HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/21/2020 - Planning And Zoning Board - Supplemental Documents - Regular MeetingPage 1 of 1
Park Planning &
Development Department
215 N Mason St
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970-416-2192
fcgov.com/parkplanning
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 19, 2020
To: Planning and Zoning Board
Through: Kurt Friesen, Park Planning & Development Director
Clark Mapes, City Planner
From: Greg Oakes, Project Manager, Park Planning & Development Department
Re: Trail Head Park Architecture
Introduction
The purpose of this memo is to provide clarification regarding concerns recently expressed from the
Planning & Zoning Board regarding the architecture at Trail Head Park. The architecture proposed at Trail
Head Park includes a restroom, shelter, and garden shed/storage building. All three buildings will be
constructed primarily of authentic materials including concrete, steel and wood. Each of the buildings is
physically connected to a linear “activity spine”, a board formed concrete wall, that extends through the
entire park site. As a central organizing element and feature of the park, the activity spine provides
opportunities for sitting, climbing, etc., creating unique environments within the park. The wood, steel and
concrete that comprise the structures integrates well with the board formed concrete activity spine wall.
Project Adjustments
Final park construction drawings are nearly identical to the original renderings, although a few minor
changes were made following the submission of the Basic Development Review packet. These changes
were made due to design preferences and decisions by the design team and were not the result of value
engineering decisions. The few changes that have occurred to the architecture and other park elements
that differ slightly from the original renderings include:
• Roof Forms. The roof forms on the restroom and picnic shelter changed from a double-pitch
‘butterfly’ form to a single-pitch shed roof. The simpler roof form seemed a better fit for the park.
• Walks. A few minor revisions to walk alignments were made, to provide improved circulation and
pedestrian flow in the park.
• Play Features. In the initial park renderings, the playground elements proposed were conceptual
and had not been designed. The quantity and character of playground elements in the final park
design remains generally the same as shown in the original concept renderings, but with further
detail and definition.
Garden Shed/Storage Building
Based on recent discussions with the Parks maintenance team, the project design team is currently re-
evaluating the need for a garden shed/storage building at Trail Head Park. The storage building is
intended to provide space for a maintenance vehicle and some general supplies. Instead of building this
structure in Trail Head Park, it is likely a storage building will be constructed in Crescent Park instead.
This location was preferred by the Parks team and provides a more centralized location for maintenance
vehicle storage in the north part of the city. When the community garden is constructed in Trail Head Park
at a later date, a small garden shed will be provided for gardeners to store their equipment.
ITEM 1, Supplemental
Supplemental Packet Pg. 1
From: Development Review Comments
To: Dr. John A Smith
Cc: Daryl Alexander; dana@spanjer.com; bedrockrlty@aol.com
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Funshine Early Childhood PDP200002
Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 10:20:00 AM
Dr. Smith,
Thank you so much for reaching out to provide additional comments on this project. We always
appreciate having engaged neighbors involved in the development review process.
As with Dr. Irven’s comments, your email is being sent to the Planning and Zoning Board for
consideration during the hearing this Thursday. I have also included an additional response from
one of our traffic engineer regarding the calculations you were discussing below.
I should also note that there will be discussion of this item at the Planning and Zoning Board hearing
on Thursday. This item was originally on the Consent Agenda, but as that section is reserved for
projects without significant public interest or opposition, the Board plans to move the item to the
Discussion Agenda. I know Dr. Irven mentioned that she was unable to attend the meeting on
Thursday, but if you are available and would like to provide public comment on this project, the
virtual participation information is located here. I am hosting Zoom Test Meetings every Tuesday
and Thursday in May from 12:30-1:00 PM to help community members familiarize themselves with
the technology and prepare for public comment (Meeting ID: 947-3158-1627). No public comment
will be accepted during the test call. If you are interested, you are welcome to join!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good morning Dr. Smith –
Thank you for your comments related to the proposed Funshine Early Childhood project. Your email
will be provided to the Planning and Zoning Board for inclusion in their materials, and has been
forwarded to me for response.
The evaluation of traffic impacts for proposed developments is by definition speculative because it’s
in the future. We base the evaluation on the information we have, including estimates from the
applicants who typically know their business very well, and from national standards supported by
decades of research. The data for daycare centers comes from 75 studies done across the nation.
There can obviously be localized differences, but in general we find the data to be representative.
In my response to Dr. Irvin, I noted that the national information indicates that in the peak hour,
there could be up to 20 vehicles arriving and departing to drop off or pick up children. On average,
this is one every few minutes, but as you note, they don’t arrive in perfect intervals, and some will
undoubtedly overlap. I would expect that during the busiest times, there could be several vehicles
at the center at one time to drop off or pick up children.
Traffic patterns for daycares are more spread out with a less pronounced peak traffic time than
other schools since they don’t have a specific start and stop time. However, because they require
parents to park and walk in, the time it takes to drop off or pick up a child takes longer than at a K-12
ITEM 2, Correspondence
Supplemental Packet Pg. 2
school. Those considerations need to be factored into the evaluation.
As I noted to Dr. Irvin, should this project be approved, we recognize it will be a change in traffic
volumes and patterns in your vicinity. Our obligation in review is not whether there’s additional
traffic, but rather to evaluate that additional traffic against the City’s engineering standards. I also
noted that the largest potential impact we see is related to short term utilization of parking areas,
such as along Cameron. Cameron is a public street, and parking is legal. If implementation of this
proposal results in specific issues related to parking on Cameron – such as blocked driveways or
parking creating sight distance issues, then please let us know and the City can work with the
applicant on education of parents for where to park, or even evaluate whether some locations of no-
parking are required.
I appreciate you taking the time to write, and providing your comments. They will be provided to
the Board.
Regards, Martina
Alyssa Stephens MA
Neighborhood Development Liaison
City of Fort Collins Neighborhood Services
Submit a public comment| Track Development Proposals
From: Dr. John A Smith <drjallensmith@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 6:03 PM
To: Development Review Comments <devreviewcomments@fcgov.com>; Noah Beals
<nbeals@fcgov.com>
Cc: Daryl Alexander <daryl.alexander.lo1z@statefarm.com>; dana@spanjer.com;
bedrockrlty@aol.com
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Funshine Early Childhood PDP200002
May 18, 2020
Re: Sign #602
Funshine Childhood Center
5137 S. College Ave.
Dear Mr. Beals and Ms. Stephens,
As co-owner of 107 Cameron Dr, please allow me to comment on the proposal for the new daycare center. Dr.
Irven has forwarded to me the responses she received, based on her objections and I appreciate the opportunity to
respond in kind to some of those specifically.
ITEM 2, Correspondence
Supplemental Packet Pg. 3
I do agree with the traffic engineers that they believe there to be more traffic than anticipated and this is really one
of the greatest problems we envision. While parking on Cameron is an option, it should be noted that there are
already between 2-6 cars that park on Cameron during the work week at any given time. Adding to this would not
only create drop off problems for parents, but would further bottle-neck an already unmarked side street.
I believe the assumption that 20 children could be picked up/dropped off per hour with cars coming every 3 minutes
or so is fundamentally flawed. 20 children per hour is not even half capacity and would likely account for
significantly more traffic than the 2 additional cars (not including the employees) that the applicant claims will be in
the parking lot (making 4 total). Parents don’t drop off their children at well-timed intervals. What’s more likely
and realistic is that of 20 children, with an average of 2 per vehicle, those 10 vehicles per hour will repeatedly
overlap each other, both morning and evening, and not be coming and going with 3 minute intervals. This has the
potential to create a back up to the monument sign, before even factoring in traffic that still exits both sides of the
“frontage” road prior to even entering the intersection.
While I am sympathetic to the applicant, the potential problems that such a volume-based business creates is not
something that I feel I can support. I respectfully ask that the planning and zoning board deny this request to use the
property at 5137 S. College Ave as a daycare center.
Sincerely,
Dr. John A Smith
Co-Owner
DC Properties, 107 Cameron Dr.
ITEM 2, Correspondence
Supplemental Packet Pg. 4
From: Martina Wilkinson
To: Kacee Scheidenhelm
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Funshine Early Childhood PDP200002 5137 S College Avenue
Date: Friday, May 15, 2020 12:21:32 PM
Here you go.
From: Martina Wilkinson
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 11:32 AM
To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com>
Cc: Steve Gilchrist <sgilchrist@fcgov.com>; Alyssa Stephens <astephens@fcgov.com>; Rebecca
Everette <reverette@fcgov.com>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Funshine Early Childhood PDP200002 5137 S College Avenue
Noah and Alyssa. Here you go. I’ll assume that one of you will forward this back to the citizen as
well as the applicant, and get the response into the public record? Thanks - m
Dear Dr. Irven,
Thank you for your comments regarding the proposed Funshine Early Childhood project. Your email
has been forwarded to me.
The City’s standards require a review of the traffic impact for proposals. In this case we asked the
applicant to estimate their traffic, and compared that to the traffic from previously approved uses
on the property. Then we look at the potential traffic, and determine whether the traffic upon
buildout will meet the City’s standards for operations.
The applicant indicated they expected up to four drop-off / pick-ups in the busiest hour. When
compared to traffic from previous uses on this site, that results in a very nominal change and is not
significant enough to meet the threshold of requiring additional traffic analysis.
Having said that, given the number of potential children to be approved in the facility, we believe
that there could be more traffic than what the applicant estimated. There are national standards
that provide guidance on anticipated traffic from a variety of land uses, including day cares. City
staff completed a separate review using these national standards for daycare facilities – and that
shows that if the facility is at capacity, during the busiest peak time, perhaps up to 20 children could
be dropped off / picked up in an hour. That would result in about one vehicle to/from the premise
every three minutes or so during the busiest time.
That is obviously additional traffic and in different patterns that what previously occurred at the
site. However, the addition of one vehicle every few minutes doesn’t create operational issues at
ITEM 2, Correspondence
Supplemental Packet Pg. 5
the intersection of College Avenue and Fossil Creek Parkway (Cameron Drive) which is where the
City’s standards are applied in terms of operations. (In addition, any potential issues at that
intersection could be mitigated through an adjustment in signal timing.) Therefore, from a traffic
standards review perspective, City staff is comfortable that the additional traffic meets the City
standards.
You also mention concern about the vehicle circulation, and how schools have drop off and pick up
zones that result in long lines of traffic. Daycares are a little bit different in that they require adults
to park and bring their children into the facility to sign them in, or pick them up. So drop off lanes
with queuing vehicles are typically not used at daycares, and we don’t expect that here.
What we do see is greater short term utilization of parking areas in the vicinity of daycares. And it
may be that this use will result in some parents parking on Cameron to walk in to drop off or pick up
their children. Parking is currently allowed along Cameron, is available for use by anyone, and as a
public street is under the jurisdiction of the City. If implementation of this proposal results in
specific issues related to parking on Cameron – such as blocked driveways or parking creating sight
distance issues, then please let us know and the City can work with the applicant on education of
parents for where to park, or even evaluate whether some locations of no-parking are required.
Thanks again for writing in with your observations.
Regards, martina
Martina Wilkinson, P.E. PTOE
Traffic Engineer
City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations
mwilkinson@fcgov.com
970-221-6887
From: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 3:14 PM
To: Martina Wilkinson <mwilkinson@fcgov.com>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Funshine Early Childhood PDP200002 5137 S College Avenue
From: Dr. Carla Irven <drcarlairven@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 11:10 AM
To: Development Review Comments <devreviewcomments@fcgov.com>; Noah Beals
<nbeals@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Funshine Early Childhood PDP200002 5137 S College Avenue
Alyssa Stephens and Noah Beals:
ITEM 2, Correspondence
Supplemental Packet Pg. 6
We received a notice regarding the Proposed Day Care Facility at 5137 South
College (Sign #602) as a Project Development Plan 200002. Although our notice was
sent to "Rehabilitation and Visiting Nurse Assoc", I, as DC Properties, Inc. have
owned the property and building at 107 Cameron, Fort Collins, CO 80525 for four
years. We have a very busy health care practice, Rocky Mountain Spine & Disc in
that building.
I am unable to attending the hearing on May 21 but would like to comment on this
Proposal.
Although the address for the proposed day care is South College, the entrance and
parking lot are on Cameron Drive, directly across the street from my parking lot
entrance, which is shared with another building with multiple businesses. Cameron is
a small side street which is lightly traveled. We do not even have division lines on
this street and an incredibly long traffic signal due to low volume. This road was
annexed and neither the City nor the County would take any responsibility for
maintaining the road. We were forced to correct a terrible drainage issue on the
street ourselves when we bought the property because it created "Lake Cameron"
between the road and our parking entrance. Since then the road was repaved. But
prior this road had been left to decay, even after multiple calls for help from me.
Because the driveway of 5137 South College is directly across from our driveway,
having up to 52 children being picked up and dropped off on this street would create a
parking lot on Cameron making entering and exiting our building literally impossible.
The road is not wide enough for cars to park on the shoulder lined up for pick up and
drop off of up to 52 children and for others to pass and turn into and exit our drive.
On top of that part of the parking lot will be taken up by a dumpster, which will further
constrict traffic and parking.
I'm a person who likes to think nothing is impossible but this is not a location which is
created for this situation. This will cause incredible delays and frustration, not just for
me and my patients and the others in the adjacent building, but for the parents trying
to pick up and drop off at a location which is not designed for this. There is a reason
schools build long circle drives; so they don't block traffic during pic up and drop off.
This location has a small parking lot of 10 spaces designed for a small business with
few visitors, not upwards of 52 students and multiple employees. There just is not
sufficient space on this road for that type of use.
I strongly encourage the City of Fort Collins to visit the property and imagine what it
would look like during a pick up or drop off of up to 52 children and the loss of a
portion of parking lot due to an enclosed dumpster ... total chaos. I cannot imagine a
scenario where this works for anyone. I cannot oppose this Proposal any greater and
strongly believe this will cause issues for everyone. Many complaints will be filed in
the future. None of this will be good for this area or a new business.
Dr. Irven, Vice President
DC Properties, Inc.
ITEM 2, Correspondence
Supplemental Packet Pg. 7
Carla Irven [Smith], DC, CME, CAC, AVCA, BCN
Board Certified Neuropathy, ACoPM
Rocky Mountain Spine & Disc
www.RockyMountainSpineandDisc.com
www.DrIrvenAnimalChiro.com
107 Cameron Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
970-682-2667
ITEM 2, Correspondence
Supplemental Packet Pg. 8
From: Noah Beals
To: Kacee Scheidenhelm
Subject: FW: Funshine Early Childhood PDP200002 5137 S College Avenue
Date: Friday, May 15, 2020 10:40:24 AM
Attachments: image001.png
From: Kate Penning <Kate.Penning@clarkenersen.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 3:40 PM
To: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com>
Cc: Shallenberg, Steven E <steven.e.shallenberg@intel.com>; shayla.funshineFC@outlook.com;
dezbaby@gmail.com
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Funshine Early Childhood PDP200002 5137 S College Avenue
Hi Noah,
Thanks for sharing. Can you give me an indication of what this would mean for our upcoming hearing
and the process moving forward? We were exempt from the traffic study, due to the initial traffic
analysis from Shayla Kaminitz, the Funshine Director.
The Funshine location expects an average of 4 families dropping off at a time between their morning
peak hours of 7am-9am and an average of 3 families picking up at the later peak hours of 4 and 6pm.
At their highest times, they expect 4 parking spots to be filled and are providing 10 parking spaces.
These 10 spaces easily accommodate staff and families. We have also provided a one-way drive, to
promote the movement of traffic through the parking lot. The facility holds a maximum of 52
children, but that does not mean that it will be completely filled at all/most times.
Please let me know how best to address this concerned neighbor.
Thanks,
Kate Penning, AIA, NCARB
Architect
The Clark Enersen Partners
123 N. College Ave., Suite 370
Fort Collins, CO 80524
970.818.8999 Office
kate.penning@clarkenersen.com
clarkenersen.com
From: Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 3:17 PM
To: Kate Penning <Kate.Penning@clarkenersen.com>
Subject: FW: Funshine Early Childhood PDP200002 5137 S College Avenue
Kate,
ITEM 2, Correspondence
Supplemental Packet Pg. 9
We received the following communication in regards to the Funshine Early Childhood application.
Regards,
Noah Beals
Senior City Planner-Zoning
970 416-2313
Tell us about our service, we want to know!
--
COVID19 Resources
For all residents: https://www.fcgov.com/eps/coronavirus
For businesses: https://www.fcgov.com/business/
Want to help: https://www.fcgov.com/volunteer/
Recursos COVID-19
Para integrantes de la comunidad: https://www.fcgov.com/eps/coronavirus
Para empresas: https://www.fcgov.com/business/
¿Quieres ayudar o necesitas ayuda? https://www.fcgov.com/neighborhoodservices/adopt
Recursos de United Way: https://uwaylc.org/
From: Dr. Carla Irven <drcarlairven@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 11:10 AM
To: Development Review Comments <devreviewcomments@fcgov.com>; Noah Beals
<nbeals@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Funshine Early Childhood PDP200002 5137 S College Avenue
Alyssa Stephens and Noah Beals:
We received a notice regarding the Proposed Day Care Facility at 5137 South
College (Sign #602) as a Project Development Plan 200002. Although our notice was
sent to "Rehabilitation and Visiting Nurse Assoc", I, as DC Properties, Inc. have
owned the property and building at 107 Cameron, Fort Collins, CO 80525 for four
years. We have a very busy health care practice, Rocky Mountain Spine & Disc in
that building.
I am unable to attending the hearing on May 21 but would like to comment on this
Proposal.
ITEM 2, Correspondence
Supplemental Packet Pg. 10
Although the address for the proposed day care is South College, the entrance and
parking lot are on Cameron Drive, directly across the street from my parking lot
entrance, which is shared with another building with multiple businesses. Cameron is
a small side street which is lightly traveled. We do not even have division lines on
this street and an incredibly long traffic signal due to low volume. This road was
annexed and neither the City nor the County would take any responsibility for
maintaining the road. We were forced to correct a terrible drainage issue on the
street ourselves when we bought the property because it created "Lake Cameron"
between the road and our parking entrance. Since then the road was repaved. But
prior this road had been left to decay, even after multiple calls for help from me.
Because the driveway of 5137 South College is directly across from our driveway,
having up to 52 children being picked up and dropped off on this street would create a
parking lot on Cameron making entering and exiting our building literally impossible.
The road is not wide enough for cars to park on the shoulder lined up for pick up and
drop off of up to 52 children and for others to pass and turn into and exit our drive.
On top of that part of the parking lot will be taken up by a dumpster, which will further
constrict traffic and parking.
I'm a person who likes to think nothing is impossible but this is not a location which is
created for this situation. This will cause incredible delays and frustration, not just for
me and my patients and the others in the adjacent building, but for the parents trying
to pick up and drop off at a location which is not designed for this. There is a reason
schools build long circle drives; so they don't block traffic during pic up and drop off.
This location has a small parking lot of 10 spaces designed for a small business with
few visitors, not upwards of 52 students and multiple employees. There just is not
sufficient space on this road for that type of use.
I strongly encourage the City of Fort Collins to visit the property and imagine what it
would look like during a pick up or drop off of up to 52 children and the loss of a
portion of parking lot due to an enclosed dumpster ... total chaos. I cannot imagine a
scenario where this works for anyone. I cannot oppose this Proposal any greater and
strongly believe this will cause issues for everyone. Many complaints will be filed in
the future. None of this will be good for this area or a new business.
Dr. Irven, Vice President
DC Properties, Inc.
Carla Irven [Smith], DC, CME, CAC, AVCA, BCN
Board Certified Neuropathy, ACoPM
Rocky Mountain Spine & Disc
www.RockyMountainSpineandDisc.com
www.DrIrvenAnimalChiro.com
107 Cameron Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
970-682-2667
ITEM 2, Correspondence
Supplemental Packet Pg. 11
ITEM 4, Public Comment/Presentation
Supplemental Packet Pg. 12
From: Jim Swanstrom <j.swanstrom@comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 8:29 AM
To: Alyssa Stephens <astephens@fcgov.com>; Development Review Comments
<devreviewcomments@fcgov.com>
Cc: Pete Wray <PWRAY@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Apex-Haven Hearing
Hello Alyssa I have typed up what I want to say and believe it is way over 2 or 3 minutes. With that in
mind I would ask that this email be sent to the board members. I have also attached the pictures/files
mentioned in the my comments. You will note I didn’t use one picture from the 7 I previously group I
sent.
Hello my name is Jim I have been the owner of 638 W Prospect for going on 24
years and one of my sons will be the future owner. I point this out because I am
not interested in selling. Maybe my children or grandchildren will be. It is an
unusual “L” shaped lot. (Picture B Please) The lot wraps behind 640 and 714 to
have a common property line with the Apex Haven property.
The 25 ft. buffer requirement came as the result of people similar to me being
concerned about just this type of situation happening during the last zone change
to HMN. And now when it comes up as a real issue, the city, really it’s CSU
wanting to wave the 25 buffer requirement. The issue is not about the distance
to the existing private property homes or the existing vegetation screening which
I have almost none. What does exist for me or 714 is all deciduous vegetation
which only has leaves 4 or 5 months a year otherwise you have limbs. The issue is
violation of privacy of our private properties, and I for one am not happy with this
possible change! I already have problems with people making holes in the fence,
more so to the north and items disappearing. I store my toys on this area of my
property and really don’t what them be screwed with. My stuff has been out of
site out of mind for several years. There is a mention in the application of
vegetation screening my property and 714 properties. (Picture E please) This
picture was taken last Tuesday by a drone approximately 10 west of the property
line at 25 feet from the ground. You can see that from the upper two floors of
the proposed building you will have a great view of my private yard and storage
areas. There is no vegetation on the property line between my property and
Apex! You can see in the picture there are four, very old tall elm trees a few feet
from the house which are yet to fully leaf out. I am getting bids to have the
center two removed because I am concerned about possible damage to the
house. I have already removed one other that had clear signs of a split in the fork
ITEM 4, Correspondence
Supplemental Packet Pg. 13
of the tree. And just about a month ago a large limb broke off a tree just to the
north of this picture smashing a portion of the property line fence with Apex. I
have already cleaned this up and replaced the damaged fence sections.
The vegetation on 714’s property line to Apex is fairly good but since it is all
deciduous the leaves will only exist 4 to 5 months of the year otherwise you have
limbs. (Picture F please) This is the same drone still at 10 ft. west of the fence at
approximately 15 ft. from the ground. That telephone pole next to the tree is
approximately 26 feet. You can see one of the existing Apex houses on the right
side of the picture. It is approximately 20 feet off of the property line. The
proposed three story building will be 10 or 12 feet off the property so a majority
of the leaf screen will be removed to stop the limbs from rubbing the new
building and allow for construction. I’m betting limbs will be removed back to the
property line. Once all of that is removed do you think the view of 714's back
yard will be pretty good and they have a Hot tub right there? So during the
winter when the leaves are gone 714 can expect zero privacy while using their
private back yard! Did you notice the clear view of the two people in the lower
left of this picture they are in 714’s back yard. The second and third floor will
have a great view of 714 and 638 backyards. (Picture C please) This is a blow up
of a page in the proposal submittal package. The property with the dormers is
mine, the garage in the middle is actually an old barn on 714's property and the
two stories to the left is 640 w Prospect. I have added the red line which is the
property line between with my property and 714. The Apex apartments left or
south of the red line will be looking thru a few tree limbs into 714's back
yard. But just about everyone on the second and third levels will have a great
view of our private yard areas. There is a deciduous tree approximately where
shown but on my side the tree has been trimmed up so the level well above the
fence and again no leaves the majority of the year. What is being depicted is
more like an evergreen tree shape, it is not an evergreen. (Picture D please) Again
this is a blow up of a portion of the submittal package. In the middle the property
line between 714 and Apex is represented. There is currently zero space between
the trees/ bushes and the fence which we understand to be the property
line. But those trees are currently reaching much farther than shown in this
elevation view. The lift equipment and personnel construction the building need
some space to work. Does the owner even want tree limbs rubbing up against the
building?? Again these are all deciduous tree or bushes and no leave the
majority of the year. The upper leave apartments will have a great view of private
property!
ITEM 4, Correspondence
Supplemental Packet Pg. 14
Reference staff comments In Paragraph 3 of section 1C Overview… it is stated
“The potential development area on the Haven site is limited by setbacks, utility
and access easements, existing homes on the site, Storm detention and mature
trees”
A variance, similar to the one requested for the buffer yard can be requested for a
setback
Utilities and easements are manmade and can be moved or adjusted, they are
probably Fort Collins utilities and easements.
Storm detention can be adjusted or totally moved. I’ve even seen the basements
of buildings used as detention area so zero site area was used.
Some “mature trees” are being removed for the proposed layout. Trees don’t live
forever.
Picture H please, 730 and 808 W Prospect are being combined so I’m wondering
about a building being constructed parallel to the current 808 north property line
adjacent to the parking deck. The existing building may not fit but I sure some
adjustments can be made in both the building and the parking lot lay
outs. According to the drawings on file there do not appear to be any utilities in
area but again utilities can be moved. In this location it could be a 4 or 5 story
building and potentially increase the density. I don’t think this location would
trouble anyone. The old location adjacent to my property and 714 could then be
a parking lot. Which I am not thrilled with but much prefer over a three story
building. In the new location the fire department would have access to three
sides of each building, Also in the future of major changes would happen in 714
and 638 ownership there would still be the potential for more development.
I have a second idea that might possibility be acceptable for me and would be
willing to discuss.
Thank you for your time
Jim Swanstrom
970 213 6101
ITEM 4, Correspondence
Supplemental Packet Pg. 15
ITEM 4, Public Comment/Presentation
i-.,....--- EXISTING DETATCHED GARA1
638 W Prospect
These are all
Deciduous trees
no leaves over
�a;.;--+--- EXISTING HOUSE - 638 W. Pl
1 /2 of the year!!
Same for 714
------tt-�-----�- EXISTING HOUSE- HAVEN -- Al -
714 W Prospect
backyard �=========�-+--_!__- EXI S Tl NG GARAGE
--- Red line is the Property
line between 638, 640
.--1-------=��and 714 --- EXISTING HOUSE - HAVEN Al
I l
I 1'--- --- EXISTING HOUSE - 640 W. Pl
--------41a ____ _- - _LJ
Supplemental Packet Pg. 16
-�
.
- Even the two story portion will
have a great view of 714 W
Prospects back yard and hot
tub area
ITEM 4, Public Comment/Presentation
---.....:a1L..1----1AII window to then. of the property line have
Property line between a great view of my tool storage area
.---------------.1638 and 714 W
All openings to the south of the (Camping trailer, boat, four wheeler,
property line are looking into 714 w1
.. P
_
r
_
o
_
p
_
ec
...
t
_ __,....-----
•snowmobile etc, The trees in this back yard
Prospects back yard. zero are deciduous and therefore no leaves over
Privacy!!!!!! Espically the ones to half of the year. Great aerial view of the area
the south of the tree!! and my roof. Almost zero privacy!!!!!!
r
EXIS
PRO�
EXISTING GARAGE (7:
Supplemental Packet Pg. 17
..
- -
NEW MULTI-FAMILY----,
HAVEN APARTMENTS
1-3-STORY
ITEM 4, Public Comment/Presentation
APPROX. PROPERTY LINE J All the large trees at 638 and 714 are
deciduous trees therefore no leaves
and no screening over 1 /2 the year
± 114' -O"
EXISTING HOUSE - HAVEN
APARTMENTS BUILDING 3
EXISTING HOUSE - 714
W. PROSPECT (1 STORY)
PROSPECT EXISTING HdusE (I STORY) - 638 w.
68'-60-
45' - 5"�
�--- EXISTING I HOUSE - 640
W. PROSPECT (2 STORY)
...J
Supplemental Packet Pg. 18
Supplemental Packet Pg. 19
Supplemental Packet Pg. 20
Supplemental Packet Pg. 21
:-Bu \�/NG r M l hi$
Loc..p. T ID A..)
'1 (!) \ 5 9Tt:, c-y
�"N$'TY
C. o uvJ 13/i:.
ON ALL APEX EXISTING APAATMENTil TREES AHO TO LANDSCAPING R,IMIN AND
BE PROTECTED
1:1
EXISTING N'EX :�:��:L.-:P:'.'Al::'.H---Hf-�......:!t.._../J�
MULTI,fAMLY 8UlD1N� RETAINING TO CML PlANS WAI.L FOR (REFER
NOT MOREINFOIU.V.O\'ER EXCAVATE TION� DO
NEAR TREES.OR1P CUI LINE M'DPULL OF
TOWARD AWAYfROM TREE TREE.NOT -
:----::--::;:,--------:----:=--::--
------R.O.W. ----r
. . . . . . -. .
EMERGENCY EXISTING & PEDESTRIIH 1�-C'
ACCESS TO W(OONNECUJN E STRE£T
ITEM 4, Public Comment/Presentation
�fi.1TI�/\ �Lr°t7
AQ.c.Ji- c;s
\
t
EXlSTINO GAAAGf/
SHED f;
L:
STORM SEWER TO � BE BORED
AUGER THROUGH D1STANCE EXISTING MAIN�UM TREES. Of
16'FROMFACE TO TREE PROTECTIOH OF TREE.NOTE REFER A
FOil RECEM MOOE SUPPlEME�TAL INFORMATION. TREE
WATERNOIIHD DURING CONSTRUCTION NUTRIENTS
::"'=======:=?".,#·:-r+-----l-1RETAININGWALL(REF� TO
CIVl PLANS FOR MOl!E
INFORMATION� EXCAVATE NEAR DO DRP NOT LINE OVER OF
�:TREES.�� TREE, CUI !!Q! ANO PUil TO\YARD AWAY
RES1DEN1i11L EXISIIND
HOME(PROSPECT) 11'W
Supplemental Packet Pg. 22
From: Robin Bachelet
To: Rebecca Everette
Subject: [EXTERNAL] potential conflict of interest
Date: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 3:41:41 PM
Hi Rebecca,
I would like to voice my concern, as the applicant for the proposed redevelopment of 730 West Prospect, as to Per
Hogestaadts current position on P&Z. Our team feels strongly that there is a conflict of interest because Per is a very
vocal part of the organized homeowners of the Sheeley Neighborhood. It is our opinion that he will not be able to
maintain objectivity relative to this proposal.
Thank you for your consideraton.
Kind regards,
Robin Bachelet
ITEM 4, Correspondence
Supplemental Packet Pg. 23
From: Robin Bachelet
To: Rebecca Everette
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: potential conflict of interest
Date: Thursday, May 21, 2020 10:30:44 AM
That's fine Rebecca. You can share my email with P&Z.
Further to that, I think it is important to note that we don't need to do this project. Especially
at this time. We feel as though we have offered a best case scenario for this land. A
scenario that creates a density, well under the allowed densities in the West Area Plan, while
also preserving, at great expense and future maintenance burdens, the older homes on the lot.
But if the process becomes unnecessarily burdensome and is clearly unappealing to neighbors
we can step aside and allow a national student housing group to step in and maximize the
property much better than we ever could. An especially enticing prospect now as the
Farmhouse property may be in play soon.
Thank you,
Robin
Robin Bachelet
970 566-2586 cel
970 484-0077 fax
rbachelet@mac.com
ITEM 4, Correspondence
Supplemental Packet Pg. 24
From: Alyssa Stephens
To: Sharlene Manno; Kacee Scheidenhelm
Subject: FW: Tonight"s Haven meeting
Date: Thursday, May 21, 2020 5:16:19 PM
Importance: High
Hi there,
I received an email comment for the Apex Haven project. Please pass this along to Board members!
Thanks,
Alyssa Stephens MA
Neighborhood Development Liaison
City of Fort Collins Neighborhood Services
Submit a public comment| Track Development Proposals
From: Docter,Denise <Denise.Docter@ColoState.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 5:00 PM
To: Alyssa Stephens <astephens@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Tonight's Haven meeting
From: Docter,Denise <Denise.Docter@ColoState.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020, 4:56 PM
To: astephen@fcgov.com
Subject: Tonight's Haven meeting
I'm writing to let you know my concerns about the proposed new housing project Haven on Prospect
road. I live nextdoor to the project.
1. Privacy issues, with a 3 story building setting right next to our back yard where we like to
entertain, barbecue, garden, hot tub and well live we will lose most of our privacy with so many
students moving in, in the past it has always been families that were our neighbors. I really don't
want to see a bunch of students looking out their windows watching us live or having those lights
shining into our yard or back porch or house. We have alot of trees in our yard which will help but in
the Winter the trees lose their foliage so there will be no privacy whatsoever. Which brings me to my
number two concern
2. Noise issues
With that many students moving in their will just be more noise all together, whether it's traffic or
just the students living in the housing unit. I am also concerned about the construction noises that
will occur because both the Apex and the Standard construction workers have been working before
7AM and past 7PM multiple times, many also have worked on holidays and weekends, when do we
get a break from all of the noise especially if this project will take a year to complete.
3. Destruction or disrespectfulness of our property.
ITEM 4, Correspondence
Supplemental Packet Pg. 25
I am concerned with workers being disrespectful to our yard, fence, and especially our trees and
foliage. I hope that they do not touch our trees at all or leave debris in our yard either and I'm
concerned with the people who will move in afterwards being disrespectful as well.
4. Views and wildlife.
I know that we have already lost most of the views of the foothills that we used to have but looking
north I can still see the foothills, with the Haven being built there, that view will disappear too.
We have alot of wildlife and birds that live here and visit, with all the pollution that will come not
just noise pollution I fear that we will never experience the wildlife that we currently enjoy having
now. We live here because it isn't crowded and we enjoy the solitude and peacefulness.
Please consider the points that I am bringing up and since you are combining both the Haven and
Apex apartments would you consider moving the building that is supposed to be right next to us
towards the west?
I would like to request that you read my letter at the meeting tonight so my voice can be heard.
Sincerely,
Denise Docter
ITEM 4, Correspondence
Supplemental Packet Pg. 26