Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMOUNTAIN'S EDGE (FORMERLY 2430 OVERLAND TRAIL - RESIDENTIAL) - PDP - PDP160045 - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS (3)March 24, 2017 Kristin Turner TB Group 444 Mountain Avenue Berthoud, CO 80513 RE: Mountain’s Edge P.D.P. Dear Kristin: As you know, we continue to review Mountain’s Edge P.D.P. There are several issues that remain unresolved that we recommend be addressed prior to scheduling the Administrative Review (Type One) public hearing. 1. Orientation to a Connecting Walkway: The first and primary issue relates to our standard that places a high level of importance on designing neighborhoods that establish a strong relationship between the fronts of the dwelling units to the street. This standard is under Section 3.5.2(D)(1) – Orientation to a Connecting Walkway. Where this relationship is not possible or desired, our Land Use Code provides for two options for compliance: • 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. • 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. • Connecting walkway shall mean (1) any street sidewalk, or (2) any walkway that directly connects a main entrance of a building to the street sidewalk without requiring pedestrians to walk across parking lots or driveways, around buildings or around parking lot outlines which are not aligned to a logical route. • Major walkway spine shall mean a tree-lined connecting walkway that is at least five (5) feet wide, with landscaping along both sides, located in an outdoor space that is at least thirty-five (35) feet in its smallest dimension, with all parts of such outdoor space directly visible from a public street. Staff is concerned that the following buildings and units do not comply with these important standards: • Building E, Lots 18 – 24, are disconnected from the public sidewalks on both the north-south public street and Overland Trail by distances that exceed 200 feet as measured along the walkways, or there is no major walkway spine to either of these two streets. Staff recommends that these units become properly connected by adding connecting walkways to both streets in place of Unit 92 (east) and 44 (west). • Building L, Lots 54 – 56, are disconnected from the public sidewalk on Overland Trail by distances that exceed 200 feet, or there is no major walkway spine to either of the two public streets. Staff recommends that these units become properly connected by adding a connecting walkway to Overland Trail in place of Unit 32. • Building Q, Lots 98, 99 are disconnected from Bluegrass Drive by distances that exceed 200 feet, or there is no major walkway spine to Bluegrass Drive. Staff recommends that these units become properly connected by adding a connecting walkway across Tract H to tie into Bluegrass Drive. • Building R, Lots 100 – 102 are also disconnected from Bluegrass Drive by distances that exceed 200 feet, or there is no major walkway spine to Bluegrass Drive. Staff recommends that these units become properly connected by adding a connecting walkway across Tract H to tie into Bluegrass Drive. Please note that wherever a connecting walkway crosses a private alley, or requires a pedestrian to walk around a building, the walkway fails to comply with the definition as stated above. Mitigation for these deficiencies can be provided in the form of raised crosswalks, cautionary signage, lining the route with trees to the maximum extent feasible, or other design features that promote walkability. Staff emphasizes that making these adjustments in order to comply with Section 3.5.2(D)(1) may result in some buildings having a number of units that does not equal five or seven. Nonetheless, Staff will require compliance with these connecting walkway standards in accordance with their accompanying definitions. Compliance is deemed to be of utmost importance and is a critical path in gaining a staff recommendation of approval of the P.D.P. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Buildings have been moved and an additional footprint has been added to the plan in order to create more space. A walkway has been provided between every building with a minimum of 30’ between buildings. Walks are tree lined and pedestrian ramps and crosswalk striping have been provided across the private alley’s. 2. Variation Among Buildings: The second primary issue is finding compliance with Section 3.5.2(C)(2)(a)(b) – Variation Among Buildings. These standards state: Single-family attached buildings containing more than two (2) dwelling units shall comply with the following requirements: For any such development containing more than five (5) buildings (excluding clubhouses/leasing offices), there shall be at least three (3) distinctly different building designs. For all developments, there shall be no similar buildings placed next to each other along a street or street-like private drive. Building designs shall be considered similar unless they vary significantly in footprint size and shape. Building designs shall be further distinguished by including unique architectural elevations and unique entrance features, within a coordinated overall theme of roof forms, massing proportions and other characteristics. Such variation among buildings shall not consist solely of different combinations of the same building features. The project consists eleven 5-plexes and eight 7-plexes for a total of 111 single family attached dwelling units along with 17 single family detached dwellings. At this scale, this number of single family attached dwellings represents one of the largest townhome projects city-wide. Combined with the reliance on a rectilinear layout, full compliance with the Variation Among Buildings standards takes on added importance. Staff had a very positive meeting with the project architect on March 23, 2017 and three building designs for both the 5-plex and 7-plex were presented. While these six varieties are much improved over earlier submittals, Staff recommends that compliance with this standard would be assured by adding the following: • Expanded porches. The applicant is encouraged to consider wrapping porches around to the side on the end units, for L-shaped porches. For interior units, porch sizes are encouraged to be enlarged in their length, width or depth to the maximum extent feasible. Since there are no backyards or patios, front porches take on added importance. • Varying front setbacks. The applicant is encouraged to provide slight encroachments into front setbacks (up to 2 feet) as long as the average is maintained along the street front in order to accommodate larger front porches, at varying sizes, and as long as there would be no conflict with utilities. • Broaden the color spectrum. The applicant is encouraged to broaden the color spectrum among all six varieties of buildings in order to enrich the variety among buildings on a project-wide basis. Staff considers compliance with these standards to be of utmost importance and a critical path in gaining a staff recommendation of approval of the P.D.P. RESPONSE: The ratio of footprints has been adjusted for a more even balance of building sizes. In addition, a 4-plex has been added to the plan to create more visual interest and provide additional space between buildings. Porches have been enlarged on all buildings and vary between unit. The front yard setbacks have been varied anywhere possible. 3. Common Amenity Areas: The fact that this project features alley-loaded garages which are attached to the dwellings means there is no backyard or patio. Combined with the fact that there are no person doors from the alley to the dwellings creates a new kind of single family attached product that was not envisioned by the Land Use Code when establishing and defining this particular housing type. The Land Use Code defines Single Family Attached Dwellings as follows: Dwelling, single-family attached shall mean a single-family dwelling attached to one (1) or more dwellings or buildings, with each dwelling located on its own separate lot. As originally conceived by Staff, the placement of a dwelling unit on an individual lot implied that there would be sufficient lot area outside the building envelope for either small backyards or large patios. Staff did not anticipate that unit and garage sizes would be enlarged and lot sizes would be reduced to the point where backyards and patios would be eliminated. As a result, the definition does not include a reference to this relationship between the dwelling unit and the lot. In order to mitigate this oversight, and allow a single family attached neighborhood to develop at the proposed scale as designed, the project needs to provide common outdoor gathering areas. Staff has met with the design team and it appears that there are opportunities to provide such areas. Further, such areas would function best if provided with seating, grills, shade trees, pergolas, connecting walkways or other outdoor amenities that promote outdoor gathering and opportunities for neighborhood interaction. Retaining walls are encouraged to be stepped to soften transitions in grade. Staff considers the installation of such outdoor gathering areas to be of utmost importance and a critical path in gaining a staff recommendation of approval of the P.D.P. RESPONSE: Outdoor gathering areas have been added to the plan. The areas are conceptual in design and are subject to change at FDP. There are currently 4 different areas: 1. A pergola/shade structure area with planting beds 2. A seating area with planting beds 3. A grill/picnic area 4. A turf/naturalistic seating area In addition, the central area has been revised to include more turf areas for residents to enjoy, and limited the native grass to the detention and southern half of the site). 4. Orientation and Arrangement of Buildings Q and R: The fundamental urban design feature of alley-loaded garages is that such garages are placed at the rear of the dwellings and thus not in view from the public street. This allows for an enhanced streetscape that features building front elevations and porches. But in the case of Buildings Q and R, however, the alley loaded garages are not out of view from Bluegrass but, rather, in full view. This row of 12 street-facing garages negatively impacts the streetscape along Bluegrass Drive. In addition, the orientation and arrangement of these two building necessitates the construction a private alley which fails to take advantage of the opportunities of a public street by duplicating Bluegrass Drive. Staff sees the disadvantages of this arrangement as follows: • Presents a wall of unattractive garages facing a public street, and this street ties into the Brown Farm which is intended to connect and fully integrate the two neighborhoods. • Requires construction of a redundant private alley which will require perpetual private maintenance by the H.O.A. including, but not limited to, snowplowing, pothole filling, crack sealing, and an asphalt overlay after 15 to 20 years. • Requires the extension of all utilities beyond normal installation standards. • Requires the construction of three connecting walkways to meet Section 3.5.2(D). Staff recommends that the dwelling units be brought up to front on Bluegrass Drive with the advantages being: • Presents the front of the dwellings to the public street in a similar fashion to the homes in Brown Farm which will contribute to better integration between the two neighborhoods. • Front, street-facing porches would enhance the streetscape and contribute to a more positive first impression and improve the overall character of the project. • Front-loaded garages would not dominate the streetscape per the garage standards in Section 3.5.2(G). • Takes full advantage of the construction of a new public street and removes the need to construct a redundant private alley. • Public street maintenance would be by the City, after the acceptance period, in perpetuity. • Allows for normal installation of all utilities per standard operating procedures. • Allows for backyards and patios to face the open space versus front porches. Backyards and patios get used more for outdoor gathering, grilling, recreation and relaxing than front porches and would be more usable. Staff encourages the applicant to consider these recommendations. Please note that these comments regarding the orientation and arrangement of Buildings Q and R are recommendations that are worth considering for the benefits cited above. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Unfortunately, the applicant does not have a product type that allows for garage parking from the front of the building. The site is constrained in a manner which will not allow the reorientation of the buildings to front Bluegrass with an additional alley behind the units for garage access. Additional walks have been added to the plan to provide more enhanced connectivity and one of the building footprints has been reduced to provide more open space. Additional landscape screening has been added between the back of townhomes and Bluegrass as well. 5. Southern Terminus of Private Drive A: Staff is concerned that the southern terminus of Private Drive A does not include any design features that provide a transition from the fully developed portion of the project to the open space. As currently shown, this area looks unfinished and awkward. In addition, without such features, there is a risk that the open space may be inviting to unauthorized four-wheel drive enthusiasts. Staff recommends that this area feature a combination of hardscape and landscape elements that provides a logical transition between urban development and undeveloped open space. Please consider using decorative boulders and a variety of plant material, especially evergreen trees for year-round greenery, arranged in a naturalistic fashion, so that this area becomes an asset to the project and prevents unwanted vehicle intrusion. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. A pet station and planting have been added at the terminus of Private Drive A. 6. Connect to the Future Bus Stop: Staff and the project team met with a representative from Transfort regarding the best location for the future bus stop. Based on this discussion, the best location is south of Bluegrass Drive. Although transit service has not yet been added to northbound Overland Trail, the re-development of Hughes Stadium, along with Mountain’s Edge, will likely trigger the addition of adding of this planned transit route to the overall Transfort system. Staff encourages the design team to provide a location that is best suited to work with future grading. Further, adding a connecting walkway to this bus stop pad at this time will obviate the need to construct such walkway in the future. RESPONSE: A bus stop has been added to the plan, south of Bluegrass, per our meeting with Transfort. 7. Redlines of Sheets 5, 6 and 7: Redlines for minor comments are available at the front counter. RESPONSE: Revised. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or for further discussion regarding these comments. Sincerely: Ted Shepard Chief Planner