Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREDTAIL RESIDENTIAL - PDP - 26-01 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - MODIFICATION REQUEST (7)•� EXHIBIT E — FXISTING CAMERON PARK SECOND FILING PLAT CAME SE BEING A PART RANGE G9 WES le•J. "' OF L•O-rS 5 AN A ram. oo• �\ L !�^ „o s LARIMEF �69•w5 TRACT r O A \ w\ 10 e3 0O' OD J ws.,t C. N n 12 C r, I � 1ef.l� ` -1 /. \ 3�— � O [C..O. a 33•r S'06"•ry )9 Sw'� / r0' rE OF OI S; O :Oe• \ ST.Lrry r=CiS l r ♦0 �0 •/11. or \ __llffT1 f wi O e!l �I `G YO l,�• ie•�]'CC •+ �.'JH f• •i0 M O b Sr•p7'..• .S Ir e. .u0 `A. w !!' I ^ IN I° p La. e•a • er w : i a„ Z r.. .� . GZCwD. •.w•. t•3] w .5../} I I . _ fJ, /'� i <ro. Dar•3O.0••L r •VIe"`.- i. na t rfi ,rJ q CAMEROP ° •� I •"8 Ow �a•w•e•.r uc•ll 5. ar z t,•'err. ..-Oz'w DIt :3 /mac DD Nw9•erw I I /��---� nD / Ic CAS 0 6 0 J O fD P ° z I I © L QC 4 IO Q I< . i° i. r � I b �♦ O• aat••It I�ti N w9•.]2' W C W w I.V'o� �� b QD I re 00' e \ Q N /af ♦ 1.0 ee'v w I 11 I J GaI IU^f♦ n W I 1 W " 166 1 •..' 3 '' ° O x fir. �•y-.. ,: r.; r::tu:c LRA T c6I� `o" gl ® liz 0 > j 8I i Q A. "U" . r,sr• .. , I `� ` � I`, � rw .o. al a �1 .I'Y LAff MG'NT `l�Illr .'V�w1F_u 209 we'— N ws•+3' w b10 .O LpTC i(1) yD...rr EXHIBIT D - BUFFER COMPARISON4 i 1 I l o 1 o I \ /� ..ram,'♦\ � nn.c�.n �n.n.nn nnm I I II,;III i I2`I�II 1 �� F �•ti ♦ \\ �V I III 1 1 i �i IaJ V % k 1 i 2 >/ ------------ 2 r_ t �30 PEDT11l1MK% ,/' pig \� xEsi B�iFFP !ansmosu� nn�s. e,n�w� ,/' smsla enmr rsa BUFFER COMPARISON FROM MITIGATED WETLANDS FROM EXISTING WETLANDS (Proposed Redtail Project) 117 TOTAL UNITS 55 TOTAL UNITS (53R loss of units) vp y A l" No Text t • ' WWI � A I Tr 1 014 low Ark 07» ExHISIT •"- LOW-QVALITi WS7LANDS $EIN UISPLAC-T-1) No Text We respectfully ask for your favorable consideration and approval of our requested modifications. Thank you. Sincerely, �rn� Jon Prouty President JP/hlb Enclosures 11 2. We believe granting of this modification will result in substantial benefit to the City in the form of not constructing a walkway through an open space buffer, which walkway would be difficult to construct and unaesthetic because of the steep grades involved; 3. And we believe that the exceptional physical conditions that are unique to this property including unusual configuration, site constraints, and grade, support the appropriateness of granting this modification. IV. Furthermore with regard to both of the foregoing modification requests, our plan achieves LUC purposes and addresses community needs by: 1. Fulfilling a community need for affordable housing. 2. Providing housing immediately adjacent to offices and nearby to many other workplaces. 3. Providing internal pedestrian connectivity by means of sidewalks, walkways, and parks. 4. Providing pedestrian connectivity between the residential neighborhoods, and the existing offices to the east by means of Cameron Drive, Frontage Road, private drives and sidewalks. Furthermore, the project provides easements for connectivity to the Fossil Creek and Mason Transportation Corridor trails. Also, it provides connectivity via public transit and public streets to schools, parks, library, retail, office and employers. 5. Promoting excellence in design and construction of planned residential neighborhoods, buildings, outdoor spaces, and streetscapes. 6. Incorporating innovative architecture and planning concepts including front and back roof step-down design; central park -courtyards concept merging landscape, hardscape, pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle uses; interesting building elevations; and aesthetic building frontages. 7. Providing sense of community and quality of life, which are inherent in and flow from the essential elements of the project: a) two small residential neighborhoods, b) each comprised of residential buildings surrounding central parks, plazas, and mailboxes, c) all creatively designed in a way which enhances aesthetics, safety and quality of life, and d) the highest sensitivity to the unique natural resource attributes of this site which in conjunction with landscape areas comprise 56% of this special project. 10 the west, Fossil Creek Office Park parking lot to the south, and Fossil Boulevard to the east. 2. While it is possible to connect these two buildings with a connecting walkway which runs along the west side of such buildings and proceeds north to the Redtail Court sidewalk, this connecting walkway would intrude into the open space buffer and because of its connection to the Redtail Court sidewalk would perhaps invite additional people into this area. 3. The problem of this walkway is compounded by the relatively steep grade as you proceed west from these buildings. As a result, if this connecting walkway was installed it would require a substantial cut across the hillside which would have to be mitigated with a retaining wall. 4. It is not possible to trade the buildings and parking locations. We have explored this layout alternative and it does not work because of driveway length requirements, garage door requirements and parking lot area drive width requirements. In addition, this alternative is not safe, as it would require all driveways accessing directly onto Fossil Boulevard right at a major bend in the road. The alternative we have proposed of accessing these residential units and their associated parking from a single point of access off Fossil Boulevard and from a private drive not only meets the requirements mentioned but also is much safer given the unique circumstances involved. 5. On balance, we believe that a modification of the connecting walkway standard permitting the residents of Building G and Building 2 to walk from the courtyard areas (colored patterned concrete) in front of their houses to a walkway which proceeds across a private drive to the Fossil Boulevard sidewalk or to a walkway which proceeds to the Redtail Court sidewalk would be reasonable and desirable and safe. Furthermore we believe that the benefit to the public by not causing further intrusion in the form of a connecting walkway in the open space buffer at the west of these buildings is a substantial public benefit which justifies the granting of this modification. In addition, we believe that the enhancement of public safety by accessing Fossil Boulevard at a single point rather than multiple points on a cure is a substantial benefit which also justifies the granting of this modification. Accordingly we respectfully request approval to allow us to provide this sidewalk connection as proposed, for the reasons that: 1. The granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good — but rather the public good will be enhanced, as has been described above; 57 Or, 3. Exceptional physical conditions unique to property would result in undue hardship on owner — The Redtail project clearly has exceptional physical conditions unique to the property including a) severe physical constraints with the railroad to the west, City natural area to the south, ponds and offices to the east, and pond and warehouses to the north, b) major topographical variations, c) three ponds and associated natural habitat and features and d) only one platted point of access. Not to support this excellent project after three years and five submittals of arduous evolution would be the death knell for this innovative plan. We believe that the most powerful and creative tool in the LUC is "Good or Better Than". When the Decision Maker finds "Good or Better Than", it can loosen the prescriptive requirements to allow something "Good or Better Than" to be achieved while at the same time honoring and achieving the.goals and purposes of the LUC. Such is the opportunity you / we have with the Redtail project. And should Redtail fail to go forward, the alternative of building out these existing Cameron Park Second Filing lots as presently platted would not be "Good or Better Than", would not in the public's best interest, and would be very unfortunate. III. Modification Request #2 — Sidewalk Connection from Building G and Building 2 In reference to LUC 3.5.2.(C): Building G and Building 2 connect to the Fossil Boulevard sidewalk by means of a walkway which proceeds from the southeast corner of Building G across a very low traffic driveway and then north to the sidewalk. These buildings also have supplemental connectivity to the Redtail Court sidewalk by means of the immediately adjacent private courtyard — vehicle — pedestrian way which is aesthetically constructed with colored patterned concrete. The reasons we have designed connectivity in this fashion are: 1. The unique and difficult configuration of the entire Redtail property, and the engineering and fire safety requirements which must be met for such project, constrain this building site with Redtail Court to the north, private open space to H. Major revegetation and enhancement of the buffer zone areas, creating additional habitat, food source, herbaceous plant diversity, and woody species. In addition, we are providing the City with an essential link for its Mason Transportation Corridor trail and its connectivity to the Fossil Creek trail, both of which will be under construction soon. This has great public value both regionally and citywide. Specifically, we are extending Redtail Court north through the middle of the northernmost pond and providing connectivity to Fossil Boulevard. This will then be used for a bicycle / pedestrian path connection. Without this essential link, it would be virtually impossible to make this connection because of the extremely steep railroad track embankment in the railroad right-of-way which plummets precipitously into the pond, denying north - south access along this short section of railroad right-of-way. Although it would appear that consideration of the specific LUC provisions enumerated above would be sufficient basis for the P&Z decision to approve the Redtail project, P&Z may also wish to consider the three alternative LUC modification criteria enumerated in LUC 2.8.2, any one of which may provide P&Z with the sole basis or supplemental reasons for supporting the Redtail project. a 1. Promotes the general purpose of the standard equally well or better — We believe that on review of the information presented above that it is conclusive that the proposed Redtail development plan, having now evolved for three years and five submittals, achieves the purposes of and is compatible with, sensitive to, protects and enhances natural habitat and features better than the alternative of rigid enforcement of buffer for existing buffer from existing wetlands, 53% reduction in number of residential units in project, the demise of the Redtail project, and then development of the existing Cameron Park Second Filing platted lots as a matter of right with no buffers whatsoever! See Exhibit D — Buffer Comparison and Exhibit E — Existing Cameron Park Second Filing Plat. 2. P&Z approval of modification would result, without impairing LUC purposes, in a substantial benefit to the City as specifically expressed in the comprehensive plan and strict application of the standard would render project practically infeasible — The Redtail project does not impair LUC purposes but rather promotes them as described above. The Redtail project achieves numerous specific comprehensive plan goals and benefits including open space and natural habitat and features protection and enhancement, affordable housing, diversity in housing models and costs, creative and quality planning, aesthetic design, and sense of community. 7 4. Restore or replace resource value lost to community from development disturbances to natural habitat and features — All buffer and open space areas which are impacted by development grading, stormwater drainage improvements and otherwise are being restored, mitigated, replaced and enhanced as per our open space restoration plan, our tree mitigation plan, our wetlands mitigation plan, open water mitigation plan, and our open space — landscape plans, including major wildlife habitat and food source enhancement. Approximately 1/4th of an acre (of this 11.8 acre project) is low -quality wetlands with wetlands -type grass on a hillside, no wildlife habitat value, no open water, no woody species, and no diversity of herbaceous plants. See Exhibit B, Low - Quality Wetlands Being Displaced. These low -quality wetlands and also approximately 1/10th of an acre of high -quality wetlands are being displaced by this project. They will be mitigated 100% by the establishment of new, high - quality wetlands immediately adjacent to the ponds. See Exhibit C14, Ponds Photos and Areas of Mitigation. We are restoring and / or mitigating all impacted wetlands, habitats, natural features and buffer area as well as enhancing existing conditions in a way which provides considerably more ecological value than that lost. These restoration and mitigation efforts will include the following: A. Addition of trees, shrubs and grasses in open space areas as per our revegetation plan. B. Addition of trees, shrubs and grasses as per our landscape plan. C. Protection of important trees and elimination of nuisance trees as per our tree inventory and mitigation plan. D. Improvement of ponds quality and shorelines resulting in healthier ponds, better fish environment and improved wildlife habitat and food source. E. Creation and enhancement of high -quality wetlands immediately adjacent to existing ponds which i) will perform erosion control and water quality functions which the displaced wetlands performed, ii) will provide new wildlife habitat, wildlife food source, open water, and diversity in herbaceous plants, and iii) will be located substantially below (downhill from) the edge of the development lots which will further buffer them from same. F. Addition of herbaceous plants and woody species to provide excellent habitat and food source for wildlife. G. Expansion of the northernmost pond. 9 wetlands mitigation plan, open space restoration plan, tree mitigation plan, and numerous visits to the site by our staff, City staff, and expert consultants. 6. Dozens of changes have been made as we have evolved this project to being the most feasible and prudent alternative possible within the meaning of these words and to achieve the goal of a project compatible with and sensitive to natural habitats and features and plants and animals. 7. In this regard it is certainly relevant that the project now, we believe in its final and best alternative form, has 56% (6.6 acres) private open space and landscape area. FOUR ALTERNATIVE METHODS The second part of LUC 3.4.1(C) specifies four alternative methods for achieving the general standard: Or, Or, Or, Direct development away from sensitive resources — We have configured our project into two sub -neighborhoods, both buffered from natural features and habitat to the maximum extent feasible: a) the townhome neighborhood is located at the far northeast of the project, away from ponds and wetlands and up against College Avenue, and b) the condominium — carriage house neighborhood is located at the far west of the project, right up against the railroad right-of-way and buffered to the southeast and north from the ponds and wetlands. 2. Minimize impacts and disturbance through the use of buffer zones — All development is pulled back away from and buffered from natural habitat and features to the maximum extent feasible. The buffer is in excess of that required and puts the project in 111.2% compliance with the general buffer requirement. Furthermore, the buffer area will be enhanced by the improvement of wetlands, improvement of open water, improvement of trees, bushes and wildlife habitat; buffer design to minimize intrusion, noise buffering, visual buffering, and aesthetic building design and scale. 3. Enhance existing conditions — Existing conditions are being protected and enhanced, including the three on -site ponds and the associated high -quality wetlands, herbaceous plants, woody species, wildlife, birds and fish. 1:01 We believe that the Redtail project as it has evolved over the last three years in response to our best ideas and the City's input complies with these General Standard provisions: 1. Feasible means: a. Capable of being done or carried out (e.g., a feasible plan) b. Suitable c. Reasonable and likely d. Synonyms are: i. Possible ii. Practicable iii. Viable (having a reasonable chance of succeeding) iv. Workable 2. Prudent means: a. Shrewd in the management of practical affairs b. A synonym is: sensible* 3. We have worked arduously for three years and five submittals and have explored all possible alternatives we could think of, and our advisors and City staff could suggest. 4. We have made all possible efforts to comply with the requirement that the Redtail project be compatible with and sensitive to natural habitat and features, including buffer at 111.2% compliance, improvement of habitat, improvement of wetlands, improvement of open water, improvement of trees, bushes, and wildlife habitat; buffer design for minimum intrusion, noise buffering, visual buffering and aesthetic building design and scale. 5. And in addition (LUC permits this as an alternative to paragraph 4 above), we have minimized the potential negative impacts of development as reflected by our detailed studies and plans for protection, restoration, enhancement and mitigation relating to natural features and buffers, including ecological survey, tree inventory, wetlands delineation, geological studies, hydrological studies, Merriam -Webster Desk Dictionary, © 1995 C! However, since our proposed buffer configuration involves the displacement of some existing low -quality wetlands (wetlands -type grass on a hillside), staff has concluded that this is a matter appropriate for P&Z consideration. In this regard, the General Standard, LUC 3.4.1(C), provides that, "to the maximum extent feasible the development plan shall be designed and arranged to be compatible with and to protect natural habitats and features and the plants and animals that inhabit them and integrate them within the developed landscape of the community." Furthermore, this section specifies four alternative methods for doing this: 1. Directing development, away from sensitive resources, 2. Minimizing impacts and disturbances through the use of buffer zones, 3. Enhancing existing conditions, or 4. Restoring or replacing the resource value lost to the community (either on -site or off -site) when a development proposal will result in the disturbance of natural habitats or features. So we must first be clear about what the General Standard means, and then consider which one or more of the four methods are relevant to Redtail. GENERAL STANDARD INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION The first part of the LUC Definition Section 5.1.2 says that "Maximum extent feasible shall mean that no feasible and prudent alternative exists, and all possible efforts to comply with the regulation or minimize potential harm or adverse impacts have been undertaken." So two conditions have to be met: 1. No feasible and prudent alternative to the proposed development plan exists, and 2. All possible efforts have been undertaken a) to comply with the regulation, or in the alternative b) to minimize potential harm or adverse impacts. 3 A diversity of homes, including size, architecture and price, will be offered in the Redtail project, including: Redtail Townhomes are located on a small hill previously the home of Mill Brothers Nursery. They have frontage on Fossil Boulevard with access to garages off private drives at the rear of buildings. They overlook College Avenue to the east and have mountain views to the west. A major purpose of these single family attached units is to create a very attractive neighborhood of affordable housing for sale. The mini -park, mail kiosk, tot lot area has benches and provides the opportunity for informal socializing. Redtail Condominiums are located on the mesa at the west side of the property and overlook three naturalized detention ponds. They are adjacent to a centrally located linear park with a plaza area, a mail kiosk and a sitting area for informal socializing. Redtail Carriage Houses are located along the same linear park, and in addition two carriage houses overlook the northernmost naturalized detention pond. They are configured as two-family residences and all have views of the mountains. These units further serve affordable housing needs as their prices will start below $100,000. The project is an infill project between offices and retail to the east, warehouse -office to the north, City -owned Redtail Grove Natural Area to the south, and the railroad to the west with residential beyond that. The project has been designed with high sensitivity to the three naturalized detention ponds located between the proposed residential and the existing office uses. Connectivity is being provided between the project residential uses and existing offices to the east, and also between project and existing warehouse uses to the north, by means of Cameron Drive, Redtail Court, Fossil Boulevard, public sidewalks, and connectivity to planned bike / ped paths along Fossil Creek and Mason Transportation Corridor trails. II. Modification Request #1 — Natural Features and Habitat Buffer In reference to LUC 3.4.1: LUC 3.4.1(C) refers to the use of buffer zones as one of the four methods enumerated to minimize to the maximum extent feasible impacts and disturbances to natural habitats and features. We have designed the Redtail project to fully comply with the buffer requirement. The average linear distance of Redtail development lots from the ponds and related wetlands is 55.3', which is in compliance with, and in fact, exceeds, the 50' required buffer standard. See Exhibit A —Developed Lots Setback from Wetlands. K, LAGUNITAS REDTAIL, INC. 3944 JFK Parkway, Fort Collins, CO 80525 970-226-5000• Fax 970-226-5125 July 1.4,2003 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80525 RE: Redtail Project / Modification Requests Dear Planning and Zoning Commission Members: I. Introduction Redtail is a unique mixed use residential project consisting of four complementary residential product types located in two neighborhoods adjacent to each other, which make good use of this difficult inf ill parcel in a way that incorporates good planning, good architecture, and respect for environmental considerations. In each neighborhood there is a unifying contemporary -traditional architectural theme, attractive landscaping transitioning to private open space, and a sense of cohesiveness and community. Residential units include two types of multi -family units (condominiums), single family attached (townhomes) and two-family units (carriage houses). All are for sale to owner - occupants. The Redtail project had its genesis three years ago in our desire to achieve two objectives: a) to build affordable housing for purchase, and b) to build a project that is better than what we have a right to build on the existing platted lots (Cameron Park Second Filing) which permit construction right to the property lines with no buffer from natural features and habitat. This project achieves these two objectives with a) pricing beginning under $100,000 and b) 56% (6.6 acres) private open space, ponds, wetlands and landscaped area.