Developer presents Legacy Point Phase 2A: 360 units, parking study and design details

Developers briefed the Planning Commission on Legacy Point Phase 2A, a 360‑unit multifamily phase with 12 buildings, attached/detached garages and associated amenities including a clubhouse, pool and dog park.

Staff said the application includes mass grading, tree removal and infrastructure ties to previously approved plans and requested several clarifications prior to voting: exact location and labeling for Building 11, reconciliation of disturbed‑area numbers, verification of gated streets and geometry, removal of several on‑street parking stalls that are shown inconsistently across plan sheets, a landscape plan and elevations, and explanation of how shared parking will function in a gated phase. Staff also asked the applicant to justify the proposed parking reduction from UDC standards and to address minor plan corrections prior to the voting meeting.

Developer Joel Alvey (Embry) and project team members explained the developer’s parking approach: inside the site the design averages roughly 1.5 cars per unit; including on‑street parking on the site side raises that to about 1.7 cars per unit; including on‑street parking on both sides of the site increases the ratio to about 1.86 cars per unit. The applicant said 60% of units are one‑bedroom and 40% are two‑bedroom, and suggested planners often analyze cars per bedroom as a metric; on this site the developer said counts equate to about 1.08 cars per bed on the internal parking supply and higher when on‑street spaces are counted.

Commissioners asked for clarity on visitor parking, how pedestrian access will be provided from surrounding streets and whether vesting and sewer capacity could affect construction timing. A commissioner asked staff to confirm that the development’s PDP parking standards are met and to verify the approach to on‑street/shared parking. The applicant said the design team had used national multifamily experience and that they would provide three‑dimensional materials to better show massing and roofline modulation.

Staff listed several items to be addressed before the voting meeting, including full landscape plans, updated elevations and the reconciliation of parking and disturbed area calculations. The commission did not vote; staff and the applicant will refine plans and supply requested technical documentation before the project returns for final action.