The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRIVERBEND PDP - MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS - 39-01A - CORRESPONDENCE -1) o ■li;■r piD ► �A j o �■■ � .F ii:s 4uo.i.,•..t.tpaa ■ .ru ;�'a � O` O'er 1� ' •; o 0 °+°qf .O�• O / l- OPTION B - PLAN MEETING CODE eud 4-cor� celr-VO� RIVERBI PONDS) AND TRAIL H wv�u i — OFF STREET PARKING Alr4je- Lt." /rind hGbCeA�JhGrP� 00 00 VEHICULAR USE AREA I � — SCORED COWRED CONCRETE iR _V PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY _ � to z PLAN A - PREFERRED OPTION PLANTING BEDS UNIT ENTRIES —100 FOOT NATURAL AREA BUFFER PATIOS i DETENTION POND bc- B) The plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; The purpose of the LUC code section 3.5 j4 'are intended to promote variety, visual interest and pedestrian -oriented streets in residential development. " We feel that the proposed plan promotes the general purpose of the standard equally well or better than a plan that satisfies the standard as follows: It • This site has limited street frontage; • Creating a courtyard plaza provides for a visual separation between the pedestrian and vehicular uses with a change of paving, and planter beds. • Internalizing the circulation systems reduces and/or eliminates the impact on the natural area and the natural area buffer. • The preferred plan provides a greater variety in building types, and a greater variety in the visual interest from the natural area. ? r` Findings of FacKonclusion We understand that in order to approve the Modification Request the Planning and Zoning Board must make the following findings: ?�G I A. The request for a modification to Land Use Code Section 3.5. J()d)(Z) andis subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board. B. Granting the requested modification would neither be detrimental to the public good nor impair the intent and purposes of this Land Use Code. C. Granting the requested modification would allow the project to advance the public interests and purposes of the standard equally well or better than a plan that satisfies the standard as follows: • The proposed site plan promotes greater visual interest within and outside of the site with a greater variety of building massing. • Keeping circulation internal to the site better enhances the natural area buffer, and • The plan as proposed provides a unique site design, an enhanced vehicular and pedestrian use area, a strong visual connection between units, and easy pedestrian access to the off- street parking, the individual units, and the adjacent street. We recommend approval of the Riverbend Modification Request. Riverbend Modifications of Standards Request 6/18/02 3 option. As a result, the applicant has elected to internalize the circulation system, and orienting the private living areas of the units to the adjacent natural area or public street. This effectively screens the vehicular circulation from public view, and also provides a good buffer and transition to the natural area. For Riverbend, we are requesting to modify the code requirement by providing an alternative means of providing pedestrian access to units 7 and 8. Two options are illustrated and discussed below: Option A (preferred Option) • This option creates a courtyard plaza that is shared by both vehicles and pedestrians. • Pedestrian areas are visually separated -from vehicular areas by the use of colored scored concrete, and by using raised planting beds where possible. • There are only eight units within the project, providing limited vehicular movements and traffic. • Three of the eight units have direct pedestrian access to a public street. • Public on -street parking will not be allowed on Countryside Drive and the department of natural resources prefers a design, which discourages- overflow parking - at the natural area. • This design option provides greater visual interest in building variety and massing from the natural areas, with a total of sir end units. This allows greater grreeater liveability for the majority of the units. ��— &tk61 Option B (plan meeting code) • This option creates a single six unit buildin against the natural area. 1 �. • Per the land use code, only one of the units is required to meet the connectivity `DZ re uirements with multi-famil buildings, which is provided. • Less diversity in units. • Less variety in building types. 2Ak- o�,k� • Greater massing and visual intrusion on the Natural Area. This is a unique site, small in size, adjacent to the Riverbend Ponds Natural Area, and with limited street frontage and no on -street parking. With these amenities and restrictions, the site design places all the active circulation components into the interior of the site, with the more passive patio uses to the exterior of the site, providing a visual buffer to both the natural area and to Countrvside Drive. Justification We understand that in order to approve the Modification Request the Planning and Zoning Board must make the following findings: A) The Planning and Zoning Board may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good; We feel that the proposed design allows the pedestrian to interact with the vehicle in a safe and convenient manner, provides visual separation between the pedestrian and vehicular, provides -,- better visual massing to the adjacent natural area, and is not detrimental to the public good. River6end Modifications of Standards Request 6/18/02 2 MODIFICATION REQUEST RIVERBEND ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED SITE PLAN We are submitting this request for modification of standards for the Riverbend project to address the following item: t A. Modification of standards to Section 3.5.2(C)(1) of the LUC PROJECT BACKGROUND . Riverbend is a small infill housing site located along Countryside Drive, west of Timberline, immediately north of the Riverbend Ponds Natural Area. This site is one acre in size. The applicant is proposing eight townhome style multifamily units on the site placed in three separate buildings. Two of the buildings face south, with the other facing onto Countryside Drive. The buildings are oriented around a central courtyard drive, which provides access to the garages, off-street parking, as well as the public entrances of the units. The issue is providing a pedestrian connection to the east side two unit building, units 7 and 8. The applicant prefers a two building configuration with a four unit and a two unit building. The code could easily be met by construction one six unit building. We have worked with staff on a variety of options, outlined below, one meeting the code requirements, and the preferred option which does not. As a result, the applicant is requesting a modification to 3.5.2(C)(1), Orientation to a Connecting Walkway. Modifications to setback requirements Code Sections: 3.52(C)(1) Orientation to a connecting walkway. Every front facade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face the adjacent street to the extent reasonably feasible. Every front facade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face a connecting walkway with no primary entrance more than two hundred (200) feet from a street sidewalk. The following exceptions to this standard are permitted: (b) A primary entrance may be up to three hundred fifty (350) feet from a street sidewalk if the primary entrance faces and opens directly onto a connecting walkway that qualifies as a major walkway spine. (c) If a multifamily building has more than one (1) front facade, and if one (1) of the front facades faces and opens directly onto a street sidewalk, the primary entrances located on the other front facade(s) need not face a street sidewalk or connecting walkway. Purpose: These standards are intended to promote variety, visual interest and pedestrian -oriented streets in residential development. Discussion: At Riverbend, street frontage is very limited, with frontage on only a small section of Countryside Drive to the west, the Riverbend Ponds Natural Area to the south, the existing Countryside development to the east, and the Country Gardens Nursery to the north. Due to this, providing public street frontage for all the units was not a feasible River6end Modifications of Standards Request 6/18/02 2. In general, City staff prefers Plan A - Preferred Option of the 2 options presented with the Modification Request. Staff is prepared to take a supporting recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board. This item has been placed on the agenda for the September 5, 2002 Planning and Zoning Board public hearing. If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project, please feel free to call me at 221-6341. Yours Truly, 4xDq-- Steve Olt City Planner Page 3 The following concerns and comments were expressed at staff review on July 17, 2002: Light & Power 1. Separate electric meters will be required for each building. With the 3 buildings there could be some problems associated with utilities separation, especially regarding the building containing units 7 & 8. Poudre Fire Authority 1. Regarding Plan A - the building containing units 7 & 8 will have to be fire sprinklered. 2. Regarding Option B - the building containing units 3 thru 8 will have to be fire sprinklered. Transportation Planning 1. A rollover curb along the vehicular use area driveway, providing a grade separation between vehicles and pedestrians, would make the scored colored concrete areas feel more like a "walkway". 2. Plan A, the applicant's preferred option, is the City's preferred option. 3. The original submittal, dated 8/27/01, is really the best solution for this site because of the pedestrian walkway alignments and connectivity to the public sidewalk along Countryside Drive. Planning 1. The 5 off-street parking spaces on the cul-de-sac should be of the same surface as the vehicular use area driveway (either asphalt or concrete?). The scored colored concrete pedestrian walkway should terminate at either end of the parking spaces. Page 2 STAFF PROJECT REVIEW Citvof Fod Collins VIGNETTE STUDIOS Date: 7/18/2002 c/o Terence Hoaglund 144 N. Mason Street, Suite 2 Fort Collins, CO. 80524 Staff has reviewed your submittal for RIVERBEND PDP - MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS, and we offer the following comments: ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt Topic: Genera/ 2 Clark Mapes of the Advance Planning Department indicated that this modification request reflects understandings and agreements that came from a discussion between City staff and the applicant's design development team. Department: Natural Resources Topic: General 1 No Issues. Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Doug Moore Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Topic: General 3 No comments on the modification. Comments will follow regarding the PDP submittal. Page 1