HomeMy WebLinkAbout20172344.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 #: 2017-2344 Appeal #: 2008216864 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
R5746486 Stipulated - Approved
Stipulated Value
$437,778 $217,800
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,
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 +Q ALI ATION
WELD COUNTY
Single County Schedule Number 85746486
STIPULATION (As To Tax Year 2011_ Actual Value)
RE PETITION OF : 4060 CR 1, ERIE
NAME: STEPPE DEVELOPMENT LLC
ADDRESS: 6333 APPLE WAY STE 115
LINCOLN, NE 6851635O4
ftetuicrner (s)and theNsid County Assessor hereby enter into this Stipulation
regarding the tax year 2017 valuation of the subject property, and jointly move the Board
ofEqualization to enter its order based on this Stipulation.
Petitioner Es) and Assessor agree and stipulate as follows:
1. The property subject to this Stipulation is described as:
ERI 24869 PT SW4 BEG AT SE COR L1 BLK4 HUNTS 1ST ADD TO ERIE
TO W LN SEC S214.7' E526' N13 I.7' E9/ ' N83' TO BEG (2.5A ANL)
2. The subject property 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 $437,778
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 $217,800
5. The valuation, asestablished 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:
OThe hearing scheduled before the Board of Equalization on (Date) at
(Time) be vacated.
X A hearing has not yet been scheduled before the Board of Equalization.
R5746486
l
DA Ai this 18thday ofJuy2017
I
Petiti . Tor Agent or Attorney
Address:
6333 Apple Way Ste 115
Lincoln, NE 68516-3504
(Assistant) County Attorney fo
Respondent, Weld County Board of
Commissioners
Address:
1150 "O" Street
R.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
Telephone (G02) 473-5311 TTe:(970) 336-7235
Docket Number
StipelSrm
R5746486
County Asse'. sor
Address:
1400 N•17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Telephone: (970) 353-3845 ext. 3697
2
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
Christopher M. Woodruff
Weld County Assessor
1400 N 17th Ave
Greeley, CO 80631
R5746486
2017 5378
STEPPE DEVELOPMENT LLC
6333 APPLE WAY STE 115
LINCOLN, NE 68516-3504
ppappouppar
PROPERTY CLASSIFI
VACANT LAND
Date of Notice: 6/30/2017
Telephone: (970) 400-3650
Fax: (970) 304-6433
Office Hours: 8:00AM — 5:00PM
)Ni. PHYSICAL: LOCATION
ERI 24869 PT SW4 18-1 -68 BEG AT SE COR
Li BLK4 HUNTS 1 ST ADD TO ERIE W TO W LN
SEC 5214/' E526' N131.7' E96' N83' C El
� Vl
D
EG (2.5A M1L}G
4060 COUNTY ROAD 1
ERIE , CO
JUL 1 4 2017
WELD COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
r
ESS R' A C
$6531400 I $437,778
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.c.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 -OFT -AR
PR 207-08/13
R5746486
2017-2344
County Board of Equalization Hearings will be held from
July 24th through August 4th at 1150 0 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 a t, 4225
Online: http://www.comeld.co,us/apps/oboe/
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.S.
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 District Court
1313 Sherman Street, Room 315 Contact the District Court in the County
Denver, CO 80203 where the property is located. See your
(303) 866-5880 local telephone book for the address and
ww .doia.colorado.govfbaa telephone number.
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, 9-1-120( , C.R.S.
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.)
$ /0e40a.
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
installed cost, a ppr y isa 1, - tc.) 4_
Q*4uLth ' r a gm
n97� Sri it
Jkci-a 'fii'Qlc
I, the undened owner or agent1 of the property identified above, affirm that the statements contained herein
and • an, ..ttachme4 s hereto are true and complete.
Signs
t
Email Address
q'971≤1 hv3
Telephone Number Date
lahemegI, eifiei
I Attach letter of authorization signed by property owner.
(kitt
G h1tG
kcte
16-DPT-AR
PT -AR
PR 207-08/13
R5746486
TOWN OF ERIE
BOARD OF TRUSTEE AGENDA ITEM
Board Meeting Date: November 10, 2015
SUBJECT: GENERAL BUSINESS:
CODE REVIEW:
PURPOSE:
DEPARTMENT:
PRESENTER:
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
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: See Attachments for Staff Review Memos
PLANNING OMMISSION:
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
Location:
4060 . County Line Road is located on t
Bacolrr° Street in Old own.
le no
heast corner of
Existing Conditions within the Sketch Plan Area:
Zoning:
Project Size:
Existing Use:
OTR
d Town Residential
2.73 Acres
Vacant (sate previously used as a concre
Adjacent Land-Use/Zoning:
eh
County Line Road ane
siness)
ris 1-'�-..._ _'yam :.. yy ��.}rGi_ :C -.vim _
` - tart '"i-
- A CY V' ''F h7YY—_c... _ ; -u* <.� .t - _::r�'•K i :r
2' :
f"�a _ f%r � i _
F /,
JfJ S f _ �.^
,✓ -�' f f. iJ
w _S tS ,
_wk.
1''I
iu��� v• t iJ
--Z i-c*:. Y? ` 'T _:
��(\(\//��^f��J -a.,ry t. 7y
'
Oi
"- S1X' 2'z"`yiv-. r:5�i F.:� 5 =—��`'YfYJ 'e'
'�T¢��f
�"�r
�
L
l�S �1n �r=f?
_ f}`• ♦ '_r �=��{�- K%'3ie tw
'.�" 'V �L�i�ie�Svz
- _ r`: 3 .y- `3=
E'^.l.rM1t—"1`V �V' l "1-��,
•
I1p��\\\1141'{�'ei1
Y V
i37, -,--.Y
ai )�[" x+� n
}+'�
_ i �:i-
V' i`-n J-_.. i .T ..-s yl i+rYiG-j Y�i J �.'��� %�? '>-. A xiV� '%%a --j-.
.. .. ?.-. .p. 4 a S`
JJ V
-/:�}j/ _ 1r
Nir _� 5%F_:. -44-t i�'iTFV J-.=:SL.....,„.„........,..n,..„,,,,,,..
•.i/_...1(YL—K {' f-
Old
Town Single
l�amil
Residential
RT
OTR
o Old
Town
Residential
i
=
g
y
S'v'
H
UT
®d
l
Town
Single
Famuly
v
Res i
den�
rual
A
OTR
o '-�.
�ld
Tovvn
iR
esuden
v
ial
v
®
OTR
— Old
Town
Old
Town
— Single
Family
Residential
l
6: S T
residential
L o
Business
Exploring
Si
Vacant
n
ng
ie
Family
Warehouse
Minds
Resident
Pay
Building
Care
Center
aT
2
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION:
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 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 Review Use" in the OTR zone district.
Sketch Plan Development Data:
• Sketch Plan Area:
2.73 acres
• Proposed Residential Apartment Development:
o 40 apartment units proposed.
o Apartments are a Special Review Use in the OTR 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 story 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 side 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.
Parks and Open Space:
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
• Pocket Park:
• Neighborhood Park:
• Community Park:
• Open Space:
0.06 acre
0.34 acre
0.56 acre
1.90 acre
UDC Minimum Dedication
0.25 acre
7.0 acres
30.0 acres
10.0 acres
3
The dedication requirement for 40 apartment units does not meet the minimum acres
required for each classification of park and open space. The applicant is proposing to
provide a 0.25 acre combined pocket park and detention pond. The other dedication
requirements are proposed to be satisfied with a fee -in -lieu payment.
Compliance with Town of Erie Comprehensive Plan:
The Land Use designation on the 2005
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 14.65 dwelling
units per acre; the Comprehensive Plan looks at the
gross density of entire neighborhood.
Compliance with Municipal Code Title 10 (UDC)
OTR — Old Town Residential Zoning District:
Town 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.
OTR — Old 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 infill development." Although staff is supportive of a
higher density housing option on this site as infill 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 11/2 level (split-level) single family homes. Pleaser
reference the map attachment showing the immediate adjacent home heights. Staff would
prefer to see a higher density housing product in smaller massed building sizes and height
that would better match the height, bulk and historic architectural characteristics found
throughout the Old Town neighborhood.
In MC 10, Table 4-1: Dimensional and Density Standards Table, the maximum multi -family
density allowed in the OTR zone district is 16 dwelling units per acre. The Sketch Plan
proposes 40 dwelling units on 2.73 acres which equals 14.65 dwelling units per acre; this is
within the maximum density allowed; however the application does not meet the required
minimum lot standards.
The Dimensional and Density Standards Table also includes Minimum Lot Standards - Net
Area requirements for the site. The net area is the minimum size of the lot required based on
the number of dwelling units proposed; it does not include tracts and right of way. Per the
Municipal Code, each dwelling unit requires 3,000 square feet of lot area. The Sketch Plan
proposal for 40 units on 2.73 acres does not meet the minimum net lot area requirement.
Without dedication of right of way or tracts the 2.73 gross acres of the property would yield a
4
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 " _
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 communityeat-large.
This review process is intended to provide assurance to the community that such uses wilt
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 uvith
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 the
approval criteria fora Special Review Use (MC 10.7.13 .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 Infill 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 Hi., 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
S
density housing option on this site as infill 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 I story and I 1/2 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 'i e
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 Balcolm 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
. 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 - 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;
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
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 Hail, 645 Holbrook, Erie, 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.
II. ROLL CALL
Commissioner Bottenhorn - Excused Commissioner Fraser - Excused
Commissioner Burgard -- Present Commissioner Gippe - Present
Commissioner Campbell a Present Commissioner Harrison - Present
Commissioner Kemp - Present
Staff Present R. Martin Ostholthoff, Community Development Director;
Deborah Bachelder, Senior Planner;
Todd Bjerkaas, Senior Planner; and
Hallie Sawyer, Secretary to the Commission
III. APPROVAL OF_THE AGENDA
Commissioner Campbell moved to approve the October 21, 2015, Regular Meeting Agenda as
submitted. The motion, seconded by Commissioner Lippe, carried with all voting in favor thereof.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. Minutes from the October 7, 2015, Regular Meeting.
Commissioner Gippe moved to approve the October 7, 2015, 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.)
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 P'15-33, 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 S. 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 future is that projected.
Chairman Bottenhorn 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 Rock Church at 710 Austin
Avenue, Suite 200. The motion, seconded by Commissioner Harrison, carried with all voting in favor
thereof.
.•-
._.: • ...
2. Public Hearing — 710 Austin Avenue, 1g Amendment
Purpose: Consideration of the Site Plan Amendment
Request: Consideration 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
Erie, County Of Weld, State Of Colorado.
Location: 710 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
Erie, 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 item 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.
Toro 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, T., presented
their concept for two apartment buildings between two and three stories in height that would house 40
apartment units.
2
Erie 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 hse 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 -plea buildings world fit better; apartments don't need
garages; agreement project is out of character; three stories is to high; trafficproblems; 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 he smaller; County Line access and the
need for an environmental study.
VIII. STAFF REPORTS (This agenda items is reserved for specific items from Staff requiring Commission direction or just
relaying important information.)
None.
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 he 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,rn.
Respectfully Submitted, Town of Erie Planning Commission
By: i
By:
Hallie S. Sawyer, Secretary Anthony A. Burgard, Vice Chair
3
TOWN OF ERIE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING
June 14, 2016
SUBJECT:
CODE:
P URPOSE:
DEPARTM ENT:
P RESENTER:
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.
P LANNING COMMISSION:
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
Location:
4060 l _ . County Line Road is located on the northeast corner of E. Coun
and Balcolm Street in Old Town.
L
y
_o
ne Road
ekl
jr •
a a d•
Life
ty .
N'
Vilna
i q s
- I '4
Traw::: i ; :
$i:
,'414.rbliostr-tralrattf ...'2212
a • • YI A v
1
ttliatar
p
t
•
o
Existing Conditions within th
Sketch Nan Are
a°
a
Zoning: OTR — Town Residential
Project Size: 2.73 Acres
Exustung Use: Vacant (site previously used as a concrete business)
d4: cent Land-Use/Zoning:
LA
D U S
E
ZONING
. e(iw -.
_. -} ,zia ,f,s --a- .=
OTR
— Old
Town
Residential
Old
Town
Single
Family
Residential
NORTH
—
Old
Town
— Single
Family
Residential
OTR
— Old
Town
Residential
S.
U
T
HI
OTR
— Old
Town
Residential
Old
Town
— Single
Family
Residential
EAST
WEST
B -
Business
Exploring
Minds
Day Care
Center
Single
Vacant
II _ amily
Warehouse
Residenii
Building
2
PREVIOUS SKETCH PLAN REVIEW:
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.
Previous Sketch Plan Submittal
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 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION .3 UPDATED 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 Development Data:
• 2.25 acre Lot Size after Street Right of Way Dedications
• 4 apartment building structures; 8 units per building.
• 32 total apartment units.
3
r. .F ` ..l •Mkm v.
A ..i %" ¢:r •
..
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.
Updated Sketch Plan Submittal
714
�; per,• i.-
a fit CITarnat:O tldio.veirAt rttWatoto wttater
PiCLUOCCLIMata 2�fl tl re re 4-.4
A4Wt4b4 re•Y C$14i ROM
AFtrA.'fJMH ]W��t
.a.n iiPar4 t1at a ia:
frrinvezz wargaciattr; Ng; MUM)
CW.4.114rr gykA tL-
c
�1tfC'7+J.t �ta4'$iE'Yk:1IltUYff11!�At #f '>t1C' OvtAh
.F.erkY y i e�a3'r�f• -;k, G#A+ti• dale• igr4 tit
WWI tEr 1'?. atrt4.!AWE aV%trCdr'4eri4
h1:Y$6t;. t'tLt{;Lvti -..°olio f',ftt'.:t+ ssm, ct
bi"FS itig Alt: Ca r.A CIF. A41:
*w,tap
14TOW
AC h y..reatu
arena tacks .. f...itat..aw ISA
"vs n.sr
r .afitsfrI fc,i j*' **t1M«a`-`* itiot en. bumwiwes.kies two it
li?iyiLiTl ivtflT'( "W r KI;I PITtla'.YrOliwesire prnaj
'J:+Tir ir'irok0c ?....h .: t..ttA'i!4i.:ina..y YA 'WigiTat:T
,MC'brii.SraTaYrzng.4..vAri('-irl.yxgr.. NWY:.rrrnsx, trrr E.
*tat J1 ra1rw'ratiiFriq'tgi.ii.nr1Y+7r'PPF MUM )t1t•T0lf14,!TIL ,Ifi9N
ke921 .:1!:,IfenIt
sift.
TaIS
T -'t mel•a
ow e = •
ww.ttkdioxin%f
s i :In1Fom trM41M
.i V. .-P. •ttf 114AI.Ar t:i.
flfS fL�pR.li.,lL. 47r4ijXI
'rs.�t.e�e.li�«y�y, es Et1ikittta obli
/w'1.Fi.i..w�xV ' • 4..:
n ne#,s W fSii.f/e4{e1atiewth!fl r.CL o:0S
aliitlr.ttamw I`tR' ita Iy.It;,imst;•k:ar?'.R
*...� * Y ari+r:+i+t+t:b i'twMJ Smi noa tai
Js4fTfi 'rii utO!tkatn! 3*1Ati.•." _'.
sxi�tt'e.:.'l.�;m
S*.t 4SS O44,04NE5tS$ Y.a.µeklEttaDISI Ir,trlita3'l Prfa^bets
hilkta
tziedt ;44.J;tt. ia4sit4.V'4$ x 4.:1AttatM2'44$t ry t$,4EN.W*.R tertawS S
sptaAPSCe. eTegrE.-.'i!r QYSFE MU Sl M,.':
lYM ilger- R E nc7
Yih Yilf(r{a tr HKLti'. pvivt YKV VL .FHr'tl:. t•f.
4
1G
cf1,t
vn��c
SITE GONE.=t 4
t I
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.
IU! Tht7
[ k1 fittA{IS('tti.W.20
"t' ANI VC.RX rW.i i:%
re: oXSMSII9 11: l.`Mani
wit:I ` MAX EC I:: i83
irr `Mr(Slttilh: A.`�>F! iX1•1
.r+*tgtneriAVOI rein
PRILLIMMOW
*ATE 00.14IPT
Compliance with Municipal Code Title 10 (UDC) OTR ® Old Town Residential
Zoning District:
Town 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 o Old 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 infill 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.
3. 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.
2. 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 'i 0.6.6E.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
Updated Sketch Plan Submittal - Alternative Parking Layout
1,7
as
'"$:C.?
1; 4if
. +s�'ti�f'-sceiea
}�. { I3taV `�.
sjOr ttfi t!i a tsaiitaalaS *SW= p cy !wet
W'.ti.Ct OitO7'e!1iiyltVDOAST-N.1044 taaVaXS
nalett[$a1fl'4i1,71.;i.GRCW'r.Y+TL1t':r€i€.&tfl.. Aiit $
M t(N4TKq't4RY:MA iat.41CTtiW Pi' TEL is cr441i f
00.e.Xa•
.
.1/H a�101afi'}nom
Itt73ngtO ACGIDES DNk1CNV PYTSYJD laa.1'itnC
WL !Stilt. arSHEi11GT! D
zgs- 11 GlPtraCALEL f1�YQ�Qt ct ♦LaFiv PORN VI
CTRfni t + ^7]1`YM!'w at ± i i�T�.,Y i.tr'
iYl1T'. �ii'y��, � liJ.13.?bFi'FAr+ .. '..—i_ ��'
s+ 060:At twig -4•'Sfflili'lnJe .W3 0g $7
Fit *ARMS
WI anti. &*Q ibt.1te11O62 AAk1 Cazikovit pt 14 t r
elrit111
Its
iF2
AST.
tt;
-..-..... w• -•.r
— S•f
h•
rrot
Sit allea;mal
t kflt! MIX
IIMM
1..3 Wild
?I:
its
6a11Ci,JA ASTS CIAI S aurAIMISINTarSa CTrf i realSOO St serstbridEltt WOOS' Qv -tor Is_
T2At•'.•WR t 1P.t+.'Ta t Pnt FY *MIX MEM,*
P•ta�APHd. kK@Y/tl TilM(D LW COl6SY'Ot
VitD *TAIL Q+ CCutlatADO.
r]KkEB
r>< .1 is
71'OTX n a.
tx istive retxn
1141 Wd•ni• W lH
Y,oira0007M ,t[311.1wYllaratl•{YI
•ti5&1tid intttJlal tetfA.
tell ii!%Wwc amok*. wail it nowt ,CutYY�YYyyMM�tI,,'Op.J113lY:tdac 'ttr Ri!I M1W
sotaszaraKIL 74 Malt tW SI*'I M?1aa:a 441 IN) Y MUS( or:44 g."% tat La Y:1° ran
RCN /L{Mt r:'
i M TIYX n•nr.CCan Cat' MIlaztt MI .046/. OfPIlter. a'CL:YC1'f%t• r'
h*CV4•=t L44 IMVk41st nano k l W 6414 MOW •044 ii+6: • CIO fa*.
t 04014. 1415 Phi F.'.l dfr We !act lkl•14Y.IlIMitt•rY.icCtkiTerlfilti4r+
ointor
r:Mf tartibiT
Met NC
6stC.n APIA
Stat. Fr
Oc:1tC 11.:•.C.S1
Pt;1Sp4 f
1Q{M9
I
hatNtWk,t.CF... .
•:5'Atlas i atDt3:ic3r
Oa•!I! 4cA 3 . St; _
'4iaf4D4:k'SOS' 9
r: Lett tirs salt *tad "
r..tt.d.r•ir'--'--- mman
*ST. a ef.n.iiida]iyw. Sian Ps.
Si•gi iniFeW ifew/1RJai a.oll-iletio
a•'••itbira. ISSN, MY*• IS IC lope aA
iiesitsaut tat 00.1141 jinn. .tlr+rto.
— +S a4 Ga.Eghs.ia' I il.►a:ui
• iLr4a H te ••.i Sr N \Y t.t.—• LWy .L U.S
...•...v. • r...a.-.
1Mu:Y1U a{YWIYkel{•t• 11•'424&4tt iOS* aka oak
•4a11a tO OrY • TMVJ1A,;bHRRS't.1MIJId% Paa 77!C+Nr:uSY
aa.c4WW t NM1W*►IrMiti*34 turf WtimemR bfl*.isingi 7h
*routevstlO.a* u2tt mum• uAsirosssitriskritraiata slim win
art•• Inlet
"IS UallaMlikatti
f. 3AMt at. H• 6• ILW-4c ittlt `I *'-ti .ila b !'Y was
16611.06r -000011,2 ltifLA'�S>A � `1Mt JYuP. ` t S'
:Arsinvto t t+1l.:
h Stasc!'Y�meN tit Wirt( RC t airtra vrs i1SIYeZA CAI to
tt lw•A
a it as r:
to
tin 16•TY!
BALCOLM FLATS
GI
si 9p
lu 8
rt
o aC
De
S't
U W'
W
fslkt
ttltutx Stir r2aa
rte, Ija
Bt 35
.InV5 [. n (i(�, k
!bast
trt.HA M40z19
PKELTUINARY
SITE CONCEPT 7a
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 10.7.13 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 de velopmen t!
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 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.
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
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
6:30 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.
IL 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 Osthoithoff, Community Development Director;
Deborah Bachelder, Senior Planner; and
Hallie 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 11312016, Regular Meeting,
Commissioner Gippe moved to approve the May 18, 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 — the plan for 70+ spaces or the plan with green space.
Both plans exceed the minimum requirement for parking for the project.
Tom 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 and quality 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 Balcolm; 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 multifamily; 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 15m. 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:
Hailie S. Sawyer, Secretary J. Eric Bottenhort, Chair
2
TOWN OF ERIE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING
June 14, 2016
SUBJECT: GENERAL BUSINESS:
Sketch Plan Review of a Proposed Apartment
Development at 4060 East County Line Road.
CODE: Erie Municipal Code, Title 10
PURPOSE: Review of the revised Sketch Plan for 32
apartment units at 4060 East County Line Road,
DEPARTMENT: Community Development Department
PRESENTER: Deborah Bachelder AICP, Senior Planner
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: See Attachments for Staff Review Memo.
PLANNING COMMISSION:
Planning Commission reviewed and commented
on the Sketch Plan application at their June 1,
2016 meeting; see Attachments for Draft Planning
Commission Minutes.
SUMMARY A►ND BACKGROUND OF SUBJECT MATTER
Owner: Steppe Development, LLD
Michael Green & Tom Beckius
6333 Apples Way, Suite 115
Lincoln, Nebraska 68516
1
http:ilerie•granicus.com/MediaPlaver,php?view id=9&clip id=1537
Ric
Se. 1,f, 2A kat pet Ihifkkeskttthhj L41t
wptiakei wee rerretv
gpfewi UP �� dwyua/ at md,
,,,,ottvaremf ta it Cam he Povedi
0
ocat�on
4060 Ea County lone Road is boa
and Balcolni Street on 0 d Town.
ed on the non
least corner of E. County Lone Road
Existing Conditins ithin the Sketch P
an re a:
7onmg: OTR — Odd own Resdential
Project Size: 2/3 Acres
Existing ,,sea Vacant (site previous
Adjacent
land=Use/Zonng
y used as a concrete business)
, s•.r_ -v 3 '.
.''mac—
70
5
5.
I N
G r;- --`5 :-Y_ s7o- f.tr --. r _ -7-4•'-...;..
- '.v? ....
L A
� I
U cS�'rJ_•-G."/G
ti .cam 4.•tf "`ti
SY'� _ �iF $!S ! r o�. _y�'
N nn -E
..
`
.. _ -
Old
Town
Single
Family
6Residentoal
N
RTH
O
RR o Old
Town
Residential
-
SOUTH
QTR
- Old
Town
Reside
*II
I
own
- single
II
amoly
Reside
nt
al
i iUUal
Old
Town
soy
Family
Resident
al
I ST
O T
R - Old
Town
Resodenflal
e
ogle
T\fEST
B m
Business
Exploring
Minds
Day Care
Center
single
Vacant
Family
Warrehouse
Resident
Building
2
PREVIOUS SKETCH PLAN
f<
EVIE
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.
revious Sketch
n Submittal
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 SPECIFIC DEVELOPME T INFORMATI
UPDTED 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 Development Data:
® 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.
Updated Sketch Plan Submittal
c`tza
pcgoi
ekS>e
sifdi� 5-
I;rT4. i lawat4 v1vrtic
swit
to
fattaMI?sid7N' IM.A P)iikalawWITI 4iralttM,Th
rh."Ia IIfl1t4t0.D
i
ciantfn
teritlstitt, sa rere...+.i-s.;4,n. 84 tv=#&ktrr picks tst3
Niwan. col LI <-
5A
IITTS
'il Wi. V f&
F. •.'F �i
s ••x209
i..ltgerret,t
014.3.1=-01" it Y.* /YA15lnklitra iL- 04.441
�hTtT Wtat t4!> .7,r..Mir•trta FtVi1WV fF
. S3'c%tl'.ifTf;girttillartICUSN=Or!740M14
p1li4YYJ"L4'� te4c . 4. 0.0%-O !fl.2 'MAW et
15444
- - t+iwie.u'l�strsl!n.;'(r o. A•- 4aari'•w
_y; per• x
�d-SC'yriai w..sx Vat
rr Uri
fiasd.6. uwiitiowat+.RY.*$ k4..,4,..
- iur i:wtirrn r dirr5
,4144414"414 441w41.44410.444.4'
rw«r.�zai, ".iweWa44.0*
I, i4i�r +.+'cis;.urtr.'-04,40a2 aixrx is s;�uzi'e sri. i[icCsiie
144444.47444X7 fl r is Fin 444FI Liiihi5SN'14,44%',{>G'.rAMONrn..T4114444,4
ire 41t$400- •
t i g.tr4CIE.3410,04 .Y'u6_5:Tii4 aia kil'r tii iirNl':1if91titi ,4. CrtarC
F.: tystr ct remcri r.csa:illy4"'µ.44.414 rowneofra V'.:I::rrrwra r YCF\Wt
I l#TLOe4ei)i 111.1W4'. li:i' 41.'^ 4.111565 INIK`airt%*WS ' '4'iiL7 Crµi%1
T
Valeta
t*tio47dK km,*
i'1'P4'ei�
4.1 MAUI
it —t NMI
410601
T a aWaatt:
INCA rr t61*s.1U SktL
PirIMYsla at34lz .
R14$_?1 UA3itmiltX.!55Sk'h"'"L191Aamitt flt ct t itix Jret
twasz4:.iGaitrAidiNil ita lloWittnimlanl
....:..yaw.�ar:.wxwxeaicxwn u.,.rrxa...r
44MrWWI. Af si•il%l134i l+il0•'iarelirt
4sya�.4Y. 4044•.flls.rt a44tsw'Wlifiaw*r*Irerxw4a�!
.L4i: iaiaai«ra:6u.:a•iuiwax- ..
?' r•rNsr.'us,ts?•i*...1tTM414v7i*Illi aN?:1 Yrirl 444rAl
eesyatmi+ a41-a^'aRsat.44tlatralle ;raf.►Alc; **SOS
Nd.Ai{ st. SS413A+'^h"i'.d';t u• siIS i 06:aaMiltilti at.,Inrow. .14:
sham 11/4 Tg414Ta91r,;!}iPYn�a�1,Mlai' Dipo?P l„Rar x4,4..ig1 µ.pr
iiinstralperaislea i6HaciHR.$t
wax sluta. .tWHN f{iemit .i.:'eh� f ; ra it 0014**CLl,w:6.ii4t
aWtftr,44`etbgetak`•1:1ri':ris::c,43alF0***4 41Wiltiik4i*W
Issenassi _
Elm touL'i
i
:.0
nu unru
arrr*
i..:io lie..i7vf^
A' W.L.Ln.M1
it tt
RM1it'1 N4it'4Af ri.,T.5
gi tai PEAS Ni i
,4r2n.'sl PEAS r�i1�t
nv F>Ef°141Ntr5 i9t?AYi
Ere 5rr �A3p'W1e� IAN.l2NABY
ye, Nut, el 'AVM Mi'kS4.
Strecoma rr7
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 UDR land use designation is
proposed as 14.23 dwelling units per acre; the
Comprehensive Plan looks at the gross density of
entire neighborhood.
Compliance with Municipal Code Title 10 (U` rC) TR a Old Town Residential
ri
oiling District:
Town staff has reviewed the proposed Sketch Plan for compliance with the 0TR —
Old Town Residential zoning of the property and has provided the applicant with
detailed comments in the attached memo.
4
OTR — Old 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 infill 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.
3. 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.
2. 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 m 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
Updated Sketch Plan Submittal - Alternative Parking Layout
rig
^fk
Cr.
WWsiottiecei.'R• ;*titaiittioet.Es.4 C413.ter
Misty zierr Pt;:turiatI.J[.r'C R{atRtr 6 puts
/,p-ftta :►n M1L,'.7iA'n¢N Tatman* tem 1a74l:i
3.1J�i'.A1ATCTJds.ka3At:61CT 4 11111Th 152AR't:4*.
eltifdaPdell
►pMsIMtWMZU'gag.CiML1tminri'*:Mi7'Oft ` iitf
11.01ANt P4100spl ti LLt /Wil iL.4:C+cFic035.v
eagercDRaUrinat
-'0916214.1 4 c4585L'{I f# itF'Ji: 14164'03
13114S,17tS5
411}1.40sgtitifffAleitgot44gPseldr.3 rN•••MM{Fi r313M}P4.7
ltl 6.51.11 tat.at..
iid
to 501.11fi.atr6:EA4E NJ45 .'x15tc-C $M.A4td
kt.iv5.tI *C slvei t lexi, tkiils ttire• SttAias it.
Tooke a:rr •rrotk+ix ca r1car C! ttt 4Th
t t * .1tt t6�rr trAWC.4J fj55t. Cs ecre na
' wan. •stork&atiads n.-
Ttntotim
sit.tst
•.eTi tl:• <r•'a.flot I.UrN.• MLwkk. 2 •
e4 i Lwt•M.•ra4:tt.i
iiii.t ailmir idwi 4i011145sYe.iiaeibte4-55: *tqjtn,
!OAS C0474) 1106034Thtribtl'in'fb aWii w ,.ire'+-ic:#3c+r
Rat ILINI0URP
.1 Matr. •w=lt cumin 511Millatt I.4241ry,L IlltAtt!q,T iCIC',i.'Ct C..ifkfi
:h. isjt!r tt **Id watt Clew:=1P Y$- I1:l9 rawri elut 4` fll.
1: •P'3'•rr.'.w15:rhot hht5.?j`.mlPriitifi:'Y?c+rntrE3'%Vrcn.+sihrotti4^t+icI+•Eii'
rVfV.T (FtEV�
usittiftiitutflrtotititit
EttintiOieW
tit MI
q.•.n.• t+•nfHwrrrlfi 4.+....
.. .•..... 4ae_p":St
fl Y 19044*S1$aIrttt PRIMA t0404II r:'Mr:ea
1.11,55f1ItE 'C'
*stN,Jarsit4iiktt?t t•WICK
"MO a-JWP.ma i•- treat icniittltO Iattidt 4d.W]CMua WO:WI
rw,:tOlt+tsrt:tta vy:nrn
tiff tE.i.N�5"w�Y.c•t'+ s.p PcsstP 5fl4xn'7.•Cf�r ag^
M ""CM.TrroulrKAit.t.M 4l na•91fs*tMY1ttSc1if9X%N1TWSt
M.�kc1MA`i. -'
IraffiR WSP.I(4.e4 i0' Pl(WyrV
"teammate tyyIt1g:9MT Ynf flmisottY.''n truIrti. 1v^.. c-.i* i# oliet k,.*t&t&
Ma64pIt14 C tr3`JM. WM-Mt DC- CRttStrc xlti]1_tS.•G'1Ut
yrr F
hit 13•1-a
Sits
Met .i 4vr.di`Mt Sp
sai
Mir! J=
esontedthitth alp =It I
U,ALCOL\t CLA.t
I'IIt*..'AAN S tSA:
XI3
*feu WTI frititAtt ilatbpt
.#0414ririt vii ?!s6
err WM* 1t` nz
PREIMIPLAk 1
CONCEPT
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
Pocket Park:
* Neighborhood Park:
• Community Park:
Open Space:
0.05 acre
0.27 acre
0.45 acre
1.52 acre
UDC Minimum Dedication
0.25 acre
7.0 acres
30.0 acres
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 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 10.7.13 BA .)
Below are the approval criteria for a Special Review Use application (MC 10.7.13 0.9.).
b
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 - 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
ASketch 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
ASketch 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
in. 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