Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMAPLE HILL 4TH REPLAT - PDP - 18-10 - DECISION - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARINGA A A Administrative Public Hearing Sign -In Project: � i 1 Meetin Location: Date:r r PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY .. .'_ �'��lYtJ/��/L?��� No Text Maple Hill, Fourth Replat, Project Development Plan Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision September 9, 2010 Page 10 of 10 After reviewing the Maple Hill Fourth Replat, Project Development Plan, #18-10, the staff report and the record of the public hearing, the Hearing Officer makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: 1. The proposed land use is permitted in the LMN — Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood zone, subject to an Administrative Type 1 review and public hearing and the requirements of the Land Use Code. 2. The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable General Development Standards contained in Article 3 of the Land Use Code. 3. The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable Land Use and Development Standards contained in Article 4, Division 4.5 of the Land Use Code. 4. Alternative compliance to Section 3.2.3 of the Land Use Code with regard to solar orientation of lots was previously approved through the original PDP's approval. 5. The plan is in compliance with the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and the Gillespie Farm Amended Overall Development Plan. DECISION Based on the findings and conclusions, the Maple Hill Fourth Replat, Project Development Plan, #18-10, is hereby approved by the Hearing Officer with the following condition: 1. A note must be added to the final site plan stating that the mixed -use dwelling unit shall be located on Lot 66 and in a manner so that there is orientation to both the public street and the 10 foot wide paved city trail. Dated this 9th day of September, 2010 per authority granted by Sections 1.4.9(E) and 2.1 of the Land Use Code /Z�t_ 4 M"t'� Peter Barnes Zoning Administrator Maple Hill, Fourth Replat, Project Development Plan Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision September 9, 2010 Page 9 of 10 transportation that will use the system (including, without limitation, cars, trucks, buses, bicycles, pedestrians and emergency vehicles." This replat proposes four new local streets that meet the standards of this section. G. Section 3.6.4 —Transportation Level of Service Requirements "All development plans shall adequately provide vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle facilities necessary to maintain the adopted transportation Level of Service standards for the following modes of travel: motor vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian. A Transportation Impact Study was prepared for the overall site plan of Maple Hill development. This area of the development was originally approved as having 216 multi -family dwellings, the replat is proposing 105 single family dwellings (4 of which are proposed to be single-family attached). The original plan was expected to have 1432 daily round trips; the decrease in density proposed is expected to produce 1004 daily trips. The approved Maple Hill,development satisfied the Level of Service standards for all modes of travel and subsequently the proposed replat of section of Maple Hill also meets the standards for all modes of travel. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS In evaluating the Maple Hill Fourth Replat, PDP, Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The PDP is in compliance with the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. B. The PDP is in compliance with the Gillespie Farm Amended Overall Development Plan. C. The PDP satisfies the development standards of the LMN zone district. D. The PDP satisfies the applicable General Development Standards of Article Three. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Maple Hill Fourth Replat, PDP, # 18-10. HEARING OFFICER FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Maple Hill, Fourth Replat, Project Development Plan Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision September 9, 2010 Page 8 of 10 models. The applicant shall include in the application for approval of the project development plan documentation showing how the development will comply with the foregoing requirement. Each housing model shall have at least three (3) characteristics which clearly and obviously distinguish it from the other housing models, including different floor plans, exterior materials, roof lines, garage placement, placement of the footprint on the lot, and/or building face." There will be three basic housing models for the single-family detached dwellings and one basic housing model for the single-family attached dwellings for a total of four for this section of Maple Hill; there are other models for the rest of the subdivision. Within each model, there will be at least three different elevations by a variety of roof design, window arrangement, garage placement, and porch orientation. Section 3.5.2(E) — Garage Doors "To prevent residential streetscapes from being dominated by protruding garage doors, and to allow the active, visually interesting features of the house to dominate the streetscape, the following standards shall apply: Street -facing garage doors must be recessed behind either the front facade of the ground floor living area portion of the dwelling or a covered porch (measuring at least six [6] feet by eight [8] feet) by at least four (4) feet. Any street -facing garage doors complying with this standard shall not protrude forward from the front facade of the living area portion of the dwelling by more than eight (8) feet. 2. Garage doors may be located on another side of the dwelling ("side- or rear -loaded") provided that the side of the garage facing the front street has windows or other architectural details that mimic the features of the living portion of the dwelling. 3. Garage doors shall not comprise more than fifty (50) percent of the ground floor street -facing linear building frontage. Alleys and corner lots are exempt from this standard." There is a combination of street -facing -front loaded, street facing rear loaded and side - mounted (corner lots) garages within the PDP. Where garages are street -facing, they are recessed behind front facades or porches by the requisite minimum of four feet. Side -mounted garages feature windows facing the street. Where garages face the street, the garage doors do not comprise more than 50% ground floor street -facing linear frontage. F. Section 3.6.3 — Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards "The local street system of any proposed development shall be designed to be safe, efficient, convenient and attractive, considering use by all modes of Maple Hill, Fourth Replat, Project Development Plan Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision September 9, 2010 Page 7 of 10 B. Section 3.2.3 — Solar Access, Orientation, Shading 1. At least 65% of the lots less than 15,000 square feet in area in single and two family residential developments must conform to the definition of a "solar -oriented lot" in order to preserve the potential for solar energy usage." Of the 105 lots proposed, only 41 lots (39%) comply with the solar orientation requirement. The original PDP applied for alternative compliance to this section of the LUC, citing: - that the ODP's street layout respects the principles of New Urbanism; - the street network was designed to connect to the north (Lind Farm) and the future school site to the south (Poudre School District); - the street pattern frames the neighborhood park and center; - the street network is designed to meet the minimum density requirements; and - the street network complies with the intersection spacing requirements with the minor arterial streets throughout the site. This site is located in the center of the already approved Maple Hill PDP and due to the small size and the north/south orientation Staff has determined that the proposed layout "accomplishes the purposes of this Section equally or better than a plan which complies with the standards of this Section." This site is within a built out street network that limits the ability to design a development that could meet the standards of this section. It is Staffs determination that this site has already been approved for alternative compliance through the original PDP's approval. C. Section 3.3.1 — Plat Standards An applicant shall be required to dedicate rights -of -way for public streets, drainage easements and utility easements as needed to serve the area being developed and/or platted. Water and sewer services are provided to this site by E/co and Boxelder Special Districts. The applicant and the special districts have not agreed on the location of easements for these services yet. It was agreed by all parties involved that the locations of the easements will be determined during the final compliance review of this replat. D. Section 3.5.2(B) — Housing Model Variety "Any development of one hundred (100) or more single-family detached, single-family attached in groups of two (2), or two-family detached dwelling units shall have at least four (4) different types of housing Maple Hill, Fourth Replat, Project Development Plan Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision September 9, 2010 Page 6 of 10 The proposed replat includes one mixed -use dwelling. The community swimming pool (neighborhood support/recreation facility) is existing on the northwest corner of Maple Hill Road and Bar Harbor Drive. These two uses meet the standards of a Neighborhood Center as described in this section. D. Small Neighborhood Parks A neighborhood park, meeting the standards of this Section, has been approved on Tract I of the Maple Hill subdivision, directly south of this site. E. Streets and Blocks 1. Street System Block Size. The local street system provided by the development shall provide an interconnected network of streets in a manner that results in blocks of developed land bounded by connecting streets no greater than twelve (12) acres in size. No block in this section of Maple Hill is greater than 12 acres, complying with this Section of the LUC. 2. Mid -Block Pedestrian Connections. If any block face is over seven hundred (700) feet long, then walkways connecting to other streets shall be provided at approximately mid -block or at intervals of at least every six hundred fifty (650) feet, whichever is less. There are four block faces that exceed 700 feet in this replat. They are the north and south face of the further most north block and 2 on the south and west sides of the corner L-shaped block. Pedestrian walks are provided at acceptable distances meeting this standard along the trail running through the site and through a sidewalk to the north of the neighborhood pool site. 5. Compliance with Applicable General Development Standards: A. Section 3.2.1 — Landscaping and Tree Protection Street Trees — If two (2) or more consecutive residential lots along a street each measure between forty and sixty feet in street frontage width, one tree per lot may be substituted for the thirty-foot to forty -foot spacing requirement. Such street trees shall be placed at least eight feet away from any streetlight and to the extent reasonably feasible, be positioned at evenly spaced intervals. The lots in this section of Maple Hill range from 50 to 60 feet wide, with the exception of two attached single-family lots that are approximately 75' wide. Trees are spaced approximately 45 to 50 feet apart along lot facing frontages and are closer for block ends adjacent to side yards. a Maple Hill, Fourth Replat, Project Development Plan Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision September 9, 2010 Page 5of10 A. Density The Maple Hill development as a whole is required to contain no less than five dwelling units per net acre and no more than eight dwelling units per gross acre of residential land. Any phase shall have a maximum density of twelve dwelling units per gross acre of residential land. This phase of Maple Hill is proposed at 7 dwelling units per net acre, making the density of the entire Maple Hill development 5 dwelling units per net acre which is in compliance with the standards of this section. B. Mix of Housing 1. A minimum of three housing types is required for any project containing 45 acres or more. A single housing type shall not constitute more than 90% of the total number of dwelling units. The Maple Hill subdivision, with this replat, will have the following mix of housing types, and their percentage of the total: (a.) 92 standard lot single family detached dwellings on lots containing 6,000 square feet or more for 14.56% of the total. (b.) 490 small lot single family detached dwellings on lots containing 6,000 square feet or less for 77.53% of the total. (c.) 49 single family attached (duplexes) dwellings for 7.75% of the total. (d.) 1 mixed use dwelling for .15% of the total. C. Neighborhood Center 1. At least 90% of the dwellings in projects greater than 40 acres shall be located within 3,960 feet (3/4 of a mile) of either a neighborhood center contained within the project, as measured along street frontage, and without crossing an arterial. A neighborhood center was designated in the ODP in this area of the Maple Hill development. A LMN Neighborhood Center shall include at least two of the following uses: mixed -use dwelling units; community facilities; neighborhood support/recreation facilities; schools child care centers; places of worship or assembly; convenience retail stores; offices, financial services and clinics; personal or business service shops; standard or fast food restaurants (without drive -through facilities); small animal veterinary clinics; and artisan or photography studios or galleries (Section 4.5(D)(3)(c)). Maple Hill, Fourth Replat, Project Development Plan Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision September 9, 2010 Page 4 of 10 COMMENTS: Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: North: LMN; One-half block built Maple Hill lots and beyond that Lind Property Subdivision South: LMN; Vacant (Poudre School District Future School Site) East: LMN; Existing Maple Hill Subdivision (Single-family detached) West: LMN; Vacant lots (Maple Hill Subdivision lots) and West: R (County); Across Turnberry Rd Existing Single Family Detached in Unincorporated Larimer County The Maple Hill Fourth Replat site is part of a larger 320-acre parcel that was annexed in 1978. Also in 1978, on the Maple Hill group of properties, the Nineteenth Green Subdivision was approved consisting of 58 single family lots on 28.9 acres. Although this subdivision was approved and recorded, it expired due to lack of activity in the mid- 1980's. The site is located within the updated Mountain Vista Area Plan adopted by City Council in 2009. The 160-acre Gillespie Farm Overall Development Plan was approved in February of 2001 and amended in October of 2002. 2. Compliance with the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan: The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan includes a "Framework Plan." According to the plan, this area is designated as "Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood." The existing zoning on the property is also Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood and the Project Development Plan has been submitted under the general parameters of this zone district. Therefore, the proposed PDP complies with the adopted Mountain Vista Subarea plan. 3. Compliance with the Gillespie Farm Overall Development Plan (ODP): The ODP indicates the location of the neighborhood center, parks/open space areas, bicycle/pedestrian trail, stormwater detention ponds and a range of residential land uses and densities that comply with the LMN zone district. In addition, a network of local and collector streets indicates a public road system, in a grid pattern, designed to connect to the surrounding collector and minor arterial streets that border the site. This replat complies with these established land uses, densities, and street system. 4. Compliance with the LMN District Standards: 1 L J Maple Hill, Fourth Replat, Project Development Plan Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision September 9, 2010 Page 3 of 10 Kirvin Knox, 2505 N. Turnberry Road Robert and Jennifer Umland, 2457 Ashland Lane Summary of Public comments made during the hearing: 1. Question was asked if this would increase density. Applicant explained that the development will actually decrease density from approximately 12 units per acre in this phase to 7 units per acre. 2. Question was asked about how the drainage will be dealt with. Applicant explained that the drainage will be handled with existing and new infrastructure similar to the rest of the development. 3. A few residents voiced their support of the change from multi to single family. 4. Question was raised about the proposed frontage road on the west side of Tumberry. Staff and the applicants explained that this improvement is triggered by a specific number of building permits being pulled through out the entire development. This trigger has not occurred yet. 5. Question was asked if existing road infrastructure is adequate to handle this. The applicant and Staff said the proposed plan is less intense than what was originally approved; therefore the infrastructure is adequate, per a TIS memo submitted with the project. Written Comments: None FACTS AND FINDINGS The proposed replat is in compliance with the Gillespie Farm (former name) Overall Development Plan (ODP). The ODP designates this site as single-family or multi -family development. This proposal also completes the neighborhood center that was designated in the ODP. This section of Maple Hill was originally approved to be 128 — 204 multi -family units in the Maple Hill, PDP approved in 2003; this replat proposes 101 single-family and 4 attached single-family lots, one of which is proposed as a mixed use dwelling. The density of this section of Maple Hill is 7 dwelling units per acre, making the overall Maple Hill development's density 5 dwelling units per acre, which is the minimum required density in the LMN, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood zone district. The proposed replat is in compliance with the applicable General Development Standards of Article Three and Article Four of the Land Use Code. The PDP is in compliance with the Mountain Vista Area Plan. Maple Hill, Fourth ReplRoject Development Plan Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision September 9, 2010 Page 2 of 10 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer established no controversy or facts to refute that the hearing was properly posted, legal notices mailed and notice published. The Hearing Officer, presiding pursuant to the Fort Collins Land Use Code, opened the hearing at approximately 4:30 p.m. on September 1, 2010 in Conference Room A at 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. HEARING TESTIMONY, WRITTEN COMMENTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE: The Hearing Officer accepted during the hearing the following evidence: (1) Planning Department Staff Report; (2) application, plans, maps and other supporting documents submitted by the applicant and the applicant's representatives to the City of Fort Collins; (3) a sign up sheet of persons attending the hearing; and (4) a tape recording of the hearing. The LUC, the City's Comprehensive Plan (City Plan), and the formally promulgated policies of the City are all considered part of the evidence considered by the Hearing Officer. The following is a list of those who attended the meeting: From the City: Emma McArdle, City Planner Susan Joy, City Engineer, Development Review Engineering Department Ted Shepard, Chief City Planner From the Applicant: Mike Sollenberger and Tom Douhgerty, Gillespie Farm Development Company Linda Ripley, Ripley Design Inc. John Sollenberger Carolynne White Jason Claeys From the Public: Jeff and Adriana Konikoff, 2602 Bar Harbor Drive John Moore, 2232 Ballard Lane Peter and Renee Skiba, 2645 Milton Lane Mathew and Michelle Staley, 2644 Bar Harbor Drive Mac Danford, 2301 Turnberry Road Maple Hill, Fourth Replat, Project Development Plan Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision September 9, 2010 Page 1 of 10 CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER TYPE I ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DATE: PROJECT NAME: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: OWNER: HEARING OFFICER: September 1, 2010 Maple Hill, Fourth Replat, Project Development Plan (PDP) #18-10 Mike Sollenberger and Tom Dougherty, Gillespie Farm Development Company Mike Sollenberger and Tom Dougherty, Gillespie Farm Development Company, 220 E Mulberry Street, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Peter Barnes City of Fort Collins Zoning Administrator PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to replat Tracts A and V (16.91 acres) of Maple Hill Subdivision into 101 single-family lots, 4 single-family attached lots and open space tracts for a trail running through the property. This area was originally planned to have between 128 and 204 multi -family units. The site is bounded by Maple Hill Dr. (south), Bar Harbor Drive (east), Ballard Lane. (north) and Forecastle Drive (west), excluding the existing community pool lot. The site is in the LMN, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood zone district; the proposed replat and use are permitted in this zone as a Type 1 (administrative) review and public hearing. SUMMARY OF HEARING OFFICER DECISION: ZONING DISTRICT: LMN — Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood HEARING OFFICER DECISION: Approval with condition Planning, DevelopmTent & Transportation Services City ®f Fort Collins September 9, 2010 Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134-lax fcgov.com Attendee of the Maple Hill, Fourth Replat, Project Development Plan, # 18-10, Public Hearing, Please find attached to this letter a copy of the Type I Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions and Decision for the Project Hearing of Attendee of the Maple Hill, Fourth Replat, Project Development Plan, # 18-10. Pursuant to Section 2.2.7(D) of the Fort Collins Land Use Code, this Decision has been mailed to the applicant and any person who provided testimony at the public hearing. This final decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer may be appealed to the City Council, in accordance with Chapter 2, Article ll, Division 3 of the City Code, within 14 calendar days of the date of final action September 9, 2010 by the Hearing Officer. The deadline to file an appeal is 5:00 p.m. on September 23, 2010. Guidelines explaining the appeal process, including the Code provisions previously referenced, can be found online at fcqov.com/cityclerk/appeals.php, or may be obtained in the City Clerk's Office at 300 LaPorte Avenue. If you have any questions about the attached Decision or the appeal process, please contact me at 416-2355. Sincerely, Peter Barnes Zoning Administrator