Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIDGEWOOD HILLS RESIDENCES (4TH FILING) - PDP - 33-10 - DECISION - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARINGProjec Meeth Date: AA- f sdi, ouA Administrative Public Hearing Sign -In PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Cam,, , Y! O — s'— / O ;�o zlz, — ._. n 7o; z a /o oDz w i7✓• 9 o S 6 G- 0/ Y s //� ✓ ���'sb,I/ / -z.L7 `Tce Yr; t ti M ' - D 1500 VYAtj WAJAOW sr �y D. AARd• 1 f✓l e Ze 170 xk2 -3L 9/ �o 3.2-. ?moo c ocx a 1 /� P- / �a kg- e 1/gi-yzq< 7s-zD c�/i1s�n r—C. m ©' 7m z }� 'CAI Proje( Meeth Date: Administrative Public Hearing Sign -In PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Name Address Phone Email V'ec� (fie Ny vt llf4rCUs CJ �% /1%0-(p7„2-�'2`(2 G C$ 55a / �k C� 98 V ` o '1 �o l � � _7 — 2- 7? / / SOS Si, a 7r1 G� FIC Ob _)' io _9Z>) -a t O p t -23 t C fit Asa 6� 5 d tJ LD MLc �� lueukp4e [1a � D f OL-� �k T. T'YCoLL1NS 05ZS a few //p 60 sa 9�7G_20�-/05 9 73- zL /Y ps oN6C cihld GQ� Pi r o �3iy awla� 2a. ,co ��Zs �D�3Rai8 ckeiCew. Administrative Public Hearinq Siqn-In Project: _ q Meeting Location: Date: .&-�1: _l PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Name Address Phone Email -SAVE PFISTER 5,N'-moRnL'-T 1= L So5ZS a(J7-33;),3 s kst@ DO"* 1713115. CAlqy-iyt, , d� 800[fo ��3-d8�`6?7 -hear.,®•nar[,�,p,,, / S v J ,� ''C� joS2 %L <� 9 -5� `1 />�2, ✓, lr �� Y, 7 C/�sl ;, ,' .601 ikr L'hc2' Ei� lZI tJc Ash S,? e �u5or oS5� 70 G7'� 3 e.c6k G 7 ' tom. CO qrl H u c1r"o �'.e_' n Dv^ F-fCv� �4�sar 'O ( R-3'fao _DI'' %ENNIS 91l (-OA)y /� G!�� '%/Oppq L( -Otv �� FT. G`O-i�5 %//��g9 --7aot3 /�rNA; ,7/pcONy 6 ( Al tle. COnn A-9 /�ti:v c.itza , -J C L D 2.Co c roo D(Co w �'I (u�''7 �6 r2T 1. O Z- r � 7-ea0- CP �/ a C �d/'f C�//«s gCJ�aS (3/0 S a9/ t EctS�v- a. ate. ,ttC GC r h1A Noy fkC1velie--SS3 �l� uv. klt � �iS2S 7038 4VDud,Je, PC FI C. �0S I —(a ,f(24A �IV a2�6-5�10 UL! Gt[•el QCJVtiCASh 0614C vnur r �v�ma 'I . CDC u4b p 0 C� ' *iw \ I ZZA - to F}CA%v\ CD o zs o2/9 7346 at r m r T'r hm. o rr�C� a�J -A5Cq WALSII 537 l,,-euO —iC To nA s� 6S� .�-fA/ c _ C_ sharLrS (0,6 Ca n 4a 2„J c0+1 v r�\ t) ( rc,w C tf rw' I . C'kct,r r N o t(y 12 0. em �a3� wc�ee �-e , rL. �vra5 a - ,>>- 1-r c 'MA .v C.�ie3cs�,{4 �o�� !`wood �T ,r.0 Cow • �, 70- ov T The Hearing Officer agrees with the Staff recommendation and hereby approves Ridgewood Hills Residences (4t' Filing), Project Development Plan-#33-10. Dated May 9, 2011, per authority granted by Sections 1.49(#) and 2.1 of the Land Use Code. Richard V. Lopez Richard V. Lopez Hearing Officer 17 C. The Ridgewood Hills Residences (4t' Filing), PDP complies with applicable Land Use and Development Standards contained in ARTICLE 4 - DISTRICTS, Division 4.5 -Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood of the LUC. The Hearing Officer finds that the Ridgewood Hills Residences complies with the Low Density Mixed -Use neighborhood standards of the LUC. D. The Ridgewood Hills Residences (4t' Filing), PDP complies with applicable Land Use and Development Standards contained in ARTICLE 4 - DISTRICTS, Division 4.6 - Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood of the LUC. The Hearing Officer finds that the Ridgewood Hills Residences complies with the Medium Density Mixed -Use neighborhood standards of the LUC. E. The Ridgewood Hills Residences (4"' Filing), PDP is compatible with the surrounding land uses. The Hearing Officer finds that the Ridgewood Hills Residences is compatible with the residential uses in the surrounding area. In addition these uses were contemplated in prior master plans and represent sound land use planning principles. F. Ridgewood Hills Residences is proposed as a 100 percent affordable development. The application has stated that the final decision to make these units affordable will be deferred to a later date. If the dwellings are not affordable, the applicant will be required to pay the development review fees that were previously waived. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Ridgewood Hills Residences (4"' Filing), Project Development Plan - #33-10. HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION 16 8. OTHER MATTERS: RHSNC REPORT The report prepared by the RHSNC has been reviewed by the Hearing Officer. This report, like other information submitted, has been considered carefully in the Hearing Officer's review of the proposed development. Many of the concerns and recommendations are for future studies or delaying approval until additional studies can be conducted. Some of the requests are outside the scope or beyond the authority of the City or the Hearing Officer to grant. The Hearing Officer has reviewed the statements by the RHSNC concerning school impacts. These statements are in contradiction to those provided by the school district during its review of the Ridgewood Hills Residences. The school impacts are found to be reasonable. The RHSNC report mentioned concerns about property value impacts. The statements are conclusory and fail to provide any facts that relate to an undeveloped housing development. The causes of any decrease in property values are many and complex. The impact on property values is not a factor under consideration in this review. The reasons for lower average taxable value of homes in the neighborhood are unknown and the RHSNC request that property values be considered in reviewing the proposed development is unreasonable. The Hearing Officer acknowledges the petition attached to the RHSNC and specific wording contained therein. The Hearing Officer has considered those concerns in making this Decision. CONCLUSIONS A. The Ridgewood Hills Residences (4"' Filing), PDP contains uses permitted in the LMN, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood and MMN, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood Zoning Districts, subject to Administrative Review and public hearing. A public hearing was conducted on April 25, 2011. The Hearing Officer has reviewed the proposal as set forth above and finds that the Medium Density uses are appropriate in this location. B. The Ridgewood Hills Residences (4t' Filing), PDP complies with applicable standards contained in ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS the LUC, including Division 3.2 - Site Planning and Design Standards, Division 3.3 - Engineering Standards, Division 3.4 Environmental, Natural Area, Recreational and Cultural Resource Protection Standards, Division 3.5 - Building Standards, and Section 3.6 - Transportation and Circulation. The Hearing Officer finds that the Ridgewood Hills Residences complies with the General Development Standards. 15 Since traffic calming itself can be controversial the City has committed to working with the neighborhood to establish consensus on how to proceed with acceptable measures. * Per the Master Street Plan Avondale Road and Triangle Drive are collector streets. With regards to traffic volumes, the LCUASS standards speak of traffic volume capacity for different classes of streets. Technically, these capacities represent a minimum car carrying capacity rather than a maximum allowed traffic volume. A capacity of 3,500 vehicles per day means that, at a minimum, a collector should be able to handle that many vehicles. Despite that, Traffic Operations has interpreted that as a maximum volume in the context of neighborhood streets -- recognizing the impacts of traffic volume on residents. The city tries to limit the volume to 3,500 vehicles per day on minor collectors. * Traffic Operations utilized existing 24 hour traffic volume counts on Avondale Road and on Triangle Drive as the baseline for existing conditions. With the addition of this development it is expected that both streets will still have volumes below 3,500 vehicles per day. * The Level of Service (LOS) analysis looks primarily at intersection operations. Intersections tend to be bottlenecks where capacity is most limited so it makes sense that if they work acceptably from a traffic carrying perspective that the rest of the street will work. LOS does not measure the negative impact of traffic on the quality of life in a neighborhood. As noted, the City does try to use the volume criteria in LCUASS as a way to quantify traffic impacts beyond LOS. However, when a development proposal meets that general criteria City staff does not arbitrarily restrict developments. As an alternative, Traffic Operations can offer traffic mitigation options that, hopefully, can be based on a consensus opinion of affected neighbors and that will minimize the negative effects of neighborhood traffic. The Hearing Officer notes that some members of the public that spoke at the April 25, 2011, hearing cited traffic impacts as their major concern. The RHSNC also claimed that the traffic impacts were too great and recommended additional studies. The Transportation Department provided a useful explanation of transportation planning and design efforts in general and specifically in this area of Ft. Collins. It is clear that the traffic impacts would be reduced with the completion of collector and arterial streets, such as Avondale. When Avondale is completed to Carpenter and College Avenue the transportation system should function more efficiently. The construction of important roadways like Avondale is facilitated with developments like Ridgewood Hills Residences. 14 with the proposed development would need to be built to LCUASS standards. * The LCUASS standards are not used to determine the designation of a' street. They only serve as design standards for improvements. The City's Master Street Plan is where street functional classification (for arterials and collectors) is designated. The Master Street Plan provides a framework to ensure an interconnected roadway network that will accommodate existing and future traffic as development occurs. Developers are required to construct collector streets adjacent to their developments that are shown on the Master Street Plan. Using Avondale Road as an example, this development would be required to construct a new portion of Avondale adjacent to their property south of Triangle Drive because it is shown on the Master Street Plan. As additional development occurs south of Triangle those future developers would likely be required to eventually connect Avondale down to Carpenter Road providing another point of access to the neighborhood. To summarize, the Master Street Plan designates which streets are collectors. The LCUASS standards define how new collectors are built. * The LCUASS standards represent the standards used today for construction of new facilities. However, standards change over time. There may be a day when today's standards change and streets that are built according to those standards no longer meet future standards. That does not mean that the function of the street changes. Triangle Drive is shown on the Master Street Plan as a collector street from South College Avenue to Avondale Road. It currently functions in that manner (i.e. collecting traffic in the neighborhood and channeling it out to an arterial i.e. College Avenue). The different design features do not change how the street functions to serve the neighborhood. * Single family homes are allowed to access directly from a collector street or a local street. * The need for left turn lanes is determined using Section 8.2.5 along with Figure 8-1 in LCUASS. The forecast volumes on Triangle do not warrant dedicated left turn lanes. This is pretty typical on neighborhood collectors. It is not unusual for all movements to occur from one lane on these streets. * Triangle Drive was built to the design standards that were used at the time the street was built. If it was being built new today we would require bike lanes. Since that isn't the case, Traffic Operations has talked about the possibility of using traffic calming measures to help mitigate existing and expected traffic impacts to make the street as user friendly as possible. 13 characteristics such as scale and proportions, form, architectural detailing, color and texture shall be utilized to ensure that enough similarity exists for the building to be compatible, despite the differences in materials. Section 3.5.2. Residential Building Standards The proposal satisfies applicable Relationship of Dwellings to Streets and Parking standards. 7. Division 3.6 - Transportation and Circulation Section 3.6.2. Streets, Streetscapes, Alleys and Easements The proposal satisfies the applicable standards located in this section of the LUC. Section 3.6.4. Transportation Level of Service Requirements The proposal satisfies the applicable Transportation Level of Service standards (see the attached Traffic Impact Study), including the following: General Standard. This development proposal satisfies Section 3.6.4(B) that requires that all development plans adequately provide vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle facilities necessary to maintain the adopted transportation Level of Service standards contained in Part II of the City of Fort Collins Multi -Modal Transportation Level of Service Manual for the following modes of travel: Motor vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian. Transportation Impact Study. This development satisfies Section 3.6.4(C) that states: "in order to identify those facilities that are necessary in order to comply with these standards, development plans may be required to include the submittal of a Transportation Impact Study, to be approved by the Traffic Engineer, consistent with the Transportation Impact Study guidelines as established in Chapter 4 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards." The City's Traffic Operations Department did receive and review a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) as part of the development review process and have made the following comments and determinations: The Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) provide the design standards for any new installation of public infrastructure including streets. For example, the new portion of Avondale Road that would be built 12 As no areas of natural features or habitats were found to be on the site and the project will not affect those natural habitats or features within proximity to the site (surrounding features varied in their distance from the southeast comer of the parcel boundary from 250' to over 500'), staff has determined the proposal satisfies the applicable standards set forth in this section of the LUC. The Hearing Officer notes that the statements and concerns set forth in the RHSNC environmental impacts have been addressed by Staff. Some of these concerns are requests new criteria (radon, ambient noise monitoring network, etc.) and are beyond the scope of this Hearing Officer's authority to require. 6. Division 3.5 - Building Standards Section 3.5.1. Building and Project Compatibility The proposal satisfies applicable Building and Project Compatibility standards, more specifically: Architectural Character. The proposed multi -family residential buildings will be 2 stories and 3 stories in height (between 28'-9" & 39'-9") and contain between 3 — 7 different rooflines at various heights (depending on the building), with gabled ends on all four sides. The roofs will be sloped. Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale. The massing of the building facades will be broken up with substantial wall plane variations, windows, and varying roofline directions and heights. The 3 largest buildings (A, C and D in Tract A) will have mid -structure breezeways that will help break up the horizontal massing of the buildings. Building materials. The proposed structures will consist of the following building materials: • The materials on all 4 sides of the buildings will consist of horizontal cementitious fiberboard siding, brick as a foundation material, brick columns that will vary in height from the first floor to the third floor, 30-year composition shingles, and vinyl windows. • The colors will be defined with the Final development plans. These materials comply with the standard in Section 3.5.1(E)(1), which states: Building materials shall either be similar to the materials already being used in the neighborhood, or, if dissimilar materials are being proposed, other 11 (d) the pattern, species and location of any significant native trees and other native site vegetation; (e) the bank, shoreline and high water mark of any perennial stream or body of water on the site; (f) areas inhabited by or frequently utilized by Sensitive and Specially Valued Species; (g) special habitat features; (h) wildlife movement corridors; (i) the general ecological functions provided by the site and its features; Q) any issues regarding the timing of development -related activities stemming from the ecological character of the area; and (k) any measures needed to mitigate the projected adverse impacts of the development project on natural habitats and features. On January 19, 2011, an ECS was submitted to the City. Key findings within the ECS include the following: 1. The closest confirmed population for a Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse is over four miles northwest of the project site. 2. No suitable habitat for listed special status species exists within or immediately adjacent to the project site. 3. Some suitable nesting sites for raptors were identified in the larger cottonwoods adjacent to the project site, but no nests, old or new, were located within 500 feet of either Tract during the consultant's site visit. 4. Wetlands surrounding the project area included an. irrigation ditch approximately 250' southeast of Tract A and within Pond 2. Please see section 3.3.5 (above) for a discussion on the site's storm water drainage. 5. Noxious weeds, including Canada thistle, field bindweed, and diffuse knapweed were identified on site. The City will work with the applicant to determine best practices for these species during the Development Agreement and throughout construction. 10 HOA. This is consistent with the approved Overall Ridgewood Hills drainage plan. Now that Tracts A & B of the Ridgewood Hills Residences will be contributing developed runoff to the pond in the Td Filing the maintenance is to be shared with the Ridgewood Hills, 3rd Filing HOA. Stormwater has recommended that the cost share be proportionate to the percentage of 100 year runoff volume from these tracts that would be captured by the detention pond. The RHSNC report included several claims regarding stormwater drainage and detention ponds. Several recommendations were made. The Hearing Officer finds that the project complies with applicable design standards, requirements and specifications for services as stated in this section of the LUC. 5. Division 3.4 - Environmental, Natural Area, Recreational and Cultural Resource Protection Standards In December of 2010, staff made multiple site visits (including one visit with the applicant, a representative from the. neighborhood council, and the applicant's representatives) to assess the site's environmental features. Based on the site's proximity to mapped natural habitats and features and concerns from the surrounding neighbors, the applicants were asked to complete an Ecological Characterization Study for their project area. Section 3.4.1(D)(1) Ecological Characterization Study states: If the development site contains, or is within five hundred (500) feet of, a natural habitat or feature, or if it is determined by the Director, upon information or from inspection, that the site likely includes areas with wildlife, plant life and/or other natural characteristics in need of protection, then the developer shall provide to the city an ecological characterization report prepared by a professional qualified in the areas of ecology, wildlife biology or other relevant discipline. The Director may waive any or all of the following elements of this requirement if the city already possesses adequate information required by this subsection to establish the buffer zone(s) and the limits of development ("LOD"). The ecological characterization study shall describe, without limitation, the following: (a) the wildlife use of the area showing the species of wildlife using the area, the times or seasons that the area is used by those species and the "value" (meaning feeding, watering, cover, nesting, roosting, perching) that the area provides for such wildlife species; (b) the boundary of wetlands in the area and a description of the ecological functions and characteristics provided by those wetlands; (c) any prominent views from or across the site; detached garages. There will be 7 handicapped parking spaces as part of the total spaces. • Section 3.2.2(K)(1) sets forth minimum parking requirements for residential land uses. The minimum parking required for the overall project is as follows: 30 spaces for the proposed 20 one -bedroom dwelling units, at 1.50 spaces per unit. 221 spaces for the proposed 126 two -bedroom dwelling units, at 1.75 spaces per unit. The minimum handicapped parking required is 7 spaces for the total of 282 parking spaces in the development. There will be a total of 282 parking spaces in the development, with 13 of them being handicapped spaces. Staff finds that the parking to be provided exceeds the minimum requirements of the LUC for the proposed residential uses in the development. 3. Section 3.2.4. Site Lighting The proposed site lighting falls within the parameters of the allowable lighting levels set forth in Section 3.2.4(C) and the design standards set forth in Section 3.2.4(D), thereby satisfying the applicable standards in this section of the LUC. 4. Division 3.3 - Engineering Standards Section 3.3.1. Plat Standards The proposal complies with the general plat requirements as set forth in this section of the LUC. Section 3.3.5. Engineering Design Standards The project complies with applicable design standards, requirements and specifications for services as stated in this section of the LUC. Storm Drainage. The storm drainage outfall for this development will be at the southeast corner of the site. The storm water will be piped south, ultimately entering into the existing detention pond to the south in Ridgewood Hills, 3rd Filing. This is to be a shared detention pond between the Ridgewood Hills Residences Homeowner's Association (HOA) and the Ridgewood Hills, 3`d Filing homes to the south and west and the drive aisles and parking areas in this development range from 15' to 50'. These setback areas contain sufficient deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs that will provide visual buffers between the developments. The multi -family buildings in this development will be set back from the property lines between 80' to 100', thereby creating separation distances of 100' to 125' between the single-family homes and the proposed multi -family buildings. The buildings, or portions thereof, that will be closest to the single-family homes will be 2 stories (28'-9") in height, which is similar in height to the single-family homes. Also, the development site is to be lower than the surrounding area, so the multi -family buildings closest to the single-family homes will be no taller than those homes. Landscape Area Treatment. The Landscape Plan satisfies the requirements set forth in Section 3.2.1(E)(2) in that the landscape area treatment, especially related to the foundation plantings, is being met. Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping. The Landscape Plan satisfies the requirement set forth in Section 3.2.1(E)(4) in that trees are being provided at a ratio of 1 tree/25 lineal feet along the public streets and 1 tree/40 lineal feet along the side lot line. Screening from the surrounding residential uses consists of the existing 6' high solid wood fences along the rear lot lines for the single-family homes adjacent to Tract A and plant material that is 30' or higher. Parking Lot Interior Landscaping. The Landscape Plan satisfies the requirement set forth in Section 3.2.1(E)(5) in that there is a minimum of 6% interior landscaping provided in the parking areas that are broken up into a number of smaller lots containing 50 or fewer spaces. 2. Section 3.2.2. Access, Circulation and Parkinq The proposal satisfies the applicable Access, Circulation and Parking standards, including the following: Required number of parking spaces. The development proposal satisfies the parking requirements set forth in the LUC for the residential uses in this project. • There are a total of 153 proposed parking spaces on -site for Tract A. They will all be surface parking spaces. There will be 6 handicapped parking spaces as part of the total spaces. • There are a total of 129 proposed parking spaces on -site for Tract B. There will be 67 surface parking spaces and 62 garage parking spaces in the 7 Section 4.6(E) Development Standards The proposal satisfies the applicable development standards in the MMN — Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood Zoning District. HEARING OFFICER'S FINDINGS: The Hearing Officer agrees with the Staff.that the Ridgewood Hill Residences satisfy the applicable standards both in the Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District and the Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood District. This mixture of single family and multifamily dwellings near commercial services is a sound land use design. The eventual development of commercial uses on College Avenue, southeast of Ridgewood will make this area a fully functioning integrated neighborhood. B. ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1. Division 3.2 - Site Planning and Design Standards Section 3.2.1. Landscaping and Tree Protection The proposal satisfies the applicable Landscaping and Tree Protection standards, including the following: Full Tree Stocking. The Landscape Plan satisfies the requirement set forth in Section 3.2.1(D)((1)(c) in that Street trees. The proposed street tree planting is in accordance with Section 3.2.1(D)(2)(a), providing trees at 30' to 40' on -center in the T wide parkways (between curb and sidewalk) along Avondale Road, a collector street; and, street trees at 30' to 40' on -center in the 5' wide parkway along Triangle Drive, a collector street. Minimum Species Diversity. The Landscape Plan satisfies the requirement set forth in Section 3.2.1(D)(3) in that no one species of tree (deciduous or evergreen) will exceed the allowable 15% of the total number of trees (45 trees) on the plan. Buffering Between Incompatible Uses and Activities. In accordance with Section 3.2.1(E)(1), the placement and design of the buildings do adequately mitigate potential conflicts between the existing single-family homes to the west and south of the multi -family buildings on Tract A (south of Avondale Road) by providing sufficient distance separation and plant material screening between the uses. Separation distances between the rear lot lines for the existing single-family G1 This proposal complies with the purpose of the LMN District as it is an infill project within Ridgewood Hills, 3`d Filing that provides multi -family dwellings on a property that is surrounded by developed and undeveloped properties containing residential uses. There is existing single-family residential to the west and north. Properties to the south and east are undeveloped. Section 4.5(D) Land Use Standards The proposal satisfies the applicable land use standards in the LMN District. Section 4.5(E) Development Standards The proposal satisfies the applicable development standards in the LMN District. 2. Division 4.6 — Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District Multi -family dwellings are permitted in the MMN, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District, subject to an administrative (Type 1) review. The MMN 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. Buildings, streets, bike and walking paths, open spaces and parks will be configured to create an inviting and convenient living environment. This District is intended to function together with surrounding low density neighborhoods (typically the LMN zone district) and a central commercial core (typically a NC or CC zone district). The intent is for the component zone districts to form an integral, town -like pattern of development, and not merely a series of individual development projects in separate zone districts. This proposal complies with the purpose of the MMN District as it is an infill project that provides multi -family dwellings on a property that is surrounded by developed properties and undeveloped properties containing residential uses. There is an existing single-family residential to the south and west. Properties to the north and east are undeveloped and unplanned. Section 4.6(D) Land Use Standards The proposal satisfies the applicable land use standards in the MMN District. 5 A. ARTICLE 4 DISTRICTS: The proposed development is for 146 qualified affordable multi -family dwelling units on 10.4 acres located on the north and south side of Avondale Road (future extension), southeast of Triangle Drive, and north of Peyton Drive. The property is zoned LMN, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood and MMN, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood in the City of Fort Collins. The proposed project consists of: * Tract A: zoned MMN ... south side of Avondale Road, contains 84 dwelling units in 4 residential buildings (plus parking and a clubhouse) on 5.2 acres. The multi -family buildings on this tract will be 2 stories and 3 stories in height (between 28'-9" & 39'-9"). They will contain from 8 to 32 dwelling units per building. There will be a total of 153 vehicle parking spaces for the proposed mix of one -bedroom (20) and two -bedroom (64) units. * Tract B: zoned LMN ... north side of Avondale Road, contains 62 dwelling units in 8 residential buildings (plus parking, a swimming pool and cabana building) on 5.2 acres. The multi -family buildings on this tract will be 2 stories (34'-0") in height. Seven of the buildings will contain from 8 dwelling units and one building will contain 6 units. There will be a total of 109 vehicle parking spaces for the proposed 62 two -bedroom units. 1. Division 4.5 - Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood Multi -family dwellings are permitted in the LMN, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District, subject to an administrative (Type 1) review. The LMN District is: Intended to be a setting for a predominance of low density housing combined with complementary and supporting land uses that serve a neighborhood and are developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of a neighborhood. The main purpose of the District is to meet a wide range of needs of everyday living in neighborhoods that include a variety of housing choices that invite walking to gathering places, services and conveniences, and that are fully integrated into the larger community by pattern of streets, blocks, and other linkages. A neighborhood center provides a focal point, and attractive walking and biking paths invite residents to enjoy the center as well as the small neighborhood parks. Any new development in this district shall be arranged to form part of an individual neighborhood. Typically, Low Density Neighborhoods will be clustered around and integral with a Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood with a Neighborhood Commercial Center at its core. 4 A copy of the Questions, Concerns, Comments, and Responses that were recorded at the meeting were attached to this Staff Report and reviewed by the Hearing Officer prior to the April 25, 2011 hearing. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer established the fact that the hearing was properly posted, legal notices mailed and notice published. PUBLIC HEARING: The Hearing Officer, presiding pursuant to the Fort Collins Land Use Code, opened the hearing at approximately 6:30 p.m. on April 25, 2011, in the Council Chambers, 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 to the City of Fort Collins; (3) opportunity for public testimony was provided during the hearing, and approximately fifty-seven (57) members of the public were present. The Land Use Code, the City's Comprehensive Plan (City Plan) and the formally promulgated polices of the City are all considered part of the evidence considered by the Hearing Officer. The following persons attended the hearing: From the City of Ft. Collins: Steve Olt, Planning Ward Stanford, Transportation Lindsay Ex, Environmental Planner From the applicant: J. Marc Hendricks, Hendricks Communities Linda Ripley, Ripley Designs, Inc. Doug Wagner, Architect Matt Delich, Delich Associates From the Public: Members from the public testified. A copy of the sign in sheet is attached hereto. A group of residents calling themselves the Ridgewood Hills/Shenandoah Neighborhood Council ( hereinafter the "RHSNC") submitted a copy of a December 20, 2010 report submitted to Steve Olt, Ft. Collins Planner. The Hearing Officer reviewed this report prior to rendering his decision. FACTS AND FINDINGS K 1981: The property was annexed as part of the Trilby Heights Second Annexation in June, 1981. 1984: The property is part of Parcel J - Office/Research & Development, and Parcel K - Office/Research & Development of the Del Webb Property Master Land Plan that was approved by the Planning & Zoning Board in October, 1984. 1994: The property is part of Parcel A-12 - Cottage Homes and Parcel A-13 - Multi -Family of the Ridgewood Hills, Overall Development Plan (ODP) that was approved by the Planning & Zoning Board in June, 1994. 1996: The property is part of Parcel A-12 - Cottage Homes, Parcel A-13 - Multi -Family, and Parcel A-14 - Business Services of the Amendment to the Ridgewood Hills, ODP that was approved by the Planning & Zoning Board in July, 1996. 1997: The property was zoned LMN and MMN with the adoption of the Land Use Code in March, 1997. 2000: The property was subdivided and platted as Tracts N & T of the Ridgewood Hills PUD, Third Filing in March, 2000. In all of these previous plans for the area, a mixture of housing types, including multifamily was envisioned. Such a mixture of housing options provided housing opportunities for a diverse range of residents. The size and configuration of these units (one and two bedroom) can make them more affordable than larger single family detached dwelling units. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING: The LUC does not require that a neighborhood meeting be held for development proposals that are not subject to a Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2) review. However, a City -sponsored and facilitated neighborhood information meeting was held on September 20, 2010, for the Ridgewood Hills Residences (4"' Filing), PDP development proposal. The project as presented at that meeting contained 180 dwelling units in buildings that were mostly 3 stories in height. The landscape buffer setbacks from the existing single-family homes to the south and west were minimal based on the requirements in the LUC. It is important to note that the applicant made changes in the design based, in part, on comments expressed at the neighborhood meeting and subsequent staff reviews of the project. The number of dwelling units decreased by 34 to a total of 146 dwellings and decreased the density of the project. The landscape buffer setbacks and the plant material included increased from the original PDP submittal. The height and massing of the buildings decreased in areas near existing single-family homes. 2 CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER TYPE 1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AMENDED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DATE PROJECT NAME: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: OWNER: HEARING OFFICER: April 25, 2011 Ridgewood Hills Residences (4"' Filing), Project Development Plan (PDP) #30-10 Hendricks Communities c/o J. Marc Hendricks 7350 East Progress Place, #208 Greenwood Village, CO. Loren R. Snyder 7747 Promontory Drive Windsor, CO. 80550 Richard V. Lopez PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for 146 qualified affordable multi -family dwelling units on 10.4 acres located on the north and south side of Avondale Road (future extension), southeast of Triangle Drive, and north of Peyton Drive. The property is zoned LMN, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood and MMN, Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood in the City of Fort Collins. SUMMARY OF HEARING OFFICER DECISION: Approval ZONING DISTRICT: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: LMN; existing single-family residential (Ridgewood Hills) E: MMN; undeveloped (Shenandoah Property) S: MMN; existing single-family residential (Ridgewood Hills) W: LMN; existing single-family residential (Ridgewood Hills) BACKGROUND: I