HomeMy WebLinkAboutWATERFIELD - PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW - PDR130004 - CORRESPONDENCE - CORRESPONDENCE-CONCEPTUAL REVIEWProject Comparison Chart
Project
Zone
Gross
No. of
No. of
Park
School
Natural
Trails
Private
Neighborhood
Other
Area
Housing
Dwelling
Site
Site
Area
Park/
Center
Amenities,
Types
Units
Pocket
comments
Parks
Dry Creek
LMN
39.8
1
227
no
no
no
no
yes
no
Small
clubhouse
Maple Hill
LMN
170.8
2
632
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
Waterfield
LMN
105'
3
194
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Adjacent to
MF
*. Includes park, school, natural area, and detention.
Ted Shepard
To: Linda Ripley
Subject: RE: Waterfield
From: Linda Ripley[maiIto: linda.rioleyCcbrialexdesignInc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 8:16 AM
To: Ted Shepard
Cc: James Dullea; Curly Risheill
Subject: RE: Waterfield
Ted,
We respectfully ask that you and the other staff consider the following:
1. The Waterfield site has a number of unusual constraints that create hardships of varying degree for
development of the property. The power line easement slicing through the north cutting off an awkward triangular
parcel, the canal running along the north property line creating a need for a buffer and the wetland/pond area to the
west requiring a 100-foot buffer, are all constraints that many properties do not have to work around.
2. On top of these existing constraints on the property, the City has added additional ones including shifting the
location of Vine Drive as an enhanced travel corridor to the north through the middle of the property and rezoning the 9
acres just north of Bull Run Apartment to MMN in 2009 as part of the Mountain Vista Subarea planning process. These
changes are especially onerous because they occurred after the Waterfield project was partially platted and properties
were dedicated to the school district and to the Parks Department. Now Vine Drive separates the school from the park
making it necessary to re -negotiate with the school district and parks department to gain back the synergy that had
existed before. The re -zoning of the land north of Bull Run effectively locked in the fourth housing type for the
Waterfield development when viewed as a whole project. Given all these constraints and City imposed change, we
believe the Waterfield development should be allowed some flexibility in how four housing types are viewed.
3. Its very difficult to build a fourth product with only ten units. The cost of designing the product would make it
difficult without spreading that cost over many more units. It would also be difficult to market because of the inability
to have model units that prospective buyers could view.
4. After removing the school site, the park, the natural area and other pieces to reach the net acreage, the
development within the LMN zone is down to 47.9 acres. Our current proposal includes single family, alley -loaded lots
and paired housing. We believe this residential development will be an ideal place for families to live because of the
adjacent park site, the potential elementary school and the natural area. Given that an existing multifamily project (Bull
Run) and another planned multi -family project exist adjacent to the LMN, we don't believe adding a fourth housing type
in the LMN portion serves the community in a positive way.