Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIGDEN FARM ELEVENTH BROOKLYN PARK ROW HOUSES - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2008-12-19W n' U J C t S April 5, 2005 File: O5O7LT01 �r Ms. M Sheri Wamhoff, P.E. o Fort Collins Engineering Department n o, 281 North College Avenue C? P.O. Box 580 o Fort. Collins, CO 80522-0580 rn Dear Sheri: :r LL The following is a request for variance from "Drawing 19-6 - Minimum Off -Street Parking Setback Distance" in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, October 1, 2002. This o variance is requested for the access driveways to Iowa Drive for N Tract C (West) at Rigden Farm. m co Drawing 19-6 shows that the minimum distance from the street flowline to the first off-street parking space is to be 40 `T feet for a local street with a traffic volume at 100-750 AUT and LL a driveway traffic volume at. 100-750 AUT. The reason for this to re uirement is q provide room for cars to maneuver in or out of n. the parking stall nearest to the street with no impact on the is raff.i.c operation on the street. This project will consist of 42 townhome dwelling units. The transportation impact study (TIS) has also been submitted to the City. Based upon the available site plan, the first parking stall (garage access) is 32 feet from the flowline of Iowa Drive. While this is not significantly less than the required 40 feet, it does require a variance. The site designer has determined that the oroposed site plan provides the most efficient layout in order to achieve proper building separation and resident amenities. The design vehicle for this development is a passenger car. The length of a passenger car is approximately 20 feet. This is significantly less than the available 32 feet. z Paragraph four of the TIS addresses the information regarding the w determinaLion Lliat the variance will not be detrimental to the z public health, welfare, and safety. Z W It is concluded that: a variance to allow a 32 foot parking o setback will not compromise the public health, welfare, and rsafety. It is respectfully requested that the above variance be M granted. 0 Vi a Please contact me with any questions or additional information that you may need for approval of this variance. 2 Si _ rely, LL LL Q 2 Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Alternative Compliance Request — Brooklyn Park Rowhouses P.D.P Administrative Hearing Officer c/o City of Fort Collins Current Planning Department 281 North College Avenue Port Collins, CO 80524 June 15, 2005 Dear Administrative Hearing Officer, This letter is intended to request alternative compliance to Section 3.2.1(F)(4) [Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping] of the Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC). This section of the LUC requires that trees shall be provided at a ratio of one (1) tree per forty (40) lineal feet along a side lot line parking setback area. There is an existing 48" diameter stormsewer pipe that exists along the east property line of the project. As proposed, the stormsewcr pipe is in the way of the location where the trees would need to be. All other "Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping" requirements, such as screening, are being complied with. We hereby request alternative compliance to the standard to allow the required trees to be located on the other side of the existing stormsewer pipe, on the neighboring property to the east. We have coordinated permission to plant these trees with the neighboring property owner. As stated in 5.2.1(B) [Purpose] of the LUC, the purpose of the standard being modified is "to require preparation of landscape and tree protection plans that ensure significant canopy shading to reduce glare and heat build-up, contribute to visual quality and continuity within and between developments, provide screening and mitigation of potential conflicts hetwecn activity areas and site elements, enhance outdoor spaces, reduce erosion and stolmwater runoff, and mitigate air pollution." Additionally, Section 3.2.1(N) [Alternative Comhliancel of the LUC specifies the criteria by which an alternative compliance request is evaluated, and states, "in reviewing the proposed alternative plan for purposes of determining whether it accomplishes the purposes of this Section as required above, the decision maker shall take into account whether the alternative preserves and incorporates existing vegetation in M.lorgerson OAGI S. lugenm, ttl, WARB 72311 College ta166,10 B0524 970.4167431 W..4161431 in: 9704167435 Emit mAdQenhilm.mm hHµ//wxw.enhilnnan excess of minimum standards, protects natural areas and features maximizes tree canopy cover, enhances neighborhood continuity and connectivity, fosters non -vehicular access, or demonstrates innovative design and use of plant materials and other landscape elements. The proposed alternative landscape plan accomplishes said purposes of this Section of the LUC equally well than would a plan which complies with the standard as follows: • The alternative landscape plan preserves and incorporates existing vegetation equally well as a code compliant plan because there is no existing vegetation on the site to preserve. • The alternative landscape plan protects natural areas and features equally well as a code compliant plan because there are no natural areas or features that are affected by the proposed development. • The alternative landscape plan maximizes tree canopy cover equally well as a code compliant plan because the same number of trees are proposed in either plan. • The alternative landscape plan enhances neighborhood continuity and connectivity equally well as a code compliant plan because the location of trees does not affect neighborhood continuity and connectivity. • The alternative landscape plan fosters non -vehicular access equally well as a code compliant plan because the location of trees does not affect non - vehicular access. • The alternative landscape plan demonstrates innovative design and use of plant materials and other landscape elements equally well as a code compliant plan because either plan will provide the same number of trees. The alternative location of the required trees does not detract from the plans ability to contribute to visual quality and continuity within and between developments, to provide screening and mitigation of potential conflicts between activity areas and site elements, or to enhance outdoor spaces from the adjacent residential buildings. Please see the diagram of the request on the attached drawing. We look forward to your decision in this matter. r �Sincer�ly, Tro W. ones (chitects C.P. Chi ,fP nner M. Torgerson -' �- SCREENING ' FENCE .-\,,, Al1IRNA11Vf 1 _ - Tr LANDSCAPc B_D5 a' 4E COMPLIANCE -- - GOL TAT RG_EN FARM �I ^T m G IiCSNOh.N FOR CLARIFICATION; DIAGRAM 2 JO `+' _ �� ' - IN5TALL4' ON OF TREE5 TO BE THE RE3PON5113LIT" OF BROOKLYN PARK ROW .IO,.5E5 PER _. - _._ • ___ J v' ✓ : j AGREEMENT W;iH `uc COLONY" _ - ✓IY/ AT RIDDEN FGRM TV EX15T VG - �� •/ �� �I--5FORM ,Ij SEWER -� _ r_✓ TREES PROP05ED 3Y THE CC -ON - AT eSHO.N R C� IIOARIFGAiiON! _. v n IN5TA_LA-ION OF TREES _ TO BE THE RE5P0N51BIL ITY OF ' BROOKLYN PARK ROW-4C%J5E5 PER AGREEMENT WITH THE GOLGN" AT R!GDEN FAR�l r\ i PROPERTY LINE II , lil!Ilf' n` r�� � � NOTE OUR Tdb TREES IN CO"1BIN4TIGN WITH THE PRO?OSED TREES FRO'l HE COLONY AT R:GDEN FARM ARE NTEN;:ED TO SATSFY THE -R = PER 40 LLNE4L FEET REQUIREMENT 4550CIATED i� WITH TI-�4R•JNG LOT PERYr ER _.4N SCCFiNG- REO RENEW INTERWESTlay C O N S U l i I h G G A O U o July 11, 2005 Mr. Don Bachman City of Fort Collins Engineering Department 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522 Re: Rigden Farm I I1h Filing, Brooklyn Park Row Houses Dear Don: Please consider this as the Variance Request for the driveway approach grades at the two private drive entrances for The Brooklyn Park Row Houses development. In particular, we request a variance to reduce the 65 foot minimum distance from Iowa Drive's eastern flowline at a maximum grade of 4% as required by Latimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) Figure 8-17, dated 8/7/00. We are requesting an initial maximum grade of 5% for a distance of 20 feet behind the proposed five foot wide sidewalk (30 feet from Iowa Drive's flowline). It is our opinion that a distance of 20 feet behind the proposed sidewalk with a maximum grade of 5%, as designed, is an adequate landing area to accommodate a standard size passenger vehicle waiting to turn onto Iowa Drive. The approach grades for the two private drives meet Poudre Fire Authority's (PFA) requirements and the current design will not result in emergency vehicles "bottoming out" while entering or exiting the site. Therefore it is concluded that a variance to allow a 20 foot minimum distance as measured from back of walk at a maximum grade of 5% will not compromise the public health, welfare, and safety. It is respectfully requested that the above variance be granted. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at 970.674.3300, ext 110. Sinc erry J. d ' ue, P. l oie Iiuro�u +iacc 6o�6o=e, caloanoo 6a�oa i�i Ie] Sag 1]e �.. 7 2 0. 5: 6. 8 176 Interoffice Memorandum Date: 07/18/05 To: Don Bachman, City Engineer Thru: Sheri Wamhoff. Development Review Manager From: Marc Virata, Development Review Engineer "t" RE: Variance Request for Rigden Farm Ilan Filing Brooklyn Park Row Houses Interwest Consulting Group, on behalf of MTA Architects has submitted a variance request perhaining to the Rigden Farm II1h Filing Brooklyn Park Row Houses development- This request dated July 11, 2005 is in regards to driveway approach grade criteria as specified in Chapter 8 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). It is my opinion that this variance request can be supported in the two instances where the variance occurs. Iowa Drive is a residential street along the western boundary of the site. Currently, a grade of 5% is proposed for a distance of 20 feet behind the sidewalk for both driveways intersecting Iowa Drive. Per Figure 8-17 of LCUASS, a maximum grade of 4% is required li>r a distance of 65 feet from the eastern flowline of Iowa Drive. As a result of the greater slope a variance request is required. I agree with the rationale provided by Interwest in granting the variance request. The intent of the 4% requirement of Figure 8-17 in minimizing steep slopes at drive approaches, is to reduce the likelihood of drivers having difficulty entering and exiting the driveway in winter (icy) driving conditions and to also better ensure that drivers can more easily stop behind the sidewalk should a pedestrian be crossing the driveway. A 5% slope is relatively slight to allow for a relatively level area for vehicles to traverse behind the sidewalk and 20' is a long enough length for a vehicle to stop within the 5% grade to adequately address the winter condition and pedestrian conflict situation noted previously. It appears that the granting of the variance request should not be detrimental to the public good. Please let me know if I can provide any additional information. 4 930 AJo 7 54 CCl .............. .......... NO ;50' 1 CRATE 22.50 FL TRENCH 22.00 rl Cl 0 m U W Q. U J W 0 W W F a April 5, 2005 File: 0507LT02 �r r� Ms. Sheri Wamhoff, P.E. a, Fort Collins Engineering Department rD 281 Ncrth College Avenue cO P.O. Box 580 0 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 a; Dear Sheri: LL The following is a request for variance from "Table 7-3 - Fort. Collins Street Standards - Technical. Design Criteria" in the Lari.mer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS), October 1, i 2002. Specifically, a variance is requested for the corner clearance: between driveways/alleys and street intersections. `o Table 7-3 indicates that the corner clearance for a m o coaanercial/industrial local street should be 175 feet, minimum r_ m (on -centers). r; a Currently, Iowa Drive has been built to a width that indicates that it is a commercial local street. You indicated in our phone conversation on April 4, 2005, that this was determined some time ago based upon the original TIS that was done for Rigden Farm arid anticipated .Land uses to the south. Iowa Drive raccesses the west end of the Timberline Church parking lot. While it is acknowledged that the subject segment of Iowa Drive will be used significantly when there are church services, it will not be used very often on routine weekdays. The church building is more appropriately accessed via Illinois Drive from Custer Drive on routine weekdays. We have conducted analyses with regard to the daily traffic on Iowa Drive south of Custer Drive on routine weekdays. The daily traffic on Iowa Drive is forecasted to be less than 700 vehicles. This is significantly less than the upper limit (1000 vehicles per day) allowed on a residential io"ai street. Therefore, it is concluded that Iowa Drive, south of Custer Drive, should be classified as a residential local street. With Iowa Drive classified as a residential local street, the corner clearance should be 50 feet (minimum). The distance between Custer Drive and the north access (driveway) is approximately 105 feet, on -centers. Since this distance is greater t.han the minimum (50 feet) shown in Table 7-3 in LCUASS, no variance is required. In addition to the foregoing variance request, we are seeking a waiver of applying Section 9.1.1.B. - Avoiding Conflicts in the Center Left -turn Lanes and Section 9.1.1.c. - Separati.on Distances in LCUASS. The issue is that the centerline of the driveway for Seven Oaks Academy and the centerline of the driveway for Tract C (West) at Kigden Farm are offset by approximately 12 Pcct - Since the Seven Oaks driveway centerline is south of the Tract C (West) at Rigden Farm driveway centerline, there will be no confiicling or overlapping lent turns on Iowa Drive. Therefore, the above sections are not applicable. Please contact me with any questions or if you desire additional information regarding these matters. MatthCw J. Deli.ch, Y.E. co c� n 0 m W April 5, 2005 File: 0507LT02 o Ms_ Sheri Wamhoff, P.E. `c Fort Collins Engineering Department c°fl" 281 North College Avenue `9 P.O. Box 580 CD Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Dear Sheri: LL The following is a request for variance from "Table 7-3 - Fort Collins Street Standards - Technical Design Criteria" in the 9 Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS), October 1, 2002. Specifically, a variance is requested for the corner ,T clearance between driveways/alleys and street intersections. `o Table 7-3 indicates that the corner clearance for a o commercial/industrial local street should be 175 feet, minimum c^i (on -centers). z z w w z _U Z J w W o a 0 0 -7 a z z �—It Currently, Iowa Drive has been built to a width that indicates that it is a commercial local street. You indicated in our phone conversation on April 4, 20051 that this was determined some time ago based upon the original TIS that was done for Rigden Farm and anticipated land uses to the south. Iowa Drive accesses the west end of the Timberline Church parking lot. While it is acknowledged that the subject segment of Iowa Drive will be used significantly when there are church services, it will not be used very often on routine weekdays. The church building is more appropriately accessed via Illinois Drive from Custer Drive on routine weekdays. We have conducted analyses with regard to the daily traffic on Iowa Drive south of Custer Drive on routine weekdays. The daily traffic on Iowa Drive is forecasted to be less than 700 vehicles. This is significantly less than the upper limit (1000 vehicles per day) allowed on a residential local street_ Therefore, it is concluded that: Iowa Drive, south of Custer Drive, should be classified as a residential local street. With Iowa Drive classified as a residential local street, the corner clearance should be 50 feet (minimum). The distance between Custer Drive and the north access (driveway) is approximately 105 feet, on -centers. Since this distance is greater than the minimum (50 feet) shown in Table 7-3 in LCUASS, no variance is required. In addition to the foregoing variance request, we are seeking a waiver of applying Section 9.1_I.B. - Avoiding Conflicts in the Center Left -turn Lanes and Section 9.1.1.c. - Separation Distances in LCUASS. The issue is that the centerline of the driveway for Seven Oaks Academy and the centerline of the driveway for Tract C (West) aL Rigden Farm are offset by approximately 12 feet. Since the Seven Oaks driveway centerline is south of the Tract C (West) at Rigden Farm driveway centerline, there will be no conll.icting or overlapping left tarns on lowa Drive. Therefore, the above sections are not applicable. Please contact me with any questions or if you desire additional information regarding these matters. Sin Ly '(,e Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Modification Request — Brooklyn Park Rowhouses P.D.P. Administrative Nearing Officer c/o City of Fort Collins Current Planning Department 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 June 15, 2005 Dear Administrative Hearing Officer, This letter is intended to request a modification to Section 3.2.2(J) [Selbackv] of the Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC) for the Brooklyn Park Rowhouses P.D.P. This section of the LUC requires a minimum 5 foot setback at any point between a vehicular use area and a lot line. The cast property line is approximately 270 feel long. Our proposed layout has a vehicular use area for 202 feet along said east property line that ranges in setback from 4 feet, I 1 inches on the north to 4 feet, 4 inches on the south. We hereby request a modification to this standard to reduce the minimum setback between a vehicular use area and a lot line to 4 feet 4 inches. As stated in 3.2.2(A) [Purpose] of the LUC, the purpose of the standard being modified is "to ensure that the parking and circulation aspects of all developments are well designed with regard to safety, efficiency and convenience for vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and transit, both within the development and to and from surrounding areas. Sidewalk or bikeway extensions off -site may be required based on needs created by the proposed development. This Section sets forth parking requirements in terms of numbers and dimensions of parking stalls, landscaping and shared parking. It also addresses the placement of drive-in facilities and loading zones." Additionally, Section 2.8.2(H) of the LUC specifies the criteria by which a modification request is evaluated. In accordance with this criteria, the modification is not detrimental to the public good, and the pla, as submitted, will not diverge from the standards of the land Use Code 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 L2.2. III Mi61 S. IN"IM, All, CIE 223 M tallaga W Collins CO 80524 970.416J431 OK416J431 Far. M4161433S [=it ffA"r,hilermm 6HpJJ7ww.ar6i1aa.w The proposed layout of our vehicular use area is not detrimental to the public good because the adjacent property (the Colony PDP currently under review) proposes a 53 feet, 9 inch wide setback area adjacent to the common property line. There is therefore more than adequate physical separation between our proposed vehicular use area and the nearest proposed building on the adjacent property. The proposed layout of our vehicular use area only diverges from the purpose of the standard being modified in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan because, when considered in context with the 53 feet, 9 inch wide setback proposed on the Colony at Rigden Farm PDP, the notion of having less than 5 feet between the vehicle use area and the property line does not degrade the plan's ability to provide adequate safety, efficiency and convenience for vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and transit, both within the development and to and from surrounding areas. The proposed layout of our vehicular use area will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2 as follows: • The proposed modification doesn't affect the PDP's ability to be consistent with the Land Use Code, City Plan and its adopted components, including but not limited to the Structure Plan, Principles and Policies and associated sub -area plans. Modifications, with proper justification, are entirely consistent with the Land Use Code and other adopted documents. • The reduction in setback between our vehicle use area and the side property line isn't related to innovations in land development and renewal. • The reduction in setback between our vehicle use area and the side property line al lows a more efficient and economic use of the land in that less of the site must be devoted non -useable space. The reduction in setback between our vehicle use area and the side property line isn't related to the city's transportation infrastructure and other public facilities and services. • The reduction in setback between our vehicle use area and the side property line isn't doesn't affect the PDP's ability to facilitate and ensure the provision of adequate public facilities and services such as transportation (streets, bicycle routes, sidewalks and mass transit), water, wastewater, storm drainage, fire and emergency services, police, electricity, open space, recreation, and public parks. • The reduction in setback between our vehicle use area and the side property line doesn't affect the PDP's ability to avoid the inappropriate development of lands nor does it affect the PDP's ability to provide for adequate drainage and reduction of flood damage. • The reduction in setback between our vehicle use area and the side property line doesn't affect the PDP's ability to encourage patterns of land use which decrease trip length of automobile travel and encourage trip consolidation. • The reduction in setback between our vehicle use area and the side property line doesn't affect the PDP's ability to increase public access to mass transit, sidewalks, trails, bicycle routes and other alternative modes of transportation. • The reduction in setback between our vehicle use area and the side property line doesn't affect the PDP's ability to reduce energy consumption and demand. • The reduction in setback between our vehicle use area and the side property line doesn't affect the PDP's ability to minimize the adverse environmental impacts of development. • The reduction in setback between our vehicle use area and the side property line doesn't affect the PDP's ability to improve the design, quality and character of new development. • The reduction in setback between our vehicle use area and the side property line doesn't affect the PDP's ability to foster a more rational pattern of relationship among residential, business and industrial uses for the mutual benefit of all. • The reduction in setback between our vehicle use area and the side property line doesn't affect the PDP's ability to encourage the development of vacant properties within established areas. • The reduction in setback between our vehicle use area and the side property line doesn't affect the PDP's ability to ensure that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods. • The reduction in setback between our vehicle use area and the side property line doesn't affect the PDP's ability to ensure that development proposals are sensitive to natural areas and features. Please see the diagram of the request on the attached drawing. We look forward to your decision in this matter. S ncerel , "fro W. Jones .I.C.P. Chi ' lanner M. Torgerson chitects MOWICATION 4'-wi DIAGRAM 1- X J J, O � i cm -� K ����� - NVYJ � iFROPERTi' _INE /fit l 4'-4'