Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/18/2022 - Planning and Zoning Commission - AGENDA - Regular MeetingPlanning and Zoning Commission Page 1 August 18, 2022 Upon request, the City of Fort Collins will provide language access services for individuals who have limited English proficiency, or auxiliary aids and services for individuals with disabilities, to access City services, programs and activities. Contact 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance. Please provide 48 hours advance notice when possible. A solicitud, la Ciudad de Fort Collins proporcionará servicios de acceso a idiomas para personas que no dominan el idioma inglés, o ayudas y servicios auxiliares para personas con discapacidad, para que puedan acceder a los servicios, programas y actividades de la Ciudad. Para asistencia, llame al 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Marque 711 para Relay Colorado). Por favor proporcione 48 horas de aviso previo cuando sea posible. Regular Hearing August 18, 2022 6:00 PM David Katz, Chair City Council Chambers - City Hall West Ted Shepard, Vice Chair 300 Laporte Avenue Michelle Haefele Fort Collins, Colorado Per Hogestad Adam Sass Virtual (Zoom or Telephone) Jeff Schneider Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 on Connexion & Julie Stackhouse Channels 14 & 881 on Comcast Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing Agenda Participation for this hybrid Planning and Zoning Commission meeting will be available online, by phone, or in person. Public Participation (In Person): Individuals who wish to address the Planning & Zoning Commission in person may attend the meeting located in City Council Chambers at City Hall, 300 Laporte Ave. Public Participation (Online): Individuals who wish to address the Planning & Zoning Commission via remote public participation can do so through Zoom at https://fcgov.zoom.us/j/94787523274. Individuals participating in the Zoom session should also watch the meeting through that site. The meeting will be available to join beginning at 5:45 p.m. on August 18, 2022. Participants should try to sign in prior to 6:00 p.m. if possible. For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time. Staff will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Commission. In order to participate: Use a laptop, computer, or internet-enabled smartphone. (Using earphones with a microphone will greatly improve your audio). You need to have access to the internet. Keep yourself on muted status. If you have any technical difficulties during the hearing, please email smanno@fcgov.com. (Continued on next page) Packet pg. 1 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 2 August 18, 2022 ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW • PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Individuals may comment on items not specifically scheduled on the hearing agenda, as follows: • Those who wish to speak are asked to sign in at the podium if they are in person or use the raise hand function if they are on Zoom or on the phone. • The presiding officer will determine and announce the length of time allowed for each speaker. • Each speaker should state their name and address and keep their comments to the allotted time. • Any written materials should be provided to the Secretary for record-keeping purposes. • In person participates will hear a timer beep once and the time light will turn to yellow to indicate that 30 seconds of speaking time remains and will beep again and turn red when a speaker’s time to speak has ended. Phone and Zoom participants will be told verbally when their allotted time has ended. • CONSENT AGENDA The Consent Agenda is intended to allow the Planning and Zoning Commission to quickly resolve items that are non-controversial. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request that an item on this agenda be “pulled” for consideration within the Discussion Agenda, which will provide a full presentation of the item being considered. Items remaining on the Consent Agenda will be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission with one vote. The Consent Agenda generally consists of Commission Minutes for approval, items with no perceived controversy, and routine administrative actions. Public Participation (Phone): If you do not have access to the internet, you can call into the hearing via phone. Please dial: 253-215-8782 or 346-248-7799, with Webinar ID: 947 8752 3274. The meeting will be available beginning at 5:45 p.m. Please call in to the meeting prior to 6:00 p.m., if possible. For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time – phone participants will need to hit *9 to do this. Staff will be moderating the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Committee. Once you join the meeting: keep yourself on muted status. If you have any technical difficulties during the hearing, please email smanno@fcgov.com. Documents to Share: If residents wish to share a document or presentation, City Staff needs to receive those materials via email by 24 hours before the meeting. Please email any documents to smanno@fcgov.com. Individuals uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform or unable to participate by phone are encouraged to participate by emailing general public comments you may have to smanno@fcgov.com . Staff will ensure the Commission receives your comments. If you have specific comments on any of the discussion items scheduled, please make that clear in the subject line of the email and send 24 hours prior to the meeting. As required by City Council Ordinance 079, 2020, a determination has been made by the chair after consultation with the City staff liaison that conducting the hearing using remote technology would be prudent. Packet pg. 2 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 3 August 18, 2022 1. Draft Minutes for the P&Z June Regular Hearing The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes of the June 16, 2022, Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. 2. Peakview Annexation No. 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for annexation and zoning on 5.7 acres. In accordance with the City’s Structure Plan Map and the East Mulberry Corridor Plan Map, the requested zoning for this annexation is General Commercial (C-G), Neighborhood Commercial (N-C), and the Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (M-M-N) zone districts, subject to a (Type 2) Review and public hearing by the Planning & Zoning Commission and recommendation to City Council. A specific project development plan proposal is not included with this annexation application. APPLICANT: Troy Jones, Land Planner, Architect MTA Planning & Architecture 2826 Sitting Bull Way Fort Collins, CO 80525 STAFF ASSIGNED: Kai Kleer, City Planner • DISCUSSION AGENDA 3. Appeal of 3006 Rockborough Ct PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to consider an appeal of a staff decision to approve a Basic Development Review and affiliated modification request to replat the parcels addressed 3006 Rockborough Ct, 2937 Eindborough Dr and 3001 Eindborough Dr. A Minor Subdivision process is required to replat existing residential lots when no more than one new lot is created. Minor Subdivisions are processed as a Basic Development Review application. As part of the request, a modification to reduce the minimum rear setback for the dwelling at 2937 Eindborough Dr was proposed. APPLICANT: Brian Carnahan 3006 Rockborough Ct Fort Collins, CO 80525 STAFF ASSIGNED: Rebecca Everette, Planning Manager • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Packet pg. 3 Agenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY August 18, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission STAFF Shar Manno, Customer and Administrative Manager SUBJECT MINUTES OF THE June 16, 2022 P&Z HEARING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is the consideration and approval of the draft minutes of the June 16, 2022 Planning & Zoning Commission hearing. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft June 16, 2022 P&Z Minutes Packet pg. 4 David Katz, Chair Virtual Hearing Ted Shepard, Vice Chair City Council Chambers Michelle Haefele 300 Laporte Avenue Per Hogestad Fort Collins, Colorado Adam Sass Jeff Schneider Cablecast on FCTV, Channel 14 on Connexion & Julie Stackhouse Channels 14 & 881 on Comcast The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing June 16, 2022 Chair Katz called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Haefele, Hogestad, Katz, Sass, Schneider, Stackhouse Absent: Shepard Staff Present: Everette, Claypool, Yatabe, Wray, Dinger, Everette, Betley, Smith, Benton, Hahn and Manno Chair Katz provided background on the Commission’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. He described the role of the Commission and noted that members are volunteers appointed by City Council. The Commission members review the analysis by staff, the applicants’ presentations, and input from the public and make a determination regarding whether each proposal meets the Land Use Code. He noted that this is a legal hearing, and that he will moderate for civility and fairness. Agenda Review Planning Manager Everette reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas, stating that all items will be heard as originally advertised. Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: None noted. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes DRAFTPacket pg. 5 Planning & Zoning Commission June 16, 2022 Page 2 of 8 Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from April 21, 2022, P&Z Hearing Public Input on Consent Agenda: None noted. Chair Katz did a final review of the items on the consent agenda and reiterated that those items will not have a separate presentation unless pulled from the consent agenda. Member Stackhouse made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the consent agenda for the June 16, 2022, Planning and Zoning Commission hearing as originally advertised. Member Sass seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. Discussion Agenda: 2. Enclave at Redwood (continuance) Project Description: This is a request for a Project Development Plan to develop a 27.85-acre site formerly referred to as "The Retreat," generally located to the north of Suniga Drive and to the east of Redwood Drive. The proposal will include a replat of the site into one parcel and include 242 dwelling units with a mix of four, six, and eight-plex multi-family units, within a "For Rent" managed community property. A 1-acre park and clubhouse are in the center of the site, and regional trail connection will be located along the Lake Canal. The PDP includes a request for Modification of Standards for the building orientation and connecting walkway requirement. This property is within the Low-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) zone district. Member Stackhouse disclosed she is a regular volunteer with Neighbor to Neighbor and, during a regular conversation with Neighbor to Neighbor staff, she was informed the Neighbor to Neighbor organization was contacted by a citizen representative who asked whether Neighbor to Neighbor would consider allowing the developer to create a new road that would cross the Neighbor-to-Neighbor property as an alternative to the planned connection to Lupine Drive. She stated the staff further indicated to her that the organization would be willing to do so, but only if the development consisted of affordable housing. She stated that because this proposal does not involve an affordable housing component, she therefore believes this information would not have any impact on her decision. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Manno reported letters were received from Amber Franzel and the Meadows at Redwood HOA expressing concern about the project. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Wray gave a brief overview of the project and noted the Commission’s packet included a read-before memo from Planning outlining the proposed revisions to the building elevations, the applicants’ revised building elevations and supporting documents, a read-before memo from Traffic staff, a memo from the applicants’ traffic analysis related to the Lupine Drive connection discussion, the letters mentioned by Secretary Manno, and the new applicant presentation and video. He noted staff had not revised its presentation or staff report from the April hearing; however, staff will respond following the applicant presentation. Sam Coutts, Ripley Design, reviewed the applicant presentation from the April Commission hearing noting much of the discussion during deliberation was related to the connectivity standards, specifically on Lupine Drive, and on the model variety and quality of the architecture. He noted the two modifications of standard were both approved at the April hearing. DRAFTPacket pg. 6 Planning & Zoning Commission June 16, 2022 Page 3 of 8 Mr. Coutts discussed the proposed Lupine Drive connection and discussed a meeting held with the HOA regarding its concern with the connection. He stated the applicants’ proposal still stands as is; however, he also presented some alternative designs for the Commissioners to consider. He first discussed the possibility of including a traffic calming situation at the Lupine connection, and second, discussed the possibility of a complete closure of the Lupine connection to the proposed development to public vehicle access. He noted this connection would still allow for bikes, pedestrians, and emergency access. Mr. Coutts outlined the proposal for the northern boundary of the property and its interaction with the natural habitat buffer zone. He went on to comment on the nine new building designs and color variations. Doug Heaton, KTGY Architecture, further detailed the architectural revisions made since the April hearing and discussed how the new designs meet the design standards for multi-family dwellings in the Land Use Code. He noted particular attention was paid to ensure the revised elevations are distinctly different from one another and he detailed those distinctions. He showed a video depiction of the proposed project. Staff Analysis Planner Wray stated the new elevations had not changed staff’s findings for compliance with the Land Use Code, or its recommendation. Regarding the letters received, he noted there were comments regarding the compatibility of this project with the Northside Neighborhoods Plan, which is an element of City Plan. He commented on applicable aspects of the Plan and noted it identified this area to be zoned LMN, though there is no requirement related to housing types other than for there to be a variety thereof. He commented on the buffers being provided between the existing neighborhoods and the proposed project. Planner Wray further discussed other comments in the letters, noting the regional trail connection provided is open to the entire community, that the Lake Canal was recognized as having natural habitat buffer, and that the new fencing will be maintained by this development and its HOA. Regarding the Lupine Drive connection, Planner Wray noted he provided a detailed overview of the staff findings for compliance with the City’s street connectivity requirements in the Land Use Code. He noted staff supported alternative compliance for not connecting Mullein Drive. Spencer Smith, Traffic Operations, discussed the additional information provided in the read-before memo related to traffic level of service standards and noted the analysis showed the intersection still meets those standards. Tim Dinger, Engineering Development Review, noted the City does not maintain or reconstruct private streets but does provide those services for public streets. Commission Questions Member Hogestad asked about the design of the 6- and 8-plex buildings being essentially the same. Mr. Heaton replied there are 3-bedroom units at either end of the 8-plex units. Member Hogestad stated the elevations are much improved; however, the changes have little to do with the requirements of the Land Use Code in terms of the footprint size and shape varying significantly. Mr. Heaton described the different undulations and sizes of the buildings. Member Hogestad reiterated his questioning of the buildings varying significantly given the bump-outs on the buildings appear to be the same. Member Stackhouse suggested staff provide an understanding of that provision of the Land Use Code. Mr. Heaton stated there are several more undulations on the 8-plex buildings, the building lengths are different, porch configurations and sizes are different, and unit widths vary. Member Hogestad asked about the location of the natural habitat buffer on the northern edge of the property. Mr. Coutts replied the Code requirement is a 50-foot buffer from a natural feature, which is the irrigation ditch on this DRAFTPacket pg. 7 Planning & Zoning Commission June 16, 2022 Page 4 of 8 site, and the Code allows for achieving that buffer in several different ways with both quality and quantity aspects. He stated the buffer strip on the north side is part of the buffer needed to meet the requirements. Member Hogestad asked about the width of the strip and its planting consistency. Mr. Coutts replied the plantings are native seed and trees per the specific plant list provided by the City and the width is 14 feet. He also noted the drainage channel continues north off-site that provides an additional buffer, though it is not considered a significant natural feature. Planner Wray discussed the staff analysis of the new building designs and stated staff felt the shapes were varied enough to be compliant. Member Stackhouse noted the original proposal was compliant with Sections 3.6.3(F) and 3.6.4 given the Lupine Drive connection and asked if an alternative compliance would need to be sought to close Lupine Drive, and asked to what extent approval of this might set a meaningful precedent. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe replied the application can be changed at this point from a procedural perspective. Planner Wray stated staff has only just received this information from the applicant and therefore has not had a chance to fully analyze it; however, he noted an approval of alternative compliance would require the finding that the proposed plan is equal to or better than a complying plan. He noted the Code does not contain criteria for blocking off a street based on neighborhood concerns but does contain a provision that requires connections of public streets to existing stub-outs. Planner Wray stated approval of the new proposal could potentially set a precedent as City Plan does contain a policy regarding interconnected neighborhoods. Rebecca Everette, Planning Manager, noted alternative compliance requests, similar to modification of standards requests, are case and fact specific to individual situations. She stated the Commissioners make findings based on those specific facts and any decision made would not bind a future Commission to making the same decision on a different project. Smith stated that neighborhood connectivity standards probably factor in more in this situation than level of service standards, which can be met without the connection. He stated taking away access points and multiple neighborhood roadway options can exacerbate traffic congestion on arterials; however, that cannot specifically be quantified in this instance. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe stated alternative compliance is a fairly rigorous standard and typically includes a fairly comprehensive package of information and an application at an earlier stage allowing staff to fully vet the application. Member Schneider asked if staff supports one or the other of the new alternative options for the connection. Planner Wray replied that only the second option to close the roadway to vehicular access would require alternative compliance; the option to provide traffic calming methods would not. He stated that staff would support any traffic calming measures and that there can be support for closing the public street connection, which would not necessarily set a precedent for future decisions. Everette noted there has not been time for Engineering and Traffic Operations staff in particular to complete a full analysis and provide a complete recommendation. She stated the Commission could approve either option, there just may need to be some work done on the back end by staff if either option is pursued. Member Haefele stated it seems likely that further development going east will have additional connections and Lupine Drive will not become an arterial. She asked if Traffic Operations could provide information on how future traffic in the area will be distributed. Smith replied staff conservatively estimated 5% of Northfield traffic would be routed to Lupine through the project. He noted other neighborhoods moving east have additional connection options which are more direct. Ruth Rollins, traffic engineer for the applicant, stated she did a thorough analysis of the connection at Lupine which showed that the roadway system works both with and without providing that vehicular connection. Chair Katz asked if the traffic distribution changed between the two options. Ms. Rollins replied she did not assign any of the project or Northfield traffic to Lupine and she followed the Northfield traffic study assumptions regarding DRAFTPacket pg. 8 Planning & Zoning Commission June 16, 2022 Page 5 of 8 its traffic disbursement. She stated there would not be traffic from other neighborhoods cutting through the entire development to get to Lupine given the way Lupine is designed. Member Schneider noted the Master Street Plan does not show Lupine Drive extending even to Lemay Avenue. Member Stackhouse asked the applicant if it would be willing to delay the proposal in order to make a request for alternative compliance for the closure of the Lupine Drive connection to allow for staff analysis to occur. Mr. Coutts replied the applicant would prefer to have a decision at this meeting given there has already been one continuance. He stated the information that would be part of an alternative compliance application has already been submitted as part of the updated traffic memo, though he admitted that staff had not had the opportunity to analyze it from an alternative compliance perspective. He stated the applicant would prefer to have a conditional approval of attaching an alternative compliance request at final development stage and, if approved by staff at that time, it could move forward. If not approved by staff at that time, the project could move forward as initially proposed. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Jennifer Jones stated the Meadows at Redwood HOA has been meeting with the applicant since the April meeting and stated she is supportive of the project overall. She requested the Commission consider allowing the closure of Lupine Drive to vehicular access. She stated the connection would still allow for pedestrian and bicycle access which would ultimately be better for both neighborhoods. Amber Franzel thanked the applicants for their work to be good neighbors and make the design work for the full community. She expressed support for the closure of the Lupine Drive connection to vehicular traffic noting level of service standards would still be met. Aaron Oberndorf concurred with Ms. Jones and Ms. Franzel and suggested setting a precedent for a developer working with a neighborhood is positive. Additionally, he supported closing the Lupine Drive connection to vehicular traffic stating bike and pedestrian only access has been shown to be positive in other instances. Applicant Response Mr. Coutts suggested the Commission may want to consider a condition of approval that the applicant provide a formal alternative compliance request to provide bike, pedestrian, and emergency access only to Lupine Drive for administrative review and approval prior to final development plan approval. Staff Response Planner Wray stated staff understands the concerns of the Meadows at Redwood neighborhood and concurred the alternative compliance could be considered and analyzed during final development review. Commission Questions / Deliberation Member Stackhouse asked if the alternative compliance request would come back before the Commission. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe replied the typical Code process for alternative compliance states that plans shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with submittal requirements and shall identify how the alternative plan will better accomplish the purpose of the Code section than a complying plan. He stated having a condition to allow further contemplation by staff makes sense and noted the decision maker for alternative compliance is clearly defined; however, the question is whether than can be delegated to the staff level by the decision maker. He stated his opinion at this time is that would be allowable as an administrative decision to be delegated to the CDNS Director. He suggested the Commission would make a finding that the plan as proposed with Lupine Drive connecting is in compliance with the condition that, if alternative compliance were to be approved at final plan, that alternative would come into play. He stated the Commission could also request the issue come back before it for a decision. Everette expressed concern a condition on the approval of a project that essentially does not grant approval of the project makes it difficult to move forward with the final development plan process. She commented on the possible use of a major amendment rather than alternative compliance after the approval of the project. DRAFTPacket pg. 9 Planning & Zoning Commission June 16, 2022 Page 6 of 8 Member Haefele asked if the alternative compliance could come back before the Commission as a consent item and whether that would needlessly delay the project moving forward. Everette replied the Commission would be the decision maker on a major amendment. She stated the applicant would need to weigh in on whether it would cause a delay. Commissioner Schneider expressed concern that the applicant could opt to not move forward with the alternative compliance if the Commission approves the project as originally planned. Mr. Coutts stated the applicant’s intent would be to apply for alternative compliance prior to final development plan and would request a concurrent review. He supported the idea of placing the alternative compliance on the Commission’s consent agenda which would allow the developer to move forward with final design. Member Stackhouse supported the architectural changes and expressed a strong preference that an approval of the proposal be conditioned on submission of a proposal for alternative compliance that comes back before the Commission on the consent agenda. She stated she is weary of skipping steps in the process. Member Sass questioned how the lack of a vehicular connection can be justified as being equal to or better than a complying plan. Member Haefele noted there is not an official proposal for alternative compliance and members can always pull consent items. She stated the onus would be on staff to analyze a proposal and determine whether it is equal to or better than a complying plan, or whether another process would be more appropriate. Member Stackhouse concurred with Member Sass that an item should not be on consent if a standard is not met. Chair Katz noted the standard is met with the current application which includes the connecting street. Member Schneider asked about the original modifications of standard that were approved by the Commission in April. Planner Wray replied the Commission approved a modification for the distance between the entrances of two of the buildings and a connecting walkway to be greater than 350 feet and a modification to allow three housing types versus four. He stated the third component that is part of this overall PDP decision is alternative compliance to close access to Mullein Drive, which staff found to meet the criteria for equal to or better than a complying plan to alleviate safety concerns of the close proximity to the Redwood intersection. Chair Katz reiterated the plan as proposed meets Land Use Code standards and stated it should be up to the applicant whether they want to submit a new alternative compliance or major amendment. He noted public opinion is taken into consideration; however, it cannot trump a plan that is compliant with the standards. Member Hogestad stated he believes the Commission can place any condition of approval. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe replied there are limits to that set in the Land Use Code and, to the extent the applicant is willing to comply with a condition and states so on the record, it can also be imposed as something the applicant is voluntarily willing to do. Chair Katz requested input from the applicant team. Mr. Coutts replied the applicant would prefer to continue with the condition he suggested related to administrative review and approval prior to final development plan approval, and if that is not an option, would prefer the voluntary optional major amendment route. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe commented on this issue being a substantive one on which the decision maker, the Commission, should make a decision, and that would be the most defensible way to proceed. Member Haefele suggested the Commission can move forward with the proposal with the connection expecting that the applicant will seek a major amendment for its closure. She stated that is the cleanest way to move forward despite not being the most predictable outcome for the existing neighborhood. Everette clarified Traffic Operations staff has confirmed they have had a chance to review Ms. Rollins’ analysis and information and there are no significant concerns about closing the connection from a traffic perspective; rather, the DRAFTPacket pg. 10 Planning & Zoning Commission June 16, 2022 Page 7 of 8 primary concern is with compliance with plan direction and the intent of connecting neighborhoods standards from more of a planning perspective. She noted there may not be a great deal of new staff analysis with a major amendment depending on what is proposed. Chair Katz asked if Poudre Fire Authority would review a plan for closure of the connection. Everette replied in the affirmative and noted the applicant’s proposal includes an emergency access connection, which is typically sufficient for Poudre Fire Authority. Member Stackhouse stated neighborhood connectivity is the main issue and she has not yet had enough time to be able to make a decision. She agrees the plan as proposed meets the Land Use Code requirements with respect to the through street and the Commission should act on that without predetermining the outcome of looking at an alternative. Member Sass concurred and noted the standard is clear that local streets must provide both inter- and intra- neighborhood connections to net developments together with both vehicular and pedestrian connections. He stated giving the applicants the ability to request an alternative seems reasonable but requiring that seems unfair given they have presented a plan that complies. Chair Katz requested the Commissioners discuss the architecture changes. Member Sass supported the changes made to the elevations. Chair Katz also supported the changes and stated the continuance has made for a better product. Member Hogestad agreed the architecture is improved; however, he stated it relied simply on the application of detail on the buildings and is not really what is required by the Land Use Code. Chair Katz noted this is one of the most subjective pieces of the Land Use Code and asked Member Hogestad what he believes does not comply. Member Hogestad replied the Code is attempting to push design to a different result rather than decorating boxes, which is what this design shows. He stated there is little articulation provided in the buildings. Chair Katz asked what would need to occur for Member Hogestad to approve. Member Hogestad replied the footprints of the buildings should be significantly different, per the Code. Member Sass asked how many square feet of difference would be considered significant. Chair Katz noted it is not a defined term and staff currently views the differentiation as significant. Member Haefele stated part of the problem is that square footage is considered a metric of difference; however, that is not defined. Member Hogestad noted the Code references size and shape and stated there is insufficient articulation in the buildings. Chair Katz stated the new Land Use Code updates will be able to better explain these details. Member Hogestad commented on the development having no real identity and stated the Land Use Code was more thoughtful when identifying the need for articulation. Member Schneider commented on the changes in rooflines and coloring that help with compliance. Member Hogestad stated he believes the project simply does not meet the Land Use Code. Member Stackhouse clarified that she would be willing to move forward with a motion for approval without a second condition to require the applicant to submit for alternative compliance. The applicant could then submit a proposal for alternative compliance at a later date, with the proposal analyzed under normal processes. DRAFTPacket pg. 11 Planning & Zoning Commission June 16, 2022 Page 8 of 8 Member Stackhouse made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Enclave at Redwood Project Development Plan, PDP210004, with the following condition: prior to final plan approval, the City’s regional stormwater detention pond that the developer will be constructing must meet the naturalized criteria benefiting a natural habitat buffer zone pursuant to the City’s Stormwater Criteria Manual and Land Use Code Section 3.4.1. The Commission finds in consideration of the condition and approved modification of standards that the project development plan complies with all applicable Land Use Code requirements. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing, and the Commission discussion on this item. Further, this Commission herby adopts the information, analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions regarding this project development plan contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing. Member Sass seconded. Member Haefele agreed with Member Hogestad that the building footprints are not substantially different; however, in reading the Land Use Code, size is one of the ways in which they are allowed to differ. She stated the buildings will look substantially different from the perspective of pedestrians or passersby. She encouraged the applicants to follow through with a major amendment application for the connection closure but stated she would support the motion. Member Schneider thanked the applicant team for working with the existing neighborhood and also encouraged the applicant to submit for alternative compliance or a major amendment. Chair Katz concurred and thanked the members of the public for their comments. Vote: 5:1 with Member Hogestad dissenting. For more complete details on this hearing, please view our video recording located here: https://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php?search=PLANNING%20ZONING Other Business None. Adjournment Chair Katz moved to adjourn the P&Z Commission hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 8:26pm. Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Manno. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on: August 18, 2022. Paul Sizemore, CDNS Director David Katz, Chair DRAFTPacket pg. 12 Development Review Staff Report Agenda Item 2 Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing: August 18, 2022 Peakview Annexation No. 1 (ANX220002), and Zoning Summary of Request This is a request for annexation and zoning on 5.7 acres. In accordance with the City’s Structure Plan Map and the East Mulberry Corridor Plan Map, the requested zoning for this annexation is General Commercial (C-G), Neighborhood Commercial (N-C), and the Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (M-M-N) zone districts, subject to a (Type 2) Review and public hearing by the Planning & Zoning Commission and recommendation to City Council. A specific project development plan proposal is not included with this annexation application. Zoning Map Next Steps The Planning and Zoning Commission’s zoning recommendation and any comments related to the annexation will be forwarded to City Council for their consideration. Site Location The site is located northeast of the intersection of E. Mulberry Street and Greenfields Court. Zoning General Commercial (C-G), Neighborhood Commercial (N-C), and Medium Density Mixed- Use Neighborhood (M-M-N) Property Owner Valley 14 LLC, Cooper Slough Hunt Club LLC 3384 E. Mulberry St. Fort Collins, CO 80525 Applicant/Representative Troy Jones, Land Planner, Architect MTA Planning & Architecture 2826 Sitting Bull Way Fort Collins, CO 80525 Staff Kai Kleer, City Planner p. (970) 416-4284, e. kkleer@fcgov.com Contents 1. Project Introduction .................................... 2 2. Public Outreach ......................................... 4 3. Article 2 – Applicable Standards ................ 5 4. Article 4 – Division 4.6 – Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (M-M-N) Applicable Standards .......................................................... 5 5. Article 4 – Division 4.21 – General Commercial (C-G) Applicable Standards .......... 6 6. Article 4 – Division 4.23 – Neighborhood Commercial (N-C) Applicable Standards .......... 6 7. Findings of Fact/Conclusion ...................... 7 8. Recommendation ....................................... 7 9. Attachments ............................................... 7 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the annexation and zoning, and that this property be included in the Residential and Non-Residential Neighborhood Sign Districts, and the Lighting Context Areas LC1 and LC2. Site Packet pg. 13 P&Z Agenda Item 2 ANX220002 | Peakview Annexation No. 1 Thursday, August 18, 2022 | Page 2 of 7 Back to Top 1. Project Introduction A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This is a request to annex and zone the Peakview street right-of-way property (5.7-acres), located northeast of the intersection of E. Mulberry Street and Greenfields Court. 1. The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins as contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. 2. The area meets all criteria included in Colorado Revised Statues for voluntary annexation to the City of Fort Collins. 3. The requested General Commercial (C-G), Neighborhood Commercial (N-C), and the Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (M-M-N) zone districts are in conformance with the policies of City Plan, Structure Plan and East Mulberry Corridor Plan Land Use Framework Maps. On August 16, 2022, the City Council is scheduled to consider a resolution to accept the annexation petition and determine that the petition is in compliance with State law. The resolution would also initiate the annexation process for the property by establishing the date, time, and place when a City Council public hearing would be held regarding the readings of the Ordinances that would annex and apply zoning to the area. B. ANALYSIS The requested annexation does not create an enclave, though it is located within the East Mulberry Enclave. 1. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use North South East West Zoning Medium Density Mixed-Use (M-M-N) Larimer County C – Commercial Larimer County I – Industrial General Commercial (C-G), Neighborhood Commercial (N-C), and Medium Density Mixed-Use (M-M-N) Land Use Vacant (part of the Bloom subdivision) Vacant (part of Peakview Property) Vacant (part of Peakview property) Vacant (part of the Bloom subdivision) The Peakview annexation property achieves required contiguity (Minimum 16%), as described below: The Peakview Annexation No. 1 has a contiguous perimeter of 2,646.37 feet of the total perimeter of 6,664.91 feet (40%), which satisfies the one-sixth (1/6) area required (16%) of its perimeter boundary contiguity with existing City limits to the west and north. This contiguity is established by the Springer-Fisher and Whitham Farms Annexations. The requested zoning for this annexation is General Commercial (C-G), Neighborhood Commercial (N-C), and the Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (M-M-N). The requested zoning is based on the future land use policy direction in the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan Map and the East Mulberry Corridor Plan Framework Map. Packet pg. 14 P&Z Agenda Item 2 ANX220002 | Peakview Annexation No. 1 Thursday, August 18, 2022 | Page 3 of 7 Back to Top City of Fort Collins Structure Plan Mixed Neighborhoods: Principal Land Use: Single-family detached homes, duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes. Supporting Land Use ADUs, small scale multifamily buildings, small-scale retail, restaurants/cafes, community and public facilities, parks and recreational facilities, schools, places of worship. Density Between five and 20 principal dwelling units per acre (typically equates to an average of seven to 12 dwelling units per acre). Opportunity to provide alternatives to the more typical single-family detached homes or apartments available in Fort Collins, such as duplexes, townhomes and ADUs. Higher densities are more likely to support higher-frequency transit service and additional neighborhood services in adjoining districts. Specific opportunities should be explored as part of future subarea and neighborhood planning. Where greenfield opportunities remain, new Mixed-Neighborhoods should be required to provide a mix of housing options. Suburban Mixed-Use: Principal Land Use: Retail, restaurants, office, and other commercial services. Supporting Land Use: High-density residential, entertainment, childcare centers, and other supporting uses. Densities and building heights will vary; building heights will generally be between one and five-stories but may be higher in some locations. Mixed-use districts provide opportunities for a range of retail and commercial services, office and employment, multifamily residential, civic, and other complementary uses in a compact, pedestrian and transit-supportive setting. Suburban Mixed- Use Districts help meet the needs of surrounding neighborhoods and populations beyond. Although largely auto-oriented today, the integration of higher-density residential and a broader mix of retail/ restaurants, office and entertainment uses is encouraged to help reinvigorate underutilized centers, expand housing options where transit exists or is planned, and improve access to services and amenities in both existing and new districts. Neighborhood Mixed-Use: New Neighborhood Mixed-Use Districts provide an opportunity to integrate a range of neighborhood-serving uses and amenities as part of the overall neighborhood. Neighborhood Mixed-Use Districts are stand-alone, grocery-anchored centers that serve the immediate neighborhood(s). Most have seen little reinvestment over the past decade, and some are in decline. Although Neighborhood Mixed-Use Districts are well distributed across the city, access to services is limited in some neighborhoods. The Structure Plan map shows the area within the Peakview property as a combination of Mixed Neighborhood, Suburban Mixed Use, and Neighborhood Mixed Use designations (see attached Structure Plan map). The Structure Plan future land use designations represent general citywide policy guidance. The Land Use Code does not include zoning to reflect these new designations in City Plan. The East Mulberry Corridor Plan (EMCP) reflects more detailed and specific land use policy guidance than City Plan. East Mulberry Corridor Plan Future residential neighborhoods will be integrated with existing residential subdivisions, and be within proximity to shopping, recreation, and employment destinations. A neighborhood commercial center will be located at Greenfields Court and north of East Mulberry Street to provide neighborhood-oriented services within proximity to the existing and future residents. The Employment District’s primary uses will include offices and institutions, light industrial uses, and research and development activities. Secondary uses, such as hotels, restaurants, convenience shopping, and housing, will complement or support the primary employment workplace uses. The EMCP includes four future land use designations within the Peakview property, including General Commercial (C-G), Neighborhood Commercial (N-C), Employment (E), and Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (M-M-N). These designations reflect the policy direction of the plan for a commercial mixed-use district and supporting higher-density mixed- Packet pg. 15 P&Z Agenda Item 2 ANX220002 | Peakview Annexation No. 1 Thursday, August 18, 2022 | Page 4 of 7 Back to Top use neighborhoods within walking distance to the commercial hub located northwest of the East Mulberry and Greenfields Court intersection (see attached EMCP map). The proposed Peakview zoning is based on the future land use designations in the EMCP Framework Plan map. The proposed zoning includes General Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, and Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods zone areas for the street right-of-way areas. The Bloom subdivision adjacent to this property to the west includes Employment zoning. Staff finds that the proposed Peakview zoning is consistent with the City Structure Plan and East Mulberry Corridor Plan future land use policy direction. Sign District Staff recommends that the property located in the M-M-N zone district be placed within the Residential Neighborhood Sign District and that the property located within the C-G and N-C zone districts be placed in the Non-Residential Sign District. The Sign Districts are established for the purpose of regulating signs for non-residential uses in areas of the community where the predominant character of the neighborhood is residential. Lighting Context Area On March 26, 2021, the City of Fort Collins adopted new exterior lighting standards and established Lighting Context Areas that correspond to the City’s zone districts. The corresponding districts identified by Table 3.2.4-1 of the City’s lighting code is LC1 and LC2. As part of this item, staff recommends placement of the property into the LC1 and LC2 Lighting Context Areas. LC1 - Low ambient lighting. The vision of human residents and users is adapted to low light levels. Lighting may be used for safety and convenience, but it is not necessarily uniform or continuous. Typical locations include low and medium density residential areas, commercial or industrial areas with limited nighttime activity, and the developed areas in parks and other natural setting. LC2 - Moderate ambient lighting. Areas of human activity where the vision of human residents and users is adapted to moderate light levels. Lighting may typically be used for safety and convenience, but it is not necessarily uniform or continuous. Typical locations include high density residential areas, shopping and commercial districts, industrial parks and districts, City playfields and major institutional uses, and mixed-use districts. 2. Public Outreach A. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING A neighborhood meeting was waived by the Planning Manager since the proposed annexation only includes street right-of-way. A neighborhood meeting will be required for the future Peakview Annexation No. 2 that includes the larger property to the east. All other notification requirements as required by state and local law have been met. Packet pg. 16 P&Z Agenda Item 2 ANX220002 | Peakview Annexation No. 1 Thursday, August 18, 2022 | Page 5 of 7 Back to Top 3. Article 2 – Applicable Standards A. BACKGROUND This project was submitted on July 8, 2022, for annexation and zoning. A specific Project Development Plan has not been submitted. The project is in compliance with Section 2.12 Annexation requirements. B. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW 1. Conceptual Design Review A conceptual design review meeting was waived by the Planning Manager since the proposed annexation only includes street right-of-way. A conceptual design review meeting will be required for the future Peakview Annexation No. 2 that includes the larger property to the east. 2. First Submittal (ANX220002) As previously mentioned, the first submittal of this project was completed on July 8, 2022. 3. Neighborhood Meeting A neighborhood meeting was waived by the Planning Manager since the Annexation No. 1 includes only street right-of-way. A neighborhood meeting will be required for the future Peakview Annexation No. 2 that includes the larger remaining property to the east. 4. Notice (Posted, Written and Published) Posted Notice (ANX220002): August 3, 2022 (Sign #689) Written notice: August 4, 2022, 93 letters sent. Published Notice: August 7, 2022. 4. Article 4 – Division 4.6 – Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (M-M-N) Applicable Standards A. PURPOSE The requested zoning for the north portion of this annexation is Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (M- M-N), which is consistent with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan and the East Mulberry Corridor Plan. The Land Use Code describes the Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone district as follows: Purpose. The Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District is intended to be a setting for concentrated housing within easy walking distance of transit and a commercial district. Secondarily, a neighborhood may also contain other moderate-intensity complementary and supporting land uses that serve the neighborhood. These neighborhoods will form a transition and a link between surrounding neighborhoods and the commercial core with a unifying pattern of streets and blocks. A project development plan has not been submitted. The future land uses are subject to the list of permitted land uses in Division 4.6 – Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. Packet pg. 17 P&Z Agenda Item 2 ANX220002 | Peakview Annexation No. 1 Thursday, August 18, 2022 | Page 6 of 7 Back to Top 5. Article 4 – Division 4.21 – General Commercial (C-G) Applicable Standards A. PURPOSE The requested zoning for the south portion of this annexation is General Commercial (C-G)), which is consistent with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan and the East Mulberry Corridor Plan. The Land Use Code describes the General Commercial zone district as follows: Purpose. The General Commercial District is intended to be a setting for development, redevelopment, and infill of a wide range of community and regional retail uses, offices, and personal and business services. Secondarily, it can accommodate a wide range of other uses including creative forms of housing. While some General Commercial District areas may continue to meet the need for auto-related and other auto-oriented uses, it is the City's intent that the General Commercial District emphasize safe and convenient personal mobility in many forms, with planning and design that accommodates pedestrians. B. LAND USE A project development plan has not been submitted. The future land uses are subject to the list of permitted land uses in Division 4.21 – General Commercial. 6. Article 4 – Division 4.23 – Neighborhood Commercial (N-C) Applicable Standards A. PURPOSE The requested zoning for the middle portion of this annexation is Neighborhood Commercial (N-C), which is consistent with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan and the East Mulberry Corridor Plan. The Land Use Code describes the Neighborhood Commercial zone district as follows: Purpose. The Neighborhood Commercial District is intended to be a setting for a mixed-use commercial core area anchored by a supermarket or grocery store and a transit stop. The main purpose of this District is to meet consumer demands for frequently needed goods and services, with an emphasis on serving the surrounding residential neighborhoods typically including a Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. In addition to retail and service uses, the district may include neighborhood-oriented uses such as schools, employment, day care, parks, small civic facilities, as well as residential uses. B. LAND USE A project development plan has not been submitted. The future land uses are subject to the list of permitted land uses in Division 4.23 – Neighborhood Commercial. Packet pg. 18 P&Z Agenda Item 2 ANX220002 | Peakview Annexation No. 1 Thursday, August 18, 2022 | Page 7 of 7 Back to Top 7. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the request for the Peakview Annexation No. 1, ANX220002, staff makes the following findings of fact: 1. The property meets the State law eligibility requirements to qualify for a voluntary annexation to the City of Fort Collins. 2. The requested placement into the General Commercial (C-G), Neighborhood Commercial (N-C), and the Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (M-M-N) zone districts is consistent with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan Map and the East Mulberry Corridor Plan. 3. The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. 4. On August 16, 2022, City Council will consider adoption of a resolution to accept the annexation petition and determine that the petition is in compliance with State law. The resolution also initiates the annexation process for the property by establishing the date, time, and place when a public hearing would be held regarding the readings of the Ordinances annexing and zoning the area. 5. The requested placement into the Residential Neighborhood and Non-Residential Sign Districts, as well as the LC1 and LC2 Lighting Context Areas, is consistent with the City of Fort Collins sign and lighting standards as it relates to Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood, General Commercial, and Neighborhood Commercial zoning. 8. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the annexation and the requested zoning of General Commercial (C-G), Neighborhood Commercial (N-C), and Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (M-M-N), consistent with the Structure Plan and East Mulberry Corridor Plan. Staff recommends that the property located in the M-M-N zone district would be placed within the Residential Neighborhood Sign District, and property located in the C-G and N-C be placed within the Non-Residential Sign District. Staff recommends that the property be placed into the LC1 and LC2 Lighting Context Areas as dictated in Land Use Code Section 3.2.4. 9. Attachments 1. Vicinity Map 2. Annexation Petition 3. Annexation Map 4. Statement of Principles & Policies 5. East Mulberry Corridor Plan Map 6. Structure Plan Map 7. Existing Zoning Map 8. Staff Presentation Packet pg. 19 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1Packet pg. 20 PETITION FOR ANNEXATION THE UNDERSIGNED (hereinafter referred to as the “Petitioners”) hereby petition the Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado for the annexation of an area, to be referred to as the ___________Peakview Annexation No. 1_____________ Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. Said area, consisting of approximately ___251,753 sq. ft.____ (_5.7794) acres, is more particularly described on Attachment “A,” attached hereto. The Petitioners allege: 1. That it is desirable and necessary that such area be annexed to the City of Fort Collins. 2. That the requirements of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S., exist or have been met. 3. That not less than one-sixth (1/6) of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is contiguous with the boundaries of the City of Fort Collins. 4. That a community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the City of Fort Collins. 5. That the area to be annexed is urban or will be urbanized in the near future. 6. That the area proposed to be annexed is integrated with or capable of being integrated with the City of Fort Collins. 7. That the Petitioners herein comprise more that fifty percent (50%) of the landowners in the area and own more than fifty percent (50%) of the area to be annexed, excluding public streets, alleys and lands owned by the City of Fort Collins. 8. That the City of Fort Collins shall not be required to assume any obligations respecting the construction of water mains, sewer lines, gas mains, electric service lines, streets or any other services or utilities in connection with the property proposed to be annexed except as may be provided by the ordinance of the City of Fort Collins. Further, as an express condition of annexation, Petitioners consent to the inclusion into the Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (the “Subdistrict”) pursuant to §37-45-136(3.6) C.R.S., Petitioners acknowledge that, upon inclusion into the Subdistrict, Petitioners’ property will be subject to the same mill levies and special assessments as are levied or will be levied on other similarly situated property in the Subdistrict at the time of inclusion of Petitioners’ lands. Petitioners agree to waive any right to an election which may exist pursuant to Article X, §20 of the Colorado Constitution before the Subdistrict can impose such mill levies and special assessments as it has the authority to impose. Petitioners also agree to waive, upon inclusion, any right which may exist to a refund pursuant to Article X, §20 of the Colorado Constitution. WHEREFORE, said Petitioners request that the Council of the City of Fort Collins approve the annexation of the area described on Attachment “A.” Furthermore, the Petitioners request that said area be placed in the __MMN, NC, and GC_Zone Districts pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins, and more particularly described on Attachment “D,” attached hereto. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 21 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 22 ฀ (Check box if applicable). The Petitioners reserve the right to withdraw this petition and their signatures therefrom at any time prior to the commencement of the roll call of the City Council for the vote upon the second reading of the annexation ordinance. Individual Petitioners signing this Petition represent that they own the portion(s) of the area described on Attachment “A” as more particularly described below: Valley 14, LLC Ownership (1) A TRACT OF LAND SITUATE IN THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO WHICH CONSIDERING THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST 1/4 AS BEARING NORTH 89 DEGREES 11 MINUTES 21 SECONDS WEST AND WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE BOUNDARY LINES WHICH BEGIN AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE SAID SOUTHWEST 1/4 WHICH BEARS NORTH 00 DEGREES 10 MINUTES 34 SECONDS EAST 1,353.04 FEET FROM THE SOUTH 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 9 AND RUN THENCE NORTH 88 DEGREES 53 MINUTES 14 SECONDS WEST 1,324.68 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE SAID EAST 1/2; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE, NORTH 00 DEGREES 14 MINUTES 19 SECONDS EAST 1,281.36 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SAID SOUTHWEST 1/4; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE SOUTH 88 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 11 SECONDS EAST 1,323.28 FEET TO THE CENTER 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SAID SOUTHWEST 1/4, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 10 MINUTES 34 SECONDS WEST 1,282.14 FEET TO THAT POINT OF BEGINNING; (2) AND EXCEPTING THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO COOPER SLOUGH HUNTING CLUB, LLC, IN DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 27, 1998 AS RECEPTION NO. 989093295. TOGETHER WITH THAT PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH PM, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING AT THE WEST 1/16TH CORNER COMMON TO SECTIONS 9 AND 16; THENCE N00°13'30"E, A DISTANCE OF 374.86 FEET ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE N00°13'30"E, A DISTANCE OF 985.09 FEET ON SAID WEST LINE; THENCE S88°54'03"E, A DISTANCE OF 789.69 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THAT PARCEL RECORDED AT RECEPTION NUMBER 98093295 IN THE LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDERS OFFICE; THENCE ON SAID WEST LINE FOR THE FOLLOWING 15 COURCES; 1) THENCE S19°52'14"E, A DISTANCE OF 34.64 FEET; 2) THENCE S04°18'25"E, A DISTANCE OF 42.42 FEET; 3) THENCE S15°47'54"E, A DISTANCE OF 105.48 FEET; 4) THENCE S20°08'03"E, A DISTANCE OF 128.82 FEET; 5) THENCE S10°22'03"E, A DISTANCE OF 122.97 FEET; 6) THENCE S04°05'04"E, A DISTANCE OF 111.32 FEET; 7) THENCE S03°37'23"E, A DISTANCE OF 65.40 FEET; 8) THENCE S00°27'32"W, A DISTANCE OF 52.45 FEET; 9) THENCE S08°09'40"W, A DISTANCE OF 131.91 FEET; 10) THENCE S15°07'42"W, A DISTANCE OF 159.24 FEET; 11) THENCE S18°19'20"W, A DISTANCE OF 114.46 FEET; 12) THENCE S16°07'03"W, A DISTANCE OF 126.85 FEET; 13) THENCE S11°02'45"W, A DISTANCE OF 93.31 FEET; ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 23 14) THENCE S04°43'12"E, A DISTANCE OF 48.59 FEET; 15) THENCE S24°23'54"W, A DISTANCE OF 18.21 FEET; THENCE N89°12'02"W, A DISTANCE OF 35.41 FEET ON A LINE 37.00 NORTH OF AND PARALLEL TO THE TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TO THE NORTHEAST LINE OF THAT PARCEL RECORDED AT RECEPTION NUMBER 20170044765 IN THE LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDERS OFFICE, THE SAME BEING THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE REALIGNED NORTH FRONTAGE ROAD FOR EAST MULBERRY STREET; THENCE ON SAID NORTH LINE FOR THE FOLLOWING 5 COURCES; 1) THENCE ALONG A NONTANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 217.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 46°59'53", A DISTANCE OF 178.00 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF N58°13'16"W WITH A CHORD DISTANCE OF 173.05 FEET; 2) THENCE N34°43'20"W, A DISTANCE OF 155.19 FEET; 3) THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 283.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 42°57'55", A DISTANCE OF 212.22 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF N56°12'17"W WITH A CHORD DISTANCE OF 207.28 FEET; 4) THENCE ALONG A REVERSE CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 533.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 11°49'23", A DISTANCE OF 109.99 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF N83°35'56"W WITH A CHORD DISTANCE OF 109.79 FEET; 5) THENCE N89°30'38"W, A DISTANCE OF 210.05 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH THAT PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH PM, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING AT THE WEST 1/16TH CORNER COMMON TO SECTIONS 9 AND 16, MONUMENTED WITH A 2 ½” ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED PLS 23503; THENCE N00°13'30"E, A DISTANCE OF 37.00 FEET ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9; THENCE S89°12'02"E, A DISTANCE OF 124.82 FEET, PARALLEL WITH AND 37.00 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9 TO THE RIGHT OF WAY LINE CREATED BY THAT DOCUMENT RECORDED AT RECEPTION NUMBER 20170044765 IN THE LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDERS OFFICE, AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ON SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE FOR THE FOLLOWING 7 COURSES; 1) THENCE N00°48'14"E, A DISTANCE OF 237.53 FEET; 2) THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 35.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90°00'07", A DISTANCE OF 54.98 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF N45°29'19"E WITH A CHORD DISTANCE OF 49.50 FEET; 3) THENCE S89°30’38"E, A DISTANCE OF 47.37 FEET; 4) THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 467.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 11°49'23", A DISTANCE OF 96.37 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF S83°35'56"E WITH A CHORD DISTANCE OF 96.19 FEET TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVATURE; 5) THENCE ALONG SAID COMPOUND CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 217.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 42°57'55", A DISTANCE OF 162.73 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF S56°12'17"E WITH A CHORD DISTANCE OF 158.94 FEET; 6) THENCE S34°43'20"E, A DISTANCE OF 155.19 FEET; 7) THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 283.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13°57'56", A DISTANCE OF 68.98 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF S41°42'18"E WITH A CHORD DISTANCE OF 68.81 FEET; THENCE N89°12'02"W, A DISTANCE OF 447.89 FEET, PARALLEL WITH AND 37.00 FEET ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 24 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 25 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 26 ATTACHMENT “A” LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE “PEAKVIEW ANNEXATION NO. 1” A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE SOUTH LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., BEING MONUMENTED BY A 2-1/2" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED "LS 23503" AT THE WEST END AND A 2-1/2" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED "LS 22573" AT THE EAST END, SAID LINE BEING ASSUMED TO BEAR S89°11'21"E. BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9, S88°55'11"E A DISTANCE OF 42.00 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTH LINE, THE FOLLOWING THIRTY-EIGHT (38) COURSES: 1. S00°14'19"W A DISTANCE OF 827.07 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; 2. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 84.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 11°15'25" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 16.50 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; 3. S11°01'07"E A DISTANCE OF 41.76 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; 4. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 116.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 11°15'25" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 22.79 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; 5. S00°14'19"W A DISTANCE OF 75.11 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; 6. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 166.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06°41'42" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 19.40 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; 7. S06°56'01"W A DISTANCE OF 85.38 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; 8. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 134.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06°41'42" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 15.66 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; 9. S00°14'19"W A DISTANCE OF 182.11 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; 10. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 84.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°54'53" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 14.54 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 27 11. S09°40'35"E A DISTANCE OF 52.35 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; 12. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 116.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°54'53" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 20.07 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; 13. S00°14'19"W A DISTANCE OF 102.11 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; 14. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 166.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06°23'15" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 18.51 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; 15. S06°37'34"W A DISTANCE OF 78.77 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; 16. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 134.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°33'20" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 22.35 FEET, TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE; 17. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,033.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°59'32" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 180.15 FEET, TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; 18. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 84.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 11°47'15" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 17.28 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; 19. S24°42'34"E A DISTANCE OF 43.84 FEET, TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENT CURVE; 20. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WHOSE CENTER BEARS S64°54'15"W, HAVING A RADIUS OF 108.19 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10°37'19" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 20.06 FEET, TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENT; 21. S14°51'36"E A DISTANCE OF 50.10 FEET; 22. S13°42'52"E A DISTANCE OF 50.01 FEET; 23. S14°51'36"E A DISTANCE OF 36.74 FEET; 24. S14°51'36"E A DISTANCE OF 47.62 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; 25. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03°07'00" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 1.09 FEET, TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE; 26. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 129.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 08°04'32" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 18.18 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; 27. S19°49'08"E A DISTANCE OF 108.53 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; 28. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 179.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01°22'20" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 4.29 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 28 6. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 29.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07°34'05" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 3.83 FEET, TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE; 7. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 189.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15°18'19" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 50.49 FEET, TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; 8. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 409.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 17°14'40" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 123.10 FEET, TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; 9. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 54.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 43°02'58" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 40.57 FEET, TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; 10. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 79.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 50°07'19" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 69.11 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; 11. S05°14'45"E A DISTANCE OF 94.32 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVE; 12. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 10.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 35°00'00" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 6.11 FEET, TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENT REVERSE CURVE; 13. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT WHOSE CENTER BEARS S56°47'06"E, HAVING A RADIUS OF 10.12 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 38°04'04" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 6.73 FEET, TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENT REVERSE CURVE; 14. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WHOSE CENTER BEARS S85°00'07"W, HAVING A RADIUS OF 517.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 05°14'12" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 47.25 FEET, TO A POINT OF TANGENT; 15. S00°14'19"W A DISTANCE OF 11.14 FEET, TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENT CURVE; 16. ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT WHOSE CENTER BEARS N89°37'29"E, HAVING A RADIUS OF 30.51 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 28°12'43" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 15.02 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID EAST MULBERRY STREET AND A POINT OF NON-TANGENT; THENCE ON SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, N89°11'21"W A DISTANCE OF 154.79 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE ON SAID WEST LINE, N00°14'19"E A DISTANCE OF 2,604.37 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING A CALCULATED AREA OF 251,753 SQUARE FEET OR 5.7794 ACRES. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 29 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 30 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 31 PEAKVIEW ANNEXATION NO. 1ATTACHMENT "D" TO THEANNEXATION PETITION FORZONING PEAKVIEW 108 Rutgers Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 970.416.7431 Fax: 719.325.8340 Email: troy@architex.com http:\\www.Architex.com REVISIONS: 8/4/2022 DATE: 7/1/2022 ANNEXATION NO. 1VALLEY 14 LLC PARCELCOOPER SLOUGH HUNTING CLUB LLC PARCELCITY OF FORT COLLINSEXISTING GC ZONE DISTRICTCITY OF FORT COLLINSEXISTING NC ZONE DISTRICTCITY OF FORT COLLINSEXISTING MMN ZONE DISTRICTSCALE:1 1" = 30'-0"PROPOSED ZONINGCITY OF FORT COLLINSEXISTING LMNZONE DISTRICTITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2Packet pg. 32 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3Packet pg. 33 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 34 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 35 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 36 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 37 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 38 Peakview Annexation No. 1 East Mulberry Corridor Plan Map Street Right-Of-Way E Mulberry St Greenfields Ct ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 39 PEAKVIEW ANNEXATION NO. 1 Structure Plan Map Printed: August 02, 2022 Esri Community Maps Contributors, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA Legend Structure Plan Adjacent Planning Area Campus District Community Separator Downtown District Industrial District Mixed Employment District Mixed Neighborhood Neighborhood Mixed Use District Parks and Natural/Protected Lands R&D/Flex District Rural Neighborhood Single Family Neighborhood Suburban Mixed Use District Urban Mixed Use District parcels SITE ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 40 PEAKVIEW ANNEXATION NO. 1 Zoning Map Printed: August 02, 2022 CG LMN CG MMN NCE Esri Community Maps Contributors, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA Legend Community Commercial (CC) General Commercial (CG) Employment (E) Industrial (I) Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Urban Estate (UE) parcels City Limits SITE ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 41 Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing - 8/18/2022Peakview Annexation No. 1 and Zoning Kai Kleer, City PlannerITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 42 2Request for voluntary annexation/zoning for the Peakview street right-of-way, to include a total of 5.7-acresPeakview Annexation No. 2 for remainder of property, anticipated Fall, 2022Annexation is contiguous to municipal boundariesProposed zoning –General Commercial (C-G), Neighborhood Commercial (N-C), and Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (M-M-N), consistent with Structure Plan and East Mulberry Corridor Plan land use mapsCity Council Initiating Resolution Hearing (8/16/22), 1stReading (9/20/22)PEAKVIEW ANNEXATION NO. 1ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 43 Site Area3ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 44 4Site ContextSiteSiteE Mulberry StAnnexation No. 1 – Street Right-Of-Way onlyGreenfields CtStreet ROWITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 45 5I-25Peakview Annexation No. 1 and ZoningCity Structure Plan –Mixed Neighborhood, Suburban Mixed-Use, and Neighborhood Mixed-Use Land Use DesignationsITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 46 6I-25Peakview Annexation No. 1 and ZoningEast Mulberry Corridor Plan General Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, and Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Land Use DesignationsITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 47 7I-25Peakview Annexation No. 1 and ZoningExisting ZoningITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 48 8I-25Peakview Annexation Sequence MapAnnexation No. 1 and 2 AreasITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 49 Appeal of a Basic Development Review Staff Report Agenda Item 3 Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing: August 18, 2022 3006 Rockborough Court Replat – BDR220001 Summary of Appeal The purpose of this item is to consider an appeal of a staff decision to approve a Basic Development Review and affiliated modification request to replat the parcels addressed 3006 Rockborough Ct, 2937 Eindborough Dr and 3001 Eindborough Dr. A Minor Subdivision process is required to replat existing residential lots when no more than one new lot is created. Minor Subdivisions are processed as a Basic Development Review application. As part of the request, a modification to reduce the minimum rear setback for the dwelling at 2937 Eindborough Dr was proposed. Location Map Next Steps If the appeal is upheld (and the project denied) by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Commission would need to direct staff on how to proceed with any revisions to the project to comply with standards in the RL zone district. If the appeal is denied (and the project approved), the Commission’s decision is final unless appealed to City Council. Site Location The properties are located at 3006 Rockborough Ct, 2937 Eindborough Dr and 3001 Eindborough Dr. Appellants Kathryn Dubiel 2936 Eindborough Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 Ann Towle 3000 Eindborough Dr Fort Collins, CO 80525 Applicant/Owner Brian Carnahan 3006 Rockborough Court Fort Collins, CO 80525 Staff Rebecca Everette, Planning Manager Contents 1. Basic Development Review ....................... 2 2. Land Use Code Article 2 – Applicable Standards .................................................. 2 3. Land Use Code Article 3 – General Development Standards ............................ 5 4. Land Use Code Article 4 – Applicable Standards: ................................................. 5 5. Appeal ........................................................ 6 6. Findings of Fact/Conclusion ...................... 6 7. Recommendation ....................................... 6 8. Attachments ............................................... 6 Recommendation Staff previously approved, and continues to recommend approval of, the Basic Development Review. Packet pg. 50 Planning and Zoning Commission - Agenda Item 3 BDR220001 | 3006 Rockborough Court Replat Thursday, August 18, 2022 | Page 2 of 7 Back to Top 1. Basic Development Review A. 3006 ROCKBOROUGH COURT REPLAT APPROVAL The 3006 Rockborough Ct plan was submitted in February 2022 by the current owner of 3006 Rockborough Ct, 2937 Eindborough Dr and 3001 Eindborough Dr. The plan proposed a replat of the three properties to increase the size of the lot for 3006 Rockborough Ct, which is the applicant’s primary residence. This increase of the lot size aligned with the pre-existing fences for the three properties, which the owner had previously adjusted to create additional backyard space at 3006 Rockborough Ct. The request included a modification of standard to the minimum rear setback requirement of 15 feet for the dwelling at 2937 Eindborough Dr. The requested modification was for a 10% reduction in the setback to 13.5 feet. Staff recommended approval of the modification based on the finding that it resulted in a “nominal, inconsequential” deviation from the standards of the Land Use Code, as specified in LUC Section 2.8.2(H)(4). On May 20, 2022, after reviewing the materials and staff’s recommendation the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services’ designee (Rebecca Everette, Planning Manager) approved the project and the modification request with no conditions. 2. Land Use Code Article 2 – Applicable Standards A. BASIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW 1. Conceptual Review – CDR200012 A conceptual review meeting was held on June 3, 2021. This Conceptual Review was an optional step since Basic Development Review applications do not require a pre-submittal meeting. 2. First Submittal – BDR220001 The Basic Development Review was submitted on February 11, 2022 3. Notice (Posted, Written and Published) Posted Notice: February 23, 2022, Sign #678. Adjacent Property/2-Week Comment Notice: April 13, 2022, 224 addresses mailed. Notice of Decision: May 25, 2022, 224 addresses mailed. Land Use Code Section 2.18.3 sets forth the process and criteria for projects subject to Basic Development Review, including Minor Subdivsions. Section 2.18.1 specifies that Basic Development Review shall be the review process for: “(A)Those uses listed as such in each of the Article Four Zone Districts. (B)Existing Limited Permitted Uses (Section 1.6.5). (C)Expansions and Enlargements of Existing Buildings (Sections 3.8.20 and 3.8.25). (D)Building Permit Applications (Division 2.7). (E)Minor Subdivisions (Section 2.18.2).” In the case of BDR220001, the project falls under the Minor Subdivision category since it is a replat that does not create more than one new lot. B. DIVISION 2.8 – MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS The applicant requests one modification of a standard as noted previously in this report. The Land Use Code is adopted with the recognition that there will be instances where a project would support the implementation of City Plan, but due to unique and unforeseen circumstances would not meet a specific Packet pg. 51 Planning and Zoning Commission - Agenda Item 3 BDR220001 | 3006 Rockborough Court Replat Thursday, August 18, 2022 | Page 3 of 7 Back to Top standard of the Land Use Code as stated. The modification process and criteria in Land Use Code Division 2.8.2(H) provide for evaluation of these instances on a case-by-case basis, as follows: Land Use Code Modification Criteria: “The decision maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4) above shall be supported by specific findings showing how the plan, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4).” 1. Modification to Section 4.4(D)(2)(c) Dimensional Standards, minimum setback of rear yard The standard: The Land Use Code Dimensional Standards for residential buildings in the Low Density Residential zone district requires the following rear setback for primary structures: “Minimum setback of the rear yard shall be fifteen (15) feet, except that the minimum setback of alley-accessed garages shall be six (6) feet.” It was determined that a modification to the rear setback standard was necessary since the distance between the rear lot line, defined in the LUC as “the line opposite the front lot line”, and the southwest corner of the dwelling from the dwelling at 2937 Eindborough Dr did not meet the minimum 15 foot distance required (see graphic on page 4). The plan proposes a 10% reduction to the required setback distance, reducing the setback from 15 feet to 13 feet 6 inches. That reduction was based on the existing 10% setback reduction that can be requested via the City’s variance process, and which can be granted by the Director of their designee per LUC Section 2.10.2. Packet pg. 52 Planning and Zoning Commission - Agenda Item 3 BDR220001 | 3006 Rockborough Court Replat Thursday, August 18, 2022 | Page 4 of 7 Back to Top (a) Applicant Justification The applicant’s justification for the Modification to 4.4(D)(2)(c) specifically addresses Criteria 4. The applicant’s justification is attached. Relevant points are: Criteria 4 “…Because the rear setback dimension increases as you move along the angle, the shortcoming only occurs for a few feet beyond the corner of the property. The request is for a nominal 10% reduction for this section of the corner of the lot, and thus keeping the three property lines all converging at a single point…” Additionally, the applicant acknowledges that while the point that the 13 foot 6 inch diagonal measurement taken from the corner of the house is well within the side setback minimum of 5 feet, but falls short of the rear setback minimum 15 feet. It should be noted that the applicant has questioned the determination of the rear vs side lot line interpretation by staff, but acknowledges that the dimension has been determined to be controlled by the rear setback limits. C. STAFF’S ANALYSIS OF MODIFICATION REQUEST Staff finds that the requested Modification of Standard to Section 4.4(D)(2)(c) to reduce the rear setback from 15 feet to 13 feet 6 inches would not be detrimental to the public good and is justified by criteria 4 in Land Use Code Section 2.8.2. The purpose of this standard is to provide a consistent placement of primary structures on lots, which is difficult to achieve when considering the following: the placement of pre-existing fences for the three properties and the placement of the existing building on-site. Staff finds that the Modification request satisfies Criterion 4 “nominal, inconsequential when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan” since the proposed modification is minor enough in nature that it in no way detracts from the overall plan or the intent of the Land Use Code Standards. Packet pg. 53 Planning and Zoning Commission - Agenda Item 3 BDR220001 | 3006 Rockborough Court Replat Thursday, August 18, 2022 | Page 5 of 7 Back to Top Furthermore, staff finds that in requesting only a 10% reduction that the modification aligns and is consistent with similar requests that applicants can make via the City’s variance process. 3. Land Use Code Article 3 – General Development Standards Staff finds that given the scope and administrative nature of the Basic Development Review, there are no Article 3 standards that are specifically applicable to the proposed replat since no new development is proposed. The existing dwellings continue to be compliant with the standards of the code to the extent that they can be reasonably and proportionally applied to the Basic Development Review. 4. Land Use Code Article 4 – Applicable Standards: A. DIVISION 4.4 – LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-L) The R-L Low Density Residential District designation is intended for predominately single-family residential areas located throughout the City which were existing at the time of adoption of this Code. Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings 4.4(D) (1) – Land Use Standards - Density The density standard in the zone district requires that all development shall have a minimum lot area equivalent to 3 times the total floor area of the building but not less than 6,000 square feet. Compliance with the standard is detailed below: • 2937 Eindborough Dr o Total Floor Area: 1,254 square feet o Minimum lot size required: 6,000 square feet o Lot size provided: 7,738 square feet • 3001 Eindborough Dr o Total Floor Area: 1,880 square feet o Minimum lot size required: 6,000 square feet o Lot size provided: 6,001 square feet • 3006 Rockborough Ct o Total Floor Area: 2,032 square feet o Minimum lot size required: 6,096 square feet o Lot size provided: 11,351 square feet Complies with Standard 4.4(D)(2) – Land Use Standards – Dimensional Standards This section details minimum front, rear, and side yard setbacks as well as minimum lot width for single-family dwellings and maximum building height. Front yard setback: minimum of 20 feet Side yard setback: minimum of 5 feet (15 feet on street side of corner lots) Rear yard setback: minimum of 15 feet Lot Width: minimum of 60 feet Building height: maximum of 28 feet for single-family dwellings • The Basic Development Review is not proposing any new development or expansions of the existing structures that would impact the front or side yard setbacks. As detailed earlier in the staff report a modification to the rear setback requirement of 15 feet is requested to allow the dwelling at 2937 Eindborough Dr to encroach 1-and-a-half feet into the rear setback area thereby reducing the setback distance to 13 feet 6 inches. All other setbacks for the replat comply with the minimums of the zone district. Modification Requested Packet pg. 54 Planning and Zoning Commission - Agenda Item 3 BDR220001 | 3006 Rockborough Court Replat Thursday, August 18, 2022 | Page 6 of 7 Back to Top 5. Appeal On June 2, 2022, the City received an appeal of the Director’s decision to approve BDR220001 along with the affiliated modification. The reasons for the appeal are as follows: 1. The modification of standard that is applied to 4.4(D)(2)(c) is detrimental to the public good, does not advance the purposes of LUC 1.2.2, and does not meet the standard equally well or better. The appellant goes on to state that the Director’s designee does not adequately explain which of the four modification criteria is being applied. The appellant also expresses concerns that the impacts of the reduced setback on the existing dwelling has not been properly justified. 2. That the lot size requirement of LUC 4.4(D)(1) are not met for the replat of Lot 59A – 3001 Eindborough Dr due to the fact that the 6,001 square feet is less than three times the total floor area of the existing building. o PLEASE NOTE: On June 6, 2022 the appellant contacted City staff to state that they were choosing to withdraw this item from the appeal as it was made in error. 6. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the request for the 3006 Rockborough Court Replat #BDR220001, staff makes the following findings of fact: 1. The Basic Development Review complies with complies with the applicable procedural and administrative requirements of Article 2 of the Land Use Code. 2. The Modification to Section 4.4(D)(2)(c) is not detrimental to the public good and meets criteria 2.8.2(H)(4) “nominal, inconsequential when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan” since the proposed modification is minor enough in nature that it in no way detracts from the overall plan or the intent of the Land Use Code Standards. Furthermore, staff finds that in requesting only a 10% reduction that the modification aligns and is consistent with similar requests that applicants can make via the City’s variance process. 3. The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 – General Development Standards. 4. The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.4 – Low Density Residential District (R-L) in Article 4, subject to the approval of the requested modification. 7. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the 3006 Rockborough Court Replat #BDR220001 based on the Findings of Fact and supporting explanations found in the staff report. 8. Attachments 1. Basic Development Review application form 2. Notice letter 3. Decision letter 4. 3006 Rockborough Ct Plat 5. Carnahan Subdivision ILC 6. Modification Request 7. Appeal Documents 8. Staff Presentation Packet pg. 55 Planning and Zoning Commission - Agenda Item 3 BDR220001 | 3006 Rockborough Court Replat Thursday, August 18, 2022 | Page 7 of 7 Back to Top 9. Applicant Presentation 10. Appellant Presentation Packet pg. 56 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW: APPLICATION FORM Community Development & Neighborhood Services – 281 N College Ave – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Project Information Project Name:_____________________________________________ Project Description (Choose type of request from the list on the back): _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ Location Description/Project Address:_________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ Major Cross Streets: _______________________________________ Zone District:______________________________________________ Parcel Number: ____________________________________________ Building/Unit Information Residential:_________ ___________________________Square Feet Commercial:____________________________________Square Feet Industrial:______________________________________Square Feet Building Floor Area Ratio:___________________________________ Platted Area:______________________________________________ Number of Units: Single Family Attached:______Single Family Detached: __________ Two Family:________________Multi-Family:____________________ Total Number of Bedrooms Rented Separately:_________________ Dates: Conceptual Review Meeting Date_____________________________ Neighborhood Meeting Date_________________________________ Hearing Type______________________________________________ Site/Area Information Residential Area:_____________ _____Sq. Ft. ____________Acres Commercial Area:____________ _____ Sq. Ft. ____________Acres Industrial Area:_____________ ______ Sq. Ft. ____________Acres Mixed Use Area:_____________ ______Sq. Ft. ___________Acres Right of Way Area: _________________ Sq. Ft. ___________Acres Parking and Drive Area: _____________ Sq. Ft. ___________Acres Stormwater Detention Area:__________Sq. Ft. ___________Acres Landscape Area: ___________________Sq. Ft. ___________Acres Open/Other Areas: __________________Sq. Ft. __________Acres Gross Area:________________________Sq. Ft. ___________Acres Floor Area Ratio:_________________________________________ Gross Density:________________Net Density ________________ Owner Information Name:__________________________________________________ Address:________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ City:__________________State:________________Zip:__________ Phone:_________________Email:___________________________ Applicant Information Name:__________________________________________________ Organization Name: ______________________________________ Contact:_________________________________________________ Address:________________________________________________ City___________________State:________________Zip:_________ Phone:_________________Email:___________________________ Preferred Method of Contact: ______________________________ For Office Use Only Date Submitted ________________ Current Planning File #_________________ Planner______________________ ð CERTIFICATIONMUST BESIGNED.ï CERTIFICATION I certify the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing this application, I am acting with the knowledge, consent, and authority of the owners of the real pr operty, as those terms are defined in Section 1-2 of the City Code (including common areas legally connected to or associated with the property which is the subject of this application) without whose consent and authority the requested action could not lawfully be accomplished. Pursuant to said authority, I hereby permit City officials to enter upon the property for the purpose of inspection, and if necessary, for posting of public notice on the property. Name (Please PRINT): _______________________________________________________________________ Address:___________________________________________________________________________________ Telephone:___________________________________________________________________________ Signature: (and title showing authority to sign, if applicable) ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 57 Revised December 28, 2021 2 Type of Request Please indicate the type of application submitted by checking the box preceding the appropriate request(s). Additional handouts are available explaining the submittal requirements for each of the following review processes. ‰ ‰ ‰ ‰ ‰ ‰ ‰ ‰ ‰ ‰ ‰ ‰ ‰ ‰ ‰ Annexation Petition with Initial Zoning REQUESTED ZONE: _______________________________ Fee $5,825 Rezoning Petition REQUESTED ZONE: _____________________________ Fee $4,800 Planned Unit Development (PUD) Fee: $54,475 Overall Development Plan (ODP) Fee: $11,150 Project Development Plan (PDP) Fee: $27,675 Final Development Plan (FDP) Fee: $21,575 Modification of Standards Fee: $1,675 Basic Development Review (BDR) Fee: $16,900 Major Amendment (MJA) Fee: $18,975 Minor Amendment / Change of Use Fee: $1,500 Minor Subdivision Fee: $2,300 subdivision only, no land use approvals Infrastructure Project Fee: $13,625 Extra Occupancy Unit Fee: $2,025 per unit Addition of Permitted Use (APU) Fee: $3,500 Site Plan Advisory Review NO FEE Additional rounds of Review Fee: $3,000 charged once for projects that require 4 or more rounds of review Payments can be made by check or credit card. Check: Make payable to City of Fort Collins. Mail to the Development Review Center, 281 N College Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80524, OR place in the blue drop box located at the west side of the building. Credit Card: Would be processed over the phone. Credit card payments include a convenience fee of 2% + $0.25 added to all payments under $2,500.00, and 2.75% added to all payments over $2,500.00. ‰ City of Fort Collins Development Review collects Poudre Fire Authority Development Review Fees for the above requests. Applicable Poudre Fire Authority Fees would apply at time of application. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 58 Development Review Center 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970-221-6750 fcgov.com/DevelopmentReview PUBLIC NOTICE — TWO-WEEK OPEN COMMENT PERIOD April 14, 2022 Dear Property Owner or Resident: The City of Fort Collins has received a request to replat the properties addressed at 3006 Rockborough Court, 2937 Eindborough Drive, and 3001 Eindborough Driver, referred to as 3006 Rockborough Court - Replat, #BDR220001. This is a request for a Basic Development Review to replat three existing lots located at 3006 Rockborough Ct, 2937 Eindborough Dr, and 3001 Eindborough Dr (parcel #8730210049; 8730210060; 8730210059). The proposal is to change the rear lot lines of the three parcels to enlarge the lot for 3006 Rockborough Ct to 11,300 sf. All three parcels are owned by the same party. Access is taken from Rockborough Ct directly to the southeast and Eindborough Dr directly to the east. The property is within the Low Density Residential (RL) zone district (location map on reverse). The Land Use Code Section 2.18 allows this request to be considered by the Planning Director administratively versus a public hearing. Prior to consideration by the Planning Director, there will be a two-week open comment period during which comments can be provided to the Planning Services Department. This open comment period will be: 8:00 A.M., Friday, April 15th through 5:00 P.M., Friday, April 29th •Written comments may be delivered to the Planning Services Department located at 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524. Or, •Written comments may be mailed to Planning Services, City of Fort Collins, P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522. Or, •Electronic comments may be sent to devreviewcomments@fcgov.com. At the close of the public comment period, the Planning Director shall issue a written decision to approve, approve with conditions or deny the development application based on compliance with the applicable standards. The written decision shall be mailed to the applicant and to any person who provided comments during the comment period and shall also be posted on the City’s website at www.fcgov.com/Proposals. If you have any questions regarding this process, please feel free to contact Will Lindsey, 970-224-6164 or wlindsey@fcgov.com. Sincerely, Will Lindsey, City Planner «Name» «Name1» «Address» «City», «State» «Zipcode» 100.803100.549110 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 59 2 The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Auxiliary aids and services are available for persons with disabilities. Contact Shar Manno, Manager, Customer Support, smanno@fcgov.com or 970-221-6767 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado). Esta es una notificación sobre la reunión de su vecindario o sobre una audiencia pública sobre el desarrollo o proyecto en la propiedad cerca de donde usted es el dueño de propiedad. Si usted desea que esta notificación sea traducida al español sin costo alguno, favor enviar un correo electrónico en español a la siguiente dirección electrónica: translate@fcgov.com. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 60 Development Review Center 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970-221-6689 fcgov.com/DevelopmentReview NOTICE OF BASIC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DECISION May 25, 2021 Dear Abutting Property Owner: This letter is being sent to you because your property abuts the 3006 Rockborough Court - Replat, BDR220001, Basic Development Review project location. Attached to this letter you will find a copy of the Development Review Manager’s decision approving the project. This final decision of the Development Review Manager may be appealed to the Planning & Zoning Commission, in accordance with Article II, Division 2.18.3 (L) of the Land Use Code, within 14 calendar days of the date of final action by the Development Review Manager. Guidelines explaining the appeal process, including the Code provisions previously referenced, can be found online at fcgov.com/cityclerk/appeals.php, or may be obtained in the City Clerk’s Office at 300 Laporte Avenue. You may contact me with any questions, or our Development Review Liaison at devreviewcomments@fcgov.com or 970-224-6076. Our Development Review Liaison is available to assist residents who have questions about the review process, Development Review Manager decisions, or how to appeal a decision to the Planning & Zoning Commission. Thank you for participating in the development review process. Sincerely, Will Lindsey | City Planner wlindsey@fcgov.com The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Auxiliary aids and services are available for persons with disabilities. Contact Shar Manno, Manager, Customer Support, smanno@fcgov.com or 970-221-6767 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado). Esta es una notificación sobre la reunión de su vecindario o sobre una audiencia pública sobre el desarrollo o proyecto en la propiedad cerca de donde usted es el dueño de propiedad. Si usted desea que esta notificación sea traducida al español sin costo alguno, favor enviar un correo electrónico en español a la siguiente dirección electrónica: translate@fcgov.com. MANAGER’S DECISION Approved— Friday, May 20, 2022 PROPOSAL NAME & LOCATION 3006 Rockborough Court Replat BDR220001 Sign #678, Parcel #s: 8730210049; 8730210060; 8730210059 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION This is a request for a Basic Development Review to replat three existing lots located at 3006 Rockborough Ct, 2937 Eindborough Dr, and 3001 Eindborough Dr. The proposal is to change the rear lot lines of the three parcels to enlarge the lot for 3006 Rockborough Ct to 11,300 SF. All three parcels are owned by the same party. Access is taken from Rockborough Ct directly to the southeast and Eindborough Dr directly to the east. ZONING INFORMATION The property is in the Low Density Residential (RL) Zone District. FINDINGS OF FACT Accepted and properly processed in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.2.10 and 2.18 of the Land Use Code. Complies with the applicable sections of Article 3, General Development Standards, of the Land Use Code. Complies with the requirements of Article Four, Section 4.4 – Low Density Residential (RL). The proposed replat for the existing uses, single-family dwellings, is a permitted use in the Low Density Residential (RL) zone district 3006 Rockborough Court – Replat, BDR220001, conforms to the vision and policy guidance in the 2019 City Plan. HELPFUL RESOURCES Written Decision: fcgov.com/developmentreview/proposals ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 61 S 89°57'00" W 117.20'N 00°03'00" W26.87'S 78°12'15" E 100.40'R=50.00'L=39.14'Δ=44°51'00"CD=N10°37'42"W,38.15'S 56°56'45" W 125.52'S 51°50'15" E 43.02'N 00°03'00" W 43.39'N 89°57'00" E 117.20'S 00°03'00" E 70.00'S 00°03'00" E 73.00'N 00°03'00" W 73.00'S 89°57'00" W 83.40'N 89°57'00" E 33.80'26.61'73.00'N 00°03'00" W 126.48'33.80'83.40'LOT LINES VACATEDBY THIS PLAT6' UTILITY EASEMENTTO REMAIN7'7'14' UTILITY EASEMENTTO REMAIN6' UTILITY EASEMENTTO REMAINEINDBOROUGH DRIVE(60' RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATED BYTHE PLAT OF EASTBOROUGH)ROCKBOROUGH COURT (RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATED BY THE PLAT OF EASTBOROUGH) LOT 59A6001 S.F.LOT 49A11351 S.F.LOT 60A7738 S.F.LOT 507' UTILITY EASEMENT DEDICATED BY THIS PLAT LOT 48LOT 58LOT 61SITE LOCATIONE. HORSETOOTH ROADE. DRAKE ROADLAKE SHERWOODS. TIMBERLINE ROADUNION PACIFIC RAILROADS. LAMAY AVENUECENTENNIAL ROADS 89°53'42" E 5205.98'N 00°03'00" W 654.59'1082.60'WEST 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 30, T7N, R68WFOUND 3" ALUMINUM CAP MARKED "LS 20123"SET IN A MONUMENT BOX - TIES MATCH 1990 RECORD4123.38'EAST 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 30, T7N, R68WFOUND 3" ALUMINUM CAP MARKED "LS 17497"SET IN A MONUMENT BOX - TIES MATCH 2001 RECORDLOT 149LOT 150LOT 151VICINITY MAPLEGENDPUBLIC SURVEY MONUMENT AS DESCRIBEDFOUND 1/2" REBAR WITHOUT A CAPSET 1/2" REBAR 18" IN LENGTH WITH 1" PLASTIC MARKED "PLS 38692"PLATTED LOT LINEBOUNDARY LINERIGHT OF WAY LINEEASEMENT LINENOTES- BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE EAST LINE OF LOTS 59 AND 60 OF THE PLAT OFEASTBOROUGH TO HAVE THE PLAT BEARING OF S00°03'00"E BETWEEN THE NORTHEASTCORNER OF LOT 60, BEING A FOUND 1/2" REBAR, AND THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 59,BEING A FOUND 1/2" REBAR.- UNITS AND DISTANCES ARE SHOWN IN US SURVEY FOOT.- RESEARCH FOR THIS SUBDIVISION PLAT RELIED UPON THE TITLE COMMITMENT POLICIESPROVIDED BY THE OWNER AS FOLLOWS:LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY Order Number: FCH25160823.1 (MAY 2022).FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE POLICY File No.: 5524-3442898 ENDORSEMENT (APRIL 2022).NORTH AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY File No.: 33400-15-13518-01 (APRIL 2022).- THERE SHALL BE NO PRIVATE CONDITIONS, COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS THAT PROHIBITOR LIMIT THE INSTALLATION OF RESOURCE CONSERVING EQUIPMENT OR LANDSCAPING THATARE ALLOWED BY SECTIONS 12-120 - 12-122 OF THE CITY CODE.- THE NEW LOTS CREATED BY THIS ACTION ARE SUBJECT TO THE SAME RESTRICTIONS,COVENANTS, AND REGULATIONS AS SET FORTH IN THE RECORDED PLAT OF EASTBOROUGH,RECORDED AT RECEPTION NO. 204483 OF THE LARIMER COUNTY RECORDS.NOTICE: According to Colorado law you must commence any legalaction based upon any defect in this survey within three years after youfirst discover such defect. In no event, may any action based upon anydefect in this survey be commenced more than ten years from the dateof the certification shown hereon.REVISION:REVISION:REVISION:REVISION:DRAWN BY:FIELD DATE:PROJECT NO.:CLIENT:DWG. DATE:SOF HEET㻟㻜㻢㻌㻱㻚㻌㻱㻸㻵㼆㻭㻮㻱㼀㻴㻌㻿㼀㻾㻱㻱㼀㻲㻻㻾㼀㻌㻯㻻㻸㻸㻵㻺㻿㻌㻯㻻㻸㻻㻾㻭㻰㻻㻔㻥㻣㻜㻕㻌㻞㻟㻞㻙㻥㻠㻤㻞㼏㼠㼔㼑㼣㻬㼠㼞㼕㻙㼜㼑㼍㼗㼟㻚㼏㼛㼙TRI-PEAKS, LLC㻯㻸㼀W21-1572-27-20022-4-2022CARNAHAN SUBDIVISION11CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADOSITUATE IN THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN CARNAHAN SUBDIVISIONTITLE:STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP AND SUBDIVISION:Know all persons by these presents, that the undersigned, being owner(s) of the following described land:LOT 49, 59, AND 60 OF THE PLAT OF EASTBOROUGH(WHICH ABOVE DESCRIBED TRACT CONTAINS 0.576 ACRES, MORE OR LESS)for themselves and their successors in interest (collectively,“Owner”) have caused the above described land tobe surveyed and subdivided into lots, tracts and streets as shown on this Plat to be known as CARNAHANSUBDIVISION, subject to all easements and rights-of-way now of record or existing or indicated on this Plat.The rights and obligations of the Plat shall run with the land.CERTIFICATE OF DEDICATION:The Owner does hereby dedicate and convey to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado (hereafter “City”), for public use, forever, apermanent right-of-way for street purposes and the “Easements” as laid out and designated on this Plat; provided, however,that (1) acceptance by the City of this dedication of Easements does not impose upon the City a duty to maintain theEasements so dedicated, and (2) acceptance by the City of this dedication of streets does not impose upon the City a dutyto maintain streets so dedicated until such time as the provisions of the Maintenance Guarantee have been fully satisfied.The streets dedicated on this Plat are the fee property of the City as provided in Section 31-23-107 C.R.S. The City’s rightsunder the Easements include the right to install, operate, access, maintain, repair, reconstruct, remove and replace withinthe Easements public improvements consistent with the intended purpose of the Easements; the right to install, maintain anduse gates in any fences that cross the Easements; the right to mark the location of the Easements with suitable markers;and the right to permit other public utilities to exercise these same rights. Owner reserves the right to use the Easements forpurposes that do not interfere with the full enjoyment of the rights hereby granted. The City is responsible for maintenance ofits own improvements and for repairing any damage caused by its activities in the Easements, but by acceptance of thisdedication, the City does not accept the duty of maintenance of the Easements, or of improvements in the Easements thatare not owned by the City. Owner will maintain the surface of the Easements in a sanitary condition in compliance with anyapplicable weed, nuisance or other legal requirements.Except as expressly permitted in an approved plan of development or other written agreement with the City, Owner will notinstall on the Easements, or permit the installation on the Easements, of any building, structure, improvement, fence,retaining wall, sidewalk, tree or other landscaping (other than usual and customary grasses and other ground cover). In theevent such obstacles are installed in the Easements, the City has the right to require the Owner to remove such obstaclesfrom the Easements. If Owner does not remove such obstacles, the City may remove such obstacles without any liability orobligation for repair and replacement thereof, and charge the Owner the City’s costs for such removal. If the City choosesnot to remove the obstacles, the City will not be liable for any damage to the obstacles or any other property to which theyare attached.The rights granted to the City by this Plat inure to the benefit of the City’s agents, licensees, permitteesand assigns.OWNER(S)________________________________________Brian D. Carnahan________________________________________Amy B. CarnahanSTATE OF COLORADO ) ) SSCOUNTY OF LARIMER )THE FOREGOING DEDICATION WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS ______DAY OF____________________________, 20_____ BY: Brian D. Carnahan and Amy B. Carnahan_________________________________________NOTARY PUBLICMY COMMISSION EXPIRES_________________ SEALATTORNEY'S CERTIFICATION:I hereby certify that this Subdivision Plat has been duly executed as required pursuant to Section2.2.3(C)(3)(a) through (e) inclusive of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins and that all personssigning this Subdivision Plat on behalf of a corporation or other entity are duly authorized signatoriesunder the laws of the State of Colorado. This Certification is based upon the records of the Clerk andRecorder of Larimer County, Colorado as of the date of execution of the Plat and other informationdiscovered by me through reasonable inquiry and is limited as authorized by Section 2.2.3(C)(3)(f) ofthe Land Use CodeATTORNEY: _____________________________________ADDRESS: ____________________________________________________________________________REGISTRATION NO.: ________________________________MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE:The Owner hereby warrants and guarantees to the City, for a period of two (2) years from the date of completion and firstacceptance by the City of the improvements warranted hereunder, the full and complete maintenance and repair of theimprovements to be constructed in connection with the Development which is the subject of this Plat. This warranty andguarantee is made in accordance with the City Land Use Code and/or the Transitional Land Use Regulations, asapplicable. This guaranteeapplies to the streets and all other appurtenant structures and amenities lying within the rights-of-way, Easements andother public properties, including, without limitation, all curbing, sidewalks, bike paths, drainage pipes, culverts, catchbasins, drainage ditches and landscaping. Any maintenance and/or repairrequired on utilities shall be coordinated with the owning utility company or department. The Owner shall maintain saidimprovements in a manner that will assure compliance on a consistent basis with all construction standards, safetyrequirements and environmental protection requirements of the City. The Owner shall also correct and repair, or cause tobe corrected and repaired, all damages to said improvements resulting from development-related or building-relatedactivities. In the event the Owner fails to correct any damages within thirty (30) days after written notice thereof, then saiddamages may be corrected by the City and all costs and charges billed to and paid by the Owner. The City shall also haveany other remedies available to it as authorized by law. Any damages which occurred prior tothe end of said two (2) year period and which are unrepaired at the termination of said period shall remain theresponsibility of the Owner.REPAIR GUARANTEE:In consideration of the approval of this final Plat and other valuable consideration, the Owner does hereby agree to holdthe City harmless for a five (5) year period, commencing upon the date of completion and first acceptance by the City ofthe improvements to be constructed in connection with the development which is the subject of this Plat, from any and allclaims, damages, or demands arising on account of the design and construction of public improvements of the propertyshown herein; and the Owner furthermore commits to make necessary repairs to said public improvements, to include,without limitation, the roads, streets, fills, embankments, ditches, cross pans, sub-drains, culverts, walls and bridges withinthe right-of way, Easements and other public properties, resulting from failures caused by design and/or constructiondefects. This agreement to hold the City harmless includes defects in materials and workmanship, as wellas defects caused by or consisting of settling trenches, fills or excavations. Further, the Owner warrants that he/she ownsfee simple title to the property shown hereon and agrees that the City shall not be liable to the Owner or his/her successorsin interest during the warranty period, for any claim of damages resulting from negligence in exercising engineeringtechniques and due caution in the construction of cross drains, drives, structures or buildings, the changing of courses ofstreams and rivers, flooding from natural creeks and rivers, and any other matter whatsoever on private property. Any andall monetary liability occurring under this paragraph shall be the liability of the Owner. I further warrant that I have the rightto convey said land according to this Plat.NOTICE OF OTHER DOCUMENTS:All persons take notice that the Owner has executed certain documents pertaining to this Developmentwhich create certain rights and obligations of the Development, the Owner and/or subsequent Owners of allor portions of the Development site, many of which obligations constitute promises and covenants that,along with the obligations under this Plat, run with the land. The said documents may also be amendedfrom time to time and may include, without limitation, the Development Agreement, Site And LandscapeCovenants, Final Site Plan, Final Landscape Plan, and Architectural Elevations, which documents are onfile in the office of the clerk of the City and should be closely examined by all persons interested inpurchasing any portion of the Development site.SURVEYOR’S STATEMENT:I, CHRISTOPHER L. THEW, a Colorado Registered Professional Land Surveyor, do hereby state that this SubdivisionPlat was prepared from an actual survey under my personal supervision, that the monumentation as indicated hereonwere found or set as shown, and that the forgoing Plat is an accurate representation thereof, all this to the best ofmy knowledge, information and belief.CHRISTOPHER L. THEW PE-PLSCOLORADO REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR # 38692APPROVED AS TO FORM, CITY ENGINEER:BY THE CITY ENGINEER OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO THIS ___________ DAY OF_______________________ A.D.,_____________ .__________________________________________________________________CITY ENGINEERPLANNING APPROVAL:BY THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES THE CITY OFFORT COLLINS, COLORADO THIS _____ DAY OF ________________________________ A.D., _____________ .___________________________________________________________________DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICESSECTION TIE LINEBEING A REPLAT OF LOTS 49, 59, AND 60 OF THE PLAT OF EASTBOROUGHLIEN HOLDER: SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING________________________________________REPRESENTATIVE________________________________________TITLESTATE OF COLORADO ) ) SSCOUNTY OF LARIMER )THE FOREGOING DEDICATION WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS ______DAY OF__________________, 20_____ BY: ______________________________________________._________________________________________NOTARY PUBLICMY COMMISSION EXPIRES_________________ SEALLIEN HOLDER: US BANK________________________________________REPRESENTATIVE________________________________________TITLESTATE OF COLORADO ) ) SSCOUNTY OF LARIMER )THE FOREGOING DEDICATION WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS ______DAY OF__________ _______, 20_____ BY: ______________________________________________._________________________________________NOTARY PUBLICMY COMMISSION EXPIRES_________________ SEAL60'ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 62 3006 ROCKBOROUGH COURTWOOD FRAMED STRUCTUREON FOUNDATIONCONCRETE DRIVE3001 EINDBOROUGH DRIVEWOOD FRAMED STRUCTUREON FOUNDATION2937 EINDBOROUGH DRIVEWOOD FRAMED STRUCTUREON FOUNDATIONSTEPS AND PLANTERELEVATED WOOD DECKCONC.PATIOFORT-TREE HOUSE SWING SET ANDMONKEY BARSSLIDECONCRETE DRIVECONCRETE DRIVEELEVATEDWOOD DECKCOVEREDDECKSHEDLOT 59LOT 49LOT 60OVERHANG)OVERHANG)S 89°57'00" W 117.20'26.87'S 78°12'15" E 100.40'R=50.00'L=39.14'Δ=44°51'00"CD=N10°37'42"W,38.15'S 56°56'45" W 125.52'S 51°50'15" E 43.02'N 00°03'00" W 43.39'N 89°57'00" E 117.20'S 00°03'00" E 70.00'S 00°03'00" E 73.00'N 00°03'00" W 73.00'S 89°57'00" W 83.40'N 89°57'00" E 33.80'26.61'73.00'N 00°03'00" W 126.48'33.80'83.40'9.5'13.5'7.3'3.1' 8.9'27.2'19.1'5.2'24.5'5.9'6.6'7.2'SIDEWAL KSIDEWALKADJACENT RESIDENCE59'4'2'5.3'2'15.2'59'24.5'LOT LINES VACATEDBY THIS PLAT6' UTILITY EASEMENTTO REMAIN7'7'14' UTILITY EASEMENTTO REMAIN6' UTILITY EASEMENTTO REMAINEINDBOROUGH DRIVE(60' RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATED BYTHE PLAT OF EASTBOROUGH)ROCKBOROUGH COURT (RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATED BY THE PLAT OF EASTBOROUGH)14.9'2.1'4.7'25'4'35'24'39.4'2'20.6'22'21'2'9'13.6'20'22'8'10.3'2'5.3'2'10'42'32'NOTICE: According to Colorado law you must commence any legalaction based upon any defect in this survey within three years after youfirst discover such defect. In no event, may any action based upon anydefect in this survey be commenced more than ten years from the dateof the certification shown hereon.REVISION:REVISION:REVISION:REVISION:DRAWN BY:FIELD DATE:PROJECT NO.:CLIENT:DWG. DATE:SOF HEET㻟㻜㻢㻌㻱㻚㻌㻱㻸㻵㼆㻭㻮㻱㼀㻴㻌㻿㼀㻾㻱㻱㼀㻲㻻㻾㼀㻌㻯㻻㻸㻸㻵㻺㻿㻌㻯㻻㻸㻻㻾㻭㻰㻻㻔㻥㻣㻜㻕㻌㻞㻟㻞㻙㻥㻠㻤㻞㼏㼠㼔㼑㼣㻬㼠㼞㼕㻙㼜㼑㼍㼗㼟㻚㼏㼛㼙TRI-PEAKS, LLC㻯㻸㼀W21-1572-27-20022-4-2022BRIAN CARNAHAN11CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADOSITUATE IN THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATELEGENDFOUND 1/2" REBAR WITHOUT A CAPGAS METERAIR CONDITIONERELECTRIC VAULTELECTRIC METERFENCE LINE (GENERAL)PLATTED LOT LINEBOUNDARY LINERIGHT OF WAY LINEEASEMENT LINE㻸㻱㻳㻭㻸㻌㻰㻱㻿㻯㻾㻵㻼㼀㻵㻻㻺㻦㻸㻻㼀㻌㻠㻥㻘㻌㻡㻥㻘㻌㻭㻺㻰㻌㻢㻜㻌㻻㻲㻌㼀㻴㻱㻌㻼㻸㻭㼀㻌㻻㻲㻌㻱㻭㻿㼀㻮㻻㻾㻻㼁㻳㻴㻘㻯㻻㼁㻺㼀㼅㻌㻻㻲㻌㻸㻭㻾㻵㻹㻱㻾㻘㻌㻿㼀㻭㼀㻱㻌㻻㻲㻌㻯㻻㻸㻻㻾㻭㻰㻻㻚NOTES- AN IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE (ILC) IS NOT CONSIDERED ASURVEY. IT IS A REPRESENTATION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF A PARCEL OFLAND AND THE IMPROVEMENTS THEREON, BASED ON THE A LANDSURVEYOR'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE AREA. IN ADDITION AN ILC IS FOR THEUSE OF A SPECIFIC CLIENT AS AN INFORMATIONAL DOCUMENT.- RESEARCH FOR THIS ILC RELIED UPON THE TITLE COMMITMENT POLICIESPROVIDED BY THE OWNER AS FOLLOWS:LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY Order Number: FCH25160823 (2018).FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE POLICY File No.: 5524-3442898 (2020).NORTH AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY File No.: 33400-15-13518 (2015).- ALL UTILITIES AND FEATURES ARE SHOWN USING SURFACE EVIDENCEONLY.- UNITS AND DISTANCES ARE SHOWN IN US SURVEY FOOT.CERTIFICATION:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE WASPREPARED FOR BRIAN CARNAHAN, THAT IT IS NOT A LAND SURVEY PLAT ORIMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT, AND THAT IT IS NOT TO BE RELIED UPON FORTHE ESTABLISHMENT OF FENCE, BUILDING, OR OTHER FUTURE IMPROVEMENTLINES. THIS CERTIFICATE IS VALID ONLY FOR USE BY BRIAN CARNAHAN, ANDDESCRIBES THE PARCEL'S APPEARANCE ON 1-27-2022.I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE ABOVE DESCRIBEDPARCEL ON 1-27-2022, EXCEPT UTILITY CONNECTIONS, ARE ENTIRELY WITHINTHE BOUNDARIES OF THE PARCEL, EXCEPT AS SHOWN, THAT THERE ARE NOENCROACHMENTS UPON THE PARCEL EXCEPT AS INDICATED, AND THAT THEREIS NO APPARENT EVIDENCE OR SIGN OF ANY EASEMENT CROSSING ORBURDENING ANY PART OF SAID PARCEL, EXCEPT AS NOTED.BY: CHRISTOPHER L. THEW PE-PLS (PLS# 38692)DATE: 2-4-2022PROPOSED LOT LINE ADJUSTED TO MEET MAX 10% SETBACK ENCROACHMENTITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5Packet pg. 63 Modification Request for Carnahan Subdivision 3006 Rockborough Court Fort Collins, CO 80525 Description of Project The project consists of a replat of three existing lots located at 3006 Rockborough Ct, 2937 Eindborough Dr, and 3001 Eindborough Dr (parcel #8730210049; 8730210060; 8730210059). The proposal is to change the rear lot lines of the three parcels to enlarge the lot for 3006 Rockborough Ct to 11,300 sf. All three parcels are owned by the same party. Access is taken from Rockborough Ct directly to the southeast and Eindborough Dr directly to the east. The property is within the Low Density Residential (RL) zone district and is subject to a Basic Development Review. Request to modify standard Land Use Code 4.4(D)(2)(c): Dimensional Standards, minimum setback of rear yard Minimum setback of the rear yard shall be fifteen (15) feet, except that the minimum setback of alley-accessed garages shall be six (6) feet. Modification Request The project is requesting a 10% reduction in the required rear setback from 15ft. to 13.5ft. The plan as submitted meets criteria number 4 for modification requests and will not diverge from the intended standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way. Description and Explanation The new property line has a section that runs at a diagonal to the property. The dimension in question is a diagonal dimension taken from the corner of the house to this new angled property line. The diagonal dimension (13.5ft) is well within the side setback minimum (5ft) but falls short of the rear setback minimum (15ft). As this dimension has been determined to be controlled by the rear setback limits, a modification is requested. Because the rear setback dimension increases as you move along the angle, the shortcoming only occurs for a few feet beyond the corner of the property. The request is for a nominal 10% reduction for this section of the corner of the lot, and thus keeping the three property lines all converging at a single point. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 64 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 65 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 66 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 67 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 68 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 69 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 70 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 71 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 72 August 18, 2022Rebecca EverettePlanning ManagerPlanning and Zoning CommissionAppeal of Basic Development Review#BDR220001ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 73 Overview2• Basic Development Review (BDR) to replat 3 residential properties in the Low Density Residential (R-L) zone district• Modification to the minimum rear setback of 15 feet was requested.• Approval of the project was granted in May 2022.• Appeal was filed in June 2022.ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 74 TimelineJune 2021• Conceptual Review of the ReplatFeb 2022• BDR application submittedApril 2022• Adjacent Property Owners Notified/2-week comment period May 2022•Director Decision of ApprovalJune 2022• BDR AppealedAug 2022• BDR Appeal Hearing3ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 75 Basic Development Review• Submitted by the applicant/current owner of 3006 Rockborough Ct, 2937 Eindborough Dr and 3001 Eindborough Dr. • Proposes a replat of the properties to increase the size of the lot for 3006 Rockborough Ct (applicant’s primary residence). • Lot size increase aligns with pre-existing fences for the three properties which the applicant had previously adjusted to create additional backyard space. • Request includes a modification of standard to reduce the minimum rear setback required in the RL zone district. 4ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 76 5Property BoundariesITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 77 Modification of Standard Request• Modification to Section 4.4(D)(2)(c) Dimensional Standards, minimum setback of rear yard• Rear setback for primary structures in the RL: “Minimum setback of the rear yard shall be fifteen (15) feet, except that the minimum setback of alley-accessed garages shall be six (6) feet.”• Applicant is proposing a 10% reduction in the setback distance from 15 feet to 13 feet 6 inches.• Modification needed because the distance between the rear lot line and the southwest corner of the dwelling at 2937 Eindborough Dr does not meet the minimum 15 foot distance required. 6ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 78 Modification Request Cont’d7Former Property LineUnchanged Property LineNew Property LineITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 79 Modification Request Cont’d8• Applicant justification for Modification Criteria 4 (nominal, inconsequential): •“…Because the rear setback dimension increases as you move along the angle, the shortcoming only occurs for a few feet beyond the corner of the property. The request is for a nominal 10% reduction for this section of the corner of the lot, and thus keeping the three property lines all converging at a single point…”• Staff finds that the request satisfies Criteria 4 “nominal, inconsequential when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan” because: • Minor in nature that it in no way detracts from the overall plan or the intent of the LUC standards. • 10% reduction aligns with existing variance allowance for setback reductions.ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 80 Article 4 ComplianceDensity Standard in the RL requires a minimum lot area equivalent to 3 times the total floor area of the building but not less than 6,000 square feet. Compliance with the standard is detailed below:2937 Eindborough DroTotal Floor Area: 1,254 square feetoMinimum lot size required: 6,000 square feetoLot size provided: 7,738 square feet3001 Eindborough DroTotal Floor Area: 1,880 square feetoMinimum lot size required: 6,000 square feetoLot size provided: 6,001 square feet3006 Rockborough CtoTotal Floor Area: 2,032 square feetoMinimum lot size required: 6,096 square feetoLot size provided: 11,351 square feet9ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 81 Staff’s Decision• Staff approved the BDR on May 19, 2022• The BDR complies with applicable process and code requirements in LUC Articles 2, 3 and 4 provided that the modification is granted.• Appeal filed on June 2, 202210ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 82 Appeal • The modification of standard that is applied to 4.4(D)(2)(c) is detrimental to the public good, does not advance the purposes of LUC 1.2.2, and does not meet the standard equally well or better.• Director’s designee does not adequately explain which of the four modification criteria is being applied. • Concerned about the impacts of the reduced setback on the existing dwelling. 11ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 83 Consideration of Appeal12If the appeal is upheld (and the project denied) by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Commission would need to direct staff on how to proceed with any revisions to the project to comply with standards in the RL zone district.ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 84 RecommendationStaff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the3006 Rockborough Court Replat #BDR220001 based on the Findings of Factand supporting explanations found in the staff report and this presentation.13ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 8Packet pg. 85 May 2020ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 86 3001 Eindborough3006 RockboroughITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 87 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 88 21 ftITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 89 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 90 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 91 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 92 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 93 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 94 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet pg. 95 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 96 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10Packet pg. 97