Laserfiche WebLink
LaValle Fields - Apartment Concept Plan <br />Page 5 <br />a play arealbasketball court, another location should be considered. Although the applicant has <br />not provided staff with a plan for the lots lines and what would be built for each phase, it has <br />been stated by the applicant that the center common open space would be built with phase 2. <br />3. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION: <br />Staff does not have concerns with apartments as a land use or the proposed density of the project, <br />as this was expected and approved with the PUD General Plan. Staff's primary concern is with <br />the massing of the buildings. The buildings will appear extremely long and large on the site. This <br />could be addressed by providing more numerous smaller buildings, or alternatively by providing <br />a more dramatic undulations in the shapes of the buildings. The architecture of building A has <br />good elements, but it is in staff's opinion that a more compact design of the building or a non- <br />linear footprint would further minimize the expansion of the long walls. The architectural <br />elements alone do not break up the large massing of the building, it still seems very long. <br />The applicant received flexibility for a higher density based on the approved PUD General Plan <br />and conditions listed in the resolution. There were a few items that needed to be worked on and <br />conditions were listed the resolution to address these concerns. Phase 2, the apartment project <br />included buildings that related to each other, shared parking and amenities, and connections to <br />Lions Park. It is in stars opinion that the concept plan as lost important elements from the PUD <br />General Plan in which the City was comfortable with granting zoning flexibility. The applicant <br />has stated that the property will be split and it remains unclear where property lines would be <br />proposed and what portions of the concept plan would be completed with each phase. The <br />apartment phase will be further divided, and could be sold to different developers, creating <br />standalone projects, not a planned development. This changes the plan and loses important <br />elements such as, relationship between the buildings, cohesiveness in the project, shared <br />common openspace and amenities, and trail connections. <br />Staff has concerns with the viability smaller, independent apartment projects. The concept plan <br />concentrates on building A, leaving building B an afterthought with no commitment that it will <br />be built. It's unclear if the amenities listed and shown on the concept plan will be shared between <br />the apartments. In general, apartments with lower than 200 units can succeed as long as they are <br />part of an overall development and with shared amenities. As the applicant has stated the <br />amenities are very important in apartment projects and are a draw for the target market. Staff <br />believes that the planning for building B, along with the parking and common areas, is just as <br />important to the development as building A and the property should be designed as a planned <br />development. <br />The concept plan does not meet the intent of the PUD approval in regards to reducing the <br />appearance of the mass of the large buildings or an overall apartment campus layout. The layout <br />of the site does not seem to function well for an apartment development in regards to access, <br />circulation, and common openspace. In addition, the location of the entrance into the <br />underground parking and the circulation within the interior parking lot needs to be thought <br />through and redesigned. <br />