HomeMy WebLinkAboutGATEWAY AT PROSPECT AMENDED ODP / ADDITION OF PERMITTED USE - ODP160001 - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTS (2)�
�Ity Of
Fort Collins
June 16, 2016
Kristin Turner
TB Group
444 Mountain Avenue
Berthoud, CO 80513
Dear Kristin:
•
Planning, Development and
Transportation Services
Current Planning
281 N. College Ave.
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov. com/currentplanning
Here are the staff comments for the Gateway at Prospect request for Addition of
Permitted Use in the L-M-N zone district.
1. As proposed, the request is essentially to add a portion of an apartment complex,
at a certain level of intensity, in the L-M-N zone. Staff needs to have more
specific data than provided on the O.D.P. We need to know the extent, the data,
the numbers of buildings, units, acreage within the L-M-N portion of the multi-
family project so we can see how the L-M-N is being impacted, and how this
compares/contrasts to the L-M-N maximum allowances. For example, how much
of the complex is in each zone in terms of acreage, buildings and dwelling units?
It would also be helpful to know which zone the clubhouse/amenity area is in.
Perhaps the multi-family site plan can include the zone district line.
2. The application needs to specifically address not simply that the proposed use is
multi-family, which is already a permitted use in the L-M-N, per se, but the fact
that the multi-family will be arranged in an M-M-N-like development pattern with
the following intensity attributes:
• Greater than 12 d.u.'s per building, Sec. 4.5(E)(4)(a);
• Greater than 14,000 square feet per building, Sec. 4.5(E)(4)(i);
• Greaterthan 12 d.u./gross acre of residential land, Sec. 4.5(D)(1)(c).
3. The fundamental aspect is the consideration of an increased level of residential
intensity within a portion of the L-M-N, on vacant land, within an O.D.P. at a
distance (please specify) from an existing County subdivision.
1
•
This request for an A.P.U. needs to address the facts that:
•
• The site, and the O.D.P., is currently vacant.
• The compatibility and impact mitigation issues require an analysis of the
relationship of the apartment complex to Boxelder Estates.
• The request is being made not by the end-user developer/applicant. This
means that the terms of the A.P.U. will obligate the future developer. (Note
that any future changes to an approved A.P.U. will be subject to Section
1.3.4(F).
Each of these conditions factor into the overall analysis.
4. Please clarify the size and density of the apartment complex parcel. Is it 20.8 or
12.4? How do you derive 12.4 from 20.8? In determining the density, are you
following the requirements of Section 3.8.18 — Residential Density Calculations?
5. We need to see that at the O.D.P. level, for all of the L-M-N, including the portion
that is subject to the A.P.U., the overall density does not exceed the maximum of
9.00 dwelling units per gross acre (49.3?, 55.2?)
Staff Comments Per Review Criteria:
6. Section 1.3.4(C)(1): Please note that, as mentioned, "Multi-Family" is already
permitted in the L-M-N therefore the focus needs to be on the three criteria that
address residential intensity and not simply the land use per se. These three
parameters result in an M-M-N-like apartment complex in the L-M-N. How is this
appropriate in the L-M-N given the specific context of the area? Please address
the context of Boxelder Estates as a County Subdivision and the fact that the
O.D.P., and its (49.3?, 55.2?) total acres of L-M-N is currently vacant.
7. Section 1.3.4(C)(2): Please address the three measures of intensity and how
this results in an apartment complex, not Multi-Family as a land use per se. I
would note that the A.P.U. is appropriate partially because this portion of the L-
M-N (12.4 acres?) is part of a larger L-M-N zone district (49.3? 55.2? acres) that
is being master planned as a part of a 177 acre O.D.P. This allows for the A.P.U.
to be fully integrated into a larger mixed-use cohesive master planned
neighborhood similar to Bucking Horse, Rigden Farm, Oak Ridge, Miramont, etc.
This is not an isolated L-M-N parcel.
z
�
n
`�
8. Section 1.3.4(C)(3) Compatibility needs to be addressed by describing the
design features. Please provide the analysis that the A.P.U. (apartment
complex) is compatible with Boxelder Estates and this is because...(list the
anticipated design attributes).
9. Regarding impact mitigation, this criterion deals with the relationship between
Boxelder Estates and the A.P.U. Please describe the character of Boxelder
Estates. When was it platted? What is the County zoning? What is the range of
lot sizes? Are the streets gravel or paved or a combination? Are there agricultural
activities? About how old are the houses (+/-)? Please go into detail about their
purchase of the strip of land to form their own buffer (size, shape, location) and
how this precludes streets and traffic from accessing their neighborhood.
10. Section 1.3.4(C)(4): Please focus not on the land use per se, but on how the
three intensity measures, that result in an apartment complex, do not create any
of the listed adverse impacts. You may want to cite existing examples in mixed-
use neighborhoods where multi-family (at M-M-N-like intensity) are located in
equivalent proximity to single family with any of the listed adverse impacts being
manifested.
11. Section 1.3.4(C)(5): This criterion requires that the predominant character of the
area be described (Boxelder Estates), and relate this character to the A.P.U. anc
then indicate that this relationship does not change the predominant character.
12. Section 1.3.4(C)(6): Please specifically address the three intensity measures
that result in an apartment complex.
13. Sections 3.5.1, 4.5(E)(4) and 3.8.30: Staff's fundamental comment here is for
the request for an A.P.U. focus on two areas:
A. The relationship between the A.P.U. and Boxelder Estates
B. The overall performance of the A.P.U. such that it not just meets all applicable
standards but exceeds these standards.
14. Staff emphasizes that the application for an A.P.U. carries the burden of
demonstrating that the proposed use will perform at a high level. Under Section
1.3.4(A), the Purpose Statement provides the following guidance:
3
• •
"Under this process, the applicant may submit a plan that does not
conform to the zoning, with the understanding that such plan will be
subject to a heightened level of review, with close attention being paid to
compatibility and impact mitigation."
15. Also, please note that under Section 1.3.4(E), City Council may add conditions of
approval in order to accomplish the purpose of the A.P.U. process and or prevent
or minimize adverse impacts and to ensure compatibility of uses, or the intensity
of such uses.
16. Staff strongly encourages the applicant to demonstrate compliance with an
A.P.U. residential project that performs at a level that exceeds baseline
standards. Toward this end, Staff provides the following:
• Staff strongly encourages that the site plan be revisited. To the maximum
extent feasible, buildings should front on public streets.
The emphasis of the site plan should be not to create an inwardly-oriented
apartment complex, served by an internal network of private driveways and
parking lots, but, rather, to establish a framework of public streets and Street-
Like Private Drives [see Section 3.6.3(N)] which can be named and upon
which buildings can front and take an address. SLPD's can also be dedicated
as Emergency Access Easements for fire access. (You may recall that three-
story buildings require a 26' — 30' wide fire access lane along one long side of
a rectangular building, where fire apparatus is able to stage no closer than 15
feet and no further away than 30 feet from the building.)
• Staff acknowledges that due to the polygon shape of the parcel, some
buildings will have to be placed internal to the site. To the maximum extent
feasible, these buildings must front on the SLPD's.
• Parking is allowed on a SLPD and may be either parallel or diagonal, but not
90-degree head-in.
• Parking should not be along public streets or SLPD's.
• Where buildings are not able to be served by either a public street or SLPD,
they must be connected per the requirements of Section 3.5.2(D). This
requires a sidewalk connection to a public street via either a connecting
4
•
�J
walkway not exceeding 200 feet or a Major Walkway Spine not exceeding
350 feet.
• Please note there is a specific definition of what constitutes a Major Walkway
Spine (Section 5.1.2).
Where buildings face public streets or SLPD's, there should be individual unit
entrances facing the street with connecting walkways and front porches or
stoops. The prototypical multi-family building, with common breezeway
entrances and stairwells, must be minimized. Individual entrances facing
streets reinforces a town-like pattern and minimizes the pod-like isolated
development pattern of an apartment complex.
• SLPD's include a detached sidewalk, parkway and street trees on both sides
for walkability and safety.
There must be strong connections to the commercial center located on the
east side of Boxelder Creek. This may require a separate bike/pedestrian
bridge in addition to the public street, that is labeled as "Access B" in the TIS,
that may be widened to include a bike lane (even though it may be classified
as a local street). Otherwise, the A.P.U. risks being considered isolated and
not connected to larger neighborhood.
Sections 4.5(E)(4) and 3.8.30(F)(2) require a minimum of three building
designs. The standard is specific and states that "building designs shall be
considered similar unless they vary significantly in footprint size and
shape." The mere provision of two sizes of buildings does not meet this
standard. Staff recommends that in order for the A.P.U. to be considered
appropriate for the L-M-N zone, four distinct building designs be provided.
• Along public streets and SLPD's, no two similar building designs shall be
placed in sequence.
For the buildings that directly face Boxelder Estates, the applicant is
encouraged to increase the front (street-facing) setback, and lower the profile
of these buildings from three to two stories, or at least lower the ends of the
building to two stories while retaining a three story central core.
� �
• Staff recommends that the applicant commit to the use of masonry, such as
brick or stone, for at least the first floor, and in other accent areas, in order to
establish a level of quality that justifies the A.P.U. in the L-M-N zone district.
• Staff recommends that for the overall L-M-N zone district, the applicant
consider providing five housing types versus the required minimum of four.
Please note that a single family detached dwelling that is alley loaded
constitutes a housing type.
• Further, staff recommends that Small Lot Single Family Detached Dwellings
and Two-Family Dwellings be distributed throughout the L-M-N area and not
clustered into individual pods.
17.The A.P.U. parameters will need to be specifically noted on a plan sheet in order
for future potential developers to be fully informed of the requirements that allow
multi-family development, at the proposed intensity measures, to be allowed in
the L-M-N zone district.
As always, please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely:
Ted Shepard
Chief Planner
[:j