Silo Subdivision Page 2 Preliminary Plan/PUD

Transcription

1 MEMO To: Planning Commission From: Paul Rayl, Planning Manager Date: November 18, 2016 Subject: Silo Subdivision (formerly known as Weems Neighborhood a.k.a. HeartEye Village) Supplemental information as requested by Planning Commission at the October 25, 2016 Planning Commission meeting On October 25, 2016, Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary plan and PUD for the Silo Subdivision. At this meeting staff presented the City s findings on the proposed project relative to the Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan. The applicant presented the plan to the Commission. The Planning Commission requested additional information from staff and the applicant to be presented at the public hearing scheduled for Tuesday, November 29, Code Modifications: This additional information included a request for examples of projects in Lafayette with similar Code modifications. Staff reviewed several projects in Lafayette including the adjacent Anna s Farm development. There is not one project in Lafayette that provides an exact comparison to the proposed plan. This plan is very unique to Lafayette by the vary nature of the project design. The plan strives to comply with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation assigned to the property by the Planning Commission in That is a designation of Medium Density Residential. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this land use category as appropriate for a gross density of up to 6 dwelling units/acre. The submitted plan does meet the overall gross density calculations. However, due to the unique nature of the plan, including the clustering of residential units into nodes to preserve open areas, transitioning from compact, multi-family development next to future commercial areas on the properties eastern boundary to larger single-family on the west side of the property, there are pockets where the net density is higher. Clustering development allows for more efficient use of land and infrastructure and reduces the negative affects of sprawl related to large lot development. Approximately 38 acres or 48% of the site is proposed to remain as park, trail, or open area both public and privately maintained. Staff found examples of other developments in Lafayette that have requested and received multiple modifications from the Code through the required PUD process for all residential developments.

2 The Anna s Farm PUD was approved with a minimum lot size of 1,150 square feet for multi-family, included 0 to 6 front setbacks, a maximum lot coverage of 86% for multi-family, 54% for single-family and 60% for duplex, and a maximum height of 40 feet for multi-family and 32 feet for single-family. The Coal Creek Village PUD includes minimum lot sizes below 1,100 square feet, 12 front setbacks, lot coverage of 60% for multi-family, 50% for duplex and 40% for single-family, and a maximum height of 35 feet. The Simpson Old Town project included a minimum lot size of 895 square feet, 5 front setbacks, 0 rear setbacks, maximum lot coverage exceeding 60% and building height of 35 feet. The Josephine Commons development included a 1,200 square foot minimum lot size for multi-family and 1,850 square foot for duplex units, a 45 maximum height for the multi-family portion of the development, a lot coverage of 70% for multi-family, 60% for duplex and 50% for single family. The Indian Peaks Hedgerow development at the southeast corner of Baseline and 95 th includes minimum lot sizes of 1,413 square feet, 4 front setbacks, 70% lot coverage and 35 maximum heights. The City has approved multi-family developments with height modifications up to and greater than 45 feet. The applicant has indicated the height modification is necessary for taller first floor heights to accommodate possible commercial uses within the mixed use, multi-family buildings. At sketch plan staff recommended that within the high density multifamily and mixed use portions of the development, buildings shall not exceed 3 stories in height. The height modifications requested in the preliminary plan include restricting all residential and mixed use structures to no greater than 3 stories. The Planning Commission inquired about other buildings in Lafayette that exceed maximum height allowances that were approved through the PUD process. The following list includes several buildings that exceed height requirements as approved by the Planning Commission and City Council: Exempla Good Samaritan Medical Center 99 feet. Comprehensive Cancer Center (Exempla Healthcare Campus) 62 feet Lafayette City Center 50 feet Flatirons Community Church 50 feet Lafayette Tech Center - 55 feet Boulder County Mental Health Partners, 1455 Dixon Street 45 feet Xtreme Altitude Gymanstics 41 feet Prasanna Apartments (Luna Bella) at SoLa 38 feet The applicant has revised their submittal to include approval of a maximum height of 55 feet for the proposed Silo located within the Central Park. This is a reduction of 10 feet from the original request of 65 feet. Silo Subdivision Page 2 Preliminary Plan/PUD

3 In addition to the modification of the height of the proposed Silo from 65 feet to 55 feet, the applicant has also requested consideration from the Planning Commission regarding condition 1m dealing with off-street parking for those lots facing onto a green without street frontage. The applicant believes the proposed parking plan will provide adequate parking as designed. The adjacent Anna s Farm development also has a similar situation where there are lots facing the greens with no street frontage. Most of these lots have 2-car garages so a minimum of 2 off-street parking spaces are provided. Staff has not heard from residents of Anna s Farm that there is a parking problem within their subdivision and that the City made a mistake in approving the parking for Anna s Farm. Staff still believes a minimum of 2 offstreet parking spaces should be provided for the interior lots similar to the situation in Anna s Farm. The applicant has also included an additional request to extend the 90 day timeline that corresponds with submittal of a final plan after approval of a preliminary plan. If the preliminary plan/pud is approved, the applicant is requesting that approval be good for 150 days before submittal of a final plan is required. This is a Code modification that has been approved by the Planning Commission in the past. Staff understands the complexity of a larger project such as the subdivision proposed. Staff supports the request for extending the deadline to submit a final plan to 150 days if the preliminary plan/pud is approved. As illustrated, there are many projects approved by the Planning Commission and City Council with multiple modifications to the Code in keeping with the intent of the PUD requirement to promote the most beneficial and creative development of the land. A PUD permits greater flexibility in design by having the effect of overlaying the existing zoning district and thereby adding to and modifying the existing zoning regulations. This allows for unique developments that provide a variety of housing choices for residents as well as more efficient use of the land and infrastructure. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment: The Planning Commission also requested additional information on previous land use amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. The following amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map have occurred over the past 5 years. In 2016 the Planning Commission and City Council approved changes to the Land Use designation for several parcels that had previously been designated IGA Rural Preservation. When the IGA with Erie expired the land use designation was no longer applicable. The land use map was amended to include both Agricultural and Low Density Residential Land Use classification for the designated parcels. In 2016 the Planning Commission and City Council also approved a change to the land use designation for a 1.7 acre piece located at the northeast corner of Public Road and Old Laramie Trail that is part of the Coal Creek Village Subdivision PUD. This piece had originally Silo Subdivision Page 3 Preliminary Plan/PUD

4 been designated as Commercial with the original approval of the PUD to support mixed use. Ultimately the neighborhood felt residential was more appropriate at this location and the land use classification was amended from Commercial to Medium Density Residential for the development of townhomes. In 2014 the Planning Commission and City Council approved an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for a portion of the Trails at Coal Creek Subdivision. This included changing approximately 10 acres designated as Commercial to Medium Density Residential, and approximately 20 acres from Medium Density Residential to Open Space. In 2013 there were several amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use map in conjunction with the 2013 Comprehensive Plan Technical Update and included the subject property. Prior to expiration of the IGA with Erie, the north 40 acres of the Silo Subdivision was designated Rural Preservation and the south 40 acres was designated Medium Density Residential. After PC workshops and public hearings the Planning Commission and City Council approved the amendment to the land use designation of the north 40 acres of the Silo Subdivision to Medium Density Residential to match the south 40 acres. The 2013 Technical Update to the Comprehensive Plan also included the creation of a new land use designation of Opportunity Parcel to replace Mixed Use. Several parcels that were identified as Mixed Use were designated Opportunity Parcel on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use map. Also in 2013 the City Council and Planning Commission approved a Comprehensive Plan Land Use amendment for the former Immaculate Conception Catholic Church located at 110 S. Roosevelt. The land use designation was changed from High Density Residential to Low Intensity Commercial for the approximately ½ acre site at the southeast corner of Roosevelt Avenue and Simpson Street. In 2012 there were 2 amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The first concerned the lot for Fire Station No. 2 located on Exempla Circle in the Lafayette Corporate Campus adjacent to the Exempla Healthcare Campus. The subject property had an Industrial Land Use designation. This was changed to Public Facility in anticipation of development of Fire Station No. 2. Also in 2012 City Council and Planning Commission approved an amendment to the Coal Creek Village North Subdivision changing the land use designation from Mixed Use to Medium Density Residential. Phasing: The project is intended to be developed in phases starting on the south and moving to the north. The connection to Aspen Ridge Drive and Furrow Way in Anna s Farm would occur as part of Phase 1 as would the street stub to the Domenico property. Phases 3, 4, & 5 are all on the north side of the proposed central park. The preliminary plan submittal Silo Subdivision Page 4 Preliminary Plan/PUD

5 included a construction traffic plan that prohibits the use of Furrow Way for construction access purposes. Streets and Traffic: An updated traffic study was submitted and reviewed by the City Engineer. The study indicates that the connection of Aspen Ridge Drive to Arapahoe Road and the connection of Lucerne between Highway 287 and Aspen Ridge Drive would not be required for the development of Phase 1a and 1b based on proposed traffic volumes. Per the traffic study Aspen Ridge Drive will be extended from its current terminus to the north to the intersection with Street C (Timber Trail) to provide the primary vehicular access to Phase 1. Furrow Way will be the secondary traffic access point to Phase 1a and 1b. The connection to Furrow Way will not occur until after construction is complete on Phase 1a and 1b. Public Transportation: Planning Commission requested ridership numbers for the RTD JUMP that currently services the subject property along Arapahoe Road. It this time it appears there is one boarding in the AM and one alighting in the PM for the JUMP stops adjacent to the Subdivision. The intent of this development, including the proposed parking reductions is to encourage alternative modes of transportation and a mix of uses within the neighborhood that could be made without utilizing a vehicle. The improvements to the bus stops along Arapahoe as recommended by Staff should help to increase ridership as the development is built-out. For the first phase of the development it will probably be easier for residents to catch the DASH route at Aspen Ridge Drive and Diamond Circle if going to Boulder or downtown Lafayette and the Regional L route at 287 and Diamond Circle if going to Denver or Longmont. Public Notification and Comments: Since the October 25, 2016 public meeting, staff has received four ed comments from residents and adjacent property owners regarding the preliminary plan. The majority of the comments expressed concern with existing traffic volumes on Arapahoe Road as well as street connections, the overall density of the project and neighborhood impacts. The comments are attached. The subject property is within the Lafayette Urban Growth Boundary as identified on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Staff believes that concentrating growth within the Comprehensive Plan Urban Growth Boundary of Lafayette is not only desirable, but also meets many of the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. If the Planning Commission would like additional information or clarification about the proposal, staff would be happy to research that information prior to the public hearing and present that information at the public hearing. The recommended conditions of approval have been amended as follows: under the Preliminary Plan/PUD, a modification to Condition 1m for a minimum of 2 off-street parking spaces, Condition No. 2 to not approve the proposed 55 foot tall silo, and Condition No. 22 extending the deadline to submit a final plan to 150 days,. Under the Site Plan/Architectural Review Condition No. 2 requiring each Silo Subdivision Page 5 Preliminary Plan/PUD

6 building permit to show compliance or non-compliance with the solar access provisions of the Architectural Design Guidelines, instead of the PUD. The solar access is being utilized as a justification for the proposed Code modifications but staff is ok with removing the reference to the PUD within that condition since it is part of the site plan/architectural review. AMENDED PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Preliminary Plan/PUD 1. The following PUD modifications are approved for the Silo Subdivision and shall be listed on the plans as approved: a. A reduction in minimum lot size to 2,000 square feet for lots zoned R1, and 1,250 square feet for lots zoned R2 & R3; b. A decrease in the front yard setback to 8 feet for a front porch and 3 feet to green space for lots zoned R1; and to 8 feet for a front porch and 3 feet to green space for lots zoned R2 & T1; c. A decrease in the front yard setback to 11 feet to porch and 6 feet to green space for lots zoned R3; d. A decrease in the rear-yard setback to 1 foot for lots with access from a designated 22 foot wide Lane in the R1, R2, R3 & T1 zones; e. A decrease in the side yard setback from 5 feet to 3 feet for lots zoned R1; f. A decrease in the side yard setback for duplex structures in the R2 zone and townhome structures in the R3 zone to 0 feet between common walls; g. A decrease in the side yard setback for mixed use buildings in the T1 zone to 0 feet between common walls; h. A decrease in the minimum separation between structures in the PUD to 6 feet for lots zoned R1, R2, and R3, and 10 feet for lots zoned T1; i. 60% lot coverage for single-family dwellings in all zones, 75% lot coverage for duplex and townhome dwellings in the R2 & R3 zones, and 80% lot coverage for mixed use and multi-family buildings in the T1 zone; j. An increase in building height to 35 feet to top of the roof for principal structure and 20 feet for accessory structures in the R1, R2 and R3 zones, and 40 feet for principal structures in the T1 zone as measured from the overlot grade. k. A reduction from 25 feet to 0 feet for frontage on a public street for those lots with access from the Silo Metro District maintained private driveways; l. A reduction from 25 feet to 20 feet for frontage on a public street for those lots as indicated on the plan in the R1 & R2 zones and 15 feet in the R3 zone. m. Each single-family, duplex and townhome unit may include 2 off-street parking spaces, on average except for those lots that front onto private green space with no adjacent on-street parking available must have 2 off-street parking spaces. in the garage and 1 on-site visitor parking space. Silo Subdivision Page 6 Preliminary Plan/PUD

7 n. The one required off-street parking space for accessory dwelling units may be waived if the lot has already provided 1 off-street visitor space and has on-street parking available adjacent to the lot. o. A reduction in the amount of required parking spaces for the multi-family units located in the mixed use building of: 1 off-street space per 1 bedroom unit; 1.5 spaces per 2 bedroom unit; and 2 spaces per 3 bedroom unit subject to site plan/architectural review approval. p. A reduction in the minimum parking required for the commercial component of the mixed use of 1 space per 300 square feet of gross floor area subject to site plan/architectural review approval. q. An increase in density for the T1 zoned property to 25 dwelling units per acre. 2. The Code amendment for the observation tower (silo) of feet is not approved. 3. The zoning overlay of the PUD shall be amended to indicate the uses as listed are permitted with approval of a Special Use Review in the T1 and AG zones. 4. If the appropriate Code amendments have not been adopted to allow accessory dwelling units in other zoning districts outside of OTR prior to scheduling the final plan for City Council consideration any reference to accessory dwelling units will have to be removed from the PUD. 5. The subdivision developer shall clearly mark the Driveway access easements as no parking zones with signs and also verify the Metro District will be responsible for removal or towing of any vehicle parked within a driveway access easement. 6. The applicant shall provide a proposed street naming plan for the subdivision prior to the November public hearing in order to allow staff, the Planning Commission and public the opportunity to review. 7. The traffic study shall be updated to include build out of the subdivision including all future connections within the subdivision prior to the November public hearing in order to give staff and the Planning Commission the opportunity to ascertain if the proposed phasing plan is appropriate and that the improvements at Aspen Ridge Drive and Arapahoe Road required for this subdivision are appropriate as shown. 8. The plat shall be amended to include access easement along all streets where sidewalks are proposed outside of the right-of-way. 9. Prior to submittal of the final plan for City Council consideration, the developer shall work with CDOT and RTD to ensure appropriate placement of the shelter improvements and apply for the necessary permits from CDOT for improvements within the right-of-way. 10. The applicant shall work with Xcel to ensure the appropriate easement widths are provided to accommodate the development. 11. The applicant shall address the issues identified by the City Engineer in the memo dated October 14, 2016 prior to the submittal of the final plan. 12. The applicant shall provide written verification from the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District approving the location of the proposed trail within their easement prior to submittal of the final plan for City Council consideration. Silo Subdivision Page 7 Preliminary Plan/PUD

8 13. All tracts proposed to be dedicated to the satisfy public land dedication requirements shall be included as part of the Phase 1 final plat. 14. The landscape plan shall be amended to show the quantity of each street tree proposed in order to ensure that no one species will be planted to exceed the 25% requirement. 15. A hydrozone map, water budget and irrigation plan shall be submitted for the street tree and tree lawn area for staff review and approval prior to submittal of the final plan for City Council consideration. 16. Construction activities shall be timed to ensure they occur away from areas where birds may be nesting during migratory patterns per the conclusions of the Biological Resource Assessment. 17. A copy of the final State approval of the remediation work done to finish capping the well on the property shall be submitted with any future final plan submittal. 18. The CC&R s shall be amended to ensure that the garages are utilized only for the parking of the occupants regular vehicle so as not to overburden the proposed onstreet parking areas with vehicles because the garage is being used for storage. 19. All typographical, clerical and technical errors shall be corrected on the plat document prior to submittal of a final plat for City Council consideration. 20. The applicant shall be responsible for 50% of the costs of the future traffic signal at Arapahoe Road and Aspen Ridge Drive. 21. The building permit allocation for the Silo Subdivision is approved as follows: Year Annual Allocation Any unused permits thereafter until build out 22. The deadline to submit a final plan for the subdivision is extended to 150 days after approval of the preliminary plan/pud. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 1. Approval of Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the subject property to Agricultural, Open Space, HOA Parks, Low Intensity Commercial and Medium Density Residential shall be subject to approval of the preliminary plan/pud. Silo Subdivision Page 8 Preliminary Plan/PUD

9 Rezoning 1. Approval of the rezoning from DR (Developing Resource) to T1/PUD (Transitional Business/Planned Unit Development), R1/PUD (Medium Density Residential/Planned Unit Development), R2/PUD (Single and Two Family Residential/Planned Unit Development), R3/PUD (Multi-family Residential/Planned Unit Development), AG (Agriculture), and P (Public) shall be subject to approval of the preliminary plan/pud and comprehensive plan amendments. Site Plan/Architectural Review 1. No one housing model shall be located next to or across the public street from the same model. 2. Each building permit application shall include information on its compliance or noncompliance with the Site and Architecture Review Design Guidelines an analysis of the PUD requirements for solar access. 3. The landscape plan shall be amended to include the required information including: a) A hydrozone map; b) Water budget worksheet; c) Detailed irrigation plan which should closely align with the proposed water budget; d) A weather sensor in appropriate locations. 4. A detailed fencing plan shall be submitted for staff review and approval which pays particular attention to the interface between the lots and private and public green space and open areas. 5. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan including details for the subdivision as a whole and for the residential units for staff review and approval prior to submitting the final plan for City Council consideration. MOTIONS: Preliminary Plan/PUD Proposed Motion for Approval: The Planning Commission approves this request for Preliminary Plan/PUD approval, subject to staff s recommended conditions, finding that the proposal complies with the requirements for preliminary plan submittal; complies with the PUD criteria; and, complies with the Comprehensive Plan s goals and policies, and land use map. Proposed Motion for Denial: The Planning Commission denies this request for Preliminary Plan/PUD approval finding that the proposal does not comply with preliminary plan requirements; does not meet the PUD criteria; does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan s goals and policies or land use map. Silo Subdivision Page 9 Preliminary Plan/PUD

10 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Proposed Motion for Approval: The Planning Commission recommends approval of this request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, subject to staff s recommended condition, finding that the amendment is complimentary to the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Proposed Motion for Denial: The Planning Commission recommends denial of this request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment finding that the proposal does not comply with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Rezoning Proposed Motion for Approval: The Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning request subject to the recommended conditions, finding that the rezoning complies with the Comprehensive Plan, and the rezoning criteria of the Code. Proposed Motion for Denial: The Planning Commission recommends denial of the rezoning request finding that the criteria for rezoning has not been met and zoning is not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. Site Plan/Architectural Review Proposed Motion for Approval: The Planning Commission recommends approval of this request for Site Plan/Architectural Review, subject to staff s recommended conditions, finding that the plan complies with the requirements for site plan/architectural review submittal; complies with the site plan/architectural review criteria; and the design is compatible with the location and proposed use. Proposed Motion for Denial: The Planning Commission recommends denial of this request for Site Plan/Architectural Review finding that the plan does not comply with the requirements for site plan/architectural review submittal; does not comply with the site plan/architectural review criteria; and the design is incompatible with the location and proposed use. Attachments: Supplemental Information from City Engineer dated November 17, 2016 regarding drainage impacts to Anna s Farm Subdivision Applicant s Supplemental Information and proposed revisions to conditions Proposed street names comments from public Additional Attachment Links PDF of Applicants 10/25 Planning Commission presentation Silo Subdivision Preliminary Plan/PUD Plan Set Silo Subdivision Preliminary Plat Plan Set Silo Subdivision Site Plan/Architectural Review Plan Set LINK TO CITY STAFF REPORT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Silo Subdivision Page 10 Preliminary Plan/PUD

11 To: From: Paul Rayl, Planning Manager Aaron K. Asquith,P.E., City Engineer Date: November 18, 2016 Subject: Anna s Farm Drainage Impacts as a result of Weems/Silo Proposed Development At your request I have reviewed the Preliminary Plan Drawings for the Weems Neighborhood PUD, dated 9/23/16 for impacts to the current drainage conditions at the interface with the Anna s Farm Subdivision. Currently the Weems property accepts flow from the Anna s Farm subdivision, including at the outlet of the Anna s Farm Detention Pond into an existing irrigation lateral and at the north end of the existing Furrow Way. Based on my review of the preliminary plans, the Weems subdivision is not proposing to alter the existing irrigation lateral from the point that it accepts flows from the Detention Pond downstream. In addition, the plans provide a storm sewer system at the property boundary in Furrow Way to continue to accept flows from Anna s Farm. At this time, based on the current preliminary plans, I do not believe there will be an impacts to Anna s Farm as a result of the proposed Weems/Silo development.

12 1005 South 120 th Street, Unit 1 Lafayette, CO Tel: (720) November 17, 2016 City of Lafayette Planning Commission c/o Paul Rayl 1290 S. Public Rd. Lafayette, CO RE: Reponsess to Planning Commission Questionss and Comments regarding the SILO Development Application; Request to Amend Planning Division Staff s Conditions of Approval Dear Lafayette Planning Commission: At your regular meeting held on October 25, 2016, we presented information on the proposed SILO Development (the Informational Meeting ). Our application for various entitlements related to the SILO Development was submitted to the City of Lafayettee ( City or Lafayette ) on September 23, 2016 (the Application ). The purpose of this letter is (1) to provide responses to the questions and comments raised by Planning Commission members at the Informational Meeting, and (2) to respectfully request that certain conditions proposed by the Planning Division s staff related to the SILO Development be amended prior to approval by the Planning Commission. I. RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS 1. Comment: Address how the SILO Development plan creates transitions to adjacent neighborhoods. harmonious (a) Response: The SILO Development has been intentionally designed to be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. (i) Anna s Farm, Domenico Propertyy and Indian Peaks (South) (1) (2) Open space and pasturee are wrapped down around the west and south sides of the SILO Development in order to give residents on adjacent properties access to SILO s open space, and to maintain pasture and mountain views.. The south half of SILO is less densee than Anna s Farm. SILO Phase 1 is 5.8 DU/acre, while Anna s Farm is 7.0 DU/acre. This is illustrated on the attached Exhibit A.

13 1005 South 120 th Street, Unit 1 Lafayette, CO Tel: (720) (3) (4) (5) The zoning of Anna s Farm is R2 and R3. The zoning of the south half of SILO is predominantly R1 with small amounts of R2 and R3. Plans for SILO have been revised in responsee to concerns raised by Anna s Farm residents. Single family homes have replaced certain townhomes along the SILO neighborhood s south property line (directly adjacent to Anna s Farm) and plans have been developed too minimize cut-through traffic on Furrow Way. Homes in Anna s Farm, along Haystack Way, face north towards the Anna s Farm Detention Pond and towards SILO. Opposite the detention pond at SILO, the homes will sit about 7 lower than those at Haystackk Way. Along the SILO south property lines, homes have also been arranged to preserve mountains views. Therefore, the mountain views currently enjoyed by Anna s Farm residents will continue uninterrupted. (ii) Boulder County Low Density Residential (West) (1) The land on the westernn edge of the SILO Development, which borders property in Boulder County, will either be dedicated as open space or will be held as privately owned horse pasture. These open spaces andd pasture preserve the property s rural character. (iii) Arapahoe Road (North) (1) (2) (3) We are locating openn space and agricultural uses along Arapahoe Road to preserve its rural character. The agricultural uses in this area will be a Community Supported Agriculture ( CSA ) farm. There will be three main garden plots at this location of approximately 30 wide by 150 long. To extend the growingg season, and increase yields, movable, temporary translucent plastic covers, called high tunnels will move over the garden plots on tracks. The maximum size of the high tunnel is 30 x50, and there is one per 30 x150 garden plot. These structures will not be permanent. The design of the CSA farm and farm structures will be reviewed by Planning Commission when we submit a Site Plan/Architecture Review for a future phase of the SILO Development. (iv) Lafayette Promenade and Tebo Property (East)

14 1005 South 120 th Street, Unit 1 Lafayette, CO Tel: (720) (1) We are locating mixed-use and multi-family areas in the northeast area of the SILO Development, whichh abuts future commercial development. 2. Question: Is a residential mixed-use designated as Medium Density Residential under the City of Lafayette Comprehensive Plan (the Comprehensive neighborhood appropriate for this location, given that it is currently Plan )? (a) Answer: Mixed-use development enables the SILO Development to better meet the goals of sustainable, compact development, which are goals shared by the ourselves and the City. (i) The Comprehensivee Plan calls for building examples of sustainable, compact, residential mixed-use neighborhoods. (ii) Mixed-use reduces automobile use and traffic on a per-household basis and encourages use of alternative transit. (iii) During the Sketch Plan presentation of the SILO Development in 2015, a Planning Commission member remarked that, to support our project s sustainability goals, it should include more mixed-use. In response, we have further developed the SILO Village Center as a residential mixed- use town square. 3. Comment: Further explain and illustrate the requested PUD modifications to the City of Lafayette Development and Zoning Code (the Code ). (a) Response: While the Comprehensivee Plan calls for building examples of sustainable, compact development, the City does not yet have Code provisions tailored to this type off development. Therefore, certain modifications development. to the Code are necessary in order to allow such (i) As requested by the Planningg Commission, during the upcoming November 29, 2016 hearing onn the Application, we will present case studiess that illustrate our specificc requested PUD modifications and also show them using a 3D model of the project. These modifications are summarized below. For the exact dimension of each modification that we have requested, please see thee Planning Division s stafff report on the Application, dated October 20, 2016 (the Staff Report ). (ii) PUD Modifications (1) Minimum Lot Size. We are requesting a reduction in minimum lot size. Our typical lotss sizes are illustrated on the attached Exhibit B. a. Similar lot sizes are found at nearby Anna s Farm and at Coal Creek Village. A sample image from Anna s Farm

15 1005 South 120 th Street, Unit 1 Lafayette, CO Tel: (720) is attached as Exhibit C to illustrate a typical lot size in thatt development. (2) Front Yard Setbacks. Wee are requesting a reduction in front yard setbacks. These minimum setbackss are illustrated for single, duplex and townhome units in the attached Exhibit B. a. These are common front setbacks for urban homes with front stoops in compact neighborhoods. Similar front setbacks are found in Anna s Farm and at Coal Creek Village. b. We will have a larger front setback at townhomes than at single family homes or duplexes to encourage usable private outdoor space at the townhomes. (3) Rear Yard Setbacks. Wee are requesting a reduction in rear yard setbacks. These minimum setbackss are illustrated for single, duplex and townhome units in the attached Exhibit B. a. The rear of all homes is located on an alley or lane. The lanes are 22 wide, and garages facing each other across a lane must be a minimum of 24 apart. In each case, a 1 minimum setback ensures that there will be enough backup room. Thiss distance also create an intimate feeling, which slowss down auto travel speeds and makes the environment safer for pedestrians. b. Although the minimum setback is 1, our typical rear setback, is 4 and our typical clear area across a lane or alley will be 30. Thirty feet allows sufficient width for installation of sanitary and gas lines that run beneath the lanes. c. The 1 minimum setback allows the flexibility to add bay windows and overhangs facing the lane in the typical case where homes are set back 4 from the lane. (4) Side Yard Setbacks and Separation Between Structures Unattached Units. We are requesting a reduction in side yard setbacks and a decrease in the minimum separation between structures. These minimum setbacks are illustrated for single and duplex units in the attached Exhibit B. a. The reduction in side yard setbacks and distance between structures is primarily to accommodate the solar energy component of the homes. We will have 3 to 5 setback on the north side of most lots. On the south side of most lots, single family homes will be set back from the south side property line 15 to 30 to permit

16 1005 South 120 th Street, Unit 1 Lafayette, CO Tel: (720) winter solar gainn into most home. of the south wall of each b. This side yard setback distance is common in compact neighborhood development. In historic Denver neighborhoods, for example, historic homes were typically built less than 3 from the side property lines. New infill homess in Denver, however, must be setback a minimum of 3. (5) Side Yard Setbacks Attached Units. We are requesting a decrease in the side yard setbacks for duplex, townhome and mixed-use structures too 0 between common walls. Attached units have a 0 setback where they share a common wall. These minimum setbacks are illustrated for duplex and townhome units in the attached Exhibit B. a. The Code does not have specific provisions for attached homes, and therefore a PUD modification must be used in order to permit them. Attached homes have been allowed in the City using this approach for many years. Examples of townhomes include those at Indian Peaks, Anna s Farm, and Coal Creek Village. A sample image of townhomes att Indian Peaks is attached as Exhibit D for comparison. (6) Lot Coverage. We are requesting an increase in lot coverage. Maximum lots coverages for townhomes are illustrated on the attached Exhibit B, and for single family homes in Exhibit E. a. Our requested lot coverages are 60% maximum for single-family dwellings in all zones; 75% maximum for duplex and townhome dwellings in the R2 & R3 zones; and 80% maximum for mixed use and multi-family buildings in the T1 zone. b. Similar minimumm lot coverages are found at nearby Anna s Farm. The increased lot coverages are necessary to accommodate market-sized large homes on the more compact lots founds in SILO Development. c. Our common andd most typical lot coverages at SILO will be: i. ii. 35% to 55% at single family (we are requesting 60% maximum); 35% to 70% at duplexes and townhomes (we are requesting 75% maximum); and

17 1005 South 120 th Street, Unit 1 Lafayette, CO Tel: (720) iii. 47% to 59% at mixed-use and multi-family (on certain lots, with underground parking, the lot coveragee could approach 80%, and so we are requesting 80%). (7) Increase in Building Height. We are requesting an increase in building height to 35 to top of the roof for principal structure and 20 for accessory structures in the R1, R2 and R3 zones, and 40 for principal structures in the T1 zone.. a. Similar building heights are found at Anna s Farm and Coal Creek Village. b. Three-story buildings allow for smaller building footprints, yielding more land for parks and open space. (8) Frontage Requirements Private Driveways. We are requesting a decrease in the amount of frontage on public streets that is required for homes that t otherwise have increased frontage by way of metropolitan district-maintained private driveways. This is illustrated on the attachedd Exhibit F. a. The Code requires that homes front on a right-of-way, with minimum 25 of frontage on public streets. Some of the SILO homes front on metropolitan district-maintained private driveways and do nott have frontage on a public street. In these cases, the requirement to have frontage on a public street is redundant. b. This condition has been approved before in the City, such as at Anna s Farm and Coal Creek Village. (9) (10) Frontage Requirements Corner Lots and Townhomes. We are requesting a decrease in the amount of frontage on a public street required from 25 to 20 for corner lots on lanes and for townhomes. This is necessary in order to provide lot frontage onto lanes and streets. Parking Requirement forr Smaller, Handicap-Accessible Homes. We are requesting a reduction in the off-street parking requirement that the Planning Division has set for certain smaller, handicap-accessible homes. a. SILO Development has 184 homes fronting onto green space instead of onto streets. These homes will be required to havee on averagee 2 off-street spaces plus 1 guest space perr home, for a total of 3 parking spaces. The guest spacee may be on-street or off-street.

18 1005 South 120 th Street, Unit 1 Lafayette, CO Tel: (720) b. Only 16 of thesee 184 homes are anticipated to not have three parking spaces. These 16 homes are smaller, more affordable, handicap-accessible homes geared toward aging seniors. As they only have one bedroom, they do not needd extra parking. c. If three parking spaces weree required for these small, handicap accessible, 1-bedroom homes, it could force us to reduce the number of these units, and so we request approvall of our originally proposed parking plan, which is, on average, 2 off-street spacess plus 1 guest space per home,, for a total of f 3 parking spaces. (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) Parking ADUs. We aree requesting that the required off-street parking space for accessory dwelling units ( ADUs ) be waived if the lot has already provided one off-street visitor space and has on-street parking available adjacent to the lot. ADUs will only be proposed on lots where there are at least three off-street parking spaces. Parking Requirement Multi-Family Units. We are requesting a reduction in the amount of required parking spaces for the multi- requirements are: 1 off-street space per 1 bedroom unit; 1.5 spaces per 2 bedroom unit; and 2 spaces per 3 bedroom unit, subject to future Site Plan/Architecturee family units located in the mixed-use building. The proposed Review. Parking Requirement Commercial Units. We are requesting a reduction in the minimum parking required for the commercial component of the SILO Development. This reduction would be 1 space per 300 square feet of gross floor area, subject to future Site Plan/Architecture Review. Density. We are requesting an increase in density for the portion of the project to be in thee T1 zone to 25 dwelling units per acre. This is illustrated on the attached Exhibit G. A condition of approval from the Planning Commission of our Sketch Plan was that our density did not exceed 30 dwelling units per gross acre, and our current intent is not to exceed 25. Observation Tower. We have revised our proposed height for the observation tower and are now requesting approval of an observation tower of 55 to be located at the center of the SILO Development neighborhood. The observation tower will be an artistic and architectural centerpiece to the neighborhood, featuring timberframe craftwork. As it is in the center of the neighborhood, it will bee difficult to see from the surrounding properties. Its impact onn views from surrounding properties will be subtle, and when itt is seen, it t will help with pedestrian wayfinding by locating the SILO Village Center.

19 1005 South 120 th Street, Unit 1 Lafayette, CO Tel: (720) Question: What does it mean for a proposed ADU to primary structure? be subordinate to the (a) Answer: Certain lots within the SILO Development are designated on the Preliminary Plan drawings as having an optional ADU. This ADU is subordinate to the primary structure becausee it can only be built on these specificc lots, and an ADU mayy only be constructed in conjunction with a primary structure. 5. Question: How much traffic will be generated by SILO Development and what opportunities will residents have to use public transit? (a) Answer: The SILO Development will generate minimal traffic compared to other uses in the vicinity, such as at Lafayette Promenade. Further, the project s proximity to public transportation and the walkability of SILO Development help support the reduced parking requirements proposed in the PUD modifications. (i) Accesss to Public Transit (1) (2) SILO Development will have regional transit access both at Arapahoe Road and at Highway The multi-family portion of the project is located closest to these regional bus transit stops. The roads, sidewalks, trails and multi-family buildings within the SILO Development are being designed to support and encourage bicycle use and walking. Bus stops on Arapahoe Road for the Jump will be enhanced with new bus stop shelters that we will construct. (ii) Reduction in Automobile Use Neighborhood Design Anticipated as a Result of the SILO (1) (2) (3) (4) The use of attached housing throughout the project will help reduce auto trips. Multi-family units generally generate 30% fewer auto trips per day than single family home, while townhomes generally generate 39% fewer auto trips per day than single family homess Mixed-use neighborhoods provide local neighborhood-serving services within walking distance. This further reduces trips by car per household. Bike lanes and pedestrian routes will extend to Anna s Farm and the Domenico Property. This will support residents of those neighborhoods in moving throughout the neighborhood via bicycle or on foot. The vision of SILO Development is to give this area of the City a town square that is within walking and biking distance of many

20 1005 South 120 th Street, Unit 1 Lafayette, CO Tel: (720) homes and of public transit. An oversupply of parking would undermine the pedestriann and cyclist experience and the mission of SILO Development. 6. Question: What drainage issues are anticipated as a result of SILO Development? (a) Answer: SILO Development will use best practices in stormwater design; no damage to adjacent properties will occur as a result of drainage issues. (i) Drainage from Anna s Farm (1) (2) The SILO Development is downhill from Anna s Farm. SILO will have to receive and mitigate some stormwaterr from Anna s Farm, including overflow from the Anna s Farm detention pond and from Furrow Way. As Anna s Farm is uphill from the SILO Development, no storm drainage from SILO will run onto Anna s Farm. (ii) Sustainable Stormwater Design (1) SILO is using best practices in sustainable stormwater design. Stormwater will be routed in an integrated network throughout the neighborhood, rather than concentrating it in a singular detention pond at the bottom of the neighborhood. Stormwater will passively irrigate landscapes, such as street trees. (iii) Ditches (1) (2) (3) An effort will be made to preserve the cottonwood trees and riparian vegetation alongg the historic agricultural ditches located on the SILO Development property. Ditch laterals to neighbors will be preserved. In some cases, the lateral may be partially piped so thatt water rights holder do not need to maintain open swales. Our development team met with Bill Howland, adjacent property owner and Davidson Ditch Company Director, at the property on November 8, 2016 to understand his concerns regarding ditch laterals and water access. Our final plans will respect historic flows to and from the property. 7. Question: What role will the metropolitan district have in the SILO Development? (a) Answer: The Weems Neighborhood Metropolitan District will help fund the construction of public infrastructure at the SILO Development and provide for its long-term maintenance. It also replaces the traditional functions of a homeowners association, such as covenant enforcement.

21 1005 South 120 th Street, Unit 1 Lafayette, CO Tel: (720) (i) There will not be a home owners associations within the SILO Development. Instead, we have formed a metropolitan district. Its Servicee Plan was approved by the City on August 2, The metropolitan districtt will enter into loans orr issue bonds to fund the construction of public improvements such as roads, parks, and the installation of utilities, and will maintain all of these facilities long-term. The metropolitan district will repay its loans or bonds by collecting a mill levy from the SILO Development residents. The mill levy will assessed uniformly on all property and may only be increased by a public vote. The metropolitan district will be governed by a board of directors that will be comprised of residents of the neighborhood. II. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The Staff Report included a long list of conditions of approval. While we support the large majority of these conditions, we respectfully request that the following conditions be amended prior to approval by the Planning Commission. 1. Preliminary Plan/PUD Condition 1(m): (a) Each single-family, duplex and townhome unit may include 2 off-street private green space with no adjacent on-street parking available must have 2 off-street parking spaces in parking spaces, on average, except for those lotss that front onto the garage and 1 on-site visitor parking space. We request that this condition be waived and the originally proposed parking plan approved for all homes in SILO Development. The proposed parking plan provides, on average, 2 off-street spaces plus 1 guest space per home, for a total of 3 parking spaces. 2. Preliminary Plan/PUD Condition 2: (a) The Code amendment for approved. the observation tower (silo) of feet is not 3. Site Plan/Architectural Review Condition 2: (a) Each building permit application shall include information on its compliance or noncompliance with an analysis of the Site and Architecture Review Design Guidelines PUD requirements for solar access, provided that noncompliance shall not be a basis on which to deny any building permit application. In conclusion, we hope that we have provided sufficient information in response to the Planning Commission s questions at the Informational Meeting, and we respectfully request that certain of the conditions proposed by the Planning Division s staff related to the SILO Development, as discussed in more detail above, be amendedd prior to approval by the Planning Commission.

22 1005 South 120 th Street, Unit 1 Lafayette, CO Tel: (720) Feel free to contact myself or anyone on our development team if there are additional questions or comments. Sincerely, Justin Wessels Enclosures: Exhibits

23 1005 South 120 th Street, Unit 1 Lafayette, CO Tel: (720) Exhibit A Project Density

24 1005 South 120 th Street, Unit 1 Lafayette, CO Tel: (720) Exhibit B Setbacks and Typical Lot Sizes Single Family Home Minimumm Front and Side Yard Setbacks, Typical Lot Size Single Family Home Minimumm Rear and Side Yard Setbacks, Typical Lot Size

25 1005 South 120 th Street, Unit 1 Lafayette, CO Tel: (720) Duplex Minimumm Front and Side Yard Setbacks, Typical Lot Size Duplex Minimumm Rear and Side Yard Setbacks, Typicall Lot Size

26 1005 South 120 th Street, Unit 1 Lafayette, CO Tel: (720) Townhome Minimum Front and Side Yard Setbacks, Typical Lot Size

27 1005 South 120 th Street, Unit 1 Lafayette, CO Tel: (720) Exhibit C Sample Image of Anna ss Farm Single Family Home Representative Lot Size and Setbacks

28 1005 South 120 th Street, Unit 1 Lafayette, CO Tel: (720) Exhibit D Sample Image of Indian Peaks Townhome 0 Side Yard Setbacks

29 1005 South 120 th Street, Unit 1 Lafayette, CO Tel: (720) Exhibit E Maximumm Lots Coverages Single Family Home Maximumm Lot Coverage Townhome Maximum Lot Coverage

30 1005 South 120 th Street, Unit 1 Lafayette, CO Tel: (720) Exhibit F Frontage Reduction *Home fronting on private driveway, but not onn a public street, requires reduced frontage requirements.

31 1005 South 120 th Street, Unit 1 Lafayette, CO Tel: (720) Exhibit G Maximum Density of 25 Dwelling Units Per Acre in Multi-Family Areas