The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/15/2015 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - Regular MeetingJennifer Carpenter, Chair City Council Chambers Kristin Kirkpatrick, Vice Chair City Hall West Jeff Hansen 300 Laporte Avenue Gerald Hart Fort Collins, Colorado Emily Heinz Michael Hobbs Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Jeffrey Schneider on the Comcast cable system The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing January 15, 2015 • ROLL CALL • ELECTION OF OFFICERS • AGENDA REVIEW • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (30 minutes total for non-agenda and pending application topics) • CONSENT AGENDA 1. December 11, 2014, P&Z Draft Minutes • PULLED FROM CONSENT • DISCUSSION AGENDA 2. Rigden Farm 6th Filing Tract Z Multi-family, Project Development Plan, PDP #140009 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to construct 33 multi-family dwellings on Tract Z of the 6th Filing of Rigden Farm. The site is approximately 3 acres, bounded by existing public streets including Denver Drive to the northeast, Exmoor Lane to the southwest and Porter Place to the southeast. The project proposes two and three bedroom dwelling units in two-story buildings. Planning and Zoning Board Agenda Planning and Zoning Board Page 1 January 15, 2015 1 Located in the L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone district, the site is part of the Rigden Farm Overall Development Plan (O.D.P.). APPLICANT: Daniel Hull Olsson Associates 5285 McWhinney Blvd. Loveland, CO 80538 • OTHER BUSINESS Letter of Support – Lincoln Avenue Improvements • ADJOURNMENT City of Fort Collins Page 2 2 Agenda Item 1 STAFF REPORT January 15, 2015 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME DECEMBER 11, 2014, P&Z DRAFT MINUTES STAFF Cindy Cosmas, Administrative Assistant PROJECT INFORMATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ATTACHMENTS 1. December 11, 2014 Draft P&Z Minutes (DOC) Item # 1 Page 1 3 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Minutes December 11, 2014 6:00 p.m. Council Liaison: Mayor Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Laurie Kadrich Chair: Jennifer Carpenter Phone: (H) 231-1407 Chair Carpenter called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Kirkpatrick, Hansen, Hart, and Schneider Absent: Carpenter, Hobbs Staff Present: Kadrich, Eckman, Burnett, Wilkinson, Wray, Mounce, and Cosmas Agenda Review Vice Chair Kirkpatrick provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. She described the following processes: • While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration, citizen input is valued and appreciated. • The Board is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Board once for each item. • Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with city Land Use Code. • Should a citizen wish to address the Board on items other than what is on the agenda, time will be allowed for that as well. • This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak can be heard. Director Kadrich reviewed the items on both the Consent and Discussion agendas and also explained the consent/discussion procedure to the audience. Public Input on Items Not on the Agenda: None. Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes from November 13, 2014, P&Z Hearing 4 Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 2014 Page 2 Public Input: None. Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the December 11, 2014, Consent agenda as presented, which includes the minutes from the November 13, 2014, Planning and Zoning Board hearing. Member Heinz seconded. Vote: 6:0. Discussion Agenda: 2. Capstone Cottages Plan Amendment and Rezone, REZ #140002 Project: Capstone Cottages Plan Amendment and Rezone, REZ #140002 Project Description: This is a request that the East Mulberry Corridor Plan and City Structure Plan Maps be amended to change the land use designation of approximately 12.7 acres of land northeast of the Lincoln Avenue/Lemay Avenue intersection from Industrial to Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. The Applicant’s proposal also involves a request to rezone 12.7 acres of land from the Industrial District (I) to the Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood District (M-M-N) and 0.070 acres of land from the M-M-N to the Industrial District. The requests are based on the Applicant’s proposal to develop a single-family residential project; the Project Development Plan for the proposed single-family project is submitted concurrently. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Staff and Applicant Presentations Member Hansen recused himself at 6:04pm due to a conflict of interest with this project. Senior Planner Wray made a brief presentation of this project, including each of the items requiring a separate vote: Part I: a request for a plan amendment to change the land use designation of 12.7 acres from Industrial to Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood for the East Mulberry Corridor Plan; Part II: this same change for the City Structure Plan Map; and Part III: a request to rezone approximately 12.7 acres from Industrial to Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood and to rezone 7/100 of an acre from Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood to Industrial. He also informed the Board that the Project Development Plan (PDP) has been submitted concurrently with this project and is currently under review. A summary of the discussion from a neighborhood 5 Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 2014 Page 3 meeting from the previous evening (12/10/14) has also been included in tonight’s packet, which was the third meeting for both of these projects. Linda Ripley, with Ripley Design, Inc., is representing Capstone Collegiate Communities, the Applicant for the rezoning. She continued with a more in-depth presentation, including a PowerPoint presentation. She detailed the nearby amenities and detailed the reasons behind the rezoning, including the plan to revitalize the area. She stated that this rezoning fits well into the City’s Master Street Plan. She discussed the advantages of these changes and how the site is appropriate for industrial development, including the criteria for project approval: consistency with comprehensive plan and is warranted by change conditions (airport no longer in operation, Woodward Governor’s new campus, bank development, and pedestrian and bike improvements). She stated that the applicant was only recently able to assemble these adjacent parcels. They are also pursuing a project development plan, but this plan will not be included in tonight’s discussion. Deputy City Attorney Eckman clarified the objectives for tonight: he suggested that several motions be made, specifically focusing on changing any City plans first. Public Input John Lee, 500 9th Street, stated this is plan has a direct impact on his neighborhood. He doesn’t feel that he can expand his own business, based on the proposed plan. Because this project is student housing, the number of cars, along with the trains, will become very difficult to navigate. He doesn’t feel that the current infrastructure will support these changes. Lisa Lee, 500 9th Street, is opposed to this project because the location can’t support more cars. She says that the area is already unsafe, and adding 800 more cars would be unsafe and unsupportable. Justin Wagner, 601 10th Street, stated that he feels that the infrastructure should be built first. He cited the number of car wrecks and train issues as examples of the congestion. He believes that students won’t want to live this far to the east of CSU, and he thinks having student shuttles may not help this situation and they will continue driving their own cars. Jerry Gavaldon, 1252 Solstice Lane, has family who grew up in this area. He made some general comments regarding the appropriate zoning for this area, given the issues brought up by citizens and the constraints dictated by the Land Use Code. Staff/Applicant Response to Citizen Concerns Ms. Ripley stated that she did not have a rebuttal to the citizen comments. Senior Planner Wray noted that the citizen concerns were mostly related to traffic and street plan. Martina Wilkinson, Traffic Operations, stated that, in terms of the rezoning proposed, residents would experience an approximate increase in daily trips of about 20%. Board Questions and Staff Response Member Hart asked if the traffic generation is based upon standard numbers of trips for these zoning types. Matt Delich, Traffic Engineer for Delich Associates, stated that the light industrial land use standard was used (a City of Fort Collins city source). Vice Chair Kirkpatrick asked about the plans to build-out that area and what infrastructure improvements are planned. Ms. Wilkinson stated that they 6 Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 2014 Page 4 want to improve the Lincoln Corridor, to connect the international boulevard, and ensuring connectivity to Lemay to the north to reduce congestion. The City will be putting in a pedestrian signal to assist citizens in crossing Lemay, which will be included in project development plan. Vice Chair Kirkpatrick asked about paying for infrastructure improvements. Senior Planner Wray responded that the City plans for future development by ensuring adequate public infrastructure is in place concurrent with new development, and funding will come from private development of their fair share and capital project funds. Director Kadrich added that there may be existing conditions that were present and needed infrastructure changes or upgrades prior to any new development coming in. Developers would pay their proportionate share of those costs, but they would not be required to pay for existing conditions. Member Schneider asked if there is any possibility that the airport would ever be revitalized. Senior Planner Wray responded that the property has gone into foreclosure and is now is owned by a bank and has been rezoned to Employment; however, the airport itself is no longer in existence. Member Hart asked if traffic is already at capacity. Ms. Wilkinson stated that Traffic Operations is watching traffic levels at this intersection and are requiring the Applicant to analyze to meet the required level of service standards. It is currently running at Level E, which is near to capacity, especially with the inclusion of a train or crash. Senior Planner Wray also stated that the Right of Way for the southern realignment has been dedicated. Mr. Delich also added that, during peak hours at the intersection of Vine and Lemay, the difference between the current and future zoning is less than 5 vehicles per hour. Senior Planner Wray added that there are a little less than 900 available acres for vacant Industrial use around the City and approximately 250 redevelopment industrial acres within the East Mulberry Corridor area. While we are losing approximately 12 acres of industrial land, there is sufficient inventory of industrial land to accommodate future needs. Board Deliberation Member Hart stated that he is convinced that this development will not increase the impact of traffic and may actually improve the existing traffic conditions. He stated that the next stage of development will address the traffic issues, and he feels that the students will utilize the free transport system. Member Schneider asked whether 9th street/Lemay going to dead-end at the railroad tracks. Senior Planner Wray stated that, in reference to the Master Street Plan, there are some opportunities coming up that will answer that question. There was some discussion as to the future placement of Lemay and Vine. Member Heinz stated that she doesn’t see an issue with adding the additional 12 acres to this zoning. Member Schneider asked whether there had been any communication with Woodward regarding this project. Senior Planner Wray responded that he has not heard any specific comments from them on this topic. Member Schneider stated that he has reservations of the zoning impacts of traffic on the neighborhood but will support it. Vice Chair Kirkpatrick will also support the rezoning with respect to the Master Street Plan and connectivity. She encouraged citizens to continue their involvement with the project development plan. Overall, she believes this rezoning is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Member Hart hopes that any plan takes into consideration the impact on infrastructure. Eckman counselled on how the motions should be made in order to ensure clear intent. 7 Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 2014 Page 5 Member Hart made a motion that, based upon the findings of facts and conclusions in the Staff Report on pages 8 and 9 A-C, the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to the City Council approval of the amendment to the City Structure Plan Map to change the land use designation of approximately 12.7 acres of land northeast of the Lincoln Avenue/Lemay Avenue intersection from Industrial to Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. Member Heinz seconded the motion. Vote: 4:0. Member Hart made a motion that, based upon the findings of facts and conclusions in the Staff Report on page 8 and 9 A-C, the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to the City Council approval of the amendment to the East Mulberry Corridor Plan Map to change the land use designation of approximately 12.7 acres of land northeast of the Lincoln Avenue/Lemay Avenue intersection from Industrial to Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. Member Heinz seconded the motion. Vote: 4:0. Member Hart made a motion that, based upon the findings of facts and conclusions in the Staff Report on pages 8 and 9 D-I, the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to the City Council approval of the amendment to the Zoning Map to change the land use classification of approximately 12.7 acres of land northeast of the Lincoln Avenue/Lemay Avenue intersection from Industrial to Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood and also include a change to the land use classification of approximately 0.07 acres of land from Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood to Industrial and in accordance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the Capstone Cottages Rezoning REZ #140002. Member Heinz seconded the motion. Vote: 4:0. Other Business None noted. The meeting was adjourned at 7:10pm. Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director Kristin Kirkpatrick, Vice Chair 8 Agenda Item 2 STAFF REPORT January 15, 2015 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME RIGDEN FARM 6TH FILING TRACT Z MULTI-FAMILY, PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PDP #140009 STAFF Jason Holland, City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to construct 33 multi-family dwellings on Tract Z of the 6 th Filing of Rigden Farm. The site is approximately 3 acres, bounded by existing public streets including Denver Drive to the northeast, Exmoor Lane to the southwest and Porter Place to the southeast. The project proposes two and three bedroom dwelling units in two-story buildings. Located in the L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone district, the site is part of the Rigden Farm Overall Development Plan (O.D.P.). APPLICANT: Daniel Hull Olsson Associates 5285 McWhinney Blvd. Loveland, CO 80538 OWNER: Rigden Holding, LLC 7251 W. 20th St. Suite L-200 Greeley, CO 80634 RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the Rigden Farm Filing 6 Tract Z Multi-family Project Development Plan Item # 2 Page 1 9 Agenda Item 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The approval of Rigden Farm Filing 6 Tract Z Multi-family Project Development Plan complies with the applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically: • The P.D.P. complies with process located in Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 - Administration. • The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.5, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) of Article 4 - Districts. • The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 - General Development Standards. • The P.D.P. continues to comply with the Rigden Farm Overall Development Plan (O.D.P.). Item # 2 Page 2 10 Agenda Item 2 COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) Residential - single-family lots South Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) Residential - two and three family units; open space tracts East Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) Residential - single-family lots West Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) Residential - single-family lots and open space tracts • The property was annexed in August 1988 as part of the Rigden Farm Annexation. • In 1998, the eastern portion of the Rigden Farm annexation area (owned by CSU at the time) was zoned L-M-N and R-C River Corridor. A condition was placed on the L-M-N zoning, limiting the total number of homes to 232 in Area K and L of the L-M-N area as shown on the O.D.P. This condition has the effect of limiting the subject property to 33 units, resulting in a maximum density of 11.18 units per acre. 2. Compliance with Applicable L-M-N Standards: The project complies with all applicable L-M-N standards with the following relevant comments provided: A. Section 4.5(A) - Purpose The proposed multi-family land use is consistent with the L-M-N purpose by contributing to the variety of housing choices envisioned within the overall Rigden Farm development; within a framework of pedestrian oriented streets, trails, small parks and open space. Typically, Low Density Neighborhoods are clustered around and integral with a Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood and Neighborhood Center, both of which are integrated into the overall plan to the west. B. Section 4.5(B)(3)(a)(3) - Permitted Uses Multi-family dwellings are a permitted use in the L-M-N District, in this case subject to a Type 2 Planning and Zoning Board review, due to the overall number of bedrooms proposed being greater than 75 bedrooms. A total of 92 bedrooms is proposed. C. Section 4.5(D)(1) - Density This standard requires that residential density on parcels less than 20 acres have a density not less than 3.00 dwelling units per gross acre and not greater than 12.00 units per gross acre within any phase of a multiple-phase development plan. The project proposes a maximum density of 11.2 units per acre as part of the Rigden Farm Overall Development Plan, which is in compliance with this standard. D. Section 4.5(D)(6) - Small Neighborhood Park Three small neighborhood parks were approved with the Rigden Farm 6th Filing to satisfy this standard, with the closest park located approximately 500 feet to the southwest. Additionally, open space is Item # 2 Page 3 11 Agenda Item 2 provided within the proposed development and adjacent to the west of the project. 3. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code - General Development Standards The project complies with all applicable General Development Standards with the following relevant comments provided: A. Section - 3.2.1 Landscaping Street trees are provided at approximately 40 foot intervals along all portions of the surrounding streets in compliance with the standards of this section. Shade trees are also provided at 40 foot minimum intervals along each side of the interior drive isle through the center of the project. Building foundations propose planting areas with a combination of trees and shrubs that provide an appropriate transition between the buildings and the street. B. Section 3.2.2 - Access, Circulation and Parking The development proposal satisfies the parking requirement for residential uses as set forth in Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) of the LUC. The total parking required is 65 spaces, based on the number of bedrooms per dwelling unit. There will be 66 garage parking spaces on the site and one additional accessible van space along the interior drive isle. Additional tandem guest parking is available along the internal drive isle in front of each garage space. Although this additional parking does not count towards the project’s minimum parking requirement, it does provide some additional parking for the project that is not located along a public street. In conformance with the Purpose, General Standard, and Development Standards described in this section, the parking and circulation system provided with the project is well designed with regard to safety, efficiency and convenience for vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and transit, both within the development and to and from surrounding areas. C. Section 3.2.2(C)(6) - Direct On-Site Access to Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections The development was planned to incorporate open space and an 8 foot wide concrete trail through the center of the project, which provides additional convenient pedestrian and bicycle connections on routes not associated with a street. An enhanced crossing is provided where the trail crosses the project’s center drive isle. D. Section 3.5.2 - Residential Building Standards In conformance with the general standard of this section, the project places a high priority on building entryways and their relationship to the street by providing distinctive, street-facing porches with unique architectural elements within each of the three building designs provided. All building entrances and front facades are oriented towards the street with connecting walkways providing access from the street to each dwelling. E. Section 3.8.30(F)(2) Variation among repeated buildings. This code section was recently amended to require additional standards for variation among repeated buildings. The amended standards require that: • The development have at least three distinctly different building designs; Item # 2 Page 4 12 Agenda Item 2 • That no similar buildings be placed next to each other along a street; • That building designs vary significantly in footprint size and shape and; • Building designs shall be further distinguished by including unique architectural elevations and unique entrance features within a coordinated overall theme of roof forms, massing, proportions and other characteristics. Such variation among buildings shall not consist solely of different combinations of the same building features. The project provides a number of distinct elements to meet the building variation standard. In addition to five-unit and six-unit footprints, a three-unit building footprint was added to provide a total of three building footprints in conformance with the standard. The three building designs are further distinguished with architectural details specific to each building, including distinct masonry styles, unique window and door styles, different porch column designs, accent brackets at roof gables, and variation in lap and vertical siding treatments. 4. Neighborhood Meeting A City neighborhood meeting was held for the proposed project. A neighborhood meeting summary and letters from the neighbors are attached with this staff report. Neighborhood concerns expressed are summarized as follows: • Concerns that the overall Rigden Farm development has too many rental units and that additional units in this location should be owner occupied; • Concerns that the development will create additional traffic impacts; • Concern with the number of units proposed (at the time of the neighborhood meeting, 39 units were proposed); • A preference for duplex units was expressed; • Concerns with an increase in the use of the perimeter streets for parking and traffic speeds in the neighborhood. 5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion Rigden Farm Filing 6 Tract Z Multi-family, Project Development Plan, staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The P.D.P. complies with the process located in Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 - Administration. B. The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 - General Development Standards. C. The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.5, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) of Article 4 - Districts. D. The P.D.P. continues to comply with the Rigden Farm Overall Development Plan. Item # 2 Page 5 13 Agenda Item 2 ATTACHMENTS 1. Site Plan (PDF) 2. Landscape Plan (PDF) 3. 3 Unit Building Elevations (PDF) 4. 5 Unit Building Elevations (PDF) 5. 6 Unit Building Elevations (PDF) 6. Letters from Residents (PDF) 7. Neighborhood meeting notes (PDF) 8. Rigden Farm Overall Development Plan (PDF) Item # 2 Page 6 14 REVISIONS NO. REV. DATE REVISIONS DESCRIPTION project no.: approved by: checked by: drawn by: drawing no.: QA/QC by: date: SHEET TEL 970.461.7733 www.olssonassociates.com 5285 McWhinney Boulevard, Suite 160 Loveland, CO 80538 OLSSON ASSOCIATES ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS (HORIZONTAL OR VERTICAL). THE EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING HAVE BEEN PLOTTED FROM THE BEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION. IT IS HOWEVER THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY THE LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. NOTE THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN RELEASED BY OLSSON ASSOCIATES ONLY FOR REVIEW BY REGULATORY AGENCIES AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS, AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE. THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION. CALL 811 SEVENTY-TWO HOURS PRIOR TO DIGGING, GRADING OR EXCAVATING FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES R 11/13/2014 DH JEZ 013-2449 013-2449 1 12 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO COVER SHEET TRACT Z OF RIGDEN FARM FILING SIX PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2014 C B BUILDING #7 3-PLEX DENVER DRIVE EXMOOR LANE PORTER PLACE BUILDING #1 5-PLEX TRACT X TRACT Y BUILDING #2 6-PLEX BUILDING #3 5-PLEX BUILDING #4 3-PLEX BUILDING #6 6-PLEX BUILDING #5 5-PLEX TRACT AA TRACT BA TRACT Z REVISIONS NO. REV. DATE REVISIONS DESCRIPTION project no.: approved by: checked by: drawn by: drawing no.: QA/QC by: date: SHEET TEL 970.461.7733 www.olssonassociates.com 5285 McWhinney Boulevard, Suite 160 Loveland, CO 80538 OLSSON ASSOCIATES ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS (HORIZONTAL OR VERTICAL). THE EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING HAVE BEEN PLOTTED FROM THE BEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION. IT IS HOWEVER THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY THE LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. NOTE THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN RELEASED BY OLSSON ASSOCIATES ONLY FOR REVIEW BY REGULATORY AGENCIES AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS, AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE. THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION. LEGEND 1. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL MEET SPECIFICATIONS OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN (AAN) FOR NUMBER ONE GRADE. ALL TREES SHALL BE BALLED AND BURLAPPED OR EQUIVALENT. 2. TREES SHALL NOT BE PLANTED CLOSER THAN 4 FEET TO ANY GAS LINE, NO CLOSER THAN 6 FEET TO ANY WATER OR SEWER SERVICE LINE, AND NO CLOSER THAN 10 FEET TO ANY WATER OR SEWER MAIN. TREE PLANTING SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY. A HORIZONTAL DISTANCE OF 40 FEET BETWEEN STREET TREES AND STREET LIGHTS AND 15 FEET BETWEEN ORNAMENTAL TREES AND STREET LIGHTS SHALL BE MAINTAINED. SHRUBS ARE NOT TO BE PLANTED WITHIN 4 FEET OF ANY WATER OR SEWER MAINS. PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE ADJUSTED IN THE FIELD TO MAINTAIN THE ABOVE CLEARANCES. 3. LANDSCAPING SHALL BE INSTALLED OR SECURED WITH A LETTER OF CREDIT, ESCROW, OR PERFORMANCE BOND FOR 125% OF THE VALUE OF THE LANDSCAPING AND INSTALLATION PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. . 4. LANDSCAPING WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYS AND COMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS SHALL BE INSTALLED BY THE DEVELOPER AND MAINTAINED BY THE OWNER. 5. DEVELOPER SHALL ENSURE THAT THE LANDSCAPE PLAN IS COORDINATED WITH THE PLANS DONE BY OTHER CONSULTANTS SO THAT THE PROPOSED GRADING, STORM DRAINAGE, OR OTHER CONSTRUCTION DOES NOT CONFLICT NOR PRECLUDE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS ON THIS PLAN. 6. ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS WITHIN THE SITE SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC UNDERGROUND IRRIGATION SYSTEM. AN IRRIGATION PLAN, REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE WATER UTILITIES, WILL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. 7. ALL TURF AREAS TO BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC POP-UP IRRIGATION SYSTEM. ALL SHRUB BEDS AND TREES, INCLUDING IN NATIVE SEED AREAS, ARE TO BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC DRIP (TRICKLE) IRRIGATION SYSTEM, OR ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS TO BE ADJUSTED TO MEET THE WATER REQUIREMENTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL PLANT MATERIAL. 8. ALL SHRUB BEDS TO BE MULCHED WITH A MINIMUM THREE INCH (3") LAYER OF WOOD BARK MULCH OR ROCK MULCH OVER WEED BARRIER. 9. EDGING BETWEEN GRASS AND SHRUB BEDS SHALL BE 1 8" X 4" STEEL SET LEVEL WITH TOP OF SOD. 10. IRRIGATED TURF SHALL BE TEXAS BLUEGRASS/KENTUCKEY BLUEGRASS HYBRID REVEILLE OR APPROVED EQUAL. 11. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE, TOPSOIL THAT IS REMOVED DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHALL BE CONSERVED FOR LATER USE. 12. THE SOIL IN ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS, WHERE THE EXISTING SPRINKLER SYSTEM, TURF OR ROOT SYSTEMS OF EXISTING TREES WOULD NOT BE IMPACTED, SHALL BE THOROUGHLY LOOSENED TO A DEPTH OF NOT LESS THAN EIGHT (8) INCHES AND SOIL AMENDMENT SHALL BE THOROUGHLY INCORPORATED INTO THE SOIL OF ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS TO A DEPTH OF AT LEAST SIX (6) INCHES BY TILLING, DISCING OR OTHER SUITABLE METHOD, AT A RATE OF AT LEAST THREE (3) CUBIC YARDS OF SOIL AMENDMENT PER ONE THOUSAND (1,000) SQUARE FEET OF LANDSCAPE AREA. 13. STREET LANDSCAPING, INCLUDING STREET TREES, SHALL BE SELECTED AND MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL CITY CODES AND POLICIES. LANDSCAPE NOTES DECIDUOUS TREE STEEL EDGER PROPOSED IRRIGATED TURF AREA SITE ENGINEER AND SURVEYOR OLSON ASSOCIATES 5285 McWhinney Boulevard, Suite 160 Loveland, CO BUS. (303) 374.3195 401 West Mountain Avenue Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 fax 970/224.1662 phone 970/224.5828 www.vfrdesigninc.com Ŷ land planning Ŷ landscape architecture Ŷ Ŷ urban design Ŷ entitlement Ŷ FORT COLLINS, COLORADO RIGDEN FARM TRACT Z PDP IN ASSOCIATION WITH: PROJECT No.: R14-027 DRAWN BY: rl REVIEWED BY: RL SEAL: THIS IS A LAND USE PLANNING DOCUMENT, NOT A CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT. REFER TO CIVIL ENGINEERING PLANS. ISSUED No. DESCRIPTION DATE 1 PDP 6.18.14 2 3 LEGEND DECIDUOUS TREE STEEL EDGER PROPOSED IRRIGATED TURF AREA PRUNING NOTES: DO NOT HEAVILY PRUNE SHRUB AT PLANTING. PRUNE ONLY DEAD OR BROKEN BRANCHES. IF FORM IS COMPROMISED BY PRUNING, REPLACE SHRUB PLACEMENT NOTES: SET SHRUB PLUMB. SPACE PLANTS, AND PLACE FOR BEST EFFECT SET TOP OF ROOTBALL 1-2" HIGHER THAN ADJACENT GRADE SCARIFY SIDES AND USE 1:1 SLOPE 4" DEEP MULCH RING 3' IN DIA. PLACE ON GEOTEXTILE WEED BARRIER. OMIT WEED BARRIER OVER ROOTBALL ZONE. REMOVE CONTAINER (INCLUDING FIBER CONTAINERS), BASKETS, WIRE, ETC. FROM THE ROOTBALL. BREAK UP ENCIRCLING ROOTS WITH SHARP KNIFE OR SPADE. SPLIT BOTTOM OF ROOT BALL. PLACE ON UNDISTURBED SOIL TO PREVENT SETTLEMENT BACKFILL MIX 2 X BALL DIA. 4" HIGH WATER SAUCER PREVAILING WIND 4" WATER SAUCER (OMIT IN LAWN AREAS) SCARIFY SIDES OF HOLE LEAVING 1:1 SLOPE NOTES: SET S0 THAT TOP OF ROOT 1-2" HIGHER THAN FINISHED GRADE MARK NORTH SIDE OF TREE IN NURSERY AND ROTATE TREE TO FACE NORTH AT THE SITE WHENEVER POSSIBLE TREE TIES (ONE PER GUY) TREE STAKE, DRIVEN (MIN. 24") FIRMLY INTO UNDISTURBED SOIL OUTSIDE OF PLANTING HOLE BEFORE BACKFILLING STAKE ABOVE FIRST BRANCHES OR AS NECESSARY FOR FIRM SUPPORT BACKFILL MIX. TAMP SOIL AROUND ROOT BALL W/ FOOT PRESSURE SO THAT IT DOESN'T SHIFT. WATER THOROUGHLY TO SETTLE AND REMOVE AIR POCKETS REMOVE ALL WIRE, TWINE BURLAP, MESH AND CONTAINERS 19 20 21 From: Jason Siemers To: Jason Holland Subject: Rigden Farm, Tract Z, Multi-Family homes Date: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 10:21:37 AM Hello Jason, My name is Jason Siemers and my wife and I recently purchased a new home on Denver Drive in Rigden Farm. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the meeting that was held on April 14th, but I do have some concerns that I would like to express regarding the proposed development going in just down the street from us. My family has just moved from a multi- family development, and there are many things that drove us to move to our new home: Safety is one of our main concerns. With this type of property, we will not have the comfort of knowing who the neighbors are consistently. We are a young family with two daughters, of which I am extremely cautious of the environment that they are in. In an area that is solely meant for rental properties, I am concerned that tenants won't be put through the same rigorous selection process that a home-buyer would, which could be potentially dangerous for my family, as well as the families around us. There is also concern about the amount of traffic that this will generate in our neighborhood. The roads are already narrow, but with multi-tenant properties there are always numerous cars parked on the street. There aren't regulations in place to prevent this, and I can see a multitude of problems arising from this one issue. Another major concern is that this is a huge investment for the families that just purchased homes (as well as existing properties that are near the proposed site). We put a large amount of money towards buying a property that we thought would grow in value. The proposal that is being discussed will directly impact the the financial investment that we made. This area of land was, as we were initially told, supposed to be open space. We thought at some point in the future it might be a community park, but we were never informed prior to our purchase, that this multi-tenant development was being planned. It would have completely changed our thought process. I am not opposed to Journey Homes building houses on the property in question, but I am extremely worried about the fact that it is solely rental property. I would much rather see this land remain as open space or a park, but if they are going to build on this land, it should be for families who plan to own the property. Families that are going to have a vested interest in keeping our community nice, clean and an enjoyable place for all who live here. I hope that the committee will take our opinion into consideration. I would not normally get involved with debates about community developments, but this has our family extremely concerned. Thank you for your time! Best Regards, Jason and Jacky Siemers Rigden Farm Resident 22 From: Iris To: Jason Holland Subject: Rigden Farm Track Z Date: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 1:35:55 PM Dear Jason, I am writing to your as a concerned resident of Rigden Farm. We have lived on Chase Drive for the past five years and have enjoyed the community. Single family home owners in the subdivision care about their properties and maintain them. During the past year, construction has brought more single family owner occupied properties to our neighborhood, but now we have become aware that Journey Homes is going to construct a 39 unit rental only property on Track Z right smack in the middle of these single family houses. Apparently the city initially approved multi-family housing in this zone; this seems to have been an unfortunate decision, and I wish the zoning could be changed. Please let me know if it is too late to bring about such a change. A park would have balanced out the high density of houses in this sub-division. Residents of Rigden Farm are extremely upset by this latest development. There is a huge difference between the way owner versus renters take care of their residences. If you would like to see examples of this, just look at some of the houses on Chase Drive, where owners have leased their homes. Yards contain trash, lawns are not mowed and are overgrown by weeds. You might argue that the owners should take care of this, but the fact remains that renters generally care less about maintaining their properties. Furthermore, this area has seen an explosion of multi-family dwellings. The McWhinney complex on the corner of Timberline and Drake alone will have over 350 rental units. That's in addition to those that have been in existence across the street and more that will be built in the Side Hill area. More rental housing is not needed, and Rigden Farm residents are justifiably upset. It's doesn't take much imagination to know that traffic in our neighborhood would increase and make a place that was once safe for children to play much more dangerous. If it is not possible to change the zoning, and I would appreciate your honest input on that, we would ask that Journey Homes would limit the number of units to 33 - the original proposal, and to make these owner occupied town houses - perhaps duplexes or quads. I have been told that Journey Homes already has such plans developed for another subdivision. What is probably most disconcerting is the lack of transparency here. We, the residents of Rigden Farm, care about our neighborhood. We feel that the wool has been pulled over our eyes by Journey Homes. We won't 23 hesitate to use all social medial outlets to express our disdain for this builder if our concerns are simply ignored. Fort Collins has gained country wide acclaim for being an amazing place to live. We know that high density housing is often balanced by large open space areas where families can enjoy the beautiful Colorado outdoors. Far too little space is given to parks in Rigden Farm. The Z tract would have been a perfect choice for that. Building rental properties in a neighborhood of single family owner occupied properties does not seem a prudent choice. I hope you will support the residents of Rigden Farm who ask you to not permit rental units to be build in our neighborhood. Sincerely, Iris Rigby 2627 Chase Drive Rigden Farm 24 From: Van, Cody To: Jason Holland Subject: Rigden Farm, Lot Z Date: Monday, April 21, 2014 4:21:50 PM Attachments: image001.gif Good afternoon Jason, My name is Cody Van and I am the current HOA president for Rigden Residential. I also serve as a member on the Master Association and have for the last 4 years. In our existing neighborhoods, we tend to see a higher volume of issues and violations simply because the tenants are not informed or may not have the long-term ownership in how the neighborhood looks and feels. While we have addressed this with the actual property owners, it seems to be a constant challenge and renters come and go. I’m writing today in response to the proposed project on Lot Z in Rigden Farm. While it is true that this was originally zoned to allow 33 units of some configuration, I adamantly oppose the increase to 39 units and would encourage the builders to consider a lower-density type of approach that would fit in with the current mix of homes. I would favor any combination of duplex, four-plex, or eight-plex etc versus the large apartment building unit approach. Whatever the outcome, I would suggest the project support at least 80% owner occupancy and allow for 20% to be rentals. This would most likely enhance and protect the overall viability of Rigden Farm and decrease tenant turnover which I believe most of the current residents would prefer. This would minimize the long-term impact of potential constant turnover and would allow neighbors to get to know one another etc. Of course, whatever the project comes to be, parking is generally a sore spot and I would encourage the highest level of scrutiny versus the minimum city standard if at all possible. Thank you, Cody Van 2840 Rigden Parkway 25 From: Dr. Carla Irven To: Jason Holland Subject: Rigden Farm, Tract Z, Multi-family Homes Date: Monday, April 21, 2014 3:12:04 PM Mr. Holland, I am very concerned about the plan of Journey homes to build a rental-only 40 unit apartment complex within a single family home development. I, and everyone else on Denver Drive, had no previous knowledge of this plan prior to the closing of our homes, all which took place this month. Our community of homes houses young families with young children who daily play and ride their bikes on Denver Drive. There is very little traffic as it is not a major street in our community and services only the owners on that street. The impact to our street alone with the capacity of people that these apartments will hold is unquestionable. When you add potential speeding, overflow street parking, we are looking at not only nuisance, decreased quality of life, but also a safety issue. We already see the situation created on the streets which are West of our community. Students will inevitably be renters in this community and that has it's own array of problems. It has been mentioned by other home owners that the apartment complex will have a completely different HOA than the HOA that we have. I can not imagine the dysfunction that will be created by having multiple HOAs and the communication issues that will arise when considering the needs of two separate communities within one and the crossover. This proposed apartment complex is not on the "edge" of a single family housing community, it is being proposed "within" our community. There are multiple apartment communities which are currently under construction North of Timberline and Drake which will well serve the needs of renters. There are approximately 500 units being built. A more needed requirement for the area is single family housing, which I understand is in short supply. Even if the housing proposed were town homes or condos which were for sale to individual buyers, I believe it would make considerably more sense and have less of an impact. Our property values have yet to truly be established in this neighborhood, as it is so new. Many home owners are concerned that future values will be detrimentally effected by for rent only apartments. Whether it is a popular view or not, it is a fact that home ownership gives residences incentive to maintain not only their property but also the relationships in their community. Often times, this is not the case with renters, which can be transient in nature based upon leasing requirements. I believe this could cause great discord in the neighborhood and potential trouble between neighbors. I expect anyone within our community to care for their property in the same fashion that I do. The single family home owners would expect a higher standard of care for both the complex and the common use areas. If this development proceeds as it is currently planned, I will be one of the first with a For Sale sign in my front yard. I did not envision living beside an apart complex when I purchased my home. I did however envision the community in which I live as it is today. I asked that you take the concerns of the neighborhood to heart when making this decision. Journey Homes will not be considering our property values, quality of life or safety. They will have only one consideration and that is their own bottom line. Respectfully, Dr. Carla Irven Smith Carla Irven [Smith], LVT, DC Rocky Mountain Spine & Disc www.RockyMountainSpineandDisc.com 340 W. 37th Street 1302 South Shields, A 1-3 Loveland, CO 80538 Fort Collins, CO 80521 970-663-4494 970-682-2667 26 From: snowflakes365@gmail.com on behalf of Torrie Grewe To: Jason Holland Subject: Rigden Farm Tract Z Date: Monday, April 21, 2014 8:58:00 PM Attachments: Rigden_Farm_phase2.jpg Hello Jason, We met last week to discuss the development of Tract Z in Rigden Farm. I am writing this letter before the 10 day window. And before the next meeting, so that our voices can be heard. One of our concern for this property, is that we recently learned from a local builder and from the attached document that this land has always been platted for UP TO 33 units. We also learned that this decision of up to 33 units was decided years ago. We would like our voices to be heard at the next city meeting. I and my neighbors would like the the city planners and the builder to respect the original max number of 33 units for the proposed development. Thank you for your time! Mrs. Torrie Wolf 27 28 April 21, 2014 Dear Jason, As the home owner of 2757 Denver Drive in Rigden Farm, I am writing with great concerns about the Journey Homes development of Tract Z as a rental-only complex. Most all of the neighbors (myself included) weren’t made aware how this lot had been zoned for multi-family units nor that Journey Homes wished to use this property as a rental only complex during any part of the purchasing process. I had been informed (as had several other neighbors) by Journey Homes that this lot was slated to be a park. I recently sold my condo because 68% had been turned into rental units . I wanted to be surrounded by single-family homes. When I moved into Rigden Farms, I moved with the intention of this being my forever home. Some of the concerns I have with this being a rental-only complex include: property values, resale, higher density, more traffic, overflow street parking, and the online reputation of the management company Journey Homes plans to use. What I propose is what I hope is a compromise that is a win-win for Rigden Farms community, for the City of Fort Collins and for Journey Homes. I propose that the lot Tract Z be modified to still contain townhome-style units in the same style as originally planned, but that these units be sold as property townhomes instead of rentals. This still meets with the zoning code for this lot in that these would be multifamily units. The planning department holds a record that shows that this lot was originally slated for 33 units, as opposed to the proposed 39 being asked for by Journey Homes, and we ask that the city consider holding to this original number. . Thirty-nine units is a lot of real estate for just three acres and for the neighborhood as a whole, and our fear is that adding nearly 40-80 more people to Denver Drive is too high an occupancy level for our street and that it is not in the best interest of the neighborhood. Even reducing this number slightly to 33 units would make a positive impact for everyone who lives in Rigden Farm, long after the property has been developed and sold. I thank you for your consideration of these proposals, and I would be glad to talk further with the City of Fort Collins and Journey Homes about these proposed revision recommendations in person. Matt Way Owner of 2757 Denver Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 970-481-9337 mattdway77@gmail.com 29 From: George Rigby To: Jason Holland Subject: Rigden Farm Tract Z Date: Monday, April 21, 2014 9:06:36 PM Hi Jason: Below please accept more comments from me on the Journey Homes proposal to develop Tract Z as a rental unit complex: · Placing this many units smack in the middle of a single family residential neighborhood makes no logical sense to me. There are many issues with this including child safety, traffic flow, and incompatibility with the subdivision. I respect the Planning Board's original decision but urge them to reconsider it given the new realities. · However, if this long standing multi-family zoning decision is not reversible than please consider the following: · This tract was originally slated for 33 units and I urge the city to honor this and make no compromises. I bought our home in Rigden Farm under the impression that 33 town home units would eventually be built on this tract. It would be unethical for the city to not honor the Planning Board’s original decision after all these years. · The tract is surrounded by single family, owner occupied homes and introduction of rental properties would not be compatible with this and will have a destabilizing effect on the entire Rigden Farm Neighborhood. · The surrounding area (Timberline & Drake) is saturated with rental apartment units and we do not need any more in this immediate area. · Recent purchasers of the Journey Homes that immediately surround the tract were unaware of their intention to construct rental properties on this tract. · If the city planners still support multi-family construction on this site, I urge them to consider owner occupied town home style units (duplex and/or quads) and limit the number to 33. This type of unit would be more compatible with the existing neighborhood. In order to not upset the stability of the neighborhood, these units should ideally be about 1600 square feet of living area and sell for the mid $200,000’s. · Although not necessarily a city issue, Journey Homes’ reputation is at stake here. Their clandestine introduction of rental properties indicates a lack of transparency and suggests underhanded dealings that place their interests above those of the community that they are developing. In this day and age of social media, they may want to reconsider their position on this issue. Thanks again for listening, George Rigby 2627 Chase Drive 30 From: CenturyLink Customer To: Jason Holland Subject: rigden farm Date: Monday, April 21, 2014 8:27:01 PM Good evening Jason, my name is Glenn Archer. I am a resident in Ridgen Farm on Canby Way. I wanted to take the time to express my thoughts on the proposal. This is a proposal that I can't agree with at all. I must say I was unaware of the tentative plans of this lot ten years ago when we bought our house. The idea of placing a dense rental development in the midst of single family homes is very questionable. Have you seen the closest example of this density at the townhomes off Custer Dr? Those roads are tight, with one way traffic due to the parking needs. take a ride through those streets, then you may get an idea of what those single family homeowners will have to put up with. We are a few blocks from the proposal, but this deal would negatively effect all homeowners on the east side of Rigden Farm. The city needs to keep it's ideal of a Choice City and not green light this tract. At a minimum, the original proposal should be revisited. The increase in occupancy seems to be purely driven by greed. Have you imagined the added traffic, people, noise in the middle of this development? This will not be an optimal situation for anyone but the developers. Thank you for your consideration. Glenn Archer 2826 Canby Way Fort Collins, CO. 80525 31 From: Dr. John Smith To: Jason Holland Subject: Opposition to Rigden Farm Complex Development Date: Saturday, April 19, 2014 1:55:21 PM Mr. Holland, Please let this email serve as my formal opposition to the proposed rental complex in the Rigden Farm subdivision. These type of units not only do not "fit" within a development that is only single family homes, but also poses a multitude of potential problems and disadvantages to the home owners in the area. It is unjust and a terrible reflection on Journey Homes to build such a complex next to brand new home owners that knew nothing of this plan during the course of the recent purchases. I strongly oppose this type of development and respectfully request that these units,if built, be much smaller in capacity than the proposal and be for purchase only. Thank you. Dr. John A Smith 2738 Denver Dr. 32 From: George Rigby To: Jason Holland Subject: Proposed Rigden Farm Tract Z Date: Saturday, April 19, 2014 9:49:00 AM Hi Jason, I was unable to attend the meeting on Monday April 14th concerning the proposed Rigden Farm rental Townhouse type complex. I would appreciate it if you accept my emailed input which follows: 1. I am very much opposed to this proposal. 2. The site is buried inside a residential community of single family homes and is not compatible either from a use or architectural point. If you look at the street map, this makes no sense at all to bury a complex like this in a residential community. Such a complex needs to be placed so there is easy access to a main road without having to drive through a neighborhood full of kids. 3. The surrounding homes are populated with young families who have lots of children. There are many cars parked on the roads creating blind spots for motorists. 4. The significant increase in traffic would create safety hazards related to the above. 5. Peak traffic at Rigden Pky/Drake intersection is already congested and since there is no traffic light, frustrated motorists are taking risks pulling out onto Drake into oncoming traffic. This situation will get significantly worse if the proposal gets approved. The bottom line for me is that it appears the Journey Homes is trying to squeeze some more profits out of this site by proposing to build some high density housing that is not suited for the neighborhood and does not take into account the best interests of the folks in the surrounding single family homes. I strongly urge you not to approve this project. Thanks for listening. George Rigby 2627 Chase Drive Fort Collins 80525 (970) 556-3763 33 From: Jerrykopp To: Jason Holland Subject: Rigden Farm, Tract Z, Multiple-family Homes Date: Monday, April 21, 2014 2:04:23 PM Dear Jason, My name is Jerry Kopp and my wife, Marilyn and I attended the Neighborhood meeting on, Monday, April 14 in regard to the Rigden Farm Tract Z proposal. We purchased our home at 2814 Chase Dr. eight years ago. Our home backs up to the Journey Homes building sites. Prior to buying our home, we visited the City Planning office and saw maps of exactly what would be built behind us. We felt comfortable with the single-family homes and multiple units which all would be purchased properties. At the April 14 meeting, we were really surprised by the proposal by Journey Homes to build a 39 unit Townhome Complex that would be all rental units. In this area of Rigden Farm, we feel it would be an injustice to locate this rental complex in the middle of a single family home development. I really feel for the residents who have already purchased Journey homes very near the proposed rental complex and we're not told about the plan. We favor the original platt of 33 units to be sold as Townhomes to individual buyers. This would have less impact on our property values and pride of ownership should make for a better overall Rigden Farm community. In addition, we feel that Rigden Farm and the whole Drake and Timberline area has an abundance of rental properties. Thanks for your Consideration, Jerry and Marilyn Kopp 2814 Chase Dr. Sent from my iPad 34 From: Kevin Willey To: Jason Holland Subject: Rigden Farm Tract Z Proposed Platt Date: Monday, April 21, 2014 12:54:21 PM Dear Mr. Holland, Good Afternoon. My name is Kevin Willey and just moved into a new Journey Homes home off of Denver Drive in, I believe, the last phase of Rigden Farm. I have just been made aware of the proposed plan for what is being called Tract Z in that Journey is planning to make this a large rental and high density sub-section of the sub-division. I would like to express my disapproval of such a plan as this would definitely, over time, de- value our single family home values and run the risk of bringing a high transient population into the area! I also understand that at the last City of Fort Collins Neighborhood Meeting, Journey Homes had not agreed to re-zone Tract Z to single family detached residential units either, however, they might be agreeable to reducing the density by building duplex and/or four-plex units instead of the currently planned eight-plex units. I would like to place my "vote" with you and your department, to possibly first still try to work with Journey Homes in making Tract Z a single family detached residential section. However, if this will not work and being an interested party in trying to find a happy medium, then I would definitely urge you to re-consider the current plan and insist on the lower density plan or building duplexes and four-plex units. We all know the possible risks which accompany rental sub-divisions. There are plenty of appropriate areas for such zoning around the area. It makes more sense to build in those areas rather than to risk a de-valuation of existing and new single family detached construction areas; the rental income for Journey Homes would still be the same and no harm would be brought upon the surrounding, higher-valued homes. I'd like to thank you in advance for your time and consideration regarding this matter Jason. If I could provide any further information to assist in your decision, please feel free to contact me using my information below. Regards, Kevin (970) 420 - 9822 kwilley@gMail.com 35 From: Khalid Akbary To: Jason Holland Subject: Rigden Farms Proposal Date: Sunday, April 20, 2014 1:58:42 AM Hello, I am writing because I am unhappy with the current plans for Tract Z in Rigden Farms. The proposal to build rental only units will, in my opinion, negatively impact the community. The reasons for this follow: Safety of the children in the neighborhood with unfamiliar, changing neighbors. Care of the community and property with short-term renters. Traffic and parking inefficiencies. Thank you for taking the time to address the community's concerns for the proposal on Tract Z. Sincerely, Ali Akbary 36 From: Jake Crawford To: Jason Holland Subject: tract z plan in rigden Date: Saturday, April 19, 2014 8:26:56 PM I am very concerned with the development of tract z into 39 units of rental townhomes. As a homeowner in our last neighborhood I was often frustrated with the lack of care and consideration that renters next door took in their rentals. There is NO motivation for a renter to take care of their home if they are not invested in it. I would like to see this made into purchasable units so that our neighborhood value increases. Sent from my Windows Phone 37 From: Lixin Shao To: Jason Holland Subject: Concerns about 39 rental units built by Journey Homes Date: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 7:59:13 PM Dear Jason Holland, I am a home owner in Rigden Farm Community, joining other home owners to concern about that Journey Homes is going to build 39 rental unit in our neighborhood. These rental units definitely have negative affect on our home property values resale values. It will generate lots of traffic and safety issue. Hope Journey homes can reduce the density of units, or do even better to re-zone the lot since we already have rental property in Rigden Farm Community. I don’t think it is good for them to have many rental properties in one community. Hope they can re-consider their developing plan. Best Regards, Lixin Shao 38 From: gusbetty@comcast.net To: Jason Holland Subject: Journey Homes plans at Rigden Farms Date: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 11:11:40 PM To: Jason Holland - City Planner, We live at 2802 Canby Way and look out our rear windows at the area which will have a park, and also some of the townhomes or duplex units which will be rented. We are concerned about congestion of cars in the area (some tenants may have two cars & a truck), the impact on the park by renters with dogs unleashed in the park, and the impact on the large homes which will be facing these rentals & affect values of all our properties. We would encourage Journey Homes to change plans to sales, rather than rentals, which is the primary purpose of a neighborhood like our area of Rigden Farms. Thank you for your attention to these concerns. Gus Gendler, retired consulting engineer & wife, Betty 39 From: bruce stropp To: Jason Holland Subject: Proposed Rigden Farm Rental Complex Date: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 8:00:46 PM Dear Mr. Holland My wife and I purchased the home at 2626 Canby Way on April 1st 2014 and would like to go on record that had we known in advance that there was a plan in place to add a rental only development in our neighborhood (Tract Z), we would have more than likely opted to purchase in another area. Not only does adding rental only housing raise concerns of decreasing property values to the immediate area, but to manage the property by a different management group (Vintage Corporation), raises additional concerns as to the uniformity of our neighborhood. I feel that if this development has to happen, which I oppose, it should be driven by the same governing rules and regulations set in place and originally agreed upon by the Rigden Farm Association. Ideally, to be managed by the Rigden Farm HOA. In addition, I have concerns that we will not know our neighbors and that adds to safety concerns for our children as well as our pets. With rentals come the threat of lack of pride by tenants, which can create undesirable yards and driveways, as well as overflow on street parking. Also there is the risk of loud music, speeding through the neighborhood, vandalism, and theft that cant be controlled by Rigden Farm, due to the proposal to having the complex managed by a different management group. Being that we have now made a large investment and it is too late to react other than voicing our concerns, I hope you take in consideration the community and the impact adding a rental complex will have on it, and not forget about the people that have a vested interest in where they live when making your recommendation. Ultimately I would like to see Journey homes scrap the idea and move it to a more suited area outside of Rigden Farms, but at the very least, if this must move forward, then Journey Homes should be allowed only the 33 units original planned, not the 39 that are now being proposed, and that all the units be managed by the Rigden Farm HOA. Sincerely, Bruce & Lisa Stropp 40 From: monica jelovcan To: Jason Holland Subject: Rigden Farm: Against Rental-Only proposed development Date: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 8:16:32 PM Dear Mr. Holland, I am a Rigden Farm homeowner deeply concerned with the rental units to be built by Journey Homes (Track Z, between Denver Dr, Exmoor Ln, Porter Pl and Chase Dr.) Let me explain why: Besides my Rigden Farm home, where I’ve lived for the past 10 years, I also have an investment property across town. My rental property is located in a neighborhood that went from a 70% owner-occupancy a few years ago, to more than 50% renter-occupancy as of today. As an investor and also a member of the HOA Board of the rental unit I own, I have seen firsthand the deterioration of the neighborhood due to a great increase in rental versus home- ownership. We deal with a fast turnaround of people, many of who don’t care about the place they live; they don’t own it, so they oftentimes abuse the premises. We are constantly dealing with cars parked in other residents’ reserved spaces, trash collecting in patios and front porches, animal feces all over the green common areas (despite the fact that we have several doggie-poop bags stations available). Speed is a concern, even though there are several families with young children who live in the same neighborhood. Frequently the HOA had to foot the bill for removal of trash left behind by the renters (I refer to big items like broken furniture, televisions, and so on). The Board is very vocal regarding all this issues, and trying to enforce the covenants, however it seems to be a lost battle. I would hate for Rigden Farm to end up having such a big cluster of rental units. One of the main concerns it that the resale value of all the properties in the subdivision will definitely be affected. I also don’t understand why Journey Homes proposed to build 39 units in an area platted for no more than 33. Is there a way of enforcing the zoning to avoid high-density that six more units will create? With all due respect, I would suggest that the City of Fort Collins mediates with Journey Homes to offer a compromise such as reduced number of units and changing the rental-only to purchasable property. They will still have a good business and the neighborhood will benefit avoiding all the problems associated with high-density rental property. Sincerely, Monica J Buccafusca 2750 Canby Way Fort Collins, CO 80525 monica_jelovcan@yahoo.com 41 From: dougatowne@gmail.com To: Jason Holland Subject: Rigden Farm Rental Complex Feedback Date: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 3:46:32 PM Dear Jason, I was just made aware of a “rental only complex” that is being proposed by Journey Homes in Rigden Farm. I'm extremely concerned by this development and the potential impact it would have on my neighborhood if it is carried out. My primary concerns are that it would be “rental only” and the complex is larger than originally proposed. Having a “rental only” townhouse/apartment complex means the tenants will be transient and therefore will not be invested in the neighborhood. Without a doubt they won't care for the neighborhood as property owners do. Having a blend of rental vs. ownership would be acceptable - but rental only just spells trouble for our great neighborhood. I'm strongly opposed to a rental only. An over-crowded, rental complex will result in a less stable neighborhood, more nuisance type situations, more traffic, and ultimately impact the value of our investment as homeowners. I have no problem with townhomes being built in a responsible manner where people have an opportunity to own. In fact, my property on Canby Way backs up to townhomes. But in my opinion it only works if there can be a blend of owner and renter. I strongly urge you to consider this feedback. We love the Rigden Farm area, and view this proposed rental only complex as a threat to the quality of our neighborhood. Respectfully submitted, Doug and Valorie Towne 2715 Canby Way - Rigden Farm Sent from Surface 42 From: Ron Currier To: Jason Holland Subject: Care of Jason Holland, PLA / City Planner Date: Thursday, April 24, 2014 6:44:55 PM Dear Mr. Holland, I strongly object to the proposed building of 39 rental units on Tract Z in my Rigden Farms neighborhood on the following grounds: 1. Loss of privacy and intrusion in to our local community The proposed change of use would mean that the site will become a temporary accommodation to a large number of low-budget, transient visitors who will make little or no positive contributions to our neighborhood. 2. Inadequacy of parking space, and traffic generation in a residential neighborhood. The proposed change will increase disproportionately both vehicular and pedestrian traffic to our local area. The result would be an overflow of parking on the main street and speeding in the neighborhood decreasing safety for everyone. 3. Nuisances in the neighborhood . The proposed change will result in many problems because these are rentals and will have a different HOA than Rigden Farms. This could cause a discord between the homeowners and the renters resulting in many problems. Many of the new houses that will be built are right across the street from these rentals. 4. Types of neighbors we might have. The proposed change will result in neighbors that we don't know any anything about and that could be ever changing because they are just rentals. 43 As you can see the main problem is that these will be rental only with no opportunity for purchase. This will undoubtedly cause our property to go down in value and make the houses harder to sell. If these were to be purchase only, the people buying these townhomes/ duplexes would take better care of their property and be more considerate of the surrounding homes and neighborhood. We would most likely be able to develop long-lasting relationships with the owners because the chances of them staying longer would increase because they are owners and not just renters. Sincerely, Ron Currier Ron Currier Avago Technologies Wireless Semiconductor Division 4380 Ziegler Road Fort Collins, Colorado 970-288-4313 ron.currier@avagotech.com 44 From: josh@joshdowling.com To: Jason Holland Subject: Concern for Journey Homes Rentals Going Into Rigden Farm Date: Thursday, April 24, 2014 2:18:37 PM Hi Jason, I have recently moved into Rigden Farm and I just received the information regarding Journey building 39 rental units. I obviously missed the neighborhood meeting on April 14th but I have many of the same concerns that were mentioned at this meeting. Most home owners (no matter where the location) would prefer not to have an influx of only rental units coming into their neighborhood. The ultimate outcome of how these rentals will affect the neighborhood is unknown and would not be known until they were up and had folks living there. As a home owner, I don’t want to take the chance of this becoming a problem including many of the concerns listed at the neighborhood meeting. So, my question is, what can be done to have Journey Homes change their plans to build purchasable townhomes or duplex units as opposed to rental units? I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Josh Dowling 2762 Canby Way Fort Collins, 80525 45 From: Joseph Sharrock To: Jason Holland Cc: Shannon Bican Subject: Journey Homes in North Rigden Tract Z concerns Date: Thursday, April 24, 2014 4:32:20 PM Mr. Holland, I live in Rigden Farms and have some serious concerns about the plan for Tract Z as expressed by some of my neighbors at a recent neighborhood meeting. Currently, it is slotted to house 39 unit, rental-only, town-home style housing in a spot originally zoned for only 33 units. This tract is in a position that will force a lot of traffic through the 'quiet,' family-friendly neighborhood in which I live as well as have other negative impact on my neighborhood. I purchased a home in Rigden Farms in 2006 while it was being developed and fell in love with the neighborhood as a quiet, family-friendly environment. My only complaints with the neighborhood are with people who don't respect it as such and are transient in nature - specifically, in the current townhome rentals. I don't mean to be too judgmental, but when it comes to my home and family, I am. 1. Traffic: Specifically, there is not enough parking and it overflows into our family areas, the renters are often young folks without kids and so speed indiscriminately; my wife or I have followed speeding vehicles through our neighborhood to confront them on numerous occasions and it has always ended up being young adults in the rental homes. 2. Quality of neighborhood: I have woken to police sirens and flashing lights in the middle of the night due to excessively loud parties that carry into the family portion of the neighborhood; furthermore, trash in the yard and generally poor home and yard appearance are among other nuisances. 3. We have actually considered moving due to the above issues and the decrease in the resale and property values are very concerning to us. 4. I bought a home in this area for a family-friendly environment and knowing who are neighbors are is important. Rental properties do not allow my family to know who are neighbors are - especially if there are 39 units each possibly housing up to 2-3 people and likely of a transient background. To be blunt, I don't consider myself an overly cautious person, but I have concerns about this. In conclusion, I understand that Journey Homes is in this for the money, regardless of any response to the contrary, and could care less about my opinion and the respectability of the neighborhood on the whole. I am upset that I paid 46 and am paying a large amount of money to live in a proclaimed 'family-friendly' environment to have it spoiled by poor neighborhood planning such as Tract Z. I know you are limited in your ability to act, but wanted to express my concerns as a near-by home-owner. Bottom line is that I'd rather put a patch of grass and a couple trees at the site; I know that won't happen, but if in any way we can limit the number of units and people, I would prefer that. At least returning it to the previously approved 33 units is achievable. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sorry if I am being judgmental. I have lived in rentals previously and have plenty of quality friends who live in rentals, but there are problems associated with them. Joe Sharrock 2602 William Neal Pkwy. 970-593-8657 47 From: Jennifer To: Jason Holland Subject: Rigden Farm Proposed Development Date: Thursday, April 24, 2014 6:09:49 PM Dear Mr. Holland: Thank you for the opportunity to voice concerns regarding the potential development of a rental complex within Rigden Farm, specifically on Tract Z between Denver Drive, Exmoor Lane, Porter Place, and Chase Drive. It is our understanding that you may have received other community members' concerns about building 39 rental units on this property within our community. We would like to echo the same concerns. Our concerns include: -speeding within the neighborhood, -safety of all children within the neighborhood -different expectations for property maintenance through Journey Homes -care of property within the neighborhood -property values of our neighborhood homes -resale values of our neighborhood homes -etc. Without taking a lot of your valuable time with the history of this community, we understand community development has both pros and cons associated with it. We are not opposed to the idea of changing the eight-plexes into quads or dual models and changing the rental-only into purchasable town home or duplex units (it is our understanding you may consider this proposal). This is a community with many young families, we have a four- year-old child and and eight-year-old child, and would truly appreciate your consideration to place the safety and security of the neighborhood as one of your top priorities toward the development of Rigden Farm. Thank you for taking the time to read our concerns. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or of you would like any further information. We truly appreciate the opportunity to be heard. Have a good evening. Sincerely, Neil & Jennifer Petrie 2708 Denver Drive 970-797-2528 48 From: Josh Rees To: Jason Holland Subject: Rigden Farms Tract Z Date: Thursday, April 24, 2014 9:53:54 AM Jason, I wanted to touch base with you in regards to the proposed added units to Rigden Farms Tract Z. From my understanding you have been very helpful and informative in the entire process. We appreciate your willingness to help everyone. My concern is adding more units to the density of the area. Moving in just a month ago I see already the limited space has caused issues with parking as well as some conflicts with neighbors. Last week I had to be a liaison between an existing and new neighbor to ask if he could not park his car as where he was as it restricted access to their driveway. It is a limited amount of space as is, adding more units I believe will create or compound problems. If there is anything additional you require from me please let me know. Thank you again for all your help through the process. All the best, Josh 49 From: Laura Harris To: Jason Holland Subject: Rigden Farms - Tract Z Date: Monday, May 05, 2014 5:44:24 PM Hi Jason. We recently became aware of proposed rental units behind our property. We are concerned that the high number of proposed units will significantly increase noise and traffic within the neighborhood. There was concern from neighbors about the reputation of the proposed management company. The maintenance and appearance of the rental property will impact the property values of surrounding homeowners. My husband and I would prefer to have less units developed on Tract Z and for purchase only. Thanks for your consideration. Respectfully, Robb & Laura Harris 2802 Chase Drive, Unit A Fort Collins, CO 80525 970-227-0669 50 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROPOSAL: Rigden Farm, Tract Z, multi-family residences DATE: April 14, 2014 MEETING LOCATION: Police Services Building, 2221 Timberline Road APPLICANT: Journey Homes CITY PLANNER: Jason Holland Jason Holland opened the meeting by introducing himself and providing an overview of the neighborhood meeting agenda. Jason referred to the development review guide handout that provides information about development review and asked that everyone please sign in. Representatives from Journey Homes presented a site plan and building façade elevations for the proposed project, and gave a brief overview of the proposal. Jason then opened the meeting for questions and comments, and encouraged everyone to feel free to come up and take closer look at the plans. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS AND RESPONSES: 1. Question: (Citizen) Is this a “for rent” project? Response: (Applicant) Yes, all of the units will be for rent. 2. Question: (Citizen) How many units? Response: (Applicant) 39. Comment: (Citizen) We already have a lot of rental units in Rigden Farm, and there are even more with the new apartments at Drake and Timberline next to the police station. We feel like this isn’t good for Rigden Farm and the neighbors who bought here that have a sense of ownership in the neighborhood. Comment: (Citizen) This hurts our property values. 3. Question: (Citizen) Why does the meeting notice say townhomes? This makes it seem like the units will be owner occupied. If we knew this would be rentals, a lot more people would have showed up for the meeting. Response: (City) Jason Holland explained that it’s helpful to use plain language in the meeting letters, and that the meeting notice used the words “townhome- 1 51 style” to explain that the multi-family buildings will look more like townhomes and not configured like taller buildings where units are stacked on top of other units. 4. Question: (Citizen) Do the townhomes have to be for rent? We want this to be restricted to ownership only. Response: (City) Jason Holland explained that City regulations can’t require ownership vs. rentals, and explained that individual owners can rent out their property. Multi-family buildings can include units that are for rent or for sale and with either situation there are restrictions on height, how a building looks and how it fits in with a neighborhood. 5. Question: (Citizen) Why are the apartments being planned to be located in the middle of the neighborhood? We were told this would be a park. Response: (City) Jason Holland presented a large copy of the Rigden Farm overall master plan that was completed in 2002, and described the areas of the plan that were designated as multi-family, two-family (duplexes), single-family lots, parks and open space. A number of the meeting attendants gathered around the plan for a closer look. Jason went on to explain that the overall Rigden development was diverse by design, and that with the original approval the plan was required to have a variety of housing types. Jason explained that examples of “housing types” include single-family homes, duplexes, single-family attached and multi-family homes. Any building with three or more units in the building is considered multi-family. Jason also explained that the main land use code purpose of requiring a diversity of housing types was to provide a variety of housing options for residents and to promote visual interest in new neighborhoods. Jason could provide no insight as to why the tract may have been anticipated to be a park. 6. Comment: (Citizen) The streets are getting a lot busier with all of the new development in the area. This is a big problem, what are the plans to handle the additional traffic? Response: (City) Due to traffic study reports completed by nearby projects such as the apartments at the northwest corner of Drake and Timberline, developments have been required to provide upgrades to the intersection of Drake and Timberline. They were required to add a left turn lane from east- bound Drake onto Joseph Allen Drive. Dual left turn lanes have been added to Drake and Timberline around the intersection in anticipation of added traffic volumes in the area, and this is based on traffic impact studies that developments are required to do to analyze their impact on the street system. 2 52 The overall Rigden Farm development plan also helps plan for traffic volumes by requiring a grid of streets with multiple ways for residents to get in and out of the area and onto the surrounding main streets. Jason commented that there’s one more thing that can be done to the Timberline/Drake intersection, which would be adding dual left turn lanes from west bound Drake onto southbound Timberline, but that this need hasn’t been triggered yet by a development’s added traffic volume. Also, someday it’s possible that Timberline will have 6 lanes instead of the current 4 lanes, and that 6 lanes are shown on the City Master Street Plan. For this proposal, Traffic Operations staff is not requiring a traffic study update, because the additional traffic generated is low and has already been anticipated with the overall planning of Rigden Farm. 7. Question: (Citizen) Who will be managing the development? Response: (Applicant) Vintage Corporation will be the property manager. Comment: (Citizen) The citizen looked up Vintage Corporation online and noticed they have a lot of bad ratings and comments. An online review was mentioned that says Vintage is the worst property management company they have ever dealt with. 8. Question: (Citizen) What is the purpose of this meeting? Is this already a done deal? Response: (City) The purpose of the meeting is to get information out about the proposal and discuss concerns neighbors may have. Often how concerns can be addressed depends on what the concern is and how it relates to the land use code. The developer is required to have the meeting before turning in a formal development application. With the formal application they have a complete set of plans with landscaping, site layout, architecture, utility and drainage plans, etc. The planning and review is not done. What I’m hearing is that rental units are not preferred and that for sale duplexes are more preferred? 9. Comment: (Citizen) Yes (expressing a preference for owner-occupied duplexes). Would you be willing to consider making the project all duplexes? Response: (Applicant) The applicant responded that they’ve planned the site for this type of unit (pointing to the plan) and that they wouldn’t be able to do duplexes. Comment: Several additional residents expressed a strong preference for fewer rental units, more duplex units and individual ownership of the units. 10. Question: (Citizen) It’s especially difficult to turn left at the intersection of Rigden Parkway and Drake? Can we get a signal there? 3 53 Response: (City) I can mention that to traffic operations staff. We would not be able to require this project to add a signal because their added volume is low compared to the overall volume in the neighborhood. What I have been told by traffic operations in the past is that adding signals can improve wait times during peak traffic times for brief periods during the day, but then other times residents may be frustrated by having to wait at a red light when there is no traffic, and the left turn can be made without the need for a signal. 11. Question: (Citizen) We go to the Rigden HOA meetings and we hear a lot of concerns about an increase in the use of streets for parking and the traffic speeds in the neighborhood. These are both big concerns, and there are several HOA’s, including one for single family and a separate one for apartments. How can this be addressed? Response: (City) The streets are designed with the idea that on-street parking is available, but typically a development is required to meet their parking requirements on the site. For this project, it helps that each unit will have a two car garage internal to the property, and there is also space behind each garage for tandem parking for each unit. Traffic speeds would be an enforcement issue. 12. Comment: (Citizen) One of the things that’s talked about at the HOA meetings is that the apartment areas in Rigden Farm do not do a good job keeping up the landscaping and there’s more littering in the apartment areas. With rental units there’s less of a concern and a lack of pride for landscape and general upkeep. Response: (City) Is there a management company for these developments and have neighbors or the HOA talked to these developments about the upkeep problems? Response: (Citizen) We have but the management companies are difficult to work with and there’s a lot of different management involved. Response: (Citizens) Several residents voiced similar concerns that more rental units were not a good fit for the area. Residents also expressed frustration that they were told that Tract Z would be a park. After there were no further questions, Jason closed the meeting and encouraged everyone to feel free to come to the front of the room for a closer look at the plans, and to contact him if they think of any other more comments related to the proposal. 4 54 55 56 FROM ENTIRE ROOT BALL AND TRUNK PLAN VIEW - THREE STAKES 2 X BALL DIA. N.T.S. C SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL N.T.S. A TREE PLANTING DETAIL GUY WIRE (TWIST TO TIGHTEN) 4" DEEP MULCH RING PLACED A MINIMUM OF 6' IN DIAMETER. DO NOT PLACE MULCH IN CONTACT WITH TREE TRUNK. IF TREE IS WITHIN SHRUB BED AREA, OMIT WEED BARRIER OVER ROOTBALL. SITE ENGINEER AND SURVEYOR OLSON ASSOCIATES 5285 McWhinney Boulevard, Suite 160 Loveland, CO BUS. (303) 374.3195 401 West Mountain Avenue Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 fax 970/224.1662 phone 970/224.5828 www.vfrdesigninc.com Ŷ land planning Ŷ landscape architecture Ŷ Ŷ urban design Ŷ entitlement Ŷ FORT COLLINS, COLORADO RIGDEN FARM TRACT Z PDP IN ASSOCIATION WITH: PROJECT No.: R14-027 DRAWN BY: rl REVIEWED BY: RL SEAL: THIS IS A LAND USE PLANNING DOCUMENT, NOT A CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT. REFER TO CIVIL ENGINEERING PLANS. ISSUED No. DESCRIPTION DATE 1 PDP 6.18.14 2 3 4 REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE 1 2 3 4 DEVELOPER / APPLICANT JOURNEY HOMES 7251 W 20th Street, L-200 GREELEY, CO 80634 (888) 756-9036 PDP REVISION 10.1.14 PDP REVISION 12.12.14 LANDSCAPE DETAILS AND NOTES DRAWING NUMBER: L-2 NOTE: PROVIDE A 8" DEEP MULCH RING PLACED A MINIMUM OF 6' IN DIAMETER IN NON IRRIGATED/OFF SITE AREAS PLANT_LIST ORNAMENTAL TREE EVERGREEN TREE RUBBER HOSE 1" DIA. GUYING WIRES WITH TURNBUCKLE METAL T POSTS SPECIFIED PLANTING MIX WATER & TAMP TO REMOVE AIR POCKETS PLANT SA THAT TOP OF ROOT BALL IS 2" HIGHER THAN FINISHED GRADE GUYING PLAN SCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOM OF PLANTING HOLE 2 X BALL DIA. WOOD MULCH REMOVE ALL WIRE FROM ROOT BALL; LAY BACK BURLAP MESH AND CONTAINERS N.T.S. B EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING DETAIL . 57 Deciduous Trees 8 GDE GYMNOCLADUS DIOICUS 'ESPRESSO' ESPRESSO COFFEE TREE 50-60' 40-50' 2" CAL. B&B LM 8.00% 9 GTI GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS INERMIS 'IMPERIAL' IMPERIAL HONEYLOCUST 30-40' 30-40' 2" CAL. B&B LM 9.00% 6 QMA QUERCUS MACROCARPA BURR OAK (BULLET GALL RESISTANT) 40-50' 40-50' 2" CAL. B&B LM 6.00% 12 QRP QUERCUS ROBUR 'PYRAMICH' SKYMASTER OAK 40-50' 25' 2" CAL. B&B LM 12.00% 13 TAB TILIA AMERICANA 'BOULEVARD' BOULEVARD AMERICAN LINDEN 40-50' 20-30' 2" CAL. B&B M 13.00% 9 UXA ULMUS X 'ACCOLADE' ACCOLADE ELM 50-60' 40-50' 2" CAL. B&B LM 9.00% 25 Ornamental Trees 6 MR MALUS RADIANT RADIANT CRABAPPLE 20-30' 10-20' 1.5" CAL. B&B LM 6.00% 5 PCC PYRUS CALLERYANA 'CHANTICLEER' CHANTICLEER PEAR 20-30' 10-20' 1.5" CAL. B&B M 5.00% 14 QCS QUERCUS CRIMSON SPIRE CRIMSON SPIRE OAK 10-20' 5-10' 1.5" CAL. B&B M 14.00% 18 Evergreen Trees 13 PN PINUS NIGRA AUSTRIAN PINE 40-50' 20-30' 6' HT. B&B LM 13.00% 5 PPG PICEA PUNGENS GLAUCA COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE 50-60' 20-30' 6' HT. B&B LM 5.00% QTY. ID SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME HEIGHT SPREAD CONDITION HYDROZONE SPECIES DIVERSITY 1" = 10' E FOUNDATING AND PARKING ISLAND PLANTING TYPICAL Deciduous Shrubs CCB CARYOPTERIS X CLANDODENSIS 'BLUE MIST' BLUE MIST SPIREA 3-4' 2-3' 5 GAL. CONT. L CSA CORNUS STOLONIFERA 'ARCTIC FIRE' ARCTIC FIRE DOGWOOD 3-5' 3-5' 5 GAL. CONT. M PBB PRUNUS BESSEYI 'PAWNEE BUTTES' CREEPING WESTERN SAND CHERRY 18" 4-6' 5 GAL. CONT. L PSW PHYSOCARPUS X SUMMER WINE SUMMER WINE NINEBARK 4-6' 4-6' 5 GAL. CONT. M RAG RHUS AROMATICA 'GRO-LOW' FRAGRANT DWARF SUMAC 2-3' 6-8' 5 GAL. CONT. L RAU RIBES AUREUM GOLDEN CURRANT 4-6' 4-6' 5 GAL. CONT. L RSS ROSA 'MEIKROTAL' SCARLET MEIDILAND ROSE 3-4' 4-6' 5 GAL. CONT. L Ornamental Grasses BAG BOUTELOUA GRACILLIS 'BLONDE AMBITION' BLONDE AMBITION GRAMA GRASS 2-3' 1-2' 1 GAL. CONT. L PVI PANICUM VIRGATUM 'SHENANDOAH' RED SWITCHGRASS 3-4' 18"-24" 1 GAL. CONT. L Evergreen Shrubs JMS JUNIPEROUS X MEDIA 'SEA GREEN' SEA GREEN JUNIPER 5-6' 6-8' 5 GAL. CONT. L JSA JUNIPERUS SABINA 'ARCADIA' ARCADIA JUNIPER 18-24" 4-6' 5 GAL. CONT. L 1" = 10' D LOW HYDROZONE PLANTING BED TYPICAL SHRUBS AND PERENNIAL GRASS 1" = 10' F DRAINAGE POND PLANTING PROPOSED NATIVE SEED AREA 18 4 REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE 1 2 3 4 DEVELOPER / APPLICANT JOURNEY HOMES 7251 W 20th Street, L-200 GREELEY, CO 80634 (888) 756-9036 PDP REVISION 10.1.14 PDP REVISION 12.12.14 LANDSCAPE PLAN SCALE ACCORDINGLY IF REDUCED DRAWING NUMBER: L-1 WATER BUDGET CHART HYDROZONE AREA WATER NEEDED (GALLONS/SF) ANNUAL WATER USE (GALLONS) HIGH 42,656 18 767808 MODERATE 10,705 10 107050 LOW 7,056 3 21168 VERY LOW 0 0 0 TOTAL 60,417 14.830693 896,026 PROPOSED MULCHED SHRUB BED AREAS ORNAMENTAL TREE EVERGREEN TREE STREET TREE NOTES 1. A PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY TREES OR SHRUBS AS NOTED ON THIS PLAN ARE PLANTED, PRUNED OR REMOVED ON THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS INCLUDES ZONES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND CURB, MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THIS PERMIT SHALL APPROVE THE LOCATION AND SPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURE TO OBTAIN THIS PERMIT MAY RESULT IN REPLACING AND RELOCATING TREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 2. CONTACT THE CITY FORESTER TO INSPECT ALL STREET TREE PLANTINGS AT THE COMPLETION OF EACH PHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. ALL TREES NEED TO HAVE BEEN INSTALLED AS SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. APPROVAL OF STREET TREE PLANTING IS REQUIRED BEFORE FINAL APPROVAL OF EACH PHASE. 3. STREET TREES SHALL BE SUPPLIED AND PLANTED BY THE DEVELOPER USING A QUALIFIED LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. 4. THE DEVELOPER SHALL REPLACE DEAD OR DYING STREET TREES AFTER PLANTING UNTIL FINAL MAINTENANCE INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FORESTRY DIVISION. ALL STREET TREES IN THE PROJECT MUST BE ESTABLISHED, OF AN APPROVED SPECIES AND OF ACCEPTABLE CONDITION PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE. 5. STREET TREE LOCATIONS AND NUMBERS MAY BE ADJUSTED TO ACCOMMODATE DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS, UTILITY SEPARATIONS BETWEEN TREES, STREET SIGNS AND STREET LIGHTS. STREET TREES TO BE CENTERED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LOT TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE. QUANTITIES SHOWN ON PLAN MUST BE INSTALLED UNLESS A REDUCTION OCCURS TO MEET SEPARATION STANDARDS. A FREE PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY STREET TREES ARE PLANTED IN PARKWAYS BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND CURB. STREET TREE LOCATIONS AND NUMBERS MAY CHANGE TO MEET ACTUAL UTILITY /TREE SEPARATION STANDARDS. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR MUST OBTAIN APPROVAL OF STREET TREE LOCATIONS AFTER UTILITY LOCATES. STREET TREES MUST BE INSPECTED AND APPROVED BEFORE PLANTING. FAILURE TO OBTAIN THIS PERMIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS. 17 CALL 811 SEVENTY-TWO HOURS PRIOR TO DIGGING, GRADING OR EXCAVATING FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES R 11/13/2014 DH JEZ 013-2449 013-2449 2 12 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO SITE PLAN TRACT Z OF RIGDEN FARM FILING SIX PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2014 C B A 11/13/2014 9/26/2014 6/27/2014 3RD SUBMITTAL TO CITY 2ND SUBMITTAL TO CITY 1ST SUBMITTAL TO CITY OF PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN TRACT Z, RIGDEN FARM FILING SIX CITY OF FORT COLLINS, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO GENERAL NOTES LEGEND 16 A 11/13/2014 9/26/2014 6/27/2014 3RD SUBMITTAL TO CITY 2ND SUBMITTAL TO CITY 1ST SUBMITTAL TO CITY OF VICINITY MAP SCALE=1"=1000' ARCHITECT ENGINEER OWNER PROJECT SITE PLANNING/LANDSCAPE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN TRACT Z, RIGDEN FARM FILING SIX CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. TRACT Z OF RIGDEN FARM FILING SIX SHEET LIST TABLE Sheet Number Sheet Title 1 COVER SHEET 2 SITE PLAN 3 ELEVATIONS 4 ELEVATIONS 5 ELEVATIONS 6 ELEVATIONS 7 ELEVATIONS 8 ELEVATIONS 9 LANDSCAPE PLAN 10 LANDSCAPE DETAILS AND NOTES 11 PHOTOMETRICS PLAN 12 ELECTRICAL DETAILS ABBREVIATIONS SITE PLAN LEGEND GENERAL NOTES OWNER CERTIFICATE: PLANNING APPROVAL: 15