The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20172345.tiffAugust 9, 2017 Petitioner: STEPPE DEVELOPMENT LLC 6333 APPLE WAY STE 115 LINCOLN, NE 68516-3504 CLERK TO THE BOARD PHONE (970) 400-4226 FAX (970) 336-7233 WEBSITE: www.co.weld.co.us 1150 O STREET P.O. BOX 758 GREELEY CO 80632 Agent (if applicable): RE: THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 2017, WELD COUNTY, COLORADO NOTICE OF DECISION Docket #: 2017-2345 Appeal #: 2008216865 Hearing Date: Dear Petitioner: On the day indicated above, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County Colorado convened and acting as the Board of Equalization, pursuant to C.R.S. Section 39-8-101 et seq., considered petition for appeal of the Weld County Assessor's valuation of your property described above, for the year 2017. Account # Decision The Assessment and valuation is set as follows: Actual Value as Actual Value as Set by Determined by Assessor Board R5747086 Stipulated - Approved Stipulated Value $50,825 $25,286 A denial of a petition, in whole or in part, by the Board of Equalization must be appealed within thirty (30) days of the date the denial is mailed to you. You must select only one of the following three (3) options for appeal: 1. Appeal to Board of Assessment Appeals: You have the right to appeal the County Board of Equalization's decision to the Colorado Board of Assessment Appeals. A hearing before that Board will be the last time you may present testimony or exhibits or other evidence, or call witnesses in support of your valuation. If the decision of the Board of Assessment Appeals is further appealed to the Court of Appeals pursuant to C.R.S. Section 39-8-108(2), only the record of proceedings from your hearing before the Board of Assessment Appeals and your legal brief are filed with the appellate court. All appeals to the Board of Assessment Appeals filed after August 10, 2016, MUST comply with the following provisions of C.R.S. Section 39-8-107(5): (5)(a)(I) On and after August 10, 2011, in addition to any other requirements under law, any petitioner appealing either a valuation of rent -producing commercial real property to the board of assessment appeals pursuant to section 39-8-108(1) or a denial of an abatement of taxes pursuant to section 39-10-114 shall provide to the county board of equalization or to the board of county commissioners of the county in the case of an abatement, and not to the board of assessment appeals, the following information, if applicable: (A) Actual annual rental income for two full years including the base year for the relevant property tax year; (B) Tenant reimbursements for two full years including the base year for the relevant property tax year; (C) Itemized expenses for two full years including the base year for the relevant property tax year; and (D) Rent roll data, including the name of any tenants, the address, unit, or suite number of the subject property, lease start and end dates, option terms, base rent, square footage leased, and vacant space for two full years including the base year for the relevant property tax year. (II) The petitioner shall provide the information required by subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (a) within ninety days after the appeal has been filed with the board of assessment appeals. (b)(I) The assessor, the county board of equalization, or the board of county commissioners of the county, as applicable, shall, upon request made by the petitioner, provide to a petitioner who has filed an appeal with the board of assessment appeals not more than ninety days after receipt of the petitioner's request, the following information: (A) All of the underlying data used by the county in calculating the value of the subject property that is being appealed, including the capitalization rate for such property; and (B) The names of any commercially available and copyrighted publications used in calculating the value of the subject property. (II) The party providing the information to the petitioner pursuant to subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (b) shall redact all confidential information contained therein. (c) If a petitioner fails to provide the information required by subparagraph (I) of paragraph (a) of this subsection (5) by the deadline specified in subparagraph (II) of said paragraph (a), the county may move the board of assessment appeals to compel disclosure and to issue appropriate sanctions for noncompliance with such order. The motion may be made directly by the county attorney and shall be accompanied by a certification that the county assessor or the county board of equalization has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with such petitioner in an effort to obtain the information without action by the board of assessment appeals. If an order compelling disclosure is issued under this paragraph (c) and the petitioner fails to comply with such order, the board of assessment appeals may make such orders in regard to the noncompliance as are just and reasonable under the circumstances, including an order dismissing the action or the entry of a judgment by default against the petitioner. Interest due the taxpayer shall cease to accrue as of the date the order compelling disclosure is issued, and the accrual of interest shall resume as of the date the contested information has been provided by the taxpayer. Appeals to the Board of Assessment Appeals must be made on forms furnished by that Board, and must be mailed or delivered within thirty (30) days of the date the denial by the Board of Equalization is mailed to you. The address and telephone number of the Board of Assessment Appeals are: Board of Assessment Appeals 1313 Sherman Street, Room 315 Denver, Colorado 80203 Telephone Number: 303-864-7710 Email: baa@state.co.us Fees for Appeal to the Board of Assessment Appeals: A taxpayer representing himself is not charged for the first two (2) appeals to the Board of Assessment Appeals. A taxpayer represented by an attorney or agent must pay a fee of $101.25 per appeal. OR 2. Appeal to District Court: You have the right to appeal the decision of the Board of Equalization to the District Court of the /county wherein your property is located: in this case that is Weld County District Court. A hearing before The District Court will be the last time you may present testimony or exhibits or other evidence, or call witnesses in support of your valuation. If the decision of the District Court is further appealed to the Court of Appeals pursuant to C.R.S. Section 39-8-108(1), the rules of Colorado appellate review and C.R.S. Section 24-4-106(9), govern the process. OR 3. Binding Arbitration: You have the right to submit your case to binding arbitration. If you choose this option, the arbitrator's decision is final and you have no further right to appeal your current valuation. C.R.S. Section 39-8-108.5 governs this process. The arbitration process involves the following: a. Select an Arbitrator: You must notify the Board of Equalization that you will pursue arbitration. You and the Board of Equalization will select an arbitrator from the official list of qualified people. If you cannot agree on an arbitrator, the District Court of the county in which the property is located (i.e., Weld) will select the arbitrator. b. Arbitration Hearing Procedure: Arbitration hearings are held within sixty (60) days from the date the arbitrator is selected, and are set by the arbitrator. Both you and the Board of Equalization are entitled to participate in the hearing. The hearing is informal. The arbitrator has the authority to issue subpoenas for witnesses, books, records documents and other evidence pertaining to the value of the property. The arbitrator also has the authority to administer oaths, and determine all questions of law and fact presented to him. The arbitration hearing may be confidential and closed to the public if you and the Board of Equalization agree. The arbitrator's decision must be delivered personally or by registered mail within ten (10) days of the arbitration hearing. c. Fees and Expenses: The arbitrator's fees and expenses are agreed upon by you and the Board of Equalization. In the case of residential real property, the fess may not exceed $150.00 per case. For cases other than residential real property, the arbitrator's total fees and expenses are agreed to by you and Board of Equalization, but are paid by the parties as ordered by the arbitrator. If you have questions concerning the above information, please call me at (970) 400-4226. Very truly yours, az,rLe Esther E. Gesick, Clerk to the Board Weld County Board of County Commissioners and Board of Equalization Cc: Christopher Woodruff, Weld County Assessor COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION WELD COUNTY Single County Schedule Number R5747086 ,TTTT•�_....__�•._ _.+ STIPULATION (As To Tax Yea. 2OI7 Actual Value) RE PETITION OF : STEPPE DEVELOPMENT LLC NAME: STEPPE DEVELOPMENT LLC ADDRESS: 6333 APPLE WAY STE 115 LINCOLN, NE 68516-3504 Petitioner (s) and the Weld. County Assessor hereby enter into this Stipulation regarding the tax year 2017 valuation of the subject property, and jointly move. the Board of Equalization to enter its order based on this Stipulation, Petitioner (s) and Assessor agree and stipulate as follows: 1. The property subject to this Stipulation is described as: E.RI 24876 PT S' 4 18•1-68 BEG 20'W OF SW COR Li BLIC HUNTS 1ST ADD W96' N11.7E 'S131.7'TOEEG 2. The subject grope.rty is classified as Residential property. 3. The County Assessor originally assigned the following actual value to the subject property for the tax year 2017: Total $50,825 4. After further review and negotiation, Petitioner (s) and Weld County Assessor agree to the following tax year 2017 actual value for the subject property: Total $25,286 S. The valuation, as established above, shall be binding only with respect to tax year 2017. 6. Brief narrative as to why the reduction was made: Further review indicated an adjustment. 7. Both parties agree that: DThe hearing scheduled before the Board of Equalization on (Date) at (Time) be vacated. X A bearing has not yet been scheduled before the Board .of Equalization. Error! Reference source not found. 1 I Pet) this 1 * •ay ofJuly, 2017 . Agent or Attorney Address: 6333 Apple Way Ste 115 Lincoln, NE 68516-3504 Telephone (4a2) 473-5311 Docket Number S tip- I.Frm Error! Reference source not found. #1, sistant) County Attorney f Respondent, Weld County Board of Commissioners Address: 1150 `CY Street P.C. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Telephone:(970) 3364235 sse sor Address: 1400 N.17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Telephone: (970) 353-3845 ext. 3697 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION 5378 Christopher M. Woodruff Weld County Assessor 1400 N 1 nth Ave Greeley, CO 80631 85747086 O STEPPE DEVELOPMENT LLC 6333 APPLE WAY STE 115 LINCOLN, NE 68516-3504 LASSIFICA Date of Notice: 6/30/2017 Telephone: (970) 400-3650 Fax: (970) 304-6433 Office Hours: 8.00AM — 5:00PM I ERI 24876 PT SW4 18-1-66 BEG 20'W OF SW COR L1 BLIQ HUNTS 1ST ADD W96' N131.7' E96' S131.7' TO BEG ..J • n1..1 RECEIVED JUL 1 4 2017 WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS F T .. ACTUAL. VALUE AFTE. S. AUX-. _........ .. ... .. ... ... VACANT LAND 76,666 $15,858 50,825 $50,825 The Assessor has carefully studied all available information, giving particular attention to the specifics included on your protest. The Assessor's determination of value after review is based on the following: CM03 - After review of your property, we have made adjustments. This was done because of additional information obtained, or provided through the appeal process. If you disagree with the Assessor's decision, you have the right to appeal to the County Board of Equalization for further consideration, § 39-8-106(1)(a), C.R.S. The deadline for filing real property appeals is July 15. The Assessor establishes property values. The local taxing authorities (county, school district, city, fire protection, and other special districts) set mill levies. The mill levy requested by each taxing authority is based on a projected budget and the property tax revenue required to adequately fund the services it provides to its taxpayers. The local taxing authorities hold budget hearings in the fall. If you are concerned about mill levies, we recommend that you attend these budget hearings. Please refer to last year's tax bill or ask your Assessor for a listing of the local taxing authorities. Please refer to the reverse side of this notice for additional information. Agent (If Applicable): 16-DPT-AR PR 207-08/13 R5747086 2017-2345 County Board of Equalization Hearings will be held from July 24th through August 4th at 1150 O Street. To appeal the Assessor's decision, complete the Petition to the County Board of Equalization shown below, and mail, file online, or deliver a copy of both sides of this form to: Weld County Board of Equalization 1150 0 Street, P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80631 Telephone: (970) 356-4000 ext, 4225 Online: Ent :// .cp.. eld,ca.us/apps/cboef To preserve your appeal rights, your Petition to the County Board of Equalization must be postmarked or delivered on or before July 15 for real property - after such date, your right to appeal is lost. You may be required to prove that you filed a timely appeal; therefore, we recommend that all correspondence be mailed with proof of mailing. You will be notified of the date and time scheduled for your hearing. The County Board of Equalization must mail a written decision to you within five business days following the date of the decision. The County Board of Equalization must conclude hearings and render decisions by August 5, § 39-8-107(2), C.R.S. If you do not receive a decision from the County Board of Equalization and you wish to continue your appeal, you must file an appeal with the Board of Assessment Appeals by September 10, § 39-2-125(1)(e), C.R.B. If you are dissatisfied with the County Board of Equalization's decision and you wish to continue your appeal, you must appeal within 30 days of the date of the County Board's written decision to ONE of the following: Board of Assessment Appeals 1313 Sherman Street, Room 315 Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-5880 w _dota.colorado.gov/baa Binding Arbitration For a list of arbitrators, contact the County Commissioners at the address listed for the County Board of Equalization. If the date for filing any report, schedule, claim, tax return, statement, remittance, or other document falls upon a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, it shall be deemed to have been timely filed if filed on the next business day, § 39-1-120(3), C. R. S. District Court contact the District Court in the County where the property is located. See your local telephone book for the address and telephone number. ........ ... - - _........ _ -_ _ ..: ...� .:.......:...�.::.. ........ O "LIZA What is your estimate of the property's value as of June 30, 2016? (Your opinion of value in terms of a specific dollar amount is required for real property pursuant to § 39-8-106(1.5), C.R.S.) tASte2 What is the basis for your estimate of value or your reason for requesting a review? (Please attach additional sheets as necessary and any supporting documentation, i.e., comparable sales, rent roll, original tats appraisal, etc. ) e�.�s Myth � mss- h� vr�ued �� zoob - (� a� e1-+ (S liv �Q ev Cr�t�rltieIvEh) cull it s fie, 2n� - En� was vr�nd�� r�v� �' Twovel A � � ''iN`� CA. rs 1, the undersi. = d owner or agentl of the property identified above, affirm that the statements contained herein and' • n any . . chments hereto are true and complete. t - 173 +- C3 I, Signa e tieeCk� us the ray�o. r��,,, Email Address t Telephone Number Date 1 Attach letter of authorization signed by property owner. redeith rely ciA4,11 Fitiard �t`1L5fe; cu d "tiv3 i5 awr tilk.6to 16-DPT-AR PR 207-08/13 R57A7086 Q�dnq'CGV'tD tnt iglettidim Code. RD-t-Fik tas dAidAtuya cinct Ea c te- utt, I TOWN OF ERIE BOARD OF TRUSTEE AGENDA ITEM Board Meeting Date: November 10►, 2015 SUBJECT: CODE REVIEW: PURPOSE: DEPARTMENT: PRESENTER: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: PLANNING COMMISSION: GENERAL BUSINESS: A Sketch Plan Review For 40 Apartment Units At 4060 E. County Line Road. Erie Municipal Code, Title 10 A Sketch Plan represents a generalized land use plan and layout for the area proposed to be included within a subdivision. A Sketch Plan application is required to allow for an early, informal evaluation of a proposed subdivision before detailed planning and engineering work has occurred. Community Development Deborah Bachelder AICP, Senior Planner See Attachments for Staff Review Memos Planning Commission reviewed and commented on the Sketch Plan application at their October 21, 2015 meeting; see Attachments for Draft Planning Commission Minutes. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND OF SUBJECT MATTER: Owner: Steppe Development, LLC Michael Green & Tom Beckius 6333 Apples Way, Suite 115 Lincoln, Nebraska 68516 1 fi , c Lion ❑ a 4060 II _ o County Lone Road os located o Baloollm Stest 11d Town0 cc otoon wok rrt the Sketch PUwni Ana: ❑ FHofrLc:ori 0 -onhng: Pro ocit s ozo costhig Use: Ad Cl �1 8 northeast corner of TR 'own ReSenfiafl 2.73 Acres Vacant (ste provoously used as a concrete business) County ac e nt Land Js&go ng ne Road and r i [1 OTR R o ad Town Reso dent) a old Tow So I; o Resod L I = ngOe a bly nt all - O LI OTR U j(��J 0 R W �\ Town ResidenUall u (� o OM Tf Town S 0 /� IFa�ro 0 Resodentna tr s-1. '�--,/ = owe n = ngD& y OTR e To n Dd Town S Fa I _ ,eslldenSD :AST \ U7 U 0esMe _UaD `J II = Oe noV \/ Explohng Moods Day Care Center al II B = B usbness Single Vacant Famdly Warehouse esHe BuHthng ►t SITE s' ECrFC EL P EN F The 4060 E. County Line `¶oad Sketch Plan application is for the former site of a concrete business at the northeast corner of E. County Line Road and Balcolm Street in the Old Town neighborhood. The original building and fencing associated with the concrete business was demolished; so, the site is now vacant. The applicant proposes to build 40 apartment units in two buildings. The proposed apartment buildings are classified as "Multi -family Dwelling" which is an "S ® special eview Use" in the OTR zone district Sketch Plan 1s p Sketch Plan Area: Ma: 2.73 acres Proposed Residential Apartment Development: o 40 apartment units proposed. o Apartments are a Special Review Use in the o T R zone. o 2 apartment building structures; 20 units per building. o Apartment buildings are approximately 154 feet in length. o Proposed height varies; 2 and 3 st y heights. o 4 detached garage buildings (20 parking spaces) on north side of lot. o Additional surface parking lots are provided internal to the site and on the east sid-= of the lot. ® Open space and Parks: o 1 Pocket Park combined within a Detention Pond proposed on east side of lot; 0.25 acre in size. s and pen pace: The 4060 E. County Line Road Sketch Plan application for 40 apartment units would require dedication of the following quantity of parks and open space: Site Dedication Requirement U*C Minimum 1tedication Pocket Park: 0.06 acre 0.25 acre Neighborhood Park: 034 acre TO acres Community Park: 0.56 acre 30.0 acres Open Space: 1.00 acre 10.0 acres 3 dedooatoon rcqufremonf for 43 apartment unllts does o- meet quorod for each doss ficaioon of park and open space. The app provide a 0025 acre corn bead pocket park and detenton pond. T requllrements are proposod to be sa fled wfitn a foe=onm o Com 0 ance w th Town of FPS Commrehen oce G eu payme an: The _,and Use des gnatdon on the 2005 Comp ehensive Ran, _and Use Ran Map, for �os poffoon of t' -‘e OW Town n&ghbo toad, os LDS o _ow Density Residenfla (Gross Dens ty of 2-6 Dwell hg Ufflts/Ace). A though thos specific site wit* the UDR and use designation proposed as 14.65 dwell ong units per acre; the Conn prohens ve Ran oaks at the gross dens ty of on ore noocgDFborhood Comp Dance with Tiumucupal Code _ atDe { 1vV (Um) Okr Town go& dentsd 7orthlg D fl root: Town staff has reviewed the proposed Sketch F an fo oompDoance with the -lf R = 0Dd Town RSdentla zoning of the property and has provided the app cant detailed comments on rho attached memo. OTR = o d ovvn ResodonUoaf /ononq: n MC 1O22 H.1., the purpose statement of the O- _ R zone dostict os to "ensure the preser afion of the urAue character and quaRy of rife on the hostoroc resfidenaoa area of the Town by encourage ng oom patio ro redeye opment and onto dev&-opment." A 1houg} staff os suppo ote of a hDg er dens ty housing option on Ns sore s finfill development, we f ekeve Mat tke maS ng and height of tre proposed aparilmom bulidongs os not oomnaicobDe With the su rounding single � oD� Homes whllch are small 1 s1onj and 1 1/2 eve (spllft=1evell) songDe family homes. 7Deaser reference the map attachment showing tre ommedoate ad acent home heoghts0 Staff would prefer to see a fhig ler density housing product on sma er massed bJDd ng sizes and haoght that wou d better may ;h the het bulk and stodc rchftecturaD charsccttrosflcs found thtughout the aid down neoghborV llood he nnoromum acres propos ng to he other dodooafion ito =n MC 10, Table 4=1 o OomensBon& and Density Standards Table, the maximu m to -remold dens" y all owed 0n the o T R zone dVstr ct os 16 dwef or g units per acre. The Sketch Ran proposes 40 dweffing units on 2.73 acres wh ch equals '4.65 dwe[ling units per acre; this os with r ,fie maximum density alOowed; however the appDoc toon does not meet the required monmum Dot standares0 The Domens onaD and Donsflty Standards Table a so oncAudes D lln mum ot Standares o Not Area requftements for the sfea The net area Vs the ronamur~m size of the Dot required based on the number of dwell _o ig units proposed; of, does not ude tracts and r tight of way. Poi the M un000pa Code, each dwe Doug unit requtPes 3,000 squat fee: or of area. The Sketch P an proposal for 43 „nets on 2.73 acres does not meet :he r frthmun yet ot area requoremento fthout dedbca eon or hight of way or tracts the 2.73 gross acres of the pfoperty would yoe d a L maximum of 39 dwelling units. A further reduction in the number of dwelling units will be required if additional right of way and tract dedications are required. Special Review Use: The proposed apartment buildings are classified as "Multi -family Dwelling" which is an 'IS — Special Review Use" in the OTR zone district. The purpose of the Special Review Use is to provide a "discretionary approval process for Special Review Uses, which have unique or widely varying operating characteristics or unusual site development features. The Procedure encourages public review and evaluation of a use's operating characteristics and site development features and is intended to ensure that proposed Special Review Uses will not have a significant adverse impact on surrounding uses or on the community -at -large. This review process is intended to provide assurance to the community that such uses will be compatible with their locations and surrounding land uses and will further the purposes of this UDC." Staff does not support the special review use for the apartments proposed in the Sketch Plan application. The massing and height of the buildings are not in character with the surrounding neighborhood and will create a significant adverse impact on the surrounding uses. The applicant will be required to apply for a Special Review Use application, below are e approval criteria for a Special Review Use (MC 10.7.13 0.9.) A Special Review Use could be approved only if the Board of Trustees finds, at the time of Special Review Use application, that all of the criteria have been met. Below each Special Review Use criteria are the staff comments on whether or not we believe the proposed Sketch Plan application currently meets the future application requirements for Special Review Use criteria. 1. The proposed use is generally consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Master Plan and all applicable provisions of this UDC and applicable State and Federal regulations; a. Staff Comment: Comprehensive Plan Chapter 12: Housing and Neighborhoods — Goal #2: Protect Existing Neighborhoods: The Comprehensive Plan policy for Old Town Residential lnll states, "The Town will encourage the improvement and revitalization of Old Town neighborhoods. The Town will encourage residential infill and redevelopment that preserves key characteristics and historic features of Old Town neighborhoods and preserves existing housing stock where appropriate. Development standards for infill and redevelopment projects, remodeling, and additions to existing structures will be established to ensure new residences are compatible with existing neighborhood scale and character." Staff would like to see this property develop as an infill site; however, the Sketch Plan proposal for two large apartment buildings is out of scale with its neighboring small one story and split level single family homes. The Sketch Plan proposal does not protect the existing Old Town Residential neighborhood. 2. The proposed use is generally consistent with the purpose and intent of the zoning district in which it is located; a. Staff Comment: In MC 10.2.2 l--1.1., the purpose statement of the OTR zone district is to "ensure the preservation of the unique character and quality of life in the historic residential area of the Town by encouraging compatible redevelopment and infill development." Although staff is supportive of a higher 5 density housing option on this site as inn development, we believe that the massing and height of the proposed apartment buildings is not compatible with the surrounding single family homes which are small 1 story and I level (split- level) single family homes. 3. The proposed use is generally consistent with any applicable use -specific standards set forth in Section 3.2 a. Staff Comment: The purpose of the residential use category design standards in the Municipal Code state "The standards of this Section are intended to promote high -quality residential development and construction; protect property values; encourage visual variety and architectural compatibility; and promote an integrated character for the Town's neighborhoods." Staff does not support the massing of the proposed apartment buildings as we do not find them architecturally compatible and they do not promote an integrated character to the Old Town neighborhood. 4. The proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses in terms of scale, site design, and operating characteristics (hours of operation, traffic generation, lighting, noise, odor, dust, and other external impacts); a. Staff Comment: The scale of the apartment buildings is not compatible with the ranch and split level single family homes surrounding the site. 5. Any significant adverse impacts anticipated to result from the use will be mitigated or offset to the maximum extent reasonably practicable; a. Staff Comment: If the apartments are built at a the high end of the density allowed in the OTR zoning district; then improved pedestrian connections would be needed for access to the elementary school crossing guard location at Moffat Street and E. County Line Road; and a pedestrian connection from the southern side of Lawley Drive to the spine trail at the railroad right of way for access to the Community Center and Coal Creek (see map attachment). b. Staff Comment: At preliminary plat road right of way width, parking restrictions and turning lane types need to be evaluated at the intersection of Balcoim Street and E. County Line Road. 6. Facilities and services (including sewage and waste disposal, water, gas, election, police and fire protection, and streets and transportation, as applicable) will be available to serve the subject property while maintaining adequate levels of service for existing development a. Staff Comment: At preliminary plat road right of way width, parking restrictions and turning lane types need to be evaluated at the intersection of Balcolm Street and E. County Line Road. 7. Adequate assurances of continuing maintenance have been provided; and a. Staff Comment: This information was not provided with the Sketch Plan application; no comment at this time. 6 8. Any significant adverse impacts on the natural environment will be mitigated to the maximum extent reasonably practicable. a. Staff Comment, The site housed a concrete plant; at the time of preliminary plat application, additional information on environmental conditions and ground water quality on the site will be required. SKETCH PLAN PROCESS: Below is the process outlined in Title 10 (UDC) of the Municipal Code for Sketch Plan review. Step 2A (Development Application Submittal -6 Sketch Plan) Two types of application submittals are required — first, a Sketch Plan, followed by a Preliminary Plat. The Sketch Plan requirements are listed in this Subsection. The Preliminary Plat requirements are listed below as "Step 2B." Applications for Subdivision shall only be accepted for property annexed into the municipality. A Subdivision application cannot be reviewed concurrently with an annexation application. a. Purpose A Sketch Plan represents a generalized land use plan and layout for the area proposed to be included within a subdivision. Sketch Plan is required to allow early, informal evaluation of a proposed subdivision before detailed planning and engineering work has been undertaken and before substantial expenses have been incurred by the applicant. b. Sketch Plan Submittal Requirements A Sketch Plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Community Development Director pursuant to the Users Guide. An Ma Survey shall be prepared and submitted to illustrate the existing conditions on the property and, at a minimum, the Sketch Plan shall contain the following: i. Uses proposed; ii. Intensity or density of uses proposed; iii. Location of public and private open space; iv. Drainage Facilities; vi* Road, street, and pedestrian networks proposed; and vi. Existing or proposed utilities and public services for the development. c. Staff Review The Community Development Department shall review the Sketch Plan, focusing on standards and criteria of this UDC that are applicable to the proposed development. The Community Development Department shall summarize the results of the review in writing and provide a copy to the applicant. The summary shalt include any special information regarding the proposed project, plus an evaluation of the proposal with respect to the current policies of the Town, identifying areas of potential compatibility or conflict with these policies. All comments made by the Community Development Department shall not be binding on the Town's consideration of 7 any subsequent application, and are intended only to provide an informal evaluation of the proposed project. d. Meeting to Discuss Sketch Plan At the request of the Community Development Director or applicant, the parties shall meet to discuss the results of the review. The applicant shall be informed of the necessary provisions of this UDC relating to subdivision application, including submittal requirements, required public improvements, design standards, and Development Agreements. The Community Development Director shall inform the applicant whether or not a Planning Commission Review shall be required. e. Planning Commission Review In addition to the staff review the Community Development Director may require that the Sketch Plan be reviewed by the Planning Commission or the applicant may request this review. The staff review summary shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration. All comments made by the Planning Commission shall not be binding on the e Town's consideration of any subsequent application, and are intended only to provide an informal evaluation of the proposed project. f. Effect of Review The Sketch Plan is not part of a formal application for approval of a subdivision and any comments made by the Town in reaction to a Sketch Plan shall not be binding on the Town's consideration of any subsequent Preliminary or Final Plat application, nor result in a vested property right under this UDC or State Statute. Since the Sketch Plan is conceptual only, there are no lapse provisions applicable. 8 Erie Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes Date October 21, 2015 Page 1 of 3 Town of Erie Planning Commission Regular Meeting Wednesday, October 21, 2015 6:30 p.m. Board Room, Erie Town Hall, 645 Holbrook, Ede, Co 80516 I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Chairman Burgard called the Regular Meeting of the Erie Planning Commission to order at 6:30 p.m. IL ROLL CALL Commissioner Eottenhorn - Excused Commissioner Burgard — Present Commissioner Campbell - Present Commissioner Kemp - Present Staff Present: Commissioner Fraser - Excused Gippe - Present Commissioner Harrison - Present R. Martin Ostholthoff, Community Development Director; Deborah Bachelder, Senior Planner; s-: Todd Bjerkaas, Senior Planner; and '-.:*? _. Hallie Sawyer, Secretarylo the Commission t . Ill. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA , 4.r Commissioner Carr ell moved to approve. the October; 21, 2015 Regular Meeting Agenda as submitted. The motion, seconded by Commissioner Oippe, thrnedwllh all voting in favor thereof. IV. APPRQVAL. OF MINUTES a. Minutes from the OctoimT, 2015,. Regular Meeting. Conimissiorier Gippe mo i:tc appitnie the October 7, 2015, Minutes as submitted. The motion, seconded by Commissioner crnpbell, carrii.rith all Voting in favor thereof. V. PUBLIC COMMENT (This agenda item provides the public an opportunity to discuss items other than items that are on the agenda. The Planning Commission is not prepared to decide on matters brought up at this time, but it warranted, will place them on a future agenda.) None. .. RESOLUTIONS (This agenda item is for all matters that should be decided by resolutions.) 1. Public Hearing -Impact Rock Church Special Review Use Purpose: Consideration of a Religious Use Type in a Light Industrial Zoning District Request: Consideration of Resolution P15-33, A Resolution Making Certain Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Favorable To The Special Review Use For Impact Rock Church At 710 Austin Avenue, Suite 200. Location: 710 Austin Avenue Applicants: Impact Rock Church Mark Harper, Pastor (Staff Planner: Todd Bjerkaas) Vice Chairman Burgard opened the Public Hearings at 6:32 p.m, Todd Bjerkaas, Senior Planner, presented the applications for Impact Rock Church Special Review Use and 710 Austin Avenue, 1st Amendment Site Plan Amendment, entered the documents into evidence and presented the staff recommendations for approval of the two resolutions. 1 Erie Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes Date October 21, 2015 Page 2 of 3 Mark Harper, 2343 Dogwood Drive, Erie, Colorado, representing Impact Rock Church, gave a brief presentation and was available to answer any questions. Public Comment was taken from Jeff Fjelsted, 8504 Wiley Circle, Westminster; Kara Harper, Acacia Harper & Jordan Harper, 2343 Dogwood Drive; Anthony Canas, 1425 Blue Sky Circle; Nate Swanson, 2725 Sunset Place; Michael Freemen,177 Montgomery Drive; Greg Schulte, 497 S. Youngfield Ct., Lakewood; Andrew Smith, 2238 Dogwood Drive; James Anthony, 2066 Tundra Circle; Diane Harper, 656 Aspen Circle, Frederick; Amy, Josiah, Tabitha & Brandon Howard, 1424. Vaughn Circle, Aurora; Brad & Kendra Ficek, 2203 Chestnut Circle; Greg James, 1499 Lawson Avenue; and Joyce Hatch, 1420 Lawson Avenue. All comments were in support of Impact Rock Church with many noting that they had moved to Erie or are in process of relocating to Erie for.Impact Rock. Commissioner questions covered: parking; the pavilion proposed for the south side of the building; will the facility accommodate future growth and how far into the Mum is that projected. Chairman Bottenhom closed the public hearings at 7:37 p.m. Commissioner comments included: appreciation for their dedication to fostering our community. Commissioner Kemp moved approval of Resolution P15-33, A Resolution Making Certain Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Favorable To The Special Review Use For Impact Fick Church at 710 Austin Avenue, Suite 200. The motion, seconded by Commissioner Harrison, carried with all voting in favor thereof. Public Hearing a 710 Austin Ayenuei 1st Amendment Purpose: Consideration of the Site Plan Amendment Request: Consideration of Resolution P15-34, A Resolution Making Certain Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Favorable Ta.Tte Site Plan For 710 Ain Avenue, 1st Amendment, Town Of Erie, County Of Weld, State -Qf Colorado: Location: 71Q Austin Avenue ... Applicants: Impact Rock Church Mark Harper, Pastor (Staff Planner: Todd Bjerkaas) Commissioner Gippe moved approval of Resolution P15-34, A Resolution Making Certain Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Favorable To The Site Plan For 710 Austin Avenue, 1st Amendment, Town Of brie, County Of Weld, State of Colorado. The motion, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, carried with all voting in favor thereof. Vice Chairman Burgard called for a 5 minute break at 7:39 pm while the Impact Rock supporters left. The meeting was called back to order at 7:44 pm. VII. GENERAL BUSINESS (This agenda kern is reserved for matters That are ready for Commission action, and do not fit into other categories, i.e. resolutions) 1, 4060 E. County Line Road Sketch Plan Purpose: Consideration & comments for proposed sketch plan Request: Comments for proposed sketch plan Location: NE Corner of County Line and Balcolm Applicants: Steppe Development, LLC (Staff Planner: Deborah Bachelder) Mrs. Bachelder presented the application and outlined the procedure for this General Business Item and turned the floor over to the applicant. Tom Beckius and Michael Green of Steppe Development, LLC, 6333 Apples Way, Suite 115, Lincoln, Nebraska and Brad Reichert, Rhadius Architects, 8701 W. Parmer, Unit 2118, Austin, TX., presented their concept for two apartment buildings between two and three stories in height that would house 40 apartment units. 2 Eric Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes Date October 21, 2015 Page 3 of 3 Public Comment was taken from Rich Burman, 655 Moffat; Ruth Seloover, 684 Moffat; Ken Butts, 694 Moffat; Carol Korbe, 105 Lawley Drive; Darren Champion, 480 Main Street; Todd, 405 Main Street; Paul Crosson, 415 Main; Theresa Buler, 424 Main; Jack Seloover, 684 Moffat; Brandon Louis, 464 Main Street; and Debbie Langerak, 664 Moffat. Comments and concerns covered the need for lower density on the site; the proposed buildings being HUGE and out of character with the neighborhood; comparison of the size to be like building a Walmart on the site; traffic; lighting from outdoor parking lot; adverse effect on the neighborhood; the pocket park being too small; the crime level will rise and house values will drop; density problem for the schools; limestone in the soil needs to be evaluated; and the project not being compatible with Old Town. Commissioner comments covered; will adjacent homes be demolished; how far off north property line will garages be; massing of buildings; this looks like a monstrosity; it -does not fit the neighborhood; but we do need housing diversity; two story 4-plex buildings WQUid fit better; apartments don't need garages; agreement project is out of character; three stories is to bi9h; traffic problems; density to high; perceives a disconnect between developers and staff; soils issues; this is to grand/to big/to tall; echo fellow commissioners and public; the biggest challenge will be keeping the project economical; the product types needs to change; the park is good, but could be smaller; County Line access and the need for an environmental study. VIII. STAFF REPORTS (This agenda items is reserved for specific items requWing Catispistion direction or just relaying important information.) None. P• IX. COMMISSIONER REPORTS AND DiSCUSSION. ITEMS (This agenda item is for all Planning Commission reports and items of information as well as Commission discussion items, not listed on the agenda) Trunk or Treat is this Saturday. There will be walk and fund raiser Sunday at Echo for a very sick 5 year old from Black Rock Elementary. X. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, Vice Chairman Burgard adjourned the October 21, 2015, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 8:52 p,m. . Vice Chairman Burgard called for a 5 minute break at 8:52 p.m. The Study Session reconvened at 8:57 p.m. The Commissioners reviewed the redlines for chapters 9-12,14 & 15 of the 2005 Comprehensive Plan text. Vice Chairman Burgard adjourned the Study Session at 9:52 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Town of Erie Planning Commission Bv: Hallie S. Sawyer, Secretary Anthony A. Burgard, Vice Chair 3 TOWN OF ERIE BOARD €oF TRUSTEES MEETING June 'l4, 2016 SUBJECT: CODE: PURPOSE: DEPARTMENT: PRESENTER: GENERAL BUSINESS: Sketch Plan Review of a Proposed Apartment Development at 4060 East County Line Road. Erie Municipal Code, Title 10 Review of the revised Sketch Plan for 32 apartment units at 4060 East County Line Road. Community Development Department Deborah Bachelder AMCP, Senior Planner STAFF RECOMMENDATION: See Attachments for Staff Review Memo. PLANNING COMMISSION: ISSION: Owner: Planning Commission reviewed and commented on the Sketch Plan application at their June 1, 2016 meeting; see Attachments for Draft Planning Commission Minutes, SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND OF SUBJECT MATTER Steppe Development, LLC Michael Green & Tom Beckius 6333 Apples Way, Suite 115 Lincoln, Nebraska 68516 1 4060 0 Coun and BaBcoDm St C©ndMocs w 0th o the f tc r Nan A Zonngo ne Road os ocated on the nonlheast corner of rest o n Old (Town OTR e olld Town Resodonfial Project Sze: 2.73 Acres IExUsfing Use: Vacant (sllte prev ousHy used as a concrete bu rye cl dj!c©kg0 _ andcUseiZonhu County Una Road sines) ZO M Fa d z terS •I 0Dd Town o Single V _ arDDy Reno' lento 1 'i o R _ u Eld oTR — Olld Town RJ&dont0a1 00d Town o SNIle Family Resoden o D SCUM air ODd Town Re odentoal ODd Town SongDe Family flesklentoll OM OODd Tow6 [ EA3T. e o t esodonfoal 9 = Busllness Expiorong IN/finds Day Care Center SongDe Vacant Lamely Warehouse Resod B nt uil ong ES 2 E L US SKETCH PLAN *EWE The 4060 E. County Line Road -- Sketch Plan application was originally reviewed at the Planning Commission on October 21, 2015 and at the Board of Trustees on November 10, 2015. At those meetings there was great concern over the massing of the structures and compatibility with the historic character of the Old Town neighborhood. The applicant was asked to revisit the plans to modify them to be more in character with the neighborhood. The applicant has completed the updates and is going to present the revised Sketch Plan application during the Planning Commission meeting. ketch Plan ftt�rl The previous Sketch Plan submittal contained: 40 apartment units. ® 2 apartment building structures; 20 units per building. Proposed height varies; 2 and 3 story heights. 4 detached garage buildings (20 parking spaces) on north side of lot. Additional surface parking lots. 1 Pocket Park combined within a Detention Pond; 0.25 acre in size. SITE S DEVELOPME T INFORMATION t- UP ATED SKETCH PLAN: The 4060 E. County Line Road Sketch Plan application is for the former site of a concrete business at the northeast corner of E. County Line Road and Balcolm Street in the Old Town neighborhood. The previous building associated with the concrete business was demolished so the site is now vacant. The applicant proposes to build 32 apartment units in 4 buildings. The proposed apartment buildings are classified as "Multi -family Dwelling" which is an "S ® Special Review Use" in the OTR zone district. Sketch Plan Developm ant ► 5ataa 2.25 acre Lot Size after Street Right of Way Dedications ® 4 apartment building structures; 8 units per building. 32 total apartment units. 3 2 story building heights. 3 detached garage buildings (15 parking spaces total). Surface parking lots for 64 or 71 parking spaces (2 parking alternatives). 1 Pocket Park combined within a Detention Pond; 0.25 acre in size. leek/ i c.. Prig'»n,ui# 1.,./c- .......-4 4RN I 1 ee .fl"1", t - _ a a •1111-3t fl Asp toes se ete .emtt7 tikes** t{r e = istotorso craa kl; r 1tKi]Wtca..t tcy{agp ISyL',St•r•+R.wi MICR Statt.$.,1% i .+ttni.t tm tie! tilts AAnD0mtt" somasfmoct 4 a$cast ltdAAcrt viat MST se? F1 !i 1111. .*Oen*PE )1W.�i1�.t mato 4401134319atite-,z.strt.am!axn ACIt a isyt4fr.YA9 Tt 4114.f 0 iliotroWis Oorktac?trtt#lilti tit tint? row vs.,. pre wiTio_mweiz '' .0444 •. 0%9i11li30.`5_LE4ttit Ott err.:G le-Gre t1=22t3.0.7-tHJYt t PAM 1J St MIS MU A I w•••li�w�..I a2, 1h,•- I use i : At1.4a�taia .r. a all &IA t:1ls .1 i *VOW Is 3 WIN date i Sketch Slaw 'salt et)11 Atallltuetts' ei th. s u Aiirt bti ettittro4t-TO-attatallStttO4Ie ITIM S "1N:inLilJlfiu meltststt:'ff Iii. Ie EVAIS 3OM:LIZO tat. tarry a teas Wan o raorul4 212 0,43 JAW' ESE i Was . 1 • ►Mat t-3 IOW t -nowt t&& A., . A.•eq-•.w.,a..d.. A.. Wnn 0.a. igglial EgiMilat r + , I.•ti.'.•y.r.4 e ?VW 144J it ,n'tt *4r .0-,stidaxttv@frayees ma iii MR1• •Y+'l ..R.f'. mWag, aert.p. A:trump.ottlwayelf MYe ;re( a.!.., ! iittV,4Ale.:wy e.lQaaui a. a WG4AV*L'orw+W f. 74sjdl% xa... b. 1Ni...:. earA4wuM 44Q.Rt t. e-- 4.+4.ulo.• 4 n lYs I t$f4.i.. *1.4 ea cdal fC Yr=MZ nIrn .z ITn �s� t..s tr. b-.w•a )4417414•4; • M 4414 Ian Su latCfs •t% - tat lectit • ,t -HMV f:tkY' P' t,? mittal N • t/..L/.. tlef. - Yt atmynas:ZCrim-rem - . ; •m aeae. afitt irat etltiekin;eenl lter et ♦a4 it 444 ate fiat l M.Ct*aa v at tQiainiwe S:w.t Witt Ceti oe Tn Pata",?c W ants • a rn►. • W m. tP•W eat-n.fa- Ml•creU .A-Sca it tasf4KJ'.a Se seseme. War§# a* t "NA se Art 44.rr's .vl.M1 W..w k�• r•l VawkW.KbEiNbioloo N14 1•rl::.a.e ygtt.aa 4aaf. taw teg-ate4.•W.,.11Wr.c. tar t• 04:4f y OVA Nate a Mc.!cleat! Paccar Y!.ect WO, s.ira44$44 sri.C, )rise 3.-. t[woth Oaa41411• r.Uou Pc4a•L`: Jiwf.lil zrAi+Ri7+Ats ;Err SSW SFNeynn 4 w4,4µ..•1.: u.. 7tfyl4t wattare —'— tan lotto tyew.iyf * MSJMii'sc $ cm.... se 442 u LITE �441BS .r .Mt cV4A s.s aiay • .4:. *11.4.. tat yP .�, • sc. " 9 1Avstirtitft Melsawn• haws+ t?.,M14 Wti4 J 14,414l4r. @r ?VANN $4$1444 4. 414.44240 a.r l c . t :.', ., 3'Is.ezt Compliance with Town of Erie Comprehensive Plan: The Land Use designation on the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan Map, for this portion of the Old Town neighborhood, is LDR — Low Density Residential (Gross Density of 2-6 Dwelling Units/Acre). Although this specific site within the LDR land use designation is proposed as 14.23 dwelling units per acre; the Comprehensive Plan looks at the gross density of entire neighborhood. SITE COMM AC Is Mill 1:`t ey 9 trio.”ii: • S%MPOA. 14444.44”4 443 i _ WAS PIM Vellt 4f.t tte.11.2ht IT Pa Anatemr, S412CML1[et t27.f! v.Poci Kit t r9 d1. f _tray, t ' c-VatUt7 4'1/4 l.ti1Ytn fr+ cU'!Iirn AX ti.F+,1041 ”41•14101 in. Awltdm t P$Ea-WMi1.\Afl, WEE C-Ot-CC1R'r Compliance with Municipal Code Title 10 (UDC) OTR — Old Town Residential Zon i n istrict: Town staff has reviewed the proposed Sketch Plan for compliance with the QTR Old Town Residential zoning of the property and has provided the applicant with detailed comments in the attached memo. 4 a PJRr9ld_Town Residential Zoning: In MC 10.2.2 H.1., the purpose statement of the OTR zone district is to "ensure the preservation of the unique character and quality of life in the historic residential area of the Town by encouraging compatible redevelopment and mill development." In the staff review of the previous Sketch Plan application, staff was supportive of a higher density housing option on this site as infill development, however, we had concerns with: 1. The overall building size and mass of the 2 apartment buildings that held a total of 40 dwelling units. 2. The 3 story building height that appeared out of scale with the surrounding single family neighborhood. . The architectural character needing to complement the historic character of the Old Town residential neighborhood. Staff is in support of the revised Sketch Plan submittal as the applicant has: 1. Significantly reduced the mass of the 2 original apartment buildings by distributing the apartment units into 4 buildings. . Reduced the height of the buildings from 3 story to 2 story. 3. Reduced the number of apartments from 40 to 32 dwelling units. 4. Proposed a mix of siding materials and massing of the buildings that further breaks the massing of the building. 5. Completed a character study of the historic single family architecture in the Old Town neighborhood and proposed more detailed architectural illustrations for the exterior of the buildings that complement the historic character of the Old Town neighborhood. Off Street Parking Requirements: Based on the Sketch Plan proposal for 4— 3 bedroom units; 24 - 2 bedroom units; and 4 - 1 bedroom units, the applicant is required by Code to provide 62 resident parking spaces and 11 guest parking spaces for a total of 73 off street parking spaces. MC 10.6.6E . 4 . a . states that "development in the Old Town Residential district are eligible for an automatic parking reduction of 20 percent of the minimum parking requirements"; this brings the total required off street parking requirement for the proposed Sketch Plan to 59 off-street parking spaces. in the updated Sketch Plan submittal, the applicant has submitted 2 Sketch Plan variations to the potential parking layout for the site. Both meet the required quantity for off street parking; the Sketch Plan above has 64 parking spaces and the Sketch Plan alternative below has 71 parking spaces. Staff will be asking the Planning Commission and Board of Trustees for their comments on which parking layout they prefer. 5 H.. Updated Sketch Plan Submittal tf law _ F.; '16'F 4A-79 a 7iMKtr. "aP _ -:- . : .M.i f•.'^•v- iticc'-*Etta JS ffit04.04!411+44...F yR�l11iPt • r Arianpmoat, ca tors nal rsc'YsttQ4tttniciamc t'^ wsi/i3 mai nrnTaseita At039iiv.t ti! t: ltama{frs: Rip has ns Ips,ct63 su r$I!aelc ri ti • errtrr•milt i erign Itifige .z M T i QS-; Cots *I*7. > T* tint ei vita . .. Y` Y4 V.4 *ram= V- re- ars AT (a i�s� tCte Ir• ++ +• I i..etaler" ai air W atteiren t.T '14aeie • f3 Alternative Parking Layout za..tau ran ar=a .Fttt;ltthCIll. Wt^n ,I.n . biaroa in' Waty•RC= ttlakttae ci recta ut neenge+tt tI,ca;'!F ikktrat Y WirtGf 'n1' 47at t rbieMt sli.I r. ti lam ..a:..i. SM2. • sa:.* K. -Ina •• - IbreS sea. a••.. .nsa.4f lar<.LMVe.- •la tlssa.W.a...0 "I;f4a5 •Y.. *Lan r- far* -. 4.lrls fN...M i Faris II. 4.s•+a.c+>d'in .44•14"'.` t ►.R'a.R w/^a ...al:. -r•••••• • . art•.+ rti.: -.r> ... r .e.. ;f4C /ems.. * 3 .' .. •;sry, ~≥ a Ble.1.4htaee UR% t}F3: ft Mgr= Iyir sr'wart palr_vr,; '.0? n. ee gf.CW1!WXt$ NA ir?-'a3-t 141,144.00 441 pit IS ra ;at ••••:a t1 ni%as.u: Re 04 41.0ollat 1 Wall° nael•SlINE.COTX tws•asA. an Soar WNW.:S. =Tare V?.. Sit Peru. 4 ♦aM rat k airat •t rata .4.t Yuyinz ilfA..w. l 4ltSt.. 1.1/4t era to tint ;55 me M.tlail Av_`a al.eyiadY•t- ..rat.:: a.. 4 irA NSA ..ai4„r•.•w. oll _... -aaa ra Y..4 M•.1.•__.. 4 Y-af•• t$ -}n ]lava lMtraoSTM'JreDe, r4 1 e•.c.V..a.o *- +W6 M•.✓.+►•S. Pi MB .b'i O 4R.b•.1RT See .MI bra .I.a A' 'roost tPl a +Wn..t,V =pearl N..le4iWa.r Ark* means 4•••• Maaiklaaftrag•aarsao• H:aVal 4sal..yE''•ri.i. 4d *Pita Alt Wttt•E• rta C.. et'i a•e aifrfr nig a aaNn.flkaa6ast laMitaW NHoag lei ela1 Cent i9••ai Wilt • Mir rStaltaw Itwaq saalr!trost is•.t4ty • paMw.Kiri*t_ ae.4 Mk -.c, ifitYllret PliagaV i3Ptefa iletalMrflM ...rtc.+.5..as r M• sir.. as �•/ a4tL"!Ic(t fL'lrr•-rS •tetA..Ja.Mt Ri ia.l�7Cdna- WC:2t6Mitt•nt ZJ T L t: a2 41J;lpt.H.4!taln. r. r ♦f?.L••P tO V 4 a.n $ T- tL f..•• , • w: N.^y!..•! C+•. Fb+A 1 t e•t Jai 1s•1`.a a.rnz f ad!, .uu..fsa._anlr U to n iys le ro pc v uw.' re: nu t. t¢iaialtna ce a. axis 3811 tLfet4r+l� Fd.V.Si swim +1A11M14h 1C. tl % scvsxr4Cas lvat4LR': 4-' .rt IMA%aix im Plitst.N. !NAM • $f£ CONCEPT is Parks and Open Space: The proposed Sketch Plan application for 32 apartment units would require dedication of the following quantity of parks and open space: Site Dedication Requirement UDC Minimum Dedication 0.05 acre 0.25 acre 0.27 acre 7.0 acres 0.45 acre 30.0 acres 1.52 acre 10.0 acres Pocket Park: Neighborhood Park: • Community Park: ® Open Space: The dedication requirement for 32 apartment units does not meet the minimum acres required for each classification of park and open space. As the site is not within 1/4 mile of an existing pocket park in the Old Town neighborhood, the applicant is proposing to provide a 0.25 acre combined pocket park and detention pond. The neighborhood park, community park and open space dedication requirements are proposed to be satisfied with a fee -in -lieu payment. Special Review Use: The proposed apartment buildings are classified as "Multi -family Dwelling" which is an "S — Special Review Use" in the OTR zone district. A Special Review Use application will be required to be processed concurrently with a Site Plan application (MC 10/.13 BA.) Below are the approval criteria for a Special Review Use application (MC 10.7.13 C.9.). 6 1. The proposed use is generally consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Master Plan and all applicable provisions of this UDC and applicable State and Federal regulations; 2. The proposed use is generally consistent with the purpose and intent of the zoning district in which it is located; 3. The proposed use is generally consistent with any applicable use -specific standards set forth in Section 3.2 4. The proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses in terms of scale, site design, and operating characteristics (hours of operation, traffic generation, fighting, noise, odor, dust, and other external impacts) 5. Any significant adverse impacts anticipated to result from the use will be mitigated or - offset to the maximum extent reasonably practicable; 6. Facilities and services (including sewage and waste disposal, water, gas, election, police and fire protection, and streets and transportation, as applicable) will be available to serve the subject property while maintaining adequate levels of service for existing development; 7. Adequate assurances of continuing maintenance have been provided; and 8. Any significant adverse impacts on the natural environment will be mitigated to the maximum extent reasonably practicable. SKETCH PLAN PROCESS Below is the process outlined in Title 10 (UDC) of the Municipal Code for Sketch Plan review. 2. Step 2A (Development Application Submittal a Sketch Plan) Two types of application submittals are required — first, a Sketch Plan, followed by a Preliminary Plat. The Sketch Plan requirements are listed in this Subsection. The Preliminary Plat requirements are listed below as "Step 2B." Applications for Subdivision shall only be accepted for property annexed into the municipality. A Subdivision application cannot be reviewed concurrently with an annexation application. a. Purpose A Sketch Plan represents a generalized land use plan and layout for the area proposed to be included within a subdivision. Sketch Plan is required to allow early, informal evaluation of a proposed subdivision before detailed planning and engineering work has been undertaken and before substantial expenses have been incurred by the applicant. b. Sketch Plan Submittal Requirements A Sketch Plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Community Development Director pursuant to the User's Guide. An Alta Survey shall be prepared and submitted to illustrate the existing conditions on the property and, at a minimum, the Sketch Plan shall contain the following: i. Uses proposed; ii. Intensity or density of uses proposed; 7 iii. Location of public and private open space; iv.. Drainage Facilities; v. Road, street, and pedestrian networks proposed; and vi. Existing or proposed utilities and public services for the development. c. Staff Review The Community Development Department shall review the Sketch Plan, focusing on standards and criteria of this UDC that are applicable to the proposed development. The Community Development Department shall summarize the results of the review in writing and provide a copy to the applicant. The summary shall include any special information regarding the proposed project, plus an evaluation of the proposal with respect to the current policies of the Town, identifying areas of potential compatibility or conflict with these policies. All comments made by the Community Development Department shall not be binding on the Town's consideration of any subsequent application, and are intended only to provide an informal evaluation of the proposed project. d. Meeting to Discuss Sketch Plan At the request of the Community Development Director or applicant, the parties shall meet to discuss the results of the review. The applicant shall be informed of the necessary provisions of this UDC relating to subdivision application, including submittal requirements, required public improvements, design standards, and Development Agreements. The Community Development Director shall inform the applicant whether or not a Planning Commission Review shall be required. Planning Commission Review in addition to the staff review the Community Development Director may require that the Sketch Plan be reviewed by the Planning Commission or the applicant may request this review. The staff review summary shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration. All comments made by the Planning Commission shall not be binding on the Town's consideration of any subsequent application, and are intended only to provide an informal evaluation of the proposed project. f. Effect of Review The Sketch Plan is not part of a formai application for approval of a subdivision and any comments made by the Town in reaction to a Sketch Plan shall not be binding on the Town'sconsideration of any subsequent Preliminary or Final Plat application, nor result in a vested property right under this UDC or State Statute. Since the Sketch Plan is conceptual only, there are no lapse provisions applicable. 8 Erie Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes Date June 1, 2016 Page 1 of 2 Town of Erie Planning Commission Regular Meeting Wednesday, June 1, 2016 &30 p.m. Board Room, Erie Town Hall, 645 Holbrook, Erie, Co 80516 I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Bottenhorn called the Regular Meeting of the Erie Planning Commission to order at 6:30 p.m. U. ROLL CALL Commissioner Bottenhorn - Present Commissioner Campbell - Present Commissioner Fraser - Present Commissioner Gippe - Present Commissioner Harrison - Present Commissioner Tracy - Present Commissioner Zuniga - Present Staff Present: R. Martin Cstholthoff, Community Development Director; Deborah Bachelder, Senior Planner; and Hal lie Sawyer, Secretary to the Commission III. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Commissioner Campbell moved to approve the June 1, 2016, Regular Meeting Agenda as submitted, The .motion, seconded by Commissioner Harrison, carried with all voting in favor thereof. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Minutes from the May 18, 2016, Regular Meeting. Commissioner Gippe moved to approve the May 16, 2016, Minutes as submitted. The motion, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, carried with all voting in favor thereof. V. PUBLIC COMMENTS (This agenda item provides the public an opportunity to discuss items other than items that are on the agenda. The Planning Commission is not prepared to decide on matters brought up at this time, but it warranted, will place them on a future agenda.) None. VI. RESOLUTIONS (This agenda item is for all matters that should be decided by resolutions.) None Scheduled VII. GENERAL BUSINESS (This agenda item is reserved for matters that are ready for Commission action, and do not fit into other categories, i.e. resolutions) 4060 County Line Road - Apartment Sketch Plan Purpose: Review and comment on proposed apartment development. (Staff Planner: Deb Bachelder) Mrs. Bachelder presented the new application for the apartments to be located at 4060 NE County Line Road, and showed slides of the original plan for comparison. She also asked for feedback on which parking concept for the project was preferred a the plan for 70+ spaces or the plan with green space. Both plans exceed the minimum requirement for parking for the project. Torn Beckius, Steppe Development, and Brad Reichert, Rhadius Architects, showed how they came up with the new design by matching it to current architecture features in Old Town. 1 Erie Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes Date June 1, 2016 Page 2 of 2 Public Comment was taken from Ruth Seloover, 684 Moffat Street and James Briars, 635 Moffat Street. Both felt the proposed density was too high and too much for the neighborhood andquality of life for the neighbors. They asked about the distances between the backs of the proposed garages and the neighbors to the north; street parking on Balcoim; and noted the applicants are trying to cram too much into too little area. Commissioner comments covered: maximum density that would be allowed for single family detached vs multifiamily; comparing commercial development on the property to residential which fits best; good job with the design; likes the depth in the design; still a little high, but better; why is the west entrance angled; back of garages; this type of housing is needed in Erie and it fits well; alignment is better; impact on Erie Elementary; likes way buildings are situated and that the stairs to the upper levels are hidden; massing is good; very nice product not yet available in Erie; and garage treatments. Consensus of the Commission was appreciation for listening to their earlier concerns and responding to them; agreement that this is a much better application for the property; and all agreed with the parking plan with the fewer spaces and green space. VIII. STAFF REPORTS (This agenda items is reserved for specific items from Staff requiring Commission direction or just relaying important information_) Mr. Ostholthoff asked how many of the Commissioners would be available for the Attorney Orientation scheduled for June 15th. Commissioners Harrison and Zuniga are not available. Mr. Ostholthoff is going to talk to Attorney Shapiro and either confirm the date or reschedule the orientation. IX. COMMISSIONER REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS (This agenda item is for all Planning Commission reports and items of information as well as Commission discussion items, not listed on the agenda) None. X. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, Chairman Bottenhorn adjourned the June 1, 2016, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 7:16 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Town of Erie Planning Commission By: ty: Hallie S. Sawyer, Secretary J. Eric Bottenhorn, Chair 2 TOWN OF ERIE BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING June 14, 2016 SUBJECT: CODE: PURPOSE: DEPARTMENT: PRESENTER: GENERAL BUSINESS: Sketch Plan Review of a Proposed Apartment Development at 4060 East County Line Road. Erie Municipal Code, Title 10 Review of the revised Sketch Plan for 32 apartment units at 4060 East County Line Road. Community Development Department Deborah Bachelder AICP, Senior Planner STAFF RECOMMENDATION: See Attachments for Staff Review Memo. PLANNING OMMISSION: Owner: Planning Commission reviewed and commented on the Sketch Plan application at their June 1, 2016 meeting; see Attachments for Draft Planning Commission Minutes. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND OF SUBJECT MATTER Steppe Development, LLC Michael Green & Torn Beokius 6333 Apples Way, Suite 115 Lincoln, Nebraska 68516 1 http:J/erie.granicus.Gam/ ediaPIa sr.php?view dr-98&clip id 1537 \Itvi\ei 02-061,i4 1114kker Nio WA Tray? Eoad ,pThwk' cbc91nS mke twkvolcraPvi- Otiut If Can kVr Loc tlor: 4060 E. County Une Road os Dooated and BallooOm Street or O d Town. C. a x AC, r4S-W 1-4" F kiri Y.::. 4p,�: C �v!• • • a ' I . -x y«, .e w 7 .. -r er—w.:k : silk, .- Rr •iv `.,, t • .d-eaa.L%". r. .y� : �u �Nm .r"-`ZM^?.'— 0.9,m. N:•y�` ry .. •^�,y. G%•`a ' M� " •� �7 2l -,...,§4- u -3 g ? ; . re .p-' i . C.. r Fj a "Yp� o va t • a .- `L'' %- 5 - • ',f 3 �,'� r • rS p•rr. 1• fi; A 4.r... y iY%•� _ -47- ...it .. a r e'Y e i F'• 8 _ a t i 'l' . a S :.1:['�! 7_i • s+ 'Ck • :1=UL re • n r F 5 ri •as 131 f aaP a J .•x J R a'SS'. u: it r.i p� •E Yw �u W • • .! w •I;.:_.. i. , 'e '•.• .11 i' • A 11'i�.i $,•e.. ,.�I m:a. y. .••`Y — fea �Y'• s.aw C 5 } . a L S 4 3 4 . Yea •fig . w •�wa%•.nr1`1:G.Y.'^: . - _ ^.p≥ee LF�.,e'�w-�J9`; ¢-u'v mitt rstilkit. rA •^$.26.01.ja: Q Q i I as a$ �_ a e ., ' a - •d y '' •¢' • a: .wli • ° x 'L 0t • LL3 er �q • ,. [ f 7 Friar -4'. .Y. r. ti f xei wte '•ut,,;i-F:'a j.. •� '„a, all' 'gdn're:..:^!"Y '�6" . w • ar ••£. WI . '+�}' awry} E e. apt L 4 °• 0 - 0.Y R1 alp • ra` 1r!'c•:,•, tt.- —_,.r: i.'rcc 7:..-.a trio-, ti'^r•'•J-<}�.4 •1 I a - I I • - a I. 1;1. f • is c• a F Existing Coial �s Malt the Sketch Plan Area: 0 ' ofng a rocect Size: G "tang Use: D Ft •e agar _.• 7Eier7��lf<<;orys[_'•i,cyc•1 1.aek•h ` 4 acerit P. 9r •_ .r r _.• t gee r #i 1 : 4w4• if „c -e••• -74 - et -7 �q 1 4 m • r I a - Y 1 {". r A v et .g•' j • �- • Y r:' o f r t • ��++.. it •€ fa>.•f •skt1�'_°d��i-7 • A y� i. } •7'Srsrlel., e9 w -. �A.•, • • , itrfi a f '� H"i- Vim' S 3 £lri Or, • <<. Y yqq3y ' r I r •n'•` S.. -a, . •PH r� �.- a• i s f'C� r d ^ l yq{ r 4" 1 a S ≥y �i• ! } • .a�a i. Y • &&t •:•• e.•L •' . 6� �i'-r. •i'• '.fir p. uE.vi; }—'•.` • • . g • 'le ` 66? e' • A. • 2 El x 'o • -.�.�%\k..-..•.t . .o ..o •S• •' ' ' �^--bF•..� V-.�. ,..t^°$�-Ls % .w._ .r "& 7 pp1 • • r g •R 2 •'.• ti "am .. • 4.L ma [• .1 I + ca. I , 9rt M F ••• ' •k r {S� 'iyy. Z• P � ' ‘1. , a t1d '• _ _ i �-+ "— •c. 4'r'1 ,a... • eRr �q,= �+ypa�]}r• ,"Fe•.-...M'T . : .r� +iw'.� . •ih .. 7•A- .r Imo. `�KC'V'�"�_� �•• �..-. 0r.,. g, Y $ ,. it-a.."Z " tt' •7•• -. e.- M ' Cl.aI i_• 14 t m [ a v yyff i # .. _. g ;,..� _tity_tri: EA...Li .4_,4:1:- El eic,co.-v.,:ii.d.•.,:E.:, .sif „i_er...4%.,:' ea.:L....is...n.4 flFj:?�y� 0 a �• i 4••• - ;7 41 SI $ — 1 rv. t rM^••— • rsit 1;. : _ Ir IL, 1 -. 11 ter• . - .[,ate — _. �g gg 2 o .:.5a M - •-• " it • z L o Lr.� U O '` % GJ 2./3 Acres Vacant (sore andmUseaorThg 0 own on the Rey &d oreviou northeast corner og E. County done Road ,5• a •a .�+ tea '• e erto� to Y: �• rag c e a sMy used es a concrete b sllness) TR d -own Res den oa ousinoss OH I own ResidentW Nesid itda He Family ReSentlla `-xp oh lig Ands Day Ca e Conte llnOe FamHy Resildent Vacanl Warehouse BL me; 1 REV" ETCH PLAN Evil The 4060 E. C unty Line Road a Sketch Plan application was originally reviewed at the =''Banning commission on October 21, 2015 and at the Board of Trustees on November 10, 2015. At those meetings there was great concern over the massing of the structures and cornpltibility with the historic character of the Old Town neighborhood. The applicant was asked to revisit the plans to modify them to be more in character with the neighborhood. The applicant has completed the updates and is going to present the revised Sketch Plan application during the Planning commission meeting. Previ s tch ubmittal The previous Sketch Plan submittal contained: 40 apartment units. 2 apartment building structures; 20 units per building. Proposed height varies; 2 and 3 story heights. 4 detached garage buildings (20 parking spaces) on north side of lot. ® Additional surface parking lots. I Pocket Park combined within a Detention Pond; 0 2 acre in size. aT � EC!F E 'FA FI ATOM ® UPIA E3 SKETCH PL N The 4060 E. County Line 'tad Sketch Plan application is for the former site of a concrete business at the northeast corner of E. County Line Ro d and Balcolm Street in the Old Town neighborhood. The previous building associated with the concrete business was demolished so the site is now vacant, The applicant proposes to build 32 apartment units in 4 buildings. The proposed apartment buildings are classified as "Multi -family Dwelling" which is an "S Special Review Use" in the OTR zone district. Sk ^w tch Pl ev&& p nt rata: ® 2.25 acre Lot Size after street light of Way Dedications 4 apartment building structures; 8 units per building. 32 total apartment units. 3 2 story building heights. • 3 detached garage buildings (15 parking spaces total). Surface parking lots for 64 or 71 parking spaces (2 parking alternatives). • 1 Pocket Park combined within a Detention Pond; 025 acre in size. U dated Sketch Plan Submitt Its Iwes* I Ik..., kt.Ps {m . a ,,,.,rI ft J J t 4, ay:Sta7* , WUcimeesinikM fra re+r!_�t-J:ttIaI�u.yt�1y.� vac Wows- lie.",. gni:MA tic litt-•-•...Y3. tot Ygrmkrist4.$44bestare'64`*N4i07f7; s6,s m44, 7. .r... Y.ti".1.' ] v • f32.0 .#,I' ratU`s1iQ3i 4 .lW'J'T_Ei.3A le 4ne:11+°le/RS ttt , f1t amt.'ri.i b warifk Ott. ktattt +•. y�+,"witia.y�4'rrtc*CIy4tkp7r.".�:. M9 a -LA Sir't7l€W:`!-^'ratt it. 6,4 sr. EztlivispA west? .Rn; —e I M1 va w1Th-3 WAY - Anea-i�wt� P+c� +Tw1A• R )14:4 k.A1 k3'; i41a4 ISWW1> ts..yi•3I C ti,aA)' tf1 54 t 4b 'tt.slW 74.4tt'*¢#Lr7+cv -bet PVZ. 0;9 • 3.101 1/771476174. I•.2&O :6,'i �. _ Y�}F q.'.y y1 i�il90tt.r./ lF�,-. 7T.$ : -I[�..-ai . l .is'.',. s ales004'41146+0' P.sic+T+riW'�o axu:.rrnextbeeet 4*!iec: 1.0 i.r 4�I w?Xalk....4tkrtN3 rams:7aft?./. i77ra.. WAWA' avT Rata rvxaoma • •4 •\lamcv*Hv6'W. I=.7471kYaefvrp1 3ltsm4$L N'a ts•*satra r.r a Sagasl..Csl.mtva'sir an srptasurr .'sr.+lw t Fan haft'Hama''. YY7t.TtS' IF=ffi.i]. :if.11?S4 EsseocA?TSSaieriS fa -w O+:ssc. aFw; r(4i -Ae' amt a4lFl aarJcwf .at.. strArtra ` KrirMar,Sla retell •4rYls_lv.M-7iitD..t1K'J: • . eass44.isma Cal 4 ;�.: - e •ftenenesaei.rars*rCsat - ..ca-.av : 67 PS: ak: t!.1IV' 1 41b.s_travtIl vice:ceylba'4 trAige. bi t Ott 3X •h'tt i'1a.6' 3Y.*a ;tire , eeeeksetli.FRHsesei a...... w4.ey.�.wur.aai.•s.xa....io.. sietp htlaisv A se ettw'esl4' is %SO s.rn mastics 643 as-sci tza is..aa. nas.4•• S,F•*MT .:.lwa.o VK►el.n.i /t I..a..ta1M%e,ASIAll .}.•o..iav 'kg Goar iiTh&I EisstkistatEcassipsrn 4 turRin 1+tn'i.a;. 4u sane aa•beTs+.frm' Wiz. 4-7 Ca4Y. 447 Lag 0 kw...O'ES AthYaa AVatoI.v'itr.sit:as 3R'sn747a•atillst?tc •g=+ aavane4• a.a'ivt Rin.1>R;t44? C+r.SPn4ie•R.Fi®ral." rr40.4,4*q4n Ara** amadactrersiplan P'?. te1t.it. • is! R=;-1t.71nr?t L.; Se— St. a t as•M 6,.a %v4..Y:K.ti:a:1 ti.' 'ark.:_ .:.:...yen- IS o• Hance with Town of Erie Comprehensive Plan: The Land Use designs;tion on the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan Map, for this portion of the Old Town neighborhood, is LDR — Low Density Residential (Gross Density of 2-6 Dwelling Units/Acre). Although this specific site within the LDR land use designation is proposed as 1423 dwelling units per acre; the Comprehensive Plan looks at the gross density of entire neighborhood. picnce with Z,ninisthhcta icipal Ci rde Titi r, 10 (UDC) v.' J • • 2i L. LF. I Pial4106 y05tlfee t 6:'k3• J6, •rNS• to tletl..ty+t31, AY *ti'`=1 1:1'.��.9. W IM4tCa Aitt'f4*i wt L ..z Ct«s oA.+_su3vp:: at IF tritest e PM i<I.i'4 'C• r. K r 3 e- a aau€ 0277 w%nrl _74 YQrS 4147 74716,It,F n.A'�'a4'^.Tatt as 9u li]tistv,' R.14aic.4 "i; IY.nnrn6N feu ..nl� 't. l7sTtti A*(+t tAW #'RELIh#JNr'1IM TR -A! fad T n Residential Mown staff has reviewed the proposed Sketch Plan for compliance with the oTR — old Town Residential zoning of the property and has provided the applicant with detailed comments in the attached memo. 4 OTR ® Old Town Residential In MC 10.2.2 H.1 e, the purpose statement of the OTR z ne district is to "ensure the preservation of the unque character and quality of life in the historic residential area of the Town by encouraging compatible redevelopment and inf ll development." In the staff review of the previous Sketch Plan application, staff was suppo'tive of a higher density housing option on this site as infill development, however, we had concerns with: 1. The overall building size and mass of the 2 apartment buildings that held a total of 40 dwelling units. 2. The 3 story building height that appeared out of scale with the surrounding single family neighborhood. 3. The architectural character needing to complement the historic character of the Old Town residential neighborhood. Staff is in support of tho revised Sketch Plan submittal as the applicant has: 1. Significantly reduced the mass of the 2 original apartment buildings by distributing the aparment units into 4 buildings. 2. Redtced the height of the buildings from 3 story to 2 story. 3. Reduce° the number of apartments from 40 to 32 dwelling units. 4. Proposed a mix of siding materials and mass" fig of the buildings that further breaks the massing of the building. 5. Completed a character study of the historic single family architecture in the Old Town neighborhood and proposed more detailed architectural illustrations for the exterior f the buildings that complement the historic character of the Old Town neighborhood. Off Street Parking_ Requirements: Based on the Sketch Plan proposal for 4 — 3 bedroom units; 24 Q 2 bedroom units; and 4 - 1 bedroom units, the applicant is required by Code to provide 62 resident parking spaces and 11 guest parking spaces for a total of 73 off street parking spaces. MC 10.0.6E.4.a. states that "development in the Old Town Residential district are eligible for an automatic parking reduction of 20 percent of the minimum parking requirements"; this brings the total required off street parking requirement for the proposed Sketch Plan to 59 off-street parking spaces. In the updated Sketch Plan submittal, the applicant has submitted 2 Sketch Plan variations to the potential parking layout for the site. Both meet the required quantity for off street parking; the Sketch Plan above has 64 parking spaces and the Sketch Plan alternative below has 71 parking spaces. Staff will be asking the Planning Commission and Board of Trustees for their comments on which parking layout they prefer. 5 0 Pocket Park: Neighborhood Park: Community Park: Open Space: $ wmirnir 9x I insoriamPROft ‘9•••e -!•`fn Updated Sketch F urwAti,--4 wawa, xnsst Ds am: ts.anyiecz inTv dr-f. Inn ty ems'• IPN 7 .ts nn' v' 1 kW:VIe• ieriferatn iati.≥'SEVAl r6 4t0 hsar zr ya O .tgat r�• a}.'?s1 aftta;nt InatiCAlt•MCI 1Wt ra isnrtT pasteIN Watts -a T+r YtF Y.M'th ' y gamsii` .. __.y .••w._.=v_w...•. •.•i - tintri TaDISh Y-10 if an Subrrattati = Mt ;alattS! sweat •s*esrrtisErr% P a,Cra ta# c1.0 tat Marital atzD sTi Yt Ct ICeta4 • • ra•fTes Rtl Yi°'i 1l3 EZ » ,Ranp a:W.5 Ices• -K?.!�:• IK+VI]Ye fwf+tl''I owe emit slefi1M wee .-'.+arry says r,FSSr..:.r,• t i . ti� X33 :t i rSP,Y 'i1�a3e,.Go.=: 1 ims,i n2nYsi- 6:A..41'ia}4?.^.�'•l u^n ins va.43 .'Sc:+LKt a:74> fs ,5111 t' e:e�,.riwe>Kxx• Hdpaftaifsz .se, ?itto {Iµintow.0 4telt1714 i$Pti- GCl�RtCAY' - - 3 /i3'Af., -aRph. '4 $fl lost antler) a anszai iO.TiW.! raWe t- i* amsus vat; Watt Rd • il!•'O•t :SW/I=a+ Ayala 3. Mt rfexa!• iris i 'o£s:i w`: t,rnA "knot nck'Fila'21.4,18KN! rP.Aev.aps. inAin ° 1R.L,A•r l susisL4g' I ' • Caplet ar MCA -44�f1 y1yd�.t 'MOW five rsfi#•isa*Eefire't!k #trail �wdi Pin r t awa a !two, Irictroarata=;tras Ian r ►or: ang.ts R>rcavatal,t +=car wee;. a4a.stai.430 4r iy:a Yv,aaJa—q ay:Ramap:aaar ;rz: miat !1t c4t rkrrr. a aw astatWgs,� 11 nititee tg {'�'ftre VP NE -s 1•Y•I1/4.:1kf.`.stu t t c.—.% i.ttc l ti tC^ns-lei rk Layout V;r aa4's'tetatf *Oft �li9:.Sa4' 4. 7/atY.e18FAA.Sdi s ri = .1. in, m Sifl sz-i :i9 LIALCOLM FIATS so r*? bet Li; 15%1! Fkliil Ps4F9:4z.i. !r. fifltioltn al'I•r.t sec a&ctriti ib.as ,.qua-..'• ei a insiols.f4l)ra 1' UMMAK6 1 taEi'3''a Parks and Open ace: The proposed sketch Plan application for 32 apartment units would require dedication of the following quantity of parks and open space: Site Dedication Requirement UDC Minimum Dedication 0.05 acre 0.25 acre 0.27 acre TO acres 0.45 acre 30.0 acres 1.52 acre 10.0 acres The dedication requirement for 32 apartment units does not meet the minimum acres required for each classification of park and open space. As the site is not within �/ mile of an existing pocket park in the BEd Town neighborhood, the applicant is proposing to provide a 0.25 acre combined pocket park and detention pond. The neighborhood park, community park and open space dedication requirements are proposed to be satisfied with a fee -in -lieu payment. a ci l Review Use: The proposed apartment buildings are classified as "Multi -family Dwelling" which is an "S — special Review Use" in the 0TR zone district. A Special Review Use application will be required to be processed concurrently with a site flan application (MC 10.7.13 B.1.) Below are the approval criteria for a Special Review Use application (MC 10.7.13 C.9.). 6 1. The proposed use is generally consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Master Plan and all applicable provisions of this UDC and applicable State and Federal regulations; 2 The proposed use is generally consistent with the purpose and intent of the zoning district in which it is located; 3. The proposed use is generally consistent with any applicable use -specific standards set forth in Section 3.2; 4. The proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses in terms of scale, site design, and operating characteristics (hours of operation, traffic generation, lighting, noise, odor, dust, and other external impacts); 5. Any significant adverse impacts anticipated to result from the use will be mitigated or offset to the maximum extent reasonably practicable; 6. Facilities and services (including sewage and waste disposal, water, gas, election, police and fire protection, and streets and transportation, as applicable) will be available to serve the subject property while maintaining adequate levels of service for existing development; 7. Adequate assurances of continuing maintenance have been provided; and 8. Any significant adverse impacts on the natural environment will be mitigated to the maximum extent reasonably practicable. SKETCH PLAN PROCESS Below is the process outlined in Title 10 (UDC) of the Municipal Code for Sketch Plan review. 2. Step 2A (Development Application Submittal - Sketch Plan) Two types of application submittals are required — first, a Sketch Plan, followed by a Preliminary Plat. The Sketch Plan requirements are listed in this Subsection. The Preliminary Plat requirements are listed below as "Step 2B." Applications for Subdivision shall only be accepted for property annexed into the municipality. A Subdivision application cannot be reviewed concurrently with an annexation application. a. Purpose A Sketch Plan represents a generalized land use plan and layout for the area proposed to be included within a subdivision. Sketch Plan is required to allow early, informal evaluation of a proposed subdivision before detailed planning and engineering work has been undertaken and before substantial expenses have been incurred by the applicant. b. Sketch Plan Submittal Requirements A Sketch Plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Community Development Director pursuant to the User's Guide. An Ma Survey shall be prepared and submitted to illustrate the existing conditions on the property and, at a minimum, the Sketch Plan shall contain the following: i. Uses proposed; ii. Intensity or density of uses proposed; 7 iii Location of public and private open space; iv. Drainage Facilities; v. Road, street, and pedestrian networks proposed; and vi. Existing or proposed utilities and public services for the development. c. Staff Review The Community Development Department shall review the Sketch Plan, focusing on standards and criteria of this UDC that are applicable to the proposed development. The Community Development Department shall summarize the results of the review in writing and provide a copy to the applicant. The summary shall include any special information regarding the proposed project, plus an evaluation of the proposal with respect to the current policies of the Town, identifying areas of potential compatibility or conflict with these policies. ,All comments made by the Community Development Department shall not be binding on the Town's consideration of any subsequent application, and are intended only to provide an informal evaluation of the proposed project. d. Meeting to Discuss Sketch Plan At the request of the Community Development Director or applicant, the parties shall meet to discuss the results of the review. The applicant shall be informed of the necessary provisions of this UDC relating to subdivision application, including submittal requirements, required public improvements, design standards, and Development Agreements. The Community Development Director shall inform the applicant whether or not a Planning Commission Review shall be required. e. Planning Commission Review In addition to the staff review the Community Development Director may require that the Sketch Plan be reviewed by the Planning Commission or the applicant may request this review. The staff review summary shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration. All comments made by the Planning Commission shall not be binding on the Town's consideration of any subsequent application, and are intended only to provide an informal evaluation of the proposed project. f. Effect of Review The Sketch Plan is not part of a formal application for approval of a subdivision and any comments made by the Town in reaction to a Sketch Plan shall not be binding on the Town's consideration of any subsequent Preliminary or Final Plat application, nor result in a vested property right under this UDC or State Statute. Since the Sketch Plan is conceptual only, there are no lapse provisions applicable. 8 Hello