The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGATEWAY AT PROSPECT AMENDED ODP - ODP160001 - CORRESPONDENCE - APPLICANT COMMUNICATION. . �✓'�� ,�—__ �—� '� G��S�' a- � �'�a..`"�`' , � �� T0: Cc: FROM: DATE: RE: Ted Shepard & Cameron Gloss �/�►^^~"'�' Tim McKenna Kristin Turner, Jim Birdsall January 13, 2014 Meeting Agenda for January.l5, 2014 Northwest Corner of Prospect & I-25 � �, �� • � � �': /" .�'. • � I •.. �• 4i.1• �� J � � U �'t ./�- Z U h � .. �� C. �%' � � � � —� s Project Introduction: � _ �a ��C �.�'— We are very excited about this property and its location in Fort Collins. We see this as an opportunity to create a mixed use project with residential, employment, and commercial land uses that will be a great addition to the City. We have heard from the Cify that this is an important gateway and we are in full agreement. We have been working with City of Fort Collins Stormwate� Department to coordinate the relocation of a portion of the Boxelder Drainage and expect that to continue to move forward. Due to the timing of the relocation of the drainage, construction of the new flood crossing under Prospect Road and the FEMA approval of all of the plans and construction we wish to move forward with the residential portions of the property first, as they out of the current Boxelder Floodplain, for the most part. We would like to integrate the design features of this project including landscape, signage, architecture etc. between the commercial and residential areas. We are working with a couple of residential builders and expect that we can bring a builder or builders to the City that will do a very nice job. We have been approached by several end users on the commercial area but have been holding back for a couple of reasons. First, a large portion of the commercial areas are burdened by the Boxelder Floodplain. Seeond, the users that have approached us so far are for the most part auto oriented/freeway oriented commercial uses. We expect that there rnay be some auto oriented users that land here, but we want the commercial to be integrated with the residential and employment land uses: We expect that with the development of some rooftops the commercial can be more of a mix of neighborhood services and community oriented commerciaL Our current plan is to pursue approval of the residential portion of the project with the commercial portion following at a later date. We have reviewed the existing zoning and ODP and would like to honor the approvals and move forward with a project that is consistent with the exisfing approved plans. At this point we have made several assumptions about the zoning an.d entitlement of this project. We would like to have City Staff reyiew our assumptions and give us feedback. �t- .,,��r,�.��.=,.. � c��T ��n�t.�. dr, �v�ce.�(,z. - ..:� .�.�:'.� � ,,� - �,. /'i�-�" . /� "" �Y�,`.''" Q 444 Mourttain Ave. ra 970:532.5891 Berthoud,C0�513 I wea TBGroup.us � --�,.v` � �`^"'� - � � t � r �" `�'—_ � � Goc r V � / ,L - .� .S J � .4 .< s' !t .4- � a c✓ � N ODP Amendment: P'�'"�"� 3�`7 ��_ In a previous Concept Review meeting City Staff suggested that we should do an amendment to the existing ODP to address two ifems: - Revise boundary of ODP to be consistent with project ownership. Specifically remove from the ODP the property that was sold to the subdivision to the west of the Urban Estate zoned area. - Remove reference to the Cooper Slough floodplain Question #1: Can this amended OPD can be approved through a Minor Amendment p�ocess that can be submitted concurrently with our PDP submittal? Utilizing the City GIS linework for zoning boundaries: Our surveyor/engineer, Northern Engineering downloaded the City's GIS linework to utilize as our zoning boundaries. Ques#ion #2: Is utilizing the City's GIS zoning boundaries adequate or is there another better source for the zoning boundaries? Project Access to the Residential and Employment areas west of the Boxelder: Normally the City code would require access(es) fo adjacent subdivisions. We are assuming that based on the approved ODP and existing circumstances that the only accesses to the residential and employment areas west of the Boxelder drainage will be a primary access from the roundabout on the frontage road, and a secondary access from a right in/right out from P�ospect. Road. There are 3 potential accesses to neighborhoods to the west. The nortFiern most access would include a crossing of an irrigation ditch and crossing of properties that we envision to be a neighborhood park or open space. The other 2 accesses are effectively blocked by the sale of a strip of land to the neighborhood, We understand that the subdivision will need to be designed so that there are two accesses to all parts of the subdivision to meet City and Poudre Fire Authorify sfandards. Question #3: Please con�rm the two accesses shown on the ODP, including the main access from the Frontage Road roundabout in addition to the right-in/right-out from Prospect Road, are adequate? . - �— l G•,JL v ��.�, .�.;., � � Neighborhood Parkc � °"�`""`'' � Y On the approved ODP, there were two locations identified as potential neighborhood parks. One was so:uth of the Cache la Poudre irrigation ditch and one was north: We would like to see the primary neighborhood park be located north of the irrigation ditch; which would allow the incorporation of additional �open spaces and would provide a buffer to the neighborhoods to the north and northwest. We may propose some smaller pocket parks, and/or gathering areas, within the subdivision and/or along the Boxelder drainage to comply with the required maximum distanceto a park. Question #4: Do you see any land use code reason that the primary neighborhood park shouldn't be north of the ditch? Northwest Corner of Prospect & 1-25 — Meeting Agenda 1.15.14 Page 2 �� no�+ D�� ,�a;, � D /� � Urban Estate Clustering: We are desiring to pursue a clustered design of the Urban Estate zone area. We assume that the UE zone.d property north of the irrigation difch as well as the UE zoned property that was sold to the neighborhood to the west can count as permanent open space when calculating the allowed developed area within the UE zoned areas. Total UE area on the ODP 27.92 acres UE land left open within ownecship (UE-1 and UE-2 on mapj 8.47 acres UE land sold to adjacent neighborhood (UE-4 on map) 5.88 acres UE land to be developed (UE-3 on map) 13.57, acres 9�0 of UE land to be permanent open spaee 51.4% Question #5: Can the property. previously sold to the adjacent neighborhood count toward the clustering open space requirement? Secondary uses in the E— Employment Zone District: We would like to pursue secondary uses within the E zone. We understand that we have to meet the requirements of the E zone district as well as some of the requirements of Article 3. We expect that the proposed secondary uses wil( include a mix of Multi-Family and Single Family. Question #6: Do we need to meet the more stringent sfandards of both Article 4 and Division 3 or do the standards described in Division 4 prevail for both Multi-Family and Single-Family? Please refer to the zoning asswmptions map that we sent earlier. We are assuming fhat parcel E- 5 a.nd the northern portions of E-8 and E-9 will be single family. The southern portions of E-8 and E-9 in addition to all of E-11 will be multi-family. In total the portions of the E zoned areas proposed as residential will nof exceed 25% of the total E areas (including areas within floodplain that are not developable). Question #7: Based on the assumption that we will meet all of the secondary use standards in the E zone, do you think the areas proposed as secondary uses would be supported by City Staff? Northwest Corner of Prospect & I-25 — Meefing Agenda 1.15.14 Page 3 �� ? � � �� As described above, it is our intent to propose multi-family uses in parcel E-11. We expect that we will propose an approximately 250 unit multi-family project that will include E-11, LMN-4, a portion of LMN-3, and the southerly portionsof E-8 and E-9. We expect that the tofal land area ofthis multi-family project will be approximately 11.5 acres. Due to the requirements of Articles 3 and 4 we would need some flexibility in the maximum density allowed in parcel LMN-4. We have considered submitting a stand-alone modification to propose a blended density over all of these areas to accommodate this proposed multi-family project. A large portion of this project is within the floodplain so we would propose this stand-alone modification once the floodplain issues are resolved, most likely after the rest of the residential uses are approved. Question #8: Is a stand-alone modi�cation request the appropriate process for the request described above? QueStion #9: Do you anticipate that s#aff would support a modification of this type? Would this modification require P& Z action? Mix of Residential typesc Based on our review of the code it appears that we need a minimum of 4 housing types. Our proposed housing types would include Multi-family, Urban estate larger lots (these lots would most likely be blended between the UE area and the western portion of the LMN area, and two different sizes of single family lots. Depending upon which builder we work with, we may have some townhomes in addition. Question #10: Are we correct in assuming that we have the requirement of 4 housing types as described above? Question #11: Can we meet #he housing diversity requirement with estate housing, multi- family and two types of detached, single family lots? Roundabout and Frontage Road Design: It appears that a roundabout at the intersection of the main entry into the project and the frontage road is going to be the best fransportation solution, It also appears that in order to provide access to parcels G2 and C-3 that a 5 legged roundabout may be reqaired. This may require moving fhe roundabout a little bit 2ast of the existing frontage road. We will ask the same quesfiion of engineering and understand that this needs a lot more analysis to finalize. Most likely there would be a secondary access to the C-5 parcel further north (possibly a right- in/right-out only) Question #12: More of an FYI than a question, but from a planning perspective do you see any reason that this proposed de5ign couldn't work? Northwest Comer of Prospect & I-25 - Meeting Agenda 1.15. 94 Page 4 � � � \J 1�.: J Setbacks from I-25: We have shown setbacks from I-25 including: - 205' building setbac.k from the centerline of I-25 - 225' setback from centerline of 1-25 for buildings taller than 20' - 275' setback from centerline of I-25 fro buildings tallerthan 40' - 1320' setback from the centerline of I-25 for single family residential uses - 1445' setback from the centerline of 1-25 for secondary uses in the E zone Question #12: Can you confirm that the setbacks described above and included in our zoning assumptions map are accurate and that these are the only setbacks that we need to plan for related to I-25? Process: We expect to select our building partner(s) in the next few weeks and then will begin on the design of the residential subdivision. We expect to be in contact with you and other City staff as we work through the design. There are two big "off-site" design issues that we will have to work throwgh concurrent with the neighborhood design. First is the design and approval of the frontage road and roundabout which includes CDOT; Second is the design and approval of our road crossing the Boxelder which includes a FEMA approval of a CLOMR/LOMR. We are planning on wo�king on these two issues in parallel with the PDP/FP submittal and review process. Our hope is to have both of these completed by the tirne we are ready to finalize our PDP/FP process. It is our understanding that the secondary uses in the E zone as well as the clustering of the UE lots both require a hearing with P& Z. The LMN uses would be eligible fora Type 1 hearing. We anticipate that due to the proposed integrated design that the enfire resic(entiaJ PDP would require a Type 2 hearing in front of P& Z. Question #13s Based on the assumpfions described above would you anticipate the entire project would go thcough a Type 2 review? Question #14c Could you outline the process and expected timeline for getting a project of this type approved? Both the PDP and the Final Plans? � Metropolitan District: = S s -� �� We are interested in forming a metropolitan district to help finance some of the infrastructure and amenities. We have a breadth of experience with metro districts and find that they can be a helpful tool in creating well designed and integrated subdivisions. We have heard in the past. that metro districts may be allowed for commercial/employment land uses only. Wowever, recently we have heard that the City is considering a metropolitan district for a residential subdivision. Question #12: Can you explain the City's position on Metropolitan Districts? Northwest Corner of Prospect & 125 — Meeting Agenda 1.15.14 Page 5