Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGATEWAY AT PROSPECT AMENDED ODP - ODP160001 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT� � PROJECT NAME � �?� J � 4 -m�� •'� }�� � � J.' �.<? C:� � i �� �� !� �. �� � GATEWAY AT PROSPECT AMENDED OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN #ODP160001 STAFF Ted Shepard, Chief Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for an amended Overall Development Plan for the vacant land located generally at the northwest quadrant of I-25 and East Prospect Road. This area includes 177 acres and was formerly known as Interstate Lands O.D.P. The site is zoned, from east to west, C-G, General Commercial, E, Employment, L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood, and U-E, Urban Estate. Proposed land uses include a mix of permitted uses allowed on a per zone district basis. The O.D.P. also includes 12.27 acres zoned L-M-N and 9.71 acres zoned E(Parcel J) that are the subject of a separate and preceding request to rezone 21.98 acres to M-M-N. This rezoning request must be considered prior to this Amended O.D.P. as the Parcel J is designated "Mulfi-Family, 276 total units & 13 DU/A"which requires M-M-N zoning without the need to modify any L-M-N standards. The purpose of an Overall Development Plan is to establish general planning and development control parameters for projects that will be developed in phases, with multiple submittals, while allowing sufficient flexibility to permit detailed planning in subsequent submittals. There is no established vested right with an O.D.P. APPLICANT: Fort Collins/I-25 Interchange Corner, LLC c/o TB Group 444 W. Mountain Avenue Berthoud, CO 80513 OWNER: Fort Collins/I-25 Interchange Corner, LLC c/o Mr. Tim McKenna 2 N. Cascade Avenue, Suite 590 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to City Council approval of the request to rezone Parcel J to M-M-N Item # 26 Page 1 � � � � EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Backqround: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: County R (Sunrise Acres) S: E, Employment (Colorado Welcome Center and CSURF-owned parcel) E: C-G, General Commercial (Vacant) E: I, Industrial (Vacant) W: County FA-1 (Boxelder Estates and other County Residential Parcels) The property was included in the City's Growth Management Area and was annexed in 1989 as the Interstate Lands Annexation containing 192 acres. At that time, the parcel was zoned: • H-B, Highway Business (157 acres) • R-P, Planned Residential (35 acres) with both zone districts conditioned that any application for development be processed as a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) under the Land Development Guidance System. Interstate Land First Filing P.U.D. for a Harley Davidson dealership was approved in 1996 and consisted of a 26,000 square foot building on one four-acre lot located along the S.W. Frontage Road. Then in 1997, the property was rezoned in the following manner: • C, Commercial (44.7 acres) • E, Employment (104 acres) • L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (15.7 acres); • U-E, Urban Estate along the western edge as a buffer (21 acres). This rezoning was part of a city-wide rezoning to implement the City's new comprehensive plan, C�i�t Plan, and the new Land Use Code which created new zone districts and replaced the old districts and the P.U.D. system. About 20 years ago, the landowner at the time sold a parcel of land along the western edge of the O.D.P. to the Cooper Slough Association / Boxelder Estates H.O.A. for a buffer. This rectangular strip ranges in width between 100 and 125 feet for a length of about 1,880 feet and contains approximately 4.7 acres. This conveyance essentially precludes any street connection between the O.D.P. and Boxelder Estates. Then, in 2000, the size of the four zone districts was adjusted as part of a rezoning to reflect changing market conditions. The effect of the rezoning was primarily to reduce the size of the E zone by 43 acres and increase the size of the L-M-N zone by 53 acres. This rezoning affected 65 acres. In 2004, an Overall Development Plan was approved that showed various configurations for the four zone districts in the following manner: • U-E (21 acres) • L-M-N (68.6 acres) • Employment (60.9 acres) • Commercial (26.9 acres). Item # 2B Page 2 . � Agre�t�a 1t�rrt 2B 2. Compliance with Applicable Standards of the Land Use Code: Section 2.3.2 (H) of the Land Use Code identifies the criteria for reviewing O.D.P.'s. A. Section 2.3.2(H)(1) — Permitted Uses and District Standards This criterion requires fhe O. D. P. to be consistenf wifh the permitted uses and applicable zone disfrict standards and any applicable general developmenf standards that can be applied at the level of detail required for an O. D. P. submiffal. Parcel J is the subject of a rezoning request in the following manner: 12.27 acres: request to rezone from L-M-N to M-M-N 9.71 acres: request to rezone from E to M-M-N If approved by City Council, this would create 21.98 acres of M-M-N (Parcel J). The purpose of the rezoning is to develop Parcel J as a single, unified multi-family project. Although multi-family is a permitted use in both the L-M-N and E zone districts, such development in the L-M-N zone is limited to the following: • No more than an average density of 12.00 dwelling units per gross acre; • No more than 12 dwelling units per building; and • No more than 14,000 square feet per building. The applicant has indicated that the intention for future development is to exceed these parameters. While the E zone is not similarly restricted, the applicant states that consolidating Parcel J under one zoning results in a more straight-forward approach and sets a clear expectation for potential development. Therefore, the O.D.P. currently indicates that all proposed uses comply with the permitted uses allowed per zone. Since this standard [Section 2.3.2(H)(1)] includes a reference to compliance with zone district standards, and since the applicant seeks to develop Parcel J in a manner that exceeds three L-M-N parameters, the O.D.P. will be conditioned upon City Council approving the preceding and accompanying rezoning request. The O.D.P. also indicates a public neighborhood park containing approximately four acres which satisfies the standard that a public or private park is provided for development plans that exceed ten acres. B. Section 2.32 (H) (2) - Densitv This criterion requires that the Overall Developmenf Plan be consisfenf wifh the required densify range of residential land uses (including lot sizes and housing types) if located in the L-M-N or M-M-N zone district. The O.D.P., as proposed with Parcel J to be designated as Multi-family and subject of the rezoning request to M-M-N, indicates the following: Item # 26 Page 3 u r �;s_ a. � • L-M-N: 49.3 acres (Parcel F) — 197 to 399 dwelling units. • M-M-N: 21.9 acres (Parcel) — 276 multi-family dwelling units. In the L-M-N, the required density range is between 4.00 and 9.00 dwelling units per acre for a range of 197 to 443 dwelling units. Parcel F, with 49.3 acres, is designated for a range of 197 to 399 dwelling units thus complying with the standard. In the proposed M-M-N, the required density is a minimum of 12.00 dwelling units per acre for a base requirement of 262 dwelling units. Parcel J, with 21.98 acres, is designated for 276 dwelling units, thus complying with the standard. At the O.D.P. level, within the L-M-N zone, the range of lot sizes and the number of housing types not yet been determined and will be evaluated for compliance at the time of P.D.P. C. Section 2.3.2(H)(3) — Master Street Plan This criterion requires fhe O. D. P. to conform to the Master Street Plan as required by Section 3.6.1 The following streets, and their classification, are called for on the Master Street Plan: • East Prospect Road — four lane arterial • Southwest Frontage Road — two-lane collector The O.D.P. properly indicates the widening of both of these roadways in compliance with the Master Street Plan. (The Master Street Plan does not address streets below the collector classification.) For informational purposes, the O.D.P. indicates a proposed north-south minor collector roadway that intersects with E. Prospect Road and would serve Parcels (from south to north) J, E, F, M and D. As a minor collector, on-street parking is allowed. Also, an east-west local connector roadway would intersect the Southwest Frontage Road. The intersection would be a candidate for a roundabout due to the curvature of the Frontage Road and as all four legs do not form 90-degree angles. In general, Gateway at Prospect O.D.P. demonstrates overall compliance with Citv Plan in that development is served by a network of public streets which provide safe and convenient internal and external connectivity. D. Section 2.3.2(H)(3) — Street Pattern, Connectivity and Levels of Service This criferion requires the O.D.P. to conform to the street pattern and connecfivify standards as required by 3.6.3 (A) through (F). ln addition, the O.D.P. shall a/so conform fo the Transportation Level of Service Requirements as contained in Section 3.6.4. Secfion 3.6.3(8) is the general standard thaf requires the local street system to provide for safety, efficiency and convenience for all modes bofh within the neighborhood and to destinations outside the neighborhood. The Southwest Frontage Road provides connectivity between E. Prospect Road and E. Mulberry Street. The proposed north-south collector provides internal connections to E. Prospect Road. The proposed east-west local connector provides internal connections to both sides of the S.W. Frontage Road. The fact that the O.D.P. will be served by two collector streets demonstrates compliance. Item # 26 Page 4 • • .� �?��r�� ���� �� Secfion 3.6.3(C) requires that the arterial streets be intersected with a full-turning collector or local street at a maximum interval one-quarter mile, or 1,320 feef. The O.D.P. has 2,000 linear feet of frontage along E. Prospect Road and the Southwest Frontage Road signalized intersection is roughly at the midpoint. Thus there is no segment of arterial roadway that exceeds 1,320 feet without a full-turning intersection. Section 3.6.3(D) requires that fhe arterial streets be intersecfed wifh limifed-turning collecfor or local street at a maximum interval of 660 feet. As noted, E. Prospect Road is intersected by two north-south collector streets, one proposed and one existing. These two collectors are separated by a distance of roughly 1,100 feet which exceeds the standard. The reason an additional collector or local street intersection is not provided is due to the recently constructed bridge, culverts and overflow channel that is located between these two collectors. Jointly constructed by the City of Fort Collins (E. Prospect Road widening and bridge) and the Boxelder Basin Regional Stormwater Authority (culverts and overflow channel), these major public improvements effectively preclude any additional intersections along E. Prospect Road. This requirement, therefore, is not applicable. Section 3.6.3(E) requires fhat all development plans contribute fo developing a local street system that will allow access to and from fhe proposed development, as well as access to all existing and future development within the same square mile section from at least three arterial streets. It is notable that this particular square mile section does not have access to three arterial streets. With I- 25 on the east and the Poudre River floodplain on the west, there are only two perimeter arterials; E. Prospect Road and E. Mulberry Street. (Summitview Drive is collector roadway.) Gateway at Prospect will be unable to make street connections within the square mile section due to the following constraints: • A street connection into Sunrise Acres, the County subdivision to the north, would require a bridge over the Cache La Poudre Inlet Canal. Further, any such connection would tie into an existing street network that was developed in the County decades ago and prior to the adoption of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). • A street connection into the Crossroads East Business Center and the Smithfield Subdivision, the County commercial districts to the northeast, would require two bridges; one over the aforementioned canal and one over the Lake Canal. Further, there are no gaps in the adjoining platted lots for such a street connection. • A street connection into Boxelder Estates, the County subdivision to the west, is precluded by the acquisition of a long rectangular parcel by the Boxelder Estates H.O.A. along their east boundary that is specifically intended to prevent any street connections. • A street connection to the west into the platted semi-rural lots that are south of and not part of Boxelder Estates is precluded by the lack of any available right-of-way or easement that could be used for such purposes. Buckeye Street dead-ends at a house and it appears the right-of-way does not extend west to the O.D.P. property line. This standard acknowledges that such constraints may exist and allows for flexibility in that such street connections to three arterials would be rendered infeasible by unusual topographic features, existing Item # 2B Page 5 � • ,�C��'!?C�c`� lfG'f17 2B' development or a natural area or feature. Therefore, the O.D.P. meets this standard to the extent reasonably feasible. Secfion 3.6.3(F) requires that the O.D.P, incorporate and continue all sub-arterial sfreets stubbed to the boundary or provide for future public street connections along each boundary that abuts potentially developable land at maximum intervals of 660 feet. There are no sub-arterial streets stubbed to the boundary and providing street stubs to the boundary would be precluded by the aforementioned constraints. Section 3.6.4 requires compliance with the adopted Level of Service Sfandards (LOS) in the City Land Use Code and the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards for impacted intersections. A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was submitted and was evaluated by staff as it relates to the ODP and the rezone. Staff provides the following conclusions: • The traffic study identifies short term and long term geometric improvements needed for the transportation system in the area. Determining which improvements are required at what phase will be completed with future PDP submittals. • The Frontage Road and interchange are CDOT facilities and requirements and approval of improvements are under their jurisdiction. Specifics of CDOT required improvements will be determined at the PDP phase. • The difference between the previously approved ODP and the current proposal with APU in terms of traffic generation is nominal. • Adequate Public Facilities requirements in the City Land Use Code cannot be applied to CDOT's interchange since it is not under City jurisdiction. However, there are ongoing discussions with CDOT, the City and private property owners in the area to explore a potential partnership (including funding) to improve the interchange outside of the review of this proposal. • If / when the project moves into the PDP phase, the applicant has acknowledged that as a starting point for improvements with their first phase, they will be required to complete their roadway frontage along Prospect and the Frontage Road, construct a center left turn lane in Prospect, and improve intersections and access points with any other needed auxiliary turn lanes and/or traffic control changes. E. Compact Urban Growth - Section 2.3.2 (H) (3): This criterion requires that the O.D.P. conform to the configuity requirements of the Levels of Service Standards per Section 3.6.4 and Compact Urban Growth Standards as per Section 3.7.2. The O.D.P. has been within the city limits for 28 years. As noted, it is bounded on the west and north sides by existing County development. The area is served by existing public improvements capable of supporting future growth, with the expected improvements associated with City's development standards, with one exception. Item # 2B Page 6 • � .����;����� ����;�� �� As mentioned, the Transportation Impact Study indicates that there are LOS delays at the I-25/Prospect Road Ramps but these intersections are under the jurisdiction of CDOT, not the City. In these cases, the City does not invoke the various standards related to Adequate Public Facilities since the City does not have authority over roadway improvements outside its jurisdiction. In addition, there are LOS delays associated with E. Prospect Road currently being a two-lane cross section versus five-lane as called for in the LCUASS. These existing deficiencies are typical for the edges of the city limits. On January 15, 2015, at the regular hearing of the Planning and Zoning Board, City staff provided a staff report regarding the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. Excerpts from this Staff Report are useful in determining compliance with this standard: "Public facilities are commonly improved through a combination of Capital Funding (to address existing deficiencies) and Developer Contributions to address impacts attributable to development [Local Street Frontages and the Street Oversizing Program (SOP)]. The SOP recognizes that not all traffic impacts can be attributed to new development, and the program includes an annual General Fund contribution. In addition, the SOP is designed only to address new traffic impacts directly caused by development and cannot be used to fix existing deficiencies." The future improvement to widen the existing two-lane cross section of E. Prospect Road includes a proportional developer obligation based on linear street frontage. The developer's responsibility is referred to as the "local street portion" of the full arterial cross-section. Widening the roadway beyond the local street portion to the full arterial standard is the obligation of the City. This is primarily due to the fact that E. Prospect Road is one of only four arterial connections between the City of Fort Collins and I-25, and outlying suburban communities, such as Timnath and Severance, and carries regional traffic. "Section 3.7.2(A)(1) — Compact Urban Growth Sfandards — Degree of Contiguity requires that at least one-sixth of the proposed development's boundaries must be configuous to existing urban development within either the City or unincorporated Larimer County within fhe Growth Management Area." "Section 3.7.2(A)(2) — Compact Urban Growth Standards — Existing Urban Development Defined: For purposes of this Section, existing urban development shall mean industrial uses; commercial/retail uses; institutional/civic/public uses; or residential uses having an overall minimum density of at /easf 1.00 unit per acre; and provided further that all engineering improvements for any such development, including paved streets, public sewer and water, stormwafer drainage and other utilities and fire suppression consistent with the Fire Code must have been completed." The adjoining County subdivisions/parcels that create the contiguity for the O.D.P. are: • North: Crossroads East Business Center • North: Smithfield Subdivision • North: Sunrise Acres • West: Boxelder Estates • Eight parcels west of Parcel J that are developed as semi-rural County residences but are not contained within a subdivision. These County properties were developed prior to the adoption of LCUASS. While served water and sewer by East Larimer County Water District and Boxelder Creek Sanitation District, the area is Item # 2B Page 7 • � ,4genda ltem 28 characterized by gaps and insufficiencies in engineering improvements such as paved streets (to full depth asphalt) and sidewalks. Further, in terms of stormwater management, there are no water quality features or low impact development components. Generally speaking, these conditions are typical for County development of a certain age within the Growth Management Area. The standard outlines a Waiver/Exception process in cases where a development proposal is located on the edge of the City where there are existing deficiencies due to city-wide background and regional traffic impacts, and where surrounding land uses are not fully developed to urban standards. "The Planning and Zoning Board may waive or make exceptions to the contiguity requirements of this Section upon making a specific finding that the proposed development will: (1) Substantially advance the implementation of the Cify Plan in the provision of Medium-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods or Community Commercial Districfs; (2) Produce special benefits to the Cify in terms of large-scale open space dedication or preservation, completion of regional trail linkages, or substantially advance ofher primary open space and recreational goals contained in City Plan; (3) Not applicable; (4) Promote fhe infilling of an area with already existing noncontiguous urban-level development. " Staff finds that the O.D.P., with 21.98 acres designated as Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood, would advance the implementation of City Plan. Further, staff finds that the O.D.P. establishes a buffer for Boxelder Creek and anticipates the extension of the regional trail as called for on the Parks and Recreation Trails Master Plan. Finally, staff finds that Gateway at Prospect O.D.P., being bounded on two sides by existing County development, qualifies as an area with existing noncontiguous urban-level development in compliance with the standard. Staff, therefore, finds that the O.D.P. is eligible for the waiver per these three criteria. F. Section 2.3.2 (H) (4) — Transportation Connections to Adloininq Properties This criterion requires an O.D.P. to provide for the location of transportation connections to adjoining properties to ensure connectivity into and through the O.D.P. from neighboring properties for vehicles, pedestrians and bikes as per Sections 3.6.3 (F) and 3.2.2(C)(6). As noted, Gateway at Prospect O.D.P. is constrained with regard to connectivity to adjoining properties. The future development of the Boxelder Regional Trail, however, represents an opportunity to make a pedestrian and bicycle connection to the northwest into Sunrise Acres subdivision. This Trail is a key component of the Parks and Trails Master Plan and is expected to serve most areas along the City's eastern edge between Fossil Creek Reservoir on the south and Douglas Road on the north. G. 2.3.2 (H) (5) — Natural Features This criterion requires an O.D.P. to show the general location and size of all natural areas, habitats and features within its boundaries and shall indicate the rough estimate of the buffer zone as per Section 3.4.1(E). Item # 2B Page 8 • • .����t�� lt�� �� The O.D.P. contains a section of Boxelder Creek that flows from northeast to southwest in a diagonal fashion through the middle and along a portion of its eastern edge. Both the creek and its approximate 100-foot buffer are indicated on the O.D.P. in compliance with Section 3.4.1(E). H. Section 2.3.2 (H) (6) — Drainaqe Basin Master Plan This criterion requires an O.D.P. to be consistent with the appropriate Drainage Basin Master Plan. The site is located within the Boxelder Creek Master Drainage Basin. Development is anticipated to comply with the stormwater management, water quality requirements, and low impact development standards of both this particular basin and city-wide best management practices. In addition, the property is within the jurisdiction of the Boxelder Basin Stormwater Regional Authority and will abide by all the required financial and design parameters of this special district. Section 2.3.2 (H) (7) — Housinq Densitv and Mix of Uses This criterion requires that any standards relating to housing density and mix of uses will be applied over the entire O. D. P. and not on each individual P. D. P. This standard allows the various parcels that are residential and zoned U-E, L-M-N and M-M-N to have a degree of flexibility in determining the distribution of density and housing mix but only on a per zone district. For example: • In the L-M-N, a single phase may develop up to 12 d.u./a but only as long as the overall zone district does not exceed 9.00 d.u./a. • Similarly in the L-M-N, a single phase may develop below 4.00 d.u./a but only as long as the overall zone district does not fall below 4.00 d.u./a. • In the L-M-N, four housing types are required on an overall basis but not with each phase. • This provision would not apply to the U-E zone district where the option of platting minimum one-half acre lots or creating a Cluster Development Plan would prevail. • In the M-M-N, a single phase may develop below 12.00 d.u./a but only as long as the overall zone district does not fall below 12.00 d.u./a. The benefit of a large-scale O.D.P. is that it provides a higher degree of flexibility and creativity than development on small parcels. The applicant is aware of these various development options. Staff will monitor compliance on an individual P.D.P. basis. 3. Neiqhborhood Meetinqs: Staff conducted three neighborhood meetings and the summaries are attached to accompanying and preceding Request for Rezoning. The three meetings allowed surrounding residents to voice their concerns and discuss issues related land development on the 177-acre Amended Overall Development Plan as well the Request to Rezone 21.98 acres to M-M-N, a separate item. The wide range of topics included various aspects of the developing the tract as proposed as well as regional issues that are beyond the scope of the project. Item # 2B Page 9 • A. Traffic • .�genda Itern 2B One of the primary neighborhood comments are traffic concerns related to the lack of full arterial improvements along E. Prospect Road, as well as the I-25 interchange at Prospect Road including Frontage Roads, the bridge width, and the lack of separate turn lanes for the ramps. The traffic study submitted with the ODP identifies needed short term and long term geometric improvements for the transportation system. There will be additional traffic studies needed to determine detailed improvements required for each PDP, and there are active and ongoing conversations with CDOT, the City, and private property owners in the area related to the interchange. Additional information is discussed in Section D of the staff report. Regarding the interchange, although not under the City's jurisdiction, it is fully understood that the interchange is constrained, especially with future development in the area. Separate from this ODP, there are active and ongoing conversations with CDOT, the Ciry, and private property owners (including the ODP applicant) in the area related to the interchange. The focus is to determine whether interchange improvements could be added to the CDOT I-25 widening project with a combination of state, local, and private funding. B. Gaps in Public Improvements Along those same lines, attendees at the neighborhood meeting expressed frustration with the general lack of public improvements in the general vicinity especially when compared to the rest of the City. There is concern that there is a lag time between when new subdivisions are improved versus timely construction of necessary facilities to serve the new growth. There is an acknowledgement that Timnath and Severance generate commuters that use Prospect Road on a daily basis. These growing pains are experienced on a daily basis particularly when there are gaps in the public improvements. Parcels in the eastern edge of the City, especially along Prospect Road, are not developing in a sequential manner due to the Poudre River floodplain and three natural areas. The floodplain and natural areas means that there will never be an adjoining developer to contribute to public improvements. This leads to frustration. The City is challenged to constantly balance, within the established legal frameworks, the need for constructing regional streets, sidewalks, turn lanes, and the like, at the same time that new subdivisions are developing. While each new development is required to pay its own way, there will remain regional improvements that require participation from both subsequent development and a broader regional solution such as a City capital project or formation of a special improvement district or metro district. C. Urban / Rural Conflicts The other issue of concern is the interface between existing semi-rural homes to the west and their relationship to new development that meets current urban density requirements. There is a concern that there is built-in conflict between existing residents and future residents living within a subdivision at urban densities. These issues are not unique to any one area of the City. Managing growth on the fringe of the City has been addressed on the macro level by long-standing Intergovernmental Agreement with Item # 2B Page 10 � � r"�������t"�'� ���g�;f �� Larimer County and the recently adopted I.G.A. with Timnath. At the micro level, however, such issues are best addressed at the Project Development Plan stage by strategic use of buffer yards, landscaping, building height, fencing, setbacks and other provisions of the Land Use Code that address compatibility. As noted, in association with the request for the Rezoning of Parcel J to M-M-N, seven conditions of approval are recommended to mitigate potential impacts related to multi-family development. In addition, Parcels A, D, and E are zoned Urban Estate and are located on the west and north edges of the O.D.P. These parcels contain 22 acres and are sufficient to ensure a compatible transition between semi-rural and urban development either by virtue of required minimum one- half acre lot size or by a cluster development plan that preserves at least 50% (11 acres) of open space. 4. Findinqs of FacUConclusion: In evaluating the request for Gateway at Prospect O.D.P., Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The O.D.P. is an amendment to, and generally consistent with, Interstate Lands O.D.P. approved in 2004. B. As an amended O.D.P., it continues to comply with the standards of Section 2.3.2(H). C. In compliance with Compact Urban Growth — Contiguity standards, staff finds that the O.D.P. qualifies for the Waiver/Exception per Section 3.72(C) because the O.D.P.: (1.) Will substantially advance the implementation of Citv Plan in the provision of a 21.98 acre Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood; (2.) Will produce special benefits to the City by contributing to completing the proposed regional trail per the Parks and Recreation Master Plan (3.) Will promote the infilling of an area with already existing noncontiguous urban- level development. D. Since the O.D.P. is being submitted and considered in conjunction with a request for a Rezoning of Parcel J to M-M-N, which is required to be considered by City Council, approval of this O.D.P. is contingent on City Council approval the Addition of Permitted Use. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Gateway at Prospect Amended Overall Development Plan, #ODP160001, based on the Findings of Fact in this staff report, subject to the following condition: Approval of this O.D.P. is contingent upon City Council approval the accompanying and preceding request to rezone 21.98 acres, identified as Parcel J, from Low Density Mixed- Use Neighborhood and Employment to Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. Item # 2B Page 11 � ATTACHMENTS 1. ApplicanYs Planning Objectives (PDF) 2. Aerial Map - Close-Up (JPG) 3. Gateway at Prospect ODP Sheet 1 (PDF) 4. Gateway at Prospect ODP Sheet 2 (PDF) � Agenda item �B Item # 2B Page 12 v 0 '� 0 J1 Frontage Rd Frontage Rd �j�Frontage.Rd I I N I I y I � m d � � c? - i p ; Pleasant Acres �r i _T � R ��� � � > G � m Q Q � m � a d 9 Q -� a o � Y `c ` � � � N = U � E Locust St �Iiliii�i U I I I � SurreIy LIn °' �1�L. w c a�i C9 � � Rnxa�lrle� n.—:� ; � I I Locust Ln � N � d � Weicker Dr—d � � o � � � Maple Ln � o e a � �� o Spruce Ln t — ° � ,�ao' c °'y U —� ��N ���c A�a� � � E Mulberry St � — � m rn �o c 0 LL 3 ?eld Dr� � I j � ' Ct �enrose. � CG, /ra5e Dr c �J Espirit Dr Quest Dr LMN / � � � m � � , � I ,� o LL N y / �/ � _' Froposed (east P / a i �i�� ', /I I///��.�7 o �_-� Pro�pect RU � �`\ � l _� � �� � T �� CCR .� T CJU O LI T � � �C � POL � U ' � . d i ache la ?oud�e River E � N � I `� � E �, 1 � UE S 1 inch = 1,000 feet Gateway at P ros pect N Overall Development and Apartments �� E �