HomeMy WebLinkAboutGATEWAY AT PROSPECT AMENDED ODP / ADDITION OF PERMITTED USE - ODP160001 - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS (2)�
�
Planning, Development and Transportation
Services Current Planning
281 N. College Ave. PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
970.22 LC750
970 224.6134 - fax
fcgov comlcurrentplanning
June 16, 2016
Kristin Turner TB Group
444 Mountain Avenue
Berthoud, CO 80513
Dear Kristin:
Here are the staff comments for the Gateway at Prospect requestfor Atldition 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.O.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
ailowances. For exampie, how much of the complex is in each zone in terms of acreage, buildings and dwelling
units? �would also be helpful to know which zone the clubhouse/amenity area is in. Perhaps the multi-family site
plan can includethe zone district line.
RESPONSE: Please refer to the Muiti-Family in LMN (Per APU Plan). Adtlitional information on the LMN zone has
been provided showing that the overall LMN density wiil remain at or below 9 du/ac.
2. The application needsto specifically address notsimplythatthe proposed use is multi-family, which is already
a permitted use inthe L-M-N, per se, but the fact that the muiti-family will be arranged in an M-M-N-like
development pattern with the following intensity attributes:
RESPONSE: Acknowledgetl. This information has been added to the APU narrative.
• Greater than 12d.u.'s per building, Sec. 4.5{E)(4)(a);
• Greater than 14,000 square feet per building, Sec.4.5(E)(4)(i);
• Greater than 12 d.u./gross acre of residential land, Sec.4.5(0)(1)(c).
3. The fundamental aspect is the consideration of an increased level of resitlential 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.
This request for an A.P.U. needs to address the facts that:
RESPONSE: Acknowiedged. This information has been adtled to the APU narrative.
The site, and the O.O.P., is currently vacant.
• The compatibility and impact mitigation issues require an analysis of the relationship of the apartment
complexto 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 ofthe apartment complex parcel. Isit20.8 or 12.4? How do you derive
12.4from20.8? Indeterminingthedensity,areyoufollowingtherequirmentsofSection3.8.18—Residential
DensityCalculations?
RESPONSE: The Multi-Family in LMN (Per APU Plan) table on the ODP, Sheet 1, has been revisetl to ciarify this
information. The LMN portion of the muiti-family site is 12.4 AC, which requires the APU. The total multi-family parcel
is 20.8 AC. This includes both LMN antl E zone tlistricts. The APU does not apply to the E zone district.
5. We need to see that at the O.O.P. level, for ail of the L-M-N, inciuding the portion that is subject to the
A.P.U., the overall density does not exceedthe maximum of 9.00 dwelling units per gross acre (49.3?, 55.2?) Staff
Comments Per Review Criteria:
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. This information has been provided in the Muiti-Family in LMN (Per APU Plan) table on
the ODP, Sheet 1.
6. Section 1.3.4(C)(1): Please note that, as mentioned, "Multi-Family" is already permitted inthe 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.O.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.O.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 �s
not an isolated L-M-N parcel.
RESPONSE: This information has been atlded to the APU narrative.
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 sbecause...(list the
anticipated design attributes).
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Piease see APU exhibits and revised APU narrative.
9. Regarding impact mitigation, this criterion deals with the relationship between Boxelder Estates and the
A.P. U. Please describe the character of Boxeltler 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? Arethere 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 accessingtheir neighborhood.
RESPONSE: This information has been adtled to the APU narrative.
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 inequivalent
proximity to single family with any of the listed adverse impacts being manifested.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Please see revised APU narrative.
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. and then indicate that this relationship does not change
the predominantcharacter.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Please see revised APU narrative.
12. Section 1.3.4(C)(6): Please specifically address the three intensity measures that result inan apartment
complex.
��
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Please see revised APU narrative.
•
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
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. APU exhibits and atlditional narrative have been provided per working
meetings with Ted Shepard.
B. The overall performance of the A.P. U. such that �notjust meets all applicable standards but exceeds
thesestandartls.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Additional narrative and notes on the ODP have include how the stantlards
are being exceetled.
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 guidanc:
"Under this process, the applicant may submit a plan that does not conform to the zoning, with the
undersfanding fhaf such plan will be subject to a heighfened level of review, wifh close attention being
paid to compatibility and impact mitigation."
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Please see revised APU narrative.
15. Also, please note that under Section 1.3.4(E), City Council may add conditionsof 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.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
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.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. All but two of the current buildings are oriented towartls the roads. Due to site
shape constraints and a Greeley Water Line which runs tliagonally through the southern portion of the site, there
are two buildings which have not been oriented towards a road. An exhibit has been provided which includes the
following notes:
1. THE LEVEL OF SITE DESIGN DEPICTED IS SCHEMATIC ONLY. THE DESIGN SHALL BE REFINED
WITH FUTURE ENTITLEMENT PACKAGES.
CERTAIN SITE CONSTRAINTS WILL NEED TO BE CONSIDERED WITH FUTURE DESIGN. THESE
INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO (a) THE GREELEY WATER LINE WHICH RUNS DIAGONALLY
THROUGH THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE APU PARCEL AND (b) THE IRREGULAR SHAPE OF
THE PARCEL.
TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE, BUILDINGS WILL BE ORIENTED IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER OF
PRIORITY:
(a) PUBLIC STREETS;
(b) STREET-LIKE PRIVATE DRIVES
(c) PRIVATE DRIVES
(tl) 200-FOOT CONNECTING WALKWAY
(e) 350-FOOT MAJOR WALKWAY SPINE
�
�
WHERE BUILDINGS FACE PUBLIC STREETS AND STREET-LIKE PRIVATE DRIVES, BUILDINGS SHALL
HAVE GROUND-FACING UNITS WHICH HAVE ITS OWN INDIVIDUAL FRONT DOOR ENTRANCE WITH
FRONT PORCH.
5. PUBLIC STREETS AND STREET-LIKE PRIVATE DRIVES SHALL HAVE DETACHED SIDEWALKS, SIX
FOOT WIDE PARKWAYS, STREET TREES AND ON-STREET PARKING (PARALLEL OR DIAGONAL).
6. ALL INTERNAL ROADS WITHIN THE MULTI-FAMILY PARCEL SHALL BE CONNECTORS.
• Theemphasisofthesiteplanshouldbenottocreateaninwardly-oriented apartmentcomplex,served
byan internal network of private driveways and parking lots, but, rather, to establish aframework of public
streetsandStreet- LikePrivateDrives[seeSection3.6.3(N)]whichcanbenamedandupon whichbuildings
canfrontandtakeanaddress. SLPD'scanalsobededicated asEmergencyAccessEasementsforfire
access. (Youmayrecallthatthree- storybuildingsrequirea26'-30'widefireaccesslanealongonelongside
of arectangularbuilding,wherefireapparatusisabletostagenocloserthan 15 feetandnofurtherawaythan
30feetfrom the buiiding.)
RESPONSE: Acknowledgetl. Please refer to notes included on APU exhibit above.
• 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.
RESPONSE: Please refer to notes included on APU exhibit above.
• Parking is allowed on a SLPD and may be either parallel or diagonal, but not 90-degree head-in,
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
• Parking should not be along public streets orSLPD's.
RESPONSE: Acknowiedgetl. Parking lots will not be located in front of builtlings along SLPD's.
• Where buildings are not able to be served by either a public street orSLPD, they must be connected per
the requirements of Section 3.5.2(0). This requires a sidewalk connection to a public street via either a
connecting
walkway not exceeding 200 feet or a Major Walkway Spine not exceeding 350 feet.
RESPONSE: Acknowiedgetl.
• Please note there is a specific definition of what constitutes a Major Walkway Spine (Section 5.1.2).
RESPONSE: Acknowletlged.
• Where buildings face public streets or SLPD's, there shouid 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 apartmentcomplex.
RESPONSE: This note has been atlded to the ODP untler APU Parameters, #5.
- SLPD's include a detached sidewalk, parkway and street trees on both sides for walkability and safety.
RESPONSE: Acknowletlged. This level of detail will be depicted on plans at the time of a PDP/FDP submittal.
This note has been added to the ODP untler APU Parameters, #4.
- 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" inthe TIS, that may be widened to include a bike lane (even though itmay be classified as a local street).
• •
Otherwise, the A.P.U. risks being considered isolated and not connected to largerneighborhood.
RESPONSE: We have coordinated with Engineering regarding an expanded petl/bike connection along the road,
crossing the Boxelder Creek. Engineering supports this idea antl would prefer a singular crossing to several
crossings. We will continue to work with Engineering antl Planning as we move into PDP/FDP design to ensure
the street section is acceptable.
• 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 foofprint
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 beprovided.
RESPONSE: This note has been added to the ODP underAPU Parameters, #2.
• Along public streets and SLPD's, no two similar building designs shall be placed in sequence.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. This level of detail will be depicted on plans at the time of a PDP/FDP submittal.
• For the buildings that directly face Boxelder Estates, the applicant is encouraged to increase the front
(street-facing) setback, and lowerthe 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 centralcore.
RESPONSE; Per a meeting with Tetl Shepartl on June 30'h, 2016, this comment is no longer applicable. An APU
exhibit has also been provided as part of this submittal package which shows the tlistance between the Gateway at
Prospect property and the nearest houses.
• 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 orderto establish a level of quality thatjustifies the A.P.U. inthe L-M-N
zone district.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. This level of detail will be depicted on plans at the time of a PDP/FDP submittal.
This note has been added to the ODP under APU Parameters, #3.
• 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 singie family detached dwelling that is alley
loadetl constitutes a housing type.
RESPONSE: This note has been atlded to the ODP under APU Parameters, #1.
• 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.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
17. The A.P.U. parameters will need to be specifically noted on a plan sheet inorder 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.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Please refer to the APU Parameters on Sheet 1 of the ODP.
As aiways, please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely:
Ted Shepard Chief Planner
u
Hi Kristen,
�
Park Planning likes the Gateway concept pian but we do have a couple of quick comments. As well as,
this site had been identified as a joint use site for Parks, Stormwater and Natural Areas. I forwarded the
ODP concept on to their departments (Shane Boyle and Mark Sears) and asked if they have any
comments.
Regarding the neighborhood park layout:
o We like the park's central location buffered by the proposed development.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged -thank you.
o We recognize the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan calls out 4 acres, but six acres is
preferable.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
o The areas adjacent to Dry Creek and the Lake Canal are potential Natural Areas and
Stormwater areas; please coordinate with Mark Sears and Shane Boyle.
RESPONSE: Per Rebecca Everette in Environmental Planning, coordination is not
currently necessary. If this should change, we will worl< with Staff to determine how to
move forward.
o Provide street designs with on-street parking.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. This level of detail will be provided at the time of an
PDP/FDP submittal.
o City is not obligated to develop the roadways.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged.
o Provide a 50' wide continuous easement for the trail system.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. This level of detail will be provided at the time of an
PDP/FDP submittal.
o Trail location is ok between the development and Dry Creek, but if Natural Areas or
Stormwater own/or maintain the open space there is a potential to move the trail away
from the bacl< of the buildings.
RESPONSE: Acknowledged. We will move forward with the ODP package, with the trail
located as currently proposed, based on comments-to-date.
o The north trail connection follows the Lake Canal alignment not dry creek. Although if
the neighborhoods want access at Dry Creek or E Locus Street/Pleasant Acres Drive we
would connect.
RESPONSE: The trail has been revised to follow Lake Canal.
o I am working with the transportation planning coordination group to analyze the trail
crossing at Prospect. This crossing will impact the trail location within your
development and how we match up with the trail running south down the Box Elder
drainage. I always assumed it went under the bridge at prospect.. more to come as we
would prefer to provide a grade separated crossing at Prospect and then weave through
your development adjacent to the creeks.
•
•
RESPONSE: Acl<nowledged. We will move forward with tfie ODP package, with the trail
located as currently proposed, based on the comments we have received.
I will let you know when I get on the T-board planning group with the trail questions.. they meet once a
week and I hope to be on their agenda soon.
I hope this helps, please contact me with any questions at 970.224.6096 or/ cell at 218.4926
Thanks, Matt