAGS OF CEMENT MIX, ETC.) SHOULD NOT BE KEPT ON SITE WHERE PRACTICAL. WHEN NOT PRACTICAL, THEY SHOULD BE STORED INSIDE (VEHICLE, TRAILER, CONNEX, BUILDING, ETC.) AND OUT OF CONTACT WITH STORMWATER OR STORMWATER RUNOFF. WHERE NOT AVAILABLE, THEY SHALL BE STORED OUTSIDE IN A RAISED (HIGH SPOTS OR ON PALLETS), COVERED (PLASTIC OR TARPED), AND SEALED (LEAK PROOF CONTAINER) IN SECONDARY CONTAINMENT LOCATION. THE SECONDARY CONTAINMENT OR OTHER CONTROL MEASURE SHALL BE ADEQUATELY SIZED, LOCATED, WHERE PRACTICAL, AT LEAST FIFTY (50) FEET FROM ANY PERMANENT OR INTERIM STORMWATER STRUCTURES OR DRAINAGE WAYS AND SHALL BE MONITORED AS PART OF THE ROUTINE INSPECTIONS. VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AND FUELING 39. PARKING, REFUELING, AND MAINTENANCE OF VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE LIMITED IN ONE AREA OF THE SITE TO MINIMIZE POSSIBLE SPILLS AND FUEL STORAGE AREAS. THIS AREA SHALL BE LOCATED, WHERE PRACTICAL, AT LEAST FIFTY (50) FEET FROM ANY PERMANENT OR INTERIM STORMWATER STRUCTURES OR DRAINAGE WAYS AND SHALL BE MONITORED AS PART OF THE ROUTINE INSPECTIONS. ALL AREAS SHALL KEEP SPILL KITS AND SUPPLIES CLOSE. SIGNIFICANT DUST OR PARTICULATE GENERATING PROCESS 40. THE PROPERTY MUST BE ACTIVELY PREVENTING THE EMISSION OF FUGITIVE DUST AT ALL TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION AND VEGETATION ACTIVITIES. ALL LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES THAT RESULT IN FUGITIVE DUST SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH MUNICIPAL CODE §12-150 TO REDUCE THE IMPACTS TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND COMMUNITY HEALTH. ALL REQUIRED PRACTICES SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED AND ADDITIONAL ONES SHALL BE FOLLOWED. THESE PRACTICES INCLUDE WATERING THE SITES AND DISCONTINUING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES UNTIL THE WIND SUBSIDES AS DETERMINED BY ANY CITY INSPECTORS. CONCRETE TRUCK / EQUIPMENT WASHING, INCLUDING THE CONCRETE TRUCK CHUTE AND ASSOCIATED FIXTURES AND EQUIPMENT. 41. ALL CONCRETE AND EQUIPMENT WASHING SHALL USE STRUCTURAL CONTROL MEASURES APPROPRIATE TO THE VOLUME OF WASH AND FREQUENCY OF USE. THESE CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE LOCATED, WHERE PRACTICAL, AT LEAST FIFTY (50) FEET FROM ANY PERMANENT OR INTERIM STORMWATER STRUCTURES OR DRAINAGE WAYS AND SHALL BE MONITORED AS PART OF THE ROUTINE INSPECTIONS. THESE AREAS SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED AND PROTECTED FROM ANY WASH FROM LEAVING THE CONTROL MEASURE. IF FREQUENT ACCESS FROM HARDSCAPE TO THE CONTROL MEASURE IS TO OCCUR, A STRUCTURAL TRACKING CONTROL MEASURE SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED. THESE CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE FREQUENTLY CLEANED OUT. 42. THE DEVELOPER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING WASHING ACTIVITY IS TAKING PLACE AT THE APPROPRIATE CONTROL MEASURE AND SITE WORKERS ARE NOT WASHING OR DUMPING WASH WATER ON TO THE DIRT OR OTHER UNCONTROLLED LOCATIONS. DEDICATED ASPHALT AND CONCRETE BATCH PLANTS 43. DEDICATED ASPHALT AND CONCRETE BATCH PLANTS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE ON CONSTRUCTION SITES WITHIN THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WITHOUT AN EXPRESSED WRITTEN REQUEST AND PLAN TO REDUCE POLLUTANTS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT TYPE OF ACTIVITY AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS SPECIFICALLY THE EROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR. THE DEVELOPER SHALL INFORM THE EROSION CONTROL INSPECTION STAFF OF ANY DEDICATED ASPHALT, OR CONCRETE BATCH PLANTS THAT IS TO BE USED ON SITE. CONCRETE SAW CUTTING MATERIALS 44. SAW CUTTING MATERIAL SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH MUNICIPAL CODE §12-150 FOR AIR EMISSIONS AND ALL WATER APPLICATIONS TO THE SAW CUTTING SHALL PREVENT MATERIAL FROM LEAVING THE IMMEDIATE SITE AND COLLECTED. THESE CUTTING LOCATIONS, ONCE DRIED, SHALL BE SWEPT AND SCRAPED OF ALL MATERIAL AND SHALL HAVE PROPER AND LEGAL DISPOSAL. WASTE MATERIALS STORAGE AND SANITARY FACILITIES 45. TRASH, DEBRIS, MATERIAL SALVAGE, AND/OR RECYCLING AREAS SHALL BE, WHERE PRACTICAL, AT LEAST FIFTY (50) FEET FROM ANY PERMANENT OR INTERIM STORMWATER STRUCTURES OR DRAINAGE WAYS AND SHALL BE MONITORED AS PART OF THE ROUTINE INSPECTIONS. THESE FACILITIES SHOULD BE LOCATED OUT OF THE WIND AND COVERED AS ABLE. WHERE NOT ABLE TO COVER, LOCATING SAID AREAS ON THE SIDE OF OTHER STRUCTURES TO REDUCE EXPOSURE TO WINDS, AND FOLLOW MAXIMUM LOADING GUIDELINES AS MARKED ON THE CONTAINER. THE DEVELOPER IS REQUIRED TO PRACTICE GOOD HOUSEKEEPING TO KEEP THE CONSTRUCTION SITE FREE OF LITTER, CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS, AND LEAKING CONTAINERS. 46. SANITARY FACILITIES SHALL BE PREVENTED FROM TIPPING THROUGH THE USE OF ANCHORING TO THE GROUND OR LASHING TO A STABILIZED STRUCTURE. THESE FACILITIES SHALL ALSO BE LOCATED AS FAR AS PRACTICAL FROM AN INLET, CURB CUT, DRAINAGE SWALE OR OTHER DRAINAGE CONVEYANCES TO PREVENT MATERIAL TRANSPORT FROM LEAVING THE LOCAL AREA. THIS CONSISTS OF THE FACILITY BEING LOCATED, WHERE PRACTICAL, AT LEAST FIFTY (50) FEET FROM ANY PERMANENT OR INTERIM DRAINAGE WAYS. STANDARD EROSION CONTROL NOTES (CITY OF FORT COLLINS) ABBREVIATIONS CF = CONSTRUCTION FENCE CO = CLEANOUT CWA = CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA EV = ELECTRIC VEHICLE ELCO = EAST LARIMER COUNTY (WATER DISTRICT) FFE = FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS FG = FINISHED GRADE FL = FLOWLINE LOC = LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION ME = MATCH EXISTING MH = MANHOLE MJ = MECHANICAL JOINT RS = ROCK SOCK SF = SILT FENCE SP = TEMPORARY SOIL STOCKPILE SS = SANITARY SEWER SSA = STABILIZED STAGING AREA VTC = VEHICLE TRACKING CONTROL EAST LARIMER COUNTY WATER DISTRICT ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 154 ER O S I O N C O N T R O L & E A S T L A R I M E R C O U N T Y WA T E R D I S T R I C T N O T E S TH I S D O C U M E N T , T O G E T H E R W I T H T H E C O N C E P T S A N D D E S I G N S P R E S E N T E D H E R E I N , A S A N I N S T R U M E N T O F S E R V I C E , I S I N T E N D E D O N L Y F O R T H E S P E C I F I C P U R P O S E A N D C L I E N T F O R W H I C H I T W A S P R E P A R E D . R E U S E O F A N D I M P R O P E R R E L I A N C E O N T H I S D O C U M E N T W I T H O U T W R I T T E N A U T H O R I Z A T I O N A N D A D A P T A T I O N B Y K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . S H A L L B E W I T H O U T L I A B I L I T Y T O K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . R Know what's below. Call before you dig. DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: NO . RE V I S I O N BY D A T E © 2 0 2 3 K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . 33 2 5 S . T I M B E R L I N E R O A D , S U I T E 1 3 0 FO R T C O L L I N S , C O L O R A D O 8 0 5 2 5 ( 9 7 0 ) 8 2 2 - 7 9 1 1 FOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. CONSTRUCTION \\ k i m l e y - h o r n \ M P _ N C O \ N C O _ C i v i l \ 1 9 6 3 9 5 0 0 3 _ P r o s p e c t R i d g e M u l t i f a m i l y \ C A D D \ P l a n S h e e t s \ C - C O V R . d w g PROJECT NO. SHEET 07/25/25 AGR MH HPC OF 16 196395003 PR O S P E C T R I D G E M U L T I F A M I L Y PR E L I M I N A R Y U T I L I T Y P L A N S 4 OTHER SITE OPERATIONS AND POTENTIAL SPILL AREAS 47. SPILLS: FOR THOSE MINOR SPILLS THAT; ARE LESS THAN THE STATE’S REPORTABLE QUANTITY FOR SPILLS, STAY WITHIN THE PERMITTED AREA, AND IN NO WAY THREATEN ANY STORMWATER CONVEYANCE, NOTIFY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS UTILITIES BY EMAIL AT EROSION@FCGOV.COM OR PHONE (970) 817-4770. FOR ANY SIGNIFICANT, MAJOR, OR HAZARDOUS SPILLS, NOTIFY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS UTILITIES BY PHONE ONLY AFTER EMERGENCY RESPONSE (911) HAS BEEN NOTIFIED AND IS ON ROUTE, COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT (LCDHE) HAS BEEN NOTIFIED THROUGH LARIMER COUNTY SHERIFF DISPATCH (970) 416-1985, AND THE STATE SPILL HOTLINE INCIDENT REPORTING HAVE BEEN CONTACTED 1-877-518-5608. WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY WITHIN 5 DAYS OF THE EVENT. ALL SPILLS SHALL BE CLEANED UP IMMEDIATELY. 48. SELECTION OF “PLASTIC WELDED” EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS SHALL NOT BE USED IN AREAS THAT WILDLIFE, SUCH AS SNAKES, ARE LIKELY TO BE LOCATED AS THESE HAVE PROVEN TO CAUSE ENTRAPMENT ISSUES. FINAL STABILIZATION AND PROJECT COMPLETION 49. ANY STORMWATER FACILITIES USED AS A TEMPORARY CONTROL MEASURE WILL BE RESTORED AND STORM SEWER LINES WILL BE CLEANED UPON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT AND BEFORE TURNING THE MAINTENANCE OVER TO THE OWNER, HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION (HOA), OR OTHER PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR LONG TERM MAINTENANCE OF THOSE FACILITY. 50. ALL FINAL STABILIZATION SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUAL, CHAPTER 4: CONSTRUCTION CONTROL MEASURES. 51. ALL DISTURBED AREAS DESIGNED TO BE VEGETATED SHALL BE AMENDED, SEEDED & MULCHED, OR LANDSCAPED AS SPECIFIED IN THE LANDSCAPE PLANS AND PER CITY OF FORT COLLINS STANDARDS WITHIN 14 WORKING DAYS OF FINAL GRADING. 52. SOIL IN ALL VEGETATED (LANDSCAPED OR SEEDED) AREAS, INCLUDING PARKWAYS AND MEDIANS SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SECTIONS 12-130 THROUGH 12-132 OF THE CITY MUNICIPAL CODE, AS WELL AS SECTION 3.8.21 FOR THE CITY LAND USE CODE. 53. ALL SEEDING SHALL REFER TO LANDSCAPING PLANS OR THE EROSION CONTROL PLANS FOR SPECIES MIXTURE AND APPLICATION RATES AND DEPTHS REQUIREMENTS. 54. ALL SEED SHALL BE DRILLED WHERE PRACTICAL TO A DEPTH BASED UPON THE SEED TYPE. BROADCAST SEEDING SHALL BE APPLIED AT DOUBLE THE RATE AS PRESCRIBED FOR DRILL SEEDING AND SHALL BE LIGHTLY HAND RAKED AFTER APPLICATION. HYDROSEEDING MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR DRILL SEEDING ON SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3(H):1(V) OR ON OTHER AREAS NOT PRACTICAL TO DRILL SEED AND CRIMP AND MULCH. ALL HYDROSEEDING MUST BE CONDUCTED AS TWO SEPARATE PROCESSES OF SEEDING AND TACKIFICATION. 55. ALL SEEDED AREAS MUST BE MULCHED WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR (24) AFTER PLANTING. ALL MULCH SHALL BE MECHANICALLY CRIMPED AND OR ADEQUATELY APPLIED TACKIFIER. THE USE OF CRIMPED MULCH OR TACKIFIER MAY REQUIRE MULTIPLE RE-APPLICATIONS IF NOT PROPERLY INSTALLED OR HAVE WEATHERED OR DEGRADED BEFORE VEGETATION HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. AREAS OF EMBANKMENTS HAVING SLOPES GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 3H:1V SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH AN EROSION MAT OR APPROVED EQUAL TO ENSURE SEED WILL BE ABLE TO GERMINATE ON THE STEEP SLOPES. DURING A SEASON WHEN SEEDING DOESNOT PRODUCE VEGETATIVE COVER, ANOTHER TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED ALONG WITH, OR UNTIL, TEMPORARY SEEDING OR PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL CAN BE PERFORMED. 56. THE DEVELOPER SHALL WARRANTY AND MAINTAIN ALL VEGETATIVE MEASURES FOR TWO GROWING SEASONS AFTER INSTALLATION OR UNTIL SEVENTY PERCENT (70%) VEGETATIVE COVER HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, WHICHEVER IS LONGER AND MEETS ALL THE CRITERIA OUTLINED IN THE FORT COLLINS STORMWATER CRITERIA MANUAL CHAPTER 4: CONSTRUCTION CONTROL MEASURES. 57. THE DEVELOPER SHALL MAINTAIN, MONITOR, REPAIR, AND REPLACE ANY AND ALL APPLICABLE CONTROL MEASURES UNTIL FINAL STABILIZATION HAS BEEN OBTAINED. ALL CONTROL MEASURES MUST REMAIN UNTIL SUCH TIME AS ALL UPSTREAM CONTRIBUTING POLLUTANT SOURCES HAVE BEEN VEGETATED OR REMOVED FROM THE SITE. WHEN ANY CONTROL MEASURE IS REMOVED, THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CLEANUP AND REMOVAL OF ALL SEDIMENT AND DEBRIS FROM THAT CONTROL MEASURE. AT THE POINT AT WHICH THE SITE HAS BEEN DEEMED STABILIZED AND VERIFIED BY CITY EROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR, ALL TEMPORARY CONTROL MEASURES CAN THEN BE FULLY REMOVED. ALL MEASURES SHALL BE REMOVED WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER FINAL STABILIZATION IS ACHIEVED. 58. THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY SHALL MAINTAIN AND KEEP CURRENT ALL PAYMENTS OR RELATED FORMS OF SECURITY FOR THE EROSION CONTROL ESCROW UNTIL 1) STABILIZATION HAS BEEN REACHED AND 2) ALL CONTROL MEASURES AND/OR BMPS HAVE SEDIMENT MATERIALS COLLECTED AND THE CONTROL MEASURE REMOVED FROM THE SITE. AT THAT TIME THE SITE WILL BE CONSIDERED COMPLETED AND ANY REMAINING EROSION CONTROL ESCROW SHALL BE RETURNED TO THE APPROPRIATE PARTIES. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 155 PROPERTY LINE EXISTING EASEMENT LINE EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING WATER LINE EXISTING ELECTRIC LINE EXISTING IRRIGATION LINE EXISTING LOT LINE DEMOLITION NOTES: 1. THIS PLAN SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED ALL INCLUSIVE. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT AND BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE CONDITIONS AND REQUIRED DEMOLITION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 2. ALL EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ARE NOT TO BE INTERPRETED AS THE EXACT LOCATION, OR AS THE ONLY OBSTACLES THAT MAY OCCUR ON THE SITE. CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW PLANS AND FIELD VERIFY THE LIMITS OF DEMOLITION. ALL EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE LOCATED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 3. ALL MATERIAL REMOVAL AND SALVAGE SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE OWNER. SALVAGE RIGHTS SHALL BE GRANTED TO THE OWNER FIRST. SHOULD THE OWNER REFUSE SALVAGE RIGHTS RELATED TO MATERIALS BEING REMOVED OR DEMOLISHED, IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO REMOVE THESE ITEMS FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSE OF IN A LEGAL MANNER. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL EXISTING PAVEMENT, SIDEWALK, AND CURB AND GUTTER WITHIN THE PROJECT LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION AND AS IDENTIFIED ON THIS PLAN. 5. CONTRACTOR MUST PROTECT THE PUBLIC AT ALL TIMES WITH FENCING, BARRICADES, ENCLOSURES, ETC. AS APPROVED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGER. 6. CONTINUOUS ACCESS SHALL BE MAINTAINED FOR SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AT ALL TIMES DURING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING FACILITIES AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW FACILITIES. SIGNAGE SHALL BE POSTED TO DIRECT THE PUBLIC TO THE PATH OF TRAVEL. SIDEWALK ALONG THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS NOT ANTICIPATED TO BE IMPACTED WITH THIS CONSTRUCTION. IF NEEDED, CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE CLOSURE WITH CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY INSPECTOR. 7. THE SIZE, TYPE, AND LOCATION OF ALL KNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE APPROXIMATE WHEN SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY THE EXISTENCE OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IN THE AREA OF WORK. BEFORE COMMENCING NEW CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL UNKNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. 8. CONTRACTOR IS ENCOURAGED TO PERFORM DEMOLITION IN A MANNER THAT MAXIMIZES SALVAGE, RE-USE, AND RECYCLING OF MATERIALS. THIS INCLUDES APPROPRIATE SORTING AND STORING, IN PARTICULAR, DEMOLISHED CONCRETE, ASPHALT, AND BASE COURSE SHOULD BE RECYCLED IF POSSIBLE. 9. ALL SYMBOLS ARE ONLY GRAPHICALLY REPRESENTED AND ARE NOT TO SCALE. 10. CONTACT THE PROJECT SURVEYOR FOR ANY INQUIRIES RELATED TO THE EXISTING SITE SURVEY. 11. LIMITS OF STREET REPAIR ARE APPROXIMATE. FINAL LIMITS TO BE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD BY CITY ENGINEERING INSPECTOR AT THE TIME THE STREET CUTS ARE MADE. ALL REPAIRS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS. 12. CONTRACTOR TO REFER TO THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN, SHEET 15 FOR THE TABLE OF CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE AND BMP APPLICATION BEFORE COMMENCING ANY DEMOLITION WORK. EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER EXISTING SIGN XXXX XXXX EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING SIDEWALK CONCRETE AND BASE TO REMAIN EXISTING LANDSCAPE VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED EXISTING SIDEWALK CONCRETE AND BASE TO BE REMOVED EXISTING SIDEWALK CONCRETE AND BASE TO REMAIN SS W E IRR LEGEND TH I S D O C U M E N T , T O G E T H E R W I T H T H E C O N C E P T S A N D D E S I G N S P R E S E N T E D H E R E I N , A S A N I N S T R U M E N T O F S E R V I C E , I S I N T E N D E D O N L Y F O R T H E S P E C I F I C P U R P O S E A N D C L I E N T F O R W H I C H I T W A S P R E P A R E D . R E U S E O F A N D I M P R O P E R R E L I A N C E O N T H I S D O C U M E N T W I T H O U T W R I T T E N A U T H O R I Z A T I O N A N D A D A P T A T I O N B Y K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . S H A L L B E W I T H O U T L I A B I L I T Y T O K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . R Know what's below. Call before you dig. DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: NO . RE V I S I O N BY D A T E © 2 0 2 3 K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . 33 2 5 S . T I M B E R L I N E R O A D , S U I T E 1 3 0 FO R T C O L L I N S , C O L O R A D O 8 0 5 2 5 ( 9 7 0 ) 8 2 2 - 7 9 1 1 FOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. CONSTRUCTION \\ k i m l e y - h o r n \ M P _ N C O \ N C O _ C i v i l \ 1 9 6 3 9 5 0 0 3 _ P r o s p e c t R i d g e M u l t i f a m i l y \ C A D D \ P l a n S h e e t s \ C - D E M O . d w g PROJECT NO. SHEET 07/25/25 AGR MH HPC OF 16 196395003 PR O S P E C T R I D G E M U L T I F A M I L Y PR E L I M I N A R Y U T I L I T Y P L A N S 5 EX I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S & D E M O L I T I O N P L A N NORTH G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD NP NPNP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP P NP E E E E E E E E E EEE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E 4916 4917 49 1 6 491 7 49 1 5 49 1 4 49 1 1 49 1 2 49 1 3 49 1 0 4915 4916 4917 4913 4914 4912 4910 4910 491 5 4911 4912 491 3 49 1 4 4916 4917 4917 490 5 49 1 0 490 4 490 6 490 7 490 8 4908 490 8 490 9 4900 4896 4897 4898 4899 4901 4902 4903 491 64917 491 6 4917 4918 491 9 491 7 491 8 491 9 4918 49 1 7 49 1 8 49 1 9 4917 EXISTING LANDSCAPE AREA TO BE CLEARED AND GRUBBED PROPERTY LINE EXISTING FES OUTLET EXISTING STORM INLET EXISTING IRRIGATION STUB EXISTING IRRIGATION STUB EXISTING 24" RCP STORM LINE EXISTING STORM INLET LOT 2 1.46 AC. EXISTING 8" PVC WATER MAIN EXISTING 15" PVC SANITARY MAIN EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER TO BE REMOVED EXISTING LANDSCAPE AREA TO BE REMOVED EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK AND BASE TO BE REMOVED EXISTING PUBLIC SIDEWALK TO REMAIN EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER TO BE REMOVED EXISTING LANDSCAPE AREA TO BE REMOVED EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK AND BASE TO BE REMOVED EXISTING PUBLIC SIDEWALK TO REMAIN EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING ELCO EASEMENT REC. NO. 20220050052 TRACT E RUDOLPH FARM POND 1 PR O S P E C T R I D G E D R . PROSPECT RIDGE DR. EXISTING LIGHT POLE TO BE RELOCATED RUDOLPH FARM RAIN GARDEN 1 LOT 1 6.80 AC. LOT 4 2.38 AC. EXISTING COMMUNITY TRAIL EXISTING IRRIGATION STRUCTURE 9' U T I L I T Y E A S E M E N T TRA C T E TIMN A T H R E S E R V O I R I N L E T C A N A L LAK E C A N A L EX I S T I N G 2 0 ' D R A I N A G E E A S E M E N T NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 156 G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD NP NPNP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP P NP E E E E E E E E E EEE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E VAN VAN T T T T T T 9' E X . U T I L . E S M T LOT 2 1.46 AC. POOL AMENITY AREA BUILDING 4 TYPE A BUILDING 6 TYPE D BUILDING 3 TYPE B BUILDING 2 TYPE B BUILDING 5 TYPE B BUILDING 1 (SOUTH) TYPE C 26' E M E R . ACCE S S ESMT PROPOSED FOREBAY 30 ' U T I L . ES M T TRACT E RUDOLPH FARM POND 1 PR O S P E C T R I D G E D R . BUILDING 1 (NORTH) TYPE C RUDOLPH FARM RAIN GARDEN 1 30' EX. UTIL. ES M T 50' EX. TRAIL E S M T 20 ' E X . D R N G E S M T PROSPECT RIDGE DR. TRA C T E TIMN A T H R E S E R V O I R I N L E T C A N A L LAK E C A N A L 21 ' UT I L . ES M T 26' EMER. ACCESS ESMT 30' U T I L . ESM T 30' U T I L . ESM T 26' EM E R . ACCE S S E S M T 30 . 0 ' U T I L . ES M T 10' COMMUNITY TRAIL NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE WALL 26' E M E R . AC C E S S ESM T 20 ' EM E R . AC C E S S ES M T 26' E M E R . ACC E S S ESM T 34' UTIL. ESMT T T T T T T VAN VAN N KEY MAPKEY MAP N.T.S. PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER PROPOSED CONCRETE FLATOWRK PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVING NOTES: PROPOSED ROAD SIGN PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE EXISTING EASEMENT LINE PROPOSED FLOWLINE 1. ALL SIGNS AND ROADWAY MARKINGS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT EDITION OF THE MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES. 2. TWO COATS WHITE LATEX TRAFFIC PAINT (4" MIN. WIDTH) REQUIRED FOR PAVEMENT STRIPING ON PARKING STALLS. 3. ADA ACCESS AISLE STRIPING SHALL BE PAINTED 4" SINGLE WHITE SOLID LINE AT 2'-0" O.C. 45° TO THE DRIVE AISLE. FIRE ACCESS SHALL BE RED. 4. ALL INNER CURBED RADII ARE TO BE 3' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5. CROSS WALK STRIPING SHALL BE PAINTED 2' SINGLE WHITE SOLID LINE AT 4'-0". 6.CROSS WALK STRIPING, DRIVE-THRU PAINT AND STOP BARS SHALL BE WHITE. 7. SIGNS SHALL BE INSTALLED 2 FEET BEHIND CURB OR SIDEWALK. 8. SEE DETAIL SHEETS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING CURBS AND PAVEMENT SECTIONS. 9. PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE PER THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS STANDARDS. 10. LIMITS OF STREET CUT ARE APPROXIMATE. FINAL LIMITS ARE TO BE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ENGINEERING INSPECTOR. ALL REPAIRS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LARIMER COUNTY URBAN AREA STREET STANDARDS REPAIR STANDARDS. 11. ANY DAMAGED CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK EXISTING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, AS WELL AS STREETS, SIDEWALKS, CURBS AND GUTTERS, DESTROYED, DAMAGED OR REMOVED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT, SHALL BE REPLACED OR RESTORED TO LARIMER COUNTY URBAN AREA STREET STANDARDS AT THE DEVELOPER'S EXPENSE PRIOR TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLETED IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 12. ALL PUBLIC CONCRETE PAVING SHALL BE 6-INCH THICK. 13. REFER TO SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO DECORATIVE PAVING, HARDSCAPES, AND OTHER SITE AMENITIES. EXISTING LOT LINE PROPOSED CONCRETE PAVEMENT PROPOSED SIDEWALK CHASE PROPOSED LIGHT POLE LEGEND TH I S D O C U M E N T , T O G E T H E R W I T H T H E C O N C E P T S A N D D E S I G N S P R E S E N T E D H E R E I N , A S A N I N S T R U M E N T O F S E R V I C E , I S I N T E N D E D O N L Y F O R T H E S P E C I F I C P U R P O S E A N D C L I E N T F O R W H I C H I T W A S P R E P A R E D . R E U S E O F A N D I M P R O P E R R E L I A N C E O N T H I S D O C U M E N T W I T H O U T W R I T T E N A U T H O R I Z A T I O N A N D A D A P T A T I O N B Y K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . S H A L L B E W I T H O U T L I A B I L I T Y T O K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . R Know what's below. Call before you dig. DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: NO . RE V I S I O N BY D A T E © 2 0 2 3 K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . 33 2 5 S . T I M B E R L I N E R O A D , S U I T E 1 3 0 FO R T C O L L I N S , C O L O R A D O 8 0 5 2 5 ( 9 7 0 ) 8 2 2 - 7 9 1 1 FOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. CONSTRUCTION \\ k i m l e y - h o r n \ M P _ N C O \ N C O _ C i v i l \ 1 9 6 3 9 5 0 0 3 _ P r o s p e c t R i d g e M u l t i f a m i l y \ C A D D \ P l a n S h e e t s \ C - P A V E . O A . d w g PROJECT NO. SHEET 07/25/25 AGR MH HPC OF 16 196395003 PR O S P E C T R I D G E M U L T I F A M I L Y PR E L I M I N A R Y U T I L I T Y P L A N S 6 OV E R A L L P A V I N G A N D S I G N A G E P L A N NORTH SHEET 8 SHEET 7 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 157 > > > > > > > > > > > > T T T G G G G G G G G UD NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP P NP E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E N: 124604.38 E: 216172.72 N: 124653.65 E: 216209.56 N: 124514.45 E: 216400.54 N: 124464.22 E: 216371.28 N: 124391.19 E: 216352.67 N: 124240.20 E: 216280.55 N: 124396.96 E: 216410.66 N: 124243.26 E: 216402.97 N: 124542.38 E: 216042.00 N: 124562.49 E: 216096.54 N: 124317.68 E: 216103.63 N: 124328.11 E: 216160.67 N: 124304.46 E: 216174.74 N: 124277.72 E: 216121.08 BUILDING 4 TYPE A BUILDING 3 TYPE B BUILDING 2 TYPE B BUILDING 1 (SOUTH) TYPE C PR O S P E C T R I D G E D R . N: 124283.06 E: 216416.35 N: 124294.60 E: 216359.53 N: 124282.30 E: 216356.36 BUILDING 1 (NORTH) TYPE C PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE TRANSFORMER PROPOSED STOP SIGN W/ STOP BAR PROPOSED ACCESSIBLE SIGN (TYP) PROPOSED CONNECTION TO COMMUNITY TRAIL 10' COMMUNITY TRAIL SIDEWALK CHASE 18" CURB & GUTTER (TYP.) GRASS SWALE TRA C T E TIMN A T H R E S E R V O I R I N L E T C A N A L LAK E C A N A L PROPOSED STAIRS (TYP.) PROPOSED STAIRS PROPOSED STAIRS PROPOSED STAIRS PROPOSED STAIRS 9' (T Y P . ) 5' 6' SIDEW A L K 9' E X . U T I L . E S M T 30' UTIL . E S M T 10 ' TY P . R2 5 ' R25' 24' 19' R24' R15' R34' R51 ' R21' R3' 19' (TYP . ) 50' EX. T R A I L E S M T 30' EX. U T I L E S M T 19' (TYP.) 9' 6'(TYP . ) 6' S I D E W A L K 26' 6' (T Y P . ) 26' E M E R . ACCE S S E S M T 6' 19' 9' 19' 9' 24' 24' 6' 5' 5' 6' 26' EMER . ACCESS E S M T 30' U T I L . E S M T 26' E M E R . AC C E S S E S M T PROPOSED LANDSCAPE WALL TRANSFORMER TRANSFORMER 6' U T I L . ES M T 21 ' U T I L . E S M T 20 ' E A . E S M T UTILITY EASEMENT UTILITY EASEMENT UTILITY EASEMENT > > G G NP E E E E PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER PROPOSED CONCRETE FLATOWRK PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVING NOTES: PROPOSED ROAD SIGN PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE EXISTING EASEMENT LINE PROPOSED FLOWLINE 1. ALL SIGNS AND ROADWAY MARKINGS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT EDITION OF THE MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES. 2. TWO COATS WHITE LATEX TRAFFIC PAINT (4" MIN. WIDTH) REQUIRED FOR PAVEMENT STRIPING ON PARKING STALLS. 3. ADA ACCESS AISLE STRIPING SHALL BE PAINTED 4" SINGLE WHITE SOLID LINE AT 2'-0" O.C. 45° TO THE DRIVE AISLE. FIRE ACCESS SHALL BE RED. 4. ALL INNER CURBED RADII ARE TO BE 3' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5. CROSS WALK STRIPING SHALL BE PAINTED 2' SINGLE WHITE SOLID LINE AT 4'-0". 6.CROSS WALK STRIPING, DRIVE-THRU PAINT AND STOP BARS SHALL BE WHITE. 7. SIGNS SHALL BE INSTALLED 2 FEET BEHIND CURB OR SIDEWALK. 8. SEE DETAIL SHEETS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING CURBS AND PAVEMENT SECTIONS. 9. PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE PER THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS STANDARDS. 10. LIMITS OF STREET CUT ARE APPROXIMATE. FINAL LIMITS ARE TO BE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ENGINEERING INSPECTOR. ALL REPAIRS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LARIMER COUNTY URBAN AREA STREET STANDARDS REPAIR STANDARDS. 11. ANY DAMAGED CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK EXISTING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, AS WELL AS STREETS, SIDEWALKS, CURBS AND GUTTERS, DESTROYED, DAMAGED OR REMOVED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT, SHALL BE REPLACED OR RESTORED TO LARIMER COUNTY URBAN AREA STREET STANDARDS AT THE DEVELOPER'S EXPENSE PRIOR TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLETED IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 12. ALL PUBLIC CONCRETE PAVING SHALL BE 6-INCH THICK. 13. REFER TO SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO DECORATIVE PAVING, HARDSCAPES, AND OTHER SITE AMENITIES. EXISTING LOT LINE PROPOSED CONCRETE PAVEMENT PROPOSED SIDEWALK CHASE PROPOSED LIGHT POLE LEGEND T T T T T T VAN VAN N KEY MAPKEY MAP N.T.S. TH I S D O C U M E N T , T O G E T H E R W I T H T H E C O N C E P T S A N D D E S I G N S P R E S E N T E D H E R E I N , A S A N I N S T R U M E N T O F S E R V I C E , I S I N T E N D E D O N L Y F O R T H E S P E C I F I C P U R P O S E A N D C L I E N T F O R W H I C H I T W A S P R E P A R E D . R E U S E O F A N D I M P R O P E R R E L I A N C E O N T H I S D O C U M E N T W I T H O U T W R I T T E N A U T H O R I Z A T I O N A N D A D A P T A T I O N B Y K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . S H A L L B E W I T H O U T L I A B I L I T Y T O K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . R Know what's below. Call before you dig. DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: NO . RE V I S I O N BY D A T E © 2 0 2 3 K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . 33 2 5 S . T I M B E R L I N E R O A D , S U I T E 1 3 0 FO R T C O L L I N S , C O L O R A D O 8 0 5 2 5 ( 9 7 0 ) 8 2 2 - 7 9 1 1 FOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. CONSTRUCTION \\ k i m l e y - h o r n \ M P _ N C O \ N C O _ C i v i l \ 1 9 6 3 9 5 0 0 3 _ P r o s p e c t R i d g e M u l t i f a m i l y \ C A D D \ P l a n S h e e t s \ C - P A V E . d w g PROJECT NO. SHEET 07/25/25 AGR MH HPC OF 16 196395003 PR O S P E C T R I D G E M U L T I F A M I L Y PR E L I M I N A R Y U T I L I T Y P L A N S 7 PA V I N G & S I G N A G E P L A N - N O R T H NORTH MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 8 SHEET 8 SHEET 7 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 158 VAN VAN > > > > T T T G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E TRACT E RUDOLPH FARM POND 1 LOT 2 1.46 AC. N: 124240.20 E: 216280.55 N: 124188.86 E: 216309.58 N: 124243.26 E: 216402.97 N: 124304.46 E: 216174.74 N: 124277.72 E: 216121.08 N: 124124.07 E: 216205.03 N: 124152.02 E: 216256.90 N: 124102.42 E: 216326.02 N: 124058.43 E: 216288.02 N: 123928.33 E: 216495.56 N: 123891.50 E: 216450.58 N: 124047.87 E: 216621.39 N: 123988.85 E: 216606.92 N: 124090.18 E: 216466.44 N: 124136.42 E: 216501.45 BUILDING 4 TYPE A BUILDING 6 TYPE D BUILDING 5 TYPE B BUILDING 1 (SOUTH) TYPE C POOL AMENITY AREA STOP SIGN W/ STOP BAR PROS P E C T R I D G E D R . N: 124283.06 E: 216416.35 N: 124294.60 E: 216359.53 N: 124282.30 E: 216356.36 PROPOSED CONCRETE-LINED SWALE PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE PROPOSED ACCESS DRIVE PROPOSED FOREBAY RUDOLPH FARM RAIN GARDEN 1 PROPOSED STOP SIGN W/ STOP BAR PROPOSED 1' CURB CUT PROPOSED ACCESSIBLE SIGN (TYP) 18" CURB & GUTTER (TYP.) 18" CURB & GUTTER (TYP.) 20 ' E X . D R N G E S M T PROPOSED STAIRS SIDEWALK CHASE PROPOSED STAIRS PROPOSED STAIRS PROPOSED STAIRS PROPOSED STAIRS 26' 5' 24' 9'(TYP.) 9'(TYP . ) 9' (T Y P . ) 5' 10'TYP . R2 5 ' R25' R21' R2 1 ' R21' R3 ' R16 ' R2 6 ' R16' R5' 19 ' ( T Y P . ) 19' (TY P . ) 26' E M E R . ACCE S S E S M T 6' 19' 9' 9' 30' U T I L . ES M T 30' U T I L . E S M T 9'(TY P . ) 19' ( T Y P . ) 26' EMER. ACCESS ESMT 15' ( T Y P . ) 24' 9'(TYP . ) 19' ( T Y P . ) 26 ' 6' 6' 6' 30' U T I L . ESM T 26' E A . E S M T TRANSFORMER TRANSFORMER 26 ' E M E R . AC C E S S E S M T 30' UTIL. ESMT UTILITY EASEMENT UTILITY EASEMENT 34' UTIL. ESMT 6' U T I L . ESM T 6' U T I L . ES M T > > >G NP NP E E E E E E E PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER PROPOSED CONCRETE FLATOWRK PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVING NOTES: PROPOSED ROAD SIGN PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE EXISTING EASEMENT LINE PROPOSED FLOWLINE 1. ALL SIGNS AND ROADWAY MARKINGS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT EDITION OF THE MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES. 2. TWO COATS WHITE LATEX TRAFFIC PAINT (4" MIN. WIDTH) REQUIRED FOR PAVEMENT STRIPING ON PARKING STALLS. 3. ADA ACCESS AISLE STRIPING SHALL BE PAINTED 4" SINGLE WHITE SOLID LINE AT 2'-0" O.C. 45° TO THE DRIVE AISLE. FIRE ACCESS SHALL BE RED. 4. ALL INNER CURBED RADII ARE TO BE 3' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5. CROSS WALK STRIPING SHALL BE PAINTED 2' SINGLE WHITE SOLID LINE AT 4'-0". 6.CROSS WALK STRIPING, DRIVE-THRU PAINT AND STOP BARS SHALL BE WHITE. 7. SIGNS SHALL BE INSTALLED 2 FEET BEHIND CURB OR SIDEWALK. 8. SEE DETAIL SHEETS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING CURBS AND PAVEMENT SECTIONS. 9. PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE PER THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS STANDARDS. 10. LIMITS OF STREET CUT ARE APPROXIMATE. FINAL LIMITS ARE TO BE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ENGINEERING INSPECTOR. ALL REPAIRS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LARIMER COUNTY URBAN AREA STREET STANDARDS REPAIR STANDARDS. 11. ANY DAMAGED CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK EXISTING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, AS WELL AS STREETS, SIDEWALKS, CURBS AND GUTTERS, DESTROYED, DAMAGED OR REMOVED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT, SHALL BE REPLACED OR RESTORED TO LARIMER COUNTY URBAN AREA STREET STANDARDS AT THE DEVELOPER'S EXPENSE PRIOR TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLETED IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 12. ALL PUBLIC CONCRETE PAVING SHALL BE 6-INCH THICK. 13. REFER TO SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO DECORATIVE PAVING, HARDSCAPES, AND OTHER SITE AMENITIES. EXISTING LOT LINE PROPOSED CONCRETE PAVEMENT PROPOSED SIDEWALK CHASE PROPOSED LIGHT POLE LEGEND T T T T T T VAN VAN N KEY MAPKEY MAP N.T.S. TH I S D O C U M E N T , T O G E T H E R W I T H T H E C O N C E P T S A N D D E S I G N S P R E S E N T E D H E R E I N , A S A N I N S T R U M E N T O F S E R V I C E , I S I N T E N D E D O N L Y F O R T H E S P E C I F I C P U R P O S E A N D C L I E N T F O R W H I C H I T W A S P R E P A R E D . R E U S E O F A N D I M P R O P E R R E L I A N C E O N T H I S D O C U M E N T W I T H O U T W R I T T E N A U T H O R I Z A T I O N A N D A D A P T A T I O N B Y K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . S H A L L B E W I T H O U T L I A B I L I T Y T O K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . R Know what's below. Call before you dig. DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: NO . RE V I S I O N BY D A T E © 2 0 2 3 K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . 33 2 5 S . T I M B E R L I N E R O A D , S U I T E 1 3 0 FO R T C O L L I N S , C O L O R A D O 8 0 5 2 5 ( 9 7 0 ) 8 2 2 - 7 9 1 1 FOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. CONSTRUCTION \\ k i m l e y - h o r n \ M P _ N C O \ N C O _ C i v i l \ 1 9 6 3 9 5 0 0 3 _ P r o s p e c t R i d g e M u l t i f a m i l y \ C A D D \ P l a n S h e e t s \ C - P A V E . d w g PROJECT NO. SHEET 07/25/25 AGR MH HPC OF 16 196395003 PR O S P E C T R I D G E M U L T I F A M I L Y PR E L I M I N A R Y U T I L I T Y P L A N S 8 PA V I N G & S I G N A G E P L A N - S O U T H NORTH SHEET 8 SHEET 7 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 7 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 159 VAN VAN > > > > > > T T T T T T G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD NP NPNP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP P NP E E E E E E E E E EEE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E 13 15 14 16 15 14 16 17 1616 16 17 16 1616 17 17 11 12 15 13 14 16 17 15 16 17 18 11 12 13 1414 14 13 16 16 11 11 11 12 15 14 18 17 18 17 17 17 1819 18 19 17 18 18 15 16 15 14 16 17 17 10 11 12 13 11 13 18 19 19 17 15 15 12 13 1718 17 4916 4917 49 1 6 491 7 49 1 5 49 1 4 49 1 1 49 1 2 49 1 3 49 1 0 4915 4916 4917 4913 4914 4912 4910 4910 491 5 4911 4912 491 3 49 1 4 4916 4917 4917 490 5 49 1 0 490 4 490 6 490 7 490 8 4908 490 8 490 9 4900 4896 4897 4898 4899 4901 4902 4903 491 64917 491 6 4917 4918 491 9 491 7 491 8 491 9 4918 49 1 7 49 1 8 49 1 9 4917 MATCH EXISTING TRA C T E TIMN A T H R E S E R V O I R I N L E T C A N A L BUILDING 4 BUILDING 2 BUILDING 1 SOUTH MATCH EXISTING BUILDING 3 LOT 2 1.46 AC. BUILDING 6 POOL AMENITY AREA BUILDING 5 TRACT E RUDOLPH FARM POND 1 RUDOLPH FARM RAIN GARDEN 1 PR O S P E C T R I D G E D R . BUILDING 1 NORTH EXISTING SWALE PROSPECT RIDGE DR. LAK E C A N A L MATCH EXISTING ELEVATION AT TOP OF SWALE FFE: 4918.15-4919.15' (STEPPED INTERNALLY) PROPOSED LANDSCAPE WALL PROPERTY LINE EXISTING LOT LINE EXISTING EASEMENT LINE PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOURS PROPOSED MINOR CONTOURS EXISTING MAJOR CONTOURS EXISTING MINOR CONTOURS PROPOSED FLOWLINE XX PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER GENERAL NOTES: 1. REFER TO DRAINAGE MEMO FOR DRAINAGE CONVEYANCE PATH. 2. MAXIMUM ELEVATIONS IN ADA PARING AREAS TO BE 2.00% 3. THE SIZE, TYPE, AND LOCATION OF ALL KNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE APPROXIMATE WHEN SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY THE EXISTENCE OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IN THE AREA OF THE WORK. BEFORE COMMENCING NEW CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL UNKNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. 4. REFER TO THE PLAT FOR LOT AREAS, TRACT SIZES, EASEMENTS, LOT DIMENSIONS, UTILITY EASEMENTS, OTHER EASEMENTS, AND OTHER SURVEY INFORMATION. 5. ALL PROJECT DATA IS ON VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88. SEE COVER SHEET FOR BENCHMARK REFERENCES. 6. ALL CURB SPOTS SHOWN ARE FLOWLINE ELEVATIONS. ALL OTHER SPOTS ARE FINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONS. 7. CONCRETE PANS SHALL BE DESIGNED TO BE 4' WIDE WHEN PERPENDICULAR TO DRIVE AISLES AND 2' WIDE WHEN PERPENDICULAR TO PARKING STALLS. 8. THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE AS RECOGNIZED BY THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RUDOLPH FARMS INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT IS INTENDED TO BE MAINTAINED IN A NATIVE LANDSCAPE. PLEASE SEE SECTION 5.6 OF THE LAND USE CODE FOR ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE. LEGEND X.XX% DELINEATION OF ADA PARKING AND ACCESS. SLOPES NOT TO EXCEED 2% IN THIS AREA PROPOSED SLOPE PROPOSED GRADE BREAK XX XXXX XXXX PROPOSED STORM PIPE T T T T T T VAN VAN N KEY MAPKEY MAP N.T.S. TH I S D O C U M E N T , T O G E T H E R W I T H T H E C O N C E P T S A N D D E S I G N S P R E S E N T E D H E R E I N , A S A N I N S T R U M E N T O F S E R V I C E , I S I N T E N D E D O N L Y F O R T H E S P E C I F I C P U R P O S E A N D C L I E N T F O R W H I C H I T W A S P R E P A R E D . R E U S E O F A N D I M P R O P E R R E L I A N C E O N T H I S D O C U M E N T W I T H O U T W R I T T E N A U T H O R I Z A T I O N A N D A D A P T A T I O N B Y K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . S H A L L B E W I T H O U T L I A B I L I T Y T O K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . R Know what's below. Call before you dig. DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: NO . RE V I S I O N BY D A T E © 2 0 2 3 K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . 33 2 5 S . T I M B E R L I N E R O A D , S U I T E 1 3 0 FO R T C O L L I N S , C O L O R A D O 8 0 5 2 5 ( 9 7 0 ) 8 2 2 - 7 9 1 1 FOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. CONSTRUCTION \\ k i m l e y - h o r n \ M P _ N C O \ N C O _ C i v i l \ 1 9 6 3 9 5 0 0 3 _ P r o s p e c t R i d g e M u l t i f a m i l y \ C A D D \ P l a n S h e e t s \ C - G R A D . O A . d w g PROJECT NO. SHEET 07/25/25 AGR MH HPC OF 16 196395003 PR O S P E C T R I D G E M U L T I F A M I L Y PR E L I M I N A R Y U T I L I T Y P L A N S 9 OV E R A L L G R A D I N G P L A N NORTH SHEET 11 SHEET 10 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 160 4917 49 1 6 491 7 49 1 5 49 1 4 49 1 2 49 1 3 4915 4916 4917 4913 4914 4912 491 64917 491 6 4917 491 8 491 9 491 7 491 8 491 9 49 1 7 49 1 8 49 1 9 > > > > > > > > > > > > T T T G G G G G G G G UD NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP P NP E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E 16 16 16 17 16 16 16 17 17 18 13 16 16 12 15 14 18 17 18 17 17 17 18 19 18 19 17 18 18 16 18 19 19 17 15 15 12 13 MATCH EXISTING TRA C T E TIMN A T H R E S E R V O I R I N L E T C A N A L PROPOSED GRASS SWALE PROPOSED STAIRS PROPOSED STAIRS PROPOSED STAIRS PROPOSED CONNECTION TO COMMUNITY TRAIL SIDEWALK CHASE LAK E C A N A L PROPOSED STAIRS PROPOSED STAIRS BUILDING 4 TYPE A BUILDING 1 (SOUTH) TYPE C BUILDING 3 TYPE B BUILDING 2 TYPE B PR O S P E C T R I D G E D R . BUILDING 1 (NORTH) TYPE C PROPOSED LANDSCAPE WALL 49 1 2 4918 > > G G NP E E E E 15 16 17 14 11 12 15 PROPERTY LINE EXISTING LOT LINE EXISTING EASEMENT LINE PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOURS PROPOSED MINOR CONTOURS EXISTING MAJOR CONTOURS EXISTING MINOR CONTOURS PROPOSED FLOWLINE XX PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER GENERAL NOTES: 1.REFER TO DRAINAGE MEMO FOR DRAINAGE CONVEYANCE PATH. 2. MAXIMUM ELEVATIONS IN ADA PARING AREAS TO BE 2.00% 3. THE SIZE, TYPE, AND LOCATION OF ALL KNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE APPROXIMATE WHEN SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY THE EXISTENCE OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IN THE AREA OF THE WORK. BEFORE COMMENCING NEW CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL UNKNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. 4. REFER TO THE PLAT FOR LOT AREAS, TRACT SIZES, EASEMENTS, LOT DIMENSIONS, UTILITY EASEMENTS, OTHER EASEMENTS, AND OTHER SURVEY INFORMATION. 5. ALL PROJECT DATA IS ON VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88. SEE COVER SHEET FOR BENCHMARK REFERENCES. 6. ALL CURB SPOTS SHOWN ARE FLOWLINE ELEVATIONS. ALL OTHER SPOTS ARE FINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONS. 7. CONCRETE PANS SHALL BE DESIGNED TO BE 4' WIDE WHEN PERPENDICULAR TO DRIVE AISLES AND 2' WIDE WHEN PERPENDICULAR TO PARKING STALLS. 8. THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE AS RECOGNIZED BY THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RUDOLPH FARMS INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT IS INTENDED TO BE MAINTAINED IN A NATIVE LANDSCAPE. PLEASE SEE SECTION 5.6 OF THE LAND USE CODE FOR ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE. LEGEND X.XX% DELINEATION OF ADA PARKING AND ACCESS. SLOPES NOT TO EXCEED 2% IN THIS AREA PROPOSED SLOPE PROPOSED GRADE BREAK XX XXXX XXXX PROPOSED STORM PIPE T T T T T T VAN VAN N KEY MAPKEY MAP N.T.S. TH I S D O C U M E N T , T O G E T H E R W I T H T H E C O N C E P T S A N D D E S I G N S P R E S E N T E D H E R E I N , A S A N I N S T R U M E N T O F S E R V I C E , I S I N T E N D E D O N L Y F O R T H E S P E C I F I C P U R P O S E A N D C L I E N T F O R W H I C H I T W A S P R E P A R E D . R E U S E O F A N D I M P R O P E R R E L I A N C E O N T H I S D O C U M E N T W I T H O U T W R I T T E N A U T H O R I Z A T I O N A N D A D A P T A T I O N B Y K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . S H A L L B E W I T H O U T L I A B I L I T Y T O K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . R Know what's below. Call before you dig. DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: NO . RE V I S I O N BY D A T E © 2 0 2 3 K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . 33 2 5 S . T I M B E R L I N E R O A D , S U I T E 1 3 0 FO R T C O L L I N S , C O L O R A D O 8 0 5 2 5 ( 9 7 0 ) 8 2 2 - 7 9 1 1 FOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. CONSTRUCTION \\ k i m l e y - h o r n \ M P _ N C O \ N C O _ C i v i l \ 1 9 6 3 9 5 0 0 3 _ P r o s p e c t R i d g e M u l t i f a m i l y \ C A D D \ P l a n S h e e t s \ C - G R A D . d w g PROJECT NO. SHEET 07/25/25 AGR MH HPC OF 16 196395003 PR O S P E C T R I D G E M U L T I F A M I L Y PR E L I M I N A R Y U T I L I T Y P L A N S 10 GR A D I N G P L A N - N O R T H NORTH SHEET 10 SHEET 11 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 11 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 161 49 1 1 49 1 2 49 1 3 49 1 0 4912 4910 4910 49 1 5 4911 4912 491 3 49 1 4 4916 4917 4917 490 5 49 1 0 490 4 490 6 490 7 490 8 4908 490 8 490 9 4900 4896 4897 4898 4899 4901 4902 4903 4918 49 1 7 49 1 8 4917 VAN VAN > > > > T T T G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E 13 15 14 16 15 14 16 17 11 12 15 13 14 16 17 15 16 17 18 11 12 13 14 14 14 13 11 11 11 12 17 15 16 15 14 16 17 17 10 11 12 13 11 13 18 12 17 18 17 MATCH EXISTING MATCH EXISTING PROPOSED 1' CURB CUT PROPOSED FOREBAY PROPOSED FOREBAY PROPOSED GRASS SWALE PROPOSED CONCRETE RUNDOWN PROPOSED STAIRS PROPOSED STAIRS PROPOSED STAIRS PROPOSED STAIRS SIDEWALK CHASE MATCH EXISTING GRADE AT TOP OF SWALE PROPOSED STAIRS PROPOSED STAIRS SIDEWALK CHASE TRACT E RUDOLPH FARM POND 1 BUILDING 4 TYPE A BUILDING 1 (SOUTH) TYPE C LOT 2 1.46 AC. BUILDING 6 TYPE D POOL AMENITY AREA BUILDING 5 TYPE B PRO S P E C T R I D G E D R . RUDOLPH FARM RAIN GARDEN 1 49 1 2 49 1 3 4912 49 1 7 49 1 8 > > >G NP NP E E E E E E E 18 13 17 16 18 12 PROPERTY LINE EXISTING LOT LINE EXISTING EASEMENT LINE PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOURS PROPOSED MINOR CONTOURS EXISTING MAJOR CONTOURS EXISTING MINOR CONTOURS PROPOSED FLOWLINE XX PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER GENERAL NOTES: 1. REFER TO DRAINAGE MEMO FOR DRAINAGE CONVEYANCE PATH. 2. MAXIMUM ELEVATIONS IN ADA PARING AREAS TO BE 2.00% 3. THE SIZE, TYPE, AND LOCATION OF ALL KNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE APPROXIMATE WHEN SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY THE EXISTENCE OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IN THE AREA OF THE WORK. BEFORE COMMENCING NEW CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL UNKNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. 4. REFER TO THE PLAT FOR LOT AREAS, TRACT SIZES, EASEMENTS, LOT DIMENSIONS, UTILITY EASEMENTS, OTHER EASEMENTS, AND OTHER SURVEY INFORMATION. 5. ALL PROJECT DATA IS ON VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88. SEE COVER SHEET FOR BENCHMARK REFERENCES. 6. ALL CURB SPOTS SHOWN ARE FLOWLINE ELEVATIONS. ALL OTHER SPOTS ARE FINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONS. 7. CONCRETE PANS SHALL BE DESIGNED TO BE 4' WIDE WHEN PERPENDICULAR TO DRIVE AISLES AND 2' WIDE WHEN PERPENDICULAR TO PARKING STALLS. 8. THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE AS RECOGNIZED BY THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RUDOLPH FARMS INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT IS INTENDED TO BE MAINTAINED IN A NATIVE LANDSCAPE. PLEASE SEE SECTION 5.6 OF THE LAND USE CODE FOR ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE. LEGEND X.XX% DELINEATION OF ADA PARKING AND ACCESS. SLOPES NOT TO EXCEED 2% IN THIS AREA PROPOSED SLOPE PROPOSED GRADE BREAK XX XXXX XXXX PROPOSED STORM PIPE T T T T T T VAN VAN N KEY MAPKEY MAP N.T.S. TH I S D O C U M E N T , T O G E T H E R W I T H T H E C O N C E P T S A N D D E S I G N S P R E S E N T E D H E R E I N , A S A N I N S T R U M E N T O F S E R V I C E , I S I N T E N D E D O N L Y F O R T H E S P E C I F I C P U R P O S E A N D C L I E N T F O R W H I C H I T W A S P R E P A R E D . R E U S E O F A N D I M P R O P E R R E L I A N C E O N T H I S D O C U M E N T W I T H O U T W R I T T E N A U T H O R I Z A T I O N A N D A D A P T A T I O N B Y K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . S H A L L B E W I T H O U T L I A B I L I T Y T O K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . R Know what's below. Call before you dig. DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: NO . RE V I S I O N BY D A T E © 2 0 2 3 K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . 33 2 5 S . T I M B E R L I N E R O A D , S U I T E 1 3 0 FO R T C O L L I N S , C O L O R A D O 8 0 5 2 5 ( 9 7 0 ) 8 2 2 - 7 9 1 1 FOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. CONSTRUCTION \\ k i m l e y - h o r n \ M P _ N C O \ N C O _ C i v i l \ 1 9 6 3 9 5 0 0 3 _ P r o s p e c t R i d g e M u l t i f a m i l y \ C A D D \ P l a n S h e e t s \ C - G R A D . d w g PROJECT NO. SHEET 07/25/25 AGR MH HPC OF 16 196395003 PR O S P E C T R I D G E M U L T I F A M I L Y PR E L I M I N A R Y U T I L I T Y P L A N S 11 GR A D I N G P L A N - S O U T H NORTH SHEET 11 SHEET 10 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 10 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 162 VAN VAN > > > > > > T T T T T T G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD NP NPNP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP P NP E E E E E E E E E EEE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E SS SS SS WW W W W W W W W W W W HYD SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS F W W F F HYD HYD HYD W W W W W W EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E TRA C T E TIMN A T H R E S E R V O I R I N L E T C A N A L TRACT E RUDOLPH FARM POND 1 LOT 2 1.46 AC. BUILDING 4 BUILDING 6 BUILDING 3 BUILDING 2 BUILDING 5 POOL AMENITY AREA CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER MAIN WITH TEE CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER WITH PROPOSED MANHOLE CONNECT TO EXISTING 8" WATER MAIN WITH TEE PROPOSED 8" PVC WATER MAIN PROPOSED 8" PVC SANITARY MAIN PROPOSED FH ASS'Y PROPOSED ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER EXISTING 20' DRAINAGE EASEMENT BUILDING 1 (NORTH) BUILDING 1 (SOUTH) RUDOLPH FARM RAIN GARDEN 1 EXISTING 8" PVC WATER MAIN EXISTING 15" PVC SANITARY MAIN EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT PR O S P E C T R I D G E D R . PROPOSED PVC STORM SEWER PROPOSED FH ASS'Y PROPOSED FH ASS'Y PROPOSED FH ASS'Y EXISTING NON-POTABLE IRRIGATION MAIN 21.23' UTIL. ESMT EX . 9 ' U T I L E A S E M E N T EX. 9 ' U T I L . E A S E M E N T PROSPECT RIDGE DR. PROPOSED WATER METER VAULT (TYP) LAK E C A N A L EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT PROPOSED LIGHT POLE (TYP) PROPOSED LIGHT POLE (TYP) 30' UTIL. ESMT 26' EMER. ACCESS ESMT 26' EMER. ACCESS ESMT 30' UTIL. ESMT 26' EMER. ACCESS ESMT 30' UTIL. ESMT 30' UTIL. ESMT 26' EMER. ACCESS ESMT 26' EMER. ACCESS ESMT PROPOSED LIGHT POLE (TYP) PROPOSED LIGHT POLE (TYP) PROPOSED LIGHT POLE (TYP) PROPOSED LIGHT POLE (TYP) PROPOSED LIGHT POLE (TYP) PROPOSED LIGHT POLE (TYP) PROPOSED LIGHT POLE (TYP) PROPOSED LIGHT POLE (TYP) PROPOSED LIGHT POLE (TYP) PROPOSED ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER PROPOSED LIGHT POLE (TYP) PROPOSED LIGHT POLE (TYP) PROPOSED ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER PROPOSED ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER PROPOSED LANDSCAPE WALL PROPOSED ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER 6' UTIL. ESMT 34' UTIL. ESMT 6' UTIL. ESMT 20' EMER. ACCESS ESMT T T T T T T VAN VAN N KEY MAPKEY MAP N.T.S. TH I S D O C U M E N T , T O G E T H E R W I T H T H E C O N C E P T S A N D D E S I G N S P R E S E N T E D H E R E I N , A S A N I N S T R U M E N T O F S E R V I C E , I S I N T E N D E D O N L Y F O R T H E S P E C I F I C P U R P O S E A N D C L I E N T F O R W H I C H I T W A S P R E P A R E D . R E U S E O F A N D I M P R O P E R R E L I A N C E O N T H I S D O C U M E N T W I T H O U T W R I T T E N A U T H O R I Z A T I O N A N D A D A P T A T I O N B Y K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . S H A L L B E W I T H O U T L I A B I L I T Y T O K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . R Know what's below. Call before you dig. DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: NO . RE V I S I O N BY D A T E © 2 0 2 3 K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . 33 2 5 S . T I M B E R L I N E R O A D , S U I T E 1 3 0 FO R T C O L L I N S , C O L O R A D O 8 0 5 2 5 ( 9 7 0 ) 8 2 2 - 7 9 1 1 FOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. CONSTRUCTION \\ k i m l e y - h o r n \ M P _ N C O \ N C O _ C i v i l \ 1 9 6 3 9 5 0 0 3 _ P r o s p e c t R i d g e M u l t i f a m i l y \ C A D D \ P l a n S h e e t s \ C - U T I L . O A . d w g PROJECT NO. SHEET 07/25/25 AGR MH HPC OF 16 196395003 PR O S P E C T R I D G E M U L T I F A M I L Y PR E L I M I N A R Y U T I L I T Y P L A N S NORTH 12 OV E R A L L U T I L I T Y P L A N NORTH SHEET 14 SHEET 13 PROPERTY LINE EXISTING EASEMENT LINE EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING WATER LINE EXISTING ELECTRIC LINE EXISTING IRRIGATION LINE PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED WATER LINE PROPOSED ELECTRICAL LINE PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER PROPOSED STORM PIPE EXISTING LOT LINE PROPOSED TRANSFORMERT PROPOSED LIGHT POLE PROPOSED WATER METER VAULT PROPOSED SIDEWALK CHASE PROPOSED SANITARY MANHOLE PROPOSED SIGN PROPOSED AREA DRAIN PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT GENERAL NOTES 1. THE SIZE, TYPE, AND LOCATION OF ALL KNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE APPROXIMATE WHEN SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY THE EXISTENCE OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IN THE AREA OF THE WORK. BEFORE COMMENCING NEW CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL UNKNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. 2. ALL WATER CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PER THE EAST LARIMER COUNTY (ELCO) WATER DISTRICT. UTILITIES WATER AND WASTEWATER DESIGN CRITERIA MANUAL, EXCEPT THAT NO MECHANICAL JOINT RESTRAINTS ARE REQUIRED BETWEEN FITTINGS UNLESS SPECIFICALLY SHOWN ON THE PLAN OR AS REQUIRED FOR ABNORMAL DEFLECTIONS. 3. ALL SEWER CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PER THE BOXELDER SANITATION DISTRICT UTILITIES WATER AND WASTEWATER DESIGN CRITERIA MANUAL, LATEST EDITION. 4. ALL WATER FITTINGS AND VALVES ARE ONLY GRAPHICALLY REPRESENTED AND ARE NOT TO SCALE. 5. ALL WATERLINES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 4.5' AND MAXIMUM 5.5' WATER LINE COVER FROM FINISHED GRADE TO TOP OF PIPE. 6. UTILITY SERVICES ARE SHOWN IN A SCHEMATIC FASHION ONLY. EXACT LOCATIONS SHALL BE PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RESPECTIVE UTILITY PROVIDERS, AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE IN THE FIELD. 7. MAINTAIN 10' HORIZONTAL AND 18" VERTICAL MINIMUM SEPARATION BETWEEN ALL SANITARY SEWER MAINS, WATER MAINS, & SERVICES. 8. REFER TO THE PLAT FOR LOT AREAS, TRACT SIZES, EASEMENTS, LOT DIMENSIONS, UTILITY EASEMENTS, OTHER EASEMENTS, AND OTHER SURVEY INFORMATION. 9. LIMITS OF STREET CUT ARE APPROXIMATE. FINAL LIMITS ARE TO BE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ENGINEERING INSPECTOR. ALL REPAIRS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LARIMER COUNTY URBAN AREA STREET STANDARDS. 10. ALL MANHOLE RIM ELEVATIONS (EXISTING & PROPOSED) ARE TO BE ADJUSTED TO 1 4" BELOW FINISHED GRADE. IF NECESSARY, CONE SECTIONS SHALL BE ROTATED TO PREVENT LIDS BEING LOCATED WITHIN VEHICLE OR BICYCLE WHEEL PATHS. 11. ALL DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE LINES TO BE 2" AND UPSIZED TO 2.5" FOLLOWING THE METER. ALL FIRE SERVICE LINES TO BE 6" AND ALL SANITARY SERVICE LINES TO BE 8" UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 12. THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE AS RECOGNIZED BY THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RUDOLPH FARMS INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT IS INTENDED TO BE MAINTAINED IN A NATIVE LANDSCAPE. PLEASE SEE SECTION 5.6 OF THE LAND USE CODE FOR ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE. LEGEND ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 163 > > > > > > > > > > > > T T T G G G G G G G G UD NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP P NP E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E HYD HYD W W W TRA C T E TIMN A T H R E S E R V O I R I N L E T C A N A L BUILDING 4 BUILDING 3 BUILDING 2 BUILDING 1 (SOUTH) PR O S P E C T R I D G E D R . PUBLIC 6" DIP FIRE LINE BUILDING CONNECTION TO FIRE SERVICE BUILDING CONNECTION TO DOMESTIC WATER LINE BUILDING CONNECTION TO FIRE SERVICE BUILDING CONNECTION TO DOMESTIC WATER LINE BUILDING CONNECTION TO DOMESTIC WATER LINE BUILDING CONNECTION TO FIRE SERVICE SSMH A9 WYE A8 BLDG 1 CONNECTION CLEANOUT A5-1 SSMH A6 SSMH A4 SSMH A SSMH A7 EX SSMH A2-3 SSMH A11 BLDG 2 CONNECTION BLDG 3 CONNECTION WYE A5 8" P V C S E W E R 8" PV C S E W E R 6" PVC SEWER 6" PV C S E W E R 8" P V C S E W E R 6" PVC SEWER 6" PVC SEWER 8" P V C S E W E R 8" P V C S E W E R 8" P V C S E W E R 15 " P V C S E W E R 15" P V C S E W E R 8" P V C S E W E R 8" P V C S E W E R 21' UTIL. ESMT EX . 9 ' U T I L E A S E M E N T CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER MAIN w/ TEE & (2) 8" GV (S, W) PROPOSED TRANSFORMER EXISTING 8" PVC WATER MAIN EXISTING 15" PVC SANITARY MAIN CONNECT TO EXISTINGWATER MAIN WITH SADDLE TEE PROPOSED NYLOPLAST AREA DRAIN (TYP.) PROPOSED 8" PVC STORM SEWER PROPOSED FH ASSEMBLY PROPOSED FH ASSEMBLY EXISTING FH ASSEMBLY LAK E C A N A L PROPOSED WATER METER PROPOSED WATER METER PROPOSED WATER METER BUILDING 1 (NORTH) PROPOSED 8" PVC WATERLINE SSMH A10 PROPOSED CONNECTION TO SANITARY SEWER MAIN 26' EMER. ACCESS ESMT 30' UTIL. ESMT 26' EMER. ACCESS ESMT PROPOSED TRANSFORMER PROPOSED TRANSFORMER 10' UTIL. ESMT 20' EMER. ACCESS ESMT 30' UTIL. ESMT6' UTIL. ESMT > > G G NP E E E EHYD W T T T T T T VAN VAN N KEY MAPKEY MAP N.T.S. TH I S D O C U M E N T , T O G E T H E R W I T H T H E C O N C E P T S A N D D E S I G N S P R E S E N T E D H E R E I N , A S A N I N S T R U M E N T O F S E R V I C E , I S I N T E N D E D O N L Y F O R T H E S P E C I F I C P U R P O S E A N D C L I E N T F O R W H I C H I T W A S P R E P A R E D . R E U S E O F A N D I M P R O P E R R E L I A N C E O N T H I S D O C U M E N T W I T H O U T W R I T T E N A U T H O R I Z A T I O N A N D A D A P T A T I O N B Y K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . S H A L L B E W I T H O U T L I A B I L I T Y T O K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . R Know what's below. Call before you dig. DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: NO . RE V I S I O N BY D A T E © 2 0 2 3 K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . 33 2 5 S . T I M B E R L I N E R O A D , S U I T E 1 3 0 FO R T C O L L I N S , C O L O R A D O 8 0 5 2 5 ( 9 7 0 ) 8 2 2 - 7 9 1 1 FOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. CONSTRUCTION \\ k i m l e y - h o r n \ M P _ N C O \ N C O _ C i v i l \ 1 9 6 3 9 5 0 0 3 _ P r o s p e c t R i d g e M u l t i f a m i l y \ C A D D \ P l a n S h e e t s \ C - U T I L . d w g PROJECT NO. SHEET 07/25/25 AGR MH HPC OF 16 196395003 PR O S P E C T R I D G E M U L T I F A M I L Y PR E L I M I N A R Y U T I L I T Y P L A N S 13 UT I L I T Y P L A N - N O R T H NORTH SHEET 14 SHEET 13 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 14 PROPERTY LINE EXISTING EASEMENT LINE EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING WATER LINE EXISTING ELECTRIC LINE EXISTING IRRIGATION LINE PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED WATER LINE PROPOSED ELECTRICAL LINE PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER PROPOSED STORM PIPE EXISTING LOT LINE PROPOSED TRANSFORMERT PROPOSED LIGHT POLE PROPOSED WATER METER VAULT PROPOSED SIDEWALK CHASE PROPOSED SANITARY MANHOLE PROPOSED SIGN PROPOSED AREA DRAIN PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT GENERAL NOTES 1. THE SIZE, TYPE, AND LOCATION OF ALL KNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE APPROXIMATE WHEN SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY THE EXISTENCE OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IN THE AREA OF THE WORK. BEFORE COMMENCING NEW CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL UNKNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. 2. ALL WATER CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PER THE EAST LARIMER COUNTY (ELCO) WATER DISTRICT. UTILITIES WATER AND WASTEWATER DESIGN CRITERIA MANUAL, EXCEPT THAT NO MECHANICAL JOINT RESTRAINTS ARE REQUIRED BETWEEN FITTINGS UNLESS SPECIFICALLY SHOWN ON THE PLAN OR AS REQUIRED FOR ABNORMAL DEFLECTIONS. 3. ALL SEWER CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PER THE BOXELDER SANITATION DISTRICT UTILITIES WATER AND WASTEWATER DESIGN CRITERIA MANUAL, LATEST EDITION. 4. ALL WATER FITTINGS AND VALVES ARE ONLY GRAPHICALLY REPRESENTED AND ARE NOT TO SCALE. 5. ALL WATERLINES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 4.5' AND MAXIMUM 5.5' WATER LINE COVER FROM FINISHED GRADE TO TOP OF PIPE. 6. UTILITY SERVICES ARE SHOWN IN A SCHEMATIC FASHION ONLY. EXACT LOCATIONS SHALL BE PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RESPECTIVE UTILITY PROVIDERS, AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE IN THE FIELD. 7. MAINTAIN 10' HORIZONTAL AND 18" VERTICAL MINIMUM SEPARATION BETWEEN ALL SANITARY SEWER MAINS, WATER MAINS, & SERVICES. 8. REFER TO THE PLAT FOR LOT AREAS, TRACT SIZES, EASEMENTS, LOT DIMENSIONS, UTILITY EASEMENTS, OTHER EASEMENTS, AND OTHER SURVEY INFORMATION. 9. LIMITS OF STREET CUT ARE APPROXIMATE. FINAL LIMITS ARE TO BE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ENGINEERING INSPECTOR. ALL REPAIRS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LARIMER COUNTY URBAN AREA STREET STANDARDS. 10. ALL MANHOLE RIM ELEVATIONS (EXISTING & PROPOSED) ARE TO BE ADJUSTED TO 1 4" BELOW FINISHED GRADE. IF NECESSARY, CONE SECTIONS SHALL BE ROTATED TO PREVENT LIDS BEING LOCATED WITHIN VEHICLE OR BICYCLE WHEEL PATHS. 11. ALL DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE LINES TO BE 2" AND UPSIZED TO 2.5" FOLLOWING THE METER. ALL FIRE SERVICE LINES TO BE 6" AND ALL SANITARY SERVICE LINES TO BE 8" UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 12. THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE AS RECOGNIZED BY THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RUDOLPH FARMS INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT IS INTENDED TO BE MAINTAINED IN A NATIVE LANDSCAPE. PLEASE SEE SECTION 5.6 OF THE LAND USE CODE FOR ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE. LEGEND ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 164 VAN VAN > > > T T T G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP EEEE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E HYD HYD HYD W W W W LOT 2 1.46 AC. BUILDING 4 BUILDING 6 BUILDING 5 POOL AMENITY AREA RUDOLPH FARM RAIN GARDEN 1 BUILDING 1 (SOUTH) PRO S P E C T R I D G E D R . TRACT E RUDOLPH FARM POND 1 PROPOSED FH ASSEMBLY PUBLIC 6" DIP FIRE LINE PROPOSED AREA DRAIN (TYP.) BUILDING CONNECTION TO FIRE SERVICE BUILDING CONNECTION TO DOMESTIC WATER LINE BUILDING CONNECTION TO FIRE SERVICE BUILDING CONNECTION TO DOMESTIC WATER LINE BUILDING CONNECTION TO DOMESTIC WATER LINE BUILDING CONNECTION TO DOMESTIC WATER LINE BUILDING CONNECTION TO FIRE SERVICE BLDG 6 CONNECTION SSMH A2-3 BLDG 5 CONNECTION WYE A2-2 SSMH A4 SSMH A2 SSMH A1 SSMH A EX SSMH A2-3 EX SSMH A2-2 BLDG 4 CONNECTION WYE A5 8" P V C S E W E R 8" P V C S E W E R 8" PV C S E W E R 6" P V C S E W E R 6" PVC SEWER 8" P V C S E W E R 6" PV C S E W E R 8" P V C S E W E R 15 " P V C S E W E R 15" P V C S E W E R 8" P V C S E W E R 6" PVC SEWER 24' EMER. ACCESS ESMT EX. 20' DRAINAGE EASEMENT EX. 9 ' U T I L . E A S E M E N T PROPOSED TRANSFORMER EXISTING 8" PVC WATER MAIN EXISTING 15" PVC SANITARY MAIN CONNECT TO EXISTINGWATER MAIN WITH SADDLE TEE PROPOSED FH ASSEMBLY CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER MAIN w/ TEE & (2) 8" GV (S, W) EXISTING 24" RCP STORM DRAIN BUILDING CONNECTION TO FIRE WATER LINE EXISTING FH ASSEMBLY PROPOSED WATER METER PROPOSED WATER METER PROPOSED WATER METER PROPOSED 8" PVC WATERLINE PROPOSED CONNECTION TO SANITARY SEWER MAIN POOL MAINTENACE BUILDING 30' UTIL. EASEMENT 30' UTIL. ESMT 26' EMER. ACCESS ESMT 26' EMER. ACCESS ESMT 30' UTIL. ESMT 30' UTIL. ESMT PROPOSED FH ASSEMBLY PROPOSED TRANSFORMER PROPOSED WATER METER PROPOSED TRANSFORMER 6' UTIL. ESMT 6' UTIL. ESMT 34' UTIL. EASEMENT > > >G NP NP E E E E E E E HYD W T T T T T T VAN VAN N KEY MAPKEY MAP N.T.S. TH I S D O C U M E N T , T O G E T H E R W I T H T H E C O N C E P T S A N D D E S I G N S P R E S E N T E D H E R E I N , A S A N I N S T R U M E N T O F S E R V I C E , I S I N T E N D E D O N L Y F O R T H E S P E C I F I C P U R P O S E A N D C L I E N T F O R W H I C H I T W A S P R E P A R E D . R E U S E O F A N D I M P R O P E R R E L I A N C E O N T H I S D O C U M E N T W I T H O U T W R I T T E N A U T H O R I Z A T I O N A N D A D A P T A T I O N B Y K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . S H A L L B E W I T H O U T L I A B I L I T Y T O K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . R Know what's below. Call before you dig. DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: NO . RE V I S I O N BY D A T E © 2 0 2 3 K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . 33 2 5 S . T I M B E R L I N E R O A D , S U I T E 1 3 0 FO R T C O L L I N S , C O L O R A D O 8 0 5 2 5 ( 9 7 0 ) 8 2 2 - 7 9 1 1 FOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. CONSTRUCTION \\ k i m l e y - h o r n \ M P _ N C O \ N C O _ C i v i l \ 1 9 6 3 9 5 0 0 3 _ P r o s p e c t R i d g e M u l t i f a m i l y \ C A D D \ P l a n S h e e t s \ C - U T I L . d w g PROJECT NO. SHEET 07/25/25 AGR MH HPC OF 16 196395003 PR O S P E C T R I D G E M U L T I F A M I L Y PR E L I M I N A R Y U T I L I T Y P L A N S 14 UT I L I T Y P L A N - S O U T H NORTH SHEET 14 SHEET 13 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 13 PROPERTY LINE EXISTING EASEMENT LINE EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING WATER LINE EXISTING ELECTRIC LINE EXISTING IRRIGATION LINE PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED WATER LINE PROPOSED ELECTRICAL LINE PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER PROPOSED STORM PIPE EXISTING LOT LINE PROPOSED TRANSFORMERT PROPOSED LIGHT POLE PROPOSED WATER METER VAULT PROPOSED SIDEWALK CHASE PROPOSED SANITARY MANHOLE PROPOSED SIGN PROPOSED AREA DRAIN PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT GENERAL NOTES 1. THE SIZE, TYPE, AND LOCATION OF ALL KNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE APPROXIMATE WHEN SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY THE EXISTENCE OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IN THE AREA OF THE WORK. BEFORE COMMENCING NEW CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL UNKNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. 2. ALL WATER CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PER THE EAST LARIMER COUNTY (ELCO) WATER DISTRICT. UTILITIES WATER AND WASTEWATER DESIGN CRITERIA MANUAL, EXCEPT THAT NO MECHANICAL JOINT RESTRAINTS ARE REQUIRED BETWEEN FITTINGS UNLESS SPECIFICALLY SHOWN ON THE PLAN OR AS REQUIRED FOR ABNORMAL DEFLECTIONS. 3. ALL SEWER CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PER THE BOXELDER SANITATION DISTRICT UTILITIES WATER AND WASTEWATER DESIGN CRITERIA MANUAL, LATEST EDITION. 4. ALL WATER FITTINGS AND VALVES ARE ONLY GRAPHICALLY REPRESENTED AND ARE NOT TO SCALE. 5. ALL WATERLINES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 4.5' AND MAXIMUM 5.5' WATER LINE COVER FROM FINISHED GRADE TO TOP OF PIPE. 6. UTILITY SERVICES ARE SHOWN IN A SCHEMATIC FASHION ONLY. EXACT LOCATIONS SHALL BE PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RESPECTIVE UTILITY PROVIDERS, AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE IN THE FIELD. 7. MAINTAIN 10' HORIZONTAL AND 18" VERTICAL MINIMUM SEPARATION BETWEEN ALL SANITARY SEWER MAINS, WATER MAINS, & SERVICES. 8. REFER TO THE PLAT FOR LOT AREAS, TRACT SIZES, EASEMENTS, LOT DIMENSIONS, UTILITY EASEMENTS, OTHER EASEMENTS, AND OTHER SURVEY INFORMATION. 9. LIMITS OF STREET CUT ARE APPROXIMATE. FINAL LIMITS ARE TO BE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ENGINEERING INSPECTOR. ALL REPAIRS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LARIMER COUNTY URBAN AREA STREET STANDARDS. 10. ALL MANHOLE RIM ELEVATIONS (EXISTING & PROPOSED) ARE TO BE ADJUSTED TO 1 4" BELOW FINISHED GRADE. IF NECESSARY, CONE SECTIONS SHALL BE ROTATED TO PREVENT LIDS BEING LOCATED WITHIN VEHICLE OR BICYCLE WHEEL PATHS. 11. ALL DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE LINES TO BE 2" AND UPSIZED TO 2.5" FOLLOWING THE METER. ALL FIRE SERVICE LINES TO BE 6" AND ALL SANITARY SERVICE LINES TO BE 8" UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 12. THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE AS RECOGNIZED BY THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RUDOLPH FARMS INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT IS INTENDED TO BE MAINTAINED IN A NATIVE LANDSCAPE. PLEASE SEE SECTION 5.6 OF THE LAND USE CODE FOR ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE. LEGEND ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 165 TH I S D O C U M E N T , T O G E T H E R W I T H T H E C O N C E P T S A N D D E S I G N S P R E S E N T E D H E R E I N , A S A N I N S T R U M E N T O F S E R V I C E , I S I N T E N D E D O N L Y F O R T H E S P E C I F I C P U R P O S E A N D C L I E N T F O R W H I C H I T W A S P R E P A R E D . R E U S E O F A N D I M P R O P E R R E L I A N C E O N T H I S D O C U M E N T W I T H O U T W R I T T E N A U T H O R I Z A T I O N A N D A D A P T A T I O N B Y K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . S H A L L B E W I T H O U T L I A B I L I T Y T O K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . R Know what's below. Call before you dig. DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: NO . RE V I S I O N BY D A T E © 2 0 2 3 K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . 33 2 5 S . T I M B E R L I N E R O A D , S U I T E 1 3 0 FO R T C O L L I N S , C O L O R A D O 8 0 5 2 5 ( 9 7 0 ) 8 2 2 - 7 9 1 1 FOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. CONSTRUCTION \\ k i m l e y - h o r n \ M P _ N C O \ N C O _ C i v i l \ 1 9 6 3 9 5 0 0 3 _ P r o s p e c t R i d g e M u l t i f a m i l y \ C A D D \ P l a n S h e e t s \ C - E R O S . d w g PROJECT NO. SHEET 07/25/25 AGR MH HPC OF 16 196395003 PR O S P E C T R I D G E M U L T I F A M I L Y PR E L I M I N A R Y U T I L I T Y P L A N S LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE CONSTRUCTION FENCE AREA OF DISTURBANCE ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS =± 6.80 ACRES (296,274 SF) OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS =±0.04 ACRES (1,835 SF) TOTAL = ±6.84 ACRES (298,109 SF) PROJECT SPECIFIC EROSION CONTROL NOTES: 1. STORMWATER QUALITY CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED TO MINIMIZE SOIL EROSION, SEDIMENTATION, INCREASED POLLUTANT LOADS, AND CHANGED WATER FLOW CHARACTERISTICS RESULTING FROM LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY, TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE, SO AS TO MINIMIZE POLLUTION OF RECEIVING WATERS. 2. THE INTENT OF THIS PLAN IS TO IDENTIFY THE EROSION CONTROL PRACTICES RECOMMENDED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REFERENCE ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR DEMOLITION OF EXISTING AND CONSTRUCTION OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. 3. REFERENCE FORT COLLINS STORMWATER CRITERIA MANUAL FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ADJACENT STREETS/DRIVES FREE OF SEDIMENT AND DEBRIS. STREET SWEEPING SHALL BE CONDUCTED ON AN INTERMITTENT BASIS AS NEEDED TO CONTROL SEDIMENT OR AS REQUIRED BY THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER. AT A MINIMUM, STREET SWEEPING SHALL TAKE PLACE ON A DAILY BASIS UPON COMPLETION OF THAT DAYS CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL UTILIZE AN APPROVED ROLLED EROSION CONTROL PRODUCT (RECP) ON ALL SLOPES GREATER THAN 3H:1V IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECP FACT SHEET. 6. PORTABLE TOILETS LOCATIONS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE DEVELOPER/CONTRACTOR AND UPDATED ON THE EROSION CONTROL PLANS AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX PROPERTY LINE EXISTING LOT LINE EASEMENT LINE PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOURS PROPOSED MINOR CONTOURS EXISTING MAJOR CONTOURS EXISTING MINOR CONTOURS 15 ER O S I O N C O N T R O L P L A N NORTH LEGEND NORTH CF ROCK SOCK STABILIZED STAGING AREA CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA INLET PROTECTION VEHICLE TRACKING CONTROL RS SSA VTC CWA IP SEED AND MULCH PERMANENT STABILIZATION (REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLANS) PROPOSED STORM PIPE PROPOSED AREA INLET PROJECT: PROSPECT RIDGE MULTIFAMILY 6' WROUGHT IRONPOOL FENCE (TYP.) 10'X10' MECHANICAL ROOM 4' ROUND FIRE PIT OUTDOOR GRILLAND COUNTERTOP TABLES AND CHAIRSWITH UMBRELLA (TYP.) ENTRY GATE12'X30' PERGOLA CHAISE LOUNGERS (TYP.) BIKE PARKING (TYP.) POOLAPPROX. 3,000 SFMAXIMUM 5' DEPTH SPABISTRO TABLE AND CHAIRS (TYP.) SWIM L A N E ( 2 5 Y A R D S , 4 ' D E P T H ) BUILDING 6 SUNSHELF (6" DEPTH) SUNS H E L F ( 6 " D E P T H ) LOUNGE CHAIRS WITH SIDE TABLE (TYP.) ZERO-ENTRY AREA 13 15 14 16 15 14 16 17 1616 16 17 16 1616 17 17 11 12 15 13 14 16 17 15 16 17 18 11 12 13 1414 14 13 16 16 11 11 11 12 15 14 18 17 18 1717 17 1819 18 19 17 18 18 15 16 15 14 16 17 17 10 11 12 13 11 13 18 19 19 17 15 15 12 13 1718 17 13 15 14 16 15 14 16 17 1616 16 17 16 1616 17 17 11 12 15 13 14 16 17 15 16 17 18 11 12 13 1414 14 13 16 16 11 11 11 12 15 14 18 17 18 1717 17 1819 18 19 17 18 18 15 16 15 14 16 17 17 10 11 12 13 11 13 18 19 19 17 15 15 12 13 1718 17 G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD NP NPNP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP P NP E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E VAN VAN T T T T T T IRR IRR IRR CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CF CFCF VTC 4916 4917 49 1 6 491 7 49 1 5 49 1 4 49 1 1 49 1 2 49 1 3 49 1 0 4915 4916 4917 4913 4914 4912 4910 4910 491 5 4911 4912 491 3 491 4 4916 4917 4917 490 5 491 0 490 4 490 6 490 7 490 8 4908 4908 490 9 4900 4896 4897 4898 4899 4901 4902 4903 491 64917 491 6 4917 4918 491 9 491 7 491 8 491 9 4918 49 1 7 49 1 8 49 1 9 4917 SSA LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE PR O S P E C T R I D G E D R . PROSP E C T RIDGE D R . TRA C T E TIMN A T H R E S E R V O I R I N L E T C A N A L LOT 2 1.46 AC. CONSTRUCTION FENCE GATE CONSTRUCTION FENCE GATE TRACT E RUDOLPH FARM POND 1 LEASING BUILDING 6 BUILDING 3 BUIL D I N G 2 BUILDING 5 BUILDING 4 BUILDING 1 NORTH BUILDING 1 SOUTH RUDOLPH FARM RAIN GARDEN 1 PROPOSED FOREBAY PROPOSED FOREBAY CWA IP IP IP IP IP IP IP IP IP IP IP RS RS RSRS RS RS RS RS RS RS RS RS RS IP RS RS RS RS RS IP IP LAK E C A N A L RS VTC ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 166 TH I S D O C U M E N T , T O G E T H E R W I T H T H E C O N C E P T S A N D D E S I G N S P R E S E N T E D H E R E I N , A S A N I N S T R U M E N T O F S E R V I C E , I S I N T E N D E D O N L Y F O R T H E S P E C I F I C P U R P O S E A N D C L I E N T F O R W H I C H I T W A S P R E P A R E D . R E U S E O F A N D I M P R O P E R R E L I A N C E O N T H I S D O C U M E N T W I T H O U T W R I T T E N A U T H O R I Z A T I O N A N D A D A P T A T I O N B Y K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . S H A L L B E W I T H O U T L I A B I L I T Y T O K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . R Know what's below. Call before you dig. DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: NO . RE V I S I O N BY D A T E © 2 0 2 3 K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . 33 2 5 S . T I M B E R L I N E R O A D , S U I T E 1 3 0 FO R T C O L L I N S , C O L O R A D O 8 0 5 2 5 ( 9 7 0 ) 8 2 2 - 7 9 1 1 FOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. CONSTRUCTION \\ k i m l e y - h o r n \ M P _ N C O \ N C O _ C i v i l \ 1 9 6 3 9 5 0 0 3 _ P r o s p e c t R i d g e M u l t i f a m i l y \ C A D D \ P l a n S h e e t s \ C - D M A P . d w g PROJECT NO. SHEET 07/25/25 AGR MH HPC OF 16 196395003 PR O S P E C T R I D G E M U L T I F A M I L Y PR E L I M I N A R Y U T I L I T Y P L A N S NORTH XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX PROPERTY LINE EASEMENT LINE SETBACK/BUILD-TO LINE PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY PROPOSED FLOW ARROW OVERFLOW PATH ARROW A = BASIN ID B = BASIN AREA (AC) C = BASIN IMPERVIOUSNESS DESIGN POINT 16 PR O P O S E D D R A I N A G E P L A N NORTH LEGEND G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD NP NPNP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP P NP E E E E E E E E E E EEE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E VAN VAN > > > > > > T T T T T T 13 15 14 16 15 14 16 17 1616 16 17 16 1616 17 17 11 12 15 13 14 16 17 15 16 17 18 11 12 13 1414 14 13 16 16 11 11 11 12 15 14 18 17 18 1717 17 1819 18 19 17 18 18 15 16 15 14 16 17 17 10 11 12 13 11 13 18 19 19 17 15 15 12 13 1718 17 4916 4917 49 1 6 491 7 49 1 5 49 1 4 49 1 1 49 1 2 49 1 3 49 1 0 4915 4916 4917 4913 4914 4912 49 1 5 4911 4912 49 1 3 491 4 4916 4917 4917 490 5 491 0 490 4 490 6 490 7 490 8 4908 4908 490 9 4900 4896 4897 4898 4899 4901 4902 4903 491 64917 491 6 4917 491 8 491 9 491 7 491 8 491 9 4918 49 1 7 49 1 8 49 1 9 4917 9. 0 ' E X . U T I L . E S M T 10 . 0 ' E X . D R N G E S M T 20' UTIL. ESMT. 13 15 14 16 15 14 16 17 1616 16 17 16 1616 17 17 11 12 15 13 14 16 17 15 16 17 18 11 12 13 1414 14 13 16 16 11 11 11 12 15 14 18 17 18 1717 17 1819 18 19 17 18 18 15 16 15 14 16 17 17 10 11 12 13 11 13 18 19 19 17 15 15 12 13 1718 17 26 ' EM E R . AC C E S S ES M T 26' U T I L . ESM T . 122 ' U T I L . ESM T . 26' UTIL. & EMER. ACCESS ESMT PROPOSED SITE DRAINAGE TO RAIN GARDEN WITH FOREBAY E EXISTING RUDOLPH FARM RAIN GARDEN 1 (LID TREATMENT PROVIDED WITH MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN) FOREBAY D2 PROPOSED 1' CURB CUT PROPOSED STORM LINE - SEE UTILITY PLANS PROPOSED SWALE PROPOSED AREA DRAIN (TYP.) EXISTING FOREBAY RG1.2 FOREBAY D1 PROPOSED SIDEWALK CHASE BUILDING 4 BUILDING 6 BUILDING 2 BUILDING 1 SOUTH POOL TRACT E RUDOLPH FARM POND 1 LOT 2 1.46 AC. TRA C T E TIMN A T H R E S E R V O I R I N L E T C A N A L LOT 1 6.80 AC. PR O S P E C T R I D G E D R . LAK E C A N A L PROSPECT RIDGE DR. LOT 4 2.38 AC. BUILDING 1 NORTH BUILDING 3 BUILDING 5 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 167 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 168 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 169 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 170 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 171 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 172 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 173 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 174 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 175 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 176 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 177 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 178 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 179 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 180 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 181 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 182 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 183 10 11 MASONRY MASONRY MASONRY 27 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 184 LANES END (GENERAL SHALE) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 185 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 186 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 187 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 188 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 189 10 11 MASONRY MASONRY MASONRY 27 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 190 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 191 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 192 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 193 From:Joni Glenn To:Development Review Comments Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: Prospect Ridge Project Date:Saturday, June 7, 2025 9:10:14 AM Attachments:image.png Thank you so much! This makes me very happy and the entire project will greatly improve living in the Fox Grove area. Much appreciated! Joni On Fri, Jun 6, 2025 at 11:20 AM Development Review Comments <devreviewcomments@fcgov.com> wrote: Hi Joni, Thanks for your email! I am glad you were able to watch the video. I have some more info about the trails that are proposed, not just for this property but for the entire I-25/Mulberry Northeast Corner. I have drawn in red the proposed regional trail segment that is planned here. It is a 10 foot-wide paved trail that would be open to both bikes and pedestrians. There is a planned underpass that safely crosses I-25 and from there you could get to the East Poudre Trail. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 194 It may take some time for the entire trail to be completed. As different developments like the one you watched the video for get built they will each pay to build the segment of trail which is on their property. The City may be able to help them out to make it go faster, but it will largely depend on when developers want to come build in this area. If you'd like to learn more about our vision for the city's trail system, there is a helpful map here: https://www.fcgov.com/parkplanning/files/parks-and-trails-planning- poster-july-2018-v5.pdf?1535131434 Please let me know if you have any more questions or any concerns! Have a great weekend, Em Myler Neighborhood Development Liaison From: Joni Glenn <jcemakes3@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, June 6, 2025 10:55 AM To: Development Review Comments <devreviewcomments@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Prospect Ridge Project Hi, Thank you for the recent YouTube video on the development review of the Prospect Ridge project. I am curious if the proposed trails that will run through the space are considered bike paths. Will the trail connect to the East Poudre trail? That would be very exciting if so. I live in the Fox Grove neighborhood and would love a safe connection to the bike path from my home. Thanks again, Joni Glenn ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 195 Prospect Ridge Multifamily – Project Development Plan Planning & Zoning Commission – August 21, 2025 2Project Overview Uplift Self Storage REVIWED UNDER PRIOR CODE – SUPPLEMENT 60 (2022) Development of Lot 1 of the Rudolph Farm Subdivision Part of an established Overall Development Plan 6.08-Acre lot zoned General Commercial w/ Activity Center overlay Proposal Includes 226-units 6, 4-story buildings Pool, gym, dog park, plaza, and pedestrian connection into the regional trail. 1 2 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 196 3Aerial Vicinity SITE E Prospect Road Ti m b e r l i n e R d 4Zoning Vicinity SITE Town of Timnath Vine Dr GC I UE (LMN) GM A B o u n d a r y Larimer County Larimer County 3 4 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 197 5Site Photos 6Street View 5 6 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 198 7Prospect & I-25 ODP 8Work Session Updates Entrances – Commissioner Shepard would like to see more detail in how the applicant believes they are meeting the standard. F 7 8 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 199 9 10Site Plan 9 10 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 200 Landscape Plan 11 Site Buffers – Outside Project Boundary 12 NHBZ & 80’ I-25 Buffer 80’ I-25 Buffer 80’ I-25 Buffer / Prospect Road Street 11 12 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 201 Block Size 13 Central Feature or Gathering Space 14 • 2,253 SF plaza space • Outdoor seating • Landscape areas • 2,217 SF fenced dog area • Pet waste receptacle • Adjoining walkway connects with regional trail. • Pool & Hot Tub • Fire Pit • Outdoor Grill • Outdoor seating • Adjoining ground-floor gym/clubhouse. Plaza Dog Park Pool & Gym 13 14 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 202 Architecture 15 Building A Architecture 16 Building B 15 16 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 203 Architecture 17 Building C Architecture • Contains leasing office and gym. • Used in one locating facing Prospect Ridge Road 18 Building D 17 18 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 204 Trash Enclosure & Lighting 19 20Staff Findings Staff finds overall compliance with: 1. City’s Comprehensive Plan and elements thereof, 2. Overall Development Plan, and 3. Relevant development standards of Article 3, Article 4. Staff recommends approval of Prospect Ridge Multifamily, PDP230012 19 20 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 205 THANK YOU! 21 21 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 206 Prospect Ridge Mixed-Use (Lot 1) Planning & Zoning Hearing August 21, 2025 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 207 • Owner/Developer - Pacific North Enterprises, LLC • Kimley-Horn – Landscape Architect, Civil Engineer, & Planning • Neo-Studio - Architect Project Team ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 208 • PNE is a family business that was started by Rudy Byler and that his sons, Bryan and Jeff, are now leading. They have done a wide array of projects all over the country, from small townhome projects in Parker to hydroelectric dams in Alaska. Pacific North Enterprises, LLC ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 209 Where are we in the process? Neighborhood Meeting PDR Application Preliminary Design Plan (PDP) Process Final Plan (FDP) Process Final Plan Approval September 2025 March 2026 (approx.)Public Hearing ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 210 Approved Rudolph Farms ODP ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 211 Rudolph Farms - Subdivision Overview • Three roadways and two irrigation ditches create 13 lots • Anticipated Uses are a mix of commercial, residential, and industrial • Detention, Water Quality and LID is provided by the overall development for all parcels • Landscape and Natural Habitat Buffers accounted for in overall development ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 212 Rudolph Farms – Roadway Network • Prospect to be widened and bridge over Lake Canal to be replaced • Multiple connections to Fox Grove • New Connection to Timnath HS/MS • Signals installed at Prospect/Carriage intersection as well as Carriage/Prospect Ridge intersection • Pedestrian Crossing with RFB Installed on Carriage north of Canals ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 213 Rudolph Farms – Pedestrian Network • 10’ City/Regional Trail that connects north into Fox Grove and east towards Timnath HS/MS • Future connection to west under I-25 at Boxelder Creek • 8’ Public Trail along north side of canals to provide future direct connection to HS/MS (if PSD elects) • Pedestrian crossing with Rapid Flashing Beacon on Carriage Parkway • New Connection to Timnath HS/MS serves Fox Grove pedestrians ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 214 Lot 1 Site Data ± 13.8 acres ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 215 Building Orientation • All buildings are oriented outward towards public roadways and open space • Parking lots internal to the site with buildings providing screening ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 216 Internal Vehicular Circulation • 24’ and 26’ internal drives ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 217 Internal Pedestrian Connectivity • Robust internal network of walkways • Two Pedestrian corridors that provide “pass through” connections between the west side of the project and Prospect Ridge Drive • Enhanced planted areas between garages to enhance pedestrian scale ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 218 Trash Locations ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 219 Proposed Architecture – Exterior Materials ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 220 Building Perspectives Building D – Looking West from Prospect Ridge Dr. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 221 Building Perspectives Building D – Looking Northwest from Prospect Ridge Dr. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 222 Building Perspectives Looking North from Prospect ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 223 Building Perspectives Looking East toward Building C ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 224 Building Perspectives Looking East from Prospect Ridge Dr. toward Development Entry ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 225 Proposed Entrances Building B Building A ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 226 Proposed Pool Deck 5000 sf clubhouse/ Fitness Center ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 227 Proposed Amenity Areas Dog Park Central Seating Area ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 228 Questions?Thank you! ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 229 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 230 Appendices ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 231 Initial Concept ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 232 Neighborhood Meeting Facing North ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 233 Natural Habitat Buffer Zone ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 234 Building Floorplans – Building A ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 235 Building Floorplans – Building B ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 236 Building Floorplans – Building C ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 237 Building Floorplans – Building D ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 238 Building Floorplans – Trash Enclosure ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 239 Proposed Landscape Plan ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 240 Proposed Architecture – Building A ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 241 Proposed Architecture – Building B ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 242 Proposed Architecture – Building C ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 243 Proposed Architecture – Building D ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 244 Grading Exhibit ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 245 Utility Exhibit ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 246 Drainage Exhibit ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 247