The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRIGDEN LOFTS AT SETTLERS GREEN - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2008-02-25July 12. 2007 Marc Virata City of Fort Collins PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80525-0580 RE: Rigden Lofts -Variance Requests Dear Mr. Virata, 4, J'R ENGINEERING A Nlosbiai Cnrnpm,y 1 am submitting this variance request in response to comments made by the City of Fort Collins Engineering Department in the staff project review document dated 07/02/2007. Concerning LCUASS garage door set backs and angle requirements in 7-11 F and 9.4.2 respectively, the requirements state that the garage doors are to be set back from the alley right- of-way by 8' and at a right angle plus or minus 100. The angle of approach for our garage door is 12 ° from parallel. Our alternate design also shows the garage door to be 7'-3" from the alley at its closest point while the rest of the door is further than 8', with its opposite end at 10' from the alley. It is my understanding that the reason that the City is requiring 8' rather than the recorded 6' setback is that the 6' was intended to discourage parallel parking in the alleyway and since field inspection proved that it was not being discouraged, 8' is preferred. As stated previously, the prevailing majority of every garage on this project is greater than 8', allowing more room for safe parallel parking. It is also possible for even a large trek to pull completely off the driving lane of the alley, resulting in a safer situation. The curve of the alley also contributes to keeping speeds low. With only eleven homes/garages on this alley, the low volume and slow speeds contribute to the safety issue and gain further support for this variance request. As for the angle of garage front, the increased turning radii from the northwest allows for easier maneuvers in and out of the garage and the movements from the southeast continue to be adequate. In conclusion, the owners and I believe the design as submitted is not detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the general public and actually increases parking capability and maneuverability while advancing the public safety purposes of the standard. Both variances, the garage door setback and angle to parallel, provided for in this design are equal to or better than merely meeting the standard and we therefore request that the variances be granted. Sincerely, Timothy J. Halopoff, PE Land Development Manager dm/jm/file0�SSroNAi'� 2620 East Prospect Roal. Suite 190, Pun GA.,i , CO 80525 970-491-9888 •lea: 970-491-9984 • j..Since,i.gxom No Text Rigden Lofts Variance Request for LCUASS Garage Door Setback Building Setback Introduction This property was purchased after reviewing Site Plan Documents provided by the City, which show all the setbacks clearly stated with a 6- foot rear yard setback. It was my understanding, after meetings with the various departments that I could rely on the setbacks as shown on the approved site plan. It was implied that were I to go forward under a minor amendment approval process with a single 5-plex building all I would need is a utility plan and construction drawings, no PDP, no change in setbacks. There was never any indication that the setbacks could or would be changed from the approved site plan registered with the City. Subsequently I designed a building nearly the same as what is attached except for a connecting entry vestibule. Separating the units essentially triggered the PDP review. With this in mind, I still believe that there is reasonable justification for considering a variance given the actual design of the alley/driveway configuration. Discussion The design of these units had been completed based on a 6-foot rear yard setback, literally to the inch, to fit the site and the land use provisions for a zero lot line configuration. I have provided floor plans so that you can see how there is not enough space to reduce the garage length; if there were I would do so and not be asking for this variance. The approval of the 6-foot set back was granted by the P&Z Board apparently to discourage people from parking in the standard 8-foot driveway. According to my information from the planner on the project, this has not been successful and is the reason for reimposing the 8-foot setback. Please refer to the blow-up drawing of the alley/garage intersection attached. First, I would like to point out that the actual location of the garage door is 7'-3" from the property line/alley. That's only 9 inches of "variance" requested, nominal and inconsequential. Also, you will see how the angled buildings provides an easier entry approaching from the west side of the alley; however, if one wanted to "parallel" park one could enter from the south alley entrance and get more of there vehicle off the alley then if it was parallel at the 8-foot setback line. I would argue that this configuration is "equal to or better than" the 90 degree parking approach. Concerning the land use code of the 8' setback you can see that only a small corner of the garage is in the 8' setback and that the majority of the rear of the house is further away than 8 feet. Finally I would like you to consider the difficult configuration of this lot, not only is it on a curved lot but the lot line are not parallel further complicating the design. I am opened to your suggestions and would appreciate any creative problem solving ideas you might have in mutually resolving this issue. Thanks Dana McBride July 12, 2007 Marc Virata City of Fort Collins PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80525-0580 RE: Rigden Lofts -Variance Requests Dear Mr. Virata, J•R ENGINEERING A Westrian Company I am submitting this variance request in response to comments made by the City of Fort Collins Engineering Department in the staff project review document —dated 07/02/2007. Concerning LCUASS garage door set backs and angle requirements in 7-1 IF and 9.4.2 respectively, the requirements state that the garage doors are to be set back from the alley right- of-way by 8' and at a right angle plus or minus 10°. The angle of approach for our garage door is 12 0 from parallel. Our alternate design also shows the garage door to be 7'-3" from the alley at its closest point while the rest of the door is further than 8', with its opposite end at 10' from the alley. It is my understanding that the reason that the City is requiring 8' rather than the recorded 6' setback is that the 6' was intended to discourage parallel parking in the alleyway and since field inspection proved that it was not being discouraged, 8' is preferred. As stated previously, the prevailing majority of every garage on this project is greater than 8', allowing more room for safe parallel parking. It is also possible for even a large truck to pull completely off the driving lane of the alley, resulting in a safer situation. The curve of the alley also contributes to keeping speeds low. With only eleven homes/garages on this alley, the low volume and slow speeds contribute to the safety issue and gain further support for this variance request. As for the angle of garage front, the increased turning radii from the northwest allows for easier maneuvers in and out of the garage and the movements from the southeast continue to be adequate. In conclusion, the owners and I believe the design as submitted is not detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the general public and actually increases parking capability and maneuverability while advancing the public safety purposes of the standard. Both variances, the garage door setback and angle to parallel, provided for in this design are equal to or better than merely meeting the standard and we therefore request that the variances be granted. Sincerely, Timothy J. Halopoff, PE Land Development Manager dm/jm/file '• aQ �FFSS/ONAL�� 2620 East Prospect Road, Suite 190. Fort Collins, CO 80525 91-0-491-9888 • F.: 91-0-491-9984 • www.jrengineering.conn Modification of Standards 3.5.2.1)(2), 3.5.2.1)(3) Residential Building Setbacks Rigden Lofts @ Settlers Green Lot 1 Settlers Green Back round This lot, Lot Iof Settlers Green, Rigden Farm 5`s filing, was purchased after reviewing Site Plan Documents provided by the City, which show all the setbacks clearly stated with a 6ft. rear yard setbacks, and 9ft. street front setbacks. (See attached) This entire subdivision presently has a modification granted as follows. 1. The front and street facing yards have a 9 ft. setback instead of the 15 ft. indicated in article 3.5.2 D (2) of the land use code. 2. The rear yard or alley side has 6 ft. setback instead of 8 ft. indicated in article 3.5.2.1) (3) of the land use code These are some of factors for requesting this modification • During conceptual review and up to the submittal of the PDP` there was never any indication that the recorded setbacks for this community would or could be changed. • Our current design for Lot 1 as submitted utilized these setbacks that are recorded on the approved site plan for the Settlers Green Subdivision. • Except for this lot, Lot I the entire subdivision is completely built out utilizing the 6ft alley and 9ft. front yard setbacks. ■ If it weren't for the fact that we want to place property lines between the 5 homes, there would be no need to request a modification for this design on this lot, the existing modification would suffice. • In a somewhat convoluted way the asking for property lines between individual units has triggered the PDP process, (instead of a minor amendment), which triggered the need to ask for a setback modification, previously granted. Justification Equal to or Better Than The minor amendment procedure would allow us to build our design, without review of setbacks, exactly as submitted but without property line between the units. The project with a new setback modification would be identical to the project under the old sotba.lc modification. Therefore -it is equal to whm -would-be built under the minor amendment procedure. In other words it is equal to the project that could be built without the granting of this modification. Since there would be no difference in the actual constructed homes. Essentially we are asking that the existing establish setbacks as provided for in the original modification be. maintained. Separating the 5 units into small individual units allows for more light, air, and space between units than a single building would, and provides a view corridor to the neighboring properties. The fan shaped layout also aligns the new property lines with the neighboring property lines, again to provide the maximum possible openness through the new homes. We believe that this design is not only equal to but also better than a single large building on this site. In essence distributing the setbacks through out the lot. Justification Nominal and Inconsequential In addition we believe that the divergence from the Land Use Code is nominal and inconsequential because off the following reasons: 1. The rear of the units is encroaching only at a corner of the garage and the back of the house, because it tills away from the alley averages more than 8ft. from the alley property line. 2. The side yard fronting the street on the south is "saw toothed" and only infringes at two corners. 3. The west side that is setback 9ft. parallel to Rigden Parkway will be heavily landscaped along its base and is in keeping with the other home which are set back 9- 11 ft. along this side. Conclusion The design of this project has evolved from one large building practically covering the entire site to the smallest footprint possible as a response to the concern for the massing and scale of the neighborhood. The design has been carefully fit into a difficult lot at best. The reason it has gone unbuilt on to this late date is because of its strange configuration and the fact that no one wanted to deal with the neighbors opposition to blocking there view. We believe we have the best possible design considering the site design for the future homeowners as well as the community in general and that with a granting of this modification we can move forward this a project everyone involved with can be proud of Considered in the context of the neighborhood we respectfully submit that our proposal promotes the general purpose for this standard and is not detrimental to the public good. Thanks for your consideration. Dana McBride Architect/Builder U D USE DATA LAID AREA Sa. FT. ACRES % OF NET SITE AREA GROSS SITE AREA NET 191b6LW31 164AW,8lW 45311 XTE154 I" % 83AX PUBLIC STREET ROLL 32.1660143 .1522 lib% BUILDKs COVERAGE 52,582 L207 31.8% PA WJWs AND DRIVES 2101829" .4625 10.6% COMMON OPEN SPACE 10134.WS2 2327 Sj% LANDSCAPED AREA pa,3135188 25184 56B% IR1-rLCJc i�-�pIC YVIia/ 6 WIIa WWW - 000 SCL FT. FIVEPLEX (5-38R WITS) 5 WITS APROX IBM SQ FT THREE BEDROOM DETACHED WITS 24 WITS APROX 1400-ISM SO. FT. I OR 2 CAR GARAGE LOFT WIT (I BR) 6 POTENTIAL WITS 364 $R FT. 2 CAR GARAGE LOFT WIT (I BR) 14 POTENTIAL WITS 512 Sa FT. 3 CAR GARAGE LOFT UNIT (2 BR.) 9 POTENTIAL WITS SW 5a FT. TOTAL 35 TO 54 WITS (DEPENDS ON • OF LOFTS) • NO SUILOMG PERMIT ULL BE GRANTED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ANY MULTIFAMILY LOT UNTIL THE ARCHITECTURAL. ELEVATIONS, SITE, LANDSCAPE $ UTILITY PLANS FOR SUCH CONSTRUCTION HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR GUEST 4 BSCE PARKMG ULL BE SHOLLN AT THAT TIME • NOTE LOTS 2 THRU 25 TO HAVE OPTIONAL 'CARRIAGE HOUSE WITS' LOTS 26 4 21 HAVE TWO OPTIONAL 'CARRIAGE HOUSE• WITS EACIi 45% OF LOTS ARE SOLAR ORIENTED FOR A TOTAL OF 12 LOTS DENSITY 1.1 TO ILS UPA MAXIMJM BUILDM HEIGHT 40, DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE SPRING 2001 EXISTMG ZCNMG L.MX - LOW DENSITY MIXED USE 19 GARAGE OR CARPORT PARKMG SPACES PRCPERIY DESCRIPTM TRACT 1 RJGDEN FAIIM PLNG ONE 4 LOTS S°,.,JU2)3J4 AND 5 ROM FAR9 MT FLNG • NOTES, ALL POR 06 OF TIE WERIOR TAUS OF THE FIRST STORY CF ALL ISULDWAS ULL BE LCCATW UTNN W OF AN ACCESS ROADWAY k UHICN EMEFY*ENCY Fwe EawMw CAN BE MANSUYERED OR M BUILDWA WLL BE PROVIDED UTN AN APPROvW FIRE SYSTEM F1EI TO UTLITES PLAN FOR LOCATION CF UTILTTES Alp DRAINAGE B AXWJS WLL Caf W TO THE MJ W FORT COLLNS, COLORADO DERST CODE 11ECUIR I EfIS BULDWA DNELOFES SFIC M ARE FOR HOUSES ONLY, GARAGES/ CARRAGE INKS MAY BE &MW LOT LNE' OPEN SPACE L.ANIDSCAPNG TO BE MAWAW BY HOME 0"" ASSOCIATICN ovmcElflmTw THE UNDERSIGNED, BEM THE LALLWL OUJERS OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ON T1415 SITE PLAN DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THEY ACCEPT TM CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS SET FORTH ON SAID SITE FLAK SIGNED: NIA DATE, STATE OF COLORADO) .BS COUNTY OF LARIMER) THE FOREGOMG INSTRUMENT WAS ACIQNQILILEDGED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF 2000,BY WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL MT COMMISSION EXPIRES_ �, 1 1A ,., 1. T14E FOREGOING "TRIJ`ENT U4S ACP*40U-EDGM BEFORE T E THIS DAY OF 20W, BY WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL MY COMPASSION E PIMS. IAIRK1.IlRi APPROYED BY T1E DIRECTOR OF PLAWWj OF THE CITY OF FORT COUINS, COLORADO THIS N�A OF 200— TO PDP NCCIWCft7E8 MODFCATM TO STN4DARD6 N S mas 3SX m, 3D3fU, 3W(DX3) U Ol OLBR601 THE PUN" AHD ZO" BOARD GRAN W A MODPiCA.TION TO SEOTICN 3SXDX2) OF TTE LAND 116E CODE TO AIM UE MNMWM FROR YARD SETBACK FOR ALL iT LOTS 9E TFE SETTER'S GREBi FDP TO BE FEDUCEO TO W-V FRDVCW TIE FOLLOLLNG CCFDMOM AARE MEL A IiaM YAFV SETBACKS AIM 9'-d MNMM AND V-V MAXMM B. FRONT PORGIES HAY►Ya A MNMM OF IS'-V WIDTH SHALL BE PROVDED FOR ALL PRDPT3m WTTH A FRCNT YARD SETBACK OF LESS T" B'-& 4) CN 2A /lOOI TTE PLAWM APO ZOING aOA D GROHIEED A MCOFICATION TO SSCTM 3s3(V CF TTE LAD IRE CODE TO ALLOW HCTE OMPAT06 TO BE LOCATED N RD" TWAT AFE TO BE BUSS OAR DETACIED GARAGES 9) ON SA54 1 TTE PLANE(G AND ZOSHG BOAT® GRANTED A MODRCAIIOI TO SECTION 3b2(DX3) OF TT E LAD WE ODCE TO REDUCE TTE M" REAR YARD SETBACKS CKS DETWBBI TIE AT1.EY<aARA[f6 ND TiE BEAR PROPERTY LNE PRIOM 6 FEET TO i FEET W CN 3`456 1 TIE PLAN" AD XCNM BOARD GRAB® A MODFICATIDN TO SECTION 3S2(DX3) TO ALLOW A Zw SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR ALLEY LOADED GARAGES PRDYIDED TWAT TIE FOLLCWRYs CODRIOM ARE M. A ALL FOWATIOS ARE REO1WED TO BE STAKED BY A LICBMEED SURVEY C"AHY TO NWn TWAT THE FOODATOS AM BlLT N UE PFADPFR LOCATION AND DO NOT ClWG6 PROPERTY LM OR SETBACKS A DETAOW GARAGES AND LIVED OR OFlCE SPACE ABOVE AFE &Vb EECT TO A d-0" SIDE YARD SEIBA U ALL BWB.DNGB ACTT y CO MMJCTED WIri(A d-V WE YARD SETBACK SHALL HAVE A OFE MIX RATED FYE WALL / ALONG AlY COM'IGN PPDPERTY LNE. G F A STRWCTTRE M BUILT WITH A 04V SIDE YARD SETBACK (IF- CN RE1R PROPERTY LNG THE APJONNG �PRDPERTYY CANOT ALSO BALD WITH A d-r WE YARD SETBACK ON TUE SN'E PROPER?Y LW- D. PU'dOUSEI& PROFEFVY CU AM WILL BE REOI6ED TO WA EASelW AGPEEMEMS WHIOI WILL OMMAN M FOLLOIEFTG ITEM WERIOR PIANTEIS CE: CERTAN ED(IEFWR WAUA OF TM DWELLNG AD) OR GARAGE MAT HOT BE ACCESSIBLE FROM WIEFN TIE FROFWY BOWDARES OF THE LOT WHICH SAD DRE I W. AD) OR GARAGE B SITUATE THERE M 1,19iEBY CREATED AN EAM91M FOR ACCESS U20M THE ADJCNNG LADS FOR TFE FWPOSE GF TTANTENNRCE OF WERKR WALLS WNDM EAVES OV/33441556. AND DOW► MM THE PARTY DGWIS s THE RIGHT TO MUM ANY SUCH EAS&W FOR MANI'DW40E FIAPOSES M IEREBY PESPONOIS E FOR ANT AND ALL DAMAGE CAI BY THTM TO TM PROPERTY OF M PARTY W%I UVGE LANDS TM EAS&OM ARE APFARTENNR. METE ACCEM TOR /�FIANTBEANCE S ALL NOT BE COMDE►IED DAMAGE.- E. ANY ARCIUTBCTIRAL FEATURES OF EACI DWELLNG AND) OR GARAGE SIGH AS EAVES, GWTTEFB, DOILIMPOM OR OVER"L rl6 MW BE CONTAN D E R"RELY ON THE PROPERTY WHITE THE: MWWs B LOCATED. i TkEs s+e- flab (Cl/ISioa was afcsdted * otve" 6y Toy 36Nts 1 (I+1 PkIFIT,- V4 Peter &vv%c5 �i1Mlh1 � �� Ki11r►L!'or It', ordor 4a dnri,� 46 IModi4-.(4vys -s f4 lAvj V5C (04 fi o U11ft AQe"o") 5 Q��[♦. TtiTiS QI�F, rt�4uz Ho o� CINEr�tS ,F,F„� �, Tvy TovktS :f/(#/Zcc'7- No Text � 1 j W!,ol'74 777,