HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRC_2011-12-15_AgendaPacketCALL TO ORDER
CITY OF ATASCADERO
DESIGN RE VIE W COMMITTEE A GENDA
Committee Meeting
Thursday, December 15, 2011
3:30 P.M.
City Hall
Conference Room 5
6907 El Camino Real
Atascadero, California
Roll Call: Chairperson, Roberta Fonzi
Committee Member, Bob Kelley
Committee Member, Chuck Ward
Committee Member, Christian Cooper
Committee Member, Susan DeCarli
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
PUBLIC COMMENT
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. APPROVAL OF DRAFT ACTION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 1, 2011
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REVIEW
2. PLN 2008-1280, EAGLE RANCH
Second DRC review of Eagle Ranch Specific Plan. Specific review items include:
1. Progress on the Overall Site Plan
2. San Rafael Road Area Approach: Lot Sizes & Buffering
3. Revised Village Area Site Plan
4. Affordable Housing
5. Farm Animals
0 Fi"__htto://www.facebook.com/olannincatascadero
City of Atascadero Design Review Committee Agenda Regular Meeting, December 15, 2011
Page 2 of 2
COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS AND REPORTS
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting of the Design Review Committee will be held on January 12, 2012.
Agendas, Minutes and Staff Reports are available online at www.atascadero.or� under
City Officials & Commissions, Design Review Committee.
\\cityhall\cdvlpmnt\— dre design review committee\agendas\dre agenda 12-1-1 l.docx
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 12-15-11
-ffr Atascadero Design Review Committee
�'►s s e;- Report In Brief - Community Development Department
ASD, Callie Taylor, Associate Planner, (805) 470-3448, ctaylor@atascadero.org
Eagle Ranch Specific Plan
PLN 2008-1280 / GPA 2008-0022 / SP 2008-0002 / ZCH 2008-0150
Review #2:
Village Center, San Rafael Road Area & Affordable Housing
Applicant: I RRM Design Group
Owner: I Eagle Ranch, LLC
Project South west of City
Location: boundary, accessed off
Santa Barbara Rd.
General Plan Unincorporated within
& Zoning Sphere of Influence
Identified for future
annexation
Project Area: 13,460 acres
Existing Use: I Cattle Ranch
AL Eagle Ranch
N Specific Plan Area
Al—.d— Sphere of Influence II
The applicant is requesting DRC review of a few key design issues in order to make
further refinements to the site plan. The applicant will use DRC comments to modify the
plans for a joint Planning Commission and City Council review in early 2012.
❑ 1. Progress on the Overall Site Plan
❑ 2. San Rafael Road Area Approach: Lot Sizes & Buffering
...................................................
❑ 3. Revised Village Area Site Plan
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
❑ 4. Affordable Housing
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
❑ 5. Farm Animals
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 12-15-11
Background:
The Design Review Committee conducted a preliminary overview of the proposed Eagle
Ranch plans on May 12, 2011. Comments were received by staff and the applicant and
are included as Attachment 6 of this report. Since the last review, the EIR consultant
has completed an Environmental Constraints Analysis to identify potential
environmental issues, and the applicant has made refinements to the site plan. On
November 15, the Planning Commission hosted a Public Workshop where the current
plan was presented. There were approximately 100 people in attendance, and about 18
people spoke about the project. Discussion included comments on the following:
• Traffic on neighborhood streets was a primary issue, especially on San Rafael,
Atascadero Avenue and San Diego Road
• San Rafael Road maintenance and drainage issues
• Smaller lot sizes along San Rafael inconsistent with existing large lots
• San Diego Road emergency access
• Horse issues: manure on trails, noise, buffering of existing pasture areas,
keeping of animals in project area
• Existing offsite drainage and flooding conditions
• Construction phasing, timelines, developers, character of housing tracts
DRC Review Items:
1. Current Site Plan Review
The applicant has made refinements to the site plan since the last DRC in May.
Road locations and lot layouts have been modified to address environmental
constraints, previous DRC comments, staff comments, and design development by
the applicant. The applicant has included color exhibits of the currently proposed
project site plan for DRC review and comment. Site plan changes include:
• A 13± acre elementary school site added site near the project entry off Santa
Barbara Road. The school site has replaced an area previously identified for
residential lots.
• Overall number of residential units increased from 682 units to 746 units.
• Main loop road moved to include park, village center, and multi -family sites on
one side to avoid midblock crossing of the main loop road.
• San Rafael Road extended through to Atascadero Avenue; road realigned from
Colony right-of-way to avoid steep slopes.
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 12-15-11
• Additional 1.0 — 5.0 acre lots added at north eastern part of the site between
Atascadero Avenue and San Rafael Road (lots located off new road extension of
San Rafael.)
• Approximately 5 lots added off Los Osos Road (not accessed by internal project
roads; designed to blend with existing RS lots on Los Osos Road.)
• Potential connection to San Diego Road. shown for emergency access.
• Equestrian staging area proposed near far eastern property line, south of Eagle
Creek.
2. San Rafael Road Area Desian & Approach
At the November 15th Public Workshop, many of the public comments were in
regards to the lot layout in the area near San Rafael Road. The existing City lots in
this area are zoned Residential Suburban, with a 2.5 - 10.0 acre minimum lot size.
Many of the neighbors were concerned about the compatibility of the smaller 0.5 -
1.0 acre lots proposed on San Rafael Road within the Eagle Ranch Specific Plan,
and the 10,000 - 20,000 sq. ft. lots proposed just south of San Rafael. (See
Attachment 2 for proposed lot layout.)
The applicant would like to have a discussion with DRC regarding the approach and
options for lot layout and site design in this area of the project. Due to the costs
associated with on-site and off-site improvements, and the loss of lots off Santa
Barbara Road for the school site, the applicant is looking for areas to include more
residential units (increase in density) to make the project pencil out financially. The
area off San Rafael Road is one of the least environmentally constrained areas of
Eagle Ranch in regards to slope, native trees, and creeks; however, neighborhood
compatibly with the existing large lots is also a factor for project design. The
applicant would like to discuss options for site plan modifications with the DRC,
including potential lots sizes and buffering between the existing neighborhood and
the new lots in Eagle Ranch.
3. Revised Village Center Site Plan
The applicant has redesigned the main loop road through the center of the project so
that the park, commercial, and multi -family portion are on the same side of the main
road. This revised layout eliminates the midblock crossing on the main loop road.
The applicant has provided a revised site plan for this area (see Attachment 3). The
new layout includes a new road connecting into the village area from the residential
area to the north and to Atascadero Avenue.
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 12-15-11
Staff and the applicant are looking for direction from DRC regarding the revised site
plan. Staff is recommending that the applicant include modifications to enhance the
overall presence of the Village Center. Staff recommendation includes:
• Integrate retail portion of Village Center with multi -family component; include
road connection, and potential mixed use with closer proximity of development
areas and residential on second floor of village retail.
• Multi -family near the village should be townhouse/row house style with shared
green space, rather than small lots with individual yards.
• Include a Phase II in the village commercial with additional buildings. Phase II
could include neighborhood commercial uses which would be constructed
towards project build out (eg: coffee shop, neighborhood market, beauty salon,
childcare, senior care, art studios, community rooms, small retail and
neighborhood activities.)
• Village retail to be visible and extend to the main loop road to draw people in.
• Pedestrian and bike trail should go right through village center to make it a
destination on the trail that can't be missed.
• Place tot lot closer to village commercial to support retail uses.
• Include bandstand at the community park for events.
4. Affordable Housing
In 2003, the Atascadero City Council adopted an Inclusionary Housing Policy which
applies to all discretionary projects, including General Plan Amendments, Zone
Changes, and Specific Plans. As a Council Policy, it will ultimately be up to the City
Council as to how this policy will be implemented for Eagle Ranch. However, in
order to begin to develop an affordable housing proposal for Council review, the
Eagle Ranch applicant would like to discuss some of the City's affordable housing
priorities and principals with DRC.
The 2003 adopted Inclusionary Housing Policy is included as Attachment 4 of this
report. The policy requires that 20% of the units within the project be deed restricted
affordable for a period of 30 years. With single-family development, the affordable
units can be all moderate income level, and with multi -family, the policy requires a
mixture of low, very low and moderate income units based on the distribution
identified below. These units are to be dispersed throughout the development, and
constructed concurrently with the market rate units.
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 12-15-11
Staff has calculated the number affordable lots Eagle Ranch would be required to
construct based on the current policy. With a proposed 696 single-family lots, and 50
multi -family lots, direct application of the current policy for the entire project would
result in 2 very low income units, 4 low income units, and 143 moderate income
units:
Multi -family Lots Single-family Lots
Inclusionary Housing Requirement Inclusionary Housing Requirement
Based on Council Policy: Based on Council Policy:
MFR Units 50.00 units SFR Units 696 units
20% Affordable 10.00 units 20% Affordable 139.2 units
Affordable Distribution Affordable Distribution
20% Very Low 2.00 units 100% Moderate 139 units
37°x6 Low 4.00 units 139 units
43°x6 Moderate 4.00 units
10.00 units
The adopted Inclusionary Housing Policy also allows the City Council to approve
alternative proposals to meet the inclusionary housing requirement. Alternatives to
on-site construction include:
• payment of in -lieu fees
• land dedication
• or a combination of construction, fees and land dedications.
Due to the shift in the real estate market since the policy was adopted in 2003, and
the fact that Eagle Ranch is a unique residential project for the City, it would seem
reasonable to look at alternatives in order to fulfill the City's current affordable
housing goals. The income level distribution, number of affordable units, timeframe
for affordability, and the location of the affordable units are all items of discussion for
DRC, and ultimately Council consideration.
The applicant has prepared a list of "Principles for Affordable Housing at Eagle
Ranch" for DRC consideration, which will then be used to prepare an affordable
housing proposal. The applicant's list of proposed principals is included as
Attachment 5 of this report. Issues for DRC discussion include:
• Should the existing 452 colony lots be subject to the Inclusionary Housing
Policy?
The applicant would like to exempt the existing County lots from the policy
requirement. The City has not had a previous project which included this many
existing lots and will therefore be looking for Council direction on this issue.
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 12-15-11
• Are low and very low income units preferred over moderate income units?
The 2003 Inclusionary Policy requires mostly moderate income units, however,
under the State RHNA requirements, the City would benefit from more low and
very low income units, as these are typically the most difficult to build and have
the most benefit in today's market. Some moderate units in later phases of the
project may be a good option as well. Staff would also like DRC and Council
direction as to the number of affordable units that should be provided if the
applicant offers a higher number of low and very low units, rather than mostly
moderate income units.
• Can in -lieu fees generated by the project be used to build the affordable housing
within the project?
On Eagle Ranch, there will probably be several developers that built out portions
of the project, and many custom lots which will be built out by individual
homeowners. Council Policy has historically been to require development of
affordable units whenever possible, rather than payment of in -lieu fees.
However, due to this project make up, requiring only deed restricted units may be
difficult as it encumbers only some portions of the project, while other portions of
the project would not be tied to the affordable housing requirement. One option
would be to have all lots pay the in -lieu fees, and then allow those fees to be
used to build the affordable units within the project. The project would provide
constructed units in a way which spreads the costs throughout the entire
development, regardless of which phases have the affordable units. Dedication
of land for an affordable housing project could also be an option to meet a portion
of the affordable housing requirement.
• In addition to the questions presented by the applicant, staff would like direction
from DRC, and ultimately City Council, as to the preferred location and
distribution of the affordable units, and the housing types which are preferred
(apartments, single-family for sale lots, senior housing, mixed use?)
5. Farm Animals
At the November 15 Public Workshop, there was community input regarding the
maintenance of the equestrian trails, and keeping of farm animals on new and
existing lots. The interface between the new lots within the development and the
existing City lots should also be considered. On the existing RS zoned lots, farm
animals are permitted, so buffering and separation in between the existing lots
and the new smaller lots will be key. The applicant is proposing that no farm
animals be permitted on the new lots within the project area. Horse boarding
would be provided at the Ranch headquarters. The cattle operation will continue
to operate around the residential development in large grazing areas. Which
specific areas will continue to be used for the cattle operation have not yet been
identified by the applicant.
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 12-15-11
At the previous public meetings in 2008 and 2010, there was significant
community request to include equestrian trails throughout the project site. The
applicant has designed a multiuse trail system which would allow horses, and
has also included an equestrian staging area on the east side of the project near
the freeway. At the recent November 15 community meeting, there were a few
comments about compatibility of horse trails within a residential development,
including maintenance and clean up on the horse trails.
41`
Areas where new
development is
proposed in close
proximity to existing
large lots:
Equestrian
Staging Area
for trail
-
system
Ranch
Headquarters:
horse
boarding area
Attachments:
_ ax
Attachment 1- Current Site Plan (Presented at Nov. 15 Public Workshop)
Attachment 2: Current Lot Layout near San Rafael Road.
Attachment 3: Revised Village Center Conceptual Site Plan
Attachment 4: 2003 Adopted City Council Affordable Housing Policy
Attachment 5: "Principles for Affordable Housing at Eagle Ranch" Proposed
by Applicant
Attachment 6- May 12, 2011 DRC Meeting Notes- Preliminary Review of
Eagle Ranch
ITEM NUMBER:
DATE: 12-15-11
Attachment 1: Current Site Plan (Presented at Nov. 15 Public Workshop)
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 12-15-11
Aachment 2: Currently Proposed Lot Layout Near San Rafael Road.
ttachment 3: Revised Village Center Conceptual Site Plan
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 12-15-11
so
ro
0
0
iU C
�o
E
E
� L
i •`
�
V
� `dye
Q
�-
c w
"ro
l
•/
E
E ro
o >
O N
J
ro
E
° E
Q
mE
7 p 2
U i
d O
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 12-15-11
b r
r �
r b
1 e
C =�
>
v
0
0
iU C
�?C
E
E
� L
A �
V d
Q
�-
"ro
E
E ro
o >
O N
J
ro
E
° E
Q
mE
7 p 2
U i
d O
V
?= V I
b r
r �
r b
1 e
C =�
>
v
0
0
3
�?C
E
E
� L
A �
V d
Q
ro
Z
J
E
mE
Q
LL
cc
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 12-15-11
Attachment 4: 2003 City Council Affordable Housing Policy
Interim Inclusionary Housing Policy
Adopted by City Council June 24, 2003
Amended by City Council November 25, 2003
Inclusionary Section
Interim Policy
A. Project Requirements
1. All residential projects that require legislative approval
are subject to the inclusionary requirement as follows:
a. Projects of 1-10 units: pay in -lieu fee or build
units
b. Projects of 11 or more units must build units or
receive a Council approval to pay in -lieu fees
B. Percent Affordable
1. The percentage of units within a project that must be
affordable shall be 20%.
2. The distribution of affordable units in single-family land
use areas shall be as follows:
a. 100% Moderate
3. The distribution of affordable units in multi -family and
mixed use commercial land use areas shall be as
follows:
a. 20% Very Low Income
b. 37% Low Income
c. 43% Moderate
4. In -lieu fees shall be collected for all fractional units up
to 0.499 units, fractional units of 0.50 and greater shall
be counted as 1.0 units.
5. All inclusionary units shall be deed restricted for a
period of 30 years.
C. Exceptions
1. Projects that do not require a legislative approval from
the City shall not be subject in the interim policy.
2. Projects that qualify for the State density bonus are
exempt from additional inclusionary housing
requirements.
3. Second units are exempt from the inclusionary
requirement.
ITEM NUMBER:
DATE: 12-15-11
D. Affordable Housing
1. The exterior design and quality standards for
Standards
affordable units shall be comparable to those of market
rate units. Affordable units may be of a smaller size
and utilize less expensive interior finishes.
2. Affordable units shall be distributed throughout a
project site and not concentrated in one location.
3. Inclusionary units shall be built concurrently with
market rate units. A construction timeline shall be
approved by the City Council prior to construction.
E. In -Lieu Fees
1. In -lieu fees for units and fractions of units shall be
based on 5.00% of the construction valuation of the
market rate unit.
F. Alternatives
1. The developer may request and the City Council may
approve any of the following alternatives to on-site
construction or payment of in -lieu fees for inclusionary
units:
a. Off-site construction
b. Land dedication
c. Combinations of construction, fees and land
dedications
G. Incentives
1. As an incentive to provide affordable units, all
inclusionary units shall be treated as density bonus
units that are not counted as part of the maximum
density entitlement of a site.
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 12-15-11
Attachment 5: 'Principles for Affordable Housing at Eagle Ranch'
As Proposed by Applicant for DRC Discussion
12/05/2011
Eagle Ranch
Affordable Housing Principles & Interpretation of the Interim Inclusionary Housing Policy
1. The City Interim Inclusionary Housing Policy does not apply to the 452 existing Eagle Ranch
Colony lots.
2. The City Interim Inclusionary Housing Policy applies only to additional market rate units in
excess of the 452 existing lots.
3. The City Interim Inclusionary Housing Policy does not apply to the Highway Commercial
Development.
4. The City Interim Inclusionary Housing Policy does not apply to the Resort Development.
5. The City Interim Inclusionary Housing Policy does not apply to the Village Commercial Uses.
6. Units developed on site pursuant to The City Interim Inclusionary Housing Policy do not count as
part of the project density or calculation of the inclusionary housing requirement.
Very Low Income Affordable Units - Principles
1. Constructing actual habitable units at very low income affordability is acknowledged to be
extraordinarily difficult in any market rate financed and developed project
2. Delivery of actual, habitable very low income affordable units is strongly preferred over
payment of in lieu fees, even if only very modest numbers of units are actually built
3. In lieu fees paid by the Eagle Ranch developer may be used to develop very low income units on
Eagle Ranch
Low Income Affordable Units - Principles
1. Constructing actual habitable units at low affordability is acknowledged to be very difficult in
any market rate financed and developed project
2. Delivery of actual, habitable low income affordable units is strongly preferred over payment of
in lieu fees, even if only very modest numbers of units are actually built
3. In lieu fees paid by the Eagle Ranch developer may be used to develop low income units on
Eagle Ranch
Moderate Income Affordable Units — Principle
1. Current Economic and Housing Market Conditions in Atascadero do not support this category as
an inclusionary requirement as the housing marketplace currently provides for sale and market
rate rental units within this affordability range.
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 12-15-11
Attachment 6: May 12, 2011 DRC Meeting Notes: Preliminary Review of Eagle Ranch
CITY OF ATASCADERO
- DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
Meeting Notes
Thursday, May 12, 2011— 3:30 P.M.
Development Project Review: EAGLE RANCH
Committee Members:
RF — Roberta Fonzi, CC, DRC Chairperson
BK — Bob Kelly, CC, DRC
CW — Chuck Ward, PC, DRC
CC — Christian Cooper, PC, DRC
SD — Susan DeCarli, Parks & Rec Committee, DRC
Committee Discussion of Issues / Questions:
BK Vehicle code jurisdiction on private streets / driveways? PD enforcement?
BK Building envelopes to avoid trees
CW Landscaped medians/roads should be drought tolerant
Low water use irrigation
Replant with native trees & native plant species to naturalize
SD Treatment of large OS areas
BK Cattle grazing fencing (location, design, containment?)
RF San Rafael Road Connection / extension
Ortega Rd. connection? JF - Trail only
San Diego Rd. Connection, hazard area?
SD Emergency evacuation issue at San Diego is important
Also for new neighborhoods with long cul-de-sacs; second accessway
RF Concerned with all affordable in one location
BK Affordable must look good; not be able to tell affordable from market rate
RF/BK Not 100% affordable in one location; must spread throughout project
BK Bike paths very important.
Look at City of Valencia as example for ped/bike path integration
Wants separated Class I paths / instead of Class 11
SD Additional street connections needed (grids approach)
Too many dead end roads; many opportunities for connections available
RF/CW Likes private streets
BK Include bandstand in park for special events, gathering area
SD/RF Park / village connection important
BK Size of park? What is purpose / use of park?
Concerts & entertainment need more parking (like Paso park downtown)
ITEM NUMBER: 2
DATE: 12-15-11
RF Park Facilities - who is served?
CC/SD Park should be central & active with public access
The wide open valley concept is important to project
Include trails to oak woodland area by multi -family neighborhood
Individual Committee Member Comments:
CW Business center retreat location good idea / use
High end center for speakers, seminars, corporations = income generator
Use decent size trees
Good project
SD Building envelopes important on large lots (streamline permit processing)
Intensify medium size lots for higher density
More street / block connections permeability to reduce drive time/VMT
Like rural character created by landscaped medians & road sections (LID)
Evacuation issues / two way out important
CC Like privacy of courts
Like overall approach / good preservation effort
BK Beautiful project
More Class 1 bike ways
Cost impact to City; project must be cost neutral/positive
Consider & protect existing neighborhoods
Traffic impacts to neighborhoods (ex: Atascadero Ave improvements)
Public safety impacts / service to new neighborhoods
San Rafael connection good for fire dept. access
BK Make revenue positive
Need commercial early / phasing condition (ex: Dove Creek)
Bandstand for concerts / multiuse at park
Like early review process
RF Great project
Building envelopes vs. conservation easements
Neighborhoods important / strong sense
Existing neighborhoods access points very important (impacts on)
Project entrance points are key; give special consideration
No gates preferred, keep open
Fire safety important
Sewer will be expensive / consider septic's on large lots
Prefers natural gas over propane
Keep rural / Atascadero character
Need architectural variety, originally that is unique to Atascadero
BK Require many corners on houses (CC&R's to create interesting form)
Minimize driveways which require backing out onto to street
Encourages side loaded garages with turnaround areas in driveways
RF Recess garages on elevations
SD Design guidelines to be reviewed by DRC
RF Historic / traditional house character
RF Street & neighborhood names are important; should be creative
BK Likes highway hotel / commercial component
Covered bus stops, protected from weather with pullouts
GS Worried about design speed issue on collector
SD Natural energy conservation in design guidelines
.r r
Map Features
GENERAL MAPELEMENTS
RESIDENTIAL AREAS
SUMMARY
Ranch Boundary
4,500 to 6,500 S.F. Lots
Single Family: 600-800 lots
Atasca daro City Limit
(CorerAtascad.ro
6,500 to 10,000 S.F. Lots
Multi -Family: 50-100 units
City Limit
ith 00 URL
10,000 to 20,000 S.F. Lots
Resort Hotel: 30-40 so
.11d-)
City of Atescadena URL
0.5 Acre to 1 Acre Lots
Village Center: 2-5 so
(Cot—ho—ithpoijed.—h—b—d.,)
1 Acre to 5 Acre Lots
Highway Commercial: 10-15 ac
Streams: Intermittent
(USGS NHD - N,iti—I Hyd,lphy D-0)
5 Acre to 20 Acre Lots
Public Park: 4-7 ac
Notes/Sources:
Existing Lakes/Ponds
Multi -Family Housing
Elementary School: 13 so
EAGLE RANCH
photo from the National Agricultural Imagery Program - 2009.
2,� :,ei-alm data from the NHD (National Hydrography Dataset).
COMMERCIAL AND OPEN SPACE AREAS
ROADS AND TRAILS
Equestrian Staging Area: 1-2 ac
L
3� Topographic contour interval is 10 feet.
Resort Hotel
Existing Ranch Roads
Roads -Paved Area: 50-60 ac
4 Boundary, and topo data from existing datandomnation.
5) Feature annotation and peak elevations from the USGS quad data.
Village Center
Proposed Road ROWS
Trails: -
T il 12 10ac
Alon
6) This map is for ilWsbative purposes only.
10
Highway Commercial
Unpaved Trails
-O-U. — am& T-1,
Open Space: 2,800+/- ac
(Estimated Percentage: 80+%)
City of Atascadero, CA
Scale:
0 1/2 Mile
F= Public Park
Berman I
FE= tary Schoo
ass 1 Multi -Use Path
Cl-
- ir wi,li, —d
l.–
Conceptual Site Plan
000 1000 _501 5 0 Feet
[:033�
g Area
FL-=] Equestrian Staging
F;;;;-1 National Forest Service
Connector Troll
.4
.1
I November
15,2011
ad
Open Space Remainder
- Single -k
.r r
Unpaved
trail with
picnic areas
Class 1 multi -use
path
Active play
area
Postal kiosk
Decorative paving
Commercial plaza
Village Commercial
(12,000 sf)
Commercial loading
AREA BY LAND USE
Village Commercial
Multi -Family
Class 1 multi -use
path
Unpaved trail to connect -
multi -family to the village
IVIU i-iaiiiiiy
(60 units)
Playground with
picnic area
INP% -nxinA tr -n;I
Multi -far
(60 unit!
txisting
trees, typ.
Unpaved trai I with
picnic areas
Existing
trees, typ.
rrm group III
1 creating environments people enjoy®
December 8, 2011
°
EAGLE RANCH I COMMERCIAL VILLAGE AND PARK SITE PLAN I � 50, 100,00 200'300'°°°