HomeMy WebLinkAboutREDTAIL RESIDENTIAL - PDP - 26-01 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS1
a
C. Our proposal as submitted will advance the public interests and the
purposes of the standard equally well or better than a plan that complies
with the standard — better access, better siting and better fire safety (fully
sprinklered building);
D. The granting of the modification would result in substantially addressing
important community needs — affordable housing, proximity to work
places, internal pedestrian connectivity, external pedestrian connectivity,
excellence in design and construction, innovative architecture and
planning, and neighborhoods which provide sense of community and
enhance quality of life, as is more fully described below;
E. And the extraordinary physical conditions and situation unique to this site
would result in extreme practical difficulties and undue hardship if the
standard is strictly applied — as is described above.
116 — Fossil Boulevard is incorporated into and continued into a cul-de-sac which is an
appropriate termination of this exceedingly low volume street, and which provides
excellent access to both the Mill Farm and Redtail Pond access drives.
117 — No fire access roads in the project serve structures beyond 660 feet from the
point of access.
119 — In our view, -the -private drives do not prevent or diminish compliance with any
other provisions of the LUC except the street -facing facades requirement, for which we
are requesting a modification.
120 — We have shown an additional 20.feet of right-of-way along College Avenue as
requested.
121 —,The existing vehicular access point location to College Avenue has been moved
to the southern boundary line as requested, eliminating the line -of -sight safety problem
related to the former.
122 — It is not possible for Fossil Boulevard to connect with Coronado Court as
suggested without the City engaging in condemnation proceedings for a public taking of
Fossil Creek Office Park Owners Association property, as well as the property of two
building owners. And furthermore, to pursue this course would also violate provisions of
the City -approved Fossil Creek Office Park PUD.
123 — Plat has been modified to correct this problem.
124 — Plat has been modified to correct this problem.
125 — Building numbers have been labeled on the landscape plan as requested.
10
92 and 93 — All residential buildings are fire sprinklered for fire safety.
Stormwater Utility
11 — 75 — All matters are addressed above and / or have been complied with or
corrected in resubmittal documents.
Transportation Planning
94 — Please see Advance Planning Section paragraph 101 above.
97 — Connectivity from the Mill Farm neighborhood to the College Avenue frontage road
to the south has been eliminated as requested to avoid the possibility of more traffic on
the frontage road and to avoid exacerbating the dangerous situation that exists as a
result of the frontage road at the Cameron Drive — College Avenue intersection.
98 — Right -in / right -out College access point has been designed and designated as
requested.
99 — The South College sidewalk has been extended through the property to provide
north — south public sidewalk connectivity.
100 — Traffic impact study has been modified to address and reflect concems raised.
Zoning
1 — 9 — All matters are addressed above and / or are being complied with or corrected in
the resubmittal documents.
We look forward to working with all concerned to make this an extraordinary and
successful project we all can be proud of.
Sincerel
J Prouty
JP/hlb
15
The different residential portions of the project will be given street addresses from
College Avenue, Fossil Boulevard, and Cameron Drive respectively as street addresses
are given "from the street from which primary access to the property is taken" [Section
3.6.2 (L)(5)].
Furthermore, for clear identification of buildings and to be consistent with recent Fire
Department policies (e.g., our Promontory residential project on Boardwalk next to the
post office), we request your approval, if necessary, to designate residential buildings
"campus style" as follows: a) as you enter each neighborhood (Cameron Mesa from
Cameron Drive cul-de-sac, Mill Farm from College Avenue and Redtail Pond from
Fossil Boulevard) each building be assigned an alphabetical letter beginning with the
first building and proceeding in logical fashion, b) address numbers be placed at the
entrance to each neighborhood on prominent entry features so they are clearly visible
from Cameron Drive, College Avenue and Fossil Boulevard respectfully, and c) in
addition, the single office building be assigned a Coronado Court address which shall
be clearly visible from such public street.
Accordingly, we respectfully request that addressing be allowed as described above for
the reasons that:
A. The granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public
good — building locations will be logical and clear, enhancing the
convenience for residents and guests, and enhancing emergency
response access;
B. Nor would it impair the intent and purposes of the LUC — that the project
and buildings be aesthetic, attractive, convenient, and logical, consistent
with safety and emergency access;
C. Our proposal as submitted will advance the public interests and the
purposes of the standard equally well or better than a plan that complies
with the standard- our proposal results in clearer and more logical
building identification and if public street address numbers are assigned,
each building would be a different four digit number not in logical
sequence because of east -west and north -south address grid
considerations;
D. And the granting of the modification would result in substantially
addressing important community needs — affordable housing, proximity to
work places, internal pedestrian connectivity, external pedestrian
connectivity, excellence in design and construction, innovative
architecture and planning, and neighborhoods which provide sense of
community and enhance quality of life, as is more fully described below.
91 — Hydrants and water pressure requirements are being complied with.
14
Natural Resources
79 — The storm drainage easement was previously negotiated and recorded for.storm
water to both flow down its current path from the detention ponds into Fossil Creek and
for a smaller amount to sheet flow the same direction through the grass. In addition, a
temporary construction easement and grading easement will be requested along the
south project property line to build the lower detention pond outflow device that may be
required and to do finish grading and join contours as may be required.
80 — Park Planning's proposed route for the Fossil Creek pedestrian / bike trail has
been shown as a planned off -site trail proceeding just south of the project's southern
property line, proceeding west under the railroad tracks, and connecting north to the
Mason Street Transportation station.
81 and 82 — The Redtail hawk nest sites are located approximately 1250 feet from the
southern boundary of the project. Also, the view of same is blocked by a hill in the
natural area. This distance represents 94.6% of the 1320 feet buffer distance and
therefore falls within the range that may be modified by consideration of performance
standards, and we have requested same.
83 — Wetland mitigation plan, will be completed after final grading work is completed.
This mitigation plan will be completed by Cedar Creek Associates. See our letter from
them relating to same in our resubmittal package.
84 — Wetlands and buffers have been delineated on plan on requested.
Poudre Fire Authority
85 — Please see Current Planning Section paragraph 107 above, which addresses the
matter of street -facing facades.
86 — Only one deadend private drive in the project exceeds 150 feet and a modification
has been requested for same. Please see Current Planning Section paragraph 115
above. Please note all buildings in each neighborhood are fully sprinklered for fire
safety.
87 —All residential buildings are fire sprinklered for fire safety and, accordingly, on our
review of plans with Poudre Fire Authority, street widths were found to be adequate.
88 — Please see response to PFA Section paragraph 86 above.
89 — No deadend private drive in project exceeds 660 feet.
90 — Street addressing will be complied with as requested in our Modification #5, which
outlines our reasoning as follows:
13
Furthermore, our alternative plan achieves the LUC landscaping purposes of a)
providing significant canopy shading with the new deciduous trees we are planting; b)
contributes to the visual quality and continuity between our development and the
adjacent development; and c) enhances the outdoor spaces involved.
135 — Parking lot landscape area requirements have been complied with.
136 - Mill Farm entrance from College has been moved south as requested for safety
reasons and no landscaping will be planted which blocks the necessary lines of site.
137 — Not.applicable as we are no longer building any office buildings (except for one
which is being traded to Fossil Creek Office Park in exchange for residential land).
138 — Garage door standards are being complied with.
139 — We believe our plan provides for convenient and reasonable connectivity between
the internal project walkways and the planned off -site pedestrian / bike trails with two
points of connection. And furthermore, points of connection are appropriate in light of
the need to balance the public's right to enjoy a side trip through the project and the
residents' rights to enjoy a reasonable degree of privacy with regard to their individual
and common private property.
140 — We believe that pedestrians and vehicles are being separated in this project to
the maximum extent feasible. Half of the units have attached garages and therefore do
not need to walk elsewhere to get to their garages. By necessity, and for the reasons of
aesthetics and good planning, detached garages are used for the other half of the
residents, however, the travel route to them for most residents will be through the large
central park and / or along the pedestrian -way, vehicle -way, landscape, hardscape
courtyards integrated into this pedestrian -friendly project.
141 — Parking lot too close to College has been removed as requested.
142 — Dwelling unit information has been provided.
Engineering
16 — 78 - All matters raised are addressed above and / or complied with or corrected.
Light and Power
10 — All matters have been / are being complied with.
12
126 — Additional trees have been placed as requested.
127 — More additional trees have been placed as requested.
128 — Still more additional trees have been placed as requested.
129 — Number of species of trees has been limited to 23 as requested.
130 — Island landscaping has been corrected as requested. Lighting plan has been
updated to reflect most current site plan.
132 — Lighting fixture — tree location conflict has been corrected. .
133 — Additional trees have been replaced as requested.
134 — Parking lot perimeter screening is being provided everywhere except opposite the
large "furniture warehouse" to the north where screening is not relevant or beneficial.
An alternative landscape plan is being provided for this area as per the related LUC
provisions.
The warehouse is set back to the north, and has a well landscaped buffer / banking with
many mature evergreen trees.
The purpose of the screening requirement is so that adjacent neighbors will not have to
look at our parking lot without some screening / buffering. This purpose, however, is not
relevant for the portion of the parking lot which is opposite this long warehouse wall with
no windows in it.
We are proposing alternative compliance for the practical reasons that a) the screening
provision has no benefit as intended, as described above; and b) our Mill Farm
residents would benefit from the aesthetic experience and their parking lot would be
enhanced by not installing such screening but rather enjoying the view of a green
banking of grass sloping up and away from the parking lot with many large mature
evergreen trees buffering the warehouse wall, which would be coupled with shade trees
planted along the edge of the property.
This achieves the screening purposes equally well as a plan which complies with the
screening requirement because a landscape screen installed here would serve no
screening function.
Also, our alternative compliance plan preserves and incorporates the adjacent
landscaping and vegetation into our landscape plan. And our alternative plan enhances
the landscape continuity and connectivity between our residential use and the adjacent
warehouse use.
11
intersection being more dangerous, primarily as a result of the flawed "Frontage Road"
concept.
115 — The only deadend drive in the project which exceeds 150 feet is the drive from
Fossil Boulevard cul-de-sac west to access Building B in Redtail Pond neighborhood.
Our reasons for requesting a modification in this situation are as follows:
Cameron Mesa, Mill Farm, and the Redtail Pond east building do not have any dead
end private drives over 150 feet in length. However, the Redtail Pond west building is
accessed by a private drive approximately 200 feet in length.
The west part of the Redtail Pond neighborhood is severely restricted with the railroad
tracks to the west, the detention pond to the south, established industrial buildings to
the north, and a relatively narrow access way to the east.
Furthermore, the site is relatively narrow at its east end, and relatively wider at its west
end. Thus the west end is the best building site location because of the property's
configuration, and also the best location from a planning standpoint. Accordingly, the
access drive will be somewhat longer than 150 feet.
It would not be possible to move the building to the east in order to.shorten the drive
because the building would not fit satisfactorily on the site at this location, access would
be impaired and the detention pond area would be more adversely impacted.
We believe that the location and orientation of this building as shown is good or better
than moving it east to shorten the drive. We have located it so the building is oriented
primarily to the south, overlooking the naturalized detention pond and open space rather
than facing the railroad tracks and embankment.
It should be noted that all the residential buildings in Cameron Mesa, Mill Farm, and
Redtail Pond, including this building, will be fully fire sprinklered for maximum fire
protection.
Accordingly, we respectfully request your approval to allow us to use a private drive for
this building in excess of 150 feet as proposed, for the reasons that:
A. The granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public
good — safety would not be jeopardized as the building is fire sprinklered,
and public access is made safer and more convenient;
B. Nor would it impair the intent and purposes of the LUC — to the contrary, it
permits the intent and purposes of the LUC to be better realized, in
particular with regard to building siting, which permits the building to look
out over a detention pond and natural area and reduces the negative
impact of the railroad tracks and industrial warehouse to the west and
north respectively;
7
D. The granting of the modification would result in substantially addressing
important community needs — affordable housing, proximity to work
places, internal pedestrian connectivity, external pedestrian connectivity,
excellence in design and construction, innovative architecture and
planning, and neighborhoods which provide sense of community and
enhance quality of life, as is more fully described below;
E. And the extraordinary physical conditions and situation unique to this site
would result in extreme practical difficulties and undue hardship if the
standard is strictly applied — as is described above.
108 - We believe this project meets the design criteria for the 350 feet exception relating
to walkways which qualify as major walkway spines.
109 - Modification requests have been revised to more clearly explain the nature of the
modification request and the justifications for same based on the code.
110 -We agree with you that hardship is usually a weak argument for a modification. In
all cases possible, we strive to plan projects that are "good or better" in many respects
than plans allowed by LUC and we believe this project is an example of same.
However, due to the extreme limitations of the site configuration, geography, natural
features, Jimiting adjacent uses, we believe the hardship basis would also be a
reasonable justification for some of the modifications we have requested in this
particular situation.
111 - See Current Planning Section paragraph 110 above.
112 — See Advance Planning Section paragraph 101 above
113 — We believe the project meets the local street system requirements of safety,
efficiency, convenience, and attractiveness, considering modes of transportation which
will use same, aspects of which are a) vehicle connectivity to the Cameron Mesa
neighborhood via Cameron Drive; b) safe ingress and egress from / to College Avenue
via a signalized intersection; c) safe and convenient ingress and egress to the Mill Farm
neighborhood via right in — right out College Avenue access; d) also safe and
convenient ingress and egress from / to the Mill Farm neighborhood via planned
signalized College — Fairway intersection and Fossil Boulevard; e) Redtail Pond ingress
and egress via Fossil Boulevard; f) and extensive network of major walkway spines,
connecting walkways, offsite easements for connecting walkways, planned Fossil Creek
pedestrian / bike path, and planned connection from Fossil Creek bike path to Mason
Street Transportation Corridor Station.
114 — At Transportation's request, we have eliminated the connectivity of Mill Farm to
the College Avenue Frontage Road to eliminate any further traffic on such Frontage
Road, which would otherwise contribute to the Cameron — Frontage Road — College
I-]
The notable exception, we believe, would be pedestrian and bicycle traffic
to the proposed Mason Street Transportation Corridor station to the north,
and we are proposing an extensive network of major walkway spines
within our project which provide connectivity both within the project and to
such station in conjunction with the Fossil Creek pedestrian / bike path.
F. The excessive costs of compliance clearly outweigh the minimal roadway
benefit to the public coupled with the major environmental detriment to the
public.
G. Four major walkway spines, additional connecting walkways and
pedestrian -friendly private drive — courtyards have been included to
maximize connectivity, safety, aesthetics, and quality of life. These are
reasonable steps which have been undertaken to minimize the negative
impacts of non-compliance.
Accordingly, we respectfully request that you conclude that we have under these unique
circumstances, used reasonable efforts to comply with the regulation, that the costs of
compliance clearly outweigh the potential benefits to the public and would unreasonably
burden the proposed project, and that reasonable steps have been undertaken to
minimize the adverse impacts resulting from noncompliance.
And furthermore, we respectfully request that these residential buildings not be required
to have an entrance facade facing a street, but rather they be allowed to have one
facade facing and directly connecting to a major walkway spine except for the two
carriage houses which we request be allowed to connect to such major walkway spines
by means of internal courtyard. crosswalks and walkways, for the reasons that:
A. The granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public
good — because we are providing safe and convenient vehicle access by
means of private drives, and excellent fire safety with all residential
buildings being fire sprinklered;
B. Nor will it impair the intent and purposes of the LUC — because we are not
in fact impairing such intent and purposes in any way, but rather are
championing and realizing ambitious LUC intents and purposes, in
particular, creating edifying residential neighborhoods with aesthetics,
sense of community, pedestrian -friendliness, and project -wide use of
major walkway spines;
C. Our proposal as submitted will advance the public interests and purposes
of the standard equally well or better than a plan that complies with the
standard — as is described above and in our attached Statement of
Planning Objectives;
7
Redtail Pond units are adjacent to Fossil Boulevard, but because of the extreme
limitations of the site, and configuration of this parcel, it is not physically possible
or reasonably feasible for these buildings to face Fossil Boulevard cul-de-sac.
(Again, however, they will all face major walkway spines.)
In addition, it would not be reasonably feasible to extend public streets into this project
as a) the right-of-way requirements would eviscerate the project, b) even though it
appears with 63.5% (7.084 acres) natural area / open space and landscaping in this
project that there would be plenty of area to accommodate public right-of-ways, this is
not the case because the major portion of the site is comprised of naturalized detention
ponds and buffers, and c) this extension of public streets would involve the unnecessary
negative impact and destruction of a large amount of natural area.
We have made reasonable efforts to comply with this regulation, but planning and
engineering simply does not work given the extreme limitations and anomalies of this
site and the constraints that the immediately adjacent surrounding uses present.
A. See the site plans below which show the consequences of extending
Fossil Boulevard west, south and east (through Cameron Mesa) to
connect to Cameron Drive as requested, and which also show the
consequences of extending Fossil Boulevard east (through Mill Farm) to
connect to College Avenue. We do not believe these consequences are
desirable or in the public's best interest.
B. The cost of compliance is about $750,000 based on preliminary
engineering and estimates for major earthwork and grading, bridge
construction (over detention pond), and roadway construction.
C. The impact and damage to the natural areas would be considerable.
D. The Army Corps of Engineers approval would be required, but might not
be forthcoming because of the magnitude of the impact and the weak
cost -benefit ratio.
E. Even if constructed, our traffic engineer has advised us that Fossil
Boulevard — Cameron Drive roadway would have very little practical utility
as the vast majority of vehicle traffic from Cameron Mesa will proceed to /
from the College - Cameron signal light, while the vast majority of vehicle
traffic from north of the project will proceed to / from the planned College —
Fairway signal light: Minimal vehicle traffic will proceed north and south if
this road is constructed, quite simply because there are few / no
destinations presently or likely in the future to drive to on this two block
length of roadway.
1.9
103 - Thank you for meeting with us at length to work through and discuss the many
complexities of this project.
Current Planning
104 - Please see the layout of the Fossil Boulevard — Cameron Drive connection you
have recommended at Advance Planning Section paragraph 101 above.
105 - We have met one or more times with Advance Planning, Current Planning,
Engineering, Natural Resources, Transportation, Parks (by telephone), Public Service
Engineering, Water and Sewer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Poudre Fire
Authority, and others, and have had the opportunity to consider many views about the
problems and creative solutions for this challenging project. And we look forward to
additional meetings as you have suggested.
106 - See the conceptual drawings, at Advance Planning Section paragraph 101 above,
for possible variations of this project making use of public streets, and see how
mediocre they are.
107 - Our updated, more detailed, and hopefully more lucid explanation of our
reasoning relating to our street -facing facades modification is as follows:
"Every front facade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face the adjacent
street to the extent reasonably feasible" [Section 3.5.2 (C)(1)], and "every building
containing four or more dwelling units shall have at least one building entry or doorway
facing an adjacent street [Section 3.5.2 (C)(2)]. These standards are subject to an
exception for multi -family buildings with more than one front facade in which case only
one front facade needs to face a street sidewalk [Section 3.5.2 (C)(1)(b)].
The foregoing LUC provisions cannot be strictly applied to the Redtail residential project
because there, in fact, are no existing adjacent streets and it is not reasonably feasible
to construct any due to the extreme difficulty of the site configuration. The roadways
within the project are private drives.
Cameron Mesa units are west across the ponds and up the hill from Cameron
Drive cul-de-sac. It would not be physically possible or reasonably feasible to
orient them with facades facing the Cameron Drive sidewalk. (However, they will
all face major walkway spines.)
Mill Farm affordable housing units are west up a hillside from College Avenue
and are laid out in a creative east — west fashion because the land configuration
is a narrow east — west rectangle. One of these residential buildings faces
College, but it is not physically possible or reasonably feasible to orient the other
five buildings in the same fashion. (Again, however, they will all face major
walkway spines.)
5
102 - We disagree that the site is "fundamentally an isolated vehicle -oriented location
relatively unsuited to pedestrian access". In fact, we believe the opposite is true.
Because of the physical constraints (detention ponds to the north and east, railroad to
the west, Redtail Natural. Area to the south), the pedestrian / bike connectivity both
internally and from the project to adjacent sites is both a necessity and an opportunity.
pEDt�J'�i'AN/= co/wvTiVe7o°
a
1YO.
DrWN,
- _ pNABTcr �P-��D�/y��i� ��•Tri-f
S P()Vlrf
to ✓
iJ,
;t yl 4
1 (
r
l�
1 •
r
x�
u1G , 6 1
�i4 s.u•
REDTAIL PDP
FORTCOLUNS COLORADO
w . c...wu.. •...s.... acic.••n
With regard to the use of the existing plat, firstly, the plat is 20 years old and out of date
in terms of current engineering requirements and secondly, while the existing plat could
be used, the resulting project would be very mediocre and, although it would satisfy the
LUC "street facing" requirement, it would fail to achieve numerous magnificent LUC
creative potentials, goals and objectives, which are possible, but only.if we work at it.
The LUC's wise embracing of the concept and reality of double frontage buildings as
well as major walkway spines give us the opportunity for flexibility and creative
solutions, as City plan intended.
SITE PLAN / USE OF EXISTING PLATTED STREETS
�-({-aIVC7L �0'7yyGO I yr f r"
OF LOTS 5 ANO 9, CAMEF
LARINAE.R COUNTY
y,�...o. aestrs,aa.
SITE / FOSSIL BOULEVARD - CAMEROIN DRIVE CONNECTION
nue a..
lr�`o fmb
P
m
N'OOOlSY7 MIRla
� Q
X OF:
xo� o
2
LAGUNITAS REDTAIL INC.
3944 JFK Parkway, Suite 12 E, Fort Collins, CO 80525
970-226-5000 • Fax 970-226-5125
December 19, 200j
-- —
Mr. Troy Jones, Planner
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
P. O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
RE: Redtail Project / Response to Staff Comments
Dear Troy:
The following are our responses to staff comments from the staff project review letter to
us dated August 28, 2001. Responses will be organized according to departments and
comment numbers.
Advance Planning
101 - My summary of the area's history is: a) Cameron Park was platted by Cameron
Park First Filing in 1978 and Cameron Park Second Filing in 1981; b) the front half of
the property was.then developed as an office park with offices built on most of the lots;
c) a conceptual transportation plan was drawn up, proposing the idea that Mason Street
could be extended south through Cameron Park, through 38 acres of open space (now
Redtail Natural Area) and connecting with a public street behind the Nissan dealership;
d) this plan never was acted on and never addressed the questions of how private
property would be obtained - purchase, condemnation, or otherwise; e) nor was there
any consideration given to the impact this plan would have on natural areas; f) Walmart
was allowed to be built, effectively blocking this potential connectivity; g) Fossil Creek
Office Park PUD was superimposed on top of existing platted ground and partly built
out; h) the City purchased 38 acres for Redtail Natural Area, effectively blocking any
extension of this conceptual roadway south; and i) the City was left with 100 yards of
Fossil Boulevard, which now can neither be extended north or south because of major
ownership, use, natural area, and geographic impediments.
It is possible to extend Fossil Boulevard south over a pond, through a natural area, and
through our proposed project to connect with Cameron Drive, however the cost is
prohibitive (about $750,000) and the benefit is negligible (our traffic engineer projects
that it would receive very little use).